Introduction
Books have been written on periodization, training age, biomechanics, and functional performance for years. However, it wasn’t until recently that Brett Bartholomew, a strength and conditioning coach, brought awareness to the complexity of one’s personality and how often it is overlooked regarding programming. While individualized programming is essential, a program will only be minimally effective if the client’s psychology is ignored. Helping someone understand their own tendencies, be they good or bad, can help them become a better person and enable coaches to better coach them if they are open to it. This is where the ‘Big Five personality traits come in. The Big Five is the most widely accepted and studied five dimensions of human personality: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Understanding these five traits can benefit coaches, providing insight into their client’s unique needs, motivations, and preferences. By understanding the Big Five, coaches can better tailor their approach to the individual and create a more practical coaching experience. Mind you, the big five personality traits are correlated or inversely related. For example, if one is high in self-consciousness, the person will be more prone to suffer from anxiety or depression, thereby being more neurotic. In other words, the research shows that when one thinks about themselves more, he or she will become more miserable. This article will address these correlations and explain what actions and shift in perspectives need to be taken to optimize mental well-being.
The Big Five Defined.
Openness describes a person’s receptiveness to new ideas, experiences, and perspectives. People who are open to new experiences are often creative and curious. They tend to be imaginative and independent thinkers.
Conscientiousness describes a person’s level of self-discipline and organization. Conscientious people are often reliable and organized. They can stay focused and complete tasks.
Extraversion describes a person’s level of comfort in social situations. Extroverted people tend to be outgoing and sociable. They enjoy interacting with others and are energized by social interactions.
Agreeableness describes a person’s level of friendliness and cooperative attitude. Agreeable people tend to be trusting and kind. They are helpful and show concern for others.
Neuroticism describes a person’s level of emotional stability. People who are neurotic tend to be more prone to negative emotions and anxiety. They may also be more inclined to mood swings and have difficulty managing stress.
Many businesses have used these personality traits to help identify team dynamics, leadership potential, particular training programs, and employee engagement. As stated earlier, this is not all that matters when it comes to the psychology of coaching but nonetheless can be an effective tool to help improve the previously stated.
The Bystander Effect and Its Relation to Anxiety and Depression.
As stated earlier in the article, I gave an example of how depression and anxiety are related to a heightened awareness of self-consciousness. There are a couple reasons why I pointed out this correlation in this article, one of which is the debate in psychology on whether altruistic (selflessness) motives are present. The theory that altruistic motives do not exist is supported by the thought that regardless of the implicit reason, the behavior will always be driven by that personal characteristic. This is supported by the psychological phenomenon of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility, in which the presence of people influences an individual’s likelihood of helping a person in an emergency. The primary inspiration for this research came from a 1964 murder of a New York City woman in which no bystander intervened to help. According to Darley and Latane, many people were trying to find a plausible explanation for the inaction on behalf of all the bystanders (people viewing the violence from their apartment windows).
The interest in how bystanders and altruistic behavior exist led Darley and Latane to propose a research study in 1968 that became a staple in psychology. Darley and Latané’s (1968) classic study demonstrated how one’s personality characteristics can influence their behavior in an emergency. They proposed that as the number of people present in an emergency increases, the likelihood of an individual responding quickly and helpfully decreases. Individuals with strong personalities and a sense of responsibility are more likely to intervene and help in an emergency, no matter how many people are present. Conversely, those who are less likely to act in a crisis situation due to their own personal traits will be less likely to step up and help in an emergency, even if they are the only ones present.
How the Experiment Went
“In the experiment, a participant was placed into a room with a microphone. Darley and Latané manipulated their independent variable by telling the participant one of three things: there would be one other participant in a different room communicating with the participant, two other participants in separate rooms, or five other participants in separate rooms. However, these other “participants” were only prerecorded voices. At some point in the “discussion,” the participant would hear someone speak who started to have what sounded like a seizure–the victim’s voice would begin to break. The participant heard cries for help, indicating that the participant was having a seizure. The dependent measure was the time it took for each participant to respond to the emergency. The results supported Darley and Latané’s prediction.”
What they found
Out of the participants in the two-person group, most took action in response to the emergency, compared to only 31% of the participants in the six-person group. Additionally, the two-person group acted quicker than the six-person group. Darley and Latané determined that this was because the two-person group felt a greater sense of responsibility, making them more likely to take timely action and resolve the conflict quickly. Their findings contradicted the belief that participants’ apathy and indifference were the reasons for their inaction.
What this means
So as you can see, this study led the researchers to believe that despite emergency situations, empathy was not a determinant of whether or not they acted but was mainly caused by who was around them. This gives a strong case against altruism as a primary motive for one’s behavior.
The Case for Altruism
However, the previous study illustrated answers to only some questions regarding cooperation, getting along with others, and working as a team. Gachter and Hermann revisited altruism in 2009 by randomly assigning participants to a group with a common goal (altruism group) or a group with individual goals (selfish group). Participants were instructed to play a game in which they could either cooperate with each other or compete. The results showed that the altruistic group was more likely to cooperate with each other, while the selfish group was more likely to compete.
What this study tells us
This study tells us that altruism is created through community and relationships, which is significantly undermined in our culture today. A common goal and understanding with the people with whom you work will create a bond in which your focus turns away from yourself, and you can focus on helping others. This study supports this and is illustrated in Simon Sineks Book, Leaders Eat Last.
In his book Leaders Eat Last, Simon Sinek explains the importance of helping others and its relationship to hormones in the brain. He argues that when leaders put the needs of their team first, they create a safe and trusting environment, which encourages collaboration and inspires motivation. This, in turn, releases oxytocin, the hormone associated with trust, safety, and connection, and ultimately helps to create stronger, more efficient teams. Sinek also explains that when leaders prioritize the needs of their team, it sends a message to their team that they are valued and respected, which can lead to improved team morale and loyalty. Ultimately, Sinek’s book demonstrates how helping others and creating a safe, trusting environment is essential to successful leadership and how hormones in the brain play a significant role in making this environment.
Putting it All Together
Having an altruistic motive can lead to significant improvements in one’s quality of life. To illustrate this point, we can look to the bystander effect, Gachter and Hermanns’ research, and Simon Sinek’s findings on neurochemicals of the brain. It appears that having an altruistic approach and viewing each day as a chance to do something meaningful is necessary for a fulfilling life, an outlook that has been overlooked in today’s culture. To focus on personal growth should not be to feel “better about yourself”, but to be better equipped to help those around you.
To summarize, the top three takeaways are: approach each day as an opportunity to confront challenges; remember it is not about you; and understand the importance of an altruistic motive to improve quality of life and be better equipped to serve those around you.
Works Cited:
- Gathen, M., & Hermans, D. (2013). The Effect of Social and Environmental Factors on the Creative Process: A Study of Musicians. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 201–210. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.775817
- Sinek, Simon. Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don‘t. Portfolio/Penguin, 2014. 2. Brown, Brene. Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. Random House, 2018.
- Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
- Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts.