European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers.

26: 233–244 (2012)

Published online 7 June 2011 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.829

Perfectionism Dimensions and the Five‐factor Model of Personality

DAVID M. DUNKLEY1*, KIRK R. BLANKSTEIN2 and JODY‐LYNN BERG1

1
Lady Davis Institute—SMBD Jewish General Hospital and McGill University, Canada
2
University of Toronto at Mississauga, Canada

Abstract: This study of university students (n = 357) and community adults (n = 223) examined personal standards (PS)
and evaluative concerns (EC) higher‐order dimensions of perfectionism that underlie several measures from three different
theoretical frameworks. In both students and community adults, confirmatory factor analyses supported PS perfectionism
and EC perfectionism higher‐order latent factors. In relation to the revised NEO Personality Inventory, PS perfectionism
was primarily related to conscientiousness and achievement striving. In contrast, EC perfectionism was primarily related
to neuroticism, and lower positive emotions, trust and competence. EC perfectionism accounted for unique variance in
current depressive and anxious symptoms over and above the five‐factor domain scores. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

Key words: perfectionism; evaluative concerns; five‐factor model; depressive symptoms; anxious symptoms

INTRODUCTION two dimensions as PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism

(e.g. Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006). PS
Over the past two decades, perfectionism has received perfectionism involves the setting of and striving for high
increasing empirical attention as a multidimensional cogni- standards and goals for oneself, which is integral to the
tive‐personality construct that is presumed to play a role in perfectionism concept typically described in the literature
various psychological problems, such as depression and (see Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002). PS perfectionism is
anxiety (see Bardone‐Cone et al., 2007; Flett & Hewitt, presumably related to striving for excessive achievement,
2002; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Three multidimensional resilience and adaptive coping, although possibly at some
conceptualizations of perfectionism that have generated emotional cost and stress (e.g. Blankstein, Dunkley, &
considerable interest are those of Frost, Marten, Lahart, Wilson, 2008; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). On the other hand, EC
and Rosenblate (1990), Hewitt and Flett (1991), and Slaney, perfectionism involves constant and harsh self‐scrutiny and
Rice, Mobley, Trippi, and Ashby (2001). Although there are self‐evaluation, an inability to derive satisfaction from
important differences between these conceptualizations, an successful performance, and chronic concerns about others’
important advance in the perfectionism field has been the criticism and disapproval (e.g. Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb,
identification of two higher‐order dimensions of perfection- et al., 2006). EC perfectionism is believed to be manifested
ism that cut across many different perfectionism constructs and maintained in a wide variety of insecure expressions,
and measures (see Blankstein & Dunkley, 2002; Dunkley, including suspiciousness, avoiding intimacy, social distanc-
Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). ing and disengagement from decisions and actions (e.g.
The main purpose of the present study was to gain a better Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, Lecce, & Hui, 2006; Hewitt &
understanding of what these personal standards (PS) and Flett, 1991).
evaluative concerns (EC) higher‐order dimensions of Empirically, factor analytic studies (e.g. Blankstein et al.,
perfectionism are measuring by relating these dimensions 2008; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001) of scales derived from these
to a comprehensive scheme of personality—the five‐factor three different conceptualizations of perfectionism have
model—in both university students and community adults. consistently revealed two higher‐order latent factors, which
We also examined the incremental associations of PS and map onto the distinction between PS perfectionism and EC
EC perfectionism dimensions with depressive and anxious perfectionism (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al.,
symptoms over and above the five‐factor domains. 2006; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). PS perfectionism indicators
Although different language and labels have been used to include the personal standards scale from the Frost et al.
describe essentially the same two higher‐order dimensions of (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS), the
perfectionism (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006), we refer to the self‐oriented perfectionism scale from the Hewitt and Flett
(1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS) and
the high standards scale from the Slaney et al. (2001)
*Correspondence to: David M. Dunkley, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, Revised Almost Perfect Scale (APS‐R). EC perfectionism
Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry, 4333 Côte Ste‐Catherine
Road, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1E4, Canada. E‐mail: david.dunkley@mail.
indicators include FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS
mcgill.ca socially prescribed perfectionism and APS‐R discrepancy

Received 8 April 2010

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 8 October 2010, Accepted 6 March 2011
234 D. M. Dunkley et al.

(Blankstein et al., 2008; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). Although other facets of conscientiousness and the assertiveness and
PS perfectionism measures are often weakly or negligibly activity facets of extraversion. On the other hand, HMPS
related to depressive and anxious symptoms, EC perfection- socially prescribed perfectionism exhibited moderate to
ism measures consistently demonstrate moderate to strong strong relations with the depression facet of neuroticism;
relations with depressive and anxious symptoms (e.g. Rice, weak to moderate relations with the anxiety, angry hostility,
Ashby, & Slaney, 2007; Slaney et al., 2001; see Dunkley, self‐consciousness and vulnerability facets of neuroticism;
Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006).1 and weak to moderate negative relations with the warmth,
Several literature reviews have pointed out the impor- positive emotions, values and trust facets (e.g. Dunkley &
tance of exploring the relations of specific vulnerability Kyparissis, 2008; Hill et al., 1997). To our knowledge, only
traits, such as perfectionism, to other personality variables one out of three PS perfectionism (i.e. HMPS self‐oriented
(e.g. Flett, Hewitt, Endler, & Bagby, 1995; Widiger & perfectionism) and only one out of three EC perfectionism
Costa, 2002). Firstly, this would provide an assessment of the indicators (i.e. HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism) has
similarities and differences between the PS and EC higher‐ been examined in relation to the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets. Thus,
order dimensions of perfectionism derived from separate we are left with an incomplete picture of what the higher‐
theoretical frameworks of perfectionism and facilitate order PS and EC dimensions of perfectionism are really
clarification of their origins and/or underlying nature. measuring from the perspective of the FFM, particularly as
Secondly, relating vulnerability styles to the ‘Big Five’ assessed by measures from all three of the most widely
allows an examination of whether these relatively specific studied perfectionism frameworks (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt
variables can be meaningfully distinguished from certain & Flett, 1991; Slaney et al., 2001). Further, it is unknown
higher‐order vulnerability factors, such as neuroticism. whether PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism higher‐
Numerous studies have supported the five‐factor model order dimensions will exhibit the same pattern of
(FFM) of personality as a useful heuristic framework that is convergent and divergent relations with the NEO‐PI‐R 30
relevant to the portrayal of specific personality vulnerability facets as found in previous studies of HMPS self‐oriented
styles, such as perfectionism (see Widiger & Costa, 2002). perfectionism and HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism.
The FFM is a version of trait theory that identifies five broad The first goal of the present study was to build on previous
domains of personality functioning as most important, studies (Blankstein et al., 2008; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001) by
namely neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, using confirmatory factor analyses to provide further support
agreeableness and conscientiousness. Previous studies found for a two‐factor model of perfectionism containing PS
that PS perfectionism indicators (FMPS personal standards, perfectionism (FMPS personal standards, HMPS self‐oriented
HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism, APS‐R high standards) perfectionism, APS‐R high standards) and EC perfectionism
were moderately to strongly correlated with the conscien- (FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed
tiousness domain, whereas EC perfectionism indicators (e.g. perfectionism, APS‐R discrepancy) higher‐order latent factors
FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed in both a university student sample and a community adult
perfectionism, APS‐R discrepancy) were moderately to sample. The second goal of the present study was to gain a
strongly correlated with the neuroticism domain (e.g. more definitive understanding of the differences between the
Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008; Enns & Cox, 2002; Hill, PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism higher‐order dimen-
McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Rice et al., 2007; Stumpf & sions by relating these variables to a comprehensive scheme
Parker, 2000). of personality, provided by the NEO‐PI‐R, in both university
Although these previous studies have clarified the broad students and community adults. Based on theory and prior
distinction between the higher‐order PS and EC dimensions research, in relation to the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets, we
of perfectionism from the perspective of the FFM, a richer, hypothesized that individuals with higher PS perfectionism
more fine‐grained understanding of what the PS and EC would primarily describe themselves as diligent, purposeful
dimensions represent can be provided by the revised NEO and working hard to achieve their goals and aspirations
Personality Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). (achievement striving); dominant, forceful and socially
The NEO‐PI‐R assesses the five‐factor domains, which are ascendant (assertiveness); and leading fast‐paced lives
each further composed of six, more specific, personality trait (activity). In contrast, we hypothesized that individuals with
facets. Three previous studies (Dunkley, Blankstein, higher EC perfectionism would primarily describe themselves
Zuroff, et al., 2006; Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008; Hill as prone to feelings of sadness, hopelessness and loneliness
et al., 1997) have examined one PS perfectionism (depression); formal, reserved and distant in manner (low
measure, namely HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism, and warmth); less exuberant and high spirited (low positive
one EC perfectionism measure, namely HMPS socially emotions); tending to accept authority, honour tradition and
prescribed perfectionism, in relation to the NEO‐PI‐R 30 be generally conservative (low openness to values); and
facets. HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism was strongly cynical and sceptical of others (low trust).
related to the achievement striving facet of conscientious- Finally, some reviewers have encouraged finding ex-
ness and exhibited weak to moderate relations with several planations of the effects of specific vulnerability traits, such
as perfectionism, in terms of other personality variables in
1 order to better understand how these constructs confer
Cohen’s (1992) criteria for weak (r = .10), moderate (r = .30) and strong
(r = .50) effect sizes are used to describe the strength of zero‐order vulnerability to depression and anxiety (e.g. Coyne &
correlations. Whiffen, 1995). We examined the incremental value of PS

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Perfectionism dimensions 235

and EC dimensions of perfectionism relative to the five‐ person’) and concern over mistakes (nine items; e.g. ‘People
factor higher‐order domains in both university students and will think less of me if I make a mistake’). The personal
community adults. Previous studies have distinguished standards and concern over mistakes scales have demon-
various measures of EC perfectionism from neuroticism in strated good internal consistencies and validity (e.g. Frost
terms of EC perfectionism’s unique relations with, for et al., 1990). Rhéaume et al.’s (1994) French translation of
example, negative interpersonal domains (introversion, the FMPS was administered to community adults
antagonism) and depressive symptoms (e.g. Dunkley, completing the study in French. The internal consistencies
Blankstein, Zuroff, et al., 2006; Rice et al., 2007; see and validity of the French version of the FMPS have been
Zuroff, Mongrain, & Santor, 2004). To our knowledge, our found to be similar to the original English version
study was the first to examine the incremental associations of (Bouvard et al., 2000; Labrecque, Stephenson, Boivin,
perfectionism dimensions with depressive and anxious & Marchand, 1998).
symptoms over and above all five‐factor domains. Although
depression and anxiety can be distinguished phenomenolog- Self‐oriented perfectionism and socially
ically and empirically, there is an overlap between these prescribed perfectionism
constructs (e.g. Watson et al., 1995). Thus, we examined the The 45‐item HMPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) was used to
unique relation between EC perfectionism and both shared assess self‐oriented perfectionism (15 items; e.g. ‘I set very
and unique components of depression and anxiety. high standards for myself’) and socially prescribed perfec-
tionism (15 items; e.g. ‘Anything I do that is less than
excellent will be seen as poor work by those around me’).
METHOD The self‐oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed
perfectionism scales have demonstrated adequate internal
Participants consistencies and validity (e.g. Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
Labrecque et al.’s (1998) French translation of the HMPS
The university student sample consisted of 357 (139 men, 218 was administered to French‐speaking community adults. The
women) university students with a mean age of 20.0 years internal consistencies and validity of the French version of
(SD = 3.7) enrolled in an undergraduate Introductory Psychol- the HMPS have been found to be similar to the Hewitt and
ogy course at the University of Toronto at Mississauga. The Flett (1991) measure (Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008;
present study presents additional findings from the Dunkley Labrecque et al., 1998).
and Kyparissis (2008) sample of community adults. The
community adult sample consisted of 223 English‐speaking High standards and discrepancy
and French‐speaking participants (75 men, 148 women) with The 23‐item APS‐R (Slaney et al., 2001) was used to assess
a mean age of 40.1 years (SD = 12.3) holding paid employ- high standards (seven items; e.g. ‘I have a strong need to
ment. The community adults were recruited through newspa- strive for excellence’) and discrepancy (12 items; e.g. ‘My
per advertisements and posted bulletins in Montreal, Quebec. performance rarely measures up to my standards’). The
Of the total sample of community adults, 109 participants (33 internal consistencies and validity of the high standards and
men, 76 women) completed the English version of the discrepancy scales have been well established (e.g. Slaney
questionnaire package, and 114 participants (42 men, 72 et al., 2001). For the community adults completing the study
women) completed the French translation of the questionnaire in French, the APS‐R was translated into French and then
package. back translated into English to ensure that the original meaning
of each item was retained.
Procedure
Revised NEO Personality Inventory
For both the university student and community adult The NEO‐PI‐R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240‐item self‐
samples, participants completed a package of questionnaires, report questionnaire designed to provide a comprehensive
including measures of perfectionism, comprehensive per- assessment of the FFM of personality. Considerable
sonality and current depressive and anxious symptoms, in a evidence has supported the internal consistency and validity
1.5‐ to 2‐hour lab session. The relevant measures were of the NEO‐PI‐R five domain and 30 facet scales (e.g. Costa
presented in two alternate random orders and were & McCrae, 1992). A validated French version of the
intermixed with additional measures that were not the focus NEO‐PI‐R (Rolland & Petot, 1998) was administered to
of the present study. The university students received course the community adults completing the study in French. The
credit for participation. The community adults were French NEO‐PI‐R has been found to be largely equivalent to
compensated $25 for completing the study. the original English language version (Rolland, Parker, &
Stumpf, 1998).
Measures
Depressive and anxious symptoms
Personal standards and concern over mistakes The Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ;
The 35‐item FMPS (Frost et al., 1990) was used to assess D. Watson & L. A. Clark, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
personal standards (seven items; e.g. ‘If I do not set the highest unpublished manuscript) Short Form was used to measure
standards for myself, I am likely to end up a second‐rate depressive and anxious symptoms. The MASQ Short Form

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
236 D. M. Dunkley et al.

is a 62‐item measure, which consists of four scales. General no differences in any mean scores on these variables between
distress: depressive symptoms (12 items), and general community adults who completed the English version of the
distress: anxious symptoms (11 items) assess depressed questionnaires and the community adults who completed the
and anxious mood, respectively, as well as other symptoms French version of the questionnaires. A multiple groups
that were found to be relatively non‐specific to depression approach to test invariance of the covariance matrices between
and anxiety. In contrast, the other two scales, anhedonic English community participants and French community
depression (22 items) and anxious arousal (17 items), participants was performed using Analysis of Momentary
contain symptoms that measure anhedonia/low positive Structure 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003, Small Waters Corporation,
affect and somatic hyperarousal, respectively, and are Chicago, Illinois, USA), which uses the maximum likelihood
expected to better discriminate between depression and estimation method to examine the fit of models to their
anxiety. Internal consistency and validity of the MASQ respective observed variance–covariance matrices. The co-
scales have been supported (Watson et al., 1995). Waintraub, variances among the main study variables (i.e. six
Delalleau, Lavergne, and Bertrand’s (1997) French transla- perfectionism measures, five NEO‐PI‐R domain scores, four
tion of the MASQ was administered to the community adults MASQ scores) of community adults completing the English
completing the study in French. version of the questionnaires were constrained to be equal to
those of community adults completing the French version of
the questionnaires. The fit of this constrained model was
RESULTS compared with the fit of a model in which the covariances
were freely estimated between English and French commu-
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
nity adults. The non‐significant difference between the
Table 1 reports the means, SDs and alpha internal consistency constrained model and the freely estimated model, χ2diff
coefficients of the PS perfectionism measures (FMPS personal (105, n = 223) = 124.70, not significant, suggested that the
standards, HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism, APS‐R high covariances among variables were comparable between
standards), the EC perfectionism measures (FMPS concern English and French community adults.
over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism, Additional preliminary analyses assessed multivariate
APS‐ R discrepancy), the NEO‐PI‐R five domains and the normality with Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis and Mahalanobis
MASQ depression (general, anhedonic) and anxiety (general, distances by using the six perfectionism measures, the five
anxious arousal) measures. t‐tests comparing the means on NEO‐PI‐R domain scores and the four MASQ scores. For
these measures showed that the university students relative to university students, the critical ratio for Mardia’s kurtosis was
the community adults had higher mean scores on self‐oriented 17.93, and the maximum Mahalanobis distance observed was
perfectionism, high standards, concern over mistakes, discrep- 62.23. For community adults, the critical ratio for Mardia’s
ancy, neuroticism, extraversion, and depressive and anxious kurtosis was 9.51, and the maximum Mahalanobis distance
symptoms; and they had lower mean scores on openness, observed was 38.01. Therefore, the data were considered mul-
agreeableness and conscientiousness (see Table 1). There were tivariate normal.

Table 1. Means, SDs and internal consistencies

University student sample Community adult sample

Variables M SD α M SD α F

Personal standards pft.

FMPS pers. standards 22.95 5.27 .83 22.16 6.03 .81 2.75
HMPS self‐orien. pft. 67.13 14.82 .89 63.41 17.42 .90 7.58**
APS‐R high standards 37.34 7.07 .87 35.68 8.31 .87 6.61*
Evaluative concerns pft.
FMPS conc. mistakes 22.38 7.35 .89 20.71 7.43 .87 6.99**
HMPS soc. prescr. pft. 51.59 14.00 .88 51.03 15.11 .87 .21
APS‐R discrepancy 47.39 15.55 .94 42.40 17.17 .94 13.02***
NEO‐PI‐R five domains
Neuroticism 99.27 26.08 .93 91.69 26.66 .93 11.40***
Extraversion 117.43 21.06 .89 112.54 20.71 .87 7.47**
Openness 120.36 19.68 .88 125.11 20.53 .88 7.72**
Agreeableness 111.72 20.34 .89 119.20 17.65 .85 20.58***
Conscientiousness 110.46 20.63 .90 118.51 20.98 .90 20.64***
Depressive and anxious sx.
General depressive sx. 27.21 10.53 .93 23.70 9.54 .92 16.37***
Anhedonic depression 70.91 9.48 .73 57.01 14.49 .87 195.08***
General anxious sx. 22.05 7.48 .84 20.58 7.92 .87 5.09*
Anxious arousal 27.00 10.08 .90 24.90 8.44 .92 6.69*

Note: APS‐R, Revised Almost Perfect Scale; conc. mistakes, concern over mistakes; FMPS, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; HMPS, Hewitt
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; pers., personal; Pft., perfectionism; self‐orien., self‐oriented; soc. prescr., socially prescribed; sx., symptoms.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Perfectionism dimensions 237

Table 2 reports the zero‐order intercorrelations among the high standards) loading on a PS perfectionism higher‐order
PS perfectionism measures, the EC perfectionism measures latent factor and the three EC perfectionism subscales (FMPS
and the MASQ depression and anxiety measures. As shown in concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfection-
Table 2, the correlations among the six PS perfectionism and ism, APS‐R discrepancy) loading on an EC perfectionism
EC perfectionism measures were weak to strong across higher‐order latent factor. The PS perfectionism and EC
university students and community adults. However, the EC perfectionism latent factors were permitted to correlate because
perfectionism measures exhibited moderate to strong zero‐ we expected them to be related to some degree in that they
order correlations with depressive and anxious symptoms, share a focus on self‐worth, self‐definition and self‐control;
whereas the PS perfectionism measures had weak or and several previous studies have demonstrated that the latent
negligible correlations with depressive and anxious symptoms factors are substantially correlated (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
in university students and community adults. A multiple groups approach was employed in which the two‐
factor model was estimated between the university student and
community adult groups. The two‐factor model resulted in an
Confirmatory model comparison
adequate fit to the data: χ2 (16, n = 580) = 104.67; GFI = 0.95;
Confirmatory model comparison was performed using IFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.10, 90% confidence inter-
Analysis of Momentary Structure 5.0. Consistent with Hoyle val (0.08, 0.12); AIC = 156.67.
and Panter’s (1995) recommendations, we considered multi- The second model for comparison was a one‐factor
ple indexes of fit that provided different information for unidimensional model with all six perfectionism scales
evaluating model fit (i.e. absolute fit, incremental fit relative to loading on a single perfectionism higher‐order latent factor.
a null model, fit adjusted for model parsimony). We A multiple groups approach was used in which the one‐
considered the goodness‐of‐fit index (GFI; Jöreskog & factor model was estimated between the university student
Sörbom, 1984; absolute fit), incremental‐fit index (IFI; Bollen, and community adult samples. The one‐factor model
1989; type‐2 incremental fit) and comparative fit index (CFI; resulted in a poor fit: χ2 (18, n = 580) = 347.53; GFI = 0.82;
Bentler, 1990; type‐3 incremental fit), with values 0.90 or IFI = 0.78; CFI = 0.78; RMSEA = 0.18, 90% confidence
over indicating better fitting models (see Hoyle & Panter, interval (0.16, 0.20); AIC = 395.53. The two‐factor model
1995). We also considered the root mean square error of showed a superior fit compared with the one‐factor model,
approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990; parsimony‐adjusted χ2diff (1, n = 357) = 242.86, p < .001, and had a lower AIC
fit), with values of 0.08 or less indicating adequate fit (see value (indicative of a better fitting model).
Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Finally, consistent with Hoyle and The standardized factor loadings and correlations between
Panter’s (1995) recommendations, we performed sequential latent factors for the two‐factor model for the university student
comparisons between nested, competing models with χ2 and community adult samples are given in Figure 1. All factor
difference tests and an index of fit that takes into account the loadings ranged between 0.57 and 0.96, and were highly
degree of parsimony in the model, the Akaike information significant ( p < .001 level). The correlation between the two
criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) with lower values preferred. latent factors was 0.58 for the university student sample and
Confirmatory techniques were used to compare two nested, 0.72 for the community adult sample. Given that the PS
competing models for both the university student and perfectionism and EC perfectionism latent factors were
community adult samples. The first model for comparison strongly associated, we further assessed discriminant validity
was a two‐factor model derived from previous factor analytic by examining a 95% confidence interval around these cor-
findings (e.g. Blankstein et al., 2008; Suddarth & Slaney, relations (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The bootstrap proce-
2001) with the three PS perfectionism subscales (FMPS dure was used to construct the confidence intervals by creating
personal standards, HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism, APS‐R 1000 bootstrap samples by random sampling and replacement

Table 2. Intercorrelations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. FMPS personal standards — .54*** .51*** .30*** .18*** .13* −.07 −.09 .03 −.01
2. HMPS self‐oriented pft. .75*** — .66*** .41*** .44*** .41*** .19*** .11* .25*** .15**
3. APS‐R high standards .75*** .73*** — .19*** .13* .25*** .07 −.01 .10 .02
4. FMPS concern over mistakes .55*** .55*** .40*** — .48*** .55*** .29*** .30*** .20*** .14**
5. HMPS socially prescribed pft. .57*** .60*** .42*** .69*** — .51*** .36*** .26*** .32*** .32***
6. APS‐R discrepancy .39*** .40*** .38*** .59*** .46*** — .51*** .43*** .39*** .25***
7. General depressive symptoms .21*** .21** .11 .46*** .32*** .52*** — .61*** .71*** .54***
8. Anhedonic depression .04 –.01 –.07 .31*** .29*** .40*** .58*** — .44*** .29***
9. General anxious symptoms .19** .20** .14* .33*** .28*** .44*** .68*** .32*** — .79***
10. Anxious arousal .11 .14* .07 .31*** .28*** .41*** .59*** .32*** .76*** —

Note: University student sample (n = 357) correlations are given above the diagonal; community adult sample (n = 223) correlations are given below the
diagonal.
APS‐R, Revised Almost Perfect Scale; FMPS, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; HMPS, Hewitt Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; pft.,
perfectionism.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
238 D. M. Dunkley et al.

Figure 1. Standardized factor loadings and correlations between personal standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism higher‐order factors.
University student sample (n = 357) factor loadings and correlation are on top; community adult sample (n = 223) factor loadings and correlation are on the
bottom. Prescr. = prescribed.

of the original data set for both the university student (n = 357) we examined the partial correlations between the PS and EC
and community adult (n = 223) samples. The bias‐corrected dimensions of perfectionism and the NEO‐PI‐R domains and
95% confidence interval around the correlation between PS facets partialling out the overlap between PS perfectionism
perfectionism and EC perfectionism was 0.46 to 0.67 for and EC perfectionism in order to further differentiate the two
university students and 0.60 to 0.81 for community adults. Thus, perfectionism dimensions (Hill, Huelsman, & Araujo, 2010;
because unity (1.0) did not appear in these confidence interval see Stoeber & Otto, 2006). We also examined the
bands, the constructs were considered to be significantly standardized beta weights between PS perfectionism and EC
associated but distinguishable from one another. In sum, these perfectionism and the NEO‐PI‐R five domain summary scores
confirmatory factor analyses supported the two‐factor model and six facets of each domain in order to assess the unique
across the university student and community adult samples. predictive contributions of each five‐factor domain/facet after
shared variance with the other domains/facets of the
respective domain was partialled out. Some partial correla-
Personal standards perfectionism and evaluative
tions and standardized beta weights between PS perfectionism
concerns perfectionism and the revised NEO Personality
and EC perfectionism and certain NEO‐PI‐R domains and
Inventory five domains and 30 facets
facets were stronger, and sometimes of opposite direction,
The FMPS, HMPS and APS‐R subscales were combined than the zero‐order correlations because of suppressor effects
(after being transformed into z‐scores) to create the PS (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). To facilitate
perfectionism measure (FMPS personal standards + HMPS comparison, in the succeeding paragraph, we focus on the
self‐oriented perfectionism + APS‐R high standards) and the results where the zero‐order correlations, partial correlations
EC perfectionism measure (FMPS concern over mistakes + and standardized beta weights were significant and of the
HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism + APS‐R discrep- same valence (positive or negative), and where there was a
ancy). The correlation between PS perfectionism and EC significant difference between PS perfectionism and EC
perfectionism when assessed by composite measures was perfectionism in terms of their zero‐order correlations with a
weaker for the university student sample (r = .39, p < .001) domain/facet.
and for the community adult sample (r = .61, p < .001) than Table 3 presents the zero‐order correlations, partial
the respective correlations between latent factors, which is correlations and standardized beta weights between the NEO‐
not surprising because there is more measurement error in PI‐R five domain summary scores and PS perfectionism and
observed scores that tends to produce an underestimate of EC perfectionism, along with z‐tests assessing the difference
the relation between scores. Correlational analyses were between the zero‐order correlations of PS perfectionism and
carried out to examine the relations between the PS and EC EC perfectionism with each of the domains. For both university
dimensions of perfectionism and the five domains and 30 students and community adults, PS perfectionism was strongly
facets of the NEO‐PI‐R for both the university student and related to conscientiousness only, whereas EC perfectionism
community adult samples (see Tables 3 and 4). To keep the was strongly related to neuroticism and was weakly related to
number of statistical tests to a manageable size, results are lower agreeableness. For university students only, PS perfec-
reported for the total university student sample and the total tionism was weakly related to higher extraversion, whereas EC
community adult sample only. perfectionism was weakly related to lower extraversion.
z‐tests were used to examine the difference between Table 4 presents the zero‐order correlations, partial correla-
the zero‐order correlations of PS perfectionism and EC tions and standardized beta weights between the PS and EC
perfectionism with each of the domains and facets from the dimensions of perfectionism and the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets, along
NEO‐PI‐R for both the university student and community adult with z‐tests assessing the difference between the zero‐order
samples. In addition to reporting the zero‐order correlations, correlations of PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism with

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Perfectionism dimensions 239

Table 3. Zero‐order correlations, partial correlations and standardized regression coefficients of personal standards perfectionism and
evaluative concerns perfectionism with the neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness domains for the
university student sample (n = 357) and the community adult sample (n = 223)

University student sample Community adult sample

PS perfectionism EC perfectionism PS perfectionism EC perfectionism

NEO variables r pr β r pr β z‐score r pr β r pr β z‐score

Neuroticism .03 −.23*** .34*** .53*** .56*** .54*** −9.01*** .10 −.36*** .45*** .55*** .62*** .63*** −8.16***
Extraversion .18*** .33*** .12* −.29*** −.40*** −.16*** 8.00*** .16* .34*** .08 −.16* −.34*** .03 5.38***
Openness .07 .10 .04 −.06 −.10 −.02 2.21* .12 .20** .11 −.07 −.17** −.07 3.20**
Agreeableness −.09 −.02 −.12** −.18*** −.15** −.10* 1.55 −.12 .08 −.17** −.29*** −.28*** −.16** 2.94**
Conscientiousness .47*** .59*** .61*** −.17*** −.43*** .14** 11.01*** .41*** .66*** .68*** −.16*** −.57*** .22*** 9.65***

Note: z‐scores were used to examine the difference between the r’s of PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism with each NEO‐PI‐R domain for university
students and community adults, respectively.
EC, evaluative concerns; PS, personal standards.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

each of the facets. Together with zero‐order correlations and had weak or negligible correlations, whereas EC perfection-
partial correlations, we examined the standardized beta weights ism had moderate to strong correlations with general
between PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism and the six depressive symptoms, anhedonic depression, general anx-
facets of the neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness ious symptoms and anxious arousal for university students
and conscientiousness domains, respectively, in order to assess and community adults, respectively.
the unique predictive contributions of each facet after shared Hierarchical regression analyses examined the incremental
variance with the other facets in the respective domain was validity of PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism in
partialled out. For both university students and community accounting for unique variance in MASQ general depressive
adults, PS perfectionism was uniquely related to the assertive- symptoms, anhedonic depression, general anxious symptoms
ness and activity facets of extraversion, to the feelings facet of and anxious arousal scores over and above the variance
openness and especially to the achievement striving facet of accounted for by the five‐factor domain scores in both the
conscientiousness (see Table 4). For community adults only, PS university student and community adult samples. In four
perfectionism was uniquely related to the ideas facet of separate regressions for both samples, the five‐factor summary
openness and to the order facet of conscientiousness. In scores were entered in the first block, and the PS perfectionism
contrast, for both university students and community adults, EC and EC perfectionism scores were entered in the second block.
perfectionism was uniquely related to the depression facet of As shown in Table 5, the five‐factor summary scores accounted
neuroticism and exhibited unique inverse associations with the for large amounts of variance in predicting general depressive
positive emotions facet of extraversion, with the values facet of symptoms (46%, 44%), anhedonic depression (28%, 40%),
openness, with the trust facet of agreeableness and with the general anxious symptoms (32%, 37%) and anxious arousal
competence and self‐discipline facets of conscientiousness (see (19%, 24%) for university students and community adults,
Table 4). There were some differences between university respectively. Neuroticism was the only consistent unique
students and community adults in terms of additional relations predictor within the first block across the four measures of
between EC perfectionism and other NEO‐PI‐R facets. For depressive and anxious symptoms. The subsequent entry of PS
university students only, EC perfectionism was also uniquely perfectionism and EC perfectionism in the second block
associated with the angry hostility facet of neuroticism and had accounted for significant incremental variance in general
unique negative relations with the straightforwardness and depressive symptoms (2%, 4%) and anhedonic depression
altruism facets of agreeableness. For community adults only, (2%, 2%) for both university students and community adults,
EC perfectionism also had unique relations with the self‐ and significant incremental variance in general anxious
consciousness facet of neuroticism and had unique negative symptoms (1%) for university students only and anxious
relations with the warmth facet of extraversion (see Table 4). arousal (3%) for community adults only. EC perfectionism was
the only unique predictor within the second blocks in relation to
general depressive symptoms and anhedonic depression for
Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions
both university students and community adults, and in relation
of perfectionism and five‐factor domains in relation to
to general anxious symptoms and anxious arousal for
depressive and anxious symptoms
community adults (see Table 5).
Zero‐order correlations were computed to examine the Conversely, we examined the incremental validity of the
relations between the PS and EC dimensions of perfection- five‐factor summary scores in accounting for unique
ism and the MASQ general depressive symptoms, anhedonic variance in depressive and anxious symptoms over and
depression, general anxious symptoms and anxious arousal above the PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism scores. In
scores. Consistent with the results for the individual PS and four separate regressions for both samples, the PS perfec-
EC perfectionism measures (see Table 2), PS perfectionism tionism and EC perfectionism scores were entered in the first

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
240 D. M. Dunkley et al.

Table 4. Zero‐order correlations, partial correlations and standardized regression coefficients of personal standards perfectionism and
evaluative concerns perfectionism with the neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness facets for the university
student sample (n = 357) and the community adult sample (n = 223)

University student sample Community adult sample

PS perfectionism EC perfectionism PS perfectionism EC perfectionism

NEO variables r pr β r pr β z‐score r pr β r pr β z‐score

Neuroticism facets
Anxiety .05 −.14** .14 .43*** .44*** −.04 −6.74*** .18** −.19** .37*** .50*** .50*** .18 −5.83***
Angry hostility .13* .00 .22*** .34*** .31*** .12* −3.71*** .09 −.19** .11 .38*** .41*** .09 −5.05***
Depression .04 −.24*** .15 .58*** .61*** .52*** −9.96*** .12 −.32*** .13 .55*** .61*** .30*** −7.83***
Self‐consciousness .00 −.21*** −.08 .44*** .48*** .02 −7.76*** .12 −.31*** .09 .52*** .58*** .26*** −7.22***
Impulsiveness −.03 −.12* −.10 .19*** .22*** −.15** −3.76*** .03 −.16* −.06 .25*** .29*** −.06 −3.75***
Vulnerability −.07 −.31*** −.29*** .47*** .54*** .12 −9.48*** −.09 −.46*** −.54*** .40*** .58*** −.12 −8.36***
Extraversion facets
Warmth .08 .20*** .11 −.27*** −.32*** −.07 5.99*** .03 .26*** −.01 −.28*** −.37*** −.17* 5.26***
Gregariousness .06 .13* −.04 −.15** −.19*** .02 3.58*** −.03 .06 −.14 −.12 −.14* −.05 1.52
Assertiveness .30*** .42*** .23*** −.19*** −.35*** −.10 8.35*** .25*** .42*** .17* −.13* −.37*** −.15 6.40***
Activity .32*** .40*** .33*** −.13* −.29*** .11 7.70*** .32*** .30*** .29*** .13* −.08 .33*** 3.30***
Excitement seeking .11* .14** .03 −.06 −.11* .07 2.89** .09 .09 .05 .03 −.03 .08 1.01
Positive emotions −.06 .12* −.35*** −.40*** −.42*** −.41*** 6.00*** .02 .25*** −.11 −.28*** −.36*** −.24** 5.10***
Openness facets
Fantasy −.15** −.16** −.24*** .00 .06 .04 −2.56* −.11 −.06 −.30*** −.10 −.05 −.08 −.17
Aesthetics .16** .13* .15* .09 .03 .28*** 1.20 .17** .16* .10 .06 −.05 .09 1.87
Feelings .16** .20*** .17** −.07 −.15** −.13* 3.92*** .19** .22*** .19** .02 −.12 .07 2.88**
Actions −.04 −.01 −.05 −.08 −.07 −.07 .68 .01 .11 −.04 −.13 −.17* −.14 2.36*
Ideas .14** .19*** .12 −.08 −.15** −.11 3.74*** .23*** .26*** .27*** .04 −.13* .12 3.23**
Values −.07 .00 −.12* −.16** −.15** −.18** 1.54 −.04 .13 −.07 −.22*** −.25*** −.24*** 3.06**
Agreeableness facets
Trust −.07 .04 −.08 −.27*** −.27*** −.18** 3.47*** −.10 .19** −.14 −.39*** −.42*** −.35*** 5.07***
Straightforwardness −.11* −.05 −.07 −.15** −.12* −.13* .69 −.08 −.02 .02 −.10 −.07 .06 .34
Altruism .03 .14** .13 −.25*** −.28*** −.21** 4.80*** .07 .25*** .21** −.21** −.32*** −.06 4.72***
Compliance −.13* −.09 −.13* −.12* −.07 .01 −.17 −.13* −.01 −.11 −.21** −.16* −.07 1.37
Modesty −.10 −.15** −.08 .10 .15** .21*** −3.40*** −.16* −.19** −.19** −.02 .10 −.01 −2.37*
Tender mindedness .06 .08 .10 −.04 −.07 .09 1.70 −.03 .10 −.03 −.17** −.19** −.06 2.37*
Conscientiousness facets
Competence .29*** .49*** −.02 −.34*** −.52*** −.37*** 10.71*** .29*** .60*** .06 −.27*** −.59*** −.29*** 9.38***
Order .30*** .30*** .10 .06 −.06 .17** 4.17*** .23*** .37*** .15* −.10 −.31*** .08 5.56***
Dutifulness .34*** .40*** .09 −.07 −.23*** .12 7.06*** .26*** .44*** .05 −.14* −.39*** .01 6.73***
Achievement striving .57*** .64*** .60*** −.06 −.37*** .23*** 11.35*** .67*** .71*** .72*** .17** −.39*** .48*** 9.69***
Self‐discipline .34*** .48*** −.16* −.24*** −.43*** −.32*** 9.88*** .24*** .53*** −.26*** −.27*** −.54*** −.39*** 8.55***
Deliberation .24*** .31*** .00 −.11* −.22*** .00 5.97*** .17** .30*** −.05 −.09 −.25*** .01 4.38***

Note: z‐scores were used to examine the difference between the r’s of PS perfectionism and EC perfectionism with each NEO‐PI‐R facet for university students
and community adults, respectively.
EC, evaluative concerns; PS, personal standards.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

block, and the five‐factor summary scores were entered in Stoeber & Otto, 2006), which suggest that personal
the second block. As shown in Table 5, the subsequent entry standards and self‐critical evaluative concerns are higher‐
of the five‐factor summary scores in the second block order dimensions of perfectionism that underlie numerous
accounted for significant incremental variance over and measures derived from the different research frameworks of
above the first block containing PS perfectionism and EC Frost et al. (1990), Hewitt and Flett (1991) and Slaney et al.
perfectionism in general depressive symptoms (25%, 19%), (2001). Factor analyses of the selected PS perfectionism
anhedonic depression (12%, 16%), general anxious symp- (FMPS personal standards, HMPS self‐oriented perfection-
toms (19%, 21%) and anxious arousal (12%, 9%) for both ism, APS‐R high standards) and EC perfectionism (FMPS
university students and community adults. concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfec-
tionism, APS‐R discrepancy) measures supported a two‐
factor model consisting of PS and EC higher‐order latent
DISCUSSION factors of perfectionism over a one‐factor unidimensional
model of perfectionism in both university students and
The findings of the present study are consistent with community adults. As these core PS and EC dimensions can
convergent theory and previous factor analytic studies (e.g. be considered the building blocks of description on which
Blankstein et al., 2008; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001; for subsequent attempts at explanation of the perfectionism
reviews, see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006; construct can be built (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb,

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Perfectionism dimensions 241

Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses examining incremental validity of personal standards perfectionism and evaluative
concerns perfectionism and the five‐factor domains for the university student sample (n = 357) and the community adult sample (n = 223)

General Anhedonic General Anxious

Depressive sx Depression Anxious sx Arousal

NEO variables β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2

University student sample

Step 1 .46*** .28*** .32*** .19***
Neuroticism .68*** .36*** .62*** .43***
Extraversion −.03 −.18*** .08 .04
Openness .04 −.03 .06 .10*
Agreeableness .03 −.07 −.02 −.10*
Conscientiousness −.00 −.11* .11* .03
Step 2 .02** .02** .01* .01
PS perfectionism .02 .03 .03 −.04
EC perfectionism .15** .17** .11 .11
Community adult sample
Step 1 .44*** .40*** .37*** .24***
Neuroticism .73*** .45*** .65*** .47***
Extraversion .05 −.26*** .15* .12
Openness .07 −.01 .14* .01
Agreeableness .03 .03 −.03 −.09
Conscientiousness .11 −.07 .10 −.03
Step 2 .04*** .02* .02 .03*
PS perfectionism −.13 −.16 −.07 −.13
EC perfectionism .33*** .26** .20* .29**
University student sample
Step 1 .23*** .19*** .14*** .08***
PS perfectionism −.13* −.18*** .00 −.06
EC perfectionism .52*** .47*** .37*** .31***
Step 2 .25*** .12*** .19*** .12***
Neuroticism .59*** .26*** .55*** .38***
Extraversion −.01 −.16** .10 .06
Openness .04 −.03 .06 .11*
Agreeableness .05 −.05 −.00 −.09
Conscientiousness −.04 −.15* .08 .04
Community adult sample
Step 1 .29*** .26*** .18*** .18***
PS perfectionism −.19* −.41*** −.09 −.20*
EC perfectionism .63*** .64*** .47*** .51***
Step 2 .19*** .16*** .21*** .09***
Neuroticism .58*** .36*** .55*** .34***
Extraversion .05 −.26*** .15* .12
Openness .11 .02 .16* .04
Agreeableness .06 .04 −.01 −.06
Conscientiousness .13 −.02 .10 −.00

Note: EC, evaluative concerns; PS, personal standards.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

et al., 2006), the present study obtained a more definitive perfectionism was primarily associated with the neuroticism
understanding of what the higher‐order PS and EC domain and negatively associated with the agreeableness
dimensions of perfectionism actually represent by relating domain in both university students and community adults.
them to a comprehensive scheme of personality, the five‐ These findings are in keeping with the five‐factor domains
factor model. correlates of individual FMPS, HMPS and APS‐R PS
An important strength of the present study was that we perfectionism and EC perfectionism measures found in
demonstrated the generalizability of the relations of the PS previous studies (Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et al., 2006;
and EC dimensions of perfectionism to the NEO‐PI‐R five Enns & Cox, 2002; Hill et al., 1997; Rice et al., 2007;
domains and 30 facets across university students and Stumpf & Parker, 2000).
community adults, which provides additional assurance To our knowledge, our study was the first to relate the
regarding the veracity of the clear distinction between PS NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets to the higher‐order PS perfectionism
and EC dimensions. At the broader level of the five‐factor and EC perfectionism dimensions. This allowed for a richer,
domains, PS perfectionism was clearly distinguished from more fine‐grained portrait of the distinction between these
EC perfectionism in that PS perfectionism was primarily two dimensions than that previously provided in the extant
associated with the conscientiousness domain, whereas EC literature. In relation to the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets, both

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
242 D. M. Dunkley et al.

university students and community adults who scored higher and unstable sense of self (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff,
on PS perfectionism primarily described themselves as et al., 2006). Considering the clinical application of these
diligent, purposeful and working hard to achieve their goals findings, clinicians might not focus solely on trying to
and aspirations (achievement striving); dominant, forceful reduce high standards in treating perfectionists; rather,
and socially ascendant (assertiveness); leading fast‐paced clinicians might also target these self‐critical evaluative
lives (activity); and receptive to their own inner feelings and tendencies of perfectionism and their dysfunctional aspects
emotions (openness to feelings). In addition, community (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006).
adults who scored higher on PS perfectionism also uniquely Although EC perfectionism was strongly related to
described themselves as willing to consider new ideas neuroticism, the present findings also illustrated that EC
(openness to ideas) and neat, tidy and well organized (order). perfectionism is a more differentiated construct than the
These results are in keeping with the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets global dimension of neuroticism in that EC perfectionism
correlates of HMPS self‐oriented perfectionism previously was also uniquely characterized by lower levels of
found (Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et al., 2006; Hill et al., agreeableness in both university students and community
1997). adults. This finding is consistent with previous studies of EC
In sharp contrast to PS perfectionism, both university perfectionism indicators and related variables that indicate
students and community adults who scored higher on EC that EC perfectionism reflects a disagreeable form of
perfectionism primarily described themselves as prone to neuroticism (e.g. Dunkley et al., 1997; Dunkley, Blankstein,
feelings of sadness, hopelessness and loneliness (depres- Zuroff, et al., 2006; see Zuroff et al., 2004). The specific
sion); less exuberant and high spirited (low positive associations between the six neuroticism facets and EC
emotions); tending to accept authority, honour tradition perfectionism suggest that EC perfectionism is uniquely
and be generally conservative (low openness to values); related to the depression facet in both university students and
cynical and sceptical of others (low trust); often unprepared community adults, which is also in keeping with previous
and inept (low competence); and easily discouraged and studies of EC perfectionism indicators and related variables
eager to quit (low self‐discipline). In addition, although (e.g. Dunkley et al., 1997; Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et al.,
university students with higher EC perfectionism also 2006; Hill et al., 1997).
uniquely described themselves as prone to anger, frustration Furthermore, we examined whether the main effects of
and bitterness (angry hostility) and reluctant to get involved EC perfectionism and PS perfectionism in predicting
in the problems of others (low altruism), community adults depressive and anxious symptoms were through shared
with higher EC perfectionism also uniquely described variance with the five‐factor domains (see Coyne & Whiffen,
themselves as sensitive to ridicule and prone to feelings of 1995). In hierarchical regression analyses, the five‐factor
inferiority (self‐consciousness) and formal, reserved and domain scores, in particular neuroticism, was a strong
distant in manner (low warmth). These results are in keeping predictor of depressive and anxious symptoms (see Table 5).
with the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets correlates of HMPS socially However, EC perfectionism and PS perfectionism accounted
prescribed perfectionism found in previous studies (e.g. for significant amounts of incremental variance in general
Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et al., 2006; Hill et al., 1997), depressive symptoms and anhedonic depression scores for
as well as the NEO‐PI‐R 30 facets correlates of other related both university students and community adults, with EC
measures derived from other different theoretical frame- perfectionism emerging as the unique predictor within the
works (Dunkley, Blankstein, & Flett, 1997; Dunkley & block. EC perfectionism and PS perfectionism and/or EC
Kyparissis, 2008; Dunkley, Sanislow, Grilo, & McGlashan, perfectionism within the block also exhibited unique
2004). associations with general anxious symptoms and anxious
In summary, although Shafran et al. (2002) considered arousal (for community adults only) after controlling for the
the clinical perfectionism concept to be a unidimensional five‐factor domain scores. Thus, our results provide further
construct that involves both the determined pursuit of self‐ support for EC perfectionism as a specific, lower‐order trait
imposed standards and extremely vulnerable self‐evaluation, that has incremental validity over and above higher‐order
the emerging empirical evidence underscores the suggestion personality traits (e.g. Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et al.,
that perfectionism is better conceptualized as composed of 2006; Zuroff et al., 2004). The negative interpersonal style
distinct dimensions (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., that individuals with higher EC perfectionism exhibit
2006). Our convergent NEO‐PI‐R findings suggest that the beyond neuroticism seems a good candidate to explain the
PS higher‐order dimension of perfectionism most closely incremental predictive validity of EC perfectionism because
reflects the active perfectionistic striving aspect of the per- previous research has found the relation between EC
fectionism construct that has been emphasized in the perfectionism measures and depressive symptoms to be
literature (see Shafran et al., 2002). On the other hand, the explained through low levels of perceived social support
EC higher‐order dimension of perfectionism most closely (e.g. Dunkley, Sanislow, Grilo, & McGlashan, 2009; Dunkley,
reflects the extremely vulnerable self‐evaluation and patho- Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003).
logical components of perfectionism but does not reflect the There are limitations of the present study and areas that
determined pursuit of self‐imposed standards. Moreover, our warrant attention in future research. First, our findings were
results support the contention that EC perfectionism is based on self‐report measures. Thus, replication with other
primarily manifested in an insecure and defensive interper- methods of data collection (e.g. daily diaries, observer
sonal orientation (e.g. mistrust) that maintains a vulnerable ratings) would be beneficial. Second, the data for this study

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Perfectionism dimensions 243

were collected concurrently. Longitudinal studies would be Bouvard, M., Robbe Grillet, P., Pham, S., Milliery, M., Amireche, S.,
useful to demonstrate the differential effects of PS and EC Fanget, F., et al. (2000). Étude de validation d’une échelle
multidimensionnelle de perfectionnisme. Revue Francophone de
dimensions of perfectionism over time. Finally, the gener- Clinique Comportementale et Cognitive, 2, 12–22.
alizability of the present results should be examined in other Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
relevant populations (e.g. highly gifted people) and in model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
clinical populations. equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
In conclusion, the present study provides further support Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159.
for personal standards and self‐critical evaluative concerns Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
higher‐order dimensions of perfectionism, which cut across Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
numerous measures derived from separate theoretical behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
frameworks (e.g. Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Associates.
Slaney et al., 2001). Our study provides a richer and more Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO‐PI‐R) and NEO Five‐Factor Inventory
definitive understanding of what the PS and EC higher‐ (NEO‐FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
order dimensions of perfectionism represent by locating Assessment Resources.
these dimensions within a comprehensive scheme of Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as
personality provided by the NEO‐PI‐R in both university diathesis for depression: The case of sociotropy–dependency
students and community adults. Moreover, our findings and autonomy–self‐criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
358–378.
indicate that EC perfectionism is clearly distinguishable Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Flett, G. L. (1997). Specific
from neuroticism in terms of a disagreeable interpersonal cognitive‐personality vulnerability styles in depression and the
style, a specific negative emotional trait (i.e. depression) five‐factor model of personality. Personality and Individual
and current depressive symptoms. Differences, 23, 1041–1053.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R. M., & Grilo, C. M.
(2006). Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions
of ‘clinical’ perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44,
63–84.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Zuroff, D. C., Lecce, S., & Hui,
This research was supported by Social Sciences and
D. (2006). Self‐critical and personal standards factors of
Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research perfectionism located within the five‐factor model of personality.
Grants awarded to the first and second authors, a Fonds de la Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 409–420.
Recherche en Santé du Québec Bourses de Chercheurs‐ Dunkley, D. M., & Kyparissis, A. (2008). What is DAS self‐critical
Boursiers awarded to the first author and a University of perfectionism really measuring? Relations with the five‐factor
model of personality and depressive symptoms. Personality and
Toronto at Mississauga Internal Research Grant awarded to
Individual Differences, 44, 1295–1305.
the second author. Dunkley, D. M., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., & McGlashan, T. H.
(2004). Validity of DAS perfectionism and need for approval in
relation to the five‐factor model of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1391–1400.
REFERENCES Dunkley, D. M., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., & McGlashan, T. H.
(2009). Self‐criticism versus neuroticism in predicting depression
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, and psychosocial impairment over four years in a clinical sample.
317–332. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50, 335–346.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self‐
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411– 423. situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Person-
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos users’ guide version 5.0. Chicago, IL: ality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252.
Small Waters Corporation. Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of
Bardone‐Cone, A. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Frost, R. O., Bulik, C. M., perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett, & P. L. Hewitt
Mitchell, J. E., Uppala S., et al. (2007). Perfectionism and eating (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–62).
disorders: Current status and future directions. Clinical Psychology Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Review, 27, 384–405. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory,
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. ical Association.
Blankstein, K. R., & Dunkley, D. M. (2002). Evaluative Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Endler, N. S., & Bagby, R. M. (1995).
concerns, self‐critical, and personal standards perfectionism: Conceptualization and assessment of personality factors in
A structural equation modeling strategy. In G. L. Flett, & P. depression. European Journal of Personality, 9, 309–350.
L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990).
treatment (pp. 285–315). Washington, DC: American Psycho- The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and
logical Association. Research, 14, 449–468.
Blankstein, K. R., Dunkley, D. M., & Wilson, J. (2008). Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and
Evaluative concerns and personal standards perfectionism: social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association
Self‐esteem as a mediator and moderator of relations with with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social
personal and academic needs and estimated GPA. Current Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Psychology, 27, 29–61. Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., & Araujo, G. (2010). Perfectionistic
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general concerns suppress associations between perfectionistic strivings and
structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, positive life outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,
17, 303–316. 584–589.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
244 D. M. Dunkley et al.

Hill, R. W., McIntire, K., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Perfectionism Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S.
and the Big Five factors. Journal of Social Behaviour and (2001). The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and
Personality, 12, 257–270. Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130–145.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
modeling (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 25, 173–180.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL‐VI user’s guide Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfection-
(3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc. ism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social
Labrecque, J., Stephenson, R., Boivin, I., & Marchand, A. (1998). Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
Validation de l’échelle multidimensionelle du perfectionnisme Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D., (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis
auprès de la population francophone. Revue Francophone de of perfectionism and its relation to other personality characteristics.
Clinique Comportementale et Cognitive, 3, 1–14. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837–852.
Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Freeston, M. H., Dugas, M., Ladouceur, Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the
R., Boivin, I., et al. (1994). L’Échelle de standards personnels dimensions of perfectionism in college students. Measurement
(French version of the Frost MPS). Sainte‐Foy, QC: Université and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 157–165.
Laval. Waintraub, L., Delalleau, B., Lavergne, A., & Bertrand, F. (1997).
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). French version of the Mood and Anxiety Questionnaire (MASQ).
Perfectionism and the five‐factor model of personality. Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier: Courbevoie.
Assessment, 14, 385–398. Watson, D., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Clark, L. A., Strauss,
Rolland, J. P., Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1998). A M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a tripartite model: I.
psychometric examination of the French translations of the Evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of anxiety
NEO‐PI‐R and NEO‐ FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, and depression symptom scales. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
71, 269–291. ogy, 104, 3–14.
Rolland, J. P., & Petot, J.‐M. (1998). Questionnaire de Personnalité Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). Five‐factor model
NEO‐PI‐R (traduction française). Paris: Les Éditions du Centre personality disorder research. In P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger
de Psychologie Appliquée. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five‐factor model of
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical personality (2nd ed., pp. 59–87). Washington, DC: American
perfectionism: A cognitive–behavioural analysis. Behaviour Psychological Association.
Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004). Conceptu-
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopa- alizing and measuring personality vulnerability to depression:
thology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin,
Review, 21, 879–906. 130, 489–511.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 26: 233–244 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/per
Copyright of European Journal of Personality is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.