Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

DOI 10.1007/s10608-006-9060-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Conceptualization and Measurement of Adaptive

and Maladaptive Aspects of Performance Perfectionism:
Relations to Personality, Psychological Functioning,
and Academic Achievement

Edward C. Chang

Published online: 21 November 2006

Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract A program of research was initiated to evaluate the construct of performance

perfectionism in adults. Findings from these studies indicated that different adaptive
and maladaptive aspects of performance perfectionism could be distinguished (Studies
1a & 1b), and that performance perfectionism was distinguishable from alternative
personality variables, including the five-factor model (Study 2). Furthermore, additional
findings indicated that performance perfectionism was associated with positive and
negative psychological functioning (Studies 3a & 3b), and with prospective academic
achievement in the classroom (Study 4). In addition, regression results indicated that
performance perfectionism accounted for additional variance in positive psychological
functioning beyond a popular measure of perfectionism (Study 3b). Some implications
of the present findings and future directions are discussed.

Keywords Perfectionism Æ Personality Æ Psychological functioning Æ

Academic achievement

Introduction

In recent decades, researchers have increasingly focused their attention on the study of
perfectionism, a personality variable commonly marked by high standards of perfor-
mance (Burns, 1980; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hamachek, 1978). As a
result, researchers have been able to identify a link between perfectionism and mal-
adjustment (Shafran & Mansell, 2001). A similar trend has also emerged in studies of
outcome cognitions, thoughts involving positive and negative perceptions of past,
present, and future outcomes (Bandura, 1977; Snyder et al., 1991). Relative to other
useful psychological constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, self-esteem), outcome cognitions are
believed to represent robust proximal determinants of behavior and outcome (Scheier

E. C. Chang (&)
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
e-mail: changec@umich.edu
123
678 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

& Carver, 1985). Similar to findings on perfectionism, outcome cognitions like

optimism, pessimism, and hope have also been found to have associations with
adjustment (Chang, 2001). Indeed, although both perfectionism and outcome cognitions
have been linked to important, and often similar, indices of functioning in adults, little
effort has been made to investigate the potential fruits of integrating these two areas of
investigation.

Incorporating outcome cognitions to high standards of performance

Current models (and measures) of perfectionism do not provide a clear distinction

between high standards of performance that may involve positive outcome cognitions
(adaptive), from negative outcome cognitions (maladaptive). This may be because most
perfectionism researchers have assumed that they are studying a variable that is
essentially maladaptive in nature (see Chang, 2003, for a review). Given this potentially
limiting view, some researchers have started to call for a more inclusive view of per-
fectionism involving both adaptive and maladaptive qualities (Bieling, Israeli, &
Antony, 2004; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Slade & Owens, 1998).
However, results from several recent studies have failed, for example, to provide strong
and consistent support linking adaptive perfectionism with adjustment (e.g., Chang,
Watkins, & Banks, 2004; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003). Yet, such nonsupportive
findings may be a direct result of using measures that were developed out of patho-
logical models of perfectionism. Indeed, findings from studies on adaptive and mal-
adaptive aspects of perfectionism using current measures have often found these aspects
to be positively, not negatively, correlated with each other (e.g., Chang et al., 2004;
Dunkley et al., 2003; Frost et al., 1993). If a measure of perfectionism was developed
that tapped both adaptive and maladaptive aspects, then researchers would not only
have a way to better assess and understand the complexities of perfectionism (e.g.,
identifying which aspect of perfectionism is most strongly linked to various conditions or
outcomes), but such a measure may have important practical value for practitioners. For
example, clinicians and educators may use such a measure to identify perfectionism
profiles, target specific aspects of perfectionism, and track changes different aspects of
perfectionism in efforts to foster greater adaptive perfectionism, reduce maladaptive
perfectionism, or both. Given these concerns and possibilities, a program of research
was initiated to discern if a broadened model of perfectionism could be established
based on the integration of outcome cognitions to high standards of performance,
respectively.

Performance perfectionism

The notion that activation of high standards of performance may operate in conjunction
with the activation of outcome cognitions to determine behavior is not at all new. For
some time, researchers have proposed self-regulation models that implicate the
importance of goal-related standards that may sometimes lead to discrepancy experi-
ences and of outcome cognitions that may direct or motivate behavior in such situations
(e.g., Bandura, 1977; Higgins, 1987; Rotter, 1954). When an individual perceives a
discrepancy between some standard and a goal, positive and negative outcome cogni-
tions are believed to play a powerful role in determining approach and avoidance
behaviors, respectively (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Therefore, it
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 679

seems reasonable to expect that positive and negative outcome cognitions would naturally
come into play when perceptions of high standards of performance are involved.
To avoid possible confusion with existing approaches and definitions of perfectionism
(especially those derived largely from pathological models), the present program of
research describes high standards of performance involving positive and negative out-
come cognitions as performance perfectionism. Performance perfectionism is believed to
represent a multifaceted construct that is determined not only by the presence of po-
sitive versus negative outcome cognitions, but also determined by the source of high
standards of performance, namely, self versus others. Indeed, beyond high standards of
performance, a number of different models of perfectionism have all pointed to the
importance of distinguishing between self-oriented and socially prescribed sources.
Therefore, because performance perfectionism may be determined by the valence
(positive vs. negative) of the outcome cognitions involved and by the source of high
standards of performance (self-oriented vs. socially prescribed), four distinguishable
aspects of performance perfectionism can be considered. As shown in Fig. 1, two aspects
of performance perfectionism are considered to be adaptive and two aspects of
performance perfectionism are considered to be maladaptive. Positive self-oriented
performance perfectionism is defined by high personal standards of performance that
involve positive outcome cognitions for the individual. Negative self-oriented perfor-
mance perfectionism is defined by high personal standards of performance that involve
negative outcome cognitions for the individual. Positive socially prescribed performance
perfectionism is defined by high standards of performance placed on an individual by
others that involve positive outcome cognitions for the individual. Negative socially
prescribed performance perfectionism is defined by high standards of performance
placed on an individual by others that involve negative outcome cognitions for the
individual.
Drawing again from various works in social learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1977;
Rotter, 1954), different aspects of performance perfectionism may develop and be

Fig. 1 A model identifying Positive Outcome Negative Outcome

adaptive and maladaptive
Self-Oriented Sources

aspects of performance
perfectionism as a function of
source of high standards (self-
oriented versus socially
prescribed) and valence of Adaptive Maladaptive
outcome cognitions (positive
vs. negative)
Socially Prescribed Sources

Adaptive Maladaptive

123
680 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

associated with outcomes in different ways. During childhood, one might expect
cognitive representations of positive and negative socially prescribed standards of
performance perfectionism to become strongly influenced from direct success and
failure experiences associated with early efforts to meet the high standards of significant
others (e.g., parents, teachers, siblings, friends). As the child moves into adulthood,
some of these representations may become assimilated into the individual’s core rep-
resentation of his or her own personal standards of performance perfectionism. Between
socially prescribed and self-oriented variants of performance perfectionism, there are at
least two reasons for expecting greater involvement of self-oriented over socially pre-
scribed aspects of performance perfectionism in determining behaviors and outcomes in
adults. First, findings from numerous studies examining vulnerability factors associated
with maladjustment in adults have consistently implicated negative self-referent
thoughts as a major etiological factor (Mor & Winquist, 2002), whereas findings from
other adult studies have pointed to a robust positive association between a variety of
positive self-referent thoughts and positive psychological functioning (Taylor & Brown,
1988). Secondly, some recent findings looking at a proximal-distal model have offered
support for the idea that socially prescribed aspects of perfectionism may relate to
adjustment through self-oriented aspects of perfectionism (Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002).
Furthermore, between positive and negative self-oriented aspects of performance per-
fectionism, one might expect that the former, involving approach motives, would be
more strongly associated with positive outcomes and conditions, whereas the latter,
involving avoidance motives, would be more strongly associated with negative outcomes
and conditions (Slade & Owens, 1998).

Overview of the present research

Given these theoretical considerations and concerns about past studies of perfectionism,
a series of studies was conducted to examine the construct of performance perfection-
ism. Studies 1a and 1b were conducted to identify useful items assessing for performance
perfectionism and to provide an initial assessment of the factor structure of a new
measure of the construct, respectively. Study 2 was conducted to examine the relations
between performance perfectionism and alternative personality constructs. Studies 3a
and 3b were conducted to examine the relations between performance perfectionism
and positive and negative psychological functioning. In addition, Study 3b was con-
ducted to compare the explanatory power of performance perfectionism over a measure
commonly used to assess for adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. And, lastly, Study
4 was conducted to examine the usefulness of performance perfectionism as a predictor
of objective academic achievement in the classroom.

Studies 1a and 1b: development of the performance perfectionism scale (PPS)

Studies 1a and 1b involved the development a new measure of the construct under
study. The goals of Study 1a were to have knowledgeable experts identify a reasonable
number of items tapping the different aspects of performance perfectionism and to
examine levels of congruence between repondents’ categorization and experts’ cate-
gorization of the different aspects of performance perfectionism. Study 1b involved an
exploratory factor analysis of a subset of the items that showed the strongest levels of
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 681

congruence between respondents and experts from Study 1a to provide an initial

examination of the factor structure of the new measure of performance perfectionism.

Study 1a

Method

Participants Participants were 187 (64 male and 123 female) college students
attending a large midwestern university. Ages ranged from 18 to 30 years of age, with a
mean age of 19.7.
Measure To identify a useful pool of items reflecting performance perfectionism, a
multi-step process was instituted. In the first step, one graduate student and three
undergraduate students familiar with the present definition of performance perfec-
tionism and knowledgeable on research and theory on general models of perfectionism
(e.g., Burns, 1980; Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) were asked
to generate as many items as possible which tapped the different aspects of performance
perfectionism. After several iterations involving item correction and elimination of item
redundancies, a pool of 143 items was identified. In the second step, one additional
graduate student and one faculty familiar with the present definition of performance
perfectionism and knowledgeable on current measures of perfectionism reviewed the
list of items and made additional corrections, eliminated any redundancies between
items, deleted any items that were unintentionally identical to those present in existing
perfectionism measures, deleted also any items that made explicit reference to positive
and negative affective conditions or outcomes, and selected the most useful items
tapping the different aspects of performance perfectionism based on clarity, brevity, and
correspondence to the proposed definition of performance perfectionism. Based on this
stringent set of criteria, a total of 60 candidate items were identified, with 15 items
reflecting each of the four aspects of performance perfectionism.
Procedure All participants were presented with the 60 candidate items and asked to
classify each item as fitting 1 of 5 different categories. Of the five categories, four
involved the different aspects of performance perfectionism used to generate the ori-
ginal 60 items. For these categories, respondents were asked to determine if an item was
consistent with a definition of a specific aspect of performance perfectionism (as defined
earlier). A fifth category, was included to allow respondents an opportunity to cate-
gorize any of the items as belonging to some other perfectionistic process unrelated to
the four aspects of performance perfectionism.

Results and discussion

A measure of overall accuracy for each item was obtained by calculating the percentage
of participants who correctly categorized a given item with 1 of the 4 aspects of per-
formance perfectionism that the item was intended to measure. Results indicated that
each of the candidate items was correctly categorized by more than 63% of the par-
ticipants (accuracy ranged from 62.6% to 98.9% across all items, with an average of
greater than 87%). Thus, participants accurately appraised items as tapping 1 of the 4
aspects of performance perfectionism that they were designed to measure for. Sex
differences were not found in any of these analyses.

123
682 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

Eight items tapping each of the four aspects of performance perfectionism, with
accuracy greater than 90%, were used to construct the Performance Perfectionism Scale
(PPS). As in most studies involving the development of a measure of a new construct, an
initial examination of the factor structure of the PPS and an examination of other basic
psychometric properties of the PPS (e.g., test–retest reliabilities) were conducted in
Study 1b.

Study 1b

Method

Participants Participants were 638 (178 male and 460 female) college students
attending a large midwestern university. Ages ranged from 18 years to 42 years of age,
with a mean age of 20.1.
Measure and procedure Participants were administered the 32-item PPS. Respon-
dents were asked to indicate the extent to which each item was ‘‘generally true of you’’
using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (extremely untrue of me) to 5 (extremely
true of me). To determine the test–retest reliability of the PPS, a subset sample of 154
participants also completed the measure six weeks later.

Results and discussion

A principal-components factor analysis involving oblique rotation of the responses

provided on the 32 PPS items was performed resulting in four identifiable factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 which accounted for a total of 54% of the total variance.
Overall, most of the items loaded greater than .59 onto each of their respective factors
(e.g., items reflecting positive self-oriented performance perfectionism all loaded
strongly on one factor) and loaded no more than .26 on another factor. Sample PPS
items with their corresponding factor loadings are presented in Table 1. However, 3 of
the 8 negative self-oriented performance perfectionism items were found to have
modest loadings on negative socially prescribed performance perfectionism (loadings
ranged from .32 to .43), a scree plot, however, provided support for keeping the four-
factor solution.
Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies for the PPS subscales are
presented in Table 2. As the table indicates, internal consistencies for the four PPS
subscales based on the present sample were very good to excellent (as = .84 to .90).
Average inter-item correlations for the Positive Self-Oriented Performance Perfec-
tionism scale, the Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism scale, the Positive
Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism scale, and for the Negative Socially
Prescribed Performance Perfectionism scale were .50, .43, .52, and .53, respectively.
Consistent with earlier findings, no sex differences were found across any of the PPS
subscales. Therefore, all subsequent analyses in the present research are based on
collapsing for gender.
Zero-order correlations were computed between the four PPS subscales. As one
might expect, given their common theoretical underpinning focusing on high standards
of performance and outcome expectancies, small to modest associations were found
between the four scales. Positive Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism was nega-
tively associated with Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism (r = –.41),

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 683

Table 1 Sample items and factor loadings from the Performance Perfectionism Scale
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Positive self-oriented performance perfectionism

1. My desire to do things perfectly ensures my highest .60 –.22 .13 –.24
level of effectiveness.
2. It is because of my very high standards that I have .73 –.16 .12 .02
accomplished many great things.
3. My performance is always made better by the high .70 –.18 .17 –.16
standards I set for myself.
Negative self-oriented performance perfectionism
1. My high standards prevent me from doing my best. –.07 .61 .04 .24
2. When I try to meet my high standards, my work –.20 .60 –.06 .35
suffers.
3. I accomplish nothing when I try to meet the high –.14 .62 –.01 .22
standards I set for myself.
Positive socially prescribed performance perfectionism
1. I do my best when others push me to meet their high .16 –.11 .60 –.17
standards.
2. My performance is always made better when others .10 –.13 .77 –.19
expect more from me.
3. It is because others have set high standards for me .12 –.20 .69 –.09
that I have accomplished so much.
Negative socially prescribed performance perfectionism
1. I can’t do anything right when others hold me to .01 .16 –.14 .68
their high standards.
2. My work suffers when others push me to meet their –.09 .09 –.22 .75
high standards.
3. My productivity quickly drops when others expect –.12 .09 –.20 .74
perfection from me.

Note: Factor loadings > .59 are in bold

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the Performance Perfectionism Scale
Study Self-oriented performance perfectionism Socially prescribed performance N
perfectionism
Positive Negative Positive Negative
M SD a M SD a M SD a M SD a

Study 1b 32.06 5.20 .88 15.10 5.39 .84 25.88 6.42 .90 15.30 5.83 .90 638
Study 2 31.94 5.19 .89 14.59 4.75 .86 25.61 5.97 .88 14.92 5.13 .87 212
Study 3a 31.49 4.99 .90 15.31 5.27 .87 26.51 5.91 .89 15.22 5.80 .92 207
Study 3b 32.20 5.26 .86 14.85 5.46 .86 25.93 6.28 .91 14.99 5.50 .90 271
Study 4 32.17 5.33 .90 15.12 5.49 .85 25.94 6.14 .89 15.45 5.77 .89 242

Note: Higher scores reflect greater levels of positive self-oriented performance perfectionism, negative
self-oriented performance perfectionism, positive socially prescribed performance perfectionism, and
negative socially prescribed performance perfectionism.

positively associated with Positive Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism

(r = .34), and was negatively associated with Negative Socially Prescribed Performance
Perfectionism (r = –.35). Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism was neg-
atively associated with Positive Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism (r = –.19),
and was positively associated with Negative Socially Prescribed Performance Perfec-
tionism (r = .57). Finally, Positive Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism was
123
684 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

negatively associated with Negative Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism

(r = –.34). Yet, these associations were not so high as to suggest that the different
aspects of performance perfectionism were wholly redundant with each other.
Finally, test–retest reliabilities across a 6-week period were computed for the four
PPS scales. Results indicated test–retest reliabilities of .63, .64, .70, and .65 for Positive
Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism, Negative Self-Oriented Performance Per-
fectionism, Positive Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism, and for Negative
Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism, respectively. Hence, the PPS subscales
appear to possess moderate stability over time, suggesting that performance perfec-
tionism may represent a stable personality variable in adults.
In sum, findings from the present set of studies provided support for the notion that
different aspects of performance perfectionism can be distinguished and some promising
evidence for the psychometric properties of the PPS.

Study 2: associations of performance perfectionism with alternative personality

variables

As a new construct, performance perfectionism should not be redundant with alterna-

tive personality constructs that it may have some theoretical associations with. Fur-
thermore, it is important to clarify the extent to which performance perfectionism is
associated with social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Therefore, this study
examined the relations of performance perfectionism, using the PPS, with measures of
several notable personality constructs, namely, the five-factor model of personality,
optimism, pessimism, hope, behavioral inhibition and activation, and social desirability.
A set of general predictions was made.
Within the framework of the five-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae,
1985), the two maladaptive aspects of negative self-oriented and negative socially pre-
scribed performance perfectionism were expected to be most strongly associated with
neuroticism (Hamachek, 1978). Positive socially prescribed performance perfectionism
was expected to be most strongly associated with extraversion given a common
emphasis on positive interactions with others, and with agreeableness, given a common
emphasis on appeasing others or going along with others. Because conscientiousness
involves an individual’s emphasis on being careful, hardworking, and persevering, it was
expected that this personality dimension would be most strongly associated with positive
self-oriented performance perfectionism. Finally, because openness (to experiences) has
no conceptual overlap with performance perfectionism, no significant associations were
expected involving openness.
Optimism and pessimism represent important personality constructs linked to posi-
tive and negative functioning, respectively (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Because perfor-
mance perfectionism is conceptually based on the integration of outcome cognitions to
high standards of performance, it was expected that optimism (a positive outcome
cognition) would be related to the two positive aspects of performance perfectionism,
whereas it was expected that pessimism (a negative outcome cognition) would be
related to the two negative aspects of performance perfectionism. Like optimism, hope
(agency & pathways) has also been found to be associated with positive functioning
(Snyder et al., 1991). Accordingly, hope was expected to be most strongly associated
with positive self-oriented performance perfectionism.

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 685

In addition, Gray (1970) proposed a biological model of personality based on

variations across two behavioral systems, namely, a behavioral inhibition system (BIS)
and a behavioral activation system (BAS). The BIS is sensitive to punishment and
nonrewards, and is believed to inhibit movement toward goals. The BAS is sensitive to
rewards and nonpunishment and is believed to help initiate movement toward goals.
Therefore, BIS sensitivity was expected to be related to the two maladaptive aspects of
performance perfectionism, whereas BAS sensitivity was expected to be related to the
two adaptive aspects of performance perfectionism (Slade & Owens, 1998).
Finally, because there was no reason to expect that performance perfectionism would
be strongly determined by social desirability, no strong association was expected to be
found between the two.

Method

Participants

Participants were 212 (52 male and 160 female) college students attending a large
midwestern university. Ages ranged from 18 years to 26 years of age, with a mean age of
20.0.

Measures and procedure

In addition to the PPS, all participants completed the following personality measures
presented in randomized order (internal consistencies are noted in parentheses).
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) is a
60-item measure of personality based on the five-factor model. The NEO-FFI is com-
posed of five scales that assess the five broad personality dimensions of Neuroticism
(.84), Extraversion (.80), Openness (.71), Agreeableness (.78), and Conscientiousness
(.85).
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). The LOT-R (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges,
1994) is a 10-item measure, with 3 items assessing for Optimism (.74) and 3 items
assessing for Pessimism (.84). The remaining 4 items are filler.
Hope Scale. The Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) is a 12-item measure, with 4 items
assessing for Agency (.79) and 4 items assessing for Pathways (.71). Four items are filler.
Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System (BIS/BAS). The BIS/BAS
scales (Carver & White, 1994) are composed of a 7-item BIS scale (.78) and 3 BAS
scales (.86). The 3 BAS scales include a 5-item BAS—Reward Responsiveness scale, a
4-item BAS—Drive scale, and a 4-item BAS—Fun Seeking scale. For the present study,
all 13 of the BAS items were summed to obtain an overall BAS score.
Social Desirability Scale (SDS). The SDS (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is a 33-item
measure of socially acceptable and approvable behaviors that are relatively unlikely to
occur (Kuder-Richardson-20 = .78).

Results and discussion

Results of computing zero-order correlations indicated that the significant associations

found between the PPS subscales and the different personality measures were all in the
expected direction and indicated that the PPS subscales were not wholly redundant with
any of the personality measures examined in this study. Because of the sheer number of
123
686 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

significant associations found and the modest intercorrelations that exist between the
PPS subscales (Study 1b), partial correlations that controlled for common variance
between the PPS subscales were also computed (see Table 3). This allowed for the
identification of the most robust and unique associations involving the PPS. The present
discussion focuses primarily on these partial correlation results that control for common
variance among the four PPS scales.
Consistent with expectations, both of the maladaptive aspects, and none of the
adaptive aspects, of performance perfectionism were found to be positively associated
with neuroticism (prs = .19 and .36). As expected, positive socially prescribed perfor-
mance perfectionism was found to be positively associated with extraversion (pr = .20),
and was found to be positively associated with agreeableness (pr = .16). Interestingly,
negative socially prescribed performance perfectionism was also found to be negatively
associated with agreeableness (pr = –.18). Thus, socially prescribed aspects of perfor-
mance perfectionism appear to involve a presence or absence of a general willingness to
go along with others. As predicted, positive self-oriented performance perfectionism
was found to be positively associated with conscientiousness (pr = .49). Thus, being
careful, hardworking, and persevering on tasks appear to be strongly and uniquely
involved in this aspect of performance perfectionism. As also predicted, openness was
not found to be associated with performance perfectionism.
As one might have expected, positive self-oriented performance perfectionism was
found to be positively associated with optimism (pr = .18), and negative self-oriented
performance perfectionism was found to be positively associated with pessimism

Table 3 Study 2: Zero-order and partial correlations of Positive Self-Oriented Performance

Perfectionism (PSOPP), Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism (NSOPP), Positive
Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism (PSPPP), and Negative Socially Prescribed
Performance Perfectionism (NSPPP) scales with alternate measures of personality
Scale PSOPP NSOPP PSPPP NSPPP M SD
r pr r pr r pr r pr

NEOFFI
Neuroticism –.14 –.04 .34*** .19** –.01 –.01 .40*** .36*** 20.52 7.82
Extraversion .32*** .13 –.23*** –.02 .34*** .20** –.25*** –.14 31.36 6.71
Openness –.02 –.02 –.07 –.01 –.08 –.07 –.09 –.09 29.20 6.02
Agreeableness .12 .10 –.11 –.02 .19** .16* –.23*** –.18* 32.16 6.24
Conscientiousness .54*** .49*** –.23*** –.06 .27*** .01 –.31*** –.14 32.89 6.86
LOT-R
Optimism .29*** .18* –.26*** –.11 .16* .02 –.27*** –.09 7.94 2.31
Pessimism –.14 –.12 .40*** .36*** –.06 –.06 .29*** .13 4.52 2.73
Hope Scale
Agency .48*** .47*** –.31*** –.09 .16* .12 –.27*** –.05 12.83 1.86
Pathways .37*** .35*** –.19** –.11 .18** .01 –.15* –.08 12.39 1.82
BIS/BAS Scales
Behavioral –.04 –.02 .34*** .24** .06 .02 .08 .06 20.86 3.40
Inhibition System
Behavioral .32*** .27*** –.07 .00 .28*** .21** –.05 –.02 40.96 4.96
Activation System
Social Desirability .10 .10 –.04 –.01 .11 .02 –.13 –.08 15.09 5.35
Scale

Note: N = 212. NEOFFI = NEO Five-Factor Inventory; LOT-R = Life Orientation Test-Revised; BIS/
BAS scales = Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System scales
*P < .05. **P < .01. ***P < .001

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 687

(pr = .36). Likewise, positive self-oriented performance perfectionism was found to be

positively associated with both agency (pr = .47) and pathways (pr = .35). Furthermore,
although negative self-oriented performance perfectionism was found to be positively
associated with BIS sensitivity (pr = .24), negative socially prescribed performance per-
fectionism was not found to be uniquely associated with BIS sensitivity. As expected, both
of the adaptive aspects of performance perfectionism were found to be positively asso-
ciated with BAS sensitivity (pr = .27 and .21, respectively). Finally, it is worth noting that
social desirability was not found to be associated with performance perfectionism.
In sum, results from this study provided promising support for the construct validity
of performance perfectionism in relation to alternative personality variables.

Studies 3a and 3b: performance perfectionism and positive and negative

psychological functioning

Some researchers have identified socially prescribed perfectionism as a key vulnerability

factor that is associated with maladjustment or negative psychological functioning
(Shafran & Mansell, 2001). As noted earlier, however, self-oriented aspects, and not
socially prescribed aspects, of performance perfectionism are thought to have the
strongest associations with positive and negative outcomes and conditions. To test this
hypothesis, two studies were conducted. Study 3a was conducted to examine the asso-
ciations of performance perfectionism with key measures of negative psychological
functioning. Study 3b was conducted to examine the associations of performance per-
fectionism with key measures of positive psychological functioning. Accordingly, these
studies made it possible to also test whether negative self-oriented performance per-
fectionism would be most strongly associated with negative outcomes, whereas positive
self-oriented performance perfectionism would be most strongly associated with posi-
tive outcomes.

Study 3a

Method

Participants Participants were 207 (63 male and 144 female) college students
attending a large midwestern university. Ages ranged from 18 years to 23 years of age,
with a mean age of 19.6.
Measures and procedure In addition to the PPS, all participants completed the
following measures of negative psychological functioning presented in randomized order.
Negative Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (NATQ). The NATQ (Hollon &
Kendall, 1980) is a 30-item measure of negative thoughts (.95).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988) is a 20-item measure of positive and negative mood. In the present
study, only the Negative Affect scale (.87) focusing on the ‘‘past week’’ was adminis-
tered.
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The BSI (Derogatis & Spencer, 1982) is a shortened
53-item measure of psychological symptom patterns based on the Symptoms Check List-
90. The BSI includes 9 clinical scales, namely, Somatization (.81), Obsessive-Compulsive
(.84), Interpersonal (.86), Depression (.87), Anxiety (.80), Hostility (.78), Phobic
Anxiety (.68), Paranoid Ideation (.80), and Psychoticism (.68).
123
688 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The BDI (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, &
Erbaugh, 1961) is a commonly used 21-item measure of depressive symptomatology
(.90).
Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ). The WDQ (Tallis, Eysenck, & Matthews,
1992) is a 30-item measure of worry across several life domains (.95).
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The PSS (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a
14-item measure of self-appraised life stress in the past month (.86).
Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Experiences (ICSRLE). The ICSRLE
(Kohn, Lafreniere, & Gurevich, 1990) is a 49-item measure of different stressful events
typically experienced by college students (.89).

Results and discussion

In general, results of computing zero-order correlations indicated that both the signif-
icant associations found between the PPS subscales and the different negative psycho-
logical functioning measures were in the expected direction (e.g., positive self-oriented
performance perfectionism was associated with lower depressive symptomatology) and
the PPS subscales were not wholly redundant with any of the present measures of
negative psychological functioning. As before, partial correlations were computed (see
Table 4). In looking at the partial correlation results, one robust and consistent pattern
emerged. Consistent with expectations, negative self-oriented performance perfection-
ism was positively associated with each of the 15 measures of negative psychological
functioning (prs = .18 to .43). Only a few (weak) unique associations emerged between
other aspects of performance perfectionism and negative functioning measures.

Table 4 Study 3a: Zero-order and partial correlations of Positive Self-Oriented Performance
Perfectionism (PSOPP), Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism (NSOPP), Positive
Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism (PSPPP), and Negative Socially Prescribed
Performance Perfectionism (NSPPP) scales with measures of negative psychological functioning
Scale PSOPP NSOPP PSPPP NSPPP M SD
r pr r pr r pr r pr

NATQ –.28*** –.13 .39*** .32** –.15* –.05 .32*** .02 48.54 22.25
Negative Affect –.15* –.09 .25*** .24* –.01 –.01 .21** .06 19.51 6.58
BSI
Somatization –.19** –.12 .25*** .24* –.08 –.04 .18** .05 3.77 4.24
Obsessive-Compulsive –.23*** –.17* .31*** .29* –.06 –.06 .23*** .01 6.18 4.79
Interpersonal Sensitivity –.18** –.08 .31*** .28* –.06 –.01 .24*** .02 4.41 4.06
Depression –.26*** –.13 .39*** .35** –.15* –.04 .31*** .01 5.23 5.15
Anxiety –.17* –.09 .25*** .30* –.05 –.02 .16* .09 4.72 4.15
Hostility –.12 –.04 .26*** .29* –.04 –.02 .19** .03 3.82 3.59
Phobic Anxiety –.29*** –.16* .40*** .40*** –.15* –.03 .27*** .11 1.50 1.23
Paranoid Ideation –.12 –.02 .31*** .27* –.10 –.01 .27*** .06 4.10 3.96
Psychoticism –.29*** –.12 .45*** .43*** –.16* –.02 .25*** .04 3.39 3.24
Beck Depression Inventory –.21** –.12 .31*** .24* –.08 –.06 .28*** .04 7.19 6.61
Worry Domains Questionnaire –.22** –.16* .31*** .27* –.03 –.02 .24*** .02 40.43 22.85
Perceived Stress Scale –.23*** –.07 .35*** .24* –.08 –.06 .33*** .13 25.23 7.56
ICSRLE –.14 –.08 .29*** .18* –.05 –.01 .28*** .19* 99.67 7.27

Note: N = 207. NATQ = Negative Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire; BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory;
ICSRLE = Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Experiences
*P < .05. **P < .01. ***P < .001
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 689

Study 3b

Study 3b was conducted to examine how performance perfectionism relates to positive

psychological functioning. In addition, a second objective of this study was to determine
if performance perfectionism, using the PPS, added additional explanatory power to
predicting positive psychological functioning above and beyond a commonly used
measure of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, namely, the Frost Multidimen-
sional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost et al., 1990). Besides the wide popularity of its
usage by researchers, the FMPS was selected for two substantive reasons. First, the
FMPS is a broad and comprehensive measure of general perfectionism, which includes
items drawn from several other measures of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990). Second,
and most importantly, the FMPS is the only measure based on a general model of
perfectionism in which all of the subscales have been found to load onto either an
adaptive or a maladaptive factor (e.g., Frost et al., 1993; Stumpf & Parker, 2000).
Insofar as performance perfectionism is believed to represent a useful construct that is
not redundant with current models of perfectionism, PPS scores were expected to add
further explanatory power to the prediction of positive functioning beyond FMPS
scores.

Method

Participants Participants were 271 (78 male and 193 female) college students
attending a large midwestern university. Ages ranged from 18 years to 32 years of age,
with a mean age of 20.0.
Measures and procedure In addition to the PPS, all participants completed the
following measures of positive psychological functioning presented in randomized
order.
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985) is a 5-item measure of global life satisfaction or a person’s satisfaction
with life as a whole, rather than any specific domain (.93).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS (Watson et al., 1988)
is a 20-item measure of positive mood and negative mood. In the present study, only the
Positive Affect scale (.89) focusing on the ‘‘past week’’ was administered.
Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB). The SPWB (Ryff, 1989) is an 84-item
measure that assesses for 6 theoretically distinct dimensions of psychological well-being,
namely, Self-Acceptance (.91), Positive Relations with Others (.86), Autonomy (.87),
Environmental Mastery (.86), Purpose in Life (.86), and Personal Growth (.88).
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS). The FMPS (Frost et al., 1990) is
a 35-item multidimensional measure of general perfectionism, consisting of Concern
over Mistakes (.86), Personal Standards (.74), Parental Expectations (.78), Parental
Criticism (.81), Doubts about Actions (.75), and Organization (.81).

Results and discussion

Results of computing zero-order correlations indicated both that the significant asso-
ciations found between the PPS subscales and the different positive functioning mea-
sures were all in the expected direction (e.g., positive self-oriented performance
perfectionism was associated with greater life satisfaction) and that the PPS subscales

123
690 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

were not wholly redundant with any of the present measures of positive psychological
functioning. As before, partial correlations were computed (see Table 5). In looking at
the partial correlation results, one fairly robust and consistent pattern emerged. Con-
sistent with expectations, positive self-oriented performance perfectionism was posi-
tively associated with all but one of the measures of positive psychological functioning
(prs = .24 to .44). As expected, only few and weak unique associations emerged between
other aspects of performance perfectionism and positive functioning measures.
Before examining the utility of the PPS relative to the FMPS, the relations between
the PPS and the FMPS were first examined. Not surprisingly, results from computing
zero-order correlations between the PPS and FMPS subscales indicated small to large
significant associations (rs = .14 to .51) as would be expected between the present
measure of performance perfectionism and a general measure of perfectionism. Next, to
see if the PPS could account for additional variance in measures of positive psycho-
logical functioning beyond the variance accounted for by the FMPS, a series of hier-
archical regression analyses was conducted. In predicting each of the 8 dependent
measures, all 6 of the FMPS subscales were entered as a set in the first step, followed by
all 4 of the PPS subscales as a set in the second step. Results of these analyses are
presented in Table 6. As the table shows, the performance perfectionism set was found
to account for an additional 11.5% of the variance in life satisfaction, an additional 6.6%
of the variance in positive affect, an additional 6.5% of the variance in self-acceptance,
an additional 9.3% of the variance in positive relations with others, an additional 4.6%
of the variance in autonomy, an additional 9.3% of the variance in environmental
mastery, an additional 10.1% of the variance in purpose in life, and lastly, an additional
11.0% of the variance in personal growth. In each case, with an exception of autonomy,
positive self-oriented performance perfectionism was consistently the only significant
predictor within the performance perfectionism set (bs = .24 to .36).
Overall, results from the present studies provided support for the contention that
self-oriented aspects, and not socially prescribed aspects, of performance perfectionism
are most strongly linked to positive and negative outcomes. These results also provided

Table 5 Study 3b: Zero-order and partial correlations of Positive Self-Oriented Performance
Perfectionism (PSOPP), Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism (NSOPP), Positive
Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism (PSPPP), and Negative Socially Prescribed
Performance Perfectionism (NSPPP) scales with measures of positive psychological functioning
Scale PSOPP NSOPP PSPPP NSPPP M SD
r pr r pr r pr r pr

Satisfaction with .45*** .36*** –.33*** –.07 .26*** .04 –.31*** –.09 25.42 5.78
Life Scale
Positive Affect .39*** .32*** –.25*** –.01 .25*** .04 –.24*** –.09 32.94 7.27
Scales of Psychological Well-Being
Self-Acceptance .40*** .28*** –.43*** –.14 .15* .02 –.41*** –.17* 61.20 11.43
Positive Relations .39*** .31*** –.29*** –.04 .22*** .02 –.27*** –.08 64.48 9.41
with Others
Autonomy .13 .12 .06 .00 –.29*** –.28*** –.33*** –.31*** 58.69 10.65
Environmental .44*** .32*** –.44*** –.07 .20*** .07 –.45*** –.09 58.02 10.15
Mastery
Purpose in Life .56*** .44*** –.50*** –.14 .25*** .06 –.45*** –.13 64.20 9.71
Personal Growth .43*** .24*** –.50*** –.25*** .21*** .02 –.45*** –.14 67.48 9.41

Note: N = 271
*P < .05. ***P < .001

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 691

Table 6 Study 3b:

Criterion and Predictor R2 DR2 df F
Hierarchical regression
analyses showing amount of
Satisfaction with Life Scale
variance in measures of
FMPS .232 6,264 12.63***
subjective and psychological
PPS .347 .115 4,260 10.92***
well-being accounted for by
Positive Affect
scores on the Performance
FMPS .158 6,264 7.86***
Perfectionism Scale (PPS)
PPS .224 .066 4,260 5.20***
over scores on the Frost
Self-Acceptance
Multidimensional
FMPS .413 6,264 29.45***
Perfectionism Scale (FMPS)
PPS .478 .065 4,260 7.75***
Positive Relations with Others
FMPS .300 6,264 17.95***
PPS .393 .093 4,260 9.39***
Autonomy
FMPS .303 6,264 18.18***
PPS .349 .046 4,260 4.32**
Environmental Mastery
FMPS .415 6,264 29.62***
PPS .508 .093 6,260 11.64***
Purpose in Life
FMPS .399 6, 264 27.78***
PPS .500 .101 4, 260 12.44***
Personal Growth
FMPS .243 6, 264 13.41***
Note: N = 271.
PPS .353 .110 4, 260 10.49***
**P < .01. ***P < .001.

more specific support for the claim that negative self-oriented performance
perfectionism is most strongly linked to negative outcomes, and that positive self-ori-
ented performance perfectionism is most strongly linked to positive outcomes. In
addition, results from Study 3b showed that although performance perfectionism is
related to, but not redundant with, the general construct of perfectionism, the former is
a useful construct that can compliment the latter in the prediction of positive psycho-
logical functioning.

Study 4: performance perfectionism and objective academic achievement in the

classroom

One major limitation of the previously conducted studies on performance perfectionism

is that they all relied on self-report measures of the dependent variable under exami-
nation. Because performance perfectionism is believed to represent a useful variable
that should be linked to important outcomes, the present study was conducted to offer a
more stringent test of performance perfectionism in predicting an important outcome
for many young adults, namely, academic achievement as indicated by subsequent
performance on exams and final course grades. It was hypothesized that positive self-
oriented performance perfectionism would be most strongly associated with academic
achievement. However, because intellectual ability may account for considerable vari-
ance in academic achievement, a measure of intellectual ability was included. Accord-
ingly, another goal of the present study was to determine if performance perfectionism
could predict additional variance in prospective academic achievement after controlling
for intellectual ability.

123
692 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

Method

Participants

Participants were 256 (69 male and 187 female) college students attending a large
midwestern university taking a large introductory abnormal psychology course. Ages
ranged from 18 years to 31 years of age, with a mean age of 19.9.

Measures and procedure

For practical reasons, the Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS; Zachary, 1991) was
selected as a measure of general intellectual ability. The SILS is a brief time-limited
measure of general intellectual ability that has been found to correlate positively with
scores derived from traditional adult intelligence tests and batteries (WAIS-R).
During the last 20 min of the first day of class, 256 students completed the SILS. The
SILS is composed of 2 subtests, a 40-item vocabulary test and a 20-item test of abstract
thinking. These 2 subtests were given to students with the standard 10-minute time limit
for each subtest. In addition to providing a Vocabulary score and an Abstraction score,
the SILS also provides for a combined Total score and an estimated revised Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) IQ score.
During the second week of class, 242 students (of which 225 students previously
completed the SILS) completed the PPS. In addition, these students provided consent to
obtain a record of their class performance (e.g., examination scores, final course grade)
which was to be analyzed in relation to their responses on the PPS and the SILS.
Accordingly, examination scores on five tests and a final course grade for each student
were obtained at the end of the term. Each of the five tests, given approximately every
3 weeks from the start of the term, was scored on a 100-point scale, with perfect test
performance indicated by a score of 100 points. Final course grades were based on a 4.0
grading scale (e.g., A = 4.00, A– = 3.75, and B+ = 3.40). Due to attrition, only 233 of the
original 242 students officially completed the course. Of this subgroup, only 222 of the
same students completed all measures during the first two weeks of class, and took all
the exams.

Results and discussion

To test whether or not performance perfectionism was associated with prospective

academic achievement on exams and with final course grades, zero-order correlations
were computed. Results of these computations are presented in Table 7. As expected,
the most consistent finding involved the associations of positive self-oriented perfor-
mance perfectionism. Next, to examine if performance perfectionism was related to
intellectual ability, zero-order correlations were computed between the 4 PPS subscales
and scores derived from the 2 SILS subtests. Specifically, 4 SILS scores were derived
and examined, namely, a Vocabulary score (M = 54.07, SD = 6.33), an Abstraction
score (M = 57.99, SD = 4.88), a Total Score (based on combined Vocabulary and
Abstraction scores; M = 57.16, SD = 4.84), and an estimated WAIS-R IQ score (based
on the Total Score adjusted for age; M = 106.26, SD = 7.46). Results of these compu-
tations indicated no significant associations between scores on the PPS subscales with
scores from these four measures of intellectual ability.

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 693

Table 7 Study 4: Zero-order correlations of Positive Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism

(PSOPP), Negative Self-Oriented Performance Perfectionism (NSOPP), Positive Socially Prescribed
Performance Perfectionism (PSPPP), and Negative Socially Prescribed Performance Perfectionism
(NSPPP) scales with academic achievement
Academic Achievement n PSOPP NSOPP PSPPP NSPPP M SD

Exam 1 242 .08 –.11 .03 –.13* 86.28 12.42

Exam 2 234 .19** –.05 .07 –.01 89.08 9.74
Exam 3 234 .16* –.09 .03 –.08 83.03 9.36
Exam 4 234 .22*** –.18** .05 –.11 78.32 11.42
Exam 5 233 .17** –.11 .04 –.14* 83.40 8.72
Final Course Grade 233 .24*** –.10 .01 –.11 3.05 .94

Note: Scores on each of the five exams were based on a possible 100-point scale. Final course grades were
based on a 4.0 grading scale. Exams were administered approximately every 3 weeks from the start of the
term
*P < .05. **P < .01. ***P < .001

To see if scores on the PPS could account for additional significant variance in
academic achievement on each of the 5 exams and final course grades beyond the
variance accounted for by the SILS, a series of hierarchical regression analyses was
conducted. In predicting each of the 6 academic outcomes (5 exams and final course
grade), estimated WAIS-R IQ scores (adjusted for age) were entered into the regression
equation in the first step, followed by scores from all 4 of the PPS subscales as a set in
the second step. Four significant findings were obtained. In predicting performance on
Exam 2, the performance perfectionism set was found to account for an additional 6.0%
of the variance in Exam 2, F(4, 216) = 3.87, P < .01, over what was accounted for by
intellectual ability. In predicting performance on Exam 3, the performance perfec-
tionism set was found to account for an additional 2.6% of the variance in Exam 3,
F(4, 216) = 1.79, P < .05, over intellectual ability. In predicting performance on Exam
4, the performance perfectionism set was found to account for an additional 6.3% of the
variance in Exam 4, F(4, 216) = 4.14, P < .01, over intellectual ability. Finally, in
predicting final course grades, which may be considered the single most important index
of academic achievement assessed in the present study, the performance perfectionism
set was found to account for an additional 5.7% of the variance in final course grades,
F(4, 216) = 4.14, P < .01, over intellectual ability. In each case where the performance
perfectionism set significantly augmented the prediction equation, positive self-oriented
performance perfectionism was consistently the only significant predictor within the set
(bs = .16 to .24).
In sum, the present study found that even after controlling for intellectual ability,
positive performance perfectionism uniquely and prospectively predicted objective
academic achievement in the classroom.

General discussion

Findings from the present program of research provide promising support for several
basic ideas underpinning the construct of performance perfectionism. Performance
perfectionism is believed to represent a novel and complex construct. Consistent with
this notion, performance perfectionism, as measured by the PPS, was found to be
composed of four distinguishable and reliable aspects (Studies 1 & 2), two adaptive and
two maladaptive. In addition, performance perfectionism was found to be related to, but
123
694 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

not redundant with, several key measures of personality, including neuroticism,

conscientiousness, and optimism.
It was proposed that self-oriented aspects of performance perfectionism would
matter more than socially prescribed aspects of performance perfectionism in deter-
mining important outcomes and conditions in adults. In support of this view, partial
correlation findings from the present studies (Studies 3–4) of adults consistently indi-
cated that self-oriented aspects, and not socially prescribed aspects, of performance
perfectionism were most strongly involved in negative psychological functioning (e.g.,
negative affect), positive psychological functioning (e.g., positive affect), and prospec-
tive academic achievement (e.g., final course grade). Furthermore, and consistent with
more specific predictions, negative self-oriented performance perfectionism was found
to have the most robust associations with key measures of negative psychological
functioning, whereas positive self-oriented performance perfectionism was found to
have the most robust associations with key measures of positive psychological func-
tioning and academic achievement.
Another general contention was that performance perfectionism would represent a
novel and useful construct relative to other theoretically competing variables. Consis-
tent with this view, performance perfectionism was generally found to have only modest
associations with popular measures of perfectionism (Study 3b) and optimism and
pessimism (Study 2). Yet despite these associations, for example, performance perfec-
tionism was found to add incremental validity in predicting variance in key measures of
positive psychological functioning above and beyond what was accounted for by a
popular measure of perfectionism.

Performance perfectionism is not general (maladaptive) perfectionism: different

views are not necessarily incompatible views

Performance perfectionism clearly shares some conceptual similarities with general

perfectionism. However, it is important to make note of at least a few reasons for not
considering them (and their respective measures) as interchangeable. First, as men-
tioned earlier, most current models of general perfectionism have been initially based
on an implicit assumption that perfectionism represents an inherently maladaptive
personality variable. Such an assumption is neither implied nor reflected in the present
conceptualization underlying performance perfectionism. Indeed, underpinning the
notion of performance perfectionism is the basic assumption that the value of high
standards of performance is neither inherently good nor bad, but rather, depends on
how these standards are ultimately perceived and integrated into the self-system of an
individual across time and situations. Second, most models (as reflected in their
respective measures) tend to focus on the maladaptive features of perfectionism, par-
ticularly those involving expressions of negative affect (e.g., frustration, anger, irrita-
bleness). In contrast, performance perfectionism (as assessed by the PPS) is based on a
model that attempts to offer a balanced assessment of both adaptive and maladaptive
qualities of perfectionism as they relate to broad outcome cognitions (e.g., perceptions
of goal achievement). Therefore, one might predict that measures of perfectionism
based on current maladaptive models should do a better job in accounting for negative
affective conditions and consequences, whereas the PPS should do a better job in
accounting for a broader array of affective and nonaffective conditions and conse-
quences. Indeed, results from Study 3b are at least consistent with the latter prediction.
Third, findings from the present program of research have shown across studies (Studies
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 695

3b & 4) that adaptive aspects of performance perfectionism, especially positive

self-oriented performance perfectionism, can and do have reliable associations with
important positive conditions and outcomes. This is a pattern that has not be demon-
strated in past studies despite the many diverse configurations that have been used by
researchers to assess for adaptive aspects of general perfectionism. Accordingly, for
these reasons, it may be unwise to presume that the present research on adaptive and
maladaptive aspects of performance perfectionism can and should be incorporated into
research involving current models of general (maladaptive) perfectionism.

Future directions for the study of performance perfectionism: some theoretical and
practical considerations

Although the present findings are promising, it is clear that several important questions
still remain to be addressed in future studies on performance perfectionism. First, it
would be important to understand how positive and negative self-oriented performance
perfectionism may lead to positive and negative outcomes. For example, it may be
worth considering the potential role of coping. Second, it may be worth looking at
factors that may impact or moderate the associations of self-oriented aspects of per-
formance perfectionism with outcomes. Although performance perfectionism is not
predicated on mere presence of skills and abilities, factors related to perceptions of
one’s skills and abilities may strongly determine the associations of self-oriented aspects
of performance perfectionism with important outcomes.
Third, given that previous research on striving for achievement (Spence, Helmreich,
& Pred, 1987) has identified similar correlates with academic performance as was found
with positive self-oriented performance perfectionism, it would be important to discern
the extent to which these two variables overlap in form and function. Fourth, it would be
important to determine the generalizability of the present findings to a more diverse
adult population. For example, the present findings are based on samples of college
students that were predominantly White. Insofar as cultural and racial differences have
been identified in past studies of perfectionism (e.g., Castro & Rice, 2003; Chang, 1998;
Chang et al., 2004), there is good reason to study the extent to which cultural and racial
factors may determine the form and function of performance perfectionism in different
groups.
Finally, it would be important to determine the extent to which the PPS may serve as
a useful tool in applied settings. For example, clinicians may find the PPS useful for
educating their clients about the different aspects and sources of perfectionism, and for
assessing, targeting, and tracking therapeutic changes across time. Similarly, educators
may find the PPS useful for distinguishing between perfectionistic students who are
vulnerable to maladjustment and poor academic outcomes from those who are not, and
for identifying adaptive and maladaptive sources of perfectionism in students.

Final concluding remarks

Based on the integration of outcome cognitions to high standards of performance, a

program of research was initiated focusing on the study of performance perfectionism in
adults. Performance perfectionism, based on the PPS, was found to involve reliable and
distinguishable adaptive and maladaptive aspects. Self-oriented aspects of performance
perfectionism were found to have the most robust associations with key measures of
123
696 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697

negative psychological functioning, positive psychological functioning, and prospective

academic achievement. Furthermore, performance perfectionism was found to add to
the prediction of positive psychological functioning over and above a popular measure
of perfectionism. Overall, the present findings offer promising support for the study of
performance perfectionism as a useful construct involving adaptive and maladaptive
aspects linked to important outcomes and conditions. More research is now needed to
further examine the function of performance perfectionism with different outcomes and
across diverse populations.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Genevieve Guertin, James Hansell, Pamela Johnston, Andrea
Lopez, Ann Merriwether, Jennifer Ostrowski, Jeff Su, Cara Talaska, and Debra Wu for their assistance
in collecting data for the various studies reported in the present work. I would like to also thank Chang
Suk-Choon and Tae Myung-Sook for their encouragement and support throughout this project.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, L., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring
depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both?: Examining
models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1373–1385.
Burns, D. D. (1980 November). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14, 34–52.
Castro, J. R., & Rice, K. G. (2003). Perfectionism and ethnicity: Implications for depressive symp-
toms and self-reported academic achievement. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
9, 64–78.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-
social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses
to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 67, 319–333.
Chang, E. C. (1998). Cultural differences, perfectionism, and suicidal risk: Does social problem solving
still matter? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 237–254.
Chang, E. C. (Ed.) (2001). Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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. 125–143). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chang, E. C., Watkins, A. F., & Banks, K. H. (2004). How adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism relate
to positive and negative psychological functioning: Testing a stress-mediation model in Black and
White female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 93–102.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386–396.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). NEO five-factor inventory: Form S. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring
and procedures manual—I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
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.

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:677–697 697

Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism: Develop-
mental origins and association with depression proneness. Personality and Individual Differences,
33, 921–935.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two
measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 8, 249–266.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal
of Human Behavior, 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.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94,
319–340.
Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cognitive self-statements in depression: Development of an
automatic thoughts questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 383–395.
Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., & Gurevich, M. (1990). The inventory of college students’ recent life
experiences: A decontaminated hassles scale for a special population. Journal of Behavioral Medi-
cine, 13, 619–630.
Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 128, 638–662.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of
generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and
trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and
treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–906.
Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based on reinforcement
theory. Behavior Modification, 22, 372–390.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L.,
Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987). Impatience versus achievement strivings in the
Type A pattern: Differential effects on students’ health and academic achievement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 522–528.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relation to
other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837–852.
Tallis, R., Eysenck, M., & Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of nonpathological
worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 21–27.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Zachary, R. A. (1991). Shipley institute of living scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.

123