Multidimensional Perfectionism and Burnout

Abstract

A meta-analysis of research examining the relationships between multidimensional perfectionism and burnout is provided. In doing so, relationships before and after controlling for the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism were examined along with whether relationships were moderated by domain (work, sport, or education). A literature search yielded 43 studies (N = 9,838) and 663 effect sizes. Meta-analysis using random-effects models revealed that perfectionistic strivings had small negative or non-significant relationships with overall burnout and symptoms of burnout. By contrast, perfectionistic concerns displayed medium-to-large and medium positive relationships with overall burnout and symptoms of burnout. After controlling for the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism, “pure” perfectionistic strivings displayed notably larger negative relationships. In terms of moderation, in some cases, perfectionistic strivings were less adaptive and perfectionistic concerns more maladaptive in the work domain. Future research should examine explanatory mechanisms, adopt longitudinal designs, and develop interventions to reduce perfectionistic concerns fueled burnout.

Keywords

motivation performance sport work education

Multidimensional Perfectionism and Burnout: A Meta-Analysis

Motivation can go awry so that high levels of dedication to a previously enjoyed activity can result in burnout (Gould, 1996). Burnout is a psychosocial syndrome that is associated with motivational, performance, and psychological difficulties. Due to its adverse consequences, a large amount of research has been dedicated to identifying antecedents of burnout (e.g., Alarcon, 2011; Purvanova & Muros, 2010; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). Recently, perfectionism has received considerable attention in this regard. The current study provides a systematic review of research examining the perfectionism–burnout relationship in the form of a meta-analysis. In doing so, we summarize the relationship between two main dimensions of perfectionism (viz., strivings and concerns) and burnout. In addition, we also examine these relationships before and after controlling for the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., “pure” perfectionistic strivings and “pure” perfectionistic concerns) and whether these relationships differ depending on the domain in which they are assessed (work, sport, or education).

Burnout and Its Development

Contemporary understanding of burnout owes much to the work of Maslach and Jackson (e.g., Maslach, 1976; Maslach & Jackson, 1981a, 1981b). Although other models of burnout exist, Maslach and Jackson’s model is the most influential and the most widely adopted when examining burnout. Maslach and Jackson describe burnout as having three core symptoms. The first core symptom is the depletion of emotional resources (emotional exhaustion). This symptom has been described as general feelings of being overextended by demands being placed on the individual. The second core symptom is the development of an impersonal or cynical attitude (depersonalization or cynicism). This symptom is an interpersonal dimension of burnout that captures indifference or detachment from others. The final symptom is an evaluation of personal competence, accomplishment, or efficacy (personal accomplishment or professional efficacy). Lower levels of this symptom are indicative of higher burnout. Scores on this element are therefore often reversed to obtain a measure of reduced competence or accomplishment.

Burnout is thought to manifest in a range of domains. In the work domain and service jobs, these symptoms refer specifically to interactions with recipients of service, care, treatment, or instruction. In non-service jobs, the symptoms refer to work activities more generally. The same symptoms in work are also noted in education but are anchored in experiences of school and university (Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002). In sport, the symptoms are similar but have been adapted to capture the unique characteristics of the sport domain (Raedeke, 1997; Raedeke & Smith, 2001). Specifically, the exhaustion symptom includes an additional physical element and the depersonalization symptom is replaced with devaluation—a loss of interest or value in participation. This latter adaptation was based on an attempt to identify an equivalent symptom of devaluation in a group that are recipients of care (i.e., athletes), rather than providers of care (Raedeke & Smith, 2001). In this sense, although not equivalent, the two symptoms are analogues of each other and have been highly correlated when measured concurrently (Cresswell & Eklund, 2007b).¹

Examination of burnout is considered an important area of enquiry as it is a syndrome that is associated with substantial human suffering and carries considerable financial costs for organizations. In terms of the personal consequences of burnout, research suggests it contributes to diminished physical and mental health (Maslach, 2001). Indeed, the consequences of burnout can be so severe that initial work in this area centered on discriminating between burnout and depression (Freudenberger, 1974). From an organizational perspective, burnout is associated with decreased motivation and poorer performance, a finding evident in all domains (Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Van Riet, 2008; Cresswell & Eklund, 2007a; Yang, 2004). Consequently, associated monetary costs to employers in the work domain are noteworthy, as are the equivalent costs in education and sport domains in the form of lost investment and revenue associated with talent development and unfulfilled potential (Feigley, 1984).

Burnout is understood to arise primarily as the result of stress-related processes (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). In accord, when seeking to explain burnout, particular emphasis is placed on emotional and situational demands along with the resources available to cope with those demands. As described by Maslach (1982) and similarly by others (e.g., Leiter, 1993), the three symptoms of burnout are considered to be the result of the imbalance between demands and resources. Demands (e.g., high workload) influence the potential for exhaustion whereas resources (e.g., high social support) play a protective role in terms of accomplishment and depersonalization. In terms of the progression of burnout, over time, increasing demands and investment are thought to culminate in an overload of resources. Exhaustion develops first and, in an attempt to cope with exhaustion, a sense of depersonalization then develops. A reduced sense of accomplishment follows, or can arise in tandem, when the first two symptoms interfere with effectiveness and perceptions of personal resources (Lee & Ashforth, 1996).

A large amount of research has been dedicated to examining the antecedents of burnout in work, sport, and education domains. In the work domain, a number of meta-analytical studies have identified influential demographic (e.g., Purvanova & Muros, 2010), situational (e.g., Alarcon, 2011), and personality factors (e.g., Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). This research suggests, for example, that conscientiousness is associated with lower levels of burnout, whereas neuroticism is associated with higher levels of burnout. Although research is less extensive in sport and education, systematic and narrative reviews have identified similar antecedents (e.g., anxiety, stress, coping; Goodger, Gorely, Lavallee, & Harwood, 2007; Walburg, 2014). Moreover, mirroring research in the work domain, research has also found that burnout is associated with similar personality characteristics among athletes and students such as neuroticism (e.g., Jiang, Huang, & Chen, 2012). One notable omission from these reviews and recent meta-analytical studies (e.g., Alarcon, Eschleman, & Bowling, 2009; Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010) is consideration of perfectionism.

Multidimensional Perfectionism

Broadly defined, perfectionism is a combination of exceedingly high standards and a preoccupation with extreme self-critical evaluation (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Current understanding of perfectionism is that it is a multidimensional trait or disposition that includes a range of dimensions that collectively capture two higher order dimensions, perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Perfectionistic strivings are “aspects of perfectionism associated with self-oriented striving for perfection and the setting of very high personal performance standards” whereas perfectionistic concerns are “aspects associated with concerns over making mistakes, fear of negative social evaluation, feelings of discrepancy between one’s expectations and performance, and negative reactions to imperfection” (Gotwals, Stoeber, Dunn, & Stoll, 2012, p. 264). These two broad dimensions of perfectionism provide a useful heuristic in an area of enquiry that can be quite disparate in terms of conceptual approaches and measurement. It is also noteworthy that this approach is supported by factor analytical studies (e.g., Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004) and is being increasingly adopted when examining perfectionism and reviewing perfectionism research (e.g., Gotwals et al., 2012).

In terms of research examining the effects of perfectionism, perfectionistic strivings and concerns have proven useful predictors of cognitive (e.g., attributions), affective (e.g., anxiety), and behavioral (e.g., performance) outcomes in work, sport, and education domains (see Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber, 2011; Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for reviews). In addition, research has also begun to accumulate that suggests perfectionism can have a heavy toll in terms of health-related outcomes, including general physical ill-health, fatigue, and even early mortality (Dittner, Rimes, & Thorpe, 2011; Fry & Debats, 2009; Molnar, Sadava, Flett, & Colautti, 2012). Against this backdrop, research has found that perfectionistic strivings are typically associated with few maladaptive outcomes and in some instances are associated with adaptive outcomes. This is particularly the case when the relationships between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are controlled for (see Gotwals et al., 2012). Some of the desirable correlates of perfectionistic strivings include positive emotional experiences, active coping strategies, and greater performance (e.g., Dunkley, Sanislow, Grilo, & McGlashan, 2006; A. P. Hill, Stoeber, Brown, & Appleton, 2014; Stoeber & Childs, 2010). By contrast, perfectionistic concerns are associated with an array of maladaptive outcomes. These include almost the converse of perfectionistic strivings and, notably, antecedents of burnout such as greater threat appraisals, anxiety, and avoidant coping (e.g., Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003; A. P. Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2010; Stoeber & Childs, 2010).

A number of researchers have argued that the two dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic concerns, in particular) are likely to be important antecedents of burnout (e.g., Gould, 1996; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008; Zhang, Gan, & Cham, 2007). This is partly because of the influential role perfectionism is thought to play in stress-related processes. Specifically, perfectionistic concerns encapsulate a rigid self-evaluative style whereby individuals perceive their environment in dichotomous, all-or-nothing terms, overgeneralize negative events, ruminate about past failures, and have a strong need for self-validation (Hewitt & Flett, 1996; Flett & Hewitt, 2002). In terms of appraisal processes that govern stress, external expectations and criticism are perceived to be high and a sense of self-worth under constant threat. Subsequently, ineffective avoidant coping strategies are used that ensure negative emotional experiences persist. As such, perfectionistic concerns are associated with considerable strain that render individuals vulnerable to the accrual of stress and subsequent burnout. In summarizing current understanding of the perfectionism–burnout relationship, then, it is the harsh self-evaluative processes central to perfectionistic concerns that are understood to fuel the perfectionism–burnout relationship, rather than perfectionistic strivings.

In an attempt to identify factors that contribute to burnout and ill-health in work and sport, the first empirical studies to examine relationships between perfectionism and burnout in these domains appeared at a similar time nearly 20 years ago (Fry, 1995; Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996). However, the majority of research examining the perfectionism–burnout relationship has been conducted in the last 5 years. Most of the studies have taken place in work and sport domains but studies have also recently begun to emerge in an education domain. Generally, this research has found perfectionistic strivings to be typically unrelated or negatively related to burnout symptoms (e.g., Caliskan, Arikan, & Saatci, 2014; A. P. Hill, Hall, Appleton, & Kozub, 2008; Shih, 2012). By contrast, perfectionistic concerns have been found to be typically positively related to burnout symptoms (e.g., A. P. Hill, 2013; Li, Hou, Chi, Liu, & Hager, 2014; Stoeber & Childs, 2010). Although evidence of the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism and burnout has gathered across multiple domains, to date there has been no attempt to summarize this research in a systematic manner or examine sources of variability in the findings of studies. Consequently, the first purpose of the current study was to summarize research that has examined the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism and burnout across these domains in the form of a meta-analytical review. Unlike in narrative and other general systematic reviews, in this case, a quantitative summary of these relationships and test of their statistical significance can be provided.

Accounting for the Correlation Between Dimensions of Perfectionism

The second purpose of the study was to examine the perfectionism–burnout relationships using semi-partial correlations. In two major review articles in the area of perfectionism (Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber & Otto, 2006), both bivariate and partial correlations were examined. This is because the two dimensions of perfectionism are typically correlated and this can obscure the relationship between each dimension of perfectionism and their various outcomes (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). This issue is especially relevant to perfectionistic strivings as they are more equivocal in terms of their correlates and have displayed positive relationships with both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes, including burnout. A clearer picture has been found to emerge once the relationships between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are controlled and pure perfectionistic strivings and pure perfectionistic concerns are examined (see Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Although some caution has recently been called for in terms of using partialling to identify the effects of the two dimensions of perfectionism (see A. P. Hill, 2014), examination of their partialled effects remains useful when assessing the degree to which the outcomes associated with each dimension are due to unique or shared variance. In this way, examination of semi-partial correlations between dimensions of perfectionism and burnout is warranted.

Moderation of the Perfectionism–Burnout Relationship

One of the advantages of meta-analysis is that it allows for exploration of variability between studies in terms of the relationships observed and the identification of possible moderating factors (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). This is important in context of perfectionism–burnout research as there is some evidence of variability in the relationships between dimensions of perfectionism and symptoms of burnout between domains. For example, there have been occasions when perfectionistic strivings have been unrelated, positively related, and negatively related to exhaustion in work, education, and sport (P. A. Appleton & Hill, 2012; Shih, 2012; Taris, Beek, & Schaufeli, 2010). Therefore, to begin to explore possible sources of this variability, the final purpose of the current study was to examine whether the domain in which the perfectionism–burnout relationships were assessed is a potential moderator of the observed relationships (work, sport, or education).

There are a number of noteworthy similarities and differences between work, sport, and education. All three domains are achievement contexts characterized by potentially high performance demands and interpersonal competition. However, they also differ in important ways. Sport, for example, is unique insomuch as flawless performance can be necessary for success, so perfectionism is considered by some to be desirable and is often overtly encouraged (e.g., Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). In addition, as a more freely chosen activity, there is some evidence that sport is characterized by higher levels of intrinsic motivation (the antithesis of burnout) than work or education (Vallerand, 2004). In this regard, work is the most distinct domain as, comparatively, external motives are high (i.e., financial remuneration), the potential for “entrapment” is high (work is necessary for one’s livelihood so individuals cannot remove themselves from stressful situations easily), and, unlike sport or education, work is the domain in which individuals are most likely to be responsible for providing care, instruction, and service for others—a feature considered to be one of the main driving forces behind burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). Along these lines, education is similar to sport in that students are recipients of care and not providers of care (contributing to less burnout) but it is also similar to work in that education can be compulsory (contributing to more burnout).

In support of the possibility that domain moderates relationships between perfectionism and burnout, it is noted that research has found that burnout is related to job and workplace characteristics with some vocations more vulnerable to burnout than others (e.g., nurses and teachers; Maslach et al., 2001). Moreover, there is some evidence that the context moderates other stress-related processes and antecedent–burnout relationships. Shin et al. (2014), for example, found that the relationships between coping strategies and symptoms of burnout depended on occupation, with some coping strategies (emotion focused and problem focused) being especially strong predictors of some burnout symptoms among nurses in comparison with teachers and service employees. In this regard, although the general influence of perfectionistic strivings and concerns on stress-related processes are likely to be evident across domains, in relation to burnout, their influence may be in part dependent on the features of that domain. Again, on this issue, there is evidence that in regard to work, perfectionistic strivings may be less adaptive and perfectionistic concerns more maladaptive as they both appear to energize compulsive work behavior (see Stoeber & Damian, in press, for a review).

The Present Study

In summary, the first purpose of the current study was to provide a meta-analytical review of research examining the relationship between two dimensions of perfectionism (viz., strivings and concerns) and burnout (viz., overall burnout, exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment, and depersonalization). The second purpose was to reexamine these relationships after controlling for the relationship between the two dimensions of perfectionism (semi-partial correlations). The final purpose was to examine whether the relationships differed depending on the domain in which it was assessed (work, sport, or education). It was hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Perfectionistic strivings would be negatively related to burnout;

Hypothesis 2: Perfectionistic concerns would be positively related to burnout;

Hypothesis 3: When the relationships between the two dimensions of perfectionism are controlled for, pure perfectionistic strivings would display stronger, more negative relationships with burnout and pure perfectionistic concerns would display stronger, more positive, relationships with burnout.

Hypothesis 4: Perfectionistic strivings would be less adaptive and perfectionistic concerns more maladaptive in work than in other domains. For perfectionistic strivings, this equates to a weaker, less negative, or possibly positive relationship with burnout, and for perfectionistic concerns, this equates to a stronger, more positive, relationship with burnout.

Method

Literature Search

A computerized literature search was conducted using the databases PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE/SPORTDiscuss, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (American & International and United Kingdom & Ireland). The search terms were “perfection”* (for perfectionism, perfectionist, and perfectionistic) and “burnout” The search date was between January 1990 (the year the first article on multidimensional perfectionism was published) and April 2014. No other restrictions were placed on the searches. This search yielded 263 studies. Once duplicates were removed and abstracts screened for relevance (i.e., studies that examined the relationship between perfectionism and burnout), 57 studies remained.

Following the computerized literature search, the reference lists of the articles identified were inspected with the aim of identifying other articles. In addition, the corresponding authors of the articles identified were contacted to enquire about the possession of any unpublished data (e.g., conference papers or data from unpublished studies). Thirty-three corresponding authors were contacted, and 14 authors responded to our request 4 weeks after the initial email (our stated deadline). This resulted in the inclusion of 5 additional data sets (Ho, Appleton, Cumming, & Duda, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; Jowett, Hill, & Hall, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; Stensrud, Kristiansen, & Abrahamsen, n.d.). On July 4, 2014, we ended all search strategies and instigated data reduction and analysis. In total, the search strategies resulted in the identification of 62 studies/data sets that were further assessed using the inclusion criteria below.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they (a) measured perfectionism and burnout using self-report scales that yielded quantitative values; (b) measured perfectionism in a multidimensional manner (as opposed to a unidimensional manner); (c) adopted Maslach and Jackson’s approach to measuring symptoms of burnout (viz., Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)-Human Services Survey, Maslach & Jackson, 1981a; MBI-Educators Survey, Maslach, Jackson, & Schwab, 1986; MBI-General Survey, Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996; MBI-Student Survey, Schaufeli et al., 2002; Athlete Burnout Questionnaire; Raedeke & Smith, 2001); (d) included an effect size (e.g., correlation coefficient), sufficient information for computation or estimation of an effect size, or this information was obtained from the corresponding author when not included in the original publication; (e) were published in English; (f) were a published journal article, thesis/dissertation, conference presentation, or data provided directly from authors; and (g) included a sample that was not replicated elsewhere (e.g., included in both a journal article and a thesis/dissertation). When this was the case, only the most complete and recent account of the sample/data was used. The implementation of the criteria resulted in the final inclusion of 43 studies/data sets reporting 310 effect sizes capturing the relationship between perfectionism and burnout.

Recorded Variables

A coding sheet was completed for each study included in the meta-analysis. It included (a) publication information (authors/year), (b) domain (work, sport, or education), (c) number of participants, (d) instrument used to measure perfectionism and indicators of perfectionistic strivings and concerns, (e) bivariate correlations between dimensions of perfectionism, and (f) bivariate correlations between dimensions of perfectionism and symptoms of burnout.² Indicators of perfectionistic strivings were the personal standards subscale from either Frost et al.’s (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale or its sport adaptations (Sport-MPS and Sport-MPS 2; Dunn et al., 2006; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009), the self-oriented perfectionism subscale from Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale or Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 1997), the striving for perfection subscale from the Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sports (Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2006), the high standards subscale from the revised Almost Perfect Scale (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), and the striving for excellence subscale from the Perfectionism Inventory (R. W. Hill et al., 2004). Indicators of perfectionistic concerns were the concerns over mistakes, doubts about action, socially prescribed perfectionism, negative reactions to imperfection, and discrepancy subscales from the same instruments identified above. These indicators were selected based on the typical practice of researchers examining perfectionism, recommendations of those in this area (e.g., Stoeber, 2011), and factor analytical evidence (e.g., Bieling et al., 2004; Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). Information was coded independently by the two authors. Both are regular contributors to research in the areas of perfectionism and/or burnout. In comparing the information recorded, the agreement rate was 90% (information provided directly from authors after the initial literature search was not independently coded). Disagreement was resolved by revisiting the articles and coming to a consensus. Coded information for each study is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis.

Study						Effect sizes
	Sample		Measurement			PS–PC	PS–RA		PS–EX		PS–DE		PS–BO		PC–RA		PC–EX		PC–DE		PC–BO
	Domain	N	Intru	PS	PC	r	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr	r	sr
Appleton and Hill (2012)	Sport	231	CAPS	SOP	SPP	.23	−.24	−.29	−.03	−.11	−.29	−.34	−.26	−.35	.21	.27	.31	.32	.18	.39	.33	.47
Appleton, Hall, and Hill (2009)	Sport	201	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.24	−.19	−.26	.07	.01	−.17	.25	−.13	.00	.27	.32	.27	.25	.29	.34	.36	.40
Barcza (2010) ^a	Sport	507	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.34	.04	−.07	.05	−.09	−.11	−.21	−.01	−.17	.32	.31	.38	.36	.27	.31	.44	.45
Caliskan, Arikan, and Saatci (2014)	Work	342	APS-R	HS	D	.28	−.51	−.51	−.06	−.16	−.08	−.22	−.43	−.59	.00	.16	.33	.35	.42	.44	.49	.63
Chang (2012)	Work	314	FMPS	—	CM/DA	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.23	—	.25	—	—	—
Chen, Kee, and Tsai (2009)	Sport	188	MIPS	SP	NRI	.60	−.33	−.28	−.18	−.16	−.34	−.25	−.45	−.37	−.08	.13	−.04	.07	−.15	.06	−.15	.14
Childs and Stoeber (2010)	Work	106	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.49	−.19	−.28	.00	−.15	−.17	−.27	−.20	−.23	.18	.28	.29	.29	.19	.28	.38	.48
Childs and Stoeber (2012)
Study 1	Work	69	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.26	−.15	−.22	.04	−.11	.06	−.14	−.02	−.21	.24	.28	.52	.51	.30	.33	.50	.53
Study 2	Work	195	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.48	.09	−.16	.23	.01	.01	−.20	.15	−.16	.48	.44	.46	.36	.40	.40	.60	.52
Comerchero (2008) ^a	Work	285	APS-R	HS	D	−.09	−.40	−.39	−.06	−.05	−.39	−.38	−.47	−.46	.36	.35	.10	.09	.26	.24	.40	.38
Corrigan (1997) ^a	Work	508	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.60	.10	−.04	.28	.04	.20	−.02	.35	−.01	.24	.18	.41	.25	.37	.26	.61	.41
Cumming and Duda (2012)	Sport	194	FMPS	PSt	CM/DA	.15	—	—	−.06	−.10	—	—	—	—	—	—	.26	.27	—	—	—	—
Fairlie (2011) ^a	Work	278	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.47	−.11	−.18	.07	−.06	.05	−.07	.01	−.16	.15	.20	.27	.24	.26	.24	.36	.46
Flaxman, Ménard, Bond, and Kinman (2012)	Work	111	FMPS	—	DA	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.26	—	—	—	—	—
Gotwals (2011)	Sport	117	SMPS-2	PSt	CM/DA	.25	.04	−.07	.02	−.06	−.18	−.24	−.06	−.19	.41	.41	.30	.30	.22	.27	.49	.51
A. P. Hill and Appleton (2011)	Sport	202	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.12	−.12	−.17	−.15	−.19	−.45	−.47	−.34	−.40	.35	.38	.30	.32	.14	.22	.38	.45
A. P. Hill (2013) ^b	Sport	167	MULT^c	SOP/PSt	SPP/CM/DA	−.04	−.27	−.27	−.03	−.02	−.19	−.19	−.23	−.22	.18	.18	.21	.21	.18	.18	.27	.27
A. P. Hill, Hall, Appleton, and Kozub (2008)	Sport	151	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.16	−.39	−.52	−.25	−.35	−.42	−.53	−.45	−.59	.46	.64	.41	.46	.40	.51	.54	.68
A. P. Hill, Hall, Appleton, and Murray (2010)	Sport	150	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.26	−.09	−.19	.04	−.03	−.14	−.20	−.11	−.24	.34	.36	.26	.25	.22	.26	.48	.52
A. P. Hill, Hall, & Appleton (2010)	Sport	206	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.27	−.17	−.23	−.03	−.13	−.31	−.36	−.24	−.35	.21	.26	.33	.34	.17	.27	.34	.42
Ho, Appleton, Cumming, and Duda (n.d.-a, n.d.-b)^d
Data Set 1	Sport	212	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.37	−.19	−.18	.03	−.03	−.12	−.18	−.12	−.17	−.03	.04	.17	.16	.15	.20	.13	.17
Data Set 2	Sport	205	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.29	−.38	−.43	−.19	−.23	−.40	−.44	−.44	−.50	.15	.28	.12	.18	.12	.26	.18	.32
Jowett, Hill, Hall, and Curran (2013)	Sport	211	MULT^c	SOP/PSt	SPP/CM/DA	.58	−.14	−.32	.05	−.07	−.14	−.31	−.10	−.31	.28	.36	.20	.17	.27	.35	.33	.39
Jowett, Hill, and Hall (n.d.-a, n.d.-b)^d
Data Set 1	Sport	267	MULT^c	SOP/PSt	SPP/CM/DA	.25	−.21	−.27	−.10	−.16	−.16	−.23	−.22	−.32	.23	.29	.21	.24	.24	.28	.32	.39
Data Set 2	Sport	244	MULT^c	SOP/PSt	SPP/CM/DA	.15	−.08	−.12	.07	.04	−.19	−.22	−.10	−.15	.24	.25	.20	.19	.16	.19	.30	.31
Kristiansen, Abrahamsen, and Stensrud (2012)	Sport	24	FMPS	PSt	—	.29	−.17	−.22	−.18	−.26	−.37	−.62	−.36	−.55	.17	.22	.15	.21	.53	.59	.43	.51
Lemyre, Hall, and Roberts (2008)	Sport	141	FMPS	PSt	CM/DA	.40	−.19	−.32	−.22	−.26	−.15	−.18	−.26	−36	.29	.37	.09	.18	.08	.14	.22	.32
Li, Hou, Chi, Liu, and Hager (2014)	Work	345	APS-R	HS	D	.36	−.26	−.38	.08	−.06	−.04	−.19	−.12	−.34	.29	.40	.38	.35	.38	.39	.58	.62
Mitchelson and Burns (1998)	Work	67	HMPS	SOP	SPP	—	.19	—	.17	—	−.02	—	—	—	.07	—	.38	—	.40	—	—	—
Ogus (2007) ^a
Study 1	Work	594	HMPS	SOP	SPP	—	−.05	—	.23	—	−.01	—	.11	—	.20	—	.47	—	.30	—	42	—
Study 2	Work	167	HMPS	SOP	SPP	—	.03	—	.20	—	.17	—	.24	—	.10	—	.54	—	.31	—	.58	—
Study 3	Work	298	HMPS	SOP	SPP	—	.27	—	.26	—	.22	—	.51	—	.08	—	.49	—	.27	—	.57	—
Ozbilir (2011) ^a
Study 1	Work	178	MULT^e	SOP/HS	D	.31	—	—	−.09	−.14	−.26	−.39	—	—	—	—	.17	.20	.34	.44	—	—
Study 2	Work	167	MULT^e	SOP/HS	D	.13	—	—	.06	.03	−.14	−.19	—	—	—	—	.22	.21	.30	.32	—	—
Schwenke (2012) ^a	Work	238	APS-R	HS	D	−.06	—	—	−.11	−.09	—	—	—	—	—	—	.35	.35	—	—	—	—
Shih (2012)	Educ.	456	FMPS	PSt	CM/DA	.35	−.52	−.53	−.29	−.36	−.29	−.35	−.49	−.55	.03	.25	.18	.29	.17	.28	.17	.36
Stensrud, Kristiansen, and Abrahamsen (n.d.) ^d	Sport	50	FMPS	PSt	CM	.48	.03	−.08	−.22	−.34	−.05	−.28	—	—	.38	.37	.23	.34	.42	.58	—	—
Stoeber and Childs (2010)	Educ.	111	HMPS	SOP	SPP	.43	−.50	−.56	−.07	−.21	−.34	−.43	−.41	−.54	.12	.37	.30	.33	.19	.36	.28	.48
Stoeber and Rennert (2008)	Work	118	MIPS	SP	NRI	.56	−.05	−.29	.07	−.32	−.01	−.22	.00	−.34	.39	.42	.59	.55	.35	.36	.54	.54
Taris, Beek, and Schaufeli (2010)	Work	199	FMPS	PSt	CM	.53	−.07	−.19	.19	.02	.14	.02	.15	−.08	.22	.26	.32	.22	.23	.16	.43	.36
Tashman, Tenenbaum, and Eklund (2009)	Work	177	PI	SE	CM	.46	.03	−.11	.28	.08	.24	.02	.27	.00	.29	.28	.45	.33	.48	.38	.60	.49
Van Peren, Verbraak, and Spoor (2011)	Work	275	MULT^e	SOP/HS	SPP/DA	.46	—	—	.16	.01	—	—	—	—	—	—	.32	.25	—	—	—	—
Zhang, Gan, and Cham (2007)	Educ.	482	FMPS	PSt	CM/DA	.15	−.40	−.42	−.07	−.12	−.18	−.22	−.33	−.38	.10	.17	.32	.33	.23	.26	.33	.38

Note. Intru. = Instrument; PS = perfectionistic strivings; PC = perfectionistic concerns; RA = reduced accomplishment; EX = exhaustion; DE = depersonalization/devaluation; BO = overall burnout; r = bivariate correlation coefficient; sr = semi-partial correlation coefficient; CAPS-R = Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 1997); SOP = self-oriented perfectionism; SPP = Socially prescribed perfectionism; HMPS = Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; APS-R = Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001); HS = high standards; D = discrepancy; FMPS = Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate’s (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; CM = concern over mistakes; DA = doubts about action; MIPS = Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport or adaptation (Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2006); SP = striving for perfection; NRI = negative reactions to imperfection; PSt = personal standards; SMPS-2 Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2 (Dunn et al., 2006; Gotwals & Dunn, 2009); MULT = Multiple instruments used; Educ. = Education; PI = Perfectionism Inventory (R. W. Hill et al., 2004); SE = Striving for excellence.

Thesis/dissertation.

So to avoid inclusion of aggregate indicators that include dimensions not considered indicators of perfectionistic concerns (viz., parental pressure), effect sizes for this study come from correlation coefficients not reported in the original publication of this study.

Both SMPS-2 and HMPS were used.

Unpublished data set.

Both HMPS and APS-R were used.

Meta-Analytical Procedures

The meta-analyses were guided by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) and conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 3.3; Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005). In deriving effect sizes and confidence intervals, random-effects models were used. Random-effects models assume variation in effect sizes between studies due to both sampling error and true random variance arising from differences between studies in terms of their procedures and settings (as opposed to only sampling error stipulated in fixed-effects models). In comparison with fixed-effects models, then, random-effects models are generally considered to be preferable and allow generalization beyond the set of studies examined to future studies (Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2009).

Analyses were based on Fisher’s Z transform. Fisher’s Z transform is interpreted in a similar manner to a correlation coefficient and ranges from −∞ to +∞ with higher values indicative of a stronger relationship. In the context of meta-analysis, Fisher’s Z transform is preferable to correlation coefficients as the latter has a problematic standard error when deriving weighted cumulative effects (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For ease of interpretation, correlation coefficients are reported alongside 95% confidence intervals. Cohen’s (1992) recommendations for small, medium, and large effect sizes were then used to guide interpretation of effects (r = .10, .30, and .50). Statistical significance is indicated by the 95% confidence intervals excluding zero (p < .05). In all cases, the contributions of individual effect sizes to mean effect sizes were weighted using the reciprocal of their sampling variance. This ensured that studies with larger sample sizes, and subsequent greater precision in estimating effect sizes, were more influential in determining the mean effect size (Rosenberg, Adams, & Gurevitch, 2007).

Of the 43 studies, 17 included multiple effect sizes.³ This was for a number of reasons. In 13 studies, correlations between multiple indicators of perfectionistic strivings or concerns and symptoms of burnout were reported (e.g., correlations of both self-oriented perfectionism and personal standards with burnout symptoms). In three studies, correlations were reported examining relationships between dimensions of perfectionism and symptoms of burnout at two or more time points. Finally, in one study, multiple correlations were reported based on a second analysis of a subset of the initial sample. In each of these instances, only one effect size was included in the meta-analyses. This effect size was the average of the reported effect sizes (providing 226 independent effect sizes). This is a commonly used strategy to ensure that effect sizes in the analyses are independent and avoid artificial inflation of sample size, distortion of standard error estimates, and overrepresentation of studies that include multiple effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

To meta-analyze the relationship between perfectionism and overall burnout, we used a formula provided by Ghiselli, Campbell, and Zedeck (1981). This entailed using the correlations among the measured variables to estimate the correlation between the two dimensions of perfectionism and a burnout composite (overall burnout). This strategy is often used in meta-analyses to examine composites (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007) and has been used in other meta-analyses to examine burnout specifically (e.g., Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, in press). This procedure produced 132 additional effect sizes that were meta-analyzed in the same manner as the other effect sizes.

To examine the perfectionism–burnout relationships after controlling for the relationship between the two dimensions of perfectionism, semi-partial correlations were calculated. Semi-partial correlations capture the unique relationships between dimensions of perfectionism and burnout symptoms. To do so, dimensions of perfectionism are residualized based on their relationships with each other and then correlated with burnout scores (new pure perfectionistic strivings and pure perfectionistic concerns are created but burnout symptoms remain unchanged). Each semi-partial correlation was calculated using the formula provided by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). This procedure produced 268 semi-partial correlations. When added to the 37 bivariate correlations between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, this resulted in a further 305 correlations that were meta-analyzed.

To assess moderation, heterogeneity of effect sizes was assessed. The total heterogeneity of the weighted mean effect sizes (Q_T) provides an indication of whether the variance evident in the weighted mean effect size exceeds that would be expected by sampling error (i.e., whether the weighted mean effect size is an adequate or inadequate representation of the distribution of effects). When stipulating a categorical structure to the data, constituents of the total heterogeneity (Q_T), heterogeneity explained by the categorization (Q_B), and the residual error heterogeneity (Q_W) can be examined. Statistically significant heterogeneity explained by the categorization (Q_B) indicates that there are differences between categories in terms of their effects sizes and provides a strong basis for inferring moderation. Specific differences between domains were examined via comparison of 95% confidence intervals for effect sizes.

Moderation was also assessed by calculating the degree of inconsistency in the observed relationship across studies (I²). As described by Higgins and colleagues (Higgins & Thompson, 2002; Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003), this index is interpreted as the percentage of total variation across studies due to “true” heterogeneity rather than sampling error: 100% × (Q_T − df) / Q_T. As I² increases, the level of true heterogeneity increases (0%-100%). Values of 25%, 50%, and 75% have been identified as low, medium, and high levels of heterogeneity (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). This index is a useful adjunct when assessing moderation because unlike the total heterogeneity of each cumulative effect size (Q_T) it is not adversely influenced by the number of studies included in the analyses. It can also be compared across meta-analyses that include a different number of studies, type of study, and outcome (Higgins et al., 2003).

To assess publication bias (the file-drawer problem), we adopted a number of strategies. We examined Rosenthal’s (1979) fail-safe number (fail-safe N) for each effect size. The fail-safe number indicates the number of non-significant, unpublished, or missing studies with a mean effect size of zero that would need to exist to change the statistical significance of the observed effect size to a non-significant level (here, p = .05). Rosenthal recommended that the fail-safe number should be greater than 5k + 10, where k equals the number of observed effect sizes. We also inspected funnel plots (a scatterplot of effect sizes against the reciprocal of its standard error) and used Egger’s test of regression intercept to quantify the bias captured by the funnel plots by regressing effect size on the reciprocal of its standard error (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). In the absence of publication bias, Egger’s regression intercept does not differ significantly from zero (i.e., its two-tailed 95% confidence interval includes zero). We also used Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) “trim and fill” method to correct any asymmetry evident in the funnel plot by imputing studies to give a symmetrical distribution and provide publication bias adjusted estimates of effect sizes. Finally, we conducted an additional moderator analysis that compared effects based on whether studies were obtained from published or unpublished sources (peer-reviewed publications vs. thesis/dissertations, conference presentations, or data sets provided by authors).

Results

Overall Effect Sizes

The weighted mean effect sizes between dimensions of perfectionism, overall burnout, and symptoms of burnout are reported in Table 2. Perfectionistic strivings displayed a small negative relationship with overall burnout, reduced personal accomplishment, and depersonalization, and a non-significant relationship with exhaustion. Perfectionistic concerns displayed a medium-to-large positive relationship with overall burnout and medium positive relationships with all symptoms of burnout.

Table 2.

Meta-Analytical Relationships Between Perfectionism and Burnout Across All Studies.

											“Trim and Fill” estimatesr⁺ [95% CI]
Relationship	k	n	r ⁺	95% CI	Q_T	I² (%)	Fail-safe N	Egger’s intercept	95% CI	k ^TF	“Trim and Fill” estimatesr⁺ [95% CI]
Perfectionistic strivings
Total burnout	34	8,244	−.14*	[−.23, −.04]	672.64**	95.09	1,072.0	−2.13	[−7.93, 3.66]	5	−.08 [−.17, .03]
Reduced personal accomplishment	36	8,361	−.16*	[−.24, −.09]	399.92**	91.25	1,998.0	0.70	[−3.23, 4.64]	6	−.22 [−.29,−.14]
Exhaustion	41	9,413	.01	[−.04, .06]	237.68**	83.17	0^a	−1.62	[−4.36, 1.23]	6	.05 [−.01, .10]
Depersonalization	38	8,706	−.14*	[−.20, −.07]	303.70**	87.82	1,272.0	−1.79	[−5.04, 1.45]	8	−.07 [−.13, −.01]
Pure perfectionistic strivings
Total burnout	31	7,035	−.31*	[−.37, −.24]	278.39**	89.22	5,190.0	−0.24	[−4.49, 4.01]	0	NA
Reduced personal accomplishment	32	7,085	−.28*	[−.33, −.22]	209.67**	85.21	4,211.0	0.57	[−2.82, 3.56]	6	−.32 [−.38, −.26]
Exhaustion	37	8,137	−.11*	[−.14, −.07]	107.98**	66.66	778.0	−0.76	[−2.96, 1.44]	0	NA
Depersonalization	34	7,430	−.25*	[−.30, −.21]	143.34**	76.98	3,914.0	−1.85	[−4.45, 0.75]	1	−.26 [−.31, −.21]
Perfectionistic concerns
Total burnout	34	8,244	.41*	[.36, .45]	225.79**	85.39	2,267.0	−0.50	[−3.88, 2.89]	0	NA
Reduced personal accomplishment	36	8,361	.21*	[.16, .26]	193.74**	81.94	2,925.0	1.08	[−1.64, 3.80]	5	.17 [.12, .23]
Exhaustion	43	9,838	.30*	[.26, .34]	181.69**	76.88	9,798.0	−1.10	[−3.41, 1.20]	7	.34 [.29, .38]
Depersonalization	39	9,020	.26*	[.22, .30]	115.79**	67.18	5,866.0	−0.11	[−2.11, 1.90]	3	.25 [.21, .28]
Pure perfectionistic concerns
Total burnout	31	7,035	.44*	[.39, .48]	144.66**	79.26	1,288.0	0.51	[−2.54, 3.57]	8	.39 [.33, .44]
Reduced personal accomplishment	32	7,085	.28*	[.24, .32]	99.71**	68.91	4,381.0	1.21	[−1.08, 3.51]	0	NA
Exhaustion	38	8,137	.28*	[.25, .31]	77.59**	52.31	6,134.0	0.11	[−1.70, 1.92]	8	.31 [.28, .34]
Depersonalization	34	7,430	.29*	[.26, .33]	73.72**	55.24	5,558.0	0.60	[−1.32, 2.51]	0	NA
Perfectionistic concerns and strivings	37	8,771	.32*	[.26, .38]	342.22**	89.48	7,997.0	−0.22	[−4.16, 3.72]	0	NA

Note. r⁺ = weighted mean r; CI = confidence interval; k^TF = Number of imputed studies as part of “Trim and Fill” method. NA = not applicable.

Fail-safe N falls below threshold.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns displayed a medium positive relationship with each other. When controlling for the relationships between the two dimensions by analyzing semi-partial correlations, a slightly different pattern of effects emerged. Pure perfectionistic strivings displayed small, or small-to-moderate, negative relationships with overall burnout and all burnout symptoms. Pure perfectionistic concerns displayed a similar pattern of medium-to-large or medium positive relationships to those observed for perfectionistic concerns.

Assessment of total heterogeneity across studies indicated that variability in the weighted mean effects exceeded that associated with sampling error. The percentage of total variation across studies due to true heterogeneity was either medium or high. This suggests that variability among the effect sizes is also due to additional sources and alludes to the possible influence of moderating factors.

Moderator Analyses

Results of the comparison of effect sizes between domains are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Comparison of Effects Sizes Between Sport, Work, and Education.

											“Trim and Fill” estimatesr⁺ [95% CI]
Comparison	k	n	r ⁺	95% CI	Q_B	I² (%)	Fail-safe N	Egger’s intercept	95% CI	k ^TF	“Trim and Fill” estimatesr⁺ [95% CI]
PS and overall burnout					18.46**	0.00
Sport^a	17	3,424	−.23*	[−.30, −.15]			687	−3.56	[−8.09, 0.97]	1	−.21 [−.28, −.14]
Work^b	14	3,831	.04	[−.13, .21]			14^†	−1.74	[−13.07, 9.58]	3	−.06 [−.24, .12]
Education^a	3	989	−.41*	[−.52, −.29]			141	−0.22	[−76.41, 75.98]	NA	NA
PS and reduced personal accomplishment					32.35**	11.91
Sport^a	18	3,474	−.18*	[−.24, −.11]			433	−1.60	[−5.23, −2.03]	0	NA
Work^a	15	3,898	−.08	[−.20, .04]			85^†	0.76	[−6.51, 8.03]	3	−.15 [−.26, −.02]
Education^b	3	989	−.47*	[−.55, −.38]			191	−1.22	[−60.89, −58.45]	NA	NA
PS and exhaustion					19.10**	26.35
Sport^a	19	3,668	−.06	[−.11, −.01]			33^†	−2.30	[−4.91, 0.31]	4	−.01 [−.07 to .03]
Work^b	19	4,756	.11*	[.05, .17]			258	−2.11	[−5.88, 1.67]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	−.15*	[−.31, −.02]			17^†	1.94	[−89.26, 93.14]	NA	NA
PS and depersonalization					20.68**	31.29
Sport^a	18	3,474	−.23*	[−.29, −.18]			813	−1.27	[−4.61, 2.07]	0	NA
Work^b	17	4,243	−.01	[−.10, .08]			0^†	−1.45	[−6.59, 3.68]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	−.26*	[−.35, −.16]			49	−2.45	[−47.24, 42.33]	NA	NA
Pure PS and overall burnout					5.14	0.00
Sport^a	17	3,424	−.31*	[−.39, −.22]			1,382	−3.20	[−7.92, 1.51]	0	NA
Work^a	11	2,622	−.25*	[−.35, −.14]			439	0.45	[−9.52, 10.42]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	−.49*	[−.64, −.31]			204	−2.23	[−87.31, 82.84]	NA	NA
Pure PS and reduced personal accomplishment					10.56*	8.86
Sport^a	18	3,474	−.25*	[−.31, −.18]			886	−1.55	[−5.01, 1.90]	3	−.28 [−.34, −.21]
Work^a	11	2,622	−.26*	[−.34, −.17]			469	−0.16	[−7.75, 7.43]	1	−.28 [−.38, −.17]
Education^b	3	989	−.50*	[−.62, −.36]			215	−2.50	[57.47, 52.48]	NA	NA
Pure PS and exhaustion					9.35*	16.98
Sport^a,b	19	3,668	−.12*	[−.17, −.07]			229	−1.63	[−4.20, 0.93]	2	−.10 [−.15, −.05]
Work^a	15	3,480	−.06*	[−.11, −.00]			24^†	−1.97	[−5.20, 1.27]	4	−.01 [−.07. .04]
Education^b	3	989	−.24*	[−.34, −.13]			41	0.32	[−101.05, 101.70]	NA	NA
Pure PS and depersonalization					8.32*	17.17
Sport^a	18	3,474	−.30*	[−.35, −.24]			1,376	−1.96	[−5.10, 1.18]	1	−.30 [−35, −.25]
Work^b	13	2,967	−.17*	[−.24, −.10]			263	−1.73	[−7.06, 3.61]	1	−.16 [−.23, −.07]
Education^a,b	3	989	−.32*	[−.45, −.19]			77	−3.52	[−57.72, 50.67]	NA	NA
PC and total burnout					27.07**	41.85
Sport^a	17	3,424	.33*	[.28, .39]			1,697	−0.30	[−4.37, 3.76]	0	NA
Work^b	14	3,831	.51*	[.46, .56]			3,867	0.12	[−4.31, 4.56]	2	.53 [.48, .58]
Education^a	3	989	.26*	[.12, .39]			50	0.35	[−67.42, 68.42]	NA	NA
PC and reduced personal accomplishment					6.34*	12.71
Sport^a	18	3,474	.25*	[.18, .31]			904	0.25	[−3.50, 4.01]	3	.21 [.15, .28]
Work^a,b	15	3,898	.20*	[.13, .28]			526	0.75	[−4.31, 5.81]	0	NA
Education^b	3	989	.02	[−.15, .18]			0^†	−3.82	[−29.64, 22.00]	NA	NA
PC and exhaustion					11.16**	16.30
Sport^a	19	3,668	.24*	[.18, .29]			974	−1.78	[−4.76, 1.20]	0	NA
Work^b	21	5,181	.36*	[.31, .41]			3,624	−0.30	[−4.00, 3.40]	0	NA
Education^a,b	3	989	.26*	[.13, .39]			51	0.83	[−58.70, 60.35]	NA	NA
PC and depersonalization					17.82**	33.25
Sport^a	18	3,747	.20*	[.15, .24]			613	0.88	[−2.39, 4.14]	2	.22 [.13, .24]
Work^b	18	4,557	.33*	[.28, .37]			2,120	−0.10	[−2.37, 2.17]	0	NA
Education^a,b	3	989	.20*	[.10, .30]			28	−0.31	[−24.84, 24.23]	NA	NA
Pure PC and total burnout					5.46	12.07
Sport^a	17	3,424	.40*	[.34, .45]			2,462	0.60	[−4.12, 5.33]	0	NA
Work^a	11	2,622	.50*	[.43, .56]			2,039	0.17	[−5.49, 5.84]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	.40*	[.26, .52]			126	2.66	[−7.85, 13.16]	NA	NA
Pure PC and reduced personal accomplishment					0.35	2.45
Sport^a	18	3,474	.28*	[.22, .33]			1,202	−0.29	[−4.02, 3.44]	3	.24 [.18, .31]
Work^a	11	2,622	.29*	[.22, .36]			602	2.33	[−2.11, 6.77]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	.25*	[.12, .38]			43	3.63	[−27.59, 34.85]	NA	NA
Pure PC and exhaustion					1.85	3.06
Sport^a	19	3,668	.26*	[.21, .30]			1,138	−0.80	[−3.44, 1.83]	5	.30 [.25, .34]
Work^a	16	2,967	.29*	[.25, .34]			1,256	2.23	[−1.32, 5.78]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	.31*	[.21, .41]			77	0.38	[−17.29, 18.05]	NA	NA
Pure PC and depersonalization					2.77	8.49
Sport^a	18	3,474	.27*	[.22, .32]			1,140	0.75	[−2.20, 3.70]	0	NA
Work^a	13	2,967	.33*	[.28, .38]			1,054	0.51	[3.29, 4.31]	0	NA
Education^a	3	989	.29*	[.19, .39]			63	2.03	[−5.45, 9.51]	NA	NA
PC and PS					1.22	0.00
Sport^a	19	3,668	.29*	[.20, .37]			1,459	−0.07	[2.22, −4.75]	4	.34 [.26, .41]
Work^a	15	4,114	.36*	[.27, .45]			1,842	−1.84	[4.34, −11.21]	2	.32 [.20, .44]
Education^a	3	989	.31*	[.08, .51]			63	4.36	[−78.04, 86.76]	NA	NA

Note. Pure perfectionistic strivings and pure perfectionistic concerns are residualized versions of the original variables having controlled for the relationship between them. I² corresponds with the Q_T from each random-effects model. “Trim and Fill” method is not used for studies from education due to the low number of studies. r⁺ = weighted mean r; CI = confidence interval; k^TF = Number of imputed studies as part of “Trim and Fill” method; PS = perfectionistic strivings; NA = not applicable; PC = perfectionistic concerns.

Domains that share the same superscripts (^a,b,c) do not differ in their weighted mean effect sizes.

†

Fail-safe N falls below threshold.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Perfectionistic strivings

For the relationship between perfectionistic strivings and overall burnout, the weighted mean effect size for studies in sport and education differed significantly from in work. Notably, unlike in sport and education, the relationship in work was not statistically significant. When examining the symptoms, the weighted mean effect size for perfectionistic strivings and reduced personal accomplishment was significantly larger in education in comparison with work and sport. Again, the relationship in work was not statistically significant. The weighted mean effect sizes for the relationship between perfectionistic strivings and the other two symptoms were significantly smaller in work in comparison with sport and education. In regard to exhaustion, although similar in size, unlike in sport and education, the relationship was positive in work. In regard to depersonalization, unlike in the other domains, its relationship with perfectionistic strivings was smaller and non-significant in work.

Pure perfectionistic strivings

A slightly different pattern emerged when analyzing the semi-partial correlation coefficients. For the relationship between pure perfectionistic strivings and overall burnout, none of the weighted mean effect sizes differed significantly from each other. Differences in the weighted mean effect sizes for the relationship between pure perfectionistic strivings and reduced personal accomplishment across domains were the same as when examining bivariate correlations (i.e., education differed from sport and work). The weighted mean effect size for pure perfectionistic strivings and exhaustion was significantly smaller in work in comparison with education (but no longer sport) and for devaluation was significantly smaller in work in comparison with sport (but no longer education).

Perfectionistic concerns and pure perfectionistic concerns

For the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and overall burnout, the weighted mean effect size for studies in work was significantly larger than in sport and education. When examining the symptoms, the weighted mean effect size for perfectionistic concerns and reduced personal accomplishment was significantly lower in education than in sport. The weighted mean effect size for perfectionistic concerns and exhaustion was significantly higher in work in comparison with sport. This was also the case in terms of the mean effect size for perfectionistic concerns and devaluation. When analyzing pure perfectionistic concerns, in all cases, the initially observed differences in the weighted mean effect sizes described above were non-significant.

Perfectionistic concerns–perfectionistic strivings

Given the differences before and after controlling for the relationship between the two dimensions of perfectionism in terms of moderation, a supplementary analysis was conducted to examine whether the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and strivings also differed between domains. This analysis revealed that the weighted mean effect size for the relationship between perfectionistic strivings and concerns did not differ between studies in work, sport, and education. All relationships were medium or medium-to-large, and positive.

Heterogeneity

Examination of the total variation across studies due to true heterogeneity (I²) revealed that despite statistically significant between-study variability (Q_B), the amount of true variability was typically very low (I² < 25%). Noteworthy true heterogeneity (I² > 25%), and support for moderation by domain, was evident for four relationships: perfectionistic strivings–exhaustion, perfectionistic strivings–depersonalization, perfectionistic concerns–overall burnout, and perfectionistic concerns–depersonalization.

Publication Bias

In the overall analyses and moderation analyses, the fail-safe numbers and Egger’s regression intercept provided mixed evidence of publication bias. Specifically, in seven cases, fail-safe numbers did not exceed the recommended thresholds but, in all cases, Egger’s regression intercept included zero. Examination of whether publication status served as a moderating factor provided a clearer picture and evidence of publication bias in a few cases. Specifically, the relationships of pure perfectionistic concerns–total burnout (Q_B = 4.88, df = 1, p < .05, I² = 7.25%, r⁺ = .46 [.41, .51] vs. r⁺ = .37 [.31, .43]) and pure perfectionistic concerns–exhaustion (Q_B = 4.42, df = 1, I² = 11.58%, p < .05, r⁺ = .30 [.26, .34] vs. r⁺ = .24 [.18, .28]) were larger in published sources than unpublished sources. Marginally statistically significant effects (p < .10) were also found for perfectionistic strivings–total burnout (Q_B = 3.17, df = 1, p < .10, I² = 4.01%, r⁺ = −.20 [−.29, −.11] vs. r⁺ = −.01 [−.20, .17]), perfectionistic strivings–reduced personal accomplishment (Q_B = 2.98, df =1, p < .10, I² = 0.0%, r⁺ = −.20 [−.29, −.12] vs. r⁺ = −.08 [−.19, .03]), and pure perfectionistic strivings–reduced personal accomplishment (Q_B = 3.30, df = 1, p < .10, I² = 0.00%, r⁺ = −.31 [−.37, −.24] vs. r⁺ = −.20 [−.30, −.10]). Again, in these cases relationships were larger in published sources than in unpublished sources. For perfectionistic strivings–total burnout and pure perfectionistic concerns–total burnout, the publication bias adjusted (trim and fill) effect sizes may offer more accurate estimates of these relationships. This is not the case for the other relationships as trim and fill effect sizes included imputed values in the opposite direction (i.e., imputed effects were larger, not smaller, than the average effect size).

Discussion

This study provided the first meta-analysis of the relationship between perfectionism and burnout. We examined the relationship between two dimensions of perfectionism (viz., strivings and concerns) and burnout using both bivariate and semi-partial correlations (i.e., controlling for correlations among dimensions of perfectionism). We also examined whether the relationships were moderated by the domain in which they were assessed (work, sport, or education). It was hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Perfectionistic strivings are negatively related to burnout;

Hypothesis 2: Perfectionistic concerns are positively related to burnout;

Hypothesis 4: Perfectionistic strivings would be less adaptive and perfectionistic concerns more maladaptive in work than in other domains.

The first hypothesis was supported for overall burnout and two of the three symptoms of burnout (reduced personal accomplishment and devaluation). The second hypothesis was fully supported. The third hypothesis was generally supported but was more apparent for pure perfectionistic strivings. The fourth hypothesis was supported for four relationships (perfectionistic strivings–exhaustion, perfectionistic strivings–depersonalization, perfectionistic concerns–overall burnout, and perfectionistic concerns–depersonalization).

Multidimensional Perfectionism and Burnout

The findings suggest that perfectionistic strivings may offer, at least to a small degree, some protection to the development of burnout. This is consistent with the notion that burnout has little to do with strivings. Rather it is the evaluative tendencies that can accompany strivings which are more influential. This is illustrated by perfectionistic concerns which displayed a medium-to-large positive relationship with overall burnout and medium positive relationships with each symptom of burnout. As described earlier, perfectionistic concerns capture self-evaluative tendencies that render individuals vulnerable to the accrual of stress. Elsewhere, this has been made evident in research highlighting the association between perfectionistic concerns, threat appraisals, anxiety, and avoidant coping (e.g., A. P. Hill, Hall, Appleton, 2010; Rice, Vergara, & Aldea, 2006; Stoeber & Rennert, 2008). Here, the findings allude to the more severe consequences that might arise when the stress associated with perfectionistic concerns continues unabated. Overall, then, there is a marked difference between the two dimensions of perfectionism in terms of propensity for burnout evident across domains.

Turning to the semi-partial correlations, as expected, when the correlation between the two dimensions of perfectionism was controlled, perfectionistic strivings were comparatively more adaptive. Notably, the relationships evident for perfectionistic strivings were stronger and also included an inverse association with exhaustion. This is a trend evident elsewhere in more general reviews for other outcomes (e.g., Gotwals et al., 2012; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). For perfectionistic concerns, although there were some marginal changes, by comparison, the effects of pure perfectionistic concerns were largely the same. This indicates that the relationship between the two dimensions appears more influential in terms of determining the effects of perfectionistic strivings than the reverse (Stoeber & Damian, in press). This is something that researchers must be mindful of when examining the differential effects of the two dimensions of perfectionism in future studies.

More generally, the relationships between perfectionistic concerns and burnout symptoms found here are similar in size to related personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and neuroticism (see Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). Previous research comparing perfectionism with the broader Big Five personality traits has found that dimensions of perfectionism capture unique features of personality and explain additional variability in various criterion variables (e.g., compulsivity and depression; Dunkley, Blankstein, Zuroff, Lecce, & Hui, 2006; Sherry, Hewitt, Flett, Lee-Baggley, & Hall, 2007). With this in mind, the findings here suggest that perfectionism warrants consideration alongside other such individual-level antecedents of burnout. Perfectionistic concerns, in particular, may be an important component of a personality profile that renders individuals prone to burnout (Swider & Zimmerman, 2010). To assess this possibility, future studies are required that examine the relative and incremental predictive ability of perfectionistic concerns and other personality characteristics identified in previous meta-analyses focused on burnout.

Perfectionism–Burnout Relationship Across Domains

In terms of moderation, there were four instances where notable between-study heterogeneity was evident. These indicated that perfectionistic strivings were less adaptive in terms of exhaustion and depersonalization and perfectionistic concerns were more problematic in terms of overall burnout and depersonalization in work than in sport and education domains. There are a number of possible reasons why the work environment may alter these relationships in this manner. In the case of perfectionistic strivings, it is possible that factors which would otherwise offset exhaustion in sport and education are absent, or exist to a lesser degree, in work. These might include factors that have previously been found to interact with perfectionistic strivings such as personal control (Mor, Day, & Flett, 1995), social support (Dunkley, Blankstein, Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000), and positive future thinking (O’Connor, O’Connor, O’Connor, Smallwood, & Miles, 2004) which we might speculate are less forthcoming in work than in education and sport. Given the ubiquity of external motives in the workplace, it is also possible that when perfectionistic strivings take place in the service of such motives, any safeguard from a sense of personal detachment or cynicism may be diminished relative to sport or education domains which are typically lower in these motives (Vallerand, 2004).

In the case of perfectionistic concerns, similar processes may be in operation as described for perfectionistic strivings in terms of depersonalization. In addition, it is also possible that because the work domain holds the greatest potential for entrapment (i.e., quitting and not attending are perhaps easier in other domains), the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and detachment or cynicism might be exacerbated in lieu of the ability to behaviorally withdraw. This is consistent with the notion that depersonalization may be a dysfunctional coping strategy aimed at distancing one’s self from an adverse work environment (Maslach, 1982). More generally, it is possible that because perfect performance can be more ambiguous in work than in sport and education, opportunities for a sense of achievement are less forthcoming in work. This may exacerbate the perfectionistic concerns–burnout relationship by providing less opportunity for respite against the worries, anxieties, and rumination associated with these dimensions of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1996; Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Future studies are required to examine these possibilities and further test the moderating influence of domain on perfectionism.

In considering the differences across domains, one must also be mindful of alternative explanations. For example, studies in sport exclusively used domain-specific measures. Although designed to be comparable, the three symptoms of athlete burnout are not exactly the same as those used in work and education. Most apparent is the potential discrepancy between depersonalization and devaluation where some of the differences observed here were evident. As such, the differences between sport and the other domains for this particular symptom may be attributable to differences in the operationalization of burnout between domains, as opposed to the domains themselves. However, this does not explain why differences were also evident between work and education where measures are much more similar. Therefore, much like the domain in which self-worth is staked has an influence on the degree of maladjustment associated with contingent self-worth (see Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), it is likely that the domain in which perfectionism is exhibited will also influence its effects.

Other Avenues for Future Research

The review highlights a number of avenues for future research. Having now accrued strong evidence of the relationships between dimensions of perfectionism and burnout, research that identifies explanatory factors is a priority. There are surprisingly few studies that have examined mediating factors, for example. Coping has been the most commonly examined with the few studies which have been conducted producing consistent support for its mediating role in work and sport (Chang, 2012; A. P. Hill, Hall, & Appleton, 2010; Li et al., 2014). Avoidant strategies such as suppression, denial, and disengagement appear especially important in explaining the perfectionistic concerns–burnout relationship and allude to how perfectionistic concerns appear to disarm those who exhibit it when attempting to cope with stress. Other potentially important explanatory mechanisms include those that have been examined in some domains but not others, such as stress (D’Souza, Egan, & Rees, 2011) and overcommitment (Philp, Egan, & Kane, 2012). In addition, factors associated with perfectionism and burnout, such as perfectionistic cognitions (A. P. Hill & Appleton, 2011), and factors that mediate similar relationships in these domains, such as resilience (Klibert et al., 2014) and social support (Molnar et al., 2012), may also be important. These variables are good candidates for further examination across domains.

In examining possible mediating factors, longitudinal designs would be an advantage and are ultimately necessary to test mediation appropriately and help establish causality. Unfortunately, there are too few longitudinal studies in this area. As a consequence, little is known about the dynamics of the perfectionism–burnout relationship, how it might unfold over time, and what underlying processes explain any interplay. The two exceptions in the work domain are encouraging in that they attest to the predictive ability of perfectionism on burnout over time (Childs & Stoeber, 2012; Flaxman, Ménard, Bond, & Kinman, 2012). In both cases, perfectionistic concerns predicted changes in burnout symptoms. Findings are less encouraging in sport where the only study to date to examine the perfectionism–burnout relationship longitudinally found a marginal relationship between perfectionistic strivings and exhaustion over time (p < .10) and no other significant relationships (Chen, Kee, & Tsai, 2009). Whether the findings of Chen et al. are a peculiarity or reflect genuine null effects is an issue that requires particular attention. However, generally, longitudinal research in each of the three domains is sorely needed.

Additional research in education is also required. Perfectionism is highly relevant in an education domain and predicts various outcomes, including motivation, performance, and well-being among students (e.g., Fletcher & Neumeister, 2012; Noble, Ashby, & Gnilka, 2014; Stoeber, Haskew, & Scott, 2015). Similarly, schools and universities are places of challenge and stress, therefore burnout is also an important phenomenon in an education domain (see Walburg, 2014, for a review). However, despite the apparent relevance of both, far fewer studies have examined the perfectionism–burnout relationship in education than in other domains. So, to more firmly establish the relationship between perfectionism and burnout, additional research is required in this domain. Beyond this, researchers should draw upon research in work and sport, as well as the unique features of the education domain (e.g., teacher characteristics, classroom structure), to further identify explanatory mechanisms.

A final avenue for future research is the need to develop and evaluate interventions aimed at reducing perfectionism driven burnout. Although evidence of effective intervention has begun to emerge in both areas (Awa, Plaumann, & Walter, 2010; Lloyd, Schmidt, Khondoker, & Tchanturia, in press), we are not aware of any study to examine an intervention targeting perfectionism with the aim of reducing burnout. As practitioners and researchers consider how best to do so, we draw attention to Flett and Hewitt (2014) who recently discussed the challenges associated with preventing perfectionism and the strategies they consider are likely to be the most successful. Their analysis focuses upon children and adolescents in a school setting; however, many of the challenges identified (e.g., persistence of perfectionism and unwillingness to seek help) and strategies described (e.g., attributional retraining, fostering a growth mind-set, promoting self-acceptance, and stress management) are applicable in other groups and settings. This includes helping prevent those who report high levels of perfectionistic concerns from burning out in work, sport, or education. We, therefore, encourage those interested in developing interventions to consider this work and the work of others in this area (see Lloyd et al., in press).

Limitations

The findings should be considered in light of the limitations of the review. In some instances, we found evidence of publication bias toward studies with larger effect sizes. Therefore, some caution is required in terms of generalizing findings beyond published studies (vs. all possible studies). Studies were only included in the meta-analysis if they were published in English with most samples from Western countries. This means that studies from some countries (e.g., Eastern/Asian counties) may be underrepresented. Again, this has implications for generalizability of the findings and is particularly noteworthy in light of emerging evidence of potential cultural differences in the correlates of perfectionism (e.g., Stoeber, Kobori, & Tanno, 2013). The majority of the studies meta-analyzed used cross-sectional designs, and hence inferences are limited to only possible causal relationships between perfectionism and burnout. We examined higher order dimensions of perfectionism, rather than individual dimensions. This approach was, in part, selected to maximize the use of studies in this area and provide more reliable estimates of effects. However, in doing so, the nuances of the subdimensions of each higher order factor can be lost. This is an issue that will be worth revisiting when more research adopting different measures has taken place. Finally, a number of relationships were statistically significant but fail-safe numbers indicated that they may reflect publication bias. These relationships should, therefore, be interpreted tentatively and require particular attention in future research. Similarly, when assessing moderation, education included a small number of studies (k = 3). The relationships observed in these studies are more susceptible to reversal by newly conducted studies so again should be considered tentatively.

Conclusion

The current study provides the first meta-analysis of the relationship between perfectionism and burnout. Across all studies, it was found that perfectionistic strivings had small negative or non-significant relationships with overall burnout and symptoms of burnout. By contrast, perfectionistic concerns displayed medium-to-large and medium positive relationships with overall burnout and symptoms of burnout. When controlling for the relationship between dimensions of perfectionism, pure perfectionistic strivings displayed notably larger negative relationships with overall burnout and symptoms of burnout. There was evidence that some of these relationships differed across domains with perfectionistic strivings being less adaptive and perfectionistic concerns more maladaptive in the work domain than in sport or education domains. Overall, the findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns warrant attention when considering vulnerability to burnout.

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.

Notes

References

Alarcon

G. M.

(2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 549-562.

Alarcon

G. M.

Eschleman

K. J.

Bowling

N. A.

(2009). Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23, 244-263.

*Appleton

P. R.

Hill

A. P.

(2012). Perfectionism and athlete burnout in junior elite athletes: The mediating role of motivation regulations. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 6, 129-146.

*Appleton

P. R.

Hall

H. K.

Hill

A. P.

(2009). Relations between multidimensional perfectionism and burnout in junior-elite male athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 457-465.

Awa

W. L.

Plaumann

Walter

(2010). Burnout prevention: A review of intervention programs. Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 184-190.

Bakker

A. B.

Van Emmerik

Van Riet

(2008). How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replication. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 309-324.

*Barcza

K. M.

(2010). The influence of perceived coaching behaviors and perfectionism on types of motivation and burnout (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Berry

C. M.

Ones

D. S.

Sackett

P. R.

(2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 409-423.

Bieling

P. J.

Israeli

A. L.

Antony

M. M.

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

10.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

Rothstein

(2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3.3). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

11.

*Caliskan

S. C.

Arikan

S. C.

Saatci

E. Y.

(2014). SMEs context of Turkey from the relational perspective of members’ perfectionism, work family conflict and burnout. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5, 129-139.

12.

*Chang

(2012). The relationship between maladaptive perfectionism with burnout: Testing mediating effect of emotion-focused coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 635-639.

13.

*Chen

L. H.

Kee

Y. H.

Tsai

Y. M.

(2009). An examination of the dual model of perfectionism and adolescent athlete burnout: A short-term longitudinal research. Social Indicators Research, 91, 189-201.

14.

*Childs

J. H.

Stoeber

(2010). Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism in employees: Relationships with burnout and engagement. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 25, 269-281.

15.

*Childs

J. H.

Stoeber

(2012). Do you want me to be perfect? Two longitudinal studies on socially prescribed perfectionism, stress and burnout in the workplace. Work & Stress, 26, 347-364.

16.

Clark

M. A.

Michel

J. S.

Zhdanova

Pui

Baltes

B. B.

(in press). All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206314522301

17.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

18.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

*Comerchero

(2008). Gender, tenure status, teacher efficacy, perfectionism and teacher burnout (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fordham University, Bronx, NY.

20.

*Corrigan

C. W.

(1997). The relationships among perfectionism, God image, religious coping styles and vocational burnout in Christian clergy: An empirical investigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wright Institute Graduate School of Psychology, Berkeley, CA.

21.

Cox

B. J.

Enns

M. W.

Clara

I. P.

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

22.

Cresswell

S. L.

Eklund

R. C.

(2007a). Athlete burnout and organisational culture: An English rugby replication. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38, 365-387.

23.

Cresswell

S. L.

Eklund

R. C.

(2007b). The convergent and discriminant validity of burnout measures in sport: A multi-trait/multi-method analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 209-220.

24.

Crocker

Wolfe

C. T.

(2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-623.

25.

*Cumming

Duda

J. L.

(2012). Profiles of perfectionism, body-related concerns, and indicators of psychological health in vocational dance students: An investigation of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 729-738.

26.

Dittner

A. J.

Rimes

Thorpe

(2011). Negative perfectionism increases the risk of fatigue following a period of stress. Psychology & Health, 26, 253-268.

27.

D’Souza

Egan

S. J.

Rees

C. S.

(2011). The relationship between perfectionism, stress and burnout in clinical psychologists. Behaviour Change, 28, 17-28.

28.

Dunkley

D. M.

Blankstein

K. R.

Halsall

Williams

Winkworth

(2000). The relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping and perceived social support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 437-453.

29.

Dunkley

D. M.

Blankstein

K. R.

Zuroff

D. C.

Lecce

Hui

(2006). Self-critical and personal standards factors of perfectionism located within the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 409-420.

30.

Dunkley

D. M.

Sanislow

C. A.

Grilo

C. M.

McGlashan

T. H.

(2006). Perfectionism and depressive symptoms 3 years later: Negative social interactions, avoidant coping, and perceived social support as mediators. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 47, 106-115.

31.

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.

32.

Dunn

J. G. H.

Causgrove Dunn

Gotwals

J. K.

Vallance

J. K. H.

Craft

J. M.

Syrotuik

D. G.

(2006). Establishing construct validity evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 57-79.

33.

Duval

S. J.

Tweedie

R. L.

(2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89-98.

34.

Egan

Piek

Dyck

Kane

(2011). The reliability and validity of the Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale. Clinical Psychologist, 15, 121-132.

35.

Egger

Smith

G. D.

Schneider

Minder

(1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629-634.

36.

*Fairlie

(2011). Perfectionism in the context of burnout, job satisfaction, and depression (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto, ON.

37.

Feigley

D. A.

(1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 12, 108-119.

38.

*Flaxman

P. E.

Ménard

Bond

F. W.

Kinman

(2012). Academics’ experiences of a respite from work: Effects of self-critical perfectionism and perseverative cognition on postrespite well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 854-865.

39.

Fletcher

K. L.

Neumeister

K. S.

(2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 668-677.

40.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

41.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(2014). A proposed framework for preventing perfectionism and promoting resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents. Psychology in Schools, 51, 899-912.

42.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

Boucher

Davidson

Munro

(1997). The Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale: Development, validation, and association with adjustment. Unpublished manuscript.

43.

Freudenberger

(1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30, 159-166.

44.

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.

45.

Frost

R. O.

Marten

Lahart

Rosenblate

(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.

46.

Fry

P. S.

(1995). Perfectionism, humor, and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 211-245.

47.

Fry

P. S.

Debats

D. L.

(2009). Perfectionism and the five-factor personality traits as predictors of mortality in older adults. Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 513-524.

48.

Ghiselli

E. E.

Campbell

J. P.

Zedeck

(1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

49.

Goodger

Gorely

Lavallee

Harwood

(2007). Burnout in sport: A systematic review. Sport Psychologist, 21, 127-151.

50.

*Gotwals

J. K.

(2011). Perfectionism and burnout within intercollegiate sport: A person-oriented approach. Sport Psychologist, 25, 489-510.

51.

Gotwals

J. K.

Dunn

J. G. H.

(2009). A multi-method multi-analytic approach to establish internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13, 71-92.

52.

Gotwals

J. K.

Stoeber

Dunn

J. G.

Stoll

(2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed evidence. Canadian Psychology, 53, 263-279.

53.

Gould

D. R.

(1996). Personal motivation gone awry: Burnout in competitive athletes. Quest, 48, 275-289.

54.

Gould

D. R.

Dieffenbach

Moffett

(2002). Psychological characteristics and their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172-204.

55.

Gould

D. R.

Tuffey

Udry

Loehr

(1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. Sport Psychologist, 10, 332-340.

56.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

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

57.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(1996). Personality traits and the coping process. In Zeidner

Endler

N. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of coping (pp. 410-433). New York, NY: Wiley.

58.

Higgins

Thompson

S. G.

(2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539-1558.

59.

Higgins

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyzes. British Medical Journal, 327, 557-560.

60.

*Hill

A. P.

(2013). Perfectionism and burnout in junior soccer players: A test of the 2 x 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 18-29.

61.

Hill

A. P.

(2014). Perfectionistic strivings and the perils of partialling. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 302-315.

62.

*Hill

A. P.

Appleton

P. R.

(2011). The predictive ability of the frequency of perfectionistic cognitions, self-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism in relation to symptoms of burnout in youth rugby players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 695-703.

63.

*Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

Appleton

P. R.

(2010). Perfectionism and athlete burnout in junior elite athletes: The mediating role of coping tendencies. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23, 415-430.

64.

*Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

Appleton

P. R.

Kozub

S. A.

(2008). Perfectionism and burnout in junior elite soccer players: The mediating influence of unconditional self-acceptance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 630-644.

65.

*Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

Appleton

P. R.

Murray

J. J.

(2010). Perfectionism and burnout in canoe polo and kayak slalom athletes: The mediating influence of validation and growth-seeking. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 16-34.

66.

Hill

A. P.

Stoeber

Brown

Appleton

P. R.

(2014). Team perfectionism and team performance: A prospective study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 303-315.

67.

Hill

R. W.

Huelsman

T. J.

Furr

R. M.

Kibler

Vicente

B. B.

Kennedy

(2004). A new measure of perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 80-91.

68.

Appleton

R. P.

Cumming

Duda

J. L.

(n.d.-a). [Perfectionism and athlete burnout: Data set 1]. Unpublished raw data.

69.

Appleton

R. P.

Cumming

Duda

J. L.

(n.d.-b). [Perfectionism and athlete burnout: Data set 2]. Unpublished raw data.

70.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

71.

Jiang

Huang

Chen

(2012). How cooperativeness and competitiveness influence student burnout: The moderating effect of neuroticism. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40, 805-813.

72.

*Jowett

G. E.

Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

Curran

(2013). Perfectionism and junior athlete burnout: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 48-61.

73.

Jowett

G. E.

Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

(n.d.-a). [Perfectionism and athlete burnout: Data set 1]. Unpublished raw data.

74.

Jowett

G. E.

Hill

A. P.

Hall

H. K.

(n.d.-b). [Perfectionism and athlete burnout: Data set 2]. Unpublished raw data.

75.

Klibert

Lamis

D. A.

Collins

Smalley

K. B.

Warren

J. C.

Yancey

C. T.

Winterowd

(2014). Resilience mediates the relations between perfectionism and college student distress. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 75-82.

76.

*Kristiansen

Abrahamsen

F. E.

Stensrud

(2012). Stress-related breathing problems: An issue for elite swimmers. Journal of Swimming Research, 19, 1-8.

77.

Lee

R. T.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123-133.

78.

Leiter

M. P.

(1993). Burnout as developmental process: Consideration of models. In Schaufeli

W. B.

Maslach

Marek

(Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 237-250). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

79.

*Lemyre

P. N.

Hall

H. K.

Roberts

G. C.

(2008). A social cognitive approach to burnout in elite athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 18, 221-234.

80.

*Li

Hou

Z. J.

Chi

H. Y.

Liu

Hager

M. J.

(2014). The mediating role of coping in the relationship between subtypes of perfectionism and job burnout: A test of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism with employees in China. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 65-70.

81.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

82.

Lloyd

Schmidt

Khondoker

Tchanturia

(in press). Can psychological interventions reduce perfectionism? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S1352465814000162

83.

Maslach

(1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5, 16-22.

84.

Maslach

(1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

85.

Maslach

(2001). What have we learned about burnout and health? Psychology & Health, 16, 607-611.

86.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981a). Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey. In Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), MBI manual (3rd ed., pp. 3-9). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

87.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981b). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113.

88.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Schwab

R. L.

(1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory - Educators Survey. In Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), MBI manual (3rd ed., pp. 27-32). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.

89.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

90.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Burns

L. R.

(1998). Career mothers and perfectionism: Stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 477-485.

91.

Molnar

D. S.

Sadava

S. W.

Flett

G. L.

Colautti

(2012). Perfectionism and health: A mediational analysis of the roles of stress, social support and health-related behaviours. Psychology & Health, 27, 846-864.

92.

Mor

Day

H. I.

Flett

G. L.

(1995). Perfectionism, control, and components of performance anxiety in professional artists. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 207-225.

93.

T. W.

Sorensen

K. L.

Eby

L. T.

(2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057-1087.

94.

Noble

C. L.

Ashby

J. S.

Gnilka

P. B.

(2014). Multidimensional perfectionism, coping, and depression: Differential prediction of depression symptoms by perfectionism type. Journal of College Counseling, 17, 80-94.

95.

O’Connor

R. C.

O’Connor

D. B.

O’Connor

S. M.

Smallwood

Miles

(2004). Hopelessness, stress, and perfectionism: The moderating effects of future thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1099-1120.

96.

*Ogus

E. D.

(2007). Burnout among professionals: Work stress, coping, and gender (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University, Toronto, ON.

97.

*Ozbilir

(2011). Perfectionism in the workplace (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

98.

Philp

Egan

S. J.

Kane

R. T.

(2012). Perfectionism, over commitment to work and burnout in employees seeking workplace counselling. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64, 68-74.

99.

Purvanova

R. K.

Muros

J. P.

(2010). Gender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 168-185.

100.

Raedeke

T. D.

(1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

101.

Raedeke

T. D.

Smith

A. L.

(2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.

102.

Rice

K. G.

Vergara

D. T.

Aldea

M. A.

(2006). Cognitive-affective mediators of perfectionism and college student adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 463-473.

103.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Adams

D. C.

Gurevitch

(2007). Meta Win (Version 2.1, Release 5.10) [Software]. Available from http://www.metawinsoft.com/

104.

Rosenthal

(1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.

105.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1996). The Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey. In Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.), MBI manual (3rd ed., pp. 19-26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

106.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Martínez

I. M.

Pinto

A. M.

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students a cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.

107.

Schmidt

F. L.

I.-S.

Hayes

T. L.

(2009). Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97-128.

108.

*Schwenke

T. J.

(2012). The relationships between perfectionism, stress, coping resources, and burnout among sign language interpreters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta.

109.

Sherry

S. B.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

Lee-Baggley

D. L.

Hall

P. A.

(2007). Trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality pathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 477-490.

110.

*Shih

S. S.

(2012). An examination of academic burnout versus work engagement among Taiwanese adolescents. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 286-298.

111.

Shin

Park

Y. M.

Ying

J. Y.

Kim

Noh

Lee

S. M.

(2014). Relationships between coping strategies and burnout symptoms: A meta-analytic approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 44-56.

112.

Slaney

R. B.

Rice

K. G.

Mobley

Trippi

Ashby

J. S.

(2001). The revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145.

113.

Smith

R. E.

(1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

114.

Stensrud

Kristiansen

Abrahamsen

F. E.

(n.d.). [Perfectionism and athlete burnout]. Unpublished raw data.

115.

Stoeber

(2011). The dual nature of perfectionism in sports: Relationships with emotion, motivation, and performance. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 128-145.

116.

*Stoeber

Childs

J. H.

(2010). The assessment of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: Subscales make a difference. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 577-585.

117.

Stoeber

Damian

L. E.

(in press). Perfectionism in employees: Work engagement, workaholism, and burnout. In Sirois

F. M.

Molnar

D. S.

(Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being. New York, NY: Springer.

118.

Stoeber

Haskew

A. E.

Scott

(2015). Perfectionism and exam performance: The mediating effect of task-approach goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 171-176.

119.

Stoeber

Kobori

Tanno

(2013). Perfectionism and self-conscious emotions in British and Japanese students: Predicting pride and embarrassment after success and failure. European Journal of Personality, 27, 59-70.

120.

Stoeber

Otto

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

121.

Stoeber

Otto

Stoll

(2006). Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism (MIPS): English version. Unpublished manuscript.

122.

*Stoeber

Rennert

(2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 21, 37-53.

123.

Swider

B. W.

Zimmerman

R. D.

(2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 487-506.

124.

*Taris

T. W.

Beek

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2010). Why do perfectionists have a higher burnout risk than others? The mediational effect of workaholism. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 1-7.

125.

*Tashman

L. S.

Tenenbaum

Eklund

(2010). The effect of perceived stress on the relationship between perfectionism and burnout in coaches. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23, 195-212.

126.

Terry-Short

L. A.

Owens

R. G.

Slade

P. D.

Dewey

M. E.

(1995). Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 663-668.

127.

Vallerand

R. J.

(2004). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. In Spielberger

C. D.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (pp. 427-435). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

128.

*Van Yperen

N. W.

Verbraak

Spoor

(2011). Perfectionism and clinical disorders among employees. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1126-1130.

129.

Walburg

(2014). Burnout among high school students: A literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 28-33.

130.

Yang

H. J.

(2004). Factors affecting student burnout and academic achievement in multiple enrolment programs in Taiwan’s technical–vocational colleges. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 283-301.

131.

*Zhang

Gan

Cham

(2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1529-1540.