international journal of sport psychology · standards of performance), concerns over mistakes...

Perfectionism and Stress

1

Perfectionism and the stress process in intercollegiate athletes: Examining the 2 × 2 model of

perfectionism in sport competition.

Peter R. E. Crockera

The University of British Columbia

Patrick Gaudreaub

University of Ottawa

Amber D. Mosewichc

University of South Australia

Kristina Kljajicb

University of Ottawa

Accepted for publication, International Journal of Sport Psychology.

a School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada;

b School

of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; c School of Health Sciences,

University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Submitted:

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Running head: Perfectionism and stress

Revision submitted: December 17, 2013

This research was supported by funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research

Council of Canada

mailto:[email protected]


2




3



Abstract

This study examined the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism to predict competition-related stress

variables in intercollegiate athletes. A sample of 188 athletes (n=99 women) completed

measures of sport perfectionism at Time 1 and 4-5 weeks later completed measures of coping,

appraisal, affect, and goal progress after a competition. Results of moderated hierarchical

regression analysis found support for the 2 × 2 model’s four hypotheses for challenge and control

appraisals and goal progress. However, only two hypotheses were supported for threat

appraisals, negative affect, and avoidance coping. Exploratory analysis found some evidence that

goal progress moderated the relationship between perfectionism, coping, and control appraisals.

Overall, the results indicated that pure personal standards perfectionism was associated with

better outcomes than pure evaluative concerns perfectionism. For most variables, evaluative

concerns perfectionism was related to the poorest outcomes. Overall, the results indicate the 2 ×

2 model is a viable framework to evaluate the joint influences of perfectionism dimensions on

the stress process.


4



Perfectionism

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality disposition or trait that influences

cognitive, emotional, and behavioural functioning in athletes. Perfectionism in sport is typically

characterized by very high performance standards along with the tendency to engage in overly

critical self-evaluations (Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Stoeber, 2011). Perfectionism has shown

significant relationships to competitive anxiety, burnout, body image, perceived ability, state and

trait confidence, anxiety, self-conscious emotions, positive affect, achievement goal orientations,

trait anger, self-esteem, and even performance (see Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012;

Stoeber, 2011 for reviews). Thus, researchers have come to recognize the importance of

perfectionism in sport.

Over the last decade, the perfectionism literature in sport and other domains has wrestled

with a debate about whether various dimensions of perfectionism are associated with positive or

negative psychological adjustment. Although there appears to be a consensus that perfectionism

is multidimensional, there is disagreement about whether perfectionism is adaptive or

maladaptive (Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Gotwals et al., 2012; Hall, Hill & Appleton, 2012; Stoeber,

2011). Sport researchers generally agree that perfectionism is composed of two general

dimensions (Gotwals et al., 2012). Personal standards perfectionism (PSP; also termed

perfectionistic striving) refers to establishing high personal performance standards and self-

oriented striving. Evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP; also termed perfectionistic concerns)

denotes the negative social evaluation and self-criticism aspects of perfectionism including

excessive concerns over mistakes and doubts about actions. With regard to their effects, reviews


5

(Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011) concluded that ECP is typically associated with indicators

of maladjustment. By contrast, PSP is more likely to be associated with adaptive functioning in

sport if ECP is absent (Hall et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011).

Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) recently proposed a 2 × 2 model of dispositional

perfectionism that holds that two general dimensions of perfectionism, ECP and PSP, coexist in

every person. Rather than focusing on the dimensions themselves, the model holds that

individual differences in the co-existence of the two dimensions might be a useful means to

examine relationships with other psychological processes and outcomes in achievement settings.

The model allows for the examination not only of the main effects of ECP and PSP, but also the

interactive effects of these dimensions. Thus, the model organizes perfectionism using four

distinct subtypes of perfectionism: (a) pure personal standards perfectionism (pure PSP) is

captured by low ECP and high PSP, (b) mixed perfectionism is composed of both high ECP and

high PSP, (c) pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (pure ECP) is represented by high ECP and

low PSP, and (d) non-perfectionism is captured by low ECP and low PSP. Gaudreau (2012, p.

27) indicated the four types of perfectionism be “interpreted as a heuristic to define and

distinguish theoretically-driven within-person combinations of perfectionism”. Gaudreau and

Verner-Filion (2012) have also proposed that although the model was developed using the two

broad dimensions of perfectionism (ECP and PSP), it can also be applied to narrower sub-

dimensions of perfectionism such as personal standards (setting of excessively high personal

standards of performance), concerns over mistakes (level of concern for and negative reactions

over mistakes in performance), socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP; the belief that others

have perfectionistic expectations and motives for oneself) and self-oriented perfectionism (SOP;


6

setting and striving for unrealistic self-standards and focusing on flaws; see Frost, Marten,

Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).

The 2 × 2 model contains four hypotheses in regards to psychological adjustment and

achievement (Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). The first hypothesis states that

pure PSP can be associated with (1a) better adjustment, (1b) worse adjustment, or (1c) neutral

adjustment compared to non-perfectionism. The second hypothesis states that pure ECP should

be the subtype associated with the worst adjustment outcomes compared to non-perfectionism.

The third hypothesis states that mixed perfectionism should have better adjustment outcomes

compared to pure ECP. In this hypothesis, high personal standards offer a protective effect that

buffers the negative influence of evaluative concerns. The fourth hypothesis states that mixed

perfectionism will have the worst adjustment outcomes compared to pure PSP. Although some of

the hypotheses proposed in the 2 × 2 model have recently been debated (Stoeber, 2012), the

model offers an open-ended theoretical system in which the four hypotheses are useful and

necessary (Gaudreau, 2013) to offer the needed flexibility to propose and empirically examine

the role of moderating factors (Franche, Gaudreau, & Miranda, 2012).

Although research on the 2 × 2 model is still in its infancy (e.g., Cumming & Duda,

2012; Franche et al., 2012; Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Gaudreau & Verner-

Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013), the results are promising in predicting psychological adjustment

behaviour in various domains. In a first study of the 2 × 2 model in the sport domain, Gaudreau

and Verner-Filion (2012) asked 208 athletes to complete measures of perfectionism and

subjective well-being (vitality, positive affect, and life satisfaction) during the last training

session before a competition. Results were similar across the three indicators of well-being, with

moderated multiple regressions indicating that SPP was a negative predictor of well-being,


7

whereas SOP was a positive predictor. The SOP x SPP interaction was a significant positive

predictor of two of the three indicators of well-being (i.e., positive affect and vitality). Overall,

the results of simple slope analyses supported most hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model of

perfectionism. Inconclusive evidence was found for the advantage (hypothesis 1a) or

disadvantage (hypothesis 1b) conferred by pure SOP relative to non-perfectionism. However, as

expected, non-perfectionism was associated with higher well-being than pure SPP (hypothesis

2). Finally, mixed perfectionism related to higher and lower well-being than pure SPP

(hypothesis 3) and pure SOP (hypothesis 4), respectively.

Recent work by Hill (2013) who examined the relationship between perfectionism and

athletic burnout in junior male soccer players has brought further support for the 2 × 2 model in

the realm of sport. Although results slightly varied across indicators of athletic burnout, multiple

regression analyses showed that pure PSP was associated with lower levels of total burnout than

non-perfectionism (hypothesis 1a) and mixed perfectionism (hypothesis 4). Pure ECP was

associated with higher total burnout than non-perfectionism (hypothesis 2) and mixed

perfectionism (hypothesis 3). These findings provided evidence for the relevance of the 2 × 2

model for examining stress-related processes in sport.

Perfectionism and the Stress Process

Although research findings on the 2 × 2 model are encouraging, further research is

required to examine the joint and interactive effects of PSP and ECP on cognitions, emotions,

and behaviour in sport settings (Gotwals et al., 2012). The present investigation examined the 2

× 2 model in predicting key processes and outcomes associated with psychological stress in

athletic competition. Perfectionism has been associated with individual differences in stress and

related outcomes such as burnout, psychological distress, and emotions in various contexts


8

(Childs & Stoeber, 2012; Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2010). Competitive

sport is a rich area to study the relationship between perfectionism and the stress process because

sport is associated with numerous stressful demands such as performance difficulties, injuries,

interpersonal conflict, and organizational level conflicts (Hoar, Kowalski, Gaudreau, & Crocker,

2006). The sporting arena is also highly evaluative, and athletes must deal with not only others’

evaluation and expectations but also personal scrutiny of performance and other competition-

related behaviour (Nicholls & Thelwell, 2010). Successful adaptation in high level sport requires

athletes to constantly set and strive for high performance goals, learn new skill repertoires, to

minimize mistakes, and manage emotions and dysfunctional cognitions (Hanin, 2010;

Mosewich, Crocker, Kowalski, & Delongis, 2013). Thus, dimensions of perfectionism have the

potential to systematically influence experiences of cognitions, emotions, and behaviour of

athletes during specific competitions.

Dimensions of perfectionism are likely to influence key components of the stress process

in specific ways. The stress process in sport involves how athletes appraise the sporting demands

and potential for coping, actual coping responses, and emotional experience (Lazarus, 2000).

There are a number of potentially relevant appraisals in sport including threat, challenge, and

control. Appraisals of threat are associated with negative affect, avoidance coping, decreased

coping expectancies, and lack of achievement (Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008; Blascovich,

Seery, Mugridge, Norris, & Weisbuch, 2004). Appraisals of challenge and control are typically

associated with positive affect, achievement, and increased coping expectancies (Blascovich et

al., 2004; Jones, Meijen, McCarthy, & Sheffield, 2009). Although perfectionism and appraisal

processes have not been directly examined in sport, specific relationships should be theoretically

expected. Because ECP reflects dispositions to be more concerned with mistakes, this aspect of


9

perfectionism should be associated with higher appraisals of threat and lower levels of control

and challenge. In contrast, PSP should be related to higher levels of control and challenge and

lower levels of threat. Within the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism, it is expected that pure ECP will

be associated with the worst outcome in appraisals (high threat, low control and challenge)

whereas pure PSP will have the best outcomes (low threat, high control and challenge).

In addition, how athletes attempt to manage stressful transactions in sport is critical to

self and emotional regulation (Uphill & Jones, 2012). Problem-focused coping (also termed task,

engagement, and action oriented coping) involves strategies to actively change oneself or the

situation to foster achievement striving (Hoar et al., 2006). Avoidance coping (also termed

disengagement coping) refers to behavioural or mental strategies that direct a person away from

stressful situations and are typically not considered adaptive in competition (Kowalski &

Crocker, 2001). Emotion-focused coping refers to strategies used to regulate emotional

experiences associated with the stressful transaction (Hoar et al., 2006). Gaudreau and Antl

(2008), in a study with adolescent and adult athletes, found that PSP was positively related to

task-oriented (problem-focused) coping whereas ECP was associated with disengagement

(avoidance) coping. Hill et al. (2010) also reported that coping style may mediate dimensions of

perfectionism and burnout in junior athletes. They found that SPP was positively related to

avoidance coping which, in turn, was related to higher levels of athlete burnout. Both problem-

focused and avoidance coping mediated the relationship between SOP and burnout. As expected,

higher SOP related to higher problem-focused coping and lower avoidance coping which

subsequently predicted lower athlete burnout scores. Within the 2 × 2 model, pure PSP should be

associated with the highest levels of problem-focused coping whereas pure ECP should be

related to the highest levels of avoidance coping and emotion-focused coping.


10

Emotional experiences are also part of the stress process. Positively valence emotions and

affects (e.g., pride, happiness, positive affect) are associated with sport achievement whereas

negatively valenced emotions and affects (e.g., anxiety, sadness, and negative affect) are related

to performance failure and set-backs (Hanin, 2010; Mosewich, Kowalski, & Crocker, 2013).

Reviews (Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011) have examined the relationship of perfectionism

with various emotional experiences such as positive affect (e.g., Kaye, Conroy, & Fifer, 2008),

state precompetitive anxiety (e.g., Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998), and burnout (e.g., Hill et al.,

2010). Overall, these studies found that PSP is typically associated with higher positive

emotional states whereas ECP is consistently related to higher negative emotional states. Within

the 2 × 2 model, pure PSP should be associated with the highest positive emotional states

whereas pure ECP should be related to the highest negative emotional states.

The effects of different types of perfectionism on stress-related variables may also be

moderated by the athlete’s perception of failure and success related to athletic goals. Higher

levels of perceived stress occur during perceived setback and failure conditions (Crocker &

Graham, 1995; Mosewich, Kowalski et al., 2013). Athletes high in ECP are more self-critical

and thus less likely to respond in an adaptive fashion when athletic goals are being thwarted. The

2 × 2 model of perfectionism, however, does not make any specific predictions about the

moderating role of success and failure. Nevertheless, the negative impact of pure ECP on stress

appraisals, coping, and affect during an athletic competition is likely to be more pronounced

when athletes are not making progress towards importance athletic goals. Thus one of the

objectives of this research is examine the potential moderating effects of athlete goal progress.

This Study


11

The purpose of the present study was to further examine the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism

in predicting cognitive appraisal, coping, and affective states associated with the stress process in

competition. Thus, the primary objective was to examine the four hypotheses proposed in the 2 ×

2 model for predicting cognitive appraisal, coping, athlete goal progress, and affective

experiences in university athletes in a study using a prospective design. In addition to examining

the direct effects of perfectionism dimensions identified in the 2 × 2 model, we conducted

exploratory analyses to determine if athletic goal progress moderated the association between

subtypes of perfectionism and the outcome variables of coping, appraisal, and affect.

Method

Participants.

Participants were university athletes involved in varsity sport in Canada. At time one, 274

athletes (men = 149; women=125) participated. At time two, final participants included 80 men

and 99 women (Mage = 19.88, SDage = 1.53, range = 17 – 24 years) who had competed in the last

week and completed all measures at both time points. All athletes were involved in the

competitive season for their respective sport, which included football (n=35), basketball (n=18),

baseball (n=21), cross country (n=24), field hockey (n=11), golf (n=11), ice hockey (n=4), rugby

(n=11), soccer (n=14), softball (n=14), swimming (n=19), and track and field / athletics (n=6).

Measures.

Demographics. General demographic information (age and sociocultural information), as

well as sport specific information (type of sport, level of sport participation, and year of

eligibility in the varsity system) was collected. An email address was used to contact

participants for the second assessment, as well as match responses from the two time points.


12

Sport Perfectionism. Dimensions of perfectionism in sport were measured by the Sport

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2 (SMPS-2; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009). The 42-item

measure consists of six subscales rated on a 5-point scale: Personal Standards, Concern over

Mistakes, Perceived Parental Pressure, Perceived Coach Pressure, Doubts about Actions, and

Organization. Although data was collected for the complete instrument, only two scales were

used in the analyses. The Personal Standards scale (7 items) was used as an indicator of personal

standards perfectionism (PSP) and the Concern over Mistakes (8 items) scale was used as an

indicator of evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP). Examples of items are “I have extremely

high goals for myself in my sport” (personal standards) and “The fewer mistakes I make in

competition, the more people will like me” (concern over mistakes). Athletes were asked to

indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each of the items. Scoring on each item

ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with scale scores based on a total score

of all items within a scale. Validity evidence for SMPS-2 scale scores for university level

athletes has been demonstrated (Gotwals, Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Gamache, 2010).

Perceived Athlete Goal Progress. Athlete Goal Progress was measured by a scale

developed by Dugas, Gaudreau, and Carraro (2012) which consists of 5 items. The items were

generically designed to measure goal progress across a host of goal pursuit activities (e.g.,

school, exercise, work). In this study, the items were slightly modified to focus on goal progress

during the recalled sport competition. Instructions stated “based on the recent competition, please

circle the number that represents the extent to which…”. Scores on individual items (e.g., “to

which you progressed towards your athletic goals”) ranged from 1(not at all) to 9 (totally) and

the scale score was an average of all items. Past research has provided satisfactory evidence of

internal consistency and factorial validity for instrument scores (Dugas et al., 2012).


13

Cognitive Appraisal. Athletes’ perceptions of threat, challenge, and control during the

competition were assessed using items based on the Stress Appraisal Measure (Peacock &

Wong, 1990). Scales were modified to reflect competitive sport settings (threat: 3 items: e.g., “I

perceived this situation as threatening”; challenge: 3 items, e.g., “I believed I could become

stronger after experiencing this stressful competition”; and perceived control: 3 items; e.g., “I

believed I had the skills necessary to overcome this stressful competition.”). Athletes were

instructed to “respond to each of these questions with respect to how you thought and felt just

before and during the competition situation”. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at

all true) to 5 (extremely true). Scale scores for all three appraisal scales were averaged across

items and could range from 1 to 5.

Coping. The Coping Function Questionnaire (CFQ) is a sport-specific instrument

(Kowalski & Crocker, 2001) consisting of 18 items assessing three functions of coping: problem-

focused (6 items), emotion-focused (7 items) and avoidance (5 items). Examples of items from

each scale are “I used strategies to change the competition in order to deal with the stress”

(problem-focused), “I tried to use different strategies that would help me control my emotions”

(emotion-focused), and “I tried to get out of the competition as soon as I could to reduce the

stress” (avoidance). The athletes were instructed “for each statement, indicate how much you

used each of the coping strategies during the actual competition”. Item responses were on a 5

point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) and mean scores for each coping function

scale were calculated. CFQ scores with university and high performance athletes have

demonstrated sound psychometric properties (e.g., Hanton, Neil, Mellalieu, & Fletcher, 2008).

Positive and Negative Affect. Positive and negative affect were assessed by the Positive

and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS


14

contains 10 items measuring positive affect (e.g., interested, alert, determined) and 10 items

reflecting negative affect (e.g., upset, irritable, afraid), with athletes responding to each on a 5-

point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Athletes were instructed

to “indicate to what extent you felt this way during the competition”. Mean scores for positive

and negative affect scales were calculated. Reliability support for scores in a varsity athlete

sample has been reported (Lemyre, Treasure, & Roberts, 2006).

Procedure

After obtaining ethical approval from the university research board, athletes from varsity

sports teams from university and colleges located in a Western Canadian province were recruited

through team visits and emails. At Time 1, athletes completed a questionnaire containing the

measure of perfectionism and demographic information in a team setting (in a practice facility or

meeting room). Approximately four weeks later, athletes completed the coping, appraisal, and

affect measures1.

The Time 2 questionnaire was completed online using a secure online survey

tool at the athletes’ convenience within 24 hours after participating in a sport competition.

Athletes were compensated with $10 for completing the first questionnaire and informed consent

was obtained from all participants.

Data Analysis. The data were screened for missing responses and outliers and examined

to test the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2007). Participants’ scores with two or more missing scores from items from any specific scale

were dropped from the analysis (two participants at time one, one participant at time two). Other

missing data was handled using median replacement within scales (< 0.5% of data).

1A measure of self-compassion was also collected at time 1.


15

The procedures to examine the specific hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism

were guided by the methodological note by Gaudreau (2012). Separate moderated hierarchical

regression analyses were conducted for athlete goal progress, control appraisal, challenge

appraisal, threat appraisal, emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping, avoidance coping,

positive affect, and negative affect as dependent variables. The two perfectionism scales were

centered prior to analysis. PSP and ECP were entered at Step 1 and their interaction term was

entered at Step 2. Significant interactions were decomposed using simple slope analyses.

Following a non-significant interaction, the main effects of PSP and ECP were taken to estimate

and compare the predicted values of the each of the four subtypes of perfectionism. A significant

positive main effect of PSP and a non-significant main effect of ECP (see Figure 1H; Gaudreau,

2012) can be taken as evidence for Hypotheses 1a and 3. A significant negative main effect of

ECP and a non-significant main effect of ECP can be taken as evidence for Hypotheses 2 and 4

(see Figure 1B; Gaudreau, 2012). A significant positive main effect of PSP combined with a

significant negative main effect of ECP can be taken as evidence to support the four hypotheses

of the 2 × 2 model (see Figure 1A; Gaudreau, 2012).

Complementary analyses using hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to

determine whether goal progress moderated the association between subtypes of perfectionism

and each of the dependent variables. PSP, ECP, and goal progress were inserted at Step 1, the

two-way interactions were included at Step 2, and the three-way interaction was tested at Step 3.

Evidence for the moderating role of goal progress could be provided either by a significant two-

way interaction (PSP X goal progress; ECP X goal progress) or by a significant three-way

interaction.

Results


16

Preliminary Analyses

Means, standard deviations, scale internal consistency values, and correlations among all

variables are provided in Table 1. All scales demonstrated acceptable reliability values.

Main Analyses

The moderated multiple regression analyses examining the 2 × 2 model found no

significant interaction effects of PSP and ECP; however, there were a number of significant

main effects (p<.05) for several dependent variables (see Table 2, Figure 1). The results for each

dependent variable are presented separately below.

Positive Affect. PSP was the sole significant and positive predictor of positive affect (see

Figure 1, panel A). This significant main effect combined with the non-significant main effect of

ECP was taken as evidence to support Hypotheses 1a and 3 of the 2 × 2 model. Pure PSP was

associated with higher positive affect compared to non-perfectionism (Hypothesis 1a) whereas

mixed perfectionism was associated with higher positive affect than pure ECP (Hypothesis 3).

Non-perfectionism and pure ECP did not differ significantly, thus not supporting Hypothesis 2.

Pure PSP and mixed perfectionism did not differ significantly, thus not supporting Hypothesis 4.

Negative Affect. ECP was the only significant predictor of negative affect (see Figure 1,

panel B). The significant main effect of ECP combined with the non-significant main effect of

PSP supported Hypotheses 2 and 4 of the 2 × 2 model. Pure ECP was associated with higher

level of negative affect than non-perfectionism (Hypothesis 2) whereas mixed perfectionism was

associated with higher levels of negative affect compared to pure PSP (Hypothesis 4). There was

inconclusive evidence to suggest that pure PSP is associated with higher or lower level of

negative affect compared to non-perfectionism, thus not supporting both Hypotheses 1a and 1b.


17

Mixed perfectionism and pure ECP were not significantly different, thus not supporting

Hypothesis 3.

Control Appraisal. PSP was positively and ECP was negatively associated with control

appraisal. These significant main effects and the predicted values depicted in Figure 1 (see panel

C) were taken as evidence to support the four hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model.

Challenge Appraisal. PSP was positively and ECP was negatively associated with

challenge appraisal. These significant main effects and the predicted values shown in Figure 1

(see panel D) supported the four hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model

Threat Appraisal. ECP was the only significant predictor of threat (see Figure 1, panel

E) supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4 of the 2 × 2 model. The pattern of findings was similar to the

results for negative affect, with no support for Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 3.

Problem-focused and Emotion-focused coping. Neither PSP nor ECP were significant

predictors of emotion-focused (Figure 1, panel F) and problem-focused coping (Figure 1, panel

G), thus failing to support all four hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model.

Avoidance Coping. There as a significant positive main effect of ECP combined with the

non-significant main effect of ECP in predicting avoidance coping (see Figure 1, panel H), thus

supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4 of the 2 × 2 model. Similar to the pattern of results for threat

appraisal and negative affect, there was no support for Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 3.

Athlete Goal Progress. PSP was positively and ECP was negatively associated with

athlete goal progress. These significant main effects and the predicted values depicted in Figure

1 (see panel I) support the four hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model.

Complementary Analyses


18

Results of the complementary analyses to test the four hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model at

low and high levels of goal progress are presented in Table 3. Significant interactions were

decomposed using four couples of simple slopes: (1 & 2) the simple slope of PSP at low level of

ECP at low or high level of goal progress, respectively (Hypothesis 1); (3 & 4) the simple slope

of ECP at low level of PSP at low or high level of goal progress, respectively (Hypothesis 2); (5

& 6) the simple slope of PSP at high level of ECP at low or high level of goal progress,

respectively (Hypothesis 3); (7 & 8) the simple slope of ECP at high level of PSP at low or high

level of goal progress, respectively (Hypothesis 4). The analyses found significant interaction

effects only for avoidance coping and control appraisals.

A three-way interaction was marginally significant (p = .066) to predict control appraisal.

As shown in Figure 2A, the relationships between subtypes of perfectionism and control

appraisal were different at low and high levels of goal progress. Pure PSP was not associated

with higher or lower control appraisal than non-perfectionism (Hypothesis 1) at low levels of

goal progress (B = 0.018, SE = 0.023, = .095, p = .430) but it was significantly associated with

higher control appraisal at high levels of goal progress (B = 0.053, SE = 0.021, = .277, p =

.014). Pure ECP was significantly associated with lower control appraisal than non-perfectionism

(Hypothesis 2) at low level of goal progress (B = -0.046, SE = 0.016, = -.330, p = .005) but not

at high level of goal progress (B = -0.001, SE = 0.024, = -.009, p = .956). Mixed perfectionism

was significantly associated with higher control appraisal than pure ECP (Hypothesis 3) at low

level of goal progress (B = 0.066, SE = 0.024, = .348, p = .066) but not at high level of goal

progress (B = 0.016, SE = 0.030, = .085, p = .586). Mixed perfectionism was not associated

with higher or lower control appraisal than pure PSP (Hypothesis 4) at low levels of goal

progress (B = -0.011, SE = 0.019, = -.077, p = .566) but it was significantly associated with


19

lower control appraisal at high levels of goal progress (B = -0.028, SE = 0.013, = -.201, p =

.041).

A three-way interaction was significant to predict avoidance coping. As shown in Figure

2B, the relationships between subtypes of perfectionism and control appraisals were different at

low and high levels of goal progress. Pure PSP was not associated with higher or lower

avoidance coping compared to non-perfectionism (Hypothesis 1) at low levels of goal progress

(B = 0.002, SE = 0.027, = .010, p = .936) and high levels of goal progress (B = 0.006, SE =

0.024, = .029, p = .823). Pure ECP was significantly associated with higher avoidance coping

than non-perfectionism (Hypothesis 2) at low level of goal progress (B = 0.060, SE = 0.019, =

.426, p = .001) but not at high level of goal progress (B = -0.019, SE = 0.027, = -.137, p =

.481). Mixed perfectionism was significantly associated with lower avoidance coping than pure

ECP (Hypothesis 3) at low level of goal progress (B = -0.095, SE = 0.027, = -.486, p < .001)

whereas it was associated with higher avoidance coping than pure ECP at high levels of goal

progress (B = 0.077, SE = 0.034, = .393, p = .027). Mixed perfectionism was not associated

with higher or lower avoidance coping than pure PSP (Hypothesis 4) at low levels of goal

progress (B = -0.011, SE = 0.021, = -.076, p = .615) but it was significantly associated with

higher avoidance coping at high levels of goal progress (B = 0.032, SE = 0.015, = .223, p =

.040).

Discussion

The present study examined the effects of evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP) and

personal standards perfectionism (PSP) on stress related variables experienced during a sport

competition and evaluated the four hypotheses proposed in Gaudreau and Thompson’s (2010) 2

× 2 model of perfectionism. In addition, exploratory analyses investigated whether athletic goal


20

progress moderated the relationships between perfectionism dimensions and the stress-related

variables. Support for hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model differed across dependent variables,

although the findings generally clustered depending on whether the outcome might be considered

positive or negative in valence (see Table 4). Hypotheses 1a, 2, 3, and 4 were supported for

perceived challenge and control appraisals, and athlete goal progress. For these three variables,

pure PSP was associated with better outcomes than all the other subtypes of perfectionism and

pure ECP was worse compared to all other types of perfectionism. Hypotheses 1a and 3 were

also supported for positive affect. However, only hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported for threat

appraisals, avoidance coping, and negative affect. For these variables, pure ECP and mixed

perfectionism were associated with worse outcomes compared to pure PSP and non-

perfectionism. The exploratory moderation analysis found some limited support that athlete goal

progress moderated relationships between perfectionism and avoidance coping and control

appraisals. For control appraisal, hypothesis 1a and 4 were supported only when goal progress

was high, whereas hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported when goal progress was low. For

avoidance coping, hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported when goal progress was low, with only

hypothesis 4 supported when goal progress was high. In general, the findings consistently

demonstrated that pure ECP was associated with the poorest outcomes, and that pure PSP was

associated with better outcomes compared to pure ECP.

The current research is one of the first studies to examine predictive relationships

between perfectionism dimensions and cognitive appraisal in sport competition. Cognitive

appraisal is recognized as a critical process in the stress and emotion process and reflects

underlying beliefs related to personal well-being in important situations (Moors, Ellsworth,

Scherer, & Frijda, 2013; Lazarus, 2000). Positive psychological adjustment in achievement


21

settings like sport should be reflected by higher perceptions of perceived control and challenge

and lower perceptions of threat (Adie et al., 2008). The present findings support that pure PSP

was associated with higher perceived control and challenge, whereas threat was associated with

pure ECP. Although the effect sizes were typically modest, the data does support that

perfectionism dimensions are linked to cognitive appraisals in actual competition in theoretically

meaningful ways. The present research indicates that perfectionism dimensions and /or subtypes

are linked to threat, control, and challenge, although goal progress had a moderating effect on

control appraisals. There are many other different types of appraisals that could be assessed in

sport achievement settings (Moors et al., 2013) and future research should incorporate measures

of appraisals such as goal congruence, goal importance, novelty, coping potential, agency,

valence, and urgency.

Contrary to previous research, the present study found only partial support for a link

between perfectionism dimensions and coping. As expected, avoidance coping was positively

related to ECP, although goal progress did moderate the relationship. From a theoretical point,

this relationship might exist because ECP affects the athlete’s appraisal processes (Gaudreau &

Antl, 2008). Athletes who are predisposed to negative self-evaluation are more likely to see

competition as threatening and less controllable and challenging. The current data indicate such

relationships between avoidance coping and cognitive appraisal, as well as between ECP and

appraisals. The results from the moderator analysis seem to indicate that the relationship between

pure ECP and both control appraisals and avoidance are highest when athletic goal progress is

low, thus indicating that failure to attain one’s goals can act as a stressor that accentuate the

vulnerability associated with a subtype of pure ECP. On another front, it was surprising that both

emotion-focused and problem-focused coping were not related to perfectionism. Both Gaudreau


22

and Antl (2008) and Hill et al. (2010) reported that high levels of PSP predict task oriented

coping (which is conceptually similar to problem-focused coping function). Athletes with pure

PSP should be more likely to appraise situations as challenging and controllable and thus employ

problem-focused coping to manage stressful encounters. It is possible that differences in coping

measures across various studies might account for the divergent findings, although both

problem-focused and emotion-focused coping in the present study were generally related to

cognitive appraisal in theoretically meaningful ways. These questions await further research.

Previous reviews have reported that evaluative concerns perfectionism is typically related

to negative emotional experiences such as anxiety, negative affect, anger, and burnout (Gotwals

et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011). In the present study, higher ECP predicted higher negative affect

whereas higher PSP was associated with higher positive affect. Although there are differences

across studies in terms of supporting the various hypotheses of the 2 x 2 model, results

consistently demonstrate that higher levels of ECP are characteristically associated with poorer

emotional outcomes. Hill (2013) has recently demonstrated that total burnout and reduced sense

of accomplishment among junior soccer players significantly differed across four subtypes of

perfectionism, thus supporting all hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model. However, findings reported for

emotional exhaustion and sport devaluation did not support all of these hypotheses. Hill’s

findings did show, however, that pure ECP was associated with the worst outcomes across

burnout indicators. The debilitating effects of pure ECP on emotional experience was also

reported by Cumming and Duda (2012), who found that pure ECP was associated with higher

social physique anxiety and higher negative affect compared to pure PSP in vocational dancers.

Gaudreau and Verner-Filion (2012) found that pure ECP was associated with lower levels of

positive affect, vitality, and life satisfaction compared to all types of perfectionism in athletes


23

from various sports. Across studies, however, the influence of various combinations of

perfectionism dimensions seems to vary for different types of emotional experiences. For

example, our results showed that pure PSP (compared to non-perfectionism) was associated with

higher positive affect, controlled appraisal, and challenge appraisals but not to significantly

lower negative affect, threat appraisal, and avoidance coping. At a first glance, it appears that

pure PSP (compared to non-perfectionism) is associated to higher level of positively valence

outcomes (e.g., positive affect) but not necessarily to lower level of negatively valence outcomes

(e.g., negative affect, physical exhaustion; Cumming & Duda, 2012; Hill, 2013). Researchers

should try to clarify the underlying mechanisms that could explain why subtypes of

perfectionism are differentially associated with different types of emotional experiences.

An important question in perfectionism research is determining if perfectionism

dimensions impact athlete achievement (Stoeber, 2011). This is a complex issue because athletes

can subjectively evaluate achievement behaviour in many ways beyond objective indicators of

success. The present study assessed achievement behaviour using perceived athlete goal progress

and found that pure PSP was associated with the highest levels whereas pure ECP was linked to

the lowest levels. This finding is somewhat contrary to work by Gaudreau and Antl (2008) who

reported no relationship between dimensions of perfectionism and goal attainment in French

Canadian athletes from various sports. Differences in findings might reflect their use of global

dispositional measures of perfectionism and/or a different questionnaire encompassing

evaluation of mastery, self-referenced, and normative goal attainment. Global measures of

perfectionism have been shown to have weaker relationship with variables in sport compared to

sport-specific measures (Dunn, Craft, Causgrove Dunn, & Gotwals, 2011). Although Stoeber

(2011) argued that PSP has predicted sport performance, there are only a few perfectionism


24

studies that have examined athlete achievement in real competitions. Any conclusions about the

influence of perfectionism dimensions on achievement will require more systematic research

ideally using both subjective and objective indicators of performance.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study has a number of strengths, including its prospective design, sport-

specific context, and consideration of multiple aspects of the stress and coping process, it is not

without limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, caution is required when

comparing the present results with other studies on perfectionism because only two scales

(personal standards and concern over mistakes) of the SMPS-2 were used as indicators of PSP

and ECP. Perfectionism researchers in sport have used various instruments measuring either

global dispositional perfectionism or sport-specific perfectionism in order to conceptualize

perfectionism using either broad dimensions or sub-dimension of perfectionism (e.g., Dunn et

al., 2011; Hill, 2013)). Second, we primarily examined only the direct effects of subtypes of

perfectionism on appraisal, coping, emotional experience, and athlete goal progress. Considering

that most stress and coping models propose moderator or mediation relationships among key

variables such as gender, personality, appraisal, coping, and outcomes, future research should

examined these more complex models to further our understanding of the role of perfectionism

in the stress and coping process (see Crocker, Mosewich, Kowalski, & Besenski, 2010;

Schellenberg, Gaudreau, & Crocker, 2013). Third, the complementary moderation analysis

revealed only marginal interaction effects for two variables. The use of goal progress as a

moderator is also a limitation in this analysis as it is an indirect measure of achievement. Future

research should incorporate both objective and subjective assessments of achievement to

triangulate our findings. Lastly, temporal ordering of causal effects among the stress variables at


25

time two cannot be established. The delay in recall might have produced memory decay or

distortion. Future research might want to consider more immediate recall techniques or the use of

objective indicators of stress and emotional regulation (Blascovich et al., 2004; Jones et al.,

2009).

Conclusions

Although further research is required to untangle the complexities of perfectionism in the

stress process in competitive sport, the current research supported the utility of the 2 × 2 model

in sporting contexts. In general, pure PSP was associated with better outcomes compared to pure

ECP. However, this study did indicate that the outcomes associated with the subtypes of

perfectionism identified in the 2 × 2 model varied across indicators of the stress process. There

was some limited evidence for the moderating role of athletic goal progress because it moderated

the associations between subtypes of perfectionism and only two of the eight dependent variables

included in this study. Future research should strive to examine how the effects associated with

the 2 × 2 model on psychological adjustment and performance are moderated or mediated by

other key personal and situational variables.


26

References

Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Achievement goals, competition appraisals,

and the psychological and emotional welfare of sport participants. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 30, 302-322.

Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, R. K., & Weisbuch, M. (2004). Predicting

athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 683–688.

Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2012). Do you want me to be perfect? Two longitudinal studies on

socially prescribed perfectionism, stress and burnout in the workplace. Work & Stress,

26(4), 347-364. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.737547

Crocker, P. R. E. & Graham, T. R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with performance

stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 325-

338.

Crocker, P.R. E., Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., & Besenski, L. J. (2010). Coping: Research

design and analysis issues. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory, methods,

and related constructs. (pp.35-52). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Cumming, J. & Duda, J. L. (2012). Profiles of perfectionism, body related concerns, and

indicators of psychological health in vocational dance students: An investigation of the 2

× 2 model of perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 729-738.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.004

Dugas, M., Gaudreau, P., & Carraro, N. (2012). Implementation planning and progress on

physical activity goals: The mediating role of life-management strategies. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 77-85. doi:10.1080/02701367.2012.10599827


27

Dunn, J. G. H., Craft, J. M., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Comparing a domain-

specific and global measure of perfectionism in competitive female figure skaters.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 34, 25-46.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in sports and exercise. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 14-18. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00326.x

Franche, V., Gaudreau, P., & Miranda, D. (2012). The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: A

comparison across Asian Canadians and European Canadians. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 59, 567-574. doi: 10.1037/a0028992

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468. doi: 10.1007/BF01172967

Gaudreau, P. (2012). A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualistic

personality dimensions: An example using the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Personality

and Individual Differences, 52, 26-31. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.022

Gaudreau, P. (2013). The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: Commenting the critical comments and

suggestions of Stoeber (2012). Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 351-355. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.021

Gaudreau, P., & Antl, S. (2008). Athletes' broad dimensions of dispositional perfectionism:

Examining changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of sport-related motivation

and 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


28

Gaudreau, P., & Verner-Filion, J. (2012). Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of

the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise, and Performance

Psychology, 1, 29-43. doi: 10.1037/a0025747

Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2009). A multi-method multi-analytic approach to establishing

internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 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 validity

evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 in intercollegiate sport.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 423-432. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.013

Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J, Dunn, J. G. H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in

sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence.

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53, 263-279. doi: 10.1037/a0030288.

Hall, H. K., Hill, A. P., & Appleton, P. R. (2012) Perfectionism: A foundation for sporting

excellence or an uneasy pathway toward purgatory? In Roberts, G.C. & Treasure D.

(Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise: Volume 3(pp. 129-168).

Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Hall, H. K., Kerr, A. W., & Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport: The

contribution of achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 20, 194-217.

Hanin, Y. L. (2010). Coping with anxiety in sport. In Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Coping in sport:

Theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 159–175). New York: Nova Science.

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&searchType=journal&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A%28Hanin%2C+Y.+L.%29


29

Hanton, S., Neil, R., Mellalieu, S. D., & Fletcher, D. (2008). Competitive experience and

performance status: An investigation into multidimensional anxiety and coping. European

Journal of Sport Science, 8, 143-152. doi:10.1080/17461390801987984

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:

Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

Hill, A. P. (2013). Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test of the 2 × 2 model

of dispositional perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 18-29.

Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Appleton, P. R. (2010). Perfectionism and athlete burnout in junior

elite athletes: The mediating role of coping tendencies. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23,

415-430. doi:10.1080/10615800903330966

Hoar, S. D., Kowalski, K. C., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2006). A review of coping in

sport. In S. Hanton & S.D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp.

47–90). New York: Nova Science.

Jones, M., Meijen, C., McCarthy, P. J., & Sheffield, D. (2009). A theory of challenge and threat

states in athletes, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 161-180.

doi:10.1080/17509840902829331

Kaye, M. P., Conroy, D. E., & Fifer, A. M. (2008). Individual differences in incompetence

avoidance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 110-132.

Kowalski, K. C., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2001). The development and validation of the Coping

Function Questionnaire for adolescents in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,

23, 136-155.


30

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport

Psychologist, 14, 229-252.

Lemyre, P. –N., Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2006). Influence of variability in motivation

and affect on elite athlete burnout susceptibility. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,

28, 32-48.

Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of

emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5, 119-124.

doi:10.1177/1754073912468165

Mosewich, A. D., Crocker, P. R. E., & Kowalski, K. C. (2013). Managing injury and other

setbacks in sport: Experiences of (and resources for) high performance women athletes.

Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health. Advanced online publication:

doi:10.1080/2159676X.2013.766810

Mosewich, A. D., Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., & Delongis, A. D. (2013). Applying self-

compassion in sport: An intervention with women athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 35, 514-524.

Nicholls, A. R., & Thelwell, R. C. (2010). Coping conceptualized and unraveled. In A. R.

Nicholls (Ed.). Coping in Sport: Theory, Methods, and Related Constructs (pp. 3-14).

New York: Nova Science.

Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. (1990). The stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multidimensional

approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227–236. doi:

10.1002/smi.2460060308


31

Schellenberg, B., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2013). Passion and coping: Relationships

with changes in burnout and goal attainment in collegiate volleyball players. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 270-280.

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. (2012). The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: A critical comment and some suggestions.

Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 541-545. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.029

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th

ed.). New York:

Allyn & Bacon.

Uphill, M. A., & Jones, M. V. (2012). The consequences and control of emotions in elite

athletes. In J. Thatcher, M. V. Jones, & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Coping and emotion in sport

(2nd ed., pp. 213-235). London: Routledge.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures

of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063


32

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliability, and Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Perfectionism and Stress Process Variables

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Variable

M SD α 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. PSP 26.08 3.08 .74 --

2. ECP 23.65 5.26 .78 .20* --

3. Problem coping 2.51 0.72 .83 .03 -.01 --

4. Emotion coping 3.32 0.72 .80 .05 -.03 .41* --

5. Avoidance coping 1.49 0.74 .89 -.09 .20* .08 .08 --

6. Control appraisal 3.67 0.72 .76 .32* -.20* .17* .11 -.29* --

7. Challenge appraisal 3.89 0.72 .70 .19* -.15* .23* .14 -.21* .55* --

8. Threat appraisal 2.59 0.85 .68 .05 .20* .19* .23* .27* .14 .06 --

9. Goal Progress 4.54 1.81 .96 .34* -.14 .14 .15* -.28* .50* .43* -.02 --

10. Positive affect 3.81 0.75 .90 .42* -.03 .20* .07 -.21* .49* .61* .04 .56* --

11. Negative affect 2.23 0.69 .81 .00 .30* .14 .11 .42* -.29* -.09 .56* -.27* -.08

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note. M = Mean, SD=Standard deviation, α = Cronbach alpha; * p<.05


33

Table 2

Summary Table of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Showing Main Effects and Interactions of Personal Standards Perfectionism

(PSP) and Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism (ECP) for Stress Variables

Positive affect

β

Negative affect

β

Control

β

Challenge

β

Step 1 ∆F = 21.00 ∆R² = .187**. ∆F = 9.75 ∆R² = .096** ∆F = 19.22 ∆R² = .173** ∆F = 7.56 ∆R² = .066**

ECP -.117 .316** -.275** -.201**

PSP .440** -.065 .372** .233**

Step 2 ∆F = 0.262 ∆R² = .001 ∆F = 0.59 ∆R² = .003 ∆F = 0.48 ∆R² = .002 ∆F = 0.08 ∆R² = .000

ECP x PSP .035 .055 .048 .021

Threat appraisal

β

Emotion-focused coping

β

Problem-focused coping

β

Avoidance coping

β

Step 1 ∆F = 3.82 ∆R² = .040* ∆F = 0.34 ∆R² = .004 ∆F = 0.13 ∆R² = .001 ∆F = 5.40 ∆R² = .056**

ECP .199** .010 -.017 .221**

PSP .005 .014 .037 -.135

Step 2 ∆F = 0.07 ∆R² = .000 ∆F = 1.95 ∆R² = .014 ∆F = o.88 ∆R² = .006 ∆F = 1.37 ∆R² = .007

ECP x PSP .020 .105 .071 -.087


34

Table 2 continued

Goal Progress

β

Step 1 ∆F = 17.17 ∆R² = .158

ECP -.209**

PSP .381**

Step 2 ∆F = 0.01 ∆R² = .000

ECP x PSP .004

Note: Note. β = standardized beta for respective step. ** p < .01. * p < .05.


35

Table 3

Summary Table of Moderated Hierarchical Regression Testing the Moderating Role of Goal Progress

Positive affect

Negative affect

Control

Challenge

Step 1 F = 31.13** R² = .340 F = 10.07** R² = .143 F = 27.01** R² = .309 F = 11.99** R² = .166

ECP -.030 .231** -.155* -.140†

PSP .276** .042 .201** .127†

Progress .427** -.263** .427** .297**

Step 2 F = 1.715 R² = .019 F = 0.632 R² = .009 F = 0.185 R² = .002 F = 0.907 R² = .013

ECP x PSP .018 .089 .016 .050

ECP x Progress -.029 -.049 .051 -.090

PSP x Progress -.130* .080 -.022 .083

Step 3 F = 0.000** R² = .000 F = 0.274 R² = .001 F = 3.427† R² = .013 F = 0.016 R² = .000

ECP x PSP x Progress .001 .041 -.129† -.010

Continues on next page


36

Table 3

Continued

Threat appraisal

Emotion-focused coping

Problem-focused coping

Avoidance coping

Step 1 F = 2.597† R² = .041 F = 0.666 R² = .011 F = 1.412 R² = .023 F = 5.29** R² = .081

ECP 174* -.026 .015 .109

PSP .007 .029 -.019 -.016

Progress .026 . .092 .147† -.234**

Step 2 F = 0.195 R² = .003 F = 1.757 R² = .028 F = 0.621 R² = .010 F = 2.227 R² = .033

ECP x PSP .025 .095 .079 -.036

ECP x Progress -.006 .034 -.050 -.067

PSP x Progress .077 .124 .058 .244**

Step 3 F = 0.895 R² = .005 F = 0.304 R² = .002 F = 0.389 R² = .002 F = 10.404** R² = .049

ECP x PSP x Progress .078 -.046 -.052 .250**

Note. β = standardized beta for respective step. ** p < .01. * p < .05. † p < .10.


37

Table 4

Summary of Results in Relation to the Four Hypotheses of the 2 × 2 Model

Outcomes Hypothesis 1

Pure PSP – Non

Hypothesis 2

Non – Pure ECP

Hypothesis 3

Mixed – Pure ECP

Hypothesis 4

Pure PSP – Mixed

Positive affect Yes No Yes No

Negative affect No Yes No Yes

Control appraisal Yes a

No @ low progress

Yes @ high progress

Yes a

Yes @ low progress

No @ high progress

Yes a

Yes @ low progress

No @ high progress

Yes a

No @ low progress

Yes @ high progress

Challenge appraisal Yes Yes Yes Yes

Threat appraisal No Yes No Yes

Emotion coping No No No No

Problem coping No No No No

Avoidance coping No a

No @ low progress

Yes a

Yes @ low progress

No a

Yes @ low progress

Yes a

No @ low progress

No @ high progress No @ high progress No @ low progress b Yes @ high progress

Note. Yes = hypothesis supported. No = hypothesis infirmed. a The results of control appraisal and avoidance are moderated by goal progress.

b

Mixed perfectionism was associated with higher avoidance than pure ECP, which is in opposition to the hypothesis of the model.


38

Figure 1.

ECP

Ne

ga

tive

affe

ct

ECP ECP

ECP

Th

rea

t a

pp

rais

al

ECP

Em

otio

n-f

ocu

se

d

co

pin

g

ECP

Pro

ble

m-f

ocu

se

d

co

pin

g

ECP

Avo

ida

nce

co

pin

g

ECP

Go

al p

rog

ress

ECP

Low High

LowLow

LowLowLow

LowLow

HighHighHigh

HighHighHigh

HighHigh

Low

3

4

5

Po

sitiv

e a

ffe

ct

Non

perfectionism

(3.64)

Pure ECP

(3.46)

Mixed

perfectionism

(3.99)

Pure PSP

(4.17)

3

2

Mixed

perfectionism

(2.41)

Mixed

perfectionism

(3.69)

5

3

4

Co

ntr

ol a

pp

rais

al

Pure PSP

(4.09)

Non

perfectionism

(3.65)Pure ECP

(3.25)

3

4

5

Ch

alle

ng

e a

pp

rais

al

Mixed

perfectionism

(3.89)

Pure PSP

(4.17)

Non

perfectionism

(3.90)Pure ECP

(3.62)

5

4

3

6 Mixed

perfectionism

(4.71)

Pure PSP

(5.46)

Non

perfectionism

(4.37) Pure ECP

(3.62)

Pure PSP

(1.98)

Non

perfectionism

(2.06)

Pure ECP

(2.49)

2

3

3

4

2

3 2

1

Non

perfectionism

(2.41)

Pure PSP

(2.42) Pure ECP

(2.75)

Mixed

perfectionism

(2.76)

Non

perfectionism

(3.31)

Pure ECP

(3.26)

Pure PSP

(3.38)

Mixed

perfectionism

(3.33)

Non

perfectionism

(2.50)

Pure ECP

(2.48)

Pure PSP

(2.55)

Mixed

perfectionism

(2.53)Non

perfectionism

(1.41)

Pure PSP

(1.25)

Mixed

perfectionism

(1.57)

Pure ECP

(1.73)

A B C

D E F

G H I

LowHigh

PSP

Figure 1. Predicted values across the four subtypes of perfectionism. * denotes a significant

differences between two subtypes at p < .05.

** *

*

*

*

*

*

* *

****

*

*

**

**


39

Figure 2

.

Co

ntr

ol a

pp

rais

al

ECP

Low High

4

5

3

Pure PSP

(3.58)

Mixed

perfectionism

(3.47)

Non

perfectionism

(3.45) Pure ECP

(2.97) Co

ntr

ol a

pp

rais

al

ECP

Low High

4

5

3

Pure PSP

(4.27)Mixed

perfectionism

(3.98)

Non

perfectionism

(3.87)

Pure ECP

(3.85)

Low PSPHigh PSP

Low Goal Progress High Goal Progress

* *

**

A

Low Goal Progress High Goal Progress

B

Avo

ida

nce

co

pin

g

ECP

Low High

1

2

Non

perfectionism

(1.47)

Pure ECP

(2.09)

Pure PSP

(1.48)

Mixed

perfectionism

(1.37)

Figure 2. Predicted values across the four subtypes of perfectionism at low and high

levels of goal progress. * denotes a significant difference across two subtypes at p < .05.

Avo

ida

nce

co

pin

g

ECP

Low High

1

2

Non

perfectionism

(1.21)

Pure ECP

(1.00)

Pure PSP

(1.25)

Mixed

perfectionism

(1.58)*

*

**

Low PSPHigh PSP

international journal of sport psychology · standards of performance), concerns over mistakes...

Documents