J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther (2012) 30:105–117 DOI 10.1007/s10942-011-0129-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Cognitive Errors as Predictors of Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism in Children Melissa C. Davis • Nicole L. Wosinski

Published online: 8 April 2011  Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Cognitive distortions such as dichotomous evaluation of performance, selectively focusing on perceived failures, and discounting successes are proposed to be key maintaining mechanisms in clinical perfectionism, but no existing research has investigated the relationship between perfectionism and cognitive errors in children. The current study assessed the associations between dimensions of perfectionism as assessed by the Adaptive/Maladaptive Perfectionism Scale (AMPS) and children’s cognitive errors controlling for negative and positive affect to provide information about cognitive features associated with perfectionism in children and construct-related evidence for the AMPS. A non-clinical sample of 204 children completed the AMPS, the Children’s Negative Cognitive Errors Questionnaire, and measures of positive and negative affect. The AMPS sensitivity to mistakes scale was correlated robustly with catastrophizing, overgeneralization, personalizing, and selective abstraction. Cognitive errors were significant predictors of maladaptive perfectionism even after controlling for negative affect. However, cognitive errors did not predict adaptive perfectionism after controlling for positive affect. These findings highlight the role of negative thinking styles in maladaptive perfectionism in children and point to the potential usefulness of interventions that focus jointly on maladaptive perfectionism and negative cognitive styles. Keywords Perfectionism
Cognitive errors
Negative affect
Catastrophization
Overgeneralization
Children

M. C. Davis (&)
N. L. Wosinski Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, G.P.O. Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

123

106

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

Introduction Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality variable that is increasingly acknowledged as playing an important role in the etiology and maintenance of psychological disorders, such as eating disorders, anxiety disorders, and depression (see Shafran and Mansell 2001, for a review). There are a number of theories that trace the development of perfectionism to childhood, postulating the interaction of personal factors (e.g., temperament and attachment style), with parenting and family environment factors (e.g., high expectations, contingent approval, modelling of high standards, anxious over concern with mistakes) and broader socio-cultural influences (e.g., peers, teachers) in contributing to the development of perfectionism (see Flett et al. 2002). It is essential that research continues to focus on understanding the characteristics and correlates of perfectionism in childhood to enable identification of children who may be at risk of experiencing negative psychosocial impacts of perfectionism, and inform the development of prevention and intervention programs. There is considerable diversity of opinion in the literature as to the core features of the construct of perfectionism. Shafran et al.’s (2002) critique of the literature suggests that perfectionism has become equated with scores on particular instruments and for clinical research into the construct to progress, it is essential to have an independent and theoretically based definition. They proposed the term ‘clinical perfectionism’, defined as ‘‘the overdependence of self-evaluation on the determined pursuit of personally demanding, self-imposed standards in at least one highly salient domain, despite adverse consequences’’ (Shafran et al. 2002, p. 778). Shafran and colleagues suggested that ‘‘the core psychopathology of perfectionism is expressed as a morbid fear of failure and the relentless pursuit of success’’ (p. 779) and that clinical perfectionism is maintained by biased evaluations of personal standards and performance (e.g., dichotomous evaluations, selective focus on perceived failures and discounting successes). Adaptive Versus Maladaptive Perfectionism While most researchers acknowledge that perfectionism is multidimensional, there is debate as to whether the construct has adaptive as well as maladaptive aspects. Early work in the area differentiated ‘normal’ and ‘neurotic’ perfectionism (Hamachek 1978) and this distinction has been maintained in the terms adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism (Burns and Fedewa 2005; Enns and Cox 1999) and positive and negative perfectionism (Terry-Short et al. 1995; Slade and Owens 1998) currently in use in the literature. Some researchers contend that adaptive aspects of perfectionism include striving for excellence, conscientiousness, organization and orderliness, and are related to positive self-esteem and positive psychological adjustment (Rice et al. 1998; Rice and Mirzadeh 2000; Slade and Owens 1998; Terry-Short et al. 1995). Conversely, maladaptive characteristics of perfectionism include a persistent sense of failure, fear of mistakes and criticism, indecisiveness, and procrastination, and relate to chronic low self-esteem, negative affect, and symptoms of psychopathology (Bieling et al. 2003; Dunkley et al. 2003; Frost et al. 1997; Shafran and Mansell 2001; Slade and Owens 1998). Evaluation of evidence related to positive and negative forms of perfectionism reveals that they are not mutually exclusive and have been found to be positively

123

Cognitive Errors as Predictors

107

correlated (Flett and Hewitt 2006). Further, even some apparently positive features of perfectionism may have concurrent or delayed negative consequences for individuals (Flett and Hewitt 2006). Slade and Owens’ (1998) dual process model of perfectionism theorizes that positive and negative perfectionism are motivated by positive and negative reinforcement respectively and thus have different underlying cognitive processes. Bergman et al. (2007) found in a sample of undergraduates that negative perfectionism was significantly positively correlated with cognitive dysfunctions tapped by the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS) (r = .59) and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ) (r = .53) while there was no correlation between positive perfectionism and cognitive dysfunction. These findings suggest that there may be clinical benefit in better understanding the cognitive processes that underlie perfectionism, and that such processes may provide a key to elucidating the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive aspects of the construct. Cognitive models highlight biased negative thinking patterns as playing a causal and/or maintaining role in psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression (e.g., Beck 1976; Ellis 1962). Ellis (2002) identified perfectionism as an irrational belief that contributes to psychopathology and Beck and associates (see Brown and Beck 2002) recognised the relationship between dysfunctional attitudes (maladaptive thinking patterns) and perfectionism. Ellis (2002) argued that it is the elevation of normal desires for success and achievement to a ‘‘perfectionistic demand’’ (p. 220) and the catastrophic perceived consequences of failing to satisfy this demand that renders perfectionistic individuals at risk for emotional disturbance, a view which parallels the argument of Frost et al. (1990) and Shafran et al. (2002). The negative cognitive styles of adult perfectionists have been documented in case studies (e.g., Reilly 1998; Riley and Shafran 2005) and have been reported in several empirical studies. Perfectionistic cognitions have been found to be related to cognitive biases such as overgeneralization (Flett et al. 1998), and catastrophization and selfblame (Rudolph et al. 2007) in nonclinical adult samples. Bergman et al. (2007) provided evidence of an association between negative perfectionism and cognitive dysfunction; however, they used the total scores on the DAS and ATQ, which does not provide details about the types of cognitive distortions exhibited by the sample. Burns and Fedewa (2005) found a significant association between ‘categorical thinking’ and positive and negative perfectionism in undergraduate students, however the categorical thinking measure had poor internal consistency and included items not reflecting the dichotomous thinking construct, which limits the interpretability of their findings (Egan et al. 2007). Egan et al. used the Dichotomous Thinking Scale (Byrne et al. 2004) to investigate its relationship with positive and negative perfectionism in clinical clients, athletes, and students. Dichotomous thinking predicted a significant unique proportion of variance in negative perfectionism in all three subgroups, and also predicted positive perfectionism in the clinical participants. Perfectionism and Cognitive Errors in Children Flett et al. (2008) reported significant correlations between perfectionism and irrational beliefs as assessed on a modified version of the Survey of Personal Beliefs

123

108

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

in a sample of 250 high school students. However there is no published research on the cognitive correlates of perfectionism in children, or any investigation of children’s cognitive errors as opposed to irrational beliefs. Given (1) the relationship between perfectionism and psychological symptoms in children and adolescents (Hewitt et al. 1997, 2002; Rice et al. 2007); (2) the strong support for cognitive models of vulnerability to disorders such as depression (e.g., Gibb and Coles 2005; Jacobs et al. 2008); and (3) advocacy for research on risk factors for mental disorders (e.g., Dadds 2002) there is a sound rationale for investigating the relationship between cognitive dysfunction and perfectionism in children. Further, there is potential for such research to contribute to evidence for the constructs of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in children and the construct-related validity of child perfectionism scales. The Adaptive-Maladaptive Perfectionism Scale (AMPS; Rice and Preusser 2002) was developed to capture the two theoretically based constructs of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in preadolescents. It consists of 27 items representing four factors: Sensitivity to Mistakes, comprising items related to negative emotions associated with making mistakes; Contingent Self-Esteem, assessing positive feelings about oneself that are linked to task performance; Compulsiveness, assessing a preference for organization and a conscientious approach to tasks; and Need for Admiration, tapping children’s interest in being recognized and admired for their high standards of performance (Rice and Preusser 2002). The major limitation of the AMPS is the current lack of construct-validity evidence for the subscales. The only published validity data for children relates to the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale in a sample of 113, 9–11 year old students (Rice et al. 2004). The overall pattern of results supported the conclusion that Sensitivity to Mistakes, Compulsiveness, and Need for Admiration are maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism, while Contingent Self-Esteem is an adaptive dimension, although there were some differences in the significance of the correlations for boys versus girls (see Rice et al. 2004). The aim of the present study was to explore the relationships between the four subscales of the AMPS and cognitive errors that relate to the cognitive mechanisms proposed in Shafran et al.’s (2002) model of clinical perfectionism. Unlike previous research on adult samples, we control for negative affect, given evidence that negative emotional states are associated with both perfectionism (e.g., Bieling et al. 2003; Frost et al. 1997) and cognitive errors (e.g., Leitenberg et al. 1986; Weems et al. 2001) in children. We also control for positive affect since its relationship to the AMPS subscales has not been previously investigated. The objective of the study is to improve understanding of the cognitive processes associated with perfectionism in children while contributing evidence for the construct validity of the AMPS. We hypothesized that: (1) Sensitivity to Mistakes, Compulsiveness, and Need for Admiration would be positively related to negative affect and cognitive errors, and negatively related to positive affect; (2) Contingent Self-Esteem would be negatively correlated with cognitive errors and negative affect, and positively correlated with positive affect. Further, we sought to determine the degree to which the AMPS subscale scores accounted for variance in the various cognitive errors after controlling for both positive and negative affect.

123

Cognitive Errors as Predictors

109

Method Participants The participants were 204 children (125 girls, 79 boys) from seven public and private primary schools within middle-class socioeconomic areas of the metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia. The children ranged in age from 10 to 12 years, and were recruited from Year 5 (N = 33), Year 6 (N = 90), and Year 7 (N = 81) school classes. Response rates ranged from 15 to 91% per class, with an average of 49.9%. Procedure Ethical approval to conduct the study was granted by the Curtin Human Research Ethics Committee, and permission was granted from the Western Australian Department of Education and Training and individual principals to recruit participants through schools. Written consent from parents and verbal assent from children was obtained for all participants. Children completed the battery of questionnaires in class groups in the presence of their teacher, under the direction of the second author. The order of presentation of questionnaires was identical for all participants and selected to maximize reliability and validity of responses (AMPS, CNCEQ, PANAS). No incentives were offered to children or their parents for participation. Measures The participants completed the following measures: The Adaptive/Maladaptive Perfectionism Scale (AMPS; Rice and Preusser 2002) is a 27-item self-report scale assessing four dimensions of perfectionism in children aged 9–12 years. The four subscales are (1) Sensitivity to mistakes (SM; 9 items) (e.g., ‘Making one mistake is as bad as making ten mistakes’); (2) Contingent selfesteem (CSE; 8 items) (e.g., ‘Once I do well as something I am pleased’); (3) Compulsiveness (Comp; 6 items) (e.g., ‘I like for things to always be in order’); and (4) Need for admiration (NFA; 4 items) (e.g., ‘I want to be known as the best at what I do’). Children rate each item on a four-point scale. The AMPS subscales have moderate to high internal consistencies (a = .73–.90) and a relatively stable factor structure in 9-11 year olds (Rice et al. 2004; Rice and Preusser 2002). Cronbach’s alphas for the current sample were SM = .78, CSE = .51, Comp = .62, and NFA = .77. The 1-week test retest reliability of the subscales in a non-clinical sample has been found to be adequate to good (correlations from .64 to .76) (Davis and O’Garr 2009). There is limited evidence for the construct validity of the AMPS as assessing both adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism (see Rice et al. 2004). The Children’s Negative Cognitive Errors Questionnaire (CNCEQ; Leitenberg et al. 1986) is a 24-item self-report scale that assesses four cognitive errors (catastrophizing, overgeneralization, personalizing, selective abstraction) in

123

110

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

children aged 9–13. Each item presents a hypothetical scenario and a thought representing one form of cognitive error. Children rate the degree to which the thought corresponds to how they would think in the same situation on a five-point scale. Scores are reverse-coded and summed so that higher scores represent more cognitive errors. Leitenberg et al. (1986) reported moderate internal consistency coefficients for the subscales (a = .60–.71) and good internal consistency for the total score (a = .89). Four-week test–retest reliability is moderate for the total score (r = .65) and subscale scores (r = .44–.58) (Leitenberg et al. 1986). Higher scores on the CNCEQ have been shown to be related to depression, low-self-esteem, and evaluation anxiety in children (Leitenberg et al. 1986) and scores have been shown to improve following treatment for depression (Tems et al. 1993). Cronbach’s alpha for the total score for the current sample was .93, with alpha coefficients for the individual subscales ranging from .68 to .83. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999) is a 27-item scale to assess children’s experience of positive (12 items) and negative (15 items) emotional states. Children rate each adjective according to how they have felt over the past few weeks on a five-point scale from ‘very slightly or not at all’ to ‘extremely’. Ratings are summed to produce subscale scores for positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). The subscales have shown good reliability (a = .90 for PA and .94 for NA) (Laurent et al. 1999). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .88 for PA and .90 for NA. PA scores have been found to be negatively correlated with depression scores (Crook et al. 1998; Laurent et al. 1999) and anxiety scores (Crook et al. 1998), while NA scores have been shown to be positively correlated with both depression and anxiety scores (Crook et al. 1998; Laurent et al. 1999).

Results A priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al. 2007) indicated that the study had sufficient power to detect an effect size as small as .10 with a 95% probability. Missing data were minimal and handled via person mean substitution (Downey and King 1998). Data were deemed to satisfy the assumptions of normality required for correlation and multiple regression analyses. Intraclass correlation analyses revealed no significant effects of school, school type (public vs private) or year level on any of the variables. Intercorrelations Among the AMPS Subscales The bivariate correlations between the AMPS subscales, cognitive errors scores, and positive and negative affect for boys and girls are presented in Table 1. Consistent with our hypotheses, Sensitivity to Mistakes was significantly positively correlated with cognitive errors and negatively correlated with PA for boys and girls. However the positive correlation with NA reached significance only in girls. Compulsiveness and Need for Admiration were positively correlated with cognitive errors and NA but the majority of these correlations reached significance for girls only. Conversely, Contingent Self-Esteem was positively correlated with PA for boys and girls, but negatively correlated with cognitive errors for girls only.

123

.04 (.26**) -.13 (-.05)

-.04 (-.06)

.01 (.35**)

.22 (.29**)

.24* (.38**)

.15 (.26**)

.15 (.33**)

NFA

.34** (.56**)

-.03 (-.14)

-.17 (-.25**)

-.01 (-.18*)

-.26* (-.22*)

-.01 (-.25**)

CSE

-

-

.11 (.48**)

.17 (.56**)

.10 (.49**)

-.25* (.54**)

NA

-

-

-.38** (-.35**)

-.29** (-.34**)

-.30** (-.34**)

-.25** (-.37**)

PA

** p \ .01 (2-tailed); * p \ .05 (2-tailed)

Correlations for girls are in parentheses. SM sensitivity to mistakes, Comp compulsiveness, NFA need for admiration, CSE contingent self-esteem, NA negative affect, PA positive affect

.22 (.50**)

-.36** (-.35**)

Negative affect

Positive affect

.01 (.30**)

.16 (.39**)

.37** (.54**)

.45** (.48**)

Personalizing

Selective abstraction

.28* (.37**) .09 (.32**)

.45** (.51**)

.52** (.42**)

Catastrophizing

Comp

Overgeneralizing

SM

Table 1 Zero-order correlations among AMPS subscales, cognitive errors, and affect scores for boys (n = 79) and girls (N = 125)

Cognitive Errors as Predictors 111

123

112

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

As expected, there were strong significant positive correlations between the subscales of the CNCEQ (r’s = .70–.79) indicating between 49 and 62% of common variance. The subscale scores were considered appropriate as predictors in the hierarchical multiple regressions given none of the tolerance values were less than .10 (Cohen et al. 2003) and that the aim of the analysis was to assess the total predictive power of the set of variables. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Perfectionism Subscale Scores Although there were no gender differences in the AMPS subscale scores (all p [ .05) due to the different pattern of correlations between cognitive errors, PA/ NA and perfectionism scores for boys and girls, gender was entered as a predictor in the first step of each regression analysis. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 2. After controlling for PA and NA, the set of cognitive error scores predicted a significant unique proportion of variance in Sensitivity to Mistakes, Compulsiveness and Need for Admiration scores, but did not predict Contingent Self-Esteem, Consistent with the correlational analyses, Sensitivity to Mistakes was significantly predicted by both PA and NA, while only NA was related to Compulsiveness and Need for Admiration and PA was the only significant unique predictor of Contingent Self-Esteem scores.

Discussion The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between children’s cognitive errors and the dimensions of perfectionism assessed by the AMPS. This study was designed to provide information about the cognitive processes associated with between perfectionism in children and provide evidence for the construct validity of the AMPS. Consistent with previous findings (Rice et al. 2004), the current results support the interpretation of the Sensitivity to Mistakes, Compulsiveness, and Need for Admiration subscales of the AMPS as assessing maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism. This suggests that children who are most concerned about the negative implications of making mistakes are more compulsive in their approach to tasks, have a greater need to be admired for their high standards of performance, experience higher levels of negative affect, and have more distorted negative thinking. Cognitive errors scores were found to be significantly related to maladaptive perfectionism even after controlling for general positive and negative affect. These results support the findings in adults that maladaptive or negative perfectionism, but not adaptive or positive perfectionism, is related to distorted thinking in non-clinical samples (e.g., Bergman et al. 2007; Egan et al. 2007; Flett et al. 1998; Rudolph et al. 2007). Sensitivity to Mistakes is viewed as the core dimension of perfectionism assessed on the AMPS (Rice and Preusser 2002) and parallels the subscale relating to excessive concern about mistakes that is seen as the central dimension of perfectionism assessed on the adult Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost

123

Cognitive Errors as Predictors

113

Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for variables predicting AMPS subscale scores (N = 204) Variable

R2 change

b

B

SE B

1. Gender

1.002

.696

.101

2. Positive affect

-.162

.035

-.288**

Negative affect

.165

.029

.359**

3. Catastrophizing

.144

.101

.142

Overgeneralizing

.082

.091

.085

Personalizing

.099

.112

.095

Selective abstraction

.109

.121

.094

Sensitivity to mistakes .010 .244** .096**

Compulsiveness 1. Gender

.270

.473

.040

2. Positive affect

-.022

.027

-.056

Negative affect

.051

.022

3. Catastrophizing

.204

.079

Overgeneralizing

-.009

.071

Personalizing Selective abstraction

.002 .033*

.165* .297*

.093**

-.013

.147

.088

.209

-.113

.095

-.145

Need for admiration 1. Gender

.235

.440

.038

2. Positive affect

-.005

.025

-.013

Negative affect

.067

.020

3. Catastrophizing

.025

.074

.039

Overgeneralizing

-.031

.066

.301*

Personalizing

.197

.082

.024

Selective abstraction

.018

.088

-.051

.038 .055**

.233** .073**

Contingent self-esteem 1. Gender

.770

.414

.130

.130

2. Positive affect

.157

.021

.468**

.224*

Negative affect

-.007

.017

3. Catastrophizing

.007

.064

.011

Overgeneralizing

-.097

.058

-.169

Personalizing Selective abstraction

-.027

.140

.071

.225

-.073

.077

-.106

.023

B unstandardized regression co-efficient, SE B standard error of the unstandardized regression co-efficient, b standardized regression coefficients *** p \ .001; ** p \ .01; * p \ .05

et al. 1990). This subscale showed the most robust pattern of positive correlations with negative affect and cognitive errors for boys and girls, as well as a significant inverse relationship with positive affect for girls in the current study. Given the recognition of high levels of negative affect in anxiety and depression and concurrent low levels of positive affect in depression (Watson et al. 1988), it

123

114

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

appears that high scores on the Sensitivity to Mistakes subscale may be particularly important to investigate in terms of children’s (especially girls’) risk for these disorders. Also consistent with Rice et al. (2004), the results provide some evidence that the Contingent Self-Esteem subscale of the AMPS taps a more adaptive dimension of perfectionism, being significantly associated with positive affect, unrelated to negative affect, inversely related to cognitive errors, and not predicted by cognitive errors after controlling for affect. The interpretation of this subscale appears to be anomalous given that DiBartolo et al. (2004) argued that having high personal standards is likely to be maladaptive if one’s sense of self-worth is dependent upon the achievement of those standards. Rice et al. (2007) refer to the Contingent Self-Esteem subscale as ‘‘contingent but positive’’ (p. 141) self-esteem due to findings of positive correlations with self-concept. However, in Rice and Preusser’s (2002) initial interpretation of the factor, they clearly view children’s self-worth being contingent with perfect behaviour as undesirable: ‘‘when … children have difficulty succeeding at something and … their parents react with displeasure … children are overwhelmed with shame resulting from the failure to live up to their parents’ expectations … Thus … self-worth … becomes contingent with … perfect behaviour’’ (p. 218). As such, further investigation into the Contingent Self-Esteem subscale is clearly warranted. It may be that the items lead children to focus selectively on times that they have felt good about their achievements, without considering the inverse situation. The use of an experimental methodology to assess children’s responses to success or failure on laboratory or naturalistic tasks may provide more powerful evidence of the relationship between this factor and psychological functioning to further investigate whether it is best seen as adaptive or maladaptive. Although the main focus of the current investigation was on cognitive errors and perfectionism, it is important to note that in general, the perfectionism measures tended to have a stronger association with relatively low levels of positive affect than with elevated levels of negative affect. Even more noteworthy was the pattern of correlations suggesting that the associations between the perfectionism measures and negative affect were substantially stronger for girls than for boys. Past research in perfectionism has often not explored gender differences, especially in terms of the strength of the correlates of perfectionism. In the current instance, the results raise the possibility that certain perfectionism dimensions may be linked with distress in girls more than boys and perhaps this contributes to gender differences in adolescent depression. There is some limited evidence suggesting that the link between cognitive vulnerability factors and depression can vary between girls and boys (Jacobs et al. 2008), but this possibility has not been explored systematically in terms of the link between perfectionism and distress in younger people. Limitations of the Current Study The current study is limited by its reliance on self-report measures from a single informant. Further research to validate the AMPS by comparing scores with multiple informant and multimodal forms of assessment of children’s adjustment and cognitive features will assist to provide a strong psychometric base for the

123

Cognitive Errors as Predictors

115

instrument. It should be noted that the internal consistency of two of the subscales in the current sample was below the recommended Cronbach’s alpha of .70 for a scale used for research purposes (Kline 1993). Further, although the factor structure of the AMPS has been shown to be reasonably stable across two primary-school aged samples, Rice et al. (2007) found a somewhat different factor structure in their sample of adolescents. Therefore, further research to test the stability of the fourfactor structure of the AMPS in different samples of children is advised. Consistent with previous research using the AMPS, the current study used a nonclinical sample. Further research on the use and properties of the AMPS with a clinical sample is an important priority. As Egan et al. (2007) found positive perfectionism to be related to dichotomous thinking in a clinical sample, it is important to assess whether cognitive errors also predict adaptive perfectionism in children with clinical disorders. Given that research on perfectionism is guided by the proposition that perfectionism is related to psychopathology via mediating or moderating the effect of stress (Flett and Hewitt 2002), a key priority for future research is to conduct longitudinal studies to determine whether perfectionism is in fact a risk factor for psychological symptoms, or is simply a correlate of these difficulties. Research on the relationship between cognitive risk factors and depression in children and adolescents suggests that in younger children whose cognitive styles are still developing, negative cognitions may mediate the relationship between stressful life experiences and depressive symptoms. However, as children grow older, cognitions moderate the relationship between negative life events and depression (see Roberts 1999). Therefore, establishing evidence for the longitudinal relationship between perfectionism, stress, and psychological symptoms is an essential prerequisite to any consideration of the development of early intervention strategies targeting perfectionism in children. This study provides important evidence related to the construct validity of the AMPS, showing that children’s cognitive errors predicted maladaptive features of perfectionism; a fear of the negative implications of making mistakes (Sensitivity to Mistakes), a compulsive need for orderliness (Compulsiveness), and desire for recognition for high standards of performance (Need for Admiration); even after controlling for negative affect. We have also shown a positive association between a more adaptive dimension of perfectionism, self-esteem linked to positive task performance (Contingent Self-Esteem) and positive affect, although this was not inversely related to children’s negative thinking styles once positive affect was controlled for. This construct-related evidence for the validity of the AMPS is crucial to support further research using the instrument to identify children who may be at risk of negative psychological outcomes due to their perfectionism. Acknowledgments This research was partially supported by a Student Grant from the Research Centre for Applied Psychology (ReCAP), Curtin University of Technology, awarded to Nicole Wosinski. Nicole Wosinski completed her Bachelor of Psychology Honours thesis under the supervision of Melissa Davis.

References Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

123

116

M. C. Davis, N. L. Wosinski

Bergman, A. J., Nyland, J. E., & Burns, L. R. (2007). Correlates with depression and the utility of a dual process model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 389–399. Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., Smith, J., & Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178. Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of vulnerability to depression. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 231–251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Burns, L. R., & Fedewa, B. A. (2005). Cognitive styles: Links with perfectionistic thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 103–113. Byrne, S. M., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2004). Psychological predictors of weight gain in obesity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1341–1356. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crook, K., Beaver, B. R., & Bell, M. (1998). Anxiety and depression in children: A preliminary examination of the utility of the PANAS-C. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 20, 333–350. Dadds, M. R. (2002). Early intervention approach for children and families at risk of psychopathology. In F. W. Kastow & T. Patterson (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychotherapy: Cognitivebehavioral approaches (Vol. 2, pp. 51–72). Hokoben, NJ: Wiley. Davis, M. C., & O’Garr, J. (2009). The adaptive maladaptive perfectionism scale for children: Further evidence of reliability and validity (manuscript in preparation). DiBartolo, P. M., Frost, R. O., Chang, P., LaSota, M., & Grills, A. E. (2004). Shedding light on the relationship between personal standards and psychopathology: The case for contingent self-worth. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 241–254. Downey, R. G., & King, C. V. (1998). Missing data in Likert rating scales: A comparison of replacement methods. The Journal of General Psychology, 125, 175. Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252. Egan, S. J., Piek, J. P., Dyck, M. J., & Rees, C. S. (2007). The role of dichotomous thinking and rigidity in perfectionism. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1813–1822. Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart. Ellis, A. (2002). The role of irrational beliefs in perfectionism. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 217–229). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Perfectionism and depression symptom severity in major depressive disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 783–794. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and stress processes in psychopathology. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 255–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology: A comment on Slade and Owens’ dual process model. Behavior Modification, 30, 472–495. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1363–1381. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Cheng, W. M. W. (2008). Perfectionism, distress, and irrational beliefs in high school students: Analyses with an abbreviated Survey of Personal Beliefs for adolescents. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 26, 194–205. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

123

Cognitive Errors as Predictors

117

Frost, R. O., Trepanier, K. L., Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Juster, H. R., Makris, G. S., et al. (1997). Self monitoring of mistakes among subjects high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 209–222. Gibb, B. E., & Coles, M. E. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability-stress models of psychopathology: A developmental perspective. In B. L. Hankin & J. R. Z. Abela (Eds.), Development of psychopathology: A vulnerability-stress perspective (pp. 104–135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 27–33. Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Collins, L., & Flynn, C. A. (2002). Perfectionism in children: Associations with depression, anxiety, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1049–1061. Hewitt, P. L., Newton, J., Flett, G. L., & Callander, L. (1997). Perfectionism and suicidal ideation in adolescent psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 95–101. Jacobs, R. H., Reinecke, M. A., Gollan, J. K., & Kane, P. (2008). Empirical evidence of cognitive vulnerability for depression among children and adolescents: A cognitive science and developmental perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 759–782. Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge. Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Jr., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., et al. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326–338. Leitenberg, H., Yost, L. W., & Carroll-Wilson, M. (1986). Negative cognitive errors in children: Questionnaire development, normative data, and comparisons between children with and without self-reported symptoms of depression, low self-esteem, and evaluation anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 528–536. Reilly, C. E. (1998). Cognitive therapy for the suicidal patient: A case study. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 34, 26–31. Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator between perfectionism and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 45, 304–314. Rice, K. G., Kubal, A. E., & Preusser, K. J. (2004). Perfectionism and children’s self-concept: Further validation of the adaptive/maladaptive perfectionism scale. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 279–290. Rice, K. G., Leever, B. A., Noggle, C. A., & Lapsley, D. K. (2007). Perfectionism and depressive symptoms in early adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 139–156. Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 238–250. Rice, K. G., & Preusser, K. J. (2002). The adaptive/maladaptive perfectionism scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 34, 210–222. Riley, C., & Shafran, R. (2005). Clinical perfectionism: A preliminary qualitative analysis. Behavioural and cognitive Psychotherapy, 33, 369–374. Roberts, C. M. (1999). The prevention of depression in children and adolescents. Australian Psychologist, 34, 49–57. Rudolph, S. G., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2007). Perfectionism and deficits in cognitive emotion regulation. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 25, 343–357. Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: A cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 773–791. Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–906. Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behavior Modification, 22, 372–390. Tems, C. L., Stewart, S. M., Skinner, J. R., Hughes, C. W., & Emslie, G. (1993). Cognitive distortions in depressed children and adolescents: Are they state-dependent or trait-like? Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 22, 316–326. Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 481–491. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Carey, G. (1988). Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 346–353. Weems, C. F., Berman, S. L., Silverman, W. K., & Saavadra, L. M. (2001). Cognitive errors in youth with anxiety disorders: The linkages between cognitive errors and anxious symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 559–575.

123