Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Review

Separating the core definitional feature and the signature expressions of

dispositional perfectionism: Implications for theory, research,
and practice☆
Patrick Gaudreau
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, Ontario K1N6N5, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perfectionism involves aiming and striving toward excessive goals accompanied with overly critical self-
Perfectionism evaluations. In my current theory elaboration, I propose that the cognitive, socio-cognitive, and socio-
Excellencism behavioral manifestations that accompany perfectionism should be operationalized as correlates rather than
Evaluative concerns
indicators of the core definitional feature of dispositional perfectionism. I offer arguments to explain how theory,
Theory
research, and intervention will benefit from separating these signature expressions from the core definitional feature
of perfectionism. In this new framework, signature expressions inhabit their own space in the conceptual domain
of perfectionism to better explain their role as putative mechanisms involved in the maintenance of perfectionism
and its associations with maladjustment. The results of a published meta-analysis are reanalyzed, and a Monte
Carlo simulation is presented to show the promises of the current theory elaboration. In closing, six additional
arguments are advanced to explain how this rethinking of the conceptual domain of perfectionism addresses
many critical issues in the extant literature.

1. Introduction performance-goal discrepancy (for an exhaustive list of cognitive cor­

The word “perfectionist” is commonly used to describe individuals
with “a personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness
and setting exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by
overly critical evaluations of one's behavior” (Stoeber, 2018, p. 3) or as
“the setting and striving for excessively high and often unrealistic
standards, accompanied by frequent thoughts focused on attainment of
these standards and overly critical self-evaluation” (Sirois & Molnar,
2016, p. 1). Different definitions have been proposed but many share
similarities in content, wording, and form.
The wording “accompanied by”, which prevails in the contemporary
definitions of perfectionism, is far from anecdotal. It implies that
perfectionistic standards are accompanied by (rather than defined by)
concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, harsh self-evaluations,
self-criticisms, mistake rumination, self-worth contingencies, all-or-
nothing thinking, overgeneralization, intrusive thoughts and images of
imperfection, derogatory self-dialogue, catastrophizing, appraisals of
parental/social pressure, dichotomous thinking, self-presentation con­
cerns, excessive worries about negative evaluations, and perceived
relates of perfectionism see Flett et al., 2018). These manifestations are
“characteristic response tendencies that typically accompany perfec­
tionism” (Flett et al., 2018, p. 90). As noted by Lo et al. (2020), “they are
not perfectionism per se, but rather the psychological features and
processes that are typically associated with perfectionism” (p. 55). This
argument implies that the cognitive, social, and behavioral expressions
of perfectionism are characteristics (i.e., correlates) often experienced
by perfectionists rather than constituents in the core definitional feature
of dispositional perfectionism. This point, however, has never been
formalized in the perfectionism literature.
Here, a formal and novel conceptual distinction is made between the
core definitional feature of perfectionism and the signature expressions that
accompany perfectionism. To attain this goal, perfectionistic standards
is repositioned as the core definitional feature of perfectionism and
distinguished from the pursuit of excellence (Gaudreau, 2019). Five
arguments are then presented to explain how theory, research, and
intervention will benefit from this formal separation. Then, the elements
within the perfectionistic concerns dimension (e.g., concerns over mis­
takes, doubts about actions) are repositioned as cognitive signature

☆
This theory elaboration article was written while the research program of Patrick Gaudreau was supported by a research grant from Social Sciences and Hu­
manities Research Council of Canada (grant 435-2015-0649).
E-mail address: patrick.gaudreau@uottawa.ca.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110975
Received 29 January 2021; Received in revised form 29 April 2021; Accepted 30 April 2021
Available online 26 May 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Gaudreau
expressions that accompany and are influenced by perfectionistic stan­
dards. Socially prescribed perfectionism and other-oriented perfec­
tionism are used as examples to illustrate what can be gained by this
repositioning. Giving signature expressions their own space in the con­
ceptual domain of perfectionism will help to illuminate the develop­
mental roots, maintenance, and outcomes associated with dispositional
perfectionism. I then reanalyze the results of a published meta-analysis
and conduct a Monte Carlo simulation to illustrate the practicality of the
proposed conceptual framework. Lastly, six arguments are made to
explain how the new distinction addresses many critical issues in the
literature, including its integration with recent advances in bifactor
modeling of perfectionism (e.g., Seong et al., 2021).
2. Core Definitional Feature of Perfectionism
Perfectionism is multidimensional (e.g., Smith et al., 2021; Stoeber,
2018). Researchers have created many questionnaires that measure
numerous elements meant to fall under the wide conceptual territory of
the perfectionism construct (e.g., Lo et al., 2020). Similarities between
these elements have generally been explained using a hierarchical factor
model with two broad dimensions representing perfectionistic standards
and perfectionistic concerns (e.g., Cox et al., 2002; Dunkley et al., 2000;
Frost et al., 1993). A three-dimensional hierarchical model, which added
the interpersonal dimension of narcissistic perfectionism, has also
gained ground in recent years (Smith et al., 2016). Recent bifactor ex­
tensions of the hierarchical model have also differentiated a general
factor of perfectionism from the specific dimensions of perfectionistic
standards and concerns (e.g., Gäde, Schermelleh-Engel, & Klein, 2017;
Seong et al., 2021; Smith & Saklofske, 2017). Despite their different
goals and assumptions,1 these approaches collectively try to better un­
derstand the conceptual overlap between the many elements in perfec­
tionism questionnaires.
Researchers have recently stressed the need to separate the pursuit of
perfection from the pursuit of excellence (e.g., Flett et al., 2018; Osenk,
Williamson, & Wade, 2020; Wade, 2018). Gaudreau (2019) proposed a
theoretical model to differentiate excellencism and personal standards
perfectionism. Through symbolic logic and lexical analysis, the Model of
Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP) defines excellencism as a tendency
to “aim and strive toward high yet attainable standards in an effortful,
engaged, and determined yet flexible manner” (Gaudreau, 2019, p.
200). In contrast, the MEP defines perfectionism as a tendency to “aim
and strive toward idealized, flawless, and excessively high standards in a
relentless manner” (Gaudreau, 2019, p. 200). Excellencism can be
characterized using words such as very good, accomplished, successful,
and great. It captures the proverbial adage “good is good enough”. Many
of these words are also part of the vernacular of perfectionists. However,
perfectionism goes over and above the characterization of excellencism
with specific and unique descriptors such as excessive, exaggerated,
unreasonable, flawless, impeccable, and overdone. These additional
characteristics – those that extend beyond excellencism – form the core
definitional feature that differentiates excellencism from perfectionism.
Although people who strive toward excellence are satisfied by excel­
lence (i.e., “when it's good enough, it's good enough”), people who strive
toward perfection may reach excellence, remain unsatisfied, and follow
their quest toward perfection. This is not to say that perfectionistic
standards are inexorably maladaptive. The MEP proposes that perfec­
tionism, over and above excellencism, can either be (a) beneficial, (b)
unneeded, or (c) harmful. Perfectionism could be beneficial to certain
outcomes, just as much as it could be harmful for certain people under
certain circumstances. Overall, the elevated aims and strivings that
extend beyond excellencism are the core definitional feature of perfec­
tionism in the newly proposed MEP as well as in my current theory
1 2
The bifactor model of perfectionism and the current theory elaboration are
briefly compared later in this article.
2
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
elaboration.
In the newly developed MEP and in this theoretical article, the
cognitive, social, and behavioral expressions that accompany perfec­
tionistic standards are no longer being treated as synonyms of disposi­
tional perfectionism. Hereafter, such manifestations are extracted from
dispositional perfectionism and studied as signature expressions, likely to
explain the differentiated antecedents and outcomes of perfectionism
and excellencism. This includes the cognitive expressions typically
coined under the broad perfectionistic concerns dimension (e.g., doubts
about actions, concerns over mistakes, perceived discrepancy).
Furthermore, this repositioning extends to the socio-cognitive expres­
sions captured in socially prescribed perfectionism as well as the socio-
behavioral aspects seen in other-oriented perfectionism and perfec­
tionism self-presentation. In the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1,
signature expressions are redefined as characteristics (i.e., correlates)
often experienced by perfectionists, rather than elements of the core
definitional feature of dispositional perfectionism. The word “core” is
not meant to imply that perfectionistic standards are the leading puta­
tive mechanism in psychological adjustment. Based on mounting meta-
analytical evidence (e.g., Limburg et al., 2017), my current model po­
sitions the signature expressions as stronger, more powerful, and
therefore more proximal predictors of psychological adjustment. This
rethinking of the conceptual domain is required to attain coherence with
the widely accepted notion that perfectionism is accompanied by these
signature expressions, rather than defined by them.
3. Signature Expressions of Perfectionism
Removing the cognitive, socio-cognitive, and socio-behavioral
manifestations from the core definitional feature of dispositional
perfectionism will be impactful for multiple reasons. First, many of the
doubts, worries, harsh evaluations, and distorted cognitions that
accompany perfectionism are also experienced by people who are not
perfectionists. Fearing negative evaluations, being overly concerned by
appearance and acceptance, worrying about potential failures and
mistakes are characteristics of many individuals with elevated anxiety.
Similarly, distorted cognitive schemas, excessive rumination, self-
criticism, contingent self-worth, and derogatory self-talk predict
depressive mood. Not all individuals with elevated depressive and
anxiety symptoms are perfectionists and not all perfectionists end up
with depressive and anxiety symptoms. This issue of multifinality has
been described by Sherry et al. (2016), p. 233) who explained that
perfectionists may experience a different degree of a disorder (e.g., from
symptoms of dysphoria to major depression), a specific disorder (e.g.,
anxiety rather than depression), or many comorbid problems at once (e.
g., anxiety, depression, suicidality, eating disorders). As such, separating
signature expressions from dispositional perfectionism enriches our
conceptual arsenal to investigate why perfectionists end up experiencing
outcomes spanning different degrees and forms of (mal)adjustment.
Second, separating signature expressions from dispositional perfec­
tionism is needed to outline their roles as leading putative mechanisms
involved in the maintenance of perfectionism and its associations with
maladjustment. As shown in Fig. 1, dispositional perfectionism is
operationalized as a distal predictor whereas the cognitive, social, and
behavioral expressions of perfectionism are proximal predictors of
psychological adjustment. The analogy of a simplex pattern (Guttman,
1954) is useful to illustrate the network of associations within the con­
ceptual domain of perfectionism. Indirect effects in mediation2 and
centrality in psychometric networks can also be useful to better under­
stand Fig. 1. More precisely, adjacent concepts (i.e., perfectionism and
signature expressions; signature expressions and adjustment) should be
more strongly correlated than non-adjacent concepts (i.e., perfectionism
Mediation implies directionality and causality, and should be used with
prudence in the context of cross-sectional and personality data.
P. Gaudreau
Fig. 1. Separating the core definitional feature of perfectionism and the signature expressions of perfectionism.
and adjustment). In this framework, the potentially negative role of
dispositional perfectionism is enacted through the frequent and recur­
rent activation of signature expressions of perfectionism – alone or in
combination. Because they are currently seen as constitutive elements
within the definitional core of perfectionism, it remains impossible to
examine their precise role in the development/maintenance of perfec­
tionism and its long-term outcomes. As summarized by Hewitt et al.
(2017, p. ix), “many perfectionists' difficulties are not adequately
captured by the trait dimension”. This position has already been
defended and detailed in the perfectionism cognition theory (e.g., Flett
et al., 2018). Drawing a frontier between dispositional perfectionism
and its signature expressions will facilitate the identification of poten­
tially antagonistic processes – some beneficial and some harmful – that
could cancel each other out and explain the often weaker than expected
associations between perfectionistic standards and outcomes.
Third, this distinction is helpful for practice because it fully ac­
knowledges that cognitive, social, and behavioral expressions of
perfectionism are key to understand “what makes people tick” (Hewitt
et al., 2017, p. ix). This could also inform our understanding of why
perfectionism can sometimes make some people thrive. Giving these
elements their own space, as signature expressions in the conceptual
framework of perfectionism, will more clearly delineate different path­
ways for psychologists to intervene when a person struggles with
perfectionism. This is not to say that psychologists should intervene
differently on dispositional perfectionism and its signature expressions.
The current theoretical proposition offers a framework to organize the
different approaches that psychologists are already using to intervene
with perfectionists based on specific targets in the conceptual domain of
3
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
perfectionism.
In a first approach, interventions are designed to modify the aims and
strivings of individuals who pursue perfection. This approach targets the
core definitional feature of perfectionism. For example, Wade (2018)
developed psychoeducational interventions in which excellencism is
presented as an alternative to perfectionism. Individuals are informed
about the definition, causes, and consequences of perfectionism, and
they are accompanied in a multi-components program to modify their
aims and strivings. In a second approach, interventions tackle the
cognitive schemas of perfectionists with cognitive-behavioral tech­
niques (e.g., Egan et al., 2016; Shafran et al., 2010). These interventions
can be reinterpreted as working on the cognitive and socio-cognitive
signature expressions of perfectionism – the proximal correlates of
psychological adjustment. Working on these signature expressions is
likely an important intervention pathway to reduce psychological
distress while impacting the recursive mechanisms involved in the
maintenance of dispositional perfectionism (Lloyd et al., 2015). A third
category of interventions target the putative causes of perfectionism
through a psychodynamic relation-based approach (Hewitt et al., 2017).
This is a much welcomed and refreshing perspective that focuses on the
inherent self-complexities, inner conflicts, need frustrations, and para­
doxes of each perfectionist. Finally, a fourth category of interventions
will likely emerge to account for the idea that perfectionism is rooted in
the growing socio-economic pressure of our modern society. A recent
meta-analytical review showed that perfectionism has steadily increased
among young adults over the last three decades (Curran & Hill, 2019). In
the meantime, excessive and recurrent pressure to perform became the
fourth risk factor for the development of psychological maladjustment in
P. Gaudreau
youth (e.g., Luthar et al., 2019). These trends point toward the need for
an ecological multidisciplinary approach to reshape policies and socio-
economic structures (Luthar et al., 2019) that otherwise give fuel to
the cognitive, social, and behavioral expressions that accompany
dispositional perfectionism.
Finally, signature expressions of perfectionism are sometimes
described as psychological states emanating from dispositional perfec­
tionism in the daily living of the perfectionists (Flett et al., 2018). It has
been mentioned that the dispositional level “energizes, directs, and fo­
cuses behavior toward the preoccupation with perfecting the self”
(Hewitt et al., 2017, p. 26). Despite such assertions, the signature ex­
pressions and core definitional feature of dispositional perfectionism
have never been formally separated. The current theoretical elaboration
strengthens and extends pre-conceptual statements with a framework to
guide future research and interventions.
4. The Case of Socially Prescribed Perfectionism and Other-
Oriented Perfectionism
This theory elaboration is not couched within a model that primarily
focuses on the distinction of intrapersonal and interpersonal character­
istics of perfectionism. It aims to generalize to all elements coined under
the perfectionistic concerns umbrella and to those that are already
positioned outside of dispositional perfectionism (e.g., perfectionistic
cognitions, perfectionistic self-presentation). Many characteristics (e.g.,
concern with rules, organization, hyper-scheduling, orderliness, and
neatness) have already been excluded from the definitional feature of
perfectionism because they could be seen, at best, as remote behavioral
expressions of perfectionism (e.g., Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Many years
ago, parental expectations and pressure were also excluded from the
core definitional feature to separate perfectionism from its develop­
mental/relational roots (e.g., Damian et al., 2013; Rice et al., 2005).
Hereafter, special attention is given to socially prescribed and other-
oriented perfectionism because their removal from the core defini­
tional feature of perfectionism requires more justifications.
4.1. Socially Prescribed Perfectionism as a Signature Expression
Socially prescribed perfectionism is the perception or belief that
others demand perfection and require it to be worthy of love and respect
(Hewitt et al., 2017, see p. 43); perceiving and believing nicely fall into
the conceptual domain of socio-cognitive expressions of perfectionism.
Five arguments are advanced to support the repositioning of socially
prescribed perfectionism as a signature expression outside the core
definitional feature of perfectionism.
First, facets of a broader psychological dimension are typically ex­
pected to share functional homogeneity (e.g., Skinner et al., 2003). If
perfectionistic standards (e.g., self-oriented perfectionism) and socially
prescribed perfectionism were both core definitional features of dispo­
sitional perfectionism, they would load on the same higher-order
dimension. Socially prescribed perfectionism has repeatedly clustered
on a dimension (evaluative concerns perfectionism; e.g., Cox et al.,
2002; Smith et al., 2016) that combines many of the characteristics
repositioned as signature expressions of perfectionism in the proposed
conceptual framework.
Second, researchers have frequently shown that socially prescribed
perfectionism (compared to self-oriented perfectionism) correlates more
strongly to psychological maladjustment (e.g., Limburg et al., 2017).
Such results can mislead researchers to underestimate the importance of
aiming and striving toward perfectionistic standards – the core defini­
tional feature of dispositional perfectionism. In their influential meta-
analytical review, Limburg et al. (2017) have interpreted such find­
ings as an indication that effects of personal standards perfectionism are
relatively trivial compared to those of socially prescribed perfectionism
and perfectionistic concerns. In the current conceptual framework, so­
cially prescribed perfectionism is a socio-cognitive expression of
4
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
perfectionism and therefore a mechanism through which the perfec­
tionism disposition is associated with adjustment. This, by far and large,
explicates why socially prescribed perfectionism – as a proximal corre­
late (e.g., adjacent to adjustment) – shows stronger associations with
psychological adjustment than does personal standards perfectionism (i.
e., the distal factor not adjacent to adjustment). Clinging to a perception
that the world expects and demands perfection (or will punish imper­
fection) is likely a characteristic involved in the maintenance of
perfectionism. Socially prescribed perfectionism – once repositioned as a
socio-cognitive expression outside the core definitional feature of
perfectionism – becomes one of the many characteristics through which
dispositional perfectionism relates to psychological adjustment.
Thirdly, socially prescribed perfectionism and self-oriented perfec­
tionism are only moderately correlated. If both characteristics were part
of the same higher-order dimension (i.e., the definitional core of
perfectionism), we would expect their correlation to be much stronger.
The moderate correlation indicates that many individuals who report
being under pressure to be perfect are, in fact, not defining themselves as
perfectionists. Researchers initially thought that individuals with a
within-person combination of high socially prescribed perfectionism
and low self-oriented perfectionism should not be considered as per­
fectionists (e.g., Stoeber & Otto, 2006). In their 2 × 2 model of perfec­
tionism, Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) proposed that such a subtype
of pure socially prescribed perfectionism could exist. Empirical research
further demonstrated that, under certain conditions, a subtype of pure
socially prescribed perfectionism relates to the most detrimental out­
comes (e.g., Gaudreau et al., 2018; Hill & Madigan, 2017; Hill et al.,
2020). The self and social interplay in perfectionism appears inherently
complex; too complex to simply consider them on the same level as two
constitutive elements within the core definitional feature of
perfectionism.
Fourth, perfectionism likely develops – at least partially – as a re­
action to a chronic unmet need for relatedness throughout childhood,
adolescence, and probably across the entire lifespan. Through repeated
episodes of unsupportive or need thwarting behaviors (e.g., conditional
regards, parental criticisms, unmet need for affiliation, lack of love and
warmth, lack of caring and mattering, or coercive and harsh parenting),
perfectionists internalize the idea that being good is not enough to be
loved and respected; one needs to be perfect to be rewarded or worthy of
affection. Hostile social environments – those which are negligent,
excessively pressuring, or excessively controlling/coercive – are among
the most powerful putative developmental causes and episodic triggers
of dispositional perfectionism and its signature expressions (e.g., Hewitt
et al., 2017). Such a defining developmental heritage, which shaped the
person to pursue perfection rather than excellence, can create the con­
ditions for the person to experience recurrent appraisals of social pres­
sure – even when such pressure currently does not exist in one's social
environment. As a result, many individuals with high levels of disposi­
tional perfectionism are likely to perceive, feel, and believe that others
(not only their parents) are watching them, evaluating them harshly,
and expecting them to be perfect. They are also more likely to put on a
mask and try to convince others that they are perfect and flawless
(perfectionism self-presentation; Hewitt et al., 2003) and to pretend that
they are effortlessly achieving high standards (effortful perfectionism;
Travers et al., 2015). These socio-cognitive and socio-behavioral ex­
pressions of perfectionism, when activated, are likely to play a sub­
stantial role in the associations of dispositional perfectionism with
personal and interpersonal outcomes.
Lastly, separating the social appraisals of perfectionistic pressure
from dispositional perfectionism naturally sets the table for largely
neglected but etiologically and clinically important questions. Why is it
that some people who perceive pressure from others to be perfect are not
defining themselves as perfectionists (i.e., pure socially prescribed
perfectionism in the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism)? Why is it that some
people who developed dispositional perfectionism (potentially through
unmet psychological needs) no longer perceive that their primary
P. Gaudreau
caregivers are expecting them to be perfect (i.e., pure self-oriented
perfectionism in the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism)? At a first glance,
these questions could be seen as being lodged and limited to the Hewitt
and Flett conceptualization of perfectionism. However, they highlight
the complex interplay between the world as it exists and the world that
exists through the perceptions of the perfectionists. These questions are
therefore relevant and should engage all researchers preoccupied with
the cognitive, motivational, affective, and developmental processes
involved in perfectionism.
The pursuit of perfection without social appraisals of perfectionistic
pressure could potentially be explained by four distinct developmental
processes: (a) internalization, (b) genetic, (c) resilience, and (d) defense
mechanisms. First, perfectionists may have internalized the norms, ex­
pectations, and pressure from their social environment in ways that
enable the pursuit of perfection mainly for self-generated reasons. This
internalization process has been characterized as the trademark of pure
self-oriented perfectionism (Gaudreau et al., 2018; Gaudreau &
Thompson, 2010) but other explanations are equally plausible.
Second, the perfectionists may have been raised in a family in which
at least one parent was genetically predisposed toward perfectionism
(Iranzo-Tatay et al., 2015) but did not phenotypically express their
perfectionism disposition. Therefore, the children did not experience
pressure to be perfect at home and did not directly observe the behaviors
of a perfectionistic parent. Nonetheless, the children inherited perfec­
tionism and ended up expressing the latent genetic predisposition of at
least one of their parents.
Third, the individuals who pursue perfection without perceiving
social pressure may have created or encountered the needed resiliency
conditions to reshape their social world or their perception thereof. Some
perfectionists may have moved out of pressuring social environments or
withdrawn from interacting with their parents. Some adolescents and
adults may have managed to efficiently reshape their interactions with
their parents to make the relationship grow into a more egalitarian,
harmonious, and needs satisfying experience. Certain young people may
have had the privilege of frequently interacting with significant adults
(e.g., professors, grand-parents, coaches) in ways that allowed them to
satisfy their psychological needs. Lovers may have developed a secure
romantic attachment that dampens their once held beliefs that impor­
tant significant others expect them to be perfect. Friendship could play a
similar role. All of these are potential protective factors that “may slow
or even prevent perfectionism from resulting in negative outcomes”
(Sherry et al., 2016, p. 233). This is important to help us reconsider
when and for whom researchers should expect to find positive or neutral
associations between perfectionism and certain life outcomes.
Fourth and finally, perfectionists may have relied on unconscious,
compensatory defense mechanisms responsible for blocking, altering, or
distorting perception about the negative roles that social pressure played
in their personal development to keep their injured ego from being
constantly threatened by anxiety. When their need for relatedness
(Baumeister et al., 2007) or autonomy (Radel et al., 2011) is thwarted,
perfectionists may become exaggeratedly reactive to need-specific cues
to facilitate attempts to mend their thwarted need. Through sublima­
tion, perfectionists may deploy important compensatory efforts and
prioritize achievement-related activities as attempts to gain social
respect, and to prove their worth and competence to themselves and
others. This could be observed through stubborn engagement of per­
fectionists in unattainable goals or the prioritizing of some of their basic
needs at the expense of other needs. In a recent study, perfection strivers
were found to disproportionally progress on socially imposed goals at
the expense of their own personally valued goals (Gaudreau et al.,
2021). Behavioral and attitudinal manifestations such as workaholism
(Stoeber et al., 2013), obsessive passion (Verner-Filion & Vallerand,
2016), cheating (Madigan et al., 2019), and body objectification (Car­
rotte & Anderson, 2018) would be prototypical examples of such at­
tempts of perfectionists to feel loved and socially valued.
The proposed conceptual framework assumes that most individuals
5
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
who pursue perfection will believe that others are putting some sort of
pressure on them to pursue perfection. The pursuit of perfection with
social appraisals of perfectionistic pressure is likely the modal pathway.
It is also expected to be one of the many signature expressions through
which perfectionism standards can be associated with feelings of
despair, cynicism, and hopelessness that often accompany burnout,
depression, and suicidality (e.g., Flett et al., 2014). If socially prescribed
perfectionism is a socio-cognitive signature expression of dispositional
perfectionism, researchers should expect it to be positively associated
with perfectionism but not with excellencism. Individuals who pursue
perfection should exhibit significantly higher socially prescribed
perfectionism than those who pursue excellence. Those who pursue
excellence should not exhibit higher socially prescribed perfectionism
than individuals who aim and strive for lower standards (i.e., non-
perfectionism/non-excellencism). If this pattern empirically holds, the
pursuit of excellence could potentially be seen and promoted as a fruitful
alternative to the pursuit of perfection.
4.2. Other-Oriented Perfectionism as a Signature Expression
Perfectionism develops through social relationships (both real and
symbolic), but it also shapes social relationships (e.g., Hewitt et al.,
2017; Sherry et al., 2016). Other-oriented perfectionism and the hyper-
criticism, entitlement, and grandiosity involved in the novel concept of
narcissistic perfectionism (e.g., Smith et al., 2016) is another example of
the dividends of separating the core definitional feature of perfectionism
and its signature expressions. For most people, other-oriented perfec­
tionism is an extension of their own tendency toward aiming and
striving toward perfection. In other words, those who aim and strive
toward perfection will also expect and put pressure on others to pursue
perfection. They will be hyper-critical of the mistakes made by others
while being quick to call them out and expect things to be done with
perfection. Someone who frequently interact with an other-oriented
perfectionist is more likely to feel the social pressure and conditional
regards entailed in socially prescribed perfectionism (Smith et al.,
2017). As a socio-behavioral signature expression, other-oriented
perfectionism can be understood as a socialization process through
which many perfectionists impose their perfectionistic representations
of the world on to others. This could prove useful to break down the
pernicious cycle of social disconnection too frequently experienced by
those who pursue perfection rather than excellence.
Some people, like the case of Cecilia in the book of Hewitt et al.
(2017, p. 42), do not aim and strive toward perfection but require
perfection from others. This characterization is potentially less frequent
considering the moderate correlation between other-oriented perfec­
tionism and self-oriented perfectionism. Cases that do not neatly fit with
trends in nomothetic data are enlightening as they naturally raise new
questions about largely neglected but etiologically and clinically
important processes involved in perfectionism. Repositioning other-
oriented perfectionism as a signature expression shows just how much
certain perfectionists are manifesting a profound incoherence between
dispositional perfectionism and its expression. By giving fuller attention
to this incoherence, “behaviors that were previously puzzling could be
understood” (Cramer, 2000, p. 639).
Some perfectionists may need to remain unaware of their aims and
strivings to protect themselves (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991). The
elevated, exaggerated, and unrealistic aims and strivings involved in
perfectionism can be painful, anxiety inducing, and debilitating. The
incoherence observed in some people is potentially best seen as a strong
defensive process that involves several defense mechanisms (Baumeister
et al., 1998; Hewitt et al., 2017). In projection, for example, the person
projects one's expectations and feelings of self-inadequacy on to others.
Fear of inadequacy may be so strong in perfectionists that they sys­
tematically repress their own expectations to protect themselves against
the expected consequences of failing. When they fail, perfectionists do
not experience failure; they are a failure. Anxiety may become so high
P. Gaudreau Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975

that many perfectionists self-handicap, repress their own expectations, striving toward perfection and psychological maladjustment. Then, the
and unconsciously project their own unsatisfied desires of perfection on results of a Monte Carlo simulation are presented to illustrate how
to others. As a result, some perfectionists report not aiming and striving separating excellencism from perfectionism clarifies and strengthens
toward perfection (as a self-protection mechanisms) while projecting this position. Finally, I discuss six additional implications to explain how
their own unconscious perfectionism on to others. Rationalization, the current theory elaboration addresses many critical issues in the
another strong defense mechanism, could also be at play in other- perfectionism literature.
oriented perfectionism. Holding high expectations and putting pres­
sure on others is often rationalized as “hard love” and doing what is
5.1. Revisiting the Meta-Analysis of Hill and Curran (2015)
needed for the good of others. Punitive coaching, parents living their
own unfulfilled dreams through their children, and “tiger parenting”
5.1.1. Method and results
would be prototypical examples of what happens when individuals with
Hill and Curran (2015) meta-analyzed the associations of personal
repressed perfectionism impose their own undisclosed perfectionism to
standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism with
others.
burnout across 43 samples of 9838 participants. This review was
The proposed conceptual framework assumes that most individuals
selected for this example because it extracted the correlation between
who pursue perfection will also expect and put pressure on others to
personal standards and evaluative concerns perfectionism, which is
pursue perfection (see Fig. 1). If other-oriented perfectionism is a socio-
needed to run a meta-analytical path analysis. Using the information
behavioral signature expression of dispositional perfectionism, re­
reported in their Table 1, a first step was to do a meta-analysis of the
searchers should expect it to be positively associated with perfectionism
correlation between the two dimensions of perfectionism (available for
but not with excellencism. Individuals who pursue perfection should
37 samples). This analysis was performed in Comprehensive Meta-
exhibit significantly higher other-oriented perfectionism than those who
Analysis 2.0 with the same random-effect estimator used by Hill and
pursue excellence. Those who pursue excellence should not exhibit
Curran (2015). Results of the meta-analysis returned a weighted average
higher other-oriented perfectionism than individuals aiming and striv­
correlation of .32 (95% CI = [.26, .38], p < .001) between personal
ing toward lower standards (i.e., non-perfectionism/non-excellencism).
standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism. The
If this pattern empirically holds, the pursuit of excellence could poten­
effect size was heterogeneous across the 37 samples of 8197 partici­
tially be seen and promoted as a fruitful alternative to the pursuit of
pants: Q (36) = 342.22, I2 = 89.48.3
perfection.
This new information was combined into a pooled correlation matrix
along with the − .14 correlation between personal standards perfec­
4.3. Summary
tionism and burnout and the .41 correlation between evaluative con­
cerns perfectionism and burnout reported by Hill and Curran (2015).
Perfectionism is a life approach with deep relational and develop­
This pooled correlation matrix was used in a meta-analytical path
mental roots. I have delineated different developmental pathways (some
analysis performed in Mplus 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2021). The
more healthy than others) through which a person could dampen some
model was setup to be consistent with the simplex pattern analogy (see
of the negative effects of their unmet psychological needs. Many other
Fig. 1). Personal standards perfectionism (i.e., the core definitional
pathways potentially exist. Understanding the social complexities
feature of perfectionism) was adjacently positioned beside evaluative
(developmental causes and current interpersonal problems) will be
concerns perfectionism (i.e., the signature expression of perfectionism)
facilitated by leaving the social, behavioral, and cognitive elements that
which was adjacently positioned beside burnout. Results of the meta-
form the signature expressions of perfectionism (i.e., socially prescribed
analytical path analysis are reported in Fig. 2.
perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, perceived parental pres­
sure, perfectionism self-presentation) outside the core definitional
5.1.2. Brief discussion
feature of dispositional perfectionism.
As shown in Fig. 2, personal standards perfectionism was positively
Perfectionism can be redefined “as a tendency to aim and strive to­
associated with evaluative concerns perfectionism which was positively
ward idealized, flawless, and excessively high standards in a relentless
associated with burnout. Personal standards perfectionism (used as a
manner” (Gaudreau, 2019, p. 200) that frequently and recurrently in­
proxy of the core definitional feature of dispositional perfectionism)
fluences many interrelated cognitive (e.g., cognitions related to perfec­
positively and indirectly related to higher burnout. This finding is
tionism), socio-cognitive (e.g., socially prescribed perfectionism,
consistent with the conceptual reorganization of perfectionism (see
perceived pressure to be perfect), and socio-behavioral expressions (e.g.,
Fig. 1).
other-oriented perfectionism, perfectionism self-presentation) that
At a first glance, these findings provide a good but not entirely
contribute to the developmental and maintenance of perfectionism and
satisfying case for the idea that personal standards perfectionism relates
their associations with psychological adjustment (see Fig. 1). This avoids
to elevated burnout because its direct association with burnout was
tautological reasoning and offers a simplified yet comprehensive defi­
negative (i.e., lower burnout). This negative association has been
nition of perfectionism. This also reiterates and retains the multidi­
described as a suppression effect that occurs after controlling for eval­
mensional conceptualization dearly endorsed over the last 30 years.
uative concerns perfectionism in a regression model (Hill, 2014). This
Concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, perceived discrepancy,
association, which is often misinterpreted as support for the adaptive
self-critical perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, other-
nature of perfectionism in the population,4 should be correctly seen as the
oriented perfectionism, perfectionism self-presentation, and perfec­
partial association of personal standards perfectionism for two in­
tionism cognitions are not thrown out of the perfectionism landscape. In
dividuals with the same quantity of evaluative concerns perfectionism
the MEP as well as in the current theory elaboration, they are reposi­
(Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017). My current theory elaboration clarifies
tioned and given a more valuable and specific role within the conceptual
these associations because personal standards perfectionism ends up
domain of perfectionism – at a place where they are more likely to shed
novel theoretical, empirical, and practical insights in the years to come.
3
80% credibility intervals ranged from 0.13 to 0.53. We reran the meta-
5. An Empirical Illustration analytical path analysis twice with each estimate. Indirect effects (0.057 and
0.357) remained significant while the important interpretations were
In this section, the results of a recently published meta-analysis are unchanged.
reanalyzed to test the proposition that signature expressions of perfec­ 4
The real population effect is the bivariate correlation or the total effect (not
tionism are indirectly involved in the indirect relationship between accounting for evaluative concerns).

6
P. Gaudreau
Fig. 2. Meta-analytical path analyses. All parameters are standardized and significant at p < .001.
being associated with higher burnout because it positively relates with
evaluative concerns perfectionism which positively relates to burnout.
The positive indirect association (higher burnout) and the network of as­
sociations, once reinterpreted together, are indicative of a simplex
pattern that refutes the position that perfectionism is adaptive or
healthy. If one accepts the assumptions involved in the conceptual
framework (see Fig. 1), the indirect association is both pivotal and
theoretically substantive, and should be interpreted as evidence for a
network of associations in which perfectionism is positively associated
with burnout (higher burnout). This clarifies and solves a nagging
dispute in the literature and is made possible by repositioning evaluative
concerns perfectionism outside the core definitional feature of disposi­
tional perfectionism.
The negative direct association of personal standards perfectionism
(i.e., the partial effect) in Fig. 2 should be interpreted with great caution
because this model – reflective of the extant literature – did not separate
dispositional perfectionism and excellencism. As thoroughly detailed in
the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019), failure to extract the effect of excellencism
from the effect of perfectionism has potentially led to inflated claims
about the potentially adaptive nature of personal standards perfec­
tionism. Measuring both excellencism and perfectionism has therefore
been proposed as the way forward “to offer a needed and sufficient test
of the healthiness or unhealthiness of perfectionism” (Gaudreau, 2019,
p. 202).
5.2. Monte Carlo Simulation
The purpose of this simulation was to evaluate what happens to the
direct association (i.e., the partial effect)5 and indirect association of
dispositional perfectionism with burnout when the effects of perfec­
tionism are isolated from those of excellencism.
5.2.1. Method and results
The estimates used to infuse the simulation were derived from the
meta-analysis of Hill and Curran (2015) and hypotheses from the MEP
(Gaudreau, 2019). First, a .50 correlation between excellencism and
dispositional perfectionism was infused into the model to take into
consideration their operational definitions in the MEP, the partially
conjunctive relation between excellencism and perfectionism (see Fig. 1
in Gaudreau, 2019), and the recent validation evidence for the Scale of
Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE) – a new questionnaire
designed to neatly separate perfectionism and excellencism (e.g., Gau­
dreau et al., 2021). Second, only dispositional perfectionism was ex­
pected to positively correlate with evaluative concerns. Therefore, the
simulation was infused with .00 and .40 paths from excellencism and
dispositional perfectionism to evaluative concerns, respectively. Third,
after isolating the effect of excellencism, it was expected that perfec­
tionism would no longer hold a negative direct association with burnout;
only excellencism would relate to lower burnout. Therefore, the simu­
lation was infused with − .20 and .00 direct paths from excellencism and
5
This partial effect is now the association of dispositional perfectionism for
two individuals with the same level of excellencism and evaluative concerns.
7
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
dispositional perfectionism to burnout, respectively. Mplus syntax codes
of the simulation are available at: https://osf.io/uzpdj/?
view_only=7d008598330d46a6a4a0a19b23823373
Results of the Monte Carlo simulation are reported in Fig. 3. The
estimates reported in the figure are the average across 1000 replications.
Distribution of these parameters across the 1000 replications are also
shown in Fig. 3.6
5.2.2. Brief discussion
As shown in Fig. 3, the positive associations between personal
standards perfectionism and evaluative concerns perfectionism and be­
tween evaluative concerns perfectionism and burnout all reached sig­
nificance in 100% of the replications. In contrast, excellencism was not
significantly associated with evaluative concerns perfectionism in 94%
of the replications, but it was negatively and significantly associated
with lower burnout in 92.6% of the replications. After accounting for
excellencism, the direct association (i.e., partial effect) between per­
sonal standards perfectionism and burnout was null in 93.8% of the
replications and the indirect association was positive (i.e., higher
burnout) and significant in 100% of the replication.
Personal standards perfectionism (as a proxy of the core definitional
feature of dispositional perfectionism) positively and indirectly related to
higher burnout. This finding is consistent with the conceptual rethinking
of perfectionism (see Fig. 1) in which the effects of dispositional
perfectionism are expected to manifest through signature expressions (e.
g., evaluative concerns perfectionism). After accounting for excellen­
cism, the results also provided a good and entirely satisfying case for the
idea that personal standards perfectionism is related to higher burnout
because, it had a positive indirect association with burnout across all rep­
lications. Dispositional perfectionism sets the wheel in motion for the
signature expressions of perfectionism which are the putative mecha­
nisms that, if manifested, then transforms the potentially latent risk of
dispositional perfectionism into symptoms of burnout. In contrast,
excellencism is not associated with the signature expression of perfec­
tionism and it also has a negative direct association with burnout (i.e.,
lower burnout). Once the effects of excellencism are considered,
dispositional perfectionism cannot, in any way (directly or indirectly),
be interpreted as a protective factor against burnout. The network of
associations indicates that perfectionism is associated with higher
burnout. Overall, this supports the third alternative hypothesis of the
MEP: perfectionism is harmful in the context of burnout.
6. Additional Arguments for the Proposed Framework
In closing, six additional arguments are advanced to explain why this
reorganization of the conceptual domain of perfectionism addresses
many of the challenges faced by researchers in the literature.
First, researchers have often treated perfectionistic standards and
6
Results of this simulation should not be interpreted as an empirical proof for
the proposed model. Rather, they should be interpreted as a “proof of concept”
or what could happen if the hypotheses infused in the simulation were
empirically supported with real empirical data.
 P. Gaudreau
8

Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975

Fig. 3. Results of Monte Carlo Simulation with 1000 draws for N = 250.
P. Gaudreau
concerns as two boxers fighting in the middle of the ring. Standards and
concerns are strong contenders and trying to identify the “world
champion” in a multiple regression appears counterintuitive. As sum­
marized by Flett and Hewitt (2019, p. 6), “perfectionism is about peo­
ple”. My rethinking of perfectionism tries to bring back the person into
perfectionism and is therefore more promising than trivializing the ef­
fect of personal standards perfectionism with the often-heard interpre­
tation that evaluative concern perfectionism is a stronger predictor.
Associations between adjacent correlates – such as evaluative concerns
and psychological adjustment – are theoretically expected and should be
stronger. However, they cannot logically be attributable to perfectionism
if such effects exist without some influence of the core definitional
feature of perfectionism; such an assumption is logically indefensible.
Evaluative concerns are the concerns of perfectionists only if they are
studied alongside dispositional perfectionism. Overall, my proposed
framework reiterates the recommendations of Stoeber (2018b)
regarding the need to stop excluding personal standards perfectionism
from theories, design, analyses, or interpretations.
Second, the current reinterpretation offers an opportunity to steer
research away from the rather sterile debate regarding the adaptive or
maladaptive nature of perfectionism. If one accepts the network of as­
sociations (rather than individual pieces of this network), one can hardly
conclude that personal standards perfectionism is a healthy form of
striving for everyone. It could be for some people under specific cir­
cumstances but not for all. As the core definitional feature of disposi­
tional perfectionism, aiming and striving toward perfection sets the
wheel in motion. Perfectionism – not excellencism – through the
expression of many cognitive (e.g., doubts, concerns, perceived
discrepancy), socio-cognitive (e.g., perception that other require
perfection), and socio-behavioral signature expressions (e.g., requiring
others to be perfect) becomes a risk factor for psychological, health, and
interpersonal problems.
Third, removing the signature expressions from the core definitional
feature of perfectionism will encourage researchers to revisit and give a
new life to the correlations between dispositional perfectionism and its
signature expressions. Researchers have yet to meta-analyze the corre­
lations between aiming and striving toward perfection (e.g., personal
standards, self-oriented perfectionism) and signature expressions typi­
cally included in the broad dimension of evaluative concerns perfec­
tionism (e.g., concerns, doubts, socially prescribed perfectionism). The
same comment applies to the correlations with perfectionism cognition
(Flett et al., 2007) and perfectionism self-presentation (Hewitt et al.,
2003). Revisiting the correlations within the conceptual domain of
perfectionism will facilitate the identification of the signature expressions
that are more strongly activated and prevalent among those who aim
and strive toward perfection.
Fourth, the current reformulation will help to identify potentially
toxic mixtures of signature expressions to explicate why certain perfec­
tionists sometimes appear to be more at risk than others. As expressed by
Flett and Hewitt (2019), time has come to move away from examining
whether perfectionism is adaptive or maladaptive, and start focusing on
why perfectionism is more or less (mal)adaptive for different people. If a
person with high dispositional perfectionism manifests many cognitive,
socio-cognitive, and socio-behavioral expressions, then this person
should have higher levels of psychological maladjustment. However, it
remains to be determined if signature expressions of dispositional
perfectionism operate as a cumulative risk factor (“more is worst”) or if
the mere recurrent activation of just a few toxic elements – alone or in a
specific combination – is sufficient to strongly predict psychological,
interpersonal, and health problems. Furthermore, future work should
examine how the simultaneous activation of antagonistic signature ex­
pressions (i.e., personal doubts and grandiose beliefs about the self)
could sometimes attenuate or accentuate some of the negative outcomes
likely to be associated with dispositional perfectionism.
Fifth, once separated from the core definitional feature, the signature
expressions can more easily be conceptualized as the state enactment (e.
9
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
g., Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009) of dispositional perfectionism (Flett et al.,
2018; Hewitt et al., 2017). Knowing which situational triggers activate
which signature expressions in the daily lives of perfectionists (e.g.,
Dunkley et al., 2014; Mandel et al., 2015) could help explicate and
differentiate the moments and contexts in which perfectionists are more
likely to experience bouts of positive or negative affect. Similarly, a
distinction could be drawn between episodic enactment and chronic
activation of signature expressions. How someone moves from sporadic
to chronic perfectionistic concerns is currently unknown. This could
help design interventions to alter recursive cycles (i.e., concerns ➔
anxiety ➔ concerns) and also appears like a promising avenue to
investigate the mechanisms involved in the development and mainte­
nance of dispositional perfectionism.
Finally, the current theoretical repositioning could be misinterpreted
as antithetical to recent developments in bifactor models of perfec­
tionism (e.g., Gäde et al., 2017; Seong et al., 2021; Smith & Saklofske,
2017). The bifactor model assumes that the covariance between
perfectionistic standards and concerns is attributable to a common cause
represented by a general factor of perfectionism. Accepting this
assumption implies that the residual factors of perfectionistic standards
and concerns (after accounting for the general factor) are orthogonal or
unrelated. In a strict sense, this assumption is irreconcilable with the
idea that signature expressions are influenced by perfectionistic stan­
dards. If we accept how perfectionism has been defined over the last 30
years, we also accept that perfectionistic standards and their signature
expressions are correlated beyond a general factor of perfectionism. An
interaction between perfectionistic standards and concerns can add to
their unique predictive role in psychological adjustment (e.g., Gaudreau
& Thompson, 2010; Smith et al., 2015). Meta-analytical evidence also
indicated that standards and concerns differentially operate in the
nomological network with perfectionistic concerns as a stronger pre­
dictor (e.g., Limburg et al., 2017) and potentially the leading putative
mechanism of change in psychological adjustment over time (Smith
et al., 2021). These arguments are not meant to criticize or discourage
the use and development of the bifactor model of perfectionism. Quite
the contrary.
My goal here is to offer a pragmatic solution – a compromise – that
creates a bridge between the bifactor model and my theoretical propo­
sition. On the one hand, excellencism and perfectionistic standards can
occupy their own conceptual space in the landscape of dispositional
perfectionism. Excellencism and perfectionistic standards are correlated
but they do not share a common cause and a bifactor model is unwar­
ranted to conceptualize these constructs. On the other hand, the signa­
ture expressions could be studied as specific aspects regrouped under the
umbrella of a general factor of signature expressions of perfectionism. This
nuanced and pragmatic solution encourages conversations between my
current theoretical perspective, the Model of Excellencism and Perfec­
tionism (MEP), and the bifactor model of perfectionism. Recent ad­
vances in bifactor mediation modeling of multifaceted constructs
(Gonzalez & MacKinnon, 2018) could be envisioned to allow unidirec­
tional paths from excellencism and perfectionistic standards to a general
factor and/or to specific factors representing each of the signature ex­
pressions of perfectionism. This integration would strengthen our
empirical arsenal to address many of the challenges highlighted before
this paragraph. That being said, tests of the MEP and the current model
do not require bifactor modeling and could be performed with
regression-like analyses commonly used in the perfectionism literature.7
Bifactor model of perfectionism and the current theory elaboration
should be seen as mutually enhancing rather than antithetical contri­
butions to this literature.
7
Not all researchers have advanced training in contemporary psychometrics.
Therefore, the possibility of using bifactor modeling should not be interpreted
as an obligation.
P. Gaudreau
7. Conclusion
The definition of perfectionism implies that perfectionism is accom­
panied by several cognitive, socio-cognitive, and socio-behavioral man­
ifestations. An important goal of this article was to articulate and
formalize a distinction between the core definitional feature of perfec­
tionism (i.e., aiming and striving toward perfection) and the signature
expressions of perfectionism. The proposed framework shown in Fig. 1
retains, draws on, and integrates the distinction between perfectionism
and excellencism (Gaudreau, 2019). In this framework, some variables
(e.g., concerns over mistakes, doubt about actions, socially prescribed
perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, perfectionism self-
presentation, and perfectionism cognitions) are repositioned as signa­
ture expressions of perfectionism outside the core definitional feature of
perfectionism. As clearly stated, however, these variables are not thrown
out of the perfectionism landscape. They are given a specific role within
the conceptual domain of perfectionism. Signature expressions are
operationalized as putative mechanisms involved in the maintenance of
perfectionism and its associations with psychological (mal)adjustment.
Overall, this framework forcefully reiterates and strengthens the posi­
tion of perfectionism as a multidimensional construct.
Perfectionism is a historically rich, broad, international, and diver­
sified scholarly topic. The aiming and striving for perfection have
intrigued researchers and practitioners in different domains (e.g., edu­
cation, work, medicine, psychotherapy, nutrition, performing arts, law,
sport, etc.). It is the paradoxical struggles of apparently successful in­
dividuals who feel so unsuccessful despite their astonishing successes
that draw such a fascination and explain why coaches, parents, and
teachers are concerned by perfectionism. Suicidality, depression, pre­
mature death, and troubled interpersonal relationships are serious out­
comes associated with dispositional perfectionism (Hewitt et al., 2017).
As shown in the Monte Carlo simulation, dispositional perfectionism (i.
e., personal standards perfectionism) cannot be interpreted as a pro­
tective factor for burnout once we control for excellencism. Drawing a
line between excellencism and perfectionism (Gaudreau, 2019) and
between the core definitional feature and its signature expressions is
required to properly estimate the outcomes of dispositional
perfectionism.
The MEP and the framework shown in Fig. 1 reiterate that perfec­
tionism is multidimensional. Aiming and striving toward perfection sets
the wheel in motion in activating a host of signature expressions which,
alone or in combination, make dispositional perfectionism a risk factor
for psychological, health, and interpersonal problems for many people.
Separating the core definitional feature of dispositional perfectionism
from its signature expressions provides an integrative framework to
tackle many important questions about the development and mainte­
nance of dispositional perfectionism and for the treatment of those who
struggle with their perfectionism.
References
Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007). Thwarting the need
to belong: Understanding the interpersonal and inner effects of social exclusion.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1751-9004.2007.00020.x.
Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and
empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection,
displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66
(6), 1081–1124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00043.
Carrotte, E., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). A systematic review of the relationship between
trait self-objectification and personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences,
132, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.015.
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of
perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.365.
Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today. American Psychologist, 55,
637–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.6.637.
Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of
birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138.
10
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru, O., & Baban, A. (2013). On the development of
perfectionism in adolescence: Perceived parental expectations predict longitudinal
increases in socially prescribed perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(6), 688–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.021.
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, 4, 437–453.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.4.437.
Dunkley, D. M., Ma, D., Lee, I. A., Preacher, K. J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2014). Advancing
complex explanatory conceptualizations of daily negative and positive affect: Trigger
and maintenance coping action patterns. Journal of Conseling Psychology, 61, 93–109.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034673.
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., Shafran, R., & Antony, M. M. (2016). Cognitive-behavioral
treatment of perfectionism. Guilford.
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the
distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies
and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016786.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2019). Reflections on three decades of research on
multidimensional perfectionism: An introduction to the special issue on further
advances in the assessment of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
38(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919881928.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Heisel, M. J. (2014). The destructiveness of perfectionism
revisited: Implications for the assessment of suicide risk and the prevention of
suicide. Review of General Psychology, 18, 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/
gpr0000011.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Nepon, T., & Besser, A. (2018). Perfectionism cognition theory:
The cognitive side of perfectionism. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of
perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 89–110). Routledge.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Whelan, T., & Martin, T. R. (2007). The perfectionism
cognitions inventory: Psychometric properties and associations with distress and
deficits in cognitive self-management. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-
Behavior Therapy, 25, 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-007-0055-4.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., et al. (1993). A comparison of two
measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869%2893%2990181-2.
Gäde, J. C., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Klein, A. G. (2017). Disentangling the common
variance of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: A bifactor model of
perfectionism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(160). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00160.
Gaudreau, P. (2019). On the distinction between personal standards perfectionism and
excellencism: A theory elaboration and research agenda. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 14, 195–215.doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/174569161
8797940.
Gaudreau, P., Franche, V., Kljajic, K., & Martinelli, G. (2018). The 2 × 2 model of
perfectionism: Assumptions, trends, and potential developments. In J. Stoeber (Ed.),
The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 44–67).
Routledge.
Gaudreau, P., Schellenberg, B. J. I., Gareau, A., Kljajic, K., & Manoni-Millar, S. (2021).
Because excellencism is more than good enough: On the need to distinguish the
pursuit of excellence from the pursuit of perfection. Submitted for publication.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 x 2 model of dispositional
perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532–537. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031.
Gonzalez, O., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2018). A bifactor approach to model multifaceted
constructs in statistical mediation analysis. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 78(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416673689.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. Lazarfeld (Ed.),
Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Free Press of Glencoe.
Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from self-awareness.
Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.110.1.86.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to
conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Guilford.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Habke, M., Parkin, M., Lam, R. W., … Stein, M. B.
(2003). The interpersonal expression of perfection: Perfectionistic self-presentation
and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
1303–1325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1303.
Hill, A. P. (2014). Perfectionistic strivings and the perils of partialling. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(4), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1612197X.2014.919602.
Hill, A. P., & Curran, T. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and burnout: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 269–288. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1088868315596286.
Hill, A. P., & Madigan, D. J. (2017). A short review of perfectionism in sport, dance and
exercise: Out with the old, in with the 2×2. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 72–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.021.
Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., Madigan, D. J., & Jowett, G. E. (2020).
Perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise: An extended review and reanalysis. In G.
Tennenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed., pp.
121–157). Wiley.
Iranzo-Tatay, C., Gimeno-Clemente, N., Barbera-Fons, M., Rodriguez-Campayo, M. A.,
Rojo-Bofill, L., Livianos-Aldana, L., … Rojo-Moreno, L. (2015). Genetic and
environmental contributions to perfectionism and its common factors. Psychiatry
Research, 230(3), 932–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.11.020.
P. Gaudreau
Limburg, K., Watson, H. J., Hagger, M. S., & Egan, S. J. (2017). The relationship between
perfectionism and psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
73, 1301–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22435.
Lloyd, S., Schmidt, U., Khondoker, M., & Tchanturia, K. (2015). Can psychological
interventions reduce perfectionism? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 43, 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1352465814000162.
Lo, A., Hunt, C., & Abbott, M. J. (2020). A systematic review of the psychometric
properties of multidimensional trait perfectionism self-report measures. Behaviour
Change, 37(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2020.2.
Luthar, S., Kumar, N., & Zillmer, N. (2019). High-achieving schools connote risks for
adolescents: Problems documented, processes implicated, and directions for
interventions. American Psychologist, 75(7), 983–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/
amp0000556.
Madigan, D. J., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., Grugan, M. C., & Hill, A. P. (2019).
Perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in athletes: A continuously cumulating
meta-analysis and test of the 2 × 2 model. European Journal of Sport Science, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1698660.
Mandel, T., Dunkley, D. M., & Moroz, M. (2015). Self-critical perfectionism and
depressive and anxious symptoms over 4 years: The mediating role of daily stress
reactivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000101.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998-2021). MPLUS (version 8.5) [computer software] (Vol.
null). Muthén & Muthén.
Osenk, I., Williamson, P., & Wade, T. D. (2020). Does perfectionism or pursuit of
excellence contribute to successful learning? A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Assessment, 32(10), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000942.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L. G., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of
the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101(5), 919–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025196.
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influences on
perfectionism and adult attachment orientations. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24(4), 580–605. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2005.24.4.580.
Seong, H., Lee, S., & Chang, E. (2021). Perfectionism and academic burnout:
Longitudinal extension of the bifactor model of perfectionism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 172, Article 110589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2020.110589.
Shafran, R., Egan, S. J., & Wade, T. D. (2010). Overcoming perfectionism: A self-help guide
using cognitive-behavioural techniques. Constable & Robinson.
Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, P. S., & Gautreau, M. C. (2016). Perfectionists do not play
nicely with others: Expanding the social disconnection model. In M. F. Sirois & S. D.
Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 225–243). Springer.
Sirois, F. M., & Molnar, D. S. (2016). Conceptualizations of perfectionism, health, and
well-being: An introductory overview. In F. Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.),
Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 1–24). Springer.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of
coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping.
11
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 110975
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.2.216.
Smith, M. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2017). The structure of multidimensional
perfectionism: Support for a bifactor model with a dominant general factor. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 99(3), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2016.1208209.
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). The Big Three
perfectionism scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 34, 670–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651539.
Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Yan, G., & Sherry, S. B. (2015). Perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns interact to predict negative emotionality: Support for
the tripartite model of perfectionism in Canadian and Chinese university students.
Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2014.09.006.
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Ge, S. Y., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Baggley, D. L. (2021).
Multidimensional perfectionism turns 30: A review of known knowns and known
unknowns. Canadian Psychology.
Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Ray, C., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2021). Is perfectionism a
vulnerability factor for depressive symptoms, a complication of depressive
symptoms, or both? A meta-analytic test of 67 longitudinal studies. Clinical
Psychology Review, 84, Article 101982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101982.
Smith, M. M., Speth, T. A., Sherry, S. B., Saklofske, D. H., Stewart, S. H., & Glowacka, M.
(2017). Is socially prescribed perfectionism veridical? A new take on the
stressfulness of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 115–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.031.
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.),
The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 3–16).
Routledge.
Stoeber, J., Davis, C. R., & Townley, J. (2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in
employees: The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7),
733–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.001.
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and
Individual Differences, 104, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.
Travers, L. V., Randall, E. T., Bryant, F. B., Conley, C. S., & Bohnert, A. M. (2015). The
cost of perfection with apparent ease: Theoretical foundations and development of
the effortless perfectionism scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1147–1159.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000109.
Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2016). On the differential relationships involving
perfectionism and academic adjustment: The mediating role of passion and affect.
Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2016.07.018.
Wade, T. D. (2018). Prevention of perfectionism in youth. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The
psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 265–283).
Routledge.