This article begins with a brief review of the current literamre on the structure and measurement

of perfectionism. It is concluded from this review that two major types can be distinguished, a
normal/healthy form and a pathological form. These two forms are then defined as posifive and
negative perfectionism and related directly to Skinnerian concepts of positive and negative
reinforcement. The positive/negafive distincfion is then further elaborated on in terms of
approach/avoidance behavior, goal differences, self-concept involvement, emotional correlates,
and the promoting environment. Finally, some of the more obvious theoretical and practical
implications are briefly explored.

A Dual Process Model of Perfectionism

Based on Reinforcement Theory

PETER D. SLADE
Bogazici University

R. GLYNN OWENS
University of Auckland

The terms perfectionism and perfectionist have been around for a

long time in lay, medical, and psychological literature. However,
despite this apparent longevity, Hollender (1978) referred to perfec-
tionism as a neglected personality trait, and it is only in the last 15 to
20 years that the scientific community has started to take the concept
seriously.
One of the undoubted problems in the area has been that of defining
the nature and scope of the concept and of separating descriptions of
behaviors and cognitions from underlying theoretical assumptions.
Thus, Freud saw the desire for perfection as an aspect of narcissism,
which he placed firmly in the realm of neurotic disorder. This is in

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Address correspondence to Professor R. Glynn Owens, Department of

Psychology, Tanuki Campus, the University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New
Zealand; phone: 649-374-7599 (ext. 6845); fax: 649-373-7043; e-mail: g.owensHauck-
land.ac.nz.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, Vol. 22 No. 3, July 1998 372-390
O 1998 Sage Publications, Inc.
372

from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.

 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 373

contrast to others who have viewed at least some forms of perfection-

ism as positive aspects of functioning (e.g., Hamachek, 1978). Con-
sequently, a confusion exists between observation and interpretation.
To overcome this problem, several major contributors to the area have
concentrated, in recent years, on the delineation, description, and
measurement of dimensions of perfectionism (Frost, Marten, Lahart, &
Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a). This has proven extremely
valuable in practical terms. However, there is a clear need now to
establish theoretical underpinnings for dimensions of perfectionism
to take the area forward. The present article is an attempt to provide
such a theoretical basis.

CONSTRUCT AND MEASUREMENT

OF PERFECTIONISM

Hollender (1978) defined perfectionism as “the practice of

demanding of oneself or others a higher quality of performance than
is required by the situation” (p. 384). Burns (1980) took this a stage
further in offering a more detailed description in the following terms:
“... those whose standards are high beyond reach or reason, people
who strain compulsively and unremittingly toward impossible goals,
and who measure their own worth entirely in terms of productivity
and accomplishment” (p. 34). (From a clinical and psychotherapeutic
perspective, the last of these three components seems to be particularly
important.) Burn’s definition is in many senses an extension of Albert
Ellis’s (1962) irrational belief “that there is invariably a right, precise
and perfect solution to problems and that it is catastrophic if this
perfect solution is not found” (pp. 86-87). It should be noted that the
definitions of Hollender (1978) and Bums (1980) and the irrational
belief of Ellis (1962) concentrate exclusively on the negative and
self-defeating aspects of the construct.
In contrast to the above, Hamachek (1978) argued the case for two
forms of perfectionism, which he termed normal and neurotic.
Hamachek described normal perfectionists as “those who derive a
very real sense of pleasure from the labors of a painstaking effort and
who feel free to be less precise as the situation permits” (p. 27).
374 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

Hamachek further noted that “the striving of normal perfectionists

brings them adeep sense of satisfaction” (p. 27). This is in comparison
to neurotic perfectionists,

of whom he said: Here we have the sort of people whose ef-

forts.... even their best ones ... never seem quite good enough, at
least in their own eyes. It always seems to these persons that they
could ... and should ... do better. They never seem to do things
good enough to warrant that feeling. (p. 27)

For both types of perfectionists, the setting of high standards is a

common feature. The crucial difference is that the normal perfection-
ist, when achieving these standards, feels pleased and satisfied,
whereas the neurotic perfectionist can never do enough to feel satis-
fied with his or her performance.
Hamachek’s (1978) distinction between normal perfectionism and
neurotic perfectionism is mirrored in the distinction drawn by the
present authors between satisfied and dissatisfied perfectionists
(Owens & Slade, 1987; Slade, 1982; Slade & Dewey, 1986; Slade,
Dewey, Kiemle, & Newton, 1990). This stemmed initially from the
first author’s functional analysis model of anorexia nervosa (Slade,
1982), in which it was suggested that the essential setting conditions
for the development of an eating disorder involve a combination of
strong perfectionist tendencies and general dissatisfaction with life.
Thus, those who were prone to develop anorexia nervosa were hy-
pothesized to be dissatisfied perfectionists. A questionnaire was de-
vised to measure the two dimensions of dissatisfaction and perfection-
ism separately (the SCANS) and was initially validated on samples of
712 normal and 40 eating-disorder participants. A combination of the
two scales discriminated successfully between the groups (Slade &
Dewey, 1986), a finding which held up with increased numbers
involving 1,163 control and 106 eating-disorder participants (Slade et al.,
1990). In line with predictions, eating-disorder participants scored
highly on both scales and were characterized as dissatisfied perfec-
tionists. By contrast, in a subsequent study, a sample of 35 female
marathon runners were found to score highly on perfectionism but at
a normal level on dissatisfaction, thus being best characterized as
satisfied perfectionists (Owens & Slade, 1987). In further studies
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONIST 375

using a visual search task, the two dimensions measured by the

SCANS were found to be differentially linked to performance; scores
on perfectionism were positively associated with task accuracy,
whereas scores on dissatisfaction were negatively correlated with
speed (Newton, 1992; Slade, Newton, Butler, & Murphy, 1991). This
again supports the notion of a dichotomy between two forms of
perfectionism.
More recently, we have devised and tested a different questionnaire
to measure the hypothesized setting conditions for the development
of an eating disorder, this time focusing directly on the concept of
neurotic perfectionism as described by Hamachek (1978) and others
(Mitzman, Slade, & Dewey, 1994). With smaller numbers, 116 control
and 22 eating-disorder participants, we found a very similar level of
discrimination between groups to that achieved with the SCANS.
Hewitt and colleagues, working from a social-psychological per-
spective, have argued for a multidimensional concept of perfectionism
and have developed instruments for measuring such dimensions. Their
main tool to date is the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS)
(Hewitt & Flett, 1991a), which measures three dimensions:

• self-oriented perfectionism, which involves a tendency to set exces-

sively high personal standards for oneself;
• socially-prescribed perfectionism, which concerns the belief that oth-
ers have unrealistic standards and perfectionistic motives for one’s own
behavior and that others will be satisfied only when these standards are
attained; and
• other-oriented perfectionism, which relates to the standards and expec-
tations that the individual has for other people, that is, how the individ-
ual expects other people to behave.

Hewitt and colleagues have used their MPS scales in a series of

studies on the clinical correlates of perfectionism, finding significant
associations with depression (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher,
1995; Hewitt & Flett, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), suicidal threat
and intent (Hewitt, Flett, & Turnbull-Donovan,1992; Hewitt, Flett, &
Weber, 1994), neuroticism (Hewitt, Flett, & Blankstein, 1991), poor
family adjustment in pain patients and their spouses (Hewitt, Flett, &
Mikail, 1995), and job stress among teachers (Flett, Hewitt, & Hallett,
1995).
376 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

Frost and colleagues also take the view that perfectionism is

multidimensional in nature and have developed their own MPS (Frost
et al., 1990). This initially was composed of five scales, to which a sixth
was added later (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993).
The six scales of the Frost et al. (1990) MPS are:
1. Concern Over Mistakes (e.g., “People will probably think less of me
if I make a mistake.”);
2. Personal Standards (e.g., “I hate being less than the best at anything.”);
3. Parental Expectations (e.g., “My parents expected excellence of me.”);
4. Parental Criticism (e.g., “As a child, I was punished for doing things
less than perfect.”);
5. Doubts About Actions (e.g., items from the Maudsley Obsessional-
Compulsive Scale); and
6. Organization (e.g., “Organization is very important to me.”).

Frost et a1. (1990) have used these scales primarily to carry out finer
grain analyses of participants’ reactions to making mistakes (Frost, Tur-
cotte, & Heimberg, 1995), to study compulsive indecisiveness (Frost &
Shows, 1993), and to study hoarding behavior (Frost & Gross, 1993).
One of the issues raised by the existence of two separate and
somewhat different Multidimensional Perfectionism scales is that of
how they relate to each other. An initial answer to this question was
provided by the results of the study carried out by Frost et al. (1993).
They reported findings obtained from a factor analytic study of the
two Multidimensional Perfectionism scales, which they administered
to a sample of 553 college students, 51% of which were female. This
produced two unambiguous factors.
The first of these was termed maladaptive evaluation concerns and
consisted of high loadings for Hewitt and Flett’s (1991a) socially
prescribed perfectionism and for four of the Frost et al. (1993) scales,
namely Concern Over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, Parental Expec-
tations, and Doubts About Actions. This factor was correlated with
Beck Depression Index scores and negative affect scores and was
interpreted as reflecting the negative aspects of perfectionism.
The second factor was labeled positive striving and consisted of
high loadings on Hewitt and Flett’s (1991a) self-oriented perfection-
ism and two of the Frost et al. (1993) scales, namely, Personal Standards
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 377

TABLE 1
Dual Process Model of Perfectionism:
Convergence on the Nature of Perfectionism
Author Type 1 Type 2

Hamachek (1978) Normal Neurotic

Slade & Dewey (1986)
Owens & Slade (1987)
Frost et ii. (1993)
Hewitt & Flett (1991) (MPS)
Frost et al. (1990) (MPS)
Satisfied
Positive striving
Self-oriented perfectionism
Personal standards
Organization
Dissatisfied
Maladaptive evaluation
concerns
Socially prescribed
Concern over mistakes
Parental criticism/expectations
Doubts about acfions

NOTE: MPS = Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale.

and Organization. This factor was correlated with positive affect and
was interpreted as reflecting the positive aspects of perfectionism.
The above review reflects a growing convergence in theory and
data on the nature of perfectionism, namely, that two main types can
be distinguished (see Table 1).
The first type is a predominantly normal or healthy form that carries
positive benefits for the individual. As such, it is to be encouraged and
fostered. The second type, however, is a pathological or unhealthy
form that has inherent disadvantages for the individual and is to be
avoided or corrected.
Type 1 was described by Hamachek (1978) as normal and by
ourselves as satisfied perfectionism (Owens & Slade, 1987), whereas
Frost et al. (1993) used the term positive striving to describe a
comparable factor embodying scales measuring self-oriented perfec-
tionism, personal standards, and organization.
Type 2, by contrast, was described by Hamachek (1978) as neurotic
and by ourselves as dissatisfied perfectionism (Owens & Slade, 1987),
whereas Frost et al. (1993) have chosen the term maladaptive evalu-
ation concerns to describe a similar factor involving scales measuring
socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, parental
criticism, parental expectations, and doubts about actions.
In arriving at their chosen terminology, Frost et al. (1993) make it
clear that they view positive striving as reflecting the positive aspects
378 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION f July 1998

of perfectionism and maladaptive evaluation concerns as reflecting

the negative aspects of perfectionism.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE PERFECTIONISM

As noted above, Frost el al. (1993) viewed their positive-striving

factor as reflecting positive aspects of perfectionism and their
maladaptive evaluation concerns factor as reflecting negative aspects
of perfectionism. We have taken this one step further by suggesting a
possible theoretical basis for the distinction between positive and
negative forms of perfectionism (Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, &
Dewey, 1995). In this article, we argued that perfectionism might
usefully be viewed from a radical behaviorist perspective in terms of
the essential function that it was aiming to achieve. That is, the
consequences of the behavior might be more important than the form
of the behavior itself. We proposed, therefore, that positive perfection -
ismis linked with positive reinforcement and that negative perfection-
ism is linked with negative reinforcement in traditional learning-
theory terms (Skinner, 1968).
We therefore define two basic forms of perfectionism. Positive
perfectionism refers to cognitions and behaviors that are directed
toward the achievement of certain high-level goals to obtain positive
consequences. That is, positive peJectionism is driven by positive
reinforcement and a desire for success. Negative perfectionism, on the
other hand, refers to cognitions and behaviors that are directed toward
the achievement of certain high-level goals to avoid or to escape from
negative consequences. That is, negative perfectionism is driven by
negative reinforcement and a fear of failure.
The above definitions are in line with the thinking of Skinner
(1968), who noted that the same behavior may be associated with quite
different emotional states according to whether it is a function of
negative or positive reinforcement. Skinner suggested that if a person
does something as a consequence of a history of positive reinforce-
ment, the behavior is perceived to be free choice; whereas the same
behavior performed to avoid a negative consequence is perceived as
having been coerced.
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 379

Our study (Terry-Short et al., 1995) was designed to test the

hypothesis that the distinction between positive and negative perfec-
tionism, based on functional differences, overrides the distinction of
Hewitt and Flett(1991a) between self-oriented and socially prescribed
perfectionism, which is based on differences in content.
To this end, we developed a new questionnaire, the Positive and
Negative Perfectionism Scale (PANPS), consisting of 40 items.
Twenty items were formulated to tap self-oriented and 20 to tap
socially prescribed perfectionism, drawing heavily on the MPS of
Hewitt and Flett (1991a). However, within each category, 10 items
were formulated specifically to measure postive and 10 to measure
negative perfectionism. Thus, 20 items in total measured each of the
latter categories.
This questionnaire was administered to four groups of participants:
225 control women, 20 successful female club athletes, 21 eating-
disordered women, and 15 depressed women. The data from the total
sample (n = 281) were subjected to a principal components analysis,
which yielded two primary factors. Both initial and rotated factor
analyses indicated that these reflected a clear distinction between
positive and negative perfectionism that overrode the distinction
between self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. Thus, in
the rotated matrix, of the 22 items loading on the first factor, all but
two reflected negative perfectionism, whereas all 18 items loading on
the second factor reflected positive perfectionism. Self-oriented and
socially prescribed items were equally loaded on the two factors.
Group comparisons on the two dimensions of positive and negative
perfectionism revealed that, by reference to the control group, athletes
scored highly on positive perfectionism but at a normal level in terms
of negative perfectionism. In contrast, depressed participants scored
highly on negative perfectionism but at a normal level in terms of
positive perfectionism, whereas eating-disorder participants obtained
high scores on both dimensions of perfectionism.
The first author (Slade, in press) has subsequently suggested that
those individuals who suffer from an eating disorder, either anorexia
nervosa or bulimia nervosa, may be heterogeneous with respect to
perfectionism, with some being positive perfectionists, some being
380 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

negative perfectionists, and others being motivated by both positive

and negative perfectionism.

DUAL PROCESS MODEL OF

POSITIYE AND NEGATIVE PERFECTIONISM

A dual process model of perfectionism based on Skinnerian rein-

forcement theory is presented in Table 2. In this model, the type of
behavior underlying positive perfectionism is that of approach (pur-
suit) behavior, whereas negative perfectionism is underpinned by
avoidance (escape) behavior. The goals of the two forms of peJec-
tionism, therefore, derive from opposite directions, although they are
not incompatible as such. Thus, an individual who is high on positive
perfectionism will in general pursue success, perfection, and excel-
lence, whereas an individual who is high on negative perfectionism
will seek to avoid failure, imperfection, and mediocrity. Individuals
may be motivated by one or the other drive, both, or neither.
In social and interpersonal functioning, the positive perfectionist
will seek approval from everyone, whereas the negative perfectionist
will be motivated primarily by the desire to avoid the disapproval of
anyone. In the area of eating disorders, the positive perfectionist will
pursue thinness for its own sake, while the negative perfectionist will
be motivated by adesire to avoid or escape from fatness. At face value,
the overt behavior of the positive and negative perfectionist may
appear identical, but their underlying goals are different. Failure to
achieve the goals may also have very different consequences for the
two kinds of individuals.
We hypothesize that the two kinds of perfectionists are concerned
with different aspects of their self-concept. The individual high on
positive perfectionism is motivated by a desire to get as close as
possible to their ideal self, whereas the negative perfectionist is driven
by a desire to get as far away as possible from their feared self.
We also propose that the emotional consequences of the two kinds
of perfectionism will differ. The positive perfectionist, it is suggested,
will experience satisfaction, pleasure, and even euphoria when they
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 381

TABLE 2
Theoretical Features of a Dual Process Model of Positive
and Negative Perfectionism
Area Positive Perfectionism Negative Perfectionism

Type of behavior Approach Avoidance

Goals Pursuit of: Avoidance of:
Success Failure
Perfection Imperfection
Excellence Mediocrity
Approval Disapproval
Thinness Fatness
Self-concept involvement Pursuit of ideal self Avoidance of feared self
Emotional correlates Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
Pleasure Displeasure
Euphoria Dysphoria
Promoting environment Positive/negative modeling History of no/conditional
history reinforcement

succeed, but will not be unduly affected by failure. On the other hand,
the negative perfectionist will never be satisfied by achieving their
goal, because failure may be just around the comer. That is, positive
goals are achievable sometimes, but there is never any negative
outcome for failing to achieve them. By contrast, negative goals are
regularly achievable but never ensure that failure will not occur in
the future.
Finally, the kinds of environment that are likely to foster the two
types of perfectionism are different. Following Hamachek (1978), we
suggest for the moment that the environments most conducive to the
development of positive perfectionism are those that lead to either
close identification with a positive model who demonstrates the value
of being careful and meticulous or to a reaction against a disorganized
model. The environments most conducive to the development of
negative perfectionism are likely to be those that involve a history of
either a total absence of reinforcement or of all reinforcement being
conditional on performance.
382 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF

THE DUAL PROCESS MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM

PERFECTIONISM AND SPORT

One of the areas where the dual process model may have important
theoretical and practical implications is in our understanding of dif-
ferences in athletic capability and performance.
From our model, it would follow that an individual whose motiva-
tion derives from positive perfectionism would be someone who
wants to win (i.e., to succeed in an event) to achieve positive rein-
forcement (i.e., to win a gold medal, to be recognized as the best at
that event at the time, or to obtain a financial reward). But failure
would not be catastrophic—there will always be other occasions to
compete and to win. Failure to achieve positive reinforcement on one
occasion will not have any long-term consequences.
By contrast, an individual who is continually driven by negative
perfectionism will constantly want to win to avoid failure. For such
an individual, winning will mean little (one defeat avoided), but not
winning will be catastrophic and will have major negative personal
consequences.
The above analysis leads to the prediction that athletes who con-
form to the two forms of perfectionism will exhibit differences before
and subsequent to competition.
Data relating to this prediction is provided by Frost and Henderson
(1991). In a study of 40 female athletes, they examined the relationship
between perfectionism (measured by their MPS) and the athletes’
reactions to competition as assessed by their own and their coaches’
ratings. They found that those who obtained high scores on concern
over mistakes (an aspect of negative perfectionism) reported more
anxiety and less self-confidence in sports, displayed a general failure
orientation toward sports, reacted negatively to mistakes, and reported
more negative thinking in the 24 hours before competition. By con-
trast, those who obtained high scores on personal standards (an aspect
of positive perfectionism) had a greater success orientation toward
sports and had more dreams of perfection before competition.
A related area for application of the dual process model is that of
obligatory exercise (Coen & Ogles, 1993; Yates, 1994). The concept
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 383

of the obligatory exerciser has been somewhat elusive, with problems

of definition and interpretation, although measures of the degree to
which an individual feels compelled to exercise have been developed.
This issue of feelings of compulsion raises the possibility that such
feelings may be a function of the extent to which a person’s activity
is driven by negative reinforcement. Thus, two individuals may be
equally strong in perfectionism overall, but the one high in positive
perfectionism would choose to exercise regularly, whereas the one
high in negative perfectionism may feel driven to obligatory exercise.

PERFECTIONISM AND EATING DISORDERS

Another area of applicability is in relation to the eating disorders

anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. It is generally well-established
now that eating-disorder participants obtain high scores on measures
of perfectionism. Garner and colleagues (Garner, 1991; Garner, Olm-
stead, & Polivy, 1983) have demonstrated high scores for such par-
ticipants on the Perfectionism subscale of the Eating Disorder Inven-
tory; we have demonstrated similar discrimination on the SCANS
(Slade & Dewey, 1986; Slade et al., 1991). More recently, Bastiani,
Rao, Weltzin, and Kaye (1995) have shown that patients with anorexia
nervosa score highly on both of the MPS scales.
In our previously quoted study (Terry-Short et al., 1995), we found
that a small sample of eating-disorder participants obtained high
scores, on average, on both Positive and Negative Perfectionism
scales of the PANPS. We are currently analyzing data on a further
sample of 100 anorexic and bulimic participants who also score highly
on both Positive and Negative scales by comparison with a control
sample. However, it is noticeable that whereas the majority score is
higher on the Negative than the Positive scale, a small minority show
the reverse pattern. That is, they score substantially higher on the
Positive than on the Negative Perfectionism scale. This is in line with
the recent speculation of the first author (Slade, in press), mentioned
above.
If there are indeed differences within an eating-disorder population,
whereby the majority are driven by negative perfectionism but a small
minority are motivated by positive perfectionist drives, what would
384 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

this mean theoretically and practically? One possibility is that a small

minority of eating-disorder sufferers are motivated purely by the
pursuit of thinness for its own sake. This small minority may not be
seen regularly in clinical practice because they would not show the
deep emotional disturbance characteristic of the individual with typi-
cal anorexia nervosa. In theory, they might be more akin to the
historical accounts of holy anorexia in which severe food restriction
was often recognized by the church as a sign of exceptional sanctity
(Bell, 1986).

THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS

From a practical standpoint, if we can identity subgroups of eating-

disorder sufferers who correspond to positive and negative perfection-
ist subtypes, clearly this would have important implications for
cognitive-behavioral therapy.
In the case of individuals who are driven by positive perfectionism,
therapy will need to focus on the exploration and challenging of the
person’s beliefs about the positive value of thinness in their personal
life and in society generally. The task of therapy would be to render
the avowed goal of the sufferer (i.e., thinness) less attractive and to
question this as a long-term goal for life. Additionally, intervention
would need to enable the individual to identify other sources of
reinforcement that do not require perfectionistic behavior or to dis-
cover that the desired reinforcers (e.g., social approval) can be ob-
tained with less-than-perfect behavior.
Although in the case of individuals for whom the driving force is
negative perfectionism education about normal variations in body size
and changes over time, the challenging of negative cognitions about
their own body and self-image and general self-esteem enhancing
therapy will be particularly important. To the extent that negative
perfectionism can be viewed as a form of avoidance behavior, then
interventions that expose the individual to the feared contingency will
be valuable as well. Thus, strategies paralleling in vfvo desensitization
could be explicitly used for individuals experimenting with relaxation
of elements of their perfectionism to recognize that the feared aversive
consequences do not in fact occur.
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 385

OTHER ISSUES

The dual process model of perfectionism that has been outlined

above is necessarily incomplete and raises many more questions than
it answers. Some of the more obvious issues are the following.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PERSONALITY THEORY

One such issue is how the concepts of positive and negative

perfectionism fit into existing frameworks in personality theory and
psychopathology. Building on the work of the Eysencks (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985), the last decade has seen the development of an
empirically based Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Generated
from extensive psychometric studies carried out primarily by Paul
Costa and colleagues (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Costa & Widiger, 1994;
McCrae & Costa, 1996), a new personality questionnaire has been
produced, the NEO-PI-R, which measures five major dimensions
encompassing 30 narrower personality facets. The major dimensions
are neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness. Careful study of these dimensions (and facets)
suggests that positive perfectionism may be related to the last of these
dimensions (i.e., conscientiousness) and may encompass some of the
specific facets underpinning this dimension (i.e., competence, order,
and achievement striving).
Similarly, the most widely used descriptive classificatory system
for psychopathology, DSM-IV (APA, 1994), includes diagnostic cri-
teria for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Negative perfec-
tionism would seem to fit with the overall description for this category
of “a pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfection-
ism, and mental and interpersonal control” (p. 691). Thus, both types
of perfectionism described here can be located fairly easily in conven-
tional, current descriptive classifications of personality and psycho-
pathology. What is different about the present dual process model of
perfectionism is that it is underpinned and driven by traditional
theoretical principles, namely those of reinforcement theory.
Another obvious question concerning the relation of perfectionism
to conventional personality theory concerns the extent to which such
386 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

a characteristic may be considered a trait or a state. However, such a

question is perhaps most relevant when considering a characteristic
in terms of the individual—that is, purely as an individual difference
variable. By contrast, the present formulation of perfectionism views
perfectionist behavior in terms of the relationship of the individual to
his or her environment and in particular to the types of reinforcement
that serve to maintain perfectionist behavior. Within such a formula-
tion, the degree of stability to be expected of an individual’s perfec-
tionism would depend on the stability of the maintaining contingen-
cies. It is at this stage then that it is possibly more useful to think of
perfectionism as a convenient summary term to describe patterns of
behavior rather than as necessarily reflecting some deep-seated and
possibly unchangeable characteristic of the individual.

DEVELOPMENT OF PERFECTIONISM

In addition to the general ideas of Hamachek (1978) described

above, at least three other possible mechanisms of a behavioral nature
may be involved in the development of perfectionism.
First, perfectionism may be shaped by social contingencies. Thus,
in a sporting context, as a person’s skill develops, there will (usually)
be increasing amounts of reinforcement for performance at a higher
and higher standard. Of interest here is the possibility that the contin-
gencies in such situations shift with time from positive to largely
negative ones. For example, a person may start to do well in a sport
and simply enjoy the success. After a while, however, this success may
bring other expectations and obligations, such as teammates relying
on a good performance, with the implicit and explicit messages that
one will be letting the side down with a bad performance. Thus, the
repeated reinforcement of positive perfectionist behavior may in fact
lead to the development of negative perfectionism, with the corre-
sponding shift toward feelings of compulsion and coercion.
Second, perfectionism may develop as a form of avoidance behav-
ior. For example, if parents are inconsistent in their punishment of a
child’s behavior, the child may play safe by always trying to be perfect
rather than to tempt fate and find that a less-than-perfect performance
on a particular occasion leads to aversive consequences. Of course, if
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 387

the parents consistently punished any behavior that was less-than-per-

fect, the effect would be even more powerful, but thankfully, it is hard
to imagine many situations in which parents would act in this way.
Third, perfectionism may develop as a form of rule-governed
behavior. Thus, the child may receive verbal messages, either explicit
or implicit, that reinforcement is available for behavior that is highly
perfectionistic. Such messages need not, of course, be intentional or
even real. For example, the child whose father is a leading athletic
coach may feel obligated to be successful in athletic competition,
despite the father’s protestations that he does not expect this. The
message received by the child, irrespective of what is intended, might
be something like, “It wouldn’t be very good for my father’s image if
I don’t perform well.”
The above three suggestions do not exhaust the possible routes to
a perfectionist lifestyle and are not mutually exclusive. However, it is
worthy to note that the histories that they reflect would lead to
differences in perfectionist behavior. Thus, shaping through social
contingencies would lead to the development of perfectionism (posi-
tive followed by negative) in only one circumscribed area, (e.g.,
sport), whereas the avoidance-behavior route would be expected to
lead to generalized negative perfectionism. The third possibility, a
form of rule-governed behavior, might lead to the development of both
positive and negative forms of perfectionism, although only in one
specific area, such as, sport.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Clearly, a considerable amount of research remains to be done in

this area, notably the following:
1. Longitudinal studies (or careful cross-sectional studies) of the devel-
opment of perfectionism are needed, in particular to investigate the
possibility that positive perfectionism may lead to negative perfectionism.
2. Studies need to look at the broader context of both positive and negative
perfectionism. In particular, it is important to note that perfectionism
that is maintained by immediate positive reinforcement may neverthe-
less lead to problems in the wider social environment. Friends and
family, for example, may find an individual’s positively reinforced
388 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION f July 1998

perfectionism difficult or intolerable. Under such circumstances, the

individual may need to consider carefully whether the costs associated
with continuing a perfectionist lifestyle are justified in terms of the
(positively reinforcing) benefits.
3. Further work needs to be done on the measurement of both positive
and negative perfectionism. In the field of eating disorders, for exam-
ple, there is much potential benefit for early detection of problems, and
it may be that a version of the PANPS for younger adults or children
could be of benefit.
4. Work needs to be done on the correlates and predictors of positive and
negative perfectionism. As seen in the earlier discussion, a formulation
in terms of positive and negative reinforcement makes possible a
number of direct predictions. Thus, in-depth studies of the backgrounds
of individuals showing panicular types of peJectionism could lead to
categorization according to whether they would be expected to lead t o
positive perfectionism, negative perfectionism, or both. Such assess-
ment, done blind as to the actual status of the individual, could then be
compared with the results of measures such as the PANPS as a test of
the model.
5. Finally, of course, there is tremendous scope for research into possible
interventions. Given the potential for direct modification of perfection-
ism, it is possible both to evaluate the extent to which such interven-
tions affect the level of perfectionism and the extent to which (i f at all)
this leads to broader therapeutic benefit. Areas such as eating disorders
and depression form the obvious targets here; for example, the common
belief that one never entirely shakes off all aspects of an eating disorder
may be a reflection of the fact that perfectionism is rarely the subject
of direct intervention. Given that studies have shown perfectionism to
remain at high levels after treatment, it is possible that the problem in
producing a total resolution of eating problems may stem in part from
the failure of most therapeutic approaches to affect perfectionism.

REFERENCES

Bastiani, A. M., Rao, R., Weltzin, T., & Kaye, W. H. (1995). Perfectionism in anorexia nervosa.
International Journal of Eating Dison:ters, 17, I 47-152.
Bell, R. M. (1986). ffo/y anorexia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bums, U. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s script for defeat. Psychology Today, 34-51.
Coen, S. P., & Ogles, B. M. (1993). Psychological characteristics of the obligatory runner: A
critical examination of the anorexia analogue hypothesis. Jourrin/ of Sport awd Exercise
Psychology, IS, 338-354.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment
using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 6d, 21-50.
 Slade, Owens / MODEL OF PERFECTIONISM 389

Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five factor model of
personalig. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ellis, A. (1962). Ae‹zroii ‹Grid emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality awd individual differences.’ A natural
science approach. New York: Plenum.
Flett, G. L., Hewiti, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1995). Perfectionism, life events
and depressive symptoms: A test of a diathesis -stress model. Current Psychology, I4,
112-137.
Flett, G. L., Hewin, P. L., & Hallett, C. J. (1995). Perfectionism and job stress in teachers.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, II, 32-42.
Frost, R. 0., & Gross, R. C. (1993). The hoarding of possessions. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 31, 367-381.
Frost, R. 0., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, l19-126.
Frost, R. 0., & Hendeison, K. J. (1991). Perfectionism and reactions to athletic compefition.
Journal of Sport and Me rcies Psychology, 13, 323-335.
Frost, R. 0., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfection-
ism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Frost, R. 0., & Shows, D. L. (1993). The nature and measurement of compulsive indecisiveness.
Behavior Research end Therapy, 31, 683-692.
Frost, R. 0., Turcotte, T. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1995). Reactions to mistakes among subjects
high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,
195-205.
Garner, D. M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory-2: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessrrient Resources.
Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, I. (1983). Development and validation of a
multi-dimensional Eating Disorder Inventory for anorexia nervosa. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 2, 15-34.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
15, 27-33.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Perfectionism and depression: A multidimensional analysis.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 423-438.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (l99la). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptuali -
zation, assessment and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 456-470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991 b). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98-101.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1991). Perfectionism and neuroticism in psychiatric
patients and college stu&nts. Personality and Individual Digeience, ?2, 273-279.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (1995). Perfectionism and relationship adjustment in
pain patients and their spouses. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 335-347.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Turnbull-Donovan, W. (1992). Perfectionism and suicide potential.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 181-190.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Weber, C.(1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and suicide ideation.
Cagnitive Therapy and Research, 18, 439-460.
Hollender, M. H. (1978). Perfectionism: A neglected personality trait. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 39, 384.
390 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / July 1998

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model
of pensonolity.’ Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford.
Mitzman, S. F., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. F. (1994). Preliminary development of a questionnaire
designed to measure neurotic perfectionism in the eating disorders. Jourwof of Clinical
Psychology, 50, J16-520.
Newton, J. T. (1992). Perfectionism: An experimental analysis of the construct and its relation-
ship to the eating disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Liverpool, UK.
Owens, R. G., & Slade, P. D. (1987). Running and anorexia nervosa: An empirical study.
fnternoiionn/ Journal of Eating Disorders, 6, 771-775.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical nttnfysis. New York:
Appleton Century Crofts.
Slade, P. D. (1982). Towards a functional analysis of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
British Journal of Clinical P.sychology, 21, 167-179.
Slade, P. D. (in press). The general motivation underlying anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
In J. Buendia (Ed.), Psychological pmblems in adolescence. Madrid: Piramide.
Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1986). Development and preliminary validation of SCANS: A
screening test for identifying individuals at risk of developing anorexia and bulimia nervosa.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6, 517-538.
Slade, P. D., Dewey, M. E., Kiemle, G., & Newton, T. (1990). Update on SCANS: A scr eening
instrument for identifying individuals at risk of developing an eating disorder. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 9, 583-584.
Slade, P. D., Newton, J. T., Butler, N. M., & Murphy, P. (1991). An experimental analysis of
perfectionism and dissatisfaction. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 169-176.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 663-668.
Yates, A. (1991). Compulsive exercise and the eating disorders: Toword an integrated theory of
oc/ivify. New York: Brunner-MazeI.

Peter D. Slade received a B.A. (Hons.) in psychology from the University of Sheffield in
1965, a M.Phil. in clinical psychology from the University of London Institute of
Psychiatry in 1969, and o Ph.D. fmm the University of London in 1975. In 1990, he was
appointed as o personal chair in clinical psychology ai the University of London, a
position from which he retired in 1996. He is the author of over 120 f›sychological
publications on topics including eating disorders, health psychology, and the psychology
of psychotic behavior.

R. Glynn Owens received a B.Tech {Hons.) inpsychology from Brunel University in 1974,
a D. Phil fmm the University of Oxford in 1977, and a diploma in clinical psychology
from the British Psychological Society in 1979. He was a lecturer and senior lecturer at
the University ofLiverpool, where he was the director of the clinical psycholoffy training
pmgram before being appointed as the first pmfessor of health studies at the University
of Wales in 1992. Currently, he is professor of psycholagy ct the University of Auckland,
New Zealand. He is the author ofover 100psychological publications on topics including
health psychology, clinical psychology, and forensic psychology.