Perfectionism and time perspectives: An inquiry into the association between perfectionism subtypes and categorical time perspectives

Abstract

The present study investigated the previously unexplored association between the perfectionistic personality dimensions, as defined by the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism, and individual time perspectives. The study tested the relationship between pure self-oriented, pure socially prescribed, mixed and non-perfectionist subtypes and individual time perspectives, using a sample of 129 undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.84 (SD = 4.60). Participants completed a one-time evaluation using the short versions of the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales and of the Zimbardo Time Perspectives Inventory. Following moderated hierarchical multiple regression analysis, the main result was discovering evidence of a close association between present fatalism and perfectionistic subtypes. Furthermore, pure self-oriented perfectionism consistently predicted more adaptive outcomes in terms of time perspectives as compared to non-perfectionism in four out of the five time perspectives, supporting the emerging empirical distinction between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. The study’s overall results indicate that pure self-oriented perfectionism may hold more adaptive merit than non-perfectionism in the case of time perspectives and that present fatalism may hold a close association with the perfectionistic variable.

Keywords

Time perspectives perfectionism ZTPI 2 × 2 model

Perfectionism, variously defined as a personality style, variable, construct, and dimension (Bieling et al., 2004; Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt and Flett, 1991; Stairs et al., 2012), manifests itself behaviourally as a tendency to set excessively high standards while allowing oneself little latitude in making mistakes (Frost et al., 1990). Time perspectives, another personality variable, represent a person’s temporal disposition that stems from a subjective appraisal of one’s life experience, guiding one’s judgements, decisions, and actions (Zimbardo and Boyd, 2008).

Since the pursuit of perfection requires both attention to detail and a focus on the broader context of one’s actions, potentially involving both high- and low-level temporal construals (Trope and Lieberman, 2003), temporal perspectives favoured by perfectionistic individuals form a continuum ranging from the focus on one’s recalled or anticipated behaviour to the immediate experiencing of the present.

Effectively, individual appraisal of time plays a crucial role in selection and pursuit of individual goals, as well as in behaviour regulation (Bandura, 1997; Carstensen et al., 1999). Since both perfectionism and the individual perception of time have been empirically proven to comprise motivating and achievement-oriented components (Stairs et al., 2012; Trope and Lieberman, 2003), the present study initiated an inquiry into a potential relationship between these two variables, evaluating the potential for a correlation between perfectionism subtypes and time perspectives with the purpose of bridging two distinct fields of personality research.

Time perspectives: An overview

While taking into consideration other conceptualizations of the temporal regulation of behaviour (e.g. Trope and Lieberman, 2003), the present study adopted the theory behind Zimbardo and Boyd’s Time Perspectives Inventory as a framework for analysis (1999). Grounded in the Lewinian life space model, Zimbardo and Boyd’s theory rejected the conceptualization of time as a continuum, choosing to present time perspectives as categories, whereby an individual can adhere to only one category at a given stage in his or her life.

Effectively, Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) conceptualized time perspectives as a set of dispositional styles, proposing five distinct perspectives: past positive, past negative, present hedonistic, present fatalistic, and future. As the two authors argued, every individual, when regulating his or her life space – the total set of his or her goals, judgements, decisions and actions – is guided by a particular time perspective. These can either be ‘bottom-up’ perspectives, resulting from the immediate sensations and experiences of the present environment, or the ‘top-down’ ones, resulting from the cognitively processed perceptions of external reality. In characterizing the ‘top-down’ perspectives, Zimbardo and Boyd presented three categories: past positive, past negative, and future. Past positive perspective encompasses an overall nostalgic evaluation of one’s past experiences. A past negative perspective presents a ruminative relationship towards one’s past. The future time perspective in Zimbardo and Boyd’s (1999) model is characterized by goal-oriented cognitions and a strong concern for the future consequences of an action. As Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) hypothesized, our perspectives on the past hold either a broadly positive or negative affective valence, while the future time perspective lacks the emotional content of the two past perspectives, comprising strong motivating and goal-oriented components instead.

The two ‘bottom-up’ perspectives, focussing on the immediate environment, are the present fatalistic and present hedonistic ones. A present hedonistic time perspective implies an impulsive disposition aimed at instant satisfaction of one’s impulses. Its counterpart, present fatalistic perspective, is concerned with individual control over one’s present environment. Within a present fatalistic perspective, current events are perceived to be largely outside of one’s sphere of control and are purely a product of situational press. This conceptualization of the present hedonistic and future time perspectives in the ZTPI model bears similarity to Trope and Lieberman’s (2003) concept of temporal construals, whereby low-level temporal construals focus on the immediate feasibility of temporal goals, while higher level construals focus on the more abstract, yet highly desirable and difficult goals.

In their original article on the ZTPI, Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) proposed substantial theoretical insight on the adaptive merit of each time perspective, characterizing past negative and present fatalistic perspectives as the least adaptive, future and past positive as the most adaptive, and present hedonistic as ambivalent in predicting psychological adjustment. While earlier research into individual time perspectives focused on the future time orientation (e.g. Fingerman and Perlmutter, 1995; Zaleski et al., 2001), two recent studies shifted the focus towards comparing the adaptive value of each of the five perspectives of the ZTPI (Boniwell et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2013). Thus, one of the two studies correlating ZTPI with measures of subjective well-being found that, in a sample of American students, those with a past positive, present hedonistic, and future perspectives reported the highest levels of subjective well-being (Zhang et al., 2013). Past negative and present fatalistic time perspectives, on the contrary, correlated with greater negative affect in several samples of British and Russian students (Boniwell et al., 2010), with the overall findings from the two studies supporting Zimbardo and Boyd’s original assumptions (1999).

Perfectionism: Conceptual models

Contrary to time perspectives, early inquiries into the perfectionistic variable conceptualized it as a purely maladaptive phenomenon (Hewitt and Flett, 1991). Nonetheless, recent studies suggest that the perfectionistic variable may also include adaptive motivating and achievement-striving dimensions, which correlate with psychologically beneficial outcomes (Bieling et al., 2004; Cox et al., 2002; Stoeber and Otto, 2006).

In defining the various aspects of perfectionism, one current approach in the recent literature subdivides the multiple facets of the perfectionistic construct into two broader dimensions: personal standards perfectionism (PSP) and evaluative concerns perfectionism, of which self-oriented (SOP) and socially prescribed (SPP) perfectionism form two facets based on the origins of the perfectionistic cognitions (e.g. Bieling et al., 2004; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010). SOP stems from one’s internal strivings for perfection, while SPP originates in the individual’s perception of external pressures to adhere to the highest standards possible (Hewitt and Flett, 1991). These two facets, while defined by their cognitive origins, are further differentiated according to their distinct behavioural and affective outcomes. For example, in a sample of British university students, SOP had been linked to greater daily affective satisfaction, while SPP correlated with less frequent use of active coping and more active use of self-blame (Stoeber and Janssen, 2011). Another study of daily affective variations in a sample of Canadian students further delineated the differential outcomes of these two broader dimensions, with SPP more closely linked to negative affect, low self-esteem, and attachment fears than SOP (Dunkley et al., 2012). Similarly, in a sample of Portuguese adolescents, SPP was positively correlated with the participants’ scores on the Child Depression Inventory and negatively correlated with their scores on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, while SOP was not significantly correlated with participant scores on either scale (Bento et al., 2013). Equally, in a sample of overweight women undergoing treatment, SPP, but not SOP, was found to be a predictor of both eating disorder symptoms and of participant concerns over eating behaviours (Peixoto et al., 2013). Altogether, recent empirical research consistently supports the existence of two distinct dimensions of the perfectionistic variable that are differentially associated with psychological adjustment and maladjustment (e.g. Chang, 2006; DiBartolo and Rendón, 2011; Dunkley et al., 2012; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010; Stairs et al., 2012).

This dualistic conceptualisation of the perfectionistic variable is currently studied from both level- and structure-oriented approaches, evaluating both the between-persons variation and the within-person combinations of the perfectionistic dimensions (DiBartolo and Rendón, 2011). Beyond the established theoretical differentiation of the perfectionistic dimensions into a dualistic model based on their aetiology and function, a newer theoretical trend seeks to study the within-person interaction of the between-person variables (DiBartolo and Rendón, 2011; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010). Thus, a recently developed 2 × 2 model of perfectionism, taking into account the interactive aspect of the factors contributing to perfectionism, added further nuances to the theoretical conceptualizations of the various dimensions of perfectionism (Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010). Within this model, SOP and SPP, although defined in the same manner as in the variable-centred approach, can be combined to define four distinct subtypes. For example, high scores on the measures of SOP and low scores on the SPP measures characterize the pure SOP subtype of perfectionism. High scores on SPP and low scores on SOP represent the pure SPP subtype. Furthermore, high scores on both SOP and SPP measures define the subtype of mixed perfectionism, while the low scores on both SOP and SPP measures represent the non-perfectionist subtype. Based on these four empirically established subtypes (DiBartolo and Rendón, 2011; Franche et al., 2012), the overall model predicted that pure SOP would be associated with more, pure SPP with less, while the mixed subtype would correlate with moderately positive psychological outcomes. The role of the non-perfectionist subtype within the model was to provide a backdrop for evaluating the adaptive merit of the other subtypes.

To date, studies that have empirically tested the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism have evaluated its tenability using measures of both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes (Douillez and Lefèvre, 2011; Hill, 2013). Among the empirical evaluations of the 2 × 2 model published up to date, full support is generally afforded to the model on the measures of psychological adjustment, such as positive affect, academic achievement, and life satisfaction (Franche et al., 2012; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010; Gaudreau and Verner-Filion, 2012). Yet in predicting negative outcomes, empirical support for the 2 × 2 model is more equivocal. For example, Hill (2013) found that although, in a sample of athletes, pure SOP was associated with lower levels of athlete burnout when compared to non-perfectionism, both subtypes predicted similar levels of physical and emotional exhaustion. In a study with a similar research design, Damian et al. (2014) found full support for the 2 × 2 model on the measures of positive, but not on negative affect. Nonetheless, the overall results of research conducted on the 2 × 2 model indicate that the positive valence of the pure SOP, as compared to non-perfectionism, and the negative valence of the pure SPP, as compared to mixed perfectionism, is consistent with current research on the two broader dimensions of perfectionism (Dunkley et al., 2006; Gaudreau and Antl, 2008).

Present study: Hypotheses

Effectively, while researchers have already tested the association of perfectionism with a diversity of behavioural and affective outcomes, such as procrastination (Rice et al., 2012), daily negative affect (Dunkley et al., 2012), or positive well-being in the sports domain (Gaudreau and Verner-Filion, 2012), inquiry into the possible correlation between perfectionism and time perspectives has not been initiated. Consequently, based on recent studies correlating time perspectives with subjective well-being (Zhang et al., 2013), and earlier research evaluating the role of perfectionism on depressive symptoms, somatic complaints, and academic motivation (e.g. Stoeber and Rambow, 2007), the present study proposed that the distinct dimensions of perfectionism may play a role in how individuals evaluate their life experience, with the SPP-oriented mindset being more focused on rumination over one’s past and a fatalistic view of one’s present. SOP, on the contrary, would be associated with the more adaptive time perspectives focused on future achievement or present enjoyment. To operationalize this proposal, four hypotheses, based on earlier empirical studies of the 2 × 2 model, were developed (Douillez and Levèfre, 2011; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010). It must be noted that while in Gaudreau and Thompson’s 2010 article, Hypothesis 1 offered three sub-parts, the present study adopted only one (Hyp. 1c) for the purpose of empirical clarity. The four hypotheses of the present study are the following:

Hypothesis 1. Pure SOP correlates with higher scores on the past positive, present hedonistic, and future time perspectives, as well as lower scores on the past negative and present fatalistic time perspectives than the non-perfectionist subtype.

Hypothesis 2. Pure SPP correlates with lower scores on the past positive, present hedonistic, and future time perspectives, as well as higher scores on the past negative and present fatalistic time perspectives than the non-perfectionist subtype.

Hypothesis 3. The mixed subtype of perfectionism correlates with higher scores on the past positive, present hedonistic, and future time perspectives, as well as lower scores on the past negative and present fatalistic time perspectives than the pure SPP subtype.

Hypothesis 4. Mixed subtype also correlates with lower scores on the past positive, present hedonistic, and future time perspectives, as well as higher scores on past negative and present fatalistic time perspectives than the pure SOP.

Method

Participants

A sample of 129 undergraduate students (33.3% male, 66.7% female) participated in the study. Their mean age was 19.84 years (SD = 4.60), with the sample including first- (59.7%), second- (25.6%), third- (5.4%), and fourth-year (9.3%) students enrolled in various programs at a large university in Southeastern Ontario. The majority of participants reported a European Canadian ethnic background (65.1%), while 11.6% reported African Canadian, and 10.1% –Asian Canadian ethnic origins. Arabic (3.9%), Hispanic (1.6%), and Native Canadians (0.8%), as well as other ethnicities (7.0%) represented the remaining 13.3% of the sample.

Research design

Using a cross-sectional correlational research design, participants completed a one-time online survey that contained assessments of perfectionism and time perspectives. All measures were completed in the last week of the semester prior to the final examination period. Participants were compensated with one percentage point of their overall mark in an introductory course in psychology. All participants provided their informed consent electronically, while the university research ethics board approved the study procedure.

Measures

Perfectionism

The short version of the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HF-MPS; 1991) was used as the measure of the perfectionistic variable. The short form of the questionnaire was developed by Cox et al. (2002) and has been empirically tested to present a high degree of convergent validity, at a correlation of .85 or greater between the brief and the original versions. The short form of the HF-MPS questionnaire measures three sub-components of perfectionism: self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented. An example of an item measuring socially prescribed perfectionism is ‘My family expects me to be perfect’. A sample item measuring the self-oriented dimension is ‘One of my goals is to be perfect in everything I do’. For the present study, only the 10 questions measuring self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism were utilized, since the other-oriented perfectionism subtype is not a part of the 2 × 2 model. The two subscales from the HF-MPS measuring SOP and SPP used in the brief version by Cox et al. (2002) comprise five items for each construct, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the socially prescribed factor equal to .90 and .89 for the SOP factor. Participant responses were provided on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all agree, 7 = Totally agree).

Time Perspectives

As a measure of time perspectives, the present study used a brief version of Zimbardo’s Time Perspectives Inventory (SZTPI-15; Zhang et al., 2013). Comprising 15 instead of the original 56 items of the ZTPI, the SZTPI-15 includes three items for each of the five perspectives. One of the items measuring past positive time perspective is ‘I get nostalgic about my childhood’. A sample item for the past negative perspective is: ‘I often think of what I should have done differently in my life’. An example item for the present hedonistic time perspective is ‘Taking risks keeps my life from becoming boring’. Items similar to ‘My life is controlled by forces I cannot influence’ measure present fatalistic time perspective. An item measuring future time perspective is ‘I am able to resist temptations when I know there is work to be done’. The full ZTPI scale has demonstrated a high degree of internal consistency, with test–retest reliability coefficients ranging from .70 to .80, and with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .74 to .82 for each of the five constructs. The average item loading on the five time perspectives for the exploratory factor analysis of the original ZTPI was .45, while the average item loading for confirmatory factor analysis was above .30 for all but two items of the 56-item scale (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Goodness of fit of the full ZTPI, tested using the relative chi-squared value, was 2.30, falling within acceptable ranges. The convergent correlations between full version and brief versions sections range from .67 to .81, while test–retest reliabilities of the short version (.64–.80) are similar to those of the full version (.66–.85) of the ZTPI. Participant responses were provided on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Very untrue, 5 = Very true.).

Data analysis

Five moderated hierarchical regressions were performed, with the SPP dimension of perfectionism as the predictor variable, SOP as the moderator, and five distinct time perspectives as criteria. Perfectionism scores were centred and entered at a first step, and their multiplicative term, representing an interaction, was entered at a second step. In case the interaction was non-significant and only a main effect of either the SPP or SOP dimension was present, the predicted value of the dependent variable for each of the four subtypes of perfectionism was estimated using four regression equations that calculated the predicted value on the measure of the time perspective being predicted for each of the four subtypes of perfectionism, as recommended by the 2 × 2 model methodology (Gaudreau, 2013). The participant data were screened and adjusted for the presence of outliers, normality, and missing responses.

If the SOP × SPP interaction term was significant, simple slope analyses followed the regression, as recommended by Cohen et al. (2003). The first set of simple slopes estimated the relationship between SPP and the criterion time perspective at low (–1 SD) and at high SOP (+1 SD). The first of these simple slope equations contrasted the predicted values of non-perfectionism with pure SOP in terms of time perspectives, thus evaluating Hypothesis 1 of the present study. The second simple slope compared the predicted values of pure SOP and mixed perfectionism, testing Hypothesis 3. A second set of simple slopes was calculated to estimate the relationship between SOP and the outcome variable at low SPP (−1 SD) and at high SPP (+1 SD). The third simple slope then contrasted the predicted values of non-perfectionism and pure SPP, thereby testing Hypothesis 2. The final simple slope compared the predicted values of pure SOP and mixed perfectionism, evaluating Hypothesis 4. While the descriptive statistics and item intercorrelations are presented in Table 1, regression results are reported in Table 2, and the simple slope graphs are presented in Figures 1 to 4.

Figure 1.

The graph of the regression results indicating a main effect of the SOP on the future time perspective. Here and below, data values at endpoints indicate criterion values at endpoints. Asterisked hypotheses received empirical support from the regression analysis.

Figure 2.

The graph of the simple slope equations following a significant interaction of SOP and SPP on the present hedonistic time perspective.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate intercorrelations between time perspectives.

	Self-oriented perfectionism		Socially Prescribed perfectionism		Bivariate intercorrelations
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. Future	3.186	0.859	3.199	0.858	–	.144	.094	.380***	.023
2. Present hedonistic	3.209	0.829	3.240	0.817	.240**	–	.409***	.255**	.338***
3. Present fatalistic	2.805	0.725	2.807	0.731	.94	.362***	–	.112	.360***
4. Past positive	3.409	0.833	3.407	0.825	.423***	.440***	.187*	–	.255**
5. Past negative	2.978	0.889	2.989	0.902	.091	.335	.304***	.331***	–

Note. The descriptive statistics, presented to the left, indicate the means and standard deviations of the predictor variables (SOP and SPP) when regressed on the criterion variables. To the right, bivariate intercorrelations between each of the five criterion variables indicate the degree of conceptual overlap between the variables in question. The values below the diagonal are estimated when SPP serves as the predictor, and above the diagonal, when SOP does.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Table 2.

Moderated hierarchical regression results.

Effect	B	SE	β	t
1. Future
Step 1 R²= 0.127, F (2,110) = 7.98, p < 0.001
Step 2 ΔR²=0.002, ΔF (1,109) = 0.294, p > 0.05
SOP	0.250	0.066	.405	3.797***
SPP	−0.73	0.070	−.112	−1.047
SOP × SPP	−0.020	0.036	−.051	−0.542
2. Present hedonistic
Step 1 R²=0.082, F (2,110)=4.904, p < 0.01
Step 2 ΔR²=0.082, ΔF (1,109)=10.662, p < .001
SOP	0.042	0.065	0.072	0.650
SPP	0.142	0.068	0.228	2.103*
SOP × SPP	−0.110	0.034	−0.302	−3.265**
3. Present fatalistic
Step 1 R²= 0.204, F (2,110)=14.074, p < 0.0001
Step 2 ΔR²= 0.004, ΔF (1,109)=0.487, p > 0.05
SOP	−0.127	0.054	−0.241	−2.363*
SPP	0.300	0.057	0.536	5.268***
SOP × SPP	−0.020	0.029	−0.063	−0.698
4. Past positive
Step 1 R²= 0.128, F (2,110)=8.059, p < 0.001
Step 2 ΔR²= 0.029, ΔF (1,109)=3.804, p = 0.054
SOP	0.212	0.066	.357	3.224**
SPP	−0.137	0.069	−.217	−1.999*
SOP×SPP	−0.066	0.034	−.181	−1.950*
5. Past negative
Step 1 R²= 0.080, F (2,110)=4.807, p < 0.01
Step 2 ΔR²=0.006, ΔF (1,109)=0.755, p > 0.05
SOP	0.126	0.071	0.193	1.768
SPP	0.087	0.075	0.127	1.158
SOP×SPP	−0.034	0.039	−0.084	−0.869

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Prior to the regression analysis, Mahalanobis distance analysis was applied to the participant data, with no outliers detected. Variable means, standard deviations, and bivariate intercorrelations between the time perspective variables were computed separately for each of the two predictor perfectionism variables (see Table 1).

Subsequent regression of SOP and SPP variables on the future time perspective indicated a significant main effect of SOP on the future time perspective in absence of a significant interaction (see Table 2). As shown in Figure 1, the significant main effect of SOP indicated that pure SOP, when compared to non-perfectionism, was associated with significantly higher scores on the future time perspective (β = .427, SE = .071, p < .0001), supporting Hypothesis 1, whereas the mixed subtype of perfectionism was associated with higher scores on the measure of the future time perspective than pure SPP (β = .344, SE = .095, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 3. The non-significant main effect of SPP did not provide empirical support for Hypothesis 2 (β = −.056, SE = .097, p > .05) or Hypothesis 4 (β = −.137, SE = .077, p > .05).

Regression analysis of the SOP and SPP dimensions on the present hedonistic time perspective yielded a statistically significant interaction (see Table 2). A significant main effect of SPP at low, but not at high levels of SOP was present (Table 2). The first simple slope equation on the present hedonistic time perspective subsequently provided support for Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that pure SOP was associated with significantly higher scores than non-perfectionism (β = .315, SE = .066, p < .01). The second simple slope, comparing the mixed subtype with pure SPP, as per Hypothesis 3, did not receive empirical support – mixed and pure SOP subtypes were associated with virtually the same scores on the present hedonistic time perspective (β = −.172, SE = .089, p > .05). The third simple slope, comparing non-perfectionism against pure SPP, directly contradicted Hypothesis 2: pure SPP was associated with higher scores on the present hedonistic time perspective (β = .466, SE = .091, p < .001). Hypothesis 4 also did not receive empirical support − pure SOP was not associated with higher scores when compared with the mixed subtype of perfectionism (β = −.011, SE = .072, p > .05).

While the interaction of the SOP/SPP dimensions was non-significant when predicting the present fatalistic time perspective, there were significant main effects of SOP and SPP on the outcome variable. The first set of simple slopes provided support for Hypothesis 1: pure SOP was associated with marginally significant lower scores on the measure of present fatalistic time perspective compared to non-perfectionism (β = −.213, SE = .057, p < .05). The second set of simple slopes demonstrated that the mixed subtype of perfectionism predicted significantly lower scores on the present fatalistic time perspective than the pure SPP, in support of Hypothesis 3 (β = −.315, SE = .078, p < .05). Meanwhile, the significant main effect of SPP provided support for Hypothesis 2, indicating that pure SPP predicted significantly higher scores on the measure of the present fatalistic time perspective than non-perfectionism (β = .604, SE = .079, p < .0001). Hypothesis 4 was also supported, demonstrating that pure SOP predicted significantly higher scores on the measure of present fatalistic time perspective than the mixed subtype (β = .505, SE = .062, p < .0001). These results, fully supporting the hypotheses of the present study, are displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The graph of the regression results indicating significant main effects of SPP and SOP on the present fatalistic time perspective.

Figure 4.

The graph of the simple slope equations following a significant interaction of SOP and SPP on the past positive time perspective.

The interaction of the SOP/SPP dimensions was marginally significant when predicting the past positive time perspective (see Table 2). At high levels of SOP, SPP had a slight negative main effect on the past positive time perspective. The SOP dimension, at low levels of SPP, had a significant positive main effect on the past positive time perspective. The first simple slope equation supported Hypothesis 1, with the pure SOP subtype being associated with significantly higher scores on the past positive time perspective than the non-perfectionist subtype (β = .503, SE = .067, p < .0001). With the second simple slope, calculated at high levels of SOP, non-perfectionism did not predict significantly higher scores than pure SPP (β = .211, SE = .090, p > .05): consequently, Hypothesis 3 did not receive empirical support. The third simple slope equation did not find a significant difference in the scores associated with non-perfectionism and pure SPP, thus not providing support for Hypothesis 2 (β = −704, SE = .092, p > .05). Nonetheless, the final simple slope equation found a significant difference in the scores between the mixed and pure SOP subtypes, providing empirical support for Hypothesis 4 (β = −.360, SE = .072, p < .01). Consequently, only two out of the four hypotheses of the present study were supported in the case of the past positive time perspective.

While the overall regression model of SOP and SPP on the past negative time perspective was significant, neither the main effects of either SOP or SPP nor their interaction were significant (see Table 2).

Discussion

The present study offered a contribution to the domain of personality research, both in the fields of psychological appraisal of time and in perfectionism research, by evaluating a previously unexplored relationship between two distinct personality phenomena of perfectionism and time perspectives. The association was proven to hold empirical merit, since statistically significant associations were found for four of the five time perspectives when regressed on the four subtypes of the 2 × 2 model.

The most consistent finding across several outcome variables was that pure SOP predicted higher scores on the more adaptive time perspectives (past positive, future, and present hedonistic) and lower scores on one of the negatively valenced time perspectives (present fatalistic), demonstrating the adaptive merit of pure SOP in terms of time perspectives. These findings fall in line with a recent study by Hill (2013), which found a correlation between lower levels of total athlete burnout and pure SOP as compared to non-perfectionism. At the same time, these results contradict an emerging trend in the literature on the 2 × 2 model, whereby pure SOP is associated with the more adaptive outcomes than non-perfectionism in terms of the positively, but not negatively valenced criteria (Douillez and Lefébre, 2011; Franche et al., 2012). Effectively, this consistent empirical support across both positively and negatively laden outcomes may be due to the nature of the outcome utilized. While earlier research on the 2 × 2 model favoured concrete behavioural outcomes, such as grade point average (GPA), athletic burnout, or depressive symptomatology (Douillez and Lefébre, 2011; Gaudreau and Thompson, 2010; Hill, 2013), the present study has used a dispositional personality criterion instead. This arguably more abstract component of personality may effectively not afford clear boundaries between its adaptive and maladaptive components.

Another crucial finding was that, in the case of the future and present fatalistic time perspectives, the mixed perfectionist subtype predicted significantly better outcomes than pure SPP, indicating that a within-person combination of SOP and SPP may be predictive of a more future-oriented outlook and of a less pessimistic view of one’s current experience in comparison to pure SPP. Even though mixed perfectionism did not significantly differ from pure SPP on the present hedonistic and past positive time perspectives, these findings indicated that mixed perfectionism is at least on par with pure SPP in terms of the psychological outcomes it predicts, consistent with past studies on the 2 × 2 model (Franche et al., 2012).

Interestingly, a large negatively correlated interaction between SOP and SPP was present when regressed on the present hedonistic time perspective. When SOP was high, the effect of SPP on the present hedonistic time perspective was negligible. Yet when SOP was low, high levels of SPP predicted significantly higher scores on the present hedonistic perspective as compared to non-perfectionism, indicated that an inherent ambiguity may be present within the construct of the present hedonistic time perspective. Due to its structure, present hedonistic time perspective appears to capture both the capacity to enjoy current positive emotional states, as well as the sensation seeking and impulsivity characteristic of neuroticism (McCrae and Costa, 2003), thus providing for an association with both adaptive and maladaptive components of perfectionism.

Surprisingly, past negative time perspective was not significantly related to either dimension of perfectionism. This result, although seemingly contradictive of findings by Shafran et al. (2006) of a significant correlation between perfectionism and increased regret over past eating behaviours, may be due to the fact that in the study by Shafran et al. (2006), a broader construct of PSP, as opposed to SOP, was evaluated. Another explanation for this lack of a significant correlation may be the young mean age of the present study’s sample. A sample of older individuals, who most likely have experienced more negative life experiences than the younger participants of the present experiment, may enable the researchers to understand at what point in the lifespan perfectionism begins to correlate with a negative time perspective.

Altogether, while the anticipated relationship between pure SOP and non-perfectionism received consistent support across four of the five time perspectives, only one time perspective, present fatalistic, consistently predicted the hypothesized structure of the 2 × 2 model. This finding may imply that present fatalism is the one time perspective that has the closest link to the perfectionistic mindset.

Limitations and directions for future research

Two main limitations of the current study are its cross-sectional design and a participant sample that is highly restricted in its age range. As Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) mentioned in their original publication of the ZTPI measure, participant samples with a different mean age adopt distinctive dominant time perspectives. As initial empirical tests of the ZTPI indicated, older adults tend to gravitate towards past positive or past negative time perspectives, whereas younger age groups adopt mainly present hedonistic or future time perspectives (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). The present study, due to the very young mean age of its sample and a methodology that measures participant time perspectives only once, did not fully grasp the possible moderating impact of aging on the relationship between perfectionism and time perspectives. A more thorough investigation encompassing several age groups measured at several points in time may find more interactions on each distinct time perspective, for instance, with SOP moderating the impact of SPP on present fatalistic and past negative time perspectives.

Another engaging direction for future research would encompass a more profound exploration of the relationship between the three perfectionistic subtypes (pure SOP, pure SPP, and mixed) and the present hedonistic time perspective. Future research may proceed to delineate more clearly whether the three subtypes of perfectionism correlate more with the pursuit of positive affectivity or with the impulsive sensation seeking. Equally, further studies may compare the four subtypes along the variables of self-regulation and sensation seeking, to determine if the three subtypes of perfectionism are equally likely to experience difficulties in regulating urges, temptations, and cravings associated with immediate short-term rewards.

Conclusion

Altogether, the results of this study provided further support for the current representation of pure SOP as being relatively more adaptive compared to non-perfectionism by providing empirical proof of its links with the present hedonistic, past positive, and future time perspectives. Finally, the study provided full support for the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism on the outcome variable of the past fatalistic time perspective, suggesting that a fatalistic outlook on one’s present experience may be closely linked to the perfectionistic personality disposition. Nonetheless, despite its novel findings, the present study offered but a very tentative foray into the investigation of the relationship between time perspectives and perfectionism. Further research may examine in greater detail how the perfectionistic individuals truly succeed in putting their lives, time, and experience in perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.

Bento

Pereira

Marques

et al. (2013) Perfectionism, self esteem and depression in a Portuguese sample of adolescents. European Psychiatry 28: 1–15.

Bieling

Israeli

Antony

(2004) Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1373–1385.

Boniwell

Osin

Linley

et al. (2010) A question of balance: Time perspective and well-being in British and Russian samples. The Journal of Positive Psychology 5: 24–40.

Carstensen

Isaacowitz

Charles

(1999) Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist 54: 165–181.

Chang

(2006) Conceptualization and measurement of adaptive and maladaptive aspects of performance perfectionism: Relations to personality, psychological functioning, and academic achievement. Cognitive Therapy and Research 30: 677–697.

Cohen

West

et al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cox

Enns

Clara

(2002) The multidimensional structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological Assessment 14: 365–373.

Damian

Stoeber

Negru

et al. (2014) Positive and negative affect in adolescents. An investigation of the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal 18: 1–16.

10.

DiBartolo

Rendón

(2012) A critical examination of the construct of perfectionism and its relationship to mental health in Asian and African Americans using a cross-cultural framework. Clinical Psychology Review 32: 139–152.

11.

Douilliez

Lefèvre

(2011) Interactive effect of perfectionism dimensions on depressive symptoms: A reply to Gaudreau and Thompson (2010). Personality and Individual Differences 50: 1147–1151.

12.

Dunkley

Berg

J-L

Zuroff

(2012) The role of perfectionism in daily self-esteem, attachment, and negative affect. Journal of Personality 80: 633–663.

13.

Dunkley

Blankstein

Zuroff

et al. (2006) Neediness and connectedness and the five-factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality 20: 123–136.

14.

Fingerman

Perlmutter

(1995) Future time perspective and life events across adulthood. The Journal of General Psychology 122: 95–111.

15.

Franche

Gaudreau

Miranda

(2012) The 2 x 2 Model of Perfectionism: A Comparison Across Asian Canadians and European Canadians. Journal of Counseling Psychology 59: 567–574.

16.

Frost

Marten

Lahart

et al. (1990) The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research 14: 449–468.

17.

Gaudreau

(2013) The 2 x 2 model of perfectionism: Commenting the critical comments and suggestions of Stoeber (2012). Personality and Individual Differences 55: 351–355.

18.

Gaudreau

Antl

(2008) Athletes’ broad dimensions of dispositional perfectionism: Examining changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of sport-related motivation and coping. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30: 356–382.

19.

Gaudreau

Thompson

(2010) Testing a 2x2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences 48: 532–537.

20.

Gaudreau

Verner-Filion

(2012) Dispositional perfectionism and well-being: A test of the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain. Sport, Exercise and Performance Psychology 1: 29–43.

21.

Hewitt

Flett

(1991) Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60: 456–470.

22.

Hill

(2013) Perfectionism and Burnout in Junior Soccer Players: A Test of the 2 x 2 Model of Dispositional Perfectionism. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 5: 18–29.

23.

McCrae

Costa

(2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective, New York: Guilford Press.

24.

Peixoto

Pereira

Soares

et al. (2013) Perfectionism, eating behaviour and affect in overweight women. European Psychiatry 28: 15–32.

25.

Rice

Richardson

CME

Clark

(2012) Perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology 59: 288–302.

26.

Shafran

Lee

Payne

et al. (2006) The impact of manipulating personal standards on eating attitudes and behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy 44: 897–906.

27.

Stairs

Smith

Zapolski

TCB

et al. (2012) Clarifying the construct of perfectionism. Assessment 19: 146–166.

28.

Stoeber

Janssen

(2011) Perfectionism and coping with daily failures: positive reframing helps achieve satisfaction at the end of the day. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 24: 477–497.

29.

Stoeber

Otto

(2006) Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 295–319.

30.

Stoeber

Rambow

(2007) Perfectionism in adolescent school students: Relations with motivation, achievement, and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 42: 1379–1389.

31.

Trope

Lieberman

(2003) Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110: 403–421.

32.

Zaleski

Cycon

Kurc

(2001) Future time perspective and subjective well-being in adolescent samples. In: Schmuck

Sheldon

(eds) Life Goals and Well-Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving, Toronto: Hogrefe and Schuster, pp. 58–67.

33.

Zhang

Howell

Bowerman

(2013) Validating a brief measure of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Time and Society 22: 391–409.

34.

Zhang

Howell

Stolarski

(2013) Comparing three methods to measure a balanced time perspective: The relationship between a balanced time perspective and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 14: 169–184.

35.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1271–1288.

36.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(2008) The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life, New York: Simon and Schuster.