Abstract
Objective
Mountaineering and mountain-related sports are growing in popularity and are associated with significant risk of injury. There is a perception that mountaineers possess unique personality characteristics that attract them to the sport. We aim to determine whether there are any identifiable differences between the personality characteristics of experienced mountaineers and a normal control population and to determine whether there is an association between specific personality traits and risk of injury.
Methods
Questionnaires were utilized to obtain data on demographics, accidents, and personality characteristics from a population of experienced mountaineers. The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) was used, and the results were compared with normative data from age-matched controls.
Results
Forty-seven mountaineers from 8 different countries enrolled in the study. The mean age was 33 years, and 44 (90%) had been mountaineering for more than 5 years. Twenty-three climbers (49%) had been involved in a total of 33 accidents. Mountaineers scored higher on novelty seeking (P < .05) and self-directedness (P < .05) and lower on harm avoidance (P < .001) and self-transcendence (P < .001). There was a significant association between the character measure of cooperativeness and the total number (−.33, P < .05) and severity (−.475, P < .05) of accidents.
Conclusions
Mountaineering is associated with significant risk of injury. Wide variation in the scores of personality traits suggests that there is not a tightly defined personality profile among mountaineers. Scores on cooperativeness may assist in determining risk of injury in mountaineers.
Introduction
Mountaineering is the sport of climbing mountains and often incorporates the skills of both alpine rock and ice climbing. It is a high-risk sport associated with frequent and often severe physical injuries and fatalities. 1 The popularity of mountaineering has continued to increase in the last 15 to 20 years, and it is now one of the fastest growing outdoor sporting activities. 2 Clarifying whether identifiable personality factors contribute to participation in the sport and to risk of injury may help the development of injury prevention strategies. The relationship between personality factors and injury in mountaineering has not been described in the literature.
A number of studies have investigated the relationship between personality traits and participation in high-risk physical sports, such as mountaineering. Sensation seeking is by far the most consistently studied personality factor in the literature. The majority of the research to date has focused almost exclusively on this particular personality trait, and most of these studies have found that high-risk sports participants (including mountaineers) tend to score higher on the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking scale compared with low-risk sports participants and control groups. 3 In our opinion, this approach is far too narrow because it only provides information about one aspect of personality. Accounting for other important personality factors that may contribute to participation in such sports offers a greater understanding of the motivation for sports risk-taking behavior in general.
Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory
Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) provides broad information on personality characteristics. It is a 235-item self-report personality questionnaire that accounts for both normal and abnormal variations in the 2 major components of personality: temperament and character. The questionnaire is designed to assess differences among people in 7 basic dimensions.
Temperament refers to the automatic emotional responses that are thought to be moderately heritable, independent, genetically homogenous, and stable over time. There are 4 temperament dimensions: 1) novelty seeking is the tendency to activate or initiate new behaviors with a propensity to seek out new experiences with impulsive decision making, extravagance, quick loss of temper, and active avoidance of frustration; 2) harm avoidance is the tendency to inhibit behaviors and the propensity to worry in anticipation about future problems with fear of uncertainty, rapid fatigability, and shyness in the company of strangers; 3) reward dependence is the tendency to maintain behaviors manifested by dependency on the approval of others with social attachments and sentimentality; and 4) persistence is the tendency to be hardworking, industrious, and persistent despite frustration and fatigue. 4
Character refers to self-concepts and individual differences in goals and values that can be influenced by social factors, learning, and the process of maturation. The character dimensions are as follows: 1) self-directedness, which refers to self-determination, personal integrity, self-integrity, and willpower; 2) cooperativeness, which refers to individual differences in identification with and acceptance of other people; and 3) self-transcendence, which refers to feelings of religious faith or viewing oneself as an integral part of the universe in other ways. 4
Extensive data on the reliability and validity of the TCI in the English language have been reported, and the TCI has been shown to have sound psychometric characteristics. 5 To date, the TCI has not been utilized to evaluate mountaineers. However, the authors have used this model to study a large population of extremely high risk-taking adventure sport participants—BASE (an acronym for building, antenna, span, Earth [cliff]) jumpers—and found that BASE jumpers score higher on measures of novelty seeking and self-directedness and lower on measures of harm avoidance, reward dependence, and self-transcendence. 6
The aims of this study were to explore whether particular personality factors correlate with participation in serious mountaineering and to determine whether these personality variables are associated with a higher risk of climbing accidents, using the TCI.
Methods
Sample and Participant Selection
Participants had to be involved in mountaineering or alpine rock climbing or both for at least 3 years. Subjects enrolled in the study on a volunteer basis. They were recruited from local Alpine Club group meetings, adventure magazine advertisements, and from personal communications among the climbing community. One of the authors (E.M.) is an experienced mountaineer, and his role ensured that the study captured an international population of high-performance independent climbers.
ETHICS
A formal report on the study method was sent to the local research ethics committee, the Canterbury Ethics Committee. A formal reply indicated that because of low risk of harm to or identification of participants, ethical approval was not considered necessary.
Study/Outcome Measures
Subjects were also asked to report all significant climbing injuries, and these were rated according to the IIC UIAA Medical Commission score, which identifies the anatomical site of injury and assigns a numerical score from 0 to 6 for severity. 7
Climbing grades were rated according to the UIAA system: 2 to 12 for rock climbing and I to VII for mountaineering. 7 Generally, the higher the grade, the greater the technical challenge and risk of accident. In mountaineering, for a grade IV rating and higher, technical climbing gear such as ice axes, crampons, security equipment, and a rope are required. Grade V involves sustained technical climbing, which may have vertical sections of ice climbing; grade VI involves vertical sections of ice with poor protection; and grade VII is possible but as yet unaccomplished.
Results
Forty-nine of a total of 60 questionnaires were returned completed (response rate 82%). Two participants (4%) were excluded because they had been involved in mountaineering for less than 3 years.
Demographics, Accidents, and Climbing Characteristics
The sample was predominantly male (90%), and climbers came from New Zealand, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and Bolivia (Table 1). The median age was 33 years (range 21–56 years), and 94% (44) of the participants had been involved in the sport for more than 5 years (median 15 years, range 3–30). The median reported rock-climbing grade was 8− (range 4 to 9−), and the median alpine grade was V+ (range IV to VII−).
Demographics of climber participants (n = 47)
Accident characteristics are shown in Table 2. The study findings with respect to morbidity and mortality at baseline and at 4-year follow-up have been published elsewhere. 1 Twenty-three participants (49%) had been involved in a total of 33 accidents (Table 2). At 4-year follow-up, there were 4 deaths (8.5%) from mountaineering. 1
Accident characteristics (participant n = 47, total injuries = 33)
IIC, Injury and Illness Severity Classification; UIAA, International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme); MedCom, Medical Commission.
An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare TCI scores for the mountaineers relative to an age-matched population. A 2-sided significance level (α) was set at 0.05. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were conducted to explore the correlation between TCI findings and accidents. Scores for temperament and character dimensions of the TCI were higher for mountaineers than for the normative population on novelty seeking and self-directedness and lower on harm avoidance and self-transcendence (Table 3). However, the mountaineers’ scores do not differ significantly on reward dependence, persistence, or cooperativeness (Table 3).
Climber (n = 47) and normative population (n = 181) Temperament and Character Inventory-235 score means
Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
NS, novelty seeking; HA, harm avoidance; RD, reward dependence; P, persistence; SD, self-directedness; C, cooperativeness; ST, self-transcendence.
P < .05.
P < .001.
The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients noted a significant inverse relationship between cooperativeness and the total number of accidents (rs = −.33, P < .05) and severity of accidents (rs = −.48, P < .05). There was no significant correlation between other personality traits and number or severity of accidents.
Discussion
Mountaineers with a high level of skill and experience were included in the study; that is evidenced by the median grades of 8− and V+ for alpine rock climbing and mountaineering, a median of 15 years of participation in mountaineering, and by the observation that all participants had climbed more than once in situations of high risk (fatality risk classification score of 3). 7 Morbidity and mortality associated with mountaineering in this group was high, evidenced by the baseline climbing-related injury rate and the 8.5% death rate at 4-year follow-up. 1
We found an inverse correlation between cooperativeness and frequency and severity of injury. We are not surprised by this because, in general, persons who score low on cooperativeness are described as self-absorbed, unhelpful, uncooperative, and less likely to engage in teamwork. 4 Low cooperativeness may increase the risk of injury in a sport where safety and risk management benefits from a team approach. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that has identified an association between a specific personality trait and risk of injury in adventure sports. Assessment of cooperativeness may assist in risk management by identifying mountaineers who score low in this trait, alerting them to possible increased risk and the need for behavior modification. Mountain guides could also use this assessment to identify clients with increased risk potential.
There was no apparent correlation between risk of injury and the temperamental traits of novelty seeking and harm avoidance. It is possible that the temperamental traits of the TCI do not measure those personality characteristics, such as locus of control and trait anxiety, that have traditionally been associated with an increased injury risk. In a review of the stress and injury model of sport injury, Williams et al 8 found no evidence that high sensation seeking constituted an injury vulnerability factor; however, athletes who scored higher on either external locus of control or competitive trait anxiety incurred more injuries or higher severity injuries. 8
Because there is a high correlation between Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale and Cloninger’s novelty seeking scale, 9 the finding of high novelty seeking is consistent with the previously demonstrated relationship between sensation seeking and participation in mountaineering and other climbing-related sports. 3 Harm avoidance consists of a heritable bias in the inhibition or cessation of behaviors. It is positively correlated with pessimistic worry in anticipation of future problems, passive avoidant behaviors such as fear of uncertainty and shyness of strangers, and rapid fatigability. 4 The finding of low harm avoidance is, therefore, not surprising because persons with low scores on this dimension are described as carefree, relaxed, daring, courageous, composed, and optimistic, even in situations that worry most people. The advantage of low harm avoidance is to have confidence in the face of danger and uncertainty, leading to optimistic and energetic efforts, with little or no distress. The disadvantages of low harm avoidance are related to unresponsiveness to danger, which can lead to foolhardy optimism. 4
To achieve a high level of performance in mountaineering, participants require highly developed skills that can only be acquired by repeated and consistent practice over time and after undergoing a rigorous apprenticeship. As self-directedness refers to self-determination and maturity, or the ability of a person to control, regulate, and adapt behavior to fit the situation in accord with individually chosen goals and values, it is unsurprising that mountaineers scored high on this measure.
Self-transcendence denotes a propensity to religious and transpersonal experience and a tendency to self-forgetfulness. 4 The finding of such low self-transcendence has not been reported in a similar population. Mountaineering is a physically demanding sport that is pursued in unstable environments and often in unpleasant weather conditions. Mountaineers need to have a capacity to focus and pay close attention to detail over prolonged periods and in situations of physical and psychological stress. A tendency to high self-transcendence is associated with self-forgetfulness and openness to transpersonal experience. 4 In the climbing environment, high self-transcendence is likely to be disadvantageous because it may lead to impaired focus by factors not directly related to climbing; that may help to explain the very low scores on this trait among our study population.
The extant literature of non-risk sport participants examined with Cloninger’s model of personality including elite cyclists, endurance, combat, power, and team sports do not show the characteristic findings of our study population, and therefore the differences in temperament and character of mountaineers cannot be attributed to regular, general participations in sports, even at a high level. Seznec et al 10 only found higher reward dependence among elite cyclists, as compared with a control population, whereas Han et al 11 found elevation only in harm avoidance scores in athletes as compared with nonathletes.
Overall, the results suggest that mountaineers as a population have different personality characteristics. However, the relatively large variation demonstrated by the standard deviations across the measures of temperament and character suggests that there is not a tightly defined personality profile among mountaineers. Factors other than personality are also likely to contribute to engagement in mountaineering. Such factors may include opportunity and access to the natural climbing environment, peer influence, increased popularity, media attention, and commercialization of the sport.
Study Limitations
There are several methodological limitations that must be considered in interpreting the results of this study. The population size is relatively small and not strictly a random sample. General difficulties in recruiting sufficient volunteers from the relatively small population of elite mountaineers (to make up a meaningful sample size) led to the inclusion of all climbers who volunteered to participate and met the study criteria. The sample may represent a population of particularly high risk-taking climbers because 47% of the population at baseline had been involved in accidents yet persisted with the sport. It is also possible that more cautious climbers who had given up the sport after an accident or a fear-inducing experience were no longer involved in climbing and so were not included. However, it is also possible that less experienced, more impulsive, and higher risk-taking climbers were involved in fatal accidents at earlier stages of their climbing careers and so were excluded from the study. Given that our sample is predominantly male (a characteristic of the sport) and of New Zealand nationality (57%), and that the normative data come from a population in the United States, differences in sex, social, and economic factors may have influenced the results to some extent. However, it is important to note that the TCI has also been applied to a normative general Swedish population, which found that the only difference in scores between the US and Swedish population was a minor difference in self-transcendence. 12
An added limitation may be the forced-choice nature of the TCI questionnaire, in which participants score either true or false for each question, whereas the answer may lie somewhere in the middle. However, this limitation is not rare in psychometric tests of personality, and there are extensive data showing the reliability and validity of the TCI. 5
Conclusions
To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to have used the TCI to provide a comprehensive personality assessment of mountaineers; the findings suggest that there are significant temperament and character differences between mountaineers and a normative population sample. However, large variation in the standard deviations across all measures suggests that there is not a tightly defined mountaineering personality profile.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all climbers who generously participated in this study. We would also like to thank Prof Roger Mulder, Prof Andrew Cockburn, Assoc Prof Cris Frampton, and Michael MacAskill for helpful statistical and general comments.