A short empirical note on perfectionism and flourishing

Flourishing describes an optimal state of mental health characterized by emotional, psychological, and social well-being. In a recent publication, Flett and Hewitt (2015) suggested that perfectionism prevents people from flourishing. Perfectionism, however, is a multidimensional personality characteristic, and its various dimensions show different relationships with indicators of subjective well-being. In the first empirical study of perfectionism and flourishing, we examined the relationships of multidimensional perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism) and self-reported flourishing in the past two weeks. Results from the sample of 388 university students revealed that only socially prescribed perfectionism showed a negative relationship with flourishing, whereas self-oriented perfectionism showed a positive relationship. These results were unchanged when positive and negative affect were controlled statistically. Our findings indicate that not all dimensions of perfectionism undermine flourishing and that it is important to differentiate perfectionistic strivings and concerns when regarding the perfectionism–flourishing relationship

Measuring perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise: Review, critique, recommendations

Over the past 25 years, a number of multidimensional measures of perfectionism has been developed. Based on different models of multidimensional perfectionism, these measures contain different numbers of subscales, and most of the time the different subscales bear different names. This presents a confusing situation to researchers unfamiliar with the often complex details of the perfectionism literature who want to conduct research on perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise and need to make a decision as to what measure to use to capture individual differences in multidimensional perfectionism. The aim of the present chapter is to give researchers some guidance in this decision. To this aim, the chapter will (a) review the available multidimensional measures that have been published in international peer-reviewed journals and (b) provide a critique of these measures. In addition, the chapter will provide (c) recommendations on which measures to use and guidance on which decisions researchers have to make when using these measures to capture perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise

Perfectionism and burnout in junior athletes: A three-month longitudinal study

Perfectionism in sports has been shown to be associated with burnout in athletes. Whether perfectionism predicts longitudinal changes in athlete burnout, however, is still unclear. Using a two-wave cross-lagged panel design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and athlete burnout in 101 junior athletes (mean age 17.7 years) over 3 months of active training. When structural equation modeling was employed to test a series of competing models, the best-fitting model showed opposite patterns for perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Whereas perfectionistic concerns predicted increases in athlete burnout over the 3 months, perfectionistic strivings predicted decreases. The present findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns are a risk factor for junior athletes contributing to the development of athlete burnout whereas perfectionistic strivings appear to be a protective factor

Perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in junior athletes

Recent theory and research suggest that perfectionism is a personal factor contributing to athletes’ vulnerability to doping (using banned substances/drugs to enhance sporting performance). So far, however, no study has examined what aspects of perfectionism suggest a vulnerability in junior athletes. Employing a cross-sectional design, this study examined perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in 129 male junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years) differentiating four aspects of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, parental pressure to be perfect, and coach pressure to be perfect. In the bivariate correlations, only parental pressure showed a positive relationship with positive doping attitudes. In a multiple regression analysis controlling for the overlap between the four aspects, perfectionistic strivings additionally showed a negative relationship. Moreover, a structural equation model examining the relationships between all variables suggested that coach pressure had a negative indirect effect on attitudes towards doping via perfectionistic strivings. The findings indicate that perceived parental pressure to be perfect may be a factor contributing to junior athletes’ vulnerability to doping, whereas perfectionistic strivings may be a protective factor

The Consequences of Perfectionism Scale: Factorial structure and relationships with perfectionism, performance perfectionism, affect, and depressive symptoms

This study investigated the Consequences of Perfectionism Scale (COPS) and its relationships with perfectionism, performance perfectionism, affect, and depressive symptoms in 202 university students using confirmatory factor analysis, correlations, and regression analyses. Results suggest that the COPS is a reliable and valid measure of positive and negative consequences of perfectionism

Athletes’ perfectionism and reasons for training: Perfectionistic concerns predict training for weight control

Exercise and training for sports are associated with a number of psychological and health benefits. Research on exercise, however, suggests that such benefits depend on the reasons why individuals participate in sport. The present study investigated whether individual differences in perfectionism predicted different reasons for training and examined four dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, coach pressure to be perfect, parental pressure to be perfect) and three reasons for training (avoidance of negative affect, weight control, mood improvement) in 261 athletes (mean age 20.9 years). Regression analyses showed that perfectionistic concerns positively predicted avoidance of negative affect and weight control, whereas perfectionistic strivings positively predicted mood improvement. The findings suggest that individual differences in perfectionism help explain why athletes train for different reasons

Multidimensional perfectionism and narcissism: Grandiose or vulnerable?

Multidimensional perfectionism is related to grandiose narcissism, with other-oriented perfectionism showing the strongest, most consistent relationships. The relationships with vulnerable narcissism, however, are unclear. Our study investigated how three forms of perfectionism--self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991)--are related to narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. A sample of 375 university students completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988), Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997), and Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009) capturing various facets of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. Multiple regressions were conducted controlling for the overlap between the three forms of perfectionism and gender. Other-oriented perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with key facets of grandiose narcissism. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed positive relationships with all facets of vulnerable narcissism. Self- and other-oriented perfectionism showed positive relationships with individual facets only. Other-oriented perfectionism appears to represent a form of perfectionism predominantly related to narcissistic grandiosity, whereas socially prescribed perfectionism is predominantly related to narcissistic vulnerability. As the first study to examine perfectionism in relation to narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability, our research both extends and clarifies the nomological network of the perfectionism construct in important ways

Multidimensional sexual perfectionism and female sexual function: A longitudinal investigation

Research on multidimensional sexual perfectionism differentiates four forms of sexual perfectionism: self-oriented, partner-oriented, partner-prescribed, and socially prescribed. Self-oriented sexual perfectionism reflects perfectionistic standards people apply to themselves as sexual partners; partner-oriented sexual perfectionism reflects perfectionistic standards people apply to their sexual partner; partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism reflects people’s beliefs that their sexual partner imposes perfectionistic standards on them; and socially prescribed sexual perfectionism reflects people’s beliefs that society imposes such standards on them. Previous studies found partner-prescribed and socially prescribed sexual perfectionism to be maladaptive forms of sexual perfectionism associated with a negative sexual self-concept and problematic sexual behaviors, but only examined cross-sectional relationships. The present article presents the first longitudinal study examining whether multidimensional sexual perfectionism predicts changes in sexual self-concept and sexual function over time. A total of 366 women aged 17-69 years completed measures of multidimensional sexual perfectionism, sexual esteem, sexual anxiety, sexual problem self-blame, and female sexual function (cross-sectional data). Three to six months later, 164 of the women completed the same measures again (longitudinal data). Across analyses, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism emerged as the most maladaptive form of sexual perfectionism. In the cross-sectional data, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism showed positive relationships with sexual anxiety, sexual problem self-blame, and intercourse pain and negative relationships with sexual esteem, desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasmic function. In the longitudinal data, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism predicted increases in sexual anxiety and decreases in sexual esteem, arousal, and lubrication over time. The findings suggest that partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism contributes to women’s negative sexual self-concept and female sexual dysfunction

Perfectionism and achievement goals revisited: The 3 × 2 achievement goal framework

Objectives: Perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC) have shown different profiles with the 2 × 2 achievement goals in sport. Whether PS and PC also show comparable profiles with the achievement goals of the expanded 3 × 2 framework, however, is unclear. Design: Cross-sectional. Method: We examined self-reported perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and the 3 × 2 achievement goals in 136 junior athletes (mean age 17.0 years). Results: The results of structural equation modeling showed that PS were positively associated with task-, self-, and other-approach goals and negatively with task- and self-avoidance goals. In contrast, PC were positively associated with task-, self-, and other-avoidance goals and negatively with task- and self-approach goals. Conclusions: The findings suggest that PS and PC show different profiles also with the 3 × 2 achievement goals which may help explain why the two perfectionism dimensions show differential relations with achievement-related outcomes in sport

Perfectionism and training distress in junior athletes: A longitudinal investigation

Perfectionistic athletes may train harder and for longer than non-perfectionistic athletes, leaving them susceptible to elevated levels of training distress. So far, however, no study has investigated the relationships between perfectionism and training distress, a key indicator of overtraining syndrome. Furthermore, no study has determined psychological predictors of overtraining syndrome. Using a two-wave design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and training distress in 141 junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years, range 16-19 years) over 3 months of active training. Multiple regression analyses were employed to test cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between perfectionism and training distress. In all analyses, perfectionism emerged as a significant predictor, but strivings and concerns showed differential relationships. When the cross-sectional relationships were regarded, perfectionistic concerns positively predicted training distress (p .05). The findings suggest that sports scientists who wish to identify athletes at risk of overtraining syndrome may monitor athletes’ perfectionistic concerns as a possible risk factor