رابطه بین کمال گرایی چندبعدی و خنثی کردن نیاز روانی در افراد ورزشی تازه وارد

Objectives Perfectionism is thought to energise high quantities of motivation; however, its wider influence on the quality of the motivation exhibited by athletes is less clear. The purpose of this study was to examine the multivariate and univariate relationship between multidimensional perfectionism (perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic striving) and perceived psychological need thwarting. Perfectionistic concerns was assessed via sub-dimensions of socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental pressure and coach pressure. Perfectionistic striving was assessed via sub-dimensions of self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, personal standards and a need for organisation. Design A cross-sectional, survey-based design was employed. Method One hundred and ninety-nine junior sports participants were recruited from after-school sports clubs and completed measures of multidimensional perfectionism and psychological need thwarting. Results Canonical correlation analyses revealed that higher levels of perfectionistic concerns were associated with higher levels of perceived psychological need thwarting. Analogously, lower levels of perfectionistic striving were associated with lower levels of perceived psychological need thwarting. Regression analyses revealed that the relative importance of individual sub-dimensions of perfectionism differed depending on the facet of psychological need thwarting being assessed. Perceptions of parental pressure, coach pressure and concern over mistakes emerged as especially important. Conclusion Overall, the findings indicate that while perfectionism may contribute to high levels of behavioural investment, it may also impoverish the necessary support required for the fulfilment of psychological needs.

The (mal)adaptive nature of perfectionism is currently the source of fervent debate (Flett and Hewitt, 2006 and Owens and Slade, 2008). While there is general agreement that perfectionism can energise large quantities of motivation (i.e., behavioural investment), what is less clear is whether energising participation via perfectionism is associated with any psychological costs for athletes. In order for the consequences of perfectionism to be fully understood, its wider influence on the quality of motivation exhibited by athletes must be examined. Broadly, quality motivation can be inferred by the psychological well-being, moral functioning, social relations and long-term consequences that accompany behavioural investment (see Duda, 2005). The present study sought to address this issue by examining the degree to which fundamental psychological needs are perceived to be thwarted by multidimensional perfectionism in junior sports participants. Perfectionism is broadly considered to be a multidimensional construct that entails features reflective of a commitment to exceedingly high standards and a preoccupation with harsh self-critical evaluation (Frost et al., 1990 and Hewitt and Flett, 1991). Contemporary multidimensional approaches are exemplified by the models developed by Frost et al. (1990) and Hewitt and Flett (1991). Within Frost et al.’s (1990) model, perfectionism is characterised by the pursuit of excessively high performance standards and an intolerance of imperfection. The model consists of six dimensions derived from the descriptions of perfectionism offered by early theorists (e.g., Burns, 1980 and Pacht, 1984). Four of these dimensions relate to the features of the achievement striving energised by perfectionism (high personal standards, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions and a need for organisation). The two remaining dimensions reflect the presumed origins of perfectionism in the form of parental practices (parental criticism and parental expectations). In sport, these two subscales have recently been supplanted by measures of coach pressure and parental pressure, which are considered more salient to the domain (Dunn et al., 2002 and Gotwals and Dunn, 2009). Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model adopts a different approach. They define perfectionism as the perceived need, or actual requirement, for perfection. Their model emphasises differences amongst dimensions of perfectionism in terms of the individual to whom perfectionism is directed. The first of these dimensions is self-oriented perfectionism and entails exceedingly high personal standards and the tendency to engage in self-criticism. The second dimension is socially prescribed perfectionism and entails the belief that others hold an excessively high standard for one’s self and withhold approval based upon the attainment of those standards. The final dimension is other-oriented perfectionism and entails the tendency to impose unrealistically high standards on others. Although these models offer alternative conceptualisations of perfectionism, research suggests that there is a large amount of conceptual overlap between the two approaches. In particular, a number of factor-analytical studies have found that the dimensions captured by these two measures can be considered to be indicative of two higher-order dimensions of perfectionism (e.g., Bieling et al., 2004, Cox et al., 2002 and Frost et al., 1993). The two broad dimensions identified in these studies are perfectionistic striving and perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).1 Perfectionistic striving primarily involves the setting of exacting and high standards for one’s self (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000). This dimension is measured by a combination of personal standards, a need for organisation, self-oriented and other-oriented sub-dimensions of perfectionism. Perfectionistic concerns, on the other hand, involve concerns about others’ unrealistic expectations and criticism, overly critical self-evaluation and the inability to derive satisfaction from success (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000). In contrast to perfectionistic striving, perfectionistic concerns is measured by a combination of concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental criticism, parental expectations and socially prescribed sub-dimensions of perfectionism. The divergent outcomes associated with perfectionistic striving and perfectionistic concerns are evident in clinical, social and educational research (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Specifically, while perfectionistic concerns appear to be a significant source of psychological difficulties, perfectionistic striving is more equivocal in that it is largely unrelated to negative consequences and, in some instances, is associated with positive consequences. Research by Dunkley and his colleagues, for example, have found that these broad dimensions of perfectionism have divergent relationships with psychological adjustment. Notably, differences between them are evident in their relationships with coping tendencies (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000), self-esteem (Blankstein, Dunkley, & Wilson, 2008), general positive and negative affect (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010), anxiety (Bieling et al., 2004), and depression (Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002). To date, two studies have utilised similar broad conceptualisations of perfectionism in sport (Gaudreau and Antl, 2008 and Kaye et al., 2008). Their findings support those outside of sport and suggest that broad dimensions indicative of perfectionistic striving and concerns are associated with different forms of motivational regulation, coping strategies and achievement goals in athletes. Research that has focused on examining sub-dimensions of perfectionism also suggests that perfectionistic concerns encapsulate features that are responsible for the negative cognitive and affective experiences of athletes (e.g., higher levels of competitive anxiety, anger, and exhaustion; Frost and Henderson, 1991, Hill et al., 2008 and Vallance et al., 2006). In contrast, as found outside of sport, research suggests that perfectionistic striving largely contains the energising features of perfectionism (e.g., higher personal standards and higher performance; Stoeber, Uphill, & Hotham, 2009). However, it is noteworthy that the salutogenic effects of perfectionistic striving have yet to be established (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs theory Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985 and Ryan and Deci, 2002) is a meta-theory offering a lens through which the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and quality of athlete motivation can be examined. Over the past decade, self-determination theory has become a popular model through which to explore motivational, performance, inter-personal and well-being related outcomes in sport and exercise (see Ryan & Deci, 2007, for a review). The foundation of self-determination theory concerns the interaction between individuals’ natural organismic tendencies towards growth, integration, vitality and healthy functioning and the social-contextual environment that either nurtures or inhibits these tendencies (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Moreover, the fulfilment of basic psychological needs is thought to be central to the dialectical interplay between organism and environment. The three fundamental needs within self-determination theory are autonomy (feelings of volition, choice and self-directedness), competence (perceptions of being effective) and relatedness (feelings of belonging or connectedness to others) (Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Ryan and Deci, 2002). According to basic psychological needs theory, a micro-theory of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the optimal conditions in which organismic tendencies are enacted are defined by the satisfaction of the three innate psychological needs. The fulfilment of these needs, in turn, are purported to lead to positive psychological consequences, such as better quality, more autonomous, motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This is because when psychological needs are satisfied the organismic activities of the individual are given full opportunity to flourish (Ryan, 1995). Research in a variety of life domains (e.g., work, health and exercise) has provided support for the assertions of basic needs theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Similar findings are evident in sport where researchers have found support for the beneficial effects of psychological need satisfaction. For example, higher levels of psychological need satisfaction has been found to predict higher levels of subjective vitality, autonomous motivation and positive affect in athletes (e.g., Adie et al., 2008, Hollembeak and Amorose, 2005 and Reinboth and Duda, 2006). Researchers in sport have recently turned their attention to examining need thwarting. The frustration, or thwarting, of psychological needs is thought to lead to negative psychological consequences, such as lesser quality, more controlled, motivation and ill-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This is because when needs are thwarted, the natural organismic activities of the individual are inhibited (Ryan, 1995). As recently described by Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani (2011), need thwarting entails more than perceptions of lower levels of need satisfaction. Instead, it is characterised by perceptions that psychological needs are obstructed and actively undermined. In accord, the three needs are likely to be thwarted when an individual’s sense of choice and self-control is quashed (autonomy); they feel ineffective or that the context is demeaning (competence); and the social environment is perceived as being cold and neglectful (relatedness) ( Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). Initial research in the area of sport has found support for the negative impact of need thwarting, with higher levels of psychological need thwarting being found to be associated with lower levels of vitality and higher levels of exhaustion in athletes (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011). Need thwarting may be especially important in the context of understanding any costs associated with perfectionism for athletes because psychological need thwarting is purported to be more relevant to the development of ill-being than the absence of need satisfaction ( Bartholomew et al., 2011). Multidimensional perfectionism and psychological need thwarting Perfectionistic concerns are likely to lead to higher perceptions of need thwarting. This is because sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns (e.g., socially prescribed perfectionism, parental pressure and coach pressure) entail a number of beliefs and perceptions that include standards over which individuals have limited perceived control, negative self-evaluative tendencies, perceptions of external pressure and sensitivity to social rejection. This possibility is evident in empirical research inside and outside of sport. For example, socially prescribed perfectionism and concern over mistakes are associated with lower levels of perceived control and autonomy (e.g., Flett et al., 1995 and Mor et al., 1995), poorer appraisals of task performance (e.g., Frost and Marten, 1990 and Frost et al., 1995), and lower levels of athletic confidence (Frost and Henderson, 1991 and Gotwals et al., 2003). Socially prescribed perfectionism is especially problematic in terms of inter-personal adjustment. Previous research suggests that it is associated with perceptions of poorer close relationships (Flett et al., 2001–2002 and Haring et al., 2003), a higher frequency of negative social interactions (Flett, Hewitt, Garshowitz, & Martin, 1997), and lower perceived social skills (Flett, Hewitt, & De Rosa, 1996). In sport, Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, and Miller (2005) also found that a collection of sub-components of perfectionistic concerns were associated with perceptions of lower quality peer-relationships in junior soccer players. Perfectionistic striving, on the other hand, is likely to lead to lower perceptions of need thwarting. This is because sub-dimensions of perfectionistic striving involve higher levels of personal control and efficacy (e.g., personal standards and self-oriented perfectionism), and are relatively undisruptive in terms of inter-personal adjustment. In support of this possibility, self-oriented perfectionism has been found to be associated with higher levels of self-efficacy in an educational context and the competence facet of conscientiousness (a sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent and effective) (Dunkley and Kyparissis, 2008 and Mills and Blankstein, 2000). Self-oriented perfectionism has also been found to have either a positive influence (e.g., Hill, Zrull, & Turlington, 1997), or no influence (Blankstein et al., 2007 and Sherry et al., 2003), on inter-personal adjustment. Similar findings are evident in sport where personal standards are related to higher perceptions of ability and confidence leading up to athletic competition (Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998) and unrelated to perceptions of peer-relationships in junior soccer players (Ommundsen et al., 2005). The current study had two purposes. The first purpose was to examine the multivariate relationship between broad dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic striving) and psychological need thwarting. The second purpose was to examine the predictive ability of sub-dimensions of perfectionism in relation to each facet of psychological need thwarting. Based on the preceding theoretical argument and previous empirical research, it was hypothesised that perfectionistic concerns would be positively associated with psychological need thwarting whereas perfectionistic striving would be negatively associated with psychological need thwarting. It was also hypothesised that the sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns would have the greatest predictive ability in terms of psychological need thwarting. This is because these dimensions are likely to play a more subversive role in the need fulfilment process. The importance of specific sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns was also expected to vary depending on the facet of psychological need thwarting being predicted. Consistent with research findings in sport that suggest perceptions of social-contextual support (e.g., parent and coach autonomy support; Adie et al., 2008, Gagné et al., 2003 and Reinboth et al., 2004) may be more central to perceptions of autonomy and relatedness satisfaction than competence satisfaction, inter-personal sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns (socially prescribed perfectionism, parental pressure and coach pressure) were expected to be the largest predictor of perceptions of autonomy and relatedness thwarting. In contrast, intra-personal sub-dimensions of perfectionistic concerns (concern over mistakes and doubts about actions) were expected to be the largest predictor of perceptions of competence thwarting.