Intro and Methods Section

Introduction

           In their 2016 study, Personality and Perfectionism: A Review, Khatibi and Hormaei define perfectionism not as “being perfect or doing something perfectly,” but as “the relentless striving for extremely high standards that are personally demanding.” This may not immediately seem to be a negative characteristic. In fact, today’s society champions perfectionistic behaviors as the path to success. This is especially true for students who are in academically rigorous programs. Many believe that if they work hard enough, they can achieve perfection, or something close to it. While this might promote success, perfectionists often tie their self-esteem to their achievements, or lack thereof. The effects of such a link, especially when failure inevitably arrives, results in debilitating effects, even leading to depression and anxiety.

          Many studies have investigated ties to perfectionism and self-esteem in some form or another. In doing so, researchers often divide participants into different types of perfectionism. While not all studies have the same labels for each type, the types are very similar. Usually, there is a non-perfectionistic group, or a type of people that does not show any perfectionistic tendencies; an adaptive perfectionist group, or a type of people that exhibit perfectionistic tendencies but do not experience as many negative effects; and a maladaptive perfectionist group, or a type of people that exhibit perfectionistic tendencies and experience more negative effects from those tendencies (Ashby & Rice, 1997; Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Khatibi & Khormaei, 2016; Parker, 1997).

          While maladaptive perfectionism may be what many recognize, perfectionism itself is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, researchers suggest that adaptive perfectionism can and should be encouraged (Ashby & Rice, 1997; Khatibi & Khormaei, 2016; Parket, 1997)

          Researchers agree that maladaptive perfectionists’ levels of self-esteem are based on continually meeting expectations and/or avoiding failure (Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Niiya, Crocker, & Bartmess, 2004). For maladaptive perfectionists, failing to meet standards leads to stress, self-criticism and a minimized view of previous successes, while adaptive perfectionists’ standards can bolster their self-esteem, with less stress around occurrences of failure (Ashby & Rice, 1997; Khatibi & Khormaei, 2016).

            Studies also explore how perfectionism is linked to future performance. Maladaptive perfectionists aren’t extremely flexible, often struggling to adjust and persist in the face of failure (Niiya, Crocker, & Barmess, 2004; Rice and Dellwo, 2002). In addition, even when failure is nonexistent, maladaptive perfectionists are often dissatisfied with their performances, which can prevent them from achieving positive outcomes; however, adaptive perfectionism can aid future performance (Flett & Hewitt, 2005; Parker, 1997).

            While no direct research on perfectionism and the perception of others could be found, there have been a few studies on perfectionism and relationships. A couple studies suggest that maladaptive perfectionism can negatively impact a relationship in the context of marriage, specifically when one person believes his or her spouse expects perfection from them, while higher levels of self-esteem have produced higher levels of satisfaction in relationships between parents and children (Haring & Hewitt, 2003; Small, 1988). However, perfectionism does not only negatively impact relationships; on the contrary, some researchers concluded that adaptive perfectionism can help resolve or mediate between spouses in a relationship (Fritts, 2012).

            There have been many studies about perfectionism and self-esteem, including research about how perfectionism can impact one’s future performance. There have been fewer studies about perfectionism’s impact on the perception of others. However, while some have investigated perfectionism in academically talented children, college honors students’ perfectionism has not been addressed. Furthermore, studies that investigate both perfectionists’ views of themselves and their relationships with others is lacking. This research aims to investigate those missing links, ultimately exploring the relationship between honors students’ levels of maladaptive perfection and the way they view themselves and others.

Methods

            33 University of Iowa honors students were surveyed and, of those 33 respondents, two were interviewed. Both methods focused on identifying the respondents’ level of maladaptive perfectionism, perceptions of themselves, and perceptions of others.

Survey

            Participants. The participants of this survey were 33 honors students at the University of Iowa, the majority of which resided in Daum Residence Hall. Most of the participants were aged 18-19, all with varying majors. All participants had a minimum 3.8 GPA and 30 ACT score.

Procedure. All participants answered a twenty-question survey on Google Forms evaluating their level of maladaptive perfectionism, perceptions of themselves, and perceptions of others. The link to the form was sent out in several GroupMe chats. Each question was multiple-choice and included a statement to which participants could select a level of agreement, either “strongly agree,” “agree,” “somewhat agree,” “I don’t know,” “somewhat disagree,” “disagree,” or “strongly disagree.” The survey was anonymous and was completely subject to the respondents’ honesty.

Data Analysis. After receiving thirty-three responses to the survey and copying the answers into a spreadsheet, the questions were separated into the four groups they measured: level of maladaptive perfectionism, level of favorable self-perception, level of favorable perception of others, and non-applicable filler questions.

            Level of maladaptive perfectionism. Five questions were included under the level of maladaptive perfectionism category. One question was rephrased, and its answers altered to their opposite values (for example, changing “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). Thus, all five questions became statements that corresponded with a maladaptive perfectionist’s mindset. One’s level of maladaptive perfectionism was determined by one’s level of agreement to the following four statements: “Failure means I should try harder so I can do better next time,” “I fear failure,” “I will do anything I can to avoid failure,” and “what I do defines who I am,” alongside one’s level of disagreement to the following statement: “Failure means I can grow as a person.”

From that, numerical values were assigned to each response: 3 for “strongly agree,” 2 for “agree,” 1 for “somewhat agree,” 0 for “I don’t know,” -1 for “somewhat disagree,” -2 for “disagree,” and -3 for “strongly disagree.” After adding the questions’ numerical data for each respondent, five categories emerged: mild non-maladaptive perfectionist, with a score range from -5 to -1; neutral, with a score of 0; mild maladaptive perfectionist, with a score range from 1 to 5; moderate maladaptive perfectionist, with a score range from 6 to 10; and severe maladaptive perfectionist, with a score range from 11 to 15. There were no respondents whose answers categorized them under the moderate or severe non-maladaptive perfectionist categories.

            Perceptions of self. Five questions were included to determine one’s level of favorable self-perception. These questions were: “I have worth,” “My family likes me,” “My friends like me,” “I am likeable,” and “There are many people in my life that personally know and respect me.” The greater the extent to which one agreed with these statements, the higher their favorable perception of self was.

Respondents’ responses to these questions were assigned the same numerical values as those for perfectionism (3 for “strongly agree,” 2 for “agree,” and so on). Each question’s responses were added together and divided by the total maximum positive response (the number of responses for that question multiplied by three). After each question’s responses were added and divided by the maximum positive response, the final values were averaged together to get a number that approximately represented the numerical level of favorable self-perception.

             Perceptions of others. Seven questions were included to determine one’s favorable perception of others. These questions were: “My family is likeable,” “My friends are likeable,” “I like my family,” “I like my friends,” “There are many people in my life that I personally know and respect,” “I have a good relationship with my family,” and “I have a good relationship with my friends.” The greater the extent to which one agreed to these statements, the higher one’s favorable perception of others was.

Respondents’ responses to these questions were assigned the same numerical values as those for perfectionism and self-perception (3 for “strongly agree,” 2 for “agree,” and so on). Each question’s responses were added together and divided by the total maximum positive response (the number of responses for that question multiplied by three). After each question’s responses were added and divided by the maximum positive response, the final values were averaged together to get a number that approximately represented the numerical level of favorable perception of others.

Interviews

            Two survey respondents were asked five questions, each of which contained sub-questions. Due to the potential personal nature of their answers, these questions were emailed to the participants, who responded through email with their answers. The respondents’ answers were then examined for interesting insights and common patterns.

            Non-applicable questions. The first two questions, “Would you say that you are a perfectionist? Why or why not?” and “How do you view perfectionism?” (which had the following sub-questions: “Who do you think perfectionists usually are? Do you think perfectionism is beneficial or not? Why or why not?”) were non-applicable to measuring self-perception and perception of others. They served to re-introduce the interview topic to the respondents and were not examined in depth.

            Failure. The third question was divided into the following two sub-questions: “How do you view failure?” and “How do you react when you fail?” This question served to measure the respondent’s maladaptive perfectionism while eliminating the self-bias that may have existed in the non-applicable questions.

            Likeability. The fourth question was divided into the following four sub-questions: “What makes people likeable?”, “Give an example of the type of people you like and why,” “Do you think your friends like you? Why or why not?” and “Do you think your family likes you? Why or why not?”. This question served to measure both one’s perception of self and others in terms of likeability.

            Respect. The final question was divided into four sub-questions: “What makes people respected?”, “Give an example of the type of people you respect and why,” “Do you think your friends respect you? Why or why not?” and “Do you think your family respects you? Why or why not?”. This question served to measure one’s perception of self and others in terms of respect.