So perfect it's positively harmful? Reflections on the adaptiveness and maladaptiveness of positive and negative perfectionism.
Positive perfectionism is not a disease—observe behavior before you label.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Dixon et al. (2008) wrote a think-piece about the word 'perfectionism.' They asked: do we slap the label on too fast?
They looked at two kinds. Positive perfectionism means high standards that feel good. Negative perfectionism means never being satisfied and fearing mistakes.
What they found
The authors say positive perfectionism is not a sickness. It can help people aim high and enjoy success.
They warn that calling every perfectionist 'maladaptive' hurts clients. We may pathologize normal ambition.
How this fits with other research
Green et al. (2019) make the same point about 'impulsive' clients. They show steep discounting is context-specific, not a character flaw. Both papers tell us to drop deficit labels.
Richman (2008) also rewrites a clinical story. He says depression grows from avoidance, not just sad feelings. Together, the three papers push clinicians to look at what people do, not the adjectives we give them.
Rojahn et al. (2012) add a warning about measurement. If we keep using fuzzy terms, our data stay fuzzy. Precise definitions matter for perfectionism just like for adaptive behavior.
Why it matters
Next time you write 'client exhibits maladaptive perfectionism,' stop. Describe the actual behavior: repeats task 5 times, checks work with teacher, smiles when correct. Separate helpful striving from harmful self-criticism. Your treatment plan will target the right thing and the client keeps the benefits of high standards.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace trait words in one client report with observable actions and results.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The article by Flett and Hewitt (2006) highlights a number of important issues in the study of perfectionism and rightly urges caution against simplistic conceptualizations. Their view that the term perfectionism should be reserved for pathological forms of behavior is questionable, though understandable given the perspective from which they view it. But whatever the terminology used, the underlying processes remain unaffected. Relevance of the data they cite in support of an alleged maladaptive side to positive perfectionism, however, rests on the assumption of close parallels between self-oriented perfectionism and positive perfectionism, an assumption that may not be justified. It is important to draw attention not only to differences between the theoretical underpinnings of their and the authors perspectives but also to points of agreement that the authors may previously have failed to make clear. The authors concur entirely with their view that clear avenues of potential research are now apparent that should serve to clarify the issues.
Behavior modification, 2008 · doi:10.1177/0145445508319667