This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]

On: 04 January 2015, At: 14:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of College Student

Psychotherapy
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcsp20

Multidimensional Perfectionism
and Self-Reported Self-Efficacy
in College Students
a b
Kenneth A. Locicero MS & Jeffrey S. Ashby PhD
a
Counselor Education , GA, USA
b
Counseling Psychology , Georgia State University ,
USA
Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Kenneth A. Locicero MS & Jeffrey S. Ashby PhD (2000)
Multidimensional Perfectionism and Self-Reported Self-Efficacy in College Students,
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 15:2, 47-56, DOI: 10.1300/J035v15n02_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J035v15n02_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015
 Multidimensional Perfectionism
and Self-Reported Self-Efficacy
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

in College Students
Kenneth A. LoCicero
Jeffrey S. Ashby

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship

between perfectionism and self-efficacy in college students. A multivari-
ate analysis of variance including subscales of the Self-Efficacy Scale
revealed significant differences between adaptive perfectionists, mal-
adaptive perfectionists, and non-perfectionists. Follow-up tests showed
that adaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher than both mal-
adaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists on General Self-Efficacy
and Social Self-Efficacy. The findings of this study were consistent
with the growing literature that suggests perfectionism may be adaptive
as well as maladaptive. Implications for practicing counselors and
psychotherapists working with the college student population are pre-
sented. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Web-
site: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Perfectionism, self-efficacy, multidimensional, adaptive,

maladaptive

Perfectionism has been given increased attention in the professional

literature (Blatt, 1995) and has been linked to numerous personal
characteristics and psychological disorders endemic to the college
student population. Barrow and Moore (1983) highlighted perfection-

Kenneth A. LoCicero, MS, is a doctoral candidate, Counselor Education, GA and

Jeffrey S. Ashby, PhD, is Associate Professor, Counseling Psychology, Georgia State
University.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, Vol. 15(2) 2000
E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 47
 48 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY

ism as problematic for college students by acknowledging its relation-

ship to ‘‘evaluative anxiety (test, speech, math, social), stress, depres-
sion, guilt, procrastination, writing blocks, and study inefficiency’’
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

(p. 612). Perfectionism has also been associated with depression (e.g.,
Blatt, 1985; Burns, 1980; Haines, Norris, & Kashy, 1996), eating
disorders (e.g., Cooper, Cooper, & Fairburn, 1985; Ruderman, 1986;
Mizes, 1988; Pacht, 1984; Strober, 1980), procrastination (Flett,
Blankstein, Hewitt, & Koledin, 1992; Hamachek, 1978; Sorotzkin,
1985; Tuckman, 1991), Type A personality (e.g., Thurman, 1983),
self-handicapping (Hobden & Pliner, 1995), and anxiety (Flett, Hew-
itt, & Dyck, 1989).
Perfectionism has also been theoretically linked to self-efficacy
(Burns, 1980). Bandura (1986) conceptualized self-efficacy as one’s
perceived abilities in accomplishing tasks with a certain level of per-
formance. Bandura posited that students’ perceived abilities are an
important predictor in their pursuit of their expectations. Burns main-
tained that because perfectionists set very high personal standards they
are likely to have lower levels of self-efficacy. ‘‘Stated simply, the
higher the standard of success, the less likely it is that a successful
result will be perceived as a probable outcome. Thus, the perfectionist
minimizes outcome efficacy by setting over-ambitious and nearly in-
accessible goals’’ (Burns, 1980, p. 38).
Some recent research suggests that perfectionism may need to be
reconceptualized as potentially adaptive. Based on the work of Hama-
chek (1978), several authors (e.g., Ashby & Kottman, 1996; Rice,
Ashby, & Slaney, 1998) have found significant differences between
identified adaptive or healthy perfectionists and maladaptive or un-
healthy perfectionists. For instance, Rice, Ashby, and Slaney (1994)
found that measures of adaptive perfectionism (e.g., high standards,
need for order) were unrelated to depression or self-esteem, while
measures of maladaptive perfectionism (e.g., discrepancy concerns,
concern over mistakes) were significantly related to depression and
lower self-esteem. In a second study, Rice, Ashby, and Slaney (1998)
replicated the significant relationship between maladaptive perfection-
ism and lower self-esteem. However, they found a significant relation-
ship between adaptive perfectionism and higher self-esteem.
The conceptualization of perfectionism into two distinctive types sug-
gests a differential relationship to self-efficacy. According to Burns
(1980), perfectionists are frustrated by their need to achieve and their
 Kenneth A. LoCicero and Jeffrey S. Ashby 49

failure to do so. In contrast, adaptive perfectionists are often conceptual-

ized as setting high standards but less concerned with not meeting their
standards (Ashby & Kottman, 1996; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1994). Con-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

sistent with this view, Frost and Henderson (1991) found that the setting
of high standards for perfectionistic athletes to be a positive feature in
performance outcome. These results suggest the possibility of a positive
relationship between adaptive perfectionism and self-efficacy.
The generally held view that perfectionists desire to achieve at high
levels (Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978), combined with Bandura’s
(1986) contention that self-efficacy is central to achieving goals sug-
gests a relationship between perfectionism and self-efficacy. However,
a review of the literature yielded no studies investigating the relation-
ship between self-efficacy and both adaptive and maladaptive perfec-
tionism. As a result, this study was designed to assess the relationship
between the dimensions of perfectionism and self-efficacy. The re-
search questions included: (a) do perfectionists differ significantly
from non-perfectionists in their level of self-efficacy? And (b) do
adaptive perfectionists differ significantly from maladaptive perfec-
tionists in their level of self-efficacy?

METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The participants in this study were 199 (69 male, 129 female, 1 did
not indicate) mostly Caucasian (98%) undergraduate students from a
mid-sized Midwestern university with a mean age of 19.81 (minimum
18, maximum 33). Students were recruited from undergraduate classes
in psychology and education. Participants received a packet contain-
ing a demographic sheet, the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R)
(Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996) and the Self-Effica-
cy Scale (SES) (Sherer, Maddox, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Ja-
cobs, and Rogers, 1982). All participants were volunteers and offered
extra credit towards their grade for their participation.
Measures
The APS-R (Slaney et al., 1996) contains 23 items designed to
measure adaptive and maladaptive components of perfectionism.
Participants respond to the items using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 =
 50 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY

strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The inventory has three sub-

scales: Standards (7 items measuring personal standards), Order (4
items measuring organization and need for order), and Discrepancy (12
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

items measuring distress caused by the discrepancy between perfor-

mance and standards). Slaney, Rice, and Ashby (in press) describe a
series of confirmatory factor analyses that supported the structure and
independence of the scales. In separate analyses of samples of 600 and
260, factor loadings for the items ranged from .49 to .86 in the first
sample and .50 to .86 in the second sample. Slaney et al. also provide
support for the convergent and divergent validity of the subscales. The
authors report Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for Standards (.85), Dis-
crepancy (.92), and Order (.68). Internal consistency reliabilities for this
sample were .91 (Standards), .96 (Discrepancy), and .70 (Order).
The SES (Sherer et al., 1982) is a 23-item inventory using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’
and comprised of two subscales that measure personal mastery expec-
tations. The subscales are General Self-Efficacy and Social Self-Effi-
cacy. Items were written to measure general self-efficacy expectancies
in areas such as social skills or vocational competence. These items
focused on three areas: willingness to initiate behavior, willingness to
expend effort in completing the behavior, and persistence in the face
of adversity. Social Self-Efficacy scores were designed to measure
one’s ability to deal with others effectively. Alpha reliability coeffi-
cients ranged between .86 and .71 for the General Self-Efficacy and
Social Self-Efficacy subscales, respectively (Sherer et al., 1982). Due
to a clerical error, the last two items of the scale were not included in
the administration process. Both of the items were in the general
self-efficacy subscale. The subscale scores were subsequently com-
puted without these items. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for this sam-
ple was .75 for general self-efficacy and .68 for social self-efficacy.
Construct validity was demonstrated by correlating the SES scores
with measures of several other personality characteristic scales related
to self-efficacy but not synonymous with self-efficacy. Sherer et al.
(1982) also report evidence of concurrent and divergent validity.

RESULTS
In this study, as in previous studies (e.g., Ashby & Kottman, 1996),
the researchers identified perfectionists as participants whose scores
 Kenneth A. LoCicero and Jeffrey S. Ashby 51

on the Standards subscale of the APS-R fell above the 67th percentile
(in the top third of the sample). The researchers used a median split on
the Discrepancy subscale of the APS-R to distinguish between mal-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

adaptive perfectionists and adaptive perfectionists, with maladaptive

perfectionists perceiving a high level of distress resulting from the
discrepancy between their personal standards and their performance
and adaptive perfectionists perceiving a low level of distress resulting
from the discrepancy between their personal standards and their per-
formance.
Data were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA). The between subjects factor was Perfectionism
(Adaptive perfectionists, Maladaptive perfectionists, and non-perfec-
tionists). The dependent variables were the SES subscales (General
Self-Efficacy and Social Self-Efficacy). The multivariate analysis fol-
lowed the strategy of Stevens (1996) who recommended that an initial
significant multivariate main effect be followed by all pairwise multi-
variate tests (Hotelling T2) to determine which pairs of groups differ
on the set of variables. Stevens (1996) recommends an experiment-
wise alpha of .15 in order to maintain adequate power and keep some
degree of control over alpha. For the three pairwise analyses in this
case, alpha was adjusted to .15/3, or .05. Significant T2 tests are then
followed by a series of two individual dependent variable t-tests with
alpha set at .05. The means and standard deviations for the dependent
variables for each group appear in Table 1.
The one-way multivariate test for Perfectionism was significant,

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent Variables by

Group

General Social
Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy

Variable N M SD M SD

Adaptive Perf. 31 53.61 5.7 22.52 3.8

Maladaptive Perf. 33 47.94 6.5 20.21 4.4
Non-Perfectionists 135 47.09 6.4 19.69 4.3
Entire Sample 199 48.25 6.7 20.22 4.3
 52 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY

F(4, 388) = 7.35, p < .001. Two of the three multivariate tests were
significant at p < .05: Adaptive perfectionists versus Maladaptive
perfectionists (T2 = 6.90, p < .005) and Adaptive perfectionists versus
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

non-perfectionists (T2 = 14.73, p < .001). Univariate t-tests were used

to examine differences between these groups on the individual depen-
dent variables.
The researchers observed significantly higher General Self-Efficacy
(t = 3.70, p < .001) and Social Self-Efficacy (t = 2.25, p < .05) scores
for Adaptive perfectionists when compared with the Maladaptive per-
fectionists. In the Adaptive perfectionists versus non-perfectionists
comparison, the Adaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher on
General Self-Efficacy (t = 5.25, p < .001) and Social Self-Efficacy (t =
3.42, p < .001). As suggested by Haase, Ellis, and Ladany (1989),
measures of magnitude of effect were calculated. Effect size was
computed using Wolf’s (1986) equation for group differences. The
effect size for the difference between adaptive and maladaptive per-
fectionists on General Self-Efficacy was .85, and on Social Self-Effi-
cacy was .54, with adaptive perfectionists scoring significantly higher
than maladaptive perfectionists in each case. The effect size for the
difference between adaptive and non-perfectionists on General Self-
Efficacy was .97, and on Social Self-Efficacy was .67, with adaptive
perfectionists scoring significantly higher than non-perfectionists in
each case.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship be-
tween perfectionism and self-efficacy. The results support the conten-
tion that perfectionists and non-perfectionists differ significantly in
their levels of self-efficacy. Specifically, Adaptive perfectionists had
higher levels of both general and social self-efficacy than non-perfec-
tionists. However, no differences existed between Maladaptive perfec-
tionists and Non-perfectionists. The current study also found differ-
ences between Adaptive and Maladaptive perfectionists. Adaptive
perfectionists had higher levels of self-efficacy than Maladaptive per-
fectionists.
These results did not support the contention of Burns (1980), that
perfectionists have lower levels of self-efficacy. Having high stan-
dards (the primary criterion by which perfectionists were operational-
 Kenneth A. LoCicero and Jeffrey S. Ashby 53

ized in this study) did not appear to have a deleterious effect on

self-efficacy. These results are consistent with Frost, Trepanier,
Brown, Heimberg, Juster, Makris, and Leung’s (1997) finding that
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

perfectionists did not perceive themselves as making more mistakes

than non-perfectionists. While numerous studies have found that mal-
adaptive perfectionism is problematic or detrimental (e.g., Rice et al.,
1998), this study suggests that this may not be the case with self-effi-
cacy.
The results of the study are consistent with the growing literature
(e.g., Rice et al., 1998) that suggests that perfectionism may be adaptive
or maladaptive. In this study, being adaptive in one’s perfectionism (i.e.,
holding high personal standards with low discrepancy concerns) is
related to higher levels of self-efficacy. Adaptive perfectionists indi-
cated significantly greater willingness to initiate behavior, greater
willingness to expend effort in completing the behavior, more persis-
tence in the face of adversity, and stronger belief in their ability to deal
with others effectively. These findings are consistent with Bandura’s
(1986) contention that high expectations may enhance performance,
leading to greater performance accomplishments which may in turn
contribute to higher self-efficacy.
The results of this study showed that maladaptive perfectionists,
who were also operationalized as holding high personal standards but
who also had high levels of discrepancy concerns, did not have signifi-
cantly higher self-efficacy than non-perfectionists. One potential ex-
planation for the relatively lower self-efficacy scores of maladaptive
perfectionists as compared to adaptive perfectionists is related to how
maladaptive perfectionists may process potential self-efficacy infor-
mation. Bandura (1986) maintains that self-efficacy information (i.e.,
how one derives at perceived self-efficacy) is mediated through a
cognitive appraisal process. Maladaptive perfectionists may selective-
ly attend to experiences where they do not perceive themselves as
successful or make external attributions about the source of their suc-
cess. These cognitive processes are consistent with the literature de-
scribing maladaptive perfectionists as holding cognitive distortions
(Beck, 1978; Burns, 1980) and may explain why, for maladaptive
perfectionists, even noteworthy performance attainments do not nec-
essarily boost perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; p. 401).
 54 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY

Limitations
This study does have several limitations. First, the study was cor-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

relational in nature and, as a result, no causal attributions may be

made. For instance, one alternate explanation of the results is, consis-
tent with Bandura’s (1991) contention that self-efficacy has a strong
impact on thought, affect, motivation and action, that adaptive perfec-
tionists may be encouraged to set higher standards due to their higher
self-efficacy. Second, the sample was overwhelmingly Caucasian
(98%) limiting generalizability of findings. Additionally, the use of
self-report data collection may have resulted in responses significantly
influenced by social desirability, experimenter bias, and halo effects.
Future research should pursue adjunctive sampling of parents, signifi-
cant others, peers, and/ or co-workers. A third limitation involves the
procedure in which perfectionists were identified. The use of median
splits to distinguish adaptive perfectionists from maladaptive perfec-
tionists does not guarantee group membership from study to study.
Finally, the Self-Efficacy Scale used in the current study had 2 items
omitted, potentially limiting the reliability and validity of the measure.
Implications
One clear implication of this study is the need for future research.
These results suggest that perfectionism is a multidimensional
construct that may not fit with traditional theoretical conceptualiza-
tions (e.g., Burns, 1980). Further research might include investiga-
tions of the impact of the dimensions of perfectionism on student
extracurricular involvement, leadership, and satisfaction.
A second implication of this study is that perfectionism may need to
be reconceptualized as potentially adaptive, specifically regarding
self-efficacy. Numerous authors (e.g., Slaney & Ashby, 1996) have
noted the tendency in the professional literature to view perfectionism
as pathological. This study suggests that assuming a maladaptive view
of perfectionism (i.e., holding high personal standards and striving
toward them) may not be justified. As a result, specific interventions
for students who are distressed by their perfectionism (e.g., Moore &
Barrow, 1986; Broday, 1989) should not necessarily attempt to facili-
tate the lowering of individuals’ standards but instead may want to
target cognitive processing schema related to the pursuit and evalua-
tion of those standards.
 Kenneth A. LoCicero and Jeffrey S. Ashby 55

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

Ashby, J., & Kottman, T. (1996). Inferiority as a distinction between adaptive and
maladaptive perfectionism. Individual Psychology, 52, 237-245.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self efficacy conception of anxiety. In R. Schwartzer & R. A.
Wicklund (Eds.). Anxiety and Self Focused Attention (pp. 89-110). New York:
Harwood Academic Publishers.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrow, J. C. & Moore, C. A. (1983). Group interventions with perfectionistic think-
ing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 612-615.
Beck, A. (1978). Beck Depression Inventory. Philadelphia: Center for Cognitive
Therapy.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treat-
ment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.
Broday, S. (1989). A short term group for perfectionists. Journal of College Student
Development, 30, 183-184.
Burns, D. (1980). Perfectionists script for self defeat. Psychology Today, November,
34-52.
Cooper, Z., Cooper, P. J., & Fairburn, C. G. (1985). The specificity of the eating
disorder inventory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 129-130.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., Hewitt, P. L., & Koledin, S. (1992). Components of
perfectionism and procrastination in college students. Social Behavior and Per-
sonality, 20(2), 85-94.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Self-oriented perfectionism, neu-
roticism and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(7), 731-735.
Frost, R., Trepanier, K., Brown, E., Heimberg, R., Juster, H., Makris, G., & Leung, A.
(1997). Self-monitoring of mistakes among subjects high and low in perfectionis-
tic concern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(2), 209-222.
Frost, R., & Henderson, K. (1991). Perfectionism and reactions to athletic competi-
tion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 323-335.
Haase, R. F., Ellis, M. V., & Ladany, N. (1989). Multiple criteria for evaluating the
magnitude of experimental effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36,
511-516.
Haines, M. E., Norris, M. P., & Kashy, D. A. (1996). The effects of depressed mood
on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 37(5), 519-526.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology, 15, 27-33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456-470.
Hobden, K., & Pliner, P. (1995). Self-handicapping and dimensions of perfectionism:
Self-representation vs. self-protection. Journal of Research in Personality 29(4),
461-474.
Mizes, J. S. (1988). Personality characteristics of bulimic and non-eating disordered
 56 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE STUDENT PSYCHOTHERAPY

females controls: A cognitive behavioral perspective. International Journal of

Eating Disorders, 7, 541-550.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 14:37 04 January 2015

Moore, C., & Barrow, J. C. (1986). Perfectionistic thinking in university students:

Implications for individual treatment. In Talley, Joseph E. & Rockwell, Kenneth
W. J. (Eds.), Counseling and Psychotherapy with College Students: A Guide to
Treatment (pp. 100-112). New York: Praeger.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39(4),
386-390.
Rice, K., Ashby, J., & Slaney, R. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfec-
tionism and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45(3), 304-314.
Rice, K., Ashby, J., & Slaney, R. (1994, April). Adaptive and maladaptive dimen-
sions of perfectionism. Paper presented at the annual American Counseling Asso-
ciation Convention, Minnesota, MN.
Ruderman, A. J. (1986). Bulimia and irrational beliefs. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 2, 193-197.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers,
R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 51, 663-671.
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 74, 393-398.
Slaney, R., Rice, K., & Ashby, J. (in press). A programmatic approach to measuring
perfectionism: The almost perfect scales. In P. Hewitt & G. Flett (Eds.). Perfec-
tionism. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Slaney, R., Mobley, M., Trippi, S., Ashby, J., & Johnson, D. (1996). The almost
perfect scale-revised. Unpublished Manuscript. The Pennsylvania State Universi-
ty (Available from first author).
Sorotzkin, B. (1985). The quest for perfection: Avoiding guilt or avoiding shame?
Psychotherapy, 22(3), 564-571.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multi variate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strober, M. (1980). Personality and symptomatological features in young, non-
chronic anorexia nervosa patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 24,
353-359.
Thurman, C. W. (1983). Effects of a rational-emotive treatment program on type a
behavior among college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(5),
417-423.
Tuckman, B. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473-480.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

RECEIVED: 03/06/00
REVISED/ACCEPTED: 05/05/00