Content uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joachim Stoeber on Jan 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 577–585, 2010
Copyright
C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2010.513306
The Assessment of Self-Oriented and Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism: Subscales Make a Difference
JOACHIM STOEBER AND JULIAN H. CHILDS
School of Psychology, University of Kent, United Kingdom
Campbell and Di Paula (2002) suggested differentiating Perfectionistic Striving and Importance of Being Perfect subscales when measuring
self-oriented perfectionism and Others’ High Standards and Conditional Acceptance subscales when measuring socially prescribed perfectionism.
In this study, we investigated the utility of this differentiation by analyzing data from 1,041 students and examining correlations with positive
striving and maladaptive evaluation concerns aspects of perfectionism and with positive and negative indicators of well-being and psychological
adjustment. As expected, (a) Perfectionistic Striving scores showed higher correlations with positive striving aspects of perfectionism and with
positive indicators of well-being and adjustment than Importance of Being Perfect scores, and (b) Conditional Acceptance scores showed higher
correlations with maladaptive evaluation concerns aspects of perfectionism and with negative indicators of well-being and adjustment than Others’
High Standards scores. The findings indicate that Campbell and Di Paula’s differentiation provides for a more detailed and informative assessment
of multidimensional perfectionism and its different aspects. Moreover, it provides for new insights into self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism and their relationships and associations.
Perfectionism has been described as a personality disposi-
tion characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting
excessively high standards for performance accompanied by
tendencies for overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior (Flett
& Hewitt, 2002; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990).
Over the past 20 years, psychological research has progressed
considerably in the understanding of perfectionism. Critical to
this progress was the development of instruments that allowed
for a multidimensional assessment of perfectionism. These
instruments provided researchers with the necessary tools to
discover that perfectionism—although overall a maladaptive
personality disposition associated with a range of negative
characteristics, processes, and outcomes—also has aspects that
are ambivalent and aspects that are associated with positive
characteristics, processes, and outcomes (Enns & Cox, 2002;
Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
SELF-ORIENTED AND SOCIALLY PRESCRIBED
PERFECTIONISM
An important instrument in the multidimensional assessment
of perfectionism is the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
(MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004). Recognizing that perfec-
tionism has both personal and interpersonal aspects, Hewitt
and Flett (1991) have differentiated two main forms of per-
fectionism: self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed
perfectionism
1
. Self-oriented perfectionism comprises beliefs
Received March 10, 2009; Revised May 5, 2010.
Address correspondence to Joachim Stoeber, School of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; Email:
J.Stoeber@kent.ac.uk.
1
The model proposes a third form of perfectionism, other-oriented perfec-
tionism, which captures having excessively high standards and expectations for
others. Because other-oriented perfectionism is not regarded to be a core di-
mension of multidimensional perfectionism (e.g., Enns & Cox, 2002; Stoeber
& Otto, 2006), and Campbell and Di Paula (2002) did not suggest subscales for
this dimension, it was disregarded in this study.
that striving for perfection and being perfect are important and
is characterized by setting excessively high standards for one-
self. The key characteristics of self-oriented perfectionism are a
strong personal motivation to strive for perfection and a need to
be perfect. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism com-
prises beliefs that others have excessively high standards for
oneself and that acceptance by others is conditional on fulfilling
these standards. The key characteristics of socially prescribed
perfectionism are concern over others’ high standards and con-
cern over living up to these standards, driven by fears of losing
approval and acceptance from others if one is not perfect (Enns
& Cox, 2002; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
When reviewing the body of research on self-oriented per-
fectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism that has ac-
cumulated since Hewitt and Flett (1991) have developed the
MPS, findings consistently support that socially prescribed per-
fectionism is a maladaptive form of perfectionism showing pos-
itive correlations with negative characteristics, processes, and
outcomes and negative correlations with positive characteris-
tics, processes, and outcomes (see Enns & Cox, 2002, and
Hewitt & Flett, 2004, for comprehensive reviews). For ex-
ample, socially prescribed perfectionism has shown positive
correlations with negative indicators of subjective well-being
such as negative affect (e.g., Molnar, Reker, Culp, Sadava, &
DeCourville, 2006) and negative correlations with positive in-
dicators of subjective well-being such as positive affect, self-
esteem, and satisfaction with life (e.g., Bartsch, 2007; Molnar
et al., 2006; Saboonchi & Lundh, 2003). Moreover, socially
prescribed perfectionism has shown positive correlations with
maladaptive ways of coping such as avoidant coping (e.g.,
Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2006; O’Connor & O’Connor,
2003) and with burnout (A. P. Hill, Hall, Appleton, & Kozub,
2008; Mitchelson & Burns, 1998), whereas it has shown nega-
tive correlations with adaptive ways of coping such as behav-
ioral coping and positive emotional coping (e.g., Flett, Russo, &
Hewitt, 1994; Rudolph, Flett, & Hewitt, 2007). In sum, socially
prescribed perfectionism is a form of perfectionism closely
577
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
578 STOEBER AND CHILDS
associated with low subjective well-being and poor psycho-
logical adjustment.
Self-oriented perfectionism, in contrast, is an ambivalent
form of perfectionism (Enns & Cox, 2002). On one hand,
self-oriented perfectionism has shown positive correlations with
negative characteristics, processes, and outcomes. On the other
hand, it has shown positive correlations with positive character-
istics, processes, and outcomes. Regarding positive and nega-
tive affect, for example, some studies found positive correlations
with negative affect (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2006; Kobori & Tanno,
2005), whereas others have found positive correlations with pos-
itive affect (e.g., Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer,
1993; Molnar et al., 2006). Regarding subjective well-being,
most studies have found self-oriented perfectionism to show
negative correlations with subjective well-being and self-esteem
(e.g., Bartsch, 2007), but some have found positive correlations
with self-esteem (e.g., Trumpeter, Watson, & O’Leary, 2006).
Regarding coping and burnout, most studies have found only
nonsignificant correlations showing no clear pattern of how self-
oriented perfectionism is related to adaptive versus maladaptive
coping or burnout (Dunkley et al., 2006; Mitchelson & Burns,
1998; O’Connor & O’Connor, 2003; Rudolph et al., 2007).
However, one study found positive correlations with adaptive
ways of coping with stress (Flett et al., 1994), and another study
found a negative correlation with burnout (A. P. Hill et al., 2008).
CAMPBELL AND DI PAULA’S (2002) SUBSCALES
A possible explanation as to why self-oriented perfection-
ism appears to be an ambivalent form of perfectionism and
shows both positive and negative correlations was provided by
Campbell and Di Paula (2002). Campbell and Di Paula fac-
tor analyzed the items of the MPS scale measuring self-oriented
perfectionism and found two factors: one they called Perfection-
istic Striving and one they called Importance of Being Perfect.
Based on the items’ factor loadings, they selected five items
from the first factor to form the subscale Perfectionistic Striv-
ing, capturing striving for perfection (e.g., “I strive to be as
perfect as I can be”), and five items from the second factor to
form the subscale Importance of Being Perfect, capturing the
importance or need to be perfect (e.g., “It is very important that
I am perfect in everything I attempt”).
Campbell and Di Paula (2002) also inspected the items of the
MPS scale measuring socially prescribed perfectionism. There
too Campbell and Di Paula found two factors: one they called
Others’ High Standards and one they called Conditional Ac-
ceptance. Based on the items’ factor loadings, they selected six
items from the first factor to form the subscale Others’ High
Standards, capturing people’s perceptions that others have ex-
cessively high expectations of them (e.g., “People expect noth-
ing less than perfection from me”), and five items from the
second factor to form the subscale Conditional Acceptance,
capturing perceptions that others only accept them when they
live up to these expectations (e.g., “Others will like me even if
I don’t excel at everything,” reverse coded).
When the four subscales were correlated with positive and
negative indicators of subjective well-being and psychological
adjustment (self-esteem, positive and negative affect, depressive
symptoms), they showed a highly differential pattern of correla-
tions. Regarding the two subscales of self-oriented perfection-
ism, Perfectionistic Striving showed negative correlations with
depressive symptoms and negative affect and positive correla-
tions with positive affect and self-esteem. In contrast, Impor-
tance of Being Perfect showed a negative correlation with self-
esteem. Consequently, Perfectionistic Striving seems to capture
aspects of self-oriented perfectionism that are predominantly
positive, whereas Importance of Being Perfect seems to capture
aspects that are ambivalent or even negative. Regarding the two
subscales of socially prescribed perfectionism, only Conditional
Acceptance showed negative correlations with self-esteem and
positive affect and positive correlations with depression and neg-
ative affect. Others’ High Standards merely showed nonsignifi-
cant correlations. Consequently, Conditional Acceptance seems
to capture aspects of socially prescribed perfectionism that are
decidedly negative, whereas Others’ High Standards seems to
capture aspects that are less negative or even ambivalent.
Evidence supporting these four new subscales, however, is
still rather weak. Apart from Campbell and Di Paula (2002),
only three further studies have been published that differentiated
between the four subscales (Rimes & Chalder, 2010; Stoeber,
Kempe, & Keogh, 2008; Van Yperen, 2006). Moreover, only
two of these studies (Rimes & Chalder, 2010; Stoeber et al.,
2008) found a differential pattern of correlations. Rimes and
Chalder (2010) investigated dysfunctional beliefs about emo-
tions (i.e., beliefs that expressing emotions or distress will be
evaluated negatively by others). They found that three of the
four subscales (Importance of Being Perfect, Others’ High Stan-
dards, Conditional Acceptance) showed a positive correlation
with dysfunctional beliefs about emotions, but Perfectionistic
Striving did not. Stoeber et al. (2008) investigated self-conscious
affect after success and failure. They found that Perfectionistic
Striving (but not Importance of Being Perfect) showed a pos-
itive correlation with pride after success. Moreover, although
all four subscales showed positive correlations with shame af-
ter failure, only Conditional Acceptance (but not Others’ High
Standards) showed a negative correlation with pride after both
success and failure, suggesting that Conditional Acceptance pre-
dicts higher levels of negative self-conscious affect regardless of
outcomes.
THIS RESEARCH
Against this background, the aim of this research was to
provide further support for Campbell and Di Paula’s (2002)
four subscales of self-oriented perfectionism and socially pre-
scribed perfectionism. Converging evidence regarding multi-
dimensional perfectionism shows that two broad dimensions of
perfectionism can be differentiated: one capturing more positive
aspects of perfectionism—positive striving perfectionism—and
one capturing more negative aspects of perfectionism, maladap-
tive evaluation concerns perfectionism (Frost et al., 1993; see
Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a comprehensive review). Because no
study so far has investigated how the four subscales are related
to positive striving and maladaptive evaluation concerns, we
first investigated how the four subscales were related to these
positive versus negative aspects of multidimensional perfection-
ism. Second, we investigated how the four subscales were re-
lated to positive and negative indicators of subjective well-being
and psychological adjustment. In this, we investigated correla-
tions with satisfaction with life, adaptive coping, maladaptive
coping, and burnout. Third, we investigated correlations with
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
SELF-ORIENTED AND SOCIALLY PRESCRIBED PERFECTIONISM 579
self-esteem, positive and negative affect, and depressive symp-
toms to expand on Campbell and Di Paula’s findings.
The central question of this research was whether the
two subscales of self-oriented perfectionism showed different
correlations and whether the two subscales of socially pre-
scribed perfectionism showed different correlations. Regarding
self-oriented perfectionism, we expected Perfectionistic Striv-
ing to show (a) higher positive correlations with positive striving
aspects of perfectionism and with positive indicators of sub-
jective well-being and psychological adjustment and (b) lower
positive correlations or higher negative correlations with mal-
adaptive evaluation concerns aspects of perfectionism and with
negative indicators of subjective well-being and psychological
maladjustment when compared to Importance of Being Perfect.
Regarding socially prescribed perfectionism, we expected Con-
ditional Acceptance to show (a) lower positive correlations with
positive striving aspects of perfectionism, (b) higher positive
correlations with maladaptive evaluation concerns aspects of
perfectionism and with negative indicators of subjective well-
being and psychological adjustment, and (c) higher negative
correlations with positive indicators of subjective well-being
and psychological adjustment when compared to Others’ High
Standards.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 1,041 university students (71% female)
from a large British university who had participated in differ-
ent studies in J. Stoeber’s laboratory, all of which included the
Self-Oriented Perfectionism scale and the Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism scale of the MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004).
The average age of participants was 20.6 years (SD = 3.4, range
= 16–49 years). The data were taken from four samples. Sam-
ple 1 (n = 173; 76% female; age: M = 20.8 years, SD = 2.7,
range = 17–32 years) comprised undergraduate and postgrad-
uate students participating in a study on perfectionism, coping,
and well-being (unpublished data set). Sample 2 (n = 661; 65%
female; age: M = 20.5 years, SD = 3.5, range = 16–49 years)
comprised undergraduate students participating in a series of
studies on perfectionism and affect (data set used in Stoeber,
Kobori, & Tanno, 2010). Sample 3 (n = 96; 86% female; age:
M = 20.9 years, SD = 4.5, range = 18–46 years) comprised
undergraduate and postgraduate students participating in a study
on perfectionism and psychological adjustment (data set used in
Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009). Sample 4 (n = 111; 88% female; age:
M = 20.0 years, SD = 2.4, range = 18–37 years) comprised
undergraduate students participating in a study on perfection-
ism and depression (data set used in Stoeber, Feast, & Hayward,
2009).
Participants were recruited via flyers, posters, and the School
of Psychology’s research participation Web site. For their
participation, participants either received a small financial
compensation (Samples 1 and 2), a chocolate bar (Sample
3), or extra course credit (Samples 2 through 4). All stud-
ies were approved by the relevant ethics committees and
followed the British Psychological Society’s code of con-
duct and ethical guidelines (British Psychological Society,
2005).
Measures
All samples.
All participants completed the 30 items of the
MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004) that measure self-oriented
perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (for infor-
mation on reliability and validity, see, e.g., Hewitt & Flett,
2004). Participants responded to the items on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). In addition to
computing total scores for self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism, we computed subscale scores as suggested by
Campbell and Di Paula (2002). Regarding the two subscales of
self-oriented perfectionism, scores for Perfectionistic Striving
were computed by combining MPS Items 8, 14, 17, 36, and
40; and scores for Importance of Being Perfect were computed
by combining Items 15, 20, 23, 28, and 34. Regarding the two
subscales of socially prescribed perfectionism, scores for Oth-
ers’ High Standards were computed by combining Items 11, 13,
18, 35, 37, and 39; and scores for Conditional Acceptance were
computed by combining Items 5, 21, 30, 33, and 44.
2
Sample 1. Students completed further measures of perfec-
tionism and measures of positive and negative affect, satisfac-
tion with life, self-esteem, and coping. Regarding perfection-
ism, students completed selected subscales measuring positive
striving and maladaptive evaluation concerns from the revised
Almost Perfect Scale (APS–R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi,
& Ashby, 2001; see the same for reliability and validity in-
formation) and the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
(FMPS; Frost et al., 1990; see the same for reliability and valid-
ity information). To measure maladaptive evaluation concerns,
students completed the Discrepancy (e.g., “Doing my best never
seems enough”; APS–R), Concern over Mistakes (e.g., “If I do
not do well all the time, people will not respect me”; FMPS),
and Doubts About Action (e.g., “I usually have doubts about
the simple everyday things I do”; FMPS) subscales. To mea-
sure positive striving, students completed the High Standards
(e.g., “I set very high standards for myself”; APS–R) and Per-
sonal Standards (e.g., “I have extremely high goals”; FMPS)
subscales. Students responded to these measures on the same
answer scale used with the MPS.
Regarding Personal Standards, DiBartolo, Frost, Chang,
LaSota, and Grills (2004) found that the original scale pub-
lished by Frost et al. (1990) contains two items that confound
personal standards with self-worth and competence valuation
(i.e., “If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likely
to end up a second-rate person”; “It is important to me that I be
thoroughly competent in everything I do”). Consequently, we
followed DiBartolo et al.’s (2004) recommendation and com-
puted “pure personal standards” scores (i.e., personal standards
without the two confounding items) in addition to the original
personal standards scores. In our analyses, however, we focused
on the pure personal standards scores because they capture the
positive striving aspects of perfectionism better than the original
scores (see also DiBartolo, Li, & Frost, 2008; Sturman, Flett,
Hewitt, & Rudolph, 2009).
2
Information about which items form the subscales was obtained from N.
W. Van Yperen (personal communication, October 16, 2006) and confirmed by
A. Di Paula (personal communication, October 15, 2008). Because the MPS
items are protected by copyright, only item numbers are reported. Please see
Hewitt and Flett (2004) for the full items.
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
580 STOEBER AND CHILDS
Regarding positive and negative affect, students completed
the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; see the same for reliability and va-
lidity information) that contains a scale measuring positive af-
fect (e.g., “enthusiastic”) and a scale measuring negative af-
fect (e.g., “distressed”). Students were asked how frequently
they had experienced the described emotions during the past
2 weeks, responding on a scale ranging from 1 (little or none
of the time)to4(most of the time). To measure satisfaction
with life, students completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; sample item: “I
am satisfied with my life”; see the same and Pavot & Diener,
1993, for reliability and validity information). To measure self-
esteem, students completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1965; sample item: “I take a positive attitude to-
ward myself”; see, e.g., Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001,
for reliability and validity information). With both scales, stu-
dents responded on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Regarding coping, students completed the
Brief COPE (Carver, 1997; see the same and Cooper, Katona,
& Livingston, 2008, for reliability and validity information).
The Brief COPE captures 14 general coping strategies (e.g.,
“I’ve been taking action to try to make the situation better”).
Participants were asked what they generally do or feel “when
confronted with difficult or stressful events” and responded on
a scale ranging from 1 (I usually don’t do this at all)to4(I
usually do this a lot). Whereas Carver suggested that the 14
coping strategies comprise seven factors, we found only three
reliable factors when computing an exploratory factor analysis
(using scree test, principal axis factor extraction, and oblique
rotation). Combining coping strategies that showed loadings
>.40 on the same factor and no secondary loadings on another
factor, we found three dimensions that we labeled “adaptive
coping” (comprising active coping, planning, positive refram-
ing, and acceptance), “maladaptive coping” (comprising denial,
substance use, self-distraction, behavioral disengagement, and
self-blame), and “using social support” (comprising using emo-
tional support and using instrumental support). Because we had
no hypotheses on using social support and because using social
support has been found to be an ambivalent coping strategy (e.g.,
Carver & Scheier, 1994), we included only adaptive coping and
maladaptive coping in this research.
Sample 2. Students completed the PANAS (Watson et al.,
1988; see Sample 1) with instructions asking them to what
extent they had experienced the described emotions during the
past week, to which students responded on a scale ranging from
1(very slightly or not at all)to5(extremely).
Sample 3. Students completed measures of satisfaction
with life and depressive symptoms. Regarding satisfaction with
life, they completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener
et al., 1985; see Sample 1) responding on a scale ranging from
1(strongly agree)to5(strongly disagree). Regarding depres-
sive symptoms, students completed the short form of the Center
for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale (Radloff, 1977;
short form: Cole, Rabin, Smith, & Kaufman, 2004; e.g., “I felt
my life had been a failure”; see the same for reliability and
validity information). Students were asked how they had felt
during the past 2 weeks and responded on a scale ranging from
0(rarely or none of the time)to3(most or all of the time).
Sample 4. Students completed the Maslach Burnout
Inventory–Student Survey (Schaufeli, Mart
´
ınez, Pinto,
Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; see the same for reliability and va-
lidity information), which is a version of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) adapted to cap-
ture burnout in students (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained by
my studies”). Students responded on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
For all scales, we computed mean scores by averaging across
items. Table 1 gives an overview of the samples, variables, and
scores including descriptive statistics and reliability estimates
(Cronbach’s alphas). All scores displayed satisfactory reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha ≥ .70; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) except
those of Conditional Acceptance, which showed a Cronbach’s
alpha marginally below .70.
TABLE 1.—Variables, samples, and descriptive statistics.
Variable Sample nMSD Scale α
Self-oriented perfectionism
Total score 1–4 1,041 4.56 1.04 1–7 .92
Perfectionistic Striving 1–4 1,041 5.07 1.08 1–7 .78
Importance of Being Perfect 1–4 1,041 4.01 1.21 1–7 .87
Socially prescribed perfectionism
Total score 1–4 1,041 3.51 0.81 1–7 .85
Others’ High Standards 1–4 1,041 4.02 0.99 1–7 .72
Conditional Acceptance 1–4 1,041 2.93 0.89 1–7 .69
Multidimensional Perfectionism
APS–R
High standards 1 173 5.34 0.89 1–7 .86
Discrepancy 1 173 3.68 1.20 1–7 .94
FMPS
Personal standards 1 173 4.27 0.97 1–7 .81
Pure personal standards 1 173 4.36 1.02 1–7 .78
Concern over mistakes 1 173 3.22 1.13 1–7 .88
Doubts about actions 1 173 3.38 1.20 1–7 .75
Subjective well-being
Positive affect
Positive affect, past week 2 661 3.09 0.67 1–5 .86
Positive affect, past 2 weeks 1 173 2.61 0.50 1–4 .84
Negative affect
Negative affect, past week 2 661 2.13 0.73 1–5 .84
Negative affect, past 2 weeks 1 173 1.73 0.51 1–4 .84
Self-esteem 1 173 4.93 1.07 1–7 .90
Satisfaction with life
Satisfaction with life 1 173 4.64 1.34 1–7 .88
Satisfaction with life 3 96 3.51 0.85 1–5 .85
Depressive symptoms 3 96 1.15 0.61 0–3 .86
Coping
Adaptive coping 1 173 2.93 0.53 1–4 .81
Maladaptive coping 1 173 1.94 0.45 1–4 .74
Burnout 4 111 3.53 0.93 1–7 .83
Note. APS–R = revised Almost Perfect Scale; FMPS = Frost Multidimensional Per-
fectionism Scale. All scores are mean scores obtained by averaging across items. Scale =
answer scale and theoretical range of scores; α = Cronbach’s alpha. Because the following
variables were presented with the same answer scale as the original version, means and
standard deviations for sum scores are provided for comparison purposes: self-oriented
perfectionism total score (M = 68.43, SD = 15.67), Perfectionistic Striving (M = 25.34,
SD = 5.42), Importance of Being Perfect (M = 20.06, SD = 6.07); socially prescribed
perfectionism total score (M = 52.67, SD = 12.19), Others’ High Standards (M = 24.09,
SD = 5.94), Conditional Acceptance (M = 14.66, SD = 4.45); APS–R high standards
(M = 37.38, SD = 6.20), discrepancy (M = 43.68, SD = 14.35); positive affect, past week
(M = 30.87, SD = 6.68); negative affect, past week (M = 21.25, SD = 7.80); satisfaction
with life in Sample 1 (M = 23.19, SD = 6.70); and depressive symptoms (M = 11.55,
SD = 6.13).
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
SELF-ORIENTED AND SOCIALLY PRESCRIBED PERFECTIONISM 581
TABLE 2.—Scales and subscales of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfec-
tionism: Intercorrelations.
Variable 12345
Self-oriented perfectionism
1. Total score
2. Perfectionistic Striving .90**
3. Importance of Being
Perfect
.92** .72**
Socially prescribed perfectionism
4. Total score .43** .27** .49**
5. Others’ High Standards .46** .36** .48** .87**
6. Conditional Acceptance .25** .08* .35** .82** .49**
Note. N = 1,041 (Samples 1–4 combined).
*p<.01. **p<.001.
Satisfaction with life was measured with different answer
scales in Samples 1 and 3, but showed near-identical pro-
files of correlations with the MPS scales in the two samples
(r
alerting−CV
= .91; Westen & Rosenthal, 2003).
3
Therefore, we
standardized the satisfaction with life scores and collapsed
them across samples (n = 269). Positive and negative affect
were measured with different answer scales and different time
frames in Samples 1 and 2, but also showed near-identical pro-
files of correlations with the MPS scales in the two samples
(r
alerting−CV
= .92). Therefore, we also standardized the affect
scores and collapsed them across samples (n = 834).
To investigate the intercorrelations between the MPS scales
and subscales, we computed bivariate correlations between total
scores and subscale scores. As expected, all perfectionism scores
were positively correlated (see Table 2).
Main Analyses
To examine the differences between the two pairs of sub-
scales suggested by Campbell and Di Paula (2002; self-oriented
perfectionism: Perfectionistic Striving vs. Importance of Being
Perfect; socially prescribed perfectionism: Others’ High Stan-
dards vs. Conditional Acceptance), we computed correlations
for all scales and tested the differences with a z test for compar-
ing correlated correlations (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992).
This test compares two correlations from the same sample, r(a,
b) and r(a, c), taking the correlation of r(b, c) into account (see
Meng et al., 1992, Formula 1).
Positive Striving and Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns
Aspects of Perfectionism
First, we inspected the correlations of the MPS total scores
and subscale scores with positive striving aspects (APS–R high
standards, FMPS pure personal standards) and maladaptive eval-
uation concerns aspects (APS–R discrepancy, FMPS concern
over mistakes and doubts about actions) of perfectionism. The
results are displayed in Table 3.
Regarding self-oriented perfectionism, the total score showed
significant positive correlations with all aspects of perfection-
ism. The subscales, however, showed a differential pattern of
correlations. Perfectionistic Striving showed significant positive
correlations with high standards, pure personal standards, and
3
The correlation r
alerting−CV
is the Pearson correlation r between the Z
r
transformed correlations with the MPS scales (see Westen & Rosenthal, 2003,
for details).
concern over mistakes but not with discrepancy and doubts about
actions. In comparison, Importance of Being Perfect showed sig-
nificant correlations with all aspects of perfectionism such as the
total score of self-oriented perfectionism. More important, Per-
fectionistic Striving and Importance of Being Perfect showed
significantly different correlations. As predicted, Perfectionistic
Striving showed a higher positive correlation with high stan-
dards and lower positive correlations with discrepancy, concern
over mistakes, and doubts about actions compared to Impor-
tance of Being Perfect. Unexpectedly, Perfectionistic Striving
and Importance of Being Perfect did not show significantly dif-
ferent correlations with pure personal standards. Apart from that,
the pattern of correlations and differences between correlations
supported our expectations: Perfectionistic Striving was more
closely associated with positive striving aspects of perfectionism
and less closely with maladaptive evaluation concerns aspects
of perfectionism compared to Importance of Being Perfect.
Regarding socially prescribed perfectionism, the total score
showed significant positive correlations with all aspects of per-
fectionism. The same was true for the subscales scores, ex-
cept the correlation of Conditional Acceptance with high stan-
dards was nonsignificant. However, all differences between
the correlations of the two subscales were significant. As was
predicted, Conditional Acceptance showed higher positive cor-
relations with discrepancy, concern over mistakes, and doubts
about actions and lower positive correlations with high standards
and pure personal standards compared to Others’ High Stan-
dards. Thus, the results support our expectations: Conditional
Acceptance was more closely associated with maladaptive eval-
uation concerns aspects of perfectionism and less closely with
positive striving aspects of perfectionism compared to Others’
High Standards.
Subjective Well-Being and Psychological Adjustment
Next, we inspected the correlations of the MPS total scores
and subscale scores with positive (positive affect, self-esteem,
satisfaction with life, adaptive coping) and negative (negative
affect, depressive symptoms, maladaptive coping, burnout) in-
dicators of subjective well-being and psychological adjustment.
The results are displayed in Table 4.
Regarding self-oriented perfectionism, the total score of self-
oriented perfectionism showed significant correlations only with
three indicators: a positive correlation with positive affect, a
positive correlation with negative affect, and a negative cor-
relation with burnout. The subscale scores, however, not only
displayed further significant correlations but also showed sig-
nificantly different correlations. Perfectionistic Striving showed
positive correlations with positive affect, self-esteem, and adap-
tive coping, whereas Importance of Being Perfect showed a
positive correlation with negative affect. Moreover, as we ex-
pected, Perfectionistic Striving showed higher positive corre-
lations with positive affect, self-esteem, satisfaction with life,
and adaptive coping and lower positive correlations with nega-
tive affect and maladaptive coping compared to Importance of
Being Perfect. Even though both subscales showed a negative
correlation with burnout, the overall pattern of correlations and
differences between correlations was in line with our expecta-
tion that Perfectionistic Striving is the more positive subscale of
the two.
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
582 STOEBER AND CHILDS
TABLE 3.—Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism total score and subscale scores: Differential correlations with multidimensional measures of
perfectionism.
Self-Oriented Perfectionism Socially Prescribed Perfectionism
Total Perfectionistic Importance of Total Others’ High Conditional
Variable Score Striving Being Perfect z(diff) Score Standards Acceptance z(diff)
APS–R
High standards .77*** .79*** .65*** 3.85*** .26*** .36*** .14 3.08**
Discrepancy .27*** .08 .34*** –4.58*** .46*** .24** .55*** –4.59***
FMPS
Personal standards .80*** .71*** .75*** –1.26 .40*** .30*** .43*** –1.83
Pure personal standards .76*** .72*** .69*** 0.64 .32*** .38*** .21** 2.35*
Concern over mistakes .60*** .35*** .67*** –4.42*** .66*** .53*** .65*** –2.04*
Doubts about actions .30*** .14 .32*** –3.30*** .46*** .26*** .49*** –3.50***
Note. N = 173 (Sample 1). APS–R = revised Almost Perfect Scale; FMPS = Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; z(diff) = z test of the difference between the correlation
of Perfectionistic Striving and the correlation of Importance of Being Perfect and between the correlation of Others’ High Standards and the correlation of Conditional Acceptance (see
Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992, Formula 1), with r (Perfectionistic Striving, Importance of Being Perfect) = .72 and r(Others’ High Standards, Conditional Acceptance) = .52, both
ps < .001.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Regarding socially prescribed perfectionism, the total score
of socially prescribed perfectionism displayed significant cor-
relations with all indicators of subjective well-being and psy-
chological adjustment: positive correlations with negative affect,
depressive symptoms, maladaptive coping, and burnout and neg-
ative correlations with positive affect, self-esteem, satisfaction
with life, and adaptive coping. Regarding the two subscales,
however, only Conditional Acceptance displayed the same pat-
tern of significant correlations as the total score. In compari-
son, Others’ High Standards only showed a positive correlation
with negative affect and a negative correlation with self-esteem.
Moreover, all correlations of the two scales were significantly
different. As was expected, Conditional Acceptance showed
higher positive correlations with negative affect, depressive
symptoms, maladaptive coping, and burnout and higher neg-
ative correlations with positive affect, self-esteem, and adaptive
coping compared to Others’ High Standards. With this, the re-
sults supported our expectation that Conditional Acceptance is
the more negative subscale of the two. In fact, only Conditional
Acceptance (but not Others’ High Standards) showed positive
correlations with all negative indicators and negative correla-
tions with all positive indicators of well-being and adjustment.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to provide further evidence
for Campbell and Di Paula’s (2002) suggestion that when
measuring self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism
(Hewitt & Flett, 1991), four subscales should be differentiated—
Perfectionistic Striving and Importance of Being Perfect, when
measuring self-oriented perfectionism; and Others’ High Stan-
dards and Conditional Acceptance, when measuring socially
prescribed perfectionism—because they show different cor-
relations. To this aim, we analyzed data from a large sam-
ple of university students and correlated the subscale scores
TABLE 4.—Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism total score and subscale scores: Differential correlations with indicators of subjective well-being
and psychological adjustment and maladjustment.
Self-Oriented Perfectionism Socially Prescribed Perfectionism
Total Perfectionistic Importance of Total Others’ High Conditional
Variable Score Striving Being Perfect z(diff) Score Standards Acceptance z(diff)
Subjective well-being
Positive affect
a
.10** .19*** .01 6.75*** –.11** .00 –.20*** 5.71***
Negative affect
a
.10** .04 .13*** –3.41*** .22*** .08* .27*** –5.35***
Self-esteem
b
.00 .15* –.07 3.98*** –.43*** –.19* –.51*** 4.71***
Satisfaction with life
c
–.02 .06 –.10 3.59*** –.26*** –.07 –.35*** 4.63***
Depressive symptoms
d
.04 –.03 .10 –1.78 .35*** .06 .43*** –3.32***
Coping
b
Adaptive coping .10 .23** .04 3.40*** –.24** –.06 –.30*** 3.45***
Maladaptive coping .04 –.08 .10 –3.20** .26*** .11 .25*** –1.99*
Burnout
e
–.36*** –.38*** –.33*** –0.74 .24* .10 .31*** –2.46**
Note. z(diff) = z test of the difference between the correlation of Perfectionistic Striving (PS) and the correlation of Importance of Being Perfect (IBP) and between the correlation of
Others’ High Standards (OHS) and the correlation of Conditional Acceptance (CA; see Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992, Formula 1).
a
n = 834 (Samples 1 and 2 combined), r(PS, IBP) = .72***, r(OHS, CA) = .49***.
b
n = 173 (Sample 1), r(PS, IBP) = .72***, r(OHS, CA) = .52***.
c
n = 269 (Samples 1 and 3 combined), r(PS, IBP) = .73***, r(OHS, CA) = .48***.
d
n = 96 (Sample 3), r(PS, IBP) = .74***, r(OHS, CA) = .37***.
e
n = 111 (Sample 4), r(PS, IBP) = .78***, r(OHS, CA) = .58***.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
SELF-ORIENTED AND SOCIALLY PRESCRIBED PERFECTIONISM 583
with other multidimensional measures of perfectionism that
capture positive striving aspects (high standards, pure per-
sonal standards) and maladaptive evaluation concerns aspects
(discrepancy, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions) of
perfectionism. Moreover, we correlated the subscale scores with
positive indicators (positive affect, self-esteem, satisfaction with
life, adaptive coping) and with negative indicators (negative
affect, depressive symptoms, maladaptive coping, burnout) of
subjective well-being and psychological adjustment.
Analyzing the differences between the subscales’ correla-
tions, we found overall strong support for Campbell and Di
Paula’s (2002) claim that it is important to differentiate be-
tween the four subscales. Regarding the two subscales of self-
oriented perfectionism, Perfectionistic Striving showed higher
positive correlations with positive striving aspects of perfection-
ism and lower positive correlations with maladaptive evaluation
concerns aspects compared to Importance of Being Perfect.
Furthermore, Perfectionistic Striving showed higher positive
correlations with positive indicators of subjective well-being and
psychological adjustment and higher negative correlations with
negative indicators. Regarding the two subscales of socially pre-
scribed perfectionism, Conditional Acceptance showed higher
positive correlations with maladaptive evaluation concerns as-
pects of perfectionism and lower positive correlations with
positive striving aspects compared to Others’ High Standards.
Conditional Acceptance also showed higher positive correla-
tions with negative indicators of subjective well-being and psy-
chological adjustment, and higher negative correlations with
positive indicators of subjective well-being and psychological
adjustment. Moreover, only Conditional Acceptance showed
significant positive and negative correlations with all indicators
and thus displayed the same pattern of correlations as the total
score of socially prescribed perfectionism. Others’ High Stan-
dards, in comparison, showed only few significant correlations
with well-being and adjustment.
Implications
These findings have important implications for the assessment
of multidimensional perfectionism. Regarding self-oriented per-
fectionism, the findings support the view that striving for per-
fection itself is not necessarily a negative characteristic (Lundh,
2004; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). On the contrary, perfectionistic
striving may be considered positive (Frost et al., 1993) and may
form part of a healthy striving for excellence (R. W. Hill et al.,
2004; Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002). Since Frost et al.’s
(1993) seminal study, which was the first to demonstrate that
positive striving perfectionism is associated with positive affect
(and not with negative affect and depressive symptoms), many
studies have shown that striving for perfection is often asso-
ciated with positive characteristics, processes, and outcomes—
particularly when the negative effects of maladaptive evaluation
concerns are controlled for (R. W. Hill, Huelsman, & Araujo,
2010; see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a comprehensive review).
Together with the previous findings (Campbell & Di Paula,
2002; Stoeber et al., 2008), these findings indicate that the Per-
fectionistic Striving subscale of the MPS Self-Oriented Perfec-
tionism scale is a measure that captures positive striving aspects
of self-oriented perfectionism.
In contrast, the Importance of Being Perfect subscale captures
the more negative aspects of self-oriented perfectionism. Con-
sequently, when scores from the two subscales—Perfectionistic
Striving and Importance of Being Perfect—are combined and
only total scores of self-oriented perfectionism are regarded, this
may explain why self-oriented perfectionism has been shown to
be related to both positive and negative characteristics, out-
comes, and processes and is considered an ambivalent form of
perfectionism (Enns & Cox, 2002). Moreover, this may explain
why self-oriented perfectionism often does not show any sig-
nificant associations (see, e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004). If the
Perfectionistic Striving subscale captures the positive aspects of
self-oriented perfectionism, and the Importance of Being Per-
fect subscale captures the negative aspects, the two may cancel
each other out when only the total scores of self-oriented per-
fectionism are regarded.
Regarding socially prescribed perfectionism, these findings
corroborate previous findings (Campbell & Di Paula, 2002;
Stoeber et al., 2008) that conditional acceptance is the aspect of
socially prescribed perfectionism that is responsible for socially
prescribed perfectionism’s strong and consistent associations
with low subjective well-being and poor psychological adjust-
ment (see, e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 2004). The perception that others
impose high standards is much less problematic in comparison.
Like Campbell and Di Paula (2002), this study found only the
Conditional Acceptance subscale to show the same pattern of
significant positive and negative correlations as the total scale.
Moreover, the correlations of the Conditional Acceptance sub-
scale scores were in the same order of magnitude as (or even
slightly higher than) those of the total score of socially pre-
scribed perfectionism.
But why is conditional acceptance such a negative aspect of
perfectionism? The Conditional Acceptance subscale captures
people’s beliefs that others will accept them only if they are
perfect—and if they are not perfect, will criticize them, hold
them in low regard, or disregard them. These beliefs, however,
become highly problematic when the person’s self-worth is con-
tingent on others’ approval, as is often the case with people
suffering from high levels of maladaptive evaluation concerns
perfectionism, because contingent self-worth has been shown to
be an important link between maladaptive evaluation concerns
perfectionism and mental health problems such as depression
(DiBartolo et al., 2004, 2008; Sturman et al., 2009).
Limitations and Future Research
These findings have a number of limitations. First, the sam-
ple was predominantly female due to the fact that, in the United
Kingdom, the vast majority of psychology students are female.
Consequently, future research should aim to include a greater
percentage of male participants. In addition, the sample was rel-
atively homogenous regarding age, as is usually the case when
university students are investigated. Because there are studies in-
dicating that perfectionism decreases with age (Landa & Bybee,
2007; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009), future research should aim
to investigate samples that are older or more heterogeneous
regarding age. Second, these findings are limited to nonclin-
ical samples. Whereas Rimes and Chalder (2010) found that
the four subscales showed near-identical patterns of correla-
tions in a clinical sample (individuals treated for chronic fa-
tigue syndrome) and a healthy control sample, future studies
need to provide further evidence that the four MPS subscales
show similar patterns of correlations in clinical and nonclinical
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
584 STOEBER AND CHILDS
samples. Third, regarding positive striving aspects of perfec-
tionism, in this research, we found differences between Perfec-
tionistic Striving and Importance of Being Perfect only for high
standards measured with the APS–R (Slaney et al., 2001) but not
for personal standards and pure personal standards (DiBartolo et
al., 2004) measured with the FMPS (Frost et al., 1990). Conse-
quently, future research should include further positive striving
aspects of perfectionism such as striving for excellence (R. W.
Hill et al., 2004) and positive self-oriented performance per-
fectionism (Chang, 2006) to further examine the relationships
of the two self-oriented perfectionism subscales with positive
striving aspects of perfectionism. Finally, like the findings from
previous studies on the four subscales, these findings are re-
stricted to self-reports. Consequently, future studies should go
beyond self-reports and include measures of objective perfor-
mance (e.g., test performance; Stoeber & Kersting, 2007) and
physiological data (e.g., heart rate response to stress; Hewitt,
Habke, Lee-Baggley, Sherry, & Flett, 2008) to provide a more
comprehensive investigation of the differences the four sub-
scales.
CONCLUSIONS
The emergence of multidimensional instruments to assess
perfectionism has been a major step forward for theory and re-
search on perfectionism and has greatly improved understanding
of the nature of perfectionism in all its different aspects. Since
the 1990s, an impressive body of findings has accumulated
demonstrating that most dimensions and subscales of perfec-
tionism are associated with psychopathological symptoms and
with lower levels of subjective well-being and psychological ad-
justment. Nevertheless, there are dimensions and subscales that
are more ambivalent, and some that are associated with higher
levels of subjective well-being and psychological adjustment.
This research demonstrates that this diversity of perfectionism
can also be found in the scales of Hewitt and Flett’s (1991,
2004) MPS measuring self-oriented perfectionism and socially
prescribed perfectionism. For this, however, it is necessary to
follow Campbell and Di Paula’s (2002) suggestion and differen-
tiate Perfectionistic Striving in self-oriented perfectionism from
Importance of Being Perfect, and differentiate Others’ High
Standards in socially prescribed perfectionism from Conditional
Acceptance. This differentiation not only provides for new in-
sights into self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism
and their relationships and associations, but it also provides for a
more detailed and informative assessment of multidimensional
perfectionism and its different aspects. Therefore, personality
researchers will profit from investigating subscale scores in ad-
dition to total scores to gain a richer, and deeper, understanding
of the relationships of self-oriented and socially prescribed per-
fectionism. As these findings show, the subscales do make a
difference.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Kathleen Otto for helpful comments and sugges-
tions on an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES
Bartsch, D. (2007). Prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms and
associated clinical features among Australian university students. Clinical
Psychologist, 11, 16–23.
British Psychological Society. (2005). Code of conduct, ethical principles, and
guidelines. London, England: Author.
Campbell, J. D., & Di Paula, A. (2002). Perfectionistic self-beliefs: Their re-
lation to personality and goal pursuit. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.),
Perfectionism (pp. 181–198). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long:
Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral M edicine, 4,
92–100.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions
in a stressful transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
184–195.
Chang, E. C. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of adaptive and mal-
adaptive aspects of performance perfectionism: Relations to personality, psy-
chological functioning, and academic achievement. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 30, 677–697.
Cole, J. C., Rabin, A. S., Smith, T. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Develop-
ment and validation of a Rasch-derived CES-D short form. Psychological
Assessment, 16, 360–372.
Cooper, C., Katona, C., & Livingston, G. (2008). Validity and reliability of
the Brief COPE in carers of people with dementia: The LASER-AD study.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 838–843.
DiBartolo, P. M., Frost, R. O., Chang, P., LaSota, M., & Grills, A. E. (2004).
Shedding light on the relationship between personal standards and psy-
chopathology: The case for contingent self-worth. Journal of Rational-
Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 241–254.
DiBartolo, P. M., Li, C. Y., & Frost, R. O. (2008). How do the dimensions of
perfectionism relate to mental health? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32,
401–417.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2006). Specific perfection-
ism components versus self-criticism in predicting maladjustment. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 40, 665–676.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism:
A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism (pp.
33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An
overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In P. L. Hewitt
& G. L. Flett (Eds.), Perfectionism (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Russo, F. A., & Hewitt, P. L. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism
and constructive thinking as a coping response. Journal of Rational-Emotive
& Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 12, 163–179.
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.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social con-
texts: 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, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Hewitt, P. L., Habke, A. M., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Sherry, S. B., & Flett, G.
L. (2008). The impact of perfectionistic self-presentation on the cognitive,
affective, and physiological experience of a clinical interview. Psychiatry:
Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 71, 93–122.
Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., Appleton, P. R., & Kozub, S. A. (2008). Perfection-
ism and burnout in junior elite soccer players: The mediating influence of
unconditional self-acceptance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 630–
644.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., & Araujo, G. (2010). Perfectionistic con-
cerns suppress associations between perfectionistic strivings and pos-
itive life outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 584–
589.
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
SELF-ORIENTED AND SOCIALLY PRESCRIBED PERFECTIONISM 585
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 Assessment, 82, 80–91.
Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-oriented perfectionism and its relation-
ship to positive and negative affect: The mediation of positive and negative
perfectionism cognitions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 559–571.
Landa, C. E., & Bybee, J. A. (2007). Adaptive elements of aging: Self-image
discrepancy, perfectionism, and eating problems. Developmental Psychology,
43, 83–93.
Lundh, L.-G. (2004). Perfectionism and acceptance. Journal of Rational-
Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 255–269.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.). (1996). The Maslach Burnout
Inventory: Test manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated
correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.
Mitchelson, J. K., & Burns, L. R. (1998). Career mothers and perfectionism:
Stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477–
485.
Molnar, D. S., Reker, D. L., Culp, N. A., Sadava, S. W., & DeCourville, N.
H. (2006). A mediated model of perfectionism, affect, and physical health.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 482–500.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor, R. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2003). Predicting hopelessness and psy-
chological distress: The role of perfectionism. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 50, 362–372.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale.
Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D Scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1,
385–401.
Rimes, K. A., & Chalder, T. (2010). The Beliefs About Emotions Scale: Validity,
reliability and sensitivity to change. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68,
285–292.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global
self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rudolph, S. G., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2007). Perfectionism and deficits
in cognitive emotion regulation. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-
Behavior Therapy, 25, 343–357.
Saboonchi, F., & Lundh, L.-G. (2003). Perfectionism, anger, somatic health,
and positive affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1585–1599.
Schaufeli, W. B., Mart
´
ınez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A.
B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national
study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: A
cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–
791.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The
Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 34, 130–145.
Stoeber, J., Feast, A. R., & Hayward, J. A. (2009). Self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism: Differential relationships with intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation and test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
423–427.
Stoeber, J., Kempe, T., & Keogh, E. J. (2008). Subscales of self-oriented and
socially prescribed perfectionism and feelings of pride, shame, and guilt
following success and failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
1506–1516.
Stoeber, J., & Kersting, M. (2007). Perfectionism and aptitude test performance:
Testees who strive for perfection achieve better test results. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42, 1093–1103.
Stoeber, J., Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2010). The Multidimensional Perfectionism
Cognitions Inventory–English (MPCI–E): Reliability, validity, and relation-
ships with positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality Assessment,
92, 16–25.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive perfectionism: Conceptions, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 219–319.
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence
and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 530–535.
Sturman, E. D., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Rudolph, S. G. (2009). Dimen-
sions of perfectionism and self-worth contingencies in depression. Journal of
Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 27, 213–231.
Trumpeter, N., Watson, P. J., & O’Leary, B. J. (2006). Factors within multidimen-
sional perfectionism scales: Complexity of relationships with self-esteem,
narcissism, self-control, and self-criticism. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 41, 849–860.
Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals
in the context of the 2 × 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of indi-
viduals with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1432–1445.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple
measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608–618.
Downloaded By: [Stoeber, Joachim] At: 04:35 15 October 2010
