Some people have personality traits that impede their ability to participate in positive interpersonal relationships. Perfectionism represents one such trait. Perfectionism is related to interpersonal problems, even after controlling for well-established predictors of interpersonal problems (e.g., neuroticism; Hewitt, Flett, Sherry, & Caelian, 2006). Nonetheless, gaps exist in our understanding of the association between perfectionism and interpersonal problems. We address these gaps by conducting a rigorous, comprehensive test of the perfectionism-interpersonal problems connection. Specifically, we study perfectionism and daily conflict in romantic couples using a daily diary design with self- and partner-reports.
There are several dimensions of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990 and Hewitt and Flett, 1991). Among these, people high in socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP; i.e., perceiving others as demanding perfection of oneself) are likely to generate and/or perceive negative social interactions (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Indeed, SPP is consistently linked with interpersonal problems (Hewitt et al., 2006). In the present study, we operationalize SPP in partner-specific terms (see Stoeber, 2012). Partner-specific SPP involves a maladaptive social schema predisposing people to view their romantic partners as requiring perfection (e.g., “My partner expects nothing less than perfection from me”).
We examine partner-specific SPP in relation to daily conflict (i.e., daily hostile, critical, rejecting, and inconsiderate behaviors directed toward a romantic partner). We focus on daily conflict because theoretical accounts identify it as central to socially prescribed perfectionists’ interpersonal problems (Hewitt et al., 2006). Such people appear to think (e.g., perceive partners as demanding), feel (e.g., exhibit negative affect around partners), and behave (e.g., avoid partners) in ways that generate daily conflict with their romantic partners (Mackinnon et al., 2012). Consistent with our conceptualization, partner-specific SPP is linked to lower dyadic adjustment in marital relationships (Haring, Hewitt, & Flett, 2003) and lower satisfaction in dating relationships (Stoeber, 2012).
Most perfectionism studies use cross-sectional, mono-source designs. Cross-sectional designs neglect questions of temporal precedence, whereas mono-source designs involve potential biases (e.g., defensiveness). People may become accustomed to their behavior, failing to report it accurately. Additionally, people high in SPP feel pressured to be perfect and may conceal imperfections in self-report measures (Sherry et al., 2013).
The three perfectionism studies with informants found self- and informant reports of SPP correlated moderately (rs from .23 to .39). These studies involved best friends ( Flett, Besser, & Hewitt, 2005), mothers and daughters ( Mushquash, Sherry, Sherry, & Allen, 2013), and “mixed” informants (e.g., friends, parents, etc.; Sherry et al., 2013). A study with romantic partners as informants is novel. Romantic partners are well-acquainted, have shared histories, and witness behaviors across contexts. Moreover, little is known about perfectionism and interpersonal problems in men, as relevant studies involve mainly women ( Sherry et al., 2013).
Socially prescribed perfectionists are rarely studied in dyads. Instead, they are studied as individuals apart from interpersonal context. By studying romantic relationships, researchers can investigate socially prescribed perfectionists in a more contextualized, ecologically valid way. It is also unclear if the link between partner-specific SPP and conflict holds after accounting for competing variables. An apparent link between these constructs may be an artifact arising from shared variance with third variables (e.g., reassurance-seeking).
Our study overcomes problems in past work. Our daily diary design increases reliability (due to multiple reporting occasions) and reduces recall bias (by collecting data closer to an event’s occurrence). We also studied romantic couples and supplemented self-reports with partner-reports. Our sample is equal parts men and women, allowing us to study partner-specific SPP and daily conflict in both genders. Moreover, we tested if the relation between partner-specific SPP and daily conflict holds after controlling for reassurance-seeking (i.e., excessively asking your partner if he/she cares about you). Reassurance-seeking is a suitable covariate as it shares variance with perfectionism and conflict (Starr & Davila, 2008).
Building on past work (Sherry et al., 2013), we hypothesized self- and partner-reports of partner-specific SPP would correlate moderately. We also hypothesized self- and partner-reports of partner-specific SPP would predict changes in self- and partner-reports of daily conflict after controlling for reassurance-seeking and previous day’s conflict. No gender differences were hypothesized, given the paucity of evidence.
