Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Is perfectionism good, bad, or both?

Examining models of the perfectionism construct
Peter J. Bielinga,*, Anne L. Israelib, Martin M. Antonya
a
St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton,Department of Psychology, St. Joseph’s Hospital, 50 Charlton Avenue East,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 4A6
b
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Canada

Received 29 April 2003; received in revised form 18 May 2003; accepted 9 June 2003

Abstract
Perfectionism has been conceptualized as a personality variable that underlies a variety of psychological
difficulties. Recently, however, theorists and researchers have begun to distinguish between two distinct
types of perfectionism, one a maladaptive form that results in emotional distress, and a second form that is
relatively benign, perhaps even adaptive. In this study, we compared varying models of the perfectionism
construct using the best known measures of perfectionism. In a sample of 198 students, three competing
models of perfectionism were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. A model that incorporated two
factors, one corresponding to maladaptive perfectionism and the other adaptive perfectionism, was a better
fit to the data than a unitary perfectionism model. We also examined the relations of the two types of
perfectionism, Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving, to a well known measure of
psychological distress. Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns was more strongly associated with depression,
anxiety, stress, and test taking anxiety. Overall, this study supports the validity of a distinction between
two types of perfectionism, and points to the importance of this duality for measurement and research on
perfectionism.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Perfectionism; Maladaptive perfectionism; Adaptive perfectionism

1. Introduction

Theoretical and research interest in the personality construct of perfectionism has grown
markedly over the last decade (see Shafran & Mansell, 2001 for a review). There has been a par-
ticular focus on the negative correlates and consequence of perfectionism, including concurrent

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-905-522-1155; fax: +1-905-521-6120.

E-mail address: pbieling@stjosham.on.ca (P.J. Bieling).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00235-6
1374 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

psychopathology and the perfectionist’s future vulnerability to distress (Antony, Purdon, Huta,
& Swinson, 1998; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b, 1993; Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996; Hewitt, Flett,
Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991). Moreover, clinical writers suggest that perfectionism leads
to a chronic sense of failure, indecisiveness, procrastination, and shame (Burns, 1980; Hamachek,
1978; Hollender, 1965; Pacht, 1984).
An as yet unresolved issue is whether or not perfectionism always, and uniformly, leads to dif-
ficulties for the individual. Certainly, the deleterious consequences of perfectionism have been
emphasized since the construct was first examined carefully (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosen-
blate, 1990; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a, 1991b; Hollender, 1965; Pacht, 1984).
However, dissenting views and recent research suggest that perfectionism may contain both
adaptive and maladaptive features (e.g., Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003; Enns, Cox,
Sareen, & Freeman, 2001) and, interestingly, there is additional recent evidence from a psycho-
metric and theoretical standpoint that two forms of perfectionism exist (Cox, Enns, & Clara,
2002; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997;
Slade & Owens, 1998).
A distinction between adaptive or ‘‘healthy’’ perfectionism and maladaptive ‘‘unhealthy’’ per-
fectionism is important because it raises a number of conceptual and pragmatic issues about the
construct itself. These include the most fundamental definition of perfectionism and construction
of appropriate measurement tools that capture the underlying construct(s). The two most com-
mon measures of perfectionism were derived from a clinical perspective and view perfectionism as
a personality feature that is problematic and in need of modification. These two scales, both
called the Multi-dimensional Perfectionism Scale were developed over a decade ago by two
separate teams of researchers (FMPS, Frost, et al, 1990; HMPS, Hewitt & Flett, 1991a). Paul
Hewitt and his colleagues view perfectionism as a multidimensional construct with intrapersonal
and interpersonal content. Their scale has three dimensions; self-oriented perfectionism (setting of
excessive personal standards and stringently evaluating one’s behavior), other oriented-perfec-
tionism (expectations of perfection that one has for others) and socially prescribed perfectionism
(a perception that other people expect one to be perfect and that others are harsh, punitive jud-
ges). Frost and his colleagues also focused on high, rigid standards in their measure but went on
to suggest that a critical component of perfectionism is a tendency to be critical of one’s own
behavior (Frost et al., 1990). In addition the Frost Scale also assesses the origin of perfectionism,
parental expectations and parental criticism. These two perfectionism scales have been associated
with a wide variety of psychopathology (Shafran & Mansell, 2001) as well as negative behavioral
consequences (e.g., Alden, Bieling, & Wallace, 1994; Bieling & Alden, 1997; Bieling, et al., 2003).
However, unlike the developers of these scales, earlier theorists such as Hamachek (1978)
argued that some aspects of perfectionism might be adaptive since they foster excellence and
striving to meet important goals. Hamachek termed this more adaptive form of perfectionism
‘‘normal perfectionism’’ and termed the maladaptive form ‘‘neurotic perfectionism’’. It is also
noteworthy that in the larger culture outside of clinical and personality psychology, perfectionism
is often tolerated, perhaps encouraged, due to the perception that perfection is associated with
important rewards in domains such as sports, business, science, and academics. An argument that
might explain the lay perception of perfectionism has been advanced by Slade and Owens (1998)
who distinguish conceptually between a normal/healthy form of perfectionism and a pathological
form. Based on a behavioral model, the authors suggest that healthy perfectionism is related to
 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1375

positive reinforcement. In other words, perfectionism that leads to achievement of high standards
and, ultimately, rewards for achieving those standards may not lead to psychological distress. In
contrast, maladaptive perfectionism is seen to be related to negative reinforcement and self-
defeating behaviors (Slade & Owens, 1998). For instance, being concerned about how others
evaluate the self, self-doubt, and worry about making mistakes may lead to problematic beha-
viors (i.e., task avoidance, excessive checking, or behaviors aimed at regaining self-worth) that
reduce negative outcomes (Slade & Owens, 1998). This reconceptualization of perfectionism into
adaptive and maladaptive components can be partially tested by carefully examining existing
measures of perfectionism for both positive and negative components.
Although few studies have explicitly set out to validate the distinction between positive or
adaptive perfectionism and negative or maladaptive perfectionism there is some evidence for this
conceptual distinction. One of the first studies to shed light on this issue was performed by Frost
and his colleagues who were interested in the relationships between the two multi-dimensional
perfectionism measures described earlier (Frost et al., 1993). These researchers found that some
subscales of the two perfectionism scales were positively correlated with positive affect and not
correlated with negative affect. Moreover, factor analysis of the nine subscales of the Frost and
Hewitt measures revealed a two-factor solution with five subscales loading on one factor, and
four subscales loading on a second factor. The authors termed the first factor Maladaptive Eva-
luative Concerns and the second factor Positive Striving. The authors concluded that Positive
Striving represented the ‘‘adaptive aspect of personal motivation’’ (Frost et al., 1993; p. 125).
More recently, Cox and colleagues conducted a similar but more thoroughgoing analysis of items
from both the HMPS and FMPS using confirmatory factor analytic methods (Cox et al., 2002).
After refining item sets and subscales, they too found evidence of a higher order two-factor
solution that appeared to correspond with an adaptive/maladaptive model (Cox et al., 2002).
However, they did not directly compare this adaptive/maladaptive model with other plausible
models of the perfectionism construct, and they did not include all of the HMPS and FMPS
subscales in their higher order analyses.
Other correlational and behavioral validation studies appear to also provide evidence for a
distinction between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Hill and colleagues (1997) carried
out a study to understand the placement of the perfectionism construct within the taxonometric
network of the Big Five: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientious-
ness (Costa & McCrae, 1990). In a sample of undergraduates, the authors found that self-orien-
ted perfectionism was associated with numerous facets of conscientiousness, and negatively
associated with the vulnerability facet of neuroticism. Other-oriented perfectionism was asso-
ciated with more agency; that is more self-confidence and competitiveness, whereas socially-pre-
scribed perfectionism was associated only with neuroticism, particularly the depression facet (Hill
et al., 1997). This study suggests that the scales of the Hewitt MPS have both positive and nega-
tive connotations in terms of the Big Five. Self-oriented perfectionism appeared to have largely
adaptive consequences whereas socially-prescribed perfectionism had more negative con-
sequences. Emerging studies also suggest that this distinction between adaptive and maladaptive
perfectionism has at least some behavioral validity. Adaptive perfectionism appears to lead to
fewer self-defeating behaviors in evaluation situations, a task focus as opposed to rumination
about performance on a task, and less vulnerability to negative affectivity (Bieling et al., 2003;
Enns et al., 2001; Rheaume et al., 2000).
1376 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

Taken together, both theoretical explications and at least some empirical data suggest that
perfectionism may have both adaptive and maladaptive features. However existing studies leave
open the question of whether or not perfectionism is better described as a unitary construct, or
whether it is best described as having two underlying dimensions, adaptive and maladaptive.
Another question is whether the two forms of perfectionism are independent of one another or
whether they are correlated, positively or negatively. Also, not fully understood to this point is
the extent to which the two common perfectionism scales assess the same underlying con-
struct or whether they are best seen as assessing two distinct constructs based on their item
content.
This study used confirmatory factor analysis to directly compare different models of perfec-
tionism and the fit of three conceptually distinct models to the subscales of the two most common
perfectionism measures. In the first model the HMPS and FMPS scales were treated as distinct
from one another. The second model specified a unitary model with a single perfectionism factor
common to all subscales of both the HMPS and FMPS. The third model specified two perfec-
tionism factors corresponding to Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Strivings. We
also examined the concurrent validity of the perfectionism constructs using well known measures
of psychopathology. We predicted that the third model would provide the best fit to the data and
that the pattern of correlations with other measures would support the notion of a maladaptive
and adaptive form of perfectionism.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample comprised 198 undergraduate students (149 females, 49 males) enrolled in a second
year psychology course. The students ranged in age from 19 to 50 years, with a mean age of 22
years. Students participated in exchange for course credit, and these measures were given as a
battery of instruments in the context of a larger project on perfectionism and scholastic achieve-
ment.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Perfectionism Scales

This study utilized both the Frost et al. (1990) Multi dimensional Perfectionism Scales (FMPS)
and the Hewitt & Flett (1991a) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS). The FMPS is a
35-item questionnaire that measures perfectionism across six dimensions. The six subscales are:
Concern over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standards (PS), Parental Expectations (PE), Parental
Criticism (PC), Doubts about Actions (DA), and Organization (OR). With respect to its psy-
chometric properties, the FMPS has good internal consistency and appears to be a reliable and
valid measure of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990, 1993).
The HMPS is a 45-item questionnaire that usually generates scores based on three factors of
perfectionism; Self-oriented perfectionism (SO) reflects a tendency to be overly perfectionistic
with oneself, other-oriented perfectionism (OO) reflects a tendency to expect perfection from
 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1377

other people, and socially prescribed perfectionism (SP) is a measure of a person’s beliefs
regarding other people’s expectations of him/her. Like the Frost et al. (1990) scale, this measure is
a reliable and valid measure of perfectionism (Hewitt et al., 1991).

2.2.2. Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales 21 item version (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995)
The DASS-21 is a 21-item self-report questionnaire with three subscales designed to measure
dysphoric mood (depression subscale; DASS-D), symptoms of fear and autonomic arousal
(anxiety subscale; DASS-A), and symptoms of general nervousness and agitation (stress subscale;
DASS-S). The DASS-21 has been shown to have good reliability and validity, and is able to dis-
tinguish depression from anxiety (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998; Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995).

2.2.3. Test Anxiety Scale (TAS; Sarason, 1984)

The TAS in this study was a short form derived from the 12 highest loading items on each for
four test anxiety factors identified by Sarason (1984). The scale includes items assessing tension,
worry, and bodily reactions around test taking as well as test irrelevant thinking. In the current
sample, the alpha reliability of this scale was 0.72.

3. Results

3.1. Model comparison

Three separate models were compared using confirmatory techniques. Because the number of
items in the two scales are large and to be consistent with Frost et al. (1993), the validated sub-
scales of the HMPS and FMPS served as variables in the confirmatory analysis. The three models
for comparison were: (1) the separate HMPS and FMPS total scale scores (Fig. 1); (2) a uni-
dimensional perfectionism scale with all HMPS and FMPS subscales loading on a single perfec-
tionism factor (Fig. 2), (3) a Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving perfection-
ism model derived from the Frost et al. (1993) study with socially prescribed perfectionism,
concern over mistakes, parental criticism, parental expectations and doubts about actions loading
on Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and self-oriented perfectionism, other oriented perfection-
ism, personal standards, and organization loading on Positive Striving (Fig. 3).
The three models were compared on both parsimony and goodness-of-fit to the data. The
AMOS (Arbuckle, 1992) statistical package with maximum likelihood estimation was used to
examine the three models. Model modification indices were utilized in each model to allow 5%
of possible error term correlations following Tanaka and Huba (1984). A number of goodness
of fit indices and measures of parsimony for each solution were then compared to ensure that
the most appropriate model was chosen (Mulaik, James, Van Alstine, Bennett, Lind, & Stilwell,
1989).
The subjective indices of goodness of fit included w2/df, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjus-
ted-goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Measures of parsimony that assess both model fit and the number of constraints required (effi-
1378 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

ciency of the model) included the Aikaike Information Criteria (AIC; Aikake, 1987), Browne–
Cudeck Criterion (BCC; Browne & Cudeck, 1989), and Consistent Aikake Information Criteria
(CAIC; Bozdogan, 1987).
The goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the two factor Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and
Positive Striving model [w2 (24)=72.89, w2/df=3.03, GFI=0.93, AGFI=0.86, RMSEA=0.10;
AIC=114.89, BCC=117.14, CAIC=204.94] had a better fit than the one factor perfectionism
model [w2(25)=91.04, w2/df=3.64, GFI=0.91, AGFI=0.84, RMSEA=0.12; AIC=131.04,
BCC=133.18, CAIC=216.81] which in turn had a better fit than the separate HMPS, FMPS
scales model [w2 (24)=101.04, w2/df=4.21, GFI=0.90, AGFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.13;
AIC=143.04, BCC=145.29, CAIC=233.10]. Thus, the model depicted in Fig. 3 was the best fit
to the data.

Fig. 1. Separate HMPS and FMPS Scales model.

 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1379

3.2. Validity of Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving

The HMPS and FMPS scales were combined (after being transformed into z-scores) to create
the Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns measure (SP+CM+PC +PE+DA) and the Positive
Striving measure (SO+OO+PS+OR). Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving
were then correlated with the DASS scales and the TAS. As illustrated in Table 1, Maladaptive
Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving correlated significantly with all the psychopathology
measures, though Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns always displayed the stronger correlation
and the correlations for Positive Striving were small. Nonetheless, the correlations for Positive
Striving and the psychopathology measures were not zero and not negative.
To better determine to what extent Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving
contributed uniquely to each of the psychopathology measures, four regression equations were

Fig. 2. Unitary perfectionism model.

1380 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

Fig. 3. Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving model.

Table 1
Correlations between Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving and depression, anxiety, stress and test
taking anxiety

DASS-D DASS-S DASS-A TAS

MEC 0.44*** 0.38*** 0.33*** 0.41***

PS 0.16* 0.26*** 0.15* 0.15*

DASS-D=Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-Depression; DASS-S=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-Stress;
DASS-A=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-Anxiety; TAS=Test Anxiety Scale; MEC=Maladaptive Evaluative
Concerns; PS=Positive Striving.
* < 0.05.
*** P< 0.001.
 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1381

Table 2
Regression equations using Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving to predict depression, anxiety,
stress and test taking anxiety

R2 b t P

DASS-D 0.20
MEC 0.46 6.49 0.001
PS 0.05 0.70 ns

DASS-S 0.16
MEC 0.33 4.56 0.001
PS 0.11 1.49 ns

DASS-A 0.11
MEC 0.32 4.27 0.001
PS 0.01 0.10 ns

TAS 0.17
MEC 0.43 5.89 0.001
PS 0.04 0.59 ns

DASS-D=Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-Depression; DASS-S=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-Stress;
DASS-A=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-Anxiety; TAS=Test Anxiety Scale; MEC=Maladaptive Evaluative
Concerns; PS=Positive Striving.

constructed. Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving were entered into the equa-
tion in a single block and significant predictors were retained in the equation. These results are
depicted in Table 2. Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns significantly predicted depression, anxiety,
stress, and test taking anxiety, with betas ranging from 0.32 to 0.46, and explained 20% of the
variance in depression, 16% of the variance in stress, 11% of the variance in anxiety, and 17% of
the variance in test taking anxiety. Positive Striving was not a significant predictor in any of these
analyses, thus it did not contribute unique variance to these psychopathology variables that could
not already be explained by Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns.

4. Discussion

A conceptual model that differentiates maladaptive and adaptive perfectionism, specifically

using the constructs of Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns and Positive Striving, was a better
representation of the structure of these perfectionism scales than a unitary perfectionism
approach or an approach in which the FMPS and HMPS Scales were seen as assessing separate
constructs. Both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism were positively associated with depres-
sion, anxiety, stress, and test taking anxiety. However, closer scrutiny using a regression approach
revealed that only Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns predicted scores on two psychopathology
measures when examined alongside Positive Striving.
1382 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

These results have important conceptual and pragmatic implications. First, from a measure-
ment perspective, the current results suggest the need to consider development of a measure that
assesses, as thoroughly as possible, both adaptive (or ‘‘normal’’) perfectionism and the
maladaptive form of perfectionism that appears to be linked to negative consequences. Examin-
ing the positive aspects of perfectionism would be in keeping with a more recent focus on adap-
tation and hardiness, or positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). The
identification of a positive, or at least neutral, form of perfectionism also sheds light on why
perfectionism may be socially sanctioned. Those aspects of perfectionism that are widely praised
and valued by Western cultures (high standards, persistence, conscientiousness) are precisely
those that were shown here to be components of Positive Striving. Thus, to some extent, the
identification of two forms of perfectionism can reconcile the academic view of perfectionism that
has been at odds with the broader cultural view. At the same time, it is important to point out
that Positive Striving was not negatively associated with psychopathology; that is it did not
demonstrate an inverse relationship with psychological distress. Moreover, there was a positive
correlation between Positive Striving and Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns (r=0.45) suggesting
that these two forms of perfectionism were not independent of one another. Thus, when assessed
with the HMPS and FMPS, Positive Striving may best be thought of as a form of ‘‘neutral’’ per-
fectionism with neither positive nor negative emotional implications. It is also possible that Posi-
tive Striving is a construct that is sufficiently distinct from perfectionism, at least as perfectionism is
generally defined by clinical writers, that it should be investigated in its own right. Certainly one
area of future interest and research would be the behavioral consequences of Positive Striving.
This study also supports the notion that perfectionism, in the form of Maladaptive Evaluative
Concerns, is related to measures of psychopathology. This is consistent with recent studies showing
that components of Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns are associated with disordered eating (Pratt,
Telch, Labouvie, Wilson, & Agras, 2001), insomnia (Vincent & Walker, 2000), and hopelessness in
suicidal adolescents (Spirito & Farnett, 2000). Moreover, in a study of medical students (Enns et
al., 2001) adaptive perfectionism was associated with positive affect at baseline, good academic
performance, and meeting one’s expectations over time, whereas maladaptive perfectionism was
associated with baseline levels of distress and symptoms of depression and hopelessness regarding
academic performance over time. Strong experimental support for the psychometric model
demonstrated in this study also comes from work by Davis (1997) who found that possession of
high adaptive perfectionism and low maladaptive perfectionism predicts high levels of body
esteem, whereas low adaptive perfectionism and high maladaptive perfectionism predicts poor
body esteem in eating disorder populations. Prospective investigations will be needed to examine
whether maladaptive forms of perfectionism lead to the onset of clinically significant forms of
psychopathology, and conversely whether adaptive perfectionism buffers against psychopathology.
Although our findings using confirmatory models and validation against measures of distress
and dysfunction appear to be robust, this study also has some limitations. First, the sample size
allowed us to test the models only once rather than assessing the stability of the structure in
multiple samples. Second, the sample was students, not individuals with psychological mal-
adjustment. It may be that perfectionism has a different structure or consequence in clinical
samples though the data that are available thus far suggest that the structure of perfectionism is
reasonably consistent across different types of samples (Cox et al., 2002). Nonetheless, perfec-
tionism can have different properties and behavioral consequences in individuals with diagnosable
 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1383

conditions or disorders (e.g., Bieling & Alden, 1997). Third, because our study had a cross sec-
tional design, we were unable to describe the longitudinal relationship between the two types of
perfectionism. Although we found a significant association between Maladaptive Evaluative
Concerns and Positive Striving, we do not know whether these emerge contemporaneously or
whether one type of perfectionism precedes, or leads to, another. This would be an important
consideration in future studies examining these questions with a longitudinal, possibly develop-
mental, approach. Finally, we did not include measures of psychological health or hardiness to
examine whether Positive Striving had implications for healthy adjustment.
Overall, our findings suggest that the most pernicious aspects of perfectionism are not neces-
sarily having high or ‘‘perfect goals’’ for self and others, or being organized, but rather concern or
preoccupation over mistakes, doubts that one is doing the right thing, and a history of others
having high expectations that have been internalized. Considering the practical and clinical
impact of our findings, setting high standards, being focused on a task or job, and devoting one’s
energies to the achievement of certain goals appear to be unlikely to generate very considerable
distress or dissatisfaction. By the same token, expending cognitive and emotional resources on
any lack of success and second guessing one’s plans or accomplishments appear to lead to nega-
tive affective states that may well kindle more serious psychopathology. Moreover, standards that
are self imposed seem to produce less harm than standards that are perceived as externally
imposed. These conclusions, while tentative, could lead to any number of behavioural validation
studies to examine the impact of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism on important real world
achievement tasks. In addition to examining the replicability of the current findings in other
samples, future research should focus on examining the mechanisms through which maladaptive
perfectionism contributes to various forms of psychopathology.
One model that may hold promise derives from work on threats to self-worth, social rank theory,
and more specifically, the self-evaluation maintenance literature (Beach & Tesser, 1993). Specifically,
it is likely that both adaptive and maladaptive forms of perfectionism may moderate an indivi-
dual’s responses to disruptive events. Individuals possessing high levels of maladaptive perfectionism
and low levels of adaptive perfectionism may be particularly concerned about how others view them,
and about situations where others may view their performance and this may confer an increased
vulnerability to a variety of anxious and depressive states. Events representing loss of status, worth,
and failure may activate maladaptive perfectionistic concerns leading to the initiation of beha-
viors to regain status and worth or to behavioral avoidance and withdrawal if re-acquisition of
status is viewed as unattainable. Future, more experimental work, could test these intriguing
possibilities and further our understanding of the complexities of these two distinct perfectionism
constructs.

References

Aikake, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.

Alden, L. E., Bieling, P. J., & Wallace, S. T. (1994). Perfectionism in an interpersonal context: a self-regulation analysis
of dysphoria and social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 297–316.
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the
42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample.
Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181.
1384 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385

Antony, M. M., Purdon, C. L., Huta, V., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism across the anxiety
disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 1143–1154.
Arbuckle, J. (1992). Getting started with AmosDraw under Windows. Unpublished manuscript, Temple University,
Philadelphia.
Beach, S., & Tesser, A. (1993). Decision making power and marital satisfaction: a self-evaluation maintenance
perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 471–494.
Bieling, P. J., & Alden, L. E. (1997). The consequences of perfectionism for patients with social phobia. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 36, 387–395.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: the behavioural consequences of
perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Aikake’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical
extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–52.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 4, 362–371.
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed
and college student samples. Psychological Assessment, 14, 365–373.
Davis, C. (1997). Normal and neurotic perfectionism in eating disorders: An interactive model. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 22, 421–426.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Sareen, J., & Freeman, P. (2001). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in medical
students: a longitudinal investigation. Medical Education, 35, 1034–1042.
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.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and
association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 100, 98–101.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression: a test of the specific
vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58–65.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depressions: longitudinal assessment of a specific
vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276–280.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, X., & Mikhail, S. F. (1991). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale:
reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psychological Assessment, 3, 464–468.
Hill, R. W., McIntire, K., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Perfectionism and the big five factors. Journal of Social Behavior
& Personality, 12, 257–270.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94–103.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney,
Australia: The Psychology Foundation of Australia.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness of
fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430–445.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390.
Pratt, E. M., Telch, C. F., Lavouvie, E. W., Wilson, G. T., & Agras, W. S. (2001). Perfectionism in women with binge
eating disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 177–186.
Rheaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Gallant, L., Talbot, F., & Vallieres, A. (2000). Functional
and dysfunctional perfectionists: are they different on compulsive-like behaviors? Behaviour Research & Therapy, 38,
119–128.
 P.J. Bieling et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1373–1385 1385

Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive inference: reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 929–938.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55,
5–14.
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.
Spirito, D. D., & Farnett, E. (2000). The role of perfectionism and depressive cognitions in understanding the hope-
lessness experienced by adolescent suicide attempters. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 99–111.
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1984). Confirmatory hierarchical analyses of psychological distress measures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 621–635.
Vincent, N. K., & Walker, J. R. (2000). Perfectionism and chronic insomnia. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49,
349–354.