A comparison of the four subtypes of perfectionism from the

In context of extant perfectionism literature, relatively little is known about non-perfectionism other than it is deemed an adaptive control condition (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012). The findings of this study help to shed some light on this issue and are consistent with what might be expected of non-perfectionism. That is, non-perfectionism entails individuals who are neither striving for perfectionistic standards nor are they overly concerned with pressures emanating from the self or social-environment (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). If participants do not attach meaning to their sport involvement in this manner then their self-worth is unlikely to be contingent upon their sport achievements (Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2011). This was demonstrated by netball only being a hobby for this group. Participants are also unlikely to be validation-seeking (Hill, Hall, Appleton, & Murray, 2010). This seemed relevant here as participants did not appear to be actively pursuing praise or highlighting social evaluation as a concern. Without staking self-worth on sport achievements and being unburdened by fears of evaluation, it seems reasonable that task involvement served as the motivational state for this group and that they experienced considerable enjoyment.

To test the first hypothesis of the 2 × 2 model, it involves a comparison of non-perfectionism and pure personal standards perfectionism. It is posited that pure personal standards perfectionism will either be associated with better (hypothesis 1a), poorer (hypothesis 1b), or equivalent (hypothesis 1c) outcomes compared to non-perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). Consistent with what is known about pure personal standards perfectionism (see Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010), the pure personal standards perfectionism group in this study did appear to be concerned with standards and attainment. This was demonstrated by a focus on effort and doing their best for their team to succeed (e.g., win). Such findings regarding effort mirror qualitative findings among older athletes for the equivalent subtype of perfectionism in the tripartite model (i.e., healthy perfectionism; see Gotwals & Spencer-Cavaliere, 2014). However, the focus on winning for the pure personal standards perfectionism group stands in contrast to Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere’s (2014) findings. There

was also some indication here that team and personal accomplishments brought about satisfaction for this group but self-criticism and negative emotions ensued when they could not perform to their best. This finding is consistent with Hill et al.’s (2011) assertion that those striving for high standards are likely to incur difficulties when personal standards are not met. Contrasting the findings for the pure personal standards perfectionism group with the non-perfectionism group then, the suggestion is that the participants in both groups experienced similar outcomes (hypothesis 1c) when all was going well but in times of adversity, hypothesis 1b may prevail.

Hypothesis 2 of the 2 × 2 model involves a comparison between pure

evaluative concerns perfectionism and non-perfectionism, with an expectation that pure evaluative concerns perfectionism will be associated with worse outcomes than non-perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). In terms of what is currently understood about pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (see Gaudreau & Verner- Filion, 2012), the girls in this group were clearly preoccupied with the negative evaluations of others and appeared to have standards expected of them by parents or teachers/coaches. However, they were not necessarily pursuing such standards and placed greater emphasis on not wanting to make mistakes as this would result in critical evaluations from others and negative emotions. This finding is similar to qualitative findings among gifted adolescents for a neurotic perfectionism group involving high evaluative concerns perfectionism (Schuler, 2000). Contrasting the pure evaluative concerns perfectionism group with the non-perfectionism group then, support for hypothesis 2 seemed evident. What this finding implies, in context of the debate regarding whether three of four subtypes of perfectionism ought to be distinguished (see Smith et al., 2015), is that differentiating four subtypes seems more appropriate because the non-perfectionism and pure evaluative concerns perfectionism groups described qualitatively different experiences.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 of the 2 × 2 model involve a comparison of mixed perfectionism with pure evaluative concerns perfectionism and pure personal standards perfectionism, with an expectation that mixed perfectionism will be associated with better and worse outcomes, respectively. Consistent with what is known about mixed perfectionism (see Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012), the girls in the mixed perfectionism group were concerned with standards and attainment (e.g., by demonstrating their best relative to themselves and others) and perceived pressures from the social-environment (e.g., concerns over being judged

incompetent by others). These findings are largely consistent with findings among older athletes for the equivalent subtype of perfectionism in the tripartite model (i.e., unhealthy perfectionism; see Gotwals & Spencer-Cavaliere, 2014). There were other consistencies with Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere’s (2014) findings as this group also engaged in self-criticism when they could not demonstrate their best and were aware of letting others down. Contrasting mixed perfectionism with pure evaluative concerns perfectionism then, there appeared to be less of a heavy burden of

evaluative concerns and some enjoyment could be derived from the attainment of standards. Thus, hypothesis 3 appeared supported to some degree. Contrasting mixed perfectionism with pure personal standards perfectionism, although there were similarities in terms of taking satisfaction from accomplishments and engaging in self-criticism when their personal best could not be demonstrated, concerns over the evaluations of others for the mixed perfectionism subtype appeared to add to problems. Consequently, hypothesis 4 appeared to be supported.

4.8 Conclusion

This study was the first to explore the sport experiences of young people in context of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism using qualitative data collection methods. The findings provide initial evidence that the meaning and value young people give to their sport involvement differ considerably across the four subtypes of perfectionism from the 2 × 2 model. In addition, features of the social-

environment appear crucial in determining whether young people, who differ in combinations of perfectionism dimensions, will gain the desired outcomes from their sport involvement. When the experiences of these young sport participants are compared and contrasted, support for the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model is variable with some indication that those striving for high standards may incur difficulties in times of adversity.

Chapter 5 – The 2 × 2 model perfectionism and experiences in youth