Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Examining the influence of the parent-initiated

and coach-created motivational climates upon
athletes' perfectionistic cognitions

Paul R. Appleton , Howard K. Hall & Andrew P. Hill

To cite this article: Paul R. Appleton , Howard K. Hall & Andrew P. Hill (2011) Examining
the influence of the parent-initiated and coach-created motivational climates upon
athletes' perfectionistic cognitions, Journal of Sports Sciences, 29:7, 661-671, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2010.551541

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.551541

Published online: 16 Mar 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1201

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20

Download by: [University of Roehampton] Date: 09 September 2016, At: 07:02

Journal of Sports Sciences, April 2011; 29(7): 661–671

Examining the influence of the parent-initiated and coach-created

motivational climates upon athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions

PAUL R. APPLETON1, HOWARD K. HALL2, & ANDREW P. HILL2

1
School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK and 2Faculty of Health and Life Sciences,
York St. John University, York, UK

(Accepted 28 December 2010)

Abstract
The aims of this study are threefold. First, we investigate the influence of the parent-initiated motivational climate upon
elite junior athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. Second, we examine whether the coach-created motivational climate
predicts additional variance in elite junior athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions beyond the effects associated with the parent-
initiated motivational climate. Third, we test the moderating role of athletes’ gender and age in the relationship between
the parent-initiated and coach-created motivational climates and athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. A total of 190 elite
junior athletes (mean age 15.2 years, s ¼ 1.5, range 10–18) completed the Parent-Initiated Motivational Climate
Questionnaire-2 (White & Duda, 1993), the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 (Newton, Duda, &
Yin, 2000), and the Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Gray, 1998). Regression analyses
revealed that mother- and father-initiated worry-conducive climates, the father-initiated success-without-effort climate, and
the coach-created performance motivational climate predicted male athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. Female athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions were predicted by the mother-initiated worry-conducive climate, father-initiated learning-
enjoyment climate, and both dimensions of the coach-created climate. Finally, athletes’ gender emerged as a significant
moderator of the mother-initiated worry-conducive climate and athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions relationship. Findings
confirm that the parent-initiated motivational climate is a significant predictor of athletes’ perfectionism-related thoughts,
and provide initial support for the influence of the coach-created motivation climate over children’s perfectionistic
cognitions.

Keywords: Parents, coaches, athletes, perfectionism

understanding the antecedents of athletes’ perfectio-

Introduction
The last decade witnessed increased attention upon
athletes’ trait perfectionism (see Flett & Hewitt,
2005; Hall, 2006). Concurrently, clinical psycholo-
gists (e.g. Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Gray, 1998)
suggested that perfectionism is exceedingly complex,
and encouraged researchers to broaden their focus
towards additional aspects of the construct beyond
trait dimensions. One such aspect, perfectionistic
cognitions, concerns automatic thoughts that reflect
a desire to be perfect and an awareness of one’s
imperfections (Flett et al., 1998). Although research-
ers (e.g. Besser, Flett, Hewitt, & Guez, 2008;
Sturman, Flett, Hewitt, & Rudolph, 2009) outside
of the sport domain have examined perfectionistic
cognitions, little is known about this facet of
perfectionism in sport. In the present study, we
address this void in the literature, with the aim of
nistic cognitions. Specifically, we examine whether
parent- and coach-created motivational climates
predict athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions.
Perfectionism reflects the compulsive pursuit of
high standards and a tendency to engage in critical
evaluations (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate,
1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). A number of authors
(e.g. Slade & Owens, 1998; Stoeber & Otto, 2006)
argue that various dispositional perfectionism dimen-
sions underpin specific psychological processes that
lead to adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. Stoeber
and colleagues have shown that when athletes strive
for perfection and refrain from engaging in negative
reactions to mistakes, positive outcomes are experi-
enced (Sagar & Stoeber, 2009; Stoeber & Becker,
2008; Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll,
2007; Stoeber, Stoll, Salmi, & Tiikkaja, 2009a;
Stoeber, Uphill, & Hotham, 2009b). In contrast,

Correspondence: P. R. Appleton, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
E-mail: p.appleton@bham.ac.uk
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.551541
662 P. R. Appleton et al.
when perfectionistic striving is accompanied by
critical evaluative tendencies and the belief that
self-worth is contingent upon attaining perfection,
athletes report debilitating outcomes (see Hall,
2006).
One approach to perfectionism that is receiving
attention in sport is Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model.
Hewitt and Flett proposed a number of trait
perfectionism dimensions, including self-oriented,
socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism.
In addition to trait dimensions, Flett et al. (1998)
argued there are individual differences in the
frequency of perfectionistic cognitions. Unlike trait
perfectionism, perfectionistic cognitions reflect a
state perfectionism component. Perfectionistic cog-
nitions are frequent automatic thoughts character-
ized by images involving a desire to be perfect,
self-evaluation against an ideal self, and the avoid-
ance of imperfection (Flett et al., 1998). Flett et al.
argued that perfectionistic cognitions underpin
emotional difficulties because self-worth is tied to
dysfunctional thoughts about unrealistic standards.
The negative effects of perfectionistic cognitions
have emerged in correlational and experimental
research using psychiatric patients, recovering alco-
holics (Flett, Hewitt, Whelan, & Martin, 2007), and
adolescents (Flett et al., in press).
Researchers have also examined athletes’ perfec-
tionistic cognitions. Frost and Henderson (1991)
initially reported that trait perfectionism dimensions
were positively associated with athletes’ dreams of
being perfect and fears and images of making a
mistake one day before competition. More recently,
Hill and Appleton (in press) demonstrated that
perfectionistic cognitions predict unique variance in
athlete burnout above that explained by self-oriented
and socially prescribed perfectionism. The findings
of Hill and Appleton confirm that perfectionism-
related thoughts may be problematic for junior
athletes, and that further investigations of perfectio-
nistic cognitions in sport are warranted. In particular,
identifying the factors that give rise to perfectionistic
cognitions would be of benefit.
Currently, there is a dearth of research concerning
the antecedents of athletes’ perfectionistic cogni-
tions. It is generally accepted, however, that a
child’s perfectionistic tendencies do not originate
within an isolated vacuum (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, &
Macdonald, 2002). Instead, perfectionistic tenden-
cies develop within a relational context, as a network
of social relationships saturate the child’s evolving
world (Greenspon, 2008). Parent–child interactions
are particularly important, as the caregiver’s own
perfectionism, unrealistic expectations, and condi-
tional approval for their offspring create a family
home that is conducive to the development of per-
fectionism (Flett et al., 2002). In this environment,
the child models his or her parents’ perfectionism
(Flett et al., 2002), considers that performance errors
are equated with parental disappointment (Sorotzkin,
1998), and learns that grandiose achievements are
necessary for parental acceptance (Greenspon, 2000).
Overtime, a preoccupation with attaining unrealisti-
cally high standards and conditional approval are
internalized by the child within this family environ-
ment, and perfectionistic tendencies develop (Burns,
1980). Advances in the sport perfectionism litera-
ture confirm the role of parents’ own perfectionism
(Appleton, Hall, & Hill, 2010) and unrealistic
expectations (McArdle & Duda, 2004) in predicting
athletes’ trait perfectionism. It is also expected that
similar parent-related factors will underpin perfectio-
nistic cognitions in junior athletes.
One theory that considers the parent-initiated
climate, and may provide a basis for understanding
the processes influencing athletes’ perfectionistic
cognitions, is achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992;
Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goal theory concerns
athletes’ construal of competence (Nicholls, 1989).
Athletes with an undifferentiated competence are less
concerned with avoiding mistakes and achieving
perfection as their focus is upon maximizing potential
and skill development. In contrast, athletes with a
differentiated view of competence focus upon exhibit-
ing outstanding performance in reference to others.
Achievement goal theory proposes that such athletes
experience apprehension about proving their worth in
sport, as well as a greater likelihood of doubting
the quality of their achievement (Duda, 2005). It is
hypothesized that athletes with differentiated com-
petence may experience cognitions concerned with
perfection and the avoidance of imperfection, as they
seek to achieve a favourable performance compared
with others.
Achievement goal theory assumes that an athlete’s
construal of competence is determined, in part, by
the parent-initiated motivational climate (White,
1996). Undifferentiated competence emanates from
a mastery climate, where parents encourage their
child to derive enjoyment and personal satisfaction
during skill acquisition (White, 1996). Differentiated
competence emerges within a parent-initiated per-
formance climate, which is represented by two lower-
order factors. In a worry-conducive climate, parents
emphasize the negative consequences of perfor-
mance errors and do not approve of mistakes. In a
success-without-effort climate, parents’ reserve their
approval for success attained with minimal effort
(White, 1996).
Of the three parent-initiated motivational climates,
it is expected that a worry-conducive environment
will positively predict athletes’ perfectionistic cogni-
tions. Athletes enveloped by a worry-conducive
climate equate mistakes with failure, and are thus

constantly worried about their imperfections (White,
1996). Furthermore, a preoccupation with avoiding
parental disapproval may encourage the child to
ruminate about the importance of achieving per-
fection in sport. Indirect support for the proposed
relationship between a worry-conducive climate
and athletes’ experience of perfectionistic cogni-
tions is available in Krane and colleagues’ (Krane,
Greenleaf, & Snow, 1997) interview with a highly
perfectionistic gymnast, who described her family
home as rife with cues towards winning, and parents
who strongly emphasized perfection as the only
acceptable goal. McArdle and Duda (2004, 2008)
also identified a relationship between elements of a
worry-conducive environment (e.g. parental criti-
cism) and athletes’ trait perfectionism. To date,
however, the direct relationship between the parent-
initiated motivational climate and athletes’ perfectio-
nistic cognitions remains untested.
Although the parental climate may undergird
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions, Flett et al. (2002)
encouraged researchers to remain cognisant of the
wider social factors that influence a children’s predis-
position towards perfectionism. Flett et al. (2002)
argued that other social agents (e.g. peers, teachers)
influence children’s perfectionism in many ways,
including the importance placed on meeting expecta-
tions and standards, the nature of approval, and the
creation of a climate in which social comparison is
frequently emphasized. Applied to junior sport,
coaches may be central to the genesis of athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions. Coaches are likely to
be instrumental because they provide performance
expectations and evaluations among athletes (Anshel
& Eom, 2003).
Recent advances in the measurement of perfec-
tionism support the distinction between coach- and
parent-related factors in the development of athletes’
perfectionism. In creating the Sport Multidimen-
sional Perfectionism Scale (S-MPS), Dunn et al.
(2006a) encouraged researchers to differentiate
between significant others from whom athletes
perceived socially based expectations and pressures.
Taking heed of Dunn and colleagues’ suggestion, the
S-MPS and the Multidimensional Inventory for
Sport (MIPS; Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2005) include
subscales that capture critical antecedents of athletes’
perfectionism, including the perceived pressures
from parents and coaches. Anshel and Eom (2003)
also recommended that researchers examine the
influence of coaches and parents upon athletes’
perfectionism.
Achievement goal theory also provides a frame-
work in which the influence of coaches over
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions can be under-
stood. Achievement goal theory proposes two coach-
created motivational climates. A mastery climate
Athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions 663
dominates when participation, individual progress,
and skill development are perceived to be empha-
sized by the coach (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000).
Researchers have consistently demonstrated that
a mastery climate is positively associated with
adaptive cognition, affect, and achievement striving
in sport (see Duda & Balaguer, 2007). A perfor-
mance climate is operational when athletes perceive
that coach-based recognition and evaluation is
focused upon normative ability, mistakes are pun-
ished, and team-mates compete against one another
for the coach’s approval (Newton et al., 2000). A
plethora of studies (see Duda & Balaguer, 2007)
confirm the negative effects of a coach-created
performance climate, including a relationship with
athletes’ dispositional perfectionism dimensions such
as concern over mistakes and doubts about actions
(Lemyre, Hall, & Roberts, 2008; Ommundsen,
Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, 2005).
It is expected that the coach-created performance
climate will predict perfectionistic cognitions in
athletes. The achievement structures operating
within a performance climate are predominantly
focused upon obtaining a coach’s approval and
recognition, often by minimizing the discrepancy
between competitive performance outcomes and the
coach’s expectations for high ability (Duda & Hall,
2001). These ability-based structures have significant
implications for the athlete, as they become pre-
occupied with the presentation of an ideal self and
experience a heightened sense of self-awareness
(Ames, 1992; Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). Furthermore,
within this performance-based context, an athlete’s
experience of coach recognition is entirely dependent
upon demonstrating superior ability compared with
other performers. As a result, the athlete’s cognitions
will likely be perfectionistic, as they ruminate about
attaining exceptionally high standards and avoiding
the ramifications of imperfection. Research is now
required to empirically test the utility of the coach-
created motivational climate in predicting athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions. In light of Flett and
colleagues’ (2002) suggestion about additional social
actors influencing children’s perfectionism, and
Anshel and Eom’s (2003) proposal concerning the
influence of parents and coaches upon athletes’
perfectionism, it is also important that research
determines whether the coach-created motivational
climate predicts unique variance in athletes’ perfec-
tionistic cognitions, beyond the influence accounted
for by the parent-initiated climate.
In addition to highlighting the predictive effects of
parents and social actors, Flett et al. (2002) outlined
the influential role of children’s age and gender in the
development of perfectionism. Regarding children’s
age, Flett et al. (2002) proposed that a parent’s long-
term influence over a child’s perfectionism may be
664 P. R. Appleton et al.
overstated, and is eventually superseded by other
social actors as the child approaches his or her late
teenage years. The extent to which the parent-
initiated motivational climate predicts an athlete’s
perfectionistic cognitions may therefore be strongest
for younger athletes. In contrast, the coach-created
motivational climate may have greater predictive
utility for older junior athletes.
Flett et al. (2002) also considered children’s
gender as influential in the development of perfec-
tionism, and proposed two competing hypotheses.
The primary caregiver hypothesis suggests that
children acquire perfectionism via interactions with
their mother. The second hypothesis argues that
children acquire perfectionism via interactions with
their same-sex parent. However, Appleton et al.
(2010) recently demonstrated that both mothers and
fathers were influential in predicting elite junior
athletes’ trait perfectionism. Further research is thus
required to examine the role of children’s gender in
the relationship between parental-related constructs
and athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies.
Given the limited research on the antecedents of
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions, in the current
study we try to extend our understanding in three
ways. First, we test the suggestion that a parent-
initiated motivational climate influences athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions. Using achievement goal
theory, it is hypothesized that a worry-conducive
climate – one that is critical of mistakes and reserves
approval for outstanding performance – will positively
predict athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. Second,
we test Flett and colleagues’ (2002) contention that
additional social actors influence perfectionistic ten-
dencies. This will be achieved by examining the
degree to which the coach motivational climate
predicts athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions beyond
the influence of the parental climate. It is proposed
that a coach-created performance climate will be a
significant positive predictor, and account for unique
variance in athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions, beyond
the effects of the parental climate. Finally, we examine
the role of athletes’ age and gender in the hypothe-
sized relationships. Based on Flett et al. (2002), it is
expected that age, but not gender, will moderate the
relationships between the motivational climates and
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 190 elite junior athletes (73
females, 117 males) from individual and team sports
(rugby union, netball, cricket, rowing, badminton,
swimming, ice hockey, basketball, rugby league,
tennis, squash, and judo). The participants were
recruited from sporting academies in the UK, and
ranged in age from 10 to 18 years old (mean 15.2
years, s ¼ 1.5). On average, athletes had been
participating in their sport for 6.7 years (s ¼ 2.6)
and the average number of years associated with their
current club was 4.5 years (s ¼ 2.9). The present
sample was considered elite because, based on
demonstrated performance excellence in their age
group, all athletes had been given access to specialist
coaching and high-performance developmental
training in their chosen sport.
Measures
Parent-Initiated Motivational Climate Questionnaire-2
(PIMCQ-2; White & Duda, 1993). Consisting of 18
items, the PIMCQ-2 was repeated twice to capture
an athlete’s perceptions of the climate created by
their mother and the climate created by their father.
The questionnaire consists of three subscales mea-
suring a learning-enjoyment climate (8 items; e.g.
‘‘I feel that my mother/father is most satisfied when I
learn something new in sport’’), a worry-conducive
climate (5 items; e.g. ‘‘I feel that my mother/father
makes me worried about losing in sport’’), and a
success-without-effort climate (5 items; e.g. ‘‘I feel
that my mother/father is most satisfied when I
succeed without effort in sport’’). Responses are
recorded on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by
strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5). White
(2007) summarized the psychometric properties of
the PIMCQ-2.
Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2
(PMCSQ-2; Newton et al., 2000). Athletes’ percep-
tions of the coach-created motivational climate
were assessed with the 29-item PMCSQ-2. The
PMCSQ-2 was designed to assess athletes’ percep-
tions of the mastery (15 items; e.g. ‘‘At this club,
each athlete contributes in some important way’’)
and performance (14 items; e.g. ‘‘The coach gets
mad when a player makes a mistake’’) climates.
Responses were provided using the same Likert scale
associated with the PIMCQ-2. Psychometric work
on the PMCSQ-2 has found the measure to have
adequate internal reliability and factorial validity
(Newton et al., 2000).
Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory (PCI; Flett et al.,
1998). In the current study, perfectionistic cogni-
tions were measured using the 25-item PCI (e.g. ‘‘I
think why can’t I be perfect’’; ‘‘I think I certainly
have high standards’’). The general instructions were
modified in the current study to focus athletes on the
cognitions experienced during practice and competi-
tion (‘‘During practice/competition I think . . . ’’).
Athletes’ responses were measured on a 5-point
 Athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions 665

Notes: PC ¼ athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions; CM ¼ coach-created mastery climate; CP ¼ coach-created performance climate; MLE ¼ mother-initiated leaning-enjoyment climate; FLE ¼ father-
0.79
0.91

0.77

0.83
0.80
0.86

0.78
0.69
0.66

initiated leaning-enjoyment climate; MSE ¼ mother-initiated success-without-effort climate; FSE ¼ father-initiated success-without-effort climate; MWC ¼ mother-initiated worry-conducive
Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ all the time). Flett et al.

a
(in press) have conducted principal component
analyses of the PCI with adolescents, and have

Table I. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions, parent-initiated motivational climate, and the coach-created motivational climate.

0.56
0.51
16.49

0.56
0.62

0.74
0.78
1.44
0.53

0.64
supported the unidimensional structure of the scale.

s
The PCI also explains unique variance in outcome
variables (e.g. depression) after controlling for trait

2.49
3.86
3.88
2.28

2.00
2.28
69.31
14.97
4.01

2.28
mean
measures of perfectionism (e.g. self-oriented perfec-
tionism) (Flett et al., 1998; Hill & Appleton, in press),
and has high internal reliability (Sturman et al.,
2009). In the current study, a principal components

0.42***
70.50***
70.53***

0.73***
0.22**
0.25**
0.19*

70.18*
analysis revealed similar findings to Flett et al. (in

0.12

2.23
0.80
0.84
10

environment; FWC ¼ father-initiated worry-conducive environment. Scores for male athletes above the diagonal, scores for female athletes below the diagonal.
press); that is, although five components with
eigenvalues higher than 1 emerged, the first compo-
nent was clearly distinguishable from the others on a

0.35***

0.62***
70.56***
70.44***
scree plot. This component accounted for 30.76% of

0.22**
70.26**

0.29**
0.19*
0.01

2.00
0.77
0.84
the variance (l1 ¼ 7.69), while none of the other

9
factors accounted for more than 8% of the variance
(maximum eigenvalue for the other factors was 2.20).
The item loadings were generally quite high, with 20

0.81***
70.29**
70.27**

0.33**
items loading higher than 0.5 and four items loading

70.21*

70.20*

0.24*
0.05

70.01

2.21
0.67
0.60
8
higher than 0.37. Item 24 had the smallest loading
(0.18). Flett et al. (1998, in press) also found item 24
to have a relatively low component loading, and was
thus excluded in the current study.

70.32***

0.87***
0.37**
70.19*

70.20*
70.12
0.00

0.03

0.18
2.13
0.64
0.70
7

Procedure
After receiving university ethics approval, coaches
were contacted to obtain their permission to include 0.70***
0.27**

70.28**
70.37**
70.16*

70.24*
70.03
70.10

70.18

3.91
0.53
0.74
6

athletes in the study. The first author then visited the

athletes to explain the study and administer the
questionnaire. Informed consent was obtained from
the athletes before they completed the questionnaire,
0.40***

0.74***

70.31**
70.22*

70.25*

and written parental consent was obtained for

70.04
70.09

70.10
70.10

4.04
0.48
0.73
5

athletes under 18 years of age. Coaches and parents

were absent during data collection.
70.32***
0.31***

.30**
0.30**
0.21*

0.20*
0.25*
70.08
70.15

2.37
0.60
0.85

Results
4

Preliminary analysis
We screened for missing data and normality follow-
0.34**
70.23*

70.25*

ing Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) guidelines. No

70.05

0.16

70.06
0.19
70.02

4.26
0.39
0.81
0.05
3

missing entries were identified, while six cases

emerged as either univariate (n ¼ 3; z ¼ 3.29,
P 5 0.001) or multivariate (n ¼ 3; Mahalanobis
***P 5 0.001, **P 5 0.01, *P 5 0.05.

distance 4w2 (9) ¼ 27.877) outliers. With the re-

0.20*
0.16*

70.02
70.07
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.00
70.09
15.50
1.53
2

moval of six outliers, the remaining data (n ¼ 190)

were considered to be univariate and multivariate
normal (absolute skewness: mean ¼ 0.35, s ¼ 0.27;
0.45***

absolute kurtosis: mean ¼ 0.35, s ¼ 0.22; Mahalanobis

0.34**

69.98
15.39
0.25*

–0.11

0.22*

0.23*
0.18

0.05

0.17

0.91
1

distance: mean ¼ 8.95, s ¼ 6.13).

Main analyses
10. FWC
9. MWC
5. MLE

7. MSE
6. FLE

8. FSE
3. CM
2. Age
1. PC

4. CP

mean

Cronbach’s alpha values (see Table I) suggest all

subscales were internally reliable (0.70 for scales
a
s
666 P. R. Appleton et al.

0.25*/0.30*

Notes: MLE ¼ mother-initiated learning-enjoyment climate; FLE ¼ father-initiated learning-enjoyment climate; MSE ¼ mother-initiated success-without-effort climate; FSE ¼ father-initiated success-
without-effort climate; MWC ¼ mother-initiated worry-conducive climate; FWC ¼ father-initiated worry-conducive climate; CM ¼ coach-created mastery climate; CP ¼ coach-created performance
with 10 items or more and a  0.60 for scales with 5

CP
items or more; Loewenthal, 2001). Athletes reported
moderately high perceptions of coach-created mas-

Table II. Hierarchical regression analyses: Athletes’ age, perceptions of the parent-initiated and coach-created motivational climates predicting athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions.
tery and parent-initiated learning-enjoyment cli-
mates. Perceptions of a coach-created performance

0.12/0.25*
CM
climate, parent-initiated success-without-effort and
worry-conducive environments were moderate to
moderately low. Finally, athletes’ perfectionistic
cognitions were moderate.

0.37**/0.01
0.48**/0.00
FWC
Regression analyses
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested with hierarchical

70.36**/0.49**

70.36**/0.39**
regression analyses. The variables were entered into
the regression equation in the following order.

MWC
Standardized regression coefficients
Athletes’ age was entered at step 1, the parent-
initiated climates at step 2, and the coach-created
motivational climate dimensions at step 3. Separate
analyses were conducted for male and female

70.33*/0.06

70.26/0.06
athletes. Inspection of Table II reveals that

FSE
athletes’ age (males: b ¼ 0.16, P 4 0.05; females:
b ¼ 0.18, P 4 0.05) was a non-significant predictor
at step 1. At step 2, the father- (b ¼ 0.48, P 5 0.01)
and mother-initiated (b ¼ –0.36, P 5 0.01) worry-

0.08/–0.01
0.11/0.01
conducive climates, and the father-initiated success-

MSE
without-effort climate (b ¼ –0.33, P 5 0.05) emerged
as significant predictors for the male sample,
explaining 17% of the variance in perfectionistic

0.13/0.37*

0.10/0.31
cognitions. For female athletes, the father-initiated
FLE

learning-enjoyment climate (b ¼ 0.37, P 5 0.05) and

the mother worry-conducive environment (b ¼ 0.49,
P 5 0.05) emerged as significant predictors, explain-
70.15/–0.23

70.17/–0.24
ing 28% of the variance in perfectionistic cognitions.
MLE

When the coach-created motivational climates were

entered at step 3, a performance climate (b ¼ 0.25,
P 5 0.05) emerged as a positive significant pre-
dictor for male athletes, explaining an additional 4%
0.18*/0.14

climate. Scores for male athletes left, scores for female athletes right.
0.16/0.18

0.14/0.10

of the variance in perfectionistic cognitions. This

Age

change was statistically significant (DF2,105 ¼ 3.14,

P 5 0.05). In addition, the mother (b ¼ –0.36,
P 5 0.01) and father worry-conducive climates
0.17**/0.28**

(b ¼ 0.37, P 5 0.01) were still significant predictors

0.04*/0.11*

at step 3. For female athletes, mastery (b ¼ 0.25,

2
DR

P 5 0.05) and performance climates (b ¼ 0.30,

P 5 0.01) emerged as significant predictors, explain-
ing an additional 11% of the variance in perfectio-
***P 5 0.001, **P 5 0.01, *P 5 0.05.
0.02/0.03
0.19/0.31

0.23/0.42

nistic cognitions. This change was statistically

2

significant (DF2,61 ¼ 5.47, P 5 0.01). The mother

R

worry-conducive climate was still a significant pre-

dictor at step 3 (b ¼ 0.39, P 5 0.01).
3.47**/4.05**

3.50**/4.81**

To determine whether athletes’ age and gender

2.80/2.24

moderated the relationship between the motivational

F

climates and athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions,

moderated regression analyses were conducted
following Aiken and West’s (1991) recommenda-
Step 1
Step 2

Step 3

tions. First, players’ age, parent-initiated climates,

and coach-created climates were standardized, and
 Athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions 667

athletes’ gender was dummy coded (i.e. males ¼ –1, climate and athletes’ gender achieved significance
females ¼ 1). Interactions terms between athletes’ at step 2 (b ¼ 0.43, P 5 0.01), accounting for 12%
age and gender, and perceptions of the parental unique variance (DF15,159 ¼ 1.73, P 5 0.05). This
climates and coaching climates were created. The interaction suggests that the relationship between the
standardized predictor variables were entered into mother-initiated worry-conducive climate and ath-
the regression equation as a block in step 1, followed letes’ perfectionistic cognitions is moderated by
by the respective interactions terms at step 2. athletes’ gender. The significant interaction was
Significant interaction terms indicate that age and/ further explored by plotting regression lines for male
or gender act as moderators. and female athletes (see Figure 1). Post hoc analysis
Inspection of Table III reveals that the interaction indicated that the gradient of the male (t ¼ –2.79,
between the mother-initiated worry-conducive P 5 0.001) and female (t ¼ –1.54, P 5 0.001) regres-
sion lines were significantly different from zero. The
regression lines suggest that for male athletes, scores
Table III. Moderated regression analyses: Athletes’ gender, age,
on the PCI increase as perceptions of the mother-
perceptions of the parent-initiated and coach-created motivational
climates predicting athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. initiated worry-conducive climate decrease. In con-
trast, female athletes report heightened PCI scores as
Variable F R2 DR2 B their perceptions of the mother-initiated worry-
conducive climate increase.
Step 1 4.48*** 0.20
Gender 0.01
Age 0.12
Discussion
MLE 70.11
FLE 0.11 As the parental climate is central to the development
MSE 0.18
of children’s perfectionism (Flett et al., 1998;
FSE 70.24
MWC 70.02 Greenspon, 2008), sport psychologists have accepted
FWC 0.18 the notion that caregivers’ expectations and criticism
CM 0.22** are key antecedents of athletes’ perfectionism. How-
CP 0.31*** ever, little is known about the relationship between
Step 2 2.90*** 0.32 0.12* parental factors and athletes’ perfectionistic cogni-
Gender 0.02 tions. In the present study, we addressed this issue by
Age 0.06
MLE 70.18
testing the predictive effects of the parental motiva-
FLE 0.11 tional climate upon junior athletes’ perfectionistic
MSE 0.08 cognitions. A second purpose was to determine whe-
FSE 70.26 ther coaches also influence young athletes’ perfectio-
MWC 70.38** nistic cognitions. Although there is consensus that
FWC 0.38**
CM 0.12
coaches are pertinent to the aetiology of perfection-
CP 0.28** ism, the influence of the coach motivational climate
MLE 6 age 70.02 on athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions is currently
FLE 6 age 70.09
MLE 6 gender 0.19
FLE 6 gender 0.10
MSE 6 age 70.16
FSE 6 age 0.01
MSE 6 gender 0.00
FSE 6 gender 0.18
MWC 6 age 0.03
FWC 6 age 70.10
MWC 6 gender 0.43**
FWC 6 gender 70.20
CM 6 age 70.01
CP 6 age 70.06
CM 6 gender 0.10
CP 6 gender 70.01

Note: MLE ¼ mother-initiated learning-enjoyment climate;

FLE ¼ father-initiated learning-enjoyment climate; MSE ¼
mother-initiated success-without-effort climate; FSE ¼ father-in-
itiated success-without-effort climate; MWC ¼ mother-initiated
worry-conducive climate; FWC ¼ father-initiated worry-conducive
climate; CM ¼ coach-created mastery climate; CP ¼ coach-created Figure 1. Mother-initiated worry-conducive (MWC) motivational
performance climate. climate predicting athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions for male and
***P 5 0.001, **P 5 0.01, *P 5 0.05. female athletes.
668 P. R. Appleton et al.
unknown, and thus the current study examined this
relationship. A final purpose was to test Flett and
colleagues’ (2002) argument that children’s age
and gender are influential in the development of
perfectionistic cognitions.
Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the
strongest predictor of male and female athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions was the same-sex parent-
initiated worry-conducive climate. The finding that a
worry-conducive climate is associated with athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions extends previous research
(e.g. McArdle & Duda, 2004, 2008) that has
established a relationship between specific parenting
practices and athletes’ trait perfectionism. The
findings also offer further support for the same-sex
parent–child hypothesis of perfectionism develop-
ment. Thus, the current results suggest that junior
athletes may experience perfectionistic cognitions
when the same-sex parent-initiated motivational
climate is perceived as disparaging of mistakes and
highly critical (McArdle & Duda, 2008). That is,
athletes who perceive a worry-conducive environ-
ment are fearful of performance errors because it will
appear negative in the eyes of their same-sex
caregiver. Moreover, the athlete ruminates about
avoiding imperfection because it is via exceptional
performance that their same-sex parent’s approval
may be forthcoming (Hamachek, 1978).
The regression analyses also revealed a number of
unexpected findings. First, the maternal worry-
conducive climate emerged as a negative predictor
of males’ perfectionistic cognitions. A significant
interaction between athletes’ gender and the mother-
initiated worry-conducive climate subsequently
confirmed that male athletes reported lower perfec-
tionistic cognitions when exposed to this particular
motivational climate. Both results were unexpected
and, on first view, contradict the debilitating nature
of this punitive environment. One explanation for
these outcomes is Hamachek’s (1978) notion of
negative modelling. Hamachek suggested negative
modelling involves striving to obtain qualities oppo-
site to those emphasized or valued by significant
others. Vieth and Trull (1999) expanded upon
Hamachek’s theory by proposing that males accept
same-sex role models, and reject opposite-sex
models, to a greater extent that females as they seek
to establish a sense of masculinity. Based on the
notion of negative modelling, it is speculated that
the male athletes in the current study rejected the
achievement-related messages within a mother-in-
itiated worry-conducive climate, which subsequently
led to low perfectionistic cognitions scores.
A further unexpected finding was the emergence
of the father-initiated learning-enjoyment motiva-
tional climate as a significant predictor of female
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. This finding is
unexpected because it is contrary to the same-sex
hypothesis of perfectionism development, and in-
dicates that an adaptive motivational climate predicts
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. However, this
finding is consistent with Vieth and Trull’s (1999)
suggestion that female children may be less rejecting
of their opposite-sex parent. The current finding is
also aligned with previous research from the sport
domain that has shown how mastery achievement
goals are associated with trait perfectionism dimen-
sions (Appleton, Hall, & Hill, 2009; Kaye, Conroy,
& Fifer, 2008; Stoeber et al., 2009a). It is speculated
that a father-initiated mastery climate emerged as a
significant predictor of perfectionistic cognitions
because this achievement environment encourages
female athletes to focus upon maximizing their
potential via the acquisition and refinement of skills,
learning from performance errors, and a commit-
ment to high standards (Duda & Balaguer, 2007). In
this respect, female junior athletes who are enveloped
by a father-initiated learning-enjoyment climate may
also experience perfectionistic-like cognitions that
are relatively adaptive in nature and focused on
achieving excellence. In support of this statement,
researchers (e.g. Kobori & Tanno, 2005; Stoeber,
Kobori, & Tanno, 2010) have recently shown that
cognitions about having perfectionistic standards
(but not cognitions about one’s imperfections) are
associated with positive automatic thoughts and
affect. In contrast, it is proposed that a mother-
initiated worry-conducive climate may contribute to
perfectionistic cognitions in female athletes that
are focused on imperfections in sport, and are
thus maladaptive in nature (Stoeber et al., 2010).
Research is now required to determine the effects
of female athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions that
emerge within a paternal mastery climate versus a
maternal worry-conducive climate.
The negative association between the father-
initiated success-without-effort climate and male
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions was also unex-
pected. A close inspection of the Perfectionistic
Cognitions Inventory (PCI) provides a potential
explanation for this finding. The PCI captures an
athlete’s thoughts towards ‘‘always working on one’s
goals’’, ‘‘always doing more’’, and ‘‘working hard all
the time’’. Athletes scoring high on the PCI therefore
assign great value to striving relentlessly towards
their goals, as they seek to achieve perfection and
validate their self-worth. In contrast, athletes envel-
oped by a father-initiated success-without-effort
climate learn about the importance of success in
sport, but are encouraged to withhold effort during
sporting endeavours. As a result, there is little reason
to expect that such athletes will engage in the type
of cognitions that emphasize application of effort
towards perfect standards.

The hypothesis that the coach-created motiva-
tional climate would predict athletes’ perfectionistic
cognitions was supported by the hierarchical regres-
sion analyses. This finding is consistent with Flett
and colleagues’ (2002) argument that additional
social actors influence children’s perfectionistic
tendencies, and corroborates suggestions (e.g. Dunn,
Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002; Dunn, Gotwals,
Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2006b; Gotwals &
Dunn, 2009) that perceived coach pressures are a
critical antecedent of athletes’ dispositional perfec-
tionism. One explanation for this finding is the level at
which athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies was mea-
sured in the present study. Perfectionistic cognitions
represent state-like, automatic thoughts that occur
during training and competition. When elite junior
athletes train and compete, they are constantly
exposed to a coach-created motivational climate that
emphasizes the criteria upon which competence is
evaluated, and that provides immediate performance-
related feedback. The present findings suggest that
these coach-created, achievement-related structures
may be influential in directing the athlete’s thoughts
towards perfectionistic themes.
Although the coach-created motivational climate
contributed to explained variance in perfectionistic
cognitions at step 3 of the regression analyses, the
parent-initiated worry-conducive environment re-
mained a significant predictor. Thus, this debilitating
parental climate may continue to exert a significant
influence over junior athletes’ perfectionistic cogni-
tions once the effects of the coach-created climate are
accounted for. Furthermore, because age failed to
emerge as a significant moderator, the influence of
parental and coach-created climates may be a
persistent influence for younger and older junior
athletes. These findings supports Anshel and Eom’s
(2003) contention that coaches and parents influence
junior athletes’ perfectionism, and is also consistent
with developmental models in sport (Wylleman &
Lavallee, 2004). A central assumption of Wylleman
and Lavallee’s model is that the influence of
significant others either subsides or intensifies as
athletes progress throughout their sporting career.
With regards to the age range of the sample in the
current study (10–18 years), Wylleman and Lavallee
identified coaches and parents as shaping athletes’
sporting experiences. What is unclear from the
current findings is whether the parent-initiated and
coach-created motivational climates continue to
influence the perfectionistic cognitions of adult
athletes. Based on their findings with older athletes,
Dunn and colleagues (Dunn et al., 2006b) proposed
that parents become less influential in the develop-
ment of perfectionism as athletes reach adulthood,
because the individual becomes less dependent on
parental expectations and feedback. From Dunn and
Athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions 669
colleagues’ conclusion, it is hypothesized that the
parent-initiated climate may fail to predict perfectio-
nistic cognitions in older athletes. The validity of this
hypothesis remains to be established.
As hypothesized, the hierarchical regression ana-
lyses demonstrated that a coach-created perfor-
mance climate significantly predicted male athletes’
perfectionistic cognitions. For female athletes,
coach-created mastery and performance climates
influenced perfectionistic cognitions. Although un-
expected, the finding for female athletes is consistent
with step 2 of the regression analysis, where aspects
of the parent-initiated mastery (i.e. father-initiated
learning-enjoyment climate) and performance cli-
mate (i.e. mother-initiated worry-conducive climate)
predicted female athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions.
The finding is also consonant with research that has
established a relationship between coach-created
mastery and performance climates and trait dimen-
sions of perfectionism (Lemyre et al., 2008;
Ommundsen et al., 2005). Specifically, researchers
have reported that a coach-created mastery climate is
correlated with more adaptive perfectionism dimen-
sions (e.g. high personal standards), while the coach-
created performance climate is associated with
maladaptive perfectionism dimensions (e.g. concern
over mistakes, doubt about action). Based on these
findings, it is proposed that, in a similar manner to
parent-initiated climate, the type of coach-created
motivational climate operating within elite junior
sport may determine the nature of perfectionistic
cognitions in female athletes. That is, when a female
athlete perceives the coach-created climate as em-
phasizing the acquisition and refinement of skills,
continual learning and development, and progress
towards sporting excellence, the resulting pattern of
perfectionism-related thoughts may be adaptive in
nature. In contrast, perfectionistic cognitions may be
far more maladaptive for female junior athletes
enveloped by a coach-created performance climate.
Within a performance climate, the athlete’s concern
for personal development and skill acquisition
becomes intertwined with demonstrating compara-
tive ability and gaining coach recognition (Newton
et al., 2000). In this instance, cognitions are focused
upon self-validation, and may ultimately contribute
to emotional turmoil in the athlete that accentuates a
preoccupation with personal inadequacies.
Although our results contribute to our under-
standing of the antecedents of athletes’ perfectionis-
tic cognitions, the study has some limitations. One
limitation concerns the cross-sectional nature of the
study, and thus causality between the motivational
climates and athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions
cannot be inferred. To address this limitation,
experimental research on the origins of perfectionis-
tic cognitions is warranted. A further limitation is the
670 P. R. Appleton et al.
narrow approach when examining the influence of
social actors. The decision to focus upon parents and
coaches was guided by sport-specific perfectionism
scales. However, the wider sport psychology literature
indicates that junior athletes are influenced by a
multitude of significant others (Wylleman & Lavallee,
2004). Peers are particularly influential during early
adolescence (Smith, 2007) and are important con-
tributors to the motivational climate in sport (Ntou-
manis, Vazou, & Duda, 2007). In future studies,
researchers may wish to examine the extent to which
the peer-created motivational climate predicts junior
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions, beyond the role
of the parent-initiated and coach-created climates.
Given the relationship between trait perfectionism
dimensions, such as self-oriented and socially pre-
scribed perfectionism, and perfectionistic cognitions,
researchers should also determine whether aspects of
the motivational climates moderate this relationship.
Despite the limitations outlined above, the present
findings represent the first evidence that perceptions
of the parent-initiated motivational climate predict
athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions. While a number
of parental climates emerged as significant pre-
dictors, a worry-conducive environment was the
strongest predictor. Furthermore, the effects of
the mother-initiated worry-conducive climate were
dependent upon the athletes’ gender; male athletes
reported lower perfectionistic cognitions scores
when reporting high perceptions of the mother-
initiated worry-conducive climate, and female
athletes reported higher perfectionistic cognitions
scores when reporting high perceptions of this
motivational climate. Finally, the coach-created
motivational climates also influenced athletes’ per-
fectionistic cognitions, providing support for Flett
and colleagues’ (2002) contention that additional
social actors may contribute to the development of
perfectionistic tendencies in children.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and
motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in
sport and exercise (pp. 161–176). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H. J. (2003). Identifying dimensions of
perfectionism in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
34, 255–266.
Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2009). Relations
between multidimensional perfectionism and burnout in
junior-elite male athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10,
457–465.
Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2010). Family patterns
of perfectionism: An examination of elite junior athletes and
their parents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 363–371.
Besser, A., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Guex, J. (2008).
Perfectionism, and cognitions, affect, self-esteem and physio-
logical reactions in a performance situation. Journal of Rational-
Emotive and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, 26, 206–228.
Burns, D. (1980). The perfectionist’s self-script for self-defeat.
Psychology Today. November, pp. 34–51.
Duda, J. L. (2005). Motivation in sport: The relevance of com-
petence and achievement goals. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 318–335).
New York: Guilford Press.
Duda, J. L., & Balaguer, I. (2007). Coach-created motivational
climate. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in
sport (pp. 117–130). Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics.
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. K. (2001). Achievement goals theory in
sport: Recent extensions and future directions. In R. Singer, H.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (2nd edn., pp. 417–443). New York: Wiley.
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., Gotwals, J. K., Vallance, J.
K. H., Craft, J. M., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2006a). Establishing
construct validity for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 57–79.
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002).
Relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and goal
orientations in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,
376–395.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Syrotuik,
D. G. (2006b). Examining the relationship between perfection-
ism and trait anger in sport. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 4, 7–24.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in
sports and exercise. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
14, 14–18.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998).
Psychological distress and the frequency of perfectionistic
thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
1363–1381.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Demerjian, A., Sturman, E. D., Sherry,
S. B., & Cheng, W. (in press). Perfectionistic automatic
thoughts and psychological distress in adolescents: An analysis
of the Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory. Journal of Rational-
Emotive and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002).
Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental
analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Whelan, T., & Martin, T. R. (2007).
The Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory: Psychometric prop-
erties and associations with distress and deficits in cognitive
self-management. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy, 25, 255–277.
Frost, R. O., & Henderson, K. J. (1991). Perfectionism and
reactions to athletic competition. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 13, 323–335.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The
dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5,
449–468.
Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2009). A multi-method multi-
analytic approach to establishing internal construct validity
evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13, 71–92.
Greenspon, T. S. (2000). ‘‘Healthy perfectionism’’ is an oxymor-
on! Reflections on the psychology of perfectionism and the
sociology of science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11,
197–208.
Greenspon, T. S. (2008). Making sense of error: A view of the
origins and treatment of perfectionism. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 62, 263–282.

Hall, H. K. (2006). Perfectionism: A hallmark quality of world
class performers, or a psychological impediment to athletic
development? In D. Hackfort & G. Tenenbaum (Eds.),
Perspectives in sport and exercise psychology: Essential processes for
attaining peak performance. (Vol. 1, pp. 178–211). Oxford:
Meyer & Meyer.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic
perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and
social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association
with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 60, 456–470.
Hill, A. P., & Appleton, P. R. (in press). The predictive ability of
the frequency of perfectionistic cognitions, self-oriented per-
fectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism in relation to
symptoms of burnout in youth rugby players. Journal of Sports
Sciences. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2010.551216.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals:
Situating motivation in socio-cultural contexts. In T. Urdan &
F. Pajaers (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 2: Academic
motivation of adolescents (pp. 125–167). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Kaye, M. P., Conroy, D. E., & Fifer, A. M. (2008). Indi-
vidual differences in incompetence avoidance: A com-
parison of multiple dimensions of perfectionism and fear of
failure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30,
110–132.
Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-oriented perfectionism and
its relationship to positive and negative affect: The mediation of
positive and negative perfectionism cognitions. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 29, 559–571.
Krane, V., Greenleaf, C. A., & Snow, J. (1997). Reaching for gold
and the price of glory: A motivational case study of an elite
gymnast. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 53–71.
Lemyre, P. N., Hall, H. K., & Roberts, G. C. (2008). A social
cognitive approach to burnout in elite athletes. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 18, 221–234.
Loewenthal, K. (2001). An introduction to psychological tests and
scales (2nd edn.). London: Psychological Press.
McArdle, S., & Duda, J. L. (2004). Exploring social-
contextual correlates of perfectionism in adolescents: A
multivariate perspective. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28,
765–788.
McArdle, S., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Exploring the etiology of the
indices and correlates of perfectionism in young athletes. Social
Development, 17, 980–997.
Newton, M. L., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the
psychometric properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate
in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 18, 275–290.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ntoumanis, N., Vazou, S., & Duda, J. L. (2007). Peer-created
motivational climate. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social
psychology of sport (pp. 145–156). Leeds, UK: Human
Kinetics.
Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P. N., & Miller, B.
W. (2005). Peer relationships in adolescent competitive
soccer: Associations to perceived motivational climate,
achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sports Sciences,
23, 977–989.
Athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions 671
Sagar, S. S., & Stoeber, J. (2009). Perfectionism, fear of failure,
and affective responses to success and failure: The central role
of fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 602–627.
Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. (1998). A dual process model of
perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behavior
Modification, 22, 372–390.
Smith, A. L. (2007). Youth relationships in sport. In S. Jowett &
D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 41–54). Leeds,
UK: Human Kinetics.
Sorotzkin, B. (1998). Understanding and treating perfectionism in
religious adolescents. Psychotherapy, 35, 87–95.
Stoeber, J., & Becker, C. (2008). Perfectionism, achievement
motives, and attribution of success and failure in female soccer
players. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 980–987.
Stoeber, J., Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2010). The Multi-
dimensional Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory – English
(MPCI-E): Reliability, validity, and relationships with positive
and negative affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 16–25.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfection-
ism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., Pescheck, E., Becker, C., & Stoll, O. (2007).
Perfectionism and competitive anxiety in athletes: Differentiat-
ing striving for perfection and negative reactions to imperfec-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 959–969.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Stoll, O. (2005). Multidimensional
Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport (MIPS). Unpublished
manuscript, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Stoeber, J., Stoll, O., Salmi, O., & Tiikkaja, J. (2009a).
Perfectionism and achievement goals in young Finnish ice-
hockey players aspiring to make the U16 national team. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 27, 85–94.
Stoeber, J., Uphill, M. A., & Hotham, S. (2009b). Predicting race
performance in triathlon: The role of perfectionism, achieve-
ment goals, and personal goal setting. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 31, 211–245.
Sturman, E. D., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Rudolph, S. G.
(2009). Dimensions of perfectionism and self-worth contin-
gencies in depression. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy, 27, 213–231.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th edn.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vieth, A. Z., & Trull, T. J. (1999). Family patterns of
perfectionism: An examination of college students and their
parents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 49–67.
White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and perceptions of the
motivational climate initiated by parents. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 8, 122–129.
White, S. A. (2007). Parent-created motivational climate. In S.
Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology of sport (pp. 131–
144). Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics.
White, S. A., & Duda, J. (1993, June). The relationship between
goal orientation and parent-initiated motivational climate
among children learning a physical skill. Paper presented at the
8th World meeting for the International Society for Sport Psychology,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective
on transitions faced by athletes. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.),
Developmental sport and exercise psychology (pp. 507–527).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.