In preparation for this assignment, read the “Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Mediator and Moderator Between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood” article located in the Topic 3 readings.

Write a 750-1,000-word paper about your selected article. Be sure to include the following in your paper:

• A discussion about the key variables in the selected article
• Identify the validity and reliability reported statistics for the article
• The particular threats to internal validity that were found in the study
• The strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the selected article
• A reference and in-text citations for the selected article as well as one additional reference

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

Rubic_Print_

Format

15.0%

20.0%

20.0%

5.0%

Format

5.0%

5.0%

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
CNL-540	CNL-540-O500	Multivariate Approaches (Obj. 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6)	90.0
Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	70.0%
Key Variables			20.0%	Essay omits or incompletely describes the key variables in the article. Essay does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.	Essay inadequately describes the key variables in the article and/or the discussion is not historically accurate. Essay demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.	Essay adequately describes the key variables in the article, but description is limited and lacks some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.	Essay clearly describes the key variables in the article, and description is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.	Essay expertly describes the key variables in the article, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
Validity and Reliability		1			5.0%	Essay omits or incompletely describes the validity and reliability statistics for the article. Essay does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.	Essay inadequately describes the validity and reliability statistics for the article and/or the discussion is not historically accurate. Essay demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.	Essay adequately describes the validity and reliability statistics for the article, but description is limited and lacks some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.	Essay clearly describes the validity and reliability statistics for the article, and description is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.	Essay expertly describes the validity and reliability statistics for the article, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
Threats to Internal Validity	Essay omits or incompletely describes the threats to internal validity found in the study. Essay does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.	Essay inadequately describes the threats to internal validity found in the study and/or the discussion is not historically accurate. Essay demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.	Essay adequately describes the threats to internal validity found in the study, but description is limited and lacks some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.	Essay clearly describes the threats to internal validity found in the study, and description is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.	Essay expertly describes the threats to internal validity found in the study, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
Strengths and Limitations of Multivariate Models	Essay omits or incompletely describes the strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the article. Essay does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.	Essay inadequately describes the strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the article and/or the discussion is not historically accurate. Essay demonstrates poor understanding of the topic.	Essay adequately describes the strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the article, but description is limited and lacks some evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.	Essay clearly describes the strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the article, and description is strong with sound analysis and some evidence to support claims. Essay demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface the topic.	Essay expertly describes the strengths and limitations of the multivariate models used in the article, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims.Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.
Organization and Effectiveness
Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.	Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage	100%

Title:

Authors:

Address:

Source:

NLM Title Abbreviation:

Publisher:

Other Publishers:

ISSN:

Language:

Keywords:

Abstract:

Document Type:

Subjects:

PsycINFO Classification:

Population:

Age Group:

Tests & Measures:

Methodology:

Format Covered:

Publication Type:

Publication History:

Release Date:

Copyright:

Digital Object Identifier:

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

Accession Number:

Number of Citations in Source:

Database:

Back

24 page(s) will be printed.

Record:

1

Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Mediator and Moderator Between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood.

Wei, Meifen. Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, IA, US, wei@iastate.edu
Mallinckrodt, Brent. Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri-
Columbia, Columbia, MO, US
Russell, Daniel W., ORCID 0000-0003-22

6

4-861X. Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
Iowa State University, IA, US
Abraham, W. Todd. Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, IA, US

Wei, Meifen, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA, US,

5

0011-3180, wei@iastate.edu

Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 51(2), Apr, 2004. pp. 201-212.

J Couns Psychol

US : American Psychological Association

US : Wm. C. Brown Co.

0022-0167 (Print)
1939-2168 (Electronic)

English

depressive mood, maladaptive perfectionism, adult attachment, attachement anxiety, attachment avoidance

This study examined maladaptive perfectionism (concern over mistakes, doubts about one’s ability to
accomplish tasks, and failure to meet high standards) as both a mediator and a moderator between adult
attachment (anxiety and avoidance) and depressive mood (depression and hopelessness). Survey data
were collected from 310 undergraduates and analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) methods.
Results indicated that maladaptive perfectionism partially mediated the relationship between attachment
anxiety and depressive mood and fully mediated the relationship between attachment avoidance and
depressive mood. Bootstrap methods were used to assess the magnitude of the indirect effects. Significant
moderator effects were also found with SEM methods. The association between attachment anxiety and
depressive mood was stronger as perfectionism increased. Perfectionism was not a significant moderator
for attachment avoidance and depressive mood. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights
reserved)

Journal Article

*Anxiety; *Attachment Behavior; *Avoidance; *Depression (Emotion); *Perfectionism

Psychosocial & Personality Development (2840)

Human
Male
Female

Adulthood (18 yrs & older)
Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs)
Thirties (30-39 yrs)

Beck Depression Inventory DOI: 10.1037/t00741-000
Beck Hopelessness Scale

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Print

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Accepted: Oct 8, 2003; Revised: Oct 6, 2003; First Submitted: Jul 16, 200

3

20060710

American Psychological Association. 200

4

http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.201

cou-51-2-201

2004-12243-007

68

APA PsycArticles

Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Mediator and Moderator Between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood

By: Meifen Wei
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University;
Brent Mallinckrodt
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia
Daniel W. Russell
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University
W. Todd Abraham
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University
Acknowledgement: We thank Robyn Zakalik, Shanna Behrendsen, Anne Giusto, and Mike McGregor for their assistance with data collection.

Throughout the past decade, there has been a growing interest among counseling psychologists in applying Bowlby’s (1973, 1980, 1988) attachment
theory to understanding adult development and the counseling process (Lopez, 1995; Lopez & Brennan, 2000; Mallinckrodt, 2000). The initial
formulations of adult attachment posited four qualitative categories of attachment based on combinations of positive and negative working models of
self and others (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). However, research has failed to confirm the existence of qualitative cutoff points, and instead
supports two continuous dimensions as the best way to model adult attachment (Fraley & Waller, 1998). In a factor analysis of data gathered from
over 1,000 undergraduates, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) included all of the extant self-report measures of adult attachment (14 measures, 60
subscales, 323 items) and identified two relatively orthogonal dimensions of Anxiety and Avoidance. Adult attachment anxiety is characterized as an
excessive need for approval from others and fear of interpersonal rejection or abandonment. Adult attachment avoidance involves an excessive need
for self-reliance and fear of interpersonal closeness or dependence. People with high levels of either dimension or both dimensions in combination are
assumed to have an insecure adult attachment orientation. By contrast, people with low levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance have the capacity
for secure adult attachment, a positive sense of personal competence, and the ability to maintain supportive attachments (Brennan et al., 1998; Lopez
& Brennan, 2000; Mallinckrodt, 2000).

Previous empirical research has provided strong evidence for a link between insecure attachment and various forms of psychological distress (for
reviews, see Lopez & Brennan, 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). For example, relative to their secure counterparts, people with insecure attachment
reported greater distress and hostility during a laboratory problem-centered discussion (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), greater affective intensity
and emotionality in their daily life (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997), more depressive symptoms (Roberts, Gotlib, & Kassel, 1996), greater interpersonal
problems (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2003), and more emotional distress (Collins, 1996). Thus, the link between various forms of insecure attachment and
indices of psychological distress (e.g., depressive mood) has been fairly well established. More recently, research linking attachment insecurity and
distress (e.g., depressive mood) has been shifting from an examination of simple bivariate linear relationships to multivariate interactional models that
examine the roles of mediators and moderators of these relationships (Collins, 1996; Lopez, Mitchell, & Gormley, 2002; Roberts et al., 1996; Wei,
Heppner, & Mallinckrodt, 2003).

One example of this new emphasis on multivariate models is recent research that has examined the relationships among attachment, perfectionism,
and adjustment (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). Perfectionism has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, with both adaptive and
maladaptive aspects (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Adaptive perfectionism involves setting high (but achievable) personal standards, a preference for order
and organization, a sense of self-satisfaction, a desire to excel, and a motivation to achieve positive rewards. Maladaptive perfectionism involves
unrealistically high standards, intense ruminative concern over mistakes, perceived pressure from others to be perfect, a perceived large discrepancy
between one’s performance and personal standards, compulsive doubting of one’s actions, and motivation to avoid negative consequences (Enns &
Cox, 2002).

Theorists suggest that maladaptive perfectionism results when a child’s need for acceptance and love from parents is accompanied by a parent’s
failure to provide the needed acceptance and positive regard (Hamachek, 1978). Observational research has shown that if caregivers are inconsistent
and unreliable in responding to the emotional or physical needs of young children, anxious attachment is frequently the result (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978). Serious interpersonal problems may develop in adults whose parents used a love withdrawal style of discipline involving
threats to withhold affection as a means of control (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2003). Children with attachment anxiety may quickly learn that if they are
“perfect” boys or girls, they may be more likely to gain their parents’ love and acceptance. This pattern of striving for perfection as a way to earn
acceptance that was only intermittently available in childhood may persist as a maladaptive pattern in adults.

A different dynamic may underlie the connection between perfectionism and attachment avoidance. Attachment avoidance is believed to involve a
negative working model of others along with a positive working model of self (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). However, striving to be “perfect” in the
view of others may be an outward defense that masks a deeply wounded inner sense of self resulting from the inadequate emotional responsiveness
of caregivers early in development (Lapan & Patton, 1986; Robbins & Patton, 1985). Children with avoidant attachment tend to describe themselves
as perfect (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988), but they may drive themselves to attain perfection to avoid others’ rejection and to manage their own hidden
sense of imperfections. For example, a child may think, “If I am perfect, no one will hurt me” (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, & Macdonald, 2002). Thus, initially
striving to be perfect may be a positive coping mechanism for children whose caregivers are unresponsive or inconsistent in their responsiveness to
the child’s needs. However, if striving to be perfect is overused as a coping strategy, it may lead to depressive mood in adulthood. Therefore, the
specific form that the maladaptive striving for perfection may take might depend on the particular mixture of attachment avoidance or attachment
anxiety experienced in adulthood.

Although several theorists have suggested that the origins of perfectionism are related to problematic attachment in the parent-child relationship, until
recently there were very few empirical studies of perfectionism and attachment. Among the small number of available studies, Rice and Mirzadeh
(2000) reported that maladaptive perfectionism was related to insecure attachment, whereas adaptive perfectionism was related to secure attachment
in college students. Similarly, Andersson and Perris (2000) found that perfectionism was positively associated with insecure attachment. Additionally,
Flett et al. (2001) found that persons with high attachment anxiety and avoidance reported higher perceived pressure from others to be perfect. Thus,
previous studies have provided tentative evidence that attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety are positively associated with maladaptive
perfectionism.

Several studies have shown that perfectionism is positively associated with depression or hopelessness. For example, perfectionism in college
students was associated with greater depressive symptoms (e.g., Chang, 2002; Chang & Sanna, 2001; Cheng, 2001; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and
suicidal preoccupation (Adkins & Parker, 1996; Chang, 1998). In longitudinal studies, perfectionism has been linked to both depression and
hopelessness over time (Chang & Rand, 2000; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher, 1995). Also, Hewitt and Flett (2002) reported that perceived
pressure from others to be perfect was associated with hopelessness across different studies and populations (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000; Dean,
Range, & Goggin, 1996). On the basis of these previous studies, in the present study we chose to represent the latent variable of depressive mood
with indicators of depression and hopelessness.

It is possible that adults with high attachment anxiety or avoidance are likely to develop maladaptive perfectionism and, in turn, experience significant
depressive mood. Some studies have examined how maladaptive perfectionism might serve as a mediator between parent-child interactions and
depressive mood. Randolph and Dykman (1998) found that perfectionism fully mediated the relationship between critical parenting and depression-
proneness and partially mediated the relationship between perfectionistic parenting and depression-proneness in undergraduate students. Enns, Cox,
and Clara (2002) reported that maladaptive perfectionism mediated the relationship between harsh parenting (e.g., critical parenting, parental
overprotection, and parental lack of care) and depression. However, our search of the literature could not locate any previous study that examined
perfectionism as a mediator between attachment and depressive mood. If maladaptive perfectionism does serve as a mediator, interventions could be
targeted at adults with attachment anxiety or avoidance to help decrease their maladaptive perfectionism and in turn decrease their depressive mood.

Hewitt and Flett (2002) argued that perfectionism could serve as a moderator (as well as a mediator) between insecure attachment and depressive
mood. Several studies have found that specific dimensions of perfectionism (e.g., pressure from others to be perfect) interacted with general stress
(e.g., major life stress or self-appraisal stress) to predict increased depression symptoms or negative affect (e.g., Chang & Rand, 2000; Cheng, 2001;
Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003; Flett et al., 1995). That is, greater depression or negative affect was reported by participants with higher
combined levels of perfectionism and perceived stress. In addition, other studies reported that specific dimensions of perfectionism interacted with
specific stressors to predict higher levels of depression. Hewitt and Flett (1993) found that perfectionism, particularly in the form of perceived pressure
from others to be perfect, interacted with interpersonal stressors (e.g., relationship problems or lack of intimacy) to predict depression. It appears that
maladaptive perfectionism could serve as a potential moderator of the relationship between general or specific stressors and psychological distress.

Attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance could be viewed as a source of chronic interpersonal stress. Perfectionism may lead to depressive mood
because it generates core interpersonal needs that are difficult to satisfy (i.e., the need for others’ approval, or the need to be perfect to avoid others’
rejection). Maladaptive perfectionism might interact with attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance to worsen depressive mood (Hewitt & Flett,
2002). From the standpoint of putative causal links, in a mediating scenario attachment insecurity (x1) is believed to cause higher levels of
maladaptive perfectionism (x2), which in turn causes higher levels of depressive mood (y). If the mediation is partial rather than complete, there would
also be a significant direct link between (x1) attachment insecurity and (y) depressive mood (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997). By contrast, in a
moderating scenario there is no requirement that x1 causes x2 and, in fact, the two variables may be uncorrelated. However, the strength of
association between x1 (in this case, attachment insecurity) and y (depressive mood) is believed to vary for differing levels of x2 (maladaptive
perfectionism). Unfortunately, there has been no empirical research studying how maladaptive perfectionism might interact with attachment to predict
depressive mood.

Because it is possible for maladaptive perfectionism to serve as both an intermediate link in the causal chain leading from attachment insecurity to
depressive mood (i.e., as a mediator) and as a variable that alters the strength of association between attachment insecurity and depressive mood
(i.e., as a moderator), both types of relationships were explored in this study. Specifically, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether
the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism (e.g., concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and perceived discrepancy between one’s standards
and performance) serve as a mediator, as a moderator, or as both in the context of the relationship between adult attachment insecurity (anxiety and
avoidance) and depressive mood (depression and hopelessness). Figures 1A and 1B depict both of these hypothesized relationships. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the models depicted in this figure. Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, and Ashby (2001) argued that the
discrepancy between high standards and perceptions of performance was a defining feature of maladaptive perfectionism, whereas high standards
without perceived discrepancy could indicate adaptive perfectionism. Therefore, measures of discrepancy between standards and performance,
concern over mistakes, and doubts about one’s actions served as the indicators for the construct of maladaptive perfectionism, in addition to
measures of depression and hopelessness, which served as indicators of the latent variable depressive mood.

Figure 1. Hypothesized mediating effects (A) and moderating effects (B) of maladaptive perfectionism on the links between attachment anxiety and
attachment avoidance with depressive mood. The moderating effects (B) of maladaptive perfectionism on the links between attachment anxiety and

attachment avoidance with depressive mood were examined separately

Method

Participants
Participants were 310 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology classes at a large midwestern university. The participants were told
that the purpose of the research was “to learn about factors affecting college students’ adjustment.” The sample included 225 (73%) women and 85
(27%) men. Their mean age was 19.27 years (SD = 1.88, range = 18–30 yrs.). Approximately 53% of the participants were freshmen. Ethnic
identification was predominantly White/Caucasian (84%), followed by international students of various ethnicities (4.8%), Asian American (4.2%),
African American (2.3%), Hispanic American (2.3%), multiracial American (1.0%), and others (1.3%). Most participants (98.0%) indicated they were
single or never married. Students received partial credit toward their course grade for participating in this study. The amount of credit varied
depending on their particular section of the course.

Instruments
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS; Brennan et al., 1998 )

The ECRS is a 36-item self-report measure of adult attachment containing two 18-item subscales derived from the factor analysis by Brennan et al.
(1998) described previously. The subscales assess dimensions of adult attachment, Anxiety and Avoidance. Participants use a 7-point Likert-type
scale (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly) to rate how well each statement describes their typical feelings in romantic relationships. The Anxiety
subscale taps fears of abandonment and rejection. The Avoidance subscale assesses discomfort with dependence and intimate self-disclosure.
Brennan et al.’s reported coefficient alpha was.91 and.94 for the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales, respectively. In the present study, coefficient
alpha was.90 for the Anxiety subscale and.91 for the Avoidance subscale. Brennan et al. also reported that scale scores were correlated in expected
directions with scores on self-report measures of touch aversion and postcoital emotions. Measured indicators for the two latent variables of
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were created from three 6-item parcels for each subscale. Following the recommendation of Russell,
Kahn, Spoth, and Altmaier (1998), exploratory factor analyses were conducted using maximum-likelihood extraction for the two factors (Anxiety and
Avoidance) separately. The items were then rank-ordered on the basis of the magnitude of the factor loadings and successively assigned pairs of the
highest and lowest items to each parcel to equalize the average loadings of each parcel on its respective factor.

Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney et al., 2001 )

The APS-R is a 23-item self-report measure designed to assess levels of perfectionism. Respondents use a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree) in responding to the items. The APS-R is made up of three subscales: High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy. In this
study only the 12-item Discrepancy subscale was used. This subscale measures the degree to which respondents perceive themselves as failing to
meet personal standards for performance. Slaney et al. reported a coefficient alpha of.92 for the Discrepancy subscale, whereas coefficient alpha
was.94 in the present sample. Slaney et al. reported evidence of construct validity in the form of significant correlations between the Discrepancy
subscale and other perfectionism measures such as Concern Over Mistakes (r =.55) and Doubts About Actions (r =.62).

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990 )

The FMPS is a 35-item instrument designed to measure perfectionism. Each item uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree
strongly). Consistent with Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, and Winkworth (2000), only two of the six FMPS subscales were used as indicators
of perfectionism in this study: (a) Concern Over Mistakes (9 items) taps a tendency to interpret mistakes as failures and to believe that one will lose
the respect of others when one fails; and (b) the Doubts About Actions (4 items) subscale, which measures the tendency to doubt one’s ability to
accomplish tasks or the quality of one’s performance. In the present study, coefficient alphas were.89 and.74 for Concern Over Mistakes and Doubts
About Actions, respectively. Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) found that Concern Over Mistakes and Doubts About Actions not
only reflected maladaptive evaluative concerns of perfectionism, but were also the subscales most strongly related to depression. Criterion-related
validity is evidenced by correlations between FMPS subscales and measures of psychological symptoms (e.g., Brief Symptom Inventory) and
adjustment such as compulsiveness, self-esteem, procrastination, and depression (Frost et al., 1993, 1990).

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961 )

The BDI is a widely used 21-item self-report measure of depressive symptoms. Each item consists of a depression symptom cluster scored on a 0–3
response scale based on the severity of the symptom. Scores across the items are summed to obtain a total BDI score, with higher scores indicating
more severe depression. Internal consistency for the BDI for undergraduates ranges from.78 to.92, with a mean coefficient alpha of.85. In the present
study, coefficient alpha was.86. Test-retest reliabilities for nonpsychiatric participants ranged from.60 (7 days) to.83 (1–6 hr), with reports of.78 for a 2-
week and a 3-week period. Considerable evidence of validity has been demonstrated for the BDI as a measure of depressive symptoms (Beck, 1967;
Bumberry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978).

Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS; Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974 )

The BHS is a 20-item inventory that assesses the degree to which an individual’s cognitive schemata are characterized by pessimistic expectations.
The scale uses a true-false response format. Scores can range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating a greater degree of hopelessness. Internal
consistency of.93 has been reported, along with concurrent validity of.74 with clinical ratings of hopelessness and.60 with other scales of
hopelessness (Beck et al., 1974). In the present study, coefficient alpha for the BHS was.78.

Procedure
The questionnaires were administrated to small groups of 3–25 students who signed up for one of several data collection times. Participants were
guaranteed anonymity of their responses and confidentiality of the data, given that no personal identifying information was solicited on the
questionnaires. Completing the entire packet of instruments typically required 25–40 min.

Results

Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for the 13 measured variables are shown in Table 1. Data were checked for normality, which
is a critical assumption underlying the maximum-likelihood procedure used in this study. Results indicated univariate normality for all measured
variables except the BHS (Beck et al., 1974; skew Z = 1.87, and kurtosis Z = 4.47). We therefore conducted a square root transformation for the BHS
variable. The skew and kurtosis for the transformed BHS were Z =.16 and.75, respectively, indicating a normal distribution. The BHS and the
transformed BHS were highly correlated (r =.94). Therefore, we used the transformed BHS variable in subsequent analyses.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Among 13 Observed Variables

Measurement Model for Testing Mediation Effects
The analysis of the proposed mediation model followed the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, we used a
confirmatory factor analysis to develop a measurement model with an acceptable fit to the data. Once an acceptable measurement model was
developed, the structural model was tested. The measurement model was estimated using the maximum-likelihood method in the LISREL 8.50
program. As suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Quintana and Maxwell (1999), three indices were used to assess goodness of fit for the
models: the comparative fit index (CFI; values of.95 or greater are desirable), the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; values of.08 or
less are desirable), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; values of.06 or less are desirable). Finally, we used the chi-square
difference test to compare nested models. An initial test of the measurement model resulted in a relatively good fit to the data, χ (38, N = 310) =
72.60, p <.001, CFI =.98, SRMR =.04, and RMSEA =.05 (95% confidence interval [CI]:.03,.07). All of the loadings of the measured variables on the latent variables were statistically significant (p <.001; see Table 2). Therefore, all of the latent variables appear to have been adequately measured by their respective indicators. In addition, the correlations among the independent (exogenous) latent variables, the mediator latent variable, and dependent latent variable were statistically significant (p <.05; see Table 3)

Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model

Correlations Among Latent Variables for the Measurement Model

Structural Model for Testing Mediation Effects
A number of methods have been suggested in the literature for testing mediation effects. Recently, MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and
Sheets (2002) evaluated 14 methods with regard to Type I error and statistical power. They found that the commonly used method recommended by
Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation had the lowest statistical power of the 14 methods examined. Instead, MacKinnon et al. (2002)
recommend testing for mediation using the test of the indirect effect of the causal variable through the hypothesized mediator reported by the LISREL
program. However, MacKinnon et al. (2002) have shown that the method used by LISREL to calculate the standard error of the indirect effect tends to
yield incorrect estimates. To develop more accurate estimates of standard errors of the indirect effects, Shrout and Bolger (2002) suggested a
bootstrap procedure. In general, bootstrap methods offer an empirical method of determining the significance of statistical estimates (Efron &
Tibshirani, 1993). A standard error is the expected variability of an estimate if the estimation was repeated a large number of times. Therefore, in the
present study, we used the bootstrap procedure to test the statistical significance of the indirect effects (Shrout & Bolger, 2002)

We tested the structural model (see Figure 1A) using the maximum-likelihood method in the LISREL 8.50 program. The results showed a very good fit
of the model to the data, χ (38, N = 310) = 72.60, p <.001, CFI =.98, SRMR =.04, RMSEA =.05 (CI:.03,.07). However, the path coefficient from attachment avoidance to depressive mood (β = −.07) was not statistically significant. Therefore, we constrained this path to zero to see whether doing so worsened the fit of the model to the data. The results for this modified model also showed a very good fit to the data, χ (39, N = 310) = 74.05, p <.001, CFI =.98, SRMR =.04, RMSEA =.05 (CI:.03,.07; see Figure 2). A chi-square difference test used to compare the initial model with the modified model suggested no difference in the fit for the two models, χ (1, N = 310) = 1.45, p >.05. This result indicates that the direct path from attachment
avoidance to depressive mood did not make a significant contribution to the model. Therefore, we used the modified model without this path in the
bootstrap procedure.

Figure 2. The mediated model. N = 310. DIS = Discrepancy subscale; CM = Concern Over Mistakes subscale; DA = Doubts About Actions subscale;
BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; BHS = Beck Hopelessness Scale (after square root transformation). * p <.05. ** p <.01. ***p <.001

Following the recommendations of Shrout and Bolger (2002), in the first step we created 1,000 bootstrap samples (N = 310) from the original dataset
by random sampling with replacement. Next, we ran the modified structural model described above 1,000 times with these bootstrap samples to yield
1,000 estimations of each path coefficient. The third step was to use the output of the 1,000 estimations of each path coefficient to calculate an
estimate of the indirect effect of attachment anxiety on depressive mood by multiplying 1,000 pairs of path coefficients from (a) attachment anxiety to
maladaptive perfectionism, and (b) maladaptive perfectionism to depressive mood. Similarly, the indirect effect of attachment avoidance on
depressive mood was calculated by multiplying 1,000 pairs of path coefficients from (a) attachment avoidance to maladaptive perfectionism and (b)
maladaptive perfectionism to depressive mood. The final step was to conduct a t test comparing the two mean indirect effects to zero. The results
from 1,000 bootstrap samples indicated that the mean indirect effect for attachment anxiety on depressive mood was.32, which was significantly
greater than zero, t(999) = 140.82, p <.0001; the 95% CI ranged from.31 to.32. The mean indirect effect for attachment avoidance on depressive mood was.16, which was also significantly greater than zero, t(999) = 122.98, p <.0001; the 95% CI ranged from.15 to.16. In addition, the direct effect from attachment anxiety to depressive mood was.19, which was also significant (Z = 2.75, p <.01; the 95% CI ranged from.06 to.34). It is also important to note that 36% of the variance in maladaptive perfectionism was explained by attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and 49% of the variance in depressive mood was explained by attachment anxiety and maladaptive perfectionism.

Structural Equation Model Testing for Moderation
Before testing for interaction effects, we centered all the predictors to control for possible multicollinearity among the predictor variables (Aiken &
West, 1991). To examine the interaction effects with continuous variables using a latent variable analysis, one may assume that all possible products
of the measured indicators could be computed as indicators of an interaction latent variable (Holmbeck, 1997). For example, in the present study
there were three 6-item parcel indicators of attachment anxiety (or attachment avoidance), and three indicators of the maladaptive perfectionism
latent variable (discrepancy, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions). Thus, there would be nine indicators for each of the two latent
variables representing interactions between maladaptive perfectionism and attachment anxiety (or avoidance). However, Joreskog and Yang (1996)
argued that only one product variable is necessary, but that several constraints must be imposed to test the significance of the interaction effects. The
reason is that the model is identified with just one product variable. The addition of more product variables simply adds more manifest parameters
without adding new parameters to be estimated. In addition, the model using only one product variable is parsimonious (see Joreskog & Yang, 1996,
for a discussion of these issues as well as programming examples using LISREL 8).

In the present study, we tested two models that included interaction effects, one for attachment anxiety and the other for attachment avoidance. We
followed Joreskog and Yang’s (1996) recommendations to examine the interaction effects using the maximum-likelihood estimation method with one
product variable. For the attachment anxiety model, we selected the observed variable with the largest factor loading from the attachment anxiety
latent variable (Anxiety Parcel 1) and the observed variable with the largest factor loading from the maladaptive perfectionism latent variable
(Discrepancy) to create the interaction latent variable with one indicator, Anxiety Parcel 1 × Discrepancy (see Figure 3). The results indicated that the
model provided a very good fit to the data, χ (27, N = 310) = 67.25, p <.0001, CFI =.97, SRMR =.05, RMSEA =.07 (CI:.05,.09). The path from the interaction latent variable to the depressive mood latent variable was.38, which was statistically significant (Z = 5.36, p <.001). Similarly, we selected the observed variable with the largest factor loading from the attachment avoidance latent variable (Avoidance Parcel 1) and the biggest loading from the maladaptive perfectionism latent variable (Discrepancy) to create the interaction latent variable with one indicator, Avoidance Parcel 1 × Discrepancy for the attachment avoidance model. The results indicated that the model provided a very good fit to the data, χ (27, N = 310) = 109.60, p <.01, CFI =.94, SRMR =.06, RMSEA =.10 (CI:.08,.11). However, the path from the interaction latent variable to the depressive mood latent variable (β = −.10) was nonsignificant (Z = −1.32, p >.05).

Figure 3. The moderation model for attachment anxiety. N = 310. Anxiety 1 = Attachment Anxiety Parcel 1, the biggest factor loading from the
attachment anxiety latent variable; DIS = Discrepancy subscale (the biggest factor loading from the maladaptive perfectionism latent variable. This

interaction indicator was created by multiplying Attachment Anxiety Parcel 1 by Discrepancy. The interaction latent variable has one indicator.
Detailed results can be obtained from Meifen Wei upon request); CM = Concern Over Mistakes subscale; DA = Doubts About Actions subscale; BDI =

Beck Depression Inventory; BHS = Beck Hopelessness Scale. * p <.05. ** p <.01. ***p <.001

To visualize the nature of the significant interaction effect, plots were constructed on the basis of forming equal-sized groups of high-, medium-, and
low-maladaptive perfectionism. The group assignment was accomplished by using a single-factor model of latent maladaptive perfectionism with
three indicators (discrepancy, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions) to produce unstandardized factor loadings for the three indicators.
We then multiplied these unstandardized factor loadings by the raw score of their corresponding indicator and summed to create a composite index of
maladaptive perfectionism. The distribution of these scores was used to form three equally sized groups of high-, medium-, and low-maladaptive
perfectionism. A multiple-group model was tested for these three groups, using attachment anxiety as a predictor of depressive mood. In testing this
model, the loadings of the measured variables on the latent variables of attachment anxiety and depressive mood were constrained to be equal for
the three groups. The path from attachment anxiety to depressive mood was allowed to vary across the groups, as was the structured mean on the
depressive mood latent variable. The results are plotted in Figure 4. The results show that when maladaptive perfectionism is high, there is a greater
increase in depressive mood for each unit increase in attachment anxiety, whereas when maladaptive perfectionism is low, the increment in
depressive mood for each unit increase in attachment anxiety is relatively smaller. Also, means on the depressive mood latent variable were found to
vary across the three groups, with the highest level of depressive mood found for the group that was high in perfectionism.

Figure 4. Relationship of attachment anxiety with depressive mood at high (H; solid ex), medium (M; open circle), and low (L; cross-hatched ex) levels
of maladaptive perfectionism. L is −2 standard deviations (SD) from the mean of attachment anxiety; M is the mean of attachment anxiety; H is

2

standard deviations from the mean of attachment anxiety

Discussion

Past research has suggested links between adult attachment and depressive mood. The present study was aimed at extending this research by
exploring possible mediators of the bivariate links suggested in this growing body of research. Specifically, we examined whether maladaptive
perfectionism serves as a mediator in the link between adult attachment anxiety or avoidance and depressive mood. Our results support the
hypotheses that maladaptive perfectionism partially mediated the relation between attachment anxiety and depressive mood and fully mediated the
relation between attachment avoidance and depressive mood. The significant path coefficients shown in Figure 2 suggest that both attachment
anxiety and attachment avoidance were significantly positively associated with maladaptive perfectionism. Of the two types of insecure attachment,
attachment anxiety exhibited the stronger link with perfectionism. In turn, maladaptive perfectionism was positively associated with depressive mood.
These results are consistent with previous findings suggesting that maladaptive perfectionism mediates the relationships between the quality of early
childhood parenting and vulnerability to depression (Enns et al., 2002; Randolph & Dykman, 1998).

Interestingly, the direct relationship between attachment avoidance and depressive mood was not statistically significant and did not add to the
explanatory power of the model predicting depressive mood. In other words, the link between attachment avoidance and depressive mood can be
described exclusively in terms of the indirect (e.g., mediated) effects of maladaptive perfectionism. This finding suggests that if this type of
perfectionism can be reduced in college students with high-attachment avoidance, their depressive mood may be reduced as well. In contrast to
attachment avoidance, the direct relation between attachment anxiety and depressive mood remained statistically significant even after controlling for
the indirect effects mediated through maladaptive perfectionism. This finding suggests that other variables unrelated to maladaptive perfectionism
may also be important factors in the depressive mood experienced by college students with high-attachment anxiety. However, it is important to note
that the direct path from attachment anxiety to depressive mood was decreased significantly from.50 to.19 after maladaptive perfectionism was added
to the model. Also, the magnitude of the indirect effect (β =.32) was moderate in magnitude. Thus, we conclude that an important component of
depressive mood experienced by persons with high-attachment anxiety may be due to their maladaptive perfectionism.

In addition to the mediation effects described above, we also found evidence of moderating (e.g., interaction) effects in connection with perfectionism
and attachment anxiety. Depression and hopelessness were significantly positively associated with attachment anxiety, but the magnitude of the
increase in depressive mood for each unit of increase in attachment anxiety was greater as maladaptive perfectionism increased. This finding is
consistent with other studies reporting that perfectionism interacted with interpersonal stressors to predict depression (Hewitt & Flett, 1993). Our
findings suggest that a combination of high-attachment anxiety and high-maladaptive perfectionism is especially likely to be associated with
depressive mood. However, it should also be noted that the interaction of attachment avoidance and maladaptive perfectionism was not statistically
significant in the present study.

Thus, we observed different patterns with respect to attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. For attachment anxiety, maladaptive
perfectionism apparently serves as both a moderator and a partial mediator of connections with depressive mood. By contrast, for attachment
avoidance, maladaptive perfectionism is not a significant moderator, but rather serves as a complete mediator in the connection with distress. An
explanation for these differences may be found in findings of other studies reporting that persons high in attachment avoidance tend to deactivate
normal attachment responses, mainly through cognitive and affect regulation processes that divert attention from both distress-evoking stimuli and
attachment-related thoughts and feelings (Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998). By contrast, persons with high levels of attachment anxiety tend to fix their
attention on distress-evoking stimuli and magnify their expressions of distress in an attempt to maintain proximity and solicit comfort from attachment
figures (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993). Perhaps in our study, attachment deactivation typical of persons with high avoidance
was manifested as a denial of distress (or reluctance to report symptoms even on an anonymous survey). A positive working model of self is also
associated with attachment avoidance, but theorists have speculated that it contrasts with the positive model of self held by persons with secure adult
attachment, in that persons with avoidant attachment have a “brittle” or “defensively maintained” positive sense of self (Fraley et al., 1998). Our study
suggests that this precarious balance may be more likely to be disturbed for persons with maladaptive perfectionism. Avoidance per se is not
associated with depressive mood for these persons, but if they judge that they have fallen short of the high standards they set for themselves, a
sense of despair and hopelessness results. By contrast, perhaps students with high-attachment anxiety in our study magnified their reports of
depressive mood. For them, maladaptive perfectionism was only one of several possible sources of depressive mood, but when present,
perfectionism may tend to exacerbate the depressive mood that resulted from a chronic negative working model of self.

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, the sample consisted mostly of White college students, limiting the generalizability of the findings
to other populations. Chang (1998) found that Asian Americans (who typically define themselves in relation to others) reported more pressure from
others to be perfect than did White Americans (who typically define themselves independently of others). The norm of maladaptive perfectionism for
Asians or Asian Americans may be quite different from the norm for White samples. Second, the fact that participants were predominantly women is
another limitation. The skewed gender balance further limits conclusions drawn from this sample, especially for men. Third, the present study’s results
are based entirely on self-report measures. In addition to the possible confounds with tendencies to report distress noted previously in connection to
attachment, correlations may be inflated because of common method effects, students’ mood, or other sources of monomethod bias. Thus, replication
with other methods of data collection (e.g., observer ratings or friend report) would be beneficial. Finally, even though this study used a sophisticated
data analytic procedure, a longitudinal study or a design featuring direct manipulation of variables could provide more conclusive evidence of causal
relationships.

Maladaptive perfectionism partially mediated the relationship with attachment anxiety and depressive mood. This implies that there are other potential
mediators (e.g., emotional reactivity) that may contribute to the link between attachment anxiety and depressive mood. Moreover, Dunkley and
colleagues (2000, 2003) found multiple mediators (e.g., perceived coping effectiveness and perceived social support) between perfectionism and
depression, anxiety, or negative affect. Future research is needed to develop a more complete model with potential mediators of the connection
between adult attachment and depressive mood or other forms of psychological distress. One fruitful possibility might be to simultaneously test the
relative impact of multiple mediators (e.g., perfectionism, perceived coping effectiveness, and perceived social support). Studies are also needed that
examine how dimensions of attachment insecurity contribute to maladaptive perfectionism patterns, and whether these patterns influence subsequent
coping effectiveness and social competencies (e.g., perceived social support) that in turn contribute to depressive mood or other forms of distress.

In terms of counseling applications, if the results of this study are confirmed in future studies, interventions could be designed to reduce maladaptive
perfectionism in situations in which it may not be feasible to attempt changing basic attachment insecurities. Hewitt, Flynn, Mikail, and Flett (2001)
suggested focusing on the motivations and precursors to perfectionistic behavior, in an attempt to deal with the source of perfectionism. Thus, one
approach might involve efforts to identify the roots and psychological needs (e.g., excessive need for approval from others or excessive need for self-
reliance) associated with maladaptive perfectionism. Another approach might involve helping perfectionistic college students to distinguish between
maladaptive (e.g., concern over mistakes) and adaptive (e.g., order or achievable personal standards) perfectionism. A third approach is to develop
interventions to help college students identify automatic thoughts related to the need to be perfect, examine these destructive thoughts, and then
reframe or eliminate these thoughts to decrease the harmful consequences (e.g., depression and hopelessness) of maladaptive perfectionism.

Footnotes
One issue raised by reviewers concerned the fact that we only used one measure, the ECRS, to operationalize the attachment variable. Because

the ECRS was developed on the basis of a factor analysis of existing measures of attachment (see Brennan et al., 1998), we felt that this measure
adequately represented the nature of the construct. Indeed, it is very likely that items on any other measure of adult attachment would be redundant
with items on this measure. Therefore, we did not feel it was necessary to use other measures of adult attachment in this investigation.

We also tested the multivariate normality of the observed variables as a set, including the transformed BHS (Beck et al., 1974) variable, based on
the test developed by Mardia (see Bollen, 1989). The significant result, χ (2, N = 310) = 114.05, p <.001, indicated that the data were not multivariate normal. Therefore, we used the procedure developed by Satorra and Bentler (1988) to adjust the chi-square statistics and standard errors of the parameter estimates for the impact of nonnormality. In the mediation model, the results after adjusting for the impact of nonnormality did not differ from the results when we did not adjust for nonnormality. In the moderation model, the results for the path coefficients were identical whether or not we adjusted for the impact of nonnormality. However, the standard error of the latent interaction term became very large following the adjustment for nonnormality. This problem associated with interaction terms and the Satorra-Bentler adjustment for nonnormality has been noted by others (e.g., Yang-Wallentin & Joreskog, 2001). Therefore, we report results for the moderation model without adjusting for the impact of nonnormality.

We examined whether the results would be equivalent for men and women in the measurement model, structural model, and the models with
interaction effect. A series of multiple-group analyses were conducted using LISREL 8.50 to examine whether female and male groups differed from
one another in terms of the measurement model, the structural model, and the models with interaction effects (Byrne, 1998). Results suggested that
the measurement model and structural model were equivalent for the male and female groups. However, the models comparing men and women that
included the interaction effect did not converge. This was likely because of the relatively small number of men (n = 85) included in the sample.
Therefore, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to examine whether the interaction effect varied for men and women. Results of the
regression analysis indicated that the three-way interaction (Attachment Anxiety × Maladaptive Perfectionism × Gender) predicting depressive mood
was not significant (β =.002), t(302)= 0.55, p >.05. Thus, it appears that the interaction effect was equivalent for male and female participants.

We also used the bootstrap procedure to test the statistical significance of the indirect effects from the initial mediation model. The results from
1,000 bootstrap samples indicated that the mean indirect effect for attachment anxiety on depressive mood was.34, which was significantly greater
than zero, t(999) = 147.42, p <.0001; the 95% CI ranged from.33 to.34. The mean indirect effect for attachment avoidance on depressive mood was.17, which was also significantly greater than zero, t(999) = 111.96, p <.0001; the 95% CI ranged from.17 to.18. It therefore appears that eliminating the nonsignificant path from the initial mediation model did not greatly alter the estimates of these two indirect effects.

We also examined the interaction effects with four product variables, following Joreskog and Yang’s (1996) programming in LISREL 8. The path
from the interaction latent variable to depressive mood was still significant (β =.33, Z = 5.10, p <.001) for the attachment anxiety model, but was not significant for the attachment avoidance model (β = −.09, Z = −1.38, p >.05). In addition, we examined the interaction effects with nine product
variables by adapting Joreskog and Yang’s (1996) programming in the LISREL 8. Similarly, the path from the interaction latent variable to depressive

2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
4
5

javascript:__doPostBack(‘ctl00$MainContentArea$deliveryPrintSaveControl$backButton$lnkBack’,”)

https://web-b-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fpdfviewer%2fpdfviewer%3fvid%3d1%26sid%3d7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%2540sessionmgr103#toc

https://web-b-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fpdfviewer%2fpdfviewer%3fvid%3d1%26sid%3d7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%2540sessionmgr103#toc

https://web-b-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fpdfviewer%2fpdfviewer%3fvid%3d1%26sid%3d7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%2540sessionmgr103#toc

https://web-b-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fpdfviewer%2fpdfviewer%3fvid%3d1%26sid%3d7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%2540sessionmgr103#toc

variables by adapting Joreskog and Yang’s (1996) programming in the LISREL 8. Similarly, the path from the interaction latent variable to depressive
mood was still significant (β =.22, Z = 3.71, p <.01) for the attachment anxiety model, but was not significant for the attachment avoidance model (β =.09, Z = 0.92, p >.05).

The figure for the moderation model for attachment avoidance can be obtained from Meifen Wei upon request.

References
Adkins, K. K., & Parker, W. (1996). Perfectionism and suicidal preoccupation. Journal of Personality, 64, 529–543.

Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Andersson, P., & Perris, C. (2000). Attachment styles and dysfunctional assumptions in adults. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 47–53.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 226–244.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. M., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. E., & Erbaugh, J. K. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.

Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measure of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42, 861–865.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A.Simpson & W.
S.Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.

Bumberry, W., Oliver, J. M., & McClure, J. N. (1978). Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory in a university population using psychiatric estimate
as the criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 150–155.

Byrne, B. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J.Belsky & T.Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of
attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chang, E. C. (1998). Cultural differences, perfectionism, and suicidal risk in a college population: Does social problem solving still matter?Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 22, 237–254.

Chang, E. C. (2002). Examining the link between perfectionism and psychological maladjustment: Social problem solving as a buffer. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 26, 581–595.

Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific diathesis-stress mechanism
among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 129–137.

Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2001). Negative attributional style as a moderator of the link between perfectionism and depressive symptoms:
Preliminary evidence for an integrative model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 490–495.

Cheng, S. K. (2001). Life stress, problem solving, perfectionism, and depressive symptoms in Chinese. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 303–
310.

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 810–832.

Dean, P., Range, L. M., & Goggin, W. C. (1996). The escape theory of suicide in college students: Testing a model that includes perfectionism.
Suicidal and Life Threatening Behavior, 26, 181–186.

Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000). The relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping,
and perceived social support as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437–453.

Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress
and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234–252.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC..

Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L.Flett & P. L.Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Enns, M. W., Cox, B., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism: Developmental origins and association with depression proneness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 921–935.

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.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1995). Perfectionism, life events, and depressive symptoms: A test of a diathesis-stress
model. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 14, 112–137.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Mosher, S. W., Sherry, S. B., Macdonald, S., & Sawatzky, D. L. (2001, August). Dimensions of perfectionism and attachment
style.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L.Flett &
P. L.Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. In J.
A.Simpson & W. S.Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 249–279). New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A.Simpson & W. S.Rholes (Eds.), Attachment
theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York: Guilford Press.

Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

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

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98–101.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression: A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58–65.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2002). Perfectionism and stress processes in psychopathology. In G. L.Flett & P. L.Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 255–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hewitt, P. L., Flynn, C. A., Mikail, S. F., & Flett, G. L. (2001). Treatment of perfectionism: An interpersonal/psychodynamic group approach.Manuscript
in preparation.

Holmbeck, G. M. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-
clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Joreskog, K. G., & Yang, F. (1996). Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with interaction effects. In G. A.Marchoulides & R.
E.Schumaker (Eds.), Advanced structural modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 57–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem
solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231–245.

Lapan, R., & Patton, J. J. (1986). Self-psychology and the adolescent process: Measure of pseudoautonomy and peer-group dependence. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 33, 136–142.

Lopez, F. G. (1995). Contemporary attachment theory: An introduction with implications for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 23,
395–415.

Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on
the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 283–301.

Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002). Adult attachment and college student distress: Test of a mediational model. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 460–467.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.

Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Attachment, social competencies, and interpersonal process in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 10, 239–266.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2003, August). Attachment, social competencies, interpersonal problems, and psychological distress. In B.Mallinckrodt
(Chair), Expanding applications of adult attachment theory: Coping assets and deficits Symposium presented at the 111th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In
M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic Press.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, F. L. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1409–1423.

Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent development in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485–527.

Randolph, J. J., & Dykman, B. M. (1998). Perceptions of parenting and depression-proneness in the offspring: Dysfunctional attitudes as a mediating
mechanism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 377–400.

Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238–250.

Robbins, S. B., & Patton, M. J. (1985). Self-psychology and career development: Construction of the Superiority and Goal Instability scales. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 32, 221–231.

Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms of depression: The mediating roles of dysfunctional
attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310–320.

Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation
modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. In American Statistical Association
1988 proceedings of the business and economic section (pp. 308–313). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 7, 422–445.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. A., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 899–914.

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.

Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2003). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: A structural
equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 438–447.

Yang-Wallentin, F., & Joreskog, K. G. (2001). Robust standard errors and chi-squares for interaction models. In G. A.Marcoulides & R. E.Schumacker
(Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation methodology (pp. 159–171). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Submitted: July 16, 2003 Revised: October 6, 2003 Accepted: October 8, 2003

This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written
permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the
individual user.

Source: Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. 51. (2), Apr, 2004 pp. 201-212)
Accession Number: 2004-12243-007
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.201

Back
6

https://web-b-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/delivery?sid=7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fpdfviewer%2fpdfviewer%3fvid%3d1%26sid%3d7f2c79fd-0034-4fcc-ba5b-925076fc60fb%2540sessionmgr103#toc

javascript:__doPostBack(‘ctl00$MainContentArea$deliveryPrintSaveControl$backButtonBottom$lnkBack’,”)