4.4 Article

Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of clinical perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002,2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003)

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 63-84

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2004.12.004

Keywords

perfectionism; evaluative concerns; self-criticism; personal standards; eating disorders; binge eating

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R29DK049587, R01DK049587] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 49587] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002, 2003) provided a cognitive-behavioral analysis of clinical perfectionism, a construct they considered to involve both the determined pursuit of self-imposed standards and extremely vulnerable self-evaluation. They argued against a multidimensional perspective to studying perfectionism. We respond to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt, Flett, Besser, Sherry, and McGee's (2003) reply to Shafran et al. (2002) by considering the theoretical, empirical, and clinical implications of findings identifying two higher-order dimensions of perfectionism reflecting personal standards (PS) and self-critical evaluative concerns. Analyses of data from two diverse study groups, a college student sample (N = 527) and a clinical sample of patients with binge eating disorder (N = 236), revealed that self-criticism accounts for the relation between perfectionism measures and depressive, anxious, and eating disorder symptoms. We conclude that possessing high PS is not by itself maladaptive. Rather, self-critical evaluative tendencies are more relevant than PS to the critical processes Shafran et al. (2002) suggested contribute to the maintenance of clinical perfectionism. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available