بررسی ساختار عاملی و ترکیب مقیاس کمال گرایی مثبت و منفی در ورزش
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32598||2004||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6960 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 7, May 2004, Pages 1725–1740
Two studies were conducted in an effort to validate and refine the factor structure and factorial composition of the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) for use within sport. In study 1, initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a sample of elite athletes (n=540) from a variety of sports failed to support the original 40-item two-factor structure. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to reconstitute the PANPS factor structure, followed by CFA to validate the results from the EFA. These analyses supported a more parsimonious 19-item two-factor structure representing the constructs Positive Perfectionism and Negative Perfectionism. In study 2, the reconstituted 19-item model was cross-validated using an independent sample of rowers (n=496) and provided a good approximation of the data. Collectively, the present results support the tenability of an abbreviated two-factor dual perfectionism model in athletes. Recommendations for future sport research using this scale are discussed.
In our society, being perfect has been touted as the ultimate model and goal for an individual to attain in business, social relationships, appearance and/or athletics. According to Burns (1983) perfectionism can be defined as “a network of cognitions, including expectations and interpretations of events and evaluations of oneself and others, characterized by the setting of unrealistic standards, rigid and indiscriminate adherence to these, and the equating of self-worth and performance” (p. 223). Thus, perfectionism relates to the setting and pursuit of excessively high standards for personal performance, in whatever area of life. Research has examined perfectionism in association with various pathological disorders, particularly in the counselling (e.g., LoCicero & Ashby, 2000) and clinical (see Shafran & Mansell, 2001 for review) literature. Perfectionism has been viewed as a neurotic disposition associated with many psychopathologies, such as depression and eating disorders (Hewitt et al., 1995 and Hewitt et al., 1996; Pacht, 1984). Evidence has suggested that perfectionism contributes to the maintenance and development of eating disorders (Davis, 1997; Slade, 1982), depression (Blatt, 1995; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne, 1999), social phobia/anxiety (Antony, Purdon, Huta, & Swinson, 1998) and obsessive–compulsive disorders (Frost & Steketee, 1997). Perfectionism also has been linked to negative outcomes, such as feelings of failure and anxiety (Flett, Hewitt, & Dyck, 1989), guilt/shame (Sorotzkin, 1985), procrastination (Flett, Blankstein, Hewitt, & Koledin, 1992), suicide ideation (Hewitt, Flett, & Weber, 1994), and low self-esteem (Flett et al., 1989). In the sporting arena, research on elite athletes has examined perfectionism in relation to particular psychopathology, specifically with eating disorders (Clough & Wilson, 1993; Davis, 1992; Haase, Prapavessis, & Owens, 1999), as well as performance problems in athletic competition (Frost & Henderson, 1991; Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998), obligatory running (Coen & Ogles, 1993), trait anxiety and burnout (Frost & Henderson, 1991; Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996). Athletes constantly strive for and think of perfection and the perfect outcome in their performances, internally focusing their mental and physical strength and drive toward perfect outcomes. Athletes also experience intense external pressures from the highly stressful and competitive environment and the strong desires of coaches, peers and family to achieve. However, when failure inevitably occurs, damaging consequences and compensatory behaviours may ensue, emerging as performance anxiety, depression or disordered eating as evidenced above in response to attempting to maintain or achieve perfection. Even though perfectionism literature has focused on the elucidation of perfectionism in relation to psychopathology, perfectionism is still not a clearly defined construct. Although initial attempts at defining perfectionism were largely uni-dimensional in nature (Burns, 1980), researchers have approached perfectionism from a multidimensional approach in more recent studies. These multidimensional conceptualisations have been proposed in order to define the associated characteristics and underlying thoughts and behaviours of perfectionism (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Frost et al. (1990), for instance, developed a measure of perfectionism with six dimensions (concern over mistakes, high personal standards, parental expectations, parental criticism, doubting of actions and preference for organization) reflecting various aspects of perfectionism. Findings showed that the ‘concern over mistakes’ subscale was identified as the core factor, as well as higher levels of total perfectionism being associated with higher frequency and variety of depressive symptoms. Hewitt and Flett (1991) independently developed another perfectionism scale assessing three dimensions of perfectionism: self-oriented, others-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, relating differentially to personality disorder indexes and other psychological maladjustment. Alternative research has focused on a different approach, in that perfectionism may play a healthy role, as well as the more common maladaptive influences. Hamachek (1978) originally defined perfectionism in terms of ‘normal’ and ‘neurotic’ components, characterised by reasonable or unrealistic self-expectations, respectively. Perfectionistic behaviours differ in degree and intensity, along with a sense of self-worth defined in terms of performance standards (Hamachek, 1978). Stemming from this understanding, a convergence of descriptive studies on perfectionism has occurred, identifying a ‘normal’ form along with the ‘neurotic’ one (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1994; Slade & Dewey, 1986). The ‘satisfied’ and ‘dissatisfied’ distinction by Slade and Dewey (1986), the ‘positive achievement striving’ and ‘maladaptive concerns’ distinction by Frost et al. (1993), and the ‘adaptive’ and ‘maladaptive’ distinction by Rice et al. (1994) parallel Hamachek’s original normal and neurotic differentiation. These studies provide support for this dual nature; yet they only address perfectionism within specific contexts of satisfaction, achievement and adaptation, respectively, limiting the ability to generalise this positive and negative distinction to more diverse contexts and a wider range of populations. Given the potential healthy form of perfectionism, Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, and Dewey (1995) proposed a theoretically driven distinction between normal healthy perfectionism and unhealthy neurotic perfectionism. This distinction was derived from positive and negative reinforcement and based on the consequences of a particular behaviour as described by Slade and Owens (1998) in their dual process model of perfectionism. According to this approach, Negative (unhealthy) Perfectionism is defined as a function of avoidance of negative consequences and the motivation to achieve a certain goal in order to avoid adverse consequences. On the other hand, Positive (healthy) Perfectionism is defined in terms of achieving positive consequences and the motivation to achieve a certain goal in order to obtain a favourable outcome. This distinction between Positive Perfectionism and Negative Perfectionism is grounded in behavioural theory (Skinner, 1968), where a similar behaviour might be associated with different emotional responses depending on whether it is a function of positive or negative reinforcement. Terry-Short et al. (1995) also proposed that these two types of perfectionism vary across individuals and can be assessed with the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (PANPS). These researchers provided initial construct validation for the PANPS and its underlying theory by comparing Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scores among four groups: athletes, eating disorder patients, depressed patients and controls. Results showed that athletes scored the highest on Positive Perfectionism, whereas eating disorder patients scored the highest on Negative Perfectionism. In addition, the ratios of Positive to Negative Perfectionism were significantly different between the clinical and non-clinical groups, where athletes and controls showed higher levels of Positive than Negative Perfectionism while the clinical groups showed higher levels of Negative than Positive Perfectionism. Recently, Haase and colleagues have outlined positive and negative dimensions of perfectionism in athletes using the PANPS. Haase et al. (1999), for instance, showed that, in elite rowers, Negative (unhealthy) Perfectionism was positively related to disturbed eating attitudes, whereas Positive (healthy) Perfectionism was unrelated to disturbed eating attitudes. Haase, Prapavessis, and Owens (2002) also showed that Negative Perfectionism was related to social physique anxiety (SPA) in a large sample of elite athletes, yet no relationship was found between Positive Perfectionism and SPA. These studies provide further evidence for a distinction between Positive and Negative Perfectionism within sport contexts. Despite the initial support for the PANPS with athletes, limited empirical evidence exists supporting the subscale structure and composition of the two-factor perfectionism model, Positive Perfectionism and Negative Perfectionism. For instance, the initial, as well as recent, factor validity evidence (Haase et al., 1999 and Haase et al., 2002; Terry-Short et al., 1995) used exploratory (e.g., principal components and factor analysis) instead of confirmatory factor analysis procedures for consolidating observed variables and identifying underlying factor structure. The PANPS is a theory-driven scale with a hypothesised factor structure underlying the items. Hence, it is more logical and appropriate to determine whether the data are consistent with the hypothesised relationships among factors and observed variables using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), instead of adopting a data-driven search approach based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In view of this concern, a closer examination of the PANPS within the proposed dual framework is warranted. Therefore, two studies were conducted in an effort to validate and refine the Positive and Negative Perfectionism factor structure proposed by Terry-Short et al. (1995) and Slade and Owens (1998) for use with athletes.