As presented in Chapter 3, a range of behaviours along with FF were identified as being either adaptive or maladaptive, dependent upon context. Other such dual-effect behaviours included passion, perfectionism, and over-commitment, with each of these areas having received considerable research focus (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Hetland et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011; Vallerand et al., 2006). Given – by definition – the
maladaptive aspect of each of these dual effect constructs, their effective management is crucial for effective talent development to occur. However, due to the nature of the analysis used within the Chapter 3 study, such behaviours were categorised based on the reporting coaches’ own interpretations and associations with the given constructs. For
example, a coach may have attributed a certain set of behaviours to perfectionism, without necessarily being aware of the true underpinning motives. Such a consideration raises the issue of behavioural similarity between these dual effect constructs,
potentially obfuscating effective case formulation. As such, this also warrants further investigation.
A growing body of research has both proposed a significant overlap and established a significant correlation between the associated dimensions of FF and perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns; Stoeber & Otto, 2006), with both constructs considering the evaluative role of others, the impact of shame and embarrassment and issues around self-worth (Conroy, Kaye, & Fifer, 2007; Kaye, Conroy, & Fifer, 2008; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009; Stoeber & Becker, 2008). Not only this, but both constructs are subject to intergenerational transmission and parental influence (Gustafsson et al., 2015; Sagar & Lavallee, 2010; Soenens et al., 2005), are mitigated through effective self-regulation (Rudolph, Flett, & Hewitt, 2007; Stoeber & Yang, 2010), and are deemed adaptive (in the context of effective development) as the result of a maximum effort-type behaviour. Despite such stark parallels, however, it is apparent that the supporting evidence has concentrated very much on the what and the
how of this association, but has perhaps failed to adequately address arguably the most
pertinent question of all; namely, why? Why do perfectionists behave the way they do? The answer to such a question would likely be established through a qualitative investigation of athletes demonstrating high levels of perfectionism, and despite such a study being beyond the scope of this thesis, it would be a pertinent line of enquiry. However, drawing on the similarities and already-established relationships between FF and perfectionism, viewing perfectionism through the lens of FF may offer some explicative power. For example, perfectionism can be viewed as a form of
be subject to a threat appraisal mechanism in much the same way as FF. Often
considered as predominantly maladaptive, perfectionistic concerns can be defined as the pursuit of exacting standards imposed by significant others, perceived negative
evaluation from others, and a discrepancy between expectation and one’s performance (Jowett, Hill, Hall, & Curran, 2016). Consequently, external pressures to perform to exceedingly high standards, along with the perceived aversive consequences to not meeting these standards (in itself a form of failure) are, following a threat appraisal process, likely to result in maximum effort-type behaviours in order to increase the likelihood of meeting these standards (e.g., Hill & Curran, 2015).
Conversely, perfectionistic strivings, recognised as potentially more adaptive than perfectionistic concerns, emanate internally as opposed to the external nature of its more maladaptive counterpart. As the pursuit of self-imposed goals and standards, accompanied by harsh self-criticism (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000; Jowett et al., 2016), adaptive behaviours associated with
perfectionistic strivings may be based around the internalisation of an activity in one’s identity – much in the same way as obsessive passion (Donahue et al., 2009; Vallerand et al., 2003) – and therefore predicated on the avoidance of threat to the individual’s identity and self-worth. Given the perfectionist’s propensity for “rigid and irrational thinking patterns” (Hill, 2016, p. 16), the deployment of such excessive, persistent, and intense behaviours as a result of a perceived threat makes intuitive sense. Accordingly, perceived threats across the multiple dimensions identified by Conroy and colleagues earlier (see section 5.2) in relation to FF could well offer an efficacious and
5.6 Conclusion
Within the field of talent development, there is a need to not only understand the impact of positive behavioural characteristics, but also those that may inhibit
development. As one such construct, FF has only recently received attention within sport, and presents an opportunity to seek to improve talent development processes through its effective management. By better understanding the mechanisms by which FF impacts upon the developmental interaction between the athlete and their
environment, three key areas for impact have been identified whereby the coaches, psychologists, and development systems can potentially enhance the adaptive aspects and mitigate the maladaptive ones. These areas for impact are: the screening of athletes for FF to facilitate individualised interventions; the promotion of self-regulatory
strategies targeted around the threat appraisal process; and adopting a PJDM approach to applying aversive consequences to failure, balancing the development of coping strategies for high pressure environments, without compromising developmental interaction. By addressing these key areas, when faced with perceived threats, athletes will be less likely to adopt avoidance-type strategies in a bid to survive within their environment, and will instead learn to embrace the challenges posed; ultimately thriving.
In line with the need for screening, there is an obvious need for an appropriate and valid screening tool, much like the PFAI, but targeted specifically at talent
development across the whole pathway (i.e., developing athletes aged 9-21 years). Given the interpersonal component of FF, further research is also recommended around the roles of the different personnel commonly found within talent development
environments, paying particular attention to coaches, peers and support staff. This would allow practitioners to better target interventions relating to important others and
social evaluations. Similarly, additional research around the impact of aversive consequences readily associated with talent development processes is suggested,
especially on those with high levels of FF, as this would aid the strategic introduction of challenge. Finally, examination in to the qualitative aspects of dual effect
characteristics such as perfectionism and obsessive passion would yield explicative power as to their relationships with FF.