the interpersonal relationships and social perceptions of adolescent perfectionists

The Interpersonal Relationships and Social Perceptions of Adolescent

Perfectionists

Rich Gilman and Ryan AdamsCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and

University of Cincinnati Medical School

Alex NounopoulosUniversity of Kentucky

This study investigated the relationship between multidimensional perfectionism, self-reported interpersonal relationships,and peer-reported prosocial, disruptive, and academic behaviors among a general sample of 984 9th-grade adolescents. Cut-scores from the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) classified adolescents asadaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and nonperfectionist. Adaptive perfectionists reported significantly higherlevels of positive interpersonal relationships than maladaptive perfectionists or nonperfectionists. Further, peers rated bothperfectionism groups as more prosocial and less disruptive than nonperfectionists. Adaptive perfectionists were more likedthan maladaptive perfectionists. Implications of these findings, particularly as they pertain to the nomothetic understanding ofmultidimensional perfectionism among older, school-aged adolescents conclude the paper.

A number of theoretical and research papers havefocused on the construct of perfectionism, typicallydefined as the setting of especially high personalstandards (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Hamachek, 1978;Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Contemporary studiesamong adults often have separated perfectionismsinto ‘‘healthy’’ (or adaptive) and ‘‘unhealthy’’ (ormaladaptive) subtypes (Blankstein, Dunkley, & Wil-son, 2008; Enns & Cox, 2002; DiBartolo, Li, & Frost,2008; Rice & Ashby, 2007). The key distinction betweenthe two subtypes appears to be the level of acceptancean individual permits when their perceived perfor-mance does not meet their established standards. Ingeneral, adaptive perfectionists are more acceptingthan maladaptive perfectionists when such occasionsarise (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004). Further, thislevel of acceptance is differentially related to psycho-logical functioning, as adaptive perfectionists typicallyreport lower psychological distress and higher self-esteem than maladaptive perfectionists (e.g., Ashby &Rice, 2002; Brown et al., 1999; Burns & Fedewa, 2005;Stoeber & Otto, 2006).

Researchers have extended their focus to adolescentsamples over the past decade, with findings generallyconsistent with those reported in adults. For example,adolescents who self-reported as maladaptive perfec-tionists also reported significantly higher levels ofdepression and anxiety (Gilman & Ashby, 2003a,2003b) and poorer coping skills (Nounopoulos, Ashby,

& Gilman, 2006) than adolescents who self-reported asadaptive perfectionists. Further, adaptive perfection-ists reported higher levels of academic functioning(e.g., grade-point average and positive school experi-ences) and higher levels of overall well-being thanmaladaptive perfectionists (Accordino, Accordino, &Slaney, 2000; Gilman, Ashby, Sverko, Florell, & Varjas,2005). Collectively, these findings indicate that nega-tive outcomes associated with perfectionism are notnecessarily due to setting high standards, but rather tothe discrepancy between high standards and perfor-mance. It is noted, however, that maintaining highstandards even in the midst of internal distress mayconfer some psychological benefits to adolescents, incomparison to those who report comparatively lowstandards (i.e., nonperfectionists). For example, Gil-man et al. (2005) found that adolescents classified aseither adaptive or maladaptive perfectionists reportedsignificantly higher mean scores on some variables(e.g., family satisfaction, academic outcomes) thanwhat was reported by nonperfectionists.

To date, virtually all studies have focused on in-traindividual differences, limiting an understanding ofthe interpersonal functioning of adolescent perfec-tionists. Some studies based on self-reports found thatmaladaptive perfectionists reported higher levels ofsocial stress and viewed themselves as less popularthan adaptive perfectionists (Gilman & Ashby, 2003b;Ye, Rice, & Storch, 2008). Nevertheless, commonlynoted concerns regarding the use of self-reports (e.g.,social desirability) may be particularly salient withrespect to perfectionistic adolescentsFmany of whom

r 2010 The Authors

Journal of Research on Adolescence r 2010 Society for Research on Adolescence

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00689.x

We thank Bridget Fredstrom for her help in preparing thismanuscript.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Rich Gilman, Division ofDevelopmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’sHospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., MLC 4002, Cincinnati,OH 45229. E-mail: [email protected]

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 21(2), 505 – 511

mailto:[email protected]

are compelled to perceive themselves as being perfect(Gilman & Ashby, 2006; Slaney et al., 2001). Informa-tion obtained from both self- and peer reports wouldassess the degree of convergence between self-reported social perceptions versus those held by thepeer group. Further, some studies using peer reportsamong college students have found that maladaptiveperfectionists tended to display higher levels of neg-ative effect, and they tended to ruminate on theirmistakes more frequently than adaptive perfectionists(Bieling et al., 2004; Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony,2003). Although not yet studied in adolescents, if suchfindings can be extended to this younger age group, itmay be that specific behaviors displayed by perfec-tionists (in general) or between perfectionism subtypesmay influence how they are perceived by others.

The purpose of this study was to assess the degreeto which the perceptions held by adolescent perfec-tionists of their social functioning converge with peerperceptions. A large number of high school freshmencompleted self-reports on perfectionism and socialfunctioning. In addition, adolescents were asked toselect peers who displayed a variety of positive (e.g.,prosocial, likeability), academic, and maladaptive(e.g., disruptive) behaviors. Given that this studyrepresented the first attempt to incorporate both self-and peer-reported perceptions, the findings reportedherein were exploratory. No a priori hypotheseswere formulated.

METHOD

Participants

Nine hundred and eighty-four ninth-grade studentsfrom four separate high schools in one Southeasternstate participated in the study (n 5 213, 107, 372, and 292for each school). The mean age of the sample was 14.66(SD 5 .68), and included 491 females and 470 males (23students did not report their gender). Participants wereprimarily Caucasian (76%), but consisted of AfricanAmerican (10.7%), Hispanic American (2.5%), andAsian American (2%) adolescents. The remainder re-ported being from ‘‘Other’’ race/culture backgrounds.School policies from each school district prohibitedgathering socioeconomic data, although each schoolrepresented a wide array of economic backgrounds.

Measures

The Almost Perfect Scale – Revised (APS-R; Slaneyet al., 2001) is a 23-item self-report measure thatutilizes a 7-point Likert-type rating scale (rangingfrom 1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree). The

High Standards subscale is comprised of 7 items(e.g., ‘‘I have high standards for my performance atwork or at school’’), and the Discrepancy subscaleconsists of 12 items (e.g., ‘‘My best just never seemsto be good enough’’). The remaining 4 items wereirrelevant and were excluded in this study. Estimatesof internal consistency revealed adequate reliabilityfor both the High Standard (a5 .85) and Discrepancy(a5 .90) subscales. These estimates were consistentwith previous studies (Accordino et al., 2000; Gilman& Ashby, 2003a, 2003b).

The Interpersonal Relations scale of the BehaviorAssessment Systems for Children 2FSelf Report-Ado-lescent (BASC 2FSRP-A; Reynolds & Kamphaus,2004) assesses self-reported perceptions of success inrelating to others. The entire measure consists of 176items, which form 16 separate clinical and adaptivebehavior subscales. The Interpersonal Relations sub-scale is a clinical scale and consists of 7 items, all re-sponded to on true–false or a 0 5 never to 3 5 alwaysrating format. Lower scores denote more positive socialrelationships. Psychometric properties of the instru-ment and its subscales are well established, includingacceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliabil-ity, and solid evidence of convergent and discriminantvalidity (see Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). For thepresent study, the coefficient a for the InterpersonalRelations subscale was .80.

Peer-Reported Behaviors. Students rated their peerson the question, ‘‘How much do you like to be in school/social activities with this person?’’ using a 1 (not at all) to5 (very much) rating scale. This wording of this par-ticular item was taken from the Social Relations Ques-tionnaire (Blyth, Hill, & Thiel, 1982), although thequestion was directed to specific peers. In addition,questions derived from Parkhurst and Asher (1992)were used to examine specific peer-reported socialbehaviors. Using a yes/no response option, partici-pants were asked to rate their peers on the followingquestions: ‘‘Who likes to help others?’’ ‘‘Who do you ad-mire or look up to?’’ ‘‘Who disrupts others a lot?’’ ‘‘Who setsvery high academic expectations for themselves?’’ and‘‘Who always seems to do well in their schoolwork?’’

Similar to procedures outlined in Parkhurst andAsher (1992; see also Miller & Byrnes, 2001), ratherthan utilizing existing classroom rosters that con-strained the endorsements within one setting, partici-pants received a random selection of names to rate.This more open nomination procedure allowed stu-dents to be rated by peers who may be more familiarwith them across settings (through sports teams, per-sonal interactions, extracurricular activities, etc.). Toavoid loss of data due to unfamiliarity or endorsementsbased on second-hand knowledge (i.e., reputation),

506 GILMAN, ADAMS, AND NOUNOPOULOS

peers were asked to rate each other only if they haddirect contact with that peer within the past year. Giventhat time constraints precluded presenting the entireclass roster to each respondent, students were ran-domly selected from the complete roster and placedinto groupings of 15. Students were given the samegrouping of names when completing the questions.Students’ own names did not appear in the group, andthus each study participant could potentially receiveup to 15 endorsements for each question. Skewnessand kurtosis of the total number of nominations forall questions were within normal limits (skew-ness 5 � .01, kurtosis 5 � .90), and ranged between 0and 15 (M 5 8.2, SD 5 3.6). The number of ‘‘yes’’ en-dorsements for each dichotomously scored behaviorwas computed and divided by the total number ofnominations. This ratio was then converted to a z score.

Procedure

Once parental consent and student assent were col-lected, the students completed the instruments(presented in counterbalanced order) in the class-rooms. To limit disruptions and other extraneousvariables, nonparticipants went to the library or an-other out-of-classroom setting. Participants were in-structed to sit at least two seats apart from eachanother and to refrain from sharing their results.Further, trained research assistants and a teacher oradministrator were stationed in each classroom toaddress any questions and monitor participants’behavior. The consent rate across all schools was68%; individual consent rates for each high schooldid not fall below 65%. All data were collected in thelate Spring semester of 2007.

RESULTS

Interdomain correlations are shown in Table 1, andonly significant findings will be discussed. Consis-tent with previous studies (Gilman & Ashby, 2003b;Gilman et al., 2005), the scores on the APS-R HighStandards scales were positively associated with self-reported interpersonal relationship problems, whilethe converse was found for the APS-R Discrepancyscale scores. Scores on the APS-R High Standardsscales were also positively associated with peer-reported likeability and prosocial and academicbehaviors and negatively related to peer-reporteddisruptive behaviors. Opposite findings were notedfor the APS-R Discrepancy scale scores.

Perfectionism Classification Strategy

Consistent with efforts in adult studies to create amore uniform classification strategy, Rice, Ashby,and Gilman (unpublished data) used cluster analysisto determine initial cut-points, followed by an anal-ysis of receiver operating characteristics and otherindicators to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, andpositive and negative predictive power of the cut-points. The derived formulas reported in the Rice,Ashby, and Gilman study will again be used for thepresent investigation. In brief:

If High Standards score � 37 ¼ Perfectionist

ð< ; 37 ¼ NonperfectionistÞ:If Perfectionist; and Discrepancy score

� 42 ¼Maladaptive Perfectionist

� ð< ; 42 ¼ Adaptive PerfectionistÞ:

TABLE 1

Correlations Between Variables in the Study

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. High standards F

2. Discrepancy � .17�� F

3. Interpersonal relations

problems

� .24�� .38�� F

4. Likability .10�� .05 � .16�� F

5. Helps others .26�� .05 � .07 .39�� F

6. Admires .20�� .05 � .10�� .42�� .42�� F

7. Disrupts others � .21�� .02 .06 � .03 � .29�� .13�� F

8. High academic

expectations

.29�� .14�� .09� .28�� .66�� .48�� .34�� F

9. Does well in school .27�� .09� � .10�� .25�� .71�� .38�� .40�� .74�� F

Note. N 5 848 due to listwise deletion. Variables 4 through 9 are peer-reported variables.�po.05; ��po.01.

RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS, AND ADOLESCENT PERFECTIONISTS 507

A total of 369 adolescents were classified as adap-tive perfectionists, 204 were classified as maladaptiveperfectionists, and 314 adolescents were classified asnonperfectionists. The results of the 2 (APS-R subscalesscores) � 3 (groups) MANOVA was significant, Pillais’Trace 5 1.17, F(2, 875) 5 612.14, po.001. The multi-variate effect size, based on Cohen’s (1988) bench-marks, was large (Z5 .59). Follow-up univariate testswere significant (at po.001) for both High Standards,F(2, 886) 5 986.19, and Discrepancy, F(2, 877) 5 433.01. Results of the Tukey post hoc tests were significantacross each group for each subscale, with adaptive(M 5 43.70, SD 5 3.78) and maladaptive perfectionists(M 5 42.49, SD 5 3.67) reporting significantly higherscores on the High Standards subscale than nonper-fectionists (M 5 30.14, SD 5 4.98). Maladaptive perfec-tionists reported the highest mean Discrepancy scores(M 5 53.53, SD 5 8.18), in comparison with adaptiveperfectionists (M 5 29.05, SD 5 8.56) and nonperfec-tionists (M 5 41.81, SD 5 11.79).

Differences in Self- and Peer-Reported PerceptionsAcross Perfectionism Groups

Separate one-way ANOVAs, with perfection cate-gories and demographic variables (i.e., school, gen-der, race) serving as independent variables and eachoutcome variable serving as the dependent variable,revealed no statistically significant interaction effects(all p values 4.05). Thus, data from all four highschools were combined.

For self-reported interpersonal relationships, theANOVA revealed significant differences across per-fectionism categories, F(2, 834) 5 35.94, po.001, Z2 5

.08. Follow-up post-hoc testing (using Tukey’s) re-vealed that adaptive perfectionists (M 5 11.62, SD 5

4.22) reported significantly more positive interper-

sonal relationships than either maladaptive perfec-tionists (M 5 16.08, SD 5 9.07) or nonperfectionists(M 5 15.84, SD 5 8.73). Mean score differences be-tween the maladaptive perfectionists and nonper-fectionists were not significant.

Table 2 reports the multivariate findings related tospecific peer-reported perceptions. A significantmultivariate effect size was found, Pillai’sTrace 5 .12, F(6, 752) 5 7.68, po.001, Z2 5 .06. Follow-up univariate tests (Bonferroni-corrected to .008) re-vealed significant differences across all variables.Adaptive perfectionists received a significantlyhigher number of endorsements on admiration, andthey were viewed as having higher academic ex-pectations than their maladaptive perfectionists.Both perfectionistic groups received significantlymore endorsements than nonperfectionists on ad-miration and having high academic expectations.Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists were nodifferent in terms of number of endorsements onhelping others, doing well in school, and displayingdisruptive behaviors. Only one variable, perceivedlikability, yielded equivocal findings, with adaptiveperfectionists collectively receiving significantlyhigher likeability ratings than nonperfectionists.Maladaptive perfectionists, on the other hand, re-ceived similar levels of perceived likability scores asthe other two groups. Examination of Cohen’s ds,along with commonly accepted effect size de-scriptors (see Cohen, 1988), revealed a consistentpattern in the magnitude of effect sizes across eachgroup for each variable. In general, the effect sizesbetween the adaptive perfectionist and the mal-adaptive perfectionist groups were small, the effectsizes between the maladaptive perfectionists andnonperfectionists were in the small to mediumrange, and, with the exception of likeability (which

TABLE 2

Means (and SD) of the Three Groups on the Peer Reports

Adaptive

Perfectionists

(n 5 331)

Maladaptive

Perfectionists

(n 5 175)

Nonperfectionists

(n 5 254) F

Cohen’s d for Follow-up Comparisons

Adapt Vs. Malad. Malad. Vs. Non- Adapt. Vs. Non-

Helps others 0.20 (0.88) 0.13 (1.12) � 0.35 (0.97) 24.81�� .07 .46�� .59��

Admiration 0.20 (1.07) � 0.03 (0.96) � 0.25 (0.86) 14.69�� .23� .24� .46��

Does well in school 0.24 (0.88) 0.07 (1.03) � 0.37 (1.04) 29.10�� .18 .43�� .63��

High academic expectations 0.28 (1.01) 0.02 (0.93) � 0.38 (0.91) 34.51�� .27� .43�� .69��

Mean likability score 2.83 (0.66) 2.70 (0.69) 2.65 (0.67) 15.84�� .19 .07 .24�

Is disruptive � 0.17 (0.86) � 0.09 (1.04) 0.28 (1.09) 5.72� .08 .35�� .45��

Note. df for each univariate peer-report F test was 2, 759 for the peer reports. All scores with the exception of Likability scores arereported as z scores.�po.05; ��po.01; ��po.001.


was in the small range), the effect sizes between theadaptive perfectionists and the nonperfectionistsranged from medium to large.

DISCUSSION

To date, most of the research investigating perfec-tionism among adolescents has focused primarily onintrapersonal variables, such as coping skills, de-pression, and anxiety (see Gilman & Ashby, 2006, fora review). Few studies have investigated how attri-butes that typify perfectionists (i.e., having especiallyhigh personal standards, which may or may not beaccompanied by high internal distress) may affectself- or peer-reported perceptions of social func-tioning. The data obtained in this study somewhatparalleled findings reported in previous studies(Gilman & Ashby, 2003b; Ye et al., 2008), mainly byindicating that adaptive perfectionists viewedthemselves as having significantly more positivepeer relationships and fewer peer conflicts thanmaladaptive perfectionists. However, there were nodifferences between maladaptive perfectionists andnonperfectionists on this variableFa finding incon-sistent with previous studies (e.g., Gilman et al.,2005). A noted difference between Gilman et al.(2005) and the present study were the domains offocus, with the former asking participants to reporttheir relationships with teachers and parents whilethe current study focused on peer relationships. Re-search has shown that proximal sources of informa-tion tend to shape more realistic self-perceptions ofone’s abilities than more distal sources (Kivetz &Tyler, 2007). It has also been contended that personalstriving and maintaining high personal standards ishighly valued by adults (Bieling et al., 2004) and is amessage often transmitted by teachers and manyparents. Thus, and in the case of adolescent mal-adaptive perfectionists, their pursuance of highstandards may be positively acknowledged by adultfigures in school and home (leading to heightenedsatisfaction in these areas), but are less favorablyreceived by peers.

Until now, results from adult studies obtainedsolely by self-reports were somewhat tempered byfindings that perfectionists tended to present them-selves in the most favorable light possible, often byminimizing any disclosures of personal shortcom-ings (e.g., Hewitt et al., 2003; Hewitt, Habke, Lee-Baggley, Sherry, & Flett, 2008). Similar observationshave been noted among adolescents (Nugent, 2000),highlighting the importance of including peer re-ports to establish (or refute) the validity of self-

reports. An important finding of this study was thatthe peer reports largely paralleled self-reported so-cial functioning across the three groups. That is, asadaptive perfectionists reported the most favorablelevels of social functioning, so too did their peersreciprocate these perceptions. Of equal interest isthat both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionistswere perceived as demonstrating significantly moreprosocial behaviors and having higher academicstandards, and both groups were perceived as dis-playing significantly less maladaptive behaviorsthan nonperfectionists. Further, follow-up compari-sons revealed small effect sizes between adaptiveand maladaptive perfectionists, but much larger ef-fect sizes when comparing either perfectionismgroup with nonperfectionists. Thus, there was asizeable difference in the frequency and type of be-haviors displayed by both perfectionism subtypes(vs. nonperfectionists), with both subtypes display-ing higher (and equivalent) levels.

Nevertheless, this is not to state that adaptive andmaladaptive perfectionists were equally liked by theirpeers, calling into question specific personalitycharacteristics and interpersonal behaviors that maypreclude maladaptive perfectionists from reachingequivalent levels of popularity. Research amongadults has explored how self-reported intrapersonalvariables such as hostile and avoidant personalitytraits (Sherry, Law, Hewitt, Flett, & Besser, 2008;Slaney et al., 2001) or social anxiety (Laurenti, Bruch,& Haase, 2008) may contribute to lower social ac-ceptance among maladaptive perfectionists. Amongadolescent samples, anecdotal evidence suggeststhat maladaptive perfectionists display high self-criticism, refusal to participate in activities unlesssuccess is ensured, and other self-limiting behaviors(Gilman & Ashby, 2006), all of which could com-promise the social acceptance of maladaptive per-fectionists. Empirical papers examining the above(and other) behaviors as potential mediators be-tween perfectionism and social acceptance are sug-gested next steps in this line of research.

Additional research is clearly necessary to sub-stantiate these exploratory findings. A number ofadditional limitations may reduce the generalizabil-ity of these results. First, the current study employeda cross-sectional design, calling into question anycausal inferences. Although the results revealed thatholding high standards was associated with a varietyof positive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and aca-demic behaviors, it is plausible that the behaviorsthemselves (reinforced by others) facilitated highstandards. Although recent models have been for-mulated (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2002), additional


research is needed to explain causality. Second, giventhat the study of perfectionism among adolescents isin its infancy, additional research examining corre-lates related to self-reported social functioning areneeded. Factors such as the number and quality ofpeer relationships, as well as the factors within largersocial network, all have been shown to key contrib-utors of optimal social functioning in adolescents(e.g., Berndt, 2007; Gilman, Schonfeld, & Carboni,2009; Giordano, Cernkovich, Groat, Pugh, & Swin-ford, 1998). These factors should be investigatedwithin the context of perfectionism as well. Finally,the study was based on adolescents from schooldistricts in one state. Additional studies are neces-sary to increase the external validity of the findingsacross disparate cultures and even nationalities (seeArnett, 2008).

REFERENCES

Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. B. (2000). Aninvestigation of perfectionism, mental health, andachievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in theSchools, 37, 535 – 545.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why Americanpsychology needs to become less American. AmericanPsychologist, 63, 602 – 614.

Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctionalattitudes, and self-esteem: A structural equations analy-sis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 197 – 203.

Berndt, T. J. (2007). Children’s friendships: Shifts over ahalf-century in perspectives on their development andtheir effects. In G. W. Ladd (Ed.), Appraising the humandevelopmentalsciences: Essays in honor of Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (pp.138 – 155). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is per-fectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of theperfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 36, 1373 – 1385.

Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003).Making the grade: The behavioural consequences ofperfectionism in the classroom. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 35, 163 – 178.

Blankstein, K. R., Dunkley, D. M., & Wilson, J. (2008).Evaluative concerns and personal standards perfec-tionism: Self-esteem as a mediator and moderator ofrelations with personal and academic needs and esti-mated GPA. Current Psychology, 27, 29 – 61.

Blyth, D. A., Hill, J. P., & Thiel, K. S. (1982). Early adoles-cents’ significant others: Grade and gender differencesin perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilialadults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adoles-cence, 11, 425 – 450.

Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S.,Juster, H. R., & Leung, A. W. (1999). Relationship ofperfectionism to affect, expectations, attributions and

performance in the classroom. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 18, 98 – 120.

Burns, L. R., & Fedewa, B. A. (2005). Cognitive styles: Linkswith perfectionistic thinking. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 38, 103 – 113.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

DiBartolo, P. M., Li, C.-Y., & Frost, R. O. (2008). How do thedimensions of perfectionism relate to mental health?Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 401 – 417.

Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessmentof perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L.Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treat-ment (pp. 33 – 62). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism andmaladjustment: An overview of theoretical definitionaland treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment(pp. 5 – 31). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003a). A first study of perfec-tionism and multidimensional life satisfaction amongadolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 218 – 235.

Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003b). Multidimensional per-fectionism in a sample of middle school students: Anexploratory investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 40,677 – 689.

Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2006). Perfectionism. In K. M.Minke & G. G. Bear (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Develop-ment, prevention, and intervention (pp. 303 – 312).Washington, DC: National Association of School Psy-chologists.

Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K.(2005). A study of perfectionism in American and Cro-atian youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 39,155 – 166.

Gilman, R., Schonfeld, D., & Carboni, I. (2009). Using socialnetwork analysis as a lens to examine socially isolatedyouth. In M. Kerns (Ed.), Social victimization: A biopsy-chosocial perspective. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., Groat, H. T., Pugh, M.D., & Swinford, S. P. (1998). The quality of adolescentfriendships: Long term effects? Journal of Health and So-cial Behavior, 39, 55 – 71.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal andneurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of HumanBehavior, 15, 27 – 33.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Habke, M., Parkin,M., Lam, R. W., et al. (2003). The interpersonal expres-sion of perfection: Perfectionistic self-presentation andpsychological distress. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 84, 1303 – 1325.

Hewitt, P. L., Habke, A. M., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Sherry, S. B.,& Flett, G. L. (2008). The impact of perfectionistic self-presentation on the cognitive, affective, and physiolog-ical experience of a clinical interview. Psychiatry, 71,93 – 122.


Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: Theeffect of time perspective on the activation of idealisticversus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 102, 193 – 211.

Laurenti, H. J., Bruch, M. A., & Haase, R. F. (2008). Socialanxiety and socially prescribed perfectionism: Uniqueand interactive relationships with maladaptive ap-praisal of interpersonal situations. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 45, 55 – 61.

Miller, D. C., & Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Adolescents’ decisionmaking in social situations. A self-regulation perspec-tive. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22,237 – 256.

Nounopoulos, A., Ashby, J. S., & Gilman, R. (2006).Coping resources, perfectionism, and academic perfor-mance among adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43,613 – 622.

Nugent, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations andclassroom-based interventions. Journal of Secondary Gif-ted Education, 11, 215 – 222.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection inmiddle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, lone-liness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psy-chology, 28, 231 – 241.

Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Manual forbehavioral assessment system for children (2nd ed.). CirclePines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method forclassifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 54, 72 – 85.

Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psy-chopathology: A review of research and treatment.Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879 – 906.

Sherry, S. B., Law, A., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A.(2008). Social support as a mediator of the relationshipbetween perfectionism and depression: A preliminarytest of the social disconnection model. Personality andIndividual Differences, 45, 339 – 344.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S.(2001). The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised. Measurement andEvaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130 – 145.

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of per-fectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personal-ity and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295 – 319.

Ye, H. J., Rice, K. G., & Storch, E. A. (2008). Perfectionismand peer relations among children with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Devel-opment, 39, 415 – 426.


the interpersonal relationships and social perceptions of adolescent perfectionists

Documents