intercollegiate perfectionistic athletes' perspectives on achievement: contributions to the...

Intercollegiate perfectionistic athletes’ perspectives onachievement: Contributions to the understanding andassessment of perfectionism in sportJOHN K. GOTWALS* and NANCY SPENCER-CAVALIERE**

(*) School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, Canada(**) Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Canada

The purpose of this study was to explore perfectionistic athletes’ perspectiveson achievement in sport. Male and female intercollegiate athletes whose Sport Mul-tidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2 (Sport-MPS-2; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) sub-scale profile reflected healthy perfectionism (n = 7) or unhealthy perfectionism (n =11) were purposefully sampled and interviewed. Content analysis of the interviewdata revealed three themes: personal expectations, coping with challenge, and roleof others. Although these themes were common to both healthy and unhealthy per-fectionists, the content generally represented a dichotomy of positive and negativeinterpretations, respectively. Discussion explores the degree to which these findingsprovide insight into perfectionism among athletes, support use of the tripartitemodel (Stoeber & Otto, 2006) and anecdotal accounts of perfectionism (e.g., Burns,1980; Hamachek, 1978) within sport, foster resolution of the healthy–unhealthyperfectionism debate, contribute to the development of the Sport-MPS-2, andadvance understanding of the domain-specificity of perfectionism.

KEY WORDS: Athletes, Healthy, Domain-specific, Mixed-methods, Perfectionism,Qualitative, Tripartite model, Unhealthy.

Perfectionism is a personality trait that broadly characterizes individuals’commitment to extremely high standards of personal performance as well astheir degree of self- and socially-focused concern over the ramifications offailing to achieve those standards (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990;

This manuscript was primarily developed in 2013 while John K. Gotwals was a Lever-hulme Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at York St. John University.The project described in this manuscript was supported by a grant from the Senate ResearchCommittee at Lakehead University.

Correspondence to: John K. Gotwals at the School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University,Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 5E1. (E-mail: [email protected])

Int. J. Sport Psychol., 2014; 45: 271-297doi: 10.7352/IJSP 2014.45.271

Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Research findings suggest that perfectionistic tenden-cies are relevant to achievement efforts in sport (Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009),perhaps because success in sport often requires near-perfect performance(Flett & Hewitt, 2005). Accordingly, research on perfectionism in sport hasexpanded exponentially over the past decade (Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, &Stoll, 2012). This body of literature investigates the perfectionistic tendenciesof athletes across a wide variety of populations and sport contexts, rangingfrom youth athletes involved in intra-school competitions (Hall, Kerr, &Matthews, 1998) to those engaged in high performance sport (Hill, Hall, &Appleton, 2012); undergraduate students who casually engage in physicalactivity through on-campus resources (Anshel & Seipel, 2006) to those whocompete in varsity intercollegiate sport (Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & McDon-ald, 2012); and adult athletes who participate in recreational running clubs(Hall, Hill, Appleton, & Kozub, 2009) to those who compete in world cham-pionships (Gucciardi, Mahoney, Jalleh, Donovan, & Parkes, 2012).

In studying athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies, sport researchers oftenmake use of perfectionism resources that originate from outside of sport(Hall, 2013). This is evidenced, for example, in sport researchers’ applicationof perfectionism frameworks (e.g., the tripartite model of perfectionism; seeStoeber & Otto, 2006) that are founded on studies conducted in non-sportcontexts, references to anecdotal accounts of perfectionism developedwithin clinical psychology (e.g., Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978), and use ofinstruments that assess perfectionism in a context-free manner as models forinstruments designed to assess athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies (e.g., theSport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2; Sport-MPS-2; see Dunn, Caus-grove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009). Although these bor-rowing practices appear reasonable given that sport psychology is a sub-dis-cipline within the broader field of psychology, it is important that they arebased on a solid conceptual and empirical rationale (Gauvin & Russell,1993). One way to establish this type of rationale is to deliberately examinethe compatibility of these perfectionism resources with the sport context. Tothis end, in this study we explored perfectionistic athletes’ perspectives onachievement for the purpose of establishing how these perspectives mightsupport the relevance of the tripartite model and anecdotal accounts of per-fectionism within sport and contribute to the development of the Sport-MPS-2. In doing so, we also contribute to discussions regarding the degreeto which perfectionistic tendencies are domain-specific and investigate thedistinction between healthy and unhealthy perfectionism, two controversialissues prevalent in the broader perfectionism literature (Dunn et al., 2012;Flett & Hewitt, 2005).

272 J. K. Gotwals, N. Spencer-Cavaliere

Descriptions of Perfectionism

In the early 1990s, two independent research groups—Frost et al. (1990)and Hewitt and Flett (1991)—recognized that perfectionism is multidimen-sional. Based on a review of the general perfectionism literature, Stoeber andOtto (2006) identified two overarching dimensions: perfectionistic strivings andperfectionistic concerns (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010, respectively labeledthese two dimensions as personal standards perfectionism and evaluative con-cerns perfectionism). Perfectionistic strivings reflect tendencies to set extremelyhigh standards for personal performance and self-oriented strivings for perfec-tion; perfectionistic concerns reflect tendencies to equate personally committedmistakes with failure, perceptions of unrealistic socially-prescribed performancestandards, and concerns that imperfect performance will be judged harshly bysignificant others. Two theoretical frameworks—the tripartite model (Rice &Ashby, 2007; Stoeber & Otto, 2006) and the 2 × 2 model (Gaudreau & Thom-spon, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012)—posit that different perfection-ism sub-types can be identified by different profiles across perfectionistic striv-ings and perfectionistic concerns. However, the two frameworks differ in thenumber of sub-types identified and the labels used for each.

The tripartite model recognizes three perfectionism sub-types: healthyperfectionists (defined by high levels of perfectionistic strivings in combinationwith low levels of perfectionistic concerns), unhealthy perfectionists (definedby high levels across both dimensions), and non-perfectionists (defined by lowperfectionistic strivings and undifferentiated perfectionistic concerns). The 2 ×2 model recognizes four perfectionism sub-types. Pure personal standards per-fectionists and mixed perfectionists are similar in composition to the tripartitemodel’s healthy perfectionists and unhealthy perfectionists, respectively. How-ever, the 2 × 2 model distinguishes the tripartite model’s operationalization ofnon-perfectionists into two distinct sub-types: non-perfectionists (defined bylow levels across both perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns)and pure evaluative concerns perfectionists (defined by low levels of perfec-tionistic strivings in combination with high perfectionistic concerns).

Stoeber (2011) argued that perfectionistic strivings represents an “inte-gral element of the definition of perfectionism” (p. 141) and that the label“perfectionist” should be reserved for individuals high in perfectionisticstrivings (see also Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice, Ashby, & Gillman, 2011). Weagree with this contention and conceptualized and conducted the presentstudy accordingly. For example, given that the purpose of this study was togain a better understanding of perfectionistic athletes’ perspectives, wefocused our investigation on athletes whose perfectionism profiles were

Perfectionistic athletes’ perspectives on achievement 273


defined, at least in part, by high levels of perfectionistic strivings. As such, wepurposefully sampled athletes whose perfectionism profiles reflected healthyor unhealthy perfectionism (or, using the 2 × 2 model’s nomenclature, purepersonal standards perfectionism and mixed perfectionism), but not non-perfectionism (as operationalized in both the both the tripartite model andthe 2 × 2 model) or pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (as operational-ized in the 2 × 2 model). Given that this study included both types of perfec-tionists identified in the tripartite model, but excluded one type of perfec-tionist identified in the 2 × 2 model, it best represents an exploration of thetripartite model’s relevance within sport contexts.

A more detailed description of healthy and unhealthy perfectionism, asoperationalized in the tripartite model, can be obtained through reference toearly theorists’, practitioners’, and researchers’ accounts of perfectionism –collectively labeled the “anecdotal literature” (Slaney, Ashby, & Trippi,1995). This literature describes healthy perfectionists as people who strivefor very high performance standards, accept the inevitability of mistakes, andseparate evaluations of performance from determinations of self-worth(Hamachek, 1978; Lundh, 2004; Silverman, 1999). According to Hamachek(1978), healthy perfectionism can develop through positive modeling of asignificant other who, carefully and consistently, strives to perform at a highlevel or negative modeling of a significant other who is disorganized andrarely finishes a task. Through both, healthy perfectionists learn to strive forhigh standards in an effortful and orderly manner and to enjoy—but not bedependent on—approval from others (Hamachek, 1978).

In contrast, the anecdotal literature describes unhealthy perfectionists asdemanding irrationally high performance standards, being overly concernedwith mistakes, and defining self-worth through performance (see Slaney etal., 1995). These tendencies develop when insecure children are faced withadult caregivers who provide approval conditionally and attribute failures topersonal flaws (Missildine, 1963). In response, children learn that perform-ing perfectly is the only way to ensure positive evaluations from themselvesand others (Hollender, 1965). These beliefs make unhealthy perfectionistsprone to all-or-nothing thinking and overgeneralization—where personallycommitted mistakes are perceived to represent total failure and expected torepeat uncontrollably (Burns, 1980). As a result, unhealthy perfectioniststend to have exaggerated responses to setbacks, develop deep-seated fears offailure, and are chronically dissatisfied with—or uncertain about—theirefforts (Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978).

Both the tripartite model and the anecdotal literature have been seminalin the advancement of sport perfectionism research. This is evidenced by the

many studies of perfectionism with athletes where the tripartite model is usedas a conceptual framework (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2012; Roberts, Rotheram,Maynard, Thomas, & Woodman, 2013; Sapieja, Dunn, & Holt, 2011) and theanecdotal literature is used to help describe the trait (e.g., Anshel & Eom,2003; Dunn et al., 2002; Gotwals, 2011). This prevalence highlights two issuesyet to be addressed in the sport perfectionism literature. First, both the tri-partite model and anecdotal literature were developed outside of sport: thebody of research that served as the foundation for the tripartite model did notinclude any studies that examined athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies (seeStoeber & Otto, 2006); the anecdotal literature has its origins in clinical psy-chology and is generally based on clinicians’ work with perfectionistic clients(Rice, Bair, Castro, Cohen, & Hood, 2003; Slaney et al., 1995). As such, thedegree to which both accurately capture athletes’ perfectionistic tendencieshas not been established. Second, the very concept of healthy perfectionism iscontroversial (Gotwals et al., 2012). Some argue that healthy perfectionismdoes not deserve to be described as a type of perfectionism because it does notincorporate several features traditionally associated with perfectionism,including a demand for perfect performance, fear of failure, and conditionalself-acceptance (Greenspon, 2000; Hall, 2006). Others contend that perfec-tionists may only appear to be healthy, until they are faced with circumstancessuggesting that they have not met—or may not meet—their lofty standards(Flett & Hewit, 2005), such as actual failure, negative social feedback, andvery difficult tasks (see Besser, Flett, Hewitt, & Guez, 2008).

A qualitative exploration of healthy and unhealthy perfectionistic ath-letes’ perspectives on achievement in sport could help to address both con-cerns and make a valuable contribution to the sport and general perfection-ism literature. Findings could be compared to the descriptions ofperfectionism contained in both the tripartite model and the anecdotal liter-ature to confirm and/or challenge whether both accurately capture perfec-tionism in sport. Juxtaposing salient themes respective to healthy andunhealthy perfectionists’ perspectives may help resolve the divisive distinc-tion of healthy perfectionism (Rice et al., 2003). Finally, a focus on athletes iswarranted given that they experience failure, negative social feedback, anddifficult tasks routinely as part of their engagement in sport.

The Identification of Healthy and Unhealthy Perfectionists

Perfectionists are often identified as such by their responses to global, orcontext-free, multidimensional perfectionism self-report instruments, such


as Frost et al.’s (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS; e.g.,Rice et al., 2003; Schuler, 2000). When assessing athletes’ perfectionistic ten-dencies, however, instruments contextualized within sport are recommended(Stoeber, 2011). One of the most commonly used sport-based perfectionisminstruments is the Sport-MPS-2. A considerable amount of validity evidencehas been produced in support of this instrument as a measure of perfection-ism in sport (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009; Gotwals, Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, &Gamache, 2010). What has yet to be established, however, is the degree towhich the Sport-MPS-2 captures how perfectionistic athletes think abouttheir own achievement in sport.

The original Sport-MPS contained four subscales—Personal Standards(PS), Concern Over Mistakes (COM), Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP),and Perceived Coach Pressure (PCP)—and was introduced as a “sport-spe-cific version” (Dunn et al., 2002, p. 381) of the F-MPS. Frost et al. reliedheavily on the anecdotal literature when determining content for the F-MPS.Gotwals and Dunn (2009) did the same when developing two additional sub-scales—Organization (Org) and Doubts About Actions (DAA)—for theSport-MPS (thereby, creating the Sport-MPS-2). Sport-MPS-2 subscaleshave been identified as reflecting facets of the tripartite model’s two dimen-sions: PS and Org reflect facets of perfectionistic strivings; COM, PPP, PCP,and DAA reflect facets of perfectionistic concerns (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009;Sapieja et al., 2011; Stoeber, 2011). Accordingly, Sport-MPS-2 subscale pro-files have been used to identify groups of athletes who fit the tripartitemodel’s definition of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Gotwals, 2011;Gucciardi et al., 2012; Sapieja et al., 2011).

Given the Sport-MPS-2’s origins, development, and use in perfectionismresearch, the instrument is assumed to produce assessments that match thedescription of perfectionism provided by the tripartite model and the anec-dotal literature. One way to investigate this assumption is to (a) identifyhealthy or unhealthy perfectionistic athletes based on their Sport-MPS-2subscale profiles, (b) use qualitative inquiry to broadly and inductivelyexplore their perspectives on achievement in sport, and (c) examine thedegree to which these qualitative findings reflect the tripartite model and theanecdotal literature. Such an investigation would also afford the uniqueopportunity to explore the degree to which content represented by Sport-MPS-2 subscales is reflected in perfectionistic athletes’ perspectives onachievement. In addition to contributing to the empirical rationale for theborrowing practices of sport perfectionism researchers, the results of thistype of inquiry would contribute to the development of the Sport-MPS-2and potentially identify new directions for future revision (Willis, 2005).


Qualitative Inquiry of Perfectionists’ Perspectives

The interpretive and inductive nature of qualitative inquiry affordsresearchers the opportunity to explore human experiences and other natu-rally occurring phenomena (Mayan, 2009; Patton, 2002). As such, qualitativeinquiry is well-suited to produce in-depth and insightful accounts of perfec-tionists’ attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives. Although no study has used qual-itative inquiry to explore the perspectives of healthy and unhealthy perfec-tionistic athletes, several parallel studies have been conducted within thecontext of gifted education (e.g., Schuler, 2000; Speirs Neumeister 2004a,2004b, 2004c; Speirs Neumeister, Williams, & Cross, 2007). These studies uti-lize a common two-phase design. In the first phase, a large sample of academ-ically-gifted students respond to a multidimensional perfectionism scale. Inthe second phase, individual students from within the larger sample are iden-tified as perfectionists—and selected for subsequent semi-structured inter-views—based on the degree to which their perfectionism scores match spe-cific criteria. Interviews across these studies focused on a wide range of topics,spanning the etiology, composition and consequences of the participants’ per-fectionism. Findings tend to be congruent with the tripartite model’s and theanecdotal literature’s collective description of perfectionism. For instance,reflective of the tripartite model’s definition of healthy perfectionism, thehealthy perfectionists in Schuler’s study and the self-oriented perfectionists inSpeirs Neumeister (2004b; 2004c) were described as focused on achievingtheir personal best and able to move past mistakes quickly. In line with theanecdotal literature, these same perfectionists relied on organization, prepa-ration and hard work to achieve academic success. Reflective of the tripartitemodel’s definition of unhealthy perfectionism, the unhealthy perfectionists inSchuler’s study and the socially prescribed perfectionists in Speirs Neumeisteret al.’s study focused on achieving perfect academic achievement (e.g., straightAs) and perceived a high degree of socially prescribed pressure. In line withthe anecdotal literature, these perfectionists were described as prone tochronic anxiety, guilt, and embarrassment.

The findings of these studies (i.e., Schuler, 2000; Speirs Neumeister2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007) suggest that thedescriptions of perfectionism provided by the tripartite model and the anec-dotal literature do in fact capture perfectionism among academically-giftedstudents. However, the compatibility of these descriptions is yet to be exam-ined among athletes. Although similarities between students’ and athletes’perfectionistic tendencies are likely (Wang, Fu, & Rice, 2012), there may alsobe meaningful differences. Evidence suggests that athletes adopt different


levels of perfectionism within sport and academic contexts (Dunn et al.,2012) and there are unique aspects of perfectionism in sport not present inthe high school classroom or university lecture hall (e.g., perceived coachpressure; Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn et al., 2002). Investigating perfection-istic athletes’ perspectives, and comparing the results with findings from thebody of literature on perfectionism among academically-gifted students,could expand understanding of the common and/or contextualized aspectsof perfectionism.

The Present Study

The purpose of the present study was to identify athletes who, accordingto their responses to the Sport-MPS-2, qualified as healthy or unhealthy per-fectionists and to broadly and inductively explore these athletes’ perspectiveson achievement in sport. The findings have the potential to make the follow-ing five contributions: (1) to establish descriptions of healthy and unhealthyperfectionism as experienced by athletes, (2) to foster development of arationale regarding the use of the tripartite model and the anecdotal litera-ture to study athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies, (3) to help resolve the per-vasive controversy surrounding the distinction between healthy andunhealthy perfectionism, (4) to contribute to the development of the Sport-MPS-2 and (5) to explore the domain-specificity of perfectionism.

Method

This study utilized a two-phase explanatory mixed methods design (Creswell & PlanoClark, 2007). The purpose of Phase 1 was to identify a sample of athletes whose Sport-MPS-2subscale profiles reflected healthy or unhealthy perfectionism, as defined by the tripartitemodel. The purpose of Phase 2 was to broadly explore these athletes’ experiences and per-spectives through the use of semi-structured interviews. Qualitative description provided themethodological framework for Phase 2. This naturalistic form of inquiry attempts to providea detailed and thorough account of events and experiences using an inductive approach toanalysis (Sandelowski, 2000). All procedures were approved by a University research ethicsboard prior to implementation.

PARTICIPANTS

Intercollegiate varsity athletes were recruited because they compete in a context that isconducive to perfectionism and have been frequently examined in sport perfectionismresearch (Gotwals, 2011). The participants in Phase 1 were 117 female and male athletes from



a single Canadian university.1 The participants in Phase 2 were 18 athletes (M age = 21.46years, SD = 1.96) purposefully sampled from those who took part in Phase 1. The athletes whotook part in Phase 2 had competed at the varsity level for an average of 2.44 years (SD = 1.04)and were pursuing undergraduate degrees. Additional demographic information for Phase 2participants is presented in Table I.

PROCEDURES

Phase 1: Quantitative identification of perfectionistic athletes. Phase 1 participantscompleted the Sport-MPS-2 early in their competitive seasons. Participants were purposefullysampled for participation in Phase 2 if their Sport-MPS-2 subscale profile reflected healthy orunhealthy perfectionism, as defined by the tripartite model. Although each Sport-MPS-2 sub-scale represents a facet of perfectionistic strivings or perfectionistic concerns, the subscalesmost central to these two dimensions are, PS and COM, respectively (Gotwals et al., 2012;Stoeber, 2011). As a result, PS and COM were featured prominently in the profiles used toidentify perfectionistic athletes; levels across PPP, PCP, DAA, and Org were used as furtherrefinement. In accordance with the tripartite model, athletes were identified as healthy per-fectionists if their Sport-MPS-2 profile was comprised of high scores on PS, low scores onCOM, low scores on PPP and/or PCP, and low scores on DAA and/or high scores on Org.Athletes were identified as unhealthy perfectionists if their Sport-MPS-2 profile was com-prised of high scores on PS and COM, high scores on PPP and/or PCP, and high scores onDAA and/or Org. The sampling frame’s 33rd and 66th percentiles demarcated low and highscores within each subscale (Rice et al., 2003).

Based on these definitions, 14 Phase 1 participants qualified as unhealthy perfectionists.However, only four participants qualified as healthy perfectionists. To increase the likelihoodthat the interview data captured a range of perspectives and achieved saturation (Patton,2002), the criteria used to identify healthy perfectionists were expanded. Specifically, the 60th

percentile was used to define high Sport-MPS-2 scores and the 40th percentile was used todefine low Sport-MPS-2 scores. Based on these expanded criteria, 11 Phase 1 participantsqualified as healthy perfectionists. Of the final 25 qualifying athletes, seven healthy perfec-tionists and 11 unhealthy perfectionists agreed to participate in Phase 2.2 Table I presents thesubscale scores used in the identification process, as well as each participant’s Sport-MPS-2subscale score profile.

1 All Phase 1 participants took part in Gotwals (2011). Readers are referred to that studyfor demographic information pertaining to these athletes, procedures regarding participantrecruitment and data collection, as well as psychometric evaluation of their Sport-MPS-2responses. The data and results presented in this manuscript are unique and not replicated inGotwals’s study.

2 Gotwals (2011) conducted a cluster analysis on Phase 1 participants’ Sport-MPS-2responses. This analysis grouped each athlete into one of four clusters: healthy perfectionists,parent-oriented unhealthy perfectionists, doubt-oriented unhealthy perfectionists, and non-perfectionists. The seven healthy perfectionistic athletes who took part in Phase 2 were allmembers of the healthy perfectionist cluster. The 11 unhealthy perfectionistic athletes whotook part in Phase 2 were either members of the parent-oriented unhealthy perfectionist clus-ter (n = 6) or the doubt-oriented unhealthy perfectionist cluster (n = 5).


Phase 2: Qualitative data collection. Interviews were conducted by the first author in aprivate lab space and using a semi-structured guide (Patton, 2002). The guide (presented inthe Appendix) was developed by the authors and refined after two pilot interviews. The goalwas to create a guide that addressed broad topics relevant to both perfectionism and achieve-ment in sport, but that did not adhere to any specific perfectionism conceptualization or view-point on current issues in the literature. Open-ended questions were utilized to encourage thepossibility of a diverse range of responses. To this end each interview began by asking partic-ipants to describe what a “good game” and a “bad game” looked like to them andidentify/describe emotions they associated with each type of game. Participants were told thatthey could draw on real life experiences to enhance their descriptions. These descriptionsserved as the foundation for questions that explored the athletes’ personal standards, includ-ing the etiology of their standards, the strategies utilized to achieve them, and the impact ofachieving—or not achieving—their standards. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour (M= 59.83 minutes, range = 41–81 minutes), was digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim,and took place after the participant’s competitive season. Reflective notes were taken aftereach interview to document quality, note emergent themes, and highlight points for analysis(Mayan, 2009).

TABLE IParticipants’ Demographic Information, Sport-MPS-2 Subscale Mean Scores and Selection Criterion Scores.

Demographic information Sport-MPS-2 subscale mean score

Gender Age (Years) Sport PS COM PPP PCP DAA Org

Unhealthy perfectionistic athletesFemale 21.08 Volleyball 4.43 3.63 4.56 3.17 2.33 4.67Male 21.00 Basketball 4.71 4.50 1.44 4.33 1.67 5.00Male 21.33 Basketball 4.00 3.25 1.44 4.33 2.50 4.50Male 22.83 Basketball 4.14 3.38 2.67 4.17 2.67 4.50Male 21.75 Wrestling 4.71 4.38 1.89 4.33 3.67 2.67Male 23.17 Wrestling 4.86 4.00 2.67 3.67 2.67 4.50Female 22.83 Basketball 4.43 4.50 1.44 4.33 3.17 4.67Female 20.00 Basketball 4.29 4.63 3.11 5.00 3.67 3.17Female 23.33 Basketball 4.29 4.38 1.44 3.83 3.83 2.67Female 19.92 Wrestling 4.71 3.63 3.22 3.83 3.00 4.83Female 19.83 Wrestling 4.14 3.75 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.40Selection criterion scoresSampling frame 66th percentile 3.98 3.25 2.22 3.65 2.81 4.00

Healthy perfectionistic athletesFemale 22.17 Volleyball 4.43 2.00 1.56 3.33 2.50 4.00Male 19.92 Hockey 4.00 2.62 2.44 2.50 2.17 4.00Male 22.33 Hockey 4.43 1.75 2.22 3.00 2.00 3.33Female 20.25 Wrestling 4.14 2.25 1.22 3.00 2.00 4.67Female 18.58 Track and field 3.86 1.63 1.11 3.33 3.33 4.00Male 19.17 Track and field 3.86 2.25 2.33 2.33 2.00 4.33Male 26.83 Track and field 4.14 2.25 1.00 2.83 3.17 4.83Selection criterion scoresSampling frame 40th percentile na 2.62 1.67 3.00 2.33 naSampling frame 60th percentile 3.86 na na na na 4.00

Note. PS = Personal Standards, COM = Concern Over Mistakes, PPP = Perceived Parental Pressure, PCP= Perceived Coach Pressure, DAA = Doubts About Actions, Org = Organization, na = not applicable.

DATA ANALYSIS

Identification protocol. Validity evidence for the identification protocol was establishedby (a) interpreting the healthy and unhealthy perfectionists’ mean scores on PS and COM inrelation to descriptors utilized in the Sport-MPS-2’s likert scale and (b) statistically comparingthe 7 healthy perfectionists, the 11 unhealthy perfectionists, and the 99 remaining members ofthe sampling frame in terms of their scores on both PS and COM. Both processes focused onPS and COM because, of all the Sport-MPS-2 subscales, they are proposed to be the most cen-tral to perfectionist strivings and perfectionist concerns (Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011).

Interview data. In keeping with the method of qualitative description, interview datawere analyzed through inductive, thematic, and latent content analysis (Sandelowski, 2000).This type of analysis involves “identifying, coding, and categorizing the primary patterns inthe data” (Mayan, 2009, p. 94). Analyses were carried out by the first author, who has exper-tise in sport perfectionism research and quantitative methods, and the second author, who hasexpertise in qualitative inquiry gained through academic training and research experience insport and physical activity domains. Our divergent backgrounds provided a strong dynamic tochallenge our assumptions and expectations about the research and to question our analysisof the data (Patton, 2002). Four stages of analysis were conducted, with stages 1-3 carried outindependently. Stage 1 involved a reading of the transcript and a review of the reflective notes.In stage 2, each author took notes of key words and phrases, and produced a summary of theprimary patterns. In stage 3, the summaries were combined across interviews and initialthemes were identified. Stage 4 involved multiple discussions between the authors and returnsto the data prior to finalizing the themes. Several validation strategies were used to establishthe accuracy of the analysis (Creswell, 2007). Peer debriefing and an audit trail were used tomonitor researcher bias (Mayan, 2009). Coding the data independently, followed by multiplediscussions, enhanced the likelihood of fairly representing the participants’ perspectives. Par-ticipants also took part in a member checking procedure, which further established the cred-ibility of our findings (Patton, 2002). Finally, in the results section we present thick and richdescriptions of each theme to provide sufficient detail for determinations of transferability(Creswell, 2007).

Results

EVALUATION OF IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to statis-tically compare the healthy perfectionists, the unhealthy perfectionists, andthe remainder of the sampling frame across PS and COM. This test pro-duced a significant multivariate test statistic, Wilks’s Λ = .63, F (4, 226) =14.88, p < .001, partial η2 = 21. Follow-up univariate F-tests indicated differ-ences on both PS (F [1, 114] = 15.49, p < .001, partial η2 = .21) and COM (F[1, 114] = 17.50, p < .001, partial η2 = .24). Mean contrasts (independent t-tests with Bonferroni corrections) revealed that the healthy and unhealthy


perfectionists’ mean PS scores – respectively, 4.12 (SD = 0.24) and 4.43 (SD= 0.28) – did not differ, but were significantly higher than the mean score forthe remainder of the sampling frame (M = 3.54, SD = 0.58). In reference tothe descriptors utilized in the Sport-MPS-2’s 5-point likert scale (see Gotwals& Dunn, 2009), the healthy and unhealthy perfectionists’ mean PS scoresindicate that both generally “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with items in thesubscale. In terms of COM, the healthy perfectionists had a lower meanscore (M = 2.11, SD = 0.34) than the remainder of the sampling frame (M =2.82, SD = 0.76). In contrast, the unhealthy perfectionists’ mean COM score(M = 4.00, SD = 0.50) was significantly higher in comparison to both thehealthy perfectionists and the remainder of the sampling frame. (Mean dif-ferences in these contrasts were all at least p < .05; effects sizes, using Cohen’sd for independent samples, ranged from .99 to 4.50.) Again in reference tothe descriptors used in the Sport-MPS-2, the healthy perfectionists’ meanCOM score indicates that they generally “disagreed” or “neither agreed nordisagreed” with items in the subscale. In contrast, the unhealthy perfection-ists’ mean COM score indicates that they generally “agreed” with those sameitems. Given that PS and COM are proposed to represent central facets ofperfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (respectively), theseinterpretations are in line with how healthy and unhealthy perfectionists arerepresented in the tripartite model and, as a result, provide support for thepresent identification protocol.

INTERVIEW FINDINGS

Three themes were identified across both participant groups’ data:personal expectations, coping with challenge, and the role of others.Although the themes were common to both healthy and unhealthy per-fectionistic athletes, more often than not, the content of the themes rep-resented a dichotomy of positive and negative interpretations, respec-tively. Furthermore, the themes are not mutually exclusive: aspects of onemay emerge within another in reflection of the contexts within which theathletes shared their experiences. Table II lists key topics within eachtheme.

Personal expectations. Effort was identified as a significant personalexpectation that all healthy perfectionistic athletes had of themselves and asa benchmark by which they assessed their performances. This is well illus-trated by one athlete who shared:



If I finish a race and feel like I could have run faster, I, I wouldn’t have [sic] think of it asa very, very good race. Even if I would have won….If I do give it my all and I run a reallygood race and I end up not winning, I would probably feel very happy with that.

Although athletes indicated that working hard was personally relevant,those who competed in team sports also indicated they felt responsible toteammates to put forward effort in their training and competition. Workinghard was also viewed as a means to achieving other goals. For example, oneathlete stated, “I set out goals in my journal, and then the aim of wrestling isto achieve those goals, and I achieve those goals by working hard.”

Healthy perfectionistic athletes also referred to having “reasonable” andchallenging sport specific goals. Examples of these included: “producingpoints,” “handling the puck well,” “competing with the top 10,” “playing defen-sively,” and achieving “a new personal best.” While some of these goals were tiedto outcomes, many were process- and performance-oriented with emphasis onskill development and improvement. Only one of the healthy perfectionists iden-tified winning as a critical goal and standard for determining success.

The healthy perfectionists also shared an expectation of preparing men-tally in an effort to enhance focus during performance and training. Exam-ples included: “try[ing] to focus on the things that I have to do,” “envision-ing the perfect sets [in volleyball],” and “being prepared to come and likeachieve excellence everyday.” Various techniques were used to promotemental preparedness such as visualizing positive performances, following apregame routine, keeping a journal, and reviewing past performances.

When asked to describe a good game/competition, the unhealthy per-fectionistic athletes also placed significant emphasis on effort. Working hardled to feelings of satisfaction, pride and confidence. This is illustrated by oneparticipant who shared: “I feel proud of myself if I, if I work really hard.”

TABLE IITheme Key Topics for Healthy and Unhealthy Perfectionists

Themes Healthy perfectionists Unhealthy perfectionists

Personal expectations Effort EffortReasonable goals Unrealistic/negative expectationsMental preparation Winning

FocusCoping with challenge Maintaining a positive outlook Difficulty recovering

Quick recovery Lack of controlProblem solving strategies Self-critical

Role of others Motivational coaches Positive and negative views of coaches

Teammates as sources of support Teammates as sources of support andpressure

Strong work ethic provided by parents Supportive parents

However, these athletes often stressed effort within a negative context, wherethey had unrealistic or negative expectations, evaluated themselves as physi-cally inadequate, or compared themselves with others. Examples included:“no pain, no pride,” “I trained hard so I shouldn’t get tired,” “I’ve got tomake up for it [being short] with hard work,” “I feel like no one should scoremore than [10 points] on me if I, if I’m working,” “expectations only lead todisappointment” and “I can wake up and know that it’s not gonna be a goodgame day.”

The unhealthy perfectionistic athletes identified winning as the mostcritical indicator of a ‘good game’ and a determining factor in how they feltabout their performances. For example, athletes shared, “As long as like wewin, if we get a win like I’m pretty always happy…then if I do well person-ally, that’s a bonus,” “We’re here to win, there’s no other main goal,” and“You’re excited when you win ‘cause that’s what you play for is to win. Youdon’t play just for fun.” The negative consequences of not winning were alsodiscussed, as one athlete suggested, “I really feel we didn’t accomplish some-thing if we don’t get the win.” Only one unhealthy perfectionist expressedthat he could evaluate his performance positively even after losing.

Finally, the unhealthy perfectionists indicated that maintaining focuswas a crucial aspect of performing well. One athlete stated that “coming topractice ready to work and focused and a good pregame or game day rou-tine” were part of ensuring success. However, instances of losing focus wereprominent among this group. Examples included: “I always lose my matches‘cause I screw up,” “making mistakes from lack of concentration or think-ing,” and “when I start thinking about attacking I start losing my focus.”

Coping with challenge. In discussing what would constitute a good orbad game/competition, all of the athletes spoke about coping with challengessuch as losses, not meeting personal expectations or goals, and losing focus.Healthy perfectionistic athletes emphasized the importance of maintaining apositive outlook when faced with such challenges. Having a positive outlookwas illustrated in various ways. “Remembering high points as well as remem-bering low points, “roll[ing] with the punches,” and believing “this is goingto be better next time,” were all ways in which these athletes managed unde-sired performance outcomes. Importantly, several of the athletes discussedthe ability to get past negative outcomes quickly:

I tend to put things behind me right away, uh I don’t seem to dwell on things…I wouldjust be like you know what, that was a bad game, throw it under the table…I just tend tothink to the next game….the sun still rises every morning.


The healthy perfectionists also responded to negative outcomes byattempting to determine why the outcome occurred in the first place. Oneathlete shared that she continually reviews her goals and asks herself: “did Iachieve my goals and if not like how come and what can I do better?” Like-wise, “getting to the root of the problem” and “looking back on the thingsthat I did and could have been better” illustrated these athletes’ copingstrategies. Two healthy perfectionists discussed having some ongoing diffi-culties coping with challenge. In these cases, the willingness to self-reflectand to adjust performance expectations was found to be effective.

When discussing losses and mistakes, the unhealthy perfectionistic ath-letes shared that they had difficulty recovering and were very self-critical.Unlike the healthy perfectionists, these athletes dwelled on their losses andwere easily discouraged. This was expressed by one participant who said:“The hardest thing when you make a mistake is trying to like forget aboutthat mistake and move on.” Athletes used terms such as “feeling over-whelmed,” “frustrated,” and, “depression” to describe their feelings. Feelinga lack of control over changing a poor outcome was also commonly articu-lated, as illustrated in the following quote:

When you make a mistake or something, something doesn’t go right, you start to be ten-tative, try to think, over think and you become apprehensive, you know. And then youget worried, like a snowball…the more you worry about not making a mistake the moreit happens.

The unhealthy perfectionists were also very critical of themselves afterlosses or poor performances, feeling “embarrassed” that they did not per-form better and as if they “let the team down.” They were unforgiving oftheir own mistakes and quick to react in frustration, by arguing with team-mates or contemplating quitting. Only one of these athletes indicated that hisway of reacting to challenge decreased these experiences. He talked aboutthe importance of believing in himself and trying to let go of mistakes.

Role of Others. Both sets of athletes indicated that other people —including coaches, teammates and parents—played significant roles in theirsport experiences. The healthy perfectionists articulated how these peopleencouraged them to achieve in their sport and inspired them to work hard.Coaches were often viewed quite positively when they helped the athletes setclear and relevant goals and provided regular feedback. Several athletes char-acterized their coaches as good “mental motivator[s].” As one athlete stated:“He [coach] gives me the drive to want to be better, to want to push myselfto the limits and just test want I’m capable of.” There were only two accounts


where healthy perfectionists did not view their coach in a positive light. Forexample, one athlete said “I was…a little embarrassed that I didn’t do as wellas the coach thought I would do” and another said “as soon as I do hear thatnegative comment [from the coach]…it’ll pull me down and I’mafraid…[of] getting yelled at again.”

The healthy perfectionists also viewed teammates as important sourcesof support and motivation. Wanting to perform well to help the team suc-ceed and receiving guidance and “encouragement from teammates” werecommon. Finally, some healthy perfectionists indicated that parents instilledthe value of working hard and the habit of setting goals. One athlete shared:

My dad…he was the coach for those years, and all he kind of expected was that I workedhard, right? If I worked hard, good things will happen, right, and I think that’s where mywhole mentality comes in.

For the unhealthy perfectionists, the role of others was more dichoto-mous. Some athletes characterized their coaches as positively influential,motivating, and, for one athlete, “almost like my dad.” Similar to the healthyperfectionists, these athletes also appreciated “a lot of personal feedback.”However, feeling that their coaches were not a positive influence was alsohighlighted among several of the unhealthy perfectionists. Some felt signifi-cant pressure to perform to avoid “being yelled [at],” and “a bad feel-ing…when the coach gets on you.” Another questioned whether the coachhad a “hidden agenda.” Teammates were also viewed in a dichotomous man-ner. Although teammates provided support and inspiration to work hard,several athletes felt pressure in not wanting to “let the team down” and being“worried about what [their] teammates think.” Finally, parents were referredto by only a few unhealthy perfectionists. In these instances, athletesexpressed the desire to perform well for their parents and that they felt sup-ported.

Discussion

In the discussion, we highlight what our findings contribute to theunderstanding of perfectionism among athletes. We then explore the impli-cations of our findings with regard to the relevance of the tripartite modeland the anecdotal literature in the context of sport, the controversy regard-ing healthy and unhealthy perfectionism, and the validity of the Sport MPS-2. Lastly, we make comparisons with similar studies conducted in gifted edu-cation to explore the transferability of our findings.


PERFECTIONISTIC ATHLETES’ PERSPECTIVES

Analysis of the data resulted in three themes: personal expectations,coping with challenge, and role of others. Within each theme, the healthyand unhealthy perfectionists expressed unique, and often dichotomous, per-spectives. For example, personal expectations captured the healthy perfec-tionists’ perception of hard work as a goal in and of itself and as a strategy toachieve other goals focused on personal improvement and skill development.The unhealthy perfectionists also valued hard work, but shared that winningwas their primary criterion of success. Although the unhealthy perfectionistsrecognized steps they needed to take to enhance their chances of winning(e.g., by maintaining focus and adhering to pre-game routines), their negativeexpectations and focus on the ramifications of not winning revealed concernabout the possibility of failure. When interpreted from an achievement goalperspective (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001), the healthy perfectionists’ focuson effort and personal improvement suggests a predominant mastery-approach orientation; the unhealthy perfectionists’ focus on winning, com-bined with their concern over failure, suggests a predominant performance-avoidance orientation. However, by valuing hard work and by recognizingfactors that increased the probability of winning, the unhealthy perfectionistsalso appeared to endorse mastery-approach and performance-approach ori-entations. This interpretation is in line with quantitative results from previ-ous sport-based studies (e.g., Dunn et al., 2002; Gucciardi et al., 2012; Hallet al., 1998) and reinforces the need to clarify the relative positions of per-fectionism and goal orientation within an overarching nomological networkof achievement motivation in sport (Hall, 2006; Hill et al., 2012).

The theme of coping with challenge captured how the participants dealtwith and experienced setbacks and mistakes in sport. The healthy perfec-tionists tended to cope by remembering both positive and negative aspects oftheir performances, acknowledging setbacks and moving on, and analyzingwhy mistakes occurred—recognized as positive reframing, acceptance, andactive coping within the coping literature (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,1989). These strategies appeared to be effective given the athletes’ ability tomove past setbacks quickly. In contrast, the unhealthy perfectionists tendedto cope by becoming self-critical, arguing with teammates, and consideringquitting their sport—reflective of self-blame, venting, and behavioral disen-gagement (Carver et al., 1989). These coping strategies were not effective asthe athletes struggled to recover from losses and felt overwhelmed by a hostof negative emotions. Sport-based research (e.g., Gaudreau & Antl, 2008;Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2010) has demonstrated that specific coping strate-


gies may mediate relationships between isolated perfectionism facets/dimen-sions and indices of mental health. Given the dichotomous responses to chal-lenge shared by the healthy and unhealthy perfectionists in this study, andthat it is people—not facets or dimensions—who cope with setbacks, we sug-gest that in the future, researchers explore the coping strategies of athletescharacterized by specific profiles across multiple perfectionism dimensions(e.g. healthy and unhealthy perfectionists) to better understand the ramifica-tions of how these athletes deal with challenge.

In the role of others theme, coaches, teammates and parents featuredprominently in the participants’ perspectives on achievement. The healthyperfectionists recounted how coaches and teammates, for the most part, pro-vided support and inspiration. The unhealthy perfectionists echoed this sen-timent, but also perceived coaches and teammates as sources of social pres-sure. Both the healthy and the unhealthy perfectionists perceived parents assupportive; some of the healthy perfectionists also shared that their parentswere influential in shaping their perspective on sport. Our findings supportprevious research that suggests that perfectionistic athletes’ achievementefforts in sport are influenced by their perceptions of their coaches (Anshel& Eom, 2003; Dunn et al., 2002) and that parents play an important role inthe etiology of healthy perfectionism (cf. McArdle & Duda, 2008; Sapieja etal., 2011). However, the finding that teammates were also salient in bothhealthy and unhealthy perfectionistic athletes’ individual and team sportexperiences suggests an interesting future direction. Researchers may con-sider examining how the role of others, and in particular teammates, may ormay not be differently relevant in team versus individual sport for healthyand unhealthy perfectionists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR (SPORT) PERFECTIONISM RESEARCH

Accuracy of perfectionism descriptions. The findings of this study pro-vide support for the descriptions of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists col-lectively presented in the tripartite model and the anecdotal literature. Forinstance, the tripartite model defines healthy perfectionists as having highlevels of perfectionistic strivings in combination with low levels of perfec-tionistic concerns. In accordance with this definition, the healthy perfection-istic athletes in our study strove to achieve excellence and “personal bests”and did not dwell on mistakes or losses. Anecdotal accounts that recognizehealthy forms of perfectionism (e.g., Hamachek, 1978; Lundh, 2004; Silver-man, 1999) were substantiated by the healthy perfectionistic athletes’ ten-


dencies to set challenging—yet reasonable—goals, use support from coachesand teammates for inspiration to push the limits of their capabilities, andachieve enhanced focus through the use of organized routines. Descriptionsof unhealthy perfectionism received a similar degree of support. The tripar-tite model defines unhealthy perfectionists as having high levels across bothperfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. In line with this defini-tion, the unhealthy perfectionistic athletes valued hard work, had difficultyrecovering from losses and mistakes, and were concerned about how failurewould impact their reputation among coaches and teammates. In accordancewith anecdotal accounts that depict perfectionism as unhealthy (e.g., Burns,1980; Hollender, 1965; Missildine, 1963), the unhealthy perfectionistic ath-letes appeared prone to all or nothing thinking, overgeneralization, andlearned helplessness as reflected by their identification of “winning” as theprimary defining feature of success, their propensity towards negative per-formance expectations, and their perceived inability to control poor out-comes. The alignment between our findings and the description of perfec-tionism collectively offered by the tripartite model and the anecdotalliterature provide general support for the use of these descriptions to guidesport perfectionism research.

It is important to note, however, that some characteristics ascribed to per-fectionists by the tripartite model and the anecdotal literature did not surfacein the present findings. In reference to the tripartite model, the participantsdid not share that they strove for “perfection” (a central feature of perfec-tionistic strivings); additionally, the unhealthy perfectionists did not expressthat their coaches, teammates, or parents imposed unrealistic performancestandards (a central feature of perfectionistic concerns). In reference to theanecdotal literature, negative modeling (see Hamachek, 1978) was notreflected when the healthy perfectionistic athletes described the origins oftheir perspectives on achievement. Likewise, doubt and uncertainty over per-formance quality (see Burns, 1980), and parents as a source of socially pre-scribed pressure (see Missildine, 1963), were not shared as part of theunhealthy perfectionists’ experiences. As a result, researchers and practition-ers should be aware that some features described in the tripartite model or theanecdotal literature may not be characteristic of all perfectionistic athletes.

Healthy vs. unhealthy perfectionism. In its simplest form, the debateover the distinction between healthy and unhealthy perfectionism representsa concern over labeling. For example, despite their widespread use (see Stoe-ber & Otto, 2006), Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) questioned whethervalence-laden adjectives—such as “healthy” and “unhealthy” and “adaptive”and “maladaptive”—are appropriate descriptors for different types of per-


fectionists. This concern was based on the grounds that no personality traitwill be healthy/adaptive or unhealthy/maladaptive under all circumstancesacross all time (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; for a related discussion, seeMcNulty & Fincham, 2012). Evidence from the present study provides ten-tative support for this contention. For example, there were times when a fewhealthy perfectionistic athletes reported characteristics that would generallybe described as unhealthy; these included difficulty recovering after setbacksand experiencing fear and embarrassment in relation to coach criticism andevaluation. Conversely, the unhealthy perfectionistic athletes reported somecharacteristics that would generally be described as healthy; for example,their work ethic resulted in feelings of pride, satisfaction, and confidence andtheir dichotomous perspectives on the role of others included perceptions ofteammates and coaches as sources of support and motivation. The supportthese findings provide for the use of valence-free labels is limited, however,given that the contexts within which the athletes performed were not inves-tigated and the study did not incorporate a longitudinal design (McNulty &Fincham, 2012).

As presented in the introduction, researchers have also questionedwhether healthy perfectionists deserve to be labeled as perfectionists giventhat they do not exhibit several defining features of perfectionism; perhapsthe most apparent being the tendency to demand, desire, or seek perfection(Greenspon, 2000; Hall, 2006; 2013). In line with this argument, the healthyperfectionistic athletes in this study did not identify “perfection” per se as astandard they strove to attain. However, they did expect themselves to com-mit as much effort as possible towards their athletic pursuits and to performto the best of their abilities. In contrast with the unhealthy perfectionists, thisexpectation was more personally meaningful than winning. On one hand,these findings parallel the expectations of Schuler’s (2000) healthy perfec-tionistic students and are in-line with Silverman’s (1999) contention that per-fectionism, in its healthy incarnation, is fueled by “a desire to do the very bestone can possibly do in whatever area the person invests his or her time andenergy” (p. 56). On the other, Hall (2006; 2013) suggested that it would bemore conceptually appropriate to describe such characteristics as reflectingadaptive achievement motivation rather than a healthy form of perfection-ism. Additional research is clearly required to determine the degree to whichthe consistent, effortful, and self-oriented pursuit of performance that maxi-mizes personal capabilities sufficiently qualifies as a defining and uniquecharacteristic of perfectionism.

Assessment of perfectionism. The compatibly of our findings with the tri-partite model and the anecdotal literature provide supportive validity evidence


for the Sport-MPS-2 given that the development of the Sport-MPS-2 was sub-ject to these influences. To this end, we also considered the degree of overlapbetween the study’s findings and the content in the instrument’s subscales.Reflective of PS, the athletes’ generally expressed lofty performance standardsbased in self-referenced terms (especially for the healthy perfectionists) andnormative social comparison (especially for the unhealthy perfectionists). Inline with COM and PCP, the unhealthy perfectionists, but not the healthy per-fectionists, had exaggerated negative reactions to mistakes and were generallyconcerned about performing well enough to avoid their coaches’ criticism.Reflective of Org, both the healthy and unhealthy perfectionists shared thatthey used pregame routines to enhance their preparedness for, and focus dur-ing, performances. In evaluation of this supportive validity evidence, it isimportant to note that this study’s qualitative approach was broadly-focused,inductively-oriented, and did not adhere to any specific perfectionism frame-work. These characteristics helped to ensure that the similarities identifiedabove were not tautological by-products of our methods or analyses.

There were also instances in which the present findings did not overlapto a high degree with specific Sport-MPS-2 subscales. For example, the PPPsubscale reflects the perception that one’s parents have extremely highexpectations and are overly critical. Although some healthy perfectionistsshared that their parents’ expectations were influential in shaping their cur-rent work ethic, neither the healthy nor the unhealthy perfectionists sharedthat their parents were overly critical. The DAA subscale represents athletes’tendencies to be uncertain about, or dissatisfied with, the quality of theirtraining (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009). Such tendencies were not salient amongthe perspectives shared by the healthy or unhealthy perfectionists. Based onthese initial findings, we recommend more robust follow-up qualitativeinvestigations of these subscales to determine their relevance in assessingperfectionism among athletes.

Perfectionism Across Contexts

Canadian intercollegiate sport provided the context for this investiga-tion. As previously described, several parallel studies have been conductedwithin gifted education (e.g., Schuler, 2000; Speirs Neumeister 2004a; SpeirsNeumeister et al., 2007), affording a valuable opportunity to compare andcontrast findings across contexts. Similar to the healthy perfectionistic ath-letes in the present study, the healthy perfectionistic students in Schuler(2000) and the self-oriented perfectionistic students in Speirs Neumeister


(2004a, 2004b, 2004c) reported that they put forth their best effort in pursuitof process and performance goals, kept setbacks in perspective, and gener-ally perceived a high amount of support from significant others. Similar tothe unhealthy perfectionistic athletes, the unhealthy perfectionistic studentsin Schuler’s study and the socially prescribed perfectionistic students inSpeirs Neumeister et al.’s study shared that they utilized effort to achieve out-come goals, had difficulty coping with mistakes, and perceived socially-basedpressure to perform well.

Despite these similarities, differences also exist between our findings andthe perfectionism−gifted education literature. For example, the perfectionis-tic athletes emphasized that success in sport was dependent on their ability tomaintain focus; perfectionistic academically-gifted students tended not reiter-ate this emphasis in regards to school, perhaps because they perceived theiracademic requirements to be generally unchallenging and boring (Schuler,2000; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2007). Also, the healthy perfectionistic athletescoped with setbacks by carefully reviewing their goals, performances, andtraining. In contrast, Schuler’s (2000) healthy perfectionistic students andSpeirs Neumeister’s (2004c) self-oriented perfectionistic students simplyworked harder. Finally, the unhealthy perfectionistic athletes did not oftenrefer to their parents and, when they did, it was usually in a positive manner.On the other hand, for the unhealthy perfectionistic students in Schuler’sstudy and the socially prescribed perfectionists in Speirs Neumeister et al.’sstudy, parents played a central and negative role in their achievement efforts.

This comparison between our findings and those from the perfection-ism−gifted education literature reinforce that perfectionism is domain-specific.Previous research has demonstrated that levels of perfectionism differ quanti-tatively across contexts (Dunn et al., 2012). The present comparison suggeststhere may be qualitative differences as well. That is, while some features of per-fectionism generalize across domains, others may be especially inhibited or fos-tered depending on the specific context under investigation. Perceived coachpressure has already been proposed as a perfectionism facet that is unique tosport (Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn et al., 2002). An interesting direction forfuture research is to investigate the degree to which this, and other facets ofperfectionism, are influenced by specific characteristics of the sport context.

Limitations and Conclusion

Limitations of this study include the protocol used to identify per-fectionistic athletes and the types of perfectionists sampled. Regarding



the former, participants for this study were identified as perfectionists bycomparing their respective Sport-MPS-2 scores to percentiles calculatedfrom the sampling frame’s aggregate data. Although numerous studieshave used this protocol (albeit, with different instruments and samplingcriteria; e.g., Rice et al., 2003; Schuler, 2000; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a),the percentiles used to define high and low subscale scores are sample-specific and convenience-based. Of particular concern is that the originalselection criteria for healthy perfectionism needed to be expanded toidentify numbers of healthy perfectionists sufficient for the purposes ofour qualitative inquiry. This highlights the need to use normative dataand empirical methods to establish cut-scores for instruments utilized insport perfectionism research (cf., Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice et al., 2011).Regarding the later, the present study did not sample athletes that quali-fied as non-perfectionists or pure evaluative concerns perfectionists.This omission carries extra weight given that, in the 2 × 2 model of per-fectionism (Gaudreau & Thomspon, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion,2012), pure evaluative concerns perfectionists are presented as theunhealthiest of all perfectionism sub-types. A follow-up study that alsoincludes athletes identified as non-perfectionists and pure evaluativeconcerns perfectionists could shed light on the relative degree to whichspecific perfectionistic orientations are healthy or unhealthy withinsport.

In closing, this study was the first to purposefully sample perfection-istic athletes and then interview them about their perspectives on sportachievement. While an important first step, the findings presented hereare in need of further verification. Researchers could consider replicationstudies with modifications commonly cited in sport research (e.g., ath-letes of a different age, from different sports, or who perform at differentcompetition levels). However, replicative efforts that take into accountthis study’s procedures, as well as its limitations, in innovative wayswould be especially valuable. Examples include studies that incorporateadditional types of perfectionistic athletes, seek comparison with otherperformance domains, and explore the degree to which perfectionism insport “co-exists with, blends with or is buttressed by other traits” (Hol-lender, 1965, p. 95). This type of research could advance understandingof perfectionism in sport, substantiate the manner in which sport perfec-tionism research is conducted, and help resolve controversial issues in thegeneral perfectionism literature.


REFERENCES

Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of perfectionism in sport.International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 255-271.

Anshel, M. H., & Seipel, S. J. (2006). Relationship between dimensions of perfectionism andexercise behavior among college students. International Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 4, 25-42. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671782

Besser, A., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Guez, J. (2008). Perfectionism, and cognitions, affect,self-etseem, and physiological reactions in a performance situation. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 26, 206-228. doi: 10.1007/s10942-007-0067-0

Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14(6), 34-52.Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoreti-

cally based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

APPENDIXPhase 2 interview guide

Main Questions Follow-up/Clarifying Questions

Describe what a typical ‘good game’ looks What would a typical game where you feel like to you. (Repeat with ‘bad game’ inserted) good/great afterwards look like to you?

Can you describe the kind of emotions you experi-ence after a good game?

Has there ever been a time where you were able toconsistently achieve games like this (e.g. high school,youth sport?). Tell me about it.

What makes the difference between feeling Can you describe the standards you used to decide good/bad about the way you played? whether you’ve played a game that you feel

good/bad about?

How do you think having these standards helps Do these standards help/hurt you in sport/life?you, if at all, in sport? In life in general? What is the impact when you do/don’t achieve these

standards?

If you could, would you change your standards?

How do you go about trying to play a good game? Is there anything you do, or any strategies you follow, to help you achieve your idea of a goodgame?

How do you think you got your ideas of a Where do you think your standards came from?good/bad performance?

How do these standards compare to those that What about in other areas of your life (e.g. work, you hold for yourself in other sports? school, home life)?

How would you describe a perfectionistic athlete? Would you call yourself a perfectionist?

What do you do that is similar (or different) to whata perfectionist would do?

Is there anything else you would like to add Is there anything else I should know about your per-or clarify? spective towards achievement in sport?

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed method research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. L., & McDonald, K. (2012). Domain-specific perfection-ism in intercollegiate athletes: Relationships with perceived competence and perceivedimportance in sport and school. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 747-755.doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.002

Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. L., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002). Relationship between mul-tidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport & ExercisePsychology, 24, 376-395.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in sports and exercise. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 14, 14-18. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00326.x

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfection-ism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468. doi: 10.1007/BF01172967

Gaudreau, P., & Antl, S. (2008). Athletes’ broad dimensions of dispositional perfectionism:Examining changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of sport-related motivationand coping. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 356-382.

Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism.Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532-537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031

Gaudreau, P., & Verner-Filion, J. (2012). Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test ofthe 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise, and PerformancePsychology, 1, 29-43. doi: 10.1037/a0025747

Gauvin, L., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Sport-specific and culturally adapted measures in sport andexercise psychology research: Issues and strategies. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K.Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 891-900). New York:Macmillan.

Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Perfectionism and burnout within intercollegiate sport: A person-ori-ented approach. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 489-510.

Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2009). A multi-method multi-analytic approach to estab-lishing internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional PerfectionismScale 2. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, 13, 71-92.doi:10.1080/10913670902812663

Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gamache, V. (2010). Establishing valid-ity evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 in intercollegiatesport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 423-432. doi:10.1016/j.psych-sport.2010.04.013

Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G. H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings insport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence.Canadian Psychology, 53, 263-279. doi: 10.1037/a0030288

Greenspon, T. S. (2000). ‘Healthy perfectionism’ is an oxymoron! Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 11, 197-208.

Gucciardi, D. F., Mahoney, J., Jalleh, G., Donovan, R. J., & Parkes, J. (2012). Perfectionisticprofiles among elite athletes and differences in their motivational orientations. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 159-183.

Hall, H. K. (2006). Perfectionism: A hallmark quality of world class performers, or a psycho-logical impediment to athletic development. In D. Hackfort & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.),


Perspectives in sport and exercise psychology, volume 1: Essential processes for attainingpeak performance (pp. 178-211). Oxford, UK: Meyer & Meyer.

Hall, H. K. (2013). From adaptive achievement striving to athletic burnout: The debilitatinginfluence of perfectionism. In D. Hackfort and I. Seidelmeier (Eds.), Bridging gaps inapplied sport and exercise psychology (pp. 53-78). Morgantown, WV: FIT.

Hall, H. K., Hill, A. P., Appleton, P. R., & Kozub, S. A. (2009). The mediating influence ofunconditional self-acceptance and labile self-esteem on the relationship between multi-dimensional perfectionism and exercise dependence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,10, 35-44. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.05.003

Hall, H. K., Kerr, A. W., & Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport: The contributionof achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 194-217.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,15, 27-33.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptual-ization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 60, 456-470. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Appleton, P. R. (2010). Perfectionism and athlete burnout in juniorelite athletes: the mediating role of coping tendencies. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23, 415-430. doi: 10.1080/10615800903330966

Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Appleton, P. R. (2012). An assessment of the similarities between ameasure of positive perfectionism and a measure of conscientious achievement striving.Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 13, 353-359. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.09.003

Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94-103.Lundh, L. (2004). Perfectionism and acceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-

Behavior Therapy, 22, 255-269. doi: 10.1023/B:JORE.0000047311.12864.27Mayan, M.J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.McArdle, S., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Exploring the etiology of perfectionism and perceptions of

self-worth in young athletes. Social Development, 17, 980-997. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00456.x

McNulty, J. P. & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextualview of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101-110. doi:10.1037/a0024572

Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the past. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.Rice. K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 54, 72-85. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.72Rice. K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Gillman, R. (2011). Classifying adolescent perfectionists. Psycho-

logical Assessment, 23, 563-577. doi: 10.1037/a0022482Rice, K. G., Bair, C. J., Castro, J. R., Cohen, B. N., & Hood, C. A. (2003). Meanings of perfection-

ism: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17, 39-58.Roberts, R., Rotheram, M., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Woodman, T. (2013). Perfectionism

and the ‘Yips’: An initial investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 27, 53-61.Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing

& Health, 23, 334-340. Sapieja, K. M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Perfectionism and perceptions of par-

enting styles in male youth soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 20-39.



Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 4, 183-196.

Silverman, L. K. (1999). Perfectionism: The crucible of giftedness. Advanced DevelopmentJournal, 8, 47-61.

Slaney, R. B., Ashby, J. S., & Trippi, J. (1995). Perfectionism: Its measurement and career rel-evance. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 279-297. doi: 10.1177/106907279500300403

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004a). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in giftedcollege students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1177/001698620404800402

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004b). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism andachievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219-231.doi:10.1177/001698620404800306

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004c). Interpreting successes and failures: The influence of perfec-tionism. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 311-335. doi:10.4219/jeg-2004-320

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Williams, K. K., & Cross, T. L. (2007). Perfectionism in gifted high-school students: Responses to academic challenge. Roeper Review, 29, 11-18.

Stoeber, J. (2011). The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: Relationships with emotion,motivation, and performance. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4,128-145. doi: 10.1080/1750984x.2011.604789

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2

Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationshipswith perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 46, 530-535. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006

Wang, K. T., Fu, C., & Rice K. G. (2013). Perfectionism in gifted students: Moderating effectsof goal orientation and contingent self-worth. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 96-108.doi: 10.1037/a0029215

Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

intercollegiate perfectionistic athletes' perspectives on achievement: contributions to the...

Documents