So perfect it's positively harmful? Reflections on the adaptiveness and maladaptiveness of positive and negative perfectionism.
The article by Flett and Hewitt (2006) highlights a number of important issues in the study of perfectionism and rightly urges caution against simplistic conceptualizations. Their view that the term perfectionism should be reserved for pathological forms of behavior is questionable, though understandable given the perspective from which they view it. But whatever the terminology used, the underlying processes remain unaffected. Relevance of the data they cite in support of an alleged maladaptive side to positive perfectionism, however, rests on the assumption of close parallels between self-oriented perfectionism and positive perfectionism, an assumption that may not be justified. It is important to draw attention not only to differences between the theoretical underpinnings of their and the authors perspectives but also to points of agreement that the authors may previously have failed to make clear. The authors concur entirely with their view that clear avenues of potential research are now apparent that should serve to clarify the issues.
Glynn Owens
R
R
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. g.owens@auckland.ac.nz
Slade
Peter D
PD
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D001521:Behavior Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D003674:Defense Mechanisms; D006801:Humans; D007389:Internal-External Control; D009042:Motivation; D011582:Psychological Theory; D012054:Reinforcement, Psychology; D012649:Self Concept; D012925:Social Conformity