International Journal of Sport Psychology · standards of performance), concerns over mistakes...
Transcript of 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
Perfectionism and Stress
2
Perfectionism and the stress process in intercollegiate athletes: Examining the 2 × 2 model of
perfectionism in sport competition.
Perfectionism and Stress
3
Perfectionism and the stress process in intercollegiate athletes: Examining the 2 × 2 model of
perfectionism in sport competition.
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
4
Perfectionism and the stress process in intercollegiate athletes: Examining the 2 × 2 model of
perfectionism in sport competition.
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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;
Perfectionism and Stress
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,
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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).
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
Perfectionism and Stress
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.
** *
*
*
*
*
*
* *
****
*
*
**
**
Perfectionism and Stress
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