8/12/2019 pai7

1/6

Differential roles of positive and negative perfectionism in predicting

occupational eustress and distress

Claryn S.J. Kung, Carina K.Y. Chan

Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University (Sunway Campus), Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 17 August 2013

Accepted 12 October 2013

Available online 8 November 2013

Keywords:

Positive and negative perfectionism

Strain

Vigor

University employees

Holistic model of stress

a b s t r a c t

Although perfectionism is often associated with increased occupational stress, little research has

explored the differential roles of adaptive (positive perfectionism [PP]) and maladaptive (negative

perfectionism [NP]) perfectionism in predicting psychological responses to stressors. Applying the

Holistic Model of Stress, this study examined the role of perfectionism in explaining positive (eustress)

and negative (distress) stress responses, as indicated by vigor and strain. Participants were 156 employ-

ees (73 academic, 83 administrative) from a tertiary institution who completed self-report question-

naires, consisting of the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale, Personal Strain Questionnaire

(involving vocational, psychological, interpersonal, and physical strain), Shirom-Melamed Vigor Measure,

and Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Correlations and hierarchical multiple regressions

assessed how PP and NP predicted vigor and strain. After controlling for social desirability, higher PP

predicted greater vigor, and lower vocational and physical strain; whereas higher NP predicted less vigor,

and greater vocational, psychological, interpersonal, and physical strain. Therefore, PP and NP are evi-

dently different in the understanding of responses to stressors. Promoting PP may aid in lowering strain

perceptions associated with ones job and body. Interventions to cope with increased NP could improve

overall well-being.

2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Perfectionism is an achievement-based behavioural characteris-

tic defined as the setting of excessively high performance

standards and overly critical evaluations of ones behaviour (Frost,

Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Convergence in theory and

data on the nature of perfectionism has distinguished between

two major types of perfectionism: Adaptive and maladaptive per-

fectionism (Slade & Owens, 1998). The former is a predominantly

normal behavioural characteristic which benefits the individual,

whereas the latter is pathological and predictive of maladaptive

behaviours. Although there are many ways in which the subtypes

of perfectionism have been defined and debated (e.g., Gaudreau &Thompson, 2010), this study applied the theoretically-sound

delineation of Positive (PP) and Negative (NP) Perfectionism to

exemplify adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, respectively.

This distinction rests on Skinners reinforcement theory: Despite

being overtly similar behaviours, PP refers to the cognitions and

behaviours directed towards achieving high-level goals as driven

by positive reinforcement and a desire for success, whereas NP re-

fers to those driven by negative reinforcement and a fear of failure.

Together, PP and NP form a dual process model of perfectionism

(Slade & Owens, 1998).

Past research has revealed positive relationships between PP

and adaptive behaviours as well as between NP and maladaptive

behaviours in various contexts, including eating problems (Chan,

Ku, & Owens, 2010), motivation and affect (Bergman, Nyland, &

Burns, 2007), and neurocognitive performance (Slade, Coppel, &

Townes, 2009). Although perfectionism in itself, or when defined

using other scales, has often been shown to relate to increased

stress among daytime employees (Childs & Stoeber, 2010), few

occupational health studies have applied the PPNP distinction

when examining the perfectionism-stress links. Moreover, virtu-ally no study has linked PP and NP to adaptive and maladaptive as-

pects of occupational stress simultaneously. Besides providing a

strong theoretical basis to explain any predictive differences be-

tween the perfectionism dimensions, this design can be useful to

explore the multidimensionality of perfectionism in the context

of positive and negative responses to workplace stressors. This

study applied the Holistic Model of Stress (Nelson & Simmons,

2003), which examines how individual differences, including

perfectionism, simultaneously predict positive and negative

psychological responses to stressors. The positive response, eus-

tress, is the extent to which the cognitive appraisal of a situation

is perceived to enhance well-being; whereas its negative

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011

Corresponding author. Address: Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health

Sciences, Monash University (Sunway Campus), Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar

Sunway 46150, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel.: +60 1355144913; fax: +60 1355146323.

E-mail address: carina.chan@monash.edu(C.K.Y. Chan).

Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p a i d

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011mailto:carina.chan@monash.eduhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011http://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.2013.10.011mailto:carina.chan@monash.eduhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011&domain=pdf

8/12/2019 pai7

2/6

counterpart, distress, is the extent to which the appraisal of a

situation decreases well-being.

In this study, the role of perfectionism in predicting eustress

and distress was assessed among a group of university employees.

Studies among academic and administrative university employees

have revealed rising stress levels over the past three decades

(Abouserie, 1996; Gmelch, Wilke, & Lovrich, 1986; Watts & Robert-

son, 2011). University employees experience significant stressorsfrom many different areas of work, including time constraints, stu-

dent interaction, teaching responsibilities, and research demands.

This may render them more susceptible to perfectionism and its

associated behaviours, since there are more areas of work in which

they may set high-level goals. Thus, studying a potential group of

perfectionists among university employees may amplify the per-

fectionismstress relationships, in addition to further understand-

ing the behavioural characteristics that can predict occupational

stress within this population. University employees have previ-

ously reported various health problems, strained relationships,

poorer quality of life, along with a decrease in teaching and re-

search quality, job satisfaction and organisational commitment,

due to occupational stress (Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua, &

Stough, 2001); but the role that PP and NP might play remains

unclear.

Not surprisingly, researchers have looked at relationships be-

tween perfectionism and occupational stress in universities, but

the literature is scarce. Only two studies among academic staff,

in which perfectionism subtypes were delineated differently, were

found: One study conducted with university professors revealed

positive relationships between maladaptive perfectionism and

anxiety, depression, and hostility (Dunn, Whelton, & Sharpe,

2006). In contrast, another study found that adaptive and maladap-

tive perfectionism predicted lower research productivity among

professors, implying that both dimensions were maladaptive.

These contradictory results may arise due to the difficult nature

of the academic workplace, which commonly involves criticism,

scrutiny, and rejection; such could lead perfectionists (regardless

of type) to reduce their exposure to these threats by lowering theirresearch output (Sherry, Hewitt, Sherry, Flett, & Graham, 2010).

Dunn et al. (2006) also noted that academic staff often perform

demanding and detailed work subjected to critical peer scrutiny

in largely difficult and unsupportive environments, which can

exacerbate the maladaptive nature of perfectionism. It is therefore

worth investigating whether adaptive and maladaptive perfection-

ism have differential predictions of occupational stress among a

potential group of perfectionists in the university workplace.

Moreover, adaptive behaviours in response to stressors have not

been examined when studying relationships between perfection-

ism and stress among university employees; doing so could shed

more light on the potentially adaptive nature of perfectionism in

the context of occupational health.

This study employed strain, which is closely related to job burn-out (Higgins, 1986), to indicate distress. Strain is the negative reac-

tion that develops from the inability to cope effectively with

various stressors (Osipow, 1998), which may manifest in various

areas of life other than work, such as in psychological functioning,

interpersonal relationships, and physical health. Numerous studies

have established the positive association between perfectionism

and burnout among employees (e.g.,Childs & Stoeber, 2010). Com-

pared with burnout, strain indicates less extreme points of distress,

and offers a more comprehensive assessment (i.e., covering

distress in vocational, psychological, interpersonal, and physical

aspects), thus offering more valuable information for the purpose

of occupational health interventions. To indicate eustress, vigor,

one of strains positive counterparts, was measured: This is the

energy resource related to the motivational processes that initiateand sustain behaviour at work (Shirom, 2003). Vigor is thus

pertinent to the dual process model of perfectionism since individ-

uals with high PP are motivated to achieve success, whereas

individuals with high NP are motivated to avoid failure (Slade &

Owens, 1998).

Consistent with the Holistic Model of Stress, two studies have

examined how perfectionism may predict burnout (distress) and

vigor (eustress) among undergraduates (Zhang, Gan, & Cham,

2007) and various daytime employees (across public, retail, andlaw sectors;Childs & Stoeber, 2010). Again, different delineations

of perfectionism were used in these studies. Overall, greater adap-

tive perfectionism was found to predict lower burnout and higher

vigor, whereas increased maladaptive perfectionism predicted

higher burnout and lower vigor. The main hypotheses of the pres-

ent study built upon these findings: The aim was to examine how

the dual process model of PP and NP may predict strain and vigor

among daytime employees. The measurement of strain included

vocational, psychological, interpersonal, and physical strain; thus

facilitating a broader assessment of distress. This study also inves-

tigated the factor structure of perfectionism in a relatively homog-

enous group of daytime employees, hypothesising that two distinct

factors of perfectionism would emerge, representing the dual

distinction.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were 156 employees (nmale= 64, nfemale= 92) at a

university, ranging from 20 to 67 years old (M= 35.00 years,

SD= 9.30 years), with a reasonable balance between academic

(n= 73) and administrative staff (n= 83). Duration of employment

ranged from 2 weeks to 14 years (M= 2.7 years,SD= 2.8 years) and

most were working full-time (87.1%). A sample size ofN= 107 was

needed to attain a power of .80 to detect a medium effect size on

the main analyses.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Perfectionism

The 40-item Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale (PANPS;

Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) was used to assess

participants PP and NP levels (20 items each, shown inTable 1).

Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each

item on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

PP and NP scores were obtained by summing the 20 item ratings;

higher scores indicated higher levels of perfectionism. In the pres-

ent sample, PP (a= .84) and NP (a= .88) showed high internalconsistency.

2.2.2. StrainThe 40-item Personal Strain Questionnaire (PSQ) from the Occu-

pational Stress Inventory-Revised (Osipow, 1998) was employed to

measure strain. There are 4 subscales (10 items each), covering

vocational (e.g., I am bored with my work.), psychological (e.g.,

Lately, I am easily irritated.), interpersonal (e.g., I often argue

with friends.), and physical strain (e.g., Lately, I have been tired.).

Participants rated how often each item was true on a Likert scale

from 1 (rarely or never true) to 5 (true most of the time). Subscale

scores were sums of the respective subscale item ratings; higher

scores indicated greater strain. All four subscales demonstrated

satisfactory internal consistency in this study (a= .70.89).

2.2.3. Vigor

Vigor was measured using the 12-item Shirom-Melamed VigorMeasure (SMVM;Shirom, 2005). It comprises 3 subscales: Physical

C.S.J. Kung, C.K.Y. Chan / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681 77

8/12/2019 pai7

3/6

strength (5 items; e.g., I feel energetic.), cognitive liveliness (3

items; e.g., I feel I can think rapidly.), and emotional energy (4

items; e.g., I feel able to show warmth to others.). Participants

indicated the frequency of experiencing each item over the last

30 workdays, using a Likert scale, from 1 (never or almost never)

to 7 (always or almost always). Scores were summed, with higher

scores indicating greater vigor. The SMVM showed high internal

consistency in this study (a= .91).

2.2.4. Social desirability

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS;Crowne

& Marlowe, 1960) was included to control for potential response

bias arising from the tendency towards socially desirable behav-

iour and denial of socially undesirable traits. Respondents indi-

cated whether each item was true or false for them. Out of 33

items, 18 are attribution items (e.g., I have never intensely disliked

anyone.) and 15 are denial items (e.g., I like to gossip at times.).

Scores were the addition of true responses for attribution items

and false responses for denial items; higher scores implied a great-

er tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. The MCSDS

demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency in this sample(a= .72).

2.3. Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained through the universitys human

research ethics committee. A call for participation was sent to all

university employees through flyers, broadcast emails, email

newsletters, and the universitys website. Interested employees

contacted the researcher to attend a testing session. Twenty

lunch-hour sessions, each lasting about 40 minutes, were con-

ducted on university premises over the course of 7 weeks. At the

session, each participant was given an explanatory statement, a

consent form, and a coded questionnaire. They were briefed on

the voluntary and confidential nature of the study, the need for

their informed consent, and the materials. Each participant re-

ceived a packed lunch upon returning the completed questionnaire

and consent form.

2.4. Analyses

A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on the

PANPS to examine its factor structure in this sample. Correlations

and hierarchical multiple regressions were then used to investigatethe relationships between PP and NP with strain and vigor.

Table 1

Factor loadings for the two-component PANPS solution using principal components analysis with Varimax rotation.

Item Original subscale Pattern/structure coefficients

Component 1 Component 2

If I make a mistake I feel that the whole thing is ruined NP .76 .01

I feel I have to be perfect to gain peoples approval NP .73 .18

I worry what others think if I make mistakes NP .69 .02

When I start something I feel anxious that I might fail NP .66 .20

It feels as though my best is never good enough for other people NP .65 .05

I know the kind of person I ought or want to be, but feel I always fall short of this NP .63 .06

If I fail people, I fear they will cease to respect or care for me NP .62 .10

I feel guilty or ashamed if I do less than perfectly NP .61 .30

No matter how well I do I never feel satisfied with my performance NP .61 .20

When I do t hings I f eel others will judge critically t he st and ard of my work NP .56 .05

The problem of success is that I must work even harder NP .55 .09

Other people expect nothing less than perfection from me NP .52 .21

I feel dissatisfied with myself unless I am working towards a higher standard all the time NP .51 .42

I like to please other people by being successfula PP .49 .30

The better I do, the better I am expected to do by others NP .44 .33

I think everyone loves a winnera PP .44 .24

As a child however well I did, it never seemed good enough to please my parents NP .42 .07

I would rather not s tart s omet hing t han risk d oing it less than perf ect ly NP .41 .22

I set impossibly high standards for myself NP .41 .39

I try to avoid the disapproval of others at all costs NP .39 .20

When I achieve my goals I feel dissatisfied b NP .20 .09

My successes spur me on to greater achievements PP .09 .72I gain deep satisfaction when I have perfected something PP .10 .68

I like the challenge of setting very high standards for myself PP .15 .65

Other people respect me for my achievements PP .17 .59

My high standards are admired by others PP .09 .57

I gain great approval from others by the quality of my accomplishments PP .09 .55

I enjoy the glory gained by my successes PP .10 .54

I enjoy working towards greater levels of precision and accuracy PP .27 .53

I feel good when pushing out the limits PP .06 .52

Producing a perfect performance is a reward in its own right PP .12 .52

I like it when others recognise that what I do requires great skill and effort to perfect PP .12 .51

I take pride in being meticulous when doing things PP .04 .49

When I am doing something I cannot relax until it is perfect a NP .44 .46

I get fulfilment from totally dedicating myself to a task PP .04 .46

When Im competing against others, I am motivated by wanting to be the best PP .33 .42

I like the acclaim I get for an outstanding performance PP .08 .41

I believe that rigorous practice makes for perfection PP .11 .40

My family and friends are proud of me when I do really well PP .08 .39My parents encouraged me to excelb PP .04 .19

Notes:PP = positive perfectionism; NP = negative perfectionism. Major loadings are bolded.a Item did not load on, but was retained in, its expected component. The PANPS development study showed similar discrepancies and the same approach was taken

(Terry-Short et al., 1995).b Item did not load substantially on either component, but was retained for subsequent analyses. Total variance explained and internal consistencies for PP and NP did not

increase substantially when item was removed.

78 C.S.J. Kung, C.K.Y. Chan / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681

8/12/2019 pai7

4/6

Statistical significance was set at p < .05 (two-tailed). For each

regression, social desirability was entered in the first step, with

PP and NP entered in the second step.

3. Results

3.1. PANPS factor structure

Assumption checks on the 40 PANPS items revealed reasonably

linear interrelationships and no outliers. The data were also suit-

able for factor analysis, with the correlation matrix showing many

correlation coefficients above .30. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure

of sampling adequacy was .80 and Bartletts Test of Sphericity

showed statistical significance,p < .001.

The two-component solution explained a total of 32.6% of the

total variance, with Component 1 contributing 22.6% and Compo-

nent 2 contributing 10.0%. The rotated Varimax solution inTable 1

illustrates a number of moderately strong loadings, with most

items loading substantially on one component. Consistent with

the PANPS development study (Terry-Short et al., 1995), items

loading strongly on the first and second components referred to

perfectionism as a function of negative reinforcement and positivereinforcement, respectively. The weak correlation between the

components (r = .26) suggests they measure largely different and

independent dimensions.

3.2. Perfectionism, strain, and vigor hypotheses

No violations of multicollinearity, normality, linearity, homo-

scedasticity, and independence of residuals assumptions were

found. Two outliers were detected, so data from these cases were

removed from subsequent analyses. Table 2 displays the correla-

tions between PP and NP with vigor and vocational, psychological,

interpersonal, and physical strain. PP only showed a weak negative

correlation with vocational strain; whereas NP showed moderatelystrong, positive correlations with all strain variables, and a weak

negative relationship with vigor.

Table 3 summarises the hierarchical multiple regression

statistics when PP and NP were entered in the second step. After

controlling for social desirability, PP and NP accounted for 12% to

23% (ps < .001) of the variances in vocational, psychological, inter-

personal, and physical strain, and vigor. Increased PP significantly

predicted lower vocational and physical strain, and higher vigor.

However, PP did not predict less psychological and interpersonal

strain. In contrast, increased NP predicted higher vocational,

psychological, interpersonal, and physical strain, and lower vigor.

Note that after PP and NP were entered in the regressions, social

desirability remained significant in predicting vocational, psycho-

logical, and physical strain.

4. Discussion

Consistent with the dual process model of perfectionism and

Terry-Short et al.s (1995)original findings, the present data re-

vealed two independent, distinct factors, replicating similar factor

structures found in other studies (e.g.,Chan & Owens, 2006). More-

over, PP and NP offered differential predictions of strain and vigor

among university employees, supporting the notion that one sub-scale is adaptive and the other maladaptive, consistent withSlade

and Owens (1998) dual process model. This contrasted with

Sherry et al.s (2010)findings that both adaptive and maladaptive

perfectionism dimensions were maladaptive (i.e., predicting lower

research productivity). This discrepancy could be attributed to

their use of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS;

Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and hence a different classification of perfec-

tionism altogether: In the MPS, the dimension broadly labelled as

adaptive perfectionism (i.e., Self-Oriented Perfectionism) reflects

a counterproductive form of over-striving, involving the compul-

sive need to avoid failure (negative reinforcement) instead of a

high need for achievement (positive reinforcement). Theoretical

and empirical evidence also exist for the maladaptive nature of

Self-Oriented Perfectionism (Owens & Slade, 2008).

Another reason for the discrepancy may be that the present

sample of academic and administrative staff, assumed to be repre-

sentative of daytime university employees, may have lower NP

when compared withSherry et al.s (2010) sample of professors.

Although PP and NP were presently shown to be largely indepen-

dent, other studies with clinical samples have found that the

benefits of adaptive perfectionism may only be evident when the

maladaptive component is relatively low (Davis, 1997). Thus,

interactions may exist between adaptive and maladaptive perfec-

tionism for employees who might be particularly prone to experi-

encing the maladaptiveness of perfectionism (Dunn et al., 2006),

but not in more general employee samples. Note, however, that

present authors do not intend to imply pathological maladaptive

perfectionism levels among academic staff; rather, this discussion

suggests that future research compare PP and NP levels, and testthe PPNP interactions, across clinical and employee samples.

This study offers empirical evidence for the differential predic-

tions of PP and NP on strain and vigor that are consistent with past

studies (Childs & Stoeber, 2010; Zhang et al., 2007). These findings

support the literature on the Holistic Model of Stress, in which

perfectionism (individual differences) can simultaneously predict

strain (distress) and vigor (eustress). Present contributions, none-

theless, lie in the utility of Skinners reinforcement theory in inter-

preting these relationships: Differences in strain and vigor levels

among employees are related to whether their perfectionistic

behaviour is driven by positive or negative reinforcement. Employ-

ees who over-strive and set high-level goals out of a desire for

excellence showed greater vigor, and lower vocational and physical

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between PP and NP with strain and vigor.

Variable M SD Correlation with PP Correlation with NP

r ValidN r ValidN

PP 76.91 8.44 .46*** 141

NP 59.64 12.48 .46*** 141

Vocational strain 19.30 4.80 .24** 148 .30*** 148

Psychological strain 22.50 7.91 .02 147 .39*** 148

Interpersonal strain 23.03 6.13 .07 145 .50*** 145

Physical strain 21.98 7.46 .01 146 .46*** 147

Vigor 58.69 9.75 .16 147 .25** 147

Notes:PP = positive perfectionism; NP = negative perfectionism.**

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

C.S.J. Kung, C.K.Y. Chan / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681 79

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

8/12/2019 pai7

5/6

strain. In contrast, those who over-strive to avoid failure showed

less vigor, and were more vulnerable to vocational, psychological,

interpersonal, and physical strain.

A plausible reason why NP proves to be maladaptive (i.e., indi-

viduals with higher NP experience less favourable stress re-

sponses) is that negative perfectionists can never be certain that

failure will not occur (Slade & Owens, 1998). Dittner, Rimes, and

Thorpe (2011) explained that when facing stressors, the negativeperfectionists emphasis on avoiding failure may encourage behav-

ioural (e.g., working longer hours) and cognitive (e.g., increased

rumination about work performance) coping responses that lead

to poor outcomes including fatigue (physical strain) and depres-

sion (psychological strain). In contrast, the role of PP in predicting

more favourable stress responses augments the literature on the

adaptive nature of PP among daytime employees. The focus of po-

sitive perfectionists is on achieving high-level goals, which is not

impossible; with little repercussion if they fail to achieve their

goals because there is no excessive fear of failure (Slade & Owens,

1998).

Possibly, PP predicted lower vocational and physical strain but

not psychological and interpersonal strain because when

compared with work achievements and physical health, employeesmay be less likely to view psychological well-being and good inter-

personal relationships as reinforcements or goals to be achieved.

Deficits in psychological functioning and interpersonal relation-

ships are not always readily measurable, making them less of a

priority, especially when facing a stressful workplace and when

work-related stress becomes a significant part of life (e.g.,

Abouserie, 1996). In contrast, work achievements and health are

commonly measured in performance appraisals and medical

examinations, which have objective indicators of success. Employ-

ees with high PP may therefore over-strive for excellent appraisals

and to be disease-free, but not necessarily for psychological well-

being and good relationships. Another reason could be the

presence of mediating and moderating variables in the PPstrain

relationships, which is beyond the scope of this study. Futureinvestigations of potential mediators and moderators may help ex-

plain the significant relationships between PP with some areas of

strain and lack thereof with other areas.

One methodological limitation is that workplace stressors in the

university were not examined. Although both academic and

administrative staff have shown high stress levels, they might

experience different workplace stressors, some of which may act

to moderate their stress responses (Gillespie et al., 2001). Future

research can investigate and control for the type and severity of

stressors when examining how perfectionism predicts eustress

and distress. Another limitation is that universities typically

experience a 12-week cycle each semester, with potentially time-

varying stress levels (e.g., participants sampled earlier in the

semester may report higher vigor than those sampled later).Although present authors arranged the testing sessions such that

similar numbers of participants were recruited each week, future

researchers should note this seasonal effect when studying stress

responses among university employees. There may also be recipro-

cal relationships between perfectionism with strain and vigor

which were not considered: Experiences of strain and vigor could

also reinforce employees for their perfectionistic behaviours. A

longitudinal approach may further investigate theoretical and

empirical support for this notion.To conclude, PP and NP were found to be two distinct subtypes

of perfectionism which predicted strain and vigor levels differently

among university employees. Implications include creating aware-

ness on how different motivations underlying overtly similar per-

fectionistic behaviours may predict more, or less, favourable stress

experience at work. Moreover, interventions can explore whether

enhancing the adaptive PP and developing coping strategies to deal

with the maladaptive NP may reduce strain and increase vigor.

Employees experiencing strain associated with work and health

may benefit from setting high-level goals to achieve success rather

than to avoid failure. Universities can also consider using PP and

NP as predictors of future vigor and strain experiences. To this

end, the PANPS can be administered to assess PP and NP levels

among employees. Present results may also be broadly applied toperfectionistic daytime employees in other workplace settings,

although further research is warranted.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Marisa H. Loft and Paul K.

Jambunathan for their assistance in the early development of the

study and procurement of the Personal Strain Questionnaire.

References

Abouserie, R. (1996). Stress, coping strategies and job satisfaction in universityacademic staff. Educational Psychology, 16, 4956.

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

Chan, C. K. Y., Ku, Y., & Owens, R. G. (2010). Perfectionism and eating disturbances inKorean immigrants: Moderating effects of acculturation and ethnic identity.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 293302.Chan, C. K. Y., & Owens, R. G. (2006). Perfectionism and eating disorder

symptomatology in Chinese immigrants: Mediating and moderating effects ofethnic identity and acculturation. Psychology and Health, 21, 4963.

Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2010). Self-oriented, other-oriented, and sociallyprescribed perfectionism in employees: Relationships with burnout andengagement.Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 25, 269281.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independentof psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349354.

Davis, C. (1997). Normal and neurotic perfectionism in eating disorders: Aninteractive model. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 421426.

Dittner, A. J., Rimes, K., & Thorpe, S. (2011). Negative perfectionism increases therisk of fatigue following a period of stress. Psychology and Health, 26, 253268.

Dunn, J. C., Whelton, W. J., & Sharpe, D. (2006). Maladaptive perfectionism, hassles,

coping, and psychological distress in university professors.Journal of CounselingPsychology, 53, 511523.

Table 3

Summary of hierarchical multiple regressions (step 2) predicting strain and vigor by social desirability, PP, and NP.

Variable R2 DR2 Social desirability PP NP

B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Vocational strain .30*** .19*** .19 .08 .19* .24 .05 .42*** .17 .03 .45***

Psychological strain .23*** .13*** .39 .14 .23** .13 .08 .14 .26 .06 .41***

Interpersonal strain .31*** .23*** .19 .10 .15 .11 .06 .15 .26 .04 .54***

Physical strain .32*** .20*** .30 .13 .19* .19 .07 .21* .31 .05 .52***

Vigor .16*** .12*** .28 .18 .14 .36 .11 .31** .29 .07 .37***

Notes:PP = positive perfectionism; NP = negative perfectionism.* p< .05.** p< .01.*** p< .001.

80 C.S.J. Kung, C.K.Y. Chan / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0005

8/12/2019 pai7

6/6

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions ofperfectionism.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449468.

Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 22 model of dispositionalperfectionism.Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532537.

Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupationalstress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences andmoderators of stress. Work & Stress, 15, 5372.

Gmelch, W. H., Wilke, P. K., & Lovrich, N. P. (1986). Dimensions of stress amonguniversity faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research inHigher Education, 24, 266286.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:Conceptualization, assessment and association with psychopathology.Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 456470.

Higgins, N. C. (1986). Occupational stress and working women: The effectiveness oftwo stress reduction programs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 6678.

Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A morepositive approach. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupationalhealth psychology (pp. 97119). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Osipow, S. H. (1998). Occupational stress inventory revised edition: Professionalmanual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.

Owens, R. G., & Slade, P. D. (2008). So perfect its positively harmful? Reflections onthe adaptiveness and maladaptiveness of positive and negative perfectionism.Behavior Modification, 32, 928937.

Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Sherry, D. L., Flett, G. L., & Graham, A. R. (2010).Perfectionism dimensions and research productivity in psychology professors:Implications for understanding the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionism.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42, 273283.

Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study ofpositive affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.).Research inorganizational stress and well-being(Vol. 3, pp. 135165). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Shirom, A. (2005). Shirom-Melamed Vigor Measure (English) [Word document].http://www.tau.ac.il/~ashirom/#Retrieved from 01.04.2012.

Slade, P. D., Coppel, D. B., & Townes, B. D. (2009). Neurocognitive correlates ofpositive and negative perfectionism. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119,17411754.

Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based onreinforcement theory.Behavior Modification, 22, 372390.

Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive andnegative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663668.

Watts, J., & Robertson, N. (2011). Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematicliterature review. Educational Research, 53, 3350.

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

C.S.J. Kung, C.K.Y. Chan / Personality and Individual Differences 58 (2014) 7681 81

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://www.tau.ac.il/~ashirom/#http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0105http://www.tau.ac.il/~ashirom/#http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0090http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0085http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0080http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0075http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0070http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0065http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0060http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0055http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(13)01324-X/h0050http://-/?-