D

Journal of Sports Science 3 (2015) 155-164
doi: 10.17265/2332-7839/2015.04.001

DAVID

PUBLISHING

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body
Reactions under Stress
Kanaka Yatabe1, Hiroto Fujiya1, Naoko Yui1, Keisuke Tateishi1, Yuka Murofushi1, Fumiko Terawaki1, Atsuhiro
Yoshida2, Hirotaka Yoshioka2, Koh Terauchi2, Hajime Kobayashi2, Takaaki Kudo2, Mahiro Ohno2, Aya Uchino2,
Hisao Miyano3, Tadasu Oyama4 and Haruki Musha1
1. Department of Sports Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki 216-8511, Japan
2. Department of Sports Medicine, St. Marianna University Graduate School of Medicine, Kawasaki 216-8511, Japan
3. Research Division, National Center for University Entrance Examinations, Tokyo 153-8501, Japan
4. Department of Psychology, College of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University, Tokyo 156-8550, Japan
Abstract: Effects of neuroticism on partial and whole body reaction times were investigated under stress, or choking conditions instudent participants (N = 127). We measured simple and choice reaction times of parts of the body and choice reaction times of thewhole body in the participants with high and low neuroticism such as depression, cyclic tendency, inferiority feelings, andnervousness under the controlled stress scenario of being in front of people. Results indicated significant differences in reaction timesof partial body, discriminative decisions and choice reaction times of participants in the high neuroticism group. Results of wholebody reaction times were opposite to that of partial body reactions. However, a two-way factorial analysis of variance indicatedneither a significant main effect, nor interactions between reaction times and personality traits. Whole body reactions suggest that theeffects of stimulus transduction process from motor commands to motor outputs via motor neurons has a greater effect in the central
nervous system than recognition and decision-making. However, it is possible that changes in the intracortical mechanisms related tocognitions and emotions could be correlated in partial body movements with nearly no muscular activity. Our findings suggested thatdelays indiscrimination, decision-making, and choice times could affect the performance of individuals.
Key words: Personality traits, stress, reaction.

1. Introduction
Reactions times are important components of motor
movements. The movements of body parts in which
there is almost no muscular activity have been
evaluated during a target-tracking task, by using MEP(motor evoked potential) involuntary finger
movements [1]. The authors concluded that increases
in excitability of the corticospinal tract were
determined by changes in intracortical mechanisms
related to cognitions and emotions. Also, in the caseof whole body reactions, the stimulus transduction
process from motor commands to motor outputs via
motor neurons might have a more significant effect inCorresponding author: Kanaka Yatabe, M.A., assistantprofessor, research fields: sports psychology, mood andemotion. E-mail: kanaka@marianna-u.ac.jp.

the central nervous system than recognition anddecision-making. Reaction times are physiologicallysignificant, and are simple, noninvasive tests ofperipheral, as well as central neural structures [2].
Many processes involved inhuman mental activities,
such as information collection, learning, and thinking,among others, are unconscious processes. This
characteristic is distinctively observed in athletics andsports. For these reasons, it is possible that
unconscious self-awareness, rather than conscious
self-awareness, has a larger impact on individual
performance in sports [3, 4].
A previous study has suggested that unrecognizablestimuli could increase the speed of simple movements
such as key-pressing reactions. Based on this finding,we examined whether participants high in neuroticism,

156

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stresscompared to those low in neuroticism, would show
differences in discrimination times between partial andcomplete body movements in terms of psychologicaland behavioral dimensions.

2. Purpose
Stress in sports consist of three dimensions [5]:psychological, physiological and behavioral [6-10].
One of psychological stress is pressure, which is also
known as choking. In terms of behavioral dimensions,a decline in the speed of movement resulting fromchoking has been reported [11]. This study was
designed to examine whether differences in
psychological states decreased the speed of
movements, or increased reaction times, by measuring
partial body and whole body reaction times under astress scenario of being in front of people.

resulting in a total score 80 points. Based on the meanscore of the present population (36.4 ± 2 SD points)
the participants were divided into two groups. The
group of the participants with the scores higher than
average was regarded as the unstable group, and theother as the stable group [14, 15].
3.1 Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the St. Marianna
University School of Medicine Clinical ResearchCommittee (No.1976). The Helsinki Declaration washonored. The surveys were completed anonymously,
so that the participants’ identities were secured. The
survey responses have been maintained under carefulconditions. No results containing personal information
have been released, and the data will not be used forother purposes.

3. Participants and Method

3.2 Statistical Analysis

Undergraduate students (N = 127) participated in anexperiment under the controlled stress of being
watched by people. We measured simple and choice
reaction times in a part of the participant’s body, thefinger, and the separate reaction times of the left andright sides of the participants’ whole body, by using acolor detection task. Then, we measured partial andwhole body reaction times of the team, by using acrossover design. After the measurement, we divided
participants according to their personality trait into
two groups, high and low neuroticism, based on theirneuroticism score, and conducted a comparative
analysis of SRT (simple reaction times), CRT (choice
reaction times) and DT (discrimination times) of thetwo groups of participants.
We used the Japanese version of the Guilford
Personality Inventory [12, 13] and conducted
between-task comparisons of psychological stresslevels resulting from neuroticism. We first extracted
four scales of neuroticism: D (depression), C (cyclictendency), I (inferiority feelings), and N (nervousness).
Each scale had a maximum score of 20 points

Of the 127 participants, the results of 120 (72 men
and 48 women) were analyzed using a Student’s t-test
for between-groups comparisons and a Paired t-test
for between-subjects comparison. We also conducted
two-way (neuroticism groups × times) repeatedmeasures ANOVA (analyses of variance) by means of
Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference).
Follow-up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were used in cases of significant main effects andinteraction. Analyses were carried out using SPSS
Statistics (ver. 21.0) and a P-value was set P < 0.05 todetermine statistical significance. The criteria forincluding reaction times in the analysis were reactions
exceeding the average reaction time ± 3SD, but notexceeding 200 msec, which were considered to berespectively indicative of reaction errors and reaction
failures and were regarded as missing values.
About the experimental condition in this study, tomeasure partial body reaction times, we used areaction time assessment software developed for basic
experiments by Okamoto Y. (Response/Reaction
Time, Keiso Shobo, Tokyo, Japan) [16, 17] andEffects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stressconducted a randomized signal-timing program withapproximately one minute duration of simple reaction
time measurement (separately for left and right for
fingers) and approximately two minutes duration of
choice reaction time testing (simultaneous for left andright fingers). We calculated the median reaction
times for each condition. To assess SRT, participants
pressed the “J” key of a computer keyboard as quickly
as possible when the letter “J” appeared in white text
on a black computer screen. The time from the onsetof the presentation to participant’s key press was
regarded as their SRT. To assess CRT, participants
selected either the “F (left)” key, or the “J (right)” keynear the center of the keyboard, and quickly pressed
the selected key. The time from the onset of thepresentation to participants’ decision-making wasconsidered as their CRT.
To measure participants’ whole body reaction times,
we used a Multi Jump Tester (DKH, Tokyo, Japan).
We presented different colored lights to examine
differencesinparticipants’sensoryDT(discrimination time). Measurement time was157

approximately one minute per leg. In this method,
participants moved their right or left leg from the frontof the mat to its top, as quickly as possible in response
to a color light that had been selected by theparticipants from among three colors, which waspresented in a randomized order. The trials wererandomized three times each for the left and right legs.
Therefore, six measurements were conducted. First,
participants stood on the mat to which sensors wereattached, and one of the three colored lights was
randomly turned on in a random order. They
simultaneously lifted their leg from the front of the
mat and stepped on the mat when the instructed lightcame on. We regarded the time from the light turningon to participant jumping as the WBCRT (whole body
choice reaction time) of that participant; the time fromlifting the leg from the mat to landing on the mat wasconsidered their MT (movement time); and the timerequired for making the decision to jump (decision
making time). The MTs could not measure
independently, so the WBDTs (whole body
discriminative times) were shown in Fig. 1.

(a) Partial body reaction(b) Whole body reaction
Fig. 1 Experimental condition.
DT: The time required for distinction and decision, as reaction start time.
MT: The time required for movement, as muscular contraction time.
WBDTs: The MTs could not measure independently, so the whole body discriminative times (DT + MT = WBDTs).

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stress158

4. Results
Response times of all participants in the present
study indicated that the mean partial body SRT was
268.0 ± 33.1 msec. Similar to most Japanese people,
approximately about 90% of the participants wereright handed [18, 19], probably as the results of earlytraining of children’s chopsticks-handling in theirhomes. Although the CRT and DT of the left finger
were slightly delayed (CRT: left; 398.1 ± 51.7, right;
390.9 ±54.3 msec, DT: left; 130.1 ±46.6, right; 122.9± 47.7 msec), there were no statistically significant
differences either between the left and the right handsor between men and women (Table 1).
Results also indicated that whole body CRTs were
evenly distributed for both the left and right sides ofthe body and there were no significant differences
either in the side of the bodies or in gender.
4.1 Partial Body Scores of High and Low Neuroticism
GroupsNext partial body tasks were compared between thehigh neuroticism group and the low neuroticism group.
Left CRTs were 389.2 ± 52.9 msec for the low
neuroticism group and 407.2 ±49.7 msec for the highneuroticism group. Right CRTs were 383.1 ± 50.0
msec for the low neuroticism group and 398.8 ±58.1
msec for the high neuroticism group. Although thehigh neuroticism group had slightly longer CRTs than
Table 1the low neuroticism group, there were no significant
differences in CRTs between the two groups for left or
right fingers as follows, left: t(116) = -1.908, P = 0.059,
right: t(116) = -1.575, P = 0.118.
However, as can be seen in Fig. 2, there weresignificant between-group differences (P < 0.05) inpartial body DTs. Left finger DTs were 120.4 ± 44.5
msec for the low neuroticism group and 140.1 ±47.5msec for the high neuroticism group, t(116) = -2.334,
P = 0.021. Right hand DTs were 114.3 ±42.2 msec forthe low neuroticism group and 131.7 ± 52.0 msec forthe high neuroticism group, t(116) = -2.000, P = 0.048.
We found that high neuroticism group had slightly
longer DTs than the low neuroticism group, possible
indicative of reduced central processing in the brain.
4.2 Whole Body Scores of High and Low Neuroticism
GroupsWhole body CRTs of the high and low neuroticism
groups showed different trends to that of partial bodyresults (as shown in Fig. 3). There were differences
between the left and the right (left: the low
neuroticism group 420.7 ± 119.0 msec, the highneuroticism group 366.4 ± 105.1 msec, right: the low
neuroticism group 408.1 ± 109.7 msec, the highneuroticism group 370.7 ±97.5 msec). We found that
the WBCRTs of the low neuroticism group werelonger than those of the high neuroticism group; left:

Partial and Whole body reaction times (average ±standard deviation).

Partial Body Reaction(msec)
Average±SD
Whole Body Reaction
Left sides(msec)
Average±SD
Right sides(msec)
Average
±SD

SRT
(AV)
268.0
33.3

CRT
(Left)
398.1
51.7

DT
(Left)
130.1
46.6

CRT
(Right)
390.9
54.3

DT
(Right)122.9
47.7

1st time

2nd time

3rd time

WBCRT

WBDT

392.0
133.6

406.7
133.8

393.6
120.8

393.3
114.5

156.1
93.1

1st time

2nd time

3rd time

WBCRT

WBDT

400.5
112.5

394.8
122.5

399.3
126.9

390.8
104.5

141.9
91.2

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under StressFig. 2 Partial body discriminative time (by neuroticism traits).

Fig. 3Whole body choice reaction time (by neuroticism traits).

159

160

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stresst(113) = 2.594, P = 0.011, right: t(113) = 1.925, P =0.057. This finding suggests opposite effects ofneuroticism traits on partial body and whole bodyreactions.
We conducted two-way factorial ANOVA of wholebody reaction measurements, with measurement
period and personality traits to examine differences in
repeated measurement periods. Results indicatedneither a significant main effects nor interactions; left:
F(2, 168) = 0.082, right: F(2, 168) = 0.595, Ps > 0.05
(Fig. 4).
It is suggested that slight differences between theleft and the right sides of the body were probably
related to whether or not it was the dominant leg ofthe participants. The high neuroticism group had ashorter response time and their performance improved
as they repeated the task. The low neuroticism group
was more likely to decrease the speed of theirperformances as the task was repeated. The results
were in line with the degrees of performance observedin relation to introversion versus extroversion
personality traits [20, 21]. The high neuroticism group
was more likely to improve their performances as they
repeated a task and the low neuroticism group was
more likely to perform at their best the first time.
If we review whole body reactions by breaking
them down according to the four personality scales ofneuroticism (among the four scales), “D (Depression)”Fig. 4Whole body choice reaction times (by neuroticism traits).

and “N (Nervousness)” scales of the two neuroticism
group indicated significant differences by repeatedmeasures ANOVA. (N) scale of the high neuroticism
group, indicated a two factor interaction (emotionalgroups × period) on the right leg of the body, which
was the dominant side of most participants, F(4, 280)
= 3.442, P = 0.035. Especially in (D) scales on bothsides and (N) scale on the right leg of the body, theseresults indicated that the high neuroticism grouptended to be shorter at first time, but were longer atthe 2nd and the 3rd time on the estimated averages.
Differences between the left and the right sides
were also observed in whole body DTs (left: low
neuroticism group 175.5 ± 99.6 msec, highneuroticism group 135.9 ± 82.6 msec, right: low
neuroticism group 153.2 ± 97.3 msec, highneuroticism group 127.9 ± 83.3 msec) as see Fig. 5. A
Difference (P < 0.05) was also observed in the left leg
between the two groups, t(94) = 2.107, P = 0.038. We
also observed a difference in the same direction for theright leg, which did not reach significance, t(102) =1.408, P = 0.162. The whole body DTs tended to be
opposite of DTs in partial body reactions; the WBDTs
of high neuroticism group were shorter than those of
low neuroticism group on average.

5. Discussion
Results indicated no significant differences between

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under StressFig. 5161

Whole body discriminative time (by neuroticism traits).

the two neuroticism groups in simple reactions,although the SRTs of the high neuroticism group wereslightly shorter than that of the low neuroticism group.
There were significant differences between the two
neuroticism groups in partial body DTs for both left
and right fingers. Although this indicated a weakcausative relationship with choking in front of people,
we suggest a possible delay in the central processing
system of individuals when they are in a nearly
unconscious state.
Moreover, the high neuroticism group had a larger
standard deviation and a higher degree of dispersion in
the semi-interquartile range, which was likely skewed
in the direction of longer reaction times (Fig. 6). Thismight have induced an “uncertainty of movement”.
Partial body movements, which have nearly no
muscular activity, perceptual conflicts such as
tiredness, anxiety, and health problems, as well as
environmental stressors, such as the need for makingsocial adjustments might influence individuals’
performances by decreasing efficiency [22]. Our
results corroborated this view. Also, the results
supported the findings by Tanaka et al. [1, 23],
suggesting that excitability in the corticospinal tract
was correlated with changes in the intracorticalmechanisms related to cognition and emotions.
In contrast, in the case of whole body reactions, theeffects of the stimulus transduction process frommotor commands to motor outputs via the pyramidal
tract, extrapyramidal tract, and motor neurons waslarger than recognition and decision-making in thecentral nervous system. These results suggest thatneuroticism traits do not always have a significant
effect on performance [24].
However, if we postulate that there are nodifferences in the time of stimulus transduction to thewhole body, the significant “delays in DTs” observedin the high neuroticism group in the present study

162

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under StressFig. 6 Dispersion of discriminative time (by neuroticism traits).

might decrease individual performance. In particular,children from 6 to 12 years of age are in a growth
period with ongoing development of their nervous
system. In the case of such children, the effects of adelayed stimulus transduction time in the motor
command output system related to emotions, could
have significant effects on their performance.

6. Future Issues
It has been suggested with regard to whole bodyreactions that “emotionally stable groups have a fasterwhole body reaction time” under psychological stressin the context of personality traits, and that “there is acorrelation between pressure and performance” [21,25-28]. However, our results did not support thesefindings, because individuals in the present study were
facing weak pressure, which might be correlated withattention and concentration for particular types of
performance. This could be because an optimal levelof tension might have a facilitating effect on choking.
This experiment examined differences in participants’
whole body reactions under slight pressure, which
unlike under strong pressure, might have been

insufficient to generate differences in reaction
times.
In sports, it has been regarded that reaction time andperformance before and after official games differ
according to reaction times and neuroticism. However,in the present experiment on whole body reactions, wefound the effects of motor control time, or the effectsof the stimulus transduction process from the motor
command to the motor output via the pyramidal tract,
extrapyramidal tract, and motor neurons may have alarger effect. Our findings suggest that in the case ofpartial body movements, in which there is almost no
muscular activity, changes in the intracorticalmechanisms related to unconscious cognitions andemotions might be correlated.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (No.22700633 and 25350789)
from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology in Japan and St. Marianna University
School of Medicine for helping with data collection
on this project.

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stress

Reference[1]

Tanaka, Y., Funase, K., Sekiya, H., Sasaki., J., andTakemoto, T. 2011. “Multiple EMG Activity andIntracortical Inhibition and Facilitation during a Fine
Finger Movement under Pressure.” Journal of Motor
Behavior 43 (1): 73-81.
[2] Mohan, M., Thombre, D. P., Das, A. K., and Subramanian,N. 1984. “Reaction Time in Clinical Diabetes Mellitus.”
Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 28 (4):311-4.
[3] Masters, R. S. W., Maxwell, J. P., and Eves, F. F. 2009.
“Marginally Perceptible Outcome Feedback, Motor
Learning and Implicit Processes.” Consciousness andCognition 18 (3): 639-45.
[4] Lewicki, P., Hill, T., and Czyzewska, M. 1992.
“Nonconscious Acquisition of Information.” American
Psychologist 47 (6): 796-801.
[5] Lang,
P.
J.
1971.
“The
ApplicationofPsychophysiological Methods to the Study ofPsychotherapy and Behavior Modification.” In Handbookof Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, edited by Bergin,
A., and Grafield, S. New York, NY: Wiley, 75-125.
[6] Ichimura, S. 1965. “Factor Analytical Study on the Traitsof Stage Fright in Sports.” Japan Journal of Physical
Education, Health and Sport Sciences 9 (1): 18-22. (inJapanese)[7] Arimitsu, K., and Imada, H. 1999. “Situations andCognitive Appraisals in ‘Agari’ Experiences: Feature
Analyses of ‘Agari’ Experiences.” The Japanese Journalof Psychology 70 (1): 31-7. (in Japanese)[8] Wang, J., Marchant, D., and Morris, T. 2004.
“Self-consciousness and Trait Anxiety as Predictors of
Choking in Sport.” Journal of Science and Medicine inSport 7 (2): 174-85.
[9] Tanaka, Y., and Sekiya, H. 2010. “The Influence ofAudience and Monetary Reward on Putting Kinematics
of Expert and Novice Golfers.” Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport 81 (4): 416-24.
[10] Mullen, R., Hardy, L., and Tattersall, A. 2005. “The
Effects of Anxiety on Motor Performance: A Test of theConscious Processing Hypothesis.” Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology 27: 212-25.
[11] Tanaka, Y., and Sekiya, H. 2006. “The Influence ofAcute Psychological Stress on Golf Putting.” Japanese
Journal of Sport Psychology 33 (2): 1-18. (in Japanese)[12] Guilford, J. P. 1975. “Factors and Factors of Personality.”
Psychological Bulletin 82 (5): 802-14.
[13] Tsujioka, Y. 1957. “A Factorial Study of theTemperament of Japanese College Male Students by the
Yatabe-Guilford Personality Inventory.” Psychologia 1(2): 110-9. (in Japanese)163[14] Luce, R. D. 1986. Response Times: Their Role inInferring Elementary Mental Organization. Oxford
Psychology Series 8. New York: Oxford University Press,562.
[15] Welford, A. T. 1977. “Motor Performance.” Handbook of
the Psychology of Aging 2 (450): 95.
[16] Okamoto, Y. 1982. “A Test of the Fixed-point Propertyof the Two-state Model for Simple Reaction Time.”
Japanese Psychological Research 24 (4): 222-4.
[17] Okamoto, Y. 2010. Response/Reaction Time: Psychology
VC++ for University Students, Introduction to Program.
Tokyo: KeisoShobo. (in Japanese)[18] Hardyck, C., and Petrinovich, L. F. 1977.
“Left-handedness.” Psychological Bulletin 84 (3):385-404.
[19] Maehara, K. 1989. Right-handed Person, Left-handed
Science, Handedness, Footedness, Work Eyes, Work Ear.
Tokyo: Kodansha. (in Japanese)[20] Baumeister, R. F. 1984. “Choking under Pressure:Self-consciousness and Paradoxical Effects of Incentives
on Skillful Performance.” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 46 (3): 610-20.
[21] Murayama, T., and Sekiya, H. 2012. “Factors Related to
Choking under Pressure in Sports and the Relationships
among Them.” Japan Journal Physical Education,
Health and Sport Sciences 57 (2): 595-611. (inJapanese)[22] O’Relly, and Joseph, P. 1977. “Hana Kai II. A 17-day
Dry Saturation Dive at 18.6 ATA: VI. Cognitive
Performance, Reaction Time, and Personality Changes.”
Undersea Biomedical Research 4 (3): 297-305.
[23] Tanaka, Y., and Sekiya, H. 2010. “The Influence ofAudience and Monetary Reward on the Putting
Kinematics of Expert and Novice Golfers.” Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81 (4): 416-24.
[24] Yavuz, H. U., and Oktem, F. 2012. “The Relationshipbetween Depression, Anxiety and Visual Reaction Timesin Athletes.” Biology of Sport 29 (3): 205-9.
[25] Lenzenweger, M. F. 2001. “Reaction Time Slowing
DuringHigh-load,
Sustained-attention
Task
Performance in Relation to Psychometrically Identified
Schizotypy.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 110 (2):290-6.
[26] Panayitou, G., and Vrana, S. R. 2004. “The Role of
Self-focus, Task Difficulty, Task Self-relevance, andEvaluation Anxiety in Reaction Time Performance.”
Motivation and Emotion 28 (2): 171-96.
[27] Murayama, T., Tanaka, Y., and Sekiya, H. 2009.
“Qualitative Research on the Mechanism of Choking
under Pressure.” Japan Journal Physical Education,
Health and Sport Sciences 54 (2): 263-277. (inJapanese)

164

Effects of Neuroticism on Partial and Whole Body Reactions Under Stress[28] Ciucurel, M. M. 2012. “The Relation between Anxiety,
Reaction Time and Performance before and after Sport
Competitions.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences

33:
885-889.
Accessed
May
7,
2015.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704
2812002571