Perfectionism(2)

Question 1

which is considered more healthy

PS or PC

Answer 1

PS : indicates subjective well-being and good psychological adjustment
PC: indicates psychological maladjustment and mental disorder

Question 2

What did Flee and Hewitt 2005 suggest

Answer 2

perfectionism paradox exists

proposed it is a primarily negative factor

athletes who be pre occupied with perfection may be vulnerable to motivation, wellbeing, and performance difficulties

Question 3

problems reported by highly talented athletes

Answer 3

injury, difficulty managing emotions, substance abuse, eating disorders, self harm

Question 4

name a model of perfectionism by parker 1997

Answer 4

Tripartite model

Question 5

describe tripartite model

Answer 5

differentiates three type of perfectionist

healthy (high PS and low PC)

unhealthy (high PS and high PC)

Non perfectionists (low PC and low PS)

Question 6

support for tripartite model outside of sports

Answer 6

Rice and Slaney 2002 found support in student populations for three groups of perfectionists

Hill et al 2018

Question 7

Describe hill et al 2018

Answer 7

reviewed 9 studies and found that 5 could be considered to support tripartite model

but 2 of the 9 studies found a four group structure

Final 2 studies found three groups that didn’t correspond with tripartite model

conclude tripartite model only has mixed support

Question 8

name a perfectionism model that isn’t the tripartite model

Answer 8

2x2 model

Question 9

describe the 2x2 model

Answer 9

four subtypes of perfectionism

PS and PS varying levels creates four subgroups

non perfectionism (low ps and pc)
pure personal standards perfectionism (high ps low pc)
pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (low ps high pc)
mixed perfectionism (high ps high pc)

Question 10

Stoeber and Otto 2006 findings for PC

Answer 10

reviewed 15 studies that reported correlations between ps and pc

PC showed only postive correlations with unhealthy characteristics and negative correlations with healthy ones

conclude pc is solely maladaptive

Question 11

Stoeber and Otto findings for PS

Answer 11

In only 4 of 15 studies did PS show same pattern of correlations as PC

in 6 studies, PS showed only positive correlations with healthy characteristics and only negative correlations with unhealthy characteristics

concluded that PS is healthy

Question 12

Stoeber and Otto 2006 added detail

Answer 12

also investigated overlap between ps and pc

in controlling for PC, 10/15 studies showed only positive correlations with healthy wand negative correlations with unhealthy characteristics

concluded that PS are primarily adaptive but may only be apparent with negative influence of PC is controlled in analyses

Question 13

Stoeber 2011 findings

Answer 13

review suggests only PC are maladaptive

PS have an emotional motivational quality that gives athlete an additional boost to do their best

may only be true when PS are not accompanied by PC

Question 14

Gotwals et al 2012 findings

Answer 14

documented and categorised and quantitatively analyses 31 studies on perfectionism in elite athletes

findings suggests PS among athletes are mainly adaptive, occasionally neutral, and rarely bad

trend only apparent with PC is controlled

Question 15

Hill et al 2017 and Jowett et al 2016

overview

Answer 15

two review studies

81 studies

argue their reviews provide most comprehensive account of perfectionism research using partialling in sport, dance, and exercise

Question 16

Hill et al 2017 and Jowett et al 2916 unpartialled PS findings

Answer 16

PS positively related with task and ego orientation, harmonious and obsessive passion

PS postive relationships with engagement

PS positively related to anxiety and self criticism but also to enjoyment and self confidence

PS positively related to athletic performance

Question 17

Hill et al 2017 and Jowett et al 2016 findings for PC unpartialled

Answer 17

PC less likely to be harmful

PC positively related to ego orientation, obsessive passion

PC positively related to anxiety, anger, worry and unrelated to motivation and self confidence

PC did not provide any benefits to athletic performance

Question 18

Hill et al 2017 and Jowett et al 2016 findings for partialled PS

Answer 18

more positive outcome when partialling used

Partialled PS found to be more adaptive, unrelated to negative factors a

Partialled PS typically positively related to athletic performance

Question 19

Hill et al 2017 and Jowett et al 2016

findings for partialled PC

Answer 19

asimilar to unpartialled results

relationships with maladaptive criterion variables were strengthened

Question 20

Hill, Mallinson-Howard, and Jowett 2018

Answer 20

Meta analysis including 51 studies, 29 criterion like motivation and emotions

Question 21

Hill, Mallinson-Howard, And Jowett 2018 findings for PC

Answer 21

little benefit for Pc in athletes
PC more likely to place heavy toll on wellbeing, more likely to include anxiety, self criticism

no evidence of PC impact on performance

Question 22

Hill, Mallinson-Howard, and Jowett 2018 findings on PS

Answer 22

PS more ambiguous

PS lily to be energising but give rise to complex patterns of achievement behaviour

unlike Pc, Ps were positively to athletic performance

PS had mixed impact on emotions - positively related to self esteem, self confidence, enjoyment, but also to worry, anxiety, self criticism