See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264123510

Comparing perfectionist types on family

environment and well-being among Hong Kong
adolescents

Article in Personality and Individual Differences · November 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.023

CITATIONS READS

3 201

5 authors, including:

Han Na Suh Mantak Yuen

University of Missouri The University of Hong Kong
5 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 84 PUBLICATIONS 535 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kenneth T Wang Reid Trotter

Fuller Theological Seminary Colorado State University
35 PUBLICATIONS 392 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychometrics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth T Wang on 26 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Comparing perfectionist types on family environment and well-being

among Hong Kong adolescents
Han Na Suh a,⇑, Mantak Yuen b, Kenneth T. Wang a,⇑, Chu-Chun Fu a, Reid H. Trotter c
a
University of Missouri, United States
b
University of Hong Kong, China
c
Colorado State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examined the associations between family environment factors and perfectionist types among
Received 29 April 2014 491 Hong Kong high school students. Participants who reported being from a family oriented to high
Received in revised form 13 June 2014 achievement were more likely classified as perfectionists, and more so maladaptive perfectionists. Other
Accepted 16 June 2014
family environment factors also differentiated adaptive from maladaptive perfectionists. The three
perfectionist types were also compared on self-efficacy, self-esteem, rebellious and antisocial behaviors.
Further results and implications are provided.
Keywords:
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Perfectionism
Family Environment
Hong Kong
High School Students

1. Introduction classification. While Standards measures the expectations one sets

One of the best ways to obtain insight into the nature of any
personality construct is to examine the factors and processes that
contribute to its development (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald,
2002). While numerous studies have focused on perfectionism
and its association with other psychological variables, relatively
few studies have explored factors influencing the development of
perfectionism (DiPrima, Ashby, Gnilka, & Noble, 2011). Over two
decades, studies have focused on identifying the multidimension-
ality of perfectionism (i.e. subtypes such as adaptive perfectionism
and maladaptive perfectionism) providing evidence that each
dimension possesses different clinical implications (Stoeber &
Otto, 2006). Also, utilizing the multidimensionality of perfection-
ism, individuals can be categorized into different types of
perfectionists.
As conceptualized by early researchers (e.g. Hamachek, 1978),
people can be classified as adaptive (normal) perfectionists or mal-
adaptive (neurotic) perfectionists, based on the combination of dif-
ferent aspects of perfectionism. Two core Almost Perfect Scale-
Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996)
subscales—Standards and Discrepancy—are used as indicators for
⇑ Corresponding authors. Address: Department of Educational, School, and
Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, 16 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211,
USA.
E-mail addresses: hsm7b@mail.missouri.edu (H.N. Suh), kennethtwang@gmail.
com (K.T. Wang).
for performance, Discrepancy measures the perceived gap between
one’s expectations and performance, and serves as the core factor
differentiating whether a person’s perfectionistic tendencies are
adaptive or maladaptive. Adaptive perfectionists possess high
goals, and strive for the rewards associated with achieving those
goals, while also being satisfied with their performance. In con-
trast, maladaptive perfectionists set unattainably high standards
for themselves, and lack the ability to take pleasure in their own
performance or recognize their capabilities (Hamachek, 1978). An
emerging body of evidence supports the validity of this two-factor
model of perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
Several theoretical frameworks pointing to the origin of perfec-
tionism during childhood appear within the research literature.
According to general psychology and sociology literature, the fam-
ily climate represents one of the most salient socio-environmental
dimensions influencing a child’s development. In particular, Social
Expectation Theory highlights the importance of family environ-
ment in the development of perfectionism. It suggests that parents
of perfectionistic children tend not to reward the efforts of their
offspring overtly and regularly. Positive feedback is reserved only
for occasions when their highest expectations are fulfilled. The
high expectations create a situation where imperfection in perfor-
mance portends something ominous; the child must constantly
strive towards even higher performance standards as they seek
to attain the approval of their parents. The child may also belittle
their own accomplishments as they feel they have never quite ful-
filled parental expectations (Appleton, Hill, & Hill, 2010).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.023
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
112 H.N. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116
Recently, studies have examined factors involved in the devel-
opment of different perfectionism dimensions. For example,
DiPrima et al. (2011) examined the relationship between family
variables and found adaptive perfectionism to be positively associ-
ated with numerous positive family variables (e.g. parental
approval, emphasis on individual growth of family members),
whereas maladaptive perfectionists reported less parental nurtur-
ance compared to adaptive perfectionists. Enns and Cox (2002)
found parenting characterized by high expectations for self and
child (‘perfectionistic’ parenting) related to both adaptive and mal-
adaptive forms of perfectionism, but harsh parenting to be only
associated with maladaptive perfectionism. Moreover, a recent
qualitative study of perfectionists and non-perfectionists
(Hibbard & Walton, 2012) found a salient difference between the
two; the former group reported feeling more pressured from their
families to succeed, and their parents were overly critical of their
mistakes when they were growing up. These studies highlight
the importance of family environment in the development of
childhood perfectionism. However, there is still a need to better
establish the empirical support across diverse cultures.
In general, there are cultural variations of how the family envi-
ronment impacts individuals. For example, traditional Asian cul-
ture is more collectivistic in nature and values family reputation
and conformity to familial expectations more than Western cul-
tures (Triandis, 1995). Thus, the family factor could have different
impacts across cultures in the development process of perfection-
ism as well. This makes it important to examine how family envi-
ronment relates to the development of perfectionism across
cultures. For instance, studies conducted in the U.S. have suggested
Asian Americans reporting higher levels of maladaptive perfection-
ism in the forms of parental expectations and criticism (Castro &
Rice, 2003) and family discrepancy (Wang, 2010) than their Euro-
pean American counterparts. It is important to take into consider-
ation that traditional Asian culture is more collectivistic in nature
with an emphasis on conforming to familial expectations more
than individualistic cultures (Triandis, 1995). This often means that
individuals will be deliberately fitting in with the wishes or expec-
tations of others in order to maintain harmony, and tend to find
ways to coexist, cooperate and comply with others (Yeh &
Hwang, 2000). In the case of Chinese children growing up, this
may mean constantly having to strive to reach the very high expec-
tations their parents place on them for academic success. The pro-
cess of parents provoking feelings of shame through linking losing
face (tiu lien) with children’s failure to meet family expectations
(Fung, Lieber, & Leung, 2003) seems to be reminiscent of the per-
fectionism dimension focusing on discrepancy (Wang, Slaney, &
Rice, 2007). This pressure can influence the development of a
tendency toward adaptive or maladaptive perfectionism in the
children. Clearly, more studies aimed to better understand perfec-
tionism within different ethnic groups is needed.
1.1. Current study
This study examined the association between family environ-
ment and multidimensional perfectionism in a Chinese adolescent
sample in Hong Kong. In particular, we examined family factors
that differentiated not only perfectionists from non-perfectionists,
but also maladaptive perfectionists from adaptive perfectionists.
We hypothesized that achievement orientation would be posi-
tively associated with being classified as perfectionists. In addition,
these different types of perfectionists were examined and com-
pared to confirm and further establish their adaptive and maladap-
tive characteristics. So the second aim of the study was to compare
adaptive, maladaptive, and non-perfectionists on psychological,
behavioral, and achievement variables related to adolescent
adjustment—such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, and risk behaviors.
We anticipated that adaptive perfectionists would have higher
self-efficacy and self-esteem than maladaptive perfectionists.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 491 high school students from Hong Kong;
57% males, 43% females. Ages ranged from 14 to 21 years, with a
mean of 16.71 (S.D. = 1.32). In terms of grade level, 31% were in
the 10th year, 29% were in the 11th year, 17% were in the 12th
year, and 23% were in the 13th year of schooling.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos, 1974)
The FES is a 90-item scale that measures perception of one’s
family environment. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Construct validity
have been demonstrated through the associations of FES with
depression and self-constructs among Hong Kong adolescents
(Lau & Kwok, 2000). In past studies, the Cronbach alphas of FES
subscale scores ranged from .55 to .90, with several low internal
consistencies (Phillips, West, Shen, & Zheng, 1998). However, FES
was chosen for this study due to its wide use in past research,
which provides better bases for comparing across studies. To
address the internal consistency issue, only six subscales with ade-
quate internal consistencies were used in this study. Cronbach
alphas for the current sample are: Cohesion (8 items, a = .85),
Conflict (8 items, a = .80), Achievement (5 items, a = .64), Intellec-
tual-Cultural (9 items, a = .69), Organization (8 items, a = .66), and
Control (8 items, a = .70).
2.2.2. Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney et al., 1996)
The APS-R includes three subscales: Standards (7 items), Order
(3 items), and Discrepancy (9 items). Chinese version of the APS-R
was modified by excluding four items from the original APS-R
(three Discrepancy items and one Order item) following factor
analyses results from a previous study with Hong Kong adolescents
(Wang, Yuen, & Slaney, 2009). APS-R has been supported through
its empirical associations with constructs such as depression,
self-esteem, and achievement among various cultural groups
(e.g., Wang et al., 2007). The Cronbach alphas for APS-R subscale
scores ranged from .73 to .86 in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents
(Wang et al., 2009), and it ranged from .77 to .87 for the current
sample.
2.2.3. Personal-Social Development Self-Efficacy Inventory (PSD-SEI;
Yuen et al., 2004a)
The PSD-SEI is a 60-item scale that assesses personal-social
development self-efficacy among adolescents, which includes 7
factors: Self-Realization, Leadership & Teamwork, Emotional, Phys-
ical & Social Wellness, Interests & Life Goals, Relationships, Avoid-
ing Drugs, Excessive Drinking & Smoking, and Finance & Self-Care.
The total PSD-SEI score had a Cronbach alpha of .95 in a previous
study (Yuen et al., 2004a), and was .96 in this study. Construct
validity was supported by higher achieving students reporting
higher PSD-SEI scores (Yuen et al., 2004a).
2.2.4. Academic Development Self-Efficacy Inventory (AD-SEI; Yuen
et al., 2004b)
The AD-SEI is a 20-item scale that assesses personal-social
development self-efficacy among adolescents, which includes five
factors: Time Management, Study & Examination Skills, Learning
from Friends, Educational Planning, and Being a Responsible
 H.N. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116
Leader. The total AD-SEI score was used in this study and its Cron-
bach alpha was .93, which was similar to Yuen et al.’s study
(a = .95). Construct validity was supported by AD-SEI’s positive
associations with study skills efficacy and self-esteem (Yuen
et al., 2004b).
2.2.5. Career Development Self-Efficacy Inventory (CD-SEI; Yuen et al.,
2004c)
The CD-SEI is a 24-item scale that assesses career development
self-efficacy among adolescents, which includes 6 factors: Career
Planning, Gender Issues in Career, Training Selection, Job Hunt
Preparation, Job Hunting, and Career Goal Setting. The total CD-
SEI score was used in this study and its Cronbach alpha was .95,
which was the same as Yuen et al.’s study (a = .95). Construct
validity was supported by CD-SEI’s positive associations with
career decision-making efficacy and self-esteem (Yuen et al.,
2004c).
2.2.6. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965)
The RSES assesses positive evaluations of the self and consists of
10 Likert-type scale items. The Cronbach alpha of RSES scores was
.79 with the Hong Kong sample, and its construct validity was
supported through a positive association with extraversion and a
negative association with neuroticism (Schmitt & Allik, 2005).
The Cronbach alpha of the current sample was .83.
2.2.7. Adolescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire (ARQ; Gullone, Moore,
Moss, & Boyd, 2000)
Two of the ARQ subscales, Rebellious Behaviors (5 items) and
Antisocial Behaviors (5 items) were used in this study because they
included behaviors that are common in Hong Kong secondary
school adolescents. In a sample of Chinese middle school students,
the Cronbach alphas of the Rebellious Behaviors and Antisocial
Behaviors scores were .81 and .65, respectively (Zhang, Zhang, &
Shang, 2011). Cronbach alphas for the current sample were .76
for Rebellious Behaviors and .58 for Antisocial Behaviors. Construct
validity of the two subscales were supported by inverse associa-
tions with the AQR Risk Perception subscale (Gullone et al., 2000).
2.3. Procedures
Participants were recruited from four different schools and a
total of 11 different randomly selected classes. Prior to collecting
data, school principals’ approval and parental consents were
obtained. The surveys were presented in Chinese and administered
by classroom teachers during class periods without extra credit or
compensation. The Chinese measures were either originally devel-
oped in Chinese (PSD-SEI, AD-SEI, and CD-SEI), translated through
back-translation procedures (APS-R and ARQ) or obtained from
researchers that had translated those scales for published studies
(FES and RSES).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary and descriptive analysis
Analysis of variances (ANOVA) was conducted on all study vari-
ables by gender, age, and grade level. Among the FES subscales
there were several significant group differences at the p < .05 level.
Due to these differences, gender, age, and grade level were used as
covariates in multinomial logistic regression analyses.
The mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach alpha of each
study variable and the correlations across all variables are pre-
sented in Table 1. Standards and Order subscales were both posi-
tively correlated with the three self-efficacy scales and
113
Achievement and Organization of FES. Order was negatively corre-
lated with FES Conflict and ARQ subscales. Discrepancy was nega-
tively correlated with Personal-Social Development Self-Efficacy
and Self-Esteem. The three self-efficacy variables were positively
correlated with Cohesion, Achievement, Intellectual, and Organiza-
tion of FES and negatively correlated with Conflict of FES.
3.2. Cluster analyses
Cluster analyses were conducted using APS-R subscale scores to
identify perfectionists and non-perfectionists. Following past stud-
ies (e.g., Rice & Slaney, 2002), a two-step procedure involving both
hierarchical and nonhierarchical analyses was performed. Stan-
dardized scores of the Standards, Order, and Discrepancy subscales
were used as variables in the analysis. A three-cluster solution was
selected, which was generally consistent with theoretical expecta-
tions and previous research (DiPrima et al., 2011; Rice & Slaney,
2002; Wang et al., 2009). To determine the label of each cluster
group, means of Standards, Order, and Discrepancy scores of the
APS-R were compared between groups. Participants in the first
cluster (n = 132) had the highest Order scores along with relatively
high Standards score, but lowest Discrepancy scores, and were
labeled as adaptive perfectionists. The second cluster’s participants
(n = 143) had the highest Standards scores and relatively high
Order scores and the highest Discrepancy scores; they appeared
to be maladaptive perfectionists. The third cluster’s participants
(n = 216) had the lowest scores on Standards and Order subscales,
and relatively low Discrepancy scores, therefore, the group was
labeled as non-perfectionists. Chi-square tests indicated that gen-
der [v2 (2) = 1.16, p = .56] and grade level [v2 (6) = 9.80, p = .13]
distributions were not significantly different across perfectionist
types.
3.3. Regression
Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was performed to esti-
mate how each family environmental variable predicted a certain
type of perfectionists. In this study, the relative contribution of
six FES sub-factors and three demographic variables were exam-
ined (i.e. gender, age, and educational level) to see its’ prediction
on certain type of perfectionists. The model was statistically signif-
icant (v2 = 100.96, df = 34, p < .001; Pseudo R2 = .10, f2 = .11). When
variables were entered together, results revealed no significant
effect of demographic variables predicting perfectionist types.
However, five out of the six FES sub-factors emerged as significant
factors. The strongest association with perfectionist types was
Achievement Orientation (v2 = 29.92, df = 2, p < .001), followed by
Organization (v2 = 16.81, df = 2, p < .001), Conflict (v2 = 10.99,
df = 2, p < .01), Control (v2 = 7.82, df = 2, p < .05), and Cohesion
(v2 = 7.20, df = 2, p < .05).
Follow-up contrasts were conducted to compare the three dif-
ferent types of perfectionists (Table 2). Achievement orientation
differentiated perfectionists (both adaptive and maladaptive) from
non-perfectionists; those from families with higher achievement
orientation were more likely to be classified as perfectionists. Dif-
ferent FES factors differentiated non-perfectionists from either
adaptive or maladaptive perfectionists. Those from a family envi-
ronment with stronger achievement orientation [B = .148, p < .05,
Exp (B) = 1.16], less conflict [B = .11, p < .01, Exp (B) = .89], more
organization [B = .21, p < .001, Exp (B) = 1.23], and less cohesion
[B = .14, p < .01, Exp (B) = .87] were more likely to be adaptive
perfectionists than non-perfectionists. Those from families with
stronger emphasis on achievement [B = .366, p < .001, Exp
(B) = 1.44] and a lower level of control [B = .10, p < .05, Exp
(B) = .91] were more likely to be maladaptive perfectionists than
non-perfectionists.
114 H.N. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116

Table 1
Intercorrelations between predictor and outcome variables.

Mean S.D. alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Standards 32.75 6.48 .83
2. Order 13.82 3.23 .77 .41*
3. Discrepancy 39.85 8.69 .87 .36* .09
4. Cohesion 22.18 3.98 .85 .15 .21* .13
5. Conflict 18.48 4.14 .80 .10 .18* .14 .70*
6. Achievement 13.25 2.31 .64 .35* .32* .00 .51* .32*
7. Intellectual 19.85 4.05 .69 .14 .14 .15 .35* .19* .39*
8. Organization 20.87 3.34 .67 .23* .33* .12 .56* .45* .52* .31*
9. Control 18.14 3.51 .70 .04 .10 .02 .26* .32* .13 .08 .11
10. Per-efficacy 256.39 33.00 .96 .33* .41* .20* .36* .28* .34* .23* .39* .05
11. Acd-efficacy 79.90 13.99 .93 .40* .46* .12 .35* .25* .35* .26* .38* .00 .77*
12. Car-efficacy 99.87 16.08 .95 .35* .33* .12 .30* .17* .31* .22* .34* .02 .77* .79*
13. Self-esteem 26.28 4.32 .83 .10 .04 .50* .30* .27* .15 .17* .29* .10 .45* .32* .36*
14. Rebellious 7.28 3.07 .76 .15 .16* .01 .16 .16* .15 .00 .17* .01 .20* .18* .11 .02
15. Antisocial 10.91 2.88 .58 .01 .18* .12 .14 .17* .15 .05 .17* .04 .09 .14 .03 .07 .51*

Note:
*
p < .001.

Table 2
Family environment factors that significantly distinguish perfectionist types.

Adaptive perfectionists n = 128 Maladaptive perfectionists n = 136 Non-perfectionists n = 202 Significant comparisons
M SD M SD M SD (p < .05)
Achievement 13.76 2.10 13.78 2.29 12.58 2.27 MP > AP > NP
Organization 22.33 3.14 20.79 3.43 20.04 3.11 AP > MP, NP
Conflict 17.12 4.06 18.78 4.23 19.10 3.94 MP, NP > AP
Control 18.42 3.82 17.81 3.31 18.18 3.43 AP, NP > MP
Cohesion 23.04 4.21 22.19 3.95 21.66 3.78 AP > NP

Note: AP = Adaptive perfectionist, MP = Maladaptive perfectionist, NP = Non-perfectionist (N = 466).

In comparing maladaptive and adaptive perfectionists, students
from a family environment with higher levels of organization
[B = .17, p < .01, Exp (B) = 1.18] and control [B = .11, p < .05, Exp
(B) = 1.11], and less conflict [B = .15, p < .01, Exp (B) = .86] and
achievement orientation [B = .22, p < .01, Exp (B) = .80] were
more likely to be adaptive perfectionists.
perfectionist had significantly higher self-esteem than the other
two groups. Maladaptive perfectionists’ self-esteem scores were
significantly lower than those of non-perfectionists. Non-
perfectionists reported significantly more rebellious behaviors
than the two perfectionist groups. Adaptive perfectionists had sig-
nificantly less antisocial behaviors than the two other groups.

3.4. ANOVA 4. Discussion

Group differences on various aspects of self-efficacy, self-
esteem, and rebellious and antisocial behaviors were examined
(Table 3). Overall, adaptive perfectionists had statistically signifi-
cantly higher scores on the three self-efficacy subscales than
maladaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists. Maladaptive
perfectionists had higher academic-efficacy and career-efficacy
than non-perfectionists. In terms of self-esteem, adaptive
Several significant findings emerged from this study. First, there
were some interesting differences between the results of this study
and DiPrima et al.’s (2011) that used a European American sample.
The results in this study showed that adaptive perfectionists
reported more family demand on organization and more control
from their family members compared to their maladaptive perfec-
tionist counterparts, which was not the case in DiPrima et al’s

Table 3
Means and standard deviations by perfectionist groups.

Subscale Adaptive perfectionists Maladaptive perfectionists Non-perfectionists F g2

n = 132 n = 143 n = 216
M SD M SD M SD
Standards 34.78a 5.19 37.72b 4.75 28.21c 4.98 172.53 .41
Order 16.61a 1.64 14.63b 3.06 11.58c 2.39 185.42 .43
Discrepancy 35.10a 6.07 49.71b 5.30 36.22a 6.27 278.92 .53
Personal-efficacy 273.77a 26.40 255.26b 30.42 246.53b 34.09 31.53 .11
Academic-efficacy 86.53a 12.55 81.39b 12.90 74.85c 13.65 33.60 .12
Career-efficacy 106.39a 13.09 101.20b 16.24 95.01c 16.12 23.13 .09
Self-Esteem 28.42a 3.44 24.36b 4.30 26.24c 4.22 34.50 .12
Rebellious 6.58a 1.84 6.97a 2.75 7.92b 3.70 9.25 .04
Antisocial 10.10a 2.38 11.28b 2.67 11.15b 3.19 7.40 .03

Note: All univariate F tests were significant at p < .001. F tests were based on df = 2, 488. Values with different superscripts indicate significant within-row differences between
the clusters using Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons, significant at p < .05.
 H.N. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116
study. While previous research suggested that adaptive perfection-
ists in Western cultural settings are exposed to a family environ-
ment encouraging individuality, those in this Hong Kong sample
perceived their family environment as having more demands to
follow rules and conform to family expectations, which may be
due to traditional Asian collectivistic values (Triandis, 1995). This
difference may imply that adaptive perfectionists develop differ-
ently across cultural contexts.
Second, individuals from a family with higher achievement ori-
entation were more likely to be perfectionists, and particularly mal-
adaptive perfectionists. Moreover, family environments that stress
achievement but lack clear structure of rules or procedures are
more associated with maladaptive perfectionism. This implies that
preventive interventions in Asian culture should focus on increas-
ing parents’ understanding of how to moderate the level of empha-
sis on achievement and set clear rules to help lower the possibility
of children developing maladaptive perfectionistic tendencies.
Third, maladaptive perfectionists reported poorer adjustment
(i.e., three types of efficacy, self-esteem, and antisocial behaviors)
compared to adaptive perfectionists, which is consistent with past
studies (e.g. Rice & Slaney, 2002). With the exception of having
lower self-esteem scores, however, maladaptive perfectionists
reported equal or even better adjustment on several of the vari-
ables compared to non-perfectionists. Although this result is
inconsistent with most studies where maladaptive perfectionists
have been found to have poorer psychological health and adjust-
ment than non-perfectionists (e.g., Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, &
Rice, 2004), the finding is in keeping with those from another study
of Hong Kong adolescents (Wang et al., 2009). In the study by
Wang et al., the maladaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists
did not differ on measures of depression, satisfaction with life, and
loneliness. Wang et al. suggested the possibility that discrepancy
reflects societal values in the Chinese cultural context (e.g., humil-
ity) and may have less detrimental effects there compared to a
Western cultural context. Moreover, there have been studies with
Taiwanese students that have found four clusters (e.g., Wang,
2012; Wang et al., 2007), with an additional group with low-Stan-
dards and high-Discrepancy. Although there could be differences
among Chinese students in Hong Kong and Taiwan, future studies
could further examine how Chinese cultural values may be related
to perfectionism.
Another point to highlight is that maladaptive perfectionists
reported significantly higher academic efficacy than non-perfec-
tionists. Grzegorek et al. (2004) suggested that the perception of
inadequacy among students primed for self-criticism may be more
directly associated with their adjustment-related difficulties. Thus,
the result might imply that Hong Kong students who feel okay
about their academic efficacy might still suffer psychologically, as
evidenced through their lower self-esteem. Thus, compared to
non-perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists seem to suffer from
lacking the perception of their worthiness, which does not actually
mean that they have less confidence in their academic
performance.
5. Implications
There are several implications resulting from this study. Find-
ings support the notion that family environment has a solid asso-
ciation with perfectionism. In particular, setting clear rules and
structures within the family environment emerged as a major
factor differentiating the types of perfectionists in Asian culture.
Disseminating psycho-educational information about these family
factors, encouraging the factors associated with adaptive
perfectionism, and minimizing those associated with maladaptive
perfectionism would be imperative.
115
Maladaptive perfectionists, compared to non-perfectionists,
seem to suffer from a misperception of their worthiness, rather
than lacking confidence in their academic performance. Their high
levels of discrepancy, which is a core factor defining maladaptive
perfectionism, appears to have a stronger link to their overall
self-worth rather than self-efficacy in performance. This suggests
that when working with maladaptive perfectionist students, coun-
selors should differentiate between self-esteem (worth) and self-
efficacy (ability), and focus attention on the former.
In working with maladaptive perfectionistic clients in counsel-
ing, family environmental factors should be explored to help better
understand possible antecedents of their perfectionistic tenden-
cies. In particular, when addressing their low self-esteem, it could
be helpful to explore how to help them cope with families with
high levels of achievement orientation and low structure. It would
be important to keep in mind that perceived success might come in
the form of garnering family acceptance and nurturing with the
goal of being perfect (DiPrima et al., 2011). In other words, psy-
chologists and counselors should address this possible link
between conditional acceptance and one’s self worth as well as
how to cope with this type of family environment. It may also be
helpful to engage maladaptive perfectionists’ parents and other
family members to help break the perceived connection between
needing to achieve perfection to gain acceptance.
6. Limitations and future directions
There are a few limitations in this study. First, this study focuses
on high school students. It would be meaningful to examine earlier
stages to identify the critical period of perfectionism development,
or when children develop into different types of perfectionists. Sec-
ond, this study utilizes self-reported data with cross-sectional
design, thus direct causal relationships between family environ-
ment and perfectionist types cannot be inferred. Using a longitudi-
nal approach that includes multiple sources and multiple time
points in future studies would provide a better understanding of
potential causal relationships. Third, some of the FES and ARQ sub-
scales had low internal consistencies, which were similar with past
studies. Developing scales that measure family factors and risk
behaviors with cross-cultural validity might be another future
direction. Fourth, these Chinese participants were from Hong Kong,
and this population might have unique characteristics due to its
past British influence. Future studies might include samples from
other Asian countries (e.g. Mainland China, Taiwan, Korea) for gen-
eralization purpose. Finally, results of this study underscore the
importance of extending psychological research beyond US, to
other countries and cultures. It would also be important to further
examine the possible differences in the construct of perfectionism
itself across cultures through future research.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this paper was partly funded by the Hong
Kong Research Grant Council (HKU 7453/06H) and the Quality
Education Fund. The authors would like to thank the teachers,
principals, and students of the participant schools for their support
to the project. Copies of the Chinese version of the APS-R are
obtainable from Mantak Yuen (E-mail: mtyuen@hku.hk).
References
Appleton, P. R., Hill, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2010). Family patterns of perfectionism: An
examination of elite junior athletes and their parents. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 11, 363–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.005.
Castro, J. R., & Rice, K. G. (2003). Perfectionism and ethnicity: Implications for
depressive symptoms and self-reported academic achievement. Cultural
116 H.N. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 70 (2014) 111–116
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 64–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1099-9809.9.1.64.
DiPrima, A. J., Ashby, J. S., Gnilka, P. B., & Noble, C. L. (2011). Family relationships and
perfectionism in middle-school students. Psychology in the Schools, 48(8),
815–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20594.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical
analysis. Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association (pp. 33–62). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
10458-002.
Flett, G., Hewitt, P., Oliver, J., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and
their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. Flett & P. Flett (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10458-004.
Fung, H., Lieber, E., & Leung, P. W. (2003). Parental beliefs about shame and moral
socialization in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the United States. In K. S. Yang, K. K.
Hwang, P. B. Pedersen, & I. Daibo (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology:
Conceptual and empirical contributions (pp. 83–109). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism,
dependency, self-esteem, and grade point average satisfaction among clusters
of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
192–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.192.
Gullone, E., Moore, S., Moss, S., & Boyd, C. (2000). The Adolescent Risk-Taking
Questionnaire: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 15, 231–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558400152003.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 27–33.
Hibbard, D. R., & Walton, G. E. (2012). Where does perfectionism come from? A
qualitative investigation of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Social Behavior
and Personality, 40(7), 1121–1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.
7.1121.
Lau, S., & Kwok, L. (2000). Relationship of family environment to adolescents’
depression and self-concept. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 41–50. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2000.28.1.41.
Moos, R. H. (1974). Family environment scale preliminary manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting.
Phillips, M. R., West, C. L., Shen, Q., & Zheng, Y. (1998). Comparison of schizophrenic
patients’ families and normal families in China, using Chinese versions of
FACES-II and the Family Environment Scales. Family Process, 37, 95–106. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00095.x.
Rice, K. G., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). Clusters of perfectionists: Two studies of
emotional adjustment and academic achievement. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 35, 35–48.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
View publication stats
Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale in 53 Nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific
features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
623–642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623.
Slaney, R. B., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., Ashby, J. S., & Johnson, D. G. (1996). Almost
Perfect Scale-Revised. Unpublished manuscript, The Pennsylvania State
University.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wang, K. T. (2010). The Family Almost Perfect Scale: Development, psychometric
properties, and comparing Asian and European Americans. Asian American
Journal of Psychology, 1(3), 186–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020732.
Wang, K. T. (2012). Personal and family perfectionism of Taiwanese college
students: Relationships with depression, self-esteem, achievement motivation,
and academic grades. International Journal of Psychology, 47, 305–314. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2011.626050.
Wang, K. T., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2007). Perfectionism in Chinese university
students from Taiwan: A study of psychological well-being and achievement
motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1279–1290. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.006.
Wang, K. T., Yuen, M., & Slaney, R. B. (2009). Perfectionism, depression, loneliness,
and life satisfaction: A study of high school students in Hong Kong. The
Counseling Psychologist, 37, 249–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001100000
8315975.
Yeh, C. J., & Hwang, M. (2000). Interdependence in ethnic identity and self:
Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78,
420–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01925.x.
Yuen, M., Gysbers, N.C., Hui, E. P. K., Lau, P. S.Y., Chan, R. M. C., Shea, P. M. K., Leung,
T. K. M., & Ke, S. S. Y. (2004a). Personal-Social Development Self-Efficacy
Inventory: Users’ Manual. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Faculty of
Education Life Skills Development Project.
Yuen, M., Gysbers, N.C., Hui, E. P. K., Leung, T. K. M., Lau, P. S.Y., Chan, R. M. C., Shea,
P. M. K., & Ke, S. S. Y. (2004b). Academic Development Self-Efficacy Inventory:
Users’ Manual. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Education
Life Skills Development Project.
Yuen, M., Gysbers, N.C., Hui, E. P. K., Leung, T. K. M., Lau, P. S.Y., Chan, R. M. C., Shea,
P. M. K., & Ke, S. S. Y. (2004c). Career Development Self-Efficacy Inventory:
Users’ Manual. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Education
Life Skills Development Project.
Zhang, C., Zhang, L., & Shang, L. (2011). Reliability and validity of Adolescent Risk-
taking Questionnaire-Risk Behavior Scale (ARQ-BS) in middle school students.
Chinese Mental Health Journal, 8, 636–640.