<%BANNER%>

Testing a Multivariate Model of Personality, Coping and Life Satisfaction in an Athletic Context

HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendices
 References
 Biographical sketch
 

PAGE 1

TESTING A MULTIVARIATE MODEL OF PE RSONALITY, COPING AND LIFE SATISFACTION WITHIN AN ATHLETIC CONTEXT By LEAH SIMONE MARTINDALE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Leah Simone Martindale

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my late fath er, Alfred Emmanuel Martindale, and to my loving mother and hero, Cl aire “Pinky” Martindale.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly, I would like to make a special tha nks to my parents, without whom I would not have the discipline and dedi cation to complete this resear ch study. To my advisor, Dr. Peter Giacobbi Jr., I am extremely grateful fo r the hard work that he was willing to put into this project and the time he has taken to explain concepts that were difficult for me to understand. I would also like to thank my w onderful fiance for not only his motivation but also his willingness to stand by me dur ing any challenges I may have encountered during the completion of this thesis. Additionally I am thankful for all of the coaches and athletes who took the time to pa rticipate and help me with this project. And finally, I would like to thank all of my friends and family that have been extremely supportive through the good, the bad and the ug ly over the past few years.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii FIGURE......................................................................................................................... ..viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Personality.................................................................................................................... 2 Meta-Theoretical Issues in the Study of Personality.............................................2 Specific Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Personality...............................5 Psychodynamic approach...............................................................................5 Trait theories..................................................................................................6 Social-contextual theories..............................................................................8 Human-science approach...............................................................................9 The Five-Factor Model (FFM)............................................................................10 History of Sport Psychology Personality Literature............................................15 Personality Measurements...................................................................................20 NEO personality inventory...........................................................................20 Revised NEO personality inventory.............................................................21 NEO Five factor i nventory (NEO-FFI)........................................................23 Stress and Coping.......................................................................................................24 The Cognitive-Motivational-Relationa l Theory of Stress, Emotion and Coping..............................................................................................................25 Primary appraisals........................................................................................25 Secondary appraisals....................................................................................26 Coping responses..........................................................................................27 Coping Measurements.........................................................................................28 Ways of coping checklist (WCC).................................................................28 The COPE....................................................................................................29 The modified COPE.....................................................................................30 Classifying Ways of Coping................................................................................31 Links between Coping and the FFM..........................................................................35 Stress and Coping Research in Sport..........................................................................38

PAGE 6

vi Life Satisfaction as a Coping Outcome and Possible Implications from this Study..40 Life Satisfaction and Coping...............................................................................42 Life Satisfaction and the FFM.............................................................................42 Rationale.....................................................................................................................4 3 Purposes......................................................................................................................4 4 Hypothesis..................................................................................................................44 Purpose 1.............................................................................................................44 Purpose 2.............................................................................................................45 Purpose 3.............................................................................................................45 2 METHODS.................................................................................................................48 Participants.................................................................................................................48 Measures.....................................................................................................................48 Procedures...................................................................................................................51 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................51 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................54 Preliminary Analysis..................................................................................................54 Measurement Model 1.........................................................................................58 Measurement Models 2 and 3..............................................................................59 Mediational Model 1...........................................................................................63 Mediational Model 2...........................................................................................64 Mediational Model 3...........................................................................................65 4 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................68 Conclusion..................................................................................................................68 Study Weaknesses and Future Directions...................................................................72 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT............................................................................................76 B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION..........................................................................78 C COPING SCALE........................................................................................................79 D NEO FIVE FACTOR INVENTORY.........................................................................81 E THE SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE.............................................................85 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................98

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 List of the NEO-PI-R Domains and Facet Level Traits...........................................22 3-1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Coping scales, Personality dimensions, and Life Satisfaction............................................................................56 3-2 Fit Indices for Measurement Model Sets 1, 2, and 3................................................59 3-3 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and RSquared Values Measurement Model Set 1C............................................................................................................................. 61 3-4 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and RSquared Values Measurement Model Set 2B............................................................................................................................. 61 3-5 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and RSquared Values Measurement Model Set 3B............................................................................................................................. 62 3-6 Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 1....................................................................64 3-7 Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 2....................................................................65 3-8 Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 3....................................................................67

PAGE 8

viii FIGURE Figure page 1-1 Structural models for the relations hip between personality, coping and life satisfaction. (a) Full mediation model, (b ) Partial mediation model, (c) Direct effects model............................................................................................................47

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science TESTING A MULTIVARIATE MODEL OF PE RSONALITY, COPING AND LIFE SATISFACTION WITHIN AN ATHLETIC CONTEXT By Leah Simone Martindale December 2006 Chair: Peter Giacobbi Jr. Major Department: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology The purpose of this study was to use stru ctural equation modeling to examine interrelationships among aspects of personality, copi ng with time management stress, and life satisfaction with collegiate athl etes. A sample of 256 athletes ( M = 19.5 years) was administered standardized measurements of personality (NEO-FFI), life satisfaction (SWLS) and a modification of the COPE to assess coping responses. The results revealed that high levels of neuroticism were related to emotion-focused coping strategies and low levels of life satisfaction. Additionally, high levels of ex traversion and conscientious were related to problem solving techniques, and high levels of life satisfaction. No coping mediation could be established for the Neur oticism or Extraversion models but full mediation was established for Conscientiousne ss. However, it is important to note that appropriate inferences and pr actical implications should not be made based on the results of this study because of large amounts of error and unexplained variation with the measures used. Therefore, further research is needed to make more concrete practical

PAGE 10

x suggestions to athlete, coaches and college administrators re garding the mediating role of coping in the personality/life satisfaction relationship.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Despite the millions of dollars made and the relatively good treatment received by professional basketball players, it is well known that two supe rstar players – Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal – were dissatisfied with each other duri ng the 2003-2004 basketball season. Bryant accused O’Neal of lacking le adership, O’Neal accused Bryant with not being a team player, and both of them accused each other for the team not performing as it should. Pertaining to this conflict, Bill Wa lton asked a fitting question in a December ESPN article – why are these guys a ll so unhappy (Walton, 2004)? Could it be inappropriate coping responses to performan ce disappointments? To these questions there may be many answers and many have specula ted that personality conflicts may have been part of the issue. Personality psychologists are interested in why individua ls think, feel, and act the way they do (Vealey, 2002). The beginning of the study of personality, also known as personology, dates back well before the tw entieth century when researchers were attempting to uncover the origins behind indivi dual differences. Historically, focus was placed on the individual as a whole, and th en investigations searched for general differences between individuals and how thes e differences predicted behavior. Not until the 20th century did personality researchers be gin to investigate the differences between different sub-groups of athletes. The present study will inve stigate relationships betw een personality, coping, and life satisfaction within an athletic context. This chapter will review (1) the history of

PAGE 12

2 personality, (2) the history of the five basic dimensions of personal ity, (3) the history of sport personality literature, (4) the measurement of persona lity, (5) contemporary stress and coping theory, (6) instruments used to measure coping responses, (7) various coping classifications, (8) the literature on the re lationship between coping and personality, (9) sport psychology stress and coping research, a nd (10) correlates and predictors of life satisfaction. Personality Meta-Theoretical Issues in the Study of Personality Like any other topic in psychology, it is important for personality researchers to determine what paradigm they support in orde r to conduct their studies. A paradigm is a model that is chosen by a resear cher to determine his or her line of inquiry in subsequent projects (Kuhn, 1970). Thus, a paradigm allows the researcher to decide what research questions to ask and how to pursue the an swers to those inquiries. Consequently, personality researchers have been faced with the debate of accepti ng specific paradigms to explain their beliefs about the concept of personality. These paradigms include the dispositional, situational a nd interactional paradigms, and the following sections will review the differences between these paradigms. The study of individual differences can be traced back to the writings of Hippocrates and Galen who characterized pe ople as sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, or choleric (McAdams, 1997). In the 20th century, Eysenck (1973) helped to reconceptualize trait-dispositional approaches to the study of personality but the emphasis on individuals’ dispositions remained thr oughout much of the centu ry (McAdams, 1997). Contemporary approaches to th e trait domain have incorporat ed cognitions, affects, and behaviors into its scope (Pytlik Zillig, He menover, & Dienstbier, 2002); however for the

PAGE 13

3 purpose of this review I will focus on the pred ictability and the relationship between traits and behavior. Specifically, as Sherman and Fazi o stated, traits can be viewed as “stable internal structures that serve as pre-disposi tions to behavior and c ould therefore be used as adequate predictors of behavior” (S herman & Fazio, 1983, p. 310). For instance, athletes who have a predisposition or trait to be aggressive would be predicted to engage in aggressive acts during a football game. Tra it theorists believe that individuals’ traits (internal attributes) ar e constant and stable across situa tions and these broad dispositions are considered better predic tors of an individuals’ be havior than the environment (Vealey, 2002). Nevertheless, during the 1970’s a rising tide of discontent in personality psychology emerged which led to some very in teresting debate and discussion. Much of this discontent was the result of several influe ntial critiques of the personality psychology literature by Carlson (1971), Fiske (1974), and Mischel (1968, 1973). The conclusions drawn from these critiques were that individuals were a product of the so cial context, and that social influences (i.e., culture, upbringing, history) shap e personality, as much, if not more than individual traits Walter Mischel (1968) in troduced the concept of the ‘personality coefficient’ to represent the .30 asso ciation he observed in a series of experiments between trait measures of pers onality and observable behavioral indices, which he believed was not enough to solely account for individuals’ behavior. Specifically, Mischel (1968) conducted a review of the prior fifty years of personality research and concluded that th e assessment of personality dispositions, through self-report questionnaires, did not ad equately account for the variance in behavior (via behavioral measures). As a result, many believed that the situation was a

PAGE 14

4 better predictor of an indi vidual’s behavior (Carlson, 1971; Fiske, 1974; Mischel, 1963, 1973). Hence, the situational perspective posits that situational de mands have a larger influence on behavior than an individual’s di spositions or traits. For example, an airline passenger, who is typically a patient individua l, may raise his or her voice at a ticket agent due to the airline repeatedly delaying a flight that he or she has already been waiting for three hours to board. Researchers ad opting the situational perspective believe that the passenger’s behavior may be explained by the length of time he or she has been waiting for the plane (the situation), rather th an the individual’s tra its. Consequently, the critiques outlined above led to three decades of debate and discussion about the relative influence of traits versus st ates and some even claimed that personality psychology as a whole was dead (McAdams, 1997). The dispositional-situational paradigm de bate, also known as the person-situation debate, resulted in the emergence of a differe nt perspective: Inter actionism (e.g., Endler, 1973; Claeys, 1980). Interactionism posits that behavior is a result of an interaction between a person’s character istics and the environment (Lewin, 1935). Thus, according to Endler (1973), attempts to determine if the individual or situation has more importance in the prediction of behavior are analogous to deciphering the relative importance of water versus air to an indivi dual’s survival. Accordingly, he believed that it was incorrect to believe that an individual would behave the same across different situations and alternatively behave the same during similar situations. Based on Claeys’ (1980) analysis of research studies that adopted an inte ractionist paradigm, individuals’ behavior depended on how the individual perceived a nd interpreted the situation, which can be based on past experiences; or, on how indi viduals exposed themselves to certain

PAGE 15

5 situations as a function of their personality characterist ics. For instance a generally anxious person, who is afraid of water, may avoid a pool or oceans not only because of his or her anxiety but also due to his or her past experien ce of almost drowning when he or she was a young child. Therefore, the person ’s avoidance of pools or oceans is related to a fear of water due to a tr aumatic past event and may be enhanced by his or her already anxious disposition. Nevertheless, the trait versus state deba te described above represented a metatheoretical or broader para digmatic issue in the study of personality. More recent critiques of the personality ps ychology literature have indicated that virtually all theorists adopt an interactional perspe ctive to some extent (McAda ms, 1997). But, within these broader paradigmatic perspectives, resear chers adopted more specific theoretical approaches. Some of these approaches include the psychodynamic approach, trait theories, social contextual theories, and th e human science appro ach, and these will now be reviewed in more detail. Specific Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Personality Psychodynamic approach Freud’s (1923/1961) psychodynamic appro ach to the study of personality exemplifies a deterministic approach to the study of psychological tr aits. Freud focused on inborn dispositions that remain constant throughout life. Specifically, Freud believed that an individual is originally untouched and unconscious (as a ‘psychical id’), however, due to the influence of the ex ternal world through conscious perception, an individual’s ego becomes part of the id leading to consciousness and th e systematic organization of thoughts. Nevertheless, the remaining part of the id also known as the “ego ideal” or “superego” possesses the most powerful impulses of the individual, remains unconscious

PAGE 16

6 and is considered to be the representation of the internal world of an individual. Thus, Freud (1961) believed that be havior was determined not by the individual but rather for the individual, due to conf licts between the consciousne ss (ego) and the unconsciousness (superego) within the in dividual. Or, stated in another way, an individual’s personality results from the conflict between the indi vidual’s internal a nd external world. Trait theories Allport (1937) introduced th e concept of trait theories to the world of general psychology. Allport defined personality as “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characte ristic behavior and thought” (p. 28). He believed that personality should be studied by taking into account the whole person: his contention was that tr aits are not present in the same way in different individuals, and that individual behavior is determined by their trait structure. For instance, two sisters (raised in the same household) may react differently to their parents’ divorce. This difference can be e xplained by their trait structure taking into account that they were raised in th e same household (environment). Following Allport’s lead, Cattell (1943) al so believed that traits determined behavior. However, contrary to Allport, Ca ttell’s concern was the predictive power of personality on behavior (McAdams, 1997). In ot her words, Cattell’s emphasis was on the development of global measures of personal ity that were strongly associated with behavioral outcomes (i.e., health, occupationa l satisfaction, etc.). Cattell (1950) defined personality as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation” (p. 2). Thus, by perf orming factor analysis on in dividuals’ responses to selfreport measures, he proposed that personality was composed of 35 personality traits with twelve to twenty primary factors broken dow n into four second-or der factors (high-low

PAGE 17

7 anxiety, introversion-extraversion, to ughminded-tenderminded, independencesubduedness; Cattell, 1965). Similar to Cattell, Guilford (1959) also di vided traits into s ubcategories but he focused more on differences in interests, sk ills, needs, and attitudes. Unlike Allport, Guilford believed that the best way to learn more about personalities was to collect large samples and to conduct comparisons between participants. Conse quently, Guilford was instrumental in aiding a better understanding of factor analytic pr ocedures and test development to ensure comparisons between individuals. Eysenck (1967, 1970) used abnormal ps ychology and factor analysis, to investigate the prevalence of personality tr aits. Eysenck’s main contribution was his focus on two main factors – Neuroticism (emotionality-stability) and Extroversion (introversion-extraversi on) – to describe the main dimens ions of personality. Specifically, he concluded that neurotic individuals are ch aracterized as highly negatively stressed and anxious; on the other hand, extraverted individua ls are said to have generally positive affect, and they are talkative, sociable, and assertive. Despite Eysenck’s belief in these main dimensions of personality, it was late r realized that these two factors did not encompass the entire personality construct which lead to further developments that will be elaborated on shortly (McCrae & John, 1992). To review, the specific theories desc ribed above encompass the use of the dispositional paradigm in the study of pers onality. In the psychodynamic approach, Freud believed that every individual was born with an inherent internal st ructure that hardly changed throughout life. But, due to these constant internal struggles, individuals were faced with conflicts between th eir internal and external world, which shaped personality

PAGE 18

8 and behavior. On the other hand, trait theori sts such as Allport, Cattell, Guilford and Eysenck, contended that individu als possess specific trait structures that play a role in the prediction of their behavior. In the next se ction, theories that u tilize situational and interactional paradigms in the study of pe rsonality will be briefly reviewed. Social-contextual theories As previously explained, Mischel (1968) refuted the dispositional/trait perspective due to his belief that self-reported questionna ires did not adequately predict behavioral differences across situations. As a result, situational (Mischel 1968; Skinner, 1953), interactional (Lewin, 1935), and social-c ognitive perspectives (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Rotter, 1954) emerged to explain differences among people. Skinner’s (1953) work exemplifies a pur ely socially based explanation for individual behavior. Skinner (1953), who u tilized more of the situational paradigm, believed that behavior was observable a nd can be modified based on previous interactions, reinforcements, and observations within the environment. For instance, individuals who have receive d speeding tickets or observe d others receiving tickets would use this information in a way that influences their future behavior. As an extension of Skinner’s social lear ning theory, researchers developed socialcognitive approaches that typically focus on the explication of specific constructs or individual characteristics such as self-e fficacy (Bandura, 1997). In the social cognitive approach, researchers believe that an i ndividual’s behavior is not dependent on immediate rewards but on how the individual appraises the situati on, and the individual’s motivation towards a specific outcome (Rotte r, 1954). Thus, social-cognitively oriented researchers tend to utilize an interactional paradi gm rather than a situational perspective.

PAGE 19

9 Human-science approach The existential-phenomenological appr oach, known as the human-science approach, also utilizes the interactiona l paradigm. According to Fischer (1989), researchers that use the human-science appro ach to the study of pe rsonality, explore the individual living in his or her world. From th is perspective, indivi duals are transformed or affected in ways by their external worlds Specifically, researchers tend to be more personal by seeking the full context of their part icipants’ situations rather than attempting an unbiased, scientific appro ach during data collection. Human science researchers tend to empha size individuals’ social surroundings, culture, and upbringing and do not attempt to make scientific ge neralizations when assessing personality. In other words, human-science researchers believe that time should be taken to learn more about the participant throu gh dialogue in order to gain complete understanding of the individual and the circum stances that may have led to his or her specific behavior. For instance, a study investigating the re lationship between socioeconomic status and aggres sive behavior in adolescent males may take two forms. On one hand, the researchers may have an objective approach where self-report questionnaires are used to assess behavior; on the other hand, a researcher may sit down with each participant to explore his or her fa mily life or the circumstance that may have led to the aggressive behavi or. The latter approach char acterizes the human-science approach. In summary, the history of personality psychology w ithin the general psychology literature has been reviewed. Descriptions and explanations of dispos itional, situational, and interactional perspectives associated w ith the study of individual differences were presented. Also, specific theories within the paradigms were examined, such as the

PAGE 20

10 psychodynamic theory and trait theory (dispositional paradi gm), the social learning theory (situational paradigm), social cognitive theories, the trait-st ate approach and the human-science approach (i nteractional paradigm). In the next section more focus will be placed on the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. Although the FFM takes a disposi tional perspective, there were important empirical, methodological, and theoretical a dvances that have led many personality psychologists to accept this model. Specifically the history that led up to the adoption of the model will be examined, along with the de velopment of the model within the general psychology literature. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) The emergence of the FFM resulted from the convergence of two distinct traditions within the personality psychology literature: the lexical tradition and factor analytic tradition. In the 1930’s, the development of the FFM began with the aggregation of lexical terms or adjectives used to descri be human behavior. It was believed that personality attributes could be distinguished by the use of language terms the logic of which was based on the English language (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988). Thus, the lexical tradition began with Allport and O dbert (1936) who obtained 4500 English trait terms to investigate the pr evalence of personality traits within the English language. Their exhaustive efforts re sulted in four different groups (personal traits, temporary states, soci al evaluations, and metaphorical terms), but they made no attempt to condense the list further. It was not until Cattell (1943), who narrowed the terms to 171 traits, based on similar semantics that researchers bega n to agree that the personality traits could be reduced to a more manageable sub-set of dispositional terms. Cattell then further divided the 171 trait term s into 35 clusters using factor analytic

PAGE 21

11 techniques. Subsequently th e lexical tradition was combined with a new era of factor analytic techniques, which le d to the emergence and the development of the FFM. Factor analytic researchers believed that factor analysis c ould produce unities of traits and as a result these traits were natura lly clustered rather than grouped subjectively by researchers (Cattell, 1965). For instance, Cattell (1943) conducte d factor analytic procedures from peer ratings and self-repor t questionnaires of college students. These factor analyses revealed at least 12 primary factors and in order to differentiate these primary dimensions without prejudice from earlier clinical wor k, Cattell (1965) later labeled them based upon the amount of variance possessed by each factor. In an attempt to replicate Cattell’s find ings, Fiske (1949) used 22 out of Cattell’s 35 clusters to assess self-ratings, teammate ratings, and staff assessment ratings of male graduate students in order to determine the primary factor structures previously found by Cattell. The results of Fiske failed to suppor t Cattell’s primary factors (Fiske, 1949). However, Fiske’s results revealed consiste ncy in a five-factor solution, which Fiske labeled as social adaptabilit y, conformity, emotional contro l, confident self-expression, and inquiring intellect. Despite this remark able discovery made by Fiske, consequent research was not completed to further investigate the five emergent factors until a few decades later. Specifically, the first clear support for the five-factor model was introduced by Tupes and Christal (1961) a nd later replicated by Norman (1963). Tupes and Christal used peer ratings to perform factor anal yses on Cattell’s (1947) 35 personality traits by utilizing adjective checklists on eight diverse samples. Across all samples assessed, five

PAGE 22

12 factors consistently emerged and Tupes and Ch ristal labeled these as (a) Surgency, (b) Agreeableness, (c) Dependability, (d) Emotional Stability, and (e) Culture. In addition to Tupes and Christal’s suppor t of the FFM, Norman (1963) replicated their study and also found evidence of this fi ve-factor solution. Specifically, by using 20 of the rating scales used by Tupes and Chri stal (1961), Norman (1963) used four samples of male college students to conduct peer nomin ation ratings within groups consisting of 6-16 males. Based on these results, the extended evidence of the FFM, Norman recommended that a clear and organized structure of personality attributes be developed. During much of the seventies, there still was not a comp lete acceptance of the five broad dimensions of personality. Cattell (1973) had not agreed with the emergence of the five domains and advocated his more than tw enty primary factors. Specifically, Cattell (1973) argued against the methodology used by Norman (1963), who utilized an orthogonal rotation rather than Cattell’s prefer ence of factor analytic procedures. Also, Cattell (1973) believed that the factors re sulting from the FFM evidence were “pseudo second-order factors,” which he expresse d as being a general all encompassing psychological statement of the influence of the specific factor rather than a “true” factor that resulted from a factor analytic procedure. Therefore, it is evident that Cattell (1973) not only disagreed with the methodological choi ces used in the studies used to support the five hierarchical domains but he also believed that the evid ence supporting the FFM was not conceptually sound. Nevertheless, despite Cattell’s lack of acceptance of the FFM, broad acceptance of the FFM began to emerge in the 1980’s (W iggins & Trapnell, 1997) and a union between the lexical tradition and the factor analyt ic procedure evolved. Accordingly, Costa and

PAGE 23

13 McCrae (1980) were interested in determining what specific traits were present. Consequently, based on the results of numer ous longitudinal studies of personality and aging, McCrae and Costa (1985) determined that there were five broad stable dimensions that were present across age groups and spousal ratings, and these dimensions correlated with other systems of personality. Thus, FFM theorists believed that thes e five factors were broad, higher-order domains of a hierarchical structure that were the basic dimensions of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1989). Therefore, the FFM has recently emerged as the most influential formulati on of personality to date (McAdams, 1997). And, these five broad dimensions of personal ity labeled Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Openness to experi ence (O), and Conscientiousness (C) represent the more recent formulation of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Costa and McCrae (1992a) believed that th ese five factors represented the basic dimensions of personality based on four lines of reasoning. First, th ese constructs were considered to be enduring tra its based on longitudinal resear ch and spouse rating studies. Second, these ratings were found within othe r personality systems and within natural language spoken by individuals. In other words, the FFM is associated with nearly every other personality system and measures (e.g., Myers-Briggs, MMPI, Cattell’s 16 PF) which has not proven the case with other m easures. Third, these dimensions were found across age, sex, race and language groups. And lastly, based on evidence of hereditability studies, these factors appeared to have some biological basis. Consequently, the prevalence and predictabi lity of these five factors have been exemplified by researchers in occupational and health psychology (e.g., Hogan, Hogan,

PAGE 24

14 & Roberts 1996; Smith & Williams, 1992; Widiger & Trull, 1992). Firstly, there has been evidence that showed a link between the FFM and psychopathology (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989) as high scor ers on the Neuroticism measure also displayed the signs and symptoms of de pression, bipolar diso rder, and borderline personality disorders (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Wiggins & Pincus, 198 9); and individuals who scored higher on the Conscientiousness do main scale are more prone to obsessivecompulsive disorders (Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). Secondly, there is evidence of a relationship between the FFM, HIV risk behavior, and risky sexual behaviors (Costa, Masers Herbst, Trobst & Wiggins, 1998; Miller, Lynam, Zimmerman, Logan, Leukefeld, & Cl ayton, 2004; Wiggins, Masters, Trobst & Costa, 1998; Trobst, Wiggins, Costa, Herb st, McCrae & Masters, 2000). That is, individuals with low scores on the Agreeable ness and Openness domain scales and high scores of Extraversion scale are related to multiple high-risk sexual behaviors (Miller et al., 2004; Trobst et al., 2000). And lastly, there has been evidence to support a relationship between the FFM and job performance as high scores on the C onscientiousness and Agreeableness scales, and low scores on the Neuroticism scale are posi tively related to job performance (Barrick, Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002; Barrick, St ewart, Neubert & Mount, 1998; Dunn, Mount, Barrick & Ones, 1995; Hogan, Hogan & Busc h, 1984; Mount, Barrick & Stewart; 1998). Thus, McCrae and John (1992) believed that th e FFM was applicable across most applied settings and can be used in multiple disciplines. Consequently, the present st udy will attempt to determine the utility of this model in an athletic context since the predictability of the Five-factor model of personality has

PAGE 25

15 yet to be explored. Thus, in the present study I assessed the rela tionships between the Big-Five personality dispositions, coping res ponses, and life satisfaction. What follows is a review of research on persona lity assessment in sport and a more specific rationale for the present study. History of Sport Psychology Personality Literature The study of personality in sport is intu itively appealing. On the surface it seems obvious that certain athletes display personality traits that have fac ilitated their success. However, as will be shown, attempts to document these observations scientifically have proven difficult. Traditional approaches to th e study of personality in sport have relied on comparisons between groups such as athletes and non-athletes (Slusher, 1964; O’Connor & Webb, 1976), successful athletes with less successful athletes (Morgan, 1968; Kane, 1964), and athletes from di fferent sports (Malumphy, 1968; Stoner & Brandy, 1977) in order to identify specific tra its between the groups that ma y facilitate success. It was believed that by comparing these different gr oups of athletes it would be possible to identify certain traits or di spositions possessed thereby allo wing psychologists to predict future performance (Singer, 1988). Martens (1975) reviewed th e progress of personality research between 1950 and 1973, and expressed concern about the lack of substantial findings in sport personality research. He discussed conceptual and met hodological issues, such as, paradigmatic issues, lack of clear operationa l definitions of personality and sport success, lack of theories accounting for particular instrume nts used, inappropriate use of personality measures, or inappropriate generalizations pl aguing the study of sport personality and the predictability of traits (Martens, 1975; Morgan, 1980; Rushall, 1972). Since many of

PAGE 26

16 these arguments are still va lid today the methodological, pa radigmatic and theoretical issues proposed by Martens (1975) will be discussed in more detail. Methodologically, researchers tended to believ e that there was a lack of operational definitions pertaining to the research i nvolving athletes. Specifically, Morgan (1980) believed that the independent and dependent variables were not adequately defined to ensure later replication. Also, some resear chers argued that res earchers tended to use different definitions to iden tify elite athletes, and successf ul and unsuccessful athletes, which also made replication difficult and in terpretations invalid (Martens, 1975, Rushall, 1977). Additionally, Martens (1 975) criticized sport personali ty theorists for the use of inappropriate inventories to assess general pe rsonality traits within athletic populations. For instance, Ogilivie and Tutko (1971) popul arized the Athletic Motivation Inventory (AMI; Tutko, Lyon, & Ogilivie, 1969) as an appr opriate predictor of personality profiles of successful athletes. However, these resear chers failed to provide empirical evidence to support their contentions resulting in a l ack of reliable info rmation. Other sport psychology researchers used the 16 Personal ity Factor Questionna ire (16 PF; Cattell, 1946), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943), the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1981), and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Ey senck & Eysenck, 1975) with no apparent theoretical rationale for using these measures. The 16 PF was used in a number of spor t personality studie s to investigate differences between athletes and non-ath letes (Werner, 1960; Peterson, Weber, & Trousdale, 1967; Malumphy, 1968; O’Connor & Webb, 1976), team versus individual

PAGE 27

17 sport participants (Peterson, Weber, & Trousdale, 1967; Malumphy, 1968), and successful versus unsuccessful athletes (Williams, Hoepner, Moody, & Ogilivie, 1970). However, it was demonstrated that participan ts could easily lie on this instrument and bias their responses (O’De ll, 1971; Winder, O’Dell, & Karson, 1975). Consequently, Morgan (1980) purported that response distor tion must be consider ed when interpreting results of studies that used the 16 PF. Add itionally, Martens (1975) cl aimed that previous studies failed to create an adequate rationale for the use of the 16 PF in sport settings. Another concern was that re searchers chose measures based on convenience rather than on theoretical underpinnings (Martens, 1975 ; Rushall, 1972), and scales such as the MMPI, were often only validated for clinical populations (Martens 1975). Nevertheless, these inventories were used to investigate differences in athletic populations (Slusher, 1964; Morgan, 1968; Kane, 1964; Nagle et al., 1975). Consequently, Martens (1975) questioned their utility in sport settings due to the lack of validation within an athletic context. Martens’ (1975) main concern was the need for sport personality researchers to disregard the trait and situational concepts of personality and instead focus more on the interactional position. In a review of at least 15 studies that compared the trait and situation perspective, Bowers (1973) showed that the mean total variance accounted for by trait was 12.71%, while the mean total va riance accounted for by the situation was 10.71%; neither of which Martens believed ex plained enough about be havior or had the potential to explain important outcomes in sport. Consequently, Martens (1975) implored that attention should be direct ed towards the interactionists paradigm.

PAGE 28

18 In order to assess the progress made after the recommendations put forth by Martens, Vealey (1989) examin ed 463 sport personality rese arch articles between the 1970s and 1980s. Vealey concluded that much of the sport personality research did become more theoretical and methodologically sound, and there was a decline in the trait approach. While the reviews described above (Marte ns, 1975; Vealey, 1989) stimulated much needed methodological and theo retical developments in th e sport psychology literature (e.g., Smith, Smoll, Schutz, & Ptacek, 1995), the study of broader personality dispositions within athletic contexts remain s appealing to many. For instance, Morgan (1980) believed that traits were able to predict sport behavior and that researchers should not completely abandon the trait perspective. Morgan contended that a complete analysis of personality should consist of assessments of personality traits, psychological states, cognitions, and physiological measures in orde r to predict behavior. Consequently, he believed that a multidimensional model should be adopted when studying sport personality. Thus, in response to concerns a bout the lack of theo retical underpinnings, Morgan (1980) utilized the POMS scale, a nd proposed the “mental health model” also known as the Iceberg profile (p. 62) to fu rther sport personality research and the prediction of athletic behavior. The Iceberg profile predicts that athlet es who were “neurotic, anxious, depressed, schizoid, introverted, confused, fatigued, and scored low on psychic vigor will tend to be unsuccessful in comparison to an athlete w ho is characterized by the absence of such traits” (Morgan, 1980, p. 62). Put another way, at hletes who score high on psychic vigor

PAGE 29

19 and low on tension, depression, anger, fatigue and confusion tend to be more successful than athletes who are high on tension, de pression, anger, fatigue and confusion. This model emerged out of findings by Morgan and colleagues with Olympic wrestlers (Nagle, Morgan, He lickson, Serfass, & Alexande r, 1975), rowers (Morgan & Johnson, 1978), and marathon/distance runne rs (Morgan, O’Connor, Ellickson, & Bradley, 1988; Morgan & Pollock, 1977). But, in a systematic review of the mental health model, there seemed to be disc ontent with Morgan’s proposed relationship between mood states and performance (Beedie Terry, & Lane, 2000; Prapavessis, 2000; Renger, 1995; Rowley, Landers, Kyllo, & Et nier, 1995). Particularly, Renger (1993) believed that Morgan inappropriately stated that the POMS scale was a viable predictor of athletic performance. That is, the scale only differentiated profiles between athletes and non-athletes as opposed to the supposed differentiation between successful and unsuccessful athletes. Also, Prapavessis (2000 ) did not believe that the iceberg profile was an appropriate model to explain the relationship between precompetitive states and sport performance. Lastly, Beedie et al. ( 2000) and Rowley et al (1995) each conducted meta-analyses of studies that utilized the POMS and the Iceberg profile and concluded that there were small effect sizes (Weight ed mean ES = .10 and .15 respectively) when testing the relationship between mood states and athletes of differing success levels. Accordingly, Morgan’s approach was ques tioned and discrepancies between research findings were believed to be due to the lack of a theoretical framework to explain how personality constructs are rela ted to athletic outcomes. Consequently, the present st udy will attempt to extend pr evious sport personality research by integrating coping predictions put forth by Lazarus (1999) with the current

PAGE 30

20 theory and measurement in th e personality psychology literatu re. Specifically, I utilized the FMM with college athletes to assess relationships between these five basic dimensions of personality, their coping respons es to time management issues, their life satisfaction. So far, I have reviewed personality w ithin the general psychology literature, the history of the FFM, and the development of personality within sports. As I have discussed the viability of the FFM with sport samples remains to be tested. Suitably, the next section will review personality measurem ents that have recently been utilized to measure the five basic dimensions. This will be followed by a review of stress and coping theory. Personality Measurements There are literally hundreds of personalit y measures available in the public and private domain so a review of all these inve ntories is beyond the scope of the present thesis. The reader is instructed to see other excellent sources such as Anastasi and Urbina (1997) or Hogan (1990) for more information about the various personality inventories available. The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the development of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-P I-R; Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991) and create a rationale for the use of a version of this instrument within an athletic population. NEO personality inventory The 181-item NEO Personality Inventor y (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1989) was developed to measure the five broad domains of personality. The scale was an attempt to include all of these broad dimensions in order to move beyond Eysenck’s (1970) Extraversion and Neuroticism dimensi ons of personality. To produce the measure and its scales, Costa and McCrae performed analytic procedures on the 16 PF that

PAGE 31

21 revealed three meaningful clusters of scales : two scales resembled E and N, and the third scale was labeled Open versus Closed to Experience. Thus, the NEO-PI was produced possessing three facet scales, while the remain ing two dimensions were measured as a global scale. The scale was shown to have adequate in ternal consistency and has also been shown to be stable over a 6-year time pe riod (Costa & McCrae, 1988). However, based on the reviews of Hogan (1989), and Leong and Dollinger (1990), researchers believed that facet scales need ed to be developed to measure the remaining two broad domains, which led to the development of the NEO-PI-R. Revised NEO personality inventory Due to the NEO-PI only encompassing thr ee broad constructs, Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) developed the NEO-PI-R to include the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness facet scales. They also revised the N, E, and O facet scales which resulted in a 240-item scale that was more c onsistent with the FFM of personality. Until the development of the NEO-PI-R, no personalit y scale was developed to measure all of the five broad domains of pers onality. When compared with other instruments, most of the scales in these instruments reflected one or more of the five factors from the NEO-PI and NEO-PI-R (Costa et al, 1991). The NEO-P I-R assessed 30 separate traits organized within the five domains of the FFM with each dimension possessing 6 more specific traits. The reader is directed to Table 11 to view these facets and their corresponding traits. The scale has shown adequate internal c onsistency (ranging from .92 to .86 for the domain scales) and has been shown to main tain factor structure when used with individuals age 18 years and above and across a variety of cultures (Costa et al., 1991;

PAGE 32

22 Costa & McCrae, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 1999) Additionally, the NEO-PI-R showed evidence of cross-observer correlations for peer raters, and correlations between selfreports and peer and spouse ratings (ra nging from .33 to .67; Costa & McCrae, 1992a). The scale also possessed convergent and discrimi nant validity due to the correlations with all other major personality scales includi ng, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon 1983), the California Psyc hological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987), Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eyse nck & Eysenck, 1964), and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), a finding unique to the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1990; McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993). Table 1-1. List of the NEO-PI-R Domains and Facet Level Traits Domain Facet Level Traits Neuroticism Anxiety Angry hostility Depression Self-consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement seeking Positive emotions Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values Agreeableness Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness

PAGE 33

23 Table 1-1 Continued Domain Facet Level Traits Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement striving Self-discipline Deliberation NEO Five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) To reduce burden on participants, Co sta & McCrae (1989, 1992) developed a shorter 60-item version of the NEO-PI and the NEO-PI-R and named it the NEO Five Factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Specifically, 12 items were sel ected from each of the five scales in the 180-item NEO-PI, and participan ts were asked to use a five-point Likert response format. This scale has shown high re test reliability ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 for all five scales (Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski, 2001), adequate internal consistency ranging from .68 to .86 (Cos ta & McCrae, 1992b; Watson & Hubbard, 1996)), and has demonstrated validity acro ss numerous languages and cultures (Ptylik Zilig, Hemenover & Dienstbier, 2002). Most importantly, the measure has demonstrated moderate to high correlati ons with the domains of NEO-PI-R raning from .77 to .94 across various samples making it a practical inst rument for use in a variety of research and clinical applications (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In the following section, I introduce stress and coping theory a nd research in the general and sport psychology li terature. In particular, I wi ll be reviewing (1) Lazarus (1991) cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress and coping, (2) instruments used to measure coping, and (3) classifications of ways of coping. This will be followed by a theoretical integration between the cognitivemotivational-relational theory of stress and coping with current developments in personality (reviewed above).

PAGE 34

24 Stress and Coping People are constantly faced with a vari ety of stressors throughout their life. According to Lazarus and Cohn (1977), there are three types of stressors that individuals may encounter: cataclysmic events affecting many people, major changes affecting a small group of people, and daily hassles. Specifically, the 2004 Tsunami that unsuspectingly hit numerous countries along th e Indian Ocean, and killed thousands of people, can be identified as a cataclysmic ev ent. On the other hand, a car wreck could be considered a source of stress that may im pact a small group of people. And finally, regulating time efficiently or taking care of a broken down car can be classified as daily hassles. Stress may result in a number of health consequences (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the stress construct has been given much research attention over the past several decades. Specifically, researchers have found relationships between stress and psychological disorders (Compas, Worsham, Ey, & Howell, 1996; Stretch, Knudson, & Durand, 1998), and poor physical health (F lett, Kazantzis, Long, & MacDonald, 2002; McFarlane, Atchison, Rafalowicz, & Papay, 1995). Furthermor e, coping has been shown to play a mediating role between stressful events and outcomes, such as depression, psychological distress or somatic complaints (Billings & Moos, 1981; Coyne, Aldwin, & Lazarus, 1981). The focus of the present study is on daily hassles faced by individuals within the athletic context. In the next sections, I will discuss stress and coping theory in more detail and review components of the cogniti ve-motivational-relationa l theory of stress, emotion and coping (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specifically, I will review three different types of cognitive ap praisals (primary appraisals, secondary

PAGE 35

25 appraisals, and coping options), three different coping measurements used in the athletic arena (the ways of coping checklist, the COPE and the modified COPE), and finally two classifications of ways of coping (problem -focused vs. emotion-focused, and approach versus avoidance). The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Th eory of Stress, Emotion and Coping The transactional process model of stress and coping, and, its more recent variant the cognitive-motivational-rela tional theory of stress, emotion and coping (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) has been one of the leading frameworks used to study how individuals adapt to stressful circumstan ces. The theory predicts that cognitive appraisals of a stressor mediate one’s emoti onal responses to an event thus influencing the coping strategies used to reduce stress inte nsity. From this perspe ctive, stress results from a cognitive evaluation of an individual’s perceptions of threat, control, and coping resources resulting from a person-environm ent interaction (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). More specifically, individua ls are predicted to evaluate certain information to determine the intensity and qua lity of the stress experienced: they make primary appraisals, secondary apprai sals, and one’s coping responses. Primary appraisals Primary appraisals are made when in dividuals determine how significant the situation is to their well-being, goals, attit udes, values, and beliefs. According to Folkman (1992), primary appraisals are in fluenced by how much the event impacts valued personal goals (goal relevance), as pects of ego identity or one’s personal commitments at stake (goal involvement), and how much the event facilitates or impairs goal attainment (goal congruency). For instance, if an athlete sustains a knee injury, this injury would be interpreted as stressful if it impacts his or her ability to compete for an

PAGE 36

26 extended period of time. Such primary appraisals would be associated with all three types of goals described above. Consequently, there are three types of prim ary appraisals. Harm appraisals refer to damage that has already occurred, such as the injury exhibited in the above example. Threat appraisals occur when there is a potentia l harm or loss that ha s not occurred but is anticipated. For instance, an in jury may become a threat when the athlete anticipates not being able to train or compete for extended peri ods of time. In contrast to harm and threat appraisals, challenge appraisals refer to the anticipation of a beneficial outcome and are typically associated with more positive emo tional states (i.e., excitement, pleasure). For instance, an athlete recovering from knee injury who may view his or her preparations to restart training and competing as challeng ing would likely possess positive emotional states. Secondary appraisals In addition to primary appraisals, secondary appraisals also play a mediating role in the stress, emotion, and coping process. In pa rticular, when individuals make secondary appraisals they evaluate the potential contro l they may exert over the stressful situation and/or their personal coping resources (F olkman, 1992). In this case, one’s coping resources are the specific cognitive, behavi oral, social, or othe r personal resources accessible to the individual that can be used to improve the situation or their subjective states (Folkman, 1992). Therefore, the amount of control an individual has over the specific event, or the prevalence of accessible coping options and resources that he or she possesses, are considered to be aspects of secondary appraisa ls. For instance, an injured athlete may evaluate the severity of his or her situation based on how much control he or she has on recovering adequately, and the resour ces that are available for quick recovery.

PAGE 37

27 These resources may include athletic trainers, physical therapists, or specific protective gear to use during competition. Coping responses Closely related to secondary appraisals are one’s actual coping responses to the stressor. After individuals have evaluate d the stressful situ ation, specific coping procedures may be adopted to aid in alleviating the situ ation and/or determine one’s personal meaning associated with the event. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping as “cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (p. 141). For instance, when faced with stressful circum stances an athlete may seek social support from loved ones in order to feel comforted or to gain advice about how to deal with the event. Additionally, individuals may simply ve nt their emotions by crying, find humor in the situation, or simply reinterpret the even t as something from which to learn and grow. All of the above strategies may be adopted individually or in combination in order to reduce one’s stress related emoti ons or the nature of the situat ion itself. Thus, it should be noted that coping resources are the available to ols needed to deal w ith a situation, while the coping responses are the actual efforts used during the event. In athletics, coping has been shown to be an important response to stress. Specifically, Lazarus (1999) predicted that coping is a “powerful mediator” between cognitive appraisals of stre ssful events and various physical and emotional outcomes (Lazarus, 1999, p. 121; Crocker, 1992). Research ers have also shown that burnout levels were positively related to stress and invers ely related to coping (Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke & Smith, 2001, 2004). Additionally, intervention st udies have shown that inappropriate coping skills may lead to pe rformance decrements and athletic dissatisfaction (Crocker,

PAGE 38

28 Alderman, & Smith, 1988; Smith, 1980); while th e importance of coping strategies has been emphasized to prevent the negative im pact of anxiety on athletic performance (Crocker, 1992; Madden, Summ ers, & Brown, 1990). Lastly, re searchers have shown that athletes with a high level of life stress are more likely to experience injuries than athletes with a low level of life stress (Anders en & Williams, 1999; Passer & Seese, 1983; Patterson et al., 1998). Consequently, it becomes imperative for researchers to investigate the entire stress, emotion, and coping proce ss using a theoretically driven approach in order to better understand how and why some individuals adapt appr opriately to stress while others do not. Coping Measurements A number of coping scales have been de veloped to assess the coping responses of individuals in response to speci fic stressors. The purpose of this section is to evaluate and describe three specific coping sc ales that have been utilized within a sports context: the ways of coping checklist, the COPE, and the modified COPE. Ways of coping checklist (WCC) Originally developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980), and later revised by Folkman and Lazarus (1985), the WCC is a 68-item measure of coping. In the more recent 66-item self reported measure prev iously unclear and redundant items were deleted or reworded, and new items were added as a result of previous research (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Specifically, Folkman and Lazar us used their two general dimensions of coping to develop the items, and based on e xploratory factor analys is they identified eight subscales. These subscales include problem-focused coping, wishful thinking, distancing, seeking social support, emphasizing the posi tive, self-blame, tensionreduction, and self-isolation. The answer responses were also changed from the original

PAGE 39

29 “yes” or “no” to a 4-point Likert scale rangi ng from “does not apply an d/or not used (0)” to “used a great deal (3).” Research has shown the WCC to have adequate internal consistency, alpha coefficients ranged from 0.65 to 0.85 (Folkm an & Lazarus, 1985), and this measure has also shown to be reliable ( = .58-.78) and valid within a sp orts context (Crocker, 1992; Hammermeister & Burton, 1993; Madde n, Summers, & Brown, 1990). However, Crocker (1992) believed that compared to previous work completed by Folkman and her colleagues, there is a lack of item consistency within an athletic sample. The COPE Carver et al. (1989) had c oncerns about the WCC and developed the COPE using a theoretically derived approac h. Specifically, they believe d and later Skinner et al. (Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003) ag reed that coping could not be easily dichotomized by problem-focused or emoti on-focused coping responses as with the WCC. Consequently, Carver and colleagues prop osed that within each type of category (problem or emotion focused) a number of diffe rent responses may resu lt; therefore, they believed that these responses should be meas ured separately. Thus, using Folkman and Lazarus’ (1984, 1999) model of stress and Ca rver and Scheier’s (Carver & Scheier,1981, 1983; Scheier & Carver, 1988) model of behavi oral self-regulation, Ca rver et al. (1989) developed the COPE. The COPE is composed of 13 subscales : active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, restraint coping, seeki ng support for instrumental reasons, seeking support for emotional reasons, focusing on and venting of emotions, behavioral

PAGE 40

30 disengagement, mental disengagement, posi tive interpretation and growth, denial, acceptance, and religion (with alcohol/drug engage ment used as an exploratory subscale). Participants are asked to respond to each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “I usually don’t do this at all” (1), “I us ually do this a little bit” (2), “I usually do this a medium amount” (3), and “I usually do this a lot” (4). The subscales have demonstrated adequate internal consistenc y ranging from 0.62 (active coping) to 0.92 (religion) with the exception of mental disengagement ( = .45), and test-retest reliability (ranging from .46 to .86 for an 8-week period) Additionally, appropriate convergent and discriminant validity has been shown betw een other coping scales (Watson & Hubbard, 1996), such as the Problem-solving Inve ntory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982), and personality variables, such as optimism vs. pessimism, self-esteem, and trait anxiety (Carver et al., 1989). The modified COPE To specifically assess athletes’ coping strategies Crocker and Graham (1995) developed a 48-item measure. The measure wa s composed of 12 coping scales, nine of these subscales originated from the COPE and included active coping, seeking social support for instrumental reasons, planning, s eeking social support fo r emotional reasons, denial, humor, behavioral disengagement, venting of emotion, and suppression of competing activities. The remaining subscal es were based on research conducted by Crocker (1992) and Madden et al. (1990), wh ich included self-blame, wishful thinking, and increasing effort. Participants are requi red to answer each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “used not at all/very litt le” (1) to “used very much” (5). With the exception of the denial scale ( = .42), Crocker and Graham (1995) showed adequate

PAGE 41

31 internal consistency to be used within an athlete population, which ranged from 0.62 (wishful thinking) to 0.92 (humor). In summary, the previously reviewed coping measures are commonly employed within coping theory and research. The W CC was developed to differentiate between problem-focused coping and emotion focused coping strategies. On the other hand, the authors of the COPE and the MCOPE did not believe that coping st rategies could be broken down into these two dimensions. Subs equently, the next section will go into further detail about ways of classifying specific coping responses into higher-order coping categories. Classifying Ways of Coping Folkman and Lazarus (1980) proposed that coping is broken into problem-focused coping (PFC) and emotion-focused coping (E FC) dichotomies. Therefore, these two higher order coping strategies were classified based on func tion. Specifically, as stated by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), “a coping function refers to the purpose a strategy serves; outcome refers to the effect a strategy has” (p. 148-149). Thus, PFC strategies refer to cognitive coping responses, such as, problem -solving, planning, information seeking, or learning new skills used to reduce or manage the sources of stress (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). For example, a college athlete who ha s missed many classes due to team travel might make an appointment with his or her prof essor in order to catch up with the rest of the students. In this example, the athlete ma de an effort to plan a meeting with the professor to ensure bette r understanding of the topi c discussed in class. On the other hand, EFC affective responses attempt to decrease emotional distress and increase feelings of well-being as a re sponse to a specific problem (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Therefore, strategies such as mental and behavioral withdrawal, denial,

PAGE 42

32 relaxation, or simply venting emotions can be referred to as EFC strategies (Crocker, 1992). For instance, using the above example, th e athlete may feel frustrated and worried that he or she may not be able to pass the cl ass. In order to regulat e those emotions he or she may cry, interpret the situation in a mo re positive light, or seek emotional socialsupport. Nevertheless, researchers have also pr oposed a topological distinction of coping responses; that is, ways of coping can be divided based on their modes and methods (Billings & Moos, 1981). One of the most common topological dimensions is the approach-avoidance distinction (Skinner et al., 2003). The approach-avoidance coping dimension distinguishes between efforts to b ecome closer to the stressful event versus efforts that lead to distanci ng or withdrawing from the probl em; the key distinction being the “orientation of the individual’s attention” (p. 228; Skinner et al. 2003). Specifically, approach coping refers to strategies that al low individuals to seek action that may entail experiencing distress and confronting the problem; on the other hand, avoidance coping focuses on strategies to alleviate stressful feelings, which may allow the individual to regain composure and feelings of protecti on (Roth & Cohen, 1986). The ability to avoid the stressor may allow an indi vidual to regain emotional composure thus allowing the individual to gain more energy to face th e problem more effectively (Skinner et al., 2003). Some researchers have argued that categor izing ways of coping into functional and topological groups can be problem atic (Skinner et al., 2003). Firstly, in both types of groups there seems to be a lack of clarity within different systems in determining the suitability of classifying lower-order categ ories into higher-order groups. For instance,

PAGE 43

33 Carver and colleagues (1989) contended th at some emotion-focused coping allowed focus towards the stressor, while individuals using other EFC strate gies tended to avoid the stressful event. Similarly, some researcher s argued that social s upport can be a type of avoidance coping when the indi viduals’ attention is away from the situation; however, other researchers can easily argue that indi viduals venting their emotions to others (another form of social support) can be consid ered to an approach form of coping due to the focus towards the stressor (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991). Secondly, the PFC-EFC and the approach-avo idance dimensions are not considered exhaustive (Skinner et al., 2003); that is, they do not seem to encompass all of the lower order ways of coping. Speci fically, certain ways of coping, such as observation, information seeking, accommodation, aggressi on, and rumination tend to be excluded from these higher-order dimensions (Skinner et al., 2003). Some res earchers have argued that approach categorical strategies only en tail constructive approach es, such as problem solving and direct action (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991) Thus strategies such as seeking support and guidance, which ma y be considered to be constructive ways of coping but orient the individual away fr om the event and can be misclassified as approach coping. On the other hand, avoidan ce coping seems to enta il mainly negatively toned responses (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991). Consequently, strategies such as venting th at may be interpreted as negative may easily be misdiagnosed as avoidance coping but in a specific situ ation venting one’s emotions may alleviate emotional distress. Lastly, according to Ski nner et al. (2003) PFC and EFC are not considered mutually exclusive; that is, some ways of coping can serve the same functions and can be

PAGE 44

34 placed into both categories. For instance, wh en a student makes a study guide to prepare for exams he/she can be said to util izing problem-focused techniques however developing the study guide may also result in reducing the individua l’s emotional distress related to the exam. Although it may be appeali ng to be able to simply classify lower order categories into these tw o higher order categories (PFC and EFC), it is important to recognize that coping strategies can serve both functions (Lazarus, 1996). Based on the arguments expressed a bove pertaining to the PFC-EFC, and approach-avoidance coping hierarchies, it is di fficult to classify the higher dimensions of coping into simply functional or topological groups. As a resu lt of the concerns described above, Skinner et al. (2003) proposed a classi fication scheme that re sulted from their own review of over 100 category systems of coping. Aspects of this classification scheme will be used in the present study. From their analysis, Skinner et al. (2 003) identified 13 po ssible higher-order families of coping. These higher-order familie s of coping were further reduced to (1) problem solving, (2) support seeking, (3) a voidance, (4) distrac tion, and (5) positive cognitive restructuring. The read er is instructed to see Skinner et al., 2003 for further information about how these authors arrive d at their conclusions. Problem-solving was defined as strategies such as instrumental action, taking direct action, making decisions, or planning. The second major coping dime nsion, support seeking, was made up of seeking comfort from others, seeking advice from others, or spir itual support through prayer. Avoidance or escape coping consisted of behaviors used to disengage or stay away from the situation, such as denying the presence of the situ ation. Distraction is defined by active attempts to direct attention away from the situation, such as watching

PAGE 45

35 television or reading. And finally, positive cogniti ve restructuring refers to an individual changing his or her interpreta tion of the stressful event in to something more positive. Because of the methods and analyses presented by Skinner et al. (2003) these five higherorder coping dimensions will be used in the present study, while utilizing an adapted form of the COPE. What follows is empirical evidence demonstrating the relationships between aspects of personality and coping within general psychology literature. Focus will be placed on the general psychology literature due to the lack of research on the influence of the FFM on coping within the sports context. Th en, a review of pertin ent literature within the sports will follow. Links between Coping and the FFM Lazarus (1999) contended that individual di fferences must be taken into account to allow full understanding of stress and coping. According to Lazarus (1999), “Reactions under stress cannot be predicted w ithout reference to personality traits and processes that account for the individual di fferences in the ways people respond to a so-called stressful stimulus” (p. 55). Thus, the uniqueness of an i ndividual plays a large role in the way the person interprets and c opes with stress. In the following paragraphs, specific focus will be placed on the infl uence of the FFM on individuals’ coping responses. Firstly, Neuroticism (N) has a strong pos itive relationship with negative affect (Costa & McCrae, 1980), and individuals high in N are more likely to appraise situations in a negative manner; that is, they tend to appraise situations as threats rather than challenges (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1984). Also, r ecall that neurotic individuals are characterized as possessing higher levels of depression and anxiety, along

PAGE 46

36 with negative emotions (Costa & Mc Crae, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1984; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989). Research has shown that N is strongly related to coping (Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and this relationship has been shown to be evident in college samples (Endler & Parker, 1990; O’brien & De longis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), caregivers (Hooker, Frazier, & Monahan, 1994), and middle-aged adults (David & Suls, 1999). For instance, Watson and Hubbard (1996) investigated the relationship between N and typical coping responses of college students. Results showed that individuals high in N are more likely to utilize EFC strategies, such as behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement, and venting of emotions. Addi tionally, other research ers have shown that highly neurotic individu als are less likely to engage in PFC strategies (Endler & Parker, 1990; Hooker et al., 1994; O’br ien & Delongis, 1996) than le ss neurotic individuals. Also, highly neurotic individuals are less likely to use positive reapprai sal to cope with stress (Carver, Scheier, & We intraub, 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). In contrast, extraverted individuals are characterized by possessing positive emotions, being highly sociable, gregarious, and talkative, and they tend to view stressful events as challenges rather than threats (C osta & McCrae, 1985). Da vid and Suls (1999) evaluated the relationship between Extraversi on (E) and coping strategies of 95 middleaged men over the course of eight days using a daily coping measurement. Results showed that extraverts tend to utilize more social support seeking, and in conjunction to appraising stressful situations as challenges, high E individuals are more likely to use positive reappraisal to cope with stressful events (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls, 1999). Furthermor e, these results were supported in college students (Watson & Hubbard, 1996; O’brien & Delongis, 1996), caregivers

PAGE 47

37 (Hooker et al., 1994), and middleaged adults (David & Suls, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1986). With regard to other aspects of the Bi g-Five, some researchers have found that Conscientiousness is related to coping (Hooke r et al., 1994; Vickers, Kolar, & Hervig, 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). For instance, Hooker et al. (1994) investigated the relationship between personality and coping re sponses used by caregivers of dementia patients. Within this sample, individuals hi gh in C utilized PFC strategies; and, highly conscientious individuals were less likely to use EFC strategi es, such as behavioral or mental disengagement. These results were also supported in a military sample (Vickers et al., 1989) and college students (O’brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). Some researchers have found no relati onships between Agreeableness (A) and coping responses (David & Suls, 1999), while other studies have re vealed significant but modest relationships (Vicke rs et al., 1989; Watson & Hubba rd, 1996; Hooker et al., 1994; O’brien & Delongis, 1996). In the studies where a relationship has been evident, agreeable individuals tended to use more pl anning and positive reinterpretation (Watson & Hubbard, 1996), more support seeking (H ooker et al., 1994; O’brien & Delongis, 1996), and less likely to use EFC strategies such as alcohol or drug use (Watson & Hubbard, 1996), or avoidance (Hooker et al., 1994). Discrepancies have existed in research that has examined links between Openness to experience (O) and coping. Some studies found that there ha s been no relationship between O and coping responses (Hooker et al., 1994) but ot her researchers have found a negative relationship between O and the use of religion, (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and distracti on (David & Suls, 1999), while other studies have found a

PAGE 48

38 weak positive relationship between ope nness and positive reappraisal (O’brien & Delongis, 1996; Vickers et al., 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and taking direct action or planning (David & Suls, 1999; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). In the previously cited studi es, the relationship between aspects of personality and coping behavior has been investigated in a va riety of populations. Spec ifically, links have been shown in undergraduate college st udents (Endler & Parker, 1990; O’Brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), comm unity dwelling adults (David & Suls, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1986), spouses and ca regivers (Hooker et al., 1994), and the military (Vickers et al., 1989). However, ther e has been no evidence supporting this link within an athletic context. The present st udy will fill this void in the research by examining the link between aspects of persona lity and coping responses within a sport context. However, the literature related to st ress and coping in athletics is imperative to determine the practicality of this line of re search. For the purpose of this review, the evidence supporting the relationship between in dividual differences and coping responses in sports will be offered. Stress and Coping Research in Sport Research has shown that athletes are faced with numerous sources of stress such as precompetition anxiety, personal and others ex pectations, time management concerns, injury and health issues, teammate conflicts and/or practice con cerns (Giacobbi, Lynn, Wetherington, Jenkins, Bodendorf, & Langl ey, 2004; Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1992; Gould, Jackson, & Finch, 1993). It should be noted that these studies have also indicated that coping is a dynamic, complex process in response to stressful situations. In other words, individuals coping re sponses often alter and evolve as individuals’ knowledge, exposure, appraisals, and experien ce with the situ ation change.

PAGE 49

39 For instance, Gould et al. ( 1992) investigated the coping strategies used by the 20 members of the 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling team. Their results revealed that the athletes used four general coping dimensions during competition: thought control, task focus, emotional control, and behavior-based st rategies; and, each of these strategies were used simultaneously or combined. Additiona lly, Gould, Finch and Jackson (1993) asked national figure skaters to desc ribe the coping strategies us ed during their career after becoming national champions. Their results al so revealed a complex assortment of coping strategies (e.g., rational thinking and self talk, social support, ignoring the stressor to name a few) where each stress source was linked to a unique group of coping responses, and a number of strategies were often used in combin ation to alleviate a variety of stressors. There have been few studies examining links between individual differences and coping behaviors within an athlet ic context. To test the role of individual differences in athletics, Giacobbi and Weinbe rg (2000) investigated the coping responses of high and low trait anxious college athletes. Their result s revealed that high a nxious athletes used different coping strategies th an low anxious athletes. Spec ifically, high trait anxious athletes reported significantly more behavioral disengagement, self-blame, humor, denial and wishful thinking than low trait anxious athletes. These results lend support to the relationship between individual differences and coping with ac ute stress in athletics. Hammermeister and Burton (2001) investigated the antecedents, specifically threat, control and perceived coping resources, of cognitive and somatic anxiety in endurance athletes. Results revealed strong evidence for the antecedents of anxiety, and differential responses between low and high state anxious individuals. The high anxious athletes

PAGE 50

40 tended to have lower coping scores than m oderate and low anxious athletes, while the former athletes used more emotion-focused coping strategies. In terms of the use of problem-focused coping, there were fewer differences between highand low-anxious athletes. However, the authors suggested that this discrepancy in PFC strategies was due to the proximity of the data collection (1-2 days prior to endurance race) when PFC strategies should not be used unt il the start of the event. Nevertheless, the results of this study supported the view that the level of state anxiet y (an individual difference) influenced the coping strategies used by athl etes and offered support for Lazarus (1991) and colleagues’ (Lazarus & Folkma n, 1984) theoretical predictions. The reviewed studies have investigated links between individual differences and coping behavior among athletes. These studies have examined this link with college athletes (Giacobbi & Weinberg, 2000), a nd endurance athletes (Hammermeister & Burton, 2001). However, these investigations ha ve dealt with acute stressors and none of the studies examined broad personality dis positions, such as the FFM, and athletes’ responses to chronic sources of stress. In the present study, I will investigate the relationship between individual differences and coping responses using the FFM, and I will assess coping in response to a reoccurr ing source of stress – time management. Life Satisfaction as a Coping Outcome a nd Possible Implications from this Study Although the objective of this study is to ex amine the relationship between aspects of personality and coping, it is imperative to elaborate on the practicality of these results to athletes, coaches, theoreticians, and app lied sport psychologists. How does recognizing the personality-coping relationship benefit applie d practitioners in sport? Firstly, it is helpful to determine the relationships between aspects of personality, coping and specific outcomes in order to elucidate how individua ls respond to physically and psychologically

PAGE 51

41 demanding circumstances. With such an understanding, it is hoped that future intervention models and studies can be devel oped to foster appropriate coping strategies for individuals in high stress circumstances. Based upon the predictions from this study, such intervention models would need to be tailored for individuals based explicitly on their personality characteristic s. Additionally, this study would suggest specific coping strategies that would most lik ely lead to enhanced life sati sfaction and could therefore be recommended as a specific way to respond to chronic stress associated with time management concerns. Life satisfaction is a component of s ubjective well-being, which is individuals’ evaluation of their personal lives (Diener, Suh, Lucas, Smith, 1999). In this context, life satisfaction refers to a “c ognitively, judgmental process” (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985, p. 71). According to Shin and John son (1978), life satisfaction is defined as “a global assessment of a person’s quality of life according to his chosen criteria” (p. 478). Therefore, what is acceptable or satisf actory by one person may not be satisfactory for another individual. Thus, Diener et al. (1985) developed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) to assess a person’s overall evaluation of his/her life. Previous sc ales were developed in an attempt to assess individuals’ global satisfac tion. Nevertheless, the SWLS is a five-item measurement tool shown to have adequate internal consistency ( = .87) and a twomonth test-retest reliability ( = .82), and it has convergent and discriminant validity between a number of personality scales and other subjective well-bei ng scales (Diener et al., 1985; see Pavot & Diener, 1993, for a review). In the next section, I will briefly

PAGE 52

42 review empirical evidence demonstrating th e relationship between life satisfaction and coping, and life satisfaction and the FFM. Life Satisfaction and Coping Links between positive emotional states, subjective well-being, and health have been documented in recent years (Ka hneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). Thus, subjective states such as physic al well-being, affect and/or sa tisfaction in particular life contexts have long been advocated as an important outcome associated with coping (Folkman, 1992; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); and th ese factors are considered to indicate successful adaptation to sport (Reimer & Chelladurai, 1998). Within the general population, forms of c oping have shown to be related to life satisfaction. For instance, Mc Conaghy and Caltabiano (2005) s howed that practical forms of coping were positively relate d to life satisfaction in de mentia caregivers. That is, caregivers that were more likely to use c oping strategies such as active coping, planning, seeking instrumental social support and positiv e reappraisal tended to have a higher level of life satisfaction. Additi onally, McCrae and Costa (1986) revealed a negative relationship between neurotic coping and life satisfaction in adults between the ages of 24-91 years. Life Satisfaction and the FFM Due to the lack of research utilizing the FFM within an athletic population, the evidence exhibiting the relations hip between the FFM and life satisfaction is within nonathletic populations. DeNeve and Coope r (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 148 articles, and these results showed relations hips between the FFM and life satisfaction. Specifically, E and C tend to have a positive relationship, while N tends to have a negative relationship with life satisfaction; however, no relationships have been found

PAGE 53

43 between O, A, and life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003). These relationships have b een shown to exist within the general population and even within cancer patients. Thus, this study will further test the rela tionships between aspects of personality, coping responses, and life satisf action within an athletic c ontext. Specifically, the study will be utilizing the FFM to determine any apparent relationships between these broad personality dimensions and coping responses. Furthermore, the present study will investigate relationships between these concep ts and life satisfaction within an athletic context. Rationale Vealey (2002) summarized the knowledge of sport personality by explaining that there have been no consistent findings of an athletic personality; that is, researchers have not consistently found athletes possessing spec ial characteristics or differences between subgroups of athletes. Sport personality rese archers have emphasized that there are numerous methodological issues, such as paradi gmatic discrepancies, a lack of theoretical backgrounds, inappropriate definitions, and inappropriate inventories, which have prevented consistent and accurate findings within the field (Martens, 1975; Vealey, 1989). Additionally, past sport research has attempted to find a relationship between special individual characteristics and athle tic performance, which may have led to numerous inaccurate findings due to invali d ways of measuring athletic performance (Vealey, 1989). The present study will addr ess these methodological i ssues. Firstly, I will be primarily utilizing the dispositional paradigm to explain the results found in the present study. Concerning the lack of theoretical fram eworks, I will be integrating the cognitive-

PAGE 54

44 motivational-relational theory of stress, emotion and coping (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and the FFM to assess rela tionships between a source of stress and individuals’ personality traits Lastly, due to the lack of adequate knowledge about the athletes’ emotions and feelings resulting fr om objectively measuring performance, the present study will be measuring athletes’ life satisfaction and how it relates to coping and the FFM. In the next secti on, the specific purposes of the study will be described. Purposes The present study will attempt to integr ate Lazarus (1999) cognitive-motivationalrelational theory of stress, emotion, and copi ng with current developments in personality psychology and examine interrelationships be tween aspects of personality, coping, and life satisfaction with collegiate athletes. Specifically, the present study has the following purposes: 1) to use Lazarus’ (1999) cognitive -motivational-relationa l theory of stress, emotion, and coping to assess personality pred ictors of coping responses to stressful situations experienced by competitive athletes; and 2) to examine interrelationships between personality, coping, and the athletes’ life satisfaction. Speci fically, to test the mediation role of coping in the pers onality-life satisfa ction relationship. Hypothesis Purpose 1 It was hypothesized that there will be diffe rences in the relationship between the five basic dimensions and the coping res ponses utilized by the athletes. Specifically, athletes high in N are expect ed to utilize less PFC responses such as active coping, and more likely to utilize responses such as, me ntal disengagement, behavior disengagement, or venting of emotions than individuals lo w in neuroticism. Also, highly extroverted athletes are expected to seek more social support to cope with situations, and more

PAGE 55

45 problem-focused or active coping than low extr averted individuals. Finally, conscientious athletes were predicted to utilize more act ive coping, planning, and positive reappraisal than individuals scoring low in conscienti ousness. These predictions are based on the general psychology literature reviewed in the above chapter (Watson & Hubbard, 1996; O’Brien & Delongis, 1996; Da vid & Suls, 1999). Consequentl y, due to the discrepancies reviewed about the results pertaining to Openness and Agreeableness, no specific predictions will be made about these two dime nsions and their relationship with coping. Purpose 2 It was hypothesized that there will be diffe rences in the relationship between the five personality dimensions and the level of life satisfaction, as well as the relationship between specific coping respons es and life satisfaction. Spec ifically, N, E, and C are expected to have a relationship between life satisfaction, while for O and A no relationship is expected to be shown. That is, individuals high in N ar e expected to have a low level of life satisfaction, while individuals high in E a nd C are expected to have a high level of life satisfaction. Additionally, specific coping responses are expected to be related to higher levels of life satisfacti on. That is, avoidance and distraction are hypothesized to be related to lower levels of life satisfaction; on the other hand, problem solving, social support and positive reappraisal ar e expected to be related to higher levels of life satisfaction. These relationshi ps are shown in Figure 1-1(c). Purpose 3 Figure 1-1 (a) depicts the hypot hesized frameworks expected to arise from running a structural equation model on the data. It is expected that avoidance and distraction coping will mediate the relati onship between N and life satisf action; and, PFC strategies will mediate the relationship between E and C and life satisfaction. Specifically, highly

PAGE 56

46 neurotic individuals are expected to possess a relatively low life satisfaction; while highly extroverted and conscientious individuals are expected to have a relatively high life satisfaction. And lastly, avoida nce and distraction coping st rategies are expected to mediate the relationship between neuroticis m and life satisfaction; while, problem solving, social support, and positive reappraisa l are expected to mediate the relationship between E and C and life satisfaction.

PAGE 57

47 Figure 1-1. Structural models for the relati onship between personality, coping and life satisfaction. (a) Full mediation model, (b ) Partial mediation model, (c) Direct effects model Personality Coping Life Satisfaction (a) Personality Coping Life Satisfaction (b) Personality Coping Life Satisfaction (c)

PAGE 58

48 CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants The participants were 256 collegiate at hletes (33% male, 65% female, 2% not disclosed) representing Nationa l Collegiate Athletic Associa tion (NCAA) Division I, II, III and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (N AIA) schools. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (84% White/C aucasian, 6% Black/African American, 4% Other, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic/Latino) that competed in swimming (44%), soccer (10%), track and field (8%), baseball (3%), volleyball (4%), lacrosse (10%), and other sports (20%) and ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M = 19.5, SD = 1.3). The sample comprised of 70 freshman, 91 sophomores, 47 juniors, and 40 seniors who have participated in their sport for an average of 9 years (SD = 4.8). Measures Demographics. Participants were asked to indica te their age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), and ethnicity (Black/African Am erican, Asian, White/Caucasian, Hispanic, Other). Additionally, part icipants were asked to indicate th eir sport, their year in school, the number of years competing in their sport, and the number of enrolled class credits. (See Appendix B). Coping Scale As an adaptation of the COPE and to reduce the burden on participants, definitions of the 15 coping stra tegies offered by Carver et al. (1989) were provided and participants were asked to rate the degree they used the strategies on a scale from 1 “I did not do this at all” to 4 “I did th is a lot” to cope with a specific stressor (time

PAGE 59

49 management). Additionally, these 15 coping st rategies were grouped together in the following manner consistent with recent theorizing by Skinner et al. (2003). Problem Solving was made up of Active co ping (taking action, exerting efforts, to remove or circumvent the stressor), Pla nning (thinking about how to confront the stressor, planning one's active coping effort s), and Suppression of Competing Activities (suppressing one's attention to other activities in which one might engage, in order to concentrate more completely on dealing with the stressor). Social Support was comprised of Seeking Instrumental Social Support (seeking assistance, information, or advice about what to do), Seeking Emotional Social S upport (getting sympathy or emotional support from someone), Focus on and Venting of Em otions (an increased awareness of one's emotional distress, and a concomitant tendency to ventilate or discha rge those feelings), and Religion (increased engagement in relig ious activities). The Avoidance dimension comprised of Restraint Coping (coping passi vely by holding back one's coping attempts until they can be of use), Behavioral Disenga gement (giving up, or withdrawing effort from, the attempt to attain the goal with whic h the stressor is interf ering), and Denial (an attempt to reject the reality of the stressful event). Distraction wa s made up of Mental Disengagement (psychological disengagement from the goal with which the stressor is interfering, through daydreaming, sleep, or se lf-distraction), Alcohol /Drug Use (turning to the use of alcohol or other drugs as a way of disengaging from the stressor), and Acceptance (accepting the fact that the stressf ul event has occurred and is real). And lastly, Positive Reappraisal was made up of Positive Reinterpretation and Growth (making the best of the situation by growing from it, or viewing it in a more favorable light), and Humor (making jokes about the st ressor). These coping scales showed very

PAGE 60

50 low estimates of internal consistency (a lpha) in the present study ranging from .01 (Distraction) to .47 (Social Support). Pl ease see Appendix C for a copy of this measurement. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) The NEO Five-factor Inventory is the 60-item short-form of the revised NEO Persona lity Inventory which a ssess the five broad dimensions of personality: Neuroticism (e.g., I am not a worrier) Extraversion (e.g., I laugh easily) Openness (e.g., Poetry has little or no effect on me) Agreeableness (e.g., I try to be courteous to everyone I meet) and Conscientiousness (e.g., I keep my belongings clean and neat). Par ticipants are asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongl y disagree (5). Costa and McCrae (1992b) demonstrated that the scale’s subscales were moderately to strongly reliable and correlated highly with the corr esponding scales of the full NEO Personality Inventory. In the present study, the NEO-FFI showed adequate estimates of internal consistency for Neuroticism ( = .82), Extraversion ( = .77), Conscientiousness ( = .84), Openness ( = .71), and Agreeableness ( = .71). See Appendix D for a copy of this inventory. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) The Satisfaction with Life Scale is a 5item uni-dimensional scale used to measure gl obal life satisfaction. Participants were asked to respond to items, such as, “In most ways my life is close to my ideal,” on a 7point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to str ongly agree (7). Please see Appendix E for the full instructions and copy of this scale. Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) reported desira ble psychometric properties w ith a two-month test-retest score of .82 and a strong internal consistenc y of .87. For a detailed review of the scale’s

PAGE 61

51 reliability and validity, the reader is direct ed to Pavot and Diener (1993). The internal consistency of the measure for the present study was = .85. Procedures Participants were recruited from Divisi on I, II, III and NAIA universities. To facilitate recruitment, coaches were sent in formation about the study as well as specific instructions that were used to communicate pertinent information to their athletes (if needed). The purpose of the study was then expl ained to the participants either by their coach or by the lead investigator. Before completing any questionnaires, partic ipants were initially asked to review and sign an informed consent (See Appendix A for a copy of the Institutional Review Board approval – UFIRB# 2005-0-162), and were then given personal codes to access the surveys. However, to reduce the burden on pa rticipants and their coaches, participants were later sent a link (via their coach) to acce ss the website without a code. In the latter case, the purpose of the study wa s explained in the email and the IRB informed consent was placed on the first page. Therefore, c onsent was implied on ce the participants proceeded to the surveys. It took appr oximately 20 minutes to complete four questionnaires. Data Analysis The data was initially scanned for missing data, which resulted in the deletion of some participants’ responses. That is, based on recommendations by Costa and McCrae (1992b), if there were 10 or more missing resp onses or if 4 or more responses are missing on any one subscale of the NEO-FFI, authors s hould delete the part icipant from the study. However, any other missing data should be re placed with a mid-score response. Next, the appropriate items on the NEO-FFI were revers e-scored and the scores were checked to

PAGE 62

52 ensure that they fell within the suitable numer ic range. Descriptive analyses such as the means, standard deviations, score ranges, subs cale scores, and alpha coefficients for all measures were calculated and assessed. Next, a measurement model was tested on the NEO-FFI, the COPE, and the SWLS for each set of variables (set 1: Neuroticism, Avoidance, Di straction, Life Satisfaction; set 2: Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Pr oblem Solving, Social Support, Positive Reappraisal, Life Satisfaction) to examine c onstruct reliability. Then, structural equation modeling (SEM), using LISREL 8 (Jreskog & Sorbum, 1993) was used to examine the coping-mediation hypotheses. Specifically, the fo llowing indices were used to determine the goodness-of-fit for each of the models: (1) the non-normed fit index (NNFI); (2) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximati on (RMSEA); (3) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); (4) 2/df ratio (Q); and (5) the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI). A model exhibiting a good fit would show a GFI and NNFI, values greater than .90, a Q value less than 3, and a RMSEA less than .06. However, the GFI, NNFI, and the CFI were more likely to overestimate the model fit as the sample size increases; thus, the RMSEA was mainly used to determine model fit. Finally, the ECVI will be used to compare models with similar fit indices. According to J reskog and Srbom, (1993) models with lower ECVI values are generally preferable. The mediating role of coping To determine mediating effects of coping, each set of three models was compared using an eval uation of the fit indices and the chi-square difference test. The direct effect model repr esents the direct as sociation between two independent variables with one dependent va riable (Figures 1c and 2c). The fully mediated model represents the indirect e ffects of the independent variable through a

PAGE 63

53 mediating variable on the depende nt variable (Figures 1a and 2a). The partially mediated model represents both the dire ct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable and the indirect effect of the i ndependent variable on the dependent variable through the mediator (Figures 1b and 2b). If a complete mediating relationship were present, the indirect effect would be significant and the direct effect would be nonsignificant; if there is only partial mediation, both the indi rect effects and the direct effects would be significant. In order to examine the relationships between the independent, mediator, and depe ndent variables the path coefficients were examined for significance. I then followed the recommenda tions and conditions discussed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to determine whether my mediatonal hypotheses were supported. Specifically, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), three conditions must be met for mediation to be established. First, variations in the inde pendent variable, in this case personality, must account for va riations in the dependent va riable (life satisfaction); second, variations of the mediat or (coping) are significantly asso ciated with variations in the dependent variable (life sa tisfaction); and third, variations of the independent variable must affect the mediator. When these path s are controlled a previously significant association between the independe nt variable of personality a nd the dependent variable of life satisfaction will no l onger be significant.

PAGE 64

54 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Preliminary Analysis The sample was originally made up of 283 stude nt-athletes. However, 27 participants were excluded from the study due to missing data which re sulted in the final sample of 256 participants. The descriptive statistics and in tercorrelations among th e coping subscales, personality dimensions and life satisfaction are s hown in Table 3-1. In the case of in ternal consistenc y, the personality subscales and life satisfaction scale showed ade quate alpha values; however, the coping scales revealed less than ideal scores. Low to mode rate intercorrelations were found among the coping subscales (.13 to .35) and the personality dimensions (.15 to .31) with the pe rsonality dimension of N was significantly related to lower scores of E, C and A. The pattern of relationships also revealed that E was significantly related to C and A but the magnitude of these associations were generally small. The magnitude of the correlations betw een the personality dimensions and the coping subscales range from .13 to .55. However, none of the FFM subscales were significantly related to seeking instrumental social suppor t, suppression of competing activit ies, or focus on and venting of emotions. Additionally, results revealed that acti ve coping, planning, positive reappraisal, humor and behavioral disengagement were significantly related to life satisfaction, with behavioral disengagement exhibiting a negati ve relationship with lif e satisfaction. As expe cted, the pattern of associations between life satisfaction and elements of personality were consistent with theoretical predictions and empirical studies within the general population (D eNeve & Cooper (1998): Extraverts and conscientious indivi duals were most satisfied while ne urotics were least satisfied with their lives.

PAGE 65

55 Finally, the scores for all of the persona lity subscales (Neuro ticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness and Agreeableness) and the life satisfaction scores for the participants in this study were within one standard deviation of normative da ta (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Diener et al., 1985). However, a closer examination of the life satisfaction scores rev ealed that the skewness values were -1.20 while kurtosis was 1.48, which indicates moderate skewness and kurtosis. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were significant indicating the data for life satisfaction was not normally distributed, therefor e, a log-linear transformation was conducted for this scale in an attempt to normalize the data.

PAGE 66

56Table 3-1. Descriptive Statistic s and Intercorrelations among C oping scales, Personality dimensions, and Life Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Active 1 2. Planning .35** 1 3. ISS .07 .08 1 4. ESS .01 -.01 .31** 1 5. Sup .19** .12 .13* .11 1 6. Religion .14* 0.09 .19** .14* .08 1 7. PS .37** .39** .12 -.13* .15* .07 1 8. Restraint .01 .04 .05 -.07 .10 .06 .07 1 9. Accept. .19** .27** 0.00 -.11 -.03 .02 .23** 0.00 1 10. Focus .11 .12 .18** .31** .05 .00 -.03 -.03 .12 1 11. Denial .01 .01 .06 .24** .14* -.04 -.14* .22** -.09 .07 12. Mental -.06 0.00 .09 .12 .03 -.04 .03 .07 .03 .05 13. Behav -.05 -.17** .05 .07 .09 -.08 -.22** .08 -.10 -.07 14. Alcohol -.02 -.07 .05 .04 .04 -.16* -.11 .05 -.17** .19** 15. Humor .06 .06 .06 -.03 -.02 .04 .20** .12 .14* 0.03 16. C .31** .55** .02 .06 .10 .12 .26** -.05 .23** .10 17. E .16* .15* .12 .13* -.01 .09 .17** .03 .02 .07 18. O 0.00 -.07 .02 .04 .11 -.14* .09 .05 -.07 .11 19. A .12 .15* .11 .16* -.02 .10 .14* .03 .04 .06 20. N -.11 -.10 .10 .20** -.02 -.03 -.28** .05 -.23** .08 21. LS .15* .17** -.02 .04 .04 .08 .24** 0.00 .07 .08 M 2.75 3.12 2.51 2.52 2.43 1.89 3.07 2.06 3.25 2.70 SD 0.79 0.82 0.9 0.92 0.85 1.05 0.87 0.79 0.7 0.86 Note ISS = Instrumental social support, ESS = Emotional social support, Sup = Suppression of competing activities, PS = Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Restraint = Restraint coping, Accept = Acceptance, Focus = Focus on and venting of emotions, Menta l = Mental disengagement, Behav. = Behavior al disengagement, Alcohol = Alcohol and drug use, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism, LS = Life Satisfaction. *p < 0.05 level, two-tailed. **p < 0.01 level, two-tailed

PAGE 67

57Table 3-1 Continued 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 11. Denial 1 12. Mental .24** 1 13. Behav .29** .36** 1 14. Alcohol .10 .12 .15* 1 15. Humor -0.06 0.12 -.01 .06 1 16. C -.14* -.23** -.36** -.14* .06 1 17. E .13* -.03 -.05 .05 .24** .20** 1 18. O .02 .14* .04 .17** .06 -.09 -.03 1 19. A -.08 -.03 -.07 -.11 .02 .15* .31** .02 1 20. N .28** .19** .22** .05 -.22** -.24** -.27** -.01 -.16* 1 21. LS -.06 -.10 -.18** -.05 .18** .28** .35** -.07 .18** -.42** 1 M 1.74 2.33 1.70 1.47 3.03 33.40 32.30 27.90 31.90 19.90 26.90 SD 0.73 0.9 0.76 0.72 0.93 6.34 5.85 6.10 5.49 7.14 5.50 Note ISS = Instrumental social support, ESS = Emotional social support, Sup = Suppression of competing activities, PS = Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, Restraint = Restraint coping, Accept = Acceptance, Focus = Focus on and venting of emotions, Menta l = Mental disengagement, Behav. = Behavior al disengagement, Alcohol = Alcohol and drug use, C = Conscientiousness, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism, LS = Life Satisfaction. *p < 0.05 level, two-tailed. **p < 0.01 level, two-tailed

PAGE 68

58 Measurement Model 1 The first step in this portion of the analys is was to test the construct reliability of the variables for set 1 (Neuroticism, Avoidan ce, Distraction, and Li fe Satisfaction) and set 2 (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation, and Life Satisfaction). In order to test the hypothesized factor models originally proposed a series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. As shown in Table 3 – 2 below, the results of the original mode l or set 1A using Neuroticism, Avoidance, Distraction, and Life Satisfaction revealed the NNFI was below .90, the GFI was .76, the Q score ( 2/ df ratio) was above 3, and the RMSEA was .09, which indicated an unacceptable fit. Consequently, subsequent models were run with a combined avoidance and distraction coping factor based on theoretical predictions and past research in order to determine whether improvements in the model might be observed. As shown in Table 32 there were improvements made in the goodness of fit statistics of this model which was labeled Set 1B. However, a close examin ation of the residual matrices revealed problems with model 1B. According to Bago zzi and Yi (1989) models with fewer than 10% of the residuals with values more than .10 are preferable. An examination of the fitted residual matrix revealed that 37% of the residuals were greater than .10 with the vast majority being derived from the Neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI. Additionally, due to the skew ed Neuroticism scores, all observed variables for these scales were transformed using a log-linear transformation and these scores were then used in a subsequent measurement model (Set 1C). The results of this model revealed similar values for the RMSEA, NNFI, and CRA fit indices to Set 1B but with this model less than 10% of the f itted residuals were more than .10. Thus, model 1C was used in

PAGE 69

59 subsequent analyses. The item loadings, theta-delta, and R-squared values for this measurement model are shown in Table 3 3. Table 3-2. Fit Indices for Measurement Model Sets 1, 2, and 3 Model NNFI RMSEA 90% CIa pclose GFI 2/df ECVI 90% CIb 1A .81 .09 .08; .11 .000 .76 2.02 4.39 3.93; 4.90 1B .85 .08 .07; .08 .000 .83 2.43 2.54 2.29; 2.83 1C .82 .07 .06; .08 .000 .84 2.13 2.28 2.05; 2.54 2A .86 .07 .06; .07 .000 .84 2.15 2.93 2.66; 3.23 2B .89 .07 .06; .08 .000 .87 2.22 1.97 1.76; 2.22 3A .92 .06 .06; .07 .000 .84 2.05 2.82 2.56; 3.11 3B .93 .07 .06; .07 .000 .87 2.10 2.07 1.85; 2.32 Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSE A = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI = Expected Cross-validation Inde x; 1A = Neuroticism, Avoi dance, Distraction, and Life Satisfaction; 1B = Neuroticism, combin ed avoidance and distraction, and Life Satisfaction, 1C = Neurotic ism (transformed scores), Combined avoidance and distraction, and Life Satisfaction; 2A = Extraversion, Problem Solving, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, So cial Support, and Life Satisfa ction; 2B = Extraversion, Social Support, and Life Satisfaction; 3A = Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Social Support, Positive Reinterpretation and Gr owth, and Life Satisfaction; 3B = Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positiv e Reinterpretation and Growth, and Life Satisfaction. a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values. Measurement Models 2 and 3 Based on the results of the bivariate corre lations between E and C reported above, a decision was made to run separate models us ing these two personality dimensions labeled as Set 2A (Extroversion, Problem-Solving, Po sitive Reinterpretation and Growth, and Social Support as one general coping factor, and Life Satisfa ction) Set 2B (Extroversion, Social Support, and Life Satisfaction) Set3A (Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Social Support, and Positive Reinterpretation and Growth as one single factor, and Life

PAGE 70

60 Satisfaction) and Set 3B (Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth as one single factor, and Life Satisfaction). These models were developed based upon theorizing about links between the personality dimensions of extroversion and conscientiousness with coping. As shown in Table 3 – 2, there were similarities in model 2A with 2B and between models 3A a nd 3B. In this case the differences between two models can be assessed by examining the ECVI values; models with ECVI estimates generally indicate a better fit to the data (Browne & Cudeck 1993). As shown in Table 32, the ECVI values for models 2B and 3B we re lower than model 2A and 3A respectively indicating better fit. Therefore, I used models 2B and 3B in the main analyses. The factor loadings, theta-delta, and r-squared values for models 2B and 3B can be seen in Tables 3–4 and 3–5 respectively. In summary, the most appropriate m odels used to conduct the subsequent mediational models were Sets 1C, 2B, a nd 3B. Pertaining to the models’ convergent validity, the average extracted variance ( AVE) exceeded the recommended value of .50 for the life satisfaction scale in each model with the Neuroticism personality subscale; however the other subscales (Extraversion = .25, Social Support = .23, Conscientiousness = .33, Cognitive coping = .24, Avoidance coping = .27) were below .50 indicating more specific (error and unique) variance than common variance. Add itionally, the residual matrices revealed that all of the current m odels had less than 10% residuals greater than .10, which is preferable. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 3-2, based on the NNFI, RMSEA, test for close fit, and ECVI values the results indicate that these measurement models fit the data reasonably well.

PAGE 71

61 Table 3-3. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta a nd R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set 1C Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R Neuroticism 1. .70 .51 .49 2 .81 .35 .65 3 .65 .58 .42 4 .91 .17 .83 5 .77 .40 .60 6 .66 .56 .44 7 .90 .19 .81 8 .54 .70 .30 9 .65 .58 .42 10 .74 .45 .55 11 .80 .36 .64 12 .75 .44 .56 Avoidance 13 .76 .43 .57 14 .59 .65 .35 15 .66 .57 .43 16 .29 .91 .09 17 .25 .94 .06 18 -.33 .89 .11 Life Satisfaction 19 .83 .31 .69 20 .75 .43 .57 21 .88 .23 .77 22 .69 .52 .48 23 .66 .56 .44 Table 3-4. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta a nd R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set 2B Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R Extraversion 1. .47 .78 .22 2 .70 .52 .48 3 .30 .91 .09 4 .68 .54 .46 5 .40 .84 .16 6 .37 .86 .14

PAGE 72

62 Table 3-4 Continued Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R 7 .52 .73 .27 8 .78 .38 .62 9 .61 .63 .37 10 .21 .96 .04 11 .33 .89 .11 12 .29 .91 .09 Social-Support 13 .47 .77 .23 14 .67 .55 .45 15 .24 .94 .06 16 .42 83 .17 Life Satisfaction 17 .75 .44 .56 18 .72 .48 .52 19 .88 .22 .78 20 .66 .56 .44 21 .62 .62 .38 Table 3-5. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta a nd R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set 3B Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R Conscientiousness 1. .45 .79 .21 2 .62 .62 .38 3 .27 .93 .07 4 .46 .79 .21 5 .56 .69 .31 6 .56 .69 .31 7 .65 .58 .42 8 .58 .67 .33 9 .57 .68 .32 10 .77 .40 .60 11 .55 .70 .30 12 .68 .54 .46 Cognitive Coping 13 .55 .70 .30 14 .72 .48 .52 15 .22 .95 .05 16 .54 .71 .29

PAGE 73

63 Table 3-5 continued Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R 17 .15 .98 .02 Life Satisfaction 17 .75 .43 .57 18 .72 .49 .51 19 .88 .23 .77 20 .66 .56 .44 21 .62 .62 .38 Mediational Model 1 In order to test the mediating role of coping in the Neuroticism-Life Satisfaction relationship three models were tested. The thir d model shown in Figure 1-1(c), referred to as a direct effects model, predicts that Ne uroticism and Avoidance coping will each be independently related to Life Satisfaction. The second partially mediated model, in Figure 1-1(b), predicts that each of the late nt factors will be associated with Life Satisfaction but an additiona l path has linked Neuroticism with Avoidance coping. Finally, the hypothesized or fully mediated mo del, in Figure 1-1(a) predicts that Avoidance coping mediates the relationship be tween Neuroticism and Life Satisfaction. As shown in Table 3-6, the test for close fit for all three models was not rejected and the partially mediated model fit the data better than both the direct effects and fully mediated models as there were higher NNF I and GFI values along with lower RMSEA and ECVI values for the former model. A dditionally, the ECVI value for the partially mediated model was lower as compared to the direct effects and the fully mediated models. These results would indi cate that the partially mediated model fits the data better than the other two models but it is also show s that it is plausible that the model closely fits the population. However, closer examinati on of the path coefficients of the direct effects model revealed that there was no si gnificant relationship between avoidance and

PAGE 74

64 life satisfaction ( = -.02). Thus, due to the lack of the avoidance-life satisfaction relationship mediation cannot be establis hed based on recommendations made by Baron and Kenny (1986). Table 3-6. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 1 Model NNFI RMSEA 90% CIa pclose GFI 2/df ECVI 90% CIb Direct Effects .94 .05 .04; .06 .69 .89 1.56 1.78 1.59; 1.99 Partially Mediated .95 .04 .03; .05 .90 .90 1.46 1.68 1.51; 1.89 Fully Mediated .94 .05 .04; .06 .67 .89 1.57 1.78 1.60; 2.00 Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSE A = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI = Expected Cross-validation Index. a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values. Mediational Model 2 In order to test the mediating role of coping in the Extrovers ion-Life Satisfaction relationship three models were tested usi ng identical procedures as described in mediational model 1. To review, mediational model two tested whether social support mediated the relationship between extroversi on and life satisfaction. The results of these models shown in Table 3 – 7 revealed similari ties in the NNFI, RMSEA, and GFI values. In addition, the chi-square degrees of freedom ratio was significant for all models while the ECVI values were very close to one a nother with overlapping confidence intervals. Since these models are nested, a chi-squa re difference test was calculated making comparisons between the direct effects and partially mediated models and the fully mediated with the partially mediated models The results of the comparison between the direct effects and partially medi ated models proved significant ( 2 = 6.63, df = 1, p < .01), which suggests that the part ially mediated model fits the data better than the direct effects model. Additionally, the chi-square di fference test between the partially mediated

PAGE 75

65 and fully mediated model was also significant ( 2 = 22.93, df = 1, p < .0001), which also suggests that the partially mediated mode l fits the data better than the full mediation model. However similar to the above model, closer examination of the path coefficients of the direct effects model revealed that there was no significant relationship between social support and life satisfaction ( = -.01), which revealed that mediation cannot be established. Table 3-7. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 2 Model NNFI RMSEA 90% CIa pclose GFI 2/df ECVI 90% CIb Direct Effects .88 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.24 1.99 1.77; 2.24 Partially Mediated .89 .07 .06; .08 .00 .87 2.22 1.97 1.76; 2.22 Fully Mediated .87 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.33 2.05 1.83; 2.31 Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSE A = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI = Expected Cross-validation Index. a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values. Mediational Model 3 The results of mediational model 3 involving measurement model 3B described above can be seen in Table 3–8. Recall from previous discussions that measurement model 3B involved Conscientiousness as the personality variable, cognitive coping characterized as problem-solving and positive reinterpretation and growth as the mediator, with life satisfaction as the depende nt variable. As shown in Table 3–8 all three models displayed similar fit indices with th e GFI values all exceeding .90 and all three RMSEA values at .07. In order to facilita te comparisons between models I conducted chi-squared difference tests b ecause of the nested structure of the data. The results revealed significant differences between th e direct effects model and the partially

PAGE 76

66 mediated model ( 2 = 47.35, df = 1, p < .0001) indicating that the partially mediated model fits the data better than the direct effects model. However, the test comparing the partially mediated with the fully me diated model was not significant ( 2 = .80, df = 1, p = .37), which indicated that the fully mediated m odel fits the data as well as or better than the partially mediated model. Another more stringent means of comparing models is to use the ECVI and RMSEA values along with their respective confidence intervals. An examination of these values indicated si milar fit indices and overlapping confidence intervals and therefore these models fit the data equally well. To further test for mediation, I examined the path coefficients for each model. For the direct effects model the paths between conscientiousness and life satisfaction ( = .17) and cognitive coping and life satisfaction ( = .21) were both si gnificant indicating the possibility of mediation. I then examined the partially mediated model and observed significant paths between conscien tiousness and cognitive coping ( = .69) but nonsignificant paths between conscien tiousness and life satisfaction ( = .17) and between cognitive coping and life satisfaction ( = .14). Finally, the fully mediated model demonstrated significant paths from conscientiousness and cognitive coping ( = .70) and between cognitive coping and life satisfaction ( = .29). In summary, it would appear that the fully mediated model with significant associations between conscientiousness and cognitive coping and between this form of coping with life satisfaction fits the data best.

PAGE 77

67 Table 3-8. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 3 Model NNFI RMSEA90% CIa pclose GFI 2/df ECVI 90% CIb Direct Effects .91 .07 .06; .08 .00 .85 2.35 2.28 2.04; 2.55 Partially Mediated .93 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.13 2.10 1.88; 2.35 Fully Mediated .93 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.12 2.09 1.87; 2.34 Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSE A = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI = Expected Cross-validation Index. a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values.

PAGE 78

68 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Conclusion The purposes of the present study were to examine interrelationships between personality, coping and life satisfaction with college student-athletes. Firstly, I assessed the relationship between the Big Five pers onality dimensions and coping responses by using Lazarus’ (1999) cognitiv e-motivational-relational theo ry of stress, emotion and coping as a general framework. Secondly, I ex amined relationships between personality, coping and life satisfaction, which included test ing the mediational role of coping in the personality-life satisf action relationship. Considering the relationship between pe rsonality and life satisfaction it was expected that Neuroticism, Extraversion, a nd Conscientiousness would be significantly related to life satisfaction and coping woul d mediate the personality-life satisfaction relationship (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Cour neya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003). Based upon past research it was hypothesized th at neurotic individua ls would use more avoidant coping responses and have lower levels of life sa tisfaction (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1990). In support of this research, the bi variate correlations in the present study revealed significant negative associations between neuroticism and life satisfaction. Additionally, past research re ported that neurotic individu als were more likely to use emotion-focused coping and avoidance coping responses and less likely to use positive reappraisal when dealing w ith stress (Endler & Parker 1990; Hooker, Frazier, & Monahan, 1994; O’brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls,

PAGE 79

69 1999). The correlations of the present study s upported past research by revealing that neuroticism was significantly associated w ith mental and behavi oral disengagement, denial, and emotional social support and less lik ely to use positive reappraisal and humor. With regard to extraversion, individuals with more of this trait are characterized as being talkative, gregarious and exhibiti ng a positive affect (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1990). Past research showed that extraverted individuals tend to be happier leading to high levels of life satisfacti on (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Cour neya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003), they are more likely to use soci al support, problem so lving strategies and positive reappraisal (Endler & Parker, 1990; H ooker, et. al, 1994; O’brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls, 1999). In support of past research, the present results showed the extraverted athl etes tended to have high levels of life satisfaction and were more likely to use active coping, planning, seek emotional social support, positive reappraisal and humor. Finally, with regard to co nscientiousness these individua ls are characterized as being reliable, hard-working, and self-disci plined (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and based on past research conscientious individuals tend to also possess high levels of life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003), are more likely to use problem-focused coping strategies and le ss likely to use emotion-focused strategies such as mental and behavioral disengagem ent (Hooker et al., 1994; Vickers et al., 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). The results of the present study supported past research as conscientiousness was significantly associated with active coping, planning, positive reappraisal, and acceptance.

PAGE 80

70 Pertaining to the coping-life satisfaction re lationship, past research has shown that “practical forms of coping” such as active coping, planning, seeking instrumental social support, and positive reappraisal tended to be related to high levels of life satisfaction (McConaghy & Caltabiano, 2005), while neurotic forms of coping has shown to have a negative relationship with life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Additionally, past research has shown that neurot ic individuals tend to have lo w levels of life satisfaction, while extraverted and conscien tious individuals possess high levels of life satisfaction. Consequently, it seemed appropriate to test the mediation of neurotic forms of coping on the Neuroticism-life satisfaction relationship, an d the mediation of the practical forms of coping on the Extraversion-life satisfaction relationship and the Conscientious-life satisfaction relationship. The results of the model with neuroticis m as the personality dimension revealed that within the direct effects model ther e were no significant paths observed between coping and life satisfaction. Based on the recommendations by Baron and Kenny (1986) all three conditions have not been met th erefore mediation cannot be established. Consequently, there was no evidence to support any coping mediation between neuroticism and life satisfaction w ithin the present sample. With regard to extroversion, it was expect ed that social support would mediate the relationship between extraversion and life sati sfaction. Similar to th e neuroticism model, results also revealed that there was no si gnificant path between so cial support and life satisfaction, resulting in a lack of qualification of mediation. Thus, there was no evidence to support for my hypothesis of a full mediated model for extraversion.

PAGE 81

71 Finally, the model with conscientiousne ss had more promising results but my interpretation of these findings are cautious. Upon inspection of the direct paths to life satisfaction from conscientiousness and cogniti ve coping, the results revealed that they were significant and I theref ore followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) basic steps by then testing the partially and fully mediated mode ls. From my perspective however there was some confusion in the literature regarding what is actually described by Baron and Kenny and precedent in the structural equation m odeling literature regarding mediation. For instance, on David Kenny’s webpage at www .davidakenny.net four steps are outlined that pertain to Baron and Kenny and these step s appear to represen t tests of mediation using regression procedures. According to my interpretation and ex trapolation of these steps mediation can be established within model three because the path coefficients connecting personality to life satisfaction in the partially mediated model decreased and were no longer significant. However, there does not seem to be consensus using SEM procedures to test mediation as comparisons of model fit seem to be plausible when testing direct effects, partiall y, and fully mediated models. To summarize, the present study was only able to show par tial support to the hypothesized mediational role of coping on the relationship between personality and life satisfaction. In the present sample, coping does not seem to mediate neurotic or extraverted athletes’ leve l of life satisfaction. Howe ver, coping may mediate conscientious athletes’ level of life satisfaction. Specifically, a hard-working, reliable and self-disciplined athlete who copes with time management constraints by actively planning and having a positive reappraisal of the situation would tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction than conscientious athletes who did not use these coping strategies. Whether

PAGE 82

72 or not these findings are robust require re plication and indeed clarification of methodological and statistical procedures by more experienced scholars. Study Weaknesses and Future Directions I proposed that coping would play a mediating role betw een aspects of personality and life satisfaction. These predictions seemed to make sense because as postulated by Lazarus (1991) coping should be related to important cognitive and affective outcomes. Since coping did not mediate the relationship between neuroticism and life satisfaction and between extroversion and life satisfaction several ques tions remain unanswered and statistical shortcomings in the pr esent study should be highlighted. To begin, the measurement of coping may have been problematic for several reasons. First, there was clea rly a lot of unexplained varian ce in our models involving coping and indeed the low alpha estimates s uggest that my measure of coping was not adequately tapping into this construct. One possible explanation for this could be methodological in nature. In the presen t study we assessed personality and life satisfaction which have been shown to be rela tively stable constructs over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Deiner, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999) and relatively impervious to minor daily hassles such as time management conc erns. However, within our measurement of coping we asked participants to indicate how they generally coped with time management concerns which is a specific s ources of stress. Another more practical approach might be to assess student-athletes general coping strate gies not in reference to any specific source of stress. There were also a number of statistical w eaknesses related to this study. Firstly, the lack of coping-life satisfacti on relationship may be statistic ally due to the use of an inappropriate scale and the s cale’s lack of convergent vali dity. Specifically, the coping

PAGE 83

73 subscales’ Cronbach’s alpha values, the factor loadings and the AVE scores were low. Specifically, the low alpha scores reflect the lack of reliability exhibi ted by the scale. In terms of the low factor loadings (ranging from .13 to .76), this indica tes that this coping scale may not be measuring the actual f actors or concepts that were proposed. Additionally, the low AVE scores indicate th at there is too much unexplained variance which can be accounted for by measurement error and/or unique varian ce rather than the common variance of the scale. It is important to note that the coping scale used in the present study was an adaptation of the COPE and was used to reduc e participant burden and was still in its experimental stage. Within this experimental measure, single items were combined to make up a broad dimension. It may have been more suitable to utilize one specific coping item to correspond with a respective personal ity dimension, and subsequently run that item as a mediator based on past researc h. This procedure may aid in reducing the amount of variance found in the present study. Ne vertheless, future research must ensure the use of a more statistically sound coping scale in order to test the present study’s proposed models. Secondly, besides the coping-life satisfacti on relationship, there seems to be other statistical problems associated with the test ed models besides the coping scale. It is important to note here that the scores between N and life satisfaction were transformed, which allowed the sample scores to be norma lized. Consequently, th e N-life satisfaction relationship is between the transformed scores of N and the transformed scores of life satisfaction rather than the raw scores.

PAGE 84

74 Similar to the coping scale, there also seemed to be issues related to the Extraversion and Conscientiousness subscal es. In the case of these subscales, no transformation was needed because the scores were normally distributed and less than 10% of the fitted residuals were lower th an .10. However, each subscale possessed low factor loadings and the AVE scores of both of these subscales were below the recommended .50 which revealed that the scal es may be measuring different concepts, and as discussed earlier too much is unexplai ned variance. For example in the case of E, the sub-traits of E (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive affect) may not actually correlate adequately within the NEO-PI-R, therefore the items in the 'short version' of the NEO may not be measuring the appropriate concept of Extraversion. It should be noted that this is speculation and furt her research needs to be conducted in order to determ ine the validity of this person ality scale within a collegestudent-athlete sample. To summarize, there may be a conceptual limitation and a number of statistical weaknesses associated with this study whic h makes it difficult to make any substantial inferences or generalizations based on the re sults of the study. Speci fically, a more broad analysis of the type of stre ssor and the consequential coping responses needs to be used to investigate any further coping-life satisfa ction relationship. A dditionally, with the exception of the transformed data (Neuroticism and life satisfaction), most of the factor loadings for all of the subs cales were below the recommended .70 and the AVE scores were below the accepted value of .50 indicati ng a lack of validity for the personality, coping and life satisfaction scales. Due to th ese model inadequacies, more research needs

PAGE 85

75 to be conducted to further test these rela tionships to ensure appropriate practical implications for the personality-coping-life satisfaction model.

PAGE 86

76 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY TO: All Research Participants FROM: Leah Martindale RE: Informed Consent STUDY TITLE : How do athletes’ personalities and coping resp onses influence their satisfaction with life? PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT : The purpose of this statement is to summarize the study I am conducting, explain what I am asking you to do, and to assure you that the information you and other participants share will be kept comp letely confidential to the extent permitted by law. Specifically, nobody besides the Principal Investigator will be able to iden tify you in this study and your name will not be used in any research reports that result from this project. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO: If you agree to pa rticipate in this study, you will be asked to complete a demographic form and four questionnaires related to you and your sport. The questionnaires will be related to your personal style, your attitude an d interpretation towards a stre ssful situation, and your life satisfaction. These questionnaires will be coded and your name will not be placed on any of them. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. TIME REQUIRED : Approximately 30-40 minutes will be taken to complete these questionnaires. RISKS AND BENEFITS: You may experience mild discomfort as a result of some of the questions. Benefits will include a better understanding of the infl uence of athletes’ personalities on coping and their satisfaction with their sport. COMPENSATION: No compensation is given as a result of this study CONFIDENTIALITY: Your identity will be kept confiden tial to the extent provided by law. All surveys will be kept in my office (Room 117 Florida Gym) in a lo cked file cabinet. Your name will not be used in any report. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Your participation in th is study is completely voluntary. You should not feel compelled in any way whatsoever. There is no penalty for not participating. RIGHT TO WITHDRAW: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. WHOM TO CONTACT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY: Leah Simone Martindale, Graduate Assistant, Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, P. O. Box 118207, 117 Florida Gym, Gainesville, FL 32611-8207, phone – 392-0580 ext. 1367, email – lmartindale@hhp.ufl.edu. WHOM TO CONTACT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS AS A RESEARCH PARTICIPANT IN THE STUDY: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph. 392-0433.

PAGE 87

77 AGREEMENT: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: _____________________________________________Date:___________ Principal Investigator: ____________________________________Date:___________

PAGE 88

78 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Please complete the following demographic info rmation. Please keep in mind that all of your information will be confidential. Please indicate your gender: 1. Male 2. Female Please indicate what sport you compete in: 1. Swimming 2. Soccer 3. Track and Field/cross country 4. Baseball 5. Volleyball 6. Lacrosse 7. Other Please indicate your ye ar in college: 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Graduate student What is your age? _____ Please indicate your ethnicity: 1. Black/African American 2. Asian 3. White/Caucasian 4. Hispanic 5. Native American 6. Other Please indicate the number of year s you have participated in your s port: ____ How many credits are you pres ently enrolled in school? 1. 1-3 credits 2. 4-6 credits 3. 7-11 credits 4. 12 or more credit

PAGE 89

79 APPENDIX C COPING SCALE Athletes are faced with numerous stressors as they pr epare to train and compete in their sports. For most athletes, one of the main stressors is balancing their time efficiently to fulfill their numerous roles. These time management issues can include having to balance training/competing with classes and exams, with interpersonal relationships, or a specific occupation. Instructions: Please rate the degree to which you used these strategies on a scale of 1 (very little) to 4 (a lot) to cope with your time management obstacles. Please circle the appropriate response. 1. Active coping: Taking action, exerting efforts, to remove or circumvent the stressor. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 2. Planning: Thinking about how to confront the stressor, planning one's active coping efforts. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 3. Seeking Instrumental Social Support: Seeking assistance, information, or advice about what to do. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 4. Seeking Emotional Social Support: Getting sympathy or emotional support from someone Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 5. Suppression of Competing Activities: Suppressi ng one's attention to other activities in which one might engage, in order to concentrate more completely on dealing with the stressor. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 6. Religion: Increased engagement in religious activities Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 7. Positive Reinterpretation and Growth: Making the best of the situation by growing from it, or viewing it in a more favorable light. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4

PAGE 90

80 8. Restraint Coping: Coping passively by holding back one's coping attempts until they can be of use. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 9. Acceptance: Acceptin g the face that the stressful event has occurred and is real. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 10. Focus on and Venting of Emotions: An increased awareness of one's emotional distress, and a concomitant tendency to ventilate or discharge those feelings. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 11. Denial: An attempt to reject the reality of the stressful event. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 12. Mental Disengagement: psychological disengagement from the goal with which the stressor is interfering, through daydreaming, sleep, or self-distraction. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 13. Behavioral Disengagement: Giving up, or withdrawing effort from, the attempt to attain the goal with which the stressor is interfering. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 14. Alcohol/Drug Use: Turning to the use of alcohol or other drugs as a way of disengaging from the stressor. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4 15. Humor: Making jokes about the stressor. Very little A lot 1 2 3 4

PAGE 91

81 APPENDIX D NEO FIVE FACTOR INVENTORY Please indicate your agreement with each item by circling the appropriate number. Fill in only one response for each statement. Circle: 1 if you strongly disagree or the statement is false 2 if you disagree or the statement is mostly false 3 if you are neutral, you cannot deci de, or the statement is equally true and false. 4 if you agree or the statement is mostly true. 5 if you strongly agree or the statement is definitely true. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 1. I am not a worrier. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I like to have a lot of people around me. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I don’t like to waste my time daydreaming. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. 1 2 3 4 5 5. I keep my belongings neat and clean. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I often feel inferior to others. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I laugh easily. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Once I find the right way to do something, I stick to it. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I often get into arguments with my family and coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I am pretty good about pacing myself to get things done on time. 1 2 3 4 5 11. When I’m under a great deal of stress, I feel like I am going to pieces. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I don’t consider myself “light hearted.” 1 2 3 4 5 13. I am intrigued by the patterns I find in art and nature. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 92

82 14. Some people think I am selfish and egotistical. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 15. I am not a very methodological person. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I rarely feel lonely or blue. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I really enjoy talking to people. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I would rather cooperate with others than compete against them. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I try to perform all tasks assigned to me conscientiously. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I often feel tense and jittery. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I like to be where the action is. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Poetry has little or no effect on me. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of othe rs’ intentions. 1 2 3 4 5 25. I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Sometimes I feel completely worthless. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I usually prefer to do things alone. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I often try new foreign foods. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I believe that most people will take advantage of you if you let them. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I waste a lot of time before settling down to work. 1 2 3 4 5 31. I rarely feel fearful or anxious.1 2 3 4 5 32. I often feel as if I’m bursting with energy. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I seldom notice the moods or feelings that different environments produce. 1 2 3 4 5 34. Most people I know like me. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 93

83 35. I work hard to accomplish my goals. 1 2 3 4 5 36. I often get angry at the way people treat me. 1 2 3 4 5 37. I am a cheerful, high-spirited person. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree 38. I believe we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. 1 2 3 4 5 39. Some people think of me as cold and calculating. 1 2 3 4 5 40. When I make a commitment, I can always be counted on to follow through. 1 2 3 4 5 41. Too often, when things go wrong, I get discouraged and feel like giving up. 1 2 3 4 5 42. I am not a cheerful optimist. 1 2 3 4 5 43. Sometimes when I am reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of excitement. 1 2 3 4 5 44. I’m hard headed and tough minded in my attitudes. 1 2 3 4 5 45. Sometimes I am not as dependable or reliable as I should be. 1 2 3 4 5 46. I am seldom depressed. 1 2 3 4 5 47. My life is fast paced. 1 2 3 4 5 48. I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human condition. 1 2 3 4 5 49. I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate. 1 2 3 4 5 50. I am a productive person who always gets the job done. 1 2 3 4 5 51. I often feel helpless and want someone to solve my problems. 1 2 3 4 5 52. I am a very active person. 1 2 3 4 5 53. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity. 1 2 3 4 5 54. If I don’t like people, I let 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 94

84 them know it. 55. I never seem to be able to get organized. 1 2 3 4 5 56. At times I have been so ashamed I just want to hide. 1 2 3 4 5 57. I would rather go my own way than be a leader of others. 1 2 3 4 5 58. I often enjoy playing with theories of abstract ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 59. If necessary, I am willing to manipulate people to get what I want. 1 2 3 4 5 60. I strive for excellence in everything I do. 1 2 3 4 5 Have you responded to all the statements? ___YES ___NO Have you responded accurately a nd honestly? ___YES ___NO

PAGE 95

85 APPENDIX E THE SATISFACTION WI TH LIFE SCALE Below are five statements with which you ma y agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each it em by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding. The 7 point scale is: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = slightly disagree 4 = neither agree nor disagree 5 = slightly agree 6 = agree 7 = strongly agree 1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. ___ 2. The conditions of my life are excellent.___ 3. I am satisfied with my life. ___ 4. So far I have gotten the importa nt things I want in life. ___ 5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. _____

PAGE 96

86 LIST OF REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psycholog ical interpretation New York: Holt. Allport, G. W., & Odbert H.S. (193 6). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs 47. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon & Schuster. Andersen, M. B., & Williams, J. M. (1999). Athletic injury, psychosocial factors, and perceptual changes during stress. Journal of Sport Sciences 17, 735-741. Bagozzi, R. P, & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research 26, 271-284. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and acti on: A social cognitive theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control New York: Freeman. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mode rator-mediator variab le distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis tical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173-1182. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piont rowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediati ng effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 43-51. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 377-391. Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. ( 2000). The profile of mood states and athletic performance: Two meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 12, 46-68. Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 4, 139-157. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in ps ychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review 80, 307-336.

PAGE 97

87 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternativ e ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research. Psychological Review 75, 203-219. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior New York: Springer-Verlag. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1983). A cont rol-theory model of normal behavior, and implications for problems in self-m anagement. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 127-194). New York: Academic Press. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically ba sed approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 267-283. Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarif ication of primary personality factors. Psychometrika 12, 197-220. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of persona lity. II. Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38, 476-507. Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measur ement of personality Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World. Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theo retical, and factual study New York: McGraw-Hill. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality Baltimore: Penguin Books. Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire San Francisco: JosseyBass. Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Develo pment of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 21, 47-59. Claeys, W. (1980). Modern interactionism in personality psychology. In J. R. Nuttin (Ed.), Gedrag, dynamische relatie en betekeniswereld (pp. 221-237). Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven. Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., Ey, S., & Howell, D. C. (1996). When mom and dad has cancer II: Coping, cognitive appraisals and psychological distress in children of cancer patients. Health Psychology 15, 167-175.

PAGE 98

88 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still st able after all these y ears: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old ag e. In Baltes, P.B. & Brim, O. G., Jr. (Eds.). Life span development and behavior (pp. 65-102). New York: Academic Press. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Persona lity in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 853-863. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personal ity disorders ad the fi ve factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders 4, 362-371. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual differences 13, 653-665. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Masters, H. L., Herbst, J. H ., Trobst, K. K., & Wiggins, J. S. (1998, March). Neuroticism and lack of Conscientiousness as potential predisposing factors for HIV infection. Paper presented at the Annual convention of the Society for Behavioral Medici ne, New Orleans. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 12, 887-898. Courneya, K.S., Bobick, T.M., Rhodes, R.E., Jones, L.W., Friedenreich, C.M, et al. (2000). Personality correlates of patients’ subjective well-being after surgery for colorectal cancer: An applica tion of the five-factor model. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 18, 61-72. Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90, 439-447. Crocker, P.R.E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping. International Journal of Sport Psychology 23, 161-175. Crocker, P.R.E, & Graham, T.R. (1995) Coping by competitive athletes with performance stress: Gender differen ces and relationships with affect. The Sport Psychologist 9, 325-338.

PAGE 99

89 Crocker, P.R.E, Alderman, R.B., & Smit h, F.M.R. (1988). Cognitive affective stress management training with high performa nce youth volleyball players: Effects on affect, cognition, and performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 10, 448-460. David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of big five traits and problem appraisals. Journal of Personality 67, 265-294. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49, 71-75. Dunn, W., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & On es, D. S. (1995). The relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology 80, 500-509. Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and health adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 12, 33-54. Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the situation: A pseudo issue? A response to Alker. Journal of Personality 41, 287-303. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidim ensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 844-854. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological bas is of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd edition). London: Methuen. Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Eysenck on extraversion New York: Wiley. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). The manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory London: University of London Press. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Ey senck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: EdITS. Fischer, C.T. (1989) Personality and assessment In R.S. Valle, & H. Steen (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience New York, NY: Plenum Press (pp. 157-178). Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factor ial structures of pers onality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44, 329-344. Fiske, D. W. (1974). The limits of the conventional science of personality. Journal of Personality 42, 1-11.

PAGE 100

90 Flett, R. A., Kazantzis, N., Long, N. R., & MacDonald, C. (2002). Traumatic events and physical health in a New Zealand community sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress 15, 303-312. Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case fo r coping. In B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research and application (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Praeger. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analys is of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21, 219-239. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it cha nges it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 150-170. Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. And Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychol ogical works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 12-66). London: Hogarth Press. (Ori ginal work published 1923). Giacobbi, P. R., Lynn, T. K., Wetherington, J. M., Jenkins, J., Bodendorf, M., & Langley, B. (2004). Stress and coping dur ing the transition to univers ity for first-year female athletes. The Sport Psychologist 18, 1-20. Giacobbi, P.G. & Weinberg, R.S. (2000). An ex amination of coping in sport: Individual trait anxiety differences a nd situational consistency. The Sport Psychologist 14, 42-62. Gough, H.G. (1987). California Psychol ogical Inventory administrator’s guide Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Gould, D., Eklund, R.C., & Jackson, S.A. (1992). 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling excellence II thoughts and a ffect during competition. The Sport Psychologist 6, 383-402. Gould, D., Finch S., & Jackson, S.A. ( 1993). Coping strategies used by national champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 64, 453-468. Gould, D., Jackson, S. A., & Finch, S. (1993). Sources of stress in national champion figure skaters. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 15, 134-159. Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. ( 1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist 10, 341-366. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality New York: McGraw Hill. Hammermeister, J., & Burton, D. (1993). Do es anxiety reduce the limits of human endurance?: Perceived threat, control, and coping resources as antecedents of competive anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 15 (supplement), S39.

PAGE 101

91 Hammermeister, J., & Burton, D. (2001). St ress, appraisal, and coping revisited: Examining the antecedents of competitive state anxiety with endurance athletes. The Sport Psychologist 18, 66-90. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (Revised edition) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hogan, R. (1989). Review of the NEO personal ity inventory. In Conoley, J.C., & J. J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 546-547). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Hogan, R. (1990). Personality and personality measurement. In M.D. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Busch, C. (1984). How to measure service orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 157-163. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist 51, 469477. Hooker, K., Frazier, L. D., & Monahan, D. J. (1994). Personality and coping among caregivers of spouses with dementia. The Gerontologist 34, 386-392. John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality 2, 171-203. Jreskog, K. G., & Sorbum, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language Chicago, IL: Scientific So ftware International Inc. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Kane, J. E. (1964). Personality and p hysical ability. In K. Kato (Ed.), Proceedings of international congre ss of sport sciences (pp. 201-208). Tokyo: Japanese Union of Sport Sciences. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lazarus, R. S. & Cohn, J. B. (1977). Environmen tal stress. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the Environment: Current Theory and Research (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping NY: Springer.

PAGE 102

92 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-m otivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist 46, 819-834. Lazarus, R. S. (1996). The role of coping in the emotions and how coping changes over the life course. In C. Maletesta-Magni, & S. H. McFadden (Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development, and aging (pp. 289-306). New York: Academic Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and Emotion : A new synthesis. Ne w York, NY: Springer. Leong, F. T. L. & Dollinger, S. J. (1990). NE O personality inventory. In D. J. Keyser, & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Critiques (Vol. VIII, pp. 527-539). Austin, TX: PROED. Lewin, E. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality New York: McGraw-Hill. Madden, C. C., Summers, J.J., & Brown, D.F. (1990). The influence of perceived stress on coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology 21, 21-35. Malumphy, T. M. (1968). Personality of women athletes in intercollegiate competition. Research Quarterly 39, 610-620. Martens, R. (1975). The paradigmatic crisis in American sport personology. Sportwissenschaft 1, 9-24. McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual histor y of personality psychology. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 3-39). San Diego: Academic Press. McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 566-573. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 6, 587-597. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Pe rsonality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality 54, 385-405. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Ro tation to maximize the construct validity of factors in the NEO Pe rsonality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24, 107-124. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A c ontemplated revision of the NEO five factor inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 36, 587-596.

PAGE 103

93 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An intr oduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60, 175-215. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concep ts, natural language, and psychological constructs: The Californi a Psychological Inventory and the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality 61, 1-26. McFarlane, A. C., Atchison, M., Rafalowicz, E., & Papay, P. (1995). Physical symptoms in post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 38, 715-726. McNair, D.M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L.F. (1981). Profile of Mood States San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Zi mmerman, R. S., Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (2004). The utility of the five factor model in understanding risk behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 36, 1611-1626. Millon, T. (1983). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory manual (3rd edition). Minneapolis, MN: Interpre tive Scoring Systems. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment New York: Wiley. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive so cial learning recon ceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80, 252-283. Morgan, W. P. (1968). Personality characterist ics of wrestlers partic ipating in the world championships. Journal of Sports Medici ne and Physical Fitness 8, 212-216. Morgan, W. P. (1980). The trait psychology controversy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 51, 50-76. Morgan, W. P., O’Connor, P. J., Ellickson, K. A., & Bradley, P. W. (1988). Personality structure, mood states, and performan ce in elite male distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology 19, 247-263. Morgan, W.P. & Johnson, R.W. (1978). Pers onality characteristics of successful and unsuccessful oarsmen. International Journal of Sport Psychology 9, 119-133. Morgan, W.P. & Pollock, M. (1977). Psychological characteristics of the elite distance runner. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 301, 382-403. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five factor model of personality and performance in jobs involvi ng interpersonal interactions. Human Performance 11, 145-165. Nagle, F. J., Morgan, W. P., Helickson, R. O., Serfass, R. C., & Alexander, J. F. (1975). Spotting success traits in Olympic contenders. Physician and Sportsmedicine 3, 31-34.

PAGE 104

94 Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of pers onality attributes: Replicated factor structure in pe er nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66, 574-583. O’Brien, T. B. & Delongis, A. (1996). The in teractional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the big five personality factors. Journal of Personality 64, 775-813. O’Connor, K.A. & Webb, J.L. (1976). Investig ation of personality traits of college female athletes and non athletes. Research Quarterly 47, 203-210. O’Dell, J.W. (1971). Method for dete cting random answers on personality questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 55, 380-383. Ogilivie, B. C. & Tutko, T. A. (1971). Sport: If you want to build character, try something else. Psychology Today 5, 60-63. Passer, M. W. & Seese, M. D. (1983). Life st resses and athletic injury: Examination of positive and negative events and three moderator variables. Journal of Human Stress 9, 11-16. Patterson, E. L., Smith, R. E., & Everett, J. J. (1998). Psychosocial factors as predictors of ballet injuries: Interactive effect s of life stress and social support. Journal of Sport Behavior 21, 101-112. Pavot, W. & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction of life scale. Psychological Assessment 5, 164-172. Peterson, S. L., Weber, J. C., & Trousdale, W. W. (1967). Personality traits of women in team sports vs. women in individual sports. Research Quarterly 38, 686-690. Prapavessis, H. (2000). The POMS a nd sports performance: A review. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 12, 34-48. Ptacek, J. T. & Pierce, G. R. (2003). Issu es in the study of stress and coping in rehabilitation settings. Rehabilitation Psychology 48, 113-124. Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content an alysis of the affective, behavioral and cognitive processes represented in the Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847-858. Raedeke, T. D. & Smith, A. L. (2004). Coping Resources and Athlete Burnout: An Examination of Stress Mediated and Moderation Hypotheses. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 26, 525-541. Raedeke, T. D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19, 396-417.

PAGE 105

95 Raedeke, T.D, & Smith, A.L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 23, 281-306. Reimer, H. A. & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 20, 127-156. Renger, R. (1993). A review of the profile of mod states in the pr ediction of athletic success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 5, 78-84. Robins, R.W., Fraley, R.C., Roberts, B.W., & Trzesniewski, K.H. (2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality 69, 617640. Roth, S. & Cohen, L. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rowley, A., Landers, D., Kyllo, L., & Etni er, J. (1995). Does the iceberg profile discriminate between successful and less successful athletes ? A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 17, 185-199. Rushall, B. S. (1970). An evaluation of the relationship between pe rsonality and physical performance categories. In G. S. Kenyon (Ed.), Contemporary psychology of sport Chicago, IL: Athletic Institute. Rushall, B. S. (1972). The status of personality research and application in sports and physical education Paper presented at the Physic al education Forum, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiet y, self-mastery, and self-est eem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 1063, 1078. Sherman, S. J. & Fazio, R. H. (1983). Parallels between attitudes and traits as predictors of behavior. Journal of Personality 51, 308-345. Shin, D. C., & Johnson, D. M. (1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research 5, 475-492. Singer, R. N. (1988). Psychological testing: What value to coaches and athletes? International Journal of Sport Psychology 19, 87-106. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 106

96 Skinner, E.A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sher wood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of ca tegory systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin 129, 216-269. Slusher, H. S. (1964). Persona lity and intelligence characteris tics of selected high school athletes and non athletes. Research Quarterly 38, 539-545. Smith, R. E. (1980). A cognitive-affective appr oach to stress management training for athletes. In C. Nadeau, W. Halliwell, K., Newell, & G. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport-1979 Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, R. E., Schutz, R. W., Smoll, F. L ., & Ptacek, J. T. (1995). Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of sport-specific psychological skills: The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 17, 379-398. Smith, T. W. & Williams, P. G. (1992). Personality and health: Advantages and limitations of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality 60, 395-423. Stoner, S. & Brandy, M. A. (1977). Personality traits of females who participate in intercollegiate competition and non participants. Perceptual and Motor Skills 45, 332-334. Stretch, R. H., Knudson, K. H., & Durand, D. (1998). Effects of premilitary and military trauma on development of post traumatic st ress disorder symptoms in female and male active duty soldiers. Military Medicine 163, 466-470. Trobst, K. K., Wiggins, J. S., Costa, P., Herb st, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Masters, H. L. (2000). Personality psychology and problem be haviors: HIV risk and five factor model. Journal of Personality 68, 1233-1252. Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurre nt personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality 60, 225-251 Tutko, T. A, Lyon, L. P., & Ogilivie, B. C. (1969). Athletic Motivation Inventory San Jose, CA: Institute for the Study of Athletic Motivation. Vealey, R. S. (1989). Sport personology: A pa radigmatic and met hodological analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 11, 216-235. Vealey, R. S. (2002). Personality and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Eds.). Advances in Sport Psychology (2nd Edition) (pp. 43-82). Champa ign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vickers, R. R., Jr., Kolar, D. W., & Hervig, L. K. (1989). Personality correlates of coping with military basic training San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center.

PAGE 107

97 Walton, B (December 23, 2004). Kobe, Shaq and the disease of conceit. ESPN Insider Retrieved January 25, 2005 from http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s tory?columnist=w alton_bill&id=1952828 Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative a ffectivity: The disposi tion to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin 96, 465-490. Watson, D. & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality 64, 737-774. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1992). Pers onality and psychopathology : An application of the five factor model. Journal of Personality 60, 363-393. Wiggins, J. S. & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the big five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 737-765). San Diego: Academic Press. Wiggins, J. S., Masters, H. L., Trobs t, K. K., & Costa, P. (1998, March). Personality determinants of high risk be havior in an HIV-negative sample Paper presented at the Annual convention of the Society fo r Behavioral Medicine, New Orleans. Wiggins, J., & Pincus, A. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorders and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment 1, 305-316. Williams, J.M., Hoepner, B.J., Moody, D.L., & Ogilivie, B.C. (1970). Personality traits of champion level female fencers. Research Quarterly 41, 446-453. Winder, P., O’Dell, J. W., & Karson, S. ( 1975). New motivational di stortion scales for the 16PF. Journal of Personality Assessment 39, 532-537.

PAGE 108

98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Leah Simone Martindale is the younge st of three children, and was born and raised in Bridgetown, Barbados. Her intere st in sport psycholo gy stemmed from her participation in collegiate and internationa l swimming. Leah competed for Barbados at a number of international competitions, and sh e was a 12-time All-American as a member of the University of Florida swimming and diving team. Academi cally, Leah graduated UF with a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology, and later pursued her Master of Science in sport and exercise psychology. Currently, Leah works as an assistant swimming coach at the University of South Carolina, where she is able to teach the performance enhancement skil ls that she has learned.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0016100/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing a Multivariate Model of Personality, Coping and Life Satisfaction in an Athletic Context
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0016100:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0016100/00001

Material Information

Title: Testing a Multivariate Model of Personality, Coping and Life Satisfaction in an Athletic Context
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0016100:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
    List of Figures
        Page viii
    Abstract
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Methods
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Results
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Discussion
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
    Appendices
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
    References
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
    Biographical sketch
        Page 98
Full Text












TESTING A MULTIVARIATE MODEL OF PERSONALITY, COPING AND LIFE
SATISFACTION WITHIN AN ATHLETIC CONTEXT













By

LEAH SIMONE MARTINDALE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Leah Simone Martindale

































This document is dedicated to my late father, Alfred Emmanuel Martindale, and to my
loving mother and hero, Claire "Pinky" Martindale.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Firstly, I would like to make a special thanks to my parents, without whom I would

not have the discipline and dedication to complete this research study. To my advisor, Dr.

Peter Giacobbi Jr., I am extremely grateful for the hard work that he was willing to put

into this project and the time he has taken to explain concepts that were difficult for me to

understand. I would also like to thank my wonderful fiancee for not only his motivation

but also his willingness to stand by me during any challenges I may have encountered

during the completion of this thesis. Additionally, I am thankful for all of the coaches and

athletes who took the time to participate and help me with this project. And finally, I

would like to thank all of my friends and family that have been extremely supportive

through the good, the bad and the ugly over the past few years.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... vii

F IG U R E ........................................................................................................................... v iii

ABSTRACT ............................................................. ix

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................................................. .. ... .... ............... 1

Personality .........................................................................................................................2
Meta-Theoretical Issues in the Study of Personality .......................................2...
Specific Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Personality .............. ...............5
Psychodynam ic approach ........................ ..............................................5...
Trait theories ............................................6
Social-contextual theories ......................................................... ...............8...
H um an-science approach .......................................................... ...............9...
The Five-Factor M odel (FFM ) ....................................................... ................ 10
History of Sport Psychology Personality Literature...................................... 15
P personality M easurem ents.............................................................. ................ 20
N EO personality inventory..................................................... 20
Revised NEO personality inventory ................ .................................... 21
NEO Five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) ..................................................23
Stress and C oping ................................................................................... ............ 24
The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Stress, Emotion and
C o p in g ......................................................................................................... . 2 5
Prim ary appraisals ... .... ...... .......... .............................................. 25
Secondary appraisals .................................... .. ........ ...... ........ ........ ..... 26
Coping responses......................................................................... ........... 27
C oping M easurem ents .................................................................... ................ 28
W ays of coping checklist (W CC)............................................ ................ 28
T he C O P E ............................................................................................ 29
T he m odified C O P E ....................................... ...................... ................ 30
C lassifying W ays of C oping ........................................................... .................. 31
Links betw een Coping and the FFM ....................... .......................................... 35
Stress and C oping R research in Sport..................................................... ................ 38


v









Life Satisfaction as a Coping Outcome and Possible Implications from this Study ..40
Life Satisfaction and Coping ......................................................................42
Life Satisfaction and the FFM ....................................................................42
R a tio n a le .................................................................................................................. ... 4 3
P u rp o se s ...................................................................................................... ....... .. 4 4
H y p o th e sis ................................................................................................................. 4 4
P u rp o se 1 ............................................................................................................. 4 4
P u rp o se 2 ............................................................................................................. 4 5
P u rp o se 3 ............................................................................................................. 4 5

2 M E T H O D S ................................................................................................................ 4 8

P a rtic ip a n ts ................................................................................................................ 4 8
M e a su re s .................................................................................................................. .. 4 8
Procedures ................................................................................ .......................... 51
D ata A n aly sis .............................................................................................................. 5 1

3 R E S U L T S ................................................................................................................. .. 5 4

Prelim inary A analysis .............. ................ ................................................ 54
M easurem ent M odel 1 ......................................... ........................ ................ 58
M easurem ent M odels 2 and 3......................................................... ................ 59
M ediational M odel 1 .............. ............. .............................................. 63
M ediational M odel 2 ................................................................... ................ 64
M ediational M odel 3 .......................................... ......................... ................ 65

4 D IS C U S S IO N ............................................................................................................. 6 8

C o n c lu sio n ....................... .... .............................................................................. .. 6 8
Study Weaknesses and Future Directions.............................................................. 72

APPENDIX

A IN FO R M ED C O N SEN T ........................................... ......................... ................ 76

B DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ..................................................................... 78

C COPING SCALE .......................... ........... ...............................79

D NEO FIVE FACTOR INVENTORY ...................................................................... 81

E THE SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE .................................. ..................... 85

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................................86

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................... 98
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 List of the NEO-PI-R Domains and Facet Level Traits......................................22

3-1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Coping scales, Personality
dim tensions, and L ife Satisfaction ....................................................... ................ 56

3-2 Fit Indices for Measurement Model Sets 1, 2, and 3...........................................59

3-3 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
1 C .......................................................................................................... ....... .. 6 1

3-4 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
2 B .......................................................................................................... ....... .. 6 1

3-5 Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
3 B .......................................................................................................... ....... .. 6 2

3-6 Fit Indices for M ediational A nalyses 1 ............................................... ................ 64

3-7 Fit Indices for M ediational A nalyses 2 ............................................... ................ 65

3-8 Fit Indices for M ediational A nalyses 3 ............................................... ................ 67















FIGURE


Figure page

1-1 Structural models for the relationship between personality, coping and life
satisfaction. (a) Full mediation model, (b) Partial mediation model, (c) Direct
effects m o d el ............................................................................................................ 4 7















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science

TESTING A MULTIVARIATE MODEL OF PERSONALITY, COPING AND LIFE
SATISFACTION WITHIN AN ATHLETIC CONTEXT

By

Leah Simone Martindale

December 2006

Chair: Peter Giacobbi Jr.
Major Department: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology

The purpose of this study was to use structural equation modeling to examine inter-

relationships among aspects of personality, coping with time management stress, and life

satisfaction with collegiate athletes. A sample of 256 athletes (M= 19.5 years) was

administered standardized measurements of personality (NEO-FFI), life satisfaction

(SWLS) and a modification of the COPE to assess coping responses. The results revealed

that high levels of neuroticism were related to emotion-focused coping strategies and low

levels of life satisfaction. Additionally, high levels of extraversion and conscientious

were related to problem solving techniques, and high levels of life satisfaction. No coping

mediation could be established for the Neuroticism or Extraversion models but full

mediation was established for Conscientiousness. However, it is important to note that

appropriate inferences and practical implications should not be made based on the results

of this study because of large amounts of error and unexplained variation with the

measures used. Therefore, further research is needed to make more concrete practical









suggestions to athlete, coaches and college administrators regarding the mediating role of

coping in the personality/life satisfaction relationship.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Despite the millions of dollars made and the relatively good treatment received by

professional basketball players, it is well known that two superstar players Kobe Bryant

and Shaquille O'Neal were dissatisfied with each other during the 2003-2004 basketball

season. Bryant accused O'Neal of lacking leadership, O'Neal accused Bryant with not

being a team player, and both of them accused each other for the team not performing as

it should. Pertaining to this conflict, Bill Walton asked a fitting question in a December

ESPN article why are these guys all so unhappy (Walton, 2004)? Could it be

inappropriate coping responses to performance disappointments? To these questions there

may be many answers and many have speculated that personality conflicts may have

been part of the issue.

Personality psychologists are interested in why individuals think, feel, and act the

way they do (Vealey, 2002). The beginning of the study of personality, also known as

personology, dates back well before the twentieth century when researchers were

attempting to uncover the origins behind individual differences. Historically, focus was

placed on the individual as a whole, and then investigations searched for general

differences between individuals and how these differences predicted behavior. Not until

the 20th century did personality researchers begin to investigate the differences between

different sub-groups of athletes.

The present study will investigate relationships between personality, coping, and

life satisfaction within an athletic context. This chapter will review (1) the history of









personality, (2) the history of the five basic dimensions of personality, (3) the history of

sport personality literature, (4) the measurement of personality, (5) contemporary stress

and coping theory, (6) instruments used to measure coping responses, (7) various coping

classifications, (8) the literature on the relationship between coping and personality, (9)

sport psychology stress and coping research, and (10) correlates and predictors of life

satisfaction.

Personality

Meta-Theoretical Issues in the Study of Personality

Like any other topic in psychology, it is important for personality researchers to

determine what paradigm they support in order to conduct their studies. A paradigm is a

model that is chosen by a researcher to determine his or her line of inquiry in subsequent

projects (Kuhn, 1970). Thus, a paradigm allows the researcher to decide what research

questions to ask and how to pursue the answers to those inquiries. Consequently,

personality researchers have been faced with the debate of accepting specific paradigms

to explain their beliefs about the concept of personality. These paradigms include the

dispositional, situational and interactional paradigms, and the following sections will

review the differences between these paradigms.

The study of individual differences can be traced back to the writings of

Hippocrates and Galen who characterized people as sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic,

or choleric (McAdams, 1997). In the 20th century, Eysenck (1973) helped to

reconceptualize trait-dispositional approaches to the study of personality but the emphasis

on individuals' dispositions remained throughout much of the century (McAdams, 1997).

Contemporary approaches to the trait domain have incorporated cognitions, affects, and

behaviors into its scope (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002); however for the









purpose of this review I will focus on the predictability and the relationship between traits

and behavior. Specifically, as Sherman and Fazio stated, traits can be viewed as "stable

internal structures that serve as pre-dispositions to behavior and could therefore be used

as adequate predictors of behavior" (Sherman & Fazio, 1983, p. 310). For instance,

athletes who have a predisposition or trait to be aggressive would be predicted to engage

in aggressive acts during a football game. Trait theorists believe that individuals' traits

(internal attributes) are constant and stable across situations and these broad dispositions

are considered better predictors of an individuals' behavior than the environment

(Vealey, 2002).

Nevertheless, during the 1970's a rising tide of discontent in personality

psychology emerged which led to some very interesting debate and discussion. Much of

this discontent was the result of several influential critiques of the personality psychology

literature by Carlson (1971), Fiske (1974), and Mischel (1968, 1973). The conclusions

drawn from these critiques were that individuals were a product of the social context, and

that social influences (i.e., culture, upbringing, history) shape personality, as much, if not

more than individual traits. Walter Mischel (1968) introduced the concept of the

'personality coefficient' to represent the .30 association he observed in a series of

experiments between trait measures of personality and observable behavioral indices,

which he believed was not enough to solely account for individuals' behavior.

Specifically, Mischel (1968) conducted a review of the prior fifty years of

personality research and concluded that the assessment of personality dispositions,

through self-report questionnaires, did not adequately account for the variance in

behavior (via behavioral measures). As a result, many believed that the situation was a









better predictor of an individual's behavior (Carlson, 1971; Fiske, 1974; Mischel, 1963,

1973). Hence, the situational perspective posits that situational demands have a larger

influence on behavior than an individual's dispositions or traits. For example, an airline

passenger, who is typically a patient individual, may raise his or her voice at a ticket

agent due to the airline repeatedly delaying a flight that he or she has already been

waiting for three hours to board. Researchers adopting the situational perspective believe

that the passenger's behavior may be explained by the length of time he or she has been

waiting for the plane (the situation), rather than the individual's traits. Consequently, the

critiques outlined above led to three decades of debate and discussion about the relative

influence of traits versus states and some even claimed that personality psychology as a

whole was dead (McAdams, 1997).

The dispositional-situational paradigm debate, also known as the person-situation

debate, resulted in the emergence of a different perspective: Interactionism (e.g., Endler,

1973; Claeys, 1980). Interactionism posits that behavior is a result of an interaction

between a person's characteristics and the environment (Lewin, 1935). Thus, according

to Endler (1973), attempts to determine if the individual or situation has more importance

in the prediction of behavior are analogous to deciphering the relative importance of

water versus air to an individual's survival. Accordingly, he believed that it was incorrect

to believe that an individual would behave the same across different situations and

alternatively behave the same during similar situations. Based on Claeys' (1980) analysis

of research studies that adopted an interactionist paradigm, individuals' behavior

depended on how the individual perceived and interpreted the situation, which can be

based on past experiences; or, on how individuals exposed themselves to certain









situations as a function of their personality characteristics. For instance a generally

anxious person, who is afraid of water, may avoid a pool or oceans not only because of

his or her anxiety but also due to his or her past experience of almost drowning when he

or she was a young child. Therefore, the person's avoidance of pools or oceans is related

to a fear of water due to a traumatic past event and may be enhanced by his or her already

anxious disposition.

Nevertheless, the trait versus state debate described above represented a meta-

theoretical or broader paradigmatic issue in the study of personality. More recent

critiques of the personality psychology literature have indicated that virtually all theorists

adopt an interactional perspective to some extent (McAdams, 1997). But, within these

broader paradigmatic perspectives, researchers adopted more specific theoretical

approaches. Some of these approaches include the psychodynamic approach, trait

theories, social contextual theories, and the human science approach, and these will now

be reviewed in more detail.

Specific Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Personality

Psychodynamic approach

Freud's (1923/1961) psychodynamic approach to the study of personality

exemplifies a deterministic approach to the study of psychological traits. Freud focused

on inborn dispositions that remain constant throughout life. Specifically, Freud believed

that an individual is originally untouched and unconscious (as a 'psychical id'), however,

due to the influence of the external world through conscious perception, an individual's

ego becomes part of the id leading to consciousness and the systematic organization of

thoughts. Nevertheless, the remaining part of the id also known as the "ego ideal" or

"superego" possesses the most powerful impulses of the individual, remains unconscious









and is considered to be the representation of the internal world of an individual. Thus,

Freud (1961) believed that behavior was determined not by the individual but rather for

the individual, due to conflicts between the consciousness (ego) and the unconsciousness

(superego) within the individual. Or, stated in another way, an individual's personality

results from the conflict between the individual's internal and external world.

Trait theories

Allport (1937) introduced the concept of trait theories to the world of general

psychology. Allport defined personality as "the dynamic organization within the

individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and

thought" (p. 28). He believed that personality should be studied by taking into account

the whole person: his contention was that traits are not present in the same way in

different individuals, and that individual behavior is determined by their trait structure.

For instance, two sisters (raised in the same household) may react differently to their

parents' divorce. This difference can be explained by their trait structure taking into

account that they were raised in the same household (environment).

Following Allport's lead, Cattell (1943) also believed that traits determined

behavior. However, contrary to Allport, Cattell's concern was the predictive power of

personality on behavior (McAdams, 1997). In other words, Cattell's emphasis was on the

development of global measures of personality that were strongly associated with

behavioral outcomes (i.e., health, occupational satisfaction, etc.). Cattell (1950) defined

personality as "that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given

situation" (p. 2). Thus, by performing factor analysis on individuals' responses to self-

report measures, he proposed that personality was composed of 35 personality traits with

twelve to twenty primary factors broken down into four second-order factors (high-low









anxiety, introversion-extraversion, toughminded-tenderminded, independence-

subduedness; Cattell, 1965).

Similar to Cattell, Guilford (1959) also divided traits into subcategories but he

focused more on differences in interests, skills, needs, and attitudes. Unlike Allport,

Guilford believed that the best way to learn more about personalities was to collect large

samples and to conduct comparisons between participants. Consequently, Guilford was

instrumental in aiding a better understanding of factor analytic procedures and test

development to ensure comparisons between individuals.

Eysenck (1967, 1970) used abnormal psychology and factor analysis, to

investigate the prevalence of personality traits. Eysenck's main contribution was his

focus on two main factors Neuroticism (emotionality-stability) and Extroversion

(introversion-extraversion) to describe the main dimensions of personality. Specifically,

he concluded that neurotic individuals are characterized as highly negatively stressed and

anxious; on the other hand, extraverted individuals are said to have generally positive

affect, and they are talkative, sociable, and assertive. Despite Eysenck's belief in these

main dimensions of personality, it was later realized that these two factors did not

encompass the entire personality construct which lead to further developments that will

be elaborated on shortly (McCrae & John, 1992).

To review, the specific theories described above encompass the use of the

dispositional paradigm in the study of personality. In the psychodynamic approach, Freud

believed that every individual was born with an inherent internal structure that hardly

changed throughout life. But, due to these constant internal struggles, individuals were

faced with conflicts between their internal and external world, which shaped personality









and behavior. On the other hand, trait theorists such as Allport, Cattell, Guilford and

Eysenck, contended that individuals possess specific trait structures that play a role in the

prediction of their behavior. In the next section, theories that utilize situational and

interactional paradigms in the study of personality will be briefly reviewed.

Social-contextual theories

As previously explained, Mischel (1968) refuted the dispositional/trait perspective

due to his belief that self-reported questionnaires did not adequately predict behavioral

differences across situations. As a result, situational (Mischel, 1968; Skinner, 1953),

interactional (Lewin, 1935), and social-cognitive perspectives (Bandura, 1986, 1997;

Rotter, 1954) emerged to explain differences among people.

Skinner's (1953) work exemplifies a purely socially based explanation for

individual behavior. Skinner (1953), who utilized more of the situational paradigm,

believed that behavior was observable and can be modified based on previous

interactions, reinforcements, and observations within the environment. For instance,

individuals who have received speeding tickets or observed others receiving tickets

would use this information in a way that influences their future behavior.

As an extension of Skinner's social learning theory, researchers developed social-

cognitive approaches that typically focus on the explication of specific constructs or

individual characteristics such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In the social cognitive

approach, researchers believe that an individual's behavior is not dependent on

immediate rewards but on how the individual appraises the situation, and the individual's

motivation towards a specific outcome (Rotter, 1954). Thus, social-cognitively oriented

researchers tend to utilize an interactional paradigm rather than a situational perspective.









Human-science approach

The existential-phenomenological approach, known as the human-science

approach, also utilizes the interactional paradigm. According to Fischer (1989),

researchers that use the human-science approach to the study of personality, explore the

individual living in his or her world. From this perspective, individuals are transformed

or affected in ways by their external worlds. Specifically, researchers tend to be more

personal by seeking the full context of their participants' situations rather than attempting

an unbiased, scientific approach during data collection.

Human science researchers tend to emphasize individuals' social surroundings,

culture, and upbringing and do not attempt to make scientific generalizations when

assessing personality. In other words, human-science researchers believe that time should

be taken to learn more about the participant through dialogue in order to gain complete

understanding of the individual and the circumstances that may have led to his or her

specific behavior. For instance, a study investigating the relationship between

socioeconomic status and aggressive behavior in adolescent males may take two forms.

On one hand, the researchers may have an objective approach where self-report

questionnaires are used to assess behavior; on the other hand, a researcher may sit down

with each participant to explore his or her family life or the circumstance that may have

led to the aggressive behavior. The latter approach characterizes the human-science

approach.

In summary, the history of personality psychology within the general psychology

literature has been reviewed. Descriptions and explanations of dispositional, situational,

and interactional perspectives associated with the study of individual differences were

presented. Also, specific theories within the paradigms were examined, such as the









psychodynamic theory and trait theory dispositionall paradigm), the social learning

theory (situational paradigm), social cognitive theories, the trait-state approach and the

human-science approach interactionall paradigm).

In the next section more focus will be placed on the five-factor model (FFM) of

personality. Although the FFM takes a dispositional perspective, there were important

empirical, methodological, and theoretical advances that have led many personality

psychologists to accept this model. Specifically, the history that led up to the adoption of

the model will be examined, along with the development of the model within the general

psychology literature.

The Five-Factor Model (FFM)

The emergence of the FFM resulted from the convergence of two distinct traditions

within the personality psychology literature: the lexical tradition and factor analytic

tradition. In the 1930's, the development of the FFM began with the aggregation of

lexical terms or adjectives used to describe human behavior. It was believed that

personality attributes could be distinguished by the use of language terms the logic of

which was based on the English language (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988).

Thus, the lexical tradition began with Allport and Odbert (1936) who obtained

4500 English trait terms to investigate the prevalence of personality traits within the

English language. Their exhaustive efforts resulted in four different groups (personal

traits, temporary states, social evaluations, and metaphorical terms), but they made no

attempt to condense the list further. It was not until Cattell (1943), who narrowed the

terms to 171 traits, based on similar semantics that researchers began to agree that the

personality traits could be reduced to a more manageable sub-set of dispositional terms.

Cattell then further divided the 171 trait terms into 35 clusters using factor analytic









techniques. Subsequently the lexical tradition was combined with a new era of factor

analytic techniques, which led to the emergence and the development of the FFM.

Factor analytic researchers believed that factor analysis could produce unities of

traits and as a result these traits were naturally clustered rather than grouped subjectively

by researchers (Cattell, 1965). For instance, Cattell (1943) conducted factor analytic

procedures from peer ratings and self-report questionnaires of college students. These

factor analyses revealed at least 12 primary factors and in order to differentiate these

primary dimensions without prejudice from earlier clinical work, Cattell (1965) later

labeled them based upon the amount of variance possessed by each factor.

In an attempt to replicate Cattell's findings, Fiske (1949) used 22 out of Cattell's 35

clusters to assess self-ratings, teammate ratings, and staff assessment ratings of male

graduate students in order to determine the primary factor structures previously found by

Cattell. The results of Fiske failed to support Cattell's primary factors (Fiske, 1949).

However, Fiske's results revealed consistency in a five-factor solution, which Fiske

labeled as social adaptability, conformity, emotional control, confident self-expression,

and inquiring intellect. Despite this remarkable discovery made by Fiske, consequent

research was not completed to further investigate the five emergent factors until a few

decades later.

Specifically, the first clear support for the five-factor model was introduced by

Tupes and Christal (1961) and later replicated by Norman (1963). Tupes and Christal

used peer ratings to perform factor analyses on Cattell's (1947) 35 personality traits by

utilizing adjective checklists on eight diverse samples. Across all samples assessed, five









factors consistently emerged and Tupes and Christal labeled these as (a) Surgency, (b)

Agreeableness, (c) Dependability, (d) Emotional Stability, and (e) Culture.

In addition to Tupes and Christal's support of the FFM, Norman (1963) replicated

their study and also found evidence of this five-factor solution. Specifically, by using 20

of the rating scales used by Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963) used four samples

of male college students to conduct peer nomination ratings within groups consisting of

6-16 males. Based on these results, the extended evidence of the FFM, Norman

recommended that a clear and organized structure of personality attributes be developed.

During much of the seventies, there still was not a complete acceptance of the five

broad dimensions of personality. Cattell (1973) had not agreed with the emergence of the

five domains and advocated his more than twenty primary factors. Specifically, Cattell

(1973) argued against the methodology used by Norman (1963), who utilized an

orthogonal rotation rather than Cattell's preference of factor analytic procedures. Also,

Cattell (1973) believed that the factors resulting from the FFM evidence were "pseudo

second-order factors," which he expressed as being a general all encompassing

psychological statement of the influence of the specific factor rather than a "true" factor

that resulted from a factor analytic procedure. Therefore, it is evident that Cattell (1973)

not only disagreed with the methodological choices used in the studies used to support

the five hierarchical domains but he also believed that the evidence supporting the FFM

was not conceptually sound.

Nevertheless, despite Cattell's lack of acceptance of the FFM, broad acceptance of

the FFM began to emerge in the 1980's (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997) and a union between

the lexical tradition and the factor analytic procedure evolved. Accordingly, Costa and









McCrae (1980) were interested in determining what specific traits were present.

Consequently, based on the results of numerous longitudinal studies of personality and

aging, McCrae and Costa (1985) determined that there were five broad stable dimensions

that were present across age groups and spousal ratings, and these dimensions correlated

with other systems of personality.

Thus, FFM theorists believed that these five factors were broad, higher-order

domains of a hierarchical structure that were the basic dimensions of personality (Costa

& McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985, 1989). Therefore, the FFM has recently

emerged as the most influential formulation of personality to date (McAdams, 1997).

And, these five broad dimensions of personality labeled Neuroticism (N), Extraversion

(E), Agreeableness (A), Openness to experience (0), and Conscientiousness (C) represent

the more recent formulation of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1992b).

Costa and McCrae (1992a) believed that these five factors represented the basic

dimensions of personality based on four lines of reasoning. First, these constructs were

considered to be enduring traits based on longitudinal research and spouse rating studies.

Second, these ratings were found within other personality systems and within natural

language spoken by individuals. In other words, the FFM is associated with nearly every

other personality system and measures (e.g., Myers-Briggs, MMPI, Cattell's 16 PF)

which has not proven the case with other measures. Third, these dimensions were found

across age, sex, race and language groups. And lastly, based on evidence of hereditability

studies, these factors appeared to have some biological basis.

Consequently, the prevalence and predictability of these five factors have been

exemplified by researchers in occupational and health psychology (e.g., Hogan, Hogan,









& Roberts 1996; Smith & Williams, 1992; Widiger & Trull, 1992). Firstly, there has been

evidence that showed a link between the FFM and psychopathology (Costa & McCrae,

1990; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989) as high scorers on the Neuroticism measure also

displayed the signs and symptoms of depression, bipolar disorder, and borderline

personality disorders (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Wiggins & Pincus, 1989); and individuals

who scored higher on the Conscientiousness domain scale are more prone to obsessive-

compulsive disorders (Wiggins & Pincus, 1989).

Secondly, there is evidence of a relationship between the FFM, HIV risk behavior,

and risky sexual behaviors (Costa, Masers, Herbst, Trobst & Wiggins, 1998; Miller,

Lynam, Zimmerman, Logan, Leukefeld, & Clayton, 2004; Wiggins, Masters, Trobst &

Costa, 1998; Trobst, Wiggins, Costa, Herbst, McCrae & Masters, 2000). That is,

individuals with low scores on the Agreeableness and Openness domain scales and high

scores of Extraversion scale are related to multiple high-risk sexual behaviors (Miller et

al., 2004; Trobst et al., 2000).

And lastly, there has been evidence to support a relationship between the FFM and

job performance as high scores on the Conscientiousness and Agreeableness scales, and

low scores on the Neuroticism scale are positively related to job performance (Barrick,

Stewart & Piotrowski, 2002; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert & Mount, 1998; Dunn, Mount,

Barrick & Ones, 1995; Hogan, Hogan & Busch, 1984; Mount, Barrick & Stewart; 1998).

Thus, McCrae and John (1992) believed that the FFM was applicable across most applied

settings and can be used in multiple disciplines.

Consequently, the present study will attempt to determine the utility of this model

in an athletic context since the predictability of the Five-factor model of personality has









yet to be explored. Thus, in the present study I assessed the relationships between the

Big-Five personality dispositions, coping responses, and life satisfaction. What follows is

a review of research on personality assessment in sport and a more specific rationale for

the present study.

History of Sport Psychology Personality Literature

The study of personality in sport is intuitively appealing. On the surface it seems

obvious that certain athletes display personality traits that have facilitated their success.

However, as will be shown, attempts to document these observations scientifically have

proven difficult. Traditional approaches to the study of personality in sport have relied on

comparisons between groups such as athletes and non-athletes (Slusher, 1964; O'Connor

& Webb, 1976), successful athletes with less successful athletes (Morgan, 1968; Kane,

1964), and athletes from different sports (Malumphy, 1968; Stoner & Brandy, 1977) in

order to identify specific traits between the groups that may facilitate success. It was

believed that by comparing these different groups of athletes it would be possible to

identify certain traits or dispositions possessed thereby allowing psychologists to predict

future performance (Singer, 1988).

Martens (1975) reviewed the progress of personality research between 1950 and

1973, and expressed concern about the lack of substantial findings in sport personality

research. He discussed conceptual and methodological issues, such as, paradigmatic

issues, lack of clear operational definitions of personality and sport success, lack of

theories accounting for particular instruments used, inappropriate use of personality

measures, or inappropriate generalizations plaguing the study of sport personality and the

predictability of traits (Martens, 1975; Morgan, 1980; Rushall, 1972). Since many of









these arguments are still valid today the methodological, paradigmatic and theoretical

issues proposed by Martens (1975) will be discussed in more detail.

Methodologically, researchers tended to believe that there was a lack of operational

definitions pertaining to the research involving athletes. Specifically, Morgan (1980)

believed that the independent and dependent variables were not adequately defined to

ensure later replication. Also, some researchers argued that researchers tended to use

different definitions to identify elite athletes, and successful and unsuccessful athletes,

which also made replication difficult and interpretations invalid (Martens, 1975, Rushall,

1977).

Additionally, Martens (1975) criticized sport personality theorists for the use of

inappropriate inventories to assess general personality traits within athletic populations.

For instance, Ogilivie and Tutko (1971) popularized the Athletic Motivation Inventory

(AMI; Tutko, Lyon, & Ogilivie, 1969) as an appropriate predictor of personality profiles

of successful athletes. However, these researchers failed to provide empirical evidence to

support their contentions resulting in a lack of reliable information. Other sport

psychology researchers used the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF; Cattell,

1946), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley,

1943), the Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1981), and the

Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) with no apparent

theoretical rationale for using these measures.

The 16 PF was used in a number of sport personality studies to investigate

differences between athletes and non-athletes (Werner, 1960; Peterson, Weber, &

Trousdale, 1967; Malumphy, 1968; O'Connor & Webb, 1976), team versus individual









sport participants (Peterson, Weber, & Trousdale, 1967; Malumphy, 1968), and

successful versus unsuccessful athletes (Williams, Hoepner, Moody, & Ogilivie, 1970).

However, it was demonstrated that participants could easily lie on this instrument and

bias their responses (O'Dell, 1971; Winder, O'Dell, & Karson, 1975). Consequently,

Morgan (1980) purported that response distortion must be considered when interpreting

results of studies that used the 16 PF. Additionally, Martens (1975) claimed that previous

studies failed to create an adequate rationale for the use of the 16 PF in sport settings.

Another concern was that researchers chose measures based on convenience rather

than on theoretical underpinnings (Martens, 1975; Rushall, 1972), and scales such as the

MMPI, were often only validated for clinical populations (Martens, 1975). Nevertheless,

these inventories were used to investigate differences in athletic populations (Slusher,

1964; Morgan, 1968; Kane, 1964; Nagle et al., 1975). Consequently, Martens (1975)

questioned their utility in sport settings due to the lack of validation within an athletic

context.

Martens' (1975) main concern was the need for sport personality researchers to

disregard the trait and situational concepts of personality and instead focus more on the

interactional position. In a review of at least 15 studies that compared the trait and

situation perspective, Bowers (1973) showed that the mean total variance accounted for

by trait was 12.71%, while the mean total variance accounted for by the situation was

10.71%; neither of which Martens believed explained enough about behavior or had the

potential to explain important outcomes in sport. Consequently, Martens (1975)

implored that attention should be directed towards the interactionists paradigm.









In order to assess the progress made after the recommendations put forth by

Martens, Vealey (1989) examined 463 sport personality research articles between the

1970s and 1980s. Vealey concluded that much of the sport personality research did

become more theoretical and methodologically sound, and there was a decline in the trait

approach.

While the reviews described above (Martens, 1975; Vealey, 1989) stimulated much

needed methodological and theoretical developments in the sport psychology literature

(e.g., Smith, Smoll, Schutz, & Ptacek, 1995), the study of broader personality

dispositions within athletic contexts remains appealing to many. For instance, Morgan

(1980) believed that traits were able to predict sport behavior, and that researchers should

not completely abandon the trait perspective. Morgan contended that a complete analysis

of personality should consist of assessments of personality traits, psychological states,

cognitions, and physiological measures in order to predict behavior. Consequently, he

believed that a multidimensional model should be adopted when studying sport

personality. Thus, in response to concerns about the lack of theoretical underpinnings,

Morgan (1980) utilized the POMS scale, and proposed the "mental health model" also

known as the Iceberg profile (p. 62) to further sport personality research and the

prediction of athletic behavior.

The Iceberg profile predicts that athletes who were "neurotic, anxious, depressed,

schizoid, introverted, confused, fatigued, and scored low on psychic vigor will tend to be

unsuccessful in comparison to an athlete who is characterized by the absence of such

traits" (Morgan, 1980, p. 62). Put another way, athletes who score high on psychic vigor









and low on tension, depression, anger, fatigue and confusion tend to be more successful

than athletes who are high on tension, depression, anger, fatigue and confusion.

This model emerged out of findings by Morgan and colleagues with Olympic

wrestlers (Nagle, Morgan, Helickson, Serfass, & Alexander, 1975), rowers (Morgan &

Johnson, 1978), and marathon/distance runners (Morgan, O'Connor, Ellickson, &

Bradley, 1988; Morgan & Pollock, 1977). But, in a systematic review of the mental

health model, there seemed to be discontent with Morgan's proposed relationship

between mood states and performance (Beedie, Terry, & Lane, 2000; Prapavessis, 2000;

Renger, 1995; Rowley, Landers, Kyllo, & Etnier, 1995). Particularly, Renger (1993)

believed that Morgan inappropriately stated that the POMS scale was a viable predictor

of athletic performance. That is, the scale only differentiated profiles between athletes

and non-athletes as opposed to the supposed differentiation between successful and

unsuccessful athletes. Also, Prapavessis (2000) did not believe that the iceberg profile

was an appropriate model to explain the relationship between precompetitive states and

sport performance. Lastly, Beedie et al. (2000) and Rowley et al. (1995) each conducted

meta-analyses of studies that utilized the POMS and the Iceberg profile and concluded

that there were small effect sizes (Weighted mean ES = .10 and .15 respectively) when

testing the relationship between mood states and athletes of differing success levels.

Accordingly, Morgan's approach was questioned and discrepancies between research

findings were believed to be due to the lack of a theoretical framework to explain how

personality constructs are related to athletic outcomes.

Consequently, the present study will attempt to extend previous sport personality

research by integrating coping predictions put forth by Lazarus (1999) with the current









theory and measurement in the personality psychology literature. Specifically, I utilized

the FMM with college athletes to assess relationships between these five basic

dimensions of personality, their coping responses to time management issues, their life

satisfaction.

So far, I have reviewed personality within the general psychology literature, the

history of the FFM, and the development of personality within sports. As I have

discussed the viability of the FFM with sport samples remains to be tested. Suitably, the

next section will review personality measurements that have recently been utilized to

measure the five basic dimensions. This will be followed by a review of stress and coping

theory.

Personality Measurements

There are literally hundreds of personality measures available in the public and

private domain so a review of all these inventories is beyond the scope of the present

thesis. The reader is instructed to see other excellent sources such as Anastasi and Urbina

(1997) or Hogan (1990) for more information about the various personality inventories

available. The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the development of the

Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991) and create

a rationale for the use of a version of this instrument within an athletic population.

NEO personality inventory

The 181-item NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1989)

was developed to measure the five broad domains of personality. The scale was an

attempt to include all of these broad dimensions in order to move beyond Eysenck's

(1970) Extraversion and Neuroticism dimensions of personality. To produce the measure

and its scales, Costa and McCrae performed analytic procedures on the 16 PF that









revealed three meaningful clusters of scales: two scales resembled E and N, and the third

scale was labeled Open versus Closed to Experience. Thus, the NEO-PI was produced

possessing three facet scales, while the remaining two dimensions were measured as a

global scale.

The scale was shown to have adequate internal consistency and has also been

shown to be stable over a 6-year time period (Costa & McCrae, 1988). However, based

on the reviews of Hogan (1989), and Leong and Dollinger (1990), researchers believed

that facet scales needed to be developed to measure the remaining two broad domains,

which led to the development of the NEO-PI-R.

Revised NEO personality inventory

Due to the NEO-PI only encompassing three broad constructs, Costa, McCrae, and

Dye (1991) developed the NEO-PI-R to include the Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness facet scales. They also revised the N, E, and 0 facet scales which

resulted in a 240-item scale that was more consistent with the FFM of personality. Until

the development of the NEO-PI-R, no personality scale was developed to measure all of

the five broad domains of personality. When compared with other instruments, most of

the scales in these instruments reflected one or more of the five factors from the NEO-PI

and NEO-PI-R (Costa et al, 1991). The NEO-PI-R assessed 30 separate traits organized

within the five domains of the FFM with each dimension possessing 6 more specific

traits. The reader is directed to Table 1-1 to view these facets and their corresponding

traits.

The scale has shown adequate internal consistency (ranging from .92 to .86 for the

domain scales) and has been shown to maintain factor structure when used with

individuals age 18 years and above and across a variety of cultures (Costa et al., 1991;









Costa & McCrae, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 1999). Additionally, the NEO-PI-R showed

evidence of cross-observer correlations for peer raters, and correlations between self-

reports and peer and spouse ratings (ranging from .33 to .67; Costa & McCrae, 1992a).

The scale also possessed convergent and discriminant validity due to the correlations with

all other major personality scales including, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory

(MCMI; Millon 1983), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987),

Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964), and the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), a finding unique to the NEO-PI-R (Costa &

McCrae, 1990; McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993).

Table 1-1. List of the NEO-PI-R Domains and Facet Level Traits
Domain Facet Level Traits
Neuroticism Anxiety
Angry hostility
Depression
Self-consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Extraversion Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement seeking
Positive emotions
Openness Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Agreeableness Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-mindedness









Table 1-1 Continued
Domain Facet Level Traits
Conscientiousness Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement striving
Self-discipline
Deliberation

NEO Five factor inventory (NEO-FFI)

To reduce burden on participants, Costa & McCrae (1989, 1992) developed a

shorter 60-item version of the NEO-PI and the NEO-PI-R and named it the NEO Five

Factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Specifically, 12 items were selected from each of the five

scales in the 180-item NEO-PI, and participants were asked to use a five-point Likert

response format. This scale has shown high retest reliability ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 for

all five scales (Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski, 2001), adequate internal

consistency ranging from .68 to .86 (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Watson & Hubbard,

1996)), and has demonstrated validity across numerous languages and cultures (Ptylik

Zilig, Hemenover & Dienstbier, 2002). Most importantly, the measure has demonstrated

moderate to high correlations with the domains of NEO-PI-R raning from .77 to .94

across various samples making it a practical instrument for use in a variety of research

and clinical applications (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

In the following section, I introduce stress and coping theory and research in the

general and sport psychology literature. In particular, I will be reviewing (1) Lazarus'

(1991) cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress and coping, (2) instruments used

to measure coping, and (3) classifications of ways of coping. This will be followed by a

theoretical integration between the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress and

coping with current developments in personality (reviewed above).









Stress and Coping

People are constantly faced with a variety of stressors throughout their life.

According to Lazarus and Cohn (1977), there are three types of stressors that individuals

may encounter: cataclysmic events affecting many people, major changes affecting a

small group of people, and daily hassles. Specifically, the 2004 Tsunami that

unsuspectingly hit numerous countries along the Indian Ocean, and killed thousands of

people, can be identified as a cataclysmic event. On the other hand, a car wreck could be

considered a source of stress that may impact a small group of people. And finally,

regulating time efficiently or taking care of a broken down car can be classified as daily

hassles.

Stress may result in a number of health consequences (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)

and the stress construct has been given much research attention over the past several

decades. Specifically, researchers have found relationships between stress and

psychological disorders (Compas, Worsham, Ey, & Howell, 1996; Stretch, Knudson, &

Durand, 1998), and poor physical health (Flett, Kazantzis, Long, & MacDonald, 2002;

McFarlane, Atchison, Rafalowicz, & Papay, 1995). Furthermore, coping has been shown

to play a mediating role between stressful events and outcomes, such as depression,

psychological distress or somatic complaints (Billings & Moos, 1981; Coyne, Aldwin, &

Lazarus, 1981).

The focus of the present study is on daily hassles faced by individuals within the

athletic context. In the next sections, I will discuss stress and coping theory in more

detail and review components of the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress,

emotion and coping (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Specifically, I will

review three different types of cognitive appraisals (primary appraisals, secondary









appraisals, and coping options), three different coping measurements used in the athletic

arena (the ways of coping checklist, the COPE, and the modified COPE), and finally two

classifications of ways of coping (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused, and approach

versus avoidance).

The Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Stress, Emotion and Coping

The transactional process model of stress and coping, and, its more recent variant

the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress, emotion and coping (Lazarus,

1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) has been one of the leading frameworks used to study

how individuals adapt to stressful circumstances. The theory predicts that cognitive

appraisals of a stressor mediate one's emotional responses to an event thus influencing

the coping strategies used to reduce stress intensity. From this perspective, stress results

from a cognitive evaluation of an individual's perceptions of threat, control, and coping

resources resulting from a person-environment interaction (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984). More specifically, individuals are predicted to evaluate certain

information to determine the intensity and quality of the stress experienced: they make

primary appraisals, secondary appraisals, and one's coping responses.

Primary appraisals

Primary appraisals are made when individuals determine how significant the

situation is to their well-being, goals, attitudes, values, and beliefs. According to

Folkman (1992), primary appraisals are influenced by how much the event impacts

valued personal goals (goal relevance), aspects of ego identity or one's personal

commitments at stake (goal involvement), and how much the event facilitates or impairs

goal attainment (goal congruency). For instance, if an athlete sustains a knee injury, this

injury would be interpreted as stressful if it impacts his or her ability to compete for an









extended period of time. Such primary appraisals would be associated with all three types

of goals described above.

Consequently, there are three types of primary appraisals. Harm appraisals refer to

damage that has already occurred, such as the injury exhibited in the above example.

Threat appraisals occur when there is a potential harm or loss that has not occurred but is

anticipated. For instance, an injury may become a threat when the athlete anticipates not

being able to train or compete for extended periods of time. In contrast to harm and threat

appraisals, challenge appraisals refer to the anticipation of a beneficial outcome and are

typically associated with more positive emotional states (i.e., excitement, pleasure). For

instance, an athlete recovering from knee injury who may view his or her preparations to

restart training and competing as challenging would likely possess positive emotional

states.

Secondary appraisals

In addition to primary appraisals, secondary appraisals also play a mediating role in

the stress, emotion, and coping process. In particular, when individuals make secondary

appraisals they evaluate the potential control they may exert over the stressful situation

and/or their personal coping resources (Folkman, 1992). In this case, one's coping

resources are the specific cognitive, behavioral, social, or other personal resources

accessible to the individual that can be used to improve the situation or their subjective

states (Folkman, 1992). Therefore, the amount of control an individual has over the

specific event, or the prevalence of accessible coping options and resources that he or she

possesses, are considered to be aspects of secondary appraisals. For instance, an injured

athlete may evaluate the severity of his or her situation based on how much control he or

she has on recovering adequately, and the resources that are available for quick recovery.









These resources may include athletic trainers, physical therapists, or specific protective

gear to use during competition.

Coping responses

Closely related to secondary appraisals are one's actual coping responses to the

stressor. After individuals have evaluated the stressful situation, specific coping

procedures may be adopted to aid in alleviating the situation and/or determine one's

personal meaning associated with the event. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined coping

as "cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands

that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). For

instance, when faced with stressful circumstances an athlete may seek social support

from loved ones in order to feel comforted or to gain advice about how to deal with the

event. Additionally, individuals may simply vent their emotions by crying, find humor in

the situation, or simply reinterpret the event as something from which to learn and grow.

All of the above strategies may be adopted individually or in combination in order to

reduce one's stress related emotions or the nature of the situation itself. Thus, it should be

noted that coping resources are the available tools needed to deal with a situation, while

the coping responses are the actual efforts used during the event.

In athletics, coping has been shown to be an important response to stress.

Specifically, Lazarus (1999) predicted that coping is a "powerful mediator" between

cognitive appraisals of stressful events and various physical and emotional outcomes

(Lazarus, 1999, p. 121; Crocker, 1992). Researchers have also shown that burnout levels

were positively related to stress and inversely related to coping (Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke

& Smith, 2001, 2004). Additionally, intervention studies have shown that inappropriate

coping skills may lead to performance decrements and athletic dissatisfaction (Crocker,









Alderman, & Smith, 1988; Smith, 1980); while the importance of coping strategies has

been emphasized to prevent the negative impact of anxiety on athletic performance

(Crocker, 1992; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990). Lastly, researchers have shown that

athletes with a high level of life stress are more likely to experience injuries than athletes

with a low level of life stress (Andersen & Williams, 1999; Passer & Seese, 1983;

Patterson et al., 1998). Consequently, it becomes imperative for researchers to investigate

the entire stress, emotion, and coping process using a theoretically driven approach in

order to better understand how and why some individuals adapt appropriately to stress

while others do not.

Coping Measurements

A number of coping scales have been developed to assess the coping responses of

individuals in response to specific stressors. The purpose of this section is to evaluate and

describe three specific coping scales that have been utilized within a sports context: the

ways of coping checklist, the COPE, and the modified COPE.

Ways of coping checklist (WCC)

Originally developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980), and later revised by

Folkman and Lazarus (1985), the WCC is a 68-item measure of coping. In the more

recent 66-item self reported measure previously unclear and redundant items were

deleted or reworded, and new items were added as a result of previous research (Folkman

& Lazarus, 1985). Specifically, Folkman and Lazarus used their two general dimensions

of coping to develop the items, and based on exploratory factor analysis they identified

eight subscales. These subscales include problem-focused coping, wishful thinking,

distancing, seeking social support, emphasizing the positive, self-blame, tension-

reduction, and self-isolation. The answer responses were also changed from the original









"yes" or "no" to a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "does not apply and/or not used (0)"

to "used a great deal (3)."

Research has shown the WCC to have adequate internal consistency, alpha

coefficients ranged from 0.65 to 0.85 (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), and this measure has

also shown to be reliable (uc = .58-.78) and valid within a sports context (Crocker, 1992;

Hammermeister & Burton, 1993; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990). However,

Crocker (1992) believed that compared to previous work completed by Folkman and her

colleagues, there is a lack of item consistency within an athletic sample.

The COPE

Carver et al. (1989) had concerns about the WCC and developed the COPE using a

theoretically derived approach. Specifically, they believed and later Skinner et al.

(Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003) agreed that coping could not be easily

dichotomized by problem-focused or emotion-focused coping responses as with the

WCC. Consequently, Carver and colleagues proposed that within each type of category

(problem or emotion focused) a number of different responses may result; therefore, they

believed that these responses should be measured separately. Thus, using Folkman and

Lazarus' (1984, 1999) model of stress and Carver and Scheier's (Carver & Scheier,1981,

1983; Scheier & Carver, 1988) model of behavioral self-regulation, Carver et al. (1989)

developed the COPE.

The COPE is composed of 13 subscales: active coping, planning, suppression of

competing activities, restraint coping, seeking support for instrumental reasons, seeking

support for emotional reasons, focusing on and venting of emotions, behavioral









disengagement, mental disengagement, positive interpretation and growth, denial,

acceptance, and religion (with alcohol/drug engagement used as an exploratory subscale).

Participants are asked to respond to each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging

from "I usually don't do this at all" (1), "I usually do this a little bit" (2), "I usually do

this a medium amount" (3), and "I usually do this a lot" (4). The subscales have

demonstrated adequate internal consistency ranging from 0.62 (active coping) to 0.92

(religion) with the exception of mental disengagement (a = .45), and test-retest reliability

(ranging from .46 to .86 for an 8-week period). Additionally, appropriate convergent and

discriminant validity has been shown between other coping scales (Watson & Hubbard,

1996), such as the Problem-solving Inventory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982), and

personality variables, such as optimism vs. pessimism, self-esteem, and trait anxiety

(Carver et al., 1989).

The modified COPE

To specifically assess athletes' coping strategies Crocker and Graham (1995)

developed a 48-item measure. The measure was composed of 12 coping scales, nine of

these subscales originated from the COPE and included active coping, seeking social

support for instrumental reasons, planning, seeking social support for emotional reasons,

denial, humor, behavioral disengagement, venting of emotion, and suppression of

competing activities. The remaining subscales were based on research conducted by

Crocker (1992) and Madden et al. (1990), which included self-blame, wishful thinking,

and increasing effort. Participants are required to answer each item on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from "used not at all/very little" (1) to "used very much" (5). With the

exception of the denial scale (a = .42), Crocker and Graham (1995) showed adequate









internal consistency to be used within an athlete population, which ranged from 0.62

(wishful thinking) to 0.92 (humor).

In summary, the previously reviewed coping measures are commonly employed

within coping theory and research. The WCC was developed to differentiate between

problem-focused coping and emotion focused coping strategies. On the other hand, the

authors of the COPE and the MCOPE did not believe that coping strategies could be

broken down into these two dimensions. Subsequently, the next section will go into

further detail about ways of classifying specific coping responses into higher-order

coping categories.

Classifying Ways of Coping

Folkman and Lazarus (1980) proposed that coping is broken into problem-focused

coping (PFC) and emotion-focused coping (EFC) dichotomies. Therefore, these two

higher order coping strategies were classified based on function. Specifically, as stated by

Lazarus and Folkman (1984), "a coping function refers to the purpose a strategy serves;

outcome refers to the effect a strategy has" (p. 148-149). Thus, PFC strategies refer to

cognitive coping responses, such as, problem-solving, planning, information seeking, or

learning new skills used to reduce or manage the sources of stress (Folkman & Lazarus,

1980). For example, a college athlete who has missed many classes due to team travel

might make an appointment with his or her professor in order to catch up with the rest of

the students. In this example, the athlete made an effort to plan a meeting with the

professor to ensure better understanding of the topic discussed in class.

On the other hand, EFC affective responses attempt to decrease emotional distress

and increase feelings of well-being as a response to a specific problem (Folkman &

Lazarus, 1980). Therefore, strategies such as mental and behavioral withdrawal, denial,









relaxation, or simply venting emotions can be referred to as EFC strategies (Crocker,

1992). For instance, using the above example, the athlete may feel frustrated and worried

that he or she may not be able to pass the class. In order to regulate those emotions he or

she may cry, interpret the situation in a more positive light, or seek emotional social-

support.

Nevertheless, researchers have also proposed a topological distinction of coping

responses; that is, ways of coping can be divided based on their modes and methods

(Billings & Moos, 1981). One of the most common topological dimensions is the

approach-avoidance distinction (Skinner et al., 2003). The approach-avoidance coping

dimension distinguishes between efforts to become closer to the stressful event versus

efforts that lead to distancing or withdrawing from the problem; the key distinction being

the "orientation of the individual's attention" (p. 228; Skinner et al. 2003). Specifically,

approach coping refers to strategies that allow individuals to seek action that may entail

experiencing distress and confronting the problem; on the other hand, avoidance coping

focuses on strategies to alleviate stressful feelings, which may allow the individual to

regain composure and feelings of protection (Roth & Cohen, 1986). The ability to avoid

the stressor may allow an individual to regain emotional composure thus allowing the

individual to gain more energy to face the problem more effectively (Skinner et al.,

2003).

Some researchers have argued that categorizing ways of coping into functional and

topological groups can be problematic (Skinner et al., 2003). Firstly, in both types of

groups there seems to be a lack of clarity within different systems in determining the

suitability of classifying lower-order categories into higher-order groups. For instance,









Carver and colleagues (1989) contended that some emotion-focused coping allowed

focus towards the stressor, while individuals using other EFC strategies tended to avoid

the stressful event. Similarly, some researchers argued that social support can be a type of

avoidance coping when the individuals' attention is away from the situation; however,

other researchers can easily argue that individuals venting their emotions to others

(another form of social support) can be considered to an approach form of coping due to

the focus towards the stressor (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991).

Secondly, the PFC-EFC and the approach-avoidance dimensions are not considered

exhaustive (Skinner et al., 2003); that is, they do not seem to encompass all of the lower

order ways of coping. Specifically, certain ways of coping, such as observation,

information seeking, accommodation, aggression, and rumination tend to be excluded

from these higher-order dimensions (Skinner et al., 2003). Some researchers have argued

that approach categorical strategies only entail constructive approaches, such as problem

solving and direct action (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991). Thus strategies

such as seeking support and guidance, which may be considered to be constructive ways

of coping but orient the individual away from the event and can be misclassified as

approach coping. On the other hand, avoidance coping seems to entail mainly negatively

toned responses (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Ebata & Moos, 1991). Consequently,

strategies such as venting that may be interpreted as negative may easily be misdiagnosed

as avoidance coping but in a specific situation venting one's emotions may alleviate

emotional distress.

Lastly, according to Skinner et al. (2003) PFC and EFC are not considered

mutually exclusive; that is, some ways of coping can serve the same functions and can be









placed into both categories. For instance, when a student makes a study guide to prepare

for exams he/she can be said to utilizing problem-focused techniques however

developing the study guide may also result in reducing the individual's emotional distress

related to the exam. Although it may be appealing to be able to simply classify lower

order categories into these two higher order categories (PFC and EFC), it is important to

recognize that coping strategies can serve both functions (Lazarus, 1996).

Based on the arguments expressed above pertaining to the PFC-EFC, and

approach-avoidance coping hierarchies, it is difficult to classify the higher dimensions of

coping into simply functional or topological groups. As a result of the concerns described

above, Skinner et al. (2003) proposed a classification scheme that resulted from their own

review of over 100 category systems of coping. Aspects of this classification scheme will

be used in the present study.

From their analysis, Skinner et al. (2003) identified 13 possible higher-order

families of coping. These higher-order families of coping were further reduced to (1)

problem solving, (2) support seeking, (3) avoidance, (4) distraction, and (5) positive

cognitive restructuring. The reader is instructed to see Skinner et al., 2003 for further

information about how these authors arrived at their conclusions. Problem-solving was

defined as strategies such as instrumental action, taking direct action, making decisions,

or planning. The second major coping dimension, support seeking, was made up of

seeking comfort from others, seeking advice from others, or spiritual support through

prayer. Avoidance or escape coping consisted of behaviors used to disengage or stay

away from the situation, such as denying the presence of the situation. Distraction is

defined by active attempts to direct attention away from the situation, such as watching









television or reading. And finally, positive cognitive restructuring refers to an individual

changing his or her interpretation of the stressful event into something more positive.

Because of the methods and analyses presented by Skinner et al. (2003) these five higher-

order coping dimensions will be used in the present study, while utilizing an adapted

form of the COPE.

What follows is empirical evidence demonstrating the relationships between

aspects of personality and coping within general psychology literature. Focus will be

placed on the general psychology literature due to the lack of research on the influence of

the FFM on coping within the sports context. Then, a review of pertinent literature within

the sports will follow.

Links between Coping and the FFM

Lazarus (1999) contended that individual differences must be taken into account to

allow full understanding of stress and coping. According to Lazarus (1999),

"Reactions under stress cannot be predicted without reference to personality traits

and processes that account for the individual differences in the ways people respond to a

so-called stressful stimulus" (p. 55). Thus, the uniqueness of an individual plays a large

role in the way the person interprets and copes with stress. In the following paragraphs,

specific focus will be placed on the influence of the FFM on individuals' coping

responses.

Firstly, Neuroticism (N) has a strong positive relationship with negative affect

(Costa & McCrae, 1980), and individuals high in N are more likely to appraise situations

in a negative manner; that is, they tend to appraise situations as threats rather than

challenges (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1984). Also, recall that neurotic

individuals are characterized as possessing higher levels of depression and anxiety, along









with negative emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1990; Watson & Clark, 1984; Wiggins &

Pincus, 1989). Research has shown that N is strongly related to coping (Watson &

Hubbard, 1996) and this relationship has been shown to be evident in college samples

(Endler & Parker, 1990; O'brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996),

caregivers (Hooker, Frazier, & Monahan, 1994), and middle-aged adults (David & Suls,

1999). For instance, Watson and Hubbard (1996) investigated the relationship between N

and typical coping responses of college students. Results showed that individuals high in

N are more likely to utilize EFC strategies, such as behavioral disengagement, mental

disengagement, and venting of emotions. Additionally, other researchers have shown that

highly neurotic individuals are less likely to engage in PFC strategies (Endler & Parker,

1990; Hooker et al., 1994; O'brien & Delongis, 1996) than less neurotic individuals.

Also, highly neurotic individuals are less likely to use positive reappraisal to cope with

stress (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

In contrast, extraverted individuals are characterized by possessing positive

emotions, being highly sociable, gregarious, and talkative, and they tend to view stressful

events as challenges rather than threats (Costa & McCrae, 1985). David and Suls (1999)

evaluated the relationship between Extraversion (E) and coping strategies of 95 middle-

aged men over the course of eight days using a daily coping measurement. Results

showed that extraverts tend to utilize more social support seeking, and in conjunction to

appraising stressful situations as challenges, high E individuals are more likely to use

positive reappraisal to cope with stressful events (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson &

Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls, 1999). Furthermore, these results were supported in

college students (Watson & Hubbard, 1996; O'brien & Delongis, 1996), caregivers









(Hooker et al., 1994), and middle-aged adults (David & Suls, 1999; McCrae & Costa,

1986).

With regard to other aspects of the Big-Five, some researchers have found that

Conscientiousness is related to coping (Hooker et al., 1994; Vickers, Kolar, & Hervig,

1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996). For instance, Hooker et al. (1994) investigated the

relationship between personality and coping responses used by caregivers of dementia

patients. Within this sample, individuals high in C utilized PFC strategies; and, highly

conscientious individuals were less likely to use EFC strategies, such as behavioral or

mental disengagement. These results were also supported in a military sample (Vickers et

al., 1989) and college students (O'brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

Some researchers have found no relationships between Agreeableness (A) and

coping responses (David & Suls, 1999), while other studies have revealed significant but

modest relationships (Vickers et al., 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; Hooker et al., 1994;

O'brien & Delongis, 1996). In the studies where a relationship has been evident,

agreeable individuals tended to use more planning and positive reinterpretation (Watson

& Hubbard, 1996), more support seeking (Hooker et al., 1994; O'brien & Delongis,

1996), and less likely to use EFC strategies such as alcohol or drug use (Watson &

Hubbard, 1996), or avoidance (Hooker et al., 1994).

Discrepancies have existed in research that has examined links between Openness

to experience (0) and coping. Some studies found that there has been no relationship

between 0 and coping responses (Hooker et al., 1994) but other researchers have found a

negative relationship between 0 and the use of religion, (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Watson

& Hubbard, 1996) and distraction (David & Suls, 1999), while other studies have found a









weak positive relationship between openness and positive reappraisal (O'brien &

Delongis, 1996; Vickers et al., 1989; Watson & Hubbard, 1996) and taking direct action

or planning (David & Suls, 1999; Watson & Hubbard, 1996).

In the previously cited studies, the relationship between aspects of personality and

coping behavior has been investigated in a variety of populations. Specifically, links have

been shown in undergraduate college students (Endler & Parker, 1990; O'Brien &

Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996), community dwelling adults (David & Suls,

1999; McCrae & Costa, 1986), spouses and caregivers (Hooker et al., 1994), and the

military (Vickers et al., 1989). However, there has been no evidence supporting this link

within an athletic context. The present study will fill this void in the research by

examining the link between aspects of personality and coping responses within a sport

context. However, the literature related to stress and coping in athletics is imperative to

determine the practicality of this line of research. For the purpose of this review, the

evidence supporting the relationship between individual differences and coping responses

in sports will be offered.

Stress and Coping Research in Sport

Research has shown that athletes are faced with numerous sources of stress such as

precompetition anxiety, personal and others expectations, time management concerns,

injury and health issues, teammate conflicts, and/or practice concerns (Giacobbi, Lynn,

Wetherington, Jenkins, Bodendorf, & Langley, 2004; Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1992;

Gould, Jackson, & Finch, 1993). It should be noted that these studies have also indicated

that coping is a dynamic, complex process in response to stressful situations. In other

words, individuals coping responses often alter and evolve as individuals' knowledge,

exposure, appraisals, and experience with the situation change.









For instance, Gould et al. (1992) investigated the coping strategies used by the 20

members of the 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling team. Their results revealed that the

athletes used four general coping dimensions during competition: thought control, task

focus, emotional control, and behavior-based strategies; and, each of these strategies were

used simultaneously or combined. Additionally, Gould, Finch and Jackson (1993) asked

national figure skaters to describe the coping strategies used during their career after

becoming national champions. Their results also revealed a complex assortment of

coping strategies (e.g., rational thinking and self talk, social support, ignoring the stressor

to name a few) where each stress source was linked to a unique group of coping

responses, and a number of strategies were often used in combination to alleviate a

variety of stressors.

There have been few studies examining links between individual differences and

coping behaviors within an athletic context. To test the role of individual differences in

athletics, Giacobbi and Weinberg (2000) investigated the coping responses of high and

low trait anxious college athletes. Their results revealed that high anxious athletes used

different coping strategies than low anxious athletes. Specifically, high trait anxious

athletes reported significantly more behavioral disengagement, self-blame, humor, denial

and wishful thinking than low trait anxious athletes. These results lend support to the

relationship between individual differences and coping with acute stress in athletics.

Hammermeister and Burton (2001) investigated the antecedents, specifically threat,

control and perceived coping resources, of cognitive and somatic anxiety in endurance

athletes. Results revealed strong evidence for the antecedents of anxiety, and differential

responses between low and high state anxious individuals. The high anxious athletes









tended to have lower coping scores than moderate and low anxious athletes, while the

former athletes used more emotion-focused coping strategies. In terms of the use of

problem-focused coping, there were fewer differences between high- and low-anxious

athletes. However, the authors suggested that this discrepancy in PFC strategies was due

to the proximity of the data collection (1-2 days prior to endurance race) when PFC

strategies should not be used until the start of the event. Nevertheless, the results of this

study supported the view that the level of state anxiety (an individual difference)

influenced the coping strategies used by athletes and offered support for Lazarus (1991)

and colleagues' (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) theoretical predictions.

The reviewed studies have investigated links between individual differences and

coping behavior among athletes. These studies have examined this link with college

athletes (Giacobbi & Weinberg, 2000), and endurance athletes (Hammermeister &

Burton, 2001). However, these investigations have dealt with acute stressors and none of

the studies examined broad personality dispositions, such as the FFM, and athletes'

responses to chronic sources of stress. In the present study, I will investigate the

relationship between individual differences and coping responses using the FFM, and I

will assess coping in response to a reoccurring source of stress time management.

Life Satisfaction as a Coping Outcome and Possible Implications from this Study

Although the objective of this study is to examine the relationship between aspects

of personality and coping, it is imperative to elaborate on the practicality of these results

to athletes, coaches, theoreticians, and applied sport psychologists. How does recognizing

the personality-coping relationship benefit applied practitioners in sport? Firstly, it is

helpful to determine the relationships between aspects of personality, coping and specific

outcomes in order to elucidate how individuals respond to physically and psychologically









demanding circumstances. With such an understanding, it is hoped that future

intervention models and studies can be developed to foster appropriate coping strategies

for individuals in high stress circumstances. Based upon the predictions from this study,

such intervention models would need to be tailored for individuals based explicitly on

their personality characteristics. Additionally, this study would suggest specific coping

strategies that would most likely lead to enhanced life satisfaction and could therefore be

recommended as a specific way to respond to chronic stress associated with time

management concerns.

Life satisfaction is a component of subjective well-being, which is individuals'

evaluation of their personal lives (Diener, Suh, Lucas, Smith, 1999). In this context, life

satisfaction refers to a "cognitively, judgmental process" (Diener, Emmons, Larson, &

Griffin, 1985, p. 71). According to Shin and Johnson (1978), life satisfaction is defined as

"a global assessment of a person's quality of life according to his chosen criteria" (p.

478). Therefore, what is acceptable or satisfactory by one person may not be satisfactory

for another individual.

Thus, Diener et al. (1985) developed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) to

assess a person's overall evaluation of his/her life. Previous scales were developed in an

attempt to assess individuals' global satisfaction. Nevertheless, the SWLS is a five-item

measurement tool shown to have adequate internal consistency (a = .87) and a two-

month test-retest reliability (a = .82), and it has convergent and discriminant validity

between a number of personality scales and other subjective well-being scales (Diener et

al., 1985; see Pavot & Diener, 1993, for a review). In the next section, I will briefly









review empirical evidence demonstrating the relationship between life satisfaction and

coping, and life satisfaction and the FFM.

Life Satisfaction and Coping

Links between positive emotional states, subjective well-being, and health have

been documented in recent years (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). Thus,

subjective states such as physical well-being, affect and/or satisfaction in particular life

contexts have long been advocated as an important outcome associated with coping

(Folkman, 1992; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); and these factors are considered to indicate

successful adaptation to sport (Reimer & Chelladurai, 1998).

Within the general population, forms of coping have shown to be related to life

satisfaction. For instance, McConaghy and Caltabiano (2005) showed that practical forms

of coping were positively related to life satisfaction in dementia caregivers. That is,

caregivers that were more likely to use coping strategies such as active coping, planning,

seeking instrumental social support and positive reappraisal tended to have a higher level

of life satisfaction. Additionally, McCrae and Costa (1986) revealed a negative

relationship between neurotic coping and life satisfaction in adults between the ages of

24-91 years.

Life Satisfaction and the FFM

Due to the lack of research utilizing the FFM within an athletic population, the

evidence exhibiting the relationship between the FFM and life satisfaction is within non-

athletic populations. DeNeve and Cooper (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 148

articles, and these results showed relationships between the FFM and life satisfaction.

Specifically, E and C tend to have a positive relationship, while N tends to have a

negative relationship with life satisfaction; however, no relationships have been found









between 0, A, and life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes

& Joseph, 2003). These relationships have been shown to exist within the general

population and even within cancer patients.

Thus, this study will further test the relationships between aspects of personality,

coping responses, and life satisfaction within an athletic context. Specifically, the study

will be utilizing the FFM to determine any apparent relationships between these broad

personality dimensions and coping responses. Furthermore, the present study will

investigate relationships between these concepts and life satisfaction within an athletic

context.

Rationale

Vealey (2002) summarized the knowledge of sport personality by explaining that

there have been no consistent findings of an athletic personality; that is, researchers have

not consistently found athletes possessing special characteristics or differences between

subgroups of athletes. Sport personality researchers have emphasized that there are

numerous methodological issues, such as paradigmatic discrepancies, a lack of theoretical

backgrounds, inappropriate definitions, and inappropriate inventories, which have

prevented consistent and accurate findings within the field (Martens, 1975; Vealey,

1989). Additionally, past sport research has attempted to find a relationship between

special individual characteristics and athletic performance, which may have led to

numerous inaccurate findings due to invalid ways of measuring athletic performance

(Vealey, 1989).

The present study will address these methodological issues. Firstly, I will be

primarily utilizing the dispositional paradigm to explain the results found in the present

study. Concerning the lack of theoretical frameworks, I will be integrating the cognitive-









motivational-relational theory of stress, emotion and coping (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984), and the FFM to assess relationships between a source of stress and

individuals' personality traits. Lastly, due to the lack of adequate knowledge about the

athletes' emotions and feelings resulting from objectively measuring performance, the

present study will be measuring athletes' life satisfaction and how it relates to coping and

the FFM. In the next section, the specific purposes of the study will be described.

Purposes

The present study will attempt to integrate Lazarus (1999) cognitive-motivational-

relational theory of stress, emotion, and coping with current developments in personality

psychology and examine interrelationships between aspects of personality, coping, and

life satisfaction with collegiate athletes. Specifically, the present study has the following

purposes: 1) to use Lazarus' (1999) cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress,

emotion, and coping to assess personality predictors of coping responses to stressful

situations experienced by competitive athletes; and 2) to examine interrelationships

between personality, coping, and the athletes' life satisfaction. Specifically, to test the

mediation role of coping in the personality-life satisfaction relationship.

Hypothesis

Purpose 1

It was hypothesized that there will be differences in the relationship between the

five basic dimensions and the coping responses utilized by the athletes. Specifically,

athletes high in N are expected to utilize less PFC responses, such as active coping, and

more likely to utilize responses such as, mental disengagement, behavior disengagement,

or venting of emotions than individuals low in neuroticism. Also, highly extroverted

athletes are expected to seek more social support to cope with situations, and more









problem-focused or active coping than low extraverted individuals. Finally, conscientious

athletes were predicted to utilize more active coping, planning, and positive reappraisal

than individuals scoring low in conscientiousness. These predictions are based on the

general psychology literature reviewed in the above chapter (Watson & Hubbard, 1996;

O'Brien & Delongis, 1996; David & Suls, 1999). Consequently, due to the discrepancies

reviewed about the results pertaining to Openness and Agreeableness, no specific

predictions will be made about these two dimensions and their relationship with coping.

Purpose 2

It was hypothesized that there will be differences in the relationship between the

five personality dimensions and the level of life satisfaction, as well as the relationship

between specific coping responses and life satisfaction. Specifically, N, E, and C are

expected to have a relationship between life satisfaction, while for 0 and A no

relationship is expected to be shown. That is, individuals high in N are expected to have a

low level of life satisfaction, while individuals high in E and C are expected to have a

high level of life satisfaction. Additionally, specific coping responses are expected to be

related to higher levels of life satisfaction. That is, avoidance and distraction are

hypothesized to be related to lower levels of life satisfaction; on the other hand, problem

solving, social support and positive reappraisal are expected to be related to higher levels

of life satisfaction. These relationships are shown in Figure 1-1(c).

Purpose 3

Figure 1-1 (a) depicts the hypothesized frameworks expected to arise from running

a structural equation model on the data. It is expected that avoidance and distraction

coping will mediate the relationship between N and life satisfaction; and, PFC strategies

will mediate the relationship between E and C and life satisfaction. Specifically, highly






46


neurotic individuals are expected to possess a relatively low life satisfaction; while highly

extroverted and conscientious individuals are expected to have a relatively high life

satisfaction. And lastly, avoidance and distraction coping strategies are expected to

mediate the relationship between neuroticism and life satisfaction; while, problem

solving, social support, and positive reappraisal are expected to mediate the relationship

between E and C and life satisfaction.














Personality ) Satisfaction


(a)









( Coping


Life
Personality Satisfaction


(b)


SPersonality


(c)


SCoping


Life
~~~____~~___________~ Satisfaction


Figure 1-1. Structural models for the relationship between personality, coping and life
satisfaction. (a) Full mediation model, (b) Partial mediation model, (c) Direct
effects model














CHAPTER 2
METHODS

Participants

The participants were 256 collegiate athletes (33% male, 65% female, 2% not

disclosed) representing National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II,

III and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) schools. Participants

were predominantly Caucasian (84% White/Caucasian, 6% Black/African American, 4%

Other, 2% Asian, 2% Hispanic/Latino) that competed in swimming (44%), soccer (10%),

track and field (8%), baseball (3%), volleyball (4%), lacrosse (10%), and other sports

(20%) and ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M = 19.5, SD = 1.3). The sample

comprised of 70 freshman, 91 sophomores, 47 juniors, and 40 seniors who have

participated in their sport for an average of 9 years (SD = 4.8).

Measures

Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender (1 = male, 2 =

female), and ethnicity (Black/African American, Asian, White/Caucasian, Hispanic,

Other). Additionally, participants were asked to indicate their sport, their year in school,

the number of years competing in their sport, and the number of enrolled class credits.

(See Appendix B).

Coping Scale. As an adaptation of the COPE and to reduce the burden on

participants, definitions of the 15 coping strategies offered by Carver et al. (1989) were

provided and participants were asked to rate the degree they used the strategies on a scale

from 1 "I did not do this at all" to 4 "I did this a lot" to cope with a specific stressor (time









management). Additionally, these 15 coping strategies were grouped together in the

following manner consistent with recent theorizing by Skinner et al. (2003).

Problem Solving was made up of Active coping (taking action, exerting efforts, to

remove or circumvent the stressor), Planning (thinking about how to confront the

stressor, planning one's active coping efforts), and Suppression of Competing Activities

(suppressing one's attention to other activities in which one might engage, in order to

concentrate more completely on dealing with the stressor). Social Support was comprised

of Seeking Instrumental Social Support (seeking assistance, information, or advice about

what to do), Seeking Emotional Social Support (getting sympathy or emotional support

from someone), Focus on and Venting of Emotions (an increased awareness of one's

emotional distress, and a concomitant tendency to ventilate or discharge those feelings),

and Religion (increased engagement in religious activities). The Avoidance dimension

comprised of Restraint Coping (coping passively by holding back one's coping attempts

until they can be of use), Behavioral Disengagement (giving up, or withdrawing effort

from, the attempt to attain the goal with which the stressor is interfering), and Denial (an

attempt to reject the reality of the stressful event). Distraction was made up of Mental

Disengagement (psychological disengagement from the goal with which the stressor is

interfering, through daydreaming, sleep, or self-distraction), Alcohol/Drug Use (turning

to the use of alcohol or other drugs as a way of disengaging from the stressor), and

Acceptance (accepting the fact that the stressful event has occurred and is real). And

lastly, Positive Reappraisal was made up of Positive Reinterpretation and Growth

(making the best of the situation by growing from it, or viewing it in a more favorable

light), and Humor (making jokes about the stressor). These coping scales showed very









low estimates of internal consistency (alpha) in the present study ranging from .01

(Distraction) to .47 (Social Support). Please see Appendix C for a copy of this

measurement.

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The NEO Five-factor Inventory is the

60-item short-form of the revised NEO Personality Inventory which assess the five broad

dimensions of personality: Neuroticism (e.g., I am not a worrier), Extraversion (e.g., I

laugh easily), Openness (e.g., Poetry has little or no effect on me), Agreeableness (e.g., I

try to be courteous to everyone I meet), and Conscientiousness (e.g., I keep my

belongings clean and neat). Participants are asked to respond using a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Costa and McCrae (1992b)

demonstrated that the scale's subscales were moderately to strongly reliable and

correlated highly with the corresponding scales of the full NEO Personality Inventory. In

the present study, the NEO-FFI showed adequate estimates of internal consistency for

Neuroticism (a = .82), Extraversion (a = .77), Conscientiousness (a = .84), Openness (ca

= .71), and Agreeableness (a = .71). See Appendix D for a copy of this inventory.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The Satisfaction with Life Scale is a 5-

item uni-dimensional scale used to measure global life satisfaction. Participants were

asked to respond to items, such as, "In most ways my life is close to my ideal," on a 7-

point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Please see

Appendix E for the full instructions and copy of this scale. Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and

Griffin (1985) reported desirable psychometric properties with a two-month test-retest

score of .82 and a strong internal consistency of .87. For a detailed review of the scale's









reliability and validity, the reader is directed to Pavot and Diener (1993). The internal

consistency of the measure for the present study was uc = .85.

Procedures

Participants were recruited from Division I, II, III and NAIA universities. To

facilitate recruitment, coaches were sent information about the study as well as specific

instructions that were used to communicate pertinent information to their athletes (if

needed). The purpose of the study was then explained to the participants either by their

coach or by the lead investigator.

Before completing any questionnaires, participants were initially asked to review

and sign an informed consent (See Appendix A for a copy of the Institutional Review

Board approval UFIRB# 2005-0-162), and were then given personal codes to access the

surveys. However, to reduce the burden on participants and their coaches, participants

were later sent a link (via their coach) to access the website without a code. In the latter

case, the purpose of the study was explained in the email and the IRB informed consent

was placed on the first page. Therefore, consent was implied once the participants

proceeded to the surveys. It took approximately 20 minutes to complete four

questionnaires.

Data Analysis

The data was initially scanned for missing data, which resulted in the deletion of

some participants' responses. That is, based on recommendations by Costa and McCrae

(1992b), if there were 10 or more missing responses or if 4 or more responses are missing

on any one subscale of the NEO-FFI, authors should delete the participant from the study.

However, any other missing data should be replaced with a mid-score response. Next, the

appropriate items on the NEO-FFI were reverse-scored and the scores were checked to









ensure that they fell within the suitable numeric range. Descriptive analyses such as the

means, standard deviations, score ranges, subscale scores, and alpha coefficients for all

measures were calculated and assessed.

Next, a measurement model was tested on the NEO-FFI, the COPE, and the SWLS

for each set of variables (set 1: Neuroticism, Avoidance, Distraction, Life Satisfaction;

set 2: Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Problem Solving, Social Support, Positive

Reappraisal, Life Satisfaction) to examine construct reliability. Then, structural equation

modeling (SEM), using LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbum, 1993) was used to examine the

coping-mediation hypotheses. Specifically, the following indices were used to determine

the goodness-of-fit for each of the models: (1) the non-normed fit index (NNFI); (2) the

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA); (3) the Goodness of Fit Index

(GFI); (4) X2/df ratio (Q); and (5) the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI). A model

exhibiting a good fit would show a GFI and NNFI, values greater than .90, a Q value less

than 3, and a RMSEA less than .06. However, the GFI, NNFI, and the CFI were more

likely to overestimate the model fit as the sample size increases; thus, the RMSEA was

mainly used to determine model fit. Finally, the ECVI will be used to compare models

with similar fit indices. According to Joreskog and Sorbom, (1993) models with lower

ECVI values are generally preferable.

The mediating role of coping. To determine mediating effects of coping, each set

of three models was compared using an evaluation of the fit indices and the chi-square

difference test. The direct effect model represents the direct association between two

independent variables with one dependent variable (Figures Ic and 2c). The fully

mediated model represents the indirect effects of the independent variable through a









mediating variable on the dependent variable (Figures la and 2a). The partially mediated

model represents both the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent

variable and the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable

through the mediator (Figures lb and 2b). If a complete mediating relationship were

present, the indirect effect would be significant and the direct effect would be non-

significant; if there is only partial mediation, both the indirect effects and the direct

effects would be significant. In order to examine the relationships between the

independent, mediator, and dependent variables the path coefficients were examined for

significance. I then followed the recommendations and conditions discussed by Baron

and Kenny (1986) to determine whether my mediatonal hypotheses were supported.

Specifically, according to Baron and Kenny (1986), three conditions must be met

for mediation to be established. First, variations in the independent variable, in this case

personality, must account for variations in the dependent variable (life satisfaction);

second, variations of the mediator (coping) are significantly associated with variations in

the dependent variable (life satisfaction); and third, variations of the independent variable

must affect the mediator. When these paths are controlled a previously significant

association between the independent variable of personality and the dependent variable of

life satisfaction will no longer be significant.














CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Preliminary Analysis

The sample was originally made up of 283 student-athletes. However, 27 participants were

excluded from the study due to missing data which resulted in the final sample of 256 participants.

The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the coping subscales, personality dimensions

and life satisfaction are shown in Table 3-1. In the case of internal consistency, the personality

subscales and life satisfaction scale showed adequate alpha values; however, the coping scales

revealed less than ideal scores. Low to moderate intercorrelations were found among the coping

subscales (.13 to .35) and the personality dimensions (.15 to .31) with the personality dimension of N

was significantly related to lower scores of E, C and A. The pattern of relationships also revealed

that E was significantly related to C and A but the magnitude of these associations were generally

small. The magnitude of the correlations between the personality dimensions and the coping

subscales range from .13 to .55. However, none of the FFM subscales were significantly related to

seeking instrumental social support, suppression of competing activities, or focus on and venting of

emotions. Additionally, results revealed that active coping, planning, positive reappraisal, humor and

behavioral disengagement were significantly related to life satisfaction, with behavioral

disengagement exhibiting a negative relationship with life satisfaction. As expected, the pattern of

associations between life satisfaction and elements of personality were consistent with theoretical

predictions and empirical studies within the general population (DeNeve & Cooper (1998):

Extraverts and conscientious individuals were most satisfied while neurotics were least satisfied with

their lives.









Finally, the scores for all of the personality subscales (Neuroticism, Extraversion,

Conscientiousness, Openness and Agreeableness) and the life satisfaction scores for the participants

in this study were within one standard deviation of normative data (Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Diener

et al., 1985). However, a closer examination of the life satisfaction scores revealed that the skewness

values were -1.20 while kurtosis was 1.48, which indicates moderate skewness and kurtosis. The

results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were significant indicating the data for life

satisfaction was not normally distributed, therefore, a log-linear transformation was conducted for

this scale in an attempt to normalize the data.











Table 3-1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Coping scales, Personality dimensions, and Life Satisfaction


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Active 1


2. Planning
3. ISS
4.ESS
5. Sup
6. Religion
7.PS
8. Restraint
9. Accept.
10.Focus
11.Denial
12. Mental
13.Behav
14. Alcohol
15. Humor
16. C
17. E
18. 0
19. A
20. N
21. LS
M
SD


.35**
.07
.01
.19**
.14*
.37**
.01
.19**
.11
.01
-.06
-.05
-.02
.06
.31**
.16*
0.00
.12
-.11
.15*
2.75
0.79


.08
-.01
.12
0.09
.39**
.04
.27**
.12
.01
0.00
-.17**
-.07
.06
55**
.15*
-.07
.15*
-.10
17**
3.12
0.82


.31**
.13*
.19**
.12
.05
0.00
.18**
.06
.09
.05
.05
.06
.02
.12
.02
.11
.10
-.02
2.51
0.9


.11
.14*
-.13*
-.07
-.11
.31**
.24**
.12
.07
.04
-.03
.06
.13*
.04
.16*
.20**
.04
2.52
0.92


.08
.15*
.10
-.03
.05
.14*
.03
.09
.04
-.02
.10
-.01
.11
-.02
-.02
.04
2.43
0.85


.07
.06
.02
.00
-.04
-.04
-.08
-.16*
.04
.12
.09
-.14*
.10
-.03
.08
1.89
1.05


1
.07
.23**
-.03
-.14*
.03
-.22**
-.11
.20**
.26**
.17**
.09
.14*
-.28**
.24**
3.07
0.87


1
0.00
-.03
.22**
.07
.08
.05
.12
-.05
.03
.05
.03
.05
0.00
2.06
0.79


1
.12
-.09
.03
-.10
-.17**
.14*
.23**
.02
-.07
.04
-.23**
.07
3.25
0.7


1
.07
.05
-.07
.19**
0.03
.10
.07
.11
.06
.08
.08
2.70
0.86


Note. ISS = Instrumental social support, ESS = Emotional social support, Sup = Suppression of competing activities, PS = Positive
Reinterpretation and Growth, Restraint = Restraint coping, Accept = Acceptance, Focus = Focus on and venting of emotions, Mental
Mental disengagement, Behav. = Behavioral disengagement, Alcohol = Alcohol and drug use, C = Conscientiousness, E =
Extraversion, 0 = Openness, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism, LS = Life Satisfaction.
*p < 0.05 level, two-tailed. **p < 0.01 level, two-tailed










Table 3-1 Continued
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
11. Denial
12. Mental .24**
13. Behav
13. Behav .29** .36** 1
14. Alcohol
14. Alcohol .10 .12 .15* 1
15. Humor
15. Humor -0.06 0.12 -.01 .06 1
16. C -.14* -.23** -.36** -.14* .06 1
17. E .13* -.03 -.05 .05 .24** .20** 1
18. O
.02 .14* .04 .17** .06 -.09 -.03 1
19. A -.08 -.03 -.07 -.11 .02 .15* .31** .02 1
20. N .28** .19** .22** .05 -.22** -.24** -.27** -.01 -.16* 1
21. LS -.06 -.10 -.18** -.05 .18** .28** .35** -.07 .18** -.42** 1

M 1.74 2.33 1.70 1.47 3.03 33.40 32.30 27.90 31.90 19.90 26.90
SD 0.73 0.9 0.76 0.72 0.93 6.34 5.85 6.10 5.49 7.14 5.50


Note. ISS = Instrumental social support, ESS = Emotional social support, Sup


Suppression of competing activities, PS = Positive


Reinterpretation and Growth, Restraint = Restraint coping, Accept = Acceptance, Focus = Focus
Mental disengagement, Behav. = Behavioral disengagement, Alcohol = Alcohol and drug use, C
Extraversion, 0 = Openness, A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism, LS = Life Satisfaction.
*p < 0.05 level, two-tailed. **p < 0.01 level, two-tailed


on and venting of emotions, Mental
= Conscientiousness, E =









Measurement Model 1

The first step in this portion of the analysis was to test the construct reliability of

the variables for set 1 (Neuroticism, Avoidance, Distraction, and Life Satisfaction) and

set 2 (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation, and

Life Satisfaction). In order to test the hypothesized factor models originally proposed a

series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. As shown in Table 3 2 below,

the results of the original model or set 1A using Neuroticism, Avoidance, Distraction, and

Life Satisfaction revealed the NNFI was below .90, the GFI was .76, the Q score (X2/df

ratio) was above 3, and the RMSEA was .09, which indicated an unacceptable fit.

Consequently, subsequent models were run with a combined avoidance and

distraction coping factor based on theoretical predictions and past research in order to

determine whether improvements in the model might be observed. As shown in Table 3-

2 there were improvements made in the goodness of fit statistics of this model which was

labeled Set IB. However, a close examination of the residual matrices revealed

problems with model IB. According to Bagozzi and Yi (1989) models with fewer than

10% of the residuals with values more than .10 are preferable. An examination of the

fitted residual matrix revealed that 37% of the residuals were greater than .10 with the

vast majority being derived from the Neuroticism subscale of the NEO-FFI.

Additionally, due to the skewed Neuroticism scores, all observed variables for these

scales were transformed using a log-linear transformation and these scores were then

used in a subsequent measurement model (Set IC). The results of this model revealed

similar values for the RMSEA, NNFI, and CRA fit indices to Set IB but with this model

less than 10% of the fitted residuals were more than .10. Thus, model IC was used in









subsequent analyses. The item loadings, theta-delta, and R-squared values for this

measurement model are shown in Table 3 3.

Table 3-2. Fit Indices for Measurement Model Sets 1, 2, and 3
Model NNFI RMSEA 90% Cla pclose GFI X2/df ECVI 90% CIb
lA .81 .09 .08; .11 .000 .76 2.02 4.39 3.93; 4.90

IB .85 .08 .07; .08 .000 .83 2.43 2.54 2.29; 2.83

1C .82 .07 .06; .08 .000 .84 2.13 2.28 2.05; 2.54

2A .86 .07 .06; .07 .000 .84 2.15 2.93 2.66; 3.23

2B .89 .07 .06; .08 .000 .87 2.22 1.97 1.76; 2.22

3A .92 .06 .06; .07 .000 .84 2.05 2.82 2.56; 3.11

3B .93 .07 .06; .07 .000 .87 2.10 2.07 1.85; 2.32
Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; close = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI
= Expected Cross-validation Index; lA = Neuroticism, Avoidance, Distraction, and Life
Satisfaction; IB = Neuroticism, combined avoidance and distraction, and Life
Satisfaction, IC = Neuroticism (transformed scores), Combined avoidance and
distraction, and Life Satisfaction; 2A = Extraversion, Problem Solving, Positive
Reinterpretation and Growth, Social Support, and Life Satisfaction; 2B = Extraversion,
Social Support, and Life Satisfaction; 3A = Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Social
Support, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, and Life Satisfaction; 3B =
Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, and Life
Satisfaction.
a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values.

Measurement Models 2 and 3

Based on the results of the bivariate correlations between E and C reported above, a

decision was made to run separate models using these two personality dimensions labeled

as Set 2A (Extroversion, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation and Growth, and

Social Support as one general coping factor, and Life Satisfaction) Set 2B (Extroversion,

Social Support, and Life Satisfaction), Set3A (Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving,

Social Support, and Positive Reinterpretation and Growth as one single factor, and Life









Satisfaction) and Set 3B (Conscientiousness, Problem-Solving, Positive Reinterpretation

and Growth as one single factor, and Life Satisfaction). These models were developed

based upon theorizing about links between the personality dimensions of extroversion

and conscientiousness with coping. As shown in Table 3 2, there were similarities in

model 2A with 2B and between models 3A and 3B. In this case the differences between

two models can be assessed by examining the ECVI values; models with ECVI estimates

generally indicate a better fit to the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). As shown in Table 3-

2, the ECVI values for models 2B and 3B were lower than model 2A and 3A respectively

indicating better fit. Therefore, I used models 2B and 3B in the main analyses. The factor

loadings, theta-delta, and r-squared values for models 2B and 3B can be seen in Tables

3-4 and 3-5 respectively.

In summary, the most appropriate models used to conduct the subsequent

mediational models were Sets IC, 2B, and 3B. Pertaining to the models' convergent

validity, the average extracted variance (AVE) exceeded the recommended value of .50

for the life satisfaction scale in each model with the Neuroticism personality subscale;

however the other subscales (Extraversion = .25, Social Support = .23, Conscientiousness

= .33, Cognitive coping = .24, Avoidance coping = .27) were below .50 indicating more

specific (error and unique) variance than common variance. Additionally, the residual

matrices revealed that all of the current models had less than 10% residuals greater than

.10, which is preferable. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 3-2, based on the NNFI,

RMSEA, test for close fit, and ECVI values the results indicate that these measurement

models fit the data reasonably well.









Table 3-3. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
1C
Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R2
A


Neuroticism
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Avoidance
13
14
15
16
17
18
Life Satisfaction
19
20
21
22
23


.70
.81
.65
.91
.77
.66
.90
.54
.65
.74
.80
.75

.76
.59
.66
.29
.25
-.33

.83
.75
.88
.69
.66


Table 3-4. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
2B
Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R2
A


Extraversion
1. .47 .78 .22
2 .70 .52 .48
3 .30 .91 .09
4 .68 .54 .46
5 .40 .84 .16
6 .37 .86 .14









Table 3-4 Continued
Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R2
A

7 .52 .73 .27
8 .78 .38 .62
9 .61 .63 .37
10 .21 .96 .04
11 .33 .89 .11
12 .29 .91 .09
Social-Support
13 .47 .77 .23
14 .67 .55 .45
15 .24 .94 .06
16 .42 83 .17
Life Satisfaction
17 .75 .44 .56
18 .72 .48 .52
19 .88 .22 .78
20 .66 .56 .44
21 .62 .62 .38


Table 3-5. Factor Loadings, Theta-Delta and R-Squared Values Measurement Model Set
3B
Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R2
A

Conscientiousness
1. .45 .79 .21
2 .62 .62 .38
3 .27 .93 .07
4 .46 .79 .21

5 .56 .69 .31
6 .56 .69 .31
7 .65 .58 .42
8 .58 .67 .33
9 .57 .68 .32
10 .77 .40 .60
11 .55 .70 .30
12 .68 .54 .46
Cognitive Coping
13 .55 .70 .30
14 .72 .48 .52
15 .22 .95 .05
16 .54 .71 .29









Table 3-5 continued
Scale and Items Standardized Theta-Delta R2
A


17 .15 .98 .02
Life Satisfaction
17 .75 .43 .57
18 .72 .49 .51
19 .88 .23 .77
20 .66 .56 .44
21 .62 .62 .38

Mediational Model 1

In order to test the mediating role of coping in the Neuroticism-Life Satisfaction

relationship three models were tested. The third model shown in Figure 1-1(c), referred to

as a direct effects model, predicts that Neuroticism and Avoidance coping will each be

independently related to Life Satisfaction. The second partially mediated model, in

Figure 1-1(b), predicts that each of the latent factors will be associated with Life

Satisfaction but an additional path has linked Neuroticism with Avoidance coping.

Finally, the hypothesized or fully mediated model, in Figure 1-1(a) predicts that

Avoidance coping mediates the relationship between Neuroticism and Life Satisfaction.

As shown in Table 3-6, the test for close fit for all three models was not rejected

and the partially mediated model fit the data better than both the direct effects and fully

mediated models as there were higher NNFI and GFI values along with lower RMSEA

and ECVI values for the former model. Additionally, the ECVI value for the partially

mediated model was lower as compared to the direct effects and the fully mediated

models. These results would indicate that the partially mediated model fits the data better

than the other two models but it is also shows that it is plausible that the model closely

fits the population. However, closer examination of the path coefficients of the direct

effects model revealed that there was no significant relationship between avoidance and









life satisfaction (3 = -.02). Thus, due to the lack of the avoidance-life satisfaction

relationship mediation cannot be established based on recommendations made by Baron

and Kenny (1986).

Table 3-6. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 1
Model NNFI RMSEA 90% Cla close GFI X2/df ECVI 90% CIb

Direct Effects .94 .05 .04; .06 .69 .89 1.56 1.78 1.59; 1.99

Partially .95 .04 .03; .05 .90 .90 1.46 1.68 1.51; 1.89
Mediated
Fully Mediated .94 .05 .04; .06 .67 .89 1.57 1.78 1.60; 2.00

Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI
= Expected Cross-validation Index.
a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values.

Mediational Model 2

In order to test the mediating role of coping in the Extroversion-Life Satisfaction

relationship three models were tested using identical procedures as described in

mediational model 1. To review, mediational model two tested whether social support

mediated the relationship between extroversion and life satisfaction. The results of these

models shown in Table 3 7 revealed similarities in the NNFI, RMSEA, and GFI values.

In addition, the chi-square degrees of freedom ratio was significant for all models while

the ECVI values were very close to one another with overlapping confidence intervals.

Since these models are nested, a chi-square difference test was calculated making

comparisons between the direct effects and partially mediated models and the fully

mediated with the partially mediated models. The results of the comparison between the

direct effects and partially mediated models proved significant (AX2 = 6.63, df= 1, p <

.01), which suggests that the partially mediated model fits the data better than the direct

effects model. Additionally, the chi-square difference test between the partially mediated









and fully mediated model was also significant (AX2 = 22.93, df= 1, p < .0001), which

also suggests that the partially mediated model fits the data better than the full mediation

model. However similar to the above model, closer examination of the path coefficients

of the direct effects model revealed that there was no significant relationship between

social support and life satisfaction (3 = -.01), which revealed that mediation cannot be

established.

Table 3-7. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 2
Model NNFI RMSEA 90% Pclose GFI X2/df ECVI 90% CIb
CIa
Direct Effects .88 .07 .06; .00 .86 2.24 1.99 1.77; 2.24
.08
Partially .89 .07 .06; .00 .87 2.22 1.97 1.76; 2.22
Mediated .08
Fully Mediated .87 .07 .06; .00 .86 2.33 2.05 1.83; 2.31
.08
Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; pclose = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI
= Expected Cross-validation Index.
a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values.

Mediational Model 3

The results of mediational model 3 involving measurement model 3B described

above can be seen in Table 3-8. Recall from previous discussions that measurement

model 3B involved Conscientiousness as the personality variable, cognitive coping

characterized as problem-solving and positive reinterpretation and growth as the

mediator, with life satisfaction as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 3-8 all three

models displayed similar fit indices with the GFI values all exceeding .90 and all three

RMSEA values at .07. In order to facilitate comparisons between models I conducted

chi-squared difference tests because of the nested structure of the data. The results

revealed significant differences between the direct effects model and the partially









mediated model (AX2 = 47.35, df= 1, p < .0001) indicating that the partially mediated

model fits the data better than the direct effects model. However, the test comparing the

partially mediated with the fully mediated model was not significant (AX2 = .80, df= 1, p

= .37), which indicated that the fully mediated model fits the data as well as or better than

the partially mediated model. Another more stringent means of comparing models is to

use the ECVI and RMSEA values along with their respective confidence intervals. An

examination of these values indicated similar fit indices and overlapping confidence

intervals and therefore these models fit the data equally well.

To further test for mediation, I examined the path coefficients for each model. For

the direct effects model the paths between conscientiousness and life satisfaction (P =

.17) and cognitive coping and life satisfaction (P = .21) were both significant indicating

the possibility of mediation. I then examined the partially mediated model and observed

significant paths between conscientiousness and cognitive coping (P = .69) but non-

significant paths between conscientiousness and life satisfaction (P = .17) and between

cognitive coping and life satisfaction (P = .14). Finally, the fully mediated model

demonstrated significant paths from conscientiousness and cognitive coping (P = .70) and

between cognitive coping and life satisfaction (P = .29). In summary, it would appear that

the fully mediated model with significant associations between conscientiousness and

cognitive coping and between this form of coping with life satisfaction fits the data best.






67


Table 3-8. Fit Indices for Mediational Analyses 3
Model NNFI RMSEA 90% Cla Pclose GFI X2/df ECVI 90% CIb

Direct Effects .91 .07 .06; .08 .00 .85 2.35 2.28 2.04; 2.55

Partially .93 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.13 2.10 1.88; 2.35
Mediated
Fully Mediated .93 .07 .06; .08 .00 .86 2.12 2.09 1.87; 2.34

Note. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation; close = p-value for test for close fit; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; ECVI
= Expected Cross-validation Index.
a Confidence interval for RMSEA scores. b Confidence intervals for ECVI values.














CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Conclusion

The purposes of the present study were to examine interrelationships between

personality, coping and life satisfaction with college student-athletes. Firstly, I assessed

the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and coping responses by

using Lazarus' (1999) cognitive-motivational-relational theory of stress, emotion and

coping as a general framework. Secondly, I examined relationships between personality,

coping and life satisfaction, which included testing the mediational role of coping in the

personality-life satisfaction relationship.

Considering the relationship between personality and life satisfaction it was

expected that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness would be significantly

related to life satisfaction and coping would mediate the personality-life satisfaction

relationship (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003).

Based upon past research it was hypothesized that neurotic individuals would use more

avoidant coping responses and have lower levels of life satisfaction (Costa & McCrae,

1980, 1990). In support of this research, the bivariate correlations in the present study

revealed significant negative associations between neuroticism and life satisfaction.

Additionally, past research reported that neurotic individuals were more likely to use

emotion-focused coping and avoidance coping responses and less likely to use positive

reappraisal when dealing with stress (Endler & Parker, 1990; Hooker, Frazier, &

Monahan, 1994; O'brien & Delongis, 1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls,









1999). The correlations of the present study supported past research by revealing that

neuroticism was significantly associated with mental and behavioral disengagement,

denial, and emotional social support and less likely to use positive reappraisal and humor.

With regard to extraversion, individuals with more of this trait are characterized as

being talkative, gregarious and exhibiting a positive affect (Costa & McCrae, 1980,

1990). Past research showed that extraverted individuals tend to be happier leading to

high levels of life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes &

Joseph, 2003), they are more likely to use social support, problem solving strategies and

positive reappraisal (Endler & Parker, 1990; Hooker, et. al, 1994; O'brien & Delongis,

1996; Watson & Hubbard, 1996; David & Suls, 1999). In support of past research, the

present results showed the extraverted athletes tended to have high levels of life

satisfaction and were more likely to use active coping, planning, seek emotional social

support, positive reappraisal and humor.

Finally, with regard to conscientiousness these individuals are characterized as

being reliable, hard-working, and self-disciplined (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and based on

past research conscientious individuals tend to also possess high levels of life satisfaction

(McCrae & Costa, 1991; Courneya et al., 2000; Hayes & Joseph, 2003), are more likely

to use problem-focused coping strategies and less likely to use emotion-focused strategies

such as mental and behavioral disengagement (Hooker et al., 1994; Vickers et al., 1989;

Watson & Hubbard, 1996). The results of the present study supported past research as

conscientiousness was significantly associated with active coping, planning, positive

reappraisal, and acceptance.









Pertaining to the coping-life satisfaction relationship, past research has shown that

"practical forms of coping" such as active coping, planning, seeking instrumental social

support, and positive reappraisal tended to be related to high levels of life satisfaction

(McConaghy & Caltabiano, 2005), while neurotic forms of coping has shown to have a

negative relationship with life satisfaction (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Additionally, past

research has shown that neurotic individuals tend to have low levels of life satisfaction,

while extraverted and conscientious individuals possess high levels of life satisfaction.

Consequently, it seemed appropriate to test the mediation of neurotic forms of coping on

the Neuroticism-life satisfaction relationship, and the mediation of the practical forms of

coping on the Extraversion-life satisfaction relationship and the Conscientious-life

satisfaction relationship.

The results of the model with neuroticism as the personality dimension revealed

that within the direct effects model there were no significant paths observed between

coping and life satisfaction. Based on the recommendations by Baron and Kenny (1986)

all three conditions have not been met therefore mediation cannot be established.

Consequently, there was no evidence to support any coping mediation between

neuroticism and life satisfaction within the present sample.

With regard to extroversion, it was expected that social support would mediate the

relationship between extraversion and life satisfaction. Similar to the neuroticism model,

results also revealed that there was no significant path between social support and life

satisfaction, resulting in a lack of qualification of mediation. Thus, there was no evidence

to support for my hypothesis of a full mediated model for extraversion.









Finally, the model with conscientiousness had more promising results but my

interpretation of these findings are cautious. Upon inspection of the direct paths to life

satisfaction from conscientiousness and cognitive coping, the results revealed that they

were significant and I therefore followed Baron and Kenny's (1986) basic steps by then

testing the partially and fully mediated models. From my perspective however there was

some confusion in the literature regarding what is actually described by Baron and Kenny

and precedent in the structural equation modeling literature regarding mediation. For

instance, on David Kenny's webpage at www.davidakenny.net four steps are outlined

that pertain to Baron and Kenny and these steps appear to represent tests of mediation

using regression procedures. According to my interpretation and extrapolation of these

steps mediation can be established within model three because the path coefficients

connecting personality to life satisfaction in the partially mediated model decreased and

were no longer significant. However, there does not seem to be consensus using SEM

procedures to test mediation as comparisons of model fit seem to be plausible when

testing direct effects, partially, and fully mediated models.

To summarize, the present study was only able to show partial support to the

hypothesized mediational role of coping on the relationship between personality and life

satisfaction. In the present sample, coping does not seem to mediate neurotic or

extraverted athletes' level of life satisfaction. However, coping may mediate

conscientious athletes' level of life satisfaction. Specifically, a hard-working, reliable and

self-disciplined athlete who copes with time management constraints by actively planning

and having a positive reappraisal of the situation would tend to have higher levels of life

satisfaction than conscientious athletes who did not use these coping strategies. Whether









or not these findings are robust require replication and indeed clarification of

methodological and statistical procedures by more experienced scholars.

Study Weaknesses and Future Directions

I proposed that coping would play a mediating role between aspects of personality

and life satisfaction. These predictions seemed to make sense because as postulated by

Lazarus (1991) coping should be related to important cognitive and affective outcomes.

Since coping did not mediate the relationship between neuroticism and life satisfaction

and between extroversion and life satisfaction several questions remain unanswered and

statistical shortcomings in the present study should be highlighted.

To begin, the measurement of coping may have been problematic for several

reasons. First, there was clearly a lot of unexplained variance in our models involving

coping and indeed the low alpha estimates suggest that my measure of coping was not

adequately tapping into this construct. One possible explanation for this could be

methodological in nature. In the present study we assessed personality and life

satisfaction which have been shown to be relatively stable constructs over time (Costa &

McCrae, 1992; Deiner, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999) and relatively impervious to minor

daily hassles such as time management concerns. However, within our measurement of

coping we asked participants to indicate how they generally coped with time management

concerns which is a specific sources of stress. Another more practical approach might be

to assess student-athletes general coping strategies not in reference to any specific source

of stress.

There were also a number of statistical weaknesses related to this study. Firstly, the

lack of coping-life satisfaction relationship may be statistically due to the use of an

inappropriate scale and the scale's lack of convergent validity. Specifically, the coping









subscales' Cronbach's alpha values, the factor loadings and the AVE scores were low.

Specifically, the low alpha scores reflect the lack of reliability exhibited by the scale. In

terms of the low factor loadings (ranging from .13 to .76), this indicates that this coping

scale may not be measuring the actual factors or concepts that were proposed.

Additionally, the low AVE scores indicate that there is too much unexplained variance

which can be accounted for by measurement error and/or unique variance rather than the

common variance of the scale.

It is important to note that the coping scale used in the present study was an

adaptation of the COPE and was used to reduce participant burden and was still in its

experimental stage. Within this experimental measure, single items were combined to

make up a broad dimension. It may have been more suitable to utilize one specific coping

item to correspond with a respective personality dimension, and subsequently run that

item as a mediator based on past research. This procedure may aid in reducing the

amount of variance found in the present study. Nevertheless, future research must ensure

the use of a more statistically sound coping scale in order to test the present study's

proposed models.

Secondly, besides the coping-life satisfaction relationship, there seems to be other

statistical problems associated with the tested models besides the coping scale. It is

important to note here that the scores between N and life satisfaction were transformed,

which allowed the sample scores to be normalized. Consequently, the N-life satisfaction

relationship is between the transformed scores of N and the transformed scores of life

satisfaction rather than the raw scores.









Similar to the coping scale, there also seemed to be issues related to the

Extraversion and Conscientiousness subscales. In the case of these subscales, no

transformation was needed because the scores were normally distributed and less than

10% of the fitted residuals were lower than .10. However, each subscale possessed low

factor loadings and the AVE scores of both of these subscales were below the

recommended .50 which revealed that the scales may be measuring different concepts,

and as discussed earlier too much is unexplained variance. For example in the case of E,

the sub-traits of E (warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking,

and positive affect) may not actually correlate adequately within the NEO-PI-R, therefore

the items in the 'short version' of the NEO may not be measuring the appropriate concept

of Extraversion. It should be noted that this is speculation and further research needs to

be conducted in order to determine the validity of this personality scale within a college-

student-athlete sample.

To summarize, there may be a conceptual limitation and a number of statistical

weaknesses associated with this study which makes it difficult to make any substantial

inferences or generalizations based on the results of the study. Specifically, a more broad

analysis of the type of stressor and the consequential coping responses needs to be used

to investigate any further coping-life satisfaction relationship. Additionally, with the

exception of the transformed data (Neuroticism and life satisfaction), most of the factor

loadings for all of the subscales were below the recommended .70 and the AVE scores

were below the accepted value of .50 indicating a lack of validity for the personality,

coping and life satisfaction scales. Due to these model inadequacies, more research needs






75


to be conducted to further test these relationships to ensure appropriate practical

implications for the personality-coping-life satisfaction model.
















APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY

TO: All Research Participants
FROM: Leah Martindale
RE: Informed Consent

STUDY TITLE: How do athletes' personalities and coping responses influence their satisfaction with life?

PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT: The purpose of this statement is to summarize the study I am
conducting, explain what I am asking you to do, and to assure you that the information you and other
participants share will be kept completely confidential to the extent permitted by law. Specifically, nobody
besides the Principal Investigator will be able to identify you in this study and your name will not be used
in any research reports that result from this project.

WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO: If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to
complete a demographic form and four questionnaires related to you and your sport. The questionnaires
will be related to your personal style, your attitude and interpretation towards a stressful situation, and your
life satisfaction. These questionnaires will be coded and your name will not be placed on any of them. You
do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer.

TIME REQUIRED: Approximately 30-40 minutes will be taken to complete these questionnaires.

RISKS AND BENEFITS: You may experience mild discomfort as a result of some of the questions.
Benefits will include a better understanding of the influence of athletes' personalities on coping and their
satisfaction with their sport.

COMPENSATION: No compensation is given as a result of this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. All surveys
will be kept in my office (Room 117 Florida Gym) in a locked file cabinet. Your name will not be used in
any report.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You should
not feel compelled in any way whatsoever. There is no penalty for not participating.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.

WHOM TO CONTACT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY:
Leah Simone Martindale, Graduate Assistant, Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, P. 0.
Box 118207, 117 Florida Gym, Gainesville, FL 32611-8207, phone 392-0580 ext. 1367, email -
lmartindale @hhp.ufl.edu.

WHOM TO CONTACT ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS AS A RESEARCH PARTICIPANT IN THE STUDY:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph. 392-0433.







77


AGREEMENT:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have
received a copy of this description.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:















APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please complete the following demographic information. Please keep in mind that all of
your information will be confidential.

Please indicate your gender:
1. Male
2. Female
Please indicate what sport you compete in:
1. Swimming
2. Soccer
3. Track and Field/cross country
4. Baseball
5. Volleyball
6. Lacrosse
7. Other

Please indicate your year in college:
1. Freshman
2. Sophomore
3. Junior
4. Graduate student

What is your age? _

Please indicate your ethnicity:
1. Black/African American
2. Asian
3. White/Caucasian
4. Hispanic
5. Native American
6. Other

Please indicate the number of years you have participated in your sport:

How many credits are you presently enrolled in school?
1. 1-3 credits
2. 4-6 credits
3. 7-11 credits
4. 12 or more credit

















APPENDIX C
COPING SCALE

Athletes are faced with numerous stressors as they prepare to train and compete in their sports. For most
athletes, one of the main stressors is balancing their time efficiently to fulfill their numerous roles. These
time management issues can include having to balance training/competing with classes and exams, with
interpersonal relationships, or a specific occupation.
Instructions: Please rate the degree to which you used these strategies on a scale of 1 (very little) to 4 (a
lot) to cope with your time management obstacles. Please circle the appropriate response.

1. Active coping: Taking action, exerting efforts, to remove or circumvent the stressor.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

2. Planning: Thinking about how to confront the stressor, planning one's active coping efforts.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

3. Seeking Instrumental Social Support: Seeking assistance, information, or advice about what to
do.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

4. Seeking Emotional Social Support: Getting sympathy or emotional support from someone
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

5. Suppression of Competing Activities: Suppressing one's attention to other activities in which
one might engage, in order to concentrate more completely on dealing with the stressor.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

6. Religion: Increased engagement in religious activities
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

7. Positive Reinterpretation and Growth: Making the best of the situation by growing from it, or
viewing it in a more favorable light.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4







80


Restraint Coping: Coping passively by holding back one's coping attempts until they can be of


Very little


A lot
4


9. Acceptance: Accepting the face that the stressful event has occurred and is real.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

10. Focus on and Venting of Emotions: An increased awareness of one's emotional distress, and a
concomitant tendency to ventilate or discharge those feelings.
Very little A lot


11. Denial: An attempt to reject the reality of the stressful event.
Very little


4



A lot
4


12. Mental Disengagement: psychological disengagement from the goal with which the stressor is
interfering, through daydreaming, sleep, or self-distraction.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

13. Behavioral Disengagement: Giving up, or withdrawing effort from, the attempt to attain the
goal with which the stressor is interfering.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4

14. Alcohol/Drug Use: Turning to the use of alcohol or other drugs as a way of disengaging from
the stressor.
Very little A lot
1 2 3 4


15. Humor: Making jokes about the stressor.
Very little
1 2 3


A lot















APPENDIX D
NEO FIVE FACTOR INVENTORY

Please indicate your agreement with each item by circling the appropriate number. Fill in
only one response for each statement.

Circle: 1 if you strongly disagree or the statement is false
2 if you disagree or the statement is mostly false
3 if you are neutral, you cannot decide, or the statement is equally true and false.
4 if you agree or the statement is mostly true.
5 if you strongly agree or the statement is definitely true.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree

1. I am not a worrier. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I like to have a lot of people 1 2 3 4 5
around me.
3. I don't like to waste my time 1 2 3 4 5
daydreaming.
4. I try to be courteous to 1 2 3 4 5
everyone I meet.
5. I keep my belongings neat and 1 2 3 4 5
clean.
6. I often feel inferior to others. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I laugh easily. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Once I find the right way to 1 2 3 4 5
do something, I stick to it.
9. I often get into arguments 1 2 3 4 5
with my family and co-
workers.
10. I am pretty good about pacing 1 2 3 4 5
myself to get things done on
time.
11. When I'm under a great deal 1 2 3 4 5
of stress, I feel like I am going
to pieces.
12. I don't consider myself "light 1 2 3 4 5
hearted."
13. I am intrigued by the patterns 1 2 3 4 5
I find in art and nature.






82


14. Some people think I am 1 2 3 4 5
selfish and egotistical.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
15. I am not a very 1 2 3 4 5
methodological person.
16. I rarely feel lonely or blue. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I really enjoy talking to 1 2 3 4 5
people.
18. Letting students hear 1 2 3 4 5
controversial speakers can
only confuse and mislead
them.
19. I would rather cooperate with 1 2 3 4 5
others than compete against
them.
20. I try to perform all tasks 1 2 3 4 5
assigned to me
conscientiously.
21. I often feel tense and jittery. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I like to be where the action 1 2 3 4 5
is.
23. Poetry has little or no effect 1 2 3 4 5
on me.
24. I tend to be cynical and 1 2 3 4 5
skeptical of others' intentions.
25. I have a clear set of goals and 1 2 3 4 5
work toward them in an
orderly fashion.
26. Sometimes I feel completely 1 2 3 4 5
worthless.
27. I usually prefer to do things 1 2 3 4 5
alone.
28. I often try new foreign foods. 1 2 3 4 5
29. I believe that most people will 1 2 3 4 5
take advantage of you if you
let them.
30. I waste a lot of time before 1 2 3 4 5
settling down to work.
31. I rarely feel fearful or anxious. 1 2 3 4 5
32. I often feel as if I'm bursting 1 2 3 4 5
with energy.
33. I seldom notice the moods or 1 2 3 4 5
feelings that different
environments produce.
34. Most people I know like me. 1 2 3 4 5









35. I work hard to accomplish my
goals.
36. I often get angry at the way
people treat me.
37. I am a cheerful, high-spirited
person.



38. I believe we should look to
our religious authorities for
decisions on moral issues.
39. Some people think of me as
cold and calculating.
40. When I make a commitment, I
can always be counted on to
follow through.
41. Too often, when things go
wrong, I get discouraged and
feel like giving up.
42. I am not a cheerful optimist.
43. Sometimes when I am reading
poetry or looking at a work of
art, I feel a chill or wave of
excitement.
44. I'm hard headed and tough
minded in my attitudes.
45. Sometimes I am not as
dependable or reliable as I
should be.
46. I am seldom depressed.
47. My life is fast paced.
48. I have little interest in
speculating on the nature of
the universe or the human
condition.
49. I generally try to be thoughtful
and considerate.
50. I am a productive person who
always gets the job done.
51. I often feel helpless and want
someone to solve my
problems.
52. I am a very active person.
53. I have a lot of intellectual
curiosity.
54. If I don't like people, I let


1

1

1

Strongly
Disagree
1


1

1


1


1
1



1

1


1
1
1



1

1

1


1
1


Neutral
3


5

5

5

Strongly
Agree
5


5

5


5


5
5



5

5


5
5
5



5

5

5


5
5

5


1 2






84


them know it.
55. I never seem to be able to get 1 2 3 4 5
organized.
56. At times I have been so 1 2 3 4 5
ashamed I just want to hide.
57. I would rather go my own 1 2 3 4 5
way than be a leader of others.
58. I often enjoy playing with 1 2 3 4 5
theories of abstract ideas.
59. If necessary, I am willing to 1 2 3 4 5
manipulate people to get what
I want.
60. I strive for excellence in 1 2 3 4 5
everything I do.


Have you responded to all the statements? YES NO


Have you responded accurately and honestly?


YES














APPENDIX E
THE SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE

Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the 1-7 scale
below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the
line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.

The 7 point scale is:
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = slightly disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = slightly agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree

1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
2. The conditions of my life are excellent.
3. I am satisfied with my life.
4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert H.S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs, 47.

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (71h edition). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Simon & Schuster.

Andersen, M. B., & Williams, J. M. (1999). Athletic injury, psychosocial factors, and
perceptual changes during stress. Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 735-741.

Bagozzi, R. P, & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental
designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271-284.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piontrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job
performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales
representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member
ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2000). The profile of mood states and athletic
performance: Two meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 46-68.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources
in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.

Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique.
Psychological Review, 80, 307-336.






87


Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research. Psychological Review,
75, 203-219.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1983). A control-theory model of normal behavior, and
implications for problems in self-management. In P.C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in
cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 127-194). New York:
Academic Press.

Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
267-283.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors.
Psychometrika, 12, 197-220.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality. II. Basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-507.

Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement ofpersonality. Yonkers-on-Hudson,
NY: World.

Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical, and factual study. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis ofpersonality. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for
elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47-59.

Claeys, W. (1980). Modern interactionism in personality psychology. In J. R. Nuttin
(Ed.), Geihg. dynamische relative en betekeniswereld (pp. 221-237). Leuven,
Belgium: University of Leuven.

Compas, B. E., Worsham, N. L., Ey, S., & Howell, D. C. (1996). When mom and dad has
cancer II: Coping, cognitive appraisals and psychological distress in children of
cancer patients. Health Psychology, 15, 167-175.









Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a
key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In Baltes, P.B. & Brim, 0. G., Jr.
(Eds.). Life span development and behavior (pp. 65-102). New York: Academic
Press.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa,
Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal
study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders ad the five factor model of
personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362-371.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual differences, 13, 653-665.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Masters, H. L., Herbst, J. H., Trobst, K. K., & Wiggins, J. S. (1998, March).
Neuroticism and lack of Conscientiousness as potential predisposing factors for
HIV infection. Paper presented at the Annual convention of the Society for
Behavioral Medicine, New Orleans.

Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.

Courneya, K.S., Bobick, T.M., Rhodes, R.E., Jones, L.W., Friedenreich, C.M, et al.
(2000). Personality correlates of patients' subjective well-being after surgery for
colorectal cancer: An application of the five-factor model. Journal ofPsychosocial
Oncology, 18, 61-72.

Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful
episodes. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.

Crocker, P.R.E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 161-175.

Crocker, P.R.E, & Graham, T.R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with
performance stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 325-338.









Crocker, P.R.E, Alderman, R.B., & Smith, F.M.R. (1988). Cognitive affective stress
management training with high performance youth volleyball players: Effects on
affect, cognition, and performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,
448-460.

David, J. P., & Suls, J. (1999). Coping efforts in daily life: Role of big five traits and
problem appraisals. Journal of Personality, 67, 265-294.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Dunn, W., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). The relative importance
of personality and general mental ability in managers' judgments of applicant
qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-509.

Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and health
adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33-54.

Endler, N. S. (1973). The person versus the situation: A pseudo issue? A response to
Alker. Journal of Personality, 41, 287-303.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis ofpersonality. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.

Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd edition). London:
Methuen.

Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Eysenck on extraversion. New York: Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). The manual of the Eysenck Personality
Inventory. London: University of London Press.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: EdITS.

Fischer, C.T. (1989) Personality and assessment. In R.S. Valle, & H. Steen (Eds.),
Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of
human experience. New York, NY: Plenum Press (pp. 157-178).

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.

Fiske, D. W. (1974). The limits of the conventional science of personality. Journal of
Personality, 42, 1-11.









Flett, R. A., Kazantzis, N., Long, N. R., & MacDonald, C. (2002). Traumatic events and
physical health in a New Zealand community sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress,
15, 303-312.

Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal
coping: Theory, research and application (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion
and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. And Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 12-66).
London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923).

Giacobbi, P. R., Lynn, T. K., Wetherington, J. M., Jenkins, J., Bodendorf, M., & Langley,
B. (2004). Stress and coping during the transition to university for first-year female
athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 1-20.

Giacobbi, P.G. & Weinberg, R.S. (2000). An examination of coping in sport: Individual
trait anxiety differences and situational consistency. The Sport Psychologist, 14,
42-62.

Gough, H.G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator's guide. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gould, D., Eklund, R.C., & Jackson, S.A. (1992). 1988 U.S. Olympic wrestling
excellence II thoughts and affect during competition. The Sport Psychologist, 6,
383-402.

Gould, D., Finch S., & Jackson, S.A. (1993). Coping strategies used by national
champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 453-468.

Gould, D., Jackson, S. A., & Finch, S. (1993). Sources of stress in national champion
figure skaters. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 134-159.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis
players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 341-366.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hammermeister, J., & Burton, D. (1993). Does anxiety reduce the limits of human
endurance?: Perceived threat, control, and coping resources as antecedents of
competive anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15 (supplement),
S39.