bs_bs_banner

Japanese Psychological Research doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00514.x

2012, Volume 54, No. 4, 418–423
Short Report

Self-oriented perfectionism and its relationship to

selective attention: An experimental examination using
social cognitive paradigm1
OSAMU KOBORI2* Chiba University

YOSHIHIKO TANNO University of Tokyo

Abstract: The cognitive biases associated with perfectionism include a selective

attention to failure and the discounting of success. The present study experimentally
focused on the relation between self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and selective
attention using the social cognitive paradigm. Forty undergraduate students who
were identified as either high or low in SOP were asked to perform modified versions
of the Stroop task. The results suggest that participants with high SOP did not take
longer to respond to failure words than to neutral words, but their reaction time to
failure words was longer than that of participants with low SOP. These findings
provided the basis for cognitive behavioral biases for perfectionism.
Key words: self-oriented perfectionism, cognitive bias, selective attention, modified
Stroop task, social cognitive paradigm.

Cognitive biases include a systematic tendency attention to failure and hypervigilant

to attend more to some kinds of information
than to others (attentional bias), to remember
some kinds of information better than others
(memory bias), and/or to interpret ambiguous
situations in one way rather than in another
(interpretive bias). The cognitive biases associ-
ated with perfectionism include a selective
attention to failure and the discounting of
success (Burns, 1980; Shafran, Cooper, & Fair-
burn, 2002), resulting in a focus on perceived or
actual errors in performance rather than on
error-free areas of performance. Hollender
(1965) observed that someone with these biases
is “constantly on the alert for what is wrong and
seldom focuses on what is right.” Selective
monitoring of mistakes are features of clinical
perfectionism (Shafran et al., 2002), and
increase the likelihood of failure to meet one’s
own standards.
Shafran et al. (2002) discussed the relation
between selective attention and memory, illus-
trating this with a patient who selectively
attended to and recalled instances when she did
not adhere to her work schedule, but ignored
those in which she did adhere to it. Frost,
Trepanier, Brown, Heimberg, Juster, Makris,
and Leung (1997) asked participants who
scored either high or low on the Concern
over Mistakes (CM) scale (a subscale of the
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale:

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Osamu Kobori, Centre for Forensic Mental Health,
Chiba University, Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan. (E-mail: chelsea@faculty.chiba-u.jp)
1
This work was supported by grants from Japan Society for Promotion of Science.
2
The authors wish to thank Dr. Joachim Stoeber (Kent University) for his valuable comments and suggestions
on the early version of the manuscript.

© 2012 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
 Selective attention and perfectionism
Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) to
recall the number of mistakes they had made
over a 5-day period; there was no significant
difference between the high and low CM
groups on the scale. Only one study has inves-
tigated a selective attention bias in perfection-
ism using the social cognitive paradigm: Lundh
and Öst (1996) found a correlation between
perfectionism (the overall score from the Frost
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale and the
Concern over Mistakes scale: Frost et al., 1990)
and Stroop interference for socially threatening
words (e.g., foolish, worthless) in patients with
social phobia (Lundh & Öst, 1996). However, it
remains unknown whether perfectionists selec-
tively attend to words associated with mistakes
and failure.
Purpose of the current study
The purpose of the current study was to inves-
tigate the relations between perfectionism and
selective attention to mistakes and failure
using the social cognitive paradigm. Although
there is a vast choice of measurements for per-
fectionism, self-oriented perfectionism (SOP;
Hewitt & Flett, 1991) is considered to be close
to the construct most often referred to as per-
fectionism by clinicians and theorists (Burns,
1980; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). Self-oriented
perfectionism is characterized by “setting
exacting standards for oneself and evaluating
one’s own behavior stringently” (Hewitt &
Flett, 1991). Self-oriented perfectionism has
shown positive correlations with psychopatho-
logical symptoms (Egan, Wade, & Shafran,
2011; Hewitt & Flett, 2004). However, it also
has shown positive correlations with positive
characteristics, processes, and outcomes, such
as conscientiousness, motivation, self-esteem,
positive affect, and goal attainment (Hewitt &
Flett, 2004; Molnar, Reker, Culp, Sadava, &
DeCourville, 2006; Powers, Koestner, & Topciu,
2005; Stoeber, Feast, & Hayward, 2009; Stoeber
& Yang, 2010; Trumpeter, Watson, & O’Leary,
2006).
The commonest measure of attentional bias
is the emotional Stroop task, which requires an
419
individual to name the color in which different
words are printed as fast as possible. Words
associated with emotional concerns tend to
automatically capture attention, leading to a
disruption in color-naming performance. Mis-
takes and failure are the main emotional con-
cerns associated with perfectionism.
Another aspect of the current study was a
measurement of state anxiety. State anxiety
is associated with both trait perfectionism
(Stoeber, Otto, Pescheck, Becker, & Stoll, 2007)
and perfectionism cognition (Yoshie & Shige-
masu, 2007), and it can affect the experimental
performance. Thus, state anxiety was conducted
in order to control for a confounding factor.
Method
Design
A mixed design was used to investigate differ-
ences in scores on the Stroop task between
groups identified as high or low in SOP. The
task and self-report questionnaires (including
instructions) were computerized.
Participants
From among 245 undergraduates enrolled in an
introductory psychology course, those scoring
below the 25th percentile (56 points) or above
the 75th percentile (76 points) for SOP (Hewitt
& Flett, 1991) were invited to participate in the
study. In total, 40 undergraduates participated
in the study (16 men and 24 women); 20 had
scored below the 25th percentile (low-SOP
group), and 20 had scored above the 75th per-
centile (high-SOP group).
Self-report measures
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
(MPS; Ohtani & Sakurai, 1995). The Japa-
nese version of the MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991)
is a translation that also comprises three dimen-
sions (i.e., self-oriented perfectionism, other-
oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed
perfectionism). The psychometric properties of
the Japanese version of the MPS have been
confirmed by Ohtani and Sakurai (1995), who
reported good construct validity, internal con-
© Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
420 O. Kobori and Y. Tanno
sistency (a = .65–.83), and test-retest reliability
(r = .61–.73). Only 15 items from the Japanese
version of the MPS relating to SOP were
administered. Sample items included “One of
my goals is to be perfect in everything I do,” and
“I set very high standards for myself.” Partici-
pants rated these questions on a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree.”
State Version of the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (State Anxiety). This scale (Spiel-
berger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) is a vali-
dated 20-item questionnaire used for assessing
state anxiety. The Japanese version (Shimizu &
Imaei, 1981) of the state anxiety scale was
administered. This version has good construct
validity and internal consistency (a = .87)
(Shimizu & Imaei, 1981). It has 20 items, includ-
ing, for example,“nervous” and “upset.” Partici-
pants rated the items on a four-point Likert
scale ranging from “completely disagree” to
“completely agree.” In this computerized task,
only the total score for state anxiety was calcu-
lated and recorded.
Modified Stroop task
A modified version of the Stroop color-naming
task (Mathews & MacLeod, 1985) was con-
ducted. The target stimuli were Japanese words
presented in one of four randomly allocated
colors that were displayed on the screen until a
key was pressed or until after 1500 ms. The
interstimulus interval was 1200 ms. The partici-
pants were instructed to press the key corre-
sponding to the color in which the word was
printed (keys 5, 6, 7, and 8 for red, green, blue,
and yellow, respectively).
The stimuli included eight words associated
with mistakes and failure (mistake, failure,
fault, flaw, slip, unsuccess, error, and imperfec-
tion) and eight neutral words (air, temperature,
pencil, weather, newspaper, map, furniture, and
printer). The failure words were selected from
the literature on perfectionism and the neutral
words were selected from previous studies
(Unoki, 2000). Those words were presented in
Japanese (mostly Kanji characters), and the two
© Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
word groups did not differ in their frequency of
use in the Japanese language, the average
number of letters, or the average number of
strokes per word.
Dummy stimuli were presented to minimize
the chances of the participants guessing the
purpose of the study. These consisted of four
color-name words (red, green, blue, and yellow)
and one nonword (䊏). Each color-name word
was presented in the three colors that conflicted
with the color-name of the word (e.g., “red” was
printed in green, blue, and yellow). The
nonword was presented three times in each of
the four colors.
The reaction times as well as the number of
correct responses (trials in which a color-
naming error was made were not included in
the analyses) were recorded.
Procedure
The participants were informed that the experi-
ment was related to attention and emotion.
Participants read the instructions before
completing 10 practice items and 88 experimen-
tal trials of the modified Stroop task. Thereaf-
ter, they completed the state anxiety scale and
were asked questions to ascertain whether they
had performed the tasks appropriately. Follow-
ing a full debriefing, the participants were given
¥500 (approximately US$5) and thanked for
their participation.
Results
The data for the Stroop task, state anxiety scale,
and error rate are shown in Table 1; also shown
are the results of the t-tests used to investigate
the differences between the high- and low-SOP
groups. There was only one significant differ-
ence found: the high-SOP group took longer
than the low-SOP group to respond to the
failure words of the Stroop task. There was no
significant difference in the scores for anxiety
or the error rate.
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) of the
response time data were also performed for the
Stroop task. Group (high-SOP and low-SOP)
and word (neutral and failure) were the
 Selective attention and perfectionism
Table 1 Differences between high and low self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) groups on the
Stroop Task and the State Anxiety scale
Group High SOP
Participants (n) 20
Age (years) 22.50 (8.08)
SOP score 84.30 (4.27)
Failure words (ms) 501.40 (90.98)
Neutral words (ms) 483.02 (79.45)
Error rate (%) 9.05 (7.51)
State anxiety score 43.40 (8.39)
Note. Error rate = percentage of incorrect responses in the Stroop Task.
*p < .05. **p < .001.
between- and within-group factors respectively.
Although state anxiety was entered as a cova-
riate, it had no significant covariate effect, F(1,
37) = .097, p = .757. A main effect for the group,
F(1, 37) = 4.93, p = .03, was the result of gener-
ally slower responses for the high-SOP group
than for the low-SOP group. In contrast, a main
effect for words was not found, F(1, 37) = .97,
p = .76. There was also a significant effect by
word interaction, F(1, 37) = 7.06, p = .01.
Because a visual inspection of the results did
not clearly show the kind of interaction that
was obtained, we conducted a post hoc simple
main effect analysis (Figure 1). The simple main
effects were only obtained in the reaction time
to failure words between the high- and low-
SOP groups, F(1, 37) = 7.31, p = .01, and in the
low-SOP group’s reaction time between neutral
words and failure words, F(1, 37) = 4.70,
p = .037. In contrast, the simple main effects
were not significant in the reaction time to
neutral words between the high- and low-SOP
groups, F(1, 37) = 2.20, p = .15, or in the high-
SOP group’s reaction times between neutral
words and failure words, F(1, 37) = 2.64, p = .11.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the
relation between self-oriented perfectionism
and selective attention using the social cogni-
tive paradigm. Firstly, high-SOP participants
did not take longer to respond to failure
words than to neutral words; however, they did
take longer to respond to failure words than
421
Low SOP t(1, 39)
20
19.85 (1.39) 1.60 n.s.
46.45 (9.28) 16.40**
416.80 (107.15) 2.21*
441.70 (93.08) 1.51 n.s.
17.95 (23.38) 1.662 n.s.
40.33 (6.29) 1.25 n.s.
low-SOP participants.These results suggest that
their emotional concern for mistakes or failure
would be greater than that of individuals who
were low in SOP, but failure words did not
capture the attention of individuals who were
high in SOP more than neutral words.
Although this experiment was conducted in a
rather controlled situation (i.e., a laboratory),
the stronger interference effect of failure words
may occur to individuals with perfectionism
when their perfectionism belief is activated
(e.g., work, school, eating etc). In other words,
they would pay attention to mistake and failure
only if they are faced by a situation that is
important and salient to them (Shafran et al.,
2002).
Although a t-test revealed that only the reac-
tion time to failure words was different
between the high-SOP and the low-SOP par-
ticipants, there was a main effect for the group
difference, suggesting that the participants who
were high in SOP took longer to provide
responses across all types of trials than those
who were low in SOP. As perfectionists tend to
aim for high scores or goals, longer response
times in high-SOP participants may reflect a
desire to be precise and a tendency to be cau-
tious in performing the task. Unexpectedly, low-
SOP participants took less time to respond to
failure words than to neutral words. This may
suggest that failure words captured little atten-
tion of those individuals who were low in SOP,
and that they are probably less concerned
about mistakes or failure. However, replication
is needed in order to test this interpretation,
© Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
422 O. Kobori and Y. Tanno
because this result could be due to the selection
of neutral words employed in this study, and
because the individuals who were low in SOP
might have attempted to react faster to failure
words so that they avoid processing the
meaning of failure words.
The limitations of the current study must be
considered when interpreting the results. They
include the relatively small sample size and its
restriction to Japanese college students. The
relation between perfectionism and selective
attention should be explored in other popula-
tions, particularly those that speak other
languages.
The current findings suggest that individuals
who were high in SOP took longer to respond
to failure words than those who were low in
SOP. However, it remains unknown if they also
selectively attend to mistakes or failure in their
everyday lives (as proposed by Burns, 1980;
Hollender, 1965; Shafran et al., 2002). While
Frost et al. (1997) found no differences in the
number of mistakes between those recalled by
individuals scoring either high or low on the
Concern over Mistakes scale, further research
is needed to determine whether perfectionists
do indeed selectively focus on mistakes or
failure and selectively remember their mistakes
or failure in their everyday lives.
Finally, although the present study used
failure words that have negative connotations,
Figure 1 Reaction time to neutral and failure
words. * = Significant simple main effect.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2012.
it is worth investigating whether individuals
with self-oriented perfectionism show selective
attention to words related to perfectionism
with positive connotations (e.g., “success” and
“perfection”), because SOP has both positive
and negative characteristics. A complete design
would involve scores on both positive and nega-
tive perfectionism (e.g., Personal Standards and
Concern over Mistakes) and two series of
words related to perfectionism: one with posi-
tive connotations and the other with negative
connotations.
References
Burns, D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-
defeat. Psychology Today, 14, 34–52.
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfec-
tionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate,
R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Frost, R. O., Trepanier, K. L., Brown, E. J., Heimberg,
R. G., Juster, H. R., Makris, G. S., & Leung, A. W.
(1997). Self-monitoring of mistakes among sub-
jects high and low in perfectionistic concern over
mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21,
209–222.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in
the self and social contexts: Conceptualization,
assessment, and association with psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 60, 456–470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (MPS): Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehen-
sive Psychiatry, 6, 94–103.
Lundh, L. G., & Öst, L. G. (1996). Stroop interference,
self-focus, and perfectionism in social phobics.
Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 725–
731.
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1985). Selective pro-
cessing of threat cues in anxiety states. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 23, 563–569.
Molnar, D. S., Reker, D. L., Culp, N. A., Sadava, S. W.,
& DeCourville, N. H. (2006). A mediated model
of perfectionism, affect, and physical health.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 482–500.
Ohtani, Y., & Sakurai, S. (1995). Relationship of per-
fectionism to depression and hopelessness in
 Selective attention and perfectionism
college students. Japanese Journal of Psychology,
66, 41–47. (In Japanese with English abstract.)
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Topciu, R. A. (2005).
Implementation intentions, perfectionism, and
goal progress: Perhaps the road to hell is paved
with good intentions. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 31, 902–912.
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. (2002). Per-
fectionism: Towards a redefinition and cognitive-
behavioral model of maintenance. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism
and psychopathology: A review of research and
treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–
906.
Shimizu, H., & Imaei, K. (1981). Development of a
Japanese version of State-Trait Anxiety Inven-
tory. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 29, 62–67. (In Japanese with English
abstract.)
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. K., & Lushene, R. E.
(1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inven-
tory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Stoeber, J., Feast, A. R., & Hayward, J. A. (2009).
Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfection-
ism: Differential relationships with intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and test anxiety. Personality
and Individual Differences, 47, 423–428.
423
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., Pescheck, E., Becker, C., & Stoll,
O. (2007). Perfectionism and competitive anxiety
in athletes: Differentiating striving for perfection
and negative reactions to imperfection. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 42, 959–969.
Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2010). Perfectionism and
emotional reactions to perfect and flawed
achievements: Satisfaction and pride only when
perfect. Personality and Individual Differences,
49, 246–251.
Trumpeter, N., Watson, P. J., & O’Leary, B. J. (2006).
Factors within multidimensional perfectionism
scales: Complexity of relationships with self-
esteem, narcissism, self-control, and self-
criticism. Personality and Individual Differences,
41, 849–860.
Unoki, K. (2000). Attentional process of emotional
information: Comparison between clinical and
nonclinical obsessive-compulsive disorder. Japa-
nese Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 273–280. (In Japa-
nese with English abstract.)
Yoshie, M., & Shigemasu, K. (2007). Effects of trait
social anxiety and cognitions of perfectionism on
state music performance anxiety. Japanese
Journal of Personality, 15, 335–346. (In Japanese
with English abstract.)
(Received December 3, 2010; accepted September 6,
2011)
© Japanese Psychological Association 2012.