About

Joachim is a Professor of Psychology in the School of Psychology.

Research interests

With a background in personality and individual differences, Joachim has started a new line of research focusing on human-animal relations, the psychology of meat eating and the consumption of other animal products, and individual differences in the effectiveness of vegan and animal advocacy. 

Joachim would welcome contact from MSc students and potential PhD students interested in these or related topics.

Key publications

  • Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.
  • Borkovec, T. D., Ray, W. J., & Stoeber, J. (1998). Worry: A cognitive phenomenon intimately linked to affective, physiological, and interpersonal behavioral processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 561-576.
  • Stoeber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222-232.
  • Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 37-53.
  • Stoeber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 49-60. 

Supervision

Current research students

Past research students

  • Julian Childs: Perfectionism, social relations and well-being in the workplace
  • Laura Harvey: Multidimensional sexual perfectionism and sexual dysfunction
  • Daniel Madigan: Perfectionism and burnout in athletes
  • Dominic Wong: Stress and coping at the workplace: The role of self-efficacy and social support

Professional

Grants and Awards

2018-2021J Stoeber, David Williams & Michael Forrester
Leverhulme Trust
Development of childhood perfectionism: Early indicators and parental factors
£298,259
2011-12D Peluso & J Stoeber 
Knowledge Transfer Partnership and Pfizer UK
Pfizer today and tomorrow: A social science approach to understanding workplace culture
£124,880
2008-10J Stoeber & H Yang
British Academy
Maladaptive perfectionism and mental health in British and Chinese students
£7,402
2007-08J Stoeber
ESRC
Perfectionism and performance in competitive athletes
£59,000
2006J Stoeber
U of Kent Promising Researchers Initiative
Cross-cultural differences in perfectionism and reactions to success and failure
£9,186
2005-06J Stoeber
British Academy
Strategies of coping with perfectionism and well-being
£7,362
2001-02J Stoeber, U Reips & A Hahn
Pixelpark AG 
Social desirability in online studies
£3,500

Publications

Showing 50 of 147 total publications in the Kent Academic Repository. View all publications.

Article

  • Stoeber, J., Madigan, D., & Gonidis, L. (2020). Perfectionism is adaptive and maladaptive, but what’s the combined effect?. Personality and Individual Differences, 161. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109846
    According to the two-factor model of perfectionism, perfectionism is comprised of two higher-order dimensions—perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC)—that typically show different, often opposing relationships with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. Consequently, if we define perfectionism as the combination of PS and PC, it would be important to know what the “combined effect” of perfectionism is, and whether the combined effect is adaptive or maladaptive. Following the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010), we define the combined effect of perfectionism as the difference between mixed perfectionism (the combination of high PS and high PC) and non-perfectionism (the combination of low PS and low PC). Applying the regression approach for testing the 2 × 2 model (Gaudreau, 2012), we show how the combined effect may be computed, and then illustrate combined effects for different patterns of correlations of PS, PC, and an outcome Y. In addition, we present examples from the research literature where PS and PC show zero, adaptive, and maladaptive combined effects. We conclude the article by discussing how our concept of a combined effect can be extended to perfectionism models with more than two factors, and also address limitations and open questions.
  • Stoeber, J., Smith, M., Saklofske, D., & Sherry, S. (2020). Perfectionism and interpersonal problems revisited. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110106
    In 1997, Hill and colleagues published a seminal study investigating the interpersonal quality of self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism using the interpersonal circumplex as a framework. Findings indicated the three forms of perfectionism showed different relationships with both interpersonal traits and interpersonal problems, but also suggested that these relationships were gender-specific. Revisiting Hill et al.’s findings, the present study reexamined how the three forms of perfectionism related to interpersonal traits and problems, and tested whether the relationships also showed reliable gender differences, in a sample of 391 Prolific workers (195 men, 196 women; mean age = 37.1 years). Circumplex analyses confirmed the three forms of perfectionism showed different relationships with interpersonal traits and problems. However, the relationships with interpersonal traits were stronger and more differentiated than those with interpersonal problems, and only socially prescribed perfectionism showed elevated levels of interpersonal distress. Whereas only few reliable gender differences were observed, self-oriented perfectionism had a distinctive interpersonal quality (assured–dominant) in men, but not in women. Results are discussed in relation to theory and research on perfectionism and personality, the expanded perfectionism social disconnection model, and conceptions of other-oriented perfectionism as a “dark” form of perfectionism.
  • Stoeber, J., Lalova, A., & Lumley, E. (2020). Perfectionism, (self-)compassion, and subjective well-being: A mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109708. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109708
    Perfectionism has shown negative relationships with self-compassion and subjective well-being (SWB), but perfectionism is multidimensional and not all dimensions may show these negative relationships. Moreover, it is unclear whether low self-compassion mediates the negative relationships of multidimensional perfectionism with SWB, and whether low compassion for others plays an additional role. This study (N = 309) examined these relationships in a mediation model. Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed negative relationships with self-compassion, and other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed negative relationships with compassion for others whereas self-oriented perfectionism showed a positive relationship. Furthermore, both self-compassion and compassion for others positively predicted SWB, and both fully mediated the perfectionism–SWB relationships. The findings suggest that (self-)compassion may explain why some dimensions of perfectionism show negative relationships with SWB.
  • Smith, M., Sherry, S., Vidovic, V., Saklofske, D., Stoeber, J., & Benoit, A. (2019). Perfectionism and the five-factor model of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 367-390. doi:10.1177/1088868318814973
    Over 25 years of research suggests an important link between perfectionism and personality traits included in the five-factor model (FFM). However, inconsistent findings, underpowered studies, and a plethora of perfectionism scales have obscured understanding of how perfectionism fits within the FFM. We addressed these limitations by conducting the first meta-analytic review of the relationships between perfectionism and FFM traits (k = 77, N = 24,789). Meta-analysis with random effects revealed perfectionistic concerns (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, discrepancy) were characterized by neuroticism (rc+ = .50), low agreeableness (rc+ = –.26), and low extraversion (rc+ = –.24); perfectionistic strivings (self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards, high standards) were characterized by conscientiousness (rc+ = .44). Several perfectionism-FFM relationships were moderated by gender, age, and the perfectionism subscale used. Findings complement theory suggesting perfectionism has neurotic and non-neurotic dimensions. Results also underscore that the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionistic strivings hinges on instrumentation.
  • Madigan, D., Curran, T., Stoeber, J., Hill, A., Smith, M., & Passfield, L. (2019). Development of perfectionism in junior athletes: A three-sample study of coach and parental pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 41, 167-175. doi:10.1123/jsep.2018-0287
    Perfectionism predicts cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in sport. Nonetheless, our understanding of the factors that influence its development is limited. We sought to address this issue by examining the role of coach and parental pressure in the development of perfectionism in sport. Using three samples of junior athletes (16-19 years; cross-sectional: N = 212; 3-month longitudinal: N = 101; 6-month longitudinal: N = 110), we examined relations between coach pressure to be perfect, parental pressure to be perfect, perfectionistic strivings, and perfectionistic concerns. Mini meta-analysis of the combined cross-sectional data (N = 423) showed that both coach pressure and parental pressure were positively correlated with perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. In contrast, longitudinal analyses showed that only coach pressure predicted increased perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns over time. Overall, our findings provide preliminary evidence that coaches may play a more important role in the development of junior athletes’ perfectionism than parents.
  • Esposito, R., Stoeber, J., Damian, L., Alessandri, G., & Lombardo, C. (2019). Eating disorder symptoms and the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism: Mixed perfectionism is the most maladaptive combination. Eating and Weight Disorders, 24, 749-755. doi:10.1007/s40519-017-0438-1
    Purpose: The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010) represents an important addition to the perfectionism literature, but so far has not been studied in relation to disordered eating. Method: Using the 2 × 2 model as analytic framework, this study examined responses from a convenience sample of 716 participants aged 19-68 years (71% female) investigating how self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) predicted individual differences in eating disorder symptoms, additionally controlling for body mass index, gender, and age. Results: Results showed a significant SOP × SPP interaction indicating that the combination of high SOP and high SPP--called “mixed perfectionism”--was associated with the highest levels of eating disorder symptoms. Conclusions: The findings demonstrate the utility of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism as an analytic framework for examining perfectionism and disordered eating. Moreover, they suggest that mixed perfectionism is the most maladaptive form of perfectionism, when it comes to disordered eating, such that having high levels of SPP combined with high levels of SOP represents the most maladaptive combination of perfectionism in terms of risk of eating disorder.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., Culley, T., Passfield, L., & Hill, A. (2018). Perfectionism and training performance: The mediating role of other-approach goals. European Journal of Sport Science, 18, 1271-1279. doi:10.1080/17461391.2018.1508503
    Recent research found perfectionistic strivings to predict performance in a novel basketball task among novice basketball players. The current study builds on this research by examining whether this is also the case for performance in a familiar basketball training task among experienced basketball players, and whether achievement goals mediated any observed relationships. Perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and 3 × 2 achievement goals were assessed prior to basketball training performance in 90 basketball players (mean age 20.9 years). Regression analyses showed that perfectionistic strivings predicted better performance. Furthermore, mediation analyses showed that other-approach goals (e.g., beliefs that one should and can outperform others) accounted for this relationship. The findings suggest that perfectionistic strivings may predict better performance in both novel and familiar athletic contexts. In addition, beliefs about the importance and ability to outperform others may explain this relationship.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., Forsdyke, D., Dayson, M., & Passfield, L. (2018). Perfectionism predicts injury in junior athletes: Preliminary evidence from a prospective study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36, 545-550. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1322709
    According to the stress-injury model (Williams & Andersen, 1998), personality factors predisposing athletes to elevated levels of stress may increase the risk of injury. As perfectionism has been associated with chronic stress, it may be one such personality factor. So far, however, no study has investigated the relationships between perfectionism and injury utilising a prospective design. Therefore, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and injury in 80 junior athletes from team and individual sports (mean age 17.1 years, range 16-19 years) over 10 months of active training. The results of logistic regression analyses showed that perfectionism positively predicted injury, but only perfectionistic concerns emerged as a significant positive predictor. The likelihood of sustaining an injury was increased by over 2 times for each 1 SD increase in perfectionistic concerns. The findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns may be a possible factor predisposing athletes to an increased risk of injury.
  • Stoeber, J., Noland, A., Mawenu, T., Henderson, T., & Kent, D. (2017). Perfectionism, social disconnection, and interpersonal hostility: Not all perfectionists don’t play nicely with others. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 112-117. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.008
    The perfectionism social disconnection model (PSDM; Hewitt, Flett, Sherry, & Caelian, 2006) makes an important contribution to perfectionism research explaining why perfectionism is associated with social disconnection and interpersonal hostility. Moreover, recent expansions of the PSDM suggest that the model applies to all forms of perfectionism. The present research challenges this suggestion. Three university student samples (Ns = 318, 417, and 398) completed measures of self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism together with measures of trust, empathy, and hostility including aggression, anger, and spitefulness. In line with previous studies examining unique relationships of the three forms of perfectionism, only other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism showed a consistent pattern of unique relationships indicative of social disconnection and hostility. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism showed unique relationships indicative of social connection (and low hostility regarding physical aggression and spitefulness). The present findings indicate that the PSDM may not apply to all forms of perfectionism. Not all perfectionists feel socially disconnected and hostile towards others. Self-oriented perfectionists may feel socially connected and show no higher hostility than non-perfectionists, particularly when they are low in other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism.
  • Stoeber, J., & Diedenhofen, B. (2017). Multidimensional perfectionism and counterfactual thinking: Some think upward, others downward. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 118-121. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.009
    Perfectionism is a personality disposition that can be expected to explain individual differences in counterfactual thinking. Yet, research on perfectionism and counterfactual thinking is very limited, and findings are mixed. The present study (N = 175 university students) investigated the relationships between perfectionism and counterfactual thinking after imagining a negative outcome (i.e., receiving a bad grade). Self-oriented perfectionism showed positive relationships with upward counterfactuals (imagining better outcomes) and negative relationships with downward counterfactuals (imagining worse outcomes). In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed positive relationships with downward counterfactuals. The findings suggest that counterfactual thinking in self-oriented perfectionism aims at self-improvement and motivates for future better outcomes—at the cost of increased negative affect—whereas counterfactual thinking in socially prescribed perfectionism aims at mood repair.
  • Stoeber, J., Madigan, D., Damian, L., Esposito, R., & Lombardo, C. (2017). Perfectionism and eating disorder symptoms in female university students: The central role of perfectionistic self-presentation. Eating and Weight Disorders, 22, 641-648. doi:10.1007/s40519-016-0297-1
    Purpose: Numerous studies have found perfectionism to show positive relations with eating disorder symptoms, but so far no study has examined whether perfectionistic self-presentation can explain these relations or whether the relations are the same for different eating disorder symptom groups. Methods: A sample of 393 female university students completed self-report measures of perfectionism (self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism), perfectionistic self-presentation (perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfection, nondisclosure of imperfection), and three eating disorder symptom groups (dieting, bulimia, oral control). In addition, students reported their weight and height so their body mass index (BMI) could be computed. Results: Results of multiple regression analyses controlling for BMI indicated that socially prescribed perfectionism positively predicted all three symptom groups, whereas self-oriented perfectionism positively predicted dieting only. Moreover, perfectionistic self-presentation explained the positive relations that perfectionism showed with dieting and oral control, but not with bulimia. Further analyses indicated that all three aspects of perfectionistic self-presentation positively predicted dieting, whereas only nondisclosure of imperfection positively predicted bulimia and oral control. Overall, perfectionistic self-presentation explained 10.4-23.5% of variance in eating disorder symptoms, whereas perfectionism explained 7.9-12.1%. Conclusions:
    The findings suggest that perfectionistic self-presentation explains why perfectionistic women show higher levels of eating disorder symptoms, particularly dieting. Thus perfectionistic self-presentation appears to play a central role in the relations of perfectionism and disordered eating and may warrant closer attention in theory, research, and treatment of eating and weight disorders.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2017). Athletes’ perfectionism and reasons for training: Perfectionistic concerns predict training for weight control. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 133-136. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.034
    Exercise and training for sports are associated with a number of psychological and health benefits. Research on exercise, however, suggests that such benefits depend on the reasons why individuals participate in sport. The present study investigated whether individual differences in perfectionism predicted different reasons for training and examined four dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, coach pressure to be perfect, parental pressure to be perfect) and three reasons for training (avoidance of negative affect, weight control, mood improvement) in 261 athletes (mean age 20.9 years). Regression analyses showed that perfectionistic concerns positively predicted avoidance of negative affect and weight control, whereas perfectionistic strivings positively predicted mood improvement. The findings suggest that individual differences in perfectionism help explain why athletes train for different reasons.
  • Damian, L., Negru-Subtirica, O., Stoeber, J., & B?ban, A. (2017). Perfectionistic concerns predict increases in adolescents’ anxiety symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 30, 551-561. doi:10.1080/10615806.2016.1271877
    Background and Objectives: Although perfectionism has been proposed to be a risk factor for the development of anxiety, research on perfectionism and anxiety symptoms in adolescents is scarce and inconclusive. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the two higher-order dimensions of perfectionism—perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns—predict the development and maintenance of anxiety symptoms. An additional aim of the present study was to examine potential reciprocal effects of anxiety symptoms predicting increases in perfectionism. Design: The study used a longitudinal design with three waves spaced 4-5 months apart. Methods: A non-clinical sample of 489 adolescents aged 12-19 years completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Results: As expected, results showed a positive effect from perfectionistic concerns to anxiety symptoms, but the effect was restricted to middle-to-late adolescents (16-19 years old): Perfectionistic concerns predicted longitudinal increases in adolescents’ anxiety symptoms whereas perfectionistic strivings did not. Furthermore, anxiety symptoms did not predict increases in perfectionism. Conclusions: Implications for the understanding of the relationship between perfectionism and anxiety symptoms are discussed.
  • Damian, L., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & B?ban, A. (2017). On the development of perfectionism: The longitudinal role of academic achievement and academic efficacy. Journal of Personality, 85, 565-577. doi:10.1111/jopy.12261
    Objective: Although perfectionism is a prominent personality disposition, only a few longitudinal studies have investigated how perfectionism develops. Theoretical models and qualitative studies have posited that academic success is a developmental antecedent of perfectionism. Yet, quantitative studies tend to interpret the cross-sectional relationships as academic success being an outcome of perfectionism. In light of these gaps in the literature, the present study was the first to investigate the longitudinal relationships between perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, academic achievement, and academic efficacy examining academic success as an antecedent of perfectionism. Method: The study examined 487 adolescents (aged 12-19 years, 54% female) using a crosslagged longitudinal design with three time points spaced 4-5 months apart. Results: Results showed that academic achievement predicted relative increases in both perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, even when including academic efficacy. In addition, academic efficacy predicted relative increases in perfectionistic strivings. Discussion: This is the first study to show that academic achievement is a common factor in the development of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, whereas academic efficacy plays a role only in the development of perfectionistic strivings. Conclusions: Implications of the findings for the development of perfectionism are discussed.
  • Sutton, R., Stoeber, J., & Kamble, S. (2017). Belief in a just world for oneself versus others, social goals, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 115-119. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.026
    The belief in a just world (BJW) affects subjective well-being and social behavior. However, its role in shaping the social goals that underlie behavior has not been investigated. Informed by the bidimensional model of BJW, the present study examined the relations of BJW for the self (BJW-self) versus BJW for other people (BJW-others) with social goals and subjective well-being in a sample of 398 university students. As predicted, BJW-self was positively related to affiliative social goals including nurturance, intimacy, and social development goals. In contrast, BJW-others was positively related to dominance and social demonstration goals. Consistent with the bidimensional model, BJW-self and BJW-others were related to most social goals in opposing directions. The present findings indicate that BJW-self and BJW-others is not only relevant to how people act in relation to others, but also why they act the way they do.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Perfectionism and achievement goals revisited: The 3 × 2 achievement goal framework. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 120-124. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.10.008
    Objectives: Perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC) have shown different profiles with the 2 × 2 achievement goals in sport. Whether PS and PC also show comparable profiles with the achievement goals of the expanded 3 × 2 framework, however, is unclear. Design: Cross-sectional. Method: We examined self-reported perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and the 3 × 2 achievement goals in 136 junior athletes (mean age 17.0 years). Results: The results of structural equation modeling showed that PS were positively associated with task-, self-, and other-approach goals and negatively with task- and self-avoidance goals. In contrast, PC were positively associated with task-, self-, and other-avoidance goals and negatively with task- and self-approach goals. Conclusions: The findings suggest that PS and PC show different profiles also with the 3 × 2 achievement goals which may help explain why the two perfectionism dimensions show differential relations with achievement-related outcomes in sport.
  • Damian, L., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & B?ban, A. (2016). Perfectionism and school engagement: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 179-184. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.044
    Although perfectionism is a personality disposition that plays an important role in educational contexts, research on perfectionism and school engagement is limited. School engagement is a key process in predicting educational outcomes in students. Consequently, it is important to know how perfectionism relates to school engagement and whether perfectionism predicts relative changes in school engagement over time. Using a sample of 486 students from 6th-12th grade (54% female) and employing a longitudinal design with three waves spaced 4-5 months apart, the present study investigated whether perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) predicted relative changes in students’ school engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement). Results showed that both perfectionistic strivings and concerns were related to school engagement, but only perfectionistic strivings predicted relative increases in school engagement. Implications for the understanding of how perfectionistic strivings contribute to school students’ engagement are discussed.
  • Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. (2016). Perfectionism, personality, and future-directed thinking: Further insights from revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 78-83. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.041
    In a recent study, Stoeber and Corr (2015) examined how three forms of perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, socially prescribed) predicted participants’ affective experiences in the past two weeks, and found that revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (rRST) components explained the relations between perfectionism and affective experiences. As an extension, this study investigated whether rRST components—capturing individual differences in the Behavioral Approach System (BAS), Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), and defensive fight—also explained the relations between perfectionism and future-directed thinking. 343 university students completed measures of perfectionism, rRST, and positive and negative expectations for the next two weeks. Mediation analyses showed that all BAS components (reward interest, goal-drive persistence, reward reactivity, impulsivity) and the BIS, but not the FFFS and defensive fight, explained how the different forms of perfectionism predicted future-directed expectations. The findings suggest that the BAS and BIS components of rRST, which reflect fundamental emotion-motivational systems of personality, play a role not only in the relations of perfectionism and past affective experiences, but also in those of perfectionism and future-directed thinking.
  • Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 379-386. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039
    According to the two-factor theory of perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), perfectionism comprises two superordinate dimensions—perfectionistic strivings (PS) and perfectionistic concerns (PC)—that show different, and often opposite, relations with psychological adjustment and maladjustment, particularly when their overlap is partialled out. Recently, Hill (2014) raised concerns about the interpretation of the relations that PS show after partialling. The present article aims to alleviate these concerns. First, we address the concern that partialling changes the conceptual meaning of PS. Second, we explain how the relations of residual PS (i.e., PS with PC partialled out) differ from those of PS, and how to interpret these differences. In this, we also discuss suppressor effects and how mutual suppression affects the relations of both PS and PC with outcomes. Furthermore, we provide recommendations of how to report and interpret findings of analyses partialling out the effects of PS and PC. We conclude that, if properly understood and reported, there is nothing to be concerned about when partialling PS and PC. On the contrary, partialling is essential if we want to understand the shared, unique, combined, and interactive relations of the different dimensions of perfectionism.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Motivation mediates the perfectionism–burnout relationship: A three-wave longitudinal study with junior athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 341-354. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0238
    Perfectionism in sports has been shown to predict longitudinal changes in athlete burnout. What mediates these changes over time, however, is still unclear. Adopting a self-determination theory perspective and using a three-wave longitudinal design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and athlete burnout in 141 junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years) over 6 months of active training. When multilevel structural equation modeling was employed to test a mediational model, a differential pattern of between- and within-person relationships emerged. Whereas autonomous motivation mediated the negative relationship that perfectionistic strivings had with burnout at the between- and within-person level, controlled motivation mediated the positive relationship that perfectionistic concerns had with burnout at the between-person level only. The present findings suggest that differences in autonomous and controlled motivation explain why perfectionism predicts changes in athlete burnout over time.
  • Stoeber, J. (2016). Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191116659740
    Hewitt and Flett’s 45-item Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004) is a widely-used instrument to assess self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism. With 45 items, it is not overly lengthy, but there are situations where a short form is useful. Analyzing data from 4 samples, this article compares 2 frequently used 15-item short forms of the MPS—Cox et al.’s (2002) and Hewitt et al.’s (2008)—by examining to what degree their scores replicate the original version’s correlations with various personality characteristics (e.g., traits, social goals, personal/interpersonal orientations). Regarding self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, both short forms performed well. Regarding other-oriented perfectionism, however, Cox et al.’s short form (exclusively comprised of negatively worded items) performed less well than Hewitt et al.’s (which contains no negatively worded items). It is recommended that researchers use Hewitt et al.’s short form to assess other-oriented perfectionism rather than Cox et al.’s.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Perfectionism and changes in athlete burnout over three months: Interactive effects of personal standards and evaluative concerns perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 32-39. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.05.010
    Objectives: A recent longitudinal study with junior athletes (Madigan, Stoeber, & Passfield, 2015) found perfectionism to predict changes in athlete burnout: evaluative concerns perfectionism predicted increases in burnout over a 3-month period, whereas personal standards perfectionism predicted decreases. The present study sought to expand on these findings by using the framework of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010) to examine whether evaluative concerns perfectionism and personal standards perfectionism show interactions in predicting changes in athlete burnout. Design: Two-wave longitudinal design. Method: The present study examined self-reported evaluative concerns perfectionism, personal standards perfectionism, and athlete burnout in 111 athletes (mean age 24.8 years) over 3 months of active training. Results and Conclusion: When moderated regression analyses were employed, interactive effects of evaluative concerns perfectionism × personal standards perfectionism were found indicating that personal standards perfectionism buffered the effects of evaluative concerns perfectionism on total burnout and physical/emotional exhaustion. To interpret these effects, the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism provides a useful theoretical framework.
  • Smith, M., Saklofske, D., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. (2016). The Big Three Perfectionism Scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 670-687. doi:10.1177/0734282916651539
    This article introduces a new measure of dispositional perfectionism: the Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS). The BTPS assesses three higher-order global factors (rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism) via 10 lower-order perfectionism facets (self-oriented perfectionism, self-worth contingencies, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, self-criticism, socially prescribed perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, hypercriticism, grandiosity, entitlement). The present investigation examined the structure of the BTPS using exploratory factor analysis in Study 1 (288 undergraduates), and confirmatory factor analyses in Study 2 (352 community adults) and Study 3 (290 undergraduates). Additionally, in Study 3 the relationships among the BTPS, other measures of perfectionism, and the five-factor model of personality were investigated. Overall, findings provide first evidence for the reliability and validity of the BTPS as a multidimensional measure of perfectionism.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Perfectionism and training distress in junior athletes: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 470-475. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1172726
    Perfectionistic athletes may train harder and for longer than non-perfectionistic athletes, leaving them susceptible to elevated levels of training distress. So far, however, no study has investigated the relationships between perfectionism and training distress, a key indicator of overtraining syndrome. Furthermore, no study has determined psychological predictors of overtraining syndrome. Using a two-wave design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and training distress in 141 junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years, range 16-19 years) over 3 months of active training. Multiple regression analyses were employed to test cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between perfectionism and training distress. In all analyses, perfectionism emerged as a significant predictor, but strivings and concerns showed differential relationships. When the cross-sectional relationships were regarded, perfectionistic concerns positively predicted training distress (p < .01), whereas perfectionistic strivings negatively predicted training distress (p < .001). When the longitudinal relationships were regarded, only perfectionistic concerns predicted increases in training distress (p < .05), whereas perfectionistic strivings did not (p > .05). The findings suggest that sports scientists who wish to identify athletes at risk of overtraining syndrome may monitor athletes’ perfectionistic concerns as a possible risk factor.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2016). Perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in junior athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34, 700-706. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1068441
    Recent theory and research suggest that perfectionism is a personal factor contributing to athletes’ vulnerability to doping (using banned substances/drugs to enhance sporting performance). So far, however, no study has examined what aspects of perfectionism suggest a vulnerability in junior athletes. Employing a cross-sectional design, this study examined perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in 129 male junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years) differentiating four aspects of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, parental pressure to be perfect, and coach pressure to be perfect. In the bivariate correlations, only parental pressure showed a positive relationship with positive doping attitudes. In a multiple regression analysis controlling for the overlap between the four aspects, perfectionistic strivings additionally showed a negative relationship. Moreover, a structural equation model examining the relationships between all variables suggested that coach pressure had a negative indirect effect on attitudes towards doping via perfectionistic strivings. The findings indicate that perceived parental pressure to be perfect may be a factor contributing to junior athletes’ vulnerability to doping, whereas perfectionistic strivings may be a protective factor.
  • Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2016). Moral perfectionism and moral values, virtues, and judgments: Further investigations. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 6-11. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.031
    In a first psychological investigation of moral perfectionism, Yang, Stoeber, and Wang (2015) adapted items from the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale to differentiate perfectionistic personal moral standards and concern over moral mistakes. Examining a sample of Chinese students, Yang et al. found that personal moral standards showed unique positive relationships with moral values, virtues, and judgments, whereas concern over moral mistakes did not. The present study aimed to replicate Yang et al.’s findings in a sample of Western students (N = 243), additionally including measures of moral identity and moral disengagement. Furthermore, the study examined whether moral perfectionism explained variance in moral attitudes beyond general perfectionism. Results largely replicated Yang et al.’s findings. Personal moral standards (but not concern over moral mistakes) showed unique positive relationships with moral values, virtues, and judgments and a unique negative relationship with moral disengagement. Furthermore, moral perfectionism explained significant variance in moral attitudes beyond general perfectionism. The present findings suggest that moral perfectionism is a personality characteristic that is relevant in both Asian and Western cultures and explains individual differences in moral attitudes beyond general perfectionism.
  • Stoeber, J., & Hotham, S. (2016). Perfectionism and attitudes toward cognitive enhancers (“smart drugs”). Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 170-174. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.011
    Perfectionism is a personality disposition characterized by exceedingly high standards of performance and pressure to be perfect which may incline students to take cognitive enhancers (“smart drugs”) to boost their academic performance. So far, however, no study has investigated the relationships of multidimensional perfectionism and attitudes toward cognitive enhancers. The present study investigated these relationships in 272 university students examining different dimensions of perfectionism. Results showed that socially prescribed perfectionism, perfectionist concerns and doubts, and perceived parental pressure to be perfect showed positive correlations with attitudes favoring the use of cognitive enhancers. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism, perfectionist personal standards, and organization showed negative correlations. The findings suggest that perfectionism may play a role as both a risk factor for and a protective factor against using cognitive enhancers depending on what dimensions of perfectionism are regarded.
  • Stoeber, J., & Corr, P. (2016). A short empirical note on perfectionism and flourishing. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 50-53. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.036
    Flourishing describes an optimal state of mental health characterized by emotional, psychological, and social well-being. In a recent publication, Flett and Hewitt (2015) suggested that perfectionism prevents people from flourishing. Perfectionism, however, is a multidimensional personality characteristic, and its various dimensions show different relationships with indicators of subjective well-being. In the first empirical study of perfectionism and flourishing, we examined the relationships of multidimensional perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism) and self-reported flourishing in the past two weeks. Results from the sample of 388 university students revealed that only socially prescribed perfectionism showed a negative relationship with flourishing, whereas self-oriented perfectionism showed a positive relationship. These results were unchanged when positive and negative affect were controlled statistically. Our findings indicate that not all dimensions of perfectionism undermine flourishing and that it is important to differentiate perfectionistic strivings and concerns when regarding the perfectionism–flourishing relationship.
  • Stoeber, J., & Harvey, L. (2016). Multidimensional sexual perfectionism and female sexual function: A longitudinal investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 2003-2014. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0721-7
    Research on multidimensional sexual perfectionism differentiates four forms of sexual perfectionism: self-oriented, partner-oriented, partner-prescribed, and socially prescribed. Self-oriented sexual perfectionism reflects perfectionistic standards people apply to themselves as sexual partners; partner-oriented sexual perfectionism reflects perfectionistic standards people apply to their sexual partner; partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism reflects people’s beliefs that their sexual partner imposes perfectionistic standards on them; and socially prescribed sexual perfectionism reflects people’s beliefs that society imposes such standards on them. Previous studies found partner-prescribed and socially prescribed sexual perfectionism to be maladaptive forms of sexual perfectionism associated with a negative sexual self-concept and problematic sexual behaviors, but only examined cross-sectional relationships. The present article presents the first longitudinal study examining whether multidimensional sexual perfectionism predicts changes in sexual self-concept and sexual function over time. A total of 366 women aged 17-69 years completed measures of multidimensional sexual perfectionism, sexual esteem, sexual anxiety, sexual problem self-blame, and female sexual function (cross-sectional data). Three to six months later, 164 of the women completed the same measures again (longitudinal data). Across analyses, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism emerged as the most maladaptive form of sexual perfectionism. In the cross-sectional data, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism showed positive relationships with sexual anxiety, sexual problem self-blame, and intercourse pain and negative relationships with sexual esteem, desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasmic function. In the longitudinal data, partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism predicted increases in sexual anxiety and decreases in sexual esteem, arousal, and lubrication over time. The findings suggest that partner-prescribed sexual perfectionism contributes to women’s negative sexual self-concept and female sexual dysfunction.
  • Sherry, S., Stoeber, J., & Ramasubbu, C. (2016). Perfectionism explains variance in self-defeating behaviors beyond self-criticism: Evidence from a cross-national sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 196-199. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.059
    Does perfectionism predict maladjustment beyond self-criticism? Attention to this key question is needed as some studies suggest perfectionism may not explain variance in maladjustment beyond self-criticism. Using a large cross-national sample of 524 undergraduates (229 Canadian, 295 British), this study examined whether evaluative concerns perfectionism (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions) explained variance in self-defeating behaviors (binge eating, procrastination, interpersonal conflict) after controlling for selfcriticism. Results showed that—after controlling for self-criticism—concern over mistakes predicted binge eating, doubts about actions predicted procrastination, and socially prescribed perfectionism and concern over mistakes predicted interpersonal conflict. Self-criticism also uniquely predicted self-defeating behaviors beyond evaluative concerns perfectionism. The relationships that evaluative concerns perfectionism shows with self-defeating behaviors appear neither redundant with nor fully captured by self-criticism. Results dovetail with theoretical accounts suggesting evaluative concerns perfectionism is a uniquely important part of the personality of people prone to self-defeating behaviors.
  • Stoeber, J., Mutinelli, S., & Corr, P. (2016). Perfectionism in students and positive career planning attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 256-259. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.065
    In today’s uncertain job market, university students who show positive attitudes in their career planning have an advantage. Yet, we know little what personality characteristics are associated with individual differences in career planning attitudes. The present study examined 177 university students to investigate whether perfectionism (self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed) predicted students’ positive career planning attitudes (career adaptability, career optimism, and perceived knowledge of the job market). Results from multiple regressions showed that perfectionism explained 8-12% variance in career planning attitudes with (a) self-oriented perfectionism positively predicting career adaptability and career optimism, (b) other-oriented perfectionism positively predicting perceived knowledge, and (c) socially prescribed perfectionism negatively predicting career adaptability. The findings suggest that perfectionism is a personality characteristic that may both underpin and undermine students’ positive attitudes towards career planning.
  • Yang, H., Stoeber, J., & Wang, Y. (2015). Moral perfectionism and moral values, virtues, and judgments: A preliminary investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 229-233. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.040
    Moral perfectionism has a long tradition in philosophical inquiry, but so far has been ignored in psychological research. This article presents a first psychological investigation of moral perfectionism exploring its relationships with moral values, virtues, and judgments. In three studies, 539 university students responded to items of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) adapted to measure personal moral standards (PMS) and concern over moral mistakes (CMM) and completed measures of moral values, virtues, and forgiveness, gratitude, and wrong behavior judgments. When partial correlations were computed controlling for the overlap between PMS and CMM, PMS showed positive correlations with moral values, virtues, reciprocal helping, forgiveness, and condemnation of wrong behaviors. In contrast, CMM showed a positive correlation only with indebtedness and a negative correlation with self-reliance. The present findings, while preliminary, suggest that moral perfectionism is a personality characteristic that may help explain individual differences in moral values, virtues, and judgments.
  • Stoeber, J., Haskew, A., & Scott, C. (2015). Perfectionism and exam performance: The mediating effect of task-approach goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 171-176. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.016
    Perfectionistic strivings are positively correlated with students’ achievement goals and exam performance. However, so far no study has employed a prospective design investigating whether achievement goals mediate the positive relationship between perfectionistic strivings and exam performance. In the present study, 100 university students completed a measure of self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and received a chapter from a textbook to study for 2-4 days. Then they returned to the lab to complete a measure of achievement goals following the 3 x 2 model (Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011) and sit a mock exam testing their knowledge of the chapter. Multiple regressions showed that socially prescribed perfectionism negatively predicted exam performance when the overlap with self-oriented perfectionism was controlled for. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism—a defining indicator of perfectionistic strivings—positively predicted exam performance. Moreover, task-approach goals mediated the positive relationship between self-oriented perfectionism and exam performance. The findings suggest that perfectionistic strivings make students adopt task-approach goals that help them achieve better results on exams.
  • Stoeber, J., Sherry, S., & Nealis, L. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and narcissism: Grandiose or vulnerable?. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 85-90. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.027
    Multidimensional perfectionism is related to grandiose narcissism, with other-oriented perfectionism showing the strongest, most consistent relationships. The relationships with vulnerable narcissism, however, are unclear. Our study investigated how three forms of perfectionism--self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991)--are related to narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. A sample of 375 university students completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988), Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (Hendin & Cheek, 1997), and Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al., 2009) capturing various facets of narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability. Multiple regressions were conducted controlling for the overlap between the three forms of perfectionism and gender. Other-oriented perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with key facets of grandiose narcissism. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed positive relationships with all facets of vulnerable narcissism. Self- and other-oriented perfectionism showed positive relationships with individual facets only. Other-oriented perfectionism appears to represent a form of perfectionism predominantly related to narcissistic grandiosity, whereas socially prescribed perfectionism is predominantly related to narcissistic vulnerability. As the first study to examine perfectionism in relation to narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability, our research both extends and clarifies the nomological network of the perfectionism construct in important ways.
  • Stoeber, J. (2015). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: Further findings. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 611-623. doi:10.1007/s10862-015-9485-y
    Investigating how other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) differed from self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP), Stoeber (2014a) found OOP to show unique positive relationships with the Dark Triad personality traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and unique negative relationships with nurturance, intimacy, and social development goals. Aiming to expand on Stoeber’s findings, the present study examined 229 university students investigating the unique relationships of the three forms of perfectionism with humor styles, callous-unemotional-uncaring traits, social value orientations, self- and other-interest, and positive self-evaluations (positive self-regard, feeling superior to others). When multiple regressions were conducted controlling for the overlap between the three forms of perfectionism, OOP showed unique positive relationships with aggressive humor, uncaring traits, an individualistic orientation, and positive self-regard and unique negative relationships with a prosocial orientation and other-interest. In contrast, SOP showed unique positive relationships with affiliative humor and other-interest and unique negative relationships with aggressive humor, callous-uncaring traits, and a competitive orientation whereas SPP showed unique positive relationships with self-depreciating humor and unemotional traits and unique negative relationships with both forms of positive self-evaluations. The findings provide further evidence that OOP is a “dark” form of perfectionism positively associated with narcissistic, antisocial, and uncaring personality characteristics.
  • Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2015). Perfectionism and burnout in junior athletes: A three-month longitudinal study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 305-315. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0266
    Perfectionism in sports has been shown to be associated with burnout in athletes. Whether perfectionism predicts longitudinal changes in athlete burnout, however, is still unclear. Using a two-wave cross-lagged panel design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and athlete burnout in 101 junior athletes (mean age 17.7 years) over 3 months of active training. When structural equation modeling was employed to test a series of competing models, the best-fitting model showed opposite patterns for perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Whereas perfectionistic concerns predicted increases in athlete burnout over the 3 months, perfectionistic strivings predicted decreases. The present findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns are a risk factor for junior athletes contributing to the development of athlete burnout whereas perfectionistic strivings appear to be a protective factor.
  • Hoffmann, A., Stoeber, J., & Musch, J. (2015). Multidimensional perfectionism and assortative mating: A perfect date?. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 94-100. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.001
    Assortative mating has been found regarding personality traits, personal attitudes and values, and cognitive abilities, but so far no study has investigated assortative mating regarding multidimensional perfectionism. A total of 422 participants from a non-commercial panel (mean age = 36.0 years) completed measures of self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism and rated the attractiveness of four potential dating partners (“dates”): a self-oriented, an other-oriented, a socially prescribed, and a non-perfectionist date. Results showed that all perfectionist dates were seen as less attractive than the non-perfectionist date. This effect, however, was moderated by self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism. Participants high in self-oriented perfectionism found all three perfectionist dates more attractive than participants low in self-oriented perfections. Participants high in other-oriented perfectionism found the self-oriented perfectionist date more attractive, and the non-perfectionist date less attractive than participants low in other-oriented perfectionism. The findings are discussed with respect to assortative mating, the social disconnection model of perfectionism, and the heritability of perfectionism.
  • Stoeber, J., & Yang, H. (2015). Physical appearance perfectionism explains variance in eating disorder symptoms above general perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 303-307. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.032
    Physical appearance perfectionism is a domain-specific form of perfectionism comprising two components: hope for perfection and worry about imperfection (Yang & Stoeber, 2012). Previous studies found that physical appearance perfectionism is related to eating disorder symptoms, particularly the worry about imperfection component, but did not address the question of whether physical appearance perfectionism explains variance in eating disorder symptoms above general perfectionism. The present study investigated the question examining 559 female university students. Physical appearance perfectionism explained an additional 9-17% of variance in eating disorder symptoms above the 11-20% variance explained by general perfectionism. The findings suggest that physical appearance perfectionism plays an important role in disordered eating beyond general perfectionism

Book section

  • Stoeber, J., Damian, L., & Madigan, D. (2018). Perfectionism: A motivational perspective. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 19-43). London: Routledge.
    The chapter presents a review of the research literature examining perfectionism from a motivational perspective. Taking the two-factor theory of perfectionism—differentiating the two higher-order dimensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns—as a basis, we present analyses of the differential relationships that the two dimensions show with key motivational constructs focusing on achievement motivation and self-determination theory. As regards achievement motivation, we examine the relationships with achievement motives (hope of success and fear of failure) and achievement goals (task and ego goals, 2 × 2 and 3 × 2 achievement goals). As regards self-determination theory, we examine the relationships with autonomous and controlled motivation and with the different regulatory styles associated with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Based on the findings of our review, we propose that the differential motivational qualities of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are important to understand why perfectionism is a “double-edged sword” that may energize or paralyze people, motivating some perfectionists to engage and others to disengage. We conclude that perfectionism research may profit from seeing perfectionism from a motivational perspective, perhaps even regard perfectionism as a motive disposition (need for perfection) whereby perfectionistic strivings represent the approach-oriented and autonomous aspects, and perfectionistic concerns the avoidance-oriented and controlled aspects.
  • Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 3-16). London: Routledge.
    Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior. Perfectionism is a complex characteristic. It comes in different forms and has various aspects. This chapter has a dual purpose: It aims to serve as an introduction to “The Psychology of Perfectionism” (the edited book you are holding in your hands) and an introduction to the psychology of perfectionism (what the book is about). To these aims, I first present a brief history of perfectionism theory and research. Then I introduce the two-factor theory of perfectionism--differentiating perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns--with the intention to provide readers with a conceptual framework that may serve as a “compass” guiding them through the different models and measures of perfectionism they will encounter in this book. Going beyond the two-factor model, I next introduce three aspects of perfectionism that are important for a comprehensive understanding of perfectionism: other-oriented perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, and perfectionism cognitions. The chapter will conclude with a brief overview of the organization of the book and the contents of the individual chapters.
  • Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and future directions. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 333-352). London: Routledge.
    In this concluding chapter, I follow the approach of the introductory chapter in taking a personal perspective to discuss what I see are critical issues, open questions, and future directions in perfectionism research. Because all chapters of this book address open questions and future directions, I only discuss topics that the chapters did not cover or that I would like to emphasize again. These include the definition and measurement of perfectionism, the question of whether perfectionism is a trait or a disposition, the need for more longitudinal studies, and the search for mediators and moderators. Further, I make a call for more research on perfectionism going beyond self-reports and point to three areas that I believe are “under-researched”: perfectionism at work; ethnic, cultural, and national differences in perfectionism; and perfectionism across the lifespan. Moreover, I address three critical issues that I find problematic because they may present obstacles to further progress in our understanding of perfectionism: focusing on perfectionistic concerns (and ignoring perfectionistic strivings), employing cluster analyses to investigate differences in multidimensional perfectionism, and assessing perfectionism with measures that do not measure perfectionism.
  • Stoeber, J., Corr, P., Smith, M., & Saklofske, D. (2018). Perfectionism and personality. In The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 68-88). London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Perfectionism-Theory-Research-Applications/Stoeber/p/book/9781138691032
    This chapter provides a synopsis of research on where multidimensional perfectionism “fits” within the broader framework of contemporary personality theory. Focusing on Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) model of perfectionism--differentiating self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism--the chapter presents a summary and critical discussion of how multidimensional perfectionism relates to the dimensions and facets of two major structural models of personality (the five-factor model and the HEXACO model) and one neuropsychological model of personality (reinforcement sensitivity theory). Implications of the findings for multidimensional theories and models of perfectionism, as well as future perfectionism research, are discussed.
  • Stoeber, J., & Damian, L. (2016). Perfectionism in employees: Work engagement, workaholism, and burnout. In F. M. Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 265-283). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18582-8_12
    Perfectionism is a prevalent personality disposition that may affect all domains of life. Work is an important domain of life for many people. Yet, research on perfectionism at work and how perfectionism affects employees’ health and well-being is still limited. Research, however, has investigated perfectionism’s relationships with three key aspects of peoples’ working lives that are closely associated with employees’ health and well-being: work engagement, workaholism, and job burnout. Differentiating between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), the present chapter presents an overview of the relevant research findings. Taken together, the findings suggest that (a) perfectionistic strivings show positive relationships with work engagement whereas perfectionistic concerns show no relationships or negative relationships, (b) perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns both show positive relationships with workaholism, and (c) perfectionistic strivings show negative relationships with burnout whereas perfectionistic concerns show positive relationships. To explain the opposite relationships that perfectionistic strivings and concerns show with burnout, two hypothetical models are presented. In Model 1, autonomous versus controlled motivation explain the opposite relationships of perfectionistic strivings and concerns with burnout. In Model 2, adaptive versus maladaptive coping explain the relationships. The chapter concludes with directions for future research on perfectionism, work engagement, workaholism, and job burnout pointing out the importance of longitudinal studies and intervention studies.
  • Stoeber, J., & Madigan, D. (2016). Measuring perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise: Review, critique, recommendations. In A. P. Hill (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism in sport, dance and exercise (pp. 31-56). London: Routledge.
    Over the past 25 years, a number of multidimensional measures of perfectionism has been developed. Based on different models of multidimensional perfectionism, these measures contain different numbers of subscales, and most of the time the different subscales bear different names. This presents a confusing situation to researchers unfamiliar with the often complex details of the perfectionism literature who want to conduct research on perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise and need to make a decision as to what measure to use to capture individual differences in multidimensional perfectionism. The aim of the present chapter is to give researchers some guidance in this decision. To this aim, the chapter will (a) review the available multidimensional measures that have been published in international peer-reviewed journals and (b) provide a critique of these measures. In addition, the chapter will provide (c) recommendations on which measures to use and guidance on which decisions researchers have to make when using these measures to capture perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise.

Edited book

  • Stoeber, J. (2017). The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications. (J. Stoeber, Ed.). London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Perfectionism-Theory-Research-Applications/Stoeber/p/book/9781138691032
    This milestone text provides a comprehensive and state-of-the art overview of perfectionism theory, research, and treatment from the past 25 years, with contributions from the leading researchers in the field. The book examines new theories and perspectives including the social disconnection model of perfectionism and the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. It also reviews empirical findings, with a special focus on stress, vulnerability, and resilience, and examines perfectionism in specific populations. Finally, it considers how perfectionism relates to physical health and psychophysiological processes and introduces new approaches to effective prevention and treatment. By increasing our understanding of perfectionism as a complex personality disposition and providing a framework for future explorations, this landmark publication aims to promote further research in this field. It will be invaluable reading for academics, students, and professionals in personality psychology, clinical and counselling psychology, applied psychology and related disciplines.

Forthcoming

  • Stoeber, J., & Rountree, M. (2020). Perfectionism, self-stigma, and coping in students with dyslexia: The central role of perfectionistic self-presentation. Dyslexia. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0909
    Dyslexia is a prevalent condition, and a significant percentage of students in higher education are dyslexic. Despite this, few studies have investigated dyslexia in university students and what personality dispositions may predict how students feel about help-seeking for dyslexia and how they cope with dyslexia. Against this background, the present study investigated perfectionism, self-stigma, and coping in 115 university students with dyslexia examining the relationships of dispositional perfectionism (self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism) and perfectionistic self-presentation with self-stigma of seeking help and adaptive versus maladaptive coping with dyslexia. Results from regression and mediation analyses showed that perfectionistic self-presentation predicted higher levels of self-stigma and maladaptive coping, and lower levels of adaptive coping. Furthermore, both forms of dispositional perfectionism predicted higher levels of self-stigma and maladaptive coping, and lower levels of adaptive coping, via perfectionistic self-presentation (dispositional perfectionism => perfectionistic self-presentation => self-stigma and coping). The findings suggest that perfectionistic self-presentation plays a central role in the relationships of perfectionism, self-stigma, and coping in students with dyslexia, and that impression management aimed at presenting a perfect self-image (and hiding imperfections) represents a significant risk for students’ seeking help for and successful coping with dyslexia.
  • Stoeber, J., & Hadjivassiliou, A. (2020). Perfectionism and aggression following unintentional, ambiguous, and intentional provocation. Current Psychology.
    The social disconnection model of perfectionism posits that perfectionism is positively related to various indicators of social disconnection including hostility and aggression. Recent findings, however, indicate that only other-oriented and socially-prescribed perfectionism are positively related to aggression, not self-oriented perfectionism. The present study (N = 271) further examined the perfectionism–aggression relationships using social vignettes differentiating aggression following unintentional, ambiguous, and intentional provocation. Results showed that—when the overlap between the perfectionism dimensions was controlled—only other-oriented perfectionism showed positive relationships with aggression across provocation situations. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism showed a positive relationship only with aggression following unintentional provocation, and self-oriented perfectionism showed a negative relationship. The findings suggest that, whereas people high in self-oriented perfectionism tend to be unaggressive, people high in other-oriented perfectionism have a general tendency toward aggression, and people high in socially prescribed perfectionism show a hostile attribution bias.
  • Dhont, K., & Stoeber, J. (2020). The vegan resistance. The Psychologist.
    What drives people to lash out at others who choose to eschew eating animals out of compassion? And what does it say about those who get upset and angry when someone else decides to give up meat? Kristof Dhont and Joachim Stoeber on ideological pushback against the rise of veganism.
  • Stoeber, J., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Damian, L. (2018). Perfectionism. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. Springer.
    Perfectionism has been associated with higher levels of psychological maladjustment and disorder in adolescence and lower levels of subjective well-being and psychological adjustment. Perfectionism, however, is a multidimensional disposition, and not all dimensions of perfectionism are necessarily unhealthy or maladaptive. This entry presents an overview about perfectionism in adolescence and the main dimensions of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. It shows how the two dimensions are related to subjective well-being, psychological adjustment and maladjustment, and disorder. Moreover, it informs on how perfectionism can be measured and what factors influence the development of perfectionism in children and adolescents. Finally, the entry will discuss what is still unknown about perfectionism and why the notion that perfectionism can be healthy or adaptive is controversially debated.
  • Stoeber, J. (2018). Perfectionism. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_2027-1
    Whereas clinical psychology regards perfectionism as a personality disposition associated with psychopathology and mental health problems, research in personality and individual differences found perfectionism to be a multidimensional disposition that has adaptive and maladaptive aspects. The present entry presents an overview of the two-factor model of perfectionism--differentiating perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns as two superordinate dimensions of multidimensional perfectionism--and of how the two factors show different relations with motivation and performance. Furthermore, the entry introduces other-oriented perfectionism as a “dark” form of perfectionism separate from perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concern. The entry concludes with a discussion of open questions and directions for future research.
Last updated