A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualistic personality dimensions: An example using the 2×2 model of perfectionism

The 2×2 model of perfectionism: A critical comment and some suggestions

“…Yet, the limited data we have indicate substantial initial support for most of the model's hypotheses. First and foremost, a number of studies (e.g., Gaudreau, 2012;Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012) have found support for Hypothesis 2 (pure ECP is more maladaptive than all other combinations of ECP and PSP) thus supporting the model's argument that it is important to differentiate between pure ECP and non-perfectionism (low ECP, low PSP) and not regard people with low PSP as a homogenous group of "non-perfectionists" as does the tripartite model.…”

“…Because the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism (Gaudreau, 2012;) is a very recent addition to the debate on the adaptiveness and maladaptiveness of perfectionism, only a few studies have investigated the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism directly or used moderated regression analyses probing the interaction of ECP and PSP that allow us to examine post hoc how the studies' findings support the model's hypotheses. 1 Consequently, the empirical support for the 2 × 2 model is still very limited.…”

“…The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism introduced by Gaudreau, 2012) The 2 × 2 model comprises four hypotheses (Gaudreau, 2012;: Hypothesis 1a states that pure PSP is more adaptive than non-perfectionism, Hypothesis 1b that pure PSP is more maladaptive than non-perfectionism, and Hypothesis 1c that pure PSP and non-perfectionism do not differ in adaptiveness/maladaptiveness; Hypothesis 2 states that pure ECP is more maladaptive than any other combination of ECP and PSP; Hypothesis 3 states that mixed perfectionism is less maladaptive than pure ECP; and Hypothesis 4 states that mixed perfectionism is more maladaptive than pure PSP.…”

“…Whereas Gaudreau (2012) regards the proposed subtypes as "fuzzy regions in a two-dimensional space" (p. 26) and suggests that they should be "interpreted as a heuristic to define and distinguish theoretically-driven within-person combinations of perfectionism" (p. 27), the terminology is problematic. The reason is that, in personality research, speaking of "types" suggests that we expect that there are distinct classes of people who differ in the kind of personality characteristics they show, instead of individual differences between people who differ in the degree to which they show differences in these personality characteristics (see Meehl, 1992 for a comprehensive review).…”

“…A recent taxometric analysis of The 2 × 2 Model of Perfectionism 10 perfectionism, however, found convincing evidence that perfectionism is best conceptualized and treated as a dimensional characteristic, not a categorical characteristic (Broman-Fulks, Hill, & Green, 2008). Gaudreau (2012) himself suggests that "scores of perfectionism should be analyzed as quantitative distributions rather than as naturally existing dichotomies" (p. 27). Moreover, Gaudreau demonstrates that all of the 2 × 2 model's hypotheses regarding differences between pure PSP, pure ECP, mixed perfectionism, and non-perfectionism can be tested using moderated regression analysis; and he provides detailed instructions on how to calculate regression slopes that represent pure PSP, pure ECP, mixed perfectionism, and non-perfectionism, how to test differences between the slopes, and what differences between slopes provide support for each of the hypotheses of the model (see also Gaudreau & Verner-Filion, 2012).…”