Personality correlates of physical activity: a review and meta-analysis: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aimed to combine the literature on major personality traits and physical activity alongside providing some meta-analytic summaries of the findings. Overall, 33 studies containing 35 independent samples, ranging from 1969 to 2006, met the inclusion criteria. Extraversion (r = 0.23), neuroticism (r = -0.11) and conscientiousness (r = 0.20) were identified as correlates of physical activity using random effects meta-analytic procedures correcting for sampling bias and attenuation of measurement error. The five-factor model traits of openness to experience/intellect and agreeableness, as well as Eysenck's psychoticism trait, were not associated with physical activity. Potential moderators of personality and physical activity relationships such as sex, age, culture/country, design and instrumentation were inconclusive given the small number of studies. Still, the existing evidence was suggestive that personality and physical activity relationships are relatively invariant to these factors. Studies examining personality and different physical activity modes suggested differences by traits such as extraversion, but more research is needed to make any conclusions. Future research using multivariate analyses, personality-channelled physical activity interventions, longitudinal designs and objective physical activity measurement is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".