Kent Academic Repository

Full text document (pdf)

Citation for published version
Stoeber, Joachim (2018) The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and
future directions. In: Stoeber, Joachim, ed. The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research,
applications. Routledge, London, pp. 333-352.

DOI

Link to record in KAR

http://kar.kent.ac.uk/59812/

Document Version
Author's Accepted Manuscript

Copyright & reuse

Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all
content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions
for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder.

Versions of research
The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version.
Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the
published version of record.

Enquiries
For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact:
[email protected]
If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down
information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and future
directions. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications
(pp. 333-352). London: Routledge.

The Psychology of Perfectionism:

Critical Issues, Open Questions, and Future Directions

Joachim Stoeber

Overview

In this concluding chapter, I follow the approach of the introductory chapter in taking a
personal perspective to discuss what I see are critical issues, open questions, and future directions
in perfectionism research. Because all chapters of this book address open questions and future
directions, I only discuss topics that the chapters did not cover or that I would like to emphasize
again. These include the definition and measurement of perfectionism, the question of whether
perfectionism is a trait or a disposition, the need for more longitudinal studies, and the search for
mediators and moderators. Further, I make a call for more research on perfectionism going
beyond self-reports and point to three areas that I believe are “under-researched”: perfectionism at
work; ethnic, cultural, and national differences in perfectionism; and perfectionism across the
lifespan. Moreover, I address three critical issues that I find problematic because they may present
obstacles to further progress in our understanding of perfectionism: focusing on perfectionistic
concerns (and ignoring perfectionistic strivings), employing cluster analyses to investigate
differences in multidimensional perfectionism, and assessing perfectionism with measures that do
not measure perfectionism.
Critical Issues
Focusing on Perfectionistic Concerns (and Ignoring Perfectionistic Strivings)
The first issue I find problematic (see also Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017) is that there are
studies that examine only indicators of perfectionistic concerns and do not include indicators of
perfectionistic strivings, or do not report any findings they obtained for indicators of
perfectionistic strivings (cf. Chapter 1, Table 1.1). As to why this is the case, I can only speculate.
Maybe the studies’ focal interest was psychological maladjustment and—because perfectionistic
strivings often fail to show unique positive relationships with maladjustment (Stoeber & Otto,
2006)—the studies did not include perfectionistic strivings and only examined perfectionistic
concerns (which reliably show positive relationships with maladjustment). Or maybe the studies
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 2

originally included perfectionistic strivings but—for the same reason as above—perfectionistic

strivings did not show any significant relationships, and so they were dropped from the final
analyses that were reported.
Whatever the motivation, studies that do not include perfectionistic strivings are
problematic. One reason is that such studies may give a distorted view of perfectionism because
they exclusively focus on its maladaptive aspects while blending out aspects that may be
harmless, benign, or even adaptive (see Chapters 2, 3, 8, 11, and 12). In addition, such studies
may fail to provide an accurate account of how maladaptive perfectionistic concerns are, or even
severely underestimate the degree to which perfectionistic concerns are maladaptive. First,
including perfectionistic strivings allows for comparisons, so readers can see how maladaptive
perfectionistic concerns are relative to perfectionistic strivings. Second, perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns usually show substantial overlap. Because perfectionistic strivings
tend to be less maladaptive than perfectionistic concerns, this overlap may attenuate (or
“dampen”) the positive relationships that perfectionistic concerns show with indicators of
psychological maladjustment as well as the negative relationships they show with indicators of
psychological adjustment. To investigate if this is the case, statistical analyses controlling the
overlap can be employed (Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017), and the resulting unique relationships can
then be compared with the original relationships (cf. Chapter 8, Table 8.1). Third, research
following the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010) has demonstrated that
perfectionistic concerns tend to be more maladaptive when combined with low levels of
perfectionistic strivings (see Chapter 3 for details). Forth, it is important to note that—whereas
perfectionistic strivings often do not show unique positive relationships with indicators of
psychological maladjustment—there are numerous studies where they do show such relationships
and explain variance in psychological maladjustment beyond perfectionistic concerns (e.g.,
dietary restraint in disordered eating; Bardone-Cone, 2007; Stoeber, Madigan, Damian, Esposito,
& Lombardo, in press). For all these reasons, even researchers whose main interest is
perfectionism and psychological maladjustment should not exclusively focus on perfectionistic
concerns, but also take perfectionistic strivings into account.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the conceptualization of perfectionism as a
multidimensional characteristic has been central to perfectionism theory and research since the
1990s. It was also responsible for the steep rise in the number of scientific publications on
perfectionism and the associated progress in our understanding of perfectionism (cf. Chapter 1).
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 3

Studies focusing on perfectionistic concerns (and ignoring perfectionistic strivings) represent a

regression to the onedimensional conceptions of perfectionism that dominated the 1980s and risk
discounting everything we have learned and achieved in the past 25 years.
Cluster Analyses and “Types” of Perfectionists
The second issue I find problematic is the use of cluster analyses in perfectionism research.
By this, I do not mean the use of cluster analyses per se, but how they are used and how their
findings are reported. Cluster analyses typically take multidimensional measures of perfectionism
and then use the scores from these measures to “cluster” participants into groups that show
similar patterns on these scores (cf. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006, Chapter 9).
However, there are problems with this approach. First, some studies employing cluster analyses
suggest that the clusters represent “types” of perfectionists. However, these clusters are not
discrete types in the classic sense representing different kinds of perfectionists (Meehl, 1992).
They are merely groups of perfectionists representing different within-person combinations of
continuous perfectionism dimensions (see also Broman-Fulks, Hill, & Green, 2008). Second,
some studies use cluster analyses to examine perfectionism against the theoretical frameworks of
two models of perfectionism: the tripartite model of perfectionism differentiating healthy
perfectionists, unhealthy perfectionists, and non-perfectionists (Parker, 1997; Stoeber & Otto,
2006), and the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism differentiating pure personal standards perfectionism,
pure evaluative concerns perfectionism, mixed perfectionism, and non-perfectionism (Gaudreau
& Thompson, 2010; see Chapter 3). This too is problematic for a number of reasons. 1 For
example, the clusters frequently show significant differences in more than one perfectionism
dimension (e.g., healthy perfectionists showing not only lower perfectionistic concerns than
unhealthy perfectionists, but also lower perfectionistic strivings). In these cases, it is unclear
which dimension is responsible for the differences between clusters (e.g., why healthy
perfectionists show lower adjustment problems than unhealthy perfectionists). If researchers want
to investigate whether data conform to the tripartite model or the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism, I
would recommend they use variable-centered approaches such as multiple regressions and then
test for significant differences between non-perfectionism and pure evaluative concerns

1See also Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of why cluster analyses should not be used to
examine the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 4

perfectionism (Gaudreau, 2012). If the two show no significant differences, the data support the
tripartite model. If they show significant differences, the data support the 2 × 2 model (Stoeber,
2014).
Third, the results of cluster analyses are often not comparable between studies. Even when
studies find the same number of clusters, the clusters usually show different perfectionism
profiles (e.g., healthy perfectionists in one study show higher perfectionistic strivings and
concerns than healthy perfectionists in another study). Fourth, cluster analyses do not allow to
probe for interactions between different perfectionism dimensions (e.g., interactions between
perfectionistic strivings and concerns), and they cannot differentiate common, unique, and
interactive effects of the different dimensions (see also Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017, Appendix A).
A final problem is that studies employing cluster analyses often fail to report the bivariate
correlations between the perfectionism dimensions and the key variables of interest. Instead, they
report only differences between the clusters they created. This is problematic not only because
crucial information is missing (i.e., what correlations the clusters are based on), but also because
the studies are of limited use for secondary data analyses such as quantitative literature reviews
and meta-analyses (cf. Hill & Curran, 2016; Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012).
Consequently, my recommendation is to follow good research practice and always report
bivariate correlations. This goes not only for studies employing cluster analyses, but for all
studies employing multivariate analyses based on correlations or covariances such as multiple
regressions, structural equation modeling, and factor analyses as well as latent class and latent
profile analyses.
Measures of Perfectionism Not Measuring Perfectionism
The third issue I find problematic is what can be described as “measures of perfectionism
not measuring perfectionism.” In particular, I see two problems. The first (and most frequently
encountered) concerns the use of the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (PANPS; Terry-
Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995). The PANPS has a number of shortcomings. First and
foremost, the items of the positive perfectionism subscale do not capture perfectionistic strivings,
but characteristics, feelings, and behaviors that people high in perfectionistic strivings are
expected to show if they feel positive about themselves and their accomplishment (e.g., “I enjoy
the glory gained by my successes”). Consequently, the subscale captures positive consequences of
perfectionistic strivings that Terry-Short and colleagues associate with “positive perfectionism,”
but this is not perfectionism (see also Flett & Hewitt, 2006). The items of the negative
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 5

perfectionism subscale are less problematic because many are similar to items from established
measures of perfectionistic concerns (see Chapter 1, Table 1.1). A few items, however, are similar
to items other measures use to capture perfectionistic strivings (e.g., “I set impossibly high
standards for myself”). Hence it comes as no surprise that the PANPS has shown problems with
factorial validity. Haase and Prapavessis (2004) had to discard 21 of the 40 items before a two-
factorial structure emerged differentiating positive and negative perfectionism. Similar problems
were reported by Egan, Piek, Dyck, and Kane (2011). Moreover, Egan and colleagues found that
positive perfectionism showed positive relationships with depressive symptoms, and Haase,
Prapavessis, and Owens (1999) found positive relationships with disordered eating. Both findings
contradict Terry-Short et al.’s conceptualization of positive perfectionism. Hence, the PANPS
cannot be regarded as a reliable and valid measure of perfectionism differentiating perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns.
The second (less frequently encountered) problem concerns the use of scales and items
capturing self-criticism as measures of perfectionism. Examples are the self-criticism subscale of
the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976) and the self-critical
items from the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (Weissman & Beck, 1978). This is problematic
because they are measures of self-criticism, not measures of perfectionism or perfectionistic
concerns (cf. Chapter 1). Neither are they measures of self-critical perfectionism, because self-
critical perfectionism is a hybrid form of perfectionism that is typically assessed by combining
measures of self-criticism with measures of perfectionistic concerns (Dunkley, Zuroff, &
Blankstein, 2003; Smith, Saklofske, Stoeber, & Sherry, 2016; see also Chapters 9 and 11). Self-
criticism is not an indicator, proxy, or defining component of perfectionism or perfectionistic
concerns, but a separate psychological construct that should be differentiated from perfectionism
and perfectionistic concerns (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006; Sherry, Stoeber,
& Ramasubbu, 2016). I am aware that the multitude of measures used in perfectionism research
can be confusing, but researchers who use scales or items measuring self-criticism should be clear
in their publications that they measured self-criticism, not perfectionism (cf. Stoeber, Hutchfield,
& Wood, 2008).
Open Questions
The Definition and Measurement of Perfectionism: Too Many Perfectionisms?
There are two open questions that I would like to discuss which the individual contributions
have not discussed. The first question is: Are there “too many perfectionisms” in perfectionism
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 6

theory and research, that is, more definitions, models, and measures of perfectionism than are
healthy for the discipline? This question reflects two issues that are sometimes lamented in
perfectionism research. One is that there is no commonly agreed definition of perfectionism. The
other is that there are so many different models and measures of perfectionism.
As regards the first issue, I am not sure how problematic this is. True, there is no commonly
agreed definition of perfectionism. And because perfectionism researchers like to disagree about
specific aspects of perfectionism (as alluded to in Chapter 1), I see little chance for a commonly
agreed definition in the near future. On the positive side, I think that most perfectionism
researchers are in tacit agreement about the core components that define perfectionism. To
support this view, I have only anecdotal evidence. In our publications, for example, we usually
define perfectionism as “a personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness and
setting exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by overly critical evaluations of
one’s behavior” (e.g., Stoeber, Haskew, & Scott, 2015, p. 171) or use similar definitions along
these lines. These definitions have never been seriously challenged in peer review, which to me
suggests that the core elements of these definition are widely agreed. And I get the same
impression from the discussions we have at conferences and symposia when presenting papers
and posters on perfectionism.
As regards the second issue, I agree that the many models and measures of perfectionism
that have been developed over the past 25 years must be confusing for anyone who is not an
expert in perfectionism research. But how to address this issue? One suggestion has been to
follow the example of the Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG, 1997)
and get all the leading perfectionism researchers together, discuss and agree the core elements of
perfectionism, and develop a commonly agreed measure of perfectionism as did the OCCWG
with obsessive-compulsive beliefs (OCCWG, 2001). However, when this suggestion was made at
the last Perfectionism Network Meeting (University of Kent, 12-13 July 2016)—a meeting where
most of the leading perfectionism researchers were present—the response was muted.
Consequently, I also see little chance for a commonly agreed measure of perfectionism in the near
future.
But are there really too many measures? I personally do not think so. First, the vast majority
of research on perfectionism is based on only two measures—the Frost Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) and the Hewitt–Flett
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HF-MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991)—followed by the Almost
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 7

Perfect Scale–Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) in a distant third place.
This means that most perfectionism research is based on three measures only (or short forms and
adaptations of these measures). Second, all widely used multidimensional measures of
perfectionism have subscales capturing perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, the
two higher-order dimensions of the two factor-model of perfectionism (see Chapter 1).
Consequently, the two-factor model provides a common conceptual framework to understand and
compare the findings from different studies using different measures of perfectionism (Stoeber &
Otto, 2006; see also Gotwals et al., 2012; Jowett, Mallinson, & Hill, 2016).
Further, there are good reasons why we have so many different measures of perfectionism.
Perfectionism can affect all domains of life, but most perfectionists are not perfectionistic across
all domains of life (Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009). Instead, perfectionism is often domain-specific,
meaning that perfectionists are usually more perfectionistic in some domains than in others
(Dunn, Gotwals, & Causgrove Dunn, 2005; McArdle, 2010). Consequently, it makes sense to
have not only general measures of perfectionism, but also measures that assess perfectionism in
specific domains such as sport, dance, exercise, parenting, physical appearance, or sex (Snell,
Overbey, & Brewer, 2005; Stoeber, Harvey, Almeida, & Lyons, 2013; Stoeber & Madigan, 2016;
Yang & Stoeber, 2012). Moreover, domain-specific measures of perfectionism are useful because
they have been shown to explain variance in specific populations or specific variables beyond
general measures of perfectionism (e.g., sport perfectionism body image in athletes: Dunn,
Craft, Causgrove Dunn, & Gotwals, 2011; physical appearance perfectionism eating disorder
symptoms in students: Stoeber & Yang, 2015). Further note that most domain-specific measures
of perfectionism are adaptations of general measures of perfectionism (like the FMPS and HF-
MPS) or were inspired by these measures (cf. Stoeber & Madigan, 2016). Consequently, the
many different measures we see in perfectionism research often share the same underlying
models and have comparable dimensions.
Finally, theory and research on perfectionism is still evolving and developing, and this
includes the expansion of extant models of dispositional perfectionism, perfectionistic self-
presentation, and perfectionism cognitions (including the expansion in new domains). In addition,
there is a continued development of further models of perfectionism including new, hybrid forms
of perfectionism. All this evolution, expansion, and development requires reliable and valid
measures (e.g., Ferreira, Duarte, Pinto-Gouveia, & Lopes, in press; Flett, Nepon, Hewitt, Molnar,
& Zhao, in press; Smith et al., 2016). Furthermore, perfectionism research has a strong tradition
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 8

of revisiting established measures of perfectionism for a critical reexamination of their

psychometric properties (e.g., De Cuyper, Claes, Hermans, Pieter, & Smits, 2015; Stöber, 1998)
as well as developing reliable and valid short forms of these measures (e.g., Burgess, Frost, &
DiBartolo, in press; Stoeber, in press). Consequently, I do not see the multitude of perfectionism
models and measures that we have (and the continued development of further models and
measures) as a problem or a sign of weakness. To me, they signify that perfectionism theory and
research is alive and well, and flourishing.
Perfectionism: Trait or Disposition?
The second open question I would like to discuss (but discuss more concisely), is whether
perfectionism is a personality trait or a personality disposition. Like the first question, this
question is not easy to answer, and other researchers may have views and preferences different
from the ones presented here. Following Allport (1937), personality traits are commonly defined
as broad descriptions of individual differences between people that are relatively general and
enduring and are responsible for consistent patterns—consistent across time and consistent across
situations—in the way individuals behave, feel, and think (McAdams, 2006; Pervin, Cervone, &
John, 2005). Prominent trait models of personality include the five-factor model and the
HEXACO model described in Chapter 4. Some of these models include perfectionism on the
facet level (i.e., as a facet of a broad personality trait), most notably Cattell’s 16 personality factor
model (where perfectionism is a facet of self-control vs. lack of restraint), Cloninger’s model of
personality (where it is a facet of persistence), and the HEXACO model of personality (where it is
a facet of conscientiousness) (Cattell & Mead, 2008; Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, & Wetzel,
1994; Lee & Ashton, 2004). But is perfectionism itself a trait?
Whereas the chapters in this book use the terms “trait perfectionism” and “dispositional
perfectionism” interchangeably, I prefer to regard perfectionism as a disposition rather than a
trait. There are a number of reasons. In research on personality and individual differences, the
term “trait” usually refers to stable individual differences with high cross-situational consistency
that have a neuro-biological basis and are to a significant extent inherited. Like most individual
differences, perfectionism has a genetic component (see Iranzo-Tatay et al., 2015, for a review).
Developmental models of perfectionism, however, suggest that—whereas the child’s
temperament may play a role in the development of perfectionism—individual differences in
perfectionism are mostly learned and shaped by children’s and adolescents’ experiences and
expectations (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002; Rice, Lopez, & Vergara, 2005; Stoeber,
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 9

Edbrooke-Childs, & Damian, in press). Social-cognitive theories of personality development that

regard stable individual differences as learned and shaped by the environment, however, tend to
regard these differences as dispositions, not as traits (cf. Fleeson, 2012; Mischel, Shoda, &
Ayduk, 2007). Further, there are questions about the generality and stability of perfectionism. As
already mentioned, only few perfectionists are perfectionistic across all domains of life (Stoeber
& Stoeber, 2009). Instead, perfectionism is often domain-specific (e.g., Dunn et al., 2005;
McArdle, 2010). Moreover, longitudinal studies have shown that perfectionism—while relatively
stable—may show changes over fairly short periods of time and that these changes are the result
of individual differences in perceptions, expectations, and experiences (Damian, Stoeber, Negru,
& B ban, 2013; Damian, Stoeber, Negru-Subtirica, & B ban, in press; Soenens et al., 2008).
Consequently, I find that perfectionism has more characteristics of a personality disposition than a
personality trait.
Future Directions
Longitudinal Studies
The final section of this chapter discusses some areas that, from my view, future research
should take on if we want to continue making progress in our understanding of perfectionism.
First and foremost, I think we need more longitudinal studies on perfectionism. This includes
prospective studies as well as diary studies and other methods of ecological momentary
assessment (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008). All such studies
have more than one measurement point and thus allow to investigate the temporal relationships
between perfectionism and key variables of interest providing stronger evidence for causal
influences and the direction of these influences. Unfortunately, the vast majority of published
research on perfectionism still uses cross-sectional designs (all measurements are taken at one
point of time). Such studies, however, are limited because they cannot tell us whether
perfectionism is an antecedent or a consequence of a variable of interest, whether the two show
reciprocal relationships, or whether they are mere correlates. Regarding the question of
perfectionism as an antecedent, longitudinal studies are important to examine the effects of
perfectionism because only such studies can determine if perfectionism predicts changes in an
outcome variable over time (e.g., Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2015). In addition, if they
comprise three or more measurement points, longitudinal studies allow for modeling between-
person as well as within-person changes (e.g., Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2016; see also
Chapter 11). Furthermore, only longitudinal studies with three or more measurement points can
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 10

properly test mediation effects (Cole & Maxwell, 2003). Regarding the question of perfectionism
as a consequence, longitudinal studies are important to understand the development of
perfectionism. This is an area of research where we have various theoretical models suggesting
developmental antecedents of perfectionism (e.g., Flett et al., 2002; Stoeber et al., in press) but
only very few longitudinal studies actually examining developmental antecedents of
perfectionism (e.g., Damian et al., 2013; Damian et al., in press; Soenens et al., 2008; Stoeber,
Otto, & Dalbert, 2009).
Furthermore, it is important that longitudinal studies test for reciprocal effects, because
these tests can yield important new (and sometimes surprising) insights. For example, Gautreau,
Sherry, Mushquash, and Stewart (2015) conducted a 12-month, three-wave study examining self-
critical perfectionism and social anxiety. Results showed that self-critical perfectionism did not
predict increases in social anxiety. Instead, social anxiety predicted increases in self-critical
perfectionism, suggesting that social anxiety may contribute to the development of perfectionistic
concerns. As another example, Damian et al. (in press) conducted a 9-month, three-wave study
examining perfectionism and academic achievement. Differently from what was expected,
perfectionistic strivings did not predict increases in academic achievement. Instead academic
achievement (and academic self-efficacy) predicted increases in perfectionistic strivings,
suggesting that students who are high achievers and believe in their academic abilities may
develop perfectionistic strivings. Finally, it is important to note that longitudinal studies do not
have to be “long.” Any study on perfectionism using more than one measurement point qualifies
as a longitudinal study, and any findings from such a study are likely to provide valuable new
insights into perfectionism. Moreover, short-term longitudinal studies (also known as
“shortitudinal” studies) may have higher statistical power for finding longitudinal effects than
studies with longer intervals between measurement points (Dormann & Griffin, 2015) which is
something worth keeping in mind.
Mediators and Moderators
Second, more research examining mediators and moderators of the relationships and effects
of perfectionism is needed.2 Research on mediators is important because we need to know how

2See Baron and Kenny’s (1986) classic article for an explanation of mediators and
moderators.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 11

perfectionism, as a relatively stable personality disposition, affects an outcome X (perfectionism

mediator X). However, not all variables qualify as mediators, and not all research designs
are suitable for testing mediation effects. According to Cole and Maxwell (2003), “a mediator is a
mechanism of action, a vehicle whereby a putative cause has its putative effect” (p. 559).
Consequently, only variables that represent actions or processes qualify as mediators (not stable
individual differences, personality dispositions, or traits). Further, Cole and Maxwell point out
that “a mediator cannot be concurrent with X” (p. 561). Consequently, proper mediation analyses
require longitudinal studies. Whereas a full mediation design requires three measurement points
(perfectionism at Time 1 mediator at Time 2 outcome at Time 3), it is worth pointing out
that also studies with two measurement points can be used to test mediation effects by employing
a so-called “half-mediation model.” In this model, the predictor–mediator relationships
(perfectionism at Time 1 mediator at Time 2) and mediator–outcome relationships (mediator at
Time 1 outcome at Time 2) are tested separately to establish longitudinal mediation (see Cole
and Maxwell, 2003, for details). I am not aware of any perfectionism studies applying this model,
but would like to encourage researchers to give this model a try if they have studies with two
measurement points including potential mediators.
Researchers should also continue looking for possible moderators of perfectionism–
outcome relationships, that is, variables that show significant interactions with perfectionism
when predicting an outcome X (see also Chapter 8). Research on moderators is important because
they show that the relationships (or effects) of perfectionism are dependent on a third variable.
Important questions in the search for moderators are, for example, whether there are any variables
buffering the negative effects of perfectionistic concerns (e.g., daily coping; Dunkley, Blankstein,
Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000; Stoeber & Janssen, 2011) or what the circumstances are
under which perfectionistic strivings are adaptive versus maladaptive (see Chapter 3, Figure 3.3).
However, there is a problem. Interactions between naturally occurring individual differences (e.g.,
perfectionism × daily coping) are usually smaller in size than interactions between experimental
conditions (which can be manipulated to provide large-sized differences). Consequently,
interactions between naturally occurring individual differences tend to be difficult to detect and
may require large sample sizes (McClelland & Judd, 1993). This could also be the reasons why
we seldom find significant interactions between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns (cf. Hill, 2013; Stoeber & Yang, 2010). Still, these difficulties should not deter
researchers from probing for interactions between perfectionism and possible moderators, or
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 12

between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (see also Gaudreau, 2012).
Going Beyond Self-Reports
Finally, I think that perfectionism research needs more studies including data that are not
from self-reports. Don’t get me wrong. Self-reports in psychological research are invaluable.
They provide reliable and valid information about people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and
they are practical, economical, and easy to interpret (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). Moreover, because
only self-reports have an inside perspective, they can provide “information no one else knows”
(Baldwin, 2000). Still, we would be missing essential parts of the perfectionism puzzle if we only
examined self-reported antecedents, self-reported correlates, and self-reported consequences of
perfectionism. Perfectionism research needs to go beyond inner experiences, and take a look at
what perfectionism does in the outside world.
Whereas most studies examining perfectionism do not go beyond self-reports, there are
notable exceptions. First, a significant number of studies have included objective measures of
academic performance (e.g., students’ grade point average). Other studies have examined
perfectionism and objective performance in aptitude tests and laboratory tasks or sports. These
studies have provided valuable new insights into perfectionism indicating that only perfectionistic
strivings show consistent positive relationships with performance whereas perfectionistic
concerns usually show no relationships (see Stoeber, 2012, for a review). In addition, a number of
studies have included observer ratings (also known as observer reports or informant reports). Self-
reports and observer ratings have been described as the “counterpoint of personality assessment”
(McCrae, 1994). Applied to perfectionism research, they show us how perfectionists see
themselves and how others see them (see Chapter 9 for an illustrative example). Furthermore,
some studies have begun to go beyond self-reported stress and included physiological measures
of stress (e.g., Albert, Rice, & Caffee, 2016; Richardson, Rice, & Devine, 2014). Finally, there
are two longitudinal studies examining how perfectionism predicts what is perhaps the ultimate
objective outcome: mortality. Unfortunately, the studies’ findings were inconclusive. Whereas the
first study found that self-oriented perfectionism predicted lower survival rates (Fry & Debats,
2009), the second study found the opposite: Self-oriented perfectionism predicted higher survival
rates (Fry & Debats, 2011). Clearly more research including observer ratings and objective
measures of stress, health, and well-being is needed to address the complex associations among
perfectionism, stress, health behaviors, health and, ultimately, mortality (see also Chapter 10).
Under-Researched Areas
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 13

Perfectionism at work. Finally, I would like to draw attention to three areas that I think are
under-researched. The first is perfectionism at work. We know that work comes out top when
people are asked what domains of life perfectionism affects most (Slaney & Ashby, 1996; Stoeber
& Stoeber, 2009). For example, Stoeber and Stoeber (2009) investigated how perfectionistic
people are across a list of 22 domains of life. They found that 58% of a university student sample
and 53% of an Internet sample indicated they were perfectionistic at work, putting work at the
first position on both lists. Consequently, perfectionism at work should be an important research
topic. Yet, compared to the number of studies examining perfectionism in students, relatively few
studies have examined perfectionism in employees and how perfectionism relates to variables that
are of key interest in the domain of work such as workaholism (e.g., Stoeber, Davis, & Townley,
2013; Tziner & Tanami, 2013) or job burnout (e.g., Childs & Stoeber, 2010; Li, Hou, Chi, Liu, &
Hager, 2014). Beyond workaholism and job burnout, there is even less research on perfectionism
at work. In particular, we do not know how perfectionism affects people’s social relations at work
and their work performance (individual performance and team performance). Both questions
would be important to investigate given that perfectionism is linked with interpersonal problems
(see Chapters 9 and 15) and has been associated with higher-quality performance, but reduced
productivity and efficiency (Sherry, Hewitt, Sherry, Flett, & Graham, 2010; Stoeber & Eysenck,
2008). Consequently, perfectionism research may profit from further research on perfectionism at
work. In addition, because many jobs require team work, this research should go beyond
individual-level aspects of perfectionism and also examine group-level aspects like “team
perfectionism” (Hill, Stoeber, Brown, & Appleton, 2014), that is, the level of perfectionism in
teams and how this level influences the team (e.g., team relationships and coherence, team
performance). Whereas we found team perfectionism to predict higher performance in sport (Hill
et al., 2014), team perfectionism may have different effects at work, but until we investigate
perfectionism at work, we will not know.
Ethnic, cultural, and national differences. Another question I think is under-researched is
the question of ethnic, cultural, and national differences in the relationships that perfectionism
shows with key variables of interest such as psychological adjustment and maladjustment. Note
that I am not referring to differences in levels of perfectionism (e.g., whether Group A shows
higher or lower levels of perfectionism compared to Group B). I am referring to differences in the
relationships of perfectionism (e.g., whether perfectionism in Group A shows stronger or weaker
relationships with psychological adjustment and maladjustment compared to perfectionism in
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 14

Group B) and differences in the effects of perfectionism (e.g., whether perfectionism in Group A
has more adaptive or more maladaptive effects compared to perfectionism in Group B). For
example, it is conceivable that socially prescribed perfectionism—the belief that striving for
perfection and being perfect are important to others—is less dysfunctional in collectivistic
cultures where people tend to have an interdependent conception of the self and conforming to
expectations from others is the norm. In comparison, socially prescribed perfectionisms may be
more dysfunctional in individualistic cultures where people have an independent conception of
the self and expectations are primarily self-focused (cf. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Stoeber,
Kobori, & Tanno, 2013).
Unfortunately, systematic research on ethnic, cultural, and national differences in
perfectionism is lacking. More studies are needed comparing the relationships and effects of
perfectionism across samples from different nations (e.g., Sherry et al., 2016), different ethnicities
(e.g., C. Chen, Hewitt, & Flett, 2017), and different cultures (e.g., Stoeber, Kobori, & Tanno,
2013). In this endeavor, however, there are three important points to consider. First, when
comparing perfectionism across cultures, researchers need to make sure that their measures are
equivalent across cultures so they do not compare “chopsticks with forks” (F. F. Chen, 2008).
Second, researchers should not only look for differences, but also for similarities. And they
should make sure they publish studies that find more similarities than differences as well as
studies that do not find any differences (cf. Sherry et al., 2016; Smith, Saklofske, Yan, & Sherry,
2016). This is to avoid biasing the published literature in a direction suggesting there are more
differences than similarities. Publishing only studies that find significant differences is a serious
problem in psychological science (e.g., Ferguson & Heene, 2012). As is the case with gender
differences (Hyde, 2005), it may be that the similarities between different nations, ethnicities, and
cultures regarding perfectionism are much greater and more important than any differences. And
if we find differences, we need to demonstrate that these differences are reliable and replicate in
other studies and samples. In addition, we need theories than can explain these differences.
Perfectionism across the lifespan. Concluding this section, another question I think
deserves more attention is the question of how perfectionism develops across the life span. When
I give talks about perfectionism, one question that is frequently asked is if we know what happens
with perfectionism when people get older. In particular, do people become less perfectionistic
when they get older? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is: We don’t know. Whereas
numerous studies have investigated how major personality traits develop across the life span (e.g.,
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 15

McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006), I am not aware of any studies that
have investigated how perfectionism develops across the lifespan.
There are, however, a few studies suggesting that perfectionism declines with age. For
example, Landa and Bybee (2007) examined the dimensions of perfectionism from Frost et al.’s
(1990) model comparing undergraduates of a sorority (mean age = 19.9 years) with alumnae of
the same sorority (mean age = 33.7 years). They found that the alumnae showed significant lower
levels of perfectionism regarding personal standards, concerns over mistakes, doubts about
actions, and parental expectations suggesting that both perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
concerns decline with age. Stoeber and Stoeber (2009) examined self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism from Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model in an Internet sample including
adults from below 20 to above 70 years of age. Both self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism showed small negative correlations with age, again suggesting that perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns decline with age. In comparison, Hewitt and Flett (2004)
examined a large community sample of adults from 18 to over 45 years of age and found that
older adults showed lower levels of socially prescribed perfectionism (but not self-oriented or
other-oriented perfectionism), suggesting that perfectionistic concerns decline with age, but not
perfectionistic strivings. Taken together, the findings point in the direction of perfectionism
showing declines over the lifespan, particularly perfectionistic concerns (cf. Hewitt & Flett, 2004;
Landa & Bybee, 2007). Because perfectionistic concerns are closely linked with trait neuroticism
(e.g., Stoeber & Otto, 2006), this would be in line with findings from research on personality
across the lifespan showing that levels of neuroticism decline across the life span, with
particularly steep declines in the first decades of adulthood (McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts et al.,
2006). What is unclear, however, is why perfectionistic strivings also seem to decline even
though perfectionistic strivings are closely linked with trait conscientiousness, and
conscientiousness shows increases across the lifespan (McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts et al., 2006).
Clearly there are important questions on how perfectionism and its various aspects, forms, and
dimensions develop across the lifespan, and what explains these developments. I hope that future
research will engage with these questions and provide answers.
Concluding Comments
I have the same hope for the other open questions addressed in this chapter as well as the
open questions that the other chapters of this book addressed. But looking back at the past 25
years of research on multidimensional perfectionism and all that has been achieved in these
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 16

years—and also looking at the individual contributions in this book that not only reflect past
achievements, but also point toward future achievements—I am confident that the next 25 years
will see all these questions answered, and more.

References
Albert, P., Rice, K. G., & Caffee, L. (2016). Perfectionism affects blood pressure in response to
repeated exposure to stress. Stress & Health, 32, 157-166.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Baldwin, W. (2000). Information no one else knows: The value of self-report. In A. A. Stone, J.
S. Turkkan, C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman, & V. S. Cain (Eds.), The science of
self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 3-7). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bardone-Cone, A. M. (2007). Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism dimensions and
their associations with disordered eating. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1977-1986.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young
adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383-389.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616.
Broman-Fulks, J. J., Hill, R. W., & Green, B. A. (2008). Is perfectionism categorical or
dimensional? A taxometric analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 481-490.
Burgess, A. M., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (in press). Development and validation of the
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale–Brief. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment.
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In
G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality
theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 135-178). London: SAGE.
Chen, C., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2017). Ethnic variations in other-oriented perfectionism’s
associations with depression and suicide behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences,
104, 504-509.
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 17

inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95, 1005-1018.
Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2010). Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed
perfectionism in employees: Relationships with burnout and engagement. Journal of
Workplace Behavioral Health, 25, 269-281.
Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D. (1994). The Temperament and
Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for
Psychobiology of Personality.
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data:
Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112, 558-577.
Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru, O., & B ban, A. (2013). On the development of perfectionism
in adolescence: Perceived parental expectations predict longitudinal increases in socially
prescribed perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 688-693.
Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & B ban, A. (in press). On the development of
perfectionism: The longitudinal role of academic achievement and academic efficacy.
Journal of Personality.
De Cuyper, K., Claes, L., Hermans, D., Pieters, G., & Smits, D. (2015). Psychometric properties
of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale of Hewitt in a Dutch-speaking sample:
Associations with the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97,
182-190.
Dormann, C., & Griffin, M. A. (2015). Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological
Methods, 20, 489-505.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The
relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social support
as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437-453.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R. M., & Grilo, C. M. (2006). Personal standards and
evaluative concerns dimensions of “clinical” perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002,
2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 63-84.
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.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 18

Dunn, J. G. H., Craft, J. M., Causgrove Dunn, J., & Gotwals, J. K. (2011). Comparing a domain-
specific and global measure of perfectionism in competitive female figure skaters. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 34, 25-46.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2005). An examination of the domain
specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1439-1448.
Egan, S., Piek, J., Dyck, M., & Kane, R. (2011). The reliability and validity of the Positive and
Negative Perfectionism Scale. Clinical Psychologist, 15, 121-132.
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and
psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555-
561.
Ferreira, C., Duarte, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Lopes, C. (in press). The need to present a perfect
body image: Development of a new measure of perfectionistic self-presentation. Current
Psychology.
Fleeson, W. (2012). Perspectives on the person: Rapid growth and opportunities for integration.
In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social
psychology (pp. 33-63). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology: A
comment on Slade and Owens’s dual process model. Behavior Modification, 30, 472-495.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and
their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89-132). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Flett, G. L., Nepon, T., Hewitt, P. L., Molnar, D. S., & Zhao, W. (in press). Projecting perfection
by hiding effort: Supplementing the perfectionistic self-presentation scale with a brief self-
presentation measure. Self and Identity.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Fry, P. S., & Debats, D. L. (2009). Perfectionism and the five-factor personality traits as
predictors of mortality in older adults. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 513-524.
Fry, P. S., & Debats, D. L. (2011). Perfectionism and other related trait measures as predictors of
mortality in diabetic older adults: A six-and-a-half-year longitudinal study. Journal of
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 19

Health Psychology, 16, 1058-1070.

Gaudreau, P. (2012). A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualistic
personality dimensions: An example using the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52, 26-31.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532-537.
Gautreau, C. M., Sherry, S. B., Mushquash, A. R., & Stewart, S. H. (2015). Is self-critical
perfectionism an antecedent of or a consequence of social anxiety, or both? A 12-month,
three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 125-130.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G. H., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in
sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence.
Canadian Psychology, 53, 263-279.
Haase, A. M., & Prapavessis, H. (2004). Assessing the factor structure and composition of the
Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale in sport. Personality and Individual Differences,
36, 1725-1740.
Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Owens, R. G. (1999). Perfectionism and eating attitudes in
competitive rowers: Moderating effects of body mass, classification and gender. Psychology
and Health, 14, 643-657.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS): Technical
manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hill, A. P. (2013). Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test of the 2 × 2 model of
dispositional perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 18-29.
Hill, A. P., & Curran, T. (2016). Multidimensional perfectionism and burnout: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 269-288.
Hill, A. P., Stoeber, J., Brown, A., & Appleton, P. R. (2014). Team perfectionism and team
performance: A prospective study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 303-315.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 561-592.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 20

Iranzo-Tatay, C., Gimeno-Clemente, N., Barberá-Fons, M., Rodriguez-Campayo, M. Á., Rojo-

Bofill, L., Livianos-Aldana, L., . . . Rojo-Moreno, L. (2015). Genetic and environmental
contributions to perfectionism and its common factors. Psychiatry Research, 230, 932-939.
Jowett, G. E., Mallinson, S. H., & Hill, A. P. (2016). An independent effects approach to
perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The psychology of
perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp. 85-149). London: Routledge.
Landa, C. E., & Bybee, J. A. (2007). Adaptive elements of aging: Self-image discrepancy,
perfectionism, and eating problems. Developmental Psychology, 43, 83-93.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality
Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.
Li, X., Hou, Z.-J., Chi, H.-Y., Liu, J., & Hager, M. J. (2014). The mediating role of coping in the
relationship between subtypes of perfectionism and job burnout: A test of the 2 × 2 model
of perfectionism with employees in China. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 65-
70.
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2015). Perfectionism and burnout in junior athletes:
A three-month longitudinal study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 305-315.
Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Motivation mediates the perfectionism–
burnout relationship: A three-wave longitudinal study with junior athletes. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 38, 341-354.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McArdle, S. (2010). Exploring domain-specific perfectionism. Journal of Personality, 78, 493-
508.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interaction and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). The counterpoint of personality assessment: Self-reports and observer
ratings. Assessment, 1, 159-172.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., de Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., . . .
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels
in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466-477.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 21

Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in
kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117-174.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Introduction to personality: Toward an integrative
science of the person (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (1997). Cognitive assessment of obsessive-
compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 667-681.
Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (2001). Development and initial validation of
the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire and the Interpretation of Intrusions Inventory.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 987-1006.
Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children.
American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545-562.
Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley & R.
F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224-239).
New York: Guilford.
Pervin, L. A., Cervone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research (9th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influences on perfectionism and
adult attachment orientations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 580-605.
Richardson, C. M. E., Rice, K. G., & Devine, D. P. (2014). Perfectionism, emotion regulation,
and the physiological stress response. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 110-118.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1-25.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Sherry, D. L., Flett, G. L., & Graham, A. R. (2010). Perfectionism
dimensions and research productivity in psychology professors: Implications for
understanding the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 42, 273-283.
Sherry, S. B., Stoeber, J., & Ramasubbu, C. (2016). Perfectionism explains variance in self-
defeating behaviors beyond self-criticism: Evidence from a cross-national sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 196-199.
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1-32.
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 22

Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 393-398.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised Almost
Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145.
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). The Big Three Perfectionism
Scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 670-
687.
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Yan, G., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). Cultural similarities in
perfectionism: Perfectionistic strivings and concerns generalize across Chinese and
Canadian groups. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49, 63-76.
Snell, W. E., Jr., Overbey, G. A., & Brewer, A. L. (2005). Parenting perfectionism and the
parenting role. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 613-624.
Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Lyuten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2008).
Maladaptive perfectionism as an intervening variable between psychological control and
adolescent depressive symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22, 465-474.
Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revisited: More perfect with
four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 481-491.
Stoeber, J. (2012). Perfectionism and performance. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of sport and performance psychology (pp. 294-306). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stoeber, J. (2014). Perfectionism in sport and dance: A double-edged sword. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 45, 385-394.
Stoeber, J. (in press). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale. Assessment.
Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R., & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in employees:
The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 733-738.
Stoeber, J., Edbrooke-Childs, J. H., & Damian, L. E. (in press). Perfectionism. In R. J. R.
Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Stoeber, J., & Eysenck, M. W. (2008). Perfectionism and efficiency: Accuracy, response bias, and
invested time in proof-reading performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1673-
1678.
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings and
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 23

perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and Individual

Differences, 104, 379-386.
Stoeber, J., Harvey, L. N., Almeida, I., & Lyons, E. (2013). Multidimensional sexual
perfectionism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1593-1604.
Stoeber, J., Haskew, A. E., & Scott, C. (2015). Perfectionism and exam performance: The
mediating effect of task-approach goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 171-
176.
Stoeber, J., Hutchfield, J., & Wood, K. V. (2008). Perfectionism, self-efficacy, and aspiration
level: Differential effects of perfectionistic striving and self-criticism after success and
failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 323-327.
Stoeber, J., & Janssen, D. P. (2011). Perfectionism and coping with daily failures: Positive
reframing helps achieve satisfaction at the end of the day. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24,
477-497.
Stoeber, J., Kobori, O., & Tanno, Y. (2013). Perfectionism and self-conscious emotions in British
and Japanese students: Predicting pride and embarrassment after success and failure.
European Journal of Personality, 27, 59-70.
Stoeber, J., & Madigan, D. J. (2016). Measuring perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise:
Review, critique, recommendations. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism in
sport, dance and exercise (pp. 31-56). London: Routledge.
Stoeber, J., Madigan, D. J., Damian, L. E., Esposito, R. M., & Lombardo, C. (in press).
Perfectionism and eating disorder symptoms in female university students: The central role
of perfectionistic self-presentation. Eating and Weight Disorders.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness
predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47, 363-368.
Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with
perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46, 530-535.
Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2010). Perfectionism and emotional reactions to perfect and flawed
achievements: Satisfaction and pride only when perfect. Personality and Individual
 Chapter 16 (Stoeber) – 24

Differences, 49, 246-251.

Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2015). Physical appearance perfectionism explains variance in eating
disorder symptoms above general perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences,
86, 303-307.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.
Tziner, A., & Tanami, M. (2013). Examining the links between attachment, perfectionism, and
job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 29, 65-74.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, March). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional
Attitude Scale: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association.
Yang, H., & Stoeber, J. (2012). The Physical Appearance Perfectionism Scale: Development and
preliminary validation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 69-83.