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