| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 891152 | Personality and Individual Differences | 2013 | 5 Pages |
•The 2 × 2 model proposes four subtypes of perfectionism and four hypotheses.•Subtypes are within-person combinations of perfectionism.•Subtypes should be defined using neutral labels.•Four hypotheses are preferable to account for moderating effects.•Complementary methods are to be encouraged to test the model.
The 2 × 2 model of perfectionism has recently been analyzed in a critical commentary from Stoeber (2012). The purpose of this article was to have another look at some of the key assumptions of the 2 × 2 model – with a particular focus on the ones that were critically reviewed by Stoeber (2012). In this article, I have tried to clarify our theoretical position to facilitate further theorizing and empirical examination of the 2 × 2 model. The article starts with an overview of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Then, it reiterates the conceptual meanings attached to subtypes of perfectionism while emphasizing that the word “subtype” is a diminutive for within-person combinations of perfectionism. The article proceeds to outline the importance of adopting neutral labels to define subtypes of perfectionism in order to differentiate them from their expected outcomes. The 2 × 2 model is subsequently described as an open-ended theoretical system in which the four hypotheses are needed to offer a compelling framework to test moderating effects. The article also proposes alternative methods, with a particular focus on equivalence testing in order to empirically determine whether some subtypes of perfectionism are associated with equivalent outcomes.
