ارتباط با کمال گرایی و لزوم وجود یک مدل فرایند دوگانه

Previous research regarding perfectionism points toward many of its negative correlates. Other research has suggested support for the notion that perfection is related to both positive and negative aspects. In this study, we utilize the dual process model explicated by Slade and Owens (1998) that indicates an essential distinction between positive (adaptive) and negative (maladaptive) perfectionism. According to this model, positive and negative perfectionists may exhibit the same or similar behavior prima facie, but their latent motivations and corresponding affective states and cognitive processes are different. Correlates with positive and negative perfectionism were investigated. Negative perfectionism was found to correlate with emotional suppression as a coping mechanism, maximization, cognitive dysfunctions, depression, and regret. Positive perfectionism was found to correlate with life-satisfaction and maximization, but not with cognitive dysfunctions, depression, and regret, among other maladaptive characteristics. We argue these results (1) provide indicative evidence for the dual process model, and thus contend it will be useful for interpreting perfectionism in the future, and (2) raise important implications regarding the nature of the distinction between positive and negative perfectionism as well as between perfectionism and maximization.

Is perfectionism entirely indicative of maladjustment? Is it possible for an individual to be a perfectionist while avoiding the negative characteristics normally associated with perfectionism? Could it be the case that perfectionism is even a desirable personality characteristic? An abundance of previous research points toward its negative correlates. For instance, it was found that perfectionism positively correlates with neuroticism (Flett, Hewitt, & Dyck, 1989), depression (Hewitt and Flett, 1991 and Hewitt and Flett, 1993), and personality disorders (Hewitt, Flett, & Turnbull-Donovan, 1992). Perfectionism has also been found to positively correlate with suicide potential and ideation (Hamilton and Schweitzer, 2000 and Hewitt et al., 1992), procrastination (Flett, Blankstein, Hewitt, & Koledin, 1992), anxiety (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & O’Brien, 1991), and interpersonal problems (Hill, Zrull, & Turlington, 1997), among other maladaptive and undesirable characteristics. However, other research has indicated positive or adaptive aspects related to perfectionism. For example, Ashby and Rice (2002) demonstrate that adaptive perfectionism positively correlates with self-esteem, whereas maladaptive perfectionism negatively correlates with it. Other research such as that by Frost et al., 1993, Rice et al., 1998 and Cox et al., 2002 supports the plausibility that there are positive and negative dimensions of perfectionism, yet the construct is negative overall. In addition, and notably consistent with Hamachek (1978), research by Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, and Dewey (1995) demonstrates there may be a group of perfectionists who avoid most of the negative aspects normally associated with perfectionism. This implies that more than merely the relationship between perfectionism and both positive and negative factors; namely, it may be the case that one form of perfectionism is robustly positive and adaptable. Slade and Owens (1998) explicate a dual process model, providing theoretical clarity regarding how positive perfectionism may indeed manifest empirically. Their model claims that although the behavior of positive and negative perfectionists may appear to be the same from an objective perspective, it is based on underlying functional differences. These differences reflect the distinction Skinner (1968) makes between positive and negative reinforcement. Whereas a history of positive reinforcement sustains pursuit of perfection for positive perfectionists, Slade and Owens argue, a history of negative reinforcement prompts it for negative perfectionists. Positive perfectionists attain rewards such as approval, personal success, and heightened self-esteem. Accordingly, positive perfectionists tend to set realistic rather than unreachable standards. Negative perfectionists, on the other hand, seeking to avoid or escape mediocrity or personal failure, tend to set unrealistically high standards. Slade and Owens contend that these functional differences are concomitant with different underlying cognitive processes and emotional states. They claim positive perfectionists pursue perfection with an emphasis on achieving success rather than avoiding failure, and therefore, it is likely that they are more optimistic about achieving potential success in the future; that is, they are able to remain secure emotionally in light of failure, tending to believe success may occur at any moment. Negative perfectionists, whose emphasis on the other hand is mainly to avoid failure, are characterized by a fear of the future, for they believe it is likely that failure is just around the corner. Flett and Hewitt (2006) acknowledge the potential utility of the dual process model to guide research while challenging the utility of a distinction between positive and negative perfectionism. Emphasizing the negative aspects of perfectionism, mainly due to clinical concerns, may come at the cost of understanding its positive or healthy side. Burns and Fedewa (2005) indicate that positive perfectionists engage in healthy coping strategies such as actively trying to resolve their problems, whereas negative perfectionists engage in unhealthy strategies such as ruminating about their problems. Mitchelson and Burns (1998) show positive perfectionism correlates with life-satisfaction and positive self-assessment, providing support for the notion that positive perfectionists, due to underlying functional differences that correspond to distinct motivational, cognitive, and affective processes, are much better off in terms of adaptability than their negative counterparts. In light of the dual process model and its recent support, will studies regarding perfectionism conducted prior to the model’s emergence require a reevaluation and reinterpretation? Will the dual process model be useful in this endeavor, as well as in upcoming studies on perfectionism? The current study will address this question while also exploring the correlations between positive and negative perfectionism and cognitive dysfunctions, emotional reappraisal, emotional suppression, maximization, and their correlates (e.g., life-satisfaction, regret, depression, and anxiety). Cognitive dysfunctions have been shown to be associated with perfectionism (Weisman & Beck, 1978). Cognitive dysfunctions are negative attribution errors that occur automatically regarding one’s self or the world. One example of a cognitive dysfunction is obsessive concern about winning the approval of others (Hollon & Kendall, 1980). Another example is the continuous state of rumination about the possibility of future failures. These cognitive dysfunctions may then mediate the development of perfectionism and its symptoms such as depression and anxiety, especially after individuals experience stressful life events. Cognitive dysfunctions and their correlates such as depression and anxiety may only characterize negative perfectionists rather than positive perfectionists, since via the dual process model only negative perfectionism is characterized by maladaptive cognitive processes, such as rumination, and other negative affective aspects, such as low self-esteem and low life-satisfaction, that are related to them. Furthermore, research has shown that individuals use different types of strategies for regulating or coping with their emotions, such as emotional reappraisal (ER) and emotional suppression (ES) (Gross & John, 2003). Those individuals who utilize ER are able to modify how they perceive a negative or stressful event, such as personal failure, in order to neutralize its emotional impact. Alternatively, those individuals who utilize ES only alter their behaviors upon encountering a stressful situation rather than alter their perceptions of the situation itself. Results from Gross and John (2003) indicate that emotional reappraisers have greater life-satisfaction, optimism, self-esteem, and general well being than emotional suppressors. Results also indicate that reappraisers show significantly fewer depressive symptoms than emotional suppressors. According to the dual process model, since positive perfectionists often remain emotionally secure upon encountering failure, it is likely that they will engage in more healthy coping strategies such as ER, whereas negative perfectionists, who are more emotionally rigid, will engage in less healthy strategies such as ES. Previous research by Schwartz et al. (2002) regarding decision-making points out that when individuals encounter an array of options, some will accept an adequate choice, while others seek only the best choice. Satisficers are those who search until they find an option that meets their criteria and then stop searching. Maximizers are those who continue to search for an optimal choice regardless of how many options have been reviewed or are remaining. Since maximization ostensibly reflects the pursuit of perfection, it is possible that maximization and perfectionism are similar constructs. In fact, results from Schwartz et al. indicate that maximization showed a significant positive correlation with Self-Oriented Perfectionism as measured by the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale of Hewitt and Flett, 1990 and Hewitt and Flett, 1991—in addition to depression and regret as well as a significant negative correlation with happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life-satisfaction. Oddly, in the same study, perfectionism showed a positive, albeit statistically insignificant, correlation with happiness and did not have a negative correlation with self-esteem. This has been interpreted as evidence for a conceptual distinction between maximization and perfectionism, but it is at least implicit that perfectionism may not be entirely indicative of maladjustment, even though it is related to maximization—an apparently maladaptive construct. Therefore, continued exploration of the relationship between perfectionism and maximization may further elucidate the nature of maximization.