How Children’s Cognitive and Affective Responses to a Novel Task Relate to the Dimensions of Perfectionism

ORI GIN AL ARTICLE

How Children’s Cognitive and Affective Responsesto a Novel Task Relate to the Dimensionsof Perfectionism

Patricia Marten DiBartolo • Sara Pierotti Varner

Published online: 23 March 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The current study examined how the Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns

(MEC) versus Positive Achievement Striving (PAS) dimensions of perfectionism

relate to anxiety, goal-setting, and cognitive appraisal in third-grade to sixth-grade

students who completed an object-naming task under three goal-demand conditions:

self-set goals, and low and high experimenter goals. The results indicated that

children high on a measure of socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP; a measure of

MEC) experienced more anxiety across all conditions than children low in SPP.

Children scoring high on SPP also rated performing well on the task as more

important and were more likely to say they should have performed better than their

low SPP counterparts, despite no significant differences in performance or standard-

setting. The PAS component of perfectionism was unrelated to children’s responses.

These results are consistent with Beck’s cognitive theory and support the utility of

the maladaptive evaluative concerns dimension of perfectionism in predicting

children’s cognitive and affective responses to new tasks.

Keywords Anxiety � Children � Cognition � Depression � Perfectionism � Standards

Introduction

Perfectionism, or the tendency to set high standards paired with an excessive

concern over making mistakes (Frost et al. 1990), is a risk factor for a variety of

The basis of the work done on this project was the undergraduate honors thesis of the second author

conducted under the direction of the first author.

Portions of this manuscript were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of

Behavior Therapy, Washington, DC, November 2005.

P. M. DiBartolo (&) � S. P. Varner

Department of Psychology, Smith College, Clark Science Center, Northampton, MA 01063, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther (2012) 30:62–76

DOI 10.1007/s10942-011-0130-8

emotional problems in adults, including anxiety, depression, suicidality, and eating

disorders (cf. Flett and Hewitt 2002). Although researchers have given growing

attention to the association of perfectionism to psychological distress in adolescence

and emerging adulthood (cf. Accordino et al. 2000; Gilman and Ashby 2003a,

Gilman and Ashby 2003b; Soenens et al. 2004), relatively little work focuses on

explicating the phenomenology and psychological correlates of perfectionism in

prepubescent samples. This is despite the fact that many theories on the nascency of

the construct hypothesize that perfectionism begins in childhood (cf. Flett et al.

2002).

The dearth of research in relatively young samples relates to the fact that no scales

existed to measure perfectionism in children until relatively recently. Accordingly,

Hewitt, Flett, and their colleagues created the first perfectionism measure validated

on child samples, entitled the Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (Flett et al.

1997). This same research group had earlier published a measure for adult

perfectionism, the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, which consisted of three

subscales: Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism

(SPP), and Other-Oriented Perfectionism (Hewitt and Flett 1991). The initial factor

analysis of the CAPS revealed a structure remarkably similar to that which emerged

from their adult scale and included both an SOP and SPP subscale (Hewitt et al.

2002). The SOP subscale of the CAPS reflects the degree to which children set high

standards for themselves whereas the SPP subscale measures children’s perceived

pressure from others (parents/teachers) to be perfect. To elucidate the phenomenol-

ogy of perfectionism in youth, McCreary and colleagues (McCreary et al. 2004)

conducted a factor analysis of the CAPS in a sample of African-American 6th-

graders and found a slightly different structure for the CAPS. McCreary et al.

identified three primary factors: the SPP subscale remained unchanged; however, the

Self-Oriented subscale was divided into critical (reflecting self-criticism over

mistakes and imperfections) and striving toward perfection components.

An empirical model derived by Frost and colleagues using an adult sample (Frost

et al. 1993) and replicated by other researchers (cf. Bieling et al. 2004; Stumpf and

Parker 2000) may be useful for understanding the structure of perfectionism in

youth as revealed by these two CAPS studies (Hewitt et al. 2002; McCreary et al.

2004). Frost et al. factor analyzed the Hewitt and Flett MPS subcales and the Frost

et al. MPS subscales and identified two broad perfectionism dimensions: Maladap-

tive Evaluative Concerns (MEC) and Positive Achievement Striving (PAS), with

SPP loading on the former, and SOP on the latter, factor. In this study, MEC scores

correlated with depression and negative affectivity whereas PAS scores correlated

with positive affect. Other subsequent studies found that the MEC dimension more

strongly relates to anxiety scores than does the PAS perfectionism component (cf.

DiBartolo et al. 2008; Frost et al. 1990; Kawamura et al. 2001).

This same empirical model (Frost et al. 1993) may hold promise for our

understanding of perfectionism in childhood, although the data from McCreary et al.

(2004) raise important questions about the dimensionality of the SOP factor from

the CAPS. McCreary et al. as well as the initial CAPS article published by Hewitt

et al. (2002) found that children’s SPP scores (considered a measure of the

Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns dimension in Frost et al. 1993) associate with

Perfectionism in Children 63

123

greater levels of psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, social stress,

and outwardly-expressed anger. In the original Hewitt et al. paper, children’s SOP

scores (reflecting Positive Achievement Striving in adults) was also associated with

depression and anxiety. In the McCreary et al. study, however, only SOP-Critical

scores significantly correlated with symptoms of anxiety and depression, whereas

SOP-Striving was not correlated with any psychological symptomatology. Thus,

research on perfectionism in adults as well as preliminary research on children

identifies perfectionism as a multidimensional construct which seems to entail both

PAS and MEC dimensions. Based on the limited evidence thus far, both SPP as well

as SOP-Critical scores from the CAPS seem to capture the Maladaptive Evaluative

Concerns (MEC) dimension of perfectionism whereas SOP-Striving scores more

purely capture the Positive Achievement Striving (PAS) dimension. Like adults,

subscale scores reflecting MEC more strongly associate with risk for psychopa-

thology in children (cf. Hewitt et al. 2002; McCreary et al. 2004).

Thus, one liability of perfectionism, in particular its MEC dimension, is increased

levels of self-reported anxiety in both children and adults. In addition to questionnaire

data supporting this relationship, research studies using a variety of laboratory and

real-life tasks (e.g., Stroop, public speaking, athletic competitions) find that adults

high in MEC respond with greater anxiety and negative affectivity than non-

perfectionists, especially when evaluative threat is invoked (cf. Frost and DiBartolo

2002). Regardless of threat level, individuals high in MEC tend to rate tasks as more

important and are more likely to endorse self-critical beliefs about their performance,

despite the fact that they generally do not objectively differ in performance outcomes

relative to non-perfectionists (cf. Frost and DiBartolo 2002; for an exception, see Frost

and Marten 1990).

In children, there is some preliminary evidence that children’s perfectionism levels

may also relate to more negative task responses. Roberts and Lovett (1994) examined

how academically gifted children compared with other middle school children in

response to a failure experimentally induced by exposure to a set of solvable, but quite

difficult, anagrams. Although the Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns dimension of

perfectionism was not measured in this study, the gifted children did endorse higher

levels of self-oriented perfectionism before the task and responded to a failure

manipulation with significantly greater negative affectivity and physiological stress in

comparison to the other comparison groups. Although these results raise the

possibility that negative responses to a laboratory challenge task relate to perfection-

ism in children, this direct relationship was not the focus of Roberts and Lovett’s study

and given the composition of their student groups (e.g., gifted children), it is unclear

whether these results will generalize. In addition, this study did not separate the SOP

subscale into its Striving versus Critical subscales, thereby muddying our under-

standing of these two ostensibly separate components (cf. McCreary et al. 2004).

Overall, there is a wealth of evidence from laboratory as well as questionnaire

studies indicating that the MEC dimension in particular increases risk for psycho-

pathology. These data are consistent with Beck’s cognitive theory (1967, 1976) which

asserts that emotional distress is related to dysfunctional and often inaccurate

beliefs about the world and self. According to his theory, a negative cognitive style,

like the MEC dimension of perfectionism, may create psychopathology because

64 P. M. DiBartolo, S. P. Varner

123

of unreasonable, catastrophic, or anxiety-provoking interpretations of everyday

events that are not justified objectively. For example, clinically anxious individuals

engage in negative self-evaluative processes even when objective evaluations of their

performance reveal no difference in comparison to their non-anxious counterparts (cf.

Rapee and Lim 1992; Stopa and Clark 1993). With regard to perfectionism, there are

some recent data indicating a relationship between the MEC dimension and greater

negative cognitive biases, such as catastrophizing and probability overestimation

(DiBartolo et al. 2001; DiBartolo et al. 2007). Moreover, consistent with Beck’s

cognitive theory, both the MEC dimension and these types of judgmental biases

associate uniquely with increased risk for a variety of types of psychopathology,

including anxiety (DiBartolo et al. 2007).

Thus, the purpose of the present investigation was to conduct a laboratory study

with a normative sample of prepubescent children to examine how the MEC and PAS

dimensions of perfectionism predict children’s cognitive and affective responses to a

novel task. Consistent with data from Hewitt et al. (2002), McCreary et al. (2004) as

well as Beck’s cognitive theory (1967, 1976), we predicted that children’s Maladap-

tive Evaluative Concerns, but not Positive Achievement Striving, scores would

associate with great anxiety and cognitive dissatisfaction, regardless of whether there

were differences in performance (cf. Rapee and Lim 1992; Stopa and Clark 1993).

Another purpose of the present study was to explore whether the Maladaptive

Evaluative Concerns versus Positive Achievement Striving dimensions of perfec-

tionism predict objective levels of standard-setting in this sample of elementary

school children. Interestingly, very few studies focus explicitly on examining

whether perfectionism actually associates with higher objective self-set standards for

performance, although two studies examining standard setting in college courses

indicate that this may be the case. Bieling et al. (2003) found that PAS (but also

MEC) dimension scores predicted higher personal standards for achievement on a

class test, but only the PAS dimension was associated with actual exam performance.

Brown and colleagues (Brown et al. 1999) found that only PAS dimension scores

associated with students’ higher expected standards for course performance (as well

as higher overall and psychology GPAs). It is important to note that the MEC, and not

the PAS, dimension of perfectionism predicted anxiety and negative affectivity

regarding class exams and performance in each of these classroom studies. Taken

together, these two studies indicate that PAS scores associate with higher perfor-

mance objectives (as well as better outcomes).

Another study by Pliner and Haddock (1996) described contradictory findings

regarding standard setting and its relationship to the dimensions of perfectionism.

Although they explored standards in college women high versus low in anorexic

symptomatology [defined by Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) scores; Garner and

Garfinkel (1979)], their study is relevant since high-EAT participants scored

significantly higher on the perfectionism subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory

(EDI; Garner et al. 1983) than did low-EAT subjects.

Participants were assigned to one of three goal conditions (self-set, low goal, and

high goal) and asked to think of as many uses as they could for a common object in

a predetermined length of time. Each condition comprised of 10 trials. In the self-set

condition, participants were asked to define their own goal in terms of the number of


123

uses they hoped to generate during each trial. In the low and high goal conditions,

the experimenter asked each participant to try to think of at least some given number

of uses (5 and 12, respectively). In the low and high goal conditions, participants

were also asked to record their own personal goal for the number of uses they

wanted to generate, distinct from the experimenter’s goal.

In both the self-set and low goal conditions of the object-naming task,

participants high in perfectionism set goals comparable to their low-perfectionism

counterparts. Interestingly, in the first five trials of the high goal condition, both

high- and low-EAT subjects initially adopted the experimenter’s high, unattainable

goal for themselves (Pliner and Haddock 1996). After it became evident that the

experimenter’s goal was unreasonably high, the low-EAT subjects modified their

personal goals to a more attainable level for the remaining trials. However, high-

EAT subjects maintained their high goals, even after it should have been clear they

were unattainable. Pliner and Haddock posited that high-EAT women are socially-

prescribed perfectionists but not self-oriented perfectionists, in that they adhere to

high standards for themselves set by others, but do not necessarily set higher

standards for themselves.

One important question not yet addressed in children is whether the PAS versus

the MEC dimensions predict objective measures of goal-setting. Beyond the two

classroom studies cited above (Bieling et al. 2003; Brown et al. 1999), there is rela-

tively little objective evidence that perfectionists set higher standards for performance

or evidence differential performance on a variety of real-life and laboratory challenges

(cf. Frost and DiBartolo 2002; for an exception on performance, see Frost and Marten

1990). Nonetheless, given the results of Bieling et al. (2003) as well as Brown et al.

(1999), we predicted that the PAS, but not MEC, component of perfectionism would

associate with higher goals for performance. To examine children’s goal-setting as well

as their cognitive and affective responses to a laboratory challenge, we utilized the

object-naming task described by Pliner and Haddock (1996).

Method

Participants

Overall, 157 students in grades three through six (approximately 40 from each

grade) from a local elementary school were eligible for participation in this study.

Parents of these students received letters explaining the study and asking for

consent. The parents of 103 students (65.6%) consented to their children’s inclusion,

30 children (19.1%) were denied consent, and no consent form was returned for 24

children (15.3%).

The mean age for the sample was 9.74 years (SD = 1.40). The study included 24

third-graders (23.3%), 30 fourth-graders (29.1%), 26 fifth-graders (25.2%), and 21

sixth-graders (20.4%). Of the total, 54.4% were girls (n = 56) and 45.6% were boys

(n = 47). In the sample, 86.4% identified themselves as Caucasian (n = 89), 2.9%

as African American (n = 3), 3.9% as Asian American (n = 4), 2.9% as Latin

American (n = 3), and 3.9% as other ethnicities (n = 4).


123

Experimental Task

Children completed six trials of an object-naming task (cf. Pliner and Haddock

1996), two trials each in a self-set goal condition, a low goal condition, and a high

goal condition. This task requires the participants to name as many uses as they can

for a common object (e.g., a brick, a piece of string) and has been used extensively

in goal-setting and task performance research (see Locke and Latham 1999, for a

review). The instructions are simple to understand and easily used with children.

For each of the two self-set goal trials, the experimenter showed the child a picture of

an object then told him or her to ‘‘try your best to name as many uses as possible for this

object.’’ In the low goal condition, the child was told: ‘‘Try your best to name as many

uses as possible for this object. Try to name at least 4 uses.’’ In the high goal condition,

the child was told: ‘‘Try your best to name as many uses as possible for this object. Try

to name at least 10 uses.’’ Since the object-naming task has not been used to assess

goals in children, experimenter-assigned goals from the adult literature were adapted

for use with the current sample. Pliner and Haddock (1996) set goals of 5 and 12 uses

for the low and high goal conditions, respectively, in their study with college-age

women. In their high goal condition, the mean number of uses was 5.80 (SD = 1.22),

indicating that 12 was indeed a challenging goal for adults. With this in mind, the high

goal was lowered to 10 uses for the present study with child participants.

For each trial, the child then had 2 min to name as many uses as possible while

the experimenter recorded all verbal responses. Procedures for this study were fully

reviewed and approved by the college’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Questionnaire Measures

The Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale The Child and Adolescent Perfec-

tionism Scale (CAPS; Flett et al. 2000) is a 22-item scale completed by children to

assess their own perfectionistic self-beliefs as well as their beliefs of the standards

that others expect of them. It has a third grade reading level and assesses both Self-

Oriented Perfectionism (SOP; perfectionism driven by one’s own expectations) and

Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP; belief that others expect perfection from

oneself). In the present study, the SPP subscale had an alpha of .68, and the SOP

subscale had an alpha of .60. In an effort to differentiate Positive Achievement

Strivings and Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns on the CAPS, SOP-Striving and

SOP-Critical scores (McCreary et al. 2004) were also calculated for the current

sample (with as of .67 and .55, respectively). Similar factors were obtained by

O’Connor, Dixon, and Rasmussen (2009).

Experimental Task Measures

Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) This rating uses a fear thermometer model to

rate anxiety on a scale of 0 (not at all anxious) to 100 (very, very, very anxious;

Silverman and Albano 1996). The experimenter explained the rating scale to the


123

children and prompted them to verbalize their SUDS rating ten times throughout the

testing session.

Pre-Task Predictions The pre-task predictions questionnaire was modeled after a

questionnaire used in previous research (DiBartolo and Grills 2006). It asked the

children to identify their goal for each trial (i.e., how many uses they believed they

would name for the object in the upcoming trial). It also asked how well children

thought they would do, and how important it was for them to do well on the task,

rated on a 0–100 scale of much worse than average to much better than average.

Post-Task Evaluations The post-task predictions questionnaire was also modeled

after a questionnaire used in previous research (DiBartolo and Grills 2006). It asked

children to indicate how well they thought they should have done and how happy

they were with how they did on a 0–100 point scale (from much worse than average

to much better than average).

Procedure

Each child whose parent consented was asked to participate in an individual testing

session at school; all children gave their assent to participate. Following assent, the

researcher explained the SUDS ratings to the child. After the explanation, the child was

asked to rate his/her anxiety level (SUDS rating) and to complete the perfectionism

measure (CAPS). The child then began the object-naming trials. After the child was

given the self-set goal instructions, he/she completed another SUDS rating and a pre-

task questionnaire. At the end of the two-minute trial, the child’s SUDS rating was

recorded. The child then completed a second trial in the self-set goal condition,

followed by another SUDS rating. After both trials in the self-set goal condition were

finished, the child completed a post-task questionnaire for the condition. The procedure

for the low and high goal conditions was the same as for the self-set goal condition, with

the exception of the previously described differences in instructions. Following the

completion of the high goal condition, the child was debriefed. The researcher assured

all children that they did a good job and that the task was meant to be challenging.

Results

Preliminary Analyses of Perfectionism Subscales

There were no significant differences for gender, grade, or ethnicity on any of the

perfectionism subscales (CAPS, SPP, SOP, SOP-S, SOP-C). Correlational analyses

of the perfectionism subscales revealed they were significantly correlated with one

another, with the exception of SOP-S and SOP-C (See Table 1).

Examining the Relationship of Socially Prescribed Perfectionism to Task

Responses

In a manner consistent with previous literature examining how perfectionism is

related to approaches to novel tasks (cf. Frost and DiBartolo 2002 for a review), we


123

chose to define our groups using CAPS-SPP scores, a measure that represents the

maladaptive dimension of perfectionism (Frost et al. 1993; McCreary et al. 2004).

Participants scoring in the upper quartile of SPP scores (C19; n = 27) were

assigned to the high-perfectionism group (HSPP) and those scoring in the lower

quartile (B13; n = 30) were assigned to the low-perfectionism group (LSPP).

The final sample consisted of 22 boys (38.6%) and 35 girls (61.4%). There were

20 third-grade students (35.1%), 15 fourth-grade students (26.3%), 10 fifth-grade

students (17.5%), and 12 sixth-grade students (21.1%). Fifty of the 57 participants in

the final sample identified themselves as Caucasian (87.7%), 1 as African-American

(1.8%), and 3 each of Latino and other ethnicities (5.3% each). A series of separate

one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare the SPP groups on demographic

variables; these groups did not differ in age, grade, gender, or ethnicity.

All data were analyzed using 2 9 3 mixed-model ANCOVAs, with Perfection-

ism Group (Low vs. High SPP) as the between-groups variable, Goal Condition

(Self-Set vs. Low vs. High) as the within-subjects variable, and SOP-Striving scores

as the covariate. Since SOP-Striving scores were positively correlated with SPP

scores in our sample, these covariate analyses were completed to examine whether

the Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns represented by SPP scores accounted for any

significant effects separate from the Positive Achievement Strivings of perfection-

ism best captured by SOP-Striving scores (McCreary et al. 2004).

Task Predictions

The 2 9 3 mixed-model ANCOVA of task importance revealed a Group effect; high

SPP participants rated the importance of doing the task well significantly higher than

their non-perfectionistic counterparts (See Table 2). There was no main effect for

Condition or interaction effect. There were also no significant effects for participants’

ratings of how well they thought they would perform on the upcoming trial.

Anxiety Measured Via Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS)

Mean SUDS ratings for Condition were created by averaging the three scores per

condition, collected immediately after instructions for the condition, and after each

Table 1 Correlations of perfectionism subscale measures (n = 103)

Scale M (SD) SPP SOP SOP-S SOP-C CAPS

SPP 16.70 (4.14) – .45** .35** .20* .83**

SOP 26.15 (4.41) – .77** .54** .87**

SOP-S 11.20 (2.78) – .10 .67**

SOP-C 3.17 (1.21) – .45**

CAPS 42.49 (7.36) –

SPP Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, SOP Self-Oriented Perfectionism, SOP-S Striving subscale of the

SOP, SOP-C Critical subscale of the SOP, CAPS Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01


123

of the two trials. A main effect was found for SPP Group: high SPP children

reported more anxiety than low SPP kids across conditions (See Table 2). There was

no interaction or main effect of Condition.

Goal-Setting and Performance

There were no significant main effects or interaction for the average number of goals

the child set for each condition: Self-Set (M = 9.92, SD = 7.08), Low (M = 7.63,

SD = 5.97), and High (M = 10.01, SD = 3.87; See Table 2). There were no

significant results for the number of object uses generated by the children

(MSS = 8.67, SDSS = 3.67; ML = 9.31, SDL = 3.95; MH = 12.10, SDH = 6.70).

Two independent coders also rated generated object uses to include appropriate

responses as a measure of quality of uses generated by the children (deleting any

redundant or nonsensical uses, e.g., ‘‘I can break a spoon into two and wear it as a

hat.’’). Coders were reliable (ICCs ranged from .89 to .95 across trials) and there were

no significant group differences for number of appropriate named uses (MSS = 7.42,

SDSS = 3.46; ML = 7.97, SDL = 3.53; MH = 9.28, SDH = 3.70).

Post-Task Evaluations

A main effect was found for Group on the post-condition question asking how

well participants thought they should have done on the task. Overall, HSPP

participants said they should have done better on the task than LSPP participants

(See Table 2). There were no Condition or interaction effects. There were no

significant effects for how happy the children were with their performance in each

condition.

Table 2 Group effects on responses to the object-naming task from the mixed-model analyses

Measure Low SPP group

N = 30

High SPP group

N = 27

F (1, 54)

Pre-task predictions

How well will you do? 53.72 (13.96) 60.22 (18.01) 1.07

How important is it to do well? 38.83 (19.91) 55.78 (22.84) 6.45*

What is your goal? 9.25 (4.41) 9.07 (5.73) .13

Task anxiety and performance

SUDS ratings 11.43 (15.08) 26.03 (22.37) 7.17*

Number of total uses generated 9.76 (3.47) 10.32 (5.07) .29

Number of appropriate uses generated 8.75 (3.17) 7.74 (2.56) 1.68

Post-task evaluations

How well should you have done? 54.00 (16.84) 67.53 (19.29) 4.58*

How happy were you with how you did? 63.89 (22.18) 70.40 (19.57) .32

Since there were no significant Condition or Group X Condition effects, data here are collapsed across the

three conditions. SPP Socially-prescribed perfectionism; SUDS Subjective units of distress scale

* p \ .05


123

Examining the Influence of Positive Achievement Striving on Responses

to the Task

A series of 2 9 3 ANCOVAs was conducted using SOP-Striving as the

Perfectionism Group variable, with SPP total scores as the covariate in order to

examine how the PAS perfectionism dimension related to children’s responses to

the task. No significant results were found for any of the dependent measures.

Multiple Regression Analyses

Although extreme group analyses are typical of the laboratory challenge literature

for perfectionism (cf. Frost & Marten 1991; Frost et al. 1995; Frost et al. 1997), this

approach results in the loss of power due to a reduced sample size. Given that there

were no significant effects of Condition for any of the ANCOVAs conducted, we

created average scores for each dependent variable (DV) across the three conditions

(self-set, low, and high) for the entire sample. Forward multiple regression (MR)

analyses using each average score as the DV with both SPP and SOP-S scores as IVs

were then conducted. The results from the MR were consistent with those from the

ANCOVAs. Specifically, SPP scores significantly (p \ .05) predicted overall SUDS

ratings (b = .20; R2 = .04), pre-task importance ratings (b = .30; R2 = .09), and

post-task evaluations of how well participants felt they should have done (b = .24;

R2 = .06). SOP-S did not account for any additional variance for each of these three

DVs.

Discussion

The present study is the first to examine the phenomenology of perfectionism in a

normative group of elementary school children using a laboratory task. One goal of

this study was to explicate the affective and cognitive reactions of children high in

the Maladaptive Evaluative Concern (MEC) dimension of perfectionism to this novel

task. As predicted, the Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) ratings revealed that

children high in Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP), considered a measure of

the MEC dimension, reported significantly more anxiety across conditions than the

low SPP group. This finding is consistent with research indicating that perfectionistic

children experience more anxiety than do children scoring low on measures of

perfectionism (Hewitt et al. 2002; McCreary et al. 2004), although this is one of the

first studies to examine affective responses related to perfectionism in children faced

with a new task. It is important to note that children high in SOP-Striving, considered

a measure of the PAS dimension of perfectionism, were not significantly more

anxious than their low SOP counterparts. These data support the hypothesis that it is

the MEC rather than the PAS perfectionism dimension that relates to negative

affective responses in children, a finding that has been replicated in questionnaire

studies using adult samples (cf. DiBartolo et al. 2008; Dunkley et al. 2006).

The finding that high SPP children reported greater anxiety in response to a novel

task than low SPP children is consistent with the adult perfectionism lab studies


123

finding a similar pattern of results (Frost and Marten 1990; Frost et al. 1995),

although adults high in the MEC dimension of perfectionism typically only respond

with increased anxiety when faced with evaluative threat (e.g., if told their

performance will be evaluated). In the present study, high SPP children reported

greater anxiety to the object-naming task across conditions, even when no explicit

evaluative threat was present (e.g., self-set, and even low goal, conditions). Children

in this study were not told that their responses would be scored and no explicit

feedback was provided to children during the testing session. Testing in the school

setting may have sufficiently reminded them of academic situations demanding

certain standards of performance, thereby elevating their sense of threat, although

there are some data indicating that perfectionistic children evidence heightened

anxiety using a variety of tasks (e.g., Stroop, anagrams; cf. DiBartolo et al. 2009),

regardless of invoked threat. It is possible that child perfectionists only acquire a

more effective threat detection system over time, perhaps via accrued experience or

great cognitive sophistication. Further research examining the parameters and

trajectory of threat detection in children high in the MEC dimension of perfectionism

is warranted. Nonetheless, it is striking that this task was associated with greater

anxiety in high SPP children even under relatively innocuous conditions.

In addition to negative affective responses, children high in SPP in this study also

evidenced an interesting pattern of cognitive responses. Overall, children high in

SPP placed more pressure on themselves prior to the task trials than their low SPP

peers, reporting that it was more important for them to do well, and then evaluated

their efforts more harshly following the trials, reporting that they should have

performed better. These cognitive findings are consistent with Beck’s cognitive

theory (Beck 1967, 1976) which asserts that emotional distress is created by

dysfunctional cognitive schemas of the self and world. Indeed, his cognitive theory

(cf. Beck 1967; Burns 1989) identifies ‘‘should’’ statements, like the kind endorsed

more strongly by the high SPP children, as a type of automatic thought common to

negative affective states. Children high in MEC reported a pattern of cognitive

responses to the object-naming trials that at the very least fueled their anxious

affect. Given the cross-sectional nature of this design, however, further empirical

work is necessary to explicate whether these observed cognitions are epiphenomena

or outcomes of negative affect or whether indeed they cause negative affectivity.

One incongruous cognitive finding from the current study was that children high

in SPP reported equivalent levels of post-task happiness with their performance

relative to their low SPP counterparts, despite the fact that these same high SPP

children stated that they should have done better on the task. This response seems a

bit suspect given the pattern of other responses reported by the high SPP group (e.g.,

greater anxiety). Perhaps by expressing general satisfaction with their performance,

children high in MEC feel less vulnerable to criticism from others. These children

might also tend to present in a socially desirable manner that suggests a facade of

self-assurance, given that MEC is often associated with efforts toward self-

concealment (cf. DiBartolo et al. 2008). Clearly, self-evaluation in high MEC

children appears complicated and further research must explicate the function and

process of their self-evaluation.


123

The data on cognitive appraisal from this study raise an important question: from

where does negative appraisal come for high MEC children? Are these negative

appraisals cognitive distortions as predicted by Beck’s (1967) theory or are they valid

reactions to more impaired task performance? Hence, another goal of this study was

to examine objective goal-setting standards as a function of perfectionism in

children. There were no significant group differences in the number of uses children

set as a standard before the trials for the high versus low SPP groups across any of the

conditions nor was there any difference in global ratings of predicted performance

relative to other children across these two groups. Contrary to prediction, the high

versus low SOP groups (our PAS proxy) evidenced no differences in goal-setting, a

finding that is inconsistent with the college classroom studies reviewed earlier

(Bieling et al. 2003; Brown et al. 1999). In addition, neither the MEC nor the PAS

dimension was related to actual performance on the object-naming task assessed via

total number of object uses generated or number of appropriate uses generated as

rated by independent assessors. On average, the children in this study met or

exceeded the goals set for them by the experimenter (with one exception: coders’

ratings of average number of appropriate uses for the high goal condition was

slightly below the experimenters’ goal level). Thus, there was little evidence in this

study that the negative appraisals and affect observed in children high in MEC were

tied to their expected or actual performance on the task.

The study measures capturing predicted and actual task performance provide

some important insight into the MEC perfectionism dimension. First, they indicate

that children high in SPP tend to set goals comparable to their low SPP counterparts

across all conditions. Even SOP-Striving scores (considered a measure of the PAS

perfectionism dimension) were not related to goal-setting for the object naming

task. Although theorizing on the nature of perfectionism has long included the

notion that perfectionists set excessively high standards (Burns 1980; Frost et al.

1990; Hamachek 1978; Hewitt & Flett 1991; Hollander 1965, Pacht 1984), these

data did not provide convincing support that children high in either the MEC or PAS

dimension of perfectionism necessarily set higher standards for performance. These

findings are contrary to the Bieling et al. (2003) and Brown et al. (1999) classroom

studies but consistent with the Pliner and Haddock (1996) study. Further work

clearly needs to examine more fully how the dimensions of perfectionism relate to

objective standards for performance using a wide variety of tasks including ones

with real-life consequences, such as academics.

In addition, regardless of the absolute level of standards set, the very process of

setting standards or creating a plan of action for achieving said standards (cf. Powers

et al. 2005) appears to initiate a process of negative self-evaluation in children high

on the MEC dimension. Although there were no objective differences in standard

setting related to the two perfectionism dimensions, there was a clear subjective

difference in performance evaluation for children high in MEC perfectionism; it

appears that they evaluate their performance more critically regardless of their

absolute levels of standard-setting and achievement. In adult lab studies, this pattern

is common. Despite a lack of objective differences in performance (for an exception,

see Frost & Marten 1990), individuals high on the MEC dimension judge their

performance more critically and allow their mistakes to exact a greater emotional toll


123

(Frost et al. 1995; Frost et al. 1997). A recent interview study also revealed that

individuals high in SPP allow failures to influence their sense of self disproportion-

ately (Neumeister 2004).

Importantly, the current study provides little evidence that the negative cognitive

and affective responses of children high in SPP are related to predicted or actual

indices of task performance. Instead, these findings are more consistent with Beck’s

cognitive theory (Beck 1967, 1976) which ties emotional distress to dysfunctional

and inaccurate ways of perceiving the world and oneself. It is important to replicate

these findings further in order to test how well Beck’s theory applies to

perfectionistic children as well as explore how this cognitive style increases risk

for psychopathology of various kinds in young children. It is essential that future

research focus on addressing the impact of the MEC dimension of perfectionism on

youth given its function as a risk factor for negative psychological outcomes (Hewitt

et al. 2002; McCreary et al. 2004). In clinical settings, this would suggest that the

MEC dimension, rather than the PAS, dimension should be the target of intervention

in children experiencing emotional distress due to their perfectionistic tendencies.

Furthermore, over the long-term, the MEC dimension could serve to heighten risk for

educational disadvantage since this dimension is associated with less adaptive

learning strategies (Mills & Blankstein 2000) and non-self-determined motivation

(Miquelon et al. 2005). Educators would serve their students well by assessing

perfectionism in their classrooms with attempts to reduce the educational risks

associated with the MEC dimension.

This is the first study exploring the relationship of the dimensions of perfectionism

in children to their cognitive and affective responses to a novel task. Standard-setting

is often considered an adaptive component of perfectionism, yet neither perfection-

ism dimension related to higher self-set goals in children for this study. More

research is necessary with tasks involving clear objective standards, such as

classroom studies similar to those conducted with adults, and this future work needs

to identify under what circumstances the actual versus ideal discrepancies in

performance may be subjective rather than real in individuals high in MEC

perfectionism. Although perfectionism did not relate to standard-setting on this novel

task, children high in the MEC dimension of perfectionism placed more pressure on

themselves to perform well and felt more anxiety. Future studies must explore how

best to address this dimension of perfectionism. One study indicated that a brief

cognitive therapy exercise inoculated students high in MEC from negative affective

responses to a public speaking task (DiBartolo et al. 2001). Similar work with

children is imperative since the anxious response set of children high in MEC

perfectionism could have wide-reaching implications for their risk for psychopa-

thology as they face the emotional and educational challenges of their everyday lives.

Acknowledgments While writing this manuscript, the first author was supported by a Pilot Research

Award from an Extramural Associate Research Development Award funded by the National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development (5G11HD043544). The research was supported by funds from the

Nancy Kershaw Tomlinson Memorial Fund. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Cathy Reid,

Kathy Yarnell, and all the elementary school teachers for their support and cooperation during data

collection. Finally, we acknowledge Kendra Kehl-Fie and Chia Yen Li for their help coding task

responses.


123

References

Accordino, D. B., Accordino, M. P., & Slaney, R. B. (2000). An investigation of perfectionism, mental

health, achievement, and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 37,

535–545.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper &

Row.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities

Press.

Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining

models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1373–1385.

Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavioural

consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,

163–178.

Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S., Juster, H. R., & Leung, A. W. (1999).

Relationship of perfectionism to affect, expectations, attributions, and performance in the classroom.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 98–120.

Burns, D.D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, pp. 34–51.

Burns, D. D. (1989). The feeling good handbook. New York: Penguin Books.

DiBartolo, P. M., Frost, R. O., Dixon, A., & Almodovar, S. (2001). Can cognitive restructuring inoculate

against perfectionistic concerns? Behavior Therapy, 32, 167–184.

DiBartolo, P. M., & Grills, A. E. (2006). Who is best at predicting children’s anxiety in response to a

social evaluative task? A comparison of child, parent, and teacher reports. Journal of AnxietyDisorders, 20, 630–645.

DiBartolo, P. M., Grover, V. C., Gallagher, H., Shutts, K., Kim, H., & Kelly, N. (2009). Laboratoryinvestigations of the phenomenology of perfectionism in elementary school children. Manuscript in

preparation.

DiBartolo, P. M., Li, C. Y., Averett, A., Skotheim, S., Smith, L. M., Raney, C., et al. (2007). The

relationship of perfectionism to judgmental biases and psychopathology. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 31, 573–587.

DiBartolo, P. M., Li, C. Y., & Frost, R. O. (2008). How do the dimensions of perfectionism relate to

mental health? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 401–417.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Boucher, D. J., Davidson, L. A., & Munro, Y. (1997). The Child andAdolescent Perfectionism Scale: Development, validation, and association with adjustment.Unpublished manuscript.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & MacDonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their

parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,research and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2002). Perfectionism, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. In G.

L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 341–371).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two

measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.

Frost, R. O., & Marten, P. A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 14, 559–572.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. CognitiveTherapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

Frost, R. O., Trepanier, K. L., Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Juster, H. R., Makris, G. S., et al. (1997).

Self-monitoring of mistakes among subjects high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 209–222.

Frost, R. O., Turcotte, T., Heimberg, R. G., & Mattia, J. I. (1995). Reactions to mistakes among subjects

high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,

195–205.

Garner, D. M., & Garfinkel, P. E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: An index of the symptoms of

anorexia nervosa. Psychological Medicine, 9, 273–279.


123

Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., & Olmstead, M. P. (1983). An overview of sociocultural factors in the

development of anorexia nervosa. In P. L. Darby, P. E. Garfinkel, D. M. Garner, & D. V. Coscina

(Eds.), Anorexia nervosa: Recent developments in research. New York: Alan R. Liss Inc.

Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. (2003a). A first study of perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction

among adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 218–235.

Gilman, R., & Ashby, J. S. (2003b). Multidimensional perfectionism in a sample of middle school

students: An exploratory investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 677–689.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.

Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Collins, L., & Flynn, C. A. (2002). Perfectionism

in children: Associations with depression, anxiety and anger. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 32, 1049–1061.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization,

assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60, 456–470.

Hollander, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94–103.

Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2001). Perfectionism, anxiety, and

depression: Are the relationships independent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 291–301.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.

McCreary, B. T., Joiner, T. E., Schmidt, N. B., & Ialongo, N. S. (2004). The structure and correlates of

perfectionism in African American children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,33, 313–324.

Mills, J. S., & Blankstein, K. R. (2000). Perfectionism, intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and

motivated strategies for learning: A multidimensional analysis of university students. Personalityand Individual Differences, 29, 1191–1204.

Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R. J., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Cardinal, G. (2005). Perfectionism, academic

motivation, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 31, 913–924.

Neumeister, K. L. S. (2004). Interpreting success and failures: The influence of perfectionism on

perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 311–335.

O’Connor, R. C., Dixon, D., & Rasmussen, S. (2009). The structure and temporal stability of the Child

and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 21, 437–443.

Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390.

Pliner, P., & Haddock, G. (1996). Perfectionism in weight-concerned and–unconcerned women: An

experimental approach. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19, 381–389.

Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Topciu, R. A. (2005). Implementation intentions, perfectionism, and goal

progress: Perhaps the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 31, 902–912.

Rapee, R. M., & Lim, L. (1992). Discrepancy between self- and observer ratings of performance in social

phobics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 728–731.

Roberts, S., & Lovett, S. (1994). Examining the ‘‘F’’ in gifted: Academically gifted adolescents’

physiological and affective responses to scholastic failure. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,17, 241–259.

Silverman, W. K., & Albano, A. M. (1996). The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV-Childand Parent Versions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2004). Maladaptive

perfectionistic self-representations: The mediational link between psychological control and

adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 487–498.

Stopa, L., & Clark, D. M. (1993). Cognitive processes in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy,31, 255–267.

Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relation to

other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837–852.


123

Documents

How Children’s Cognitive and Affective Responses to a Novel Task Relate to the Dimensions of Perfectionism