Multidimensional Perfectionism, Coping, and Depression: Differential Prediction of Depression Symptoms by Perfectionism Type

Over the last few decades, perfectionism has gained prominence as both a significant and relatively stable trait that influences how college students deal with difficulties and maneuver through life (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). In a 1995 survey conducted by the Research Consortium of Counseling and Psychological Services to Higher Education, a significant proportion of college student counseling clients (more than 26% of the female and 21% of the male clients) reported that perfectionism was "quite distressing or extremely distressing" to them. A number of authors have called attention to the elevated levels of perfectionism in individuals with a range of psychological disorders, including anxiety disorders (e.g., Frost, Novara, & Rheaume, 2002) and depression (e.g., Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2004), with many of these studies using college students as study participants. In addition, Blatt, Zuroff, Bondi, Sanislow, and Pilkonis (1998) found that higher pretreatment levels of perfectionism predicted lower responsivity to standard psychological treatments for depression. Consequently, it has been argued that clinicians must treat perfectionism to effectively reduce symptoms resulting from a number of psychological issues, such as depression (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004). Although a substantial body of research has focused on the negative and destructive aspects of perfectionism, there is mounting evidence to support a multidimensional view of perfectionism that includes both negative and positive dimensions (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a review). One of the initial proponents of a multidimensional conceptualization of perfectionism was Hamachek (1978), who theorized that "neurotic" perfectionists are those who hold exceedingly high standards and feel like failures if their lofty goals are not perfectly met. In contrast, "normal" perfectionists are those who hold high standards, but who are able to experience a level of challenge and satisfaction even if goals are not achieved. Consistent with Hamachek's early conceptual work, Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, and Ashby (2001) identified two factors, adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, which correspond to Hamachek's normal and neurotic perfectionists, respectively. This line of research has garnered increasing evidence to support that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism can be distinguished from each other in various ways (e.g., Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998; Rice & Slaney, 2002). A number of recent studies (e.g., Rice & Ashby, 2007) have identified groups of healthy, referred to as adaptive, and unhealthy, referred to as maladaptive, perfectionists using college student samples. Results of these studies suggest that all perfectionists hold very high standards and strive to meet those standards. The perfectionist groups differ in their experiences of discrepancy--the individual's perception, and resulting experience, of the difference between his or her expected performance and actual performance. Consistent with this line of thought, maladaptive perfectionists possess high standards, view their accomplishments as consistently falling short of their lofty goals, and experience distress as a result. Adaptive perfectionists also hold high standards but are more flexible in their personal evaluations and experience little distress as a result. Adaptive perfectionists experience satisfaction with accomplishments, which leads to a more positive self-view. In support of this adaptive/ maladaptive distinction in perfectionism, the results of a number of studies have supported an empirical link between maladaptive perfectionism and negative outcomes, such as negative emotions (Frost, Benton, & Dowrick, 1990), suicide (Blatt, 1995), and depression (Frost, Benton, et ah, 1990). Several researchers have explored the relationship between adaptive perfectionism and positive outcomes in college student samples. …