• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Self-Esteem as a Mediator Between Perfectionism andDepression: A Structural Equations Analysis
Kenneth G. Rice Jeffrey S. Ashby Michigan State University Georgia State UniversityRobert B. Slaney Pennsylvania State UniversityThis study of college students (
N 
= 464) examined the association between adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism and 2 mentalhealth outcomes (self-esteem and depression). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to develop and assess the measurement model used in thisstudy. Structural equations modeling was used to test a mediational model derived from prior theory and research. Analyses supported theexistence of 2 perfectionism factors. Path models revealed that adaptive perfectionism was not directly or indirectly (through self-esteem)associated with depression. Maladaptive perfectionism was negatively associated with self-esteem and positively associated with depression. Self-esteem also buffered the effects of maladaptive perfectionism on depression. Distinguishing adaptive from maladaptive perfectionism is discussedin the context of recommendations for practice and future research.The construct of perfectionism has been receiving increased attention in the psychological literature in recent years. This attention has mostoften portrayed perfectionism as a negative or harmful attribute. For example, Pacht ( 1984 ) referred to "the insidious nature of perfectionism"(p. 387). More recently Blatt ( 1995 ), in an article in the
 American Psychologist 
titled "The Destructiveness of Perfectionism: Implications for theTreatment of Depression", discussed the suicides of three "talented, ambitious, and successful individuals" (p. 1005) and attributed them to whathe described as "intense perfectionism" (p. 1003). He also suggested that this "intense perfectionism" interfered significantly with clients'responses to brief treatments for depression. His article, with its attributions to the extremely negative effects of perfectionism, is consistent withpast anecdotal writing on perfectionism ( Barrow & Moore, 1983; Burns, 1980; Halgin & Leahy, 1989; Hollender, 1965, 1978; Homey, 1950;Pacht, 1984; Pirot, 1986; Sorotzkin, 1985 ) as well as more recent articles that have associated perfectionism with numerous psychologicalproblems, including eating disorders ( Axtell & Newlon, 1993), low self-esteem ( Preusser, Rice, & Ashby, 1994), depression ( Burns, 1980),obsessivecompulsive disorders ( Broday, 1988), and anxiety ( Johnson & Slaney, 1996). Clearly, Blatt is not alone in his conceptualization of perfectionism as a potentially harmful psychological problem that is difficult to treat.A decided tendency to see perfectionism as problematic, if not pathological, also influenced the early attempts to develop measures of perfectionism ( Burns, 1980; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Slaney & Johnson, 1992). Although Burns treatedthe construct as if it were unidimensional, all of the more recent scales have considered the construct to be multidimensional. Several factoranalytic studies of these scales have yielded support for two higher order factors. Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer ( 1993 ) factoranalyzed their scale along with the Hewitt and Flett ( 1991 ) scale and identified what they referred to as "two conceptually unambiguous factors"(Frost et al., 1993, p. 124). The first factor was composed of measures tapping excessive concerns about making mistakes, doubts about one'sbehavior, and excessively critical relationships with parents. Frost et al. (1993) labeled this factor
Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns
and found itto be significantly related to depression and negative affect. The second factor was interpreted as representing positive striving. The PositiveStriving factor was composed of measures tapping high personal standards and organization. They found this perfectionism dimension wasunrelated to depression but was significantly correlated with positive affect (e.g., recent feelings of energy, enthusiasm, and activity). Slaney,Ashby, and Trippi ( 1995 ) performed a principal-components factor analysis on the Hewitt and Flett ( 1991 ), Frost et al. (1990), and Slaney andJohnson ( 1992 ) scales. They found two clear factors that were highly similar to those found by Frost et al. (1993). Suddarth ( 1996 ) performeda factor analysis that included both the Frost et al.(1990)Kenneth G. Rice, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University; Jeffrey S. Ashby,Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University; Robert B. Slaney, Department of Counselor Education,Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services, Pennsylvania State University.Portions of this article were presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Counseling Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April1994.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kenneth G. Rice, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and SpecialEducation, 440 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1034. Electronic mail may be sent tokgrl @pilot.msu.edu.-304-( 1990) and the Hewitt and Flett scales and again found results that were very similar to those of Frost et al. (1993). These empirical resultsseem to indicate that perfectionism is multidimensional and that it has both negative dimensions (e.g., excessive concerns about makingmistakes) and positive dimensions (e.g., personal standards and needs for order or organization).These empirical results also seem reminiscent of conceptual distinctions of perfectionism made by a number of theorists. Adler ( 1956 ) arguedthat striving for perfection is a normal aspect of development that only becomes problematic when unrealistic standards of superiority areimposed on achieving goals. In a similar manner, Hamachek ( 1978 ) described two types of perfectionists as follows:The [neurotic perfectionists] demand of themselves a higher level of performance than is usually possible to attain. And this, of course, severelyreduces their possibilities for feeling good about themselves. Normal perfectionists are better able to establish performance boundaries that takeinto account both their limitations and strengths. In this way, success is more possible because self-expectations are both more reasonable andrealistic. (pp. 27-28)It seems reasonable to suggest that the distinction made by Hamachek between normal and neurotic perfectionists may be related to, andclinically relevant to, the empirical distinctions made between the positive and negative dimensions of perfectionism in the aforementionedstudies. That is, normal perfectionism seems analogous to positive achievement strivings and would be expected to predict positive feelingsabout oneself regardless of performance. Altematively, neurotic perfectionists or those with maladaptive evaluation concerns would be expectedto experience ongoing and negative self-referent feelings.Other authors have conceptualized a path from perfectionism to self-esteem. According to Homey ( 1950 ), low self-esteem is inevitable for theperfectionist because even the slightest negative feedback will be seen as evidence of the gap between the real self and the idealized "perfect"
 
self. Moore and Barrow ( 1986 ) have argued that the perfectionist's self-worth is dependent on performance. These authors based theirargument on Rogers ( 1951 ) contention that self-regard is an internalization of the regard extended by significant others. As a result, theperson's ongoing sense of self-worth or -esteem is based on the attainment of perfectionistic standards. Sorotzkin ( 1985 ) stated thatperfectionists measure their self-worth by the achievement of often unattainable goals. He concluded that "any deviation from the perfectionisticgoal is likely to be accompanied by moralistic self-criticism and lowered selfesteem" (p. 564). Thus, these conceptual arguments suggestperfectionism sets the stage for self-esteem. Likewise, a host of conceptual and empirical accounts have linked perfectionism to depression.Hollender ( 1965 ) noted that perfectionists may at times meet their own exacting standards and derive some self-satisfaction, "but no matterhow well he [
sic 
] does, he seldom performs to his complete satisfaction. Failing to measure up to his own standard, he periodically feelsdepressed" (p. 94). Because perfectionists set such unreasonably high standards, they are unlikely to achieve them. This "recurrent andpersistent dissatisfaction with themselves leaves perfectionists feeling unrelenting distress. This expresses itself in a variety of forms, includingdepression" ( Halgin & Leahy, 1989 , p. 223). Blatt ( 1995 ) has carefully reviewed various theoretical accounts of depression and has alsoexamined the role that perfectionism plays in the treatment of depression (e.g., Blatt, Zuroff, Quinlan, & Pilkonis, 1996). Among other things, hefound a pervasive association between perfectionism (operationalized as self-criticism) and depression; he also found that perfectionism may beimpervious to shortterm cognitive or interpersonal psychotherapy.The research on perfectionism has focused, for the most part, on the direct association between perfectionism and depression or betweenperfectionism and other indicators of psychological functioning. However, 20 years ago, Hamachek (1978) alluded to a more complicated set of relationships between perfectionism, self-esteem, and mental health. Hamachek predicted better mental health outcomes for normalperfectionists because of the adverse effects neurotic perfectionism would have on self-esteem. A model inferred from his work would place self-esteem in an important, mediational role between perfectionism and mental health outcomes that has yet to be thoroughly researched. Blatt( 1995 ) and Hamachek suggested that the eventual and significant mental health outcomes thought to stem directly from perfectionism mayinstead be linked to perfectionism indirectly through self-esteem, with different dimensions of perfectionism playing different roles in this model.Thus, the path from perfectionism to depression may be an indirect one; depression may result not so much from the direct effects of perfectionism but from the effects that perfectionism has on fortifying or diminishing self-esteem.Some support has been found for the mediational role of self-esteem in studies of perfectionism and depression among college undergraduates.Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, and O'Brien ( 1991 ) found that aspects of perfectionism that could be considered adaptive perfectionism werepositively though modestly associated with self-esteem and unrelated directly to depression. Aspects of maladaptive perfectionism wereassociated with lower self-esteem and greater depression. Preusser et al. (1994) examined the association between maladaptive (neurotic)perfectionism and depression by using a series of regression equations ( Baron & Kenny, 1986) and found support for the mediating role of selfesteem. For adaptive (normal) perfectionism, the support for the mediational model was less persuasive. Both the Flett et al. and Preusser etal. studies were limited by sample sizes and by data analysis strategies that did not adequately account for measurement error.One purpose of the current study was to extend the methodological findings of Frost et al. (1993), Slaney et al. (1995), and Suddarth ( 1996 ).All of these studies used principal-components factor analyses to explore the relationships between the various perfectionism subscales. In thecurrent study, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to more finely approximate the constructs of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionismfound in previous research. In this study, we used structural equations modeling on data-305-from a large, multisite sample that was randomly split in half. We performed a CFA on the first half of the sample to support the existence of higher order adaptive and maladaptive factors. The first half of the sample also served as an initial test of a mediational. model so that we couldthen cross-validate measurement and structural (mediational) models with the second half of the sample. We tested a model in which theassociation between perfectionism and depression would be mediated by self-esteem. Specifically, we expected maladaptive perfectionism torelate negatively to self-esteem and adaptive perfectionism to relate positively to self-esteem. We expected adaptive perfectionism to benegatively associated with depression, whereas we expected maldapative perfectionism to be positively associated with depression. Finally, weanticipated that the path to depression from perfectionism would be an indirect one, mediated by self-esteem.
Method
Participants
We recruited participants from three groups to make up the study sample. The first group consisted of 173 undergraduate students (43 men, 124women, 6 with missing gender data) from a large eastern university. The second group was recruited from the same university as the first andconsisted of 169 undergraduate students (47 men, 121 women, 1 with missing gender data). The third group consisted of 147 undergraduatestudents (37 men, 104 women, 6 with missing gender data) from a large Midwestern university. All participants attended public institutions,volunteered to participate in the study, and received research or extra course credit for their participation.To determine if groups could be combined, we performed a preliminary analysis that examined the variance-covariance measurement matricesderived from the three sample groups. The first and second group of participants were recruited similarly from undergraduate introductorycourses in psychology and education at the same institution and were treated as the same group for purposes of the preliminary analyses. Thevariance -- covariance matrices for men and women were also compared. Participants with missing data (listwise) for measures or gender wereeliminated from the sample. The analyses revealed no significant differences in variances and covariances between the groups of students,χ
2
(105,
N 
= 464) 210.49,
 p
< .001; χ
2
 /
df 
= 2.00; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .87; comparative fit index (CFI) = .97. There also were nodifferences between men and women, X2(105,
N 
= 464) = 128.09,
 p
< .062; χ
2
 /
df 
= 2.00; GFI = .99; CFI = .99. As a result of these analyses,the groups of students were combined for all subsequent analyses.Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 62 (
M 
= 23.66,
SD
= 6.69). The sample appeared somewhat older, on average, than most universitysamples because a few participants were outliers in terms of age. Approximately 80% of the sample was 24 years old or younger, with 5% beingolder than 40. Approximately 94% of the sample identified themselves as White, European American.
Instruments
Almost Perfect Scale (APS; Slaney & Johnson, 1992).
This scale consists of 32 items designed to measure four subscales. Participantsrespond to the items on a Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree)
through 7
(strongly agree)
. The Standards and Order subscale (12items) measures high personal standards and a need for order (adaptive perfectionism). The other three subscales measure maladaptiveperfectionism: Anxiety (4 items), Procrastination (4 items), and Difficulty in Interpersonal Relationships (12 items). Slaney and his colleagues
 
have provided supportive validity and reliability data for the APS based on several studies of university students ( Johnson & Slaney, 1996;Slaney et al., 1995). For example, the Standards and Order subscale has been significantly correlated with other measures of adaptiveperfectionism, such as the Self-Oriented subscale from Hewitt and Flett ( 1991 ) Multidimentional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and the PersonalStandards subscale from Frost et al.'s (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. The APS subscales related in expected directions to otherindicators of psychological adjustment. Internal reliability estimates for the APS subscales have ranged from .71 to .86, whereas test-retestreliability has ranged from .81 to .92 (2-week time interval) and from .79 to. 87 (4-week interval; Slaney et al., 1995).
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost et al., 1990).
The FMPS contains 35 items that participants respond to using a 5-pointLikert scale ranging from 1
(agree strongly)
through 5
(disagree strongly).
The FMPS yields six subscales: Concern Over Mistakes (9 items),Personal Standards (7 items), Parental Criticism (4 items), Parental Expectations (5 items), Doubts About Actions (4 items), and Organization (6items). Prior research has indicated that adaptive perfectionism is tapped by the Personal Standards and Organization subscales, whereas theother four subscales load onto maladaptive perfectionism (Frost et al., 1993). Support for the reliability and validity of the subscales has beenestablished by Frost et al. (1993, 1990) in several studies of college undergraduates. Internal consistency estimates for the FMPS have rangedfrom .78 to .92 ( Frost, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1991). Subscales from the FMPS relate in expected directions with other measures of perfectionismand with measures of psychological well-being.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965).
This scale consists of 10 statements that participants respond to on a 4-point Likertscale ranging from 1
(strongly agree)
through 4
(strongly disagree).
One half of the items are worded positively and one half negatively. Higherscores on the measure indicate positive selfesteem or a general perception of self-worth. Psychometric support for the measure is based onsamples of late adolescent high school and college students. Goldsmith ( 1986 ) and Crandall ( 1973 ) have established reliability for theinstrument. Rosenberg ( 1965, 1979 ) and Goldsmith have offered support for the measure's validity. In this study, the Self-Esteem measure wasparceled into two subscales, one comprising the five even-numbered items and the other comprising the five odd-numbered items. We dividedthe measure to create two indicators of the self-esteem construct for the measurement and structural models rather than to use single items toindicate self-esteem in the models. Parceling of items into separate factors was apparently first introduced by Cattell ( 1956 ) and is a reasonableprocedure for the problems of low reliability and low communalities in factor analyses based solely on individual items (see Kishton & Widaman,1994, for a more recent example).
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, 1978).
This instrument contains 21 statements on which participants rate themselves on a 4-pointscale, with higher scores indicating more cognitive, motivational, behavioral, and somatic symptoms of depression. The BDI is a widely usedmeasure with considerable support for its reliability and validity across a variety of samples (e.g., Beck & Steer, 1984; Beck, Steer, & Garbin,1988). As with the Rosenberg measure, the BDI was parceled into two subscales in this study to facilitate subsequent analyses. The 11 odd-numbered items-306-composed one subscale, and the 10 even-numbered items composed the other subscale.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Scale means, standard deviations, scale ranges, and coefficient alphas for the combined sample are displayed in Table 1. Cronbach's coefficientalphas ranged from .71 (Doubts About Actions) to .91 (Organization).After eliminating participants with missing data and combining the groups, we randomly split the entire sample into two halves. One half of thesample was used to determine the adequacy of the measurement model and to test the structural mediational model. The other half of thesample was used to cross-validate measurement and structural modeling results from the first set of analyses. The first random samplecontained 233 participants (62 men and 171 women). The second sample contained 231 participants (60 men and 171 women).
Measurement Model
Anderson and Gerbing ( 1988 ) argued that confirmatory measurement models should be estimated and, if necessary, respecified before thesimultaneous examination of measurement and structural models. We used the LISREL 7 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1988) to estimateparameters for the measurement model; we also used it for the later simultaneous estimation of measurement and structural models. Covariancematrices were analyzed, and maximum likelihood was the estimation method. We determined adequacy of model fit by using the chi-square test,the χ
2
 /
df 
ratio, the GFI, and the CFI ( Bentler, 1990). Typically, researchers seek a nonsignificant chi-square to indicate no significant differencebetween the hypothesized model and observed data. However, the chi-square statistic is affected by sample size, and some of the underlyingassumptions regarding the statistic may be invalid ( Bentler, 1990). Therefore, other indexes of fit should be examined. The GFI indicates theamount of variance and covariance explained by the model, with values closer to one indicating better fits. The X2/df ratio adjusts the chi-squaretest to control for sample size, and values exceeding two suggest poorer fitting models (by rne, 1989). The CFI yields an index of model fit thatmathematically compares the theoretical model with a null, poorly fitting model. The CFI can range from zero to one, with values closer to oneagain indicating better fitting models. Finally, we used chi-square difference tests to compare nested structural models.CFA was used to test the adequacy of the current study's measurement model before conducting tests of the structural models. In addition, CFAwas used to replicate the factor structure that emerged in other studies of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. The CFA measurement modelconsisted of 4 latent variables or constructs and 14 manifest or observed variables. A priori specification of these constructs constrained thefollowing scales to load on to the Adaptive Perfectionism construct: Standards and Order, Organization, and Personal Standards. The MaladaptivePerfectionism construct consisted of loadings from Concern Over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, Parental Expectations, Doubts About Actions,Anxiety, Difficulty in Relationships, and
 
Procrastination. The two subscales created from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory formed the Self-Esteem factor, and the two subscales from the Beck Depression Inventory composed the Depression construct. All constructs in the measurementmodel were permitted to correlate with one another.An initial test of the measurement model (on the first random sample) resulted in some inappropriate and noninterpretable parameter estimatesand less than desirable fit indexes, χ
2
(71,
N 
= 233) = 355.01,
 p
< .001; χ
2
 /
df 
= 5.00;
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...