Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /paid

Maladaptive coping and self-esteem as mediators between perfectionismand psychological distress q

Hyun-joo Park a,*, P. Paul Heppner b, Dong-gwi Lee c

a Department of Education, Dongguk University, 3-26, Pil-dong, Chung-gu, Seoul 100-715, Republic of Koreab Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 16 Hill Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USAc Department of Psychology, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 12 July 2009Received in revised form 9 October 2009Accepted 19 November 2009Available online 4 January 2010

Keywords:PerfectionismMaladaptive copingSelf-esteemMediationKorean college students

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.024

q Authors’ note. This study is based on Hyun-joounder the direction of P. Paul Heppner.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2260 3383; faxE-mail address: hjpark@dongguk.edu (H. Park).

This study with 508 Korean college students examined the mediation effects of maladaptive coping stylesand self-esteem on the links of evaluative concerns perfectionism and psychological distress. Structuralequation modeling analyses supported a full mediation effect of maladaptive coping between evaluativeconcerns perfectionism and distress. The final model also revealed a significant path from evaluative con-cerns perfectionism through maladaptive coping and self-esteem to distress. Furthermore, a multi-groupanalysis found that male college students with evaluative concerns perfectionism tend to use maladap-tive coping strategies more compared to their female counterparts. The findings provided not only exter-nal validity for the full mediation effect of coping but also evidence of more complex relations among thevariables.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Perfectionism, defined as ‘‘the striving for flawlessness,” (Flett &Hewitt, 2002, p. 5) has been the focus of attention in psychology,especially after the advent of sound inventories to assess perfec-tionism from multidimensional perspectives (e.g., Frost Multidi-mensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS: Frost, Marten, Lahart, &Rosenblate, 1990); Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfection-ism Scale (HF-MPS: Hewitt & Flett, 1991)). With these measure-ment tools, empirical research on perfectionism increaseddrastically. There is a growing consensus that a distinction canbe made between neurotic (maladaptive) versus normal (adaptive)perfectionism (Hamachek, 1978; Stoeber & Otto, 2006), yet it ismaladaptive perfectionism that has been found to be associatedwith various forms of maladjustment (Flett & Hewitt, 2002).

Initially, empirical research on maladaptive perfectionism fo-cused on direct links between perfectionism and indices of psycho-logical adjustment, such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders,obsessive–compulsive disorder, and suicidal ideation (see Flett &Hewitt, 2002; Shafran & Mansell, 2001). In addition to such directassociations, recently, an important line of research took it a stepfurther to identify mediators to explain underlying mechanisms

ll rights reserved.

Park’s doctoral dissertation

: +82 2 2277 1274.

of the link between maladaptive perfectionism and distresses.Mediators refer to variables that ‘‘establish how or why one vari-able predicts or causes an outcome variable” (Frazier, Tix, & Barron,2004, p. 116), providing practicing psychologists with useful infor-mation regarding intervention targets.

A review of perfectionism literature has identified two promis-ing mediators between maladaptive perfectionism and distress:coping styles (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000; Dunkley, Blankstein,Halsall, Williams, & Winkworth, 2000; Dunn, Whelton, & Sharpe,2006) and self-esteem (Preusser, Rice, & Ashby, 1994; Rice, Ashby,& Slaney, 1998). Coping styles as a mediator is based on the postu-lation that ‘‘individuals with perfectionistic standards who typi-cally make use of maladaptive coping responses will beespecially prone to maladjustment” (Dunkley et al., 2000, p. 440).Self-esteem is also hypothesized as an important mediator becauseperfectionists with extremely high standards would rarely be sat-isfied with their achievements and more likely to suffer from lowself-esteem constantly, which would significantly exacerbate theirpsychological adjustment.

Previous research has identified maladaptive coping as a solidmediator between maladaptive perfectionism and distress (Dunk-ley & Blankstein, 2000; Dunkley et al., 2000; Dunn et al., 2006).From the studies by Dunkley and his associates, maladaptive oravoidant coping were found to fully mediate the link between eval-uative concerns or self-critical perfectionism and distress. In addi-tion, Dunn et al. (2006) showed that avoidant coping partiallymediated between maladaptive perfectionism and distress in

470 H. Park et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474

Canadian university professors. Self-esteem has also been found toplay a significant mediating role between perfectionism and dis-tress (Preusser et al., 1994; Rice et al., 1998). Preusser et al.(1994) reported that self-esteem was a significant mediator be-tween Socially Prescribed Perfectionism from the HF-MPS anddepression for men and women as well as Self-Oriented Perfection-ism from the HF-MPS and depression only for women. Similarly,Rice et al. (1998) identified a significant mediating role of self-es-teem between maladaptive perfectionism and depression.

Although previous research on mediating effects of maladaptivecoping and self-esteem has provided insight into underlying mech-anisms to elucidate the relationship between perfectionism andmaladjustment, some further areas of investigation can be ex-plored. First, testing the concurrent mediating effects of maladap-tive coping styles and self-esteem, which has been examinedseparately, would extend our comprehensive understanding ofthe mechanism whereby perfectionism and maladjustment areconnected. Second, the coping measures used in the previous re-search [Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (Endler & Parker,1990); the COPE inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989)]have been criticized because some items are confounded with dis-tress symptoms (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Cameron, & Ellis, 1994).Moreover, an important aspect of coping, such as the effectivenessof coping effort (Heppner, Cook, Wright, & Johnson, 1995), was notconsidered. Third, only depression was utilized as a criterion vari-able in the studies testing the mediating role of self-esteem; exam-ining the mediating effect with other maladjustments, such asgeneral distress and interpersonal difficulties, would provide valu-able information. Lastly, a notable limitation in the perfectionismliterature is that the majority of the studies were conducted withinWestern countries. Researchers have consistently called for theneed to investigate the construct of perfectionism and to test thegeneralizability of the findings to other cultures, such as Asian cul-tures (e.g., Castro & Rice, 2003; Preusser et al., 1994). Thus, testingthe mediation models in Asian culture would provide meaningfulevidence for the external validity. Taken together, the presentstudy tested the mediation effects of both maladaptive copingstyles and self-esteem between evaluative concerns perfectionismand distress in Korean college students.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

Participants were 522 college students in two large universitiesin South Korea. Data from 508 students were used after datascreening procedures. About half of the participants were males(n = 272, 54%), and participants’ mean age was 20.56 years(SD = 2.19). Data collection was carried out via the Internet. Theinstructors explained the purpose of the study as well as partici-pants’ rights in the classes, and students who were interested inparticipating were informed of a World-Wide Web address wherethey could access the online survey. In the online survey, informedconsent information was provided, and participants’ consents wereobtained by clicking ‘‘I agree”.

2.2. Instruments

All the instruments except for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem weretranslated into Korean. First, the English versions were translatedinto Korean by the first author who was fluent both in Koreanand English. Second, the third author, who is also bilingual bothin Korean and English, back-translated the translated versions intoEnglish. Third, two American professors in psychology comparedand reviewed the original English versions with the back-trans-

lated versions and noted any discrepancies. Fourth, based on thereviews, translation and back translation procedures were re-peated until every party agreed with the equivalence of the Koreanand English versions.

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS; Frost et al.,1990). The F-MPS is a 35-item self-assessment measure of perfec-tionism. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from‘‘1 = strongly disagree” to ‘‘5 = strongly agree.” The F-MPS consistsof six subscales: Concern over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standards,Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism, Doubts about Actions(DA), and Organization. The scale was reported to have acceptablereliability and validity estimates (Enns & Cox, 2002). The currentstudy utilized the CM and DA subscales to represent the evaluativeconcerns perfectionism in accordance with the previous researchfindings (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2000; Dunn et al., 2006). In this study,the Cronbach alphas for these two subscales were .86 (CM) and .67(DA).

Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC; Heppner et al., 1995).The PF-SOC is an 18-item inventory to measure individuals’ prob-lem-focused activities related to progress toward resolving prob-lems. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from‘‘1 = almost never” to ‘‘5 = almost all of the time.” The PF-SOC con-sists of Reflective style, Suppressive style, and Reactive style,reflecting different dispositional problem-resolution styles. Higherscores on each subscale indicate greater utilization of each style.The reliability and validity estimates of the PF-SOC were reportedin Heppner et al. (1995). In this study, the Suppressive and theReactive styles were selected to represent the maladaptive copingconstruct (Wei, Heppner, Russell, & Young, 2006). The Cronbach al-pha coefficients were .75 (Suppressive) and .61 (Reactive) in thisstudy.

Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965). The RSE is awidely-used 10-item scale designed to assess individuals’ globalself-esteem. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from stronglyagree to strongly disagree. The psychometric properties of the RSEhave been reported (Corwyn, 2000). A translated version by Chun(1974) was used. In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient forthe RSE was .82.

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982). The BSIis a 53-item self-report symptom inventory. Each symptom is ratedaccording to the amount of distress experienced, from 0 (not at all)to 4 (extremely). Scores are obtained on nine dimensions (e.g.,depression, anxiety, somatization) and on the Global Severity In-dex (GSI), which is considered the best single indicator of the par-ticipants’ level of distress (Derogatis, 1993). The present studyutilized the GSI as an indicator of the psychological distress con-struct. Derogatis and Spencer (1982) reported evidence for the psy-chometric properties of the BSI. In this study, the Cronbach alphafor the Korean version of the BSI items was .97.

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex Form (IIP-SC; Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1995). The IIP-SC contains 326-point Likert-type items (0 = not at all to 5 = extremely) and mea-sures individuals’ level of interpersonal difficulties. Acceptableinternal consistency estimates of the IIP-SC have been reported(Soldz et al., 1995). In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficientfor the IIP-SC was .87.

3. Results

3.1. Measurement model

The analysis of the mediation effects followed the two-step pro-cedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, themeasurement model was tested to assess the extent to which eachof the four latent variables was represented by its indicators. Once

Table 1Fit Indices among Competing Models

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

v2 133.59 91.42 91.42 91.42 200.59df 31 30 31 30 31RMSEA .08 .06 .06 .06 .10CI for RMSEA .07, .10 .05, .08 .05, .08 .05, .08 .09, .12SRMR .07 .03 .03 .03 .11CFI .96 .98 .98 .98 .94AIC 181.59 141.42 139.42 141.42 248.59ECVI .36 .28 .28 .28 .49CI for ECVI .30, .44 .23, .34 .23, .34 .23, .34 .41, .59

Note. N = 508. Boldface type represents the best model.RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval;SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; CFI = comparative fit index;AIC = Akaike information criterion; and ECVI = expected cross-validation index.

H. Park et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474 471

the measurement model is accepted, testing the structural modelfollows. In order to control for inflated measurement errors dueto multiple items for the latent variable, three item parcels werecreated for each of the evaluative concerns perfectionism andself-esteem constructs (see Russell, Kahn, Spoth, & Altmaier,1998 for the procedures of creating item parcels). Due to the un-equal numbers of items in each parcel, the average scores of theitems were used.

The measurement model involved four latent constructs (eval-uative concerns perfectionism, maladaptive coping, self-esteem,and distress) and 10 observed variables. Structural equation mod-eling (SEM) with the maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 5.0program (Arbuckle, 2003) was used. The goodness of fit of themodel to the data were evaluated based on the following four indi-ces (see Hu & Bentler, 1999; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999): (a) chi-square statistics; (b) root-mean-square error of approximation(RMSEA); (c) Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR):best if below .05; and (d) Comparative Fit Index (CFI): best if above.95. An initial test of the measurement model resulted in a verygood fit to the data: v2(29, N = 508) = 91.05, p < .001; RMSEA = .065(90% confidence interval [CI]: .05–.08); SRMR = .03; and CFI = .98.All the factor loadings for the indicators on the latent variableswere significant (p < .001), indicating that all the latent constructswere well represented by their indicators. In addition, all the latentconstructs were significantly correlated in conceptually expectedways (p < .001).

3.2. Structural model

The direct path coefficient from the predictor (evaluative con-cerns perfectionism) to the criterion (distress) in the absence ofmediators was significant, r = .59, p < .001. A partially-mediatedmodel with two mediators and a direct path from evaluative con-cerns perfectionism to distress revealed a good fit to the data:v2(30, N = 508) = 133.58, p < .001; RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = .07–.10);SRMR = .07; and CFI = .96. However, the path coefficient from eval-uative concerns perfectionism to distress became non-significant(b = .01), which supported a fully-mediated model. Thus, a fully-mediated model was tested subsequently with this path con-strained to zero, which revealed a good fit to the data: v2(31,N = 508) = 133.59, p < .001; RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = .07–.10);SRMR = .07; and CFI = .96. Therefore, the fully-mediated model(Model 1) was selected over the partially-mediated one.

In order to find the best model, four alternative models (Models2–5) were tested (McCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993).Akaike Information Criterion (AIC: Akaike, 1987) and ExpectedCross-Validation Index (ECVI: Browne & Cudeck, 1993) were addi-tionally examined to determine the best model. Byrne (2001) sug-gested that ‘‘the AIC. . . are used in the comparison of two or moremodels, with smaller values representing a better fit of the hypoth-esized model. . . the model having smallest ECVI values exhibits thegreatest potential for replication” (p. 86).

First, a path from maladaptive coping to self-esteem was addedto the fully-mediated model (Model 2) and the results showed avery good fit to the data (Table 1). When Model 1 and Model 2were compared, the significant chi-square difference, Dv2(1,N = 508) = 42.17, p < .001, indicated that this additional path signif-icantly contributed to the model. The path coefficient from mal-adaptive coping to self-esteem was statistically significant(b = �.56), however, the path from evaluative concerns perfection-ism to self-esteem became non-significant (b = .00). Thus, this pathwas deleted and the model was re-tested (Model 3). The resultsalso showed a very good fit to the data (Table 1). Although therewas no great difference between Models 2 and 3 in terms of thefit indices, a slightly smaller AIC value and the parsimony of Model

3 (a smaller value for df) suggested that Model 3 is better thanModel 2.

In addition, Model 4 was created by adding a path from self-esteem to maladaptive coping to the fully-mediated model,which showed a good fit to the data (Table 1). Both the pathcoefficients from self-esteem to maladaptive coping (b = �.37)and from evaluative concerns perfectionism to self-esteem(b = �.37) were statistically significant. In order to make anequivalent comparison with Model 3, Model 5 with a path fromevaluative concerns perfectionism to maladaptive coping con-strained to zero was tested. The results showed a mediocre fitto the data (Table 1). Thus, Model 4 was found to be a bettermodel than Model 5. When Models 3 and 4 were compared,the parsimony of the model and a smaller AIC value favoredModel 3. Taken together, Model 3 was selected as the best model(Fig. 1). Evaluative concerns perfectionism contributed to distressonly through maladaptive coping, suggesting the full mediationeffects of maladaptive coping. Approximately 50% of the variancein distress was explained by the mediation effect of maladaptivecoping.

One observation that could explain the non-significant medi-ation effect by self-esteem may be found in the full mediationeffect of maladaptive coping on the link between evaluativeconcerns perfectionism and self-esteem; about 37% of the vari-ance in self-esteem was explained by the mediation effect ofmaladaptive coping. Notably, the path of evaluative concernsperfectionism ? maladaptive coping ? self-esteem ? distresswas significant, indicating that evaluative concerns perfection-ists are more likely to use maladaptive coping styles, whichmay lower their self-esteem and lead to distress. Taken to-gether, these results highlight the crucial role of maladaptivecoping in the link between maladaptive perfectionism anddistress.

3.3. Testing model fit by gender

A multi-group analysis in SEM was performed to test if thestructural paths in the final model differ by gender. The gender dif-ferences were examined by comparing the first model, which al-lows the structural paths to vary between males and females,with the second model which constrains the structural paths be-tween males and females to be equal. All the other paths (i.e., fac-tor loadings, error variances and structure covariances) wereconstrained to be equal; thus, if the first model is found to be betterthan the second model, this indicates that the structural paths dif-fer by gender.

A SEM analysis with the maximum likelihood method in AMOS5.0 yielded the following fit indices: (a) for the first model: v2(82,N = 508) = 144.20, p < .001; RMSEA = .04 (90% CI = .03–.05);

Fig. 1. The finalized structural model (N = 508). Note. Factor loadings are standardized. Perfectionism = Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism; Distress = Psychological Distress.ECP1–ECP3 = three parcels of evaluative concerns perfectionism; RSE1–RSE3 = three parcels from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem; GSI = Global Severity Index; IIP-SC = Inventoryof Interpersonal Problems-Short Circumplex. Form. *p < 0.001. Suppressive and Reactive are the subscales of the Problem-Focused Style of Coping. GSI is from the BriefSymptom Inventory.

472 H. Park et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474

SRMR = .43; CFI = .98; AIC = 200.20; and ECVI = .40 (90% CI = .34–.47), and (b) for the second model: v2(86, N = 508) = 154.06,p < .001; RMSEA = .04 (90% CI = .03–.05); SRMR = .43; CFI = .97;AIC = 202.06; and ECVI = .40 (90% CI = .34-.48). The significantchi-square differences between the two models, D v2(4,N = 508) = 9.86, p < .05, as well as the smaller AIC value favoredthe first model over the second one. Thus, the structural paths ofthe final model were found to differ by gender.

In order to identify which structural paths differ significantly be-tween females and males, the critical ratios of differences (CRD)were obtained. The CRD was calculated by dividing the differencebetween two estimates by an estimate of the standard error of thedifference (Arbuckle, 2003). A CRD greater than |1.96| indicates thatthe two parameter estimates differ significantly at p < .05. Thestructural path from evaluative concerns perfectionism to maladap-tive coping was identified to be significantly different; CRD = �2.39,p < .05. The path coefficient for males (b = .72) was greater than thecoefficient for females (b = .59), indicating that the Korean maleswith evaluative concerns perfectionism are more likely to use mal-adaptive coping strategies than the female counterparts.

4. Discussion

The current study purported to test the mediation effects ofboth maladaptive coping styles and self-esteem on the link be-tween evaluative concerns perfectionism and distress with a sam-ple of South Korean college students. The current findingscorroborate that the previously reported mediating role of mal-adaptive coping (Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000; Dunkley et al.,2000) is robust with (a) a different cultural sample (South Koreancollege students), (b) different indices of maladaptive coping styles(the Suppressive and Reactive subscales of the PF-SOC), and (c) dif-ferent indices of distress (general distress and interpersonal diffi-culties). This result strongly suggests that individuals with highlevels of evaluative concerns perfectionism are likely to engagein maladaptive coping strategies, such as denying problems andpresenting emotional reactions, which lead to experiencing generaldistress and interpersonal difficulties.

The best model from the current study did not support themediation effect of self-esteem between evaluative concerns per-fectionism and distress. This finding contradicts previous reports

H. Park et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474 473

(Preusser et al., 1994; Rice et al., 1998) that attested to the signif-icant mediation effect of self-esteem. It is unclear whether thisunexpected finding reflects cultural differences or differences independent variables (depression versus general psychologicaladjustment). One clue that might help to explain this result isthe significant path of evaluative concerns perfectionism ? mal-adaptive coping styles ? low self-esteem ? distress. This pathindicates that individuals with maladaptive perfectionism areprone to engaging in maladaptive coping styles, which may lowertheir self-esteem and in turn, result in distress. In other words, self-esteem is a mediator between maladaptive coping and distressrather than a mediator between maladaptive perfectionism anddistress.

This draws attention to the issue of whether coping is predica-tive of self-esteem or vice versa. The literature has reported mixedfindings on this topic. For example, Neville, Heppner, Oh, Spanier-man, and Clark (2004) found that avoidance coping significantlypredicted self-esteem. Similarly, Fryer, Waller, and Kroese (1997)found that low self-esteem was a significant mediator betweenpoor ways of coping and disturbed eating attitude. On the contrary,D’Zurilla, Chang, and Sanna (2003) reported that social problemsolving was a significant mediator between self-esteem andaggression, but not vice versa. In light of these mixed findings,the current study suggests that a more complex relationship existsamong evaluative concerns perfectionism, coping styles, self-es-teem, and distress. Specifically, the study findings provided sup-port for a full mediation effect of coping styles betweenevaluative concerns perfectionism and self-esteem and a signifi-cant path of perfectionism ? maladaptive coping ? self-esteem ? distress. Thus, the study results provide some clues toexplain the conflicting findings in the literature concerning therelationships between coping styles and self-esteem.

The findings regarding gender differences indicate that Koreanmale college students with maladaptive perfectionism are moreprone to denying problems and to presenting emotional reactionsand impulsivity than their female counterparts. This finding is con-sistent with Dunn et al. (2006), who found that male universityprofessors in Canada with maladaptive perfectionism tend to em-ploy more avoidant coping compared to female professors. Hewitt,Flett, and Ediger (1995) also reported that emotion-focused copingwas significantly associated with Socially Prescribed Perfectionismfor men but not for women. Given these findings, the gender differ-ence in the path from evaluative concerns perfectionism to mal-adaptive coping may reflect cultural universality; however, this isclearly an area that needs further exploration.

Limitations as well as suggestions for future research should beaddressed. First, the cross-sectional nature of data prohibits draw-ing any causal relationships among the variables. Use of self-reportinstruments could be a threat to internal validity. Future research-ers are advised to test the final model of this study using a longitu-dinal design including behavioral measures of perfectionism andcoping styles. Second, the measure of maladaptive coping we usedtaps dispositional coping styles; thus, future research may benefitfrom incorporating situation-specific coping strategies. Third, thecurrent study did not include adaptive perfectionism in the modeltesting because of the potential suppressor effects of includingboth adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in one structuralmodel. Fourth, the construct of evaluative concerns perfectionismin this study contained only two indicators (CM and DA), and test-ing the model reflecting various aspects of maladaptive perfection-ism is recommended. Fifth, in addition to the gender differences inthe structural paths that were tested in this study, other variables,such as age, can be examined. Finally, the findings of the currentstudy should be generalized only to Korean college students.

Despite the limitations, the current study substantially ex-tended our insight into a complicated interplay among evaluative

concerns perfectionism, maladaptive coping, self-esteem, and dis-tress in Korean college students. The findings provided externalvalidity for the maladaptive coping mediated model in Korea,underscoring the key role of maladaptive coping styles. The signif-icant path from evaluative concerns perfectionism through mal-adaptive coping and low self-esteem to distress shed light on theunderlying mechanisms of the vicious cycle that leads perfection-ists to suffer from maladjustment.

References

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,411–423.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 update to the AMOS user’s guide. Chicago, IL:Smallwaters.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp. 136–162).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: Atheoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,267–283.

Castro, J. R., & Rice, K. G. (2003). Perfectionism and ethnicity: Implications fordepressive symptoms and self-reported academic achievement. CulturalDiversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 64–78.

Chun, B. J. (1974). A study on the measurement of self-esteem. Yonsei Review, 11.Corwyn, R. F. (2000). The factor structure of global self-esteem among adolescents

and adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 357–379.Derogatis, L. R. (1993). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring, and

procedures manual – III. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration,

scoring, and procedures (manual I). Baltimore: Clinical Psychometrics Research.Dunkley, D. M., & Blankstein, K. R. (2000). Self-critical perfectionism, coping,

hassles, and current distress: A structural equation modeling approach.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 713–730.

Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Halsall, J., Williams, M., & Winkworth, G. (2000).The relation between perfectionism and distress: Hassles, coping, and perceivedsocial support as mediators and moderators. Journal of Counseling Psychology,47, 437–453.

Dunn, J. C., Whelton, W. J., & Sharpe, D. (2006). Maladaptive perfectionism, hassles,coping, and psychological distress in university professors. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 53, 511–523.

D’Zurilla, T. J., Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Self-esteem and social problemsolving as predictors of aggression in college students. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 22, 424–440.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: Acritical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.

Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: Acritical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research,and treatment (pp. 33–62). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediatoreffects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,115–134.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions ofperfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

Fryer, S., Waller, G., & Kroese, B. S. (1997). Stress, coping, and disturbed eatingattitudes in teenage girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 427–436.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.Psychology, 15, 27–33.

Heppner, P. P., Cook, S. W., Wright, D. M., & Johnson, C. J. (1995). Progress inresolving problems: A problem-focused style of coping. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 42, 279–293.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1995). Perfectionism and depression:Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 105, 276–280.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

McCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problemof equivalent models in application of covariance structure analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185–199.

Neville, H. A., Heppner, M. J., Oh, E., Spanierman, L. B., & Clark, M. (2004). Generaland culturally specific factors influencing black and white rape survivors’ self-esteem. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 83–94.

474 H. Park et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 469–474

Preusser, K. J., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (1994). The role of self-esteem in mediatingthe perfectionism–depression connection. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 35, 88–93.

Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent development instructural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The CounselingPsychologist, 27, 485–527.

Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator betweenperfectionism and depression: A structural equations analysis. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 45, 304–314.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data fromexperimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.

Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review ofresearch and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 879–906.

Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the Inventory ofInterpersonal Problems Circumplex scales. Assessment, 2, 53–63.

Stanton, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C. L., & Ellis, A. P. (1994). Coping throughemotional approach: Problems of conceptualization and confounding. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 66, 350–362.

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

Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Young, S. K. (2006). Maladaptiveperfectionism and ineffective coping as mediators between attachment andfuture depression: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53,67–79.