When perfectionism is coupled with low achievement: The effects on academic engagement and help seeking in middle school

Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

When perfectionism is coupled with low achievement: The effects on academic engagement and help seeking in middle school Sungok Serena Shim ⁎, Lisa DaVia Rubenstein, Christopher W. Drapeau Department of Educational Psychology, Teachers' College, 2000 W. University Ave., Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 January 2015 Received in revised form 21 September 2015 Accepted 22 December 2015 Keywords: Personal standards Concern over mistakes Perfectionism Academic help-seeking behavior among peers Academic engagement Early adolescence Middle school

a b s t r a c t With a sample of 169 middle school students, the current study examined how two dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., personal standards [PS] and concern over mistakes [COM]) are related to academic engagement and help seeking behavior among peers in math classes. After controlling for gender and math achievement, COM was unrelated to most outcome variables but was positively related to avoidance of help seeking. This pattern was stronger among students with low PS. While PS was related to a desirable pattern of engagement (i.e., higher behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and adaptive help seeking among peers), this was not the case for low-achieving students. Although modest in magnitude, the significant interactions suggested that PS did not buffer low-achieving students against expedient help seeking and disruptive behaviors. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Perfectionism is a personality disposition, which involves the tendency to strive for challenging goals and evaluate one's performance in an overly critical manner (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Despite various labels across different research programs, some degree of consensus among researchers regarding the advantages and disadvantages of perfectionism sub-dimensions has emerged. Yet, the field has not reached a firm conclusion over this issue, calling for further research. We heed this call and address a few important issues that have been underexamined in the perfectionism literature. First, although much of the perfectionism literature has focused on psychological well-being, we extend the literature by focusing on the potential association between perfectionism and academic functioning. Perfectionism, by definition, involves attitudes (i.e., views toward making errors) and behaviors (i.e., goal setting) that can impact academic performance. There have been studies that examined academic motivation in relation to perfectionism (e.g., Bong, Hwang, Noh, & Kim, 2014; Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2012; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007), but relatively less attention has been paid to how

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.S. Shim), [email protected] (L.D. Rubenstein), [email protected] (C.W. Drapeau).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.016 1041-6080/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

perfectionism characteristics are related to classroom engagement behavior. Second, we are considering student achievement level as a potential moderator. Perfectionism among high-achieving students has received much attention from perfectionism researchers, as reflected by many case studies and opinion pieces written by teachers or researchers working with high ability students (e.g., Adelson, 2007; LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Parker & Mills, 1996). However, there is no strong empirical support in the literature for perfectionism being more prevalent among high performing students. Also, the studies with giftedness foci tend to study samples drawn from honor's colleges or gifted programs. Yet, such practices fail to properly differentiate high ability from high achievement, as not all high ability students are high achievers. In addition, perfectionism does not always lead to high performance (Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003), depending on the type of perfectionism that individuals possess and how perfectionism tendencies are channeled. Another issue in need of consideration is that all of the currently available assessment tools for perfectionism are self-report questionnaires. Thus, academically struggling students can self-proclaim their perfectionistic tendencies, which may or may not be an accurate reflection of objective reality (see Stoeber & Hotham, 2013 for an interesting and related issue). However, self-reported/self-proclaimed perfectionism is important, as it reflects the students' beliefs about themselves, which can subsequently shape their actual behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Despite these limitations, achievement level has frequently been

238

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

considered as an outcome variable and rarely has been examined as a potential mediator or moderator of the effects of perfectionism. Thus, it has yet to be determined whether a potential maladaptive function of perfectionism is observed equally among high vs. low achieving students. Third, we are seeking to extend the construct of academic engagement. In addition to commonly used indicators of engagement behaviors in classroom settings (e.g., emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and disruptive behavior), we investigated academic help seeking around peers. Often in the classroom, students encounter problems that they cannot solve on their own and, as a result, are in need of help. Academic help seeking is an important and effective self-regulatory strategy, as compared to other alternatives (e.g., giving up and sitting passively, writing down a random answer, etc.). Nonetheless, adolescent developmental researchers have documented that many early adolescents tend to avoid asking for help even when they need it (Ryan, Patrick, & Shim, 2005). For more self-conscious early adolescents, the psychological costs of help seeking (e.g., embarrassment or feelings of indebtedness) often outweigh the benefits (e.g., understanding academic content or getting the right answer). Given that support and the frequent exchange of ideas are the core premise of constructivist approaches to education, academic help seeking is an important topic for early adolescents' academic adjustment. In addition, researching academic help-seeking behaviors provides important opportunities to examine how perfectionistic adolescents socially deal with academically challenging situations. Academic help seeking may mean public acknowledgments of incompetence, which may be particularly threatening for perfectionistic individuals who are concerned about making mistakes. In sum, the current study will add to the existing perfectionism literature, which offers limited data on the relationships between perfectionism and academic engagement behaviors in the classroom during adolescence. In the current study, we examined individual forms of academic engagement as well as social forms of engagement (i.e., help seeking); with special attention given to variations across high and low achieving students. Although the current study is correlational in nature, it will provide initial data to spark further inquiries on how perfectionistic tendencies may affect students with varying levels of academic ability.

2. Definitions of perfectionism Perfectionism is a multifaceted personality characteristic that has been associated with various outcomes, such as psychological health, achievement, and motivation (e.g., Bong et al., 2014; Ghorban Dordinejad & Nasab, 2013). A consensus has emerged that perfectionism strivings (sub-dimension related to striving for perfection and setting exceedingly high standards of performance, e.g., self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards, positive perfectionism, and striving for perfection) have not shown strong associations with maladaptive outcomes, and sometimes have been linked to adaptive outcomes, while other dimensions (sub-dimensions involving excessive concerns for mistakes or imperfection, e.g., socially-prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, negative perfectionism, discrepancy, and negative reactions to imperfection) have been consistently linked to maladaptive outcomes (see Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2012 and Stoeber & Otto, 2006 for reviews). In addition to the similarities in the observed effects, some of these dimensions tend to load on a single construct when subjected to factor analysis, suggesting that substantial overlaps exist among these constructs (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, & Mattia, 1993). We refer to the constructs in the first category as perfectionistic strivings and those in the second category as perfectionistic concerns in this paper for brevity when reviewing the literature.

3. Perfectionism and academic engagement during early adolescence Perfectionistic concerns are expected to hamper academic engagement, as excessive concerns over mistakes could distract students from fully concentrating on the task at hand and may lead to selfsabotaging behaviors. The consistent empirical evidence on other related outcomes (e.g., academic motivation, burnout, see Shih, 2011, 2012) supports such prediction. Perfectionistic strivings are likely to promote academic engagement. The inherent inclination to set high standards, and the desire to strive to meet them, may lead students to work hard and persevere. Much of the research linking perfectionistic strivings to intrinsic motivation (e.g., mastery goals, intrinsic motivation, self-determined motivation, see Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2012) supports this view. However, this same tendency may be destructive, as excessively high and unrealistic standards hamper optimal engagement by creating compulsion, lower optimism about goal success (Eddington, 2014), and a fear of failure (Shafran & Mansell, 2001). The standards set by perfectionists are often beyond their reach, creating circumstances in which they increase the odds of failure. Such extremely high goals do not provide adequate levels of challenge, which is necessary to derive maximum effort (Locke & Latham, 2006). Instead, it may promote procrastination by increasing anxiety. Such ironic patterns reflect a possible failure in selfregulation, which has often been observed among perfectionistic individuals in the academic domain (Bieling et al., 2003; Eddington, 2014). Thus, the relationship between perfectionistic strivings and engagement does not seem to be simple or straightforward. In the current study, we examined emotional engagement (e.g., enjoying the task), behavioral engagement (e.g., paying attention and working hard; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009), and disruptive behavior (e.g., breaking classroom rules, annoying the teachers; Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). These three dimensions of academic engagement are expected to capture students' classroom behaviors from different angles. 4. Perfectionism and academic help seeking around peers Students often encounter academic problems that they cannot solve independently. Such unresolved questions can leave a gap in students' knowledge and eventually compromise long-term achievement (Newman, 2000). Students often turn to their peers for help (Altermatt, Pomerantz, Ruble, Frey, & Greulich, 2002) for multiple reasons: a) A teacher-student ratio in a typical middle school classroom puts a cap on the availability of students utilizing the teacher as an academic resource, b) peers tend to be seen as less judgmental or threatening (Butler, 1998) and are often sought after due to the emotional bond among students that it produces (Ryan & Shim, 2012), and c) peers often provide explanations in a language that is easily understandable to students (Webb, 1991). Despite the importance of peers as learning partners, few studies have examined the personality factors that may be linked to help seeking around classroom peers. We examined three forms of help-seeking behaviors: a) avoidance of help seeking when its use is clearly needed (Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Ryan et al., 2005), b) adaptive help seeking, which involves genuine interest in learning and intention to promote future independent performance (i.e., asking for explanation, clues, or examples so that one can understand and solve the problem on her own in the future), and c) expedient help seeking, which represents little interest in learning and an intention to delegate one's work to others (e.g., asking for a ready-made answer without explanation). Quite predictably, adaptive help seeking is related to a host of adaptive learning outcomes while expedient help seeking is related to maladaptive motivation and poor long-term achievement (Butler, 1998; Karabenick, 2011; Karabenick & Berger, 2013; Nelson-Le Gall, 1985; Newman, 2000; Ryan & Shim, 2012). However, avoidance of help seeking is rather common among adolescents (Ryan et al., 2005) and help requests directed toward a peer, as compared to a teacher, often take an expedient

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

form (Karabenick, 2004). We located one study (Mills & Blankstein, 2000) that examined the relationship between perfectionism and students' general tendency to seek help (as a unidimensional construct without specifying the recipients of help bids). These researchers found that help seeking was positively associated with perfectionistic strivings, but not perfectionistic concerns. Little is known about how different types of help-seeking behaviors may be related to perfectionism. Help seeking involves some level of psychological cost, exposing students' weakness or vulnerability (i.e., inability to solve the problem independently). Students with perfectionistic strivings may weigh learning benefits more heavily given their high standards and desire to attain high levels of academic achievement. Prior studies have reported a link between perfectionistic strivings and intrinsic academic motivation (Bong et al., 2014; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). Thus, we expect that perfectionistic strivings will be linked to a desirable pattern of help seeking (i.e., low avoidance of help seeking and expedient help seeking, but high adaptive help seeking). However, for those with heightened sensitivity to mistakes and negative judgment from others (i.e., perfectionistic concerns), the psychological cost associated with help seeking may be greater, leading to their avoidance of help seeking. Also, it is possible that, given their observed association with heightened emphasis on the extrinsic learning outcomes (e.g., grades, being praised by teachers), they may try to obtain the correct answers in an expedient manner to appear competent and increase their chances of getting a good evaluation without actually mastering the material. Thus, we expect that perfectionistic concerns will be linked to an undesirable pattern of help seeking (i.e., high avoidance of help seeking and expedient help seeking, but low adaptive help seeking).

5. Achievement as a moderator of the effects of perfectionism on academic engagement and help seeking around peers With respect to the issues of student ability in relation to perfectionism, we found some studies investigating perfectionism among gifted students. Questions, such as whether perfectionism is more prevalent among gifted students as compared to the general population (Chan, 2010; Parker, 2000), or what forms of perfectionism are more prevalent among gifted students (LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Parker, 2000), have been investigated. However, giftedness cannot be equated with high achievement and thus, the foci of these studies diverge from the focus of the current study. Several studies considered achievement as an outcome variable of perfectionism, but we could not locate any studies that directly investigated whether the function of perfectionism varies across different levels of achievement. Accordingly, we do not know whether perfectionism should be viewed as more problematic among high vs. low achievers. This is a significant omission given that student achievement

239

level is a major individual difference factor that teachers need to consider when planning or providing instruction. Different types of perfectionism may interact with achievement levels differently. First, examinations on the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and achievement have yielded varied findings. Many studies have reported null correlations between achievement and perfectionistic concerns (Bieling et al., 2003; Bong et al., 2014 for English grades; Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004; Verner-Filion & Gaudreau, 2010). Yet, several studies reported significant small positive bi-variate correlations (between .15 ~ .21, in Bong et al., 2014 for math grades; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007), and several other studies reported small negative correlations (e.g., Flett, Blankstein, & Hewitt, 2009; Sevlever & Rice, 2010). The variance in findings could be attributed to the use of different scales or controlling for other contributing factors, such as perfectionistic strivings (Stoeber, 2012). Perfectionistic strivings, which is viewed as a more facilitative form of perfectionism, has demonstrated more consistent, modest positive correlations (between .22 ~ .37, in Bieling et al., 2003; Bong et al., 2014; Grzegorek et al., 2004; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007; Verner-Filion & Gaudreau, 2010). When students are grouped by perfectionism tendencies, adaptive perfectionists achieved higher grade point averages (GPAs) than maladaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists in two independent samples (Rice & Slaney, 2002, study 1 and study 2). In another study, both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists achieved higher GPAs than non-perfectionists (Grzegorek et al., 2004). In sum, the relation between perfectionism (both perfectionism strivings and concerns) and achievement is rather modest in magnitude and often inconsistent for perfectionistic concerns. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that perfectionistic tendencies do not always lead to high achievement. Although no significant negative association has been reported, it is conceptually possible that some students may receive poor grades; possibly through self-sabotaging behaviors (e.g., not turning in imperfect work). An exploration of achievement level as a moderator will illustrate whether and how the relationship between perfectionism and academic engagement differs across students with high versus low achievement. Although there is no directly related prior research, students with maladaptive motivational beliefs tend to respond poorly to setbacks (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Shim & Ryan, 2005). Thus, we expect that low achieving students may experience heightened debilitating aspects of perfectionistic tendencies. 6. Method 6.1. Participants and procedure One hundred and sixty nine students (N = 169; 37% girls; 46% White, 19% Black, 35% other minorities; Mean age = 13.07 [min = 12; max = 16], SD = .72) in a large urban middle school, serving

Table 1 Means, standard deviation, and correlations among variables. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.

Personal standard Concern over mistakes Emotional engagement Behavioral engagement Disruptive behavior Avoidance of help seeking Expedient help seeking Adaptive help seeking Math grade Mean SD

2

3

4

5

.44⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ −.06 −.29⁎⁎

– −.04 .01 .14 .03

– .61⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ −.33⁎⁎

– −.53⁎⁎ −.46⁎⁎

– .49⁎⁎

−.17⁎ .19⁎ .18⁎ 3.11 .93

.04 −.03 −.06 2.08 .76

−.40⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .18⁎ 2.94 .88

−.51⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ 3.85 .74

.41⁎⁎ −.22⁎⁎ −.27⁎⁎ 2.02 1.01

6

7

8

9

–

– .57⁎⁎ −.31⁎⁎ −.19⁎ 2.51 .93

– −.48⁎⁎ −.16 2.39 .89

– .05 3.34 .84

– 9.96 2.49

240

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

students in grades seven and eight, in the Midwestern region of the United States (US) participated. The school serves low-income communities (about 45% free and reduced lunch status). Students have different teachers for different subject matters in US middle schools; thus, their engagement may vary across classes. Accordingly, we asked students to report their engagement in math class. Students' end-ofsemester math grades were retrieved from school records to match the context in which engagement indicators were taken. We collected the survey data across two time points, perfectionism in the beginning of the second semester (mid-January) and engagement and help seeking in the middle of the semester (late March).

6.2. Measures A 5-point Likert-type scale was used for all measures (except math grades) ranging from Not at all true of me (1) to Very true of me (5; see Table 1 for the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among variables).

6.2.1. Dispositional perfectionism Using the brief scales of Frost et al. (1990), developed and validated by Cox, Enns, and Clara (2002), we measured perfectionistic strivings using the Personal Standards (PS) scale, and measured perfectionistic concerns using the Concern over Mistakes (COM) scale. PS reflects the high standards that individuals set and the importance they attach to those standards for self-evaluation (5 items, alpha = .79; “I have extremely high goals”). COM refers to individuals' negative reactions to mistakes, and their tendency to interpret mistakes as failures and indicative of losing the respect of others (5 items, alpha = .79; “If I fail at work/school, I am a failure as a person”).

6.2.2. Academic engagement The items measuring behavioral and emotional engagement were drawn from Skinner et al. (2009); actual items shown in Table 2). For behavioral engagement (6 items; alpha = .83), four items capture positive behavior (e.g., paying attention, working hard, etc.) and two items capture negative behavior (e.g., “I don't try very hard” [reverse coded]). For emotional engagement (5 items; alpha = .84), four items capture positive emotions (e.g., “When I'm in class, I feel good”) and one item captures negative emotions during class (e.g., “When we are working on something in class, I feel bored” [reverse coded]). The items for disruptive behavior capture behaviors that actively disrupt classroom routines and break classroom rules (5 items; alpha = .85; “I sometimes don't follow my math teacher's directions during math class”, Kaplan et al., 2002).

6.2.3. Academic help-seeking behavior among peers We asked students to think specifically about their peer helpers when answering the questions. Avoidance of help seeking refers to the instances when students do not ask for help when they need it (4 items; alpha = .75; “When I don't understand my work, I often guess instead of asking someone for help.”). Expedient help seeking refers to bids for help that expedite task completion and are not focused on learning (e.g., just the answer; 4 items; alpha = .74; “I would ask someone for help so that I could stop working on it”). Adaptive help seeking refers to bids for help that would further learning and promote independent problem solving in the future (4 items; alpha = .71; “I would ask someone to explain it to me not just give me the answer”).

6.2.4. Achievement Students' semester-end Math grades were drawn from school records. The grades were coded 1(F) through 13 (A+).

Table 2 Engagement measures used in the current study. Behavioral engagement I try hard to do well in math class. In math class, I work as hard as I can. I pay attention when I'm in math class. I listen very carefully in math class. I don't try very hard in class (R). When I'm in math class, I think about other things (R). Emotional engagement When I'm in math class, I feel good. When we work on something in math class, I feel interested. Math class is fun. I enjoy learning new things in math class. When we work on something in math class, I feel bored (R). Disruptive behavior I sometimes annoy my math teacher during math class. I sometimes get into trouble with my math teacher during math class. I sometimes behave in a way during math class that annoys my math teacher. I sometimes don't follow my math teacher's directions during math class. I sometimes disturb the lesson that is going on in math class.

7. Results 7.1. Analysis plan We ran a total of six hierarchical multiple regression models with each indicator of academic engagement and help-seeking variables as a dependent variable. At the first step, gender and math grade were entered. Gender was included as a statistic control, due to known gender difference in academic engagement and help-seeking behaviors (Ryan, Shim, Lampkins-uThando, Kiefer, & Thompson, 2009). PS and COM were entered at the second step. Then, we entered the interaction between perfectionism and math grades (PS X Math Grade and COM X Math Grade) at the third step. Although not our central aim, the PS X COM interaction term was tested given previous studies documenting that the effects of PS and COM depend on the level of the other (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Shim & Fletcher, 2012). We kept gender, math achievement, PS, and COM in the regression model regardless of their significance to estimate the main effects of the variables after controlling for the other variables. However, the interaction terms were dropped when they were not significant. R square changes and significance were also reported and our main focus was to see whether R square significantly increased by adding the interactions between perfectionism and math grade (R square change between steps 2 and 3).

Table 3 Regression analyses predicting engagement. Engagement variables

Predictor Step 1 Gender Math grade Step 2 PS COM Step 3 PS × COM Math grade × PS Total R2 F

Emotional engagement

Behavioral engagement

Disruptive behavior

Δ R2

Δ R2

Δ R2

.07⁎⁎

.05⁎

.12⁎ 4.96⁎⁎⁎

β −.20⁎ .15 .26⁎⁎ −.14

β

.05⁎

.05⁎

.11⁎ 4.28⁎⁎

β

.06⁎ −.05 .19⁎ .25⁎⁎ −.04

−.02 −.21⁎ .01

.04⁎

.11⁎⁎ 3.61⁎⁎

.03 .11

−.22⁎

Note. Standardized beta coefficients are shown. PS = Personal Standards, COM = Concern Over Mistakes. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Non-significant interaction terms were not retained in the final models. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244 Table 4 Regression analyses predicting help-seeking behaviors. Help-seeking variables

Predictor Step 1 Gender Math grade Step 2 PS COM Step 3 PS × COM Math grade × PS Total R2 F

Avoidance of help seeking

Expedient help seeking

Adaptive help seeking

Δ R2

Δ R2

Δ R2

β

.04⁎

.09⁎⁎

.05⁎⁎

.18⁎⁎ 6.22⁎⁎⁎

β

.02 .14 −.11 −.44⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎ −.23⁎⁎

.04 −.09 .03

.05⁎⁎

.09⁎ 2.96⁎

β

.00 .08 −.03 .00 −.13 .09

.22⁎ −.10

−.23⁎⁎ .04 1.51

Note. Standardized beta coefficients are shown. PS = Personal Standards, COM = Concern Over Mistakes. In adaptive help seeking model, only PS and COM were included to make the overall regression model significant. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Non-significant interaction terms were not retained in the final models. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

7.2. Summary of findings The results from the final regression models are shown in Tables 3 and 4. For significant interaction terms, the predicted values were calculated and graphically displayed in Figs. 1–3. For emotional engagement (see Table 3 for the regression models with engagement as outcome variables), PS was the only significant, positive predictor and no other variable was significant after controlling for gender and math grades. For behavioral engagement, PS and math grades were significant predictors. Both variables were related to higher behavioral engagement. For disruptive behavior, the coefficients for math grades and the interaction between math grade and PS were significant. To further probe the nature of the interaction, we conducted a simple slope test recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Although the significance was only marginal in the simple slope tests (ps b .07), the beta coefficient signs for PS for high achievers (1 standard deviation above the mean) differed from low achievers (1 standard deviation below the mean). While PS was related to low disruptive behavior among high achievers, β = −.21, PS was related to high disruptive behavior among low achievers, β = .27. For avoidance of help seeking (see Table 4 for the regression results with help-seeking behaviors as outcome variables), the main effects of PS and COM were significant; but they were restricted by a significant interaction between the two. A simple slope test indicated that COM

241

had almost no effect on avoidance of help seeking among the students with high PS, β = −.01, p = n.s., but had a strong positive effect among those with low PS, β = .48, p b .001. The predicted values are shown in Fig. 2. For expedient help seeking, neither PS nor COM was significant, but the interaction between PS and math grade was significant. A simple slope test indicated a similar pattern found in the disruptive behavior model. High PS was related to low expedient help seeking among high achievers (1 standard deviation above the mean), β = −.38, p b .001, while high PS was not related to expedient help seeking among low achievers (1 standard deviation below the mean), β = .12, p = n.s. The overall regression model was not significant for adaptive help seeking at step 1 and 2. The only significant variable was PS at step 2. When gender and math grade were removed, the model became significant, F (2, 149) = 2.09, p b .05. In this model, PS remained the only significant, positive predictor for adaptive help seeking, β = .23, p b .05. 8. Discussion The present study extends the perfectionism literature, which is mostly focused on psychological well-being outcomes in college samples. To further our understanding of the role that perfectionism plays in students' engagement, we extended the boundary of engagement from the individual form of engagement (i.e., emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and disruptive behavior) to the social form of engagement (i.e., adaptive help seeking, expedient help seeking and avoidance of help-seeking). The central question of the current study was whether students' achievement may serve as a moderator of the effects of perfectionism on the indicators of academic engagement. In the perfectionism literature, PS has been considered a benign form of perfectionism. Consistent with prior findings, our results indicated that the effects of PS were mostly facilitative. PS was related to heightened emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and adaptive help seeking, as well as low avoidance of help seeking. It is particularly noteworthy that PS was the only significant predictor for emotional engagement and adaptive help seeking. Consistent with the prior research, COM was linked to heightened levels of avoidance of help seeking. The pattern was stronger for students with low PS consistent with prior studies (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Shim & Fletcher, 2012). Asking for help may confirm perceptions of incompetence and failure, which is the very outcome that students with high COM fear to face. It should be noted that COM was not significantly related to other engagement indicators. One novel question we asked at the commencement of this study was whether the effects of perfectionistic tendencies vary by students' achievement level. The current findings suggest that perfectionism may affect high and low achieving students differently. The results obtained with respect to disruptive behavior and expedient help seeking

Fig. 1. Interaction between math grade and personal standards on disruptive behavior.

242

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

Fig. 2. Interaction between personal standards and concern over mistakes on avoidance of help seeking.

imply that perfectionistic tendencies could be more problematic or do not buffer low achieving students against expedient help seeking or disruptive behavior, to say the least. Our results call for further research investigating the possibility that the students with high PS may falter when they fail to live up to their personally held high standards. Disruptive behavior at this developmental stage is often motivated by the desire to get attention from teachers and peers. Although the nature of attention from teachers may not be positive, the attention from peers may not necessarily be negative. Given the prevalent anti-achievement sentiment during adolescence (Cillessen & Rose, 2005), active defiant behaviors against classroom rules and teachers' authority may offer an opportunity for these students to redeem their sense of self-worth (Covington, 1992). Expedient help seeking is not motivated by the desire to learn, but is often pursued by the desire to get work done quickly without putting forth effort by delegating the work to others (e.g., taking other students' answers). Such behavior may offer an instant remedy for an academic challenge, but prevents long-term academic growth (Ryan & Shim, 2012). Furthermore, expedient help seeking may progress into more serious violations, such as academic dishonesty. Both disruptive classroom behavior and expedient help seeking presents serious challenges for classroom teachers. The patterns obtained from the current study warrant further investigations regarding whether perfectionistic students may resort to expedient help seeking and engage in disruptive behavior when academically challenged.

8.1. Limitations, future directions and conclusion It should be noted that the current study is correlational in nature and cannot provide a basis for causality assumptions. The present study considered a moderating role of achievement level. However, poor achievement could be a consequence of perfectionistic students' failure to utilize desirable patterns of engagement behaviors. Academic underachievement among high ability students has long been a serious concern for researchers and educators (Rubenstein, Siegle, Reis, McCoach, & Burton, 2012; Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). Future studies can unravel the underlying psychological mechanisms, which cause the moderation. We note that the variances explained in each of the regression models are rather small (R squares ranging from .05–.18. However, there are several potential reasons for these small variances. Engagement measures and perfectionistic tendencies are measured at two different occasions and grades were directly drawn from school records. While such data collection methods reduced the shared variance from the measurement time and source, it could have contributed to smaller R squares. Also, weak simple slope test results may be related to overall small effect sizes, and it should be noted that the current sample size was rather modest. Longitudinal designs will enhance our confidence in drawing the directionality of the influence (i.e., achievement measures at Time 1 and Engagement at Time 2). More rigorous statistical controls (i.e., other demographic variables and also classroom environment measures) can be considered.

Fig. 3. Interaction between math grade and personal standards on expedient help seeking.

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

In the present study, we considered domain-specificity of academic engagement (i.e., engagement and help seeking in Math). Given that students' engagement is often a direct function of the immediate context, our domain-specific approach to measure engagement and achievement is valid. However, perfectionism is considered to be a more global personality characteristic and thus, future studies should also consider domain-general measures of engagement and achievement to match the level of predictors, moderators, and outcomes. Prior research has reported moderate to large correlations between motivation measures across different subjects (Bong, 2001; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Despite these limitations, the current study adds to the perfectionism literature. This study provides evidence that even the perfectionistic tendencies deemed less malicious can be harmful for some students. Further, it may be naïve to believe that the problem associated with perfectionism is limited to high achieving students. The current results suggest that low achieving perfectionistic students may suffer more than high achieving perfectionistic students, possibly due to widening gaps between their desire to meet high standards and their actual performance. Given the implications of academic engagement during early adolescence for long-term academic success and educational opportunities, it is important for educators and parents to identify groups of students who struggle. Educators can encourage students to set a challenging but reasonably achievable goal (Locke & Latham, 2006), rather than persevering to achieve unrealistically high personal standards. Educators' motivational scaffolding is needed for all students, but is particularly important for perfectionistic students experiencing academic setbacks. In this regard, research on autonomy supportive teaching (Reeve, 2012) and classroom goal structures (Schenke, Lam, Conley, & Karabenick, 2015) is informative, as it specifies ways in which teachers can present performance feedback as useful information for learning and growth, rather than as an indication of students' incompetence or failure. References Adelson, J.L. (2007). A “perfect” case study: Perfectionism in academically talented fourth graders. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 14–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.4219/gct-2007-490. Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Altermatt, E.R., Pomerantz, E.M., Ruble, D.N., Frey, K.S., & Greulich, F.K. (2002). Predicting changes in children's self-perceptions of academic competence: A naturalistic examination of evaluative discourse among classmates. Developmental Psychology, 38, 903–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.903. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bieling, P.J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M.M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00173-3. Bong, M. (2001). Between and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34. Bong, M., Hwang, A., Noh, A., & Kim, S. (2014). Perfectionism and motivation of adolescents in academic contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 711–729. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035836. Butler, R. (1998). Determinants of help-seeking: Relations between perceived reasons for classroom help-avoidance and help-seeking behaviors in an experimental context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 630–644 (Retrieved from ERIC). Chan, D.W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and nongifted students in Hong Kong: The use of the revised almost perfect scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 68–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400104. Cillessen, A.H., & Rose, A.J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.09637214.2005.00343.x. Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cox, B.J., Enns, M.W., & Clara, I.P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 365. Eddington, K.M. (2014). Perfectionism, goal adjustment, and self-regulation: A short-term follow-up study of distress and coping. Self and Identity, 13, 197–213. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/15298868.2013.781740. Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 _ 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Fletcher, K.L., & Speirs Neumeister, K.L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 668–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21623.

243

Flett, G.L., Blankstein, K.R., & Hewitt, P.L. (2009). Perfectionism, performance, and state positive affect and negative affect after a classroom test. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 4–18. Frost, R.O., Marten, P.A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967. Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., & Mattia, J. I. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality And Individual Differences, 14(1), 119–126. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2. Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2009.11.031. Ghorban Dordinejad, F., & Nasab, A. (2013). Examination of the relationship between perfectionism and English achievement as mediated by foreign language classroom anxiety. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 603–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12564-013-9286-5. Grant, H., & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541–553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. 85.3.541. Grzegorek, J.L., Slaney, R.B., Franze, S., & Rice, K.G. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency, selfesteem, and grade point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 192–200. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.192. Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conception, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191–211. http://dx.doi. org/10.1348/000709902158847. Karabenick, S.A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 569–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.96.3.569. Karabenick, S.A. (2011). Methodological and assessment issues in research on help seeking. In B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation and performance (pp. 267–281). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Karabenick, S.A., & Berger, J.L. (2013). Help seeking as a self-regulated learning strategy. In H. Bembenutty, T. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 237–262). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. LoCicero, K.A., & Ashby, J.S. (2000). Multidimensional perfectionism in middle school age gifted students: A comparison to peers from the general cohort. Roeper Review, 22, 182–185 (Retrieved from ERIC). Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678721.2006.00449.x. Mills, J.S., & Blankstein, K.R. (2000). Perfectionism, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and motivated strategies for learning: A multidimensional analysis of university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1191–1204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-8869(00)00003-9. Nelson-Le Gall, S. (1985). Help-seeking behavior in learning. Review of Research in Education, 12, 55–90 (Retrieved from ERIC). Newman, R.S. (2000). Social influences on the development of children's adaptive help seeking: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review, 20, 350–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0502. Parker, W.D. (2000). Healthy perfectionism in the gifted. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 173–182 (Retrieved from ERIC). Parker, W.D., & Mills, C.J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 194–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000404. Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer. Rice, K.G., & Slaney, R.B. (2002). Cluster of perfectionists: Two studies of emotional adjustment and academic achievement. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 5–48 (Retrieved from ERIC). Rubenstein, L.D., Siegle, D., Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., & Burton, M. (2012). A complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 678–694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620. Ryan, A.M., & Shim, S.S. (2012). Changes in help seeking from peers during early adolescence: Associations with changes in achievement and perceptions of teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1122–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027696. Ryan, A.M., Gheen, M.H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535 (Retrieved from ERIC). Ryan, A.M., Patrick, H., & Shim, S.S. (2005). Differential profiles of students identified by their teacher as having avoidant, appropriate or dependent help-seeking tendencies in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 275–285. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.275. Ryan, A.M., Shim, S.S., Lampkins-uThando, S.A., Kiefer, S.M., & Thompson, G.N. (2009). Do gender differences in help avoidance vary by ethnicity? An examination of African American and European American students during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1152–1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013916. Schenke, K., Lam, A.C., Conley, A., & Karabenick, S.A. (2015). Perceived classroom environment influences on students' help-seeking behavior: What reasons and from whom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 133–146. Sevlever, M., & Rice, K.G. (2010). Perfectionism, depression, anxiety and academic performance in premedical students. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 1, e96–e104.

244

S.S. Shim et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 45 (2016) 237–244

Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–906. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0272-7358(00)00072-6. Shih, S. -S. (2011). Perfectionism, implicit theories of intelligence, and Taiwanese eighth-grade students' academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903570368. Shih, S. -S. (2012). An examination of academic burnout versus work engagement among Taiwanese adolescents. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 286–298. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629695. Shim, S. S., & Ryan, A. (2005). Changes in Self-Efficacy, Challenge Avoidance, and Intrinsic Value in Response to Grades: The Role of Achievement Goals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 333–349. Shim, S.S., & Fletcher, K.L. (2012). Perfectionism and social goals: What do perfectionists want to achieve in social situations? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 919–924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.002. Skinner, E.A., Kindermann, T.A., & Furrer, C.J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164408323233. Snyder, K.E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement.

Educational Psychologist, 48, 209–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013. 835597. Stoeber, J. (2012). Perfectionism and performance. In S.M. Murphy (Ed.), Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology (pp. 294–306). New York: Oxford University Press. Stoeber, J., & Hotham, S. (2013). Perfectionism and social desirability: Students report increased perfectionism to create a positive impression. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 626–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.023. Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2. Stoeber, J., & Rambow, A. (2007). Perfectionism in adolescent school students: Relations with motivation, achievement, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1379–1389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.015. Verner-Filion, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2010). From perfectionism to academic adjustment: The mediating role of achievement goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 181–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.029. Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.