ArticlePDF Available

The perfect colleague? Multidimensional perfectionism and indicators of social disconnection in the workplace

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

How are perfectionist employees seen by their colleagues, and to what extent do they experience integration or social disconnection at work? Combining two different quantitative approaches, we investigated the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and indicators of social disconnection in two samples of employees from Germany. Study 1 (N = 184) measured the participants' perfectionism and presented four vignettes describing a self-oriented, other-oriented, socially prescribed, and non-perfectionist colleague. Participants rated the social skills and work competence of the described colleagues, and indicated their own willingness to work with them (interpersonal attraction). Study 2 (N = 279) measured the participants' perfectionism and the social support, social exclusion, and intergroup conflicts they experienced in their working teams. All perfectionists, especially the other-oriented perfectionist, received significantly lower ratings on social skills and attraction than the non-perfectionist colleague. However, the self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionist received the highest competence ratings. Ratings differed depending on the participants' own perfectionism. In Study 2, socially prescribed perfectionism was positively related to all indicators of social disconnection, whereas other-oriented perfectionism was related to conflicts only. Self-oriented perfectionism was unrelated to indicators of social disconnection. The results emphasize the importance of considering perfectionism in the context of teamwork and team climate.
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE
Kleszewski, E. & Otto, K. (2020). The perfect colleague? Multidimensional perfectionism
and indicators of social disconnection in the workplace. Personality and Individual
Differences, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110016.
The Perfect Colleague? Multidimensional Perfectionism and Indicators of Social
Disconnection in the Workplace
Emily Kleszewski
Kathleen Otto
Philipps-University of Marburg
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily Kleszewski, Philipps-
University of Marburg, Gutenbergstraße 18, D-35032 Marburg, Germany. Email:
Emily.kleszewski@staff.uni-marburg.de, Phone: +49 64212823990
© 2020. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
!
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 1
Abstract 1
How are perfectionist employees seen by their colleagues, and to what extent do they 2
experience integration or social disconnection at work? Combining two different quantitative 3
approaches, we investigated the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and 4
indicators of social disconnection in two samples of employees from Germany. Study 1 (N = 5
184) measured the participants’ perfectionism and presented four vignettes describing a self-6
oriented, other-oriented, socially prescribed, and non-perfectionist colleague. Participants 7
rated the social skills and work competence of the described colleagues, and indicated their 8
own willingness to work with them (interpersonal attraction). Study 2 (N = 279) measured the 9
participants’ perfectionism and the social support, social exclusion, and intergroup conflicts 10
they experienced in their working teams. All perfectionists, especially the other-oriented 11
perfectionist, received significantly lower ratings on social skills and attraction than the non-12
perfectionist colleague. However, the self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionist received 13
the highest competence ratings. Ratings differed depending on the participants’ own 14
perfectionism. In Study 2, socially prescribed perfectionism was positively related to all 15
indicators of social disconnection, whereas other-oriented perfectionism was related to 16
conflicts only. Self-oriented perfectionism was unrelated to indicators of social disconnection. 17
The results emphasize the importance of considering perfectionism in the context of 18
teamwork and team climate. 19
Keywords: multidimensional perfectionism, workplace, social disconnection, conflicts, 20
social exclusion, interpersonal attraction, vignettes 21
22
23
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 2
The Perfect Colleague? Multidimensional Perfectionism and Indicators of Social 24
Disconnection in the Workplace 25
1. Introduction 26
Modern organizations increasingly require strong initiative, continuous personal 27
development, and commitment to high performance standards (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). 28
Against this background, striving for perfection is seen as a desirable virtue (Baer & Shaw, 29
2017) as employees high in perfectionism tend to invest much effort in their work (Stoeber, 30
Davis, & Townley, 2013). At the same time, work is often performed in teams (Devine, 31
Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999), which requires achieving not only personal but 32
also common goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). 33
Building on the perfectionism social disconnection model (PSDM, Hewitt, Flett, 34
Sherry, & Caelian, 2006), a growing body of research has linked perfectionism to 35
interpersonal difficulties and social disconnection (Gnilka & Broda, 2019; Sherry, Stoeber, & 36
Ramasubbu, 2016; Stoeber, Noland, Mawenu, Henderson, & Kent, 2017). These findings 37
raise the question of functionality in the workplace. Addressing this question, the present 38
research aimed to investigate how perfectionists are perceived by potential work colleagues, 39
and to what extent they experience either integration or social disconnection in their working 40
teams. With this research, we contribute to the perfectionism literature and the PSDM in the 41
workplace context, and help to explain social disconnection at work by focusing on the 42
personality of team members. 43
44
1.1. Multidimensional Perfectionism 45
Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) tripartite model of perfectionism considers intrapersonal and 46
interpersonal dimensions that differ regarding the source and direction of the perfectionist 47
demands. Self-oriented perfectionism describes holding exceedingly high standards for 48
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 3
oneself and evaluating one’s own behaviour strictly. Socially prescribed perfectionism 49
comprises the beliefs that others expect perfection and that acceptance by others is dependent 50
on meeting these standards. The third dimension, other-oriented perfectionism, describes 51
holding extremely high standards for others. Hewitt and Flett (1991) contend that social 52
components inherent in perfectionism play a crucial role in adjustment difficulties. The later 53
developed PSDM (Hewitt et al., 2006) builds on this idea. 54
55
1.2. The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model 56
While the initial PSDM (Hewitt et al., 2006) referred only to socially prescribed 57
perfectionism, recent extensions of the model (Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 2017; Sherry, 58
Mackinnon, & Gautreau, 2016) consider all dimensions of perfectionism. According to the 59
PSDM, perfectionism leads to distress, dysfunction, and disorder via two pathways. First, 60
perfectionists are likely to experience objective social disconnection (i.e., conflicts and 61
impaired relations) as a result of unpleasant interpersonal behaviour, such as hostility, mistrust 62
and passive aggressiveness (Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Stoeber et al., 2017). Second, they are 63
vulnerable to subjective social disconnection as they are highly sensitive to interpersonal cues 64
that indicate rejection or evaluation (Flett, Hewitt, & De Rosa, 1996; Flett, Besser, & Hewitt, 65
2014). Hence, perfectionists unwittingly tend to cause the social withdrawal and alienation 66
they are trying to avoid (Hewitt, Flett, Mikail, Kealy, & Zhang, 2018). 67
Several studies support the PSDM with regard to socially prescribed and other-68
oriented perfectionism. For example, socially prescribed perfectionism has been shown to be 69
positively related to hostility, interpersonal conflict and feelings of social isolation (Magson, 70
Oar, Fardouly, Johnco, & Rapee, 2019; Sherry et al., 2016; Stoeber et al., 2017). Moreover, 71
individuals high in socially prescribed perfectionism tend to perceive low social support 72
(Molnar, Sadava, Flett, & Colautti, 2012; Sherry, Law, Hewitt, Flett, & Besser, 2008). Other-73
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 4
oriented perfectionism has been shown to be positively related to hostility, disagreeable 74
attitudes in daily life situations, and interpersonal conflict (Haring, Hewitt, & Flett, 2003; 75
Stoeber, 2014a; Stricker, Kritzler, & Buecker, 2019). 76
By contrast, self-oriented perfectionism usually does not show associations with 77
indicators of social disconnection, and is generally unrelated to perceived social support and 78
conflicts (Haring et al., 2003; Molnar et al., 2012; Sherry et al., 2008). In a recent series of 79
studies (Stoeber, 2015; Stoeber et al., 2017), this dimension showed a pattern of associations 80
that indicated social connection, such as a positive correlation with trust, empathy, and caring 81
for others. Hence, the PSDM might not apply to the same extent to self-oriented 82
perfectionists. 83
84
1.3. Implications for Social Relationships at Work 85
Research concerning the PSDM has been conducted mainly with undergraduate 86
students and to date has not been transferred to the workplace context (e.g. Gnilka & Broda, 87
2019; Molnar et al., 2012; Sherry et al., 2008). However, the workplace is the domain that is 88
most frequently affected by perfectionism (Slaney & Ashby, 1996; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009), 89
and interpersonal functioning in working teams as well as workplace relationships are crucial 90
in today’s working life. Teamwork, for instance, requires social interaction with colleagues 91
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) and social support from colleagues is an important resource for 92
employees (Halbesleben, 2006; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). It is thus necessary to consider 93
previous research concerning the PSDM regarding perfectionists’ interactions and 94
relationships with their colleagues. 95
It can be argued that socially prescribed perfectionist colleagues, who constantly fear 96
making mistakes and being rejected by other team members, and other-oriented perfectionist 97
colleagues, who constantly criticize others’ mistakes, strain working relationships. Self-98
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 5
oriented perfectionism, which is intrapersonal in its nature, might not affect working 99
relationships to the same extent as the interpersonal dimensions of perfectionism. However, 100
colleagues high in self-oriented perfectionism might give the impression of being highly 101
motivated to perform in the best possible way, prioritising their personal ambitions rather than 102
team goals. 103
104
1.4. The Present Research 105
The aim of the present research was to examine perfectionism and indicators of social 106
disconnection in the context of the workplace, from two perspectives (i.e. using two 107
methodological approaches). Study 1 was conducted as an experiment and Study 2 was a field 108
study. 109
In Study 1, the participants’ perfectionism was measured. They were then allocated to 110
one of four vignettes, describing either a self-oriented perfectionist, other-oriented 111
perfectionist, socially prescribed perfectionist, or non-perfectionist team member. The 112
participants rated these colleagues regarding their social skills and work competence. They 113
also rated their own willingness to work with the described colleague (interpersonal 114
attraction). Building on the PSDM and respective research as well as the findings reported by 115
Hoffmann, Stoeber and Musch (2015) in the context of mate selection, the following ratings 116
were hypothesized: Compared to the non-perfectionist, all perfectionists would receive lower 117
ratings of social skills and interpersonal attraction. The self-oriented perfectionist would 118
receive the highest ratings among the perfectionists due to the intrapersonal nature of this 119
dimension. 120
Concerning the competence ratings, the study was mostly explorative. However, we 121
expected that self-oriented perfectionists would be rated most competent among the four 122
conditions. Additionally, following Hoffmann et al. (2015), we investigated on an exploratory 123
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 6
basis whether the ratings of social skills, competence and interpersonal attraction would differ 124
depending on the participants’ own perfectionism. 125
In Study 2, the participants’ perfectionism was measured, together with social support, 126
social exclusion, and intergroup conflicts they experienced in their working teams. In this 127
way, both subjective and objective indicators of social disconnection were included. In line 128
with previous research supporting the PSDM with regard to the interpersonal dimensions of 129
perfectionism, the following associations were hypothesized: Only socially prescribed and 130
other-oriented perfectionism but not self-oriented perfectionism were expected to be 131
negatively related to social support and positively related to social exclusion and intergroup 132
conflicts. Other-oriented perfectionism was unrelated to social support in previous research 133
(e.g. Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2006; Sherry et al., 2008). However, we assumed that this 134
dimension interferes with mutual support and social connection in working teams. In the case 135
of other-oriented perfectionists, primarily the targets of their demands experience distress 136
(Hewitt & Flett, 2004; Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 1995). By constantly criticizing others 137
personally and for their work, they put their team members under pressure and give the 138
impression of being hostile and unsupportive. It is therefore likely that colleagues avoid other-139
oriented perfectionists and that they are less willing to support them. 140
141
2. Study 1: The Colleagues' Perspective 142
2.1. Participants 143
An initial sample of 189 employees, was recruited online via the platform SoSci 144
Survey in Germany. Data collection was supported by an undergraduate student involved in 145
the project. The study was advertised via social media and also distributed via mailing lists 146
among the university staff members. 147
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 7
After five participants were excluded (see 2.4.), the final sample consisted of 184 148
employees, all involved in teamwork. Preliminary considerations on statistical power, taking 149
previous findings by Hoffmann et al. (2015) as an example, were thus fulfilled. More than 150
two-thirds of the participants in the final sample (72.3%) were female (1.1% classified 151
themselves as diverse). Their mean age was 37.04 years (SD = 10.97). On average, the 152
participants were working 34.40 hours a week (SD = 10.70) and had an organizational tenure 153
of 8.49 years (SD = 8.24). They worked in different sectors of the economy, with the most 154
frequent being health and social services (29.9%), education (13.0%), public administration 155
(8.7%) and industry (8.2%). 156
157
2.2. Procedure 158
The study was approved by the relevant ethics boards of the [name deleted to maintain 159
the integrity of the review process]. Participation was voluntary and no compensation was 160
offered. Participants first provided informed consent. After completing the measure of 161
perfectionism (see 2.3.1), participants were randomly allocated to one of the four vignettes 162
(see 2.3.2.). They were instructed to imagine that the described person would be assigned to 163
their working team and were then asked to rate the person’s social skills, competence and 164
attraction as a colleague. 165
166
2.3. Materials 167
2.3.1. Perfectionism 168
To assess the participants’ perfectionism, we used the 15-item short form of the 169
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; German translation: 170
Altstötter-Gleich, 1998). Self-oriented perfectionism (5 items; e.g. “I strive to be as perfect as 171
I can be”; α = .87) and socially prescribed perfectionism (5 items, e.g. “People expect nothing 172
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 8
less than perfection from me”; α = .92) were measured with the short version by Cox, Enns, 173
and Clara (2002). Other-oriented perfectionism (5 items; e.g. “If I ask someone to do 174
something, I expect it to be done flawlessly”; α = .75) was measured with items derived by 175
Hewitt, Habke, Lee-Baggley, Sherry, and Flett (2008). 176
Items were presented with the MPS standard instruction and rated from 1 (strongly 177
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The short scales perform well compared with the original 178
version (Stoeber, 2018) and have been used in many studies (e.g. Mackinnon, Sherry, & Pratt, 179
2013; Smith, Saklofske, & Yan, 2015; Stoeber, Lalova, & Lumley, 2020). 180
2.3.2. Vignettes 181
Four vignettes created by Hoffmann et al. (2015) were presented, describing either a 182
self-oriented perfectionist, socially prescribed perfectionist, other-oriented perfectionist, or a 183
non-perfectionist. Hoffmann et al. (2015) based the three perfectionist vignettes on Hewitt 184
and Flett's (2004, p. 6) description of prototypical self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-185
oriented perfectionists, as well as items from the Cox et al. (2002) short form of the MPS. The 186
non-perfectionist was described as a person who was not a self-oriented perfectionist, to 187
present a realistic and accessible scenario for the participants (Hoffmann et al., 2015). The 188
person was named “Ms. M.” in all vignettes. 189
2.3.3. Social Skills and Competence 190
In accordance with previous studies (Rudman & Glick, 1999; Steffens & Mehl, 2003), two 191
indices were created to measure the perceived social skills and work competence of the 192
person who was described in each vignette (“Ms. M.”). To form these indices, the respective 193
items and compositions by Steffens and Mehl (2003) were used. Ratings of nine 194
characteristics (e.g. supportive, kind) were combined with an overall assessment of Ms. M.’s 195
social skills (“How likely is it that Ms. M. is willing to support others at work?”) to form the 196
social skills index (α = .94). To form the competence index (α= .79), ratings of nine 197
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 9
characteristics (e.g. ambitious, confident) were again combined with an overall assessment of 198
Ms. M.’s professional skills (“How likely is it that Ms. M. has sufficient professional skills?”). 199
For each index, the participants rated the extent to which the characteristics corresponded to 200
their impression of Ms. M. Participants responded on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 201
(extremely). 202
2.3.4. Attraction 203
Two items, based on the Interpersonal Judgement Scale (Byrne, 1971), were used to 204
measure interpersonal attraction. The first item referred to liking the described person ("How 205
much do you think you will like this team member?"). The second item captured the degree to 206
which the participant would enjoy working with the person ("How much would you want to 207
work with this person?"). The items (α = .94) were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 208
(extremely). 209
210
2.4. Statistical Analyses 211
Before the analyses, four participants who were working fewer than eight hours per 212
week were excluded. Another participant was excluded because the response time (< 2 sec) 213
indicated a lack of attention in reading the vignette. To examine differences in the ratings of 214
the described colleagues, we conducted a one-way ANOVA with perfectionist as between-215
participants factor, and social skills, competence and attraction as dependent variables. 216
Tukey's HSD test was used to test pairwise comparisons between the four experimental 217
conditions (see Table 2). 218
Moderated regression analyses were then conducted to examine whether the ratings 219
differed depending on the participants’ own perfectionism. The continuous predictors 220
(participants' own perfectionism) were first standardized and then entered in the regression 221
analyses to provide a meaningful zero point for the interpretations (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 222
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 10
2004). In Step 1, gender was entered as a control variable, because women (M = 3.45, SD = 223
1.49) gave significantly lower attraction ratings than did men (M = 4.07, SD = 1.62), t(180) = 224
2.43, p = .016. Women (M = 3.70, SD = 1.29) also gave significantly lower ratings on social 225
skills than did men (M = 4.21, SD = 1.28), t(180) = 2.33, p = .021. Gender was dummy 226
coded (0 = male, 1 = female) which is why the two participants who classified themselves as 227
diverse were not included in this analysis. 228
In Step 2, perfectionism and the four experimental conditions were entered. In Step 3, 229
the interaction effects between the participants’ perfectionism and the experimental conditions 230
were included (see Table 3). For this purpose, four dummy variables were coded to display 231
the conditions: the self-oriented perfectionist colleague (SOP colleague; 1= SOP vignette, 0 = 232
all other vignettes); the socially prescribed perfectionist colleague (SPP colleague; 1= SPP 233
vignette, 0 = all other vignettes); and the other-oriented colleague (OOP colleague; 1= OOP 234
vignette, 0 = all other vignettes). Thus, the non-perfectionist colleague (NP colleague) was the 235
reference condition. 236
237
2.5. Results and Discussion 238
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the scales are shown in Table 1. Ratings 239
of social skills but not ratings of competence showed a high positive correlation with the 240
attraction ratings, indicating that perceived social skills might be decisive for the willingness 241
to work with certain colleagues. The results from the ANOVA are depicted in Table 2. In line 242
with the assumptions, all perfectionist colleagues received lower attraction ratings than did the 243
non-perfectionist colleague. The other-oriented perfectionist was the least favored team 244
member. However, there was no significant difference in attraction ratings between the self-245
oriented and the socially prescribed perfectionist colleague. All perfectionist colleagues were 246
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 11
rated equally less socially skilled than the non-perfectionist, and again the other-oriented 247
perfectionist received the lowest ratings. 248
A different pattern was found concerning the competence ratings. The other-oriented 249
and self-oriented perfectionists received the highest ratings of competence. These were 250
followed by the socially prescribed and non-perfectionist colleagues, who were rated equally 251
competent. 252
The regression analyses (see Table 3) revealed two significant interaction effects 253
between the participants’ perfectionism and the experimental condition, for the dimension of 254
other-oriented perfectionism. Participants high in other-oriented perfectionists gave higher 255
attraction ratings to other-oriented and self-oriented perfectionist colleagues than participants 256
low in other-oriented perfectionism. This finding is congruent with those reported by 257
Hoffmann et al. (2015) in the context of mate selection. Another significant interaction effect 258
was found for the dimension of self-oriented perfectionism. Participants high in self-oriented 259
perfectionism rated socially prescribed perfectionist colleagues more socially skilled than 260
participants low in self-oriented perfectionism. This finding is partly congruent with 261
Hoffmann et al. (2015), who found significant interactions of self-oriented perfectionism with 262
all perfectionist vignettes, though in a different context. The interaction plots are depicted in 263
Figure 1 and 2. 264
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 12
Table 1 265
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Between Variables 266
Variables
1
2
3
5
6
7
M
SD
1. Self-oriented perfectionism
-
5.12
1.18
2. Socially prescribed perfectionism
.18*
-
3.07
1.47
3. Other-oriented perfectionism
.50***
.33**
-
4.04
1.10
4. Social skills
.15*
.06
.18*
3.84
1.30
5. Competence
.07
.11
.01
-
4.83
0.93
6. Attraction
.13
.14
.16*
.14
-
3.64
1.55
7. Gender
.14
.10
.03
.07
-.18*
-
.73
-
267
Note. N = 184. Gender (female) was dummy-coded with 0 = male, 1 = female. All other scales were measured on a 7-point scale. 268
* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. 269
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 13
Table 2 270
One-way ANOVA for Social Skills, Competence and Attraction of the Rated Colleagues 271
Self-oriented
perfectionist
(n = 48)
Socially prescribed
perfectionist
(n = 44)
Other-oriented
perfectionist
(n = 47)
Non-
perfectionist
(n = 45)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F(3, 180)
Social skills
3.60b
1.02
3.80b
1.10
2.88c
1.10
5.13a
1.30
38.70***
Competence
5.15b
0.76
4.47a
0.84
5.38b
0.78
4.28a
0.87
19.43***
Attraction
3.61b
1.36
3.57b
1.30
2.78c
1.55
4.64a
1.42
13.61***
272
Note. N = 184. Social skills, competence and attraction were rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). 273
F statistic from one-way ANOVA with perfectionist as between-participant factor. Means with different superscripts indicate significant mean 274
differences between the four experimental conditions in pairwise comparisons, i.e. a differs siginificantly from b and c, b differs significantly from c, 275
p < .05 (Tukeys’s HSD test). 276
*** p <.001.277
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 14
Table 3 278
Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Social Skills, Competence and Attraction 279
Predictors
Social Skills
Competence
Attraction
β
β
β
Step 1: Control variables
!!
Gender1
-.17*
.07
-.18*
Δ R2
.03*
.01
.03*
Step 2: Perfectionism and colleague
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP)
.14*
.07
.14
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP)
.09
-.01
.15*
Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP)
.06
.04
.04
SOP colleague
-.49***
.42***
-.27**
SPP colleague
-.42***
.10
-.29***
OOP colleague
-.76***
.52***
-.55***
Δ R2
.42***
.25***
.24***
Step 3: Perfectionism x colleague interactions
SOP x SOP colleague
.19
.09
.05
SOP x SPP colleague
.24*
-.04
-.04
SOP x OOP colleague
.16
.01
-.02
SPP x SOP colleague
.00
-.11
.11
SPP x SPP colleague
.01
-.04
.16
SPP x OOP colleague
-.07
-.10
-.04
OOP x SOP colleague
.07
.21
.28*
OOP x SPP colleague
-.10
.19
.10
OOP x OOP colleague
.19
.24
.40**
Δ R2
.07**
.04
.11**
280
Note. N = 184. Gender (female) was dummy-coded with 0 = male, 1 = female. SOP colleague 281
was dummy-coded with 1 = SOP colleague, 0 = all other conditions; SPP colleague with 1 = 282
1 The regression coefficients remained significant when the multiple regression analyses were ran
without gender included as the first step.
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 15
SPP colleague, 0 = all other colleague; and OOP colleague with 1 = OOP colleague, 0 = all 283
other conditions (The non-perfectionist colleague was the reference group). Depicted beta 284
coefficients are based on the step in which the variables were entered. 285
* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. 286
287
Figure 1 288
Interactions of Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP) and Perfectionist Colleague Versus Non-289
Perfectionist Colleague (NP colleague) Predicting Attraction 290
291
292
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 16
293
Note. Top: OOP × self-oriented perfectionist (SOP) colleague; bottom: OOP × other-oriented 294
perfectionist (OOP) colleague. Interpersonal attraction was rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) 295
to 7 (extremely). 296
297
Figure 2 298
Interaction of Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP) and Socially Prescribed Perfectionist 299
Colleague (SPP colleague) Versus Non-Perfectionist Colleague (NP colleague) Predicting 300
Social Skills 301
302
Note. Interpersonal attraction was rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). 303
304
305
3. Study 2: The Perfectionists’ Perspective 306
3.1. Participants 307
A sample of 294 employees was recruited online via SoSci Survey in Germany. Again, 308
data collection was supported by an undergraduate student. The study was advertised via 309
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 17
social media and distributed via mailing lists among the university staff members, but also 310
among business contacts. 311
After 15 participants were excluded (see 3.4.), the final sample consisted of 297 312
employees, all involved in teamwork. More than two thirds (73.1%) of them were female and 313
their mean age was 37.14 years (SD = 13.02). Their mean weekly working time was 35.03 314
hours (SD = 11.07) and they had a mean organizational tenure of 7.53 years (SD = 8.65). The 315
most frequent sectors of economy were health and social services (22.2%), education 316
(10.8%), industry (9.7%) and public administration (9.0%). 317
318
3.2. Procedure 319
The study was approved by the relevant ethics boards of the [name deleted to maintain 320
the integrity of the review process]. As in Study 1, participation was voluntary, and no 321
compensation was offered. The participants provided informed consent before completing the 322
measures of perfectionism, social support, social exclusion and conflicts at work. 323
324
3.3. Measures 325
3.3.1. Perfectionism 326
To assess multidimensional perfectionism, the same measure was used as in Study 1. 327
The reliabilities for the subscales self-oriented perfectionism (SOP; α = .89), socially 328
prescribed perfectionism (SPP; α = .90) and other-oriented perfectionism (OOP; α = .76) were 329
satisfactory in the present sample. 330
3.3.2. Social Support 331
Frese’s (1989) German adaption of the Social Support Scales by Caplan et al. (1975) 332
was used to assess social support. The five items (e.g. “How much is each of the following 333
people willing to listen to your work-related problems?”; α = .87) were answered with regard 334
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 18
to colleagues at work. Participants rated the items on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 335
(absolutely). 336
3.3.3. Social Exclusion 337
Social exclusion was measured with seven items from Pereira, Meier, and Elfering 338
(2013), which are based on Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995). The items (e.g. “At 339
work, I have the impression that others avoid me“) were rated on a scale from 1 (does not 340
apply) to 5 (fully applies) and showed satisfactory reliability (α = .86). 341
3.3.4. Conflicts 342
The German version of Jehn’s intragroup conflict scale (Lehmann-Willenbrock, 343
Grohmann, & Kauffeld, 2011) was used to assess conflicts at work. The scale measures task 344
conflict (e.g. “How much conflict about the work you do is there between you and your 345
team?; α = .78) and relationship conflict (e.g. “How much friction is there among you and 346
your team members?; α = .74). 347
As in previous research (e.g. Meier, Gross, Spector, & Semmer, 2013), the items were 348
slightly adapted to refer to conflicts between the participant and the team, rather than conflict 349
between team members in general. The six items were rated from 1 (never/none) to 5 (very 350
often/very much). 351
352
3.4. Statistical Analyses 353
Prior to the analyses, eight participants were excluded because they did not meet the 354
requirements for teamwork. Another four participants were excluded from the analysis 355
because they worked fewer than eight hours per week. Finally, three participants were 356
excluded as they showed a Mahalanobis distance exceeding the critical value of χ² (9) = 357
27.88, p < .001 (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). 358
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 19
Bivariate correlations and multiple regression analyses (see Table 4) were calculated. 359
The values were inspected to determine the unique contribution of each perfectionism 360
dimension to social disconnection, once the substantial overlap was controlled for (e.g. Hewitt 361
& Flett, 2004; Stoeber, 2014b). 362
363
3.5. Results and Discussion 364
As expected, the bivariate correlations showed that socially prescribed and other-365
oriented perfectionism were related to indicators of social disconnection. Regarding the 366
multiple regression analyses, only socially prescribed perfectionism showed a pattern of 367
unique relationships with all indicators of social disconnection. Other-oriented perfectionism 368
was related to task and relationship conflict at work only. Interestingly, regressions also 369
revealed that self-oriented perfectionism was negatively related to relationship conflict. This 370
finding is in line with previous research that reported unique relationships between self-371
oriented perfectionism and social connection (Stoeber, 2015; Stoeber et al., 2017). 372
373
Table 4 374
Bivariate Correlations and Multiple Regression Analyses: Multidimensional Perfectionism 375
and Indicators of Social Disconnection 376
377
Bivariate correlations
Partial correlations
!!
!!
Variables
SOP
SPP
OOP
SOP
SPP
OOP
M
SD
Social support
-.08
-.32***
-.14*
.04
-.31***
-.05
3.76
0.79
Social exclusion
.08
.40***
.16**
-.06
.40***
.06
1.77
0.68
Relationship
conflict
.02
.34***
.20**
-.14*
.32***
.15*
1.97
0.62
Task conflict
.07
.33***
.19**
-.09
.33***
.13*
2.29
0.73
378
Note. N = 279. Social support, social exclusion, relationship conflict and task conflict were 379
measured on a 5-point scale. Standardized regression weights from the multiple regression 380
with SOP, SPP, and OOP as predictors are depicted. 381
* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. 382
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 20
4. General Discussion 383
4.1. Current Findings 384
The present research investigated the construct of multidimensional perfectionism and 385
indicators of social disconnection in the workplace context, from two perspectives. In 386
Study 1, we examined how perfectionists were perceived by potential work colleagues. In 387
Study 2, we examined the extent to which, in real-life, perfectionists experienced integration 388
or social disconnection in their working teams. 389
The results were largely consistent with the predictions. In Study 1, all perfectionist 390
colleagues received lower attraction ratings and ratings of social skills than the non-391
perfectionist colleague, with the other-oriented perfectionist being the least favored team 392
member. This finding is interesting, considering that other-oriented and self-oriented 393
perfectionists received the highest ratings of competence. An explanation could be that other-394
oriented perfectionists are perceived as antisocial but also as assertive and confident. 395
In addition, employees high in other-oriented perfectionism gave high attraction 396
ratings to other-oriented and self-oriented perfectionist colleagues. These patterns fit with the 397
direction of their demands and are congruent with that of Hoffmann et al. (2015) in the 398
context of mate selection. Further, employees high in self-oriented perfectionism rated 399
socially prescribed perfectionist colleagues more socially skilled. This explorative finding is 400
only partly congruent with the findings of Hoffmann et al. (2015), but also refers to assumed 401
skills and not to a personal preference. The finding might indicate that self-oriented 402
perfectionists understand the pressure that socially prescribed perfectionists perceive, which is 403
reflected in more benevolent ratings. This explanation would be in line with previous 404
findings showing positive relationships with empathy and caring for others (Stoeber 2015, 405
Stoeber et al., 2017). 406
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 21
Although no perfectionists were preferred as team members, only socially prescribed 407
perfectionism showed a pattern of unique relationships regarding all indicators of social 408
disconnection in Study 2, including feelings of social exclusion. Other-oriented perfectionists, 409
despite being least favored as a team member, did not experience social exclusion or low 410
social support, according to the regression analyses. This finding confirms earlier studies in 411
which other-oriented perfectionism was unrelated to social support (e.g. Dunkley et al., 2006; 412
Sherry et al., 2008). Consistent with the PSDM (Hewitt et al., 2006, 2017; Sherry et al., 2016) 413
and the findings from Study 1, other-oriented perfectionism was positively related to task and 414
relationship conflict. Self-oriented perfectionism did not display any relationships with 415
indicators of social disconnection and was even negatively related to relationship conflict. 416
These findings are in line with previous research indicating self-oriented perfectionism and 417
social connection (e.g. Stoeber, 2015; Stoeber et al., 2017). They provide further support for 418
the assumption that the PSDM might not apply to the same extent to self-oriented 419
perfectionists. Although rated as rather undesirable, self-oriented perfectionism - given its 420
intrapersonal nature - does not affect interpersonal relationships at work, according to the 421
present results. However, self-oriented perfectionists might give the impression of focusing on 422
their own goals rather than on team goals, and could thus be seen as poor team players. 423
Another explanation for the divergent findings concerning self-oriented perfectionism could 424
be the interdimensional overlap of the perfectionism dimensions still inherent in the vignettes2 425
in Study 1, but not in the perfectionism scales in Study 2. As known from previous research, 426
self-oriented perfectionism may show patterns of associations that indicate psychological 427
adjustment, once this overlap is controlled for (Hill, Huelsman, & Araujo, 2010; Stoeber & 428
2 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this issue concerning the use of
vignettes when investigating multidimensional constructs.
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 22
Otto, 2006). Equally, the ratings concerning self-oriented perfectionists may have been less 429
negative, without this overlap included in the vignettes. However, statistical control was not 430
possible in this case due to the dummy coding involved. 431
Overall, the results suggest that social disconnection at work arises from an interplay 432
between initial antipathy towards perfectionists and trait-dependent causes. The latter can lead 433
to objective disconnection, in the form of interpersonal conflicts, and to subjective 434
disconnection, as indicated by feelings of low social support and exclusion. Therefore, 435
interpersonal sensitivity (Flett et al., 2014) might play an essential role in the perception of 436
social disconnection and explain the finding that socially prescribed perfectionists feel 437
excluded at work whereas other-oriented perfectionists do not. From another point of view, it 438
can be questioned if there are specific characteristics among other-oriented perfectionists that 439
make them in a way immune to feelings of social exclusion despite not being liked by others. 440
In recent studies, other-oriented perfectionism showed unique relationships with the Dark 441
Triad of personality, uncaring und callous traits and an individualistic value orientation, which 442
points towards high self-regard with simultaneous low concern for others (Stoeber 2014a, 443
2015). They might consequently attach little importance to social relationships and feel 444
adequately included according to their own needs. 445
446
4.3. Strengths, Limitations and Future Research Directions 447
To the best of our knowledge, the present research is the first to focus on 448
perfectionism and social disconnection in the workplace and thus to extend the PSDM to this 449
specific context. Moreover, we combined two perspectives, applying two quantitative 450
methodological approaches, to obtain a comprehensive view of how perfectionists are seen by 451
potential team members and how they perceive working in their own teams. Additionally, all 452
dimensions from Hewitt and Flett’s model were regarded, including other-oriented 453
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 23
perfectionism, which is often neglected as it is not considered a core facet of perfectionism 454
(Stoeber & Otto, 2006). 455
Nevertheless, there are some shortcomings that future research should consider. First, 456
Study 1 comprised only the initial ratings of potential colleagues. It would be interesting to 457
compare these ratings to the actual experiences of team members who work with 458
perfectionists for a long time. Second, the colleagues in the vignettes were described as team 459
members in general terms. It is probable that a description of a specific working relationship 460
including a greater degree of co-worker exchange, e.g. collaborating in a project or under a 461
perfectionist leader, could produce different, perhaps even stronger results. However, even 462
with a broad description significant differences in the ratings were found. Third, as all 463
perfectionists in the vignettes were presented as female colleagues, our findings from Study 1 464
are limited to female perfectionists. Future research would benefit from replications in which 465
female and male colleague vignettes are randomly assigned. 466
Another limitation should be noted concerning the sampling of the studies. Although 467
two separate studies were conducted by different project members, an overlap of the samples 468
is possible. Even if the studies were advertised via different social media networks and 469
channels, we cannot exclude the possibility that e.g. university staff members participated in 470
both studies. The findings may therefore be slightly distorted given that some participants 471
were more aware of the purpose of study 2. We therefore compared both samples concerning 472
a combination of data on gender, age and sectors of economy. With 81% of the participants 473
from sample 2 differing in sample characteristics to those in sample 1, a possible overlap 474
cannot be completely ruled out but should not have a large impact. Also, study 2 differed from 475
study 1 in the participants’ perspective, in the measures used and in the specific research 476
question. 477
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 24
Building on Study 2, it would be interesting to study social support, exclusion and 478
interpersonal conflicts at the team level, with mutual ratings by colleagues, to compare the 479
subjective experiences and external perceptions. Moreover, it remains unclear whether 480
conflicts precede social exclusion or the other way round (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & 481
Baumeister, 2009). 482
Interpersonal functioning and social relationships are relevant for health (Cohen, 2004; 483
House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988) and may represent substantial resources or stressors at 484
work (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Future studies could focus on how indicators of social 485
disconnection contribute to stress, reduced well-being and performance at work; and the 486
extent to which those indicators differ across the dimensions of perfectionism. Finally, future 487
research could compare perfectionism as it occurs in different sectors and professions. It 488
seems possible that, for instance, self-oriented perfectionism is valued in certain occupations, 489
such as surgery or in highly specialized teams. 490
491
4.4. Conclusion 492
The present results indicate that it is important to consider perfectionism in the context 493
of teamwork and team climate. Although further research is needed to support the current 494
findings, we conclude that perfectionist demands among team members may threaten a 495
positive team climate. Socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism, especially, may 496
represent a source of task and relationship conflict, and socially prescribed perfectionism 497
might even evoke feelings of social exclusion. If employees could choose the “perfect” 498
colleague, this person would probably not be a perfectionist but rather someone with realistic 499
expectations for themselves and the team. 500
501
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 25
Declarations of interest: none. 502
503
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 26
Funding 504
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, 505
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 506
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 27
Acknowledgements 507
We would like to thank Joachim Stoeber for providing the vignettes for Study 1, as 508
well as Dorothee Frenzel and Lena Mareike Schmahl for their assistance in study preparation 509
and data collection. 510
511
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 28
References 512
Altstötter-Gleich, C. (1998). Deutschsprachige Version der Mehrdimensionalen 513
Perfektionismus Skala von Hewitt und Flett (1991). [German version of the 514
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale of Hewitt and Flett (1991)]. Unpublished 515
manuscript, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. 516
Baer, M., & Shaw, J. D. (2017). Falling in love again with what we do: Academic 517
craftsmanship in the management sciences. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 518
1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.4004 519
Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees 520
in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154. 521
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.515 522
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. 523
Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684. 524
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676 525
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of 526
perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological 527
Assessment, 14(3), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.14.3.365 528
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in 529
organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 530
30(6), 678–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000602 531
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that 532
counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. 533
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 45–59. 534
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013196 535
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2006). Specific perfectionism 536
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 29
components versus self-criticism in predicting maladjustment. Personality and 537
Individual Differences, 40(4), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.008 538
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & De Rosa, T. (1996). Dimensions of perfectionism, psychosocial 539
adjustment, and social skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(2), 143–150. 540
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00170-0 541
Flett, G. L., Besser, A., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). Perfectionism and interpersonal orientations in 542
depression: An analysis of validation seeking and rejection sensitivity in a community 543
sample of young adults. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 77(1), 67–544
85. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2014.77.1.67 545
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in 546
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. 547
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 548
Frese, M. (1989). Gütekriterien der Operationalisierung von sozialer Unterstützung am 549
Arbeitsplatz [Realibility and validity of an operationalization of social support at work]. 550
Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 43(2), 112–122. 551
Gnilka, P. B., & Broda, M. D. (2019). Multidimensional perfectionism, depression, and 552
anxiety: Tests of a social support mediation model. Personality and Individual 553
Differences, 139, 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.031 554
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of 555
the Conservation of Resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145. 556
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134 557
Haring, M., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2003). Perfectionism, coping, and quality of intimate 558
relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 143–158. 559
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00143.x 560
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: 561
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 30
Conceptualisation, assessment and association with psychopathology. Journal of 562
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-563
3514.60.3.456 564
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional perfectionism scale (MPS): Technical 565
manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. 566
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to 567
conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford. 568
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Mikail, S. F., Kealy, D., & Zhang, L. C. (2018). Perfectionism in the 569
therapeutic context: The perfectionism social disconnection model. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), 570
The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 306–329). London: 571
Routledge. 572
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., & Caelian, C. (2006). Trait perfectionism dimensions 573
and suicide behavior. In T. E. Ellis (Ed.), Cognition and suicide: Theory, research, and 574
therapy (pp. 215–235). https://doi.org/10.1037/11377-010 575
Hewitt, P. L., Habke, A. M., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Sherry, S. B., & Flett, G. L. (2008). The 576
impact of perfectionistic self-presentation on the cognitive, affective, and physiological 577
experience of a clinical interview. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 578
71(2), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2008.71.2.93 579
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., & Araujo, G. (2010). Perfectionistic concerns suppress 580
associations between perfectionistic strivings and positive life outcomes. Personality and 581
Individual Differences, 48(5), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.011 582
Hoffmann, A., Stoeber, J., & Musch, J. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and 583
assortative mating: A perfect date? Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 94–100. 584
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.001 585
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 586
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 31
241, 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889 587
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and 588
teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. 589
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x 590
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an 591
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social 592
Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. 593
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., & Kauffeld, S. (2011). Task and relationship 594
conflict at work: Construct validation of a German version of Jehn’s intragroup conflict 595
scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 171–178. 596
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000064 597
Mackinnon, S. P., Sherry, S. B., & Pratt, M. W. (2013). The relationship between 598
perfectionism, agency, and communion: A longitudinal mixed methods analysis. Journal 599
of Research in Personality, 47(4), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.007 600
Magson, N. R., Oar, E. L., Fardouly, J., Johnco, C. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2019). The preteen 601
perfectionist: An evaluation of the perfectionism social disconnection model. Child 602
Psychiatry & Human Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00897-2 603
Meier, L. L., Gross, S., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Relationship and task conflict 604
at work: Interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. Journal of 605
Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032090 606
Molnar, D. S., Sadava, S. W., Flett, G. L., & Colautti, J. (2012). Perfectionism and health: A 607
mediational analysis of the roles of stress, social support and health-related behaviours. 608
Psychology and Health, 27(7), 846–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.630466 609
Pereira, D., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2013). Short-term effects of social exclusion at work 610
and worries on sleep. Stress and Health, 29(3), 240–252. 611
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 32
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2461 612
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward Agentic 613
women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. 614
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. 615
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004 616
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: 617
Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), 618
Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health (pp. 43–68). 619
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4 620
Sherry, S. B., Law, A., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2008). Social support as a 621
mediator of the relationship between perfectionism and depression: A preliminary test of 622
the social disconnection model. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 339–344. 623
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.001 624
Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, S. P., & Gautreau, C. M. (2016). Perfectionists do not play nicely 625
with others: Expanding the social disconnection model. In F. M. Sirois & D. S. Molnar 626
(Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 225–243). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-627
3-319-18582-8_10 628
Sherry, S. B., Stoeber, J., & Ramasubbu, C. (2016). Perfectionism explains variance in self-629
defeating behaviors beyond self-criticism: Evidence from a cross-national sample. 630
Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 196–199. 631
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.059 632
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal of 633
Counseling and Development, 74(4), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-634
6676.1996.tb01885.x 635
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., & Yan, G. (2015). Perfectionism, trait emotional intelligence, 636
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 33
and psychological outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 85(May), 155–158. 637
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.010 638
Steffens, M. C., & Mehl, B. (2003). Erscheinen “Karrierefrauen” weniger sozial kompetent 639
als “Karrieremänner”? Geschlechtsstereotype und Kompetenzzuschreibung [Do "career 640
women" appear less socially competent than "career men"? Gender stereotypes and 641
attribution of competence]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34(3), 173–185. 642
https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.34.3.173 643
Stoeber, J. (2014a). Multidimensional perfectionism and the DSM-5 personality traits. 644
Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 115–120. 645
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.031 646
Stoeber, J. (2014b). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially 647
prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 648
36(2), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9397-7 649
Stoeber, J. (2015). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially 650
prescribed perfectionism: Further findings. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral 651
Assessment, 37(4), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9485-y 652
Stoeber, J. (2018). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt-Flett Multidimensional 653
Perfectionism Scale. Assessment, 25(2), 578–588. 654
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116659740 655
Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R., & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in employees: 656
The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 733–738. 657
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.001 658
Stoeber, J., Lalova, A. V., & Lumley, E. J. (2020). Perfectionism, (self-)compassion, and 659
subjective well-being: A mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences. 660
Stoeber, J., Noland, A. B., Mawenu, T. W. N., Henderson, T. M., & Kent, D. N. P. (2017). 661
PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DISCONNECTION IN THE WORKPLACE 34
Perfectionism, social disconnection, and interpersonal hostility: Not all perfectionists 662
don’t play nicely with others. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 112–117. 663
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.008 664
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, 665
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. 666
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2 667
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships 668
with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual 669
Differences, 46(4), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006 670
Stricker, J., Kritzler, S., & Buecker, S. (2019). Other-oriented perfectionism in daily life 671
situations: An experience sampling study. Personality and Individual Differences, 151. 672
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.033 673
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: 674
Pearson. 675
676
... The PSDM is a valuable framework that has been applied to investigate interpersonal consequences of perfectionism in several contexts, such as private conflicts (Mackinnon et al., 2012) or social exclusion and workplace conflicts (Kleszewski and Otto, 2020). In the present work, we aim to apply the core assumptions of the model concerning perfectionism, rigid cognitions, and adverse social interactions to the context of leadership behavior. ...
... Further, we have extended the well-established PSDM with its core assumptions concerning perfectionism and adverse social interactions to the context of leadership and leader behavior, which demonstrates the broad applicability of the model. Whereas research to date has explored perfectionism and the PSDM in relationships between people of the same level (e.g., colleagues; Kleszewski and Otto, 2020), the relationship between leaders and their followers is characterized by a hierarchical structure and thus a power difference. Accordingly, our research contributes to the perfectionism literature by exploring the link between perfectionism in a person higher in an organizational hierarchy and behavior that primarily affects people who are lower in the hierarchy and thus depend on this perfectionistic person. ...
... Yet, as underscored in our research, there are positive consequences of self-oriented leaders' perfectionism on peoplecentered leadership that would be highly valued in organizations; thus, calling simply for a reduction of perfectionism may fall short. Notably, a recent study has found that if employees could choose a colleague to work with, then the selected person would not be a perfectionist at all because of the potentially negative consequences on team climate (Kleszewski and Otto, 2020). Whether subordinates would also prefer non-perfectionistic leaders due to unrealistically high expectations is only speculation. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite the growing interest in perfectionism and its many facets, there is a lack of research on this phenomenon in the context of leadership. Attending to this deficit, the present study is the first to investigate the relationship between the three facets of perfectionism (self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented perfectionism) and three types of self-rated leadership behavior. In Study 1 (N = 182), leaders’ perfectionism and its association to their organizational, goal-oriented leadership behavior—self-rated as transactional (management by exception) and transformational leadership—is explored. In Study 2 (N = 185), the relationship of leaders’ perfectionism to their servant leadership as a people-centered leadership behavior is investigated. In line with the perfectionism social disconnection model (PSDM), we assume other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism to be positively related to management by exception (i.e., monitoring behavior) and negatively related to transformational and servant leadership, whereas the opposite pattern is primarily predicted for self-oriented perfectionism. Our findings in Study 1 reveal a negative relationship between leaders’ self-oriented perfectionism as well as positive relationships to their other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in management by exception, while no substantial correlations with transformational leadership have emerged. In Study 2, a negative association between other-oriented perfectionism and the forgiveness dimension of servant leadership is revealed, indicating a possible barrier to building interpersonal relationships of acceptance and trust. Additionally, self-oriented perfectionism has been proven to be a rather favorable trait in servant leadership.
... First, it requires parents to set high standards and goals and constantly monitor progress (Kleszewski & Otto, 2020;Stoeber, 2015). Second, such efforts are usually exhausting. ...
... Parents need to communicate with their children and persuade them to comply with parental standards (see Stoeber, 2015), involving repeated negotiations (see Kleszewski & Otto, 2020) and generating conflicts with their children (Barber et al., 2012;Smetana & Rote, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Is it possible that striving for flawlessness and perfection in their children's performance is detrimental to parents? Could it be so harmful that it exposes parents to the risk of burnout? In order to answer these questions, this study adopted a three-dimension model of childoriented perfectionism (encompassing three dimensions: high standards, order, and discrepancy) and examined the association of these dimensions with parental burnout. The participants were 325 Polish parents (78.8% mothers) who lived in the same household with at least one child aged 3 to 19 years. The results showed that discrepancy—parents’ perception that their children failed to meet their standards and expectations—was a crucial dimension of child-oriented perfectionism that put parents at risk of burnout; however, parents’ emotional intelligence mitigated such harmful effects. The study contributes to knowledge about the antecedents of parental burnout and provides insight into possible interventions to counter the risk of striving as parents for perfect children.
... Whilst self-and other-oriented perfectionism have been linked with a range of negative outcomes, perfectionists who are overly concerned with the evaluation of others may be particularly at risk (Mitchelson and Burns, 1998;Stoeber et al., 2009). Research with different occupational groups has found that socially prescribed perfectionism is significantly related to feelings of inadequacy and social alienation as well as stress and burnout (Childs and Stoeber, 2010;Kleszewski and Otto, 2020). Longitudinal research also provides some evidence for causality, as socially prescribed perfectionism has been associated with increased role stress, cynicism and exhaustion over time, as well as heightened feelings of inefficacy (Childs and Stoeber, 2012). ...
... It has been observed that perfectionists do not 'play nicely with others' (Sherry et al., 2016). As dysfunctional perfectionism is characterised by a tendency to set unrealistic standards of performance for other people and be overly sensitive to cues that might signify negative evaluation by them, it has potential to threaten a positive team climate (Kleszewski and Otto, 2020). This is also likely to impede the functioning of a social work team as a secure base that can help practitioners cope with the emotional demands of the role (Biggart et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Perfectionism refers to a tendency to set unrealistically high standards for oneself and others. Although often seen positively, perfectionism can threaten health, relationships and performance. This study examined the effects of three types of maladaptive perfectionism on burnout in 294 UK social workers: self-oriented (having excessively high standards for oneself), other-oriented (having excessively high expectations of others) and socially prescribed (perceiving external pressure to excel). In line with previous research, we predicted that socially prescribed perfectionism would have particularly powerful effects on well-being, but significant relationships with self and other-oriented perfectionism were also expected. We also examined whether maladaptive perfectionism intensified the negative impact of work-related emotional demands on burnout. Significant positive relationships were found between socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism and burnout. A higher level of socially prescribed perfectionism was found than self and other-oriented and its relationship with burnout was particularly strong. We found no evidence, however, that perfectionism was an additional risk factor for burnout when emotional demands were high. Early career social workers were found to be at greater risk of dysfunctional perfectionism and burnout. The implications of the findings for the well-being of social workers are considered and potential interventions outlined to reduce maladaptive perfectionism.
... Trait socio-cognitive mindfulness is conceptually relevant to social contexts, and has been mostly studied in organizational contexts, in which it has been related to social well-being, better decision making, creativity and engagement (Pirson et al., 2018). Similarly, SOP seems to be positively related to aspects of social connection and social skills (Kleszewski & Otto, 2020;Stoeber et al., 2017). It may be that SOP has a positive impact on social constructs through an enhanced capacity to notice socially relevant information, however further research is needed to understand the mechanisms of these relationships. ...
Article
The present study examined the empirical and conceptual association between two definitions of trait mindfulness (socio-cognitive and mindfulness-meditation) and trait, cognitive, and self-presentational components of perfectionism. These associations were investigated in a student sample of emerging adults ( n = 390), who completed measures of trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, perfectionistic cognitions, trait mindfulness-meditation, and trait socio-cognitive mindfulness. Hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed that socially prescribed perfectionism was negatively related to the non-reactivity and acting with awareness facets of mindfulness-meditation, while self-oriented perfectionism had a positive relationship with the novelty seeking and novelty producing facets of socio-cognitive mindfulness. Perfectionistic cognitions were negatively associated with non-judging. Non-display and non-disclosure of imperfections were also negatively associated with facets of mindfulness-meditation and socio-cognitive mindfulness. Level of study (i.e., undergraduate or graduate) did not moderate the associations between perfectionism and mindfulness variables. Our study provides evidence for negative and positive associations between specific mindfulness facets and components of perfectionism. The results have implications for a theoretical and empirical understanding of the relationship between perfectionism and mindfulness and can inform the design of interventions to teach students how to cope with distressing forms of perfectionism during emerging adulthood.
... Socially prescribed perfectionism has been identified as a maladaptive trait, with negative effects on outcomes such as well-being in the workplace (Birch, Riby, & McGann, 2019), leading to higher burnout and stress, to reduced commitment (Childs & Stoeber, 2010;Childs & Stoeber, 2012;Rice & Liu, 2020) and increased workaholism (Taris, van Beek, & Schaufeli, 2010). At the interpersonal level, it has been linked to alienation from peers, low social support, avoidance of social interactions, interpersonal conflicts, and hostility (Kleszewski & Otto, 2020). ...
Article
Based on a posttest-only control group design, we analyzed the efficiency of three group-level interventions (i.e., cognitive reframing, mood induction, and instrumental interventions) on the fairness perceptions of 198 participants in an assessment context. Each intervention was derived from a conceptual framework (Gilliland’s theory, Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy, Affect-as-Information Perspective), which was empirically validated. Although the results are not extremely encouraging, as between the three experimental groups and the control one (no intervention) there were not large statistical differences, our study still highlights that the assessors need to focus on the participants if they wish to increase their perceptions of fairness, not only over its formal elements. A series of limitations and future research directions are presented.
... Have peaceful attitudes that contribute to a conciliatory relationship with others. (Camps, Selvam and Sheymardanov 2019;Stone 2020;Kleszewski and Otto 2020). Therefore, recipients of a greater number of social skills will be better able to relate to each other in intercultural contexts, even when interracial conflicts arise (Hsieh and Nguyen 2020;Fisher, Thompson and Brookes 2020;Filippou et al. 2020) [Unclear, please revise]. ...
... Have peaceful attitudes that contribute to a conciliatory relationship with others. (Camps, Selvam and Sheymardanov 2019;Stone 2020;Kleszewski and Otto 2020). Therefore, recipients of a greater number of social skills will be better able to relate to each other in intercultural contexts, even when interracial conflicts arise (Hsieh and Nguyen 2020;Fisher, Thompson and Brookes 2020;Filippou et al. 2020) [Unclear, please revise]. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this study, binary logistic regression statistics was used in order to analyze the influence of the variables gender and cultural origin, in the development of social skills of young immigrants. The social skills construct was defined with the responses of N = 749 immigrants to the Social Skills Scale for Young Immigrants (SSSYI), in which six dimensions are evaluated: the ability to say no and cut off interactions, self-expression in social situations, defense of their rights as a consumer, expression of anger or disagreement toward others, the ability to make requests, and the ability to initiate positive interactions with the opposite sex. The analysis was carried out using the statistical software SPSS and STATA. The results showed that there are significant differences in the development of social skills in young immigrants based on their gender and cultural origin. More specifically, it is shown that Asian immigrants are less likely to acquire social skills than the rest of the participants. It is immigrant women who are more likely to obtain these social skills. © Common Ground Research Networks, Christian Fernández-Leyva, María Tomé-Fernández, José Manuel Ortiz-Marcos
... Colleague support is one of the social support given by organization and its described as an interpersonal exchange where an individual assists other individuals within organization [13]. Social support is comfort, attention, appreciation, or other forms of assistance that individuals receive from others or groups [14] Social support is an act that helps by involving emotions, providing information, material assistance, and positive assessments of individuals in dealing with their problems [15]. Colleague support is a positive feeling, liking, trust, and attention from others in the work life of the individual concerned, recognition, one's trust, and direct assistance in certain forms [16]. ...
Article
Full-text available
BACKGROUND The present study investigated perfectionism from the bioecological model perspective as a multidimensional construct manifested in forms of excessively high personal standards, exaggerated worries about personal mistakes, doubt in one’s performance, oversized order and organization emphasis, and the importance of parental valuations and expectations. AIM To investigate the relation between perfectionism; the quality of family, peer, and college relationships; and media usage and content interests. METHODS The research was implemented in 2020 with 203 students (134 female, 66%) aged 18-25 years, enrolled at the University of Osijek in Croatia. The questionnaire had five parts: A) sociodemographic data; B) the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; C) the “general life satisfaction” and “current situational life satisfaction” scale; D) family, peer, and college relationships quality scale; and E) media usage and content interests scale. All of the implemented instruments showed satisfactory reliability. A hierarchical regression analysis was implemented with the aim of establishing significant perfectionism predictors. RESULTS Age and gender were significant predictors of perfectionism. Participants with lower family relationship quality reported higher parental expectations and complaining as well as significantly higher doubts in personal performance and concern about mistakes. Similarly, a lower peer relationship quality predicted doubts in personal performance and stronger concerns about mistakes. The quality of college relationships positively predicted higher perfectionist personal standards and organization. General life satisfaction predicted higher concerns about mistakes, while current situational life satisfaction predicted higher levels of perfectionist organization. Media usage intensity had no significant effect. Adolescent interest in information-educational media predicted higher personal standards as well as concern about mistakes and organization. Higher interests in entertainment media content predicted more concern about mistakes, while interest in negative media content negatively predicted organization in adolescents. CONCLUSION Sociodemographic traits, relationships with family, peers and colleagues, as well as life satisfaction and media content interests represent significant adolescent perfectionism predictors, explaining 14%-28% of individual perfectionism dimensions.
Article
Full-text available
Perfectionism has shown negative relationships with self-compassion and subjective well-being (SWB), but perfectionism is multidimensional and not all dimensions may show these negative relationships. Moreover, it is unclear whether low self-compassion mediates the negative relationships of multidimensional perfectionism with SWB, and whether low compassion for others plays an additional role. This study (N = 309) examined these relationships in a mediation model. Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed negative relationships with self-compassion, and other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed negative relationships with compassion for others whereas self-oriented perfectionism showed a positive relationship. Furthermore, both self-compassion and compassion for others positively predicted SWB, and both fully mediated the perfectionism-SWB relationships. The findings suggest that (self-)compassion may explain why some dimensions of perfectionism show negative relationships with SWB.
Article
Full-text available
This research investigated associations between socially prescribed and self-orientated perfectionism, and the social functioning of 510 preteens (Mage = 11.2). The study focused on predictions from the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) by determining whether rejection sensitivity and social isolation, in that sequence, mediated the associations between both perfectionism types and mental health outcomes. Employing both survey and experimental methods, findings indicated that both types of perfectionism in preadolescence were associated with increased interpersonal difficulty, rejection sensitivity and feelings of social isolation, as well as higher levels of eating disorder symptoms, depression, and anxiety. Results from serial mediation analyses found general support for the theoretical predictions of the PSDM for socially prescribed perfectionism, and extending upon previous research, for self-orientated perfectionism. The age of the sample suggests that both forms of perfectionism may be important targets in programs to prevent the development of mental health problems.
Article
Full-text available
Hewitt and Flett’s 45-item Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004) is a widely-used instrument to assess self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism. With 45 items, it is not overly lengthy, but there are situations where a short form is useful. Analyzing data from 4 samples, this article compares 2 frequently used 15-item short forms of the MPS—Cox et al.’s (2002) and Hewitt et al.’s (2008)—by examining to what degree their scores replicate the original version’s correlations with various personality characteristics (e.g., traits, social goals, personal/interpersonal orientations). Regarding self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, both short forms performed well. Regarding other-oriented perfectionism, however, Cox et al.’s short form (exclusively comprised of negatively worded items) performed less well than Hewitt et al.’s (which contains no negatively worded items). It is recommended that researchers use Hewitt et al.’s short form to assess other-oriented perfectionism rather than Cox et al.’s.
Article
How do persons who expect perfection from others experience and behave in daily life situations? To address this question, we investigated the relations of other-oriented perfectionism with the Big Five personality traits, the Big Five personality states (i.e., self-reported short-term behavior), and perceived situation characteristics using Experience Sampling Method (ESM). On the first day of the study, participants (n = 176) completed measures of other-oriented perfectionism and the Big Five personality traits. At random time points over the next 7 days, participants completed real-time situation reports containing the Big Five personality states and the DIAMONDS situation characteristics. Other-oriented perfectionism was negatively related to state and trait Agreeableness. Additionally, other-oriented perfectionism was associated with the perception of daily life situations as low in Duty, pOsitivity, and Sociality. Several relations of other-oriented perfectionism with personality states were moderated by situation characteristics. Our study confirms disagreeable behavior as a core characteristic of other-oriented perfectionism. Additionally, other-oriented perfectionists hold somewhat unfavorable views of their daily life situations. The moderating effects of situation characteristics on the relations between other-oriented perfectionism and personality states might explain why other-oriented perfectionism displays low and inconsistent relations with other trait-level measures.
Article
This study examined the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism, social support, and two outcomes (depression and anxiety) in a sample of 1785 undergraduate students. Perfectionistic concerns had a negative relationship with social support, and perfectionistic strivings had a positive relationship with social support. The relationships between both dimensions of perfectionism and both outcomes were mediated by social support.
Article
Does perfectionism predict maladjustment beyond self-criticism? Attention to this key question is needed as some studies suggest perfectionism may not explain variance in maladjustment beyond self-criticism. Using a large cross-national sample of 524 undergraduates (229 Canadian, 295 British), this study examined whether evaluative concerns perfectionism (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions) explained variance in self-defeating behaviors (binge eating, procrastination, interpersonal conflict) after controlling for self-criticism. Results showed that-after controlling for self-criticism-concern over mistakes predicted binge eating, doubts about actions predicted procrastination, and socially prescribed perfectionism and concern over mistakes predicted interpersonal conflict. Self-criticism also uniquely predicted self-defeating behaviors beyond evaluative concerns perfectionism. The relationships that evaluative concerns perfectionism shows with self-defeating behaviors appear neither redundant with nor fully captured by self-criticism. Results dovetail with theoretical accounts suggesting evaluative concerns perfectionism is a uniquely important part of the personality of people prone to self-defeating behaviors.
Article
The Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R model) became highly popular among researchers. The current version of the model proposes that high job demands lead to strain and health impairment (the health impairment process), and that high resources lead to increased motivation and higher productivity (the motivational process). This chapter reviews the assumptions and development of the JD-R model and presents an overview of important findings obtained with the model. Although these findings largely support the model's assumptions, there are still several important unresolved issues regarding the JD-R, including the model's epistemological status, the definition of and distinction between demands and resources, the incorporation of personal resources, the distinction between the health impairment and the motivational processes, the issue of reciprocal causation, and the model's applicability beyond the individual level. The chapter concludes with an agenda for future research and a brief discussion of the practical application of the model. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. All rights are reserved.
Article
Five studies tested hypotheses derived from the sociometer model of self-esteem according to which the self-esteem system monitors others' reactions and alerts the individual to the possibility of social exclusion. Study 1 showed that the effects of events on participants' state self-esteem paralleled their assumptions about whether such events would lead others to accept or reject them. In Study 2, participants' ratings of how included they felt in a real social situation correlated highly with their self-esteem feelings. In Studies 3 and 4, social exclusion caused decreases in self-esteem when respondents were excluded from a group for personal reasons, but not when exclusion was random, but this effect was not mediated by self-presentation. Study 5 showed that trait self-esteem correlated highly with the degree to which respondents generally felt included versus excluded by other people. Overall, results provided converging evidence for the sociometer model.
Article
Reports an error in "Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model" by Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben ( Journal of Applied Psychology , 2006[Sep], Vol 91[5], 1134-1145). There were errors in transcribing the ρ values from Table 2 to the results section. In the second paragraph of page 1138, the second and third sentences should read “In the present study, work-related support was more strongly related to exhaustion (ρ = -.26) than depersonalization (ρ = -.23) and personal accomplishment (ρ = .24; F (2, 111) = 24.13, p > .01). On the other hand, non-work support was more strongly related to depersonalization (ρ = -.16) and personal accomplishment (ρ = .19) than exhaustion (ρ = -.12; F(2, 38) = 3.83, p > .05).” The values in Table 2 are correct and the substantive conclusions have not changed. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2006-11397-012 .) The Conservation of Resources (COR) model of burnout (Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993) suggests that resources are differentially related to burnout dimensions. In this paper, I provide a meta-analysis of the social support and burnout literature, finding that social support, as a resource, did not yield different relationships across the 3 burnout dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment), challenging the COR model. However, when considering the source of the social support (work vs. nonwork) as a moderator, I found that work-related sources of social support, because of their more direct relationship to work demands, were more closely associated with exhaustion than depersonalization or personal accomplishment; the opposite pattern was found with nonwork sources of support. I discuss the implications of this finding in relation to the COR model and suggest future research directions to clarify the relationship between resources and burnout dimensions.