Addressing the Aims of the Study
The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether the influence of perfectionism, as distinguished by perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic striving, on self-esteem was mediated, serially, by positive metacognitions about self-critical rumination, self-critical rumination, and negative metacognitions about self-critical rumination in accordance with the S-REF model (Wells & Matthews,
1996).
Prior to investigating this mediation model, evidence was found supporting all other hypotheses stated at the outset of the research. Firstly, self-esteem was negatively correlated in the moderate to high range with perfectionistic concerns, perfectionistic striving, self-critical rumination, positive metacognitions about self-critical rumination and negative metacognitions about self-critical rumination. Secondly, perfectionistic concerns, perfectionistic striving, self-critical rumination, and metacognitions about self-critical rumination (positive and negative) were found to be positively correlated with one another. The majority of these associations have been apparent in previous literature (e.g. Dunkley et al.,
2012; James et al.,
2015; Kolubinski et al.,
2016,
2017,
2019; Rice et al.,
1998). However, until now evidence that perfectionism and self-critical rumination has not yet emerged in the literature. This finding enriches earlier research, as previous studies have found positive associations between perfectionistic concerns and other forms of rumination, such as ‘brooding’ rumination (Egan et al.,
2014; O’Connor et al.,
2007) and depressive rumination (Flett et al.,
2002), but not self-critical rumination, which despite having similarities to other ruminative processes, is considered to be its own distinct construct (Smart et al.,
2016).
In further support of the hypotheses, the path analysis indicated that both perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic striving indirectly influenced self-esteem levels through their effect on positive metacognitions about self-critical rumination, self-critical rumination, and negative metacognitions about self-critical rumination, in a sequential manner. In the case of perfectionistic concerns, which includes increased self-criticism, this implies that the presence of positive metacognitions about self-critical rumination would activate self-critical rumination. If negative metacognitions about self-critical rumination are also present, this would further increase the difficulty in shifting attention away from self-critical thoughts as attempts at interrupting self-critical rumination would be discontinued or not initiated in the first place. Over time, as self-critical rumination becomes perseverative, adverse effects on self-esteem should ensue. These findings extend the existing literature, aligning themselves with the metacognitive model of self-esteem (Kolubinski et al.,
2019), which is grounded in Wells and Matthews’ (
1996) S-REF model.
In support of the present findings, prior research has shown that those high in perfectionistic concerns tend to utilise maladaptive coping mechanisms, such as rumination, rather than active problem-solving, to deal with setbacks (Mouratidis & Michou,
2011; Park et al.,
2010). Rumination is an emotion-focused coping mechanism, which is utilised in the attempt to process and modify internal negative events, whereas problem-focused coping involves guiding action with the intention to alter one’s external reality (Folkman,
2013; Wells & Matthews,
1996). Coping via ruminative thinking, thus avoiding active problem-solving, means that self-critical cognitions go unchallenged. Consequently, the acquisition of new and effective skills are obstructed (Wells,
2000). This has been shown using experimental studies that have induced rumination in individuals experiencing distress. For example, Lyubomirsky and Nolen-Hoeksema (
1995) found rumination to interfere with inter-personal problem solving and to have an adverse effect on mood. By virtue of the literature, the perfectionists’ inclination to use rumination as a way of coping, is unhelpful and likely prolongs psychological distress.
Kolubinski et al. (
2019), upholding the present findings, showed that prolonged exposure to self-critical rumination, linked to one’s metacognitions, has the potential to negatively impact self-esteem. This is important to understand as lowered self-esteem may have further adverse effects on many important life outcomes (Orth et al.,
2012; Trzesniewski et al.,
2006). Two opposing theories are often highlighted in the literature, namely the ‘scar model’ and the ‘vulnerability model’ of self-esteem. The scar model states that negative affect impacts self-esteem levels, whereas the vulnerability model suggests low self-esteem leads to the development of distress (Orth et al.,
2009,
2016; Shahar & Davidson,
2003; Shahar & Henrich,
2010). Both theories have been supported in the literature, and this relationship may be reciprocal. A greater evidence-base does favour, however, the vulnerability model (Ormel et al.,
2004; Orth et al.,
2009; Shahar & Davidson,
2003; Sowislo & Orth,
2013), signifying that low self-esteem is a strong risk factor for the development of psychological distress. This is crucial to understand, as interventions aimed at restructuring negative self-evaluation could prevent the development of further psychological distress.
Unlike perfectionistic striving, the present research also uncovered that perfectionistic concerns directly influenced self-esteem levels, independently of the other variables in the study. This suggests that the cognitive processes proposed to explain the relationship only partially mediate the effect of perfectionistic concerns on self-esteem levels. Therefore, it is likely there are more factors that will need to be understood to gain a full picture. One possible addition to the proposed pathways could be one’s inter-personal relationships. Rumination has been thought to impair social relationships (Young & Nolen-Hoeksema,
2001), and according to the Sociometer theory (Leary et al.,
1995), self-esteem is dependent on the degree to which one is included by others, whereby rejection from one’s peers will lead to lower self-esteem. Thus, if the individual starts to lose peer support due to excessive rumination, this may consequently impact their self-esteem levels. Future research may therefore wish to explore inter-personal relationships as an additional factor to the proposed pathway in this study. Other additional factors that are worth exploring include: parental pressure, schooling environment, socio-economic status, social inequalities, etc.
Clinical Implications
Results obtained from the present research have fostered a greater theoretical understanding of the pathways involved in explaining how perfectionistic concerns can lead to low self-esteem. These findings point towards therapeutic practices that are likely to benefit individuals by decreasing perfectionistic tendencies and rumination as a way of improving global self-evaluation.
A suitable intervention to consider is Metacognitive Therapy (MCT), which is theoretically grounded in the S-REF model (Wells & Matthews,
1996). This therapy promotes recovery by modifying one’s metacognitions that work to maintain the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome (CAS). The CAS is a maladaptive constellation of coping strategies including, but not limited to, thought suppression, rumination, excessive worry, threat monitoring and dwelling on the past (Wells,
2013). By identifying the metacognitions that maintain the CAS, the individual can learn to alter these and acquire novel ways in which to respond to negative intrusive thoughts. Some of the practices used in MCT include the attention training technique (Fergus & Bardeen,
2016; Fergus et al.,
2014; Knowles et al.,
2016), detached mindfulness (Gkika & Wells,
2015; Wells,
2005), worry mismatch and rumination postponement (Wells,
2013). These all work towards increasing the flexibility of how one responds when experiencing unhelpful cognitions. Evidence has shown promising effects of utilising MCT for psychological distress (Nordahl et al.,
2017; Solem et al.,
2009; Wells & Colbear,
2012; Wells et al.,
2010). Considering both the present and earlier research evidence, it is likely that MCT may provide a promising clinical application for individuals who struggle to separate themselves from their harmful perfectionistic, self-critical thinking.
Limitations
When interpreting the results of this research, several limitations ought to be considered. First, whilst the sample was diverse with respect to age, the participants’ gender, ethnicity, and psychiatric history was not recorded in this study, therefore it is unknown whether the findings can generalise to all demographic groups or whether any of the participants have been involved in psychological treatment. Second, all data was collected via self-report questionnaires, meaning the results are subject to possible biases such as social desirability and context effects. Third, a cross-sectional design was used, thus posing limits when inferring a causal relationship between the variables. Fourth, it is uncertain that the self-report questionnaires accurately measured the constructs they set out to measure. In particular, the questionnaire items measuring positive metacognitions about self-critical rumination (MSCRQ) and perfectionistic concerns (CPQ) had a slightly lower Cronbach’s alpha scores, suggesting there may be a problem with internal consistency. Additionally, the self-critical rumination scale (SCRS; Smart et al.,
2016) includes three items that assess negative metacognitions. These items were not removed for this study, so it may be that the SCRS measured, in part, negative metacognitions rather than purely self-critical rumination. Fifth, opportunity sampling was used to recruit participants, thus it is possible the sample was not representative of the entire population. Sixth, this study did not control for potential confounding variables, such as socio-economic status, education, social relationships, support networks or being in psychological treatment. Lastly, the data was collected during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting individuals in a variety of ways, including self-reported measures of cognitive-affective states. Future studies should address these limitations.