MICHELLE HARING AND PAUL L.

HEWITT
University of British Columbia

GORDON L. FLETT York University*

Perfectionism, Coping, and Quality

of Intimate Relationships

The present study examined the associations ative effect on both the psychological and physical
among perfectionism, marital coping, and marital well-being of spouses and of families more gen-
functioning in a community sample of 76 couples. erally (e.g., Beach, Sandeen, & O’Leary, 1992;
A theoretical model was tested in which maladap- Burman & Margolin, 1992; Grych & Fincham,
tive coping mediates the relationship between trait 1990). Not surprisingly, much research in the area
perfectionism and poorer marital functioning. As of intimate relationships has been conducted in an
predicted, one of the interpersonal dimensions of effort to identify factors predictive of marital mal-
perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, adjustment or distress. For example, a consider-
was associated with maladaptive marital coping able body of work has examined how the enduring
and poorer marital adjustment for both the self vulnerabilities that individuals bring to marriage,
and the partner, even after controlling for de- such as personality traits, may contribute to mar-
pression and neuroticism. Finally, the use of neg- ital adjustment or distress. Studies using both
ative coping strategies mediated the relationship cross-sectional and longitudinal designs have
between socially prescribed perfectionism and found that personality is related to marital adjust-
poorer marital functioning for both the self and ment (e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Within
the partner. Overall, this study highlights the im- this literature, the relationship between neuroti-
portance of spouse-specific forms of perfectionism cism and marital distress is the most robust (e.g.,
in marital adjustment.
Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Bouchard,
Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999; Kurdek, 1993). Given
the strength of neuroticism as a predictor of mar-
The societal costs of marital discord are high. A
ital adjustment, there have been calls in the liter-
growing body of work suggests that marital dis-
tress and dissolution can have a profoundly neg- ature to examine the influence of other potentially
relevant personality traits and to evaluate their
predictive ability relative to neuroticism (Karney
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia,
2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 Canada (phewitt@
& Bradbury).
cortex.psych.ubc.ca). The purpose of this study was to assess the
relationship between perfectionism and marital
*Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele functioning. Despite theoretical and empirical
Street, North York, ON, M3J 1P3 Canada.
work suggesting that trait perfectionism is related
Key Words: marital coping, marital functioning, perfec- to behaviors that are likely to affect the quality of
tionism. intimate relationships (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), lit-

Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (February 2003): 143–158 143

144 Journal of Marriage and Family

tle research has directly examined this association. quire perfection of oneself. Consistent with this,
This article addresses this issue. several studies have found that perfectionism is
Several researchers have noted the need for associated with problematic interpersonal behav-
studies that go beyond establishing personality– iors. Although self-oriented perfectionism tends
marital adjustment links to explore how these per- not to be strongly associated with interpersonal
sonality traits may influence the types of behav- behaviors, both other-oriented and socially pre-
iors that are exchanged between partners and, in scribed perfectionism are linked with a variety of
turn, marital functioning (e.g., Bradbury & Fin- behaviors that may be detrimental to interpersonal
cham, 1988; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). This ar- relationships. For example, other-oriented perfec-
ticle does this by testing a new theoretical model tionism is associated with authoritarian, exploit-
(Hewitt & Flett, 2002) in which perfectionism is ative, and dominant behaviors and with other-di-
linked to the types of marital coping efforts and rected blame (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). Similarly,
therefore to the marital functioning of both part- socially prescribed perfectionism is related to hos-
ners. In particular, this article examines a model tile-dominant characteristics (Hill, Zrull, & Tur-
in which coping mediates the relation between lington, 1997), other-directed blame, outwardly
perfectionism and marital maladjustment. directed anger (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Dy-
nin, 1994; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a), as well as over-
PERFECTIONISM controlled and overly responsible behavior in
close relationships (Hewitt et al., 2000; Hill et al.).
Over the past decade, there has been a marked Overall, several studies have demonstrated that
increase in research on perfectionism. A signifi- perfectionism is associated with a variety of in-
cant theoretical advance has been the conceptu- terpersonally relevant behaviors that likely influ-
alization of perfectionism as a multidimensional ence the quality of relationships that perfectionists
construct, comprising both intrapersonal and in- develop and maintain. Evidence that perfection-
terpersonal trait dimensions (Frost, Marten, La- ism may be germane to intimate relationships is
hart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b).
provided by work linking perfectionism-related
Hewitt and Flett (1991b) have described three di-
constructs, behaviors, and outcomes to marital
mensions of trait perfectionism: Self-oriented per-
distress specifically. For example, perfectionism is
fectionism is an intrapersonal dimension in which
associated with depression (e.g., Hewitt, Flett, &
the individual requires the self to be perfect,
Ediger, 1996), which in turn is associated with
whereas other-oriented perfectionism is an inter-
personal dimension that requires others to be per- marital distress for both depressed individuals and
fect. Finally, socially prescribed perfectionism in- their partners (Beach et al., 1992; Fincham &
volves the belief that others hold unrealistic Bradbury, 1992). Similar associations have been
expectations for the self. Individuals high on this found between marital distress and neuroticism
dimension feel that others expect perfection from (Botwin et al., 1997; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Kur-
them, stringently evaluate their performance, and dek, 1993), which in turn appears to be associated
will not be satisfied unless these unrealistic ex- with socially prescribed perfectionism (Hewitt,
pectations are met. Flett, & Blankstein, 1991).
These three dimensions of trait perfectionism Unrealistic expectations for one’s self, one’s
have been linked to a wide variety of intrapersonal partner, and for the relationship have also been
problems including depression, anxiety, person- implicated in the development of relationship
ality disorders, suicidal ideation and attempts, eat- problems (Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, & Sher,
ing disorders, and migraine headaches (see Flett 1989; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Haferkamp,
& Hewitt, 2002). However, much less research has 1994). For example, both Haferkamp and Brad-
examined specific interpersonal consequences of bury and Fincham (1988) found that unrealistic
perfectionism and the mechanisms by which per- expectations for the relationship were associated
fectionism may be associated with interpersonal with lower levels of dyadic adjustment in com-
outcomes. munity samples. Given that unrealistic expecta-
Hewitt and colleagues (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b; tions (expecting perfection from others or believ-
Hewitt, Flett, & Mikail, 1995) have suggested that ing that others expect perfection from the self) are
requiring perfection of and stringently evaluating core features of perfectionism, it seems likely that
significant others can result in relationship prob- perfectionism is related to decreased marital ad-
lems, as can perceiving that significant others re- justment for both partners. Overall, the results of
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 145

these studies suggest that perfectionism is linked each partner’s personality on their own and their
to variables that predict poorer marital adjustment. partner’s marital functioning (Kashy & Snyder,
1995; Kenny, 1996), we examined how trait per-
fectionism was related to the marital functioning
PERFECTIONISM AND MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
of both members of the couple. Second, the pres-
Only one study has specifically examined the re- ent study used multiple measures to assess marital
lationship between trait dimensions of perfection- adjustment. Third, we conducted a more stringent
ism and marital adjustment. Hewitt et al. (1995) test of the association between trait perfectionism
had a sample of 83 chronic pain patients and their and marital adjustment by controlling both de-
spouses complete the Multidimensional Perfec- pression and neuroticism, two constructs known
tionism Scale (MPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b), to influence marital adjustment (Beach et al.,
which taps the self-oriented, other-oriented, and 1992). An important question is whether perfec-
socially prescribed dimensions of perfectionism, tionism is a predictor of marital adjustment inde-
as well as measures of marital adjustment, family pendent of its association with these variables. It
functioning, depression, and pain. Patients’ ratings was predicted that the interpersonal dimensions of
of their own self-oriented perfectionism were not perfectionism would be associated with indices of
related to their own or their partners’ marital ad- marital functioning, even after the effects of de-
justment; however, patients with partners who pression and neuroticism were removed. More
were high on other-oriented or self-oriented per- specifically, it was hypothesized that levels of so-
fectionism reported greater family difficulties. cially prescribed perfectionism would be nega-
Moreover, patients with partners who were high tively related to ratings of marital functioning both
on other-oriented perfectionism reported lower for the self and for the partner. Consistent with
levels of marital adjustment. The other-oriented theory, it was also predicted that other-oriented
perfectionistic partners were also rated as less sup- perfectionism would be inversely related to part-
portive, even when controlling for levels of dyadic ner marital functioning but would be unrelated to
adjustment. Finally, partners who scored high on personal ratings of marital functioning. These re-
socially prescribed perfectionism reported lower lationships were also expected to remain after
levels of family adjustment. controlling for neuroticism and depression. No
Several findings of this study warrant closer specific predictions were made for the relationship
examination. As noted, partners’ other-oriented between self-oriented perfectionism and marital
perfectionism was a strong predictor of patients’ adjustment.
levels of marital maladjustment and poorer family Most important, the current study sought to ex-
functioning. However, partners’ other-oriented tend previous work by examining the mechanisms
perfectionism was not related to their own rela- through which perfectionism is associated with
tionship satisfaction, suggesting that it is the target marital adjustment. Several authors have suggest-
of the unrealistic expectations who suffers, not the ed that research exploring the relationship be-
individuals high in other-oriented perfectionism. tween personality and marital distress needs to in-
However, patients’ levels of other-oriented perfec- corporate more complex models that describe how
tionism were not significantly related to their part- personality actually influences specific relation-
ners’ marital adjustment, suggesting that a target ship variables (e.g., hostile behaviors toward the
who is chronically stressed and has a perfection- spouse) and, ultimately, marital difficulties (Brad-
istic spouse may be at most risk. Although this bury & Fincham, 1988; Karney & Bradbury,
provides some support for a link between perfec- 1995; Kurdek, 1993). Along these lines, within
tionism and marital adjustment, the extent to the domain of perfectionism, Hewitt and Flett
which it generalizes to the broader population is (2002) proposed a comprehensive model of per-
not known. fectionistic behavior that explicates how trait per-
In sum, the findings of numerous studies sug- fectionism is related to personal and interpersonal
gest that trait perfectionism is relevant to the qual- maladjustment. They hypothesized that perfec-
ity of intimate relationships. The present study tionism is related to maladjustment through four
was designed to extend this in several ways. First, mechanisms: stress generation, stress anticipation,
we examined whether perfectionism was related stress enhancement, and stress perpetuation (see
to marital adjustment in a nonchronically stressed, Hewitt & Flett, 2002, for a detailed discussion).
community sample of couples. Consistent with As one component of this model, they have pro-
calls for research that examines the influence of posed a mechanism of stress perpetuation, in
146 Journal of Marriage and Family

which perfectionism is associated with the per- isfaction (Guinta & Compas; Kenny, 1996; Whif-
petuation or maintenance of distress, in part be- fen & Gotlib).
cause perfectionistic individuals engage in mal- Although these studies provide information
adaptive coping efforts that prolong stressful about the relationship between coping and marital
episodes or that do not adequately address the satisfaction, they do not explore how factors such
problem or the associated distress (see Hewitt, as perfectionism influence the choice of coping
Flett, & Endler, 1995). That is, Hewitt & Flett strategies. The present study explored the relations
(2002) proposed a model in which coping efforts between perfectionism and coping efforts made in
mediate the relationship between perfectionism response to the most serious recurring problem re-
and maladjustment. This study was designed to ported in the marital relationship.
test this model as it relates to marital adjustment. Given their well-established relevance to styles
Research has shown that coping is a mediator of of interacting with others, it was predicted that the
perfectionism and distress (Chang, 2000), but no interpersonal dimensions of perfectionism, namely
work has tested whether coping strategies mediate socially prescribed and other-oriented perfection-
the link between perfectionism and marital mal- ism, would be most closely tied to the types of
adjustment. coping strategies used to deal with marital prob-
lems. It was predicted that both socially prescribed
and other-oriented perfectionism would be asso-
COPING EFFORTS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
ciated with more maladaptive forms of coping in
The existence of a relationship between the coping both the self and the partner.
efforts used to manage marital difficulties and Further, in line with calls for research on the
marital adjustment has been established (Bou- influence of one partner’s coping on the partner’s
chard, Sabourin, Lussier, Wright, & Richer, 1998). marital adjustment, as part of the proposed me-
Studies have revealed reasonably consistent as- diational analyses, the present study examined not
sociations between marital adjustment and coping only the relationship between each individual’s
such as positive approach, avoidance, self-interest, coping and own marital functioning, but also the
and conflict (e.g., Cohan & Bradbury, 1994; Pta- relationship between that individual’s coping and
cek & Dodge, 1995). Positive approach has been the spouse’s marital functioning. Consistent with
associated with higher levels of marital satisfac- Hewitt and Flett’s (2002) model, it was expected
tion, whereas the other strategies have been as- that an individual’s level of socially prescribed or
sociated with poorer marital satisfaction. other-oriented perfectionism would be related to
In addition, there is increasing recognition of increased use of negative coping strategies by that
the importance of assessing how the coping strat- individual, which in turn would be associated with
egies used by one partner relate to the marital ad- lower levels of marital adjustment both for the self
justment of the other partner (e.g., Bouchard et and for the partner. Because self-oriented perfec-
al., 1998; Cohan & Bradbury, 1994). At present, tionism has not been shown to be associated with
only a few studies have examined the influence of marital difficulties, no specific predictions were
one spouse’s coping efforts on the other’s satis- made about the relationships.
faction (e.g., Levin, Sher, & Theodos, 1997; Pta- In summary, the present study was designed to
cek & Dodge, 1995). There is some evidence to clarify the relationships among perfectionism,
suggest that wives’ use of conflict, self-interest, marital coping, and marital functioning. In partic-
accepting responsibility, escape/avoidance, or ular, we sought to evaluate a model in which mal-
self-control is linked with poorer marital satisfac- adaptive coping efforts mediate the relationship
tion and greater distress among husbands (Cohan between an individual’s trait perfectionism and the
& Bradbury; Guinta & Compas, 1993; Stanton, marital functioning of both partners. To accom-
Tennen, Affleck, & Mendola, 1992; Whiffen & plish this, initial analyses explored whether the di-
Gotlib, 1989). The influence of husbands’ coping mensions of trait perfectionism were related to in-
strategies on wives’ marital satisfaction is less dices of marital functioning for both the self and
clear. Although some studies have found that hus- the partner, even after the variance associated with
bands’ use of self-interest was associated with depression and neuroticism had been removed.
lower levels of marital satisfaction among their Second, the relationship between trait perfection-
wives (Bouchard et al., 1998; Cohan & Bradbury; ism and coping attempts of both partners made in
Ptacek & Dodge), other studies have not found an relation to the most serious recurring problem in
effect of husbands’ coping on wives’ marital sat- the relationship was assessed. Finally, the media-
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 147

tional model of the role of coping in the relation- working on something, I cannot relax until it is
ship between perfectionism and marital function- perfect.’’ For the purposes of this study, items
ing was tested. from the socially prescribed and other-oriented
subscales were reworded to focus specifically
upon the spouse rather than generalized others,
METHOD
because expectations directed toward the spouse
(spouse-oriented perfectionism) and expectations
Participants
perceived as coming from the spouse (spouse-pre-
Seventy-six couples who had been married or co- scribed perfectionism), rather than expectations
habiting for 4 years or less (M 5 26.6 months, pertaining to generalized others, were of primary
SD 5 11.4 months) were recruited from a large interest in the present study. For example, the
eastern Canadian city and the surrounding com- MPS items ‘‘I feel that others are too demanding
munities. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 54 of me’’ (socially prescribed perfectionism) and ‘‘I
years (men M 5 30.6, SD 5 10.8, women M 5 have high expectations for the people who are im-
27.4, SD 5 6.6). The sample was composed of portant to me’’ (other-oriented perfectionism) be-
129 Whites (84.9%), 4 Asians (2.6%), 1 Native came ‘‘I feel that my spouse is too demanding of
American (0.6%), and 18 people (11.8%) who did me’’ and ‘‘I have high expectations for my
not specify their ethnicity. Median family income spouse.’’ Hewitt and Flett (1991a) presented ex-
was $40,000, and participants averaged 13.62 tensive data supporting the reliability, dimension-
years of education (i.e., 1 to 2 years of postsec- ality, and validity of the MPS in both clinical and
ondary education). Thirty-nine (51%) of the cou- community samples. Reliability coefficients for
ples were married, and 37 (49%) were common- the perfectionism subscales and for all of the other
law spouses. There were no significant differences measures used in this study are presented in Table
between married or cohabiting couples in rela- 1.
tionship length, age, perfectionism, or marital
functioning. Thirty-eight (50%) of the couples had Marital Functioning. Marital adjustment was
one or more children. There were no significant measured with the 32-item Dyadic Adjustment
differences between couples with children and Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). In addition to an
couples without children on indices of marital ad- overall score of adjustment, there are subscales
justment (p . .05). measuring dyadic consensus, satisfaction, cohe-
sion, and affectional expression. The overall scale
shows good reliability and validity (Corcoran &
Procedure
Fischer, 1987; Spanier) and is frequently used in
Couples were recruited from a large urban com- studies of marital relationships. This scale is
munity via newspaper advertisements and were scored with higher scores reflecting better dyadic
asked to complete a battery of questionnaires adjustment.
dealing with relationships. Participants completed Marital happiness was measured using the
measures of trait perfectionism, marital function- Marital Happiness Scale (MHS; Azrin, Naster, &
ing, marital coping, neuroticism, and depression Jones, 1973), a 10-item measure that asks respon-
independently of their partner. Couples were paid dents to rate their degree of satisfaction with their
$15.00 each for their participation. spouse’s performance in 10 different areas: (a)
household responsibilities, (b) rearing of children,
(c) social activities, (d) money, (e) communica-
Measures
tion, (f) sex, (g) academic or occupational pro-
Perfectionism. Perfectionism was measured using gress, (h) personal independence, (i) spouse in-
the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; dependence, and (j) general happiness. The scale
Hewitt & Flett, 1991a), a 45-item instrument de- is scored with higher scores reflecting greater mar-
signed to measure the trait dimensions of self-ori- ital happiness. The Marital Happiness Scale has
ented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, satisfactory reliability and validity and has been
and socially prescribed perfectionism. Participants used in several studies as an index of marital dis-
rate on a seven-point scale their degree of agree- tress.
ment with a series of statements describing each Marital functioning was also measured using
dimension. For example, self-oriented perfection- the 24-item Autonomy and Relatedness Inventory
ism is measured using items such as ‘‘When I am (ARI; Schaefer & Burnett, 1987). The ARI is a
148 Journal of Marriage and Family

TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MEASURES OF PERFECTIONISM, MARITAL ADJUSTMENT, DEPRESSION,
NEUROTICISM, AND COPING (N 5 76 COUPLES)

Husbands Wives
Measure M SD M SD Cronbach’s a

Perfectionism
Self-oriented 62.73 15.23 62.72 15.19 .90
Socially prescribed 56.49 9.61 57.87 12.92 .88
Other-oriented 47.36 13.04 40.38 13.43 .78
Marital adjustment
Dyadic Adjustment Scale 109.48 13.50 110.21 15.70 .92
Autonomy and Relatedness Inventory 90.30 15.06 96.77 13.98 .92
Marital Happiness Scale 7.06 1.49 7.02 1.74 .90
Depression 9.57 9.25 12.55 10.49 .92
Neuroticism 20.81 7.88 25.09 8.42 .86
Coping strategy
Conflict 33.26 9.01 37.42 10.45 .93
Introspective self-blame 35.64 8.50 40.76 10.93 .92
Avoidance 29.38 6.59 26.37 6.53 .80
Self-interest 20.32 4.67 20.82 5.75 .87
Positive approach 42.25 8.53 40.60 9.63 .88

sound measure of the quality of intimate relation- Positive Approach (e.g., ‘‘I do more things with
ships that elicits reports of both positive and neg- my partner that both of us find enjoyable’’), Self-
ative individual interpersonal behavior. Respon- Interest (e.g., ‘‘I spend more time with friends’’),
dents are asked to rate their partner’s behavior on and Avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I wait for time to remedy
a five-point scale in terms of perceived degree of the problem’’). There is satisfactory internal con-
Acceptance (e.g., ‘‘Respects my opinion’’), Au- sistency for all subscales except for Avoidance
tonomy (e.g., ‘‘Gives me as much freedom as I (Bowman; Cohan & Bradbury, 1994); however, in
want’’), Control (e.g., ‘‘Expects me to do every- the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the
thing his/her way’’), Hostile Control (e.g., ‘‘Is al- Avoidance subscale was adequate (.80). Bowman
ways trying to change me’’), Hostile Detachment and Cohan and Bradbury have provided data sup-
(e.g., ‘‘Acts as though I am in the way’’), and porting the test-retest reliability and validity of the
Relatedness (e.g., ‘‘Talks over his/her problems MCI.
with me’’). Scores from the subscales are aggre-
gated to form a global index of marital function- Depression. Depression was measured using the
ing with higher scores indicating better function- Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression
ing. The ARI correlates significantly with low Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). This 20-item mea-
marital adjustment as assessed by the DAS (Ran- sure of depressive symptoms was developed for
kin-Esquer, Burnett, Baucom, & Epstein, 1997; use in the general population. Respondents are
Schaefer & Burnett). However, these correlations asked to indicate on a four-point scale how fre-
are modest enough to suggest that this scale pro- quently they experienced each symptom during
vides additional information about the quality of the previous week. The CES-D has sound psy-
marital relationships. chometric properties (see Corcoran & Fischer,
1987) and has been used extensively in previous
Marital Coping. Marital coping was measured us- research.
ing the Marital Coping Inventory (MCI; Bowman,
1990), a 64-item instrument that asks respondents Neuroticism. Neuroticism was measured using the
to indicate on a five-point scale the frequency of 12-item Neuroticism subscale of the Five Factor
use of 64 strategies when dealing with the most Inventory (FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The FFI
serious recurring problem in their marriage. Five is a widely used personality inventory designed to
subscales reflect the respondent’s use of Conflict measure the five factors of personality described
(e.g., ‘‘I am sarcastic to my partner’’), Introspec- by Costa and McCrae, namely neuroticism, extra-
tive Self-Blame (e.g., ‘‘I feel that I am a failure’’), version, openness, agreeableness, and conscien-
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 149

tiousness. Respondents indicate on a five-point husbands across all measures of marital function-
scale their extent of agreement with each state- ing.
ment. This scale has demonstrated reliability and
validity (Costa & McCrae). Coping Efforts. For husbands, the perception that
their wives have unrealistic expectations for them
RESULTS (socially prescribed perfectionism) was associated
with their own increased use of conflictual coping
To avoid problems resulting from the dependence strategies (see Table 3). Among wives, socially
between husbands and wives, within each couple, prescribed perfectionism predicted their own in-
data were analyzed separately for men and for creased use of conflict, avoidance, self-interest,
women. The means, standard deviations, and re- and introspective self-blame strategies and de-
liability coefficients for the measures are present- creased use of positive-approach strategies. Sim-
ed in Table 1 and suggest that the present sample ilarly, wives who had unrealistic expectations for
is comparable with other community samples their partners (other-oriented perfectionism) tend-
(Corcoran & Fischer, 1987; Costa & McCrae, ed to use more conflictual coping and fewer pos-
1992; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b; Spanier & Filsinger, itive-approach strategies.
1983). Moreover, all scales are internally consis- For both men and women, socially prescribed
tent in this sample. perfectionism was associated with increased use
of conflictual coping strategies by partners (Table
3). In addition, husbands’ socially prescribed per-
Zero-Order Correlations
fectionism was related to more introspective self-
Zero-order correlations were calculated to deter- blame by their wives.
mine the extent to which perfectionism was relat-
ed to each of the indices of marital functioning
Partial Correlations Controlling for Depression
and each of the marital coping subscales. All cor-
and Neuroticism
relations were tested against a one-tailed level of
significance, except for those involving variables Partial correlations were calculated to examine the
for which no directional predictions were made relationships between (a) perfectionism and mar-
(i.e., self-oriented perfectionism and positive-ap- ital adjustment (Table 2) and (b) perfectionism
proach coping). A multistage Bonferroni proce- and coping efforts (Table 3), controlling for levels
dure (Larzelere & Mulaik, 1977) was used to con- of depression and neuroticism. The partial corre-
trol the family-wise Type I error rate in all lations controlled for the depression and neuroti-
analyses. cism levels of the person whose perfectionism
scores were used in the analysis. Again, these
Marital Adjustment. Bivariate correlations be- analyses were conducted both within individuals
tween each partner’s perfectionism and own levels and across partners.
of marital functioning are presented in Table 2. Overall, the pattern of relationships observed
For men, socially prescribed perfectionism was for the partial correlations was very similar to the
strongly associated with lower ratings of marital pattern observed for the zero-order correlations,
adjustment on both the DAS and the ARI. For although in some cases the magnitude of the re-
women, socially prescribed perfectionism was lationships was somewhat attenuated. After re-
strongly associated with their own ratings of poor- moving the effects of depression and neuroticism,
er marital adjustment across all three measures of wives’ socially prescribed perfectionism was no
marital functioning. In addition, wives who ex- longer a significant predictor of wives’ Marital
pected perfection from their husbands (other-ori- Happiness Scale scores, husbands’ Marital Hap-
ented perfectionism) tended to report poorer mar- piness Scale scores, or husband’s ARI scores, al-
ital functioning, as assessed by the DAS. though it remained a strong predictor of wives’
Bivariate correlations between participants’ DAS and husbands’ DAS scores. Similarly, after
perfectionism and their partners’ levels of marital controlling for depression and neuroticism, the re-
functioning are also presented in Table 2. No sig- lationships between wives’ socially prescribed
nificant relations were found between husbands’ perfectionism and wives’ use of self-blame coping
perfectionism and wives’ marital adjustment. strategies and between wives’ socially prescribed
However, wives’ socially prescribed perfectionism perfectionism and wives’ use of self-interest cop-
was related to decreased marital adjustment for ing strategies were no longer significant. In sum,
150 Journal of Marriage and Family

TABLE 2. ZERO-ORDER AND PARTIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERFECTIONISM AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
(N 5 76 COUPLES)a,b

Husbands’ Marital Adjustment

DAS ARI MHS

Husbands perfectionism
Self-oriented 2.07 .02 2.17 2.09 .00 .04
Socially prescribed 2.39***c 2.39***c 2.57***c 2.60***c 2.11 2.11
Other-oriented 2.13 2.12 2.11 2.12 .04 .02
Wives’ perfectionism
Self-oriented .01 .02 2.11 2.10 .01 .02
Socially prescribed 2.41***c 2.32**c 2.42***c 2.30** 2.30**c 2.25
Other-oriented 2.08 2.10 2.15 2.15 2.07 2.06
Note: ARI 5 Autonomy and Relatedness Inventory; DAS 5 Dyadic Adjustment Scale; MHS 5 Marital Happiness Scale.
a
All significance levels based on one-tailed tests except for correlations with self-oriented perfectionism, which are based
on two-tailed tests. bPartial correlations controlling for depression and neuroticism are italicized. cThese correlations are
significant after multistage Bonferroni correction.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

although partialing out depression and neuroticism analyses. This was done to better tap these con-
reduced the magnitude and significance of several structs, to create more stable indices, and to re-
of the correlations, it did not change the overall duce the number of analyses, thereby reducing the
pattern of results. Thus, perfectionism appears to likelihood of Type I errors. Factor analytic pro-
account for variability in coping and marital ad- cedures were used to form composite measures of
justment beyond the effects of depression and these constructs. Using a principal components
neuroticism. extraction, a one-factor solution seemed to best fit
the data in both cases. The composites were de-
rived from the resulting factor scores. Harman’s
Additional Analyses
coefficient of congruence (Harman, 1976) sug-
Some additional analyses were conducted to as- gested that husbands’ and wives’ composites did
sess the unique contribution of the perfectionism not differ. Partial correlations between perfection-
dimensions in predicting marital outcomes. Al- ism, the negative coping composite, and the mar-
though we did not have specific hypotheses for ital functioning composite, controlling for depres-
these analyses, we found that controlling for the sion and neuroticism, are presented in Table 4.
other two dimensions of perfectionism had little Because self-oriented perfectionism was not a sig-
effect on the pattern of results, save to attenuate nificant predictor of either self or partner’s levels
the magnitude of several of the zero-order and of marital adjustment or choice of coping strate-
partial correlations. In particular, the correlations gies, this dimension was not included.
between wives’ other-oriented perfectionism and
wives’ positive-approach coping, between wives’
Mediational Analyses Using Marital
other-oriented perfectionism and wives’ scores on
Coping Strategies
the DAS, and between wives’ socially prescribed
perfectionism and wives’ conflict and avoidance The mediational model just described was tested
coping become nonsignificant when the other two using the procedure outlined by Baron and Kenny
dimensions are controlled. This does not mean (1986). Of the eight possible mediational relation-
that the other dimensions of perfectionism are not ships, three were not tested because the pattern of
important; they are simply not uniquely important partial correlations (see Tables 2 and 3) was not
in these instances. consistent with the possibility of mediation. The
results are presented in Table 5, and of the five
Construction of Composite Measures of Coping models tested, two were significant. The use of
and Marital Functioning negative coping styles by women mediated the re-
lationship between their own socially prescribed
Composite measures of marital adjustment and perfectionism and their own marital functioning.
negative coping were created for the mediational Thus, for women, believing that their husbands
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 151

TABLE 2. EXTENDED

Wives’ Marital Adjustment

DAS ARI MHS

.04 .10 2.04 2.07 .08 .17

2.22* 2.21* 2.25* 2.25* 2.20* 2.19
2.01 .01 2.01 2.02 .09 .12

2.07 2.06 2.17 2.17 2.08 2.06

2.57***c 2.48***c 2.63***c 2.50***c 2.44***c 2.25*
2.31**c 2.34**c 2.15 2.15 2.25* 2.27*

require perfection of them was associated with in- turn was related to decreased marital functioning
creased use of negative coping styles, which in as reported by both husbands and wives.
turn was associated with poorer marital adjust-
ment. In addition, wives’ negative coping styles
mediated the relationship between their own so- DISCUSSION
cially prescribed perfectionism and their partners’ The purpose of the present study was to examine
levels of marital functioning. Wives who per- and clarify the associations among perfectionism,
ceived their husbands as expecting perfection marital coping, and marital adjustment in a com-
tended to use more negative coping styles, which munity sample. The results of this study suggest
in turn was related to lower ratings of marital that socially prescribed perfectionism is an im-
functioning by their husbands. portant predictor of marital adjustment for both
These findings suggest that negative coping husbands and wives. As expected, levels of this
mediates the association between socially pre- dimension were strongly negatively associated
scribed perfectionism and marital adjustment, but with multiple indices of marital adjustment for the
only for women. It is not clear why this relation- self. In addition, socially prescribed perfectionism
ship was not significant for men. One possible ex- predicted lower marital adjustment in the partner,
planation was suggested by the pattern of corre- although after the Bonferroni correction, the re-
lations among the perfectionism dimensions and lationship between husbands’ levels of socially
the negative coping subscales. This pattern indi- prescribed perfectionism and wives’ marital func-
cated that although the negative coping subscales tioning was attenuated. Overall, the findings are
were significantly correlated, only the conflict consistent with perfectionism theory, which sug-
subscale was significantly related to other-oriented gests that the belief that others require perfection
perfectionism for women and to socially pre- of the self is associated with relationship problems
scribed perfectionism for men. Therefore, conflict (Hewitt et al., 1995; Hewitt & Flett, 2002). Our
was tested as a possible mediator in the three non- results are also in keeping with research linking
significant models (see Table 6). In each model, socially prescribed perfectionism to negative so-
conflict was a significant mediator of the relation- cial behaviors that may be detrimental to the mar-
ship between perfectionism and marital function- ital relationship.
ing. For women, use of conflictual coping strate- The partial correlation analyses suggest that so-
gies mediated the relationship between their own cially prescribed perfectionism is a significant pre-
levels of other-oriented perfectionism and their dictor of marital adjustment for both the self and
own marital functioning. For men, conflictual cop- the partner, even after controlling for neuroticism
ing strategies mediated the relationships between and depression. This is particularly important giv-
their own socially prescribed perfectionism and en recent calls in the marital adjustment literature
both their own and their partners’ marital func- for studies that examine the unique predictive
tioning. That is, husbands who believed that their power of other personality traits above and be-
wives required perfection tended to use conflict as yond the effects of neuroticism. Thus, it appears
a way of managing marital difficulties, which in that the association between perfectionism and
152 Journal of Marriage and Family

TABLE 3. ZERO-ORDER AND PARTIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERFECTIONISM AND CHOICE OF COPING STRATEGIES
(N 5 76 COUPLES)a,b

Husbands’ Coping Strategy

Introspective Positive
Perfectionism Conflict Self-Blame Self-Interest Avoidance Approach

Husbands
Self-oriented .10 2.02 .09 .05 2.20
.03 2.15 .08 2.02 2.12
Socially prescribed .50***c .18 .18 2.03 2.14
.51***c .22* .19 2.03 2.14
Other-oriented .21* 2.12 .07 2.17 2.11
.23* .06 .12 2.15 2.13
Wives
Self-oriented .02 .02 2.08 .15 2.21
.01 2.01 2.08 .15 .20
Socially prescribed .43***c .21* .15 2.01 2.16
.36*c .09 .16 2.05 2.08
Other-oriented .20* .15 2.20* 2.05 2.12
.20* .11 2.20* 2.06 2.11
a
All significance levels based on one-tailed tests except for correlations with self-oriented perfectionism and positive-
approach coping; which are based on two-tailed tests. bPartial correlations controlling for depression and neuroticism are
italicized. cThese correlations are significant after multistage Bonferroni correction.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

marital adjustment is not merely an artifact of the partner expects perfection, both of which may be
associations between depression or neuroticism associated with marital dissatisfaction.
and marital adjustment, nor is it an artifact of the Contrary to predictions, other-oriented perfec-
association between socially prescribed perfec- tionism did not predict partners’ levels of marital
tionism and trait neuroticism that has been de- functioning. This finding is not consistent with
tected in this study and in previous studies (e.g., previous theory, which suggested that the spouses
Enns, Cox, & Larsen, 2000; Hill, McIntire, & of other-oriented perfectionists (i.e., the targets of
Bacharach, 1997). the unrealistic expectations) should report more
More broadly, the findings with socially pre- severe problems with the relationship than the per-
scribed perfectionism discussed earlier are in line fectionists themselves because of the latters’ ten-
with the literature suggesting that individuals’ per- dencies to be disagreeable and critical (Hewitt et
sonality traits may affect not only their own ex- al., 1995). It is also not consistent with previous
perience of the marriage, but the experience of research linking other-oriented perfectionism to
their partner as well, and these findings highlight impatience, other-directed blame, and a domi-
the utility of using a dyadic or interactional ap- neering and exploitative interpersonal style (Hew-
proach to understanding marital dynamics. In par- itt & Flett, 1991b; Hill et al., 1997), all of which
ticular, these findings are in accord with research should contribute to relationship difficulties.
suggesting that personality factors may influence One possible explanation for the absence of the
how partners perceive each other and interpret predicted relationship was suggested by the results
marital events (Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Kur- of Hewitt et al. (1995). In this study, it was found
dek, 1993). It has been argued that personality that partners’ levels of other-oriented perfection-
traits may lead partners to negatively distort ism predicted poorer marital adjustment for chron-
events in the relationship and to be less satisfied ic pain patients; however, patients’ other-oriented
with the relationship as a result. The present study perfectionism was not a significant predictor of
suggests that perfectionism may be one such trait. partners’ marital functioning. It may be that other-
For example, socially prescribed perfectionists oriented perfectionism predicts lower marital ad-
may interpret ambiguous comments (e.g., ‘‘Could justment only when the target of the unrealistic
you make time to clean up the living room?’’) as expectations is already distressed and in need of
criticisms (e.g., ‘‘You’re not doing enough to help support. Thus, being married to an other-oriented
out around the house’’) and as evidence that the perfectionist may be a stressful experience but
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 153

TABLE 3. EXTENDED

Wives’ Coping Strategy

Introspective Positive
Conflict Self-Blame Self-Interest Avoidance Approach

.00 2.10 .09 .10 .10

2.05 2.12 .07 .08 .11
.44***c .32**c .11 .18 2.27*
.44***c .33**c .09 .16 2.26*
.12 2.02 .12 .21* 2.14
.09 .00 .08 .17 2.09

.21 .03 .08 .12 2.25*

.20 2.03 .07 .12 2.24*
.50***c .50***c .32**c .42***c 2.50***c
.38**c .24* .24* .30**c .51***c
.47***c .06 .17 .06 2.37**c
.46***c .00 .17 .06 2.37**c

may not be associated with decreased marital ad- sistent with research showing that it is the rela-
justment in the absence of concurrent problems tionship expectations of wives rather than hus-
(e.g., depression, chronic stress). Further studies bands that are linked with indices of marital
are needed to identify those circumstances under adjustment and related cognitions and behaviors
which other-oriented perfectionism is associated (see Gordon, Baucom, Epstein, Burnett, & Ran-
with adjustment difficulties. kin, 1999; Rankin-Esquer et al., 1997). Recently,
Although other-oriented perfectionism was not Gordon and colleagues have suggested that wom-
associated with spousal reports of low marital ad- en are more likely to closely monitor their rela-
justment, one finding that did emerge from this tionships and to be aware of inconsistencies be-
study was that other-oriented perfectionism in tween their standards and outcomes. If so, then
wives was associated with their own reports of the link between other-oriented perfectionism and
marital problems. However, other-oriented perfec- reported marital problems among wives could re-
tionism in men was not associated with marital flect their heightened awareness of their husbands’
adjustment. This finding may suggest that women imperfections.
who expect perfection from their spouses may be
especially likely to be dissatisfied, because their Perfectionism and Coping With
spouses will inevitably fail to meet these expec- Marital Problems
tations. Although we did not explicitly predict this A central goal of this study was to examine the
difference between husbands and wives, it is con- link between perfectionism and the types of cop-

TABLE 4. PARTIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE INTERPERSONAL DIMENSIONS OF PERFECTIONISM, NEGATIVE COPING
COMPOSITES, AND MARITAL FUNCTIONING COMPOSITES CONTROLLING FOR DEPRESSION AND NEUROTICISM
(N 5 76 COUPLES)

Husbands’
Wives’ Negative Wives’ Husbands’
Negative Coping Coping Marital Functioning Marital Functioning

Wives’ socially prescribed perfectionism .42***a .21* 2.52***a 2.35**a

Wives’ other-oriented perfectionism .27*a .04 2.35**a 2.17
Husbands’ socially prescribed perfectionism .35**a .36*a 2.27*a 2.46***a
Husbands’ other-oriented perfectionism .11 .07 .04 2.13
Wives’ negative coping 2.43***a 2.38***a
Husbands’ negative coping 2.32**a 2.59***a
a
These correlations are significant after multistage Bonferroni correction.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.
154 Journal of Marriage and Family

TABLE 5. TESTS OF NEGATIVE COPING STRATEGIES AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERFECTIONISM
AND MARITAL FUNCTIONING: STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS (N 5 76 COUPLES)

Independent Variable
Wives’ Socially Husbands’ Socially Wives’ Other-
Step Prescribed Perfectionism Prescribed Perfectionism Oriented Perfectionism

1. Regress mediator on .58***a .32** .26*

independent vari-
able—bIV
2. Regress dependent Husbands’ 2.47**a 2.44***a
variable on indepen- Wives’ 2.64***a 2.27* 2.30*
dent variable—bIV
3. Regress dependent Husbands’ 2.50***a 2.62***a
variable on media- Wives’ 2.60***a 2.37**a 2.60***a
tor—bMED
4. Regress dependent Husbands’ 2.26 (2.38) 2.62***a (.54***a)
variable on mediator Wives’ 2.45***a (2.33**a) 2.17 (2.32) 2.16 (2.55***a)
and independent
variable—bIV (bMED)
5. Change from Step 2 Husbands’ 2.58*a 2.20
to Step 4 signifi- Wives’ 2.45*a 1.78 1.99
cant? (t-statistic)
Criteria for mediation Husbands’ Yes No
met? Wives’ Yes No No
a
Significant after multistage Bonferroni correction.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.

ing strategies used in response to marital disagree- ists cope with relationship difficulties. We pre-
ments and to test the related possibility that mar- dicted that socially prescribed and other-oriented
ital coping styles mediate the association between perfectionism would be related to the use of neg-
the interpersonal dimensions of perfectionism and ative coping strategies by both partners, even
marital maladjustment. Previous research has in- when levels of depression and neuroticism were
vestigated the association between perfectionism held constant. Our results provided partial support
and general coping styles (Hewitt et al., 1995) for our hypotheses. As predicted, wives who be-
without focusing specifically on how perfection- lieved that their husbands expected perfection

TABLE 6. POST HOC TEST OF CONFLICTUAL COPING STRATEGIES AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
PERFECTIONISM AND MARITAL FUNCTIONING: STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS (N 5 76 COUPLES)

Model
Wives’ OOP Husbands’ SPP Husbands’ SPP
Predicting Own Predicting Own Predicting Wives’
Step Marital Functioning Marital Functioning Marital Functioning

1. Regress mediator on independent

variable—bIV .47***a .50***a .50***a
2. Regress dependent variable on in-
dependent variable—bIV 2.30* 2.44***a 2.27*
3. Regress dependent variable on me-
diator—bMED 2.55***a 2.67***a 2.43***a
4. Regress dependent variable on me-
diator and independent variable—
bIV (bMED) 2.06 (2.52***a) 2.15 (2.60***a) 2.07 (2.39**a)
5. Change from Step 2 to Step 4 sig-
nificant? (t-statistic) 3.22**a 3.58***a 2.78**a
Criteria for mediation met? Yes Yes Yes
Note: OPP 5 other-oriented perfectionism; SPP 5 socially prescribed perfectionism.
a
Significant after multistage Bonferroni correction.
*p , .05. **p , .01. ***p , .001.
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 155

from them tended to more frequently use all four that may contribute to the links established among
negative coping strategies assessed by the MCI. hostility, relationship conflict, and forms of psy-
For husbands, socially prescribed perfectionism chological distress such as depression (see Brum-
was associated only with the use of conflictual mett et al., 2000).
coping strategies. However, for both husbands and The use of conflictual coping strategies was
wives, socially prescribed perfectionism account- also related to other-oriented perfectionism. Indi-
ed for approximately 25% of the variance in the viduals who expected perfection from their spous-
use of conflictual strategies (e.g., sarcasm, nag- es were more likely to use conflict when dealing
ging, demanding change, blaming the partner), with marital problems. For wives, this dimension
suggesting that this dimension of perfectionism also predicted decreased use of positive-approach
may be an especially strong predictor of this type strategies. These findings are consistent with work
of coping. Moreover, almost the same pattern of linking other-oriented perfectionism to such be-
results was obtained when their levels of depres- haviors as other-blame and criticism (Hewitt &
sion and neuroticism were removed; this was im- Flett, 1991b) and to less supportive behavior in
portant to establish in light of previous research marriages (Hewitt et al., 1995). These findings are
with the MCI showing that neuroticism is asso- in line with work suggesting that spouses who
ciated with maladaptive forms of marital coping blame their partners for problems in the relation-
(Cohan & Bradbury, 1994). Taken together, these ship are less likely to engage in behaviors that
findings suggest that when individuals perceive facilitate resolution of these difficulties (Bradbury,
that their spouse expects perfection, they may be Beach, Fincham, & Nelson, 1996; Bradbury &
more likely to engage in conflictual coping strat- Fincham, 1992).
egies. This is particularly noteworthy in light of
previous studies that have found these coping
Marital Coping as a Mediator
strategies to be strongly linked to poorer marital
adjustment for both the self and the partner (e.g., The current study also yielded evidence of the me-
Cohan & Bradbury; Houser, Konstan, & Ham, diating role of coping in the relationship between
1990). socially prescribed perfectionism and marital
As predicted, individuals’ levels of socially functioning. More specifically, the findings of this
prescribed perfectionism were also related to the study are consistent with the predicted model in
types of coping strategies used by their partners. which coping efforts mediate the relationship be-
Men and women married to partners who were tween an individual’s socially prescribed perfec-
high on socially prescribed perfectionism were tionism and marital adjustment. For women, this
more likely to use conflictual coping strategies in relationship was mediated by the use of negative
dealing with marital difficulties. It may be that this coping strategies in general, whereas for men, this
use of these strategies reflects a reciprocation of relationship was mediated only by conflictual cop-
the conflictual strategies directed at them by their ing efforts. This is not surprising given that for
socially prescribed perfectionist partners (see Co- husbands, socially prescribed perfectionism pre-
han & Bradbury, 1994; Fincham & Beach, 1999). dicted only the use of conflictual efforts. Thus, for
The obtained associations between socially both husbands and wives, the belief that one’s
prescribed perfectionism and the tendency to re- partner expects perfection was related to the use
spond to marital problems with conflict may re- of negative coping efforts, which in turn predicted
flect a general tendency for individuals to respond marital maladjustment for the self. Also, the re-
in a hostile manner when disagreements arise and sults suggested that wives who had unrealistic ex-
one or both members of the dyad perceive that pectations for their partners tended to use more
perfectionistic expectations are being imposed on conflictual coping strategies, which predicted their
the self. The link between perfectionism and hos- own marital maladjustment.
tility has received little empirical attention, but The mediational analyses were also consistent
there are indications that socially prescribed per- with the hypothesized model wherein individuals’
fectionism is associated with trait anger (Hewitt socially prescribed perfectionism was related to
& Flett, 1991a) and high levels of frustration re- their partners’ marital adjustment through the use
activity (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Koledin, of negative coping strategies. Once again, this re-
1991). Our findings point to the possibility that lationship was mediated by the composite of neg-
socially prescribed perfectionism is a dimension ative coping strategies for wives and by conflic-
that should be considered when evaluating factors tual coping strategies for men. Thus, it may be
156 Journal of Marriage and Family

that when an individual believes that the partner choice of coping strategies and the perception that
expects perfection, that individual uses negative the partner expects perfection from the self. Lon-
forms of coping in response to marital difficulties, gitudinal studies are required to clarify this rela-
which are in turn associated with poorer marital tionship. Second, this study used a community
adjustment for the perceived source of the expec- sample of couples who had been together for 4
tations. years or less. The extent to which these findings
This study is the first to provide empirical sup- generalize to other populations, such as distressed
port for Hewitt and Flett’s (2002) theoretical mod- or longer-term couples, is unknown. A third lim-
el in which perfectionism influences maladjust- itation stems from the use of self-report data. Fu-
ment through its association with maladaptive ture research examining the relationship between
coping efforts. In particular, the findings of the perfectionism and marital adjustment should use
present study emphasize the mediating role of additional methods. For example, in addition to
negative coping strategies in the relationship be- self- and other-report, couples could be observed
tween socially prescribed perfectionism and poor- engaging in a conflict resolution task to assess the
er marital functioning for both members of the relationships between perfectionism, marital ad-
dyad. justment, and the behaviors exchanged between
The results of this study suggest that the ways partners.
in which perfectionism is expressed in an inter- Although Hewitt and Flett’s (2002) model does
personal context are detrimental to the quality of not identify other mediators of this relationship,
intimate relationships. As such, it seems likely this does not imply that coping is the sole medi-
that some perfectionists and their partners would ating variable. Future studies could explore other
be at increased risk for marital difficulties. In ad- potential mediators. In particular, examining the
dition, they may be more likely to use maladaptive relationship between perfectionism, attributions
coping strategies, which might serve to prolong or made for spousal behaviors, and marital adjust-
exacerbate these difficulties. Thus, perfectionism ment may prove fruitful. For example, how do
may be worth considering in the context of marital individuals high on other-oriented perfectionism
and family therapy. Moreover, therapists treating explain their partners’ repeated failures to meet
perfectionists in an individual setting should con- their perfectionistic standards, and how does this
sider the influence of perfectionism on their pa- relate to their choice of marital coping strategies
tients’ intimate relationships. and to their marital adjustment? Finally, future re-
At a broader level, the issues explored in the search could examine whether perfectionism pre-
present study are in keeping with the burgeoning dicts changes in coping and in marital satisfaction
interest in models of marital quality that incor- over time.
porate both higher-order or distal variables (e.g., In sum, the findings of this study provide ev-
personality) and lower-order or proximal variables idence that at least one of the interpersonal di-
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1988; Karney & Bradbury, mensions of perfectionism, socially prescribed
1995). This study examined a model wherein a perfectionism, is relevant to the quality of intimate
particular higher-order variable, perfectionism, in- relationships. This dimension not only predicts
fluences marital adjustment through its association levels of adjustment for the self and for the partner
with a lower-order variable, in this case, coping but also provides information about the types of
efforts. The results are consistent with a contex- coping strategies used in response to marital dif-
tual model of marital quality, in which both distal ficulties. These relationships remained even when
and proximal factors contribute to the prediction the effects of depression and neuroticism were re-
of marital functioning. moved. Finally, consistent with Hewitt and Flett’s
(2002) model, the results suggest that the use of
maladaptive coping strategies is one path through
Limitations of the Current Findings
which perfectionism is linked to marital problems.
The present study has several limitations. First, Overall, this study highlights the importance of
the cross-sectional nature of the data precludes perfectionism in the interpersonal domain.
causal inferences. Although the pattern of corre-
lations observed was consistent with the notion NOTE
that perfectionism influences marital adjustment This article is based upon a master’s thesis at the Uni-
through coping, they do not rule out the possibility versity of British Columbia by the first author. This re-
that levels of marital adjustment influence both the search was supported in part by two Social Sciences and
Perfectionism, Coping, and Intimacy 157

Humanities Research Council of Canada Grants (410- problems: An interactional perspective. Psychologi-
97-1278 and 410-2000-1102) to the second author. The cal Bulletin, 112, 39–63.
authors would like to thank Michael Papsdorf for his Chang, E. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of
assistance with statistical analyses and manuscript prep- positive and negative psychological outcomes: Ex-
aration and Charlotte Johnston and Dan Perlman for amining a mediation model in younger and older
helpful comments on an earlier version of this manu- adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 18–26.
script. The authors also wish to thank Salome Mui for Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1994). Assessing re-
her assistance with manuscript preparation and Hoe Yan sponses to recurring problems in marriage: Evalua-
Ho, Jacoba Harlaar, and Hyo-jung Chwa for their assis- tion of the Marital Coping Inventory. Psychological
tance with data management. Assessment, 6, 191–200.
Corcoran, K., & Fischer, J. (1987). Measures for clinical
practice. New York: Free Press.
REFERENCES Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Azrin, N., Naster, B., & Jones, R. (1973). Reciprocity Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
counseling: A rapid learning-based procedure for Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
marital counseling. Behavior Research and Therapy, Eidelson, R., & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and re-
11, 365–382. lationship maladjustment: Development of a measure
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator- of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Con-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological sulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715–720.
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consid- Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Larsen, D. K. (2000). Per-
erations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ceptions of parental bonding and symptom severity
ogy, 51, 1173–1182. in adults with depression: Mediation by personality
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Sher, T. G. dimensions. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45,
(1989). The role of cognitions in marital relation- 263–268.
ships: Definitional, methodological, and conceptual Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (1999). Conflict in
issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- marriage: Implications for working with couples. An-
ogy, 57, 31–38. nual Review of Psychology, 50, 47–77.
Beach, S. R., Sandeen, E. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1992). Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1992). Assessing
Depression in marriage: A model for etiology and attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution
treatment. New York: Guilford. measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. ogy, 62, 457–468.
(1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: The-
in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of ory, research and treatment. Washington, DC: Amer-
Personality, 65, 107–136. ican Psychological Association.
Bouchard, G. L., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Dynin,
Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the C. B. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and Type
five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage A behavior. Personality and Individual Differences,
and Family, 61, 651–660. 16, 477–485.
Bouchard, G., Sabourin, S., Lussier, Y., Wright, J., & Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Koledin,
Richer, C. (1998). Predictive validity of coping strat- S. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism and irrational
egies on marital satisfaction: Cross-sectional and lon- thinking. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-
gitudinal evidence. Journal of Family Psychology, Behavior Therapy, 9, 185–201.
12, 112–131. Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate,
Bowman, M. L. (1990). Coping efforts and marital sat- R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cogni-
isfaction: Measuring marital coping and its correlates. tive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 463–474. Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., Epstein, C. K., Burnett,
Bradbury, T. N., Beach, S. R. H., Fincham, F. D., & C. K., & Rankin, L. A. (1999). The interaction be-
Nelson, G. M. (1996). Attributions and behavior in tween marital standards and communication patterns:
functional and dysfunctional marriages. Journal of How does it contribute to marital adjustment? Jour-
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 569–576. nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 211–223.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1988). Individual Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict
difference variables in close relationships: A contex- and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual
tual model of marriage as an integrative framework. framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Guinta, C. T., & Compas, B. E. (1993). Coping in mar-
713–721. ital dyads: Patterns and associations with psycholog-
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions ical symptoms. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Per- 55, 1011–1017.
sonality and Social Psychology, 63, 613–628. Haferkamp, C. J. (1994). Dysfunctional beliefs, self-
Brummett, B. H., Barefoot, J. C., Feaganes, J. R., Yen, monitoring and marital conflict. Current Psychology,
S., Bosworth, H. B., Williams, R. B., & Siegler, I. C. 13, 248–262.
(2000). Hostility in marital dyads: Associations with Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chica-
depressive symptoms. Journal of Behavioral Medi- go: University of Chicago Press.
cine, 23, 95–105. Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Dimensions of
Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Ab-
association between marital relationships and health normal Psychology, 100, 98–101.
158 Journal of Marriage and Family

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Perfectionism in and data analytic issues in couples research. Psycho-
the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, as- logical Assessment, 7, 338–348.
sessment, and association with psychopathology. Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital sta-
456–470. bility and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2002). Perfectionism and and Social Psychology, 52, 27–40.
stress enhancement, perpetuation, anticipation, and Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in
generation in psychopathology. In G. L. Flett & P. L. dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Re-
Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and lationships, 13, 279–294.
treatment (pp. 742–775). Washington, DC: American Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Predicting marital dissolution: A
Psychological Association. five-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1991). couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Perfectionism and neuroticism in psychiatric patients ogy, 64, 221–242.
and college students. Personality and Individual Dif- Larzelere, R. E., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Single-sample
tests for many correlations. Psychological Bulletin,
ferences, 12, 273–279.
84, 557–569.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfec- Levin, J. B., Sher, T. G., & Theodos, V. (1997). The
tionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a effect of intracouple coping concordance on psycho-
specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnor- logical and marital distress in infertility patients.
mal Psychology, 105, 276–280. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings,
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Endler, N. S. (1995). Per- 4, 361–372.
fectionism, coping, and depression symptomatology Ptacek, J. T., & Dodge, K. L. (1995). Coping strategies
in a clinical sample. Clinical Psychology and Psy- and relationship satisfaction in couples. Personality
chotherapy, 2, 47–58. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 76–84.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Habke, A. M., Parkin, M., Radloff, L. S. (1977). A self-report depression scale for
Law, R. W., Ediger, E., & Stein, M. (2000). The Per- research in the general population. Applied Psycho-
fectionistic Self-Preservation Scale: Development and logical Measurement, 1, 385–401.
psychometric properties of an interpersonal perfec- Rankin-Esquer, L. A., Burnett, C. K., Baucom, D. H.,
tionism measure. Manuscript submitted for publica- & Epstein, N. (1997). Autonomy and relatedness in
tion. marital functioning. Journal of Marital and Family
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (1995). Per- Therapy, 23, 175–190.
fectionism and relationship adjustment in pain pa- Schaefer, E. S., & Burnett, C. K. (1987). Stability and
tients and their spouses. Journal of Family Psychol- predictability of quality of women’s marital relation-
ogy, 9, 335–347. ships and demoralization. Journal of Personality and
Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Social Psychology, 53, 1129–1136.
Perfectionism and the Big Five Factors. Journal of Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New
Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 257–270. scales for assessing the quality of marriage and sim-
ilar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,
Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Per-
15–28.
fectionism and interpersonal problems. Journal of Spanier, G. B., & Filsinger, E. E. (1983). Clinical use
Personality Assessment, 69, 81–103. of the dyadic adjustment scale. In E. E. Filsinger
Houser, R., Konstan, V., & Ham, M. (1990). Coping and (Ed.), A sourcebook of marriage and family assess-
marital satisfaction in dual career couples: Early stage ment (pp. 156–168). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
dual career couple—wives as college students. Jour- Stanton, A. L., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Mendola, R.
nal of College Student Development, 31, 325–329. (1992). Coping and adjustment to infertility. Journal
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitu- of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 1–13.
dinal course of marital quality and stability: A review Whiffen, V. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1989). Stress and coping
of theory, method and research. Psychological Bul- in maritally distressed and nondistressed couples.
letin, 118, 3–34. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,
Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement 327–344.