The role of dichotomous thinking and rigidity in perfectionism

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.02.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Perfectionism is a complex psychological construct that has been defined in many different ways. Recent conceptualisations of perfectionism have involved dividing the construct into positive and negative components. Negative perfectionism is associated with high emotional distress whereas positive perfectionism is associated with positive affect and lower levels of distress. Although these distinctions have been made it remains unclear as to how distinct the two aspects of perfectionism are particularly in terms of their cognitive profiles. This study investigated two cognitive constructs that have been theoretically linked to perfectionism. Dichotomous thinking and rigidity were examined in three samples (40 clinical participants, 111 athletes, 101 students). As hypothesised, the clinical sample had the highest score on negative perfectionism, however, no differences were observed between groups on positive perfectionism. Dichotomous thinking emerged as the variable most predictive of negative perfectionism, and was less strongly related to positive perfectionism. These results highlight the importance of dichotomous thinking as a cognitive construct worthy of further research to understand negative perfectionism. Implications for the development of cognitive therapy interventions for negative perfectionism are discussed.

Section snippets

Participants

The sample consisted of 252 individuals. There were 40 clinical participants (72% females) recruited from the postgraduate Psychology training clinic at Curtin University. There were 111 athletes (66% males) from the sport of triathlon and 101 undergraduate university students (76% females). Age was higher in the athlete (M=39, S.D.=9.6) and clinical groups (M=39, S.D.=13.2) compared to students (M=26, S.D.=7.2). Inclusion criteria for athletes was competition in one or more triathlon races in

The Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (PANPS; Terry-Short et al., 1995)

The PANPS is a 40 item self-report scale that was used to measure positive and negative perfectionism. Items were derived from a range of scales including eating disorder scales (EDI; Garner et al., 1983; SCANS; Slade and Dewey, 1986), the Burns Perfectionism Scale (BPS; Burns, 1980), the MPS-H (Hewitt and Flett, 1991) and the Neurotic Perfectionism Questionnaire (NPQ; Mitzman et al., 1994). The scale has a factor solution comprised of two factors; positive and negative perfectionism (Haase et

Comparison of positive and negative perfectionism between groups

The mean scores on each of the measures can be seen in Table 1. In regards to group differences, it was found that age was a significant predictor of positive perfectionism, R2change=.03, F change (1,250)=8.73, p=.003, with younger age being related to higher positive perfectionism, t(249)=-2.95, p=.003. Contrary to prediction, there were no differences between groups on positive perfectionism, R2change=.01, F change (2,247)=2.01, p=.13. Investigation of negative perfectionism indicated that

Comparison of positive and negative perfectionism between groups

Our predictions regarding levels of negative perfectionism between the three groups were supported. Specifically, the clinical group had the highest level of negative perfectionism whereas the athlete group had the lowest. These results are consistent with the findings of Terry-Short et al. (1995). Our prediction that differences between the groups would exist in levels of positive perfectionism was not supported. This is an interesting finding that seems to suggest that psychological distress

Acknowledgement

We thank Dr. Nicholas Barrett for providing statistical advice.

References (39)

  • American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington,...
  • J. Bennett-Levy et al.

    Behavioural experiments: Historical and conceptual underpinnings

  • Bieling, P. J., & Smith, J. (2001). Perfectionism in achievement settings: The evidence for a distinction between...
  • S.J. Blatt et al.

    Impact of perfectionism and need for approval on the brief treatment of depression: The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program revisited

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1995)
  • S.J. Blatt et al.

    When and how perfectionism impedes the brief treatment of depression: Further analyses of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1998)
  • S. Budner

    Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable

    Journal of Personality

    (1962)
  • Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionists script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, November,...
  • J.R. Ferrari et al.

    Predicting perfectionism: Applying tests of rigidity

    Journal of Clinical Psychology

    (1997)
  • First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1996). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I...
  • Cited by (71)

    • A pilot randomised controlled trial of guided self-help cognitive behaviour therapy for perfectionism: Impact on diagnostic status and comorbidity

      2022, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
      Citation Excerpt :

      The large effect size reduction in perfectionism is consistent with previous research of CBT-P in book self-help format (e.g., Steele & Wade, 2008) and meta-analyses indicating CBT-P results in large effect size reductions in perfectionism (Galloway et al., 2021). The significant reduction in dichotomous thinking supports its importance as a maintaining factor of clinical perfectionism (Egan et al., 2007; Shafran et al., 2002). In the model of clinical perfectionism (Shafran et al., 2002), dichotomous thinking maintains perfectionism through an all or nothing evaluation of performance reinforcing an individual's self-worth based on achievement, for example thinking that achieving 70% means a person is a complete failure when their goal was 80% and that they are ‘not good enough’ and need to strive harder to achieve their goals.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text