THE ROLE OF ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLES AND PERSONALITY TRAITS IN
MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
by
Erika R. Call
SPRING
2012
© 2012
Erika R. Call
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
THE ROLE OF ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLES AND PERSONALITY TRAITS IN
MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM
A Thesis
by
Erika R. Call
Approved by:
, Committee Chair
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph.D.
, Second Reader
Phillip Akutsu, Ph.D.
,
Third Reader
Tim Gaffney, Ph. D.
_____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Erika R. Call
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D
Department of Psychology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE ROLE OF ADULT ATTACHMENT STYLES AND PERSONALITY TRAITS IN
MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM
by
Erika R. Call
Adult attachment and personality traits can impact an individual’s attributions of
perfectionism. This study explored the predictor variables of adult attachment (anxious
and avoidant) and personality traits on the criterion variable of multidimensional
perfectionism as measured by four dimensions of perfectionism; Adaptive, Maladaptive,
High Standards, and Order, subscales that divide perfectionism into adaptive and
maladaptive perfectionists. Adaptive perfectionists manifest the positive qualities of
perfectionism while maladaptive perfectionists manifest the negative qualities. A
multiple regression analysis yielded four significant prediction models of perfectionism.
The models indicate that there is a significant relationship that exists between the
weighted linear composite of the independent variables as specified by the model and
each criterion variable of perfectionism. Adult attachment did not significantly predict
any dimension of perfectionism. The results suggest that personality traits are a potential
implication in the formulation of these four perfectionism dimensions.
, Committee Chair
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph.D.
_____________________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to give my sincere gratitude to my thesis chair and mentor, Dr. Lawrence
Meyers. Dr. Meyers worked with me tirelessly and patiently throughout this entire
process. His help and constructive input were invaluable in the completion of this thesis.
Dr. Meyers, I am grateful for all of your support and direction during my time at
Sacramento State. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Gaffney, and Dr.
Akutsu for their guidance throughout the writing process. I would also like to thank my
incredibly supportive parents, my sisters, and my fiancé. Thank you for your continued
encouragement and support when I was faltering. Above all, I would like to thank God
for blessing me with the opportunity to pursue my passion for higher education.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….
vi
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...
viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..
1
Philosophical Perfectionism……………………………………………...
1
Perfectionism in Early Psychology……………………………………….
3
Perfectionism in Personality………………………………………………
6
Perfectionism in Adult Attachment……………………………………….
8
Perfectionism as a Multidimensional Construct………………………….. 10
The Present Study………………………………………………………… 13
2. METHOD……………………………………………………………………… 16
Participants……………………………………………………………….. 16
Measures…………………………………………………………………... 16
Design and Procedure……………………….…………………………….. 22
3. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………… 24
Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………… 24
Reliability Analysis……………………………………………………….. 25
Principal Components Analyses…………………………………………... 29
Multiple Regression………………………………………………………. 35
4. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………….. 45
Limitations………………………………………………………………… 50
References…………………………………………………………………………. 52
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Information for the
Participants……………………………………………………….......
25
2. Descriptive Statistics for the Inventories…………………………………
29
3. Structure Coefficients for the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised Items….....
31
4. Structure Coefficients for the Subscales of the Relationship Scales
Questionnaire…………………………………………………………
34
5. Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores of Maladaptive
Perfectionism……………………………………………………........
37
6. Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores on the High Standards
Subscale of Perfectionism……………………………………………
39
7. Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores on the Order Subscale
of Perfectionism………………………………………………………
41
8. Standard Regression Results Predicting Scores for Adaptive
Perfectionism……………………………………………………….....
viii
43
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Philosophical Perfectionism
The concept of perfectionism has been explored as far back as ancient philosophy.
Historically, perfectionism has been a maximizing morality which instructed individuals
to achieve the greatest perfection that they can (as cited in Hurka, 1993, p. 56). Aristotle
was among the first to establish a theory on perfectionism, which was a key component in
his political theory. Aristotle examined perfectionism from a teological perspective, with
a good and evil component. Aristotle believed the path to perfection should be selfsatisfying so each person could achieve it on his/her own. He said that if perfection were
entirely self-sufficient, there would be little scope for consequentialist judgments (as
cited in Hurka, 1993, p. 59). Consequentialist judgments presuppose that human goods
are commensurable in a way that seemingly permits “greater goods” (Grisez, 1978, p.
21). He argued that if each person always knew they would be excellent on a given task,
then his/her failure to achieve would be entirely attributed to choosing the wrong task.
Aristotle distinguishes three concepts about perfection(ism); that is, something is perfect
when it is complete (no addition or enhancement would improve the quality of the
object); when it is so good that nothing of the kind could be better; and when it has
attained its purpose (when an object or concept has successfully fulfilled its intention).
For human beings the ultimate good or happiness consists in the pursuit of perfection, the
2
full attainment of their natural function, which Aristotle analyzes as the activity of the
soul according to reason (or not without reason). In De Anima, Aristotle’s
belief about perfectionism was in opposition to the subjective relativism of Protagoras,
who believed that what was good and evil is defined by whatever an individual happened
to desire. Like Plato, Aristotle maintained that good was objective and independent of
human wishes. Moreover, Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory that good was defined in
terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead to the belief that good and evil
are in a way relative to its natural end (as cited in Durrant, 1993, p. 162).
Later, Thomas Aquinas examined perfectionism in the Christian context. In the
Summa Theologica (1265-1274), he explained his theory on perfectionism was similar to
that of Aristotle’s last two concepts: which is so good that nothing of the kind could be
better; which is attained its purpose. From this, he distinguished a two-fold perfection:
when a thing is perfect in substance; and when it perfectly serves its purpose. Aquinas
acknowledged that perfection existed in the world, but not within the individual. He
argued that the only perfection was God. In his Summa Theologica, he wrote that God is
distinguished from other beings because of God’s complete actuality. God lacks nothing;
therefore He is perfect. Aquinas argued that human existence could not experience
perfection; the goal of human existence is a union and eternal fellowship with God, and
this goal is only achieved through an event where an individual experiences perfect
unending happiness by seeing the very essence of God. Whereas Thomas Aquinas
argued that human existence could not reach perfection, only God was perfect, Immanuel
Kant believed the theory of perfection did live amid human existence.
3
Immanuel Kant had equated perfection with morally good will and argued that an
individual could acquire this good will from one moment to the next. Aristotle did not
believe that perfection was entirely self-sufficient, but Immanuel Kant supported this
premise. Kant argued that when an individual is faced with wrongdoing, we could
always regard it as though the individual had fallen into it directly from a state of
innocence (as cited in Hurka, 1993, p. 36). For Kant, an individual’s perfection depends
entirely on his/her choices, which makes much of the point of consequentialism irrelevant
(as cited in Hurka, 1993, p. 69). In Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1790), he wrote about
perfection. Kant described perfectionism as; objective and subjective, qualitative and
quantitative, perceived as clearly and obscurely, essentially encompassing every aspect of
being. Kant’s description of perfection applies to everything in nature.
Perfectionism in Early Psychology
Fairly early on in the field of psychology, Sigmund Freud introduced the
discipline to his theory of the personality. In 1923, Freud introduced three components of
the personality. The preconscious, described as the antechamber to the conscious,
containing relatively accessible material. The conscious, described as what we are aware
of at any given moment. Finally, the unconscious, described as the site of relatively
irretrievable material, some of which may be repressed. These three components were
unexplored dimensions of the personality. Within the proposed component of the
personality, the subconscious, there were three underlying dimensions: id, ego, and
superego. It is within this theory of personality that the concept of perfectionism was
first introduced to the field of psychology.
4
Freud argued that the ego is extremely objective and it operates according to the
“reality principle” and deals with the demands of the environment, and it regulates the id.
The id holds all the desires of the individual; it is the pleasure principle component of the
personality. Perfection is an attribute of the superego. The superego represents the
values and standards of an individual’s personality, it acts as an internal judge, and it
punishes the ego, which leads to feelings of pride and heightened self-esteem. The
superego is a characteristic of the personality that strives for perfection (as cited in
Thorne & Henley, 2005, p. 435). This idea that perfection is a component of the
personality was later expanded in the work of Karen Horney.
In her theory of neurosis, Karen Horney established a list of ten basic needs that
humans require to succeed in life. The need for perfection was one of these ten needs.
The striving for perfection was indicative of a successful life according to the theory.
Horney (1939) argued that while many are driven to perfecting their lives in the form of
increasing well being, there are others that may display a fear of being slightly flawed,
which could be reflective in neurosis. This stringent need for perfection above all else to
the point of unacceptable failure could be harmful to an individual. This is presumably
where the negative connotation associated with perfectionism began. Karen Horney
began to associate her studies on narcissism with perfectionism acting as an underlying
personality trait. Horney further studied narcissism and neurosis in her work, Neurosis
and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization (1950). She summarized her
neurotic solutions to the stresses of life (expansive, self-effacement, resignation) and one
of them, “expansive solution”, was composed of a combination of narcissistic,
5
perfectionistic, and arrogant-vindictive approaches to life. Her perspective on narcissism
and perfectionism being related to the construct of the personality was shared with fellow
psychoanalyst, Alfred Adler. Both Karen Horney and Alfred Adler believed that the
development of perfectionism begins in childhood, and it is not entirely reactive and
influenced by parental factors or cultural pressures to be perfect.
While Sigmund Freud and Karen Horney were performing their research on
personality, Alfred Adler was also exploring the human mind and developing his own
theory. His Individual Psychology approach explored the individual differences of the
personality, focusing as previous psychologists before him on the neurotic individual.
The importance of perfectionism’s effect in helping people become anxious, depressed,
and otherwise emotionally disturbed was pointed out by pioneering cognitive
psychologist, Alfred Adler (1926, 1927).
Adler (1956) and Horney (1950) regarded the development of perfectionism as
the child’s active response to feelings of inferiority and neurotic difficulties. In The
Neurotic Disposition (1956) Adler suggested that striving for perfection is as innate and
intrinsic necessity for human development. Adler (1956) suggested that it is very normal
for individuals to strive for perfection; they set goals that are difficult to attain among
other things, but the majority of these goals are realistic and modified at times as needed.
Adler (1956) asserted that perfectionism arises, in part, from a neurotic need to please
significant others, the fear of failure, and characterologically based anxiety and selfdoubt.
6
Adler was among the first to argue that perfectionism was not solely a negative
personality trait and in an essence not a unidimensional personality trait, it had varying
dimensions. A distinction between “normal” (i.e., adaptive) and “neurotic” (i.e.,
maladaptive) perfectionism was suggested by Adler (1956) prior to psychometric
measures of perfectionism were established. In this work he suggested that individuals
who are maladaptive perfectionists are unable to experience pleasure from his/her labor.
Maladaptive perfectionists have unrealistically and unreasonably high standards of
themselves, and a sense of self-worth dependent on their performance. Individuals who
are adaptive perfectionists are able to experience satisfaction or pleasure. Their goals are
attained for the enhancement of society, they have achievable high standards that are
matched to the individual’s limitations and strengths, and they strive for success (Adler,
1956). The work by Adler was fundamental in the study of perfectionism and researchers
that would follow him would use his work as a foundation for their research.
Perfectionism in Personality
As previous researchers have already established, there is a uniqueness to
personality, as each individual’s personality varies (Adler, 1956). Hollender (1965)
described the perfectionist as a person who sets rigid, unrealistically high standards and
engages in an all-or-none mentality when evaluating his or her performance. Hollender
(1965) went on to describe perfectionists as overly sensitive to rejection and excessively
concerned with approval from others. Hollender (1965) goes on to explain that due to the
lack of self-competence, they in turn depend on other people’s evaluations to feel secure.
Perfectionism as a personality characteristic has been implicated in studies as being a
7
causal factor for a multitude of negative affect states (e.g. depression, self-esteem) and
neuroticism (Flett, Hewitt, & Dyck, 1989). Recently, perfectionism has been studied
with multiple personality dimensions.
The most widely recognized and applied personality model is The Big Five model
of personality. It has been accepted as higher order factors that help to characterize and
better understand other personality constructs (John & Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion
assesses traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality.
Conscientiousness describes task and goal-directed behavior such as organizing and
prioritizing tasks. Agreeableness refers to traits like altruism, trust, and modesty.
Neuroticism refers to negative emotions like feeling anxious, nervousness, and sadness.
Finally, openness to experience assesses attributes such as creativeness, originality, and
imaginativeness.
Prior research using the Big Five with different perfectionism scales generally
found the same results. Adaptive perfectionism was found to be positively related to
conscientiousness (Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, Lecce, & Hui, 2006; Parker & Stumpf,
1995; Stumpf & Parker, 2000) and openness to experience (Dunkley et al., 2006), but
negatively associated with neuroticism (Dunkley et al., 2006). Maladaptive
perfectionism was positively related to neuroticism (Dunkley et al., 2006; Hewitt, Flett,
& Blankstein, 1991; Parker & Stumpf, 1995; Stumpf & Parker, 2000), but negatively
related to extraversion and agreeableness (Dunkley et al., 2006). Additional variables
that may relate to maladaptive perfectionism are disagreeableness, neuroticism, and
extraversion, which are subsumed by what has come to be known as the Dark Triad
8
(Paulhus & Wiliams, 2002). The Dark Triad personality describes three unfavorable
personality constructs, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellinism. According to
Paulhus & Williams (2002) Machiavellians and narcissists exhibit a more maladaptive
personality. The Dark Triad personality shares one commonality with the Big Five
personality construct, namely, low agreeableness.
These results provide consistency in the findings across the studies regarding the
positive associations between adaptive perfectionism and conscientiousness as well as
between maladaptive perfectionism and neuroticism (Ulu & Tezer, 2010). There is,
however, little evidence in the literature (Dunkley et al., 2006) regarding the relationship
between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism with various other personality traits.
Perfectionism in Adult Attachment
Alfred Adler (1956) and Karen Horney (1950) were the first to argue that
perfectionism begins in childhood. They explained that the development of
perfectionism is the child’s active response to feelings of inferiority and neurotic
difficulties. Hewitt and Flett (1991) built their model of perfectionism on this perception
that the foundation of perfectionism begins in childhood. Hewitt and Flett (1991) argued
that the role of external pressures (both parental and social) is reflected clearly in the
development of socially prescribed perfectionism. The lack of parental responsiveness
will also contribute to insecure attachment styles associated with socially prescribed
perfectionism. Flett and Hewitt (2002, p. 110) claimed that the development of
perfectionism requires that the child has to actively translate those pressures by
internalizing the demands into pressures on the self (i.e., self-oriented perfectionism) or
9
externalizing the demands in the form of pressures on others (i.e. other-oriented
perfectionism).
Attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Bowlby, 1969), which was
originally sought to understand infant-mother attachment, has recently grown and been
applied to the study of adolescent and adult attachment styles and how they function in
their current relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). According to attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1988), the quality of early experiences with parental caregivers shapes the
development of an individual’s general orientation to intimate peer relationships. He
proposed that the negative experiences that individuals have early in life with their
parental figures (i.e. excessive criticism, overindulgence, and indifference) are more
likely to increase an insecure adult attachment orientation. On the other hand, positive
experiences early in an individual’s life such as supportive and autonomy-encouraging
interactions with parental figures increase a secure adult attachment orientation. Shaver
and Hazan (1993) demonstrated that adult attachment styles have been shown to be
related to jealousy, paternal drinking, sexual activity, relationship satisfaction, conflict
styles, coping responses, neuroticism, and depression among other things.
Adult attachment has more recently been studied as a two-dimensional model. The two
dimensions of anxiety (model of self) and avoidance (model of other) are assumed to
underlie variation in adult attachment orientation (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992).
There has been a substantial amount of research literature that has shown that these two
underlying dimensions are directly related to cognitive processes, affect regulation
strategies, and interpersonal behaviors (Lopez & Brennan, 2000). Griffin and
10
Bartholomew (1994) originally proposed a scale that assessed four categories of
attachment that were factor analyzed to represent two dimensions of adult attachment,
anxiety and avoidance. Previous research has confirmed that the four attachment
categories can be reliably measured, that a two-dimensional structure underlies the four
patterns as hypothesized, and that different methods of assessment converge as expected
to support these findings (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin & Bartholomew,
1993). Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) recognized that most individuals exhibit
elements of more than one attachment pattern.
Perfectionism as a Multidimensional Construct
There have been several studies that have explored Adlerian explanations for
significant differences between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism (Ashby &
Kottman, 1996; Kottman & Ashby, 1999). Past research suggests that there is a
significant distinction between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism based on how
perfectionists use their perfectionism. From an Adlerian perspective, the adaptive
perfectionist, who experiences less distress related to perfectionism and is striving for
high standards, may be appropriately pursuing superiority (Flett & Hewitt, 2002, p. 83).
In contrast, the maladaptive perfectionist may pursue high standards to avoid feelings of
inferiority. This avoidance may be manifested in the need to out perform other
individuals and may be directly related to a family dynamic where love and acceptance
are based on performance (Flett & Hewit, 2002, p. 83).
Previous researchers have identified two separate high-order dimensions of
perfectionism, the most prominent being “normal and positive (adaptive), or neurotic and
11
dysfunctional (maladaptive)” perfection (Hamachek, 1978). The “adaptive”
perfectionists reported feeling satisfied when their standards were achieved. They have
preferences for personal competence, and expectations for a strong performance in
academics and work, and they set high personal goals. These characteristics are
positively correlated with variables such as active coping, higher self-esteem,
achievement, and conscientiousness (Parker, 1997; Rice & Lapsley, 2001).
The second high-order dimension of perfectionism is maladaptive perfectionism.
The “maladaptive” perfectionists are rarely satisfied, if ever, and strongly critique
themselves on all tasks. The maladaptive perfectionists are typically described as having
excessive concerns about making mistakes, self-doubt, and perceptions of failure to attain
personal standards (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). The common
characteristic between the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism appears to
be the concern for high personal standards. After Hamchek’s initial identification of the
positive and negative aspects of perfectionism, several other attempts have been made to
identify positive aspects that led to new conceptualizations of the construct.
Perfectionism has proven to be a difficult construct to define. Frost, Marten,
Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) attempted to define the construct of perfectionism with the
establishment of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). This measure
produced five interrelated subscales that could be summed to create one unidimensional
score of perfectionism. These subscales measure the extent to which an individual (a) is
concerned over making mistakes, (b) sets high personal standards, (c) feels criticized by
12
his or her parents, (d) feels that his or her parents have high expectations for him or
herself, and (e) doubts his or her ability to perform actions.
The first known qualitative study on these concepts was performed by Slaney and
Ashby (1996) who had participants explain their comprehension of perfectionism as well
as their own experiences. Slaney and Ashby (1996) identified the structured interviews
of the participants and found that there were three universal characteristics of
perfectionism: (a) having high standards for performance, (b) having a sense of
discrepancy between standards and performance that creates distress, and (c) being neat
and orderly. They factor analyzed their subscales and created the Almost Perfect ScaleRevised (2001) and were able to conclude that the high standards subscale measures
adaptive perfectionism, while the discrepancy subscale measures maladaptive
perfectionism. From this, researchers (Rice et al., 1996) have been able to divide
perfectionists into (a) adaptive perfectionists who seem to manifest positive qualities, and
(b) maladaptive perfectionists, who seem to manifest negative qualities of perfectionism.
The topic of perfectionism and its multidimensional construct has received increasing
concentration in the psychology literature. There has been a multitude of interest in
exploring perfectionism and more recently, there has been the development of useful
multidimensional conceptualizations of perfectionism (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1990; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi,
& Ashby, 2001).
13
The Present Study
Prior research has examined the characteristics of adaptive and maladaptive
perfectionism in relation to parental attachment (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000), the personality
characteristics of a fully functioning individual (Ashby, Rahotep, & Martin, 2005), and
self-esteem (Rice, Ashby, & Preusser, 1996). Perfectionism in relation to personality
characteristics has been studied primarily with the Big Five Personality Characteristics
(Costa &McCrea, 1992). Maladaptive perfectionism has been repeatedly associated with
a multitude of psychological problems like decreased self-esteem, depression, anxiety,
eating disorders, dysfunctional attitudes, and substance abuse (Blatt, 1995). An
individual’s level of attachment security may function to either lessen or intensify the
negative effects of maladaptive perfectionism on self-esteem; whereas individuals who
recognize that they have high levels of attachment security, self-doubt appears to have a
less adverse impact on self-esteem; for individuals with low levels of attachment security,
self-doubt was more directly related to low self-esteem (Rice & Lopez, 2004).
Perfectionism in relation to adult attachment and certain personality
characteristics, The Big Five (Costa & McCrea, 1992) has been studied separately,
creating two independent lines of study. However, by considering the impact of
attachment style in the development of the personality (Bowlby, 1969) and the numerous
studies on the Big Five personality traits, it is clear there is room for further investigation
on various personality traits, adult attachment, and perfectionism.
The “Dark Triad” is a newly developed construct proposed by Palhaus and
Williams (2002) that describes three unfavorable personality constructs, Narcissism,
14
Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Narcissism is described as attention-seeking
behaviors, excessive self-focus, and exploitation in interpersonal relationships (Millon &
Davis, 1996). Machiavellian people are characterized to be more intelligent than their
non-Machiavellian counterparts, with these individuals displaying deceit, flattery, and
emotional detachment to manipulate social and personal interactions (Jakobwitz & Egan,
2005). Psychopathy (in the non-clinical setting) is characterized as an individual with
low empathy and anxiety and with high impulsivity and thrill seeking
mannerisms (Palhaus & Williams, 2002). All three aspects of the Dark Triad personality
have been found to correlate negatively with agreeableness, with high psychopathy scores
correlating with low neuroticism, and high Machiavellianism and psychopathy
scores correlating with low conscientiousness. There is a lack of research that
investigates the Dark Triad personality in relation to adult attachment and the current
study seeks to examine the concept.
Individuals who exhibit high levels of adult attachment anxiety have reported
strong fears of rejection and abandonment in their intimate peer relationships and they are
more prone to being easily overwhelmed by negative emotions. Individuals who exhibit
high levels of avoidance have reported experiencing discomfort with intimacy and
closeness, along with stronger desires for interpersonal distance and self-sufficiency; they
are also more likely to suppress negative emotions (Rice & Lopez, 2004). Mikulincer
(1995) demonstrated that individuals with low avoidance and low anxiety in their adult
attachment orientations demonstrate a more positive, cohesive, and integrated self-
15
structure and have a greater tolerance for uncertainty and are less likely to become
vulnerable to depression.
Prior research has focused primarily on the role of anxiety and avoidance
dimensions of adult attachment in maladaptive perfectionism. Results have shown that
anxious and avoidant adult attachment styles are positively related with maladaptive
perfectionism (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). The purpose of the current study is to
investigate the role of anxiety and avoidance dimensions of adult attachment and the
“Dark Triad” personality traits in conjunction with various other personality traits in
adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism. I hypothesize that lower
attributions of the Dark Triad personality and lower attributions of both anxiety and
avoidance adult attachment dimensions will be predictive of adaptive perfectionism
in an individual, while higher attributions of the Dark Triad personality and higher
attributions of both anxiety and avoidance adult attachment dimensions will be predictive
of maladaptive perfectionism.
16
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
The participants for this study were 192 introductory psychology undergraduate
students at California State University, Sacramento. The current sample consisted almost
exclusively of female students (37 males, 154 females). There were 73 White
Americans, 26 Latinos, 17 African Americans, 60 Asian Americans, and 16 others who
did not choose to disclose their ethnicity. Participants were rewarded with one hour of
participation credit towards satisfying their lower division course criteria. The
participants ranged in age from 18 to 50 years (M = 21.3, SD = 4.53).
Demographic information collected from participants included their current
socioeconomic status. There were 37 individuals from a self-reported lower class, 148
self-reported middle class, 6 self-reported upper class, and 1 individual who did not
choose to disclose his/her socioeconomic status.
Measures
Participants were supplied with all materials need to complete the questionnaire
packets. The measures, along with what they intended to measure are presented below.
The Relationship Scales Questionnaire
The Relationship Scales Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) was used
to measure an individual’s adult attachment dimensions (anxiety, avoidance). The
17
measure consisted of 30 items in a self-report questionnaire (e.g., “I often worry that
romantic partners wont want to stay with me”), which were derived from Hazan
and Shaver’s (1987) three-category model of attachment, Bartholomew and Horowitz’s
(1991) four attachment paragraphs and Collins and Read’s (1990) Adult Attachment
Scale. This measure utilizes a 7-point response scale (1 = Not at all like me and 7 = Very
much like me) to assess responses to each item. The items were then used to categorize
participants into of one of four attachment styles (Secure, Preoccupied, Dismissing,
Fearful).
Previous research has confirmed the four attachment prototypes can be reliably
measured and that a two-dimensional structure (model of self: anxiety, model of other:
avoidance) underlies these four patterns (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1993). The two underlying dimensions are derived by linear combinations
of the four prototypes. Griffin and Bartholomew (1993) proposed two equations, the self
model (anxiety) is derived by adding the ratings of the patterns defined by positive self
models (the secure and dismissing) and subtracting the ratings of the patterns defined by
negative self models (the fearful and preoccupied), the other model (avoidance) is
derived by adding together an individual’s scores on the patterns hypothesized to
represent positive other models (the secure and preoccupied) and subtracting the scores
on the patterns hypothesized to represent negative other models (the dismissing and
fearful patterns). Scores on the secure and dismissing subscales ranged from 5-25, and
scores on the preoccupied and fearful subscales ranged from 4-20. The internal
consistency reported for the Relationship Scales Questionnaire had a Cronbach’s
18
coefficient alpha of .77 (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). All studies by Bartholomew and
Griffin (1994) have reported smaller than necessary sample sizes for establishing
measurement norms, and thus there are no previously reported norms for the inventory.
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory
The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979) is one of the most
widely used measures for assessing the trait of narcissism and the version used here is the
most common one used in the current literature. It consisted of 40 forced-choice items
(e.g., “I have a natural talent for influencing people” or “I am not good at influencing
people”). Higher scores on this scale are indicative as being representative of a more
narcissistic individual. The internal consistency reported for the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory had a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .83 (Raskin & Hall, 1979).
Levenson Psychopathy Scale
The Levenson Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, 1995) is used in the literature to
recognize the psychological traits that represent psychopathy. It consisted of 26 items
(e.g., “people who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it”) and utilizes a
4-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree). Higher scores
indicate an individual possess more of psychopathy (sociopath) mannerisms. It is
currently used in the literature as a reliable form of assessing psychopathy. The internal
consistency reported for the Levenson Psychopathy Scale was a robust .82 coefficient
alpha (Levenson, 1995).
19
Mach-IV Scales
The Mach-IV Scales (Christie & Geis, 1970) are used to assess Machiavellianism, a
personality trait that characterizes the manipulation and exploitation of others with a selfinterest and deception focus. It consists of 20 items (e.g., “it is hard to get ahead without
cutting corners here and there”) and utilizes a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Scores on this scale range from 0 to 100. Higher
scores indicate a higher degree of Machiavellianism. It is one of the most reliable scales
for assessing Machiavellianism. The Mach-IV Machiavellianism scale produced a norm
split-half reliability of .79 (Christie & Geis, 1970).
Positive and Negative Affect Scales
The Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS) Scales (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988) were used to assess positive affect and negative affect. It consisted of 20
one-word items, 10 items assessed positive affect (e.g., “interested” and “excited”) and
10 items assessed negative affect (e.g., “irritable” and “distressed”). The scale utilizes a
5-point response scale (1 = very slightly or not at all and 5 = extremely) to assess each
item. Scores on this scale range from 10 to 50. Higher scores on the positive affect
subscale indicate a higher amount of positive affect. Higher scores on the negative affect
subscale indicate a higher amount of negative affect. It is one of the most reliable scales
for assessing positive and negative affect of an individual and used in current research
literature. The internal consistency reported for these scales had a coefficient alpha of .88
for the positive affect scale and coefficient alpha of .87 for the negative affect scale
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
20
Self-Esteem Rating Scale
In order to assess self-esteem, the Self-Esteem Rating Scale (Nugent & Thomas,
1993) was chosen for measurement. It consisted of 40 items (e.g., “I feel that people
would not like me if they really knew me”) and utilizes a 7-point response scale (1 =
never and 7 = always). Higher scores on this measure are indicative of an individual
having higher self-esteem, where lower scores on this scale indicate an individual who
has lower self-esteem. It is not used as often as other self-efficacy scales due to its length
but the literature has shown that this scale has excellent internal consistency.
The internal consistency reported for the scale had a robust Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
of .97 (Nugent & Thomas, 1993).
Physical Self-Efficacy
In order to assess self-efficacy, the Physical Self-Efficacy (Ryckman, Robbins,
Thornton, & Cantrell, 1982) measure was used. The measure consisted of 22 items (e.g.,
“Sometimes I do not hold up well under stress”) and utilizes a 6-point response scale (1 =
strongly agree and 6 = strongly disagree). Higher scores on this measure indicate a
greater amount of self-efficacy that an individual possesses, whereas lower scores on this
measure indicate an individual has lower self-efficacy. It has excellent internal
consistency with a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .81, and a test-retest of .80 (Ryckman
et al., 1982). It also has excellent concurrent validity in the published literature
(Ryckman et al., 1982).
21
Satisfaction with Life Scale
In order to assess life satisfaction, the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener,
Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985) was used. It consisted of 5 items (e.g., “In most ways
my life is close to my ideal”) and utilizes a 7-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree
and 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate an individual has higher attributions of
life satisfaction, whereas lower scores on this measure indicate lower attributions of life
satisfaction. It is one of the shortest scales used to measure the construct, but one of the
most widely used in the current research literature (Ulu & Tezer, 2010). It has a high
reported internal consistency with a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .88 (Diener et al.,
1985).
The Duttweiler Internal Control Index
In order to assess internal locus of control, one of the most widely used measures
on this trait was used in the current research, The Duttweiler Internal Control Index
(Duttweiler, 1984). The measure consisted of 28 items (e.g., “I consider different sides
of an issue before making any decisions”) and utilizes a 5-point response scale (1 =
rarely less than 10% of the time and 5 = usually more than 90% of the time). The
Duttweiler Internal Control Index measures an individual’s internal locus of control,
autonomy, self-confidence, and resistance to social influences. Higher scores on this
measure are equivalent to a higher internal locus of control, whereas lower scores on this
measure indicate a lower internal locus of control. This measure has been reported with
an internal consistency of .85 as measured by coefficient alpha (Duttweiler, 1984). It is
commonly cited in the research literature and has good construct validity by means of the
22
Mirels’ Factor I of the Rotter I-E scale, with correlations between the two indices being
significant (Duttweiler, 1984).
The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised
The study also utilized the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley,
Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) which consists of 23 items (e.g., “I often feel disappointment
after completing a task because I know I could have done better”) and utilizes a 7-pont
response scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) on items reflecting one of
three independent factors (Discrepancy, High Standards, and Order) derived from a factor
analysis on varying multidimensional perfectionism scales (Frost, Heimberg, Holt,
Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001).
Slaney et al. (2001) concluded the high standards subscale measured adaptive
perfectionism, while the discrepancy subscale measured maladaptive perfectionism. Rice
et al. (1996) were able to divide perfectionists into (a) adaptive perfectionists who
manifest the positive qualities of perfectionism, and (b) maladaptive perfectionists who
manifest the negative qualities of perfectionism. The measure had good internal
consistency producing a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .85 (Slaney et al., 2001).
Design and Procedure
The current study used a correlation design to explore the effect that the
dimensions of adult attachment (anxiety, avoidance) and the “Dark Triad” (Narcissism,
Psychopathy, Machiavellianism) personality, in conjunction with other personality
characteristics (positive affect, negative affect, self-esteem, self-efficacy, life satisfaction,
locus of control) had on the multidimensional (adaptive, maladaptive) construct of
23
perfectionism. Participants voluntarily signed up for the research study with the
incentive that they would receive one hour of research participation credit towards
satisfying the Psychology department’s requirement for lower division introductory
courses.
Each participant was provided a packet of materials that contained ten of the
measures mentioned above and a measure to collect demographic information. The
demographic information collected consisted of age, gender (male, female), ethnicity
(Caucasian, African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, Other), and
socioeconomic status (lower class, middle class, upper class). The order of presentation
of the scales in this packet of materials was the following Duttweiler Internal Locus of
Control Index, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Physical Self-Efficacy Scale, Self-Esteem
Rating Scale, PANAS Scales, Mach-IV, Levenson Psychopathy Scale, Narcissistic
Personality Inventory, Relationship Scales Questionnaire, the Almost Perfect ScaleRevised, and the demographic information page.
24
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
One hundred and ninety-two introductory psychology undergraduate students at
California State University, Sacramento participated in the current research in order to
study the dimensions of adult attachment (anxiety and avoidance) and the “Dark Triad”
personality, in conjunction with other personality characteristics on the multidimensional
construct of perfectionism (adaptive and maladaptive).
The 192 undergraduate students (37 males and 154 females) who participated in
this study varied in age from 18 to 50 (M = 21.3, SD = 4.53). There were 73 White
Americans, 26 Latinos, 17 African Americans, 60 Asian Americans, and 16 others who
did not choose to disclose their ethnicity. There were 37 lower class, 148 middle class, 6
upper class, and 1 individual who did not choose to disclose his/her socioeconomic
status. Please refer to Table 1 below for the full descriptive statistics on participants in
this study.
25
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Information for the Participants
Variable
Frequency
Percent
Male
37
19.3
Female
154
80.2
Caucasian
73
38.0
Hispanic
26
13.5
African American
17
8.9
Asian American
60
31.3
Other
16
8.3
Lower
37
19.3
Middle
148
77.1
Upper
6
3.1
Sex
Ethnicity
Socioeconomic
Reliability Analysis
In order to determine if the scales were functioning properly in the analysis, a
reliability analysis was performed on all scales used. The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised
26
had a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .84 consistent with the normality of the inventory
producing a .85 coefficient alpha (Slaney et al., 2001). The reliability analysis for the
Levenson Psychopathy Scale yielded a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .71, which was
not the robust .82 coefficient produced by the literature (Levenson, 1995), but
nonetheless still provided a strong coefficient alpha. The means produced in this analysis
did not support previous norms for the inventory; the current reliability analysis produced
a much higher mean (M = 48.41) than the mean produced by the original inventory (M =
25.25). The current analysis produced a standard deviation (SD = 9.17) that varied more
greatly than the standard deviation (SD = 6.86) produced by the literature (Levenson,
1995). The reliability analysis for the Self-Esteem Rating Scale produced a Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha of .70, which was much lower than the reliability alpha of .97 produced
by the existing inventory, which was shown to have excellent internal consistency
(Nugent & Thomas, 1993). Actual norms were not reported in the original literature.
The PANAS scales had coefficient alphas of .81 for the positive affect scale and
.80 for the negative affect scale. Both of which are slightly lower, although still
consistent with the literature, which shows an internal consistency coefficient alpha of .88
for the positive affect scale and coefficient alpha of .87 for the negative affect scale
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The means and standard deviations that were
gathered by the current reliability analysis (See Table 2) proved consistent with the
norms for the scales in previous literature; positive affect (M = 35.0, SD = 6.4), negative
affect (M = 18.1, SD = 5.9). The standard deviation of our negative affect scale was
27
slightly higher than reported norms, also the kurtosis in the current reliability analysis
was higher than the normal distribution indicating less variability in response. The
Satisfaction with Life scale reported with an internal consistency that was slightly lower
than the reported norm of coefficient alpha, .88. There were no actual norms that were
reported with the original inventory.
When comparing the reliabilities for the Dutweiler internal locus of control index,
the current analysis yielded a much lower reliability than the published norm (Duttweiler,
1984). The alpha coefficient of .68 fell much lower than the published .84 coefficient
alpha. The internal consistency reported for the Relationship Scales Questionnaire had a
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .77. Previous studies by Bartholomew and Griffin (1994)
had very small sample sizes, which did not allow for the establishment of measurement
norms for this inventory. The current reliability analysis for the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory produced a strong Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .83, which is the exact
coefficient lambda published by the original scale (Raskin & Hall, 1979). However, the
means and standard deviations of the current analysis (See Table 2) are higher than the
norms reported by the inventory (M = 15.55, SD = 6.66). The Mach-IV
Machiavellianism scale produced a norm split-half reliability of .79, which is much
higher than the current internal consistency reliability analysis, which produced a
coefficient alpha of .63. This statistic indicates the reliability of the current inventory
was moderate compared to the published normality of the scale. The Physical Selfefficacy scale had good internal consistency, with a coefficient alpha of .81, and a testretest of .80. Both of these scores are higher than the current reliability analysis, which
28
produced a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .70. The published scale reported reliabilities
with a sample of 950 undergraduate students, a sample size that was much greater than
the current analysis which had only 192 undergraduate students, a good indication of why
the current reliability analysis may have fallen short of the published norm. All other
demographic data and actual norms were not reported with the inventory. The complete
table for the descriptive statistics and reliabilities produced on the inventories used in
the current study can be found in Table 2.
29
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Inventories
Measure
Kurtosis Cronbach’s
Alpha
N
M
SD
Skew.
Self-Efficacy
192
82.87
12.27
.295
.087
.70
Panas Positive
192
37.33
6.05
-.351
-.237
.81
Panas Negative
192
21.80
7.21
.998
1.93
.80
Locus of Control
191
69.34
12.40
-.054
-.830
.68
Self-Esteem
192
211.14
31.52
-.506
-.316
.70
Satisfaction with Life
192
23.95
6.32
-.413
-.432
.83
Machiavellianism
191
72.90
7.70
.389
1.620
.63
Psychopathy
189
48.41
9.17
.129
-.290
.71
Narcissism
192
20.25
6.89
.413
-.223
.83
Relationship Scale
192
119.12
20.60
.445
.045
.67
Almost Perfect Scale
192
105.65
16.35
.222
.647
.84
Principal Components Analyses
An exploratory principle components analysis was computed on the criterion
variable of perfectionism. This analysis was done to see if there were three underlying
constructs assessing perfectionism as explained in the research literature, in order to
produce the criterion variable used in this study (i.e., adaptive and maladaptive
30
perfectionism). The sole purpose for this particular analysis was to produce the specific
criterion variables for this study. The 23-question items were analyzed using a principal
components analysis, even though the sample size was relatively small (N = 192). A
promax rotation was used to rotate the components in this analysis as it has proven to be
an efficient method and conceptually the best choice for the data.
Discrepancy was not significantly correlated with either High Standards, r(190) =
.18 or Order, r(190) = -.17, but the High Standards and Order were moderately
correlated, r(190) = .44. The structure coefficients produced in this analysis matched up
almost perfectly with what is reported in the literature and is presented in Table 3. The
first twelve items on the scale measure items associated with unhealthy, unattainable
lofty goals, where no level of achievement is ever satisfactory. This component was
named Discrepancy by the inventory developers and seems to best describe the unhealthy
behaviors of the perfectionist. The next seven items on the scale measure items
associated with set High Standards and goals that are intended to elicit their best efforts.
This component was named high standards to summarize those characteristics. The final
four items on the scale measure items were found to be associated with positive aspects
of perfectionism that describe neatness and orderliness. This component was named
Order by the inventory developers to describe those perfectionism mannerisms.
31
Table 3
Structure Coefficients for the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised Items
Item Content
Component
Discrepancy High Standards
Order
Can’t meet goals
.54
-.09
-.05
Not good enough
.80
-.17
-.08
Doesn’t meet high standards
.71
-.24
-.17
Best is not enough
.78
-.18
-.09
Unsatisfactory accomplishments
.68
-.14
-.20
Failed expectations
.83
-.06
-.12
Poor performance
.83
-.13
-.16
Unsatisfactory performance
.80
-.11
-.12
High standards not met
.75
-.16
-.13
Not good enough
.85
-.17
-.24
Failed performance
.78
-.17
-.15
Could have done better
.74
-.06
-.04
High standards at work
-.17
.73
.23
Expect great performance at work
-.01
.57
.24
High expectation of myself
-.18
.87
.32
High standards for myself
-.14
.87
.31
Expect the best of myself
-.15
.87
.44
Be the best at what I do
-.17
.82
.44
Strive for excellence
-.16
.84
.52
Orderly person
-.15
.45
.72
Neatness
-.17
.39
.91
Orderliness of belongings
-.12
.33
.91
Organization and Discipline
-.16
.41
.91
32
The three independent components produced by the measure were Discrepancy,
High Standards, and Order. As the research literature has suggested, given the
correlations of the subscales, there is sufficient information to believe the three subscales
are essentially measuring two dimensions, Adaptive and Maladaptive
Perfectionism. The Discrepancy subscale assesses Maladaptive Perfectionism, while the
High Standards and Order sub-scales assess Adaptive Perfectionism.
A reliability analysis on the Discrepancy subscale produced a very strong
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .91 consistent with the literature, which produced a
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .92 for the Discrepancy subscale (Slaney et al., 2001). A
reliability analysis on the High Standards subscale produced a strong Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha of .89 slightly stronger than the literature (Slaney et al., 2001) which
produced a strong coefficient alpha of .85. The reliability analysis on the Order subscale
also produced a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .89 which was extremely similar to the
literature’s (Slaney et al., 2001) coefficient alpha of .86 for the Order subscale. The High
Standards and Order subscales were combined into a single dimension of perfectionism,
Adaptive, per the literature’s implication (Slaney et al., 2001). Summing the ratings for
each item on the High Standards, and Order subscales formed the construct of Adaptive
perfectionism.
An exploratory principle components analysis was computed on the predictor
variable of adult attachment. This analysis was done to see if there were two underlying
constructs of adult attachment as explained in the research literature, in order to produce
33
the predictor variable used in this study (i.e. anxious and avoidant adult attachment). The
sole purpose for this particular analysis was to produce the specific predictor variables for
this study. The other predictor variables in this study were not multidimensional
constructs as reported in the literature.
Based on instructions by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994), 18 of the 30 self-report
items in their scale were included in a principle components analysis even though the
sample size was relatively small (N = 192). A promax rotation was used to rotate the
components and four subscales were produced as originally conceived: Secure,
Dismissing, Preoccupied, and Fearful. The structure coefficients produced for the fourcategory components of adult attachment are presented in Table 4. Consistent
with the literature (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), the correlations between the subscales
were relatively low. The Secure subscale was not significantly correlated with subscales
representing Fearful, r(190) = -.51, Preoccupied, r(190) = .09, or Dismissing, r(190) = .15. The Fearful subscale was not significantly correlated with subscales representing
Preoccupied, r(190) = -.19, or Dismissing, r(190) = .15. Finally, the Preoccupied
subscale was not significantly correlated with the Dismissing subscale, r(190) = -.40.
34
Table 4
Structure Coefficients for the Subscales of the Relationship Scales Questionnaire
Item Content
Component
Secure Preoccupied Fearful
Dismissing
Easily close to others
.85
.42
-.24
-.07
Worry about being alone
.72
.28
-.42
.34
Can depend on others
.72
.17
-.18
.21
Has others depend on me
.71
.31
-.29
-.17
Others may not accept me
.63
.24
-.36
.17
Comfortable without close relationships
.34
.61
.24
-.02
Want emotional intimacy
.22
.54
.15
-.25
Worry others wont value me as I do them
.18
.57
.18
-.31
Others are reluctant to get close
.16
.52
.17
-.03
Difficult to depend on others
.28
.23
.60
.25
Worry I will be hurt by others
-.44
.09
.71
.39
Difficult to trust others
-.23
.12
.66
.26
Uncomfortable close to others
-.56
-.04
.70
.17
Need to feel Independent
-.02
-.15
.24
.54
Need a close relationship
-.25
-.36
.19
.61
Need to feel self-sufficient
-.09
-.34
.05
.59
Don’t like being dependent on
-.12
-.31
.14
.54
Don’t like to depend on others
-.31
-.03
.36
.56
The four subscales computed are direct reflections of what was produced in the
literature (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). A reliability analysis was performed on these
four subscales and there were reported Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .75 for the
35
Secure subscale, .72 for the Fearful subscale, .67 for the Preoccupied subscale, .70 for
the Dismissing subscale. There were no reliability statistics reported in the literature for
comparison for these four subscales.
The research literature suggested there were two underlying dimensions of adult
attachment as proposed by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994). The self-report scale
essentially revealed two dimensions; model of self (anxiety) and model of other
(avoidance). These two dimensions were computed using the instructions and following
equations from Griffin and Bartholomew (1994). The model of self (anxiety), was
derived by summing the individuals’ scores on the Secure and Dismissing subscales and
subtracting the individuals’ scores on the Preoccupied and Fearful subscales. The model
of other (avoidance) was derived by summing the individuals’ scores on the Secure and
Preoccupied subscales and subtracting the individuals’ scores on the Dismissing and
Fearful subscales.
Multiple Regression
Four exploratory standard multiple regression analyses were performed using the
criterion variables of Maladaptive Perfectionism (Discrepancy subscale), High Standards
subscale of perfectionism, Order subscale of perfectionism, and Adaptive Perfectionism
(computed using the High Standards subscale and the Order subscale).
The first exploratory standard multiple regression performed used the criterion
variable of Maladaptive Perfectionism (Discrepancy subscale) and locus of control, life
satisfaction, self-efficacy, self-esteem, negative affect, positive affect, Machiavellianism,
36
Psychopathy, Narcissism, and adult attachment style as the independent variables. The
assumption of multicollinearity was met with all VIF values reporting less than 10 and all
Tolerance values reporting greater than .01. As such, there is not a high intercorrelation
between the predictor variables used in the analysis. The model also satisfied the
assumption of linearity, normality, and homogeneity of variance. Please refer to Table 5
for the results of this standard regression model.
37
Table 5
Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores of Maladaptive Perfectionism
Model
b
SE-b
Constant
4.36
1.617
Self-Efficacy
.010
Positive Affect
2
Structure
Coefficient
Beta
Pearson
r
sr
.008
.094
-.303
.005
-.480
-.022
.016
-.106
-.415
.006
-.657
Negative Affect*
.035
.013
.200
.429
.026
.679
Locus of Control
-.001
.009
-.008
-.402
.000
-.637
Self-Esteem*
-.013
.004
-.314
-.551
.033
-.873
Satisfaction with Life
-.025
.015
-.124
-.416
.008
-.659
Machiavellianism*
.023
.011
.141
.297
.014
.470
Narcissism
-.005
.005
-.080
-.273
.003
-.433
Psychopathy
.006
.010
.044
.234
.001
.370
Anxious Attachment
.010
.012
.052
-.064
.002
-.101
Avoidance Attachment
.009
.007
.081
-.020
.005
-.030
Note. N = 186. The dependent variable was Maladaptive Perfectionism. R2 = .398, Adjusted
R2 = .360. sr2 is the squared semi-partial correlation.
*p < .05
The model indicates that there is a significant relationship that exists between the
weighted linear composite of the independent variables as specified by the model and the
criterion variable of maladaptive perfectionism, F(11, 175) = 10.50, p < .001, adjusted
R2= .360. According to the Maladaptive Perfectionism model for prediction, individuals
38
who have lower attributes of self-esteem and higher attributes of Machiavellianism and
negative affect, are more likely to be maladaptive perfectionists. Adult attachment style
(anxious and avoidance) did not significantly predict Maladaptive Perfectionism. Based
on the structure coefficients, the underlying dimension appears to represent a negatively
oriented antisocial interaction pattern.
The second exploratory standard multiple regression performed used the criterion
variable of High Standards and locus of control, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, selfesteem, negative affect, positive affect, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy, Narcissism, and
adult attachment style as the independent variables. The assumption of multicollinearity
was met with all VIF values reporting less than 10 and all Tolerance values reporting
greater than .01. Therefore, there is not a high intercorrelation between the predictor
variables used in the analysis. The model satisfies the assumption of linearity, normality,
and homogeneity of variance. Please refer to Table 6 for standard regression results.
39
Table 6
Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores on the High Standards Subscale of
Perfectionism
Beta
Pearson r
sr2
Structure
Coefficient
.006
-.089
.182
.004
.337
.044
.011
.315
.440
.060
.815
Negative Affect
.006
.009
.048
-.120
.001
-.222
Locus of Control*
.012
.006
.185
.365
.015
.676
Self-Esteem
-.002
.003
-.082
.321
.002
.594
Satisfaction with Life
.008
.011
.058
.252
.001
.466
Machiavellianism
.006
.008
.059
-.132
.002
-.244
Narcissism*
.008
.003
.190
.259
.022
.480
Psychopathy*
-.024
.007
-.267
-.289
.044
-.535
Anxious Attachment
.002
.009
.019
.077
.003
.143
Avoidance Attachment
-.002
.005
-.027
.032
.000
.060
Model
b
SE-b
Constant
5.978
1.149
Self-Efficacy
-.006
Positive Affect*
Note. N = 186. The dependent variable was High Standards Subscale of Perfectionism. R2 = .292,
Adjusted R2 = .247. sr2 is the squared semi-partial correlation.
*p < .05
The model indicates that there is a significant relationship that exists between the
weighted linear composite of the independent variables as specified by the model and the
40
criterion variable of High Standards subscale of perfectionism, F(11, 175) = 6.55, p <
.001, Adjusted R2= .247. According to the High Standards subscale of Perfectionism
model for prediction, individuals who have lower attributes of psychopathy, and higher
attributes of positive affect, locus of control, and narcissism are more likely to exhibit
characteristics of high standards perfectionism. Adult attachment style (anxious and
avoidance) did not significantly predict High Standards perfectionism. Based on the
structure coefficients, the predictive variate can be interpreted as representing positively
oriented emotional competency.
The third exploratory standard multiple regression performed uses the criterion
variable of Order with locus of control, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, self-esteem,
negative affect, positive affect, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and adult
attachment style as the independent variables. The assumption of multicollinearity has
been met with all VIF values reporting as less than 10 and all Tolerance values reporting
as greater than .01. Therefore, there is not a high intercorrelation between the predictor
variables used in the analysis. The model satisfies the assumption of linearity, normality,
and homogeneity of variance. Please refer to Table 7 for the results of this standard
regression model.
41
Table 7
Standard Regression Results for Predicting Scores on the Order Subscale of
Perfectionism
Beta
Pearson r
sr2
Structure
Coefficient
.009
.024
.156
.000
.389
.068
.018
.331
.345
.066
.860
Negative Affect
-.005
.015
-.032
-.136
.000
-.339
Locus of Control
.016
.010
.159
.265
.011
.661
Self-Esteem
-.003
.005
-.084
.208
.002
.518
Satisfaction with Life
-.012
.018
-.060
.148
.002
.369
Machiavellianism
-.011
.013
-.066
-.169
.003
-.421
Narcissism
-.033
.006
-.047
.078
.001
.194
Psychopathy
-.010
.012
-.074
-.190
.003
-.473
Anxious Attachment
.000
.014
.000
.026
.000
.064
Avoidance Attachment
-.007
.008
-.062
-.022
.003
-.055
Model
b
SE-b
Constant
6.483
1.869
Self-Efficacy
.002
Positive Affect*
Note. N = 186. The dependent variable was Order Subscale of Perfectionism. R2 = .161, Adjusted
R2 = .108. sr2 is the squared semi-partial correlation.
*p < .05
The model indicates that there is a significant relationship that exists between the
weighted linear composite of the independent variables as specified by the model and the
42
criterion variable of the Order subscale of perfectionism, F(11, 175) = 3.05, p < .001,
adjusted R2= .108. According to the Order Subscale of Perfectionism model for
prediction, individuals who have higher attributes of positive affect are more likely to
exhibit characteristics of Order perfectionism. Adult attachment style (anxious and
avoidance) did not significantly predict Order perfectionism. Based on the structure
coefficients, the predictive variate can be interpreted as representing positively oriented
self-confidence.
The fourth exploratory standard multiple regression performed uses the criterion
variable of Adaptive Perfectionism which are the High Standards and Order subscales
combined, with locus of control, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, self-esteem, negative
affect, positive affect, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism, and adult attachment
style as the independent variables. The High Standards and Order subscales were
combined into a single dimension of perfectionism, Adaptive, per the literature’s
implication (Slaney et al., 2001). The assumption of multicollinearity has been met with
all VIF values reporting as less than 10 and all Tolerance values reporting greater than
.01. Therefore, there is not a high intercorrelation between the predictor variables used in
the analysis. The model satisfies the assumption of linearity, normality, and homogeneity
of variance. Please refer to Table 8 for the results of this standard regression model.
43
Table 8
Standard Regression Results Predicting Scores for Adaptive Perfectionism
Model
b
SE-b
Constant
6.161
1.145
Self-Efficacy
-.003
Positive Affect*
2
Structure
Coefficient
Beta
Pearson r
sr
.006
-.043
.201
.001
.370
.053
.011
.381
.468
.087
.862
Negative Affect
.002
.009
.014
-.151
.000
-.278
Locus of Control*
.014
.006
.204
.377
.019
.694
Self-Esteem
-.003
.003
-.098
.317
.003
.584
Satisfaction with Life
.001
.011
.004
.241
.000
.444
Machiavellianism
.000
.008
.002
-.176
.000
-.324
Narcissism
.004
.003
.095
.207
.005
.381
Psychopathy*
-.019
.007
-.211
-.287
.027
-.530
Anxious Attachment
.001
.009
.011
.063
.000
.116
Avoidance Attachment
-.004
.005
-.050
.008
.002
.015
Note. N = 186. The dependent variable was Adaptive Perfectionism. R2 = .295, Adjusted R2 =
.250. sr2 is the squared semi-partial correlation.
*p < .05
The model indicates that there is a significant relationship between the weighted
linear composite of the independent variables as specified by the model and the criterion
variable of Adaptive Perfectionism, F(11, 175) = 6.647, p < .001, adjusted R2= .250.
According to the Adaptive Perfectionism model for prediction, individuals who
44
have higher attributes of positive affect, and locus of control, and lower attributes of
psychopathy are more likely to exhibit characteristics of adaptive perfectionism. Adult
attachment style (anxious and avoidance) did not significantly predict Adaptive
Perfectionism. Based on the structure coefficients, the predictive variate can be
interpreted as representing social well-being.
45
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of anxiety and avoidance
dimensions of adult attachment and the “Dark Triad” personality traits in conjunction
with various other personality traits (i.e., self-efficacy, self-esteem, positive affect,
negative affect, locus of control, satisfaction with life) in adaptive and maladaptive
dimensions of perfectionism. Past research on perfectionism has focused on other
personality traits, mainly the Big Five personality factors (extraversion, neuroticism,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience). The present research sought
to examine an alternative model of perfectionism using several types of personality
characteristics together with adult attachment dimensions.
The results of this study showed four regression components that were descriptive
of specific dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., Maladaptive and Adaptive perfectionism
and the High Standards and Order subscales) delineated by Hamachek (1978). This
approach supports Slaney’s et al. (2001) perspective that the independence of the
Discrepancy subscale (maladaptive) from the High Standards and Order subscales are
well suited to measure the separate positive and negative aspects of perfectionism. This
is relevant to past research that suggests that there is a significant distinction between
adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism based on how perfectionists use their
perfectionism (Ashby & Kottman, 1996; Kottman & Ashby, 1999). Furthermore, from
an Adlerian perspective, the adaptive perfectionist, who experiences less distress related
46
to perfectionism and is striving for high standards, may be appropriately pursuing
superiority (Flett & Hewitt, 2002, p. 83). In contrast, the maladaptive perfectionist may
pursue high standards to avoid feelings of inferiority. This avoidance may be manifested
in the need to out-perform other individuals and may be directly related to a family
dynamic where love and acceptance are based on performance (Flett & Hewit, 2002, p.
83).
Previous research by Hamachek (1978) suggests that the “maladaptive”
perfectionists rarely feel satisfied, if ever, and strongly critique themselves on all tasks.
The maladaptive perfectionists are typically described as having excessive concerns
about making mistakes, excessive perceptions of self-doubt, and excess perceptions of
failure in order to achieve personal standards (Frost et al., 1993). The regression results
suggest that individuals who have lower attributes of self-esteem and higher attributes of
Machiavellianism and negative affect, are more likely to be maladaptive perfectionists.
Hamachek (1978) also suggested that “adaptive” perfectionists reported feeling satisfied
when their standards were achieved, they have preferences for personal competence,
expectations for a strong performance in academics and work, and they set high personal
goals. The current analysis found that individuals who have higher attributes of positive
affect and lower attributes of locus of control and psychopathy are more likely to exhibit
adaptive perfectionism characteristics. The common characteristic between the adaptive
and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism appears to be the level of concern for high
personal standards. The results from the current study suggested that the sample
population used was mildly maladaptive with very little variation in individuals in terms
47
of maladaptive perfectionism. The results also suggested that the sample population was
extremely adaptive with very little variation in individuals in terms of adaptive
perfectionism.
The results from the current study indicate that although perfectionism has been
correlated in adult attachment in previous studies (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), the current
study failed to show that adult attachment dimensions were predictive of an individual’s
attributions of perfectionism. This may be due in part because insecure adult
attachment styles (anxious and avoidance) were the only dimensions of adult attachment
that were studied in the present study. Secure adult attachment styles were not explored
in the present study because the literature displayed personality characteristics of
perfectionism that were subsumed by what has come to be known as insecure adult
attachment. The literature previously examined anxious and avoidant adult attachment
styles and found that they are positively related with maladaptive perfectionism (Rice &
Mirzadeh, 2000). I sought to also explore adaptive perfectionism in regards to insecure
adult attachment. Individuals did not display significant attributes of anxious or avoidant
adult attachment to warrant further interpretation. Future research would be inclined to
also study the secure dimensions of adult attachment to see if they are predictive of the
dimensions of perfectionism. If secure adult attachment were included in future research
in addition to the insecure adult attachment construct, a greater interpretation including
generalizations could be drawn. Insecure adult attachment (anxious and avoidant) may
48
not have been significant in this study because there were other variables in the model
that had proved to be stronger predictors of perfectionism (i.e., self-esteem, negative
affect, and postitive affect). It may be possible that due to the relatively low scores of
anxious and avoidant adult attachment, the current sample for the present study did not
possess high enough attributions of avoidant or anxious attachment.
Previous research on the “Dark Triad” personality describes three unfavorable
personality constructs, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (Palhaus &
Williams, 2002). The current study proposed to explore the role that the “Dark Triad”
personality concept played in multidimensional perfectionism. The four regression
analyses performed found that all dimensions of the “Dark Triad” personality were seen
in each prediction model, individually. All three dimensions that make up the “Dark
Triad” personality were not seen together as a working construct in any of the prediction
models. This can be attributed to the fact that the participants in this study were
university students who were not being clinically treated for these psychological
constructs. While the results of the present study did find significance of each
component of the Dark Triad separately, it was not significant as a whole. This could be
due in part by the population that the present study was based on. Future studies would
be inclined to replicate this study with a clinical population, as previous research has
found the Dark Triad personality construct to be more prominent in this type of
population (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
49
Various other personality characteristics were examined in the present study, selfefficacy, self-esteem, positive affect, negative affect, locus of control, and satisfaction
with life. The only personality attributes that were found to be significant across all the
regression analyses were positive and negative affect. The significance of other
personality variables examined in each analysis may not have been consistently reported
across all the predictive models because adaptive individuals do not tend to exhibit
certain negative personality constructs such as high levels of psychopathy, narcissism,
and Machiavellianism; whereas maladaptive individuals do not exhibit high levels of
personality constructs such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with life, as the
results from the current study have indicated.
Additionally, the utilization of a more diversified sample may help to generalize
these results. The current sample consisted of primarily female college students. The
disparity between the number of female and male participants was large. Future studies
would be advised to include a larger male sample size as it may prove useful to gender
comparisons in regards to perfectionism and adult attachment, this study was unable to
explore these comparisons due to the gender disparity.
Implications for future research include studying insecure as well as secure
dimensions of adult attachment for proper comparisons since not all individuals studied
will exhibit only insecure adult attachment styles. Both dimensions (secure and insecure)
should be examined, and then the proper isolation of insecure individuals at that point
would make for a stronger study. The secure dimensions of adult attachment should be
examined to see if they are predictive of the dimensions of perfectionism. Future studies
50
would also be inclined to use various other personality characteristics in additional to
what was used in the present study, when attempting to assess the role of adult
attachment styles in multidimensional perfectionism. Moreover, given the type of
personality attributes that were examined (Psychopathy, Narcissism, and
Machiavellianism) future research would be inclined to replicate this study with a clinical
population for proper comparison, as the means in the current study were relatively low
on the maladaptive perfectionism scale.
Limitations
This study attempted to measure the role of adult attachment styles and
personality to multidimensional aspects of perfectionism. This concept was measured
using the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) and The Almost Perfect ScaleRevised (APS-R). The RSQ was used to assess insecure adult attachment styles for
anxiety and avoidance. Several items were eliminated as instructed by the research
literature to produce proper subscales (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). This may have
affected the results given the small sample size of the current study. Future studies would
be encouraged to utilize a scale that measures insecure as well as secure adult attachment
dimensions for proper comparisons. The APS-R was used to assess perfectionism and its
multidimensional constructs (adaptive and maladaptive). Given the implication that
individuals possess attributes of both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, additional
scales measuring both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism separately would have
proven to be useful.
51
The present study sought to explore adult attachment style and if it was predictive
of either perfectionism constructs. This construct was a key component in what was
hypothesized for the current study; adult attachment style (anxious and avoidance) did
not significantly predict adaptive or maladaptive perfectionism. Lastly, it may prove to
be useful to have this study replicated in clinical populations to see how the results differ.
An increased sample size may have strengthened some of the relationships that were not
found to be significant in the prediction model. The research literature has indicated that
significance was found in clinical populations with regard to the Dark Triad personality
characteristics (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Hollender, 1965). Clinicians would be
inclined to examine Machiavellianism when examining maladaptive perfectionists as the
results from the current study showed this personality characteristics was predictive of
maladaptive perfectionism in addition to various other personality attributions. Assessing
the underlying dimensions of each construct of perfectionism could prove useful for
clinicians in assessing an individual and developing a treatment plan for maladaptive
perfectionism.
The present study found that one of the underlying dimensions of Maladaptive
perfectionism was a negatively oriented antisocial interaction pattern of the individual.
The present study also found that some of the underlying dimensions of Adaptive
perfectionism included positively oriented emotional competency, positively oriented
self-confidence, and social well-being. I believe these findings could prove useful to the
literature and clinicians as they represent the underlying dimensions of each construct of
perfectionism.
52
REFERENCES
Adler, A. (1926). What life should mean to you. New York, NY: Greenberg.
Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. Garden City, NY: Greenberg.
Adler, A. (1956). The neurotic disposition. In H. L. Ansbacher & R.R. Ansbacher (Eds.), The
individual psychology of Alfred Adler, 239-243. New York, NY: Harper.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development.
American Psychologist, 46, 331-341. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.333.
Aristotle (1984). De anima (Ross, W.D., Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work published in 350 B.C.E.).
Ashby, J., & Kottman, T. (1996). Inferiority as a distinction between normal and neurotic
perfectionism. Individual Psychology, 52, 237-245.
Ashby, J. S., Rahotep, S. S., & Martin, J. L. (2005). Multidimensional perfectionism and
Rogerian personality constructs. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and
Development, 44, 55-65.
Aquinas, T. (1265-1274). Summa theologica
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, England:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.
53
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality
in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and
Individual Differences, 13, 653-665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
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.
Durant, M. (1993). Residential treatment: A cooperative, competency-based approach to therapy
and program design. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.
Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed measure of locus of
control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 209-221. doi:
10.1177/0013164484442004.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism, and
anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 731-735. doi: 10.1016/01918869(89)90119-0.
54
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.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
of two measures of perfection. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126. doi:
10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Testing a two-dimensional model of adult
attachment: A latent variable approach. Unpublished manuscript, Department of
Psychology, University of Waterloo.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult
attachment. Advances in Personal Relationships, 5, 17-52.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15,
27-33.
Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
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(3), 456-470. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1991). Perfectionism and neuroticism in
psychiatric patients and college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
273-279. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90113-P.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94-103. doi:
10.1016/S0010-440X(65)80016-5.
55
Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. New
York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Hurka, T. (1993). Perfectionism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jakobwitz, S. & Egan, V. (2005). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-139). New York, NY: Guilford.
Kant, I. (1790). Critique of Judgment.
Kottman, T., & Ashby, J. (1999). Social interest and multidimensional perfectionism. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 55, 176-185.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in
a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1),
151-158. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.
Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment
organization: Towards an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and effective
self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 283-300. doi: 10.1037/00220167.47.3.283.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1203-1215. doi: 10.1037/00223514.69.6.1203.
56
Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). An evolutionary theory of personality disorders. In J. F.
Clarkin & M. F. Lenzenweger (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (pp. 221356). New York, NY: Guilford.
Nugent, W. R., & Thomas, J. W. (1993). Validation of the self-esteem rating scale. Research on
Social Work Practice, 3, 191-207. doi: 10.1177/104973159300300205.
Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children.
American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 545-562. doi: 10.2307/1163249.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An examination of multidimensional perfectionism scale
with a sample of academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 13, 372-383. doi: 10.1177/073428299501300404.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.
doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45,
590.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Preusser, K. J. (1996). Perfectionism, relationships with parents, and
self-esteem. Individual Psychology, 52, 246-260.
Rice, K. G., & Lapsley, D. K. (2001). Perfectionism, coping, and emotional adjustment. Journal
of College Student Development, 42, 238-250.
57
Rice, K. G., & Lopez, F. G. (2004). Maladaptive perfectionism, adult attachment, and selfesteem in college students. Journal of College Counseling, 7(2), 118-128. doi:
10.1002/j.2161-1882.2004.tb00243.x.
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47, 238-250. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.238.
Ryckman, R. M., Robbins, M., A., Thornton, B., & Cantrell, P. (1982). Development and
validation of a physical self-efficacy scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
42, 891-900. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.891.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In D.
Perlman & W. Jones (Eds). Advances in Personal Relationships: A Research Annual
(Vol. 4, pp. 29-70). London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving
within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 434-446. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434.
Slaney, R., B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 74, 393-398. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01885.x.
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, 130145.
58
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its
relation to other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
837-852. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00141-5.
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimensions of perfectionism in
college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 157165.
Thorne, B. M., & Henley, T. B. (2005). Connections in the history and systems of psychology
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ulu, I. P., & Tezer, E. (2010). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, adult attachment, and
big five personality traits. The Journal of Psychology, 144(4), 327-340. doi:
10.1080/00223981003784032.
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(6), 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.