Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

What Lies Beyond the Superordinate Trait

Perfectionism Factors? The Perfectionistic Self-
Presentation and Perfectionism Cognitions
Inventory Versus the Big Three Perfectionism Scale
in Predicting Depression and Social Anxiety

Silvia Casale, Giulia Fioravanti, Laura Rugai, Gordon L. Flett & Paul L. Hewitt

To cite this article: Silvia Casale, Giulia Fioravanti, Laura Rugai, Gordon L. Flett & Paul L. Hewitt
(2019): What Lies Beyond the Superordinate Trait Perfectionism Factors? The Perfectionistic Self-
Presentation and Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory Versus the Big Three Perfectionism Scale in
Predicting Depression and Social Anxiety, Journal of Personality Assessment

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1573429

Published online: 25 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1573429

What Lies Beyond the Superordinate Trait Perfectionism Factors? The

Perfectionistic Self-Presentation and Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory Versus
the Big Three Perfectionism Scale in Predicting Depression and Social Anxiety
Silvia Casale1, Giulia Fioravanti1, Laura Rugai2, Gordon L. Flett3, and Paul L. Hewitt4
1
Department of Health Sciences, Psychology and Psychiatry Unit, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 2Department of Experimental and
Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 3Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 4Department
of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Extreme perfectionism has been linked with distress and dysfunction. This association is reflected Received 11 September 2018
by the recent development of the Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS), which has superordinate Accepted 16 December 2018
trait-based scales that assess 3 broad elements—rigid, self-critical, and narcissistic perfectionism.
We examined psychometric features of the BTPS as well as the links between the BTPS and
indexes of distress. A sample of 602 undergraduates completed the BTPS, the Perfectionistic Self-
Presentation Scale, the Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory, and measures of social anxiety and
depression. Support was obtained for the psychometric qualities of the BTPS. All 3 superordinate
trait factors were associated with social anxiety and depression. Analyses also established that
rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, and narcissistic perfectionism are associated with
perfectionistic cognitions and perfectionistic self-presentation. In addition, the results of a series of
regression analyses established that perfectionistic self-presentation and perfectionistic cognitions
accounted for significant unique variance in distress beyond the variance attributable to rigid, nar-
cissistic, and self-critical perfectionism. Overall, our results suggest that the BTPS has significant
promise as a predictor of various forms of dysfunction, but the cognitive and self-presentational
aspects of the perfectionism construct are also uniquely relevant and not redundant with the
BTPS superordinate trait factors

Classic accounts of perfectionism have warned us that per-
fectionism can be destructive (Blatt, 1995) and it tends to
keeps people in turmoil (see Pacht, 1984). These warnings
have largely been confirmed by research that has linked per-
fectionism with several negative outcomes. Much of this
research has focused on perfectionism and negative adjust-
ment outcomes such as suicidality (see, e.g., Smith et al.,
2018) but perfectionism has also been linked with a host of
negative health outcomes (Molnar, Sirois, Flett, Janssen, &
Hewitt, 2018). Recent evidence also suggests that levels of
perfectionism might be on the rise (see Curran & Hill,
2019) and a recent study found that about 3 in 10 adoles-
cents have some form of maladaptive perfectionism (Sironic
& Reeve, 2015).
Various authors have argued and researchers have dem-
onstrated empirically that perfectionism is also linked with
personality disorder (PD) and dysfunction (see Sherry,
Hewitt, Flett, Lee-Baggley, & Hall, 2007). Another recent
study of trait perfectionism confirmed links with various
indexes of PD and it led the authors to conclude that perfec-
tionism is “one prominent target for refining PD
treatments” (Dimaggio et al., 2015, p. 328). The catalyst for
this investigation was the development of a new trait
measure of perfectionism with elements that clearly are in
keeping with the emphasis on the role of perfectionism in
PD and dysfunction. We describe this new measure, the Big
Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS), and its subscales that fit
with conceptualizations of PD and dysfunction (i.e., rigid
perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism, and self-critical
perfectionism). First, however, we provide an overview of
some earlier conceptualizations of perfectionism.
Trait-based conceptualizations of perfectionism
The two most widely recognized and empirically supported
conceptualizations of perfectionism were independently pro-
posed by Frost and colleagues (1990) and by Hewitt and
Flett (1991). Frost and associates developed the Frost
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost MPS) to assess
six components of perfectionism (see Frost, Marten, Lahart,
& Rosenblate, 1990). The Frost MPS was designed originally
to assess four personal aspects of perfectionism (i.e., per-
sonal standards, concern over mistakes, doubts about
actions, organization) and two familial aspects of perfection-
ism (i.e., unrealistic parental expectations and parental

CONTACT Silvia Casale silvia.casale@unifi.it Department of Health Sciences, Psychology and Psychiatry Unit, University of Florence, via di San Salvi 12,
Florence, Italy.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 CASALE ET AL.
criticism). Overall, four factors (i.e., excessive concern over
mistakes, doubts about actions, parental criticism, and par-
ental expectations) have some obvious negative implications
in terms of vulnerability to various forms of distress, includ-
ing depression and social anxiety. It should be noted that
these four Frost MPS subscales have often been combined in
a composite factor typically called maladaptive evaluative
concerns (e.g., Kawamura, Hunt, Frost, & DiBartolo, 2001).
As Frost and his associates were constructing their meas-
ure, Hewitt and Flett (1990) also began exploring different
dimensions of perfectionism; this work resulted in the devel-
opment of another multidimensional perfectionism measure
that we refer to as the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (see Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004). This
45-item inventory taps three trait dimensions—self-oriented,
other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism.
Whereas self-oriented perfectionism entails a need to be per-
fect and relentless striving for personal standards of perfec-
tion, other-oriented perfectionism involves a demand that
other people are perfect. Socially prescribed perfectionism is
the most deleterious trait component in that it is the dimen-
sion that is related most consistently to maladjustment (see
Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Socially prescribed perfectionism is
the degree to which perfection is seen as being demanded
by others. It can involve a sense of helplessness and hope-
lessness due to the sense that success will result in higher,
more extreme demands.
Hewitt and Flett added to their conceptualization of the
perfectionism construct by creating the comprehensive
model of perfectionism (see Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 2017).
This comprehensive model goes beyond trait perfectionism
by also incorporating cognitive perfectionism and perfec-
tionistic self-presentation (PSP). These additional compo-
nents are described later. First, however, we describe the
BTPS and the conceptualization it is based on.
A new conceptualization of trait perfectionism
Some researchers argue that that the different forms, aspects,
and subordinate dimensions of perfectionism can be organ-
ized in two superordinate factors: perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns (see Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002;
Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000).
Perfectionistic strivings—also called personal standards per-
fectionism—capture forms, aspects, and subordinate dimen-
sions of perfectionism reflecting the tendency to demand
perfection of oneself and propensity to hold unrealistic high
personal standards of performance. In contrast, perfectionis-
tic concerns—also called evaluative concerns perfection-
ism—involves traits reflecting concerns over making
mistakes, the perception of others as demanding perfection,
and feelings of discrepancy between one’s high standards
and actual performance. Typically these two superordinate
factors are captured by combining subscales from the meas-
ures developed by Hewitt and Flett and by Frost and
his colleagues.
Recently, Smith, Saklofske, Stoeber, and Sherry (2016)
sought to integrate recent advances concerning the
perfectionism construct and trait perfectionism by introduc-
ing a new conceptualization and measure of dispositional
perfectionism, the BTPS, that assesses three higher order
global factors: rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism,
and narcissistic perfectionism. Rigid perfectionism refers to
the belief that being perfect is essential and self-worth is
based on absolute self-imposed standards. Rigid perfection-
ism incorporates the self-oriented and personal standards
perfectionism found in earlier conceptualizations along with
the tendency to base one’s sense of self-worth on attaining
personal perfectionism. The second broad BTPS factor, self-
critical perfectionism, consists of a combination of concern
over mistakes, doubts about action, self-criticism, and
socially prescribed perfectionism. It is clearly relevant to an
understanding of PD and dysfunction in terms of its
emphasis on an abiding sense of the self as inadequate, wor-
thy of doubt, and unable to live up to high expectations.
Finally, the BTPS narcissistic perfectionism factor advances
the growing literature on perfectionism and narcissism by
presenting the case that narcissism and perfectionism
become fused in some people. It is composed of four facets:
other-oriented perfectionism, narcissistic hypercriticism (i.e.,
harsh devaluation of others and their imperfections), entitle-
ment (i.e., a belief to be entitled to special treatment due to
being perfect), and grandiosity (i.e., an idealized view of
oneself as superior or perfect). Flett and Hewitt (2016) noted
that the BTPS should be useful in distinguishing neurotic
perfectionists who are preoccupied with falling short of per-
fection from narcissistic perfectionists who are defensive but
believe they are capable of being perfect.
To our knowledge, the association between perfectionism
and symptoms of psychological distress has never been
investigated by adopting this new tripartite conceptualization
proposed by Smith, Saklofske, et al. (2016). Accordingly, one
overarching goal of this study was to evaluate the extent to
which rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, and
narcissistic perfectionism as assessed by the BTPS relate to
indexes of psychological distress. However, we also sought
to examine how these broad traits relate to other compo-
nents of the perfectionism construct, which are
described next.
Beyond trait perfectionism: Perfectionistic
cognitions and perfectionistic self-presentation
Flett, Hewitt, Nepon, and Besser (2018) highlighted that
research and theory that focus solely on trait perfectionism
could be missing key elements of the perfectionism con-
struct that might be relevant for the explanation of psycho-
pathology development. Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, and Gray
(1998) postulated the need to consider perfectionism from a
cognitive perspective. They created the Perfectionism
Cognitions Inventory (PCI) to assess individual differences
in automatic thoughts related to the need to be perfect and
falling short of perfection. The PCI reflects the premise that
perfectionists who sense a discrepancy between their actual
self and the ideal self, or between their actual level of goal
attainment and high ideals will tend to experience automatic

thoughts that reflect perfectionistic themes (see Flett et al.,
1998). It is believed that perfectionists with high levels of
perfectionism cognitions are especially susceptible to nega-
tive affect in the form of depression about failure to attain
perfection in the past, as well as in the form of anxiety
about the likelihood of failing to attain perfection in the
future. The PCI has now been used in more than 40 studies
with more than 50 samples. Collectively, these investigations
have yielded extensive evidence suggesting that it taps a
unique cognitive element of perfectionism that is not redun-
dant with trait perfectionism, nor is it redundant with gen-
eral measures of negative automatic thoughts (also see Flett,
Hewitt, & Nepon, 2016).
Hewitt et al. (2003) also argued that whereas many per-
fectionists are focused on being perfect, a subset of perfec-
tionists are more heavily invested in seeming perfect.
Whereas trait perfectionism reflects a dispositional need to
be perfect, PSP reflects the need to appear perfect as well as
the strategies employed to gain this aim. In other words,
PSP is a form of impression management that involves self-
presentational attempts to create an image of perfection in
public situations (Hewitt et al., 2003). PSP involves three
distinct dimensions: perfectionistic self-promotion (i.e., pro-
actively promoting a perfect image), nondisclosure of imper-
fections, and nondisplay of imperfections (avoiding verbal
disclosure of imperfections and concerns over behavioral
displays of imperfection, respectively). Research on children,
adolescents, and adults has shown that PSP is associated
uniquely with distress, disorder, and dysfunction in ways
that are not captured by trait measures of perfectionism and
other broad trait dimensions (see Hewitt et al., 2011; Hewitt
et al., 2003). For example, Sherry et al. (2007) found that all
three facets of PSP were associated with dysregulation and
dissociality and these links went beyond the variance attrib-
utable to broad trait dimensions representing the Five-
Factor Model.
A key test with any new measure is to establish its incre-
mental validity. Regarding the Perfectionistic Self-
Presentation Scale (PSPS), Hewitt et al. (2003) demonstrated
that this inventory went beyond the trait perfectionism
dimensions postulated by Hewitt and Flett (1991) and Frost
et al. (1990) in terms of being able to predict key outcomes.
Flett and Hewitt (2015) summarized extensive evidence
showing that PSP is particularly relevant when predicting
social anxiety and models of the link between perfectionism
and social anxiety should incorporate this focus on a need
to be perfect.
Goals of this study
This study had four main goals. First, we evaluated the psy-
chometric characteristics of the BTPS in a sample of partici-
pants of emerging adults from outside of North America.
Second, as noted earlier, we conducted one of the first tests
of the degree to which the three higher order global factors
in the BTPS relate to indexes of distress. Perfectionistic con-
cerns and, to a lesser degree, perfectionistic strivings have
already shown to be positively associated with depressive
PERFECTIONISM AND DISTRESS 3
symptoms (see, for a review, Smith, Sherry, et al., 2016).
Perfectionistic concerns confer vulnerability to depressive
symptoms through negative social situations (e.g., hostile
interactions), social cognitions (e.g., perceiving others as
uncaring), and maladaptive coping (e.g., avoidance), whereas
perfectionistic strivings might confer vulnerability to depres-
sive symptoms in the presence of ego-involving achievement
stressors (Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996). Similarly, perfec-
tionistic concerns and perfectionistic strivings have been
found to be positively associated with social anxiety (e.g.,
Nepon, Flett, Hewitt, & Molnar, 2011) as social anxiety has
been conceived as the doubt about one’s ability to achieve a
desired impression on others (Leary, 1983). In this study, we
examined the associations that the new proposed conceptu-
alization of trait perfectionism had with measures of depres-
sion, social anxiety, and social phobia.
Third, we examined the extent to which perfectionistic
automatic thoughts and PSP were associated with the three
higher order global factors introduced by Smith, Saklofske,
et al. (2016). This aspect of our investigation was designed,
in part, to test and expand the BTPS nomological network.
It was anticipated that the pattern of associations would
establish that there is a cognitive element to rigid perfection-
ism and that rigid perfectionism and narcissistic perfection-
ism would be comparable to self-critical perfectionism in
terms of being associated with an interpersonal style of
needing to seem perfect. Narcissistic perfectionists are
expected to actively promote a public image of perfection
because their belief to be entitled to special treatment is a
consequence of their belief to be perfect. Rigid perfectionism
is also expected to be associated with PSP dimensions
because the belief that being perfect is essential might lead
to the need to actively promote one’s own perfection in
public situations as well as the avoidance of disclosure and
demonstration of imperfections.
Finally, we tested our hypothesis that perfectionistic cog-
nitions and PSP dimensions would explain additional vari-
ance in predicting depression and social anxiety after
controlling for the three perfectionism higher order global
factors. We sought to establish the need to go beyond mal-
adaptive, dysfunctional trait perfectionism by also assessing
perfectionistic cognitions and a potentially destructive self-
presentational style.
Method
Participants
A convenience sample of 602 undergraduates (51.16% female;
M age ¼ 22.21 years, SD ¼ 2.49) from the University of
Florence was recruited by two female assistants at the end of
the lectures. The study was announced as an investigation
about the association between certain dispositional factors and
distress. Participants completed paper-and-pencil question-
naires in the classroom settings. No formative credits or
remunerative rewards were given. Study procedures were
designed in accordance with the European research ethical
guidelines and approved by the Director of the Department of
Psychology. All the students identified themselves as White.
4 CASALE ET AL.

Table 1. Measures used in this study.

Authors Measure
Smith, Saklofske, Big Three Perfectionism
et al. (2016) Scale (BTPS)
Hewitt et al. (2003) Perfectionistic Self-Presentation
Scale (PSPS)
Flett et al. (1998) Perfectionism Cognition
Inventory (PCI)
Peter et al. (2012) Social Interaction Anxiety
Scale (SIAS–6)
Peter et al. (2012) Social Phobia Scale (SPS–6)
Radloff (1977) Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CES–D)
Construct
Trait perfectionism
Perfectionistic self-
presentation
Perfectionism cognitions
Distress in terms of anxiety
Distress in terms of
social phobia
Distress in terms of depres-
sive symptoms
Scales
Rigid Perfectionism (RP): Rigid insistence that one’s own performance
must be perfect
Self-Critical Perfectionism (SCP): Evaluative concerns perfectionism
Narcissistic Perfectionism (NP): Belief to be perfect and superior
to others
Perfectionistic self-promotion: Proactive promotion of a perfect image
Nondisplay of imperfections: Concerns over behavioral display of
imperfections
Nondisclosure of imperfections: Avoidance of verbal disclosure of
imperfections
Perfectionism Cognition Inventory total score: Automatic thoughts
related to the need to be perfect
SIAS–6 total score: Anxiety in social interactions
SPS–6 Total Score: Anxiety in performance situations
CES–D total score: Current level of depressive symptoms

Measures comprised of three subscales: perfectionistic self-promotion,

The measures used in this study are briefly described in
Table 1.
Big Three Perfectionism Scale
The Italian version (Di Fabio, Saklofske, & Smith, in press) of
the BTPS was used. The BTPS is a 45-item self-report ques-
tionnaire designed to measure three higher order global fac-
tors (rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism,
narcissistic perfectionism) and 10 lower order perfectionism
facets (self-oriented perfectionism and self-worth contingen-
cies, loading on rigid perfectionism; concern over mistakes,
doubts about actions, self-criticism, and socially prescribed
perfectionism loading on self-critical perfectionism; other-ori-
ented perfectionism, hypercriticism, grandiosity, and entitle-
ment loading on narcissistic perfectionism). The Rigid
Perfectionism scale is composed of 10 items (e.g., “I strive to
be as perfect as possible”). Rigid perfectionism has two fac-
ets—self-oriented perfectionism and self-worth contingencies.
The Self-Critical Perfectionism scale is composed of 18 items
(e.g., “When I make a mistake, I feel like a failure”) that tap
four facets of perfectionism typically regarded as maladap-
tive—concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, self-criti-
cism, and socially prescribed perfectionism. The third scale of
the BTPS is Narcissistic Perfectionism, which is composed of
17 items (e.g., “It bothers me when people don’t notice how
perfect I am”). Narcissistic perfectionism is made up of four
facets—other-oriented perfectionism, hypercriticism, entitle-
ment, and grandiosity. Participants are instructed to respond
to each item using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate
higher levels of the assessed dimension. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) supported the three-dimensional structure of
the BTPS. Additionally, the Italian version showed good
internal consistency and validity (Di Fabio et al., in press).
Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale
PSP was assessed with the Italian version (Borroni et al.,
2016) of the PSPS (Hewitt et al., 2003), a 27-item measure
nondisplay of imperfection, and nondisclosure of imperfec-
tion. Perfectionistic self-promotion was captured with a 10-
item subscale (e.g., “I try always to present a picture of
perfection”); higher scores on this subscale indicated higher
levels of perfectionistic self-presentational style characterized
by the need to brashly promote oneself as perfect to others.
Nondisplay of imperfection was measured with 10-item sub-
scale (e.g., “It would be awful if I made a fool of myself in
front of others”), with higher scores on this subscale indicat-
ing a higher level of perfectionistic self-presentational style
characterized by the need to avoid behavioral demonstra-
tions of one’s imperfection. Nondisclosure of imperfection
was assessed with a 7-item subscale (e.g., “Admitting failure
to others is the worst possible thing”); high scores on this
scale indicated high levels of perfectionistic self-presenta-
tional style characterized by the need to avoid verbal disclo-
sures of one’s imperfection. Participants responded to the
items of the three subscales using a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Evidence
supports both the reliability and the validity of the PSPS
(Hewitt et al., 2003). In the Italian sample, the PSPS total
score and PSPS scales showed adequate internal consistency
reliability estimates, and both the dimensionality analyses
and exploratory structural model supported the original
three-factor structure for PSPS items (Borroni et al., 2016).
Perfectionism Cognition Inventory
The PCI (Flett et al., 1998) is a 25-item measure that focuses
on the frequency of thoughts involving themes of perfection
and imperfection (i.e., the degree of cognitive activity) that
has occurred during the previous week: It is a measure that
specifically identifies the automatic thoughts associated with
perfectionism and needing to be perfect (e.g., “I should be
perfect,” “Why can’t things be perfect?,” “No matter how
much I do, it’s never enough”). Participants responded to
the items using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 0 (not at
all) to 4 (all the time). Higher scores on this scale indicated
higher levels of perfectionist thoughts.

Social Interaction Anxiety and Social Phobia Scale
The Social Interaction Anxiety (SIAS–6) and the Social Phobia
Scale (SPS–6; Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, Rapee, & Mattick,
2012) were used to measure social anxiety. Whereas the
SIAS–6 measures anxiety experienced while initiating or main-
taining social interactions (e.g., “I have difficulty talking with
other people”), the SPS–6 assesses anxiety experienced in per-
formance situations in which the individual might be scruti-
nized (e.g., “I get nervous that people are staring at me as I
walk down the street”). Participants responded to the items of
the two subscales using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0
(not at all characteristic or true of me) to 4 (extremely character-
istic or true of me). Higher scores on the SIAS–6 scale indicated
higher levels of social interaction anxiety and higher scores on
the SPS–6 scale indicated higher levels of social phobia. The
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale–12
showed adequate psychometric properties (Peters et al., 2012).
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
The Italian version (Fava, 1983) of the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES–D; Radloff,
1977) is a 20-item self-report scale that measures current
level of depressive symptomatology, with emphasis on the
affective component (e.g., “I felt hopeful about the future”).
Participants respond to the CES–D by rating each item in
terms of the frequency that each mood or symptom
occurred “during the past week” on a 4-point Likert scale,
ranging from 0 (none of the time) to 3 (most of the time).
Higher scores indicate higher levels of depressed mood.
The Italian versions of the PCI and the SIAS–6 and SPS–6
were obtained using a back-translation method in which one
bilingual translator translated the test from the source lan-
guage to the target language (Italian). A second translator,
without having seen the original test, translated the new ver-
sion of the test back to the source language. The original and
the back-translated versions of the tests were then compared
and judgments were made about their equivalence.
Data analyses
The structure of the BTPS was examined using CFA. The
criteria for assessing overall model fit were mainly based on
practical fit measures: the ratio of chi-square to its degree of
freedom (S–B v2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler,
1995), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973),
and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Steiger, 1990). For the ratio of chi-square to its degrees of
freedom (S–Bv2/df), values less than 3 were considered to
reflect fair fit (Kline, 2005). We considered CFI and TLI val-
ues of .90 and above to reflect fair fit (Bentler, 1995). For
the RMSEA, values equal to or less than .08 were considered
to reflect adequate fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Pearson’s correlations were used to examine the associa-
tions between the higher order perfectionism traits and
indexes of distress (i.e., social interaction anxiety, social pho-
bia, and depressive symptoms) as well as with perfectionistic
automatic thoughts and PSP.
PERFECTIONISM AND DISTRESS 5
Three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to
determine if PSP and perfectionistic cognitions (Step 2) pre-
dict social interaction anxiety, social phobia, and depressive
symptoms over and above perfectionism traits as assessed by
the BTPS (Step 1). For all the statistical tests we assumed a
5% significance level.
Results
Construct validity: Confirmatory factor analysis
CFA revealed that the original factor structure of the BTPS
(10-first order factors and three global factors) produced a
good fit to these data, v2(932) ¼ 3684.88, p < .001, RMSEA ¼
.07, 90% CI [.060, .072], CFI ¼ .96, SRMR ¼ .07. The path dia-
gram and the standardized path coefficients are shown in
Figure 1. Inspection of factor loadings showed that these were
high (i.e., > 50) for all items, all of which were significant at
the .001 level as well as the estimated correlations among
errors. Factor loadings of first-order factors ranged from .76 to
.96 for self-oriented perfectionism; from .64 to .98 for self-
worth contingencies; from .85 to .96 for concern over mistakes;
from .87 to .99 for doubts about action; from .91 to .99 for
self-criticism; from .53 to .86 for socially prescribed perfection-
ism; from .58 to .76 for other-oriented perfectionism; from .59
to .67 for hypercriticism; from .62 to .75 for entitlement; and
from .54 to .56 for grandiosity. Factor loadings for second-
order factors ranged from .98 to .99 for rigid perfectionism;
from .65 to .95 for self-critical perfectionism; and from .78 to
.91 for narcissistic perfectionism. Factor loadings ranged from
.53 to .99 for all facets. This outcome attests to the psychomet-
ric properties of the BTPS.
Correlations between the three higher order factors and
indexes of depression and social anxiety
BTPS descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations with
depression and social anxiety are shown in Table 2. All three
BTPS scales were associated with depression, social anxiety,
and social phobia, but robust links were found between
these distress measures and self-critical perfectionism, with
correlations ranging from .48 to .56. The correlations linking
the three BTPS scores with the measures of depression and
social anxiety are revealing given the paucity of research on
these dimensions and measures of psychological distress.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that the BTPS concern
over mistakes subscale and the doubts about action subscale
were the lower order perfectionism facets with the most
robust associations with depression, social interaction anx-
iety, and social phobia (see Table S.1).
Correlations between perfectionistic automatic thoughts
and perfectionistic self-presentation with the three
higher order BTPS factors
Scores on the PCI were correlated robustly with scores on
the BTPS measures of rigid perfectionism and self-critical
perfectionism, and, to a lesser extent, with narcissistic
6 CASALE ET AL.

Figure 1. Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS): Items and factors loadings from the confirmatory factor analysis. Note. SCP ¼ Self-Critical Perfectionism; RP ¼ Rigid
Perfectionism; NP ¼ Narcissistic Perfectionism; SOP ¼ Self-Oriented Perfectionism; SWC ¼ Self-Worth Contingencies; COM ¼ concern over mistakes; DAA ¼ Doubts
About Action; SC ¼ Self-criticism; SPP ¼ Socially Prescribed Perfectionism; OOP ¼ Other-Oriented Perfectionism; HC ¼ Hypercriticism; ENT ¼ Entitlement;
GRAN ¼ Grandiosity; C1 to C4 ¼ Concern over mistakes Items 1 to 4; D1 to D5 ¼ Doubts About Actions Items 1 to 5; S1 to S4 ¼ Self-criticism Items 1 to 4; SP1 to
SP4 ¼ Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism Items 1 to 4; SO1 to SO5 ¼ Self-Oriented Perfectionism Items 1 to 5; SW1 to SW5¼ Self-Worth Contingencies Items 1 to 5;
O1 to O5 ¼ Other-Oriented Perfectionism Items 1 to 5; H1 to H4 ¼ Hypercriticism Items 1 to 4; E1 to E4 ¼ Entitlement Items 1 to 4; G1 to G4 ¼ Grandiosity Items
1 to 4.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among BTPS higher order factors, PSPS, PCI, and indexes of distress.
Variables M SD a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BTPS: Higher order
1. Rigid perfectionism 21.91 8.88 .91 —
2. Self-critical perfectionism 44.75 14.14 .93 .67 —
3. Narcissistic perfectionism 33.61 10.50 .89 .60 .48 —
PSPS
4. Self-promotion 35.05 12.02 .85 .68 .54 .50 —
5. Nondisplay 37.54 11.95 .84 .46 .61 .34 .67 —
6. Nondisclosure 21.82 7.38 .71 .38 .44 .29 .50 .52 —
7. PCI 40.53 18.53 .92 .62 .61 .45 .53 .46 .38 —
8. SIAS–6 4.58 4.34 .79 .29 .48 .26 .33 .46 .38 .33 —
9. SPS–6 4.99 4.72 .83 .22 .47 .19 .28 .43 .34 .33 .60 —
10. CES–D 19.24 11.26 .92 .29 .56 .25 .28 .35 .29 .47 .40 .36 —
Note. N ¼ 602. BTPS ¼ Big Three Perfectionism Scale; PSPS ¼ Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale; PCI ¼ Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory; Self-promo-
tion ¼ perfectionistic self-promotion; Nondisplay ¼ nondisplay of imperfections; Nondisclosure ¼ nondisclosure of imperfections; SIAS–6 ¼ Social Interaction

Anxiety Scale; SPS–6 ¼ Social Phobia Scale; CES–D ¼ Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.
p < .01.

perfectionism (Table 2). Considering the 10 lower order per-
fectionism facets, the PCI was found to be strongly corre-
lated with self-criticism and self-oriented perfectionism (for
detailed information see Table S.1).
Analyses of the PSPS facets showed that perfectionistic
self-promotion was associated with all BTPS measures, and
its strongest association was with rigid perfectionism. In
contrast, the self-critical perfectionism measure was associ-
ated most robustly with the need to avoid imperfections and
the need to avoid disclosing imperfections. Regarding the
lower order perfectionism dimensions, perfectionistic self-
promotion was associated most strongly with self-oriented
perfectionism; perfectionistic nondisclosure was correlated
robustly with scores on the concern over mistakes
BTPS subscale.
Prediction of depression and social anxiety scores
Next, a series of hierarchical regression analyses was con-
ducted. First, however, before running the hierarchical
regressions, we checked for multicollinearity. There was no
indication of multicollinearity, as tolerance statistics were
well above .2 and variance influence factors were well below
10 (see Bowerman & O’Connell, 1990).
The regression results are displayed in Table 3. Although
the first set of BTPS trait predictors accounted for substan-
tial variance in all instances, the inclusion of the PSP dimen-
sions and the PCI scales (Step 2) accounted for an
additional statistically significant amount of variance.
Regarding social interaction anxiety scores, the second block
of predictors accounted for an additional 7% of the variance
beyond the 23% already explained by the three BTPS meas-
ures; significant individual predictors were the PSPS nondis-
play and nondisclosure facets (see Table 3).
As for the other anxiety measure, social phobia was asso-
ciated with high levels of rigid perfectionism, self-critical
perfectionism, nondisplay and nondisclosure of imperfec-
tion, and perfectionistic cognitions. The three higher order
perfectionism dimensions explained 23% of the variance in
social phobia scores and the inclusion of other dimensions
 PERFECTIONISM AND DISTRESS 7

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting social interaction anxiety, social phobia, and depression total scores.
SIAS–6 social CES–D
interaction anxiety SAS–6 social phobia depressive symptoms
Predictors
DR2 b sr2 DR2 b sr2 DR2 B sr2
Step 1 .23 .23 .33
BTPS: Higher order
Rigid perfectionism –.09 –.06 –.19 –.13 –.18 –.12
Self-critical perfectionism .51 .37 .58 .43 .66 .49
Narcissistic perfectionism .07 .06 .03 .03 .04 .05
Step 2 .07 .05 .05
BTPS: Higher order
Rigid perfectionism –.14 –.08 –.25 –.15 –.27 –.16
Self-critical perfectionism .32 .20 .40 .25 .56 .35
Narcissistic perfectionism .05 .04 .01 .01 .01 .01
PSPS
Self- promotion –.03 –.02 –.02 –.00 –.01 –.01
Nondisplay .23 .15 .19 .12 –.03 –.02
Nondisclosure .15 .13 .12 .09 .06 .04
PCI .04 .03 .12 .08 .29 .21
Total R2 .30 .29 .38
Note. N ¼ 602. SIAS–6 ¼ Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; SPS–6 ¼ Social Phobia Scale; CES–D ¼ Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; BTPS ¼ Big

Three Perfectionism

Scale; PSPS ¼ Perfectionistic Self-Presentational Scale; PCI ¼ Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory; sr ¼ squared correlations.

p < .05. p < .01. p <.001.

in the second block predicted an additional 5% of
explained variance.
In terms of predicting levels of depression, the final
model explained 38% of the variance in depressive symp-
toms scores. It was found that the PCI accounted for signifi-
cant unique variance beyond the significant variance in
CES–D scores accounted for by rigid perfectionism and self-
critical perfectionism.
Discussion
Our study provided strong support for the soundness of the
BTPS from a psychometric point of view. The proposed
model provided a good fit to the data and high levels of
internal consistency were detected. The fit of the model with
three higher order global factors and 10 lower order perfec-
tionism facets was good and very similar to that found by
Smith, Saklofske, et al. (2016). Moreover, bivariate correla-
tions were in line with expectations, thus providing support-
ive evidence of the validity of the BTPS in addition to the
findings already provided by Smith, Saklofske, et al. (2016).
Taken together, these results confirm that this new measure
might be an informative assessment of multidimensional
perfectionism and it seems well-suited to further investiga-
tion of perfectionism and PD given the explicit BTPS
emphasis on rigid perfectionism and narcissistic perfection-
ism. Our results indicated that the three broad trait factors
are substantially intercorrelated but not to the extent that
they are redundant with each other. However, the relation-
ship between self-critical perfectionism and rigid perfection-
ism was quite high and this overlap merits further scrutiny
in future research both at empirical and conceptual levels.
Distress was associated at the bivariate level with all three
BTPS trait measures, but the most robust associations were
found with the measure of self-critical perfectionism (.46 < r
< .57). This is not surprising given that the self-critical per-
fectionism factor is comprised of trait perfectionism facets
(i.e., concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, socially
prescribed perfectionism, self-criticism) that have been
shown to be highly maladaptive in many studies. What
might be considered surprising is that in terms of the zero-
order correlations, small but significant links were found
between rigid perfectionism and all of the distress measures
(.21 < r < .30). This is intriguing in that rigid perfectionism
includes an assessment of self-oriented perfectionism, and
there have been some suggestions in the past that self-ori-
ented perfectionism is actually adaptive. In this regard, the
results of our regression analyses are illustrative because
when rigid perfectionism was considered along with other
perfectionism measures, the regression results showed that
rigid perfectionism was associated with less distress. Perhaps
this outcome reflects the strong links that self-criticism has
with self-oriented perfectionism and the self-worth contin-
gency. Clearly, it would be difficult at the conceptual level
to make the case that a dimension conceptualized as “rigid
perfectionism” would be adaptive given the established role
of rigidity as an indicator of personality dysfunction and
our zero-order correlations. However, these results are very
much in keeping with statements about the “perils of parti-
aling” and concerns that have been expressed about how
statistical procedures could provide a misleading view of the
true nature of perfectionism dimensions (for a discussion,
see Hill, 2014; Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017).
As was anticipated, both cognitive perfectionism and PSP
were from moderately to strongly associated with the three
BTPS broad trait dimensions. The link that was established
between perfectionistic cognitions and self-critical perfec-
tionism was particularly robust (r ¼ .61) and it is very
much in keeping with accounts that emphasize the self-crit-
ical tendencies of people who frequently experience perfec-
tionistic thoughts (see Flett et al., 1998). Our results
underscore the need to keep in mind that people with ele-
vated levels of self-critical perfectionism are prone to experi-
ence frequent ruminations about needing to be perfect and
falling short of ideals and goals. These ruminations translate
into a tendency for the self-critical perfectionist to be chron-
ically focused on mistakes and shortfalls and her or his
8 CASALE ET AL.
inability to live up to extreme standards. Related research
has indicated that high PCI scorers not only are self-critical
and self-blaming, but also have a heightened response to
perceived criticism, and an absence of positive self-talk
(Flett, Hewitt, Whelan, & Martin, 2007). As a consequence,
it is not surprising that this element of the perfectionism
construct is not conducive to positive mental health.
The correlational results also established that there is a
substantial cognitive side to narcissistic perfectionism as
assessed by the BTPS. At present, there have been few
attempts to consider the narcissism–perfectionism link from
a cognitive perspective. It is possible that narcissistic perfec-
tionism involves a more substantial tendency to focus on
grandiose thoughts reflecting the attainment of perfection-
ism and cognitive images of glory and superiority rather
than not achieving perfection, and grandiose forms of day-
dreaming and mind-wandering about achieving per-
fect success.
The moderate-to-strong correlations involving the facets
of PSP provided a revealing overall picture. The PSPS non-
display of imperfections facet had its strongest association
with self-critical perfectionism (r ¼ .61). In contrast, when
it comes to narcissistic perfectionism, the strongest associ-
ation was with the PSPS self-promotion facet (r ¼ .50). To
some extent, this can be considered evidence of the validity
of this new measure of narcissistic perfectionism given past
research that has linked perfectionistic self-promotion with
trait narcissism (see Flett, Sherry, Hewitt, & Nepon, 2014).
Past research on PSP has shown that people with a tendency
to portray themselves as flawless are highly invested in the
dysfunctional pursuit of self-image goals (Nepon, Flett, &
Hewitt, 2016) and this link between self-promotion and nar-
cissism can prove to be quite self-defeating in terms of ali-
enating people and creating the kinds of social
disconnection that have become linked with perfectionism
(see Hewitt et al., 2017).
Overall, perhaps the most revealing results from this
investigation came from statistical tests showing that both
PSP and perfectionism cognitions are not redundant with
broad trait dimensions of perfectionism. The general pattern
of results suggested that the more defensive aspects of PSP
were able to account for unique variance in social anxiety
outcomes, beyond the variance already accounted for by
rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, and narcissis-
tic perfectionism. This is in keeping with initial evidence
showing that PSP plays a unique role in social anxiety in
both adolescents and adults (Flett, Coulter, & Hewitt, 2012;
Hewitt et al., 2003) and supports the call for a greater focus
on PSP in models of social anxiety and social phobia (see
Flett & Hewitt, 2014). By extension, PSP merits much more
consideration in conceptual models of proneness to distress
and PD and dysfunction. Similarly, it was found that perfec-
tionistic cognitions accounted for unique variance in depres-
sion scores beyond the variance already accounted for by
rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, and narcissis-
tic perfectionism. Clearly, these results suggest that models
of the link between perfectionism and depression are incom-
plete if they do not include an emphasis on perfectionistic
automatic thoughts. Similarly, the lack of an emphasis on
perfectionistic automatic thoughts could prove particularly
problematic for cognitively based treatment interventions.
Although this article is based on variable-centered
research, it is important to briefly consider the implications
of our results from a person-centered perspective. Consider,
for instance, the role that perfectionism plays in suicide. A
recent comprehensive meta-analysis by Smith et al. (2018)
showed unequivocally that various trait perfectionism
dimensions are implicated in suicidal thoughts and attempts.
Unfortunately, this meta-analysis, although highly revealing,
was limited because there has not been extensive research
thus far on the role of perfectionism cognitions and PSP in
suicidality. Our current results indicate that cognitive perfec-
tionism and PSP play a unique role in psychological distress.
When it comes to the risk of suicide, some people likely are
in great psychological pain and are ruminating frequently
about their imperfections and failures, yet on the surface,
they seem to be high functioning in ways that are synonym-
ous with PSP. Unfortunately, some people might present a
“front” that masks a highly negative internal dialogue and is
very convincing to the point that no one realizes their level
of risk until it is too late. We have included these observa-
tions to underscore the fact that there are practical conse-
quences and considerations that follow from the failure to
go beyond trait perfectionism and take an extended view of
the perfectionism construct.
Clearly, these findings must be viewed within some key
limitations. Of course, it is always possible that self-report
data have been influenced by response bias, and it is import-
ant for future research to revisit the issues addressed in this
study by including informants’ ratings of perfectionism and
adjustment. This seems especially important when consider-
ing someone who has an extreme form of narcissistic perfec-
tionism and who might lack the self-insight to be aware of
adjustment problems. Second, it is evident that these results
are cross-sectional and causal assumptions cannot be made.
Longitudinal research is needed and given that there is evi-
dence that both trait perfectionism and cognitive perfection-
ism are associated with heightened stress reactivity (Flett,
Nepon, Hewitt, & Fitzgerald, 2016), future research would
be particularly revealing if trait perfectionism, perfectionistic
automatic thoughts, and PSP were compared and contrasted
within the context of life stress experiences. The results
described in this study should also be examined in cross-cul-
tural research that tests the generalizability of these findings.
Finally, gender differences in the relationship between per-
fectionism dimensions and distress should be examined by
future research. Although gender differences have not been
tested often in the perfectionism literature, those few avail-
able studies have yielded evidence that perfectionism might
play a greater role in women’s experience of distress, espe-
cially in terms of depression (Besser, Flett, & Hewitt, 2010),
perhaps because presentation of the self is more relevant for
females (see Pliner, Chaiken, & Flett, 1990).
In summary, this study yielded results that illustrated the
usefulness of the BTPS measure, but also showed the need
to go beyond trait perfectionism measures. Most notably, we

established that rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfection-
ism, and narcissistic perfectionism are associated with social
anxiety and depression, but it is also the case that cognitive
perfectionism and PSP account for social anxiety and
depression in ways that go beyond broad trait perfectionism
dimensions. Given that the perfectionism field has been
dominated by research from a trait perspective, our results
represent an illustration of the benefits of a more compre-
hensive and balanced approach that supplements this focus
with programmatic research and theory on aspects of the
construct such as PSP and cognitive perfectionism.
References
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2010). Perfectionistic self-pres-
entation and trait perfectionism in social problem-solving ability
and depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40,
2123–2156.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism. Implications
for the treatment of depression. The American Psychologist, 50(12),
1003–1020.
Borroni, S., Bortolla, R., Lombardi, L. M., Somma, A., Maffei, C., &
Fossati, A. (2016). The Italian version of perfectionistic self-presen-
tation scale: Psychometric proprieties and its associations with
pathological narcissism and adult attachment in an adult non clin-
ical sample. Personality and Mental Health, 10(2), 130–141. doi:
10.1002/pmh.1328
Bowerman, B. L., & O’Connell, R. T. (1990). Linear Statistical Models:
An Applied Approach (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: Duxbury Classic.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & Long J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional
structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student
samples. Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 365–373. doi:10.1037//
1040-3590.14.3.365
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time:
A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016.
Psychological Bulletin. 154(4), 410–429. doi:10.10137/bul0000138
Di Fabio, A., Saklofske, D., & Smith, M. (in press). Big-Three
Perfectionism Scale Short Form (BTPS-SF): Primo contributo alla
validazione della versione Italiana [Big-Three Perfectionism Scale
Short Form (BTPS-SF): First contribution to the validation of the
Italian version]. Counseling: Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e
Applicazioni.
Dimaggio, G., Lysaker, P. H., Calarco, T., Pedone, R., Marsigli, N.,
Riccardi, I., … Paviglianiti, A. (2015). Perfectionism and personality
disorders as predictors of symptoms and interpersonal problems.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 69(3), 317–330. doi:10.1176/
appi.psychotherapy.2015.69.3.317
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., &
Winkworth, G. (2000). The relation between perfectionism and dis-
tress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social support as mediators and
moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(4), 437–453. doi:
10.1037//0022-0167.47.4.437
Fava, G. A. (1983). Assessing depressive symptoms across cultures:
Italian validation of the CES-D self-rating scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 39(2), 249–251. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198303)39:
2<249::AID-JCLP2270390218>3.0.CO;2-Y
Flett, G. L., Coulter, L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2012). The perfectionistic self-
presentation scale—Junior form. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 27(2), 136–149. doi:10.1177/0829573511431406
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). Perfectionism and perfectionistic
self-presentation in social anxiety: Implications for assessment and
treatment. In S. Hofmann & P. DiBartolo (Eds.), Social anxiety:
PERFECTIONISM AND DISTRESS 9
Clinical, Developmental, and Social Perspectives, 3rd ed. (pp.
159–187). London, UK: Elsevier.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2015). Measures of perfectionism. In G.
Boyle, D. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of Personality
and Social Psychological Constructs (Vol. 2, pp. 595–618). London,
UK: Academic Press.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Still measuring perfectionism after
all these years: Reflections and an introduction to the Special Issue
on advances in the assessment of perfectionism. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 615–619. doi:10.1177/
0734282916651540
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998).
Psychological distress and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1363–1381. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.75.5.1363
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Nepon, T. (2016). Perfectionism, worry,
and rumination in health and mental health: A review and a con-
ceptual framework for a cognitive theory of perfectionism. In F. M.
Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, Health, and Well-being
(pp. 121–156). New York, NY: Springer.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Nepon, T., & Besser, A. (2018).
Perfectionism cognition theory: The cognitive side of perfectionism.
In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The Psychology of Perfectionism: Theory,
Research, Applications (pp. 89–110). London, UK: Routledge.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Whelan, T., & Martin, T. R. (2007). The
Perfecionism Cognitions Inventory: Psychometric properties and
associations with distress and deficits in cognitive self-management.
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25(4),
255–277. doi:10.1007/s10942-007-0055-4
Flett, G. L., Nepon, T., Hewitt, P. L., & Fitzgerald, K. (2016).
Perfectionism, components of stress reactivity, and depressive symp-
toms. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(4),
645–654. doi:10.1007/s10862-016-9554-x
Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., & Nepon, T. (2014).
Understanding the narcissistic perfectionists among us: Grandiosity,
vulnerability, and the quest for the perfect self. In A. Besser (Ed.),
Handbook of the psychology of narcissism: Diverse perspectives (pp.
43–66). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The
dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5),
449–468. doi:10.1007/BF01172967
Hewitt, P. L., Blasberg, J. S., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. B.,
Caelian, C., … Birch, S. (2011). Perfectionistic self-presentation in
children and adolescents: Development and validation of the
Perfectionistic Self-Presentation–Junior form. Psychological
Assessment, 23(1), 125–142. doi:10.1037/a0021147
Hewitt, E. L., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Perfectionism and depression: A
multidimensional analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 5, 423–438.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). The multidimensional perfectionism
scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric
samples. Psychological Assessment, 3(3), 464–468.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale (MPS): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and
depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability
hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(2), 276–280. doi:
10.1037//0021-843X.105.2.276
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A rela-
tional approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Habke, M., Parkin, M., Lam,
R. W., … Stein, M. B. (2003). The interpersonal expression of per-
fection: Perfectionistic self-presentation and psychological distress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1303–1325. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1303
Hill, A. P. (2014). Perfectionistic strivings and the perils of partialling.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(4),
302–315. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2014.919602
10 CASALE ET AL.
Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S. L., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2001).
Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression: are the relationships inde-
pendent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(3), 291–301. doi:
10.1023/A:1010736529013
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measure-
ment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66–75. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4701_8
Molnar, D. S., Sirois, F. M., Flett, G. L., Janssen, W. F., & Hewitt, P. L.
(2018). Perfectionism and health: The roles of health behaviors and
stress-related processes. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The Psychology of
Perfectionism: Theory, Research, Applications (pp. 200–221). London,
UK: Routledge.
Nepon, T., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2016). Self-image goals in trait
perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation: Toward a broader
understanding of the drives and motives of perfectionists. Self and
Identity, 15(6), 683–706. doi:10.1080/15298868.2016.1197847
Nepon, T., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Molnar, D. S. (2011).
Perfectionism, negative social feedback, and interpersonal rumin-
ation in depression and social anxiety. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 43(4), 297–308. doi:10.1037/a0025032
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist,
39(4), 386–390. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.386
Peters, L., Sunderland, M., Andrews, G., Rapee, R. M., & Mattick, R. P.
(2012). Development of a short form social interaction anxiety
(SIAS) and social phobia scale (SPS) using nonparametric item
response theory: The SIAS-6 and the SPS-6. Psychological
Assessment, 24(1), 66–76. doi:10.1037/a0024544
Pliner, P., Chaiken, S., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Gender differences in con-
cern with body and weight and physical appearance over the life-
span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 263–273. doi:
10.1177/0146167290162007
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale
for research in the general population. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee-Baggley, D. L., & Hall,
P. A. (2007). Trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation
in personality pathology. Personality and Individual Differences,
42(3), 477–490. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.026
Sironic, A., & Reeve, R. A. (2015). A combined analysis of the frost
multidimensional perfectionism scale (FMPS), child and adolescent
perfectionism scale (CAPS), and almost perfect scale-revised
(APSR): Different perfectionist profiles in adolescent high school
students. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1471–1483. doi:10.1037/
pas0000137
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). The
big three perfectionism scale: A new measure of perfectionism.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 670–687. doi:
10.1177/0734282916651539
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Mushquash,
C., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2018). The perniciousness of per-
fectionism: A meta-analytic review of the perfectionism-suicide
relationship. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 522–542. doi:10.1111/
jopy.12333
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Rnic, K., Saklofske, D. H., Enns, M., &
Gralnick, T. (2016). Are perfectionism dimensions vulnerability fac-
tors for depressive symptoms after controlling for neuroticism? A
meta-analysis of 10 longitudinal studies. European Journal of
Personality, 30(2), 201–212. doi:10.1002/per.2053
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25(2), 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfec-
tionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and
recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 104,
379–386. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/
BF02291170