Volume 2 • Issue 6 • 1000117
J Sports Med Doping Stud
ISSN: 2161-0673 JSMDS, an open access journal
Tran, J Sports Med Doping Stud 2012, 2:6
DOI: 10.4172/2161-0673.1000117
Research Article Open Access
Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors across 50 States in the
U.S.
Xuan Tran*
University of West Florida, USA
Abstract
Despite the growing evidence of role personality plays on sport and exercise related behavior, little is known about
the inuence of personality traits on football players in the U.S. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects
of the big ve personality traits on football achievements. Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness
(C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O) traits obtained from 619,397 U.S. respondents in a previous study were used
as predictors to state-level football scores in this study. Across 50 states in the U.S., football ranks were positively
correlated with state scores on the Big Five personality factors of conscientiousness and agreeableness. However,
when applying multiple regression analyses to the prediction model for football ranks based on ve independent
variables of the Big Five personality factors, only conscientiousness and neuroticism would signicantly predict
football ranks. Agreeableness correlates with football ranks but does not contribute to the prediction model since
agreeableness is collinear with conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness. Neuroticism insignicantly correlates
with football ranks but contributes to the prediction because the suppressor effect of conscientiousness by neuroticism
has improved its predictor of football ranks. The ndings implied that in order to increase high ranks in football practice,
selection for athletics would focus on persons with high conscientiousness and neuroticism.
*Corresponding author: Xuan Tran, University of West Florida, USA, E-mail:
Received September 22, 2012; Accepted October 26, 2012; Published October
26, 2012
Citation: Tran X (2012) Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors
across 50 States in the U.S. J Sports Med Doping Stud 2:117. doi:10.4172/2161-
0673.1000117
Copyright: © 2012 Tran X. This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Keywords: Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; Extroversion; Agree-
ableness; Openness; Football
Introduction
Personality can be dened as the intrinsic organization of an
individual’s mental world that is stable over time and consistent over
situations [1]. e importance of personality as a predictor for behavior
performance has been recognized in psychology [2]. Researchers have
recently reported the signicant eects of personality on sports [3].
What personality type of person is the successful athlete playing
football? Are the athletes’ personality traits related to their performance
on the football eld? Using the Prole of Mood States [4-6] had dierent
answers to these questions. It has been reported that no unifying theory
of personality and no consensus about which personality dimensions
to measure or how to measure them, comparisons of personality were
dicult to interpret and, arguably, unreliable [7].
Contemporary research uses the Big Five personality factor
model (Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness
(C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O)) as a reliable and valid
measurement for psychological characteristics [8] based on the three
main reasons. First, the ve dimensions are rooted in biology [9].
Second, the dimensions are relatively stable throughout life [10], and
third, the dimensions are found in several cultures [11].
Most research has focused on the eects of the ve personality
traits on human behavior. Agreeableness reects warmth, compassion,
cooperativeness, and friendliness. Agreeableness was negatively related
to rates of robbery, murder, and property crime [12]. Extraversion
is associated with sociability, energy, and health. Dierent from
agreeableness, extraversion reects sociability and outgoingness
more than friendliness and warmth [13]. Conscientiousness reects
dutifulness, responsibility, and self-discipline. Low-conscientiousness
individuals are more likely to commit acts of violence and deviance
than are high-conscientiousness individuals [12]. Neuroticism reects
anxiety, stress, impulsivity, and emotional instability and is related
to antisocial behavior, poor coping, and poor health [12]. Openness
reects curiosity, intellect, and creativity. Open individuals prefer jobs
that involve a high degree of abstract and creative thought [12].
Little contemporary research has explored the eects of the ve
personality traits on football although football is one of the key sports
in the United States. is research attempted to explore the inuence of
football players’ personality traits on their achievements. e purpose of
this study was thus to examine the eects of neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness on football ranks
across 50 states to propose the most eective way to develop a successful
football team based on personality traits.
Literature
Some studies have specically examined the role of the Big Five in
predicting academic performance [14]. Studies have also indicated a
positive relationship between conscientiousness and job performance
[15]. Piedmont et al. [16] examined the coaches’ ratings on their games
and found that there were signicant correlations between athletic
ability and personality. Kovacs [17] reported that conscientiousness
and neuroticism have a direct correlation to athletic performance.
Extraversion has been found to predict sport performance, particularly
in team athletes [18]. Aidman and Schoeld [3] reported that
Agreeableness and Openness are not correlated with sport performance.
e present study has focused on the ve personality traits at state
level based on the assumption that psychological characteristics are
geographically clustered across the country. ere are at least three main
reasons for geographic variations on personality across 50 states in the
United States. First, the early child rearing practices form psychological
characteristics and these practices are shaped by larger societal
institutions in which individual lives [19]. Secondly, in the United States
the groups of immigrants who chose to leave their homeland possess
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
S
p
o
r
t
s
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
&
D
o
p
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
ISSN: 2161-0673
Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping
Studies
Volume 2 • Issue 6 • 1000117
J Sports Med Doping Stud
ISSN: 2161-0673 JSMDS, an open access journal
Citation: Tran X (2012) Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors across 50 States in the U.S. J Sports Med Doping Stud 2:117.
doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000117
Page 2 of 5
restricted gene pools of nonrandom samples of personality traits [20].
Finally, there appear geographic variations on personality because the
specic personality of social founders may inuence regional people’s
personality traits [21]. Rentfrow et al. [20] examined big ve personality
traits from over half a million U.S. residents and found that (1) North
Dakota was ranked as the state with highest extroversion but Maryland
as the state with lowest extroversion; (2) North Dakota was again
ranked as the state with the highest agreeableness but Alaska as the state
with lowest agreeableness; (3) New Mexico was ranked as the state with
the highest conscientiousness but Alaska as the state with the lowest
conscientiousness; (4) West Virginia was ranked as the state with the
highest neuroticism but Utah as the state with the lowest neuroticism;
(5) Washington, D.C. as the district with highest openness but North
Dakota as the state with the lowest openness. As a result, y U.S. states
possessed dierent levels of big ve personality traits [20].
When 50 states are dierentiated by their own personality,
they will inuence athletic performance since the ve personality
factors (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, and
agreeableness) reect the core aspects of humans in the sport domain.
erefore, this study hypothesized that there would be signicant
relationship between football ranks and the big ve personality factors
across 50 states.
Methods
Ethical clearance
According to Rentfrow et al. [20], the personality data were
collected as part of an ongoing study of personality involving volunteers
assessed over the World Wide Web. e website is a noncommercial,
advertisement-free website containing a variety of personality
measures. Potential respondents could nd out about the site through
several channels, including search engines, or unsolicited links on
other websites. e data reported in the present research were collected
between December 1999 and January 2005. Respondents volunteered
to participate in the study by clicking on the personality test icon; they
were then presented with a series of questions about their personalities,
demographic characteristics, and state of residence. Aer responding to
each item and submitting their responses, participants were presented
with a customized personality evaluation based on their responses to
all the items [20].
Study design
e present study explored a model of the relationships between the
state-level ve personality factors and the state-level football scores. e
independent variables are state ranks for each personality dimension,
adapted from Rentfrow et al. [20]. e dependent variable is the state
ranks for football scores, adapted from Bleacher report [22].
Sampling
Table 1 provides 51 state ranks for each personality dimension and
football score, which were adapted from Rentfrow et al. [20] and the
Bleacher report [22].
According to Rentfrow et al. [20], in order to avoid the possibility
that respondents may complete a survey multiple times resulting in
unreliable and misleading results, the researchers used several criteria
to eliminate repeat responders. “First, one question included in the
survey asked: ‘‘Have you ever previously lled out this particular
questionnaire on this site?’’ If respondents reported completing the
questionnaire before, their data were excluded. Second, IP addresses
were used to identify repeat responders. If an IP address appeared two
or more times within a 1-hr period, all responses were deleted. ird,
if an IP address appeared more than once in a time span of more than
1 hour, consecutive responses from the same IP address were matched
on several demographic characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity etc.)
and eliminated if there was a match. Finally, only respondents who
indicated that they lived in the 50 U.S. states or in Washington D.C.
were included.” [20].
e sample size was 619,397 respondents (55% female). e median
age of respondents was 24 years (SD 59.8 years). e sample was
comprised of White (80.2%), African American (4%), Asian (6.6%),
Latino (4.6%), and other (4.6%). e respondents included social
class (13.5%), working class (15.6%), middle class (42.8%), and upper-
middle class (25.7%) and upper class (2.4%). Overall, these analyses
indicate that our Internet-based sample was generally representative of
the population at large [23].
Procedure-data collection and data analysis
Independent variables were extraversion, agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, neuroticism, and openness. e ve personality traits were
obtained from e Big Five Inventory [13]. e Big Five Inventory con-
sists of 44 short statements designed to assess the prototypical traits
dening each of the ve factor model dimensions based on a 5-point
Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly). e Big Five Inventory scales have shown reliability and va-
lidity compared with other ve factor model measures at the individual
level [24].
Dependent variable was state-level football scores ranked in order
for 50 states, which were available online from the Bleacher report [22].
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to nd the causative
relationship between football scores and ve personality traits.
Results
e means and standard deviations of the data were summarized
in table 2 as follows
Table 3 indicates that football ranks were positively associated
with scores on the Big Five Inventory factors of Agreeableness (r=.40,
two-tailed p=.003) and conscientiousness (r=.42, two-tailed p=.002)
but were not signicantly correlated to extraversion, neuroticism, and
openness (rs=.21, .11, and -.02, respectively). Using the Spearman rank-
order correlation coecient yielded similar results. Football ranks were
positively correlated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (rs=.40
and .43, two tailed ps<.001), but were not signicantly correlated
to Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness (rs=.20, .10, and -.01,
respectively).
Multiple regression analyses were used to test the causative
relationships between football ranks and ve personality traits
(Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Openness) as illustrated in table 4 as follows:
e result of the regression for football ranks indicated
conscientiousness and neuroticism explained 27% of the variance
(
R2=.27, F(5, 44)=3.29, p<.05). It was found that conscientiousness
and neuroticism predicted football rank (βs=.37 and .28, respectively,
ps<.05).
Discussions
Agreeableness correlates football rankings but does not contribute
to the prediction model since Agreeableness is collinear with
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Openness. Neuroticism does not
Volume 2 • Issue 6 • 1000117
J Sports Med Doping Stud
ISSN: 2161-0673 JSMDS, an open access journal
Citation: Tran X (2012) Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors across 50 States in the U.S. J Sports Med Doping Stud 2:117.
doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000117
Page 3 of 5
correlate football rankings but contribute to the prediction because the
suppressor eect of Conscientiousness by Neuroticism has improved its
predictor of football rankings [25].
Like Kovacs’ [17] nding, there is an association between
conscientiousness and sport ranking. Conscientiousness is
signicantly positively correlated with football ranking. Moreover,
the present analysis indicated that conscientiousness would predict
football rankings. In addition, the study found the football rankings
were signicantly associated with neuroticism. A state with higher
neuroticism would get higher football rankings because neuroticism is
a strong predictor for football rankings. In sum, the signicance of these
relationships may contribute to selection and management of football
teams. It also helps forecasting the results of football competition
based on the prole of big ve personality traits. In order to increase
high ranks in football practice, selection for athletics would focus on
State Football Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness
Alabama 1 20 36 36 30 48
Alaska 42 49 51 51 47 49
Arizona 29 24 31 9 45 31
Arkansas 15 31 41 37 10 27
California 4 38 28 27 37 6
Colorado 32 28 29 15 50 8
Connecticut 38 33 43 46 15 12
Delaware 42 21 37 34 19 42
District of Columbia 42 3 50 40 31 1
Florida 2 10 14 8 36 13
Georgia 10 6 8 3 33 20
Hawaii 37 39 24 49 40 46
Idaho 22 46 39 26 32 30
Illinois 17 9 26 11 20 21
Indiana 8 34 19 14 13 34
Iowa 26 15 15 33 22 43
Kansas 31 13 17 5 34 38
Kentucky 27 36 21 19 7 45
Louisiana
9 30 13 30 8 29
Maine 42 11 46 50 12 35
Maryland 33 51 38 35 17 10
Massachusetts 34 42 40 43 11 4
Michigan 5 17 11 21 26 36
Minnesota 35 5 2 22 41 40
Mississippi 13 19 3 12 4 41
Missouri 25 18 16 10 25 32
Montana 42 43 42 29 39 16
Nebraska 11 4 10 7 44 44
Nevada 39 37 48 24 42 9
New Hampshire 42 50 30 44 14 14
New Jersey 36 14 34 45 5 15
New Mexico 41 22 33 1 29 23
New York 30 32 47 42 3 2
North Carolina 23 35 7 2 24 33
North Dakota 42 1 1 23 43 51
Ohio 6 25 27 38 9 24
Oklahoma 7 27 9 6 27 37
Oregon 21
44 18 31 48 3
Pennsylvania 14 12 35 28 6 25
Rhode Island 42 40 45 48 2 28
South Carolina 12 26 20 16 16 26
South Dakota 42 7 23 17 49 39
Tennessee 24 29 6 13 23 19
Texas 3 16 25 18 28 17
Utah 18 8 4 4 51 18
Vermont 42 47 12 41 18 7
Virginia 16 45 44 39 21 11
Washington 28 48 22 25 46 5
West Virginia 20 23 32 32 1 22
Wisconsin 19 2 5 20 35 47
Wyoming 40 41 49 47 38 50
Table 1: State Rankings for Each Five Factor Personality Dimension and Football Score. (Rentfrow et al. [20] and the Bleacher Report [22])
Volume 2 • Issue 6 • 1000117
J Sports Med Doping Stud
ISSN: 2161-0673 JSMDS, an open access journal
Citation: Tran X (2012) Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors across 50 States in the U.S. J Sports Med Doping Stud 2:117.
doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000117
Page 4 of 5
persons with high Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. Future research
might also nd the model of these relationships useful when expanding
athletic departments.
Since low-Conscientiousness individuals are more likely to
commit acts of violence and deviance than are high-Conscientiousness
individuals [12], football players with low conscientiousness may be
likely to commit doping or other deviant behavior. Conscientiousness
reects the degree to which football players prefer systematic and
focused tasks and clearly dened rules and regulations so conscientious
individuals tend to engage in health promoting behavior and live
long healthy lives, which is consistent with previous research [26].
Conscientiousness was negatively related to spending time in a bar and
entertaining guests at home [20] so conscientious football players were
not related to social involvement. Rentfrow et al. [20] also reported that
large proportions of computer scientists and mathematicians in high
Conscientiousness states and more artists and entertainers are in low
Conscientiousness states.
Neuroticism reects anxiety, stress, impulsivity, and emotional
instability. Table 4 indicates that Neuroticism is a signicant predictor
in the model although the correlation between Neuroticism and
Football scores is not signicant. e reason for this is Neuroticism
is a suppressor. According to Cohen et al. [25], a suppressor that
is uncorrelated with Y may be signicant in a multiple regression
model. e suppressor eect of Conscientiousness by Neuroticism
has improved its predictor of football rankings. A football player with
high Neuroticism may take a risk to attain the goal by doping or anti-
social behavior; however, the direction of these relationships changed
when controlling for urbanization and income [20]. e research
showing inverse relationships between Neuroticism and longevity and
Neuroticism is negatively related social involvement [12,27].
Agreeableness reects warmth, compassion, cooperativeness, and
friendliness at the individual level. Agreeableness was correlated with
football scores but it did not predict football scores since football players
with high agreeableness were positively associated with activities that
promote tight social relations so it correlates with the football scores
when the players help others in their team but in order to attain the
goal, the cooperativeness should be replaced by competition.
An increase in conscientiousness is associated with an increase
in football ranking. Moreover, the present analysis indicated that
conscientiousness would predict football ranks. In addition, the study
found the football ranks were signicantly associated with neuroticism.
A state with higher neuroticism would get higher football ranks and
neuroticism is a strong predictor for football ranking. In sum, the
signicance of these relationships may contribute to selection and
management of football teams. It also helps forecasting the results of
football competition based on the prole of big ve personality traits. In
order to increase high ranks in football practice, selection for athletics
would focus on persons with high conscientiousness and neuroticism.
Future research might also nd the model of these relationships useful
when expanding athletic departments.
References
1. Piedmont RL (1998) The Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and
Research Applications. Springer, New York.
2. Sternberg RJ (2000) Handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
3. Aidman E, Schoeld G (2004) Personality and Individual Differences in Sport.
(2ndedn), Sport psychology: theory, applications and issues Wiley, Milton,
Australia.
4. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF (1981) Prole of Mood States manual.
Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, CA.
5. Newby RW, Simpson S (1991) Personality prole of nonscholarship college
football players. Percept Mot Skills 73: 1083-1089.
6. Leunes A, Nation JR (1982) Saturday’s heroes: a psychological portrait of
college Football players. Journal of Sport Behavior 5: 139-149.
7. Levine RA (2001) Culture and personality studies, 1918-1960: myth and history.
J Pers 69: 803-818.
8. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-
PI-R). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9. Jang KL, McCrae RR, Angleitner A, Riemann R, Livesley WJ (1998) Heritability
of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical
model of personality. J Pers Soc Psychol 74: 1556-1565.
10. McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory
perspective. (2ndedn), Guilford Press, New York, USA.
11. Benet-Martinez V, John OP (2000) Toward the Development of Quasi-
Indigenous Personality Constructs. American Behavioral Scientist 44: 141-157.
12. Ozer DJ, Benet-Martínez V (2006) Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annu Rev Psychol 57: 401-421.
13. John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In LA Pervin, OP John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–139). New
York: Guilford.
14. Busato VV, Prins FJ, Elshout JJ, Hamaker C (2000) Intellectual ability, learning
style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology
students in higher education. Pers Indiv Differ 29: 1057-1068.
15. Salgado JF (1997) The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance
in the European Community. J Appl Psychol 82: 30-43.
16. Piedmont RL, Hill DC, Blanco S (1999) Predicting athletic performance using
the ve-factor model of personality. Pers Indiv Differ 27: 769-777.
17. Kovacs M (2008) Relationship between personality and collegiate tennis
rankings. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40: 209-210.
Average of 50-state data Mean Std.Deviation
Football rank 24.78 13.54
Extroversion rank 26.10 14.99
Agreeableness rank 25.78 14.93
Conscientiousness rank 25.84 14.92
Neuroticism rank 26.14 14.98
Openness rank 25.68 14.83
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Football and the Big Five Personality Traits
Enrollment in local colleges.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1. Football rank .22 .39** .41** .12 -.05
2. Extroversion rank .43** .44** -.12 -.31*
3. Agreeableness rank .65** -.18 -.30*
4. Conscientiousness rank -.32* -.12
5. Neuroticism rank .10
6. Openness rank
(**) Correlation is signicant at 0.01 levels (1-tailed)
(*) Correlation is signicant at 0.05 levels (1-tailed)
Table 3: Pearson Correlations of Football Rank, Extroversion Rank, Agreeableness
Rank, Conscientiousness Rank, Neuroticism Rank, and Openness Rank.
*Predictor C E A O N
r (p) .43(.00) .20(.15) .40(.00) -.01(.91) .10(.44)
β (p) .36(.05) .00(.96) .22(.20) .05(.68) .27(.05)
Predictors: C: Conscientiousness; E: Extraversion; A: Agreeableness; O:
Openness; N: Neuroticism
Dependent Variable: Football rank
Table 4: Spearman’s rho Bivariate and Multivariate Contributions–DV=Football
ranks.
Volume 2 • Issue 6 • 1000117
J Sports Med Doping Stud
ISSN: 2161-0673 JSMDS, an open access journal
Citation: Tran X (2012) Football Scores on the Big Five Personality Factors across 50 States in the U.S. J Sports Med Doping Stud 2:117.
doi:10.4172/2161-0673.1000117
Page 5 of 5
18. Taylor DM, Doria JR (1981) Self-serving and group-serving biases in attribution.
J Soc Psychol 113: 201-211.
19. Peabody D (1988) National characteristics. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press and Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
20. Rentfrow P, Gosling S, Potter J (2008) A theory of the emergence, persistence,
and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics.
Perspective on Psychological Science 3: 339-369.
21. Kitayama S, Ishii K, Imada T, Takemura K, Ramaswamy J (2006) Voluntary
settlement and the spirit of independence: evidence from Japan’s “Northern
frontier”. J Pers Soc Psychol 91: 369-384.
22. Vasta D (2012) Power Ranking All 50 States by Their College Football
Teams.
23. Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP (2004) Should we trust web-
based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet
questionnaires. Am Psychol 59: 93-104.
24. Benet-Martínez V, John OP (1998) Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and
ethnic groups: multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and
English. J Pers Soc Psychol 75: 729-750.
25. Cohen J, West SG, Aiken L, Cohen P (2003) Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, (3rdedn). Mahwah, NJ.:
Erlbaum Associates.
26. Bogg T, Roberts BW (2004) Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors:
a meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychol Bull
130: 887-919.
27. Roberts BW, Kuncel NR, Shiner R, Caspi A, Goldberg LR (2007) The Power
of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic
status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspective
Psych Sci 2: 313-345.
