Relationships between shame-coping, fear of failure, and perfectionism in college athletes.
Elison, Jeff ; Partridge, Julie A.
Shame is one of many emotions that can result from an athletic
performance. The public nature of sport and the salience of competitive
outcomes can cause strong emotional reactions for athletes. Although
many of these emotions, such as joy and pride, are positive, many are
not, such as anger and shame. In the emotion literature, shame and its
variants (e.g., embarrassment, humiliation) are typically conceptualized
as a basic emotion family whose antecedent is the perceived experience
of being seen by others as something "less than" how we would
like to be seen (i.e., devaluation; Elison, 2005; Partridge &
Elison, 2009). The social experience of shame is central to its
occurrence. Thus, it is critical that research should explore the
relationships among shame and other socially based constructs in sport.
To date, limited research in sport contexts has identified the issue of
shame as an emotional response to participation (Crossman, Gluck, &
Jamieson, 1995; Lewthwaite & Scanlan, 1989; Ruiz & Hanin, 2004),
therefore shame as a precipitating factor in behavioral outcomes in
sport has yet to be fully explored (Partridge & Elison, 2009).
Shame-coping
From an evolutionary perspective, humans are social beings that
rely on the benefits provided by living in groups; thus, social
inclusion is necessary for survival (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Parker, 1998). Shame functions as a warning signal to indicate the
threat of social exclusion. It signals that one's status within a
social hierarchy has been threatened, and in turn, can motivate
damage-limitation strategies (Elison, 2005; Gilbert & McGuire,
1998). These strategies may take numerous forms, and an important aspect
of the experience of the emotion of shame is the way in which one copes
with, or defends against, it. Shame and shame-coping may be adaptive or
maladaptive (Elison, Pulos, & Lennon, 2006). Nathanson (1992)
proposed a model of emotional coping specific to shame: the Compass of
Shame. This model describes four maladaptive shame-focused coping
styles, represented by the poles of the compass and labeled Attack Self,
Withdrawal, Attack Other, and Avoidance. Each coping style is associated
with different motivations, affects, cognitions, behaviors, and
outcomes. The four poles of the Compass of Shame characterize the styles
by which shame is reduced, ignored, or magnified, without addressing its
source. In contrast to these four maladaptive strategies, an adaptive
shame-coping style is to attend to the source of shame and evaluate
whether or not one cares to address it. A shamed athlete might choose to
work on his or her weaknesses, or come to realize that the shame is the
result of unrealistic expectations of others and move forward. Nathanson
takes a trait perspective on these shame-coping styles, viewing them as
relatively stable dispositions exhibiting individual differences.
Given the fact that shame may be adaptive or maladaptive, theorists
(Ferguson & Stegge, 1998; Tangney & Dearing, 2002) have recently
pointed to the need to investigate when and under what conditions shame
leads to one direction or the other. We believe part of the answer lies
in shame-coping styles; different styles lead to different outcomes. For
example, we have all witnessed athletes who have reacted admirably or
poorly to their shame-eliciting mistakes.
At the Withdrawal pole of Nathanson's (1992) Compass of Shame,
the person acknowledges the experience as negative, accepts shame's
message as valid, and tries to withdraw or hide from the situation
(Elison, Pulos, & Lennon, 2006; Nathanson, 1992; Partridge &
Elison, 2009). For example, a basketball player who misses a crucial
free throw might withdraw from other teammates or in the extreme case
quit. Emotions tend to be negative and include shame, sadness, and
anxiety. Cognitions include awareness of one's discomfort with
others (i.e., social anxiety and concern over others' perceptions),
and possibly awareness of faults. However, these negative experiences
may not be identified explicitly as shame; people may simply say they
feel "bad" or "bad about themselves." The motivation
is to limit shameful exposure via the action tendency of withdrawing.
At the Attack Self pole, the person again acknowledges the
experience as negative, accepts shame's message as valid, but in
this case, turns anger inward. For example, the free-throw-missing
basketball player above might feel self-directed rage for being a
"loser." The emotional experience is negative, including
self-directed anger, contempt, or disgust, which magnifies the impact of
shame. Cognitions include awareness of one's shameful actions,
faults, or characteristics. As in Withdrawal, negative feelings and
cognitions may be acknowledged, but may not be identified as shame. The
action tendency is to criticize the self, engage in self-deprecating
remarks, conform, show deference to others, or prevent reoccurrence of
the shameful situation through change. Attack Self is essentially an
intrapunitive response. In contrast to the other poles, Attack Self is
designed primarily to take control of shame with the ultimate goal being
to win acceptance by others. This unique role is of particular
importance in our study.
At the Avoidance pole, the person typically does not acknowledge
the negative experience of self, does not accept shame's message as
valid (i.e., denial, minimization), and attempts to distract the self
and others from the painful feeling. Our basketball player might joke
about missing the free throws or disavow interest in the sport
altogether. Cognitions include little awareness of shame or one's
shameful actions, faults, or characteristics. The motivation is to
minimize the conscious experience of shame or show oneself as being
above shame.
At the Attack Other pole, the person may or may not acknowledge the
negative experience of self, typically does not accept shame's
message of being lacking, and attempts to make someone else feel worse.
For example, our basketball player might tease someone else or
externalize the experience of shame by blaming the crowd for being
distracting. The phenomenological experience is negative; anger is
directed outward, perhaps toward the source of the shaming event. The
cognitive experience is an awareness of someone else's actions or
faults and may or may not involve awareness of shame. The motivation is
to enhance one's own self image and externalize the shame. The
action tendency is to verbally or physically attack someone or something
else in order to make someone else feel inferior.
Elison and colleagues developed the Compass of Shame Scale (CoSS),
a self-report measure, to assess individuals' use of the
shame-coping styles described by Nathanson's (1992) model. We
modified the CoSS to create a sport-specific version, the Compass of
Shame Scale--Sport (CoSS-Sport), for use in this and other studies
(described in the Methods section). Both measures consist of four
subscales: Attack Self, Withdrawal, Attack Other, and Avoidance.
Fear of Failure
Shame has long been conceptualized as a central component of fear
of failure (FoF). Atkinson (1966) defined fear of failure as a
"disposition to avoid failure and/or a capacity for experiencing
shame or humiliation as a consequence of failure" (p. 13). The
connection between shame and fear of failure has been supported in both
non-sport and sport samples. McGregor and Elliot (2005) found a positive
relationship between shame proneness and fear of failure, as well as a
positive relationship between parental shaming and fear of failure.
Specifically, individuals who were higher in fear of failure reported
greater shame than those who were lower in fear of failure. The authors
also found that higher levels of fear of failure increased the
globalization of shame experiences, thus supporting the centrality of
shame in the fear of failure experience.
This shame and fear of failure connection has been identified in
the sport domain as well (Conroy, 2004; Conroy, Willow, & Metzler,
2002). As a motive disposition, individuals exhibit large differences in
the degree to which fear of failure shapes their overall motivation.
Couroy (2001) found that those who fail have the notion they will
experience social isolation, which according to Katz (1999), is a direct
cause for shame. Utilizing the tenets of
cognitive-motivational-relational theory (Lazarus, 1991, 2000), Conroy,
Poczwardowski, and Henschen (2001) explored this concept through
interviews with sixteen elite athletes and performing artists and found
support for the existence of several fear of failure appraisals that are
consistent with shame, such as "demonstrating that I have low
ability" (p. 319) and "experiencing an embarrassing
self-presentational failure" (p. 319).
The five core components to fear of failure have been identified as
(a) experiencing shame and embarrassment, (b) devaluing one's
self-estimate, (c) having an uncertain future, (d) important others
losing interest, and (e) upsetting important others (Conroy et al.,
2002). Furthermore, the fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment is
believed to be at the center of the dysfunctional nature of FoF in sport
(Conroy, 2004), underscoring the significance of these emotions. Many
individuals believe that by failing they are exposing a personal
character flaw (Lazarus, 2000). In a study on sport and exercise
avoidance, Ellis (1994) found that many people avoid exercise because
they are afraid of failing in the public eye; thus, their avoidance is
essentially a shame-coping strategy. For an athlete, the threat of
failing and the associated shame can also elicit feelings of anxiety, in
that they become nervous from a fear of experiencing shame or a threat
to one's self-esteem (Spielberger, 1966).
Perfectionism
Although definitions vary, theorists currently view perfectionism
as a multidimensional construct (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt,
Flett, Tumbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991; Hill, Huelsman, Furr,
Kibler, Vicente, & Kennedy, 2004). At its core are the setting of
unrealistic goals, a self-focus on performance, and self-criticism over
flaws and mistakes. Related tendencies may include high levels of
planning, organization, and striving for excellence--on the adaptive
side--and need for approval and rumination--on the maladaptive side.
Thus, perfectionism has its adaptive and maladaptive aspects. On one
hand, striving for excellence and facilitating its attainment via
careful planning and organization, may lead to success. On the other
hand, concern over mistakes and rumination may cripple or derail
one's motivation. Both adaptive and maladaptive characteristics of
perfectionism have been identified in sport (Stoeber & Becker, 2008;
Stoll, Lau, & Stoeber, 2008).
Tangney (2002) rightfully argues that perfectionism and
self-conscious emotions, such as shame, embarrassment, and guilt are
intertwined because these emotions are often elicited by
self-evaluation, a core component of perfectionism. Perfectionists may
set high standards for themselves or take on high standards set by
others, but in addition, they focus on evaluating themselves against
these standards. Any shortfall is likely to elicit shame or
embarrassment. Hewitt and Flett (1991) found moderate positive
correlations between perfectionism and shame-proneness. Similarly,
Tangney explored the relationships between shame-proneness and
perfectionism in three recent investigations. Focusing on
socially-prescribed perfectionism, a maladaptive dimension, she found
correlations between perfectionism and shame ranging from. 15 to .33.
In the physical domain, Conroy, Kaye, and Fifer (2007) have also
examined the link between perfectionism and fear of failure within a
population of college students enrolled in physical activity classes.
Their findings support the connection between socially prescribed
perfectionism and beliefs that failure will lead to negative
interpersonal consequences such as upsetting important others. Sagar and
Stoeber (2009) also found support for the centrality of the fear of
experiencing shame and embarrassment in the relationship between fear of
failure and perfectionism, as well as a relationship between certain
forms of perfectionism and negative affect following a failure
experience in a sample of college athletes.
These studies, while supportive of the connection between shame and
fear of failure, have not investigated the role of shame-coping, a
factor that we predict should mediate between the experience of shame
and other variables, such as perfectionism. Indeed, Reed (unpublished)
and Webb and Elison (2008) investigated the hypothesis that the four
shame-coping styles described by Nathanson (1992) would be
differentially related to perfectionism. Webb surveyed college students;
Reed surveyed patients being treated for hypersexuality, as well as a
college student control group. In all three samples, strong correlations
between shame-coping and perfectionism were observed (rs > .60).
In the current study, we examined similar variables and their
relationships to coping with a shaming experience. Specifically, the
relationships among perfectionism, fear of failure and the shame-coping
styles described by Nathanson (1992) were explored in a college athlete
sample.
Objectives & Hypotheses
Relationships between Shame-coping, Fear of Failure, and
Perfectionism
Our primary hypotheses involve relationships between the CoSS-Sport
subscales and fear of failure and perfectionism. Elison et al. (Elison,
Lennon, & Pulos, 2006) argue that the CoSS subscales can be ordered
by the degree to which they involve consciousness and internalization of
shame. A related point is because Attack Self is an intrapunitive
response, involving self-directed anger and disgust, Attack Self goes
beyond mere internalization to magnification of shame. Given these
considerations, we predict that with respect to other maladaptive
variables, the magnitude of the CoSS correlations should generally be
ordered from high to low: Attack Self, Withdrawal, Attack Other, and
Avoidance. In other words, in relation to a maladaptive outcome variable
such as depression, we expect Attack Self to demonstrate the largest
correlation and Avoidance the smallest. This order has been observed
with respect to self-esteem (Yelsma, Brown, & Elison, 2002),
psychological symptoms (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006),
perfectionism (Reed, unpublished; Webb & Elison, 2008), and
self-compassion (Price & Elison, 2009). We anticipate the same order
for the CoSS-Sport in relation to the maladaptive subscales of our fear
of failure and perfectionism measures.
As mentioned previously, perfectionism can have adaptive aspects,
including motivating individuals to try harder. Because Attack Self is
the primary shame-coping strategy involving the motivation to be
accepted by others, we predict a positive correlation between it and
perfectionistic "striving for excellence." This result has
been observed in prior studies on perfectionism (Reed, unpublished; Webb
& Elison, 2008). In contrast, Attack Other and Avoidance may
demonstrate negative correlations with striving for excellence; those
who adopt the former style blame others instead of taking responsibility
for their shortcomings; those who adopt the latter, deny those
shortcomings or disavow their goals (Partridge & Elison, 2009).
Sport Type
Partridge and Elison (2009) suggested there might be differences in
how athletes cope with shame based on the type of sport in which they
participate. Perhaps individual sports lead to greater internalization
(Attack Self, Withdrawal) in contrast to team sports, which might lead
to increased externalization (i.e., Attack Other). Avoidance might be
expected in individual sports more so than team sports for a number of
reasons. The most obvious seems to be self-selection bias; avoidant
athletes might be more likely to choose to compete individually. In
addition, team sports may not offer the luxury of disavowing one's
mistakes and shortcomings, as teammates might not let them pass
unnoticed.
Similarly, participants in contact versus non-contact sports might
differ in their use of shame-coping styles. The team vs. individual and
contact vs. non-contact classifications are not independent as there are
few individual contact sports. However, we might expect athletes in
contact sports to show lower levels of Avoidance for another reason;
namely, contact seems to be antithetical to avoidance. Another
conjecture offered by Partridge and Elison (2009) is that participants
in contact sports might be more likely to favor Attack Other coping.
However, this seemingly obvious hypothesis should be tempered by two
observations. First, Attack Other, especially as operationalized in the
CoSS, may be quite passive, involving angry thoughts and fantasies as
opposed to physical confrontation. Second, performance in individual
sports may often be assessed by judges on a relatively subjective basis,
opening the door to externalization of blame.
Finally, we approach fear of failure and perfectionism in an
exploratory fashion, without focused hypotheses with regard to sport
type. On the one hand, mistakes and poor performances by athletes in
individual sports may rest solely on the athlete; however, only the
athlete him or herself is directly affected. In contrast, when an
athlete makes a mistake or has a poor performance in team sports, an
entire team pays the price.
Sex Differences
Differences in use of shame-coping styles between males and females
have been observed in the past (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006).
Women tend to use the internalizing styles of Attack Self and
Withdrawal, so we predict the same for the CoSS-Sport. In contrast, men
tend to favor Avoidance. Although sex differences in use of Attack Other
have been equivocal, in the context of sport, we expect men to use
Attack Other more than women.
Although men and women may differ in their use of shame-coping
styles, it does not necessarily follow that a given style is more
maladaptive for the sex that favors it. Therefore, of more interest than
simple sex differences in use is whether correlations with fear of
failure and perfectionism differ by sex. We approached this issue in an
exploratory fashion without focused hypotheses; however, prior data
(unpublished data from Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006) suggest that
Avoidance may be more maladaptive for males.
In summary, the present study will serve as a test of our
hypotheses regarding the relationships between shame-coping, fear of
failure, and perfectionism, as well as our hypotheses regarding mean
differences based on sex and sport type. As with any study employing a
relatively new measure, data supporting our hypotheses would also
support the validity of the CoSS-Sport, and the CoSS upon which it was
based.
Method
Participants
Our sample consisted of 285 colege athletes (154 men, 54%; 131
women, 46%) with a mean age of 19.8 years (SD = 1.54) from two
universities in the United States, one in the Midwest (148, 52%) and one
in the West (137, 48%). Most participants identified themselves as
Caucasian (182, 64%) or African-American (63, 22%), with the remainder
(40, 14 %) identifying themselves as Other or Multi-ethnic. Table 1
lists the frequencies and percentages of participants who played the
various sports, as well as our classification of the sports as team
versus individual, and contact versus non-contact. Eighty-eight percent
of participants identified themselves as varsity athletes, 10% as club,
and 2% as other. The mean number of years participants had been playing
their sports was 9.01 (SD = 4.20).
Measures
Shame-coping. Participants completed the Compass of Shame
Scale--Sport (CoSS-Sport), a modification of the Compass of Shame Scale
(Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006; Elison, Pulos, & Lennon, 2006).
Elison and colleagues developed the Compass of Shame Scale (CoSS), a
self-report measure, to assess individuals' use of the shame-coping
styles described by Nathanson's (1992) model. The CoSS presents 12
general (i.e., not specific to sport) shame-eliciting scenarios that may
be encountered in daily life. In response to each scenario, participants
respond by indicating the frequency with which they would be likely to
use each of the four Compass of Shame responses. A sample item is:
When an activity makes me feel like my strength or skill is
inferior:
1. I don't let it bother me. (Avoidance)
2. I get mad at myself for not being good enough. (Attack Self)
3. I withdraw from the activity. (Withdrawal)
4. I get irritated with other people. (Attack Other)
The CoSS has been translated into ten languages and employed in a
wide variety of studies. Elison, Lennon, and Pulos (2006) describe the
development and validation of the CoSS. They found that shame-coping
styles are differentially related to psychological symptoms, suggesting
that shame-coping styles may play a mediating role between the
experience of shame and symptoms. Campbell and Elison (2005) also found
that the CoSS subscales differed in the magnitudes of their correlations
with psychopathy, with Attack Other showing the highest correlation.
Yelsma et al. (2002) found Attack Self and Withdrawal to be the CoSS
subscales with the strongest correlations (negative) with self-esteem.
Thus, results have supported the validity of the CoSS, and these
supportive results continue to accumulate.
To assess use of the Compass of Shame coping styles in the domain
of sport, we created the Compass of Shame Scale--Sport (CoSS-Sport) by
modifying the CoSS. The scenarios from the CoSS were replaced with
sport-specific scenarios of a similar nature. For example, the CoSS
scenario regarding unfavorable comparisons to others with regard to
strength or skill was replaced with the CoSS-Sport scenario "In
competitive situations where my strength or skill can't match my
opponent's." The CoSS-Sport consists of 13 brief scenarios
with four responses to each, representing Attack Self, Withdrawal,
Attack Other, and Avoidance. Likert-type responses range from 1 (never)
to 5 (almost always). The 13 items for each of the four subscales were
summed to produce four subscale total scores. The alpha reliabilities
for the four subscales were: Attack Self, .88; Withdrawal, .86; Attack
Other, .88; Avoidance, .73.
Fear of Failure. Participants completed the Performance Failure
Appraisal Inventory (PFAI; Conroy, 2001), which is a 41-item measure
with subscales for Fear of Shame and Embarrassment (FSE), Fear of
Devaluing One's Self Estimate (FDOSE), Fear of Having an Uncertain
Future (FHUF), Fear of Losing Social Influence (FLSI), and Fear of
Upsetting Important Others (FUIO). The PFAI consists of 1- or 2-line,
first-person statements starting with "When I am failing"
or"When I am not succeeding," with responses ranging from -2
(Do not believe at all) to 2 (Completely believe) with 0 (Believe 50% of
the time) being the midpoint. A sample Fear of Shame and Embarrassment
item is "When I am failing it is embarrassing if others are there
to see it." For each subscale, all items were summed to create
subscale total scores. The alpha reliabilities for the five subscales,
in the order listed previously, were .79, .72, .81, .76, and .72.
Perfectionism. Participants completed the Perfectionism Inventory
(PI; Hill et al., 2004), which is a 59-item, multidimensional measure
with subscales for Self-Evaluative Perfectionism (maladaptive) and
Conscientious Perfectionism (adaptive). The PI consists of single-line,
first-person statements, with responses ranging from I (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Specifically, Conscientious
Perfectionism consists of 28 items and assesses four domains (Striving
for Excellence, Organization, Planfulness, and High Standards for
Others), while Self-Evaluative Perfectionism consists of 31 items and
assesses four domains (Concern over Mistakes, Need for Approval,
Rumination, and Perceived Parental Pressure). A sample self-evaluative
(Need for Approval) item is "I compare my work to others and often
feel inadequate." A sample conscientious (Striving for Excellence)
item is "I drive myself rigorously to achieve high standards."
For the current study, we used only the subscales for Concern over
Mistakes, Need for Approval, Rumination, and Striving for Excellence, as
these were most relevant to our hypotheses. For each subscale, all items
were summed to create subscale total scores. The alpha reliabilities for
these four subscales, in the order listed previously, were .81, .81,
.80, and .77.
Procedure
We asked college coaches to allow us to invite their athletes to
participate anonymously in our study. Most coaches consented, with some
allowing us to collect data during practice, while the majority allowed
us to send questionnaire packets home with their athletes. Packets
contained a sheet for demographic information, followed by our three
measures in random order to prevent ordering effects.
Results and Discussion
Correlations between Shame-coping, Fear of Failure, and
Perfectionism
The results support our view that shame-coping styles are important
predictors of maladaptive fear of failure and perfectionism among
athletes. Across all eight maladaptive fear of failure and perfectionism
scales (not including PSE as it is adaptive), the magnitudes of the
CoSS-Sport scales are ordered perfectly with regard to our primary
hypothesis about their differential relationships: Attack Self is
greater than Withdrawal, which is in turn greater than Attack Other,
followed by Avoidance (Table 2). The significances of the differences in
magnitudes between these correlated correlation coefficients were
computed (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992); these results are
displayed in Table 2 as subscripts. In the vast majority of cases
(48/54, 89%) the differences in magnitudes are significant. In other
words, individual differences in one's proneness to the four
shame-coping styles predict individual differences in tendencies toward
fear of failure and perfectionism.
Attack Self is the strongest predictor of maladaptive outcomes
(again excluding PSE), exhibiting correlations ranging from .39 to .54,
all significant atp < .001. This is likely due to the intrapunitive
nature of Attack Self. Athletes who favor Attack Self as a shame-coping
response go beyond just internalizing their mistakes and shortcomings,
they tend to blow them out of proportion and ruminate, magnifying their
negative impact. Not surprisingly, the highest correlations are between
Attack Self and Fear of Shame and Embarrassment, Concern over Mistakes,
and Rumination. These correlations suggest that athletes who report
using Attack Self more frequently fear shame (because they magnify its
intensity) and are more concerned with their mistakes, being unable to
let go of them.
The second most predictive style is Withdrawal, exhibiting
correlations ranging from .35 to .46, all significant atp < .001. Its
predictive power is most likely due to the internalization it shares
with Attack Self. In addition, athletes who favor Withdrawal may
experience fear of failure and be driven to perfectionism for another
reason; they are more socially anxious, so shortcomings may lead to
isolation. Supportive results are present in Withdrawal's
correlations with Fear of Losing Social Influence and Fear of Upsetting
Important Others. In particular, for individuals who employ Withdrawal
coping, letting others down leads to self-imposed social isolation.
The Attack Other and Avoidance shame-coping responses are less
predictive of fear of failure and perfectionism, likely due to the
externalization they share. Athletes who favor these styles are less
likely to take responsibility for their shortcomings or even acknowledge
them. Attack Other correlations range from .24 to .37, all significant
atp < .001. The highest of these was with Concern over Mistakes,
suggesting that participants with a maladaptive concern over their
mistakes are more likely to blame others or lash out in anger at others
in an attempt to lessen their shame. Finally, the Avoidance correlations
range from .02 to 22, with five of the eight being significant at p <
.05 or better. Thus, the tendency to minimize emotions and disavow goals
serves to reduce or hide rumination, need for approval, and fears of
upsetting other people. However, these results do not mean Attack Other
and Avoidance styles are without their own costs, as Elison and
colleagues (Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006) explain. In the present
study, we only assessed fear of failure and perfectionism. Attack Other
may be more strongly predictive of hostility, violence, and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. Avoidance may be more predictive of
addictive behaviors or failure to persevere in, or even take part in,
sports.
Our results are consistent with those from Sagar and Stoeber
(2009), especially when considering Attack Self and Withdrawal, the two
shame-coping styles where shame and embarrassment are most likely to be
acknowledged and internalized. Sagar and Stoeber found Fear of Shame and
Embarrassment to be the best predictor of negative affect after failure
(r = .48); we found Attack Self and Withdrawal to be the shame-coping
styles that best predicted Fear of Shame and Embarrassment (rs = .54,
.46, respectively). They found perfectionistic Concern Over Mistakes to
be most highly correlated with Fear of Shame and Embarrassment (r = .51;
among the FoF subscales) and the most predictive of negative affect (r =
.30; among the Perfectionism subscales); we found Attack Self and
Withdrawal to be highly predictive of Concern Over Mistakes (rs = .53,
.45, respectively) and other maladaptive forms of perfectionism: Need
for Approval (rs = .52, .42, respectively); Rumination (rs = .53, .35,
respectively). The Sagar and Stoeber study demonstrates the central role
that fear of shame and embarrassment plays in perfectionism and fear of
failure; the present study demonstrates the importance of shame-coping
styles. These coping styles are differentially related to Fear of
Failure and Perfectionism, with Attack Self and Withdrawal being
strongly predictive of both.
Our second hypothesis regarding the adaptive side of perfectionism
and shame-coping is supported, as Attack Self and Striving for
Excellence are significantly positively correlated (r = .22,p <
.001). Feelings of shame may motivate us to try harder. Similarly, Sagar
and Stoeber (2009) found a small, but significant correlation between
high personal standards and Fear of Shame and Embarrassment (r = .20).
In contrast to Attack Self, the correlation between Striving for
Excellence and Attack Other is negative and significant (r = -.13, p
< .05), suggesting that blaming others reduces one's motivation
to work harder.
Sport Type
To address differences in use of shame-coping styles, fear of
failure, and perfectionism between athletes in different types of sports
we classified sports as individual versus team, and contact versus
non-contact (Table 1), allowing for comparisons of group means. Of
course these classifications are not independent in that there are no
individual contact sports represented. Thus, the following t tests are
not completely independent. When comparing individual versus team
sports, we observe two significant differences (Table 3). First,
participants in individual sports report Avoidance to a greater degree
than those in team sports. Second, participants in team sports report
perfectionism in the form of Concern over Mistakes to a greater degree
than those in individual sports.
When comparing contact versus non-contact sports, we find three
significant differences. First, participants in non-contact sports
report Avoidance to a greater degree than those in contact sports.
Second, participants in non-contact sports report fear of failure in the
form of Fear of Devaluing One's Self Estimate to a greater degree
than those in contact sports. Third, participants in non-contact sports
report fear of failure in the form of Fear of Having an Uncertain Future
to a greater degree than those in contact sports.
Our results with respect to sport type are merely suggestive.
Replication with a more balanced selection of sports is warranted. As
preliminary results, they may be useful in identifying shame-related
issues that are particularly salient to athletes in different sports. It
appears that athletes in team sports have greater concerns over their
mistakes, while athletes in non-contact sports have greater concerns
with what their mistakes say about their worth and implications for
their futures. Differences in levels of Avoidance (higher in individual,
non-contact sports) are likely due to selection bias, in that an
avoidant athlete is more likely to choose to compete individually, a
fact that may be helpful to know when dealing with these athletes.
Sex Differences
As predicted for the CoSS-Sport, females report Attack Self to a
greater degree than males. Although females report more Withdrawal, the
difference is not significant. As predicted, there is a trend where
males report Avoidance to a greater degree than females. There is also a
trend where males report Attack Other to a greater degree than females.
Thus, males and females tend to favor different shame-coping styles.
The sex differences in use of shame-coping styles observed in the
current study are generally consistent with those reported elsewhere
(Elison, Lennon, & Pulos, 2006). Females tend to employ
internalizing forms of shame-coping (Attack Self, Withdrawal) more than
males. In contrast, males favor externalizing forms of shame-coping
(Avoidance, Attack Other). Previous findings with regard to Attack Other
have been mixed; however, we anticipated that within the sport domain
males would score higher and indeed they did in the current study.
Significant sex differences for fear of failure and perfectionism
consistently reflect higher levels for females. Females report Fear of
Shame and Embarrassment to a greater degree than males and Fear of
Devaluing One's Self Estimate to a greater degree than males.
Females also report Need for Approval to a greater degree than males and
Rumination to a greater degree than males. Thus, females tend to exhibit
modestly greater fear of failure and perfectionism (Cohen's ds
ranging from .25 -.38); however, these differences are not observed
across all subscales.
A more interesting sex difference is apparent in the magnitudes of
the correlations between shame-coping styles and fear of failure and
perfectionism. These magnitudes are higher for males in 28 out of 32
cases (88%). None of the four differences where females are higher are
significant. Seven of the 28 differences where males were higher are
significant, with these differences in magnitude ranging from. 16 to
.30. The largest sex differences are for Avoidance (Fear of Shame &
Embarrassment: .26 vs. .02, males and females, respectively; Fear of
Upsetting Important Others: .24 vs. -.06) and Attack Other (Concern over
Mistakes: .47 vs. .28; Need for Approval: .41 vs. .23).
Thus, Avoidance and Attack Other, favored by males, appear to be
more maladaptive for males than they are for females. This finding is
consistent with unpublished data from the Elison, Lennon, and Pulos
study (2006). We believe there are two related explanations for these
findings. First, manifestations of each shame-coping style vary in their
severity; for example, Attack Other responses could range from blaming
an umpire to physically attacking the umpire. It may be that males, with
their higher endorsement of Avoidance and Attack Other, use more severe
forms that are more maladaptive. Second, moderate levels of Avoidance,
especially in the form of emotional minimization, or Attack Other in the
form of externalizing responsibility, may have a protective effect for
females who tend to internalize (Attack Self). Due to the important
implications of these explanations--that it may be advisable to focus
interventions on different shame-coping styles for males and
females--these explanations warrant future research.
Similarly, shame-coping styles predict more negative outcomes for
males in terms of adaptive perfectionism in the form of Striving for
Excellence (PSE). First, Avoidance and Attack Other are significantly
negatively correlated with PSE for males (both rs = -.19, p < .05)
but not for females (rs = .02, -.05, both ns). Second, Attack Self is
more highly correlated with PSE for females (r = .30,p < .001) than
for males (r =. 17, p < .05). Thus, for males in contrast to females,
higher levels of Avoidance and Attack Other are more maladaptive in
relation to Striving for Excellence, while greater Attack Self is less
adaptive for males (i.e., it is less predictive of striving).
Limitations
Perhaps the most serious limitation of the current study is the use
of self-report measures. As such, they are subject to a number of
weaknesses, including socially desirable responding and the fact that
participants may not be explicitly aware of their emotional reactions
(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). In addition, the current study is
correlational, so we cannot determine whether cause and effect
relationships exist between our constructs. For example, it is logical
that use of Attack Self would increase Fear of Shame and Embarrassment,
as Attack Self magnifies the intensity of shame or embarrassment. On the
other hand, it could be that because one fears shame, Attack Self coping
is employed to take control of shaming situations. Sampling is another
limitation in that we were not able to secure cooperation from all the
teams we approached.
Conclusions
Two main conclusions can be drawn from the current study: 1) shame
and shame-coping are integral to sport contexts and the lives of
athletes; and 2) the CoSS-Sport demonstrates validity. Participants in
the current study acknowledged fear of shame and embarrassment, as well
as use of various shame-coping styles. Furthermore, shame-coping styles
are differentially related to fear of failure and perfectionism,
supporting our second contention that coping is important; an
individual's choice of coping styles is related to other adaptive
and maladaptive individual differences. Thus, the current study expands
our understanding of the dynamics of shame and shame-coping in sport.
More importantly, our findings have important implications for athletes,
coaches, and parents. Using Nathanson's (1992) model of
shame-coping, we can recognize maladaptive shame-coping in its various
forms and address it, helping athletes to better cope with the emotional
demands of competition.
More specifically, how can our findings be applied? First, if shame
is elicited by devaluation, then shame (embarrassment, humiliation) and
fear of failure can be lessened by reducing athletes' perceptions
that their shortcomings make them less worthy, as a person. Some coaches
already do this intuitively. They avoid comparisons between participants
and minimize the link between performance and acceptance--they convey
the message that they value all their athletes. Such coaches also
minimize the shame of mistakes by conveying the belief that mistakes are
a normal and necessary part of learning. Second, they intuitively tailor
the nature of their critiques to each athlete's ego strength; some
athletes can take criticism more directly than others without resorting
to maladaptive responses.
Another approach is explicitly directed toward the shame-coping
styles themselves. The process for helping an athlete overcome
maladaptive shame-coping is similar to the process for helping an
athlete who has poor technique. Awareness is a first step toward change.
In order to help an athlete who suffers from poor technique, a coach
might make the athlete aware of the problem (verbally or via video),
model proper technique (personally or via another athlete), and have the
athlete replace the poor technique with proper form through repetition.
Similarly, a coach or sport psychologist who recognizes maladaptive
shame-coping can make the athlete aware of her or his responses, explain
the costs (e.g., fear of failure), offer alternatives in the form of
adaptive coping, model adaptive approaches, and encourage the athlete to
practice new coping responses. Our recommendation begs the question:
what is adaptive shame-coping? At a basic level, we believe an adaptive
response to shame is similar to an adaptive response to any other
emotion. Namely, to be aware of what you are feeling, identify why,
evaluate the validity of the feeling, and consciously evaluate
alternative ways of responding. The "what you are feeling"
might be shame, embarrassment, humiliation, or guilt. The "why
(i.e., cause) you are feeling it" might be a failure for which one
should take responsibility, or a habitual emotional response (e.g.,
interpersonal sensitivity), or unrealistic expectations of others. The
"validity of what you are feeling" would be high for the first
cause and low for the second two causes. Conscious evaluation of
alternatives might lead an athlete to take responsibility and strive for
excellence in the first case of a failure. In the second and third
cases, the athlete might free herself of the emotional burden, reducing
the intensity of shame or embarrassment, once she realizes it was
triggered out of habit or due to others' unrealistic expectations.
Our data illustrates how shame may have an adaptive side, as in the
first case involving failure, motivating athletes to strive for
excellence. The alternative adaptive response we just outlined is less
obvious; sometimes it is not necessary to embrace feelings of shame and
the best course of action is to let one's self "off the
hook." Thus, although shame may be an everyday experience in sport,
its intensity and impact can be influenced positively.
The second main conclusion is that our results provide support for
the overall validity of the CoSS-Sport. Due to the CoSS-Sport's
relationship to the CoSS and the underlying compass of shame model
(Nathanson, 1992), the results provide further support for them as well.
The most notable result in terms of validity is the consistent order to
the CoSS-Sport's subscales in terms of strength of relationships
with maladaptive dependent variables. In the present study, the
predicted order is observable in the case of each maladaptive dependent
variable: Attack Self > Withdrawal > Attack Other > Avoidance.
This order is consistent with results from prior studies: self-esteem
(Yelsma et al., 2002), psychological symptoms (Elison, Lennon, &
Pulos, 2006), perfectionism (Reed, unpublished; Webb & Elison,
2008), and self-compassion (Price & Elison, 2009). The mounting
support for validity includes a wide range of variables, multiple
versions of the CoSS (CoSS and CoSS-Sport), and various populations
(college students, patients, athletes). In summary, the evidence
supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the CoSS and
CoSS-Sport is quite strong.
Finally, the consistency of results obtained via multiple versions
of the CoSS across various populations (athlete and non-athlete) point
to the ubiquity of shame-related experiences and shame-focused coping.
Nathanson (1992) claims the categories of experience that trigger shame
(e.g., competition, ability, skill, physical appearance) and the four
shame-focused coping responses are universal. The specific triggers,
such as which skills or which mistakes matter, differ between groups.
Focusing on college athletes, we created the CoSS-Sport to sample from
situations particularly relevant to athletes. However, the CoSS, as a
general purpose instrument samples broader categories of events. The
relationships observed in the current study parallel relationships
observed with the CoSS and other measures of perfectionism and
maladaptive outcomes in non-athlete populations, suggesting these
relationships are robust--occurring in everyday life. Thus, the results
of the current study are relevant beyond the domain of sport.
Authors' Note
Portions of this paper were presented the Rocky Mountain
Psychological Association convention, Albuquerque, NM, April, 2009 and
the annual meeting for the Association for Applied Sport Psychology
(AASP), Salt Lake City, UT, September, 2009.
References
Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk-taking
behavior. In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of
achievement motivation (pp. 11-30). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Campbell, J. S., & Elison, J. (2005). Shame coping styles and
psychopathic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,
96-104.
Conroy, D. E. (2001). Progress in the development of a
multidimensional measure of fear of failure: The Performance Failure
Appraisal Inventory (PFAI). Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, 14(4), 431-452.
Conroy, D. E. (2004). The unique psychological meanings of
multidimensional fears of failing. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 26(3), 484-491.
Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P., & Fifer, A. M. (2007). Cognitive
links between fear of failure and perfectionism. Journal of
Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25(4), 237-253.
Conroy, D. E., Poczwardowski, A., & Henschen, K. P. (2001).
Evaluative criteria and consequences associated with failure and success
for elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 13, 300-322.
Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. (2002).
Multidimensional fear of failure measurement: The performance failure
appraisal inventory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 76-90.
Crossman, J., Gluck, L., & Jamieson, J. (1995). The emotional
responses of injured athletes. New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine,
23(1), 1-2.
Elison, J. (2005). Shame and guilt: A hundred years of apples and
oranges. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 5-32.
Elison, J., Pulos, S., & Lennon, R. (2006). Shame-focused
coping: An empirical study of the compass of shame. Social Behavior and
Personality, 34(2), 161-168.
Elison, J., Lennon, R., & Pulos, S. (2006). Investigating the
compass of shame: The development of the Compass of Shame Scale. Social
Behavior and Personality, 34, 221-238.
Ellis, A. (1994). The sport of avoiding sport and exercise: A
rational emotive behavior therapy perspective. The Sport Psychologist,
8, 248-261.
Ferguson, T. J., & Stegge, H. (1998). Measuring guilt in
children: A rose by any other name still has thorns. In J. Bybee (Ed.),
Guilt and children (pp. 19-74). New York: Academic Press.
Gilbert, P., & McGuire, M. T. (1998). Shame, status, and social
roles: Psychobiology and evolution. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Shame:
Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 99-125). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self
and social context: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with
psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
456-470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flea, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S.
F. (199 I). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability,
validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples.
Psychological Assessment, 3, 464-468.
Hill, IL W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B.
B., & Kennedy, C. (2004).Anew measure of perfectionism: The
Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 80-91.
Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lazarus, R. (2000). How emotions influence performance in
competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229-252.
Lewthwaite, R., & Scanlan, T. K. (1989). Predictors of
competitive trait anxiety in male youth sport participants. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 21(2), 221-229.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2005). The shame of failure:
Examining the link between fear of failure and shame. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 218-231.
Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing
correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111,
172-175.
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride. New York: Norton.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we
can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84,
231-259.
Parker, S. T. (1998). A social selection model for the evolution
and adaptive significance of self-conscious emotions. In M. Ferrari
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its nature and development
(pp. 108-134). New York: Guilford Press.
Partridge, J. A., & Elison, J. (2009). Shame in sport: Issues
and directions. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 4(3), 197-210.
Price, K., & Elison, J. (2009, April). Shame and self
compassion. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological
Association convention, Albuquerque, NM.
Reed, R. (unpublished). [Shame-coping and perfectionism].
Unpublished raw data.
Ruiz, M. C., & Hanin, Y. L. (2004). Metaphoric description and
individualized emotion profiling of performance states in top karate
athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(3), 258-273.
Sagar, S. S., & Stoeber, J. (2009). Perfectionism, fear of
failure, and affective responses to success and failure: The central
role of fear of experiencing shame and embarrassment. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 31, 602-627.
Spielberger, C. (1966). Anxiety and Behavior. New York: Academic
Press.
Stoeber, J., & Becker, C. (2008). Perfectionism, achievement
motives, and attributions of success and failure in female soccer
players. International Journal of Psychology, 43(6), 980-987.
Stoll, O., Lau, A., & Stoeber, J. (2008). Perfectionism and
performance in a new basketball training task: Does striving for
perfection enhance or undermine performance? Psychology of Sport &
Exercise, 9(5), 620-629.
Tangney, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and the self-conscious
emotions: Shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. In. G. L. Flea, &
P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
199-215). Washington, DC: APA.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New
York: Guilford Press.
Webb, R., & Elison, J. (2008, April). Procrastination,
perfectionism and how they correlate with shame-coping styles. Paper
presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association convention,
Boise, ID.
Yelsma, P., Brown, N. M., & Elison, J. (2002). Shame-focused
coping styles and their associations with self-esteem. Psychological
Reports, 90, 1179-1189.
Jeff Elison
Adams State College
Julie A. Partridge
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Address correspondence to: Jeff Elison, Department of Psychology,
Adams State College, 208 Edgemont Blvd., Alamosa, CO 81102. E-mail:
[email protected]
Table 1
Frequency of Participants Playing the Various Sports
Sport Frequency Percentage
Football - Men's [66.sub.t,c] 23.2
Track - Men's [37.sub.i,n] 13.0
Track - Women's [43.sub.i,n] 15.1
Volleyball - Men's [21.sub.t,n] 7.4
Volleyball - Women's [29.sub.t,n] 10.2
Basketball - Men's [20.sub.t,c] 7.0
Basketball- Women's [15.sub.t,c] 5.3
Baseball - Men's [6.sub.t,n] 2.1
Softball- Women's [14.sub.t,n] 4.9
Gymnastics- Women's [21.sub.i,n] 7.4
Swimming, Diving, [13.sub.i,n] 4.5
Golf, Tennis
Note. Subscripts indicate team (t) versus individual
(i) sports and contact (c) versus non-contact (n) sports.
Table 2
Correlation Matrix for Shame-coping, Fear of Failure, and
Perfectionism
Attack Self Withdrawal Attack Other Avoidance
Fear of Failure
FSE .54 (a) *** .46 (b) *** .29 (c) *** .14 (d) *
FDOSE .49 (a) *** .42 (b) * .33 (c) *** .15 (d) *
FHUF .43 (a) *** .39 (a) * .34 (a) *** .22 (b) ***
FLSI .46 (a) *** .45 (a) * .35 (b) *** .18 (c) **
FUIO .39 (a) *** .38 (a) * .24 (b) *** .10 (c)
Perfectionism
PCOM .53 (a) *** .45 (b) *** .37 (c) *** .14 (d) *
PNA .52 (a) *** .42 (b) *** .30 (c) *** .03 (d)
PRUM .53 (a) *** .35 (b) *** .24 (c) *** .02 (d)
PSE .22 (a) *** .04 (b) -.13(c) * -.10 (c)
Note. ns range from 267 to 277. Correlations with different
subscripts within rows differ significantly at p < .05 or better
(Meng et al., 1992). Fear of Failure (Performance Failure
Appraisal Inventory): FSE = Fear of Shame & Embarrassment; FDOSE
= Fear of Devaluing One's Self Estimate; FHUF = Fear of Having an
Uncertain Future; FLSI = Fear of Losing Social Influence; FUIO =
Fear of Upsetting Important Others. Perfectionism (Perfectionism
Inventory): PCOM = Concern over Mistakes; PNA = Need for
Approval; PRUM = Rumination; PSE = Striving for Excellence.
* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.
Table 3
Mean Differences in Shame-coping Fear Failure, and Perfectionism
by Sport Type and Sex
Sport Type
Individual Team
Subscale M (SD) M (SD) df
CoSS: Avoidance 33.79 (6.40) 31.63 (7.09) 272
PI: PCOM 19.52 (5.86) 21.04 (6.02) 279
Non-Contact Contact
CoSS: Avoidance 33.23 (6.66) 31.12 (7.14) 272
PFAI: FDOSE -2.50 (2.77) -3.48 (2.63) 283
PFAI: FHUF -1.40 (3.08) -2.26 (3.12) 282
Sex
Males Females
CoSS: Attack Self 35.50 (9.88) 37.82 (8.96) 272
CoSS: Avoidance 33.10 (7.41) 31.75 (6.19) 272
CoSS: Attack Other 27.07 (8.61) 25.20 (7.85) 274
PFAI: FSE 1.16 (5.85) 3.39 (5.91) 280
PFAI: FDOSE -3.16 (2.68) -2.48 (2.82) 283
PI: PNA 21.81 (6.12) 24.19 (6.26) 279
PI: PRUM 19.22 (5.45) 20.72 (5.67) 275
Effect
Subscale t Size (a)
CoSS: Avoidance 2.55 * 0.32
PI: PCOM 2.09 * 0.26
CoSS: Avoidance 2.45 * 0.31
PFAI: FDOSE 2.89 ** 0.36
PFAI: FHUF 2.18 * 0.28
CoSS: Attack Self 2.02 * 0.25
CoSS: Avoidance 1.65 ([dagger]) 0.20
CoSS: Attack Other 1.88 ([dagger]) 0.23
PFAI: FSE 3.17 ** 0.38
PFAI: FDOSE 2.07 * 0.25
PI: PNA 3.22 ** 0.38
PI: PRUM 2.24 * 0.27
Note. (a) Cohen's d. CoSS = Compass of Shame Scale. PFAI =
Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory; FSE = Fear of Shame &
Embarrassment; FDOSE = Fear of Devaluing One's Self Estimate;
FHUF = Fear of Having an Uncertain Future. PI = Perfectionism
Inventory; PCOM = Concern over Mistakes; PNA = Need for Approval;
PRUM = Rumination. ([dagger]) p < .10. * p <.05. ** p < .01.
