© 2020 IJRAR August 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3 ...ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19S1576.pdf · The...

© 2020 IJRAR August 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

IJRAR19S1576 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 657

The Relationship between Perfectionism and Job

Performance in Indian Employees

ABSRACT

The present study aimed at investigating the relationship of perfectionism and job performance in Indian employees. The scales of

Perfectionism (MPS) and the Individual work performance (IWP) were administered on one-hundred and forty-six *(N=146) employees.

Results showed that self-oriented perfectionism has significant association with task performance (p<0.05, r = 0.47) and contextual

performance (p<0.05, r = 0.44). Other-oriented perfectionism has shown significant association with task performance (p<0.05, r = 0.25),

contextual performance (p<0.05, r = 0.33) and counterproductive work behaviour (p<0.05, r = 0.19). Socially prescribed perfectionism

has depicted significant association with contextual performance (p <0.01, r = 0.21) and counterproductive work behaviour (p<0.01, r =

0.22). Additionally, the results showed perfectionism has significant impact on job performance (p < 0.05).

KEYWORDS

Self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, task performance, contextual

performance, counterproductive work behaviour.

1. Introduction

Perfectionism has been considered as a “multidimensional personality trait comprising both positive

and negative aspects” (Dykstra, 2006; Butt, 2010; Kanten & Yesiltas, 2015). “Positive perfectionism refers to

the cognitions and behaviors which direct individuals to achieve high-level goals by positive reinforcement and

willingness to gain success, whereas negative perfectionism represents individuals striving for unrealistic

performance standards and includes negative reinforcement and a fear of failure” (Stoeber & Rambow, 2007;

Kung & Chan, 2014).

Perfectionists’ individual can be found in many workplaces. Perfectionists usually follow stringent sets of

do’s and don'ts. They try to remain perfect in almost all the things they do and if they fail to achieve it perfectly, they

feel anxious and guilty. They are extremely cautious about their mistakes. This may result in positive and negative

consequences. Positive consequence consists of their detailed orientation and adherence to rules. These

characteristics help them to remain motivated and to motivate others too. Negative consequences consist of facing

challenges in prioritizing the work and delegation of work. Few researches have been conducted to measure the

positive or negative effects of perfectionism in the workplace (Fairlie & Flett, 2003). The present study explores the

relationship and impact of perfectionism and performance at work.

http://www.ijrar.org/



2. Review of Literature

2.1 Perfectionism

Researchers define perfectionism as a “network of cognitions, including expectations and interpretations of

events and evaluations of oneself and others, characterized by the setting of unrealistic standards, rigid and

indiscriminate adherence to these, and the equating of self-worth and performance” (Haase & Prapavessis, 2004).

There are different forms of perfectionism. In two-dimensional construct, perfectionism typically is divided

into “positive and negative’’, “adaptive and maladaptive’’ or “normal and neurotic” perfectionism. Positive (healthy)

perfectionism is defined as “achieving positive consequences and the motivation to achieve a certain goal in order to

obtain a favorable outcome” (Beheshtifar,Mazrae-Sefidi & Moghadam, 2011).Positive perfectionism comprises of

perfectionist striving, high personal standards, self-oriented perfectionism and striving for excellence and has been

called adaptive perfectionism. Negative (unhealthy) perfectionism is defined as “a function of avoidance of negative

consequences and the motivation to achieve a certain goal in order to avoid adverse consequences” and has been

called maladaptive perfectionism (Beheshtifar et.al.,2011). Negative perfectionism comprises of perfectionistic

concerns, concern over mistakes, socially prescribed perfectionism and discrepancy between expectations and results

(Stoeber & Kersting, 2007). Adaptive perfectionism is also called as perfectionistic striving or positive striving and

maladaptive perfectionism is also called as perfectionistic concern (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer,

1993;Stoeber & Otto, 2006; Eunbi, Ahram, Eunji, Hyunmo, Sang, 2015).

Two models of perfectionism has been identified to dominate the literature in past two decades: Hewitt and

Flett’s (1991) and Frost model (1990).Hewitt and Flett model recognizes that perfectionism has personal and social

aspects and thus differentiates perfectionism in three different forms: self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented

perfectionism and socially-prescribed perfectionism.

Self-oriented perfectionism: It consists of setting unrealistic, exacting self-standards, as well as stringently

evaluating and censuring one’s behaviour. This dimension also entails a strong motivation to attain perfection and

avoid failure (Fairlie & Flett,2003; Beheshtifar et.al.,2011). Self-oriented perfectionism is the self-initiated

requirement for one to be perfect (RHR International Company, 2007).

Other-oriented perfectionism: This involves setting unrealistic standards for significant others, placing

importance on the perfection of others, and stringently evaluating others’ performance (Fairlie & Flett, 2003;

Beheshtifar et.al.,2011). Other-oriented perfectionism is the requirement that others should be Perfect (RHR

International Company, 2007).

Socially prescribed perfectionism: Individuals who are high in socially prescribed perfectionism perceive

themselves to be the subjects of other people’s perfectionist expectations. They believe that others evaluate them

stringently and apply pressure on them to be perfect (Fairlie & Flett, 2003; Beheshtifar et.al.,2011).




2.2 Work Performance

There are multiple components or dimensions of the work performance. Work performance is defined as “an

abstract, latent construct that cannot be pointed to or measured directly” (Viswesvaran, 2002.). Additionally, it can

be defined as “behaviors or actions that are relevant to the goals of the organization” (Campbell,1990). This

definition has three integral parts: (1) work performance should be defined in terms of behavior rather than results,

(2) work performance includes only those behaviors that are relevant to the organization’s goals, and (3) work

performance is multidimensional.

Individual Work Performance is defined as “scalable actions, behaviour and outcomes that employees engage

in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to organization goals”(Viswesvaran,2000; Koopmans,

Bernaards, Hildebrandt, Schaufeli, Vet & Van der Beek,2011). Individual Work Performance broadly consists of

three dimensions : Task Performance, Contextual Performance and Counterproductive work behaviour.

Task Performance :- Task performance can be defined as the proficiency (i.e, competency) with which one

performs central job tasks (Campbell,1990; Koopman et.al.,2011).Task performance is also known as “job-specific

task proficiency, technical proficiency or in-role performance” (Koopmans et.al.,2011). It includes work quantity,

work quality, and job knowledge.

Contextual Performance: - Contextual performance can be defined as “individual behaviors that support the

organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must function” (Borman &

Motowidlo,1993; Koopmans et.al.,2011). Contextual performance is also known as “non–job-specific task

proficiency, extra-role performance, organizational citizenship behavior or interpersonal relations” (Murphy,1989;

Koopmans et.al.,2011). These definitions highlight the behavior of going beyond the formally prescribed work goals

such as walking an extra miles, taking additional tasks, being proactive or coaching newcomers.

Counterproductive work behaviour :- Counterproductive work behaviour has been defined as behavior that

harms the well-being of the organization. This has increased in recent years (Rotundo & Sackett,2002; Koopmans

et.al.,2011). It includes behaviors such as absenteeism, being late for work, engaging in off-task behavior, theft, and

substance abuse (Koopmans et.al.,2011).

2.3 Perfectionism and Performance:-

Self-oriented perfectionism is viewed as “more adaptive because it is positively associated with adaptive

constructs such as self-control and achievement motivation, while socially prescribed perfectionism is more

maladaptive with relation to constructs such as depression, anxiety, shame, and guilt” (Kilbert,Langhinrichsen-

Rohling, & Saito, 2005). Other studies also indicate that “socially prescribed perfectionism results in negative

psychological adjustments because the expectations imposed by significant others are perceived as excessive or

uncontrollable” (Chang & Rand, 2000; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Miquelon, Vallerand, Grouzet, & Cardinal, 2005).

Other-oriented perfectionism is a state wherein individual has unrealistic standards from others (e.g., family, friends,

classmates, and professors). They importance on being important and assess exactingly their behavior (Jiao &

Onwuegbuzie, 1998).




Limited study has been done on impact of perfectionism in the workplace and how these perfectionists

perform in their job. However, few studies have been conducted to measure how perfectionists perform in sports,

laboratory tasks and academics.

As per dimensional approach of perfectionism, it has two forms perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic

concerns. Perfectionistic strivings are associated with positive characteristics like high personal standards.

Perfectionistic concerns are associated with negative characteristics, these are doubts about actions and concerns

over mistakes and seeming discrepancy between actual achievements and high expectations (Stoeber, 2006).

Researchers found out a positive relationship between perfectionistic strivings and performance whereas

perfectionistic concerns were unrelated to sports performance (Anshel & Mansouri, 2005; Stoeber, Uphill &

Hotham, 2009; Stoll, Lau & Stoeber, 2008). A more recent study to examine the relationship between perfectionism

and training performance in experienced basketball players found that perfectionistic strivings was a significant

positive predictor of performance in contrast to perfectionistic concerns which was not (Madigan, Stoeber, Culley,

Passfield, Hill, 2018).

Other studies similarly present the performance benefits of self-oriented perfectionism. Stoeber and Rambow

(2007) observed that students with an adaptive form of perfectionism attained significantly higher academic

achievement compared to those with a maladaptive form of perfectionism. Verner-Filion and Gaudreau (2010) also

reported that self-oriented perfectionism positively predicted academic satisfaction and grade point averages for

college students, whereas socially prescribed perfectionism negatively predicted them.

Bong, Hwang, Noh and Kim (2014) discussed that self-oriented perfectionism has been found to be

correlated positively with academic achievement, with either no or negative correlations to test anxiety and

procrastination, both deemed negative aspects of academic achievement. However, socially prescribed perfectionism

correlated negatively with achievement and positively with anxiety and procrastination. Since self-oriented

perfectionism which includes adaptive perfectionism has positive outcomes for student performance, it is necessary

to extend this research further within the workplace because workplace performance is the next level step of their

classroom performance.

Despite perfectionism being widespread at the workplace, research till date has mainly focused on students,

athletes and clinical samples and pays relatively less attention on employees at workplace. This study aims to redress

this need by focusing on perfectionism in employees and its relationship and impact on their performance. If

organizations’ know how perfectionist employees within their organization perform, they can help them with tasks

to increase their productivity if necessary.

3. Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

To assess the correlation between job performance and perfectionism in employees.

To assess the impact of perfectionism on job performance.




4. Measures

4.1 Perfectionism

The short version of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; short version:

Hewitt, Habke, Lee-Baggley, Sherry, and Flett, 2008; Stoeber, Davis, & Townley, 2013) was used to capture self-

oriented , other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism.

The MPS is a widely used measure of perfectionism and it has demonstrated high reliability and validity in

many studies across various samples (Hewitt & Flett, 2004). The short version was used because it has shown alpha

reliabilities compared to the full version 45-item (Hewitt et al., 2008; Stoeber et al., 2013; Stoeber 2016). Studies

(Stoeber, 2016) show that alpha cronbach values for self-oriented perfectionist, other-oriented perfectionist and

socially-prescribed perfectionist were 0.83, 0.70 and 0.75 respectively.

4.2 Job Performance

Individual work performance (IWP) is commonly used outcome measure of studies in the occupational

setting. (Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, Buuren, Beek & Vet 2014). “The IWPQ incorporates all three

dimensions of IWP, whose operationalization was developed and refined based on a generic population (workers in

all types of occupations), and includes no antithetical items. Furthermore, the person separation index (PSI) was

examined. The PSI is an estimate of the internal consistency of a scale, and is similar to Cronbach’s alpha”

(Koopmans et al.,2014) . Task performance showed good model fit (p = 0.92) and a PSI of 0.81. Contextual

performance scale, showed a good model fit (p = 0.37) and a PSI of 0.85 and counterproductive work behavior

showed a good model fit (p = 0.92) and a PSI of 0.74

5. Research Methodology

The variables identified for the purpose are as follows:

5.1 Independent variables

Self-oriented perfectionism`

Other-oriented perfectionism

Socially prescribed perfectionism

5.2 Dependent variables

Task performance

Contextual performance

Counter productive work behaviour




5.3 Procedure

A detailed questionnaire was prepared with two parts. Part I covered the demographic details such as age,

gender, name, number of years of experience, location, sector and so on. Part II covered various statements with

respect to each variable.

The questionnaire was administered to 220 employees. 146 responses were retrieved, which means 66% of

the questionnaire was received.

5.4 Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: There will be significant relationships amongst self-oriented perfectionism, and task

performance, contextual performance and counterproductive work behaviour.

Hypothesis 2: There will be significant relationships amongst other-oriented perfectionism, and task


Hypothesis 3: There will be significant relationships amongst socially prescribed perfectionism, and task


Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant impact of perfectionism on job performance

6. Demographics of the Population

Table I Demographic profile of the respondents

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

GENDER Male 83 56.8

Female 63 43.1

AGE

20-30 96 65.7

30-40 16 10.9

40-50 26 17.8

Above 50 8 5.47

INDUSTRY

Auto & Ancilliaries 26 17.8

Education 13 8.9

Financial services 14 9.5

Software 44 30.1

Others 49 33.56

Table I indicates that majority of the respondents were male (56.8%). Most of them were in the group of 20-

30 years (65.7%), representing millennials that has entered the workforce. All of the respondents had relevant work-

experience of 2 or more years. The respondents belonged to various sectors with software comprising of (30.1%).




Table II Descriptive statistics for all the variables

VARIABLES MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION

Self-oriented perfectionism 5.63 1.49

Other-oriented perfectionism 4.62 1.72

Socially prescribed perfectionism 4.17 1.82

Task performance 3.74 0.92

Contextual performance 3.82 1.02

Counterproductive work behavior 2.04 0.97

Table II presents the mean responses of the employees with respect to all the practices considered for this

study. The mean value for contextual performance is 3.82. This shows that respondents exhibited high levels of

contextual performance. Additionally the mean value for self-oriented perfectionism was highest amongst the three

forms of perfectionism depicting that the respondents exhibited moderately high levels of self-oriented perfectionism

followed by moderate levels of the other two forms of perfectionism. The only exception was the mean score of

counterproductive work behaviour which was the lowest amongst all.

7. Results and Discussion

Table III Correlation matrix of performance and perfectionism

****p>0.05, **p<0.01, *p<0.05

Discussion on Hypothesis 1- Table III shows that there is a positive significant correlation between self-

oriented perfectionism and task performance of 0.47 (p-value <0.05;moderate definite relationship).Self-oriented

perfectionism and contextual performance showed a positive significant relationship of 0.44 (p-value <

0.05;moderate definite relationship).This is in line with previous research which states that self-oriented

perfectionism positively predicted exam performance.

Recent studies examined the relationship between “perfectionism and academic grades”. (Harvey, Moore, &

Koestner, 2017; Shim, Rubenstein, & Drapeau, 2016; Madigan, Hill, Mallinson-Howard, Curran & Jowett., 2018).

Shim et al., (2016) examined grades in mathematics and Harvey et al., (2017) examined average grades in

mathematics and English. They found that performance had significant positive and small correlations with

perfectionistic strivings. Additionally in sports domain, it was found that perfectionist striving were related to better

training performance (Stoll et al., 2008). Moreover, a study on young talented musicians showed that musicians with


http://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-166?rskey=Egh51W&result=1#acrefore-9780190236557-e-166-bibItem-0017

http://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-166?rskey=Egh51W&result=1#acrefore-9780190236557-e-166-bibItem-0042



higher levels of perfectionistic strivings in their music studies had on an average won more awards than the

musicians who showed lower levels of perfectionistic strivings (Stoeber & Eismann, 2007).

Table III shows that self-oriented perfectionism and counter productive work behaviour showed non-

significant relationship of 0.132 (p-value >0.05). Since self-oriented perfectionists strive for perfectionism from

themselves and are intrinsically motivated(Miquelon et al., 2005; Chang, Lee, Byeon, Seong, & Lee 2016;

Chang,Lee ,Byeon, & Lee 2015), it is unlikely for such individuals to show counterproductive work behaviors such

as absenteeism, being late for work, engaging in off-task behavior, theft, and substance abuse (Koopmans

et.al.,2011). These findings are in line with previous results.

The above findings suggest that hypothesis 1 was supported by results to a large extent.

Discussion on Hypothesis 2- Table III shows that there is a positive correlation between other-oriented

perfectionism and task performance of 0.25 (p-value <0.01;small definite relationship). Logically other-oriented

perfectionist expect perfection from others whereas task performance is a type of behaviour which is directly linked

to the completion of the job and this explains the small definite relationship between the two. This result is important

as the relationship between other-oriented perfectionism and task performance has not been explored adequately in

the earlier research.

Table III shows that there is a positive correlation between other-oriented perfectionism and contextual

performance of 0.33 (p-value <0.05;small definite relationship). Contextual performance refers to discretionary

behaviours related to helping other people in the organization something which is not a part of the job description.

As other-oriented perfectionist expects perfection from others thus a weak association is in-line with contextual

performance. This result is also important as the relation between other-oriented perfectionism and contextual

performance has not been explored adequately in the past.

Table III shows that there is a positive correlation between other-oriented perfectionism and counter

productive work performance of 0.19 (p-value <0.05; small definite relationship). Counter productive work

behaviour can be defined as behaviours that impede the goals and interest of an organization where as other-oriented

perfectionists expect perfectionism from others and thus the small relationship is seen between the two.

The relationship between the above variables is unexplored area in the previous research.

Discussion on Hypothesis 3- Table III shows that socially prescribed perfectionism and task performance

showed non-significant relationship of 0.144 (p-value >0.05). Socially prescribed perfectionists strive to meet the

standards that others impose on them. (Hewitt & Flett, 1991, 2004). Furthermore, Flett, Blankstein, and Hewitt

(2009) found socially prescribed perfectionism to negatively predict students’ performance in a classroom exam

involving a multiple choice test. Theoretically task performance is obligatory behaviour. Socially prescribed

perfectionists who believe that others expect them to be perfect will most probably be not consistent in their day-to-

day task goals and this explains the non-significant relationship between the two. The relationship between the

above variables is an unexplored area in the previous research.




Alternatively, socially prescribed perfectionism and contextual performance showed a positive correlation of

0.21 (p-value <0.01;small definite relation). Socially prescribed perfectionists strive to be perfect as they believe that

others who are significant to them expect them to be perfect and thus they might indulge in depicting behaviours

such as helping their colleagues, redesigning efficient work processes. This kind of behaviour falls under contextual

performance which leads to explain the small definite relationship between the two.

Socially prescribed perfectionism and counterproductive work behaviour showed positive correlation of 0.22

(p-value <0.01;small definite relation).Counterproductive work behavior is an intentional unacceptable behavior that

can be harmful to the organization’s well-being. In order to strive for perfection, there is a high probability that

socially prescribed perfectionists may indulge in activities that would be harmful to the well-being of an

organization and hence the small definite relationship between the two. Recent study found a non-significant

negative and small correlation between perfectionistic concerns and performance (Shim et. al., 2016; Madigan, et.

Al.,2018 ). These previous findings support the hypothesis of the present study.

Table IV Regression analysis of performance and perfectionism

Discussion on Hypothesis 4- Table IV shows that the value for R square is 0.45 (small but definite

relationship) which implies that 45% of the variation in job performance is explained by perfectionism as the

calculated p-value of perfectionism is less than the significance level of 5%.

The results of the estimated regression line depicts a positive relationship between perfectionism and job

performance (p-value < 0.05), the higher the person sets a standard of perfectionism for one-self, the higher would

be the proficiency of the individuals in performing the technical tasks central to his/her job. This is in accordance with

the past research findings that show perfectionistic strivings showed positive correlations with aptitude test which is

typically used in recruiting people in the corporate world (Stoeber & Kersting, 2007; Stoeber, 2012). Additionally,

when perfectionism was investigated in a sample of musicians to understand whether the number of awards won by

musicians is related to perfectionism, it was found that musicians with higher level of perfectionistic strivings had on

an average won more awards when compared to musicians with lower level of perfectionistic striving (Stoeber &

Eismann, 2007; Stoeber, 2012).




8. Conclusion

The results of the present study show significant correlation (moderate but definite relationship) between task

performance and self-oriented perfectionism. Additionally, self-oriented perfectionism showed significant

correlation with contextual performance, but a non-significant relationship with counterproductive work behavior.

Other-oriented perfectionism showed significant correlation (small but definite relationship) with task performance,

contextual performance and counterproductive work behaviour. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism

showed substantial relationship and significant association with contextual performance and counterproductive work

behavior. Moreover, it showed non-significant association with task performance.

A significant moderate positive correlation (0.47) was found between task performance and self-oriented

perfectionists. This depicts that individuals who are seen to adopt a mastery or expertise in a task, technical

proficiency or in-role performance to learn new skills or to improve their current skills, they specifically focus on

outperforming others. Additionally, it was found that a significant moderate positive correlation (0.44) was found

between contextual performance and self-oriented perfectionism. This depicts that self-oriented perfectionists strive

to create an impact on the overall well-being of the organization by contributing beyond the day to day work.

Other-oriented perfectionists expects impeccable work from others and this behaviour explains the

significant correlation of 0.25,0.33 and 0.19 with task performance, contextual performance and counter productive

work behaviour.

Socially prescribed perfectionists behaviour is derivative of how others perceive them and they try to align

their behaviour to please others and thus the small correlation with contextual performance (0.19) and no significant

relationship with task performance. The socially prescribed perfectionist has a constant fear of disappointing others

and thus it is a kind of self-imposed pressure that such individuals display. Often procrastination is observed in such

individuals. That may hamper the ability to become better and thus would impede in achievement of goals. Since

this behaviour has increased significantly since last two decades, (Curran & Hill, 2017), organizations should focus

on building the practices that help the perfectionists to overcome self-defeating behaviours and thereby help in

achieving increased efficiency.




References:-

Anshel, M. H., & Mansouri, H. (2005). Influences of perfectionism on motor performance, affect, and causal

attributions in response to critical information feedback. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 99–124.

Beheshtifar, M., Mazrae-Sefidi, F., & Moghadam, M.K., 2011. “Role of Perfectionism at workplace”.

European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences. ISSN 145-2275 Issue 38(2011).

Retrieved from :- https

://www.researchgate.net/publication/281175764_Role_of_Perfectionism_at_Workplace

Bong, M., Hwang, A., Noh, A., & Kim, S. (2014). Perfectionism and motivation of adolescents in academic

contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 711-729. Retrieved from

https://bmri.korea.ac.kr/file/board_data/publications/1414974281_1.pdf?cv=1

Borman, WC., Motowidlo, SJ(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual

performance. In: Schmitt N, Borman WC, eds. Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass; 1993:71–98

Bousman, Lindsay, "The Fine Line of Perfectionism: Is it a Strength or a Weakness in the Workplace?"

(2007). Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research: Department of Psychology. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychdiss/4

Butt, F.M. (2010). The role of perfectionism in psychological health: A study of adolescents in Pakistan.

Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 4, 125- 147.

Campbell. JP(1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational

psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM, eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1990:687–732.

Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a

specific diathesis–stress mechanism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 129-

137.

Chang, E., Lee, A., Byeon, E., Lee, S.M., (2015) . Role of motivation in the relation between perfectionism

and academic burnout in Korean students. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 221-226. Retrieved

from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886915002056?via%3Dihub

Chang, E., Lee, A., Byeon, E., Seong H., Lee, S.M., (2016) . The mediating effect of motivational types in

the relationship between perfectionism and academic burnout. Personality and Individual Differences 89

(2016) 202-210.

Curran, T., & Hill, A.P. (2017). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort

differences from 1989 to 2016.American Psychological Association 0033-2909. Retrieved

from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012074_Perfectionism_Is_Increasing_Over_Time_A_Met

a-Analysis_of_Birth_Cohort_Differences_From_1989_to_2016.

Dykstra, E.E. (2006). Relationship of Perfectionism and Gender to Academic Performance and Social

Functioning in Adolescents. Doctor of Philosophy, Indiana University.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012074_Perfectionism_Is_Increasing_Over_Time_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Birth_Cohort_Differences_From_1989_to_2016

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012074_Perfectionism_Is_Increasing_Over_Time_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Birth_Cohort_Differences_From_1989_to_2016



Enns, M.W., Cox, B.J., Sareen, J., Freeman, P.(2001). Adaptive and Maladaptive perfectionism in medical

students : a longitudinal investigation. 2001 Nov;35(11):1034-42. Retrieved from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11703639

Enns, M.W., Cox, B.J., Clara, I. (2002). The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically

distressed college student samples. Article in Psychological Assessment 14(3): 365-73.

Eunbi, C.,Ahram, L., Eunji, B., Hyunmo, S., Sang, M.L. (2015). The mediating effect of motivational types

in the relationship between perfectionism and academic burnout. Personality and individual differences 89

(2016) 202–210. Retrieved from: DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.027

Fairlie, P. & Flett, G.L. 2003. “Perfectionism at work: impacts on burnout, job satisfaction, and depression”.

Poster presented at the 111th. Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association at Toronto,

Ontario, Canada, August, P.3

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, performance, and state positive affect

and negative affect after a classroom test. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 4–18.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two

measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2.

Haase, A.N. & Prapavessis, H. 2004.”Assessing the factor structure and composition of the Positive and

Negative Perfectionism Scale in sport”. Personality and individual differences. 36:1725-1737.

Harvey, B. C., Moore, A. M., & Koestner, R. (2017). Distinguishing self-oriented perfectionism-striving and

self-oriented perfectionism-critical in school-aged children: Divergent patterns of perceived parenting,

personal affect and school performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 136–141.

Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991, vol. 60, no. 3). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:

conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychology. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, pp 456-470.

Hewitt, P. L., Habke, A. M., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Sherry, S. B.,& Flett, G. L. (2008). The impact of

perfectionistic self-presentation on the cognitive, affective, and physiological experience of a clinical

interview. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 71, 93-122.

Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1998). Perfectionism and library anxiety among graduate students. The

Journal of academic librarianship, 24(5), 365-371.

Kanten, P., & Yesiltas, M.(2015). The effects of positive and negative perfectionism on work engagement,

psychological well-being and emotional exhaustion. Procedia Economics & Finance 23 (2015) 1367-1375

Kilbert, J.J., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Saito. M. (2005). Adaptive and Maladaptive aspects of Self-

Oriented and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. Journal Of College and Student Development.

Koopmans L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt V.H., Schaufeli, W.B., de Vet,H.C.W., & Allard J. Beek, A.J.

(2011). Conceptual Framework of Individual Work Performance. American College of Occupational and


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11703639



Environmental Medicine. Retrieved from https://mafiadoc.com/conceptual-frameworks-of-individual-work-

performance_59a041811723dd0d4058f3b2.html?cv=1

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., Buuren, S. van, Beek, A.J. van der, Vet, H.C.W. de

(2014). Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied

Measurement: 2014, 15(2), 160-175.

Kung, C., & Chan, C. (2014). Differential roles of positive and negative perfectionism in predicting

occupational eustress and distress. Personality and Individual Differences. 58. 76–81.

10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.011.

Lam, J. (2016). Effects of Perfectionistic Striving on Employee Goal Achievement. Western Undergraduate

Psychology Journal, 4 (1). Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wupj/vol4/iss1/14

Madigan, D., Stoeber, J., Culley, T., Passfield, L., Hill, A. (2018). Perfectionism and training performance :

the mediating role of other-approach goals. European Journal of Sport Science, 2018. Vol. 18, No. 9, 1271-

1279, https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1508503.

Madigan, D., Hill, A., Sarah H. Mallinson-Howard, Thomas Curran, and Gareth E. Jowett (2018).

Perfectionism and Performance in Sport, Education, and the Workplace .DOI:

10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.166. Retrieved from :

https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-

9780190236557-e-166?rskey=Egh51W&result=1

Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R.J., Grouzet, F.M.E., & Cardinal, G. (2005). Perfectionism, academic motivation,

and psychological adjustment: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 913–

924

Murphy KR. Dimensions of job performance (1989). In: Dillon RF, Pellegrino JW, eds. Testing: Theoretical

and Applied Perspectives. New York: Praeger; 1989:218–247.

RHR International Company. 2007. “The perils of perfectionism”. 220 Gerry Drive, WoodDale, Illinois

60191 USA, 630/766-7007.

Retrievedfrom:https://www.rhrinternational.com/sites/default/files/pdf_files/The%20Perils%20of%20Perfect

ionism.pdf

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P.R. (2002) The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive

performance to global ratings of performance: a policycapturing approach. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87:66–80.

Shim, S. S., Rubenstein, L. D., & Drapeau, C. W. (2016). When perfectionism is coupled with low

achievement: The effects on academic engagement and help seeking in middle school. Learning and

Individual Differences, 45, 237–244.

Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised Almost Perfect Scale.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130–145.

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: approaches, evidence,

challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.


https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1508503

https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-166?rskey=Egh51W&result=1

https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-166?rskey=Egh51W&result=1



Stoeber, J., Davis, C.R., and Townley, J.(2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in employees: The role of

work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved from

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/34044/1/Stoeber%20Davis%20Townley%20%2 82013%29%20PAID.pdf

Stoeber, J., Haskew, A. E., & Scott, C. (2015). Perfectionism and exam performance: The mediating effect of

task-approach goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 171-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.016.

Stoeber, J. (2016) Comparing two short forms of the Hewitt–Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale.

Assessment Retrieved from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/56128/1/Stoeber%20(2016)%20Assessment.pdf?cv=1

Stoeber, J., & Eismann, U. (2007). Perfectionism in young musicians: Relations with motivation,effort,

achievement, and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2182-2192.

Stoeber, J., Uphill, M. A., & Hotham, S. (2009). Predicting race performance in triathlon: The role of

perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal goal setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31,

211–245

Stoeber, J., & Rambow, A. (2007). Perfectionism in adolescent school students: Relations with motivation,

achievement, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1379–1389. doi:10.1016/j.paid

.2006.10.015.

Stoeber, J., & Kersting, M. (2007). Perfectionism and aptitude test performance : Testees who strive for

perfection achieve better test results. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1093-1103.

Stoeber, J., Chesterman, D., & Tarn, T.A. (2010). Perfectionism and task performance: Time on task

mediates the perfectionistic strivings–performance relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 48,

458-462.

Stoll, O., Lau, A., & Stoeber, J. (2008). Perfectionism and performance in a new basketball training task:

Does striving for perfection enhance or undermine performance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 620–

629.

Stoeber, J.(2012). Perfectionism and performance In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sport and

performance psychology (pp. 294-306). New York: Oxford University Press.

Verner-Filion, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2010). From perfectionism to academic adjustment: The mediating role of

achievement goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 181–186. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.029

Viswesvaran C (2002). Assessment of individual job performance: a review of the past century and a look

ahead. In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, eds. Handbook of Industrial, Work and

Organizational Psychology. Vol 1: Personnel Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd;

2002:110–126.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones D.S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment Blackwell publishers Ltd Volume 8 Number 4:216–226


© 2020 IJRAR August 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3 ...ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19S1576.pdf · The...

Documents

Transcript of © 2020 IJRAR August 2020, Volume 7, Issue 3 ...ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19S1576.pdf · The...