A qualitative exploration of unhealthy perfectionism among intercollegiate athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unhealthy perfectionism has been associated with a host of maladaptive characteristics within sport contexts (Hall, 2006; Flett & Hewitt, 2005). Research that investigates unhealthy perfectionism from the perspective of individuals who display unhealthy perfectionist tendencies could enhance researchers' and practitioners' understanding of the achievement orientation and its negative consequences (Rice, Bair, Castro, Cohen, & Hood, 2003). Therefore,the aim of this study was to qualitatively explore achievement with athletes identified as having unhealthy perfectionist tendencies. Among an initial pool of 117 intercollegiate varsity student-athletes, potential participants were identified based on the relative degree to which their Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) score profile was consistent with descriptions of unhealthy perfectionism. Eleven athletes (6 females and 5 males; M age = 21.55 years, SD = 1.33) from a variety of sports participated in semi-structured interviews. Thematic content analysis of the interviews identified three themes: personal expectations, dealing with challenge and the role of others. Within the theme of personal expectations athletes referred to the importance of effort, identified winning as a primary goal and emphasized worries and fears that accompanied mistakes. Athletes also indicated that they were highly self-critical and expressed having trouble recovering from setbacks when dealing with challenge.Finally, significant others in the athletes' lives were described as being supportive, but also associated with pressure and negative feedback. Results are discussed in relation to perfectionism theory.Acknowledgments: This study was supported by a grant awarded to the authors by Lakehead University's Senate Research Committee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".