Perfectionism, Failure and Self-conscious Emotions: A role for
Self-compassion?
Natalie Rebecca Almond
Submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Psychology
(Clinical Psychology)
School of Psychology
Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey
United Kingdom
September 2015
Abstract
Objectives
This study investigated: (1) whether maladaptive perfectionism predicted the
experience of self-conscious emotions such as shame, guilt and pride following an
imagined failure and (2) whether self-compassionate writing could reduce shame and
guilt and increase pride relative to a control and self-esteem writing task.
Design
The study used a correlational design to assess the relationship between
maladaptive perfectionism and self-conscious emotions. The study also used an
experimental between-subjects design to investigate the effect of writing task on
self-conscious emotions controlling for initial levels of self-conscious emotion using
ANCOVA.
Methods
Ninety-five University of Surrey students completed an online study that
manipulated imagined failure on an academic assignment, and measured
maladaptive perfectionism and shame, guilt and pride. Participants were then
randomly allocated to either a self-compassionate, self-esteem or a control writing
task. Self-conscious emotions were then measured again.
Results
Following imagining failure maladaptive perfectionism was positively
associated with state shame and guilt and negatively associated with state pride.
When measured after the writing tasks, the means for shame and guilt were lowered
and the mean for pride was increased. However, contrary to predictions, shame was
not predicted by writing condition, guilt remained highest following completion of a
self-compassionate writing task and pride was highest following the completion of
the control-writing task.
Conclusions
Maladaptive perfectionism is correlated with self-conscious emotions
following imagined failure. Self-compassionate writing tasks do not appear to be
more effective at improving self-conscious emotion than other writing tasks.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all of the service-users I have worked with over the
course of the last three years. I have learnt something valuable from each person and
I sincerely hope that the work was valuable for the service-users. I would also like to
thank all of the clinical psychologists that welcomed me into their teams and have
supervised my clinical practice during training. I have learnt vast amounts from each
supervisor in terms of your therapeutic skills, working in teams, self-care, and what
makes good supervision!
I would like to thank all of the research supervisors that have been involved
in contributing to this research and my personal and professional development as a
clinical psychologist, in particular Dr Laura Simonds, and Dr Linda Morison. In
addition, Dr Clara Strauss, Dr Jason Spendalow, and Dr Kate Gleeson all played
important roles in the process of developing this project for which I am grateful. I
would also like to thank Andrew Barnes for his technical help and support in setting
up the online questionnaire. I am indebted to the kindness of the University of Surrey
students who completed my online questionnaire: without them there would not be
any research data.
I would like to recognise the numerous clinical and academic psychologists
who contributed to the taught programme. I have learnt a great deal about a great
many topics and I am sure that this comprehensive programme of teaching will
provide a useful resource to inform my thinking for many years to come. I would
also like to thank Elly Tomlinson who acted as my mentor throughout training.
Elly’s experience, wisdom, kindness and support throughout the rollercoaster of
training has been invaluable.
Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful husband Paul without whom I
could not have completed this training course. I’m not sure either of us knew at the
beginning of this course what we had let ourselves in for! Over the last three years I
have developed as a psychologist and as a person and you have made space for this
change and supported it. You have provided emotional support, practical support,
friendship and love, unwaveringly. Thank you for celebrating my successes and
supporting me in the face of difficulties. Bowlby, (1973) describes the benefits of an
attachment relationship that provides a secure base as follows: “Human beings of all
ages are at their happiest and are able to deploy their talents to their best advantage
when they are confident that standing behind them, there is a trusted person who will
come to their aid should difficulties arise.” Thank you for being my secure base and
supporting me to flourish.
2
Table of contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1
Design ........................................................................................................................ 1
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 1
Results ........................................................................................................................ 1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 2
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 1
Table of contents .......................................................................................................... 3
MRP paper ................................................................................................................... 8
Perfectionism, Failure and Self-conscious Emotions: A role for Self-compassion?
........................................................................................................................................ 8
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... 9
Statement of journal choice....................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 12
What is perfectionism? ............................................................................................. 12
Perfectionism and failing to meet high standards ................................................... 12
Failing to meet standards and shame ...................................................................... 13
Failing to meet standards, perfectionism and shame .............................................. 13
Perfectionism and self-conscious emotions ............................................................. 13
Maladaptive perfectionism and self-conscious emotions ........................................ 14
Shame and self-compassion ..................................................................................... 17
Overview of study ...................................................................................................... 19
3
Method ........................................................................................................................ 19
Ethical Approval ...................................................................................................... 19
Study Design ............................................................................................................ 19
Procedure ................................................................................................................. 19
Dependant measures ................................................................................................ 24
Maladaptive Perfectionism. ................................................................................. 24
Shame, guilt, and pride. ....................................................................................... 25
Participants .............................................................................................................. 25
Results ......................................................................................................................... 27
Data handling .......................................................................................................... 27
Analytic approach .................................................................................................... 28
Correlational analysis ............................................................................................. 28
Effect of writing condition on Time 1 variables....................................................... 30
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Analyses .......................................................... 31
Content Analysis ...................................................................................................... 35
Discussion.................................................................................................................... 41
Maladaptive perfectionism, and self-conscious emotions ....................................... 41
Self-compassion and self-conscious emotions ......................................................... 43
Limitations and suggestions for future research ..................................................... 46
References ................................................................................................................... 48
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................... 56
Appendix A ................................................................................................................. 58
Appendix B ................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix C ................................................................................................................. 63
4
Appendix D ................................................................................................................. 64
Appendix E ................................................................................................................. 78
Appendix F ................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix G ................................................................................................................. 84
Appendix H ................................................................................................................. 85
Appendix I .................................................................................................................. 88
Appendix J .................................................................................................................. 89
Appendix K ................................................................................................................. 90
Appendix L ................................................................................................................. 92
Appendix M ................................................................................................................ 93
Appendix N ................................................................................................................. 99
Appendix O ............................................................................................................... 100
MRP Research Proposal.......................................................................................... 101
Can compassionate-imagery reduce perfectionist’s experience of shame? ........ 101
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 102
Background and Theoretical Rationale ................................................................. 102
Research Question ................................................................................................. 105
Main Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 105
Method ...................................................................................................................... 106
Participants ............................................................................................................ 106
Design .................................................................................................................... 107
Measures/Interviews/Stimuli/Apparatus ................................................................ 107
5
Perfectionism measure ........................................................................................... 107
Manipulation of failure .......................................................................................... 108
Measures of shame and guilt ................................................................................. 108
Manipulation of compassionate-imagery .............................................................. 108
Measure of mood.................................................................................................... 109
Procedure ............................................................................................................... 109
Ethical considerations ........................................................................................... 110
R&D Considerations .............................................................................................. 111
Proposed Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 111
Service User and Carer Consultation / Involvement ............................................. 112
Feasibility Issues .................................................................................................... 112
Dissemination strategy........................................................................................... 113
Study Timeline........................................................................................................ 113
References ................................................................................................................. 114
MRP Literature review ........................................................................................... 120
Perfectionism, parental bonding and attachment. ................................................ 120
Journal choice and justification .............................................................................. 121
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 122
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 123
Perfectionism ......................................................................................................... 123
Measures of perfectionism ..................................................................................... 124
Defining perfectionism ........................................................................................... 125
Development of perfectionism................................................................................ 126
Attachment and perfectionism................................................................................ 127
6
Measuring attachment ........................................................................................... 128
Method of the literature search .............................................................................. 130
Inclusion/ Exclusion criteria .................................................................................. 130
Results ....................................................................................................................... 131
Perfectionism and Parental Bonding Inventory .................................................... 133
Overall summary of perfectionism and parental bonding inventory ..................... 138
Adult attachment .................................................................................................... 139
Overall summary of perfectionism and adult attachment ...................................... 146
Discussion.................................................................................................................. 149
Theoretical implications ........................................................................................ 149
Limitations and implications for future research .................................................. 151
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 153
References ................................................................................................................. 154
Clinical Experience .................................................................................................. 160
An overview of the clinical experiences gained on placement. ............................ 160
Year 1 ..................................................................................................................... 161
Year 2 ..................................................................................................................... 161
Year 3 ..................................................................................................................... 162
Assessments .............................................................................................................. 164
Year I Assessments ................................................................................................. 165
Year II Assessments................................................................................................ 165
Year III Assessments .............................................................................................. 166
7
MRP paper
Perfectionism, Failure and Self-conscious Emotions: A role for Selfcompassion?
8
Abstract
Objectives
This study investigated: (1) whether maladaptive perfectionism was
associated with the experience of self-conscious emotions such as shame, guilt and
pride following an imagined failure and (2) whether self-compassionate writing
could reduce shame and guilt and increase pride relative to a control and self-esteem
writing task.
Design
The study was a randomised control study. Following an imagined failure the
effect of three different writing tasks (control, self-esteem and self-compassion) on
shame, guilt and pride was assessed.
Methods
Ninety-five University of Surrey students completed an online study that
manipulated imagined failure on an academic assignment, and measured
maladaptive perfectionism and shame, guilt and pride. Participants were then
randomly allocated to either a self-compassionate, self-esteem or a control writing
task. Shame, guilt and pride were then measured again.
Results
Following imagining failure maladaptive perfectionism was positively
associated with state shame and guilt and negatively associated with state pride.
When measured after the writing tasks, the means for shame and guilt were lowered
and the mean for pride was increased. However, contrary to predictions, there was
no significant effect of writing condition on shame. Writing condition did
significantly effect guilt and pride but not as hypothesised. Guilt was least reduced
by the self-compassion writing, and pride was most increased following control
9
writing.
Conclusions
Maladaptive perfectionism is correlated with shame, guilt and pride
following imagined failure. Self-compassionate writing tasks do not appear to be
more effective at improving self-conscious emotion than other writing tasks.
10
Statement of journal choice
I plan to submit this paper to the British Journal of Clinical Psychology. The
guidelines for authors submitting to this journal can be seen in Appendix A. This
journal is appropriate because the content of the current paper falls under the overall
aims and scope of the journal. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology publishes
original research that is empirical in nature and covers all aspects of clinical
psychology. The journal considers psychological treatment interventions of
individuals, which is important, because this is what one part of my study considers.
Also the journal consider papers considering all psychological disorders regardless
of age groups or setting, this is important given my use of a non-clinical sample. The
journal has previously published empirical investigations of perfectionism in nonclinical samples.
I have chosen this particular clinical psychology journal because it has a
good impact factor of 2.377. Much research on self-compassion has been published
in social and personality psychology journals and whilst some of these may have
higher impact factors, I believe it is important to publish these findings in a clinical
psychology journal because this journal is more likely to be read by more clinical
psychologists.
11
Introduction
In this study I consider whether perfectionism is associated with the extent to
which an individual experiences self-conscious emotions (such as shame, guilt and
pride) following the experience of failing to meet their self-defined standards. I also
consider whether a brief self-compassionate writing task can reduce shame and guilt
and increase pride relative to a self-esteem and control writing task.
What is perfectionism?
In this study perfectionism is defined as “… the setting of, and striving to
meet, very demanding standards that are self-imposed and relentlessly pursued
despite causing problems. It involves basing one’s self-worth almost exclusively on
how well these high standards are pursued and achieved.” (p. 9, Shafran, Egan, &
Wade, 2010). Perfectionism is associated with predictors of maladjustment such as
negative affect (see Stöber & Otto, 2006) and predicts and maintains a range of
mental health difficulties and distress, (see Egan, Wade, & Shafran, 2011 for a
review).
Perfectionism and failing to meet high standards
A perfectionist’s sense of self-worth is overly dependent on their ability to
strive for and meet their own self-defined (unrealistically high and inflexible)
standards. Thus perfectionists direct much effort self-evaluating their progress in
meeting these standards. Shafran et al (2010) proposed that perfectionists often fail
to meet their self-defined standards for performance and this failure leads to
counterproductive behaviours (such as procrastination or avoidance) and selfcriticism. These outcomes maintain the perfectionistic striving. The perfectionist will
continue to strive to improve their self-worth by re-attempting to meet their high
standards. Ironically, then perfectionists commonly experience failure, and this
12
failure perpetuates further perfectionistic striving (and further failure). The
emotional consequences of failing to meet these standards for maladaptive
perfectionists are currently unclear.
Failing to meet standards and shame
Failing to meet ideals, standards and live up to expectations has been
consistently linked to the experience of shame (Miller, 1996; Reimer, 1996;
Sorotzkin, 1985, see Gilbert, 1998 for a review). Tangney (2002) describes shame as
a painful negative scrutiny of the entire self and a feeling that “I am an unworthy,
incompetent, or bad person.” Gilbert (1998; 2003) suggests that shame is a perceived
failure to create a desirable, attractive self and suggested that there may be two types
of shame, internal shame and external shame. Internal shame originates inside the
self and involves self-generated criticism, and negative self-evaluation. External
shame, which originates outside the self, involves a distressing awareness that others
view the self negatively.
Failing to meet standards, perfectionism and shame
Mascolo and Fischer (1995) suggested that shame is generated by the
appraisal of having failed to live up to personal (and other peoples) standards of
worth and that shame is functional because it highlights behaviours that threaten
self-worth. Perfectionists are continually failing to live up to their own personal
standards and therefore never attain the self-worth that they are seeking. Furthermore
perfectionists monitor and evaluate whether they are meeting these standards. When
perfectionists fail to meet their standards they engage in negative self-evaluation and
self-criticism and thus are likely to experience an internal sense of shame.
Perfectionism and self-conscious emotions
Shame is one of a number of self-conscious emotions, along with guilt and
13
pride. People experience self-conscious emotions when they evaluate some aspect of
the self (personality characteristics, abilities, or behaviour) against a set of standards
(Tangney, 2002). Perfectionists are continually self-evaluating and often conclude
that they have underachieved, thus there has been repeated suggestions in the
literature then that perfectionists may be prone to experiencing shame and guilt and
may be unable to experience pride (e.g. Hamacheck, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991;
Sorotzkin, 1985).
Shame and guilt are often perceived to be similar and overlapping so it is
plausible that perfectionists may also be more likely to experience guilt. Both shame
and guilt arise from negative self-evaluations and may be elicited by similar events
and scenarios. However, different types of appraisal may trigger guilt and shame: a
negative evaluation of the self will result in shame; whereas a negative evaluation of
the action or behaviour will result in guilt. To clarify, shame is associated with
appraisals that “I am bad”, whereas guilt is associated with appraisals that “I did a
bad thing” (Lewis, 1971). Pride on the other hand is a positive self-conscious
emotion arising from positive self-evaluations that contribute to a person’s sense of
self-worth pride is associated with feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction.
Given perfectionists tendency to chronically self-evaluate and conclude that they
have underachieved it seems likely that perfectionists may experience less pride.
Maladaptive perfectionism and self-conscious emotions
Stöber, Harris, and Moon, (2007) note that despite the longstanding
hypotheses that perfectionists are likely to experience more shame and guilt and less
(if any) pride, empirical support for this hypothesis is sketchy. There are a number of
reasons why this is the case. Firstly, perfectionism has been conceptualized in a
number of ways and secondly there is variation in whether proneness to self-
14
conscious emotions, or state or trait self-conscious emotions is considered.
Perfectionism has often been considered as a multi-factorial concept and thus
the most commonly used measures of perfectionism measure different aspects of
perfectionism. The Multifactorial Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS: Frost, Marten,
Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) measures concern over mistakes, doubts about actions,
personal standards, parental expectations, parental criticism, and organization and
the Multifactorial Perfectionism Scale (H-MPS: Hewitt & Flett, 1991) measures selforiented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism and socially-prescribed
perfectionism; and the Almost Perfect Scale- Revised (APS-R: Slaney, Rice,
Mobley, Trippi & Ashby, 2001) measures discrepancy, high standards, and order.
Research using these multifactorial measures of perfectionism to investigate selfconscious emotions has demonstrated that self-oriented perfectionism is associated
with proneness to guilt (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), socially-prescribed perfectionism is
associated with proneness to guilt and shame (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Tangney, 2002)
and that negative perfectionism is associated with both state and trait shame and guilt
(Fedewa, Burns & Gomez, 2005).
More recently numerous factor analytic investigations have attempted to
identify the key aspects of perfectionism (Bieling, Isralei, & Antony, 2004; Dunkley,
Blankstein, & Berg, 2012; Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998;
Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). Reviewing these factor-analyses Stöber & Otto (2006)
concluded that perfectionism has two factors; an adaptive factor that captures having
high personal standards and striving for excellence and a maladaptive factor that
seems to capture self-evaluation/ criticism and monitoring of whether an individual
is meeting their own standards. This has lead Stöber, et al. (2007) to argue that only
maladaptive perfectionists should experience increased shame and guilt and reduced
15
(or absent) pride.
Only one study has examined how maladaptive perfectionists state shame,
guilt and pride were affected by failing a task (Stöber, et al, 2007) and there were
numerous problems with this study that make the results difficult to interpret.
Success and failure was defined in relation to objective standards (university grades)
rather than in relation to the individual’s self-defined standards and expectations for
their own performance. It is failure to meet self-defined standards that is central to a
maladaptive perfectionist’s experience. Therefore this study will consider whether
the extent to which an individual endorses maladaptive elements of perfectionism is
associated with the extent to which they experience state shame, guilt and pride
following failure to meet their own self-defined standards for performance. Based on
the existing literature it is predicted that following a failure (to meet self-defined
standards of performance) higher levels of maladaptive perfectionism will be
associated with higher levels of state shame, and may be associated with higher
levels of state guilt and lower levels of state pride.
In the second part of this study the aim is to consider whether a brief
intervention at the point of failing to meet self-defined standards can reduce the
emotional impact of this failure. As noted above failing to meet standards may elicit
both shame and guilt. In shame the object of negative evaluation is the whole self
(Lewis, 1971). The experience of shame is associated with stable and global
attributions about the self, an inward attentional focus, the desire to escape/avoid,
and meaning-making that the individual is bad or worthless (Tangney & Dearing,
2002). Guilt is often attributed to the action taken and so may be less damaging for
the individual in the longer term. However, guilt and shame are often both elicited
by similar situations therefore, guilt will still be measured in the second part of the
16
study but reducing shame is the primary focus. Research has suggested that the
development of self-compassion may serve to reduce an individual’s experience of
shame.
Shame and self-compassion
Self-compassion may provide a means to reduce overly self-critical responses
to negative events (Neff, 2003a, 2011). Self-compassion consists of three elements
“being open to and moved by one’s own suffering, experiencing feelings of caring
and kindness toward oneself, taking an understanding, non-judgmental attitude
toward one’s inadequacies and failures, and recognizing that one’s experience is part
of the common human experience” (Neff, 2003a p. 224). These three elements of
self-compassion are referred to as mindful awareness of feelings, self-kindness and
an acceptance of common humanity respectively.
Johnson and O’Brien (2013) argue that self-compassion can reduce the
experience of shame in response to negative events. They propose that each of the
components of self-compassion can reduce specific components of shame.
Specifically, being kind to oneself can soften self-criticism and negative selfevaluation, acceptance of one’s common humanity can reduce the perceived need for
behavioral withdrawal and social isolation, and mindful awareness of feelings can
decrease the tendency to avoid or suppress emotional reactions to negative events.
Similarly it is plausible that being kind to oneself could soften the negative selfevaluations present in guilt and acceptance of one’s common humanity may serve to
reduce feelings of guilt.
Consistent with this conceptualization, there is evidence that self-compassion
is negatively correlated with shame (Barnard & Curry, 2012), and therapeutic
interventions that promote self-compassion have been shown to reduce shame
17
(Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Judge, Cleghorn, McEwan & Gilbert, 2012). However,
these interventions are time-consuming and costly and use a combination of tasks
(e.g., compassionate writing, compassionate imagery and mindfulness) to create all
three elements of self-compassion. Consequently research has begun to consider the
effect of briefer self-compassionate interventions.
One promising intervention is the use of self-compassionate writing. Selfcompassionate writing has been shown to reduce negative affect (compared to a selfesteem or control writing task) following a negative event (Leary, Tate, Adams,
Allen & Hancock, 2007) and three doses of self-compassionate writing have been
shown to reduce state shame (compared to expressive writing) about a shameful
event (Johnson & O’Brien (2013). These studies suggest that self-compassionate
writing could reduce the experience of shame and possibly guilt. However, this
remains open question because Johnson and O’Brien’s study failed to include both a
control writing condition and a self-esteem condition, thus the effects of the selfcompassionate writing task cannot be distinguished from the effect of writing, or
from the effect of raising self-esteem. Whilst self-esteem can be thought of as
positive feelings about the self and feeling valued by others, (Leary & MacDonald,
2003), self-compassion can be thought of as an orientation to care for oneself (Leary
et al., 2007). Therefore the current study focuses on whether a self-compassionate
writing intervention can produce lower levels of shame than a self-esteem
intervention and a control writing condition.
It is predicted that a brief self-compassionate writing exercise will lead to
lower levels of shame than a writing control task, and a self-esteem writing task. It is
possible that self-compassionate writing will have a similar effect on other selfconscious emotions producing lower levels of guilt and higher levels of pride than a
18
writing control task.
Overview of study
A flowchart summarising the procedure can be seen in Appendix B. The
study was completed in one sitting by the participant. The use of Part 1 and Part 2
when describing the study is to aid clarity by separating out the aspects of the study
that addressed the two research questions: (1) to explore the association between
maladaptive perfectionism, shame, guilt and pride following imagined failure and (2)
to assess whether a writing task manipulation will have a differential effect on
shame, guilt and pride following imagined failure. Part 1 of the study addresses
question 1 and Part 2 of the study addresses question 2.
Method
Ethical Approval
The project was submitted for ethical review to the University of Surrey
Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences ethics committee and this project received a
favourable ethical opinion (see Appendix C for proof of review and approval).
Study Design
The study was a randomised control study. Following exposure to an
imagined failure task the study assessed the effect of three different writing tasks
(control, self-esteem and self-compassion) on shame, guilt and pride. Shame, guilt
and pride were measured twice, once following the imagined failure task and once
following the writing task.
Procedure
All of the measures and materials used in this study can be seen in full in
Appendix D. The study was hosted via an online portal, affiliated to the University
of Surrey, which provided a URL that was accessible from any internet-connected
19
computer. Participants completed all of the study online at this URL.
The online portal had a fixed design template for the screen- this had a white
background with a University of Surrey symbol at the top right corner. All of the text
used was black in colour and was presented in the Arial font at size 14 point. All
items that participants were asked to rate were presented with the item text centred in
the middle of the rating scale. Each individual measure or manipulation was
presented on a new screen and was followed at the bottom by a button to click to
move to the next screen unless otherwise specified.
The first screen provided participants with introductory information that
explained the purpose of the study, the payment for the study, and how data would
be used and stored. Participants were asked to read this information and then provide
consent to complete the study. Participants were asked to click yes to complete the
study, or to close the window if they did not consent to complete the study.
If participants consented to complete the study a new screen appeared that
displayed the following text “The following items are designed to measure attitudes
people have toward themselves, their performance, and toward others. There are no
right or wrong answers. Please try to respond to all of the items. Use your first
impression and do not spend too much time on individual items in responding.
Respond to each of the items using the scale below to describe your degree
of agreement with each item.” Participants were then provided with all of the items
from the measure of maladaptive perfectionism in a random order on one screen.
Participants rated their agreement by clicking the radio button to indicate their
selection.
All participants were then asked to complete the manipulation of failure.
For a perfectionist failure is defined as a failure to meet their own self-defined
20
standards. Therefore an imagery task was used to create a manipulation where each
participant could experience a failure to meet their own self-defined standards. There
is good evidence that imagery can create similar emotional and motivational
responses to those of real experiences (Dadds, Bovbjerg, Redd, & Cuttmore, 1997)
and imagery and re-scripting is an important aspect of clinical assessment and
intervention (Hackmann, Bennett-Levy, & Holmes, 2011).
The imagery task was a modified version of an imagery task used by Gilbert,
Baldwin, Irons, Baccus, and Palmer (2006). Participants were shown the following
instructions on screen “The following task is timed and you will not be able to
progress to the next page until the time allowed has passed.” Participants then read
the instructions that were designed to create the self-defined standards of
performance “We would like you to imagine a piece of coursework you have been
working on and putting a lot of effort into as part of your university studies. Imagine
the grade you want to get and how you would feel if you achieved it . . . Close your
eyes or look down and try to imagine this for 30 seconds." This screen was presented
for 50 seconds, allowing participants 20 seconds to read the instructions and 30
seconds to complete the task. After the 50 seconds had elapsed a button appeared on
screen so that participants could click to progress to the next screen. This screen
provided the manipulation of failing to meet these standards. Participants were
provided with the following written instructions “Now imagine that when your essay
is marked and comes back to you, the grade it is given is two grades lower than you
wanted. Close your eyes or look down and try to imagine this for 1 minute." below
these instructions there were three written prompts of what to think about during this
minute (e.g., What would this lower grade mean to you?). This screen was displayed
for 80 seconds, allowing 20 seconds to read the instructions and one minute to
21
complete them. After this time has elapsed a button appeared on screen to allow
participants to move to the next screen.
All participants were presented with the following text to read “The
following are some statements which may or may not describe how you are feeling
right now, following imagining the scenario. Please rate each statement using the 5point scale below. Remember to rate each statement based on how you are feeling
right at this moment.”. Participants were then presented with all items from the
measure of state shame, guilt and pride in a random order, on one screen and again
clicked a radio button to indicate their agreement.
The failure manipulation had been conducted using imagery so it was
difficult to objectively determine the extent to which participants had completed this
task. An adapted version of Gilbert et al. (2006) imagery manipulation check was
used to assess this. Participants saw the following text on screen “Please answer the
items below by clicking your answer on the scale”. Participants were asked to rate
their agreement with three questions to measure imageability of the failure scenario:
for example, “how easy was it to imagine the situation?”, on a ten-point scale
anchored at 1 (not easy to imagine) and at 10 (easy to imagine). The three items had
a Cronbachs alpha = .87. These three items were averaged together and the range of
possible scores was from 1-10. Participants were also asked to complete an item that
assessed the percentage of allotted time spent imagining; “how much of the allotted
time did you spend thinking about this situation?” anchored at 0% (none of the time)
and at 100% (all of the time).
All participants were then randomly assigned by the online software to one of
three writing tasks: writing control, self-esteem, or self-compassion. These writing
tasks were based on those used by Leary et al., (2007). The self-esteem and self-
22
compassion conditions had minimal changes from Leary’s self-esteem and selfcompassion writing tasks. Leary’s writing control condition was based on
Pennebaker, Colder, and Sharp’s (1990) task that encouraged self-disclosure of
emotion but this task had been shown to change how people feel about an event. In
this study the aim was to create an emotionally neutral control task that would
control for the process of writing, without changing the participants’ emotions.
Therefore participants were asked to describe buildings on their university campus,
write about their university, and being a student at their university.
The following text was then displayed to all participants “In the next task we
would like you to continue to think about the assignment that you did not do as well
on as you had anticipated. We would like you to write about this by answering the
questions below by typing in to the text boxes provided.” The remainder of the
information on this screen diverged dependent on writing task.
Each writing task asked participants to respond to three questions. For each
questions there was a specified minimum number of characters required. The
character required minimums were set based on pre-testing of these questions. The
character required minimums were the same across the three conditions, the first
question was set at 150 characters, the second question and third questions were set
at 400 characters. At the bottom of these questions participants were presented with
a button to click to proceed to the next screen. If participants had not typed enough
to meet the minimum threshold they were prompted to provide more detail in their
answer to that question.
The next screen was a repetition of the state shame, guilt and pride measure.
This screen was presented in the same way as the first time the measure was
presented but the items were presented in a random order each time, for each
23
participant.
Participants were presented with the following information on the next screen
“We would be grateful if you would complete a few final questions about this
study.” They were asked “What do you think this study was about?” which they
completed by typing into a text box and “Were you suspicious at any point that the
study was looking at something other than what was stated?” and were asked to click
one of three options “Not at all”, “A little”, or “ A lot”. All participants were then
asked to provide demographic information and to read the debriefing information.
Dependant measures
Maladaptive Perfectionism.
Maladaptive perfectionism was measured using the discrepancy subscale of
the APS-R (Slaney et al, 2001). The 23-item scale has three subscales: discrepancy,
high standards, and order. The APS-R is the only perfectionism scale designed to
capture the adaptive elements of perfectionism in one scale (high standards) and the
maladaptive components of perfectionism in a separate scale (discrepancy). The
APS-R has acceptable construct, concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity
(Rice, Ashby & Slaney, 2007). The three factors have been shown to be reliable with
a confirmatory factor analysis producing Cronbachs alphas that ranged from .85- .92
for the subscales (Slaney et al., 2001) and test-retest reliability is good (Rice &
Aldea, 2006). In this sample Cronbachs alpha= .94.
The discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism) subscale has 12 items (e.g.,
“Doing my best never seems to be enough”) that participants rated from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores on these items were averaged together (the
range of possible scores was from 1 to 7) and a higher mean indicated higher levels
of discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism),
24
Shame, guilt, and pride.
Shame, guilt, and pride were measured using the State Shame and Guilt Scale
(SGSS: Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994). Robins, Noftle, and Tracey (2007)
note that the subscales have good Cronbachs alphas; shame (α = .89), guilt (α = .82),
pride (α = .87). No other psychometric information is available however, this
measure is often used in the published literature (Fedewa et al., 2005; Stöber et al.,
2007). In this sample Cronbachs alpha for shame, guilt and pride at Time 1 = .87,
.88, and .92 respectively and at Time 2= .90, .87, and .92 respectively.
The SGSS has 15 items, (five items measure shame, guilt, and pride) which
participants rated from 1 (not feeling this way at all) to 5 (feeling this way strongly).
Example items for shame, guilt, and pride respectively are as follows “I want to sink
into the floor and disappear”, “I feel remorse, regret”, and “I feel good about
myself”. For each of the subscales the five item scores were averaged together (the
range of possible scores was from 1 to 5) and higher scores represented higher state
levels of that emotion.
Participants
One hundred and twenty-nine student participants were recruited from the
University of Surrey. The study was advertised to undergraduate and postgraduate
psychology students via the School of Psychology research participant recruitment
system. Psychology students were offered either research credit or entry to a prizedraw for £50 (first prize) or £25 (two runner-up prizes) as payment for their
participation. The study was also advertised to other University of Surrey students,
by emailing the secretaries of other University of Surrey departments and asking
them to circulate an advertisement for the study. Participants recruited via the latter
method were offered entry to the prize draw only because they were not eligible for
25
research credit.
Twenty-eight participants were removed from the final dataset because they
had not completed the study. Eleven of these did not progress as far as completing
the first task (measure of perfectionism), one dropped out after the measure of
perfectionism, and the remaining 16 dropped out before completing the writing task.
The online nature of the study meant that it was difficult to determine whether
people had completed the study in one sitting, therefore, a further six participants
who took longer than two hours to complete the study were excluded, leaving N=95.
A power analysis conducted using G*Power version 3.1.9.2 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang,
& Buchner, 2007) suggested that a sample size of 158 would be required to detect
the proposed main effect in ANCOVA if it had a medium effect size. Thus it is
possible that this study was underpowered.
It was plausible that individuals who were more perfectionistic may have
been more likely to dropout of the study because they did not want to imagine
failing, or may have been more likely to procrastinate and been removed from the
sample for taking too long to complete the study. In order to test this possibility
independent t-tests were computed. In order for t-tests to be valid the data needed to
be normally distributed on discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism) for both groups,
and there should be homogeneity of variance across the two groups. Histograms on
discrepancy for the two groups with Z scores of skew, and kurtosis suggested that
both groups had an approximately normal distribution (see Appendix E) and the
Levine’s test suggested that there was a marginally non-significant difference in
variance across the two groups (F (1, 116)= 3.79, p = .05). Given this marginal result
the statistics for the adjusted t-test that does not assume equal variances are reported.
The t-test revealed no significant differences in discrepancy (maladaptive
26
perfectionism) between those who did not complete the study and those in the final
sample (t (47.36) = -1.10, p = .27, Mnon-completers= 4.01 vs. Mcompleters= 4.26). This
suggests that those who completed the study did not differ in how perfectionistic
they were compared to those who did not complete the study.
Results
Data handling
All data were collected by the online survey software Qualtrics. The online
study had been programmed to code the data such that any items were reverse-coded
as necessary. The data was downloaded from the online survey software and checked
for any errors. There were no errors and no missing data that needed to be addressed.
All variables were explored for outliers using boxplots and z-scores as described in
Field, (2009, p.99-103). For variables where significant outliers were identified the
outlying data-points were removed. This resulted in 2 outliers being removed from
the imageability scale.
Means were calculated for each scale/ subscale with items reversed as
necessary. The means, standard deviations, ranges and for all variables can be seen
in Table 1.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges for all Variables.
Variable
Discrepancy
N
95
Mean (SD)
4.26 (1.27)
Range
5.75
Imageability (3 items)
93
8.06 (1.47)
9.00
Percentage time (1 item)
95
67.4 (21.0)
95.00
Time 1 shame
95
2.62 (1.08)
4.00
Time 2 shame
95
1.97 (0.96)
3.60
(Maladaptive perfectionism)
27
Time 1 guilt
95
2.79 (1.06)
4.00
Time 2 guilt
95
2.06 (0.90)
3.60
Time 1 pride
95
2.08 (0.85)
3.20
Time 2 pride
95
2.72 (1.00)
4.00
Analytic approach
All analyses were conducted in SPSS Statistics (Version 21, IBM
Corporation, 2012). A correlational analysis was conducted to consider whether
maladaptive perfectionism, was associated with shame, guilt, and pride (following
imagined failure). ANCOVA were conducted to consider whether following
imagined failure there was a significant effect of writing task on Time 2 levels of
shame, guilt and pride. Finally a content analysis was conducted to aid
understanding of the findings.
Correlational analysis
Pearson’s product-moment correlations were calculated to assess the extent
to which discrepancy, shame, guilt and pride and the manipulation check variables
percentage time and imageability were linearly associated. For significance tests of
correlation coefficients to be valid it is necessary that one of the variables has an
underlying Normal distribution (Altman 1991). Examination of histograms of the
variables and Z scores for skew and kurtosis (see Appendix F) suggests that there
was some deviation from Normality for Time 1 shame, Time 1 pride, imageability,
and percentage time, Time 2 guilt and Time 2 shame. Therefore Spearman's
correlation coefficients were also calculated. Comparison of Pearson's correlation
(Table 2) with Spearman's (Appendix G) shows that the pattern of results was
similar for both methods. The pairs of variables involved in the predicted
28
Table 2. Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations for Time 1 Variables.
Imageabili
Percentage
Time 1
Time 1
Time 1
Time 2
Time 2
Time 2
ty
time
shame
guilt
pride
shame
guilt
pride)
Discrepancy
r = .17
r = .33**
r = .48***
r = .40***
r = -.33**
r = .50***
r = .43***
r = -.30**
(n=95)
p = .10
p = .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .003
Imageability
r = .17
r = .21
r = .09
r = -.17
r = .10
r = .13
r = -.09
(n=93)
p = .09
p = .05
p =.39
p =.10
p = .34
p = .23
p = .41
Percentage time
r = .37***
r = .32**
r = -.16
r = .26*
r = .12
r = .03
(n=95)
p < .001
p = .002
p = .12
p = .01
p = .25
p = .78
Time 1 shame
r = .78***
r = -.68***
r = .63***
r = .51***
r = -.33**
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .001
Time 1 guilt
r = -.49***
r = .61***
r = .65***
r = -.22*
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .03
Time 1 pride
r = -.44***
r = -.30**
r = .52***
(n=95)
p < .001
p = .003
p < .001
***
Time 2 shame
r = .83
(n=95)
p < .001
r = -.58***
p < .001
Time 2 guilt
r = -.51***
(n=95)
p < .001
Note- Asterisks denote the significance level * p < .05, ** p < .01 and *** p <.001
29
correlations between discrepancy and Time 1 emotions met the assumptions for
Pearson’s correlations (Altman, 1991) because discrepancy appeared normally
distributed and so are reported below. There was a positive association between
discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism) and Time 1 shame and between
discrepancy and Time 1 guilt. There was also a negative association between
discrepancy and Time 1 pride. These findings supported the initial hypotheses.
It was also important to consider whether the manipulation check measures
of imageability and percentage time spent imagining were associated with
maladaptive perfectionism. Discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism) was not related
to the imageability of the failure scenario, however, there was a significant positive
relationship between discrepancy and estimated percentage of time spent thinking
about the imagined failure scenario. This suggests that those who endorsed
maladaptive perfectionism more strongly also reported spending more of the allotted
time thinking about the imagined failure scenario.
Effect of writing condition on Time 1 variables
Prior to conducting the ANCOVA it was important to consider whether there
was a significant effect of writing task on the Time 1 variables. Participants were
randomly allocated to writing task by the survey software (after completing all of the
Time 1 variables) so any differences would be due to chance. A series of 3 (writing
task: control vs. self-esteem vs. self-compassion) one-way ANOVAs were conducted
to assess this. In this study the group sizes are approximately equal and so ANOVA
is robust and accurate and can cope with deviations from normality and homogeneity
of variance (Field, 2013). However, these assumptions were still considered.
Histograms of the residuals (with Z scores for skew and kurtosis) and Levine’s test
for homogeneity of variance can be seen in Appendices H-I. These results show that
30
there was some lack of normality of distribution for imageability, Time 1 shame, and
Time 1 pride, and there was heterogeneity of variance for discrepancy. Although due
to equal group sizes ANOVA should be robust to these deviations, the analysis was
repeated (for those variables that showed wither a lack of normality or heterogeneity
of variance) using Kruskal-Wallis tests to check the robustness. The Kruskal-Wallis
tests can be seen in Appendix J and they do not materially differ from the one-way
ANOVA presented below.
The one-way ANOVAs revealed that there were no significant effects of
writing conditions on discrepancy (F (2, 92) = .10, p > .05, η2= .0021) imageability
(F (2, 90) = .15, p > .05, η2= .0033), percentage time spent on failure scenario (F (2,
92) = 1.37, p > .05, η2= .029), Time 1 shame (F (2, 92) = .06, p > .05, η2= .0013),
Time 1 guilt (F (2, 92) = .39, p > .05, η2= .0084), nor Time 1 pride (F (2, 92) = 1.57,
p > .05, η2= .033). The randomisation had not resulted in an unequal distribution of
characteristics across the three groups therefore the ANCOVA could be conducted as
planned.
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Analyses
The Time 1 and Time 2 means for shame, guilt and pride can be seen in
Figure 1, 2 and 3 respectively. These figures suggest that for all conditions the levels
of shame and guilt are lower and the levels of pride are higher at Time 2 (following
completion of writing tasks) than following completion of the imagery failure task.
31
3
2.5
Shame
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Time 1
Control
Self-esteem
Time 2 (model 3)
Self-compassion
Figure 1. Means for Shame as a function of writing condition at Time 1 and Time 2
(model 3) N=95.
3.5
3
Guilt
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Time 1
Control
Self-esteem
Time 2 (model 3)
Self-compassion
Figure 2. Means for guilt as a function of writing condition at Time 1 and Time 2
(model 3) N=95.
32
3.5
3
Pride
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Time 1
Control
Self-esteem
Time 2 (model 3)
Self-compassion
Figure 3- Means for pride as a function of writing condition at Time 1 and Time 2
(model 3) N=95.
ANCOVAs were conducted to assess whether there was a significant effect
of writing task on Time 2 emotion, after Time 1 emotion and discrepancy were
controlled for. Three separate ANCOVAs were conducted for shame, guilt and pride
respectively.
ANCOVA was chosen rather than examining change from baseline (by
conducting a 3 (writing task) x 2 (time) repeated measures ANOVA) because change
from baseline methods make more assumptions about the relationship between Time
1 and Time 2, which potentially introduces bias and reduces statistical power (Everitt
& Wessely, 2008 p. 93-96; Senn, 2006).
Due to the equal group sizes meeting the assumptions required for ANOVA
is not critical (Field, 2013). Despite this these assumptions were still considered and
the histograms of the residuals for ANCOVA with Z scores for skew and kurtosis
and the Levine’s tests can be seen in Appendices K-L. These results show that
normality assumptions were met for all variables. There was some heterogeneity of
33
variance for Time 2 guilt but given the equal group sizes the results are robust to this
(Field, 2013).
In each of the three ANCOVAs the covariate Time 1 emotion was
significantly related to Time 2 levels of emotion. Time 1 shame was significantly
related to Time 2 shame (F (2, 90) = 35.00, p < .001, r = .53, Time 1 guilt was
significantly related to Time 2 guilt (F (2, 90) = 52.05, p < .001, r = .61 and Time 1
pride was significantly related to Time 2 pride (F (2, 90) = 20.85, p < .001, r = .43
The covariate discrepancy was significantly related to Time 2 shame F (2,
90) = 8.18, p < .05, r = .29, and Time 2 guilt F (2, 90) = 5.79, p < .05, r = .25, but
not to Time 2 pride F (2, 90) = 3.05, p > .05, r = .18.
It was hypothesised that there would be a significant effect of writing task on
Time 2 emotions. Specifically it was predicted that the self-compassionate writing
would lead to lower levels of shame (and guilt and higher levels of pride) than the
writing control task, and the self-esteem writing task.
Contrary to these predictions there was no significant effect of writing task
on Time 2 shame after controlling for the effect of Time 1 shame and discrepancy (F
(2, 90) = 2.40, p > .05, partial η2= .05, Mcontrol = 1.80 Mself-esteem= 1.93, Mself-compassion=
2.17). There was a significant effect of writing task on Time 2 guilt after controlling
for the effect of Time 1 guilt and discrepancy (F (2, 90) = 4.24, p < .05, partial η2=
.09) and a significant effect of writing task on Time 2 pride after controlling for the
effect of Time 1 pride and discrepancy (F (2, 90) = 4.72, p < .05, partial η2= .09). An
examination of the means for Time 2 guilt and Time 2 pride (see Table 3) suggests
that whilst writing task does predict Time 2 emotions it does not predict Time 2
emotions in the way that was hypothesised.
Post hoc tests (Bonferroni) were conducted to decompose the significant
34
effects of writing task on Time 2 emotions (see Table 3). There were significant
differences between the control condition and the self-compassion condition on both
pride (p < .01) and guilt (p < .05) such that pride is higher in the writing control
condition than the self-compassion condition and guilt is higher in the selfcompassion condition than the writing control condition. There was also a
marginally non-significant difference (p = .05) suggesting that guilt was also higher
in the self-compassion condition than the self-esteem writing condition. All other
comparisons failed to reach significance (p > .05).
Table 3. Means for Time 2 Emotion Variables where there was a Significant Effect
of Writing Condition for Post-hoc Analysis (N = 95).
Control
Self-esteem
Selfcompassion
Time 2 guilt
1.91a
1.92ab
2.32b
Time 2 pride
3.07a
2.70ab
2.44b
Note- Superscripts denote the post hoc Bonferrni tests. Within rows means that do
not share a superscript letter differ at p < .05.
Content Analysis
The effect of the writing tasks on pride, shame and guilt were not as
originally predicted. Therefore a content analysis was conducted on participant’s
responses to writing tasks. The answers to all three questions provided in the writing
task were considered as one text for each participant. The text was analysed using
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). LIWC is a text analysis software
program designed by Pennebaker, Booth, and Francis (2007). LIWC analyses text on
a word-by-word basis and calculates the number of words people have used and the
degree to which people use different categories of words. Each word is compared
against a file of more than 2,000 reference words, divided into 72 categories. After
35
counting the number of words in each category, the output is given as a percentage
of the total words in the text sample. Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, and Richards
(2003) note that although computerized word count approaches are typically blind to
context they show promising and reliable results in personality, social, and clinical
psychology (Mergenthaler, 1996; Pennebaker et al., 2001; Rosenberg & Tucker,
1979; Stone, Dunphy, Smith, & Ogilvy, 1966). The dimensions captured by LIWC
have been used to predict social judgments (Berry, Pennebaker, Mueller, & Hiller,
1997), personality (Pennebaker & King, 1999), psychological adjustment (Rude,
Gortner, & Pennebaker, 2004), and health (Pennebaker, Mayne, & Francis, 1997).
The LIWC considers categories that fall under four superordinate category
areas; these are linguistic processes, psychological processes, personal concerns, and
spoken categories. Herein, 11 categories from across the first three superordinate
categories were selected on the basis of their potential to explain the findings. The
categories selected were (1) overall word count, (2) first-person pronouns singular,
(3) third-person pronouns singular, (4) third-person pronouns plural, (5) past-tense,
(6) present-tense, (7) future-tense, (8) positive emotions, (9) negative emotions, (10)
work and (11) achievement. The rationale for selecting these categories is outlined
below. Word count was chosen to determine whether the different writing tasks had
generated different amounts of written text. It was predicted that there would be no
differences in word count between writing tasks because they had been constructed
in similar ways to try and reduce this possibility.
It is possible that the way the failure imagery task was written about could
increase or decrease the extent to which participants experience self-conscious
emotions. Specifically writing about the imagined failure in the third rather than
first-person may decrease the extent to which the person feels shame or guilt about
36
their performance, indeed this is what the self-compassion condition encourages
(thinking about others who may have had similar experiences). Similarly the tense in
which the imagined failure is written about may also change the effect of the failure;
there may be less shame if the person has consigned the failure to the past, rather
than construing it in the present. The negative and positive emotion words were
considered because the frequency of these emotion words could have affected the
extent to which participants reported feeling shame, guilt or pride. One may have
expected higher levels of positive emotion words in the self-esteem condition.
Finally because the task failed was an academic assignment it is plausible that, in the
different writing conditions, people may have varied in the extent to which they
wrote about work and achievement, for example in the self-esteem condition people
may have talked about achievement more and work less than in other conditions.
LIWC calculated the frequency scores for these variables. Word count is a
total of words typed, however, for the other variables LIWC calculates a frequency
percentage by dividing the frequency of the occurrence of the category words by the
total number of words. The variables calculated from the content analysis were
explored for outliers using boxplots and Z-scores as described in Field, (2009, p.99103). The outlier analysis highlighted that a number of data-points from two
participants were outliers on a number of these variables. These participants’ datapoints were outliers because the percentage frequency scores were inflated due to
small total word counts (14 and 16 words). Therefore although these participants
responses were only identified outliers on particular variables they had the potential
to bias all variables calculated as percentage of total text, therefore these participants
data are only included in the analysis of the word count variable and are excluded
from the subsequent analysis of variables calculated as a percentage of total text.
37
Due to the equal group sizes meeting the assumptions for ANOVA is not
critical, but despite this the assumptions were still considered. The histograms of the
residuals with Z scores for skew and kurtosis and Levine’s tests can be seen in
Appendices M-N. Some of the histograms revealed a skew that was consistent with a
floor effect. This was particularly pronounced for the third-person singular category
where 91 out of 95 participants had not written any words of that category in their
text (a score of 0%). Therefore no further analysis was conducted on this variable.
There was evidence of non-norrmality and heterogeneity for most of the
variables so although results should be robust based on equal group sizes (Field,
2013) the analysis was repeated using Kruskal-Wallis to check the robustness. The
results for the Kruskal-Wallis are shown in Appendix O and do not differ from the
ANOVA in terms of significance or pattern of means and mean ranks. The results of
the one-way ANOVA on writing task are summarised in Table 4.
Reviewing the statistics in Table 4, the number of words written (word
count) did not vary across writing conditions. This suggests that it is content of
participants writing rather than the amount of writing that influenced their guilt and
pride following the writing tasks. There was a significant main effect of writing
condition on the following LIWC variables first-person singular, third-person plural,
past-tense, future-tense, negative emotions, work and achievement words. Post-hoc
tests (Bonferroni) were conducted to decompose the significant main effects of
writing task on the LIWC variables (see Table 4.) Below I discuss only the LIWC
variables that differed significantly by writing condition.
38
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations and Statistics for One-way ANOVAs investigating the effect of writing condition on LIWC variables
Dependant variable
Means
Control
SD
F
(DOF,
p
η2
Self-
Self-
esteem
compassion
128.83
134.14
118.40
53.95
0.71
(2, 92)
> .05
.02
1st person singular (% of text)
2.14a
8.94 b
5.05 c
3.87
23.26
(2, 90)
<. 001
.43
3rd person plural (% of text)
0.20 a
0.29 a
1.85 b
1.12
22.93
(2, 90)
<. 001
.33
Past-tense (% of text)
0.50 a
4.79 b
5.60 b
2.40
41.45
(2, 90)
<. 001
.50
Present-tense (% of text)
10.04
10.98
10.27
4.86
0.31
(2, 90)
> .05
.05
Future-tense (% of text)
0.05 a
1.69 b
2.74 c
1.43
29.34
(2, 90)
<. 001
.39
Positive emotions (% of text)
5.20
6.61
4.68
4.22
1.73
(2, 90)
> .05
.02
Negative emotions (% of text)
0.76 a
2.23 b
5.12 c
1.97
42.09
(2, 90)
<. 001
.50
Work (% of text)
8.88 a
6.04 b
5.26 b
3.12
11.93
(2, 90)
<. 001
.25
Achievement (% of text)
2.23 a
5.66 b
4.96 b
3.15
10.19
(2, 90)
<. 001
.19
Word count
DOE)
Note- Superscripts denote the post-hoc Bonferrni tests. Within rows Means that do not share a superscript letter differ at p < .05.
39
The use of first-person singular words is highest in the self-esteem condition
and lowest in the control condition, with the self-compassion condition falling
between these two means and all of these differences are significant. The use of
third-person plural words is significantly higher in the self-compassion condition
than, in the self-esteem condition or in the control condition. It is notable that all of
the percentage scores for third-person plural words are low indicating that there is
little use of these types of words in the text produced in each condition. The use of
past-tense words was significantly lower in the control condition than in the selfesteem and self-compassion conditions. The use of future-tense words was lowest in
the control condition and highest in the self-compassion condition, with the selfesteem condition falling between these two conditions, all of these differences were
significant. It is notable that the use of future-tense words was relatively low across
conditions. The use of negative emotions words was much lower in the control
condition than in the self-compassion condition, with the self-esteem condition
falling between these two conditions, all of these differences were significant. The
use of words about work was significantly higher in the control condition than in the
self-esteem and self-compassion conditions, which did not differ from each other.
It is interesting to consider how the results of the analysis of the written text
fit with the effects of writing condition of self-conscious emotions. The means
suggested that Time 2 guilt and shame were lower than Time 1 guilt and shame and
that Time 2 pride was higher than Time 1 pride. The ANCOVA revealed that there
was a significant effect of writing condition on both Time 2 pride and Time 2 guilt.
Time 2 guilt was significantly higher in the self-compassion writing condition than
in the control condition and there was a trend towards guilt being higher in the selfcompassion than the self-esteem writing condition. Time 2 pride was higher in the
40
control condition than in the self-compassion condition and the self-compassion and
self-esteem conditions did not differ from each other.
Comparing the pattern of means on pride with the patterns of means on the
LIWC variables, the only variable that shows a similar pattern of means is the
“work” words variable. It is possible that the opportunity to describe their University
is related to this increase in pride. Comparing the patterns of means on guilt with the
patterns of means on the LIWC variables, the only variable where self-compassion
was clearly different from both self-esteem and control conditions (which were
broadly similar to each other) is on the third-person plural pronouns variable.
Discussion
This study aimed to address two separate research questions. The first
research question was to identify if there was a relationship between maladaptive
perfectionism and the experience of self-conscious emotions following an imagined
failure to meet self-defined standards for performance. The second research question
was to determine whether a self-compassionate writing task could reduce the
experience of shame and guilt and increase the experience of pride compared to selfesteem or writing control tasks. Below I discuss the findings of this study in relation
to the research literature considering each of the research questions in turn.
Maladaptive perfectionism, and self-conscious emotions
It was hypothesised that those who endorsed maladaptive perfectionism
more strongly would also report more shame and guilt and less pride following
imagining failing to meet their self-defined standards on a piece of academic
coursework. Maladaptive perfectionism (discrepancy) was found to be positively
associated with Time 1 shame and Time 1 guilt and negatively associated with Time
1 pride. The findings support these hypotheses.
41
A number of studies have investigated the relationship between perfectionism
and self-conscious emotions (Fedewa et al, 2005; Klibert, et al, 2005; Tangney,
2002; Stöber et al, 2007) but as noted above the variation of in the way that
perfectionism and self-conscious emotions were measured makes these findings
difficult to interpret. However, there was some evidence that an individual’s level of
perfectionism was related to their proneness to experience shame and to their
experience of state shame and guilt.
The current findings appear to conceptually replicate the findings of Stöber et
al (2007) who demonstrated that ‘unhealthy’ perfectionists experienced more shame
and guilt and less pride than ‘healthy’ perfectionists. However, surprisingly
Steober’s unhealthy perfectionists did not differ in shame, guilt and pride from those
he defined as non-perfectionists. Comparing Stöber et al.’s findings to the current
findings may explain why. Stöber et al. used median splits to categorise their sample
on the basis of participants’ ratings on both high standards and discrepancy subscales
to create the three groups. “Unhealthy perfectionists” were those with high scores on
both the high standards and the discrepancy subscales of the APS-R, and “nonperfectionists” were those with below median scores on high standards and any score
on discrepancy. Hence, in Stöber et al.’s study, unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists could have the same score on discrepancy. The current study argues
that variation in discrepancy alone represents the best measure of maladaptive/
unhealthy perfectionism. By categorising participants using their ratings on the
subscale for high standards, Stöber et al. implicitly assume that what represents high
standards is the same for everyone. However, individuals vary in their level of ability
to complete various tasks and so the same objective “high standards” could be
achievable and realistic for one person and excessively high for another individual.
42
This highlights one of the strengths of the current study, which was to ensure that the
standards that participants failed to meet were self-defined standards for
performance.
Interestingly the findings from the first part of the study suggest that those
participants who endorsed discrepancy more strongly also reported that they spent a
greater percentage of the allocated time thinking about the failure scenario.
Assuming that these self-reports are accurate, this hints at several possibilities. First,
that those participants who report spending longer on the failure task experience
more shame and guilt and less pride (regardless of level of perfectionism), second
that maladaptive perfectionists focus more on evidence that they have failed to meet
their standards, or third, both of the above. Disentangling these explanations
represents an interesting question for future study.
Self-compassion and self-conscious emotions
The second part of the study tested two hypotheses: first, whether a selfcompassionate writing intervention reduced state shame and guilt and increased state
pride relative to a self-esteem and control writing task. The means suggested that all
conditions lead to reduced shame and guilt and increased pride. However, none of
these hypotheses about the differential effects of writing condition were supported.
Levels of shame did not significantly vary across writing condition. Although this
study may have been underpowered there was variability in the means for guilt and
pride, so it appears that this may only have been problematic for shame. Levels of
guilt and pride did vary across writing condition but this variation did not support the
predictions. Higher levels of pride were found in the control condition compared to
the self-compassion condition, and higher levels of guilt were found in the selfcompassion condition compared to the control condition.
43
An exploratory content analysis was conducted using LIWC to consider what
might underlie these differences. These analyses revealed that the length of written
content did not vary across writing conditions. However, individuals who completed
the self-esteem writing task used more first-person singular words than those who
completed other writing tasks. Individuals who completed the self-compassion
writing task used more third-person plural words that those who completed other
writing tasks. These findings suggest that the task instructions were followed
because the self-esteem condition promoted a focus on the self and the selfcompassion condition a focus on common humanity. Similarly there was evidence
that there was a lower frequency of past-tense words and future tense words used in
the control condition than in the other two writing conditions. This most likely
reflects the nature of the control task. Furthermore the frequency of both past- and
future-tense words was highest in the self-compassion condition suggesting that
these participants were locating this experience amongst their own and others’
similar previous experiences and anticipated future experiences. The frequency of
achievement words is lower in the control condition that the other writing conditions
This is likely because in the control condition individuals are describing their
university whereas the other writing tasks ask individuals to write about their
response to the failure scenario.
Comparing the pattern of means and post-hoc tests on guilt and pride with the
LIWC variables suggested that the pattern of means for Time 2 pride was similar to
the pattern of means for frequency of words about work. Participants were asked to
write about their University in the control condition and so higher frequency of
words about work and higher levels of pride makes intuitive sense. Whist
participants were asked to describe the campus, list the buildings, and describe what
44
it was like to be a student, an examination of the written text reveals that some
students used the task to describe their pride at being a University of Surrey student.
It is notable that during the period the study was conducted the University of Surrey
was ranked 6th in the Guardian league table and this was heavily publicised on the
University campus. The Social Identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherall, 1987) suggests that individuals will consider
themselves in terms of their most salient identity. For participants who had just been
asked to imagine failing a University assignment and who were subsequently asked
to describe their University, their identity as a University student was particularly
salient. Furthermore, identifying with this group identity provides a higher status and
represents an adaptive means of raising self-esteem - whilst they as an individual
have failed, they will succeed as a University of Surrey student.
The findings suggested that guilt scores were higher following selfcompassionate writing than following control writing (although an examination of
the means suggests that both means were lower than the scores at Time 1). Similarly,
there was evidence of a higher frequency of negative emotion words in the selfcompassion condition than in the control condition. This finding could be explained
by the nature of the self-compassionate writing task instructions. Indeed, Neff
(2003b) suggests that self-compassion creates coping by encouraging individuals to
approach their emotions, rather than avoid their emotions. Thus it may be that those
who completed self-compassionate writing tasks are experiencing more negative
emotions. This argument suggests that an increased frequency of negative emotions
words should also be accompanied by higher levels of shame following selfcompassionate writing. Indeed, a consideration of the Time 2 means for shame
suggests a similar albeit non-significant pattern. This may be attributable to a lack of
45
power. Considering the self-compassion task instructions may also provide an
explanation for why the reduction of shame is not impaired to the same extent as
guilt. The instructions focussed on the imagined failure of the task, and so the
negative emotions were about a particular event rather than about the individual
person. Thus the task instructions may have been more likely to impair reduction in
guilt, because guilt is often about an action, whereas shame is about the person
(Lewis, 1971).
Limitations and suggestions for future research
The current study has a number of potential limitations. The hypotheses were
tested in a specific context, which was that of academic performance and imagined
failure. This represents only one domain in which individuals may express their
perfectionism, and one type of failure within this domain. Similarly, self-compassion
was manipulated using only one approach, that of writing. In clinical interventions a
variety of methods are used including imagery, compassionate letter writing, and
compassionate mindfulness. It is possible that the use of different methods may have
led to different results. The measure of state shame, guilt and pride (Marschall et al.,
1997) was used because it is commonly used within the literature and was the only
measure of state shame, guilt and pride that was available. In this study a nonclinical population (university students) was used. All ratings of self-conscious
emotions were around or below the midpoint of the scale and so perhaps there was
not a great deal of guilt and shame to reduce. It is currently unclear to what extent
self-compassionate writing is a useful strategy for individuals from non-clinical
population. It may be that self-compassionate approaches are more effective than
other approaches such as self-esteem and control writing in clinical populations only.
One strength of the study was that the failure that participants were exposed
46
to was imagined. Whilst this could be considered a weakness compared to placing
participants in a manipulated objective failure scenario, there is good evidence that
imagery can create similar emotional and motivational responses to those of real
experiences (Dadds, et al, 1997) and indeed imagery and re-scripting is an important
aspect of clinical assessment and intervention (Hackmann, et al, 2011). Furthermore
it was the use of imagery that allowed participants to individually self-define the
standards that they expected to meet. It is failure to meet one’s own standards that is
central to the definition of perfectionism and so with this in mind, it seems that using
a task that allowed for failure to meet self-defined standards represented a strength of
this approach.
This study represent a first step in examining the relationship between selfcompassion, shame, guilt and pride. The findings would be strengthened by
increasing their generalizability by considering alternative domains of perfectionism,
different control conditions, different manipulations of failure and self-compassion
and different measures of self-conscious emotions. It would also be important to
clearly define the populations who may benefit from self-compassionate writing
interventions.
Future research should consider whether a self-compassionate writing task
reduces state shame, when compared to self-esteem, expressive writing and writing
control tasks, and whether any reductions in state shame are accompanied by
reductions in shame-proneness. Research should also consider whether repeated
exposures to self-compassionate writing would increase the usefulness of the selfcompassionate writing task in improving self-conscious emotions following failure,
and whether there is an optimal number of exposures required to create this effect.
47
References
Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman
and Hall.
Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2012). The relationship of clergy burnout to selfcompassion and other personality dimensions. Pastoral Psychology, 61, 149–
163. doi: 10.1007/s11089-011-0377-0
Berry, D. S., Pennebaker, J. W., Mueller, J. S., & Hiller, W. S. (1997). Linguistic
bases of social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
526-537. doi: 10.1177/0146167297235008
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Anthony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad,
or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 1373-1385. doi: 10.1016%2FS01918869%2803%2900235-6
Dadds, M. R., Bovbjerg, D. H., Redd, W. H., & Cutmore, T. R. (1997). Imagery in
human classical conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 89 –103. doi:
10.1037//0033-2909.122.1.89
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Berg, J. (2012). Perfectionism dimensions and
the five-factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 26,
233-244. doi: 10.1002/per.829
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic
process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212. doi:
0.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009.
Enns, M.W., Cox, B. J. & Clara, (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism:
developmental origins and association with depression proneness.
Personality and Individual Differences 33, 921–935. doi:10.1016%2FS0191-
48
8869%2801%2900202-1
Everitt , B. S., & Wessely, S. (2008). Clinical Trials in Psychiatry (2nd edition).
Chicester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fedewa, B. A., Burns, L. R., & Gomez, A. A. (2005). Positive and negative
perfectionism and the shame/guilt distinction: Adaptive and maladaptive
characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1609-1619. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.026.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (2nd Edition).
London, UK: Sage.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th Edition).
London, UK: Sage.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. doi:
10.1007%2FBF01172967
Gilbert, P. (1998). What is shame? Some core issues and controversies. In, P. Gilbert
& B. Andrews, (eds) Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology and
culture. (pp 3-38). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, P. (2003). Evolution, social roles, and differences in shame and guilt. Social
Research: An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences 70, 1205-1230.
doi: not available.
Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M., Irons, C., Baccus, J., & Clark, M. (2006). Self-criticism and
self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to depression. Journal
49
of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 183–200. doi: 10.1891%2Fjcop.20.2.183.
Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M. W., Irons, C., Baccus, J. R., & Palmer, M. (2006). Selfcriticism and self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to
depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly,
20 (2),183-200. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/jcop.20.2.183.
Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high
shame and self-criticism: A pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. doi: 10.1002/cpp.507
Hackmann, A., Bennett-Levy, J., & Holmes, E. A. (2011). Oxford Guide to Imagery
in Cognitive Therapy. OUP: Oxford.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology, 15(1), 27-33. doi: not available.
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%2F%2F0022-3514.60.3.456.
IBM Corporation. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0.
[Computer software] Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Johnson, E. A., & O’Brien, K. A. (2013). Self-compassion soothes the savage egothreat system: Effects on negative affect, shame, rumination and depressive
symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(9), 939-963.
doi:10.1521/jscp.2013.32.9.939.
Judge, L., Cleghorn, A., McEwan, K., & Gilbert, P. (2012). An exploration of groupbased compassion focused therapy for a heterogeneous range of clients
presenting to a Community Mental Health Team. International Journal of
50
Cognitive Therapy, 5(4), 420–429, doi: 10.1521%2Fijct.2012.5.4.420
Klibert, J. J., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Saito, M. (2005). Adaptive and
maladaptive aspects of self-oriented versus socially prescribed perfectionism.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 141–156. doi:
10.1353%2Fcsd.2005.0017,
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Selfcompassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications
of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
887–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887.
Leary, M. R., & MacDonald, G. (2003). Individual differences in self- esteem: A
review and theoretical integration. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),
Handbook of self and identity (pp. 401–418). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International
Universities Press.
Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Developmental transformations in
appraisals for pride, guilt and shame. In Fischer, K. W. & Tangney, J. P.
(Eds.), Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment and Pride
(pp. 64-113). New York: Guilford.Mas
Marschall, D. E., Saftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt
Scale. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Mergenthaler, E. (1996). Emotion-abstraction patterns in verbatim protocols: A new
way of describing psychotherapeutic processes. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 1306-1315. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.64.6.1306
Miller, S. B. (1996). Shame in context. London: The Analytic Press.
Neff, K. D. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-
51
compassion. Self & Identity, 2, 223–250. doi:10.1080/15298860390209035.
Neff, K. D. (2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy
attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–102.
doi:10.1080/15298860390129863.
Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-Compassion. New York: HarperCollins.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying
words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665-675. doi: 10.1177/0146167203251529.
Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., & Francis, M.E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC (www.liwc.net).
Pennebaker, J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K. (1990). Accelerating the coping
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 528–537.
doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.58.3.528.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an
individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 12961312. doi: 0.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296
Pennebaker, J. W., Mayne, T. J., & Francis, M. E. (1997). Linguistic predictors of
adaptive bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
863-871. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.72.4.863
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and
Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reimer, M. S. (1996). “Sinking into the ground”: The developmental consequences
of shame in adolescence. Developmental Review, 16, 321-363.
doi:10.1006/drev.1996.0015
Rice, K. G., & Aldea, M. A. (2006). State dependence and trait stability of
52
perfectionism: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 205-213. doi: 10.1037%2F0022-0167.53.2.205
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between
perfectionism and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 304-314. doi: 10.1037%2F%2F00220167.45.3.304
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). Perfectionism and the five-factor
model of personality. Assessment, 14, 385-398. doi:
10.1177/1073191107303217
Robins, R. W., Noftle, E. E., & Tracey, J. L. (2007). Assessing Self-Conscious
Emotions: A Review of Self-Report and Nonverbal Measures (pp. 443-469).
In Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. M. (Eds.) The Self-Conscious
Emotions: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford.
Rosenberg, S. D., & Tucker, G. J. (1979). Verbal behavior and schizophrenia: The
semantic dimension. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 1331-1337.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780120061008
Rude, S.S., Gortner, E.M., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2004). Language use of depressed
and depression- vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18,
1121-1133. doi:10.1080/02699930441000030
Senn, S. (2006). Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Statistics
in Medicine, 25, 4334-4344 . doi:10.1002/sim.2682
Shafran, R., Egan, S., & Wade, T. (2010). Overcoming perfectionism. London:
Constable and Robinson.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The
revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
53
and Development, 34, 130–145. doi: not available.
Sorotzkin, B. (1985). The quest for perfection: Avoiding guilt or avoiding shame?
Psychotherapy, 22, 564–571. DOI: 10.1037/h0085541
Stöber, J., Harris, R. A., & Moon, P. S. (2007). Perfectionism and the experience of
pride, shame, and guilt: Comparing healthy perfectionists, unhealthy
perfectionists, and non-perfectionists. Personality and Individual Differences,
43, 131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.012.
Stöber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–
319. doi: 10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1004_2
Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., & Ogilvy, D. M. (1966). The General
Inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimensions of
perfectionism in college students. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 157-165. doi: not available.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.
G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47.
Tangney, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and the self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 199-215). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
54
Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford and
New York: Basil Blackwell.
55
List of Appendices
Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 58
Instructions for authors- British Journal of Clinical Psychology .......................... 58
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 62
Summary of procedure ........................................................................................... 62
Appendix C ............................................................................................................... 63
Proof of ethical review ........................................................................................... 63
Appendix D ............................................................................................................... 64
Information sheet ................................................................................................... 64
Consent sheet ......................................................................................................... 66
Measure of Perfectionism ...................................................................................... 67
Failure imagery task .............................................................................................. 70
State Shame and Guilt scale ................................................................................... 71
Manipulation check ................................................................................................ 73
Writing tasks .......................................................................................................... 74
Feedback and demographics.................................................................................. 75
Debrief.................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix E ............................................................................................................... 78
Histograms for discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism) ..................................... 78
Appendix F................................................................................................................ 79
Histograms of variables for correlations ............................................................... 79
Appendix G ............................................................................................................... 84
56
Appendix H ............................................................................................................... 85
Histograms of residuals from one- way ANOVA’s ................................................ 85
Appendix I ................................................................................................................ 88
Appendix J ................................................................................................................ 89
Appendix K ............................................................................................................... 90
Histograms of the residuals for all ANCOVAs on shame, guilt and pride. ........... 90
Appendix L ............................................................................................................... 92
Appendix M .............................................................................................................. 93
Histograms of residuals for ANOVA on LIWC variables ...................................... 93
Appendix N ............................................................................................................... 99
Appendix O ............................................................................................................. 100
57
Appendix A
Instructions for authors- British Journal of Clinical Psychology
The British Journal of Clinical Psychology publishes original contributions to
scientific knowledge in clinical psychology. This includes descriptive comparisons,
as well as studies of the assessment, aetiology and treatment of people with a wide
range of psychological problems in all age groups and settings. The level of analysis
of studies ranges from biological influences on individual behaviour through to
studies of psychological interventions and treatments on individuals, dyads, families
and groups, to investigations of the relationships between explicitly social and
psychological levels of analysis.
The following types of paper are invited:
• Papers reporting original empirical investigations
• Theoretical papers, provided that these are sufficiently related to the empirical data
• Review articles which need not be exhaustive but which should give an
interpretation of the state of the research in a given field and, where appropriate,
identify its clinical implications
• Brief reports and comments
1. Circulation
The circulation of the Journal is worldwide. Papers are invited and encouraged from
authors throughout the world.
2. Length
The word limit for papers submitted for consideration to BJCP is 5000 words and
any papers that are over this word limit will be returned to the authors. The word
limit does not include the abstract, reference list, figures, or tables. Appendices
however are included in the word limit. The Editors retain discretion to publish
papers beyond this length in cases where the clear and concise expression of the
scientific content requires greater length. In such a case, the authors should contact
the Editors before submission of the paper.
3. Submission and reviewing
All manuscripts must be submitted via http://www.editorialmanager.com/bjcp/. The
Journal operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Before submitting, please read
the terms and conditions of submission and the declaration of competing interests.
4. Manuscript requirements
• Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must
be numbered.
• Manuscripts should be preceded by a title page which includes a full list of authors
and their affiliations, as well as the corresponding author's contact details. A
template can be downloaded from here.
• Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a selfexplanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible without reference to the text.
They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations
indicated in the text.
• Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files,
58
carefully labelled in initial capital/lower case lettering with symbols in a form
consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should
be avoided. Captions should be listed on a separate sheet. The resolution of digital
images must be at least 300 dpi.
• All papers must include a structured abstract of up to 250 words under the
headings: Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Articles which report original
scientific research should also include a heading 'Design' before 'Methods'. The
'Methods' section for systematic reviews and theoretical papers should include, as a
minimum, a description of the methods the author(s) used to access the literature
they drew upon. That is, the abstract should summarize the databases that were
consulted and the search terms that were used.
• All Articles must include Practitioner Points – these are 2–4 bullet points to detail
the positive clinical implications of the work, with a further 2–4 bullet points
outlining cautions or limitations of the study. They should be placed below the
abstract, with the heading ‘Practitioner Points’.
• For reference citations, please use APA style. Particular care should be taken to
ensure that references are accurate and complete. Give all journal titles in full and
provide DOI numbers where possible for journal articles.
• SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if
appropriate, with the imperial equivalent in parentheses.
• In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.
• Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.
• Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy
quotations, illustrations, etc. for which they do not own copyright. For guidelines on
editorial style, please consult the APA Publication Manual published by the
American Psychological Association.
5. Brief reports and comments
These allow publication of research studies and theoretical, critical or review
comments with an essential contribution to make. They should be limited to 2000
words, including references. The abstract should not exceed 120 words and should
be structured under these headings: Objective, Method, Results, Conclusions. There
should be no more than one table or figure, which should only be included if it
conveys information more efficiently than the text. Title, author name and address
are not included in the word limit.
6. Supporting Information
BJC is happy to accept articles with supporting information supplied for online only
publication. This may include appendices, supplementary figures, sound files,
videoclips etc. These will be posted on Wiley Online Library with the article. The
print version will have a note indicating that extra material is available online. Please
indicate clearly on submission which material is for online only publication. Please
note that extra online only material is published as supplied by the author in the same
file format and is not copyedited or typeset. Further information about this service
can be found at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/suppmat.asp
7. Copyright and licenses
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author
for the paper will receive an email prompting them to login into Author Services,
59
where via the Wiley Author Licensing Service (WALS) they will be able to
complete the license agreement on behalf of all authors on the paper.
For authors signing the copyright transfer agreement
If the OnlineOpen option is not selected the corresponding author will be presented
with the copyright transfer agreement (CTA) to sign. The terms and conditions of the
CTA can be previewed in the samples associated with the Copyright FAQs.
For authors choosing OnlineOpen
If the OnlineOpen option is selected the corresponding author will have a choice of
the following Creative Commons License Open Access Agreements (OAA):
- Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License OAA
- Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial -NoDerivs License OAA
To preview the terms and conditions of these open access agreements please visit the
Copyright FAQs and you may also like to visit the Wiley Open Access Copyright
and Licence page.
If you select the OnlineOpen option and your research is funded by The Wellcome
Trust and members of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) or the Austrian Science
Fund (FWF) you will be given the opportunity to publish your article under a CCBY license supporting you in complying with your Funder requirements. For more
information on this policy and the Journal’s compliant self-archiving policy please
visit our Funder Policy page.
8. Colour illustrations
Colour illustrations can be accepted for publication online. These would be
reproduced in greyscale in the print version. If authors would like these figures to be
reproduced in colour in print at their expense they should request this by completing
a Colour Work Agreement form upon acceptance of the paper. A copy of the Colour
Work Agreement form can be downloaded here.
9. Pre-submission English-language editing
Authors for whom English is a second language may choose to have their manuscript
professionally edited before submission to improve the English. A list of
independent suppliers of editing services can be found at
http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp. All services are paid
for and arranged by the author, and use of one of these services does not guarantee
acceptance or preference for publication.
10. Author Services
Author Services enables authors to track their article – once it has been accepted –
through the production process to publication online and in print. Authors can check
the status of their articles online and choose to receive automated e-mails at key
stages of production. The author will receive an e-mail with a unique link that
enables them to register and have their article automatically added to the system.
Please ensure that a complete e-mail address is provided when submitting the
manuscript. Visit http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/ for more details on online
60
production tracking and for a wealth of resources including FAQs and tips on article
preparation, submission and more.
11. The Later Stages
The corresponding author will receive an email alert containing a link to a web site.
A working e-mail address must therefore be provided for the corresponding author.
The proof can be downloaded as a PDF (portable document format) file from this
site. Acrobat Reader will be required in order to read this file. This software can be
downloaded (free of charge) from the following web site:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.
This will enable the file to be opened, read on screen and annotated direct in the
PDF. Corrections can also be supplied by hard copy if preferred. Further instructions
will be sent with the proof. Excessive changes made by the author in the proofs,
excluding typesetting errors, will be charged separately.
12. Early View
British Journal of Clinical Psychology is covered by the Early View service on
Wiley Online Library. Early View articles are complete full-text articles published
online in advance of their publication in a printed issue. Articles are therefore
available as soon as they are ready, rather than having to wait for the next scheduled
print issue. Early View articles are complete and final. They have been fully
reviewed, revised and edited for publication, and the authors’ final corrections have
been incorporated. Because they are in final form, no changes can be made after
online publication. The nature of Early View articles means that they do not yet have
volume, issue or page numbers, so they cannot be cited in the traditional way. They
are cited using their Digital Object Identifier (DOI) with no volume and issue or
pagination information. E.g., Jones, A.B. (2010). Human rights Issues. Human
Rights Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.00300.x
61
Appendix B
Summary of procedure
Click on study URL
Information about study
Informed consent
Yes
No
Close window
do not complete study
Measure of perfectionism
Part 1
Manipulation of failure imagery
T1 measure of state shame, guilt and pride
Manipulation check of failure imagery
Part 2
Instructions for writing task
Control
Self-esteem
Self-compassion
T2 measure of state shame, guilt and pride
Feedback and demographics questions
Debrief
62
Appendix C
Proof of ethical review
63
Appendix D
All measures and manipulations are presented below in the order they were
completed by participants.
Information sheet
Principal Investigator
Natalie Almond, Natalie.Almond@surrrey.ac.uk
Co-Investigator
Dr Laura Simonds, L.Simonds@surrey.ac.uk
Information sheet Project title: Writing, personality and appraisals
My name is Natalie Almond and I am a Trainee Clinical Psychologist, based in the
Psychology department at the University of Surrey. This means that I am currently
studying for a doctorate qualification in Psychology. As part of my training I have to
complete a research project. I am researching how writing can influence the way that
individuals feel and think, and I am particularly interested in how certain personality
factors may influence the relationship between writing and appraisals such as
thoughts and feelings. This study is important in helping us to consider whether
writing used in psychological therapy is equally beneficial to people with different
personality characteristics.
If you choose to complete this study you will be directed to an online study. You will
be asked to complete four different questionnaires and to perform an imagery task
and a writing task. In the imagery task you will be provided with some instructions
and ask to try and picture an image, and hold it in mind before answering a number
of questions about this image. It is important that you take time to complete the
imagery task as described. In the writing task you will be provided with some
prompts of what to write about.
This study will take approximately 30 minutes. In return for your participation you
will be asked to choose whether you wish to be awarded 1 lab token OR entry into a
Prize Draw.
If you choose Prize Draw you will be entered into a prize draw for
Amazon vouchers, one randomly selected person will receive vouchers worth £50
and two randomly selected people will receive vouchers worth £25. The draw will
take place on February 20th 2015 and you will be contacted by email if you win one
of the prizes. You will then need to collect the prizes in person from the researcher.
The data that you provided by participating in this study will be anonymised and will
remain confidential. You have the right to withdraw from this study for two weeks
after completing the study. You do not have to give a reason to withdraw from the
study.
This study has received a favourable ethical opinion by the University of Surrey
FAHS Ethics Committee. If you have any complaint or concerns about any aspects
of the way you have been dealt with during the course of this study, then please
64
contact Dr Laura Simonds at the email address given above.
[ ] I have read the information above and wish to proceed with this study
65
Consent sheet
Principal Investigator
Natalie Almond, Natalie.Almond@surrrey.ac.uk
Co-Investigator
Dr Laura Simonds, L.Simonds@surrey.ac.uk
Consent form
Project title: Writing, personality and appraisals
·I the undersigned voluntarily agree to take part in the study on Writing, personality
and attitudes.
·I have read and understood the Information Sheet provided. I have been given a full
explanation by the investigators of the nature, purpose, location and likely duration
of the study, and of what I will be expected to do. I have been given the opportunity
to ask questions on all aspects of the study and have understood the advice and
information given as a result.
·I agree to comply with any instruction given to me during the study and to cooperate fully with the investigators. I shall inform them immediately if I suffer any
deterioration of any kind in my health or well-being, or experience any unexpected
or unusual symptoms.
·I understand that all personal data relating to volunteers is held and processed in the
strictest confidence, and in accordance with the Data Protection Act (1998). I agree
that I will not seek to restrict the use of the results of the study on the understanding
that my anonymity is preserved.
·I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study for up to two weeks after
completing the study, without needing to justify my decision and without prejudice. I
understand that after two weeks I will not be able to withdraw my data.
·I acknowledge that in return for signing up for this study I shall earn one lab token
OR that I will be entered into a prize draw where one person chosen at random will
win £50 and 2 people chosen at random will win £25 in Amazon vouchers.
·I confirm that I have read and understood the above and freely consent to
participating in this study. I have been given adequate time to consider my
participation and agree to comply with the instructions and restrictions of the study.
Full Name:
Email address (required for lab token OR entry to prize draw):
Please select which of the following you wish to receive for your participation
[ ]
Lab tokens (course credit for psychology students)
[ ] Entry in to the prize draw
66
Measure of Perfectionism
APS-R (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001).
The following items are designed to measure attitudes people have toward
themselves, their performance, and toward others. There are no right or wrong
answers.
Please try to respond to all of the items. Use your first impression and do not spend
too much time on individual items in responding.
Respond to each of the items using the scale below to describe your degree
of agreement with each item.
1.
I have high standards for my performance at work or at school.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
2.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I am an orderly person.
Slightly
Disagree
4.
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Neatness is important to me.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
If you don’t expect much out of yourself, you will never succeed.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
6.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
My best just never seems to be good enough for me.
Slightly
Disagree
7.
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I think things should be put away in their place
Slightly
Disagree
8.
9.
Strongly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
I often feel frustrated because I can’t meet my goals.
3.
5.
Neutral
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I have high expectations for myself.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I rarely live up to my high standards.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
67
10.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
I like to always be organized and disciplined.
Slightly
Disagree
11.
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Doing my best never seems to be enough.
Slightly
Disagree
12.
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I set very high standards for myself.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
13. I am never satisfied with my accomplishments.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
14. I expect the best from myself.
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
15. I often worry about not measuring up to my own expectations.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
16. My performance rarely measures up to my standards.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
17. I am not satisfied even when I know I have done my best.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
18. I try to do my best at everything I do.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
19. I am seldom able to meet my own high standards of performance.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
20. I am hardly ever satisfied with my performance.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
21. I hardly ever feel that what I’ve done is good enough.
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
22. I have a strong need to strive for excellence.
Strongly
Disagree
Slightly
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Strongly
68
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
23. I often feel disappointment after completing a task because I know I could
have done better.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Neutral
Slightly
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
69
Failure imagery task
The following task is timed and you will not be able to progress to the next page
until the time allowed has passed.
We would like you to imagine a piece of coursework you have been working on and
putting a lot of effort into as part of your university studies.
Imagine the grade you want to get and how you would feel if you achieved it . . . .
close your eyes or look down and try to imagine this for 30 seconds."
(this page is shown for 50 seconds, allowing 20 seconds to read the instructions and
30 to complete them after this time has elapsed a button to progress to the next page
appears)
Now imagine that when your essay is marked and comes back to you, the grade it is
given is two grades lower than you wanted.
Close your eyes or look down and try to imagine this for 1 minute."
During this minute imagine:
How would you feel about this lower grade?
What would this lower grade mean to you?
What would you think about yourself?
(this page is shown for 80 seconds, allowing 20 seconds to read the instructions and
60 to complete them, after this time has elapsed a button to progress to the next page
appears)
70
State Shame and Guilt scale
(Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994).
The following are some statements which may or may not describe how you are
feeling right now, following imagining the scenario.
Please rate each statement using the 5-point scale below. Remember to rate each
statement based on how you are feeling right at this moment.
1. I feel good about myself
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
2. I want to sink into the floor and disappear.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
3. I feel remorse, regret.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4. I feel worthwhile, valuable.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
5. I feel small.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
6. I feel tension about something I have done.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
7. I feel capable, useful.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
71
8. I feel like I am a bad person.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
9.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
I cannot stop thinking about something bad I have done.
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
10. I feel proud.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
11. I feel humiliated, disgraced.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
12. I feel like apologizing, confessing.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
13. I feel pleased about something I have done.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
14. I feel worthless, powerless.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
15. I feel bad about something I have done.
Not feeling this
way at all
1
2
Feeling this way
somewhat
3
4
Feeling this way
very strongly
5
72
Manipulation check
Please answer the items below by clicking your answer on the scale.
How easy was it to imagine this situation?
Not
easy to
imagine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very
easy to
imagine
10
9
How clear was your visualisation of the situation?
No
clear
image
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very
clear
image
10
How easy was it to imagine how you would feel in this situation?
Not
easy to
imagine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Very
easy to
imagine
10
9
How much of the allotted time did you spend thinking about this situation?
None
of the
time
0%
-
-
-
t o
-
-
-
All of
the
time
100%
Enter you answer as a number between 0 and 100 below- there is no need to use a %
sign.
73
Writing tasks
General instructions for all conditions
In the next task we would like you to continue to think about the assignment that you
did not do as well on as you had anticipated.
We would like you to write about this by answering the questions below by typing in
to the text boxes provided.
Having thought about not doing as well on an assignment as you anticipated we
would like you to:
Writing control condition
1. List the building names at the University of Surrey.
2. Write 4 to 5 sentences describing the University of Surrey campus.
3. Write 4 to 5 sentences describing what it is like to be a student at the University of
Surrey.
OR
Self-esteem writing
1. List your positive characteristics—indications that you are competent and
valuable.
2. Write 4 to 5 sentences explaining how what happened was not entirely your fault
and to think about the event in a way that makes you feel better about yourself.
3. Write 4 to 5 sentences describing why the event does not really indicate anything
about the kind of person you are.
OR
Self-compassion writing
1. List what you think a friend might think and feel about themselves following the
experience of a similar event.
2. Write 4 to 5 sentences that express understanding, kindness, and concern to
yourself in the same way that you might express concern to a friend who had
undergone the same experience.
3. Write 4 to 5 sentences describing your experience of the event in a factual way
without making any judgements or evaluations about yourself or the event.
74
Repetition of State Shame and Guilt Scale
Feedback and demographics
We would be grateful if you would complete a few final questions about this study.
1) What do you think this study was about?
2) Were you suspicious at any point that the study was looking at something other
than what was stated?
[ ] Not at all
[ ] A little
[ ] A lot
Please could you tell us your:
Gender:
[ ] Male
[ ] Female
[ ] Nationality
First language:
[ ] English
[ ] Other
Religion:
_______________
Age:
_________________
Subject studied at University:
_____________________
Year of study:
[ ] Undergraduate Year 1
[ ] Undergraduate Year 2
[ ] Undergraduate Year 3
[ ] Masters
75
[ ] Doctoral study
[ ] Other
76
Debrief
In this study we were interested in finding out, if people’s personality influenced
how they experienced the imagery task. The aspect of personality that we were
interested in was Perfectionism. Perfectionists are individuals who have
unrealistically high standards that they adhere to rigidly and for these individual’s
their self-worth is defined in relation to meeting these high standards.
We were interested in what feelings were created by imagining failing to meet your
own standards on a coursework assignment and whether those who were more
perfectionistic experienced different feelings, or felt the same feelings more strongly.
We anticipated that those who were more perfectionistic, may experience more
shame and guilt than those who were less perfectionistic.
We were also interested in whether writing (particularly compassionate writing)
would reduce the extent to which individuals experienced shame and guilt and
whether there would be less reduction in shame and guilt for those who were more
perfectionistic.
It was important that we did not tell you that we would ask you to think about failing
as this may have made it very difficult to recruit participants who had more
perfectionistic tendencies!
If you have felt upset or distressed as a result of completing this study then please
visit the Centre for Well-being at the University of Surrey. Information about the
Centre and how to contact them can be found here
Centre for well-being webpage (copy paste in to your browser)
http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/portal/page?_pageid=729,1&_dad=portal&_schema=POR
TAL
77
Appendix E
Histograms for discrepancy (maladaptive perfectionism)
ZSkewness= 1.83
ZKurtosis= .37
Figure E1. Distribution of discrepancy for those who did not complete the study.
ZSkewness= .88
ZKurtosis= -1.05
Figure E2. Distribution of discrepancy for those who completed the study (final
sample).
78
Appendix F
Histograms of variables for correlations
ZSkewness= .88
ZKurtosis= -1.05
Figure F1- Histogram of discrepancy.
ZSkewness= 2.61
ZKurtosis= -.60
Figure F2- Histogram of Time 1 pride
79
ZSkewness= .68
ZKurtosis= -2.01
Figure F3- Histogram of Time 1 shame
ZSkewness= -.11
ZKurtosis= -1.90
Figure F4- Histogram of Time 1 guilt
80
ZSkewness= -2.23
ZKurtosis= -.05
Figure F5- Histogram of imageability check.
ZSkewness= -2.76
ZKurtosis= .70
Figure F6- Histogram of percentage time spent on imagery.
81
ZSkewness= 4.15
ZKurtosis= .59
Figure F7- Histogram of Time 2 shame.
ZSkewness= 2.24
ZKurtosis= -1.08
Figure F8- Histogram of Time 2 guilt.
82
ZSkewness= .70
ZKurtosis= -1.20
Figure F9- Histogram of Time 2 pride.
83
Appendix G
Table G1. Bivariate Spearman’s Correlations for Time 1 Variables.
Imageabili
Percentage
Time 1
Time 1
Time 1
Time 2
Time 2
Time 2
ty
time
shame
guilt
pride
shame
guilt
pride)
Discrepancy
rs = .15
rs = .30**
rs = .44***
rs = .37***
rs = -.33**
rs = .43***
rs = .36***
rs = -.27**
(n=95)
p = .16
p = .003
p < .001
p < .001
p = .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .008
Imageability
rs = .25*
rs = .21
rs = .10
rs = -.27*
rs = .09
rs = .06
rs = -.08
(n=93)
p = .02
p = .05
p =.33
p =.04
p = .42
p = .56
p = .45
Percentage time
rs = .39***
rs = .37***
rs = -.21*
rs = .12
rs = .10
rs = .03
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
p = .04
p = .05
p = .35
p = .79
Time 1 shame
rs = .77***
rs = -.69***
rs = .61***
rs = .47***
rs = -.31**
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .002
Time 1 guilt
rs = -.49***
rs = .61***
rs = .63***
rs = -.21*
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
p = .04
Time 1 pride
rs = -.46***
rs = -.310** rs = .53***
(n=95)
p < .001
p = .002
p < .001
Time 2 shame
rs = .79***
rs = -.54***
(n=95)
p < .001
p < .001
Time 2 guilt
rs = -.48***
(n=95)
p < .001
Note- Asterisks denote the significance level * p < .05, ** p < .01 and *** p <.001
84
Appendix H
Histograms of residuals from one- way ANOVA’s
ZSkewness= .71
ZKurtosis= -.97
Figure H1- Histogram of standardised residuals for discrepancy.
ZSkewness= -2.22
ZKurtosis= -.03
Figure H2- Histogram of standardised residuals for imageability.
85
ZSkewness= -3.14
ZKurtosis= 1.80
Figure H3- Histogram of standardised residuals for percentage time spent
ZSkewness= .57
ZKurtosis= -2.05
Figure H4- Histogram of standardised residuals for Time 1 shame.
86
ZSkewness= -.06
ZKurtosis= -1.72
Figure H5- Histogram of standardised residuals for Time 1 guilt.
ZSkewness= 2.71
ZKurtosis= -.32
Figure H6- Histogram of standardised residuals for Time 1 pride.
87
Appendix I
Table I1- Levine’s test for homogeneity of variance for one-way ANOVA on writing
task for Time 1 variables.
Levene Statistic
df 1
df 2
Sig.
4.00
2
92
< .05
Imageability
1.04
2
92
> .05
Percentage time spent
0.23
2
92
> .05
Time 1 shame
2.78
2
92
> .05
Time 1 guilt
1.54
2
92
> .05
Time 1 pride
1.03
2
92
> .05
Discrepancy
(Maladpative
perfectionism)
on failure scenario
88
Appendix J
Table J1- Kruskal-Wallis tests on writing condition for Time 1 variables.
H
(DOF)
p
.19
2
> .05
Imageability
.39
2
> .05
Time 1 shame
.06
2
> .05
Time 1 pride
3.76
2
> .05
Discrepancy (Maladpative
perfectionism)
89
Appendix K
Histograms of the residuals for all ANCOVAs on shame, guilt and pride.
ZSkewness= .73
ZKurtosis= .21
Figure K1- Histogram of the residuals for Time 2 shame in ANCOVA on writing
condition with Time 1 shame and discrepancy as covariates.
ZSkewness= .87
ZKurtosis= -.42
Figure K2- Histogram of the residuals for Time 2 guilt in ANCOVA on writing
condition with Time 1 guilt and discrepancy as covariates.
90
ZSkewness= 1.39
ZKurtosis= -.46
Figure K3- Histogram of the residuals for Time 2 pride in ANOVA on writing
condition with Time 1 pride and discrepancy as covariates.
91
Appendix L
Table L1- Levine’s test for homogeneity of variance for ANOVAs and ANCOVAs
on shame, guilt and pride. (N=95)
Levene
df 1
df 2
Sig.
Statistic
Time 2 shame
.032
2
92
> .05
Time 2 guilt
4.51
2
92
< .05
Time 2 pride
.484
2
92
> .05
92
Appendix M
Histograms of residuals for ANOVA on LIWC variables
ZSkewness= .87
ZKurtosis= .02
Figure M1 Histogram of residuals word count for writing task
ZSkewness= 2.46
ZKurtosis= 2.24
Figure M2- Histogram of residuals first-person singular words percentage score
93
ZSkewness= 21.00
ZKurtosis= 58.32
Figure M3- Histogram of residuals third-person singular words percentage score.
ZSkewness= 6.94
ZKurtosis= 14.84
Figure M4- Histogram of residuals third-person plural words percentage score.
94
ZSkewness= 3.55
ZKurtosis= 6.82
Figure M5- Histogram of residuals of past-tense words percentage score.
ZSkewness= -1.14
ZKurtosis= .45
Figure M6- Histogram of residuals of present-tense words percentage score.
95
ZSkewness= 1.67
ZKurtosis= 2.31
Figure M7- Histogram of residuals of future-tense words percentage score.
ZSkewness= 5.99
ZKurtosis= 8.80
Figure M8- Histogram of residuals of positive emotion words percentage score.
96
ZSkewness= 6.76
ZKurtosis= 14.12
Figure M9- Histogram of residuals of negative emotion words percentage score.
ZSkewness= .18
ZKurtosis= -1.07
Figure M10- Histogram of residuals of work words percentage score.
97
ZSkewness= 9.06
ZKurtosis= 21.04
Figure M11- Histogram of residuals of achievement words percentage score.
98
Appendix N
Table N1- Levine’s test statistics for ANOVAs conducted on LIWC variables
Levene Statistic
df 1
df 2
Sig.
Word count
1.98
2
92
> .05
First-person singular
4.00
2
90
< .05
Third-person singular
7.07
2
90
< .01
Third-person plural
18.67
2
90
< .001
Past-tense
9.63
2
90
< .001
Present-tense
0.45
2
90
> .05
Future-tense
24.43
2
90
< .001
Positive emotions
0.22
2
90
> .05
Negative emotions
10.46
2
90
< .001
Work
3.76
2
90
< .05
Achievement
0.84
2
90
> .05
99
Appendix O
Table O1. Mean Ranks and Statistics for Kruskal-Wallis tests investigating the effect of writing condition on LIWC variables.
Dependant variable
Mean Ranks
Control
Self-
Self-
esteem
compassion
H
(DOF)
p
1st person singular (% of text)
22.78
69.32
49.90
43.93
(2)
<. 001
3rd person plural (% of text)
34.62
37.14
65.50
32.10
(2)
<. 001
Past-tense (% of text)
18.03
55.02
65.41
53.94
(2)
<. 001
Future-tense (% of text)
22.10
53.61
63.06
43.02
(2)
<. 001
Positive emotions (% of text)
49.95
51.07
41.21
2.60
(2)
>. 05
Negative emotions (% of text)
22.12
42.66
71.80
56.06
(2)
<. 001
Work (% of text)
64.13
42.61
35.83
18.83
(2)
<. 001
Achievement (% of text)
27.77
58.46
54.31
22.87
(2)
<. 001
100
MRP Research Proposal
Can compassionate-imagery reduce perfectionist’s experience of shame?
101
Introduction
Background and Theoretical Rationale
Perfectionism is associated with a variety of physical and psychological
disorders (Burns, 1980; Pacht, 1984; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Egan, Wade and
Shafran (2011) have argued that perfectionism is a transdiagnostic process and have
provided evidence that perfectionism is associated with a range of symptoms
associated with psychological distress and that treating perfectionism can be helpful
in reducing psychological distress. Shafran and Mansell (2001) have described
perfectionists as individuals holding unrealistically high standards that they adhere to
rigidly and note that the individual’s self-worth is defined in relation to meeting
these high standards. Despite this straightforward definition, there are currently three
scales with different focuses that are typically used to measure perfectionism in the
research literature these are: Multifactorial perfectionism scale (F-MPS; Frost et al.,
1990), Multifactorial perfectionism scale (H-MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991), and the
Almost Perfect Scale- Revised (APS-R: Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi & Ashby,
2001).
Factor-analytic investigations of these perfectionism scales typically reveals
two higher-order factors which have been variously described as adaptive vs.
maladaptive perfectionism (Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002; Rice, Ashby & Slaney, 1998;
Suddarth & Slaney, 2001), positive striving vs. maladaptive concerns (Bieling,
Isralei, & Antony, 2004), personal standards vs. evaluative concerns (Dunkley,
Blankstein, & Berg, 2012) and perfectionistic strivings vs. perfectionistic concerns
(Dunkely, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grillo, 2006; Stöber & Otto, 2006). Reviewing
these factor analyses Stöber & Otto, (2006) suggest that there are two distinct factors
underlying perfectionism; the adaptive factor captures having high personal
102
standards, and striving for excellence and the maladaptive factor seems to capture
concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, fear of disapproval by others, and
discrepancy between expectations and results. The maladaptive factor seems to
capture self-evaluation, and self-criticism about whether an individual is meeting
their own standards and it is this factor that is associated with predictors of
maladjustment such as negative affect (see Stöber & Otto, 2006 for a review).
Therefore it is this aspect of perfectionism that is of interest.
Tangey (2002) argues that when people evaluate themselves against a set of
standards they often experience the self-evaluative emotions (shame, guilt,
embarrassment and pride). Tangey notes that perfectionists are continually selfevaluating (especially maladaptive perfectionists) and predicts they will experience
these emotions more than others. There is good evidence that socially-prescribed
perfectionism (an aspect of maladaptive perfectionism) is positively correlated with
proneness to experiencing shame and guilt (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996: Tangey, 2002)
and with feelings of shame and guilt (Klibert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Saito,
2005). Fedewa, Burns and Gomez (2005) also demonstrated that negative
perfectionism showed positive correlations with proneness to shame and guilt, and
with state shame and guilt. Stöber, Harris and Moon, (2007) extended these findings
demonstrating that healthy perfectionists experienced more state pride and less state
shame and state guilt than unhealthy perfectionists and non-perfectionists.
Collectively, these findings suggest that shame and guilt are associated with
maladaptive or negative aspects of perfectionism (see also Ashby, Rice, & Martin,
2006). In summary, individuals who endorse maladaptive perfectionism are thought
to be engaging in more self-evaluation and self-criticism, and these individuals
experience more shame and guilt than others.
103
The literature on perfectionism and self-criticism suggest that they develop
in a similar manner. Drawing on attachment theory Gilbert and Procter (2006) note
that insecure attachment styles developed in childhood can lead the individual to
view others as a source of threat to the self, and that this results in heightened selfmonitoring, self-blaming, self-criticism and striving to meet other people’s
expectations of the self. Gilbert and Procter also note that modelling, safety
strategies/behaviours with hostile others, shame (Andrews, 1998; Gilbert, 1998),
inabilities to process anger (Ferster, 1973), and lack of internal schema of others as
safe/supportive (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2004), all potentially contribute to the
development of self-criticism. Interestingly similar factors are proposed to contribute
to the development of perfectionism (See Almond & Strauss, 2013) and in both
cases insecure attachment styles are implicated. Although self-criticism and
associated shame may develop through a range of processes, self-criticism is
typically negatively correlated with abilities to be compassionate and self-affiliative
(Gilbert, Clark, Hempel, Miles, & Irons, 2004; Gilbert, McEwan, Gibbons, Chotai,
Duarte, & Matos, 2011).
Gilbert (2009) proposes that there are three type of emotion-regulation
system (achieving and activating, threat-protection and affiliative-soothing) that
interact to regulate our emotions dependent on context. Compassion-focussed
therapy aims to bolster the affiliative and soothing system, which is often underdeveloped in those experiencing psychological distress who may tend to rely on
achievement and activating strategies and/or threat-protection strategies.
Compassion-focussed therapy has been shown to produce significant reductions in
depression, anxiety, self-criticism, shame, and increase the individual’s ability to be
self-soothing (Gilbert & Procter, 2006; Judge, Cleghorn, McEwan & Gilbert, 2012).
104
Perfectionists are likely to rely achievement/activating and threat-protection
emotion-regulation systems, and tend to experience self-criticism and shame. It is
plausible that compassionate-mind training for perfectionists, could increase
soothing-affiliative emotion-regulation and reduce their experience of self-criticism
and shame.
Compassionate-mind interventions are often 12-14 weeks in duration,
however, given perfectionists are proposed to experience self-criticism at the point
of failing to meet standards and this self-criticism plays a role in maintaining
perfectionism (Shafran, Egan, & Wade, 2010), it is pertinent to consider whether a
brief compassion intervention at the point of failure, could reduce perfectionists
experience of shame and self-criticism. Addressing this question is the focus of this
project.
One aspect of compassionate-mind training lends itself to a brief intervention
is compassionate-imagery (Gilbert & Irons, 2004; Gilbert, Baldwin, Irons & Palmer,
2006). Indeed, Rockcliff, Gilbert, McEwan, Lightman, & Glover (2006) provide
evidence that a single dose of compassionate-imagery can have soothing effects. One
commonly used form of compassionate-imagery is to develop an image that
represents or embodies warm and compassionate qualities, this is sometimes referred
to as an ideal or perfect nurturer (Lee, 2005). Therefore this research will investigate
whether such compassionate-imagery can reduce perfectionist’s experience of shame
and self-criticism following failing to meet their standards.
Research Question
Can compassionate-imagery reduce maladaptive perfectionist’s experience of
shame, and guilt, following failure?
Main Hypotheses
105
Individuals who score more highly on the measure of maladaptive
perfectionism will report lower levels of shame and guilt following exposure to
compassionate-imagery compared to non-compassionate imagery.
Individuals who score more highly on the measure of maladaptive
perfectionism will show a greater reduction in their ratings of shame and guilt
following exposure to compassionate-imagery than following exposure to noncompassionate imagery.
Method
Participants
A power analysis was conducted to determine the sample size required for
this study (alpha= 0.05, and power= 0.80). A medium effect size was anticipated for
this study and based on Cohen’s (1988) descriptions of F squared effect sizes, the
effect size was estimated to be= .015. There would be three predictors discrepancy,
compassionate-imagery condition and their interaction. This power analysis
suggested a sample of 77 would be required.
The experimental design of this study uses imagery, therefore it is plausible
that some participants will not actually engage in this imagery and should be
removed from the sample. To account for this possibility the data will be checked as
recruitment is on-going so that more data can be collected to replace those who have
not engaged with the task appropriately.
Participants will all be University of Surrey students (both undergraduates
and postgraduates). Psychology students will be recruited initially as they are easily
accessible to the researcher. The study will be advertised via the Psychology
research panel. The recruitment will be widened out to all University of Surrey
students if sufficient numbers cannot be recruited from within Psychology.
106
Participants who are not students at the University of Surrey will not be included in
the sample.
There will likely be approximately 240 undergraduate psychology students
and 90 postgraduate psychology students to collect data from. From my own
experience collecting data in University settings, the response rate is usually
relatively high in Psychology students who will be required to collect data for their
own study at some point in their student careers. Recruiting enough participants
would require 2/7 of the psychology student population to complete the study. From
my own experience conducting research in University settings, online studies are
typically preferable to this sample, therefore it seems reasonable that 2/7 students
could be recruited. The University of Surrey website suggests that in 2011-2012 their
were 15,209 undergraduate and postgraduate students, therefore expanding the study
out to the whole student population should ensure that the required sample size could
be collected.
Design
The study has a 2 (Compassionate-imagery: compassionate-imagery vs. noncompassionate-imagery) between-subjects design. Maladaptive perfectionism
(measured used APS-R discrepancy scale) will be a measured independent variable
and will be treated as a continuous variable.
The dependent variables are the emotions of shame and guilt.
Measures/Interviews/Stimuli/Apparatus
All measures and manipulations can be seen in Appendix 1 in full.
Perfectionism measure
Perfectionism will be measured using the APS-R (Slaney, Rice, Mobley,
Trippi & Ashby, 2001). This is a 23-item scale with three subscales Discrepancy,
107
High standards, Order. The APS-R is the only perfectionism scale that was designed
to capture the adaptive elements of perfectionism in one scale (High standards) and
the maladaptive components of perfectionism in a separate scale (Discrepancy).
APS-R has acceptable construct, concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity
(Rice, Ashby & Slaney, 2007) the three factors were reliable with a confirmatory
factor analysis producing Cronbachs alphas that ranged from .85- .92 for the
subscales (Slaney et al., 2001) and test-retest reliability is good (Rice & Aldea,
2006).
Manipulation of failure
Participants will be asked to complete modified version of an imagery task
taken from Gilbert et al., (2006). Participants will be asked to imagine completing a
piece of university coursework and finding out that they do not do a well as they
expect to. This is an appropriate manipulation of failure because it concerns a task
that most students would likely want to succeed in, and using imagery in this way
means that the experimenter can manipulate a discrepancy between what was hoped
for and what was achieved. Both of these can be hard to achieve in tasks where
failure is induced experimentally via task-completion and negative feedback.
Measures of shame and guilt
Shame and guilt will be measured using the State Shame and Guilt Scale
(SGSS: Marschall, Sanftner, & Tangney, 1994). Robins, Noftle, and Tracey (in
press) note that the subscales have good cronbachs alphas; shame (5 items; α = .89),
guilt (5 items; α = .82), pride (5 items; α = .87). No other psychometric information
is available but this measure is often used in the published literature (Fedewa et al.,
2005; Stöber et al., 2007).
Manipulation of compassionate-imagery
108
Similar to Gilbert et al., (2006) participants will then be asked to complete a
subsequent imagery task. This task will manipulate the use of compassionate versus
non-compassionate-imagery. The compassionate-imagery task is a composite of a
task described in Gilbert & Procter (2006) and from Lee and James’ (2011) perfect
nurturer task. The non-compassionate imagery task is matched to the compassionateimagery task as closely as possible removing all references to compassion. The task
can be seen in full in the appendix but requires participants to read the instructions
and type notes as they develop a compassionate/ non-compassionate image and then
bring this image to mind for three minutes.
Manipulation check of experience of failure-imagery / compassionate-imagery
Given that participants will be completing tasks using imagery it will be
important to check to what extent they have engaged in /completed the imagery
tasks, how easy or difficult they found it to complete these imagery tasks and how
clear the image was. Participants will be asked these questions (adapted from Gilbert
et al., 2006) once after the failure-imagery and once following the manipulation of
compassionate/ non-compassionate-imagery. The items can be seen in the Appendix.
Measure of mood
A 20-item self-report measure of positive and negative affect (PANAS:
Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) will be used to determine whether the
manipulations of compassionate and non-compassionate-imagery have divergent
effect on mood more generally. The PANAS is considered to have good reliability
Cronbachs alpha .89 for the Positive Affect scale, and .85 for the Negative Affect
scale (Crawford & Henry, 2004).
Procedure
An opportunity sample of students will be recruited from the University of
109
Surrey by advertising the study on the Psychology research panel where participants
will receive research credit for completion of the study. Participants will also be
recruited by advertising the study throughout the University campus using posters
and emails. A prize draw will be offered to incentivise participation.
Students who chose to complete the study will be directed to a URL to
complete the study online. Participants will be initially asked to complete the
measure of perfectionism. All participants will then complete the failure-imagery
task followed by measure of shame and guilt. At this point the procedure diverges by
condition, with half of the participants being asked to complete a manipulation of
compassionate-imagery and half non-compassionate-imagery. All participants will
then repeat the measure of shame and guilt, before completing the measure of mood,
and the imagery manipulation checks. Finally participants will provide demographic
information, and will be thanked for participation and debriefed.
Ethical considerations
The University of Surrey Faculty of Arts and Humanities Ethics Committee
will be asked to review the ethics of conducting this research.
Deception
It will be necessary to deceive participants about the true purpose of the
study. Participants will be told that the study investigates the effects of imagery on
their appraisals of situations. If participants are told that the study is about failure it
is likely that this may deter those who are more perfectionistic in particular and it is
necessary to recruit students with a wide range of perfectionism scores.
Distress
It is possible that asking students who are perfectionist to think about failure
could cause a small amount of distress, in particular, self-criticism and shame.
110
However, it is important to note that not all participants will be perfectionists and so
not all participants will experience distress. However, the purpose of this experiment
is to investigate whether self-compassionate-imagery can reduce the distress
experienced by perfectionists, so in order to test the efficacy of such an intervention
it is necessary to induce a modicum of distress. Furthermore, investigating this topic
via imagery, may allow participants to distance themselves from this distress more
easily, as this is not a real experience of failure.
R&D Considerations
There are no R and D considerations for this project.
Proposed Data Analysis
For all scales the subscale means will be calculated by reversing items as
necessary and replacing any missing items with the subscale mean score. The
discrepancy scale of the APS-R will be considered as a continuous independent
variable that represents the extent to which participants endorse maladaptive aspects
of perfectionism where higher scores represent more maladaptive perfectionism.
Moderated regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) regressions will be conducted
to assess whether discrepancy (continuous) and compassionate-imagery condition
(categorical) and their interaction predict initial shame and guilt following the
failure-imagery manipulation for all participants. It is anticipated based on the
previous research evidence that shame, and guilt should be predicted by discrepancy.
It would be preferable that compassionate-imagery condition did not predict initial
shame or guilt because this would suggest that there were differences between our
experimental groups levels of shame and guilt prior to the manipulation of
compassionate-imagery.
Moderated regression analysis will be used to determine whether
111
discrepancy, self-compassionate-imagery condition, and their interaction predict the
experience of 1) shame and 2) guilt following the compassionate-imagery
manipulation. This will require the continuous variables to be centred around zero,
and compassionate-imagery condition to be dummy coded (0,1) and an interaction
term calculated by computing the product of these variables.
The design of the study will also make it possible to consider whether the
change in shame and guilt (from post failure manipulation to post compassionateimagery manipulation) is predicted by discrepancy, compassionate-imagery
condition and their interaction again using a moderated regression analysis.
However, this would only be considered if shame and guilt are not predicted by
compassionate-imagery condition following failure imagery.
Service User and Carer Consultation / Involvement
I have presented my research plans to a member of the university/ service
user and carer panel via my oral presentation of this research proposal. They raised
concerns about how ethnicity may predict the experience of perfectionism; I will
measure ethnicity as one of the demographic variables collected at the end of my
study. I plan to consult the carer/service user representatives to help me consider the
clarity of my materials in particular how easy the imagery manipulations are to
follow.
Feasibility Issues
It may be difficult to recruit the required numbers of participants from the
psychology research panel. Therefore, I will plan to recruit from the university
student population in addition to the psychology panel and include this in my initial
ethics proposal so that I can recruit more broadly if required without needing to
reapply for ethical approval.
112
Analysing the data using a moderated regression approach allows for
consideration of perfectionism/ discrepancy as a continuous variable so that one can
consider how increases in perfectionism predict the other variables. It will be
important to ensure that there are a comparable range of discrepancy scores in each
of the compassionate-imagery conditions. This will be achieved by regularly
downloading the data from the online questionnaire. The way in which participants
are recruited/ allocated to condition could then be adjusted to account for their
perfectionism score to distribute this equally across conditions.
It is possible that participants will not actually engage in the imagery
manipulations as requested, therefore, a question will be included in the imagery
manipulation check to assess how much of the allotted time participants spent on the
imagery task.
Dissemination strategy
Following analysis of the findings, if appropriate the results will be submitted
to an academic conference for presentation and/ or to an academic journal for
publication.
Study Timeline
Oct13Dec13
Jan14Mar14
Apr14Jun14
Jul14Sep14
Oct14Dec14
Jan 15Feb 15
MRP Course
approval
Ethics submission
Ethics approval
Draft introduction
Draft methods
Data collection
Data analysis
Draft results
Draft discussion
Finalise draft
Complete draft to
supervisor
113
References
Almond, N. R., & Strauss, C., (2013). Perfectionism, parental bonding and
attachment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Surrey.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, London, Sage.
Andrews, B. (1998). Shame and childhood abuse. In P. Gilbert, & B. Andrews (Eds),
Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology and culture (pp. 176–190).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ashby, J., Rice, K., & Martin, J. (2006). Perfectionism, shame, and depressive
symptoms. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 148-156. doi:
10.1002%2Fj.1556-6678.2006.tb00390.x
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Anthony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad,
or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 1373-1385. doi: 10.1016%2FS01918869%2803%2900235-6
Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: the new mood therapy. New York: New
American Library.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in
a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–
265. doi: 10.1348%2F0144665031752934
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Berg, J.-L. (2012). Perfectionism Dimensions
and the Five‐factor Model of Personality. European Journal of Personality,
114
26, 233–244. 10.1002/per.829
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%2Fj.brat.2004.12.004
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic
process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212. doi:
0.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A
critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fedewa, B. A., Burns, L. R., & Gomez, A. A. (2005). Positive and negative
perfectionism and the shame/guilt distinction: Adaptive and maladaptive
characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1609-1619. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.026
Ferster, C.B. (1973). A functional analysis of depression. American Psychologist, 28,
857–870. doi: 10.1037%2Fh0035605
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. doi:
10.1007%2FBF01172967
Gilbert, P. (1998). What is shame? Some core issues and controversies. In P. Gilbert,
& B. Andrews (Eds), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology and
culture (pp.3–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, P. (2009). The compassionate mind. Londo: Constable & Robinson.
115
Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M., Irons, C., Baccus, J., & Clark, M. (2006). Self-criticism and
self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to depression. Journal
of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 183–200. doi: 10.1891%2Fjcop.20.2.183
Gilbert, P., Clarke, M., Kempel, S., Miles, J.N.V., & Irons, C. (2004). Criticizing
and reassuring oneself: An exploration of forms style and reasons in female
students. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 31–50. doi:
10.1348/014466504772812959
Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2004). A pilot exploration of the use of compassionate
images in a group of self-critical people. Memory, 12, 507–516. doi:
10.1080/09658210444000115
Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Gibbons, L., Chotai, S., Duarte, J., & Matos, M. (2011).
Fears of compassion and happiness in relation to alexithymia, mindfulness and
self-criticism. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 84, 239–255. doi:
10.1111%2Fj.2044-8341.2011.02046.x
Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high
shame and self-criticism: A pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. doi: 10.1002/cpp.507
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%2F%2F00223514.60.3.456
Judge, L., Cleghorn, A., McEwan, K., & Gilbert, P. (2012). An exploration of groupbased compassion focused therapy for a heterogeneous range of clients
presenting to a Community Mental Health Team. International Journal of
Cognitive Therapy, 5(4), 420–429, doi: 10.1521%2Fijct.2012.5.4.420
116
Klibert, J. J., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Saito, M. (2005). Adaptive and
maladaptive aspects of self-oriented versus socially prescribed perfectionism.
Journal of College Student Development, 46, 141–156. doi:
10.1353%2Fcsd.2005.0017
Lee, D. A., (2005). The perfect nurturer: A model to develop a compassionate mind
within the context of cognitive therapy p 326-351. In P. Gilbert (Ed.)
Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy. Hove:
Routledge
Lee, D. A., and James, S. (2011). The compassionate-mind guide to recovering from
trauma and PTSD. Oakland, CA: New harbinger publications.
Lutwak, N., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Moral affect and cognitive processes:
Differentiating shame from guilt among men and women. Personality and
Individual Differences, 21, 891-896. doi: 10.1016%2FS01918869%2896%2900135-3
Marschall, D. E., Saftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The State Shame and Guilt
Scale. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2004). Security-based self representations in
adulthood: Contents and processes. In N.S. Rholes, & J.A. Simpson (Eds), Adult
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications. (pp. 159–195). New
York: Guilford.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390.
doi:10.1037%2F%2F0003-066X.39.4.386
Rice, K. G., & Aldea, M. A. (2006). State dependence and trait stability of
perfectionism: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 205-213. doi: 10.1037%2F0022-0167.53.2.205
117
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between
perfectionism and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 304-314. doi: 10.1037%2F%2F00220167.45.3.304
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). Perfectionism and the five-factor
model of personality. Assessment, 14, 385-398. doi:
10.1177/1073191107303217
Robins, R. W., Noftle, E. E., & Tracey, J. L. (in press). Assessing Self-Conscious
Emotions: A Review of Self-Report and Nonverbal Measures. In Tracy, J. L.,
Robins, R. W., & Tangney, J. M. (Eds.) The Self-Conscious Emotions:
Theory and Research. New York: Guilford.
Rockliff, H., Gilbert, P., McEwan, K. Lightman, S., & Glover, D. (2008). A pilot
exploration of heart rate variability and salivary cortisol responses to
compassion-focused imagery. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 5 (3), 132-139. doi:
not avaliable
Shafran, R., Egan, S., & Wade, T. (2010). Overcoming perfectionism. London:
Constable and Robinson.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of
research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879−906. doi:
10.1016%2FS0272-7358%2800%2900072-6
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. doi: not available.
Stöber, J., Harris, R. A., & Moon, P. S. (2007). Perfectionism and the experience of
pride, shame, and guilt: Comparing healthy perfectionists, unhealthy
118
perfectionists, and nonperfectionists. Personality and Individual Differences,
43, 131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.012
Stöber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
doi: 10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1004_2
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimensions of
perfectionism in college students. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 157-165. doi: not available.
Tangney, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and the self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 199-215). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
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 & Social Psychology, 47, 1063-1070. doi: 10.1037//00223514.54.6.1063
119
MRP Literature review
Perfectionism, parental bonding and attachment.
120
Journal choice and justification
I plan to submit a version of this literature review to Clinical Psychology
Review because the aims and scope of the journal are suitable to the topic of the
review I have written. The journal states that it publishes reviews on topics that have
a clear relationship to research or practice in Clinical Psychology. The literature
review includes a section that justifies why the topic is relevant to Clinical
Psychology. Furthermore, the journal has a good impact factor (7.07) suggesting that
publishing in this journal would mean that the research would be read and cited by
others and promote good exposure for my work.
121
Abstract
This review aims to determine whether there is a relationship between
perfectionism and parental bonding or attachment. Perfectionism has been associated
with psychological disorders since the 1980s but recent reviews have highlighted the
importance of classical perfectionism as a risk factor for developing and maintaining
psychological disorders. Despite the importance of perfectionism, there has been
little work that has investigated the origins of perfectionism. One factor that has been
mooted to be important to the development of perfectionism is attachment, however,
there has been very little examination of whether attachment or parental bonding is
indeed related to classical perfectionism. Addressing this question forms the focus of
this review. A literature search identified 10 peer-reviewed articles that had assessed
this relationship. Systematically reviewing this literature provided good evidence
that certain elements of perfectionism (Concern over mistakes, Doubt over Actions,
Discrepancy, and Self-Oriented Perfectionism) were correlated with early
experiences of parental bonding and attachment style whereas other elements of
perfectionism (High Standards, Personal Standards) were not. Whilst the review
identifies that there is a relationship between elements of perfectionism and parental
bonding or attachment it also highlights the need to fully consider the causal
direction and mechanisms underlying these relationships. The review also
highlighted the need to consider these relationships using diverse samples, and a
range of methods that allow for a test of causality. Future work should seek to
address these issues.
122
Introduction
Perfectionism
Burns (1980) defined perfectionism as a set of interrelated cognitions
including expectations, interpretations of events, and evaluations of the self and
others. At this time perfectionism was considered to be a pervasive and debilitating
condition. Perfectionism has been associated with a variety of physical and
psychological disorders including alcoholism, irritable bowel syndrome, abdominal
pain, and Type A coronary-prone behaviour, a range of anxiety disorders,
depression, anorexia nervosa, and obsessive compulsive personality disorder,
(Burns, 1980; Pacht, 1984; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Indeed Egan, Wade and
Shafran (2011) have argued that perfectionism is a transdiagnostic process and have
provided evidence that perfectionism is associated with, and can be helpful in
treating, a range of symptoms associated with psychological distress. Consequently,
perfectionism is an important area of study for clinical psychology and given this
importance there has been much discussion about how perfectionism should be
defined.
Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate, (1990) noted that perfectionism
research has suffered due the lack of a precise definition of perfectionism. Initial
work tended to focus on the presence of high standards, which as Hamachek, (1978)
notes does not distinguish between individuals who could be considered adaptive
perfectionists (those with high standards and are able to relax these standards when
the situation permits) and maladaptive perfectionists (those with high standards who
criticise their performance as never good enough and are unable to relax their
standards). Attempts to better define perfectionism have resulted in a proliferation of
measures and subscales, which has led Shafran and Mansell (2001) to call for better
123
measures of perfectionism that were more closely related to what they termed the
“classical concept” of perfectionism. Shafran and Mansell describe perfectionists as
individuals holding unrealistically high standards that they adhere to rigidly and note
that the individual’s self-worth is defined in relation to meeting these high standards.
Below we briefly review three commonly used measures of perfectionism to
highlight how perfectionism will be defined in this review.
Measures of perfectionism
The three measures of perfectionism that seem to be most commonly used in
the literature are: Multifactorial perfectionism scale (F-MPS; Frost et al., 1990),
Multifactorial perfectionism scale (H-MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991), and the Almost
Perfect Scale- Revised (APS-R: Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi & Ashby, 2001).
F-MPS
The F-MPS consists of six factors, Concern over Mistakes (CoM), Doubts
about Actions (DoA), Personal Standards (PS), Parental Expectations (PE), Parental
Criticism (PC), and Organization (OR). CoM includes negative responses to
mistakes, equating mistakes with failure and beliefs about loosing other people’s
respect following failure. DoA refers to a sense that projects are not completed
properly. PS was defined as the setting of very high standards and the inflated
importance placed on these high standards for self-evaluation. PE was the tendency
to believe that one's parents set very high goals and PC the tendency to believe that
one’s parents are overly critical. OR was defined as including an emphasis on the
importance of order and the preference for order.
H-MPS
The H-MPS consists of three factors; Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP),
Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP) and Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP).
124
Hewitt and Flett (1991) describe SOP to consist of behaviours such as setting
exacting high standards for oneself, stringently evaluating and critiquing one's own
performance and striving to avoid failures and attain perfectionism. OOP consists of
beliefs and expectations about the capabilities of others. SPP is about the
individual’s perception of their significant other’s expectations of them being
perfect.
APS-R
The APS-R consists of 3 factors Discrepancy (D), High standards (HS) and
Order (OD). D measures the inconsistency between an individual’s high personal
standards and their perceptions of success in meeting those standards. HS is very
similar to the measure of PS described above, and OD is very similar to the measure
of OR described above.
Defining perfectionism
This brief review of perfectionism measures highlights the multitude of
constructs that have been considered to form part of perfectionism. It is notable that
across these different measures there are some similarities, a focus on having high
personal standards (PS, HS, SOP) appears on all measures. Likewise all measures
attempt to capture some element that relates to monitoring or evaluating whether
these standards have been met (CoM, DoA, SOP, D). Similarly, a number of the
scales consider expectations and criticism from others (SPP, PE and PC).
Shafran and Mansell (2001) note that SOP, PS and CoM come closest to
measuring the classical concept of perfectionism defined as the pursuit of
excessively high standards that are rigidly adhered to and define self-worth.
Therefore in this review perfectionism is defined in relation to Shafran and
Mansell’s definition (and subscale choice) of the classical concept of perfectionism.
125
Shafran and Mansell did not consider the APS-R in their review as it was published
contiguously, however, given the similarities between HS and PS and between SOP
and D noted above it is proposed that HS and D could equally be viewed as
measuring the classical concepts of perfectionism and so these will be included in
this review. Shafran and Mansell argue that DoA does not measure of perfectionism
given its overlap with OCD symptomology. Yet, there is good evidence that CoM
and DoA may be overlapping concepts: Stöber’s (1998) factor analysis of the F-MPS
suggests that CoM and DoA should be collapsed on to one factor, therefore DoA is
considered as an element of perfectionism in this review.
Subscales assessing expectations of perfection in others (e.g., OOP) and
subscales assessing the expectations and criticism of significant others and parents
(e.g., PE, PC and SPP) will not be included in this review. PE and PC in particular
are not appropriate because they are retrospective (Shafran & Mansell, 2001) and
confound the assessment of current perfectionism (Rhéaume et al., 2000).
Furthermore the way in which children are parented may be related to the
development of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990; Rice, Lopez, & Vegara, 2005)
rather than a current assessment of perfectionism. The development of perfectionism
is considered below.
Development of perfectionism
There has been much theorising around the role of parenting in the
development of perfectionism. Barrow and Moore (1983) theorised that four
different types of early experience may contribute to the development of
perfectionism: overly critical and demanding parents; excessively high parental
standards and expectations (indirect criticism); perfectionistic parents modelling the
behaviour for children; and parental approval being absent, inconsistent or
126
conditional. Similarly, in a theoretical review chapter, Flett, Hewitt, Oliver and
Macdonald (2002) described four potential models that may explain the development
of perfectionism: 1) Social expectations, 2) Social learning, 3) Anxious rearing, and
4) Social reaction/harsh environment. The social expectations model suggests that
approval is contingent on the child being perfect, the social learning model suggest
that the child learns to imitate the parent who is perfectionistic, the anxious rearing
model suggests that anxious parenting promotes a focus on mistakes and negative
consequences of mistakes which leads to perfectionistic striving and anxious overconcern. Finally, the social reaction/ harsh environment model suggests that a variety
of difficult early experiences such as abuse, maltreatment, withdrawal of love, or
exposure to a chaotic family environment may lead to the use of perfectionism as a
coping strategy. The literature reviewed above on the development of perfectionism
shares clear similarities with the literature on the development of attachment as Rice
and Mirazdeh (2000) have noted.
Attachment and perfectionism
An attachment is the representation of an affective bond between individuals,
and contains the behaviours that are useful for maintaining contact with the
significant other(s) (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1969; 1988; Sroufe, 1979). Secure
attachments are optimal, and emerge when parents have been emotionally accessible
to, and nurturing of, their children. Insecure attachments result from unpredictable,
harsh, or unsupportive parent-child interactions or overly involved and anxious
parenting and these types of experiences are clearly represented in the theorizing
around the development of perfectionism as noted above. Children with insecure
attachment bonds have difficulties managing developmental challenges and
experience a variety of personal and interpersonal adjustment problems (Bowlby,
127
1973). It is possible that the development of perfectionism represents one of these
interpersonal adjustment problems.
Rice and Mirazdeh (2000) suggest that children who experience inconsistent
parental approval may develop an insecure attachment and learn to emphasize the
importance of their performance rather than their emotional needs supporting the
development of perfectionism. In such cases being perfect provides a means to
receive or maintain recognition from parents or to escape or avoid critical or punitive
responses from parents.
There have been few research studies that have considered the relationship
between attachment and perfectionism. Flett et al. (2002) reviewed a couple of
studies that were of variable quality; with aspects of parental relations being
contained in both the measure of perfectionism and attachment, and the use of
atypical measures of perfectionism or attachment. Although Flett et al. argue there is
a relationship between attachment and perfectionism this is based on evidence of an
association between SPP and fearful and preoccupied attachment styles. This
evidence is questionable because SPP is arguably not part of the classical conception
of perfectionism because it takes into account significant others expectations.
Therefore it is possible that this evidence of a relationship between SPP and
attachment is confounded.
The literature reviewed thus far suggests that there may be a relationship
between attachment and perfectionism but before this can be considered it is
important to define the scope of attachment experiences that will be included in this
review.
Measuring attachment
A child’s attachment to their primary caregiver can be assessed in children
128
during childhood using the strange situation (Ainsworth, 1978), and retrospectively
in adults using the adult attachment interview (AAI: George, Kaplan, & Main,
1984). It is unlikely that there will be many, if any, studies where a child’s
attachment style has been assessed and recorded in childhood alongside concurrent
or subsequent measures of perfectionism, in part due to an absence of measures of
perfectionism in children. Furthermore, both the strange situation and the AAI
require researchers to undergo specific training in their administration and scoring
and so consequently studies using these methods may be infrequent in the literature.
These assessment tools also produce a categorical measure of attachment, and as
such these measures have been criticised because they do no take into account
variation between individuals within the same category (Mikiluncer & Shaver,
2007). Categorical measures may make it more difficult to identify a relationship
between attachment and perfectionism, therefore this review will only consider
dimensional measures of attachment.
In an attempt to access early experiences of an individuals’ parenting
retrospectively some researchers have used the parental bonding instrument (PBI:
Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). The PBI assesses the participant’s perceptions of
their mother’s and father’s parenting in terms of two dimensions, care and
overprotection. Although this is not a measure of attachment, the PBI does capture
the individual’s perceptions about their early experiences and these early experiences
of parenting are thought to contribute to the individual’s attachment style.
Attachment can also be measured in terms of an adult’s attachment to adults
that they are in close relationships with. There is evidence that attachment security
remains moderately stable over the first nineteen years of life (Fraley, 2002) and that
adult attachment is in part determined by early attachment to the primary caregiver
129
(Hazen & Shaver, 1987). Adult attachment can therefore be considered as a proxy
for early attachment.
In summary, perfectionism is an important concept for mental health and
well-being and the literature theorises a relationship between attachment and
perfectionism. However, there have been no been no published reviews nor
investigation of this relationship and consequently it is unclear if there is a
relationship. This review addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether
there is a relationship between attachment orientation and perfectionism.
Method of the literature search
The literature search was conducted on the 15th January 2013 using Psycinfo,
Scopus and Web of Knowledge (WoK) databases. The search consisted of two
components combined with an “AND” the first was attachment OR “parental
bonding” and the second perfection*. There were no date limitations imposed on the
search. Differences between databases meant that in Psycinfo the search was
conducted on Abstracts, in Scopus the search was conducted on Article title, abstract
and keywords, in Web of Knowledge (WoK) the search was conducted on topic
(which considers titles, abstracts, keywords and keywords plus). In Scopus the
Health sciences, Life sciences, and Social sciences and humanities databases were
included, in WoK default settings were used which included all the databases
available to WoK, and in Psycinfo the Psycinfo database alone was used.
Inclusion/ Exclusion criteria
In order to be included in the final set of papers it was required that sources
were peer-reviewed to ensure that sources were of high quality. In Psycinfo this was
achieved by selecting the peer-reviewed only option. In Scopus and WoK this was
achieved by limiting document type to those most likely to have been peer-reviewed,
130
(in Scopus, article or review, and in WoK article, review, case report or clinical
trial). Sources identified by Scopus and WoK were checked and excluded if they
were not peer-reviewed or if this could not be determined. The search results were
combined and duplicates removed leaving 107 results. The inclusion/exclusion
criteria are explained briefly below, the number of results lost at each stage is shown
in Figure 1.
The full-text version of the source had to be available in English to be
included. All results were checked by the author and were excluded if the full-text
version was not available in English. The following inclusion criteria were addressed
in turn. The sources identified had to: 1) contain both a measure of attachment and a
measure of perfectionism in the same study and report the relationship between these
variables, 2) the measure of attachment had to be dimensional and there had to be
evidence of convergent validity with other attachment measures as defined by
Ravitz, Maunder, Hunter, Sthankiya, and Lancee (2010) and 3) the measure of
perfectionism had to include the at least one of the subscales noted to represent the
classical definition of perfectionism in the introduction (that is SOP, HS, PS, D,
CoM or DoA) or a composite of the subscales, and the measure had to have
convergent validity with another measure of perfectionism as noted by Enns and Cox
(2002). Papers that did not meet any of the above criteria were excluded. The final
set consisted of 10 papers that met these criteria.
Results
The results will be presented in two sections. The first section will consider
studies where early experiences of attachment or parental bonding have been
measured and the results are summarised in Table 1. The second section will
consider studies where adult attachment has been measured and the results are
131
Psycinfo search
results
57
Minus 20
Peer-reviewed
only
37
Scopus search
results
59
Minus 2
WoK search
results
92
Minus 7
Articles and
reviews only
57
Article, review,
case-report,
clinical trial only
85
Total search results
179
Minus 72
Duplicates removed
107
Minus 9
Papers written in English only
98
Minus 79
Must include a measure of attachment
and perfectionism in the same study and
consider the relationship between them
19
Minus 2
Must include a dimensional measure of
attachment with concurrent validity with
another measures
17
Minus 7
Must measure at least one subscale of
classical perfectionism, SOP, DoA, CoM,
HS, PS, SOP (these are from scales with
concurrent validity with other
perfectionism measures)
10
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the literature selected for inclusion in the
review.
132
summarised in Table 2. In both sections the results will consider each perfectionism
subscale in turn, reviewing and evaluating what evidence there is for a relationship
between that perfectionism subscale and attachment. Subscales will be presented so
that those that are conceptually similar appear sequentially. All studies had large
sample sizes (n ranged from 138 to 604) and so statistical power was unlikely to be a
concern therefore sample sizes for each study are recorded only in the Tables.
Perfectionism and Parental Bonding Inventory
Personal standards (PS)
Enns, Cox, and Clara (2002) investigated the relationship between score on
the two indices of the PBI-care and overprotection (Parker et al., 1979) and PS in
Canadian University students. In this study the care dimension was assessed in terms
of lack of care1. Participants were asked to complete the PBI once for each parent
and the PBI scores were calculated by averaging responses for mother and father for
each participant. There were no significant correlations. PS was not associated with
either perceived lack of care from parents or perceived overprotection by parents.
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP)
Two studies investigated the relationship between SOP and the two indices of
the PBI in outpatients with depression (Enns, Cox, & Larsen, 2000) or Canadian
college students (Enns et al., 2002). In both studies the PBI was completed once for
each of the participant’s parents. Enns et al. (2000) analysed their results by
considering PBI scores for each parent separately whereas Enns et al. (2002)
examined responses on the PBI towards parents by averaging responses for mother
and father. Furthermore, Enns et al. (2000) analysed responses by participant gender
1
The PBI is usually measured so that higher scores indicate care, however, in this
study the authors chose to recode the answers so that higher scores indicated a lack
of care.
133
whereas Enns et al. (2000) averaged across participant gender. For the sake of
brevity when reporting Enns et al. (2000) findings only women’s responses about
their mothers are considered. Women were chosen because they represented the
majority of participants and responses about mothers were chosen on the assumption
that women are usually the primary caregiver. It is noteworthy that Enns et al. report
that there were no statistical differences between men and women’s responses to the
PBI. In Enns et al. (2000) the PBI dimension is coded as specified by Parker et al.,
(1979) however, in Enns et al. (2002) the care dimension was assessed in terms of
lack of care1.
Enns et al. (2000; 2002) both demonstrate a weak correlation between
participant’s SOP and their perceptions of their mothers or parents being
overprotective. The findings on the care dimensions were also consistent: Enns et al.
(2000) found a weak negative correlation between perceptions of maternal care and
SOP and Enns et al. (2002) found a weak positive correlation between perceptions of
parental lack of care1 and SOP. Thus both studies support the idea that higher
perceptions of parental care are associated with lower levels of SOP.
The consistency between studies is noteworthy because one study considered
an average of parents PBI scores whereas the other considered the scores separately.
Furthermore, different samples were used in the two studies and the samples are
divergent in age (Enns et al., 2002 M= 20 years, SD= 4.4 years; Enns et al., 2000 M=
40 years, SD= 10.0 years). However, the findings on the care subscale should be
interpreted with some caution. In both studies the correlations between SOP and
(lack of) care are significant only at the p< .05 level, in Enns et al. (2000) they
compute 64 correlations therefore one would expect 3.2 of the 64 correlations to be
significant at the p> .05 level. Given the risk of a type 1 error, considering these
134
results with a more stringent p level would be advisable and would suggest that there
was no significant evidence of a relationship between SOP and (lack of) care on the
PBI.
Self-oriented perfectionism and Personal standards: Summary of
findings
SOP and PS subscales both measure HS so it is pertinent to consider these
findings alongside each other. There is little evidence that PS are associated with
early experiences of parents in terms of lack of care or overprotection. SOP however
is positively associated with perceptions of parental overprotection. The SOP
subscale assesses not only setting exacting high standards for oneself, but also
stringently evaluating and critiquing one's own performance and striving to avoid
failure. Therefore it is possible that it is these later aspects that are responsible for
the differing pattern of results on SOP compared to PS. Without further research that
adopts a more stringent approach, it is unclear whether perception of parental care
(or lack thereof) is significantly associated with SOP.
Concern over mistakes (CoM)
Enns et al. (2000; 2002) also considered the relationship between CoM and
the two dimensions of the PBI. Both studies found evidence of a significant (at p<
.01) weak to moderate positive correlation between perceptions of parental (or
maternal) overprotection and CoM. Again there was consistency between the two
studies on the care dimension with Enns et al. (2000) finding evidence for a weak
negative correlation between perceptions of maternal care and CoM and Enns et al.
(2002) finding evidence for a weak positive correlation between perceptions of
parental lack of care1 and CoM. It is interesting to note that the positive correlation
in Enns et al. (2002) is stronger and significant at a more stringent level on this
135
subscale providing good evidence that the greater the perception of parental lack of
care, the greater the CoM reported.
Doubts over action (DoA)
Enns et al. (2000; 2002) considered the relationship between DoA and the
two subscales of the PBI in clients with depression, and in Canadian college students
retrospectively. Whilst Enns et al (2000) found no evidence for an association
between female depressed participant’s DoA and their perceptions of care from their
mothers, Enns et al. (2002) found evidence of a significant positive but weak
association between college student’s DoA and their perceptions of lack of care from
their parents (Enns et al., 2002). Enns et al. (2000; 2002) both found evidence of a
(weak to moderate) positive correlation between participant’s DoA and their
perceptions of their parents being overprotective. This relationship was stronger in
the Enns et al. (2002) study where the participants were college students and the
perceptions of mothers and fathers being overprotective were averaged.
Collectively these two studies provide evidence that participants perceptions
of overprotection by parents is associated with DoA, however it is less clear to what
extent there is an association between care and DoA. It is unclear whether the
absence of a significant association between perceptions of maternal care and DoA
in the Enns et al. (2000) study is borne of considering just women and their relation
to their mothers because when perceptions of parental lack of care (mothers and
fathers averaged) are considered in Enns et al. (2002) there is a significant positive
association with DoA. However, it is unclear why this issue of gender and parents
would impact on the DoA subscale and not any of the other subscales. Likewise the
absence of an association between perceptions of care and DoA in the Enns et al.,
(2000) study (compared to the Enns et al., 2002 study) may result from the sample
136
comprising outpatients with depression but again it is unclear why the DoA subscale
would be the only subscale affected by the differing samples. One potential
explanation is provided by evidence that severity of depression is positively
correlated with DoA (Enns & Cox, 1999) Therefore, it is possible that the depressed
participants in the Enns et al. (2000) had inflated DoA scores and that there was little
variation in DoA scores, which would make it difficult to detect a correlation with
perfectionism. However, Enns et al. (2000) do not provide any mean scores for the
perfectionism subscales so it is difficult to assess whether this suggestion can explain
the divergence in results across the two samples. Furthermore given their conceptual
similarities it is unclear why the same issue would not have beset the results on CoM
also.
Concern over mistakes and Doubts over action: Summary of findings
In keeping with the idea that CoM and DoA subscales may represent slightly
different aspects of the same construct (Stöber, 1998), the findings for the two
subscales are considered alongside each other.
The findings for perceptions of parental (or maternal) overprotection on the
PBI and both CoM and DoA are very consistent. There are significant moderately
strong, positive correlations between parental overprotection and CoM and between
parental overprotection and DoA in both studies considered (see Table 1). The
results on the care dimension of the PBI are more variable. Whilst there is consistent
evidence for an association between perceptions of care with CoM across the two
studies, the relationship between perceptions of care and DoA is inconsistent.
137
Table 1. Correlation r-values between perfectionism and parental bonding subscales
Sample
Attachment
target
PBI
(lack
of) care
PBI
overprotectio
n
SOP
Enns et al. (2000)
OD (n=138) Mother
-.22*
.36**
Enns et al. (2002)
US (n=261)
Parents
(.14*)
.18**
US (n=261)
Parents
(.04)
.10
Enns et al. (2000)
OD (n=138) Mother
-.25*
.42**
Enns et al. (2002)
US (n=261)
(.35**)
.38**
PS
Enns et al. (2002)
CoM
Parents
DoA
Enns et al. (2000)
OD (n=138) Mother
-.10
.36**
Enns et al. (2002)
US (n=261)
(.33**)
.45**
Parents
Note- *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. US- University students. OD- Outpatients
with depression. Parentheses represent correlations where the PBI care measure was
coded to represent lack of care.
Overall summary of perfectionism and parental bonding inventory
The examination of the relationships between parental bonding and
dimensions of perfectionism has provided good evidence that participants’
perception of higher levels of parental overprotection is associated with higher levels
of SOP, CoM and DoA. Furthermore, this examination has also provided good
evidence that participants’ perception of higher levels of parental lack of care is
associated with higher levels of SOP, and CoM. Notably, there was no evidence that
perceptions of parental overprotection, nor parental care were associated with PS.
138
This is interesting and may reflect the notion that high personal standards are
associated with both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Although most of the
findings reviewed are consistent and consider differing samples (in terms of
diagnosis and age), care should be taken when interpreting these results because they
represent the findings of only two separate studies, both of which were conducted in
the same country. These results may be generalizable to other Western cultures, but
there is not any evidence to support this yet.
Adult attachment
Personal standards (PS)
Two studies also investigated the relationship between personal standards
and adult attachment dimensions measured using the Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR, Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) in University students in the
USA (Rice, Lopez, & Vergara, 2005) and in a sample of athletes recruited from
Universities and sports clubs from across the UK (Shanmugam, Jowett, & Meyer,
2012). In both studies there was no significant correlation between PS and
attachment anxiety nor between PS and attachment avoidance.
High standards (HS)
Two studies considered the relationship between HS and adult attachment
dimensions (measured using the ECR) in University students in the USA
(Iannantuono & Tylka, 2012 Rice et al. 2005). Both studies found no evidence of an
association between HS and attachment anxiety. Iannantuono and Tylka found no
evidence of an association between HS and attachment avoidance, and Rice et al.
found a significant negative correlation (at p < .05) between HS and attachment
avoidance. This correlation was very weak, but suggested that higher scores for HS
was associated with lower scores for attachment avoidance.
139
Ulu and Tezer (2010) considered the relationship between HS and adult
attachment dimensions using the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994) in University students in Turkey. The RSQ asks participants to
rate their agreement with four subscales that represent four different adult attachment
styles secure (most optimal), preoccupied, dismissing and fearful. The RSQ had been
translated in to Turkish previously and was found to be reliable and valid (Sümer &
Güngör, 1999). The authors adapted the RSQ so that it produced dimensional
measures attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance by performing the following
calculations avoidance = (fearful + dismissive) − (preoccupied + secure); anxiety =
(preoccupied + fearful) − (secured + dismissing). This approach was supported by a
factor analysis (Kurdek, 2002). Ulu and Tezer found no evidence of an association
between HS and attachment anxiety nor any evidence of an association between HS
and attachment avoidance as measured by the RSQ. Considering the results from
these three studies these it appears that there is very little evidence of a correlation
between attachment dimensions and HS. However, given the adaption made to the
RSQ it is important to be wary in interpreting the absence of significant findings in
this study.
Only one study provided evidence of a correlation between attachment
avoidance and HS, and it is unclear if this correlation is meaningful. Rice et al.
measured 13 variables and considered the 78 correlations of these variables, without
adjusting the significance level to reduce type 1 error. Results are only reported in
terms of whether they reach conventional significance levels of p < .05, so it is
unclear whether these findings are significant if a more stringent p value is adopted.
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP)
Reis and Grenyer (2002) investigated the relationship between SOP and
140
attachment in University students in Australia. Attachment to partner was measured
using the RSQ. There was no significant association between SOP and secure, nor
SOP and dismissing styles. However, there was a significant weak positive
correlation between SOP and preoccupied attachment subscales and between SOP
and fearful attachment subscales. More recent measures of adult attachment styles
(e.g., ECR; Brennan, et al., 1998) consider attachment to be best represented by the
crossing of two dimensions: attachment anxiety (anxiety about abandonment) and
attachment avoidance (avoidance of intimacy). These two dimensions can be applied
to the categorical views of attachment style such that: secure represents low
attachment anxiety, low attachment avoidance; preoccupied represents high
attachment anxiety, low attachment avoidance; dismissing represents low attachment
anxiety, high attachment avoidance; and fearful represents high attachment anxiety,
high attachment avoidance. Thus Reis and Grenyer’s findings could be interpreted to
suggest that higher attachment anxiety is associated with SOP because higher
attachment anxiety is associated with both preoccupied and fearful attachment styles.
However, the RSQ does not categorise individuals into attachment styles, it simply
asks them to rate their agreement with items pertaining to each of the four styles and
so this interpretation should be viewed cautiously. Furthermore, the RSQ has lower
reliability and validity than other measures of attachment according to Ravitz et al.
(2010) and within this study the internal reliability of the secure and dismissive
scales were low (alpha=.48 and .50 respectively), so this could explain the lack of
correlations in these subscales. In summary, the idea that attachment anxiety is
associated with SOP should be viewed cautiously unless this finding is replicated in
other studies.
Rice et al. (2005) investigated the association between SOP and adult
141
attachment style using the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998), in University students in the
USA. There was no significant association between SOP and attachment anxiety nor
between the SOP and attachment avoidance. Overall there is a mixed picture as to
whether SOP is associated with adult attachment. There was some tentative evidence
that there may be an association between attachment anxiety and SOP but Rice et al.
(2005) did not replicate this finding.
Composite Personal standards (SOP and PS)
Dunkley, Berg, and Zuroff, (2012) investigated the relationship between
perfectionism and attachment in Canadian University students. They used a two
factor model of perfectionism derived from a factor analysis of the Depressive
experiences Questionnaire, (DEQ: Blatt, D'Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976) the F-MPS
(Frost et al., 1990) and the H-MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The two-factors were
Personal standards (comprised of SOP and PS) and Self-criticism (comprised of
DoA, COM, SPP, and DEQ). The self-criticism factor is comprised of subscales of
perfectionism that we have excluded from our analysis (SPP) for reasons outlined
above, therefore we focus only on the Personal standards composite scale (PScomp).
Dunkley et al. (2012) measured attachment using a version of the RSQ
(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) specifically focusing on the subscales from Collin
and Read (1990) which are fear of closeness, fear of dependency and fear of loss.
Brennan, et al., (1998) note that fear of closeness and fear of dependency both
correlate with attachment avoidance and fear of loss correlates with attachment
anxiety.
The results reveal significant weak positive correlations of PScomp with fear
of dependency and fear of closeness (both of which are associated with attachment
avoidance) and a significant but very weak correlation between PScomp and fear of
142
loss (associated with attachment anxiety). Consequently these results could be
viewed as evidence that PScomp is weakly associated with attachment avoidance
and very weakly associated with attachment anxiety.
Self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards and high standards:
Summary of findings
Given that SOP, PS and HS subscales are all measure high personal standards
it is pertinent to consider these findings in relation to each other. Examining the
results collectively there is little evidence that adult attachment dimensions are
related to high personal standards. Considering those studies that used the ECR and
the RSQ there is no evidence that attachment anxiety is associated with high
personal standards, and scant evidence that attachment avoidance is associated with
high personal standards (only one very weak negative correlation at p < .05 in a
study that did not adjust for multiple correlations).
The remaining studies that considered whether there is an association
between attachment and HS and PS used measures of attachment that are more
difficult to consider simply in terms of attachment avoidance and anxiety. Rice et al.
(2005) provided evidence that SOP was significantly positively associated with
preoccupied and fearful styles of attachment, albeit weakly, and this pattern may
reflect that higher levels of attachment anxiety are associated with higher personal
standards. Dunkley et al. (2012) found a weak but highly significant association
between a composite of SOP and PS with fear of dependency and fear of closeness
(both avoidance), and weaker and less significant relationship with fear of loss
(anxiety).
Collectively these findings seem to suggest that there is little evidence for
associations between high personal standards and attachment. However, there is
143
better evidence of an association between SOP and attachment anxiety and
avoidance. SOP is not a pure measure of high standards, it also measures stringently
evaluating and critiquing one's own performance and striving to avoid failure. This
suggests that it may be the additional concepts captured by SOP that are not apparent
in HS or PS subscales, which may be responsible for this relationship. However, this
interpretation should be viewed cautiously because the studies that provide evidence
for a relationship between SOP and attachment both use less reliable measures of
attachment (Ravitz et al., 2010). It is possible that the discrepancy subscale of the
APS may be similar to the SOP in terms of capturing the evaluation and critique of
an individual’s own performance and so considering the results on the discrepancy
subscale may provide supportive evidence for a relationship between monitoring and
evaluating performance and attachment.
Discrepancy (D)
Four studies considered the relationship between D and adult attachment
dimensions (using the ECR) in University students in the USA (Iannantuono &
Tylka, 2012; Rice et al., 2005; Wei, Heppner, Russell, & Young, 2006; Wei,
Mallinckrodt, Russell, & Abraham, 2004). All of these studies found significant
positive but weak correlations between attachment avoidance and D and all
demonstrated significant positive correlations (that varied in strength from weak to
moderately strong) between attachment anxiety and D (Iannantuono & Tylka, 2012;
Rice et al., 2005; Wei et al., 2004; 2006) 2. Ulu and Tezer (2010) also found
2
Wei et al. (2004; 2006) were testing a structural equation model with other
variables and so they split attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety variables in
to 3 parcels. Therefore for Wei et al. (2004), there were three correlations with each
attachment dimension for each perfectionism subscale. In Wei et al. (2006),
discrepancy was also split into 3 parcels resulting in nine correlations considering
144
evidence of significant weak positive correlation between D and attachment
avoidance and significant moderate positive correlation between D and attachment
anxiety when attachment was measured using an adapted RSQ in a sample of
Turkish University students.
The studies reviewed provide very good evidence of significant positive
correlations between discrepancy and both attachment anxiety and attachment
avoidance. The relationship between discrepancy and attachment anxiety seems to be
stronger than the relationship between discrepancy and attachment avoidance. This
evidence is consistent with the same relationships found with two different measures
of attachment, and in both US and Turkish samples, however, it is noteworthy that
all samples are University students and so replication with an alternative sample to
test the generalizability of this finding would be useful.
Discrepancy and Self-oriented perfectionism: Summary of findings
It is worth comparing the findings on discrepancy and SOP because the
subscales share some conceptual similarities. Although the findings on SOP are
tentative there was evidence that SOP is significant positively correlated with higher
levels of attachment anxiety (preoccupied and fearful) and PScomp (SOP and PS)
scale is significantly positively correlated with attachment anxiety (fear of loss) and
with attachment avoidance (fear of dependency and fear of closeness). These
findings are strengthened by the conceptual replication of these findings on the
discrepancy subscale.
Concern over mistakes (CoM)
Rice et al. (2005) and Wei et al. (2004) considered the relationship between
discrepancy and attachment anxiety and nine correlations considering discrepancy
and attachment avoidance.
145
CoM and adult attachment dimensions (measured using the ECR) in University
students in the USA. Both studies revealed significant weak positive correlations
between CoM and attachment anxiety and CoM and attachment avoidance.
Doubts over action (DoA)
Two studies considered the relationship between DoA and adult attachment
dimensions (measured using the ECR) in University students in the USA (Rice et al.,
2005; Wei et al., 2004). Both studies revealed significant weak positive correlations
between DoA and attachment anxiety and DoA and attachment avoidance.
Concern over mistakes and Doubts over action: Summary of findings
In keeping with Stöber’s (1998) proposal that CoM and DoA are related
constructs it is pertinent to consider these results alongside each other. All of the
results reviewed on these subscales provide consistent evidence of significant weak
positive associations between CoM and DoA with both attachment anxiety and
attachment avoidance. However, it is notable that all of these studies used the ECR
and used University students as a sample so these results are replicable but lack
generalizability.
Overall summary of perfectionism and adult attachment
The examination of the relationships between attachment and dimensions of
perfectionism has provided good evidence that both higher levels of attachment
anxiety and avoidance are associated with higher levels of CoM, DoA and D. There
was some evidence that the relationship between attachment anxiety was stronger,
particularly in relation to the discrepancy subscale. Notably, there was little evidence
that either attachment anxiety or avoidance were associated with PS or HS but there
was some evidence that attachment dimensions are associated with SOP. This is
interesting and may reflect the notion that high standards are associated with both
146
Table 2. Correlation r-values between perfectionism and adult attachment subscales
Sample
Attachment ECRtarget
anxious
ECRRSQavoidanc
anxious
e
RSQFear of
Fear of
avoidanc dependen
loss
e
cy
Fear of
Secure
closeness
Preoccup Dissimiss
Fearful
ied
ing
SOP
Reis and Grenyer (2002)
Rice et al. (2005)
US
(n=245)
Students
(n=241)
Partner
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.09
.24**
-.02
.17***
Partner
.08
.03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PS
Rice et al. (2005)
Students
(n=241)
Partner
.04
<. 01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shanmugam et al. (2012)
US,
athletes
(n=411)
general,
partners,
coaches
teammat
es
.40
.80
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partners
-.08
-.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partner
-.08
-.12*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partner
-
-
.10
-.20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Close
others
-
-
-
-
.36***
.16*
.30***
-
-
-
-
Partners
.44***
.26***
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partner
.36*
.36*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ECRavoida
RSQanxio
RSQavoida
Fear
of
Fear of
loss
HS
Iannantunono and Tylka
(2012)
Rice et al. (2005)
Ulu and Tezer, (2010)
US
(n=249)
Students
(n=241)
US
(n=604)
PScomp
Dunkley et al. (2012)
D
Iannantunono and Tylka
(2012)
Rice et al. (2005)
US
(n=163)
US
(n=249)
Students
(n=241)
Sample
Attachme
nt target
ECRanxiou
Fear
of
Secur
e
Preocc
upied
Dissi
missi
Fearf
ul
147
Ulu and Tezer (2010)
Wei et al. (2006)
Wei et al. (2004)
US
(n=604
)
s
nce
us
nce
depen
dency
-
-
.40**
.25**
-
.48***
.48***
.49***.
49***
.49***
.49***.
52***
.53***
.55***
.38**
.39**
.41**
.17***
.18***.
19***
.19***
.20***
.21***.
21***
.22***.
23***
.32**
.24**
.21**
Partner
.28*
Partner
Partner
US
(n=372
)
Partner
US
(n=310
)
Partner
closen
ess
ng
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.25*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.37**
.34**
.33**
.27**
.21**
.20**
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partner
.35*
.28*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Partner
.32**
.33**
.32**
.34**
.27**
.23**
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
COM
Rice et al. (2005)
Wei et al. (2004)
Student
s
(n=241
)
US
(n=310
)
DOA
Rice et al. (2005)
Wei et al. (2004)
Student
s
(n=241
)
US
(n=310
)
Note- *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. US-University students. Dashes represent correlations that were untested or unreported.
148
adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Although most of the findings reviewed are
very consistent, they predominantly consider University students in Western cultures
and so care should be taken when interpreting these results because they warrant
replication in more diverse samples.
Discussion
In summary, the literature reviewed provides good evidence for a relationship
between some elements of perfectionism and parental bonding and good evidence for
a relationship between some elements of perfectionism and adult attachment.
Specifically, Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP), Concern over mistakes (CoM) and
Doubts over action (DoA) are positively associated with perceived parental
overprotection, and SOP and CoM are positively associated with perceived parental
lack of care. Similarly, CoM, DoA, and Discrepancy (D) are positively associated
with attachment avoidance and anxiety. There is some evidence that SOP is positively
associated with attachment dimensions, including fear of loss, dependency and
closeness, and preoccupied, and fearful attachment styles. Interestingly, there is little
evidence that Personal standards (PS), or High standards (HS) are associated with
parental bonding or adult attachment. It is interesting to note the consistency of the
findings on parental bonding and attachment, especially when it is noted that there
were no measures of discrepancy taken in the studies of parental bonding. This
consistency is notable because the parental bonding inventory is not a measure of
attachment per se, but a retrospective measure of early experience that may capture
some of the experiences that lead to the formation of attachment security or
insecurity.
Theoretical implications
Defining perfectionism
149
Hamachek (1978) highlighted that high standards were necessary but not
sufficient to define maladaptive perfectionism. Similarly Shafran and Mansell (2001)
noted that the perfectionism was characterised by the pursuit of excessively high
standards and a rigid adherence to them. Recently Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein,
(2003) factor analysed the F-MPS, H-MPS with the DEQ in an attempt to identify the
factors underlying perfectionism. This produced 2 factors: High standards (SOP and
PS) and Self-criticism (DEQ, DoA, CoM, SPP). Interestingly those measures of
perfectionism that tap self-critical/evaluative perfectionism seem to be more
associated with psychological problems than perfectionism defined by high standards
(Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006; Stöber & Otto, 2006). This review
considers different subscales to Dunkley et al., and seems to highlight three
dimensions of perfectionism High standards (PS and HS), Monitoring, evaluation and
criticism of whether standards are met (D and SOP), and Concerns and doubts (CoM
and DoA). Interestingly the last two factors seem to capture self-critical evaluative
aspects of perfectionism and the subscales proposed to be in these factors are those
most reliably associated with attachment dimensions, supporting the idea that insecure
attachment is associated with maladaptive perfectionism. Considering the findings of
this review in a broader theoretical context suggests that high standards are not
associated with adult attachment nor with maladaptive perfectionism, but that selfcritical and evaluative aspects of perfectionism are associated with both attachment
and maladaptive perfectionism.
Development of perfectionism
The findings of this review strongly suggest that aspects of maladaptive
perfectionism are associated with adult attachment style. Scholars have previously
argued that a variety of different types of early experience may contribute to the
150
development of perfectionism, (Barrow & Moore, 1983; Flett et al., 2002).
Specifically, anxious rearing where parents promote a focus on mistakes and are
overly critical, or provide inconsistent approval could all lead to the development of
an anxious attachment style. Whereas, parental approval being absent or inconsistent,
a harsh environment with difficult early experiences such as abuse, maltreatment or
withdrawal of love, could lead to the development of a more avoidant attachment
style. Indeed in both cases perfectionism could develop as a coping strategy in order
to try and maintain and achieve love and affection, or in an attempt to avoid
punishment or withdrawal of love. However, the findings of this review do not
demonstrate a causal direction or explain this relationship but represents an important
step in considering the relationship between attachment and perfectionism.
Limitations and implications for future research
Diversity of samples
Both studies that considered parental bonding and perfectionism were
conducted in Canada, either with depressed patients or with University students. This
variation in samples allowed for some variation in age, but in both samples women
were a majority. All of the studies that considered adult attachment and perfectionism
were conducted in University students, this means the samples were predominantly
well-educated, White, female and between the ages of 18-22. Furthermore, most of
the studies were conducted in Westernised cultures, therefore, future work should
look to increase the diversity of the populations considered, targeting populations that
are experiencing psychological distress and those from different cultural backgrounds.
Self-report measures
All of the studies included in this review used self-report measures of parental
bonding, attachment, and perfectionism. This is in part borne of the inclusion criteria
151
identified. A dimensional measure of attachment was specified, however, a byproduct of this decision is that this may have excluded studies that contained
interviewer-assessed measures of attachment because these are typically scored
categorically. Similarly all of the measures of perfectionism included in this report are
self-report measures of perfectionism, this is representative of the measures of
perfectionism available. The use of self-report measures means that biases such as
social desirability can affect the validity of the results. Future work should consider
whether the relationship between attachment, parental bonding and perfectionism is
replicated on interviewer-assessed measures of attachment.
Correlational designs
All of the results reviewed are correlational in nature. As a result the causal
directions and specific mechanisms are unclear and unspecified. Some of the studies
reviewed used more complex regression modelling such as SEM or moderated
regressions in an attempt to better specify these relationships. However, studies that
use these types of techniques tended to address questions that are outside the remit of
this review. It is clear that some elements of perfectionism are related to parental
bonding and adult attachment, however the causal pathways between attachment and
perfectionism warrant further research.
Cross-sectional data
All of the studies reviewed considered cross-sectional data on attachment and
perfectionism. Given that attachment style develops early in life and is moderately
stable until early adulthood (Fraley, 2002) a longitudinal design may be better able to
capture the causal relationships between attachment and perfectionism. The studies
that use the PBI arguably capture some early experience as the PBI is a retrospective
measure of earlier parenting. However, this measure is not without fault and its
152
retrospective nature means that it may be biased by the individual’s memory of their
parenting. Future work should attempt to consider the relationships between
attachment and perfectionism in a longitudinal manner to help elucidate the causal
relationship.
Experimental investigations
None of the studies identified by this review adopted an experimental
approach. An experimental investigation could provide a means of assessing the
causal relationship between attachment and perfectionism. Although it is not possible
to manipulate attachment style, a variety of mechanisms have been used to activate
attachment style, usually via priming an attachment threat (e.g., Crisp et al., 2009;
Mikiluncer, Birnbaum, Woddis & Nachmias, 2000). Attachment moderated
behaviours are often observed under conditions of attachment-related threat (Fraley &
Shaver, 1998) so it would be possible to investigate whether following an attachment
threat, those individuals with an insecure attachment style, endorse aspects of
perfectionism more strongly and engage in more perfectionistic behaviour.
Conclusion
This review assessed whether perfectionism was related to early experiences
of parenting and attachment style. The literature reviewed provided evidence that
Concern over mistakes, Doubts over actions, Discrepancy, and Self-oriented
perfectionism were correlated with early experiences of parental bonding and
attachment style whereas high standards and personal standards were not. However,
the studies reviewed were limited in their generalizability and the causal nature of the
relationship is underspecified and so future work should seek to address these issues.
153
References
Ainsworth. M. D. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the
Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44,
709-716. doi: 10.1037%2F%2F0003-066X.44.4.709
Barrow, J. C., & Moore, C. A. (1983). Group interventions with perfectionist
thinking. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 612– 615.
doi:10.1111%2Fj.2164-4918.1983.tb00008.x
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%2F%2F0021-843X.85.4.383
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: an integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.)
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford.
Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: the new mood therapy. New York: New American
Library.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 58, 644–63. doi: 10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.58.4.644
Crisp, R. J., Farrow, C. V., Rosenthal, H. E. S., Walsh, J., Blisset, J., & Penn, M. K.
(2009). Interpersonal attachment predicts identification with groups. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 115–122. doi10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.006
154
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%2F%2F0022-3514.84.1.234
Dunkley, D. M., Berg, J.-L., & Zuroff, D. C. (2012). The Role of Perfectionism in
Daily Self-Esteem, Attachment, and Negative Affect. Journal of Personality 80
(3), 633-663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00741.x
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%2Fj.brat.2004.12.004
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic
process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212. doi:
0.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009.
Enns, M.W., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Perfectionism and depression symptom severity in
major depressive disorder. Behavior Research & Therapy, 37, 783-94.
doi:10.1016%2FS0005-7967%2898%2900188-0
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). Nature and assessment of perfectionism. In G. L.
Flett & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment (pp.
33−62).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Enns, M.W., Cox, B. J. & Clara, (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism:
developmental origins and association with depression proneness. Personality
and Individual Differences 33, 921–935. doi:10.1016%2FS01918869%2801%2900202-1
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Larsen, D. K. (2000). Perceptions of parental bonding and
155
symptom severity in adults with depression: Mediation by personality
dimensions. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 263–268. doi: not available.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis
and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 123-151. doi:10.1207%2FS15327957PSPR0602_03
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. doi:
10.1007%2FBF01172967
George, C., Kaplan, N. & Main, M. (1996). Adult attachment interview. Unpublished
manuscript.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The
case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew and D. Perlman (Eds.) Advances in
personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment process in adulthood (pp. 17–52).
London: Kingsley.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in
Children and Their Parents: A Developmental Analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L.
Hewitt (Eds.). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89-132).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 27– 33. doi: not avaliable
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987) Romantic Love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
doi:10.1037%2F%2F0022-3514.52.3.511
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
156
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. doi:10.1037%2F%2F00223514.60.3.456
Iannantuono, A. C. & Tylka, T. L. (2012). Interpersonal and intrapersonal links to
body appreciation in college women: An exploratory model. Body Image, 9, 227–
235. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.004.
Kurdek, L. A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 811–834. doi:
10.1177%2F0265407502196005
Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and
accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and
intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 509–523. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.509.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Measurement of attachment-related
constructs in adulthood. In Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and
change (pp. 81–115). New York: Guilford Press.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390.
doi:10.1037%2F%2F0003-066X.39.4.386
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10. doi:10.1111%2Fj.20448341.1979.tb02487.x
Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult
attachment measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 69,
419–432. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006
Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. F. S. (2002). Pathways to anaclitic and introjective
depression. Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, research & Practice, 75, 445-
157
459. doi: 10.1348%2F147608302321151934
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Gallant, L., Talbot, F., &
Vallières, A. (2000). Functional and dysfunctional perfectionists: Are they
different on compulsive-like behaviors? Behaviour Research & Therapy, 38,
119–128. doi: 10.1016%2FS0005-7967%2898%2900203-4
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influences on
perfectionism and adult attachment orientations. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 580–605. doi:10.1521%2Fjscp.2005.24.4.580
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238–250. doi: 10.1037%2F%2F00220167.47.2.238
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of
research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879−906. doi:
10.1016%2FS0272-7358%2800%2900072-6
Shanmugam, V., Jowett, S., & Meyer, C. (2012). Eating Psychopathology amongst
athletes: Links to current attachment styles. Eating Behaviors, 13, 5-12. doi:
10.1016%2Fj.eatbeh.2011.09.004
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. doi: not available.
Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: More perfect with
four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(4),
481-491. doi: 10.1016%2FS0191-8869%2897%2900207-9
Stöber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.
158
doi: 10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr1004_2
Sroufe, L. A. (1979). The coherence of individual development: Early care,
attachment, and subsequent developmental issues. American Psychologist, 34,
834-841. doi:10.1037%2F%2F0003-066X.34.10.834
Sümer, N., & Güngör, D. (1999). Yetişkin bağlanma stillerinin Türk örneklemi
üzerinde psikometrik değerlendirmesi ve kültürler arası bir karşılaştırma. Türk
Psikoloji Dergisi, 14(43), 71-106. doi: not avaliable
Ulu, İ. P., & Tezer, E. (2010). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, adult
attachment, and big five personality traits. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 144, 327-340.
doi:10.1080%2F00223981003784032
Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, T. W. (2004). Maladaptive
perfectionism as a mediator and moderator between attachment and negative
mood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 201–212. doi: not available.
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Young, S. K. (2006). Maladaptive
perfectionism and ineffective coping as mediators between attachment and
subsequent depression: A prospective analyses. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 67-79. doi: not available.
159
Clinical Experience
An overview of the clinical experiences gained on placement.
160
Year 1
I spent the first year of training in a Community Mental Health and Recovery
Service for working age adults. I worked with individuals with diagnoses of Complex
trauma, PTSD, bipolar affective disorder, low self-esteem, borderline personality
disorder, avoidant personality disorder, psychosis, obsessive compulsive disorderhoarding, social phobia, agoraphobia, and emetophobia. I worked with individuals
with underlying autistic spectrum disorders, and with individuals whose attachment
style and relationships were affected by an attachment figure having a probable
autistic spectrum condition. I used a variety of therapeutic interventions including
psychoeducation, CBT, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, Mindfulness, and
Compassion-focussed therapy. I co-facilitated two groups: a four-week Understanding
Personality Disorder group and an eight-week Mindfulness group. I also conducted a
neuropsychological assessment to consider whether a woman with longstanding
hoarding disorder was experiencing the onset of dementia.
I taught the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) about motivational interviewing
and taught carers about communication skills. I also conducted an audit to consider
whether the team were NICE guideline compliant in their management of individuals
with schizophrenia/psychosis and shared the findings with the team. I attended a
variety of team meetings including business meetings and allocations meetings, and
team reflective meetings. I also attended local psychology meetings, carer support
groups and the Forum for Carers and people who use services.
Year 2
My second placement was in a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service. I
worked with a number of children, adolescents, parents and teachers to help support
young people with a range of presentations including chronic pain, anxiety, low
161
mood, ADHD, autistic spectrum conditions, obsessive compulsive disorder, and
anger. I used both second wave CBT approaches and third approaches including ACT
and Mindfulness.
I conducted two neuropsychological assessments: one with an adolescent girl
who was presenting with anger, but had attention and memory difficulties and one
with an adolescent boy with a history of epilepsy who described having difficulties
with his memory. I also conducted a school observation and formulated the child’s
difficulties and shared this with the parents and school. I also supervised an assistant
psychologist to complete a school observation. I taught Year 10 pupils about anxiety
in a school-setting with a primary mental health worker. I also attended regular team
meetings, and psychology local area meetings and service-user group meetings and
observed social work consultation meetings.
My third placement was in an Older People’s Community Mental Health
Team. I worked with a gentleman who had been experiencing depression since his
retirement using a CBT approach and with a woman with bipolar affective disorder
who was experiencing depression and anxiety. On an inpatient ward for older adults
with mental health difficulties I provided weekly CBT groups for anxiety, depression
and grief and a recovery group. I taught the ward staff about the nature of the groups
and what would make an appropriate referral.
I also conducted neuropsychological assessments of two women who were
concerned that they had developed dementia. Both women had longstanding mental
health difficulties. I also helped to setup team formulation meetings to help facilitate
the MDT understanding of the service-users difficulties.
Year 3
My fourth placement was in a Chronic Pain out-patient team. In this
162
placement I worked with a number of individuals, and couples with a variety of types
of pain disorders, and co-morbid diagnoses including complex regional pain
syndrome, chronic fatigue, chronic pelvic pain, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, and
borderline personality disorder. I used both second-wave CBT approaches and third
wave approaches such as mindfulness and ACT. I co-facilitated an eight-week Living
with Pain course with a physiotherapist and my supervisor.
I lead a case formulation and discussion group with the MDT and designed
and delivered a workshop on Depression and chronic pain to service-users. I also
worked in more generic health settings. I observed a neuropsychologist conduct an
assessment on the stroke ward and I co-facilitated a level two psychological skills
training in CBT for oncology nurses. In addition I worked therapeutically with a
diabetic woman to address her fear of needles. I also supervised an assistant
psychologist to develop some leaflets as a piece of service development work.
My final placement was in Community Team for People with Learning
Disabilities. Within this placement I worked with individuals, their families and
carer’s and with day services and residential homes. I worked with people with a
range of learning difficulties including Angelman’s syndrome, Down’s syndrome,
foetal alcohol spectrum conditions, and Autism and other conditions including
epilepsy, hydrocephalus, and bipolar affective disorder. I developed and shared
formulations with a number of clients for a variety of difficulties including loneliness,
gambling, and anger and conducted a systemic intervention with a care home. I also
conducted a range of neuropsychological assessment to assess service-users strengths
and weaknesses as part of dementia, and autism assessments. I supervised an assistant
psychologist to complete a joint piece of work to understand a challenging behaviour.
163
Assessments
164
Year I Assessments
PROGRAMME
COMPONENT
Fundamentals of Theory
and Practice in Clinical
Psychology (FTPCP)
Practice case report
Problem Based Learning
– Reflective Account
Research – Literature
Review
Adult – case report
Adult – case report
Research – Qualitative
Research Project
Research – Major
Research Project
Proposal
TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT
Short report of WAIS-IV data and practice
administration
Assessment and formulation of a young woman with
PTSD.
Reflective account of personal and professional learning
from the process of completing a group problem-based
learning task.
Perfectionism, parental bonding and attachment.
Assessment and intervention of an individual with
complex trauma.
Neuropsychological assessment of memory difficulties
What do First Year Clinical Psychology Trainees Think
about Clinical Supervision?
Can compassionate-imagery reduce perfectionist’s
experience of shame?
Year II Assessments
PROGRAMME
COMPONENT
Research - SRRP
Research
Professional Issues
Essay
Problem Based
Learning – Reflective
Account
Child and Family –
Case Report
Personal and
Professional Learning
TITLE OF ASSESSMENT
NICE guidelines audit of psychological and psychosocial
interventions being offered to those with Schizophrenia in
a CMHRS.
Research Methods and Statistics test
Critically explore the statement that clinical psychology
should “move away from psychiatric diagnoses…., which
have significant conceptual and empirical limitations, and
develop alternative approaches which recognise the
centrality of the complex range of life experiences…”
(Position Statement on the Classification of Behaviour
and Experience in Relation to Functional Psychiatric
Diagnoses: Time for a Paradigm Shift, BPS, 2013).
Reflective account of personal and professional learning
from the process of completing a group problem-based
learning task.
Assessment and intervention of a young person with
chronic pain, fatigue and anxiety.
A reflective account of the personal and professional
learning discussion group process.
165
Discussion Groups –
Process Account
Older People – Oral
Presentation of Clinical
Activity
Case consultation skills.
Year III Assessments
PROGRAMME
COMPONENT
Research – MRP
Portfolio
Personal and
Professional Learning –
Final Reflective
Account
Specialist – Case
Report
ASSESSMENT TITLE
Perfectionism, Failure and Self-conscious Emotions: A
role for Self-compassion?
On becoming a clinical psychologist: A retrospective,
developmental, reflective account of the experience of
training.
Exposure therapy with a young woman with needle
phobia and type 1 diabetes.
166