Abstract

This study complements extant variable-centered research that focus on the relationship between perfectionism and the autonomous and controlled motivation to exercise. A person-centered approach is used for identifying perfectionism profiles as well as analyzing inter-profile differences in terms of the six regulatory styles located on the autonomy-control continuum. A sample of 597 (Mage = 22.08, SD = 3.33) Ecuadorian undergraduates enrolled in a sport science degree program was employed. Latent Profile Analysis based on two higher-order perfectionism dimensions, Perfectionistic Strivings (PS) and Perfectionistic Concerns (PC), supported a four-class solution: Non-Perfectionists (low PS and PC), Adaptive Perfectionists (high PS and low PC), Maladaptive Perfectionists (high PS and PC), and Moderate Perfectionists (moderate PS and PC). Adaptive Perfectionists obtained the highest means on Intrinsic, Integrated, and Identified regulations. However, these differences where only significant when compared with Moderate Perfectionists, and only in the case of Integrated regulation, in comparison with Non-Perfectionists. In contrast, Maladaptive Perfectionists obtained significantly higher scores on Introjected and External regulations as well as on Amotivation than the other three classes. Results are discussed in light of Self-Determination Theory.

Highlights

  • There is a certain consensus in the fact that perfectionism can be considered as a multidimensional trait of personality defined by two higher-order dimensions, Perfectionistic Strivings (PS) and Perfectionistic Concerns (PC), which capture the underlying structure of instruments design to assess this construct

  • This study explored, from a person-centered approach, whether different profiles of perfectionism were differentially associated with the full Self-Determination Theory (SDT)’s motivational continuum in the specific context of exercise

  • Of the four classes identified in the current study, three matched those described by previous research for a three-class model: Adaptive Perfectionists, Maladaptive Perfectionists, and Non-Perfectionists

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is a certain consensus in the fact that perfectionism can be considered as a multidimensional trait of personality defined by two higher-order dimensions, Perfectionistic Strivings (PS) and Perfectionistic Concerns (PC), which capture the underlying structure of instruments design to assess this construct. Research on perfectionism in sport and exercise has significantly increased during the last 10 years [2]. This growing interest could be partly due to the “perfectionism paradox” [3,4]. This is the term that Flett and Hewitt [3,4] used to explain the fact that sport and exercise seem to encourage perfectionism, whereas perfectionism, in turn, might act as a vulnerability factor for

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call