Skip to main contentSkip to article

Elsevier logo

Personality and Individual Differences

Volume 169, 1 February 2021, 109993

Personality and sport performance: The role of perfectionism, Big Five traits, and anticipated
performance in predicting the results of distance running competitions

Author links open overlay panelWojciechWaleriańczykMaciejStolarski

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109993

Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access

Highlights

We conducted two studies on athletes taking part in street runs (10 km and half-marathon).

We aimed to analyze the effects of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns on running
performance.

In both studies, perfectionistic strivings predicted performance beyond gender and age.

The association between anticipated and actual performance proved markedly stronger in
perfectionistic individuals.

•
The paper provides pioneering evidence for the role of perfectionistic strivings in distance running.

Abstract

Although multiple studies have analyzed the impact of perfectionism on sport-related motivation and
emotions, studies analyzing its role in actual sport performance are scarce. In the present paper, in two
independent studies, we analyze the effects of two features of perfectionism—perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns—on performance in a 10-kilometer street run (Study 1; n = 332) and a half-
marathon (Study 2; n = 133). The participants completed a set of questionnaires online before the
competition. In both studies, perfectionistic strivings significantly predicted the results of the run,
explaining an additional 7% (Study 1) and 13% (Study 2) of variance beyond gender and age. Moreover,
perfectionistic strivings moderated the association between anticipated and actual performance; among
perfectionistic individuals, the relationships were markedly stronger. Additionally, Study 2 showed that
the effects remained significant after controlling for Big Five personality traits, so they cannot be
attributed to perfectionists' elevated conscientiousness. The present paper provides pioneering
evidence for a significant positive effect of perfectionistic strivings on sport performance in distance
running.

Previous articleNext article

Keywords

Sport performancePerfectionismPerfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concernsPersonalityBig Five

1. Introduction

Enhancing athletic performance is one of the main goals of sport psychology. However, improving
performance is not the only reason for conducting psychological research in sport. In fact, sport can be
viewed as a laboratory in which the efficiency of functioning is being investigated under high pressure
and accompanying intense emotions (Jarvis, 2006), creating unique conditions for exploring the role of
personality and individual differences in human performance. Nevertheless, even for constructs that
have a long-standing tradition in psychology, one might encounter ambiguity regarding their influence
on sport performance. This can be illustrated ideally with the example of perfectionism.

Perfectionism can be defined as a multidimensional achievement-motivation personality disposition

characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance
accompanied by overly critical evaluation of one's behaviors (Stoeber, 2018). Traditionally,
perfectionism has been viewed as a sign of adjustment and a natural motivational force (Adler, 1956).
However, for many years, it was highly popular to view perfectionism in a completely negative way, as a
maladaptive disposition (Burns, 1980; Pacht, 1984). Hamachek (1978) was the first to provide an
alternative, bi-dimensional approach to perfectionism, distinguishing between its adaptive and
maladaptive features. His approach, though sometimes criticized by authors arguing against the use of
‘perfectionism’ to describe also positive aspects of functioning (Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 2017), became a
starting point for vast majority of current conceptualizations of the construct. Across various theories,
approaches, and measures of perfectionism, these two factors emerge as higher-order dimensions in
factor analysis (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004; Hill et al., 2004; Stairs, Smith, Zapolski, Combs, & Settles,
2012). Currently, those two forms are regarded as “perfectionistic strivings” and “perfectionistic
concerns” (Stoeber & Otto, 2006) or “personal standards perfectionism” and “evaluative concerns
perfectionism” (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000). This highlights that they are
not two different or alternative forms of perfectionism but, rather, that they constitute two dimensions
of the same construct, despite the opposing effects they might produce (e.g., in terms of psychological
adjustment and emotional responses; Stoeber, 2018).

As Stoeber and Otto (2006) point out in their seminal article, it is vital to differentiate between
perfectionistic strivings and concerns because the detrimental influence of perfectionism on functioning
in sport seems to be limited to the perfectionistic concerns dimension. On the other hand,
perfectionistic strivings are consistently associated with positive outcomes, functional characteristics,
and processes facilitating adaptation (Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012; Larkin, O'Connor, &
Williams, 2016) and are identified as one of the most important characteristics in achieving success in
sports (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002).

1.1. Perfectionism and performance: current state of research

Considering that high personal standards and striving for flawlessness are the central components of
perfectionism (Stoeber, 2018), it is surprising that performance has not been a central area of research
on perfectionism in sports. Furthermore, as Hill, Appleton, and Mallinson (2016) point out, in the last
25 years of research in sport psychology and in >150 papers on perfectionism, only six studies have
examined the associations between perfectionism and performance. Among them, only one study
(Stoeber, Uphill, & Hotham, 2009) was conducted during a real sport competition and showed that
perfectionistic strivings measured prior to competition were a significant predictor of the results of the
race, even when the seasonal best was introduced to the model. Interestingly, perfectionistic concerns
were not a significant predictor in the same model. Other studies have provided mixed results regarding
both perfectionistic strivings' and concerns' associations with performance and did not support any firm
conclusions on the matter (Hall, Hill, & Appleton, 2012; see Stoeber, 2012 for a review).
The inconclusiveness of these studies could come from a few sources. Firstly, various measures of
perfectionism were used. Secondly, the theoretical basis of construct operationalization differed across
studies. Thirdly, not all of the measures used in the studies were adapted to a sport setting. It is worth
noting that currently a consensus exists that perfectionism is a highly domain-specific construct, and as
such, it should be measured using domain-specific scales (Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009; Waleriańczyk &
Stolarski, 2016). In other words, it is possible for an individual to score highly on perfectionism in sports
but at the same time to score low on perfectionism in another life-domain. It is also important to note
that most of the aforementioned studies were conducted outside the demanding context of real sport
competition. This entails problems and limitations that are twofold: domain-specific perfectionism in
sports by definition does not necessarily have to manifest itself in an environment where goals and tasks
are not particularly convergent with real sport competition situations. Furthermore, studies on
perfectionism conducted in laboratory settings lack the elements of pressure and intense emotions that
are present in competition (Davids, 1988). Thus, the ecological validity of laboratory studies on
perfectionism in sports is limited.

1.2. Present studies

The main aim of the present studies was to advance the knowledge of the possible associations between
performance in real-life competition and two dimensions of perfectionism, namely perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Both studies were designed to address and resolve the
shortcomings and limitations that were identified in previous studies on the topic, especially in terms of
reaching the desired level of ecological validity. Thus, we adopted an approach similar to the one
endorsed by Stoeber, Uphill, et al. (2009). However, it is vital to underline that the statistical analyses
were broadened with the use of anticipated results as an important predictor of the final results through
which perfectionistic strivings could influence the final results.

Before moving to the hypotheses, it is vital to adequately define the constructs and concepts used in the
research, especially if they might be differently understood in various papers. Thus, throughout the
present paper, we define an athlete as “a person who is trained or skilled in a sport, especially one who
regularly competes with others in organized events” (Athlete, 2009). In our understanding, this
definition is broad enough to include participants declaring various levels of performance. On the other
hand, it is sufficiently specific to exclude individuals who have not experienced the situation of
participation in competition and probably did not go through the demanding process of preparation for
the competitions. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, we view perfectionism as a personality disposition
rather than a personality trait, given that it shows various intensity in different life-domains as well as
strong situational dependency of development (as explained by Stoeber, 2018).

Based on the theoretical assumptions and available empirical studies, we hypothesize the following:
H1

Perfectionistic strivings are a significant predictor of performance.

H2

Perfectionistic strivings are positively associated with anticipated performance, seasonal best, and
personal best, as well as with the declared sport performance level.

H3

Perfectionistic strivings moderate the association between anticipated and actual performance, such
that the relationships between them are stronger among individuals with greater levels of this feature of
perfectionism. This prediction stems from the fact that high perfectionistic strivings should a) elicit
greater engagement in the process of preparation for competition, resulting in greater awareness of
current form, b) motivate an athlete to develop a precise strategy for the run, and c) allow them to stick
to the plan during most of the run and maintain the pace even in the face of adversity.

H4

Perfectionistic concerns moderate the association between perfectionistic strivings and performance,
such that their effect on performance is detrimental only if accompanied by high perfectionistic
strivings.

Moreover, we intended to determine whether (Q1) the effects of perfectionism on performance remain
significant after controlling for anticipated results. A positive answer would indicate that greater levels
of perfectionism have an additional impact on performance (e.g., via elevated engagement during the
run; see Stolarski, Waleriańczyk, & Pruszczak, 2020) beyond the expectations formed before the race.
Given that, based on previous literature findings, the role of perfectionistic concerns in sport
performance remains ambiguous, we decided not to formulate specific hypotheses regarding this
dimension (except the interaction effect in H4). However, perfectionistic concerns will be included in the
following analyses to avoid the common mistake of treating perfectionism as a unidimensional construct
(Stoeber & Otto, 2006).

2. Study 1

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Procedure

The study was conducted during a highly popular 10-kilometer street run (with approximately 20,000
participants) in which runners of different levels take part (from recreational to amateur and
professional runners). After gaining approval from the ethics board at Faculty of Psychology, University
of Warsaw, Poland as well as the event organizer's approval, a team of pollsters set up a stand at the
registration office, where a leaflet with information about the study and a QR code to the Qualtrics
platform was handed to participants along with a starter pack for the race. In addition, a link to the
study was published online on the organizer's website and social media profiles. The online platform was
available for participants two days before the race and closed at the moment when the race started. The
study was confidential; participants provided their names while completing the online questionnaires,
which enabled combining the psychometric data with official results of the run (provided on the
organizers' website).

2.1.2. Participants

A total of 332 participants (190 male, 142 female) took part in the study and completed the race.
Participants completed all questionnaires online using the Qualtrics platform. The mean age of
participants was 33 years (SD = 8.7). Regarding sport level, 90 participants declared “recreational,” 160
“amateur,” and 13 “semi-professional” or “professional,” with the rest refraining from answering the
question. All participants consented to take part in a study regarding “their personality and sport
performance” without remuneration.

2.1.3. Measures

Perfectionism was measured with a short version of a Polish domain-specific psychometric tool, the
Perfectionism in Sport Questionnaire (Waleriańczyk and Stolarski, 2016, Waleriańczyk and Stolarski,
2019). It measures two higher-order dimensions of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns. Perfectionistic Strivings Scale is based on items regarding high personal
standards and expectations as well as persistence in achieving them, while Perfectionistic Concerns
Scale encapsulates doubts about actions, concerns over mistakes and rumination evoked by mistakes
made. A validation procedure provided evidence for excellent internal consistency of both scales
(α = 0.89 for perfectionistic strivings and α = 0.94 for perfectionistic concerns). Together with validity,
evidence coming from relationships with conceptually associated factors of personality (neuroticism for
perfectionistic concerns and conscientiousness for perfectionistic strivings), as well as external indicators
such as the number of hours spent in training weekly and declared sport level, this constitutes the
required validity and reliability of the measure.

In addition, a short form with questions regarding athletes' functioning in sports was used, comprised of
questions regarding: declared sports level, best result in the present season, personal best, and
anticipated result in the current competition.

Finally, the race performance of each participant was extracted from the organizers' website after the
official race results were announced. Only in cases of exact match (name, family name, and age) were
the results included in the dataset.

2.2. Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses described in the later parts of the present article were conducted using IBM SPSS
25.0.0.2 for Windows.

2.3. Preliminary analyses

All data on performance results (personal best, seasonal best, anticipated result, final result in the race)
were converted to seconds prior to being introduced to the data set. Moreover, all data from
participants who did not finish the race were excluded from further analyses. This decision was made for
two reasons. Firstly, lack of a main dependent variable makes it impossible to enter those observations
into the planned analyses. Secondly, we believe that such data should not be used in other analyses
(e.g., models testing the impact of perfectionism on anticipated results) because it is impossible to
assess the reasons for dropout as well as the moment when the decision was made, so the reliability of
the measurement would be under threat.

Variables indicating actual and anticipated results (i.e., running time) were reversed and labelled as
“performance” variables (i.e., a final result in the race after being reversed reads as “final performance”)
to aid understanding of the results. Although negative values of performance are a rather abstract
concept, it is easier and more natural to interpret the results if higher values correspond to better
performance.

In addition, seasonal best was used only in the correlational analyses. We decided not to enter this
variable into further analyses due to a high rate of missing values and doubts regarding the reliability of
the declared values (both caused by the fact that for many participants the present competition was the
only organized 10-kilometer street run in which they took part this year).

2.4. Analytic strategy

To investigate our hypotheses, first we calculated the correlations between both dimensions of
perfectionism, race performance and the other performance-related variables (seasonal best, personal
best and anticipated performance) with age and gender controlled. Next, we computed a hierarchical
regression analysis predicting race performance in which variables were introduced to the model in
subsequent steps, in a manner dictated by our research questions and hypotheses.

2.5. Results

To provide initial insight into the nature of the associations between variables included in the study, a
correlation analysis was conducted. Both dimensions of perfectionism and various performance results
(result in the current race, seasonal best, and personal best) as well as anticipated results in the current
race (reported before the start) were examined with gender and age being controlled. The results of the
analysis are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas, and correlations in Study 1 (with gender and
age controlled).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 α M SD

1. Perfectionistic strivings 0.77 18.02 3.52

2. Perfectionistic concerns 0.10 0.87 12.08 4.67

3. Race performance 0.31⁎ 0.05 – 3187.28 553.19

4. Seasonal best performance 0.37⁎ 0.04 0.82⁎ – 3220.19 552.23

5. Personal best performance 0.32⁎ 0.00 0.78⁎ 0.92⁎ – 3121.22 549.71

6. Anticipated performance 0.36⁎ 0.02 0.90⁎ 0.88⁎ 0.85⁎ – 3193.99 564.11

Note. All result variables (3, 4, 5, and 6) were converted to seconds and reversed so that higher values
are indicative of better performance. Thus, their description was changed from “result” to
“performance”. Means and standard deviations before reversing are shown.

p < .001.

In line with our main predictions, perfectionistic strivings showed a positive correlation with
performance in the current race as well as with personal best, seasonal best, and predicted
performance. On the other hand, perfectionistic concerns showed no significant correlations with any of
these variables.

To illustrate the joint influence of both dimensions of perfectionism and to explore its interplay with
anticipated performance, a series of regression analyses were conducted, testing for the role of both
dimensions of perfectionism in predicting the final result in the competition (with age and gender being
controlled as potential confounders; see Table 2).

Table 2. Linear regression models predicting the final results of the 10-kilometer race.

Model Predictors B SE B β p F R2/ΔR2

Dependent variable: final performance

I Gender 562.460 54.29 0.50 <0.001 53.80 R2 = 0.246

Age −3.92 3.03 −0.06 0.198

II Gender 525.89 52.73 0.47 <0.001 38.29 ΔR2 = 0.070

Age −0.86 3.00 −0.01 0.774

Perfectionistic strivings 42.93 7.42 0.27 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 3.33 5.75 0.03 0.563

III Gender 531.59 52.76 0.47 <0.001 31.17 ΔR2 = 0.004

Age −1.01 3.00 −0.02 0.737

Perfectionistic strivings 42.26 7.42 0.27 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 3.35 5.74 0.03 0.560

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −2.09 1.43 −0.07 0.146

IV Gender 21.93 27.39 0.02 <0.001 350.50 ΔR2 = 0.543

Age 0.87 1.34 0.01 0.516

Perfectionistic strivings −3.10 3.54 −0.02 0.382

Perfectionistic concerns 4.20 2.56 0.04 0.102

Anticipated performance 0.92 0.03 0.93 <0.001

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −1.95 0.64 −0.06 0.002

V Gender 16.00 27.03 0.01 0.554 273.30 ΔR2 = 0.005

Age 0.894 1.32 0.01 0.498

Perfectionistic strivings −2.93 3.48 −0.02 0.401

Perfectionistic concerns 4.08 2.52 0.03 0.107

Anticipated performance 0.92 0.03 0.93 <0.001

Anticipated performance × Perfectionistic strivings 0.02 0.01 0.07 <0.001

Anticipated performance × Perfectionistic concerns 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.317

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −1.98 0.70 −0.06 0.001

Note. Significant predictors are marked in bold.

First, background variables such as age and gender were introduced to the model, predicting 24.6% of
total variance in race performance. In the second step, both dimensions of perfectionism were added to
the model, explaining an additional 7% of the variance. However, only the effect of perfectionistic
strivings was significant; higher levels of this dimension predicted better final performance.
Subsequently, the interaction effect of perfectionistic strivings and concerns was entered into the
model, but it did not reach significance. In the fourth step, anticipated performance in the race was
introduced to the model, explaining a further 54.3% of the variance. In this model, the effect of
perfectionistic strivings was no longer significant, whereas the interaction between perfectionistic
strivings and concerns reached significance. Lastly, the interaction effects of perfectionistic strivings and
anticipated performance as well as perfectionistic concerns and anticipated performance were added to
the model, explaining an additional 0.5% of total variance and elevating the predictive power of the
model to 86.8%. The interaction between perfectionistic strivings and predicted performance was
significant, indicating a stronger association between predicted performance and actual final results
among individuals scoring high in the said perfectionism dimension (see Fig. 1 for a graphical illustration
of the interaction effect).

Fig. 1

Download : Download high-res image (47KB)Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 1. Interaction between perfectionistic strivings (PS) and anticipated performance in predicting 10 km
race performance (see table 2, model V).

In addition, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and concerns was significant with the
introduction of anticipated performance to the model and indicated a decrease in performance when
both dimensions reached high values (see Fig. 2 for a graphical illustration of the interaction effect).

Fig. 2

Download : Download high-res image (41KB)Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 2. Interaction between perfectionistic concerns (PC) and perfectionistic strivings (PS) in predicting 10
km race performance (see table 2, models IV and V).

Lastly, in order to investigate the influence of both dimensions of perfectionism on anticipated

performance, a two-step regression analysis was conducted (with age and gender being controlled as
potential confounders; see Table 3).

Table 3. Linear regression models predicting anticipated performance in the 10-kilometer race.
Model Predictors B SE B β p F R2/ΔR2

Dependent variable: anticipated performance

I Gender 458.86 96.84 0.41 <0.001 11.35 R2 = 0.169

Age −0.04 5.47 0.00 0.994

II Gender 454.05 95.57 0.41 <0.001 9.37 ΔR2 = 0.086

Age 1.25 5.30 0.02 0.814

Perfectionistic strivings 85.17 24.23 0.29 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 6.87 10.32 0.06 0.507

Note. Significant predictors are marked in bold.

In the first step, age and gender were introduced to the model, explaining 16.9% of the total variance in
anticipated performance. In the second step, both dimensions of perfectionism were introduced into
the model, explaining an additional 9% of the total variance. It is worth noting that a hypothetical model
introducing an interaction between perfectionistic strivings and concerns was also tested, but it was not
significant.

2.6. Discussion

The conducted analyses showed that the perfectionistic strivings dimension was a significant predictor
of performance in the 10-kilometer run. To directly illustrate this effect: in the conducted regression
analysis (see step 2) one point on the scale translated to as much as a 43-second improvement in
performance. At the same time, perfectionistic concerns were not associated with the final
performance. However, when anticipated performance (i.e., the time in which participants wanted to
finish the race, declared prior to the start) was introduced to the regression model, perfectionistic
strivings were no longer significant. It seems that such a result can stem from two mechanisms. On one
hand, the predictive power of anticipated performance compared to any psychological variable is so
resonant that it leaves only a small amount of variance to be explained by other factors. On the other
hand, it might be that perfectionistic strivings vitally contribute to the anticipated performance variable
via stimulating greater engagement in the training process and overall motivation to improve one's
results. This explanation seems to be in line with the results reported by Larkin et al. (2016), who
showed that youth soccer players with high levels of perfectionistic strivings invested more time in
sport-specific activities (including both individual and coach-led practice, peer-led play and indirect
engagement in soccer) than their less perfectionistic counterparts.
This line of reasoning is supported with the results of the subsequent regression analysis in which
perfectionistic strivings were a robust predictor of anticipated performance. Thus, it seems justified to
conclude that perfectionistic strivings are an important factor affecting performance and that their
influence is most pronounced during the phase of preparation for the competitions. In other words,
perfectionistic strivings seem to be influencing the process in which athletes are formulating goals for
the upcoming competitions in terms of the final race performance (which can be seen in the effect of
perfectionistic strivings on anticipated results).

Perfectionistic strivings, together with high personal standards, influence everyday functioning in sports,
especially in terms of the frequency, duration, and quality of training (Coen & Ogles, 1993; Waleriańczyk
& Stolarski, 2016). It is possible and logical to expect that with more conscientious completion of the
training plan come greater expectations for the upcoming race. This interpretation corresponds with the
results from a three-wave longitudinal study conducted in an educational domain by Damian, Stoeber,
Negru-Subtirica, and Băban (2017), who showed that higher academic achievement (here: observed
progress in training and test runs) predicts increases in perfectionistic strivings (following the rule, “the
more I can, the more I expect from myself”).

Moreover, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and anticipated performance on actual
performance showed that the influence of perfectionistic strivings on performance may depend on the
level of anticipated performance, namely, when high performance is anticipated, perfectionistic strivings
enhance the final performance, whereas if low performance is expected, perfectionistic strivings may
attenuate the final performance. The former effect is intuitive and logical, as it might stem from more
scrupulous realization of the training plan, test runs, etc., as well as greater motivation to develop a
precise running strategy for the race and to introduce it meticulously while performing, even (or
especially) in the situations when the fatigue and discomfort are difficult to endure. The latter effect, on
the other hand, might seem counterintuitive at first glance. However, setting exceedingly high standards
of performance is a core element of the construct's definition. Having said that, it is possible that even
athletes scoring high on perfectionistic strivings encounter obstacles (such as injuries, illnesses, or
additional responsibilities) which prevent them from training and preparing for competition as
vigorously, frequently and intensively as they have planned. Subsequently, they report lower anticipated
performance which, in spite of all, is still affected by their personal standards and previously obtained
results, and thus unrealistically high, given their preparation level.

Lastly, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns on performance
indicates that the detrimental effect of perfectionistic concerns becomes vivid only when accompanied
by high perfectionistic strivings. As mentioned earlier, perfectionism is a highly domain-specific
phenomenon. Thus, it seems logical that the deteriorating effect of perfectionistic concerns is activated
only within a meaningful situation—that is, when the result of the race is of high and sincere importance
for an athlete.

To investigate whether the findings would replicate in a study conducted with athletes competing in a
more demanding and longer race, a second study was conducted. Importantly, more basic factors,
namely the Big Five personality traits, were introduced to the study, as they remain vital predictors of
sport performance (Piedmont, Hill, & Blanco, 1999). Furthermore, the nature of certain dimensions
distinguished in the Big Five model (e.g., Neuroticism/Emotional Stability or Conscientiousness) makes
them well-justified external validity indicators in studies of perfectionism (e.g., Akhtar, Boustani,
Tsivrikos, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2015; Stoeber, Otto, & Dalbert, 2009). Thus, to determine whether the
effects of perfectionism on performance are not reducible to the Big Five dimensions, we decided to
control for the effects of the latter in the second study.

3. Study 2

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Procedure

All steps necessary to conduct the study were identical to Study 1, including the approval from the
ethics board, and race organizers. The only difference was that all the advertising was done online, so
there was no need to set up a stand at the registration office. All participants were pre-registered in the
same half-marathon run and reached the study via a link that was posted on the organizer's website and
social media profile. The online platform closed when the race started. Data regarding athletes' race
performance were provided by the organizers and were accessible via their official website.

3.1.2. Participants

A total of 133 participants (85 male, 48 female) took part in the study, and 115 of those completed the
half-marathon race. The whole group was recruited before the race and completed all questionnaires
online using the Qualtrics platform. The mean age of the participants was 35.69 years (SD = 9.10).
Regarding sport level, 20 participants declared “recreational,” 105 “amateur,” and eight “semi-
professional or professional.” All participants consented to take part in a study regarding “their
personality and performance” without remuneration.

3.1.3. Measures
Perfectionistic strivings and concerns were measured with a short version of the Perfectionism in Sport
Questionnaire (Waleriańczyk and Stolarski, 2016, Waleriańczyk and Stolarski, 2019), identically as in
Study 1.

Personality traits were measured with the IPIP-BFM-20, a short version of a widely used
operationalization of the classic Big Five model of personality (Mini-IPIP; Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, &
Lucas, 2006), in a Polish adaptation by Topolewska, Skimina, Strus, Cieciuch, and Rowiński (2017).

Additional information was gathered with the use of a broadened questionnaire from the first study
including declared sport level, seasonal best, personal best, anticipated result in the current
competition, average time spent in training weekly, and number of potential training sessions needed
for optimal preparation for the current competition.

3.2. Preliminary analyses

As in Study 1, all data regarding participants who did not finish the race were removed. Subsequently, all
data regarding results (personal best, seasonal best, anticipated result, final result in the race) were
converted to seconds and then reversed to aid in the understanding and interpretation of the results. In
addition, seasonal best was not entered into the analyses due to a high rate of missing values
(presumably caused by the fact that the competition took part early in the season, and for many
participants it might have been the first start in the season). The number of potential training sessions
needed for optimal preparation for the current competition was also removed from analyses based on a
high rate of missing values.

3.3. Analytic strategy

The analytic strategy in this study was analogical to study 1. The only difference regarded the addition of
the Big Five dimensions in step 4. The latter procedure allowed to examine the incremental validity of
perfectionism in predicting performance over and above these personality features.

3.4. Results

The data exploration process began with investigating the associations between the variables
introduced in the study. The correlations (with age and gender being controlled as potential
confounders) between both dimensions of perfectionism, Big Five personality traits, and performance-
related variables, as well as with additional information regarding functioning in sports, are depicted in
Table 4.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas, and correlations in Study 2 (with gender and
age controlled).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 α M
SD

1. Perfectionistic strivings –
0.81 18.36 3.75

2. Perfectionistic concerns 0.19 –

0.86 13.16 4.96

3. Race performance 0.42⁎⁎ 0.20 – –

6852.71 1015.93

4. Personal best performance 0.29⁎ 0.05 0.81 –

– 6549.32 918.86

5. Anticipated performance 0.43⁎⁎ 0.12 0.86 0.79 –

– 6899.03 1075.65

6. Intellect 0.15 −0.30⁎ 0.10 0.09 0.07 – 0.67 15.51

2.92

7. Extraversion 0.09 −0.20 −0.19 −0.02 −0.12 0.25⁎ – 0.83 12.40

4.02

8. Agreeableness −0.09 −0.39⁎⁎ −0.05 −0.04 −0.06 0.28⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ –

0.72 15.15 3.17

9. Emotional Stability −0.18 −0.49⁎⁎ −0.13 −0.08 −0.08 0.22⁎ 0.21⁎ 0.19 –
0.67 12.19 3.09

10. Conscientiousness 0.25⁎ −0.08 −0.03 −0.01 0.06 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.19 0.75
14.62 3.42

Note. All result variables (3, 4, and 5) were converted to seconds and reversed so that higher values are
indicative of better performance. Thus, their description was changed from “result” to “performance.”
Means and standard deviations before reversing are shown.
⁎⁎

p < .001.

p < .05.

In line with expectations, perfectionistic strivings showed significant positive correlations with personal
best, anticipated performance, and actual performance in the competition. Furthermore, they also
positively correlated with declared sport level and level of preparation for the competition.
Perfectionistic strivings were significantly correlated with only one facet of the Big Five,
conscientiousness. Finally, perfectionistic concerns showed significant associations only with Big Five
personality factors; they correlated negatively with Emotional Stability (inverted Neuroticism), Intellect,
and Agreeableness.

Subsequently, a series of regression analyses were conducted testing for the role of both dimensions of
perfectionism in predicting final performance to demonstrate incremental effects of perfectionism when
the remaining variables were controlled (see Table 5).

Table 5. Linear regression models predicting the final results in the half-marathon race.

Model Predictors B SE B β p F R2/ΔR2

Dependent variable: final performance

I Gender 1001.12 177.03 0.48 <0.001 16.38 R2 = 0.226

Age −16.58 9.17 −0.15 0.073

II Gender 945.25 163.83 0.45 <0.001 15.64 ΔR2 = 0.136

Age −14.67 8.41 −0.14 0.084

Perfectionistic strivings 94.31 21.05 0.35 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 16.48 15.87 0.08 0.30

III Gender 947.25 164.09 0.45 <0.001 12.62 ΔR2 = 0.004

Age −14.78 8.42 −0.14 0.082

Perfectionistic strivings 90.37 21.61 0.33 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 20.54 16.63 0.10 0.220

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −3.44 4.15 −0.07 0.409

VI Gender 911.40 167.72 0.43 <0.001 7.00 ΔR2 = 0.036

Age −13.03 8.76 −0.12 0.14

Perfectionistic strivings 95.72 22.95 0.35 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 20.40 19.69 0.10 0.303

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −4.38 4.28 −0.09 0.308

Intellect 24.75 29.33 0.07 0.401

Emotional stability 12.35 32.02 0.04 0.700

Conscientiousness −22.23 24.69 −0.08 0.370

Agreeableness 19.53 28.28 0.06 0.491

Extraversion −49.68 21.87 −0.20 <0.001

V Gender 212.47 462.64 0.10 0.077 30.83 ΔR2 = 0.365

Age 0.57 118.76 0.01 0.919

Perfectionistic strivings 21.81 6.60 0.08 0.163

Perfectionistic concerns 13.66 15.53 0.07 0.272

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns 1.12 12.37 0.02 0.680

Intellect 21.35 2.72 0.06 0.249

Emotional stability 13.38 18.41 0.04 0.507

Conscientiousness −21.96 20.09 −0.07 0.159

Agreeableness 16.89 15.49 0.05 0.344

Extraversion −24.12 17.75 −0.10 0.085

Anticipated performance −0.74 13.87 −0.78 <0.001

VI Gender 216.28 116.51 0.10 0.066 27.83 ΔR2 = 0.015

Age 2.79 5.66 0.03 0.624

Perfectionistic strivings 26.41 15.30 0.10 0.087

Perfectionistic concerns 19.05 12.47 −0.01 0.130

Perfectionistic strivings × Perfectionistic concerns −0.31 2.85 −0.01 0.914

Intellect 19.24 18.09 0.06 0.290

Emotional stability 12.69 19.68 0.04 0.521

Conscientiousness −26.06 15.24 −0.09 0.090

Agreeableness 18.37 17.66 0.06 0.301

Extraversion −24.47 13.58 −0.10 0.075

Anticipated performance −0.76 0.06 −0.81 <0.001

Anticipated performance × Perfectionistic strivings 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.015

Anticipated performance × Perfectionistic concerns 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.611

Note. Significant predictors are marked in bold.

In the first step, age and gender were introduced to the model, predicting 22.6% of total variance in race
performance. Secondly, variables of a psychological nature were entered into the model; both
dimensions of perfectionism predicted an additional 13.6% of the total variance in race performance,
with perfectionistic strivings being a significant positive predictor of final performance. The effect seems
robust, as one point on the scale translated into a substantial 94.3-second advantage on the final line. In
the next step, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and concerns was entered into the
model, but it did not reach the significance threshold. Subsequently, the Big Five personality traits were
added to the model, explaining an additional 3.6% of the total variance, with extraversion being the only
significant personality factor that significantly predicted the analyzed outcome. In the next step,
anticipated results in the race were introduced to the model, explaining a further 36.5% of the variance;
none of the earlier predictors remained significant after this addition. Lastly, interaction effects of
perfectionistic strivings and anticipated performance as well as perfectionistic concerns and anticipated
performance were added to the model, explaining an additional 1.5% of the total variance and elevating
the predictive power of the model to 78.2%. Consistent with Study 1, only the former interaction effect
was significant; the association between anticipated and actual performance was stronger among
individuals with higher levels of perfectionistic strivings (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Download : Download high-res image (47KB)Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 3. Interaction between perfectionistic strivings (PS) and anticipated performance in predicting half-
marathon race performance (see table 5, model VI).

Consequently, a linear regression analysis in which the anticipated result was the main dependent
variable was conducted. The results are shown in Table 6. Again, background variables such as age and
gender were entered in the first step, predicting 21.6% of the variance in anticipated performance.
Secondly, psychological variables were introduced to the model, namely perfectionistic strivings,
perfectionistic concerns, and the Big Five personality factors. The addition of psychological variables
elevated the predictive power of the model to 37.1%, but only the effect of perfectionistic strivings was
significant.

Table 6. Linear regression models predicting anticipated performance in the half-marathon race.

Model Predictors B SE B β p F R2/ΔR2

Dependent variable: anticipated performance

I Gender 1047.59 187.11 0.47 <0.001 16.47 0.227

Age −21.28 9.70 −0.19 0.030

II Gender 973.10 172.29 0.44 <0.001 12.59 ΔR2 = 0.144

Age −19.08 8.84 −0.17 0.033

Perfectionistic strivings 107.34 22.14 0.37 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 9.94 16.69 −0.03 0.678

III Gender 944.01 179.60 0.43 <0.001 0.39 ΔR2 = 0.011

Age −18.91 9.38 −0.16 0.046

Perfectionistic strivings 110.52 23.81 0.39 <0.001

Perfectionistic concerns 4.71 20.91 0.02 0.822

Intellect 0.40 31.31 0.00 0.990

Emotional stability 9.99 33.58 0.03 0.767

Conscientiousness 0.321 26.44 0.01 0.990

Agreeableness 8.49 30.15 0.03 0.779

Extraversion −32.05 23.36 −0.12 0.173

Note. Significant predictors are marked in bold.

3.5. Discussion

Study 2 was designed and conducted to replicate the main findings of the previous study in a sample of
runners competing in an approximately two-times longer race. The second goal of the study was to
investigate whether the effects of perfectionism are not reducible to well-established basic personality
features such as the Big Five personality dimensions.

All of the main findings of Study 1 were replicated. Perfectionistic strivings affected race performance,
while perfectionistic concerns showed no significant effect on performance. Furthermore, when
anticipated results were introduced to the model, perfectionistic strivings were no longer a significant
predictor, showing that the vast majority of their impact can be brought down to the phase of
preparation to the competition. Moreover, their interaction with anticipated performance seems to
confirm the conclusion derived from Study 1, that perfectionistic strivings impact both awareness of
one's own current potential and greater consistency in realization of the running strategy. The former
explanation seems additionally supported by the fact that perfectionistic strivings were significant
predictors of anticipated performance (as shown in the subsequent regression analysis).

The Big Five personality factors are frequently seen as important predictors of sport performance
(Piedmont et al., 1999). However, in the present study, the effects of all five traits were non-significant,
showing that the domain-specific perfectionistic strivings might be a more resonant predictor of
performance in endurance sports. Having said that, it is important to note that the positive correlation
between perfectionistic strivings and conscientiousness, as well as negative correlations between
perfectionistic concerns and emotional stability, intellect, and extraversion, might be additional
evidence for the validity of the scale. More importantly, they are in line with a vast body of research
showing that those personality factors are the foundation on which other, more specific traits, such as
perfectionism, can develop (Smith et al., 2018; Stoeber, Otto, et al., 2009).

Interestingly, the role of interaction between perfectionistic strivings and concerns in the final
performance was not replicated. It can be a result of a substantially smaller number of participants in
the second study. However, this could also be due to the fact that although runners from both Studies 1
and 2 declared mostly recreational and amateur levels, their experience in running is far from similar.
While the measurement in Study 1 took place during the crowning event in the season for many
participants, in Study 2 most of the runners declared taking part in many other organized competitions.
Thus, the runners participating in the half-marathon might have more effective techniques to inhibit the
detrimental role of perfectionistic concerns during performance. On the other hand, this effect could be
associated with a higher subjective ranking of competition for the runners in Study 1 (in Study 2 the
competition, due to its placement in the early phase of the Polish running calendar, could have been
treated as a trail performance before more important contests). Perhaps, in future investigations of this
interaction it would be beneficial to include a direct question about the importance of the current
competitions.

Lastly, the role of perfectionistic strivings in predicting anticipated performance was of similar
magnitude as in Study 1. This provides additional evidence for the vital effects of perfectionistic strivings
in shaping race performance.

4. General discussion

In the present paper, we attempted to provide insight into the role of domain-specific perfectionism in
predicting the results of distance running. The results of two studies, conducted during two independent
running events, provided evidence for a replicable, significant effect of perfectionistic strivings on
performance. The magnitude of the effect seems worth noting, given that effects of psychological
features on performance are rarely reported, and their magnitude is often smaller (see Mirzaei,
Nikbakhsh, & Sharififar, 2013) or at best comparable (e.g., Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellmann,
2012). In contrast, the effects of perfectionistic concerns proved non-significant. It seems that the
positive feature of perfectionism, reflected in perfectionistic strivings, might be much more important
for performance in endurance sports such as distance running than its negative aspect depicted by
perfectionistic concerns. On the other hand, Study 1 provided some evidence for the role of
perfectionistic concerns in performance, but the effect did not turn out to be direct. Instead,
perfectionistic concerns attenuated the positive effects of perfectionistic strivings for athletes scoring
high on both dimensions, suggesting that in future analyses researchers should take into account not
only simple effects of both dimensions of perfectionism but also analyze the role of the profile of
perfectionism in athletes' functioning. This effect, however, was not replicated in Study 2, thus
formulating any conclusions regarding the interplay between these dimensions in shaping athletic
performance would be premature.

Another noteworthy result refers to the significant effect of perfectionistic strivings on anticipated
performance. Again, the effect was replicated in the second study, providing evidence for a general
character of this interaction. As mentioned above, the mechanisms responsible for this effect might
concern both the phase of preparation to the competition (a more engaged and conscientious approach
to training leading to greater awareness of one's current condition; higher precision in preparing the
strategy for the forthcoming competition) and the phase of performance (greater scrupulosity and
persistence in realization of running strategy).

The results described corroborate most of the findings reported by Stoeber, Uphill, et al. (2009), the
only study to date investigating the role of perfectionism in predicting performance in an endurance
sport competition. Thus, it seems worthwhile to briefly discuss the main similarities and differences
between the studies. A similar conceptualization of perfectionism was used in both studies, but the
operationalization was slightly different due to the fact that a different questionnaire was used in the
present study. The main dissimilarity between the two papers is the sport in which the study was
conducted (triathlon vs. running), and, subsequently, the sports level declared by the participants. While
running is in fact a vital part of triathlon, the differences in these groups of participants and in the
profundity of the effects might be far from subtle. Firstly, triathlon has much higher entry-level
requirements in terms of physical condition needed to complete the race, in turn making the
preparation process more time-consuming than in the case of a 10-kilometer or half-marathon street
run. Consequently, it can be argued that typical sport performance levels of both samples may be
completely different. In the present studies, most athletes declared recreational or amateur level, with
only a small group of participants describing themselves as semi-professional or professional.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to directly compare this with data from the Stoeber and colleagues' study,
as only indicators of performance level (e.g., seasonal best) were used in their article. However, the
discussed differences can be summarized in a rather simplistic way; it is possible to finish a 10-kilometer
run without any systematic preparation, but it is rather impossible to approach a middle-distance
triathlon in the same manner, as it comprises 1.9 km of swimming, 90 km of cycling, and 21.1 km of
running. Resulting conclusions may be twofold. First, one might argue that the adaptive, positive side of
perfectionism associated closely with perfectionistic strivings is not exclusive to functioning in semi-
professional or professional sports. Recreational and amateur athletes (or their performance) can also
benefit from higher perfectionistic strivings. However, in the present sample, the magnitude of the
effect of perfectionistic strivings is slightly smaller than reported by Stoeber, Otto, et al. (2009). This
difference could be either due to the fact that the questionnaires used in both studies were not the
same or due to higher heterogeneity of the present sample in sport level. Finally, it can also result from
the difference in the duration of both activities, as with longer and more exhausting races, psychological
factors have more time and potential to significantly affect performance.

5. Limitations and future directions

There were several limitations in the present research. Firstly, due to the difficulties in data collection,
participants completed the questionnaires at different times (ranging between 3 days and a few minutes
before the competition). Perfectionism is regarded as a personality disposition; nevertheless, as it is
measured in regard to final results, it is possible that it possesses elements of a state-like characteristic
(Boone et al., 2012; Brown & Kocovski, 2014). Having said that, the levels of perfectionism might have
increased with less time remaining until the competition.

Another issue is in whether the obtained results are limited solely to the dimension of perfectionistic
strivings. Although we showed that the effect of perfectionism is not reducible to personality traits, this
result can stem from domain specificity of the applied measure of perfectionism (compared with the
general character of the Big Five dimensions). Confronting the effects of perfectionistic strivings with
other conceptually related features measured at the sport domain-specific level, such as time
perspectives (see Stolarski, Waleriańczyk, & Pruszczak, 2019), appears to be an interesting path for
future research.

As mentioned earlier, most of the participants in the present studies declared a recreational or amateur
level of sport performance, so research adapting a similar design but conducted among higher-
performance athletes could shed more light on the role of perfectionism in professional athletes.

In the present research, aside from analyzing its role in race performance, the predictive power of
perfectionism on anticipated results was tested. However, as both variables were measured at the same
point of time, additional points of measurement would be necessary to determine the direction of this
relationship.

Although psychometric measurements were conducted before the competition, any inferences
regarding causality of the effects of psychological features on performance should be treated with
caution. This is because it seems possible that another confounding variable (i.e., sport engagement)
could be responsible for the obtained effects. Furthermore, it is even possible that the pre-competition
level of perfectionistic strivings could be at least partly determined by certain aspects of sports or even
results of preceding competitions. This would mean that the major finding reported here is a product of
a somewhat paradoxical causality. Such an effect would be in line with the findings reported by Damian
et al. (2017), who showed that higher academic achievement predicted increases in perfectionistic
strivings. Though obtained within another life domain, their results should increase caution in making
any inferences regarding the causal effects of perfectionism on sport performance. Long-term
longitudinal designs applying cross-lagged panel design would prove particularly helpful in providing
insights into the causality underpinning the main result obtained in the present studies.

It is important to note, that the relationships shown in the present article refer only to a sport with an
endurance characteristic, namely 10-kilometer and half-marathon street runs. Having said that, it would
be naive to transfer those results into sports with different characteristics. Different sports have
different demands (McCormick, Meijen, & Marcora, 2018), and it is possible that in qualitatively
different (e.g., accuracy-based) sports, the respective mechanisms and consequently the effects of
perfectionism might prove completely dissimilar, as in the case of emotions, where the very same
emotions might have a positive or detrimental influence on performance depending on whether they
accompany the task demands (Woodman et al., 2009).

Lastly, the future research on perfectionism in sport could take into account the concept of excellencism
(Gaudreau, 2019). The author argues that striving for excellence may be more adaptive compared to
striving for perfection. However, sport is a unique area of human functioning in which the question
regarding adaptive or maladaptive effects of the construct does not necessarily have to find the same
answer as in other areas of life.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Wojciech Waleriańczyk:Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Writing -

original draft, Visualization, Project administration.Maciej Stolarski:Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision.

Acknowledgements

The present study was supported by a grant no. 2019/33/N/HS6/00828 of the National Science Centre,
Cracov, Poland (awarded to W. Waleriańczyk under the supervision of M. Stolarski).

References
Adler, 1956

A. Adler

The neurotic disposition

H.L. Ansbacher, R.R. Ansbacher (Eds.), The individual psychology of Alfred Adler, Harper, New York
(1956), pp. 239-262

Google Scholar

Akhtar et al., 2015

R. Akhtar, L. Boustani, D. Tsivrikos, T. Chamorro-Premuzic

The engageable personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement

Personality and Individual Differences, 73 (2015), pp. 44-49

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Athlete, 2009

Athlete

In Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary

Cambridge University Press, New York, USA (2009)

Google Scholar

Bieling et al., 2004

P.J. Bieling, A.L. Israeli, M.M. Antony

Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct

Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (2004), pp. 1373-1385

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Boone et al., 2012

L. Boone, B. Soenens, A. Mouratidis, M. Vansteenkiste, J. Verstuyf, C. Braet

Daily fluctuations in perfectionism dimensions and their relation to eating disorder symptoms

Journal of Research in Personality, 46 (6) (2012), pp. 678-687

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Brown and Kocovski, 2014

J.R. Brown, N.L. Kocovski

Perfectionism as a predictor of post-event rumination in a socially anxious sample

Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 32 (2) (2014), pp. 150-163

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Burns, 1980

D.D. Burns

The perfectionist's script for self-defeat

Psychology Today (1980), pp. 34-52

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Coen and Ogles, 1993

S.P. Coen, B.M. Ogles

Psychological characteristics of the obligatory runner: A critical examination of the anorexia analogue
hypothesis

Journal of Sport & Exercise, 15 (3) (1993), pp. 338-354

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Damian et al., 2017

L.E. Damian, J. Stoeber, O. Negru-Subtirica, A. Băban

Perfectionism and school engagement: A three-wave longitudinal study

Personality and Individual Differences, 105 (2017), pp. 179-184

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Davids, 1988

K. Davids

Ecological validity in understanding sport performance: Some problems of definition

Quest, 40 (2) (1988), pp. 126-136

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Donnellan et al., 2006

M.B. Donnellan, F.L. Oswald, B.M. Baird, R.E. Lucas

The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality

Psychological Assessment, 18 (2) (2006), pp. 192-203

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Dunkley et al., 2000

D.M. Dunkley, K.R. Blankstein, J. Halsall, M. Williams, G. Winkworth

The relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social support as
mediators and moderators

Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47 (2000), pp. 437-453

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Gaudreau, 2019

P. Gaudreau

On the distinction between personal standards perfectionism and excellencism: A theory elaboration
and research agenda

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (2) (2019), pp. 197-215

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Geukes et al., 2012

K. Geukes, C. Mesagno, S.J. Hanrahan, M. Kellmann

Testing an interactionist perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance
under public pressure

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13 (3) (2012), pp. 243-250

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Gotwals et al., 2012

J.K. Gotwals, J. Stoeber, J.G.H. Dunn, O. Stoll

Are perfectionistic strivings in sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and
mixed evidence
Canadian Psychology, 53 (2012), pp. 263-279

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Gould et al., 2002

D. Gould, K. Dieffenbach, A. Moffett

Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14 (3) (2002), pp. 172-204

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Hall et al., 2012

H.K. Hall, A.P. Hill, P.R. Appleton

Perfectionism: A foundation for sporting excellence or an uneasy pathway toward purgatory?

G.C. Roberts, D.C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise, Human Kinetics,
Champaign, Illinois (2012), pp. 129-168

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Hamachek, 1978

D.E. Hamachek

Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism

Psychology, 15 (1978), pp. 27-33

Google Scholar

Hewitt et al., 2017

P.L. Hewitt, G.L. Flett, S.F. Mikail

Perfectionism: A relational approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment

Guilford Publications (2017)

Google Scholar

Hill et al., 2016

A.P. Hill, P.R. Appleton, S.H. Mallinson

Development and initial validation of the Performance Perfectionism Scale for Sport (PPS-S)
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34 (7) (2016), pp. 653-669

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Hill et al., 2004

R.W. Hill, T.J. Huelsman, R.M. Furr, J. Kibler, B.B. Vicente, C. Kennedy

A new measure of perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory

Journal of Personality Assessment, 82 (2004), pp. 80-91

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Jarvis, 2006

M. Jarvis

Sport psychology: A student's handbook

Routledge, London (2006)

Google Scholar

Larkin et al., 2016

P. Larkin, D. O'Connor, A.M. Williams

Perfectionism and sport-specific engagement in elite youth soccer players

Journal of Sports Sciences, 34 (14) (2016), pp. 1305-1310

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

McCormick et al., 2018

A. McCormick, C. Meijen, S. Marcora

Psychological demands experienced by recreational endurance athletes

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16 (4) (2018), pp. 415-430

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Mirzaei et al., 2013

A. Mirzaei, R. Nikbakhsh, F. Sharififar

The relationship between personality traits and sport performance

European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3 (3) (2013), pp. 439-442

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Pacht, 1984

A.R. Pacht

Reflections on perfection

American Psychologist, 39 (1984), pp. 386-390

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Piedmont et al., 1999

R.L. Piedmont, D.C. Hill, S. Blanco

Predicting athletic performance using the five-factor model of personality

Personality and Individual Differences, 27 (4) (1999), pp. 769-777

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Smith et al., 2018

M.M. Smith, S.B. Sherry, V. Vidovic, D.H. Saklofske, J. Stoeber, A. Benoit

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

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23 (4) (2018), pp. 367-390

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stairs et al., 2012

A.M. Stairs, G.T. Smith, T.C.B. Zapolski, J.L. Combs, R.E. Settles

Clarifying the construct of perfectionism

Assessment, 19 (2012), pp. 146-166

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stoeber, 2012

J. Stoeber

S.M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology, Oxford University Press,
New York (2012), pp. 294-306
Perfectionism and performance. In

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stoeber, 2018

J. Stoeber

The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and future directions

J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism, Routledge, Oxon (2018), pp. 333-352

Google Scholar

Stoeber and Otto, 2006

J. Stoeber, K. Otto

Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2006), pp. 295-319

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stoeber et al., 2009

J. Stoeber, K. Otto, C. Dalbert

Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented
perfectionism

Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (4) (2009), pp. 363-368

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stoeber and Stoeber, 2009

J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber

Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and
satisfaction with life

Personality and Individual Differences, 46 (4) (2009), pp. 530-535

ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stoeber et al., 2009

J. Stoeber, M.A. Uphill, S. Hotham

Predicting race performance in triathlon: The role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal
goal setting

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31 (2) (2009), pp. 211-245

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stolarski et al., 2019

M. Stolarski, W. Waleriańczyk, D. Pruszczak

Introducing temporal theory to the field of sport psychology: Towards a conceptual model of time
perspectives in athletes' functioning

Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (2019), p. 2772

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Stolarski et al., 2020

M. Stolarski, W. Waleriańczyk, D. Pruszczak

Vigorous, dedicated, and absorbed: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Polish version of the
Sport Engagement Scale

Current Psychology (2020), 10.1007/s12144-020-00607-5

Google Scholar

Topolewska et al., 2017

E. Topolewska, E. Skimina, W. Strus, J. Cieciuch, T. Rowiński

The short IPIP-BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the Big Five

Annals of Psychology, 17 (2) (2017), pp. 385-402

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Waleriańczyk and Stolarski, 2016

W. Waleriańczyk, M. Stolarski

Kwestionariusz perfekcjonizmu w sporcie–konstrukcja i walidacja narzędzia psychometrycznego

[Perfectionism in sport questionnaire - Construction and validation of a psychometric tool]

Psychologia-Etologia-Genetyka [Psychology-Etology-Genetics], 34 (2016), pp. 55-68

View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

Waleriańczyk and Stolarski, 2019

W. Waleriańczyk, M. Stolarski

Dwuwymiarowy Kwestionariusz Perfekcjonizmu w Sporcie. [A two-dimensional measure of

perfectionism in sport]

M. Guszkowska, Z. Gazdowska, N. Koperska (Eds.), Narzędzia pomiaru w psychologii sportu [Measures in

sport psychology] (pp. 43–53) (2019)

(Wydawnictwo AWF Warszawa)

Google Scholar

Woodman et al., 2009

T. Woodman, P.A. Davis, L. Hardy, N. Callow, I. Glasscock, J. Yuill-Proctor

Emotions and sport performance: An exploration of happiness, hope, and anger

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31 (2) (2009), pp. 169-188

CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar

View Abstract

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Elsevier logo

About ScienceDirect

Remote access

Shopping cart

Advertise

Contact and support

Terms and conditions

Privacy policy

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you
agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark
of Elsevier B.V.

ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

Provide feedback