Journal of Constructivist Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upcy20

What Predicts Meaning in Life? The Role of

Perfectionistic Personality and Self-Compassion

Hanna Suh & Stephanie Shiqin Chong

To cite this article: Hanna Suh & Stephanie Shiqin Chong (2021): What Predicts Meaning in Life?
The Role of Perfectionistic Personality and Self-Compassion, Journal of Constructivist Psychology,
DOI: 10.1080/10720537.2020.1865854

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1865854

Published online: 06 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 157

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upcy20
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1865854

What Predicts Meaning in Life? The Role of Perfectionistic

Personality and Self-Compassion
Hanna Suha and Stephanie Shiqin Chongb
a
Psychology and Child & Human Development Academic Group, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; bUniversity at Buffalo, Counseling Services, University of
New York, Buffalo, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Identifying antecedents to meaning in life has been a long-standing Received 4 May 2020
interest among researchers. Based on the Self-Determination Theory Accepted 15 December 2020
(SDT), this study examined the independent and additive functions
of two individual characteristics (perfectionism, self-compassion) in
predicting meaning in life. With 245 diverse community adults, we
first tested whether perfectionism dimensions and self-compassion
independently predicted meaning in life. Then, the moderating effect
of self-compassion in the association between perfectionism and
meaning in life was tested. Results found that two dimensions of
perfectionism predicted meaning in life, with perfectionistic strivings
positively predicting meaning in life whereas perfectionistic concerns
negatively predicting meaning in life. Self-compassion also facilitated
experiences of meaning in life, indicating that having a healthy atti-
tude toward oneself promotes meaning in life. However, there was
no evidence of self-compassion moderating the association between
perfectionism and meaning in life. Findings suggest that perfectionis-
tic strivings is adaptive and perfectionistic concerns is maladaptive in
experiencing meaning in life, consistent with the literature on perfec-
tionism’s relation to well-being. Self-compassion facilitated meaning
in life but infusing self-compassion into interventions to further pro-
mote meaning in life among perfectionists may not prove fruitful.
Limitations and future directions are discussed.

With a surge of positive psychology and well-being research in the past few decades
(Wood & Tarrier, 2010), researchers have been interested in empirically defining well-
being and testing antecedents that predict well-being (Schlegel & Hicks, 2017). One
well-being construct, “meaning in life,” has particularly attracted researchers from many
areas within psychology as an indicator of eudaimonic well-being, complimentarily add-
ing to the rich well-being literature (Heintzelman, 2018). Although conceptual ambigu-
ity has deterred empirical research on meaning in life (Heintzelman & King, 2014),
there now seems to be a converging support and evidence for a definition of meaning
in life integrating works by several researchers (e.g., Heintzelman & King, 2013; King
et al., 2006; Martela & Steger, 2016). Simply put, meaning in life is a subjective

CONTACT Hanna Suh hanna.suh@nie.edu.sg Psychology and Child & Human Development Academic Group,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

judgment of one’s life as meaningful. Individuals judge and feel meaning in life “when
they are felt to have a significance beyond the trivial or momentary, to have purpose, or
to have a coherence that transcends chaos” (King et al., 2006, p. 180). This indicates
that life is an iterative process whereby meaning in life is felt and sensed at given
moments. There are individual differences in meaning in life level across individuals
(some show higher levels of meaning in life) but there also are intraindividual variability
in meaning in life level throughout one’s lifespan (level of meaning in life fluctuates
within a person over time).
Three facets (coherence, purpose, significance) compose meaning in life (George &
Park, 2017; Martela & Steger, 2016) working simultaneously to experience life as mean-
ingful. Specifically, coherence refers to making sense of one’s life and experiences and is
felt when one can understand their life; purpose refers to sensing that one’ life is
directed toward important personal goals with enthusiasm and sense of movement; sig-
nificance refers to sensing that one’s life is significant and fundamentally of inherent
value. There are multiple proposed ways in which these three facets relate to one
another, but ultimately, they all reflect a “fundamental human capacity” to reflectively
interpret one’s life (Martela & Steger, 2016). With meaning in life identified as an
important well-being factor, exploring what antecedents predict meaning in life has
been of interest. Several predictors have been found to aid one’s judgment and feelings
that life is meaningful, ranging from attachment security and authenticity (Lopez et al.,
2015), curiosity (Kashdan & Steger, 2007), and positive mood to social relatedness
(Hicks & King, 2009). Other studies also examined individual difference factors such as
personality characteristics (Schnell & Becker, 2006; Steger et al., 2008) to predict mean-
ing in life.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) offers a broad theoretical framework that explains
how individual difference factors propel people toward experiencing meaning in life
(Bauer et al., 2019). The SDT posits that all humans have a tendency toward self-organ-
ization and psychological integration (Deci & Ryan, 2008) but vary in terms of motiv-
ational orientations and self-regulation to fulfill a sense of meaning. Six “mini-theories”
explain each aspect of human tendency, for example, focusing on human needs, intrin-
sic and extrinsic motivation, goals, self-regulation, and relationships (Ryan & Deci,
2017). The Causality Orientations Theory (COT) within the SDT in particular explains
individual differences in motivational styles (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Defined as “causality
orientations,” individuals have “motivational sets or characteristic ways of perceiving
and organizing motivationally relevant perception and information” (p. 217, Ryan &
Deci, 2017). In considering the effects of the environment (e.g., social context) and
inner motivations (e.g., personal needs, values), individuals vary in how much they are
oriented toward and directed by such affordances, which then delineates whether they
function upon autonomous motivational orientation or controlled motivational orienta-
tion. Having autonomous motivational orientation refers to being directed by self-choice
and determination, being inclined toward utilizing inner anchors of values and needs as
information sources to direct behaviors and considering context as a source of informa-
tion. On the contrary, having controlled motivational orientation refers to being dic-
tated by “external demands, rewards, threats and self-esteem contingencies” (p. 665,
Ryan & Deci, 2008), and interpreting the environment as a controlling factor in
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 3

determining behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Numerous studies found that having an
autonomous motivational orientation is positively linked to well-being and having a
controlled motivational orientation is negatively associated with well-being (Gillet et al.,
2014; Nix et al., 1999).
Perfectionists are those who are driven by a motivation to achieve an exceptional
goal and can further vary in terms of what motivational orientation undergirds their
perfectionistic tendency. One dimension of perfectionism is perfectionistic strivings
(PS) reflecting setting unrealistically high goals and striving for excellence. Individuals
with high PS are simply concerned with setting high standards and expectations for
one’s overall performance in life and thus could be said to function upon an autono-
mous motivational orientation. Another dimension of perfectionism is perfectionistic
concerns (PC) reflecting continuous critical monitoring of one’s perceived inadequacy
in achieving a self-set goal. Individuals with high PC are concerned with not making
mistakes against a very high set-goal that is often an internalization of external
expectations, and thus could be said to function upon a controlled motivational orien-
tation. Not surprisingly, PS showed positive associations with well-being and PC
showed negative associations with well-being (Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012; Hill
et al., 2010). In relation to meaning in life in particular, those with high perfectionis-
tic strivings and low perfectionistic concerns reported the highest scores in happiness,
life satisfaction, and presence of meaning whereas those who are characterized by the
high perfectionistic concerns and high perfectionistic strivings reported the lowest
scores in happiness and life satisfaction but the highest scores in search for meaning
(Suh et al., 2017).
Given that perfectionism was associated with meaning in life, and that a negative
association was found between PC and meaning in life, identifying a third variable that
may alter the strength of this association might be fruitful. When a third variable that
can attenuate the effects of PC on meaning in life is identified thereby functioning as a
“buffer,” this component can then be infused into future applied research (e.g., interven-
tion) where the goal is to increase meaning in life among individuals with high PC.
Similarly, when a third variable can further strengthen the association between PS and
meaning in life, reinforcing experiences of this component can be helpful in sustaining
meaning in life.
A relevant third variable that reflects a particular way of self-relating is self-compas-
sion. Essentially, self-compassion is an attitude toward oneself. It involves being kind in
the face of pain and failures and mindfully acknowledging one’s pain and struggles as
part of common human experience that is universal (Neff, 2003a). Thus, highly self-
compassionate individuals recognize and approach psychological distress (rather than
avoid it) knowing that doing so is inevitably painful. Relating to difficult emotions and
thoughts about oneself with denial and avoidance are replaced with attitudes of self-
understanding and kindness, which then eventually changes the “content” of those diffi-
cult emotions and thoughts about oneself over time. In this process, being self-compas-
sionate allows individuals to simultaneously acknowledge both difficult negative
emotions and compassion (Germer & Neff, 2019). Because such a way of self-relating
can be cultivated through practice, multiple interventions and training programs to fos-
ter it have been developed and tested (Germer & Neff, 2019).
4 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

In the context of SDT, self-compassion could be reflective of healthy regulation

resulting from the fulfillment of basic psychological needs within the bounds of context-
ual affordances. If basic psychological needs are thwarted, individuals are likely to have
introjected regulation with pressures to meet external standards and external expecta-
tions, ultimately leading to less well-integrated self-identity (Ryan & Deci, 2017). These
individuals are likely to develop contingent self-worth without self-compassion for the
efforts that they put in to meet standards. On the other hand, if individuals are not
driven to meet introjected expectations from others, and are guided by identified or
integrated regulation, their sense of self is more stable and accepting (Brown & Ryan,
2003). In this latter case, failures and mistakes are considered natural parts of the
motivational and subsequent goal-achieving processes. Further, individuals’ sense of self
is tied less to either the success or failure outcome and compassion could be directed to
themselves for the effort invested. Self-compassion has not been infused into the SDT
framework, but closely associated constructs such as self-esteem and mindfulness have
been formally introduced in the SDT. Empirically, a few studies reported that self-com-
passion was negatively associated with extrinsic motivation and positively associated
with intrinsic motivation (Guertin et al., 2020; Magnus et al., 2010).
There is a solid evidence for self-compassion predicting well-being. In a meta-ana-
lysis, Zessin et al. (2015) explored the strength of associations between self-compassion
and different aspects of well-being (cognitive, psychological, affective) and found that
self-compassion and psychological well-being was associated to the strongest degree.
They argued that psychological well-being is the broadest well-being construct that ena-
bles multiple general memories and experiences from which self-compassion could be
drawn. To explain the reason for self-compassion predicting psychological well-being,
Neff et al. (2007) argued that self-compassionate individuals embrace difficult emotions
and experiences because they acknowledge that doing so is important and valid. Thus,
albeit difficult, more opportunities are created wherein one could gain a sense of mean-
ing and experience personal growth.
Empirical research examining the relationship between self-compassion and perfec-
tionism is limited. Specifically, the negative association between PC and self-compassion
was supported (e.g., Ferrari et al., 2018; Mehr & Adams, 2016; Stoeber et al., 2020)
while there seem to be mixed findings in the directionality of association between PS
and self-compassion depending on what perfectionism and self-compassion measures
were used (Linnett & Kibowski, 2019; Stoeber et al., 2020). Extended to include a well-
being indicator, when one sets high standards for oneself accompanied by negative self-
talk and negative emotions (high PC), this is debilitating and can be experienced as a
struggle. In such a case, having compassion toward oneself may provide flexibility to
acknowledge both negative emotions and self-critical talks and to potentially extract
positive meanings in those negative experiences. This process ultimately is likely to pro-
vide a sense of security and courage to overcome obstacles, negative mood, or negative
self-talk. Indeed, Neff and Dahm (2015) noted precisely that self-compassion “enables
people to suffer less while also helping them thrive” (p. 123). On the other hand, if one
is already intrinsically motivated and internally regulated (high PS), offering kindness to
oneself might be enhancing well-being to a lesser degree compared to those with high
PC tendencies.
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 5

Present study
Adopting the SDT, this study explored the associations between perfectionism (PS, PC)
and meaning in life. It was hypothesized that PS will show positive association with
meaning in life and PC will show negative association with meaning in life. Second, a
moderating effect of self-compassion was examined in these associations, based on find-
ings that self-compassion attenuates people’s reactions to negative events and emotions
(Leary et al., 2007). It was hypothesized that there will be a stronger moderating effect
of self-compassion in the associations between PC and meaning in life compared to the
association between PS and meaning in life.

Method
Participants and procedure
The university institutional review board approved this study. All participants were
recruited from an online recruitment platform Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in exchange
for a $1.50 compensation for participating in a study that was advertised as a study on
“personality and psychological health.” MTurk provides reliable data comparable to
traditional data collection methods and has been extensively utilized in psychological
research (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). The online survey was
hosted on SurveyMonkey and informed consent was presented on the first page of
the survey.
Initially, 262 individuals started the survey, but after removal of 15 individuals who
did not complete the survey and removal of two individuals who were outliers in one
of the scales, the final sample included a total of 245 participants. Participant ages
ranged from 20 to 68 with a mean age of 35.71 (SD ¼ 10.49). Approximately 55.9%
identified as men (n ¼ 137) and 40.1% identified as women (n ¼ 99). In addition, 0.4%
(n ¼ 1) identified as a transgender, 0.8% (n ¼ 2) identified as “other,” and 0.4% (n ¼ 1)
chose the answer option of “decline to answer.” Two individuals did not report their
gender. In terms of race, about two thirds of individuals identified as White (n ¼ 165,
67.3%), followed by Black/African American (n ¼ 23, 9.4%), Asian or Asian American
(n ¼ 22, 9%), Latinx (n ¼ 18, 7.3%), mixed race (n ¼ 9, 3.7%), and Native American
(n ¼ 5, 2%). Three individuals did not report their race. About 12.7% (n ¼ 31) identified
as Hispanic, Latinx and/or of Spanish origin (Spanish origin is defined as a person of
Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or
origin, regardless of race).

Measures
Perfectionism
Two dimensions of perfectionism were assessed using the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised
(APS-R; Slaney et al., 2001). Perfectionistic Strivings (PS) is composed of 7 items that
assesses setting high standards for oneself. Sample item included “I set very high stand-
ards for myself.” Perfectionistic Concerns (PC) is composed of 12 items that assesses
self-critical evaluation and judgment of one’s performance. Sample item included
6 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

“Doing my best never seems to be enough.” Participants responded on a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and higher scores indicated
greater perfectionistic tendencies. The APS-R has shown good internal consistency on
PS (.85) and PC (.92) in the original scale development paper. Convergent and discrim-
inant validity has also been demonstrated (Mobley et al., 2005).

Self-compassion
Self-compassion was assessed using the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003a). The
SCS was developed originally as a 26-item measure with 13 items reflecting presence of
self-compassion and 13 items reflecting lack of self-compassion that are reverse-coded
to calculate the total score. However, growing evidence suggested that the original SCS
is not unidimensional, but rather is distinguished into two distinct constructs of self-
compassion and self-coldness (e.g., Brenner et al., 2017; Muris et al., 2016). In addition
to growing evidence that the SCS total score reflected two interrelated constructs, it
seemed particularly relevant that the negatively valanced items (tapping into self-judg-
ment, isolation, and over-identification) not be administered given that perfectionists
tend to misinterpret negatively valanced cues inherent in the phrasing of each questions.
Thus, we decided to use 13 items that purely reflected presence of self-compassion,
assessing self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness. A sample item was “I try
to be loving towards myself when I’m feeling emotional pain.” Participants responded
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), and higher
scores indicated higher self-compassion level. Good internal consistency was demon-
strated (.91) and discriminant and convergent validity were also demonstrated through
its associative patterns with depression, distress, and psychological flourishing (Brenner
et al., 2018).

Multidimensional existential meaning in life

The Multidimensional Existential Meaning in Life Scale (MEMS; George & Park, 2017)
is composed of 15 items and was used to assess meaning in life. It is composed of three
facets reflecting coherence, purpose, and significance. Participants responded on a 7-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree), and
higher scores indicated higher levels of meaning in life. Sample items included “I under-
stand my life” for coherence, “My directions in life is motivating to me” for purpose,
and “Even considering how big the universe is, I can say that my life matters” for sig-
nificance. Internal consistency ranged from .84 to .90 for dimensions and convergent
and discriminant validity were also demonstrated through its associative patterns
(George & Park, 2017).

Analytic strategy
Using Mplus 8.0 (Muth
en & Muth
en, 1998–2017), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
was conducted to test the moderating role of self-compassion in the association between
perfectionism and meaning in life. Test of the model began by exploring main effects of
perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and self-compassion. Then, latent
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 7

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD, correlation).

1. 2. 3. 4. Mean SD
1.Perfectionistic Strivings .90 5.46 1.04
2.Perfectionistic Concerns -.06 .96 3.69 1.53
3.Self-Compassion .32 .41 .94 3.15 0.89
4.Existential Meaning in Life .47 .45 .60 .95 4.62 1.26
Note. p < .001. Mean and standard deviations are from observed composite scores. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) appears in diagonal are is italicized. Correlations are latent factor correlations.

interaction terms of perfectionistic strivings and self-compassion along with perfection-

istic concerns and self-compassion were created and added following the latent moder-
ated structural equation method (LMS; Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000). The LMS method
has been supported as a more robust method than other estimation methods for testing
interaction effects using Monte Carlo simulations (Maslowsky et al., 2015).
We used individual items of perfectionistic strivings as observed indicators of the
latent factor of perfectionistic strivings because of the small number of items (7 items).
For meaning in life, we used each subscale of coherence, purpose, and significance to
represent the latent factor of meaning in life, given the support of three-factor structure
(George & Park, 2017). For the remaining two constructs (perfectionistic concerns: 12
items, self-compassion: 13 items), we created three parcels to represent each latent vari-
able. Parceling has several advantages, including small number of parameters, improved
model fit, and reduced bias in parameter estimates (Little et al., 2002, 2013). Parcels
were created by running an exploratory factor analysis on each construct estimating a
one-factor solution using the maximum likelihood estimation method. Items were then
ranked based on factor loading, and the highest and lowest ranking items were parceled
into pairs.
Univariate normality on continuous composite scores was assessed using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and all variables except self-compassion violated assumptions
of univariate normality (ps < .001). Thus, hypothesized models were tested with a
robust indicator to non-normality (adjusted X2) and goodness of fit were assessed using
following fit indices recommended previously (Hu & Bentler, 1999): comparative fit
index (CFI;  .95), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA;  .06), and the
standardized root-mean square residual (SRMR;  .08).

Results
Preliminary data cleaning and descriptive statistics
Outliers were assessed with z-scores on each composite score of scales (cut off score is
exceeding ±3.29; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Two cases were outliers in the perfection-
istic strivings scale and thus were removed, resulting in a final sample of 245 partici-
pants. Missing data were addressed using the full information maximum likelihood
(FIML) estimation method that is robust to deal with missing data. Observed variable
means and standard deviations appear in Table 1. T-test results found that the study
sample showed similar levels of self-compassion to a previous study (Brenner et al.,
2018) but significantly lower perfectionistic strivings and significantly higher perfection-
istic concerns scores (Rice et al., 2014) as well as significantly lower meaning in life
8 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

scores (George & Park, 2017). Lastly, a gender difference on self-compassion was
explored given prior findings from Brenner et al. (2018) that found women reporting
lower self-compassion than men. Our results found no support of gender differences on
self-compassion level: t(234) ¼ .846, p > .05, d ¼ .11.

Measurement model
The measurement model shows representativeness of each item or parcel on latent vari-
ables. This model provided an acceptable fit to the data: X2 (98, N ¼ 245) ¼ 160.30, p
< .001; CFI ¼ .97; SRMR ¼ .048; RMSEA ¼ .051 (95% CI ¼ .036, .065). Factor load-
ings of items and parcels ranged from .48 to .96 and were all statistically significant (p
< .001). Covariance coverage ranged from .988 to 1.000. Latent factor correlation results
(see Table 1) indicated that all factors are significantly correlated except perfectionistic
strivings and perfectionistic concerns (p ¼ .36). Specifically, perfectionistic strivings was
positively correlated with self-compassion (r ¼ .32, p < .001) and meaning in life (r ¼
.47, p < .001) but perfectionistic concerns was negatively correlated with self-compas-
sion (r ¼ .41, p < .001) and meaning in life (r ¼ .45, p < .001). Lastly, self-compas-
sion was positively correlated with meaning in life (r ¼ .60, p < .001).

Structural model
The structural model shows identical fit to the measurement model with full saturation.
Unstandardized regression coefficient results showed perfectionistic strivings signifi-
cantly positively predicting meaning in life (b ¼ 2.11, p < .001), t(245) ¼ 4.96, p < .001,
and perfectionistic concerns significantly negatively predicting meaning in life (b ¼
.26, p < .001), t(245) ¼ 4.26, p < .001. Self-compassion also significantly positively
predicted meaning in life (b ¼ .51, p < .001), t(245) ¼ 5.14, p < .001. However, self-
compassion did not moderate the relationship between perfectionistic strivings and
meaning in life (b ¼ .08, t(245) ¼ .92, p ¼ .36) and did not moderate the relationship
between perfectionistic concerns and meaning in life (b ¼ .02, t(245) ¼ 1.94, p ¼ .05).
Simple slope test results indicated that perfectionistic strivings predicting meaning in
life was statistically significant (greater than 0) at high (1SD above the mean) levels of
self-compassion (b ¼ 2.19, t(245) ¼ 5.13, p < .02) and significant at low (1SD below the
mean) levels of self-compassion (b ¼ 2.04, t(245) ¼ 4.64, p < .01). In contrast, perfec-
tionistic concerns predicting meaning in life was not statistically significant at high
(1SD above the mean) levels of self-compassion (b ¼ .13, t(245) ¼ 1.50, p ¼ .14)
but significant at low (1SD below the mean) levels of self-compassion (b ¼ .40, t(245)
¼ 4.06, p < .001). Interaction plots appear in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Discussion
This study explored whether perfectionism and self-compassion independently predicted
meaning in life and further examined the moderating effect of self-compassion in the
association between perfectionism and meaning in life. Results indicated that PS was
positively related to meaning in life whereas PC was negatively related to meaning in
life. Thus, PS and PC each appeared to be adaptive and maladaptive respectively in their
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 9

0.8

0.6

0.4
Meaning in Life
0.2
Low SC
0
High SC
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
Low PS High PS

Figure 1. Perfectionistic strivings (PS) predicting meaning in life with no moderation effect of self-
compassion (SC).

0.8

0.6

0.4
Meaning in Life

0.2
Low SC
0
High SC
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
Low PC High PC

Figure 2. Perfectionistic concerns (PC) predicting meaning in life with no moderation effect of self-
compassion (SC).

functions in an individual experiencing meaning in life. Similarly, self-compassion was

positively related to meaning in life, adding to the literature that supports self-compas-
sion as a protective factor toward experiencing meaning in life. However, the moderat-
ing role of self-compassion was not supported.
To understand distinctive associative patterns of perfectionism factors with meaning
in life, it might be useful to refer to the processes that are involved in experiencing the
latter construct. The SDT posits that pursuing intrinsic goals and values (vs. extrinsic
goals and values), acting according to autonomous motivational orientation (vs. con-
trolled orientation), being mindful and aware, and fulfilling basic psychological needs
(Ryan et al., 2008) are motivational processes that ultimately contribute to experiencing
meaning in life. Noting that perfectionistic strivings showed positive relations with
autonomous motivational orientation (e.g., Harvey et al., 2015) and perfectionistic
10 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

concerns showed positive relations with controlled motivational orientation (e.g.,

Miquelon et al., 2005), it appears that perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic con-
cerns each facilitated a different motivational process that is linked to meaning in life.
Furthermore, those with high PS seem to have self-regulated by adhering to personal
values and needs (identified and integrated self-regulation according to the SDT),
whereas those with high in PC seem to have self-regulated in a way that is preoccu-
pied with external contingencies and judgments (introjected regulation according to
the SDT). If those with PS have facilitated a process in which one is autonomously
motivated and acting in accordance with personal values, having a compassionate atti-
tude toward oneself is not necessary because there is no perception of personal inad-
equacy and because one experiences life as coherent, significant, and purposeful. On
the other hand, if PC facilitated a process in which controlled motivational orientation
is undergirded, being motivated to set high expectations would not be because they
want to reach high, but because they want to avoid failure. Accordingly, when con-
trolled motivational orientation is at play, actions may not be integrated, but rather
could be based on internalized demands requiring constant and alert sensitivity to
failure cues, personal inadequacies, and negative feedback. This process may hinder
meeting basic needs of autonomy and competence, leaving individuals with high per-
fectionistic concerns to experience life as incoherent, not significant, and driven with-
out purpose. Several researchers proposed considering such perfectionism dimensions
as manifestations of motivational orientations (e.g., Stoeber, 2018), which would better
explain their relative stability and sensitivity to change as a consequence of appropri-
ate interventions.
Self-compassion was positively associated with meaning in life, consistent with previ-
ous studies that established links between self-compassion and other indicators of well-
being (Neff & Germer, 2017). Self-compassion is considered to activate the “soothing
system” in regulating affective experiences by providing safeness and reassurance
(Gilbert, 1989, 2000). Activated by the “soothing system,” these latter processes enable
individuals to feel more secure and at ease, and also see the “bright side” of a given
situation involving the self. This subjective sense of being able to embrace challenges in
a proactive way despite difficulty may then have allowed individuals to feel a sense of
purpose and coherence, which may be manifested in meaning in life. Activation of the
“soothing system” may mirror the healthy behavioral regulation process that the SDT
refers to. Being self-compassionate allows one to have interoceptive awareness while
being connected with others offering kindness, facilitating making needs, values, and
goals-aligned decisions. Some findings also highlight that individuals who are self-com-
passionate are more autonomously motivated (Neff, 2003b) and that those who are not
self-compassionate showed greater tendency of introjected motivation (Magnus et al.,
2010). However, little theoretical and empirical research has examined self-compassion
in relation to self-regulation within the framework of SDT, limiting implications of this
study in the context of the SDT framework. Given that SDT is meant to be a meta-
organismic theory that entails broad areas of human optimal functioning, future studies
could explore the role of self-compassion in the fulfillment of basic psychological needs,
motivational orientations, and goal attainment, to test to what extent it reflects healthy
self-regulation within the SDT.
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 11

The finding that increasing self-compassion is beneficial in promoting meaning in life

suggests that interventions that utilize self-compassion can expect to witness increase in
meaning in life. Although we could not locate any study that tested the effectiveness of
self-compassion intervention promoting meaning in life, this could be a valuable next
step. However, self-compassion did not moderate the association between perfectionism
dimensions and meaning in life. This indicates that increasing self-compassion with per-
fectionists has no additional influence on increasing meaning in life and thus applying
self-compassion intervention with perfectionists may not prove fruitful.

Limitations and future directions

Despite several strengths of this study, there were also limitations. First, this study was
a cross-sectional study that prevented making interpretations of causality. While there is
abundant literature to support the proposed model of perfectionism predicting meaning
in life, future studies could employ a longitudinal design to better establish causality.
Second, this study did not assess other relevant factors (e.g., positive affect) in testing
the hypothesized models. While no model can be exhaustive and test all involved varia-
bles to explain a phenomenon, positive affect seems particularly relevant to explore in
conjunction given its association with perfectionism (Flett et al., 2009), self-compassion
(Sirois et al., 2015) and meaning in life (King et al., 2006). Future studies could test the
role of positive affect, perhaps through correlational studies and also experimental stud-
ies. For example, exploring whether state positive affect relates to proximal and distal
experiences of meaning in life could be interesting. Lastly, the tested model in this study
assumed linear relationships among variables and potential confounding factors such as
social desirability were not controlled for. With larger sample sizes, future studies could
test non-linear models, particularly considering some findings that indicate a non-linear
relationship between PS and anxiety/affect psychopathology (Maricuīoiu et al., 2020).
Also, given that perfectionism increases as a result of impression management (Stoeber
& Hotham, 2013) future studies could also consider incorporating and controlling for
social desirability.
Despite these limitations, this study extends previous literature in two important
ways. First, we explored perfectionism’s associations with existential meaning in life, an
indicator of well-being. Moving beyond the dual model of presence or searching for
meaning, existential meaning in life reflects how much one feels that their life makes
sense, matters, and is important. Second, we tested the moderating effect of self-com-
passion, distinguishing perfectionism as an internal personality component from self-
compassion reflecting an attitude toward one’s being. Although a moderating effect was
not supported, this study distinguished possessing a certain personality style (being per-
fectionistic) from how one approaches possessing a certain personality style (attitude
toward oneself), which may have important implications for future research. In sum,
findings from this study lay the groundwork to further exploring complex factors
involved in predicting well-being.

ORCID
Hanna Suh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8646-4476
12 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

References
Bauer, J. J., King, L. A., & Steger, M. F. (2019). Meaning making, self-determination theory, and
the question of wisdom in personality. Journal of Personality, 87(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jopy.12381
Brenner, R. E., Heath, P. J., Vogel, D. L., & Cred
e, M. (2017). Two is more valid than one:
Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 64(6), 696–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000211
Brenner, R. E., Vogel, D. L., Lannin, D. G., Engel, K. E., Seidman, A. J., & Heath, P. J. (2018).
Do self-compassion and self-coldness distinctly relate to distress and well-being? A theoretical
model of self-relating. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.
1037/cou0000257
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motiv-
ation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, performance, and state posi-
tive affect and negative affect after a classroom test. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,
24(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509332457
Ferrari, M., Yap, K., Scott, N., Einstein, D. A., & Ciarrochi, J. (2018). Self-compassion moderates
the perfectionism and depression link in both adolescence and adulthood. PloS One, 13(2),
e0192022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192022
Gaudreau, P., & Verner-Filion, J. (2012). Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of
the 2  2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 1(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025747
Gilbert, P. (1989). Human nature and suffering. Psychology Press.
Gilbert, P. (2000). Social mentalities: Internal “social” conflicts and the role of inner warmth and
compassion in cognitive therapy. In P. Gilbert & K. G. Bailey (Eds.), Genes on the couch:
Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy (pp. 118–150). Brunner-Routledge.
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The multidimensional existential meaning scale: A tripartite
approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 613–627.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1209546
Germer, C., & Neff, K. D. (2019). Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC). In I. Itvzan (Ed.), The hand-
book of mindfulness-based programs: Every established intervention, from medicine to education
(pp. 357–367). Routledge.
Gillet, N., Lafreniere, M. A. K., Vallerand, R. J., Huart, I., & Fouquereau, E. (2014). The effects of
autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals on well-being: A process
model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12018
Guertin, C., Barbeau, K., & Pelletier, L. (2020). Examining fat talk and self-compassion as distinct
motivational processes in women’s eating regulation: A self-determination theory perspective.
Journal of Health Psychology, 25(12), 1965–1977. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318781943
Harvey, B., Milyavskaya, M., Hope, N., Powers, T. A., Saffran, M., & Koestner, R. (2015). Affect
variation across days of the week: Influences of perfectionism and academic motivation.
Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 521–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9480-3
Heintzelman, S. J. (2018). Eudaimonia in the contemporary science of subjective well-being:
Psychological well-being, self-determination, and meaning in life. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L.
Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1–14). DEF Publishers.
Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2013). On knowing more than we can tell: Intuitive processes
and the experience of meaning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 471–482. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830758
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 13

Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69(6),
561–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035049
Hicks, J. A., & King, L. A. (2009). Positive mood and social relatedness as information about
meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17439760903271108
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., & Araujo, G. (2010). Perfectionistic concerns suppress associations
between perfectionistic strivings and positive life outcomes. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(5), 584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.011
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
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. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9068-7
King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect and the experience
of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 179–196. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.179
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects
with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296338
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Batts Allen, A., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-compassion
and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
92.5.887
Linnett, R. J., & Kibowski, F. (2019). A multidimensional approach to perfectionism and self-
compassion. Self and Identity, 19, 1–27.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to par-
cel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus par-
cels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0033266
Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K., Nisenbaum, M., Thind, N., & Ortiz-Rodriguez, T. (2015). Predicting the
presence and search for life meaning: Test of an attachment theory-driven model. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 16(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9498-8
Magnus, C. M., Kowalski, K. C., & Mchugh, T. L. F. (2010). The role of self-compassion in wom-
en’s self-determined motives to exercise and exercise-related outcomes. Self and Identity, 9(4),
363–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860903135073
Maricuīoiu, L. P., Magurean, S., & Tulbure, B. T. (2020). Perfectionism in a transdiagnostic con-
text. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(4), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1015-5759/a000541
Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coher-
ence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531–545. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interac-
tions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414552301
Mehr, K. E., & Adams, A. C. (2016). Self-compassion as a mediator of maladaptive perfectionism
and depressive symptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 30(2),
132–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2016.1140991
Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R. J., Grouzet, F. M., & Cardinal, G. (2005). Perfectionism, academic
motivation, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 913–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204272298
14 H. SUH AND S. S. CHONG

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.629
Muris, P., Otgaar, H., & Petrocchi, N. (2016). Protection as the mirror image of psychopathology:
Further critical notes on the self-compassion scale. Mindfulness, 7(3), 787–790. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12671-016-0509-9
Muth
en, L. K., & Muth
en, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muth
en and Muth
en.
Neff, K. D. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self
and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027
Neff, K. D. (2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude
toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032
Neff, K. D., & Dahm, K. A. (2015). Self-compassion: What it is, what it does, and how it relates
to mindfulness. In Handbook of mindfulness and self-regulation (pp. 121–137). Springer.
Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. (2017). Self-compassion and psychological wellbeing. In J. Doty (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of compassion science (pp. 371–386). Oxford University Press.
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological
functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.
2006.03.004
Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation:
The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1382
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as partici-
pant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963721414531598
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.
838172
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological
needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (p. 654–678). The Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motiv-
ation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective
on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-
006-9023-4
Schlegel, R. J., & Hicks, J. A. (2017). Reflections on the scientific study of meaning in life.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 30(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2015.
1119080
Schnell, T., & Becker, P. (2006). Personality and meaning in life. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.030
Sirois, F. M., Kitner, R., & Hirsch, J. K. (2015). Self-compassion, affect, and health-promoting
behaviors. Health Psychology, 34(6), 661–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000158
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost
Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069030
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 experienc-
ing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.
00484.x
Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The
psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 3–16). Routledge.
Stoeber, J., Damian, L., & Madigan, D. J. (2018). Perfectionism: A motivational perspective. In J.
Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, application. (pp. 19–43).
Routledge.
 JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVIST PSYCHOLOGY 15

Stoeber, J., & Hotham, S. (2013). Perfectionism and social desirability: Students report increased
perfectionism to create a positive impression. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5),
626–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.023
Stoeber, J., Lalova, A. V., & Lumley, E. J. (2020). Perfectionism, (self-) compassion, and subjective
well-being: A mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109708. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109708
Suh, H., Gnilka, P. B., & Rice, K. G. (2017). Perfectionism and well-being: A positive psychology
framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2017.01.041
Tabachnick, B. D., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Wood, A. M., & Tarrier, N. (2010). Positive clinical psychology: A new vision and strategy for
integrated research and practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 819–829. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cpr.2010.06.003
Zessin, U., Dickh€auser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self-compassion and
well-being: A meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 7(3), 340–364.