We created a shorter and more refined item set from the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001) to measure 2 major dimensions of perfectionism: standards (high performance expectations) and discrepancy (self-critical performance evaluations). In Study 1, after testing the internal structure of the measure (N = 749), a subset of the current APS-R items was derived (Short Almost Perfect Scale [SAPS]) that possessed good psychometric features, such as strong item-factor loadings, score reliability, measurement invariance between women and men, and criterion-related validity through associations with neuroticism, conscientiousness, academic performance, and depression. Controlling for neuroticism and conscientiousness, factor mixture modeling supported a 2-factor, 3-class model of perfectionism, and results were consistent with labeling the classes as nonperfectionists and adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists. Measurement results were cross-validated in a separate sample (N = 335). Study 2 also provided substantial evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of SAPS scores. Both studies supported the SAPS as a brief and psychometrically strong measure of major perfectionism factors and classes of perfectionists.

Using a cross-panel design and data from 2 successive cohorts of college students (N = 357), we examined the stability of maladaptive perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological distress across 3 time points within a college semester. Each construct was substantially stable over time, with procrastination being especially stable. We also tested, but failed to support, a mediational model with Time 2 (mid-semester) procrastination as a hypothesized mechanism through which Time 1 (early-semester) perfectionism would affect Time 3 (end-semester) psychological distress. An alternative model with Time 2 perfectionism as a mediator of the procrastination-distress association also was not supported. Within-time analyses revealed generally consistent strength of effects in the correlations between the 3 constructs over the course of the semester. A significant interaction effect also emerged. Time 1 procrastination had no effect on otherwise high levels of psychological distress at the end of the semester for highly perfectionistic students, but at low levels of Time 1 perfectionism, the most distressed students by the end of the term were those who were more likely to have procrastinated earlier in the semester. Implications of the stability of the constructs and their association over time, as well as the moderating effects of procrastination, are discussed in the context of maladaptive perfectionism and problematic procrastination.

To provide counseling psychologists with a greater understanding of patterns of personality, stress, and emotion regulation, the present study examined perfectionists' typical emotion regulation patterns and physiological reactivity (salivary cortisol concentration) to a social-evaluative stress experience. An initially large sample (N = 421) completed measures of perfectionism, higher order personality factors, and emotion regulation. A subset of the larger sample (N = 61) completed the Trier Social Stress Test. Latent profile analysis revealed typologies consistent with more and less adaptively perfectionistic groups, as reflected in different stress reactivity and emotion regulation patterns. The results have implications for further understanding the positive and negative effects of perfectionism and physiological reactivity to performance stress among individuals with high performance expectations. In addition, the results may inform counseling psychologists about viable targets for therapeutic interventions for stress and emotion regulation.

No abstract

Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (N = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people do not drink more often on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance were estimated to consume more alcohol, but not to consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. Based on our findings, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.