Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

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

Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Poland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Although multiple studies have analyzed the impact of perfectionism on sport-related motivation and emotions,
Sport performance studies analyzing its role in actual sport performance are scarce. In the present paper, in two independent
Perfectionism studies, we analyze the effects of two features of perfectionism—perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
Perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns—on performance in a 10-kilometer street run (Study 1; n = 332) and a half-marathon (Study 2;
concerns
n = 133). The participants completed a set of questionnaires online before the competition. In both studies,
Personality
Big Five
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 per-
sonality 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.

1. Introduction Hamachek (1978) was the first to provide an alternative, bi-dimen-

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 in-
vestigated under high pressure and accompanying intense emotions
(Jarvis, 2006), creating unique conditions for exploring the role of
personality and individual differences in human performance. Never-
theless, even for constructs that have a long-standing tradition in psy-
chology, 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 flaw-
lessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance ac-
companied by overly critical evaluation of one's behaviors (Stoeber,
2018). Traditionally, perfectionism has been viewed as a sign of ad-
justment 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).
sional 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 per-
fectionism, 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 con-
cerns” (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

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki Str. 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw, Poland.
E-mail address: mstolarski@psych.uw.edu.pl (M. Stolarski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109993
Received 14 January 2020; Received in revised form 10 March 2020; Accepted 11 March 2020
0191-8869/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Wojciech Waleriańczyk and Maciej Stolarski, Personality and Individual Differences,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109993
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
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 char-
acteristics 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 flawless-
ness 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 striv-
ings 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 competi-
tion. 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. Fur-
thermore, 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 competi-
tion 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 iden-
tified 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 re-
sults 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
2
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
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 perfec-
tionism 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 stu-
dies, 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 per-
fectionistic 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 orga-
nizer'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 con-
fidential; participants provided their names while completing the on-
line questionnaires, which enabled combining the psychometric data
with official results of the run (provided on the organizers' website).
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
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 “profes-
sional,” with the rest refraining from answering the question. All par-
ticipants 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 do-
main-specific psychometric tool, the Perfectionism in Sport
Questionnaire (Waleriańczyk & Stolarski, 2016, 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 persis-
tence in achieving them, while Perfectionistic Concerns Scale en-
capsulates doubts about actions, concerns over mistakes and rumina-
tion 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 con-
ceptually associated factors of personality (neuroticism for perfectio-
nistic 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' func-
tioning in sports was used, comprised of questions regarding: declared
sports level, best result in the present season, personal best, and an-
ticipated 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, an-
ticipated 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
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas, and correlations in Study 1 (with gender and age controlled).
Variable 1 2 3 4
1. Perfectionistic strivings
2. Perfectionistic concerns 0.10
3. Race performance 0.31⁎ 0.05
4. Seasonal best performance 0.37⁎ 0.04 0.82⁎
5. Personal best performance 0.32⁎ 0.00 0.78⁎
6. Anticipated performance 0.36⁎ 0.02 0.90⁎
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.
3
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
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 perfor-
mance”) 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 ana-
lyses. 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 perfor-
mance 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.
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 di-
mensions of perfectionism in predicting the final result in the compe-
tition (with age and gender being controlled as potential confounders;
see Table 2).
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
5 α M SD
0.77 18.02 3.52
0.87 12.08 4.67
– 3187.28 553.19
– 3220.19 552.23
0.92⁎ – 3121.22 549.71
0.88⁎ 0.85⁎ – 3193.99 564.11
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx

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.

Fig. 2. Interaction between perfectionistic concerns (PC) and perfectionistic

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

dimension predicted better final performance. Subsequently, the in-

teraction 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, ex-
plaining a further 54.3% of the variance. In this model, the effect of
perfectionistic strivings was no longer significant, whereas the inter-
action between perfectionistic strivings and concerns reached sig-
nificance. Lastly, the interaction effects of perfectionistic strivings and
anticipated performance as well as perfectionistic concerns and an-
ticipated performance were added to the model, explaining an addi-
tional 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 in-
dividuals scoring high in the said perfectionism dimension (see Fig. 1
for a graphical illustration of the interaction effect).
In addition, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and
concerns was significant with the introduction of anticipated perfor-
mance 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).
Lastly, in order to investigate the influence of both dimensions of
perfectionism on anticipated performance, a two-step regression ana-
lysis was conducted (with age and gender being controlled as potential
confounders; see Table 3).
In the first step, age and gender were introduced to the model, ex-
plaining 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.

4
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
Table 3
Linear regression models predicting anticipated performance in the 10-kilometer race.
Model Predictors B SE B
Dependent variable: anticipated performance
I Gender 458.86 96.84
Age −0.04 5.47
II Gender 454.05 95.57
Age 1.25 5.30
Perfectionistic strivings 85.17 24.23
Perfectionistic concerns 6.87 10.32
Note. Significant predictors are marked in bold.
2.6. Discussion
The conducted analyses showed that the perfectionistic strivings
dimension was a significant predictor of performance in the 10-kilo-
meter 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, perfectio-
nistic concerns were not associated with the final performance.
However, when anticipated performance (i.e., the time in which par-
ticipants wanted to finish the race, declared prior to the start) was in-
troduced to the regression model, perfectionistic strivings were no
longer significant. It seems that such a result can stem from two me-
chanisms. On one hand, the predictive power of anticipated perfor-
mance 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 con-
clude 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, perfectio-
nistic 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, in-
fluence everyday functioning in sports, especially in terms of the fre-
quency, 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 an-
ticipated 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 antici-
pated, perfectionistic strivings enhance the final performance, whereas
if low performance is expected, perfectionistic strivings may attenuate
5
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
β p F R2/ΔR2
0.41 < 0.001 11.35 R2 = 0.169
0.00 0.994
0.41 < 0.001 9.37 ΔR2 = 0.086
0.02 0.814
0.29 < 0.001
0.06 0.507
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 per-
fectionistic 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 per-
formance which, in spite of all, is still affected by their personal stan-
dards and previously obtained results, and thus unrealistically high,
given their preparation level.
Lastly, the interaction between perfectionistic strivings and perfec-
tionistic 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 dis-
tinguished in the Big Five model (e.g., Neuroticism/Emotional Stability
or Conscientiousness) makes them well-justified external validity in-
dicators 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.
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
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 re-
garding “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 &
Stolarski, 2016, 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, sea-
sonal 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 ana-
lyses 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 person-
ality features.
3.4. Results
The data exploration process began with investigating the associa-
tions between the variables introduced in the study. The correlations
(with age and gender being controlled as potential confounders) be-
tween 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.
In line with expectations, perfectionistic strivings showed sig-
nificant positive correlations with personal best, anticipated perfor-
mance, and actual performance in the competition. Furthermore, they
also positively correlated with declared sport level and level of pre-
paration 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
6
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
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).
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 ad-
ditional 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 in-
troduced 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 perfor-
mance 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 sig-
nificant; the association between anticipated and actual performance
was stronger among individuals with higher levels of perfectionistic
strivings (see Fig. 3).
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 an-
ticipated performance. Secondly, psychological variables were in-
troduced to the model, namely perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic
concerns, and the Big Five personality factors. The addition of psy-
chological variables elevated the predictive power of the model to
37.1%, but only the effect of perfectionistic strivings was significant.
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 approxi-
mately two-times longer race. The second goal of the study was to in-
vestigate 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 an-
ticipated 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 perfectio-
nistic 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 per-
fectionistic strivings were significant predictors of anticipated perfor-
mance (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,
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx

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.

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.

intellect, and extraversion, might be additional evidence for the validity which other, more specific traits, such as perfectionism, can develop
of the scale. More importantly, they are in line with a vast body of (Smith et al., 2018; Stoeber, Otto, et al., 2009).
research showing that those personality factors are the foundation on Interestingly, the role of interaction between perfectionistic

7
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx

domain-specific perfectionism in predicting the results of distance

Fig. 3. Interaction between perfectionistic strivings (PS) and anticipated per-
formance in predicting half-marathon race performance (see table 5, model VI).
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 de-
clared 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 perfor-
mance before more important contests). Perhaps, in future investiga-
tions 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
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 perfec-
tionistic 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 perfec-
tionistic strivings on anticipated performance. Again, the effect was
replicated in the second study, providing evidence for a general char-
acter of this interaction. As mentioned above, the mechanisms re-
sponsible 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 si-
milarities and differences between the studies. A similar con-
ceptualization of perfectionism was used in both studies, but the op-
erationalization 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

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.

8
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
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 le-
vels 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 con-
clusions may be twofold. First, one might argue that the adaptive, po-
sitive side of perfectionism associated closely with perfectionistic
strivings is not exclusive to functioning in semi-professional or profes-
sional 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 dif-
ference 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 dif-
ference in the duration of both activities, as with longer and more ex-
hausting 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 ques-
tionnaires 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 perfec-
tionism (compared with the general character of the Big Five dimen-
sions). 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 re-
search adapting a similar design but conducted among higher-perfor-
mance athletes could shed more light on the role of perfectionism in
professional athletes.
In the present research, aside from analyzing its role in race per-
formance, 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 psy-
chological 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 per-
fectionistic strivings could be at least partly determined by certain
9
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
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 per-
fectionism on sport performance. Long-term longitudinal designs ap-
plying cross-lagged panel design would prove particularly helpful in
providing insights into the causality underpinning the main result ob-
tained 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 character-
istics. 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 ar-
gues 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 an-
swer 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, A. (1956). The neurotic disposition. In H. L. Ansbacher, & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.).
The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (pp. 239–262). New York: Harper.
Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). The engageable
personality: Personality and trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Personality and
Individual Differences, 73, 44–49.
Athlete (2009). In Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary. New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both?
Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 1373–1385.
Boone, L., Soenens, B., Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Verstuyf, J., & Braet, C. (2012).
Daily fluctuations in perfectionism dimensions and their relation to eating disorder
symptoms. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 678–687.
Brown, J. R., & Kocovski, N. L. (2014). Perfectionism as a predictor of post-event rumi-
nation in a socially anxious sample. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 32(2), 150–163.
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–52.
Coen, S. P., & Ogles, B. M. (1993). Psychological characteristics of the obligatory runner:
A critical examination of the anorexia analogue hypothesis. Journal of Sport &
Exercise, 15(3), 338–354.
Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & Băban, A. (2017). Perfectionism and
school engagement: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 105, 179–184.
Davids, K. (1988). Ecological validity in understanding sport performance: Some pro-
blems of definition. Quest, 40(2), 126–136.
W. Waleriańczyk and M. Stolarski
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales:
Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18(2), 192–203.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The
relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social
support as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 437–453.
Gaudreau, P. (2019). On the distinction between personal standards perfectionism and
excellencism: A theory elaboration and research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 14(2), 197–215.
Geukes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S. J., & Kellmann, M. (2012). Testing an interactionist
perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under
public pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 243–250.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G. H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings
in sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed
evidence. Canadian Psychology, 53, 263–279.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their
development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3),
172–204.
Hall, H. K., Hill, A. P., & Appleton, P. R. (2012). Perfectionism: A foundation for sporting
excellence or an uneasy pathway toward purgatory? In G. C. Roberts, & D. C.
Treasure (Eds.). Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129–168).
Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to
conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Guilford Publications.
Hill, A. P., Appleton, P. R., & Mallinson, S. H. (2016). Development and initial validation
of the Performance Perfectionism Scale for Sport (PPS-S). Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 34(7), 653–669.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A
new measure of perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 82, 80–91.
Jarvis, M. (2006). Sport psychology: A student's handbook. London: Routledge.
Larkin, P., O'Connor, D., & Williams, A. M. (2016). Perfectionism and sport-specific en-
gagement in elite youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(14), 1305–1310.
McCormick, A., Meijen, C., & Marcora, S. (2018). Psychological demands experienced by
recreational endurance athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
16(4), 415–430.
Mirzaei, A., Nikbakhsh, R., & Sharififar, F. (2013). The relationship between personality
traits and sport performance. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 3(3), 439–442.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390.
Piedmont, R. L., Hill, D. C., & Blanco, S. (1999). Predicting athletic performance using the
five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(4),
769–777.
10
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Vidovic, V., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Benoit, A. (2018).
Perfectionism and the five-factor model of personality: A meta-analytic review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 367–390.
Stairs, A. M., Smith, G. T., Zapolski, T. C. B., Combs, J. L., & Settles, R. E. (2012).
Clarifying the construct of perfectionism. Assessment, 19, 146–166.
Stoeber, J. (2012). In S. M. Murphy (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of sport and performance
psychology (pp. 294–306). New York: Oxford University Press Perfectionism and
performance. In.
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and
future directions. In J. Stoeber (Ed.). The psychology of perfectionism (pp. 333–352).
Oxon: Routledge.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evi-
dence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the Big Five:
Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 363–368.
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relation-
ships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46(4), 530–535.
Stoeber, J., Uphill, M. A., & Hotham, S. (2009). Predicting race performance in triathlon:
The role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal goal setting. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(2), 211–245.
Stolarski, M., Waleriańczyk, W., & Pruszczak, D. (2019). Introducing temporal theory to
the field of sport psychology: Towards a conceptual model of time perspectives in
athletes' functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2772.
Stolarski, M., Waleriańczyk, W., & Pruszczak, D. (2020). Vigorous, dedicated, and ab-
sorbed: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Polish version of the Sport
Engagement Scale. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-
00607-5.
Topolewska, E., Skimina, E., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2017). The short IPIP-
BFM-20 questionnaire for measuring the Big Five. Annals of Psychology, 17(2),
385–402.
Waleriańczyk, W., & Stolarski, M. (2016). Kwestionariusz perfekcjonizmu w sporcie–-
konstrukcja i walidacja narzędzia psychometrycznego [Perfectionism in sport ques-
tionnaire - Construction and validation of a psychometric tool]. Psychologia-Etologia-
Genetyka [Psychology-Etology-Genetics], 34, 55–68.
Waleriańczyk, W., & Stolarski, M. (2019). Dwuwymiarowy Kwestionariusz
Perfekcjonizmu w Sporcie. [A two-dimensional measure of perfectionism in sport]. In
M. Guszkowska, Z. Gazdowska, & N. Koperska (Eds.). Narzędzia pomiaru w psychologii
sportu [Measures in sport psychology] (pp. 43–53) (Wydawnictwo AWF Warszawa).
Woodman, T., Davis, P. A., Hardy, L., Callow, N., Glasscock, I., & Yuill-Proctor, J. (2009).
Emotions and sport performance: An exploration of happiness, hope, and anger.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(2), 169–188.