Content uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joachim Stoeber on Oct 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism,
gender, age, and satisfaction with life
Joachim Stoeber
a,*
, Franziska S. Stoeber
b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Keynes College, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom
b
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield S10 2BP, United Kingdom
article info
Article history:
Received 20 September 2008
Received in revised form 30 November 2008
Accepted 8 December 2008
Available online 10 January 2009
Keywords:
Perfectionism
Age
Gender
Satisfaction with life, work
Studies
Bodily hygiene
Sports
abstract
Perfectionists have been described as people who want to be perfect in all domains of their lives. Few
studies to date, however, have investigated what domains people are perfectionistic in. Using two sam-
ples (109 university students, 289 Internet users), the present study investigated how being perfection-
istic in 22 domains of life was related to perfectionism, age, gender, and satisfaction with life. Across
samples, work and studies were the domains that most participants reported being perfectionistic in, fol-
lowed by bodily hygiene, spelling, and presentation of documents. Whereas age, gender, and satisfaction
with life showed significant relationships with selected domains of life, perfectionism showed significant
positive correlations with the overall score (number of domains affected by perfectionism) and with
being perfectionistic in individual domains. Further analyses showed that self-oriented perfectionism,
rather than socially prescribed perfectionism, was responsible for these correlations. The findings indi-
cate that, in most domains, being perfectionistic is internally motivated and not externally motivated.
Moreover, they show that, while some perfectionists may be perfectionistic across domains, most perfec-
tionists are perfectionistic only in selected domains.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Perfectionism is characterized by striving for flawlessness and
setting of excessively high standards for performance accompanied
by tendencies for overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior (Flett
& Hewitt, 2002; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). More-
over, perfectionists often put great importance on the evaluation
by others and feel pressured to perform to the highest standards
to avoid significant others’ disappointment and disapproval (Frost
et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Finally, extreme perfectionists
have been described as ‘‘people who want to be perfect in all aspects
of their lives” (Flett & Hewitt, 2002, p. 5). This, however, has never
been systematically investigated. Moreover, little is known about
what domains of life are most likely to be affected by perfectionism.
1.1. Perfectionism
According to Hewitt and Flett’s(1991) influential model of perfec-
tionism, two main forms of perfectionism need to be differentiated:
self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism.
1
Self-oriented perfectionism comprises beliefs that striving for perfec-
tion and being perfect are important and is characterized by setting
excessively high standards and having a ‘‘perfectionist motivation”
for oneself. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism comprises be-
liefs that others have high standards for oneself and that acceptance by
others is conditional on fulfilling these standards (Enns & Cox, 2002;
Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004). Thus, self-oriented perfectionism is an
internally motivated form of perfectionism whereas socially prescribed
perfectionism is an externally motivated form.
1.2. Domains of perfectionism
Whereas Hewitt and Flett (1991) see perfectionism as a general
disposition affecting all domains, some studies suggest that levels
of perfectionism show marked differences between domains. This
was first demonstrated in a study with ‘‘career mothers,” that is,
women working at least 25 h a week who have a child under nine
years (Mitchelson & Burns, 1998). Career mothers completed a per-
fectionism scale in two versions: one regarding their perfectionism
at work and one their perfectionism at home. When mean levels of
perfectionism between the two domains were compared, career
mothers showed significantly higher perfectionism at work than
at home. Further evidence comes from a study with intercollegiate
varsity athletes (Dunn, Gotwals, & Dunn, 2005). Athletes com-
pleted a perfectionism scale in three versions: one regarding per-
fectionist tendencies in their sport, one perfectionist tendencies
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1227 824196.
E-mail address: J.Stoeber@kent.ac.uk (J. Stoeber).
1
The model differentiates a third form, other-oriented perfectionism. Because its
status within perfectionism theory is unclear (Enns & Cox, 2002), it was disregarded
in the present research.
Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
in their academic studies, and one perfectionist tendencies in gen-
eral. When mean levels of perfectionism were compared between
the three domains, athletes reported significantly higher perfec-
tionism in their sport than in their studies, and significantly higher
perfectionism in their studies than in general. In sum, the studies
suggest that perfectionism can differ between domains, and that
being perfectionistic in one domain of life does not necessarily im-
ply being perfectionistic in other domains.
Unfortunately, very little is known about what domains of life
are most frequently affected by perfectionism—even though the
measures to find out have been available for some time. Fifteen
years ago, Rhéaume and colleagues developed a multidimensional
perfectionism questionnaire, the Perfectionism Questionnaire (PQ;
English version: Rhéaume, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1994). The Eng-
lish version of the PQ comprises three scales: one measuring per-
fectionistic tendencies, one measuring negative consequences of
perfectionism, and one measuring the degree to which 22 domains
of life are affected by perfectionism. Unfortunately, all published
studies using the PQ either focused on the first two scales (e.g.,
Rhéaume, Ladouceur, & Freeston, 2000) or reported only the over-
all score of the third scale summarizing how all 22 domains to-
gether were affected by perfectionism (e.g., Coles, Frost,
Heimberg, & Rhéaume, 2003), but not how the 22 domains were
affected individually.
So far, our knowledge is limited to the findings from one inter-
view study with a group of 37 perfectionists (Slaney & Ashby,
1996). The study contained one question asking participants about
the domains of their lives most affected by perfectionism. Except
for one, all participants mentioned their professional or academic
work (36 participants). Else participants mentioned their relation-
ships (21 participants), housework/cleaning (14), parenting (9),
hobbies, social lives, and recreational pursuits (8 each), personal
appearance (5), self-esteem (3), and athletics and religious life (1
each). Moreover, five participants mentioned domains that were
classified as ‘‘Other.” The findings suggest that the majority of per-
fectionists see their work as the domain most affected by their per-
fectionism, but other domains can be affected as well, most notably
relationships.
1.3. The present research
The findings of Slaney and Ashby (1996) study are important,
but have limitations. First, the sample was large for an interview
study, but small for a quantitative study so the rank order of the
domains affected by perfectionism may not be reliable. Second,
the sample comprised only participants selected for high levels
of perfectionism so we do not know what domains are affected
by perfectionism in unselected samples. Finally, if we discount
the category ‘‘Other,” Slaney and Ashby’s interview study found
11 domains, whereas Rhéaume et al.’s (1994) PQ comprises 22 do-
mains that may be affected by perfectionism. Consequently, it is
conceivable that the interview study may have missed some
important domains affected by perfectionism.
Against this background, the present study was conducted to
provide a more comprehensive picture of what domains are af-
fected by perfectionism using the PQ’s 22 domains and investigat-
ing two larger unselected samples (university students, Internet
users). The research had three aims. The first aim was to investi-
gate the frequency with which domains of life are affected by per-
fectionism in different samples. The second aim was to investigate
Flett and Hewitt’s (2002) contention that people high in perfec-
tionism have more domains affected by perfectionism than people
low in perfectionism and to explore which form of perfectionism
affects more domains: self-oriented perfectionism or socially pre-
scribed perfectionism. The third and final aim was to explore
whether the frequency with which individual domains are affected
by perfectionism is related to gender, age, and psychological well-
being. Regarding gender, some findings of Slaney and Ashby’s
(1996) interview study suggest that there are differences between
men and women. For example, 10 of the 21 women interviewed
mentioned housework/cleaning as a domain affected by perfec-
tionism (48%), whereas only 4 of the 16 men did (25%). Regarding
age, developmental research has found evidence for a decrease in
perfectionism with age (Landa & Bybee, 2007). Finally, regarding
satisfaction with life, research has shown that perfectionistic
thinking is associated with lower satisfaction with life (Flett, He-
witt, Blankstein, & Gray, 1998). Research differentiating positive
and negative forms of perfectionism, however, has found that only
negative forms of perfectionism are associated with lower satisfac-
tion with life whereas positive forms may be associated with high-
er satisfaction (e.g., Gilman, Ashby, Sverko, Florell, & Varjas, 2005;
Mitchelson & Burns, 1998; see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for review).
Consequently, we included gender, age, and satisfaction with life
in the present study to explore possible relationships of those vari-
ables with the 22 domains of perfectionism.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Two samples were recruited: a sample of university students
(Sample 1) and a sample of Internet users (Sample 2). Sample 2
was recruited to have a more representative and more diverse
sample compared to university student samples who are usually
more uniform (e.g., regarding age, family status, and education)
than Internet samples (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004).
All procedures were approved by the ethical committee of the first
author’s department.
Sample 1. Participants of Sample 1 were recruited at the first
author’s university from the Department of Psychology’s Research
Participation Scheme (RPS) website or from a desk in the entrance
hall of the college. N= 109 students (14 males, 95 females) partic-
ipated and completed all measures. Participants, indicating their
age in years, were on average 21.1 years old (SD = 5.7 years,
range = 18–60 years; two participants failed to indicate their
age). Participants recruited via the RPS received course credits as
compensation for participating, and participants recruited at the
desk received a chocolate bar.
Sample 2. Participants of Sample 2 were recruited via the Inter-
net where the study was announced as an survey on ‘‘personal
standards in early, middle, and later adulthood” posted on six
Internet websites (GreyPath, Hanover College Psychological Re-
search on the Web, Lab-United, Online Psychology Research UK,
Social Psychology Network Online Studies, and Web Experimental
Psychology Lab). N= 289 Internet users (79 males, 210 females)
participated, completed all measures, and showed a unique Inter-
net protocol (IP) address or—if they showed the same IP address
as another user—showed unique answers to the questionnaire’s
demographic questions (see Gosling et al., 2004, for details). Partic-
ipants indicated their age on an 8-point scale measuring age in
decades from ‘‘below 20 years” to ‘‘80+ years.” Seventy-five partic-
ipants (26%) indicated to be below 20 years, 133 (46%) to be 20–29
years, 38 (13%) 30–39 years, 27 (9%) 40–49 years, 11 (4%) 50–59
years, 3 (1%) 60–69 years, and 2 (1%) 70–79 years old. None indi-
cated to be ‘‘80 years or older.” Participants received no compensa-
tion for participating.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Perfectionism
To measure self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism,
Sample 1 completed the respective scales of the Multidimensional
J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber /Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535 531
Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004) in full
length: self-oriented perfectionism (15 items; e.g., ‘‘I demand noth-
ing less than perfection of myself”) and socially prescribed perfec-
tionism (15 items; e.g., ‘‘People expect nothing less than perfection
of me”). Items were answered on a 7-point scale from ‘‘strongly
disagree” to ‘‘strongly agree.” Because Internet studies need to
present a shorter protocol to prevent drop out, Sample 2 completed
shortened versions of the two scales with 8 items each (self-ori-
ented perfectionism: items 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 28, 40; socially pre-
scribed perfectionism: items 5, 13, 18, 21, 33, 35, 39, 44).
Moreover, because reverse-worded items are prone to misresponse
(Swain, Weathers, & Niedrich, 2008), all reverse-worded items
(e.g., ‘‘Others will like me even if I don’t excel at everything”) were
rephrased in the direction of the scale (e.g., ‘‘Others will like me
only if I excel at everything”). Moreover, a shorter answer scale
was used, namely a 5-point scale from ‘‘strongly disagree” to
‘‘strongly agree.” In both samples, self-oriented perfectionism
(Sample 1: Cronbach’s
a
= 0.90; Sample 2:
a
= 0.88) and socially
prescribed perfectionism scores (Sample 1:
a
= 0.79; Sample 2:
a
= 0.88) showed satisfactory reliability.
2.2.2. Satisfaction with life
To measure satisfaction with life, both samples completed the
Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
1985) which comprises five items asking participants about their
life (e.g., ‘‘I am satisfied with my life”). Items were answered on a
5-point scale from ‘‘strongly disagree” to ‘‘strongly agree” (Sample
1:
a
= 0.85; Sample 2:
a
= 0.85).
2.2.3. Domains of perfectionism
To measure what domains participants were perfectionistic in,
both samples were presented the 22 domains of life from the do-
mains scale of the English version of the PQ (Rhéaume et al.,
1994). This scale was chosen because it is the only available mea-
sure of domains of perfectionism. However, we made two small
additions: we added the term ‘‘DIY” (do it yourself) to the category
‘‘Repairs (home handyman)” for participants not familiar with
‘‘home handyman,” and we added a category ‘‘Other” to have a cat-
egory for any other domain not listed in the PQ (see Table 2). The
instructions read:
In this section, you will find a list of different areas in which
people may be perfectionistic. If there are any areas in which
you tend to be perfectionistic, please tick the respective box.
If the area in which you are perfectionistic is not on the list,
please tick ‘‘Other.” If you are not perfectionistic in any area,
please tick ‘‘None.”
Answers were coded as 1 = ‘‘yes” (box ticked) and 0 = ‘‘no” (box
not ticked). Following Coles et al. (2003), an overall domains of
perfectionism score was computed by summing the yes answers
across the 23 domains (including ‘‘Other”). In Sample 1, the mean
score was 5.77 (SD = 3.13, range = 0–14); and in Sample 2, it was
5.58 (SD = 4.28, range = 0–20) indicating that the average partici-
pant was perfectionistic in 5–6 domains of life. In Sample 1, only
4 participants ticked ‘‘None” (4%); and in Sample 2, only 24 partic-
ipants (8%).
3. Results
3.1. Perfectionism
First, we inspected the correlations of self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism with the overall domains of perfection-
ism score (see Table 1). As expected (Flett & Hewitt, 2002), both
forms of perfectionism correlated with the number of domains in
which participants reported being perfectionistic. Self-oriented
perfectionism, however, showed a higher correlation than socially
prescribed perfectionism (cf. Table 1). Moreover, when partial cor-
relations were computed controlling for the correlation between
the two forms of perfectionism, self-oriented perfectionism re-
tained its significant positive correlations (Sample 1: pr = 0.43,
p< 0.001; Sample 2: pr = 0.44, p< 0.001) whereas socially pre-
scribed perfectionism ceased to show significant correlations with
the overall domain score (Sample 1: pr = 0.18, ns; Sample 2:
pr = 0.04, ns).
Next, we inspected the 22 individual domains computing rela-
tive frequencies (percentages) and ranks for all domains (see Table
2). Overall, student and Internet samples showed considerable
agreement. In both samples, the domain in which participants
were most often perfectionistic was work, corroborating Slaney
and Ashby’s (1996) finding that work is the most prevalent domain
affected by perfectionism. Moreover, the Spearman rank correla-
tion between the ranks in the student sample and those in the
Internet sample for the 22 domains (excluding the equivocal cate-
gory ‘‘Other”) was
q
= 0.78 indicating overall high agreement with
Table 1
Domains of perfectionism: correlations with perfectionism and satisfaction with life.
Samples and variables Correlation
12345
Student sample (N =109)
1. Domains of perfectionism
2. Gender 0.02
3. Age
a
0.10 0.05
4. Self-oriented perfectionism 0.53
***
0.13 0.00
5. Socially prescribed perfectionism 0.38
***
0.09 0.01 0.46
***
6. Satisfaction with life 0.07 0.10 0.23
*
0.05 0.20
*
Internet sample (N =289)
1. Domains of perfectionism
2. Gender 0.11
3. Age 0.06 0.02
4. Self-oriented perfectionism 0.47
***
0.03 0.14
*
5. Socially prescribed perfectionism 0.17
***
0.06 0.15
*
0.30
***
6. Satisfaction with life 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.33
***
Note: Domains of perfectionism = number of domains participants reported being perfectionistic in (sum of ‘‘yes” answers across the 23 domains including ‘‘Other”; see Table
2). Gender was coded as 1 = female, 0 = male.
a
N= 107.
*
p< 0.05,
***
p< 0.001, two-tailed.
532 J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber /Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535
respect to what domains people were likely to be perfectionistic in.
After work, the most prevalent domains across samples were stud-
ies (ranking 3rd in the student sample and 2nd in the Internet sam-
ple), bodily hygiene (ranking 2nd and 4th), spelling (7th and 3rd),
and presentation of documents (6th and 5th). Nonetheless, there
were some marked differences between the samples. For example,
social relationships ranked 5th in the student sample, but only
12th in the Internet sample; and time management ranked 6th
in the Internet sample, but only 14th in the student sample—indi-
cating that the relative importance of perfectionism in some do-
mains of life may show considerable differences between samples.
Next, we inspected how self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism were correlated with being perfectionistic in the dif-
ferent domains (see Table 2). Focusing on the partial correlations,
self-oriented perfectionism in the student sample showed positive
correlations with being perfectionistic in work, studies, presentation
of documents, correspondence/mail, oral presentation, and orderli-
ness whereas socially prescribed perfectionism showed a positive
correlation only with being perfectionistic in physical appearance.
In the Internet sample, which was the larger and thus statistically
more powerful sample, self-oriented perfectionism showed positive
correlations with nearly all domains—except bodily hygiene, way of
speaking, leisure activities, sports, and repairs. In contrast, socially-
prescribed perfectionism showed significant positive correlations
only with being perfectionistic in way of speaking, leisure activities,
and repairs. Thus, results mirrored the findings with the overall
score: in most domains, being perfectionistic was correlated with
self-oriented perfectionism, whereas only few correlations with so-
cially prescribed perfectionism emerged, suggesting that perfec-
tionism in most domains of life is internally motivated.
3.2. Gender and age
Gender (coded as 1 = female, 0 = male) showed no significant
correlations with the overall domains of perfectionism score in
both samples (see Table 1). Moreover, there was no agreement be-
tween the two samples in any of the individual domains. In the
student sample, women were less often perfectionistic in spelling
(r=0.29, p< 0.01), way of speaking (r=0.24), and invest-
ments/purchases (r=0.22, both p< 0.05) than men. Note, how-
ever, that the student sample contained only few males (14 of
109 participants) so the findings need to be regarded with caution.
In the Internet sample, women were more often perfectionistic in
spelling (r= 0.14), hygiene (r= 0.12), dress (r= 0.13), orderliness
(r= 0.14, all p< 0.05), and time management (r= 0.18, p< 0.01).
Moreover, as expected from Slaney and Ashby (1996), women
were more often perfectionistic in domestic chores (r= 0.16,
p< 0.01).
Whereas age showed the expected negative correlation with
self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in the Internet
sample (cf. Landa & Bybee, 2007), it showed no significant correla-
tions with the overall domains of perfectionism score in either
sample (see Table 1). However, when individual domains were re-
garded, age was positively correlated with being perfectionistic in
children’s education in both samples (Student sample: r= 0.19;
Internet sample: r= 0.12, both p< 0.05). Moreover, in the Internet
sample, age was positively correlated with being perfectionistic
in presentation of documents (r= 0.13, p< 0.05) and negatively
with being perfectionistic in social relationships (r=0.13),
romantic relationships (r=0.13, both p< 0.05), and sports
(r=0.21, p< 0.001).
3.3. Satisfaction with life
In both samples, socially prescribed perfectionism showed a sig-
nificant negative correlation with satisfaction with life corroborat-
ing previous findings that negative forms of perfectionism are
associated with lower subjective well-being (e.g., Mitchelson &
Burns, 1998). In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism and the overall
score of domains of perfectionism showed no significant correla-
Table 2
Domains of perfectionism: percentage of participants being perfectionistic and correlations with self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP).
Domain
a
Student sample (N= 109) Internet sample (N= 289)
# (%) SOP SPP SOP SPP # (%) SOP SPP SOP SPP
r r pr pr r r pr pr
Work 1 58 0.54
***
0.31
**
0.47
***
0.08 1 53 0.48
***
0.13
*
0.46
***
0.01
Bodily hygiene 2 54 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 4 36 0.12
*
0.03 0.11 0.01
Studies 3 43 0.58
***
0.26
**
0.54
***
0.02 2 41 0.42
***
0.11 0.41
***
0.02
Physical appearance 4 40 0.15 0.24
*
0.05 0.19
*
8 27 0.23
***
0.11 0.21
***
0.04
Social relationships 5 38 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.05 12 22 0.20
***
0.15
**
0.16
**
0.10
Presentation of documents 6 37 0.49
***
0.22
*
0.45
***
0.02 5 34 0.27
***
0.04 0.27
***
0.05
Spelling 7 36 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.11 3 37 0.17
**
0.01 0.18
**
0.07
Dress 8 33 0.10 0.19
*
0.01 0.16 9 26 0.25
***
0.12
*
0.22
***
0.05
Way of speaking 9 28 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.10 7 30 0.13
*
0.21
***
0.07 0.18
**
Romantic relationships 9 28 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.01 11 23 0.24
***
0.13
*
0.21
***
0.07
Eating habits 11 25 0.09 0.14 0.02 0.13 20 13 0.29
***
0.12
*
0.26
***
0.03
Health 12 23 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.05 16 19 0.23
***
0.11 0.21
***
0.04
Domestic chores (cleanliness) 13 18 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.07 10 24 0.17
**
0.03 0.19
**
0.09
Time management (punctuality) 14 17 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 6 33 0.21
***
0.01 0.22
***
0.07
Correspondence/mail 14 17 0.34
***
0.26
**
0.25
**
0.13 18 15 0.16
**
0.05 0.15
*
0.00
Leisure activities 16 17 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.04 14 21 0.14
*
0.15
*
0.10 0.12
*
Oral presentation 16 17 0.28
**
0.20
*
0.22
*
0.08 15 21 0.25
***
0.02 0.25
***
0.06
Sports 16 17 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.07 17 18 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.05
Investments/purchases 19 11 0.14 0.07 0.12 0.01 19 14 0.19
**
0.04 0.19
**
0.02
Orderliness 20 6 0.20
*
0.01 0.22
*
0.10 12 22 0.24
***
0.01 0.25
***
0.09
Children’s education 20 6 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.09 21 11 0.14
*
0.02 0.15
*
0.03
Repairs (home handyman, DIY) 22 3 0.05 0.14 0.02 0.13 22 7 0.04 0.13
*
0.00 0.12
*
Other – 5 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.00 – 11 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.09
Note:r= bivariate correlation; pr = partial correlation (SOP controlling for SPP, SPP controlling for SOP). # = rank (percent ascending; excluding ‘‘Other”). (%) = percent of
participants answering ‘‘yes” to the question whether they were perfectionistic in this domain.
a
DIY = do it yourself; Other = any other domain.
*
p< 0.05,
**
p< 0.01,
***
p< 0.001, two-tailed.
J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber /Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535 533
tions with satisfaction with life (see Table 1). When inspecting the
individual domains, no domain showed significant correlations with
satisfaction with life in the student sample. In the Internet sample,
however, two domains showed significant positive correlations with
satisfaction with life: Being perfectionistic in sports (r= 0.13) and
being perfectionistic in time management (r= 0.14, both p< 0.05)
were both associated with higher satisfaction with life.
4. Discussion
Using two samples (a sample of university students and a sam-
ple of Internet users), the present research investigated the preva-
lence with which people are perfectionistic in 22 domains of life,
what the most prevalent domains of perfectionism were, and
how being perfectionistic in different domains related to perfec-
tionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Across the two sam-
ples, there were three converging findings. First, work and studies
were the domains in which most people were perfectionistic, as
was expected from Slaney and Ashby (1996). Unexpectedly, bodily
hygiene was a domain that ranked high in both samples. This is a
new and surprising finding because bodily hygiene is a domain
that perfectionism research has not yet explored. Moreover, being
perfectionistic in bodily hygiene did not show any correlations
with self-oriented or socially prescribed perfectionism suggesting
that these two forms of perfectionism do not capture an important
domain of life where many people are perfectionistic.
Second, as the correlations between perfectionism and the over-
all domains of perfectionism score demonstrated, higher levels of
perfectionism were associated with being perfectionist in a greater
number of domains. Whereas this does not confirm Flett and He-
witt’s (2002) claim that extreme perfectionists want to be perfect
in all aspects of their lives, the finding shows that most perfection-
ists are perfectionistic in multiple domains—and the greater their
perfectionism, the more domains people report being perfectionis-
tic in. Moreover, the present study found that it was self-oriented
perfectionism, and not socially prescribed perfectionism, that
showed consistent and unique correlations with the overall num-
ber of domains of perfectionism and with most of the individual
domains. This finding indicates that, in most domains, being per-
fectionistic was internally motivated, not externally motivated.
Third, being perfectionistic, overall and in individual domains,
was largely independent of gender and age (except that older par-
ticipants were more often perfectionistic in children’s education).
Moreover, being perfectionistic in a greater number of domains
was not related to lower satisfaction with life. On the contrary,
being perfectionistic in sports and time management was associ-
ated with higher satisfaction of life in the Internet sample, suggest-
ing that being perfectionistic in these domains may tap positive
aspects of perfectionism (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
The present findings have some limitations. First, the student
sample contained only few males. Whereas this reflects the pre-
dominance of female students in and around psychology depart-
ments, future studies should aim for student samples with more
males to have greater statistical power for investigating whether
students show gender differences in the domains of life affected
by perfectionism. Second, the present study focused on Hewitt
and Flett’s (1991) multidimensional model investigating how
self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism
were related to being perfectionistic across and within different
domains of life. Consequently, future studies should consider other
models and use other multidimensional measures of perfectionism
(e.g., Frost et al., 1990; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001)
to further our knowledge on how different forms, dimensions, and
aspects of perfectionism are related to different domains of perfec-
tionism. Finally, regarding subjective well-being, the present
research included only a global measure of satisfaction with life.
Because being perfectionistic in specific domains may not affect
global satisfaction, but satisfaction in specific domains of life, fu-
ture studies on domains of perfectionism may profit from includ-
ing multidimensional measures of satisfaction with life (see
Gilman et al., 2005).
Nonetheless, the present findings have important implications
for the understanding of perfectionism and its assessment. First,
the findings indicate that certain domains are more likely to be
associated with perfectionism than others, with work and studies
being the domains most often associated with perfectionism.
Moreover, whereas work and studies were the predominant do-
mains in the present samples, this may be different in other sam-
ples who have more specific interests such as athletes who are
mainly interested in their sport (Dunn et al., 2005). Consequently,
researchers interested in perfectionism in specific domains of life
may profit from using domain-specific measures of perfectionism
(e.g., Dunn et al., 2006) or adapting instructions and items to cap-
ture perfectionism in the targeted domain (e.g., Stoeber & Rennert,
2008). Some extreme perfectionists may strive to be perfect in all
domains of life, but most perfectionists have specific domains
where they are perfectionistic—and other domains where they
are not.
Acknowledgements
We thank Katie-Jo Traverse-Healy and Rowena Wasyliw for col-
lecting the data of Sample 1.
References
Coles, M. E., Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., & Rhéaume, J. (2003). ‘‘Not just right
experiences”: Perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive features and general
psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 681–700.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Dunn, J. G. H., Dunn, J. C., Gotwals, J. K., Vallance, J. K. H., Craft, J. M., & Syrotuik, D. G.
(2006). Establishing construct validity evidence for the sport multidimensional
perfectionism scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 57–79.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. C. (2005). An examination of the domain
specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38, 1439–1448.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A
critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism (pp. 33–62).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of
theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.),
Perfectionism (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress
and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1363–1381.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K. (2005). The relationship
between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among Croatian
and American youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 155.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-
based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet
questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
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, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS):
Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Landa, C. E., & Bybee, J. A. (2007). Adaptive elements of aging: Self-image
discrepancy, perfectionism, and eating problems. Developmental Psychology,
43, 83–93.
Mitchelson, J. K., & Burns, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at
work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477–485.
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Perfectionism Questionnaire (PQ)
(J. Rhéaume, M. H. Freeston, & C. Bouchard, Trans.). Montréal, Canada:
Université Laval, Unpublished manuscript.
Rhéaume, J., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (2000). The prediction of obsessive-
compulsive tendencies: Does perfectionism play a significant role? Personality
and Individual Differences, 28, 583–592.
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 74, 393–398.
534 J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber /Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised
Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 34, 130–145.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with
stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 27–53.
Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008). Assessing three sources of
misresponse to reversed Likert items. Journal of Marketing Research, 45,
116–131.
J. Stoeber, F.S. Stoeber /Personality and Individual Differences 46 (2009) 530–535 535
