Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism

According to the two-factor theory of perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), perfectionism comprises two superordinate dimensions—perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC)—that show different, and often opposite, relations with psychological adjustment and maladjustment, particularly when their overlap is partialled out. Recently, Hill (2014) raised concerns about the interpretation of the relations that PS show after partialling. The present article aims to alleviate these concerns. First, we address the concern that partialling changes the conceptual meaning of PS. Second, we explain how the relations of residual PS (i.e., PS with PC partialled out) differ from those of PS, and how to interpret these differences. In this, we also discuss suppressor effects and how mutual suppression affects the relations of both PS and PC with outcomes. Furthermore, we provide recommendations of how to report and interpret findings of analyses partialling out the effects of PS and PC. We conclude that, if properly understood and reported, there is nothing to be concerned about when partialling PS and PC. On the contrary, partialling is essential if we want to understand the shared, unique, combined, and interactive relations of the different dimensions of perfectionism.

The study examined 1) profiles of multidimensional perfectionism; and 2) inter-relationships between these profiles and indices of body-related concerns and psychological health in the case of vocational dance students.

A cross-sectional design was employed.

One hundred and ninety-four vocational dance students (females = 169, males = 25; M age = 16.73, SD = 1.45) completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost-MPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), the Brief Measure of Positive and Negative Affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), the Social Physique Anxiety (SPA) Scale (Martin, Rejeski, Leary, McAuley, & Bane, 1997), an assessment of physical symptoms (Emmons, 1992), and the emotional and physical exhaustion subscale from the Athlete Burnout Measure (Raedeke & Smith, 2001).

Using a two-stage cluster analysis procedure, the dancers were grouped according to their scores on three Frost-MPS subscales (personal standards, concern over mistakes, and doubts about action). Four different profiles emerged: (1) dancers with pure personal standards perfectionism; (2) dancers with non perfectionism; (3) dancers with pure evaluative concerns perfectionism; and (4) dancers with a mixed profile of perfectionism. The results suggested that these different profiles of perfectionism distinguished according to body-related concerns and indicators of psychological health.

In support of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010), dancers with adaptive achievement tendencies demonstrated greater psychological adjustment compared to other three subtypes, whereas dancers with relatively greater concerns over mistakes and high doubts about actions, regardless of their personal standards, reported greater psychological distress.