Perfectionism

Abstract

Great Britain’s Tom Daley won the gold medal in the men’s 10 metre platform dive at the 2017 World Aquatics Championships in Budapest. In winning the medal, Daley was awarded 12 perfect scores across six dives. Chen Aisen, the double gold winner at the 2016 Summer Olympics, was awarded three perfect scores of his own and won the silver medal. In this case, three instances of perfection simply weren’t enough to win the competition. It is scenarios like this that underscore why the study of perfectionism is so important in sport. In most other areas of life, perfection is ambiguous, elusive, and irrational. In sport, though, perfection can be more tangible, objective and, for athletes at the very highest levels, attainable. These factors may explain why so many athletes identify themselves as perfectionists and why some researchers and practitioners have come to view perfectionism as a hallmark characteristic of elite performers (e.g., Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). It is important to bear in mind, however, that from a personality perspective perfectionism is more than the standards people have for themselves. Rather, perfectionism is an engrained way of thinking, feeling and behaving that, paradoxically, can quite easily undermine athlete motivation, performance and wellbeing (Flett & Hewitt, 2014). As it is common to find perfectionistic people in sport, and because perfectionism is so easily misunderstood, we consider perfectionism to be a valuable addition to an Encyclopaedia of Sport Psychology. We have structured our entry around four topics. The topics covered are (1) the multidimensional structure of perfectionism, (2) its transcontextual nature, (3) whether “healthy” perfectionists exist and (4) what the likely consequences of perfectionism are in sport. These are key topics in this area of research and will provide a valuable reference for students, researchers and practitioners interested in perfectionism in sport.

Full text

29
PERFECTIONISM
Andrew P. Hill, Daniel J. Madigan, Martin M. Smith,
Sarah H. Mallinson-Howard, and Tracy C. Donachie
Introduction
Great Britain’s Tom Daley won the gold medal in the men’s 10 metre platform dive at the
2017 World Aquatics Championships in Budapest. In winning the medal, Daley was awarded
12 perfect scores across six dives. Chen Aisen, the double gold winner at the 2016 Summer
Olympics, was awarded three perfect scores of his own and won the silver medal. In this case,
three instances of perfection simply were not enough to win the competition. It is scenarios
such as this that underscore why the study of perfectionism is so important in sport. In most
other areas of life, perfection is ambiguous, elusive, and irrational. In sport, though, perfection
can be more tangible, objective, and, for athletes at the very highest levels, attainable. These
factors may explain why so many athletes identify themselves as perfectionists, and why some
researchers and practitioners have come to view perfectionism as a hallmark characteristic of
elite performers (e.g., Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002).
It is important to bear in mind, however, that, from a personality perspective, perfectionism
is more than the standards people have for themselves. Rather, perfectionism is an engrained
way of thinking, feeling, and behaving that, paradoxically, can quite easily undermine athlete
motivation, performance, and well-being (Flett & Hewitt, 2014). As it is common to find
perfectionistic people in sport, and because perfectionism is so easily misunderstood,
perfectionism is a valuable addition to an encyclopaedia of sport psychology. The entry is
structured around four topics. The topics covered are: (1) the multidimensional structure of
perfectionism, (2) its trans-contextual nature, (3) whether ‘healthy’ perfectionists exist, and (4)
the likely consequences of perfectionism in sport. These are key topics in this area of research
and will provide a valuable reference for students, researchers, and practitioners interested in
perfectionism.
Perfectionism Is Multidimensional
Perhaps the biggest advancement in perfectionism research in the last 40 years has been the
reconceptualization of perfectionism as multidimensional. Prior to this development,
perfectionism was conceptualized as unidimensional (i.e., a total perfectionism score) and
considered largely in terms of self-related irrational beliefs (e.g., ‘I should be perfect all of the
405

Andrew P. Hill et al.
time’). Multidimensional models (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991) bought to the fore a wide array of
dimensions indicative of perfectionism and shifted emphasis to studying the different
dimensions. Some of the dimensions include, for example, an emphasis on interpersonal
aspects of perfectionism, such as beliefs about how others should behave (e.g., ‘Other people
should perform perfectly’) and beliefs about what other people think (e.g., ‘Other people
expect me to be perfect’). The result of the development of a multidimensional
conceptualization of perfectionism has been a fuller account of its various manifestations and
its consequences, as well as the ability to intervene in a more effective manner.
There are now at least six multidimensional models of perfectionism. With so many different
models (and accompanying measures) of perfectionism, research can be difficult to navigate.
However, in actuality, these models show considerable overlap. Notably, all models include
dimensions that capture high, exceptionally high, or excessively high personal standards.
Thereafter, models differ in the dimensions they include. However, typically, the additional
dimensions pertain to less desirable aspects of perfectionism. These dimensions capture the
thoughts and feelings that accompany achievement-oriented behaviour such as an intense
aversion to mistakes, chronic doubts about performance, and negative reactions to
imperfection. These dimensions are key to differentiating perfectionism from other achievement-
related traits (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). They are also important for
understanding how the consequences of perfectionism differ between people.
Additional support for the notion that perfectionism should be studied as multidimensional
has been provided by the higher-order model of perfectionism. Adopting a broad definition of
perfectionism (‘high standards of performance which are accompanied by tendencies for
overly critical evaluations of one’s own behaviour’; Frost et al., 1990, p. 450; italics in
original), the higher-order model distinguishes between two factors: perfectionistic strivings (PS)
and perfectionistic concerns (PC). PS are ‘aspects of perfectionism associated with self-oriented
striving for perfection and the setting of very high personal performance standards’ (Gotwals,
Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012, p. 264), whereas PC are ‘aspects associated with concerns over
making mistakes, fear of negative social evaluation, feelings of discrepancy between one’s
expectations and performance, and negative reactions to imperfection’ (Gotwals et al., 2012,
p. 264). This model is not a theory of perfectionism. However, it is a useful heuristic based on
factor analytical studies of different measures of perfectionism (e.g., Bieling, Israeli, & Antony,
2004) and the notion of functional homogeneity whereby the constitutes of the two higher-
order factors tend to have similar effects (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012). Therefore,
regardless of the specific model of perfectionism adopted, evidence supports
a multidimensional conceptualization of perfectionism with at least two distinct dimensions (PS
and PC).
Perfectionism Is Trans-Contextual
A further important issue is whether perfectionism is a trait or disposition. The confusion is
understandable. Both terms are used interchangeably (and sometimes in combination) in sport
and personality research. Drawing on the work of McAdams and Pals (2006), here, traits are
considered to be ‘broad dimensions of individual differences between people, accounting for
inter-individual consistency and continuity in behaviour, thought, and feelings across situations
and over time’ (p. 207). By contrast, dispositions are considered to be an adaptation to one’s
character that is bound or ‘contextualized in time, place, and/or social role’ (p. 208).
Examples of character adaptations include personal motives, goals, plans, values, and virtues.
As such, a disposition is something that is less consistent than a trait and shows lower stability
406

Perfectionism
over time and across situations and contexts. With regard to perfectionism, there are currently
two opposing positions on this issue. On the one hand, researchers have argued that
perfectionism is best considered a trait (or is at least ‘trait-like’; e.g., Hill, 2016). On the other
hand, other researchers have argued that perfectionism is best considered a disposition and
domain-specific (e.g., Stoeber, 2018). The two positions are revisited below.
Hill (2016) offered three main arguments to support the notion that perfectionism is best
considered a trait or trait-like. First, research examining domain-specific perfectionism has
found the tendency to exhibit perfectionism in one domain is highly correlated with a tendency
to exhibit perfectionism in other domains (e.g., Dunn, Craft, Dunn, & Gotwals, 2011). Second,
related to the first point, most people who report being ‘perfectionistic’ identify multiple
domains in which they are perfectionistic, rather than only one (see Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009).
Third, and finally, in twin studies examining perfectionism, a substantial proportion of
variability in perfectionism can be attributed to common genetic factors (up to 42%; e.g.,
Iranzo-Tatay et al., 2015). The amount of variance for some dimensions of perfectionism is
similar to other personality characteristics normally considered traits (e.g., Big Five; Bouchard
& McGue, 2003).
Stoeber (2018), by contrast, has argued that perfectionism is best considered a disposition,
not a trait. He also offers three main arguments for why this is the case. First, evidence of
heritability aside, theoretical models of the development of perfectionism suggest that
perfectionism is most likely something learned from early experiences, particularly in response
to parental behaviours (see Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & MacDonald, 2002). Second, individuals
who report that they are perfectionistic in all domains are rare. Most people have a very
limited number of domains in their lives in which they are perfectionistic. Finally, longitudinal
studies often show changes in perfectionism over relatively short periods that reflect more
immediate changes in experiences and expectations. Stoeber argues that changes of this kind
would be unlikely to occur if perfectionism was a trait.
This debate has yet to be resolved. In revisiting it here, a recent study by Franche and
Gaudreau (2016) may help move it forward somewhat. Franche and Gaudreau advocated
that perfectionism be best studied as a multilevel characteristic that varies between individuals
and within individuals, and illustrated how the cross-domain manifestation of perfectionism can
be taken into account when studying its effects. The approach is based on the work of Fleeson
(2001; Fleeson & Noftle, 2008), who argued that both typical behaviour and variability in that
behaviour can reflect stable individual differences and meaningful aspects of personality. In
other words, consistent inconsistency can denote personality in the same way that consistency
does. In this regard, the presence of perfectionism in some domains (domains that carry
especial personal meaning or value), and its predictable absence in others (domains with no
personal meaning or value), can be considered to be itself part of an overall pattern of
expression that signals perfectionism is unlikely to be a contextually bound disposition. Rather,
perfectionism has a structure that stretches beyond contexts; it is a trans-contextual trait
(McCrae & Costa, 1984).
Perfectionists Who Are ‘Healthy’ Do Not Exist
The third topic pertains to an ongoing controversy regarding the existence of so-called ‘healthy’
perfectionists (also referred to as ‘adaptive’ or ‘functional’ perfectionists). Some sport
psychologists believe perfectionism may be desirable for athletes when exhibited as a healthy
type (e.g., Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). However, reasoned examination of perfectionism
highlights that the notion of ‘healthy’ perfectionists is a misnomer, and that there is little
407

Andrew P. Hill et al.
empirical basis for the existence for such a type of perfectionist. The case against the use of the
term ‘healthy perfectionist’ centres on three issues: (1) whether types of perfectionist exist, (2)
whether it is advisable to label a trait in a manner that presumes its effects, and (3) whether
dimensions of perfectionism are being confused with types of perfectionism. These issues are
discussed below.
The first issue is whether ‘perfectionists’ actually exist. People are often surprised to learn
that, in all likelihood, there is no such thing as a perfectionist. We use the term perfectionist as
shorthand when describing people who exhibit dimensions of perfectionism to some varying,
typically high, degree. The evidence to support the existence of different types of perfectionism
(a taxonomy), such as healthy and unhealthy perfectionists, is questionable (see Hill &
Madigan, 2017). Rather, the evidence that does exist supports the notion that perfectionism
has a continuum-based structure (Broman-Fulks, Hill, & Green, 2008). That is, like most
personality traits, all people exhibit perfectionism to some degree. As such, it would be
advisable to use the term ‘perfectionistic’ to signal the trait, rather than perfectionist. This is
something that others have recently advocated when describing other traits (e.g., narcissistic
versus narcissist; Aslinger, Manuck, Pilkonis, Simms, & Wright, 2018). In short, if there are no
perfectionists, there can be no healthy (or even unhealthy) perfectionists.
The second issue is whether, if there is benefit to studying typology regardless, ‘healthy’ is
a suitable moniker. A number of researchers have argued against the use of the term ‘healthy’
and similar terms on various grounds (e.g., Gaudreau, 2013). Principally, it is a label that
emphasizes what the trait is related to, not what it is, thus making the construct and its effects
practically inseparable. This is evident in the tautological arguments that follow (e.g., healthy
perfectionism is characterized by, well, good health). As a label, it also presupposes the effects
of a trait that are likely to be exceedingly complex. Is healthy perfectionism healthy for everyone,
under all circumstances, all of the time? Few people would argue that this is the case. By
adopting such a black-and-white approach we also divert attention away from the role of
personal and situational factors that will be important in determining its effects and the more
meaningful question of when and for whom perfectionism is likely to contribute to good or bad
health. There is already preliminary evidence, for example, that the effects of dimensions of
perfectionism in sport may be moderated by gender, age, sport type, and the instrument used to
measure perfectionism (see Hill, Mallinson-Howard, & Jowett, 2018).
The third, and final, issue is whether proponents of healthy perfectionism are confusing
dimensions of perfectionism with types of perfectionism. Typically, it is perfectionistic strivings
that are seized upon when advocating the notion of healthy perfectionists. Obviously, this is
not a type of perfectionism; it is a dimension of perfectionism. It is also only one part of a two-
factor higher-order model. The two factors can, of course, be examined separately and
statistically analysed in a manner that allows examination of their unique effects, and each can
be examined in context of high or low levels of the other. However, PC cannot be ignored
when the intention is to understand the consequences of perfectionism. One cannot separate
the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’ without subsequently examining something that is not actually
perfectionism (see also Stoeber, 2011).
Research Examining Perfectionism Reveals It to Be Complex
The final topic discussed is the likely consequences of perfectionism for athletes. Research
examining perfectionism in athletes extends across 25 years. This research has not revealed
perfectionism to be either uniformly good or bad. Rather, perfectionism has been revealed
to be complex. We are, however, beginning to gain a better understanding of the typical
408

Perfectionism
effects one can expect when athletes report higher and lower levels of PS and PC. We
briefly summarize the results of two recent large reviews in sport below to illustrate how this
is the case.
The first review is a meta-analysis of research examining perfectionism in sport (Hill et al.,
2018). The meta-analysis included 52 studies and 697 effect sizes for 29 criterion variables
that spanned motivation, performance, and emotion/well-being. Based on research in the
review, there was little evidence of any discernible benefits of PC for athletes. Rather,
motivationally, PC were characterized by a pattern of achievement goals (e.g., ego
orientation, mastery avoidance, and performance avoidance) and motivation regulation
(combination of introjected, external, and amotivation) that is unlikely to provide the basis for
long-term participation and expertise development. Rather, PC appeared likely to place
a heavy toll on the well-being of athletes in the form of greater anxiety, self-criticism, and
depressive symptoms. In regard to performance, research has yet to find any evidence of an
impact of PC on athletic performance. However, given how PC influence well-being, it is
difficult to comprehend how they would not indirectly undermine an athlete’s ability to regularly
perform to their potential.
PS were revealed to be much more ambiguous. In regard to motivation, it included a mix of
achievement goals (task and ego orientation) and almost all motivation regulations (with the
exception of amotivation). PS are, therefore, likely to be highly energizing but are also likely to
give rise to a complex pattern of achievement behaviour that reflects the presence of both high-
quality/optimal motivation and low-quality/suboptimal motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The
result of this combination appears to be evident regarding performance and emotion/well-being.
Unlike PC, PS were positively related to athletic performance. However, their impact on
emotion/well-being was mixed. On the one hand, PS were positively related to self-esteem, self-
confidence, and enjoyment, but, on the other hand, they were also positively related to anxiety,
worry, and self-criticism. In regard to unpicking this complexity, additional analyses revealed
that some of the ambiguity of PS is attributable to their relationship with PC. Specifically,
accompanying levels of PC are one major source of problems for athletes higher in PS.
The second review was a reanalysis of research in sport, dance, and exercise with a focus
on outcomes associated with different combinations of dimensions of perfectionism (Hill,
Mallinson-Howard, Madigan, & Jowett, in press). In the review, the 2 × 2 model proposed by
Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) was adopted wherein within-person combinations of
perfectionism are examined: non-perfectionism (low PS/low PC), pure perfectionistic strivings
(pure PS; high PS/low PC), pure perfectionistic concerns (pure PC; low PS/high PC), and
mixed perfectionism (high PS/high PC).
1
The model includes a number of formalized
hypotheses regarding differences between each combination. Hypothesis 1 states that pure PS
will either be associated with better (H1a), poorer (H1b), or no different (H1c) outcomes than
non-perfectionism. Hypothesis 2 states that non-perfectionism will be associated with better
outcomes than pure PC (H2). Hypothesis 3 states that mixed perfectionism will be associated
with better outcomes than pure PC (H3). Finally, Hypothesis 4 states that pure PS will be
associated with better outcomes than mixed perfectionism (H4).
With these hypotheses in mind, the reanalysis included 63 studies and 1,772 effect sizes.
Hypothesis 1a was supported on 312 of 443 occasions (70% of the time). Hypothesis 2 was
supported on 416 of 443 occasions (94% of the time). Hypothesis 3 was supported on 309 of
443 occasions (70% of the time). Hypothesis 4 was supported on 416 of 443 occasions (94%
of the time). In other words, as expected, typically, pure PS were associated with better
outcomes than non-perfectionism and mixed perfectionism, and non-perfectionism and mixed
perfectionism were associated with better outcomes than pure PC. However, based on
409

Andrew P. Hill et al.
instances in which hypotheses were in the opposite direction to expectations (H1b supported
on 131 occasions, or 30% of the time, and H3 contradicted on 134 occasions, or 30% of the
time), it is likely that pure PS and mixed perfectionism carry the potential to be associated with
both better and worse outcomes than non-perfectionism and pure PC. On this basis, it was
concluded that it was likely that all combinations of perfectionism carry at least some potential
for motivation, well-being, and (therefore) performance difficulties.
Future Directions
Although understanding of perfectionism in sport has increased a great deal, there is still much
to be learned. There are three immediate priorities. Researchers need to identify factors that
moderate the effects of perfectionism in sport. This research is required to provide answers to
key questions regarding when and for whom perfectionism is likely to contribute to good or
bad health and better or worse performance outcomes. Some of the most important studies in
this regard will be those that examine how different combinations of dimensions of
perfectionism interact to determine how athletes respond to routine success and failure. This
work has begun and is suggestive of the notion that higher levels of both perfectionistic
strivings and concerns may provide the basis for greater emotional difficulties following failure
(e.g., Curran & Hill, 2018). However, this work is in its infancy and has yet to examine these
relationships in more meaningful, ‘real-world’ achievement scenarios.
Another priority for future research is to examine different aspects of perfectionism in sport
other than trait perfectionism. Research outside sport has included an additional focus on
cognitive elements of perfectionism – frequent cognitions about the attainment of ideal
standards – and social aspects of perfectionism – perfectionistic self-presentational styles.
A very small number of studies have examined perfectionistic cognitions in athletes (e.g.,
Donachie, Hill, & Hall, 2018) and perfectionistic self-presentational styles have been examined
in exercisers but, as yet, not athletes (Hill, Robson, & Stamp, 2015). This initial research
suggests that these aspects of perfectionism may have important implications in sport and
warrant examination alongside trait perfectionism. Just as moderating factors are important to
revealing the consequences of perfectionism, these aspects of perfectionism, too, will provide
a fuller picture of its likely effects.
A final priority for research is to give the relationship between perfectionism and mental
health outcomes in sport its due attention. Again, some research exists in this regard (e.g.,
Shanmugam, Jowett, & Meyer, 2011). However, when one considers the mounting meta-
analytical evidence that has implicated perfectionism in a range of mental health difficulties
outside sport (e.g., Limburg, Watson, Hagger, & Egan, 2017), it is apparent sport psychology
is severely lagging. In addition to the call for more research of this kind here, hopefully,
impetus for this research might also be provided by inclusion of perfectionism as a risk factor
for poorer mental health in elite athletes in a recent IOC consensus statement (Reardon et al.,
2019). This research is most important in regard to contextualizing suggestions that
perfectionism may exist in a healthy form or that athletes may, in some ways, benefit from
higher levels of perfectionism.
Conclusion
Perfectionism is common but often misunderstood in sport. In considering key topics in this area
of research, we argue perfectionism is a multidimensional trait that manifests in areas of
people’s lives that are important. In addition, there is little evidence to support the existence of
410

Perfectionism
types of perfectionist, healthy or otherwise. Instead, perfectionism most likely exists in everyone
to some degree, with its consequences dependent on the level of perfectionism, the particular
dimensions exhibited, and other personal and situational moderating factors. Research to date
suggests that the effects of PS are ambiguous: perhaps beneficial for athletic performance some
of the time, but most likely bad for the athlete most of the time. By contrast, PC are likely to be
problematic for most athletes, most of the time. This pattern of findings is also evident in
research examining combinations of the different dimensions of perfectionism.
Note
1 These dimensions are actually referred to as non-perfectionism (low PS/low PC), pure personal stand-
ards perfectionism (pure PSP; high PS/low PC), pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (pure ECP; low
PS/high PC), and mixed perfectionism (high PS/high PC). We have retained the language of the
higher-order model to avoid confusion and for ease of the reader.
References
Aslinger, E. N., Manuck, S. B., Pilkonis, P. A., Simms, L., & Wright, A. G. (2018). Narcissist or narcissistic?
Evaluation of the latent structure of narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
127, 496–502.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models
of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1373–1385.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr, & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological
differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54,4–45.
Broman-Fulks, J. J., Hill, R. W., & Green, B. A. (2008). Is perfectionism categorical or dimensional?
A taxometric analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 481–490.
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2018). A test of perfectionistic vulnerability following competitive failure among
college athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 40, 269–279.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s
domains. Canadian Psychology, 49,14–23.
Donachie, T. C., Hill, A. P., & Hall, H. K. (2018). The relationship between multidimensional perfectionism
and pre-competition emotions of youth footballers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37,33–42.
Dunn, J. G., Craft, J. M., Dunn, J. C., & Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Comparing a domain-specific and global
measure of perfectionism in competitive female figure skaters. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34,25–46.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distri-
butions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the
answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1667–1684.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). The perils of ‘perfectionism in sports’ revisited: Toward a broader under-
standing of the pressure to be perfect and its impact on athletes and dancers. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 45, 395–407.
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 treat-
ment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Franche, V., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). Integrating dispositional perfectionism and within-person variations of
perfectionism across life domains into a multilevel extension of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 89,55–59.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Gaudreau, P. (2013). The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: Commenting the critical comments and suggestions
of Stoeber (2012). Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 351–355.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 48, 532–537.
Gaudreau, P., & Verner-Filion, J. (2012). Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of the 2 × 2
model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,1,29–43.
411

Andrew P. Hill et al.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in sport adaptive?
A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence. Canadian Psychology/Psycho-
logie Canadienne, 53, 263–279.
Gould, D. R., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in
Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assess-
ment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
456–470.
Hill, A. P. (2016). Conceptualizing perfectionism: An overview and unresolved issues. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The
psychology of perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp. 3–30). London: Routledge.
Hill, A. P., & Madigan, D. J. (2017). A short review of perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise: Out with
the old, in with the 2 x 2. Current Opinion in Psychology, 108, 220–224.
Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., & Jowett, G. E. (2018). Multidimensional perfectionism in sport: A
meta-analytical review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 7, 235–270.
Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., Madigan, D. J., & Jowett, G. E. (in press). Perfectionism in sport,
dance, and exercise: An extended review and reanalysis. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Hand-
book of sport psychology (4th ed., pp. 00-00). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Hill, A. P., Robson, S. J., & Stamp, G. M. (2015). The predictive ability of perfectionistic traits and
self-presentational styles in relation to exercise dependence. Personality and Individual Differences, 86,
176–183.
Iranzo-Tatay, C., Gimeno-Clemente, N., Barberá-Fons, M., Rodriguez-Campayo, M. Á., Rojo-Bofill, L., Livia-
nos-Aldana, L., & Rojo-Moreno, L. (2015). Genetic and environmental contributions to perfectionism and
its common factors. Psychiatry Research, 230, 932–939.
Limburg, K., Watson, H. J., Hagger, M. S., & Egan, S. J. (2017). The relationship between perfectionism
and psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73, 1301–1326.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of
personality. American psychologist, 61(3), 204–217.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1984). Personality is transcontextual: A reply to Veroff. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 175–179.
Reardon, C. L., Hainline, B., Aron, C. M., Baron, D., Baum, A. L., Bindra, A., & Derevensky, J. L. (2019).
Mental health in elite athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement (2019). British Jour-
nal of Sports Medicine, 53, 667–699.
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review of stressors and
protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1419–1434.
Shanmugam, V., Jowett, S., & Meyer, C. (2011). Application of the transdiagnostic cognitive behavioral
model of eating disorders to the athletic population. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 5, 166–191.
Stoeber, J. (2011). The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: Relationships with emotion, motivation, and
performance. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 128–145.
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and future directions. In
J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 333–352).
London: Routledge.
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfection-
ism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 530–535.
412