|
Article Excerpt
The authors describe 2 studies on the development of the Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (A. J. Shea & R. B. Slaney, 1999). In Study 1 (N = 389), confirmatory analyses validated the factor structure of the measure, and additional results supported the reliability and construct validity of the subscale scores. In Study 2 (N = 280), data again supported the reliability and construct validity of the subscale scores.
**********
There seems to be general agreement in the literature on perfectionism that there are negative aspects of perfectionism that have a range of potentially deleterious effects on the psychological status of perfectionists (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Blatt, 1995; Burns & Beck, 1978; Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005; Pacht, 1984; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002; Sorotzkin, 1985). It seems plausible that these negative aspects of perfectionism also have negative effects on the interpersonal relationships of perfectionists, particularly in intimate or romantic relationships (Habke & Flynn, 2002).
Current measures of perfectionism attend, in different ways and to varying degrees, to the interpersonal aspects of perfectionism. In reviewing perfectionism and interpersonal relationships, Habke and Flynn (2002) made a distinction between direct and indirect effects of perfectionism on interpersonal relationships. The Self-Oriented Perfectionism subscale from Hewitt and Flett's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-HF; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) might be an example of a scale that measures intrapersonal aspects of perfectionism that affect interpersonal relationships indirectly. A number of studies have linked self-oriented perfectionism to depression, and there are many examples of studies linking depression to interpersonal problems generally (Alden, Bieling, & Wallace, 1994; Jacobson & Anderson, 1982; Kanfer & Zeiss, 1983; Nezlek & Imbrie, 1994; Schmaling & Jacobson, 1990; Wallace & Alden, 1991) and problems in intimate relationships in particular (Ruscher & Gotlib, 1988).
Similarly, the Discrepancy subscale of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996) is another example of a measure of perfectionism that assesses the indirect effects of perfectionism on interpersonal relationships. The Discrepancy subscale was developed to measure the perceptions respondents have about whether they have reached the standards they set for themselves. A number of studies support the contention that perceived discrepancies between high standards and actual performance are related to negative emotions, self-perceptions, and feelings, including depression (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Grzegorek et al., 2004; Periasamy & Ashby, 2002; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Slaney et al., 2002; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). These negative emotional states might be reasonably expected to be related, albeit indirectly, to difficulties in interpersonal relationships.
Habke and Flynn (2002) saw the other two subscales of the MPS-HF as being more directly related to the interpersonal aspects of perfectionism. The Other-Oriented Perfectionism subscale was devised to measure the degree to which respondents impose their perfectionism on others. The Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism subscale was developed to measure the degree to which respondents perceive themselves as having perfectionistic expectations imposed on them by others. Both subscales focus on interpersonal aspects but target "others" generally rather than specific intimate relationship partners.
A number of studies have examined the relationship between the MPS-HF and interpersonal functioning. Hill, Zrull, and Turlington (1997) reported data from 357 undergraduates (113 men, 244 women) who completed the MPS-HF, the Interpersonal Adjective Scale-Revised (IAS-R; Wiggins, Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988), and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990). The IAS-R and the IIP-C were used to provide models of the MPS-HF subscales on a circumplex of normal personality traits and interpersonal problems, respectively. The IIP-C also measured the interpersonal distress related to perfectionism. Hill et al. concluded that self-oriented perfectionism was related to adaptive interpersonal characteristics for both men and women. Associated interpersonal problems for men were being emotionally distant, being dominant, and lacking trust. For women, problems involved their having overly nurturant tendencies. Interpersonal distress was minimal. Other-oriented perfectionism was associated with being domineering, arrogant, mistrustful, and socially distant for both men and women, again with little interpersonal distress. Socially prescribed perfectionism in men had characteristics similar to those of other-oriented perfectionism. For women, there were a diverse number of interpersonal problems. The levels of distress for both men and women seemed indicative of interpersonal maladjustment. These results suggest that other-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism were most likely to be associated with interpersonal problems, with the latter being related to greater interpersonal distress. Other correlational studies have also related the MPS-HF subscales, particularly the Other-Oriented Perfectionism and Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism subscales, to interpersonal issues and concerns (Blankstein, Flett, Hewitt, & Eng, 1993; Flett, Hewitt, & DeRosa, 1996; Flett, Hewitt, Garshowitz, & Martin, 1997; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).
Our literature search yielded two studies that investigated partners in relationships. Hewitt, Flett, and Mikail (1995) studied the relationship adjustment of 83 chronic pain patients and their spouses. The patients and their spouses filled out the MPS-HF, a measure of pain, the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1988), the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), and the Family Assessment Device (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983) as a measure of family maladjustment. Partial correlations controlling for depression suggested that patient ratings of dyadic adjustment and family maladjustment were negatively correlated with other-oriented perfectionism in the spouse (-.23). Patient ratings of supportive responses from the spouse, controlling for dyadic adjustment, were also negatively correlated with other-oriented perfectionism in the spouse (-.27). Spousal ratings of family maladjustment and socially prescribed perfectionism in the spouse were positively correlated (.28). Contrary to predictions, self-oriented perfectionism was positively correlated with patient ratings of family maladjustment (.24). Hewitt et al. (1995) interpreted their results as supporting the "contentions that other-oriented perfectionism and socially-prescribed perfectionism were involved in personal relationship problems" (p. 341). Although Hewitt et al. (1995) studied specific couples, the MPS-HF subscales were responded to in terms of "others" generally. Habke, Hewitt, and Flett (1999) adapted the Other-Oriented Perfectionism and Socially-Prescribed Perfectionism subscales of the MPS-HF to create the Spousal Perfectionism Scale to focus on spouses as opposed to general others. They studied sexual satisfaction in 74 couples and found that these interpersonal dimensions of perfectionism "were negatively related to general sexual satisfaction and sexual satisfaction with the partner for both husbands and wives" (Habke et al., 1999, p. 307). These studies suggest that future studies of the influence of perfectionism on interpersonal relations should incorporate the MPS-HF subscales.
The present study, in an effort to study satisfaction in intimate relationships, including relationships that do not involve marriage, revised the items that were the basis for the APS-R to make them directly relevant to intimate relationships. The product of this revision is called the Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (DAPS; Shea & Slaney, 1999). The scale's development followed the template provided by Loevinger (1957). Item development attended to internal content validity, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) addressed internal structure validity, and external-criterion validity was addressed through the use of correlations and hierarchical multiple regression. Two studies relevant to DAPS scale development are reported. The first study details item development and refinement by means of an examination of scale content and structural analyses. We also examined the utility of the DAPS in explaining variation in relationship satisfaction. The second study served to replicate the internal structural results of the first study and extend the external-criterion support for the DAPS by examining associations with adult romantic attachment orientations.
STUDY 1: METHOD
Scale Development
Items for the DAPS were developed by altering the original items that were the basis for the APS-R. The original APS-R items asked participants to respond in terms of their expectations for themselves (e.g., "My performance rarely measures up to my standards"). The DAPS items asked participants to respond in terms of their expectations for their partners or significant others (e.g., "My partner's performance rarely measures up to my standards"). In order to discover how well the new items represented the meaning of their scales of origin, four experts in the theoretical perspective, development, and scoring of the APS-R were asked to sort the items into categories based on the titles for the original subscales (i.e., Discrepancy, High Standards, and Order). The raters were able to sort these items with 98% accuracy. Then these experts were asked to consider whether the DAPS items were a fair representation of the original items altered to be relevant for relationships. There was unanimous agreement that the DAPS items represented the original items accurately.
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 389 students from two universities. At the first university, a large Mid-Atlantic university, students in an undergraduate educational psychology course were offered extra credit for their participation. An explanation of the study, informed consent forms, and a demographic questionnaire were provided along with the measures used in the study. The measures were randomly ordered. These materials were distributed in a manila envelope, and participants were told that it would take about 30 minutes to complete the packet. They were given 1 week to complete and return the materials. At the second university, a large university in the Midwest, undergraduate and graduate classes were solicited for volunteers; no credit was given for class participation.
The Mid-Atlantic sample contained 199 women and 95 men. Their ages ranged from 17 to 47 years, with a mean age of 20.33 (SD = 3.41). The Midwest sample was composed of 62 women and 33 men. Their ages ranged from 18 to 38 years, with a mean of 25.56 (SD = 6.28). Although the samples differed on age, t tests on the measures used in the current study between the two samples indicated that there were no other significant differences, and the samples were combined. The racial/ethnic background of the participants was 90.8% European American, 2.1% African American, 1.8% Latino/Latina American, 1.3% Asian American, and 0.3% Native American; 2.6% identified themselves as international students; 1.0% described themselves as "other"; and 0.3% did not respond to this item. (Percentages do not equal 100% because of rounding.) Two hundred twenty-three participants reported that they were currently in a relationship. The mean number of months reported for the relationship was 33.55, the median was 24 months, and the mode was 7 months. Of the 163 participants who reported that they were not currently in a significant relationship, 155 were able to respond to the questions by referring to a significant past relationship. The mean length of these past relationships was 13.68 months.
Measures
APS-R. The APS-R was used to measure perfectionism. It is composed of 23 items that are responded to by using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items include "I rarely live up to...
|
