The Psychology of Perfectionism

Theory, Research, Applications

Joachim Stoeber, Joachim Stoeber

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315536231
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Psychology
• Thema: History & Theory in Psychology

This milestone text provides a comprehensive and state-of-the art overview of perfectionism theory, research, and treatment from the past 25 years, with contributions from the leading researchers in the field.

The book examines new theories and perspectives including the social disconnection model of perfectionism and the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. It also reviews empirical findings, with a special focus on stress, vulnerability, and resilience, and examines perfectionism in specific populations. Finally, it considers how perfectionism relates to physical health and psychophysiological processes and introduces new approaches to effective prevention and treatment.

By increasing our understanding of perfectionism as a complex personality disposition and providing a framework for future explorations, this landmark publication aims to promote further research in this field. It will be invaluable reading for academics, students, and professionals in personality psychology, clinical and counseling psychology, applied psychology, and related disciplines.

PART I
Perspectives on Perfectionism

2
PERFECTIONISM

A Motivational Perspective

Joachim Stoeber, Lavinia E. Damian and Daniel J. Madigan

Overview

The chapter presents a review of the research literature examining perfectionism from a motivational perspective. Taking the two-factor model of perfectionism—differentiating the two higher-order dimensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns—as a basis, we present analyses of the differential relationships that the two dimensions show with key motivational constructs focusing on achievement motivation and self-determination theory. As regards achievement motivation, we examine the relationships with achievement motives (hope of success and fear of failure) and achievement goals (task and ego goals, 2 × 2 and 3 × 2 achievement goals). As regards self-determination theory, we examine the relationships with autonomous and controlled motivation and with the different regulatory styles associated with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Based on the findings of our review, we propose that the differential motivational qualities of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are important to understand why perfectionism is a “double-edged sword” that may energize or paralyze people, motivating some perfectionists to engage and others to disengage. We conclude that perfectionism research may profit from seeing perfectionism from a motivational perspective, perhaps even regard perfectionism as a motive disposition (need for perfection) whereby perfectionistic strivings represent the approach-oriented and autonomous aspects, and perfectionistic concerns the avoidance-oriented and controlled aspects.

Introduction

Perfectionism comes in different forms each having different aspects and is therefore best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Moreover, research on multidimensional perfectionism has shown that the different forms and aspects of perfectionism—when examined together using factor analyses—form two higher-order dimensions (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; see also Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004). The two dimensions have been given different names, but are nowadays mostly referred to as personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000) or—as we prefer to call them—perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).

The differentiation of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns is central to the understanding of multidimensional perfectionism. The reason is that only perfectionistic concerns are consistently associated with characteristics, processes, and outcomes indicative of psychological maladjustment (e.g., neuroticism, avoidant coping, negative affect). In contrast, perfectionistic strivings are often associated with characteristics, processes, and outcomes indicative of psychological adjustment (e.g., conscientiousness, problem-focused coping, positive affect). In this chapter, we want to show that the dual nature of perfectionism—illustrated by strivings and concerns often showing differential (and sometimes opposing) relationships with psychological adjustment and maladjustment—is also reflected in the two dimensions’ relationships with motivational qualities.

Different studies use different measures of multidimensional perfectionism each having different subscales, which can be confusing for readers who are not experts in perfectionism research. Consequently, we followed previous reviews (e.g., Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012; Jowett, Mallinson, & Hill, 2016) and did not detail what specific subscales the reviewed studies employed. Instead, we regarded specific subscales as indicators (“proxies”) of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (see Chapter 1, Table 1.1, for details) so we could focus on the differential relationships that perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns showed with motivational constructs, starting with achievement motivation.

Achievement Motivation

Achievement Motives

Motives are a key variable in the study of motivation. Research on motives differentiates three basic motives or needs—the achievement motive (need for achievement), the affiliation motive (need for affiliation), and the power motive (need for power)—of which the achievement motive has been the most researched in the past 50 years (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) and is the most relevant for perfectionism. Achievement motives can be described as stable individual differences in learned, affectively charged anticipatory responses to achievement situations that energize and direct people’s behaviors (McClelland, 1985). Regarding achievement motives, research traditionally differentiates two basic motives: hope of success (motivating people to achieve success) and fear of failure (motivating people to avoid failure) (Atkinson, 1957; DeCharms & Davé, 1965).

Reviewing the literature, we found nine studies investigating the relationships of perfectionism and fear of failure that reported bivariate correlations (Conroy, Kaye, & Fifer, 2007; Frost & Henderson, 1991; Gucciardi, Mahoney, Jalleh, Donovan, & Parkes, 2012; A. P. Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2010; Kaye, Conroy, & Fifer, 2008; Quested, Cumming, & Duda, 2014; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009; Stoeber & Becker, 2008; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007), but only three that also included hope of success (Frost & Henderson, 1991; Stoeber & Becker, 2008; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007). Regarding the bivariate correlations, the findings show a clear differential pattern for hope of success, but not for fear of failure. As regards hope of success, all three studies found perfectionistic strivings to show positive correlations. In comparison, only one study found perfectionistic concerns to show a positive correlation with hope of success (Frost & Henderson, 1991) whereas the other two found nonsignificant correlations. For fear of failure, five studies found perfectionistic strivings to show positive correlations (Conroy et al., 2007; Frost & Henderson, 1991; Gucciardi et al., 2012; Kaye et al., 2008; Sagar & Stoeber, 2009) and four found nonsignificant correlations (A. P. Hill et al., 2010; Quested et al., 2014; Stoeber & Becker, 2008; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007).¹ By comparison, all studies found perfectionistic concerns to show positive correlations with fear of failure except for one that found a nonsignificant correlation (Stoeber & Becker, 2008).

Whereas the inspection of bivariate correlations and counting and comparing numbers of significant versus nonsignificant correlations is an appropriate method for getting a first impression of the differential relationships of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, the method has two serious limitations. First, it does not take into account any differences in the size of the correlations and thus ignores the strengths of the relationships. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it does not take the overlap between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns into account, which can be considerable (see Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Consequently, one should also consider differences in the size of the correlations and look for statistical analyses that control the overlap between the two dimensions (such as partial correlations, multiple regression analyses, and structural equation modeling) and examine the unique relationships that perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns show with key motivational constructs.

Consequently, we reinspected the nine studies and found that, when both perfectionism dimensions showed positive correlations with fear of failure, perfectionistic concerns usually showed larger correlations than perfectionistic strivings, suggesting that the former have stronger and more consistent links with fear of failure than the latter. Further, in the studies that statistically controlled the two dimensions’ overlap (Sagar & Stoeber, 2009; Stoeber & Becker, 2008; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007), perfectionistic strivings ceased to show any positive relationships with fear of failure. On the contrary, in two of the three studies perfectionistic strivings now showed negative relationships with fear of failure (Sagar & Stoeber, 2009; Stoeber & Becker, 2008).

The different patterns of bivariate versus unique relationships suggest that the overlap with perfectionistic concerns may be responsible for perfectionistic strivings’ positive relationships with fear of failure, and may even suppress possible negative relationships with fear of failure (cf. Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017). By contrast, nothing changed in the pattern of relationships that perfectionistic concerns showed when the overlap with perfectionistic strivings was controlled. Perfectionistic concerns continued to show positive relationships with fear of failure and all its dimensions. Further, perfectionistic concerns continued to show nonsignificant relationships with hope of success whereas perfectionistic strivings continued to show positive relationships.

Achievement Goal Orientations

Whereas the traditional approach in research on achievement motivation focuses on motives and investigates differences in how strongly individuals are motivated and energized, the contemporary approach focuses on goal orientations and investigates differences in why individuals are motivated to achieve (Elliot, 1997). Over the years, research on achievement goal orientations has progressed from a two-component model to a tripartite model, a 2 × 2 model, and—as the latest development—a 3 × 2 model. Our understanding of how perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are related to achievement goal orientations (for brevity reasons consecutively referred to as “achievement goals”) has progressed accordingly, so our review will follow the progression of achievement goal theory.

The Two-Component Model

As regards the two-component model of achievement goals, the vast majority of studies examining multidimensional perfectionism followed Duda and Nicholls’ (1992) model which differentiates two goals: task goals and ego goals. The two goals have different foci and different functionalities. When pursuing task goals, people are focused on meeting the demands of the task, exerting effort, and developing their competence. Hence task goals are considered to represent adaptive achievement motivations. By contrast, when pursuing ego goals, people are focused on demonstrating superior competence with respect to others or normative standards, which may result in greater apprehension about one’s ability, but can also lead to higher performance. Hence, we consider ego goals as mixed adaptive–maladaptive achievement motivations, but agree that they are maladaptive in combination with low levels of task goals (see Duda, 2005, for a review).

Reviewing the literature, we found eight studies that examined the relationships of perfectionistic strivings and concerns with task and ego goals and reported bivariate correlations (Appleton, Hall, & Hill, 2009; Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, & Syrotuik, 2002; Hall, Kerr, Kozub, & Finnie, 2007; Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998; Lemyre, Hall, & Roberts, 2008; McArdle & Duda, 2004; Nerland & Sæther, 2016; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, 2005). As regards task goals, the majority of studies found perfectionistic strivings to show positive correlations except for two studies that found nonsignificant correlations (Lemyre et al., 2008; Nerland & Sæther, 2016). In comparison, the majority of studies found perfectionistic concerns to show nonsignificant correlations with task goals, except for three studies that found negative correlations (Dunn et al., 2002; Lemyre et al., 2008; Ommundsen et al., 2005). For ego goals, all studies found perfectionistic strivings to show positive correlations. The same applied to perfectionistic concerns, with the exception of one study that found perfectionistic concerns to show a nonsignificant correlation with ego goals (Appleton et al., 2009).

Unfortunately, none of the eight studies used statistical analyses examining the unique relationships of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. However, there are two recent reviews that have done just that. The first review (Gotwals et al., 2012) focused on perfectionistic strivings and therefore only computed partial correlations of perfectionistic strivings controlling the overlap with perfectionistic concerns. The second review (Jowett et al., 2016) also computed partial correlations for perfectionistic concerns controlling the overlap with perfectionistic strivings. As regards task goals, the reviews showed that controlling the overlap did not change the pattern of significant relationships found in the bivariate correlations, except that the positive relationships of perfectionistic strivings tended to become larger when the overlap with perfectionistic concerns was controlled. In contrast, the relationships of perfectionistic concerns tended to become smaller (if positive) or larger (if negative) when the overlap with perfectionistic strivings was controlled. The opposing pattern of these tendencies suggests the presence of mutual suppression effects whereby perfectionistic concerns suppress adaptive aspects of perfectionistic strivings, and perfectionistic strivings suppress maladaptive aspects of perfectionistic concerns (R. W. Hill, Huelsman, & Araujo, 2010; see Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017, for a detailed discussion of these effects). For ego goals, the reviews found that, in the majority of studies, perfectionistic strivings showed significant positive relationships even when the overlap with perfectionistic concerns was controlled. This indicates that the links perfectionistic strivings show with ego goals cannot be explained by their overlap with perfectionistic concerns. In contrast, perfectionistic concerns tended to show smaller positive relationships with ego goals when the overlap with perfectionistic strivings was controlled (and some of the relationships even became nonsignificant). This suggests that perfectionistic concerns often show links with ego goals because of their overlap with perfectionistic strivings. Otherwise, the pattern of unique relationships dovetailed with the pattern of bivariate correlations indicating that perfectionistic strivings show more consistent and stronger positive relationships with ego goals than perfectionistic concerns.

The 2 × 2 Model

One reason why perfectionistic strivings ...