Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 169–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Groups of perfectionists, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping in

Argentine students
Fernán G. Arana a,⁎, Luis Furlan b
a
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina
b
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We addressed Gaudreau's claim (2012) relating to scrutiny the 2 × 2 model with narrow measures of perfection-
Received 19 August 2015 ism. Accordingly, we tested the model not only with another specific measure of perfectionism (the Almost Per-
Received in revised form 27 October 2015 fect Scale-Revised; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) but also with a group-based approach, and with
Accepted 2 November 2015
specific outcome measures in an Argentine sample of university students. 277 participants completed measures
Available online xxxx
of perfectionism, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping. We concluded that our evidence does not support the purely
Keywords:
self-critical subtype as more pathological than the other subtypes. Regarding correlational results, test anxiety
Groups of perfectionists was strongly linked to the negative dimension of perfectionism (discrepancy), while problem-orientation coping
Test anxiety seemed to be associated with the positive dimension of perfectionism (high standards). From a group-based ap-
Pre-exam coping proach, maladaptive perfectionists tended to suffer more test anxiety than adaptive perfectionists, whereas this
Self critical group latter group did not do better than non-perfectionists. With respect to pre-exam coping, perfectionists were
Latin Americans prone to select more problem-oriented strategies regardless of their levels of discrepancy. Finally, although
this study was not focused on cross-cultural differences, findings on Latin Americans students could serve as a
starting point to promote new research in this field.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Despite the fact that several measures of perfectionism have been
developed from distinct theoretical bases (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Frost,
Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Rice & Slaney, 2002), researchers
agree that this construct has two core aspects. The positive dimension
of perfectionism comprises the possession of high standards while the
negative dimension of perfectionism involves an excessive concern
about falling short of these standards (Rice & Slaney, 2002). Thus, per-
fectionism can be understood as a personality trait characterized by an
interaction between these positive and negative features.
1.1. Correlational and group-based approaches
Otto, 2006). On the other hand, the person-oriented or group-based ap-
proach seeks to ascertain individual differences on dimensions of per-
fectionism (Lundh, Saboonchi, & Wangby, 2008). Group-based studies
have consistently supported the notion that two subtypes of perfectionism
can be empirically identified. In brief, maladaptive perfectionists (MP) refer
to individuals who hold high standards but feel like failures if their goals are
not perfectly met. Conversely, those individuals who hold high standards
but have a flexible assessment of their achievements tend to be considered
adaptive perfectionists (AP) (Rice & Ashby, 2007). Finally, non-
perfectionists (NP) remain as a residual subtype for people who report
low standards. As a logical complement, research on subtypes of perfection-
ism has mirrored most findings of correlational approaches on measures of
both psychological distress and well-being (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).

1.2. The 2 × 2 model and the purely self-critical subtype

From a methodological perspective, there are two major approaches
in studying perfectionism. The correlational approach seeks to find
As Smith, Saklofske, Yan, and Sherry (2015) highlighted, the number
whether perfectionism is related to psychological constructs across peo-
and characterization of subtypes of perfectionism are the subjects of
ple. Consistent with this, results of early studies have provided support
vigorous debate. Added to the classical distinction among subtypes
for the link between evaluative concerns and negative psychological
(Rice & Slaney, 2002), Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) suggested a
outcomes (Shafran & Mansell, 2001). The positive dimension of perfec-
new model of perfectionism (the 2 × 2 model) resulting from the inter-
tionism, in turn, has received mixed results from research (Stoeber &
actions between both dimensions of this construct. These authors pro-
⁎ Corresponding author at: Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires,
posed a new subtype of perfectionists arising from the combination of
Hipólito Yrigoyen 3242, C1207ABR Buenos Aires, Argentina. low standards but high evaluative concerns. They hypothesized that
E-mail address: fernanarana@psi.uba.ar (F.G. Arana). purely self-critical perfectionists (SC) would get more negative results

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.001
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
170 F.G. Arana, L. Furlan / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 169–173
compared to other subtypes, given that lower levels of standards do not
ameliorate the relationship between evaluative concerns and negative out-
comes (Gaudreau, 2012). The debate about the relevance of this fourth sub-
type has barely begun, although there is previous work that points to the
need for studies that can confirm this (Alden, Ryder, & Mellings, 2002).
Rice, Ashby, and Gilman (2011), for instance, indicated that perhaps this
group should not be considered perfectionist since subjects do not describe
themselves as having standards of excellence. However, several studies
have reported that this subtype should be taken into account (Boone,
Soenens, Braet, & Goossens, 2010; Wang, Slaney, & Rice, 2007). Following
this line, if there are differences between the SC group and the other sub-
types (MP, AP, and NP), therapeutic work with these clients should be
adapted. Actually, SC possibly gain less benefit from current treatments of
perfectionism (Lloyd, Schmidt, Khondoker, & Tchanturia, 2015).
1.3. Perfectionism, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping among college stu-
dents: general and local findings
While perfectionism has been investigated in various contexts, the uni-
versity environment is one of the most relevant (e.g., Suddarth & Slaney,
2001). Perfectionists excessively value their personal achievements, so it
would be assumed that testing situations might result in significant distress.
Following this, test anxiety can be conceptualized as a disposition to react
with increased anxiety in the face of situations that are related
performance-related contexts (Hodapp, Glanzmann, & Laux, 1995). Accord-
ingly, several studies showed that test anxiety was related to perfectionism
in students (e.g., Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003). For instance, find-
ings from a correlational approach yielded that negative perfectionism was
strongly associated with test anxiety (Stoeber, Feast, & Hayward, 2009).
Other authors have found that this relationship occurred more sharply in fe-
male students (Besharat, 2003; Eum & Rice, 2011). Surprisingly, we did not
find any study linking perfectionism and test anxiety from a group-based
approach, nor from the SC group. In fact, we found only one study (Eum
& Rice, 2011) that uses the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R, Slaney,
Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), which is specifically designed to mea-
sure perfectionism on college samples (Enns & Cox, 2002).
Added to these scarce findings, the contribution to this field from
Latin American studies was also limited. At this point, we can only men-
tion the psychometric adaptation of multidimensional perfectionism
(Arana, Keegan, & Rutsztein, 2009) and multidimensional test anxiety
(Heredia, Piemontesi, Furlan & Hodapp, 2008) scales in Argentina.
Finally, another relevant issue for further study in the context of perfec-
tionists students is how they cope before exams. Many studies have offered
support for the notion that MP engage more frequently in dysfunctional
ways of coping while AP often employ a more functional strategy (Burns
& Fedewa, 2005; Flett, Russo, & Hewitt, 1994). Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein,
Solnik, and Van Brunschot (1996), for example, found that MP use negative
problem-solving strategies compared to AP. Apparently, the latter tend to
use more flexible coping resources (Karmakar & Ray, 2014; Larijani &
Besharat, 2010). Furthermore, Noble, Ashby, and Gnilka (2014) encoun-
tered coping as a mediator between perfectionism and depression. Howev-
er, to the best of our knowledge, there is no previous work on how
perfectionists deal with specific coping strategies before exams.
1.4. This study
Gaudreau (2012) encouraged researchers to scrutinize its 2 × 2
model of perfectionism using not only broad (e.g., composite measures)
but also narrow measures of perfectionism (e.g., first-order facets). There-
fore, the purpose of this study was to test the 2 × 2 model against four dif-
ferent conditions. First, we established that the APS-R (Slaney et al., 2001)
had not already been used to test the model, despite this scale is designed
to assess maladaptive and adaptive perfectionism. Moreover, this scale is
conceptually unconnected with psychopathological biases (Enns & Cox,
2002). Second, although the 2 × 2 model explored interactions under
regression-based models, it becomes clear that this must be mirrored by
a group-based approach as its essence lies, as we understand it, in the dis-
tinction among individuals into different subtypes of perfectionism. Third,
we proposed two specific dependent variables. We were interested in
testing how academic outcomes (test anxiety and pre-exam coping) dif-
fered among subtypes of perfectionists in students. Fourth, we addressed
the call for cross-cultural research in the perfectionism field (Mobley,
Slaney, & Rice, 2005). Although we have not made any statement about
how Argentine students might differ from their American counterparts,
this study can serve as an exploratory work for the study of perfectionism
in Latin Americans.
Hence, our aim is to see whether there are differences among sub-
types of perfectionism aimed at a greater dysfunction for SC in dimen-
sions of test anxiety and pre-test coping. Specifically, we hypothesized
that SC have the highest levels of test anxiety among subtypes, and AP
have less test anxiety than MP. Furthermore, since no conclusive studies
have previously been undertaken before, we do not propose any hy-
pothesis about how groups of perfectionists differ among dimensions
of pre-exam coping. Nevertheless, we expected to find greater dysfunc-
tional coping for SC following 2 × 2 model's theoretical claims.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of 277 students from two public middle-
region universities of Argentina: Capital Federal (n = 100) and Córdoba
(n = 175) (2 missing), 81% female, with a mean age of 23.91 (SD =
4.76). There were no differences across samples on the main variables.
The ethnicity of participants was Latin American. In addition, this
study was approved by an ethical committee for each university.
2.2. Instruments
Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney et al., 2001; Argentine
version: Arana et al., 2009). This scale consists of 23 items taping three
subscales: High Standards (α = .75, 7 items related to the predilection
to impose high standards), Order (α = .74, with 4 items related to inter-
est and order and neatness) and Discrepancy (α = .91, with 12 items re-
lated to the degree to which respondents perceive the distance between
desired and obtained goals). We exclude the Order subscale since it has
no predictive contribution to perfectionism construct (Rice & Ashby,
2007). Reliability and factor structure of the Argentine version yielded
similar results to the original scale (Arana et al., 2009). As we used only
this instrument to measure perfectionism, and for clarity of description,
we consider from now on that discrepancy taps the negative dimension
of perfectionism, whereas high standards tap the positive dimension of
perfectionism.
German Test Anxiety Inventory (GTAI-A; Hodapp, 1991; Argentine
version: Heredia,Piemontesi, Furlan, & Hodapp, 2008). This is a self-
report measure of 28 items (α = .90) which assess dimensions of anxiety
about exams: Worry (α = .87, with 9 items related to thoughts about
negative consequences of poor performance), Interference (α = .74,
with 5 items related to cognitions that interfere in testing situation), Emo-
tionality (α = .88, with 8 items related to perceptions of physiological
arousal), and Lack of confidence (α = .86, with 6 items about trust on
one's performance and self-control during the exam situation).
Coping with Pre-Exam Anxiety and Uncertainty (COPEAU-A, Stöber,
2004; Argentine version: Heredia, Piemontesi, Furlan, & Pérez, 2008). It
comprised Task-orientation and preparation (α = .87, refers to strate-
gies that aim to address the situation of stress by anticipating, studying,
and planning), Seeking social support (α = .85, refers to strategies that
aim to seek emotional and instrumental support from others to solve
situations of stress), and Avoidance (α = .70, refers to activities that re-
duce discomfort by distraction, mental and behavioral distancing).
All alphas provided belong to Argentine versions of these scales and
were in the range of reliabilities from original studies. Moreover, all
 F.G. Arana, L. Furlan / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 169–173 171

factorial solutions arrived on Argentine samples support the same struc-
tures from original studies.
2.3. Procedure
Students completed instruments at class-time. We required partici-
pants to sign an informed consent. The statistical strategy involved cor-
relations between variables and, secondly, two separated multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) to test group differences for each di-
mension of test anxiety and pre-exam coping respectively. Subtypes of
perfectionists were construed with the aid of clinical cut-off points de-
rived from a previous cluster analysis on Argentine students (Arana,
2012).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables
Descriptive data are presented in Table 1. Reliability ranged from .57
(GTAI's Interference) to .91 (GTAI's Lack of trust), mirroring Argentine
versions of the instruments but only within a slightly less degree.
After Bonferroni's correction (.05/100) we found that correlations
were in the line of previous research. In this sense, the dimensions of
test anxiety were all associated with each other (in a range of .35 and
.67) and also related to discrepancy. Standards, in turn, presented a
less strong positive correlation with emotionality and worry.
For pre-exam coping, we found no association with discrepancy,
whereas standards were linked with problem-orientation (seek support
became insignificant after correction).
3.2. Subtypes of perfectionists and comparisons with test anxiety and
pre-exam coping
Following cut-off points, participants who scored 36 or above in
standards were considered perfectionists. To discriminate between AP
and MP, a score of 41 or above in discrepancy qualified for the latter
group. Scores below this value ranked for the first one. SC was formed
with those participants who scored below 36 on standards, but above
40 on discrepancy. The remaining subtype, NP, was obtained from
lower scores from both subscales. According to this classification, the
frequencies for each group were 31% (MP), 24% (NP), 23% (AP), and
22% (SC), respectively.
Regarding group differences, the first MANOVA (using dimensions
of test anxiety as dependent variables and subtypes of perfectionism
as a factor) revealed a significant multivariate effect [Wilks' λ = .59,
(F (12) = 11.33), p b .000] with a power of 1. Groups of perfectionists
explained 40% of the variance of dimensions of test anxiety. Tukey B's
post hoc comparisons identified significantly higher values for MP and
SC in all dimensions, except for worry, compared with NP and AP
groups. In relation to the dimension of worry, variations were more sub-
tle: The highest scores were for SC and MP, and significantly lower for
NP. However, AP differed from MP but not for SC (see Table 2 top). In
other words, the NP group was the only unaffected by test anxiety di-
mension of worry. Moreover, SC did not differentiate from MP on any
dimensions of test anxiety.
With respect to pre-exam coping, the MANOVA (using dimensions
of pre-exam coping as dependent variables and subtypes of perfection-
ism as a factor) also revealed a significant multivariate effect [Wilks'
λ = .87, (F (9) = 3.51), p b .000)], with a power of .96. Subtypes of per-
fectionism explained 12% of pre-exam coping variance. Further, there
were no differences among subtypes, except for problem-orientation,
which was significantly higher for perfectionists groups compared to
NP and SC (see Table 2 below).
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationships between
perfectionism, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping to provide additional
support for the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. The link between test anx-
iety and perfectionism yielded results in line with previous studies
(Arana, 2012; Eum & Rice, 2011). Discrepancy was associated with all
dimensions of test anxiety, as demonstrated in other works from differ-
ent (Mills & Blankstein, 2000; Stoeber et al., 2009) or similar (Eum &
Rice, 2011) conceptualizations and measures of perfectionism.
On the other hand, standards were related to dimensions of worry
and emotionality from test anxiety. Stoeber et al. (2009) found a similar
result with worry and highlighted the ambivalent role of having high
standards. However, it is reasonable to expect that holding of this trait
contributes to the activation of worry because assessment situations
may trigger the desire to achieve excellence and, therefore, anticipatory
thoughts of possible setbacks may play an adaptive function. Processing
efficiency theory (Eysenck & Gutierrez-Calvo, 1992), in fact, explains
why some anxious individuals may do well by appealing to auxiliary
cognitive resources that reduce the efficiency of the learning process
but maintain its effectiveness. We can argue that to a certain extent ac-
tivation of worry is mandatory when perfectionists face exams. More-
over, as Eum and Rice (2011, p. 168) stated, “the association between
perfectionism, test anxiety, and performance appears to rest on the de-
gree to which perfectionistic striving could be considered as adaptive or
maladaptive.” On the contrary, it became evident that discrepancy,

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among test-anxiety, pre-exam coping, and perfectionism.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD) α

Pre-exam coping
1. Problem-oriented .26⁎⁎⁎ −.05 −.04 .27⁎⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎⁎ .17⁎ .11 .43⁎⁎⁎ −.05 30.12 (6.48) .85
2. Seek support .20⁎⁎ .14⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .12⁎ .33⁎⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .06 22.88 (7.42) .85
3. Avoidance −.08 .03 .15⁎ −.07 −.01 .03 .09 19.94 (5.43) .76

Test anxiety
4. Lack of confidence .45⁎⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎⁎ −.09 .63⁎⁎⁎ 15.11 (4.23) .91
5. Worry .35⁎⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎⁎ .86⁎⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎⁎ 31.21 (7.31) .88
6. Interference .38⁎⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎⁎ −.09 .38⁎⁎⁎ 10.77 (4.11) .57
7. Emotionality .86⁎⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎ 23.30 (7.35) .86
8. Total GTAI .16⁎ .57⁎⁎⁎ 79.92 (18.29) .90

Perfectionism
9. High standards .13⁎ 36.00 (5.78) .67
10. Discrepancy 43.07 (13.9) .90
⁎⁎⁎ p b .0005 (After Bonferroni's correction).
⁎⁎ p b .001.
⁎ p b .01.
172 F.G. Arana, L. Furlan / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 169–173

Table 2
Comparison of subtypes of perfectionism, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping.

NP (n = 60) AP (n = 56) MP (n = 76) SC (n = 53)

Test anxiety F df Partial η2
M SD M SD M SD M SD

Lack of confidence 13.18a (3.07) 12.30a (2.61) 16.93b (4.04) 17.91b (3.83) 36.62 3, 241 .31
Worry 26.97a (7.05) 30.11b (6.44) 34.63c (6.93) 32.26bc (5.98) 15.77 3, 241 .16
Interference 8.87a (3.20) 9.54a (3.40) 11.62b (4.09) 12.58b (4.76) 11.59 3, 241 .13
Emotionality 19.70a (7.08) 21.30a (6.35) 26.24b (6.52) 25.26b (6.49) 14.15 3, 241 .15

NP (n = 56) AP (n = 57) MP (n = 79) SC (n = 50)

Pre-exam coping F df Partial η2
M SD M SD M SD M SD

Problem-oriented 28.50a (5.78) 31.51b (6.25) 31.90b (5.79) 27.54a (6.78) 7.42 3, 234 .09
Seek support 21.46 (7.52) 23.32 (6.59) 24.78 (7.14) 22.16 (7.51) 2.67 3, 234 .03
Avoidant 18.25 (4.74) 20.51 (5.35) 19.62 (6.01) 20.50 (5.30) 2.08 3, 234 .03

Note. All p-values derived from F-tests were significant at p b .0001 level, excepting Seek support (p = .047) and Avoidant (p = .026).

which is explained as a sort of severe criticism of own performance
(Slaney et al., 2001), promotes test anxiety in its various dimensions,
being particularly marked on dimensions of lack of confidence and in-
terference. These dimensions, unlike worry, do not encourage behaviors
that help to achieve adequate performance during test situations.
From a group-based approach, we observed that students with mal-
adaptive perfectionism or purely self-critical (in which levels of discrep-
ancy are high), obtained higher levels of test anxiety compared to AP or
NP (where discrepancy levels are lower). This result would lead to the
conclusion that discrepancy is more determinant in explaining the var-
iability in test anxiety than holding standards of excellence itself. In
turn, the lack of differentiation between NP and AP, adds a new contri-
bution to the debate about whether it is functional to have an adaptive
perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
With respect to pre-exam coping, the influence of perfectionism was
much lower. None of the pre-exam coping dimensions were related to
negative perfectionism. However, it was found that standards were
linked to problem-orientation. In this sense, our results suggest that
the possession of high standards promotes a task-oriented attitude,
and this phenomenon occurs relatively independently of the degree of
discrepancy. From a group-based perspective, perfectionists appear to
invest greater efforts in achieving their academic goals, as could be
expected from previous studies (Blankstein, Dunkley, & Wilson,
2008; Miquelon, Vallerand, Grouzet, & Cardinal, 2005) compared to
NP. When feelings of uncertainty emerge in pre-exam situations,
perfectionists may opt for actions related to improving their prepa-
ration, compared to groups whose standards are not high (NP and
SC). Nevertheless, this study was unable to identify differences
among subtypes of perfectionism in coping strategies at pre-exam
situations, as other works had done on assessing coping in general
(Karmakar & Ray, 2014; Larijani & Besharat, 2010; Noble et al.,
2014). Accordingly, it looks like either adaptive or maladaptive, per-
fectionists do not engage in dysfunctional strategies to cope with
pre-exam uncertainty. Again, this must be fueled by the fact that
pre-exam situation refers in perfectionist students to a high valued
opportunity to achieve inner academic standards and, therefore,
the coping strategy chosen would naturally be problem-oriented
rather than an avoidant or excessively emotional one.
Finally, regarding Gaudreau's (2012) claim, the purely self-critical
group did not differ from MP as to greater test anxiety neither in general
nor for its dimensions. The lack of differentiation may be because dis-
crepancy explains most of the variability in test anxiety, regardless of
standards.
As for the pre-exam coping strategies, the SC group also failed to dif-
ferentiate themselves from their non-perfectionist peers concerning
problem-orientation. This is an expected result given the link between
this dimension and possession of high standards. Still, lack of variation
in other coping dimensions leads to the question of whether this
group really should be considered as a separate group. While previous
studies supported the relevance of this group as being more pathologi-
cal than others (Gaudreau, 2012; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Wang
et al., 2007), this differentiation has not been found in our study. In
this regard, as Rice et al. (2011) suggested, it would make no sense to
separate this group from non-perfectionists. The question of whether
individuals should be considered purely self-critical perfectionist re-
mains open for now. One possible future line of research could be to
link this group with students whose score is low on test anxiety, but
who also have low self-efficacy (McKeachie, Lin, & Middleton, 2004;
Meijer, 2001). As Meijer (2001, p. 142) argued, “truly low anxious stu-
dents are likely to be high in self-efficacy; while high-anxious students
generally report low self-efficacy.” The SC group resembles Meijer's de-
scription in terms of sharing a common high discrepancy process, so this
could provide a promising starting point for identifying these people
and further developing specific interventions. In brief, our results sug-
gest that from a group-based approach and using a narrow measure of
perfectionism (APS-R), the SC subtype failed to distinguish from the
MP subtype in Argentine students.
With respect to cross-cultural conclusions, since we made no claims
about differences, the only hypothesis we can suggest is that it appears
that distinctions in perfectionism across samples of students might not
represent a broader picture of real between-cultures differences.
Finally, besides common inherent limitations in this kind of studies
(e.g., intentional sampling, cross-sectional design), this work has two
limitations itself that should be mentioned. First, the classification
given to represent the SC group was conducted focusing on clinical
cut-off points derived from a previous cluster analysis (Arana, 2012),
whereas there are other classifications such as latent classes profiles
(Rice, Lopez, & Richardson, 2013) or discrimination functions (Rice &
Ashby, 2007). However, as our classification was not based on
median-split procedures, the dichotomization of continuous variables
should not be of concern (DeCoster, Iselin, & Gallucci, 2009). However,
it would be desirable to see if this four-group structure could be empir-
ically replicated with other samples of students as well as another type
of classification. Second, besides theoretical expectations, the use of a
college sample may hide the real functioning of the SC subtype, which
is expected to be overrepresented in clinical samples (Alden et al.,
2002; Lundh et al., 2008).
Acknowledgments
The present work was partially funded with a post-doctoral fellow-
ship of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research on be-
half the first author.
The authors want to thank Alba Rosa Ubalton and Judy Staton for
their help on revising English translation.
 F.G. Arana, L. Furlan / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 169–173
References
Alden, L.E., Ryder, A.G., & Mellings, T.M.B. (2002). Perfectionism in the context of social
fears: Toward a two-component model. In G.L. Flett, & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arana, F. G. (2012). Perfeccionismo en estudiantes universitarios Argentinos. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Arana, F., Keegan, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2009). Adaptación de una medida multidimensional
de perfeccionismo: La Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R). Un estudio preliminar
sobre sus propiedades psicométricas en una muestra de estudiantes argentinos.
Evaluar, 9, 35–53.
Besharat, M.A. (2003). Parental perfectionism and children's test anxiety. Psychological
Report, 93(3 Pt 2), 1049–1055.
Bieling, P.J., Israeli, A.L., Smith, J., & Antony, M.M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavior-
al consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 163–178.
Blankstein, K.R., Dunkley, D.M., & Wilson, J. (2008). Evaluative concerns and personal
standards perfectionism : Self-esteem as a mediator and moderator of relations
with personal and academic needs and estimated GPA. Current Psychology, 27, 29–61.
Boone, L., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Goossens, L. (2010). An empirical typology of perfec-
tionism in early-to-mid adolescents and its relation with eating disorder symptoms.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 686–691.
Burns, L., & Fedewa, B. (2005). Cognitive styles: Links with perfectionistic thinking.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 103–113.
DeCoster, J., Iselin, A.R., & Gallucci, M. (2009). A conceptual and empirical examination of
justifications for dichotomization. Psychological Methods, 14, 349–366.
Enns, M.W., & Cox, B.J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical
analysis. In G.L. Flett, & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treat-
ment (pp. 33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eum, K., & Rice, K.G. (2011). Test anxiety, perfectionism, goal orientation, and academic
performance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24, 167–178.
Eysenck, M.W., & Gutierrez-Calvo, M. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing
efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434.
Flett, G.L., & Hewitt, P.L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theo-
retical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G.L. Flett, & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfection-
ism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–13). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Flett, G.L., Russo, F.A., & Hewitt, P.L. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive
thinking as a coping response. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 12, 163–179.
Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Blankstein, K.R., Solnik, M., & Van Brunschot, M. (1996). Perfection-
ism, social problem-solving ability, and psychological distress. Journal of Rational-
Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 14, 245–275.
Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfection-
ism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Gaudreau, P. (2012). A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualis-
tic personality dimensions: An example using the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 26–31.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfection-
ism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532–537.
Heredia, D., Piemontesi, S., Furlan, L., & Hodapp, V. (2008). Adaptación del inventario
Alemán de ansiedad frente a los exámenes (GTAI-A). Evaluar, 8, 46–60.
Heredia, D., Piemontesi, S., Furlan, L., & Pérez, E. (2008). Adaptación de una escala de
afrontamiento de la ansiedad e incertidumbre pre-examen para estudiantes
universitarios argentinos. Avaliação psicológica, 7(1), 1–9.
Hodapp, V. (1991). Das Prüfungsängstlichkeitsinventar TAI-G: Eine erweiterte und
modifizierte Version mit vier Komponenten. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie,
5, 121–130.
Hodapp, V., Glanzmann, P.G., & Laux, L. (1995). Theory and measurement of test anxiety
as a situation specific trait. In C.D. Spielberger, & P.R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety. Theory,
assessment, and treatment (pp. 47–58). London: Taylor & Francis.
173
Karmakar, R., & Ray, A. (2014). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists: Do they really
differ on hardiness and using coping strategy? International Journal of Innovative
Research & Development, 3, 380–386.
Larijani, R., & Besharat, M.A. (2010). Perfectionism and coping styles with stress. Procedia,
5, 623–627.
Lloyd, S., Schmidt, U., Khondoker, M., & Tchanturia, K. (2015). Can psychological interven-
tions reduce perfectionism? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 43(6), 705–731.
Lundh, L.G., Saboonchi, F., & Wangby, M. (2008). The role of personal standards in clinical-
ly significant perfectionism. A person-oriented approach to the study of patterns of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 333–350.
McKeachie, W., Lin, Y., & Middleton, M.J. (2004). Two types of low test-anxious (low
worry) students. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 1, 141–152.
Meijer, J. (2001). Learning potential and anxious tendency: Test anxiety as a bias factor in
educational testing. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 14, 339–362.
Mills, J.S., & Blankstein, K.R. (2000). Perfectionism, intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation,
and motivated strategies for learning: A multidimensional analysis of university stu-
dents. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1191–1204.
Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R.J., Grouzet, F.M.E., & Cardinal, G. (2005). Perfectionism, academ-
ic motivation, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 913–924.
Mobley, M., Slaney, R.B., & Rice, K.G. (2005). Cultural validity of the Almost Perfect Scale-
Revised for African American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
629–639.
Noble, C.L., Ashby, J.S., & Gnilka, P.B. (2014). Multidimensional perfectionism, coping, and
depression: Differential prediction of depression symptoms by perfectionism type.
Journal of College Counseling, 17, 80–94.
Rice, K.G., & Ashby, J.S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 72–85.
Rice, K.G., & Slaney, R.B. (2002). Clusters of perfectionists: Two studies of emotional ad-
justment and academic achievement. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 35, 35–47.
Rice, K.G., Ashby, J.S., & Gilman, R. (2011). Classifying adolescent perfectionists.
Psychological Assessment, 23, 563–577.
Rice, K.G., Lopez, F.G., & Richardson, C.M.E. (2013). Perfectionism and performance among
STEM students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 124–134.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of re-
search and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 876–906.
Slaney, R.B., Rice, K.G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J.S. (2001). The revised Almost Per-
fect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130–145.
Smith, M.M., Saklofske, D.H., Yan, G., & Sherry, S.B. (2015). Perfectionistic concerns inter-
act to predict negative emotionality: Support for the tripartite model of perfectionism
in Canadian and Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 81,
141–147.
Stöber, J. (2004). Dimensions of test anxiety: Relations to ways of coping with pre-exam
anxiety and uncertainty. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 17, 213–226.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319.
Stoeber, J., Feast, A.R., & Hayward, J.A. (2009). Self-oriented perfectionism and socially
prescribed perfectionism: Differential relationships with intrinsic and extrinsic moti-
vation and test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 423–428.
Suddarth, B.H., & Slaney, R.B. (2001). An investigation of the dimensions of perfectionism
in college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34,
157–165.
Wang, K., Slaney, R., & Rice, K. (2007). Perfectionism in Chinese university students from
Taiwan: A study of psychological well-being and achievement motivation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1279–1290.