8/12/2019 pai6

1/6

The mediating role of coping in the relationship between subtypesof perfectionism and job burnout: A test of the 2 2 modelof perfectionism with employees in China

Xu Lia ,1 , Zhi-Jin Hou a , , Hao-Yang Chi a , Jiao Liu a , Mark J. Hager ba School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, No. 19 Xinjiekouwai St., Haidian Dist., Beijing 100875, Chinab Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Atherton, CA 94027, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 October 2012Received in revised form 26 September2013Accepted 12 October 2013Available online 8 November 2013

Keywords:PerfectionismCoping style Job burnoutMediating effectIT employees

a b s t r a c t

This study addressed the four hypotheses proposed in the 2 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau, 2013)and investigated the relationship between perfectionism, coping style, and job burnout among ITemployees in China. The Chinese version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (Li & Shi,2003), Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), and Problem-FocusedStyle of Coping (Heppner, Cook, Wright, & Johnson, 1995) scale were administered to 345 Chinese ITemployees. Using cluster analysis, participants were categorized into four perfectionism groups, whichwere then analyzed with ANOVA and path analysis. Results indicated: (1) signicant differences on cop-ing and burnout were found between the pure Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism (ECP) and the Non-Per-fectionism (NP) delineated in the 2 2 model; (2) when investigating the relationships betweensubtypes of perfectionism and job burnout, results supported the Hypothesis 1A, 2, and 4 proposed inGaudreau (2013) but failed to corroborate its Hypothesis 3; and (3) controlling for the other two, eachof the three coping styles partially or completely mediated the relationship between perfectionism andburnout.

2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Job burnout has been revealed to be a pervasive workplace haz-ard and has thus received much attention from social scienceresearchers ( Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009 ). From more recentliterature, one personality variable that has been frequently exam-ined in association with burnout is perfectionism ( Hill, Hall, &Appleton, 2010; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008; Zhang, Gan, & Cham,2007 ), which is a type of personality trait most prominently char-acterized by setting excessively high standards for performanceaccompanied by overly critical self-evaluations ( Frost, Marten,Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990 ). Despite this original denition, cumu-lative evidence has indicated that perfectionism is more likely amultidimensional construct, and researchers have been attemptingto construct several models to conceptualize the hidden underly-ing structure of perfectionism. Among these models, the tripartiteformulation by Stoeber andOtto (2006) and the quadripartite 2 2model by Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) seem to have been thefocus of recent studies ( Stoeber, 2012 ).

Both models considered the differential interactions of PersonalStandards or Perfectionistic Strivings Perfectionism (PSP) and Eval-uative Concerns Perfectionism (ECP) within each person, and la-beled the high PSP low ECP combination as the adaptive orpure PSP subtype and the high PSP high ECP combination asthe maladaptive or Mixed Perfectionism (MP) subtype. The key dif-ference between the tripartite and the quadripartite model wasthat the Non-Perfectionism (NP) subtype in the former was fur-ther classied into a pure ECP subtype and a real NP subtype inthe latter. Some evidence has been found that provided prelimin-ary support for this distinction ( Franche, Gaudreau, & Miranda, inpress; Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Sironic & Reeve, 2012 ), andthe rst objective of this study was to examine whether individualswith pure ECP and NP would display signicant differences in cop-ing style and job burnout which would lend support to conceptu-alizing them as two distinct subtypes with a sample of ChineseIT employees.

Along with the 2 2 conceptualization, four hypotheses wereproposed in Gaudreau and Thompson (2010) and further revisedin Gaudreau (2013) . In the updated model ( Gaudreau, 2013,p.352 ), Hypothesis 1 (H1) addressed the comparative adaptivenessof pure PSP and NP with H1A favoring pure PSP, H1B favoring NPand H1C claiming no difference. Hypothesis 2 (H2) maintained thatpure ECP was less adaptive than NP. MP was hypothesized to be

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 58802102.E-mail address: zhijinhou@163.com (Z.-J. Hou).

1 Xu Li is now a doctoral student in Department of Counseling, Higher Educationand Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park.

Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

j o u rn a l homepage : www.e l s ev i e r. com / l oca t e /pa id

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007mailto:zhijinhou@163.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paidhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/paidhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007mailto:zhijinhou@163.comhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007&domain=pdfhttp://-/?-

8/12/2019 pai6

2/6

associated with better psychological adjustment than pure ECP inHypothesis 3 (H3) and poorer adjustment than pure PSP inHypothesis 4 (H4). Stoeber (2012) called for future studies to testthe comparative adaptiveness of the four subtypes of perfection-ism, therefore the second objective of this study was to addressthis question by examining their differential roles in predicting job burnout.

The third question to explore, besides the direct relationship, isthe specic mechanisms through which perfectionism inuencesburnout, i.e., identifying potential mediating or moderating vari-ables. Among the investigated variables, coping style has recentlybecome an important focus ( Fry, 1995; Hill et al., 2010; Ogus,2008; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008 ). Various studies have demon-strated signicant correlations of coping style with both perfec-tionism and burnout ( Ogus, 2008; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008 ).Moreover, twostudies further suggested that it could serve as a po-tential mediator ( Chang, 2012; Hill et al., 2010 ). For example, Hillet al. (2010) found that problem-focused and avoidant copingmediated the effects of self-oriented or socially prescribed perfec-tionism on athlete burnout. And in Changs (2012) study, it wasfound that in a sample of nurses, emotion-focused coping (denedas the latent construct behind suppressive and reective copingstyle) mediated the relationship between maladaptive perfection-ism and burnout.

However, although the above two studies have examined themediating effects of coping style between perfectionism and burn-out, they only focused on athletes and nurses. While empirical evi-dence has suggested that job burnout could be found in industriesbesides human service ( Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Schaufeli,Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996 ), studies targeting on such popu-lations do not seem sufcient, especially in the Asian cultural con-text with its vast scope of established and emerging industries. Thepresent study attempted to address this limitation by focusing onemployees in the eld of Information Technology (IT) in China. ITis a kind of profession that requires employees to continuouslyadd to their knowledge base to create more accurate, efcient,and useful software. To achieve this, they have to pay great atten-tion to details in order to keep the computer programs perfectlyright without any possible error. This demand for absolute rigor,meticulous execution, and total absence of errors characterizes rel-evant jobs in this eld by high workloads and various kinds of stressors ( Maudgalya, Wallace, Daraiseh, & Salem, 2006; Sethi,King, & Quick, 2004 ). Moreover, there has also been strong evi-dence to show signicant correlations between work pressure orworkloads and burnout ( Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach &Leiter, 2008 ). These ndings suggest that IT employees are ahigh-risk group of potential sufferers of job burnout, and this riskis even more salient in the current Chinese society given its rapidpace of development which in effect imposes great stress onemployees working in various enterprises. Unfortunately however,

little scientic research has been located that systematically inves-tigated job burnout and its pertinent variables and mechanismsamong the special population of Chinese IT employees.

Therefore, the third objective of this study was to examine therelationship between perfectionism and burnout and the potentialmediating role of coping style in the IT profession in China, with anattempt to somewhat further our understanding of employeesmental health in this particular occupation.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants of this study were urban mainland Chinese ITemployees working in departments of software/hardware

development and test, technical support or internet information.All participants were recruited through online advertisementsand were asked to ll out the questionnaires on an internet plat-form. Among the 462 responses received, a total of 345 question-naires (74.7%) qualied for further analysis (with less than 5%missing data), of which 76.8% ( n = 265) were male and 23.2%(n = 80) were female. Their age ranged from 19 to 42 with a meanof 28.41 and SD of 5.78. Missing data analysis was performed andno signicant differences were found between the excluded casesand the retained cases.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Burnout The Chinese version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory- General

Survey (MBI-GS, Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996 ), localized and re-vised by Li and Shi (2003) , was used to measure the IT employeesburnout level; it contains 15 items divided into three subscales,Emotional Exhaustion, Cynicism, and Professional Efcacy. Partici-pants are required to respond on a 7-point scale ranging from0 = never to 6 = very frequently. Higher scores indicate higher lev-els of emotional exhaustion and cynicism and a lower level of pro-fessional efcacy. The Chinese version of MBI-GS ( Li & Shi, 2003 )displayed good reliability with the data in the present research:the internal consistency coefcient for the overall inventory (Cron-bachs alpha) was 0.89; and were 0.90, 0.89 and 0.89 for the afore-mentioned subscales respectively.

2.2.2. PerfectionismThe Almost Perfect Scale Revised (APS-R, Slaney, Rice, Mobley,

Trippi, & Ashby, 2001 ) was used to measure participants perfec-tionism from three dimensions: Discrepancy, High Standards, andOrder. This inventory consists of 23 items rated on a 7-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores onthese dimensions respectively indicate higher discrepancy be-tween self-expectation and reality, higher standards the individualsets for himself or herself, and a stronger sense of and inclinationfor order. The original APS-R was adapted into Chinese using thetranslate and back-translate procedure, and displayed good reli-ability with the data in this research: the internal consistency(Cronbachs alpha) was 0.89 for the whole scale, 0.91 for Discrep-ancy, 0.81 for High Standards, and 0.66 for Order.

2.2.3. Coping styleThe Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC; Heppner, Cook,

Wright, & Johnson, 1995 ) was used. The Chinese version of PF-SOC revised by Zhan and Gan (2008) was employed to assess par-ticipants coping style. This inventory consists of 18 items whichare categorized into three subscales: Reective, Reactive, and Sup-pressive coping ( Heppner et al., 1995 ). Participants were asked torespond on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = almost never and 5 = almostall of the time). A higher score on theReective subscale representsa greater tendency towards problem-focused coping, while on theother two subscales it means less problem-focused coping. Theinventory has good reliability with the data in this study: the inter-nal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) for the general scale was 0.79,for Reective 0.77, for Reactive 0.75, and for Suppressive 0.87.

3. Results

3.1. Grouping participants in terms of perfectionism

With regard to the rst research question, we employed cluster

analysis procedures similar to Rice and Ashby (2007) to group theparticipants according to their responses in the APS-R. To align

66 X. Li et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570

8/12/2019 pai6

3/6

with the 2 2 model, we maintained the cluster number to befour, and hierarchical clustering was adopted rst to determinethe cluster centroids for use in the subsequent non-hierarchicalK-Means clustering. This combination of both hierarchical andnon-hierarchical methods was also suggested in Hair, Black, Babin,and Anderson (2009) to compensate for each others weakness.

To further understand the four groups identied, ANOVA testsand post hoc analyses were then conducted to inspect their differ-ences on the High Standard and Discrepancy dimensions. Relevantresults were demonstrated in Fig. 1 and Table 1 . As expected, therst ( n = 123) and second ( n = 81) group of participants displayedsignicantly higher High Standard scores than Group 3 ( n = 62)and 4 ( n = 79) as well as the sample median score of this dimension(Md = 5.00); while the second and the fourth group of participantsshowed signicantly higher Discrepancy scores than Group 1 and3as well as the corresponding dimension median score ( Md = 3.50).These results suggested that the clusters which emerged from theempirical data were consistent with the 2 2 theoretical concep-tualization of perfectionism, based on which the four obtainedclusters were thereby named as pure PSP, MP, NP, and pure ECPrespectively.

The second research question was also addressedby the ANOVAtests. Results showed that, for coping style, signicant groupdifferences were manifest in all its dimensions (Reective,Suppressive, and Reactive coping, F (3,341) = 10.26, 34.85, and

30.05 respectively, all p < .001). Post-hoc analyses revealed that:on Reective coping, pure PSP perfectionists exhibited higherscores than the other three groups; while on SuppressiveandReac-tive coping, MP and pure ECP groups reported higher scores vis-a-vis pure PSP and NP groups.

With regard to burnout, signicant group differences were alsofound in all three dimensions (Emotional Exhaustion, Cynicism,and Professional Efcacy) and scale total score (

F (3,341) = 19.94,

16.67, 46.01, and 30.07 respectively, all p < .001). Post-hocanalysesrevealed that while pure PSP and NP both scored signicantly low-er than pure ECP and MP in Emotional Exhaustion, Cynicism, andburnout total score, pure PSP perfectionists demonstrated an evenhigher level of professional efcacy than the NP group.

3.2. The relationships between groups of perfectionism, coping styleand burnout

The descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of all thevariables are displayed in Table 2 . To address the third objectiveof this study and explore the relationships between the three vari-ables, we conducted multivariate path analysis with multiple

mediators. Specically, we looked at how different coping stylesmediated the inuences of the four groups of perfectionism onburnout using Mplus6.0 software.

Considering the categorical nature of the perfectionism groupvariable, we recoded it into three dummy variables as (PfDum1,PfDum2, PfDum3) with the scheme of pure PSP = (1, 1, 1),MP = (1, 2, 0), NP = (1, 1, 1), and pureECP = ( 3, 0, 0). Therefore,the PfDum1 differentiated the pure ECP (with a negative value of

3) from the other three categories (with a positive value of 1),PfDum2 differentiated MP (with a negative value of 2) from purePSP and NP (with a positive value of 1), and PfDum3 differentiatedNP (with a negative value of 1) frompure PSP (with a positive va-lue of 1). This coding design allowed for comparisons to addressthe hypotheses proposed in Gaudreau (2013) .

Then, the three dummy variables, three coping style dimen-sions, and burnout total score were entered into the path model,which is depicted in Fig. 2 . We opted to simultaneously includeall three dimensions of coping to unravel the unique effect of eachcoping style, controlling for the other two. Maximum Likelihoodtechnique was adopted for model estimation. The model was per-fectly tted ( v 2 = 0.00) and signicant individual path coefcientsare displayed in Fig. 2 . In order to test the mediating effects of three coping styles between perfectionism and burnout, we per-formed effect analysis using the bootstrap technique, which wasrecommended over other methods due to its highest power andbest Type I error control ( Hayes, 2009, p. 411 ). Combining perti-nent results in Table 3 and Fig. 2 , it was found that Reective

Fig. 1. Categorization of participants into four groups of perfectionism using clusteranalysis. The naming of thefour groups was based on relevant ANOVA analyses andthe2 2 model ( Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010 ).

Table 1

Differences in perfectionism dimension scores, coping style and burnout across four perfectionism groups.

a. Pure PSP b. Mix P. c. Non. P. d. Pure ECPM (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F g 2

1.HSd 5.44(0.49) bcd 5.69(0.59) acd 3.70(0.77) abd 4.37(0.58) abc 189.05 0.622.Dis 3.07(0.56) bcd 5.15(0.65) acd 2.62(0.49) abd 4.05(0.51) abc 320.79 0.743.Ord 5.40(0.79) cd 5.22(0.97) cd 4.50(1.17) ab 4.62(0.93) ab 19.00 0.144.Ref 3.48(0.65) bcd 3.08(0.69) a 3.06(0.79) a 3.03(0.60) a 10.26 0.085.Sup 1.66(0.51) bd 2.60(0.84) acd 1.82(0.68) bd 2.12(0.69) abc 34.85 0.236.Rea 2.24(0.58) bd 3.02(0.70) acd 2.13(0.77) bd 2.59(0.64) abc 30.05 0.217.Exh 2.44(0.95) bd 3.34(1.16) ac 2.35(1.16) bd 2.91(1.00) ac 19.94 0.158.Cyn 2.05(1.29) bd 3.17(1.28) ac 2.22(1.40) bd 3.18(1.20) ac 16.67 0.139.PE 1.36(0.80) bcd 2.07(1.03) ac 1.76(1.21) abd 2.24(0.84) ac 46.01 0.2910.Bout 1.9(0.76) bd 2.79(0.81) ac 2.08(0.79) bd 2.71(0.76) ac 30.07 0.21

Note. The letters on the right shoulder of each cell represent the groups which are signicantly different in mean value from that specic group. All F values are signicant at

p < .001 level. HSd = high standard; Dis = discrepancy, Ord = order; Ref = reective coping; Sup = suppressive coping; Rea = reactive coping; Exh= emotional exhaustion;Cyn = cynicism; PE = professional efcacy (higher score on this dimension indicating lower professional efcacy); Bout = burnout total.

X. Li et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570 67

http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/12/2019 pai6

4/6

coping partially mediated the predicting effect of PfDum1 on burn-out and completely mediated the relationship between PfDum3and burnout; while both Suppressive and Reactive Coping partiallymediated the predicting effect of PfDum2 on burnout. Specically,pure ECP (in contrast to other three subtypes as in PfDum1) was

associated with lesser Reective coping which was related to high-

er burnout; MP (in contrast to pure PSP and NP as in PfDum2) wasassociated with lesser Reective coping, greater Suppressive andReactive coping which all contributed to greater burnout; and NP(in contrast to pure PSP as in PfDum3) was correlated with lowerReective coping thus had higher risk of burnout.

4. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between the personalitytrait of perfectionism, coping style, and job burnout in mainlandChinese IT employees. Specically, after clustering participantsaccording to their proles on the APS scale under the 2 2 model,we adopted the path analysis to explore how the four groups of perfectionists were differentially associated with job burnout and

whether this effect was mediated by an individuals coping style.Several important theoretical or practical implications that couldbe derived from the research results are discussed in the followingsection.

4.1. Groups of perfectionists in relation to coping style and job burnout

The rst two research questions concerned the subtypes of per-fectionism and their differential associations with coping style andburnout. In terms of the debate over whether a tripartite ( Stoeber& Otto, 2006 ) or a quadripartite 2 2 model ( Gaudreau & Thompson,2010 ) presented a more precise conceptualization of the hiddenstructure of perfectionism, the ANOVA analyses revealedsignicant differences between the NP individuals and the pure

Table 2

Means, standard deviations and pearson correlations for all variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 HSd2 Dis .36

**

3 Ord .48**

.084 Ref .28

**

.12*

.26**

5 Sup .04 .53**

.14*

.12*

6 Rea .19**

.55**

.03 .08 .63**

7 Exh .08 .38**

.01 .07 .44**

.41**

8 Cyn .04 .38**

.08 .05 .48**

.42**

.60**

9 PE .26**

.29**

.27**

.44**

.39**

.20**

.16**

.35**

10 Bout .10 .46**

.15**

.26**

.57**

.45**

.76**

.84**

.68**

M 4.94 3.70 5.02 3.21 2.02 2.48 2.74 2.60 1.80 2.33SD .96 1.09 1.01 .70 .76 .74 1.12 1.39 1.01 .87

Note . HSd= high standard; Dis= discrepancy, Ord = order; Ref = reective; Sup = suppressive; Rea = reactive; Exh = emotional exhaustion; Cyn = cynicism; PE = professionalefcacy; Bout = burnout total.*

p < .05.**

p < .01. p < .001.

Table 3

Effect analysis between perfectionism, coping styles and burnout.

Predictor Total direct Indirect effect Total effect

via Ref via Sup via Rea Total Indirect

Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

PfDum1 .170***

0.039 .019*

0.010 .020 0.020 .012 0.009 .051*

0.027 .222***

0.046PfDum2 .097

*

0.050 .020 0.011 .179***

0.036 .073*

0.030 .271***

0.033 .368***

0.048PfDum3 .011 0.044 .039

**

0.014 .029 0.019 .008 0.010 .060*

0.028 .071 0.048

Note . Dependent variable is burnout. PfDum1: ECP vs. others; PfDum2: MP vs. PSP and NP; PfDum3: NP vs. PSP; SE = standard Error. Est. = estimate. Ref = Reective Coping;Sup = Suppressive Coping; Rea = Reactive Coping. All estimates are standardized.

p < .10.*

p < .05.**

p < .01.*** p < .001.

Fig. 2. Structural equation model examining the mediating effects of coping stylesbetween perfectionism and burnout. Ref= reective coping dimension score,Sup = suppressive coping dimension score, Rea = reactive coping dimension score.Bout = burnout total score. PfDum1: ECP vs. others; PfDum2: MP vs. PSP and NP;PfDum3: NP vs. PSP. All coefcients are standardized and signicant at p < .05 level.Non-signicant paths are displayed by dashed line.

68 X. Li et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570

8/12/2019 pai6

5/6

ECP individuals in dimensions of perfectionism, coping style, andalso burnout. This seemed to be suggesting the existence of cleardistinctions between these two subtypes of perfectionism thatwere questionably combined to form one single non-perfection-ism group in Stoeber and Otto (2006) , and provided evidence sup-porting the 2 2 model.

In terms of the second research question concerning the fourupdated hypotheses in Gaudreau (2013) , the ANOVA results indi-cated that pure PSPandNP group displayed signicantly lower lev-els of burnout than MP and pure ECP. Comparing pure PSP and NP,in spite of the non-signicant difference on burnout total score,pure PSP was still associated with greater professional efcacy, apositive construct in the burnout scale, than the NP group. Regard-ing MP and pure ECP, no signicant differences were found oneither the burnout total score or any of its dimensions. Therefore,the data in this study supported H1A, H2, and H4 in Gaudreau(2013) but failed to corroborate H3.

A further examination of the cluster results suggested a possibleexplanation for the absence of signicant difference between ECPand MP in terms of burnout (hypothesized in H3). Although notexplicitly stated, the original 2 2 model seemed to be implyingno signicant differences between ECP and MP on Discrepancyand between ECP and NP on Personal Standard. From Table 1 how-ever, these differences were all signicant. Therefore, the pure ECPgroup derived fromempirical data seemed to have higher-than-ex-pected Personal Standard and lower-than-expected Discrepancy.Given that mental health variables are positively associated withPersonal Standard and negatively correlated with Discrepancy(Stoeber & Otto, 2006 ), the specic combination of the pure ECPgroup in this study might have contributed to its lower burnoutwhich didnt signicantly differ from that of MP.

4.2. The predicting and mediating effects of coping style

Concerning coping style, results in this study indicated that amore problem-focused coping style negatively predicted burnout,while those less problem-focused styles displayed signicant posi-tive associations with burnout. These results were in concordancewith earlier research ndings which consistently suggested theprotective function of problem-focused coping in both easternand western cultures ( Heppner, 1988; Li & Lu, 2008 ). Furthermoreit was also revealed that, controlling for the other two copingstyles, each specic coping style displayed signicant (partial orcomplete) mediating effects between subtypes of perfectionismand burnout, indicating that the personality of perfectionism ex-erted its inuence on individuals mental health (e.g., burnout) atleast partly through coping. This evidence corroborated the afore-mentioned Hill et al. (2010) and Changs (2012) research results.

These ndings conjointly underscore the signicant protectiverole of problem-focused coping in mediating the negative effects

of the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism on ones occupationalmental health, which may provide important implications for clin-ical practice. As suggested by Fig. 2 , when working with MP or pureECP clients, mental health professionals may nd it potentiallyhelpful to assist these clients with problem-solving via taking notonly behaviorally, but also emotionally and cognitively orientedactions ( Heppner et al., 1995 ).

Two observations are especially worth mentioning here. First, inorder to address Hypothesis 1 in Gaudreau (2013) , we adopted adummy coding scheme that allowed for direct comparison be-tween pure PSP and NP. Combining the path analysis and ANOVAresults, it seemed that although non-perfectionists showed simi-larly low levels of dysfunctional (suppressive or reactive) copingstyle and unhealthy burnout symptoms (emotional exhaustion

and cynicism) in comparison to pure PSP, they also lacked a moreproactive attitude to take more problem-focused (reective) ap-

proaches in dealing with daily stress, which as a mediator mightlead to a greater risk of job burnout. In fact, observing that purePSP and NP only differed in the professional efcacy dimensionof job burnout, it could be speculated that since problem-focusedcoping demands self-initiated efforts to handle the stressful situa-tion ( Heppner et al., 1995 ), the lack of internalized high standardsand motivation in the NP group may prevent them from activelyengaging in problem-solving behaviors. The scarcity of learningexperiences in effectively dealing with difculties in turn bringsabout a diminished sense of self-efcacy ( Bandura, 1997 ) thus ahigher risk of burnout. As manifested in its low Personal Standardand low Discrepancy nature, people with the NP combination of perfectionism may really place comparatively lower standards ontheir performance or achievements. However, the results hereseem to suggest that holding a moderate level of the perfectionistictrait and putting appropriate high standards on oneself would bebenecial to problem-solving and occupational mental health.

The second observation is the comparatively largest positive ef-fect of suppressive coping in predicting burnout. This seems to besuggesting that suppressing problems (i.e., avoiding their exis-tence or relinquishing personal efforts in resolving them) is a highrisk factor that could mediate the effects of perfectionismand leadto deteriorated occupational mental health by itself. Althoughavoidanceanddenial may be understood as part of peoples naturaldefense or coping mechanisms ( Bergman, Nyland, & Burns, 2007 ),especially in the face of intense traumatic events, always sidestep-ping the problem and recoiling from actions can eventually becounterproductive or even detrimental. As noted by scholars how-ever, in the collectivistic Chinese traditional culture, avoidance andsuppression of problems, emotions or conicts etc. to save face orin exchange for interpersonal harmony are characteristic featuresof Chinese peoples coping behaviors ( Jing, 2002 ). Then this specicresult would seem to be a caution to individuals in China who arehighly attuned to this coping style: excessive adherence to passivecoping and a lack of problem-solving skills in ones repertoire of coping strategies may in turn be hazardous to individuals mentalhealth.

5. Limitations and future research directions

Several limitations of the current study and suggestions for fu-ture research should be noted before concluding this paper. First of all, certain discrepancies were found between the data-driven clus-ter results and the theoretical construct of the 2 2 model. Forexample, the pure ECP group in this study seemed to havelower-than-expected Discrepancy and higher-than-expected HighStandard. The presence of such discrepancies in conceptualizingperfectionism might limit the interpretation of current results inlight of the 2 2 model, while future studies may try to further

identify the underlying structure of perfectionism from both theo-retically driven and data driven approaches. Secondly, the resultsin this study shouldbe generalized to other work contexts with sci-entic caution. As mentioned before, the IT profession emphasizesperfect precision, where the PSP dimension of perfectionismmight be more desirable since it seems a better t to this specicenvironment. It is possible one might nd a different relationshipbetween pure PSP and NP with a sample from another profession,which could be explored in future research. Lastly, though thisstudy attempted to explore the specic mechanism through whichgroups of perfectionism inuenced burnout, its cross-sectiondesign limited the interpretation of research results: only correla-tional results could be obtained. Therefore, future studies may bewarranted to improve it by employing cross-lagged longitudinal

designs or experimental designs that can shed light on the direc-tionality or even causality between the three variables.

X. Li et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570 69

http://-/?-

8/12/2019 pai6

6/6

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control . New York, NY, US: W HFreeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co .

Bergman, A. J., Nyland, J. E., & Burns, L. R. (2007). Correlates with perfectionism andthe utility of a dual process model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (2),389399 .

Chang, Y. (2012). The relationship between maladaptive perfectionism withburnout: Testing mediating effect of emotion-focused coping. Personality and

Individual Differences, 53 , 635639 .Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. The Academy of Management Review, 18 (4), 621656 .

Franche, V., Gaudreau, P., & Miranda, D. (in press). The 2 2 model of perfectionism: A Comparison Across Asian Canadians and EuropeanCanadians. Journal of Counseling Psychology [Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0028992].

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 74 , 449468 .

Fry, P. S. (1995). Perfectionism, humor, and optimism as moderators of healthoutcomes and determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121 (2), 211245 .

Gaudreau, P. (2013). The 2 2 model of perfectionism: Commenting the criticalcomments and suggestions of Stoeber (2012). Personality and IndividualDifferences, 55 , 351355 .

Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 2 model of dispositionalperfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48 , 532537 .

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate dataanalysis (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in thenew millennium. Communication Monographs, 76 (4), 408420 .

Heppner, P. P. (1988). The problem-solving inventory . CA: Palo Alto ConsultingPsychologist .

Heppner, P. P., Cook, S. W., Wright, D. M., & Johnson, W. C. J. (1995). Process inresolving problems: A problem-focused style of coping. Counseling Psychology,42 , 279293 .

Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Appleton, P. R. (2010). Perfectionism and athlete burnout in junior elite athletes: The mediating role of coping tendencies. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 23 (4), 415430 .

Jing, H.-B. (2002). Three approaches to mental health in traditional Chinese culture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34 (3), 327332 .

Li, C. P., & Shi, K. (2003). The inuence of distributional fairness and proceduralfairness on burnout. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35 (5), 677684 .

Li, J., & Lu, N. (2008). An investigation of job burnout and its relevant factors inIT professionals in Shenzhen. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 16 (12),14061408 .

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.Occupational Behaviour, 2 , 99113 .

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). MBI-general survey. Maslach burnout inventory manual . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press .

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 498512 .

Maudgalya, T., Wallace, S., Daraiseh, N., & Salem, S. (2006). Workplace stress factorsand burnout among information technology professionals: A systematicreview. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7 (3), 285297 .

Ogus, E. D. (2008). Burnout among professionals: Work stress, coping and gender.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and, Engineering , 68(7-B), 4876.

Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efcient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54 (1), 7285 .

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of researchand practice. Career Development International, 14 (3), 204220 .

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach burnoutinventory General survey (MBI-GS). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter(Eds.), MBI manual (3rd ed., pp. 1926). Mountain View, CA: CPP .

Sethi, V., King, R. C., & Quick, J. C. (2004). What causes stress in information systemprofessionals? Communications of the ACM, 47 (3), 99102 .

Sironic, A., & Reeve, R. A. (2012). More evidence for four perfectionism subgroups.Personality and Individual Differences, 53 , 437442 .

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revisedalmost perfect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling andDevelopment, 34 , 130145 .

Stoeber, J. (2012). The 2 2 model of perfectionism: A critical comment and somesuggestions. Personality and Individual Differences, 53 , 541545 .

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 , 295319 .

Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relationswith stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21 , 3753 .

Zhan, X. N., & Gan, Y. Q. (2008). Reliability and validity of problem-focused style of coping inventory and its relation to psychological distress. Chinese MentalHealth Journal, 22 (3), 193197 .

Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Cham, H. (2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout andengagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modelinganalysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (6), 15291540 .

70 X. Li et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 6570

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0155http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01320-2/h0005