Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

DOI 10.1007/s10608-006-9032-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An Investigation of the Perfectionism/Self-criticism

Domain of the Personal Style Inventory

Golan Shahar

Published online: 25 August 2006

Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract Previous research indicates that the perfectionism/self-criticism (PESC) do-

main of the Personal Style Inventory (PSI; Robins et al. [1994]. Journal of Psychopa-
thology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300), which was originally constructed as an
indicator of autonomy, serves as an indicator of both sociotropy and autonomy. To shed
light on this unexpected finding, the PSI and related constructs were longitudinally
examined among Israeli undergraduates (N = 260). At both T1 and T2, PESC had
significant loadings on sociotropy, autonomy, and depressive symptoms, and it corre-
lated strongly with the self-criticism factor of the Depressive Experiences (Blatt,
D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, [1976]. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 95, 383–389). As well, in
some analyses PESC interacted with initial depression and subsequent stress to predict
T2 depression. Rather than measuring multidimensional perfectionism, PESC appears
to measure self-criticism, or a more broadly defined negative self-evaluation.

Keywords Depression Æ Vulnerability Æ Personal-styles-inventory

Both Blatt (1974) and Beck (1983) identified two types of depressive vulnerability that
emphasizes either interpersonal relatedness or self-definition. Blatt and colleagues, from
a psychoanalytic and cognitive-development perspective (Blatt, 1974, 1995, 1998; Blatt
& Shichman, 1983) differentiated between anaclitic depression, which pertains to strong
dependency and object loss, and introjective depression, which refers to intense self-
criticism, guilt, and need for achievement (Blatt & Blass, 1996; Blatt, Shahar, & Zuroff,
2001; Blatt & Shichman, 1983; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). Beck (1983), from a cognitive-
behavioral perspective, distinguished between sociotropic, or interpersonally oriented,
depression and autonomous depression, which pertains to need for separation and
self-esteem.
Blatt and his colleagues, as well as Beck and his associates, use different measures to
assess the dependency/self-criticism and sociotropy/autonomy constructs. Dependency

G. Shahar (&)
Department of Behavioral Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
e-mail: shaharg@bgu.ac.il
123
186 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

and self-criticism are commonly assessed by means of the Depressive Experiences

Questionnaire (DEQ, Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976), which includes factored scales
of the dependency and self-criticism vulnerability constructs, as well as a resilience-
related, ‘‘efficacy’’ factor. Sociotropy and autonomy are assessed by the Sociotropy-
Autonomy Scale (SAS, Beck, Epstein, Harrison, & Emery, 1983), or by the Personal
Style Inventory (see below). The few studies that compared the DEQ and SAS (Blaney
& Kutcher, 1991; Dunkley, Blankstein, & Flett, 1997; Rude & Burnham, 1993) indicated
that DEQ dependency and SAS sociotropy converge strongly, but that DEQ self-crit-
icism and SAS autonomy showed poor convergence, primarily because the DEQ-Self-
criticism construct correlated with both autonomy and sociotropy.
In addition to this less than optimal congruence between the two measures, psy-
chometric weaknesses were identified with respect to each of them (for review, see
Blatt, 2004, pp. 120–122; Robins, 1993; Robins et al., 1994). To rectify limitations of
these measures, Robins and his colleagues developed the Personal Style Inventory (PSI;
Robins et al., 1994), a 48-item inventory that assesses six vulnerability domains: con-
cerns about what others think of self, excessive dependency, pleasing others, perfec-
tionism/self-criticism, need for control, and defensive separation. The first three
domains comprise a sociotropy dimension, whereas the latter three domains comprise
an autonomy dimension. Six validation studies were conducted with the PSI, and were
informed by guidelines for scale development and testing described by prominent
psychometricians (DeVellis, 1991; Nunnally, 1978). These studies evinced excellent
reliability and validity coefficients, and results of exploratory factor analysis were
consistent with the presence of the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions (see Robins
et al., 1994).
In addition to its promising psychometric properties, the PSI has several unique
advantages. First, PSI items were constructed based on both Blatt’s and Beck’s theories
of depressive vulnerability. Second, Robins and colleagues were careful not to include in
the PSI items wording pertaining to mood states, so as to minimize spurious correlations
between the depressive vulnerability and depressive symptoms. Third, items were
selected so as to assess one, and only one, construct. Finally, the sociotropy and
autonomy domains of the PSI were shown to predict specific symptom constellations
that underlie the phenomenology related to each of these vulnerability constructs
(cf. Robins, Bagby, Rector, Lynch, & Kennedy, 1997; Robins and Luthen, 1991).1
Despite these encouraging results, two recent validation studies raised questions
regarding the perfectionism/self-criticism subscale, which ostensively ‘‘belongs’’ to the
autonomy dimension. Bagby, Parker, Joffe, Schuller, and Gilchrist (1998) conducted
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the PSI in a large sample (N = 869) of non-clinical
participants, as well as a smaller sample (N = 101) of outpatients with major depression.
These authors confirmed a second-order factor structure of the PSI. The first order
factor level was comprised of the six specific vulnerability domains, and the second
order factor level was comprised of the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions. However,
the PESC domain had statistically significant and equally strong loadings, on both the
sociotropy and autonomy dimensions, suggesting that it serves as an indicator of both.

1
Although one of the two domains of the PSI is labeled ‘‘autonomy,’’ findings reported by Hmel and
Pincus (2002) suggest that this term is misleading. Specifically, these investigators reported that PSI
autonomy measures, while loading on a single factor of depressive vulnerability, fail to assess a sense of
autonomous agency; rather, these PSI scales measure a passive, defensive orientation involving a lack of
self-confidence.
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 187

Hong and Lee (2001), investigating 574 Korean college students, replicated the factor
structure obtained by Bagby et al. (1998), including the finding whereby PESC had
loadings on both sociotropy and autonomy dimensions. Hong and Lee (2001) observed
that PESC relies on too few items (i.e., four items), and that most, if not all, of these
items are not uniquely related to the autonomy construct.
Another important issue concerning PESC is whether it measures self-criticism,
perfectionism, or both. As shown by Hewitt, Flett, and their colleagues, perfectionism is
a complex, multidimensional personality construct (cf. Hewitt & Flett, 1991). These
investigators distinguished between Self-Oriented Perfectionism (one’s expectation
from oneself to meet standards of perfection), Other-Oriented Perfectionism (one’s
expectations that significant others meet standards of perfection), and Socially Pre-
scribed Perfectionism (one’s perception that others expect him or her to meet standards
of perfection). The latter perfectionism construct in particular was found to resembles
DEQ-self-criticism in content and measurement, and to be most strongly related to
psychopathology and adaptation problems (Hewitt & Flett, 1993; Hewitt, Flett, &
Ediger, 1996; Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, McGee, & Flett, 2004; see also Dunkley &
Blankstein, 2000; Dunkley, Blankstein, & Halsal, 2000; Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein,
2003; Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002; Enns, Cox, & Inayatulla, 2003). However, the extent to
which these dimensions of perfectionism are associated with PESC is thus far unknown.
These findings are noteworthy because of evidence regarding the serious vulnera-
bility status of self-criticism (for review, see Blatt, 1995; Blatt, Shahar, & Zuroff, 2001;
Shahar, 2001, 2004). Thus, DEQ research demonstrates a consistently greater effect of
self-criticism, as compared to dependency, on depression and related psychopathology
and interpersonal difficulties (Shahar, 2001). Similarly, analyses conducted by Blatt and
colleagues of data collected as part of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP) showed that pa-
tients’ pretreatment perfectionism/self-criticism, as measured by the Dysfunctional
Attitudes Scale (DAS; Weissman & Beck, 1978), impedes response to brief psycho-
therapeutic, as well as pharmacological, treatment, and that such impediment occurred
by means of the adverse effect of perfectionism/self-criticism on social relations within
and outside treatment (Shahar, Blatt, Zuroff, Krupnic, & Sotsky, 2004; Shahar, Blatt,
Zuroff, & Pilkonis, 2003a, b; Zuroff et al., 2000; see also Rector, Bagby, Segal, Joffe, &
Levitt, 2000).
The present report is aimed at shedding additional light on the PESC domain of the
PSI. The study comprised of two assessments of a sample of Israeli undergraduates
(N = 206), separated by an 8-week interval. In each of these two waves, participants
completed an extensive assessment protocol. Pertinent to the present report were
measures of depressive vulnerability (i.e., the PSI, DEQ and Hewitt and Flett’s [1991]
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; MPS), depressive symptoms, and stressful life
events.
Four specific objectives underlie this study. The first was to replicate the finding
reported by Bagby et al. (1998) and by Hong and Lee (2001) in another cultural setting
(i.e., Israel) while controlling for the potentially confounding effect of depressive
symptoms. Namely, it might be the case that the PESC subscale loaded on both the
sociotropy and autonomy domains because the PESC is a strong marker of depression
(Shahar, 2001, 2004). By including a depressive symptoms factor in the model, and by
specifying loadings from this factor to the PESC subscale, it was possible to test this
hypothesis. The second objective was to examine whether the factor structure obtained
is invariant over time. The third objective was to relate the PESC subscales to other
123
188 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

measures of self-criticism and perfectionism and to the specific sociotropy domains, in

order to understand the source of the (unexpected) association between PESC and
sociotropy. Finally, the forth objective was to test the longitudinal effect of PESC on
depression, both as a main effect and as an interactive effect involving life stress and
initial levels of depression.

Method

Participants

Participants were 260 (171 women and 89 men) first-year undergraduates at a research
university (N = 90) and a liberal arts college (N = 170) in Israel. The age range was
19.5–29.7 (M = 23.15; SD = 3.67). Participants were approached about a week prior to
their examination and were administered a booklet with numerous self-report measures
of depressive symptoms, depressive vulnerability, social support, and questions per-
taining to expectations regarding their exam grades. The questionnaires order was
counterbalanced. A week after the end of the examinations (Interval time = 8 weeks),
students were identified and were administered the same booklet of questionnaire. To
ensure anonymity, participants were instructed not to provide personal information, and
identification at T2 was made on the basis of code numbers. The present report is based
on data derived from the aforementioned PSI, DEQ, MPSI, as well as from the
depressive symptoms and stressful events scales that are described below. Because of
missing values, different statistical analyses reported below are based on different
sample sizes. In each analysis, the pertinent sample size is reported.2,3

Measures

The Personal Style Inventory (PSI, Robins et al., 1994) is a revised version of the
Sociotropy–Autonomy Scale (SAS, Beck et al., 1983). Robins et al. (1994) devised a
multi-scaled measure of sociotropy and autonomy and represented both constructs via
three subscales each. Sociotropy was represented by ‘‘dependency’’ (DEPEN), ‘‘con-
cern about what others think’’ (CONCERN), and ‘‘pleasing others’’ (PLEASE).
Autonomy was represented by ‘‘self-critical perfectionism’’ (SCPE), ‘‘need of control’’
(CONTROL), and ‘‘defensive separation’’ (SEPAR).
In the present study, two bilingual MA students in clinical psychological with abso-
lute command of both Hebrew and English translated, and then back-translated, the 48
items of the PSI. The Hebrew version was then administered to the study participants.
Internal consistency coefficients for the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions were as
follows: a = .86 and .80 at T1, and .88 and .85 at T1, for sociotropy and autonomy,
respectively. Internal consistency coefficients for the specific PSI dimensions were as
follows: COCNERN (a = .74 and .80; for T1 and T2, respectively) DEPEN (a = .66,
.72), PLEASE (a = .77, .78) PESC (a = .59, .61) CONTROL (a = .61, 70), SEPAR

2
The findings reported in this article did not change as a function of participants’ educational institution.
However, I did find important differences between the two groups of participants in terms of their
reaction to the exam period. These differences are reported in a separate article.
3
Other measures include perceived social support and questions pertaining to the exam period. Findings
regarding these instruments are reported in a separate article (see also Footnote 2).
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 189

(a = .69, .78). These values suggest that the internal consistency coefficient of PESC, the
dimension which is the focus of this investigation, is less than optimal, a finding that
echoes previous ones (e.g., Bagby et al., 1998).
The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ, Blatt et al., 1976). This 66-item
instrument taps experiences frequently reported by depressed patients, but that are not
direct symptomatic expressions of depression. Items are presented in both positive and
negative directions, and are rated on a 7-point scale. Principal Component Analysis with
varimax rotation of the DEQ yielded three orthogonal factors. The first factor,
dependency, reflects wishes to be cared for, loved, and protected, and fear of being
abandoned (e.g., ‘‘Without the support of others who are close to me, I would be
helpless’’). The second factor, self-criticism, taps preoccupation with achievement and
inferiority and guilt in the face of perceived failure to meet standards (e.g., ‘‘It is not
who you are but what you have accomplished that counts’’). The third factor, efficacy,
represents personal resilience and inner strength (e.g., ‘‘I have many inner resources’’).
The reliability and validity of the DEQ have been established in numerous studies (e.g.,
Blatt et al. 1976, 1982). The Hebrew version of the DEQ is used extensively in Israel
and yields patterns of results which are essentially identical to the American version of
the DEQQ (cf. Priel & Shahar, 2000). In the present study, I used the original factor
analytic scoring procedure reported by Blatt et al. (1976). The present report is based
solely on the self-criticism factor of the DEQ.
The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) is a 45-item
self-report questionnaire aimed at tapping perfectionistic tendencies. The scale includes
three 15-item sub-scales. The Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP) subscale assesses the
extent to which participants strive to self-perfection (e.g., ‘‘When I am working on
something, I cannot relax until it is perfect’’). The Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP)
subscale measures the extent to which participants expects perfection out of significant
others (e.g., ‘‘I do not expect a lot from my friends’’ — reversed). Finally, the Socially-
Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP) subscale taps the extent to which participants believe
that others expect them to be perfect (e.g., ‘‘My family expects me to be perfect’’).
Participants rate their agreement with items using 7-point scales. The validity and
reliability of the MPS have been demonstrated for clinical and non-clinical samples
(Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Koledin, 1991; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt, Flett,
Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991). In the present study, the two bilingual translators
who translated the PSI also came up with the Hebrew version. The internal consistency
of SOP was high (a = .90 at T1 and T2) and those of OOP and SPP were adequate (for
OOP: a = .70 and .75 at T1 and T2. For SPP: a = .79 and .80 at T1 and T2).
Depressive Symptoms. Participants were administered three measures of the
depression: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Center for Epidemiological
Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D), and the Self Rating Depression Scale (SRDS).
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1998) is a widely used
21-item instrument measuring the cognitive, behavioral, and somatic symptoms of
depression. The reliability and validity of the BDI have been recently summarized by
Beck and colleagues (Beck et al., 1998). Internal consistency in the present study was
adequate (at T1 and T2, a = .78, and .79, respectively).
The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D, Radloff, 1977) is a
measure of distress centered on the depressed mood. The CES-D consists of 20 items
assessing dysphoria, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, feelings of helplessness and
hopelessness, and disturbances in eating and sleeping (Radloff, 1977). Respondents are
asked to report on a 4-point scale the frequency of the symptoms that recently occurred.
123
190 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

The internal consistency of the CES-D in the present study was adequate (at T1 and T2,
a = .90, and .84, respectively).
The Self-Report Depression Scale (SRDS; Zung, 1965) is a 20-item questionnaire that
assesses depressive affect and related physical symptoms. Ten of the items represent
positive symptoms, while the remaining items address negative symptoms. Respondents
are asked to report on a 4-point scale the frequency of the symptoms that recently
occurred. Adequate reliability and construct validity have been reported for this scale
(Zung, 1967; Biggs, Wylie, & Ziegler, 1978). Internal consistency in the present study
was adequate (a’s at T1 and T2: .84 and .86, respectively).
The College Students Life Events Scale (CSLES; Levine & Perkins, 1980). The
CSLES contains 137 items that reflect minor and major stressful events common to the
life in college (e.g., lack of access to adequate transportation, death of a family mem-
ber). Eighteen culture-specific events were added, that tap unique stress characteristics
of lives of young Israeli adults (e.g., army reserve service, ethnic conflicts, cf. Breznitz &
Eshel, 1983). In the present study, respondents were asked if the specific event hap-
pened within the past 8 weeks. The total number of negative events reported by par-
ticipants to occur during this time interval served as the stress index in the present
report.4

Data analytic strategy

Analysis was conducted in five stages:

Stage 1: A series of independent-sample t-tests were conducted to examine the
possibility of gender differences in the study variables.
Stage 2: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on the PSI and depressive
symptoms variables at T1 and T2, in an attempt (a) to replicate the findings reported by
Bagby et al. (1998) and by Hong and Lee (2001), and (b) to examine the time-invariance
of this structure. Although very similar to the CFAs employed by Bagby et al. (1998)
and Hong and Lee (2001), the CFA conducted here differed in three main respects.
First, it did not address the correspondence between specific PSI items and the six PSI
subscales (i.e., CONCERN, DEPEN, PLEASE, PESE, CONTROL, SEPAR). Rather,
it addressed the correspondence between these six domains and the sociotropy and
autonomy dimensions. The reason for this was that our sample size, although appro-
priate for CFA, was less than optimal for the estimation of the numerous parameters
involved in items-domain CFA. This, coupled with the fact that the studies by Bagby
et al. (1998) and by Hong and Lee demonstrated an acceptable items-domains
correspondence, contributed to the decision to focus on the more problematic
domains-dimensions correspondence.
Second, the CFA model also included a depressive symptoms factor that was assessed
via the BDI, CESD, and SRDS indicators. Third, and most importantly, the PESC
variable served as an indicator of the three CFA factors: sociotropy, autonomy, and
depressive symptoms. This practice enabled the examination of the extent to which

4
In a previous study conducted by this author and his colleague (Priel & Shahar, 2000), I classified events
as either achievement-related (e.g., being laid-off), interpersonal (e.g., romantic breakup), or other types
of events. This was done in the present study, but the classification yielded no statistically significant
effects related to the type of event endorsed. Hence, the total number of negative events was used in the
present report.
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 191

PESC loads on the two PSI domains while controlling for the potentially confounding
effect of depressive symptoms.
The CFA was conducted with the AMOS 4.01 software (Arbuckle, 1999), using the
Maximum Likelihood (ML) iteration procedure. Model fit was determined based on the
following fit indices: (a) the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) which is equivalent to the Non-
Normed Fit Index (NNFI, Bentler & Bonett, 1980), (b) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI,
Bentler, 1990), and (d) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA,
Steiger, 1980). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), values of .95 and higher for the
NNFI and CFI, and values below .06 for the RMSEA represent good model fit.
Stage 3: As will be reported below, PESC was found to be a time-invariant indicator
of both sociotropy and autonomy. Stage 3 addressed the question of which sociotropy
domain contributed most to the theoretically unexpected loading of PSCE on socio-
tropy. To that effect, I regressed PESC on participants’ gender, T1 depression, and the
three sociotropy domains (i.e., CONCERN, DEPEN, and PLEASE). Regression
analyses were conducted separately for both T1 and T2.
Stage 4: To understand the nature of the PESC as a perfectionism indicator, I
correlated this PSI domain with the self-criticism factor of the DEQ and with the three
MPS perfectionism dimensions (i.e., SOP, OOP, and SPP) at both measurement occa-
sions. As well, regression analyses were conducted based on both measurement occa-
sions to examine the unique associations of each perfectionism indicator with PESC.
Stage 5: To compare the depressogenic effect of various measures of vulnerability, I
conducted three regression analyses. In the first regression analysis, the effects of
sociotropy and autonomy were compared. In the second regression analysis, the effect
of PESC was compared to the effect of the two other autonomy measures, i.e., CON-
TROL and SEPAR. In the third regression analysis, the effect of PESC was compared
to the other self-criticism and perfectionism measures, namely, the self-criticism factor
of the DEQ, and the SOP, SPP dimensions of the MPS. In each of these regressions, the
BDI, CESD, and SRDS were standardized and were then averaged to form a depressive
symptom composite at each time point. T2 depressive symptoms composite served as an
outcome in all three regressions.
In examining the effects of the various vulnerability factors, I was guided by the
stress-diathesis approach, as well as by recommendations put forth by Joiner (1994),
whereby in examining the effect of a putative risk factor, interactions between this risk
factor and the initial levels of the clinical outcome should be examined as well. Thus, I
interacted the various vulnerability dimensions with T1 depression and Time 2 stressful
events. Participants’ gender served as a covariate in all analyses.

Results

Stage 1: Gender differences

A series of independent-sample t-tests revealed gender differences in four of the study

variables: T2 depression (t[218] = –2.45, P = .01; females were more depressed than
males), PSI-DEPEN (t[238] = –2.92, P < .01; females’ scores were higher), PSI-
PLEASE (t[238] = 1.96, P = .05; males’ scores were higher) and PSI-SEPAR
(t[238] = 2.91, P < .01; males’ scores were higher). The most important of these dif-
ferences was the one involving T2 depression, which was the outcome in the regression

123
192 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

analyses reported below. Hence, participants’ gender was controlled for in these
regressions.

Stage 2: Factor structure and invariance of the PSI

In Table 1 includes the correlations between the PSI and depressive symptoms vari-
ables. Correlations below the diagonal are based on T1 data, whereas correlations above
the diagonal are based on T2 data. Table 1 also includes means and standard deviations
of the study variables.
Factor loadings obtained in the CFA are presented in Table 2. T1 loadings are
outside of the parentheses, whereas T2 loadings are in parentheses. Numbers are
standardized loadings. Note, that when the factor is not specified to underlie a manifest
variable, the loading is, by definition, fixed at ‘‘0.’’ In Table 2, this is expressed as ‘‘—.’’
The CFA model addressing T1 data evinced a very good fit to the data
(v2[22] = 25.90, p = .25; v2/df = 1.17; NNFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03). All the
loadings of the manifest indicators on their respective latent factors were statistically
significant (P £ .001). As expected, PESC had significant loadings on all the three latent
factors: autonomy (b = .26), sociotropy (b = .36) and depressive symptoms (b = .24).
Thus, while some of the variance of PESC that had been previously reported to be
shared by sociotropy and autonomy (Bagby et al., 1998; Hong & Lee, 2001) is attrib-
utable to depressive symptoms, even after controlling for this depression-related vari-
ance, PESC still emerges as an indicator of both PSI dimensions.
The CFA model addressing T2 data evinced a very good fit to the data
(v2[22] = 44.91, P = .003; v2/df = 2.04; NNFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .06). All the
loadings of the manifest indicators on their respective latent factors were statistically
significant (P £ .01). Similarly to the CFA results at T1, PESC had significant loadings
on autonomy (b = .18, P = .01), sociotropy (b = .39, P < .001) and depressive symp-
toms (b = .19, P = .01). Thus, the pattern demonstrated in T1 was essentially replicated
in T2, pointing out to a factor invariance of the PSI over time.
Table 3 includes the correlations among the three latent factors that comprised the
CFAs. Correlations below the diagonal pertain to T1 data, whereas correlations above
the diagonal pertain to T2 data. In both waves, the correlations were in the moderate
range, although the constructs correlated more strongly at T2 than at T1.

Stage 3: Associations between PESC and the sociotropy domains

To gain a better understanding of the exact source of variance that is shared by PESC
and sociotropy, I regressed T1 PESC on participants’ gender, T1 CONCERN, DEPEN
and PLEASE (N = 237), and T2 PESC on participants’ gender, T2 CONCERN, DE-
PEN, and PLEASE (N = 206). To control for the potentially confounding effect of
depressive symptoms, I created a composite depression score that comprised of the
average of BDI, CESD, and SRDS, and included this composite in the two regression
analyses.
At T1, PESC was predicted by depressive symptoms (b = .31, P < .001), and
CONCERN (b = .23, P < .01). The model explained 30% of the variance of T1 PESC
(R2 = .30, F[5,203] = 22.34, P < .001). At T2, PESC was again predicted by depressive
symptoms (b = .18, P < .01), and by CONCERN (b = .25, P < .01). The model
explained 26% of the variance of T2 PESC (R2 = .26, F[5,208] = 16.47, P < .001).

123
 Table 1 Correlations among the PSI and depressive symptoms variables at T1 and T2
CONCERN DEPEN PLEASE PESC CONTROL SEPAR SRDS CESD BDI

CONCERN – .62 .68 .49 .36 .18 .37 .37 .28

DEPEN .51 – .52 .42 .36 .16 .38 .31 .28
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

PLEASE .63 .39 – .44 .32 .32 .34 .36 .29

PESC .46 .38 .39 – .43 .32 .42 .42 .31
CONTROL .27 .24 .23 .40 – .65 .36 .33 .23
SEPAR .11 .03 .15 .26 .45 – .37 .30 .29
SRDS .20 .25 .14 .39 .29 .23 – .74 .67
CESD .24 .26 .21 .37 .20 .15 .66 – .65
BDI .23 .21 .16 .34 .23 .14 .55 .62 –
M 24.42 (23.92) 26.82 (25.66) 33.62 (33.70) 14.64 (14.49) 28.60 (27.06) 37.25 (36.91) 36.94 (35.17) 19.30 (26.23) 9.57 (15.75)
SD 5.47 (6.11) 6.48 (5.89) 7.57 (7.60) 3.61 (3.49) 7.40 (5.85) 9.15 (8.60) 9.45 (8.36) 11.42 (9.19) 6.89 (5.82)

Note:
1. Correlations below the diagonal are based on T1 data; correlations above the diagonal are based on T2 data. Means and standard deviations in parentheses
pertain to T2 data
2. CONCERN = Concern about what others think; DEPEN = Dependency; PLEASE = Pleasing others; PESC = Perfectionism/self-criticism; CONTROL = Need
for control; SEPAR = Defensive separation; SRDS = Self Rating Depression Scale; CESD = Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression; BDI = Beck
Depression Inventory
3. Correlations higher than .11 are statistically significant (P < .05)
4. N[T1] = 237; N[T2] = 206

123
193
194 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

Table 2 Factor loadings of the six PSI domains on the sociotropy and autonomy dimensions at T1 and T2
Sociotropy Autonomy Depression

CONCERN .87 (.86) – –

DEPEN .60 (.72) – –
PLEASE .72 (.78) – –
PESC .36 (.39) .26 (.18) .24 (.18)
CONTROL – .85 (.94) –
SEPAR – .53 (.72) –
SRDS – – .78 (.88)
CESD – – .84 (.85)
BDI – – .72 (.75)

Notes:
1. CONCERN = Concern about what others think; DEPEN = Dependency; PLEASE = Pleasing oth-
ers; PESC = Perfectionism/self-criticism; CONTROL = Need for control; SEPAR = Defensive separa-
tion; SRDS = Self Rating Depression Scale; CESD = Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression;
BDI = Beck Depression Inventory
2. All loadings are spastically significant (P < .05)
3. Numbers outside of parentheses refer to T1 data. Numbers in parentheses refer to T2 data

Thus, CONCERN appears to be the sociotropy domain that accounts for the significant
loading of PESC on sociotropy.

Stage 4: Associations between PESC and other measures of self-criticism and

perfectionism

Next, T1 levels of PESC and the other measures of perfectionism/self-criticism were

correlated. PESC correlated with DEQ self-criticism (r = .58, P < .001), SOP (r = .30,
P < .001), OOP (r = .21, P < .01), and SPP (r = .29, P < .001). To estimate the unique
variance shared between PESC and each of these perfectionism dimensions, PESC was
regressed onto the latter variables, as well as onto participants’ gender, and the T1
composite depression score (N = 237). PESC was significantly predicted by depressive
symptoms (b = .15, P < .05), DEQ self-criticism (b = .51, P < .001), MPS SOP
(b = .25, P < .001) and MPS OOP (b = .12, P < .05). The model explained 44% of the
variance of T1 PESC (R2 = .44, F[6,227] = 31.31, P < .001).
T2 levels of PESC were then correlated with the other T2 measures of perfectionism/
self-criticism. PESC correlated significantly with DEQ self-criticism (r = .34), SOP
(r = .30), OOP (r = .31) and SPP (r = .25; for all correlations, P < .001). Regressing T2

Table 3 Correlations among the latent CFA factors at T1 and T2

Sociotropy Autonomy Depression

Sociotropy – .50*** .51***

Autonomy .37*** – .43***
Depression .36*** .36** –

Notes:
1. Correlations below the diagonal are based on T1 data. Correlations above the diagonal are based on
T2 data
2. ** P < .01; *** P < .001
123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 195

PESC on participants’ gender, T2 levels of depression, DEQ self-criticism and the MPS
dimensions (N = 206) yielded a pattern similar to the one obtained with T1 data. Sig-
nificant predictors of T2 PESC were depressive symptoms (b = .26, P < .001), DEQ
self-criticism (b = .24, P < .001), MPS SOP (b = .19, P < .01) and MPS OOP (b = .19,
P < .01). The model explained 28% of the variance of T2 PESC (R2 = .28,
F[6,184] = 13.47, P < .001). These findings suggest that PESC is correlated with a wide
variety of perfectionism/self-criticism measures, but is most closely related to the self-
criticism dimension of the DEQ.

Stage 5: Longitudinal prediction of depressive symptoms

First, I compared the effects of PSI-sociotropy and PSI-PESC (as representing

autonomy) on depressive symptoms by means of a hierarchical multiple regression
analysis (N = 206). This was done by regressing the T2 depressive symptom composite
on participants’ gender, T1 depression, Psi-sociotropy, PSI-PESC and stress (Step 1),
two way interactions between each of the vulnerability factors and (a) stress and (b) T1
depression (Step 2), and three-way interactions between each of the vulnerability fac-
tors and both stress and T1 depression.
Block 1 explained 36% of the variance in T2 depressive symptoms (R2 = .36,
F[5,200] = 24.56, P < .001). However, the only statistically significant predictor in this
block was T1 depressive symptoms (b = .55, P < .001). Block 2 did not add to the
variance explained in T2 depressive symptoms and none of the two-way interactions
were statistically significant. Block 3 added 3% to the variance explained in T2
depressive symptoms (R2 = .39, F[11,194] = 9.02, P < .001). A statistically significant
three-way interaction was found between PSI-PESC, stress, and T1 depression. The
pattern of this interaction was such that under high, but not low, stress T1 depression
augmented the effect of PESC on T2 depression.
In the second regression analysis (N = 206), the effects of PESC, CONTROL, and
SEPAR on T2 depression were compared. Block 1 added 36% to the explained variance
of T2 depression (R2 = .36, F[6,199] = 20.32, P < .001). The only statistically significant
predictor in this block was T1 depression (b = .55, P < .001). Block 2, which included
two-way interactions between each of the vulnerability variables and T1 depression and
T2 stress, added 2% to the explained variance of T2 depression (R2 = .38,
F[12,193] = 11.63, P < .001). The only statistically significant two-way interaction was
between CONTROL and T2 stress (b = –.19, P < .05). However, the pattern of this
interaction was somewhat counterintuitive, in that it indicated that CONTROL buffers
against the adverse effect of stress. Block 3 added 2% to the explained variance of T2
depression (R2 = .40, F[15,190] = 10.34, P < .001). The only statistically significant
three-way interaction was between PESC, T1 depression, and T2 stress, and the pattern
of the interaction was identical to the one found in the first regression analysis: under
high, but not low, stress T1 depression augmented the effect of PESC on T2 depression.
The third regression analysis (N = 203) was aimed at comparing the effect of PSI-
PESC and MPS-SPP on T2 depression. The regression focused on these two variables
because (a) PSI-PESC is the focus of this investigation, and (b) MPS-SPP is the variable
that has shown the closest relation to depression. DEQ-SC was omitted from the
analysis because it was strongly correlated with PSI-PESC. In this regression analysis,
Block 1 included PSI-PESC, MPS-SPP, T1 depression, T2 stress, and participants’
gender. This block were included, added 38% of the explained variance of T2 depres-
sion (R2 = .38, F[5,197] = 26.69, P < .001). Two statistically significant predictors were
123
196 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

found: T1 depression (b = .52, P < .001), and MPS-SPP (b = .14, P < .05). Block 2,
which included two-way interactions between each of the perfectionism/self-criticism
variables (i.e., PSI-PESC and MPS-SPP) and either stress or T1 depression, added 1%
to the explained variance of T2 depression (R2 = .40, F[17,184] = 9.10, P < .001), but
none of the two way interactions were statistically significant. Block 3, which included a
couple of three-way interactions involving each of the perfectionism/self-criticism
variables and both stress and T1 depression, added 2% to the explained variance of T2
depression (R2 = .41, F[11,191] = 8.92, P < .001). However, none of the two three-way
interactions were statistically significant.

Discussion

Almost a decade after Coyne and Whiffen’s (1995) critical review of research on per-
sonality vulnerability to depression, this field of inquiry continues to thrive (for a recent
review, see Zuroff, Mongrain, & Santor, 2004a, b). Nevertheless, one of the greatest
impediments for progress in the field is its relative fragmentation, manifested by dif-
ferent research groups drawing from different theoretical orientations and relying on
different measures of vulnerability in their attempt to examine the role of personality in
depression (Flett et al., 1995; Robins, 1995). It is in the context of such fragmentation
that the importance of the PSI, as a measure that draws from both Blatt’s and Beck’s
theories of depressive vulnerability, becomes apparent, indicating the need to investi-
gate this carefully constructed instrument.
A central finding reported here is that the factor structure obtained in two previous
studies, i.e., that of Bagby et al. (1998) with Canadian participants, and that of Hong and
Lee (2001), with Korean participants, was replicated with Israeli participants as well.
Moreover, this factor structure was found here to be time invariant, and to be robust in
the face of controlling for the potentially confounding effect of depressive symptoms.
Taken together, the three studies (Bagby et al., 1998; Hong & Lee, 2001; and the
present one) clearly indicate that the perfectionism/self-criticism domain is not a unique
indicator of autonomy, as was previously theorized (Robins, 1994). Rather, it captures
aspects of both sociotropy and autonomy.
In the present report, information was obtained regarding some of the sources of the
counter-theoretical loading of perfectionism/self-criticism on sociotropy. Namely, at
both T1 and T2, it was found here that CONCERN significantly predicted perfection-
ism/self-criticism, suggesting that this is the sociotropy domain most closely related to
perfectionistic and self-critical concerns, at least as they are measured by the PSI. While
unanticipated by Robins et al. (1994) when constructing the PSI, this finding does make
sense when it is viewed from the perspective of object relations theory (Greenberg and
Mitchell, 1983). A central postulate of this theory is that the self-representation and
representations of others are intimately intertwined. This postulate can be phrased in
informational processing terms by positing that the self-schema and a general schema of
the Other are semantically related, and that the activation of one entails an activation of
the other. This strong link between the two schemas, which is compellingly supported by
empirical support on mental representations (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Baldwin, 1992;
Blatt, Auerbach, & Levy, 1997; Westen, 1991) sheds light on the finding whereby per-
fectionism/self-criticism is most strongly linked to concerns about what others think.
Namely, the judgmental and punitive sense of self that is conveyed by the perfectionism/

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 197

self-criticism domain might be seen as an attempt to avert criticism from others, a

perceived contingency that is captured by the CONCERNS domains. Accordingly,
DEQ based research suggests that self-critical individuals complain about a chronic
sense of being harshly evaluated, and ultimately rejected, by others (cf. Blatt & Zuroff,
1992; Blatt, 2004). It is therefore of note that the perfectionism/self-criticism PSI domain
was correlated more strongly and consistently with DEQ self-criticism than with other
perfectionism self-criticism dimensions. This suggests that the perfectionism/self-criti-
cism label of the putative PSI dimension is somewhat misleading, in that this dimension
taps self-critical or negative self-evaluation.
Another notable finding of the present study is that the PESC domain interacted with
initial depressive symptoms and stressful events to predict increased depression over
time. The PESC by stress segment of this interaction is consistent with the stress-
diathesis perspective (Monroe & Simons, 1991; although not with the congruency
hypothesis [Robins, 1995], see footnote 4), and hence bolsters the predictive validity of
the PESC as a domain of depressive vulnerability. The involvement of T1 depression in
this interaction is consistent with Joiner’s (1994) call to consider the moderating effects
of baseline levels of the putative outcome in examining interactions between diatheses
and stress. Despite this interesting interaction, a couple of caveats need to be noted.
First, most stress-diathesis findings are found without interaction baseline depression.
Second, it should be mentioned that this three-way interaction was not found in the
third regression analysis, in which PESC and MPS-SPP were compared. These two
caveats indicate the need to replicate the three way interaction between PESC, stress,
and T1 depression needs before substantive conclusions are drawn.
Limitations of the present study should be noted, and those include use of a non-
clinical sample and subclinical levels of depressive symptoms during a distinct stressful
period—university examinations. Within the context of these limitations, this study’s
findings join previous studies in pointing out problems in using the PSI-PESC. On the
one hand, the reliability and validity of the PSI is questionable in light of the fact that it
(a) includes few items (b) has low internal consistency, and (c) loads on both sociotopy
and autonomy. These findings are consistent with Bagby et al.’s (1998) suggestion of
refraining from the use of PESC in studies that rely on the PSI. On the other hand, the
statistically significant interaction involving PESC, T1 depression, and T2 stress indi-
cates that this dimension does tap into some pertinent aspects of depressive vulnera-
bility. It is therefore the recommendation of this author is that the PESC modified
extensively, possibly by selecting self-criticism items from the DEQ or DAS. Such a
practice has potential to increase our understanding of the role of negative self-
evaluation in depression.

References

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psy-
chological Review, 109, 619–645.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). AMOS: A structural equation modeling software. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters
Corporation.
Bagby, M. R., Parker, J. D. A., Joffe, R. T., Schuller, D., & Gilchrist, E. (1998). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the Revised Personal Style Inventory (PSI). Assessment, 5, 31–43.
Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 461–484.

123
198 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy for depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton, & J. E. Barrett
(Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York:
Raven Press.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison, R. P., & Emery, G. (1983). Development of the sociotropy-autonomy
scale: A measure of personality factors in psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. S., & Garbin, M. (1998). The beck depression inventory: Twenty-five years of
evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Biggs, J. T., Wylie, L. T., & Ziegler, V. E. (1978). Validity of the Zung self-rating depression scale. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 381–385.
Blaney, P. H., & Kutcher, G. S. (1991). Measures of depressive dimensions: Are they interchangeable?
Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 502–512.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 29, 107–157.
Blatt, S. J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for the treatment of depression.
American Psychologist, 50, 1003–1020.
Blatt, S. J. (1998). Contributions of psychoanalysis to the understanding and treatment of depression.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 46, 723–752.
Blatt S. J. (2004). Experiences of depression. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Press.
Blatt, S. J., Auerbach, J. S., & Levy, K. N. (1997). Mental representations in personality development,
psychopathology, and the therapeutic process. Review of General Psychology, 1, 351–374.
Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1996). Relatedness and self definition: A dialectic model of personality
development. In G. G. Noam, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development and vulnerabilities in close
relationships (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blatt, S. J., D’afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults.
Journal of Abnormal psychology, 95, 383–389.
Blatt, S. J., Shahar, G., & Zuroff, D. C. (2001). The anaclitic (sociotropic) and introjective (autonomous)
dimensions. Psychotherapy, 38, 449–454.
Blatt, S. J., & Shichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of psychopathology. Psychoanalysis and
Contemporary Thought, 6, 187–254.
Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Chevron, E. S., McDonald, C., & Zuroff, D. C. (1982). Dependency and
self-criticism: Psychological dimensions of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 50, 113–124.
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes for
depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 527–562.
Breznitz, S., & Eshel, Y. (1983). Life events: Stressful ordeal or valuable experience? In S. Breznitz
(Ed.), Stress in Israel. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: The case of
sociotropy-dependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 358–378.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dunkley, D. M., & Blankstein, K. R. (2000). Self-critical perfectionism, coping, hassles, and current
distress: A structural equation modeling approach. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 713–730.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., & Flett, G. L. (1997). Specific cognitive-personality vulnerability
styles in depression and the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
23, 1041–1053.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The relation
between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceived social support as mediators and
moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437–453.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect:
Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 234–252.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism: Developmental
origins and association with depression proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 921–
935.

123
Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200 199

Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Inayatulla, M. (2003). Personality predictors of outcome for adolescents hos-
pitalized for suicidal ideation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
42, 720–727.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Koledin, S. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism and
irrational thinking. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 9, 185–201.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Endler, N. S., Bagby, R. M. (1995). Conceptualization and assessment of
personality factors in depression. European Journal of Personality, 9, 309–350.
Greenberg, J. R., & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization,
assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression: A test of
the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58–65.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of
a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276–280.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The multidimensional per-
fectionism scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 3, 464–468.
Hmel, B. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2002). The meaning of autonomy: On and beyond the interpersonal
circumplex. Journal of Personality, 70, 277–310.
Hong, S., & Lee, M. (2001). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Personal Style
Inventory: Evidence for the multidimensionality problem of perfectionism. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 61, 421–432.
Hu L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Joiner, T. E. (1994). Covariance of baseline symptom scores in prediction of future symptom scores: A
methodological note. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 497–504.
Levine, M., & Perkins, D. V. (1980). Tailor-making life events scale. A paper presented at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association, Montreal.
Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-Stress theories in the context of life stress research:
Implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425.
Nunnally J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Priel, B., & Shahar, G. (2000). Dependency, self-criticism, social context and distress: Comparing
moderating and mediating models. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 515–525.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general popu-
lation. Applied Psychosocial Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rector, N. A., Bagby, R. M., Segal, Z. V., Joffe, R. T., & Levitt, A. (2000). Self-criticism and dependency
in depressed patients treated with cognitive therapy or pharmacotherapy. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 24, 571–584.
Robins, C. J. (1993). Implications of research in the psychopathology of depression for psycotherapy
integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 3, 313–330.
Robins, C. J. (1995). Personality-event interaction models of depression. European Journal of Person-
ality, 9, 367–378.
Robins, C. J., Bagby, M. R., Rector, N. A., Lynch, T. R., & Kennedy, S. H. (1997). Sociotropy, autonomy,
and patterns of symptoms in patients with major depression: A comparison of dimensional and
categorical approaches. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 285–300.
Robins, C. J., Ladd, J. S., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P. H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The Personal
Style Inventory: Preliminary validation studies of a new measure of sociotropy and autonomy.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300.
Robins, C. J., & Luthen, A. G. (1991). Sociotropy and autonomy: Differential patterns of clinical pre-
sentation in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 74–77.
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1993). Do interpersonal and achievement vulnerabilities interact with
congruent events to predict depression? Comparison of the DEQ, SAS, DAS, and combined scales.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 531–548.
Shahar, G. (2001). Personality, shame, and the breakdown of social ties: The voice of quantitative
depression research. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 64, 229–238.
Shahar, G. (2004). Transference-countertransference: Where the (political) action is. Journal of Psy-
chotherapy Integration, 14, 371–396.

123
200 Cogn Ther Res (2006) 30:185–200

Shahar, G., Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., Krupnick, J., & Sotsky, S. M. (2004). Perfectionism impedes social
relations and response to brief treatment for depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
23, 140–154.
Shahar, G., Blatt, S. J., Zuroff, D. C., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2003a). Role of perfectionism and personality
disorder features in patients’ responses to brief treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 71, 229–233.
Shahar, G., Henrich, C. C., Blatt, S. J., Ryan, R., & Little, T. D. (2003b). Interpersonal relatedness, self-
definition, and their motivational orientation during adolescence: A theoretical and empirical
integration. Developmental Psychology, 39, 470–483.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., McGee, B. J., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Self-oriented and socially
prescribed perfectionism in the eating disorder inventory perfectionism subscale. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 69–79.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Test for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87,
245–251.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the dysfunctional attitudes scale.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention, Toronto,
Canada.
Westen, D. (1991). Social cognition and object relations. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 429–455.
Zung, W. W. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 63–70.
Zung, W. W. (1967). Depression in the normal aged. Psychosomatics, 8, 287–292.
Zuroff, D. C., Blatt, S. J., Sotsky, S. M., Krupnick, J. L., Martin, D. J., Sanislow, C. A. III, & Simmens, S.
(2000). Relation of therapeutic alliance and perfectionism to outcome in brief outpatient treatment
of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 114–124.
Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004a). Conceptualizing and measuring personality
vulnerability to depression: Comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 130,
489–511.
Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004b). Investing in the Personality Vulnerability
Research Program-current dividends and future growth: Rejoinder to Coyne, Thompson, and
Whiffen (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 518–522.

123