Printer Friendly

The relationship between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among high school adolescents in Turkey.

The author investigated the contribution of perfectionism to life satisfaction among Turkish adolescents. The analyses revealed that high standards and orderliness/organization were positive predictors of life satisfaction, whereas the discrepancy between one's standards and one's actual performance was a negative predictor of life satisfaction.

El autor investigo la contribucion del perfeccionismo a la satisfaccion vital entre adolescentes turcos. Los analisis revelaron que las expectativas elevadas y el orden/organizacion fueron indicadores de prediccion positivos de la satisfaccion vital, mientras que la discrepancia entre las expectativas propias y el rendimiento real fue un indicador de prediccion negativo de la satisfaccion vital.

**********

Perfectionism has been described as "striving for flawlessness" (Flett & Hewitt, 2002, p. 5), and the negative correlates and consequence of perfectionism have been emphasized by researchers (e.g., Dinc, 2001; Erozkan, 2005; Frost Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Conversely, some authors (e.g., Adler, 1956) believed that having high personal standards was necessary for positive mental health. Many researchers have argued that a distinction must be made between neurotic perfectionism, which is maladaptive, and normal perfectionism, which is adaptive (Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek, 1978). According to Hamachek, normal perfectionism allows for the setting of realistic goals and feelings of satisfaction when these goals are achieved. Neurotic perfectionism, on the other hand, involves the setting of unrealistically high standards and the inability to accept mistakes.

The results of research have supported the multidimensional relationships of perfectionism. For example, adaptive perfectionism has been found to be positively related to positive affect (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2002) and self-esteem (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Stumpf & Parker, 2000; Trumpeter, Watson, & O'Leary, 2006). Conversely, maladaptive perfectionism has been found to be related to depression as well as negatively related to responsiveness to therapies for depression (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004; Hewitt et al., 2002). Blatt (1995) noted that there is a relationship between perfectionism and suicide.

The three most commonly used measures of perfectionism were developed in the early 1990s: the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990), the Hewitt Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), and the Almost Perfect Scale (APS; Slaney &Johnson, 1992). Factor analyses of the aforementioned perfectionism scales supported a higher order two-factor structure, labeled Adaptive Perfectionism and Maladaptive Perfectionism (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001). However, Slaney et al. argued that although the Adaptive factor in all three studies was clearly dominated by the subscales that measured high standards, the essential nature of the Maladaptive factor was harder to distinguish. Therefore, Slaney et al. developed the APS-Revised.

dimension of perfectionism

High standards and orderliness capture the essential and adaptive aspects of perfectionism (Slaney et al., 2001). A person holding high standards for his or her performance has high expectations for himself or herself. Orderliness, neatness, and organization are integral to the definition of perfectionism, most often in combination with high standards. For an orderly person, neatness is important and he or she likes to be organized and disciplined. The defining negative aspect of perfectionism is the concept of discrepancy, that is, the perceived discrepancy between the standards one has for oneself and one's actual performance.

life satisfaction

Life satisfaction has been defined as a "global evaluation by the person of his or her life" (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvick, 1991, p. 150). Pavot et al. argued that individuals construct a standard, which they perceive as appropriate for themselves, and compare the circumstances of their life to that standard. Therefore, it is a subjective judgment rather than a judgment based on some externally imposed objective standards. More specifically, life satisfaction is defined as an individual's conscious, cognitive appraisal of the quality of his or her life (Headey & Wearing, 1992) and may reflect a global appraisal as well as appraisals within specific life domains (e.g., friends, family, school).

Very little research has explored the relations of adaptive and maladaptive forms of perfectionism to life satisfaction (Chang, Watkins, & Banks, 2004; Gilman, Ashby, Sverko, Florell, & Varjas, 2005). In Chang et al.'s study, adaptive perfectionists reported higher global life satisfaction than did maladaptive perfectionists. To my knowledge, Gilman et al.'s study is the only research that has examined how multidimensional life satisfaction was related to adaptive and maladaptive forms of perfectionism in adolescence. The results of this study showed that adaptive perfectionism was related to life satisfaction across many life domains among American and Croatian youth. The aforementioned studies on perfectionism were conducted with American and European youth. Therefore, a replication of Western studies was important because Turkey lies between the West and East both geographically and culturally.

turkish culture

According to Kagitcibasi (2002), with the urbanization and industrialization of the collectivistic Turkish culture, a new family pattern that is different from the prototypical models of Western independence and Eastern interdependence has emerged. In this new pattern, which is called the Family Model of Emotional/Psychological Interdependence, there is independence in the material realm together with interdependence in the psychological realm. Emotionally/psychologically interdependent parents combine autonomy and a control orientation in parenting; however, there is still firm control in child rearing. For example, Imamoglu (1987) found that Turkish parents of low socioeconomic status (SES) stressed material interdependence, whereas more modern middle/upper-SES Turkish parents valued behavioral autonomy but psychological closeness to their children. Although there have been no studies directly examining Turkish parents' perfectionistic attitudes, research examining parent-adolescent relations in middle/upper-SES families indicated warm but firm parental attitudes. For example, in a study on maternal child rearing attitudes (Kulaksizoglu, 1985), high SES mothers tended to be rated as more democratic and equalitarian but not permissive when compared with low SES mothers. According to Yavuzer (2005), parenting techniques about autonomy in urban families maintained a balance between restrictiveness and autonomy.

In the present study, the goal was to examine the relations between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among Turkish high school students from middle/upper-SES backgrounds. Kottman and Ashby (2000) argued that while some of the behaviors in the search for perfection can be self-defeating, many perfectionist behaviors (e.g., turning in neat work and caring about school) are academically and socially adaptive. It is essential to the well-being and happiness of adolescents that teachers, counselors, and parents learn to recognize and acknowledge the adaptive components of perfectionism and remediate the maladaptive aspects of that behavior.

In the present study, it was hypothesized that dimensions of perfectionism (high standards, order, and discrepancy) would be related to life satisfaction: (a) high standards would be a positive predictor of dimensions of life satisfaction, namely, satisfaction with friends, family, school, living environment, and self; (b) order would be a positive predictor of the same dimensions of life satisfaction; and (c) discrepancy would be the negative predictor of the dimensions of life satisfaction. It was also hypothesized that students who were classified as adaptive perfectionists would report significantly higher multidimensional life satisfaction scores than would students who were classified as maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists.

method

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 9th-, 10th-, and 11th-grade pupils of a randomly selected Anatolian high school from Antalya, Turkey. There were 205 girls and 240 boys, 133 ninth graders, 164 tenth graders, and 148 eleventh graders. The participants were from urban, middle/upper-SES backgrounds with an age range of 15-18 years (M = 16.07). Participation in the study was anonymous. Because of the fast rate of urbanization, Antalya (population 714,000) is the fastest growing province in Turkey on the Mediterranean coast.

Admission to Anatolian high schools is attained through a competitive entrance examination. When the educational level of Anatolian high school parents was compared with that of the other state high school parents, it was found that 32% of the fathers and 21% of the mothers had earned university degrees, whereas only 9% of fathers and 4% of mothers of students in the state high schools had earned such degrees (Gumus, 2006).

PROCEDURE

Students completed questionnaires during a class period under the supervision of the school counselor. All students who attended school on the day of data collection participated in the study voluntarily. To standardize the procedure, the questionnaires were administered to all participants in the following order: the Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; Huebner, 1994) and the APS-R (Slaney et al., 2001). Participants also answered questions regarding their sex, grade level, and age. Permission for participation by the students was obtained from the Provincial Directorate of National Education and the school principal. Parents, teachers, and fellow students were guaranteed confidentiality.

INSTRUMENTS

Perfectionism was measured using a Turkish version of the APS-R (Slaney et al., 2001), which consists of 23 items. Participants respond to the items using a five-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The APS-R has three factors: High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy. Seven items indicate the High Standards factor (e.g., "If you don't expect much out of yourself you will never succeed" and "I expect the best from myself"), 4 items indicate the Order factor (e.g., "Neatness is important to me" and "I am an orderly person"), and 12 items indicate the Discrepancy factor (e.g., "Doing my best never seems to be enough" and "I am never satisfied with my accomplishments"). The Turkish adaptation of the scale was used for the present study. The scale was translated from English into Turkish by me, and the Turkish version was back-translated into English by a colleague with a degree in English Language Teaching. Small dissimilarities between the original scale and the back-translated version were resolved by me and the back-translator. A principal-axis factor analysis performed on the test scores of pupils of another randomly selected Anatolian high school from Antalya revealed three factors with eigenvalues of 5.77, 4.59, and 3.04, accounting for 58.28% of the total variance. Alpha reliabilities for the total scale, High Standards factor, Order factor, and Discrepancy factor were .88, .90, .89, and .88, respectively. It was concluded that the Turkish version of the scale had sufficient reliability and construct validity.

Life satisfaction was measured with a Turkish version of the MSLSS (Huebner, 1994). Participants respond to the scale's 40 items using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = never, 4 = almost always). The Turkish adaptation of the scale and its validity and reliability studies were conducted by (Civitci (2007). The scale was translated from English into Turkish by six doctoral-level academicians in psychological counseling. The Turkish version was back-translated into English by the academicians' colleague who held a doctoral degree in English Language and Literature. The mean age of the adolescent sample in (Civitci's study was 13.01 years. The mean age of the adolescent sample of the present study was 16.07 years. Reliability and validity studies were also conducted for the present investigation.

For the present study, the factor structure of the MSLSS was studied using two separate factor analyses of data for pupils from another randomly selected Anatolian high school in Antalya. The first principal axis factor analysis revealed five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the factors were in accord with the original assignment of items to the subscales. With regard to the factor loading of the first measurement, for each item except Items 2 and 36, the results indicated that its highest loading was on the subscale to which it belonged. The item "I am fun to be around" loaded on the Friends Satisfaction subscale (it was in the Self Satisfaction subscale of the original scale), and the item "My family's house is nice" loaded on the Family Satisfaction subscale (it was in the Living Environment Satisfaction subscale of the original scale). Therefore, the analysis was rerun without Items 2 and 36. The second principal axis factor analysis revealed five factors with eigenvalues of 4.36, 3.82, 33.75, 3.01, and 2.76, accounting for 46.57% of the total variance. It was shown that the Turkish version of the MSLSS also has five subscales: Friends Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, Living Environment Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction. There are nine items in the Friends Satisfaction subscale (e.g., "My friends treat me well" and "I have a lot of fun with my friends"), seven items in the Family Satisfaction subscale (e.g., "I enjoy being at home with my family" and "My parents treat me fairly"), eight items in the School Satisfaction subscale (e.g., "I look forward to going to school" and "School is interesting"), eight items in the Living Environment Satisfaction subscale (e.g., "I like where I live" and "I like my neighborhood"), and six items in the Self Satisfaction subscale (e.g., "I think I am good looking" and "There are lots of things I can do well"). Alpha reliabilities for the total scale and the Friend Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, Living Environment Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction subscales were .90, .84, .83, .83, .76, and .71, respectively. The findings of Civitci's (2007) study and this study indicated that the MSLSS was a valid and reliable instrument for measuring multidimensional life satisfaction among Turkish junior high school and high school students.

results

Six separate multiple regression analyses were conducted for the whole sample, using the APS-R High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy subscale scores as predictor variables, and the MSLSS Global and the Friends Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, Living Environment Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction subscale scores as the dependent variables.

The descriptive statistics and correlations of the study's variables are presented in Table 1. The zero order correlations among the variables were significant except for the correlations between Discrepancy and Order and between Order and Friends Satisfaction. The results of the multiple regression analyses testing the effects of Discrepancy, Order, and High Standards on Life Satisfaction domains are given in Table 2. As reported in Table 2, standardized beta coefficients showed that high standards were a statistically significant positive predictor of life satisfaction. Specifically, High Standards scores explained 22% of the variance for Friend Satisfaction, 18% of the variance for Family Satisfaction, 20% of the variance for School Satisfaction, 14% of the variance for Living Environment Satisfaction, and 31% of the variance for Self Satisfaction. On the other hand, standardized beta coefficients showed that discrepancy was a statistically significant negative predictor of life satisfaction. Discrepancy scores explained 29% of the variance for Friends Satisfaction, 26% of the variance for Family Satisfaction, 24% of the variance for School Satisfaction, 23% of the variance for Living Environment Satisfaction, and 30% of the variance for Self Satisfaction. Similar to High Standards, standardized beta coefficients showed that Order was a statistically significant positive predictor of Life Satisfaction. Order scores explained 30% of the variance for Family Satisfaction, 24% of the variance for School Satisfaction, 14% of the variance for Living Environment Satisfaction, and 11% of the variance for Self Satisfaction.

The median-split scoring method was used to categorize individuals as adaptive perfectionists (i.e., low Discrepancy, high High Standards, high Order), maladaptive (i.e., high Discrepancy, high High Standards, high Order), and nonperfectionists (i.e., low Discrepancy, low High Standards, low Order). Discrepancy, High Standards, and Order medians were 30, 25, and 12, respectively. The data were then analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with MSLSS domains serving as the dependent variables. The MANOVA revealed main effect for the perfectionism grouping, Wilks's lambda = .73, F(6, 168) = 4.4, p < .000. The results of the follow-up univariate tests are presented in Table 3. Adaptive perfectionists reported higher mean satisfaction scores in all domains than did either maladaptive perfectionists or nonperfectionists. These differences were statistically significant (using Fisher's least significant difference) for the Global Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction domains. There were no significant differences between maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists.

discussion

This study investigated the relations between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among 445 Turkish high school students. It also investigated whether the students who were classified as adaptive perfectionists would report significantly higher multidimensional life satisfaction than would students who were classified as maladaptive and nonperfectionists. The findings of the present study were then compared with Gilman et al.'s (2005) data, which were obtained from American and European adolescent samples, and discussed in the cultural context of Turkey.

As predicted, the results of the present study indicated that holding high standards was a positive predictor of life satisfaction for Turkish high school students in all dimensions, namely, Friends Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, Living Environment Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction. In particular, satisfaction with self seemed to be a domain in which High Standards contributed a differential predictive value for the Turkish adolescents. This finding is consistent with Terry-Short, Glynn Owens, Slade, and Dewey's (1995) study that associated positive affect with self-oriented perfectionism, which involves setting high standards and striving to meet these standards. When the predictive value of High Standards in the Turkish sample was compared with that reported in Gilman et al.'s (2005) study, High Standards predicted life satisfaction in all domains in the Turkish sample, whereas it predicted life satisfaction in the Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction domains in the American sample; High Standards predicted life satisfaction only in one domain (School Satisfaction) in the Croatian sample. Holding High Standards predicted School Satisfaction in Turkish, American, and Croatian samples. As Hamachek (1978) proposed, normal/adaptive perfectionists set high standards for their tasks and feel good about their accomplishments. Thus, it can be argued that, across cultures, this dimension of perfectionism seems to help high school adolescents become competent and able persons at school. Moreover, Bieling et al. (2004) argued that perfectionism leading to achievement of high standards is even encouraged, because perfectionism is related with important rewards in sports, science, and academics. On the other hand, the predictive value of High Standards in Friends Satisfaction in the present study was not consistent with the findings in Gilman et al.'s study; holding High Standards predicted Friends Satisfaction only in the Turkish sample. This difference between the two studies could be due to the Turkish high school students' more emotionally involved relational bond in the collectivistic Turkish culture.

As predicted, the results of the study also indicated that Order was a positive predictor of life satisfaction in most life domains with the exception of Friends Satisfaction. Family Satisfaction especially seemed to be a domain in which Order contributed a differential predictive value for the Turkish high school adolescents. This finding was significant as untidiness or disorganization becomes one of the most important conflict resources between children and parents during adolescence. Thus, it can be suggested that orderliness and neatness of adolescents diminish conflict in connected Turkish families and correspond to the Family Satisfaction of young people. School Satisfaction also seemed to be a domain in which Order contributed a differential predictive value. The explanation of this finding is that orderliness also appears to contribute to success at school, which, in turn, makes these achievement-oriented adolescents feel satisfied with school. Because this dimension of perfectionism was not examined in Gilman et al.'s (2005) study, this particular result could not be compared.

As predicted, the results of the study indicated that Discrepancy was a negative predictor of life satisfaction in most life domains. The results relating to the Discrepancy dimension of perfectionism in Gilman et al.'s (2005) study indicated that Discrepancy was a significant and negative predictor of only the Self Satisfaction domain for the American and the Croatian samples. The findings in this present study related to the negative predictive value of Discrepancy in all domains of life satisfaction (namely, Friends Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Living Environment Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction) in Turkish adolescents seem to be reflecting cultural differences. In American and Croatian samples, Discrepancy was only the negative predictor of Self Satisfaction, which might have reflected the values of individualistic cultures. In the connected Turkish culture, family and friendship patterns are typically not individualistic, but much more emotionally connected than in Western cultures. Thus, Discrepancy acts as a vulnerability factor for diminished life satisfaction in Turkish adolescents not only in Self Satisfaction but in the domains of Friends Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Living Environment Satisfaction; these are domains concerning important other people in the Turkish adolescents' life context.

As predicted, adaptive perfectionists reported higher satisfaction scores in all domains than did maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists. These differences were statistically significant for global satisfaction and for Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction domains. Gilman et al. (2005) also showed that the adaptive perfectionists reported significantly higher satisfaction scores for the global scale and Family Satisfaction, School Satisfaction, and Self Satisfaction subscales among the Croatian group. These results indicated that adaptive perfectionism contributed to life satisfaction of adolescents in the important domains of their lives across cultures. Thus, it can be argued that, as Hamachek (1978) proposed, adaptive/normal perfectionists feel good about their accomplishments but also allow themselves the flexibility to make and accept minor mistakes. On the other hand, maladaptive perfectionists have an extremely limited range of acceptable performance and never feel their efforts are good enough. As a result, rather than assessing the disagreement between intentions and performance, being more concerned about the accomplishments seems to bring life satisfaction.

Overall, the results of the present study provided support for the conceptualization that perfectionism has adaptive and maladaptive characteristics, and perfectionism, as a multidimensional construct, predicts the level of adolescent life satisfaction. In line with earlier findings (e.g., Slade & Owens, 1998), this study supported the notion that adaptive perfectionism reflects the pursuit of success and excellence, rather than the avoidance of failure, and is likely to be associated with positive emotional consequences, such as life satisfaction. Particularly in emotionally connected cultures, adaptive forms of perfectionism, namely, high standards and order, seem to help adolescents feel satisfied not only with themselves but also with all important aspects of life concerning human relations. To achieve a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent perfectionism, samples from different cultures and socioeconomic groups need to be studied.

To help teachers, students, and parents recognize the two distinct dimensions of perfectionism, school counselors should consider how adolescents can express the adaptive and the maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism in the school setting. It must be remembered that there is need for a cautious examination of adolescents to determine which of the aspects of perfectionism are in force. If the adolescent demonstrates the positive aspect of perfectionism, the suggestion is to encourage the adolescent to continue in this pattern of behavior but not for him or her to become overly self-critical when performance does not meet personal standards. If the adolescent demonstrates some aspects of both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, the counselor can help the adolescent move toward more realistically assessing his or her ability to live up to those standards. It must also be remembered that both of these dimensions occur on a continuum from mild to severe. Even potentially adaptive behaviors can become negative when taken to extremes. As long as high standards do not become unrealistic and failures to meet standards do not result in harsh self-criticism, it can be argued that these factors will not cause a problem for the adolescent but will result in heightened life satisfaction.

limitations and future directions

The participants in this study were from urban middle/upper-SES backgrounds, thus, the cultural generalizability of the findings is limited. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the statistically significant differences in the study might reflect the large sample size. Thus, subsequent studies should examine more socioeconomically diverse samples (i.e., lower SES individuals) to expand the understanding of the relationships between perfectionism and life satisfaction among adolescents in Turkish culture. Furthermore, because the present study focused on 15- to 18-year-old adolescents, future studies may investigate younger and older adolescents.

references

Adler, A. (1956). Striving for superiority. In H. L. Ansbacher & R. Ansbacher (Eds.), The individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his writings (pp. 101-102). New York: Harper & Row.

Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes, and self-esteem: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 197-203.

Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining the models of perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1373-1385.

Blatt, S.J. (1995). The destructiveness of perfectionism: Implications for treatment of depression. American Psychologist, 50, 1003-1020.

Chang, E. C., Watkins, A., & Banks, K. H. (2004). How adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism relate to positive and negative psychological functioning: Testing a stress mediation model in Black and White female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 93-102.

Civitci, A. (2007). Cok boyutlu ogrenci yasam doyumu olceginin Turkce'ye uyarlanmasi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [The adaptation of Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale into Turkish: Validity and reliability studies]. Egitim Arastirmalari, 26, 51-60.

Dinc Y. (2001). Predictive value of perfectionism on depressive symptoms and anger: Negative life effects as the moderator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Erozkan, A. (2005, September). Universite ogrencilerinin mukemmelliyetcilik ve depresyon duzeylerinin bazi degiskenlere gore incelenmesi [The relationships between perfectionism and depression among university students]. Paper presented at the eighth National Psychological Counseling and Guidance Congress, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.

Gilman, R., Ashby, J. S., Sverko, D., Florell, D., & Varjas, K. (2005). The relationships between perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among Croatian and American youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 155-166.

Gumus, A. (2006). Egitim sendikasi ortaogretim okullari Turkiye taramasi 2006 raporu [The 2006 survey report of education union on Turkish secondary schools]. Ankara, Turkey: Egitim Sendikasi.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27-33.

Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of subjective well-being. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Longman Cheshire.

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., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158.

Imamoglu, E. O. (1987). An interdependence model of human development. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 138-145). Lisse, Holland: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Kagitcibasi, C. (2002). A model of family change in cultural context. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (unit 13, chap. 1). Retrieved November 19, 2008, from Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University Web site: http://www.wwu.edu/~culture

Kottman, T., & Ashby, J. (2000). Perfectionistic children and adolescents: Implications for school counsellors. Professional School Counseling, 3, 182-188.

Kulaksizoglu, A. (1985). Ergen aile catismalari ile annenin tutumlari arasindaki iliski ve ergenin problemleri [The relationships between adolescent-parent conflicts and maternal attitudes; problems of adolescents.]. Istanbul: Basilmamis Doktora Tezi, Istanbul Universitesi.

Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvick, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale: Evidence for cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149-161.

Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2002). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238-250.

Slade, P. D., & Owens, B. G. (1998). A dual process of perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behavior Modification, 22, 372-390.

Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). The Almost Perfect Scale. Unpublished manuscript, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

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.

Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its relations to other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 837-852.

Terry-Short, L. A., Glynn Owens, R., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.

Trumpeter, N., Watson, P.J., & O'Leary, B.J. (2006). Factors in multidimensional perfectionism scales: Complexity of relationships with self-esteem, narcissism, self-control, and self-criticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 849-860.

Yavuzer, H., (2005). Gencleri anlamak [Understanding the adolescent] (Ikinci baski). Istanbul, Turkey: Remzi Kitabevi.

Demet Erol Ongen, Department of Educational Psychology, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. This research was supported by the Akdeniz University scientific research project unit. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Demet Erol Ongen, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, Akdeniz Universitesi, Egitim Fakultesi, Dumlupinar Bulvan, Kampus 07058, Antalya/Turkey (e-mail: demetongen@akdeniz.edu.tr).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable              M       SD        1        2       3

1. Discrepancy       30.58    9.94     --
2. High Standards    24.66    6.43    .26 **    --
3. Order             11.82    4.35    .06      .32 **     --
4. Friends
   Satisfaction      30.49    4.27   -.24 **   .12 **   -.02
5. Family
   Satisfaction      21.79    4.05   -.20 **   .20 **    .34 **
6. School
   Satisfaction      20.52    4.53   -.18 **   .22 **    .29 **
7. Living
   Environment
   Satisfaction      20.81    3.87   -.19 **   .13 **    .18 **
8. Self
   Satisfaction      18.28    3.03   -.21 **   .27 **    .19 **
9. Global
   Satisfaction     114.63   13.82   -.30 **   .27 **    .28 **

Variable              4        5       6        7       8     9

1. Discrepancy
2. High Standards
3. Order
4. Friends
   Satisfaction      --
5. Family
   Satisfaction     .28 **    --
6. School
   Satisfaction     .29 **   .39 **    --
7. Living
   Environment
   Satisfaction     .32 **   .53 **   .36 **    --
8. Self
   Satisfaction     .41 **   .35 **   .31 **   .29 **    --
9. Global
   Satisfaction     .66 **   .74 **   .70 **   .73 **   .63 **   --

Note. N = 445.

** p < .01, one-tailed.

TABLE 2
Multiple Regression Analyses for Discrepancy, High Standards, and Order
Predicting Life Satisfaction Domains

                           Discrepancy            High Standards

Variable                B     SE B   [beta]      B    SE B   [beta]

Global Satisfaction    -.53   .06    -.38 ***   .64   .10    .30 ***
Friends Satisfaction   -.13   .02    -.29 ***   .14   .03    .22 ***
Family Satisfaction    -.11   .02    -.26 ***   .11   .03    .18 ***
School Satisfaction    -.11   .02    -.24 ***   .14   .03    .20 ***
Living
Environment
Satisfaction           -.11   .02    -.23 ***   .12   .03    .14 **
Self Satisfaction      -.10   .01    -.30 ***   .15   .02    .31 ***

                             Order

Variable                B    SE B   [beta]     R     [R.sup.2]

Global Satisfaction    .67   .14     .21 ***   .50      .25
Friends Satisfaction   .07   .05    -.07       .31      .10
Family Satisfaction    .28   .04     .30 ***   .43      .19
School Satisfaction    .24   .05     .24 ***   .39      .15
Living
Environment
Satisfaction           .13   .04      .1 4**   .30      .90
Self Satisfaction      .13   .03      .1 1*    .40      .16

Note. N = 445.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .000.

TABLE 3
The Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale Means
and Standard Deviations by Perfectionism Groups With Results of
Follow-Up Univariate F Tests

Scale and Perfectionism Group        M       SD     n      F      p

Global Satisfaction                                      15.60   .000
  Adaptive Perfectionists          130.18   11.49   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists       120.14   10.82   36
  Nonperfectionists                119.45   12.87   65
Friends Satisfaction                                      0.80   .451
  Adaptive Perfectionists           31.81    2.97   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists        30.95    3.55   36
  Nonperfectionists                 31.34    3.78   65
Family Satisfaction                                      14.50   .000
  Adaptive Perfectionists           24.09    3.37   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists        21.00    4.17   36
  Nonperfectionists                 21.18    3.27   65
School Satisfaction                                      11.34   .000
  Adaptive Perfectionists           22.72    4.27   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists        19.97    3.97   36
  Nonperfectionists                 19.31    4.50   65
Living Environment Satisfaction                           2.98   .054
  Adaptive Perfectionists           21.93    3.21   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists        20.39    3.74   36
  Nonperfectionists                 20.78    3.51   65
Self Satisfaction                                        10.43   .000
  Adaptive Perfectionists           19.78    2.26   68
  Maladaptive Perfectionists        18.64    2.73   36
  Nonperfectionists                 17.78    2.67   65
COPYRIGHT 2009 American Counseling Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ongen, Demet Erol
Publication:Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7TURK
Date:Jan 1, 2009
Words:5276
Previous Article:Cultural intersection of Asian Indian ethnicity and presenting problem: adapting multicultural competence for clinical accessibility.
Next Article:Evidence-based practice and its implications for culturally sensitive treatment.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters