Anxiety and dimensions of perfectionism in first year college students: The mediating role of mindfulness

Feedback-related negativity in perfectionists: An index of performance outcome evaluation

It has been suggested that maladaptive perfectionists are more prone to concern over their performance outcomes than adaptive perfectionists. Performance outcome evaluation is reflected in the amplitude of feedback-related negativity (FRN) in brain electroencephalography (EEG). Hence, the amplitude of the FRN after receiving unfavorable feedback indicating a negative performance outcome may reflect personality characteristics. In other words, EEG could be a better marker of personality characteristics than self-report measures. However, the FRN component has not yet been investigated between different types of perfectionists. In the present study, group differences in the FRN were examined between two groups of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists and a group of non-perfectionists during a monetary gambling task. We observed a larger FRN amplitude for adaptive perfectionists than for maladaptive perfectionists. This finding is consistent with previous reports that reward prediction error is reflected in the amplitude of the FRN. This difference in FRN could be interpreted as the pessimistic outcome expectation biases in maladaptive perfectionists.

Mediating Mechanisms of Perfectionism: Clinical Comorbidity of OCD and ED

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and eating disorders (ED) share common causal factors and often represent similar entities. Studies on obsessive-compulsive disorders and eating disorders reveal a significant correlation between maladaptive perfectionism. The objective of this study is to evaluate the predictive variables of perfectionism in patients diagnosed with Anorexia Nervosa (AN), Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and OCD using a structural equation model (SEM). The sample consisted of 187 participants (60.9% women, 39.1% men) with a mean age of 26.68 (SD = 10.97). The findings reveal that the model is the same in all the disorders evaluated, achieving an adequate fit: χ2 = 7.95 (p = 0.000), RMSEA = 0.087 (95% confidence interval: 0.00 to 0.02), CFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.951 and with an overall predictive capacity of around 30% (CD = 0.318). It is recommended that future studies address the subtypes of disorders evaluated using longitudinal designs.