CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by Kent Academic Repository

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.

Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism:

Approaches, Evidence, Challenges

Joachim Stoeber Kathleen Otto

Department of Psychology Department of Psychology

University of Kent University of Leipzig

Abstract
Almost 30 years ago, Hamachek (1978) suggested that two forms of perfectionism be dis-
tinguished, 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 two forms of perfectionism and present a common
framework for the two basic approaches: the dimensional approach differentiating two
dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) and
the group-based approach differentiating two groups of perfectionists (healthy
perfectionists and unhealthy perfectionists). Moreover, we review the evidence
demonstrating 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. While questions on core facets, positive
effects, and developmental antecedents of positive forms of perfectionism remain, our
findings suggest that self-oriented perfectionistic strivings are positive, if perfectionists
are not overly concerned about mistakes and negative evaluations by others.

Keywords: Perfectionism, Personality Traits, Affect, Well-Being, Achievement

Author Note
We would like to thank Anat Bardi, Roger Giner-Sorolla, Kate Hamilton-West, Jutta Joor-
mann, Matthias Siemer, Mark Van Vugt, Mario Weick, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Joachim Stoeber, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom; e-mail:
J.Stoeber@kent.ac.uk.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 2

Introduction
Perfectionism is commonly conceived of as a personality style characterized by
striving for flawlessness and setting of excessively high standards for performance
accompanied by tendencies for overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior (Flett &
Hewitt, 2002a; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). While
Hamachek (1978) suggested that two forms of perfectionism be differentiated—a positive
form labeled „normal perfectionism“ in which individuals enjoy pursuing their
perfectionistic strivings and a negative form labeled „neurotic perfectionism“ in which
individuals suffer from their perfectionistic strivings—perfectionism research was long
dominated by one-dimensional conceptions of perfectionism and by views that
perfectionism 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 labels—namely
positive strivings and maladaptive evaluation concerns (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, &
Neubauer, 1993), active and passive perfectionism (Adkins & Parker, 1996), positive and
negative perfectionism (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995), adaptive and
maladaptive perfectionism (Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998), functional and dysfunctional
perfectionism (Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000), healthy and unhealthy perfectionism
(Stumpf & Parker, 2000), personal 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 perfectionism 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 complex and may appear confusing. There are three main reasons for this.
First, besides using different labels, researchers have used different facets and different
combinations of facets to arrive at their specific conceptualizations of the two forms of
perfectionism. Second, researchers have followed two basically different approaches: ei-
ther a dimensional approach or a group-based approach. In the dimensional approach, the
facets of perfectionism are combined to form two independent dimensions of perfection-
ism—let us call them perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns—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 perfectionists—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 characteristic. While many studies found perfectionistic
strivings to be associated with higher levels of positive characteristics and healthy perfec-
tionists to show higher levels of positive characteristics compared to unhealthy perfec-
tionists and nonperfectionists, others did not: Some studies found perfectionistic strivings
and healthy perfectionists to be associated with both positive and negative characteristics,
and a few studies with only negative characteristics.
Against this background, the main aims of the present article are twofold. First, we
will 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 perfec-
tionism are combined to differentiate a positive and a negative form of perfectionism. Sec-
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 3

ond, we will review and evaluate the empirical evidence in support of the view that some
forms of perfectionism are positive. Our review will show 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 prescribed perfectionism, and perceived
discrepancy between actual achievements and high expectations. Moreover, our review
will show that (a) healthy perfectionists 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 following a group-based approach can be combined, summarized, and
compared under one common conceptual framework (see Figure 1). While questions
remain regarding additional facets, longitudinal effects, and developmental antecedents,
our review will show 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 posi-
tive? Traditionally, perfectionism has been associated with psychopathology, with psycho-
dynamic theory stressing that perfectionism was a sign of a neurotic and disordered per-
sonality (e.g., Horney, 1951; Missildine, 1963). Even though Hamachek (1978) published
his proposal to distinguish two forms of perfectionism—normal perfectionism and neu-
rotic perfectionism—at the end of the 1970’s, the dominant view of the 1980’s was that
perfectionism was always neurotic, dysfunctional, and indicative 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 perfectionism to be related to higher levels of distress
and to 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 Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (Weissman & Beck,
1978), a scale developed to capture attitudes that are typical of clients diagnosed with de-
pression. Thus, it comes as no surprise that perfectionism was found to be negative, dys-
functional, and even pathological.
This changed at beginning of the 1990’s, when two research groups independently
demonstrated that perfectionism is multidimensional in nature, and provided perfectionism
research with two multidimensional scales to capture the construct in all its facets (Frost et
al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Frost and colleagues (1990) proposed that six facets in
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 4

the experience of perfectionism be differentiated—personal standards, organization, con-

cern over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental expectations, and parental criticism—
indicating that perfectionists have high standards, value order and organization, and try to
avoid mistakes and are thus often indecisive about their actions. 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 perfectionism, and other-oriented
perfectionism—indicating 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.
Moreover, they suggested that self-oriented perfectionism was directed towards avoiding
self-criticism whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was directed towards avoiding
disapproval by others.
Despite the apparent differences between the two multidimensional measures of per-
fectionism in terms of nature and number of facets and associated characteristics (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 perfection-
ism, and other-oriented perfectionism; and a second factor subsuming concern over mis-
takes, doubts about actions, socially prescribed perfectionism, parental expectations, and
parental criticism. Moreover, when the subscales subsumed under the two factors were
aggregated to form measures of positive strivings and maladaptive evaluation concerns
and then correlated with measures of well-being, it emerged that only maladaptive evalua-
tion concerns were related to higher levels of negative affect and depression (and
unrelated to positive affect). In contrast, positive strivings were related to higher levels of
positive affect (and unrelated 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 perfectionism. Second, they
showed that these two basic dimensions related to different characteristics. Third, they
showed that only the perfectionistic concerns dimension related to negative characteristics
whereas the perfectionistic strivings dimension related to positive characteristics—and
thus provided 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, how-
ever, as they found positive strivings to be related to both positive and negative character-
istics (Bieling, Israeli, & Anthony, 2004; Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Anthony, 2003).
Moreover, other researchers opted for different conceptions of the basic dimensions
choosing different facets or different combinations of facets, while still other researchers
opted for a group-based approach instead of a dimensional approach. Yet, across the dif-
ferent conceptions and the different approaches, the majority of studies have produced
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 concerns are at low levels
(in the case of group-based conceptions)—as a review of the studies will show.

The Studies
For our review of studies, the PsycINFO database was searched for all publications
up to Week 2 of 2005/11 with perfect, perfection, perfectionism, perfectionist, perfection-
istic, or perfectionists in the title. Including reviews of the perfectionism literature (e.g.,
Chang, 2003; Flett & Hewitt, 2002b; Shafran & Mansell, 2001), but excluding disserta-
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 5

tions and non-English publications, all publications that contained empirical studies in-
vestigating the two basic forms of perfectionism under different approaches and the vari-
ous labels mentioned above were examined 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 perfectionism
can be differentiated, we excluded studies that conceptualized positive and negative per-
fectionism 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 re-
vision that may involve the elimination of half of its items (Haase & Prapavessis, 2004).
Moreover, all conceptions of positive and negative perfectionism apart from the PNPS are
based on a combination of facets derived from established multidimensional measures of
perfectionism (see Table 1). While 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 ap-
proaches and conceptions.

Conceptions and Evidence

Overall, 35 studies were found. Table 2 summarizes the 15 studies taking a dimen-
sional approach, documenting how they conceptualized the two dimensions of perfection-
istic strivings and perfectionistic concerns and summarizing the empirical evidence in fa-
vor of the notion that perfectionistic strivings are related to positive characteristics (Biel-
ing 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 con-
ceptualized healthy perfectionists and unhealthy perfectionists and summarizing the evi-
dence in favor of the notion that healthy perfectionists show higher levels of positive char-
acteristics 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, Castro, 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.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 6

Dimensional Conceptions: Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns

Attending to Table 2, we first take a look at how the 15 studies that followed a di-
mensional approach have conceptualized the two dimensions of perfectionism and what
evidence they have produced in support of the position that the dimension we labeled per-
fectionistic strivings is associated with positive characteristics. For this, we categorized all
studies into four categories, namely as (a) positive evidence when perfectionistic strivings
were related to positive characteristics only, (b) mixed evidence 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 negative characteristics were regarded as positive and
inverse relations to positive characteristics as negative.) Following this scheme, 6 of the
15 studies were categorized 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 perfectionistic concerns in the
studies where this was applicable, 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 negative 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; Sud-
darth & 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 strivings—personal standards, organization, self-oriented perfectionism,
and other-oriented perfectionism—or as a combination of a subset of these facets. Moreo-
ver, two studies (Suddarth & Slaney, 2001; Rice et al., 2005) added high standards from
the revised Almost Perfect Scale to this dimension (see Table 2). Regarding the correla-
tions of perfectionistic strivings with the big five personality traits (John, 1990), perfec-
tionistic strivings were related to higher levels of extraversion and conscientiousness.
Moreover, they were related to higher levels of endurance and lower levels of external lo-
cus of control. Because Rotter’s (1966) conception of external locus of control mainly
captures individuals’ beliefs that their lives are controlled by chance (e.g., Brosschot,
Gebhardt, & Godaert, 1994), a lower level of external locus of control was counted as a
positive characteristic (for a more differentiated conception of external control, see Leven-
son, 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 anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
In the four studies categorized as providing mixed evidence (Bieling et al., 2003;
Cox et al., 2002; Dunkley et al., 2000; Enns et al., 2001), the positive dimension repre-
senting perfectionistic strivings was again conceptualized as some combination of facets
that represented positive strivings perfectionism (Frost et al., 1993). The evidence regard-
ing achievement characteristics was positive, with perfectionistic strivings in students re-
lating to higher perceived ability, higher exam performance, higher past year performance,
and plans to study more rather than less. The evidence regarding other characteristics was
mixed, however. With regard to personality traits, perfectionistic strivings were related to
higher conscientiousness, but also to higher neuroticism (Enns et al., 2001). With regard
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 7

to well-being, perfectionistic strivings were related to higher levels of positive affect, but
also to higher levels of negative affect (Bieling et al., 2003); and with regard to stress and
coping styles, they were related higher levels of active coping, but also to higher levels of
perceived hassles (Dunkley et al., 2000).
Of the four studies categorized as providing negative 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 per-
fectionistic strivings as some combination of the facets that Frost et al. (1993) subsumed
under positive strivings. Two studies used a different conceptualization (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
combination of personal standards, parental expectations, and parental criticism, thereby
including two facets that Frost et al. had subsumed under maladaptive evaluation
concerns. Following their own multidimensional model of perfectionism, Hill et al. (2004)
conceptualized perfectionistic strivings as a combination of striving for excellence,
organization, planfulness, and high standards for others. Regardless of the
conceptualization used, all four studies found perfectionistic strivings to be related to
lower levels of well-being and perceived social support, and higher levels of perceived
stress and pathological symptoms (see Table 2 for details).
Most of the mixed and negative evidence was related to the overlap between the di-
mensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, however. When inspect-
ing the pattern of positive, mixed, and negative evidence, we noticed that the type of evi-
dence produced seemed to relate to how strongly the dimension of perfectionistic strivings
correlated with the dimension of perfectionistic concerns (see Table 2). All studies catego-
rized as providing positive evidence had conceptualized the dimension of perfectionistic
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 dimension of
perfectionistic strivings such that it showed high correlations (.45 to .70) with the dimen-
sion of perfectionistic concerns. With such substantial overlap between the two dimen-
sions, it is conceivable that perfectionistic strivings would be „contaminated“ with perfec-
tionistic concerns and thus show inflated correlations with negative characteristics. After
controlling for this overlap, the evidence in favor of perfectionism should be more posi-
tive.
Consequently, we reinspected those studies that reported the correlation between the
dimension of perfectionistic strivings and the dimension of perfectionistic concerns, and
reanalyzed the evidence by computing partial correlations between perfectionistic
strivings and negative characteristics, partialling out perfectionistic concerns (Hays, 1973,
Formula 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 perfectionism (see Table 2). Of the four studies initially
categorized as mixed evidence, two now furnished positive evidence as the critical
correlations of perfectionistic strivings with negative affect and perceived hassles became
nonsignificant once perfectionistic concerns were partialled out (Bieling et al., 2003;

1In this pattern, the study of Rice et al. (2005) is disregarded because Rice et al. conducted multiple regres-
sion analyses and thus controlled for the correlation of r = .43 between the dimension of perfectionistic
strivings and the dimension of perfectionistic concerns.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 8

Dunkley et al., 2000). Moreover, the study initially categorized as a null finding now
furnished positive evidence 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 perfectionistic 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 obsessive-compulsive symptoms (Hill et al., 2004);
and two studies furnished null findings as perfectionistic strivings were now unrelated to
any positive or negative characteristics (Bieling et al., 2004; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne,
1999). Thus, after controlling for overlap between perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns, no study remained categorized as providing negative evidence.
Instead, a further four studies could be categorized as providing positive evidence (see
Table 2).

Group-Based Conceptions: Healthy Perfectionists and Unhealthy Perfectionists

Turning to Table 3 and to the studies that follow a group-based approach, there are
two important differences to the previous 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 un-
healthy perfectionists as individuals with high levels of perfectionistic strivings and high
levels of perfectionistic concerns (see Table 3 for details). Consequently, these studies al-
low comparison of two distinct groups of perfectionists that show little (cluster analysis)
or no (dichotomization) overlap in the facets associated with perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns. Second, mean differences instead of correlations are inspected,
and the critical question is whether healthy perfectionists show higher levels of positive
characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists. In addition, healthy perfectionists should not
show lower levels 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 categories, namely as (a) positive evi-
dence when healthy perfectionists showed higher levels of positive characteristics than un-
healthy perfectionists and no lower levels of positive characteristics than
nonperfectionists, (b) mixed evidence when healthy perfectionists showed higher levels of
both positive and negative characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists or higher levels of
positive characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists, but lower levels of positive
characteristics than nonperfectionists, (c) negative evidence when healthy perfectionists
showed higher levels of negative characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists, and (d) null
finding when healthy perfectionists 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 characteristics.) 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 studies were categorized as mixed evidence because healthy
perfectionists showed higher levels of positive characteristics than unhealthy
perfectionists, but lower levels of positive characteristics than nonperfectionists. Finally, 4
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 9

studies were categorized as null findings because they did not find any significant
differences between healthy and unhealthy perfectionists 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, 2003;
Ashby & Kottman, 1996; Dickinson & Ashby, 2005; Dixon et al., 2004; Gilman et al.,
2005; LoCicero et al., 2000; Mobley et al., 2005; Periasamy & Ashby, 2002; Rice et al.,
2003; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Slaney et al., 2004), healthy perfec-
tionists were conceptualized as individuals with high scores on those facets that the
dimensional approaches associated with perfectionistic 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 actions,
discrepancy between actual achievements and high expectations, parental criticism, and
parental expectations). Unhealthy perfectionists were conceptualized as individuals with
high scores on all facets of perfectionism, and nonperfectionists as individuals with
medium or low scores on all facets of perfectionism. There were three exceptions,
however. Two studies arrived at cluster solutions in which unhealthy perfectionists
showed only low or medium levels of organization (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice et al.,
2003), and a third study found two groups of unhealthy perfectionists: 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 medium levels of organization and doubts about actions (Dixon et al. 2004). With
respect to 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 adaptive coping styles, greater
social adjustment, and better academic integration as well as less obsessive-compulsive
symptoms than unhealthy perfectionists. Moreover, healthy perfectionists also scored
higher than nonperfectionists on many of the positive characteristics identified (see Table
3 for details).
In the four studies categorized as providing mixed evidence (Martin & Ashby,
2004a; Parker, 1997; Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000; Rice & Dellwo, 2002), healthy
perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, and nonperfectionists were conceptualized in the
same way as in the studies categorized as positive evidence, except for one study in which
the cluster of unhealthy perfectionists showed only medium-high levels of personal
standards (Rice & Dellwo, 2002). Moreover, one study employed the Perfectionism
Inventory (see Table 1) and conceptualized healthy perfectionists as individuals who show
high levels of perfectionist tendencies and experience few negative consequences of
perfectionism, and unhealthy perfectionists as individuals who show high levels of
perfectionist tendencies and experience many negative consequences of perfectionism
(Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000). With respect to the characteristics investigated, all
studies found healthy perfectionists to show higher levels of positive personality traits,
greater subjective well-being, higher social integration, and greater academic adaptation
than nonperfectionists (see Table 3 for details). 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-compulsive tendencies (Rhéaume, Freeston,
et al., 2000). In the other study, they showed lower levels of relativistic thinking than
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 10

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 differ-
ences between healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Ashby et al., 1999; Gilman & Ashby,
2003), healthy perfectionists showed higher levels of subjective well-being (enjoyment,
satisfaction) than nonperfectionists. Thus, across all studies taking a group-based ap-
proach, the great majority of all differences identified between healthy perfectionists, un-
healthy 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 perfec-
tionistic strivings to be related to higher levels of conscientiousness, extraversion, endur-
ance, 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 representing perfectionistic concerns was taken into account, perfectionistic
strivings were also related to higher levels of perceived social support and lower levels of
depression, self-blame, and perceived hassles. Moreover, studies taking a group-based ap-
proach have found that individuals with high levels of perfectionistic strivings and low
levels of perfectionistic concerns (healthy perfectionists) show higher levels of self-es-
teem, 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), and lower levels of anxiety, depression, procrastination, defen-
siveness, maladaptive coping styles, and interpersonal problems and report fewer somatic
complaints and psychological symptoms than individuals with high levels of perfectionis-
tic strivings and high levels of perfectionistic concerns (unhealthy perfectionists) or indi-
viduals with low levels of perfectionistic strivings (nonperfectionists). Taken together,
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 associ-
ated with all those negative characteristics that traditional views have associated with per-
fectionism. In contrast, the perfectionistic strivings dimension is associated with positive
characteristics and unrelated or even inversely related to those negative characteristics tra-
ditionally associated with perfectionism.
Two exceptions deserve attention. First, some studies found perfectionistic strivings
to be related to higher levels of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and higher evidence re-
quirements and to lower levels of relativistic thinking, indicating that perfectionistic striv-
ings may be associated with a tendency for obsessive-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 perfectionists to have higher levels of
neuroticism and depression than nonperfectionists indicating that perfectionistic strivings
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 11

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 caution are in order. First, some posi-
tive evidence may have been counted twice as four studies in Tables 2 and 3 may not rep-
resent independent evidence, but appear to be based on the same samples. This concerns
the sample of medical students who seem to have been examined in two studies following
a dimensional conception (Cox et al., 2002; Enns et al., 2001) and the sample of talented
sixth graders who also seem to have been examined in two studies—one following a
group-based conception (Parker, 1997) and one following a dimensional conception
(Stumpf & Parker, 2000). Second, some positive evidence may be attributed to content
overlap between the characteristics identified and the measures employed to conceptualize
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Regarding the dimensional concep-
tions and focusing on the positive dimension representing perfectionistic strivings (Table
2), this concerns in particular the findings that perfectionistic strivings are associated 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 refer-
ence to perfectionism and striving for excellence (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992). Conse-
quently, in evaluating the positive evidence for the dimensional conceptions, more weight
should be given to those characteristics that do not show content overlap with perfection-
istic strivings. Regarding the group-based conceptions and focusing on differences be-
tween healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Table 3), content overlap concerns in particu-
lar 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 substantial content overlap and thus high correla-
tions with the measures employed to conceptualize the dimension of perfectionistic con-
cerns (Stöber & Joormann, 2001). As healthy and unhealthy perfectionists differ with re-
spect 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 evidence for the group-based conceptions, more weight should be
given to those characteristics that show content overlap with neither perfectionistic striv-
ings nor perfectionistic concerns and to those characteristics in which healthy perfection-
ists differ from both unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Hence, characteristics
such as extraversion and agreeableness, satisfaction with life and coping styles as well as
all indicators 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 characteristics as positive, we relied on our general knowledge of the
research findings on these characteristics and on the general understanding of these
characteristics. While 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 depend on situational circumstances. Take
coping for example. While active coping such as problem-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 while passive coping such as
disengagement is generally regarded as negative, it may provide some relief in the early
stages of the coping processes and thus help individuals to use more effective coping later
in the process (Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). Second, our review focused on linear
correlations and main effects and did not take moderator effects or interactions into
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 12

account. However, only one of the studies we reviewed reported an interaction effect with
perfectionistic strivings (Dunkley et al., 2000). While 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 underestimation
may have cut both ways—we may have underestimated the associations of perfectionistic
strivings with positive characteristics, or their associations with negative characteristics—
it remains for future studies to employ more powerful quantitative methods of research
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 facets may be
disregarded.

Challenges for Future Research

Core Facets
Regarding the question of the core facets of perfectionistic strivings and perfection-
istic concerns, we would argue that (a) organization and order, (b) parental expectations
and criticism, and (c) other-oriented perfectionism may be disregarded when conceptual-
izing the two dimensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns or when
differentiating between healthy perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, and nonperfec-
tionists. Regarding organization 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 perfectionism
scores. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses on facets of perfectionism that included
both organization and order found that these two facets formed a third, separate factor in-
dependent of the two dimensions 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 expectations and criticism, par-
ticularly the early studies following a dimensional approach have included these facets as
part of the perfectionistic concerns dimension (see Table 2). However, recent studies in-
vestigating the influence of parenting on positive and negative perfectionism have treated
parental expectations and criticism 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 perfectionism, not core
facets of perfectionism itself. Regarding other-oriented perfectionism, only a few studies
included this facet as part of the dimension of perfectionistic strivings. This may reflect
the ambivalent theoretical status of this facet and the ambivalent findings regarding
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 13

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).
Moreover, many recent studies following Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model of
multidimensional perfectionism have focused on differences between self-oriented
perfectionism 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 perfectionistic tendencies, on the one hand; and concern over mistakes,
doubts about actions, socially prescribed perfectionism, discrepancy, and negative
consequences of perfectionism, on the other.
Positive Effects
While our review presents converging evidence that perfectionistic strivings are re-
lated to positive characteristics when the influence of perfectionistic concerns is controlled
for, the question remains as to whether perfectionistic strivings also have positive effects,
for example, if perfectionistic strivings predict longitudinal increases in subjective well-
being or academic achievements. So far, however, there is only one longitudinal study
comparing positive strivings and perfectionistic concerns (Enns et al., 2001). While this
study found that perfectionistic concerns had negative longitudinal effects, predicting in-
creases in depression and hopelessness, no positive longitudinal 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 affect (Powers et al., 2005). Other studies, however, found no posi-
tive longitudinal effects of self-oriented perfectionism (e.g., Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005).
Moreover, 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 considered 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 refer to healthy
perfectionists as functional or adaptive perfectionists, because the adjectives functional
and adaptive have strong connotations that many researchers find unfitting in association
with perfectionism (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002a; R. O. Frost, cited in 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
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 14

that something has the capacity of adaptation whereby adaptation usually means adjust-
ment 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 conceptions of perfectionism has neither delineated the function
that striving for perfection may serve in the development of the individual nor specified
the environmental conditions under which striving for perfection would be adaptive.
Therefore, we chose to follow Parker (1997, 2000; Stumpf & Parker, 2000; cf. Greenspon,
2000) and speak of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists, because healthy does not neces-
sarily 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 mental health compared to individuals
with high levels of perfectionistic strivings and high levels of perfectionistic concerns, we
found that labeling the two groups as healthy perfectionists and unhealthy perfectionists
was most fitting.

Developmental Analysis
Regarding the question of the development of perfectionism, 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 mistakes, doubts about actions, and socially prescribed perfectionism all are associ-
ated with anxious, overprotective, affectionless, and harsh parenting (for a review, see
Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). With respect to the facets of perfectionistic
strivings, however, there is no such evidence. The same studies that show strong links
between parenting practices and facets of perfectionistic concerns show only weak and
often 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 positive
perfectionism, if at all. However, recent evidence from a longitudinal study (Enns et al.,
2002) suggests that a specific child-rearing style termed „perfectionistic parenting”
(Randolph & Dykman, 1998) may play a role in the development of positive perfection-
ism. Whereas harsh parenting (subsuming parental overprotection, lack of care, critical
parenting, and parental pressure to be perfect) emerged as a developmental antecedent of
negative perfectionism only, perfectionistic parenting (subsuming parental pressure to be
perfect and high parental standards) emerged as a developmental antecedent of both posi-
tive and negative perfectionism.
Moreover, studies have consistently found that children who show high levels of
perfectionistic strivings (personal standards, self-oriented perfectionism) tend to have par-
ents who also show high levels of perfectionistic strivings. This relationship seems par-
ticularly strong when parent and child are of the same gender (Frost, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1991; Soenens, Elliot, Goossens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, & Duriez, 2005;
Vieth & Trull, 1999). This may indicate that modeling by parents may play a role in the
development 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 standards (Tozzi et al., 2004). Consequently, a
comprehensive developmental analysis of positive perfectionism would also have to take
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 15

account of the possible interplay 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 ar-
eas of his or her life. While particularly relevant in educational settings and at the work-
place, individual differences in perfectionism play a major role also in sport and exercise
(e.g., Anshel & Eom, 2003; Dunn, Gotwals, & Dunn, 2005). Moreover, perfectionism may
affect an individual’s social life, influencing relationships with family members, romantic
partners, and work colleagues and impact on hobbies and recreational pursuits, personal
appearance, and religious life (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Shapiro, & Rayman, 2003; Slaney &
Ashby, 1996). Perfectionism already plays a role in childhood and adolescence (e.g., Ac-
cordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000; Parker, 2002) and it is experienced across different
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 negative, dysfunctional or even pathological characteristic. Instead, perfection-
ism is a multidimensional phenomenon with many facets—some of which are positive,
some of which are negative (Enns & Cox, 2002)—that combine to two basic dimensions
of perfectionism, perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, which again differ-
entiate between healthy and unhealthy perfectionists (Figure 1). This differentiation be-
tween healthy and unhealthy 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 first suggestions to describe the differences between „normal
perfectionists” and „neurotic perfectionists.” Translated to the present conceptions, normal
perfectionists are individuals who show high levels of perfectionistic strivings, but are not
overly distressed by the issues that are combined in the dimension of perfectionistic con-
cerns, namely concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, feelings of discrepancy be-
tween actual achievements and high expectations, self-criticism, and the fear of failure to
live up to one’s own standards and to the high expectations of others. In contrast, neurotic
perfectionists show high levels of perfectionistic strivings and are overly distressed by the
issues combined in the dimension of perfectionistic concerns. Thus, perfectionistic con-
cerns 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, per-
fectionistic strivings in themselves are not only normal, but may be positive—if only per-
fectionists 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 concentrate on
what has been achieved rather than pondering the discrepancy between what has been
achieved and what might have been achieved if everything had worked out perfectly. In
this form, perfectionism would be a perfectly positive disposition.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 16

References
Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfection-
B. (2000). An investigation of perfectionism, ist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today,
mental health, achievement, and achievement 34-52.
motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the Burns, L. R., & Fedewa, B. A. (2005). Cognitive
School, 37, 535-545. styles: Links with perfectionistic thinking.
Adkins, K. K., & Parker, W. (1996). Perfection- Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
ism and suicidal preoccupation. Journal of 103-113
Personality, 64, 529-543. Castro, J. R., & Rice, K. G. (2003). Perfectionism
Anshel, M. H., & Eom, H.J. (2003). Exploring and ethnicity: Implications for depressive
the dimensions of perfectionism in sport. In- symptoms and self-reported academic
ternational Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, achievement. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
255-271. Minority Psychology, 9, 64-78.
Ashby, J. S., & Bruner, L. P. (2005). Multidi- Chang, E. C. (2003). On the perfectibility of the
mensional perfectionism and obsessive-com- individual: Going beyond the dialectic of good
pulsive behaviors. Journal of College Coun- versus evil. In E. C. Chang & L. J. Sanna
seling, 8, 31-40. (Eds.), Virtue, vice, and personality: The com-
Ashby, J. S., & Kottman, T. (1996). Inferiority as plexity of behavior (pp. 125-144). Wash-
a distinction between normal and neurotic per- ington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
fectionism. Individual Psychology: Journal of tion.
Adlerian Theory, Practice and Research, 52, Chang, E. C., Watkins, A. F., & Banks, K. H.
237-245. (2004). How adaptive and maladaptive perfec-
Ashby, J. S., Kottman, T., & DeGraaf, D. (1999). tionism relate to positive and negative psy-
Leisure satisfaction and attitudes of perfec- chological functioning: Testing a stress-me-
tionists: Implications for therapeutic recreation diation model in black and white female col-
professionals. Therapeutic Recreation lege students. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
Journal, 33, 142-151. ogy, 51, 93-102.
Benson, E. (2003). The many faces of perfec- Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L.,
tionism. Monitor on Psychology, 34(10), 18. Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Anthony, M. M. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting:
(2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? The case for nature and nurture. American
Examining models of the perfectionism con- Psychologist, 55, 218-232.
struct. Personality and Individual Differences, Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Re-
36, 1373-1385. vised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., Smith, J., & Antony, and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI):
M. M. (2003). Making the grade: The behav- Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psycholo-
ioral consequences of perfectionism in the gical Assessment Resources.
classroom. Personality and Individual Differ- Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002).
ences, 35, 163-178. The multidimensional structure of perfection-
Blankstein, K. R., & Dunkley, D. M. (2002). ism in clinically distressed and college student
Evaluative concerns, self-critical, and personal samples. Psychological Assessment, 14, 365-
standards perfectionism: A structural equation 373
modeling strategy. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Dickinson, W. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2005). Multi-
Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, re- dimensional perfectionism and ego defenses.
search, and treatment (pp. 285- 315). Wash- Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 19,
ington, DC: American Psychological Associa- 41-54.
tion. Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfec- (2004). An empirical typology of perfection-
tionism: Implications for the treatment of de- ism in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quar-
pression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003- terly, 48, 95-106.
1020. Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J.,
Brosschot, J. F., Gebhardt, W. A., & Godaert, G. Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The
L. R. (1994). Internal, powerful others and relation between perfectionism and distress:
chance locus of control: Relationships with Hassles, coping, and perceived social support
personality, coping, stress and health. Person- as mediators and moderators. Journal of
ality and Individual Differences, 16, 839-852. Counseling Psychology, 47, 437-453.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 17

M., & Grilo, C. M. (2006). Personal standards In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfec-
and evaluative concerns dimensions of „clini- tionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
cal“ perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. 89-132). Washington, DC: American Psy-
(2002, 2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behav- chological Association.
iour Research and Therapy, 44, 63-84. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Shapiro, B., & Ray-
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. man, J. (2003). Perfectionism, beliefs, and ad-
R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily justment in dating relationships. In N. J.
affect: Dispositional and situational influences Pallone (Ed.) Love, romance, sexual interac-
on stress and coping. Journal of Personality tion: Research perspectives from Current Psy-
and Social Psychology, 84, 234-252. chology (pp.31-60). New Brunswick, NJ:
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. C. Transaction.
(2005). An examination of the domain speci- Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia,
ficity of perfectionism among intercollegiate J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
student-athletes. Personality and Individual of two measures of perfectionism. Personality
Differences, 38, 1439-1448. and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature Frost, R. O., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R.
and assessment of perfectionism: A critical (1991). The development of perfectionism: A
analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), study of daughters and their parents. Cognitive
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treat- Therapy and Research, 15, 469-489.
ment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC: American Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Ro-
Psychological Association. senblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfec-
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). tionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14,
Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism: De- 449-468.
velopmental origins and association with de- Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J.
pression proneness. Personality and Individual (1983). Development and validation of a mul-
Differences, 33, 921-935. tidimensional eating disorder inventory for
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International
Perfectionism and neuroticism: A longitudinal Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 15-34.
study of specific vulnerability and diathesis- Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003). A first study
stress models. Cognitive Therapy and Re- of perfectionism and multidimensional life
search, 29, 463. satisfaction among adolescents. Journal of
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Sareen, J., & Freeman, Early Adolescence, 23, 218-235.
P. (2001). Adaptive and maladaptive perfec- Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D.,
tionism in medical students: A longitudinal in- & Varjas, K. (2005). The relationship between
vestigation. Medical Education, 35, 1034- perfectionism and multidimensional life satis-
1042. faction among Croatian and American youth.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002a). Perfection- Personality and Individual Differences, 39,
ism and maladjustment: An overview of theo- 155.
retical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981).
L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-13). Hills, CA: Sage.
Washington, DC: American Psychological As- Greenspon, T. S. (2000). „Healthy perfection-
sociation. ism“ is an oxymoron! Reflections on the psy-
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002b). chology of perfectionism and the sociology of
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treat- science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Educa-
ment. Washington, DC: American Psychologi- tion, 11, 197-208.
cal Association. Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., &
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism, depend-
perfectionism in sports and exercise. Current ency, self-esteem, and grade point average
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 14- satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists
18. and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Psychology, 51, 192-200.
Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism, and Haase, A. M., & Prapavessis, H. (2004). Assess-
anxiety. Personality and Individual Differ- ing the factor structure and composition of the
ences, 10, 731-735. Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale in
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Mac- sport. Personality and Individual Differences,
donald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children 36, 1725-1740.
and their parents: A developmental analysis.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 18

Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Owens, R. G. enting styles to perfectionism. Personality and
(1999). Perfectionism and eating attitudes in Individual Differences, 32, 317-327.
competitive rowers: Moderating effects of Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. (2005).
body mass, classification and gender. Psychol- The role of mother’s use of control in chil-
ogy and Health, 14, 643-657. dren’s perfectionism: Implications for the de-
Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Owens, R. G. velopment of children’s depressive symptoms.
(2002). Perfectionism, social physique anxiety Journal of Personality, 73, 23-46
and disordered eating: A comparison of male Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2005). Self-oriented
and female elite athletes. Psychology of Sport perfectionism and its relationship to positive
and Exercise, 3, 209-222. and negative affect: The mediation of positive
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of and negative perfectionism cognitions. Cogni-
normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psycho- tive Therapy and Research, 29, 559-571.
logy, 15, 27-33. Kobori, O., Yamagata, S., & Kijima, N. (2005).
Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sci- The relationship of temperament to multidi-
ences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & mensional perfectionism trait. Personality and
Winston. Individual Differences, 38, 203-211.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1980). Vote-counting Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among in-
methods in research synthesis. Psychological ternality, powerful others, and chance. In H.
Bulletin, 88, 359-369. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research within the locus
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfection- of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15-63). New
ism in the self and social contexts: Concep- York: Academic Press.
tion, assessment, and association with psycho- Light, R. J., & Smith, P. V. (1971). Accumulat-
pathology. Journal of Personality and Social ing evidence: Procedures for resolving contra-
Psychology, 60, 456-470. dictions among different research studies.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 429-471.
B., & McGee, B. (2003). Perfectionism is LoCicero, K. A., Ashby, J. S., & Kern, R. M.
multidimensional: A reply to Shafran, Cooper (2000). Multidimensional perfectionism and
and Fairburn (2002). Behaviour Research and lifestyle approaches in middle school students.
Therapy, 41, 1221-1236. Journal of Individual Psychology, 56, 449-
Hewitt, P. L., Mittelstaedt, W., & Wollert, R. 461.
(1989). Validation of a measure of perfection- Lundh, L.G., Johnsson, A., Sundqvist, K., &
ism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, Olsson, H. (2002). Alexithymia, memory of
133-144. emotion, emotional awareness, and perfec-
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, tionism. Emotion, 2, 361-379.
J., Vicente, B. B., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A Lynd-Stevenson, R. M., & Hearne, C. M. (1999).
new measure of perfectionism: The Perfec- Perfectionism and depressive affect: The pros
tionism Inventory. Journal of Personality As- and cons of being a perfectionist. Personality
sessment, 82, 80-91. and Individual Differences, 26, 549-562.
Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and human growth: Martin, J. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2004a). Appraising
The struggle toward self-realization. London: perfection: The relationship of multidimen-
Routledge & Kegan Paul. sional perfectionism and intellectual develop-
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. ment in college students. Journal of College
(1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research Student Psychotherapy, 18, 61-74.
findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Martin, J. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2004b). Perfec-
Sage. tionism and fear of intimacy: Implications for
John, O. P. (1990). The „big five“ factor taxon- relationships. Family Journal: Counseling and
omy: Dimensions of personality in the natural Therapy for Couples and Families, 12, 368-
language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Per- 374.
vin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory Merriam-Webster. (2005). Merriam-Webster
and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guil- online dictionary. Retrieved January 31, 2005,
ford. from http://www.m-w.com
Johnson, D. P., & Slaney, R. B. (1996). Perfec- Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the
tionism: Scale development and a study of past. New York: Simon & Schuster.
perfectionist clients in counseling. Journal of Mobley, M., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2005).
College Student Development, 37, 29-41. Cultural validity of the Almost Perfect Scale-
Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. Revised for African American college stu-
G. (2002). The relationship of perceived par- dents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
629-639.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 19

Neumeister, K. L. S. (2004). Factors influencing Bouchard, C., Gallant, L., Talbot, F., & Valliè-
the development of perfectionism in gifted res, A. (2000). Functional and dysfunctional
college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, perfectionists: Are they different on compul-
259-274. sive-like behaviors? Behaviour Research and
O’Connor, R. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2003). Therapy, 38, 119-128.
Predicting hopelessness and psychological Rhéaume, J., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H.
distress: The role of perfectionism and coping. (2000). The prediction of obsessive-compul-
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 362- sive tendencies: Does perfectionism play a sig-
372. nificant role? Personality and Individual Dif-
Oliver, J. M., Hart, B. A., Ross, M. J., & Katz, B. ferences, 28, 583-592.
M. (2001). Healthy perfectionism and positive Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S, & Preusser, K. J.
expectations about counseling. North Ameri- (1996). Perfectionism, relationships with
can Journal of Psychology, 3, 229-242. parents, and self-esteem. Individual
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. Psychology, 52, 247-260.
American Psychologist, 39, 386-390. Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998).
Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of Self-esteem as a mediator between perfection-
perfectionism in academically talented chil- ism and depression: A structural equation
dren. American Educational Research Jour- analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
nal, 34, 545-562. 45, 304-314.
Parker, W. D. (2000). Healthy perfectionism in Rice, K. G., Bair, C. J., Castro, J. R., Cohen, B.
the gifted. Journal of Secondary Gifted Edu- N., & Hood, C. A. (2003). Meanings of per-
cation, 11, 173-182. fectionism: A quantitative and qualitative
Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjust- analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy,
ment in gifted children. In G. L. Flett & P. L. 17, 39-58.
Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, re- Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfection-
search, and treatment (pp. 133-148). Wash- ism and self-development: Implications for
ington, DC: American Psychological Associa- college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and
tion. Development, 80, 188-196.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An exami- Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005).
nation of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Parental/social influences on perfectionism
Scale with a sample of academically talented and adult attachment orientations. Journal of
children. Journal of Psychoeducational As- Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 580-605.
sessment, 13, 372-383. Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfec-
Periasamy, S., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). Multidi- tionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal
mensional perfectionism and locus of control: of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238-250.
Adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism. Jour- Rice, K. G., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). Clusters of
nal of College Student Therapy, 17, 75-86. perfectionists: Two studies of emotional ad-
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Topciu, R. A. justment and academic achievement. Meas-
(2005). Implementation intentions, perfection- urement and Evaluation in Counseling and
ism, and goal progress: Perhaps the road to Development, 35, 35-48.
hell is paved with good intentions. Personality Rosen, A. M., Murkofsky, C. A., Steckler, N. M.,
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 902-912. & Skolnick, N. J. (1989). A comparison of
Ranieri, W. F., Steer, R. A., Lavrence, T. I., psychological and depressive symptoms
Rissmiller, D. J., Piper, G. E., & Beck, A. T. among restricting anorexic, bulimic-anorexic,
(1987). Relationships of depression, hopeless- an normal-weight bulimic patients.
ness, and dysfunctional attitudes to suicide International Journal of Eating Disorders, 8,
ideation in psychiatric patients. Psychological 657-663.
Reports, 61, 967-975. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for
Randolph, J. J., & Dykman, B. M. (1998). Per- internal versus external control of reinforce-
ceptions of parenting and depression-prone- ment. Psychological Monographs, 80, No.
ness in the offspring: Dysfunctional attitudes 609.
as a mediating mechanism. Cognitive Therapy Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S.
and Research, 22, 377-400. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strate-
Rasmussen, S. A., & Eisen, J. L. (1992). The gies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of
epidemiology and clinical features of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257-
obsessive compulsive disorder. Psychiatric 1264.
Clinics of North America, 15, 743-758. Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Ladouceur, R., evidence of psychological adaptation: How do
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 20

we know one when we see one? Psychological Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional
Science, 15, 643-649. Perfectionism Scale: More perfect with four
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and
(2002). Clinical perfectionism: A cognitive- Individual Differences, 24, 481-491.
behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, pro-
Therapy, 40, 773-791. crastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety,
(2003). „Clinical perfectionism“ is not „multi- and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
dimensional perfectionism“: A reply to search, 25, 49-60.
Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry & McGee. Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchi-
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1217- cal structural analysis of perfectionism and its
1220. relation to other personality characteristics.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
and psychopathology: A review of research 837-852.
and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An
21, 876-906. investigation of the dimensions of perfection-
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Har- ism in college students. Measurement and
vey, M. (2003). Perfectionism dimensions, Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
perfectionistic attitudes, dependent attitudes, 34, 157-165.
and depression in psychiatric patients and Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., &
university students. Journal of Counseling Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative
Psychology, 50, 373-386. perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfection- Differences, 18, 663-668.
ism: Study of a criterion group. Journal of Thompson, D. A., Berg, K. M., & Shatford, L. A.
Counseling and Development, 74, 393-398. (1987). The heterogeneity of bulimic sympto-
Slaney, R. B., Chadha, N., Mobley, M., & Ken- matology: Cognitive and behavioral dimen-
nedy, S. (2000). Perfectionism in Asian Indi- sions. International Journal of Eating Disor-
ans: Exploring the meaning of the construct in ders, 6, 215-234.
India. Counseling Psychologist, 28, 10-31. Tozzi, F., Aggen, S. H., Neale, B. M., Anderson,
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). C. B., Mazzeo, S. E., Neale, M. C., & Bulik,
A programmatic approach to measuring per- C. M. (2004). The structure of perfectionism:
fectionism: The Almost Perfect Scales. In G. A twin study. Behavior Genetics, 34, 483-496.
L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Vieth, A. Z., & Trull, T. J. (1999). Family pat-
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). terns of perfectionism: An examination of col-
Washington, DC: American Psychological As- lege students and their parents. Journal of Per-
sociation. sonality Assessment, 72, 49-67.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, Vitaliano, P.P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D.,
J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost Russo, J., & Katon, W. (1990). Appraised
Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in changeability of a stressor as a modifier of the
Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145. relationship between coping and depression: A
Soenens, B., Elliot, A. J., Goossens, L., Van- test of the hypothesis of fit. Journal of Person-
steenkiste, M., Luyten, P., & Duriez, B. ality and Social Psychology, 59, 582-592.
(2005). The intergenerational transmission of Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Devel-
perfectionism: Parents’ psychological control opment and validation of the Dysfunctional
as an intervening variable. Journal of Family Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at the meeting
Psychology, 19, 358-366. of the Association for the Advancement of Be-
havior Therapy, Chicago, IL.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 21

Perfectionistic
Strivings

Healthy Unhealthy
Perfectionists Perfectionists

Perfectionistic
Concerns

Nonperfectionists

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 concerns) and can be used to differentiate between groups of perfectionists (healthy
perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, nonperfectionists).
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 22

Table 1
Multidimensional Perfectionism: Measures, Facets, and Sample Items

Measure Facets Sample items

APS Standards and order I have high standards for my performance at work or at school; I try to do my best at everything
(Almost Perfect Scale; I do; I am an orderly person
Johnson & Slaney, 1996)

APS-R High standards I have high standards for my performance at work or at school; I try to do my best at everything
(Almost Perfect Scale-Revised; I do; I have a strong need to strive for excellence
Slaney et al., 2001) 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 Personal standards I have extremely high goals; I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than most people; It
(Frost Multidimensional is important to me to that I be thoroughly competent in everything I do
Perfectionism Scale; Organization Organization is very important to me; I am an organized person; I try to be a neat person
Frost et al., 1990)
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.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 23

Table 1 (continued-1)

Measure Facets Sample items

MPS 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
(Multidimensional Perfectionism work; I never aim for perfection in my work (reverse-keyed)
Scale; Hewitt & Flett, 1991)
Socially prescribed The people around me expect me to succeed in everything I do; Anything that I do less than
perfectionism 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 If I ask someone to do something, I expect it to be done flawlessly; I have high expectations for
perfectionism the people who are important to me; I do not have very high standards for those around me
(reverse-keyed)

PI Striving for excellence I must achieve excellence in everything I do; I drive myself rigorously to achieve high
(Perfectionism Inventory; standards; My work needs to be perfect, in order for me to be satisfied
Hill et al., 2004) Organization I would characterize myself as an orderly person; I always like to 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
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 24

Table 1 (continued-2)

Measure Facets Sample items

PQ Perfectionist tendencies 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
(Perfectionism Questionnaire; everything to be perfect
Rhéaume, Freeston, et al., 2000) Negative consequences of My perfectionistic tendencies lead me to doubt my performance; Everything is spoiled if an
perfectionism 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). Consequently, 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).
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 25

Table 2
Studies With a Dimensional Approach (Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns): Conceptions, Correlations, and Categorization of Evidence

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Chang et al. 150 Black and Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal .10d Positive affect and Positive
(2004) 150 White female standards and organization scores satisfaction with life in
undergraduates White and suicidal
ideation (–) in Black
females
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern over Perceived stress, positive
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental affect (–), negative affect,
expectations, and parental criticism scores and suicidal ideation in
both groups, satisfaction
with life (–) in White
females

Frost et al. 553 undergraduates Positive strivings Additive combination of FMPS personal .28 Positive affect Positive
(1993) (51% female) standards and organization and MPS self-
oriented perfectionism and other-oriented
perfectionism scores
Maladaptive evaluation Additive combination of FMPS concern over Negative affect,
concerns mistakes, doubts about actions, parental depression
expectations, and parental criticism and MPS
socially prescribed perfectionism scores

Parker & 855 academically Healthy perfectionism Oblique second-order factor combination of na Extraversion, Positive
Stumpf talented sixth factors representing FMPS personal standards conscientiousness
(1995) graders and organization
(38% female)
Dysfunctional Oblique second-order factor combination of Extraversion (–),
perfectionism factors representing FMPS concern over conscientiousness (–),
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental neuroticism, agree-
expectations, and parental criticism ableness (–)
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 26

Table 2 (continued-1)

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Rice et al. 241 university Adaptive perfectionism Latent factor combination of FMPS personal .43 Attachment avoidance Positive
(2005) students standards and organization, MPS self-oriented (–), attachment anxiety
(82% female) perfectionism, and APS-R high standards and (–)
order
Maladaptive perfectionism Latent factor combination of FMPS concern Attachment avoidance,
over mistakes and doubts about actions and attachment anxiety
APS-R discrepancy

Stumpf & 855 academically Healthy perfectionism Orthogonal second-order factor combination of .00 Conscientiousness, Positive
Parker talented sixth factors representing FMPS personal standards endurance
(2000) graders and organization
(38% female)
Unhealthy perfectionism Orthogonal second-order factor combination of Neuroticism, self-esteem
factors representing FMPS concern over (–)
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations, and parental criticism

Suddarth & 196 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionism Orthogonal factor representing FMPS personal .00 External locus of control Positive
Slaney (79% female) standards, MPS self-oriented perfectionism and (–)
(2001) other-oriented perfectionism, and APS-R high
standards
Maladaptive Orthogonal factor representing FMPS concern External locus of control,
perfectionism over mistakes, doubts about actions, parental trait anxiety,
criticism, parental expectations, MPS socially psychological symptoms
prescribed perfectionism, and APS-R
discrepancy
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 27

Table 2 (continued-2)

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Bieling et al. 198 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized FMPS .45 Positive affect, exam Mixed
(2003) (75% female) personal standards and organization and MPS performance, plans to Ø
self-oriented perfectionism and other-oriented study more, plans to Positive
perfectionism scores study less (–); negative
affect [ns]
Maladaptive Additive combination of standardized FMPS Positive affect (–), exam
perfectionism concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, preparedness, plans to
parental expectations, parental criticism, and study more; negative
MPS socially prescribed perfectionism scores affect

Cox et al. 412 adult outpatients Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal na Outpatients/undergrad- Mixed
(2002) (58% female); standards and organization and MPS self- uates: conscientiousness,
288 undergraduates oriented perfectionism neuroticism, depression;
(63% female); medical students: recent
96 medical students and anticipated academic
(42% female) achievement
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern over Outpatients/undergrad-
mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental uates: neuroticism,
criticism and MPS socially-prescribed depression;
perfectionism Outpatients:
conscientiousness (–)

Dunkley et al. 443 undergraduates Personal standards Latent factor representing FMPS personal .55d Active coping styles; Mixed
(2000) (69% female) perfectionism standards and MPS self-oriented perfectionism hassles [ns] Ø
Evaluative concerns Latent factor representing FMPS concern over Distress, avoidant coping Positive
perfectionism mistakes and doubts about actions and MPS styles, social support (–);
socially prescribed perfectionism hassles
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 28

Table 2 (continued-3)

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Enns et al. 96 medical students Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized FMPS na Conscientiousness, past Mixed
(2001) (42% female) personal standards and MPS self-oriented year performance, ability
perfectionism scores to achieve; neuroticism
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized FMPS Depression, hopelessness,
concern over mistakes and doubts about actions suicide ideation,
and MPS socially prescribed perfectionism neuroticism
scores

Bieling et al. 198 undergraduates Positive striving Additive combination of standardized FMPS .45 Depression, anxiety, Negative
(2004) (75% female) personal standards and organization and MPS stress, test anxiety Ø
self-oriented perfectionism and other-oriented [all ns] ∅
perfectionism scores
Maladaptive evaluation Additive combination of standardized FMPS Depression, anxiety,
concerns concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, stress, test anxiety
parental expectations, parental criticism and
MPS socially prescribed perfectionism scores

Dunkley et al. 163 full-time Personal standards Latent factor representing FMPS personal .61 Perceived social support Negative
(2003) university students perfectionism standards and MPS self-oriented perfectionism (–) [+], self-blame [–], Ø
(61% female) negative affect [–] Positive
Self-critical perfectionism Latent factor representing FMPS concern over Hassles, perceived
mistakes and doubts about actions, MPS socially efficacy (–), event stress,
prescribed perfectionism, and DEQ self- perceived criticism,
criticism positive affect (–),
avoidant coping styles;
perceived social support
(–), self-blame, negative
affect
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 29

Table 2 (continued-4)

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Hill et al. 616 undergraduates Conscientious perfectionism Additive combination of PI striving for .54 Depression [–]; anxiety, Negative
(2004) (62% female) excellence, organization, planfulness, and high OC symptoms, fear of Ø
standards for others negative evaluation, Mixed
somatic complaints,
interpersonal sensitivity,
hostility, phobic anxiety,
paranoia, psychoticism
[all ns]; OC symptoms
frequency, OC symptoms
distress

Self-evaluative perfectionism Additive combination of PI concern over Depression; anxiety, OC

mistakes, rumination, need for approval, and symptoms, fear of
perceived parental pressure negative evaluation,
somatic complaints,
interpersonal sensitivity,
hostility, phobic anxiety,
paranoia, psychoticism;
OC symptoms frequency,
OC symptoms distress

Lynd-Stevenson & 142 undergraduates Active perfectionism Additive combination of standardized FMPS .70 Stressful life events, Negative
Hearne (1999) (71% female) personal standards, parental expectations, and depression [ns] Ø
parental criticism scores ∅
Passive perfectionism Additive combination of standardized FMPS Stressful life events,
concern over mistakes and doubts about actions depression
scores
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 30

Table 2 (continued-5)

Study Sample/s Dimensions Conception r(Dim.)a Correlatesb Evidencec

Rice et al. 464 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS personal .24 [Self-esteem] ∅
(1998) (74% female) standards and organization and APS Ø
standards/order and procrastination (reverse- Positive
scored) scores
Maladaptive perfectionism Additive combination of FMPS concern over Self-esteem (–),
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental depression
expectations, and parental criticism and APS
difficulty in relationships, anxiety, and
procrastination scores

Note. Conceptions ordered alphabetically by reference within each class of evidence (see Table Footnote c). Dimensions: The first dimension always represents the perfec-
tionistic strivings dimension, the second the perfectionistic concerns dimension. Conception: 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 = Perfec-
tionism Inventory, PQ = Perfectionism Questionnaire. Correlates: OC = obsessive-compulsive. na = information not available.
aCorrelation between dimensions. bCritical 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 relation-
ships [ns], and/or reversed relationships [+]. cEvidence: 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 Ö 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). dWeighted mean correlation/s for combined sample.
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 31

Table 3
Studies With a Group-Based Approach (Healthy Perfectionism and Unhealthy Perfectionism): Conceptions, Differences, and Categorization of Evidence

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Ashby & Bruner 144 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with less OC checking, Positive
(2005) (60% female) (HP) low discrepancy scores slowness, and doubting than
UHP
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
(UHP) high discrepancy scores (b) HP with less OC slowness
than NonP
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standard and
(NonP) medium discrepancy scores

Ashby & 123 undergraduates Normal perfectionists Top third of APS-R high standards and below- (a) HP with fewer inferiority Positive
Kottman (51% female) (HP) median discrepancy scores feelings, less procrastination,
(1996) fewer intimacy difficulties, and
Neurotic perfectionists Top third of APS-R high standards and above-
lower anxiety than UHP
(UHP) median discrepancy scores
(b) na

Dickinson & 131 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with lower immature Positive
Ashby (67% female) (HP) low discrepancy scores ego defenses (e.g., projection,
(2005) passive aggression,
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
dissociation) than UHP
(UHP) high discrepancy scores
(b) —
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
(NonP) low discrepancy scores
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 32

Table 3 (continued-1)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Dixon et al. 142 academically Mixed-adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards (a) HP with better adjustment Positive
(2004) talented junior high (HP) and organization, medium concern over and lower anxiety than UP1,
school students mistakes, low doubts about actions, medium less dysfunctional coping
(64% female) parental expectations, and low parental styles than UP2, and more
criticism scores mastery coping styles,
perception of greater personal
Pervasive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
security, and less depression,
(UHP1) organization, concern over mistakes, doubts
somatization, OC symptoms,
about actions, and medium parental
and interpersonal sensitivity
expectations and criticism scores
than both UHP1 and UHP2
Mixed-maladaptive Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
(b) HP with better adjustment
perfectionists medium organization, high concern over
and higher academic
(UHP2) mistakes, medium doubts about actions and
competence than NonP
high parental expectations and criticism scores
Nonperfectionists Cluster with overall low FMPS scores
(NonP)

Gilman et al. 291 Croatian and 341 Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) All HP with higher Positive
(2005) American adolescent (HP) low discrepancy scores satisfaction regarding family,
school students school, self, and life in general
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
(60% female) than UHP and American HP
(UHP) high discrepancy scores
also regarding friends and
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and living environment
(NonP) low/medium discrepancy scores
(b) Croatian HP with higher
(Americans/Croatians)
satisfaction regarding family,
school, and living environment
than NonP
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 33

Table 3 (continued-2)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Grzegorek 273 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with higher self- Positive
et al. (2004) (74% female) (HP) order and low discrepancy scores esteem, greater GPA
satisfaction, and lower self-
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
criticism than UHP
(UHP) order and high discrepancy scores
(b) HP with higher self-
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
esteem, higher GPA, greater
(NonP) order and medium discrepancy scores
GPA satisfaction, and lower
self-criticism than NonP

LoCicero et al. 195 middle school Adaptive perfectionists Top third of APS-R high standards scores and (a) HP with higher social Positive
(2000) students (HP) below average discrepancy scores interest and greater
(59% female) willingness to go along with
Maladaptive perfectionists Top third of APS-R high standards scores and
others than UHP
(UHP) above average discrepancy scores
(b) HP with greater
Nonperfectionists Lower two thirds of APS-R high standards
willingness to go along with
(NonP) scores
others than NonP

Mobley et al. 251 African Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with higher self-esteem Positive
(2005) American (HP) order and low discrepancy scores and lower anxiety and
undergraduates depression than UHP
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
(69% female)
(UHP) order and high discrepancy scores (b) HP with higher self-esteem
and lower anxiety and
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
depression than NonP
(NonP) order and medium discrepancy scores
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 34

Table 3 (continued-3)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Periasamy 260 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Top one-third of APS-R high standards and (a) HP with lesser external Positive
& Ashby (69% female) (HP) below-average discrepancy scores locus of control (powerful-
(2002) others) than UHP
Maladaptive perfectionists Top one-third of APS-R high standards and
(UHP) above-average discrepancy scores (b) HP with greater internal
locus of control than NonP
Nonperfectionists na
(NonP)

Rice et al. 139 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards (a) HP with greater personal Positive
(2003) (75% female) (HP) and organization and medium concern over and interpersonal control and
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental fewer depressed/distorted
expectations, and parental criticism scores cognitions than UHP
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards, (b) HP with greater personal
(UHP) low organization, and high concern over control than NonP
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations and parental criticism scores
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
(NonP) subscales
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 35

Table 3 (continued-4)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Rice & Mirzadeh 179 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards (a) HP with better academic Positive
(2000) (72% female) (HP) and organization, low concern over mistakes integration and lower
and doubts about actions, medium parental depression than UHP
expectations, and low parental criticism scores
(b) na
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards,
(UHP) medium organization, and high concern over
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental
expectations, and parental criticism scores
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low FMPS personal standards
(NonP) and organization, low concern over mistakes,
medium doubts about actions, and low
parental expectations and parental criticism
scores

Rice & Slaney Study 1: Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with higher self-esteem, Positive
(2002) 258 undergraduates (HP) order and low discrepancy scores higher GPA (Study 2), more
(79% female); positive affect, less depressed
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
Study 2: affect, lower state/trait anxiety,
(UHP) order and high discrepancy scores
375 undergraduates and fewer somatic complaints
(77% female) Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and than UHP
(NonP) order and medium discrepancy scores
(b) HP with higher self-esteem,
higher GPA (Study 2), and
lower state/trait anxiety than
NonP
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 36

Table 3 (continued-5)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Martin & Ashby 240 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) HP with a more Mixed
(2004a) (65% female) (HP) low discrepancy scores evaluativistic epistemic style
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and than UHP
(UHP) high discrepancy scores (b) HP with a less relativistic
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and epistemic style than NonP
(NonP) medium discrepancy scores

Parker (1997) 820 academically Healthy perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards, (a) HP with higher Mixed
talented sixth graders (HP) high organization, and low concern over extraversion, agreeableness,
(37% female) mistakes, doubts about actions, parental and conscientiousness and
expectations, and parental criticism scores lower neuroticism than UHP
Dysfunctional or unhealthy Cluster with high FMPS personal standards, (b) HP with higher
perfectionists medium organization, and high concern over extraversion, agreeableness,
(UHP) mistakes, doubts about actions, parental and conscientiousness, but
expectations, and parental criticism scores higher neuroticism than NonP
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
(NonP) subscales

Rhéaume, 32 adults Functional perfectionists Above-median PQ perfectionist tendencies (a) HP with fewer OC Mixed
Freeston, (65% female) (HP) and below-median negative consequences of behaviors, fewer OC
et al. (2000) perfectionism responsibility beliefs and faster
decision times, but higher
Dysfunctional perfectionists Above-median PQ perfectionist tendencies
evidence requirements than
(UHP) and above-median negative consequences of
UHP
perfectionism
(b) na
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 37

Table 3 (continued-6)

Study Sample/s Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Rice & Dellwo 311 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS personal standards, (a) HP with higher self- Mixed
(2002) (75% female) (HP) organization, and parental expectations, idealization, higher self-
medium concern over mistakes, doubts about esteem, better academic and
actions, and parental criticism scores social integration, and lower
depression than UHP
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high FMPS concern over
(UHP) mistakes, doubts about actions, parental (b) HP with higher depression
expectations, and parental criticism, medium than NonP
personal standards, and low organization
scores
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low scores on all FMPS
(NonP) subscales

Ashby et al. 122 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Above-median APS-R high standards and (a) — ∅
(1999) (50% female) (HP) below-median discrepancy scores
(b) HP with greater
Maladaptive perfectionists Above-median APS-R high standards and satisfaction from leisure
(UHP) above-median discrepancy scores activities in terms of need for
freedom, enjoyment, and
Nonperfectionists involvement than NonP
Below-median APS-R high standards
(NonP)

Martin & Ashby 200 undergraduates Adaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and (a) — ∅
(2004b) (64% female) (HP) low discrepancy scores
(b) —
Maladaptive perfectionists Cluster with high APS-R high standards and
(UHP) high discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists Cluster with low APS-R high standards and
(NonP) medium discrepancy scores
 Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism 38

Table 3 (continued-7)

Study Groups Conception Differencesa Evidenceb

Gilman & Ashby 132 middle school Adaptive perfectionists Top one-third of APS-R high standards and (a) — ∅
(2003) students (HP) below-average discrepancy scores
(b) HP with higher satisfaction
(63% female)
Maladaptive perfectionists Top one-third of APS-R high standards and with self than NonP
(UHP) above-average discrepancy scores
Nonperfectionists Lower one-third of APS-R high standards
(NonP) scores

Rice et al. 58 undergraduates Normal perfectionists Above-median APS standards and (a) — ∅
(1996) (48% female) (HP) organization
(b) na
and below-median FMPS concern over
mistakes scores
Neurotic perfectionists Above-median APS standards and
(UHP) 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 perfec-
tionists, NonP = nonperfectionists. Conception: 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, PQ = Perfectionism Question-
naire. Differences: GPA = grade point average, OC = obsessive-compulsive, na = information 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. bEvidence: 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 characteristic 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.)