POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT IN ADOLESCENTS: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE 2 X 2 MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM

ABSTRACTResearch on the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism and affect is still limited. Following a variable-centered approach, the present study investigated in a sample of 576 adolescents whether self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) predicted positive and negative affect, comparing four subtypes of perfectionism: pure SOP, pure SPP, mixed perfectionism, and non- perfectionism. Regarding positive affect, all four subtypes differed: Pure SOP predicted the highest levels of positive affect followed by mixed perfectionism, non- perfectionism, and pure SPP. Regarding negative affect, pure SPP and mixed perfectionism predicted higher levels of negative affect than pure SOP and non- perfectionism, but pure SPP did not differ from mixed perfectionism (and pure SOP not from non-perfectionism). Implications of the findings for the 2 x 2 model are discussed.KEYWORDS: perfectionism; self-oriented perfectionism; socially prescribed perfectionism; affect; adolescencePerfectionism is a personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by overly critical evaluations of one's behavior and concerns about negative evaluation and rejection by others if one fails to be perfect (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Over the past 20 years, research has produced converging evidence that perfectionism has different facets and is best conceptualized as a multidimensional disposition (e.g., Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; R. W. Hill et al., 2004; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001; see Enns & Cox, 2002, for a review). Two-Factor Model and Tripartite ModelIn particular, two dimensions of perfectionism need to be differentiated-personal standards perfectionism (PSP) and evaluative concerns perfectionism (ECP)- following evidence from factor analytic studies that suggest a two-factor model of perfectionism (e.g., Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004; Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). PSP (also termed perfectionistic strivings) captures those aspects of perfectionism associated with self-oriented striving for perfection and setting exceedingly high personal standards of performance. In contrast, ECP (also termed perfectionistic concerns) captures those aspects of perfectionism associated with concerns over making mistakes, feelings of discrepancy between one's expectations and performance, and fears of negative social evaluation. Even though the two dimensions are positively correlated and often show considerable overlap, they show different, sometimes opposite relationships. ECP consistently shows positive correlations with characteristics, processes, and outcomes that are generally considered "maladaptive" (e.g., neuroticism, avoidant coping, negative affect), which suggests that ECP captures aspects of perfectionism that are maladaptive. In contrast, PSP often shows positive correlations with characteristics, processes, and outcomes that are generally considered "adaptive" (e.g., conscientiousness, problem-focused coping, positive affect), particularly when the negative influence of ECP is controlled for (R. W. Hill, Huelsman, & Araujo, 2010), which suggests that PSP captures aspects of perfectionism that may be adaptive (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a comprehensive review). Most researchers investigating adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism follow a variable-centered approach investigating individual differences in the two dimensions. Some researchers, however, follow a person- centered approach investigating differences between different subtypes of perfectionists. In the latter approach, the most prevalent model is a tripartite model of perfectionism (e.g., Parker, 1997; Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice & Slaney, 2002). Today's most prominent tripartite model is Rice and Ashby's (2007). …