Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Perfectionism and well-being: A positive psychology framework

Hanna Suh a,⁎, Philip B. Gnilka b, Kenneth G. Rice c
a
Department of Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, United States
b
Department of Counseling and Special Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States
c
Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Georgia State University, United States

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

Article history: Grounded in the tripartite model of perfectionism and previous empirical support, the current study explored
Received 10 November 2016 qualitatively different types of perfectionists and their well-being. A total of 276 college students responded to
Received in revised form 18 January 2017 measures of perfectionism, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and well-being. Latent Profile Analysis identified
Accepted 25 January 2017
three distinct latent classes of perfectionists: adaptive, maladaptive, and non-perfectionists. Adaptive perfection-
Available online 3 February 2017
ists exhibited highest levels of presence of meaning, subjective happiness, and life satisfaction; maladaptive per-
Keywords:
fectionists showed the highest levels of search for meaning. Findings call attention to the value of exploring the
Perfectionism heterogeneity of perfectionists and their well-being.
Meaning in life © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Well-being

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality characteristic with
healthy and unhealthy components (Ganske, Gnilka, Ashby, & Rice,
2015). In their review, Stoeber and Otto (2006) outlined two key perfec-
tionism dimensions that appear evident across studies: perfectionistic
strivings (setting high expectations for performance) and perfectionis-
tic concerns (self-criticalness regarding performance).
Efforts have been made to distinguish different subtypes of perfec-
tionists. Cluster analyses revealed three or four distinct clusters (e.g.,
Dickinson & Ashby, 2005; Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004).
More recently, researchers are utilizing person-centered approaches
such as latent profile analyses to identify subgroups (e.g., Moate,
Gnilka, West, & Bruns, 2016; Rice, Richardson, & Tueller, 2014). In the
three-class model, one group sets high standards for their performance
while not being overly self-critical regarding their performance. Anoth-
er group also exhibited high standards towards their performance,
while being excessively self-critical towards their performance. A third
group has been distinguished from the other two groups by their low
levels of perfectionistic strivings.
Different classes of perfectionists exhibit different levels of psycho-
logical functioning (e.g., Noble, Ashby, & Gnilka, 2014). For example,
the group of perfectionists with high strivings and low concerns has
been labeled “adaptive” because they generally exhibit lower levels of
depression and anxiety-related symptoms plus fewer social difficulties.
Conversely, “maladaptive” perfectionists with high strivings and high
concerns generally exhibit increased levels of depression, anxiety, and
perceived stress. Studies that support a four-class model agree in the
identification of four distinct groups but show mixed results on the
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Counseling, School, and Educational
Psychology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, United States.
E-mail address: hannasuh@buffalo.edu (H. Suh).
characteristics of these four groups. For example, Gaudreau and
Thompson (2010) identify groups of perfectionists by combining scores
on high/low perfectionistic strivings dimension and high/low perfec-
tionistic concerns dimension whereas other studies have found an addi-
tional group to exhibit very low perfectionistic strivings (Herman,
Trotter, Reinke, & Ialongo, 2011).
To classify subgroups, consistently associated personality traits
(conscientiousness, neuroticism) have been taken into account. For in-
stance, Rice, Lopez, and Richardson (2013) delineate global personality
traits to lower-order characteristic adaptations (e.g., perfectionism) and
suggest using both to identify groups of perfectionists. Others note a
combined effect of neuroticism and perfectionism on psychological dis-
tress but not perfectionism alone, suggesting merits of including per-
sonality dimensions (Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005).
Due to earlier conceptualizations of perfectionism as a maladaptive
personality trait, research efforts focused on understanding the psycho-
logical distress of perfectionists. Unfortunately, this trend largely
remained despite Stoeber and Otto's (2006) review supporting a focus
on potential positive outcomes of perfectionism. Examining well-
being as a separate process is important because the absence of ill-
being does not automatically translate to greater well-being (e.g.,
Cacioppo & Berntson, 1999).
Ryan and Deci (2001) noted that well-being is a multidimensional
phenomenon that encompasses eudaimonic and hedonic elements.
Eudaimonic well-being refers to experiencing personal growth and
meaning in life by living fully engaged with activities that are congruent
with personal values (Waterman, 1993). Recently, meaning in life has
been receiving much attention (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006).
Meaning in life is a multidimensional construct consisting of search
for meaning and presence of meaning (Steger et al., 2006). The search
for meaning is defined as an individual's intentional process of seeking

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.041
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
26 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30
experiences that lead to increased meaning or help solidify current
meaning in their lives (Steger, Oishi, & Kashdan, 2009). It is believed
that individuals are more likely to search for meaning during times of
uncertainty and distress. The presence of meaning is defined as the
amount of purpose and meaning an individual currently experiences
in their life (Steger et al., 2009) and is positively related to well-being,
assessed by positive affect and happiness (Steger & Frazier, 2005;
Steger et al., 2009) and life satisfaction (Park, Park, & Peterson, 2010).
Steger et al. (2006) suggested that studies should investigate precur-
sors and individual differences in the search and presence of meaning in
life. Perfectionism is one promising construct for investigation because
maladaptive perfectionists are likely inhibited in their meaning making,
ultimately leading to psychological distress (Graham et al., 2010;
Sherry, Sherry, Hewitt, Mushquash, & Flett, 2015). Further, Hill,
Huelsman, and Araujo (2010) found that perfectionistic concerns was
negatively related to purpose in life and personal growth whereas per-
fectionistic strivings was only positively associated with purpose in life.
Park and Jeong (2015) also found that adaptive perfectionists showed
higher scores in purpose in life and personal growth compared to mal-
adaptive perfectionists.
Hedonic well-being taps into viewing human motivation and expe-
riences as a pursuit towards pleasure and away from pain, resulting in
maximizing happiness. Subjective well-being, which includes a combi-
nation of experiencing high levels of positive affect and life satisfaction
and low levels of negative affect, has been largely used for the assess-
ment of hedonic well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). In regards to perfec-
tionism, Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) found that individuals high
in perfectionistic strivings showed significantly higher levels of positive
affect and lower levels of negative affect compared to those low in per-
fectionistic strivings. Further, adaptive perfectionists typically showed
the highest levels of life satisfaction and maladaptive perfectionists
showed the lowest (e.g., Rice & Ashby, 2007).
In sum, this study delineates latent groups of perfectionists and ex-
plores both eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. We replicate and ex-
tend the findings of two earlier studies on perfectionism and well-
being. First, we replicate Park and Jeong (2015) by utilizing Latent Pro-
file Analysis rather than cluster analysis. Second, we extend previous
studies (Park & Jeong, 2015, 2016) by examining multiple well-being in-
dicators covering eudaimonic well-being (meaning in life) and the af-
fective dimension of hedonic well-being (subjective happiness, life
satisfaction). We hypothesized that a three-class solution would be
found based on prior studies. If a three-class model fit the data, then
we hypothesized the following: a) maladaptive perfectionists would
have higher levels of search for meaning and lower levels of presence
of meaning, life satisfaction, and happiness compared to adaptive per-
fectionists and non-perfectionists; b) adaptive perfectionists would
have higher levels of presence of meaning, life satisfaction, and happi-
ness coupled with lower levels of search for meaning than maladaptive
perfectionists and non-perfectionists; c) non-perfectionists would gen-
erally exhibit well-being levels that fall between maladaptive perfec-
tionists and adaptive perfectionists.
1. Method
1.1. Participants and procedure
A total of 276 college students (212 female, 58 male, 1 transgender,
and 5 did not report) from a large Southeastern university participated.
Participants were recruited from an undergraduate psychology research
participant pool and several psychology courses in exchange for re-
search credit or extra-credit. Mean age was 19.59 years old (SD =
2.72) with ages ranging from 18 to 56. A total of 55.6% identified as
White or European American followed by Asian or Asian American
(14.1%), Hispanic/Latino/a (12.6%), Black or African-American (7.9%),
Multicultural (3.6%), Native American (0.7%), Pacific Islander (0.4%)
and Other (3.3%); a small percentage (1.8%) did not report their
ethnicity. Approximately less than half of participants were first year
students (42.2%), followed by sophomore (25.3%), junior (19.1%) and
senior (10.5%); a small percentage (2.9%) did not report academic clas-
sification. Questionnaires were presented online. None of the question-
naires involved a particular timeframe for considering item ratings. The
study took approximately 30 min to complete and was approved by the
university institutional review board.
1.2. Measures
1.2.1. Perfectionism
The Standards (7 items) and Discrepancy (12 items) subscales from
the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, &
Ashby, 2001) were used because they serve as good operationalizations
of perfectionistic strivings and concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). The
Standards subscale assesses self-set high performance expectations
and the Discrepancy subscale measures the degree to which one nega-
tively evaluates one's performance. Participants respond to a 7-point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with higher scores indi-
cating stronger perfectionistic tendencies. Good internal consistency
has been demonstrated among college students, ranging from 0.86 to
0.88 for Standards and 0.91 to 0.94 for Discrepancy (Rice, Ashby, &
Slaney, 2007). Discriminant and convergent validity has also been dem-
onstrated (Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005).
1.2.2. Personality
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism subscales from the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP-50; Goldberg, 1992) were used to assess
personality traits. Each subscale is composed of 10 items. Participants
respond to a 5-point scale (1 = very inaccurate, 5 = very accurate)
with higher scores indicating greater tendency of each trait. Internal
consistency is sound among college students: 0.81 for Conscientious-
ness and 0.86 for Neuroticism (Ehrhart, Roesch, Ehrhart, & Kilian,
2008). Rice et al. (2007) found that in samples of college students, Stan-
dards was moderately correlated with Conscientiousness (rs = 0.46 to
0.48) whereas Discrepancy was strongly correlated with Neuroticism
(rs = 0.59 to 0.65).
1.2.3. Meaning in life
The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006) was
used to assess the Presence of meaning (5 items) and Search for mean-
ing (5 items) in life. Participants respond using a 7-point scale (1 = ab-
solutely untrue, 7 = absolutely true), with higher scores indicating
greater experience. Sample items include, “My life has a clear sense of
purpose” and “I am always searching for something that makes my
life feel significant” respectively. Steger et al. (2006) reported good in-
ternal consistency among college students (0.86 and 0.86 to 0.87, re-
spectively). Discriminant and convergent validity were sound
(Kashdan & Steger, 2007).
1.2.4. Happiness
Global subjective happiness was measured with the 4-item Subjec-
tive Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Participants
respond to items using a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very or a
great deal) with higher scores indicating greater happiness.
Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) reported internal consistency ranging
from 0.84 to 0.94, good test-retest reliability, and good convergent
validity.
1.2.5. Life satisfaction
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985) is a 5-item measure that was used to assess perceived
general satisfaction with life as an aspect of subjective well-being
(Pavot & Diener, 2008). Participants respond to a 7-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with higher scores indicating
greater level of life satisfaction. Internal consistency of the measure
 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30
among college students ranges from 0.79 to 0.89, and convergent valid-
ity was good (Steger et al., 2006).
2. Results
2.1. Descriptive analysis
Sample descriptive statistics appear in Table 1. For variables used for
perfectionist identification, one sample t-tests were conducted against
previous findings with college students (Rice & Richardson, 2014; Rice
et al., 2014). Results revealed that the current participants had signifi-
cantly lower perfectionistic strivings (d = 0.22), significantly higher
perfectionistic concerns (d = 0.47), significantly lower conscientious-
ness (d = 0.11), and significantly higher neuroticism (d = 0.28).
2.2. Latent Profile Analysis
Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was conducted with Mplus Version 7.11
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2013), using a robust maximum likelihood
estimator. Analyses were based on the four measured continuous vari-
ables of the Standards, Discrepancy, Conscientiousness and Neuroti-
cism. Residuals of the indicators were not allowed to covary, modeling
the local independence assumption (Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén,
2007). We used 5000 random sets of starting values, and with 100 iter-
ations, 500 optimizations were used in the final stage. The log-likeli-
hood values in the final stage were replicated across optimizations for
all models.
Model testing began by setting a single-class up to five latent profile
models. Model comparisons were examined by comparing a k-class
model against a k-1 class model. The fit for the LPA models were
based on Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) and ad-
justed Bayesian Information Criterion (aBIC; Sclove, 1987), where
smaller numbers indicate better fit. Entropy was used to gauge classifi-
cation accuracy, with higher scores (range from 0 to 1) indicating great-
er classification accuracy. The statistical model comparisons were based
on examining the Lo-Mendell-Rubin test (LMR; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin,
2001) and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT; McLachlan &
Peel, 2000). Statistically significant improvement of fit by adding one
more class was determined by examining the p-value when comparing
neighboring class models. Lastly, we considered the size of the smallest
class because a smaller size (e.g., proportionally b1.0% and/or numeri-
cally when n b 25) needs justification for inclusion (Jung & Wickrama,
2008).
Latent Profile Analysis results appear in Table 2. The BIC values de-
creased from the one- to three-class models, but started to increase
with the four-class model. The entropy values were higher in the
three and four class models, compared to the two and five class models.
The LMR and BLRT results revealed that the three-class model signifi-
cantly improved compared to the two-class model. The two-class and
four-class models showed significant BLRT but non-significant LMR re-
sults compared to k-1 class models, indicating that these models were
not significantly better than previous class models. In situations with
Table 1
Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics.
1 2 3 4
1. Standards 0.78
2. Discrepancy 0.08 0.94
3. Conscientiousness 0.39⁎⁎ –0.21⁎⁎ 0.74
4. Neuroticism 0.07 0.51⁎⁎ –0.07
5. Happiness 0.08 –0.37⁎⁎ 0.08
6. Life satisfaction 0.18⁎⁎ –0.37⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎
7. Presence of meaning 0.23⁎⁎ –0.39⁎⁎ 0.09
8. Search for meaning 0.21⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎ –0.06
Note. Cronbach's alphas are underlined and shown on the diagonal.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
27
inconsistent LMR and BLRT results, Muthén (2009) suggested favoring
BIC and interpretability of the cases. As a result, a two-class model
was considered a significant improvement compared to the one-class
model. The four-class solution was not supported due to a higher BIC
than the three-class BIC, and the small size (n = 6) of the class. Consid-
ering statistical findings and the interpretability of the results, the three-
class model was accepted.
Fig. 1 depicts the pattern of mean scores across the latent classes of
the three-class model. In the three-class model, average class probabil-
ities for the most likely class membership were 0.90 0.92 and 0.88 re-
spectively. One class represented 20.3% of the sample, with the other
two classes representing 38.4% and 41.3%. First, two classes had higher
Standards scores than the other class, with the difference approximat-
ing two standard deviations (perfectionists). Of these two classes, one
class exhibited low scores of Discrepancy and Neuroticism and high
scores of Conscientiousness (adaptive); the other class exhibited high
scores in Discrepancy and high scores in Neuroticism (maladaptive).
Lastly, one class exhibited lower scores on Standards also had the lowest
Conscientiousness scores (non-perfectionists).
Next, the Auxiliary option (DU3STEP) in Mplus was used to deter-
mine whether the means of well-being indicators differed across the
three latent classes (see Table 3). Adaptive perfectionists reported the
highest levels of presence of meaning, subjective happiness, and life sat-
isfaction, all of which significantly differed from the scores of maladap-
tive (d = 0.83, 0.84, and 0.71) and non-perfectionists (d = 1.08, 0.45,
and 0.80). Maladaptive perfectionists reported the highest levels of
search for meaning significantly differing from adaptive (d = 0.55)
and non-perfectionists (d = 0.89). Non-perfectionists showed the low-
est levels of presence of meaning and search for meaning that were not
significantly distinguishable from that of maladaptive perfectionists
(d = 0.16) and adaptive perfectionists (d = 0.23). Non-perfectionists'
life satisfaction and happiness score were not significantly different
from their maladaptive perfectionist peers (d = 0.07, 0.37), although
their happiness score was significantly lower than that of adaptive
perfectionists.
3. Discussion
The three-class solution reflecting adaptive, maladaptive, and non-
perfectionist characteristics in this study supports the tripartite model
of perfectionism, a robust model evidenced across studies (e.g., Rice &
Richardson, 2014). The high proportion of perfectionists should be con-
sidered in light of sample characteristics. For instance, Gilman, Rice, and
Carboni (2014) used the APS-R and found support for a three-class solu-
tion among adolescents, with lower percentages of adaptive (25%) and
maladaptive (17%) perfectionists compared to the present findings. Our
study involved college students who are embedded in an environment
that reinforces and appreciates high-achieving tendencies.
More importantly, the current study explored perfectionists' experi-
ences of well-being, with a specific focus on meaning in life along with
happiness and life satisfaction. Adaptive perfectionists reported higher
levels of presence of meaning and may be more likely to have increased
5 6 7 M SD
5.85 0.87
4.08 1.28
3.45 0.55
0.88 3.09 0.78
–0.57⁎⁎ 0.84 5.07 1.23
–0.39⁎ 0.56⁎⁎ 0.86 4.81 1.25
–0.35⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎ 0.89 4.62 1.23
0.20⁎⁎ –0.08 –0.10 –0.15⁎ 5.02 1.23
28 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30

Table 2
Fit indices for one- to five-class models.

Class Class Count Proportion BIC aBIC Entropy LMR p BLRT p

One-class 2751.95 2726.58

Two-class 1 122 0.46 2695.08 2653.86 0.614 82.05 0.2482 84.97 b0.0001
2 154 0.54
Three-class 1 56 0.20 2623.77 2566.70 0.769 96.00 0.0001 99.41 b0.0001
2 106 0.38
3 114 0.41
Four-class 1 55 0.20 2633.396 2560.47 0.792 17.84 0.4757 18.48 0.0400
2 6 0.02
3 107 0.39
4 108 0.39
Five-class 1 13 0.05 2645.35 2556.56 0.725 15.60 0.6570 16.15 0.1304
2 101 0.37
3 48 0.17
4 68 0.25
5 46 0.17

Note. Proportions do not always sum to 1.0 because of rounding. BIC = Bayesian information criterion; aBIC = sample-adjusted BIC; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin test; BLRT = bootstrap
likelihood ratio test.

presence of meaning due to being more flexible in their perception of
what activities and events create meaning in their lives. Additionally,
adaptive perfectionists might persevere in the search for meaning
when facing significant obstacles, increasing the likelihood to achieve
and experience meaning. Indeed, not only do adaptive perfectionists re-
port higher self-efficacy and aspiration level to engage in a challenging
task, their aspirational levels seem to be intact from experiences of fail-
ures (Stoeber, Hutchfield, & Wood, 2008).
Conversely, maladaptive perfectionists had higher scores in the
search for meaning. This could be a reflection of two distinct processes
that roughly mirror what Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, and Lorentz
(2008) outlined as characteristics of individuals searching for meaning.
They indicated that individuals who show high levels of search for
meaning either (a) consider search for meaning to be important in facil-
itating their personal growth, or (b) experience frustration for not
attaining personal growth that facilitates search for meaning. In the con-
text of maladaptive perfectionists, it is not clear whether search for
meaning is related to personal growth and if individuals are self-
aware of such motives. However, relentlessly searching for meaning
could be an extended effort of pushing themselves to meet high
personal standards. It is plausible that this tendency of “trying harder”
is extended to other areas of life, and due to constantly facing “failures”
(i.e., feeling as though there is not a presence of meaning in life), one
may feel less happy and satisfied. Indeed, Steger, Oishi, and Kesebir
(2011) noted people experiencing lower life satisfaction when con-
stantly searching for meaning and not experiencing the presence of
meaning in their lives.
Another explanation is that maladaptive perfectionists are trying to
actively cope with distress stemming from high levels of self-criticism
regarding their performance. In fact, Steger et al. (2011) noted that
the “search for meaning seems to relate to tendencies to engage with
negative thinking about one's self” (p. 174). This supports the conten-
tion that individuals who are searching for meaning are likely to be
prone to emotional distress. Additionally, Park and Baumeister (2016)
reported that individuals show higher levels of search for meaning if
expecting stressful events in the future, in an attempt to buffer potential
stress. Thus, search for meaning may be high among maladaptive per-
fectionists due to being chronically stressed and expecting more of the
same in the future, while simultaneously trying to buffer the potential
experiences of stress.

Fig. 1. Characteristics of classes.

 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30
Table 3
Latent profile means, standard deviations, and Wald chi-square tests of mean equality.
Auxiliary Variable Non-perfectionists (N) Adaptive
perfectionists (A)
M SD M SD
Presence of meaning 4.09 1.04 5.22 1.06
Search for meaning 4.54 1.12 4.83 1.35
Happiness 5.05 1.08 5.48 0.83
Life Satisfaction 4.51 0.97 5.31 1.04
Note. The significance level was Bonferroni corrected within each variable (0.05/3) and set to 0.016.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
Consistent with the literature, adaptive perfectionists reported feel-
ing happy and satisfied in life (e.g., Chan, 2012), although the mecha-
nisms underlying the adaptive perfectionism and well-being link are
largely speculative. One possibility is that the sense of gratification can
be especially powerful for adaptive perfectionists, because they are set-
ting and achieving extremely high standards that are difficult to meet.
This may also explain why non-perfectionists are less happy than adap-
tive perfectionists.
Non-perfectionists generally showed scores that fell between the
scores of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists. Although generally
not significant, small to medium effect sizes were found in well-being
scores between non-perfectionists and their adaptive and maladaptive
peers. This may reflect that not all individuals are motivated to seek
for the best and are content with such levels of expectations.
This study has several limitations. First, we used a college student
sample. Utilizing community or clinical samples where the contextual
reinforcement for high performance is not considered as strong can be
helpful for future studies. Second, the study design was correlational
which limits directionality of inferences. Future studies could benefit
from utilizing longitudinal designs. Third, less is known regarding the
mechanisms between perfectionism and well-being, although there is
a well-established literature exploring how the “dark side” of perfec-
tionism is connected to mental health outcomes utilizing complex me-
diation models. Fourth, although a four-class solution was dropped
due to a combination of increasing BIC, a non-significant LMR, and a
small size of one class, comparing a possible four-class solution in future
studies in reference to the 2 × 2 model is warranted to address whether:
(1) the four-class solution reflects the qualities of each group in the
2 × 2 model, and (2) hypothesized associations emerge in relation to
well-being.
To summarize, a three-class model of latent perfectionism profiles
emerged in this study. Adaptive perfectionists reported the highest
presence of meaning, happiness, and life satisfaction. Results for mal-
adaptive perfectionists were consistent with vigorously searching for
meaning; the motives for doing so remain a fruitful area of future
exploration.
References
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system architecture and operating
characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 133–137.
Chan, D. W. (2012). Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth mindset of healthy and
unhealthy perfectionists among Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. Roeper review.
34. (pp. 224–233).
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human mo-
tivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.
Dickinson, W. L., & Ashby, J. S. (2005). Multidimensional perfectionism and ego defenses.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 19(3), 41–54.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life
scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Kilian, B. (2008). A test of the factor structure
equivalence of the 50-item IPIP Five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic
groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507–516.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). Perfectionism and neuroticism: A longitudinal
study of specific vulnerability and diathesis-stress models. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 29(4), 463–478.
29
Maladaptive Global χ2 N vs. A N vs. M A vs. M
perfectionists (M)
M SD
4.27 1.23 58.24⁎⁎⁎ 44.62⁎⁎⁎ 0.97 39.56⁎⁎⁎
5.48 1.00 54.82⁎⁎⁎ 0.51 30.64⁎⁎⁎ 26.69⁎⁎⁎
4.64 1.15 42.16⁎⁎⁎ 7.15⁎⁎ 5.17 40.91⁎⁎⁎
4.43 1.40 49.19⁎⁎⁎ 26.49⁎⁎⁎ 0.53 36.80⁎⁎⁎
Ganske, K. H., Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2015). The relationship between
counseling trainee perfectionism and the working alliance with supervisor and client.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(1), 14–24.
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfection-
ism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 532–537.
Gilman, R., Rice, K. G., & Carboni, I. (2014). Perfectionism, perspective taking, and social
connection in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51(9), 947–959.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.
Graham, A. R., Sherry, S. B., Stewart, S. H., Sherry, D. L., McGrath, D. S., Fossum, K. M., &
Allen, S. L. (2010). The existential model of perfectionism and depressive symptoms:
A short-term, four-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4),
423–438.
Grzegorek, J. L., Slaney, R. B., Franze, S., & Rice, K. G. (2004). Self-criticism, dependency,
self-esteem, and grade point average satisfaction among clusters of perfectionists
and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 192–200.
Herman, K. C., Trotter, R., Reinke, W. M., & Ialongo, N. (2011). Developmental origins of
perfectionism among African American youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
58(3), 321–334.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., & Araujo, G. (2010). Perfectionistic concerns suppress associa-
tions between perfectionistic strivings and positive life outcomes. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48(5), 584–589.
Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and
growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning
in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31(3),
159–173.
Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a nor-
mal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.
Moate, R. M., Gnilka, P. B., West, E. M., & Bruns, K. L. (2016). Stress and burnout among
counselor educators: Differences between adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive per-
fectionists, and nonperfectionists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(2),
161–171.
Mobley, M., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2005). Cultural validity of the Almost Perfect
Scale—Revised for African American college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(4), 629–639.
Muthén, B. (2009, July 31). Diversing LMR and BLRT p-values [Msg 2]. Message posted to
http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/13/4529.html?1249068377
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén and Muthén.
Noble, C. L., Ashby, J. S., & Gnilka, P. B. (2014). Multidimensional perfectionism, coping,
and depression: Differential prediction of depression symptoms by perfectionism
type. Journal of College Counseling, 17(1), 80–94.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes
in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation
study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569.
Park, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Meaning in life and adjustment to daily stressors.
The Journal of Positive Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.
1209542.
Park, H. J., & Jeong, D. Y. (2015). Psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and self-esteem
among adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and nonperfectionists.
Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 165–170.
Park, H. J., & Jeong, D. Y. (2016). Moderation effects of perfectionism and meaning in life
on depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 25–29.
Park, N., Park, M., & Peterson, C. (2010). When is the search for meaning related to life sat-
isfaction? Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 1–13.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct
of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152.
Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 72–85.
Rice, K. G., & Richardson, C. M. (2014). Classification challenges in perfectionism. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 641–648.
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (2007). Perfectionism and the five-factor model of
personality. Assessment, 14(4), 385–398.
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Richardson, C. M. (2013). Perfectionism and performance among
STEM students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(2), 124–134.
30 H. Suh et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 25–30
Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M., & Tueller, S. (2014). The short form of the revised almost
perfect scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 368–379.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2),
461–464.
Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivar-
iate analysis. Psychometrika, 52(3), 333–343.
Sherry, D. L., Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Mushquash, A., & Flett, G. L. (2015). The existential
model of perfectionism and depressive symptoms: Tests of incremental validity, gen-
der differences, and moderated mediation. Personality and Individual Differences, 76,
104–110.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost per-
fect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from religiousness
to well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 574–582.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(1), 80–93.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search
for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking
and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199–228.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Meaning in life across the life span: Levels
and correlates of meaning in life from emerging adulthood to older adulthood. The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 43–52.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kesebir, S. (2011). Is a life without meaning satisfying? The mod-
erating role of the search for meaning in satisfaction with life judgments. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 173–180.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319.
Stoeber, J., Hutchfield, J., & Wood, K. V. (2008). Perfectionism, self-efficacy, and aspiration
level: Differential effects of perfectionistic striving and self-criticism after success and
failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(4), 323–327.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressive-
ness and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
678–691.