Perfectionism, Health, and Well-Being: Epilogue and Future Directions

Abstract

As the contributions in the present volume attest, we have gained a much deeper understanding of the role of perfectionism in health and well-being over the past 25 years. Advances in the theoretical conceptualizations of perfectionism, the way we measure perfectionism, and a growing appreciation of the substantial role of personality and individual difference factors in health and well-being and across different contexts have collectively converged to contribute to the development of a promising body of literature focused on understanding when, where, and why perfectionism may create risk or resilience for health and well-being. Indeed, each of the contributions in this edited volume address these important issues from novel and unique perspectives, often highlighting the commonalties of the complexities and controversies that abound. In this final chapter, we have selected four key themes emerging from these works that we believe deserve closer attention because they have the potential to pave the way for future research for the next generation of researchers in the field. Specifically, we will discuss (1) issues in the conceptualization and measurement of perfectionism, (2) the pervasiveness of perfectionism, (3) the adaptive versus maladaptive perfectionism debate, and (4) issues in measuring health and well-being in relation to perfectionism. These themes afford us new insights into links among perfectionism, health, and well-being that can guide scholars to new and exciting questions to further propel the field forward.

The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations

“…Although the effects that partialling has on the relations of PS have received considerable attention and are regarded as problematic by some researchers (Hill, 2014; see also Flett & Hewitt, 2014;Molnar & Sirois, 2016), researchers often ignore that partialling also affects the relations of PC. Residual PC-that is, PC with PS partialled out-usually show larger maladaptive relations than PC (Hill, 2014;R.…”

“…Molnar & Sirois, 2016). This variance, however, can be substantial (see Figure 1, One possibility would be that the overlap represents the common qualities that make PS and PC "perfectionistic" (e.g., strong personal beliefs about the importance of perfection; Campbell & Di Paula, 2002).…”

“…No Satisfactory Alternatives to Partialling Some researchers have suggested to employ person-centered approaches allowing researchers to examine different configurations of high versus low PS and PC without losing the variance shared by PS and PC (e.g., Boone, Soenens, Braet, & Goossens, 2010;Molnar & Sirois, 2016). Person-centered approaches, however, have the problem that they cannot differentiate between the shared, unique, and interactive contributions that PS and PC make in predicting an outcome.…”

“…(Readers who may contemplate employing median-split procedures to PS and PC scores in order to create groups with comparable levels of high vs. low PS and PC should note that such procedures are not advisable because they decrease reliability, introduce classification errors, and often yield misleading results; Cohen, 1983;MacCallum et al, 2002. ) Furthermore, researchers have suggested to employ factor-analytic approaches differentiating PS and PC while keeping a "general factor" of perfectionism that would contain the shared variance (e.g., Molnar & Sirois, 2016). One such approach was recently tested by M. M. Smith and Saklofske (in press) who presented a bifactor model of perfectionism differentiating PS, PC, and a general perfectionism factor.…”

A Meta–Analytic and Conceptual Update on the Associations between Procrastination and Multidimensional Perfectionism

“…Indeed, the lack of agreement between the raw and partialled findings have led some researchers to question the validity of the partialled results on both conceptual and empirical grounds. For example, Hill (, in press) along with Molnar and Sirois () have questioned whether partialling the effects of perfectionistic concerns from perfectionistic strivings alters the ‘conceptual meaning’ of perfectionistic strivings, such that partialled perfectionistic strivings are more akin to hyper‐conscientiousness rather than perfectionism per se. However, others have argued that this is not a valid concern because the overlapping variance between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns is not central to defining perfectionistic strivings (i.e.…”