Behavioral Psychology / Psicología Conductual, Vol. 19, Nº 2, 2011, pp. 333-345
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN SATISFACTION
WITH LIFE AND SPORT1
Nicolas Baudin1, Anton Aluja2,3, Jean-Pierre Rolland1,
and Angel Blanch2,3
1
Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France; 2University of Lleida;
3Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida (Spain)
Abstract
This study tested the relationships between personality, measured with the
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R),
satisfaction with life and satisfaction with sport, based on the five dimensions
and on the thirty facets. Consistent with previous studies, satisfaction with life
and satisfaction with sport were highly correlated. Stepwise regressions analysis
showed that neuroticism and extraversion were the best predictors of life and
sport satisfaction, bearing in mind that the other dimensions did not provide any
prediction whatsoever. These results also indicated that a more precise facetbased assessment of personality significantly increased the prediction of satisfaction with life. The parametrical or graphical regression analysis LOESS revealed
an interesting and different relationship between personality and satisfaction
with life and sport.
Key words: personality dimensions, personality facets, life satisfaction, sport
satisfaction.
Resumen
Este estudio evaluó las relaciones entre la personalidad, medida por el
“Inventario de personalidad, neuroticismo, extraversión y apertura, revisado”
(Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory-Revised NEO-PI-R),
satisfacción con la vida y la satisfacción con el deporte, basándose en las cinco
dimensiones y las treinta facetas. Siendo consistentes con estudios previos, la
satisfacción con la vida y la satisfacción con el deporte tuvieron una alta correlación.
Un análisis de regresión por pasos sucesivos mostró que el neuroticismo y la
extraversión eran los mejores predictores de la satisfacción con la vida y con el
deporte, teniendo en cuenta que las otras dimensiones no aportaron ninguna
predicción. Estos resultados también indicaron que una valoración más precisa de
Correspondence: Anton Aluja, Institut of Biomedical Research of Lleida, University of Lleida, Avd.
Estudi General, 4, 25001 Lleida (Spain). E-mail: aluja@pip.udl.cat
334
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
la personalidad, con base en las facetas, aumentó la predicción en la satisfacción
con la vida. Un análisis de regresión gráfica o paramétrico LOESS mostró una
relación interesante y diferente entre la personalidad y la satisfacción con la vida
y con el deporte.
Palabras clave: dimensiones de personalidad, facetas de personalidad, satisfacción
de vida, satisfacción deportiva.
Introduction
Psychology has focused for a long time on the association of the negative
emotions with the distress of individuals (anxiety, depression…) while forgetting
positive emotions such as happiness and satisfaction. For example, it has only been
since 1973 that the International Psychological Abstracts introduced the key word
“happiness” into its repertory (Diener, 1984). This tendency has changed and
researchers have shifted their interest to the positive pole of human behaviour with
happiness becoming a central topic.
Over the past two decades research on the determinants of subjective wellbeing has increased dramatically (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999) Researchers
typically distinguish an affective component and a cognitive component of subjective
wellbeing. The present article focuses on the cognitive component of subjective
well-being, that is, people’s evaluations of their lives. This component of subjective
well-being is typically assessed by life satisfaction judgments (e.g., ‘‘I am satisfied with
my life’’; cf., Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985).
After focusing on demographic factors such as health, income, educational
context and marital status, which were showed to explain only a weak amount
of the variance of life satisfaction (Campbell, Converse, & Rodgers, 1976) other
works have demonstrated that levels of life satisfaction are stable over time and
are often correlated with stable personality features (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003).
While the first approach (situational) attempted to identify the external factors
influencing life satisfaction including environmental or demographic factors, the
second (personality traits) focused on the internal processes of the individual. This
distinction gave rise to two hierarchical models of life satisfaction: the bottom-up
and top-down models (Diener, 1984).
The top-down approach defends the assumption that people have a stable
predisposition to interpret life experiences. Individuals react to experiences either in
a positive or in a negative way and this general tendency influences the evaluation
of the various events occurring in a variety of life domains. According to the
bottom-up theory, global feelings of well-being are the result of favorable events
and living conditions. In other words, satisfaction and happiness are the result of
a life containing numerous moments (or conditions) of happiness in a variety of
realms: family, couple, incomes or work.
In the late 1990s, a meta-analysis by DeNeve & Cooper (1998) highlighted
the existence of a large number of works concerning the relationship between
personality and subjective well-being. A recent study showed that previous
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
335
research had underestimated the relationship between personality and subjective
well-being, and established that total subjective well-being variance accounted
for by personality can reach as high as 39% or 63%, corrected from the error
of measure (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). In terms of the Big Five dimensions,
the aforementioned study suggested that neuroticism and extraversion were the
most important predictors of life satisfaction. McCrae & Costa, Jr. (1991) suggested
that agreeableness and conscientiousness would increase the likelihood of positive
experiences in social and achievement situations, respectively, and that they could
be directly related to subjective well-being. Openness to experience should lead
the person to experience both more positive and negative emotional states. In an
integrative study on life satisfaction stability and the use of chronically accessible
sources of judgement, Shimmack, Diener, & Oishi, (2002) showed that three
dimensions of personality, extraversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness can
explain 65% of the life satisfaction variance.
Job satisfaction has been the most studied life satisfaction (LS) domain. The
link between personality and job satisfaction was found to be the same as for
life satisfaction. The main reason being that, work is a central life activity for
most people explaining the strong link between job and life satisfaction (Dubin,
1956; Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989). A meta-analysis by Judge, Heller, & Mount
(2002) suggested that correlations with job satisfaction were high and negative
for neuroticism, high and positive for extraversion and conscientiousness and low
and negative for openness to experience and agreeableness. Moreover, only the
relationships of neuroticism and extraversion with job satisfaction generalized
across studies. Personality traits showed a high correlation with job satisfaction,
indicating support for the validity of the dispositional source of job satisfaction
when traits are organized according to the five factor model of personality. Most
of the studies assessed personality at the level of broad and global personality
traits. However, as an intervening step toward explanatory research, it would be
fruitful to consider more research between subjective well-being and personality
at a facet level. We located only a few studies investigating subjective wellbeing at this level of precision, but the results were extremely promising (Steel
et al., 2008). In a meta-analysis, Steel et al. showed that facet level analysis
accounted for approximately twice the amount of variance than a trait level. At
a facet level, the depression facet of neuroticism and the positive emotion facet
of extraversion appeared to be the strongest and most consistent predictors of
life satisfaction (Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, & Funder, 2004). Some studies indicated
that life satisfaction could be viewed as the result of satisfaction with various life
domains (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). This notion is based
on the assumption that individuals evaluate the details of their life’s experiences
when making overall satisfaction judgments (Rice, McFarlin, Hunt, & Near, 1985).
Only a few studies have discussed about non-work life domains, even though
equivalent linking mechanisms could apply to satisfaction with non-work life
domains (Rode, 2004). Sport is a very important life domain and can be perceived
as a non-work life satisfaction domain. Participation in sports and physical activity
has received an increasing interest in our society where obesity and a sedentary
336
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
lifestyle have become more widespread (US Department of Health and Human
Services, 1996). The study on the influence of dispositional variables in sport
satisfaction and their link with life satisfaction might provide additional evidence
for the predictive influence of personality on life satisfaction’s domains. In the
sports literature, the subjective point of view of the athlete is largely ignored for
the benefit of an objective evaluation of the performances or the physical and
technical qualities. Other researches are based on the concept of achievement
and the goal theory (Cindy & Koenraad, 2005) or study the motivation to engage
and continue the activity like the “Satisfaction with the quality of the sporting
experience” survey (S.Q.S.E) conducted by the English government. Some study
tried to rely on cognitive process and created new measures like the Perception
of Success Questionnaire (POSQ; Roberts, Treasure, & Balague, 1998), or the
Satisfaction Interest Boredom Questionnaires (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) which were
used in the sport domain. But all these researches are from different theoretical
background and there is nothing like a clear definition of what sport satisfaction
is and how to measure it. While it was the same in the work domain during
several decades, researchers are giving a more central part to the individual
subjective point of view by using the concept of job satisfaction and by studying
the link with life satisfaction. Based on the works of Diener (1984) and Pavot
& Diener (1993) we can define sport satisfaction as a cognitive judgment of
an individual overall sports experiences in which the criteria are decided by the
person herself.
The aims of the present work were to study the relationship between
personality and life and sport satisfaction at a facet level, in order to provide a more
accurate description of these relationships and to compare whether NEO PI-R, at
both the dimensions and facets levels, was a better predictor of life satisfaction
or sport satisfaction. In accordance with past results (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998),
we hypothesised a positive relationship between neuroticism and extraversion,
measured by the NEO PI-R, life satisfaction and sport satisfaction. Furthermore,
the current work assessed differences in the personality profile in regard to life and
sport satisfaction levels.
Method
Sample
Participants were three hundred and thirteen French (231 men and 82
women) with ages ranging from 17 to 47 (M= 22.9, SD= 5.9) who volunteered
to participate in the study. Participants were competitive athletes engaging in a
collective sport activity (Handball, football, US football, rugby) three to five times
a week, for one to thirty years. All of the participants compete on a regular basis
(match every week end during the season) in different levels ranging from regional
to international. No specific criteria were used for the sample construction other
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
337
than a regular and competitive practice for more than two years. Participants
completed the French language version of the satisfaction with life scale and the
satisfaction with sport scale as well as a personality based measure. A trained
interviewer collected the data on the training sites of all participants. Most of the
required athletes participated in the study.
Instruments
1. Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Questionnaire-Revised (NEO
PI-R). The French version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO
PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used to measure the personality domains:
neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness to experience (O), agreeableness
(A), and conscientiousness (C), and their thirty facets. Subjects answer to
the 240 items of the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0-4),
ranging from” Strongly disagree” (0) to “Strongly agree” (4). Reliability
coefficients (Cronbach alpha) ranged from 0.85 (agreeableness) to 0.92
(neuroticism) (Costa, McCrae, & Rolland, 1998). Spanish adaptation of the
NEO-PI-R is published by Aluja, Blanch, Solé, Dolcet, & Gallart, S. (2009).
2. Satisfaction with life scale. The satisfaction with life scale (Pavot & Diener,
1993; Diener et al., 1985) was developed for the evaluation of general
life satisfaction. Subjects responded to five affirmative sentences (“The
conditions of my life are excellent”; “If I could live my life over, I would
change almost nothing”). The original study by Diener et al. (1985) found a
reliability coefficient (Cronbach alpha) of 0.87.
3. Satisfaction with sport scale. The satisfaction with sport scale inventory
was developed expressly for this study based on the satisfaction with life
scale (Diener et al., 1985) for the evaluation of general sport satisfaction.
This measure contains five items build in reference to the five items if the
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985). Participants indicated on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(7) their agreement with these five statements: “1. In most ways my sport
life is close to my ideal; 2. The conditions of my sport life are excellent; 3. I
am satisfied with my sport life; 4. So far I have gotten the important things
I want in my sport life; 5. If I could live my sport life over, I would change
almost nothing”. The satisfaction with sport scale is reliable (Cronbach
alpha coefficient 0.76).
Statistical Analyses
To test the data, we used linear and graphical non-parametrical regression
analyses. First, we conducted a series of stepwise regression analysis in which
we set the inclusion criterion to p< 0.05 and the out criterion to p< 0.10. The
relationships were analyzed through the LOESS, non-parametric, local area,
polynomial regression procedure (Fan & Gijbels, 1996; Fox, 2000) to produce data
338
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
points for the NEO-PI-R dimensions lines that run the full length of the satisfaction
continua. This procedure was recently used by Aluja, García, Cuevas, & García
(2007) for predicting personality disorders from personality dimensions.
Results
Descriptive, correlations and internal consistence
Table 1 shows descriptive distribution values and reliabilities for the Neuroticism
Extraversion Openness Personality Questionnaire-Revised, satisfaction with life scale
and satisfaction with sport scale. Note that the kurtosis and skewness report a normal
distribution for all scales (values between -1 and +1). Internal consistence alphas
for the measures of personality, life satisfaction and sport satisfaction are correct
and ranged from 0.64 to 0.85. The correlation between life satisfaction and sport
satisfaction is positive. In this study, significant correlations were found between
the NEO-PI-R, life satisfaction and sport satisfaction. Neuroticism, extraversion,
conscientiousness, and agreeability were correlated with life satisfaction while only
neuroticism and extraversion were correlated with sport satisfaction. The analysis
regarding the impact of age and gender, on life satisfaction and sport satisfaction
were non-significant.
Linear regression analysis
To examine the unique contribution of personality dimensions and facets to life
satisfaction and sport satisfaction, we conducted a series of independent stepwise
regression analyses for the NEO PI-R dimensions and facets. Table 2 shows that
for the dimensions, only neuroticism and extraversion were significant predictors
of life and sport satisfaction. We can note here that neuroticism (b= -0.33) was
the best predictor of life satisfaction while extraversion (b= 0.17) was the best for
sport satisfaction. In another analysis, considering the relation between the facets
and life satisfaction, vulnerability (b= -0.22), depression (b= -0.19) and positive
emotions (b= 0.19) were the best predictors. For sport satisfaction, the positive
emotions facets of extraversion was the higher predictor (b= 0.20) and only anxiety
(b= -0.14) was also significant in this analysis. When all the facets and dimensions
were included in the same analysis, the dimensions did not explain any additional
variance in life satisfaction and the neuroticism dimension became the second
predictor of sport satisfaction after the positive emotions facet. We also examined
whether personality dimensions belonging to the other three dimensions of the NEO
PI-R added to the prediction of satisfaction. Simple correlation (table 1) revealed some
positive relation of conscientiousness with life satisfaction but conscientiousness as
well as openness or agreeableness were not significant predictors in the regression
analysis.
115.57
110.84
116.58
112.22
23.04
22.58
2. Extraversion
3. Openess
4. Agreeableness
5. Conscientiousness
6. Life satisfaction
7. Sport satisfaction
*p< 0.05 ; **p< 0.01.
89.27
M
1. Neuroticism
Variables
5.07
5.47
17.88
16.45
15.26
16.52
19.66
SD
-0.14
0.09
0.31
0.78
0.13
-0.07
0.36
Kurtosis
-0.45
-0.46
-0.41
-0.49
0.39
-0.14
0.24
Skewness
0.76
0.85
0.80
0.69
0.64
0.71
0.80
a
-0.19**
-0.39**
-0.27**
-0.09
0.18**
-0.26**
1
0.21**
0.30**
0.23**
0.06
0.23**
2
-0.05
-0.05
0.04
0.10
3
Table 1
Descriptives statistics and bivariates correlations for observed indicators
0.03
0.12*
0.21**
4
0.07
0.20**
5
0.45**
6
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
339
340
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
Table 2
Stepwise regression between dimensions and facets of the NEOPI-R and life
satisfaction and sport satisfaction
Variables
Life Satisfaction
b
R2
Sport Satisfaction
b
Neuroticism
-0.33
Extraversion
0.22
N1 - Anxiety
--
-0.14
N3 - Depression
-0.19
--
N6 - Vulnerability
-0.22
E6 - Positive emotions
0.19
A1 - Confiance
0.17
--
O4 - Actions
-0.12
--
0.20
0.27
-0.14
0.17
-0.20
R2
0.06
0.07
Non-parametrical graphical regression analysis (LOESS)
Non-linear relationships were analyzed through the LOESS, non-parametric,
local area, polynomial regression procedure (Aluja, García, Cuevas, & García, O,
2007; Fan & Gijbels, 1996; Fox, 2000) to produce data points for the NEO-PIR
dimensions lines that run the full length of the Life and Sport Satisfaction continua.
This method involves a series of local regression analyses that allow the shape of a
curve to vary across the variable continua. For each specified neighbourhood of data
points, a weighted least-squares regression is performed that fits linear or quadratic
functions of the predictors at the centres of every neighborhood (O’Connor,
2005). The procedure produces a smoothed, nonlinear curve fit to the data which
is analogous to the moving averages that are computed in time series analyses.
NEOPI-R dimensions raw scores were transformed to z scores, whereas the two
satisfaction scales were converted to T scores. Subjects with high life satisfaction
presented a profile of low scores in neuroticism and high scores in agreeableness
and extraversion. For sport satisfaction, the high score in extraversion was more
important while the score in neuroticism was lower than for life satisfaction. We
can also highlight that openness to experiences remained stable on the continuum
of satisfaction which suggests that openness to experiences was not linked to any
of the satisfaction scales (figure 1).
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
341
Figure 1
Comparison of LOESS plot for NEO PI-R domains and life and sport satisfaction
342
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
Discussion
This study intended to replicate the relations between the NEO-PI-R and life
satisfaction obtained by previous research (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Shimmack et
al., 2004; Steel et al., 2008) in a sport-oriented sample. According to Rojas (2006),
there is a general consensus on the association between a person’s life satisfaction
and his or her satisfaction in different areas of life. The positive correlation between
life and sport satisfaction in a sports-oriented sample provided additional evidence
of this association. This result was consistent with previous studies on the relation
between life satisfaction and domains satisfaction. For people involved in sport
more than three times a week and at a competitive level, satisfaction in this domain
of activity seems to contribute to overall life satisfaction.
Extraversion and neuroticism were significant predictors of life satisfaction
(Diener et al., 2003). The personality dimensions related to sport satisfaction are
linked to a lesser extent, although they were the same as for life satisfaction. Life
satisfaction and sport satisfaction were correlated and predicted by the same
personality dimensions in linear regression. Analyses at a facet-level showed that
vulnerability, depression and positive emotions were the best predictors of life
satisfaction as previously demonstrated by Shimmack et al. (2004). An interesting
finding is that the configuration of the relations between personality and life and
sport satisfaction were different. The facets of anxiety and positive emotions were
significantly linked to higher levels of sport satisfaction. Success while participating
in a sport is determined to produce a variety of positive feelings, and reduced the
levels of excitement and anxiety (Wilson & Kerr, 1998). These results also showed
that a more precise assessment of personality at the level of lean facets increased
the variance that personality traits explain in satisfaction as indicated by Shimmack
et al. (2004). Often, the facets predict additional variance that is lost by aggregating
facets into global factors showing the necessity to study personality traits at
different levels of specificity (Steel et al., 2008).
Within the non- parametrical graphical regression analyses, we can precise
the personality profile of a person with low and high scores on both satisfaction
dimensions. This analysis can provide a more comprehensive insight into the
relationships of personality with life and sport satisfaction. These graphics show
that at high life satisfaction levels, neuroticism display low scores, whereas
agreeableness and extraversion show high scores. This result is consistent with
past research (Hills & Argyle, 2001; Steel et al., 2008) which found neuroticism
(in negative) to be the predictor of happiness and life satisfaction and also with
McCrae & Costa, Jr. (1991) suggestion that agreeableness would increase the
probability of positive experiences in social and achievement situations. There are
some notable differences in regard to sport satisfaction. A high sport satisfaction
score was especially characterized by high levels of extraversion. The extravert feels
more positive feelings in social situations than in not social situations (Pavot, Diener,
& Fujita, 1990). The importance and frequency of socials contacts achieved by an
extravert in sport situations could be one of the reasons that an extravert would
have higher levels of sport satisfaction. According to Gray (1981) extraverts are also
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
343
predisposed to be more satisfied in social situations such as practicing a collective
sport, which is the case for the majority of our sample.
A differential pattern concerning the conscientiousness dimension in regard
to life and sport satisfaction was observed when comparing the graphical
analyses. While conscientiousness showed a consistent association with higher
scores in life satisfaction, this trend was weaker in the case of sport satisfaction.
Persons with higher scores in sport satisfaction presented a profile with a high
score in extraversion and a low score in neuroticism, while to a lesser extent they
obtained higher scores in agreeableness and lower in conscientiousness. Besides,
persons high in extraversion (participative, active, adventure seeker) and low in
conscientiousness (inconformity, independent...) could present some sensation
seeking personality traits, because in accordance with Zuckerman (1994), athletes
tend to behave as sensation seekers. The openness to experience dimension was
relatively stable across life and sport satisfaction, indicating its low influence in the
prediction of both satisfaction dimensions. It should be interesting to link these
results with the ones of the exercise dependence field. Hausenblast & Giaccobi
(2004) showed that personality, and especially highs scores in extraversion and
neuroticism, was linked to exercise dependence symptoms. Are those people with
exercise dependant symptoms more likely to be satisfied or dissatisfied with their
sport life? Is the link between life and sport satisfaction higher for those people?
Are the peoples practicing sport more satisfied with their life than the ones noninvolved in this activity? Is being satisfied with his sport life could be an indicator of
the sport adherence?
Summing up, the present study shows that life and sport satisfaction were
moderately related. The best personality predictors for life and sport satisfaction
were extraversion and neuroticism even though their predictive value was higher
for life satisfaction than for sport satisfaction. Using NEO-PI-R facets as independent
variables, the accounted variance for life satisfaction improved but the change
stayed very little (7% of the variance). Non-parametrical graphical analysis showed
that the participants present a different personality profile in relation to life and
sport satisfaction levels.
References
Aluja, A., Blanch, A, Solé, D, Dolcet, J.M., & Gallart, S. (2009). Validación de las versiones
cortas del NEO-PI-R: el NEO-FFI frente al NEO-FFI-R. Behavioral Psychology/Psicología
Conductual, 17, 335-350.
Aluja, A., García, L. F., Cuevas, L., & García, O. (2007). Zuckerman’s personality model
predicts MCMI-III personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 13111321.
Andrews, F. A., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being in America: the
development and measurement of perceptual indicators. New York: Plenum Press.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life:
perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York: Sage.
344
Baudin, Aluja, Rolland and Blanch
Cindy, H. P., & Koenraad J. L. (2005). Motivational orientations in youth sport participation:
using achievement goal theory and reversal theory. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 605-618.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R., & Rolland, J. P. (1998). Manuel de l’inventaire NEOPI-R.
Paris: ECPA.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., y Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being:
emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-425.
Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial workers’ worlds: the ‘central life interests’ of industrial workers.
Journal of Social Issues, 3, 131-42.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork
and in sport. Journal of educational psychology, 84, 290-299.
Fan, J., & Gijbels, I. (1996). Local polynomial modelling and its applications. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Fox, J. (2000). Non parametric simple regression: smoothing scatterplots. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model
for personality (pp. 246-276). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hausenblas, H. A., & Giacobbi, P. R. (2004). Relationship between exercise dependence
symptoms and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1265-1273.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357-1364.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: the full five factor model
and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
O’Connor, B. P. (2005). Graphical analyses of personality disorders in five-factor model space.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 287-305.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological
Assessment, 5, 164-172.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11, 1299-1306.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., & Near, J. P. (1985). Organizational work and the
perceived quality of life: toward a conceptual model. Academy of Management Review,
10, 296-310.
Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Balague, G. (1998). Achievement goals in sport: the
development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 16, 337-347.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: a longitudinal test of an
integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205-1230.
Personality in life and sport satisfaction
345
Rojas, M. (2006). Life satisfaction and satisfaction in domains of life: is it a simple
relationship? Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 467-497.
Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and
a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources.
Journal of Personality, 70, 345-384.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2004). Personality and life satisfaction:
a facet level analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062-1075.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161.
Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: a re-examination of
the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 502-507.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1996). Physical activity and health: a
report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion.
Wilson, D. M., & Kerr, J. R. (1998). An exploration of Canadian social values relative to health
care. American Journal of Health Behavior, 22, 120-129.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Recibido: 14 de mayo de 2010
Aceptado: 28 de junio de 2010