4.6 Article

Perfectionism and community-identity integration: the mediating role of shame, guilt and self-esteem

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-01499-9

关键词

Identity; Identity crisis; Perfectionism; Shame; Guilt; Self-esteem

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores the relationship between two dimensions of perfectionism and identity formation outcomes, mediated by shame, guilt-proneness, and self-esteem. The findings suggest that perfectionistic strivings and concerns have different impacts on identity resolution, which may inform psychotherapeutic interventions aiming to reduce perfectionistic concerns and enhance perfectionistic strivings.
Recent years have been marked by a rise in perfectionism in developed countries. Studies have shown that dimensions of perfectionism are related to the way people handle identity crises, whose successful resolution leads to finding a place within the adult community. In the present study, we aimed to show that two dimensions of perfectionism - perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns - are related to the outcomes of identity formation and that these relationships are mediated by shame and guilt-proneness, and self-esteem. A path mediation model showed that shame and self-esteem fully mediate the relationship between two dimensions of perfectionism and community-identity. These findings have both theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, they show the mechanism by which perfectionism may be related to identity stage resolution. Secondly, our results support the distinction between perfectionistic strivings expressing drive towards excellence, and perfectionistic concerns expressing fear of failure and fear of being judged in identity studies. This in turn may contribute to more fitting and nuanced psychotherapeutic interventions, as it justifies the application of psychotherapeutic tools aimed at reducing perfectionistic concerns and enhancing perfectionistic strivings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据