Content uploaded by Maria Stefania Ionel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Stefania Ionel on May 07, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijs20
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20
Personality, grit, and performance in rock-
climbing: down to the nitty-gritty
Maria Stefania Ionel, Andrei Ion & Laura Visu-Petra
To cite this article: Maria Stefania Ionel, Andrei Ion & Laura Visu-Petra (2023) Personality, grit,
and performance in rock-climbing: down to the nitty-gritty, International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 21:2, 306-328, DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2022.2044368
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2022.2044368
Published online: 25 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 499
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Personality, grit, and performance in rock-climbing: down to
the nitty-gritty
Maria Stefania Ionel
a
, Andrei Ion
b
and Laura Visu-Petra
a
a
Research in Individual Differences and Legal Psychology –RIDDLE Lab, Department of Psychology, Faculty
of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
b
Assessment and
Individual Differences –AID Lab, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Bucharest,
Bucharest, Romania
ABSTRACT
Over the past decades, the study of personality gained momentum
in the field of sport psychology, a prime example being the
increased number of publications relating personality to
performance in extreme sports. The aim of the present
investigation was twofold: to relate Five-Factor Model (FFM)
personality traits with various aspects of climbing performance
and to estimate whether grit, as a distinct personality trait,
predicts climbing performance over and beyond FFM dimensions.
Our sample included adult bouldering and sport climbing
practitioners (N= 272 sport climbers, 155 boulderers) with ages
between 16 and 69 (M= 32.1, SD = 10.0). We measured
personality (Big Five Inventory FFM–2 Short Form, and a 12-item
Grit Scale) and multiple indicators of outdoor sport climbing and
bouldering performance. Results indicated that climbing
performance was predicted by openness and agreeableness. Grit
also significantly predicted climbing performance over the FFM
traits. Contrary to the commonly held view depicting grit as
indistinct from conscientiousness, our findings suggest that this
trait has a unique contribution to explaining performance in a
relatively novel, high-risk sport.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 27 September 2021
Accepted 10 February 2022
KEYWORDS
Personality; grit; rock
climbing; sport climbing;
bouldering
Research on personality and its implications for various health, work-related or athletic
outcomes remained popular throughout the decades. Its importance with respect to ath-
letic performance or discrete athletic behaviours elicited the interest of many sport psy-
chologists, practitioners, and researchers alike (e.g., Laborde et al., 2019; Roberts et al.,
2018; Waleriańczyk & Stolarski, 2021). The influential review authored by Allen et al.
(2013) concluded that we already have substantial evidence to indicate that personality
predicts long term athletic success, as well as various short-term sport-relevant beha-
viours. Moreover, personality coherently differentiates between professional athletes
and non-athletes across a range of disciplines (Allen et al., 2013). Extant research suggests
that various traits have significant associations with a range of performance indicators or
discrete athletic behaviours across several athletic disciplines. Professional athletes who
© 2022 International Society of Sport Psychology
CONTACT Andrei Ion andrei.ion@fpse.unibuc.ro Assessment and Individual Differences –AID Lab, Department of
Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Bucharest, Bucharest 030018, Romania
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY
2023, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 306–328
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2022.2044368
regularly train and attend competitions exhibit higher levels of extraversion and conscien-
tiousness, and lower levels of neuroticism compared to people regularly practicing phys-
ical activities, but not on a professional level (Allen et al., 2013). Athletic performance
across various sports appears to be related mostly with extraversion, neuroticism
(emotional stability) and conscientiousness. One factor undermining the strength of
the conclusions emerging from various reviews is the relatively small number of empirical
articles investigating these associations. A larger number of empirical investigations
would allow a more accurate estimation of the role of personality in sport-related out-
comes (Allen et al., 2013). We aim to contribute to the general literature on personality
in sport by investigating its role in a relatively novel and under-researched discipline:
rock-climbing.
Personality in sports. Although various personality taxonomies have been used to
understand how it relates to athletic performance, the Five Factor Model (FFM)
emerged as the dominant framework (e.g., Allen et al., 2013). A growing body of research
identified significant associations between FFM dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and performance in various sports.
For example, Allen et al. (2015) and Mõttus et al. (2017) reported that extraversion and
conscientiousness were significantly associated with the time spent in physical activity.
FFM traits were found to have significant and direct associations with various facets of
athletic performance. For example, Steca et al. (2018) showed that athletes experiencing
success in their discipline scored higher than non-athletes in emotional stability, agree-
ableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion. High-level athletes competing at inter-
national levels have been shown to be more conscientious and emotionally stable
compared to athletes participating in local competitions (Allen et al., 2011). Martin
et al. (2011) showed that athletes who qualified for Paralympic games had lower levels
of agreeableness (higher tough-mindedness facet scores) and neuroticism (lower
anxiety facet scores). The longitudinal associations between personality and progression
to professional sport hover around the same personality traits, adolescent practitioners
that became professional athletes having higher levels of conscientiousness and lower
levels of neuroticism, respectively (Aidman, 2007).
Personality traits have been associated not only with broad sport-related outcomes,
but also with discrete athletic behaviours that facilitate attaining performance in the
respective disciplines. For example, conscientiousness predicted the use of better prep-
aration strategies (Woodman et al., 2010) and more effective coping strategies before
and during competitive events (Kaiseler et al., 2012). Kaiseler et al. (2019) identified
that all the FFM traits were significantly associated with various forms of sport-related
coping among athletes. Neuroticism was associated with positive cognitive and
emotional responses to unsuccessful outcomes (Allen et al., 2014).
We pursue two overarching objectives: first, investigating whether the aforementioned
associations generalise to relatively new sports, sports labelled as “high-risk”or “extreme”,
in our case, rock climbing; second, we seek to identify whether additional personality-
related variance in rock-climbing performance can be uncovered by considering the
role of grit, a personality trait placed outside the FFM.
Personality in high-risk sports. During the past decades, high-risk sports have increased
in popularity, attracting a growing number of practitioners (Clough et al., 2016), culminat-
ing in 2020 with the inclusion of Sport Climbing or Surfing on the list of Olympic
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 307
Disciplines introduced in the 2021 Tokyo and 2024 Paris Olympic Games. High-risk sports
were defined as disciplines where mismanaged mistakes or accidents can lead to severe
or potentially fatal injuries (Brymer et al., 2020). To date, little is known about how psycho-
logical factors come into play in such sports. Practicing these sports requires an array of
psychological functions such as cognitive dexterity, courage, and the ability to act in
environments that pose a risk to a person’s life (McEwan et al., 2019). We seek to identify
whether personality traits impact performance in rock-climbing.
FFM traits have been shown to be relevant for participation in high-risk sports such as
surfing (Diehm & Armatas, 2004), scuba diving, free diving, paragliding, rafting, and rock-
climbing (Tok, 2011). McEwan et al.’s(2019) review reported that Extraversion had a sig-
nificant association with participation in extreme sports. Tok (2011) also reported that
sensation seeking and extraversion were positively related to high-risk sport participation,
while neuroticism was negatively related to the same outcome. Considering that mana-
ging fear, anxiety, and specific phobias (fears of heights) is typically part of the “mental
fabric”of high-risk sports practitioners, the aforementioned associations are not surpris-
ing. In comparison with athletes practicing low-risk sports, the practitioners of high-risk
sports had higher levels of extraversion and openness, while having lower levels of con-
scientiousness and neuroticism (e.g., Allen et al., 2011; Tok, 2011). As for the remaining
FFM traits, no previous associations with practicing extreme sports have been identified
in the meta-analytical investigation conducted by McEwan et al. (2019).
We were able to identify a single investigation focusing specifically on personality and
participation in rock-climbing (Rumbold et al., 2021). In this trail-blazing empirical inves-
tigation, personality profiles, rather than individual traits were analysed in a sample or
rock-climbing practitioners. The findings reported by Rumbold et al. (2021) challenged
the conventional views that practitioners of such sports are homogenously “sensation-
seekers”by identifying four distinct personality profiles: Healthy (higher scores on open-
ness and lower scores on neuroticism), Emotionally Unstable (higher scores on neuroti-
cism), Measured and Compliant (higher observed scores on agreeableness and
conscientiousness), and Curious and Impulsive (higher scores on openness). Additionally,
they explored how the profiles differed in respect to sensation-seeking. Out of all the FFM
dimensions, openness was the “most salient big five factor that determines high levels of
sensation-seeking in climbers”(Rumbold et al., 2021, p. 5). While informative in respect to
distinguishing typical behaviours and preferences in rock-climbing, and personality’s role
in sensation-seeking, this study does not directly address the impact of personality on
rock-climbing performance, as data on sport climbing or bouldering performance was
not collected. Moreover, Rumbold et al. (2021) sampled practitioners from different
forms of climbing (sport climbing, bouldering and trad climbing), not specifically differen-
tiating between the disciplines.
To summarise, the current understanding regarding the role of personality in high-risk
sports is limited by several factors, such as (1) extremely small sample sizes –the 39
empirical investigations included in McEwan et al.’s(2019) review had a median sample
size of 21 participants, with samples ranging from 2 to 255 participants; resulting in (2)
insufficient power (considering that personality had small to mid-sized effects on sport
participation and/or performance, such sample sizes are insufficient for detecting such
effects); (3) difficulty in assessing participants within a specific discipline, as most of the
existing investigations relied on multi-sports (rock-climbing, snowboarding and
308 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
windsurfing), such sports rarely requiring the same array of physical or mental character-
istics (e.g., Dudek et al., 2016); (4) difficulty in estimating athletic performance within dis-
ciplines labelled as high-risk sports, as most of them do not operate within a standardised
framework for accurately operationalising performance; (5) sample composition –males
to females’ratio in the empirical studies included in McEwan et al.’s(2019) review was
almost 3–1.
Current investigation
The overarching objective of our investigation is to expand the current scientific under-
standing regarding the relationship between personality and performance in sport climb-
ing and bouldering.
Our investigation focuses exclusively on two different forms of rock-climbing, which
brings focus and precision to the target group of the research, resulting in several advan-
tages. First, we draw from a sufficiently large sample of sport climber and boulderers, miti-
gating potential biases stemming from aggregating different athletic disciplines. Second,
we investigate how personality traits relate to different performance criteria across the
two disciplines. Third, we investigate whether grit, a relatively novel trait is related with
sport performance criteria over and beyond FFM traits. Our first objective is to expand
the current scientific understanding regarding the role of personality in attaining per-
formance in high-risk sports by investigating whether the FFM traits predict performance
in rock-climbing. Consequently, we hypothesise that:
H1: FFM personality traits will account for a significant proportion of variance in rock-climbing
performance, when controlling for age, gender, and years of experience in rock-climbing.
In line with the extant research, we expect that not all FFM traits will have an equal
contribution to explaining differences in rock-climbing performance. Building on the pre-
vious findings concluding that openness (e.g., Rumbold et al., 2021), extraversion (e.g.,
Wilson & Dishman, 2015) and neuroticism (e.g., McEwan et al., 2019) consistently
predict high-risk sport participation, we expect these traits to account for most of the per-
sonality-related variance in rock-climbing performance. Consequently, we hypothesise
that:
H1a: Most of the personality-related variance in rock-climbing performance will be explained
by neuroticism, extraversion, and openness.
The current investigation responds to the call for building a more substantial body of
empirical research about personality and sport and athletic performance (Allen et al.,
2013). Apart from the climbing performance conclusions that might be appealing only
to professionals and athletes practicing the sport, understanding the role of personality
in various forms of athletic performance, especially in high-risk contexts can be insightful
for other areas of applied psychology and human performance where similar high-risk
levels are present.
Grit: a predictor of long-term success. Despite the major developments obtained by
using a single framework for capturing personality preferences, namely the FFM,
several authors suggested that research should move beyond this model for grasping
the impact of personality in sport (Laborde et al., 2019). One trait sitting outside the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 309
FFM that was associated with success in long-term endeavours is grit. Grit was defined as
“perseverance and passion for long term goals. Grit entails working strenuously toward
challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and pla-
teaus in progress”(Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087). Grit has been associated with impor-
tant life outcomes, explaining a unique, albeit minor proportion of variance in academic
success or job retention, beyond other personality dimensions (Duckworth et al., 2007;
Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014).
Extant research suggests that grit was associated with various adaptive behaviours and
sport-related outcomes. For instance, grit had a significant association with athletic iden-
tity (Mosewich et al., 2021). Grit moderated the relationship between motivational feed-
back and subsequent athletic performance (Moles et al., 2017). Moreover, grit emerged as
a significant predictor of sport-specific activities, including training, play, or participating
in competitions (Larkin et al., 2016). Toering and Jordet (2015) demonstrated that grit had
a positive association with self-restraint and impulse control in elite soccer players. Apart
from its direct relationship with athletic practice and performance, recent research
reported a significant association between grit and different mental aspects potentially
relevant for rock-climbing practice. For example, an empirical investigation revealed
that grit was related with the experience of flow, deep and effortless concentration
(Smith et al., 2020). More recent empirical investigations illustrate that grit explains delib-
erate practice and less ideation on quitting the sport (Tedesqui & Young, 2018). Grit, in the
form of passion, was found to be relevant for expert performance, having the potential to
distinguish elite athletes from non-athletes (e.g., From et al., 2020; Newland et al., 2020).
Some drew on Bandura’s(2001) Social Cognitive Theory for explaining grit’s role in ath-
letic performance (e.g., Newland et al., 2020), arguing that grit is a reflection of Bandura’s
intentionality (purposeful intention towards action) and perseverance through adversity
in attaining higher-level goals.
The passion and perseverance in attaining long-term objectives might be particularly
relevant to rock-climbing performance. Popular accounts about elite-level athletes such
as Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra or Nalle Hukkataival spending months or even years to suc-
cessfully complete a route are not uncommon inside climbing community. Additionally,
the necessity of constant, uninterrupted climbing-specific training was emphasised in
various reviews or empirical studies. For example, Saul et al. (2019) concluded that unin-
terrupted exposure to climbing-specific training represented “…the best way to succeed
…and push the redpoint grade”(Saul et al., 2019, p. 97). This idea was supported also by
empirical research outlining the importance of constant and dedicated training for acquir-
ing the major physical and physiological determinants of climbing performance, such as
hand and finger-strength, shoulder endurance, power, or power-endurance (MacKenzie
et al., 2020). Consequently, being regarded as a trait that drives the individual towards
attaining longer term objectives via persistence and dedication, grit could be one of
the key psychological determinants of rock-climbing performance.
However, despite such encouraging previous findings, grit-related research was also
plagued by a major limiting factor: grit’s insufficient differentiation from conscientious-
ness. The two constructs seemed to be difficult to distinguish, presenting “phenotypic
correlations of approximately .70”(Rimfeld et al., 2016, p. 2). This lack of differentiation
from conscientiousness was further tackled by (Credé et al., 2017) in a meta-analytical
investigation. Three major conclusions surrounding grit emerged in the afore-mentioned
310 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
meta-analysis: first, grit did not emerge as a higher-order personality trait, having two dis-
tinct lower-order facets, perseverance of effort and consistency of interests; second, grit
exhibited significant, albeit modest relations with various criteria, such as academic per-
formance or retention; third, due to its overlap with conscientiousness, Credé et al. (2017)
argued that grit’s incremental validity in respect to various criteria could be limited.
Despite these limitations, Credé et al. (2017) reported that perseverance of effort had sig-
nificant criterion-related validity in respect to academic performance, even when control-
ling for conscientiousness. To conclude, although grit might be appealing from an
intervention standpoint, any empirical grit-oriented investigation should adequately
control for the potential overlaps with conscientiousness.
Consequently, encouraged by the previous findings, but also mindful of the potential
pitfall –the common variance between grit and conscientiousness, our second overarch-
ing objective is to test whether grit predicts performance in rock-climbing, over and
beyond FFM personality traits, particularly over conscientiousness.
H2: Grit will account for a significant proportion of variance in rock-climbing performance,
over age, gender, experience and FFM traits, in particular over and beyond conscientiousness.
Methods
Participants
Power analysis. To determine the sample size needed for detecting small-to-medium
effect sizes, we conducted an a-priori power analysis, by using the G-Power software,
version 3.1, following the approach outlined by Faul et al. (2007). Our analysis indicated
that the total number of participants needed for detecting such effects (ƒ
2
> .10), for a
linear multiple regression that includes nine predictors, with a power of .80, was 159 par-
ticipants. In respect to the sample size needed for conducting confirmatory factorial ana-
lyses, we used the participants (N) to number of variables (p) ratio. The recommended N:p
ratios range between a minimum of 5 and an optimal ratio of 10 (e.g., Wang & Wang,
2012). Our measures included 30 (the personality measure), 12 (grit measure) and 4
observed indicators (performance in rock-climbing). The smallest N:p ratio was 9.06, for
the personality measure. The remaining ratios were situated well above the optimal rec-
ommended 10:1 threshold.
Following institutional ethics approval, we collected data from 272 participants (155
boulderers) who volunteered to respond to our invitation (see Procedure). The sample
included 114 females (41.91%) and 158 males, with ages between 16 and 69 (M=
32.13, SD = 10.01) –with parental consent for participants under 18 years old. To
be included in the current study the participants had to have at least 12 months
of experience in practicing rock-climbing. In respect to nationality, 80 participants
(29.4%) were from US and Canada, 63 participants (23.2%) from the UK, 107 partici-
pants (39.3%) from various EU countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
Romania, Spain) and the remainder of 22 participants (8.1%) were from various
countries (Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, and New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand).
Their experience in rock-climbing ranged between 1 and 40 years (M= 9.02, SD =
9.14). In respect to education, 107 participants (39.3%) attained a graduate or post-
graduate degree, 120 participants (44.1%) attained a bachelor’s degree, 107
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 311
participants had a graduate or post-graduate degree, and 45 participants (16.5%) had
a high school degree or equivalent.
Measures
Climbing Performance.Different forms of rock-climbing can be distinguished, depending
several criteria on the type of protection that the climbers use, type of terrain that is being
climbed, length of the routes, climbing styles: free soloing (no protection used), aid climb-
ing (using artificial equipment to move up the wall), bouldering (using crashpads as pro-
tection, typically not higher that 5–7 m), sport climbing (climbers are expected to progress
on a route that includes fixed anchors, being protected by the rope that is passed through
each anchor, but without using it to progress up the route), trad climbing (the same
approach as sport climbing, but using mobile anchors such as friends or nuts instead
of fixed anchors) and many other forms. However, based on their popularity and on
the possibility to organise competitions, two forms of rock-climbing have been included
on the list of Olympic athletic disciplines: sport climbing and bouldering, therefore they
constituted the object of interest for our study. In estimating performance within these
two disciplines, two components are taken into account: route difficulty level and climb-
ing style. In respect to difficulty, different scales have been proposed by various national
or international mountaineering and/or climbing associations: the French/sport scale, the
Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), the Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme
scale (UIAA), and the Ewbank scale. To complicate matters even further, difficulty
ratings in bouldering were reported by using either the Font or Vermin scales. To bring
a greater degree of uniformity in reporting performance in various rock-climbing disci-
plines, the International Rock-Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) issued a position
statement outlining a unified scale that permits the conversion of various grading
systems into a single rock-climbing difficulty scale (IRCRA; Draper et al., 2015). The
IRCRA difficulty scale was included in Appendix 1.
As for the element of style, when measuring performance within the two disciplines,
athletes report not only the highest route difficulty they have completed, but also the
“style”in which it was completed: redpoint, flash and onsight. Redpoint (original Rot-
Punkt) refers successfully climbing a route (with rope), without any artificial aid, after
having had the opportunity to experience the respective route for as long as the
climber finds it necessary. The process via which the climber becomes familiarised with
the route is referred to as projecting. When athletes successfully completed extremely
hard routes, especially for grades that were not completed until that point, the process
of projecting can last months or even years. Flash refers to successfully ascending the
route (with rope) without having actually had any physical contact with the route but
having the opportunity to learn about the route’s specific demands by viewing it
(either via videos or via oral accounts from persons who completed the route). Onsight
refers to the style of climbing a route (with rope) without any artificial aid and without
having any kind of information about the route (no previous visual analysis via pictures
or videos and no other account about the route’s characteristics).
Drawing from an international sample of rock-climbing participants, each participant
was allowed to select the most familiar reporting scale (French, UIAA, YDS or Ewbank).
The reported grades have been converted according to the recommendations outlined
312 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
in IRCRA’s position statement (IRCRA; Draper et al., 2015). The participants reported the
most difficult routes they managed to successfully complete in the three different
styles outlined above. Because bouldering involves a smaller number of moves and the
athlete can visually identify most of the routes’characteristics, the conditions for “onsight-
ing”are impossible to meet, therefore the highest flash is typically reported.
Personality. In order to ensure a brief, but accurate estimation of the FFM traits, person-
ality was measured via Big Five Inventory–2 Short Form (BFI-2-S; Soto & John, 2017). The
five domains were measured with 30 items rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly
disagree)to5(strongly agree). Internal consistencies for the five dimensions ranged
between .72 (Conscientiousness) and .82 (Neuroticism).
Grit. Grit was measured by employing the 12-item inventory (Duckworth et al., 2007).
Some example items are “Setbacks don’t discourage me”or “I often set a goal but later
choose to pursue a different one”, measured on a scale from 1 (not like me at all)to5
(very much like me). Internal consistency reliability as measured with Cronbach’s Alpha
was .79.
Procedure
The measures were administered via an online survey. Considering the challenges in iden-
tifying and enrolling a sufficiently large number of practitioners, we decided to open the
survey to the international community of rock climbing and bouldering practitioners.
Consequently, the survey was disseminated via email and social networks to English-
speaking adult climbers from different countries. The participants were required to be
fluent in English to complete the survey. The participants were explained their rights as
volunteers and all of them provided their informed consent before completing the
survey. No incentives were offered.
Data analysis
Following the recommendations of Ployhart et al. (2003), we conducted confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA) for all variables (Appendix 2, Appendix 3). Personality was the
only exception, due to concerns regarding the use of CFA for personality. Several straight-
forward and seemingly valid personality frameworks were not confirmed via CFA, (e.g.,
Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1990; Church & Burke, 1994; Parker et al., 1993), leading some
authors to raise concerns about the utility of this technique for analysing personality
data. Most of the critiques have focused on the imposition of zero order constraints on
covariances outside of the perfect predicted factor structure. Imposing this constraint
was deemed inappropriate for analysing personality structures, as they are characterised
by complex item-construct inter-relations (e.g., Aluja et al., 2005; Marsh & Hau, 2007). Con-
sequently, we conducted exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) for the per-
sonality measure (Appendix 4). ESEM employs the traditional CFA parameters as fit
indices, residual correlations or factor regressions, while deploying a rotation of the
initial measurement model. This way ESEM permits the testing of a theoretical model
without a strict specification of the measurement structure (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2009). This technique has been successfully used in analysing personality data (e.g.,
Marsh et al., 2013).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 313
Results
All the statistical analyses were performed with MPlus version 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén,
1998–2017). Means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations between our main vari-
ables and internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) are shown in Table 1. Signifi-
cant and mid-sized correlations between experience and most of the dimensions of
climbing performance were observed. Generally, the FFM personality traits had non-sig-
nificant relationships with the various dimensions of sport climbing performance, with a
few exceptions. Neuroticism had a negative and significant correlation with two boulder-
ing performance dimensions: highest redpoint over the last 12 months (r=–Social cog-
nitive theory: An agentic perspective.29, p<.001) and highest flash (r=–.17, p<.01). The
remaining dimensions had very weak and non-significant associations with the various
dimensions of sport climbing performance.
The results for the CFA and ESEM analyses are reported in Table 2. As recommended by
IRCRA (Draper et al., 2015), we fitted all the seven different dimensions of sport climbing
(highest redpoint, highest redpoint during the past 12 months, highest three redpoints
and highest onsight/flash) and bouldering performance, respectively (highest redpoint,
highest redpoint during the past 12 months, highest three redpoints and highest flash)
onto a two different latent factors (overall climbing performance and overall bouldering
performance). The goodness of fit indices for this two-factor model of climbing perform-
ance was acceptable (CFI = .943, RMSEA = .052). The ESEM analysis deployed for short-
form measure of the FFM allowed the items to freely load onto any of the five dimensions
and exhibited acceptable goodness of fit(CFI = .903, RMSEA = .051). For the grit scale, the
goodness of fit was acceptable (CFI = .929, RMSEA = .058). The initial model was amended
by adding three correlated errors.
Next, we examined the criterion-related validity of the CFA-derived latent factors for
FFM traits and grit over age and gender in predicting various facets of sport climbing per-
formance and bouldering performance, respectively. To this end, we employed a hierarch-
ical regression. Following recommendations in the literature (Hunsley & Meyer, 2003), age,
gender and experience were entered in step 1. In Step 2 the FFM personality dimensions
were included. In Step 3, grit was added to estimate its validity over both demographics
and FFM traits. The results were reported in Tables 3 and 4. Four dimensions of climbing
performance were considered: overall climbing performance (latent factors derived via
CFA), highest redpoint, and highest onsight and flash, respectively.
Outdoor Sport Climbing Performance. The FFM dimensions that significantly predicted
overall sport climbing performance (latent) were openness (β= 3.21, p< .001) and agree-
ableness (β=−1.85, p< .001). This accounted for a mere 7.4% of the overall variance in
overall sport climbing performance over age, gender, and experience (ΔR
2
= .074, p
< .001). The FFM dimensions that significantly predicted highest redpoint were openness
(β= 3.29, p< .001) and agreeableness (β=−2.08, p< .001). This accounted for a mere 6.5%
of the overall variance in highest redpoint over age, gender, and experience (ΔR
2
= .065, p
< .001). Finally, the FFM dimensions that significantly predicted highest onsight were
openness (β= 2.03, p< .01) and agreeableness (β=−1.79, p< .01). This accounted for a
mere 6.7% of the overall variance in highest onsight over age, gender, and experience
(ΔR
2
= .067, p< .001). When included in step 3, the FFM dimensions that significantly pre-
dicted overall sport climbing performance were openness (β= 2.89, p< .001) and
314 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.
MSD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 Age 32.1 10.0 –
2 Experience 9.0 9.1 .69*** –
3 Overall Sport climbing 16.0 4.5 .15* .46*** –
4 Highest Redpoint Sport climbing 17.3 5.0 .18** .48*** .98*** –
5 Highest Onsight Sport climbing 15.0 3.7 .13 .45*** .96*** .92*** –
6 Overall Bouldering 10.9 9.9 –.03 .14* .34*** .34*** .35*** –
7 Highest Redpoint Bouldering 11.5 10.1 –.03 .14* .35*** .35*** .36*** .99*** –
8 Highest Flash Bouldering 18.1 3.7 .21** .44*** .58*** .53*** .62*** .96*** .90*** –
9 Neuroticism 15.5 5.1 –.13* –.13* –.06 –.05 .01 –.04 –.03 –.17* (.82)
10 Extraversion 20.5 4.4 –.05 –.03 .06 .04 .04 .02 .02 –.03 –.25*** (.74)
11 Openness 23.0 3.9 .17** .08 .09 .10 .07 –.03 –.04 .09 –.07 .21*** (.77)
12 Agreeableness 22.3 4.3 .04 .00 –.09 –.08 –.12 –.09 –.09 .03 –.15 .04 .21*** (.74)
13 Conscientiousness 21.1 3.9 .21** .13* .11 .12 .09 –.04 –.05 .13 –.27*** .04 .11 .27*** (.72)
14 Grit 3.4 0.6 .23** .20** .21** .22** .17* .09 .08 .24* –.30*** .25** .24** .22** .50*** (.79)
Note: N= 272.
*p< .05.
**p< .01.
***p< .001.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 315
agreeableness (β=−2.08, p< .001), as well as grit (β= 3.59, p< .001). This accounted for a
mere 2.7% of the overall variance in sport climbing performance over age, gender, experi-
ence, and FFM dimensions (ΔR
2
= .027, p< .001). Furthermore, in step 3, the FFM dimen-
sions that significantly predicted highest redpoint were openness (β= 3.11, p< .001) and
agreeableness (β=−2.37, p< .001), as well as grit (β= 3.81, p< .001). This accounted for a
mere 3.1% of the overall variance in the highest redpoint over age, gender, experience,
and FFM dimensions (ΔR
2
= .031, p< .001). Finally, in step 3, the FFM dimensions that sig-
nificantly predicted the highest onsight were openness (β= 1.95, p< .001) and agreeable-
ness (β=−2.01, p< .001), as well as grit (β= 2.76, p< .01). This accounted for a mere 2.9%
of the overall variance in highest onsight over age, gender, experience, and FFM dimen-
sions (ΔR
2
= .029, p< .01).
Outdoor Bouldering Performance. The FFM dimensions that significantly predicted
overall bouldering performance (latent) were openness (β= 1.60, p< .01) and agreeable-
ness (β=−1.28, p< .001). This accounted for a mere 5.5% of the overall variance in overall
Table 2. Confirmatory and exploratory structural equations modelling.
Measure Framework Model χ
2
(df) CFI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
Climbing Performance CFA 2 factor model 418.91(77) .943 .052
(.038–.064)
.061
FFM-SF ESEM 5 factors (5 correlated errors) 523.61 (290) .903 .051
(.045–.057)
.044
Grit CFA 1 factor (3 correlated errors)
a
97.88 (51) .929 .058
(.040–.075)
.055
a
Number of correlated errors specified within each mode.
Table 3. Grit’s incremental validity over age, gender, experience, and five factor personality traits in
predicting outdoor sport climbing performance.
Overall Sport Climbing
Performance (latent) Highest Redpoint Highest Onsight
Step Independent variable βR
2
ΔR
2
βR
2
ΔR
2
βR
2
ΔR
2
1 Age –.10 .221*** ––.15* .287*** –.13* .271*** –
Gender –.86 –.81* –.62*
Experience .28*** .37*** .27***
2 Age –.12 .295*** .074*** –.17* .351*** .065*** –.15 .337*** .067***
Gender –.55 –.51 –.37
Experience .28*** .37*** .28***
Neuroticism .43 .50 .45
Extraversion .11 –.29 –.16
Openness 3.21*** 3.29*** 2.03**
Agreeableness −1.85*** −2.08*** −1.79**
Conscientiousness .40 .74* .66
3 Age –.12 .322*** .027*** –.18 .382*** .031*** –.15 .366*** .029**
Gender –.66 –.65 –.45
Experience .26 .35 .27
Neuroticism .51 .62 .56
Extraversion –.20 –.61 –.42
Openness 2.89*** 3.11*** 1.95***
Agreeableness −2.08*** −2.37*** −2.01***
Conscientiousness –.05 .26 .31
Grit 3.59*** 3.81*** 2.76**
Note: β= Standardised β.
*p< .05.
**p< .01.
***p< .001.
316 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
bouldering performance over age, gender, and experience (ΔR
2
= .055, p< .01). No other
FFM dimensions significantly predicted this criterion. When included in step 3, the FFM
dimensions that significantly predicted overall bouldering performance were openness
(β= 1.37, p< .01) and agreeableness (β=−1.46, p< .001), as well as grit (β= 2.60, p
< .001). This accounted for a mere 2% of the overall variance in overall bouldering per-
formance over age, gender, experience, and FFM dimensions (ΔR
2
= .020, p< .01). No
other FFM dimensions significantly predicted this criterion. In step 3, grit significantly pre-
dicted bouldering performance: highest redpoint (β= 3.15, p< .05), and highest flash (β=
2.97, p< .05) over age, gender, experience, and FFM dimensions. Overall, grit accounted
for 2% of the overall variance in overall bouldering performance over age, gender, experi-
ence, and FFM dimensions (ΔR
2
= .020, p< .01); for 2.3% in highest redpoint (ΔR
2
= .023, p
< .05); and for 2.7% in highest flash (ΔR
2
= .027, p< .05).
Discussion
This study is the first empirical investigation of the relationship between FFM personality
traits, grit, and performance in rock-climbing, within its two separate disciplines, sport
climbing and bouldering. Our research expands the already existing efforts of under-
standing how personality traits are associated with physical activity and athletic
performance.
Several key findings emerged: (1) the FFM dimensions predicted different performance
criteria in both sport climbing and bouldering, over and beyond age, gender, and experi-
ence; (2) Grit consistently predicted different performance criteria in both sport climbing
Table 4. Grit’s incremental validity over age, gender, experience, and five factor personality traits in
predicting outdoor bouldering performance.
Overall Bouldering
Performance (latent) Highest Redpoint Highest Flash
Step Independent variable βAdj.R
2
ΔR
2
βAdj.R
2
ΔR
2
βAdj.R
2
ΔR
2
1 Age –.07 .212*** ––.06 .142*** ––.09 .247*** –
Gender −1.09* −1.41* −1.14*
Experience .21*** .18** .24***
2 Age –.09 .267*** .055** –.05 .198*** .056 –.12 .278*** .032
Gender –.84* –.63 −1.28
Experience .20*** .16* .24
Neuroticism –.13 −1.46 –.23
Extraversion –.79 –.72 –.67
Openness 1.60** .11 1.41
Agreeableness −1.28*** –.51 –.02
Conscientiousness .67* –.24 .37
3 Age –.09 .287*** .020** –.05 .221 .023* –.12 .305*** .027*
Gender –.93 –.78 −1.39
Experience .19 .15 .23*
Neuroticism –.07 −1.44 –.20
Extraversion −1.01 –.87 –.81
Openness 1.37** –.48 .87
Agreeableness −1.46*** –.69 –.18
Conscientiousness .33 –.60 .05
Grit 2.60*** 3.15* 2.97*
Note: β= Unstandardised β.
*p<.05.
**p< .01.
***p< .001.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 317
and bouldering, over and beyond individual FFM dimensions; (3) a post-hoc methodologi-
cal contribution: although performance in sport climbing and bouldering as measured via
the IRCRA is assumed to be multidimensional in nature (including both difficulty rating
and style –redpoint, onsight and flash), our analyses suggested that a unidimensional
model of climbing performance exhibited the best fit to the data.
#1: FFM personality traits accounted for a significant proportion of variance in rock-climb-
ing performance.
FFM Personality and rock-climbing performance. Overall, our results supported the
general hypothesis that personality traits predict rock-climbing performance, in both
sport climbing and bouldering. Partly in line with our hypotheses, two traits accounted
for most of personality’s predictive power in respect to sport climbing and bouldering
performance: openness and agreeableness. Although we hypothesised that neuroticism
and extraversion would significantly explain variance in the climbing performance out-
comes, their impact was negligible.
The criterion validity of FFM traits in explaining performance in sport climbing ranged
from 6.5% (highest redpoint) to 7.4% (overall sport climbing –latent). The incremental val-
idity of FFM traits in predicting bouldering performance over age, gender and experience
was lower than for sport climbing, but still significant, explaining 5.5% of the variance in
bouldering performance.
When zooming in on these findings, openness emerged as having a significant associ-
ation with all performance measures: overall sport climbing, highest redpoint, highest
onsight. In bouldering, openness explained a significant variance in performance. This
finding is in line with previous findings outlining openness’importance in respect to
high-risk sport participation (e.g., McEwan et al., 2019; Rumbold et al., 2021). Additionally,
it expands the current understanding, revealing that openness plays an important role
not only in predicting sport participation, but also in accounting for performance variance
within this sport. Openness to experience is a personality trait associated with curiosity,
creativity, liberal attitudes, and openness to engage in intellectual pursuits. Consequently,
we speculate that a potential explanation for its impact over rock-climbing performance
resides in the increased likelihood of trying new training methods, new approaches to
improve performance-relevant technical or mental skills. At the same time, we emphasise
that this finding runs contrary to the common understanding regarding the relatively
trivial and negligible role attributed to openness in other domains of human perform-
ance, such as work performance (e.g., Schmitt, 2014).
As for the remaining traits for which we expected to encounter significant associations
with performance, namely extraversion and neuroticism, our data suggests that their role
in climbing performance across the two disciplines is negligible. Extreme sports typically
involve exposure to situations that trigger intense affects: heights, exposure, managing
life-threatening risks. It may as well be that in order to start practicing such sports in
the first place, athletes need a certain degree of emotional robustness, individuals
scoring high on neuroticism hardly managing to practice the sport consistently,
let alone attain a considerable level of performance over the long run (McEwan et al.,
2019). Being a sport with a relatively high level of exposure to dangerous and potentially
life-threatening situations, rock-climbing might not be appealing to individuals having
318 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
high scores on neuroticism. Therefore, individuals having high levels of neuroticism are
likely to select themselves out of practicing rock-climbing. Such personality-based self-
selective influences could lead to a restricted range in respect to neuroticism and possible
other personality traits, consequently diminishing their observed criterion validity in pre-
dicting rock-climbing performance. Consequently, neuroticism is likely to have a less
straightforward and linear impact over performance in rock-climbing. In respect to extra-
version, its almost zero impact on climbing performance could be explained by the fact
that both sport climbing and bouldering are, essentially, individual sports, where perform-
ance depends exclusively on the athletes’individual skills and capabilities, rather than on
their interpersonal effectiveness.
A surprising and unexpected finding was that agreeableness emerged as a significant
predictor of rock-climbing performance across the two disciplines. This finding warrants
further explanations. Its negative association with performance in an athletic discipline
emerged as significant in other studies. For example, Martin et al. (2011) identified
lower levels of agreeableness amongst the athletes qualified for the Paralympic games
compared to their peers. There are several ways in which low agreeableness could con-
tribute to attaining higher performance in rock-climbing. First, persons low on agreeable-
ness tend to compete more frequently with others. Even though rock-climbing is an
individual sport, practitioners often get ranked based on their individual performance
and highest grades (redpoints or onsight) are regarded as a proxy for the practitioners’
skills. Second, low agreeableness might enable some practitioners to be more aggressive
when performing the sport and/or during training sessions. Third, agreeableness
emerged as a significant predictor only for outdoor sport climbing, but not in bouldering,
which could be explained by the more solitary nature of the outdoor sport climbing, as
opposed to the more group-oriented specificity of bouldering.
Several broader conclusions emerge from our findings regarding personality and rock-
climbing performance. First, our data suggest that personality traits are differentially
related with sport participation and sport performance, respectively. Consequently,
caution should be used when generalising the results of previous research where mere
participation and not performance was measured. Having an interest in a certain sport
or having the “personality profile”specific to some sport, such as high-risk sports does
inform about the likelihood of attaining success or a high performance in the respective
discipline. Second, contrary to the expectation articulated by Allen et al. (2013, p. 187) that
personality will predict “…athletic success based on the theoretical predictions that
govern associations between personality and academic or organizational success.”our
findings revealed that personality traits have a rather negligible impact over work per-
formance, such as openness, coherently predict performance in rock-climbing. Conver-
sely, other traits that have been traditionally associated with work performance, such
as conscientiousness (e.g., Schmitt, 2014) are relatively irrelevant in explaining perform-
ance in rock-climbing. Third, our findings contribute to the current conversation regard-
ing the relevance of personality traits for athletic performance. In line with the arguments
made by Gill and Williams (2008), despite its significant association with rock-climbing
performance, personality accounted for a mere 5% to 7% of the performance variance
in rock-climbing, even though others regard it as being an important antecedent of ath-
letic performance (Mõttus et al., 2017; Newland et al., 2020; Wilson & Dishman, 2015). In
contrast, experience (years of practice) accounted for approximately 20% of the variance
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 319
in rock-climbing performance, suggesting that other factors acquired via experience, such
as technical skills or sport-specific physiological adaptations might play a critical role in
explaining performance within this discipline.
#2: Grit explained a significant amount of variance in rock-climbing performance over age,
gender, experience, and FFM personality traits.
Grit alone explained significant amounts of personality-related variance in rock-climbing
performance, across both disciplines –sport climbing and bouldering, respectively. Grit’s
criterion validity in explaining performance in sport climbing ranged from 2.7% (overall
sport climbing –latent) to 3.1% (highest redpoint). Its predictive validity in respect to
bouldering was lower than for sport climbing, but still significant, ranging from 2%
(overall bouldering performance –latent) to 2.7% (highest flash) explained variance.
With respect to explaining the outcomes of focus, as a standalone trait, grit has a
higher explanatory value compared to the dimensions of the more popular and well-
established FFM model in accounting for variance in athletic performance –Credé
et al. (2017) reported similar findings in respect to academic performance. Single-hand-
edly, grit predicted climbing performance over age, gender, experience, better than
any other single FFM trait in respect to all the five performance criteria and across the
two disciplines (sport climbing and bouldering). This finding is unsurprising in the light
of previous investigations. For example, Harper et al. (2018) reported that grit was associ-
ated with the ability to exert significantly more physical effort. Moreover, several investi-
gations support the conclusion that grittier individuals are more likely to spend time in
domain-specific activities and end up accumulating longer periods of practice, which in
turn facilitates higher levels of performance and discipline-specific attainment (Ford & Wil-
liams, 2012). Moreover, grittier individuals are more likely to accumulate physical and
non-physical sport-specific activities (Larkin et al., 2016). Investigating the association
between this personality construct and various aspects of athletic performance and prac-
tice, Tedesqui and Young (2018) observed that athletes with higher persistence (a facet of
grit) reported higher volumes of deliberate practice. A relatively recent empirical investi-
gation observed that elite athletes reported higher scores on Grit compared to a large
sample of non-athletes (From et al., 2020).
#3: A one factor model of rock-climbing performance exhibited a good fit to the data col-
lected with the IRCRA scale
Performance in rock climbing is typically assessed via several key indicators, such as
Highest Redpoint (routes where several attempts are needed free climb them), Onsight,
Flash. The rock-climbing community, as well as the official IRCRA scale performance in
rock-climbing typically distinguishes between these five performance categories. For
example, the popular rock-climbing portal (www.8a.nu) uses the same types of entries.
These three performance criteria are regarded as requiring different physical and
mental skills. Our investigation reveals that irrespective of these conceptual distinctions,
the three criteria actually load onto a single global rock-climbing performance factor,
which suggests that a unitary measure might best capture the variability of performance
in this sport, as opposed to the largely used five categories.
320 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
Limitations
There are several issues that would warrant further discussion. First, our investigation
relied on a cross-sectional design, where antecedents and outcomes are measured at
the same point in time. This procedural design does not permit us to establish the direc-
tion of the influence. Reverse causal effects, such as personality changes caused by reg-
ularly practicing rock-climbing are viable hypotheses that cannot be tested in this design.
In this sense, further directions of research would include longitudinal designs and the
inclusion of other possible outcomes, especially since the author of the scale has
claimed that this personality construct can change over the course of a person’s lifetime,
as a result of effort, environment and others (Duckworth, 2016).
Second, the results could be plagued by common method bias, as both predictor- and
criterion-related measures were collected simultaneously. Finally, other specific personal-
ity dimensions which were not included (e.g., impulsivity or sensation-seeking) could add
to the multifaceted nature of the interrelationships between personality and performance
in this high-risk sport.
Third, we drew on a sample of international rock-climbing amateur practitioners and,
consequently, we could not account for the effects of potential cross-cultural differences
or those differences between professional and amateur practitioners.
Conclusions
Understanding the way in which personality constructs, such as the FFM and grit, can con-
tribute to explaining the variance of climbing performance outcomes is an important
steppingstone in establishing the practical values of these constructs. Taken together,
our findings suggest that grit, openness, and agreeableness had a relevant impact over
rock-climbing performance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministerul Cercetării şi Inovării [TE-2019-1243].
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, AI,
upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Maria Stefania Ionel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8788-6486
Andrei Ion http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0420-6201
Laura Visu-Petra http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6905-9279
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 321
References
Aidman, E. V. (2007). Attribute-based selection for success: The role of personality attributes in long-
term predictions of achievement in sport. The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology,3,
1–18. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&volume=3&publication_year=
2007&pages=1-18&author=E.+V.+Aidman&title=Attribute-based+selection+for+success%3A
+The+role+of+personality+attributes+in+long-term+predictions+of+achievement+in+sport
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2011). An investigation of the five-factor model of personality
and coping behaviour in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences,29(8), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2011.565064
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2013). Personality in sport: A comprehensive review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,6(1), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1750984X.2013.769614
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. V. (2014). Personality, counterfactual thinking, and negative
emotional reactivity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,15(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2013.10.011
Allen, M. S., Vella, S. A., & Laborde, S. (2015). Sport participation, screen time, and personality trait
development during childhood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,33(3), 375–390.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12102
Aluja, A., Garcia, O., Garcia, L. F., & Seisdedos, N. (2005). Invariance of the “NEO-PI-R”structure across
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Personality and Individual Differences,38(8), 1879–
1889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.014
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology,2(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A
study on the five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,11(5), 515–
524. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90065-Y
Brymer, E., Feletti, F., Monasterio, E., & Schweitzer, R. (2020). Understanding extreme sports: A psycho-
logical perspective. Frontiers in Psychology,10,3029.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03029
Church, T. A., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the big five and Tellegen’s
three- and fourdimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66(1), 93–114.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.93
Clough, P., Mackenzie, S. H., Mallabon, L., & Brymer, E. (2016). Adventurous physical activity environ-
ments: A mainstream intervention for mental health. Sports Medicine,46(7), 963–968. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40279-016-0503-3.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0503-3
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the
grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,113(3), 492. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000102
Diehm, R., & Armatas, C. (2004). Surfing: An avenue for socially acceptable risk-taking, satisfying
needs for sensation seeking and experience seeking. Personality and Individual Differences,36
(3), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00124-7
Draper, N., Giles, D., Schöffl, V., Konstantin Fuss, F., Watts, P., Wolf, P., Baláš, J., Espana-Romero, V.,
Blunt Gonzalez, G., Fryer, S., Fanchini, M., Vigouroux, L., Seifert, L., Donath, L., Spoerri, M.,
Bonetti, K., Phillips, K., Stöcker, U., Bourassa-Moreau, F., …Abreu, E. (2015). Comparative
grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock
Climbing Research Association position statement. Sports Technology,8(3–4), 88–94. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2015.1107081
Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance (1st ed.). Scribner. https://doi.
org/10.1111/peps.12198
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion
for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
322 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
Dudek, D., Siwek, M., Jaeschke, R., Drozdowicz, K., Styczeń, K., Arciszewska, A., Chrobak, A. A., &
Rybakowski, J. K. (2016). A web-based study of bipolarity and impulsivity in athletes engaging
in extreme and high-risk sports. Acta Neuropsychiatrica,28(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.
1017/neu.2015.44
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect: Predicting
retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology,5.https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis
program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,39(2),
175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Ford, P. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The developmental activities engaged in by elite youth soccer
players who progressed to professional status compared to those who did not. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise,13(3), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.004
From, L., Thomsen, D. K., & Olesen, M. H. (2020). Elite athletes are higher on grit than a comparison
sample of non-athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,2,2–7. https://doi.
org/10.7146/sjsep.v2i0.115111
Gill, D. L., & Williams, L. (2008). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (3rd ed.). Human Kinetics.
Harper, K. L., Silvia, P. J., Eddington, K. M., Sperry, S. H., & Kwapil, T. R. (2018). Conscientiousness and
effort-related cardiac activity in response to piece-rate cash incentives. Motivation and Emotion,
42(3), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9668-4
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment:
Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment,15(4), 446. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.446
Kaiseler, M., Levy, A., Nicholls, A. R., & Madigan, D. J. (2019). The independent and interactive effects
of the Big-Five personality dimensions upon dispositional coping and coping effectiveness in
sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,17(4), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1612197X.2017.1362459
Kaiseler, M., Polman, R. C., & Nicholls, A. R. (2012). Gender differences in appraisal and coping: An
examination of the situational and dispositional hypothesis. International Journal of Sport
Psychology,43(1), 1–14. ISSN 0047-0767
Laborde, S., Allen, M. S., Katschak, K., Mattonet, K., & Lachner, N. (2019). Trait personality in sport
and exercise psychology: A mapping review and research agenda. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology,18(6), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1570536
Larkin, P., O’Connor, D., & Williams, A. M. (2016). Does grit influence sport-specific engagement and
perceptual-cognitive expertise in elite youth soccer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,28(2),
129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2015.1085922
MacKenzie, R., Monaghan, L., Masson, R. A., Werner, A. K., Caprez, T. S., Johnston, L., & Kemi, O. J.
(2020). Physical and physiological determinants of rock climbing. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance,15(2), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0901
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2007). Applications of latent-variable models in educational psychology:
The need for methodological-substantive synergies. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32(1),
151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.008
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Measurement invariance of Big-Five factor struc-
ture over the life span: Exploratory structural equation modeling tests of gender, age, plasticity,
maturity and La Dolce Vita effects. Developmental Psychology,49(6), 1194–1218. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0026913
Martin, J. J., Malone, L. A., & Hilyer, J. C. (2011). Personality and mood in women’s Paralympic basket-
ball champions. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology,5(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.5.
3.197
McEwan, D., Boudreau, P., Curran, T., & Rhodes, R. E. (2019). Personality traits of high-risk sport par-
ticipants: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,79,83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2019.02.006
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 323
Moles, T. A., Auerbach, A. D., & Petrie, T. A. (2017). Grit happens: Moderating effects on motivational
feedback and sport performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,29(4), 418–433. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10413200.2017.1306729
Mosewich, A. D., Dunn, J. G., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Wright, K. S. (2021). Domain-specific grit, identity,
and self-compassion in intercollegiate athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,10(2),
257. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000267
Mõttus, R., Epskamp, S., & Francis, A. (2017). Within-and between individual variability of personality
characteristics and physical exercise. Journal of Research in Personality,69, 139–148. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.017
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Newland, A., Gitelson, R., & Legg, W. E. (2020). Examining the relationship between mental skills and
grit in senior Olympic athletes. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity,28(4), 658–667. https://doi.
org/10.1123/japa.2019-0304
Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Summerfeldt, L. J. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of the revised
NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences,15(4), 463–466. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0191-8869(93)90074-D
Ployhart, R. E., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & Rogg, K. (2003). The cross-cultural equiv-
alence of job performance ratings. Human Performance,16(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327043HUP1601_3
Rimfeld, K., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2016). True grit and genetics: Predicting academic
achievement from personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,111(5), 780–789.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000089
Roberts, R., Woodman, T., & Sedikides, C. (2018). Pass me the ball: Narcissism in performance set-
tings. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,11(1), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1750984X.2017.1290815
Rumbold, J. L., Madigan, D. J., Murtagh-Cox, A., & Jones, L. (2021). Examining profiles of the big five
and sensation seeking among competitive climbers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,55, Article
101951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101951
Saul, D., Steinmetz, G., Lehmann, W., & Schilling, A. F. (2019). Determinants for success in climbing: A
systematic review. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness,17(3), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesf.2019.04.002
Schmitt, N. (2014). Personality and cognitive ability as predictors of effective performance at work.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,1(1), 45–65. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091255
Smith, A. C., Marty-Dugas, J., Ralph, B. C., & Smilek, D. (2020). Examining the relation between grit,
flow, and measures of attention in everyday life. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research,
and Practice.https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000226
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and
BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality,68,69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
Steca, P., Baretta, D., Greco, A., D’Addario, M., & Monzani, D. (2018). Associations between personality,
sports participation and athletic success. A comparison of big five in sporting and non-sporting
adults.Personalityand Individual Differences,121,176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.040
Tedesqui, R. A., & Young, B. W. (2018). Comparing the contribution of conscientiousness, self-control,
and grit to key criteria of sport expertise development. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,34, 110–
118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.002
Toering, T., & Jordet, G. (2015). Self-control in professional soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology,27(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2015.1010047
Tok, S. (2011). The Big Five personality traits and risky sport participation. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal,39(8). https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.8.1105
Waleriańczyk, W., & Stolarski, M. (2021). Personality and sport performance: The role of perfection-
ism, Big Five traits, and anticipated performance in predicting the results of distance running
competitions. Personality and Individual Differences,169, Article 109993. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2020.109993
324 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
Wang, J, & Wang, X. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. Higher Education
Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118356258
Wilson, K. E., & Dishman, R. K. (2015). Personality and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,72, 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.
08.023
Woodman, T., Zourbanos, N., Hardy, L., Beattie, S., & McQuillan, A. (2010). Do performance
strategies moderate the relationship between personality and training behaviors? An exploratory
study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,22(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10413201003664673
Appendices
Appendix 1. Reporting grades in climbing research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 325
Appendix 2. CFA model for IRCRA scale
326 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
Appendix 3. CFA model for Grit Scale
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 327
Appendix 4. ESEM model for Big Five Inventory–2 Short Form
328 M. S. IONEL ET AL.
