Conscientious Perfectionism, Self-Evaluative Perfectionism, and the Five-Factor Model of personality traits

Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Conscientious Perfectionism, Self-Evaluative Perfectionism, and the Five-Factor Model of personality traits Sarah E. Cruce ⇑, Travis J. Pashak, Paul J. Handal, David C. Munz, Jeffrey D. Gfeller Department of Psychology, St. Louis University, 3511 Laclede Ave., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 August 2011 Received in revised form 27 February 2012 Accepted 16 March 2012 Available online 21 April 2012 Keywords: Perfectionism Personality Perfectionism Inventory NEO-PI-R

a b s t r a c t The psychometric structure of the Perfectionism Inventory was re-examined, and the relationships among perfectionism traits and broad personality traits were examined in a college sample (N = 390). Results supported the psychometric structure reported by Hill et al. (2004). Additionally, the Self-Evaluative Perfectionism component was moderately correlated with Neuroticism, and the Conscientious Perfectionism component was strongly correlated with Conscientiousness. However, the most accurate picture of perfectionism’s relationship with broad personality traits was found when examining the perfectionism subscales and personality facets. Findings suggest that the instrument’s composite score and component scores are not as meaningful as subscale scores. Implications for future iterations of the DSM and conceptualization of OCPD are discussed. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Perfectionism has been conceptualized in several ways, and over the years, measures have been developed that reflect these developments. Initially, measures of perfectionism were adapted from existing scales embedded in measures of pathology, and they conceptualized perfectionism as mostly unidimensional and maladaptive (Burns, 1980; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983; Jones, 1968). The setting of personal standards is a common theme among existing definitions of perfectionism; however, high personal standards are not fundamentally problematic. These measures did not differentiate those who were highly competent and successful from those whose perfectionism inhibited their success and elicited negative effects, including pathology. Hamachek (1978) made a distinction among perfectionists as either normal or neurotic. Normal perfectionists set high standards for their performance and gain a sense of pleasure from their efforts. They are able to adjust their standards to situational demands and tend to be less rigid. Neurotic perfectionists set high standards but are unable to adjust them according to the situational demands and are unable to experience satisfaction upon completing a task because they are critical about mistakes in their performance. Instead of striving for achievement, they are driven by fear of failure. Essentially, it is the concern over mistakes and the critical evaluation of one’s performance that is problematic and not merely the high standards.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 309 840 1863; fax: +1 314 977 1006. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.E. Cruce). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.013

In an attempt to capture perfectionism’s complexity, more recent measures are multidimensional. Four measures dominate current research. The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) assesses the perceived discrepancy between one’s performance and one’s standards for performance (Discrepancy) as well as the positive aspects of perfectionism (High Standards and Orderliness). Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) and Hewitt and Flett (1991) developed perfectionism measures of the same name but viewed the construct quite differently. The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS) is comprised of six subscales (Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts about Actions, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism, Personal Standards, and Organization) and focuses on self-directed behaviors and cognitions as well as parental expectations. The Hewitt & Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (H&F-MPS) consists of three subscales (Self-Oriented Perfectionism, Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism, and Other-Oriented Perfectionism) and examines both self-directed and other-directed thoughts and behaviors. While the F-MPS offers a more specific breakdown of components of self-directed perfectionism, it neglects the inclusion of important other-oriented behaviors, as well as the extent to which an individual is concerned with others’ expectations for their performance (beyond those from parents). 1.1. Perfectionism Inventory Many researchers must use both multidimensional measures to obtain their unique factors. Hill et al. (2004) recognized that this was rather inefficient since much of the information is redundant. Correlations have ranged as high as 0.70–0.80 (Cox, Enns, & Clara,

S.E. Cruce et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273

2002; Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991). Thus, Hill et al. (2004) developed a new measure that combined the unique aspects of each measure and included additional subscales: Rumination and Planfulness. Rumination has been measured separately from trait measures of perfectionism (i.e. Perfectionism Cognitions Inventory; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Gray, 1998). Planfulness has not been included in other scales. The Perfectionism Inventory (PI, Hill et al., 2004), therefore, contains eight subscales: Striving for Excellence, Concern Over Mistakes, High Standards for Others, Need for Approval, Organization, Perceived Parental Pressure, Rumination, and Planfulness. A principal components analysis of the PI showed two higherorder components that were named Conscientious Perfectionism and Self-Evaluative Perfectionism (Hill et al., 2004). Conscientious Perfectionism (CP) consists of Organization, Striving for Excellence, Planfulness, and High Standards for Others (although this did not load as highly as the others on this component). Self-Evaluative Perfectionism (SEP) consists of Concern Over Mistakes, Need for Approval, Rumination, and Perceived Parental Pressure (although Perceived Parental Pressure did not load as highly as the other subscales on this component). Hill et al. (2004) named the components after their conceptual similarity to the traits of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism from the Five-Factor Model (McCrae & John, 1992). In fact, they hypothesized a significant relationship between Conscientiousness and CP and Neuroticism and SEP. However, their hypothesis has never been tested using their perfectionism measure.

269

Additionally, Hill et al. (2004) hypothesized that the Neuroticism facets of Anxiety and Vulnerability may be related to the SEP subscales of Rumination and Concern Over Mistakes. Thus, the study examined the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism facets and their relationship with the perfectionism components and subscales to elucidate the nature of the hypothesized relationships with broad personality traits and, ultimately, gain a better understanding of perfectionism within the general personality structure. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants Three hundred and ninety subjects were recruited from a population of undergraduate students attending a private, religiously affiliated, Midwestern university. Participants were enrolled in one or more undergraduate psychology courses and volunteered to participate for course credit or extra credit. Two participants withdrew early from the study and their responses were not included. The sample was comprised of 56.9% females (N = 222) and 43.1% males (N = 168) who ranged in age from 18 to 21, with a mean age of 19.51 years (SD = 1.10). Eighty percent of the sample identified their primary race as Caucasian, 8.2% as Asian American, 3.8% as Hispanic, 3.6% as African American, and 0.3% as Native American. The majority of the sample were freshman in college (46.4%), while 22.1% were juniors, 19.2% were sophomores, 11.5% were seniors, and 0.8% were 5th year seniors.

1.2. Purpose 2.2. Instruments The present study had two goals. Because the psychometric properties of the Hill et al. (2004) PI have never been replicated, the first was to assess whether the two-factor structure of the PI replicates in another sample of college students. The second was to investigate whether significant relationships existed among perfectionism and broad personality traits, specifically within the FFM of personality. The PI authors hypothesized a significant, positive relationship between Conscientiousness and CP and Neuroticism and SEP because of their conceptual overlap. However, they have received criticism for potentially ‘‘blurring the distinction’’ between conscientiousness, which they consider adaptive, and perfectionism, which they consider to be maladaptive, because of their inclusion of Planfulness and Organization as aspects of perfectionism (Flett & Hewitt, 2006). In fact, Flett and Hewitt (2006) noted that CP and its subscales ‘‘bear a striking resemblance to conscientiousness and achievement striving but not necessarily extreme perfectionism’’ (p.476). They argue that perfectionism should not empirically or conceptually be equated with ‘‘high levels of conscientiousness’’, ‘‘overconscientiousness,’’ or ‘‘hyperconscientiousness’’ (Flett & Hewitt, 2006, p. 476). However, Nettle (2006) suggests that there are optimal levels of personality traits, and there are costs and benefits for varying levels of each trait. Conscientiousness involves orderliness and self-control in the pursuit of goals, such that gratification is delayed in pursuit of a long-term plan; however, this can come at the cost of being obsessive and rigid (Nettle, 2006). When viewed as a spectrum, Conscientiousness can become extreme and pathological as routines and self-control become ingrained (Nettle, 2006). Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that normal and abnormal personality are largely overlapping (O’Connor, 2002). This stance reflects the movement toward a ‘‘universal diagnostic system’’ (Widiger & Trull, 2007, p. 81) for understanding general personality structure and personality disorders (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005), similar to the dimensional approach of the upcoming DSM-V. Therefore, this study sought to illuminate the validity of this argument by examining the correlation among CP subscales, the Conscientiousness trait, and the facets Order and Deliberation.

The Perfectionism Inventory (Hill et al., 2004) is a self-report measure consisting of 59 items using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items comprise eight subscales, two higher-order components, and an overall PI composite. Hill et al. (2004) computed scale means and standard deviations by dividing the total scores for each scale by the number of items comprising that scale. The components and PI composite means and standard deviations were calculated by adding the means and standard deviations of the subscales that comprised each (Hill, 2012). Hill et al. (2004), using a sample of 366 undergraduate students, reported adequate internal consistency among each of the subscales and components with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.91. Test–retest reliability over a 3–6-week interval (M interval of 4.5 weeks) using a sample of 82 undergraduate students (63 females, 19 males) was 0.71–0.91. Finally, the scale demonstrated good convergent validity with two other measures of perfectionism (H&F-MPS and F-MPS), the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Obsessive–Compulsive Inventory, and the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale within a college sample (Hill et al., 2004). The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, Form S (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240 item self-report inventory using a 5-point rating scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree measuring the Big Five factors of personality including Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, as well as six facets or subscale traits within each domain. Kurtz, Lee, and Sherker (1999) reported good internal consistency for both the domain scores (0.89–0.96) and facet scales (median of 0.80) in a sample of college students. They also demonstrated test–retest reliability over a six-month interval of 0.77 to 0.86 for all domain scores and 0.64 to 0.83 for the facets in the same college sample. Validity evidence has been demonstrated for the five-factor structure and convergent and discriminant validity of the facet scales (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Raw scores on the NEO-PI-R are converted to T Scores by using both appropriate normative samples and separate male and female norms.

270

S.E. Cruce et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273

Fig. 1. CFA of Two-Factor Perfectionism Model, with coefficient estimates.

2.3. Procedure Participants accessed survey materials through an online data collection system. Participants registered for access to the system through the psychology courses in which they were enrolled. Before choosing to participate, students were able to view a brief study description and recruitment statement. Students who elected to participate then completed a demographic questionnaire, the PI (Hill et al., 2004), and the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) as well as four additional measures, which were part of a larger study. Students were allowed to access the study only once, so they were required to complete the questionnaires during one session. Participants were able to discontinue participation at any time by exiting the study. 2.4. Data analysis In order to replicate findings achieved by Hill et al. (2004), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the TwoFactor Model of perfectionism. In this model, a factor called ‘‘Conscientious Perfectionism’’ consisted of Organization, Striving for Excellence, Planfulness, and High Standards for Others, while the second factor ‘‘Self-Evaluative Perfectionism’’ consisted of Concern Over Mistakes, Need for Approval, Rumination, and Perceived Parental Pressure. The program AMOS was used for the CFA, utilizing a Maximum Likelihood estimation method. In order to achieve estimates, an error term was allotted to each of the lower-level factors (abbreviated ‘‘Err’’ in Fig. 1), and regression weights were set to 1.00 for ‘‘Conscientious Perfectionism’’ to Organization, and for ‘‘Self-Evaluative Perfectionism’’ to Concern Over Mistakes. For interpretation of the CFA, the chi-square test was utilized in addition to fit index adequacy thresholds presented by Byrne (2010), including a minimum of 0.950 for the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), a maximum of 0.080 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and a maximum of 0.100 for the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Following the CFA, a matrix of Pearson correlations was used to investigate relationships among perfectionism and broad personality traits. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics of study measures Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach alpha coefficients of the PI are presented in Table 1 and are similar to those reported by

Hill et al. (2004). The NEO-PI-R mean scores of the current sample fall in the average range for each of the five domains based on comparison with a normed population of male and female college students (Neuroticism M = 48.64 and SD = 10.12; Extraversion M = 48.97 and SD = 10.65; Openness to Experience M = 48.48 and SD = 10.20; Agreeableness M = 51.14 and SD = 11.27; and Conscientiousness M = 50.74 and SD = 9.65).

3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of Perfectionism Inventory The higher-order analyses conducted by Hill et al. (2004) ‘‘revealed a modest fit to a One-Factor Model but stronger support for a Two-Factor. . . Model,’’ which provides support for previous research describing adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism (e.g., Cox et al., 2002; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993)’’ (p. 85). To interpret the replication CFA, a two step interpretation of results is suggested (Byrne, 2010). First, each of the indications of parameter estimate adequacy are met; namely, feasibility and statistical significance of the estimates, as well as appropriateness of the standard errors. Next, Fig. 1 provides a graphical illustration of the Two-Factor Model of perfectionism, and importantly, the regression weight estimate between the two higher-order factors is 0.14. Fit index results were mixed, beginning with the minimum discrepancy statistic v2(19, N = 390) = 171.96, p < 0.001 which indicates significant discrepancy between the hypothesized model and the pattern of data collected. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was calculated at 0.105, indicating a significant level of discrepancy, and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) of 0.881 is less than ideal. However, the comparative fit index (CFI) was calculated at 0.919, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was calculated at 0.067, both of which fall in a range indicative of modest to moderate model fit (Byrne, 2010). While the fit indices presented are not particularly strong, they are each trending in the right direction and when considered under more stringent criteria (e.g. Hu & Bentler, 1999), the SRMR remains an adequate indicator of good fit. Together, this data is a modestly supportive replication of the factor analyses conducted by Hill et al. (2004) in maintaining the construct validity of a Two-Factor Model of perfectionism; one that includes both Conscientious Perfectionism and Self-Evaluative Perfectionism. Both CFA’s had mixed results, but generally point toward the adequacy of the Two-Factor Perfectionism Model. Further, Hill and colleagues go on to argue that in utilizing the perfectionism scales, it may be most useful to consider the two higher-order factors as separate, as opposed to interpreting them in tandem or as polar opposites (2004). The current study would

271

S.E. Cruce et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273 Table 1 PI means, standard deviations, and Cronbach Alphas for current study and Hill et al. (2004). Current study

Conscientious Perfectionism Striving for Excellence Planfulness Organization High Standards for Others Self-Evaluative Perfectionism Concern Over Mistakes Need for Approval Rumination Perceived Parental Pressure PI Composite

Hill et al. (2004)

M

SD

a

M

SD

a

13.86 3.41 3.72 3.53 3.20 12.45 2.51 3.33 3.16 3.45 26.31

2.03 0.70 0.65 0.84 0.74 2.40 0.68 0.78 0.77 0.84 4.43

0.89 0.79 0.85 0.90 0.83 0.93 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.89 0.93

12.83 3.10 3.40 3.50 2.83 11.68 2.46 3.22 2.83 3.17 24.51

2.41 0.80 0.76 0.86 0.78 2.61 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.89 4.40

0.75 0.85 0.86 0.91 0.83 0.79 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.83

Table 2 Correlations between PI scales and NEO-PI-R domain and facet scores of neuroticism and conscientiousness. N Conscientious Perfectionism Striving for Excellence Planfulness Organization High Standards for Others Self-Evaluative Perfectionism Concern Over Mistakes Need for Approval Rumination Perceived Parental Pressure PI Composite

0.17

N1 **

**

0.15 0.12* 0.06 0.15**

N2 **

0.19

N3 **

0.20

**

N4

N5 *

0.07

0.14 *

0.18 0.10 0.12 0.17** 0.02 0.01 0.10* 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.41** 0.13*

0.11

**

N6 *

0.14 0.05 0.17** 0.14** 0.01 0.21** 0.09 0.09

C **

0.15

0.04 0.10* 0.15** 0.11*

C1

0.63

**

**

0.47 0.51** 0.57** 0.19**

C2 **

0.42

**

0.28 0.38** 0.33** 0.19**

C3 **

0.58

**

0.51

C4 **

**

C5 **

0.54

**

0.35 0.31** 0.70** 0.19**

0.41 0.39** 0.43** 0.19**

0.54 0.39** 0.38** 0.19**

0.03

0.06

0.07

0.45

C6 **

**

0.37 0.29** 0.45** 0.13*

E

O

A

**

0.05

0.06

**

0.06 0.00 0.03 0.05

0.00 0.02 0.09 0.08

0.00 0.16** 0.09 0.39**

0.06

0.15**

0.41

0.27 0.65** 0.24** 0.02

0.05

0.35** 0.50** 0.33** 0.53** 0.60** 0.28**

0.32**

0.00

0.26** 0.31** 0.31** 0.22**

0.55** 0.42** 0.36** 0.05

0.04 0.13* 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.10* 0.02 0.13** 0.16** 0.15** 0.06 0.11* 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.15* 0.04 0.12* 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10* 0.07 0.07 0.11* 0.02 0.12* 0.06 0.11* 0.03 0.09 0.12* 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.21**

0.14**

0.34** 0.18**

0.39** 0.53** 0.52** 0.13**

0.29** 0.25** 0.32** 0.19**

0.48** 0.51** 0.54** 0.17**

0.54** 0.73** 0.55** 0.11*

0.23** 0.25** 0.24** 0.15**

0.32** 0.42** 0.32** 0.38** 0.47** 0.12*

0.06

0.10

0.33** 0.30** 0.32** 0.17**

0.02

0.22**

0.08

0.02

0.07

0.12*

Note. N = Neuroticism, N1 = Anxiety, N2 = Angry Hostility, N3 = Depression, N4 = Self-Consciousness, N5 = Impulsiveness, N6 = Vulnerability, C = Conscientiousness, C1 = Competence, C2 = Order, C3 = Dutifulness, C4 = Achievement Striving, C5 = Self-Discipline, C6 = Deliberation, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

also support this conclusion, given the overall support for the Two-Factor Model but the relatively low estimated relationship between the two higher-order factors of CP and SEP.

3.3. Correlations: Perfectionism and the five-factor personality traits In order to assess the relationships among perfectionism and broad personality traits, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed with the Big-Five personality traits and the six facets of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness (Table 2). The SEP component had a significant, moderate correlation with Neuroticism. Those subscales that comprised the SEP component had statistically significant, small to moderate relationships with Neuroticism. However, individual subscales of SEP demonstrated significant, large correlations with facets of Neuroticism. Specifically, Need for Approval, Rumination, and Concern Over Mistakes all demonstrated significant, large correlations with the facet Self-Consciousness. These three subscales also had moderate to large correlations with Depression, Anxiety, and Vulnerability. Perceived Parental Pressure had small correlations with all facets. The SEP scales were primarily unrelated to Conscientiousness and its facets and was actually significantly, negatively related to the facets Competence and Self-Discipline. Perceived Parental Pressure demonstrated a small but significant, positive correlation with Competence and Achievement Striving while Rumination was also correlated with

the latter facet, albeit small. These results demonstrate that aspects of SEP are related to more negative personality traits. The CP component demonstrated a strong, statistically significant correlation with Conscientiousness. Those subscales comprising the CP component, with the exception of High Standards for Others, demonstrated statistically significant, large correlations with Conscientiousness and small to large correlations with Conscientiousness facets. Organization was most highly correlated with the facet Order, Planfulness with Deliberation, and Striving for Excellence with Achievement Striving. High Standards for Others was either uncorrelated or showed a small correlation with Conscientiousness facets. However, it was the only subscale of CP to demonstrate a moderate correlation with the Neuroticism facet Angry Hostility. CP and Planfulness, Organization, and High Standards for Others had small, negative correlations with the facet Vulnerability. CP, Planfulness, and Organization were also negatively correlated with Impulsiveness. Interestingly, there were small but statistically significant, positive correlations between CP and Neuroticism as well as the facets Anxiety and Self-Consciousness. These results demonstrate that CP is more strongly related to Conscientiousness on both the domain and facet levels but also reflects small but statistically significant relationships with Neuroticism and its facets. Finally, the relationships among the PI subscales and the traits of Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness demonstrated some small, statistically significant correlations. CP and

272

S.E. Cruce et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273

its subscales did not correlate significantly with Extraversion or Openness to Experience. SEP demonstrated a small but statistically significant, negative correlation with Agreeableness but was not correlated significantly with Extraversion or Openness to Experience. However, the subscales did demonstrate small, but statistically significant correlations with these traits.

4. Discussion Our results replicated the psychometric properties of the PI in a sample of college students at a religiously affiliated, Midwestern university, which provides support for the measure’s generalization and use with college students. The Perfectionism Inventory has been among the measures criticized for including conscientiousness (Flett & Hewitt, 2006; Shafran, Cooper, & Fairburn, 2002; Shafran & Mansell, 2001) as part of their construct of perfectionism. This study found a strong correlation between the CP component and the Conscientiousness personality trait but also found some relationship to the more negative aspects of Neuroticism, albeit small. It appeared that CP and the Conscientiousness trait were related, consistent with Hill et al. (2004) hypothesis. However, given the strength of this relationship and the amount of shared variance (R2 = 0.40), the question remained whether CP and Conscientiousness were separate constructs or whether CP was actually measuring some form of Conscientiousness, as Flett and Hewitt (2006) have criticized. Examination of the PI subscales and the Conscientiousness facets clarified this relationship. Conscientiousness and CP were carried primarily by the underlying relationship between the Organization subscale and the facet of Order and the Planfulness subscale and the facet of Deliberation. However, these subscales were also related to the Neuroticism facets of Anxiety and Self-Consciousness suggesting they may include the more problematic, perfectionistic aspects of these traits in their measurement. The SEP component and Neuroticism demonstrated a moderate relationship. However, examination of the SEP subscales and Neuroticism yielded small but statistically significant correlations. Upon examining the relationship among the subscales and facets, the relationship between these constructs became much clearer. The SEP component and Neuroticism shared some conceptual overlap, as hypothesized by Hill et al. (2004), but appeared to be measuring two separate constructs. Overall, more detailed investigation of the correlations between components and traits via subscales to facets revealed a clearer understanding of the relationships. Based on our results, it is not necessarily useful to look to the PI composite and component scores and how they relate to the traits. In fact, the relationship between the component of SEP and Neuroticism masks the relationship that actually exists between subscales and facets. When the subscales are combined to form the component and the component is then related to the trait it dilutes the true nature of the relationship and the meaning of SEP. This is not necessarily the case when one looks at CP and Conscientiousness, but using subscale and facet relationships enhances the meaning of the relationship. Consequently, we would not recommend reporting overall correlations between components and traits in the future, which is consistent with the research on personality disorder constructs and the Five-Factor Model (Bagby, Costa, Widiger, Ryder, & Marshall, 2005; Morey et al., 2002). In fact, evidence by Sprock (2002) found that clinicians prefer to use facets over domain scores when considering personality disorder profiles. This study is also consistent with the research relating maladaptive personality traits to a general personality structure (Widiger & Trull, 2007) and doing so at the facet and subscale levels, which has resulted here in a clearer understanding of the perfectionism trait. Many studies attempting to understand personality and its

maladaptive traits do not use the entire NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) despite the demonstrated benefit of facet level analysis (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004), which is an important strength of the current study. Because the questions examined in this study stem from a larger debate regarding the adaptive and maladaptive qualities of perfectionism, it will be important for future research to investigate the adaptive and maladaptive nature of the Perfectionism Inventory components and subscales. In particular, the next iteration of the DSM-V is set to include a dimensional approach of pathological personality traits with rigid perfectionism and perseveration being the main traits included in the Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder criteria. This study advances the understanding of the differential characteristics of the perfectionism personality trait within the larger personality structure. Future research may consider how the results of this study relate to other studies linking OCPD to the NEO-PI-R domains and facets (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004) and specifically examine how the Rumination subscale relates with Perseveration. Enhancing this understanding may provide further evidence of the PI’s usefulness to clinicians in diagnosing OCPD. This may be achieved through an item response theory approach, similar to that used by Samuel, Simms, Clark, Livesley, and Widiger (2010), and provide clarity regarding the normal and abnormal personality traits measured by the PI and items that differentiate this.

References Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., Widiger, T. A., Ryder, A. G., & Marshall, M. (2005). DSM-IV personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: A multi-method examination of domain and facet-level predictions. European Journal of Personality, 19, 307–324. Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–57. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 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, 365–373. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owen’s Dual Process Model. Behavior Modification, 30, 472–495. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1363–1381. Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 15–34. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 464–468. Hill, R.W. (2012, January 6). Perfectionism Inventory. Retrieved January 6, 2012, from . Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., & Kennedy, C. (2004). A new measure of perfectionism: The perfectionism inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 80–91. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jones, R. G. (1968). A factored measure of Ellis’ irrational belief systems with personality and maladjustment correlated. Wichita, KS: Test Systems. Kurtz, J. E., Lee, P. A., & Sherker, J. (1999). Internal and temporal reliability estimates for informant ratings of personality using the NEO PI-R and IAS. Assessment, 6, 103–113.

S.E. Cruce et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 53 (2012) 268–273 Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J. G., Quigley, B. D., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., et al. (2002). The representation of borderline, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal personality disorders by the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 215–234. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. O’Connor, B. P. (2002). The search for dimensional structure differences between normality and abnormality: A statistical review of published data on personality and psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 962–982. Samuel, D. B., Simms, L. J., Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2010). An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales. Personality Disorders, 1, 5–21.

273

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055–1085. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: A cognitivebehavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–906. 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. Sprock, J. (2002). A comparative study of the dimensions and facets of the fivefactor model in the diagnosis of cases of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorder, 16, 402–423. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.