Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport & Exercise

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

Perceived parental pressure and perceived coach pressure in adolescent and

adult sport
John G.H. Dunn 1, *, John K. Gotwals 2, Janice Causgrove Dunn 1, Michael R. Lizmore 1, 3
1
Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation at the University of Alberta, Canada
2
School of Kinesiology at Lakehead University, Canada
3
Curling, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether adolescent and adult athletes’ perceptions of
Interpersonal perfectionistic pressure interpersonal perfectionistic performance pressures from parents and coaches differ as a function of athlete age.
Personality Design: A cross-sectional repeated-measures design was employed.
Coaches
Method: A total of 1544 youth sport athletes (M age = 15.44 years; SD = 2.12) and 1706 adult sport athletes (M
Parents
age = 20.80 years; SD = 2.09) provided self-report levels of perceived parental pressure (PPP) and perceived
coach pressure (PCP) in sport.
Results: Statistically significant interaction effects (ps < .001) were obtained from two repeated-measures ana­
lyses of variance. Interaction effects indicated that PPP tended to be lower in older/adult sport athletes than
younger/adolescent sport athletes, whereas PCP tended to be higher in older/adult sport athletes than younger/
adolescent sport athletes. Significant main effects (ps < .001) also revealed that, regardless of age and whether
athletes competed in youth sport or adult sport, athletes had a tendency to perceive more pressure from coaches
than parents.
Conclusion: Results highlight the need to differentiate between parents and coaches as potential sources of
interpersonal perfectionistic pressures in sport. Results also demonstrate that athletes’ perceptions of parent and
coach pressure surrounding performance expectations and standards in sport can differ as a function of athlete
age. Future research that examines perfectionism in sport from a developmental perspective is recommended.

It has long been acknowledged in the developmental sport psychol­
ogy literature that “parents play an important role in the early athletic
socialization of their children” (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, p. 145).
However, theorists suggest that this parental influence is likely to
diminish as children progress into adolescent and adult sport where
coaches are expected to play a more prominent role in the provision of
performance-related feedback and evaluation (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004;
Gucciardi, Mahoney, Jalleh, Donovan, & Parkes, 2012; Wylleman &
Lavallee, 2004). The influence of parents and coaches as providers of
performance-related feedback/expectations for athletes is of particular
interest to researchers who study perfectionism in sport because
socially-driven (i.e., interpersonal) pressures to attain exactingly high
performance standards from significant others are believed to influence
the development of individuals’ perfectionistic tendencies in both sport
(Appleton & Curran, 2016; Madigan et al., 2019) and non-sport settings
(Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002; Perera & Chang, 2015). The
aim of this study was to investigate whether adolescent and adult ath­
letes’ perceptions of parent and coach pressure differ as a function of
athlete age.
Perfectionism in sport can be conceptualized as a multidimensional
domain-specific achievement-motivation disposition that captures the
degree to which athletes set and strive towards the attainment of very
high (or perfect) performance standards—labelled perfectionistic stri­
vings—and the degree to which athletes are concerned or preoccupied
with the consequences of failing to reach these high performance
standards—labelled perfectionistic concerns (Dunn et al., 2016; Gotwals,
Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012). The role of perfectionistic strivings in
sport is both complex and somewhat ambiguous because strivings have
been significantly correlated with both adaptive and maladaptive cor­
relates in sport (Hill, Mallinson-Howard, & Jowett, 2018). That being

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, 3-100 University Hall, Van Vliet Complex, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, T6G 2H9.
E-mail address: john.dunn@ualberta.ca (J.G.H. Dunn).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102100
Received 16 July 2021; Received in revised form 12 November 2021; Accepted 13 November 2021
Available online 15 November 2021
1469-0292/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
said, high perfectionistic strivings are more likely to be associated with
adaptive cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses in athletes when
accompanied by low perfectionistic concerns (Dunn, Gotwals, Caus­
grove Dunn, & Lizmore, 2020). In contrast, heightened perfectionistic
concerns are almost always associated with maladaptive cognitive, af­
fective, and behavioral responses (for reviews see Gotwals et al., 2012;
Hill et al., 2018; Jowett, Mallinson, & Hill, 2016). Despite the accu­
mulation of research evidence highlighting the important role that
perfectionism (and its constituent dimensions) play in sport, there is still
a dearth of research examining perfectionism in sport from a develop­
mental perspective. This is an important area of study because athletes
often become involved in organized sport before the age of 10 years and
many continue this involvement throughout adolescence and into
adulthood (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). Such involvement can lead to
very different developmental experiences for athletes over time
depending upon the type of support or pressure they receive from social
agents in the sport environments they encounter (Fraser-Thomas, Côté,
& Deakin, 2008).
The focus of the present study is upon two facets (or sub-dimensions)
of perfectionistic concerns that reflect the degree to which athletes
perceive interpersonal pressures to reach exactingly high performance
standards from parents (hereafter labelled perceived parental pressure:
PPP) and coaches (hereafter labelled perceived coach pressure: PCP). Both
PPP and PCP can be conceptualized as domain-specific facets of socially
prescribed perfectionism (Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, et al., 2006; Dunn
et al., 2016, 2002)—where socially prescribed perfectionism reflects an
individual’s general disposition to feel pressure to achieve very high (or
perfect) performance standards that are imposed upon the individual by
significant others in the social environment (Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
Research with university students has demonstrated that pressure from a
variety of social agents (including parents, teachers, friends, and peers)
may play a role in the development of socially prescribed perfectionism
outside the sport context (Perera & Chang, 2015). Understanding the
role of PPP and PCP in sport is important because research has shown
that higher levels of PPP and PCP in athletes are linked to a host of
maladaptive characteristics including heightened fear of failure/social
evaluation and reduced optimism (Dunn et al., 2020), heightened body
image concerns (Dunn, Craft, Causgrove Dunn, & Gotwals, 2011),
heightened endorsement of performance avoidance goals (Gucciardi
et al., 2012), lower grit (Dunn, Kono, Cormier, Causgrove Dunn, &
Rumbold, 2021), heightened anger (Vallance, Dunn, & Causgrove Dunn,
2006), lower self-esteem (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009), and heightened
psychological needs-thwarting (Mallinson & Hill, 2011).
Although heightened PPP and PCP have been associated with an
array of maladaptive characteristics, some perfectionism researchers
have proposed that the relevance or salience of PPP and/or PCP for
athletes might differ as a function of athlete age or the corresponding
developmental competitive levels in which athletes participate (e.g.,
Dunn, Gotwals, et al., 2006; Gotwals, Dunn, & Wayment, 2003; Guc­
ciardi et al., 2012). For example, Dunn, Gotwals, Causgrove Dunn, &
Syrotuik, 2006 examined PPP and PCP in a sample of late-adolescent
high-performance male Canadian football players (M age = 18.27
years, SD = 0.71) and observed that athletes had much lower levels of
PPP than PCP. The authors speculated that “the role of perceived
parental pressure may become less influential [in comparison to
perceived coach pressure] as athletes get older because they become less
dependent upon or influenced by their parents with respect to perfor­
mance standards or performance related feedback” (p. 20). Some sup­
port for this position was found in a study by Gucciardi et al. (2012) with
elite athletes in Australia (M age = 25.64 years; SD = 8.57) where
athletes under the age of 20 years had significantly higher PPP than
athletes aged over 30 years and significantly lower PCP than athletes
aged 20–30 years.
We are only aware of Gucciardi et al.’s (2012) research that has
specifically explored differences in PPP and PCP as a function of athlete
age (and speculate that few studies have done so because they lacked
2
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
sufficient variability in the age of participants). Gucciardi et al.
compared PPP and PCP levels across three age groups—under 20 years,
20–30 years, and over 30 years—and although differences in PPP and
PCP levels between age groups were reported, the authors did not
explore possible differences in PPP and PCP that might have existed
within adolescence.
The World Health Organization (n.d.) defines adolescence as the
period of human development between childhood and adulthood that
spans ages 10–19 years. Adolescence has been identified as a key period
in which to investigate interpersonal aspects of perfectionism (such as
PPP and PCP) because “the impact of socially prescribed pressures to be
perfect are magnified during adolescence when social evaluations
become increasingly important” (Flett et al., 2002, p. 115). Hewitt, Flett,
and Mikail (2017) also argued that although early parenting during
childhood plays an important role in the development of perfectionism,
such development continues throughout adolescence and is influenced
by the interactions that people have with significant others outside of
the family including peers, teachers, and coaches (also see Appleton &
Curran, 2016). Indeed, the role of significant others as sources of
interpersonal perfectionistic pressures may become magnified for ado­
lescents in contexts such as organized competitive sport where pressures
“to live up to high expectations” (Hewitt et al., 2017, p. 126) and high
performance standards are commonplace.
In comparison to childhood, adolescence is a time when athletes
typically seek greater independence from their parents (Dorsch,
Thrower, & Lowe, 2020) and simultaneously develop stronger social
connections with their coaches in competitive sport settings (Jowett &
Timson-Katchis, 2005). Research has shown that as athletes move from
children’s sport into adolescent sport they begin to rely more heavily
upon coaches (than parents) for performance- or competence-related
feedback (Chan, Lonsdale, & Fung, 2012). As athletes move from
early-adolescent sport into late-adolescent and adult sport, coaches
often place higher performance demands and expectations upon athletes
(Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004) as a greater emphasis is placed upon
achieving normative competitive success (i.e., winning) by coaches and
athletes alike (Chaumeton & Duda, 1988).
The current study builds upon Gucciardi et al.’s (2012) work by
comparing PPP and PCP levels across youth sport and adult sport ath­
letes, and extends Gucciardi et al.‘s work by conducting a more nuanced
examination of PPP and PCP within adolescence. The youngest athletes
in Gucciardi et al.‘s study (aged 14–19 years) were combined into a
single age-group (i.e., under-20) for analytic purposes which obscures
potential differences or changes in PPP and PCP that might exist during
adolescence. To address this issue, the current study differentiated be­
tween early-, mid-, and late-adolescent stages of sport involvement (in
addition to adult sport) when assessing athletes’ PPP and PCP. Following
the tenets of developmental theories in sport psychology that
acknowledge the changing roles/interactions that parents (e.g., Wylle­
man & Lavallee, 2004) and coaches (e.g., Dorsch et al., 2020) have with
athletes as athletes move through adolescent sport and into adult sport,
we hypothesized that PPP would be lower and PCP would be higher in
older athletes compared to younger athletes. More specifically we
anticipated that (a) youth sport athletes would generally report higher
PPP and lower PCP than adult sport athletes, and (b) early- and
mid-adolescent athletes would generally report higher PPP and lower
PCP than late-adolescent and adult athletes.
1. Method
1.1. Participants
A total of 3259 athletes (2281 male; 978 female) competing in North
America who had responded to the perceived parental pressure (PPP)
and perceived coach pressure (PCP) subscales of the Sport Multidimen­
sional Perfectionism Scale (SMPS; Dunn et al., 2006) or its successor the
Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (SMPS2; Gotwals & Dunn,
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
2009) in 18 separate studies formed the sample that was used in the
present study (M age = 18.28 years, SD = 3.44, range 10–34.7 years).1
None of these studies had previously analyzed PPP and PCP data from a
developmental perspective.2
Table 1 summarizes participant characteristics across each of the 18
studies. Athletes either participated in age-governed youth sport (n =
1545) or adult sport (n = 1714) where age restrictions did not apply.
Participants were further classified according to age; athletes ranging in
age from 10.0 to 13.99 years (n = 390, M age = 12.69, SD = 0.88) were
classified as early-adolescents, athletes ranging in age from 14.0 to 16.99
years (n = 686, M age = 15.27, SD = 0.64) were classified as mid-ado­
lescents, and athletes ranging in age from 17.0 to 19.99 years (n = 1,066,
M age = 18.42, SD = 0.73) were classified as late-adolescents (see
Clark-Lempers, Lempers, & Ho, 1991; Salmela-Aro, 2011; World Health
Organization, 2006). Athletes who were 20 years of age and older were
classified as adults (n = 1095; M age = 22.02, SD = 1.75). Twenty two
athletes did not provide their age. Youth sport athletes were engaged in
the highest competitive tiers for their respective age groups and, with
the exception of 24 adult figure skaters who competed in national
and/or international level competition, all other adult-sport athletes
competed in intercollegiate (i.e., varsity) sport.
1.2. Measures
All participants had completed a demographic questionnaire and
either the SMPS or the SMPS2. Information regarding the age, sex, and
sport background of each athlete was taken from the demographic
questionnaires. Although the SMPS and SMPS2 assess a number of
different facets of perfectionism in sport (see Gotwals & Dunn, 2009),
this study focused solely upon athlete responses to the PPP subscale (9
items: e.g., “I feel like I am criticized by my parents for doing things less than
perfectly in competition”) and the PCP subscale (6 items: e.g., “I feel like
my coach criticizes me for doing things less than perfectly in competition”).
For analytic purposes, mean-item scores on each subscale were
computed to control for the different number of items in the two sub­
scales. The wording of PPP and PCP items in the SMPS and the SMPS2 is
the same in both instruments.
Previous research has demonstrated high levels of internal/factorial
validity (see Dunn et al., 2006; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009; Gotwals et al.,
2010) and high levels of internal consistency (see Table 1) for athletes’
scores on the PPP and PCP subscales. Second-order factor analyses
across multiple data sets have also shown that the PPP and PCP subscales
represent sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns in sport (Dunn et al.,
2016). Finally, the PPP and PCP subscales have been strongly correlated
(rs ≥ .60, ps < .001) with the socially prescribed perfectionism subscale of
Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in
different samples of athletes (e.g., Dunn et al., 2011; Mallinson & Hill,
2011), supporting the view put forward by the developers of the
SMPS/SMPS2 that PPP and PCP capture domain-specific aspects of so­
cially prescribed perfectionism in sport (Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, &
1
An a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 indicated that a minimum
sample of 500 would be required to detect a small effect size (f = 0.1) for a
repeated-measures ANOVA within/between-participants interaction based on a
power value of 0.90 and an alpha of 0.05.
2
The combined sample (N = 3259) contains every athlete from every study
that the current authorship group had conducted in which athletes had pro­
vided responses to both the PPP and PCP subscales of the SMPS or SMPS2. In
studies where athletes had only completed one of the two subscales (e.g., Liz­
more et al., 2016), data were excluded from this study. Where duplication of
participants/data was present across studies (e.g., Dunn et al., [2014] and Dunn
et al., [2016]) we ensured that no participant was entered twice into the
combined data set. Finally, we note that some studies listed in Table 1 did not
report PPP and PCP scores in the original publications (e.g., Lizmore et al.,
2017, 2019) however PPP and PCP responses had been obtained from partici­
pants at the time of data collection.
3
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
Syrotuik, 2002, 2016).
1.3. Procedures
Each of the studies from which the current sample was generated,
and the current study itself, received institutional research ethics board
approval. All data were collected in accordance with the ethical guide­
lines of the American Psychological Association; all participation was
voluntary and written parental consent was obtained for all participants
who were under 16 years of age at the time of data collection. Each data
collection episode was conducted in person (using paper-and-pencil
methods). Parents and coaches were not present when athletes
completed instruments at their respective training or competition
venues.
1.4. Data analytic strategy
Across the 18 studies (Table 1), a total of 142 missing data points
were encountered on PPP and PCP items (i.e., missing data rate =
0.29%). Each missing data point was replaced by an intra-individual
mean-item score that was computed from the average of the re­
spondent’s scores on the other items within the corresponding subscale
(Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003). After missing data had been
replaced, data were screened for the presence of univariate and multi­
variate outliers. Outliers were removed prior to conducting subsequent
analyses. The suitability of combining PPP and PCP responses from male
and female athletes into a single data set was examined prior to con­
ducting the main statistical analyses that were used to evaluate the
research hypotheses.
Two separate repeated-measures analyses of variance (RM-ANOVAs)
were conducted to examine PPP and PCP responses across groups. The
first analysis examined whether parents and coaches were perceived as
equally salient sources of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure across
youth-sport and adult-sport groups. Sport classification (i.e., youth vs.
adult sport) was entered as the between-participants factor, and source
of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure (i.e., PPP and PCP) was entered
as the within-participants factor. The interaction effect was examined to
determine whether PPP and PCP varied according to youth-sport or
adult-sport involvement; the within-subjects main effect was examined
to determine if PPP and PCP were experienced as equally salient sources
of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure regardless of whether athletes
competed in youth sport or adult sport. Effects sizes were evaluated
using partial η.2. Following recommendations provided by Ferguson
(2009), a value of .04 was set as the “minimum effect size representing a
‘practically’ significant effect for social science data” (p. 533). Follow-up
univariate contrasts were conducted to examine between-group differ­
ences for PPP and PCP.
An identical set of statistical procedures was employed for the second
RM-ANOVA. However, rather than comparing PPP and PCP scores
across two groups (i.e., youth sport vs. adult sport), PPP and PCP scores
were compared across four age-differentiated groups representing early-
adolescence, mid-adolescence, late-adolescence, and adulthood. Age-
group classification (k = 4) was entered as the between-participants
factor, and source of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure (i.e., PPP
and PCP) was again entered as the within-participants factor.
2. Results
2.1. Preliminary data analyses
Data were screened for the presence of univariate and multivariate
outliers. Standardized z-scores were computed for age, PPP, and PCP
across the total sample (N = 3259). Cases were judged as univariate
outliers if the corresponding z-score on a variable was ≥ |3.29|
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). No univariate outliers for PPP or PCP were
identified, however, three univariate outliers for age (ages ≥31.75
J.G.H. Dunn et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100

Table 1
Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics for the data sources employed in the current study.
Age (years) Perceived Parental Perceived Coach
Pressure Pressure

Brief description of sample (S) and data source M SD M SD α M SD α

S1. N = 170 male high-performance youth Canadian football (Dunn et al., 2002). 18.24 0.67 2.14 0.80 .89 2.76 0.73 .76
S2. N = 148 (29 male) youth (n = 124) and adult (n = 24) figure skating (Dunn et al., 2011). 15.25 3.93 2.22 0.90 .88 2.41 0.92 .83
S3. N = 144 male high-performance youth Canadian football (Dunn et al., 2020). 16.41 1.48 2.33 0.80 .86 3.14 0.73 .83
S4. N = 138 male high-performance youth Canadian football (Dunn, Gotwals, et al., 2006). 18.27 0.71 2.23 0.75 .88 3.14 0.64 .70
S5. N = 251 (149 male) intercollegiate team sports (Dunn et al., 2021) 20.34 2.00 2.16 0.79 .88 3.28 0.68 .75
S6. N = 117 (69 male) intercollegiate team- (n = 69) and individual-sports (n = 48) (Gotwals, 2011). 21.28 2.05 2.02 0.77 .90 3.30 0.71 .76
S7. N = 153 male youth ice hockey (Gotwals & Dunn, 2008). 13.28 1.18 2.79 0.73 .84 2.96 0.72 .76
S8. N = 251 (135 male) intercollegiate team sports (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009). 21.70 2.36 2.11 0.71 .89 3.29 0.64 .75
S9. N = 263 (126 male) intercollegiate volleyball (Gotwals, Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Gamache, 2010). 20.02 1.63 2.08 0.72 .88 3.35 0.69 .76

S10. N = 181 male intercollegiate ice hockey (Gotwals et al., 2010). 22.36 1.91 2.18 0.68 .87 3.14 0.73 .81
S11. N = 122 (64 male) intercollegiate team- (n = 73) and individual-sports (n = 49) (Gotwals & Tamminen, 2020). 21.13 2.42 2.02 0.78 .90 2.94 0.85 .86
S12. N = 239 (140 male) intercollegiate team sports (Lizmore, Dunn, & Causgrove Dunn, 2017). 20.50 1.99 2.12 0.78 .75 3.36 0.65 .76
S13. N = 99 (47 male) intercollegiate team- (n = 62) and individual-sports (n = 35) (Lizmore, Dunn, Causgrove 20.51 1.79 2.10 0.71 .77 3.17 0.63 .76
Dunn, & Hill, 2019).
S14. N = 166 (81 male) intercollegiate team- (n = 31) and individual-sports (n = 135) (Pacewicz, Gotwals, & 19.84 1.46 2.18 0.91 .83 2.85 0.71 .76
Blanton, 2018).
S15. N = 194 male youth soccer (Sapieja, Dunn, & Holt, 2011). 13.64 1.51 2.70 0.67 .78 3.23 0.76 .77
S16. N = 178 male youth basketball and Canadian football (Trodd & Gotwals, 2017). 16.60 0.69 2.75 0.79 .83 3.12 0.73 .76
S17. N = 216 (54 male) youth soccer (Vaartstra, Dunn, & Causgrove Dunn, 2018). 15.25 0.63 2.92 0.90 .90 3.24 0.75 .78
S18. N = 229 male youth ice hockey (Vallance et al., 2006). 14.15 1.03 2.63 0.68 .80 2.86 0.65 .70

years; zs ≥ 3.91) were identified and removed from the data set.
Multivariate outliers were then identified by computing Mahalanobis
distances for each person using χ2 (3) critical ≥ 16.266 (p < .001) as the
criterion value to remove cases (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Six cases
had Mahalanobis distances that exceeded this criterion and were also
removed from the data set, resulting in a final sample of 3250
participants.
To ensure that PPP and PCP responses did not differ as a function of
athlete sex, a one-way MANOVA was conducted with sex (i.e., male vs.
female) entered as the independent variable, and PPP and PCP entered
as the two dependent variables. Box’s M test was significant (M = 42.33,
F [3, 72563530.06] = 14.10, p < .001), indicating that the variances/
covariances for male and female data were not homogenous. However,
when the ratio of the largest variance (s2 = 0.77 [female PPP]) to the
smallest variance (s2 = 0.52 [male PCP]) for variables is < 4:1 (i.e.,
1.48:1 in the current study) and the ratio of the smallest sample size (n =
973 female) to largest sample size (n = 2277 male) is also <4:1 (i.e.,
2.34:1 in the current study), heterogeneity of variance is unlikely to
threaten the validity of the analysis (Corriero, 2017). Nevertheless,
given that Box’s M was significant, the number of participants in each
group was unbalanced, and inspection of the variances/covariances for
PCP and PPP revealed larger values in the smaller sample of female
athletes in comparison to the larger sample of male athletes, we followed
Tabachnick and Fidell’s (1996) recommendation and used Pillai’s Trace
(rather than Wilks’ Λ) as the multivariate test statistic in subsequent
analyses. Pillai’s Trace is considered the most robust multivariate test
statistic that guards against threats caused by possible issues sur­
rounding heterogeneity of variance/covariance (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996).
The multivariate test for sex was statistically significant: Pillai’s
Trace = .003, F (2, 3247) = 5.565, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.003. The
follow-up univariate F-test for PPP was significant (F [1, 3248] = 6.991,
p < .01, partial η2 = 0.002), however, the univariate F-test for PCP was
not significant: F (1, 3248) = 1.517, p = .22, partial η2 = 0.000.
Although the difference for PPP between male and female athletes was
significant, the corresponding effect size was extremely small (partial η2
= .003) suggesting that the practical significance of this difference was
trivial. Given that the effect size for the sex difference on PCP was also
extremely small, we combined responses from male and female athletes
into a single data set.
2.2. Interpersonal perfectionistic pressures in youth sport and adult sport
Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics for the youth sport group
(where participation was governed by age restrictions) and the adult
sport group (where no age-based participation limits existed). The RM-
ANOVA revealed a statistically significant interaction effect: Pillai’s
Trace = .116, F (1, 3248) = 426.56, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.12. As shown
in Figure 1, this result indicates that perceived interpersonal perfec­
tionistic pressures differed as a function of pressure source and group
membership. More specifically, perceived pressures from parents
decreased from youth sport to adult sport whereas perceived pressures
from coaches increased from youth sport to adult sport. Follow-up
univariate contrasts indicated that (a) PPP for adult-sport athletes (M
= 2.11, SD = 0.75) was significantly lower than PPP for youth-sport
athletes (M = 2.56, SD = 0.82: F [1, 3248] = 265.72, p < .001, partial
η2 = 0.08), and (b) PCP for adult-sport athletes (M = 3.20, SD = 0.72)
was significantly higher than PCP for youth-sport athletes (M = 3.00, SD
= 0.77: F [1, 3248] = 56.34, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.02).
Given that an ordinal interaction was obtained (i.e., the lines for PPP
and PCP in Figure 1 do not cross), we examined the within-participants
main effect to determine if PPP and PCP were experienced as equally
salient sources of interpersonal perfectionistic pressures regardless of
whether athletes competed in youth or adult sport. The main effect was
statistically significant (Pillai’s Trace = .425, F [1, 3248] = 2405.47, p
< .001, partial η2 = 0.43), indicating that (on average) athletes differed
in the degree to which they perceive interpersonal perfectionistic pres­
sures from parents and coaches regardless of whether athletes competed
in youth sport or adult sport. A follow-up pairwise (dependent) contrast
revealed that athletes had significantly higher PCP (M = 3.10, SE =
0.01) than PPP (M = 2.34, SE = 0.01): M difference = 0.76, SE = 0.02, p <
.001, 95% CI mean difference [0.73, 0.79]. In other words, when averaged
across youth and adult sport, coaches were typically perceived as being a
more salient source of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure in sport
than parents.
2.3. Interpersonal perfectionistic pressures in adolescence and adulthood
The youth sport group in the initial RM-ANOVA contained athletes
up to 19 years of age, and the adult sport group contained athletes aged
≤19 years (n = 612). As such, membership in the youth sport and adult
sport groups in the previous analysis was not mutually exclusive

4
J.G.H. Dunn et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100

Table 2
Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics for age, perceived parental pressure (PPP), and perceived coach pressure (PCP) in youth-sport, adult-sport, and
combined samples.
Youth Sport (n = 1544) Adult Sport (n = 1706) Combined Sample (N = 3250)

Age PPP PCP Age PPP PCP Age PPP PCP

Correlations (r)
Perceived parental pressure -.15*** - -.08** - -.28*** -
Perceived coach pressure .06* .43*** - -.03 .21*** - .11*** .27*** -
Descriptive statistics
M 15.44 2.56 3.00 20.80 2.11 3.20 18.26 2.33 3.10
SD 2.12 0.82 0.77 2.09 0.75 0.72 3.40 0.81 0.75
Skewness − 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.65 0.66 0.08 0.00 0.44 0.05
Kurtosis − 0.73 − 0.15 0.05 0.25 0.43 0.09 − 0.53 − 0.06 0.07

Note. 15 youth sport athletes did not provide their age. 7 adult sport athletes did not provide their age. 22 athletes from the combined sample did not provide their age.
Age is reported in years.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Age-group × source of interpersonal-perfectionistic-pressure

interaction.
Figure 1. Sport-classification × source of interpersonal-perfectionistic-pressure
interaction.
the mid-adolescent (M = 3.12, SD = 0.76), late-adolescent (M = 3.11,
SD = 0.72), and adult groups (M = 3.19, SD = 0.74). No significant
according to age. To address this issue and to explore potential age-
differences in mean PCP levels existed between the mid-adolescent, late-
based differences that might underlie participants’ PPP and PCP re­
adolescent, and adult groups (all ps ≥ .06).
sponses throughout adolescence, athletes were separated into four
With respect to the within-participants main effect, a follow-up
groups following existing age-based classification systems that have
(dependent) pairwise contrast revealed that athletes (regardless of
been used to classify different stages of adolescence (Clark-Lempers
their age-grouping) reported significantly higher PCP (M = 3.07, SE =
et al., 1991; Salmela-Aro, 2011; World Health Organization, 2006) and
0.01) than PPP (M = 2.41, SE = 0.02: M difference = 0.66, SE = 0.02, p <
adulthood. The interaction effect obtained from the RM-ANOVA was
.001, 95% CI mean difference [0.63, 0.70]). In other words, irrespective of
statistically significant (Pillai’s Trace = .12, F [3, 3224] = 146.50, p <
the age-groupings into which athletes were classified, athletes tended to
.001, partial η2 = 0.12) as was the within-participants main effect (Pil­
perceive coaches as being a more salient source of interpersonal
lai’s Trace = 0.321, F [1, 3224] = 1525.92, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.32).
perfectionistic pressure in sport than parents.
Visual inspection of the interaction (Figure 2) indicates that the de­
gree of perceived interpersonal perfectionistic pressure differed as a
3. Discussion
function of group membership and whether parents or coaches were
perceived as the source of pressure; PPP tended to be lower in late-
The purpose of this study was to determine if perceived interpersonal
adolescent and adult sport groups (in comparison to early- and mid-
perfectionistic pressures from parents (PPP) and coaches (PCP) differed
adolescent groups) and PCP tended to be higher in adult sport (in
as a function of athlete age. We hypothesized that PPP would be lower
comparison to early-adolescent sport). Follow-up pairwise contrasts
and PCP would be higher in older athletes in comparison to younger
(with Bonferroni corrections) indicated that PPP for the adult group (M
athletes. Results generally supported these hypotheses, with youth sport
= 2.07, SD = 0.73) was significantly lower than PPP for the early-
athletes reporting significantly higher PPP and significantly lower PCP
adolescent (M = 2.61, SD = 0.73), mid-adolescent (M = 2.72, SD =
than adult athletes. When age-differentiated stages of adolescence were
0.84), and late-adolescent (M = 2.22, SD = 0.79) groups (all ps < .001).
considered, early- and mid-adolescent athletes tended to report higher
The mean PPP score for the late-adolescent group was also significantly
PPP than late-adolescent and adult athletes. In contrast, early-
lower than the early- and mid-adolescent groups (ps < .001). The dif­
adolescent athletes tended to report lower PCP than mid-adolescent,
ference between PPP for the early- and mid-adolescent groups was not
late-adolescent, and adult athletes.
significant (p = .15, 95% CI mean difference [− 0.24, 0.02]).
Although the present study did not explore underlying reasons why
Regarding PCP differences across the four groups, follow-up pairwise
PPP and PCP differed as a function of age—a clear limitation of the
(independent) contrasts revealed that PCP for the early-adolescent
study—we speculate that differences were likely influenced by changing
group (M = 2.85, SD = 0.79) was significantly lower (ps < .001) than

5
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
relationships that athletes have with their parents and coaches at
different stages of development. For example, research has shown that
athletes typically seek greater independence from their parents as they
move from childhood through adolescence and into early adulthood
(Dorsch et al., 2020). This heightened independence may create less
opportunity for parents to convey performance-related feedback and
expectations to their children, which in turn could result in less PPP for
older athletes. Alternatively, as athletes move through adolescence and
into adulthood they may simply become less accepting of, less open
towards, or place less value upon parental feedback and expectations
about performance as their own metacognitive skills develop (i.e., they
gain a greater understanding of their own behavior: Moses-Payne,
Habicht, Bowler, Steinbeis, & Hauser, 2021) and they seek to make their
own decisions and evaluations about their behaviors and performances
in sport. It is particularly interesting to note that there was a sharp drop
in PPP between the mid-adolescent and late-adolescent groups (see
Figure 2). In Canada and the USA where the current sample of athletes
resided, many adolescents obtain their driver’s license in the 2-year
period following their sixteenth birthday (Williams, 2011). It is
conceivable that the drop in PPP between the mid- and late-adolescent
groups may be influenced by greater ‘transportation independence’
that many youth achieve in North America after turning 16, and this
independence may reduce PPP because athletes less frequently engage
with parents during the car ride home after competition when
parent-athlete interactions about sport performance often occur (Tam­
minen, Poucher, & Povilaitis, 2017).
Regarding PCP differences across age groups, it seems reasonable to
speculate that as athletes become older and continue their involvement
in competitive sport, they become more dependent upon their coaches
(as opposed to their parents) for competitive opportunities. Such op­
portunities (e.g., more playing time, more within-game responsibilities)
can enable athletes to cultivate and demonstrate their athletic compe­
tence to talent identification scouts and selectors who may be looking to
recruit athletes into higher levels of competitive sport (Guenter, Dunn, &
Holt, 2019). In turn, athletes may perceive more pressure (and unreal­
istic performance standards) from coaches (rather than parents) because
they believe that meeting coach-driven performance standards and ex­
pectations could directly impact their progress into higher competitive
levels of sport.
The present findings regarding PCP differences across age groups
may also be a function of environmental differences that exist for ath­
letes as they become older and continue their involvement in competi­
tive sport. Coaches who work with adult competitors at the
intercollegiate level, for example, might feel more pressure than coaches
who work with comparatively younger athletes (e.g., early-adolescents)
in competitive youth sport to achieve competitive success because the
security of their own coaching positions may hinge upon the perfor­
mances of their athletes. As noted by Mageau & Vallerand (2003), when
“coaches’ jobs are directly dependent on the team’s performance and
achievements … [they often] become ego-involved in their work … and
employ controlling [coaching] behaviours” (p. 895). Controlling
behaviours—that reflect imposed “pressures to think, feel or behave in
specified ways” (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886)—often occur when
coaches place a greater emphasis upon winning and upon the objective
performance standards that athletes need to meet in order to achieve
competitive success (Chaumeton & Duda, 1988). This emphasis may
reflect higher levels of other-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett,
1991) in coaches—defined as the degree to which an individual expects
other people to be perfect—and reinforces the position of Olsson,
Madigan, Hill, and Grugan (2021) that researchers should consider how
coaches’ perfectionistic tendencies may play a role in shaping athletes’
perfectionistic concerns in sport.
In contrast to highly competitive adult sport settings (e.g., intercol­
legiate sport in North America) where many coaches feel pressure to
succeed (which translates to putting pressure upon the athletes they
work with), we speculate that the same degree of environmental
6
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
pressure is less likely to exist for younger athletes who are often
competing at lower levels of youth sport where the majority of coaches
are typically volunteers (Duffy et al., 2011) and where coaches are more
likely to reward athletes for effort than the objective performance
standards they achieve (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). This latter set of
conditions could reduce the degree to which athletes perceive pressure
from coaches to reach exactingly high performance standards.
Although we did not control for the competitive and training de­
mands that were placed upon athletes competing across different age
groups, we reiterate that all athletes in this study competed at the
highest levels/tiers of their respective sport contexts at the time of
testing. This provides some level of homogeneity with respect to
differing competitive levels across participants. Nevertheless, we cannot
overlook the fact that the competitive demands and training demands
(and socially driven pressures) that are imposed upon a 12-year-old
athlete playing “Tier I” regional youth ice hockey will almost certainly
be different than the demands and pressures imposed upon an inter­
collegiate hockey player who is striving to win a national championship.
More research is required to better understand the roles that various
environmental factors play in shaping the processes through which
athletes’ perceptions of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure develop
(Appleton & Curran, 2016).
Inspection of the interaction effects (Figure 1 and 2) indicates that
the ‘developmental trajectories’ of PPP and PCP appear to differ as a
function of athlete age. As seen in Figure 1, the general trend in the data
indicated that PPP was higher in youth sport than adult sport, whereas
PCP was higher in adult sport than youth sport. When participants were
grouped solely on the basis of their age (Figure 2), results indicated that
PPP was lower in the adult group compared to the late-, mid-, and early-
adolescent groups, and PPP was lower in the late-adolescent group than
the early- and mid-adolescent groups. In contrast, PCP was lower in the
early-adolescent group compared to the mid-adolescent, late-adoles­
cent, and adult groups. These results are in line with Gucciardi et al.’s
(2012) research where elite athletes in Australia under the age of 20
years had significantly higher PPP than athletes over the age of 30, and
significantly lower PCP than athletes aged 20–30 years. Collectively,
these findings illustrate that the degree to which athletes experience
interpersonally driven perfectionistic pressures from different social
agents appears to differ across different stages of adolescent and adult
development.
3.1. Limitations and future directions
Given that we used a cross-sectional design where each participant
was only measured at a single time point, we cannot rule out the pos­
sibility that between-group differences in PPP and PCP levels were
caused by systematic differences in group characteristics that we could
not control. For example, it is conceivable that athletes who perceived
excessive parental pressure during early- and mid-adolescence may have
experienced burnout (Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996). This may
have caused them to drop out of competitive sport before reaching
late-adolescent or adult sport and, as a result, spuriously deflated PPP
scores for those later developmental levels of sport. The cross-sectional
design also prevents us from making inferences about whether engage­
ment in later/older developmental levels of sport causes athletes to
experience higher levels of PCP or whether athletes who perceive higher
PCP are simply more driven to meet higher performance standards set by
coaches in order to compete at more advanced levels of sport.
Another limitation of our study relates to the fact that we did not
include children under the age of 10 years nor adult athletes over the age
of 30 years (following the removal of outliers). This limits the degree to
which our results can be generalized beyond the age-groups we exam­
ined. Although we found a strong and consistent pattern of higher PCP
than PPP (regardless of age-group categorization), it is possible that
children under the age of 10 who participate in organized competitive
sport for the first time might have much lower PCP because coaches are
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
more inclined to provide positive feedback based upon athlete effort
(with the intention of keeping children involved in sport) than to offer
positive reinforcement around winning or the achievement of objective
performance standards (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004).
The extent to which our findings can be generalized to athletes who
participate in recreational sport (i.e., where the primary goals of
participation are for fun, fitness, and/or socialization reasons) is also
limited because all adolescent athletes in this study competed in the
highest tiers of age-governed youth sport, and all adult-sport partici­
pants were either competing at intercollegiate, national, and/or inter­
national levels of competition (where a primary goal of participation is
assumed to be upon the attainment of competitive success). Previous
research has indicated that perfectionistic tendencies are generally
lower among individuals who participate in recreational sport than
higher levels of competitive sport (Rasquinha, Dunn, & Causgrove Dunn,
2014). Future research that compares PPP and PCP in athletes across
different age groups who compete in different competitive levels of sport
would be extremely valuable in addressing this limitation. Alternatively,
researchers may wish to create highly homogeneous samples on the
basis of age, and then compare PPP and PCP levels across different
competitive levels within the specific age group that is under
investigation.
We also did not consider or control for a number of potential cova­
riates (e.g., ethnicity/culture, socioeconomic background, family
composition, competitive experience, training hours, number of sports,
or sport type) that might interact with age to further explain differences
in the PPP and PCP scores across groups. Future research that explores
these variables in relation to athlete age would be valuable in learning
more about potential reasons why differences in PPP and PCP were
observed across age groups. For example, in their assessment of inter­
personal sources of socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) in Asian
American and European American university students, Perera and
Chang (2015) found no significant differences in SPP emanating from
parents, teachers, friends, peers, siblings, and romantic partners. How­
ever, Asian American students did report significantly higher SPP
emanating from their culture than European Americans. Perara and
Chang concluded that perceived pressure to meet culturally driven
performance expectations might play a role in the development of so­
cially prescribed perfectionism. It is conceivable that culture might also
play a role in athletes’ experience of PPP and PCP in sport.
Future research would also benefit from determining if age-based
differences in PPP and PCP are linked to differences in the timing
and/or degree to which athletes specialize in their chosen sport.
Research evidence indicates that athletes who engage in ‘early sport
specialization’ often report higher levels of stress, higher perceived
pressure to perform from significant others, and higher levels of burnout
in comparison to athletes who specialize at later ages (Waldron,
DeFreese, Register-Mihalik, Pietrosimone, & Barczak, 2020). To the best
of our knowledge, the timing and degree of sport specialization across
different periods of the lifespan has not been evaluated in the context of
sport perfectionism research.
3.2. Practical implications
We posit that our findings may have implications for sport psychol­
ogy consultants (SPCs) who work with athletes, parents, and/or coaches
in applied settings. If a SPC was designing an intervention to reduce
athletes’ perfectionistic concerns, knowing that PPP and/or PCP levels
appear to differ as a function of athlete age could influence decisions
surrounding the content or focus of the intervention. If an intervention
was being implemented to reduce perfectionistic concerns in intercol­
legiate athletes, the intervention might have greater relevance or cred­
ibility in the eyes of athletes if examples of interpersonal performance
pressures from coaches (rather than parents) were provided. In contrast,
if the same intervention was being implemented with a group of early-
adolescent athletes, the intervention might have greater relevance or
7
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
credibility for athletes if examples of interpersonal performance pres­
sures from both coaches and parents were provided. Indeed, in­
terventions for early- and mid-adolescent athletes might benefit from
including athletes’ parents and coaches as part of the intervention to
educate these significant others about how the performance-based
messaging they deliver to young athletes can impact the way athletes
feel, think, and behave in sport (Appleton & Curran, 2016). Although
PPP was not completely absent in the late-adolescent group and adult
sport groups (as evidenced by mean scores of 2.22 and 2.07 respectively
on the 5-point rating scale), these relatively low scores do indicate that
PPP (on average) is not a particularly salient source of interpersonal
perfectionistic pressure for the majority of older athletes. We propose
that including parents in an intervention with late-adolescent or adult
athletes might be less beneficial than including parents in interventions
with early-adolescent or mid-adolescent athletes. In contrast, the in­
clusion of coaches in such interventions with late adolescent and adult
sport athletes may still be a highly worthwhile endeavor.
4. Conclusion
The results of this study illustrate that the degree to which athletes
perceive interpersonal perfectionistic pressures from parents and
coaches in sport can differ according to athlete age. On average, youth
sport athletes reported higher PPP but lower PCP than adult athletes.
Early- and mid-adolescent athletes tended to perceive higher pressure
from parents than late-adolescent and adult athletes, whereas early-
adolescent athletes tended to perceive less pressure from coaches than
mid-adolescent, late-adolescent, and adult athletes. Based on these re­
sults, we suggest that researchers consider (or control for) athlete age
when examining the role of PPP and PCP in sport. Controlling for age
differences would seem to be particularly important in studies where
perfectionism is examined in samples of athletes that are heterogeneous
in terms of age (or where ages span across different stages of adolescent
or adult development).
Finally, results indicated that regardless of age, athletes tended to
perceive more interpersonal perfectionistic pressure in sport from their
coaches than from their parents. This is a noteworthy finding because it
points to the importance of differentiating between different social
agents (Perera & Chang, 2015) who may interact with athletes in the
competitive sport environment (Madigan et al., 2019). We encourage
researchers to further explore the degree to which different social agents
act as potential sources of interpersonal perfectionistic pressure for
athletes in sport, and to investigate if, how, and why the influence of
different social agents might change across the sporting lifespan of
athletes. The need for more research that investigates perfectionism in
sport from a developmental perspective remains apparent.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many graduate students and colleagues
who played important roles in helping to collect the data that were
analyzed in this study. This group includes Jedediah Blanton, Danielle
Cormier, Janelle Craft, Vania Gamache, Christine Pacewicz, Klaudia
Sapieja, Dan Syrotuik, Kailey Trodd, Matt Vaartstra, and Jeff Vallance.
References
Appleton, P. R., & Curran, T. (2016). The origins of perfectionism in sport, dance, and
exercise. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise
(pp. 57–81). Routledge.
Chan, D. K., Lonsdale, C., & Fung, H. H. (2012). Influences of coaches, parents, and peers
on the motivational patterns of child and adolescent athletes. Scandinavian Journal of
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
Medicine & Science in Sports, 22(4), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0838.2010.01277.x
Chaumeton, N. R., & Duda, J. L. (1988). Is it how you play the game or whether you win
or lose?: The effect of competitive level and situation on coaching behaviors. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 11(3), 157–174.
Clark-Lempers, D. S., Lempers, J. D., & Ho, C. (1991). Early, middle, and late adolescents’
perceptions of their relationships with significant others. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 6(3), 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489163003
Corriero, E. F. (2017). Heterogeneity of variance. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encylopedia
of communication research methods (pp. 653–654). Sage.
Dorsch, T. E., Thrower, S. N., & Lowe, K. (2020). Parent involvment in youth sport:
Developmental considerations regarding children, adolescents, and emerging adults.
In M. Bruner, M. Eys, & L. Martin (Eds.), The power of groups in youth sport (1st ed.,
pp. 241–256). Academic Press.
Duffy, P., Hartley, H., Bales, J., Crespo, M., Dick, F., Vardhan, D., Nordmann, L., &
Curado, J. (2011). Sport coaching as a ‘profession’: Challenges and future directions.
International Journal of Coaching Science, 5(2), 93–123.
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., Gamache, V., & Holt, N. L. (2014). A person-oriented
examination of perfectionism and slump-related coping in female intercollegiate
volleyball players. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 45(4), 298–324. https://
doi.org/10.7352/IJSP2014.45.298
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., Gotwals, J. K., Vallance, J. K. H., Craft, J. M., &
Syrotuik, D. G. (2006). Establishing construct validity evidence for the Sport
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(1), 57–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.003
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2002). Relationship between
multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 24(4), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.23.4.376
Dunn, J. G. H., Craft, J., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Comparing a
domain-specific and global measure of perfectionism in competitive female figure
skaters. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(1), 25–46.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Lizmore, M. R. (2020).
Perfectionism, pre-competitive worry, and optimism in high performance athletes.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(6), 749–763. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1612197X.2019.1577900
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., Causgrove Dunn, J., Selzler, A.-M., Lizmore, M. R.,
Vaartstra, M., Sapieja, K. M., & Gamache, V. E. (2016). A multi-sample investigation
of the higher-order latent dimensionality of the Sport-Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale-2. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 150–156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.08.006
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2006). Examining
the relationship between perfectionism and trait anger in competitive sport.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1612197x.2006.9671781
Dunn, J. G. H., Kono, S., Cormier, D. L., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Rumbold, J. L. (2021).
Perfectionism and grit in competitive sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 44(2),
199–223.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 532–538. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0015808
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). American Psychological
Association.
Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Understanding dropout and prolonged
engagement in adolescent competitive sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(5),
645–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.08.003
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Parental influences on youth involvement in
sports. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan
perspective (pp. 145–164). Fitness Information Technology.
Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Perfectionism and burnout within intercollegiate sport: A person-
oriented approach. The Sport Psychologist, 25(4), 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1123/
tsp.25.4.489
Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2008). A re-examination of the relationship between
sport-based perfectionism and achievement goal orientations among youth ice
hockey players. Pulse, 21(3), 10–11. https://issuu.com/smca/docs/fall-08.
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(2),
71–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670902812663
Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gamache, V. (2010). Establishing
validity evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 in
intercollegiate sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(6), 423–432. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.013
Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., & Wayment, H. A. (2003). An examination of
perfectionism and self-esteem in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26
(1), 17–38.
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(4), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030288
Gotwals, J. K., & Tamminen, K. A. (2020). Intercollegiate perfectionistic athletes’
perspectives on success and failure in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1740826. Advance online publication.
Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis
players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10(4),
322–340. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.10.4.322
8
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing
data. In J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research
methods in psychology, 2 pp. 87–114). Wiley.
Gucciardi, D. F., Mahoney, J., Jalleh, G., Donovan, R. J., & Parkes, J. (2012).
Perfectionistic profiles among elite athletes and differences in their motivational
orientations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/
10.1123/jsep.34.2.159
Guenter, R. W., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2019). Talent identification in youth
hockey: Exploring “intangible” player characteristics. The Sport Psychologist, 33(4),
323–333. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0155
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism and self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.60.3.456
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to
conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Guilford.
Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., & Jowett, G. E. (2018). Multidimensional
perfectionism in sport: A meta-analytic review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 7(3), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000125
Jowett, G. E., Mallinson, S. H., & Hill, A. P. (2016). An independent effects approach to
perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The psychology of
perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp. 85–149). Routledge.
Jowett, S., & Timson-Katchis, M. (2005). Social networks in sport: Parental influence on
the coach-athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 19(3), 267–287. https://doi.
org/10.1123/tsp.19.3.267
Lizmore, M. R., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2016). Reactions to mistakes as a
function of perfectionism and situation criticality in curling. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 47(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP2016.47.081
Lizmore, M. R., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2017). Perfectionistic strivings,
perfectionistic concerns, and reactions to poor personal performances among
intercollegiate athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 75–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.07.010
Lizmore, M. R., Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism
and performance following failure in a competitive golf-putting task. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 45, 101582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101582
Madigan, D. J., Curran, T., Stoeber, J., Hill, A. P., Smith, M. M., & Passfield, L. (2019).
Development of perfectionism in junior athletes: A three-sample study of coach and
parental pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 41(3), 167–175. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0287
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational
model. Journal of Sports Science, 21(11), 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0264041031000140374
Mallinson, S. H., & Hill, A. P. (2011). The relationship between multidimensional
perfectionism and psychological need thwarting in junior sports participants.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(6), 676–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2011.05.009
Moses-Payne, M. E., Habicht, J., Bowler, A., Steinbeis, N., & Hauser, T. (2021). I know
better! Emerging metacognition allows adolescents to ignore false advice.
Developmental Science, 24(5), Article e13101. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13101
Olsson, L. F., Madigan, D. J., Hill, A. P., & Grugan, M. C. (2021). Do athlete and coach
performance perfectionism predict athlete burnout? European Journal of Sport
Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1916080. Advance online
publication.
Pacewicz, C. E., Gotwals, J. K., & Blanton, J. E. (2018). Perfectionism, coping, and
burnout among intercollegiate varsity athletes: A person-oriented investigation of
group differences and mediation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 35, 207–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.12.008
Perera, M. J., & Chang, E. C. (2015). Ethnic variations between Asian and European
Americans in interpersonal sources of socially prescribed perfectionism: It’s not just
about parents. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0036175
Rasquinha, A., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2014). Relationships between
perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and competitive sport level.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2014.07.008
Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Stages of adolescence. In B. Bradford Brown, & M. J. Princestein
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 360–368). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-12-373951-3.00043-0.
Sapieja, K. M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Perfectionism and perceptions of
parenting styles in male youth soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1),
20–39. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.20
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.).
HarperCollins.
Tamminen, K. A., Poucher, Z., & Povilaitis, V. (2017). The car ride home: An interpretive
analysis of parent-child sport conversations. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 6(4), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000093
Trodd, K. A., & Gotwals, J. K. (2017, October). The relationship between perfectionism and
athlete engagement: The moderating role of coach autonomy support [Poster
presentation]. In Annual conference of the Canadian society for psychomotor learning
and sport psychology. St. John’s, NL, Canada.
Vaartstra, M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2018). Perfectionism and
perceptions of social loafing in competitive youth soccer. Journal of Sport Behavior,
41(4), 475–500.
Vallance, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2006). Perfectionism, anger, and
situation criticality in competitive youth ice hockey. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 28(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.28.3.383
J.G.H. Dunn et al.
Waldron, S., DeFreese, J. D., Register-Mihalik, J., Pietrosimone, B., & Barczak, N. (2020).
The costs and benefits of early sport specialization: A critical review of literature.
Quest, 72(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1580205
Williams, A. F. (2011). Teenagers’ licensing decisions and their views of licensing
policies: A national survey. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(4), 312–319. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15389588.2011.572100
(n.d.) World Health Organization. Adolescent health https://www.who.int/health
-topics/adolescent-health#tab=tab_1.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 59 (2022) 102100
World Health Organization. (2006). Orientation programme on adolescent health for health
care providers. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10
665/42868.
Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by
athletes. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan
perspective (pp. 507–527). Fitness Information Technology.