The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism examines the relation between four subtypes of perfectionism and psychological adjustment (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010). Researchers have investigated subtypes of perfectionism using common multivariate statistical analyses. The development of a new measure is warranted to evaluate whether individuals can, with a decent degree of certainty, assess by themselves their subtypes of perfectionism. Two studies with samples of university students were conducted to develop and provide initial evidence for the Self-Assessment of Perfectionism Subtypes (SAPS). Our measurement approach tries to simulate the features of mixture modeling by asking participants to assess a self-rated probability of belonging into each subtype of perfectionism. Using a finite-like and continuous scale, our results showed that self-rated probabilities of belonging in subtypes of perfectionism are significantly associated with traditional measures of perfectionism and consequential life outcomes in a way that mostly replicated past research and supported the four hypotheses of the model.
Mounting theoretical attention has recently been allocated to dispositional perfectionism. Among recent developments, the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism has been proposed to examine whether within-person combinations of core dimensions of perfectionism offer a promising level of analysis to unpack the associations between perfectionism and consequential life outcomes. Thus far, researchers have investigated the four subtypes proposed in the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism using multivariate statistical analyses such as multiple regression (e.g., Douilliez and Lefèvre, 2011 and Gaudreau, 2012), moderated structural equation modeling (Franche, Gaudreau, & Miranda, 2012), and cluster analyses (e.g., Cumming and Duda, 2012 and Li et al., 2014). Despite the strengths of these approaches, they involve complex mathematical abstractions likely to cast scepticism about the real life applicability of the model among some researchers and practitioners who are less familiar with multivariate statistics. The development of a measure is warranted to evaluate whether individuals can, with a decent degree of certainty, assess by themselves their within-person combination of perfectionism in a way that will correspond with the results of more complex statistical analyses. The goal of these studies was to develop and provide initial evidence for a novel measure, hereafter referred as the Self-Assessment of Perfectionism Subtypes (SAPS).
1.1. Dimensions of perfectionism and their distinct within-person combinations
Dispositional perfectionism represents the generalized tendency to strive for perfection and/or to evaluate oneself according to outstandingly high standards of self-imposed and/or socially prescribed excellence (e.g., Flett & Hewitt, 2006). This generally accepted definition highlights the multidimensional and dispositional (i.e., trait-like) nature of perfectionism, which entails two separate but empirically related dimensions (e.g., Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000). On the one hand, personal standards perfectionism (also labeled perfectionistic strivings; Stoeber & Otto, 2006) is a self-directed predisposition to strive toward perfection by pursuing high standards determined by the person himself. Self-oriented perfectionism is a core feature of the personal standards dimension of perfectionism because it encompasses the self-directed tendencies to believe that attaining perfection is important, to set exacting standards, and to evaluate oneself accordingly. On the other hand, evaluative concerns perfectionism (also labeled perfectionistic concerns; Stoeber & Otto, 2006) is a social evaluative tendency to perceive that others are exerting pressure to be perfect, to evaluate accordingly, and to doubt one’s capacity to reach exceedingly high outcomes that are socially prescribed. Socially prescribed perfectionism is a cardinal feature of the social evaluative dimension of perfectionism because it entails the pursuit of perfection to obtain or maintain valuation from significant others and to reach socially desirable standards that are imposed by others who “have unrealistic standards for them, evaluate them stringently, and exert pressure on them to be perfect” ( Hewitt & Flett, 1991, p. 457). 1
In recent theoretical, empirical, and methodological articles (e.g., Gaudreau, 2012, Gaudreau, 2013, Gaudreau and Verner-Filion, 2012 and Stoeber, 2012), proponents of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism have suggested that perfectionism can be conceived as the within-person organizations of two interrelated systems: the personal and social components of perfectionism. Individuals can be distinguished according to four prototypical within-person combinations of perfectionism that can be used to define and differentiate the four distinct subtypes of perfectionism shown in Fig. 1.
