Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2022 Sep 19;93(1):211–228. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12550

The ‘perfect’ lens: Perfectionism and early adolescents' math self‐efficacy development

Calah J Ford 1,✉, Ellen L Usher 2, Veronica L Scott 3, Xiao‐Yin Chen 4
PMCID: PMC10087808  PMID: 36121038

Abstract

Background

Self‐efficacy, or the beliefs learners hold about what they can do, develops largely from how learners perceive and interpret four main sources of information: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions and physiological and affective states. Although the relationship between these sources and self‐efficacy is well‐established, less is known about the factors that may influence how early adolescent learners perceive and interpret information from these sources.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the predisposition of perfectionism might predict how learners perceive efficacy‐relevant information in the domain of math.

Methods

Using a correlational design, this study considered whether perfectionism was associated with how middle school students (N = 1683) perceive information from the four hypothesized sources of self‐efficacy. Participants completed a paper‐based survey at two time points. Perfectionism was measured at Time 1. Self‐efficacy and its sources were measured at Time 2. Structural equation modelling techniques were used to examine the relationship between factors.

Results and Conclusions

Students who held themselves to high standards (i.e., greater self‐oriented perfectionism) reported higher levels of mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social messages and self‐efficacy. Conversely, students who felt external pressure to be perfect (i.e., socially prescribed perfectionism) reported lower levels of mastery experiences, vicarious experiences and self‐efficacy, as well as higher levels of negative physiological and affective states. The relationship between perfectionism and self‐efficacy was partially mediated by students' perceptions of mastery. This study extends the current literature on the sources of math self‐efficacy in early adolescence by showing how a predisposition like perfectionism is associated with how adolescent learners perceive and interpret efficacy‐relevant information.

Keywords: early adolescence, math, perfectionism, sources of self‐efficacy

Highlights of Key Findings.

  • Self‐oriented perfectionism was positively associated with math self‐efficacy, perceived mastery, vicarious experiences and social persuasions.

  • Self‐oriented perfectionism was not associated with increased negative physiological and affective states.

  • Socially prescribed perfectionism was inversely associated with math self‐efficacy, perceived mastery and vicarious experiences and positively associated with negative physiological and affective states.

  • Socially prescribed perfectionism was not associated with social persuasions.

  • Only the indirect mediation path from perfectionism to math self‐efficacy through mastery experiences was significant. The paths through vicarious experiences, social persuasions and physiological and affective states were all non‐significant.

  • Taken together, these findings suggest that perfectionistic tendencies in early adolescence are related to the way that students perceive and interpret certain types of efficacy‐relevant information and how their math self‐efficacy forms.

BACKGROUND

Self‐efficacy refers to learners' perceived capability to complete a course of action within specific domains, circumstances and difficulty levels (Bandura, 1997). This self‐belief about one's capability is positively related to academic outcomes like persistence, academic achievement and engagement with learning tasks (e.g., Hoffman & Spatariu, 2008; Metallidou & Vlachou, 2007; Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Stevens et al., 2004, 2006; Usher, 2015).

Self‐efficacy develops largely from how learners perceive and interpret four main sources of information: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions and physiological or affective states (e.g., Ahn et al., 2017; Bandura, 1997; Butz & Usher, 2015; Joët et al., 2011). However, little is known about what may influence how learners perceive and interpret information from these four sources. For example, when students feel successful (i.e., perceive a mastery experience), they are more confident (e.g., Usher et al., 2018), but the factors related to why an experience is interpreted by a student as successful or unsuccessful are not well understood.

One lens through which learners might interpret efficacy‐relevant information is their self‐set (i.e., self‐oriented) or externally imposed (i.e., socially prescribed) perfectionistic standards (Hewitt et al., 2011; Stoeber & Damian, 2014). A predisposition of perfectionism (i.e., the attitude or belief that only perfection is acceptable; Hewitt et al., 2011) may be related to students' performance standards and, by extension, how they evaluate their performance, social cues from the environment and their feelings before, during and after an academic task. For example, highly perfectionistic students may disproportionately focus on negative or critical messages from others, given their desire for flawlessness.

Social cognitive theory

Self‐efficacy and perfectionism can be situated within a broader social cognitive theoretical framework, which suggests that human functioning is the result of reciprocal interactions between personal factors, environmental factors and behaviours (Bandura, 1986). Events within one class of determinants can also exert a recursive influence. Within the class of personal determinants, for example, perfectionism can affect people's thoughts and feelings and ultimately, what they come to believe is possible for themselves (Hewitt et al., 2011; Usher & Pajares, 2009). This might occur through attentional (e.g., paying greater heed to one's mistakes) or observational (e.g., disadvantageous comparisons to more accomplished others) mechanisms.

These recursive intrapersonal relationships are informed by the social environment as well, which may influence the availability of efficacy‐relevant information. For example, students in a classroom with a patient and encouraging teacher may feel less pressure to be perfect, be exposed to more positive social messages or experience fewer negative emotions. These environmental and personal factors ultimately affect how people behave, what they learn, and what choices they make. Central to this process, however, is the human capacity for self‐influence made possible by beliefs of personal efficacy.

Self‐efficacy development

Decades of research ha confirmed Bandura's (1997) assertion that the belief people hold in their personal capabilities, or self‐efficacy, is a strong predictor of how they behave. Students who are confident in their abilities tend to persevere longer and perform better than those with low self‐efficacy (Hoffman & Spatariu, 2008; Metallidou & Vlachou, 2007; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Stevens et al., 2004, 2006). Conversely, those with low self‐efficacy are often reluctant to act, potentially creating the deficits they believe they already have (Usher et al., 2018).

Learners' self‐efficacy development is highly contextualized. Students' beliefs about their ability in one subject, such as reading, may differ from their beliefs about their ability in a different subject, such as math (Bong, 2006). Similarly, students may perceive and interpret their experiences differently in different subject areas (e.g., math, science, reading; Butz & Usher, 2015; Usher et al., 2018). The present study focuses on the factors related to adolescents' math self‐efficacy. We selected this domain to build on the rich empirical understanding of the sources of self‐efficacy in math (Usher & Pajares, 2008).

According to Bandura (1997), academic self‐efficacy develops as learners perceive, interpret and weigh information from four main sources. Mastery experiences, or students' perceived successes, tend to be strongly related to self‐efficacy. Students' perceptions of behaviours modelled by others (i.e., vicarious experiences) and the evaluative messages they receive from others about their own ability (i.e., social persuasions) can also influence self‐efficacy development. Finally, how students interpret and perceive their own physiological and affective states before, during and after learning tasks can inform their beliefs about their capabilities.

Empirical evidence has confirmed these hypothesized relationships. Adolescents' math self‐efficacy is based largely on their perceptions of past mastery experiences in math (e.g., Ahn et al., 2017; Butz & Usher, 2015; Joët et al., 2011). The other three hypothesized sources (i.e., vicarious experiences, social persuasions, physiological/affective states) have been less consistent predictors of math self‐efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2008). In some studies, all four sources independently predict math self‐efficacy (e.g., Usher & Pajares, 2009). In other studies, a subset of sources is predictive (e.g., Joët et al., 2011; Phan, 2012). These variations may be related to measurement differences or participant characteristics (e.g., varying age or location; Usher & Pajares, 2008). Nevertheless, at the bivariate level, mastery experiences, vicarious experiences and social persuasions are typically positively related to self‐efficacy whereas negative physiological and affective states (e.g., anxiety, stress) are typically inversely related to self‐efficacy (e.g., Usher & Pajares, 2009).

Researchers have begun to call for more attention to the mediating mechanisms that affect self‐efficacy development (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Usher & Weidner, 2018). These include the predispositions learners hold about themselves and the world, such as perfectionism. We hypothesize that learners who hold perfectionistic standards may cognitively weigh and interpret efficacy‐relevant experiences differently than learners who do not hold such standards.

Perfectionism and self‐efficacy in early adolescence

Perfectionism is considered to be a multifaceted trait characterized by the tendency to strive for flawlessness and to set exceedingly high performance standards (Stoeber & Damian, 2014). Generally, perfectionism is stable over time, but some researchers have found that perfectionism is malleable through targeted interventions (Fairweather‐Schmidt & Wade, 2015; Vekas & Wade, 2017). Many researchers initially presumed that perfectionism was associated with increased psychological distress. However, examining the multifaceted nature of perfectionism has revealed that some types of perfectionism are associated with positive outcomes (Accordino et al., 2000; Gilman & Ashby, 2003).

Perfectionism is typically considered in a domain‐general way and comprises three facets, two of which are internally focused (i.e., self‐oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism) and one of which is externally focused (i.e., other‐oriented perfectionism; Hewitt et al., 2011). Self‐oriented perfectionism refers to people's tendency to hold themselves to exceptionally high standards. Socially prescribed perfectionism refers to students' perception that others expect them to be perfect. Other‐oriented perfectionism refers to students' tendency to hold others to exceptionally high standards. Other‐oriented perfectionism is not explored in the present study because learners' standards for others was not expected to significantly influence students' interpretation of efficacy‐relevant information.

Individual differences in perfectionistic tendencies tend to emerge in early adolescence (Damian et al., 2017). Furthermore, cognitive, physical and social changes during this life stage may influence how students view their abilities (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Schunk & Meece, 2006). This makes early adolescence an important time at which to consider the relationship between perfectionism and self‐efficacy development.

Most studies examining the relationship between perfectionism and self‐efficacy have focused on high school and undergraduate students (Accordino et al., 2000; Luo et al., 2016; Stoeber et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2018), finding that self‐oriented perfectionism is positively associated with self‐efficacy and socially prescribed perfectionism is negatively associated with self‐efficacy.

Some studies have included early adolescent students, finding similar patterns. Self‐oriented perfectionism of adolescent students was positively associated with math self‐efficacy, as well as overall academic performance (Bong et al., 2014; Nounopoulos et al., 2006). Socially prescribed perfectionism, by contrast, was negatively associated with math self‐efficacy and positively associated with anxiety (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009). This prior research suggests a relationship between adolescent students' perfectionism and math self‐efficacy but does not provide a rationale for why this relationship may exist. In this study, we consider how the two internally focused facets of perfectionism may influence the way that learners perceive and interpret efficacy‐relevant information in early adolescence.

Findings from some studies suggest a relationship between perfectionism and how learners perceive efficacy‐relevant information. For instance, perfectionistic learners often report higher levels of anxiety (i.e., negative physiological/affective states) and are more critical of their performances (i.e., fewer experiences of perceived mastery), which may lead to lower self‐efficacy (Bong et al., 2014;DiBartolo & Varner, 2012; Stornelli et al., 2009). Students high in self‐oriented perfectionism tend to perform better (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009), which might result in a greater sense of one's own mastery. Conversely, socially prescribed perfectionism has been associated with harsher self‐evaluations (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012; Stornelli et al., 2009). Although the relationships between perfectionism and certain sources of self‐efficacy have been considered, they have not yet been empirically tested in one comprehensive model.

Purpose statement and research questions

The purpose of this study is to investigate how self‐oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism are related to early adolescent learners' perceptions of efficacy‐related information in math. The following research questions and hypotheses (Table 1) guided the investigation.

TABLE 1.

Hypothesized relationships between perfectionism, self‐efficacy and the sources of self‐efficacy

Sources Self‐Oriented Perfectionism (SOP) Socially Prescribed erfectionism (SPP)
Mastery experiences

Negatively associated.

Although students higher in SOP often perform better (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009), students with perfectionistic tendencies likely expect higher performance levels as a minimum satisfactory score, meaning fewer experiences will be perceived as ones of mastery.

Negatively associated.

Students high in SPP have reported harsher self‐evaluations (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012), which would result in lower perceived mastery.
Vicarious experiences

Positively associated.

Students high in SOP often perform better (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009), which may result in more favourable social comparisons.

Negatively associated.

Students' harsher self‐evaluations (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012) may result in less favourable social comparisons.
Social persuasions

Positively associated.

Students high in SOP often perform better (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009) and when students perform better, they likely receive more positive social messages regarding that performance.

Negatively associated.

If students feel they are expected to meet the highest of standards, they may also feel that they often fail to meet those unrealistic standards and, therefore, perceive disapproving social messages (Damian et al., 2017).
Negative physiological and affective states

Positively associated.

SOP has been found to be positively related to negative affect (Stornelli et al., 2009).

Positively associated.

Students who are high in SPP have reported higher levels of anxiety and general negative affect (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012; Stornelli et al., 2009).
Math self‐efficacy

Positively associated.

SOP has been found to be positively related to math self‐efficacy. (Stoeber et al., 2008).

Negatively associated.

SPP has been found to be negatively related to math self‐efficacy. (Stoeber et al., 2008).
Open in a new tab

R1: How are self‐oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism related to early adolescents' math self‐efficacy?

R2: Is the relationship between perfectionism (i.e., self‐oriented and socially prescribed) and math self‐efficacy mediated by the four hypothesized sources of self‐efficacy?

METHOD

Design, participants and procedures

Data for this correlational study were part of a larger longitudinal project focused on motivation during students' transition into middle school. Participants in this study were 1683 middle school students (Grades 6–8) from four public middle schools (49.4% girls) in an urban school district in the south‐eastern US Students self‐identified as White (53.1%), Black (30.7%), Hispanic (9.5%), Asian (2.6%) or ‘Other’ race (4.1%). After obtaining parental consent and student assent, researchers collected data in students' math classes (n = 35) in February (T1) and May (T2) of one school year (2011–2012) using paper surveys.

Measures

The 22‐item Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett et al., 2016) was used to measure perfectionism at T1. The CAPS consists of two subscales. The 12‐item self‐oriented perfectionism subscale (α = .85) asked students if they held high self‐expectations (e.g., ‘When I do something, it has to be perfect.’). The 10‐item socially prescribed perfectionism subscale (α = .87) asked if students felt pressure from others to be perfect (e.g., ‘People around me expect me to be great at everything.’). Students responded using a Likert‐type response format from 1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true). Notably, empirical and theoretical evidence from scale reliability analyses suggested that three reverse‐coded perfectionism items be removed from analyses.

The sources of self‐efficacy and self‐efficacy were assessed at T2. The 25‐item Sources of Math Self‐Efficacy scale (Usher & Pajares, 2009) measured students' self‐reported mastery experiences (e.g., ‘I got good grades in math on my last report card.’; 6 items; α = .82), vicarious experiences (e.g., ‘Seeing adults do well in math helps me do better in math.’; 7 items; α = .84), social persuasions (e.g., ‘People have told me that I have a talent for math.’; 6 items; α = .89) and physiological or affective states (e.g., ‘I start to feel stressed‐out as soon as I begin my math work.’; 6 items; α = .88). Students responded using a Likert‐type response format from 1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true).

A 4‐item math self‐efficacy scale (Usher & Pajares, 2009) asked students about their confidence in math (e.g., ‘How confident are you that you can learn math?’; α = .89). Students responded using a Likert‐type response format from 1 (not at all confident) to 6 (completely confident).

Students' scores on a standardized math achievement test administered during the fall (i.e., prior to the survey administration) were obtained from the school and used as a control variable. The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test is a computer‐adaptive test administered three times a year (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2016). Scores on the MAP test reflect the difficulty level at which the student is answering about 50% of the questions correctly; scores provide a standardized measure of students' math achievement and growth within and across grade levels.

Analyses

Two structural equation models were built in MPlus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Model 1 considered only direct paths from the latent factors of self‐oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism to math self‐efficacy (see Figure 1). Model 2 introduced mediation paths through the four hypothesized sources of self‐efficacy (see Figures 2 and 3). The four sources of self‐efficacy were allowed to covary in the models, as were the two types of perfectionism, due to their theorized relationships with one another. The first item loading in each scale was constrained to 1.0 and variance was freely estimated for latent variable scaling and identification in both models (Kline, 2015). We used recommended cut‐off values for indices of fit, including the comparative fit index (CFI > .90; Bentler, 1990), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .06; Hu & Bentler, 1999) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ .08; Hu & Bentler, 1998).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Full structural equation model for the prediction of self‐efficacy by perfectionism. χ 2 (293) = 2223.01, p < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .060, RMSEA 90% CI: (.058, .062), SRMR = .063, R 2 = .13. Significant paths are bolded and coloured. Correlations between the two perfectionism scales were accounted for in the model, but not shown here for visual clarity.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Direct effects in the full structural equation model with mediation paths. χ 2 (1188) = 5967.83 p < .001, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .047, RMSEA 90% CI: (.046, .048), SRMR = .063. Mastery Experiences R 2 = .18, p < .001. Vicarious Experience R 2 = .13, p < .001. Social Persuasions R 2 = .15, p < .001. Physiological and Affective States R 2 = .13, p < .001. Self‐Efficacy R 2 = .85, p < .001. Significant paths are bolded and coloured. Path coefficients shown are for direct paths only. See Table A1 in Appendix 1 for factor loadings. Correlations between the four sources of self‐efficacy as well as between the two perfectionism scales were accounted for in the model, but not shown here for visual clarity.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Indirect effects in the full structural equation model with mediation paths. χ 2 (1188) = 5967.83 p < .001, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .047, RMSEA 90% CI: (.046, .048), SRMR = .063. Mastery Experiences R 2 = .18, p < .001. Vicarious Experience R 2 = .13, p < .001. Social Persuasions R 2 = .15, p < .001. Physiological and Affective States R 2 = .13, p < .001. Self‐Efficacy R 2 = .85, p < .001. Significant paths are bolded and coloured. Path coefficients shown are for indirect paths only. See Table A1 in Appendix 1 for factor loadings. Correlations between the four sources of self‐efficacy as well as between the two perfectionism scales were accounted for in the model, but not shown here for visual clarity.

Self‐efficacy development can vary according to students' position within their social and cultural environment, which might influence how students interpret efficacy‐relevant information (Usher & Weidner, 2018). For example, cultural differences may result in varying definitions of success and competence (Stephens et al., 2017). Similarly, when learners perceive negative stereotypes about a group to which they belong, they may internalize those stereotypes and judge themselves as less capable (Ellis et al., 2018; Pennington et al., 2016; Wiederkehr et al., 2015). Therefore, demographic variables (i.e., gender, race) obtained from school records were used as control variables in all analyses due to possible group differences in self‐efficacy development (e.g., Huang, 2013; Joët et al., 2011; Kıran & Sungur, 2011; Webb‐Williams, 2017). Prior performance (i.e., MAP score) was also accounted for. Including these controls in the analytical models mitigates the risk of misinterpreting variance in self‐efficacy development that is due to confounding factors associated with race, gender or math ability.

Missing data

Missing data analyses revealed that some students had not completed certain items due to a printing error in the survey. Given that these missing data were due to survey errors and not participants' choices to skip items, data were still considered to be missing at random (i.e., not due to an underlying psychological phenomenon). Remaining missing data were found to be missing at random using Little's MCAR test (p = .87). Therefore, full information maximum likelihood techniques were used for both structural equation models (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Listwise deletion was employed for descriptive statistics and scale reliability analyses.

Composite means were created for each scale. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations are provided in Table 2. Intraclass coefficients (ICC) ranged from .36 to .68 for the study variables, indicating a need to account for class‐level variance. We, therefore, used the ‘type = complex’ function in all MPlus models, which adjusts standard errors for non‐independence of observations (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). The ‘type = complex’ approach was selected over hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) techniques given that the research questions in this study are not related to predictors of cluster level (i.e., students nested within math classes) variance (Stapleton et al., 2016).

TABLE 2.

Means, standard deviations and correlations for study variables

Scale Mean SD SOP SPP ME VE SP PHYS MSE
Self‐oriented perfectionism (SOP) 3.69 1.11 .85
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) 3.63 1.25 .56** .87
Mastery experiences (ME) 4.41 1.12 .14** .00 .82
Vicarious experiences (VE) 4.25 1.16 .25** .07** .62** .84
Social persuasions (SP) 4.24 1.34 .20** .10** .75** .71** .89
Physiological and affective states (PHYS) 2.92 1.44 .11** .20** −.50** −.21** −.30** .88
Math self‐efficacy (MSE) 4.84 1.17 .13** −.02 .80** .61** .70** −.43** .89
Open in a new tab

Note: n = 1863. Cronbach's alphas for each scale are displayed on the diagonal.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

RESULTS

Model identification and fit

Data met all assumptions associated with structural equation modelling (i.e., linearity, no significant interactions not accounted for in the model, normally distributed data, no covariance among disturbance terms; Streiner, 2005). Fit indices for the direct model, χ 2 (293) = 2223.01, p < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .060, RMSEA 90% CI [.058, .062], SRMR = .063 and the mediation model, χ 2 (1188) = 5967.83 p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .047, RMSEA 90% CI: (.046, .048), SRMR = .063, indicated that the models were tenable (West et al., 2012). Bootstrapping techniques (n = 5000) were used to determine 95% confidence intervals for the models. All reported results are standardized.

Research question 1: Perfectionism predicting self‐efficacy

Research Question 1 (i.e., How are self‐oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism related to early adolescents' math self‐efficacy?) was answered using a model with only direct paths. Self‐oriented perfectionism positively predicted math self‐efficacy (β = .30; CI [.19, .37]), and socially prescribed perfectionism negatively predicted math self‐efficacy (β = −.19, CI [−.28, −.11]; see Figure 1). This direct path model explained 12.6% of the variance in students' math self‐efficacy.

Research question 2: Mediation paths through the sources of self‐efficacy

Mediation paths were next introduced into the model to answer Research Question 2 (i.e., Is the relationship between perfectionism and math self‐efficacy mediated by the four sources of self‐efficacy?). As shown in Figure 2, self‐oriented perfectionism was positively related to mastery experiences (β = .31, CI [.19, .40]), vicarious experiences (β = .41, CI [.30, .50]) and social persuasions (β = .28, CI [.18, .35]). The path from self‐oriented perfectionism to physiological and affective states was non‐significant (β = −.04, CI [−.14, .09]).

Paths from socially prescribed perfectionism to mastery experiences (β = −.14, CI [−.19, −.03]) and vicarious experiences (β = −.18, CI [−.28, −.8]) were negative, and the path to physiological/affective states was positive (β = .22, CI [.13, .29]). The path from socially prescribed perfectionism to social persuasions was non‐significant (β = −.05, CI [−.12, .04]).

Mastery experience was the only hypothesized source significantly related to math self‐efficacy (β = 1.06, CI [.88, 1.31]). All other sources (i.e., vicarious experience, social persuasion, physiological/affective state) were not significantly related to self‐efficacy.

When the four sources of self‐efficacy were included in the model, the direct path from self‐oriented perfectionism to self‐efficacy became non‐significant (β = .01, CI [−.03, .06,]), suggesting a full mediation through the sources of self‐efficacy. The direct path between socially prescribed perfectionism and self‐efficacy was reduced in magnitude but remained negative and significant (β = −.06, CI [−.11, −.01]), suggesting partial mediation.

Only the indirect mediation paths from perfectionism to self‐efficacy through mastery experiences were statistically significant (see Figure 3). That is, students high in self‐oriented perfectionism reported more mastery experiences, which were associated with higher levels of self‐efficacy (β = .33, CI [.20, .46]). Students high in socially prescribed perfectionism reported fewer mastery experiences, which were associated with lower levels of self‐efficacy (β = −.14, CI [−.26, −.03]). Indirect paths through vicarious experiences, social persuasions and physiological and affective states were non‐significant.

DISCUSSION

The present study expands on previous literature by considering the relationship between perfectionism, the four hypothesized sources of self‐efficacy and math self‐efficacy for early adolescent students. Prior studies have established a relationship between perfectionism and self‐efficacy (Bong et al., 2014; Xie et al., 2018) and between the four hypothesized sources and self‐efficacy (Ahn et al., 2017; Butz & Usher, 2015; Byars‐Winston et al., 2017; Joët et al., 2011). However, none have explicitly considered whether students who have a predisposition for perfectionism may differently interpret information from the four hypothesized sources of self‐efficacy.

Perfectionism and self‐efficacy

Our first research aim was to examine whether perfectionism is related to middle school students' math self‐efficacy. Our findings suggest that early adolescent students who hold themselves to higher standards (i.e., high self‐oriented perfectionism) tend to have higher math self‐efficacy. On the other hand, when early adolescent students perceived pressure to be perfect from others (i.e., socially prescribed perfectionism), they reported lower self‐efficacy for math. These patterns are aligned with findings from previous studies (e.g., Bong et al., 2014; Stoeber et al., 2008; Xie et al., 2018).

Perfectionism and the sources of self‐efficacy

The results associated with Research Question 2 expand on what is currently known about the role that perfectionism may play in the development of math self‐efficacy for early adolescent students. Specifically, we explored how the predisposition of perfectionism may be related to the way that learners perceive and interpret information from the four main sources of self‐efficacy.

Self‐oriented perfectionism and sources of self‐efficacy

We predicted an inverse relationship between self‐oriented perfectionism and mastery experiences, expecting that the exceedingly high standards of students high in self‐oriented perfectionism would render even good performances inadequate (i.e., harsher self‐evaluations; DiBartolo & Varner, 2012). However, our findings were counter to that hypothesis, suggesting that students with high self‐set standards felt more successful, controlling for prior performance. That is, of two students at similar math ability levels, the student higher in self‐oriented perfectionism would perceive their experiences as more successful. This finding may reflect an attentional bias such that students high in self‐oriented perfectionism may be highly attuned to their performance level, making mastery experiences (or lack thereof) more salient. It might also point to a self‐regulatory mechanism whereby students who set high goals for themselves are more likely to reach them (Locke & Latham, 2019).

Self‐oriented perfectionism was not associated with increased negative affect, contrary to prior research (Stornelli et al., 2009). This non‐significant finding might reflect sampling differences across studies. Students in this sample may have held themselves to high, but reasonable standards whereas students in the previous sample (i.e., Stornelli et al., 2009) may have held more extreme beliefs, leading to higher levels of stress and anxiety. Still, the reason for these conflicting findings warrants further empirical exploration. At what point and for whom do levels of self‐oriented perfectionism predict students' negative physiological states?

The relationships between self‐oriented perfectionism and the two social sources of self‐efficacy (i.e., vicarious experiences, social persuasions) were previously unexplored. Our findings suggest that self‐oriented perfectionism positively predicts the way students look towards others as models (i.e., vicarious experiences) as well as their perceptions of positive ability‐related messages from those around them. These relationships may be explained, in part, by the positive relationship between self‐oriented perfectionism and mastery experiences described earlier. If students with higher self‐oriented perfectionism are viewing their performances more favourably, it stands to reason that they would also view themselves as more capable than their same‐level peers, which would likely translate into positive vicarious experiences (e.g., positive social comparisons).

Similarly, students who hold themselves to high standards and believe they have done well may be more likely to believe teachers and peers when they provide positive feedback regarding their performance and ability. Furthermore, some prior research suggests that students high in self‐oriented perfectionism not only perceive their performances more positively, but they also tend to actually perform better (Bong et al., 2014; Stornelli et al., 2009). This increased performance would likely lead to more positive feedback from the social environment as well.

Socially prescribed perfectionism and sources of self‐efficacy

Students who felt external pressure to be perfect (i.e., high socially prescribed perfectionism) reported fewer mastery experiences, which supports previous findings that students high in socially prescribed perfectionism evaluate themselves more harshly (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012). This finding was significant even when controlling for prior performance, ruling out the possibility that the negative relationship may be accounted for by learners who are struggling in math. Rather, regardless of their level of math ability, students who felt external pressure to be perfect felt less successful than those who did not feel those same pressures. The negative relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and mastery experiences might suggest that when students feel external pressure to be perfect, they also evaluate their performances as insufficient for meeting the high standards of others, thus rating their past performances less favourably.

The relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and negative physiological and affective states suggested that students who feel social pressure to be perfect also report higher levels of stress and nervousness, as has been reported in other contexts (DiBartolo & Varner, 2012; Stornelli et al., 2009). Students high in socially prescribed perfectionism may find themselves to be cognitively taxed by the task of deciphering the expectations of those around them and measuring their own performances by external metrics. This cognitive burden may induce mental fatigue, stress and anxiety.

Previous work has not considered the relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and the two social sources of self‐efficacy (i.e., vicarious experiences, social persuasions). We found an inverse relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and vicarious experiences. One possible explanation for this finding is that when students are focused on meeting the perfectionistic standards of significant others in their lives, they may not find it important, nor have the cognitive energy available, to focus on the experiences of those around them as well (e.g., peers).

We were surprised to find no relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and the social persuasions students reported in math. This finding may signify that the pressure students feel to be perfect does not affect the messages they receive from others about their math‐specific capabilities. The wording of items in each scale may further explain why these constructs were not associated. Social persuasions items included statements about praise from teachers and peers in math, whereas socially prescribed perfectionism was assessed without reference to a particular social other or academic context (e.g., ‘I am always expected to do better than others.’). Researchers might adapt the items in the two scales to reflect corresponding social influencers (e.g., teachers, parents, peers), which would enable a clearer interpretation of the relative influence of socially prescribed performance expectations and evaluative messages.

Taken together, our findings suggest that perfectionistic tendencies are related to the way that students perceive and interpret certain types of efficacy‐relevant information. After controlling for the possible effects of gender, race and math ability, self‐oriented perfectionism appears to be positively linked to helpful interpretations of efficacy‐related information. Conversely, students who perceive high pressure from others to be perfect appear to view self‐efficacy information less favourably.

The sources of self‐efficacy as mediators

Another goal of this investigation was to determine whether the relationship between the two types of perfectionism and math self‐efficacy might be partly mediated by how students interpret efficacy‐related information in math. We found evidence for partial mediation through mastery experience, suggesting that perfectionistic tendencies influence the way that students interpret their direct experiences of mastery or failure and, in turn, their self‐efficacy.

However, the indirect paths through the remaining three sources were all non‐significant, suggesting that the relationship between perfectionism and math self‐efficacy could not be explained by changes in the way learners perceive and interpret information from those sources. This was surprising given the significant direct relationships between perfectionism and these sources. One possibility is that mastery experiences explained such a large portion of variance in math self‐efficacy that there was minimal variance left to be explained by the remaining three sources. Even so, the high correlations among the four sources of self‐efficacy could mean that all four sources work synergistically to predict math self‐efficacy, as has been the case in other research with adolescents (e.g., Usher et al., 2018). Therefore, the direct effects of perfectionism on students' efficacy‐related experiences should not be overlooked.

Limitations and future directions

Perfectionistic beliefs may be domain specific, contrary to the way they have typically been measured (e.g., Flett et al., 2016). Students may hold or perceive different standards for themselves depending on the subject area, such as in math versus reading. We assessed perfectionism in a domain‐general way, using previously established measures, but all other measures used in the study were specific to the domain of math. This limitation may have attenuated the findings of this study, leaving us to wonder whether stronger relationships would have emerged if perfectionism measures has been catered to the domain of math.

This study employed a correlational design, which prevents any causal inferencing. We nevertheless designed the study with a time lag to test theorized relationships and found, for instance, that students high in self‐oriented perfectionism at T1 reported higher levels of perceived mastery at T2. Does this mean that students who hold themselves to exceptionally high standards rise to the occasion and perform better, or do students who have always done exceptionally well come to expect themselves to do exceptionally well? Answering these directional questions was beyond the scope of this study but would provide a fruitful path forward for examining possible reciprocal relationships between dispositional factors and those associated with self‐efficacy development.

Finally, there have been significant shifts in culture and education over the past decade, some of which may have influenced the relationships explored here. Notably, students' experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic may have influenced their priorities, attentional biases and definitions of success. For this reason, this study should be replicated with more recent data to investigate any possible shifts in the relationship between perfectionism and self‐efficacy development.

Implications and conclusion

Findings from this study suggest that math self‐efficacy is predicted, in part, by students' perfectionism and that perfectionism influences students' perceptions of efficacy‐relevant information. Significant mediation paths through mastery experiences suggest that perfectionism influences self‐efficacy at least in part by influencing the way learners perceive and interpret their performances.

Perfectionistic tendencies are influenced and fostered by the significant adults in an adolescent's life (Damian et al., 2017; Fairweather‐Schmidt & Wade, 2015; McArdle & Duda, 2004; Vekas & Wade, 2017). One implication of our findings is that teachers and parents might promote more adaptive performance expectations, leading students to set their own high standards without imposing an expectation of perfection. By becoming more cognizant of the way that their expectations are being interpreted and internalized by early adolescent learners, adult socializers can avoid sending unintentional messages that only perfection is acceptable. Focusing on learning and growth, as opposed to performance, and being flexible and understanding with standards and expectations are two approaches for adults to employ that reduce students' socially prescribed perfectionism (Damian et al., 2017; Fairweather‐Schmidt & Wade, 2015; McArdle & Duda, 2004; Vekas & Wade, 2017).

This study takes an initial step towards considering how a predisposition like perfectionism might be related to how adolescent learners perceive and weigh information from the four sources of self‐efficacy in math. Holding students to high standards can often provide them with the motivation to achieve more, but those high expectations could be internalized by some children in a way that results in fewer perceived mastery experiences and lower self‐efficacy. Conversely, when early adolescents hold themselves to high standards that they have set for themselves, they report more mastery experiences and, in turn, higher self‐efficacy.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Xiao‐Yin Chen: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing – review and editing. Veronica L. Scott: Conceptualization; investigation; visualization; writing – review and editing. Calah J. Ford: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; supervision; validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Ellen L. Usher: Conceptualization; data curation; methodology; supervision; visualization; writing – review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant 1247392.

APPENDIX 1. Factor loadings

TABLE A1.

Full structural equation model (including mediation paths): factor loadings

Scale Item Lower 5% Estimate Upper 5%
Self‐oriented perfectionism 1 .62 .65 .68
Self‐oriented perfectionism 2 .61 .65 .69
Self‐oriented perfectionism 3 .50 .54 .58
Self‐oriented perfectionism 4 .58 .62 .65
Self‐oriented perfectionism 5 .57 .60 .63
Self‐oriented perfectionism 6 .59 .63 .67
Self‐oriented perfectionism 7 .48 .54 .59
Self‐oriented perfectionism 8 .70 .72 .75
Self‐oriented perfectionism 9 .62 .65 .69
Self‐oriented perfectionism 10 .37 .43 .49
Socially prescribed perfectionism 1 .53 .56 .60
Socially prescribed perfectionism 2 .74 .77 .79
Socially prescribed perfectionism 3 .53 .55 .58
Socially prescribed perfectionism 4 .80 .83 .84
Socially prescribed perfectionism 5 .60 .63 .66
Socially prescribed perfectionism 6 .47 .51 .55
Socially prescribed perfectionism 7 .75 .78 .80
Socially prescribed perfectionism 8 .65 .67 .70
Socially prescribed perfectionism 9 .52 .55 .58
Mastery experiences 1 .78 .79 .80
Mastery experiences 2 .74 .77 .80
Mastery experiences 3 .58 .62 .66
Mastery experiences 4 .36 .42 .48
Mastery experiences 5 .66 .68 .71
Mastery experiences 6 .76 .78 .80
Vicarious experiences 1 .66 .69 .72
Vicarious experiences 2 .64 .67 .70
Vicarious experiences 3 .65 .68 .71
Vicarious experiences 4 .69 .71 .74
Vicarious experiences 5 .71 .74 .77
Vicarious experiences 6 .59 .63 .66
Vicarious experiences 7 .43 .47 .52
Social persuasions 1 .75 .77 .80
Social persuasions 2 .78 .80 .83
Social persuasions 3 .72 .75 .77
Social persuasions 4 .77 .80 .82
Social persuasions 5 .73 .74 .79
Social persuasions 6 .68 .71 .73
Physiological and affective states 1 .74 .76 .79
Physiological and affective states 2 .70 .73 .76
Physiological and affective states 3 .79 .82 .84
Physiological and affective states 4 .71 .73 .76
Physiological and affective states 5 .64 .67 .69
Physiological and affective states 6 .73 .76 .79
Math self‐efficacy 1 .85 .87 .89
Math self‐efficacy 2 .87 .89 .91
Math self‐efficacy 3 .75 .78 .80
Math self‐efficacy 4 .77 .79 .81
Open in a new tab

Note: Confidence intervals were created using bootstrapping techniques (n = 5000).

Ford, C. J. , Usher, E. L. , Scott, V. C. , & Chen, X. (2023). The ‘perfect’ lens: Perfectionism and early adolescents' math self‐efficacy development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 211–228. 10.1111/bjep.12550

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Research data are not shared.

REFERENCES

  1. Accordino, D. B. , Accordino, M. P. , & Slaney, R. B. (2000). An investigation of perfectionism, mental health, achievement, and achievement motivation in adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 37(6), 535–545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, H. S. , Bong, M. , & Kim, S. (2017). Social models in the cognitive appraisal of self‐efficacy information. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 149–166. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks? In Pajares F. & Urdan T. C. (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self‐efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305). Information Age. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bong, M. , Hwang, A. , Noh, A. , & Kim, S. I. (2014). Perfectionism and motivation of adolescents in academic contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 711–729. 10.1037/a0035836 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Butz, A. R. , & Usher, E. L. (2015). Salient sources of early adolescents' self‐efficacy in two domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 49–61. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Byars‐Winston, A. , Diestelmann, J. , Savoy, J. N. , & Hoyt, W. T. (2017). Unique effects and moderators of effects of sources on self‐efficacy: A model‐based meta‐analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(6), 645–658. 10.1037/cou0000219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Damian, L. E. , Stoeber, J. , Negru‐Subtirica, O. , & Băban, A. (2017). On the development of perfectionism: The longitudinal role of academic achievement and academic efficacy. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 565–577. 10.1111/jopy.12261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. DiBartolo, P. M. , & Varner, S. P. (2012). How children's cognitive and affective responses to a novel task relate to the dimensions of perfectionism. Journal of Rational‐Emotive & Cognitive‐Behavior Therapy, 30(2), 62–76. 10.1007/s10942-011-0130-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dweck, C. S. , & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496. 10.1177/1745691618804166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, J. M. , Rowley, L. L. , Nellum, C. J. , & Smith, C. D. (2018). From alienation to efficacy: An examination of racial identity and racial academic stereotypes among black male adolescents. Urban Education, 53(7), 899–928. 10.1177/0042085915602538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Enders, C. K. , & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairweather‐Schmidt, A. K. , & Wade, T. D. (2015). Piloting a perfectionism intervention for pre‐adolescent children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 73, 67–73. 10.1016/j.brat.2015.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Flett, G. L. , Hewitt, P. L. , Besser, A. , Su, C. , Vaillancourt, T. , Boucher, D. , Munro, Y. , Davidson, L. A. , & Gale, O. (2016). The child–adolescent perfectionism scale: Development, psychometric properties, and associations with stress, distress, and psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 634–652. 10.1177/0734282916651381 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilman, R. , & Ashby, J. S. (2003). A first study of perfectionism and multidimensional life satisfaction among adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(2), 218–235. 10.1177/0272431603023002005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hewitt, P. L. , Blasberg, J. S. , Flett, G. L. , Besser, A. , Sherry, S. B. , Caelian, C. , Pasdorf, M. , Cassels, T. G. , & Birch, S. (2011). Perfectionistic self‐presentation in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the perfectionistic self‐presentation scale—Junior form. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 125–142. 10.1037/a0021147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoffman, B. , & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self‐efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem‐solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875–893. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hu, L.‐T. , & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hu, L.‐T. , & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self‐efficacy: A meta‐analysis. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 28(1), 1–35. 10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Joët, G. , Usher, E. L. , & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self‐efficacy: An investigation of elementary school students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 649–663. 10.1037/a0024048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kıran, D. , & Sungur, S. (2012). Middle school students’ science self‐efficacy and its sources: Examination of gender difference. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 619–630. 10.1007/s10956-011-9351-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Locke, E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93–105. 10.1037/mot0000127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Luo, Y. , Wang, Z. , Zhang, H. , Chen, A. , & Quan, S. (2016). The effect of perfectionism on school burnout among adolescence: The mediator of self‐esteem and coping style. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 202–208. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. McArdle, S. , & Duda, J. L. (2004). Exploring social–contextual correlates of perfectionism in adolescents: A multivariate perspective. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28(6), 765–788. 10.1007/s10608-004-0665-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Metallidou, P. , & Vlachou, A. (2007). Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and achievement in language and mathematics in elementary school children. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 2–15. 10.1080/00207590500411179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Muthén, L. K. , & Muthén, B. O. (1998. –2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  31. Northwest Evaluation Association . (2016). Linking [state] assessments to NWEA MAP tests . https://www.nwea.org/
  32. Nounopoulos, A. , Ashby, J. S. , & Gilman, R. (2006). Coping resources, perfectionism, and academic performance among adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 613–622. 10.1002/pits.20167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pennington, C. R. , Heim, D. , Levy, A. R. , & Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146487. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Phan, H. P. (2012). Relations between informational sources, self‐efficacy and academic achievement: A developmental approach. Educational Psychology, 32, 81–105. 10.1080/01443410.2011.625612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schunk, D. H. , & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Schunk, D. H. , & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self‐efficacy development in adolescence. In Pajares F. & Urdan T. C. (Eds.), Self‐efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71–96). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schunk, D. H. , & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self‐efficacy. Development of Achievement Motivation, 15–31. 10.1016/b978-012750053-9/50003-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stapleton, L. M. , Yang, J. S. , & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 481–520. 10.3102/1076998616646200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Stephens, N. M. , Dittmann, A. G. , & Townsend, S. S. M. (2017). Social class and models of competence: How gateway institutions disadvantage working‐class Americans and how to intervene. In Elliot A. J., Dweck C. S., & Yeager D. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 512–528). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Stevens, T. , Olivárez, A. , & Hamman, D. (2006). The role of cognition, motivation, and emotion in explaining the mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic and white students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 161–186. 10.1177/0739986305286103 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stevens, T. , Olivárez, A. , Lan, W. Y. , & Tallent‐Runnels, M. K. (2004). Role of mathematics self‐efficacy and motivation in mathematics performance across ethnicity. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 208–222. 10.3200/JOER.97.4.208-222 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stoeber, J. , & Damian, L. E. (2014). The clinical perfectionism questionnaire: Further evidence for two factors capturing perfectionistic strivings and concerns. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 38–42. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stoeber, J. , Hutchfield, J. , & Wood, K. V. (2008). Perfectionism, self‐efficacy, and aspiration level: Differential effects of perfectionistic striving and self‐criticism after success and failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(4), 323–327. 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stornelli, D. , Flett, G. L. , & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, achievement, and affect in children: A comparison of students from gifted, arts, and regular programs. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 267–283. 10.1177/0829573509342392 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Streiner, D. L. (2005). Finding our way: An introduction to path analysis. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 115–122. 10.1177/070674370505000207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Usher, E. L. (2015). Personal capability beliefs. In Corno L. & Anderman E. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 146–159). Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  47. Usher, E. L. , & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self‐efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. 10.3102/0034654308321456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Usher, E. L. , & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self‐efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 89–101. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Usher, E. L. , & Weidner, B. L. (2018). Sociocultural influences on self‐efficacy development. In Liem G. A. D. & McInerney D. M. (Eds.), Big theories revisited 2 (pp. 141–164). Information Age. [Google Scholar]
  50. Usher, E. L. , Ford, C. J. , Li, C. R. , & Weidner, B. L. (2018). Sources of math and science self‐efficacy in rural Appalachia: A convergent mixed methods design. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 32–53. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vekas, E. J. , & Wade, T. D. (2017). The impact of a universal intervention targeting perfectionism in children: An exploratory controlled trial. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 458–473. 10.1111/bjc.12152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Webb‐Williams, J. (2017). Science self‐efficacy in the primary classroom: Using mixed methods to investigate sources of self‐efficacy. Research in Science Education, 48, 939–961. 10.1007/s11165-016-9592-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. West, S. G. , Taylor, A. B. , & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Handbook of structural equation modeling (Vol. 1, pp. 209–231). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wiederkehr, V. , Darnon, C. , Chazal, S. , Guimond, S. , & Martinot, D. (2015). From social class to self‐efficacy: Internalization of low social status pupils' school performance. Social Psychology of Education, 18(4), 769–784. 10.1007/s11218-015-9308-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Xie, Y. , Yang, J. , & Chen, F. (2018). Procrastination and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta‐analysis of main, mediating, and moderating effects. Social Behavior and Personality, 46, 395–408. 10.2224/sbp.6680 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Research data are not shared.

Articles from The British Journal of Educational Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES