Content uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joachim Stoeber on Dec 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joachim Stoeber
Content may be subject to copyright.
Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism:
Approaches, Evidence, Challenges
Joachim Stoeber
Department of Psychology
University of Kent
Kathleen Otto
Department of Psychology
University of Leipzig
Almost 30 years ago, Hamachek (1978) suggested that 2 forms of perfectionism be
distinguished, a positive form labeled “normal perfectionism” and a negative form
labeled “neurotic perfectionism.” Focusing on the positive, we present an overview of
the different empirical conceptions of the 2 forms of perfectionism and a common
framework for the 2 basic approaches: the dimensional approach differentiating 2 di
-
mensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) and
the group-based approach differentiating 2 groups of perfectionists (healthy perfec
-
tionists and unhealthy perfectionists). Moreover, we review the evidence demonstrat
-
ing that (a) perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive characteristics and
(b) healthy perfectionists show higher levels of positive characteristics compared to
unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Although questions on core facets,
positive effects, and developmental antecedents of positive forms of perfectionism re-
main, our findings suggest that self-oriented perfectionistic strivings are positive, if
perfectionists are not overly concerned about mistakes and negative evaluations by
others.
Perfectionism is commonly conceived of as a per-
sonality style characterized by striving for flawless-
ness and setting of excessively high standards for per
-
formance accompanied by tendencies for overly
critical evaluations of one’s behavior (Flett & Hewitt,
2002a; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990;
Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Although Hamachek (1978)
suggested that two forms of perfectionism be differen
-
tiated—a positive form labeled “normal perfection
-
ism” in which individuals enjoy pursuing their per
-
fectionistic strivings and a negative form labeled
“neurotic perfectionism” in which individuals suffer
from their perfectionistic strivings—perfectionism re
-
search was long dominated by one-dimensional con
-
ceptions of perfectionism and by views that perfection
-
ism was a negative characteristic closely associated
with psychopathology. Today, almost 30 years after
Hamachek published his seminal article, a large body
of evidence has accumulated confirming that two basic
forms of perfectionism can be distinguished. Even
though these two forms have been given different la-
bels—namely positive striving and maladaptive evalu
-
ation concerns (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, &
Neubauer, 1993), active and passive perfectionism
(Adkins & Parker, 1996), positive and negative perfec
-
tionism (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995),
adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism (Rice, Ashby,
& Slaney, 1998), functional and dysfunctional perfec
-
tionism (Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000), healthy and
unhealthy perfectionism (Stumpf & Parker, 2000), per
-
sonal standards and evaluative concerns perfectionism
(Blankstein & Dunkley, 2002), and conscientious and
self-evaluative perfectionism (Hill et al., 2004)—there
is considerable agreement that perfectionism does not
have to be negative, but can also be positive.
Still, many researchers hold strong doubts that per
-
fectionism can be positive, healthy, or functional, not
to mention adaptive (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002a, 2005;
Greenspon, 2000; see also Benson, 2003). Moreover,
the research literature relating to this question is com
-
plex and may appear confusing. There are three main
reasons for this. First, besides using different labels, re
-
searchers have used different facets and different com
-
binations of facets to arrive at their specific conceptu
-
alizations of the two forms of perfectionism. Second,
Personality and Social Psychology Review
2006, Vol. 10, No. 4, 295–319
Copyright © 2006 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
295
We thank Anat Bardi, Roger Giner-Sorolla, Kate Hamil
-
ton-West, Jutta Joormann, Matthias Siemer, Mark Van Vugt, Mario
Weick, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and
suggestions on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence should be sent to Joachim Stoeber, Department
of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP,
United Kingdom. E-mail: J.Stoeber@kent.ac.uk.
researchers have followed two basically different
approaches: either a dimensional approach or a
group-based approach. In the dimensional approach,
the facets of perfectionism are combined to form two
independent dimensions of perfectionism—let us call
them perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic con
-
cerns—the former hypothesized to be associated with
positive characteristics and the latter with negative. In
the group-based approach, the facets of perfectionism
are combined to form two groups of perfectionists—let
us call them healthy perfectionists and unhealthy per
-
fectionists—the former hypothesized to be associated
with positive characteristics and the latter with nega
-
tive. Third, not all studies have found perfectionistic
strivings and healthy perfectionists to be associated
only with positive characteristics. Although many
studies found perfectionistic strivings to be associated
with higher levels of positive characteristics and
healthy perfectionists to show higher levels of positive
characteristics compared to unhealthy perfectionists
and nonperfectionists, others did not: Some studies
found perfectionistic strivings and healthy perfection
-
ists to be associated with both positive and negative
characteristics, and a few studies with only negative
characteristics.
Against this background, the main aims of this arti-
cle are twofold. First, we present a comprehensive
review of the existing research literature and provide
an overview of how, under the dimensional and
group-based approach, the facets of perfectionism are
combined to differentiate a positive and a negative
form of perfectionism. Second, we review and evaluate
the empirical evidence in support of the view that some
forms of perfectionism are positive. Our review shows
that—despite the many different conceptions and the
two different basic approaches—there is considerable
agreement as to which core facets define the two forms
of perfectionism: for the positive perfectionistic
strivings dimension, these are high personal standards
and self-oriented perfectionism; and for the negative
perfectionistic concerns dimension, these are concerns
over mistakes, doubts about actions, socially pre
-
scribed perfectionism, and perceived discrepancy be
-
tween actual achievements and high expectations.
Moreover, our review shows that (a) healthy perfec
-
tionists can be conceived of as individuals with high
levels of perfectionistic strivings and low levels of
perfectionistic concerns, (b) unhealthy perfectionists
as individuals with high levels of perfectionistic
strivings and high levels of perfectionistic concerns,
and (c) nonperfectionists as individuals with low levels
of perfectionistic strivings. Consequently, conceptions
following a dimensional approach and conceptions fol
-
lowing a group-based approach can be combined, sum
-
marized, and compared under one common conceptual
framework (see Figure 1). Although questions remain
regarding additional facets, longitudinal effects, and
developmental antecedents, our review shows that the
empirical evidence in support of positive perfectionism
far outweighs the evidence against it: Perfectionistic
strivings are predominantly associated with positive
characteristics, particularly when overlap with
perfectionistic concerns is controlled for; and healthy
perfectionists predominantly show higher levels of
positive characteristics when compared to unhealthy
perfectionists and nonperfectionists.
Perfectionism:
A Brief Historical Overview
Why do many researchers find it difficult to accept
that perfectionism can be positive? Traditionally, per
-
fectionism has been associated with psychopathology,
with psychodynamic theory stressing that perfection
-
ism was a sign of a neurotic and disordered personality
(e.g., Horney, 1951; Missildine, 1963). Even though
Hamachek (1978) published his proposal to distin
-
guish two forms of perfectionism—normal perfection
-
ism and neurotic perfectionism—at the end of the
1970s, the dominant view of the 1980s was that perfec
-
tionism was always neurotic, dysfunctional, and indic
-
ative of psychopathology (e.g., D. D. Burns, 1980;
Pacht, 1984). Empirical findings supported this view.
Studies with clinical populations found elevated levels
of perfectionism in clients diagnosed with depression,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders
(e.g., Ranieri et al., 1987; Rasmussen & Eisen, 1992;
Rosen, Murkofsky, Steckler, & Skolnick, 1989), and
studies with nonclinical populations found perfection
-
ism to be related to higher levels of distress and to
296
STOEBER AND OTTO
Figure 1. Common conceptual framework combining both
dimensional and group-based conceptions of the two basic
forms of perfectionism. Two basic dimensions of perfectionism
are distinguished (perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic con
-
cerns) and can be used to differentiate between groups of
perfectionists (healthy perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists,
nonperfectionists).
pathological symptoms associated with depression,
anxiety, and disordered eating (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, &
Dyck, 1989; Hewitt, Mittelstaedt, & Wollert, 1989;
Thompson, Berg, & Shatford, 1987). However, all
these studies relied on one-dimensional measures of
perfectionism such as the perfectionism subscale of the
Eating Disorders Inventory (Garner, Olmstead, &
Polivy, 1983) or the perfectionism scale of D. D. Burns
(1980) which consisted of items from the Dysfunc
-
tional Attitudes Scale (Weissman & Beck, 1978), a
scale developed to capture attitudes that are typical of
clients diagnosed with depression. Thus, it comes as no
surprise that perfectionism was found to be negative,
dysfunctional, and even pathological.
This changed at the beginning of the 1990s, when
two research groups independently demonstrated that
perfectionism is multidimensional in nature, and pro
-
vided perfectionism research with two multidimen
-
sional scales to capture the construct in all its facets
(Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Frost and col
-
leagues (1990) proposed that six facets in the experi
-
ence of perfectionism be differentiated—personal
standards, organization, concern over mistakes, doubts
about actions, parental expectations, and parental criti-
cism—indicating that perfectionists have high stan-
dards, value order and organization, and try to avoid
mistakes and are thus often indecisive about their ac-
tions. Moreover, perfectionists attach great importance
to past or present evaluations by their parents. Hewitt
and Flett (1991), on the other hand, proposed that three
facets of perfectionism be differentiated—
self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed per-
fectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism—indi-
cating that perfectionists may see their high standards
as self-imposed or as imposed by others, and that they
may equally have high expectations of others. Further
-
more, they suggested that self-oriented perfectionism
was directed toward avoiding self-criticism whereas
socially prescribed perfectionism was directed toward
avoiding disapproval by others.
Despite the apparent differences between the two
multidimensional measures of perfectionism in terms
of nature and number of facets and associated charac
-
teristics (see Enns & Cox, 2002), they were shown to
have common underlying dimensions (Frost et al.,
1993). When all facets were subjected to a single factor
analysis, two substantial factors emerged: one factor
subsuming personal standards, organization, self-
oriented perfectionism, and other-oriented perfection
-
ism; and a second factor subsuming concern over mis
-
takes, doubts about actions, socially prescribed perfec
-
tionism, parental expectations, and parental criticism.
Moreover, when the subscales subsumed under the two
factors were aggregated to form measures of positive
striving and maladaptive evaluation concerns and then
correlated with measures of well-being, it emerged that
only maladaptive evaluation concerns were related to
higher levels of negative affect and depression (and un
-
related to positive affect). In contrast, positive striving
was related to higher levels of positive affect (and unre
-
lated to negative affect and depression). Hence, Frost et
al. (1993) made three important contributions. First,
they showed that the different facets of perfectionism
combined to form two basic dimensions of perfection
-
ism. Second, they showed that these two basic dimen
-
sions related to different characteristics. Third, they
showed that only the perfectionistic concerns dimen
-
sion related to negative characteristics whereas the
perfectionistic strivings dimension related to positive
characteristics—and thus provided the first empirical
evidence that some forms of perfectionism can be
positive.
Follow-up studies using the same method as Frost et
al. (1993) fared less well, however, as they found posi
-
tive striving to be related to both positive and negative
characteristics (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004;
Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003). Furthermore,
other researchers opted for different conceptions of the
basic dimensions choosing different facets or different
combinations of facets; still other researchers opted for
a group-based approach instead of a dimensional ap-
proach. Yet, across the different conceptions and the
different approaches, the majority of studies have pro-
duced evidence in favor of the position that
perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive
characteristics—particularly when overlap with
perfectionistic concerns is controlled for (in the case of
dimensional conceptions) or when perfectionistic con-
cerns are at low levels (in the case of group-based con-
ceptions)—as a review of the studies shows.
The Studies
For our review of studies, the PsycINFO database
was searched for all publications up to Week 2 of Sep
-
tember 2005 with perfect, perfection, perfectionism,
perfectionist, perfectionistic,orperfectionists in the ti
-
tle. Including reviews of the perfectionism literature
(e.g., Chang, 2003; Flett & Hewitt, 2002b; Shafran &
Mansell, 2001), but excluding dissertations and
non-English publications, all publications that con
-
tained empirical studies investigating the two basic
forms of perfectionism under different approaches and
the various labels previously mentioned were exam
-
ined with respect to (a) how they conceptualized the
positive and negative forms of perfectionism and (b)
what evidence was presented in favor of the view that
the positive conception of perfectionism was indeed
associated with more positive characteristics than the
negative conception.
A few publications were deliberately excluded from
this review. Because the aim was to review evidence
for the view that a positive and a negative form of per
-
297
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
fectionism can be differentiated, we excluded studies
that conceptualized positive and negative perfection
-
ism as endpoints of a single dimension (e.g., Oliver,
Hart, Ross, & Katz, 2001; Rhéaume, Ladouceur, &
Freeston, 2000). Moreover, we excluded studies that
employed the Positive and Negative Perfectionism
Scale (PNPS; Terry-Short et al., 1995), because this
scale has shown a questionable factor structure and
seems in need of fundamental revision that may in
-
volve the elimination of half of its items (Haase &
Prapavessis, 2004). Additionally, all conceptions of
positive and negative perfectionism apart from the
PNPS are based on a combination of facets derived
from established multidimensional measures of per
-
fectionism (see Table 1). Although including studies
with the PNPS (e.g., L. R. Burns & Fedewa, 2005;
Haase, Prapavessis, & Owens, 1999, 2002; Lundh,
Johnsson, Sundqvist, & Olsson, 2002) would not have
altered the overall pattern of our findings, excluding
these studies had the advantage of ensuring greater
comparability between the different approaches and
conceptions.
Conceptions and Evidence
Overall, 35 studies were found. Table 2 summarizes
the 15 studies taking a dimensional approach, docu-
menting how they conceptualized the two dimensions
of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns
and summarizing the empirical evidence in favor of the
notion that perfectionistic strivings are related to posi-
tive characteristics (Bieling et al, 2004; Bieling et al.,
2003; Chang, Watkins, & Banks, 2004; Cox, Enns, &
Clara, 2002; Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams,
& Winkworth, 2000; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein,
2003; Enns, Cox, Sareen, & Freeman, 2001; Frost et
al., 1993; Hill et al., 2004; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne,
1999; Parker & Stumpf, 1995; Rice et al., 1998; Rice,
Lopez & Vergara, 2005; Stumpf & Parker, 2000;
Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). Table 3 summarizes the 20
studies taking a group-based approach, documenting
how they conceptualized healthy perfectionists and un
-
healthy perfectionists and summarizing the evidence in
favor of the notion that healthy perfectionists show
higher levels of positive characteristics than unhealthy
perfectionists and nonperfectionists (Ashby & Bruner,
2005; Ashby & Kottman, 1996; Ashby, Kottman, &
DeGraaf, 1999; Dickinson & Ashby, 2005; Dixon,
Lapsley, & Hanchon, 2004; Gilman & Ashby, 2003;
Gilman, Ashby, Sverko, Florell, & Varjas, 2005;
Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004; LoCicero,
Ashby, & Kern, 2000; Martin & Ashby, 2004a, 2004b;
Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005; Parker, 1997;
Periasamy & Ashby, 2002; Rhéaume, Freeston, et al.,
2000; Rice, Ashby, & Preusser, 1996; Rice, Bair, Cas
-
tro, Cohen, & Hood, 2003; Rice & Dellwo, 2002; Rice
& Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice & Slaney, 2002). Leaving
most of the details to Tables 2 and 3 and focusing on
positive perfectionism, the studies can be summarized
as follows.
Dimensional conceptions: Perfectionistic striv
-
ings and perfectionistic concerns. Attending to Ta
-
ble 2, we first take a look at how the 15 studies that fol
-
lowed a dimensional approach have conceptualized the
two dimensions of perfectionism and what evidence
they have produced in support of the position that the
dimension we labeled perfectionistic strivings is asso
-
ciated with positive characteristics. For this, we cate
-
gorized all studies into four categories, namely as (a)
positive evidence when perfectionistic strivings were
related to positive characteristics only, (b) mixed evi
-
dence when perfectionistic strivings were related to
both positive and negative characteristics, (c) negative
evidence when perfectionistic strivings were related to
negative characteristics only, and (d) null finding when
perfectionistic strivings were unrelated to any positive
or negative characteristics. (Inverse relations to nega
-
tive characteristics were regarded as positive and in
-
verse relations to positive characteristics as negative.)
Following this scheme, 6 of the 15 studies were catego-
rized as positive evidence, 4 as mixed evidence, 4 as
negative evidence, and 1 as a null finding. However,
when we reanalyzed the evidence and controlled for
overlap between perfectionistic strivings and per-
fectionistic concerns in the studies where this was ap-
plicable, the picture changed dramatically: now 10 of
the 15 studies were categorized as positive evidence, 3
as mixed evidence, 2 as null findings, and none as neg-
ative evidence (see Table 2 for details). But let us first
summarize the findings for perfectionistic strivings as
they were presented in the respective studies, before
we turn to our reanalysis.
In the six studies categorized as providing positive
evidence (Chang et al., 2004; Frost et al., 1993; Parker
& Stumpf, 1995; Rice et al., 2005; Stumpf & Parker,
2000; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001), the dimension of
perfectionistic strivings was conceptualized as some
combination of the facets that Frost et al. (1993) found
to form the factor which they labeled positive striv
-
ing—personal standards, organization, self-oriented
perfectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism—or
as a combination of a subset of these facets. Further
-
more, two studies (Rice et al., 2005; Suddarth &
Slaney, 2001) added high standards from the revised
Almost Perfect Scale to this dimension (see Table 2).
Regarding the correlations of perfectionistic strivings
with the Big Five personality traits (John, 1990),
perfectionistic strivings were related to higher levels of
extraversion and conscientiousness. Moreover, they
were related to higher levels of endurance and lower
levels of external locus of control. Because Rotter’s
(1966) conception of external locus of control mainly
captures individuals’ beliefs that their lives are con
-
298
STOEBER AND OTTO
299
Table 1. Multidimensional Perfectionism: Measures, Facets, and Sample Items.
Measure Facets Sample Items
APS (Almost Perfect Scale; Johnson &
Slaney, 1996)
Standards and order I have high standards for my performance at work or at school. I try to do my best at everything I do. I am an orderly person.
APS-R (Almost Perfect Scale-Revised;
Slaney et al., 2001)
High standards I have high standards for my performance at work or at school. I try to do my best at everything I do. I have a strong need to
strive for excellence.
Order I am an orderly person. I like to always be organized and disciplined. Neatness is important to me.
Discrepancy My performance rarely measures up to my standards. I often feel frustrated because I can’t meet my goals. My best just never
seems to be good enough for me.
FMPS (Frost Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale; Frost et al., 1990)
Personal standards I have extremely high goals. I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than most people. It is important to me that I be
thoroughly competent in everything I do.
Organization Organization is very important to me. I am an organized person. I try to be a neat person.
Concern over mistakes People will probably think less of me, if I make a mistake. If I do not do well all the time, people will not respect me. If I fail
partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure.
Doubts about actions I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things that I do. I tend to get behind in my work because I repeat things over
and over. Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right.
Parental expectations My parents wanted me to be the best at everything. My parents set very high standards for me. Only outstanding performance
is good enough in my family.
Parental criticism As a child, I was punished for doing things less than perfect. My parents never tried to understand my mistakes. I never felt
like I could meet my parents’ standards.
MPS (Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale; Hewitt & Flett, 1991)
Self-oriented perfectionism One of my goals is to be perfect in everything I do. It makes me uneasy to see an error in my work. I never aim for perfection
in my work (reverse-keyed).
Socially prescribed perfectionism The people around me expect me to succeed in everything I do. Anything that I do less than excellent will bee seen as poor
work by those around me. Those around me readily accept that I can make mistakes too (reverse-keyed).
Other-oriented perfectionism If I ask someone to do something, I expect it to be done flawlessly. I have high expectations for the people who are important
to me. I do not have very high standards for those around me (reverse-keyed).
PI (Perfectionism Inventory; Hill et al.,
2004)
Striving for excellence I must achieve excellence in everything I do. I drive myself rigorously to achieve high standards. My work needs to be perfect,
in order for me to be satisfied.
Organization I would characterize myself as an orderly person. I always like to be organized and disciplined. I think things should be put
away in their place.
Planfulness I tend to deliberate before making up my mind. I think through my options carefully before making a decision. I need time to
think up a plan before I take action.
High standards for others I get upset when other people do not maintain the same standards I do. I have little tolerance for other people’s careless
mistakes. I’m not very patient with people’s excuses for poor work.
Concern over mistakes If I make mistakes, people might think less of me. I am particularly embarrassed by failure. If I make a serious mistake, I feel
like I’m less of a person.
Rumination I spend a lot of time worrying about things that I’ve done, or things I need to do. If I make a mistake, my whole day is ruined.
After I turn a project in, I can’t stop thinking of how it could have been better.
Need for approval I’m concerned with whether or not other people approve of my actions. I compare my work to others and often feel inadequate.
I often don’t say anything, because I’m scared I might say the wrong thing.
Perceived parental pressure I always felt that my parents wanted me to be perfect. Growing up, I felt a lot of pressure to do everything right. My parents
hold me to high standards.
PQ (Perfectionism Questionnaire;
Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000)
Perfectionist tendencies
Negative consequences of
perfectionism
I like the things I do to be perfect. I always try to do well all the things I set out to do. I need everything to be perfect.
My perfectionistic tendencies lead me to doubt my performance. Everything is spoiled if an imperfection gets by me. If I
lowered my personal criteria, I would feel a lesser person.
Note: Measures ordered alphabetically by abbreviated name of measure. Only perfectionism measures and facets used in conceptions of positive and negative perfectionism are listed (see Tables 2 and 3). Conse-
quently, the APS subscales Relationships, Anxiety, and Procrastination were omitted, as they seem to capture correlates rather than defining aspects of perfectionism (Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002).
300
Table 2. Studies With a Dimensional Approach (Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns): Conceptions, Correlations, and Categorization of Evidence.
Study Samples Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)
a
Correlates
b
Evidence
c
Chang, Watkins, and
Banks (2004)
150 Black and 150 White
female undergraduates
Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal
standards and organization scores
.10
d
Positive affect and satisfaction with life
in White and suicidal ideation (–) in
Black females
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism scores
Perceived stress, positive affect (–),
negative affect, and suicidal ideation
in both groups, satisfaction with life
(–) in White females
Frost, Heimberg,
Holt, Mattia, and
Neubauer (1993)
553 undergraduates (51%
female)
Positive striving Additive combination of FMPS personal
standards and organization and MPS
self-oriented perfectionism and
other-oriented perfectionism scores
.28 Positive affect Positive
Maladaptive evaluation
concerns
Additive combination of FMPS concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism and MPS socially prescribed
perfectionism scores
Negative affect, depression
Parker and Stumpf
(1995)
855 academically talented
sixth graders (38% female)
Healthy perfectionism Oblique second-order factor combination
of factors representing FMPS personal
standards and organization
na Extraversion, conscientiousness Positive
Dysfunctional
perfectionism
Oblique second-order factor combination
of factors representing FMPS concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism
Extraversion (–), conscientiousness (–),
neuroticism, agreeableness (–)
Rice, Lopez, and
Vergara (2005)
241 university students (82%
female)
Adaptive perfectionism Latent factor combination of FMPS
personal standards and organization,
MPS self-oriented perfectionism, and
APS-R high standards and order
.43 Attachment avoidance (–), attachment
anxiety (–)
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionism Latent factor combination of FMPS
concern over mistakes and doubts
about actions and APS-R discrepancy
Attachment avoidance, attachment
anxiety
Stumpf and Parker
(2000)
855 academically talented
sixth graders (38% female)
Healthy perfectionism Orthogonal second-order factor
combination of factors representing
FMPS personal standards and
organization
.00 Conscientiousness, endurance Positive
Unhealthy perfectionism Orthogonal second-order factor
combination of factors representing
FMPS concern over mistakes, doubts
about actions, parental expectations,
and parental criticism
Neuroticism, self-esteem (–)
301
Suddarth and Slaney
(2001)
196 undergraduates (79%
female)
Adaptive perfectionism Orthogonal factor representing FMPS
personal standards, MPS self-oriented
perfectionism and other-oriented
perfectionism, and APS-R high
standards
.00 External locus of control (–) Positive
Maladaptive perfectionism Orthogonal factor representing FMPS
concern over mistakes, doubts about
actions, parental criticism, parental
expectations, MPS socially prescribed
perfectionism, and APS-R discrepancy
External locus of control, trait anxiety,
psychological symptoms
Bieling, Israeli,
Smith, and Antony
(2003)
198 undergraduates (75%
female)
Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS personal standards and
organization and MPS self-oriented
perfectionism and other-oriented
perfectionism scores
.45 Positive affect, exam performance, plans
to study more, plans to study less (–);
negative affect [ns]
Mixed
⇓
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS concern over mistakes, doubts
about actions, parental expectations,
parental criticism, and MPS socially
prescribed perfectionism scores
Positive affect (–), exam preparedness,
plans to study more; negative affect
Cox, Enns, and Clara
(2002)
412 adult outpatients (58%
female); 288 undergraduates
(63% female); 96 medical
students (42% female)
Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal
standards and organization and MPS
self-oriented perfectionism
na Outpatients/undergraduates:
conscientiousness, neuroticism,
depression; medical students: recent
and anticipated academic achievement
Mixed
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
and parental criticism and MPS
socially-prescribed perfectionism
Outpatients/undergraduates: neuroticism,
depression; Outpatients:
conscientiousness (–)
Dunkley, Blankstein,
Halsall, Williams,
and Winkworth
(2000)
443 undergraduates (69%
female)
Personal standards
perfectionism
Latent factor representing FMPS personal
standards and MPS self-oriented
perfectionism
.55
d
Active coping styles; hassles [ns] Mixed
⇓
Positive
Evaluative concerns
perfectionism
Latent factor representing FMPS concern
over mistakes and doubts about actions
and MPS socially prescribed
perfectionism
Distress, avoidant coping styles, social
support (–); hassles
Enns, Cox, Sareen,
and Freeman
(2001)
96 medical students (42%
female)
Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS personal standards and MPS
self-oriented perfectionism scores
na Conscientiousness, past year
performance, ability to achieve;
neuroticism
Mixed
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS concern over mistakes and
doubts about actions and MPS socially
prescribed perfectionism scores
Depression, hopelessness, suicide
ideation, neuroticism
(continued)
302
Bieling, Israeli, and
Antony (2004)
198 undergraduates (75%
female)
Positive striving Additive combination of standardized
FMPS personal standards and
organization and MPS self-oriented
perfectionism and other-oriented
perfectionism scores
.45 Depression, anxiety, stress, test anxiety
[all ns]
Negative
⇓
∅
Maladaptive evaluation
concerns
Additive combination of standardized
FMPS concern over mistakes, doubts
about actions, parental expectations,
parental criticism and MPS socially
prescribed perfectionism scores
Depression, anxiety, stress, test anxiety
Dunkley, Zuroff, and
Blankstein (2003)
163 full-time university
students (61% female)
Personal standards
perfectionism
Latent factor representing FMPS personal
standards and MPS self-oriented
perfectionism
.61 Perceived social support (–) [+],
self-blame [–], negative affect [–]
Negative
⇓
Positive
Self-critical perfectionism Latent factor representing FMPS concern
over mistakes and doubts about
actions, MPS socially prescribed
perfectionism, and DEQ self-criticism
Hassles, perceived efficacy (–), event
stress, perceived criticism, positive
affect (–), avoidant coping styles;
perceived social support (–),
self-blame, negative affect
Hill et al. (2004) 616 undergraduates (62%
female)
Conscientious
perfectionism
Additive combination of PI striving for
excellence, organization, planfulness,
and high standards for others
.54 Depression [–]; anxiety, OC symptoms,
fear of negative evaluation, somatic
complaints, interpersonal sensitivity,
hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoia,
psychoticism [all ns]; OC symptoms
frequency, OC symptoms distress
Negative
⇓
Mixed
Self-evaluative
perfectionism
Additive combination of PI concern over
mistakes, rumination, need for
approval, and perceived parental
pressure
Depression; anxiety, OC symptoms, fear
of negative evaluation, somatic
complaints, interpersonal sensitivity,
hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoia,
psychoticism; OC symptoms
frequency, OC symptoms distress
Table 2. (Continued)
Study Samples Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)
a
Correlates
b
Evidence
c
303
Lynd-Stevenson and
Hearne (1999)
142 undergraduates (71%
female)
Active perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS personal standards, parental
expectations, and parental criticism
scores
.70 Stressful life events, depression [both ns] Negative
⇓
∅
Passive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized
FMPS concern over mistakes and
doubts about actions scores
Stressful life events, depression
Rice, Ashby, and
Slaney (1998)
464 undergraduates (74%
female)
Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal
standards and organization and APS
standards/order and procrastination
(reverse-scored) scores
.24 [Self-esteem] ∅
⇓
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism and APS difficulty in
relationships, anxiety, and
procrastination scores
Self-esteem (–), depression
Note: Conceptions ordered alphabetically by reference within each class of evidence (see Table Footnote c). The first dimension always represents the perfectionistic strivings dimension, the second the perfectionistic
concerns dimension. APS = Almost Perfect Scale, APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale-Revised, DEQ = Depressive Experiences Questionnaire, FMPS = Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, MPS = Hewitt and
Flett’s Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, PI = Perfectionism Inventory, OC = obsessive-compulsive, na = information not available.
a
Correlation between dimensions.
b
Critical correlates (negative characteristics related to positive conceptions of perfectionism) italicized; all correlates represent zero-order correlations (except for Rice et al., 2005, and
Slaney & Suddarth, 2001: regression weights); only significant correlates (p < .05) are reported; (–) = correlate with negative sign; entries in square brackets indicate changes in correlates after partialling out negative
perfectionism, such as additional correlates [Self-esteem], nonsignificant relationships [ns], and/or reversed relationships [+].
c
Evidence: positive = positive conception of perfectionism related to positive characteristics
only, mixed = positive conception of perfectionism related to both positive and negative characteristics, negative = positive conception of perfectionism related to negative characteristics only, ∅ (inconclusive) = positive
conception of perfectionism unrelated to any positive or negative characteristics; an entry of “Evidence X ⇒ Evidence Y” indicates a change in the classification of evidence after partialling out the influence of negative
perfectionism from the critical correlations in those studies that reported the correlation between positive and negative perfectionism (see text for details).
d
Weighted mean correlation/s for combined sample.
304
Table 3. Studies With a Group-Based Approach (Healthy Perfectionism and Unhealthy Perfectionism): Conceptions, Differences, and Categorization of Evidence.
Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differences
a
Evidence
b
Ashby and Bruner (2005) 144 undergraduates
(60% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with less OC checking, slowness,
and doubting than UHP
(b) HP with less OC slowness than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standard and
medium discrepancy scores
Ashby and Kottman (1996) 123 undergraduates
(51%female)
Normal perfectionists (HP) Top third of APS-R high standards and
below-median discrepancy scores
(a) HP with fewer inferiority feelings, less
procrastination, fewer intimacy
difficulties, and lower anxiety than UHP
(b) na
Positive
Neurotic perfectionists (UHP) Top third of APS-R high standards and
above-median discrepancy scores
Dickinson and Ashby
(2005)
131 undergraduates
(67% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with lower immature ego defenses
(e.g., projection, passive aggression,
dissociation) than UHP
(b) —
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
Dixon, Lapsley, and
Hanchon (2004)
142 academically talented
junior high school
students (64% female)
Mixed-adaptive perfectionists
(HP)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards
and organization, medium concern over
mistakes, low doubts about actions,
medium parental expectations, and low
parental criticism scores
(a) HP with better adjustment and lower
anxiety than UHP1, less dysfunctional
coping styles than UHP2, and more
mastery coping styles, perception of
greater personal security, and less
depression, somatization, OC symptoms,
and interpersonal sensitivity than both
UHP1 and UHP2
(b) HP with better adjustment and higher
academic competence than NonP
Positive
Pervasive perfectionists
(UHP1)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
organization, concern over mistakes,
doubts about actions, and medium
parental expectations and criticism scores
305
Mixed-maladaptive
perfectionists (UHP2)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
medium organization, high concern over
mistakes, medium doubts about actions
and high parental expectations and
criticism scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with overall low FMPS scores
Gilman, Ashby, Sverko,
Florell, and Varjas (2005)
291 Croatian and 341
American adolescent
school students
(60% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
(a) All HP with higher satisfaction
regarding family, school, self, and life in
general and American HP also regarding
friends and living environment than UHP
(b) Croatian HP with higher satisfaction
regarding family, school, and living
environment than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
low/medium discrepancy scores
(Americans/Croatians)
Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze,
and Rice (2004)
273 undergraduates
(74% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with higher self-esteem, greater
GPA satisfaction, and lower
self-criticism than UHP
(b) HP with higher self-esteem, higher
GPA, greater GPA satisfaction, and lower
self-criticism than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
order and medium discrepancy scores
LoCicero, Ashby, and Kern
(2000)
195 middle school
students (59% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Top third of APS-R high standards scores
and below average discrepancy scores
(a) HP with higher social interest and
greater willingness to go along with
others than UHP
(b) HP with greater willingness to go along
with others than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Top third of APS-R high standards scores
and above average discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Lower two thirds of APS-R high standards
scores
(continued)
306
Mobley, Slaney, and Rice
(2005)
251 African American
undergraduates
(69% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with higher self-esteem and lower
anxiety and depression than UHP
(b) HP with higher self-esteem and lower
anxiety and depression than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
order and medium discrepancy scores
Periasamy and Ashby
(2002)
260 undergraduates
(69% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Top one-third of APS-R high standards and
below-average discrepancy scores
(a) HP with lesser external locus of control
(powerful-others) than UHP
(b) HP with greater internal locus of control
than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Top one-third of APS-R high standards and
above-average discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) na
Rice, Bair, Castro, Cohen,
and Hood (2003)
139 undergraduates
(75% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high FMPS personal standards
and organization and medium concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism scores
(a) HP with greater personal and
interpersonal control and fewer
depressed/distorted cognitions than UHP
(b) HP with greater personal control than
NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
low organization, and high concern over
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations and parental criticism scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
subscales
Rice and Mirzadeh (2000) 179 undergraduates
(72% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high FMPS personal standards
and organization, low concern over
mistakes and doubts about actions,
medium parental expectations, and low
parental criticism scores
(a) HP with better academic integration and
lower depression than UHP
(b) na
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
medium organization, and high concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism scores
Table 3. (Continued)
Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differences
a
Evidence
b
307
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low FMPS personal standards
and organization, low concern over
mistakes, medium doubts about actions,
and low parental expectations and
parental criticism scores
Rice and Slaney (2002) Study 1: 258
undergraduates
(79% female);
Study 2: 375
undergraduates
(77% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with higher self-esteem, higher GPA
(Study 2), more positive affect, less
depressed affect, lower state/trait anxiety,
and fewer somatic complaints than UHP
(b) HP with higher self-esteem, higher GPA
(Study 2), and lower state/trait anxiety
than NonP
Positive
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
order and high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
order and medium discrepancy scores
Martin and Ashby (2004a) 240 undergraduates
(65% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
(a) HP with a more evaluativistic epistemic
style than UHP
(b) HP with a less relativistic epistemic
style than NonP
Mixed
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
medium discrepancy scores
Parker (1997) 820 academically talented
sixth graders
(37% female)
Healthy perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
high organization, and low concern over
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations, and parental criticism
scores
(a) HP with higher extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness and
lower neuroticism than UHP
(b) HP with higher extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
but higher neuroticism than NonP
Mixed
Dysfunctional or unhealthy
perfectionists (UHP)
Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
medium organization, and high concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions,
parental expectations, and parental
criticism scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
subscales
(continued)
308
Rhéaume, Freeston, et al.
(2000)
32 adults (65% female) Functional perfectionists (HP) Above-median PQ perfectionist tendencies
and below-median negative consequences
of perfectionism
(a) HP with fewer OC behaviors, fewer OC
responsibility beliefs, and faster decision
times, but higher evidence requirements
than UHP
(b) na
Mixed
Dysfunctional perfectionists
(UHP)
Above-median PQ perfectionist tendencies
and above-median negative consequences
of perfectionism
Rice and Dellwo (2002) 311 undergraduates
(75% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
organization, and parental expectations,
medium concern over mistakes, doubts
about actions, and parental criticism
scores
(a) HP with higher self-idealization, higher
self-esteem, better academic and social
integration, and lower depression than
UHP
(b) HP with higher depression than NonP
Mixed
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high FMPS concern over
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations, and parental criticism,
medium personal standards, and low
organization scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
subscales
Ashby, Kottman, and
DeGraaf (1999)
122 undergraduates
(50% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Above-median APS-R high standards and
below-median discrepancy scores
(a) —
(b) HP with greater satisfaction from
leisure activities in terms of need for
freedom, enjoyment, and involvement
than NonP
∅
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Above-median APS-R high standards and
above-median discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Below-median APS-R high standards
Martin and Ashby (2004b) 200 undergraduates
(64% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
low discrepancy scores
(a) —
(b) —
∅
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
medium discrepancy scores
Table 3. (Continued)
Study Samples Groups Conception Differences
a
Evidence
b
309
Gilman and Ashby (2003) 132 middle school
students (63% female)
Adaptive perfectionists (HP) Top one-third of APS-R high standards and
below-average discrepancy scores
(a) —
(b) HP with higher satisfaction with self
than NonP
∅
Maladaptive perfectionists
(UHP)
Top one-third of APS-R high standards and
above-average discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists (NonP) Lower one-third of APS-R high standards
scores
Rice, Ashby, and Preusser
(1996)
58 undergraduates
(48% female)
Normal perfectionists (HP) Above-median APS standards and
organization and below-median FMPS
concern over mistakes scores
(a) —
(b) na
∅
Neurotic perfectionists (UHP) Above-median APS standards and
organization and above-median FMPS
concern over mistakes scores
Note: Conceptions ordered alphabetically by reference within each class of evidence (see Table Footnote b). Groups: HP = healthy perfectionists, UHP = unhealthy perfectionists, NonP = nonperfectionists. APS = Al-
most Perfect Scale, APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale-Revised, FMPS = Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, PQ = Perfectionism Questionnaire, GPA = grade point average, OC = obsessive-compulsive, na = in-
formation not available.
a
(a) differences in positive or negative characteristics between HP and UHP, (b) differences in positive or negative characteristics between HP and NonP; only significant differences (p < .05) reported, critical differences
italicized.
b
Evidence: Positive = HP show higher levels of positive characteristics relative to UHP; Mixed = HP show higher levels of positive characteristics relative to UHP, but lower levels of some positive characteris-
tic compared NonP; ∅ (inconclusive) = no difference in positive characteristics between HP and UHP. (Lower/higher levels of negative characteristics are interpreted in the same way as higher/lower levels of positive
characteristics.)
trolled by chance (e.g., Brosschot, Gebhardt, &
Godaert, 1994), a lower level of external locus of con
-
trol was counted as a positive characteristic (for a more
differentiated conception of external control, see
Levenson, 1981). Finally, perfectionistic strivings
were related to greater subjective well-being in terms
of positive affect and satisfaction with life as well as to
lower levels of attachment avoidance, attachment anxi
-
ety, and suicidal ideation.
Inthefourstudiescategorizedasprovidingmixedev
-
idence (Bieling et al., 2003; Cox et al., 2002; Dunkleyet
al., 2000; Enns et al., 2001), the positive dimension rep
-
resenting perfectionistic strivings was again conceptu
-
alized as some combination of facets that represented
positive strivingsperfectionism (Frost et al., 1993). The
evidence regarding achievement characteristics was
positive, with perfectionistic strivings in students relat
-
ing to higher perceived ability, higher exam perfor
-
mance,higherpast year performance, and plans to study
more rather than less. The evidence regarding other
characteristics was mixed, however. With regard to per
-
sonality traits, perfectionistic strivings were related to
higherconscientiousness,butalsoto higherneuroticism
(Enns et al., 2001). With regard to well-being, per-
fectionistic strivings were related to higher levels of
positiveaffect,butalsotohigherlevelsofnegativeaffect
(Bieling et al., 2003); and with regard to stress and cop-
ing styles, they were related to higher levels of active
coping, but also to higher levels of perceived hassles
(Dunkley et al., 2000).
Of the four studies categorized as providing nega-
tive evidence (Bieling et al., 2004; Dunkley et al.,
2003; Hill et al., 2004; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne,
1999), only two studies (Bieling et al., 2004; Dunkley
et al., 2003) conceptualized the positive dimension of
perfectionistic strivings as some combination of the
facets that Frost et al. (1993) subsumed under positive
striving. Two studies used a different conceptualiza
-
tion (Hill et al., 2004; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne,
1999). Following suggestions made by Adkins and
Parker (1996), Lynd-Stevenson and Hearne (1999)
conceptualized perfectionistic strivings as a combina
-
tion of personal standards, parental expectations, and
parental criticism, thereby including two facets that
Frost et al. had subsumed under maladaptive evalua
-
tion concerns. Following their own multidimensional
model of perfectionism, Hill et al. (2004) conceptual
-
ized perfectionistic strivings as a combination of striv
-
ing for excellence, organization, planfulness, and high
standards for others. Regardless of the conceptualiza
-
tion used, all four studies found perfectionistic
strivings to be related to lower levels of well-being and
perceived social support, and higher levels of per
-
ceived stress and pathological symptoms (see Table 2
for details).
Most of the mixed and negative evidence was re
-
lated to the overlap between the dimensions of
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns,
however. When inspecting the pattern of positive,
mixed, and negative evidence, we noticed that the type
of evidence produced seemed to relate to how strongly
the dimension of perfectionistic strivings correlated
with the dimension of perfectionistic concerns (see Ta
-
ble 2). All studies categorized as providing positive ev
-
idence had conceptualized the dimension of per
-
fectionistic strivings such that it showed either zero
correlations or only low to moderate correlations (.10
to .28) with the dimension of perfectionistic concerns.
1
In comparison, the studies categorized as providing
mixed or negative evidence had conceptualized the di
-
mension of perfectionistic strivings such that it showed
high correlations (.45 to .70) with the dimension of
perfectionistic concerns. With such substantial overlap
between the two dimensions, it is conceivable that
perfectionistic strivings would be “contaminated” with
perfectionistic concerns and thus show inflated corre
-
lations with negative characteristics. After controlling
for this overlap, the evidence in favor of perfectionism
should be more positive.
Consequently, we reinspected those studies that re
-
ported the correlation between the dimension of
perfectionistic strivings and the dimension of
perfectionistic concerns, and reanalyzed the evidence
by computing partial correlations between perfec-
tionistic strivings and negative characteristics, par-
tialling out perfectionistic concerns (Hays, 1973, For-
mula 16.20.3). The results were as expected.
Controlling for overlap with perfectionistic concerns
markedly increased the evidence in support of
perfectionistic strivings being a positive form of per-
fectionism (see Table 2). Of the four studies initially
categorized as mixed evidence, two now furnished
positive evidence as the critical correlations of per
-
fectionistic strivings with negative affect and perceived
hassles became nonsignificant once perfectionistic
concerns were partialled out (Bieling et al., 2003;
Dunkley et al., 2000). Moreover, the study initially cat
-
egorized as a null finding now furnished positive evi
-
dence because perfectionistic strivings now related to
higher self-esteem (Rice et al., 1998). Finally, of the
four studies initially categorized as negative evidence,
one now furnished positive evidence because per
-
fectionistic strivings now related to higher levels of
perceived social support and lower levels of negative
affect and self-blame (Dunkley et al., 2003); one study
now furnished mixed evidence because perfectionistic
strivings now related to lower levels of depression, but
related to higher frequency of and distress caused by
310
STOEBER AND OTTO
1
In this pattern, the study of Rice et al. (2005) is disregarded be
-
cause Rice et al. conducted multiple regression analyses and thus
controlled for the correlation of r = .43 between the dimension of
perfectionistic strivings and the dimension of perfectionistic
concerns.
obsessive-compulsive symptoms (Hill et al., 2004);
and two studies furnished null findings as per
-
fectionistic strivings were now unrelated to any posi
-
tive or negative characteristics (Bieling et al., 2004;
Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne, 1999). Thus, after control
-
ling for overlap between perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns, no study remained catego
-
rized as providing negative evidence. Instead, a further
four studies could be categorized as providing positive
evidence (see Table 2).
Group-based conceptions: Healthy perfection
-
ists and unhealthy perfectionists. Turning to Ta
-
ble 3 and to the studies that follow a group-based ap
-
proach, there are two important differences to the pre
-
vious studies. First, overlap between the positive and
negative conceptions is of no concern, because these
studies employed cluster analysis or dichotomization
of facet scores to conceptualize healthy perfectionists
as individuals with high levels of perfectionistic
strivings and low levels of perfectionistic concerns and
unhealthy perfectionists as individuals with high levels
of perfectionistic strivings and high levels of per-
fectionistic concerns (see Table 3 for details). Conse-
quently, these studies allow comparison of two distinct
groups of perfectionists that show little (cluster analy-
sis) or no (dichotomization) overlap in the facets asso-
ciated with perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns. Second, mean differences instead of correla-
tions are inspected, and the critical question is whether
healthy perfectionists show higher levels of positive
characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists. In addi-
tion, healthy perfectionists should not show lower lev-
els of positive characteristics than nonperfectionists, as
such findings would clearly be unsupportive of the
view that high levels of perfectionistic strivings are
positive.
Again, all studies were categorized into four cate
-
gories, namely as (a) positive evidence when healthy
perfectionists showed higher levels of positive char
-
acteristics than unhealthy perfectionists and no lower
levels of positive characteristics than nonperfec
-
tionists, (b) mixed evidence when healthy perfection
-
ists showed higher levels of both positive and nega
-
tive characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists or
higher levels of positive characteristics than un
-
healthy perfectionists, but lower levels of positive
characteristics than nonperfectionists, (c) negative ev
-
idence when healthy perfectionists showed higher
levels of negative characteristics than unhealthy per
-
fectionists, and (d) null finding when healthy perfec
-
tionists did not differ from unhealthy perfectionists.
(As with the studies taking a dimensional approach,
lower levels of negative characteristics were regarded
in the same way as higher levels of positive character
-
istics.) Following this scheme, 12 of the 20 studies
were categorized as positive evidence. Note that in all
12 studies healthy perfectionists showed higher levels
of positive characteristics not only when compared to
unhealthy perfectionists, but also when compared to
nonperfectionists (see Table 3). Furthermore, 4 stud
-
ies were categorized as mixed evidence because
healthy perfectionists showed higher levels of posi
-
tive characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists, but
lower levels of positive characteristics than non
-
perfectionists. Finally, 4 studies were categorized as
null findings because they did not find any significant
differences between healthy and unhealthy perfec
-
tionists where positive characteristics were concerned
(see Table 3 for details). No study was categorized as
negative evidence.
In the 12 studies categorized as providing positive
evidence (Ashby & Bruner, 2005; Ashby & Kottman,
1996; Dickinson & Ashby, 2005; Dixon et al., 2004;
Gilman et al., 2005; Grzeguiek et al., 2004; LoCicero
et al., 2000; Mobley et al., 2005; Periasamy & Ashby,
2002; Rice et al., 2003; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice
& Slaney, 2002), healthy perfectionists were conceptu
-
alized as individuals with high scores on those facets
that the dimensional approaches associated with per
-
fectionistic strivings (i.e., personal standards, high
standards, order, and organization) and low or medium
scores on those facets associated with perfectionistic
concerns (i.e., concern over mistakes, doubts about ac-
tions, discrepancy between actual achievements and
high expectations, parental criticism, and parental ex-
pectations). Unhealthy perfectionists were conceptual-
ized as individuals with high scores on all facets of per-
fectionism, and nonperfectionists as individuals with
medium or low scores on all facets of perfectionism.
There were three exceptions, however. Two studies ar
-
rived at cluster solutions in which unhealthy perfec
-
tionists showed only low or medium levels of organiza
-
tion (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice et al., 2003), and a
third study found two groups of unhealthy perfection
-
ists: one group was labeled “pervasive perfectionists”
and showed medium levels of parental expectations
and parental criticism, and the other group was labeled
“mixed maladaptive perfectionists” and showed me
-
dium levels of organization and doubts about actions
(Dixon et al. 2004). With respect to the characteristics
investigated, findings dovetail with those of the studies
taking a dimensional approach. Healthy perfectionists
showed higher levels of positive personality traits and
greater subjective well-being and reported more adap
-
tive coping styles, greater social adjustment, and better
academic integration as well as less obsessive-compul
-
sive symptoms than unhealthy perfectionists. More
-
over, healthy perfectionists also scored higher than
nonperfectionists on many of the positive characteris
-
tics identified (see Table 3 for details).
Inthe four studiescategorizedasprovidingmixedev
-
idence (Martin & Ashby, 2004a; Parker, 1997;
Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000; Rice & Dellwo,2002),
311
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
healthy perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, and
nonperfectionists were conceptualized in the same way
asinthestudiescategorizedas positiveevidence,except
for one study in which the cluster of unhealthy perfec
-
tionists showed only medium-high levels of personal
standards (Rice & Dellwo, 2002). Furthermore, one
study employed the Perfectionism Questionnaire (see
Table1)andconceptualizedhealthyperfectionistsas in
-
dividuals who show high levels of perfectionist tenden
-
cies and experience few negative consequences of per
-
fectionism, and unhealthy perfectionists as individuals
whoshowhighlevelsofperfectionisttendencies andex
-
perience many negative consequences of perfectionism
(Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000). With respect to the
characteristics investigated, all studies found healthy
perfectioniststoshowhigherlevelsofpositivepersonal
-
ity traits, greater subjectivewell-being, higher social in
-
tegration, and greater academic adaptation than un
-
healthyperfectionists(seeTable3fordetails).However,
healthy perfectionists also showed higher levels of
neuroticism and depression than nonperfectionists
(Parker, 1997; Rice & Dellwo, 2002). Moreover, two
studies indicated that healthy perfectionists may be
overly critical and unbalanced in their thinking: In one
of these studies, healthy perfectionists showed higher
evidence requirements than unhealthy perfectionists in
a cognitive task designed to capture obsessive-compul-
sive tendencies (Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000). In the
other study, they showed lower levels of relativistic
thinking than nonperfectionists (Martin & Ashby,
2004a) which indicates that even healthy perfectionists
may sometimes have a tendency for “black and white
thinking” (Enns & Cox, 2002).
It is important to note that in all studies categorized
as mixed evidence, only one negative characteristic
showed higher levels in healthy perfectionists than in
unhealthy perfectionists or nonperfectionists. All other
differences constituted positive evidence. Moreover, in
two of the studies categorized as null findings because
there were no differences between healthy and un
-
healthy perfectionists (Ashby et al., 1999; Gilman &
Ashby, 2003), healthy perfectionists showed higher
levels of subjective well-being (enjoyment, satisfac
-
tion) than nonperfectionists. Thus, across all studies
taking a group-based approach, the great majority of
all differences identified between healthy perfection
-
ists, unhealthy perfectionists, and nonperfectionists
lend support to the conception that high levels of
perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive
characteristics when levels of perfectionistic concerns
are low.
Summary, Critical Evaluation,
and Limitations
In sum, studies taking a dimensional approach have
shown the dimension of perfectionistic strivings to be
related to higher levels of conscientiousness, extra
-
version, endurance, positive affect, satisfaction with
life, active coping styles, and achievement, and to
lower levels of external control and suicidal ideation.
Moreover, when overlap with the dimension represent
-
ing perfectionistic concerns was taken into account,
perfectionistic strivings were also related to higher lev
-
els of perceived social support and lower levels of de
-
pression, self-blame, and perceived hassles. Further
-
more, studies taking a group-based approach have
found that individuals with high levels of per
-
fectionistic strivings and low levels of perfectionistic
concerns (healthy perfectionists) show higher levels of
self-esteem, agreeableness, social integration (e.g.,
greater social interest, greater willingness to go along
with others), and academic adaptation (e.g., higher
grade point average [GPA], greater GPA satisfaction);
show lower levels of anxiety, depression, procrastina
-
tion, defensiveness, maladaptive coping styles, and in
-
terpersonal problems; and report fewer somatic com
-
plaints and psychological symptoms than individuals
with high levels of perfectionistic strivings and high
levels of perfectionistic concerns (unhealthy perfec
-
tionists) or individuals with low levels of per-
fectionistic strivings (nonperfectionists). Taken to-
gether, both dimensional and group-based conceptions
have accumulated a large body of evidence suggesting
that two forms of perfectionism be differentiated—
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns—
and that only the perfectionistic concerns dimension is
associated with all those negative characteristics that
traditional views have associated with perfectionism.
In contrast, the perfectionistic strivings dimension is
associated with positive characteristics and unrelated
or even inversely related to those negative characteris
-
tics traditionally associated with perfectionism.
Two exceptions deserve attention. First, some stud
-
ies found perfectionistic strivings to be related to
higher levels of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and
higher evidence requirements and to lower levels of
relativistic thinking, indicating that perfectionistic
strivings may be associated with a tendency for obses
-
sive-compulsiveness and rigidity even when overlap
with perfectionistic concerns is controlled for or when
there are low levels of perfectionistic concerns (Hill et
al., 2004; Martin & Ashby, 2004a; Rhéaume, Freeston,
et al., 2000). Second, some studies found healthy per
-
fectionists to have higher levels of neuroticism and de
-
pression than nonperfectionists indicating that
perfectionistic strivings may sometimes be associated
with negative affectivity even when perfectionistic
concerns are low (Parker, 1997; Rice & Dellwo, 2002).
Regarding the positive evidence, two notes of cau
-
tion are in order. First, some positive evidence may
have been counted twice as five studies in Tables 2 and
3 may not represent independent evidence, but appear
to be based on the same samples. This concerns the
312
STOEBER AND OTTO
sample of medical students who seem to have been ex
-
amined in two studies following a dimensional concep
-
tion (Cox et al., 2002; Enns et al., 2001) and the sample
of talented sixth graders who seem to have been exam
-
ined in three studies—one following a group-based
conception (Parker, 1997) and two following a dimen
-
sional conception (Parker & Stumpf, 1995; Stumpf &
Parker, 2000). Second, some positive evidence may be
attributed to content overlap between the characteris
-
tics identified and the measures employed to conceptu
-
alize perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic con
-
cerns. Regarding the dimensional conceptions and
focusing on the positive dimension representing
perfectionistic strivings (Table 2), this concerns in par
-
ticular the findings that perfectionistic strivings are as
-
sociated with higher levels of conscientiousness (Cox
et al., 2002; Enns et al., 2001; Parker & Stumpf, 1995),
as standard measures of conscientiousness contain
items that make a direct reference to perfectionism and
striving for excellence (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Consequently, in evaluating the positive evidence for
the dimensional conceptions, more weight should be
given to those characteristics that do not show content
overlap with perfectionistic strivings. Regarding the
group-based conceptions and focusing on differences
between healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Table
3), content overlap concerns in particular the findings
that healthy perfectionists show less procrastination,
doubting, and anxiety than unhealthy perfectionists
(Ashby & Bruner, 2005; Ashby & Kottman, 1996;
Mobley et al., 2005) as those characteristics show sub-
stantial content overlap and thus high correlations with
the measures employed to conceptualize the dimension
of perfectionistic concerns (Stöber & Joormann,
2001). As healthy and unhealthy perfectionists differ
with respect to perfectionistic concerns (see Figure 1),
characteristics that show content overlap with
perfectionistic concerns do not make for convincing
evidence. Consequently, in evaluating the positive evi
-
dence for the group-based conceptions, more weight
should be given to those characteristics that show con
-
tent overlap with neither perfectionistic strivings nor
perfectionistic concerns and to those characteristics in
which healthy perfectionists differ from both un
-
healthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Hence,
characteristics such as extraversion and agreeableness,
satisfaction with life and coping styles as well as all in
-
dicators of achievement and performance (particularly
objective measures such as GPA) should be given
greater weight in the summary of the evidence.
Regarding the limitations of our review, we see
three main reservations. First, when categorizing char
-
acteristics as positive, we relied on our general knowl
-
edge of the research findings on these characteristics
and on the general understanding of these characteris
-
tics. Although we would hold that the characteristics
that we conceived of as positive do have this quality for
most individuals most of the time, we are aware that
the positivity of psychological characteristics may de
-
pend on situational circumstances. Take coping for ex
-
ample. Whereas active coping such as prob
-
lem-focused coping is generally regarded as a positive
characteristic, it is not helpful when stressors are not
changeable (Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, &
Katon, 1990). And even though passive coping such as
disengagement is generally regarded as negative, it
may provide some relief in the early stages of the cop
-
ing processes and thus help individuals to use more ef
-
fective coping later in the process (Scheier, Weintraub,
& Carver, 1986). Second, our review focused on linear
correlations and main effects and did not take modera
-
tor effects or interactions into account. However, only
one of the studies we reviewed reported an interaction
effect with perfectionistic strivings (Dunkley et al.,
2000). Although this study found perfectionistic
strivings related to active coping styles and unrelated
to perceived hassles once overlap with perfectionistic
concerns was partialled out (see Table 2), moderator
analyses showed that under unfavorable conditions
(i.e., high levels of perceived hassles and/or low levels
of perceived social support) perfectionistic strivings
were related to higher levels of perceived distress.
Third, when categorizing studies as positive, mixed, or
negative evidence, we looked only at the significance
of correlations and mean differences. Such a “vote
counting” (Light & Smith, 1971) procedure is likely to
have low power and has been shown to underestimate
effects (Hedges & Olkin, 1980). As such underestima-
tion may have cut both ways—we may have underesti-
mated the associations of perfectionistic strivings with
positive characteristics, or their associations with neg
-
ative characteristics—it remains for future studies to
employ more powerful quantitative methods of re
-
search synthesis (Glass, McGaw & Smith, 1981;
Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982). For a quantitative
synthesis of findings, however, greater comparability
of the positive conceptions of perfectionism would be
required, as would a consensual agreement as to which
facets represent the core facets of perfectionism on
which to build the dimensions of perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns, and which fac
-
ets may be disregarded.
Challenges for Future Research
Core Facets
Regarding the question of the core facets of
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns,
we would argue that (a) organization and order, (b)
parental expectations and criticism, and (c) other-ori
-
ented perfectionism may be disregarded when concep
-
tualizing the two dimensions of perfectionistic
313
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
strivings and perfectionistic concerns or when differ
-
entiating between healthy perfectionists, unhealthy
perfectionists, and nonperfectionists. Regarding orga
-
nization and order, the correlations of organization
with personal standards are only moderate and those
with overall perfectionism are rather low (e.g., Frost et
al., 1990; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby,
2001). Accordingly, Frost et al. (1990) recommended
excluding organization when computing overall per
-
fectionism scores. Moreover, confirmatory factor anal
-
yses on facets of perfectionism that included both orga
-
nization and order found that these two facets formed a
third, separate factor independent of the two dimen
-
sions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns (Rice et al., 2005; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001).
Thus organization and order do not form part of the
two-dimensional space of the conceptual framework
that bridges dimensional and group-based approaches
(Figure 1) and may better be disregarded, even though
many studies following the group-based approach have
included order to differentiate between perfectionists
and nonperfectionists. Regarding parental expecta
-
tions and criticism, particularly the early studies fol
-
lowing a dimensional approach have included these
facets as part of the perfectionistic concerns dimension
(see Table 2). However, recent studies investigating the
influence of parenting on positive and negative perfec-
tionism have treated parental expectations and criti-
cism as facets of perfectionistic parenting (e.g., Enns,
Cox, & Clara, 2002; Randolph & Dykman, 1998; Rice
et al., 2005), suggesting that parental expectations and
criticism represent developmental antecedents of per-
fectionism, not core facets of perfectionism itself. Re-
garding other-oriented perfectionism, only a few stud
-
ies included this facet as part of the dimension of
perfectionistic strivings. This may reflect the ambiva
-
lent theoretical status of this facet and the ambivalent
findings regarding positive and negative characteristics
(Enns & Cox, 2002). Consequently, other-oriented
perfectionism is mostly disregarded in the current
debate over the clinical relevance of multidimensional
perfectionism (Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo,
2006; Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, & McGee, 2003;
Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002, 2003). In addition,
many recent studies following Hewitt and Flett’s
(1991) model of multidimensional perfectionism have
focused on differences between self-oriented perfec
-
tionism and socially prescribed perfectionism only,
and disregarded other-oriented perfectionism (e.g.,
Kobori & Tanno, 2005; Powers, Koestner, & Topciu,
2005). Consequently, we suggest that researchers may
restrict their conceptions of the two dimensions of
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns
and the groups of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists
to the following core facets of perfectionism (see Table
1): personal standards, self-oriented perfectionism,
high standards, striving for excellence, and per
-
fectionistic tendencies, on the one hand; and concern
over mistakes, doubts about actions, socially pre
-
scribed perfectionism, discrepancy, and negative con
-
sequences of perfectionism, on the other.
Positive Effects
Although our review presents converging evidence
that perfectionistic strivings are related to positive
characteristics when the influence of perfectionistic
concerns is controlled for, the question remains as to
whether perfectionistic strivings also have positive ef
-
fects, for example, if perfectionistic strivings predict
longitudinal increases in subjective well-being or aca
-
demic achievements. So far, however, there is only one
longitudinal study comparing perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns (Enns et al., 2001). Al
-
though this study found that perfectionistic concerns
had negative longitudinal effects, predicting increases
in depression and hopelessness, no positive longitudi
-
nal effects for perfectionistic strivings were found.
Turning to studies that have investigated longitudinal
effects of core facets associated with perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns—notably
self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed
perfectionism—there are findings that self-oriented
perfectionism may predict progress in attainment of
important personal goals and decreases in negative af-
fect (Powers et al., 2005). Other studies, however,
found no positive longitudinal effects of self-oriented
perfectionism (e.g., Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005). More-
over, O’Connor and O’Connor (2003) found self-
oriented perfectionism to interact with self-reported
coping styles: Individuals with high levels of
self-oriented perfectionism and low levels of adaptive
coping showed increases in hopelessness, suggesting
that facets associated with positive perfectionism may
have negative longitudinal effects under unfavorable
conditions (see also Dunkley et al., 2000). However,
self-oriented perfectionism alone can not be consid
-
ered a good proxy for positive perfectionistic strivings
if overlap with socially prescribed perfectionism or
self-criticism is not controlled for (Dunkley et al.,
2006; Hewitt et al., 2003; Shafran et al., 2002; Sherry,
Hewitt, Flett, & Harvey, 2003). Consequently, more
longitudinal studies looking at the whole dimension of
perfectionistic strivings are needed as are longitudinal
studies comparing healthy and unhealthy
perfectionists.
Because positive effects of perfectionistic strivings
remain to be demonstrated, it seems premature to
speak of functional or adaptive perfectionism or to re
-
fer to healthy perfectionists as functional or adaptive
perfectionists, because the adjectives functional and
adaptive have strong connotations that many research
-
ers find unfitting in association with perfectionism
(e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002a; R. O. Frost, cited in
314
STOEBER AND OTTO
Benson, 2003). In common language usage, functional
denotes that something is (connected with) a function
contributing to the development or maintenance of a
larger whole, and adaptive denotes that something has
the capacity of adaptation whereby adaptation usually
means adjustment to environmental conditions
(Merriam-Webster, 2005). Accordingly, adaptation is a
key term in evolutionary psychology, where it refers to
attributes that enhance a creature’s fitness in terms of
its chances to survive and reproduce (e.g., Schmitt &
Pilcher, 2004). To date, research on positive concep
-
tions of perfectionism has neither delineated the
function that striving for perfection may serve in the
development of the individual nor specified the en
-
vironmental conditions under which striving for per
-
fection would be adaptive. Therefore, we chose to fol
-
low Parker (1997, 2000; Stumpf & Parker, 2000; cf.
Greenspon, 2000) and speak of healthy and unhealthy
perfectionists, because healthy does not necessarily
denote that something is conducive to health, but may
simply denote that something (or someone) enjoys or
evinces good health (Merriam-Webster, 2005). As our
review shows that individuals with high levels of
perfectionistic strivings and low levels of per-
fectionistic concerns by and large do evince good men-
tal health compared to individuals with high levels of
perfectionistic strivings and high levels of per-
fectionistic concerns, we found that labeling the two
groups as healthy perfectionists and unhealthy perfec-
tionists was most fitting.
Developmental Analysis
Regarding the question of the development of per
-
fectionism, most researchers have stressed that the
family environment, and particularly the parents, play
a crucial role (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Hamachek, 1978;
Pacht, 1984; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). With respect
to the facets of perfectionistic concerns, research has
produced converging evidence that concern over mis
-
takes, doubts about actions, and socially prescribed
perfectionism all are associated with anxious, overpro
-
tective, affectionless, and harsh parenting (for a review,
see Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). With
respect to the facets of perfectionistic strivings, how
-
ever, there is no such evidence. The same studies that
show strong links between parenting practices and fac
-
ets of perfectionistic concerns show only weak and of
-
ten inconsistent links between parenting practices and
facets of perfectionistic strivings (e.g., Kawamura,
Frost, & Harmatz, 2002; Kenney-Benson &
Pomerantz, 2005; Stöber, 1998). This may indicate that
general parenting styles are only loosely related to pos
-
itive perfectionism, if at all. However, recent evidence
from a longitudinal study (Enns et al., 2002) suggests
that a specific child-rearing style termed “per
-
fectionistic parenting” (Randolph & Dykman, 1998)
may play a role in the development of positive perfec
-
tionism. Whereas harsh parenting (subsuming parental
overprotection, lack of care, critical parenting, and pa
-
rental pressure to be perfect) emerged as a develop
-
mental antecedent of negative perfectionism only,
perfectionistic parenting (subsuming parental pressure
to be perfect and high parental standards) emerged as a
developmental antecedent of both positive and nega
-
tive perfectionism.
Moreover, studies have consistently found that chil
-
dren who show high levels of perfectionistic strivings
(personal standards, self-oriented perfectionism) tend
to have parents who also show high levels of per
-
fectionistic strivings. This relationship seems particu
-
larly strong when parent and child are of the same gen
-
der (Frost, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1991; Soenens et al.,
2005; Vieth & Trull, 1999). This may indicate that
modeling by parents may play a role in the develop
-
ment of positive perfectionism (Hamachek, 1978;
Neumeister, 2004), but genetic factors should not be
overlooked either as a recent twin study found high
heritability values for perfectionistic personal stan
-
dards (Tozzi et al., 2004). Consequently, a comprehen
-
sive developmental analysis of positive perfectionism
would also have to take account of the possible inter-
play between nature and nurture (Collins, Maccoby,
Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000).
Conclusions
Perfectionism is a personality style that may affect
an individual’s strivings in all areas of his or her life.
Although particularly relevant in educational settings
and at the workplace, individual differences in perfec
-
tionism play a major role also in sport and exercise
(e.g., Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn, Gotwals, & Dunn,
2005). Additionally, perfectionism may affect an indi
-
vidual’s social life, influencing relationships with fam
-
ily members, romantic partners, and work colleagues
and impact on hobbies and recreational pursuits, per
-
sonal appearance, and religious life (e.g., Flett, Hewitt,
Shapiro, & Rayman, 2003; Slaney & Ashby, 1996).
Perfectionism already plays a role in childhood and ad
-
olescence (e.g., Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney,
2000; Parker, 2002) and it is experienced across differ
-
ent ethnic groups and different cultures (Castro &
Rice, 2003; Chang et al., 2004; Kobori, Yamagata, &
Kijima, 2005; Slaney, Chadha, Mobley, & Kennedy,
2000).
Consequently, it is important to acknowledge that
perfectionism does not necessarily represent a nega
-
tive, dysfunctional, or even pathological characteris
-
tic. Instead, perfectionism is a multidimensional phe
-
nomenon with many facets—some of which are
positive, some of which are negative (Enns & Cox,
2002)—that combine to two basic dimensions of per
-
315
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
fectionism, perfectionistic strivings and per
-
fectionistic concerns, which again differentiate be
-
tween healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Figure
1). This differentiation between healthy and un
-
healthy perfectionists best corresponds to what
Hamachek (1978) had in mind when, almost 30 years
ago, he suggested that two forms of perfectionism be
differentiated and made the first suggestions to de
-
scribe the differences between “normal perfection
-
ists” and “neurotic perfectionists.” Translated to the
present conceptions, normal perfectionists are indi
-
viduals who show high levels of perfectionistic
strivings, but are not overly distressed by the issues
that are combined in the dimension of perfectionistic
concerns, namely concerns over mistakes, doubts
about actions, feelings of discrepancy between actual
achievements and high expectations, self-criticism,
and the fear of failure to live up to one’s own stan
-
dards and to the high expectations of others. In con
-
trast, neurotic perfectionists show high levels of
perfectionistic strivings and are overly distressed by
the issues combined in the dimension of per
-
fectionistic concerns. Thus, perfectionistic concerns
may be the factor that distinguishes clinical forms of
perfectionism from a healthy pursuit of excellence
(Shafran et al., 2002; see also Dunkley et al., 2006).
In contrast, perfectionistic strivings in themselves are
not only normal, but may be positive—if only perfec-
tionists could focus on doing their best rather than
worrying about mistakes, enjoy striving for perfection
rather than being afraid of falling short of it, and con-
centrate on what has been achieved rather than pon-
dering the discrepancy between what has been
achieved and what might have been achieved if ev
-
erything had worked out perfectly. In this form, per
-
fectionism would be a perfectly positive disposition.
References
Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. B. (2000). An in
-
vestigation of perfectionism, mental health, achievement, and
achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the
School, 37, 535–545.
Adkins, K. K., & Parker, W. (1996). Perfectionism and suicidal pre
-
occupation. Journal of Personality, 64, 529–543.
Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of
perfectionism in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychol
-
ogy, 34, 255–271.
Ashby, J. S., & Bruner, L. P. (2005). Multidimensional perfectionism
and obsessive-compulsive behaviors. Journal of College Coun
-
seling, 8, 31–40.
Ashby, J. S., & Kottman, T. (1996). Inferiority as a distinction be
-
tween normal and neurotic perfectionism. Individual Psychol
-
ogy: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Practice and Research, 52,
237–245.
Ashby, J. S., Kottman, T., & DeGraaf, D. (1999). Leisure satisfaction
and attitudes of perfectionists: Implications for therapeutic rec
-
reation professionals. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33,
142–151.
Benson, E. (2003). The many faces of perfectionism. Monitor on
Psychology, 34(10), 18.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfection
-
ism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism
construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1373–1385.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003).
Making the grade: The behavioral consequences of perfection
-
ism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences,
35, 163–178.
Blankstein, K. R., & Dunkley, D. M. (2002). Evaluative concerns,
self-critical, and personal standards perfectionism: A structural
equation modeling strategy. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 285– 315).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implica
-
tions for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist,
50, 1003–1020.
Brosschot, J. F., Gebhardt, W. A., & Godaert, G. L. R. (1994). Inter
-
nal, powerful others and chance locus of control: Relationships
with personality, coping, stress and health. Personality and In
-
dividual Differences, 16, 839–852.
Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s script for
self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–52.
Burns, L. R., & Fedewa, B. A. (2005). Cognitive styles: Links with
perfectionistic thinking. Personality and Individual Differ
-
ences, 38, 103–113
Castro, J. R., & Rice, K. G. (2003). Perfectionism and ethnicity: Im-
plications for depressive symptoms and self-reported academic
achievement. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol-
ogy, 9, 64–78.
Chang, E. C. (2003). On the perfectibility of the individual: Going
beyond the dialectic of good versus evil. In E. C. Chang & L. J.
Sanna (Eds.), Virtue, vice, and personality: The complexity of
behavior (pp. 125–144). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Chang, E. C., Watkins, A. F., & Banks, K. H. (2004). How adaptive
and maladaptive perfectionism relate to positive and negative
psychological functioning: Testing a stress-mediation model in
black and white female college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 51, 93–102.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M.,
& Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on
parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psycholo
-
gist, 55, 218–232.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional
structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college
student samples. Psychological Assessment, 14, 365–373.
Dickinson, W. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2005). Multidimensional perfec
-
tionism and ego defenses. Journal of College Student Psycho
-
therapy, 19, 41–54.
Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empirical
typology of perfectionism in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 48, 95–106.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., &
Winkworth, G. (2000). The relation between perfectionism and
distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social support as medi
-
ators and moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
437–453.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R. M., & Grilo, C. M.
(2006). Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions
316
STOEBER AND OTTO
of “clinical” perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002,
2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behaviour Research and Ther
-
apy, 44, 63–84.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003).
Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and
situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Person
-
ality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. C. (2005). An examination
of the domain specificity of perfectionism among intercolle
-
giate student-athletes. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 1439–1448.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of per
-
fectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt
(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and mala
-
daptive perfectionism: Developmental origins and association
with depression proneness. Personality and Individual Differ
-
ences, 33, 921–935.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). Perfectionism and
neuroticism: A longitudinal study of specific vulnerability and
diathesis-stress models. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29,
463.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Sareen, J., & Freeman, P. (2001). Adaptive
and maladaptive perfectionism in medical students: A longitu
-
dinal investigation. Medical Education, 35, 1034–1042.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002a). Perfectionism and maladjust
-
ment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment is-
sues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 5–13). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002b). Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in
sports and exercise. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 14, 14–18.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Self-oriented per-
fectionism, neuroticism, and anxiety. Personality and Individ
-
ual Differences, 10, 731–735.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Per
-
fectionism in children and their parents: A developmental anal
-
ysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: Ameri
-
can Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Shapiro, B., & Rayman, J. (2003). Perfec
-
tionism, beliefs, and adjustment in dating relationships. In N. J.
Pallone (Ed.), Love, romance, sexual interaction: Research per
-
spectives from Current Psychology (pp. 31–60). New Bruns
-
wick, NJ: Transaction.
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., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1991). The develop
-
ment of perfectionism: A study of daughters and their parents.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 15, 469–489.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The di
-
mensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
14, 449–468.
Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development
and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory
for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 2, 15–34.
Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003). A first study of perfectionism and
multidimensional life satisfaction among adolescents. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 23, 218–235.
Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K. (2005).
The relationship between perfectionism and multidimensional
life satisfaction among Croatian and American youth. Person
-
ality and Individual Differences, 39, 155.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in
social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Greenspon, T. S. (2000). “Healthy perfectionism” is an oxymoron!
Reflections on the psychology of perfectionism and the sociol
-
ogy of science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11,
197–208.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004).
Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem, and grade point aver
-
age satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and non
-
perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
192–200.
Haase, A. M., & Prapavessis, H. (2004). Assessing the factor struc
-
ture and composition of the Positive and Negative Perfection
-
ism Scale in sport. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1725–1740.
Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Owens, R. G. (1999). Perfection
-
ism and eating attitudes in competitive rowers: Moderating ef
-
fects of body mass, classification and gender. Psychology and
Health, 14, 643–657.
Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Owens, R. G. (2002). Perfection
-
ism, social physique anxiety and disordered eating: A compari
-
son of male and female elite athletes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 3, 209–222.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic
perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1980). Vote-counting methods in research
synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 359–369.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and so-
cial contexts: Conception, assessment, and association with
psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 60, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. B., & McGee, B.
(2003). Perfectionism is multidimensional: A reply to Shafran,
Cooper and Fairburn (2002). Behaviour Research and Therapy,
41, 1221–1236.
Hewitt, P. L., Mittelstaedt, W., & Wollert, R. (1989). Validation of a
measure of perfectionism. Journal of Personality Assessment,
53, 133–144.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., &
Kennedy, C. (2004). A new measure of perfectionism: The Per
-
fectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82,
80–91.
Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle to
-
ward self-realization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982).
Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
John, O. P. (1990). The “big five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of
personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L.
A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford.
Johnson, D. P., & Slaney, R. B. (1996). Perfectionism: Scale devel
-
opment and a study of perfectionist clients in counseling. Jour
-
nal of College Student Development, 37, 29–41.
Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The rela
-
tionship of perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Person
-
ality and Individual Differences, 32, 317–327.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. (2005). The role of
mother’s use of control in children’s perfectionism: Implica
-
tions for the development of children’s depressive symptoms.
Journal of Personality, 73, 23–46
317
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-oriented perfectionism and its
relationship to positive and negative affect: The mediation of
positive and negative perfectionism cognitions. Cognitive Ther
-
apy and Research, 29, 559–571.
Kobori, O., Yamagata, S., & Kijima, N. (2005). The relationship of
temperament to multidimensional perfectionism trait. Person
-
ality and Individual Differences, 38, 203–211.
Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful
others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research within the
locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15–63). New York: Aca
-
demic Press.
Light, R. J., & Smith, P. V. (1971). Accumulating evidence: Proce
-
dures for resolving contradictions among different research
studies. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 429–471.
LoCicero, K. A., Ashby, J. S., & Kern, R. M. (2000). Multidimen
-
sional perfectionism and lifestyle approaches in middle school
students. Journal of Individual Psychology, 56, 449–461.
Lundh, L. G., Johnsson, A., Sundqvist, K., & Olsson, H. (2002).
Alexithymia, memory of emotion, emotional awareness, and
perfectionism. Emotion, 2, 361–379.
Lynd-Stevenson, R. M., & Hearne, C. M. (1999). Perfectionism and
depressive affect: The pros and cons of being a perfectionist.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 549–562.
Martin, J. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2004a). Appraising perfection: The re
-
lationship of multidimensional perfectionism and intellectual
development in college students. Journal of College Student
Psychotherapy, 18, 61–74.
Martin, J. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2004b). Perfectionism and fear of inti
-
macy: Implications for relationships. Family Journal: Coun-
seling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12, 368–374.
Merriam-Webster. (2005). Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Re-
trieved January 31, 2005, from http://www.m-w.com
Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the past. New York: Si-
mon & Schuster.
Mobley, M., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2005). Cultural validity of
the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised for African American college
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 629–639.
Neumeister, K. L. S. (2004). Factors influencing the development of
perfectionism in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quar
-
terly, 48, 259–274.
O’Connor, R. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2003). Predicting hopeless
-
ness and psychological distress: The role of perfectionism and
coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 362–372.
Oliver, J. M., Hart, B. A., Ross, M. J., & Katz, B. M. (2001). Healthy
perfectionism and positive expectations about counseling.
North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 229–242.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psycholo
-
gist, 39, 386–390.
Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in aca
-
demically talented children. American Educational Research
Journal, 34, 545–562.
Parker, W. D. (2000). Healthy perfectionism in the gifted. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 173–182.
Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjustment in gifted chil
-
dren. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 133–148). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An examination of the Multidi
-
mensional Perfectionism Scale with a sample of academically
talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
13, 372–383.
Periasamy, S., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). Multidimensional perfection
-
ism and locus of control: Adaptive vs. maladaptive perfection
-
ism. Journal of College Student Therapy, 17, 75–86.
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Topciu, R. A. (2005). Implementation
intentions, perfectionism, and goal progress: Perhaps the road
to hell is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 902–912.
Randolph, J. J., & Dykman, B. M. (1998). Perceptions of parenting
and depression-proneness in the offspring: Dysfunctional atti
-
tudes as a mediating mechanism. Cognitive Therapy and Re
-
search, 22, 377–400.
Ranieri, W. F., Steer, R. A., Lavrence, T. I., Rissmiller, D. J., Piper, G.
E., & Beck, A. T. (1987). Relationships of depression, hope
-
lessness, and dysfunctional attitudes to suicide ideation in psy
-
chiatric patients. Psychological Reports, 61, 967–975.
Rasmussen, S. A., & Eisen, J. L. (1992). The epidemiology and clini
-
cal features of obsessive compulsive disorder. Psychiatric
Clinics of North America, 15, 743–758.
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Gallant,
L., Talbot, F., et al. (2000). Functional and dysfunctional per
-
fectionists: Are they different on compulsive-like behaviors?
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 119–128.
Rhéaume, J., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (2000). The predic
-
tion of obsessive-compulsive tendencies: Does perfectionism
play a significant role? Personality and Individual Differences,
28, 583–592.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S, & Preusser, K. J. (1996). Perfectionism, re
-
lationships with parents, and self-esteem. Individual Psychol
-
ogy, 52, 247–260.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a
mediator between perfectionism and depression: A structural
equation analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45,
304–314.
Rice, K. G., Bair, C. J., Castro, J. R., Cohen, B. N., & Hood, C. A.
(2003). Meanings of perfectionism: A quantitative and qualita
-
tive analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17, 39–58.
Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and
self-development: Implications for college adjustment. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 80, 188–196.
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influ-
ences on perfectionism and adult attachment orientations. Jour-
nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 580–605.
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment,
and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
238–250.
Rice, K. G., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). Clusters of perfectionists: Two
studies of emotional adjustment and academic achievement.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
35, 35–48.
Rosen, A. M., Murkofsky, C. A., Steckler, N. M., & Skolnick, N. J.
(1989). A comparison of psychological and depressive symp
-
toms among restricting anorexic, bulimic-anorexic, and nor
-
mal-weight bulimic patients. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 8, 657–663.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus ex
-
ternal control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,
80, No. 609.
Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with
stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257–1264.
Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psy
-
chological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one?
Psychological Science, 15, 643–649.
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfec
-
tionism: A cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 40, 773–791.
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2003). “Clinical perfec
-
tionism” is not “multidimensional perfectionism”: A reply to
Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry & McGee. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 41, 1217–1220.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psycho
-
pathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psy
-
chology Review, 21, 876–906.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Harvey, M. (2003). Perfec
-
tionism dimensions, perfectionistic attitudes, dependent atti
-
318
STOEBER AND OTTO
tudes, and depression in psychiatric patients and university stu
-
dents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 373–386.
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionism: Study of a crite
-
rion group. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74,
393–398.
Slaney, R. B., Chadha, N., Mobley, M., & Kennedy, S. (2000). Per
-
fectionism in Asian Indians: Exploring the meaning of the con
-
struct in India. Counseling Psychologist, 28, 10–31.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic
approach to measuring perfectionism: The Almost Perfect
Scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: The
-
ory, research, and treatment (pp. 63–88). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
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.
Soenens, B., Elliot, A. J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten,
P., & Duriez, B. (2005). The intergenerational transmission of
perfectionism: Parents’ psychological control as an intervening
variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 358–366.
Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale:
More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality
and Individual Differences, 24, 481–491.
Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and per
-
fectionism: Differentiating amount of worry, pathological
worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Re
-
search, 25, 49–60.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analy
-
sis of perfectionism and its relation to other personality charac
-
teristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837–852.
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the di
-
mensions of perfectionism in college students. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 157–165.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E.
(1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 18, 663–668.
Thompson, D. A., Berg, K. M., & Shatford, L. A. (1987). The hetero
-
geneity of bulimic symptomatology: Cognitive and behavioral
dimensions. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6,
215–234.
Tozzi, F., Aggen, S. H., Neale, B. M., Anderson, C. B., Mazzeo, S.
E., Neale, M. C., et al. (2004). The structure of perfectionism: A
twin study. Behavior Genetics, 34, 483–496.
Vieth, A. Z., & Trull, T. J. (1999). Family patterns of perfectionism:
An examination of college students and their parents. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 72, 49–67.
Vitaliano, P. P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Katon,
W. (1990). Appraised changeability of a stressor as a modifier
of the relationship between coping and depression: A test of the
hypothesis of fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 582–592.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, November). Development
and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale. Paper pre
-
sented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement
of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, IL.
319
POSITIVE CONCEPTIONS OF PERFECTIONISM
