The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism and youth sport participation: A mixed-methods approach

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.02.011Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The experiences of perfectionistic youth sport participants were explored.

  • Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were employed.

  • Sport experiences differed considerably dependent upon the subtype of perfectionism.

  • Novel insights were gained into the meaning of sport for perfectionistic youths.

  • Coaches/peers appeared vital in shaping perfectionistic youths' sport experiences.

Abstract

Objectives

Research demonstrates that four subtypes of perfectionism from the 2 × 2 model are associated with different youth sport experiences. This study provided the first exploration of the experiences of youth sport participants exhibiting different subtypes of perfectionism using mixed-methods.

Design

A two-stage, mixed-methods, approach was adopted (quantitative identification then qualitative data collection).

Method

In stage one (quantitative identification), 192 females enrolled in school- or community-based sport groups (M age = 13.91; SD = .90; range 12–16 years) completed a domain-specific perfectionism instrument (Sport-MPS-2) to identify participants prototypical of the four subtypes of perfectionism. In stage two (qualitative data collection), 19 prototypical participants (M age = 13.74; SD = .65; range 13–15 years) described their experiences of their youth sport involvement. One focus group (n = 4 to 5 per group) and one follow-up individual, semi-structured, interview (n = 4 in total) per subtype were conducted.

Results

Thematic analysis revealed that the meaning youth sport participants gave to their sport involvement (i.e., goals, values, and purposes) and the features of the social-environment they perceived to be important differed between the four subtypes of perfectionism. For the “pure PSP” and “mixed perfectionism” subtypes, sport was a time to shine and experience success. For the “non-perfectionism” and “pure ECP” subtypes, sport was a place to make friends and belong. Participants from all four subtypes described the importance of the coach and peers, with some groups identifying different preferred roles for the coach in terms of type and amount of involvement.

Conclusions

Youth sport participants exhibiting different subtypes of perfectionism vary in their experiences of youth sport. Practitioners working with young people in sport should consider these differences so to better understand and improve youth sport experiences.

Introduction

Participation in youth sports can afford young people many performance, physical health, and psychosocial benefits (e.g., Weiss, 2016). For instance, young people can develop motor skills, experience enhanced physical and psychological well-being, and build friendships and good moral character (e.g., Weiss, Kipp, & Bolter, 2012). Although participating in sports offers a range of desirable outcomes, this is not the case for all participants; sport can also be a source of negative experiences and undesirable outcomes (e.g., Fraser-Thomas & Côté, 2009). For example, long-lasting physical injuries, disordered eating, interpersonal difficulties, and morally questionable behaviors are also evident in youth sports (e.g., Martin, Gould, & Ewing, 2017). Whether sport is a positive, negative, or mixed experience for young people, and what young people come to understand about their own experiences, is known to be determined by a complex set of personal and contextual factors that collectively shape sport as a social domain (Roberts, 2012). Research dedicated to this topic seeks to identify what personal and contextual factors are most important and the ways in which these factors act upon one another. We do so in the current study by focusing on whether different subtypes of perfectionism are associated with different experiences of youth sport.

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality characteristic that involves setting and striving for exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by harsh critical evaluations (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Several models and measures are used to study perfectionism. However, perfectionism can be considered to have two broad dimensions; personal standards perfectionism (PSP) (also referred to as perfectionistic strivings) and evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP) (also referred to as perfectionistic concerns). PSP involves “a self-oriented tendency to set highly demanding standards and to strive for their attainment” (Gaudreau & Antl, 2008, p. 357). Conversely, ECP “entails a socially prescribed tendency to evaluate oneself harshly, to doubt one's capacity to bring about desired outcomes, and to perceive that others require perfection from oneself” (Gaudreau & Antl, 2008, p. 357).

Although initially research focused on examining these dimensions independently, more recently researchers have begun to examine combinations of these two dimensions. This approach was formalized by Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) in the form of a 2 × 2 model of perfectionism, which includes four subtypes (or within-person combinations) of perfectionism. As outlined by Gaudreau and Thompson (2010), the first subtype of perfectionism is termed “non-perfectionism” and is characterized by low or no personal orientation towards perfectionistic standards and no sense of perceived pressure from others to pursue perfectionistic standards (low PSP/low ECP). The second subtype is “pure PSP” and is characterized by holding perfectionistic standards that are derived solely from the self (high PSP/low ECP). The third subtype is “pure ECP” and is characterized by the pursuit of perfectionistic standards derived from pressures in the social-environment (low PSP/high ECP). The fourth subtype is “mixed perfectionism” and is characterized by perceived pressure from significant others to strive for perfection but also personal adherence to perfectionistic standards (high PSP/high ECP).

The 2 × 2 model includes hypotheses that propose differences between the four subtypes based on concepts such as internalization, motivation regulation, and person-environment congruence (see Gaudreau, 2016). Hypothesis 1 offers three competing assertions that pure PSP will either be associated with better (H1a), poorer (H1b), or no different (H1c) outcomes compared with non-perfectionism. Hypothesis 2 (H2) asserts that non-perfectionism will be associated with better outcomes compared to pure ECP. Hypothesis 3 (H3) asserts that mixed perfectionism will be associated with better outcomes compared to pure ECP. Finally, hypothesis 4 (H4) asserts that pure PSP will be associated with better outcomes than mixed perfectionism.

Gaudreau (2016) recently reviewed research examining the 2 × 2 model in sport and dance. Seven studies were considered in Gaudreau's review (Crocker, Gaudreau, Mosewich, & Kljajic, 2014; Cumming & Duda, 2012; Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Hill, 2013; Hill & Davis, 2014; Mallinson, Hill, Hall, & Gotwals, 2014; Quested, Cumming, & Duda, 2014). These studies included predominantly adult sport participants (k = 2), youth sport participants (k = 2), youth dancers (k = 2), and adult coaches (k = 1), and a range of outcomes. Of these outcomes, some could be considered indicative of more positive experiences among athletes and dancers (e.g., positive affect, intrinsic motivation, and physical self-worth) and other outcomes indicative of more negative experiences (e.g., negative affect, fear of failure, and burnout). For each study, Gaudreau calculated effect sizes and demonstrated that H1a was supported more often than H1b (89% of the time). H2 and H4 were supported the most (supported 97% of the time). Finally, H3 was supported the least (80% of the time) with the notable exceptions being two studies in dance in which mixed perfectionism was associated with worse outcomes when compared to pure ECP (see Cumming & Duda, 2012; Quested et al., 2014). Overall, then, research has generally provided support for the 2 × 2 model in terms of understanding differences in sport experiences.

One feature of all studies examining the 2 × 2 model is that they have exclusively relied on quantitative methods. Quantitative research methods have enabled the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model to be probed in a way that they can be supported (or contradicted) with some degree of certainty. However, solely relying on such methods has the potential to produce an artificial, static, and limited view of individuals' experiences (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). This is because quantitative research methods can be mechanistic and reductive when attempting to understand the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals (Cohen et al., 2007). Sport is a particularly complex setting and the experiences of athletes change over time and contexts. In this regard, qualitative research methods are well suited to studying such complexity and can offer a broader perspective on how and why phenomena might occur (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). In context of perfectionism specifically, qualitative research methods offer an alternative means of exploring the concept of perfectionism and an opportunity to challenge (or affirm) the tenets of current models, here the 2 × 2 model (Hill, Witcher, Gotwals, & Leyland, 2015).

Three studies have used qualitative research methods to explore perfectionism in sport so far (Gotwals & Spencer-Cavaliere, 2014; Hill et al., 2015; Sellars, Evans, & Thomas, 2016). Of the three studies, one study opted to interview self-identified perfectionists without any quantitative method (Hill et al., 2015). In total, 15 high-level athletes and performing artists (dancers and musicians) were recruited and interviewed regarding their perceptions of perfectionism. Of these participants, the majority were athletes who had competed or were currently competing at International level (three males and four females; M age = 32 years; range = 29–39 years). Using thematic analysis, drive, accomplishment, and strain emerged as the main descriptors of how participants perceived perfectionism and its influence on their lives. Drive characterized the participants' view that high standards of achievement and performance are central to being a perfectionist. Accomplishment and strain highlighted the specific benefits and drawbacks that participants perceived of being a perfectionist.

Like the intentions of the current study, the remaining two studies adopted specific models of perfectionism and quantitative and qualitative methods so to explore the experiences of specific groups of perfectionists. In the first study, Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere (2014) used scores on Gotwals and Dunn's (2009) Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (Sport-MPS-2) to identify “healthy” (high PSP/low ECP) and “unhealthy” (high PSP/high ECP) perfectionists among intercollegiate athletes. Seven healthy perfectionists and 11 unhealthy perfectionists were subsequently interviewed regarding their perspectives on achievement (M age = 21.46 years; SD = 1.96). They found the experiences associated with perfectionism differed depending upon the dimensions and/or combinations of perfectionism dimensions that prevailed among the athletes. Specifically, when healthy perfectionism was identified, athletes were driven to accomplish reasonable and self-referent goals, had better coping skills, and felt socially supported. By contrast, when unhealthy perfectionism was identified, athletes reported being motivated to accomplish unreasonable goals, were preoccupied with winning and avoiding failure, had worse coping skills, and experienced greater interpersonal pressure.

In the second study, Sellars et al. (2016), like Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere (2014), used scores on the Sport-MPS-2 to identify perfectionistic athletes. They then conducted interviews solely with athletes reporting unhealthy perfectionism (high PSP/high ECP). Their findings were similar to Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere’s (2014) in that these athletes were highly motivated to reach lofty personal goals, had a fear of failure, and keenly felt pressure from significant others. The findings provided additional insights in terms of athletes feeling dissatisfied with current goal progress, being overly critical of mistakes, and employing a range of skills to cope with their perfectionism (e.g., pre-performance routines). Taken together, the findings of Gotwals and Spencer-Cavaliere (2014) and Sellars et al. (2016) illustrate how groupings of perfectionistic athletes differ in various ways, including motivational underpinnings and coping behaviors that contribute to their experiences in sport.

Despite these qualitative studies offering a broader, and arguably deeper, understanding of perfectionism and experiences in sport, there are two notable limitations. The first limitation is that none of the qualitative studies explored the personal accounts of sport participants in terms of the 2 × 2 model. Rather, these studies adopted no theoretical perspective (i.e., Hill et al., 2015) or adopted other theoretical approaches (i.e., tripartite model of perfectionism; Gotwals & Spencer-Cavaliere, 2014; Sellars et al., 2016). Therefore, while evidence using quantitative methods has begun to accrue to support the use of the 2 × 2 model, it has yet to be explored using qualitative research methods. The second limitation is that all three studies have focused on the perspectives of perfectionistic adult sport participants and not youth sport participants. This is important because youth sport participants operate in sport domains that are shaped differently to adult sports and so require their own consideration (Merkel, 2013). In addition, perfectionism and its effects are thought to change across the adolescent developmental period and so this will likely render the experiences of perfectionism in youth sport different to adult sport.

With these limitations in mind, the purpose of the current study was to identify youth sport participants prototypical of the four subtypes of perfectionism in the 2 × 2 model using quantitative research methods and, then, to explore their experiences of their youth sport involvement through use of qualitative methods. The study had the potential to satisfy two important aims: (i) to explore the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in a novel manner, and (ii) to provide novel insights into the sport experiences of youth participants who differ in combinations (or subtypes) of perfectionism.

Section snippets

Methodology

Consistent with previous studies examining specific models of perfectionism (e.g., Gotwals & Spencer-Cavaliere, 2014), a two-stage, mixed-methods approach was adopted. In stage one (quantitative identification) participants completed the Sport-MPS-2 (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) to identify individuals whose PSP and ECP scores reflected the four subtypes of perfectionism from the 2 × 2 model. In stage two (qualitative data collection), focus groups were used to explore the sport experiences of

Results

Data analysis highlighted differences between the four subtypes of perfectionism in terms of (i) the meaning youth sport participants gave to their sport involvement. That is, the goals, values, and purposes participants expressed regarding sport. (ii) The environment that they perceived could support or detract from them obtaining the outcomes they desired from sport. The following sections provide a description of these two overarching themes for each subtype of perfectionism. As a

Discussion

The current study explored the sport experiences of youth participants who differ in subtypes of perfectionism based on the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. First, we discuss how the themes that emerged relate to novel insights regarding the 2 × 2 model and its tenets. We then provide a comparison of the findings of the current study of perfectionistic youth sport participants with findings from previous qualitative research with perfectionistic adult sport participants. Finally, we provide a

Conclusion

This study was the first to explore the sport experiences of youth participants in context of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism using qualitative data collection methods. The findings provide initial evidence that the experiences young people have of sport differs across the four subtypes of perfectionism from the 2 × 2 model. This is reflected in both the meaning they give to sports participation (i.e., goals, values, and purposes) and elements of the social-environment they considered most

References (49)

  • V. Braun et al.

    Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners

    (2013)
  • L. Cohen et al.

    Research methods in education

    (2007)
  • P.R.E. Crocker et al.

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

    International Journal of Sport Psychology

    (2014)
  • J. Fraser-Thomas et al.

    Understanding adolescents' positive and negative developmental experiences in sport

    The Sport Psychologist

    (2009)
  • R.O. Frost et al.

    The dimensions of perfectionism

    Cognitive Therapy and Research

    (1990)
  • P. Gaudreau

    The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise

  • P. Gaudreau et al.

    Athletes' broad dimensions of perfectionism: Examining change in life-satisfaction and the mediating role of motivation and coping

    Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology

    (2008)
  • P. Gaudreau et al.

    Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain

    Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology

    (2012)
  • J.K. Gotwals et al.

    A multi-method multi-analytic approach to establish internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2

    Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science

    (2009)
  • J.K. Gotwals et al.

    Intercollegiate perfectionistic athletes' perspectives on achievement: Contributions to the understanding and assessment of perfectionism in sport

    International Journal of Sport Psychology

    (2014)
  • J.W. Graham et al.

    Methods for handling missing data

  • Z. Greblo et al.

    Perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns in athletes: The role of peer motivational climate

    Current Psychology

    (2015)
  • E. Hennessy et al.

    Exploring children's views through focus groups

  • A.P. Hill

    Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test of the 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism

    Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    This research is based on data collected for and material contained in the corresponding author's doctoral dissertation. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    View full text