Journal of Counseling Psychology
2014, Vol. 61, No. 4, 616 – 633
© 2014 American Psychological Association
0022-0167/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000036
Perfectionism, Neuroticism, and Daily Stress Reactivity and Coping
Effectiveness 6 Months and 3 Years Later
David M. Dunkley, Tobey Mandel, and Denise Ma
Lady Davis Institute–Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and McGill University
The present study addressed a fundamental gap between research and clinical work by advancing
longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations of stress and coping processes that trigger daily affect in the
short- and long-term for individuals with higher levels of personality vulnerability. Community adults
completed measures of 2 higher order dimensions of perfectionism (personal standards [PS], selfcriticism [SC]), neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Then, 6 months later and again 3 years later,
participants completed daily questionnaires of stress, coping, and affect for 14 consecutive days. PS was
associated with aggregated daily problem-focused coping and positive reinterpretation, whereas SC was
uniquely associated with daily negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative affect, and sadness at Month 6 and Year 3. Multilevel modeling results demonstrated that both individuals with higher
PS and those with higher SC were emotionally reactive to event stress, negative social interactions, and
avoidant coping at Month 6 and Year 3 and to less perceived control at Year 3. Positive reinterpretation
was especially effective for individuals with higher SC at Month 6 and Year 3. The effects of PS on daily
stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness were clearly distinguished from the effects of neuroticism
and conscientiousness, whereas the SC effects were due to shared overlap with PS and neuroticism. The
present findings demonstrate the promise of using repeated daily diary methodologies to help therapists
and clients reliably predict future client reactions to daily stressors, which, in turn, could help guide
interventions to break apart dysfunctional patterns connected to distress and build resilience for vulnerable individuals.
Keywords: perfectionism, neuroticism, stress, coping, affect
ley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006; Egan, Wade, & Shafran,
2011; Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Additionally, perfectionism has been
shown to be relatively resistant to change and have a negative
impact on outcome across different forms of time-limited psychotherapy (see Blatt & Zuroff, 2005; Kannan & Levitt, 2013).
In instances where responses to treatment are poor or highly
vulnerable to relapse, therapists need to develop longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations to help explain why client problems
persist across situations and time (e.g., “Does my future look like
my past?”; Kuyken, Padesky, & Dudley, 2009, p .181). This, in
turn, can guide therapists and clients in devising interventions to
alleviate clients’ distress and build resilience. An important shortcoming, however, is that there is little research to help predict
future client reactions to life situations. The main goal of the
present study was to examine whether personality vulnerability
dimensions (i.e., perfectionism, neuroticism) impact on daily affective reactivity to cognitive appraisals and coping in daily stressful situations across time periods. We used repeated sequences of
daily assessments at two separate time points– 6 months later and
3 years later—in order to investigate how personality vulnerability
dimensions predict the strength of within-person associations between daily affect and various event appraisals and coping strategies over the short- and long-term.
Since 2007, the American Psychological Association (e.g.,
2014) has commissioned an annual nationwide Stress in America
survey that “portrays a picture of high stress and ineffective coping
mechanisms that appear to be ingrained in our culture, perpetuating unhealthy lifestyles and behaviors for future generations” (p.
3). Perfectionism has emerged as a transdiagnostic cognitive–
personality factor that has an adverse impact on the stress and
coping process and confers vulnerability to a wide range of psychological problems, including depression and anxiety (see Dunk-
This article was published Online First August 11, 2014.
David M. Dunkley, Department of Psychiatry, Lady Davis Institute–
Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and Departments of
Psychiatry and Psychology, McGill University; Tobey Mandel, Department of Psychiatry, Lady Davis Institute–Jewish General Hospital, and
Department of Psychology, McGill University; Denise Ma, Department of
Psychiatry, Lady Davis Institute–Jewish General Hospital, and Department
of Psychiatry, McGill University.
This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada standard research grants and by a Fonds de la
Recherche en Santé du Québec Bourses de Chercheurs-Boursiers awarded
to the first author. The authors gratefully acknowledge Angela Kyparissis,
Magali Purcell Lalonde, Pamela Goldsmith, Jody-Lynn Berg, Ellen Stephenson, Amber-Lee Shattler, and Andrena Pierre for their efforts in the
data collection and translation of questionnaires.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David M.
Dunkley, Institute of Community and Family Psychiatry, Jewish General
Hospital, 4333 Cote Ste. Catherine Road, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1E4,
Canada. E-mail: david.dunkley@mcgill.ca
Perfectionism Dimensions and Affective Reactivity
to Stress and Coping
Over the past two decades, perfectionism has come to be seen as
a multidimensional construct (see Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Although
616
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
there are numerous different conceptualizations and measures of
the perfectionism construct (e.g., Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan,
1976; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett,
1991; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), several
factor analytic studies have consistently distinguished between a
higher order perfectionism dimension that has both adaptive and
maladaptive aspects and another that is primarily maladaptive (see
Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006; Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
These two higher order dimensions have been referred to as
personal standards (PS) and self-criticism (SC), respectively (e.g.,
Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003). PS involves the setting of
and striving for high standards and goals for oneself. On the other
hand, SC involves constant and harsh self-scrutiny, overly critical
self-evaluation tendencies, and chronic concerns about others’
criticism (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003). In contrast to PS measures,
SC measures have been consistently related to depressive and
anxious symptoms (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006;
Egan et al., 2011). Further, several studies have supported SC as a
prospective predictor of psychosocial maladjustment over periods
ranging from several months (e.g., Rice, Leever, Christopher, &
Porter, 2006; Sherry, Mackinnon, Macneil, & Fitzpatrick, 2013) to
several years (Dunkley, Sanislow, Grilo, & McGlashan, 2006,
2009). On the other hand, the often weak, negligible, or inverse
relations between PS and maladjustment (see Stoeber & Otto,
2006) warrants an examination to determine when the associations
of PS with (mal)adjustment are maximized or minimized (see
Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000).
In evidence-based interventions such as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations are used
with clients when therapeutic progress is limited or short-lived in
order to explain the links among the client’s key developmental
experiences, dysfunctional attitudes, behavioral strategies, and situations that often precipitate or trigger heightened reactivity to
daily affect (see Kuyken et al., 2009). Several theorists have
discussed the development of perfectionism in response to conditional parental approval that is contingent on meeting extremely
high parental expectations of success and productivity (e.g., Blatt,
1995; Hamachek, 1978). Individuals with higher PS internalize
these high standards and actively strive to meet them, and this
becomes manifested in a tendency to engage in active, problemfocused coping in response to stressful situations, although possibly at some emotional cost of relentless pressure and stress (e.g.,
Dunkley et al., 2000, 2003; Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald,
2002; Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). On the other hand,
theorists have suggested that SC develops in response to joint
exposure to excessive parental expectations as well as parental
harshness and punitiveness (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Flett et al., 2002;
Young et al., 2003). Individuals with higher levels of SC have a
tendency to (a) generate high levels of daily stress because they
magnify the negative aspects of events such that even mundane
trials can be interpreted as major threatening stressors; (b) engage
in defensive interpersonal strategies (e.g., suspiciousness, resisting
others) that elicit negative reactions from other people (Zuroff,
Mongrain, & Santor, 2004); and (c) engage in avoidant coping,
which stems from their preoccupation with their deficiencies and
perceptions of others’ criticism (e.g., Dunkley, Sanislow, et al.,
2006; Dunkley et al., 2003).
Understanding the links between past experiences and dysfunctional underlying assumptions can help therapists and clients make
617
sense out of intensified reactions that often appear mismatched to
current circumstances for perfectionistic clients (cf. Kuyken et al.,
2009). Several studies have supported a general vulnerability
model that maintains that individuals with higher levels of PS/SC
who are experiencing life stress are especially vulnerable to psychological distress symptoms (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000; Enns,
Cox, & Clara, 2005; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher, 1995).
Further, there is a large body of research examining a specific
vulnerability model: individuals with higher PS/SC, who have
contingent self-worth that is based on success and productivity
(e.g., Sturman, Flett, Hewitt, & Rudolph, 2009), are theorized to be
specifically vulnerable to achievement-related stressors that reflect
personal failure and loss of control (see Blatt & Zuroff, 1992;
Dunkley et al., 2003; Hewitt & Flett, 1993). Relatedly, because
individuals with higher SC have heightened sensitivity to criticism
and disapproval from others, these individuals might experience
more distress in response to negative social exchanges with others
(see Dunkley, Berg, & Zuroff, 2012; Dunkley et al., 2003; Hewitt
& Flett, 1993). Three longitudinal studies have supported the
hypothesis that individuals with higher PS/SC are vulnerable to
psychological distress symptoms in response to achievementrelated major life events (Enns & Cox, 2005; Enns et al., 2005;
Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996). On the other hand, cross-sectional
studies have found SC to be associated with higher levels of
depressive symptoms in the context of both achievement-related
daily stressors and interpersonal daily stressors (Hewitt & Flett,
1993; Sherry, Hewitt, & Flett, 2003).
Given that the potential for intensified affective reactions seems
high when various stress appraisals occur for perfectionistic individuals, it is important for longitudinal conceptualizations to discern whether certain coping strategies commonly make stressful
situations worse or can serve a protective role for these clients (see
Kuyken et al., 2009). For instance, avoidant coping may be particularly problematic for individuals with higher PS/SC in that it
might contribute to the anticipation of impending personal failure
to meet high expectations of productivity (O’Connor & O’Connor,
2003; Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002). One longitudinal study
revealed that higher levels of SC perfectionism interacted with
greater use of avoidant coping to predict higher distress symptoms
4 –5 weeks later (O’Connor & O’Connor, 2003). On the other
hand, in a cross-sectional study, Dunkley et al. (2000) did not find
that PS or SC interacted with avoidant coping to predict distress
symptoms.
An important limitation of the vast majority of research examining these diathesis-stress and stress-regulation hypotheses is that
these previous studies were based on single, one-occasion assessments of the moderators and outcomes, which is not sufficient to
infer the typical precipitants or triggers of an individual’s distress.
In CBT, therapists emphasize the present in gathering several
specific examples of clients’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors for
many cross-sections of daily life (e.g., “I received an angry e-mail
from my boss asking about a mistake I made on the report, and I
felt sad”; “I stopped working and did not finish the report on time,
and I felt really nervous and afraid”). Therapists then develop
cross-sectional explanatory conceptualizations by searching for
themes and patterns across numerous situations when clients’
presenting issues are activated to identify common triggers (see
Kuyken et al., 2009).
618
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
Dunkley et al. (2003) addressed some of the limitations of
previous research by using a 7-day daily diary methodology in a
sample of 163 university students to obtain simultaneous assessments of daily appraisals, coping, and affect for each individual
across different stressful situations in their natural everyday environments. In keeping with CBT cross-sectional explanatory conceptualizations, within-person analyses were conducted to examine whether within-person fluctuations in appraisals and coping
across many different stressors were connected to within-person
variations in daily affect, with participants serving as their own
control across all the stressful situations that they reported. Dunkley et al. found support for the specific vulnerability hypothesis in
that individuals with higher SC, relative to individuals with lower
SC, exhibited greater increases in daily negative affect when they
experienced more academic hassles and perceived criticism from
others than usual, and less perceived control than usual. Further
analyses indicated that both individuals with higher SC and those
with higher PS demonstrated an intensified negative affect response that was coupled with decreases in daily self-esteem,
whereas only individuals with higher SC exhibited heightened
increases in daily negative affect that were coupled with increases
in fear of closeness with others (Dunkley, Berg, et al., 2012).
Dunkley et al. (2003) also examined whether certain coping
strategies with most bothersome daily events may be especially
(in)effective for individuals with higher SC (cf. Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). Across many
different daily stressors, engaging in more self-blame than usual
was coupled with greater increases in daily negative affect for
individuals higher on SC than for those lower on SC. In addition,
using more problem-focused coping than usual was coupled with
greater increases in daily positive affect for individuals with lower
but not higher SC, which indicates that problem-focused coping
might be ineffective for those with higher SC. On the other hand,
across many different daily stressful situations, using more positive reinterpretation than usual was coupled with greater increases
in daily positive affect for individuals with higher SC (Dunkley et
al., 2003). This finding has been replicated (Stoeber & Janssen,
2011), which suggests that cognitive reframing might work especially well for SC perfectionistic individuals.
Perfectionism Dimensions Versus Broader
Personality Dimensions
Theoretical writings have concentrated on perfectionism as a
pervasive neurotic style that is focused on issues of self-control
and self-worth (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Hamachek, 1978). The broader
personality vulnerability dimension of neuroticism refers to a
general predisposition to experience both higher baseline levels of
various negative affective states (e.g., anxiety, depression, selfconsciousness) and exaggerated reactivity in response to stressors
(e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Suls & Martin, 2005). Daily diary
studies indicate that individuals with higher neuroticism, relative
to those with lower neuroticism, experience greater increases in
negative affect when they appraise daily events as more undesirable, less pleasant, and less fair, and perceive lower coping efficacy (Gunthert et al., 1999; Tong, 2010). Individuals with higher
neuroticism have also been found to react to interpersonal conflicts
with increases in depression and anger but not anxiety (Bolger &
Zuckerman, 1995). In addition, across many different daily stress-
ful events, individuals with higher neuroticism have been found to
demonstrate an intensified negative affect response when using
more self-blame, catharsis coping, and self-control coping than
usual (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gunthert et al., 1999).
In order to guide clinical interventions, it is important to assess
whether perfectionistic individuals’ heightened affective reactivity
to appraisals and coping reflects specifically a perfectionistic reactivity mechanism (e.g., contingent self-worth), a neurotic reactivity mechanism, or some combination of these mechanisms that
needs to be targeted (see Zuroff et al., 2004). This would appear to
be particularly relevant to conceptualizing SC because SC measures are moderately to strongly correlated with neuroticism, in
particular the depression facet (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, & Berg,
2012; Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, Lecce, & Hui, 2006). Previous
studies have distinguished SC from neuroticism in supporting the
unique predictive value of SC in predicting daily stress, social
maladjustment, and distress over time, controlling for neuroticism
(e.g., Dunkley, Sanislow, et al., 2006; Dunkley et al., 2009; Sherry
et al., 2013; see Zuroff et al., 2004, for a review). However, to our
knowledge, there has been no research examining the relative
utility of specific personality vulnerability dimensions (e.g., SC or
PS) and neuroticism in predicting intensified affective reactions in
the context of various daily appraisals and coping strategies.
Previous studies have found PS to be unrelated to neuroticism
but moderately to strongly related to the broader domain of conscientiousness (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, et al., 2012; Dunkley,
Blankstein, Zuroff, et al., 2006). As conscientiousness is often
viewed as a strength, some authors have argued for an important
distinction between PS and conscientiousness. Specifically, Flett
and Hewitt (2006) have suggested that PS reflects a form of
overconscientiousness that entails heightened stress and negative
mood when high performance expectations are not met, whereas
conscientiousness involves more flexible achievement-oriented
goals. Research is needed to distinguish PS and conscientiousness
in terms of the relative strength of affective reactions to stress
appraisals and coping strategies.
The Present Study Aims and Hypotheses
Although previous findings show that personality-vulnerable
individuals have heightened daily stress reactivity and coping
ineffectiveness, it is unknown whether these are long-standing
difficulties because there has been no research on whether broad or
specific personality-vulnerability traits moderate the within-person
associations among daily stress, coping, and affect over periods
longer than a few weeks. Several studies have established that
specific (e.g., perfectionism) and broad (e.g., neuroticism)
personality-vulnerability traits are relatively stable over periods of
several months and years (e.g., Sherry et al., 2013; see Zuroff et
al., 2004 for a review), but these previous findings do not address
the theoretically and clinically relevant question of whether personality traits predict within-person processes over time (cf.
Singer, 2013). Sliwinski, Almeida, Smyth, and Stawski (2009)
argued that within-person reactivity processes might not only
change reliably between individuals (e.g., those with higher perfectionism becoming more or less reactive over time) but also
within individuals over time (e.g., an individual might be more
reactive at one time period relative to another).
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
To our knowledge, the present study was the first to examine the
differential stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness of individuals with higher personality vulnerability across the short- and
long-term. We addressed the shortcomings of previous studies by
using a measurement-burst daily diary design (see Sliwinski et al.,
2009) in which community adults completed simultaneous assessments of stress appraisals (i.e., event stress, perceived control,
negative social interactions), coping (i.e., avoidant coping,
problem-focused coping, positive reinterpretation), and affect for
14 consecutive days repeatedly at a 6-month and 3-year follow-up.
We then used multilevel modeling to examine whether Time 1
between-persons differences in specific (i.e., PS, SC) and broad
(i.e., neuroticism, conscientiousness) personality traits affected the
strength of within-person associations between daily affect and
both appraisals and coping strategies at Month 6 and Year 3.
Further, as perfectionism is considered to be a transdiagnostic
vulnerability factor to depression and anxiety (see Egan et al.,
2011), we examined whether the heightened reactivity to stress and
coping of individuals with higher PS/SC was exhibited across
three different kinds of daily affect that are relevant to these
emotional disorders: negative affect (e.g., upset, fearful, nervous),
sadness, and low positive affect (e.g., not inspired, not attentive).
General and Specific Stress Reactivity Hypotheses
We expected that individuals with higher PS/SC would exhibit
both general and specific stress reactivity. First, consistent with the
perfectionism general vulnerability model (e.g., Flett et al., 1995),
we hypothesized that individuals with higher PS/SC, relative to
those with lower PS/SC, would be more emotionally reactive (e.g.,
greater increases in negative affect and sadness, greater decreases
in positive affect) to increases in daily event stress 6 months and
3 years later. Second, in keeping with the perfectionism specific
vulnerability model (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003; Hewitt & Flett,
1993), we hypothesized that lower perceived control over daily
stressors would be coupled with heightened affective reactivity in
the future for individuals with higher PS/SC. We also expected that
individuals with higher SC, who are theorized to have heightened
sensitivity to criticism and rejection, would demonstrate intensified affective reactions when they reported increases in daily
negative social interactions in the future.
Coping (In)effectiveness Hypotheses
We expected that individuals with higher PS/SC would exhibit
both coping ineffectiveness and coping effectiveness. First, consistent with the coping ineffectiveness model and previous findings (e.g., O’Connor & O’Connor, 2003), we hypothesized that
using avoidant coping more than usual (i.e., the person’s generalized tendency) would be coupled with greater increases in daily
negative affect and sadness or greater decreases in positive affect
at Month 6 and Year 3 for individuals with higher PS/SC. Second,
in keeping with the coping effectiveness model and previous
findings (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003), we anticipated that using
more problem-focused coping and positive reinterpretation than
usual would be connected to greater improvements in daily mood
(e.g., decreases in negative affect and sadness, increases in positive
affect) in the future for individuals with higher PS/SC.
619
Incremental Validity Hypotheses
We expected that neuroticism— but not conscientiousness—
would also affect the strength of the within-person associations
between daily affect and both stress appraisals and coping at
Month 6 and Year 3. Consistent with previous theory and findings
(e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2006; Zuroff et al., 2004), we hypothesized
that the PS/SC vulnerability model would demonstrate incremental
explanatory utility over and above the neuroticism vulnerability
model.
From a clinical perspective, the present study addressed a major
gap in the literature by informing longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations to help clients and their therapists reliably predict
which appraisals and coping strategies might be more potent
triggers than others of clients’ intensified negative affective reactions as well as decreases in resilience or positive affect in the
future (e.g., Kuyken et al., 2009). Moreover, in order to ensure that
longitudinal conceptualizations are constructive, it is important to
identify coping strategies (e.g., problem-focused coping, positive
reinterpretation) that might trigger resilience in the future (Dunkley, Ma, Lee, Preacher, & Zuroff, 2014). Overall, advancing longitudinal conceptualizations will help therapists predict future client reactions to daily stressful situations, which, in turn, will help
guide interventions to break apart dysfunctional thinking and behavioral patterns connected to distress and build resilience for
vulnerable individuals (see Kuyken et al., 2009).
Method
Participants
A community sample of 223 English- and French-speaking
adults holding paid employment was recruited through newspaper
advertisements and posted bulletins for a study that involved
completion of questionnaires at Time 1 and subsequent completion
of daily questionnaires for 14 consecutive days 6 months and 3
years later. Participants were compensated $25 for completion of
the Time 1 questionnaires. They received an additional $75 for
completion of all 14 Month-6 daily questionnaires, and an additional $75 for completion of all 14 Year-3 daily questionnaires.
Alternative remuneration in proportion to the number of diaries
completed was made to participants who did not complete all 14
diaries.
Of the initial sample, 17 participants did not complete any
diaries at Month 6. An additional eight participants were excluded
due to failure to complete seven or more diaries. Two additional
participants were excluded because all 14 diaries arrived together
at the end of their diary recording period. The final Month-6
sample included 196 participants (66 men, 130 women) who
started to complete diaries approximately 6 months (M ⫽ 5.99,
SD ⫽ 0.45) after completing the Time 1 questionnaires, with 190
participants completing 14 diaries, one completing the first 13
diaries, one completing the first 12 diaries, two completing 12
diaries with two periodic days of nonresponse (e.g., Days 5 and 12
missing), one completing the first nine diaries, and one completing
the first eight diaries. Their mean age was 40.94 years (SD ⫽
12.25). The majority of participants were of European descent
(78%), with 6% Asian, 4% Middle Eastern, 3% African, 2% East
Indian, 2% South American, 1% Aboriginal, 1% Caribbean, and
620
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
4% unspecified. All participants graduated from high school
(17%), college (30%), or university (53%). Ninety-eight Englishspeaking participants (30 men, 68 women) completed the English
version of the questionnaire package, and 98 French-speaking
participants (36 men, 62 women) completed the French translation
of the questionnaires.
Of the 196 participants who completed Month-6 daily questionnaires, 36 did not complete any diaries at Year 3. Two participants
who did not complete the Month-6 daily questionnaires completed
the Year-3 daily questionnaires. An additional six participants
were excluded due to failure to complete seven or more diaries.
The final Year-3 sample included 156 participants (47 men, 109
women) who started to complete diaries approximately 3 years
(M ⫽ 3.07, SD ⫽ 0.08) after completing the Time 1 questionnaires, with 149 participants completing 14 diaries, two participants completing the first 13 diaries, two participants completing
13 diaries with one periodic day of nonresponse, one participant
completing the first 12 diaries, one participant completing the first
10 diaries, and one participant completing the first eight diaries. At
Year 3, 85 participants (24 men, 61 women) completed the English
version of the questionnaire package, and 71 participants (23 men,
48 women) completed the French questionnaire package.
Procedure
Participants provided demographic information and completed a
package of questionnaires, including measures of personality, in a
1.5- to 2-hr laboratory session at Time 1. During the lab visits 6
months and 3 years later, participants picked up a package containing 14 stamped and addressed envelopes, each containing a
daily diary questionnaire booklet. They were instructed to complete one daily diary at bedtime, starting that night, consecutively
for the next 14 nights. The diary consisted of a package of
questionnaires, including the measures of daily affect, stress appraisals, and coping. Participants were asked to mail the envelope
with the completed diary the following morning. Participants were
encouraged to complete their diaries every evening but were
advised to complete them as soon as possible the next morning if
they failed to complete their diary the previous night.
Measures
Given a bilingual population, available French versions of the
Time 1 perfectionism, neuroticism, and conscientiousness measures (see Dunkley, Blankstein, et al., 2012; Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008), and Month-6 and Year-3 daily stress appraisal, coping,
and affect measures (see Dunkley et al., 2014) were administered
to participants completing the study in French. The internal consistencies and validity of the French versions of the personality and
daily appraisal, coping, and affect measures have been found to be
comparable to the original English versions (see Dunkley, Blankstein, et al., 2012; Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008; Dunkley et al.,
2014).
Perfectionism. The measures of SC and PS dimensions of
perfectionism were obtained from the 45-item (Hewitt & Flett,
1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS), the 35-item
(Frost et al., 1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS),
the 23-item Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (APS–R; Slaney et al.,
2001), the 66-item Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ;
Blatt et al., 1976), and the 40-item Dysfunctional Attitude Scale
(DAS; Weissman & Beck, 1978). Based on previous factor analytic findings (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2014; see Stoeber & Otto,
2006), SC was assessed by DEQ self-criticism, DAS self-criticism,
FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism, and APS–R Discrepancy, whereas PS was measured by
HMPS self-oriented perfectionism, FMPS personal standards, and
APS–R high standards. The reliability and validity of the DEQ
(e.g., Zuroff et al., 2004), DAS (e.g., Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008),
HMPS (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991), FMPS (e.g., Frost et al., 1990),
and APS–R (e.g., Slaney et al., 2001) scales have been wellestablished. The DEQ, DAS, FMPS, HMPS, and APS–R measures
were standardized into z scores and then averaged together to
create the SC composite score (DEQ self-criticism ⫹ DAS selfcriticism ⫹ FMPS concern over mistakes ⫹ HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism ⫹ APS–R discrepancy) and PS composite
score (FMPS personal standards ⫹ HMPS self-oriented perfectionism ⫹ APS–R high standards), as in previous studies (Dunkley, Berg, et al., 2012; Dunkley et al., 2003). Coefficient alphas for
the SC and PS composite scores were .77 and .90, respectively.
Studies have supported the validity of higher order perfectionism dimensions, as they have been related in hypothesized
directions to other personality measures and measures of psychological (mal)adjustment (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, et al.,
2012; Dunkley et al., 2003; see Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
Neuroticism and conscientiousness. Neuroticism and conscientiousness were assessed using the revised NEO Personality
Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), a self-report questionnaire
designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the FiveFactor Model of personality. The neuroticism and conscientiousness domain scales are each defined by six scales of eight-item
facets. Extensive evidence has supported the internal consistency
and temporal stability of these neuroticism and conscientiousness
scales. The convergent and discriminant validity of these scales
has been exhibited in expected relations with other personality
measures and psychological (mal)adjustment (see Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Daily affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 20-item scale that
was used to measure negative and positive affect for today. The
negative and positive affect scales each consist of 10 adjectives.
Support for the internal consistency of the PANAS scales has been
found (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2014). These scales have been related
in predicted directions to other measures of mood (e.g., Watson et
al., 1988). Five additional adjectives from the PANAS–Expanded
(PANAS–X; Watson & Clark, 1994) were used to assess sadness.
Negative social interactions. The revised 24-item Test of
Negative Social Exchange (TENSE; Finch, Okun, Pool, & Ruehlman, 1999) was used to measure negative social interactions.
Participants rated how often they had experienced different types
of negative social interactions (e.g., anger, insensitivity, interference) today. Studies have demonstrated the internal consistency of
the TENSE. The validity of this scale has been exhibited in
relations with measures of personality, interpersonal relationships,
and psychological distress (e.g., Dunkley, Sanislow, et al., 2006;
Finch et al., 1999).
Event appraisals. Consistent with previous studies (e.g.,
Dunkley et al., 2003), participants were asked to provide a brief
description of the most bothersome event or issue of today. The
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
621
event or issue could be something that happened in the past,
happened today, or was anticipated as happening in the future.
After describing the event, participants answered the following
questions about the event or issue: “How unpleasant was the event
or issue to you?” (1 ⫽ not at all, 11 ⫽ exceptionally); “For how
long were you bothered by the event or issue?” (1 ⫽ a very brief
amount of time, 7 ⫽ a very large amount of time); and “How
stressful was the event or issue for you?” (1 ⫽ not at all, 11 ⫽
exceptionally). Event stress was calculated by scaling the duration
appraisal item from a 7-point to an 11-point rating and averaging
the three global appraisal items (i.e., unpleasantness, duration,
stressfulness) reflecting the severity, duration, or both of the most
bothersome event, as in Dunkley et al. (2003). One additional item
assessed perceived control, “How much control did you feel you
had over handling the event or issue to your satisfaction?” (1 ⫽
none, 7 ⫽ very much). Dunkley et al. (2014, 2003) found support
for the validity of the event appraisal items in hypothesized relations with measures of stress, coping, and (mal)adjustment.
Coping. After the appraisal section, participants were asked
to indicate what they did today when they experienced the
stressful event or issue. Participants completed selected fouritem scales from the situational version of the COPE inventory
(Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Consistent with Dunkley
et al. (2000, 2003, 2014), we formed two groups of coping
strategies that were derived from a second-order factor analysis
(Carver et al., 1989). These two groups were avoidant coping
(i.e., denial, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement)
and problem-focused coping (i.e., active coping, planning). The
positive reinterpretation scale assessed a separate coping category (Carver et al., 1989). The selected situation-specific COPE
scales have demonstrated moderate internal consistencies. Convergent and discriminant validity has been indicated in predicted relations with measures of coping-related constructs and
adaptational outcomes (e.g., Carver et al., 1989; Dunkley et al.,
2003, 2014).
method of person-mean centering is expected to provide valid
estimates of within-person and between-persons effects in diary
data designs because daily observations are not expected to
systematically change with the passage of time (see Curran &
Bauer, 2011). Between-persons differences in mean daily stress
appraisals and coping were not included in the predictive models because examining the relations between average levels of
daily stress/coping and average levels of daily affect pooling
over individuals was not relevant to the main interest of understanding within-person changes in daily affect.
At Level 1 (day), we included a random effect of the intercept
to account for participant differences in mean daily affect. The
random slope of each daily predictor was also tested to assess
whether participants differed in their reactivity to the specific daily
predictor. The random slope was kept in the model only if the
model converged, and the random effect (i.e., the random slope
and/or the correlation between the random intercept and slope) was
found to be significant at a more liberal p ⬍ .10 (see Nezlek,
2012). Otherwise, the random slope was deleted in the interest of
using more parsimonious models. Furthermore, reactivity to these
stress and coping factors was examined as a function of personality
by using cross-level interactions between Level-2 PS, SC, and
neuroticism and the Level-1 daily predictor variables. That is, we
examined whether the slopes representing the relations between a
daily variable and affect were different for individuals high versus
low on PS, SC, and neuroticism. The cross-level interaction terms,
each composed of two continuous variables, were created by
multiplying the standardized Level-2 personality scores by the
centered Level-1 daily scores. We interpreted significant crosslevel interactions by generating predicted values of daily affect for
each level of the continuous predictor variables, using one standard
deviation above or below the mean for high and low levels,
respectively (see Nezlek, 2012).
Multilevel Modeling Strategy
Descriptive Statistics
Multilevel modeling was conducted with the Mixed Models
procedure in SPSS Version 20 to examine the influence of
personality on affective reactivity to stress and coping. Although participants provided 8 –14 days of data at Month 6 and
Year 3, previous day’s affect was controlled for in our models.
Consequently, our models had 7–13 observations nested within
individuals. Therefore, there was a two-level structure in the
data: the repeated daily assessment (within-person) level and
the person (between-persons) level. Maximum-likelihood estimation was used to model the data at both levels.
In two sets of multilevel analyses, affective reactivity (i.e.,
changes in negative affect, sadness, and positive affect) was
predicted by daily fluctuations in (a) stress appraisals and (b)
coping strategies, respectively. Between-persons variation was
removed from the Level-1 daily predictor variables (except for
previous day’s affect) by mean centering them within persons.
These centered scores represent the deviation of a daily stress
appraisal or coping score from the person’s generalized tendency (i.e., mean of the person’s stress appraisal or coping
scores). Although there are other ways of operationalizing
within-person differences in longitudinal data, the standard
All 198 participants completed the Time 1 measures. The 196
participants who completed Month 6 provided a total of 2,726 out
of a possible 2,744 daily reports of stress, appraisals, coping, social
support, and affect, with 14 reports considered missing due to
attrition and four reports considered missing due to nonresponse.
The 156 participants who completed Year 3 provided a total of
2,168 out of a possible 2,184 daily reports, with 14 reports considered missing due to attrition and two reports considered missing
due to nonresponse (see Participants section). Item nonresponse
percentages for the Month-6 and Year-3 daily measures were tiny,
ranging from 0.2% for the Year-3 affect items to 2.0% for the
Month-6 perceived control item. The percentage of missing scores
ranged from 0.1% for the Year-3 daily affect reports to 1.6% for
Month-6 event stress. We used maximum-likelihood estimation in
SPSS Version 20 to handle missing diary data (see Schlomer,
Bauman, & Card, 2010).
T test results suggested that the 69 participants who did not
complete daily measures at both Month 6 and Year 3 did not differ
from the other 154 participants who did complete both sequences
of daily measures on any of the following Time 1 measures:
personality (i.e., PS, SC, neuroticism, conscientiousness), stress
Results
.79
.79
.86
Event appraisals
Event stress
Perceived control
Negative social interactions
Coping
Avoidant coping
Problem-focused coping
Positive reinterpretation
Affect
Negative affect
Sadness
Positive affect
Note.
.84
.85
.92
.81
.65
.90
50.1
47.2
40.4
57.7
59.3
60.0
49.9
52.8
59.6
15.62 (6.08)
7.52 (3.65)
27.33 (9.06)
16.28 (6.33)
7.79 (3.86)
26.34 (9.14)
42.3
40.7
40.0
.80
.86
.82
.76
.84
.79
46.2
58.0
42.8
53.4
58.6
48.0
53.8
42.0
57.2
17.68 (5.64)
17.60 (6.61)
8.00 (3.38)
17.52 (5.3)
17.11 (6.37)
7.91 (3.41)
46.6
41.4
52.0
.80
—
.95
.76
—
.93
69.3
70.8
47.1
68.2
75.9
54.6
30.7
29.2
52.9
31.8
24.1
45.4
5.87 (2.47)
3.71 (1.82)
20.58 (31.49)
6.08 (2.59)
3.60 (1.81)
19.51 (29.54)
Y3
M6
Y3
Dashes indicate that between-persons and within-person reliabilities were not calculated for single-item factors. M6 ⫽ Month-6 measure, Y3 ⫽ Year-3 measure.
.80
.58
.88
.68
.88
.69
.69
.85
.69
.86
—
.94
.85
—
.94
Y3
M6
M6
Y3
M6
Y3
Reliability
Between-persons
Within-person
Between-persons
% variance
M6
In keeping with previous studies (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein,
Zuroff, et al., 2006), PS was moderately to strongly related to
both SC (r ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .001) and conscientiousness (r ⫽ .44,
p ⬍ .001) but was not related to neuroticism (r ⫽ .07, ns). In
contrast, SC was strongly related to neuroticism (r ⫽ .62, p ⬍
.001) and was negatively related to conscientiousness
(r ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .001). Table 2 presents the zero-order correlations of PS, SC, neuroticism, and conscientiousness with the
Month-6 and Year-3 aggregated daily measures. At Month 6
and Year 3, PS was weakly related to both maladaptive characteristics (i.e., negative social interactions, avoidant coping,
negative affect, sadness) and adaptive characteristics (i.e.,
problem-focused coping, positive reinterpretation). In contrast,
SC was moderately correlated with only maladaptive characteristics at Month 6 and Year 3, namely, aggregated daily event
stress, negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative
affect, and sadness.
In order to further differentiate PS and SC dimensions (see
Stoeber & Otto, 2006), PS from conscientiousness (see Flett &
Hewitt, 2006), and SC from neuroticism (see Zuroff et al., 2004),
Daily measure
Correlations
M (SD)
rated retrospectively over the past month (i.e., hassles, negative
social interactions), affect rated retrospectively over the past week
(i.e., negative affect, positive affect, sadness), or sociodemographic variables (age, sex, education). Table 1 shows the means,
standard deviations, percentages of between-persons and withinperson variance, and between-persons and within-person reliabilities for the Month-6 and Year-3 daily measures. The mean levels
of the daily measures were comparable from Month 6 to Year 3.
Between-persons and within-person reliabilities for the daily measures were computed using Cranford and colleagues’ (2006) procedure. The between-persons reliabilities ranged from .65 to .95,
demonstrating the ability of the scales to differentiate persons at
the average daily level. The within-person reliabilities ranged from
moderate to high (from .58 to .94), demonstrating the ability of the
scales to detect differences in systematic changes of persons over
days. The Mixed Models procedure in SPSS Version 20 was used
to conduct a nested analysis of variance (N–ANOVA) in order to
assess the extent to which the variance in the daily measures was
due to between-persons and within-person influences. The percentages of the variability in the daily stress appraisal, coping, and
affect variables suggested small to large amounts of betweenpersons variation (from 24.1% to 59.6%) relative to within-person
variation at Month 6 and Year 3, consistent with previous studies
(e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003).
The means and internal consistencies of the Time 1 perfectionism, neuroticism, and conscientiousness measures (Dunkley,
Blankstein, et al., 2012; Dunkley & Kyparissis, 2008) and
Month-6 daily negative affect, positive affect, appraisal, and coping measures (Dunkley et al., 2014) were previously found to be
comparable between participants who completed the English questionnaires and participants who completed the French questionnaires. In addition, we found comparable means, percentages of
between-persons and within-person variances, and betweenpersons and within-person reliabilities for the Year-3 daily reports
completed in either language. These descriptives are available
from the first author.
Within-person
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
Table 1
Means (Standard Deviations), Variances, and Reliabilities for Month-6 and Year-3 Daily Measures
622
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
623
Table 2
Zero-Order and Selected Partial Correlations of Personality Measures With Month-6 and Year-3 Aggregated Daily Measures
Personal standards
Daily measure
Event appraisals
Event stress: M6
Y3
Perceived control: M6
Y3
NegSoc interactions: M6
Y3
Coping
Avoidant coping: M6
Y3
Problem-focused coping: M6
Y3
Positive Reinterpretation: M6
Y3
Negative affect: M6
Y3
Sadness: M6
Y3
Positive affect: M6
Y3
r
Self-criticism
pr(SC)
pr(Co)
r
pr(PS)
pr(Ne)
Ne r
Co r
.11
.20ⴱ
.04
.00
.16ⴱ
.17ⴱ
⫺.09
.02
.07
.10
⫺.06
⫺.04
.16ⴱ
.26ⴱⴱ
⫺.04
⫺.05
.22ⴱⴱ
.24ⴱⴱ
.30ⴱⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.03
⫺.16ⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.38ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.25ⴱⴱ
⫺.14
⫺.18ⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.02
.09
.01
⫺.02
.26ⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.09
⫺.22ⴱⴱ
.21ⴱⴱ
.20ⴱ
⫺.10
⫺.12
.08
.14
⫺.09
⫺.11
.26ⴱⴱⴱ
.19ⴱ
.25ⴱⴱⴱ
.16ⴱ
.20ⴱⴱ
.17ⴱ
.24ⴱⴱⴱ
.23ⴱⴱ
.26ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.07
.06
.01
⫺.03
.26ⴱⴱ
.26ⴱⴱ
.22ⴱⴱ
.19ⴱ
⫺.07
⫺.01
.02
.02
.12
.22ⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.24ⴱⴱ
.08
.04
.06
.07
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
.35ⴱⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14
⫺.08
.41ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
.04
⫺.10
.01
⫺.01
.48ⴱⴱⴱ
.44ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ
.47ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.13
⫺.23ⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.18ⴱ
⫺.23ⴱⴱ
⫺.16ⴱ
⫺.11
.42ⴱⴱⴱ
.39ⴱⴱⴱ
.36ⴱⴱⴱ
.41ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.24ⴱⴱ
⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.16ⴱ
.08
.23ⴱⴱ
.23ⴱⴱ
.20ⴱ
.22ⴱⴱ
.26ⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.00
.05
.20ⴱⴱ
.20ⴱ
⫺.18ⴱ
⫺.25ⴱⴱ
⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.26ⴱⴱ
.44ⴱⴱⴱ
.45ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.39ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.29ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.39ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.05
⫺.11
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.13
⫺.22ⴱⴱ
⫺.05
⫺.14
.28ⴱⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Variables in parenthesis were controlled for in partial correlations. M6 ⫽ Month 6; Y3 ⫽ Year 3; SC ⫽ Self-criticism; PS ⫽ Personal standards;
Ne ⫽ Neuroticism; Co ⫽ Conscientiousness; NegSoc ⫽ Negative social.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
partial correlations were computed to assess how PS and SC
related to the aggregated daily measures partialing out the shared
variance with related variables. As shown in Table 2, results
indicated that PS remained positively related to aggregated daily
problem-focused coping and positive reinterpretation at Month 6
and Year 3 but was no longer significantly related to maladaptive
daily characteristics once overlap with SC was partialed out. On
the other hand, SC was still moderately related to aggregated daily
event stress, negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative
affect, and sadness, controlling for PS. In addition, PS was distinguished from conscientiousness by significant partial correlations
with aggregated daily maladaptive characteristics at Month 6 and
Year 3, controlling for overlap with conscientiousness. SC was
distinguished from neuroticism by significant partial correlations
with aggregated daily negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative affect, and sadness at Month 6 and Year 3, controlling for neuroticism (see Table 2).
Personal Standards, Self-Criticism, and
Stress Reactivity
We examined affective reactivity to (a) event stress, (b) perceived control, and (c) negative social interactions in six separate
multilevel analyses predicting negative affect, sadness, and positive affect at Month 6 and Year 3. In addition, PS and SC were
tested in two separate models for each stress appraisal variable to
examine how reactivity to stress appraisals might vary as a function of PS and SC, respectively. The results concerning the secondlevel intercepts, main effects of the standardized PS/SC/neuroticism variables, and the effects of previous day’s affect are
presented in Table 3 only in the first set of multilevel analyses
because these results are virtually identical across analyses and are
not the main question of interest.
PS, SC, and general stress reactivity. Supporting the general
vulnerability model, Table 3 shows that both PS and SC robustly
interacted with event stress to predict negative affect, sadness, and
positive affect at Month 6 and Year 3. Eleven out of 12 PS/SC ⫻
Event Stress interaction effects were significant (p ⬍ .05). The
SC ⫻ Event Stress predicting Year-3 negative affect effect approached significance (b ⫽ 0 .134, SE ⫽ 0.071, p ⬍ .07) when the
Level-1 slope was modeled as randomly varying across participants (i.e., the error term was included) but was significant in the
hypothesized direction (b ⫽ 0.125, SE ⫽ 0.042, p ⬍ .01) when the
Level-1 slope was modeled as nonrandomly varying (i.e., the error
term was excluded). The Month-6 moderator effects were graphed
in Figure 1 for illustration. In these graphs, more event stress than
usual was associated with greater increases in negative affect and
sadness, and greater decreases in positive affect for individuals
higher on PS/SC than for individuals lower on these dimensions.
PS, SC, and specific stress reactivity. Regarding the specific
vulnerability model, Table 3 shows that neither PS nor SC moderated the relations between perceived control and daily affect at
Month 6. However, at Year 3, individuals with higher PS/SC
compared with those with lower PS/SC reported greater increases
in negative affect/sadness when they perceived less control than
usual (see Figure 2). Individuals with higher PS and those with
higher SC also experienced greater decreases in positive affect at
Year 3 when they perceived less control than usual. In addition, as
shown in Table 3 and Figure 3, the experience of more negative
social interactions than usual was coupled with greater increases in
sadness for individuals with higher PS at Month 6 and those with
higher SC at Year 3. The SC ⫻ Negative Social Interactions
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
10.45ⴱⴱⴱ
0.80
10.51ⴱⴱⴱ
2.28ⴱ(PS,SC)
0.08
0.01
0.08
0.02
⫺0.19
⫺0.11
10.75ⴱⴱⴱ
0.40
⫺1.04
⫺0.82
⫺0.08
⫺0.06
⫺0.20
⫺0.11
0.08
0.00
⫺1.00
⫺0.08
⫺0.08
⫺0.01
⫺0.18
⫺0.14
1.93
0.96
0.19
6.39ⴱⴱⴱ
21.59ⴱⴱⴱ
4.17ⴱⴱⴱ(PS)
1.52
0.90
0.17
⫺0.93
⫺1.23
1.85
0.97
0.13
6.94ⴱⴱⴱ
16.21ⴱⴱⴱ
3.15ⴱⴱ(PS)
1.63
0.92
0.18
⫺0.07
⫺0.10
15.24
0.98
0.03
0.96
0.21
b
34.04ⴱⴱⴱ
3.31ⴱⴱ
12.69ⴱⴱⴱ
16.00ⴱⴱⴱ
2.16ⴱ
t
12.79
0.84
0.21
0.92
0.12
b
Negative affect
t
⫺0.17
⫺0.08
⫺2.56ⴱ
⫺1.40
10.68ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
10.63ⴱⴱⴱ
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
⫺0.17
⫺0.01
⫺2.64ⴱⴱ
⫺1.47
15.51ⴱⴱⴱ
0.99
⫺0.17
⫺0.05
0.60
0.39
0.17
0.75
0.39
0.13
5.54
0.52
0.29
0.39
0.08
b
⫺2.87ⴱⴱ
⫺2.19ⴱ
5.96ⴱⴱⴱ
13.27ⴱⴱⴱ
2.59ⴱ(PS)
5.83ⴱⴱⴱ
13.13ⴱⴱⴱ
1.88a
33.49ⴱⴱⴱ
2.77ⴱⴱ
1.40
13.37ⴱⴱⴱ
2.89ⴱⴱ(SC,N)
Year 3
t
5.04ⴱⴱⴱ
2.49ⴱ(PS)
4.97ⴱⴱⴱ
1.77a
5.30ⴱⴱⴱ
2.18ⴱ(N)
⫺4.01ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.77
⫺3.92ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺0.22
⫺3.93ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.06
b
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
⫺0.11
⫺0.07
⫺0.12
⫺0.08
⫺0.10
⫺0.05
0.78
0.38
0.16
0.91
0.39
0.14
5.56
0.54
0.26
0.38
0.11
Sadness
4.38ⴱⴱⴱ
11.87ⴱⴱⴱ
5.08ⴱⴱⴱ(PS,SC)
5.62ⴱⴱⴱ
11.65ⴱⴱⴱ
4.01ⴱⴱⴱ(PS)
28.60ⴱⴱⴱ
3.73ⴱⴱⴱ
16.80ⴱⴱⴱ
11.19ⴱⴱⴱ
2.39ⴱ(N)
Month 6
t
5.05ⴱⴱⴱ
2.13ⴱ
5.04ⴱⴱⴱ
2.71ⴱⴱ(PS)
5.15ⴱⴱⴱ
1.33
⫺2.98ⴱⴱ
⫺1.96
⫺3.15ⴱⴱ
⫺2.23ⴱ
⫺2.83ⴱⴱ
⫺1.41
4.96ⴱⴱⴱ
10.66ⴱⴱⴱ
4.61ⴱⴱⴱ(PS,SC)
6.12ⴱⴱⴱ
10.74ⴱⴱⴱ
4.13ⴱⴱⴱ(PS)
25.63ⴱⴱⴱ
3.28ⴱⴱ
13.57ⴱⴱⴱ
10.27ⴱⴱⴱ
2.80ⴱⴱ(N)
Year 3
⫺0.02
⫺0.01
⫺0.02
⫺0.01
⫺0.02
⫺0.00
0.53
0.13
0.52
0.11
0.52
0.01
⫺1.14
⫺0.63
⫺0.20
⫺0.43
⫺0.63
⫺0.19
15.92
0.26
0.39
⫺0.61
⫺0.16
b
t
⫺2.94ⴱⴱ
⫺1.62
⫺2.65ⴱⴱ
⫺1.53
⫺3.27ⴱⴱ
⫺0.43
5.33ⴱⴱⴱ
1.28
5.29ⴱⴱⴱ
1.15
5.24ⴱⴱⴱ
0.11
⫺3.83ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺10.40ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺3.28ⴱⴱ(PS)
⫺1.41
⫺10.45ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺3.06ⴱⴱ
⫺0.01
⫺0.01
⫺0.00
⫺0.02
⫺0.01
⫺0.01
0.55
0.13
0.57
0.17
0.54
0.20
⫺1.66
⫺0.58
⫺0.26
⫺0.95
⫺0.59
⫺0.17
15.35
0.24
0.43
⫺0.58
⫺0.20
b
Positive affect
28.37ⴱⴱⴱ
0.84
22.12ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺10.17ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺2.85ⴱⴱ(N)
Month 6
t
⫺1.26
⫺1.78
⫺0.65
⫺3.38ⴱⴱⴱ(PS,N)
⫺1.25
⫺2.46ⴱ(N)
6.61ⴱⴱⴱ
1.58
6.78ⴱⴱⴱ
2.21ⴱ
6.52ⴱⴱⴱ
2.40ⴱ
⫺5.13ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺9.38ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺4.21ⴱⴱⴱ(PS,SC)
⫺2.78ⴱⴱ
⫺7.26ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺2.20ⴱ
24.11ⴱⴱⴱ
0.70
22.01ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺9.26ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺3.27ⴱⴱ(SC,N)
Year 3
Note. b connotes unstandardized regression coefficients. Superscripts in parentheses connote that the cross-level interaction remained significant (p ⬍ .05) when controlling for the corresponding SC
(self-criticism), PS (personal standards), or N (neuroticism) interaction. PercControl ⫽ Perceived control; NegSoc⫽ Negative social interactions.
a
The interaction effect approached significance (p ⬍ .09) when the Level-1 slope was modeled as randomly varying across participants but was significant (p ⬍ .01) when the Level-1 slope was modeled
as nonrandomly varying.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
A1. PS ⫻ Event Stress model
Intercept
Personal standards
Previous day’s affect
Event stress
PS ⫻ Event Stress
A2. SC ⫻ Event Stress model
Self-criticism
Event stress
SC ⫻ Event Stress
A3. N ⫻ Event Stress model
Neuroticism
Event stress
N ⫻ Event Stress
B1. PS ⫻ PercControl model
PercControl
PS ⫻ PercControl
B2. SC ⫻ PercControl model
PercControl
SC ⫻ PercControl
B3. N ⫻ PercControl model
PercControl
N ⫻ PercControl
C1. PS ⫻ NegSoc model
NegSoc
PS ⫻ NegSoc
C2. SC ⫻ NegSoc model
NegSoc
SC ⫻ NegSoc
C3. N ⫻ NegSoc model
NegSoc
N ⫻ NegSoc
Variable
Month 6
Table 3
Multilevel Regressions: Effects of Stress Appraisals on Daily Affect and the Moderating Effects of Perfectionism and Neuroticism
624
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
625
Figure 1. Within-person relations between Month-6 (M6) event stress and M6 negative affect (NA; top
panels), sadness (middle panels), and positive affect (PA; bottom panels) as a function of personal standards (PS;
left) and self-criticism (SC; right). Values for PS, SC, and event stress are plotted using low (one standard
deviation below the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values.
predicting Month 6 sadness effect approached nonsignificance
(b ⫽ 0.008, SE ⫽ 0.005, p ⬍ .09) when the random slope error
term was included in the model but was significant in the hypothesized direction (b ⫽ 0.008, SE ⫽ 0.003, p ⬍ .01) when the
random slope was excluded. Further, the experiencing of more
negative social interactions than usual was coupled with greater
decreases in Year-3 positive affect for individuals with higher
PS/SC.
Distinguishing PS from SC in stress reactivity. We also
assessed the unique contributions of each significant PS and SC ⫻
Stress Appraisal interaction term by entering both PS and SC main
effects and the corresponding interaction terms simultaneously two
at a time. As shown in Table 3, all except two of the PS ⫻ Stress
Appraisal interaction effects were due to shared overlap with the
SC interaction effects. On the other hand, four SC ⫻ Stress
Appraisal interaction effects uniquely contributed (p ⬍ .05) to
daily increases in depressive affect when controlling for the corresponding PS interaction term.
Distinguishing PS and SC from neuroticism in stress
reactivity. Table 3 shows that, similar to PS and SC, neuroticism
moderated several within-person relations between daily stress
appraisals and affect at Month 6 and Year 3. We sought to
distinguish PS and SC from neuroticism in terms of their effects on
heightened stress reactivity by entering the corresponding PS and
neuroticism interaction terms and the corresponding SC and neu-
roticism interaction terms simultaneously two at a time. When
entering the corresponding PS and Neuroticism ⫻ Stress Appraisal
interaction terms simultaneously, Table 3 shows that seven PS
interaction effects remained significant (p ⬍ .05), while eight
neuroticism interaction effects remained significant. In contrast,
when entering the SC and Neuroticism ⫻ Stress Appraisal interaction terms simultaneously, Table 3 shows that only one SC
interaction effect remained significant (p ⬍ .05), while only four
neuroticism interaction effects remained significant.
Personal Standards, Self-Criticism, and Coping
(In)effectiveness
We examined affective reactivity to (a) avoidant coping, (b)
problem-focused coping, and (c) positive reinterpretation in six
separate multilevel analyses predicting negative affect, sadness,
and positive affect at Month 6 and Year 3. In addition, PS and SC
were tested in two separate models for each coping variable to
examine how coping (in)effectiveness might vary as a function of
PS and SC, respectively.
PS, SC, and coping ineffectiveness. Supporting the coping
ineffectiveness model, Table 4 shows that both PS and SC robustly
interacted with avoidant coping to predict negative affect and
sadness, respectively, at Month 6 and Year 3. Seven out of eight
PS/SC ⫻ Avoidant Coping interaction effects predicting negative
626
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
Figure 2. Within-person relations between Year-3 (Y3) perceived control and Y3 negative affect (NA; top left
panel), sadness (top right panel), and positive affect (PA; bottom panels) as a function of personal standards (PS;
left) and self-criticism (SC; right). Values for PS, SC, and perceived control are plotted using low (one standard
deviation below the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values.
affect and sadness were significant (p ⬍ .05). In addition, the PS ⫻
Avoidant Coping interaction predicting Month-6 negative affect
approached significance (b ⫽ 0.054, SE ⫽ 0.030, p ⬍ .08) when
the random slope error term was included in the model but was
significant in the hypothesized direction (b ⫽ 0.058, SE ⫽ 0.025,
p ⬍ .05) when the random slope was omitted from the model. The
PS/SC ⫻ Avoidant Coping interactions predicting Month-6 sadness were graphed for illustration. As illustrated in Figure 4, using
more avoidant coping than usual was coupled with greater in-
creases in negative affect and sadness for individuals higher on
PS/SC than for individuals lower on PS/SC.
PS, SC, and coping effectiveness. Regarding coping effectiveness, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 4, individuals with higher
PS and those with higher SC experienced greater decreases in
sadness on days when they used more problem-focused coping
than usual at Month 6 but not Year 3. Engaging in more problemfocused coping than usual was also coupled with greater increases
in positive affect at Month 6 for individuals with higher SC.
Figure 3. Within-person relations between negative social interactions and Month-6 (M6) sadness (top left
panel), Year-3 (Y3) sadness (top right panel), and Y3 positive affect (bottom panels) as a function of personal
standards (PS; left) and self-criticism (SC; right). Values for PS, SC, and negative social interactions are plotted
using low (one standard deviation below the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values.
0.08
0.03
0.06
⫺0.02
0.06
⫺0.01
0.06
0.01
4.41ⴱⴱⴱ
2.32ⴱ(PS)
5.60ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺3.34ⴱⴱⴱ(SC,N)
5.08ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺2.69ⴱⴱ(N)
3.86ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺0.82
0.88
⫺1.50
0.74
⫺2.01ⴱ
0.64
⫺1.65
0.13
0.07
0.11
⫺0.07
0.10
⫺0.06
0.10
⫺0.02
0.05
⫺0.08
0.04
⫺0.10
0.03
⫺0.09
0.07
⫺0.01
0.06
⫺0.07
0.07
⫺0.10
0.07
0.07
4.15ⴱⴱⴱ
2.10ⴱ
0.13
0.06
b
0.06
0.09
t
4.30ⴱⴱⴱ
1.79a
Month 6
0.13
0.05
b
t
1.23
⫺0.15
1.12
⫺1.26
1.24
⫺1.69
3.32ⴱⴱⴱ
0.53
2.98ⴱⴱ
⫺0.46
3.38ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.04
2.91ⴱⴱ
1.15
2.52ⴱ
2.82ⴱⴱ(N)
2.49ⴱ
3.33ⴱⴱⴱ(SC,N)
Year 3
t
⫺0.60
⫺1.27
⫺1.44
⫺0.90
⫺1.48
⫺2.34ⴱ(PS)
⫺1.65
⫺2.64ⴱⴱ(PS)
⫺0.04
⫺0.03
⫺0.04
⫺0.07
⫺0.05
⫺0.08
⫺0.64
⫺2.37ⴱ(N)
⫺0.27
⫺2.24ⴱ(N)
5.39ⴱⴱⴱ
3.56ⴱⴱⴱ(PS,SC)
5.18ⴱⴱⴱ
2.78ⴱⴱ
5.29ⴱⴱⴱ
2.65ⴱⴱ(N)
Month 6
⫺0.01
⫺0.02
⫺0.01
⫺0.03
⫺0.00
⫺0.03
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.06
0.11
0.06
b
Sadness
⫺0.05
⫺0.04
⫺0.05
⫺0.06
⫺0.05
⫺0.06
⫺0.03
⫺0.00
⫺0.03
⫺0.00
⫺0.03
⫺0.01
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.04
b
t
⫺1.74
⫺1.45
⫺1.86
⫺2.09ⴱ
⫺1.66
⫺2.14ⴱ
⫺2.60ⴱⴱ
⫺0.25
⫺2.60ⴱⴱ
⫺0.20
⫺2.54ⴱ
⫺1.08
4.52ⴱⴱⴱ
2.14ⴱ
4.59ⴱⴱⴱ
3.18ⴱⴱ(N)
4.43ⴱⴱⴱ
2.72ⴱⴱ(N)
Year 3
0.44
0.15
0.43
0.08
0.43
0.05
0.16
0.08
0.16
0.09
0.15
0.02
⫺0.16
⫺0.10
⫺0.16
⫺0.07
⫺0.17
⫺0.01
b
t
0.15
0.01
0.47
0.09
0.48
0.04
0.48
0.03
6.44ⴱⴱⴱ
0.71
6.55ⴱⴱⴱ
1.27
6.68ⴱⴱⴱ
2.20ⴱ(PS)
0.15
0.02
0.15
0.04
⫺0.18
⫺0.07
⫺0.17
⫺0.06
⫺0.18
⫺0.06
b
4.79ⴱⴱⴱ
2.37ⴱ(PS)
4.79ⴱⴱⴱ
2.68ⴱⴱ(PS)
5.53ⴱⴱⴱ
0.65
⫺3.66ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺2.25ⴱ(PS)
⫺3.51ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.59
⫺3.71ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺0.27
Month 6
Positive affect
t
6.61ⴱⴱⴱ
0.36
6.61ⴱⴱⴱ
0.59
6.55ⴱⴱⴱ
1.14
4.88ⴱⴱⴱ
0.41
4.91ⴱⴱⴱ
0.64
4.88ⴱⴱⴱ
1.32
⫺5.30ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.88
⫺4.40ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.57
⫺5.26ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺1.78
Year 3
Note. b connotes unstandardized regression coefficients. Superscripts in parentheses connote that the cross-level interaction was significant (p ⬍ .05) when controlling for the corresponding SC
(self-criticism), PS (personal standards), or N (neuroticism) cross-level interaction. ProbFoc coping ⫽ Problem-focused coping; PosReinterp ⫽ Positive reinterpretation.
a
The interaction effect approached significance (p ⬍ .08) when the Level-1 slope was modeled as randomly varying across participants but was significant (p ⬍ .05) when the Level-1 slope was modeled
as nonrandomly varying.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
A1. PS ⫻ Avoidant Coping model
Avoidant coping
PS ⫻ Avoidant Coping
A2. SC ⫻ Avoidant Coping model
Avoidant coping
SC ⫻ Avoidant Coping
A3. N ⫻ Avoidant Coping model
Avoidant coping
N ⫻ Avoidant Coping
B1. PS ⫻ ProbFoc Coping model
ProbFoc coping
PS ⫻ ProbFoc Coping
B2. SC ⫻ ProbFoc Coping model
ProbFoc coping
SC ⫻ ProbFoc Coping
B3. N ⫻ ProbFoc Coping model
ProbFoc coping
N ⫻ ProbFoc Coping
C1. PS ⫻ PosReinterp model
Positive reinterpretation
PS ⫻ PosReinterp
C2. SC ⫻ PosReinterp model
Positive reinterpretation
SC ⫻ PosReinterp
C3. N ⫻ PosReinterp model
Positive reinterpretation
N ⫻ PosReinterp
Variable
Negative affect
Table 4
Multilevel Regressions: Effects of Coping on Daily Affect and the Moderating Effects of Perfectionism and Neuroticism
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
627
628
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
Figure 4. Within-person relations between Year-3 (Y3) avoidant coping and negative affect (NA; top panels),
Month-6 (M6) problem-focused coping and sadness (middle left panel) and positive affect (PA; middle right
panel), and Y3 positive reinterpretation and sadness (bottom panels), as a function of personal standards (PS;
left) and self-criticism (SC; right). Values for PS, SC, and coping are plotted using low (one standard deviation
below the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values.
Finally, using more positive reinterpretation than usual was coupled with greater decreases in sadness at Month 6 and Year 3 for
individuals with higher SC, and only at Year 3 for those with
higher PS (see Figure 4). Table 4 also shows that there were three
instances in which PS or SC interacted with problem-focused
coping or positive reinterpretation to predict Month-6 negative
affect, but the nature of these interaction effects was not predicted
or theoretically interesting.
Distinguishing PS from SC in coping (in)effectiveness. As
shown in Table 4, entering the corresponding PS/SC ⫻ Coping
interaction terms simultaneously demonstrated that the PS/SC interaction effects were largely due to a shared coping (in)effectiveness mechanism. Only one PS ⫻ Coping interaction effect that was
theoretically interesting remained significant (p ⬍ .05), while only
two SC ⫻ Coping interaction effects remained significant when
each pair of corresponding PS/SC interaction terms was entered
simultaneously.
Distinguishing PS and SC from neuroticism in coping
(in)effectiveness. Similar to PS and SC, Table 4 shows that
neuroticism moderated several within-person associations between
daily coping and affect at Month 6, but only the Neuroticism ⫻
Avoidant Coping interaction effect predicting sadness was replicated at Year 3. When entering the corresponding PS and Neuroticism ⫻ Coping interaction terms simultaneously two at a time,
Table 4 shows that four theoretically interesting PS ⫻ Coping
interaction effects remained significant (p ⬍ .05), while six Neu-
roticism ⫻ Coping interaction effects remained significant. In
contrast, when entering the corresponding SC and Neuroticism ⫻
Coping interaction terms simultaneously two at a time, Table 4
shows that three theoretically interesting SC interaction effects
remained significant, while only one neuroticism interaction term
remained significant.
Distinguishing PS from Conscientiousness in Stress
Reactivity and Coping (In)effectiveness
In order to further distinguish PS from conscientiousness, we
examined whether conscientiousness moderated the within-person
relations between daily stress and coping and daily affect. Out of
a total of 36 conscientiousness interactions tested, only three were
significant, which is what could be expected by chance. Further, 12
PS ⫻ Stress Appraisal/Coping interactions remained significant
(p ⬍ .05) when controlling for the effects of each corresponding
conscientiousness interaction term.
False-Positive Rate and False-Negative
Rate Considerations
Considering the Type I error rate for the present study, Tables 3
and 4 combined show that we tested 54 interaction effects composed of 3 personality variables (personal standards, self-criticism,
neuroticism) ⫻ 6 stress/coping variables predicting the 3 outcomes
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
(negative affect, sadness, positive affect) across two studies
(Month 6, Year 3). Out of a total of 108 separate tests for Month
6 and Year 3 combined, a respectable 51 interactions were significant, which far exceeds the five significant effects that could have
been expected by chance. Of these 51 statistically significant
interaction effects, 48 were in the theorized direction, which further reduces concern about these interaction effects being falsepositives (see Murayama, Pekrun, & Fiedler, 2014).
A joint false-positive rate can also be computed for the present
multistudy article that attempted to directly replicate results across
two independent studies with a shared procedure and participant
characteristics (see Murayama et al., 2014). The overall falsepositive value across the Month-6 and Year-3 studies is 0.05 ⫻
0.05 ⫽ 0.0025, which is considerably smaller than the 5% Type I
error rate designated for each of the two studies separately. Of a
total of 54 replication attempts, a respectable 14 interaction effects
were directly replicated in theorized directions (eight PS/SC/Neuroticism ⫻ Event Stress, one Neuroticism ⫻ Negative Social
Interactions, four PS/SC/Neuroticism ⫻ Avoidant Coping, one
SC ⫻ Positive Reinterpretation), none of which could be expected
by chance.
Possible false-negative findings (Type II errors) warrant consideration as well (see Murayama et al., 2014). We observed three
interaction effects that failed to fully replicate across Month 6 and
Year 3 (SC ⫻ Event Stress predicting negative affect, SC ⫻
Negative Social Interactions predicting sadness, PS ⫻ Avoidant
Coping predicting negative affect). In each of these three instances, the interaction was found to be significant (p ⬍ .01) at one
time point (Month 6 or Year 3). On the other hand, each of the
interactions was not significant at the conventional .05 alpha level
at the other time point, instead approaching significance (p ⬍ .09)
when the Level-1 slope was modeled as randomly varying across
participants (i.e., the error term was included). It was informative
to examine the impact of excluding the random slope error term on
these three significance tests (see Nezlek, 2012), as each of the
interaction term estimates had a lower standard error and was
significant (p ⬍ .05, or p ⬍ .01) when the Level-1 slope was
modeled as nonrandomly varying. Taking the Month-6 and Year-3
results together, the observed data for each of these three interactions were more consistent with the alternative hypothesis than
with the null hypothesis (see Murayama et al., 2014, for a discussion).
Discussion
The present study was the first to use a repeated daily diary
design and multilevel modeling to advance longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations that can be used to promote a shared
understanding between therapists and perfectionistic clients of the
links among these clients’ developmental histories, underlying
assumptions, coping strategies, and future intensified affective
reactions that often appear mismatched to life situations. We
supported the relevance of perfectionism dimensions and neuroticism to transdiagnostic conceptualizations (see Egan et al., 2011)
by showing that individuals with higher personality vulnerability
(PS, SC, neuroticism) exhibited an intensified response across
various affects (negative affect, sadness, [low] positive affect) that
was coupled with stress and coping processes. As several findings
were replicated at Month 6 and Year 3, the present study is a
629
powerful demonstration of the pervasive and enduring affectregulation problems of personality-vulnerable individuals.
Perfectionism Dimensions and Dispositional Stress
Appraisal and Coping Tendencies
Before examining the impact of perfectionism on future stress
reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness, we assessed the associations of PS and SC with future stress and coping tendencies.
Aggregating situational reports has been argued by several authors
to be a more ecologically valid method for assessing characteristics than retrospective, summary questionnaires that are more
subject to recall biases and distortions (see Bolger, Davis, &
Rafaeli, 2003). Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Dunkley et
al., 2000, 2003; Dunkley, Sanislow, et al., 2006), SC was moderately related to aggregated daily event stress, negative social
interactions, avoidant coping, negative affect, and sadness at
Month 6 and Year 3 (see Table 2). On the other hand, PS was
associated with adaptive (problem-focused coping, positive reinterpretation) characteristics at Month 6 and Year 3 and was not
significantly associated with aggregated daily negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative affect, and sadness once we
controlled for shared variance with SC perfectionism. Thus, these
results are in keeping with several previous studies that demonstrate that the direct associations between perfectionism and psychological problems are more closely related to self-critical evaluative tendencies than the setting of and striving for high personal
standards (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, et al., 2006; Stoeber
& Otto, 2006).
Perfectionism Dimensions and Future
Daily Stress Reactivity
Our findings demonstrated general and specific daily stress
reactivity in the future for both individuals with higher PS and
those with higher SC.
PS, SC, and general stress reactivity. More event stress than
usual was coupled with greater increases in negative affect and
sadness and greater decreases in positive affect at Month 6 and
Year 3 for individuals higher on PS/SC, compared with individuals
lower on these dimensions (see Figure 1). Thus, these results
provide compelling support for the general perfectionism vulnerability model (e.g., Flett et al., 1995) in being able to consistently
predict not only future shifts in negative mood but also future
decreases in resilience (e.g., positive affect) when daily problems
are more stressful than usual for perfectionistic individuals.
PS, SC, and specific stress reactivity. Consistent with the
specific vulnerability hypothesis and Dunkley et al.’s (2003) findings, both individuals with higher SC and those with higher PS
experienced greater increases in Year-3 negative affect or sadness
and greater decreases in Year-3 positive affect when perceived
control was lower than usual (see Figure 2). However, these
findings were not replicated at Month 6. One possible explanation
for the mixed support for the SC/PS ⫻ Perceived Control effect is
that perfectionistic individuals might become more reactive to
lower perceived control as they get older and the cumulative
burden of daily stressors diminishes their coping resources (cf.
Sliwinski et al., 2009). Also in keeping with the specific vulnerability model (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003; Hewitt & Flett, 1993),
630
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
heightened increases in Month-6 and Year-3 daily depressive
affect (e.g., greater sadness, lower positive affect) were coupled
with more negative social interactions than usual for individuals
with higher SC (see Figure 3). The specificity of negative social
interactions to depressive affect for perfectionists in the present
study is interpretable if one considers that negative affect encompasses responses to upcoming threatening events, whereas depressive affect is a response to events that have already occurred (see
Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).
PS versus SC and stress reactivity. The present stress reactivity findings distinguished PS from SC in highlighting conditions
under which individuals with higher PS might feel more resilient
than those with lower PS. Specifically, individuals with higher PS
had greater daily positive affect than those with lower PS on days
when they perceived less event stress (at Month 6 and Year 3; see
Figure 1) and more control over their most bothersome event (at
Year 3; see Figure 2) and experienced fewer negative social
interactions (at Year 3; see Figure 3) than usual. In contrast,
individuals with higher SC had lower daily positive affect than
those with lower SC across these three conditions. Thus, together
with previous findings showing that PS is indirectly associated
with the maintenance of daily positive affect through problemfocused tendencies (Dunkley et al., 2014), these findings illustrate
secondary gains to having high personal standards that might make
these clients reluctant to lower their standards even a little bit,
particularly given their heightened potential for negative affect
(see Young et al., 2003).
Interestingly, almost every significant PS ⫻ Stress Appraisal
interaction was due to shared overlap with the corresponding SC
interaction effect. These results can be explained by previous
theory that suggests that dysfunctional self-worth contingencies
are central to different forms of perfectionistic vulnerability (e.g.,
Blatt, 1995; Flett et al., 2002; Young et al., 2003), regardless of
whether the specific focus is on unrelenting personal standards or
overly self-critical evaluative tendencies. On the other hand, although several significant SC ⫻ Stress Appraisal interactions were
due to shared overlap with the corresponding PS interaction, four
SC ⫻ Stress Appraisal interactions predicting depressive affect
(i.e., sadness or lower positive affect) remained significant. This
finding can be explained by previous theory and research suggesting that individuals with higher SC not only have contingent
self-worth but also are generally more prone to feelings of guilt,
sadness, and hopelessness than individuals with higher PS (e.g.,
Dunkley, Blankstein, et al., 2012; Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, et
al., 2006), and this appears to be expressed in heightened depressive reactivity to problems of everyday life.
Perfectionism Dimensions and Future Daily
Coping (In)effectiveness
Our findings also demonstrated daily coping ineffectiveness and
coping effectiveness in the future for both individuals with higher
PS and those with higher SC.
PS, SC, and coping ineffectiveness. Consistent with the differential coping ineffectiveness model (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003),
using more avoidant coping than usual was associated with greater
increases in negative affect and sadness at Month 6 and Year 3 for
both individuals with higher PS and those with higher SC, compared with individuals lower on the respective dimensions (see
Figure 4). These results can be explained by previous theory and
findings (e.g., O’Connor & O’Connor, 2003; Sturman et al., 2009)
that suggest that perfectionistic individuals possess conditional
self-worth that is contingent on success and productivity: When
stressors are not being dealt with quickly enough or well enough,
individuals with higher SC/PS believe that they are failing or have
failed and, hence, feel heightened pressure, anxiety, irritability,
guilt, and their own self-scrutiny and judgment (e.g., Blatt, 1995;
Shafran et al., 2002; Young et al., 2003).
PS, SC, and coping effectiveness. In keeping with the coping
effectiveness model (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2003), engaging in more
problem-focused coping than usual was coupled with greater decreases in sadness at Month 6 for individuals with higher SC/PS
and with greater increases in positive affect at Month 6 for those
with higher SC. In addition, engaging in more positive reinterpretation than usual was associated with greater decreases in sadness
at Month 6 and Year 3 for individuals with higher SC and only at
Year 3 for those with higher PS (see Figure 4). The latter finding
adds to emerging evidence that suggests that finding the positive in
daily stressors (e.g., reframing as challenges rather than as threats
to self-worth) is especially effective for perfectionistic individuals
(Dunkley et al., 2003; Stoeber & Janssen, 2011).
PS versus SC and coping (in)effectiveness. Interestingly,
although PS and SC had very different associations with daily
coping tendencies at Month 6 and Year 3, almost every significant
PS/SC ⫻ Coping interaction was no longer significant when the
corresponding PS and SC interaction terms were estimated simultaneously. Similar to stress reactivity, this result can also be
explained by previous theory and research that suggests that conditional self-worth that is contingent on productivity is central to
both PS and SC dimensions of perfectionism (e.g., Sturman et al.,
2009), which results in their similar impact on coping (in)effectiveness.
Perfectionism Dimensions Versus Neuroticism and
Conscientiousness
The present study provided a richer and more nuanced perspective on personality in the daily stress and coping process by
including broader personality dimensions of neuroticism and conscientiousness. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Gunthert et
al., 1999; see Suls & Martin, 2005) and similar to what was found
for PS and SC in the present study, neuroticism predicted heightened affect reactivity that was consistently coupled with increases
in daily event stress, negative social interactions, and avoidant
coping at Month 6 and Year 3.
PS versus neuroticism. The present findings suggest that PS
and neuroticism represent two different stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness mechanisms. Most of the significant PS and
neuroticism stress reactivity and coping effectiveness interactions
remained significant when each pair of corresponding PS and
neuroticism interactions were entered simultaneously (see Tables 3
and 4). Our results suggest that PS most closely represents the
perfectionism cognitive diathesis as conventionally defined (see
Shafran et al., 2002) that is relatively silent and invisible and even
associated with adaptive functioning until activated by stress
and/or perceived failure to meet performance expectations. In
contrast, individuals with higher neuroticism (compared with those
with lower neuroticism) generally appraise daily events as more
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
harmful or threatening, typically do not use effective coping strategies, and have ongoing negative affect and lower positive affect
(see Table 2), which cascades into hyperreactivity when everyday
problems become worse and more difficult to deal with (see Suls
& Martin, 2005).
PS versus conscientiousness. The present study also addressed a contentious issue in the perfectionism literature regarding the distinction of PS from conscientiousness (see Flett &
Hewitt, 2006). The significant zero-order correlations of PS with
engagement coping tendencies (i.e., problem-focused coping, positive reinterpretation) at Month 6 and Year 3 were no longer
significant once conscientiousness was controlled for, which suggests that PS does indeed share an active striving for achievement
with conscientiousness (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, et al., 2012). In
stark contrast to PS, however, conscientiousness did not moderate
stress reactivity and coping effectiveness better than could be
expected by chance. Thus, the present results demonstrate that PS
can be distinguished from conscientiousness in terms of heightened affective reactivity to both stress and coping responses (e.g.,
avoidant) that are not conducive to productivity. This can be
explained by previous theory suggesting that individuals with
higher PS feel unrelenting pressure to continuously strive to meet
extremely high standards (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Flett & Hewitt, 2006;
Young et al., 2003).
SC versus neuroticism. Most of the theoretically interesting
SC ⫻ Stress/Coping interaction effects were due to shared overlap
with the corresponding neuroticism interaction effects. However,
because most of the SC interaction effects were also due to shared
overlap with PS, our results suggest that two different mechanisms
(i.e., perfectionistic, neurotic) were jointly in play in generating the
SC effects on stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness. SC
was clearly distinguished from neuroticism and PS in terms of
unique relations with aggregated daily avoidant coping, negative
social interactions, negative affect, and sadness at Month 6 and
Year 3. Thus, avoidance and a negative interpersonal style appear
to be unique characteristic manifestations of SC, and these maintenance factors have been found to play an important role in the
perpetuation of various distress symptoms for these individuals
reasonably far into the future (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2014; Dunkley,
Sanislow, et al., 2006, 2009).
Translating Longitudinal Explanatory
Conceptualizations Into Clinical Practice
It is important to consider the practical implications of our
results, particularly given that a focus on stable and enduring
personality traits is often viewed as unnecessary or irrelevant to
achieve time-limited psychotherapies’ (e.g., CBT’s) goals of reducing clients’ distress and increasing resilience (see Kuyken et
al., 2009; Singer, 2013). To the contrary, perfectionism has been
shown to have a negative impact on therapeutic processes and
outcomes across different forms of time-limited psychotherapy
(see Blatt & Zuroff, 2005; Egan et al., 2011; Kannan & Levitt,
2013). We suggest that case explanatory conceptualizations that do
not consider personality vulnerability dimensions are likely to miss
important features when applied to a perfectionistic client’s presentation, and this omission may lead to preventable difficulties.
Briefly, our findings suggest that the intensified situationspecific reactions of perfectionistic individuals in the future might
631
be addressed in three ways. First, cognitive techniques can help
perfectionistic clients reattribute heightened affective reactivity to
daily stressors in the future to extremely demanding or critical
significant others in childhood (see Young et al., 2003). This
reconceptualization can be used to foster more self-compassionate
underlying assumptions that are more functional (e.g., “When I
make mistakes, it does not make me any less worthwhile as a
person”; see Kannan & Levitt, 2013; Kuyken et al., 2009). Second,
given that it can be predicted that perfectionistic clients’ negative
affect, sadness, or low positive affect will be intensified when
daily event stress, low perceived control, or negative social interactions increase in the future, behavioral activation methods can be
used to specifically reduce avoidant coping and promote problemfocused coping in order to help clients stay resilient when these
triggers occur (see Kuyken et al., 2009). Further, recent findings
suggest additional intervention choice points of increasing positive
reinterpretation, perceived control, and perceived social support
and decreasing perceived criticism in order to help reduce avoidant
coping and bolster problem-focused coping across many stressors,
which can facilitate daily decreases in distress and increases in
positive affect (Dunkley et al., 2014). Finally, our findings suggest
that perfectionistic clients should be helped to move from a reactive mode of responding automatically to stressors (e.g., avoidance) to a response mode, whereby they respond with awareness of
the stressor and its effects while working toward goals that are
grounded in their values (see Kuyken et al., 2009).
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although the two sequences of daily assessment repeated at
Month 6 and Year 3 in the present study was an advance over
previous daily diary studies in assessing the short- and long-term
influences of personality vulnerability on the daily stress and
coping process, there were limitations of the present study and
areas that warrant attention in future research. First, we assessed
stress, coping, and affect only once per day and, therefore, were
unable to capture the dynamics of stress and coping processes as
they are experienced during the day. Further, as the measures were
completed at the end of the day, we could not ascertain the
direction of causality among variables, and it is possible, for
example, that affect influenced the reports of stress appraisals and
coping. Future research assessing participants’ stress, coping, and
affect throughout the day would help to capture the fluctuations as
they are occurring and would be beneficial in determining the
direction of causality of the relations observed in this study.
Second, stress appraisals are likely very rapid and require more
frequent measurements than are perhaps feasible with diary methodologies. Cognitive priming studies, in which individuals are
exposed to experimental stimuli and their subsequent cognitive
reactions are examined, would be useful to better inspect appraisals as stressful events unfold. Third, as our study relied on selfreport measures, future studies might supplement self-report measures with informant reports or assessments of observable
behaviors (e.g., coping). Finally, the present results are based on an
adult community sample primarily composed of women, so their
generalizability to larger samples of men as well as other nonclinical (e.g., university students) and clinical populations needs to be
examined.
DUNKLEY, MANDEL, AND MA
632
Conclusions
The present findings demonstrate the promise of using repeated
daily diary methodologies to narrow the gap between research and
clinical work by advancing longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations. This can help therapists and clients reliably predict which
stress appraisals and coping responses will be more potent triggers
of mood changes in the short- and long-term future for perfectionistic and generally neurotic individuals. Our results clearly and
consistently demonstrated the theoretically expected patterns associated with perfectionistic stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness and the applicability of these individuals’ affectregulation problems to various affect states (i.e., negative affect,
sadness, positive affect) 6 months and 3 years later. The present
study also provides a richer understanding of the similarities and
nuances of specific (i.e., PS, SC) and broad (i.e., neuroticism,
conscientiousness) personality dimensions in their impact on future daily stress, coping, and adjustment.
References
American Psychological Association. (2014). Stress in America: Are teens
adopting adults’ stress habits? Retrieved from http://stressinamerica.org
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for
the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.1003
Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of
depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,
383–389. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.85.4.383
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and selfdefinition: Two prototypes for depression. Clinical Psychology Review,
12, 527–562. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(92)90070-0
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2005). Empirical evaluation of the assumptions in identifying evidence based treatments in mental health. Clinical
Psychology Review, 25, 459 – 486. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.001
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life
as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579 – 616. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 890 –902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.890
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, K. J. (1989). Assessing coping
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of
subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific diathesis-stress mechanism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
129 –137. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.129
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N.
(2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can
mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929. doi:10.1177/0146167206287721
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person
and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 583– 619. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008
.100356
Dunkley, D. M., Berg, J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2012). The role of self-critical
perfectionism in daily self-esteem, attachment, and affect. Journal of
Personality, 80, 633– 663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00741.x
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Berg, J. L. (2012). Perfectionism
dimensions and the Five-Factor Model of personality. European Journal
of Personality, 26, 233–244. doi:10.1002/per.829
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth,
G. (2000). The relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles,
coping, and perceived social support as mediators and moderators.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437– 453. doi:10.1037/00220167.47.4.437
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R. M., & Grilo, C. M. (2006).
Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of “clinical”
perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt et al.
(2003). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 63– 84. doi:10.1016/j.brat
.2004.12.004
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Zuroff, D. C., Lecce, S., & Hui, D.
(2006). Self-critical and personal standards factors of perfectionism
located within the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 409 – 420. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.020
Dunkley, D. M., & Kyparissis, A. (2008). What is DAS self-critical
perfectionism really measuring? Relations with the Five-Factor Model
of personality and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 1295–1305. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.022
Dunkley, D. M., Ma, D., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2014).
Advancing complex explanatory conceptualizations of daily negative
and positive affect: Trigger and maintenance coping action patterns.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 93–109. doi:10.1037/a0034673
Dunkley, D. M., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., & McGlashan, T. H.
(2006). Perfectionism and depressive symptoms 3 years later: Negative
social interactions, avoidant coping, and perceived social support as
mediators. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47, 106 –115. doi:10.1016/j
.comppsych.2005.06.003
Dunkley, D. M., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., & McGlashan, T. H.
(2009). Self-criticism versus neuroticism in predicting depression and
psychosocial impairment for 4 years in a clinical sample. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 50, 335–346. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.09.004
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical
perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences
on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
234 –252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.234
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a
transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review,
31, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2005). Perfectionism, stressful life events, and
the 1-year outcome of depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29,
541–553. doi:10.1007/s10608-005-2414-8
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). Perfectionism and neuroticism: A longitudinal study of specific vulnerability and diathesis-stress
models. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 463– 478. doi:10.1007/
s10608-005-2843-04
Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Pool, G. J., & Ruehlman, L. S. (1999). A
comparison of the influence of conflictual and supportive social interactions on psychological distress. Journal of Personality, 67, 581– 621.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00066
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in
psychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owens’s dual process model.
Behavior Modification, 30, 472– 495. doi:10.1177/0145445506288026
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10458-000
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. (1995).
Perfectionism, life events, and depressive symptoms: A test of a
diathesis-stress model. Current Psychology, 14, 112–137. doi:10.1007/
BF02686885
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. M. (2002).
Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In
PERSONALITY, STRESS, COPING, AND AFFECT
G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and
treatment (pp. 89 –132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10458-004
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449 – 468.
doi:10.1007/BF01172967
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism
in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 1087–1100. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 27–33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456 – 470.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily
stress, and depression: A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58 – 65. doi:10.1037/0021-843X
.102.1.58
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276 –280. doi:10.1037/0021843X.105.2.276
Kannan, D., & Levitt, H. M. (2013). A review of client self-criticism in
psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 166 –178. doi:
10.1037/a0032355
Kuyken, W., Padesky, C. A., & Dudley, R. (2009). Collaborative case
conceptualization: Working effectively with clients in cognitivebehavioral therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., & Fiedler, K. (2014). Research practices that
can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 18, 107–118. doi:10.1177/1088868313496330
Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling analyses of diary-style data. In
M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for
studying daily life (pp. 357–383). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
O’Connor, R. C., & O’Connor, D. B. (2003). Predicting hopelessness and
psychological distress: The role of perfectionism and coping. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 50, 362–372. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.3.362
Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Christopher, J., & Porter, J. D. (2006).
Perfectionism, stress, and social (dis)connection: A short-term study of
hopelessness, depression, and academic adjustment among honors students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 524 –534. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.53.4.524
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for
missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism:
A cognitive– behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
40, 773–791. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00059-6
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2003). Perfectionism dimensions, perfectionistic attitudes, dependent attitudes, and depression in
psychiatric patients and university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 373–386. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.3.373
633
Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, S. P., Macneil, M. A., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2013).
Discrepancies confer vulnerability to depressive symptoms: A threewave longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 112–
126. doi:10.1037/a0030439
Singer, J. A. (2013). Lost in translation? Finding the person in the emerging paradigm of clinical science: Introduction to a special issue on
personality psychology and psychotherapy. Journal of Personality, 81,
511–514. doi:10.1111/jopy.12017
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001).
The Revised Almost-Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 130 –145.
Sliwinski, M. J., Almeida, D. M., Smyth, J., & Stawski, R. S. (2009).
Intraindividual change and variability in daily stress processes: Findings
from two measurement-burst diary studies. Psychology and Aging, 24,
828 – 840. doi:10.1037/a0017925
Stoeber, J., & Janssen, D. P. (2011). Perfectionism and coping with daily
failures: Positive reframing helps achieve satisfaction at the end of the
day. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International Journal, 24, 477– 497.
doi:10.1080/10615806.2011.562977
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism:
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 295–319. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2
Sturman, E. D., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Rudolph, S. G. (2009).
Dimensions of perfectionism and self-worth contingencies in depression.
Journal of Rational–Emotive and Cognitive–Behavior Therapy, 27,
213–231. doi:10.1007/s10942-007-0079-9
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic:
Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping.
Journal of Personality, 73, 1485–1510. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005
.00356.x
Tong, E. M. W. (2010). Personality influences in appraisal– emotion relationships: The role of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 78, 393– 417.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00620.x
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS–X: Manual for the Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule– expanded form. Iowa City: University of
Iowa.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978, March). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A preliminary investigation.
Paper presented at the 62nd annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A
practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004). Conceptualizing and
measuring personality vulnerability to depression: Comment on Coyne
and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 489 –511. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.489
Received March 13, 2014
Revision received May 12, 2014
Accepted May 13, 2014 䡲