Content uploaded by Daniel J. Madigan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel J. Madigan on Nov 29, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Tracy Donachie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tracy Donachie on Aug 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions in Youth Footballers:
A Three-Wave Longitudinal Test of the Mediating
Role of Perfectionistic Cognitions
Tracy C. Donachie,
1,2
Andrew P. Hill,
1
and Daniel J. Madigan
1
1
York St John University;
2
University of West of Scotland
Perfectionism is related to precompetition emotions in athletes. However, it is unclear why this is the case. In the present study,
the authors sought to determine whether perfectionistic cognitions explain this relationship and mediate the relationships between
self-oriented perfectionism (SOP), socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP), and general precompetition emotions and multidi-
mensional anxiety and anger. The authors adopted a three-wave longitudinal design and examined between- and within-person
effects in a sample of 352 youth footballers (M
age
= 14.03 years, SD = 2.30). At the between-person level, perfectionistic
cognitions mediated the relationships between SOP, SPP, and all general precompetition emotions plus multidimensional anxiety
and anger. At the within-person level, perfectionistic cognitions mediated the relationships between SOP, SPP, and general
anxiety and anger plus multidimensional anxiety and anger. Our findings imply that athletes higher in SOP and SPP experience
more anxiety and anger when the frequency of perfectionistic cognitions increases in the lead-up to competition.
Keywords:adolescents, anger, anxiety, junior athletes, multilevel modeling
Precompetition emotions can result in better or worse perfor-
mance (Beedie, Terry, & Lane, 2000). These are also part of an
overall sporting experience for athletes that will influence their
motivation and well-being (Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012). It is,
therefore, unsurprising that sport psychologists have sought to
determine factors that result in more positive or negative precom-
petition emotions. To advance knowledge on this topic, the present
study examined the role of perfectionism in determining precom-
petition emotions. In particular, we sought to establish whether
perfectionism predicted precompetition emotions in junior foot-
ballers and whether perfectionistic cognitions mediated this rela-
tionship over time.
Precompetition Emotions
Emotions are a complex combination of psychological, physiolog-
ical, and behavioral reactions to personally meaningful events
(Lazarus, 1991). According to cognitive–motivational–relational
theory (Lazarus, 1991,2000), emotions arise from the interdepen-
dent effects of primary and secondary appraisal processes. Primary
appraisal is the assessment of whether a situation or an event is
personally meaningful and salient to an athlete’s goals and core
values. Secondary appraisal is the assessment of the availability
of coping resources and coping options. Different emotions are
thought to arise due to different appraisal patterns and distinct
underlying relational themes (Lazarus, 2000). Positive emotions
occur when an individual feels he/she can cope with a personally
meaningful situation, and this assessment is accompanied by a
relational theme of benefit (e.g., goal progress or ego
enhancement). In contrast, negative emotions occur when an
individual feels unable to cope with a personally meaningful
situation, and this assessment is accompanied by a relational theme
of harm (e.g., a sense of threat, being demeaned or loss).
Precompetition emotions refer to emotions that are experi-
enced in the lead-up to, and immediately before, competition.
Athletes can experience positive emotions such as excitement
and happiness precompetition. When an athlete experiences posi-
tive emotions prior to competition, he/she is more likely to feel
energized and prepared for competition (e.g., Cerin & Barnett,
2006). Athletes can also experience negative emotions such as
anxiety, anger, and dejection precompetition. In contrast to when
an athlete experiences positive emotions, when an athlete experi-
ences negative emotions prior to competition, he/she is more likely
to feel distracted and ill-prepared for competition (e.g., Vast,
Young, & Thomas, 2010).
Some precompetition emotions have been more extensively
studied than others. Anxiety is perhaps the most studied. Anxiety is
defined as the subjective feeling of apprehension, worry, and
tension caused by the appraisal of a situation as psychologically
or physically threatening (Spielberger, 1972). It is typically studied
from a multidimensional perspective with a distinction made
between cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety. Cognitive anxiety
is the mental manifestation of anxiety involving worrying about
upcoming performances and concerns about possible failure. By
contrast, somatic anxiety is the bodily sensations and negative
arousal that characterize anxiety such as “butterflies”in the stom-
ach or an elevated heart rate (Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981).
Anger is also a well-studied emotion in sport. Anger is defined
as a strong feeling of annoyance, irritation, or hostility caused by
the appraisal of a situation as harmful to self, unfair, or undeserved,
or when highly desired goals are blocked (Lazarus, 1991). Like
anxiety, anger is also typically studied as multidimensional. In this
regard, anger can be measured via three dimensions: feelings
of anger, verbal anger, and physical anger (Spielberger, 1991).
The authors are with the School of Sport, York St John University, York, United
Kingdom. Donachie is also with the School of Health and Life Sciences, University
of West of Scotland, Hamilton, United Kingdom. Donachie (tracy.donachie@uws.
ac.uk) is corresponding author.
309
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2019, 41, 309-319
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2018-0317
© 2019 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
Feelings of anger is the intensity of the emotional experience of
anger. Verbal anger is the intensity of feelings related to the
expression of anger verbally such as shouting and swearing.
Finally, physical anger is the intensity of feelings related to the
expression of anger physically such as lashing out at others.
The influence of precompetition emotions is complex. Very
few precompetition emotions will be problematic or beneficial for
everyone in all circumstances. This is evident for anxiety, for
example, in that the effects of precompetition anxiety will depend
on whether the level of anxiety experienced sits within an athlete’s
preferred optimal zone (see Hanin, 2000). Similarly, it is evident
for anger in that the effects of precompetition anger depends on
whether the amount of anger aligns with the demands of the
performance task (e.g., requires maximal force; Lane & Chappell,
2001). However, it is also clear that if anxiety and anger are
experienced at high levels over time, or are not regulated effec-
tively, they are likely to have negative implications for an athlete’s
performance and well-being. This is evident in research that
suggests, for example, anxiety may co-occur with depression
and substance abuse disorders (Brown & Barlow, 1992). Similarly,
in the long-term, anger has been linked to high blood pressure and
coronary heart disease (e.g., Kitayama et al., 2015). As such,
athletes need to be able to control their precompetition emotions,
especially negative precompetition emotions, otherwise risk poorer
performance and health.
Perfectionism and Precompetition
Emotions
Researchers have sought to determine factors that may predispose
athletes to the experience of certain emotions. One such factor is
perfectionism. Perfectionism is a personality trait that is defined as
a combination of exceedingly high standards and a preoccupation
with harsh critical evaluations (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). While there
are numerous models of perfectionism, there is a consensus that it is
best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. Accordingly,
the present study adopts Hewitt and Flett’s(1991) multidimen-
sional model of perfectionism so to focus on two dimensions of
perfectionism and their relationship with precompetition emotions:
self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfec-
tionism (SPP).
1
SOP is the setting of exacting standards for oneself
and evaluating one’s own behavior stringently and is a personal
dimension of perfectionism. In contrast, SPP is the perception that
unrealistically high standards are imposed on the self by others and
is an interpersonal dimension of perfectionism. In this current
study, we focused on these dimensions as they manifest more
locally, at domain level, in sport.
Self-oriented perfectionism and SPP are important in the
cognitive appraisal process and have clear theoretical links to
emotions of athletes (see Hall & Hill, 2012). In this regard,
SOP is complex. SOP includes a sense of control and agency
over achievement and meaningful goals. It therefore has the
potential to contribute to more positive precompetition emotions
(e.g., excitement; Donachie, Hill, & Hall, 2018). However, SOP is
also a vulnerability factor for more negative emotions (Flett &
Hewitt, 2006). This is because SOP imbues competition with an
irrational sense of importance that heightens a sense of threat and
places strain on coping resources. In support of these assertions,
SOP has been found to be positively related to general precompeti-
tion anxiety (e.g., Donachie et al., 2018) and somatic anxiety in sport
(e.g., Carter & Weissbrod, 2011). Direct evidence for its relationship
with precompetition anger has yet to be found but is possible as
anger is triggered when important goals are thwarted (Lazarus,
1991).
Socially prescribed perfectionism will also contribute to cog-
nitive appraisal processes in a manner that competition is person-
ally meaningful and highly important. However, because the goals
associated with SPP are perceived to be externally imposed and
referenced (the approval of others), those higher in SPP are more
likely to perceive expectations to be uncontrollable and unjust and
less likely to feel able to cope with demands. In accord, research in
sport has found SPP to be positively related to negative general
precompetition emotions (e.g., anger and dejection; Donachie
et al., 2018). In regard to dimensions of anxiety, in some studies,
SPP has been found to be positively related to both cognitive and
somatic anxiety (e.g., Martinent & Ferrand, 2007), whereas other
studies have found that SPP is positively related only to cognitive
anxiety (e.g., Carter & Weissbrod, 2011). Unlike SOP, SPP has
also displayed a positive relationship with precompetition anger
(Donachie et al., 2018).
The Mediating Role of Perfectionistic
Cognitions
To extend research in this area, we focus on perfectionistic
cognitions as an explanatory mechanism for the relationships
observed in previous research. Perfectionistic cognitions are auto-
matic thoughts reflecting the need to be perfect (Flett, Hewitt,
Blankstein, & Gray, 1998). They are a more state-like manifesta-
tion of perfectionism that capture a mental experience character-
ized by ruminative self-statements about the necessity for
perfection (e.g., “Why can’t I be perfect?”Flett et al., 1998).
As a form of rumination, perfectionistic cognitions are activated
by failure to reach important goals and an attentional shift toward
the self and personal discrepancies as such their frequency depends
on real-life demands (Prestele & Altstötter-Gleich, 2019) and
situation cues regarding perceived successes and failures (Martin &
Tesser, 1989). Although these thoughts might be considered to have
a motivational element, perfectionistic cognitions primarily serve
the purpose of self-punishment, self-belittlement, and self-criticism
(Flett, Hewitt, Nepon, & Besser, 2018). In accord, rather than
energizing action, perfectionistic cognitions impede perceptions
of coping resources and contribute to negative emotions (Flett
et al., 2018).
Of interest to the current study, studies have found a positive
relationship between perfectionistic cognitions and anxiety and
anger, and that perfectionistic cognitions predict unique variance in
anxiety and anger when controlling for SOP and SPP (e.g., Flett
et al., 1998). Similar evidence exists in sport in relation to pre-
competition emotions in athletes. Specifically, Donachie et al.
(2018) recently found a positive relationship between perfection-
istic cognitions and precompetition anxiety, anger, and dejection.
Furthermore, like outside of sport, perfectionistic cognitions pre-
dicted unique variance in the three emotions when controlling for
SOP and SPP (Donachie et al., 2018). The latter finding alludes to
the possibility that perfectionistic cognitions is one mechanism by
which SOP and SPP contribute to the experience of more negative
emotions (i.e., a mediator). There is also some evidence from
research outside sport that suggests that perfectionistic cognitions
mediate the relationship between perfectionism and general emo-
tions (e.g., tension–anxiety and depression–dejection; Wimberley &
Stasio, 2013). However, as yet, no studies have tested this possibility
in sport or for precompetition emotions.
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
310 Donachie, Hill, and Madigan
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
As well as providing the first test of whether perfectionistic
cognitions mediate the relationship between SOP, SPP, and
precompetition emotions in athletes, we also sought to address
two notable weaknesses in how mediation is typically examined in
this area. Mediation consists of causal processes that unfold over
time. However, most empirical tests of mediation use cross-
sectional data that lack the temporal component required to
establish mediation. Furthermore, according to Curran and
Bauer (2011), many theories articulate and claim to examine
within-person processes—the responses of an individual in X
(e.g., perfectionistic cognitions) over the course of several com-
petitions and corresponding changes in Y (e.g., emotions)—but
are largely studied using between-person analyses (i.e., position of
an individual relative to other participants in the study, both at a
given time point and over time; see Keijsers, 2016). This is the
case for research that has examined the mediating effects of
perfectionistic cognitions between perfectionism and emotions
so far (Wimberley & Stasio, 2013). To avoid these pitfalls, in
the present study, we adopted a three-wave longitudinal design
and employed multilevel analytic techniques that allow for tests of
mediation at both the between- and within-person levels (Selig &
Preacher, 2009). We also, in doing so, acknowledge work
highlighting fluctuations in the expression of personality charac-
teristics, generally (e.g., Fleeson, 2001), and perfectionism spe-
cifically (e.g., Boone et al., 2012).
The Present Study
The present study had two aims: (a) to examine whether perfection-
istic cognitions mediate the relationship between SOP, SPP, and
positive and negative general precompetition emotions by exam-
ining between- and within-person effects and (b) to examine
whether perfectionistic cognitions mediate the relationship
between SOP, SPP, and multidimensional anxiety and anger by
examining between- and within-person effects. Based on theory
and previous research, we expected that perfectionistic cognitions
would mediate the relationship between SOP and anxiety, excite-
ment and multidimensional anxiety (cognitive and somatic) at both
the within- and between-person levels, and that perfectionistic
cognitions would mediate the relationship between SPP and anger,
dejection and multidimensional anger (feel, verbal, and physical) at
both the between- and within-person levels.
Method
Participants and Procedure
A sample of 352 youth footballers was recruited from football
academies, national squads, and clubs across Scotland and Eng-
land. The mean age was 14.03 (SD = 2.30, range 9–19 years old)
and the average length of sport participation was 8.34 (SD = 2.73).
Following institutional ethical approval, parent/guardian consent
and child assent were gained. Participants completed the same
multisection questionnaire before competition at three different
time points; Time 1 (T1; February/March 2017; N= 352), Time 2
(T2; 21 days later; N= 285), and Time 3 (T3; 21 days later, N=
262). The total length of the study was 6 weeks. The times at which
questionnaires were completed coincide with mid-season to end of
the season. It should be noted that across this period, football
academies have a degree of turnover of players due to releasing
them from the academy and evaluating trialists. This partly ex-
plains the attrition across time points.
2
Measures
The Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale. The Child and
Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (Flett et al., 2016) is a measure of
multidimensional perfectionism for use with children and ado-
lescents and contains 22 items measuring SOP (12 items, e.g., “I
try to be perfect in everything I do”) and SPP (10 items, e.g., “there
are people in my life who expect me to be perfect”). Participants
responded to each item on a 5-point scale (1 [not at all true of me]
to 5 [very true of me]). The stem of the instrument was adapted
to focus athletes on their participation in sport (i.e., “When
practicing/playing football . . .”). Evidence for the validity and
reliability of the scale has been provided by Hewitt, Caelian, Flett,
Collins, and Flynn (2002). Researchers suggested that this scale
has adequate psychometric properties when used to measure
perfectionism dimensions in athletes (e.g., Appleton, Hall, &
Hill, 2009).
The Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory. The Perfectionistic
Cognitions Inventory (PCI-10; Donachie et al., 2018;Flett et al.,
1998) is a short version of the original 25-item PCI-10. Participants
indicated how frequently they experienced different perfectionistic
thoughts (e.g., “Why can’t I be perfect?”) over the last week on a
5-point scale (0 [not at all]to4[all of the time]). Evidence to
support the validity and reliability of the initial scale was provided
by Flett et al. (1998). Subsequently, the PCI-10 was developed and
has been found to have a more discernably unidimensional struc-
ture (as intended by Flett et al., 1998) than the original version (see
Donachie et al., 2018).
The Sport Emotion Questionnaire. The Sport Emotion Ques-
tionnaire (SEQ; Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill, & Catlin, 2005)isa
22-item measure of the emotions athletes commonly experience
prior to competition. The SEQ examines five emotions that can be
grouped into two higher-order dimensions: negative emotions
(anxiety, anger, and dejection) and positive emotions (happiness
and excitement). The participants were asked to indicate “how they
feel right now, at this moment”in relation to their upcoming sports
competition on a 5-point scale (0 [not at all]to4[extremely]).
Evidence of the reliability and validity of the SEQ has been
provided by Jones et al. (2005).
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. The Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, & Smith, 1990) is a 27-item measure of precompetitive state
anxiety. The CSAI-2 examines three dimensions (i.e., cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence). The current study
focused on anxiety, thus only the 18 items measuring anxiety were
included, specifically: cognitive anxiety (9-items; e.g., “Iamcon-
cerned I may not do as well in this competition as I could”)and
somatic anxiety (e.g., 9-items; “I feel tense in my stomach”). For
each subscale, intensity-level responses were scored on a 4-point
scale (1 [not at all]to4[very much so]). Evidence for the reliability
and validity of the CSAI-2 has been provided by Smith, Smoll, and
Weichman (1998).
The Reactions to Mistakes–Anger Scale. The Reactions to
Mistakes–Anger Scale (Dunn, Gotwals, Causgrove Dunn, &
Syrotuik, 2006) is a 15-item scale used to measure multidimensional
precompetition anger. The measure examines three dimensions of
anger (5-items per dimension): feeling angry (e.g., “Ifeelangry”),
feel like expressing anger verbally (e.g., “I feel like swearing”), and
feel like expressing anger physically (e.g., “I feel like hitting some-
one”). Participants were asked how they felt right at that moment
when thinking about making a mistake or playing poorly in the next
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions 311
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
game (see Dunn et al., 2006). Participants responded to each item on a
4-point scale (1 [not at all]to4[very much so]). Evidence for the
reliability and validity of the scale has been provided by Dunn
et al. (2006).
Data Analyses
To examine whether perfectionistic cognitions mediated the
perfectionism–emotions relationship, multilevel path analysis was
employed with the measurement occasions (T1–T3) representing
the within-person level, nested within participants (between-person
level; Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010; see also Madigan,
Stoeber, & Passfield, 2016 for a recent example of this approach).
Multilevel path analysis differentiates between the within- and
between-person effects while testing mediation. The defining
feature of multilevel modeling is the capacity to provide quantifi-
cation and prediction of random variance due to multiple sampling
dimensions (e.g., across competitions, across persons; Hoffman &
Stawski, 2009). Robust Maximum Likelihood in Mplus 7.0
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998−2012) was used to test the models
accompanied by the mean-adjusted chi-squared test statistic. As
recommended by Byrne (2013), the model fit was assessed using a
combination of absolute and incremental fit indices as benchmarks
for acceptable model fit: comparative fit index (CFI) >.90, Tucker–
Lewis Index (TLI) >.90, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) <.10, and the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) <.10, and for good model fit: CFI >.95, TLI >.95,
RMSEA <.08, and SRMR <.08. These cutoff values were used
to deem the models as acceptable. Additionally, a Monte Carlo
method was used to test the indirect effects (Preacher & Selig,
2012). If the 95% confidence interval (CI) does not contain zero,
the test can be considered significant at the p<.05 level (Hayes &
Scharkow, 2013).
We tested two models. Model 1 examined whether perfection-
istic cognitions mediated the relationship between perfectionism
and precompetition emotions (anxiety, anger, dejection, happiness,
and excitement). Model 2 examined whether perfectionistic cogni-
tions mediated the relationship between perfectionism and
multidimensional anxiety (cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety)
and anger (feeling angry, verbal anger, and physical anger).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Data were screened for inputting errors, outliers, and normality
before the main analysis (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). From an
overall sample of 352 participants, 262 participants completed
questionnaires at all three time points. Across the three time points,
where questionnaire nonresponse accounted for missing data, the
full information maximum likelihood method for model estimation
was used (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Standardized zscores ± 3.29
(p<.001) were used as criterion for univariate outliers. This
procedure led to the removal of 11 participants’data. Next, we
examined multivariate outliers, four participants with a Mahala-
nobis distance larger than the critical value of χ
2
(39) = 72.06
(p<.001) were removed. Thereafter, data were normally distrib-
uted. The final sample was 337 participants. Participants’mean age
was 14.03 years old (SD = 2.27 years, range 10–19 years) and their
average length of sport participation was 8.31 years (SD = 2.75,
range 0–16 years). Descriptive statistics, measures of internal
consistency, and bivariate correlations are reported in Tables 1–4.
All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α>.70;
Nunnally & Berstein, 1994).
Multilevel Path Analysis
Interclass Correlations. To determine the amount of variance
attributable to the between-person effects, the intraclass correla-
tions for each variable were calculated: SOP = .62, SPP = .67, PCI
= .70, anxiety = .58, dejection = .64, excitement = .57, anger = .60,
happiness = .58, cognitive anxiety = .58, somatic anxiety = .61,
feeling angry = .52, verbal anger = .65, and physical anger = .57.
As a rule, data are suitable for multilevel path analysis when
intraclass correlation coefficients are above .05 (Preacher et al.,
2010).
Table 1 Ms, SDs, and Internal Reliability for SOP, SPP, Perfectionistic Cognitions, General Precompetition
Emotions, and Dimensions of Anxiety and Anger
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
MSDαMSDαMSDα
SOP 3.61 0.51 .75 3.48 0.54 .76 3.46 0.57 .78
SPP 2.41 0.66 .82 2.37 0.69 .87 2.38 0.69 .86
PCI-10 1.59 0.84 .87 1.57 0.91 .89 1.51 0.85 .88
Anxiety 1.28 0.91 .85 1.21 0.91 .86 1.16 0.94 .88
Dejection 0.38 0.63 .85 0.34 0.61 .88 0.39 0.64 .89
Excitement 2.58 0.81 .72 2.40 0.90 .78 2.35 0.94 .80
Anger 0.54 0.79 .84 0.49 0.75 .84 0.49 0.70 .81
Happiness 2.56 0.88 .80 2.50 0.95 .89 2.42 1.07 .90
Cognitive anxiety 1.93 0.58 .84 1.97 0.65 .88 1.90 0.62 .87
Somatic anxiety 1.71 0.53 .76 1.79 0.58 .82 1.77 0.59 .82
Feel anger 2.10 0.84 .90 2.05 0.84 .90 2.05 0.80 .90
Verbal anger 1.73 0.80 .89 1.73 0.82 .91 1.72 0.79 .91
Physical anger 1.31 0.55 .87 1.31 0.58 .91 1.33 0.55 .90
Note. Time 1, N= 352; Time 2, N= 285; Time 3, N= 262. SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; PCI-10 = Perfectionistic Cognitions
Inventory-10.
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
312 Donachie, Hill, and Madigan
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
Table 2 Bivariate Correlations for Perfectionism, Perfectionistic Cognitions, and General Precompetition Emotions
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Time 1
1. SOP
2. SPP .32**
3. PCI-10 .49** .51**
4. Anxiety .20** .30** .30**
5. Dejection .04 .24** .24** .42**
6. Excitement .19** −.01 −.01 .14** −.12*
7. Anger .03 .27** .27** .37** .83** −.04
8. Happiness .07 −.02 .10 .03 −.12* .75** −.08
Time 2
9. SOP .64** .23** .47** .28** .19** .26** .12 .16**
10. SPP .27** .64** .52** .19** .23** −.01 .26** −.03 .41**
11. PCI-10 .41** .43** .73** .27** .29** .10 .33** .10 .52** .55**
12. Anxiety .19** .29** .37** .55** .34** .05 .26** .03 .25** .33** .44**
13. Dejection .08 .23** .34** .22** .61** −.19 .50** −.03 .13* .35** .39** .50**
14. Excitement .14* .07 .16** .05 −.04 .55** −.03 .54** .24** .02 .13* .19** .04
15. Anger .10 .28** .32** .20** .54** −.03 .58** −.01 .14* .37** .39** .47** .86** .04
16. Happiness .07 .09 .16** −.02 −.04 .51** −.04 .60** .18** .03 .13* .11 .03 .77** −.03
Time 3
17. SOP .59** .23** .47** .27** .15* .20** .07 .08 .68** .26** .47** .24** .07 .32** .05 .19**
18. SPP .18** .60** .41** .18** .23** −.05 .25** −.09 .21** .74** .44** .17** .29** .01 .29** −.03 .29**
19. PCI-10 .35** .40** .64** .32** .38** .16* .37** .08 .43** .49** .72** .35** .32** .19** .30** .18** .55** .52**
20. Anxiety .18** .25** .33** .53** .37** −.10 .22** −.10 .20** .23** .34** .66** .34** .05 .25** −.03 .29** .30** .41**
21. Dejection .02 .27** .30** .26** .53** −.23** .42** −.16* .05 .29** .30** .33** .69** −.06 .56** −.09 .02 .36** .35** .43**
22. Excitement .14* .07 .25** .05 .00 .51** −.01 .49** .28** −.00 .26** .15 .03 .66** .04 .58** .30** −.03 .33** .12 −.05
23. Anger −.02 .25** .27** .26** .50** −.18** .50** −.14* .05 .31** .31** .32** .65** −.05 .65** −.08 .05 .37** .39** .41** .87** −.05
24. Happiness .15** .13* .25** −.02 −.07 .46** −.01 .56** .23** .05 .26** .10 .02 .54** .02 .64** .23** −.03 .22** .05 .00 .77** −.02
Note. Time 1, N= 352; Time 2, N= 285; Time 3, N= 262. SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; PCI-10 = Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory-10.
*p<.05, **p<.01, two-tailed.
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019 313
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
Table 3 Bivariate Correlations for Perfectionism, Perfectionistic Cognitions, and Multidimensional Anxiety
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
1234567891011121314
Time 1
1. SOP
2. SPP .32**
3. PCI-10 .49** .51**
4. Cognitive anxiety .32** .32** .46**
5. Somatic anxiety .16** .30** .37** .66**
Time 2
6. SOP .64** .23** .47** .32** .21**
7. SPP .27** .64** .52** .22** .18** .41**
8. PCI-10 .41** .43** .73** .37** .30** .52** .55**
9. Cognitive anxiety .24** .36** .45** .60** .48** .34** .37** .49**
10. Somatic anxiety .17** .30** .35** .40** .62** .21** .29** .39** .67**
Time 3
11. SOP .59** .23** .47** .28** .15* .68** .26** .47** .26** .14*
12. SPP .18** .60** .41** .22** .19** .21** .73** .44** .30** .22** .29**
13. PCI-10 .35** .40** .64** .33** .29** .43** .49** .72** .38** .31** .55** .52**
14. Cognitive anxiety .22** .34** .42** .49** .46** .23** .31** .41** .61** .44** .34** .44** .53**
15. Somatic anxiety .14* .28** .36** .33** .57** .16* .27** .37** .48** .65** .18** .34** .41** .69**
Note. Time 1, N= 352; Time 2, N= 285; Time 3, N= 262. SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; PCI-10 = Perfectionistic Cognitions
Inventory-10.
*p<.05, **p<.01, two-tailed.
Table 4 Bivariate Correlations for Trait Perfectionism, Perfectionistic Cognitions, and Multidimensional Anger
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
1234567891011121314151617
Time 1
1. SOP
2. SPP .32**
3. PCI-10 .49** .51**
4. Feel anger .28** .15** .25**
5. Verbal anger .28** .24** .31** .67**
6. Physical anger .17** .29** .32** .55** .73**
Time 2
7. SOP .64** .23** .47** .29** .23** .20**
8. SPP .27** .64** .52** .13* .23** .26** .41**
9. PCI-10 .41** .43** .73** .23** .25** .26** .52** .55**
10. Feel anger .25** .09 .21** .51** .37** .28** .36** .15** .29**
11. Verbal anger .24** .15* .24** .41** .65** .47** .26** .19** .30** .62**
12. Physical anger .13* .20** .25** .28** .47** .57** .20** .27** .33** .51** .70**
Time 3
13. SOP .59** .23** .47** .27** .24** .18** .68** .26** .47** .30** .20** .14*
14. SPP .18** .60** .41** .08 .17** .21** .21** .73** .44** .02 .10 .18** .29**
15. PCI-10 .35** .40** .64** .19** .22** .24** .43** .49** .72** .19** .20** .21** .55** .52**
16. Feel anger .23** −.02 .14* .46** .35** .21** .30** .04 .17** .61** .45** .26** .37** .01 .24**
17. Verbal anger .17** .12 .15* .35** .56** .39** .18** .15* .20** .41** .71** .48** .26** .12* .24** .65**
18. Physical anger .13* .20** .23** .30** .51** .55** .24** .25** .28** .33** .55** .57** .17** .22** .33** .48** .74**
Note. Time 1, N= 352; Time 2, N= 285; Time 3, N= 262. SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; PCI-10 = Perfectionistic Cognitions
Inventory-10.
*p<.05, **p<.01, two-tailed.
314 JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
General Precompetition Emotions (Model 1). We tested the
model in Figure 1using multilevel path analysis. The model
provided acceptable model fit, χ
2
(20) = 102.86, scaling factor =
1.03, CFI = .96, TLI = .89, SRMR
within
= .05, SRMR
between
= .06,
RMSEA = .07. In the between-person model, SOP and SPP posi-
tively predicted perfectionistic cognitions (medium-to-large effect
sizes; Cohen, 1992). Perfectionistic cognitions positively predicted
all emotions (small-to-large effect sizes). At within-person level,
SOP and SPP significantly predicted perfectionistic cognitions and
perfectionistic cognitions predicted anxiety and anger (small-to-
medium effect sizes). See Supplementary Material (available
online) for intercorrelations between general precompetition emo-
tions at the between- and within-person levels.
Multidimensional Anxiety and Anger (Model 2). We tested the
model in Figure 2using multilevel path analysis. The model
provided acceptable fit, χ
2
(20) = 105.98, scaling factor = 1.02,
CFI = .96, TLI = .88, SRMR
within
= .05, SRMR
between
= .06,
RMSEA = .07. At between-person level, perfectionistic cogni-
tions positively predicted both forms of anxiety and all three
dimensions of anger (medium-to-large effect sizes). At within-
person level, SOP and SPP predicted perfectionistic cognitions
and perfectionistic cognitions predicted both forms of anxiety and
all three dimensions of anger (small-to-medium effect sizes). See
Supplementary Material (available online) for intercorrelations
between multidimensional emotions at the between- and within-
person levels.
Indirect Effects
General Precompetition Emotions (Model 1). The between-
person model showed that SOP had a positive and significant
indirect effect on all emotions: anxiety (indirect effect = .23, 95%
CI [.13, .24]); dejection (indirect effect = .22, 95% CI [.13, .24]);
excitement (indirect effect = .12, 95% CI [.04, .12]); anger (indirect
effect = .23, 95% CI [.12, .24]); and happiness (indirect effect = .11,
95% CI [.03, .12]). At the within-person level, SOP had a positive
indirect effect on anxiety (indirect effect = .04, 95% CI [.01, .06])
and anger (indirect effect = .03, 95% CI [.01, .03]). The between-
person model showed that both SPP had positive indirect effects on
all variables: anxiety (indirect effect = .25, 95% CI [.11, .26]);
dejection (indirect effect = .25, 95% CI [.13, .28]); excitement
(indirect effect = .13, 95% CI [.06, .15]); anger (indirect effect
= .25, 95% CI [.17, .26]); and happiness (indirect effect = .12, 95%
CI [.09, .15]). At the within-person level, SPP had a positive indirect
effect on anxiety (indirect effect = .03, 95% CI [.01, .05]) and anger
(indirect effect = .02, 95% CI [.01, .03]).
Multidimensional Anxiety and Anger (Model 2). In the between-
person model, SOP had a positive indirect effect (via perfectionistic
Figure 1 —Perfectionism, perfectionistic cognitions, and general precompetition emotions (Model 1). Multilevel structural equation model (Time 1, N=
352; Time 2, N= 285; Time 3, N=262.). Path coefficients are standardized. Dashed paths are nonsignificant (p>.05). *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions 315
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
cognitions) on all dimensions of anxiety and anger: cognitive
anxiety (indirect effect = .29, 95% CI [.17, .33]); somatic anxiety
(indirect effect = .22, 95% CI [.12, .25]); feeling angry (indirect
effect = .15, 95% CI [.04, .17]); verbal anger (indirect effect =.15,
95% CI [.06, .16]); and physical anger (indirect effect = .18, 95% CI
[.01, .21]). The within-person model showed that SOP had a positive
and significant indirect effect (via perfectionistic cognitions) on all
dimensions of anxiety and anger: cognitive anxiety (indirect effect =
.06, 95% CI [.03, .08]); somatic anxiety (indirect effect = .05, 95% CI
[.02, .06]); feeling angry (indirect effect = .04, 95% CI [.01, .06]);
verbal anger (indirect effect =.05, 95% CI [.01, .06]); and physical
anger (indirect effect = .05, 95% CI [.01, .05]). The between-person
model showed that both SPP had positive indirect effects on all
variables: cognitive anxiety (indirect effect = .32, 95% CI [.19, .34]);
somatic anxiety (indirect effect = .24, 95% CI [.12, .25]); feeling
angry (indirect effect = .16, 95% CI [.06, .18]); verbal anger (indirect
effect = .16, 95% CI [.06, .17]); and physical anger (indirect effect =
.20, 95% CI [.09, .21]). The within-person model showed that SPP
had a positive and significant indirect effect (via perfectionistic
cognitions) on all dimensions of anxiety and anger: cognitive anxiety
(indirect effect = .04, 95% CI [.01, .07]); somatic anxiety (indirect
effect = .03, 95% CI [.01, .05]); feeling angry (indirect effect = .04,
95% CI [.01, .04]); verbal anger (indirect effect= .05, 95% CI [.02,
.06]); and physical anger (indirect effect = .05, 95% CI [.01, .06]).
Discussion
The aims of the current study are as follows: (a) to examine whether
perfectionistic cognitions mediated the relationship between SOP,
SPP, and positive and negative general precompetition emotions by
examining between- and within-person effects, and (b) to examine
whether perfectionistic cognitions mediated the relationship between
SOP, SPP, and multidimensional anxiety and anger by examining
between- and within-person effects. It was hypothesized that per-
fectionistic cognitions would mediate the relationship between
SOP and anxiety, excitement and multidimensional anxiety (cogni-
tive and somatic) at both the within- and between-person levels, and
that perfectionistic cognitions would mediate the relationship between
SPP and anger, dejection and multidimensional anger (feel, verbal,
and physical) at both the between- and within-person levels. In
support of the hypotheses, the findings revealed that perfectionistic
cognitions mediated the perfectionism–emotions relationship. How-
ever, a different pattern of relationships was found at the between- and
within-person levels of analysis. At the between-person level, per-
fectionistic cognitions mediated the relationships between SOP, SPP,
and all general precompetition emotions plus multidimensional anxi-
ety and anger. At the within-person level, perfectionistic cognitions
mediated the relationships between SOP, SPP, and general anxiety
and anger plus multidimensional anxiety and anger.
Figure 2 —Perfectionism, perfectionistic cognitions, and multidimensional anxiety and anger (Model 2). Multilevel structural equation model (Time 1, N
=352; Time2, N= 285; Time 3, N= 262.). Path coefficients are standardized. Dashed paths are nonsignificant (p>.05). *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
316 Donachie, Hill, and Madigan
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions
The current study provides the first clear evidence that perfectionistic
cognitions mediate the relationship between perfectionism and
general precompetition emotions in sport. The same pattern was
evident for both SOP and SPP where mediation was found at
between-person level (all general precompetition emotions) and
within-person level (anger and anxiety). One striking element of
these findings is how, via perfectionistic cognitions, a relationship
can be observed between SOP and SPP and a wide array of
precompetition emotions at between-person level. These associa-
tions extend beyond those observed elsewhere with SOP previously
linked to a limited mix of positive (excitement) and negative
(anxiety) emotions and SPP previously linked to a limited set of
just negative emotions (dejection and anger, Donachie et al., 2018).
Notably, then, the current findings suggest that the experience of
greater perfectionistic cognitions implicate both SOP and SPP in the
experience of other precompetition emotions (relative to other
people). However, importantly, it is only the within-person level
that evidences the psychological processes presumed to be at work.
In this case, only negative general precompetition emotions (anger
and anxiety) increase as SOP, SPP, and perfectionistic cognitions
increases over time (relative to one’s own typical level). As such, this
latter model provides the clearest picture of how SOP and SPP
influence precompetition emotions of junior athletes and signals that
increases in anxiety and anger best characterize this relationship.
In terms of the multidimensional emotions of anxiety, again, a
similar pattern of findings was evident for both SOP and SPP.
However, unlike for general precompetition emotions, perfectionistic
cognitions mediated the relationship between SOP and SPP and
cognitive and somatic anxiety at both between- and within-person
levels. Previous research has evidenced relationships between these
dimensions of perfectionism and anxiety to varying degrees inside of
sport (e.g., Martinent & Ferrand, 2007). The extension provided here
pertains to evidencing mediation for multidimensional precompetitive
anxiety and doing so at within-person level. When paired with
findings for general precompetition anxiety, the findings support
the proposal that perfectionistic cognitions are intertwined with
appraisal processes in a manner that triggers heighten threat and
subsequent anxiety. By further extending existing research, it also
appears that the influence of perfectionistic cognitions is the same
regardless of whether cognitive or somatic anxiety are considered as
both increase prior to performance.
Perhaps the most novel finding pertains to multidimensional
anger. Perfectionistic cognitions mediated the relationship between
both SOP, SPP and multidimensional anger in the same way as
observed for multidimensional anxiety, at both between- and
within-person levels. Previous studies have found a positive rela-
tionship between SPP and precompetition anger but little or no
relationship between SOP and precompetition anger (Donachie
et al., 2018). Building on this research, then, we provide the first
indication that perfectionistic cognitions mediate the relationship
between SPP and anger, and that SOP (not just SPP) may also
indirectly contribute to increased feelings of anger among junior
athletes prior to competition. This is an important finding in regard
to better understanding the emotions associated with SOP and
illustrates how these associations would be overlooked if the
experience of perfectionistic cognitions were not taken in to
account. Like with multidimensional anxiety, we also provide the
first evidence that no distinction is evident between the dimensions
of anger experienced prior to competition suggesting that feelings
of anger manifest broadly for both SOP and SPP.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study has several limitations. First, the study was
observational. Although observational research can suggest causal
relationships, it cannot provide definitive evidence. Therefore,
future research may benefit from employing experimental designs
(e.g., manipulate performance contexts to evoke perfectionistic
cognitions) to provide stronger evidence for causality (Belli, 2009).
Second, there was a large amount of attrition across the time points.
This is expected to a degree given both the difficulty associated
with longitudinal data collection and because football academies
can have high turnover in players. This means that some groups
may be overrepresented (e.g., players with the highest levels of
ability) and others underrepresented in the study (e.g., players with
lower levels of ability). This needs to be considered in regard to
generalizability. Third, similarly, the present findings are restricted
to junior athletes and may not generalize to adult athletes. This may
be especially important as there is likely to be a larger within-
person component in perfectionism during adolescence in compar-
ison to adulthood where it would be expected to be more stable
(e.g., Damian, Stoeber, Negru, & Băban, 2013). Fourth, the length
of the study was short in regard to detecting within-person change
in perfectionism. Here, we consider the changes meaningful in that
variability in personality characteristics can be expected even over
shorter periods of time (see Fleeson, 2001) and that changes in the
degree to which characteristics such as perfectionism are endorsed
are more likely to occur when measured at domain level (as
opposed to global level). Plus, there is some evidence that some
aspects of perfectionism do vary on a day-to-day basis (e.g., Boone
et al., 2012) and that perfectionism can be induced experimentally/
situationally (e.g., Boone, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Braet, 2012).
Finally, we used self-report measures that may be subject to
response bias (Althubaiti, 2016). It would be interesting for future
studies to use additional measurement approaches such as physio-
logical data (e.g., heart rate) to further explore these relationships.
Conclusion
This is the first study to examine whether perfectionistic cognitions
act as a mediator between perfectionism and precompetition emo-
tions in sport at the between- and within-person levels. Perfection-
istic cognitions were, indeed, found to mediate the relationship
with differences evident at between- and within-person levels of
analysis. Importantly, at a within-person level, evidence was found
to support the notion that as SOP and SPP increases so do
perfectionistic cognitions and subsequent anxiety and anger (rela-
tive to a person’s typical levels). Perfectionistic cognitions appear
central to the emotions experienced by young footballers prior to
competition.
Notes
1. The model also includes a third dimension, other oriented perfection-
ism, which is the setting of exceedingly high standards for other people and
is typically linked to interpersonal rather than personal consequences
(Flett & Hewitt, 2002). It is not included here as this dimension is thought
to be relevant mainly to interpersonal adjustment, rather than personal
adjustment.
2. We conducted Box’sMtests to examine if the variance–covariance
matrices showed any differences between those that completed measures
on one occasion versus those that completed measures on multiple
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions 317
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
occasions. Because Box’sMis highly sensitive to even minor differences,
it is tested against a p<.001 significance level (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). This test was nonsignificant (F= 1.38, p= .03).
Acknowledgment
This research is based on data collected for, and material contained in, the
corresponding author’s doctoral dissertation.
References
Althubaiti, A. (2016). Information bias in health research: Definition,
pitfalls, and adjustment methods. Journal of Multidisciplinary
Healthcare, 9, 211.
Appleton, P.R., Hall, H.K., & Hill, A.P. (2009). Relations between
multidimensional perfectionism and burnout in junior-elite male
athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(4), 457–465. doi:10.
1016/j.psychsport.2008.12.006
Beedie, C.J., Terry, P.C., & Lane, A.M. (2000). The profile of mood states
and athletic performance: Two meta-analyses. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 12(1), 49–68. doi:10.1080/10413200008404213
Belli, G. (2009). Nonexperimental quantitative research. In S.D. Lapan &
M.T. Quartaroli (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to de-
signs and practices (pp. 59–77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boone, L., Soenens, B., Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Verstuyf, J., &
Braet, C. (2012). Daily fluctuations in perfectionism dimensions and
their relation to eating disorder symptoms. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46(6), 678–687. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.001
Boone, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Braet, C. (2012). Is there a
perfectionist in each of us? An experimental study on perfectionism
and eating disorder symptoms. Appetite, 59, 531–540. PubMed ID:
22750851 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.015
Brown, T.A., & Barlow, D.H. (1992). Comorbidity among anxiety dis-
orders: Implications for treatment and DSM-IV. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 835–844. PubMed ID: 1460147
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.6.835
Byrne, B.M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic
concepts, applications, and programming. London, UK: Routledge.
Carter, M.M., & Weissbrod, C.S. (2011). Gender differences in the
relationship between competitiveness and adjustment among athleti-
cally identified college students. Psychology, 2(2), 85–90. doi:10
.4236/psych.2011.22014
Cerin, E., & Barnett, A. (2006). A processual analysis of basic emotions
and sources of concerns as they are lived before and after a competi-
tion. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(3), 287–307. doi:10.1016/j.
psychsport.2005.07.002
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–
159. PubMed ID: 19565683 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Curran, P.J., & Bauer, D.J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person
and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. PubMed ID: 19575624 doi:10.
1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
Damian, L.E., Stoeber, J., Negru, O., & Băban, A. (2013). On the
development of perfectionism in adolescence: Perceived parental
expectations predict longitudinal increases in socially prescribed
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(6), 688–
693. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.021
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.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.04.002
Dunn, J.G.H., Gotwals, J.K., Dunn, J.C., & 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. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671781
Enders, C.K., & Bandalos, D.L. (2001). The relative performance of full
information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in
structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3),
430–457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of
personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. PubMed
ID: 11414368 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
Flett, G.L., & Hewitt, P.L. (2002). Perfectionism. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Flett, G.L., & Hewitt, P.L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism
in psychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owens’s dual process
model. Behavior Modification, 30(4), 472–495.
Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Besser, A., Su, C., Vaillancourt, T., Boucher, D.,
::: Gale, O. (2016). The Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale:
Development, psychometric properties, and associations with stress,
distress, and psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment,34(7), 634–652.
Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Blankstein, K.R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psycholog-
ical stress and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1363–1381. PubMed ID:
9866193 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1363
Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Nepon, T., & Besser, A. (2018). Perfectionism
cognitions theory: The cognitive side of perfectionism. In J. Stoeber
(Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research and appli-
cations (pp. 89–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hall, H.K., & Hill, A.P. (2012). Perfectionism, dysfunctional achievement
striving and burnout in aspiring athletes: The motivational implica-
tions for performing artists. Theatre, Dance and Performance Train-
ing, 3(2), 216–228. doi:10.1080/19443927.2012.693534
Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Emotions in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hayes, A.F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness
of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation
analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science,
24(10), 1918–1927. PubMed ID: 23955356 doi:10.1177/
0956797613480187
Hewitt, P.L., Caelian, C., Flett, G.L., Collins, L., & Flynn, C. (2002).
Perfectionism in children: Associations with depression, anxiety, and
anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1049–1061. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00109-X
Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psycho-
pathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–
470. PubMed ID: 2027080 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Hoffman, L., & Stawski, R.S. (2009). Persons as contexts: Evaluating
between-person and within-person effects in longitudinal analysis.
Research in Human Development, 6(2–3), 97–120. doi:10.1080/
15427600902911189
Jones, M.V., Lane, A.M., Bray, S.R., Uphill, M., & Catlin, J. (2005).
Development and validation of the sport emotion questionnaire.
Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 27, 407–431. doi:10.
1123/jsep.27.4.407
Keijsers, L. (2016). Parental monitoring and adolescent problem behaviors:
How much do we really know? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 40(3), 271–281. doi:10.1177/0165025415592515
Kitayama, S., Park, J., Boylan, J., Miyamoto, Y., Levine, C., ::: Ryff,
C.D. (2015). Expression of anger and ill health in two cultures: An
examination of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. Psychological
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
318 Donachie, Hill, and Madigan
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
Science, 26(2), 211–220. PubMed ID: 25564521 doi:10.1177/
0956797614561268
Lane, A.M., & Chappell, R.C. (2001). Mood and performance relation-
ships among players at the World Student Games basketball compe-
tition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(2), 182–187.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lazarus, R.S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping.
American Psychologist, 55, 665–673.
Madigan, D.J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Motivation mediates the
perfectionism-burnout relationship: A three-wave longitudinal study
with junior athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38,
341–354. PubMed ID: 27383053 doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0238
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990).
Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory-2. In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competi-
tive anxiety in sport (pp. 117–190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martin, L.L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational structural theory
of ruminative thought. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Uninten-
tional thought (pp. 306–326). New York, NY: Guilford.
Martinent, G., & Ferrand, C. (2007). A cluster analysis of precompetitive
anxiety: Relationship with perfectionism and trait anxiety. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1676–1686. doi:10.1016/j.paid.
2007.05.005
Morris, L.W., Davis, M.A., & Hutchings, C.H. (1981). Cognitive and
emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised
worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4),
541–555. PubMed ID: 7024371 doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.4.541
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B. (1998–2012). Mplus. The comprehensive
modelling program for applied researchers: User’s guide (7th ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nicholls, A.R., Polman, R.C., & Levy, A.R. (2012). A path analysis
of stress appraisals, emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction
among athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3), 263–270.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.003
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York,
NY: MacGraw-Hill.
Preacher, K.J., & Selig, J.P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confi-
dence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and
Measures, 6(2), 77–98. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel
SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological
Methods, 15(3), 209–233. PubMed ID: 20822249 doi:10.1037/
a0020141
Prestele, E., & Altstötter-Gleich, C. (2019). Perfectionistic cognitions:
Stability, variability, and changes over time. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 101(5), 521–533. doi:10.1080/00223891.2017.
1418746
Selig, J.P., & Preacher, K.J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal
data in developmental research. Research in Human Development,
6(2–3), 144–164. doi:10.1080/15427600902911247
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Wiechman, S.A. (1998). Measurement of trait
anxiety in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 105–128). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C.D.
Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research
(pp. 23–49). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1991). State-trait anger expression inventory. Orlando,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vast, R.L., Young, R.L., & Thomas, P.R. (2010). Emotions in sport:
Perceived effects on attention, concentration, and performance.
Australian Psychologist, 45(2), 132–140. doi:10.1080/000500609
03261538
Wimberley, T.E., & Stasio, M.J. (2013). Perfectionistic thoughts, personal
standards, and evaluative concerns: Further investigating relation-
ships to psychological distress. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
37(2), 277–283. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9462-7
JSEP Vol. 41, No. 5, 2019
Perfectionism and Precompetition Emotions 319
Brought to you by YORK ST JOHN UNIV-ENG | Downloaded 10/18/19 09:07 AM UTC
