Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Cognitive-affective mediators of perfectionism

and college student adjustment
Kenneth G. Rice *, Deborah T. Vergara, Mirela A. Aldea
Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Received 27 February 2004; accepted 24 May 2005

Available online 9 December 2005

Abstract

We tested models of perceived stress and categorical thinking as mediators and also moderators of the
association between perfectionism and psychological well-being. Results based on a large sample (N = 364)
of college students revealed significant associations between perfectionism and the cognitive-affective vari-
ables, and between perfectionism and the academic, social, and psychological adjustment variables. Each of
the cognitive-affective variables also was significantly associated with the adjustment indicators, but the
mediator models were only partially supported, and none of the moderator models were supported. The
results are discussed in terms of other literature on the adaptive-maladaptive conceptualization of perfec-
tionism. Findings suggest promising points of intervention to ease the effects of maladaptive perfectionism
or enhance the attributes of adaptive perfectionism.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Perfectionism; Perceived stress; Categorical thinking; Cognitive-affective; College students; Adjustment

1. Introduction

There is growing recognition that perfectionism (a) is a multidimensional construct (Hewitt

& Flett, 1991; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), (b) can be operationalized and

*
Corresponding author. Fax: +352 392 7985.
E-mail address: kgr1@ufl.edu (K.G. Rice).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.011
464 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

understood as dimensional or categorical (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998),
and, although controversial, (c) may involve relatively adaptive aspects as well as clearly maladap-
tive aspects (Chang, 2003; Rice et al., 1998). The characteristics of maladaptive perfectionists
typically include self-evaluations that are excessively self-critical and emphasize personal short-
comings in living up to high standards for performance. Adaptive perfectionists also emphasize
high personal standards and desires to excel in performance to meet such standards, yet these
standards are experienced as motivational, and perceived failures to meet standards are tolerated
and do not irreparably wound self-esteem (Hamachek, 1978). Rice, Bair, Castro, Cohen, and
Hood (2003) revealed distinctions between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. In short, mal-
adaptive perfectionists simultaneously view themselves as being responsible for reaching their
goals and achieving their standards, yet do not expect that their efforts are likely to bring about
the outcomes they desire. In contrast, adaptive perfectionists are less likely to distort, and more
likely to see themselves as hardworking and self-efficacious.
Less is known about adaptive perfectionists but existing research supports that adaptive perfec-
tionists, when compared with maladaptive or non-perfectionists, have higher self-esteem, more
self-confidence, perceive they are doing well academically, and in general evidence better emo-
tional adjustment (Brown et al., 1999; Rice & Slaney, 2002). The academic achievement of
maladaptive perfectionists may come with serious emotional costs; although they may be academ-
ically on par with other students (Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004; Rice & Dellwo, 2002),
these perfectionists may distort perceptions of their performance, misinterpret performance-
related feedback, and feel considerably inadequate compared to other students (Rice et al.,
2003). Perhaps consistent with this finding is research by Mann (2004) who found that socially
prescribed perfectionism was significantly correlated with social maladjustment but self-oriented
perfectionism was not significantly associated with academic, social, or emotional college
adjustment.

1.1. Cognitive-affective mediation

Recent research has aimed at understanding the mechanisms through which perfectionism may
operate to yield various adjustment outcomes. These are worthy efforts for conceptual and basic
empirical reasons and may also shed light on viable means of intervening with perfectionists to
enhance or ameliorate their adjustment. The general model in much of this research is that per-
fectionism activates certain cognitive and affective self-regulation strategies, and that these means
of self-regulation yield relatively better or worse adjustment consequences.
In this study, we selected and tested two mediators conceptually or empirically linked to per-
fectionism (i.e., perceived stress and categorical thinking). Perceived stress was derived from a
model proposed initially by Hewitt, Flett, and Ediger (1996) and later more fully developed by
Flett and Hewitt (2002). Mischel and Ayduk (2004) also situate stress in self-regulatory roles.
Among other things, Flett and Hewitt suggested that perfectionistic behavior could generate,
perpetuate, or enhance stress, which presumably would then be linked to aversive outcomes. In
samples of older and younger adults, Chang (2000) found stress to fully mediate the prediction
of life satisfaction. However, both direct and mediated effects were found to be substantial in
models where perfectionism and stress predicted worry and negative affect. Thus, the current
 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473 465

study was informed by ChangÕs work finding stress to be at least a partial mediator and perhaps
one that exhibits more unambiguous effects on positive than negative psychological adjustment
indicators.
Categorical thinking was selected because rigid, dichotomous thinking appears as a mediator in
several conceptual models of perfectionism (e.g., Brown & Beck, 2002; Hamachek, 1978). The
basic idea is that all-or-nothing, absolutist thinking is a maladaptive cognitive style likely to be
an expression of (maladaptive) perfectionism that has adverse consequences for emotional well-
being (Brown & Beck, 2002). Flett, Russo, and Hewitt (1994) found that socially prescribed
perfectionism was positively though modestly associated with categorical thinking in a sample
of 77 college students. Other dimensions of perfectionism used in that study were not significantly
associated with categorical thinking. One purpose of the current study was to examine the asso-
ciation between perfectionism and categorical thinking using a different measure of perfectionism.

1.2. Cognitive-affective moderation

Although the main emphasis in this study was on mediation, stress could also be considered as
a moderator of perfectionism-adjustment associations (e.g., the vulnerability-stress model of per-
fectionism proposed and tested by Hewitt, Chang, and their colleagues; Chang, 2000; Chang &
Rand, 2000; Hewitt et al., 1996). Hewitt et al. (1996) found that at higher levels of stress, only
self-oriented perfectionists reported more depression. In contrast, Chang and Rand (2000) found
that negative effects of socially-prescribed perfectionism, but not other dimensions of perfection-
ism, occurred under high but not low conditions of stress. In the current study, we tested the
assumption that high standards and performance expectations (in the absence of self-disparage-
ment) may be adaptive only under conditions of low stress; if stress is high, what may have once
seemed an adaptive aspect of perfectionism may emerge as a maladaptive aspect. Stress was also
expected to exacerbate the negative impact of maladaptive perfectionism on adjustment.
The degree of categorical thinking would also likely exacerbate or reduce the effects of mal-
adaptive perfectionism on adjustment. For example, Epstein and Meier (1989, p. 344) suggested
that, ‘‘when categorical thinkers fail at a task, they are apt to regard themselves as total failures . . .
In the absence of adequate conceptual modulation, categorical thinkers tend to experience emo-
tions with excessive intensity.’’ Therefore, categorical thinking was also analyzed as a potential
moderator of perfectionism-adjustment associations.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants (285 women and 79 men) attended public universities in the United States. The
proportions approximated the gender distribution of students in the sampled classes. Most
(97%) were between 18 and 22 years of age (M = 19.72, SD = 1.82). Approximately 72% of this
sample was White/European American, 9% Asian or Asian American, 9% Black/African
American, 8% Latino/a, and 3% were multicultural mixed race/ethnicity.
466 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Perfectionism
The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996) is
a 23-item, self-report questionnaire that yields three perfectionism subscales. Participants rate
their agreement with the items according to a seven-point scale (1 = disagree; 7 = agree). The
High Standards subscale taps high performance-related expectations and standards for oneself.
The Discrepancy subscale measures the perceived gap between standards and performance. The
Order subscale was administered but was not of interest in this study. Higher scores on the
APS-R subscales indicate higher perceived discrepancy and higher personal performance
standards.
Internal consistency reliability has been strong for each of the three subscales, with CronbachÕs
coefficient alphas ranging from .85 to .92 in several samples (Slaney et al., 2001). Scores on the
APS-R correlate significantly with other measures of perfectionism and have been shown to be
associated with numerous indicators of psychological adjustment (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Slaney
et al., 2001; Rice & Slaney, 2002).
Cluster and factor analytic research on the APS-R indicates that high scores on High Standards
with high scores on Discrepancy represent maladaptive perfectionism whereas high scores on
High Standards but lower scores on Discrepancy indicate adaptive perfectionism (Grzegorek
et al., 2004; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). Given the possibility that High Stan-
dards could be adaptive or maladaptive, we adapted statistical procedures used by Blatt and his
colleagues (Blatt, Zuroff, Bondi, Sanislow, & Pilkonis, 1998) and partialled High Standards scores
in the analyses when examining the effects of Discrepancy in the models, and partialled the effects
of Discrepancy when examining models with High Standards. In this way, we created relatively
‘‘purer’’ maladaptive or adaptive perfectionism variables.

2.2.2. Cognitive-affective self-regulation

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a 14-item measure
that taps self-appraised stress over the past month. Participants are asked to rate the frequency
of potentially stressful experiences using a five-point scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). Evidence
exists for the concurrent and predictive validity of PSS scores (see Cohen, 1986; Cohen & William-
son, 1988). Similar to other perfectionism research using the PSS (Chang, 2000; Chang & Rand,
2000), we used the shorter, four-item version of the measure. This shorter version, originally part
of Cohen et al.Õs (1983) scale development research, has the added advantage of addressing some
concerns about a coping and a distress factor that may underlie the fuller version of the PSS, at least
among samples of psychiatric patients (Hewitt, Flett, & Mosher, 1992). The four PSS items appear
to be indicators of perceived stress rather than negative affect. Internal consistency for scores derived
from the four-item version has ranged from .72 (Cohen et al., 1983) to .81 (Chang & Rand, 2000).
The Categorical Thinking scale from the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI; Epstein &
Katz, 1992; Epstein & Meier, 1989) was used to assess rigid and polarized cognitive processes.
The items on the Categorical Thinking scale ‘‘refer to thinking in extreme, unmodulated, or rigid
ways, and to being judgmental and intolerant of others’’ (Epstein & Meier, 1989, p. 339). The Cat-
egorical Thinking scale contains 16 items that are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Definitely False;
5 = Definitely True). Higher scores indicate more extreme, categorical thinking. The Categorical
 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473 467

Thinking scale has been found to be adequately reliable, with CronbachÕs coefficient alphas rang-
ing from .76 to .80 (Epstein & Katz, 1992). The scale relates in expected directions with measures
of self and other acceptance and rejection, personalization, overgeneralization, negative thinking,
and hardiness. Moreover, Epstein and Meier (1989) point out that the Categorical Thinking scale
is not tapping a ‘‘purely intellectual process’’ and instead is linked to emotional reactions and
reactivity concerning self and others. For these reasons, this measure seemed ideally suited as
an indicator of cognitive-affective regulation.

2.2.3. Adjustment
The Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1989) was used to
measure adjustment to college. The SACQ is a 67-item, self-report questionnaire that measures
academic, social, and general emotional adjustment, as well as institutional affiliation or commit-
ment. The Academic Adjustment subscale (24 items) measures how well the student is managing
the educational demands of the college experience. Social Adjustment (20 items) measures how
well the student is dealing with interpersonal experiences and social challenges at the university.
The Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale (15 items) assesses the general psychological
distress or the somatic consequences of distress experienced by the student. The Institutional
Affiliation/Goal Commitment subscale was not used because of its item overlap with Social
Adjustment. The items on the SACQ are responded to with a 9-point Likert format (‘‘applies very
closely to me’’ to ‘‘doesnÕt apply to me at all’’). Higher scores indicate better adjustment.
Cronbach coefficient alphas for the three SACQ subscales used in this study have ranged from
.73 to .91 (Baker & Siryk, 1989; Lapsley, Rice, & FitzGerald, 1990). Criterion validity has been
demonstrated with negative correlations between SACQ subscales and attrition from college.
Positive correlations have been reported between the SACQ subscales and student grade point
average (GPA), participation in social events, and numerous other indicators of psychological
well-being (Baker & Siryk, 1989).

3. Results

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics, measurement reliabilities, and scale intercorrelations for
the instruments. These results were consistent with other studies using the same measures with
similar samples.

3.1. Tests of mediational models

We followed a multi-step process for testing each of the mediators in equations with each of the
three SACQ adjustment outcome variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004).
Regression diagnostics (multicollinearity, tolerance, VIF) suggested no concern about any of the
analyses.

3.1.1. Perfectionism and adjustment

Each test of the two separate mediators required the same regression analysis of the association
between perfectionism variables and adjustment indicators. After partialling Discrepancy, High
468 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and subscale correlations
Min. Max. M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Discrepancy 12 84 40.67 14.24 .93
2. High Standards 18 49 40.88 6.03 .14 .86
3. Perceived Stress 0 15 6.68 2.79 .48
.08 .69
4. Categorical Thinking 16 71 39.20 8.74 .42 .08 .40 .82
5. Academic Adjustment 68 212 146.84 26.42
.43 .35
.51
.26 .87
6. Social Adjustment 32 180 120.61 28.07
.35 .26
.44
.34 .53 .89
7. Personal-Emotional Adjustment 30 133 87.41 20.94
.53 .07
.68
.40 .53 .46 .85
Note: N = 364. CronbachÕs coefficient alphas appear in italics on the diagonal. jrj > .09, p < .05, one-tailed test.

Standards explained significant (p < .002) additional portions of the variance in Academic, Social,
and Personal-Emotional Adjustment scores, DR2 = .17, .10, and .02, and b = .41, .32, and .14,
respectively. After partialling effects of High Standards, Discrepancy scores were significantly
associated with Academic (DR2 = .23, b =
.49), Social (DR2 = .16, b =
.41), and Personal-
Emotional Adjustment (DR2 = .30, b =
.55), p < .001.

3.1.2. Perceived stress

High Standards, after controlling Discrepancy, explained significant additional variation in
Perceived Stress scores (DR2 = .03, b =
.18, p < .001). Discrepancy also explained significant
variation in Perceived Stress (DR2 = .24, b = .49, p < .001). With regard to Perceived Stress as
the mediator, the preliminary tests necessary for mediation were passed.
The final test for mediation involves a regression equation in which adjustment scores are
simultaneously regressed on perfectionism and Perceived Stress scores. In each of these analyses,
Perceived Stress was significantly (p < .001) associated with Academic (b =
.29), Social
(b =
.31), and Personal-Emotional Adjustment (b =
.50). Although the effects of perfection-
ism on adjustment were reduced in each analysis with Perceived Stress in the model, only the anal-
ysis of High Standards and Personal-Emotional Adjustment yielded a non-significant association
between perfectionism and adjustment (b = .05, p > .15), and therefore this model provided the
clearest support for mediation.
We used procedures described by Kenny (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger,
1998) to compute Z-scores testing the significance of the mediated effects. The mediated effects
for Perceived Stress in explaining the Perfectionism-Academic Adjustment relationship were sig-
nificant, Z = 3.26 and
5.30, p < .001, for High Standards and Discrepancy, respectively. Similar
effects were observed in the equations for Social Adjustment, Z = 3.23 and
5.19, and Personal-
Emotional Adjustment, Z = 3.67 and
7.76, p < .001.

3.1.3. Categorical thinking

After controlling Discrepancy, High Standards did not explain additional, significant variation
in Categorical Thinking, DR2 = .001, p > .500. However, Discrepancy did explain significant var-
iation in Categorical Thinking, DR2 = .17, b = .42, p < .001. Therefore, only Discrepancy was
considered in subsequent mediator analyses with Categorical Thinking.
Categorical Thinking was significantly (p < .02) associated with Academic, Social, and Per-
sonal-Emotional Adjustment, b =
.11,
.25, and
.22, respectively. Once again, however, the
 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473 469

reduced Discrepancy effects remained significant in each analysis (b =
.44,
.29, and
.45,
p < .001) although tests of the Discrepancy-Adjustment effects mediated by Categorical Thinking
were significant in each case, Z =
2.35,
4.52,
4.18, p < .01, respectively.

3.2. Cognitive-affective moderation

Multiple regression procedures described by Aiken and West (1991) were used to test modera-
tor models. In none of the analyses did the perfectionism · stress or perfectionism · categorical
thinking interaction terms account for significant variation in adjustment scores, DR2 ranged from
.0001 to .006, p > .190. Neither of the cognitive-affective variables altered the association between
perfectionism and adjustment.

4. Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate mediators and moderators of the association
between perfectionism and adjustment. High standards were associated with better self-regulation
in terms of stress perception and also with better adjustment. However, high standards were not
significantly associated with categorical thinking, a finding consistent with Flett et al. (1994). Self-
critically perfectionistic evaluations were associated with poorer self-regulation capacities and
worse adjustment. These direct-effects results are consistent with other findings in which adaptive
perfectionism has been associated with more positive and less negative affect, less anxiety, higher
self-esteem, and in some cases, higher academic integration (Grzegorek et al., 2004; Rice & Dell-
wo, 2002). However, the findings regarding positive significant associations between high stan-
dards and adjustment were not consistent with those of Mann (2004) who found nonsignificant
associations between self-oriented perfectionism and college adjustment. Perhaps the differences
between the studies could be attributable to differences in conceptualizations and measures of per-
fectionism. Self-Oriented Perfectionism and High Standards tend to be significantly correlated but
not overlapping dimensions of perfectionism (Slaney et al., 2001). Future studies of student
adjustment might address the overlapping and unique aspects of perfectionism captured by these
measures.
The self-regulation and adjustment implications of maladaptive perfectionism stand in stark
contrast to adaptive perfectionism. Maladaptive perfectionists tended to perceive more stress in
their lives, and they endorsed more rigid, inflexible, and dichotomous views of people, issues,
and themselves. It is important to note that perceived stress and categorical thinking were
each significantly correlated with adjustment difficulties. In light of impressive evidence that
maladaptive perfectionists experience some of their personal, social, and emotional difficulties
as a result of their problematic coping or stress-management efforts (Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blank-
stein, 2003), attributional style (Chang & Sanna, 2001), and social problem-solving (Chang, 2003),
these results suggest future, more complex models to evaluate. For instance, maladaptive perfec-
tionists may be prone to greater perceptions of stress than adaptive or non-perfectionists. Unfor-
tunately, their manner of understanding or coping with stress may be ineffective or, at worse, may
exacerbate the very perfectionism-related characteristics at the root of their problems to begin
with.
470 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

Stress is generally understood as perceptual. Ellis (2002, p. 227) summarizes this idea with re-
gard to perfectionists. ‘‘Therefore, under conditions that are equally stressful to others, perfec-
tionists find more stress, less satisfactory solutions, and more prolonged difficulties than
nonperfectionists find. Their perfectionism contradicts realistic and probabilistic expectations
about the number and degree of stressors that should exist and often results in their making ‘‘a
hassle into a holocaust’’ (emphasis in original). This interpretation of the stress sensitivity of per-
fectionists was upheld only for maladaptive perfectionism; the opposite effect was evident for
more adaptive aspects of perfectionism. The directions of effects suggested that high standards,
when separated from other maladaptive aspects of perfectionism, are perhaps linked to broader
adaptive stress-regulating competencies that provide emotional adjustment advantages. Com-
pared to others, individuals with high performance standards experience less of a gap between
the stress they perceive and the internal resources they need to manage stress.
One extension of these findings stands to benefit maladaptive perfectionists. For instance, per-
fectionists with high standards compounded by high self-discrepant evaluations may find that
decreasing self-criticism but retaining high standards could reduce their stress and improve their
emotional well-being. Stress management interventions that include cognitive components (e.g.,
hypothesis testing, examining the evidence, and preparation for tolerating uncertainty and ambi-
guity; Antony & Swinson, 1998) may aid maladaptive perfectionists to feel less distressed and
stressed by relaxing cognitive rigidity and providing alternative, less taxing ways to interpret expe-
riences and others. There is some indication that, despite problems inherent in treating perfection-
ists (Blatt et al., 1998), some may be amenable to rather brief cognitive restructuring efforts aimed
at probability overestimation, decatastrophizing, and coping (DiBartolo, Frost, Dixon, & Almod-
ovar, 2001). However, we agree with Somerfield and McCraeÕs (2000, p. 623) cautionary note,
‘‘What people do in response to stress, consciously and unconsciously, is to a substantial degree
determined by who they are—by their enduring dispositions. Because personality traits are not
easily changed (Costa & McCrae, 1986), it seems likely that coping will always be easier for some
than for others.’’ Despite the clinical appeal of helping perfectionists change their self-regulation
strategies, correlational studies such as this one do not address whether maladaptive perfectionists
are capable of changing their coping and stress management.
Most of the proposed mediators in this study accounted for some but not all of the association
between perfectionism and adjustment, suggesting partially-mediated effects (cf., Chang, 2000;
Dunkley et al., 2003). Although perceived stress and categorical thinking may be activated by per-
fectionism, and indeed may play an important role in academic, interpersonal, and emotional
well-being, it is important to acknowledge they do not appear to be the only mechanisms through
which perfectionism affects adjustment.
The moderator analyses addressed questions about maladaptive and adaptive dimensions of
perfectionism. For example, Flett and Hewitt (2002b) raised concerns about adaptive perfection-
ism. They suggested that adaptive perfectionism may not be so adaptive when life stress is taken
into account. The moderator analyses provided a test of that hypothesis. When controlling for
maladaptive perfectionism, high standards did not interact with stress (or categorical thinking).
This finding should be corroborated by experimental research in which stressful conditions can
be manipulated, but one interpretation of this correlational finding is that high standards may
not, in and of themselves, pose any particular adjustment risks, even when people are under high
stress.
 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473 471

There are several limitations to the current study. The sample was large and relatively diverse for
a college student sample, but there were more women than men in the study. The limited number of
men in this study precluded tests of moderated mediational models but future studies should exam-
ine such models. We used sound measures and analyses, but ultimately the design of the study was
correlational and results were based on self-reports. Future work could incorporate other infor-
mant reports of participantsÕ perfectionism and adjustment. In addition to the recommendation
that causal inferences would be best derived from experimental research, this area of inquiry would
also benefit from longitudinal research on the stability and change of perfectionism and perfection-
ism-adjustment associations (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000). Although our self-regulation variables
were conceptually and empirically reasonable, each could be assessed with finer-grained precision
that might result in more support for the mediational hypothesis. For example, our measure of
stress was somewhat global and may have obfuscated important event- or experience-specific types
of stress that may have more effectively mediated the effects of perfectionism.
In sum, with one exception, we did not find support for complete mediation, but instead robust
associations became apparent between perfectionism and adjustment, and between cognitive-
affective self-regulation and adjustment. The results supported several self-regulation adjustment
advantages for adaptive perfectionists, and disadvantages for maladaptive perfectionists.

Acknowledgements

Portions of this study were presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association (August, 2003), Toronto, Canada. The authors are grateful to Stacia Berben, Camille
Hood, Amy LaClaire, Yu-Rim Lee, Brooke Leever, Anne Kubal, Steve Pence, Joan Pfaller, and
Leonardo Suarez for their assistance with several aspects of this study.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). When perfect isnÕt good enough: Strategies for coping with perfectionism.
Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes, and self-esteem: A structural equations
analysis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 197–203.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Bondi, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., III, & Pilkonis, P. (1998). When and how perfectionism
impedes the brief treatment of depression: Further analyses of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of
Depression Collaborative Research Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 423–428.
Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S., Juster, H. R., & Leung, A. W. (1999). Relationship of
perfectionism to affect, expectations, attributions and performance in the classroom. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 18, 98–120.
Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of vulnerability to depression.
In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 231–251). American
Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
472 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473

Chang, E. C. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of positive and negative psychological outcomes: Examining a
mediation model in younger and older adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 18–26.
Chang, E. C. (2003). On the perfectibility of the individual: Going beyond the dialectic of good versus evil. In E. C.
Chang & L. J. Sanna (Eds.), Virtue, vice, and personality: The complexity of behavior (pp. 125–144). American
Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific
diathesis–stress mechanism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 129–137.
Chang, E. C., & Sanna (2001). Negative attributional style as a moderator of the link between perfectionism and
depressive symptoms: Preliminary evidence for an integrative model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 490–495.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 386–396.
Cohen, S. (1986). Contrasting the Hassles Scale and the Perceived Stress Scale: WhoÕs really measuring appraised stress.
American Psychologist, 41, 717–718.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan &
S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clinical psychology. Clinical
Psychology Review, 6, 407–423.
DiBartolo, P. M., Frost, R. O., Dixon, A., & Almodovar, S. (2001). Can cognitive restructuring reduce the disruption
associated with perfectionistic concerns. Behavior Therapy, 32, 167–184.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and
situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252.
Ellis, A. (2002). The role of irrational beliefs in perfectionism. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 217–229). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Epstein, S., & Katz, L. (1992). Coping ability, stress, productive load, and symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 813–825.
Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with specific components. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332–350.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002b). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and
treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–31).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Russo, F. A., & Hewitt, P. L. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive thinking as a coping
response. Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 12, 163–179.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem, and GPA
satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and non-perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
192–200.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and
association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific
vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276–280.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mosher (1992). The Perceived Stress Scale: Factor structure and relation to depression
symptoms in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 247–257.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (Eds.) (4th ed.. The handbook of social psychology, pp. 233–265). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & FitzGerald, D. P. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and adjustment
to college: Implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68,
561–565.
Mann, M. P. (2004). The adverse influence of narcissistic injury and perfectionism on college studentsÕ institutional
attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1797–1806.
 K.G. Rice et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 463–473 473

Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of
gratification. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (pp. 99–129). New York: Guilford.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression:
A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304–314.
Rice, K. G., Bair, C., Castro, J., Cohen, B., & Hood, C. (2003). Meanings of perfectionism: A quantitative and
qualitative analysis. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17, 39–58.
Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and self-development: Implications for self-esteem, depression, and
college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 188–196.
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
47, 238–250.
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.
Slaney, R. B., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., Ashby, J., & Johnson, D. G. (1996). The almost perfect scale-revised.
Unpublished manuscript, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130–145.
Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical
advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55, 620–625.
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimensions of perfectionism in college students.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 157–165.