Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226280395

ExploringSocial–ContextualCorrelatesofPerfectionisminAdolescents:AMultivariatePerspective

ArticleinCognitiveTherapyandResearch·January2004

DOI:10.1007/s10608-004-0665-4

CITATIONS

32

READS

179

2authors,including:

JoanL.Duda

UniversityofBirmingham

364PUBLICATIONS11,656CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyJoanL.Dudaon01December2016.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, December 2004 ( C© 2004), pp. 765–788DOI: 10.1007/s10608-004-0665-4

Exploring Social–Contextual Correlates of Perfectionismin Adolescents: A Multivariate Perspective

Siobhain McArdle1,3 and Joan L. Duda2

One objective of this study was to examine whether young adolescents, who areinvested in an achievement activity (i.e., sport), could be distinguished on theirperceptions of social–contextual influences in their home. A second purpose was toexplore whether youth differentiated with respect to their perceptions of their parentalenvironment vary in terms of their perfectionistic tendencies and motivational char-acteristics (i.e., personal goal orientations, motivational regulations). In a sample of196 athletes, perceptions of parental criticism, expectations, goal orientations, andflexibility were cluster analyzed. Results supported a 4-cluster solution composingof an Ego-Involving, Structured Environment (n = 72); a High Ability Focused,Flexible Environment (n = 34); a Task-Involving, Flexible Environment (n = 65);and a Punitive, Structured Environment (n = 24). The observed variability inperfectionistic tendencies and motivational characteristics associated with each clusterhighlighted the importance of a multidimensional approach to the examination ofparental influence and provided insight into how positive achievement striving inyouth can be fostered.

KEY WORDS: parental influence; perfectionism; goal orientations; self-determination; youth.

When considering the motivated behaviors of adolescents, the family environ-ment is considered to be of critical importance (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998;Goldstein & Heaven, 2000; Grotevant, 1998). Integral to many models of adolescentdevelopment is the assumption that the way in which children perceive theirparental environment can accentuate or attenuate positive achievement striving andpsychological functioning (Grotevant, 1998; Harter, 1998).

Held to be also critical to understanding adaptive and maladaptive perspec-tives on achievement among youth is the personality attribute of perfectionism.Regarded as a multidimensional construct, perfectionism has been operational-ized as a set of interpersonal and intrapersonal beliefs that hold significance for

1Dublin City University.2The University of Birmingham.3Correspondence should be directed to Siobhain McArdle, Centre of Sport Science and Health, DublinCity University, Collins Ave, Dublin 9, Ireland; e-mail: siobhain.mcardle@dcu.ie.

765

0147-5916/04/1200-0765/0 C© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

766 McArdle and Duda

achievement endeavors and young people’s psychoemotional welfare (Greenspon,2000). Contemporary thinking suggests that there are more positive as well asmore negative manifestations of perfectionism that stem from variability in thesefundamental beliefs (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hamachek, 1978;Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Research has shown that individuals who report highpersonal standards and strong negative self-evaluation tendencies (i.e., concernsabout mistakes and doubts about actions) tend to exhibit maladaptive achieve-ment patterns and difficulties in psychological adjustment (Parker, 1997). Suchindividuals would be considered to be neurotic, dysfunctional, or maladaptiveperfectionists (Hamachek, 1978; Parker, 1997; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). Conversely,those individuals who hold high personal standards but are not characterized bynegative self-evaluation tendencies are likely to display more positive achievementresponses and psychological functioning (Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996;Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). In the literature, these people would be classified asnormal, healthy, or adaptive perfectionists (Hamachek, 1978; Parker, 1997; Rice &Mirzadeh, 2000).

Those who have theorized about perfectionism argue that early family social-ization experiences are also central to comprehending the differential expressionsof this personality characteristic (Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek, 1978). To date,empirical studies concerned with the etiology of perfectionism have taken one oftwo directions. One line of research has examined whether reported perfectionismin parents foster children’s proclivity to also exhibit perfectionistic tendencies.Others have taken a different approach, exploring the significance of particularfacets of parent–child interactions with respect to differential beliefs, standards,and self-appraisal processes associated with this construct. Both lines of inquiryhave produced inconclusive results. For example, Frost, Lahart, and Rosenblate(1991), in two studies of female undergraduate students, found that mothers’overall perfectionism was moderately correlated to total perfectionism scores intheir daughters, whereas perfectionistic tendencies in fathers and daughters wereunrelated. In a similar manner, Veith and Trull (1999) found a moderate, positivecorrelation between mothers’ and daughters’ perfectionism scores and a nonsignif-icant association between fathers’ and daughters’ perfectionism scores. However,Veith and Trull (1999) reported a significant negative association between mothers’and sons’ perfectionism scores and a significant positive correlation between fathers’and sons’ scores. The equivocal findings observed when examining correlationsbetween parents’ and children’s dimensions and overall levels of perfectionism hasled some researchers to question the role of parental modeling in the developmentof perfectionistic tendencies (Greenspon, 2000; Greenspon, Parker, & Schuler,2000).

Studies investigating the role of particular aspects of parent–child interactionsin the etiology of perfectionism have shown similar inconsistencies. For example,in a sample of undergraduate students, Rice, Ashby, and Preusser (1996) examinedthe association between a number of parent–child relationship variables and adoles-cents’ perfectionistic tendencies. Results indicated that neurotic perfectionists ex-perienced their parents as more critical and demanding than normal perfectionists.Rice and colleagues (1996), however, failed to find significant differences between

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 767

normal and neurotic perfectionists on perceptions of parental care or perceptions ofautonomy support provided by parents.

Perhaps the lack of uniform findings regarding the interdependence betweenfacets of the parental climate and children’s perfectionistic tendencies stems from afailure to examine social–contextual correlates of perfectionism from a multivariateperspective. Goldstein and Heaven (2000) purport that adolescents’ perceptions ofdifferent dimensions of family life form a coherent and closely synthesized network.Consonant with their view, the utility of multidimensional models for understandingadolescent experiences and development has been advocated in the contemporaryliterature (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997).

As a “person-centered” data analytic technique, cluster analysis offers theutility to identify parent-focused, social contextual profiles that capture percep-tions characteristic to specific subgroups of youth (such as adaptive/normal vs.maladaptive/neurotic perfectionists). As such, cluster analysis can provide a moreholistic account of contextual processes than may be possible with single, “variable-centered” approaches (Magnussun, 1995). The main objective of this study was toutilize cluster analysis to explore patterns of young adolescents’ perceptions of theirnaturally occurring parental environments.

Past work on parental influence and childhood development points to theinterplay between three components of general parenting (Darling & Steinberg,1993; Grotevant, 1998), namely, the values parents hold reflected in the achievementgoals they try to promote in their children, the parenting practices employed interms of control and discipline, and the pervading emotional atmosphere created inthe home. In the present research, we examined whether a sample of young athletes,who engaged in the achievement domain of sport at a high competitive level, couldbe distinguished with respect to perceptions of their parental goal orientations,flexibility provided in the home, expectations for performance, and level of criticismgiven following mistakes. We then determined whether young athletes perceivingdifferential, multidimensional parental environments varied in their perfectionistictendencies (i.e., the tendency to hold high standards, doubt the adequacy ofone’s actions, and respond with heightened personal admonition following poorperformance). To date, the norms regarding perfectionistic characteristics havebeen established based on similarly aged samples that were talented in the academicdomain (Ablard & Parker, 1997; Parker, 1997). As such, the decision to examineyoung adolescent-aged athletes was largely based on the attractiveness of makingnormative comparisons regarding samples represented in the current literatureand recognizing that adolescents can possess high ability and be invested in otherachievement settings besides the academic classroom. Indeed, past research hasindicated that the sport domain is a salient achievement context for many youngpeople (Ewing & Seefeldt, 1996).

Perceptions of Parental Goal Orientations

One conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of the values parentshold in shaping how children tend to define success, construe their level ofcompetence, and generally interpret their achievement experiences is Achievement

768 McArdle and Duda

Goal Theory (AGT; Nicholls, 1984, 1989). This theoretical framework proposesthat parents make their goal preferences evident through the criteria for successthat is reinforced and the nature of and bases for the evaluation of children’sachievement outcomes. These views and concerns are thought to be captured bytwo independent dispositional goal perspectives, namely task and ego orientations.A parent endorsing a task goal orientation will perceive his/her child to demon-strate high competence and success when the child experiences personal mastery,improvement, and works hard. In contrast, a parent emphasizing an ego goalorientation will view his/her child as exhibiting high ability and success when thechild surpasses the performance of relevant others or performs equally with lesseffort (Nicholls, 1989).

Previous research in the sport domain has found ego goal-oriented parentsmore likely to emphasize the validation of their children’s competence throughexternal indicators (e.g., social comparison with other children; Roberts, Treasure,& Hall, 1994). In contrast, parents who are more task goal oriented have been foundto be more likely to place importance on the child’s learning and enjoyment of theactivity (Givvin, 2001; White, 1996).

With respect to perfectionistic tendencies, it is likely that parents viewed asendorsing a task goal orientation will nurture the adaptive processing of achieve-ment information associated with more positive perfectionistic tendencies. On theother hand, it is probable that environmental cues exacerbated by parents who areperceived as more ego oriented will foster cognitions and behaviors related to themaladaptive dimensions of perfectionism. In support of these contentions, Ablardand Parker (1997) found that academically gifted children, who perceived a parentalemphasis on the validation of competence through social comparison, were morelikely to display maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies (i.e., reported high personalstandards, high concern over mistakes and high doubts about actions). On the otherhand, the children of parents who were deemed to stress skill improvement andlearning (which is fundamental to a task goal orientation) were more adaptive intheir perfectionistic leanings (i.e., reported lower concerns over mistakes and doubtsabout actions).

Perceptions of Parental Flexibility

Eccles et al. (1998) contend that parents who are perceived as flexible intheir behaviors regarding disciplinary actions and imposed standards, and are ableto adjust to the changing developmental needs of the child, are more likely tofoster adaptive achievement striving and psychological health. Although we arenot aware of any empirical studies testing the presumed link between perceptionsof family flexibility and the development of perfectionism, a significant amount ofanecdotal evidence suggests that perfectionism develops in environments that arehighly controlling and structured (McCranie & Bass, 1984). Parents who createrigid home environments are more likely to engender concerns over mistakes anddoubts about actions through their intense scrutiny of their children’s behavior andattempts to keep personal autonomy in check. In such families, the inability ofparents to adapt and change rules, regulations, and their exacting standards may

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 769

lead the child to feel that adherence to high personal standards is resolute andmandatory. Assimilation of such parental messages may eventually perpetuate theirrational beliefs associated with maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies.

No study to our knowledge has explored the interplay between perceptionsof parental values, parenting practices (i.e., in terms of flexibility and expressedexpectations) and perceptions of the emotional attitude created in the home (i.e.,perceived parental criticism/punitive responses to poor performance) in relationto children’s perfectionistic tendencies. Further, limited research has examinedsocial–contextual correlates of perfectionism in other domains in which childrencan be highly invested besides academics (Duda & Kim, 1997). The present studyaimed to address both of these voids in the literature. Moreover, Greenspon (2000)suggests that, in addition to individual differences in perfectionism, examining otherindicators of human functioning might highlight the profundity of early socializationexperiences for the overall development of the child. Therefore, with an eye towardextending previous work on parental influence and perfectionism, a second objec-tive of this study was to determine whether young athletes differentiated in terms ofpatterns of the targeted parental variables could then be distinguished with respectto their perfectionistic tendencies and associated motivational characteristics. Inparticular, we tried to glean more insight into how young adolescents varying indimensions of perfectionism approached and interpreted their achievement-relatedexperiences. More specifically, we determined the young athletes’ personal goalorientations and motivational regulations with reference to the competitive sportcontext.

Viewed as being a type of interpretive lens through which people processachievement activities, a plethora of investigations (see Duda, 2001; Roberts, 2001,for reviews) have indicated that individual differences in task and ego orientationsare predictive of young athletes’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral patterns insport. Overall, the research suggests that sport task orientation is linked to positiveresponses and perceptions such as greater enjoyment, the use of effective strategies,self-esteem, and the belief that effort is necessary for sport success. Sport egoorientation, particularly when coupled with low perceived ability and/or low taskorientation, has been associated with more negative motivational processes andoutcomes such as competitive stress, lower persistence, and beliefs that possessingathletic ability or deceptive tactics are critical to sport achievement.

The motivational regulations of young athletes would reflect their reasons forengaging in sport. According to Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000), such reasons fall alonga self-determination continuum. At the least self-determined end of the continuumis amotivation which refers to actions that result from feeling the desired outcomeis not within reach, or perceiving no value in one’s efforts (Ryan & Deci, 2000).Next along the less self-determined end of the continuum is external regulationfollowed by increasingly autonomous types of motivational regulations termedintrojected regulation, identified regulation, and, finally, integrated regulation. Atthe most self-determined end of the continuum is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsicmotivation is the prototypical form of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1991) inthat intrinsically motivated behaviors are pursued out of choice and interest withoutany feeling of coercion. Research indicates that more self-determined motivational

770 McArdle and Duda

regulations are linked to greater quality in young people’s learning experiences andpsychological adjustment (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan, Connell, & Grolnick,1992).

With respect to the potential role of parental influence on motivational charac-teristics, past work has shown that environments which provide a flexible, positiveemotional context for learning and stress personal improvement and trying hardshould not only promote positive striving for challenging goals, but also contributeto young people’s self-determination and task orientation (Givvin, 2001; Mills &Blankstein, 2000; Ryan et al., 1992; White, 1996). The literature also suggests thatsocial contexts which foster negative or neurotic perfectionistic tendencies (i.e.,social contexts marked by high control, high and contingent expectations, socialcomparisons with others) might also inhibit more self-determined motivationalregulations and promote a focus on ego-oriented conceptions of success (Webb,Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982).

In sum, the purposes of this study were (1) to examine whether talentedyoung athletes could be differentiated with respect to their perceptions of parentalvalues, attitudes, and practices; and (2) to determine whether young athletesso distinguished differ in their perfectionistic tendencies, goal orientations, andmotivational regulations. Although the present research was largely exploratory, itwas expected that at least two environmental profiles would emerge. Specifically,it was anticipated that youth who perceived their parents as task goal-oriented,warm, and flexible with low to moderate expectations for achievement would forma distinct cluster group. On the basis of the extant research, it was predicted thatadolescents in this cluster profile would exhibit adaptive perfectionistic tendencies(i.e., high personal standards, low concerns over mistakes, and low doubts aboutactions), high task orientation, and more self-determined motivational regulations.We also expected the results to reveal a second cluster group consisting of childrenwho viewed their parents as largely ego goal-oriented, highly critical, rigid, anddemanding in terms of the standards placed on their children. It was believed thatyoung adolescents in this type of perceived environment would have a greater ten-dency to report maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies (i.e., high personal standards,concerns over mistakes, and doubts about actions), endorse ego goals, and exhibitlower self-determined motivation.

METHOD

Participants

The adolescents who participated in the study were young male (N = 77) andfemale (N = 119) athletes ranging from 12 to 17 years of age (M = 14.0, SD = 1.42).The participants represented a variety of individual sports including gymnastics(4%), diving (4%) synchronized swimming (13%), skating (1%), trampolining(11%), swimming (52%), athletics (4%), golf (6%), and squash (5%). The presentsample could be considered invested and experienced in their sport as all wereeligible for national age group competition and reported training on an average of

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 771

13.14 hrs per week (SD = 6.58). Further, this group of adolescents had participatedin their respective sports for an average of 6.71 years (SD = 2.61).

Procedure

The participants were asked to complete a multisection questionnaire thatincluded measures of the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of perfec-tionism, achievement goal orientations, motivational regulations, perceptions ofparental goal orientations, and family flexibility. Questionnaires were administeredeither before or after the athletes’ training session by the first author. Prior to datacollection, approval from coaches was obtained and for some sports, permissionfrom the relevant regional and national governing body was also acquired. Withthe permission of coaches, information sheets and informed athlete and parentalconsent forms were distributed several weeks before the data collection. On the dateof data collection, of those athletes who volunteered and consented to participate inthe study, only those who had completed parental consent forms were permitted toparticipate (approximately 97% of parental consent forms were returned).

Measures

Environmental Variables

Interpersonal Dimensions of Perfectionism. Athletes were asked to completethe perceived parental expectations and criticism subscales of the MultidimensionalPerfectionism Scale (MPS; Frost et al., 1990) as a measure of the interpersonaldimensions of perfectionism. Example items for the perceived five-item parentalexpectations and four-item parental criticism subscale include “My parents set veryhigh standards for me” and “As a child, I was punished for doing things less thanperfect,” respectively. In previous research, the perceptions of parental expectationsand perceptions of parental criticism subscales of the MPS have demonstratedadequate internal reliability (mean Cronbach’s (1951) α = .84; Frost et al., 1990).

Perceptions of Family Flexibility. The 14-item flexibility subscale of the FamilyAdaptability and Cohesion Scale II (FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982)measures the extent to which members of a family perceive their home environmentas flexible in terms of power structures (i.e., degree of assertiveness, control,discipline), role relationships, and rules. Responses are provided on a 5-pointLikert-type scale and exemplary items include, “It is hard to know what the rules arein our family” and “Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds.” A lowcomposite linear score on perceived family flexibility indicates relatively rigid familybehaviors whereas high scores reflect very flexible family behaviors. In previousresearch, the adaptability subscale has demonstrated adequate internal (Cronbach’sα = .78), and test-retest reliability (α = .80).

Perceived Parental Goal Orientations. To assess perceptions of parental goalorientations, the athletes were requested to complete an adapted version of the13-item Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda, 1989).Before responding to this questionnaire, the participants were primed to think of

772 McArdle and Duda

the parent most involved in their sport participation. With the relevant parent inmind, stems for each item read “My parent who is most involved in and responsiblefor my participation in —— feels I am really successful in —— when. . . .” (N.B. Thequestionnaire was referenced to the particular sport of the athlete). The perceivedparental ego goal orientation subscale (six items) taps the athlete’s perceptionsof his or her parent’s emphasis on normative comparisons and the demonstrationof superior ability when defining athletic success for the child (e.g., “My parentwho is most involved in and responsible for my participation in swimming feels Iam really successful in swimming when I’m the best.” Items from the PerceivedParental Task Goal Orientation scale (N = 7), such as “My parent who is mostinvolved in and responsible for my participation in gymnastics feels I am reallysuccessful in gymnastics when I learn something that is fun to do” measure theindividual’s perceptions of his or her parents’ encouragement of and the importanceplaced on personal improvement, learning, and mastery. Participants were askedto indicate their relative agreement with each item on a response scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated for both theperceived parental task and ego goal orientation subscales. This adapted versionof the TEOSQ has demonstrated adequate internal reliability in previous research(mean Cronbach’s α = .83; Duda & Hom, 1993).

Athletes’ Perfectionistic Tendencies and Motivational Characteristics

Intrapersonal Dimensions of Perfectionism. Designed to assess self-evaluativetendencies, the three intrapersonal subscales of Frost et al.’s (1990) MPS were usedto measure athletes’ perfectionistic tendencies. The seven-item personal standardssubscale taps the tendency to set very high standards and place great importanceon meeting those standards for feelings of self-worth (e.g., “I have extremely highgoals”). The nine-item concern over mistakes subscale assesses a fatalistic patternof thinking and a fear that mistakes and failure will result in the loss of respectfrom others (e.g., “If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure”).The tendency to doubt one’s ability to achieve the task and not be satisfied withone’s accomplishments comprised the four-item doubts about actions subscale (e.g.,“Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right”).In previous research, the intrapersonal subscales of the MPS have demonstratedadequate validity and reliability and have been successfully employed with children.In a sample of 820 academically talented children and adolescents, Parker (1997)reported alphas for these subscales scores ranging from .67 to .90.

Athletes’ Goal Orientations. Athletes’ personal goal orientations were mea-sured by the TEOSQ (Duda, 1989). The 13 items comprising the TEOSQ askindividuals to reflect upon when they feel most successful in sport. The subject’sresponses to both ego (six items) and task (seven items) criteria is indicated ona 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Examplesof items designed to assess task orientation include “I feel most successful intrampolining when I learn a new skill and it makes me want to practice more,”whereas the ego orientation subscale includes items such as “I feel most successfulin golf when others mess up, and I don’t” (N.B. Questionnaires were referenced to

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 773

the particular sport of the athlete). In previous research involving similarly aged UKathletes, Hall and Kerr (1997) reported Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .86 to .87.

Motivational Regulations. Athletes’ motivational regulations were measuredby the 28-item Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995). The SMSassesses reasons why individuals participate in sport (N.B. Questionnaires wereadapted to the particular sport of the athlete). Following each reason, the respon-dents were asked to indicate on a 7-point likert scale how true the reason is fortheir own sport involvement. Items comprise seven subscales delineating three typesof intrinsic motivation (intrinsic motivation to know, to accomplish things, and toexperience stimulation), three types of extrinsic motivation (external, introjected,and identified), and amotivation. Items were prefixed with a sport specific stem, forexample, “Why do you practice gymnastics. . . .” Exemplary items include “I usedto have good reasons for doing gymnastics, but now I am asking myself if I shouldcontinue doing it”; and “For the prestige of being an athlete.” Pelletier et al. (1995)reported alpha reliabilities for these subscales ranging from .63 to .80 and test-retestcorrelations varying from .58 to .84.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha for each measure are presented inTable I. Apart from the perceived parental criticism subscale of the MPS (α = .68),each measure demonstrated internal consistencies above Nunnally’s (1978) criterionof .70 for the psychological domain. On the basis of the small number of items in theparental criticism subscale (n = 4), however, the observed low alpha was deemedacceptable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998) and this subscale was utilizedin subsequent analyses.

Table I. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha for All Variables Included in theClustering and Validation Procedures

M SD α Min–Max

Perceptions of parental task goal orientation 4.17 0.54 .80 2.71–5.00Perceptions of parental ego goal orientation 3.06 0.82 .82 1.00–5.00Perceptions of family flexibility 45.28 7.80 .75 27.00–64.00Task orientation 4.30 0.56 .81 1.57–5.00Ego orientation 3.36 0.84 .82 1.17–5.00Intrinsic motivation 58.95 12.00 .90 28.00–84.00Extrinsic motivation—Identified regulation 17.10 4.72 .70 7.00–28.00Extrinsic motivation—Introjected regulation 13.78 5.66 .77 4.00–26.00Extrinsic motivation—External regulation 13.27 5.23 .75 4.00–26.00Amotivation 9.09 5.05 .80 4.00–25.00MPS—Perceptions of parental criticism 7.40 2.55 .68 4.00–14.00MPS—Perceptions of parental expectations 11.69 3.73 .74 5.00–22.00MPS—Concern over mistakes 21.29 5.59 .81 9.00–39.00MPS—Doubts about action 10.66 3.09 .75 4.00–20.00MPS—Personal standards 24.70 4.52 .78 15.00–35.00

774 McArdle and Duda

An inspection of the absolute mean values (Table I) indicated that compared tosimilarly aged adolescents in the academic domain (Ablard & Parker, 1997; Parker,1997), these athletes had low to moderate perceptions of parental expectations andbelieved their parents were moderately critical of their achievement endeavors. Asa group, the athletes viewed their family as flexible and perceived moderate levelsof both task and ego goal endorsement in their homes. With regards to athletes’perfectionistic tendencies, the present sample revealed a mean response to the MPSconcerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, and personal standards subscalesthat was aligned with what has been observed among similarly aged children inthe academic domain (cf. Parker, 1997). In terms of motivational characteristics,compared to similarly aged athletes, this group of adolescents reported high levelsof task and ego orientations (cf. Newton & Duda, 1999), high intrinsic motivation,and moderate extrinsic motivation (cf. Ntoumanis, 2002).

Correlations Between Environmental Variables

Pearson product correlations (Table II) revealed that responses to the per-ceived parental criticism subscale of the MPS were moderately and positivelycorrelated with their responses to the parental expectations subscale and nega-tively associated with both perceived parental task goal orientation and perceivedfamily flexibility. A significant positive relationship between children’s perceptionsof parental task goal orientation and their perceptions of family flexibility alsoemerged. Perceptions of parental criticism was significantly positively correlated todoubts about actions, concerns over mistakes, and doubts about actions, whereasperceptions of parental expectations was significantly correlated with amotivation.Perceptions of parental task goal endorsement was significantly correlated withintrinsic motivation and negatively correlated with amotivation, and perceptions ofparental ego goal endorsement was positively associated with external regulation.

Cluster Analysis

Employing SPSS (Version 10), hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identifygroups of young talented athletes distinguished with respect to their perceptions oftheir parental environment. Prior to running the analysis, one multivariate outlierwas eliminated based on the Mahanalobis distance criterion. An examination of thecondition indices and the decomposition of the coefficient variance as well as thetolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) indicated that multicollinearity wasnot a problem in this data set.

Variables were initially standardized before running the cluster analysis. Theobjective of cluster analysis is to maximize the homogeneity of participants withinthe clusters while maximizing the heterogeneity between the emergent clustergroups. Ward’s linkage method was employed to minimize within-cluster distancesand the squared Euclidean distance was used as a measure of similarity. Asrecommended by Hair et al. (1998), the agglomeration schedule coefficient wasexamined to determine the number of clusters in the final solution. Aldenderfer andBlashfield (1984) suggest that fairly large increases in the agglomeration coefficient

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 775

Tab

leII

.Zer

o-or

der

Cor

rela

tion

sA

mon

gV

aria

bles

Incl

uded

inth

eC

lust

erin

gP

roce

dure

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1.T

ask

1.00

2.E

go.0

81.

003.

Am

otiv

atio

n−.

21∗∗

.05

1.00

4.In

trin

sic

.48∗

∗−.

02−.

21∗∗

1.00

5.Id

enti

fied

.14∗

.11

−.15

∗.4

2∗∗

1.00

6.In

troj

ecte

d.0

8.0

5.2

8∗∗

.28∗

∗.4

3∗1.

007.

Ext

erna

l.0

2.2

6∗∗

.22∗

∗.3

4∗∗

.51∗

∗.6

3∗∗

1.00

8.C

M−.

07.2

3∗∗

.23∗

∗.0

6.0

8.3

4∗∗

.36∗

∗1.

009.

DA

.05

.08

.35∗

∗.0

2.1

6∗.3

3∗∗

.26∗

∗.4

8∗∗

1.00

10.P

S.2

2∗∗

.32∗

∗−.

02.3

5∗∗

.18∗

.23∗

∗.3

0∗∗

.38∗

∗.1

9∗∗

1.00

11.P

E−.

15∗

.09

.27∗

∗.0

3.1

6∗.2

2∗∗

.21∗

∗.3

5∗∗

.22∗

∗.2

3∗∗

1.00

12.P

C−.

28∗∗

−.04

.26∗

∗−.

11.0

7.3

3∗∗

.26∗

∗.5

0∗∗

.34∗

∗.1

0.5

5∗∗

1.00

13.F

lexi

bilit

y.1

9∗∗

0−.

04.2

1∗∗

.05

−.04

.01

−.15

∗−.

06.0

9−.

04−.

19∗∗

1.00

14.P

aren

talt

ask

.63∗

∗.1

2−.

21∗∗

.39∗

∗.1

4.0

5.0

6.1

9∗∗

.05

.10

−.11

−.24

∗∗−.

24∗∗

1.00

15.P

aren

tale

go.0

4.7

0∗∗

.05

−.09

.12

.12

.29∗

∗.0

0.0

9.2

4∗∗

.15∗

.03

.03

.12

1.00

∗ Cor

rela

tion

issi

gnifi

cant

atth

e0.

05le

vel(

two-

taile

d).

∗∗C

orre

lati

onis

sign

ifica

ntat

the

0.01

leve

l(tw

o-ta

iled)

.

776 McArdle and Duda

indicate that two dissimilar clusters have been combined. Examination of theagglomeration schedule showed a large increase in coefficients when moving froma four- to three-cluster solution. As such, athletes were grouped according to theirassociation with one of four distinct perceived parental environmental profiles.

Follow-up adjusted Bonferroni (p = .05/5 = .01) post hoc tests indicated thatthe clusters significantly differed on each of the variables included in the clustervariate. Descriptive statistics and the results of univariate F tests and effect size(partial η2) by cluster group are presented in Table III. Partial eta squares forsignificant differences between the groups ranged from .21 to .64. Cohen (1977)characterizes .10 as a small, .25 as a medium, and .40 as a large effect size.

In labeling the clusters, a z value of ±5 was employed to determine whetherathletes scored low or high on a particular variable compared to their peers (seeWeiss & Weiss, 2003). To this end, in line with Darling and Steinberg’s (1993)contention that parents’ goals and values influence parenting behavior, z scoreson perceptions of parental goal orientations were first examined. Adolescents inCluster 1 (n = 72) perceived their parents to moderately emphasize an ego goalorientation and place a relatively low emphasis on task-oriented definitions ofsport success. The athletes in Cluster 1 also indicated moderate levels of perceivedparental criticism, moderate levels of perceived parental expectations (cf. Ablard& Parker, 1997; Frost et al., 1991; Gould et al., 1996) and perceived their familyenvironment as structured (i.e., low flexibility, stable family roles, firmly enforcedrules; cf. Olson, 2000). In light of the cues perceived in the parent-created socialcontext, Cluster 1 was labelled an Ego-Involving, Structured Environment.

Unlike the athletes in Cluster 1, adolescents in Cluster 2 (n = 34) perceived astrong parental emphasis on both task and ego goal orientations. An examinationof the z scores compared to the other three groups revealed that with respect toperceptions of parental goal endorsement, Cluster 2 reported significantly higherlevels of perceived parental ego goal orientation than any of the other clustergroups. Similar to Cluster 1, youngsters in Cluster 2 indicated moderate levels ofperceived parental criticism, however they differed from Cluster 1 athletes in thatthey reported significantly higher perceptions of parental expectations and viewedtheir family structure as more flexible. Given these attributes, Cluster 2 was labeleda High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment.

Individuals in Cluster 3 (n = 65) perceived their parents as relatively high ontask goal endorsement and relatively low in the emphasis placed on ego-orientedsport success. An examination of the z scores of this group of athletes compared tothe other three clusters revealed that adolescents in Cluster 3 reported significantlylower levels of perceived parental expectations and criticism. They also exhibitedhigh scores on perceived family flexibility. Thus, the perceived parental socialcontext of athletes classified in Cluster 3 was labeled a Task-Involving, FlexibleEnvironment.

In contrast to the athletes in Clusters 1, 2, and 3, adolescents in Cluster4 (n = 24) reported low perceived levels of task and relatively low ego goalendorsement by their parents. The low perceived parental emphases on both ofthese achievement goal orientations might suggest that in this type of environment,parents neither reward or encourage the demonstration of athletic competence

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 777

Tab

leII

I.D

escr

ipti

veSt

atis

tics

and

Eff

ectS

izes

Acr

oss

the

Fou

rC

lust

erG

roup

s

Clu

ster

1(n

=72

)C

lust

er2

(n=

34)

Clu

ster

3(n

=65

)C

lust

er4

(n=

24)

MSD

zM

SDz

MSD

zM

SDz

F(3

,191

)η2 p

PP

Tas

k3.

92a

0.39

−.47

4.58

b0.

27.7

64.

43b

0.45

.48

3.65

a0.

62−.

9838

.70

.38

PP

Ego

3.11

a0.

74.0

63.

80b

0.62

.90

2.73

a0.

78−.

412.

76a

0.72

−.37

17.6

7.2

2F

AC

ES

41.1

8 a6.

66−.

5347

.38 b

c6.

93.2

749

.32 c

7.50

.52

43.6

7 ab

6.50

−.21

17.0

0.2

1P

E11

.65 a

2.80

−.01

14.2

6 b2.

64.6

98.

85c

2.78

−.76

15.8

3 b3.

291.

1148

.44

.43

PC

7.54

a1.

46.0

78.

26a

1.71

.37

5.20

b1.

38−.

8911

.46 c

1.50

1.67

110.

90.6

4

Not

e.P

PT

ask

=P

erce

ptio

nsof

pare

ntal

task

goal

orie

ntat

ion;

PP

Ego

=P

erce

ptio

nsof

pare

ntal

ego

goal

orie

ntat

ion;

FA

CE

S=

Fam

ilyA

dapt

abili

tyan

dC

ohes

ion

Scal

e(p

erce

ptio

nsof

pare

ntal

flexi

bilit

y);P

E=

Per

cept

ions

ofpa

rent

alex

pect

atio

ns;P

C=

Per

cept

ions

ofpa

rent

alcr

itic

ism

;mea

nsth

atdo

noth

ave

the

sam

ele

tter

insu

bscr

ipta

resi

gnifi

cant

lydi

ffer

enta

tthe

p<

.01

leve

l.

778 McArdle and Duda

whether self-referenced or comparatively based. However, a further examinationof the z scores of this group compared to the other three groups revealed thatwith respect to parental expectations and parental criticism, Cluster 4 showedhigh levels of perceived parental expectations and significantly higher perceptionsof parental criticism than the other three groups. The frequent, harsh parentalcriticism and high parental expectations perceived by these athletes was coupledwith perceptions of a highly structured family environment. On the basis of thesecharacteristics, the parental social context reflected in the views of Cluster 4athletes was considered to be a Punitive, Structured Environment. The resultingtypology of athletes’ perceptions of their parental environments is presented inFig. 1.

Cluster Validation

To examine the generality and value of the cluster solution, the clusterswere compared on theoretically relevant variables not used in the original clustersolution. In line with Keselman et al.’s (1998) recommendation that dependentvariables in MANOVA should link together conceptually, three separate one-wayMANOVAs were conducted with perfectionistic tendencies, goal orientations, andmotivational regulations, respectively, as the dependent variables.

In each case, the multivariate effect size index was determined based on theformula multivariate η2 = 1 − �1/S. Follow-up analyses of variance (ANOVAs) withBonferroni adjustment were also conducted. For these univariate analyses, partialeta squared was used as the effect size statistic. Means, standard deviation, and effectsize statistics of validation variables are shown in Table IV. The resulting variabilityin perfectionism/motivational patterns across the four groups is depicted in Fig. 2.

Table IV. Means and Standard Deviations for the Validation Variables Across the FourCluster Groups

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Amot 9.10ab 4.72 10.59ab 5.94 7.49a 4.53 11.25b 4.78Exexter 12.96ab 4.70 16.18b 4.80 11.69a 5.37 14.33ab 5.32Exintro 13.09ab 4.94 16.18a 4.92 12.25b 5.79 16.42a 6.54Exiden 16.69a 4.01 18.68a 4.44 16.66a 5.20 17.33a 5.47Intrins 55.96a 12.25 60.56ab 11.28 62.37b 11.28 56.42ab 11.96Task 4.09a .47 4.47b .45 4.58b .41 3.93a .80Ego 3.39ab .67 3.82b .72 3.17a .89 3.09a 1.02CM 21.25a 5.31 24.38b 4.91 18.18c 4.14 25.46b 5.91PS 24.32a 4.37 26.76a 4.40 24.00a 4.60 24.83a 4.31DA 10.75ab 2.66 12.06b 3.20 9.51a 3.11 11.54ab 3.09

Note. Amot = Amotivation; Exexter = External regulation; Exintro = Introjected regula-tion; Exident = Identified regulation; Intrins = Intrinsic motivation; Task = Task orientation;Ego = Ego orientation; CM = Concern over mistakes; PS = Personal standards; DA =Doubts about actions; differences in letters across the means indicate significant differencesbetween the cluster groups.

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 779

Perfectionistic Tendencies

Results of the one-way MANOVA with perfectionistic tendencies as thedependent variables showed a significant effect for cluster group membership;Wilk’s λ = .74, F(9, 460.13) = 6.67, η2 = .09, p < .05. Follow-up one-way ANOVAsand post hoc tests after Bonferroni adjustment (.05/3 = .02) indicated that athletesin the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment (Cluster 2) and those belongingto the Punitive, Structured Environment (Cluster 4) reported significantly higherconcerns over mistakes than those individuals belonging to the remaining twoclusters. Conversely, athletes in Cluster 3 (Task-Involving, Flexible Environment)reported low doubts about actions and significantly lower concerns over their mis-takes than any of the other groups. There were no significant differences betweenthe cluster groups with respect to the athletes’ tendency to strive for high personalstandards.

Personal Goal Orientation

With personal task and ego goal orientations as the dependent variables,one-way MANOVA indicated a significant multivariate effect for cluster groupmembership; Wilk’s λ = .73, F(6, 380) = 10.85, η2 = .15, p < .05, Follow-up univari-ate analysis and post hoc tests with adjusted Bonferroni (.05/2 = .03) showed thatadolescents in both the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment (Cluster 2) andthose in the Task-Involving, Flexible Environment (Cluster 3) reported significantlyhigher perceptions of parental task goal orientation than individuals in the Ego-Involving, Structured Environment (Cluster 1) and those in the Punitive, StructuredEnvironment (Cluster 4). Athletes in the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environ-ment (Cluster 2) reported significantly higher levels of ego goal orientation thanadolescents who perceived their homes as a Task-Involving, Flexible Environment(Cluster 3) and those athletes who perceived their homes as a Punitive, StructuredEnvironment (Cluster 4).

Motivational Regulations

Employing one-way MANOVA with motivational regulations as the depen-dent variables resulted in a significant multivariate effect for cluster group; Wilk’sλ = .78, F(15, 516.63) = 3.11, η2 = .08, p < .05. Follow-up univariate F tests, afterBonferroni adjustment (p < .01), indicated that individuals in the Ego-Involving,Structured Environment (Cluster 1), the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment(Cluster 2), and the Punitive, Structured Environment (Cluster 4) showed low levelsof intrinsic and higher levels of extrinsic motivation when compared to athletesin the Task-Involving, Flexible Environment (Cluster 3). Athletes in Cluster 3showed significantly lower levels of introjected regulation than those athletes whoperceived their parents had created a High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment(Cluster 2) or those athletes who perceived their parental environment as Punitiveand Structured.

780 McArdle and Duda

Cluster Profiles

To assist in ascertaining more detail regarding the athletes belonging to eachcluster group, Hair et al. (1998) suggest profiling each cluster set on additional“descriptive” variables not used in either the initial cluster analysis or validationprocedures. In this case, we examined whether the four cluster groups could bedistinguished with respect to participants’ age and gender. One-way ANOVAindicated no significant differences in mean age between the groups, F(3, 191) =1.08, p > .05. Chi-square tests revealed no significant cluster group differences as afunction of gender, χ2(3) = .45, p > .05.

DISCUSSION

The present study centered on an examination of potential social contextualantecedents to perfectionism by exploring the relationship of differential andmultidimensional parental environments to variability in adolescents’ perfection-istic tendencies and motivational characteristics. Specifically, hierarchical clusteranalysis revealed four cluster groups distinguished by adolescents’ perceptionsof parental values and behaviors. Follow-up analysis indicated that the athletesclassified in the four emergent cluster groups varied in the degree to which they hadconcerns about mistakes and doubts about their actions as well as their personalgoal orientations and motivational regulations in the sport milieu. An integratedview of the social contextual features characterizing each cluster (and associatedgroup member characteristics) may explicate why some parental environments maybe more conducive to fostering adaptive achievement striving than others.

Cluster 1

The moderate perceptions of parental ego goal endorsement and relativelylower task goal endorsement reported by athletes in Cluster 1 (Ego-Involving,Structured Environment) suggests that these athletes viewed their parents as valuingthe demonstration of superior ability more than learning or task mastery. Withregards to parenting practices and attitudes, the homes of athletes in Cluster 1were characterized by low levels of family flexibility (i.e., structured) and parentalinteractions conveyed moderately high expectations for the young athletes andmoderate criticism following mistakes.

Results from the achievement goal literature indicate that perceptions ofparental ego goal endorsement may engender maladaptive perfectionistic tenden-cies (Duda & Kim, 1997). Perceiving predominantly, ego-involving competitive cuesfrom their parents (when compared to an emphasis on task-involved success), thesetalented athletes appear more likely to believe that their parents’ definitions of sportachievement will be realized when they surpass the efforts of their competitors.The desire to demonstrate ability in order to attain self-enhancing feedback or toavoid self-disparagement may engender the moderately high level of concerns overmistakes, doubts about actions, and personal standards reported by this group.

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 781

Consistent with the work of Givvin (2001) and White (1996), the disposi-tional goal orientations of athletes in Cluster 1 (i.e., moderate ego/low task goalorientation) mirrored their reported perceptions of parental goal endorsement.The moderate levels of intrinsic motivation reported by this group suggests thatthese young adolescents were motivated by the inherent satisfaction of perform-ing their sport, yet their moderate to high scores on the less self-determined\hbox{motivational} regulations indicated that these athletes were also motivatedby external contingencies and were on the verge of being quite amotivated. Whentaking into consideration the perfectionistic tendencies and motivational character-istics reported by Cluster 1, it would appear that a critical, more ego-involving andcontrolling home environment may be less than conducive to the development ofoptimal achievement and psychological functioning.

Cluster 2

Athletes in the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment (Cluster 2) per-ceived their parents as placing an emphasis on demonstrating and developingability. These youngsters also perceived their homes as relatively flexible but alsocharacterized by high levels of perceived parental expectations and criticism. Theperfectionism literature suggests that harsh and demanding parental environmentsfoster neurotic, dysfunctional, or maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies (i.e., highconcerns over mistakes and doubts about actions; Barrow & Moore, 1983; Blatt,1995; Hamachek, 1978). Not surprisingly then, the members of Cluster 2 reportedrelatively high concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, and personal stan-dards. Further the strong perceived focus on both ego and task conceptions of sportsuccess of athletes in Cluster 2 was mirrored in their own goal orientations. Thatis, they tended to be concerned with the demonstration of normative ability andto a lesser extent, task mastery, in their personal definitions of sport achievement.Cluster 2 also reported high external and introjected regulation and moderate levelsof amotivation and intrinsic motivation.

It is feasible that the moderate to high levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tion expressed by this group were fostered by both the task- and ego-oriented cuesrespectively perceived to be operating and the degree of flexibility prevailing in theirhomes. Deci and Ryan (1992) suggest that intrinsic motivation is affected by thechild’s perceived abilities in relation to the task demands, sense of connection withothers, and the degree to which the environment is deemed autonomy supportiverather than controlling in nature. It is possible that the emphasis on mastery andeffort, as well as the more egalitarian family relationships perceived in the homesof athletes in Cluster 2, fostered their perceptions of autonomy, competence, andrelatedness, and, as a result, enhanced their intrinsic motivation. Conversely, thehigh levels of extrinsically motivated regulation reported by this group may stemfrom the strong perceptions of parental ego goal endorsement. It is possible that inenvironments where rewards and expectations revolve around winning and/or beingthe best, external contingencies regarding the task at hand may be cultivated.

782 McArdle and Duda

Cluster 3

Athletes in Cluster 3 (Task-Involving, Flexible Environment) were unique inthat, unlike any of the other three groups, they expressed perceptions of hightask/low ego goal endorsement in their home. The adolescents belonging to thiscluster group did not believe their parents held very high standards regarding theirachievement endeavors nor did they describe their parents as especially critical orrigid in their rules and regulations.

Research has indicated that perceptions of nonpunitive and task-involvinghome environments are conducive to the development of normal, healthy oradaptive perfectionism (Ablard & Parker, 1997; Schuler, 2000). Given the pattern ofparenting variables associated with Cluster 3, it is not surprising that these childrenalso exhibited low concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, but did strive forchallenging personal standards.

Compared to the other three emergent environments, it seems that theconstellation of parenting characteristics distinguishing Cluster 3 (Task-Involving,Flexible Environment), may be the most conducive for the development of positiveperspectives on achievement and a grounded sense of self. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1992), parents who provide support fortheir children’s development of competence (i.e., optimal challenges, informationalfeedback) in the context of a warm, autonomy-supportive home environment aremore likely to produce youngsters who are adaptive in their achievement striving.In line with these suppositions, adolescents who viewed a parental emphasis onmastery and learning (i.e., task conceptions of sport success) in a relatively flexibleand noncritical environments, also indicated more desirable motivational character-istics. Specifically, athletes in Cluster 3 exhibited high levels of task goal orientationand intrinsic motivation and low levels of ego goal orientation, amotivation, externalregulation, and introjected regulation.

Cluster 4

Compared to the athletes classified in Clusters 1, 2, or 3, youngsters in Cluster 4(Punitive, Structured Environment) reported a relatively low emphasis on bothtask and ego conceptions of sport success. The significantly higher perceptions ofparental criticism and high perceived parental expectations expressed by this groupsuggests that although these adolescents felt their parents held little value for thedemonstration of sport-related competence, the failure to meet the inflexible, highexpectations of their parents was deemed unacceptable and was responded to in anegative manner.

Teevan (1983; Teevan & McGhee, 1972) reported that high school studentswith high scores on fear of failure were more likely to perceive neutral responsesfrom parents for satisfactory behaviors and punishment from parents for unsatis-factory behaviors. It is possible that the holding of high standards coupled withadmonishment for inferior performance attempts may promote the negative self-evaluation tendencies (i.e., the concerns over mistakes and doubts about actions),

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 783

low task and ego goal orientations, and high levels of amotivation reported by thisgroup.

In terms of motivational regulations, the literature suggests that perceptionsof parental inflexibility, parental emphasis on demonstrating superior performance,high control and criticism in the home will inhibit the development of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1992; Eccles et al., 1998). Deci and Ryan (1992)proffer that an emphasis on performing up to someone else’s standards tends tomake even positive feedback seem controlling and as such attenuates the moreself-determined motivational regulations. In the case where feedback from othersis also perceived negatively (e.g., as is probably the case here given the high levelsof perceived parental criticism reported by this group), the detrimental implicationsof such feedback to intrinsic motivation may be magnified and positive contributionsto less self-determined regulations exacerbated. In line with Deci and Ryan’s (1992)contentions, Cluster 4 reported high introjected and moderate external regulation.

Dykman (1998) argues that people who strive to prove their self-worth throughextrinsic goals and approval from others view achievement situations as tests of theirbasic worthiness. He further contends that such individuals often exhibit excessivestriving for high standards to verify their personal adequacy and, as a result, thepossibility of failure and demonstrating incompetence can result in a desire towithdraw from the task. In line with Dykman’s (1998) propositions, this group ofathletes reported moderate to high levels of amotivation.

In support of Ablard and Parker (1997) and Flett and Hewitt (2002), this studyhighlights the importance of considering not only perceived parental practices andattitudes but also the type of achievement goals seen to be valued by parents.Flett and Hewitt (2002) contend that perceptions of a parental focus on normativecomparisons is likely to result in a form of neurotic, dysfunctional, or maladaptiveperfectionism that is fuelled by threats to the child’s ego and concerns about his orher self-esteem. In support of Flett and Hewitt (2002), this study shows that per-ceptions of a more pronounced endorsement by parents of ego conceptions of sportsuccess than task conceptions (i.e., the case for members of Clusters 1 and 2, Ego-involving Structured Environment and High Ability Focused, Fexible Environments,respectively) compared to perceptions of a strong task goal endorsement and lowego goal endorsement (i.e., Cluster 3, Task-Involving, Flexible Environment) wereassociated with greater concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, a tendency toendorse ego goals and lower levels of self-determination in children.

In terms of perfectionistic tendencies, a comparison of the z scores acrossthe four cluster groups suggests that Clusters 1, 2, 3, and 4 exhibit variousdegrees of perfectionistic tendencies (i.e., low, moderate to high concerns overmistakes, doubts about actions, and personal standards). The observed discrepantpatterns of perfectionistic tendencies, and associated motivational characteristics,expressed by the four cluster groups are aligned with Stumpf and Parker’s (2000)contention that perfectionism can span from high/positive versus low/negative levelsof functionality. The results also support Flett and Hewitt’s (2002) argument thatvarious combinations of parenting variables contribute to subtle yet meaningfuldifferences among perfectionists. It is plausible that by considering the multidimen-sional complexity of significant social environments and how these are linked to

784 McArdle and Duda

variation in perfectionistic tendencies as well as motivational processes, some of thecurrent discrepancies in the literature with regards to social–contextual correlatesof perfectionism may be clarified.

Although athletes in Clusters 2 and 4 perceived similarly high levels of parentalexpectations, their family environments were different in many respects. Athletesin the High Ability Focused, Flexible Environment (Cluster 2) perceived a parentalemphasis on both personal mastery and normative success criteria while thoseathletes in the Punitive, Structured Environment (Cluster 4) perceived very littleemphasis on task or ego conceptions of sport success. Further, athletes in Cluster 2perceived their home environments as relatively flexible and moderately criticalwhereas athletes in Cluster 4 perceived their family environment as relativelyrigid and marked by criticism. It is perhaps these differences that have particularrelevance for indices of adaptive functioning other than the evaluative concernsmost tied to perfectionism in previous research (Frost et al., 1990; Parker, 1997;Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). Albeit similar in their concerns over mistakes and doubtsabout actions, adolescents in Cluster 4 reported higher levels of amotivation andlower levels of intrinsic motivation and task goal orientation than youth in Cluster2. This supports Greenspon’s (2000) contention that in addition to individualdifferences in perfectionism, examining other indicators of adaptive/maladaptivefunctioning can highlight the importance of various social–contextual influences forthe development of the child.

Future Directions

The findings from this study are largely exploratory and as such future researchshould explore the generalizability of the current results to populations other thantalented athletes. Also with respect to the generalizability of the results, it isimportant to note that the present sample, on the whole, possessed high ability andwere invested in the achievement domain in question. Although it is often assumedthat “talented” or “gifted” individuals are more perfectionistic, the evidence forthis is mainly anecdotal rather than empirical (Parker & Adkins, 1994). It would beinteresting to examine the significant social contextual correlates of perfectionistictendencies among youngsters who vary in their competence and/or investment indifferent achievement settings.

As was the case in the present study, the literature has been limited by thereliance on self-reported measures of possible social contextual influences. Previousresearch has shown that children’s perceptions of their parents’ behaviors areassociated with objective measures to nearly the same degree as parents’ self-reports(Gonzales, Cauce, & Mason, 1996; Schwartz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985).This does not, however, dismiss the possibility that children’s reports of parentalattitudes and parent–child interactions may be biased. Alternative measures ofparenting variables (e.g., obtaining parents’ reports, observations of parent–childinteractions) other than self-report should be taken into consideration in subsequentwork.

It is suggested by Flett and Hewitt (2002) that, although the environmentplays a role in the development of perfectionistic tendencies in the child, individual

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 785

dispositional differences must also be taken into account. The failure to considerbidirectional person-situation influences is a shortcoming of the current investiga-tion and numerous other studies employing cross-sectional designs. In terms of suchpotential influences, it is likely that the child’s internalization of parents’ values,expectancies, and behaviors as well as his or her motivation, temperament, and self-socialization processes will impact how the child sees his/her parental environment(Flett & Hewitt, 2002). To this end, via longitudinal designs, future research shouldconsider exploring the nature and direction of parent–child interactions in regard tochildren’s perfectionistic tendencies and motivational characteristics.

To date, no research has examined the potential implications of other criticaldomains outside the home for the development of adaptive or maladaptive per-fectionistic tendencies. Although the family milieu is believed to exert a stronginfluence on the social psychological development the child, contemporary social-ization research stresses the importance of examining the potential effect of othersocial agents such as siblings, peer groups, teachers, and coaches (Bronfenbrenner& Morris, 1998).

In sum, the findings from this study highlight the importance of examining thesocial–contextual correlates of perfectionism from a multidimensional perspective.Specifically, the results suggest that differential patterns of perceived parentalvalues, practices, and attitudes may play a role in fostering differential perfec-tionistic tendencies, perspectives on achievement, and reasons for engagement inachievement activities in children. Drawing from the current findings, it wouldseem that exposure to parental environments where self-mastery is encouragedand moderate expectations are expressed in a flexible and accepting manner maycorrespond to more positive achievement striving and greater self-determinationamong talented and invested youth. Conversely, parental environments with astrong focus on ego-oriented construals of achievement or those in which neitherthe demonstration personal mastery nor superiority is rewarded but high standardsare held and criticism prevails may be a deterrent to the optimal development andachievement striving of the child.

REFERENCES

Ablard, K. E., & Parker, W. D. (1997). Parents’ achievement goals and perfectionism in their academi-cally talented children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 651–667.

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. California: Sage.Barrow, J. C., & Moore, C. A. (1983). Group interventions with perfectionistic thinking. Personnel and

Guidance Journal, 61, 612–615.Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-orientated approach in research on developmental

psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression.

American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020.Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon &

R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (5thed., Vol. 1, pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: AcademicPress.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological

Bulletin, 113, 487–496.

786 McArdle and Duda

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. InR. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38,pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning andachievement. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation (pp. 9–36).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Duda, J. L. (1989). The relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived pur-pose of sport among male and female high school athletes. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 11, 318–335.

Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying somemisunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129–182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J. L., & Hom, H. L. (1993). The interrelationships between children’s and parent’s goalorientations in sport. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 234–241.

Duda, J. L., & Kim, M. S. (1997). Perceptions of the motivational climate, psychological characteristicsand attitudes toward eating among young female gymnasts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-ogy, 19 (Suppl.), S132.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Dykman B. M. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 139–158.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg(Eds.), Social, emotional and personality development: Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

Ewing, M. E., & Seefeldt, V. (1996). Patterns of participation and attrition in American agency sponsoredyouth sports. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocialperspective (pp. 31–45). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment. New York: AmericanPsychological Association.

Frost, R. O., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1991). The development of perfectionism: A study ofdaughters and their parents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 15, 245–261.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–478.

Givvin, K. B. (2001). Goal orientations of adolescents, coaches, and parents: Is there a convergence ofbeliefs? Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 227–247.

Goldstein, M., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2000). Perceptions of the family, delinquency, and emotionaladjustment among youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1169–1178.

Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Interobserver agreement in the assessmentof parental behavior and parent–adolescent conflict: African American mothers, daughters, andindependent observers. Child Development, 67, 1483–1498.

Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. Aquantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322–340.

Greenspon, T. S. (2000). “Healthy perfectionism” is an oxymoron! Reflection on the psychology ofperfectionism and the sociology of science. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 197–208.

Greenspon, T. S., Parker, W. D., & Schuler, P. A. (2000). The authors’ dialogue. The Journal of SecondaryGifted Education, 11, 209–214.

Grotevant, H. D. (1998). Adolescent development in family concepts. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg(Eds.), Social, emotional and personality development, Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1097–1149). New York: Wiley.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed. ).New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hall, H. K., & Kerr, A. W. (1997). Motivational antecedents of precompetitive anxiety in youth sport.The Sport Psychologist, 11, 24–42.

Hamachek, D. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.Harter, S. (1998). The development of self representations. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 553–617). New York: Wiley.

Parental Influence, Perfectionism, and Motivation 787

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(3), 456–470.

Keselman, H. J., Huberty, C. J., Lix, L. M., Olejnik, S., Cribble, R. A., Donahue, B., et al. (1998).Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, andANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350–386.

Magnussun, D. (1995). Individual development: A holistic integrated model. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder,& K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development(pp. 19–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McCranie, E. W., & Bass, J. D. (1984). Childhood family antecedents of dependency and self-criticism:Implication for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 3–8.

Mills, J. S., & Blankstein, K. R. (2000). Perfectionism, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, and motivatedstrategies for learning: A multidimensional analysis of university students. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 29, 1191–1204.

Newton, M., & Duda, J. L. (1999). The interaction of motivational climate, dispositional goal orien-tations, and perceived ability in predicting indices of motivation. International Journal of SportPsychology, 30, 63–82.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjective experience, masterychoice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Motivational clusters in a sample of British physical education classes. Psychologyof Sport and Exercise, 3, 177–194.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22,

144–167.Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. Q. (1982). FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation

scales. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children.

American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545–562.Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1994). Perfectionism and the gifted. Roeper Review, 17(3), 173–176.Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995).

Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: Thesport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53.

Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Preusser, K. J. (1996). Perfectionism, relationships with parents, and selfesteem. Individual Psychology, 52, 246–260.

Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of CounsellingPsychology, 47, 238–250.

Roberts, G. C. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in physical activity: The influence ofachievement goals on motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation insport and exercise (pp. 1–50). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Hall, H. K. (1994). Parental goal orientations and beliefs about thecompetitive-sport experience of their child. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 631–645.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: Atheory of internalization and self regulation. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievementand motivation (pp. 167–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, E. L., & Deci, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,11, 183–196.

Schwartz, J., Barton-Henry, M., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing childrearing behaviors: A comparisonof ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 67, 2166–2182.

Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relationto other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837–852.

Teevan, R. C. (1983). Childhood development of fear of failure motivation: A replication. PsychologicalReports, 53, 506.

Teevan, R. C., & McGhee, P. E. (1972). Childhood development and fear of failure motivation. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 345–348.

Veith, A. Z., & Trull, T. J. (1999). Family patterns of perfectionism: An examination of college studentsand their parents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72(1), 49–67.

788 McArdle and Duda

Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus: OhioPsychology Press.

Weiss, W. M., & Weiss, M. R. (2003). Attraction- and entrapment-based commitment among competitivefemale gymnasts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 229–247.

White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and perceptions of the motivational climate initiated by parents.Pediatric Exercise Science, 8, 122–129.