Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 197-208
In this article, Thomas Greenspon discusses the idea of perfectionism and the impact that it has on today's society.
Perfectionism, with its harshly negative self-talk, is felt to be a
burden by most people who experience it. Despite this, a body of literature asserts that
some perfectionism is healthy, even though a critical review of this literature finds no
factual or theoretical basis for such a claim. The commonly asserted belief in a dichotomy
between healthy and dysfunctional perfectionism is based on a misunderstanding of the nature
of perfectionism, in part confusing the concept with striving for excellence, and has
apparently arisen from uncritical acceptance of early work on the subject. Perfectionism
is discussed as an interpersonal and intersubjective phenomenon, involving the
perfectionist’s experience of other people’s expectations and judgments. Implications for
treatment are discussed.
Key Words: Perfectionism; Healthy Perfectionism; Intersubjective
Perfectionism: . . . . A disposition to regard anything
short of perfection as unacceptable. (Merriam-Webster’s Third New International
I would say that any person who thinks he or she is perfect almost
certainly has real psychological problems, and the same is probably true of any person who
wants to be perfect. (Pacht, 1984, p. 386)
Perfectionism is rampant today . . . and it is in this competitive drive to
accomplish a moral and intellectual superiority that making a mistake becomes so dangerous.
. . .
If we can’t make peace with ourselves as we are, we will never be able to make peace with
ourselves. This requires the courage to be imperfect. (Rudolf Dreikurs, as cited in
Terner & Pew, 1978, pp. 288–289; emphasis added)
Clinical and anecdotal experience indicates that most people who have the
insight to see themselves as perfectionistic describe it as a burden. Despite this, the
notion has arisen that there are two kinds of perfectionism: the bothersome kind and a kind
described as “normal” or “healthy.” Articles in recent years by, among others, Orange
(1997), Parker and his associates (Parker, 1997; Parker & Adkins, 1995; Parker & Mills,
1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995), Schuler (1998, 1999), and Silverman (1998) all make such an
assertion, based largely on a much earlier article by Hamachek (1978), in which he describes
what he categorizes as “normal” and “neurotic” perfectionists.
A reading of the literature on perfectionism reveals at least two problems
with such categorizations: (a) People defined as healthy perfectionists are never described
as actually seeking perfection, and (b) the notion of a continuum from healthy to unhealthy
perfectionism is simply asserted, without unequivocal empirical or theoretical support. A
further observation is that debatable conclusions from data and misunderstandings of theory
are so often uncritically repeated by later authors that they become accepted as statements
of fact. What follows is a critical review of a body of literature that addresses the issue
of healthy perfectionism. The progress of certain ideas related to the topic is traced over
the last 35 years, and suggestions are made concerning the etiology of perfectionism and
approaches to dealing with it on one’s own and in a psychotherapeutic. A distinction is made
between perfectionism and striving for excellence. A psychodynamic understanding
ofperfectionism reveals that a feeling of conditional acceptance underlies the desire for
Origins of a Misnomer
More than 20 years ago, Don Hamachek published an article entitled
“Psychodynamics of Normal and Neurotic Perfectionism” (Hamachek,1978). The article is
interesting for several reasons. It lays out a brief but cogent description of the origins
of perfectionism in the interpersonal environment in which a child grows up. Hamachek
pointed out that perfectionism is not only a a set of behaviors, but also a way of thinking
about these behaviors and that perfectionism is less about a desire for improvement than
about fear of failure. It is interesting that many later authors who base their thinking on
Hamachek’s normal/neurotic dichotomy miss this essential psychological point. Environments
of nonapproval, inconsistent approval, or even conditional positive approval by adult
caregivers lead to children’s feelings that they can never be good enough. A child may learn
to “overvalue performance and undervalue the self” (p. 29, emphasis in
Nowhere in Hamachek’s article does he say why the term normal
perfectionist is used. Careful reading of his descriptive comments, in fact, leads one
to conclude that the term is inappropriate. He referred to normal perfectionists as people
who wish to do their best, but don’t worry about being absolutely perfect. He then described
people who are somewhat perfectionistic, a term with distinctly different
connotations from normal perfectionist, and he pointed out that normal perfectionists “could
just as easily [be referred] to as skilled artists or careful workers or masters of their
craft” (p. 27). In fact, Hamachek never described normal perfectionists in terms that refer
to being perfect in any way. What they prefer is what is “correct, proper, better than
average, and surely, the best one can do” (p. 30). Normal perfectionists can enjoy their
accomplishments, and self-satisfaction and selfacceptance are characteristics of such
persons. Fear of failure is not mentioned in descriptions of normal perfectionism. It is
argued here that these descriptions eliminate the concept of normal perfectionism. Hamachek
said flatly that there is no such thing as perfection and that one cannot be perfect. One
wonders, then, how perfectionism could ever be considered normal or healthy?
Hamachek attempted to bolster his argument for the normal/neurotic
distinction by referring to theoretical statements by W. H. Missildine (1963) and Karen
Horney (1945). Although Hamachek clearly implied that Missildine described distinctions
between normal and neurotic perfectionists, such categorizations never appear in
Missildine’s work. In fact, Missildine wrote that not all striving for excellence is
perfectionistic and that “One of the most important distinctions between the efforts of the
true masters of their craft and those of the perfectionistic person is that the striving of
the first group brings them personal satisfaction” (p. 77). Hamachek noted that Horney
observed differences between normal and neurotic states, and he implied that she also
distinguished between normal and neurotic perfectionists. She did not. Horney clearly
described perfectionism as a pathological adaptation to alienation from one’s true self
One of Hamachek’s suggestions for ways to combat neurotic perfectionism is
to “give yourself permission to be less than perfect.” This is not a prescription for
becoming a normal perfectionist, but rather for being less perfectionistic. Any reasonable
reading of Hamachek’s article leads to the conclusion that normal perfectionism is a
misnomer. The conclusion more in accord with his argument is that there are two kinds of
people— perfectionists and nonperfectionists—and that perfectionists can be more or less
perfectionistic. As Hamachek pointed out, this is not always a bad thing. It is certainly
true that many perfectionistic people can do things very well. Perfectionism, however,
represents some degree of adaptation to the idea that one’s worthiness in the eyes of others
is dependent on being as close to perfect as possible. Despite assertions to the contrary,
it will be seen that the literature subsequent to Hamachek’s article supports such a
Mainstreaming the Misnomer
Perhaps the most serious and thoroughgoing recent attempt to study the
characteristics of perfectionists is that of Wayne Parker and his associates. In three
studies, for example (Parker, 1997; Parker & Mills, 1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995), a
multidimensional perfectionism scale was used to examine different populations; in addition
to several interesting and useful conclusions concerning the scale itself and its
appropriateness for the different populations, a consistent assertion was made that a
distinction between healthy and unhealthy perfectionistic types was found. All three studies
made basically the same argument for this distinction, based ultimately on Hamachek’s
In much of Parker’s work, healthy perfectionism seems to be equated,
inappropriately, with striving for excellence (1997; Parker & Adkins, 1995; Parker & Mills,
1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) of Frost,
Martin, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) was chosen by Parker as a tool for pursuing his
argument, even though these authors are very clear that
perfectionism involves high standards of performance which
are accompanied by tendencies for overly critical evaluations of one’s own behavior.
The psychological problems associated with perfectionism are probably more closely
associated with these critical evaluation tendencies than with the setting of excessively
high standards. (p. 450, emphasis in original)
Although the definitions of perfectionism have emphasized the setting of
excessively high standards of performance, the present series of studies suggest that
Concern over Mistakes is more central to the concept, and is the major component in other
measures of perfectionism as well. (p. 465)
Hewitt and Flett (1991) also developed a perfectionism scale, with the same
name, Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, as that of Frost, et. al. They examined three
elements of perfectionism and found that one of these “is not simply the tendency to have
high standards for oneself; it also includes the intrinsic need to be perfect and compulsive
striving for perfection and self-improvement” (p. 468). They also found that self-criticism
is correlated with all three dimensions of perfectionism.
In earlier work, Missildine (1963) wrote, “Our clinical work with children
clearly indicates that this continual self-belittlement—rather than a desire to master the
environment—is the real driving force behind the perfectionist’s unending efforts” (p. 83).
Burns (1980) pointed out that there is nothing inherently pathological about setting high
standards for oneself. In fact, every attempt at a psychological understanding of
perfectionism echoes this point: It is not the setting of high standards, nor taking
“pleasure from painstaking efforts” (Parker & Adkins, 1995, quoting Hamachek), but rather
the negative self-evaluation and feelings of conditional self-acceptance that are the
hallmarks of the perfectionist. Parker wonders if one can adequately determine whether a
gifted student or an Olympic athlete is engaging in a healthy striving for excellence,
rather than a neurotic, obsessive preoccupation with perfection (Parker & Adkins, 1995). In
point of fact, striving for goals that are literally beyond one’s capacities is unhealthy
for anyone, gifted or not; this does not represent perfectionism, although some
perfectionists will do it. Striving to excel, by contrast, is healthy for anyone unless it
becomes obsessive; perfectionism is not the simple wish to excel. Parker and Adkins pointed
out that Adderholdt distinguished perfectionism, which has psychopathological implications
for children, from the pursuit of excellence and that Webb, Meckstroth, and Tolan (1982)
emphasized the difference between a child who wants to excel and a child who feels that he
or she should excel. The “shoulds” experienced by perfectionistic children lead to
unrealistic expectations and feelings of inadequacy, according to Webb et al.
In his argument for healthy perfectionism, Parker (1997) made the point
that constructs are frequently defined by the instruments used to measure them. Although
many perfectionism scales exist in both popular and academic literature, Parker chose the
MPS of Frost et al. (1990) as one of the more rigorous ways to define the construct of
perfectionism. Parker goes beyond this, however, in attempting to support a construct of
healthy perfectionism; in fact, such a construct is simply asserted by Parker et al. and
nothing in their work or that of Frost et al. definitively supports attempts to sustain
In his study of academically talented sixth graders, Parker (1997)
administered the MPS and several questionnaires. Analysis of the results yielded three
categories of students: Cluster 1, labeled nonperfectionists; Cluster 2, labeled
healthy perfectionists; and Cluster 3, labeled dysfunctional
perfectionists. Parker’s results, however, raise serious questions about such labeling.
Cluster 2 students are described as manifesting low Concern Over Mistakes, low levels of
perceived Parental Criticism, low Doubts About Action, and highest amount of Organization.
All other MPS scores, including total level of perfectionism, were moderate. . . . [These
students had] focused on realistic standards . . . [and] scored the least neurotic, the most
extroverted, the most agreeable, and the most conscientious. . . . [They were] goal and
achievement oriented, predictable, well-adjusted, and socially at ease. (p. 555)
Although Parker wrote, “It appears that these students could be
characterized as healthy perfectionists” (p. 555), in fact there are no obvious grounds for
such a characterization in this description or in any of the results. Scores on Concern Over
Mistakes, the one subscale said by Frost et al.(1990) to be central to the concept of
perfectionism, are low; Cluster 2 students appeared to be relatively well-adjusted and
achievementoriented young people. The moderate total MPS scores of Cluster 2 members could
indicate one of two things: (a) These students are moderately perfectionistic and have
positive personality characteristics, as well, in which case it remains to be demonstrated
that the perfectionism itself is healthy; or (b) a moderate level of perfectionism as
defined by the MPS is not really a sign of perfectionism in any meaningful sense (no cut-off
value is suggested for total MPS scores that would differentiate perfectionists from
nonperfectionists). It seems that at most, then, Cluster 2 students can be characterized not
as healthy perfectionists, but as moderately perfectionistic.
Parker concluded from this study that “The overriding characteristic of
perfectionism in these talented children is conscientiousness, not neurosis” (p. 556) and
that perfectionism is, therefore, not necessarily negative. To arrive at this conclusion,
Parker used the NEO-FFI, an assessment tool that yields information about five personality
variables, including conscientiousness and neuroticism. Having established the three
clusters, he looked to see which of the five personality variables accounted for the most
variance in the perfectionism scores. Among his findings was the fact that, of the five
variables, conscientiousness was most strongly correlated with cluster membership, with
effect size described as being high medium.
There are two problems with this analysis. First, it is restricted to the
five personality factors measured by the NEO-FFI; and second, it is further restricted to
the definitions of these personality factors set forth in the NEO-FFI. These are the
problems attendant to defining a construct by tests used to measure it, and, of course, the
same problems occur with the MPS itself. Although Parker established that conscientiousness
is the best of the five variables at describing cluster membership, it is not known whether
some other personality variable might be more relevant. Nothing in the NEO-FFI captures, for
example, the perfectionist’s feelings of conditional acceptability or fears of failure,
discussed below. Furthermore, since Cluster 3 students were significantly less conscientious
than Cluster 2 students, and since both clusters were labeled perfectionistic even though
Cluster 3 students had higher MPS scores, it would be more accurate to conclude that, among
the personality factors in this study, the most significant one was conscientiousness and
that this most strongly describes Cluster 2 members rather than perfectionism per se.
Hamachek (1978) described neurotic perfectionists as “stewing in their own
juices,” always fearing they will do things less than perfectly. Since they always feel that
they should be doing better, they are unable to feel satisfaction. This anxious, unfulfilled
striving was meant to be operationalized by Parker’s use of the NEO-FFI. With this
instrument, the personality domain of neuroticism is characterized by six traits: anxiety,
angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The link between any of these traits and perfectionism is unclear; and, with
the possible exceptions of anxiety and depression, Hamachek did not mention any of them in
his discussion. This means that it is possible that perfectionistic people exhibit some,
none, or all of these traits in varying amounts, so that perfectionists could be more or
less neurotic as measured by the NEO-FFI. Perfectionists could still be unhealthy, although
not neurotic as tested.
Using the same argument, the conscientiousness domain of the NEO-FFI
includes the six traits of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving,
self-discipline, and deliberation. Each of these is clearly also a trait that
perfectionists and nonperfectionists alike might have in greater or lesser amounts. Again,
conscientiousness seems not to characterize perfectionism, but rather those students in this
study most especially belonging in Cluster 2.
The work of Parker and Stumpf (1995) is also open to reinterpretation. The
authors again used the MPS to examine a group of gifted sixth graders. A factor analysis of
these scores alone yields two factors, accounting for something less than two-thirds of the
variance in the data and arbitrarily labeled healthy and dysfunctional perfectionism.
No rationale is offered for this labeling, other than that, as in the 1997 study, the
factors “appear to reflect” (p. 380) Hamachek’s categories. The NEO-FFI was again used; the
result was that neuroticism was most highly correlated with dysfunctional perfectionism,
whereas conscientiousness was most highly correlated with healthy perfectionism. Again, this
contravenes Parker’s 1997 statement that conscientiousness and not neuroticism is the
overriding characteristic of perfectionism (p. 556). Furthermore, the healthy perfectionist
factor described in the study had the highest loadings on the Personal Standards and
Organization subscales of the MPS. The relevance of this outcome to perfectionism is not
stated. What Frost et al. (1990) said, however, is that, while these two subscales reflect
several positive personality characteristics, Personal Standards is also significantly
correlated with depression, and Organization “does not appear to be a core component of
perfectionism” (p. 465). In other words, of the two scales Parker and Stumpf found most
closely to characterize healthy perfectionism, one reflects both depression and positive
personal characteristics, and the other is probably not related to perfectionism.
Other Recent Work
Several authors in recent years have uncritically accepted the
healthy/dysfunctional distinction as part of a discussion of giftedness and perfectionism.
Silverman (1998), referring to Parker’s work, confused striving for excellence with
perfectionism when she made the assertion that, without perfectionism, there would be no
Olympic champions, or concert pianists, or teachers working overtime to do their job. The
same confusion led her to assert that perfectionism is different for gifted individuals, and
that “[t]herapists need to be able to distinguish between an unreachable, punitive set of
standards of an average client and a level of excellence within the grasp of a gifted one”
(p. 206). Certainly therapists should be aware that their gifted clients may be capable of
great achievements and that striving for lofty goals may be a healthy pursuit for such
people. The necessity of achieving perfection, however, as distinct from the desire to
achieve excellence, represents an unreachable, punitive set of standards for persons at any
Schuler (1998) has studied perfectionism and various personality
characteristics in gifted adolescents. She has described her findings as supporting the
healthy/dysfunctional dichotomy, accepting Parker’s conclusions, yet her descriptions of the
two categories do not bear out this assertion. The healthy perfectionists “displayed
self-acceptance of mistakes . . . had role models who emphasized doing one’s best,” while
dysfunctional perfectionists “lived in a state of anxiety about making errors . . .
questioned their own judgments . . . exhibited a constant need for approval.”
Self-acceptance of mistakes is not a characteristic most people attribute to
In her monograph detailing a study of rural middle school gifted students,
Schuler (1999) replicated Parker’s work using a modified form of the Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale. The monograph is problematic in several ways. Like Parker, she asserted
that the data clusters resulting from her analysis represent nonperfectionists, healthy
perfectionists, and dysfunctional perfectionists; like Parker, Schuler presented no basis
for making this claim. There are no data to indicate how the three clusters are established,
and there appears to be considerable overlap between clusters. The study was based on a
sample of only 20 students; even granting that this would be enough for a significant case
study approach, the descriptions provided of the various students are easily open to
psychological interpretations that would throw Schuler’s categorizations into doubt. As with
previous studies of this type, Cluster 2 students can at most be said to be, not healthy
perfectionists, but moderately perfectionistic, and it is not established that such
perfectionism is in fact healthy.
Orange (1997) also has accepted the dichotomy, beginning with Hamachek’s
definition and referring to Parker, et al., as well. Unfortunately, her work suffers from a
number of misstatements of published theories and data. The concept of perfectionism seems
to lose all meaning when she writes that normal perfectionists “allow themselves to fail and
be imperfect” (p. 39). Orange administered a Perfectionism Quiz to gifted high schoolers.
The questionnaire was taken from an article by Raudsepp (1988), published as part of a group
of self-help pieces on obsessive-compulsive disorder in Harper’s Bazaar. In fact,
Raudsepp described the quiz as a way to determine whether one might have obsessive
compulsive attributes; he mentioned workaholism, compulsive perfectionism, and
procrastination as three possible categories of obsessive-compulsive behavior. It should be
clear that the quiz was not about perfectionism per se, even though Orange described
obsessive-compulsive disorder as a negative form of perfectionism.
Once again, a distinction between healthy and unhealthy, or positive and negative,
perfectionism was asserted, but not supported.
To summarize the preceding points:
- The term perfectionism logically relates to a felt need to do things perfectly.
- Since perfect performance is extremely rare, healthy perfectionism is a misnomer and is in fact oxymoronic.
- The perfectionist’s ceaseless striving for selfimprovement and constant lack of self-satisfaction can be neurotic, but perfectionists may not qualify as neurotic by some definitions.
- It is possible to be psychologically healthy in many ways, to be a high achiever, and still be perfectionistic. The perfectionism itself is still unhealthy. Some perfectionists are successful despite their perfectionism, not because of it (Burns, 1980).
- Perfectionism does not determine success; talent and energy do. Some outstanding individuals are perfectionistic, some are not.
- It is possible to be more or less perfectionistic. Frost et al. (1990) explicitly stated this in their work.
- The essence of perfectionism is not striving for excellence, but rather, feelings of conditional self-acceptance. It is for this reason that perfectionism has a negative connotation, not simply, as Parker and Adkins (1995) asserted, “from a belief that perfectionism is inherently frustrating” (p. 173). Frost et al. (1990) found that “most of
the dimensions of perfectionism are associated with psychological distress” (p. 466).
- The recent broad acceptance of the term healthy perfectionism is based neither
on logical argument nor on scientific reasoning, but rather on uncritical acceptance of
assertions made in the literature on perfectionism.
Parker and Adkins (1995) wrote, “If a perfectionistic child was described
instead with labels such as persevering, high achiever, or exhibits high
standards, the impression of the same child engaged in the identical behaviors would be
much more positive” (p. 173, italics in original). Indeed, and such a child could still have
the separate, less healthy characteristics of perfectionism. As Hollender (1965) wrote,
“Perfectionism . . . is often of social value. Only rarely is it recognized that the
perfectionist tends to be so exacting that he becomes bogged down in details” (p. 102).
The Psychology of Perfectionism
Why does someone become a perfectionist, and what does it signify when it
appears? Apart from Hamachek, those who have written at length about these issues begin from
the position that perfectionism is not synonymous with striving for excellence, and that it
is a burdensome and selfdefeating personal characteristic. Perfectionism is understood at
different levels, depending on one’s theoretical stance; both cognitive/behavioral and
psychodynamic explorations exist in the literature.
In the cognitive/behavioral domain, the problem is that perfectionists
engage in negative self-talk and then act accordingly. For example, those who believe “I’m
not lovable unless I’m perfect,” or “I’m either perfect or I’m worthless” will struggle to
reach perfection and will not be satisfied with anything less (although they may give up).
Beck (1976), Burns (1980), Hamachek (1978), Missildine (1963), and others clearly speak from
Those who adopt a psychodynamic perspective agree about the organizing
message perfectionists give themselves, but will focus also on the underlying affective
issues involved, including one’s feelings of acceptability and worth as a person,
inferiority feelings and shame, and the sense of coherence of the self-experience
1998, 2000; Hollender, 1965; Missildine, 1963; Pacht, 1984; Sorotzkin, 1985).
Most authors agree that the origins of perfectionism are in the messages
adult caregivers give to children; perfectionists may be acting, for example, to please
their parents in ways they have learned might work, or they may be acting to heal a sense of
shame and restore a sense of self-coherence that childhood experience has left in a state of
disrepair. Many of Pacht’s (1984) patients, for example, felt that, if only they could be
perfect, their parents would love them.
Perfectionists can be annoying, either when they are pressuring others to
be perfect or when they engender inferiority feelings in others by their high standards.1
Hollender (1965) pointed out, though, that perfectionistic striving is not about the
narcissistic gratification of being seen as a perfect being, but rather about the struggle
to perform perfectly in order to gain acceptance by others. There is certainly a sadness to
the ceaseless striving of a perfectionist living his or her life like the inspector at the
end of a production line (Hollender, 1965). Hollender described the origins of perfectionism
in the childhood environment, noting that a sensitive and insecure child is especially
vulnerable. Such a child may become perfectionistic in an environment of conditional
acceptance; the dynamic is intensified in those cases where the message about
underperformance is not just that the child is unacceptable, but that he or she might even
be a bad person. These messages can be transmitted in quite subtle ways, as when “the
parental smile turns into a sad face, a frown, a sigh of disappointment or exasperation, a
gentle suggestion for more effort, more care, more attention, more thoughtfulness, more
consideration, and so on” (Missildine, 1963, pp. 84–85).
The perfectionist’s childhood environment engenders shame and feelings of
(Hollender, 1965; Missildine, 1963). Sorotzkin (1985) has discussed the roles of shame and
guilt in perfectionism from differing psychoanalytic points of view. He pointed out that
diminished self-esteem is a cause of perfectionism, not a result of it. Hollender (1965)
wrote, “Perfectionism is motivated. . . both by an effort to create a better self-feeling or
self-image and to obtain certain responses or supplies from other people” (p. 99).
As Burns (1980) pointed out, there is ample, deeply rooted cultural
support for the relentless pursuit of excellence. The impression one gets from watching TV
coverage of the Olympics, for example, is that there are gold medalists and there are
losers, nothing else (Greenspon, 1998). While culture forms the social context, however, the
family is where perfectionism is generated. This can be described both as a learning
environment and as a milieu in which one’s self-experience develops, with greater or lesser
feelings of affirmation and acceptance. Hamachek (1978) described the dynamic well in his
discussion of the antecedents of neurotic perfectionism. Some home environments are
nonapproving, leading children to believe they can never be good enough. In this case,
“Being perfect . . . is not only a way of avoiding disapproval, but it is an active striving
for self-other acceptance through super-human effort and grandiose achievements” (p. 29).
Other emotional environments may exhibit conditional positive approval. In the absence of
unconditional love (“I love you because you are you”), the message a child may get is, “I
love you (I approve of you, recognize you, value you) when you finish your work and do a
good job” (p. 29). If this is the only message that gets through, the child “learns that
it is only through performance that he has a self” (p. 29, emphasis in original).
It should be noted that none of the theories of the interpersonal origins
of perfectionism is an attempt to put blame on parents. Parents are blameworthy when they
intend to injure their children in some way; no such intention is implied here.
Personalities arise in a human context, and the individuals to whom one is closest during
the early stages of development have the most profound influence (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler,
1993; Greenspon, 2000; Stern, 1985). The net effect of these influences can indeed be
altered later in life, though not easily.
Asher Pacht (1984) mused about perfectionism in an awards address to the
American Psychological Association. He viewed perfectionism as a kind of psychopathology
and, unlike Hamachek, did not accept the label normal perfectionism. Pacht
emphasized the driven nature of perfectionists and the no-win scenario in which “Their goals
are set so unrealistically high that they cannot possibly succeed” (p. 387). He spoke of the
“God/scum phenomenon,” the kind of dichotomous, all-or-none thinking described by
Burns (1980), as well as by Beck (1976), in which it seems the perfectionist must either be
perfect or be a total failure. The internal message is, “I’m either perfect or I’m
worthless”; in the words of a Gospel song, “ninety-nine and a half won’t do!” Weisinger and
Lobsenz (1981) described the resulting “self-destructive double bind. If one fails to meet
the unrealistic expectation, one has failed; but if one does meet it, one feels no
glow of achievement for one has only done what was expected” (p. 281, italics in
Parker and his associates (Parker, 1997; Parker & Adkins, 1995; Parker &
Mills, 1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995), have discussed the writings of Adler and Maslow, which
they suggest support a theory that perfectionism is a fundamental characteristic of all
healthy people: “Adler’s view is that . . . striving for perfection is healthy when it
includes a social concern for others and the maximizing of one’s abilities” (Parker &
Adkins, 1995, p. 173). In fact, this is a misreading of both Adler and Maslow. The “striving
for perfection” to which Parker referred is one of the many attempts to translate Adler’s
ideas for American audiences. Adler described a general movement in human life from below to
above, minus to plus. One strives for completion, overcoming, success, and competence
(Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956, pp. 101–103). Adler realized that his early discussions of a
superiority striving were being interpreted as a “will to power,” so he devoted much time to
a deeper understanding of the concept. He was very clear about the fact that personal
superiority over others is a form of mental disorder (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1973/1964, p.
xiii). More specifically, mhe said that the exaggerated goal of selfenhancement is part of
the neurotic disposition (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956, p. 243; Ansbacher & Ansbacher,
1973/1964, p. 304). Adler’s original terms, Überlegenheit and Überwindung,
signify preponderance or overcoming. When Adler spoke of perfection, it was in this sense of
overcoming, completion, or wholeness, not the perfect performance of a task. He pointed out
that such an idea is embodied in the Judeo Christian concept of God as perfection (Ansbacher
& Ansbacher, 1973/1964, p. 33), God as alpha and omega.
Parker also misinterpreted Adler’s concept of social interest. Parker’s
term is social concern (e.g., p. 546), but the Gemeinschaftsgefühl of Adlerian
theory is not a simple caring or concern for others; rather, it is a fellow-feeling
involving a sense of empathy and oneness with humanity (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1973/1964).
Social interest is threatened by the inferiority feelings that accompany questions about
whether one is good enough to be loved.
Maslow (1968) defined self-actualization as including “acceptance and
expression of the inner core or self, i.e., actualization of these latent capacities and
potentialities, ‘full functioning,’ availability of the human and personal essence”(p. 197).
There is no hint of a striving to do things perfectly, but rather of a full flowering of
one’s potential. Maslow (1968) said, “We learn also about our own strengths and limits and
extend them by overcoming difficulties, by straining ourselves to the utmost, by meeting
challenge and hardship, and even by failing” (p. 200; emphasis added). In a
discussion of the nature of theory in gifted education, Grant and Piechowski (1999) decried
the equating of selfactualization with the self-centered pursuit of individual fulfillment.
Such emphasis on achievement and success is said to push gifted students away from
Rudolf Dreikurs (1964), an author of Children: The Challenge, was
a student, colleague, and friend of Alfred Adler’s and was Adler’s choice to speak for
Adlerian psychology in the U.S. (Dreikurs, 1953). The passage in the introduction to this
article is from a speech Dreikurs gave in Oregon in 1957. At that time, he also said,
this mistaken idea of the importance of mistakes leads us to a
mistaken concept of ourselves. We become overly impressed by everything that is wrong in us
and around us . . . To be human does not mean to be right, does not mean to be perfect. To
be human means to be useful, to make contributions— not for oneself, but for others—to take
what there is and make the best out of it. (Terner & Pew, 1978, p. 289).
Thus, when Adler is translated to say, “the norm for perfection is social
interest” (Adler, 1956, p. 108), he is not referring to a motivation to do things perfectly,
but rather to a general human tendency for movement toward self-actualization, wholeness,
and oneness with humanity.
It can be said, then, that a perfectionist struggles to do things
perfectly, not for the joy of accomplishment, but because he or she hopes finally to find
love, or to be acceptable as a person, or perhaps to maintain a sense of order in the world.
Perfectionism is an interpersonal and intersubjective phenomenon, not something that simply
exists within one person’s mind (Greenspon, 2000). To overcome it, a new relationship with
more affirming others has to develop hand in hand with a new set of beliefs about oneself.
Nor is this a short-term project. Recognizing patterns of negative self-talk and
substituting more positive patterns; learning to challenge old ways of behaving; and, most
especially, developing a new, more trusting pattern of relationships with people (Pacht,
1984), all take time to accomplish. Perfectionism is not a mental disorder that is to be
cured; rather, it is a set of beliefs about oneself and one’s relation to others that needs
time and an affirming relationship with someone in order to be transformed. Such a set of
beliefs is referred to by the intersubjectivity theorists within current self-psychology as
an unconscious, invariant organizing principle (Stolorow, Atwood, & Brandchaft, 1994;
Stolorow, Brandchaft, & Atwood, 1987).
Human motivation is crucially dependent on our capacity to experience a
maintained sense of organization and meaning, which is the essence of our selfexperience
(Greenspon, 2000). The meanings we ascribe to our world of experience are altered by mutual
interactions with others. As an example relevant to perfectionism, parents whose self
esteem rests on the accomplishments of their children will be disappointed, embarrassed,
fearful, or even angry when the child makes a mistake (Hamachek, 1978). What children may
experience as a result is a lack of acceptance or even an outright rejection of themselves
as people. The children come to believe they are conditionally acceptable as people, worth
something only by virtue of specific accomplishments. A mistake is not simply a mistake for
such children; it is evidence of a character flaw. Parents and children are locked in an
interactive system of personal meanings, or, as Burns (1980) has put it, a
folie-à-deux (p. 41).
Adlerian psychologists might include these invariant organizing principles
in the concept of style of life, or lifestyle (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956). This is the
general movement of one’s life, and it is capsulized in certain belief statements, such as
“I am either perfect or I am worthless,” or “I am never good enough.” Such beliefs and modes
of being are induced by significant people in one’s environment and, again, cannot be
dislodged by simple logic. Many beliefs one has about oneself are irrational when tested
logically, yet they persist because of the psychological sense they make. Telling a
perfectionist not to be so hard on him or herself may make logical sense; what he or she is
likely to hear, however, is the criticism that he or she has not been a good enough
Should perfectionism be overcome at all? An implication of the concept of
healthy perfectionism is that perfectionism can be the engine of success for some people.
Burns (1980) discussed research that directly contradicts this. Examining business
executives, law students, high-level athletes, and others has led to the conclusion that
perfectionistic strivings tend to hamper success, and that very successful people are not
highly likely to be perfectionistic; this is because, in part, self-punishment is an
ineffective learning tool (Burns, 1980, p. 38; Kohn, 1993).
Many of the authors discussed here point out that perfectionism is related
to various mental disorders, such as depression, suicidality, eating disorders, anxiety
disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, and others (Frost et al., 1990; Pacht, 1984). The
exact connections are not completely understood, but clinical experience leads one to the
conclusion that such connections are varied. For example, eating disorders in some people
may represent an assault on the body to make it perfect, whereas in others it may have
nothing to do with perfectionism. The emotional aspects of depression may arise out of
despair at not being able to be perfect, and therefore lovable, or perfection may not be
part of the picture at all. Perfectionism itself reflects a set of meanings one gives to
one’s experience, from which a set of behaviors follows. The perfectionist is burdened by
the resulting feelings and behaviors, and other emotional disorders may be part of the
picture; overcoming perfectionism often has to include working on these other issues, as
Much has been made of the possible connection between giftedness and
perfectionism. Parker and Mills (1996) found no significant differences between gifted and
nongifted populations in a carefully constructed approach to the question of whether gifted
people are more likely to be perfectionistic. It makes sense to apply the same reasoning to
the gifted population as to other populations, including those with mental illness: Some
gifted individuals are perfectionistic and some are not. Many gifted people are capable of
doing certain tasks perfectly; one cannot conclude from this, however, that they will
necessarily try to do so. Here one must distinguish between the desire to do one’s best,
which is not per se perfectionistic, and the desire to be perfect, which is.
It is possible that misconstruing perfectionism as a healthy aspect of
some gifted children’s personalities could be dangerous to their development. In encouraging
a perfectionistic gifted child’s continued insistence on perfect achievement, one might
inadvertently reinforce the child’s underlying belief that such achievement is the way to
acceptance as a person. One might also be fostering a level of anxiety that will ultimately
hinder the child’s performance.
Since a prime element in the etiology of perfectionism mis the
conditionality of interpersonal relationships, Pacht’s (1984) statement about his approach
to therapy is especially poignant:
My own therapy uses the therapeutic relationship to help
individuals modify their value systems with respect to perfectionism. The prerequisites
include: strong motivation; the ability to develop a close caring therapeutic relationship;
agreement on the goals of therapy . . . ; reasonable ego strength; and a recognition that
therapy may be painful. (p. 389)
The various cognitive and behavioral interventions will be most successful
in an environment where the perfectionistic individual feels acceptable and safe from harsh
judgment. Criticism is only a problem when someone feels conditionally acceptable and
perhaps flawed. In an affirming environment, where the therapist, parent, or teacher is
willing to highlight the positive elements in an individual and perhaps share some of his or
her own imperfections, criticism is useful, growth is possible, and one truly develops, as
part of a sense of self-cohesion, the “courage to be imperfect.”
Perfectionists, as Hamachek (1978) pointed out, can be eager and thorough
learners, although some may have quit trying out of despair over ever achieving perfection.
The treatment goal must be, in Pacht’s (1984) words, to “move patients toward
a modified style that they can feel more comfortable with and that returns to them the
control over their own behavior” (p. 389). It should be apparent that perfection in the
treatment of perfectionism is not a reasonable goal.
Perfectionism is not a particular set of behaviors, nor is it a struggle
to achieve excellence. It is a phenomenon that is truly intersubjective: It arises out of
the interaction between the worlds of experience of two or more people. Although many times
it will seem as though the motivation comes entirely from within, the developing
perfectionist most often wishes to be perfect to fulfill the desires of someone he or she
seems to have disappointed. The healing of perfectionism involves not only the discovery and
counteracting of perfectionistic internal messages, but also the development of feelings of
unconditional acceptability as a person.
Perfectionism is a wound; it is never healthy, and it may never heal
entirely. Perhaps the wish to see some types of perfectionism as healthy is in part a desire
not to make oneself aware of this painful reality. Since much research on perfectionism has
been done by individuals involved in meeting the needs of gifted children, perhaps the
concept of healthy perfectionism is part of a larger, entirely laudable attempt to avoid
pathologizing giftedness. Perhaps, finally, it is part of an attempt to see some of our own
perfectionism as not wholly bad. Whatever the motives to see it otherwise, the concept of
healthy perfectionism makes little logical or psychological sense, nor does it receive any
credible support in the literature. It is, in the end, a commentary on imperfections in the
pursuit of scientific truth that such a construct is advanced in one place and accepted
uncritically in another, where it forms a distorting lens for the viewing of further
Asher Pacht (1984) jokingly said that “True perfection exists only in
obituaries and eulogies” (p. 388). In a more serious vein, he made a statement that would
ring true for anyone who has struggled with perfectionism: “In true life, not only is
perfection impossible, but the cost to those who seek it is inordinately high” (p. 390).
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.).
(1956). The individual psychology of Alfred
Adler: A systematic presentation in selections
from his writings. New York: Harper & Row.
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.).
(1973). Superiority and social interest: Alfred
Adler: A collection of later writings. New York:
Viking. (Original work published 1964)
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the
emotional disorders. New York: International
Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s
script for self-defeat. Psychology Today.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised
NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R)
and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI):
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Dreikurs, R. (1953). Fundamentals of Adlerian
psychology. Chicago: Alfred Adler Institute.
Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. (1964). Children: The
challenge. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate,
R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–
Galatzer-Levy, R. M., & Cohler, B. J. (1993).
The essential other: A developmental psychology
of the self. New York: Basic Books.
Grant, B. A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999).
Theories and the good: Toward child-centered
gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly,
Greenspon, T. S. (2000). The self experience of
the gifted person: Theory and definitions.
Roeper Review, 22, 176–181.
Greenspon, T. S. (1998). The gifted self: Its role
in development and emotional health. Roeper
Review, 20, 162–167.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal
and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in
Summer 2000 t 207
“Healthy Perfectionism” is an Oxymoron
the self and social contexts: Conceptualization,
assessment, and association with psychopathology.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 456–470.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94–103.
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble
with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and
other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being.
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Merriam-Webster’s third new international dictionary.
(1986). Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the
past. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Orange, C. (1997). Gifted students and perfectionism.
Roeper Review, 20, 39–41.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection.
American Psychologist, 39, 386–390.
Parker, W. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism
in academically talented children.
American Educational Research Journal, 34,
Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995).
Perfectionism and the gifted. Roeper Review,
Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence
of perfectionism in gifted students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 194–199.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An examination
of the multidimensional perfectionism
scale with a sample of academically talented
children. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 13, 372–383.
Raudsepp, E. (1988, April). Hooked on perfection?
Harper’s Bazaar, 207–229.
Schuler, P. A. (1998, October). Advocacy begins
at home—What parents can do to help their
perfectionistic gifted children. Counseling and
Guidance. (NAGC Division Newsletter).
Schuler, P. A. (1999). Voices of perfectionism:
Perfectionistic gifted adolescents in a rural middle
school. Storrs, CT: National Research Center
on the Gifted and Talented. (Document No.
Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness.
Roeper Review, 20, 204–210.
Sorotzkin, B. (1985). The quest for perfection:
Avoiding guilt or avoiding shame?
Psychotherapy, 22, 564–571.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the
infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental
psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Stolorow, R. D., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood,
G. E. (1987). Psychoanalytic treatment: An
intersubjective approach. Hillsdale, NJ: The
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G., & Brandchaft, B.
(Eds.). (1994). The intersubjective perspective.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Terner, J., & Pew, W. L. (1978). The courage to be
imperfect: The life and work of Rudolf Dreikurs.
New York: Hawthorn Books.
Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S.
(1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus,
OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Weisinger, H., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1981).
Nobody’s perfect: How to give criticism and get
results. Los Angeles: Stratford Press.
1. See Hewitt and Flett (1991) for a discussion
of self-oriented and other-oriented dimensions
The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education
208 t Summer 2000