Content uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joachim Stoeber on Sep 12, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Stoeber, J., Corr, P. J., Smith, M. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2018). Perfectionism and
personality. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research,
applications (pp. 68-88). London: Routledge.
Perfectionism and Personality
Joachim Stoeber, Philip J. Corr, Martin M. Smith, & Donald H. Saklofske
Overview
This chapter provides a synopsis of research on where multidimensional perfectionism
“fits” within the broader framework of contemporary personality theory. Focusing on Hewitt and
Flett’s (1991) model of perfectionism—differentiating self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially
prescribed perfectionism—the chapter presents a summary and critical discussion of how
multidimensional perfectionism relates to the dimensions and facets of two major structural
models of personality (the five-factor model and the HEXACO model) and one
neuropsychological model of personality (reinforcement sensitivity theory). Implications of the
findings for multidimensional theories and models of perfectionism, as well as future
perfectionism research, are discussed.
Introduction
Perfectionism is best conceptualized as a multidimensional personality disposition, which
is important because perfectionism’s multiple dimensions show different, sometimes opposite,
relationships with adaptive and maladaptive psychological processes and outcomes (see Chapters
1-3). For a complete understanding of multidimensional perfectionism, however, it is important
to know not only how different perfectionism dimensions are related to processes and outcomes,
but also how they are related to stable personality characteristics. Furthermore, it is important to
know where perfectionism and its different dimensions “fit” within broader frameworks of
personality
To provide answers to these questions, we reviewed the research literature looking for
studies that have investigated perfectionism’s relationships with structural (trait) and
neuropsychological models of personality. In this search, we focused on Hewitt and Flett’s
(1991) tripartite model of multidimensional perfectionism which differentiates three forms of
perfectionism: self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed. Self-oriented perfectionism
reflects beliefs that striving for perfection and being perfect are important. Self-oriented
perfectionists have exceedingly high personal standards, expect to be perfect, and are highly self-
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 2
critical if they fail to meet these demands. In contrast, other-oriented perfectionism reflects
beliefs that it is important for others to strive for perfection and be perfect. Other-oriented
perfectionists have exceedingly high standards for others, expect others to be perfect, and are
highly critical of others who fail to meet these expectations. Finally, socially prescribed
perfectionism reflects beliefs that striving for perfection and being perfect are important to
others. Socially prescribed perfectionists believe that exceedingly high standards are being
imposed on them. They believe others expect them to be perfect, and think that others will be
highly critical of them if they fail to meet their expectations (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004).
There were a number of reasons why we focused on Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model. First,
the model is one of the most widely used in perfectionism research, and there are many studies
that have investigated how this model’s dimensions relate to broader personality dimensions.
Second, the model includes the two superordinate dimensions that can be regarded as key
indicators of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Self-oriented perfectionism is
a key indicator of perfectionistic strivings, and socially prescribed perfectionism a key indicator
of perfectionistic concerns (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Stoeber & Otto,
2006). Consequently, examining how self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism relate
to personality gives us an indication of how perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns—and other dimensions that are key indicators of perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns—relate to personality. Third, perfectionism is a personality
characteristic that has personal and social aspects (which we will see is important when
examining perfectionism’s relationships with personality), and Hewitt and Flett’s model clearly
differentiates personal and social aspects. Moreover, the model was the first to suggest that
other-oriented perfectionism is an important dimension of perfectionism, which is recently
seeing a reinvigorated interest from psychological research. Moreover, other-oriented
perfectionism plays a central role in dyadic perfectionism (Stoeber, 2012) and is a defining
component of narcissistic perfectionism (see Chapter 6). Hence, we wanted to make sure that
other-oriented perfectionism played a prominent role in our review of how perfectionism relates
to personality, which should begin with looking at structural models of personality.
Structural Models of Personality
Structural models of personality aim to describe personality in terms of underlying traits,
that is, broad descriptions of individual differences between people that refer to consistent
patterns in the way people behave, feel, and think that are consistent over time and situations
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 3
(McAdams, 2006; Pervin, Cervone, & John, 2005). These models aim to provide a complete
description of personality, that is, they seek to capture all relevant traits. At the same time, the
models aim to be economical and avoid redundancy, and they try to do so by capturing broad,
non-overlapping traits that are relevant to most people most of the time. To find these traits,
structural models of personality rely on a statistical procedure called “factor analysis” (Ashton,
2013).
1
The Five-Factor Model (FFM)
The five-factor model (FFM) of personality is a structural model of personality that
evolved from psycholexical analyses of traits (e.g., Allport & Odbert, 1936; Norman, 1963)
followed by factor analyses (Ashton, 2013; Pervin et al., 2005). According to the “lexical
hypothesis,” the descriptive terms for all traits that are relevant to describe individual differences
are communicated between people (e.g., “Sam is organized”) and are therefore represented in
their language’s lexicon as adjectives (e.g., “organized”). Consequently, a list of all adjectives in
a lexicon will contain descriptors of all relevant traits and—once synonyms and rarely used
adjectives are removed—can be administered as self-report questionnaires to large samples of
participants with instructions to rate how accurately each adjective describes them. These ratings
are then subjected to factor analyses with the aim to find the basic dimensions (“factors”) that
explain individual differences in people’s self-ratings. The resulting factors then represent the
structure of personality.
Beginning with numerous earlier studies of personality trait descriptions following, for
example, Cattell (1943), Norman (1963), and Eysenck (1991; see also Bowden, Saklofske, van
de Vijver, Sudarshan, & Eysenck, in press), converging evidence published by a number of
prominent personality researchers showed a growing agreement on a model (the FFM) according
to which five broad dimensions are sufficient to describe the basic structure of personality:
neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience (or openness for short), agreeableness, and
conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1999; see John & Srivastava, 1999, for a comprehensive
review of the history of the FFM). These five personality dimensions—also referred to as the
“Big Five”—are sometimes described as bipolar dimensions (e.g., neuroticism vs. emotional
1
For a “gentle introduction” to factor analysis in personality research—what it is, what it
does, and how it works—the interested reader is referred to Ashton (2013, Chapter 3.2).
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 4
stability, extraversion vs. introversion) or may appear under different names (e.g., extraversion
may be called surgency, openness may be called intellect), but they all represent essentially the
same five broad dimensions of personality as the FFM. Consequently, our review used the FFM
as a frame of reference.
According to Pervin et al. (2005), the five factors can be described as follows. Neuroticism
captures individual differences in psychological maladjustment versus emotional stability and
identifies individuals who are prone to psychological distress, dysfunctional beliefs, and
maladaptive coping responses. Typical adjectives describing people high in neuroticism are
moody, nervous, anxious, touchy, and emotional (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). Extraversion
captures individual differences in the quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction, activity
level, need for stimulation, and—importantly—the capacity for joy. Typical adjectives
describing people high in extraversion are talkative, sociable, assertive, enthusiastic, and
energetic. Openness captures individual differences in the proactive seeking and appreciation of
experience for its own sake and the toleration for and exploration of the unfamiliar. Typical
adjectives describing people high in openness are inquisitive, intellectual, philosophical,
innovative, and unconventional. Agreeableness captures individual differences in the quality of
people’s interpersonal orientation along a continuum from social antagonism to compassion.
(Note the difference to extraversion which captures the quantity of interpersonal interactions.)
Typical adjectives describing people high in agreeableness are kind, warm, considerate, helpful,
and generous. Finally, conscientiousness captures individual differences in the degree of
organization, persistence, and goal-directed behavior. Typical adjectives describing people high
in conscientiousness are organized, responsible, thorough, efficient, and self-disciplined.
Multidimensional Perfectionism and the FFM
FFM dimensions. To gauge how multidimensional perfectionism relates to the broad
dimensions of the FFM, we reviewed the literature for studies published or in press that
examined self-oriented, other-oriented, and/or socially-prescribed perfectionism and reported
bivariate correlations with any or all dimensions of the FFM (Campbell & Di Paula, 2002; Davis,
Karvinen, & McCreary, 2005; Dunkley, Blankstein, & Berg, 2012; Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008;
Enns & Cox, 1999; Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005; Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hewitt, Flett, & Blankstein,
1991; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Molnar, Sadava, Flett, & Colautti, 2012; Nathanson,
Paulhus, & Williams, 2006; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 2007; Sherry, Hewitt, Flett, Lee-Baggley, &
Hall, 2007; Sherry, Hewitt, Sherry, Flett, & Graham, 2010; Smith, Sherry, Rnic, Saklofske, &
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 5
Gralnick, 2016; Stairs, Smith, Zapolski, Combs, & Zettles, 2012; Stoeber, in press; Stoeber,
Otto, & Dalbert, 2009).
2
When summarizing these findings in the following sections, we adopted
Cohen’s (1992) guidelines and regarded correlations with absolute values of .10, .30, and .50 as
small, medium-sized, and large. In addition, we referred to medium-sized and large correlations
as “substantial.”
As regards neuroticism, socially prescribed perfectionism was the only perfectionism
dimension of Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model that consistently showed substantial positive
correlations, suggesting that socially prescribed perfectionism is a neurotic form of perfectionism
(cf. Hamachek, 1978). In comparison, self-oriented perfectionism did not always show positive
correlations with neuroticism. Whereas a number of studies found positive correlations (e.g.,
Enns & Cox, 1999; Molnar et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2016), other studies found nonsignificant
correlations (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Stoeber et al., 2009).
Moreover, the studies that found positive correlations consistently found these correlations to be
smaller than those for socially prescribed perfectionism (e.g., Rice et al., 2007; Smith et al.,
2016). This indicates that—although self-oriented perfectionists may have neurotic tendencies—
neuroticism is not characteristic of self-oriented perfectionism to the same degree as it is
characteristic of socially prescribed perfectionism. In contrast, other-oriented perfectionism
usually showed near-zero correlations with neuroticism (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hill,
McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice et al., 2007).
For extraversion, approximately half of the reviewed studies found socially prescribed
perfectionism to show negative correlations (e.g., Molnar et al., 2012; Sherry et al., 2007;
Stoeber et al., 2009) whereas the other half found nonsignificant correlations (e.g., Dunkley &
Kyparissis, 2008; Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Rice et al., 2007). This indicates that socially prescribed
perfectionism is negatively related to extraversion, but the relationship is much weaker than the
positive relationship that socially prescribed perfectionism shows with neuroticism. Still, the
findings suggest that socially prescribed perfectionists tend to be less talkative, sociable,
assertive, enthusiastic, and energetic, and—importantly—may show a reduced capacity for joy.
In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism and other-oriented perfectionism showed no consistent
2
Stairs et al. (2012) were included because they measured “perfectionism toward others”
using items from Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) measure of other-oriented perfectionism.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 6
pattern of relationships with extraversion. Indeed, the majority of studies found nonsignificant
correlations, which suggests that both self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism are largely
unrelated to extraversion.
The reviewed studies on openness suggest that this FFM dimension does not play a
significant role in multidimensional perfectionism. Whereas there are singular studies reporting
small negative correlations between socially prescribed perfectionism and openness (e.g.,
Stoeber et al., 2009), the vast majority of studies examining the perfectionism dimensions of
Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model failed to find any significant correlations with openness (e.g.,
Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice et al., 2007). Hence, perfectionists
do not appear to be less open to experience than non-perfectionists.
As regards agreeableness, the case was different. In particular, other-oriented
perfectionism showed substantial negative correlations with agreeableness across studies (e.g.,
Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Stoeber, in press) which indicates that
social antagonism (low agreeableness) is highly characteristic of other-oriented perfectionists.
Socially prescribed perfectionism was also negatively correlated with agreeableness, but these
correlations were often considerably smaller than those of other-oriented perfectionism (e.g.,
Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997) and sometimes nonsignificant (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004). In
contrast, self-oriented perfectionism appeared to be largely unrelated to agreeableness. Except
for one study finding a negative correlation (Stoeber et al., 2009), all other studies found self-
oriented perfectionism to show nonsignificant correlations with agreeableness (e.g., Dunkley &
Kyparissis, 2008; Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Rice et al., 2007).
Turning to conscientiousness, all reviewed studies found self-oriented perfectionism to
show positive and often substantial correlations with this personality factor (e.g., Hewitt & Flett,
2004; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice et al., 2007). This was not the case for the other
two perfectionism dimensions. Other-oriented perfectionism showed only small positive
correlations with conscientiousness that were significant in approximately half of the reviewed
studies (e.g., Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice et al., 2007) and nonsignificant in the other
half (e.g., Molnar et al., 2012; Nathanson et al., 2006). In contrast, socially prescribed
perfectionism showed mostly nonsignificant correlations (e.g., Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008;
Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997) except for a few studies that found significant negative
correlations (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Molnar et al., 2012).
FFM facets. One advantage of the FFM is that—while the five dimensions provide a broad
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 7
framework for an economical analysis of individual differences in personality traits—the model
also allows for a more fine-grained analysis. The reason is that the FFM is conceptualized as a
hierarchical model in which each of the five broad dimensions (domain level) is composed of a
number of lower-level dimensions that are more specific (facet level). The most widely used
measure to examine the FFM at the facet level is the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO
PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) which assesses six facets for each of the five dimensions.
3
Table 1
shows the NEO-PI-R dimensions and facets (see also Costa & McCrae, 1995a).
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Three studies have examined how Hewitt and Flett’s perfectionism dimensions relate to the
NEO PI-R facets. Unfortunately, only two of the studies included other-oriented perfectionism
(Hewitt & Flett, 2004 [Table 6.19]; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997) whereas the third
examined self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism only (Dunkley & Kyparissis,
2008). When we reviewed these studies focusing on the convergent findings—that is, the
correlations that were significant across the studies—the following picture emerged.
As regards the neuroticism facets, self-oriented perfectionism showed nonsignificant
correlations across all studies, confirming again that self-oriented perfectionism has no strong
links with neuroticism. The same applied to other-oriented perfectionism with the notable
exception that both studies including other-oriented perfectionism found a positive correlation
with angry hostility, which dovetails with the FFM findings linking other-oriented perfectionism
to social antagonism (low agreeableness). In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed
positive correlations with five of the six neuroticism facets—anxiety, angry hostility, depression,
self-consciousness, and vulnerability—across all three studies,
4
and positive correlations with the
remaining neuroticism facet—impulsiveness—across two of the studies (Dunkley & Kyparissis,
2008; Hewitt & Flett, 2004). This again demonstrates that socially prescribed perfectionism
shares the strongest and most consistent links with neuroticism.
3
Successively an improved NEO-PI-R version was developed called the NEO-PI-3
(McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005).
4
The minus sign before the correlation of socially prescribed perfectionism and anxiety in
Table 2 of Hill, McIntire, and Bacharach’s (1997) article is a typographical error. The correlation
should be positive (R. W. Hill, personal communication, September 6, 2016).
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 8
Regarding the extraversion facets, it is noteworthy that self-oriented perfectionism showed
positive correlations with two facets—assertiveness and activity—across all studies. This finding
indicates that self-oriented perfectionists may not be more extraverted than others in general, but
may be more assertive and active. Moreover, it also demonstrates the value of examining FFM
facets in addition to FFM dimensions. Other-oriented perfectionism also showed positive
correlations with activity across the two studies that included other-oriented perfectionism, but
not with assertiveness which was surprising given that other-oriented perfectionists tend to report
high self-esteem (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & O’Brien, 1991). In contrast, socially
prescribed perfectionism showed negative correlations with the positive emotions facets across
all studies, suggesting that socially prescribed perfectionists have a lower capacity to experience
positive emotions. There are studies indicating that low positive emotionality is a risk factor for
depression (Khazanov & Ruscio, 2016), and thus the finding of socially prescribed perfectionism
showing negative correlations with positive emotions dovetails with the finding of socially
prescribed perfectionism showing positive correlations with depression (e.g., Hewitt & Flett,
2004; Smith et al., 2016). Furthermore, the finding suggest that socially prescribed perfectionists
may not be less extraverted than others in general, but may have a lower capacity for joy.
Turning to the openness facets, there was only one correlation significant across studies:
Socially prescribed perfectionism showed a negative correlation with openness to values. This
indicates that socially prescribed perfectionists may not be generally less open to experience than
others, but they may be less open-minded regarding values, ideas, and principles and less willing
to accept that values, ideas, and principles may be relative and open to change and different
interpretations.
The agreeableness facets and self-oriented perfectionism did not show any significant
correlations across studies. This finding is in line with the domain-level findings indicating that
self-oriented perfectionism is largely unrelated to agreeableness. In contrast, other-oriented
perfectionism showed significant negative correlations with five of the six facets—trust,
straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, and modesty—across the two studies including other-
oriented perfectionism, which further corroborates the strong links of other-oriented
perfectionism and low agreeableness. The picture was different for socially prescribed
perfectionism which showed no negative correlations with any agreeableness facet that were
significant across all studies. This again shows that, even though numerous FFM studies found
socially prescribed perfectionism to show negative correlations with agreeableness at the domain
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 9
level, socially prescribed perfectionism is not as strongly linked to low agreeableness as other-
oriented perfectionism, but shows much stronger links with neuroticism.
Finally, as regards the conscientiousness facets, self-oriented perfectionism showed
significant negative correlations with five of the facets—competence, order, dutifulness,
achievement striving, and self-discipline (but not deliberation)—across all three studies.
Moreover, the correlation with achievement strivings was always larger than the other
correlations, indicating that achievement striving is the conscientiousness facet most closely
related to self-oriented perfectionism. In contrast, neither other-oriented perfectionism nor
socially prescribed perfectionism showed any correlations with the conscientiousness facets that
were significant across studies.
Summary. The finding from the studies examining how the perfectionism dimensions of
Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model relate to the FFM dimensions and facets demonstrate that the
three perfectionism dimensions have a unique personality profile for four of the five FFM
dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (but not openness).
Self-oriented perfectionism is primarily characterized by high conscientiousness. This suggests
self-oriented perfectionists tend to show a high degree of organization, persistence, and goal-
directed behavior, and can be regarded as organized, responsible, thorough, efficient, and self-
disciplined. Furthermore, self-oriented perfectionists may show higher levels of extraversion
regarding assertiveness and activity. Other-oriented perfectionism is primarily characterized by
low agreeableness. This suggests that other-oriented perfectionists show a high degree of social
antagonism (i.e., the opposite of agreeableness) and may be unsympathetic, uncooperative,
egotistical, cold, and impersonal (cf. Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). Furthermore, other-oriented
perfectionists may show higher levels of neuroticism regarding angry hostility which is in line
with other-oriented being a socially antagonistic form of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991;
Stoeber, 2014a, 2014b). Socially prescribed perfectionism is primarily characterized by high
levels of neuroticism. This suggests that socially prescribed perfectionists tend to be moody,
nervous, anxious, touchy, and emotional. Furthermore, they are prone to psychological distress,
dysfunctional beliefs, and maladaptive coping responses, which corresponds to findings that
socially prescribed perfectionism is a decidedly maladaptive form of perfectionism associated
with emotional distress and psychological maladjustment (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004). In
addition, socially prescribed perfectionism showed negative relationships with extraversion and
agreeableness indicating that socially prescribed perfectionists may be introverted and socially
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 10
antagonistic. We should note, however, that the negative relationships with extraversion tended
to be small and were often nonsignificant; and the negative relationships with agreeableness
tended to be weaker than those found for other-oriented perfectionism. Consequently, low levels
of extraversion and agreeableness seem to characterize socially prescribed perfectionism to a
lesser extent than high levels of neuroticism. Furthermore, low levels of agreeableness seem to
be more characteristic of other-oriented perfectionism than socially prescribed perfectionism.
The HEXACO Model
Another important structural model of personality based on psycholexical analyses is the
HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Ashton et al., 2004). The main difference to the FFM is
that the HEXACO model suggests that the FFM is missing an important dimension of
personality labelled honesty-humility. Honesty-humility differentiates people who are sincere,
honest, faithful, loyal, modest, unassuming, and fair-minded from those who are sly, greedy,
pretentious, hypocritical, boastful, and pompous. Consequently, the HEXACO model comprises
six broad personality dimensions: honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X),
agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness (O). Emotionality, conscientiousness,
and openness are supposed to correspond to FFM neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness,
but agreeableness has different characteristics than FFM agreeableness: HEXACO agreeableness
differentiates people who are patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, and gentle from
those who are ill-tempered, quarrelsome, stubborn, and choleric (Ashton & Lee, 2007).
Like the FFM, the HEXACO is conceptualized as a hierarchical model because each of the
six broad dimensions (domain level) is comprised of a number of lower-level dimensions (facet
level). To assess these facets, Ashton and Lee developed a 100-item version of the HEXACO
Personality Inventory-Revised (HEXACO-PI-R) assessing four facets for each of the six
dimensions (Lee & Ashton, n.d.). Table 2 shows the HEXACO-PI-R dimensions and facets.
(Note that Lee and Ashton consider perfectionism to be a unidimensional facet of
conscientiousness.)
[Insert Table 2 about here]
Multidimensional Perfectionism and the HEXACO Model
Unfortunately, so far only one study (Stoeber, 2014a) employed the HEXACO-PI-R to
examine how the three perfectionism dimensions of Hewitt and Flett’s model relate to the
dimensions and facets of the HEXACO model. However, due to space restrictions, Stoeber only
reported the correlations with the domain scores. Consequently, correlations from Stoeber
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 11
(2014a) are reproduced here with facet scores included (see Table 2). In addition, Table 2
presents partial correlations controlling for the overlap between the three perfectionism
dimensions to examine the dimensions’ unique relationships with the HEXACO dimensions and
facets (cf. Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017).
Honesty-humility and self-oriented perfectionism were not significantly correlated.
However, a unique positive relationship was observed of self-oriented perfectionism with
fairness and a unique negative relationship with greed-avoidance, suggesting that self-oriented
perfectionists value fairness but may be greedy. In contrast, other-oriented perfectionism showed
a unique negative relationship with the domain score, sincerity, greed-avoidance, and modesty.
This suggests that other-oriented perfectionists may not only be greedy (like self-oriented
perfectionists), but generally manifest a deficit in honesty/sincerity and humility/modesty, which
dovetails with studies linking other-oriented perfectionism to callousness and narcissistic
grandiosity (Smith et al., in press; Stoeber, 2015; Stoeber, Sherry, & Nealis, 2015). Also, socially
prescribed perfectionism showed a unique negative relationship with the domain score and
modesty, but—differently from the other perfectionism dimensions—also showed a unique
negative relationship with fairness. It appears that socially prescribed perfectionists do not value
fairness, and that socially prescribed perfectionists are perfectionists who “don’t play nicely with
others” (Sherry, Mackinnon, & Gautreau, 2016).
As regards emotionality, the pattern of correlations was unexpected because self-oriented
perfectionism showed a unique positive relationship with the domain score whereas socially
prescribed perfectionism did not. This stands in stark contrast to the FFM studies in which
socially prescribed perfectionism showed consistent positive correlations with neuroticism
whereas self-oriented perfectionism did not. Also, as regards the emotionality facets, the pattern
of correlations was unexpected. Self-oriented perfectionism had unique positive relationships
with anxiety and sentimentality, and other-oriented perfectionism had unique positive
relationships with fearfulness and dependence. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism was
not significantly correlated with any emotionality facets once the overlap with the other two
perfectionism dimensions was partialled out. Whereas the correlations that other-oriented
perfectionism showed are odd and not in line with previous findings that other-oriented
perfectionism is unrelated to neuroticism, there are findings linking self-oriented perfectionism
to anxiety (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Klibert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Saito, 2005).
Moreover, Ashton and Lee (2007) suggest that HEXACO emotionality is linked to empathy and
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 12
attachment, and self-oriented perfectionism shares positive relationships with nurturance and
intimacy (Stoeber, 2014a). Nevertheless, the present findings do not align with Ashton and Lee’s
(2007) assertion that emotionality is comparable to neuroticism. However, further research on
multidimensional perfectionism and emotionality is needed before firm conclusions can be
drawn.
The pattern of correlations for extraversion showed close correspondence with the
findings from the FFM studies including analyses at the facet level. Self-oriented perfectionism
had unique positive relationships with the domain score, social self-esteem, sociability, and
liveliness, which corresponds to the finding that self-oriented perfectionism showed positive
correlations with the FFM extraversion facets of assertiveness and activity. Other-oriented
perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with the domain score, social self-esteem,
and social boldness whereas socially prescribed perfectionism showed unique negative
relationships with the domain score, social self-esteem, social boldness. Also, these findings
highlight the close correspondence to the findings with the FFM extraversion facets.
Furthermore, the negative correlation with social self-esteem replicates previous research
indicating that socially prescribed perfectionists have low social self-esteem (Flett, Hewitt, & De
Rosa, 1996).
Regarding agreeableness, self-oriented perfectionism did not show a unique relationship
with the domain score but showed a unique negative relationship with flexibility, and a unique
positive relationship with patience. Whereas this finding dovetails with the FFM findings that
self-oriented perfectionism shows no consistent relationships with agreeableness, it suggests that
self-oriented perfectionists may lack flexibility in social relations, but show patience when
interacting with other. In contrast, other-oriented perfectionism had unique negative relationships
with both the domain score and all facets—forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility, and patience—
which is in line with the FFM findings that other-oriented perfectionism shows consistent
negative relationships with agreeableness. Conversely, socially prescribed perfectionism showed
no significant unique relationships—neither with the domain score nor with any of the facets—
which again demonstrates that socially prescribed perfectionism is less strongly and less
consistently linked to low agreeableness than other-oriented perfectionism.
As regards conscientiousness, self-oriented perfectionism showed large-sized positive
relationships with the domain score and all facets across bivariate and partial correlations,
confirming the FFM finding that self-oriented perfectionists are primarily characterized by high
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 13
conscientiousness. As expected, there were no significant relationships between other-oriented
perfectionism and conscientiousness or any of the facets scores once the overlap with the other
perfectionism dimensions was controlled. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed
unique negative relationships with the domain score and all facet scores once the overlap with
the other two perfectionism dimensions was controlled. This suggests that socially prescribed
perfectionists are not very conscientious, and corroborates the studies that found socially
prescribed perfectionism to show significant negative correlations with FFM conscientiousness
(e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Molnar et al., 2012).
Finally, as regards openness, no perfectionism dimension showed any significant unique
relationships with the domain score or any of the facet scores, except that socially prescribed
perfectionism showed a small negative partial correlation with creativity. This finding is in line
with the FFM findings indicating that multidimensional perfectionism is largely unrelated to
openness, but if perfectionism shows small negative relationships with openness and its facets, it
is most likely socially prescribed perfectionism that will show these relationships.
Overall, the findings with the HEXACO dimensions and facets show considerable
correspondence with the findings from studies of the FFM dimensions and facets with respect to
extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (but not emotionality). Going
beyond the FFM, the HEXACO findings indicate that both other-oriented perfectionism and
socially prescribed perfectionism are associated with low honesty-humility (even though they
showed somewhat different relationships with the honesty-humility facets). This suggests that
not only other-oriented perfectionism is a personality disposition that has “dark” features (cf.
Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015), but so also is socially prescribed perfectionism, which
complements prior findings that socially prescribed perfectionism showed unique positive
relationships with callousness and deceitfulness (Stoeber, 2014b, 2015).
Neuropsychological Models of Personality
In contrast to structural models of personality, neuropsychological models of personality
aim to provide an account of the underlying emotion, motivation, and learning bases of
individual differences and, more specifically, to provide neuropsychologically anchored
principles and constructs to understand the foundations of temperament and the underpinnings of
general personality descriptive systems, including the FFM (Corr, DeYoung, & McNaughton,
2013). The major assumption of this specific approach is that a small number of approach and
avoidance systems underlie many general personality factors.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 14
Eysenck’s PEN Theory
A prominent neuropsychological model of personality is Eysenck’s PEN theory (Eysenck,
1970). Whereas the PEN theory also functions as a structural model of personality, it is not based
on psycholexical analyses, but on theory and research on individual differences in
neuropsychological functioning (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).
The PEN theory differentiates three broad personality dimensions: psychoticism (P),
extraversion (E), and neuroticism (N). Factor analytic studies suggest that the PEN dimensions
of extraversion and neuroticism closely correspond to the FFM dimensions of extraversion and
neuroticism, whereas psychoticism appears to be a combination of low agreeableness and low
conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1995b). Unfortunately, there is only one study (Hewitt,
Flett, & Blankstein, 1991) examining how Hewitt and Flett’s three perfectionism dimensions are
related to psychoticism (as conceptualized by Eysenck’s PEN theory), and the findings were
mixed: In male participants, perfectionism showed no significant correlations with psychoticism,
whereas self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed a positive correlation in
female students and other-oriented perfectionism showed a positive correlation in female
patients. Still, Eysenck’s PEN theory of personality is important in the present context because
the E and N factors of the theory (regarding the neuropsychological foundations of extraversion
and neuroticism) laid the foundation for Gray’s reinforcement sensitivity theory (Gray, 1982;
Gray & McNaughton, 2000; for a review, see Corr, 2008).
Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST)
The reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) is a prominent neuropsychological theory of
personality explaining individual differences in approach- and avoidance-related behaviors and
associated conflicts. It assumes the existence of three emotional-motivational systems: one
approach system (the behavioral approach system [BAS]) and two avoidance systems (the
behavioral inhibition system [BIS] and the fight-flight-freeze system [FFFS]). The most
distinctive features of the two avoidance systems are emotional output and defensive direction:
The BIS activates behavioral repertoire when moving toward threat, eliciting the emotional state
of anxiety; in contrast, the FFFS activates behavior that moves the individual away from threat,
eliciting the emotional state of fear. Further refinement and theoretical elaboration of RST
resulted in a progressive revision of RST (Corr & McNaughton, 2008, 2012; McNaughton &
Corr, 2004). Consequently, the latest measure of RST—the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory
Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ; Corr & Cooper, in press)—captures individual differences
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 15
in seven RST components: four components of the BAS (reward interest, goal-drive persistence,
reward reactivity, and impulsivity) plus BIS, FFFS, and a separate factor of defensive fight.
Three studies have investigated how the three dimensions of Hewitt and Flett’s model
relate to the components of revised RST. The first study (Randles, Flett, Nash, McGregor, &
Hewitt, 2010) examined two samples of university students using Carver and White’s (1994)
BIS/BAS Scales to differentiate five RST components: BAS drive, BAS fun seeking, BAS
reward responsiveness, the BIS, and the FFFS.
5
Across the two samples, self-oriented
perfectionism showed positive correlations with BAS reward responsiveness, BAS drive, and the
BIS whereas socially prescribed perfectionism only showed a positive correlation with the BIS.
Otherwise, findings were mixed. In particular, other-oriented perfectionism did not show a clear
pattern of significant relationships across the two samples. The second and third study (Stoeber
& Corr, 2015, 2017) also examined university students, but this time used Corr and Cooper’s
RST-PQ differentiating all seven components of revised RST. Moreover, the studies not only
examined bivariate correlations, but also computed multiple regressions to examine the
perfectionism dimensions’ unique relationships with the RST components. If we focus on the
unique relationships that were significant across both studies, the following picture emerges.
Self-oriented perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with BAS goal-drive
persistence, BAS reward reactivity, and BIS. Other-oriented perfectionism showed a unique
positive relationship with defensive fight, and a unique negative relationship with the BIS. In
contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with BAS
impulsivity and the BIS, and a unique negative relationship with BAS goal-drive persistence.
Taken together, the studies examining multidimensional perfectionism from the
perspective of revised RST suggest that the three perfectionism dimensions of Hewitt and Flett’s
model have unique profiles of relationships with emotional-motivational systems and associated
approach- and avoidance-related behaviors. Self-oriented perfectionists appear to be highly goal-
directed—driven by goals and persistent in the pursuit of goals—while at the same time highly
reactive to both positive and negative reinforcing stimuli. Socially prescribed perfectionists are
5
Note that the BIS/BAS Scales are based on the old, unrevised RST and do not
differentiate the BIS and the FFFS, but some items of the BIS Scale can be used to assess the
FFFS (Heym, Ferguson, & Lawrence, 2008).
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 16
highly reactive only to negative reinforcing stimuli, and their approach-related behaviors are
impulsive. By contrast, other-oriented perfectionists appear to show a reduced reactivity to
negative reinforcing stimuli, which differentiates them from other perfectionists. Whereas both
self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism were associated with higher BIS levels
(suggesting that they are prone to experience anxiety), other-oriented perfectionists reported
lower BIS levels (suggesting they are unlikely to experience anxiety). In addition, other-oriented
perfectionism was the only dimension that showed a unique positive relation with defensive
fight. This suggests that other-oriented perfectionists may become highly defensive when
attacked, and will attack back. The combination of an overactive defensive fight system with an
underactive BIS (indicating a reduced sensitivity to negative reinforcers) dovetails with findings
that other-oriented perfectionism shows links with aggression and psychopathy (Stoeber, 2014b,
2015).
Furthermore, these results show that it is important to go beyond structural models of
personality (like the FFM and the HEXACO model) and also examine neuropsychological
models if we want to gain a deeper understanding of how multidimensional perfectionism is
linked with emotional-motivational systems that directly feed into approach- versus avoidance-
related behavior. This is important because different dimensions of perfectionism show different
profiles of relationships with approach and avoidance motivation (see Chapter 2). Moreover,
individual differences in the sensitivity to positive and negative reinforcers may determine
whether perfectionism takes on forms that have adaptive aspects, or forms that are maladaptive
and lacking any adaptive aspects (Slade & Owens, 1998).
Open Questions and Future Research
In concluding this chapter, it is important to point out that our review focused on Hewitt
and Flett’s (1991) tripartite model of perfectionism. On the one hand, this focus provided us with
a coherent framework when reviewing the different relationships of different perfectionism
dimensions with the FFM and HEXACO dimensions and facets and with the revised RST
components. On the other hand, it also presented a limitation as there are other prominent
multidimensional models of perfectionism, most notably those of Frost et al. (Frost, Marten,
Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), Slaney et al. (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), and
Hill et al. (Hill et al., 2004). We note, however, that self-oriented perfectionism is a key indicator
of perfectionistic strivings, and socially prescribed perfectionism a key indicator of
perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Consequently, one can expect the respective key
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 17
indicators in these other models to show comparable patterns of relationships with the FFM,
HEXACO model, and revised RST dimensions, facets, and components. In particular, personal
standards (Frost et al., 1990), high standards (Slaney et al., 2001), and striving for excellence
(Hill et al., 2004) are key indicators of perfectionistic strivings, and should show similar
relationships as self-oriented perfectionism. As well, concern over mistakes (Frost et al., 1990;
Hill et al., 2004) and discrepancy (Slaney et al., 2001) are key indicators of perfectionistic
concerns and should show similar relationships as socially prescribed perfectionism. Two studies
employing the FFM confirm this expectation (Cruce, Pashak, Handal, Munz, & Gfeller, 2012;
Rice et al., 2007). In contrast, for both the HEXACO model and revised RST, this is an open
question that needs to be answered in future research.
There are further questions that remain to be answered. One question regarding the FFM
findings concerns the degree to which the overlap between the three perfectionism dimensions of
Hewitt and Flett’s model influenced the findings. Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially
prescribed perfectionism show substantial overlap: Intercorrelations are often in the .40s, but can
be in the .50s (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004). Consequently, when this overlap is controlled and
unique relationships are regarded, the findings may be different (Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017). For
example, socially prescribed perfectionism tends to show significant negative correlations with
agreeableness, but this may be due to its overlap with other-oriented perfectionism (which shows
consistent negative correlations with agreeableness). Once this overlap is removed, socially
prescribed perfectionism may show nonsignificant relationships with FFM agreeableness, as was
the case for HEXACO agreeableness (see Table 2). Furthermore, socially prescribed
perfectionism tends to show nonsignificant correlations with conscientiousness, but this may be
due to its overlap with self-oriented perfectionism (which shows consistent positive correlations
with conscientiousness). Once this overlap is removed, it remains to be seen if socially
prescribed perfectionism is negatively related with conscientiousness, as was the case for
HEXACO conscientiousness (see again Table 2).
Another question is whether there are gender differences in the perfectionism–personality
relationships. For example, Hewitt et al. (1991) found that multidimensional perfectionism
showed significant correlations with psychoticism in women, but not in men (see the above
section on Eysenck’s PEN theory). In addition, they found that self-oriented perfectionism was
positively correlated with neuroticism only in women, but not men. Furthermore, Hill, Zrull, and
Turlington (1997) investigated perfectionism and personality from an interpersonal circumplex
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 18
perspective. They found that male self-oriented perfectionists tended to be arrogant-calculating
whereas female self-oriented perfectionists tended to be warm-agreeable (cf. Chapter 6) which
suggests that there also may be gender differences in how self-oriented perfectionism relates to
agreeableness.
Finally, the perhaps most important question is whether individual differences in
personality contribute to the development of individual differences in perfectionism. Flett,
Hewitt, Oliver, and Macdonald (2002) provided a comprehensive analysis of potential factors
contributing to the development of perfectionism, and one factor they suggested to play a role
was the child’s “temperament.” If we replace “temperament” with “personality,” this would
suggest that personality contributes to the development of perfectionism. Furthermore, the
findings presented in this chapter suggest that different personality dimensions contribute to the
development of different perfectionism dimensions. This suggestion was put to the test in a two-
wave longitudinal study examining whether the FFM dimensions predicted changes in
adolescents’ self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism (Stoeber et al., 2009). In line
with cross-sectional findings linking self-oriented perfectionism with conscientiousness and
socially prescribed perfectionism with neuroticism, conscientiousness was expected to predict
increases in self-oriented perfectionism, and neuroticism was expected to predict increases in
socially prescribed perfectionism. Even though the study found support only for one of the
expectations—conscientiousness predicted increases in self-oriented perfectionism, but
neuroticism did not predict increases in socially prescribed perfectionism—the study is important
as it is the first to demonstrate that personality may play a role in the development of
perfectionism. Unfortunately, longitudinal studies examining developmental antecedents of
perfectionism are scarce and usually focus on parental factors, but do not include measures of the
child’s personality (Stoeber, Edbrooke-Childs, & Damian, in press). Further longitudinal
research on perfectionism and personality is needed—including other models of perfectionism as
well as other models of personality—to determine which perfectionism–personality relationships
reflect mere covariations showing us where the different personality dimensions “fit” within
broader personality theories and models, and which relationships reflect dynamic processes of
personality dimensions contributing to the development of perfectionism.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 19
References
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Princeton, NJ:
Psychological Review Company.
Ashton, M. C. (2013). Individual differences and personality (2nd ed.). London: Academic
Press.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
150-166.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, . . . De Raad, B.
(2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from
psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86, 356-366.
Bowden, S. C., Saklofske, D. H., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Sudarshan, N. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G.
(in press). Cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire across 33 countries. Personality and Individual Differences.
Campbell, J. D., & Di Paula, A. (2002). Perfectionistic self-beliefs: Their relation to personality
and goal pursuit. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and
treatment (pp. 181-198). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective
responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Corr, P. J. (Ed.) (2008). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. (in press). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality
Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment.
Corr, P. J., DeYoung, C. G. & McNaughton, N. (2013). Motivation and personality: A
neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 158-175.
Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. In P. J.
Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 155-187). Cambridge,
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 20
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Corr, P. J., & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits:
A two stage (valuation–motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
36, 2339-2354.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995a). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality
assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 21-50.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995b). Primary traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N system: Three- and
five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 308-317.
Cruce, S. E., Pashak, T. J., Handal, P. J., Munz, D. C., & Gfeller, J. D. (2012). Conscientious
perfectionism, self-evaluative perfectionism, and the five-factor model of personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 268-273.
Davis, C., Karvinen, K., & McCreary, D. R. (2005). Personality correlates of a drive for
muscularity in young men. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 349-359.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Berg, J.-L. (2012). Perfectionism dimensions and the five-
factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 26, 233-244.
Dunkley, D. M., & Kyparissis, A. (2008). What is DAS self-critical perfectionism really
measuring? Relations with the five-factor model of personality and depressive symptoms.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1295-1305.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Perfectionism and depressive symptom severity in major
depressive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 783-794.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). Perfectionism and neuroticism: A longitudinal
study of specific vulnerability and diathesis-stress models. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 29, 463-478.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970). The structure of human personality (3rd ed.). London: Methuen.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3?—Criteria for a taxonomic
paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New York: Plenum.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 21
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K., & O’Brien, S. (1991). Perfectionism and learned
resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
61-68.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & De Rosa, T. (1996). Dimensions of perfectionism, psychosocial
adjustment, and social skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 143-150.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and
their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89-132). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-
hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the
functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
15(1), 27-33.
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: Multi-Health Systems.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1991). Perfectionism and neuroticism in
psychiatric patients and college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 273-
279.
Heym, N., Ferguson, E., & Lawrence, C. (2008). An evaluation of the relationship between
Gray’s revised RST and Eysenck’s PEN: Distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and
White’s BIS/BAS scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 709-715.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A
new measure of perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 22
Assessment, 82, 80-91.
Hill, R. W., McIntire, K., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Perfectionism and the Big Five factors.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 257-270.
Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism and interpersonal problems.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 81-103.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford.
Khazanov, G. K., & Ruscio, A. M. (2016). Is low positive emotionality a specific risk factor for
depression? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 991-
1015.
Klibert, J. J., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Saito, M. (2005). Adaptive and maladaptive aspects
of self-oriented versus socially prescribed perfectionism. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 141-156.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (n.d.). HEXACO-PI-R self-report form, English, 100-item version.
Retrieved from http://hexaco.org/hexaco-inventory
Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 434-446.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153).
New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised
NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270.
McNaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional view of defensive systems: Defensive
distance and fear/anxiety. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 285-305.
Molnar, D. S., Sadava, S. W., Flett, G. L., & Colautti, J. (2012). Perfectionism and health: A
mediational analysis of the roles of stress, social support and health-related behaviours.
Psychology & Health, 27, 846-864.
Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of
scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 23
Educational Psychology, 31, 97-122.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574-583.
Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Randles, D., Flett, G. L., Nash, K. A., McGregor, I. D., & Hewitt, P. L. (2010). Dimensions of
perfectionism, behavioral inhibition, and rumination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49, 83-87.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). Perfectionism and the five-factor model of
personality. Assessment, 14, 385-398.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English
personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10, 61-77.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee-Baggley, D. L., & Hall, P. A. (2007). Trait
perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality pathology. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42, 477-490.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Sherry, D. L., Flett, G. L., & Graham, A. R. (2010). Perfectionism
dimensions and research productivity in psychology professors: Implications for
understanding the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 42, 273-283.
Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, S. P., & Gautreau, C. M. (2016). Perfectionists don't play nicely with
others: Expanding the social disconnection model. In F. M. Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.),
Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 225-243). New York: Springer.
Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based on
reinforcement theory. Behavior Modification, 22, 372-390.
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.
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (in press).
Perfectionism and narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Personality.
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Rnic, K., Saklofske, D. H., Enns, M. W., & Gralnick, T. M. (2016).
Are perfectionism dimensions vulnerability factors for depressive symptoms after
controlling for neuroticism? A meta-analysis of 10 longitudinal studies. European Journal
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 24
of Personality, 30, 201-212.
Stairs, A. M., Smith, G. T., Zapolski, T. C. B., Combs, J. L., & Settles, R. E. (2012). Clarifying
the construct of perfectionism. Assessment, 19, 146-166.
Stoeber, J. (2012). Dyadic perfectionism in romantic relationships: Predicting relationship
satisfaction and longterm commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 300-
305.
Stoeber, J. (2014a). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36,
329-338.
Stoeber, J. (2014b). Multidimensional perfectionism and the DSM-5 personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 115-120.
Stoeber, J. (2015). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism: Further findings. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 37, 611-623.
Stoeber, J. (in press). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale. Assessment.
Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. J. (2015). Perfectionism, personality, and affective experiences: New
insights from revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 86, 354-359.
Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. J. (2017). Perfectionism, personality, and future-directed thinking: Further
insights from revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 105, 78-83.
Stoeber, J., Edbrooke-Childs, J. H., & Damian, L. E. (in press). Perfectionism. In R. J. R.
Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 104, 379-386.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness
predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 363-368.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 25
Stoeber, J., Sherry, S. B., & Nealis, L. J. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and narcissism:
Grandiose or vulnerable? Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 85-90.
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 26
Table 1
FFM Domains and Facets
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Anxiety
Warmth
Fantasy
Trust
Competence
Angry hostility
Gregariousness
Aesthetics
Straightforwardness
Order
Depression
Assertiveness
Feelings
Altruism
Dutifulness
Self-consciousness
Activity
Actions
Compliance
Achievement striving
Impulsiveness
Excitement seeking
Ideas
Modesty
Self-discipline
Vulnerability
Positive emotions
Values
Tender-mindedness
Deliberation
Note. FFM = five-factor model of personality. Domain and facet scales from the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992, 1995a).
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 27
Table 2
Multidimensional Perfectionism: Correlations with the HEXACO Model of Personality
Domains and Facets
Bivariate correlations
Partial correlations
Domains and facets
SOP
OOP
SPP
SOP
OOP
SPP
Honesty-humility
Sincerity
.01
–.15**
–.14**
.10
–.11*
–.10
Fairness
.12*
–.09
–.13*
.21***
–.06
–.17**
Greed-avoidance
–.29***
–.33***
–.31***
–.15**
–.18**
–.11
Modesty
–.11
–.36***
–.27***
.07
–.27***
–.12*
Domain score
–.11
–.34***
–.31***
.09
–.22***
–.19***
Emotionality
Fearfulness
.12*
.17**
.06
.07
.14*
–.05
Anxiety
.26***
.08
.15**
.22***
–.05
.05
Dependence
.03
.12*
.03
.00
.13*
–.04
Sentimentality
.13*
.06
.07
.11*
.01
.01
Domain score
.18**
.15**
.11
.13*
.09
–.01
Extraversion
Social self-esteem
.01
.02
–.36***
.17**
.23***
–.46***
Social boldness
.10
.25***
.03
.05
.26***
–.13*
Sociability
.14*
.08
.00
.15**
.07
–.10
Liveliness
.07
.03
–.17**
.15**
.12*
–.25***
Domain score
.11
.13*
–.16**
.16**
.23***
–.31***
Agreeableness
Forgiveness
–.07
–.19***
–.12*
.02
–.15**
–.03
Gentleness
–.01
–.29***
–.09
.09
–.30***
.05
Flexibility
–.21***
–.28***
–.17*
–.12*
–.20***
.01
Patience
.04
–.16**
–.13*
.14*
–.14*
–.09
Domain score
–.08
–.30***
–.17**
.04
–.26***
–.03
Stoeber, Corr, Smith, & Saklofske – 28
Conscientiousness
Organization
.41***
.05
.03
.45***
–.05
–.15**
Diligence
.60***
.17**
.04
.65***
.07
–.33***
Perfectionism
.67***
.15**
.13*
.69***
–.04
–.23***
Prudence
.35***
.02
–.05
.42***
–.02
–.22***
Domain score
.64***
.12*
.05
.70***
–.02
–.32***
Openness
Aesthetic appreciation
–.04
–.14*
–.10
.02
–.11
–.03
Inquisitiveness
–.06
–.09
–.09
–.02
–.04
–.04
Creativity
.04
–.03
–.12*
.10
.02
–.14**
Unconventionality
–.05
–.02
–.07
–.03
.03
–.06
Domain score
–.04
–.10
–.13*
.03
–.04
–.09
Note. N = 321 university students (50 male, 271 female). SOP = self-oriented perfectionism,
OOP = other-oriented perfectionism, SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism. Partial
correlations = correlations of SOP controlling for OOP and SPP, SPP controlling for SOP
and OOP, and OOP controlling for SOP and SPP. Domain score = total score aggregated
across the four facets. Data from Stoeber (2014a, Study 2).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
