Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Perfectionism and social goals: What do perfectionists want to achievein social situations?

Sungok Serena Shim ⇑, Kathryn L. FletcherDepartment of Educational Psychology, Teachers College (TC), Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 September 2011Received in revised form 23 January 2012Accepted 1 February 2012Available online 3 March 2012

Keywords:Personal standardsConcern over mistakesPerfectionismSocial achievement goalsSocial content goalsSocial adjustmentSocial motivation

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.002

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 765 285 8500; faxE-mail address: sshim@bsu.edu (S.S. Shim).

a b s t r a c t

With a sample of 367 college students, the current study examined how two dimensions of perfectionism(PS: personal standards and COM: concern over mistakes) are related to social achievement goals andsocial content goals. COM was linked to less desirable types of social goals (e.g., social demonstration-approach, social demonstration-avoid, popularity, and dominance goals) and had null relations withadaptive social goals (e.g., social development, intimacy, and nurturance goals). In contrast, PS wasrelated to adaptive social goals (e.g., social development, nurturance, intimacy, and leadership goals)and had no relation with maladaptive social goals (e.g., dominance goals). Despite all these benefits, PSwas also positively related to social demonstration-avoid goals, which have been consistently linked topsychological ill-being and negative social outcomes.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Perfectionism is a personality disposition, which encompassesthe tendency to strive for perfection, intolerance for errors andmistakes, and evaluating oneself in an overly critical manner(Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).Different research programs have used various definitions andmeasures. However, various scales have shown statistical overlapand have formed two distinct factors if subjected to a factor anal-ysis simultaneously. Self-oriented perfectionism, personal stan-dards, and organization (i.e., perfectionistic strivings) tended tocluster together and socially prescribed perfectionism, concernover mistakes, doubts about actions, parental expectations, andparental criticism (i.e., perfectionistic concerns) tended to form aseparate factor (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993).To summarize, perfectionistic strivings are characterized by highstandards but do not involve an overly critical evaluation of theself, whereas perfectionistic concerns involve hypersensitivity toexternally imposed high standards and criticism (see Stoeber &Otto, 2006 for a review).

Perfectionistic concerns have consistently been linked to mal-adjustment. However, perfectionistic strivings have not shownsuch deleterious effects and have often related to desirable out-comes (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). These associations with desirable

ll rights reserved.

: +1 765 285 3653.

outcomes have prompted some researchers to argue that perfec-tionistic strivings may be beneficial, leading to terms such as adap-tive, positive, or healthy perfectionism (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).However, not all researchers agree with the notion that a sub-typeof perfectionism can be adaptive (Flett & Hewitt, 2006). Thus, webegan our paper with an agnostic position regarding this debatebut used the terms, perfectionistic strivings vs. perfectionistic con-cerns, when reviewing studies using different measures of perfec-tionism for brevity’s sake.

Given that perfectionism involves striving for extremely highstandards, perfectionism researchers have often examined goalsin relation to perfectionism. The current study directs this line ofinquiry into the social domain. Compared to the academic or sportrelated domain, little attention has been paid to social goals. How-ever, social goals have been acknowledged as important for a widearray of outcomes such as academic adjustment, social adjustment,and psychological wellbeing (Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008).

The present research extends the current literature on perfec-tionism in important ways. First, perfectionism research has exam-ined interpersonal relationship outcomes and social anxiety (Flett,Hewitt, Shapiro, & Rayman, 2001; Gilman, Adams, & Nounopoulos,2011; Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, 2005; Shumaker &Rodebaugh, 2009). But we do not know the motivation underlyingsuch social outcomes. Given that goals, by definition, initiate, ener-gize, and direct behavior (Elliot, 2005), social goals may help explaincertain associations between perfectionism and social outcomes.Second, various types of social goals have been examined in relation

920 S.S. Shim, K.L. Fletcher / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924

to psychological well-being and academic and social adjustment (El-liot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006; Horst, Finney, & Barron, 2007; Jarvinen &Nicholls, 1996; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). As a result, the nature andconsequences of social goals have been identified. Accordingly, thecurrent investigation is likely to contribute to the current debateon whether some aspects of perfectionism can be adaptive (Flett &Hewitt, 2006; Stoeber & Otto, 2006).

1.1. Perfectionism and goal pursuits

Perfectionistic strivings seem to be related to high investmentand making progress toward goals, flexibility in adjusting goalswhen necessary, and disengaging from unattainable goals and pur-suing new alternative goals, and the eventual attainment of goals.In contrast, perfectionistic concerns may hamper such self-regula-tory processes related to goal pursuits (Gaudreau & Thompson,2010; O’Connor & Forgan, 2007; Powers, Koestner, Zuroff, Milyavs-kaya, & Gorin, 2011). The evidence is inconclusive in terms of therelationships between perfectionistic strivings and goal relatedsatisfaction (Flett & Hewitt, 2006; Slade & Owens, 1998). Althoughgoal progress has often been examined for self-chosen goals (e.g.,losing weight) involving concrete standards (e.g., going to thegym three times a week), some researchers have examined perfec-tionism in relation to approach vs. avoidance motivational tenden-cies. Perfectionistic strivings involve approach tendencies, leadingto pursuit of goals appetitive in nature (i.e., pursuing positive out-comes), while perfectionistic concerns involve avoidance tenden-cies, leading to pursuit of goals aversive in nature (i.e., avoidingnegative outcomes) (Slade & Owens, 1998). Individuals with highperfectionistic strivings and those with high perfectionistic con-cerns tend to be driven by a desire for success and a fear of failure,respectively. In support of such a postulation, perfectionistic con-cerns were linked to the behavioral inhibition system that controlsaversive motivation (O’Connor & Forgan, 2007).

Some prior research has adopted the achievement goal theoryperspective. Achievement goals can be distinguished according tothe orientation to competence (mastery goals focusing on develop-ing competence vs. performance goals focusing on demonstratingcompetence) and the valence of potential outcomes (approachingpositive outcomes vs. avoiding negative outcomes). Among theseresulting four different types of achievement goals (mastery-ap-proach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance goals; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), a fear of failure predictsall goals except mastery-approach goals while a desire for successis related to two approach (mastery-approach and performance-approach) goals. In prior studies, perfectionistic strivings predictedmastery-approach and performance-approach goals while perfec-tionistic concerns were related to performance-avoidance goals(Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006). However, an association be-tween perfectionistic concerns and performance-approach goals(Verner-Filion & Gaudreau, 2010) and similar levels of mastery-ap-proach goals for individuals characterized by high perfectionisticstrivings vs. high perfectionistic concerns (Hanchon, 2010) havebeen reported. Taken together, in the academic domain, perfec-tionistic concerns tend to be associated with less adaptive motiva-tional profiles as compared to perfectionistic strivings.

1.2. Perfectionism and social goal pursuits

To examine the relationships between perfectionism and socialmotivation, we adopted two approaches to social goals. First, thesocial content goal approach examines specific outcomes that stu-dents like to achieve from social relations. We examined five con-tent goals drawn from Jarvinen and Nicholls (1996): nurturance,intimacy, leadership, popularity, and dominance. In general, inti-macy and nurturance goals were linked to social satisfaction and

peer ratings of popularity (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996). Popularitygoals were related to social satisfaction and peer ratings of popu-larity but also linked to negative attitudes about school and disen-gagement (Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997). Dominance goals weremostly related to low social satisfaction and low peer ratings ofpopularity (Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996) as well as maladaptive formsof engagement and low achievement (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004;Kiefer & Ryan, 2008). Even though both dominance and leadershipgoals emanate from a power motive, leadership goals are a morepositive manifestation. Leadership goals were not examined inprior research but may yield positive outcomes related to leader-ship qualities such as prosocial behavior.

The second approach involves the achievement goal theory per-spective applied to the social domain. While social content goalsrepresent the outcomes that students want to achieve in socialcontexts, social achievement goals represent an overarching pur-pose for engagement. Three types of goals mirroring academicachievement goals (mastery goals and performance-approachand -avoidance goals) have been proposed (Ryan & Shim, 2006,2008): Social development goals involve reasons for ‘‘developing’’ so-cial competence such as improving social relationships and socialskills; social demonstration-approach goals represent the goals of‘‘demonstrating’’ superior social competence, typically by garneringpositive feedback from others and gaining social prestige; and so-cial demonstration-avoid goals represent the goals of ‘‘concealing’’inferior social competence, typically by avoiding negative judg-ments from others (Ryan & Shim, 2006).

Research has shown that social development goals related tomany positive outcomes while social demonstration-avoid goalsconsistently related to maladjustment (e.g., perceptions of socialrelationships, loneliness, social worry, fear of negative evaluations,depression when faced with interpersonal stress, and anxious sol-itary behavior). Social demonstration-approach goals related toheightened social-efficacy, peer ratings of popularity, but also pos-itively related to aggression (Elliot et al., 2006; Horst et al., 2007;Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008).

Given that the current study is the first empirical investigation,there is no available data for hypotheses regarding the relation-ships between perfectionism and social goals. However, individu-als with perfectionistic strivings may also strive for excellence intheir social relationships (Flett et al., 2001), leading to the adoptionof social development and social demonstration-approach goals. Incontrast, given the sensitivity to others’ evaluations inherent inperfectionistic concerns, we expected that perfectionistic concernswould be related to high social demonstration-approach and avoidgoals (Slade & Owens, 1998; Verner-Filion & Gaudreau, 2010). Per-fectionistic concerns have been associated with undesirable socialbehaviors (Flett et al., 2001; Gilman et al., 2011; Ommundsen et al.,2005). Thus, we expected that perfectionistic strivings would berelated to more positive social content goals such as intimacy, nur-turance, and leadership goals while perfectionistic concerns wouldbe related to less desirable social content goals such as popularityand dominance goals.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Three hundred and sixty seven college students in a universityin the Midwestern region of the United States participated forcourse credit. The sample was predominantly European American(95%). The mean age of participants was 21.56 years old and78.5% were female. They were freshman (32%), junior (13%), soph-omore (30%), and senior (25%) students enrolled in various Educa-tional Psychology courses.

S.S. Shim, K.L. Fletcher / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924 921

2.2. Measures

A 7-point Likert-type scale was used for all measures rangingfrom strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Table 1 showsthe means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients (Cronbach’salpha), and bivariate correlations among variables examined in thecurrent study.

2.2.1. Dispositional perfectionismWe focused on personal standards (PS) and concern over mis-

takes (COM), which have been identified as core aspects of perfec-tionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto,2006). The brief scales of Frost et al. (1990), developed and vali-dated by Cox, Enns, and Clara (2002), were used to measure PSand COM. PS reflects the high standards that individuals set andthe importance they attach to those standards for self-evaluation(5 items, ‘‘I have extremely high goals’’). COM refers to individuals’negative reactions to mistakes and their tendency to interpret mis-takes as failure and equate making mistakes to losing other peo-ple’s respect (5 items, ‘‘If I fail at work/school, I am a failure asperson’’).

2.2.2. Social achievement goalsThe items for social achievement goals were drawn from Ryan

and Shim (2006). The social development goal scale concerns a focuson developing social skills and relationships (6 items, ‘‘I feel suc-cessful when I learn something new about myself and how I relateto other people.’’). The social demonstration-approach goal scaleconcerns a focus on demonstrating social desirability and gainingpositive judgments from others (6 items, ‘‘It is important to meto be seen as having a lot of friends.’’). The social demonstration-avoid goal scale concerns a focus on demonstrating that one isnot socially undesirable and avoiding negative judgments fromothers (6 items, ‘‘I would be successful if I could avoid being so-cially awkward.’’).

2.2.3. Social content goalsThe items for social content goals were adapted from Jarvinen

and Nicholls (1996). Students responded to various items describ-ing what they want from a social situation or relationship. Allitems began with the stem ‘‘I like it when.’’ Five types of social con-tent goals were measured: Nurturance goal items concern helpingothers (5 items, ‘‘I like it when I go out of my way to help them.’’),Intimacy goal items concern building intimate social relationships(6 items, ‘‘I like it when we know each other’s private feelings.’’),Leadership goal items concern serving as a leader in a social situa-tion (5 items, ‘‘I like it when I’m in a leadership position.’’), Popular-ity goal items concern establishing high social status (5 items, ‘‘I

Table 1Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and inter-correlations among variables

1 2 3

1 Personal standard –2 Concern over mistakes .39 –3 Development goals .28 .01 –4 Demonstration-approach goals .18 .39 .155 Demonstration-avoid goals .29 .46 .296 Nurturance goals .22 �.03 .547 Intimacy goals .16 .05 .478 Leadership goals .29 .29 .219 Popularity goals .13 .25 .30

10 Dominance goals .08 .43 �.14

Mean 4.95 3.18 5.28SD 1.10 1.40 .99Cronbach’s alpha .85 .87 .85

Note. rs > |.14| are significant at p < .01; |.11|< rs < |.14| are significant at p < .05.

like it when I’m the most popular.’’), and Dominance goal itemsconcern having power over others (6 items, ‘‘I like it when I makethem do what I want.’’). As we have used only five out of the sixsubscales available in the original measure, added one item, andadjusted the wording of some items to better suit college students,we re-established the construct validity of the scale by running aconfirmatory factor analysis. Using the LISREL program, confirma-tory factor analysis was conducted on covariance matrices and themaximum-likelihood estimation method was used to estimatemodel parameters. The results indicated that the five-factor modelfit the data reasonably well, v2 (345, N = 367) = 1124.2,RMSEA = .08, CFI = .94, NNFI = .92.

3. Results

The analyses were conducted by utilizing both a variable-cen-tered (i.e., multiple regression) and a person-centered approach(i.e., cluster analysis). In general, perfectionism researchers haveutilized one of these two approaches in previous studies but rarelyboth (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). A variable-centered approach is effec-tive in estimating the unique contribution of one variable whilecontrolling for the levels of other variables. However, in reality,individuals often show combinations of such dimensions and thus,the use of cluster analysis complements our regression analyses byexamining the effects of the aggregates of variables.

3.1. Multiple regression analysis

We conducted a series of multiple regression analyses to exam-ine the effects of PS, COM and their interaction on social goals. Theinteraction term was included to address the issue whether PSwithout COM could be particularly beneficial. As shown in Table 2,all regression models were significant Fs (3, 361) > 3.06, ps < .05. PSsignificantly and positively predicted all social goals except socialdemonstration-approach and dominance goals. COM positivelypredicted demonstration-approach, demonstration-avoid, leader-ship, popularity, and dominance goals. For social development-ap-proach goals, PS by COM interaction was significant and simpleslope tests (Aiken & West, 1991) indicated that COM had a smallercoefficient when the level of PS was high (1 SD above the mean),b = .29, t = 5.05, p < .001, than when the level of PS was low (1 SDbelow the mean), b = .56, t = 7.13, p < .001.

3.2. Person centered approach using hierarchical cluster analysis

To examine groups of students, as defined by their perfectionis-tic traits, we conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward’smethod. Up to four clusters, each additional cluster yielded a

.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

–.52 –.11 .12 –.16 .17 .59 –.40 .25 .32 .28 –.52 .25 .43 .41 .60 –.55 .26 �.07 �.05 .52 .43 –

3.15 4.13 5.31 5.07 3.89 3.92 2.331.31 1.24 .82 .98 1.10 1.10 1.26

.89 .89 .71 .79 .72 .82 .88

Table 2Predicting social goals by personal standards and concern over mistakes.

Dependent variable Predictor variable

PS: personal standards COM: concerns over mistakes PS X COM F (3, 361) R2

Development goals .39*** .13 �.24 11.99*** .09Demonstration-approach goals .02 .42*** �.15** 24.65*** .17Demonstration-avoid goals .26* .61** �.28 29.54*** .19Nurturance goals .26* �.06 �.04 7.29*** .06Intimacy goals .25* .23 �.27 3.06* .03Leadership goals .30** .48* �.28 17.29*** .12Popularity goals .22* .66** �.50 9.67*** .07Dominance goals .02 .71*** �.30 31.71*** .21

Note.* p < .05 ;

** p < .01;*** p < .001. Standardized coefficients are shown.

922 S.S. Shim, K.L. Fletcher / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924

significant improvement in the fit indices, such as R2, Semi-partialR2, RMSSTD, Pseudo T-test, and Pseudo F statistics. The five-clustersolution did not improve the indices much and contained two clus-ters with a similar pattern but slightly different means of PS andCOM. Thus, we selected the four-cluster solution.

A one-way MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate maineffect for cluster, Wilks’ k = .07, F (6, 726) = 289.90, p < .001, partialg2 = .71. Based on the cluster means (see Table 3), we labeled clus-ter 1 as ‘‘High PS/High COM,’’ cluster 2 as ‘‘High PS/Low COM,’’ cluster3 as ‘‘Low PS/High COM,’’ and cluster 4 as ‘‘Low PS/Low COM.’’

Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) were conducted.We found significant multivariate main effects for cluster on thethree social achievement goals, Wilks’ k = .78, F (9, 873) = 10.35,p < .001, partial g2 = .08, and on the five social content goals, Wilks’k = .77, F (988.68) = 6.93, p < .001, partial g2 = .09. Significant uni-variate main effects were obtained for all of the goals Fs (3,362) = 2.82–24.91, ps < .05, partial g2

s ¼ :02—:15, except intimacygoals, F (3, 362) = 1.34, p = n.s. We followed up with multiple com-parisons using the conservative Bonferroni’s method and the esti-mated marginal means and multiple comparison results arepresented in Table 4.

4. Discussion

The current research represents the first investigation of perfec-tionism in relation to social goals and contributes to our under-standing of how individuals with perfectionism approach theirsocial relationships. In the regression analyses, PS was related todesirable goals such as social development, nurturance, intimacy,and leadership goals but not associated with less desirable goalssuch as social demonstration-approach and dominance goals. Asignificant PS by COM interaction indicated that PS amelioratedthe positive effect of COM on social demonstration-approach goals.

However, at the same time, it is premature to conclude that PSis completely adaptive. The pattern found in the current study isinconsistent with the proposal linking perfectionistic strivings toapproach tendencies (Slade & Owens, 1998). It seems that perfec-tionists with high standards pursue both approach (i.e., socialdevelopment goals) and avoidance goals (i.e., social demonstra-tion-avoid goals). The resulting conflict of pursuing goals opposite

Table 3Means of personal standards and concern over mistakes by cluster.

Dependent variable 1 High PS/High COM(N = 73)

2 High PS/Low COM(N = 97)

3 Low PS/Hig(N = 105)

Personal standards .98 (.85–1.11) .75 (.63–.86) �.43 (�.54Concern over mistakes 1.29 (1.17–1.40) �.79 (�.89–.69) .55 (.45–

Note. The scores are standardized.

in nature can be quite stressful and may lead to psychological ill-being (Flett & Hewitt, 2006). The association between PS and socialdemonstration-avoid goals suggests that individuals with high PSare concerned if others negatively judge them. It may be the casethat these individuals may consider their reputation among othersas an indicator of social competence and thus, adoption of socialdemonstration-avoid goals may simply indicate their strivings to-ward excellent performance in the social domain. However, itmay not be the complete explanation, as PS was not related to so-cial demonstration-approach goals. Future research should eluci-date this intriguing pattern.

Regression analysis revealed that COM was related to socialdemonstration-approach, social demonstration-avoid, popularity,leadership, and dominance goals, but not to social development,nurturance, and intimacy goals. Pursuing popularity, leadership,and dominance may not be necessarily bad. But the exclusive pur-suit of such goals without an interest in making authentic connec-tions or building supportive relationships with others could beproblematic. Leadership, popularity and dominance are more ‘‘vis-ible’’ or external markers of social standing within a group, consis-tent with an emphasis on extrinsic motivations for social success.Individuals with COM may be predisposed to endorse goals focus-ing on tangible outcomes that can be obtained from the social rela-tionship (e.g., garnering positive judgments or avoiding negativeappraisals from others), rather than enjoying and improving thesocial relationship itself (e.g., deepening the relationship).

In a relatively recent review, Stoeber and Otto (2006) main-tained that perfectionistic strivings have positive effects especiallyif the perfectionists are not overly concerned with negative evalu-ation. Is PS a good trait as long as COM is not present? Alterna-tively, is COM without PS particularly toxic? Empirical evidenceexists for this claim (e.g., Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Powerset al., 2011). Our results are consistent with these studies: The re-sults from our cluster analysis clearly demonstrated that CL3 (LowPS/High COM) is associated with the worst profile in terms of socialgoal pursuits and CL1 (High PS/High COM) showed more negativeprofiles than CL2 (High PS/Low COM).

However, the present results diverge from the past research inimportant ways. The comparisons between CL2 (High PS/LowCOM) and CL4 (Low PS/Low COM), and between CL1 (High PS/High

h COM 4 Low PS/Low COM(N = 93)

Multiple comparisons by Bonferroni’s method

–.32) �1.06 (�1.18–.95) 1 > 3; 1 > 4; 2 > 3; 2 > 4; 3 > 4.65) �.82 (�.93–.72) 1 > 2; 1 > 3; 1 > 4; 2 < 3; 3 > 4

Table 4Means of social goals by cluster and multiple comparisons.

Social goals 1 High PS/High COM 2 High PS/Low COM 3 Low PS/High COM 4 Low PS/Low COM Multiple comparisons by Bonferroni’s method

Development 5.42 (5.19–5.65) 5.45 (5.25–5.64) 5.20 (5.01–5.39) 5.09 (4.89–5.29)Demonstration-approach 3.60 (3.31–3.88) 2.86 (2.61–3.10) 3.66 (3.42–3.89) 2.54 (2.29–2.79) 1 > 2; 1 > 4; 2 < 3; 3 > 4Demonstration-avoid 4.91 (4.64–5.18) 3.86 (3.63–4.09) 4.34 (4.12–4.57) 3.59 (3.35–3.82) 1 > 2; 1 > 3; 1 > 4; 2 < 3; 3 > 4Nurturance 5.41 (5.22–5.61) 5.47 (5.31–5.63) 5.16 (5.00–5.31) 5.26 (5.09–5.42) 2 > 3Intimacy 5.18 (4.95–5.41) 5.18 (4.98–5.37) 4.96 (4.78–5.15) 4.98 (4.79–5.18)Leadership 4.39 (4.15–4.64) 3.82 (3.61–4.04) 4.01 (3.81–4.22) 3.46 (3.24–3.67) 1 > 2; 1 > 4; 3 > 4Popularity 4.19 (3.94–4.44) 3.73 (3.51–3.94) 4.21 (4.01–4.42) 3.61 (3.39–3.83) 1 > 2; 1 > 4; 2 < 3; 3 > 4Dominance 2.95 (2.68–3.22) 1.78 (1.55–2.01) 2.81 (2.59–3.03) 1.87 (1.64–2.11) 1 > 2; 1 > 4; 2 < 3; 3 > 4

Note. PS = personal standards; COM = concern over mistakes. CIs (95%) are shown in the parentheses.

S.S. Shim, K.L. Fletcher / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924 923

COM) and CL3 (Low PS/High COM), which differ in the levels of PSbut are similar in the levels of COM, showed no significant differ-ences in most social goals, indicating no benefits of PS. Interest-ingly, CL1 (High PS/High COM) showed higher socialdemonstration-avoid goals than CL3 (Low PS/High COM).

In summary, the current results showed that PS is, by and large,related to desirable types of social goals. In contrast, COM waslinked to undesirable goals (e.g., social demonstration-avoid anddominance goals) but not to healthy forms of social goals (e.g., so-cial development, nurturance, and intimacy goals). However, giventhat PS was also related to social demonstration-avoid goals, thecurrent study highlights that a nuanced interpretation of the ef-fects of PS is required.

Our results related to social content goals may help to explainthe association of perfectionism with negative social behaviorssuch as dominance, conflict, neglect, and insensitivity on the onehand and overly nurturing interpersonal tendencies on the otherhand (Flett et al., 2001; Hill, Zrull, & Turlington, 1997; Ommundsenet al., 2005; Slaney, Pincus, Uliaszek, & Wang, 2006). In addition,future research on social demonstration-avoid goals may be partic-ularly informative for understanding the link between perfection-ism and social anxiety. Existing research suggests that socialanxiety maybe negatively related to PS but positively related toCOM (Shumaker & Rodebaugh, 2009). With the relationshipsamong perfectionism and social goals revealed in the currentstudy, future studies should include measures of social goals andsocial outcomes to obtain a fuller picture. Additional measures ofperfectionism should also be considered in future research (espe-cially Hewitt & Flett, 1991).

The current and future related research on social goals is likelyto have practical implications. By definition, goals are not stablepersonality traits but cognitive representations (Elliot, 2005).Blackwell and colleagues (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck,2007) have shown that goals are sensitive to intervention andlikely to change. Furthermore, even though the current study didnot test the links among perfectionism, social goals, and actual out-comes simultaneously, previous research suggests that desirablesocial goals are likely to lead to improvements in various indicatorsof psychological well-being and academic and social adjustment(Elliot et al., 2006; Horst et al., 2007; Jarvinen & Nicholls, 1996;Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). Thus, efforts to change underlying socialmotivations by fostering adaptive types of social goals while dis-couraging the maladaptive ones may be helpful for perfectionisticindividuals with heightened concern over mistakes.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories ofintelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinalstudy and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement:Developmental changes in the association between aggression and socialstatus. Child Development, 75, 147–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x.

Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure ofperfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. PsychologicalAssessment, 14(3), 365.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J.Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation (Vol. 16,pp. 52–72). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation inthe social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391.doi:10.1177/0146167205282153.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 � 2 achievement goal framework. JournalOf Personality & Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive vs. negative perfectionism inpsychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owens’s dual process model.Behavior Modification, 30, 472–495. doi:10.1177/0145445506288026.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Shapiro, B., & Rayman, J. (2001). Perfectionism, beliefs, andadjustment in dating relationships. Current Psychology, 20(4), 289–311.doi:10.1007/s12144-001-1013-4.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. (1993). Acomparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 14(1), 119–126. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions ofperfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. doi:10.1007/BF01172967.

Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 � 2 model of dispositionalperfectionism. Personality & Individual Differences, 48(5), 532–537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031.

Gilman, R., Adams, R., & Nounopoulos, A. (2011). The interpersonal relationshipsand social perceptions of adolescent perfectionists. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 21(2), 505–511. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00689.x.

Hanchon, T. A. (2010). The relations between perfectionism and achievement goals.Personality & Individual Differences, 49(8), 885–890. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.023.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:Conception, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456.

Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism and interpersonalproblems. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 69(1), 81.

Horst, J., Finney, S., & Barron, K. (2007). Moving beyond academic achievement goalmeasures: A study of social achievement goals. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 32, 667–698. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.011.

Jarvinen, D. W., & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social goals, beliefs about thecauses of social success, and satisfaction in peer relations. DevelopmentalPsychology, 32, 435–441. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435.

Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social dominance over peers: Theimplications for academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 100(2), 417–428. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417.

O’Connor, R. C., & Forgan, G. (2007). Suicidal thinking and perfectionism: The role ofgoal adjustment and behavioral inhibition/activation systems (BIS/BAS). Journalof Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 25(4), 321–341. doi:10.1007/s10942-007-0057-2.

Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P., & Miller, B. W. (2005). Peer relationshipsin adolescent competitive soccer: Associations to perceived motivationalclimate, achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(9),977–989. doi:10.1080/0264041050012797.

Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Zuroff, D. C., Milyavskaya, M., & Gorin, A. A. (2011). Theeffects of self-criticism and self-oriented perfectionism on goal pursuit.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 964–975. doi:10.1177/0146167211410246.

Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals, and avoidingseeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 152–171.

Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2006). Social achievement goals: The nature andconsequences of different orientations toward social competence. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1246–1263. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.672.

924 S.S. Shim, K.L. Fletcher / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 919–924

Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2008). An exploration of young adolescents’social achievement goals and social adjustment in middle school. Journalof Educational Psychology, 100(3), 672–687. doi:10.1177/0146167206289345.

Shumaker, E. A., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2009). Perfectionism and social anxiety:Rethinking the role of high standards. Journal of Behavior Therapy andExperimental Psychiatry, 40, 423–433.

Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based onreinforcement theory. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 372.

Slaney, R. B., Pincus, A. L., Uliaszek, A. A., & Wang, K. T. (2006). Conceptionsof perfectionism and interpersonal problems: Evaluating groups using

the structural summary method for circumplex data. Assessment, 13,138–153.

Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students:Relationship precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 50, 238–251. doi:10.1177/001698620605000304.

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.

Verner-Filion, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2010). From perfectionism to academicadjustment: The mediating role of achievement goals. Personality andIndividual Differences, 49, 181–186. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.029.