On the other hand, there are theories that say you learn your personality from others in social situations. The main example of this is the social learning theory. One aspect of the theory is modelling. Modelling is described as looking up to someone and wanting to be like them. For example, you could watch your favourite footballer playing on and see them showing anger at other players and then copy them when playing yourself. One criticism of the theory is that it doesn’t include both sides of the nature vs nurture debate into consideration and doesn’t explain how the genes you inherit from your parents can affect your characteristics through life.
One theory that does include both sides of the argument is the interactional approach theory, otherwise known as the trait-state approach. This is one of the few theories that takes both sides of the nature vs nurture debate into consideration. This theory is much more advanced than the trait theory and the social learning theory because it doesn’t just concentrate on one particular reason, but instead takes more possibilities into consideration. The trait side of the theory covers the characteristics you are born with and take with you throughout your life. However, these characteristics can change depending on the situation you are in. This is the state side of the theory. It says neither traits nor situations can predict behaviour alone. For example, if someone is playing for a team, they will follow orders and do what they are told by the captain. But when they are made captain themselves their natural trait of being very commanding may show through much more. However there is one area that it doesn’t cover and that is the aspect of free will, unlike the Matt Jarvis theory. Free will takes into consideration that people make impulse decisions when forced to make a quick choice.
There are also three other parts to the Matt Jarvis theory. The four main points are past experiences, genetics, situation and free will. This theory covers all areas and doesn’t just say that you get your personality from one place, but in fact a combination of factors. Past experiences effect how you act. For example if you have broken your leg playing football before, you are more likely to pull out of a tackle. The situation part of the theory takes how people behave in different places into consideration. Free will covers for the impulse decisions made on the spot and genetics explains how genes can affect personality, similar to Sheldon’s constitutional theory. However this is the most thorough theory and the one that I believe is the most accurate. There are so many influences on your personality that it is impossible to come up with a theory to cover every possibility. But this theory does cover most with the four parts.
Looking at all theories I believe that it is impossible to predict where you get your personality from because there are so many life changing experiences that you live through and situations to affect how you act. Sport is definitely a good example of how personalities can change so easily. You could be playing football and act completely different depending on a number of factors, including where you’re playing, who you’re playing with, your role in the team and many more.
Personality is closely linked with motivation. There are many reasons why people play sport. These reasons can be split into two specific areas which are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is the pleasure you get from the task itself or from the sense of satisfaction you get from completing a task after putting in a lot of hard work and not just completing a task for a reward
. There are many examples of intrinsic motivation in sport. A few of these are, taking part in sport to stay fit, playing a game because you enjoy taking part or just taking part because you’re good at it.
The opposite to this is extrinsic motivation. This is where people are motivated by external rewards such as money or grades which provide a satisfaction that you wouldn’t get from completing the task itself. Examples of extrinsic motivation in sport include, taking part to be paid, taking part to be known by everyone and become famous, or to win trophies and awards for winning competitions.
There are three theories of motivation. The first of these is the situational approach. It says that motivation is determined primarily by the situation the person is in. For example, an athlete may prefer one training drill over another and be much more motivated to put more effort into this drill.
The second theory is personality of motivation approach. This argues that you are motivated by your personality alone. A person may be insecure about themselves which may cause them to be more motivated to do weightlifting and improve their physique.
Another theory is the interactional approach. This suggests that motivation results neither solely from the participants personality, or from the situational factors, such as the coach or training drill. It argues that it is how these two factors interact together. One person may be playing a football game against a close rival and be more motivated because they have a determined personality. However, a different player could be playing in the same situation and be less motivated because they have a shy personality.
All people taking part in sport have different reasons for taking art and these reasons may change through their life. For example you may start playing a sport for an intrinsic reason, such as because you enjoy it, however when you improve you may start to play to earn money. You may also play it so much you no longer enjoy it so you start to play to win trophies as more of an incentive.
A sports coach could take advantage of this by choosing how people are motivated by sport. If they notice people becoming less motivated, they could set an incentive such as a prize for the best player. This way the payers will keep playing and put more effort into what they’re doing.
