Content uploaded by Suniya S. Luthar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suniya S. Luthar on Nov 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 51(9), 2014 C2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21795
PURSUING PERFECTION: DISTRESS AND INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONING
AMONG ADOLESCENT BOYS IN SINGLE-SEX AND CO-EDUCATIONAL
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
SIDNEY A. COREN
Teachers College, Columbia University
SUNIYA S. LUTHAR
Arizona State University
This study extends past findings of heightened problems among affluent youth by examining adjust-
ment patterns among boys in two academically elite, independent high schools: one for boys only
and the other co-educational. Both samples manifested disproportionately high rates of internaliz-
ing and externalizing symptoms, but only the co-educational boys showed elevations in substance
use. Boys in both schools showed elevations in a new outcome domain examined: exhibitionistic
narcissism. Multivariate analyses of predictors showed that parent criticism—a defining feature
of youths’ maladaptive perfectionism—and perceived maternal depression emerged as major vul-
nerability factors for both samples in relation to symptom levels. On other parenting dimensions,
boys in the single-sex school seemed to be particularly sensitive to feelings of alienation from
their fathers and perceived paternal depression. Envy of peers’ attractiveness was associated with
adolescent distress in both samples, but appeared to be especially critical for co-educational boys.
Results are discussed, focusing on the costs and benefits of boys’ attendance at a single-sex versus
co-educational school, along with implications for practice and future research. C2014 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
In this study, we sought to determine whether past findings of elevated maladjustment among
affluent youth (Luthar, Barkin, & Crossman, 2013) might generalize to students in an all-boys school.
Advocates of single-sex education have suggested that all-boys schools foster healthy socioemotional
development by removing “cross-gender distractions,” paving the way for safer, more nurturing,
and less competitive academic and social environments (International Boys’ School Coalition,
2013). However, prior research comparing boys’ socioemotional adjustment in single-sex versus
co-educational schools has produced equivocal results (Mael, Alonso, Gibson, Rogers, & Smith,
2005; Moore, Piper, & Schaefer, 1993; Riordan et al., 2008). In a recent Sex Roles special issue on
the efficacy of single-sex education, Bigler and Signorella (2011) addressed the sparse empirical
literature on the efficacy of single-sex compared with co-educational schools, calling for researchers
to investigate the consequences of single-sex versus co-educational school environments on youths’
psychological development. Given this background, we sought to compare patterns of adjustment
as well as their predictors among high school boys attending an elite single-sex school with a cohort
of 9th- to 11th-grade boys attending an elite, co-educational school.
In terms of adjustment domains assessed, following Luthar and Barkin (2012), we focused on
outcome domains in which affluent youth are likely to be particularly vulnerable. These included
internalizing symptoms (anxiety/depression) and externalizing symptoms (rule-breaking/aggressive
behaviors; see Ansary & Luthar, 2009; Luthar & Barkin, 2012; Luthar & Goldstein, 2008), and
substance use (Patrick, Wightman, Schoeni, & Schulenberg, 2012).
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01DA014385-06; R01 DA010726-
12). Sincere thanks to the students, families, and schools who generously participated in our research and to members
of our research laboratory.
Correspondence to: Suniya S. Luthar, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister
Road, Tempe, AZ 85284. E-mail: Suniya.Luthar@asu.edu
931
932 Coren and Luthar
We also explored a new adjustment domain in which well-to-do adolescent boys, immersed in
a culture that prioritizes accolades and status as markers of self-worth, may experience heightened
vulnerability, that is, narcissistic exhibitionism (Koplewicz, Gurian, & Williams, 2009). Individuals
who strive for extrinsic rather than intrinsic goals are susceptible to developing narcissistic traits
(Deci & Ryan, 2012). Narcissistic exhibitionism may be particularly problematic among boys with
high socioeconomic status, who can be at risk for entitlement and braggadocio (Luthar et al., 2013)
and may employ grandiose, attention-seeking behaviors to elicit external validation of their self-
worth (Tracy & Robins, 2003; Ward & Ashby, 2008). Moreover, narcissistic individuals tend to
strive for perfection, as both narcissists and perfectionists seek admiration and approval from others
to help maintain their self-esteem (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Trumpeter, Watson, & O’Leary, 2006).
Research has demonstrated robust associations between narcissism and perfectionism, including the
salient finding that individuals with narcissistic personality disorder report high levels of multiple
dimensions of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; McCown & Carlson, 2004).
We also considered exhibitionistic narcissism to be a conceptually important outcome domain
among these boys in light of findings that 50% to 75% of those diagnosed with narcissistic personality
disorder are male (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), many highly successful individuals
display narcissistic traits (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), and college rates of narcissism
have increased significantly in the past 20 years (Twenge & Foster, 2010).
VULNERABILITY AND PROTECTIVE FACTO RS:ACHIEVEMENT PRESSURES,CONFLICT,
AND SUPPORT
In past research, we have referred to a subculture of affluent children as “privileged but pres-
sured” to capture the notion that although well-to-do youth have access to exceptional material and
educational resources, they also experience excessive achievement pressures from diverse adults,
most notably their parents (Luthar & Becker, 2002). When parents put pressure on their children
to “perform” by emphasizing achievement, they communicate that they value their children for
their accomplishments instead of their personal character. Children can internalize parental achieve-
ment pressures in the form of maladaptive perfectionist strivings, that is, overly high performance
standards accompanied by critical evaluations of one’s performance (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1990). Parental criticism is considered a core dimension of maladaptive perfectionism,
as perfectionists strive to fulfill unrealistic expectations and goals, often propelled by underlying
fears of failure and criticism, as well as low self-esteem (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
Additionally, perfectionists tend to internalize their parents’ excessive demands for achievement,
equating mistakes with parental rejection (Frost et al., 1990), as Alice Miller (1995) eloquently
described in her book, The Drama of the Gifted Child.
More than a decade of research on affluent, high-achieving youth has shown that perceived
parent criticism for failures is a consistent predictor of adjustment problems among upper-middle-
class youth (for a review, see Luthar et al., 2013). This body of research has shown that youth who
feel that their parents disparage or punish them for perceived failures are particularly vulnerable
to elevations in internalizing and externalizing symptoms. These findings generalize across gender,
age (middle and high school), geographical locale, and school type, that is, independent and public
schools.
Given that parental criticism is highly destructive, a major goal of this study was to gain further
insights into the correlates and nature of parental criticism as a core feature of perfectionism. Prior re-
search on perfectionism dimensions has demonstrated that other-imposed or socially prescribed types
of perfectionism—of which parental criticism is a potent exemplar—are generally far more detri-
mental for personal adjustment than are self-imposed perfectionism dimensions, such as concerns
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 933
about one’s mistakes or doubts about failures (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Pickering, 1994; Hewitt
& Flett, 1991; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). In terms of possible underlying mechanisms, frequent
criticism by parents can lead youth to feel resentful of and alienated from parents, with this alien-
ation, in turn, potentially leading to serious adjustment disturbances (e.g., nonsuicidal self-injurious
behaviors; Yates, Tracy, & Luthar, 2008).
In addition to perceived parental criticism, we examined several aspects of negative parent–child
interactions as predictors of boys’ adaptation levels in this study. Extending Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Findenauer, and Vohs’ (2001) seminal insight that “bad is stronger than good” (p. 323), research with
affluent youth has shown that negative aspects of family relationships (such as feeling alienated from
parents) have a much greater impact than do positive ones (such as feeling praised; see Luthar &
Barkin, 2012). Given these findings, along with previously described links between parental criticism
and resentment of parents (Yates et al., 2008), we included adolescents’ feelings of alienation from
both mothers and fathers among the predictor variables. In addition, we considered perceptions
of depression in each parent, also previously linked to maladjustment (Luthar & Barkin, 2012).
Lastly, we considered self-blame for conflict in the family, as this construct captures a pivotal aspect
of family functioning: the degree to which youth internalize blame for discord between parents.
Moreover, it is the only predictor in this study to account for relationship quality between parents
(not just mother or father and son), as well as the effect of self-blame on youth adjustment.
In addition to these aspects of family relationships, we investigated the quality of relationships
with close friends, including support as well as conflict. Positive interactions with close friends
were explored as a potential protective mechanism against the more insidious aspects of affective
relationships with parents noted previously. Negative interactions with close friends were included,
given their well-established links with poor outcomes among adolescents in general (Lee, Hankin,
& Mermelstein, 2010).
ENVY OF PEERS
In a salient extension of past research on affluent youth, we also considered, among predictors
of maladjustment, a new set of constructs that are strongly related conceptually to maladaptive
perfectionism: envy of peers. Like unhealthy perfectionism, envy often reflects underlying feelings of
low self-esteem (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). Whereas maladaptive perfectionist strivings
may protect from feelings of inferiority (Lo & Abbott, 2013; Tracy & Robins, 2003), those very
same feelings and concomitant threats to self-esteem may in fact elicit envy. Envy, which implies “I
wish I had what you have, (and) I wish you did not have it” (Fiske, 2010, p. 703), is correlated with
depression, as is maladaptive perfectionism (Fiske, 2010; Kawamura, Hunt, Frost, & DiBartolo,
2001).
In this study, we explored peer envy across multiple spheres that are likely to be important to
this demographic of adolescents: popularity, attractiveness, and wealth (Froh et al., 2011; Luthar,
Siegel, Sin, & Thrastardottir, 2013). It is well documented that individuals compare themselves
to those around them and are envious of what those close to them have (Diener & Lucas, 2000;
Fiske, 2010; Ninivaggi, 2010). Envy of peers’ looks, social ranking, and wealth may be especially
prominent within the subculture of affluence that is known to value material wealth (Koplewicz
et al., 2009) and extrinsic mores, such as status and looks (Gordinier, 2009).
SUMMARY
This study seeks to extend prior work on affluent youth in multiple ways. We consider
(a) whether prior findings that affluent youth are “at risk” for maladjustment across multiple problem
domains extend to a new sample of adolescent boys attending an elite all-boys school; (b) whether
the affective quality of parent and peer relationships is differentially associated with outcomes for
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
934 Coren and Luthar
Tab le 1
Description of Participating Samples
All-Boys Co-Ed Boys
Grade 9–11 9–11
No. of Boys 144 173
White,% 75 76.9
Black,% 7.5 3.5
Hispanic,% 2.7 2.3
Asian,% 5.4 9.2
Other,% 2 3.5
Biracial/Multiracial,% 6 4.6
Marital Status
Married,% 86.5 85.5
Separated,% 3.4 2.3
Divorced,% 5.4 8.2
Never Married,% 2.7 1.2
SAT Median Scores
Reading 740 710
Math 740 700
Writing 750 745
Note. All-Boys, East Coast suburban sample; Co-Ed Boys, East Coast urban sample.
boys in single-sex versus co-educational schools; (c) whether high parent criticism, a core fea-
ture of maladaptive perfectionism, is indeed highly destructive across samples and outcomes; and
(d) whether unique associations might also pertain, in multivariate analyses, to two other constructs
with strong conceptual links to maladaptive perfectionism, that is, envy of peers (among predictors)
and exhibitionistic narcissism (among outcomes).
METHOD
Sample
Our analyses are based on 9th to 11th graders from (a) an all-boys suburban independent school
outside a large East Coast city and (b) a co-ed independent school in a large East Coast city. In the
interest of brevity, we refer to the samples henceforth as “all-boys” and “co-ed boys.”
Characteristics of samples are shown in Table 1. Most students were from Caucasian fam-
ilies (75%) with married parents. Median composite SAT scores for recent high-school grad-
uates, as reported by both schools, rank in the 98th percentile compared with national norms
(research.collegeboard.com, 2012).
Students’ participation in this study was based on passive consent procedures, with data col-
lected as part of school-based initiatives on positive youth development. School administrators sent
letters to all homes via U.S. mail before each wave of data collection to ensure that parents were
well informed regarding their children’s involvement. Students were informed that their participa-
tion was voluntary and that results would be kept confidential. On completion of data collection,
questionnaires were stored with subject numbers as identifiers.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 935
Procedure
Both samples were assessed during the spring of 2006. All measures were administered to
individual students in groups; no student incentives were provided per the administrators’ request in
both schools.
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures have been used in our past research on affluent ado-
lescents (Luthar & Barkin, 2012), with good reliability and validity. In this study, alpha coefficients
of the various subscales were generally similar across schools; in the interest of brevity, we provide
average values for boys across both schools, noting these values in parentheses for each subscale in
the following sections.
Substance Use. We used the Monitoring the Future Study Survey (Johnston, O’Malley, &
Bachman, 1984), which has well-documented reliability and validity. As in previous studies (Luthar
& Barkin, 2012), we created a composite substance use variable by adding scores for cigarettes,
alcohol, and marijuana during the past year (α=.74).
Symptoms. The Youth Self-Report (YSR) contains 112 items encompassing internalizing
and externalizing domains (Achenback & Rescorla, 2011). The internalizing scale is composed of
three subscales: Anxious-Depressed, Withdrawn-Depressed, and Somatic (α=.81, .81, and .68,
respectively). The externalizing scale is made up of two subscales, Rule-breaking and Aggressive
behaviors (α=.75 and .80, respectively).
Narcissistic Exhibitionism. We used one component subscale of the Narcissism Personality
Inventory (NPI-2) to measure teens’ exhibitionism (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Subscales are based
on behavioral criteria for narcissistic personality and include items such as, “I like it when others
brag about good things I’ve done” (dichotomous responses: yes/no). The alpha coefficient for
exhibitionism was .65.
Parent Criticism. The four-item subscale of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost
et al., 1990), with items such as “I never feel like I can meet my parents’ standards,” yielded an
alpha coefficient of .80.
Parent Depression. The depression section of the Family History Screen (Weissman et al.,
2000) was used to measure teens’ perceptions of depressive symptoms in each parent (dichotomous
responses: yes/no). Alpha coefficients for mothers/fathers, respectively, were .74/.71. Illustrative
items are, “Did your mother/father ever have a period during which they felt depressed that lasted
two weeks or more?”
Alienation from Parents. The Alienation subscale of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attach-
ment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) consists of 50 items (25 each pertaining to mothers/fathers,
α=.79/.79) rated on a 5-point scale, such as, “I don’t get much attention from my mother/father.”
Self-Blame. The Self-Blame subscale of the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict
Scale (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992) consists of four items, including “My parents blame me when
they have arguments.”
Social Interactions. The Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985)
contains 29 items measuring overall social support from (α=.82) and negative interactions with
(α=.83) close friends. Examples include, “How much do you share secrets and private feelings
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
936 Coren and Luthar
Tab le 2
Means (Standard Deviations) on Outcomes and Predictors
All-Boys Co-Ed Boys
Variable Mean SD Mean SD F Value Eta Squared
Outcomes
Internalizing 9.26 0.61 7.96 0.57 2.43 0.00
Externalizing 10.29 0.60 10.59 0.56 0.14 0.00
Substance Use 1.09 2.27 4.95 4.85 78.58*** 0.19
Narcissistic Exhibition 2.93 1.55 3.10 1.59 0.61 0.00
Predictors: Parents
Criticism 9.20 3.78 8.43 3.81 3.33†0.01
Mom Depression 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.36 0.00
Dad Depression 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.21 2.44 0.01
Mom Alienation 3.05 0.68 2.95 0.57 2.32 0.01
Dad Alienation 2.32 0.81 2.17 0.72 3.10†0.01
Self-Blame 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.49 2.67 0.01
Predictors: Peers
Support 2.91 0.66 3.21 0.71 13.90*** 0.04
Negative Interactions Interactions 1.63 0.61 1.84 0.76 6.93** 0.02
Envy-Looks 0.55 0.52 0.68 0.55 4.24* 0.01
Envy-Wealth 0.26 0.36 0.31 0.39 1.66 0.01
Envy-Popularity 0.68 0.53 0.79 0.53 2.96†0.01
Total Envy 10.98 7.41 12.96 7.92 5.06* 0.02
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †p<.10.
with your close friend?” and “ How much do you and your close friend get upset or mad at each
other”?
Envy. We used three subscales of an Envy measure (Luthar et al., 2013; four items each),
corresponding to distinct types of envy that high school students may feel: envy of looks or appearance
(α=.89), popularity (α=.88), and wealth (α=.77).
RESULTS
Descriptive Data
Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for all variables separately by school. A one-
way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed significant main effects for school (Wilks
λ=0.81, p<.001).
In follow-up univariate analyses, significant school differences were seen on only one adjust-
ment measure: substance use. As shown in Table 2, co-ed boys reported relatively high substance
use compared with the all-boys sample, with a large effect size (partial η2=.19).
A one-way MANOVA on the predictor variables showed significant main effects for school
(Wilks λ=0.85, p<.001). Follow-up analyses of variance showed that co-ed boys reported greater
social support from their friends, but also experienced more negative interactions with their friends.
Additionally, this group had higher levels of envy for looks, as well as overall feelings of envy
toward their peers.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 937
FIGURE 1. The percentage of students reporting substance use in the past month, compared with national norms (2006).
National normative data are not available for girls and boys separately.
Simple correlations among all variables are displayed in Table 1, with values for co-ed boys in
the top right half of the table and those for all-boys in the bottom left. The patterns of correlations show
strong associations between conceptually linked variables, but to avoid Type 1 errors, all inferences
about salient patterns are reserved for the more stringent multivariate analyses that follow.
Comparisons with National Norms: Maladjustment
As in past reports, we compared maladjustment levels among our samples with national norma-
tive data. Figure 1 displays results on substance use. As previously reported (Luthar & Barkin, 2012),
boys in the co-ed private school exhibited strikingly elevated levels of substance use compared with
national norms. The all-boys lower levels of substance use were equally salient, as they reported
using alcohol, getting drunk, and smoking marijuana at a rate of less than one third the national
average.
Figure 2 displays the proportion of boys reporting clinically significant symptom levels on the
YSR. In contrast to findings on substance use, all-boys fared worse on internalizing and externalizing
symptoms compared with national norms (12% and 10% “much above average,” respectively, versus
2% for national norms). Both all-boys and co-ed boys showed elevations of more than 4 to 5 times
the national norms on overall internalizing and externalizing dimensions.
Comparisons with Norms: Narcissistic Exhibitionism
We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether affluent boys as a group manifest
higher rates of narcissism than do their less affluent peers. Although national normative data are not
available on the NPI-2 to our knowledge, we did obtain values on two socioeconomically diverse
samples of college males: 693 first-year college boys (Ackerman, Brecheen, Corker, Donnellan, &
Witt, 2013) and 291 college boys (mean age, 19; Maxwell, Donnellan, Hopwood, & Ackerman,
2011). Mean values in these more diverse samples were 1.44 (SD =1.65) and 1.93 (SD =1.70)
respectively; these values are a little more than half those of both samples of affluent boys in this
study (means of 2.93 for all-boys and 3.10 for co-ed boys; Table 2).
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
938 Coren and Luthar
Tab le 3
Intercorrelations among Variables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
1. Internalizing 0.62** 0.01 0.12 0.29** 0.39** 0.23** 0.49** 0.41** 0.19* –0.14 0.22** 0.44** 0.31** 0.33**
2. Externalizing 0.48** 0.16* 0.33** 0.21** 0.36** 0.19* 0.45** 0.39** 0.21** 0.14 0.31** 0.39** 0.37** 0.26**
3. Substance Use 0.08 0.48** 0.16* –0.02 0.03 –0.04 0.10 0.03 –0.03 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.12
4. Narcissistic Exhibition –0.02 0.29** 0.29** 0.03 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.27** 0.09 0.45** 0.13 0.12
5. Parent Criticism 0.30** 0.39** 0.18* 0.02 –0.01 0.08 0.35** 0.38** 0.35** –0.03 0.08 0.04 0.19* 0.14
6. Mom Depression 0.44** 0.31** 0.17* 0.21* 0.19* 0.44** 0.30** 0.31** 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.26** 0.43** 0.30
7. Dad Depression 0.37** 0.41** 0.31** 0.13 0.20** 0.66** 0.08 0.40** 0.06 –0.03 0.09 0.13 0.40** 0.18*
8. Mom Alienation 0.49** 0.29** 0.10 0.25** 0.52** 0.29* 0.17* 0.71** 0.46** –0.07 0.29** 0.33** 0.26** 0.25**
9. Dad Alienation 0.52** 0.50** 0.24** 0.37** 0.50** 0.31** 0.32** 0.81** 0.44** –0.10 0.22** 0.28** 0.25** 0.30**
10. Self-Blame 0.36** 0.41** 0.32** 0.18* 0.44** 0.19* 0.21* 0.34** 0.43** –0.02 0.17* 0.21* 0.28** 0.09
11. Peer Support 0.00 0.09 –0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06 –0.07 –0.03 0.03 0.13 0.05 –0.10 0.07
12. Negative Peer Interactions 0.17 0.47** 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.20* 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.21* 0.09
13. Envy-Looks 0.34** 0.33** 0.06 0.39** 0.16 0.35** 0.26** 0.24** 0.26** 0.16 0.05 0.14 0.37** 0.67**
14. Envy-Wealth 0.31** 0.37* 0.06 0.13 0.28** 0.43** 0.24** 0.40** 0.26** 0.28** 0.19* –0.10 0.37** 0.31**
15. Envy-Popularity 0.33** 0.26** 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.30** 0.18** 0.25** 0.30** 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.67** 0.31**
Note. Correlations for All-Boys are listed in the bottom left half of the diagonal and correlations for Co-Ed Boys are listed in the top right half of the diagonal.
**p<.01. *p<.05.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 939
FIGURE 2. Incidence of clinically significant self-reported symptoms among students, compared with national norms.
Multiple Regression Analyses: Effects of Relationships with Parents and Peers
Table 4 presents the effects of salient dimensions of relationships with parents and peers in
predicting to teens’ adjustment outcomes. Considered together, boys’ reports of their relationships
with parents and peers, along with dimensions of envy, accounted for almost half the variation in
their internalizing and externalizing symptom levels, with R squared values ranging from .43 to .51.
Parent criticism was uniquely linked to internalizing symptoms among co-ed boys and to
externalizing symptoms among all-boys. Perceived maternal depression was associated with inter-
nalizing symptoms for both groups and with externalizing symptoms as well among the co-ed boys;
in addition, maternal alienation was associated with co-ed boys’ internalizing symptoms. In notable
contrast, alienation from and perceived depression of fathers was linked to externalizing, substance
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
940 Coren and Luthar
Tab le 4
Multiple Regressions: Relational Predictors and Boys’ Outcomes
Internalizing Externalizing Substance Use Narcissistic Exhibition
Predictors All-Boys Co-Ed All-Boys Co-Ed All-Boys Co-Ed All-Boys Co-Ed
Parent Criticism 0.10 0.14*0.20*0.11 –0.01 –0.07 0.14 0.01
Mom Depression 0.26*0.25** –0.04 0.23** 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.06
Dad Depression 0.03 0.08 0.23*0.01 0.33** –0.08 –0.21 –0.05
Mom Alienation 0.08 0.23*–0.06 0.16 –0.17 0.18 –0.22 –0.10
Dad Alienation 0.23 –0.05 0.23t 0.00 0.15 –0.02 0.41*0.20
Self-Blame 0.10 –0.10 0.14t –0.01 0.28** –0.05 0.15 0.00
Peer Support 0.10 –0.10 0.02 0.24*** –0.10 0.02 0.04 0.26**
Negative Peer Interactions –0.02 0.07 0.33*** 0.24*** –0.04 0.03 –0.02 0.00
Envy-Looks 0.09 0.27** 0.19*0.14 –0.03 0.07 0.22 0.44***
Envy-Wealth –0.01 0.20*0.05 0.13 –0.24 –0.24 –0.05 –0.15
Envy-Popularity 0.13 –0.10 –0.01 0.03 0.11 0.12 –0.09 0.07
Tot al R2.43*** .47*** .51*** .45*** .23** 0.07 .23** .29**
Note. Values in italics appear to be due to suppressor effects, as the statistically significant beta weights are opposite in
valence to those in parallel zero-order correlations. Hence, they are not interpreted.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001. †p<.10.
use, and narcissism outcomes for all-boys. Furthermore, self-blame for family conflicts uniquely
predicted substance use for the all-boys group.
Similarly, findings suggest differences in the relative importance of aspects of peer relationships
on adjustment for all-boys and co-ed boys. As expected, negative peer relationships were linked
to externalizing symptoms for both groups. Contrary to expectations, peer support was positively
associated with externalizing symptoms and narcissistic exhibitionism among co-ed boys. Envy
of peers’ good looks emerged as a unique predictor of internalizing symptoms and narcissistic
exhibitionism among co-ed boys and of externalizing behaviors among all-boys.
DISCUSSION
Results of this study show that affluent boys in elite single-sex and co-ed private schools are at
risk for serious adjustment problems across multiple domains of functioning, with rates of clinically
significant internalizing and externalizing symptoms nearly three times those in national norms. In
striking contrast to our prior studies on upper-middle-class youth, the all-boys cohort was our first
sample that did not report elevated substance use compared with national norms.
Multivariate regression analyses showed unique associations between discrete aspects of rela-
tionships with parents and peers, and adolescent outcomes, with (a) perceived criticism by parents,
a core, defining feature of maladaptive perfectionism, linked with symptoms for both groups of
boys. Also consistently linked to symptoms in both schools were (b) perceived maternal depression,
(c) peer envy, and (d) negative peer interactions. Among co-ed boys, perceived maternal depression,
alienation from mothers, support from peers, and envy of peers’ attractiveness showed strong associ-
ations with multiple areas of maladjustment. In contrast, perceived father depression and alienation
were related to several indices of distress only for boys at the single-sex school. Each of these
findings is discussed in turn.
Maladjustment Domains
Our most salient finding was the striking difference in rates of alcohol consumption, with more
than 45% of co-ed boys reporting being drunk in the past year (national norm =30%) compared
with only 8% of all-boys. It is important to note, however, that the all-boys school sampled in this
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 941
study endorses a strict, no-substance-use policy: administrators and students alike reported to our
research team that youth were automatically expelled from school if they were caught drinking or
smoking. This zero-tolerance policy may have curtailed all-boys’ substance use in high school, but
it is not clear if this benefit would be sustained in college.
Boys in both our samples showed high rates of externalizing behaviors as well as internalizing
symptoms, supporting Lund and Dearing’s (2012) finding that youth from affluent neighborhoods
engage in rule-breaking behavior more frequently than do their middle-class counterparts and repli-
cating prior reports of high delinquency rates among affluent boys (Luthar & Barkin, 2012; Luthar &
Goldstein, 2008). Both samples reported clinically elevated levels of anxiety and depression at a rate
of more than 5 times the national average. This finding indicates that in hyper-achievement-oriented
settings, boys may experience distress not only with traditionally male problems of externalizing
behaviors, but they may also struggle considerably with covert, traditionally female symptoms of an
internalizing nature (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002).
Narcissism
Exploratory analysis showed that both the all-boys and co-ed boys might be susceptible to
developing unhealthy, narcissistic exhibitionist traits. Grandiose narcissism may be a problem par-
ticularly among boys in affluent, upwardly mobile communities due to preoccupation with obtaining
power and related symbols of influence, such as sex and wealth. Through high school and beyond,
social status is highly influenced by physical attractiveness (Chase, 2008; see also the association
between envy of peers’ looks and narcissistic exhibitionism among co-ed boys above), and in col-
lege, social ranking is strongly linked to wealth as well (Luthar et al., 2013). The long-term costs
of affluent boys’ efforts to earn reputations as the “big man on campus” (Chase, 2008, p. 55), a
term that connotes alpha-dog status, may be long-lasting and deep. These boys might have difficulty
engaging in authentic, intimate personal relationships; they may also be at risk for chauvinistic,
entitled attitudes and behaviors toward women (Luthar et al., 2013).
Predictors of Maladjustment: Discrete Aspects of Parent–Son Relationships
Findings in this study strongly support prior contentions that parental criticism—a core, defining
feature of youths’ maladaptive perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990)—is a major vulnerability factor
for personal maladjustment (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Luthar et al., 2013). Simple correlations showed
significant links with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in both samples of boys, and even
in the stringent multivariate analyses considering shared variance across multiple predictors, it
was uniquely linked with overall internalizing symptoms among co-ed boys and with externalizing
behaviors among all-boys.
Interestingly, perceived parent criticism also showed significant univariate links not only with
felt alienation from each parent but also with self-blame for conflict between parents and with
envy of peers’ wealth. These associations warrant further attention in future multivariate models, as
they suggest a breadth of adjustment dimensions adversely affected by perceived parent criticism,
including self-blame for events outside one’s direct control (which fosters depression; see Grych
et al., 1992) and enviousness of others’ material possessions, also linked with distress (Deci & Ryan,
2012; Luthar et al., 2013).
The association between perceived parent criticism and feelings of alienation from parents is
particularly important to highlight, as it suggests that upper-middle-class boys who feel criticized
by their parents for failing to achieve may feel distant from and resentful of them. In other words,
our findings support the intuitive but overlooked notion that when adolescents feel that their parents
disapprove of their achievement levels, they can develop feelings of alienation toward their parents,
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
942 Coren and Luthar
and these feelings in turn can engender significant adjustment problems. As Yates et al. (2008)
established in their prospective research, affluent public school students’ feelings of parent criticism
were linked with their feelings of alienation from parents, and the latter then predicted nonsuicidal
self-injurious behaviors.
The association between perceived parent criticism and self-blame points to a tendency for
those exposed to perfectionism pressures to feel responsible for a range of outcomes. Similarly,
the strong association in our findings between boys’ perceived parent criticism and self-blame for
conflict between parents suggests that the effects of perceived parental criticism on boys’ self-blame
may extend beyond the realm of personal achievement to their parents’ relationships, a domain that
is both outside of themselves and beyond their control.
In addition to the parent criticism component of maladaptive perfectionism, we found several
intriguing associations specific to relationships with mothers and with fathers. First, our findings
confirm the decisive importance of relationships with mothers. Perceived maternal depression was
the only parent–son factor to be linked to internalizing symptoms in both samples of boys, as well as
externalizing problems for the co-ed youth. Also among the co-ed boys, feelings of alienation from
their mothers were associated with internalizing symptoms. It is possible that late-adolescent boys
in co-educational schools may increasingly look to their mothers for closeness and nurturance as
they negotiate the complex, challenging dynamics of cross-gender interactions, including developing
intimate relationships with female peers.
Perceived paternal depression and/or alienation from fathers predicted three of four outcome
domains for all-boys and none for co-ed boys. Perhaps boys in single-sex schools—asked to navigate
a peer culture of masculinity while trying to discover what it means, looks, and feels like to “be a
man”—identify with their fathers and look to them for support and guidance. Single-sex schools
promote the crucial impact of male role models on boys’ development (International Boys’ Schools
Coalition, 2013), and our findings show that boys experience distress when they perceive emotional
distance (and perhaps, undue pressures to excel) from the most significant male figure in their
lives—their fathers.
Peer Relationships and the Salience of Envy
Negative interactions with friends predicted externalizing symptoms for both samples, support-
ing the oft-reported robust relationship between peer conflicts and externalizing behaviors in youth
(Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). Considering that peer rejection, insults, and social exclusion
are associated with aggression (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), it was not surprising
that antagonism and conflict in close friendships were associated with externalizing symptoms for
all-boys and co-ed boys.
Contrary to expectations, social support from close friends did not appear to protect boys
from negative outcomes. In fact, multivariate analyses showed that social support from friends was
linked to exhibitionist narcissism for co-ed boys, suggesting that peer closeness and admiration
may contribute to these boys’ attention-seeking behaviors or that arrogant behavior patterns serve
to reinforce veneration among peers.
Group comparisons on envy showed that, overall, co-ed boys exhibited greater envy of peers
than did all-boys, that is, on cumulative envy scores encompassing peers’ looks, wealth, and
popularity. This finding, in turn, rested largely on significant differences in envy of others’ physical
attractiveness.
Of the various peer envy dimensions, why might envy for looks be elevated among the co-ed
compared with all-boys? Physical attractiveness is related to self-esteem (Morin, Ma¨
ıano, Marsh,
Janosz, & Nagengast, 2011), peer acceptance (Vannatta, Gartsetin, Zeller, & Noll, 2009), and
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 943
popularity (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). Most importantly—in terms of relevance to the present
findings—it is strongly related to being “desired by girls” among affluent adolescent boys (Chase,
2008; Luthar et al., 2013). Thus, more than envy of peers’ attractiveness per se, it may well be envy
of peers who are highly desired by girls that we captured in our measure; this latter dimension might
well be more salient for boys in a co-educational school than in a same-sex one.
With regard to the negative potential ramifications of peer envy for boys’ personal adjustment,
results of our regression analyses showed unique associations, again, for envy of peers’ looks. This
variable was significantly associated with internalizing symptoms and with narcissistic exhibitionism
among the co-ed boys and also with externalizing symptoms among all-boys.
These findings make intuitive sense in light of established research evidence from both social
and developmental psychology. Individuals are known to compare themselves with those closest
to them (Fiske, 2010; Ninivaggi, 2010), and adolescence is naturally a time of heightened self-
evaluation. With this in mind, we suggest that affluent boys are likely to be envious of their friends
because extrinsic attributes that connote high status, such as looks and wealth, are highly coveted
in the material, hypercompetitive culture of affluence. Furthermore, because envy induces both
humiliation and anger (Fiske, 2010; Smith, 2008), it is unsurprising that envy was associated with
disparate forms of distress across school contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2012).
Limitations, Caveats, and Future Directions
The measurement of all parent, peer, and personal dimensions by adolescents’ self-report has
inherent limitations, which we believe are outweighed by their value in capturing affluent teens’
perceptions of their relationships with their parents and peers, and how these relationships relate to
adjustment across various dimensions (see Luthar et al., 2013). Although we could have used teacher
or parent reports to capture teens’ delinquency and internalizing symptoms, youth self-reports are
most often used to measure illegal behaviors (www.monitoringthefuture.org; Loeber et al., 1993),
as teens are likely to hide illegal activity from parents and teachers. Additionally, adolescent boys
are more likely than girls to conceal internalizing distress.
The cross-sectional nature of this work is its most significant limitation, as it prevents any
definitive conclusions about the direction of associations reported. For example, it is possible that
adolescents’ internalizing distress influences maternal depression rather than the other way around.
Our findings attest to the need for future research on different dimensions of narcissism among
affluent boys. They may indeed be at more risk on this front compared with norms, so we need
to assess different dimensions of narcissism, including entitlement and exploitation (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000; Raskin & Terry, 1988) with well-normed instruments (e.g., the
Pathological Narcissism Inventory; Pincus et al., 2009).
Future research should attempt to replicate our findings of the relative costs and benefits of
attending single-sex versus co-educational private schools across different regions of the country.
Studying a new, affluent single-sex population would help us to (a) determine which internalizing and
externalizing dimensions of affluent teens’ maladjustment generalize to other geographical contexts
and (b) explain whether all-boys’ low levels of substance use compared with both national norms
and our own prior research on affluent youth is a product of the strict substance use policy of the
all-boys school surveyed in our sample or of more far-reaching positive effects of a single-sex school
environment (International Boys’ Schools Coalition, 2013).
In terms of interventions, we echo Luthar and colleagues’ (2013) emphasis on the urgent need
for more proactive prevention. Affluent schools and communities can hold workshops and lectures
that help parents understand the inimical effects of high-achievement pressure, notably, parental
communications that emphasize the child’s “failures to excel,” youths’ felt detachment from parents,
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
944 Coren and Luthar
and unacknowledged parental depression. Parent–Teacher Association meetings are an ideal setting
for parents to gather and discuss the pertinent issues that challenge their children’s well-being, such
as ways to prioritize intrinsic values at home so that boys do not rely on extrinsic markers of success,
such as status or appearance, as measures of self-worth (Koplewicz et al., 2009). Our findings also
suggest the need for single-sex schools, in particular, to hold support groups for fathers, whose ability
to establish and maintain supportive relationships with their children seems to be vitally important to
their adolescent sons’ well-being. Finally, teachers and administrators at prestigious schools would
do well to examine the priorities collectively held for their students. Pressures to achieve and pursue
“personal perfection” must be tempered with a school-based commitment to developing the “whole
child,” proactively cultivating a balanced sense of self and a value-system that emphasizes personal
growth, integrity, and authentic connections with others.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles: An integrated system of
multi-informant assessment. Burlington: University of Vermont. Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
Ackerman, Brecheen, Corker, Donnellan, & Witt. (2013). [College Life Study]. Unpublished raw data.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Ansary, N. A., & Luthar, S. S. (2009). Distress and academic achievement among adolescents of affluence: A study of
externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors and school performance. Development and Psychopathology, 21,
319 – 341.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their
relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427 –454.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General
Psychology, 5, 323 – 370.
Chase, S. A. (2008). Perfectly prep: Gender extremes at a New England prep school. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview
of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85 –107). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 626 – 641.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness: Relative standards, need fulfillment,
culture, and evaluation theory. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 41 – 78.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. The American Psychologist, 65, 698– 706.
Flett, G., Hewitt, P., Blankstein, K., & Pickering, D. (1994). Perfectionism in relation to attributions for success or failure.
Current Psychology, 17, 249 – 262.
Froh, J. J., Fan, J., Emmons, R. A., Bono, G., Huebner, E. S., & Watkins,P. (2011). Measuring gratitude in youth: Assessing the
psychometric properties of adult gratitude scales in children and adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 23, 311 –324.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 14, 449 – 468.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 21, 1016 – 1024.
Gordinier, J. (2009). X saves the world. New York, NY: Penguin.
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s
perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558 – 572.
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.
The International Boys’ Schools Coalition. (2013). Why a boys’ school? Retrieved July 13, 2013, from
http://www.theibsc.org/
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1984). Drugs and American high school students: 1975–1983 (DHHS
[ADM] 85–1374). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S. L., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2001). Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression: Are the
relationships independent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 291 – 301.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Maladaptive Perfectionism Among Affluent Boys 945
Koplewicz, H. S., Gurian, A., & Williams, K. (2009). The era of affluence and its discontents. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 1053 – 1055.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. (2002). Children’s perception of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 635 – 647.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111 – 132.
Lee, A., Hankin, B. L., & Mermelstein, R. J. (2010). Perceived social competence, negative social interactions, and negative
cognitive style predict depressive symptoms during adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,
39, 603 – 615.
Lo, A., & Abbott, M. J. (2013). Review of the theoretical, empirical, and clinical status of adaptive and maladaptive
perfectionism. Behaviour Change, 30, 96 – 116.
Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., Giroux, B., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1993). Developmental
pathways in disruptive child behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 101 – 132.
Lund, T. J., & Dearing, E. (2012). Is growing up affluent risky for adolescents or is the problem growing up in an affluent
neighborhood? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 274 – 282.
Luthar, S. S., & Barkin, S. H. (2012). Are affluent youth truly “at risk”? Vulnerability and resilience across three diverse
samples. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 429 – 449.
Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the upper middle classes.
Development and Psychopathology, 25,1529 – 1549.
Luthar, S. S., & Becker, B. E. (2002). Privileged but pressured? A study of affluentyouth. Child Development, 73, 1593 – 1610.
Luthar, S. S., & Goldstein, A. S. (2008). Substance use and related behaviors among suburban late adolescents: The importance
of perceived parent containment. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 591– 614.
Luthar, S. S., Shoum, K. A., & Brown, P. J. (2006). Extracurricular involvement among affluent youth: A scapegoat for
“ubiquitous achievement pressures?” Developmental Psychology, 42, 583 – 597.
Luthar, S. S., Siegel, T., Sin, E., & Thrastardottir, B. (2013, August 1). Envy of peers: Another “cost of affluence.” Poster
presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coed schooling: A systematic review.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Maxwell, K., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., & Ackerman, R. A. (2011). The two faces of Narcissus? An empirical com-
parison of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 577 – 582.
McCown, W. G., & Carlson, G. (2004). Narcissism, perfectionism, and self-termination from treatment in outpatient cocaine
users. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 329 – 340.
Miller, A. (1995). The drama of the gifted child: The search for the true self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Moore, M., Piper, V., & Schaefer, E. (1993). Single-sex schooling and educational effectiveness: A research overview. In D.
K. Hollinger (Ed.), Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice and research (pp. 7–68). Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Morin, A. J., Ma¨
ıano, C., Marsh, H. W., Janosz, M., & Nagengast, B. (2011). The longitudinal interplay of adolescents’
self-esteem and body image: A conditional autoregressive latent trajectory analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
46, 157 – 201.
Ninivaggi, F. J. (2010). Envy theory: Perspectives on the psychology of envy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Gender differences in depression. In I. H. Gotlib & C. L. Hammen (Eds.), Handbook of
depression (pp. 492 –509). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Patrick, M. E., Wightman, P., Schoeni, R. E., & Schulenberg J. E. (2012). Socioeconomic status and substance use among
young adults: A comparison across constructs and drugs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 772 –782.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial construction and
validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365 – 379.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence
of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890 – 902.
Riordan,C.,Faddis,B.,Beam,M.,Seager,A.,Tanney,A.,DiBiase,R.,...Valentine, J. (2008). Early Implementation of
Public Single-Sex Schools: Perceptions and Characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical
Psychology Review, 21, 879 – 906.
Signorella, M. L., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy.
Sex Roles, 65, 659 – 669.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
946 Coren and Luthar
Smith, R. H. (Ed.). (2008). Envy: Theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2003). ‘‘Death of a (narcissistic) salesman’’: An integrative model of fragile self-esteem.
Psychological Inquiry, 14, 57 – 62.
Trumpeter, N., Watson, P. J., & O’Leary, B. J. (2006). Factors within multidimensional perfectionism scales: Complexity of
relationships with self-esteem, narcissism, self-control, and self-criticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41,
849 – 860.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social
exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058– 1069.
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college
students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1, 99 –106.
Vannatta, K., Gartstein, M. A., Zeller, M., & Noll, R. B. (2009). Peer acceptance and social behavior during childhood and
adolescence: How important are appearance, athleticism, and academic competence? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 33, 303 – 311.
Ward, A., & Ashby, J. (2008). Multidimensional perfectionism and the self. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 22,
51 – 65.
Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., Adams, P., Wolk, S., Verdeli, H., & Olfson, M. (2000). Brief screening for family
psychiatric history: The family history screen. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 675 –682.
Yates, T., Tracy, M., & Luthar, S. (2008). Nonsuicidal self-injury among “privileged” youths: Longitudinal and cross-sectional
approaches to developmental processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 52 –62.
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
