Perfectionism, achievement motives, and attribution of success and failure in female soccer players

While some researchers have identified adaptive perfectionism as a key characteristic to achieving elite performance in sport, others see perfectionism as a maladaptive characteristic that undermines, rather than helps, athletic performance. Arguing that perfectionism in sport contains both adaptive and maladaptive facets, the present article presents a study of N 5 74 female soccer players investigating how two facets of perfectionism—perfectionistic strivings and negative reactions to imperfection (Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007)—are related to achievement motives and attributions of success and failure. Results show that striving for perfection was related to hope of success and self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success). Moreover, once overlap between the two facets of perfectionism was controlled for, striving for perfection was inversely related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (internal attribution of failure). In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection were positively related to fear of failure and self-depreciating attributions (external attribution of success) and inversely related to self-serving attributions (internal attribution of success and external attribution of failure). It is concluded that striving for perfection in sport is associated with an adaptive pattern of positive motivational orientations and self-serving attributions of success and failure, which may help athletic performance. In contrast, negative reactions to imperfection are associated with a maladaptive pattern of negative motivational orientations and self-depreciating attributions, which is likely to undermine athletic performance. Consequently, perfectionism in sport may be adaptive in those athletes who strive for perfection, but can control their negative reactions when performance is less than perfect

A systematic review of the relationship between rigidity/flexibility and transdiagnostic cognitive and behavioral processes that maintain psychopathology

An ever-growing number of transdiagnostic processes that maintain psychopathology across disorders have been identified. However, such processes are not consistently associated with psychological distress and symptoms. An understanding of what makes such processes pathological is required. One possibility is that individual differences in rigidity in the implementation of these processes determine the degree of psychopathology. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between rigidity/flexibility and transdiagnostic maintenance processes. Initial searches were made for research examining relationships between 18 transdiagnostic processes and rigidity/flexibility. Relationships between rumination, perfectionism, impulsivity and compulsivity, and rigidity/flexibility were systemically reviewed; 50 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies indicated that transdiagnostic cognitive and behavioral maintenance processes and rigidity were correlated, co-occurring, or predictive of each other. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that it is inflexibility in the manner in which processes are employed that makes them pathologically problematic. However, further research is required to test and establish this

Perfectionism and the five-factor model of personality: A meta-analytic review

Over 25 years of research suggests an important link between perfectionism and personality traits included in the five-factor model (FFM). However, inconsistent findings, underpowered studies, and a plethora of perfectionism scales have obscured understanding of how perfectionism fits within the FFM. We addressed these limitations by conducting the first meta-analytic review of the relationships between perfectionism and FFM traits (k = 77, N = 24,789). Meta-analysis with random effects revealed perfectionistic concerns (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, discrepancy) were characterized by neuroticism (rc+ = .50), low agreeableness (rc+ = –.26), and low extraversion (rc+ = –.24); perfectionistic strivings (self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards, high standards) were characterized by conscientiousness (rc+ = .44). Several perfectionism-FFM relationships were moderated by gender, age, and the perfectionism subscale used. Findings complement theory suggesting perfectionism has neurotic and non-neurotic dimensions. Results also underscore that the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionistic strivings hinges on instrumentation

Perfectionism and the experience of pride, shame, and guilt: Comparing healthy perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, and non-perfectionists

According to traditional views, perfectionists are prone to experience shame and guilt and unable to experience pride. Hamachek (1978), however, suggested that this applies only to neurotic perfectionists, whereas normal perfectionists are able to experience pride and are not prone to experience shame and guilt. Following Hamachek's differentiation, the present study investigated 121 undergraduates and compared healthy perfectionists (high perfectionistic strivings, low perfectionistic concerns), unhealthy perfectionists (high perfectionistic strivings, high perfectionistic concerns), and non-perfectionists (low perfectionistic strivings) regarding proneness to shame, guilt, and pride and state shame, guilt, and pride following success and failure. As expected, healthy perfectionists reported more state pride and less state shame and guilt than unhealthy perfectionists and non-perfectionists. Moreover, healthy perfectionists indicated lower proneness to shame than unhealthy perfectionists and non-perfectionists. However, both healthy and unhealthy perfectionists indicated higher proneness to pride and higher proneness to guilt than non-perfectionists. Supporting views of perfectionism that differentiate between positive and negative forms of the construct, the present findings show that individuals, who strive for perfection, but are unconcerned about imperfections, may well experience pride and be prone to feel guilt, but not shame

Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges.

Almost 30 years ago, Hamachek (1978) suggested that 2 forms of perfectionism be distinguished, a positive form labeled "normal perfectionism" and a negative form labeled "neurotic perfectionism." Focusing on the positive, we present an overview of the different empirical conceptions of the 2 forms of perfectionism and a common framework for the 2 basic approaches: the dimensional approach differentiating 2 dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) and the group-based approach differentiating 2 groups of perfectionists (healthy perfectionists and unhealthy perfectionists). Moreover, we review the evidence demonstrating that (a) perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive characteristics and (b) healthy perfectionists show higher levels of positive characteristics compared to unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Although questions on core facets, positive effects, and developmental antecedents of positive forms of perfectionism remain, our findings suggest that self-oriented perfectionistic strivings are positive, if perfectionists are not overly concerned about mistakes and negative evaluations by others