Conceptions of Perfectionism and Interpersonal Problems: Evaluating Groups Using the Structural...

10.1177/1073191105284878ASSESSMENT Slaney et al. / PERFECTIONISM AND INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS

Conceptions of Perfectionismand Interpersonal ProblemsEvaluating Groups Using the StructuralSummary Method for Circumplex Data

Robert B. SlaneyAaron L. PincusAmanda A. UliaszekKenneth T. WangThe Pennsylvania State University

This study examined two conceptions of perfectionism in relation to interpersonal problems.Two hundred and seventy-nine undergraduate participants completed the Almost PerfectScale–Revised (APS-R) and the Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (DAPS). The authors used empiri-cally derived discriminant functions (APS-R) and cluster analysis (DAPS) to identify threegroups for both measures: adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Anal-yses of group profiles were performed on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex(IIP-C) scales using the structural summary method for circumplex data. APS-R and DAPSgroups were compared on interpersonal problems endorsement and IIP-C profile characteris-tics. For both measures, results supported the hypotheses that maladaptive perfectionists wouldexhibit elevated profiles reflecting hostile-dominant and friendly-submissive interpersonal prob-lems, whereas the adaptive perfectionists would exhibit low profile elevation indicative of in-terpersonal adjustment. Overall, results supported Slaney and colleagues’ (2001) model ofperfectionism and provided evidence for the validity of the APS-R and DAPS.

Keywords: perfectionism; IIP-C; Almost Perfect Scale–Revised; maladaptive perfection-ism; Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale

The major goal of this article is to clarify the relationsbetween two particular conceptions of perfectionism andtheir related measures and interpersonal problems utilizing thestructural summary method for circumplex data (Gurtman,1994; Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998; Gurtman & Pincus,2003; Pincus & Gurtman, 2003). In doing so, we also hope toprovide a generalizable example of how to apply thiscircumplex analytical approach to group-level data thatwould be appropriate for investigation of the interpersonalcharacteristics of any individual difference construct.

Perfectionism and Maladjustment

In the past 20 years an increasing number of articles hasdrawn attention to the clinical implications of perfection-ism. For example, Shaw and Segal (1999) have suggestedthat perfectionism is one of the most powerful predictorsof suicide. Blatt (1995) attributed the suicides of three “tal-ented, ambitious, and successful individuals” to what hetermed “intense perfectionism” (p. 1005). Tyrka,Waldron, Graber, and Brooks-Gunn (2002) found that per-

Assessment, Volume 13 No. 2, June 2006 138-153DOI: 10.1177/1073191105284878© 2006 Sage Publications

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 23, 2007 http://asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://asm.sagepub.com

fectionism was one of the few predictors of anorexia inyoung adults. Earlier, Pacht (1984) had noted that “the in-sidious nature of perfectionism leads me to use the labelonly when describing a type of psychopathology” (p.387). A considerable number of other authors also haveexpressed concerns about the negative psychological im-plications of perfectionism (Ashby, Mangine, & Slaney,1995; Barrow & Moore, 1983; Burns, 1980; Halgin &Leahy, 1989; Hewett & Flett, 1991; Hollender, 1965;Horney, 1950; Pirot, 1986; Sorotzkin, 1985). Overall, theabove studies suggest that perfectionism is a seriouspsychological concern.

Recently, a series of studies have raised questions aboutthe therapeutic implications of perfectionism. Data col-lected as part of the National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH) Treatment of Depression Collaborative ResearchProgram (TDCRP) (Elkin et al., 1989; Imber et al., 1990)indicated that elevated pretreatment scores on a measureof perfectionism predicted negative responses to brieftreatments for depression. Additional analyses of theTDCRP data by Blatt and his colleagues (Blatt, Quinlan,Pilkonos, & Shea, 1995; Blatt, Zuroff, Bondi, Sanislow, &Pilkonis, 1998; Blatt, Zuroff, Quinlan, & Pilkonis, 1996;Shahar, Blatt, Zuroff, Krupnick, & Sotsky, 2004; Shahar,Blatt, Zuroff, & Pilkonis, 2003; Zuroff et al., 2000) ex-plored possible reasons for the lack of responsiveness ofperfectionistic clients to therapy. The authors suggestedthat patients’ perfectionism impairs therapeutic outcomesby negatively affecting the therapeutic relationship. Blattand Zuroff (2002) concluded that “perfectionistic patientsappear to have greater interpersonal difficulty [italicsadded] within and external to the treatment process” (p.401). However, one specific concern with the results of theTDCRP study is that perfectionism was measured usingthe Self-Criticism Scale of the Dysfunctional AttitudesScale (DAS) (Weissman & Beck, 1978). This scale wasnot developed to capture the conceptual aspects of perfection-ism. In addition, it correlates highly (.59) with the othersubscale of the DAS, the Need for Approval Scale, althoughthe two scales were developed to measure different interper-sonal styles. The present study used two measures specificallydeveloped to assess multiple conceptions of perfectionism(self-focused vs. dyadic perfectionism, adaptive vs. maladap-tive perfectionism).

Broadening the Definition:The Multidimensional Aspectsof Perfectionism

In addition to the studies cited above, both the early an-ecdotal literature as well as early attempts to developscales to measure perfectionism (Burns, 1980; Frost, Mar-

ten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991;Slaney & Johnson, 1992) emphasized the negative aspectsof perfectionism. However, a number of recent studieshave qualified that emphasis. Frost, Heimberg, Holt,Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) factored the scores of theHewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional PerfectionismScale (HF-MPS) as well as the Frost et al. (1990) scale bythe same name (F-MPS). They reported two higher orderfactors: a “positive striving” factor and a “maladaptiveevaluation concerns” factor. Slaney, Ashby, and Trippi(1995) included the Slaney and Johnson (1992) AlmostPerfect Scale (APS) and essentially replicated the factoranalysis by Frost et al. (1993). Rice, Ashby, and Slaney(1998) performed a confirmatory factor analysis on theFrost et al. (1990) and Slaney and Johnson (1992) scales.They also found support for a higher order two-factorstructure, labeled adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism,which was highly consistent with previous results. Thesestudies seemed to indicate that there were positive, oradaptive, as well as negative, or maladaptive, aspects ofperfectionism.

With the above studies in mind, Slaney and his col-leagues decided to revise the APS to develop scales thatwere specifically designed to orthogonally measure theadaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism. Two qual-itative studies provided guidance in differentiating adaptivefrom maladaptive perfectionism. Slaney and Ashby (1996) in-terviewed a sample (n = 37) of self-described perfectionists ata large American university, and Slaney, Chadha, Mobley, andKennedy (2000) interviewed a small sample (n = 5) at the Uni-versity of Delhi, India. The purpose of these studies was to ex-aminewhatperfectionists believed to be the essence of theirperfectionism, with an aim to examining both positive andnegative aspects of perfectionism.

When asked what qualities or features defined theirperfectionism, the participants in both samples empha-sized having high standards for performance. Many alsomentioned a sense of orderliness or neatness. When que-ried, most participants said they would not give up theirperfectionism if given the chance; many viewed their highstandards and orderliness as central to their success. Thus,as in previous studies, high standards and order seemed toexemplify the positive aspects of perfectionism. Althoughit was unclear what defined the negative aspects of perfec-tionism, many of the participants who seemed to experi-ence greater distress related to their perfectionism also hadexpressed a perceived inability to meet their own stan-dards. Although these distressed participants reportedhaving high standards and a sense of orderliness, they alsoperceived themselves as consistently failing to meet their highstandards. Therefore, measuring the possible discrepancy be-tween high standards and perceived performance was seen as

Slaney et al. / PERFECTIONISM AND INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS 139



promising in defining and measuring the negative aspect ofperfectionism.

Thus, the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (APS-R; Slaney,Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996) was developed tospecifically capture the defining positive and negative aspectsof intrapersonal or self-focused perfectionism (Slaney,Rice, & Ashby, 2002; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, &Ashby, 2001), The High Standards and Order scales werebased on scales from the APS that were revised and ex-panded. They were developed to capture the positive as-pects of perfectionism. The Discrepancy scale wasspecifically developed as part of the revision of the APS tocapture the negative aspect of perfectionism. The develop-ment and psychometric aspects of the scale are describedin more detail in Slaney et al. (2001). The data providepromising initial support for the three subscales of theAPS-R and suggest that the High Standards and Orderscales measure positive attributes and the Discrepancyscale measures negative attributes. More specifically, theDiscrepancy scale has been positively and consistently re-lated to an array of measures of negative personality attrib-utes and psychological states (Ashby & Kottman, 1996;Ashby & Rice, 2002; Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice,2004; LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Mobley, Slaney, & Rice,2005; Rice et al., 1998; Rice & Lapsley, 2001; Rice &Slaney, 2002; Slaney et al., 2001; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Rus-sell, & Abraham, 2004). In contrast, the High Standardsand Order scales have been found to be consistently andpositively, although moderately, related to measures ofself-esteem and achievement, especially grade point aver-age (GPA; Grzegorek et al., 2004; Mobley et al., 2005;Rice et al., 1998; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Slaney et al., 2001).

A series of studies that involved grouping participantsbased on their APS-R subscale scores has been encourag-ing. Rice and Slaney (2002) reasoned that cluster analysesof the APS-R might yield clinically meaningful groups. Ina two-part study they found three clusters in both studiesthat they labeled as maladaptive and adaptive perfection-ists and nonperfectionists. The clusters were labeled basedon the configurations of the three scales for each cluster.Participants in the maladaptive cluster had high scores onall three scales. Participants in the adaptive cluster hadhigh scores on the High Standards and Order scales butdiffered from the maladaptive cluster by having low scoreson the Discrepancy scale. Participants who were labeled asnonperfectionists had lower scores on the High Standardsand Order scales but scores on the Discrepancy scale thatfell between these scores for the participants in the othertwo clusters. As expected, there were significant groupdifferences in Study 1, with maladaptive perfectionistshaving lower scores than adaptive perfectionists on self-esteem and positive affect and higher scores on depressionand trait and state anxiety. In Study 2, scores on positive af-

fect were higher for adaptive perfectionists. Maladaptiveperfectionists had higher scores than adaptive perfection-ists on measures of negative affect and anxiety. Thenonperfectionists tended to have scores between those ofthe two perfectionist groups.

More recently, Grzegorek et al. (2004) replicated theclusters found in Rice and Slaney (2002). They also foundthat adaptive perfectionists had higher self-esteem scoresand lower scores on self-criticism. Although GPA did notdiffer, maladaptive perfectionists were more dissatisfiedwith their grades than were adaptive perfectionists. Over-all, these results were very supportive of the potential ofthe APS-R as a clinically useful measure of self-focusedperfectionism.

Whereas the APS-R measures aspects of self-focusedperfectionism, Shea and Slaney (1999) developed the DyadicAlmost Perfect Scale (DAPS) to assess perfectionistic tenden-cies directed toward a significant other (i.e., having high stan-dards for the other’s behavior). This was accomplished byaltering the items of the APS-R to address close interpersonalrelationships. Shea, Slaney, and Rice (in press) found that theDAPS Discrepancy Scale was negatively related to relation-ship satisfaction and positively related to Avoidance and Anxi-ety measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale(Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The authors concluded thatthe DAPS appeared to be a promising measure of dyadic per-fectionism. We used both the APS-R and the DAPS in thepresent study to examine interpersonal problems associatedwith these two conceptions of perfectionism.

Perfectionism and theInterpersonal Circumplex

The current study sought to clarify the nature of inter-personal dysfunction associated with maladaptive formsof perfectionism and validate proposed distinctions betweenadaptive and maladaptive forms of perfectionism. To accom-plish this, we first identified groups of adaptive perfectionists,maladaptive perfectionists, and nonperfectionists based on re-sponses to the APS-R and DAPS. We then examined differ-ences between these groups on a widely used clinical model ofrelational dysfunction: the interpersonal problems circumplex(IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990; see Figure 1).

The interpersonal problems circumplex is a two-dimensionalcircular model of interpersonal dysfunction arising from themajor interpersonal dimensions of personality (Kiesler,1996; Pincus & Gurtman, in press). The vertical axis repre-sents problems with Dominance (or more broadly, Agency)and ranges from being too controlling (PA—90°) to beingtoononassertive(HI—270°).Thehorizontalaxis representsprob-lems with Nurturance (or more broadly, Communion)and ranges from sacrificing one’s own needs in favor ofothers’ needs too much (LM—0°) to lacking care for oth-

140 ASSESSMENT



ers and feeling interpersonally detached (DE—180°). Di-vided into octants, each spanning 45°, interpersonalproblem octants between the poles (NO—Intrusive, BC—Vindictive, FG—Socially Avoidant, JK—Exploitable)represent blends of Dominant and Nurturant interpersonalproblems (Wiggins, 2003).

Previous correlational research relating perfectionismto the interpersonal circumplex has generated mixed re-sults. Using the HF-MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewett,Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991), Hill, Zrull, andTurlington (1997) found that the Other-Oriented Perfec-tionism subscale was most strongly related to hostile-dominant interpersonal traits and problems for both menand women. In the same study, results relating the self-oriented perfectionism subscale to interpersonal traits andproblems varied by gender. For men, Self-Oriented Perfec-tionism was also most strongly related to hostile-dominantinterpersonal traits and problems. For women, the Self-Oriented Perfectionism subscale was most strongly re-lated to interpersonal extraversion and overly nurturant in-terpersonal problems. However, in all cases, the mag-nitude of relationship was much smaller for self-orientedperfectionism than for other-oriented perfectionism. Intheir comprehensive review of interpersonal aspects ofperfectionism, Habke and Flynn (2002) replicated and ex-tended these results. First, they generally replicated the re-

sults of Hill et al. (1997) using the HF-MPS. However,when similar analyses were conducted using an alternativemeasure also called the Multidimensional PerfectionismScale (F-MPS; Frost et al., 1990), results diverged signifi-cantly and all subscales of the F-MPS were related to inter-personally affiliative traits and problems for both men andwomen. Habke and Flynn (2002) concluded that “perfection-ism as construed by Hewitt and Flett seems to access a domi-nant and hostile interpersonal style that is quite distinct fromthe more agreeable traits tapped by the F-MPS” (p. 163).Subscales of the F-MPS (e.g., Concern Over Mistakes, Per-sonal Standards) primarily reflect self-focused perfection-ism.

Adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism. One distinc-tion that is unique to the model of perfectionism under-lying the APS-R and DAPS measures is that perfectionismmay be adaptive or maladaptive. These measures and theirassociated grouping procedures reflect the view that hav-ing high standards and a desire for order are not inherentlymaladaptive. However, experiencing a chronic discrep-ancy between standards and performance (of self or other)is maladaptive and distressing. If such distinctions arevalid, they should be reflected in associations with theinterpersonal problems circumplex. Specifically, we hy-pothesize that maladaptive forms of perfectionism should


(PA) Domineering

(BC) Vindictive

(DE) Cold

(FG) Avoidant

(HI) Nonassertive

(JK) Exploitable

(LM) OverlyNurturant

(NO) Intrusive90°

135°

180°

225°

270°

315°

0°

45°

FIGURE 1Interpersonal Problems Circumplex



be associated with an elevated IIP-C profile, suggestinginterpersonal distress, whereas adaptive forms of perfec-tionism should be associated with low levels of IIP-C pro-file elevation, suggesting interpersonal adjustment. Nohypotheses are offered for nonperfectionists, although weassume they are not inherently maladaptive (i.e., lowdiscrepancy).

Dyadic vs. self-focused perfectionism. The literature onperfectionism clearly implicates its negative impact oninterpersonal functioning. Dyadic perfectionism as as-sessed by subscales of the DAPS is an inherently inter-personal form of perfectionism, emphasizing highstandards and expectations for the behavior of significantothers. Both this conceptualization and the limited empiri-cal research allow us to hypothesize that when this form ofperfectionism is maladaptive, it will be associated withhostile-dominant interpersonal problems (e.g., cold, vin-dictive, domineering), perhaps reflecting an attempt tocope with a chronic state of discrepancy.

Self-focused perfectionism presents a more confusingpicture. These related constructs, assessed by measuressuch as the HF-MPS, F-MPS, and APS-R, reflect attitudesand values directed at the self and are thus not inherentlyinterpersonal in nature. In addition, the results of limitedempirical research relating the subscales of the HF-MPSand the F-MPS to the interpersonal circumplex are incon-sistent. Nonetheless, the bulk of research relating perfec-tionism to interpersonal adjustment (e.g., Alden, Beiling,& Wallace, 1994; Blatt & Zuroff, 2002; Habke & Flynn,2002) is based on these measures of perfectionism. In thepresent study, we hypothesize that self-focused perfec-tionism may negatively affect interpersonal functioning inmultiple ways, reflecting a pathoplastic relationship(Widiger, Verheul, & van den Brink, 1999) with interper-sonal problems. Pathoplasticity suggests that personalityand pathology are distinct, but personality can influencepresentation, treatment, and course of a disorder. Based onprevious research, this may take the form of hostile-dominantinterpersonal problems or affiliative interpersonal problems.Habke and Flynn (2002) proposed that these problems mightbe associated with gender. Specifically, they suggested thepossibility that women express perfectionistic tendencies viacommunal interpersonal strivings (problems arising from anemphasis on maintaining intimacy, union, and solidarity withothers), whereas men express perfectionistic tendencies viaagentic interpersonal strivings (problems arising from anemphasis on maintaining power, mastery, and assertionover others) (see also Horowitz, 2004; Pincus & Gurtman,in press; Wiggins, 2003).

METHODS

Participants

The participants were 279 students from a large, mid-Atlantic university. The sample was predominantly White(94%) and included 1.4% African Americans, 1.8% AsianAmericans, .4% Latina/Latino, 1.1% biracial, and 1.1% listedas Other. The mean age for men was 20.51 years (SD = 3.73)and 19.51 years for women (SD = 2.22). There were 205women (73.5%) and 74 men (26.5%). Participants were vol-unteers from an undergraduate educational psychologycourse; they were offered extra credit for their participation.An explanation of thestudy, informed consent forms, and ade-mographic questionnaire were provided along with the mea-sures used in the study. The measures were randomlyordered. These materials were distributed in a manila en-velope and participants were told it would take about 30min to complete the packet. They were given 1 week tocomplete and return the materials.

Measures

APS-R (Slaney et al., 1996). The APS-R was used tomeasure perfectionism. It is composed of 23 items that areresponded to on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging fromstrongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Sample itemsinclude, “I rarely live up to my high standards” and “I ex-pect the best from myself.” The APS-R consists of threesubscales: High Standards (7 items), Order (4 items), andDiscrepancy (12 items). Overall, studies have suggestedthat the High Standards and Order scales are associatedwith positive aspects of perfectionism (Rice et al., 1998;Rice & Slaney, 2002; Slaney et al., 2001; Suddarth &Slaney, 2001). The Discrepancy subscale captures the neg-ative aspects of perfectionism and refers to “the perceptionthat one consistently fails to meet the high standards thatone has set for oneself” (Slaney et al., 2002, p. 69).Suddarth and Slaney (2001) performed a principal compo-nents analysis on the APS-R and found evidence in sup-port of their three subscales, which accounted for a total of68% of the variance. A series of studies by Slaney and his as-sociates support the reliability and validity of the APS-R. In-ternal consistency coefficients for the APS-R ranged from.85 to .92 (Slaney et al., 2001). Concurrent validity of theAPS-R has been demonstrated through significant positivecorrelations with other measures of perfectionism andthrough expected correlations with theoretically relatedconstructs (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Slaney et al., 2001;Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). Factor intercorrelations werefound to be appropriately small to moderate. The correla-

142 ASSESSMENT



tion between High Standards and Order was .42, betweenHigh Standards and Discrepancy was –.12, and betweenOrder and Discrepancy was –.03 (Slaney et al., 2001). In-ternal consistency coefficients for the APS-R for the pres-ent study were .86 for High Standards, .88 for Order, and.95 for Discrepancy.

DAPS (Shea & Slaney, 1999). The items for the DAPSwere developed by altering the original items that were thebasis for the APS-R (Slaney et al., 1996). The DAPS itemsasked participants to respond in terms of their expectationsfor their partner or significant other (e.g., “My partner’sperformance rarely measures up to my standards”). Thepurpose was to measure the relationships between havingperfectionistic attitudes for others in close relationshipsand the rated satisfaction and quality associated with thoserelationships. The development of the scale is described inShea et al. (in press). Two studies provided support for thefactor structure, the internal consistencies of the subscales,and the validity of the subscales. The final scale has 26items and three subscales: DAPS High Standards, DAPSOrder, and DAPS Discrepancy. The internal consistenciesfor the two samples in Shea et al. (in press) were HighStandards .82 and .85, Order .87 and 90, and Discrepancy.93 and .94. For the present study, Cronbach’s alphas wereHigh Standards .84, Order .91, and Discrepancy .94.

IIP-C (Alden et al., 1990). The IIP-C is a 64-item inven-tory of distressing interpersonal behaviors the respondentidentifies as “hard to do” (i.e., behavioral inhibitions) or“does too much” (i.e., behavioral excesses). Items werederived from verbatim transcripts of patients’ psychother-apy intake interviews. Subsequent analyses identified thecurrent version, which conforms to the interpersonalcircumplex, through the covariation among the 8 IIP-Coctant scales. Cronbach’s alphas for the octant scales in thecurrent study were PA—Domineering (.75), BC—Vindic-tive (.77), DE—Cold (.82), FG—Avoidant (.85), HI—Nonassertive (.85), JK—Exploitable (.77), LM—OverlyNurturant (.77), and NO—Intrusive (.75). The validity ofthe IIP-C has been supported in investigations of its rela-tions with various forms of psychopathology (e.g.,Kachin, Newman, & Pincus, 2001; Pincus & Wiggins,1990; Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1993), therapeuticalliance (e.g., Muran, Segal, Samstag, & Crawford, 1994),psychotherapy process (e.g., Gurtman, 1996), and psycho-therapy outcome (e.g., Borkovec, Newman, Pincus, & Lytle,2002; Maling, Gurtman, & Howard, 1995; Ruiz et al., 2004).

The Structural SummaryMethod for Circumplex Data

This circumplex analytic approach involves creating astructural summary of the IIP-C profile by modeling the

pattern of octant scores to a cosine-curve function. Accord-ingly, the profile is decomposed into two parts: a structuredcomponent (cosine function) reflecting the prototype for acircumplex and a deviation component. As shown in Figure2, the parameters of this curve are its (a) angular displace-ment, or the peak-shift of the curve, from 0°; (b) amplitude,or peak value; and (c) elevation, or mean level. The coordi-nates in the analysis are the polar angles of the octantscales, as shown in the earlier Figure 1 (e.g., PA at 90°, BCat 135°, etc.). The goodness of fit of the modeled curve tothe actual scores also can be calculated; the R2 value essen-tially indicates the degree to which the profile conforms tocircumplex expectations. Gurtman and Balakrishnan(1998) provide a detailed description of the structuralsummary as well as procedures for computing the variousparameters.

Gurtman and Balakrishnan (1998) also offer interpre-tive guidelines that relate each of these summary featuresto clinical hypotheses. The angular displacement of thecurve indicates the person’s interpersonal “central ten-dency,” signifying the individual’s “typology” (Leary,1957) or predominant interpersonal “theme” (Kiesler,1996). For example, based on the circumplex of Figure 1, adisplacement of 135° suggests the central interpersonalqualities of distrust, exploitativeness, and vindictiveness(broadly, hostile-dominance); 180° suggests lack ofwarmth and interpersonal distance, and so on. Amplitudeis viewed as a measure of the profile’s “structured pattern-ing,” or degree of differentiation, indicating the extent thento which the predominant trend “stands out.” An ampli-tude value of 0 indicates a flat (i.e., undifferentiated) pro-


-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360

Angle of Scale

Amplitude

Elevation

Displacement

FIGURE 2Circumplex Structural Summary

SOURCE: From Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal per-ceptions of the Five-Factor Model of personality: An examination usingthe structural summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behav-ioral Research, 39, 177. Reprinted with permission of LawrenceErlbaum.



file; high amplitude indicates a profile with a clearinterpersonal peak (and trough). Interpretation of eleva-tion, or the mean level of the curve, depends, in part, on thecircumplex model applied. Gurtman and Balakrishnan(1998) showed that for the interpersonal problemcircumplex, elevation is an index of global interpersonaldistress or maladjustment (high values indicating highoverall distress).

In the current study, we extend these guidelines to thecircular profile interpretation of group-level data. Onequestion that arises when dealing with averaged profilesgenerated by groups of participants is whether the group’sprofile is an adequate representation of the individual pro-files of the group. In the current study, we suggest thestructural summary R2 value for the group profile can beinterpreted as an index of group homogeneity versus het-erogeneity. This approach has been used successfully toidentify distinct interpersonal profiles among groups of in-dividuals diagnosed with DSM-IV social phobia (Kachinet al., 2001) and DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder(Przeworski et al., 2005) and to evaluate the consistency ofmultiple judges’ interpersonal assessments of targetindividuals (Ansell & Pincus, 2004).

Although correlations can be used to relate variables tothe interpersonal circumplex using both traditional vectormethods (e.g., Wiggins & Broughton, 1985) and contem-porary approaches to interpreting circular profiles such asthe structural summary method (e.g., Gurtman, 1992,1993; Gurtman & Pincus, 2003), we chose to use the latterto model profiles of group-level IIP-C responses for tworeasons. First, the conceptions of perfectionism reflectedin the APS-R and DAPS are based on group identificationof adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, andnonperfectionists (e.g., Slaney et al., 2002). Second, ourhypothesis that self-focused perfectionism would exhibit apathoplastic relationship with interpersonal problems isonly testable via methods that allow identification of distinctcircular profiles within a diagnostic group (i.e., truepathoplastic relations would result in relatively low and incon-sistent correlations—similar to previous results relating mea-

sures of self-focused perfectionism to the interpersonalcircumplex).

Analyses

For self-focused perfectionism, participants were iden-tified as adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfection-ists, or nonperfectionists based on APS-R subscale cut-offscores derived from a previous discriminant functionanalysis on an independent data set (Ashby et al., 2004). IIP-Cstructural summaries for groups derived from the APS-R werethen compared. Two circular distributions were identifiedwithin the IIP-C ratings of APS-R maladaptive perfection-ists. This group was further subdivided based on cluster anal-yses of their IIP-C scores and structural summaries wereagain compared.

For dyadic perfectionism, participants were identifiedas adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, ornonperfectionists based on cluster analysis of DAPSsubscale scores. IIP-C structural summaries for groups de-rived from the DAPS were then compared. Finally, genderdistributions across the APS-R and DAPS groups wereexamined.

RESULTS

Self-Focused Perfectionism

The APS-R was used to identify adaptive, maladaptive,and nonperfectionists based on classification rules using apredictive discriminant function analysis for the APS-Rsubscales. Ashby et al. (2004) derived linear discriminantfunction equations based on the previous cluster analyticresearch using the APS-R. The current participants werecategorized as adaptive perfectionists if they scored highon the High Standards and Order subscales and low on theDiscrepancy subscale. Participants were categorized asmaladaptive perfectionists if they scored high on all threeAPS-R subscales. Participants were classified as nonper-

144 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 1APS-R Subscale Means by Group

Nonperfectionists(N = 75)

Maladaptive Per-fectionists (N = 94)

Adaptive Perfec-tionists (N = 110)

APS-R Subscale M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F(2, 276) η2

High standards 34.08b (5.56) 42.91a (4.00) 43.05a (3.52) 117.27*** .46Order 15.21b (4.31) 21.73a (3.89) 21.93a (3.38) 82.60*** .37Discrepancy 39.84b (9.70) 60.05a (10.02) 31.90c (7.45) 256.56*** .65

NOTE: APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised. Significant differences are noted by different subscripts (Tukey, p < .05).***p < .001.



fectionists if they were low on the High Standards and Orderscalesandmidrangeon theDiscrepancyscale.1 Table 1 presentsthe means for each group on the APS-R subscales. Consistentwith the underlying model, nonperfectionists have signifi-cantly lower scores on High Standards and Order than per-fectionists, and maladaptive perfectionists havesignificantly higher scores on Discrepancy.

Structural summaries for APS-R groups. The IIP-Cprofiles for nonperfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists,and adaptive perfectionists are presented in Figure 3 andsummarized in Table 2. The profile for adaptive perfec-tionists indicates that, on average, they are located in the(JK) octant (327.38°), reflecting a friendly-submissiveinterpersonal style. As predicted, profile elevation is low(–.24) and approaches circumplex expectations (R2 = .84).This profile suggests most members of this group do not

experience interpersonal distress; rather, they exhibitnormative interpersonal behavior reflecting affiliative andcooperative social functioning.

Also as predicted, maladaptive perfectionists are theonly group to exhibit an elevated profile (Elevation = .26).The profile for maladaptive perfectionists indicates that,on average, they are located in the (HI) octant (291.47°).However, the profile does not exhibit a good fit to idealcircumplex expectations (R2 = .50). For example, substan-tively opposing scales (e.g., Vindictive and Exploitable,Avoidant and Intrusive) are equally elevated. In addition,the angular location of the group is inconsistent with previousresearch. To further clarify the interpersonal problems associ-ated with maladaptive perfectionism, these participants werecluster analyzed using scores on the IIP-C dimensions ofDominance and Nurturance. Cluster analyses were conductedusing multiple divisive and agglomerative algorithms. Con-


TABLE 2IIP-C Structural Summaries for Three APS-R Groups

APS-R Groups Angle Amplitude Elevation R2

Nonperfectionists 264.21° .07 –.14 .39Maladaptive perfectionists 291.47° .14 .26 .50Adaptive perfectionists 327.38° .20 –.24 .84

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised.

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PA BC DE FG HI JK LM NO

IIP-C Octants

Nonperfectionists Maladaptive Perfectionists Adaptive Perfectionists

ZS

core

s

FIGURE 3IIP-C Profiles for Three APS-R Groups

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised; BC = Vindictive; DE = Cold; FG = Avoidant,HI = Nonassertive; JK = Exploitable; LM = Overly Nurturant; NO = Intrusive; PA = Domineering.



vergence across clustering methods robustly supportedtwo homogeneous interpersonal clusters of maladaptiveperfectionists, χ2(1) = 76.85, p < .001.2

Figure 4 and Table 3 present recalculated structuralsummaries for the four APS-R Groups, and Table 4 pres-ents the IIP-C means for each group. Figure 4 shows theIIP-C profiles for hostile maladaptive perfectionists,friendly-submissive maladaptive perfectionists, adaptiveperfectionists, and nonperfectionists. Each perfectionisticgroup’s profile conforms well to circumplex structure.Structural summary parameters for the two maladaptivegroups were as follows: Hostile Maladaptive Perfectionists(angle = 172.00°, amplitude = 0.37, elevation = .21, R2 = .92),Friendly-Submissive Maladaptive Perfectionists (angle =330.89°, amplitude = 1.04, elevation = .36, R2 = .84).Structural summary parameters for adaptive perfectionistsand nonperfectionists are unchanged. As predicted, thetwo groups of maladaptive perfectionists exhibit elevated

profiles indicative of interpersonal distress, whereas theprofiles for the other two groups exhibit negative elevationindicative of little or no interpersonal distress. It should benoted that the structural summary for the nonperfectionistgroup also indicates interpersonal heterogeneity. How-ever, in contrast to our emphasis on understanding formsof perfectionism, this group serves mainly as a controlgroup in the present study and we did not attempt to furtherdivide nonperfectionists into more homogeneous clusters.

Table 4 presents ANOVAs comparing scores on theeight IIP-C octants and profile amplitude and elevationacross the four APS-R groups. Because we conducted 10ANOVAs, family-wise error rate was held at p = .005. Nowwe see that, as predicted, there are two clusters ofmaladaptive perfectionists reporting significant and dif-ferent types of interpersonal problems. One group (HostileMaladaptive Perfectionists) is located in the (DE) octant,suggesting problems expressing affection and sympathy

146 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 3IIP-C Structural Summaries for Four APS-R Groups

APS-R Groups Angle Amplitude Elevation R2

Nonperfectionists 264.21° .07 –.14 .39Hostile maladaptive perfectionists 172.00° .36 .20 .92Friendly-submissive maladaptive perfectionists 330.89° 1.04 .36 .84Adaptive perfectionists 327.38° .20 –.24 .84

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised.

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2


IIP-C Octants

Nonperfectionists Hostile Maladaptive Perfectionists Friendly-Submissive Maladaptive Perfectionists Adaptive Perfectionists

ZS

core

s

FIGURE 4IIP-C Profiles for Four APS-R Groups

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised; BC = Vindictive; DE = Cold; FG = Avoidant,HI = Nonassertive; JK = Exploitable; LM = Overly Nurturant; NO = Intrusive; PA = Domineering.



and difficulty maintaining close relationships. This groupscored significantly higher than all other groups on Domi-neering, Vindictive, Cold, and Avoidant interpersonalproblems but scored as low as nonperfectionists and adaptiveperfectionists on Nonassertive, Exploitable, Overly Nurturant,and Intrusive interpersonal problems. This reflects an overallinterpersonal style of hostile-dominance. A second group(Friendly-Submissive Maladaptive Perfectionists) is lo-cated in the (JK) Exploitable octant, suggesting problemsexpressing anger, wanting to be liked too much, and beingtoo trusting of others. This group scored significantlyhigher than all other groups on Nonassertive, Exploitable,Overly Nurturant, and Intrusive interpersonal problemsbut generally scored as low as nonperfectionists and adap-tive perfectionists on Domineering, Vindictive, Cold, andAvoidant. It is notable that this group had the highest pro-file amplitude, suggesting highly differentiated and spe-cific endorsement across types of interpersonal problems.

These results are consistent with the hypothesis thatmaladaptive self-focused perfectionism may affect interper-sonal behavior in multiple ways, reflecting a pathoplastic rela-tionship. To examine the hypothesis that the observeddifferences among maladaptive groups is associated with gen-der, we examined the distribution of men and women acrossthe four groups. Results were significant, χ2(3) = 11.05, p <.01, and indicated that 90% of friendly-submissivemaladaptive perfectionists were female. The distribution ofgender within hostile maladaptive perfectionists (37% men,63% women) also deviated somewhat from the sample dis-tribution.

Dyadic Perfectionism

The DAPS is a newer measure and research has yet todevelop independent classification algorithms. Thus, clus-ter analysis was used to empirically identify groups of per-fectionists and nonperfectionists based on the participants’scores on the DAPS subscales. Cluster analyses were con-ducted using multiple divisive and agglomerative algo-rithms following the approach of other researchers instudies of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists(Grzegorek et al., 2004; Parker, 1997; Rice & Mirzadeh,2000; Rice & Slaney, 2002). Decision making regardingthe number of clusters followed the guidelines from Hairand Black (2000).3 Table 5 presents the means for eachgroup on the DAPS subscales. Consistent with the under-lying model, nonperfectionists have significantly lowerscores on High Standards and Order than perfectionists,and maladaptive perfectionists have significantly higherscores on Discrepancy.

Structural summaries for DAPS groups. The IIP-C pro-files for nonperfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, andadaptive perfectionsists are presented in Figure 5 and sum-marized in Table 6 and Table 7 presents the IIP-C meansfor each group. The profile for adaptive perfectionists in-dicates that, on average, they are located in the (JK) octant(333.77°), reflecting a friendly-submissive interpersonalstyle. As predicted, profile elevation is low (–.13) and itapproaches circumplex expectations (R2 = .75). This profilesuggests that most members of this group do not experience in-terpersonal distress; rather, they exhibit normative interpersonal


TABLE 4IIP-C Means by Four APS-R Groups

Hostile Friendly-SubmissiveMaladaptive Maladaptive

Nonperfectionists Perfectionists Perfectionists Adaptive Perfectionists(N = 71) (N = 63) (N = 30) (N = 106)

IIP-C Octants M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F(3, 266) η2

(PA) Domineering –0.24ab (0.91) 0.15a (0.90) –0.35b (0.91) –0.31b (0.83) 4.21** .05(BC) Vindictive –0.10b (1.03) 0.63a (0.98) –0.46b (0.97) –0.42b (0.83) 18.09*** .17(DE) Cold –0.19b (0.96) 0.53a (1.16) –0.52b (0.72) –0.42b (0.82) 15.66*** .15(FG) Avoidant –0.13b (0.93) 0.34a (1.05) –0.06ab (0.79) –0.38b (0.92) 7.70*** .08(HI) Nonassertive 0.05b (1.06) 0.22b (1.00) 1.00a (0.80) –0.01b (1.00) 8.47*** .08(JK) Exploitable –0.17b (0.95) –0.11b (0.86) 1.16a (0.77) –0.10b (1.03) 16.61*** .15(LM) Overnurturant –0.12b (1.09) –0.11b (0.80) 1.49a (1.51) –0.06b (1.09) 19.86*** .17(NO) Intrusive –0.20b (0.97) –0.02b (1.01) 0.61a (1.19) –0.25b (0.93) 6.42*** .06

IIP-C profile

Amplitude 0.71b (0.47) 0.74b (0.45) 1.19a (0.43) 0.78b (0.39) 9.70*** .10Elevation –0.14b (0.65) 0.20a (0.66) 0.36a (0.67) –0.24b (0.59) 11.36*** .11

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised. Significant differences are noted by differentsubscripts (Tukey, p < .05).**p < .005. ***p < .001.



behavior reflecting affiliative and cooperative social function-ing.

Table 7 presents ANOVAs comparing scores on theeight IIP-C octants and profile amplitude and elevationacross the three DAPS groups. Because we conducted 10ANOVAs, family-wise error rate was held at p = .005. Aspredicted, maladaptive perfectionists are the only group to

exhibit an elevated profile (Elevation = .19), a differencethat approached our family-wise error rate (p = .009). Theprofile for maladaptive perfectionists indicates that, on av-erage, they are located in the (DE) octant (189.32°) and itapproaches circumplex expectations (R2 = .75). This pro-file suggests that maladaptive dyadic perfectionists reportproblems expressing affection and sympathy and diffi-

148 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 5DAPS Subscale Means by Group


MaladaptivePerfectionists

(N = 59)

AdaptivePerfectionists

(N = 111)

DAPS Subscale M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F(2, 276) η2

High standards 23.58c (5.58) 31.54b (5.19) 33.51a (3.95) 121.05*** .47Order 13.48c (3.93) 18.47b (4.14) 20.51a (2.88) 108.51*** .44Discrepancy 43.25b (7.43) 63.98a (8.74) 45.61b (6.72) 162.24*** .54

NOTE: DAPS = Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale. Significant differences are noted by different subscripts (Tukey, p < .05).***p < .001.

TABLE 6IIP-C Structural Summaries for DAPS Groups

DAPS Groups Angle Amplitude Elevation R2

Nonperfectionists 308.60° .23 –.09 .80Maladaptive perfectionists 189.32° .17 .19 .75Adaptive perfectionists 333.77° .17 –.13 .75

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; DAPS = Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale.

TABLE 7IIP-C Means by DAPS Groups


MaladaptivePerfectionists

(N = 58)

AdaptivePerfectionists

(N = 105)

IIP-C Octants M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F(2, 268) η2

(PA) Domineering –0.31 (0.85) 0.08 (0.92) –0.21 (0.89) 3.75(BC) Vindictive –0.25b (0.93) 0.39a (0.98) –0.20b (0.99) 8.77*** .06(DE) Cold –0.26b (0.95) 0.40a (1.17) –0.33b (0.86) 11.95*** .08(FG) Avoidant –0.14b (0.97) 0.23a (1.12) –0.26b (0.85) 5.13† .04(HI) Nonassertive 0.25 (1.06) 0.21 (1.01) 0.07 (1.03) 0.89(JK) Exploitable 0.02 (1.04) 0.12 (0.98) –0.03 (1.03) 0.43(LM) Overnurturant 0.11 (1.36) 0.10 (1.05) 0.04 (1.00) 0.10(NO) Intrusive –0.11 (1.10) –0.01 (0.99) –0.11 (0.96) 0.19IIP-C profileAmplitude 0.81 (0.48) 0.81 (0.46) 0.77 (0.42) 0.25Elevation –0.09b (0.69) 0.19a (0.68) –0.13b (0.59) 4.81‡ .04

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; DAPS = Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale. Significant differences are noted by different sub-scripts (Tukey, p < .05).***p < .001. †p = .007. ‡p = .009.



culty maintaining close relationships. Consistent with pre-dictions, this group scored significantly higher than allother groups on Vindictive and Cold interpersonal prob-lems and exhibited a trend suggesting higher Avoidant in-terpersonal problems (p = .007) but scored as low asnonperfectionists and adaptive perfectionists on Nonas-sertive, Exploitable, Overly Nurturant, and Intrusive inter-personal problems. This reflects an overall interpersonalstyle of hostile-dominance. Interpersonal problem profilesfor nonperfectionists were quite similar to the profiles foradaptive perfectionists.

We examined the distribution of men and womenacross the three groups. Unlike self-focused perfection-ism, the results for dyadic perfectionism were not signifi-cant, χ2(2) = 1.60, p = 0.45.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study are supportive of proposed dis-tinctions between maladaptive and adaptive perfectionismas well as distinctions between self-focused perfectionismand dyadic perfectionism directed at significant others.The results also support the general hypothesis thatmaladaptive perfectionism is associated with greater inter-personal dysfunction. The hypothesis that self-focused

perfectionism may be interpersonally expressed in differ-ent ways by men and women was partially supported. Inaddition, use of the structural summary method forcircumplex data provided a fine-grained analysis of groupdifferences and an approach to identifying and validatinginterpersonally homogeneous groups of participants.Overall, the results support Slaney’s model of perfection-ism and add support for the reliability and validity of theAPS-R and DAPS.

Conceptions of Perfectionismand Interpersonal Problems

In the present study, both forms of adaptive perfection-ism and those participants classified as nonperfectionistsexhibited low levels of interpersonal problems and afriendly-submissive interpersonal style. That is, thesegroups appear interpersonally adjusted and socially nor-mative (e.g., Gurtman, 2001). In contrast, all forms ofmaladaptive perfectionism exhibited significant interper-sonal problems and higher levels of interpersonal distress.Both maladaptive dyadic perfectionists (DAPS) and hos-tile maladaptive perfectionists (APS-R) exhibited significantlevels of hostile-dominant interpersonal problems. Thefriendly-submissive maladaptive perfectionists (APS-R) ex-hibited significant levels of friendly-submissive interper-


-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5


IIP-C Octants

Nonperfectionists Maladaptive Perfectionists Adaptive Perfectionists

ZS

core

s

FIGURE 5IIP-C Profiles for DAPS Groups

NOTE: IIP-C = Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex; DAPS = Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale; BC = Vindictive; DE = Cold; FG = Avoidant; HI =Nonassertive; JK = Exploitable; LM = Overly Nurturant; NO = Intrusive; PA = Domineering.



sonal problems (nonassertiveness, exploitability, and beingtoo self-sacrificing).

These results provide clear evidence that Discrepancyunderlies problems in a variety of interpersonal relation-ships. APS-R maladaptive perfectionists are chronicallydissatisfied with their ability to meet their own standards;DAPS maladaptive perfectionists chronically perceivetheir partners as failing to meet their standards. Both con-spire to create unhappiness and distress in interpersonalrelationships (e.g., Alden et al., 1994; Wiebe & McCabe,2002). It is notable that for both men and women, dyadicdiscrepancy is associated with interpersonal problems ofhostile-dominance. It is possible that this reflects a com-mon coping strategy, with efforts made to control and in-timidate others to induce them to conform. It also mayrelate to being critical and blaming of the other. Perhapsthe elevation on IIP-C Avoidance reflects a second possi-ble coping strategy—withdrawal in the face of chronicinterpersonal disappointments.

The experience of a discrepancy between the standardsand performance of the self was related to both hostile-dominant and friendly-submissive interpersonal prob-lems. Although the friendly-submissive group clearly hada disproportionately high number of women, the hostilegroup had more men than were expected. The gender dis-tributions for both groups fit widely held stereotypes (e.g.,Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Shields, 2002) and replicateprevious correlational research (Habke & Flynn, 2002;Hill et al., 1997) examining the relations between perfec-tionism and the interpersonal circumplex. Perhaps whenmen and woman experience self-focused discrepancy, thismay involve their perception of performance deficits ingender-prescribed interpersonal behaviors, leading to ef-forts to overcompensate. However, it should be noted thata significant number of women were classified as hostilemaladaptive perfectionists.

Some Clinical Implications

The present results provide a basis for understandingthe negative impact of perfectionism on psychotherapy(Blatt & Zuroff, 2002). Considered in light of the literatureon perfectionism, maladjustment, and psychotherapy, itseems likely that elevations on the Discrepancy scales ofthe APS-R and DAPS would have negative implicationsfor treatment. Elevations on the APS-R Discrepancy scalesuggest that hostile-dominant interpersonal issues as wellas friendly-submissive issues may be likely to occur intherapy. Although these two types of clients may behavevery differently in therapy, their elevated Discrepancyscores provide common ground. Although these clientshave elevated Order and High Standard scores, the studiescited in the introduction suggest that these elevations, per

se, are not problematic. Rather, the issue of therapeuticconcern should be the difference between the client’s highstandards and perceived inability to meet those standards.The client’s explanation or interpretation of the Discrep-ancy score might be particularly revealing. Do hostile-dominant clients have a tendency to blame others for theirperceived failures to meet their standards? Are friendly-submissive clients more likely to blame themselves? Al-though data on these questions are needed, the clearimplication is that the basis for the elevations on theDiscrepancy scales needs close exploration.

Elevations on the DAPS Discrepancy scale are alsoquite likely to be related to interpersonal problems in ther-apy as well as in intimate relationships. Therapists mightbe particularly attuned to nondefensively exploring in-stances of personal or treatment-related criticism from theclient. In terms of client relationships with a partner, a log-ical starting point for exploration might be the perceivedreasons the partner does not meet the standards of the cli-ent. In addition, how does this elevated Discrepancy scoreplay out behaviorally with the partner? Is the client per-ceived as being highly critical by the partner? Involvingthe partner in therapy may be quite informative and useful.

Our results also suggest that maladaptive perfectionistswith hostile-dominant interpersonal problems might beparticularly difficult to treat (e.g., Gurtman, 1996; Malinget al., 1995), more likely to be unsuccessful in therapy(e.g., Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Bartholomew, 1993;Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Kalehzan, 1992), and more likelyto have significant difficulties establishing a therapeuticalliance (Muran et al., 1994). Whether dissatisfied withthemselves or others, such problems seem likely to lead toconflicts with therapists or withdrawal by patients. Thera-pists might be particularly alert for manifestations of hostile-dominant behavior. In addition, friendly-submissivemaladaptive perfectionists also might need special attentionto provide them with effective therapy. For example, this typeof maladaptive perfectionist may be fearful that counsel-ors disapprove of or dislike them because of their failuresin and out of treatment (see, e.g., Fredtoft, Poulsen, Bauer,& Malm, 1996; Pincus & Gurtman, 1995). This may leadto pseudo-alliance formation and excessive efforts toplease the therapist. Therapists aware of the various typesof possible manifestations of maladaptive perfectionismmight be better equipped to address them. A beginningmight be to see these manifestations in the context of thetransferential relationship as opposed to problematic be-haviors that need to be discouraged or eliminated. Clearly,more research is needed on maladaptive perfectionists,their therapeutic relationships in particular, and effectiveapproaches to treatment.

Future studies might explore the relationship betweenthe APS-R and the DAPS in predicting outcomes in psycho-

150 ASSESSMENT



therapy. It also would be interesting to include the IIP-C tosee if the two groups of maladaptive perfectionists are rep-licated and whether they respond to therapy differently, assuggested. It would be particularly interesting to examinethe cognitions and cognitive processes of both groups as wellas their communication in psychotherapy in comparison toadaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists. It would beequally interesting to examine the cognitive processes, re-actions, and communication with therapists across thesegroups. Finally, it would be highly relevant to examinetreatments developed to specifically attend to the percep-tions of discrepancy that the APS-R and DAPS suggest arecentral to the deleterious psychological effects that perfec-tionism has on relationships.

The present results have a variety of weaknesses. Theyare limited in terms of their generalization to populationsother than young, primarily White, university students, es-pecially women, who are not currently seeking treatment.In addition, effect sizes were generally small, particularlyfor the DAPS group differences. We believe that replica-tion of these results in a treatment-seeking sample wouldlikely magnify effect sizes. In addition, it is interesting thatanalyses on the DAPS groups exhibited many fewer sig-nificant effects, despite the inherently interpersonal natureof dyadic perfectionism. Future research should attempt toreplicate these results using peer ratings of maladaptivedyadic perfectionists’ interpersonal problems. It is possi-ble that self-reports of social dysfunction by maladaptivedyadic perfectionists are limited because they may not seetheir hostile-dominant behavior as particularly problem-atic, whereas peers may feel differently. This possibility isconsistent with comparisons of self- and peer reports ofinterpersonal problems in personality disorders, whereconvergence is low and both sets of ratings providenonredundant predictive information (Allan, Turkheimer,& Oltmanns, 2005).

Still, the consistency of these results is encouraging forthe use of the APS-R and the DAPS, particularly their Dis-crepancy scales, as well as the inclusion of the IIP-C in fu-ture studies. The results of this study add solid support tothe statement of Blatt and Zuroff (2002) and the generalexpectation that perfectionists, at least maladaptive per-fectionists, have interpersonal problems that affect theirsocial, intimate, and therapeutic relationships. How theseissues emerge and are responded to in these various rela-tionships provides a variety of highly interesting andrelevant issues for future research.

NOTES

1. The discriminant functions were as follows:

(1) = (.452*Discrepancy) + (1.649*Standards) +(1.265*Order) – 48.108

(2) = (663*Discrepancy) + (2.100*Standards) +(1.803*Order) – 86.268

(3) = (.349*Discrepancy) + (2.105*Standards) +(1.810*Order) – 72.453

Participants were classified based on the following:

If (1) > (2), (3): Nonperfectionist

If (2) > (1), (3): Maladaptive Perfectionist

If (3) > (1), (2): Adaptive Perfectionist

When we compared this classification to a cluster analysis on the samesample, agreement was almost exact, χ2(4) = 527.25, p < .001.

2. Full details of these cluster analyses are available from the authors.

3. Full details of these cluster analyses are available from the authors.

REFERENCES

Alden, L. E., Beiling, P. J., & Wallace, S. T. (1994). Perfectionism in aninterpersonal context: A self-regulation analysis of dysphoria and so-cial anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 297-316.

Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of thecircumplex scales for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Jour-nal of Personality Assessment, 55, 521-536.

Allan, C., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2005). Self and peer per-spectives on pathological personality traits and interpersonal prob-lems. Psychological Assessment, 17, 123-131.

Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of thefive-factor model of personality: An examination using the structuralsummary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Re-search, 39, 167-201.

Ashby, J. S., & Kottman, T. (1996). Inferiority as a distinction betweenadaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Individual Psychology, 52,237-245.

Ashby, J. S., Mangine, J. D., & Slaney, R. B. (1995). An investigation ofperfectionism in a university sample of adult children of alcoholics.Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 452-456.

Ashby, J. S., & Rice K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes,and self-esteem: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counsel-ing and Development, 80, 197-203.

Ashby, J. S., Rice, K. G., Timmons, D., Dickinson, W. L., Brasfield, C., &Ganske, K. H. (2004, August). Refining the classification of perfec-tionists. Paper presented at the annual convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Barrow, J. C., & Moore, C. A. (1983). Group interventions with perfec-tionist thinking. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 612-615.

Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications forthe treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.

Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Pilkonis, P. A., & Shea, M. T. (1995). Impactof perfectionism and need for approval on the brief treatment of de-pression: The National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of De-pression Collaborative Research Program revisited. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 125-132.




Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2002). Perfectionism in the therapeutic pro-cess. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, re-search, and treatment (pp. 393-406). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Bondi, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., & Pilkonis, P. A.(1998). When and how perfectionism impedes the brief treatment ofdepression: Further analyses of the National Institute of MentalHealth Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 423-428.

Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Quinlan, D. M., & Pilkonis, P. A. (1996). Inter-personal factors in brief treatment of depression: Further analyses ofthe National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Col-laborative Research Program. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 64, 162-171.

Borkovec, T. D., Newman, M. G., Pincus, A. L., & Lytle, R. (2002). Acomponent analysis of cognitive behavioral therapy for generalizedanxiety disorder and the role of interpersonal problems. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 288-298.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure-ment of adult attachment. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), At-tachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York:Guilford.

Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat.Psychology Today, pp. 34-52.

Elkin, I., Shea, M. T., Watkins, J. T., Imber, S. D., Sotsky, S. M., Collins, J.F., et al. (1989). NIMH treatment of depression collaborative researchprogram: General effectiveness of treatment. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry, 46, 971-983.

Fredtoft, T., Poulsen, S., Bauer, M., & Malm, M. (1996). Dependency andperfectionism: Short-term dynamic group psychotherapy for univer-sity students. Psychodynamic Counseling, 2, 476-497.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. L., & Neubauer, A. L.(1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personalityand Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The di-mensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14,449-468.

Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-crit-icism, dependency, self-esteem, and grade point average satisfactionamong clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 51, 192-200.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personalitymeasures: The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105-118.

Gurtman, M. B. (1993). Constructing personality tests to meet a struc-tural criterion: Application of the interpersonal circumplex. Journalof Personality, 61, 237-263.

Gurtman, M. B. (1994). The circumplex as a tool for studying normal andabnormal personality: A methodological primer. In S. Strack & M.Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp.243-263). New York: Springer.

Gurtman, M. B. (1996). Interpersonal problems in the psychotherapycontext: The construct validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Prob-lems. Psychological Assessment, 5, 241-255.

Gurtman, M. B. (2001). Interpersonal complementarity: Integratinginterpersonal measurement with interpersonal models. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 48, 97-110.

Gurtman, M. B., & Balakrishnan, J. D. (1998). Circular measurementredux: The analysis and interpretation of interpersonal circle profiles.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 344-360.

Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). The circumplex model: Methodsand research applications. In J. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Com-prehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 2: Research methods in psy-chology (pp. 407-428). New York: John Wiley.

Habke, A. M., & Flynn, C. A. (2002). Interpersonal aspects of trait per-fectionism. In P. Hewitt & G. Flett (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, re-search, and treatment (pp. 151-180). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Hair, J. H., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P.R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate sta-tistics (pp. 147-205). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Halgin, R. P., & Leahy, P. M. (1989). Understanding and treatingperfectionistic college students. Journal of Counseling & Develop-ment, 69, 222-225.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and socialcontexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association withpsychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,456-470.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991).The multidimensional perfectionism scale: Reliability, validity, andpsychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 3, 464-468.

Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism and inter-personal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 81-103.

Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6,94-103.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Inter-

personal problems, attachment styles, and outcome in brief dynamicpsychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61,549-560.

Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Kalehzan, B. M. (1992). The capac-ity to describe other people clearly: A predictor of interpersonal prob-lems and outcome in brief dynamic psychotherapy. PsychotherapyResearch, 2, 37-51.

Imber, S. D., Pilkonis, P. A., Sotsky, S. M., Elkin, I., Watkins, J. T., Colins,J. F., et al. (1990). Mode-specific effects among three treatments fordepression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 352-359.

Kachin, K., Newman, M. G., & Pincus, A. L. (2001). An interpersonalproblem approach to the division of social phobia subtypes. BehaviorTherapy, 32, 479-501.

Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research:Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: JohnWiley.

Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York:Ronald Press.

LoCicero, K. A., & Ashby, J. S. (2000). Multidimensional perfectionismand self-reported self-efficacy in college students. Journal of CollegeStudent Psychotherapy, 15, 47-56.

Maling, M. S., Gurtman, M. B., & Howard, K. I. (1995). The response ofinterpersonal problems to varying doses of psychotherapy. Psycho-therapy Research, 1, 63-75.

Mobley, M., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2005). Cultural validity of theAlmost Perfect Scale–Revised for African American college stu-dents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 629-639.

Muran, J. C., Segal, Z. V., Samstag, L. W., & Crawford, C. E. (1994). Pa-tient pre-treatment interpersonal problems and therapeutic alliance inshort-term cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 62, 463-476.

Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist,39, 386-390.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academ-ically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34,545-562.

Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonaldependency: Structural analyses of self-report dependency measures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 744-758.

Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (2003). Interpersonal assessment. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), Paradigms of personality assessment (pp. 246-261). New York: Guilford.

Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (in press). Interpersonal theory and theinterpersonal circumplex: Evolving perspectives on normal and ab-

152 ASSESSMENT



normal personality. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and ab-normal personality (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Pincus, A. L., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Interpersonal problems and con-ceptions of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4,342-352.

Pirot, M. (1986). The pathological thought and dynamics of the perfec-tionist. Individual Psychology, 42, 51-58.

Prentice D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be,shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents ofprescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26,269-281.

Przeworski, A., Yamasaki, A., Kasoff, M. B., Pincus, A. L., Newman, M.G., Castonguay, L. G., et al. (2005). Interpersonal pathoplasticity ingeneralized anxiety disorder. Manuscript in preparation.

Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a media-tor between perfectionism and depression: A structural equationsanalysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304-314.

Rice, K. G., & Lapsley, D. K. (2001). Perfectionism, coping, and emo-tional adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 157-168.

Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, andadjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238-250.

Rice, K. G., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). Clusters of perfectionists: Two stud-ies of emotional adjustment and academic achievement. Measure-ment and Evaluation, 35, 35-48.

Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., Borkovec, T. D., Echemendia, R. J.,Castonguay, L. G., & Ragusea, S. A. (2004). Validity of the Inventoryof Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C) for predicting treatment outcome:An investigation with the Pennsylvania Practice Research Network.Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 213-222.

Shahar, G., Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Krupnick, J. L., & Sotsky, S. M.(2004). Perfectionism impedes social relations and response to brieftreatment for depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,23, 140-154.

Shahar, G., Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., & Pilkonis, P. (2003). Role of per-fectionism and personality disorder features in response to brief treat-ment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,71, 629-633.

Shaw, B. F., & Segal, Z. V. (1999). Efficacy, indications, and mechanismsof action of cognitive therapy of depression. In D. S. Janowsky (Ed.),Psychotherapy indications and outcomes (pp. 173-195). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Shea, A. J., & Slaney, R. B. (1999). The Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale. Un-published manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark.

Shea, A. J., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (in press). Perfectionism in inti-mate relationships: The Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale. Measurementand Evaluation in Counseling and Development.

Shields, S. A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the socialmeaning of emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criteriongroup. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 393-398.

Slaney, R. B., Ashby, J. S., & Trippi, J. T. (1995). Perfectionism: Its mea-surement and career relevance. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 279-297.

Slaney, R. B., Chadha, N. K., Mobley, M., & Kennedy, S. (2000). Perfec-tionism in Asian Indians: Exploring the meaning of the construct inIndia. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 10-31.

Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). The Almost Perfect Scale. Un-published manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark.

Slaney, R. B., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., Ashby, J. S., & Johnson, D. (1996).Almost Perfect Scale–Revised. Unpublished scale, PennsylvaniaState University, University Park.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. (2002). A programmatic approachto measuring perfectionism. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Per-

fectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. (2001). TheRevised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation inCounseling and Development, 34, 130-145.

Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation ofpersonality disorders in circumplex and five-factor space: Explora-tions with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5, 356-370.

Sorotzkin, B. (1985). The quest for perfection: Avoiding guilt or avoidingshame? Psychotherapy, 22, 564-571.

Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimen-sions of perfectionism in college students. Measurement and Evalua-tion in Counseling and Development, 34, 157-165.

Tyrka, A. R., Waldron, I., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). Pro-spective predictors of the onset of anorexic and bulimic symptoms.International Journal of Eating Disorders, 32, 282-290.

Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, W. T. (2004).Maladaptive perfectionism as a mediator and moderator betweenadult attachment and depressive mood. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 51, 201-212.

Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, August-September). Develop-ment and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale: A prelimi-nary investigation. Paper presented at the 86th annual convention ofthe American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Widiger, T. A., Verhuel, R., & van den Brink, W. (1999). Personality andpsychopathology. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 347-366). New York:Guilford.

Wiebe, R. E., & McCabe, S. B. (2002). Relationship perfectionism,dysphoria, and hostile interpersonal behaviors. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 21, 67-90.

Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. New York:Guilford.

Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A struc-tural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan &W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 1-48).Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Zuroff, D. C., Blatt, S. J., Sotsky, S. M., Krupnick, J. L., Martin, D. J.,Sanislow, A., et al. (2000). Relation of therapeutic alliance and per-fectionism to outcome in brief outpatient treatment for depression.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 114-124.

Robert B. Slaney is a professor of counseling psychology at ThePennsylvania State University. His primary research interest isperfectionism and its measurement and meaning in peoples’lives.

Aaron L. Pincus, PhD, is an associate professor of psychology atThe Pennsylvania State University–University Park. His re-search emphasizes interpersonal approaches to personality as-sessment, psychopathology, and psychotherapy.

Amanda A. Uliaszek, BS, is now a doctorial student in clinicalpsychology at Northwestern University.

Kenneth T. Wang is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychol-ogy at The Pennsylvania State University. His primary researchinterests are perfectionism and its relationship to mental healthdisorders, and collectivism in Asian and international studentpopulations.




Conceptions of Perfectionism and Interpersonal Problems: Evaluating Groups Using the Structural...

Documents

Transcript of Conceptions of Perfectionism and Interpersonal Problems: Evaluating Groups Using the Structural...