An examination of perfectionism and self-esteem in intercollegiate athletes.

Gotwals, John K. ; Dunn, John G.H. ; Wayment, Heidi A. 等

Perfectionism has been shown to have adaptive or maladaptive influences upon cognition, affect, and behavior (e.g., Davis, 1997; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Hamachek, 1978; Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995). In the domain of sport psychology, the construct of perfectionism is extremely relevant because it appears to have the potential to either help or hinder athletes in their pursuit of achievement goals (Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, in press). However, only a handful of researchers have examined perfectionism in the context of sport (i.e., Coen & Ogles, 1993; Dunn et al., in press; Frost & Henderson, 1991; Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1997; Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996; Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998).

Based on professional intuition gained through years of experience working in the field of sport psychology, Hardy, Jones and Gould (1996) proposed that "many of the most effective world class athletes are perfectionist in their orientations" (p. 243). However, in a series of publications on former elite figure skaters, Scanlan, Stein, and Ravizza (1989, 1991) noted that skaters who strove for perfection tended to enjoy their competitive experiences, yet skaters who felt the need to skate flawlessly often experienced stress. Similarly, Zinsser, Bunker, and Williams (2001) concluded that there "is always value in striving for perfection [in sport], but nothing is gained by demanding perfection" (p. 302). Given the potentially adaptive and maladaptive functions of perfectionism, understanding and identifying correlates of perfectionism in sport becomes an important research endeavor (Dunn et al., in press).

Hamachek (1978) argued that there are two types of perfectionism: neurotic perfectionism (henceforth labeled maladaptive perfectionism) and normal perfectionism (henceforth labeled adaptive perfectionism). Maladaptive perfectionists have a tendency to set excessively high personal standards for performance and are preoccupied with and overly critical of their mistakes (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Blatt (1995) suggested that maladaptive perfectionists also have a strong need to avoid failure and often feel vulnerable to the possibility of public criticism. Consequently, maladaptive perfectionists tend to view social and performance domains (and particularly significant others) as threatening, overly demanding, and non-supportive. Frost and Henderson (1991) suggested that the focus on mistakes (and the possibility of negative social evaluation) may cause athletes with maladaptive perfectionism to lose focus of important task-relevant thoughts soon after committing an error during competition. Th ese researchers further speculated that this loss in concentration might ultimately lead to a drop in performance level. Given that flawless performances rarely occur in sport, athletes with maladaptive perfectionist orientations will seldom be satisfied with their performances and will have a tendency to view themselves as failures (cf. Burns, 1980).

In contrast to individuals who adopt a maladaptive perfectionist orientation, adaptive perfectionists set high personal performance standards while maintaining the ability to view themselves as successful even when these standards are not fully achieved (Hamachek, 1978). In other words, adaptive perfectionists "are able to accept both personal and environmental limitations" (Blatt, 1995, p. 1006) when pursuing their performance goals, and "feel free to be less precise [i.e., 'less perfect'] as the situation permits" (Hamachek, p. 27). Given their ability to accept personal limitations and environmental obstacles, adaptive perfectionists are more likely (than maladaptive perfectionists) to experience a sense of satisfaction following their achievement oriented efforts (Blatt, 1995), even when the 'perfect performance' is not realized. It seems reasonable to speculate that this adaptive form of perfectionism is the perfectionist orientation that many sport psychologists propose as being a trademark feature of h igh-performance athletes (e.g., Hardy et al., 1996; Henschen, 2000). Given the limited amount of research on perfectionism in sport, understanding the correlates of both types of perfectionism will aid sport psychologists' efforts to intervene with maladaptive perfectionists.

Contemporary perfectionism theorists conceptualize and measure perfectionism as a multidimensional construct. The two most prominent measures of perfectionism cited in the extant literature are the similarly named Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales (MPS) developed independently by Frost et al. (1990) and Hewitt and Flett (1991). 1 To date, perfectionism in sport has been measured almost exclusively by Frost et al.'s instrument (i.e., the Frost-MPS).2 The Frost-MPS contains six subscales labeled Personal Standards, Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Parental Criticism, Parental Expectations, and Organization. Personal standards perfectionism reflects the extent to which individuals set extremely high standards of personal performance. The concern over mistakes dimension describes an individual's tendency to react negatively to personal mistakes in the performance environment. The parental expectations and parental criticism dimensions reflect the degree to which individuals perceive that their pa rents set excessively high achievement goals for them, and perceive that their parents are overly critical in evaluating their achievement efforts. The doubts about actions dimension reflects the degree to which an individual feels that tasks are never completed to satisfaction, and the organization dimension represents an individual's preference for order and organization (Frost et al., 1990).

Empirical research indicates that the concern over mistakes, parental criticism, parental expectations, and doubts about actions subscales are generally associated with maladaptive functioning (for a review see Enns & Cox, 2002). In contrast, research has been more equivocal about the functional nature of the personal standards and organization subscales. For example, Frost and colleagues (1990) reported that personal standards was positively correlated with self-efficacy among female undergraduates (r = .53), yet when the variance in this correlation was controlled for using a partial correlation, personal standards was also significantly correlated with depression (r = .29). Similarly, an examination of perfectionism among female intercollegiate athletes conducted by Frost and Henderson (1991) found that personal Standards perfectionism was strongly correlated with the tendency for athletes to focus on both achieving success (r = .68) and the possibility of failure (r = .37).

Research examining the adaptive versus maladaptive nature of the organization dimension has also produced equivocal findings. For example, Frost and colleagues (1990) found that organization was negatively correlated with the frequency of procrastination behaviors on academic tasks among a sample of 106 female college students (r = -.37). However, high levels of organization have been associated with burnout in youth tennis (Gould, Udry, et al., 1996). Thus, it appears that personal standards and organization have the potential to function as adaptive or maladaptive components of perfectionism. In order to better understand when personal standards or organization operate as indicators of adaptive or maladaptive perfectionism, it is important to examine the levels of these variables in the context of other perfectionism dimensions. For example, it may be that high personal standards is adaptive when coupled with low levels of concern over mistakes, parental expectations, and parental criticism (see Parker, 19 97). Conversely, high personal standards may be maladaptive when coupled with high levels of concern over mistakes, parental expectations, and parental criticism (see Hall et al., 1998).

Given the ambiguous findings regarding the functional role of personal standards and organization, examining all perfectionism dimensions simultaneously may shed further light on the correlates of maladaptive and adaptive perfectionism. The benefits of this approach were highlighted by Parker (1997) in a study of 820 academically talented sixth grade children who completed the Frost-MPS together with measures of clinical maladjustment, global self-esteem, and personality. A hierarchical cluster analysis produced three perfectionism groups that Parker (p. 555) labeled "non-perfectionists", "healthy perfectionists" (i.e., adaptive perfectionists), and "unhealthy perfectionists " (i.e., maladaptive perfectionists). Children in the healthy perfectionism cluster had high levels of organization, moderate levels of personal standards and parental expectations, and low levels of parental criticism, doubts about actions, and concern over mistakes. The results of personality assessments indicated that these students w ere conscientious, goal and achievement oriented, predictable, and socially at ease" (p. 555). Children in the unhealthy perfectionism cluster had high scores on the personal standards, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental criticism, and parental expectations subscales of the Frost-MPS and moderate scores on the organization dimension. Individuals in this cluster were described as being anxious, disagreeable, moody, defensive and socially detached. Thus, using this multi-dimensional analysis, the personal standards and organization subscales were identified as factors in both the adaptive and maladaptive clusters. In contrast to earlier research that examined correlates of each Frost-MPS subscale separately, this analysis revealed the importance of simultaneously examining the relative presence of different subscales.

It is also worth noting that Parker (1997) found significantly higher levels of self-esteem (as measured by Rosenberg's [1965] Self Esteem Scale) in the healthy perfectionism group than in the unhealthy perfectionism group. This finding supports Blatt's (1995) contention that adaptive perfectionists are able to maintain (or foster) high levels of self-esteem because they are better able than maladaptive perfectionists to experience or perceive success and satisfaction following performance efforts (regardless of whether the 'perfect performance is actually achieved). In the context ofsport, Zinsser and associates (2001) have similarly posited that "athletes who believe they should be perfect will blame themselves for every defeat, every setback...[and consequently] their self-concept will likely suffer" (p. 302).

Self-esteem can be defined as a trait-like (i.e., dispositional) evaluative attitude that people have towards themselves (Coopersmith, 1967) in reference to their own value, importance, and self-worth (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). However, researchers also propose that self-esteem can be regarded as a state-like construct that fluctuates from moment to moment in response to situational circumstances and events (e.g., Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Identifying correlates of self-esteem in sport is important given that research has consistently shown self-esteem to be associated with a wide variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors in a variety of settings (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). For example, research in nonsport settings has shown that people with low self-esteem tend to be less happy (Freedman, 1978), experience more anxiety (Baumeister, 1993), and exert less effort on tasks (McFarlin, Baumeister, & Blascovich, 1984) than people with high self-esteem. In the competitive sport enviro nment, Kerr and Goss (1997) found that elite adolescent artistic gymnasts with low self-esteem lacked a sense of personal control over their lives. Other sport research conducted by Berry and Howe (2000) found that low self-esteem female university varsity athletes were more prone to experiencing competitive anxiety and were more likely to adopt behaviors that were symptomatic of eating disorders than their higher self-esteem counterparts.

According to Sonstroem and colleagues (Sonstroem, Harlow, Gemma, & Osborne, 1991; Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989), global self-esteem is primarily determined by an individual's level of perceived competence and self-acceptance. Sonstroem and associates (1991; p. 350) defined perceived competence as an individual's "feelings of mastery and control over the self and environment" in a specific domain. In turn, Sonstroem and colleagues theorized that perceived competence would be influenced by an individual's level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986)3/4defined as "a statement of expectancy about one's ability to accomplish a specific task" (Fox, 1997, p. xiii). In contrast, self-acceptance is defined as an individual's respect for her/himself in the face of admitted faults (Wylie, 1979). Thus, it is predicted that individuals who feel competent in a particular performance domain and who respect themselves regardless of success or failure will likely have high levels of self-esteem in that domain (Sonstroem et al., 1991; Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989).

When self-esteem is conceptualized in accordance with Sonstroem's views (i.e., Sonstroem et al., 1991; Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989), it makes theoretical sense that Parker (1997) found higher levels of self-esteem among the sixth grade children who were in the healthy (i.e., adaptive) perfectionism group than those in the unhealthy (i.e., maladaptive) perfectionism group. Indeed, according to perfectionism theorists, adaptive perfectionists have a tendency to "rejoice in their skills, and appreciate a job well-done" (Hamachek, 1978, p. 27), which would seem indicative of a person with high self-acceptance. In contrast, maladaptive perfectionists are expected to develop lower levels of global self-esteem because (a) they frequently experience a strong sense of self-doubt (Blatt, 1995) which is indicative of low perceived competence, and (b) are frequently overly critical of their performance efforts (Hamachek) which is indicative of low self-acceptance. Armed with their respective levels of competence and self-ac ceptance, it is little wonder theorists propose that adaptive perfectionists "tend to enhance their self-esteem" (Hamachek, p. 27) while maladaptive perfectionists generally experience "precipitous loss[es] in self-esteem" (Burns, 1980, p. 34) following performance attempts.

We found ten published studies (i.e., Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000; Campbell & Di Paula, 2002; Cheng, Chong, & Wong, 1999; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & O'Brien, 1991; Koivula, Hassm(n, & Fallby, 2002; Parker, 1997; Preusser, Rice, & Ashby, 1994; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001; Vohs, Bardone, Joiner, Abramson, & Heatherton, 1999) that examined the relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem. Results of these studies consistently showed that maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism were associated with lower levels of self-esteem. In contrast, adaptive dimensions of perfectionism were generally found to have no relationship with self-esteem. For example, of the four studies that used the Frost-MPS to assess perfectionism (i.e., Cheng et al., 1999; Parker, 1997; Rice et al., 1998; Slaney et al., 2001), all found significant relationships between maladaptive components of perfectionism (i.e., concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental criticism, a nd parental expectations) and low levels of self-esteem. Rice and colleagues (1998) also reported a strong significant negative correlation (r = -.62) between a maladaptive perfectionism factor (composed of concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental expectations and parental criticism subscales) and self-esteem following a factor analysis of data provided by 173 male and female undergraduates. However, with the exception of Parker's study, none of three other studies found significant relationships between self-esteem and potentially adaptive dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., personal standards and organization: cf. Frost et al., 1993).

Of the studies reviewed, only Koivula et al. (2002) examined perfectionism and self-esteem in sport. Using a sample of elite male and female Swedish athletes (N = 178), Koivula et al. found that athletes who reported high levels of self-esteem had significantly higher personal standards, lower concern over mistakes, and lower doubts about actions scores than athletes with low levels of self esteem. However, Koivula et al. did not use the parental expectations, parental criticism, and organization subscales of the Frost-MPS, thereby making it impossible to create profiles of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism based on all six subscales. Indeed, with the exception of Parker's (1997) research, none of the ten studies reviewed considered all dimensions of perfectionism simultaneously when examining their relationship with self-esteem. These limitations hinder our understanding of the relationships between adaptive and maladaptive profiles of perfectionism and self-esteem in sport. Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem in sport by considering all six dimensions of the Frost-MPS simultaneously when creating perfectionism profiles. It was hypothesized that a profile of maladaptive perfectionism would be associated with low levels of self-esteem and that a profile of adaptive perfectionism would be associated with high levels of self-esteem.

Method

Participants

Eighty-seven varsity athletes from a mid-sized NCAA Division I university in the United States participated in the study. Participants were members of the university's varsity cross-country (10 females, 14 males), track and field (20 females, 13 males), swimming (16 females, 7 males), and diving (5 females, 2 males) teams. Athletes ranged in age from 17 to 25 years (Mage = 19.65, SD = 1.62).

Measures

Athletes completed self-report inventories that assessed demographic information, perfectionism, global self-esteem, and state self-esteem. The demographic inventory asked athletes to provide information about their age, gender, and the varsity team that they currently competed with.

Perfectionism. Perfectionism was assessed with the Frost-MPS. The instrument contains 35 items that measure the perfectionism dimensions of Personal Standards (seven items), Concern Over Mistakes (nine items), Doubts About Actions (four items), Parental Criticism (four items), Parental Expectations (five items), and Organization (six items). Respondents indicate their level of agreement to each item on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Higher composite subscale scores represent higher levels of perfectionism on each respective dimension. All of the subscales possess acceptable levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged from .77 to .93; Frost et al., 1990). Recent studies in sport by Hall and associates (1998) and Gould and colleagues (1996) have also reported acceptable levels of internal consistency for the Frost-MPS subscales. However, Hall et al. did not use the organization subscale and had to delete one item from the doubts about actions subscale before achieving a n alpha of .69. Validation studies of the Frost-MPS have shown that its subscales are related in a meaningful way to other perfectionism measures including Hewitt and Flett's (1991) MPS (see Frost et al., 1993) and Burns's (1980) perfectionism scale (see Frost et al., 1990).

Global self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess levels of global self-esteem (i.e., trait self-esteem). Respondents rate their level of agreement across ten items using a 5-point scale (I = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Reverse scoring of appropriate items and summation of the resulting scores produces a unidimensional assessment of self-esteem with higher scores representing higher levels of global self-esteem. Research has indicated that the RSES provides a valid and reliable assessment of global self-esteem (for reviews see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Wylie, 1989). The RSES is the most frequently used measure of trait self-esteem in social psychological research (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996) and has been used to measure global self-esteem in athletes by a number of sport psychology researchers (e.g., Berry & Howe, 2000; Mahoney, 1989; Prapavessis & Grove, 1998; Teetor Waite, Gansneder, & Rotella, 1990).

State self-esteem. A modified version of the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES; Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) was used to assess athletes' state levels of self-esteem in the context of competitive sport. The original SSES asks respondents to indicate how they feel or think at the present time using a 5-point scale (1 Not at All; 5 = Extremely). After reversing the scores on appropriate items, scores are summed such that higher composite subscale scores reflect higher levels of state self-esteem. The original 20-item instrument is composed of three subscales that measure performance self-esteem, social self-esteem, and appearance self-esteem. The performance subscale (seven items) measures how proud individuals are of their performance. The social subscale (seven items) assesses how embarrassed, self-conscious, or foolish people feel about their public image. The appearance subscale (six items) measures how concerned or sensitive respondents feel about their physical appearance.

In the present study, the items of the SSES were reworded to obtain a situation-specific measure of state self-esteem in sport. For example, the item "I feel confident about my abilities" from the original SSES was reworded as "I feel confident about my athletic abilities." The instructions of the modified SSES (henceforth labeled, Sport-SSES) informed respondents that the purpose of the inventory was "to identify how people view themselves in regards to being athletes and being athletic." Given this instructional set, it was felt that some of the original SSES items should be deleted entirely from the instrument because their inclusion might jeopardize the face validity of the modified scale. For example, the researchers were concerned that including sport-specific versions of some items from the original SSES (e.g., "I am dissatisfied with my weight" and "I feel unattractive") could have caused respondents to question the stated purpose of the questionnaire. Consequently, the six items of the appearance sub scale and four items from the social subscale of the original SSES were not included in the Sport-SSES. The final 10-item Sport-SSES contained the seven items from the performance subscale and three items from the social subscale of the original SSES. Table 1 contains a complete list of the items in the modified instrument. Given the extensive deletion and modification of items from Heatherton and Polivy's (1991) original scale, the Sport-SSES must be viewed as an exploratory instrument with no previously established validity and reliability evidence.

Procedure

The coaches of the eight varsity athletic teams were contacted and asked for permission to recruit their team members as possible participants. Once permission was secured from the coaches, one member of the research team met with and presented the study to the members of each team during their respective competitive seasons. Athletes were informed that the purpose of the study was to "examine the thought processes that occur in athletes in regards to being athletic and towards athletic performance." The researcher explained that participation consisted of completing a questionnaire packet. Individual team members were then allowed to decide if they wished to participate in the study. All athletes who were approached voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and provided written informed consent prior to completing the questionnaire packet. Instruments were completed in classroom settings at least 24 hours prior to competition. Coaches were not present during test administration. The presentation order of instruments was counterbalanced to control for any order effects.

Results

Psychometric Analyses

Sport-SSES. To examine the latent structure of the Sport-SSES, an exploratory principal axes factor analysis was conducted upon the data provided by the athletes. Two eigenvalues (([lambda])> 1.0 were obtained from the extraction (([[lambda].sub.1] = 4.17, ([lambda].sub.2], = 1.22). The two factors accounted for 64% of the variance in the data. Factors were rotated orthogonally with a varimax rotation and transformed obliquely using direct oblimin (delta = 0).

Thurstone's (1947) principle of simple structure was used to judge the adequacy of the orthogonal and oblique solutions. In the present analysis, the simple structure across the set of items was superior for the oblique solution. Examination of the two factors (see Table I) indicated that the factor structure of the Sport-SSES varied considerably from the original SSES. Of the six items that loaded on the first factor (F 1), three were originally part of the SSES performance subscale (i.e., items 3,4, and 10), and three were originally part of the SSES social subscale (i.e., items 2, 6, and 7). In other words, the six items relate to athletes' satisfaction with current performance levels and also to concerns about negative social evaluation. Given that negative social evaluation concerns are sometimes considered a part of performance failure concerns (see Dunn, 1999, for related discussion), F I was labeled, Satisfaction With Current Sport Performance (SCSP). However, it should also be noted that self-accepta nce (which is generally viewed as a major dimension of self-esteem; Sonstroem, 1997) is founded upon the principle of satisfaction with oneself (Wylie, 1979). Therefore, it is possible that F1 may also be tapping an aspect of state self-esteem relating to self-acceptance of sport performance.

Items 1, 5, 8, and 9 loaded on the second factor (F2). All of these items were originally in the performance subscale of Heatherton and Polivy's (1991) instrument. A sense of confidence and competence regarding one's athletic abilities, especially in comparison to others, is a common feature inherent within these four items. The second factor was therefore deemed to reflect an athlete's general level of Perceived Athletic Competence (PAC).

The inter-factor correlation was quite large (r = .61). When interpreting the meaning of this correlation, it is important to note that five of the six items in F 1 (i.e., items 2, 3,4, 6, and 7) were reversed scored prior to conducting the EFA. In other words, a higher composite subscale score on Fl reflects a higher level of satisfaction with current performance. Thus, it makes theoretical sense that satisfaction with one's current sport performance (F1) would be positively correlated with perceived athletic competence (F2).

Internal consistency analyses. The internal consistency coefficients (alphas) for all scales and subscales were (.70 (see Table 2), indicating acceptable levels of internal reliability. However, it should be noted that coefficient alpha for the parental expectations subscale of the Frost-MPS did not exceed .70 when all five items were originally included. To reach an acceptable level of internal consistency, one item from the subscale (Item 26: "My parents have always had higher expectations for my future than I have") had to be deleted. This item was subsequently omitted from all further data analyses.

Tests of Gender Effects

Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted to determine if gender differences existed across the subscales of the Frost-MPS, RSES, and Sport-SSES. In the first MANOVA, gender was entered as the independent variable, with RSES, PAC, and SCSP scores as dependent variables. The overall multivariate test was non-significant, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .927, F (3, 83) 2.169, p = .10, indicating that there were no significant differences between the responses of male and female athletes on these variables. In the second MANOVA, gender was again entered as the independent variable, and the six Frost-MPS subscales entered as dependent variables. A non-significant multivariate test statistic was again obtained, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .937, F (6, 80) = .892, p = .51, indicating no gender differences on the perfectionism subscales. Given these results, male and female data were collapsed into a single data set. Table 2 contains the mean subscale item scores (and standard deviations) of all instruments, as well as t he correlations among all measures for the combined sample.

Multivariate Relationship Between Perfectionism and Self-Esteem

Canonical correlation (RC) analysis was used to examine the multivariate relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem. The three measures of self-esteem (i.e., RSES scores and the two Sport-SSES subscales) comprised the criterion set, and the six Frost-MPS subscales comprised the predictor set. Statisticians generally recommend that the minimum subject-to-variable ratio to conduct canonical correlation analysis should be 10:1 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Given that the present study has 87 participants and nine variables in the analysis, the subject-to-variable ratio (9.67:1) falls slightly short of this recommended criterion, and so results should be interpreted with some degree of caution. The overall multivariate test was significant, Wilks' [and]= .371, F (18,221.10) = 5.156, p <.001. Of the three canonical functions extracted, only the first function was statistically significant ([R.sub.c] = .74, p < .001). Hair et al. (1998) recommend that the "practical si gnificance" (p. 451) of a [R.sub.c] should be considered in addition to the level of statistical significance when interpreting results. To this end, Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) suggest that to achieve practical significance, the minimum acceptable [R.sub.c] value should be [absolute value of .30]; the present [R.sub.c] value (.74) greatly exceeds this criterion. Redundancy analysis revealed that 35% of the variance in the self-esteem variate was explained by the perfectionism variate.

Statisticians generally recommend that variables with canonical loadings < [absolute value of .30] on their respective canonical variates should not be interpreted (e.g., Hair et al., 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Six of the nine variables in the analysis exceeded this criterion, and were therefore used for interpretative purposes. In the self-esteem canonical variate, RSES and SCSP variables had strong negative loadings (-.899 and -.890 respectively), and PAC had a moderate negative loading (-.544). This pattern of canonical loadings reflects an orientation towards low self-esteem (cf. Sonstroem et al., 1991; Sonstroem & Morgan, 1989). On the perfectionism canonical variate, concern over mistakes and doubts about actions had strong positive loadings (.762 and .792 respectively) and parental criticism had a moderate positive loading (.393). The canonical loadings for the personal standards, organization, and parental expectations subscales of the Frost-MPS did not reach the criterion level of(.30( (i.e., .038, -.076, and . 074 respectively), and were therefore not interpreted. Given that concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism are generally associated with maladaptive perfectionism, the moderate to high canonical loadings for these variables suggests that the corresponding canonical variate represents a maladaptive profile of perfectionism. Overall, the canonical correlation results reveal that a maladaptive profile of perfectionism (as represented by the pattern of loadings on the perfectionism variate) is strongly correlated with low self-esteem among athletes in the present study.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the multivariate relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem among competitive athletes using an analytic protocol that allowed the consideration of all six dimensions of the Frost-MPS simultaneously when distinguishing between adaptive and maladaptive profiles of perfectionism. Canonical correlation results supported the hypothesis that a maladaptive profile of perfectionism would be associated with low levels of self-esteem. In contrast, there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that an adaptive profile of perfectionism would be associated with higher levels of self-esteem. Although Parker (1997) found differences in self-esteem levels between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists, the present results are in line with other research which has found no relationship between adaptive dimensions of perfectionism and the self-esteem construct (e.g., Flett et al., 1991; Rice et al., 1998). Indeed, Rice et al. have even questioned whether relationships between adaptive dimensions of perfectionism and self-esteem exist at all. Clearly, more research is required to examine the relationship between adaptive perfectionism and self-esteem in sport.

In the current study self-esteem was measured with trait (i.e., the RSES) and state instruments (i.e., the Sport-SSES). The RSES measured global self-esteem which can be conceptualized as an average feeling that people have about themselves across a variety of social contexts (cf. Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Given that the Sport-SSES was considered to be a newly developed instrument with no previously established validity or reliability evidence, it is important to note that the two Sport-SSES subscales (i.e., 'perceived athletic competence' and 'satisfaction with current sport performance') had moderate to strong correlations with the RSES (r = .56 and r = .63 respectively: see Table 2). The magnitude and direction of these correlations are very similar to those obtained by Heatherton and Polivy with 102 university undergraduate students who completed the RSES and the original SSES. Thus, although the two Sport-SSES subscales that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis in this study (see Table 1) had conceptual differences with the original SSES subscales, the observed inter-scale correlations between the RSES and Sport-SSES provide support for the position that the Sport-SSES is measuring components of state self-esteem in sport.

The current findings are relevant to the context of sport, however, the bivariate correlations obtained in this study also support predictions made by Sonstroem and Morgan's (1989) Exercise and Self-Esteem Model about the influence of perceived physical competence and self-acceptance on global self-esteem. Specifically, Sontsroem and Morgan's model predicts that individuals who have low perceived physical competence and who lack self-acceptance will have low global self-esteem. The strong positive correlations between RSES and PAC (r = .56), and between RSES and SCSP (r = .63), clearly demonstrate that athletes with low perceived physical competence (i.e., PAC) and low self-acceptance (i.e., a proposed component of SCSP) are inclined to have lower global self-esteem than athletes with higher perceived physical competence and higher self-acceptance. Although Sonstroem and Morgan's model has been tested extensively in the exercise psychology literature (e.g., Baldwin & Courneya, 1997; Sonstroem et al., 1991; S onstroem, Harlow, & Josephs, 1994), researchers have not examined the model's utility in the competitive sport domain (with the notable exception of a study by Sonstroem, Harlow, & Salisbury, 1993). Thus, the current study provides some evidence for the model's validity in sport.

The bivariate relationships between maladaptive perfectionism subscales and global self-esteem were in the expected direction, with parental criticism, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions all having significant negative correlations with the RSES. Indeed, the direction and statistical significance of all correlations between the Frost-MPS subscales and the RSES (see Table 2) are very similar to those obtained by Slaney et al. (2001) with a sample of 174 undergraduate students. As was the case in this study, Slaney and colleagues found significant negative correlations between the RSES and the parental criticism, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions subscales of the Frost-MPS, and non-significant correlations between the RSES and the three remaining Frost-MPS subscales (i.e., personal standards, parental expectations, and organization). The multivariate relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem in the current study was examined using canonical correlation. The pattern of canoni cal loadings across both canonical variates, and the size of the canonical correlation ([R.sub.c] = .74) clearly showed that low levels of self-esteem are strongly associated with maladaptive perfectionism. That is, low self-esteem was identified by the pattern of moderate to strong negative loadings for RSES, PAC, and SCSP on the self-esteem variate. Maladaprive perfectionism was reflected by the moderate to strong positive loadings of the parental criticism, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions subscales on the perfectionism variate. Overall, the bivariate and canonical correlation results demonstrate that maladaptive perfectionism is associated with low self-esteem among the present sample of athletes. Overall, these findings are consistent with previous research that has examined the relationship between perfectionism and self-esteem in non-sport settings (i.e., Accordino et al., 2000; Campbell & Di Paula, 2002; Cheng et al., 1999; Flett et al., 1991; Parker, 1997; Preusser et al., 1994; Rice e t al., 1998; Slaney et al., 2001; Vohs et al., 1999).

The concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism dimensions of the Frost-MPS have traditionally been identified as maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism by researchers in sport settings (e.g., Frost & Henderson, 1991; Gould, Udry, et al., 1996; Hall et al., 1998). Indeed, Hall et al. observed a similar pattern of loadings (to that obtained in the present study) for concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism on a canonical variate that reflected a profile of maladaptive perfectionism in a sample of competitive high school cross-country runners. However, in contrast to the present findings, an additional feature of the maladaptive perfectionism profile identified by Hall et al. was a strong positive canonical loading for the personal standards dimension of perfectionism. Similarly, in the cluster of "unhealthy perfectionists" in Parker's (1997) study of academically talented school children, high concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental critici sm scores were also accompanied by high personal standards scores. Clearly, the combination of high concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism has a maladaptive function. However, potential reasons why personal standards did not load on maladaptive perfectionism in the present investigation need to be considered.

Examination of the small non-significant bivariate correlations between personal standards and the three self-esteem variables (Table 2) shows that personal standards perfectionism was not related to trait self-esteem or state self-esteem in this study. Sonstroem (1997) states that people "tend to rely on any perceived success, skill, or positive attribute as a basis for establishing, enhancing, or maintaining self-esteem" (p. 4). Therefore, it seems reasonable to speculate that it is athletes' perceptions of success (or failure) relative to the personal standards that they set for themselves which influence self-esteem, as opposed to the setting of high or low personal standards per se that influences self-esteem. In other words, regardless of whether athletes have a tendency to set high or low personal standards, self-esteem may only be affected when athletes receive information (either internally, or from people in the social environment) that influences their perceptions of success or failure on the task. Slaney, Rice, and Ashby (2002) have also proposed that it may not be "high personal standards per se that contribute to poor emotional adjustment [including low self-esteem]; rather, it may be the responses that people have to their perceptions that they constantly fail to meet their own standards that lead to emotional difficulties" (p. 81). Thus, athletes with high levels of concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism are likely to perceive that the task was not completed well enough (regardless of whether high or low personal standards pertaining to that task were set) and to view themselves as failures (Blatt, 1995; Hamachek, 1978). As a result of these negative self-evaluations, losses in self-esteem are likely to occur (Bums, 1980).

In contrast to the ambiguous nature of personal standards, research in youth sport has shown that the parental expectations dimension is generally associated with maladaptive perfectionism. For example, Gould, Udry, et al. (1996) found that youth tennis players (M age = 16.4 years) suffering from burnout had significantly higher levels of parental expectations than players who were not suffering from burnout. Similarly, Hall et al. (1998) found that parental expectations had a strong positive loading on a canonical variate that reflected maladaptive perfectionism in their sample of high school cross-country runners (M age = 14 years). In contrast, previous perfectionism research in sport that has been conducted with adults has found little, if any, functional relationship between parental expectations perfectionism and obligatory running behaviors (M age = 44.07 years: Coen & Ogles, 1993) and reactions to mistakes in competition (intercollegiate athletes: Frost & Henderson, 1991). Given that parental expectat ions did not load on the maladaptive perfectionism variate and had no significant bivariate correlations with any of the self-esteem measures in this study (see Table 2), it is possible that age plays a role in determining the functional role of parental expectations perfectionism in sport. We might speculate that younger athletes are more likely to be living at home and to be dependent upon their parents for many things in their lives (including feedback and expectancies about performance). In contrast, it is possible that adult athletes (including the intercollegiate athletes in this study) are less likely to be as dependent upon (or influenced by) their parents in terms of social support and informational feedback about performance. Future research is required to examine the extent to which age is a factor that determines the adaptive or maladaptive nature of parental expectations in sport.

It should also be recognized that the two major interpersonal dimensions of perfectionism that were measured in this study (i.e., parental criticism and parental expectations) focus the respondent's attention entirely upon the standards, expectations, and reactions of the parent. However, Dunn et al. (in press) have recently proposed that in the competitive sport environment the coach may be a highly salient source of interpersonal or socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). To this end, using data provided by 174 high performance male Canadian Football players (M age 18.24 years), Dunn and colleagues empirically derived a dimension of perfectionism (labeled Perceived Coach Pressure) which they presented as a situationally specific component of interpersonal perfectionism in sport. The perceived coach pressure dimension reflected the degree to which athletes perceived that their coaches held high standards and were overly critical of their (i.e., the players') performance efforts in competit ion and training. Dunn and his associates found that a high level of perceived coach pressure was associated with a maladaptive profile of perfectionism among the sample. Previous research has shown that it is not uncommon for athletes to perceive that coaches demand perfection or set extremely high standards of performance in the competitive sport environment (e.g., Krane, Greenleaf, & Snow, 1997). Future research that includes perceived coach pressure as an interpersonal dimension of perfectionism may help further our understanding of the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and self-esteem in sport.

In conclusion, results of the present study highlight the importance of measuring perfectionism as a multidimensional construct. Moreover, the study highlights benefits of considering all dimensions of perfectionism simultaneously when attempting to identify profiles of perfectionism that are either adaptive or maladaptive in nature. The generalizability of the study's findings are limited by the relatively small sample size and "psychometric infancy" of the Sport-SSES, however, results demonstrate a clear link between maladaptive perfectionist orientations and low self-esteem in sport. It is also important to recognize that perfectionism in the present study was assessed with the Frost-MPS which conceptualizes perfectionism as a relatively stable global personality trait. However, it may be beneficial to conceptualize and measure perfectionism as a domain-specific construct (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). For example, in a study of perfectionism among career mothers (N 67), Mitchelson and Bums (1998) found significa ntly higher scores on all three subscales of the Hewitt-MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991)another global measure of perfectionism-when items were modified to reflect mothers' perfectionist orientations "at home" in comparison to their perfectionist orientations "at work." Thus, research with sport-specific measures of perfectionism (including the recently developed Sport-MPS; Dunn et al., in press) may provide a better understanding of perfectionism in sport, and may subsequently aid with the examination of perfectionism and its relationships with other cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables in the sport domain.

Table 1

Pattern Coefficients From Principal Axes Analysis of the Sport-SSES

 Pattern
 Coefficients (a)

Item Full Item Descriptions F1 F2

2. I am worried about whether I
 am regarded as a success or a
 failure as an athlete. .58 .24

3. I feel frustrated or rattled
 about my athletic
 performance. .84 -.06

4. I feel that I am having
 trouble performing
 athletically. .79 .08

6. I feel displeased with my
 athletic performance. .97 -.09

7. I am worried about what other
 people think of my athletic
 ability. .58 .20

10. I feel like I am not doing
 well athletically. .53 -.02

1. I feel confident about my
 athletic abilities. .24 .62

5. I feel as athletic as others. -.10 .75

8. I feel confident that I am a
 good athlete. .17 .63

9. I feel that I have less
 athletic ability right now
 than others. .02 .59

Note. F1 = Satisfaction with Current Sport Performance; F2 = Perceived
Athletic Competence. a Interfactor correlation ([r.sub.F1F2]) = .61

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies (), and Correlations
(r) Between Self-Esteem and Perfectionism Measures

 Self-Esteem Perfectionism

 RSES (a) PAC (b) SCSP (c) PS (d)

 M=4.06 M=3.80 M=3.36 M=3.68
Subscales (SD=.58) (SD=.74) (SD=.89) (SD=.67)

RSES [alpha]=.83
PAC .56 **** [alpha]=.78
SCSP .63 *** .60 **** [alpha]=.88
PS .09 -.00 -.14 [alpha]=.80
O .05 .08 .07 .13
COM -.43 **** -.34 **** -.59 **** .50 ****
DAA -.58 **** -.31 *** -.47 **** -.07
PE .01 -.16 -.14 .41 ***
PC -.30 **** -.30 *** -.26* .16

 Perfectionism

 O (e) COM (f) DAA (g) PE (h)

 M=3.90 M=2.25 M=2.41 M=2.80
Subscales (SD=.75) (SD=.67) (SD=.71) (SD=.81)

RSES
PAC
SCSP
PS
O [alpha]=.90
COM -.03 [alpha]=.84
DAA -.08 .31 *** [alpha]=.70
PE .17 -23 *** .06 [alpha]=.70
PC -.06 -42 *** -38 **** -47 ****

 Perfectionism

 PC (i)

 M=1.74
Subscales (SD=.72)

RSES
PAC
SCSP
PS
O
COM
DAA
PE
PC [alpha]=.80

Note. Mean subscale item scores and standard deviations are listed under
each subscale title. Internal consistency coefficients (alpha) are
contained in the main diagonal. Subscale correlations (r) are contained
in the lower triangular matrix.

(a)Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

(b)Perceived Athletic Competence.

(c)Satisfaction with Current Sport Performance.

(d)Personal Standards.

(e)Organization.

(f)Concern Over Mistakes.

(g)Doubts About Actions.

(h)Parental Expectations.

(i)Parental Criticism.

* p<.05.

** p<.01.

*** p<.005.

**** p<.001.

Footnotes

(1.) A detailed description and review of research that has employed Hewitt and Flett's (1991) MPS is beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers are directed to Enns and Cox (2002) for an overview

(2.) Although Dunn et al. (in press) did not use the Frost-MPS (Frost et al., 1990), they did use a sport-specific measure of perfectionism that was adapted from the Frost-MPS.

References

Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). An investigation of perfectionism, mental health, and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 37,535-545.

Baldwin, M. K., & Courneya, K. S. (1997). Exercise and self-esteem in breast cancer survivors: An application of the exercise and self-esteem model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19,347-358.

Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and "if...then" contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 1130-1141.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum.

Berry, T. R., & Howe, B. L. (2000). Risk factors for disordered eating in female university athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 207-219.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.

Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14(6), 34-52.

Campbell, J. D., & Di Paula, A. (2002). Perfectionistic self-beliefs: Their relation to personality and goal pursuit. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory research, and treatment (pp. 181-198). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cheng, S. K., Chong, G. H., & Wong, C. W. (1999). Chinese Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: A validation and prediction of self-esteem and psychological distress. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1051-1061.

Coen, S. P., & Ogles, B. M. (1993). Psychological characteristics of the obligatory runner: A critical examination of the anorexia analogue hypothesis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 15, 338-354.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.

Davis, C. (1997). Normal and neurotic perfectionism in eating disorders: An interactive model. International Journal of Eating Disorders. 22, 421-426.

Dunn, J. G. H. (1999). A theoretical framework for structuring the content of competitive worry in ice hockey. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 21, 259-279.

Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. L. & Syrotuik, D. (in press). Relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology.

Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L, Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory research and practice (pp. 5-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K., & O'Brien, S. (1991). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 61-68.

Fox, K. R. (1997). The physical self From motivation to well being. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people: What happiness is, who has it, and why New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., &Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.

Frost, R. O., & Henderson, K. J. (1991). Perfectionism and reactions to athletic competition. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 13, 323-335.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14,449-468.

Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitivejunior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 10,341-366.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitivejunior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322-340.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, H. K., Kerr, A. W., & Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport: The contribution of achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 20, 194-217.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, JS, 27-33.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. New York: Wiley.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 895-910.

Henschen, K. (2000). Maladaptive fatigue syndrome and emotions in sport. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions insporc(pp. 23 1-242). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Kerr, G. A., & Goss, J. D. (1997). Personal control in elite gymnasts: The relationships between locus of control, self-esteem, and trait anxiety. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 69-83.

Koivula, N., Hassm(n, P., & Fallby, J. (2002). Self-esteem and perfectionism in elite athletes: Effects on competitive anxiety and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 865-875.

Krane, V., Greenleaf, C. A., & Snow, J. (1997). Reaching for gold and the price of glory: A motivational case study of an elite gymnast. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 53-71.

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.

Mahoney, M. J. (1989). Psychological predictors of elite and non-elite performance in Olympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 1-12.

McFarlin, D. G., Baumeister, R. F., & Blascovich, J. (1984). On knowing when to quit: Task failure, self-esteem, advice, and respondent persistence. Journal of Personality, 52, 138-155.

Mitchelson, J. K., & Bums, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at work and home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25,477-485.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545-562.

Prapavessis, H., & Grove, J. R. (1998). Self-handicapping and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 10, 175-184.

Preusser, K. J., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. 5. (1994). The role of self-esteem in mediating the perfectionism-depression connection. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 88-93.

Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology 45,304-314.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 11, 65-83.

Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1991). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: III. Sources of stress. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 103-120.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring perfectionism: The almost perfect scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145.

Sonstroem, R. J. (1997). The physical self-system: A mediator of exercise and self-esteem. In K. R. Fox (Ed.), The physical self: From motivation to well-being (pp. 3-26). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sonstroem, R. J., Harlow, L. L., Gemma, L. M., & Osborne, S. (1991). Test of structural relationships within a proposed exercise and self-esteem model. Journal of Personality Assessment. 56, 348-364.

Sonstreom, R. J., Harlow, L. L., & Joseph, L. (1994). Exercise and self-esteem: Validity of model expansion and exercise associations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 29-42.

Sonstreom, R. J., Harlow, L. L., & Salisbury, K. S. (1993). Path analysis of a self-esteem model across a competitive swim season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 335-342.

Sonstroem, R. J., & Morgan, W. P. (1989). Exercise and self-esteem: Rationale and model. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 329-337.

Tabachnick, B. G.,& Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.).New York: HarperCollins.

Teetor Waite, B., Gansneder, B., & Rotella, R. J. (1990). A sport-specific measure of self-acceptance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 12, 264-279.

Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vohs, K. D., Bardone, A. M., Joiner, Jr., T. E., Abramson, L. Y, Heatherton, T. F. (1999). Perfectionism, perceived weight status, and self-esteem interact to predict bulimic symptoms: A model of bulimic symptom development. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 108,695-700.

Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Vol. 2. Theory and research on selected topics (rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J. M. (2001). Cognitive techniques for building confidence and enhancing performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th ed., pp. 284-311). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Address Correspondence To: Dr. John Dunn, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, E-424 Van Vi jet Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H9.