- Email: [email protected]
An examination of the domain specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes
Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
An examination of the domain specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes q John G.H. Dunn *, John K. Gotwals, Janice Causgrove Dunn Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, E-424 Van Vliet Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H9 Received 31 March 2004; received in revised form 20 June 2004; accepted 1 September 2004 Available online 23 December 2004
Abstract There is currently disagreement among perfectionism theorists as to whether the personality trait of perfectionism should be conceptualized and measured as a global personality construct or as a domain-specific construct. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if perfectionism levels varied as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies were considered. A total of 133 male (M age = 21.59 years, SD = 2.32) and 108 female (M age = 21.44 years, SD = 2.68) intercollegiate student-athletes participated in the study. Respondents completed three self-report instruments designed to measure global perfectionist tendencies, and perfectionist tendencies in the achievement domains of sport and academe. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance revealed that perfectionism levels varied significantly for both males and females as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies were examined. Moreover, male participants tended to have higher perfectionist tendencies than female participants in the sport domain. The results suggest that individual differences in perfectionism can be attributed to the situational context of the achievement domains that respondents are asked to consider when judging their perfectionist tendencies. A move towards the domain specific assessment of perfectionism is advocated. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
q This study was funded by a standard research grant awarded to the first author by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), grant #410-2003-1802. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 492 2831; fax: +1 780 492 2364. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.G.H. Dunn).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.009
1440
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
Keywords: Multidimensional perfectionism; Domain specificity; Sport; Academe; Gender
1. Introduction Perfectionism and its constituent components have been associated with numerous adaptive and maladaptive correlates in a variety of performance settings including (a) positive and negative affect in academic test situations (Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003), (b) excellence (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002) and burnout (Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996) in sport, (c) anxiety in performing arts (Mor, Day, Flett, & Hewitt, 1995), (d) stress in the workplace (Flett, Hewitt, & Hallett, 1995), and (e) lowered sexual satisfaction in intimate relationships (Habke, Hewitt, & Flett, 1999). Certain aspects of perfectionism have also been linked to a host of other psychosocial difficulties and psychopathological symptoms ranging from loneliness and low self-esteem to depression and suicidal tendencies (see Enns & Cox, 2002, for a review). Clearly, there is a need to understand the cognitive, affective, and behavioral implications of perfectionist orientations in performance settings (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Perfectionism has been generally conceptualized as an enduring stable personality trait (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Although no single definition of perfectionism has been agreed upon by perfectionism researchers (Flett & Hewitt, 2002), a fundamental characteristic of perfectionism that is universally recognized by theorists is the tendency to set extremely high standards of personal performance (e.g., Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978; Pacht, 1984). Prominent perfectionism theorists (e.g., Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) view perfectionism as a multidimensional construct that is comprised of both intrapersonal and interpersonal components (Blatt, 1995). Intrapersonal perfectionism reflects the extent to which people make stringent selfreferenced judgments about the attainment of their own high personal performance or behavioral standards. Interpersonal perfectionism reflects the extent to which people feel that they (a) experience pressure to reach other peopleÕs high standards, (b) are judged harshly by others with respect to the achievement of high personal behavioral or performance standards, and/or (c) judge others with respect to the high behavioral or performance standards that they expect others to meet. The two most widely used measures of multidimensional perfectionism (Enns & Cox, 2002) are the similarly named Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales (MPS) that were developed independently by Frost et al. (1990, Frost-MPS) and Hewitt and Flett (1991, Hewitt-MPS). Both instruments conceptualize and assess perfectionism as a global or general personality trait. However, very little empirical research has been conducted to determine if perfectionism should indeed be conceptualized as a global personality trait that generalizes across situational contexts, or whether it should be conceptualized (and measured) as a domain-specific construct (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002). This seems to be a particularly important issue to resolve because some perfectionism theorists (e.g., Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, & McGee, 2003) view perfectionism as a trait that generalizes across life domains, whereas other perfectionism theorists (e.g., Missildine, 1963; Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002, 2003) argue that perfectionism may only apply in select areas of peopleÕs lives. Moreover, research into other trait constructs (e.g., trait anxiety) has shown that domain-specific measures are gen-
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1441
erally more effective at predicting behavior within their respective domains (e.g., test anxiety, public speaking anxiety, competitive anxiety) than global measures (see Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). Results of several studies shed some light on the generalizability issue surrounding perfectionism. Saboonchi and Lundh (1999) measured perfectionist thinking among 88 Swedish undergraduates in a problem-solving context (memory and card-sorting tasks) and an interpersonal context (meeting a stranger). Bivariate correlations on the five variables that were used to measure perfectionist thinking ranged from .14 to .30, suggesting that the cross-situational stability of perfectionism was relatively weak. Mitchelson and Burns (1998) examined perfectionist orientations among a sample of 67 career mothers—defined as married mothers who worked at least 25 h/week and who put their children in daycare while at work. Mitchelson and Burns gave participants two modified versions of the Hewitt-MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The two versions were modified to make respondents consider their perfectionist tendencies in the context of their home life and their work life. Results showed that, on average, career mothers reported significantly higher perfectionist tendencies at work than at home across all three subscales of the instrument. Further evidence supporting the domain specificity of perfectionism was reported in a qualitative study by Slaney and Ashby (1996) who interviewed 32 self-professed perfectionists and five additional people who had been designated by others as perfectionists. Participants were 16 men and 21 women (M age = 28.37 years), the majority of whom were university students and faculty members. Participants were asked if they considered themselves to be perfectionists. Of the 37 respondents, almost one third (i.e., 7 men and 5 women) qualified their affirmative responses by stating that their perfectionist tendencies only ‘‘applied to specific areas of their lives but not all areas’’ (Slaney & Ashby, 1996, p. 395). These types of conditional hedges are not uncommon in personality research (see Wright & Mischel, 1988), and underscore WeinerÕs (1990) position that the difficulty of measuring and understanding motivational trait concepts (such as perfectionism) ‘‘is the lack of cross-situational generality’’ (p. 621). Thus, the importance of considering the situational conditions within which perfectionist tendencies may or may not operate is reinforced. To this end, numerous perfectionism researchers (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Saboonchi & Lundh, 1999; Slaney et al., 2002) have called for more empirical studies to determine if there is value in conceptualizing and measuring perfectionism as a domain-specific construct as opposed to a more global construct. The purpose of the present study was to determine if multidimensional perfectionism levels vary as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies are considered. More specifically, we examined intercollegiate student-athletesÕ levels of global perfectionism (using the Hewitt-MPS) and their corresponding levels of perfectionism in two specific achievement domains: namely, sport and academe. These two achievement domains were selected because numerous researchers have either examined, or spoken to the usefulness of examining, the cross-situational consistency of motivational constructs in competitive sport and classroom/ academic settings (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Eccles & Harold, 1991; Weiner, 1990). Given the previously mentioned conflicting views among perfectionism theorists about the crosssituational consistency of perfectionist tendencies, the present study was considered to be exploratory in nature. Consequently, no directional hypotheses were proposed.
1442
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of 133 male (M age = 21.59 years, SD = 2.32) and 108 female (M age = 21.44 years, SD = 2.68) intercollegiate (varsity) athletes from a Canadian university participated in the study. Athletes were drawn from the team sports of basketball (12 female, 13 male), Canadian football (67 male), field hockey (12 female), ice hockey (24 female, 21 male), rugby (27 female), soccer (17 female, 18 male), and volleyball (16 female, 14 male). All participants were studying at the undergraduate level with the exception of six individuals who were studying for graduate degrees. At the time of testing, all but two of the participating teams were ranked in the national top 10 of the Canadian Interuniversity Sport ranking system. Expectations at the university for competitive success were high, with 9 of the 11 teams having won at least one national championship in the preceding five years. 2.2. Measures In addition to a demographic questionnaire, athletes completed three versions of Hewitt and FlettÕs (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt-MPS). The Hewitt-MPS is a widely used measure of global perfectionism. The instrument contains 45 items that are equally distributed among three subscales: Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP), and Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP). Self-oriented perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals set and expect the achievement of extremely high personal standards. Socially prescribed perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals believe that other people in the social environment (and especially significant others) set ‘‘unrealistically high standards for them, evaluate them stringently, and exert pressure on them to be perfect’’ (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, p. 457). Other-oriented perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals expect or set high achievement standards for other people in the social or performance environment. On a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) respondents indicate the extent to which items reflect their ‘‘personal characteristics and traits’’. Higher composite subscale scores are indicative of higher levels of perfectionism. The extant literature on perfectionism has reported acceptable levels of internal consistency (i.e., a > .70) for all subscales (e.g., Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and theoretically meaningful relationships between Hewitt-MPS subscales and other measures of perfectionism (e.g., Cox et al., 2002; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Enns and Cox (2002) recently concluded that the subscales of the Hewitt-MPS have excellent psychometric properties and demonstrate good convergent and discriminant validity. Using similar protocols to those adopted by Mitchelson and Burns (1998), two additional versions of the Hewitt-MPS were constructed. One version of the scale (henceforth labeled, the SportMPS) was modified to measure respondentsÕ levels of perfectionism in the domain of sport. The other version of the scale (henceforth labeled, the School-MPS) was modified to measure respondentsÕ levels of perfectionism in school. Initial instructions in the Sport-MPS directed respondents to consider their perfectionist orientations towards ‘‘their involvement in sport’’ whereas the School-MPS directed respondents to consider their perfectionist orientations towards ‘‘their involvement in academic studies at school’’.
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1443
2.3. Procedure Head coaches of each team were contacted to obtain permission to approach their athletes. AthletesÕ participation was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained from each individual prior to data collection. Instruments were administered to athletes in classroom settings at least 48 h prior to competition (M = 4.31 days, SD = 1.30) during the latter halves of their respective competitive seasons, and no more than 14 days prior to scheduled midterm exam weeks (M = 5.44 days, SD = 1.64). Results of a dependent t-test revealed no significant difference between the proximity of competition and the proximity of midterm exam week across the 11 teams, t(10) = .664, p = .52. No members of the teamsÕ coaching staffs were present in the classrooms when inventories were completed. Each respondent was provided with a $5 gift certificate to a local restaurant as a token of appreciation for participating in the study.
3. Results Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates (a) for all subscales categorized by gender. All subscales had acceptable levels of internal consistency (as P .75). 3.1. Test of gender differences It was our original intention to combine the data from the male and female athletes into a single sample. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine if gender differences existed across the nine subscales of the three perfectionism measures (i.e., Hewitt-MPS, Sport-MPS, and
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies (a) for perfectionism subscales Subscale SOP.Sport SOP.Hewitt SOP.School OOP.Sport OOP.Hewitt OOP.School SPP.Sport SPP.Hewitt SPP.School
Males (n = 133)
Females (n = 108)
Combined gender (N = 241)
M
(SD)
a
M
(SD)
a
M
(SD)
a
85.00a 75.84 68.37 72.82b 64.07 58.11 60.49 54.75 54.74
(11.94) (13.00) (17.14) (10.38) (9.24) (11.84) (12.06) (10.13) (10.87)
.89 .89 .93 .78 .75 .83 .83 .80 .82
79.28a 74.40 72.54 67.87b 62.78 57.83 57.67 53.26 53.83
(12.30) (14.51) (17.56) (10.68) (9.85) (11.44) (11.16) (10.61) (10.39)
.88 .91 .94 .82 .80 .83 .83 .83 .79
82.44 75.20 70.24 70.60 63.49 57.99 59.23 54.08 54.33
(12.41) (13.69) (17.42) (10.78) (9.52) (11.64) (11.73) (10.35) (10.65)
.87 .90 .94 .81 .77 .83 .84 .81 .81
Note: Means with the same subscript differ significantly at p < .001. Subscale abbreviations: SOP.Sport = self-oriented perfectionism in sport; SOP.Hewitt = global self-oriented perfectionism; SOP.School = self-oriented perfectionism in school; OOP.Sport = other-oriented perfectionism in sport; OOP.Hewitt = global other-oriented perfectionism; OOP.School = other-oriented perfectionism in school; SPP.Sport = socially prescribed perfectionism in sport; SPP.Hewitt = global socially prescribed perfectionism; SPP.School = socially prescribed perfectionism in school.
1444
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
School-MPS). A significant multivariate test statistic was obtained, WilksÕ K = .882, F(9, 231) = 3.44, p < .005, g2 = .12. Follow-up univariate F-tests revealed significant gender differences on two of the nine subscales: SOP.Sport [F(1, 239) = 13.33, p < .001, g2 = .05], and OOP.Sport [F(1, 239) = 13.23, p < .001, g2 = .05]. Consequently, we elected to analyze the data provided by males and females separately for the remaining analyses. 3.2. Examining domain specificity differences To determine if student-athletesÕ perfectionist tendencies differed as a function of achievement context, separate repeated measures MANOVAs were conducted on the male and female data sets. The three general dimensions of perfectionism that were examined in this study (i.e., SOP, OOP, and SPP) were entered as the within-subjects independent variables (IV). For each IV, repeated measures were taken across the three perfectionism domains: namely, global perfectionism (Hewitt-MPS), sport perfectionism (Sport-MPS), and school perfectionism (School-MPS). Significant within-subjects multivariate test statistics were obtained for both males [WilksÕ K = .361, F(6, 127) = 37.47, p < .001, g2 = .64] and females [WilksÕ K = .435, F(6, 102) = 22.11, p < .001, g2 = .57]. Follow-up univariate F-tests (computed with Huynh–Feldt epsilon sphericity corrections) for males were significant across all three IVs: SOP [F(1.47, 193.89) = 89.87, p < .001, g2 = .41], OOP [F(1.44, 190.27) = 121.57, p < .001, g2 = .48], and SPP [F(1.67, 220.25) = 38.51, p < .001, g2 = .23]. Similarly, all follow-up univariate F-tests for females were significant across the three IVs: SOP [F(1.38, 147.60) = 17.34, p < .001, g2 = .14], OOP [F(1.89, 202.51) = 60.43, p < .001, g2 = .36], and SPP [F(1.78, 190.14) = 23.96, p < .001, g2 = .18]. Mean contrasts using dependent t-tests (with Bonferroni corrections) were computed for all IVs following the significant univariate F-tests. The results of these contrasts are shown in Table 2. Across all three dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., SOP, OOP, and SPP), males and females had significantly higher mean subscale scores on the Sport-MPS in comparison to both the HewittMPS and the School-MPS. Moreover, nine of the 12 effect sizes (i.e., ES for dependent samples: Cohen, 1977, p. 48) that corresponded with these mean differences for both males and females were moderate (i.e., ES > .50) or large (i.e., ES > .80) in size, suggesting that these differences were meaningful. Males had significantly higher Hewitt-MPS subscale means for SOP and OOP in comparison to these same dimensions in the School-MPS, and females had higher OOP mean scores on the Hewitt-MPS in comparison to the School-MPS (see Table 2). Collectively, these mean differences illustrate that self-reported levels of perfectionism (in the current samples of male and female student-athletes) appear to be influenced by the situational context within which perfectionist orientations are considered.
4. Discussion The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the cross-situational consistency of multidimensional perfectionism levels. In other words, this study attempted to determine if individualsÕ levels of multidimensional perfectionism remained at similar levels across situational contexts. Results clearly illustrated that, on average, the current sample of university student-athletesÕ perfectionism levels fluctuated as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1445
Table 2 Mean comparisons (dependent t-tests) between perfectionism subscales Mean subscale comparisons
Males M1
Females M2
t
a
ES
M1
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) SOP.Sport–SOP.Hewitt 9.16 SOP.Sport–SOP.School 16.63 SOP.Hewitt–SOP.School 7.47
10.10* 10.67* 6.36*
.88 .91 .54
4.88 6.73 1.86
Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) OOP.Sport–OOP.Hewitt 8.75 OOP.Sport–OOP.School 14.71 OOP.Hewitt–OOP.School 5.96
11.74* 12.16* 7.22*
1.02 1.05 .63
5.09 10.04 4.95
.73 .55 .00
4.40 3.84 .56
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) SPP.Sport–SPP.Hewitt 5.74 SPP.Sport–SPP.School 5.75 SPP.Hewitt–SPP.School .01
8.45* 6.30* .01n.s.
M2
tb
ES
4.98* 4.40* 1.98n.s.
.48 .42 .19
5.93* 9.75* 5.90*
.57 .94 .57
6.88* 4.73* .93n.s.
.66 .46 .09
Note: The statistical significance of each t-value has been adjusted with a Bonferroni correction. Effect size (ES) values represent CohenÕs (1977) effect size index for dependent means. Each subscale suffix following the period (i.e., Sport, Hewitt, and School) identifies the achievement domain of the respective inventories, with the Hewitt suffix representing global perfectionism. * p < .001. a df = 132. b df = 107.
orientations were considered (see Table 2). These results are in accordance with previous research conducted by Mitchelson and Burns (1998) who reported that career-mothersÕ levels of perfectionism varied significantly as a function of the situational context within which their perfectionist orientations were considered. The present results extend the findings of Mitchelson and Burns (1998) because this study utilized a global measure of perfectionism—the Hewitt-MPS—whereas Mitchelson and Burns only employed domain-specific measures of perfectionism. The fact that the present study found significant differences between domain-specific perfectionism and global perfectionism (as measured by the Hewitt-MPS) for both male and female student-athletes (see Table 2) further reinforces the need to consider the situationally-specific measurement of perfectionism in the research context. Overall, the current findings support the views of numerous perfectionism theorists and researchers (e.g., Missildine, 1963; Rhe´aume, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1995; Shafran et al., 2002, Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2003) who have advocated the importance of examining perfectionism at the domain-specific level. A worthwhile avenue for future research would be to determine whether domain-specific measures of perfectionism have greater power in comparison to global measures of perfectionism with respect to predicting individualsÕ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses in different situational contexts. As previously mentioned, this domain-specific approach has been adopted in the area of trait anxiety research where domain-specific instruments have been developed to measure test anxiety, public speaking anxiety, and competitive sport anxiety (see Smith et al., 1990). Already a move towards the domain-specific examination
1446
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
of perfectionism in sport is being seen in the sport psychology literature (e.g., Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002). Without additional information, it is not possible to determine why the present sample of student-athletes had (on average) higher perfectionist tendencies in sport than in school. Given the tradition of excellence and the high expectancy for sporting success among the athletes at the university where these individuals were enrolled, it is possible that they perceived a greater likelihood of success (and had higher levels of perceived competence) in sport than in the classroom. Under such conditions, it follows that these individuals would be more likely to set higher standards (and have higher interpersonal perfectionist tendencies) in the performance domain in which higher levels of achievement were expected (see Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). Future research is required to determine if perceived competence and expectations for success are factors that influence the development of sport perfectionism in student-athletes. Although not a primary purpose of this study, gender differences across perfectionist tendencies were examined. Results revealed that male and female student-athletes did not differ significantly on their scores across the three subscales of the global Hewitt-MPS. Numerous studies with college students have also found no gender differences across global perfectionism dimensions when measured by either the Hewitt-MPS (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Pickering, 1998; Flett, Hewitt, Endler, & Tassone, 1995) or Frost et al.Õs (1990) MPS (e.g., Kawamura, Hunt, Frost, & DiBartolo, 2001; Parker & Adkins, 1995). Hewitt and Flett (1991) did find a gender difference on the OOP subscale of the Hewitt-MPS with college students, but did not find gender differences on the SOP and SPP dimensions. Collectively, these results suggest that male and female college students differ little in terms of their perfectionist tendencies when assessed and conceptualized at a global level. No gender differences in school perfectionism were observed, however, gender differences were obtained for two of the three Sport-MPS subscales: namely, SOP.Sport and OOP.Sport. In both instances, males had significantly higher perfectionist tendencies than females. Based on evidence from the literature, we tentatively suggest that these gender differences in sport perfectionism may be related to the higher value and importance that males tend to place on sport achievement (and sport competence) in comparison to females. For example, in a recent study of 235 high-school student-athletes (M age = 15.72 years), Ryska (2003) reported that males tended to base their self-worth more exclusively upon success and performance in sport than females (p < .01). In two studies with elementary school children, Eccles and Harold (1991) found that boys rated themselves as having higher ability in sport than girls, and also that boys rated sport as more important than girls. Other achievement motivation research in sport with college students has found that males typically score higher on competitiveness and the desire to win than females (see Gill, 2002, for a review). Thus, the extant literature indicates that males tend to place greater value and importance upon achievement, success, and competence in sport than females across a wide variety of age groups. If these gender effects are robust and were indeed present among the current sample, male student-athletes may have developed higher perfectionist orientations in sport than their female counterparts because the attainment of higher performance standards (as opposed to lower performance standards) in a highly valued domain should theoretically lead to the greatest increases in self-worth (see Fox, 2002). Irrespective of why the current gender differences occurred, the fact that gender differences were only present among sport perfectionism dimensions reinforces the importance of conceptualizing
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1447
and measuring perfectionism as a domain specific construct. Clearly, gender differences in sport perfectionism need to be examined in future research with different samples of athletes to rule out the possibility that the current findings were either sample specific or an artifact of chance. If the current findings were to be replicated, we would recommend that researchers focus on the potential influence that gender may have upon the development of perfectionism in sport. In conclusion, the present findings suggest that researchers should consider the domain-specific nature of perfectionism in future research. As Weiner (1990) so eloquently argued, ‘‘if an individual has high achievement strivings in sports (e.g., sport perfectionism) but not academics, and this individual is classified as high in achievement needs, then predictions will be upheld in one situation but disconfirmed in the other’’ (p. 621). Thus, motivational constructs (such as perfectionism) should be considered within the context of the social values and the goals that reside within the environment under investigation (Weiner).
References Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of perfectionism in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 255–271. Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: the behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178. Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020. Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionistÕs script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14, 34–52. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological Assessment, 14, 365–373. Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299. Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. C., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002). Relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 376–395. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: applying EcclesÕ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35. Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: a critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: an overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Pickering, D. (1998). Perfectionism in relation to attributions for success or failure. Current Psychology: Developmental Learning Personality Social, 17, 249–262. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Endler, N. S., & Tassone, C. (1995). Perfectionism and components of state and trait anxiety. Current Psychology: Developmental Learning Personality Social, 13, 326–350. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Hallett, C. J. (1995). Perfectionism and job stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 32–42. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: a developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fox, K. R. (2002). Self-perceptions and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 83–99). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
1448
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. Gill, D. L. (2002). Gender and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 355–375). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322–340. Habke, A. M., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1999). Perfectionism and sexual satisfaction in intimate relationships. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 307–322. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. B., & McGee, B. (2003). Perfectionism is multidimensional: a reply to Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1221–1236. Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S. L., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, M. (2001). Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression: are the relationships independent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 291–301. Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the past. New York: Simon and Schuster. Mitchelson, J. K., & Burns, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477–485. Mor, S., Day, H. I., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (1995). Perfectionism, control, and components of performance anxiety in professional artists. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 207–225. Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390. Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). A psychometric examination of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 323–334. Rhe´aume, J., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1995). Functional and dysfunctional perfectionism: construct validity of a new instrument. Paper presented at the meeting of the World Congress of Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 1995. Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238–250. Ryska, T. A. (2003). Sport involvement and perceived scholastic competence in student-athletes: a multivariate analysis. International Sports Journal, 7, 155–171. Saboonchi, F., & Lundh, L. G. (1999). State perfectionism and its relation to trait perfectionism, type of situation, priming, and being observed. Scandinavian Journal of Behavior Therapy, 28(4), 154–166. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: a cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2003). ‘‘Clinical perfectionism’’ is not ‘‘multidimensional perfectionism’’: a reply to Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, & McGee. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: study of a criterion group. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 393–398. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring perfectionism: the almost perfect scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: the Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263–280. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616–622. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1988). Conditional hedges and the intuitive psychology of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 454–469.
An examination of the domain specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes q John G.H. Dunn *, John K. Gotwals, Janice Causgrove Dunn Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, E-424 Van Vliet Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H9 Received 31 March 2004; received in revised form 20 June 2004; accepted 1 September 2004 Available online 23 December 2004
Abstract There is currently disagreement among perfectionism theorists as to whether the personality trait of perfectionism should be conceptualized and measured as a global personality construct or as a domain-specific construct. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if perfectionism levels varied as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies were considered. A total of 133 male (M age = 21.59 years, SD = 2.32) and 108 female (M age = 21.44 years, SD = 2.68) intercollegiate student-athletes participated in the study. Respondents completed three self-report instruments designed to measure global perfectionist tendencies, and perfectionist tendencies in the achievement domains of sport and academe. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance revealed that perfectionism levels varied significantly for both males and females as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies were examined. Moreover, male participants tended to have higher perfectionist tendencies than female participants in the sport domain. The results suggest that individual differences in perfectionism can be attributed to the situational context of the achievement domains that respondents are asked to consider when judging their perfectionist tendencies. A move towards the domain specific assessment of perfectionism is advocated. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
q This study was funded by a standard research grant awarded to the first author by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), grant #410-2003-1802. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 492 2831; fax: +1 780 492 2364. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.G.H. Dunn).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.009
1440
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
Keywords: Multidimensional perfectionism; Domain specificity; Sport; Academe; Gender
1. Introduction Perfectionism and its constituent components have been associated with numerous adaptive and maladaptive correlates in a variety of performance settings including (a) positive and negative affect in academic test situations (Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003), (b) excellence (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002) and burnout (Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996) in sport, (c) anxiety in performing arts (Mor, Day, Flett, & Hewitt, 1995), (d) stress in the workplace (Flett, Hewitt, & Hallett, 1995), and (e) lowered sexual satisfaction in intimate relationships (Habke, Hewitt, & Flett, 1999). Certain aspects of perfectionism have also been linked to a host of other psychosocial difficulties and psychopathological symptoms ranging from loneliness and low self-esteem to depression and suicidal tendencies (see Enns & Cox, 2002, for a review). Clearly, there is a need to understand the cognitive, affective, and behavioral implications of perfectionist orientations in performance settings (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Perfectionism has been generally conceptualized as an enduring stable personality trait (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Although no single definition of perfectionism has been agreed upon by perfectionism researchers (Flett & Hewitt, 2002), a fundamental characteristic of perfectionism that is universally recognized by theorists is the tendency to set extremely high standards of personal performance (e.g., Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978; Pacht, 1984). Prominent perfectionism theorists (e.g., Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) view perfectionism as a multidimensional construct that is comprised of both intrapersonal and interpersonal components (Blatt, 1995). Intrapersonal perfectionism reflects the extent to which people make stringent selfreferenced judgments about the attainment of their own high personal performance or behavioral standards. Interpersonal perfectionism reflects the extent to which people feel that they (a) experience pressure to reach other peopleÕs high standards, (b) are judged harshly by others with respect to the achievement of high personal behavioral or performance standards, and/or (c) judge others with respect to the high behavioral or performance standards that they expect others to meet. The two most widely used measures of multidimensional perfectionism (Enns & Cox, 2002) are the similarly named Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales (MPS) that were developed independently by Frost et al. (1990, Frost-MPS) and Hewitt and Flett (1991, Hewitt-MPS). Both instruments conceptualize and assess perfectionism as a global or general personality trait. However, very little empirical research has been conducted to determine if perfectionism should indeed be conceptualized as a global personality trait that generalizes across situational contexts, or whether it should be conceptualized (and measured) as a domain-specific construct (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002). This seems to be a particularly important issue to resolve because some perfectionism theorists (e.g., Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, & McGee, 2003) view perfectionism as a trait that generalizes across life domains, whereas other perfectionism theorists (e.g., Missildine, 1963; Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002, 2003) argue that perfectionism may only apply in select areas of peopleÕs lives. Moreover, research into other trait constructs (e.g., trait anxiety) has shown that domain-specific measures are gen-
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1441
erally more effective at predicting behavior within their respective domains (e.g., test anxiety, public speaking anxiety, competitive anxiety) than global measures (see Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). Results of several studies shed some light on the generalizability issue surrounding perfectionism. Saboonchi and Lundh (1999) measured perfectionist thinking among 88 Swedish undergraduates in a problem-solving context (memory and card-sorting tasks) and an interpersonal context (meeting a stranger). Bivariate correlations on the five variables that were used to measure perfectionist thinking ranged from .14 to .30, suggesting that the cross-situational stability of perfectionism was relatively weak. Mitchelson and Burns (1998) examined perfectionist orientations among a sample of 67 career mothers—defined as married mothers who worked at least 25 h/week and who put their children in daycare while at work. Mitchelson and Burns gave participants two modified versions of the Hewitt-MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The two versions were modified to make respondents consider their perfectionist tendencies in the context of their home life and their work life. Results showed that, on average, career mothers reported significantly higher perfectionist tendencies at work than at home across all three subscales of the instrument. Further evidence supporting the domain specificity of perfectionism was reported in a qualitative study by Slaney and Ashby (1996) who interviewed 32 self-professed perfectionists and five additional people who had been designated by others as perfectionists. Participants were 16 men and 21 women (M age = 28.37 years), the majority of whom were university students and faculty members. Participants were asked if they considered themselves to be perfectionists. Of the 37 respondents, almost one third (i.e., 7 men and 5 women) qualified their affirmative responses by stating that their perfectionist tendencies only ‘‘applied to specific areas of their lives but not all areas’’ (Slaney & Ashby, 1996, p. 395). These types of conditional hedges are not uncommon in personality research (see Wright & Mischel, 1988), and underscore WeinerÕs (1990) position that the difficulty of measuring and understanding motivational trait concepts (such as perfectionism) ‘‘is the lack of cross-situational generality’’ (p. 621). Thus, the importance of considering the situational conditions within which perfectionist tendencies may or may not operate is reinforced. To this end, numerous perfectionism researchers (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Saboonchi & Lundh, 1999; Slaney et al., 2002) have called for more empirical studies to determine if there is value in conceptualizing and measuring perfectionism as a domain-specific construct as opposed to a more global construct. The purpose of the present study was to determine if multidimensional perfectionism levels vary as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist tendencies are considered. More specifically, we examined intercollegiate student-athletesÕ levels of global perfectionism (using the Hewitt-MPS) and their corresponding levels of perfectionism in two specific achievement domains: namely, sport and academe. These two achievement domains were selected because numerous researchers have either examined, or spoken to the usefulness of examining, the cross-situational consistency of motivational constructs in competitive sport and classroom/ academic settings (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Eccles & Harold, 1991; Weiner, 1990). Given the previously mentioned conflicting views among perfectionism theorists about the crosssituational consistency of perfectionist tendencies, the present study was considered to be exploratory in nature. Consequently, no directional hypotheses were proposed.
1442
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of 133 male (M age = 21.59 years, SD = 2.32) and 108 female (M age = 21.44 years, SD = 2.68) intercollegiate (varsity) athletes from a Canadian university participated in the study. Athletes were drawn from the team sports of basketball (12 female, 13 male), Canadian football (67 male), field hockey (12 female), ice hockey (24 female, 21 male), rugby (27 female), soccer (17 female, 18 male), and volleyball (16 female, 14 male). All participants were studying at the undergraduate level with the exception of six individuals who were studying for graduate degrees. At the time of testing, all but two of the participating teams were ranked in the national top 10 of the Canadian Interuniversity Sport ranking system. Expectations at the university for competitive success were high, with 9 of the 11 teams having won at least one national championship in the preceding five years. 2.2. Measures In addition to a demographic questionnaire, athletes completed three versions of Hewitt and FlettÕs (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt-MPS). The Hewitt-MPS is a widely used measure of global perfectionism. The instrument contains 45 items that are equally distributed among three subscales: Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP), and Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP). Self-oriented perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals set and expect the achievement of extremely high personal standards. Socially prescribed perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals believe that other people in the social environment (and especially significant others) set ‘‘unrealistically high standards for them, evaluate them stringently, and exert pressure on them to be perfect’’ (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, p. 457). Other-oriented perfectionism reflects the degree to which individuals expect or set high achievement standards for other people in the social or performance environment. On a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) respondents indicate the extent to which items reflect their ‘‘personal characteristics and traits’’. Higher composite subscale scores are indicative of higher levels of perfectionism. The extant literature on perfectionism has reported acceptable levels of internal consistency (i.e., a > .70) for all subscales (e.g., Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and theoretically meaningful relationships between Hewitt-MPS subscales and other measures of perfectionism (e.g., Cox et al., 2002; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Enns and Cox (2002) recently concluded that the subscales of the Hewitt-MPS have excellent psychometric properties and demonstrate good convergent and discriminant validity. Using similar protocols to those adopted by Mitchelson and Burns (1998), two additional versions of the Hewitt-MPS were constructed. One version of the scale (henceforth labeled, the SportMPS) was modified to measure respondentsÕ levels of perfectionism in the domain of sport. The other version of the scale (henceforth labeled, the School-MPS) was modified to measure respondentsÕ levels of perfectionism in school. Initial instructions in the Sport-MPS directed respondents to consider their perfectionist orientations towards ‘‘their involvement in sport’’ whereas the School-MPS directed respondents to consider their perfectionist orientations towards ‘‘their involvement in academic studies at school’’.
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1443
2.3. Procedure Head coaches of each team were contacted to obtain permission to approach their athletes. AthletesÕ participation was voluntary and written informed consent was obtained from each individual prior to data collection. Instruments were administered to athletes in classroom settings at least 48 h prior to competition (M = 4.31 days, SD = 1.30) during the latter halves of their respective competitive seasons, and no more than 14 days prior to scheduled midterm exam weeks (M = 5.44 days, SD = 1.64). Results of a dependent t-test revealed no significant difference between the proximity of competition and the proximity of midterm exam week across the 11 teams, t(10) = .664, p = .52. No members of the teamsÕ coaching staffs were present in the classrooms when inventories were completed. Each respondent was provided with a $5 gift certificate to a local restaurant as a token of appreciation for participating in the study.
3. Results Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates (a) for all subscales categorized by gender. All subscales had acceptable levels of internal consistency (as P .75). 3.1. Test of gender differences It was our original intention to combine the data from the male and female athletes into a single sample. A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine if gender differences existed across the nine subscales of the three perfectionism measures (i.e., Hewitt-MPS, Sport-MPS, and
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies (a) for perfectionism subscales Subscale SOP.Sport SOP.Hewitt SOP.School OOP.Sport OOP.Hewitt OOP.School SPP.Sport SPP.Hewitt SPP.School
Males (n = 133)
Females (n = 108)
Combined gender (N = 241)
M
(SD)
a
M
(SD)
a
M
(SD)
a
85.00a 75.84 68.37 72.82b 64.07 58.11 60.49 54.75 54.74
(11.94) (13.00) (17.14) (10.38) (9.24) (11.84) (12.06) (10.13) (10.87)
.89 .89 .93 .78 .75 .83 .83 .80 .82
79.28a 74.40 72.54 67.87b 62.78 57.83 57.67 53.26 53.83
(12.30) (14.51) (17.56) (10.68) (9.85) (11.44) (11.16) (10.61) (10.39)
.88 .91 .94 .82 .80 .83 .83 .83 .79
82.44 75.20 70.24 70.60 63.49 57.99 59.23 54.08 54.33
(12.41) (13.69) (17.42) (10.78) (9.52) (11.64) (11.73) (10.35) (10.65)
.87 .90 .94 .81 .77 .83 .84 .81 .81
Note: Means with the same subscript differ significantly at p < .001. Subscale abbreviations: SOP.Sport = self-oriented perfectionism in sport; SOP.Hewitt = global self-oriented perfectionism; SOP.School = self-oriented perfectionism in school; OOP.Sport = other-oriented perfectionism in sport; OOP.Hewitt = global other-oriented perfectionism; OOP.School = other-oriented perfectionism in school; SPP.Sport = socially prescribed perfectionism in sport; SPP.Hewitt = global socially prescribed perfectionism; SPP.School = socially prescribed perfectionism in school.
1444
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
School-MPS). A significant multivariate test statistic was obtained, WilksÕ K = .882, F(9, 231) = 3.44, p < .005, g2 = .12. Follow-up univariate F-tests revealed significant gender differences on two of the nine subscales: SOP.Sport [F(1, 239) = 13.33, p < .001, g2 = .05], and OOP.Sport [F(1, 239) = 13.23, p < .001, g2 = .05]. Consequently, we elected to analyze the data provided by males and females separately for the remaining analyses. 3.2. Examining domain specificity differences To determine if student-athletesÕ perfectionist tendencies differed as a function of achievement context, separate repeated measures MANOVAs were conducted on the male and female data sets. The three general dimensions of perfectionism that were examined in this study (i.e., SOP, OOP, and SPP) were entered as the within-subjects independent variables (IV). For each IV, repeated measures were taken across the three perfectionism domains: namely, global perfectionism (Hewitt-MPS), sport perfectionism (Sport-MPS), and school perfectionism (School-MPS). Significant within-subjects multivariate test statistics were obtained for both males [WilksÕ K = .361, F(6, 127) = 37.47, p < .001, g2 = .64] and females [WilksÕ K = .435, F(6, 102) = 22.11, p < .001, g2 = .57]. Follow-up univariate F-tests (computed with Huynh–Feldt epsilon sphericity corrections) for males were significant across all three IVs: SOP [F(1.47, 193.89) = 89.87, p < .001, g2 = .41], OOP [F(1.44, 190.27) = 121.57, p < .001, g2 = .48], and SPP [F(1.67, 220.25) = 38.51, p < .001, g2 = .23]. Similarly, all follow-up univariate F-tests for females were significant across the three IVs: SOP [F(1.38, 147.60) = 17.34, p < .001, g2 = .14], OOP [F(1.89, 202.51) = 60.43, p < .001, g2 = .36], and SPP [F(1.78, 190.14) = 23.96, p < .001, g2 = .18]. Mean contrasts using dependent t-tests (with Bonferroni corrections) were computed for all IVs following the significant univariate F-tests. The results of these contrasts are shown in Table 2. Across all three dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., SOP, OOP, and SPP), males and females had significantly higher mean subscale scores on the Sport-MPS in comparison to both the HewittMPS and the School-MPS. Moreover, nine of the 12 effect sizes (i.e., ES for dependent samples: Cohen, 1977, p. 48) that corresponded with these mean differences for both males and females were moderate (i.e., ES > .50) or large (i.e., ES > .80) in size, suggesting that these differences were meaningful. Males had significantly higher Hewitt-MPS subscale means for SOP and OOP in comparison to these same dimensions in the School-MPS, and females had higher OOP mean scores on the Hewitt-MPS in comparison to the School-MPS (see Table 2). Collectively, these mean differences illustrate that self-reported levels of perfectionism (in the current samples of male and female student-athletes) appear to be influenced by the situational context within which perfectionist orientations are considered.
4. Discussion The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the cross-situational consistency of multidimensional perfectionism levels. In other words, this study attempted to determine if individualsÕ levels of multidimensional perfectionism remained at similar levels across situational contexts. Results clearly illustrated that, on average, the current sample of university student-athletesÕ perfectionism levels fluctuated as a function of the situational context within which perfectionist
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1445
Table 2 Mean comparisons (dependent t-tests) between perfectionism subscales Mean subscale comparisons
Males M1
Females M2
t
a
ES
M1
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) SOP.Sport–SOP.Hewitt 9.16 SOP.Sport–SOP.School 16.63 SOP.Hewitt–SOP.School 7.47
10.10* 10.67* 6.36*
.88 .91 .54
4.88 6.73 1.86
Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) OOP.Sport–OOP.Hewitt 8.75 OOP.Sport–OOP.School 14.71 OOP.Hewitt–OOP.School 5.96
11.74* 12.16* 7.22*
1.02 1.05 .63
5.09 10.04 4.95
.73 .55 .00
4.40 3.84 .56
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) SPP.Sport–SPP.Hewitt 5.74 SPP.Sport–SPP.School 5.75 SPP.Hewitt–SPP.School .01
8.45* 6.30* .01n.s.
M2
tb
ES
4.98* 4.40* 1.98n.s.
.48 .42 .19
5.93* 9.75* 5.90*
.57 .94 .57
6.88* 4.73* .93n.s.
.66 .46 .09
Note: The statistical significance of each t-value has been adjusted with a Bonferroni correction. Effect size (ES) values represent CohenÕs (1977) effect size index for dependent means. Each subscale suffix following the period (i.e., Sport, Hewitt, and School) identifies the achievement domain of the respective inventories, with the Hewitt suffix representing global perfectionism. * p < .001. a df = 132. b df = 107.
orientations were considered (see Table 2). These results are in accordance with previous research conducted by Mitchelson and Burns (1998) who reported that career-mothersÕ levels of perfectionism varied significantly as a function of the situational context within which their perfectionist orientations were considered. The present results extend the findings of Mitchelson and Burns (1998) because this study utilized a global measure of perfectionism—the Hewitt-MPS—whereas Mitchelson and Burns only employed domain-specific measures of perfectionism. The fact that the present study found significant differences between domain-specific perfectionism and global perfectionism (as measured by the Hewitt-MPS) for both male and female student-athletes (see Table 2) further reinforces the need to consider the situationally-specific measurement of perfectionism in the research context. Overall, the current findings support the views of numerous perfectionism theorists and researchers (e.g., Missildine, 1963; Rhe´aume, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1995; Shafran et al., 2002, Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2003) who have advocated the importance of examining perfectionism at the domain-specific level. A worthwhile avenue for future research would be to determine whether domain-specific measures of perfectionism have greater power in comparison to global measures of perfectionism with respect to predicting individualsÕ cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses in different situational contexts. As previously mentioned, this domain-specific approach has been adopted in the area of trait anxiety research where domain-specific instruments have been developed to measure test anxiety, public speaking anxiety, and competitive sport anxiety (see Smith et al., 1990). Already a move towards the domain-specific examination
1446
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
of perfectionism in sport is being seen in the sport psychology literature (e.g., Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002). Without additional information, it is not possible to determine why the present sample of student-athletes had (on average) higher perfectionist tendencies in sport than in school. Given the tradition of excellence and the high expectancy for sporting success among the athletes at the university where these individuals were enrolled, it is possible that they perceived a greater likelihood of success (and had higher levels of perceived competence) in sport than in the classroom. Under such conditions, it follows that these individuals would be more likely to set higher standards (and have higher interpersonal perfectionist tendencies) in the performance domain in which higher levels of achievement were expected (see Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). Future research is required to determine if perceived competence and expectations for success are factors that influence the development of sport perfectionism in student-athletes. Although not a primary purpose of this study, gender differences across perfectionist tendencies were examined. Results revealed that male and female student-athletes did not differ significantly on their scores across the three subscales of the global Hewitt-MPS. Numerous studies with college students have also found no gender differences across global perfectionism dimensions when measured by either the Hewitt-MPS (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Pickering, 1998; Flett, Hewitt, Endler, & Tassone, 1995) or Frost et al.Õs (1990) MPS (e.g., Kawamura, Hunt, Frost, & DiBartolo, 2001; Parker & Adkins, 1995). Hewitt and Flett (1991) did find a gender difference on the OOP subscale of the Hewitt-MPS with college students, but did not find gender differences on the SOP and SPP dimensions. Collectively, these results suggest that male and female college students differ little in terms of their perfectionist tendencies when assessed and conceptualized at a global level. No gender differences in school perfectionism were observed, however, gender differences were obtained for two of the three Sport-MPS subscales: namely, SOP.Sport and OOP.Sport. In both instances, males had significantly higher perfectionist tendencies than females. Based on evidence from the literature, we tentatively suggest that these gender differences in sport perfectionism may be related to the higher value and importance that males tend to place on sport achievement (and sport competence) in comparison to females. For example, in a recent study of 235 high-school student-athletes (M age = 15.72 years), Ryska (2003) reported that males tended to base their self-worth more exclusively upon success and performance in sport than females (p < .01). In two studies with elementary school children, Eccles and Harold (1991) found that boys rated themselves as having higher ability in sport than girls, and also that boys rated sport as more important than girls. Other achievement motivation research in sport with college students has found that males typically score higher on competitiveness and the desire to win than females (see Gill, 2002, for a review). Thus, the extant literature indicates that males tend to place greater value and importance upon achievement, success, and competence in sport than females across a wide variety of age groups. If these gender effects are robust and were indeed present among the current sample, male student-athletes may have developed higher perfectionist orientations in sport than their female counterparts because the attainment of higher performance standards (as opposed to lower performance standards) in a highly valued domain should theoretically lead to the greatest increases in self-worth (see Fox, 2002). Irrespective of why the current gender differences occurred, the fact that gender differences were only present among sport perfectionism dimensions reinforces the importance of conceptualizing
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
1447
and measuring perfectionism as a domain specific construct. Clearly, gender differences in sport perfectionism need to be examined in future research with different samples of athletes to rule out the possibility that the current findings were either sample specific or an artifact of chance. If the current findings were to be replicated, we would recommend that researchers focus on the potential influence that gender may have upon the development of perfectionism in sport. In conclusion, the present findings suggest that researchers should consider the domain-specific nature of perfectionism in future research. As Weiner (1990) so eloquently argued, ‘‘if an individual has high achievement strivings in sports (e.g., sport perfectionism) but not academics, and this individual is classified as high in achievement needs, then predictions will be upheld in one situation but disconfirmed in the other’’ (p. 621). Thus, motivational constructs (such as perfectionism) should be considered within the context of the social values and the goals that reside within the environment under investigation (Weiner).
References Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of perfectionism in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 255–271. Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: the behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178. Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020. Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionistÕs script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14, 34–52. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological Assessment, 14, 365–373. Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299. Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. C., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002). Relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 376–395. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: applying EcclesÕ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35. Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: a critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: an overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Pickering, D. (1998). Perfectionism in relation to attributions for success or failure. Current Psychology: Developmental Learning Personality Social, 17, 249–262. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Endler, N. S., & Tassone, C. (1995). Perfectionism and components of state and trait anxiety. Current Psychology: Developmental Learning Personality Social, 13, 326–350. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Hallett, C. J. (1995). Perfectionism and job stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 32–42. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: a developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fox, K. R. (2002). Self-perceptions and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 83–99). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
1448
J.G.H. Dunn et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1439–1448
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. Gill, D. L. (2002). Gender and sport behavior. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 355–375). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204. Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322–340. Habke, A. M., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1999). Perfectionism and sexual satisfaction in intimate relationships. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 307–322. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. B., & McGee, B. (2003). Perfectionism is multidimensional: a reply to Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1221–1236. Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S. L., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, M. (2001). Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression: are the relationships independent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 291–301. Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the past. New York: Simon and Schuster. Mitchelson, J. K., & Burns, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477–485. Mor, S., Day, H. I., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (1995). Perfectionism, control, and components of performance anxiety in professional artists. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 207–225. Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390. Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). A psychometric examination of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 323–334. Rhe´aume, J., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1995). Functional and dysfunctional perfectionism: construct validity of a new instrument. Paper presented at the meeting of the World Congress of Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 1995. Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238–250. Ryska, T. A. (2003). Sport involvement and perceived scholastic competence in student-athletes: a multivariate analysis. International Sports Journal, 7, 155–171. Saboonchi, F., & Lundh, L. G. (1999). State perfectionism and its relation to trait perfectionism, type of situation, priming, and being observed. Scandinavian Journal of Behavior Therapy, 28(4), 154–166. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: a cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2003). ‘‘Clinical perfectionism’’ is not ‘‘multidimensional perfectionism’’: a reply to Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, & McGee. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: study of a criterion group. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 393–398. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring perfectionism: the almost perfect scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: the Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263–280. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivation research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616–622. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1988). Conditional hedges and the intuitive psychology of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 454–469.