کمال گرایی خصلتی و خودارائه کمال گرایی در آسیب شناسی شخصیت

Perfectionism is a vulnerability factor for distress that is considered either a form of personality pathology (PP) per se or an associated feature of PP. This study investigated trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, and PP using two large samples and two leading models of PP (see APA, 1994; Livesley, Jackson, & Schroeder, 1992). Perceiving perfectionistic demands from others, promoting a perfect image to others, and concealing perceived imperfections from others were positively correlated with most forms of PP. In contrast, demanding perfection of oneself and demanding perfection from others were largely, but not entirely, unrelated to PP. Results also suggested that perfectionism dimensions provide unique information compared to each other and to the Big Five. For some domains of PP (e.g., Cluster C), perfectionism dimensions may operate as a central factor that drives core elements of the pathology. For other domains of PP (e.g., dissocial behavior), perfectionism may function as a peripheral feature that reinforces aspects of the pathology.

Theory and evidence suggest that perfectionism and PP commonly co-occur and that perfectionistic behavior may contribute to the development and the sequelae of PP. Bruch (1981), for example, argued that perfectionism and paralyzing dependency typify anorexic women and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA, 1994) noted perfectionism’s importance to Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder. Perfectionism and PP also converge in that both involve an extreme, inflexible orientation toward the world that is accompanied by relational discord, occupational problems, and moderate heritability. Perfectionism and PP are also associated with the onset and the maintenance of psychopathology and the creation of treatment difficulties (see Flett and Hewitt, 2002 and Millon et al., 2000 for reviews). Overall, both perfectionism and PP seem to involve an enduring and a life-impairing pattern of thinking, behaving, perceiving, and relating. Despite widespread discussion of the link between perfectionism and PP, research on this topic is scarce. This study begins to fill this void by examining the perfectionism–PP relation. Although several useful perfectionism models exist (e.g., Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003), Hewitt and Flett’s multidimensional model (Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt et al., 2003) was adopted in this study. This model involves multiple processes (e.g., trait vs. self-presentational) and perspectives (e.g., personal vs. interpersonal) and includes a focus on interpersonal dynamics and public presentations of an unrealistically perfect false self. 1.1. A multidimensional perfectionism model Hewitt and Flett (1991) conceptualized trait perfectionism as three separate and stable dimensions: self-oriented perfectionism or SOP (i.e., demanding perfection of oneself), other-oriented perfectionism or OOP (i.e., demanding perfection of others), and socially prescribed perfectionism or SPP (i.e., perceiving that others are demanding perfection of oneself). Trait perfectionism thus distinguishes the source and the direction of perfectionistic expectations. Hewitt et al. (2003) also conceptualized perfectionistic self-presentation as three distinct, stable interpersonal dimensions: perfectionistic self-promotion (i.e., proactively promoting a perfect image), nondisclosure of imperfection (i.e., concern over verbal disclosures of imperfection), and nondisplay of imperfection (i.e., concern over behavioral displays of imperfection). An excessive need to appear perfect in the eyes of others is thus central to perfectionistic self-presentation. Although perfectionism dimensions (i.e., trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation) overlap, they are, nonetheless, conceptually and empirically distinct. Whereas trait perfectionism focuses on motives and dispositions related to attaining perfection, perfectionistic self-presentation focuses on the expression of one’s supposed perfection to others. In other words, trait perfectionism represents what perfectionism is and perfectionistic self-presentation represents what perfectionism does ( Allport, 1937 and Hewitt et al., 2003). Empirical studies also suggest that perfectionism dimensions are distinct and operate as unique vulnerabilities for various adjustment difficulties, including depression ( Dunkley et al., 2003) and interpersonal problems ( Hewitt et al., 2003). 1.2. PP models In this study, perfectionism dimensions are examined in relation to two influential PP models. Both models were selected because they cover most major domains of PP. The first model comes from DSM-IV and includes three higher-order domains: Cluster A (i.e., odd and eccentric traits, including paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal PP), Cluster B (i.e., dramatic, emotional, and erratic traits, including antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic PP), and Cluster C (i.e., anxious and fearful traits, including avoidant, dependent, and obsessive–compulsive PP). This model has evolved over several versions of the DSM and has been shaped by many contributors (e.g., Millon et al., 2000). The second model originates from Livesley, Jackson, and Schroeder (1992) and shares similarities with DSM-IV’s PP model. Livesley et al.’s model involves four higher-order domains: emotional dysregulation (resembling DSM-IV’s borderline PP and including affective instability, interpersonal discord, and identity confusion), dissocial behavior (resembling DSM-IV’s antisocial PP and involving stimulus seeking, callousness, and conduct problems), inhibition (resembling DSM-IV’s schizoid PP and including intimacy problems and restricted expression), and compulsivity (resembling DSM-IV’s obsessive–compulsive PP and involving orderliness and meticulousness). Having outlined how both perfectionism and PP are conceptualized in this study, theory and research on their interrelation is now considered. Although investigation into perfectionism’s overlap with PP is just beginning, discernable patterns have emerged, especially regarding the importance of interpersonal perfectionism dimensions in PP. 1.3. Trait perfectionism and PP Past research (Hewitt, Flett, & Turnbull, 1992) has shown that SOP, the only intrapersonal perfectionism dimension, is largely unrelated to PP, except for a possible link with compulsivity. Early theory identified demanding perfection of oneself as basic to compulsivity (Horney, 1950); however, recent evidence on SOP and compulsivity is inconsistent, with some work finding a positive connection (Grilo, 2004) and other studies failing to uncover a link (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Other-oriented perfectionism may also comprise a basic feature of dramatic, emotional, and erratic individuals’ relational functioning. For example, Kernberg (1975) suggested that narcissists often idealize others and then react angrily when others fail to live up to such lofty expectations. Entitlement, callousness, and grandiosity may also fuel dissocial individuals’ criticism of and demandingness toward others. Supporting this viewpoint, Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt et al., 1992 found a positive association between OOP and dissocial and narcissistic PP. In interpersonal PP models, mental representations of others as demanding and critical are central to PP (Benjamin, 1996), suggesting that interpersonal perfectionism dimensions may be especially important to PP. For instance, SPP may be seen as an overly articulated, chronically accessible, interpersonal schema that fosters the turbulent relational patterns and the distorted interpersonal appraisals typical of Clusters B and C pathology. Congruent with this position, elevations in SPP distinguish women with Borderline Personality Disorder from schizophrenic patients and community controls (Hewitt, Flett, & Turnbull, 1994) and SPP is positively correlated with borderline, avoidant, and dependent PP (Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt et al., 1992). An undifferentiated sense of self that is overly reliant on others’ views and evaluations may also be seen as central to SPP. Hewitt et al. (1994) argued that such an inadequate sense of self is tied to difficulty in negotiating the process of separation-individuation. We believe that the self-other confusion typical of SPP may encourage the identity disturbance seen in Cluster B and the interpersonal sensitivity typical of Cluster C. Thus, theory and evidence suggest that SPP is a negative form of significant other representation that is prominent in emotionally dysregulated persons with dramatic and erratic traits as well as socially apprehensive persons with anxious and fearful traits. Finally, the relation between trait perfectionism and PP was recently called into question to some extent by Shahar, Blatt, Zuroff, and Pilkonis (2003). These authors studied depressed patients and showed that perfectionistic attitudes positively correlated only with Cluster A and depressive PP. Thus, compared to past studies (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), Shahar et al. found a narrower association between perfectionism and PP. 1.4. Perfectionistic self-presentation and PP As an exaggerated self-presentation style that is linked with social discord and experienced by others as interpersonally aversive (Hewitt et al., 2003), perfectionistic self-presentation may be a central aspect of personality disordered individuals’ larger mode of disturbed social interaction. Although self-presentation is stressed in various PP models (Millon et al., 2000), the relationship between PP and extreme self-presentation styles such as perfectionistic self-presentation is seldom researched. This study is unique in that it examines the perfectionistic self-presentation–PP link for the first time. Individuals with PP may use perfectionistic self-presentation to establish desired images that serve interpersonal needs. For example, dissocial and narcissistic individuals may pridefully promote an image of perfect capability and invulnerability in pursuit of others’ admiration. Thus, self-promotion (i.e., perfectionistic self-promotion) may operate as an interpersonal influence tactic that enhances and maintains dissocial and narcissistic individuals’ desired image of strength and dominance. Furthermore, individuals with paranoid or dissocial PP may adopt an exclusionary communication style such as nondisclosure (i.e., nondisclosure of imperfection) to guard against possible exploitation by others. Within a paranoid or an antisocial mindset, disclosing flaws to others may be tantamount to inviting victimization from others. Moreover, an aloof, emotionally inexpressive communication style such as nondisclosure appears compatible with the intimacy problems and interpersonal deficits typical of persons with odd, eccentric, and inhibited PP. Several forms of PP also involve a tendency to either display an extremely false self or to be highly concerned that others will detect flaws inherent in the self. Benjamin (1996), for instance, argued that parents of avoidant individuals tend to regard visible imperfections as humiliating events and to pressure their children to present perfect social images in a manner consistent with nondisplay (i.e., nondisplay of imperfection). Lastly, presenting the self as perfect to others may represent an attempt by individuals with PP to construct a socially desirable identity and to stabilize their precarious sense of self. Without an integrated, positive, stable identity (Blatt & Blass, 1992), individuals with PP may become overly dependent on how they present themselves to others and whether they are accepted by others. Thus, promoting a picture of perfection to others and concealing any hint of imperfection from others is likely to become a salient concern for people with PP. 1.5. Study hypotheses Given the theory and the evidence reviewed above, interpersonal perfectionism dimensions, especially SPP and perfectionistic self-presentation, were hypothesized to positively correlate with higher-order PP domains. More specifically, regarding trait perfectionism, SOP was expected to positively relate to compulsivity. However, since evidence on SOP and compulsivity is equivocal, this hypothesis was exploratory. As in earlier research (Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt et al., 1992), it was also anticipated that OOP would be positively linked with Cluster B and dissociality (i.e., dissocial behavior) and SPP would be positively connected to Cluster B, Cluster C, and dysregulation (i.e., emotional dysregulation). Building on the literature reviewed above, as well as Hewitt et al.’s (2003) model of perfectionistic self-presentation, it was further anticipated that self-promotion would be positively linked with Cluster B and dissociality. Nondisclosure was also expected to be positively linked with Cluster A, inhibition, and dissociality. Finally, nondisplay was expected to be positively related to Cluster C. In addition to evaluating whether perfectionism and PP overlap in a predictable manner, this study tested the discriminant and incremental validity of Hewitt and Flett’s model (Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt et al., 2003). In other words, the above hypotheses tested whether perfectionism dimensions are uniquely and differentially related to PP. This investigation also tested whether perfectionism dimensions explain incremental variance in PP above and beyond the Big Five (i.e., openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Because PP and the Big Five strongly overlap (Clark & Livesley, 2002), this represents a stringent test.