Gender-Specific Associations Between Kinesiology Undergraduate Students’ Personality Traits and their Motivation in School Physical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HEXACO dimensions of personality traits (honesty–humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience) have been linked to many adaptive outcomes in physical education-related (PE) settings; yet, little is known about the relationship between personality traits and motivation in students of school PE. Using survey data from 300 (48.8% men, 51.2% women) university kinesiology students, this study explored gender-specific relations between the undergraduate students’ HEXACO personality traits and several indices of their motivation recalled from their experiences in school-based PE, namely, enjoyment, self-efficacy, positive affect, perceived autonomy support, and task and ego goal orientation. A second aim was to test differences in these constructs between kinesiology and PE majors. Results revealed that the HEXACO personality dimensions collectively predicted each of the six motivational constructs in females and four in males, extraversion predicted five motivational constructs in females and four in males, and openness to experience predicted three in females and two in males. Compared to kinesiology majors (n = 202), PE majors (n = 98) were statistically significantly higher in extraversion, enjoyment, perceived autonomy support, self-efficacy, and positive affect. Motivationally vulnerable students in PE may be those who are more introverted (shy, passive, and reserved) and open to experience (intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative, and inquisitive). Further, PE majors might be more likely than kinesiology majors to pursue a vocation as a physical educator in part because they are more extraverted and have had more motivating (i.e., enjoyable, autonomy-supportive, performance-based, and self-efficacious) experiences in school-based PE.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".