A longitudinal idiographic examination of perfectionistic athletes' experiences of success and failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal research examining perfectionistic athletes’ experiences of success and failure may help illuminate the degree to which perfectionism is healthy and/or unhealthy (Flett & Hewitt, 2005). Accordingly, this study examined how perfectionistic athletes experienced and responded to success and failure across a season. Participants were four male intercollegiate athletes (aged 22 to 27 years) whose Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2 (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) responses reflected healthy or unhealthy perfectionism. Each athlete maintained a season-long audio-diary of his thoughts, feelings, and behaviours after each competition. Athletes also participated in pre- and post-season interviews. Idiographic narratives were created for each athlete. Participants 1 and 2, both healthy perfectionists, reported effort and mistakes as contributors to success and failure, referred to objective indicators when evaluating personal performance, and emphasized the importance of refocusing after positive and negative outcomes. Participant 2 also tended to attribute failure to external factors and reported the ability to adjust goals when goal attainment was unlikely. Participant 3, an unhealthy perfectionist who experienced mainly successes throughout the season, reported a balanced and rational approach to evaluating his performances which was learned through maturity and experience. Participant 4, also an unhealthy perfectionist, demonstrated highly negative responses to failure that were founded in the belief that performances defined an important aspect of his identity. Findings suggest that experiences of success were similar among participants, yet responses to failure appeared to differ. Previous experiences in high performance sport and adherence to irrational thinking styles are discussed as potential contributing factors. Acknowledgments: This study was supported by grants awarded by Lakehead University's Research Office and Regional 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".