- Email: [email protected]
Perfectionism, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and motivated strategies for learning: a multidimensional analysis of university students
Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Perfectionism, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and motivated strategies for learning: a multidimensional analysis of university students Jennifer S. Mills, Kirk R. Blankstein* Department of Psychology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5L 1C6 Received 14 August 1998; accepted 12 January 2000
Abstract We investigated the interrelations between dimensions of perfectionism and measures of academic motivation and learning strategies in university students. When partial correlation analysis was employed to examine the unique relation between speci®c perfectionism subscales and motivation/ learning scales, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly related to students' motivation and learning strategies in positive, adaptive ways whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was related in negative, maladaptive ways. Self-oriented perfectionists were motivated primarily by extrinsic compensation for their academic work whereas socially prescribed perfectionists were more motivated by recognition from others. Self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively associated with self-ecacy for learning and performance, adaptive metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies, and eective resource management. Socially prescribed perfectionism was associated negatively with these measures. In addition, self-oriented perfectionism was associated positively with intrinsic goal orientation for a speci®c course, task value, and critical thinking whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with test anxiety and a decreased likelihood of help-seeking. The theoretical importance of these ®ndings and the implications for devising strategic counseling interventions are discussed. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Self-oriented perfectionism; Socially prescribed perfectionism; Motivation; Learning strategies
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-905-569-4326. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.R. Blankstein). 0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 9
1192
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1. Introduction The multidimensional nature of perfectionism and its linkages to both maladaptive traits and negative outcomes and, less frequently, adaptive traits and positive outcomes has generated much research during the past two decades. Hewitt and Flett (1991a,b) proposed three dimensions of perfectionism and developed a self-report measure of the dierent components. Self-oriented perfectionism characterizes those individuals who are assumed to create excessively high standards for themselves and to engage in intense self-criticism. Socially prescribed perfectionism characterizes those individuals who perceive that signi®cant others are imposing excessively high standards on them and that they must meet these standards in order to please others. Other-oriented perfectionism characterizes those individuals who impose excessively high standards on other individuals in their lives. Frost and Marten (1990) independently developed another multidimensional measure of perfectionism. Their measure identi®es the dimensions of excessive concern over making mistakes, high personal standards, perception of high parental expectations and parental criticism, doubt regarding the quality of one's actions, and a preference for order and organization. A number of publications have demonstrated a link between components of perfectionism and maladjustment (see Blatt, 1995 for a recent review). For example, socially prescribed perfectionism has been linked to submissive behaviour and shame-proneness, depression, diminished self-esteem, irrational fears, maladaptive thinking patterns and coping, and other indices of maladaptive symptomatology or maladjustment including suicide ideation (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000; Blankstein, Flett, Hewitt & Eng, 1993; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & O'Brien, 1991b; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a,b; Wyatt & Gilbert, 1998). 1.1. ``Normal'' or adaptive components of perfectionism What has been the focus of considerably less research on perfectionism is the study of potentially positive and adaptive aspects of perfectionism and its dimensions. In a factor analytic examination of the relation between Hewitt and Flett's and Frost and colleagues' multidimensional perfectionism scales, Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) found both maladaptive and adaptive components of perfectionism. The subscales most related to negative aect were Hewitt and Flett's socially prescribed perfectionism and Frost's excessive concern over mistakes whereas the subscales most related to positive aect were Hewitt and Flett's self-oriented perfectionism and Frost's personal standards (Frost et al., 1993). The perfectionist's self-imposed ``setting of and striving for high standards is certainly not in and of itself pathological'' (Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosenblate, 1990, p. 450). Several of the subscales on the Frost and colleagues' multidimensional perfectionism scale, especially high personal standards and a need for order and organization, are associated with adaptive work habits, striving, and high achievement (Frost et al., 1990; Brown et al., 1999). The adaptive components of perfectionism related to competence or success are acknowledged in Hamachek's model of a continuum of ``normal'' to ``neurotic'' perfectionism (Hamachek, 1978), as well as by other researchers (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne, 1999; Rice, Ashby & Slaney, 1998; Terry-Short, Owens, Slade & Dewey, 1995). With ``normal'' perfectionism, individuals are assumed to derive a sense of pleasure from their eorts
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1193
to achieve while remaining free to be less than perfect as the situation permits (Hamachek, 1978). Self-oriented perfectionism may also be associated with more adaptive strategies for meeting self-imposed high standards. For example, it has been shown to be related positively to self-esteem, resourcefulness and constructive striving, and to high levels of perceived personal control (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Mosher, 1991a; Flett et al., 1991b; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Dynin, 1994a). It is assumed that self-oriented perfectionism can become ``neurotic'' when it interacts with stress or perceived failure, or when in combination with high socially prescribed perfectionism (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Mosher, 1995a). 1.2. Motivational aspects of perfectionism Motivational aspects of perfectionism may be responsible for the adaptive behaviours associated with self-oriented perfectionism. For instance, self-oriented perfectionism is assumed to include not only the tendency to set high standards for oneself, but the motivational component of the need to meet those standards and to strive to ful®ll those standards (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). The adaptive facet may be due in part to intrinsic motivation (e.g., Flett, Russo & Hewitt, 1994b), and may contribute to persistence on tasks and a strong sense of selfecacy (Bandura, 1989). Further, a strong sense of self-ecacy may result in the setting of high standards for oneself and, therefore, self-oriented perfectionism. Flett, Sawatzky, and Hewitt (1995b) reported that self-oriented perfectionism and high personal standards are most relevant to achievement-related motives involving the drive for perfect performance at school. Socially prescribed perfectionism, on the other hand, is thought to be associated with a general absence of constructive thinking due to motivational de®cits and irrational beliefs, and a decreased level of intrinsic motivation (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). The hypothesized diminished intrinsic motivation and increased extrinsic motivation among socially prescribed perfectionists may come from the habitual need to please others and to avoid punishment (see Deci & Ryan, 1985). 1.3. The present study The present study examined the relations between dimensions of perfectionism, and aspects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational dispositions in university students. Whereas previous researchers have speculated about the relation between self-oriented perfectionism and intrinsic motivation only (e.g., Flett et al., 1995b), we hypothesized that self-oriented perfectionists may well be motivated on a given task by extrinsic factors as well as by intrinsic factors. Individuals who impose very high standards on themselves may be as much motivated by extrinsic compensation for their academic work (e.g., grades) and/or concerns with competition, evaluation, and recognition by others as they are by interest and enjoyment. Consistent with past theory and research, we predicted that socially prescribed perfectionists are oriented toward the recognition and the dictates of others. The present study sought to relate perfectionism and its dimensions to a general measure of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation developed for use with university students, the work preference inventory Ð student version (WPI; Amabile, 1987; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). We also examined the relations between perfectionism and its dimensions and motivation speci®c to academics in university students. We sought to test the hypothesis that there are
1194
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
distinct and dierentiable links between the dimensions of perfectionism and the use of learning strategies in a speci®c university course (e.g., Introductory Psychology). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1993) was developed for use with university students and assesses academic motivation, strategies for learning, and resource management in a speci®c university course. Consistent with reports that self-oriented perfectionism is associated with higher levels of adaptive task orientation (e.g., Flett et al., 1994b), we hypothesized that self-oriented perfectionism would be associated with positive and adaptive learning behaviours. We predicted that higher scorers on self-oriented perfectionism would exhibit relatively greater usage of the adaptive learning strategies assessed by the MSLQ. Speci®cally, we predicted a link between self-oriented perfectionism and resource management strategies (e.g., eort regulation, time and study environment management), as well as with cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies since a consequence of higher motivation may be a greater likelihood of using cognitive strategies (e.g., elaboration, organization) that produce a deeper level of processing (see Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). Also consistent with past research, we predicted that socially prescribed perfectionists would report lower usage of adaptive learning strategies. We hypothesized that other-oriented perfectionism would not be related, or only weakly related, to motivation and learning strategies. Our ®nal goal was to test the association between perfectionism dimensions (e.g., selforiented) and motivation and learning strategies after removing the variance due to the other perfectionism dimensions (e.g., socially prescribed and other-oriented). Since the perfectionism components are moderately and positively interrelated (correlations of 0.3 to 0.5 in various studies; e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), it is possible that any link between speci®c perfectionism components and motivation and learning strategies could be due, in part, to the mutual overlap with the other perfectionism components, in particular socially prescribed perfectionism. Although extreme perfectionists might be characterized by high levels of both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, the dierent components share, at most, 25% of variance and it is of interest to determine the correlates and consequences of relatively ``pure'' components. Thus, we computed partial correlations controlling for other perfectionism dimensions to determine the relations between speci®c perfectionism components and motivation and learning strategies after removing this source of overlap.
2. Method
2.1. Participants The participants were 207 undergraduate students enrolled in a two-semester Introductory Psychology course at the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Sixty-four percent (133) were female and 36% (74) were male. Their mean age was 22.4 years (SD=6.9). Participants received partial course credit for their participation.
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1195
2.2. Materials 2.2.1. The multidimensional perfectionism scale Perfectionism was measured using the MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), a 45-item self-report measure of dispositional perfectionism. Respondents indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with statements concerning personal characteristics. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ``strongly disagree'' to ``strongly agree.'' Higher scores indicate higher levels of perfectionism. The three subscales measure the following components of perfectionism: (1) Self-oriented (e.g., ``I set very high standards for myself''); (2) Socially prescribed (e.g., ``My family expects me to be perfect''); and (3) Other-oriented (e.g., ``I have high expectations for the people who are important to me''). Prior research has demonstrated its high reliability and validity (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). 2.2.2. The work preference inventory Ð student version The WPI (Amabile, 1987; Amabile et al., 1994) assesses students' overall intrinsic and extrinsic motivational dispositions toward their work. The WPI is a 30-item self-report questionnaire scored on a 4-point Likert scale. It consists of two primary scales: (1) Intrinsic motivation which measures such task elements as self-determination, competence, task involvement, curiosity, enjoyment, and interest, and (2) Extrinsic motivation which measures concerns with competition, evaluation, recognition, grades, and constraint by others. The two primary scales are each subdivided into two secondary scales: (1) Enjoyment (e.g., ``I prefer to ®gure things out for myself'') and (2) Challenge (e.g., ``The more dicult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it'') make up the Intrinsic motivation scale; (3) Outward (e.g., ``To me, success means doing better than other people'') and (4) Compensation (e.g., ``I am keenly aware of the goals I have for getting good grades'') make up the Extrinsic motivation scale. The WPI has meaningful factor structure, adequate internal consistency, good short-term testretest reliability, and good longer-term stability (Amabile et al., 1994). 2.2.3. The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire Academic motivation and strategies for learning were measured with the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1993). This 81-item scale assesses motivation for course work, study habits, and learning skills in university students. We asked students to respond with speci®c reference to their work in the Introductory Psychology course. Each item on the MSLQ is scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ``not at all true of me'' to ``very true of me''. The 31-item motivation section yields six subscale scores which consist of the following: (1) Intrinsic goal orientation measures the degree to which the student perceives him or herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as challenge, curiosity, and mastery (e.g., ``The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible''); (2) Extrinsic goal orientation measures the degree to which the student perceives him or herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as grades, rewards, performance, and competition (e.g., ``Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now''); (3) Task value measures the extent to which the student ®nds the course interesting, important, and useful and, in theory, leads to more involvement in one's learning (e.g., ``Understanding the subject matter of this course is very important to me''). The expectancy components are: (4) Control of learning beliefs measures the degree to which a student believes that academic
1196
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
outcomes are contingent on one's own eort, which is thought to be related to strategic and eective study skills (e.g., ``If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material''); and (5) Self-ecacy for learning and performance measures both expectancy for success in task performance and self-ecacy or con®dence in one's skills to perform the task (e.g., ``I expect to do well in this class''). The aective component measures both the cognitive component of (6) Test anxiety (e.g., ``When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing'') and an emotionality component (e.g., ``I feel my heart beating fast when I take an exam''). The 50-item Learning strategies section consists of nine subscales which measure students' use of study skills and strategies and includes the following: (1) Rehearsal (e.g., ``When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself over and over''); (2) Elaboration (e.g., ``When I study for this course, I go over my class notes in other courses whenever possible''); (3) Organization (e.g., ``I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material''); and (4) Critical thinking (e.g., ``I treat the course material as a starting point and try to develop my own ideas about it'') which are classi®ed as cognitive strategies; (5) Metacognition which is made up of planning, monitoring, and regulating (e.g., ``When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading''); and (6) Time and study environment management (e.g., ``I make good use of my study time for this course''); (7) Eort management (e.g., ``I work hard in this class even if I don't like what we are doing''); (8) Peer learning (e.g., ``When studying for this course, I often try to explain the material to a classmate or friend''); and (9) Help-seeking (e.g., ``I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don't understand well'') which are classi®ed as resource management strategies. Research has demonstrated robust subscale internal consistencies and good factor structure (Pintrich et al., 1993) and the instrument shows good predictive ability to actual course performance (e.g., Brackney & Karabenick, 1995). 2.3. Procedure Participants were administered questionnaire packages in small groups. The measures of interest to the present study were randomly embedded, in counterbalanced order, among other psychological measures. All students had written at least one Introductory Psychology term test prior to participation, with most students having written two or three tests. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics The means, standard deviations, and reliabilites of the MPS, the Student WPI, and the MSLQ for the total sample are presented in Table 1. These descriptive statistics are in accordance with previously published norms. With the exception of the MSLQ help-seeking subscale, all subscales approximated or exceeded the minimum criterion of reliability recommended for research instruments (Nunnally, 1978). 3.2. Zero-order correlations The zero-order correlations between the scales of the MPS and the student WPI and MSLQ
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1197
are shown in Table 2. With respect to the student WPI, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with the extrinsic motivation primary scale, and with the compensation orientation and outward orientation secondary scales. Socially prescribed perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic motivation and its outward orientation secondary scale, and was negatively correlated with the challenge orientation secondary scale of intrinsic motivation. Other-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic motivation and its outward orientation secondary scale. With respect to the MSLQ motivation scales, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic goal orientation, self-ecacy for learning and performance, Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for the multidimensional perfectionism scale, the work preference inventory, and the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire for the total sample (N = 207)
MPS Self-oriented Socially prescribed Other-oriented WPI Intrinsic motivation Challenge Enjoyment Extrinsic motivation Outward Compensation MSLQ Motivation Value Intrinsic goal orientation Extrinsic goal orientation Task value Expectancy Control of learning beliefs Self-ecacy for learning and performance Test anxiety Learning strategies Cognitive Rehearsal Elaboration Organization Critical thinking Metacognition Resource management Time and study environment management Eort management Peer learning Help-seeking
M
SD
a
70.07 56.86 57.51
15.39 14.68 11.05
0.88 0.86 0.73
42.66 11.84 30.83 39.10 24.65 24.65
6.42 5.98 3.07 5.98 4.52 4.58
0.81 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.77 0.69
19.16 19.54 33.21
4.37 2.90 6.59
0.69 0.69 0.90
22.70 39.89 19.32
3.64 8.12 7.29
0.66 0.89 0.80
19.09 29.23 19.07 19.16 52.00
4.77 6.97 5.15 5.86 9.62
0.67 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.73
37.76 20.09 9.62 13.65
8.28 4.60 4.04 5.01
0.77 0.69 0.66 0.63
1198
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
test anxiety, task value, and intrinsic goal orientation. When correlations with the MSLQ learning strategies scales were examined, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with all scales except for peer learning and help-seeking. Socially prescribed perfectionism was signi®cantly positively related to test anxiety among the motivation scales and negatively related to eort management and time and study environment management among the learning strategies scales. Other-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic goal orientation, peer learning, and help-seeking. We tested the signi®cance of the dierence between the correlations involving self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (nonindependent correlations) using Edwards' (1960) procedure. The dierences were signi®cant ( p < 0.025, one-sided test) for the Table 2 Zero-order correlations (and partial correlations in parentheses) between perfectionism (the multidimensional perfectionism scale) and the work preference inventory and the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire subscales for the total sample (N = 207)a
WPI Intrinsic motivation Challenge Enjoyment Extrinsic motivation Outward Compensation MSLQ Motivation Value Intrinsic orientation Extrinsic orientation Task value Expectancy Control beliefs Self-ecacy Test anxiety Learning strategies Cognitive Rehearsal Elaboration Organization Critical thinking Metacognition Resource management Time and study Eort management Peer learning Help-seeking a
NB: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Self-oriented
Socially prescribed
Other-oriented
0.05 (0.11) ÿ0.01 (0.07) 0.08 (0.11) 0.47 (0.35) 0.34 (0.16) 0.44 (0.44)
ÿ0.14 (ÿ0.16) ÿ0.21 (ÿ0.22) ÿ0.05 (ÿ0.08) 0.38 (0.24) 0.45 (0.35) 0.07 (ÿ0.10)
ÿ0.02 (ÿ0.02) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.00) ÿ0.01 (ÿ0.03) 0.27 (0.04) 0.27 (0.10) 0.12 (ÿ0.07)
0.15 (0.18) 0.33 (0.31) 0.17 (0.17)
ÿ0.06 (ÿ0.12) 0.02 (ÿ0.12) ÿ0.05 (ÿ0.13)
0.04 (ÿ0.01) 0.15 (0.03) 0.08 (0.04)
0.07 (0.08) 0.24 (0.24) 0.19 (0.11)
ÿ0.03 (ÿ0.06) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.15) 0.29 (0.25)
0.04 (0.02) 0.13 (0.06) 0.07 (ÿ0.06)
0.18 0.22 0.26 0.24
ÿ0.08 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.10 0.02
(0.23) (0.27) (0.30) (0.22)
0.14 (0.21) 0.14 (0.22) 0.07 (0.07) 0.04 (0.03)
(ÿ0.15) (ÿ0.22) (ÿ0.21) (ÿ0.08)
ÿ0.19 (ÿ0.27) ÿ0.21 (ÿ0.28) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.08) ÿ0.12 (ÿ0.17)
0.08 0.04 0.13 0.07
(ÿ0.05) (ÿ0.01) (0.00) (0.05)
0.05 (0.04) 0.08 (0.03) 0.14 (0.03) 0.14 (0.15)
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1199
following scales and subscales: WPI intrinsic motivation, challenge, and compensation, MSLQ intrinsic orientation, extrinsic orientation, task value and self-ecacy from the motivation section, and rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognition, time and study environment management, and eort management from the learning strategies section. 3.3. Partial correlation analyses The intercorrelations among the MPS subscales demonstrated positive and highly signi®cant correlations between self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). Therefore, partial correlation analyses were performed in order to examine the unique relation between speci®c MPS scales and student WPI and MSLQ scales, with the other dimensions of perfectionism partialled out. The partial correlations are shown in parentheses in Table 2. Partial correlations were performed between self-oriented perfectionism and all of the components of the student WPI and MSLQ, with the other-oriented and socially prescribed components partialled out. With respect to the student WPI, self-oriented perfectionism alone was positively and signi®cantly related to extrinsic motivation, compensation orientation, and outward orientation. Relatively higher scorers on self-oriented perfectionism reported higher extrinsic motivation on the primary scale and both secondary scales. It is noteworthy that selforiented perfectionists did not report higher intrinsic motivation than non-self-oriented perfectionists, as had been predicted. Self-oriented perfectionism was further related to a number of adaptive motivational components and learning strategies related to the Introductory Psychology course. Among the MSLQ motivation scales, extrinsic goal motivation, self-ecacy for learning and performance, intrinsic goal motivation, and task value were all positively and signi®cantly related to self-oriented perfectionism. The correlation between self-oriented perfectionism and test anxiety was no longer signi®cant when socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism were partialled out. From the MSLQ learning strategies scales, metacognition, organization, elaboration, rehearsal, critical thinking, eort management, and time and study environment were all positively and signi®cantly related to self-oriented perfectionism alone. In sum, self-oriented perfectionists reported higher academic motivation and greater use of adaptive learning strategies. With respect to the student WPI, higher scorers on socially prescribed perfectionism, with self-oriented and other-oriented components partialled out, had higher extrinsic motivation, and outward orientation than did lower scorers. Interestingly, socially prescribed perfectionism was negatively and signi®cantly related to overall intrinsic motivation and the challenge orientation subscale. With respect to the MSLQ motivation scales, socially prescribed perfectionism alone was strongly positively related to test anxiety and negatively related to selfecacy. On the MSLQ learning strategies scales, higher scorers on socially prescribed perfectionism reported lower usage of eort management, time and study environment management, elaboration, organization, metacognition, help-seeking, and rehearsal than did lower scorers. Other-oriented perfectionism alone was related only to the help-seeking scale of the MSLQ. No other partial correlations with other-oriented perfectionism alone reached signi®cance.
1200
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
4. Discussion The ®ndings of the present study support the theory that there are distinct and identi®able positive and adaptive aspects of perfectionism (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000) in addition to the negative, maladaptive aspects commonly assumed. Our examination of undergraduate university students yielded interesting ®ndings in terms of adaptive motivational and learning strategies associated with the self-oriented dimension of perfectionism, as well as maladaptive motivational and learning strategies associated with the socially prescribed dimension. 4.1. Is self-oriented perfectionism adaptive? A number of signi®cant ®ndings emerged in the zero-order correlation analyses involving relations between the MPS dimensions and the MSLQ measures, especially with respect to the self-oriented perfectionism scale which was positively associated with many of the measures. Further, in many instances the correlation between self-oriented perfectionism and speci®c motivation and learning strategy measures was signi®cantly dierent from the comparable correlation with socially prescribed perfectionism. However, the eects were even stronger and the pattern of relations more consistent with predictions when the in¯uence of the other perfectionism components was partialled out. When socially prescribed and other-oriented components were controlled for, the relations between self-oriented perfectionism and measures of general academic motivation con®rmed our hypothesis that self-oriented perfectionism is related to extrinsic motivation, including compensation orientation and outward orientation. Self-oriented perfectionists tend to be motivated by recognition of their academic work, to be sensitive to others' opinions of their work and ideas, and to judge their success relative to other people. They are likely to be keenly aware of their grade point average goals and to be strongly motivated by this compensation component of their work. However, contrary to the prediction based on the theorizing of Hewitt and Flett (e.g., 1991b), higher scorers on selforiented perfectionism did not report higher general intrinsic motivation than did lower scorers as assessed by the WPI. Thus, despite self-imposed high standards of success, self-oriented perfectionists appear to be motivated primarily by extrinsic compensation and recognition by others. Discrepant with the WPI ®ndings, self-oriented perfectionism was weakly but signi®cantly positively correlated with the MSLQ intrinsic goal orientation subscale speci®c to Introductory Psychology. It is not clear why self-oriented perfectionism was correlated with intrinsic goal orientation on the MSLQ but not intrinsic motivation on the student WPI. Although the link with intrinsic goal orientation is consistent with Hewitt and Flett's (1991b) theorizing, the stronger association with the MSLQ extrinsic goal orientation subscale is consistent with our interpretation that self-oriented perfectionists are motivated primarily by extrinsic goals (at least in university academic work). Further, the link between self-oriented perfectionism and self-ecacy was highly signi®cant irrespective of whether zero-order or partial correlations were calculated. The relations between self-oriented perfectionism and academic learning strategies con®rmed our hypothesis that self-oriented perfectionists would report greater use of adaptive learning strategies in schoolwork. The ®ndings were consistent across zero-order correlations and partial correlations. Self-oriented perfectionists reported using adaptive rehearsal, elaboration,
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1201
organization, critical thinking, metacognition, time and study environment management, and eort management skills. The association with metacognitive control and self-regulatory activities (planning, monitoring, and regulating) is particularly informative. Our results clearly demonstrate that self-oriented perfectionists not only demonstrate strong motivation to achieve self-imposed high standards for academic success, but demonstrate that they are in fact more likely to use various adaptive learning strategies that are usually associated with positive academic outcomes (e.g., Brackney & Karabenick, 1995). Thus, self-oriented perfectionism can be adaptive. 4.2. Socially prescribed perfectionism is maladaptive Consistent with our hypothesis that socially prescribed perfectionism can create motivational de®cits in individuals, higher scorers exhibited higher extrinsic motivation and outward motivation, and lower intrinsic motivation and challenge orientation as assessed by the student WPI. In other words, the perception, either correct or incorrect, of pressure from signi®cant others (probably parents) to be perfect is associated with motivation to do well in school only because of a desire for recognition from others and not for the success experience in and of itself. Socially prescribed perfectionists reported that they experience increased distress during Introductory Psychology test situations and that they engage in a variety of maladaptive strategies for learning. Thus, they reported lowered judgments of competency to perform tasks and lower use of rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and metacognition. With respect to resource management strategies, both the zero-order and partial correlations re¯ected a de®cit in socially prescribed perfectionists' management of their time and study environment, and in their ability to persist in the face of boring and dicult tasks. Socially prescribed perfectionism is maladaptive. 4.3. Implications and research directions Our ®ndings have implications for the fostering of adaptive learning strategies for success in university students. Those students who perceive that high standards for success are selfimposed appear to use various strategies that increase the likelihood of achieving academic success. On the other hand, those students who perceive that signi®cant others are imposing high standards for academic success tend not to use adaptive learning strategies. Perceived strong parental pressure to do very well in university may well ``back®re'' on signi®cant others (see Brehm, 1966) as it causes increased use of maladaptive learning strategies. Our ®ndings of the negative eects of perceived excessive pressure to be perfect suggest the need for counseling of students who perceive such demands that is aimed at fostering a sense of self-ecacy, the use of adaptive learning strategies and eective resource management, and combating test anxiety (see Brackney & Karabenick, 1995; Flett & Blankstein, 1994). Because socially prescribed perfectionists are more likely to suer from psychological problems such as depression and anxiety that may exacerbate academic diculties (e.g., Arthur & Hayward, 1997) a focus on psychological problems may also become a critical aspect of longer term counseling. Perfectionism is typically associated with poor outcomes in treatment (see Blatt, 1995). However, progress might be facilitated during counseling or treatment by addressing
1202
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
relationships with signi®cant others who impose perfectionism on students, including ``harsh, judgmental, parental ®gures who have set excessively high standards'' (Blatt, 1995, p. 1014). It will also be important to encourage socially prescribed perfectionists to seek help for their academic and psychological problems. Schwitzer, Grogan, Kaddoura, and Ochoa (1993) have demonstrated positive eects of brief mandatory counseling on help-seeking and academic success among at-risk college students. Such programs could include a more speci®c focus on the promotion of realistic expectations and self-appraisals among perfectionists. Parents and educators, as well as students, should be made aware of the potentially negative impact that excessive external pressure and unrealistic standards can have on academic learning. In future research it will be important to establish the links between perfectionism components and academic outcomes. Although recent research suggests that components of perfectionism do predict test performance and GPA in theoretically meaningful ways (e.g., Arthur & Hayward, 1997; Blankstein, Halsall, Williams & Winkworth, 1997; Brown et al., 1999), it will be important to determine whether perfectionism has direct eects on performance or whether the link is mediated or moderated by individual dierences in motivation, learning strategies, or other variables, such as academic aptitude, verbal intelligence, or psychological distress. Further, the relation between high standards and motivation and learning strategies in both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionists may be aected by dierences in actual and perceived ability to meet those standards. The selforiented perfectionist with relatively fewer past academic successes may develop a sense of inecacy and fail to persist under adversity. We are currently conducting a longitudinal study of perfectionism and academic performance in an attempt to address some of these issues. Finally, causality should not be inferred from our correlational design. Although we believe that dispositional perfectionism components develop prior to motivation and learning strategies, it is essential that future prospective research establish the directional relation. 4.4. Summary The present study demonstrated that self-oriented perfectionists are characterized by signi®cant extrinsic goal orientation, a strong sense of self-ecacy for learning and performance, the use of adaptive metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies, eective resource management, and eort regulation. On the other hand, socially prescribed perfectionists are characterized by motivation for recognition by others, decreased likelihood of help-seeking, test anxiety, and non-use of adaptive learning strategies which are, in turn, related to relatively poorer academic performance.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) General Research Grant and a University of Toronto at Mississauga Internal Research Grant awarded to Kirk R. Blankstein.
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1203
References Amabile, T. M. (1987). The work preference inventory. Unpublished instrument, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950±967. Arthur, N., & Hayward, L. (1997). The relationships between perfectionism, standards for academic achievement, and emotional distress in postsecondary students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 622±633. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175±1184. Blankstein, K. R., & Dunkley, D. (2000). ``Evaluative concerns/self-critical'' and ``personal standards''perfectionism, hassles, coping, social support, and distress: a structural equation modeling strategy. In G. F. Flett, & P. L. Hewitt, Perfectionism: theory, research and treatment. Washington: American Psychological Association Press (in press). Blankstein, K. R., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Eng, A. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism and irrational fears: an examination with the Fear Survey Schedule. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15, 323±328. Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (1997). Dimensions of perfectionism and cumulative grade point average. Unpublished raw data. Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003±1020. Brackney, B. E., & Karabenick, S. A. (1995). Psychopathology and academic performance: the role of motivation and learning strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 456±465. Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S., Juster, H. R., & Leung, A. W. (1999). Relationship of perfectionism to aect, expectations, attributions and performance in the classroom. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 98±120. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Edwards, A. L. (1960). Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1994). Worry as a component of test anxiety: a multidimensional analysis. In G. C. L. Davey, & F. Tallis, Worrying: perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 135±181). London: Wiley. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Dynin, C. (1994a). Dimensions of perfectionism and Type A behaviour. Personality and Individual Dierences, 16, 477±485. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1991a). Perfectionism, self-actualization, and personal adjustment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 147±160. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1995a). Perfectionism, life events, and depressive symptoms: a test of a diathesis-stress model. Current Psychology, 14, 112±137. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & O'Brien, S. (1991b). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12, 61±68. Flett, G. L., Russo, F. A., & Hewitt, P. L. (1994b). Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive thinking as a coping response. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 12, 163±179. Flett, G. L., Sawatzky, D. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (1995b). Dimensions of perfectionism and goal commitment: a further comparison of two perfectionism measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 111±124. Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R., Holt, C., Mattia, J., & Neubauer, A. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Dierences, 14, 119±126. Frost, R. O., & Marten, P. A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 559± 572. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449±468. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27±33. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98±101.
1204
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456±470. Lynd-Stevenson, R. M., & Hearne, C. M. (1999). Perfectionism and depressive aect: the pros and cons of being a perfectionist. Personality and Individual Dierences, 26, 549±562. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich, Advances in motivation and achievement: goals and self-regulatory processes, Vol. 7 (pp. 371±402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801± 813. Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression: a structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304±314. Schwitzer, A. M., Grogan, K., Kaddoura, K., & Ochoa, L. (1993). Eects of brief mandatory counseling on helpseeking and academic success among at-risk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 401± 405. Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, G. R., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18, 663±668. Wyatt, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism: a study exploring their relationship with perceived social rank and status. Personality and Individual Dierences, 24, 71±79.
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Perfectionism, intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, and motivated strategies for learning: a multidimensional analysis of university students Jennifer S. Mills, Kirk R. Blankstein* Department of Psychology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5L 1C6 Received 14 August 1998; accepted 12 January 2000
Abstract We investigated the interrelations between dimensions of perfectionism and measures of academic motivation and learning strategies in university students. When partial correlation analysis was employed to examine the unique relation between speci®c perfectionism subscales and motivation/ learning scales, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly related to students' motivation and learning strategies in positive, adaptive ways whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was related in negative, maladaptive ways. Self-oriented perfectionists were motivated primarily by extrinsic compensation for their academic work whereas socially prescribed perfectionists were more motivated by recognition from others. Self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively associated with self-ecacy for learning and performance, adaptive metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies, and eective resource management. Socially prescribed perfectionism was associated negatively with these measures. In addition, self-oriented perfectionism was associated positively with intrinsic goal orientation for a speci®c course, task value, and critical thinking whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with test anxiety and a decreased likelihood of help-seeking. The theoretical importance of these ®ndings and the implications for devising strategic counseling interventions are discussed. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Self-oriented perfectionism; Socially prescribed perfectionism; Motivation; Learning strategies
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-905-569-4326. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.R. Blankstein). 0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 9
1192
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1. Introduction The multidimensional nature of perfectionism and its linkages to both maladaptive traits and negative outcomes and, less frequently, adaptive traits and positive outcomes has generated much research during the past two decades. Hewitt and Flett (1991a,b) proposed three dimensions of perfectionism and developed a self-report measure of the dierent components. Self-oriented perfectionism characterizes those individuals who are assumed to create excessively high standards for themselves and to engage in intense self-criticism. Socially prescribed perfectionism characterizes those individuals who perceive that signi®cant others are imposing excessively high standards on them and that they must meet these standards in order to please others. Other-oriented perfectionism characterizes those individuals who impose excessively high standards on other individuals in their lives. Frost and Marten (1990) independently developed another multidimensional measure of perfectionism. Their measure identi®es the dimensions of excessive concern over making mistakes, high personal standards, perception of high parental expectations and parental criticism, doubt regarding the quality of one's actions, and a preference for order and organization. A number of publications have demonstrated a link between components of perfectionism and maladjustment (see Blatt, 1995 for a recent review). For example, socially prescribed perfectionism has been linked to submissive behaviour and shame-proneness, depression, diminished self-esteem, irrational fears, maladaptive thinking patterns and coping, and other indices of maladaptive symptomatology or maladjustment including suicide ideation (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000; Blankstein, Flett, Hewitt & Eng, 1993; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & O'Brien, 1991b; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a,b; Wyatt & Gilbert, 1998). 1.1. ``Normal'' or adaptive components of perfectionism What has been the focus of considerably less research on perfectionism is the study of potentially positive and adaptive aspects of perfectionism and its dimensions. In a factor analytic examination of the relation between Hewitt and Flett's and Frost and colleagues' multidimensional perfectionism scales, Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) found both maladaptive and adaptive components of perfectionism. The subscales most related to negative aect were Hewitt and Flett's socially prescribed perfectionism and Frost's excessive concern over mistakes whereas the subscales most related to positive aect were Hewitt and Flett's self-oriented perfectionism and Frost's personal standards (Frost et al., 1993). The perfectionist's self-imposed ``setting of and striving for high standards is certainly not in and of itself pathological'' (Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosenblate, 1990, p. 450). Several of the subscales on the Frost and colleagues' multidimensional perfectionism scale, especially high personal standards and a need for order and organization, are associated with adaptive work habits, striving, and high achievement (Frost et al., 1990; Brown et al., 1999). The adaptive components of perfectionism related to competence or success are acknowledged in Hamachek's model of a continuum of ``normal'' to ``neurotic'' perfectionism (Hamachek, 1978), as well as by other researchers (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000; Lynd-Stevenson & Hearne, 1999; Rice, Ashby & Slaney, 1998; Terry-Short, Owens, Slade & Dewey, 1995). With ``normal'' perfectionism, individuals are assumed to derive a sense of pleasure from their eorts
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1193
to achieve while remaining free to be less than perfect as the situation permits (Hamachek, 1978). Self-oriented perfectionism may also be associated with more adaptive strategies for meeting self-imposed high standards. For example, it has been shown to be related positively to self-esteem, resourcefulness and constructive striving, and to high levels of perceived personal control (e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Mosher, 1991a; Flett et al., 1991b; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Dynin, 1994a). It is assumed that self-oriented perfectionism can become ``neurotic'' when it interacts with stress or perceived failure, or when in combination with high socially prescribed perfectionism (e.g., Blatt, 1995; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein & Mosher, 1995a). 1.2. Motivational aspects of perfectionism Motivational aspects of perfectionism may be responsible for the adaptive behaviours associated with self-oriented perfectionism. For instance, self-oriented perfectionism is assumed to include not only the tendency to set high standards for oneself, but the motivational component of the need to meet those standards and to strive to ful®ll those standards (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). The adaptive facet may be due in part to intrinsic motivation (e.g., Flett, Russo & Hewitt, 1994b), and may contribute to persistence on tasks and a strong sense of selfecacy (Bandura, 1989). Further, a strong sense of self-ecacy may result in the setting of high standards for oneself and, therefore, self-oriented perfectionism. Flett, Sawatzky, and Hewitt (1995b) reported that self-oriented perfectionism and high personal standards are most relevant to achievement-related motives involving the drive for perfect performance at school. Socially prescribed perfectionism, on the other hand, is thought to be associated with a general absence of constructive thinking due to motivational de®cits and irrational beliefs, and a decreased level of intrinsic motivation (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). The hypothesized diminished intrinsic motivation and increased extrinsic motivation among socially prescribed perfectionists may come from the habitual need to please others and to avoid punishment (see Deci & Ryan, 1985). 1.3. The present study The present study examined the relations between dimensions of perfectionism, and aspects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational dispositions in university students. Whereas previous researchers have speculated about the relation between self-oriented perfectionism and intrinsic motivation only (e.g., Flett et al., 1995b), we hypothesized that self-oriented perfectionists may well be motivated on a given task by extrinsic factors as well as by intrinsic factors. Individuals who impose very high standards on themselves may be as much motivated by extrinsic compensation for their academic work (e.g., grades) and/or concerns with competition, evaluation, and recognition by others as they are by interest and enjoyment. Consistent with past theory and research, we predicted that socially prescribed perfectionists are oriented toward the recognition and the dictates of others. The present study sought to relate perfectionism and its dimensions to a general measure of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation developed for use with university students, the work preference inventory Ð student version (WPI; Amabile, 1987; Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). We also examined the relations between perfectionism and its dimensions and motivation speci®c to academics in university students. We sought to test the hypothesis that there are
1194
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
distinct and dierentiable links between the dimensions of perfectionism and the use of learning strategies in a speci®c university course (e.g., Introductory Psychology). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1993) was developed for use with university students and assesses academic motivation, strategies for learning, and resource management in a speci®c university course. Consistent with reports that self-oriented perfectionism is associated with higher levels of adaptive task orientation (e.g., Flett et al., 1994b), we hypothesized that self-oriented perfectionism would be associated with positive and adaptive learning behaviours. We predicted that higher scorers on self-oriented perfectionism would exhibit relatively greater usage of the adaptive learning strategies assessed by the MSLQ. Speci®cally, we predicted a link between self-oriented perfectionism and resource management strategies (e.g., eort regulation, time and study environment management), as well as with cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies since a consequence of higher motivation may be a greater likelihood of using cognitive strategies (e.g., elaboration, organization) that produce a deeper level of processing (see Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). Also consistent with past research, we predicted that socially prescribed perfectionists would report lower usage of adaptive learning strategies. We hypothesized that other-oriented perfectionism would not be related, or only weakly related, to motivation and learning strategies. Our ®nal goal was to test the association between perfectionism dimensions (e.g., selforiented) and motivation and learning strategies after removing the variance due to the other perfectionism dimensions (e.g., socially prescribed and other-oriented). Since the perfectionism components are moderately and positively interrelated (correlations of 0.3 to 0.5 in various studies; e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), it is possible that any link between speci®c perfectionism components and motivation and learning strategies could be due, in part, to the mutual overlap with the other perfectionism components, in particular socially prescribed perfectionism. Although extreme perfectionists might be characterized by high levels of both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, the dierent components share, at most, 25% of variance and it is of interest to determine the correlates and consequences of relatively ``pure'' components. Thus, we computed partial correlations controlling for other perfectionism dimensions to determine the relations between speci®c perfectionism components and motivation and learning strategies after removing this source of overlap.
2. Method
2.1. Participants The participants were 207 undergraduate students enrolled in a two-semester Introductory Psychology course at the University of Toronto at Mississauga. Sixty-four percent (133) were female and 36% (74) were male. Their mean age was 22.4 years (SD=6.9). Participants received partial course credit for their participation.
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1195
2.2. Materials 2.2.1. The multidimensional perfectionism scale Perfectionism was measured using the MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), a 45-item self-report measure of dispositional perfectionism. Respondents indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with statements concerning personal characteristics. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ``strongly disagree'' to ``strongly agree.'' Higher scores indicate higher levels of perfectionism. The three subscales measure the following components of perfectionism: (1) Self-oriented (e.g., ``I set very high standards for myself''); (2) Socially prescribed (e.g., ``My family expects me to be perfect''); and (3) Other-oriented (e.g., ``I have high expectations for the people who are important to me''). Prior research has demonstrated its high reliability and validity (e.g., Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). 2.2.2. The work preference inventory Ð student version The WPI (Amabile, 1987; Amabile et al., 1994) assesses students' overall intrinsic and extrinsic motivational dispositions toward their work. The WPI is a 30-item self-report questionnaire scored on a 4-point Likert scale. It consists of two primary scales: (1) Intrinsic motivation which measures such task elements as self-determination, competence, task involvement, curiosity, enjoyment, and interest, and (2) Extrinsic motivation which measures concerns with competition, evaluation, recognition, grades, and constraint by others. The two primary scales are each subdivided into two secondary scales: (1) Enjoyment (e.g., ``I prefer to ®gure things out for myself'') and (2) Challenge (e.g., ``The more dicult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it'') make up the Intrinsic motivation scale; (3) Outward (e.g., ``To me, success means doing better than other people'') and (4) Compensation (e.g., ``I am keenly aware of the goals I have for getting good grades'') make up the Extrinsic motivation scale. The WPI has meaningful factor structure, adequate internal consistency, good short-term testretest reliability, and good longer-term stability (Amabile et al., 1994). 2.2.3. The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire Academic motivation and strategies for learning were measured with the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1993). This 81-item scale assesses motivation for course work, study habits, and learning skills in university students. We asked students to respond with speci®c reference to their work in the Introductory Psychology course. Each item on the MSLQ is scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ``not at all true of me'' to ``very true of me''. The 31-item motivation section yields six subscale scores which consist of the following: (1) Intrinsic goal orientation measures the degree to which the student perceives him or herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as challenge, curiosity, and mastery (e.g., ``The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible''); (2) Extrinsic goal orientation measures the degree to which the student perceives him or herself to be participating in a task for reasons such as grades, rewards, performance, and competition (e.g., ``Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now''); (3) Task value measures the extent to which the student ®nds the course interesting, important, and useful and, in theory, leads to more involvement in one's learning (e.g., ``Understanding the subject matter of this course is very important to me''). The expectancy components are: (4) Control of learning beliefs measures the degree to which a student believes that academic
1196
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
outcomes are contingent on one's own eort, which is thought to be related to strategic and eective study skills (e.g., ``If I try hard enough, then I will understand the course material''); and (5) Self-ecacy for learning and performance measures both expectancy for success in task performance and self-ecacy or con®dence in one's skills to perform the task (e.g., ``I expect to do well in this class''). The aective component measures both the cognitive component of (6) Test anxiety (e.g., ``When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing'') and an emotionality component (e.g., ``I feel my heart beating fast when I take an exam''). The 50-item Learning strategies section consists of nine subscales which measure students' use of study skills and strategies and includes the following: (1) Rehearsal (e.g., ``When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself over and over''); (2) Elaboration (e.g., ``When I study for this course, I go over my class notes in other courses whenever possible''); (3) Organization (e.g., ``I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material''); and (4) Critical thinking (e.g., ``I treat the course material as a starting point and try to develop my own ideas about it'') which are classi®ed as cognitive strategies; (5) Metacognition which is made up of planning, monitoring, and regulating (e.g., ``When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading''); and (6) Time and study environment management (e.g., ``I make good use of my study time for this course''); (7) Eort management (e.g., ``I work hard in this class even if I don't like what we are doing''); (8) Peer learning (e.g., ``When studying for this course, I often try to explain the material to a classmate or friend''); and (9) Help-seeking (e.g., ``I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don't understand well'') which are classi®ed as resource management strategies. Research has demonstrated robust subscale internal consistencies and good factor structure (Pintrich et al., 1993) and the instrument shows good predictive ability to actual course performance (e.g., Brackney & Karabenick, 1995). 2.3. Procedure Participants were administered questionnaire packages in small groups. The measures of interest to the present study were randomly embedded, in counterbalanced order, among other psychological measures. All students had written at least one Introductory Psychology term test prior to participation, with most students having written two or three tests. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics The means, standard deviations, and reliabilites of the MPS, the Student WPI, and the MSLQ for the total sample are presented in Table 1. These descriptive statistics are in accordance with previously published norms. With the exception of the MSLQ help-seeking subscale, all subscales approximated or exceeded the minimum criterion of reliability recommended for research instruments (Nunnally, 1978). 3.2. Zero-order correlations The zero-order correlations between the scales of the MPS and the student WPI and MSLQ
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1197
are shown in Table 2. With respect to the student WPI, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with the extrinsic motivation primary scale, and with the compensation orientation and outward orientation secondary scales. Socially prescribed perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic motivation and its outward orientation secondary scale, and was negatively correlated with the challenge orientation secondary scale of intrinsic motivation. Other-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic motivation and its outward orientation secondary scale. With respect to the MSLQ motivation scales, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic goal orientation, self-ecacy for learning and performance, Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for the multidimensional perfectionism scale, the work preference inventory, and the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire for the total sample (N = 207)
MPS Self-oriented Socially prescribed Other-oriented WPI Intrinsic motivation Challenge Enjoyment Extrinsic motivation Outward Compensation MSLQ Motivation Value Intrinsic goal orientation Extrinsic goal orientation Task value Expectancy Control of learning beliefs Self-ecacy for learning and performance Test anxiety Learning strategies Cognitive Rehearsal Elaboration Organization Critical thinking Metacognition Resource management Time and study environment management Eort management Peer learning Help-seeking
M
SD
a
70.07 56.86 57.51
15.39 14.68 11.05
0.88 0.86 0.73
42.66 11.84 30.83 39.10 24.65 24.65
6.42 5.98 3.07 5.98 4.52 4.58
0.81 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.77 0.69
19.16 19.54 33.21
4.37 2.90 6.59
0.69 0.69 0.90
22.70 39.89 19.32
3.64 8.12 7.29
0.66 0.89 0.80
19.09 29.23 19.07 19.16 52.00
4.77 6.97 5.15 5.86 9.62
0.67 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.73
37.76 20.09 9.62 13.65
8.28 4.60 4.04 5.01
0.77 0.69 0.66 0.63
1198
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
test anxiety, task value, and intrinsic goal orientation. When correlations with the MSLQ learning strategies scales were examined, self-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with all scales except for peer learning and help-seeking. Socially prescribed perfectionism was signi®cantly positively related to test anxiety among the motivation scales and negatively related to eort management and time and study environment management among the learning strategies scales. Other-oriented perfectionism was signi®cantly positively correlated with extrinsic goal orientation, peer learning, and help-seeking. We tested the signi®cance of the dierence between the correlations involving self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (nonindependent correlations) using Edwards' (1960) procedure. The dierences were signi®cant ( p < 0.025, one-sided test) for the Table 2 Zero-order correlations (and partial correlations in parentheses) between perfectionism (the multidimensional perfectionism scale) and the work preference inventory and the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire subscales for the total sample (N = 207)a
WPI Intrinsic motivation Challenge Enjoyment Extrinsic motivation Outward Compensation MSLQ Motivation Value Intrinsic orientation Extrinsic orientation Task value Expectancy Control beliefs Self-ecacy Test anxiety Learning strategies Cognitive Rehearsal Elaboration Organization Critical thinking Metacognition Resource management Time and study Eort management Peer learning Help-seeking a
NB: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Self-oriented
Socially prescribed
Other-oriented
0.05 (0.11) ÿ0.01 (0.07) 0.08 (0.11) 0.47 (0.35) 0.34 (0.16) 0.44 (0.44)
ÿ0.14 (ÿ0.16) ÿ0.21 (ÿ0.22) ÿ0.05 (ÿ0.08) 0.38 (0.24) 0.45 (0.35) 0.07 (ÿ0.10)
ÿ0.02 (ÿ0.02) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.00) ÿ0.01 (ÿ0.03) 0.27 (0.04) 0.27 (0.10) 0.12 (ÿ0.07)
0.15 (0.18) 0.33 (0.31) 0.17 (0.17)
ÿ0.06 (ÿ0.12) 0.02 (ÿ0.12) ÿ0.05 (ÿ0.13)
0.04 (ÿ0.01) 0.15 (0.03) 0.08 (0.04)
0.07 (0.08) 0.24 (0.24) 0.19 (0.11)
ÿ0.03 (ÿ0.06) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.15) 0.29 (0.25)
0.04 (0.02) 0.13 (0.06) 0.07 (ÿ0.06)
0.18 0.22 0.26 0.24
ÿ0.08 ÿ0.12 ÿ0.10 0.02
(0.23) (0.27) (0.30) (0.22)
0.14 (0.21) 0.14 (0.22) 0.07 (0.07) 0.04 (0.03)
(ÿ0.15) (ÿ0.22) (ÿ0.21) (ÿ0.08)
ÿ0.19 (ÿ0.27) ÿ0.21 (ÿ0.28) ÿ0.04 (ÿ0.08) ÿ0.12 (ÿ0.17)
0.08 0.04 0.13 0.07
(ÿ0.05) (ÿ0.01) (0.00) (0.05)
0.05 (0.04) 0.08 (0.03) 0.14 (0.03) 0.14 (0.15)
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1199
following scales and subscales: WPI intrinsic motivation, challenge, and compensation, MSLQ intrinsic orientation, extrinsic orientation, task value and self-ecacy from the motivation section, and rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognition, time and study environment management, and eort management from the learning strategies section. 3.3. Partial correlation analyses The intercorrelations among the MPS subscales demonstrated positive and highly signi®cant correlations between self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism (r = 0.30, p < 0.01). Therefore, partial correlation analyses were performed in order to examine the unique relation between speci®c MPS scales and student WPI and MSLQ scales, with the other dimensions of perfectionism partialled out. The partial correlations are shown in parentheses in Table 2. Partial correlations were performed between self-oriented perfectionism and all of the components of the student WPI and MSLQ, with the other-oriented and socially prescribed components partialled out. With respect to the student WPI, self-oriented perfectionism alone was positively and signi®cantly related to extrinsic motivation, compensation orientation, and outward orientation. Relatively higher scorers on self-oriented perfectionism reported higher extrinsic motivation on the primary scale and both secondary scales. It is noteworthy that selforiented perfectionists did not report higher intrinsic motivation than non-self-oriented perfectionists, as had been predicted. Self-oriented perfectionism was further related to a number of adaptive motivational components and learning strategies related to the Introductory Psychology course. Among the MSLQ motivation scales, extrinsic goal motivation, self-ecacy for learning and performance, intrinsic goal motivation, and task value were all positively and signi®cantly related to self-oriented perfectionism. The correlation between self-oriented perfectionism and test anxiety was no longer signi®cant when socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism were partialled out. From the MSLQ learning strategies scales, metacognition, organization, elaboration, rehearsal, critical thinking, eort management, and time and study environment were all positively and signi®cantly related to self-oriented perfectionism alone. In sum, self-oriented perfectionists reported higher academic motivation and greater use of adaptive learning strategies. With respect to the student WPI, higher scorers on socially prescribed perfectionism, with self-oriented and other-oriented components partialled out, had higher extrinsic motivation, and outward orientation than did lower scorers. Interestingly, socially prescribed perfectionism was negatively and signi®cantly related to overall intrinsic motivation and the challenge orientation subscale. With respect to the MSLQ motivation scales, socially prescribed perfectionism alone was strongly positively related to test anxiety and negatively related to selfecacy. On the MSLQ learning strategies scales, higher scorers on socially prescribed perfectionism reported lower usage of eort management, time and study environment management, elaboration, organization, metacognition, help-seeking, and rehearsal than did lower scorers. Other-oriented perfectionism alone was related only to the help-seeking scale of the MSLQ. No other partial correlations with other-oriented perfectionism alone reached signi®cance.
1200
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
4. Discussion The ®ndings of the present study support the theory that there are distinct and identi®able positive and adaptive aspects of perfectionism (e.g., Blankstein & Dunkley, 2000) in addition to the negative, maladaptive aspects commonly assumed. Our examination of undergraduate university students yielded interesting ®ndings in terms of adaptive motivational and learning strategies associated with the self-oriented dimension of perfectionism, as well as maladaptive motivational and learning strategies associated with the socially prescribed dimension. 4.1. Is self-oriented perfectionism adaptive? A number of signi®cant ®ndings emerged in the zero-order correlation analyses involving relations between the MPS dimensions and the MSLQ measures, especially with respect to the self-oriented perfectionism scale which was positively associated with many of the measures. Further, in many instances the correlation between self-oriented perfectionism and speci®c motivation and learning strategy measures was signi®cantly dierent from the comparable correlation with socially prescribed perfectionism. However, the eects were even stronger and the pattern of relations more consistent with predictions when the in¯uence of the other perfectionism components was partialled out. When socially prescribed and other-oriented components were controlled for, the relations between self-oriented perfectionism and measures of general academic motivation con®rmed our hypothesis that self-oriented perfectionism is related to extrinsic motivation, including compensation orientation and outward orientation. Self-oriented perfectionists tend to be motivated by recognition of their academic work, to be sensitive to others' opinions of their work and ideas, and to judge their success relative to other people. They are likely to be keenly aware of their grade point average goals and to be strongly motivated by this compensation component of their work. However, contrary to the prediction based on the theorizing of Hewitt and Flett (e.g., 1991b), higher scorers on selforiented perfectionism did not report higher general intrinsic motivation than did lower scorers as assessed by the WPI. Thus, despite self-imposed high standards of success, self-oriented perfectionists appear to be motivated primarily by extrinsic compensation and recognition by others. Discrepant with the WPI ®ndings, self-oriented perfectionism was weakly but signi®cantly positively correlated with the MSLQ intrinsic goal orientation subscale speci®c to Introductory Psychology. It is not clear why self-oriented perfectionism was correlated with intrinsic goal orientation on the MSLQ but not intrinsic motivation on the student WPI. Although the link with intrinsic goal orientation is consistent with Hewitt and Flett's (1991b) theorizing, the stronger association with the MSLQ extrinsic goal orientation subscale is consistent with our interpretation that self-oriented perfectionists are motivated primarily by extrinsic goals (at least in university academic work). Further, the link between self-oriented perfectionism and self-ecacy was highly signi®cant irrespective of whether zero-order or partial correlations were calculated. The relations between self-oriented perfectionism and academic learning strategies con®rmed our hypothesis that self-oriented perfectionists would report greater use of adaptive learning strategies in schoolwork. The ®ndings were consistent across zero-order correlations and partial correlations. Self-oriented perfectionists reported using adaptive rehearsal, elaboration,
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1201
organization, critical thinking, metacognition, time and study environment management, and eort management skills. The association with metacognitive control and self-regulatory activities (planning, monitoring, and regulating) is particularly informative. Our results clearly demonstrate that self-oriented perfectionists not only demonstrate strong motivation to achieve self-imposed high standards for academic success, but demonstrate that they are in fact more likely to use various adaptive learning strategies that are usually associated with positive academic outcomes (e.g., Brackney & Karabenick, 1995). Thus, self-oriented perfectionism can be adaptive. 4.2. Socially prescribed perfectionism is maladaptive Consistent with our hypothesis that socially prescribed perfectionism can create motivational de®cits in individuals, higher scorers exhibited higher extrinsic motivation and outward motivation, and lower intrinsic motivation and challenge orientation as assessed by the student WPI. In other words, the perception, either correct or incorrect, of pressure from signi®cant others (probably parents) to be perfect is associated with motivation to do well in school only because of a desire for recognition from others and not for the success experience in and of itself. Socially prescribed perfectionists reported that they experience increased distress during Introductory Psychology test situations and that they engage in a variety of maladaptive strategies for learning. Thus, they reported lowered judgments of competency to perform tasks and lower use of rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and metacognition. With respect to resource management strategies, both the zero-order and partial correlations re¯ected a de®cit in socially prescribed perfectionists' management of their time and study environment, and in their ability to persist in the face of boring and dicult tasks. Socially prescribed perfectionism is maladaptive. 4.3. Implications and research directions Our ®ndings have implications for the fostering of adaptive learning strategies for success in university students. Those students who perceive that high standards for success are selfimposed appear to use various strategies that increase the likelihood of achieving academic success. On the other hand, those students who perceive that signi®cant others are imposing high standards for academic success tend not to use adaptive learning strategies. Perceived strong parental pressure to do very well in university may well ``back®re'' on signi®cant others (see Brehm, 1966) as it causes increased use of maladaptive learning strategies. Our ®ndings of the negative eects of perceived excessive pressure to be perfect suggest the need for counseling of students who perceive such demands that is aimed at fostering a sense of self-ecacy, the use of adaptive learning strategies and eective resource management, and combating test anxiety (see Brackney & Karabenick, 1995; Flett & Blankstein, 1994). Because socially prescribed perfectionists are more likely to suer from psychological problems such as depression and anxiety that may exacerbate academic diculties (e.g., Arthur & Hayward, 1997) a focus on psychological problems may also become a critical aspect of longer term counseling. Perfectionism is typically associated with poor outcomes in treatment (see Blatt, 1995). However, progress might be facilitated during counseling or treatment by addressing
1202
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
relationships with signi®cant others who impose perfectionism on students, including ``harsh, judgmental, parental ®gures who have set excessively high standards'' (Blatt, 1995, p. 1014). It will also be important to encourage socially prescribed perfectionists to seek help for their academic and psychological problems. Schwitzer, Grogan, Kaddoura, and Ochoa (1993) have demonstrated positive eects of brief mandatory counseling on help-seeking and academic success among at-risk college students. Such programs could include a more speci®c focus on the promotion of realistic expectations and self-appraisals among perfectionists. Parents and educators, as well as students, should be made aware of the potentially negative impact that excessive external pressure and unrealistic standards can have on academic learning. In future research it will be important to establish the links between perfectionism components and academic outcomes. Although recent research suggests that components of perfectionism do predict test performance and GPA in theoretically meaningful ways (e.g., Arthur & Hayward, 1997; Blankstein, Halsall, Williams & Winkworth, 1997; Brown et al., 1999), it will be important to determine whether perfectionism has direct eects on performance or whether the link is mediated or moderated by individual dierences in motivation, learning strategies, or other variables, such as academic aptitude, verbal intelligence, or psychological distress. Further, the relation between high standards and motivation and learning strategies in both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionists may be aected by dierences in actual and perceived ability to meet those standards. The selforiented perfectionist with relatively fewer past academic successes may develop a sense of inecacy and fail to persist under adversity. We are currently conducting a longitudinal study of perfectionism and academic performance in an attempt to address some of these issues. Finally, causality should not be inferred from our correlational design. Although we believe that dispositional perfectionism components develop prior to motivation and learning strategies, it is essential that future prospective research establish the directional relation. 4.4. Summary The present study demonstrated that self-oriented perfectionists are characterized by signi®cant extrinsic goal orientation, a strong sense of self-ecacy for learning and performance, the use of adaptive metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies, eective resource management, and eort regulation. On the other hand, socially prescribed perfectionists are characterized by motivation for recognition by others, decreased likelihood of help-seeking, test anxiety, and non-use of adaptive learning strategies which are, in turn, related to relatively poorer academic performance.
Acknowledgements This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) General Research Grant and a University of Toronto at Mississauga Internal Research Grant awarded to Kirk R. Blankstein.
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
1203
References Amabile, T. M. (1987). The work preference inventory. Unpublished instrument, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950±967. Arthur, N., & Hayward, L. (1997). The relationships between perfectionism, standards for academic achievement, and emotional distress in postsecondary students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 622±633. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175±1184. Blankstein, K. R., & Dunkley, D. (2000). ``Evaluative concerns/self-critical'' and ``personal standards''perfectionism, hassles, coping, social support, and distress: a structural equation modeling strategy. In G. F. Flett, & P. L. Hewitt, Perfectionism: theory, research and treatment. Washington: American Psychological Association Press (in press). Blankstein, K. R., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Eng, A. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism and irrational fears: an examination with the Fear Survey Schedule. Personality and Individual Dierences, 15, 323±328. Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (1997). Dimensions of perfectionism and cumulative grade point average. Unpublished raw data. Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: implications for the treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003±1020. Brackney, B. E., & Karabenick, S. A. (1995). Psychopathology and academic performance: the role of motivation and learning strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 456±465. Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S., Juster, H. R., & Leung, A. W. (1999). Relationship of perfectionism to aect, expectations, attributions and performance in the classroom. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 98±120. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Edwards, A. L. (1960). Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1994). Worry as a component of test anxiety: a multidimensional analysis. In G. C. L. Davey, & F. Tallis, Worrying: perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 135±181). London: Wiley. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Dynin, C. (1994a). Dimensions of perfectionism and Type A behaviour. Personality and Individual Dierences, 16, 477±485. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1991a). Perfectionism, self-actualization, and personal adjustment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 147±160. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1995a). Perfectionism, life events, and depressive symptoms: a test of a diathesis-stress model. Current Psychology, 14, 112±137. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & O'Brien, S. (1991b). Perfectionism and learned resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12, 61±68. Flett, G. L., Russo, F. A., & Hewitt, P. L. (1994b). Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive thinking as a coping response. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 12, 163±179. Flett, G. L., Sawatzky, D. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (1995b). Dimensions of perfectionism and goal commitment: a further comparison of two perfectionism measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 111±124. Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R., Holt, C., Mattia, J., & Neubauer, A. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Dierences, 14, 119±126. Frost, R. O., & Marten, P. A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 559± 572. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449±468. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27±33. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98±101.
1204
J.S. Mills, K.R. Blankstein / Personality and Individual Dierences 29 (2000) 1191±1204
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456±470. Lynd-Stevenson, R. M., & Hearne, C. M. (1999). Perfectionism and depressive aect: the pros and cons of being a perfectionist. Personality and Individual Dierences, 26, 549±562. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich, Advances in motivation and achievement: goals and self-regulatory processes, Vol. 7 (pp. 371±402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801± 813. Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression: a structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304±314. Schwitzer, A. M., Grogan, K., Kaddoura, K., & Ochoa, L. (1993). Eects of brief mandatory counseling on helpseeking and academic success among at-risk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 401± 405. Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, G. R., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18, 663±668. Wyatt, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism: a study exploring their relationship with perceived social rank and status. Personality and Individual Dierences, 24, 71±79.