Specific perfectionism components versus self-criticism in predicting maladjustment
Introduction
Over the past two decades, theoretical and empirical interest has grown remarkably in the role of perfectionism in a wide range of psychological problems, including depression and anxiety (see Blatt, 1995, Shafran and Mansell, 2001). One of the major developments is that perfectionism has become viewed as a multidimensional construct and has been conceptualized and defined in many different ways (see Flett & Hewitt, 2002). The Hewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS) and the Frost et al. (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) are the two most widely used measures of perfectionism, but are notably different approaches to assessing perfectionism in that the HMPS represents a three-scale model and the FMPS represents a six-scale model of perfectionism.
It is noteworthy, however, that several studies have demonstrated that there is considerable overlap among the HMPS and FMPS scales. Factor analyses of the HMPS and FMPS scales have consistently yielded two higher-order latent dimensions of perfectionism (e.g., Bieling et al., 2004, Blankstein and Dunkley, 2002, Frost et al., 1993; see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, in press). One factor, which we refer to as personal standards (PS) perfectionism, includes HMPS self-oriented perfectionism, FMPS personal standards, FMPS organization, and HMPS other-oriented perfectionism as its measured indicators. PS perfectionism is often unrelated to negative adaptational outcomes. In contrast, the other factor, which we refer to as evaluative concerns (EC) perfectionism, includes FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism, FMPS doubts about actions, FMPS parental expectations, and FMPS parental criticism as its measured indicators. EC perfectionism has demonstrated a strong, consistent relation with distress outcomes (see Dunkley et al., in press).
Although there is substantial redundancy among the HMPS/FMPS measures, to our knowledge no research has examined the relative predictive importance of individual EC perfectionism components (e.g., HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism, FMPS concern over mistakes) in predicting maladjustment. If multiple EC perfectionism components have unique value despite their overlap, then in multiple regression analyses there might be two or more specific EC perfectionism measures whose variances would be uniquely related to various maladjustment outcomes while controlling for the effects of the other EC perfectionism measures. On the other hand, there might be significant redundancy among the specific EC perfectionism measures to the extent that only the EC perfectionism measure with the highest correlation with the outcome might be significant, or the variance of the outcome variable might be split among the EC perfectionism measures with none of their effects reaching significance (see Newcomb, 1990).
Concerning the possibility of a single EC perfectionism component that is the most robust predictor of maladjustment, Dunkley, Zuroff, and Blankstein (2003) noted the similarity of the EC perfectionism dimension to Blatt, 1974, Blatt et al., 1976 self-criticism construct (see also Powers, Zuroff, & Topciu, 2004). Further, Dunkley et al. (2003) found self-criticism, assessed by the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt et al., 1976), to be the primary indicator of the EC perfectionism latent factor (see also Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000). Dunkley et al. (in press) built on these findings by demonstrating that DEQ self-criticism accounts for the relation between socially prescribed perfectionism and self-oriented perfectionism measures and depressive, anxious, and eating disorder symptoms.
The present study elaborated on previous work suggesting substantial overlap among the HMPS and FMPS perfectionism measures (see Dunkley et al., in press). To our knowledge, the present study was the first to examine the relative predictive value of the five HMPS/FMPS EC perfectionism scales in relation to maladjustment. In university students, we examined the unique predictive contributions of these HMPS/FMPS measures in relation to various indices of maladaptive functioning, including distress (negative affect, low positive affect) and maladaptive characteristics of EC perfectionism (daily hassles, avoidant coping, low perceived social support) that have been demonstrated to uniquely explain or mediate the relation between EC perfectionism and distress (Dunkley et al., 2000, Dunkley et al., 2003).
A second related purpose was to expand on previous findings demonstrating self-criticism (assessed by the DEQ) as the most pathological component of perfectionism (Dunkley et al., in press). First, whereas Dunkley et al. (in press) compared self-criticism to measures derived from the Hewitt and Flett (1991) conceptualization only, we compared the relative predictive validity of self-criticism to both the Hewitt and Flett, 1991, Frost et al., 1990 scales of perfectionism. Second, whereas Dunkley et al. (in press) compared self-criticism to socially prescribed and self-oriented perfectionism measures in predicting depressive, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms, we examined whether self-criticism explains the relation between the five HMPS and FMPS EC perfectionism measures and several other maladjustment outcomes (i.e., hassles, avoidant coping, low perceived social support, negative affect, low positive affect).
Finally, whereas retrospective assessments of maladjustment outcomes are typically used in the perfectionism literature, an important methodological advance of the present study was that we used both retrospective and aggregated, situation-specific assessments of the group of outcome variables. Retrospective, dispositional measures ask participants to summarize their cognitions, behaviours, and affect over time and across situations. However, researchers have argued that aggregating situational reports can be a more ecologically valid method for assessing traits than are retrospective, summary questionnaires that are more susceptible to memory biases and distortions (e.g., Moskowitz, 1986). Thus, we also used a daily diary methodology to obtain situational measures of hassles, avoidant coping, perceived social support, and affect (see Dunkley et al., 2003). We aggregated each person’s responses across days, thereby empirically deriving trait measures of the group of outcome variables. This strategy enabled us to examine whether the findings are comparable across retrospective summary and aggregated daily measures.
Section snippets
Participants
The present study presents further analyses of the data from the Dunkley et al. (2003) sample. Participants were 163 (64 men and 99 women) full-time university students. Their mean age was 20.02 years (SD = 2.28).
Procedure
In a 1-h laboratory session, participants completed a package of questionnaires, including measures of self-criticism, perfectionism, hassles, coping, perceived social support, and affect. Participants then completed one diary at bedtime for the next seven consecutive nights. The diary
Results
The means, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, and intercorrelations among the DEQ, HMPS, and FMPS measures are reported in Table 1. To keep the number of statistical tests to a manageable size, results are reported for the total sample only. The results of ANOVA tests suggested that there were no gender differences for any of the DEQ, HMPS, or FMPS measures, with the exception of FMPS organization that was significantly higher in women, F = 9.75, p < .01. Because a large number of statistical
Discussion
Although the Hewitt and Flett (1991) HMPS and Frost et al. (1990) FMPS are intended to assess different aspects of perfectionism, previous factor analytic studies have suggested considerable overlap among these measures and have identified a higher-order EC perfectionism factor that is more closely related to maladjustment than the higher-order PS perfectionism factor (see Dunkley et al., in press, for a review). To our knowledge, the present study was the first to examine the fundamental issue
Acknowledgments
Support for this work was provided by a Douglas Utting Fellowship for Studies in Depression and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) Grant Sub-Committee Sponsored Graduate Student Award to David M. Dunkley and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) General Research Grant awarded to David C. Zuroff. The authors gratefully acknowledge Virginia Fenwick for her efforts in the data collection.
References (26)
- et al.
Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct
Personality and Individual Differences
(2004) - et al.
A comparison of two measures of perfectionism
Personality and Individual Differences
(1993) - et al.
Dependency, self-criticism, social context, and distress: comparing moderating and mediating models
Personality and Individual Differences
(2000) - et al.
Perfectionism and psychopathology: a review of research and treatment
Clinical Psychology Review
(2001) - et al.
Active vulnerability, adolescent distress, and the mediating/suppressing role of life events
Personality and Individual Differences
(2003) - et al.
Evaluative concerns, self-critical, and personal standards perfectionism: a structural equation modeling strategy
- Blankstein, K. R., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Development of the general, academic, and social hassles scale for students....
Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child
(1974)The destructiveness of perfectionism
American Psychologist
(1995)Experiences of depression: Theoretical, clinical, and research perspectives
(2004)
Experiences of depression in normal young adults
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress
Cited by (115)
Anxiety in the face of the first wave of the spread of COVID-19 in Israel: Psychosocial determinants of a “Panic-to-complacency-continuum”
2023, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :In fact, self-esteem appears to be an outcome of self-criticism and a moderator of self-criticism's effect on emotional distress (Abela et al., 2006). Self-criticism is shown to be associated with maladaptive coping strategies, including avoidant coping (Dunkley et al., 2006), a maladaptive strategy that is shown to be linked with COVID-19 related emotional distress (Carnahan et al., 2022). As such, self-criticism could be expected to predict membership in the more extreme anxiety classes concerning both general anxiety and virus-specific anxiety.
Prospective teachers' professional achievement goal orientations, their self-efficacy beliefs, and perfectionism: A mediation analysis
2022, Studies in Educational EvaluationParenting behaviors and trait perfectionism: A meta-analytic test of the social expectations and social learning models
2022, Journal of Research in PersonalityThe perfect colleague? Multidimensional perfectionism and indicators of social disconnection in the workplace
2020, Personality and Individual DifferencesThe Role of Self-Criticism and Shame in Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviour Symptoms
2021, Behaviour ChangeA meta-analysis of disordered eating and its association with self-criticism and self-compassion
2024, International Journal of Eating Disorders