CHAPTER
21
Measures of Perfectionism
Gordon L. Flett1and Paul L. Hewitt2
1York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
The development of two multidimensional perfectionism measures at the start of the 1990’s facilitated expo-
nential growth in research on perfectionism. Until then, perfectionism had been assessed with unidimensional
measures. The Burns Perfectionism Scale came from the depression literature and assessed dysfunctional per-
fectionistic attitudes ( Burns, 1980 ) and perfectionism was assessed in the eating disorder context with the six-
item perfectionism subscale from the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983 ).
We now know, over two decades later, that perfectionism is a multidimensional construct and there is a much
better understanding of this complex personality orientation. There is increasing evidence that perfectionism is
associated with consequential outcomes, in keeping with demonstrations of how personality contributes to conse-
quential life outcomes that matter (see Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006 ). One of the clearest illustrations is the
apparent role played by trait perfectionism dimensions in early mortality (see Fry & Debats, 2009 ). This link
between perfectionism and early mortality has provided the impetus for a thriving line of investigation on the
role of perfectionism in health problems.
While it is clear that perfectionism is related to the five-factor model (see Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997 ), it
is also evident both conceptually and empirically that perfectionism has unique elements that distinguish it from
broad traits such as conscientiousness and neuroticism. We have argued repeatedly, for instance, that extreme
self-oriented perfectionism is a form of hyper-conscientiousness that goes beyond normal conscientiousness
because it is a compulsive form of needing things and the self to be perfect and exact. Similarly, the concept of
socially prescribed perfectionism incorporates the emotional instability that is the essence of trait neuroticism,
but there are unique elements associated with feeling like others or society in general has imposed unfair
demands on the self to be perfect.
The vast array of measures of perfectionism posed a particular problem for us in writing this chapter. We lim-
ited our scope by focusing on the most widely used measures while acknowledging that there are other
suitable measures that merit consideration depending on the particular interests of the potential user. The mea-
sures reviewed in this chapter were selected on the basis of several criteria. First, and foremost, they had to be
measures that are used broadly and this use extends substantially beyond the lab where the measures were cre-
ated. Second, in order to address the psychometric themes covered in this and other chapters in this book, exten-
sive information about the instrument had to be available. Several intriguing new measures have emerged in the
past several years but we simply need more information about them. Finally, the decision to exclude some mea-
sures was based, in part, on unresolved issues that remain to be addressed. Two particular examples come to
mind here. First, a measure of clinical perfectionism based on a unidimensional framework appears to actually
consist of more than one factor (see Dickie, Surgenor, Wilson, & McDowall, 2012 ). As another example, a measure
of positive perfectionism (reflecting ‘good perfectionism’) and negative perfectionism (reflecting ‘bad perfection-
ism’) was used in a recent study involving a clinical sample of anxious and depressed people. Egan, Piek, Dyck,
and Kane (2011) found that positive ‘good’ perfectionism was robustly correlated with greater depression
(r5.50) in the clinical group. Their results point to the possibility that perhaps positive perfectionism can be
functional at one point in someone’s life but it can be quite negative when clinical dysfunction is evident or
595Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00021-8 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.