Perfectionism

14
Kenneth G. Rice and Zachary B. Taber

Abstract the development of perfectionism is reviewed,

We review models of perfectionism and evi- with an emphasis on child and environmental
dence supporting conceptualizations of perfec- factors relevant to the gifted, including ques-
tionism as a multidimensional construct best tions of academic challenge. Evidence for dif-
represented by two factors, perfectionistic ficulties in treating perfectionists is presented
strivings and perfectionistic concerns. We con- and intervention studies conducted with clini-
sider measurement issues relevant to the study cal and nonclinical perfectionist adults, adoles-
of perfectionism in the gifted including the cents, and children are discussed. The so-called
wide range of correlations between perfection- “wise” interventions, brief interventions that
istic strivings and concerns for different mea- use theory to precisely and efficiently target
sures, the domain specificity of perfectionism, specific psychological processes, are advanced
and limitations with cluster analytic methods as a promising focus of future intervention
used in the perfectionism literature with the studies with gifted perfectionists.
gifted. Methods for evaluating measurement
invariance and latent profile analysis, including
factor mixture modeling, are introduced and
illustrated through a sample study that exam- Perfectionism has been an important consider-
ines differences in latent classes of perfection- ation in understanding some of the challenges
ists in honors and non-honors student samples gifted children may face, and has even been con-
on perceived stress, depression, college adjust- sidered a general characteristic of gifted children.
ment, and social connectedness. Research on For example, the National Society for the Gifted
Talented provides a list of “characteristics of
The authors are grateful to Jessica Carroll, Jihee Hong, gifted students that parents should use to see if
Victoria Kelly, Samantha Latty, Merideth Ray, and they think their child is gifted,” and the first item
Kamaria Veerapen, for their assistance with this chapter. on their list is “Gifted students are often perfec-
K. G. Rice (*) tionist [sic] and idealistic.” The second item is
Center for the Study of Stress, Trauma, and “Gifted students may experience heightened sen-
Resilience, and Department of Counseling and sitivity to their own expectations and those of
Psychological Services, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA, USA others.” The American Psychological Association
e-mail: [email protected] (2017) addresses perfectionism in Principle 15
Z. B. Taber (Emotional well-being influences educational
Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA performance, learning, and development) as part

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 227

S. I. Pfeiffer (ed.), Handbook of Giftedness in Children,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_14
228 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

of the “Top 20 Principles from Psychology for According to that view, and somewhat consistent
preK-12 Creative, Talented, and Gifted Students’ with Renzulli’s schoolhouse gifted category, gift-
Teaching and Learning.” The involvement of edness is based on very high levels of general (g)
perfectionism has probably had a more negative or multidimensional intellectual abilities, under-
valence from the beginning of interest in its stood to mean IQ scores in the top 2–5%. An
connection to the gifted. Doubt has been cast on important caveat is that there is no scientific jus-
the appropriateness of this link with some tification for that cutoff and the related distinc-
research showing the incidence of maladaptive tion in what should probably be considered a
self-critical perfectionism in gifted people is no latent class construct of gifted or not gifted.
higher than it occurs in others. However, there are Another part of his tripartite perspective is that
several reasons to scrutinize those comparisons giftedness is revealed through “outstanding
and other reasons to examine giftedness in light performance,” which is generally understood to
of the multidimensional and multicategorical mean outstanding academic performance. Such
work that is being done in the area of students are often extremely interested in learning
perfectionism. To those ends, this chapter and are likely to possess high levels of cognitive
provides a selective review of research relevant to abilities. This second form of giftedness is similar
perfectionism and giftedness with an eye to to Renzulli’s creative-productive gifted category.
insights and implications that may inform future The third lens involves “potential to excel” and
work on the intersection of these two constructs. refers to what Pfeiffer calls the “almost or
The diversity of definitions, measures, and potentially gifted” student (Pfeiffer, 2015, p. 10)
implications within each area makes broad who is likely to demonstrate substantial increases
generalizations risky at best, which we believe is in cognitive abilities or academic performance
nothing new to the field of giftedness. We make once she or he is provided with additional
no pretense of expertise in the gifted area, and no resources currently lacking or insufficient in the
doubt have missed important nuances in the child’s life. Such students may not have
literature, but it does seem important for us to conspicuously elevated IQ or other standardized
begin with some definitions of giftedness that test scores but “are often recognized by their
may seem relevant to the area of perfectionism. teachers and others as bright or quick learners,
According to the Three-Ring definition proposed hardworking, and highly curious about the world
by Renzulli (1978, 2005; see also Kaufman & around them” (p.  12). Although presented as
Sternberg, 2008), giftedness is the interaction of different lenses to view giftedness, it is also
well-above-average ability, creativity, and task important to note that Pfeiffer is not describing a
commitment. Well-above-average ability covers mutually exclusive taxonomy of giftedness
both general ability applied across all domains categories that will cleanly separate individuals
and ability within a specific domain. into neat groups. Instead, these are descriptive
Operationally, well-above-average ability and possibly overlapping aspects of giftedness.
pertains to individuals in the top 15–20% of any Indeed, Pfeiffer (2015) strongly asserts that
domain, which is less restrictive than traditional giftedness itself is a social construction and
views of giftedness that might require ability in “there can never be a cut score that invariably
the top 3–5% (i.e., Marland, 1972). Renzulli also separates gifted from nongifted students” (p. 41).
proposed two types of giftedness. Those with We find Renzulli’s and Pfeiffer’s contributions
“schoolhouse” giftedness are good at taking tests similar to important points raised in the
or otherwise consuming knowledge whereas perfectionism literature about the nature of
those with “creative-productive” giftedness are perfectionism, how best to measure the construct,
creative producers of knowledge. whether there might different types of
Pfeiffer (2013, 2015) points out that the “high perfectionists, and where, if it exists, should be
IQ equals gifted” view is one of three main lenses the line that separates perfectionists from others.
through which giftedness can be understood. We agree that perfectionism, like giftedness,
14 Perfectionism 229

means much more than a single score on a single porary and diversified approaches to measurement
test and probably needs to take into account and statistical models for cross-sectional differ-
multiple dimensions, contexts, and even domain-­ ences or longitudinal change we conclude by
specificity similar to how some in the giftedness summarizing some traditional interventions for
area attend to such complexities. We also have maladaptive perfectionists and some contempo-
pursued a line of research that suggests to us that rary approaches that might be efficient and help-
perfectionism in certain forms, or represented by ful, especially for younger gifted but
certain types of people, could be linked to impor- maladaptively perfectionistic students in educa-
tant outcomes such as creativity, flexible prob- tional settings.
lem-solving, and even longevity, and that other
aspects of perfectionism or perfectionists are so
personally and interpersonally toxic that substan- Perfectionism
tial impairment in learning, emotional health, and
productivity can be expected. One of the difficulties in parsing perfectionism
Despite the negative tone ending the preced- stems from the various ways researchers define
ing paragraph, much of the evidence seems to and measure the construct. Perhaps the most
indicate that gifted/talented individuals are universal point of agreement is that perfectionism
generally in good psychological health and are is at its core a strong, persistent endorsement of
resilient when challenged, although like any extremely high performance standards and
population there are likely to be those who expectations. Beyond that relatively
experience significant distress and coping straightforward statement, however, is a wide
deficits. The risk for problematic perfectionistic range of models and measures reflecting a diverse
characteristics playing a role in those difficulties set of perspectives about perfectionism. Several
has been discounted by findings that in gifted of the more popular models will be summarized
samples, perfectionism may be no greater than in here but for more thorough coverage, interested
nongifted groups. However, much of that research readers can refer to other recent texts on
is based on comparisons between groups con- perfectionism and its implications (e.g., Sirois &
ducted without first evaluating the adequacy of Molnar, 2016; Stoeber, 2017) as well as other
measures to comparably serve both groups. papers addressing perfectionism and giftedness
Moreover, group comparisons might stop when (e.g., Fong & Yuen, 2014; Rice & Ray, 2018;
failing to locate differences in average levels of Speirs Neumeister, 2018).
perfectionism between groups (intercept ques- Earlier and even some recent conceptualiza-
tion), or failing to detect disproportionate repre- tions present perfectionism as a unidimensional
sentation of maladaptively perfectionistic personality characteristic reflecting “a kind of
individuals in comparison samples, but often left pathology” (Pacht, 1984, p.  387). Shafran,
unaddressed is whether the strengths of effects Cooper, and Fairburn (2002) defined “clinical
between perfectionism and relevant outcomes perfectionism” as the “overdependence of self-­
differ for the gifted compared to the nongifted evaluation on the determined pursuit of person-
(slope question). ally demanding, self-imposed, standards in at
Once measurement equivalence is confirmed, least one highly salient domain, despite adverse
which is in itself a relatively demanding consequences” (p.  778). It is relatively easy to
evaluation, there are several different ways by accept that perfectionism can indeed be problem-
which group comparisons can be undertaken that atic, and might even be considered transdiagnos-
could have implications for accurately identifying tic given its strong presence within common
subgroups who may be at risk for perfectionism-­ psychological disorders (Egan, Wade, & Shafran,
related difficulties. We provide an example to 2011), though the evidence supporting the pres-
highlight some of these issues, and some recom- ence of perfectionistic characteristics among
mendations aimed at encouraging more contem- people with a wide range of psychological prob-
230 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

lems has not yet led to perfectionism being for- emerged and has held up over time (e.g., Rice,
mally designated a disorder in itself. Plus, there Gnilka, Davis, & Ashby, 2017) is that this
are different views on what perfectionism is or Discrepancy dimension is a psychometrically
how it should be defined and measured, with strong, core element of problematic perfectionism
some arguing that not all features of perfection- whereas the valence attached to Standards and
ism are maladaptive. perhaps to a lesser extent Order, was generally
Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) but not necessarily positive. The three-factor
developed a model and measure of perfectionism model is operationalized in the Almost Perfect
containing six dimensions: Concern over Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney et al., 2001) and a
Mistakes, a negative interpretation of failure and reduced, two-factor model of Standards and
equating of even trivial mistakes with failure, Discrepancy has more recently been operational-
Personal Standards, setting excessively high ized with the short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS;
performance standards and expectations, Parental Rice, Richardson, & Tueller, 2014).
Expectations, the perception of parental standards Excluding short versions of previously pub-
and evaluation, Parental Criticism, the perception lished scales, we recently counted 19 measures of
of parental criticism, Doubts about Actions, a perfectionism presented in peer-­reviewed jour-
vague sense of doubt or uncertainty about the nals (Rice, Richardson, & Ray, 2016). Given the
quality of one’s performance, and Organization, review thus far, and the proliferation of perfec-
the affinity for order and organization. A second tionism scales, what are researchers in the gifted
popular model and measure of perfectionism was field to make of the various proposed dimensions
developed by Hewitt and Flett (1991) who of perfectionism and accompanying measures?
incorporated cognitive, motivational, and Sondergeld, Schultz, and Glover (2007) raised a
interpersonal aspects of perfectionism. Their seemingly related point after reviewing only
model separates perfectionism into three three perfectionism scales: “perfectionism his-
dimensions. Self-oriented perfectionism refers to torically has been theoretically diffuse, and
strong, self-imposed demands for perfection. remains an empirically and socially derived mov-
Other-oriented perfectionism refers to holding ing target in the literature” (p. 20).
others accountable to excessive standards of Despite its multidimensional nature, and what
behavior. Socially prescribed perfectionism may seem to be a difficult construct to measure
denotes perceived pressure from others to live up or understand, chances are good that results
to their extraordinary expectations and based on any two or more scales from different
unforgiving evaluations. conceptual allegiances can be reduced to two
A third popular model of perfectionism was second-order factors that parsimoniously
advanced by Slaney and colleagues (Slaney, account for interrelations among a variety of
Rice, & Ashby, 2002; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, first-order factors. For example, Frost, Heimberg,
Trippi, & Ashby, 2001). After several qualitative Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) labeled the
and quantitative studies (e.g., Slaney & Ashby, two broad factors “positive achievement striv-
1996; Slaney, Chadha, Mobley, & Kennedy, ings” (subsuming personal standards, organiza-
2000), they settled on three primary perfectionism tion, and self-oriented perfectionism) and
dimensions: Standards, Order, and Discrepancy. “maladaptive evaluation concerns” (subsuming
High performance standards and preferences for concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and
order and organization were similar in some socially prescribed perfectionism). The positive
respects to dimensions identified by Frost and strivings factor was associated with higher levels
Hewitt and Flett, but the discrepancy dimension of positive affect and maladaptive evaluation
was different. Discrepancy was defined as the concerns was correlated with higher levels of
perceived gap between one’s expected level of negative affect and depression, providing sup-
performance and the degree to which that port for a more nuanced view of perfectionism
expectation was being met. What quickly that included both positive and negative charac-
14 Perfectionism 231

teristics (similar findings were reported by outcomes, emerges after controlling for the
Slaney, Ashby, & Trippi, 1995, and Rice, Ashby, respective effects of the other perfectionism
& Slaney, 1998). Frost et  al. (1993) noted that dimension.
the idea of positive and negative dimensions of Less correlated or orthogonal perfectionism
perfectionism was consistent with Hamachek’s factors suggest potentially independent aspects
(1978) earlier descriptive account of normal and of the construct, with strivings not necessarily
neurotic perfectionists. The findings could also implicated in problematic perfectionistic con-
be viewed as consistent with Adler’s (1956) per- cerns, and vice versa. This distinction is probably
spective that striving for perfection can be con- most important for models of perfectionism that
sidered a normal, innate aspect of human emphasize standards or standard-setting as cen-
development. tral to perfectionism (Lo & Abbott, 2013; Stoeber
More contemporary labels for the two domi- & Otto, 2006), but also helps clarify why it is that
nant factors were advanced by Stoeber and Otto many individuals are reluctant to relinquish their
(2006) who described perfectionistic strivings or high standards or expectations (Stoeber &
high personal performance standards and perfec- Hotham, 2013; see also Egan, Dick, & Allen,
tionistic concerns such as worry about making 2012). Echoing Adler, the strivings themselves
mistakes and perceived inadequacy in meeting may not necessarily be problematic. As an exam-
standards. Perfectionistic concerns are regularly ple, although Silverman and Golon (2008) listed
linked to personal and interpersonal problems, perfectionism among the “typical traits of gifted-
such as depression and poor social relationships. ness” (p.  201), they acknowledged that perfec-
Correlates of perfectionistic strivings (e.g., per- tionism is “one of the most frequently
sonal expectations for attaining high performance misunderstood qualities of the gifted” (p.  213).
standards) are at best inconsistently associated They elegantly explained that perfectionistic
with pathological outcomes and often associated strivings could be a risk factor for “paralysis and
with positive outcomes. underachievement” or a source of positive, moti-
Although two factors may succinctly reflect vational energy, “the passion that leads to extraor-
the main dimensions of perfectionism, it should dinary creative achievement—an ecstatic struggle
be noted that measurement selections determine to move beyond the previous limits of one’s capa-
how strongly those two dimensions are correlated. bilities” (pp.  213–214). Borders, Woodley, and
There is, in fact, an extremely wide range of Moore (2014) identified “high expectations of
correlations between the two dimensions, from self and others” under strengths of gifted students
rs  =  0.00–0.70 (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). At the but placed “intolerant, perfectionistic; may
low end of the correlations are nearly orthogonal become depressed” (p.  131) under associated
perfectionistic strivings and concerns subscales behaviors. Borders et  al. added that sensitivity
or factors, such as from the APS-R or SAPS (Rice was both a strength and potential problem for the
et al., 2014; Slaney et al., 2001). The upper-end gifted that could lead taking criticism more per-
of correlations emerge from models and measures sonally than warranted. Thus, key considerations
with more overlap and less distinguishable are whether perfectionistic strivings to achieve
dimensions, such as from the Frost et  al. or high performance standards are reasonable and
Hewitt and Flett MPS. The implication is that, for motivating or unreasonable and debilitating.
some measures, strivings appear strongly linked Allowing for these factors to reside in varying
to concerns, which would reasonably be degrees within individuals has been one reason
interpreted to mean both dimensions likely for the typology or classification approach, or
represent a problematic set of characteristics. As variations from the additive or block entry pre-
Stoeber and Otto (2006) initially demonstrated diction models, such as Gaudreau and
(see Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017, for a recent Thompson’s (2010; Gaudreau, 2017) 2 (high/low
update), a clearer understanding of patterns of standards) × 2 (high/low concerns) model.
association between strivings, concerns, and
232 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Implications Cultural Considerations

There are several examples in the perfectionism There are several additional issues that may have
and gifted literature that support different adjust- a bearing on the assessment and implications of
ment and performance implications for various perfectionism among the gifted. For many North
combinations of strivings and concerns. For American samples, high levels of perfectionistic
example, in a study of gifted 6th–12th graders, strivings plus high levels of perfectionistic
Wang, Fu, and Rice (2012) reported that perfec- concerns is a potentially problematic combination
tionistic strivings were positively associated with likely to limit motivation and performance
academic efficacy, GPA, and life satisfaction, and whereas high strivings combined with low levels
perfectionistic concerns were inversely linked of concerns seem more likely to be an adaptive
with those outcomes. Shaunessy, Suldo, and combination for motivation and performance.
Friedrich (2011) compared general education Whether such combinations produce adaptive
high school students with those in an International and maladaptive outcomes in other regions of the
Baccalaureate (IB) program at the school. For world (e.g., Arana, Rice, & Ashby, 2017; Smith,
both groups, self-critical perfectionism (concerns) Saklofske, Yan, & Sherry, 2016; Wang,
was linked to greater anxiety, lower life satisfac- Permyakova, & Sheveleva, 2016), and even
tion, and lower grade point averages (GPAs). within subgroups in North America, is an
Standards (strivings) was unrelated to anxiety and increasingly popular question to address.
positively associated with life satisfaction and As pointed out generally by Chen (2008) and
GPA. Group comparisons revealed a stronger pos- more specifically by Fong and Yuen (2014) and
itive association between strivings and life satis- Zane and Song (2007), a characteristic such as
faction for the general education students, and a tendency to be self-critical in response to
stronger negative association between concerns perceived performance inadequacies may be
and life satisfaction for the IB students. problematic in one culture but in another may be
Studies of advanced high school students positive or adaptive in that such a tendency aligns
(Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006), gifted ado- with established cultural norms. Zane and Song
lescents (Wang et  al., 2012), and elite athletes (2007, p. 295) explained that, “Research in Japan
(Gucciardi, Mahoney, Jalleh, Donovan, & Parkes, and other East Asian societies indicates that…the
2012; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, basic underlying motivation is to be self-critical
2005) using different perfectionism measures and to make continual efforts to improve oneself
have reported somewhat similar effects regarding and to reduce one’s shortcomings” (see also
achievement goal orientations. Findings indi- Chang & Chang, 2009; Lo, Helwig, Chen,
cated that perfectionistic strivings were positively Ohashi, & Cheng, 2011). Thus, experiencing
associated with mastery approach goal orienta- failures as prompts to increase effort and
tions (need for achievement, strive for compe- persistence (e.g., the “Chinese view of
tence) and performance approach goals perfectionism;” Fong & Yuen, 2014), and
(demonstrate competence relative to others). adopting a self-critical approach regarding
Perfectionistic concerns were positively associ- limitations or mistakes, might be consistent with
ated with both performance approach and avoid- recommendations for positive self-growth within
ance (avoid appearing incompetent) goal a culture (Chang & Chang, 2009; Lo et al., 2011;
orientations. For athletes, Gucciardi et al. (2012) Zane & Song, 2007).
also found mastery avoidance goals were associ- For example, in a study of gifted and non-
ated with perfectionistic concerns whereas gifted Chinese children (Mage = 10), Chan (2010)
Ommundsen et al. (2005) found stronger associa- found that those with high strivings plus concerns
tions between both perfectionism dimensions and (labeled “unhealthy”) were comparable to those
performance orientations (ego goals) than mastery with high strivings plus low concerns (labeled
orientations (task goals). “healthy”) on several dimensions of intelligence
14 Perfectionism 233

(e.g., verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical). required for tests of factor mean differences

Although, the “healthy” group had higher levels between groups.
of intrapersonal intelligence (adaptive coping) As is probably clear from the preceding para-
and interpersonal intelligence (ability to graphs, conceptualization and measurement pose
understand and effectively interact with others), intertwined challenges in the area of perfection-
the “unhealthy” group was higher than ism that would carry over in studies of perfec-
nonperfectionistic children on those dimensions tionism and giftedness. In the following section,
as well. Relatedly, although many studies support we further examine through an applied example
the problematic implication of perfectionistic some specific measurement and related classifi-
concerns, such as between self-criticism and cation issues. As others have recently observed
depression, those associations may be weaker in (e.g., Mammadov, Ward, Cross, & Cross, 2016),
some groups compared with others (Rice, we consider how modern approaches to classifi-
Richardson, & Clark, 2012). In short, there may cation and specifically classifying perfectionists
be different implications for various levels or might hold similar promise in differentiating
combinations of strivings and concerns that gifted and talented individuals for whom, to bor-
might further vary as a function of cultural row from Chang (2003), perfectionism is a virtue
context for those being evaluated. The potential from those who experience perfectionism as a
value of perfectionism and the possibility that vice.
effects of perfectionism could vary by subgroup
seem particularly relevant to highly talented and
gifted individuals. Measurement Invariance

Group comparisons between gifted and nongifted

Psychometric Considerations samples are a persistent area of interest. As
indicated earlier, perfectionism-relevant research
A related issue that should be standard practice questions in this thread could include whether
when evaluating group mean differences or group level or average differences exist in perfectionistic
differences in associations between predictors characteristics between gifted and nongifted
(perfectionistic strivings and concerns) and groups (intercept question), whether levels of
criterion variables (e.g., academic performance, perfectionism change over time, and whether one
depression) is whether scales used to make such group might experience more perfectionism-­
comparisons are measurement invariant between related consequences than the other, such as
the groups. Evaluating psychometric whether the association between perfectionistic
comparability may be an obvious necessity when strivings or concerns and self-esteem is stronger
conducting cross-cultural comparisons (Chen, for the gifted than it is for the nongifted (slope
2008), but less obvious yet still relevant is to question). Another general way of thinking about
conduct such tests when comparing any groups, the slope question is whether gifted status
such as when comparisons are made between moderates the effects of perfectionism on
gifted and nongifted samples. Indeed, without personal, interpersonal, or performance outcomes
such evaluations of measurement invariance, (see Closson & Boutilier, 2017, for a recent
differences or the lack of differences may reflect example). Answering either the intercept or slope
the actual state of affairs or may simply reflect question requires preliminary attention on the
measurement limitations. Measurement psychometric properties of measures used in the
invariance analyses seem infrequently conducted comparisons, and specifically whether non-­
in such studies. Chan (2010) provides an invariance with measures can be ruled-out as a
exception, however that study evaluated metric rival hypothesis for any detected differences. In
invariance (factor loadings) and covariance this section, we summarize key procedures in
structure, but not scalar invariance (intercepts) evaluating measurement invariance and apply
234 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

those procedures to a comparison involving indicators) are not substantially different between
honors and non-honors college students. groups (or across time). More formally, scalar
Several resources provide good introductions invariance evaluates whether the items possess
to measurement invariance (e.g., see Knight & the same point of origin for the different groups
Zerr, 2010, and related papers in a special section (or over time). The statistical test of scalar invari-
of Child Development Perspectives). ance involves a comparison between the metric
Measurement invariance analyses yield rigorous invariance model (constrained loadings but freely
tests of item robustness of measurement scales, estimated intercepts) with the scalar invariance
and can provide added precision when assessing model (constrained loadings and constrained
group differences and longitudinal change. intercepts). If scalar invariance is supported, fac-
Invariance testing ordinarily begins with the tor means between groups (or over time) can be
evaluation of a baseline measurement (factor) reliably tested. Mean differences between factors
model for a scale in which item loadings on one are then likely the result of true factor-level dif-
or more factors loadings and item intercepts are ferences rather than systematic tendencies for
permitted to freely vary between groups (or over one or the other group to endorse item responses
time). As an example, the Short Almost Perfect in a particular direction (Brown, 2015).
Scale (Rice et  al., 2014) contains four items Other forms of measurement invariance are
measuring Standards (strivings) and four items possible to evaluate, but in general, demonstrat-
measuring Discrepancy (perfectionistic ing metric and scalar invariance is deemed suffi-
concerns). The initial starting point in a cient for most applications (Brown, 2015; Little,
measurement invariance analysis would be to test 2013). Of course, measurement models and
a measurement model, ordinarily evaluated with related analyses can be considerably more com-
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), in which the plex. Readers interested in additional forms of
four Standards items are set as indicators of the both measurement and structural invariance (e.g.,
Standards factor, and the other four items are invariance of factor covariances), as well as some
constrained as indicators of the Discrepancy examples of statistical procedures to evaluate
factor. If groups will be compared, this invariance, such as exploratory structural equa-
measurement model is initially tested within each tion modeling, bifactor models, and multilevel
group separately (separate CFAs), and then in a measurement invariance analyses, might refer to
multiple groups CFA, again with item loadings Marsh et al. (2009), Morin, Arens, Tran, and Caci
and intercepts permitted to be freely estimated (2016) and Kim et al. (2016).
between the groups. This multiple groups CFA is
typically referred to as “configural” or pattern
invariance, though technically there is not a Measurement Invariance Example
formal test of invariance at this step.
“Metric” invariance involves a formal invari- We analyzed data from a sample of honors
ance test in which the configural invariance (N = 290) and non-honors (N = 368) students at a
model is tested against a model in which factor major public university (Mage = 20). Both groups
loadings or associations between item indicators participated through a web-based survey.
and their respective latent factor(s) are now Measures included the short version of the APS-R
constrained to be same between groups or over identified by Rice et al. (2014), with four items as
time. If model comparison statistics support indicators of Standards (strivings) and four
metric invariance, then the unit of measurement measuring Discrepancy (perfectionistic
is equal for the groups, allowing for the strengths concerns), and the four-item short version of the
of associations between the factors and criterion Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, &
variables to be compared between the groups. Mermelstein, 1983).
“Scalar” invariance is supported when item The three-factor measurement model
intercepts (or thresholds in the case of categorical (Standards, Discrepancy, and Perceived Stress)
14 Perfectionism 235

fit the data relatively well for both the honors p  =  0.055. There were no differences between
and non-honors students, comparative fit index groups in factors correlations, p  =  0.562.
(CFI)  =  0.945 and 0.982, respectively. Standards and Discrepancy were not significantly
Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.70 to correlated (ϕ  =  −0.08, p  =  0.077), there was a
0.89 for Standards and Discrepancy, and from modest inverse association between Standards
0.54 to 0.75 for Perceived Stress. and Stress (ϕ = −0.16, p = 0.003), and a strong
The formal tests of invariance began with the association between Discrepancy and Stress
freely estimated parameters between the two (ϕ = 0.60, p < 0.001).
groups (configural invariance), which produced
reasonably good fit, CFI = 0.962, RMSEA = 0.057
(0.046, 0.068). Imposing the constraint of factor Slope Question
loading equivalence (metric invariance) did not
substantially worsen fit, difference in scaling-­ The “slope” question is whether strengths of
corrected χ2 (9, N  =  658)  =  6.02, p  =  0.738, association vary by (are moderated by) honors/
ΔCFI  =  0.003. The test of scalar invariance non-honors status. A related extension, based on
produced mixed results, with Δχ2 (9, the 2 × 2 model (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010),
N  =  658)  =  23.92, p  =  0.004, meaning that and one that will subsequently segue us into
imposing intercept equivalence significantly latent profile analysis, is that Standards and
worsened fit, but ΔCFI = 0.960 (metric) − 0.965 Discrepancy might interact to predict Perceived
(scalar) = −0.005, suggesting (a) both CFI values Stress, and that interaction effect might vary as a
were relatively high and there was no substantial function of student status. Such tests are possible
or practical difference after imposing the with latent variables (see Marsh & Hau, 2007;
constraint on intercepts. Because sample size can Marsh, Wen, & Hau, 2004). The
affect chi-square results, such discrepancies in Standards  ×  Discrepancy interaction term was
findings are not unlikely, and our initial created using the quasi-maximum likelihood
inclination is to simply retain the scalar invariance approach (LMS/QML) approach (Klein &
model as acceptable. Nevertheless, it is useful to Moosbrugger, 2000; Klein & Muthén, 2007).
explore item ratings for practically meaningful Model comparisons revealed that the strengths of
differences in intercepts between groups. association between perfectionism (including
Examination of freely estimated intercepts the interaction) and stress were comparable for
revealed one Discrepancy item with a larger non-­honors and honors students, Δχ2 (3,
difference between groups than the other items N = 658) = 3.06, p = 0.383. Across groups, the
(“Doing my best never seems to be enough.”). estimated path from Standards to Stress was sig-
Allowing the intercept for that item to be freely nificant, γ = −0.095 (SE = 0.046), p = 0.039, as
estimated for both groups, while constraining the was the path from Discrepancy to Stress, γ = 0.26
remaining 11 intercepts, provided support for a (SE  =  0.028), p  <  0.001. The
partial scalar invariance model, Δχ2 (8, Standards × Discrepancy interaction was not sig-
N = 658) = 9.39, p = 0.311, ΔCFI = −0.001. nificant, γ = 0.028 (SE = 0.044), p = 0.529.

Structural Invariance Classification Analyses

Factor mean differences between honors and A reasonable extension of the

non-honors for Standards and Discrepancy were Standards  ×  Discrepancy interaction is to ask
not statistically significant, p = 0.381 and 0.614, whether there are natural subgroups of students
respectively. There was a trend effect of honors with various levels of those two central factors.
students with lower levels of Perceived Stress The related question is whether there are adjust-
compared with the non-honors students, ment or performance implications for any identi-
236 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

fied subgroups. Approaches such as cluster functional), “mixed-maladaptive” (unhealthy or

analysis, latent class and latent profile analysis, dysfunctional), and “pervasive.” Their “mixed-­
and factor mixture modeling provide methods for adaptive” cluster (with high strivings and moder-
answering such a question. In this section, we ate concerns) had the highest levels of academic
briefly mention a few of the studies that have competence compared with the other clusters.
used classification analyses with gifted samples Students in clusters with high strivings and high
and provide an example using the sample of hon- concerns were the most depressed, compulsive,
ors and non-honors students. and interpersonally sensitive compared to other
Parker (1997) used cluster analysis of Frost students.
et  al. (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Some level of inconsistency in cluster analytic
Scale data based on a large sample of over 800 studies is not unique (e.g., Boone, Claes, &
academically talented sixth graders. Results Luyten, 2014; Rice, Ashby, & Gilman, 2011;
revealed three clusters that Parker labeled as Sironic & Reeve, 2012; Wang, 2012), or even
“healthy,” “dysfunctional,” and “nonperfection- unexpected. Ruscio, Haslam, and Ruscio (2006)
istic” students. The healthy perfectionists had a pointed to limitations in stopping rules for identi-
“moderately high level of personal standards, fying clusters as “highly fallible, and cluster
which is probably indicative of focused and real- analyses often over-identify clusters” (p.  48).
istic standards…whose perfectionistic strivings Mammadov et al. (2016) indicated that the “big-
motivate them to successfully achieve” (p. 555). gest flaw of cluster analysis is its inherently
The group of healthy perfectionists, compared unfalsifiable and atheoretical feature” (p.  178).
with the other clusters, had the lowest levels of They advocated the use of latent profile analysis
scores on indicators of neuroticism and had the (LPA) as a more methodologically sound proce-
highest levels of extraversion and conscientious- dure for identifying latent classes. As Mammadov
ness. Parker’s “dysfunctional” perfectionists et  al. point out, classification based on LPA
scored the highest on all perfectionism indica- directly invokes the probabilistic nature of class
tors with the exception of preferences for organi- membership (through posterior probabilities) and
zation. That group had the highest level of involves clearer, model-based tests to inform
neuroticism compared with the other clusters, decisions regarding the number of groups (latent
and the second highest level conscientiousness classes) that can be reliably identified. Berlin,
after the healthy perfectionists. Similar out- Williams, and Parra (2014) provide a good, gen-
comes in terms of three clusters, but with some- eral introduction to latent class procedures. More
what different labels for the clusters, have been thorough treatment is provided by Masyn (2013)
reported in a series of studies by Chan (2009, who provided an exhaustive methodological
2010, 2012) using the Frost et al. MPS and the overview of latent class and latent profile analy-
Slaney et al. APS-R. ses, including detailed recommendations regard-
Revealing some limitations with cluster anal- ing model estimation and fit, decision-making in
ysis, the most classification errors in Parker’s the case of multiple competing and plausible
(1997) study occurred with the dysfunctional models (likely a common occurrence), and inter-
perfectionists; such errors can suggest a less pretation. Hallquist and Wright (2014) provide
clear separation of the cluster or greater within- an introduction to factor mixture modeling
cluster variation, and those issues might have (FMM), a combination of confirmatory factor
played a role in variations in cluster analytic analysis to establish latent variables that are then
findings involving giftedness and perfectionism examined for different latent class structures
(e.g., Portešová & Urbánek, 2013). Dixon, Lubke and Muthén (2005) provide a thorough
Lapsley, and Hanchon (2004) identified four coverage of additional model tests with FMM.
clusters among students attending an academy Mammadov et  al. identified three latent pro-
for science, mathematics, and humanities: “non-­ files on the basis of personality scores in a sample
perfectionists,” “mixed-adaptive” (healthy or of honors students: two with moderate levels of
14 Perfectionism 237

most personality scores but with marked differ- and Perceived Stress). We began with a single-­
ences on openness, and another with relatively class baseline model (consistent with a three-­factor
higher elevations on most personality scores but CFA). We anticipated fitting up to a five-class
the lowest level on neuroticism compared to the model to accommodate up to four potential perfec-
other profiles. Castejón, Gilar, Miñano, and tionism classes found in prior cluster analytic and
González (2016) provided another example of latent profile studies of perfectionism (e.g., Boone,
latent class cluster analysis (a variant of LPA) Soenens, Braet, & Goossens, 2010; Rice et  al.,
with a sample of gifted students 2011). We also incorporated the known class vari-
(Mage = 12.5 years). They identified four profiles able of honors student status in the model testing.
based on measures of general and differential Fit was evaluated with the Bayesian Information
abilities, creativity, and academic achievement. Criterion (BIC), with the expectation that better-­
They labeled the classes, “high achiever and fitting models would produce lower BIC values.
cognitive gifted,” “creative gifted,” “gifted Relative entropy was used to gauge classification
achievers,” and “cognitive gifted.” accuracy. Convergence problems and practical
considerations such as class proportions should
also be considered in evaluating and interpreting
Factor Mixture Modeling Example models.
The loglikelihood values for the 4- and 5-class
To our knowledge, model-based approaches such model failed to replicate and other estimation
as LPA and FMM have not been used in studies problems raised practical concerns about the
combining attention on perfectionism and gifted/ viability of those models. The BIC values for the
talented individuals. Similar to Mammadov et al., one-class through three-class models were
our example uses data from honors students but 21,778.66, 21,682.84, and 21,621.77,
we extend their work by examining specific respectively. Entropy values for the two-class and
perfectionism dimensions and latent classes three-class models were 0.93 and 0.89, indicating
using FMM and a comparison sample of non-­ good separation of classes for each solution. With
honors students. the lowest BIC, the three-class model was
We conducted factor mixture models based on deemed most tenable. The proportions of students
three factors previously analyzed in the preceding represented in the 1- through 3-class models are
section of the chapter (Standards, Discrepancy, displayed in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1  Distribution of honors and non-honors students across factor mixture models
Known Latent Overall Known class
k-class model class class Counta proportion proportion
1 Non-honors 1 368 0.56 0.56
Honors 1 290 0.44 0.44
2 Non-honors 1 306 0.46 0.83
Non-honors 2 62 0.09 0.17
Honors 1 237 0.36 0.82
Honors 2 53 0.08 0.18
3 Non-honors 1 49 0.07 0.13
Non-honors 2 262 0.40 0.71
Non-honors 3 56 0.09 0.15
Honors 1 35 0.05 0.12
Honors 2 207 0.31 0.71
Honors 3 48 0.07 0.17
a
Rounded estimates for counts and proportions are based on posterior probabilities
238 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Accounting for 71% of both student groups, n­on-honors group, with class 3 (presumed
class 2 was proportionally and substantially Maladaptive) having substantially higher
larger than the other classes. For interpretation, Discrepancy and class 2 having lower Discrepancy
factor means for Standards, Discrepancy, and (presumed Adaptive). Class 3 in the non-honors
Perceived Stress in each class can be compared group also had higher Stress than class 2 (again
against a reference class. Table 14.2 presents the consistent with the Maladaptive label). The only
tests of those means. We also reevaluated means deviation was that no difference in Stress emerged
by against different reference classes (e.g., non-­ between class 1 and 2 for the non-honors stu-
honors students in class 1, honors students in dents, though both groups were significantly
class 2). Based on comparisons with the reference lower than class 1 (Maladaptive) on Stress. In
groups, we developed tentative labels for the sum, in each student group, relative to other
classes and those also appear in Table 14.2. classes, there was one group with high Standards,
Class 2 and 3 in both student groups had com- low Discrepancy, and low Stress (presumed
parable and higher factor mean levels of Standards Adaptive), another with high Standards,
(consistent with perfectionists) than class 1 Discrepancy, and Stress (presumed Maladaptive),
(likely Non-Perfectionists). For the honors group, and a third class with low Standards and
Discrepancy and Stress were also significantly mid-range Discrepancy (presumed Non-
­
higher in class 3 than in class 2. These patterns Perfectionists). Interestingly, the results also
would be consistent with class 3 representing suggest that stress may be more of a concern for
Maladaptive Perfectionists and class 2 denoting low strivings honors students who are Non-
Adaptive Perfectionists. For the most part, the Perfectionists compared to their non-­ honors
same general pattern was evident within the counterparts.

2.5
Depression
Academic
Social-Con
2

1.5

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2
Non-Perfectionists Adaptive Maladaptive Non-Perfectionists Adaptive Maladaptive
Non-Honors Honors

Class Differences in Depression, Academic Integration, and Social Connectedness

14 Perfectionism 239

Table 14.2  Tests of factor means for standards, discrepancy, and perceived stress for the 3-class model
Knownclass Class Factor M SE z p Tentative label
Non-Honors 1 Standards −1.57 0.18 −8.75 0 Non-perfectionists
Discrepancy −1.96 0.26 −7.48 0
Perceived stress −0.27 0.18 −1.49 0.135
Non-Honors 2 Standards −0.12 0.08 −1.41 0.159 Adaptive
Discrepancy −2.71 0.20 −13.28 0
Perceived stress −0.47 0.12 −3.96 0
Non-Honors 3 Standards −0.09 0.11 −0.80 0.423 Maladaptive
Discrepancy 0.09 0.25 0.34 0.732
Perceived stress 0.08 0.14 0.58 0.561
Honors 1 Standards −1.58 0.21 −7.40 0 Non-perfectionists
Discrepancy −1.98 0.34 −5.84 0
Perceived stress −0.32 0.15 −2.15 0.032
Honors 2 Standards −0.10 0.09 −1.07 0.285 Adaptive
Discrepancy −2.88 0.21 −13.78 0
Perceived stress −0.58 0.12 −5.04 0
Honors 3 Standards 0 0 N/A N/A Maladaptive
Discrepancy 0 0 N/A N/A
Perceived stress 0 0 N/A N/A

Implications of Latent Profiles the “typical” profile did not have elevations on a
potential facet of neuroticism (self-critical per-
To further examine differences between the fectionism). Our results provided strong support
classes, we compared profiles on other measures for a number of similarities between honor and
in the dataset for depression, college adjustment, non-honors students, and unlike Chan’s (2010)
and social connectedness (see Figure). Consistent findings, neither student group appeared to be
with the class labels based on the perfectionism disproportionately represented by perfectionism,
and stress, these results show a clear pattern of nor seemingly affected by perfectionism in dif-
elevated difficulties for maladaptive perfection- ferent ways. Although most students were func-
ists, better adjustment for adaptive perfectionists, tioning quite well in terms of personal, academic,
and moderate levels between adaptive and mal- and interpersonal indicators, approximately
adaptive perfectionists on those outcomes for the 7–9% of the students appeared to be at risk for
non-perfectionists. difficulties that might have something to do with
problematic combinations of perfectionistic
strivings and concerns.
Summary of Measurement
and Classification Approaches
Development of Perfectionism
Scales performed well in terms of measurement
invariance analyses, which allowed for scrutiny Until this point, we have presented perfectionism
of group differences in levels and implications of in a way that might be accessible to most readers
perfectionism. Similar to Mammadov et  al.’s interested in individual differences or personality
(2016) demonstration with higher-order person- more specifically. That is, we have attempted to
ality factors from the five factor model, we found present various conceptualizations of the con-
support for a three-class model for our sample of struct, address some thorny issues regarding mea-
honors and non-honors students. Different from surement, classification, and comparisons
Mammodov et al., however, was our finding that between the gifted and nongifted, and link much
240 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

of the work in the study of perfectionism to the perfectionism develops in varied environmental
unsurprising conclusion that some forms of per- contexts and, perhaps especially earlier in middle
fectionism may be better or worse than others. childhood, should not necessarily be considered
Not directly addressed but lurking in the literature inherently stable.
reviewed and possibly in the minds of readers As Speirs Neumeister (2018) observed in her
more familiar with giftedness and children, is that recent summary, much of the thinking and
research in this area has been based on samples research on the development of perfectionism in
representing very different age groups. Parker’s the gifted can be organized according to (a) fam-
(1997) now classic study in this area was based on ily factors, such as influences of parenting styles,
sixth graders. Wang et al. (2012) used a sample of parental expectations, social learning, and other
6th–12th graders ranging in age from 10 to family dynamics; (b) child factors, such as tem-
18  years. Dixon et  al.’s (2004) cluster analytic perament, attachment style, and need for
study was based on high school juniors (average approval; and (c) environmental factors, such as
age of 16 years). The example used earlier in the schools and social/community expectations.
demonstration of measurement invariance and Morris and Lomax (2014) reviewed childhood
factor mixture modeling was based on college perfectionism and concluded that there was
students in honors programs (20  years old, on strong evidence linking “pushy” parenting (e.g.,
average; see also Miller, Lambert, & Speirs overprotection from mistakes, intrusive parenting
Neumeister, 2012). Similar to the points made to push children to achieve at certain levels) and
earlier in this chapter regarding cultural consider- perfectionistic concerns in children (e.g.,
ations and adaptability of perfectionism, one can Kenney-Benson & Pomerantz, 2005; Mitchell,
reasonably ask what is known about the develop- Newall, Broeren, & Hudson, 2013). For example,
ment of, or change in, perfectionism over time. several studies by Soenens and colleagues
One reason for a developmental lens, as (Soenens, Elliot, et al., 2005; Soenens, Luyckx,
Pfeiffer (2015) points out, is that “students should Vansteenkiste, Duriez, & Goossens, 2008;
not necessarily be awarded the privilege of the Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez, &
gifted label for their entire schooling” (p. 39), in Goossens, 2005) have found that parents with
part because some students may not benefit from high levels of perfectionistic concerns were likely
gifted programming or interventions, or may not to be psychologically controlling, which in turn
demonstrate extraordinary performance relative predicted concurrent and prospective perfection-
to their peers at a later time. That is, there may be istic concerns with their adolescent children.
some shifts over time, some entries into and exits Rice, Suh, and Davis (2017) recently focused
out of gifted programs, and essentially some on attachment theory, person-centered theory,
instability in the construct or its consequences. and self psychology to describe how perfection-
Perfectionism might be considered similarly in ism may develop as part of a process of regulat-
light of other research that reveals some instabil- ing self-esteem and important tensions in key
ity over time. In an impressive longitudinal study, relationships during childhood. They argued that
Hong et al. (2016) found rather modest test–retest insecure bonds in parent–child relationships and
correlations in the 0.40 range for perfectionistic parental behaviors that contributed to that insecu-
concerns when subjects were 8, 9, and then rity probably leave children with an impaired
11  years of age. Other longitudinal research on value system that emphasizes performance over
6th–12th graders (Damian, Stoeber, Negru-­ person, with neither ever being perceived as ade-
Subtirica, & Băban, 2017) and young adults quate, and likely sets an unfortunate foundation
(Rice & Dellwo, 2002; Rice, Leever, Christopher, for self-critical perfectionism. Studies linking
& Porter, 2006) revealed stronger, though far perfectionism with authoritarian parenting (e.g.,
from perfect, test–retest correlations in the 0.60– Gong, Fletcher, & Bolin, 2015; Speirs Neumeister
0.80 range for perfectionistic strivings and con- & Finch, 2006; c.f. Hibbard & Walton, 2014)
cerns, though time spans only covered several and lack of parental responsiveness (i.e., lack of
months. Thus, like other individual differences, positivity and perceived warmth; Soenens,
14 Perfectionism 241

Vansteenkiste, et al., 2005) would be consistent challenge or lack thereof early in gifted students’
with those speculations. academic experiences. In a qualitative study,
In contrast, Rice, Suh, and Davis (2017) Speirs Neumeister, Williams, and Cross (2009)
reviewed other work indicating that dependable found that, for academically gifted high school
parents who provide their children with clear and students, early ability to achieve academically
reasonable performance expectations but do not with little or no effort (lack of challenging
make their emotional support and positive curriculum) contributed to their expectations of
attention contingent on performance, probably perfection as the norm. A sample of gifted
inspire children to pursue high but realistic perfectionist college students interviewed by
standards, cope with challenges from a foundation Neumeister (2004) similarly attributed their
of security and confidence, and develop healthy development of perfectionism to lack of early
relationships with others. For example, academic challenge, though self-oriented
perfectionists with high strivings and low perfectionists indicated early academic successes
concerns have reported relatively moderate contributed to their own expectations of
parental expectations but low parental criticism perfection, whereas for socially prescribed
compared to perfectionists with high strivings perfectionists, early achievement led to others’
and high concerns (e.g., Parker, 1997; Rice & expectations of their continued perfection in
Mirzadeh, 2000). Enns, Cox, and Clara (2002) school.
found that parental personal standards predicted These findings are consistent with Dweck’s
perfectionistic strivings but harsh parenting (the (2012) work on child and adolescent students’
combination of harsh parenting and parental self-theories of intelligence or mindsets. Dweck
standards predicted perfectionistic concerns) did distinguishes between fixed mindsets, beliefs that
not predict strivings. intelligence is an immutable trait, and growth
Hong et al. (2016) studied children beginning mindsets, the belief that intelligence can be
at age 7 with the measurement of multiple predic- incrementally improved through continued effort
tors (e.g., child temperament, parenting behavior over time. Dweck points out that the experience
during a problem-solving task, cognitive abili- of many gifted students, who early in their stud-
ties) and conducted follow-up assessments ies receive frequent praise for high achievement
including measures of perfectionistic concerns at with little effort, is fertile ground for the develop-
ages 8, 9, and 11. They identified three groups of ment of a fixed mindset. Students with a fixed
children with different perfectionism trajectories: mindset often equate their self-worth with their
(a) high self-criticism that increased over time, grades, which can cause them to interpret the
(b) high self-criticism that decreased over time, intellectual challenges gifted students face later
and (c) low self-criticism that increased over in their development as threats to their self-con-
time. Membership in the first two high self-­ cept that are better avoided.
criticism groups was predicted by earlier parental Supporting these propositions, Damian et  al.
intrusiveness, but not by child temperament. (2017) found that in a longitudinal study of
Membership in the low but increasing self-­ Romanian adolescent students, high academic
criticism group was predicted by parents likely to achievement influenced the development of both
use negative control behaviors such as harsh pun- perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic
ishment or ignoring. concerns. Damian and colleagues studied
adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 19, which
they point to as crucial in the inculcation of
Challenge and Mindsets perfectionism due to the increasing emphasis on
evaluation, competition, and comparison in the
Also addressed by Speirs Neumeister (2018) and school and social environment. Nevertheless,
emphasized here is another potentially intriguing their study likely only captured developmental
area of research on the development of changes in perfectionism occurring well after the
perfectionism that involves the influence of influential early academic successes observed in
242 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

previous qualitative studies. Recall as well the characteristics provide substantial incremental
findings suggesting greater fluctuation or validity in the prediction of a variety of behaviors,
instability in perfectionistic characteristics for including academic performance, compared with
children in the 8–11 age range (Hong et al., 2016) broader personality dimensions (Noftle &
compared with middle and late adolescents (e.g., Robins, 2007; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001).
Damian et  al., 2017). Further longitudinal Similarly, the effects of perfectionism on
research could be conducted with younger academic and other outcomes also have been
children to determine whether academic relatively independent of the contributions of
achievement and lack of challenge at earlier ages more global personality characteristics, such as
does in fact predict the development of certain neuroticism and conscientiousness (Dunkley,
forms of perfectionism. Additionally, longitudinal Sanislow, Grilo, & McGlashan, 2006; Rice,
research on early interventions such as pull-out Ashby, & Slaney, 2007). Thus, there is good
programming, acceleration, and ability grouping precedent and a strong rationale for examining
will provide a more definitive view of the within-factor facets or sub-factors that might
interaction between achievement, challenge, and reveal important individual variations.
perfectionism. An interesting extension of this theme in mov-
ing from the general to the specific has reemerged
in recent years in studies of perfectionism. The
Generality or Domain Specificity question is whether expressions of perfectionistic
of Perfectionism strivings and concerns should themselves be con-
sidered generally broad personality characteris-
The preceding attention on the development of tics that have implications for multiple areas in
perfectionism and some implications with one’s life or aspects of personality that are more
giftedness, along with Pfeiffer’s (2015) points limited in reach to only specific areas of impor-
that students (a) may need to be periodically tance to an individual. As noted earlier, Shafran’s
reassessed and could cycle in and out of gifted definition of perfectionism, for example, makes it
programming, and (b) may not necessarily be clear that perfectionism need only be problematic
detected as gifted despite their potential for “in at least one highly salient domain, despite
giftedness, remind us that individual differences adverse consequences” in order to be of clinical
in intellectual and personality factors can reflect significance (Shafran et al., 2002, p. 778).
considerable within-person variation as well as Earlier work in this area came from Rhéaume,
temporal instability. Another aspect of such Freeston, and Ladouceur’s (1994) scale
diversity is an appreciation that “one size does development research in which they identified 22
not fit all” in the area of giftedness. For example, life domains that might be affected by
as noted earlier, gifted children might be perfectionism. Based on a qualitative, interview
identified based on a very high level of general study of identified perfectionists, Slaney and
intelligence (g) or based on very high levels of Ashby (1996) derived a nearly universal domain
abilities in specific domains (e.g., quantitative mentioned by 36 of the 37 their subjects, termed
reasoning). A child might be gifted in the area of “professional or academic work,” followed by
music but not in the area of literature. As with several other domains such as relationships,
other constructs such as perfectionism, there may housework/cleaning, parenting, and hobbies.
be a higher-order designation comprised of Both of these earlier studies also revealed some
multiple facets representing diverse within-­ challenges in conducting this kind research. For
construct variation. Accounting that diversity example, in the list provided by Rhéaume et al.
may strengthen predictive models involving the were domains such as “presentation of
construct. documents,” “health,” and “children’s education”
For example, there is good evidence that that might be open to various interpretations.
lower-level or more specific personality Others such as “bodily hygiene,” “physical
14 Perfectionism 243

appearance,” and “dress” may not be obviously simply feel negatively when striving for perfec-
distinct for some respondents. Both sets of tion. Using items from a general measure of posi-
researchers also included some version of tive and negative perfectionism (Terry-Short,
housework or domestic chores that might suggest Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) tailored to be
gender or socioeconomic covariates requiring domain-specific, Haase et al. not only found sup-
additional consideration. port for the domain-specific approach, but also
Stoeber and Stoeber (2009) examined the reported differences in the valence of perfection-
“domain” question across 22 different life ism for the domains, and that some domains were
domains, such as work, studies, and physical more likely to be rated higher or lower as a func-
appearance. More recently, Haase, Prapavessis, tion of gender. For example, higher levels of pos-
and Glynn Owens (2013) evaluated perfection- itive perfectionism were reported by women for
ism in five broad but typical life domains: univer- the university/work domain and by men for the
sity/work, relationships, physical activity, physical activity domain.
domestic environment, and appearance. Both sets Perhaps a clear implication of these findings is
of researchers found more support for the that perfectionism may only be adaptive or
domain-­specificity of perfectionism than they did maladaptive for the gifted if the focus of the
for perfectionism as a global construct. They also perfectionism is on a particular area of a person’s
converged on finding, similar to Slaney and giftedness or talent, but has no other effects on a
Ashby (1996), that the work or academic/univer- person’s life. Alternatively, what may be adaptive
sity was most commonly affected by perfection- is to focus the strivings on one particular area
ism. Additional evidence for the domain whereas what might be maladaptive is to have
specificity of perfectionism that was more rele- high performance expectations in multiple areas
vant to a focus on giftedness was provided by of one’s life. Thus, accounting for domain-­
McArdle (2010). His sample of academically tal- specificity in perfectionism may account for
ented youth had significantly higher levels of per- inconsistencies in past studies of the implications
fectionism in the school domain than the sport of perfectionism for the gifted. Moreover, a
domain, which was related to their perceived related complexity in this area of research for
value of and contingent self-­worth in the respec- future work to address is likely to involve stronger
tive domains. This finding was further supported methodologies to parse important within-subject
by Dunn, Dunn, and McDonald (2012), who variation (e.g., some domains are likely to be
reported that domain-specific perfectionism in an more important to others at the individual level)
intercollegiate, student-­ athlete sample was and between-subject variation (e.g., gender, race/
greater in sport than in academics, and was posi- ethnicity, socioeconomic, and other factors) that
tively related to how competent the athletes may also affect domain-specific perfectionism
thought themselves in the domain and how and its implications.
important the domain was to them.
An important additional aspect of the Haase
et  al. (2013) study is worth considering with Interventions
respect to the relative advantages and
disadvantages of strivings and perfectionistic Whether considered a latent class or a dimen-
concerns. Haase et al. measured domain-specific sional construct, considerable research has sup-
“positive” and “negative” perfectionism. Positive ported detrimental outcomes for perfectionistic
perfectionism reflects strivings with motivations concerns (maladaptive perfectionists) for a vari-
associated with perfectionism such as taking ety of samples. As multiple summaries recently
pride in being meticulous or enjoying one’s attest, maladaptive perfectionism has consis-
outstanding performance. Negative perfectionism tently been associated with higher psychological
reflects perfectionistic concerns with motivations distress and social-relational difficulties (Sirois
to avoid negative consequences, or to more & Molnar, 2016; Stoeber, 2017). One explana-
244 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

tion for the distress is that maladaptive perfec- Despite the difficulties in treating perfection-
tionists likely engage in poor stress management ists, some limited but promising effects were
and coping. In a sample of gifted middle school- reported in a meta-analysis conducted by Lloyd,
ers, Mofield and Peters (2015) found that Schmidt, Khondoker, and Tchanturia (2015), and
unhealthy perfectionists displayed higher levels a recent volume has compiled an impressive set
of internalizing avoidant coping than “func- of strategies that could be used in cognitive-
tional” perfectionists (those with high personal behavioral therapy (CBT) targeting perfection-
standards comparable to unhealthy perfection- ism (Egan et al., 2014; see also Egan & Shafran,
ists, but with lower perfectionistic concerns). 2017). There are also mindfulness, self-­help, and
Functional perfectionism was not differentiated online interventions that have shown promise
by approach-­ oriented coping. Dunkley (2017) (Pleva & Wade, 2007; Radhu, Daskalakis, Arpin-
provides a thorough summary of research sup- Cribbie, Irvine, & Ritvo, 2012; Wimberley,
porting the relation between perfectionism, daily Mintz, & Suh, 2015). The intervention literature
stress, and coping. Other work points to ineffec- on child and adolescent perfectionists is sparse.
tive emotion regulation strategies for maladaptive In their review of the five intervention studies
perfectionists (Rice, Gnilka, et  al., 2017; they found in the area, all preventative interven-
Richardson, Rice, & Devine, 2014). With a prob- tions conducted with nonclinical populations,
lematic combination of poor coping and psycho- Morris and Lomax (2014) found that on average,
logical difficulties, such perfectionists seem like group-based programs designed to reduce anxi-
a reasonable target for intervention. ety or perfectionism were successful in produc-
Unfortunately, some past research indicated ing significantly lower perfectionism scores.
that the most self-critical maladaptive perfec- The preventative or additive developmental
tionists have also been identified as a particu- approach to intervention tested in the above
larly challenging group to treat (Blatt, Quinlan, studies is consistent with those used in domains
Piklonis, & Shea, 1995). In clinical populations, where much of gifted talent development occurs
maladaptive forms of perfectionism are associ- outside of the school setting, such as in sports and
ated with poorer outcomes in the treatment of the performing arts. In her call for the integration
several mental health problems (Egan, Wade, of psychosocial strength training into all domains
Shafran, & Antony, 2014). Maladaptive perfec- of gifted talent development, Subotnik (2015)
tionism may interfere with a client’s ability to points out that in the training of adolescent elite
engage effectively in the working alliance athletes and in Juilliard’s precollege program for
between therapist and client that is crucial to young performing artists, psychosocial skills
efficacious treatment outcomes (Zuroff et  al., such as focus, emotional regulation, goal setting,
2000). Maladaptive perfectionistic clients may and productive coping are taught and practiced
adopt unrealistic expectations for their treat- explicitly, often with individualized feedback.
ment, strive to be the perfect client, and experi- This is in contrast to academically gifted students,
ence distress or disengagement when they who are left to learn these skills on their own, or
perceive themselves falling short of expecta- through experiences outside of school (Subotnik,
tions (Sorotzkin, 1998). These and other impor- Olsewski-Kublilius, & Worrell, 2011).
tant dynamics in treating perfectionists have As gifted children follow the developmental
recently been addressed by Hewitt, Flett, Mikail, trajectory of their domain, psychosocial skills
Kealy, and Zhang (2017). Also, and perhaps help them maintain motivation, learn from
especially relevant for giftedness, perfectionists challenges and failure, seek and utilize oppor-
are often reluctant to relinquish the high stan- tunities, and successfully negotiate the impor-
dards they see as central to their ability to tant transitions as they develop raw ability from
achieve, which might manifest in defensiveness potential to competency to achievement and
or resistance. finally to eminence in their domain. These psy-
chosocial skills become increasingly important
14 Perfectionism 245

in later stages as the determinant of achieve- Values Affirmations

ment shifts from ability to motivation and task
commitment. Pfeiffer similarly endorses the Self or values affirmations interventions involve
instruction of gifted students in what he calls subtle techniques designed to circumvent
heart strengths, “character strengths, virtues, defensiveness and activate internal and
and intra- and inter-personal competencies” intrinsically valued resources that can be used in
such as humility, persistence, kindness, grati- challenging, stressful situations (Sherman, 2013).
tude, enthusiasm, and playfulness, that allow A key element in self-affirmation theory is that
students to navigate and cope with the behav- people are motivated to maintain self-integrity,
ioral, social, and emotional demands of perfor- and effectively control and cope with various
mance-oriented environments (Pfeiffer, 2012, challenges in life. The manipulation is designed
2016, p. 4). Subotnik and Pfeiffer’s recommen- to activate these motivations. In a typical
dations are congruous with research suggesting manipulation, treatment group participants select
coping strategies are promising targets of inter- their top personal values from a provided list,
vention to protect gifted students from the neg- write about why those values are important to
ative aspects of perfectionism (Dunkley, 2017; them, and rate their importance whereas control
Gnilka, Ashby, Noble, 2012; Luo, Wang, participants select and write about values that
Zhang, Chen, Quan, 2016; Park, Heppner, & important to others. See Cohen and Sherman
Lee, 2010). (2014) and Sherman (2013) for more details.
With their tendency toward dysfunctional As a relevant performance-related example of
coping, elevated stress levels, high cognitive values affirmations, Sherman et al. (2009) found
abilities, and reluctance to change, gifted mal- that affirmation buffered the stress-inducing
adaptively perfectionistic students also may be effects of a midterm exam for college students.
good candidates for the so-called “wise” inter- On the morning of the exam, students in the
ventions: theory-derived, brief interventions nonaffirmed (control) condition had an increase
that target specific psychological processes in in epinephrine (a catecholamine indicated in
subtle ways to produce change (Walton, 2014). stress reactivity) but students who had engaged in
Examples include values or self-affirmation to the affirmation (treatment) intervention did not
reduce stress (Sherman, 2013; Taylor & show that increase. The affirmed group also
Walton, 2011), altering implicit personal theo- outperformed the control group on the exam. The
ries of personality (Yeager et  al., 2014), and positive effects of affirmation in that study, as
enhancing social belonging through “saying- seen in others, were most conspicuous among
is-believing” (Walton & Cohen, 2011). Self- students with the greatest concerns about
affirmation runs counter to what highly consequences of performing poorly on the exam.
self-critical, maladaptive perfectionists are Creswell et  al. (2005) found similar effects on
likely to experience, but may benefit from. salivary cortisol in a threat manipulation as a
Likewise, interventions aimed at facilitating or function of self-affirmation. Tang and Schmeichel
enhancing social connections with others are (2015) reported effects of a self-affirmation
likely to shore up important coping resources intervention on cardiovascular indicators when
that can be tapped to help reduce adverse subjects received interpersonal insults as
effects of current and later stress. Finally, feedback.
interventions aimed at subtle adjustments to Somewhat counterintuitively, the effective-
the fixed or flexible ways in which people tend ness of self-affirmation erodes when subjects
to think about personality also hold promise perceive the intervention as a “means to an end,”
for interventions aimed at perfectionism, espe- as some kind of extrinsic technique bestowed by
cially given the cognitive rigidity associated others to be applied by “targeted” (inadequate)
with higher levels of perfectionistic concerns individuals when they encounter a stressful situa-
(Rice, Vergara, & Aldea, 2006). tion; in those situations, subjects are more likely
246 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

to experience the intervention as a threatening act struggles being typical or normal difficulties
of control or stigmatization, and understandably experienced by others in that situation. That is,
will be more defensive in reaction to the such interventions create an “alternative narra-
intervention. Indeed, several studies (e.g., tive” that normalizes difficulties and thereby
Sherman et  al., 2009; Silverman, Logel, & enhances social connection. Especially for at-
Cohen, 2013) have shown that, “when participants risk groups, social belonging interventions have
are told that the affirmation is expected to benefit been credited with positive health and perfor-
them, or simply led to see a connection between mance outcomes (see Walton, 2014, for a com-
it and the outcome measure, its impact decreases” prehensive summary). As one example, Walton
(Cohen & Sherman, 2014, pp.  359–360). and Cohen (2011) used a “saying-is-believing”
Sherman et al. (2009, p. 761) concluded with “a manipulation to instill a sense of belonging.
perhaps counterintuitive suggestion for those Participation in their study was presented as an
interested in applying self-affirmations in field opportunity for participating students to help
settings. The key to an effective affirmation future classmates adjust to campus and college
intervention may lie in the subtlety of its delivery environment. Participants read a prompt summa-
and the minimalism of its administration. More rizing a “study” in which researchers had found
transparent affirmations, those that are explicitly that feelings of social isolation are common
broadcast as “academic interventions” or “stress-­ across all groups of people and those feelings of
reducers” by contrast, may raise awareness and isolation are short-­lived. Walton and Cohen then
reduce effectiveness. helped participants internalize that basic mes-
sage by prompting them to write about how their
own experiences were similar to those conveyed
Social Belonging in the “study” they just read. The participant cre-
ated a speech from the essay that was then
As indicated earlier, there is not necessarily a rea- recorded. The participants had been informed
son to suspect that the gifted are any more or less that the materials they produced would be used
problematically perfectionistic than nongifted with future students to help with their adjust-
students. However, there is strong evidence to ment to the new university. Although the sub-
indicate that, the most maladaptively self-critical jects had the impression they would be aiding
perfectionists are likely to feel disconnected from other future students, the subjects themselves
others. The Social Disconnection Model charts were the focus of the study.
the various ways in which perfectionistic striv- Walton and Cohen (2011) reported impressive
ings and concerns can lead to psychological long-term outcomes from the study, particularly
problems through links with relationship and for the African American students who were a
social difficulties (Sherry, MacKinnon, & main focus of their study. Those who received the
Gautreau, 2015). Thus, the common social dis- social belongingness intervention, compared
connection difficulties of self-­critical perfection- with African American students in the control
ists might be improved through interventions group, had substantial increases in GPA over the
directly but subtly targeting social belonging. three subsequent years students were tracked.
Participants in social belonging interventions They also had higher levels of health (both in
come to interpret their stressful experiences as terms of perceived health and in doctor visits),
common (shared connection with others) and and higher levels of happiness. Health and
temporary rather than pessimistically chronic. happiness are two positive outcomes in short
As pointed out by Walton (2014, p.  76), a key supply among maladaptively self-critical
mechanism in such interventions is that partici- perfectionists (Sirois & Molnar, 2016; Stoeber,
pants shift their understanding of struggles from 2017), again pointing to the relevance of such
evidence that they do not belong in a particular interventions for that particular at-risk group.
context or situation to an appreciation of such
14 Perfectionism 247

 hanging Beliefs About Personality

C need to know in order to use the growth mind-
Other interventions relevant to perfectionism set. Finally, students were prompted to write
studies might implement procedures for chang- their own version of a narrative description of
ing beliefs about personality. Such an interven- the growth mindset similar to anecdotes that
tion might help self-critical perfectionists shift were part of the magazine article. Their narra-
their understanding of personality and adopt a tive was supposed to draw on their own school
more flexible and ultimately more adaptive view experiences that would then be shared with
of self and others. Based on ideas drawn from future ninth graders (recall the “saying-is-
entity and incremental theories of intelligence, believing” social belonging intervention
the central concept in implicit theories of person- described earlier). Compared with the control
ality is whether personality is viewed as fixed or group, this single time intervention was associ-
malleable (Yeager et  al., 2014). Shifting to a ated with higher subsequent grades or, more
more flexible understanding of personality osten- accurately less of a decline in grades that was
sibly seems similar to other interventions in this experienced by students over the course of the
set that presumably are effective because they ninth grade year. Intervention subjects also
create an alternative narrative. In the case of reported less global stress and fewer health
implicit beliefs about personality, the shift to an problems 8 months later.
incremental narrative about personality opens
one up to the potential for change. That is, during
stress for example, it is more likely that divergent Summary
coping strategies can be entertained and imple-
mented if someone adheres to an incremental Subtle interventions such as the ones described
rather than entity narrative about personality. A may hold considerable promise for maladaptive
related point is that the effects of implicit theories perfectionists because they circumvent barriers
are only evident during challenging situations. As that perfectionistic youth might be especially
Yeager et  al. (2014, p.  868) note, “Just as the attuned to, such as being singled out for inter-
belief that intelligence is fixed is not threatening vention or treatment (i.e., somehow flawed or
when school is easy (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & inadequate) and then experiencing correspond-
Dweck, 2007), the belief that people’s socially ing stigma or shame. These kinds of more global
relevant characteristics are fixed is not likely to and preventive interventions seem likely to help
lead to helplessness when there is no threat to those at risk and unlikely to harm those not at
one’s social status (see Chen, DeWall, Poon, & risk. They also represent a more efficient use of
Chen, 2012).” social-emotional intervention resources which
In several studies of adolescents, Yeager may be limited in many educational settings.
et al. (2014) demonstrated that such an interven- However, to our knowledge, they have not been
tion pays off in terms of lower stress, and better extensively examined in studies of perfection-
health and academic performance. The experi- ism. In a preliminary study, our lab has found
mental manipulation was aimed at enhancing an that a values affirmation treatment interacted
incremental view of personality. Specifically, with strivings and concerns to produce less
ninth graders in the treatment condition were anticipatory anxiety for a math test, and that
presented with information through what was lower anticipatory anxiety then led to better per-
presumably an article in Psychology Today that formance on the test. The effect was most pro-
researchers had found support for a growth nounced for students with high levels of both
mindset (incremental theory) of personality. strivings and concerns (maladaptive perfection-
Participants were prompted to select the most ists), the group likely most at risk for strong
important points made in the article, and partic- stress reactivity and impaired academic perfor-
ularly the most relevant things students would mance when stressed.
248 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Conclusion affirmation represent a promising path toward

lessening the negative effects of maladaptive
Although several models and corresponding perfectionism that is worth investigating with
measures of perfectionism are actively used in gifted populations.
perfectionism research, considerable evidence
has mounted that the higher order factors of
perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic References
concerns are the key constructs to attend to in
perfectionism. Classification analyses suggest Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred
Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his
that the incidence of perfectionism in gifted writings. New York, NY: Basic Books.
populations is the same or less than in nongifted American Psychological Association, Center for
and tends to be more adaptive, but current Psychology in Schools and Education. (2017). Top
methodological tools such as latent profile 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 creative,
talented, and gifted students’ teaching and learning.
analysis and factor mixture modelling should be https://doi.org/10.1037/e504322017-001.
utilized moving forward, which may help to Arana, F.  G., Rice, K.  G., & Ashby, J.  S. (2017).
provide more valid evidence to help understand Perfectionism in Argentina and the United States:
these questions. Measurement invariance for Measurement structure, invariance, and implications
for depression. Journal of Personality Assessment,
measures must also be addressed before group 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.12968
comparisons can be made accurately between 45.
gifted and nongifted populations, between Berlin, K. S., Williams, N. A., & Parra, G. R. (2014). An
subgroups within the gifted population (e.g., introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part
1): Overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent
gender or age-group comparisons), or over time. profile analyses. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
The prevalence of perfectionism in the gifted 39(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst084.
may not be out of step with that of the nongifted, Blackwell, L.  S., Trzesniewski, K.  H., & Dweck,
but there is compelling evidence that a subgroup C.  S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence pre-
dict achievement across an adolescent transi-
within the gifted could be classified as tion: A longitudinal study and an intervention.
maladaptive perfectionists who strive for high Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.
performance expectations, perceive their efforts org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x.
as inadequate, and engage in harsh self-criticism Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Piklonis, P. A., & Shea, M. T.
(1995). Impact of perfectionism and need for approval
as a result. Members of this subgroup may not be on the brief treatment of depression: The National
directly underperforming, but these tendencies Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression
make it more difficult for them to progress Collaborative Research Program revisited. Journal
through the developmental trajectory of their of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 125–132.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.63.1.125.
domain in a way that maximizes their potential. Boone, L., Claes, L., & Luyten, P. (2014). Too strict or
A key mechanism for the influence of too loose? Perfectionism and impulsivity: The rela-
perfectionism on these difficulties is maladaptive tion with eating disorder symptoms using a person-­
coping, establishing it as an important target of centered approach. Eating Behaviors, 15(1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.10.013.
intervention that warrants further study. The Boone, L., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Goossens, L. (2010).
empirical intervention literature addressing An empirical typology of perfectionism in early-to-­
maladaptive perfectionism in the gifted seems mid adolescents and its relation with eating disorder
inadequate. The gifted may benefit from symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48,
686–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.03.022.
interventions targeting maladaptive perfectionism Brown, T. A. (2015). CFA with equality constraints,
and enhancing psychosocial skills, though multiple groups, and mean structures. In T. A. Brown
perfectionistic processes may also dampen the (Ed.), Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
effects of such interventions. As a way to research (pp. 236-319). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
circumvent potential dampening, wise Borders, C., Woodley, S., & Moore, E. (2014). Inclusion
interventions that subtly activate processes and giftedness. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F.
related to self-theories, social connection, or self-­ Rotatori (Eds.), Advances in special education, Volume
14 Perfectionism 249

26: Gifted education: Emerging issues (pp. 127–146). Psychological Science, 16(11), 846–851. https://doi.
Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https:// org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01624.x.
doi.org/10.1108/S0270-4013(2014)0000026006. Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & Băban,
Castejón, J.  L., Gilar, R., Miñano, P., & González, M. A. (2017). Perfectionism and school engagement:
(2016). Latent class cluster analysis in exploring dif- A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and
ferent profiles of gifted and talented students. Learning Individual Differences, 105, 179–184. https://doi.
and Individual Differences, 50, 166–174. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.044.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.003. Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An
Chan, D. W. (2009). Dimensionality and typology of per- empirical typology of perfectionism in gifted adoles-
fectionism: The use of the Frost Multidimensional cents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(2), 95–106. https://
Perfectionism Scale with Chinese gifted students in doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800203.
Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 174–187. Dunkley, D. M. (2017). Perfectionism and daily stress,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209334963. coping, and affect: Advancing multilevel explanatory
Chan, D. W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted conceptualizations. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychol-
and nongifted students in Hong Kong: The use of ogy of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications
the Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Journal for the (pp. 222-242). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.
Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 68–98. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315536255.
org/10.1177/016235321003400104. Dunkley, D.  M., Sanislow, C.  A., Grilo, C.  M., &
Chan, D.  W. (2012). Life satisfaction, happiness, and McGlashan, T.  H. (2006). Perfectionism and depres-
the growth mindset of healthy and unhealthy perfec- sive symptoms 3 years later: Negative social interac-
tionists among Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. tions, avoidant coping, and perceived social support as
Roeper Review, 34(4), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.10 mediators. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47(2), 106–115.
80/02783193.2012.715333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2005.06.003.
Chang, E. C. (2003). On the perfectibility of the individ- Dunn, J.  G. H., Dunn, J.  C., & McDonald, K. (2012).
ual: Going beyond the dialectic of good versus evil. Domain-specific perfectionism in intercollegiate ath-
In E. C. Chang & L. J. Sanna (Eds.), Virtue, vice, and letes: Relationships with perceived competence and
personality: The complexity of behavior (pp.  125– perceived importance in sport and school. Psychology
144). https://doi.org/10.1037/10614-008. of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 747–755. https://doi.
Chang, R., & Chang, E.  C. (2009). Effects of socially org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.002.
prescribed expectations on emotions and cogni- Dweck, C.  S. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds:
tions in Asian and European Americans. Cognitive Implications for giftedness and talent. In R.  F.
Therapy and Research, 33(3), 272–282. https://doi. Subotnik, A.  Robinson, C.  Callahan, & E.  Gubbins
org/10.1007/s10608-008-9187-9. (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from
Chen, F.  F. (2008). What happens if we compare chop- psychology and neuroscience to gifted education
sticks with forks? The impact of making inappropri- (pp.  7–18). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on
ate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of the Gifted and Talented.
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. Egan, S. J., & Shafran, R. (2017) Cognitive-behavioral
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193. treatment of perfectionism. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The
Chen, Z., DeWall, C.  N., Poon, K.  T., & Chen, E.  W. psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, appli-
(2012). When destiny hurts: Implicit theory of rela- cations (pp. 284-305). New York, NY: Routledge.
tionships moderate aggressive responses to ostra- https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315536255.
cism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, Egan, S. J., Dick, M., & Allen, P. J. (2012). An experimen-
1029–1036. tal investigation of standard setting in clinical perfec-
Closson, L. M., & Boutilier, R. R. (2017). Perfectionism, tionism. Behaviour Change, 29, 183–195. https://doi.
academic engagement, and procrastination among org/10.1017/bec.2012.16.
undergraduates: The moderating role of honors stu- Egan, S.  J., Wade, T.  D., & Shafran, R. (2011).
dent status. Learning and Individual Differences., 57, Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical
157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.010. review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(2), 203–212.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009.
global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health Egan, S.  J., Wade, T.  D., Shafran, R., & Antony, M.  M.
and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. (2014). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of perfection-
Cohen, G.  L., & Sherman, D.  K. (2014). The psy- ism. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
chology of change: Self-affirmation and social Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and
psychological intervention. Annual Review of maladaptive perfectionism: Developmental origins
Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/ and association with depression proneness. Personality
annurev-psych-010213-115137. and Individual Differences, 33(6), 921–935. https://
Creswell, J.  D., Welch, W.  T., Taylor, S.  E., Sherman, doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00202-1.
D.  K., Gruenewald, T.  L., & Mann, T. (2005). Fong, R.  W., & Yuen, M. (2014). Perfectionism and
Affirmation of personal values buffers neuro- Chinese gifted learners. Roeper Review, 36(2), 81–91.
endocrine and psychological stress responses. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884202.
250 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. Hibbard, D.  R., & Walton, G.  E. (2014). Exploring the
(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive development of perfectionism: The influence of parent-
Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. https://doi. ing style and gender. Social Behavior and Personality:
org/10.1007/BF01172967. An International Journal, 42(2), 269–278. https://doi.
Frost, R.  O., Heimberg, R.  G., Holt, C.  S., Mattia, org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.2.269.
J.  I., & Neubauer, A.  L. (1993). A comparison of Hong, R. Y., Lee, S. S. M., Chng, R. Y., Zhou, Y., Tsai,
two measures of perfectionism. Personality and F.-F., & Tan, S. H. (2016). Developmental trajectories
Individual Differences, 14(1), 119–126. https://doi. of maladaptive perfectionism in middle childhood.
org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2. Journal of Personality, 85(3), 409–422. https://doi.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2×2 org/10.1111/jopy.12249.
model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions
Individual Differences, 48(5), 532–537. https://doi. of giftedness. In S.  Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031. giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory,
Gaudreau, P., Franche, V., Kljajic, K., & Martinelli, G. research, and best practices (pp.  71–91). New  York,
(2017). The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: Assumptions, NY: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.
trends, and potential developments. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_5.
The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The
applications (pp. 44-67). New York, NY: Routledge. role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfec-
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315536255. tionism: Implications for the development of chil-
Gong, X., Fletcher, K. L., & Bolin, J. (2015). Dimensions dren’s depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality,
of perfectionism mediate the relationship between 73(1), 23–46.
parenting styles and coping. Journal of Counseling & Kim, E. S., Joo, S.-H., Lee, P., Wang, Y., & Stark, S.
Development, 93, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (2016). Measurement invariance testing across
jcad.12024. between-level latent classes Using multilevel factor
Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & Noble, C. M. (2012). mixture modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidimensional perfectionism and anxiety: Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(6), 870–887. https://
Differences among individuals with perfectionism doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1196108.
and tests of a coping-mediation model. Journal of Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likeli-
Counseling & Development, 90(4), 427–436. https:// hood estimation of latent interaction effects with the
doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00054.x. LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. https://
Gucciardi, D. F., Mahoney, J., Jalleh, G., Donovan, R. J., doi.org/10.1007/bf02296338.
& Parkes, J.  (2012). Perfectionistic profiles among Klein, A. G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Quasi-maximum
elite athletes and differences in their motivational ori- likelihood estimation of structural equation mod-
entations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, els with multiple interaction and quadratic effects.
34(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.2.159. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(4), 647–673.
Haase, A. M., Prapavessis, H., & Glynn Owens, R. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701710205.
Domain-specificity in perfectionism: Variations Knight, G.  P., & Zerr, A.  A. (2010). Introduction
across domains of life. Personality and Individual to the special section: Measurement equiva-
Differences, 55(6), 711–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lence in child development research. Child
paid.2013.05.025. Development Perspectives, 4(1), 1–4. https://doi.
Hallquist, M. N., & Wright, A. C. (2014). Mixture mod- org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00108.x.
eling methods for the assessment of normal and Little, T.D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation
abnormal personality, part I: Cross-sectional models. modeling. New York: Guilford Press. https://doi.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 256–268. org/10.4324/9781315871318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.845201. Lloyd, S., Schmidt, U., Khondoker, M., & Tchanturia,
Hamacheck, D.  E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal K. (2015). Can psychological interventions reduce
and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of perfectionism? A systematic review and meta-­
Human Behavior, 15(1), 27–33. analysis. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy,
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the 43, 705–731.
self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assess- Lo, A., & Abbott, M. (2013). The impact of manipulating
ment, and association with psychopathology. Journal expected standards of performance for adaptive, mal-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. adaptive, and non-perfectionists. Cognitive Therapy
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456. and Research, 37, 762–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Mikail, S.F., Kealy, D., & s10608-013-9528-1.
Zhang, L.C. (2017). Perfectionism in the therapeu- Lo, C.  M., Helwig, C.  C., Chen, S.  X., Ohashi, M.  M.,
tic context: The perfectionism social disconnec- & Cheng, C. M. (2011). The psychology of strengths
tion model. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of and weaknesses: Assessing self-enhancing and
perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. self-critical tendencies in Eastern and Western cul-
306-329). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi. tures. Self & Identity, 10(2), 203–212. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315536255. org/10.1080/15298861003751272.
14 Perfectionism 251

Lubke, G.  H., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating pop- Roeper Review, 37(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.108
ulation heterogeneity with factor mixture models. 0/02783193.2015.1008663.
Psychological Methods, 10(1), 21–39. https://doi. Morin, A. S., Arens, A. K., Tran, A., & Caci, H. (2016).
org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.21. Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidi-
Luo, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, A., & Quan, S. mensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tuto-
(2016). The effect of perfectionism on school rial and illustration using the Composite Scale of
burnout among adolescence: The mediator of self- Morningness. International Journal Of Methods In
esteem and coping style. Personality and Individual Psychiatric Research, 25(4), 277–288. https://doi.
Differences, 88, 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1002/mpr.1485.
paid.2015.08.056. Morris, L., & Lomax, C. (2014). Review: Assessment,
Mammadov, S., Ward, T. J., Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. development, and treatment of childhood perfection-
(2016). Use of latent profile analysis in studies of ism: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental
gifted students. Roeper Review, 38(3), 175–184. Health, 19(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1183739. camh.12067.
Marland Jr., S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and tal- Neumeister, K.  L. S. (2004). Factors influencing the
ented: Report to the Congress of the United States by development of perfectionism in gifted college stu-
the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background dents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 259–274. https://
papers submitted to the U.S.  Office of Education. doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800402.
2 vols (Government Documents, Y4.L 11/2: G36). Noftle, E.  E., & Robins, R.  W. (2007). Personality pre-
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. dictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates
Marsh, H.  W., & Hau, K.-T. (2007). Applications of of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality
latent-variable models in educational psychology: and Social Psychology, 93, 116–130. https://doi.
The need for methodological-substantive syner- org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.
gies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G.  C., Lemyre, P., & Miller,
32(1), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. B.  W. (2005). Peer relationships in adolescent com-
cedpsych.2006.10.008. petitive soccer: Associations to perceived motivational
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., climate, achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal
Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., et  al. (2009). Doubly-­ of Sports Sciences, 23(9), 977–989.
latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating Pacht, A.  R. (1984). Reflections on perfection.
multilevel and structural equation approaches to con- American Psychologist, 39, 386–390. https://doi.
trol measurement and sampling error. Multivariate org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.386.
Behavioral Research, 44(6), 764–802. https://doi. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five pre-
org/10.1080/00273170903333665. dictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural in Personality, 35, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1006/
equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of jrpe.2000.2309.
alternative estimation strategies and indicator con- Park, H., Paul Heppner, P., & Lee, D. (2010). Maladaptive
struction. Psychological Methods, 9(3), 275–300. coping and self-esteem as mediators between perfec-
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.9.3.275. tionism and psychological distress. Personality and
Masyn, K. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mix- Individual Differences, 48(4), 469–474. https://doi.
ture modeling. In T. D. Little & T. D. Little (Eds.), The org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.024.
Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Statistical Parker, W.  D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfec-
analysis (Vol. 2, pp.  551–611). New  York, NY: tionism in academically talented children. American
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfo Educational Research Journal, 34, 545–562. https://
rdhb/9780199934898.013.0025. doi.org/10.2307/1163249.
McArdle, S. (2010). Exploring domain-specific per- Pfeiffer, S.  I. (2012). Lessons learned from work-
fectionism. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 493–508. ing with high-ability students. Gifted Education
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00624. International, 29(1), 86–97. https://doi.
Miller, A., Lambert, A.  D., & Speirs Neumeister, K.  L. org/10.1177/0261429412440653.
(2012). Parenting style, perfectionism, and creativ- Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based
ity in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. clinical and psychoeducational practice. New  York,
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(4), 344– NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212459257. Pfeiffer, S.  I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment.
Mitchell, J.  H., Newall, C., Broeren, S., & Hudson, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
J.  (2013). The role of perfectionism in cognitive Pfeiffer, S. I. (2016). Success in the classroom and in life.
behaviour therapy outcomes for clinically anxious Gifted Education International, 33(2), 95–101. https://
children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(9), doi.org/10.1177/0261429416640337.
547–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2013.05.015. Pleva, J., & Wade, T. D. (2007). Guided self-help versus
Mofield, E. L., & Peters, M. P. (2015). Multidimensional pure self-help for perfectionism: A randomised con-
perfectionism within gifted suburban adolescents: An trolled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(5),
exploration of typology and comparison of samples. 849–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.08.009.
252 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Portešová, Š., & Urbánek, T. (2013). Typology of per- Counseling Psychology, 47, 238–250. https://doi.
fectionism in a group of mathematically gifted org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.238.
Czech adolescents over one decade. Journal of Rice, K.  G., Richardson, C.  E., & Clark, D. (2012).
Early Adolescence, 33(8), 1116–1144. https://doi. Perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological dis-
org/10.1177/0272431613487603. tress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 288–
Radhu, N., Daskalakis, Z. J., Arpin-Cribbie, C. A., 302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026643.
Irvine, J., & Ritvo, P. (2012). Evaluating a web-based Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M. E., & Ray, M. E. (2016).
cognitive-behavioral therapy for maladaptive perfec- Perfectionism in academic settings. In F.  M. Sirois
tionism in university students. Journal of American & D. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-­
College Health, 60(5), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1 being (pp.  245–264). Switzerland: Springer. https://
080/07448481.2011.630703. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18582-8_11.
Renzulli, J.  S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M. E., & Tueller, S. (2014).
Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180– The short form of the Revised Almost Perfect Scale.
184. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200821. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 368–379.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of gifted- https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.838172.
ness: A developmental model for promoting creative Rice, K. G., Suh, H., & Davis, D. E. (2017). Perfectionism
productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), and emotion regulation. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psy-
Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp.  217–245). chology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applica-
Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. tions. London: Routledge.
org/10.1017/cbo9780511610455.015. Rice, K.  G., Vergara, D.  T., & Aldea, M.  A. (2006).
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M.  H., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Cognitive-affective mediators of perfectionism and
Perfectionism Questionnaire (PQ) (J. Rhéaume, M. H. college student adjustment. Personality and Individual
Freeston, & C.  Bouchard, Trans.). Montréal, QC: Differences, 40(3), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Université Laval, Unpublished manuscript. paid.2005.05.011.
Rice, K. G., Ray, M. E. (2018). Perfectionism and the Richardson, C. E., Rice, K. G., & Devine, D. P. (2014).
gifted. In Pfeiffer, S. I., Shaunessy-Dedrick, E., & Perfectionism, emotion regulation, and the cortisol
Foley-Nicpon, M. (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychol- stress response. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
ogy. APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 645- 61(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034446.
658). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A.  M. (2006).
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-042. Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Gilman, R. (2011). Classifying guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
adolescent perfectionists. Psychological Assessment, Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203726549.
23, 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022482. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical
Rice, K.  G., Ashby, J.  S., & Slaney, R.  B. (2007). perfectionism: A cognitive-behavioural analysis.
Perfectionism and the five-factor model of per- Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(7), 773–791.
sonality. Assessment, 14(4), 385–398. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00059-6.
org/10.1177/1073191107303217. Shaunessy, E.  S., Suldo, S.  M., & Friedrich, A. (2011).
Rice, K.  G., Ashby, J.  S., & Slaney, R.  B. (1998). Self-­ Mean levels and correlates of perfectionism in inter-
esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and national baccalaureate and general education students.
depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal High Ability Studies, 22(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.
of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304–314. https://doi. 1080/13598139.2011.576088.
org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.304. Sherman, D. K. (2013). Self‐affirmation: Understanding
Rice, K.  G., & Dellwo, J.  P. (2002). Perfectionism and the effects. Social and Personality Psychology
self-development: Implications for college adjust- Compass, 7(11), 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, spc3.12072.
188–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002. Sherman, D. K., Cohen, G. L., Nelson, L. D., Nussbaum,
tb00182.x. A.  D., Bunyan, D.  P., & Garcia, J.  (2009). Affirmed
Rice, K.  G., Gnilka, P.  B., Davis, D.  E., & Ashby, J.  S. yet unaware: Exploring the role of awareness in the
(2017). Addressing concerns about how perfec- process of self-affirmation. Journal of Personality
tionistic discrepancy should be measured with the and Social Psychology, 97(5), 745–764. https://doi.
revised almost perfect scale. Assessment. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0015451.
org/10.1177/1073191117702241. Sherry, S.  B., MacKinnon, S.  P., & Gautreau, C.  M.
Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Christopher, J., & Porter, J. D. (2015). Perfectionists do not play nicely with oth-
(2006). Perfectionism, stress, and social (dis)connec- ers: Expanding the social disconnection model. In
tion: A short-term study of hopelessness, depression, Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 225–243).
and academic adjustment among honors students. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 524–534. Silverman, L. K., & Golon, A. S. (2008). Clinical practice
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.524. with gifted families. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook
Rice, K.  G., & Mirzadeh, S.  A. (2000). Perfectionism, of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory,
attachment, and adjustment. Journal of research, and best practices (pp. 199–222). New York,
14 Perfectionism 253

NY: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi. self-representations: The mediational link between
org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_11. psychological control and adjustment. Personality
Silverman, A., Logel, C., & Cohen, G.  L. (2013). Self-­ and Individual Differences, 38, 487–498. https://doi.
affirmation as a deliberate coping strategy: The mod- org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.008.
erating role of choice. Journal of Experimental Social Sondergeld, T. A., Schultz, R. A., & Glover, L. K. (2007).
Psychology, 49(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. The need for research replication: An example from
jesp.2012.08.005. studies on perfectionism and gifted early adolescents.
Sirois, F. M., & Molnar, D. S. (2016). Conceptualizations Roeper Review, 29(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
of perfectionism, health, and well-being: An introduc- 02783193.2007.11869220.
tory overview. In Perfectionism, health, and well-being Sorotzkin, B. (1998). Understanding and treating per-
(pp. 1–21). Cham: Springer International Publishing. fectionism in religious adolescents. Psychotherapy:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18582-8_1. Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 35(1), 87–95.
Sironic, A., & Reeve, R. A. (2012). More evidence for four https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087792.
perfectionism sub groups. Personality & Individual Subotnik, R. F. (2015). Psychosocial strength train-
Differences, 53(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ing. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 41–48. https://doi.
paid.2012.04.003. org/10.1177/1076217514556530.
Slaney, R.  B., & Ashby, J.  S. (1996). Perfectionists: Neumeister, S. (2018). Perfectionism in gifted students.
Study of a Criterion Group. Journal of Counseling In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism:
& Development, 74(4), 393–398. https://doi. Theory, research, applications. London: Routledge.
org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01885.x. Speirs-Neumeister, K.  L., & Finch, H. (2006).
Slaney, R.  B., Ashby, J.  S., & Trippi, J.  (1995). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational pre-
Perfectionism: Its measurement and career relevance. cursors and influences on achievement motivation.
Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 279–297. https://doi. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238–251. https://doi.
org/10.1177/106907279500300403. org/10.1177/001698620605000304.
Slaney, R.  B., Chadha, N., Mobley, M., & Kennedy, S. Speirs Neumeister, K.  L., Williams, K.  K., & Cross,
(2000). Perfectionism in Asian Indians: Exploring the T.  L. (2009). Gifted high-school students’ per-
meaning of the construct in India. The Counseling spectives on the development of perfection-
Psychologist, 28, 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011 ism. Roeper Review, 31(4), 198–206. https://doi.
00000028100210.1177/0011000000281002. org/10.1080/02783190903177564.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A pro- Stoeber, J.  (2017). The psychology of perfectionism:
grammatic approach to measuring perfectionism: The Critical issues, open questions, and future direc-
Almost Perfect Scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt tions. In J.  Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of per-
(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment fectionism: Theory, research, applications. London:
(pp. 63–88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Routledge. Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10458-003. eprint/59812.
Slaney, R.  B., Rice, K.  G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of
Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost perfect scale. partialling perfectionistic strivings and perfectionis-
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and tic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations.
Development, 34(3), 130. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 379–386.
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Yan, G., & Sherry, S. B. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039.
(2016). A person-centered perspective on multidimen- Stoeber, J., & Hotham, S. (2013). Perfectionism and
sional perfectionism in Canadian and Chinese uni- social desirability: Students report increased perfec-
versity students: A multigroup latent profile analysis. tionism to create a positive impression. Personality
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, and Individual Differences, 55, 626–629. https://doi.
44(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12042. org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.023.
Soenens, B., Elliot, A.  J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of
M., Luyten, P., & Duriez, B. (2005). The intergen- perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, and challenges.
erational transmission of perfectionism: Parents’ psy- Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–
chological control as an intervening variable. Journal 319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.
of Family Psychology, 19, 358–366. https://doi. Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfec-
org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.358. tionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfection-
Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., ism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality
& Goossens, L. (2008). Clarifying the link between and Individual Differences, 46(4), 530–535. https://
perceived parental psychological control and adoles- doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006.
cents’ depressive feelings: A test of reciprocal versus Subotnik, R.  F., Olsewski-Kublilius, P., & Worrell,
unidirectional models of influence. Merrill-Palmer F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted edu-
Quarterly, 54, 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1353/ cation: A proposal direction forward based on psy-
mpq.0.0005. chological science. Psychological Science in Public
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/
& Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionistic e665862012-001.
254 K. G. Rice and Z. B. Taber

Tang, D., & Schmeichel, B.  J. (2015). Self-affirmation Wang, K.  T., Permyakova, T.  M., & Sheveleva,
facilitates cardiovascular recovery following interper- M.  S. (2016). Assessing perfectionism in Russia:
sonal evaluation. Biological Psychology, 104, 108–115. Classifying perfectionists with the Short Almost
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.011. Perfect Scale. Personality and Individual
Taylor, V. J., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Stereotype threat Differences, 92, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
undermines academic learning. Personality and Social paid.2015.12.044.
Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1055–1067. https://doi. Wimberley, T. E., Mintz, L. B., & Suh, H. (2015).
org/10.1177/0146167211406506. Perfectionism and mindfulness: Effectiveness of a bib-
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, liotherapy intervention. Mindfulness, 7(2), 433–444.
M.  E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0460-1.
Personality and Individual Differences, 18(5), 663– Yeager, D.  S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B.  J., Trzesniewski,
668. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00192-u. K.  H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C.  S. (2014). The far-­
Walton, G.  M. (2014). The new science of wise psy- reaching effects of believing people can change:
chological interventions. Current Directions in Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health,
Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82. https://doi. and achievement during adolescence. Journal of
org/10.1177/0963721413512856. Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 867–884.
Walton, G.  M., & Cohen, G.  L. (2011). A brief social-­ https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036335.
belonging intervention improves academic and health Zane, N., & Song, A. (2007). Interpersonal effectiveness
outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), among Asian Americans: Issues of leadership, career
1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364. advancement, and social competence. In F. L. Leong,
Wang, K.  T. (2012). Personal and family perfectionism A. Ebreo, L. Kinoshita, A. G. Inman, L. Yang, M. Fu,
of Taiwanese college students: Relationships with et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology
depression, self-esteem, achievement motivation, and (2nd ed., pp.  283–301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
academic grades. International Journal of Psychology, Publications.
47(4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.20 Zuroff, D. C., Blatt, S. J., Sotsky, S. M., Krupnick, J. L.,
11.626050. Martin, D. J., Sanislow, C. A., et al. (2000). Relation
Wang, K.  T., Fu, C., & Rice, K.  G. (2012). Perfectionism of therapeutic alliance and perfectionism to outcome
in gifted students: Moderating effects of goal orientation in brief outpatient treatment of depression. Journal
and contingent self-worth. School Psychology Quarterly, of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(1),
27(2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029215. 114–124.