Elite junior performers in sport and performing art are at increased risk for poor functioning and ill-being compared to the average population, due to the unique requirements associated with reaching excellence (Hill A. et al., 2016; Mainwaring and Finney, 2017; Drew et al., 2018). This urges scholars to address risk factors (e.g., traits and conditions) to better safeguard talent development environments (TDEs). Perfectionism is such a trait risk factor found to be more common in elite performers (Dunn et al., 2012). Particularly, perfectionistic concerns (PC) are considered a vulnerability factor associated with higher levels of controlled motivation (i.e., extrinsically regulated behavior) and performance anxiety (Stoeber et al., 2007; Hill A.P. et al., 2016; Patston and Osborne, 2016). To understand why and under what circumstances elite junior performers reporting PC are at risk of experiencing controlled motivation and performance anxiety, we applied the conceptual framework of self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2017). Specifically, we wanted to examine the potential roles of controlling teaching/coaching conditions and basic psychological need frustration (i.e., need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness) as explaining mechanisms.

Perfectionism is a trait defined as the desire to reach very high standards accompanied by overly self-critical evaluations (Frost et al., 1990; Hill, 2016). Perfectionistic concerns (PC), a sub-dimension of perfectionism, are characterized by combinations of concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and fear of negative social evaluation, regardless of achievements (Hill, 2016). Paradoxically, PC energize a strong motivational force to strive (i.e., focus, persistence, and discipline), yet, the rigid over-striving attitude, directed toward seeking approval, avoiding mistakes, and maintaining self-worth, also facilitates debilitative patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (DiBartolo et al., 2004; Appleton and Curran, 2016; Patston and Osborne, 2016). Indeed, research evidence concerning PC shows consistent positive associations with a range of maladaptive outcomes, such as controlled motivation, performance anxiety, and achievement challenges (Gotwals et al., 2012; Hill A.P. et al., 2016).

Performance anxiety is defined as experienced stress before and during performance, often because of an apparent imbalance between situational demands and the perceived competence to counter the requests (Lazarus, 2000; Correia and Rosado, 2018). Performance anxiety comprises cognitive anxiety (i.e., negative self-talk, catastrophizing), somatic anxiety (i.e., increased heart rate, muscle tension), and self-confidence (i.e., doubts in one’s abilities; Cox and Russell, 1999). TDEs are likely to be stressful (e.g., high expectations, social evaluation, and deselection), generally nurturing performance anxiety in both elite and elite junior performers (Patston and Osborne, 2016). Furthermore, there is support for a positive relation between PC and performance anxiety, and high levels of PC have been associated with higher risk of developing performance anxiety (Patston and Osborne, 2016). When displaying high levels of PC, the tendency to feel inadequate and self-critical constantly threatens the balance between demands and perceived competence. Moreover, PC seem to affect the cognitive dimension of anxiety most strongly (Miller and Chesky, 2004; Walker and Nordin-Bates, 2010). The accompanying doubt, worry, and negative self-talk that follows PC when facing risk of failure, have been found to activate stress and avoidance coping strategies (Lazarus, 2000; Hill A.P. et al., 2016). Hence, performers with PC seem to lack growth-seeking and proactive behavior when confronted with stress, thereby being even more vulnerable when participating in TDEs (Stoeber and Eismann, 2007; Hill A.P. et al., 2016).

Although the relationship between PC and performance anxiety is well documented, the explanatory mechanisms involved have been understudied (Boone et al., 2014). Given that PC is considered a general vulnerability factor for a broad range of maladaptive outcomes (e.g., controlled motivation, performance anxiety, and burnout: Hill A.P. et al., 2016), focusing on more broad dynamics involved in PC might help extend the perfectionism literature. Hence, this study is building on previous studies applying the general theoretical framework of SDT (Boone et al., 2014; Jowett et al., 2016) and testing some core motivational concepts (controlling conditions and basic psychological needs) as explanations of why and when debilitative processes occur (Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013; Ryan and Deci, 2017).

A central tenet of SDT is that the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, nurtures psychological growth and well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Conversely, need frustration underpins a range of malfunctioning and ill-being constructs (Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013; Haerens et al., 2015; Ryan and Deci, 2017). These needs are competence (feeling mastery when interacting with one’s environment), autonomy (experiencing volition, and acting in accordance with one’s true self), and relatedness (experiencing a mutual connectedness with others; Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013). When experiencing need frustration, the needs would manifest in feelings of inferiority and failure (competence need frustration), pressure and manipulation (autonomy need frustration), and distance and isolation (relatedness need frustration; Haerens et al., 2015).

A recent meta-analysis found that PC were consistently associated with need frustration (Hill and Curran, 2016). Given the ultimate goal of demonstrating outstanding performance, and the competitive nature of TDEs, failure seems at least as likely an outcome as success for elite junior performers. Hence, the need for competence seems to be especially at risk of not being satisfied in TDEs. When displaying PC, one’s competence evaluation is often biased (Shafran et al., 2002); self-critical and harsh when faced with failure, and underestimated and re-evaluated when faced with success. In addition, PC are associated with a lack of reactivity patterns to cope with adversity (Flett and Hewitt, 2016). Hence, frustration of competence might be the outcome, independently of any objectively achieved results. PC are also associated with rigid and controlled behavior regulations (i.e., “must,” “have to,” and “should”), which might be out of line with autonomous and creative functioning (Hall, 2016; Hill, 2016). Lastly, PC are associated with obsessiveness, social comparisons, and interpersonal inflexibility (indicative of frustration of the need for relatedness), underpinned by a narrow-minded and competitive dedication (Boone et al., 2014; Hall, 2016). As such, frustration of the three basic psychological needs seems likely to be nurtured by PC.

The negative consequences of long-term need frustration are evident in prior SDT-based studies, associated with low quality of motivation (e.g., controlled motivation) and various forms of malfunction and ill-being (Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013; Haerens et al., 2015; Bartholomew et al., 2018). For example, in a study focusing on resilience processes after experienced need frustration, restoration was nurtured by autonomous functioning and moderated by perceived competence (Radel et al., 2013). In light of the characteristics of PC, a proactive ability to engage in resilience processes and restore the basic needs when frustrated seems to be lacking when experiencing high levels of PC (Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013; Hill A.P. et al., 2016).

To date, some evidence of positive associations between PC and need frustration has been found (Hill A.P. et al., 2016). Recent studies have shown that PC, through general need frustration, were indirectly linked to symptoms of burnout (Jowett et al., 2016) and binge eating (Boone et al., 2014). Despite studies having successfully examined relations between the need for competence and motivation, performance, and well-being (Fransen et al., 2018a,b), no studies, to our knowledge, have focused on the indirect links between PC and such outcomes through each need separately. In addition, no study has tested whether such indirect associations are conditional on specific environmental aspects, such as controlling teaching/coaching style.

An important area of inquiry, suggested to extend perfectionism research (Appleton and Curran, 2016), is factors that contribute to explain the development of perfectionism (e.g., the social environment). The pressure of being perfect is proposed to originate from exposure to psychological control (e.g., manipulation through expectations, criticism, and conditional love) imposed by social agents, such as parents (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010). Thus, perfectionistic behaviors seem to compensate for internal feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and low self-worth by seeking external approval and acceptance (Eusanio et al., 2014; Flett and Hewitt, 2016). The same contingent mechanisms and patterns underlying the child-parent relationship, might be extended and re-visited in adolescence in interpersonal relationships developing in TDEs, such as those with teachers and coaches (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010). Research from sport psychology has found that social agents using psychological control seem particularly important in the development of the PC aspects of perfectionism that are linked to conditional and unstable self-worth (i.e., fear of negative social evaluation and concern of mistakes; Appleton and Curran, 2016; Hill, 2016).

In the SDT-based literature, controlling teaching/coaching style is characterized by the use of conditional regard, meaning that approval and acceptance are given only when students behave or live up to the expected and preconceived standards of emotions, cognitions, and behavior (Reeve, 2009; Assor et al., 2014; Bartholomew et al., 2018). Such controlling teaching/coaching may be represented by humiliation, yelling, critique, or punishment, which have been found to nurture external motivational regulations (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010; De Meyer et al., 2016). The experience of pressure and control might also work indirectly via attention withdrawal or showing disappointment, which in turn, may create guilt, shame, self-criticism, and anxiety (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010; Bartholomew et al., 2018). These experiences are likely to generate introjected motivational regulations that control the way of thinking and acting from inside the person (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2010). It is worth noting that both introjected and external motivational regulations are characterized as controlled motivation within the SDT-based literature. They are associated with less engagement and persistence, and with the lack of proactive coping strategies (Mouratidis and Michou, 2011; Ryan and Deci, 2017). Hence, controlled motivation is likely to be negative for elite performance (Soenens et al., 2012). PC performers are likely to experience the teaching/coaching style with a biased mindset (Shafran et al., 2002; Nordin-Bates et al., 2014), monitoring for critical feedback, lack of attention, and other signs of imperfection or disapproval. Hence, performers reporting higher levels of PC might be more susceptible to the development of controlled motivation and associated outcomes (e.g., performance anxiety) in highly controlling teaching/coaching conditions (Haerens et al., 2015; Appleton and Curran, 2016).

Despite the empirical evidence in relation to controlling teaching/coaching behaviors, such a teaching/coaching style still appears to be a common phenomenon in TDEs (Reeve, 2009; De Meyer et al., 2016; Bartholomew et al., 2018). Research has also indicated that controlling conditions are likely to be found within experience-based and top-down apprenticeship cultures (e.g., arts and sports), in which the teachers/coaches are seen as authority figures (i.e., former top performers) and, in some cases, gatekeepers who are holding significant power over their students/athletes (Lakes, 2005; Nash and Collins, 2006; Burwell, 2013). Few studies, however, have investigated the role of controlling conditions within TDE’s including elite junior performers of these performance domains.

Based on the research reviewed and SDT-based tenets, the present study tested the following hypotheses (see also Figure 1):

The purpose of this study was to examine why and under what circumstances perfectionistic concerns (PC) were associated with controlled motivation and performance anxiety in a sample of elite junior performers. We aimed to test the roles of controlling conditions and need frustration as explanatory mechanisms. In general, the results showed that the typical Norwegian elite junior performer experienced adaptive and well-functioning motivational processes. However, the results supported the vulnerability hypothesis of PC as a variable related to debilitative motivational processes. Furthermore, the current study tested and found support for the role of competence need frustration (CNF) as the key intervening variable between PC and the outcomes of (a) introjected motivation, (b) external motivation, and (c) performance anxiety. In addition, controlling teaching/coaching conditions were a moderator as the debilitative motivational processes tested in the three models were more evident among those reporting higher levels of controlling teaching/coaching conditions. Implications of these findings are discussed below and structured in line with the three hypotheses.

Framed within SDT, the present study examined the motivational signature of PC in a sample of Norwegian elite junior performers from sport and arts. The results indicated that displaying high levels of PC might expose elite junior performers to higher risks of experiencing debilitative motivational processes. Specifically, they appear more likely to develop controlled motivation and experience performance anxiety through competence need frustration (CNF). Furthermore, the findings indicated that these experiences were conditional on varying levels of reported controlling teaching/coaching conditions. Hence, the indirect associations on controlled motivation and performance anxiety via CNF was more evident in performers reporting mean and higher levels of controlling teaching/coaching conditions. In contrast, there were no indirect associations via CNF for those performers who reported low levels of controlling conditions. Overall, these findings support key tenets of SDT and implies that coaches/teachers of elite junior performers might play a key role in preventing CNF and experiences of debilitative motivational processes through avoiding the misuse of a controlling teaching/coaching style.

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Norwegian Center for Research Data. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by Marianne Høgetveit Myhren and Eva J. B. Payne. Participants voluntarily consented to participate after receiving oral and/or written information about the study. All data are anonymous and ethical procedures for storage of data are followed.

HMH has been the main contributing researcher in this study. HMH, HH, BS, FA, and SN-B conceived and designed the study, drafted the work and revised the content, and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed the research quality. HMH, HH, and BS analyzed the data.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.