RIESGO OPERACIONAL

The friendship conflict subscale from the SFQS (Weiss & Smith, 1999) was used to measure participants’ perceptions of unconstructive relationships with their best friend in sport. The properties of this measure are outlined in chapter two.

5.4.3.7 Intentions to drop out

Intentions to drop out were measured using the same four items outlined in chapter three. All instruments used in this study are displayed in Appendix C.

5.5 Results

5.5.1 Preliminary analysis

Missing value analysis identified 130 complete cases and 122 cases with missing data. Participants with item non-response exceeding 5% were removed (n = 15). This follows the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). The remaining participants with missing data (n = 107) had item non-response in the range of 1-5 items (M = 1.86, SD = .09). Missing data patterns relative to the number of participants with missing data revealed a high ratio of .80. As such, missing values were replaced using the mean of the non-missing items from the subscale in each individual case (see Graham et al., 2003).

In accordance with Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), there were 15 univariate outliers (standardised z-scores for subscales larger than 3.29, p < .001, two-tailed), which were removed. There were no multivariate outliers (Mahalanobis distance: χ2

(10) = 29.59, p < .001). The sample for the main statistical analysis comprised 222

participants (n = 17 males, n = 205 females, M age = 13.62, SD = 1.14, range = 11 to 16 years). To examine if there were any differences between genders and ages (early adolescence, 11 to 14 years and late adolescence, 15 to 16 years) for this sample, two separate Box’s M tests were conducted. The covariance matrix was homogenous across gender, Box’s M (55, 32038.40) = 81.04 (p > .001) and age, Box’s M (55, 2500.97) = 86.40 (p > .001) and so the remaining analyses were conducted without controlling for either gender or age. Internal reliability was adequate for all

measures (see Table 5.1).

5.5.2 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients

Descriptive statistics for all predictor, moderating, and criterion variables are displayed in Table 5.1. Bivariate correlation coefficients demonstrated that personal standards perfectionism had small positive correlations with a coach and peer task- involving climate, peer ego-involving climate, and anxiety. It had a medium positive correlation with enjoyment and small inverse correlation with intentions to drop out. Personal standards perfectionism was also unrelated to a coach ego-involving climate and friendship conflict. Evaluative concerns perfectionism had small positive correlations with a coach ego-involving climate and friendship conflict. It had a medium positive correlation with a peer ego-involving climate and a large

positive correlation with anxiety. Evaluative concerns perfectionism was also unrelated to a coach or peer task-involving climate, enjoyment, and intentions to drop out.

- 166 -

Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients between variables (n = 222)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. PSP 2.81 .75 .80 2. ECP 4.89 1.41 .64** .89 3. CoachTask 4.01 .73 .13* -.06 .85 4. CoachEgo 2.20 .83 .04 .20** -.45** .79 5. PeerTask 5.26 1.04 .18** -.07 .54** -.38** .91 6. PeerEgo 3.45 1.09 .25** .42** -.19** .35** -.21** .81 7. ENJOY 5.85 .83 .30** .-05 .45** -.35** .49** -.20** .74 8. ANX 2.05 .57 .24** .58** -.07 .32** -.14* .30** -.20** .90 9. CONa 1.41 .66 .10 .21** -.20** .21** -.09 .33** -.15* .25** .78 10. DROP 1.38 .65 -.21** .01 -.26** .15* -.24** .06 -.53** .16* .06 .83

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; internal reliability alpha coefficients are shown on the diagonal; PSP = personal standards perfectionism; ECP = evaluative concerns perfectionism; CoachTask = task-involving coach climate; CoachEgo = ego-involving coach climate; PeerTask = task- involving peer climate; PeerEgo = ego-involving peer climate; ENJOY = enjoyment; ANX = sport anxiety; CON = friendship conflict; DROP = intentions to drop out; a There were four less respondents for friendship conflict (n = 218). Values presented for personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism are derived from raw scores.

5.5.3 Test of the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism

As with the two previous quantitative tests of the hypotheses of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism in this thesis, the procedure followed was based on guidelines outlined by Gaudreau and colleagues (Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). A separate moderated hierarchical regression was conducted for enjoyment, anxiety, friendship conflict, and intentions to drop out. In the first step, personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism were entered. The interaction term for personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism was entered in step two. Following non-significant

interaction effects for all the criterion variables examined (see Table 5.2), the main effects were used to calculate and compare predicted values for each criterion variable across the four subtypes of perfectionism and test the model’s hypotheses (see Gaudreau, 2012).

- 168 -

Table 5.2 Main effect models for each criterion variable (n = 222)

F df R2 _{PSP ECP}

β / B (t) Enjoyment (main effect model)

Step 1 25.22** (2, 219) .19 .56** / .47 (7.06) -.41** / -.19 (-5.12)

Anxiety (main effect model)

Step 1 62.23** (2, 219) .36 -.21**/ -.12 (-3.04) .72** / .23 (10.20)

Friendship conflict (main effect model)

Step 1 4.95** (2, 215)a .04 -.06 / -.04 (-.71) .24** / .09 (2.81)

Intentions to drop out (main effect model)

Step 1 9.58** (2, 219) .08 -.37** / -.24 (-4.37) .25** / .09 (2.93)

Note. **p < .01; PSP = personal standards perfectionism; ECP = evaluative concerns perfectionism. a There were four less respondents for friendship conflict.

5.5.3.1 Enjoyment

In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism was a non-significant predictor of enjoyment (B = .01, β =.03, t = .42, p = .68). The main effects model indicated that personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in enjoyment. Personal standards perfectionism was a significant positive predictor. Evaluative concerns perfectionism was a significant negative predictor. Predicted values for enjoyment were 5.72 for non-perfectionism, 6.66 for pure personal standards perfectionism, 5.04 for pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, and 5.98 for mixed perfectionism. Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for hypotheses 1a (pure personal standards perfectionism will be associated with better outcomes than non- perfectionism; d = 1.13), 2 (pure evaluative concerns perfectionism will be

associated with worse outcomes than non-perfectionism; d = -.81), 3 (pure evaluative concerns perfectionism will be associated with worse outcomes than mixed perfectionism; d = -1.13), and 4 (pure personal standards perfectionism will be associated with better outcomes than mixed perfectionism; d = .81).

5.5.3.2 Sport anxiety

In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism was a non-significant predictor of anxiety (B = .02, β =.06, t = 1.11, p = .27). The main effects model indicated that personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in anxiety. Personal standards

perfectionism was a significant negative predictor. Evaluative concerns

perfectionism was a significant positive predictor. Predicted values for anxiety were 1.76 for non-perfectionism, 1.51 for pure personal standards perfectionism, 2.58 for pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, and 2.33 for mixed perfectionism. Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for hypotheses 1a (d = -.43), 2 (d = 1.44), 3 (d = .43), and 4 (d = -1.44).

5.5.3.3 Friendship conflict

In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism was a non-significant predictor

of friendship conflict (B = .01, β =.03, t = .36, p = .72). The main effects model indicated that personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns

perfectionism accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in friendship conflict. Personal standards perfectionism was a non-significant predictor. Evaluative concerns perfectionism was a significant positive predictor. Predicted values for friendship conflict were 1.29 for non-perfectionism, 1.21 for pure personal standards perfectionism, 1.61 for pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, and 1.53 for mixed perfectionism. Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for hypotheses 2 (d = .49) and 4 (d = -.49) but not 1a (d = -.12) or 3 (d = .12).

5.5.3.4 Intentions to drop out

In the interaction effect model, the interactive term between personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism was a non-significant predictor of intentions to drop out (B = -.03, β = -.08, t = -1.19, p = .23). The main effects model indicated that personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in friendship conflict. Personal standards perfectionism was a significant negative predictor. Evaluative concerns perfectionism was a significant positive predictor. Predicted values for intentions to drop out were 1.46 for non-perfectionism, .98 for pure personal standards perfectionism, 1.78 for pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, and 1.30 for mixed perfectionism. Based on Gaudreau’s (2012) heuristic, this provided support for hypotheses 1a (d = -.74), 2 (d = .49), 3 (d = .74), and 4 (d = - .49).