Abstract
Stoeber and Otto review positive and negative perfectionism frameworks — dimensional (strivings vs concerns) and group-based (healthy vs unhealthy perfectionists) — and synthesise evidence that self-oriented perfectionistic strivings associate with positive outcomes when concern over mistakes and fear of negative evaluation stay moderate.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, and challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. DOI
Key findings
- Two dimensions — Perfectionistic strivings (adaptive pursuit) and perfectionistic concerns (maladaptive worry about mistakes and evaluation) — not one global perfectionism score.
- Healthy profile — Healthy perfectionists show higher positive characteristics than unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfectionists when strivings dominate over concerns.
- Striving caveat — Self-oriented strivings read as positive only when concern over mistakes and fear of others’ evaluation are not excessive.
- Builds on FMPS — Maps onto Frost 1990 facets — concern over mistakes and doubts about actions mark the maladaptive cluster.
Limits
Review synthesis — not new primary data. Healthy vs unhealthy group labels are research constructs, not clinical diagnoses. Developmental antecedents of positive perfectionism remain open questions in the review.
Application
When a rep stalls on not good enough, ask whether perfectionistic concerns (catastrophised evaluation) or strivings (standards without veto) is running — accepting imperfection targets the concern reaction, not abandoning standards. Pair Accepting imperfection · The dimensions of perfectionism.