Practices that stem maladaptive perfectionism

Overview

Arguably, if individuals experience maladaptive perfectionism, or the inclination to be unduly concerned about mistakes or shortfalls, they experience strong aversive emotions, such as shame, whenever they recognise flaws in their personality, shortcomings in their capabilities, or mistakes in their performances. Because these individuals do not acknowledge or concede their shortfalls, they may exhibit diminished levels of humility. Consistent with this possibility,

Thornburg-Suresh and McElroy-Heltzel (2025) revealed that a measure of maladaptive perfectionism was inversely associated with scores on the honest-humility subscale.
in contrast, many facets of perfectionism tend to coincide with the converse of humility: narcissism (Smith et al., 2016).

Therefore, practices that diminish maladaptive perfectionism may promote humility.

Environmental conditions that may diminish maladaptive perfectionism

The role of organisational culture

Some conditions in workplaces and other settings may diminish this maladaptive perfectionism and thus promote humility. To illustrate, according to Goodwin et al. (2026), in some settings, such as sports competitions, individuals feel dehumanised (Haslam, 2006; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Waytz et al., 2010). That is, they feel their autonomy, feelings, and individuality are all disregarded or dismissed. In these settings, individuals sense their flaws, be derided or disregarded rather than accepted, promoting maladaptive perfectionism.

To illustrate, Goodwin et al. (2026) interviewed 61 professional or semi-professional ballet dancers about their experiences with dancing, such as the culture of dance companies, how these individuals manage feedback, their experience of perfectionism, conditions that elicit feelings of dehumanisation, and other challenges. As the findings revealed, dancers who experienced the hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism were also more likely to feel dehumanised. Four cues or practices elicited this dehumanisation:

criticisms that elicited shame in response to minor errors, called denial of fallibility,
feeling that dancers are not allowed to voice personal opinions but are entirely controlled by leaders, called denial of agency,
the tendency of leaders to dismiss the emotions of dancers at work, called denial of subjectivity,
the emphasis on conformity rather than permission to express personal values, called denial of individuality (Goodwin et al., 2026).

This dehumanisation tended to coincide with two facets of maladaptive perfectionism: shame or anxiety in response to imperfections as well as exhaustion, substance abuse, or eating disorders because of excess work. In contrast, settings that humanise dancers—in which leaders accept mistakes as well as embrace the perspectives or concerns of these dancers—promoted more adaptive perfectionism, such as setting ambitious but feasible goals while practicing self-care.

The decrease in maladaptive perfectionism if people feel appreciated at work

Sometimes, staff feel appreciated at work by their supervisors or managers. For example, these supervisors may

express gratitude, praise, or helpful suggestions to staff,
assist staff on challenging tasks, such as attempt to solve problems,
publicise the goals their staff achieved,
contemplate, appreciate, and even implement a change the staff suggested,
seek the opinion of staff,
demonstrate interest in the work, wellbeing, or lives of staff, such as ask questions to learn from these individuals,
defend their staff,
exchange personal information with staff and exhibit warmth as well as respect during social interactions,
dispense rewards to staff, such as a gift voucher, greater autonomy, scarce career opportunities, and additional responsibilities that could boost the status of these staff.

As Schlegel et al. (2024) revealed, staff who are the recipients of this appreciation are subsequently more likely to experience adaptive, but not maladaptive, perfectionism. In this study, 170 German employees completed a daily survey over two weeks. Each day, these participants

indicated whether their supervisor demonstrated one of 15 examples of appreciation for their work or behaviour, such as expressed gratitude, praise, or helpful suggestions,
answered questions that assessed the degree to which these staff experienced perfectionistic concerns (Prestele et al., 2020), such as “I am not good enough”—a measure of maladaptive perfectionism,
answered questions that assessed the extent to which they experienced perfectionistic strivings (Prestele et al., 2020), such as “I want to perform particularly well at work”—a measure of adaptive perfectionism,
also completed measures that assess their level of workload (derived from Matthews et al., 2022) as well as feelings of vigour during the day (Buchner et al., 2022) and serenity during the night (Abele-Brehm & Brehm, 1986).

As hypothesised, on the days in which staff were the recipients of appreciation, these individuals were also more likely to experience adaptive perfectionism but less likely to experience maladaptive perfectionism (Schlegel et al., 2024). Adaptive perfectionism fostered, and maladaptive perfectionism diminished, serenity before bed—and this serenity improved vigour the next day. These findings were observed after controlling workload. Presumably, after individuals feel appreciated, they are not as concerned they may soon be rejected, mocked, or scolded—fears that often amplify perfectionistic concerns and maladaptive perfectionism.

The role of parental styles

A range of studies have examined the behaviours of parents that might foster or prevent maladaptive perfectionism in their children. For example, Rice et al. (2005) conducted a study in which 241 college students completed a series of measures including the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990). This scale includes

two subscales that measure parental behaviours: parental expectations, typified by items like “Only outstanding performance is good enough in this family”, and parental criticism, typified by items like “My parents never tried to understand my mistakes” or “I never felt I could meet my parents’ expectations”,
two subscales that measure maladaptive perfectionism: concern over mistakes, exemplified by items like “If I do not do well all the time, people will not respect me” or “The fewer mistakes I make, the more people will like me”, and doubts about actions, exemplified by items like “Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right”.

Furthermore, participants completed other measures of maladaptive perfectionism, including the discrepancy subscale of the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (Slaney et al., 2001). Typical items include “My performance rarely measures up to my standards”. Finally, participants completed measures of attachment and adaptive perfectionism as well. As the findings revealed, parental criticism was positively, but parental expectations were negatively, related to maladaptive perfectionism (Rice et al., 2005). Thus, to prevent maladaptive perfectionism, parents can set high standards but should demonstrate compassion, understanding, support, and guidance in response to mistakes or shortfalls.

As other studies indicate, when parents either neglect their children or merely impose rules, without discussion, justification, or warmth, these children do not feel they will be supported if they commit minor errors or mistakes. They feel these errors or mistakes may culminate in severe problems, such as punishment. So, over time, these children develop the signs of maladaptive perfectionism. For example, in a study of 242 undergraduate students, published by Walton et al. (2020),

some participants felt their parents were authoritarian, characterised by items like “Whenever this parent told me to do something, he or she expected me to do it immediately without asking any questions” (Buri, 1991),
these participants tended to exhibit the hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism, such as concerns over trivial mistakes and doubts about their actions,
other participants felt their parents were neglectful, characterised by items like “I was not especially close to this parent. I had to learn things on my own” (Buri, 1991),
these participants also tended to exhibit the hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism.

The role of parental style: The mediating effect of attachment style

Hewitt et al. (2017) formulated the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model partly to explain how unsupportive or inconsistent behaviour from parents may incite perfectionism in their children. According to this theory,

children experience a profound need to feel secure and to explore their environment,
if parents do not fulfill these needs consistently, their children feel that perhaps they are not worthy of this support, promoting either anxious attachment, or a concern they may be rejected, or avoidant attachment, or a tendency to shun intimacy or reliance on other people,
to override these concerns, these children strive to behave perfectly, primarily to attract support and to garner approval, especially from their parents or carers.

This model, therefore, implies that a feeling in people that perhaps they are defective, as well as their attachment style, should mediate the association between unsupportive parents and perfectionism. To explore this possibility, Ko et al. (2019) administered a survey to 344 undergraduate students. The survey included

the Perceptions of Parents Scales—College Students (Robbins, 1994), comprising questions that assess the degree to which parents demonstrate three beneficial patterns of behaviour: autonomy support, such as “My mother allows me to decide things for myself”, involvement, such as “My father finds time to talk with me”, and warmth, such as “My mother makes me feel very special”,
the Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney et al., 1994), comprising questions that measure attachment anxiety, such as “I worry that others won’t care about me as much as I care about them”, and attachment avoidance, such as “I worry about people getting too close”,
the Young Schema Questionnaire-Long Form Version 3 (Young, 2003) to assess the belief that participants feel defective, epitomised by items like “I’m unworthy of the love, attention, and respect of others”,
the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), comprising 45 items that gauge three facets of perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism, such as “I set very high standards for myself”, other-oriented perfectionism, such as “I cannot stand to see people close to me make mistakes”, and socially prescribed perfectionism, such as “People expect nothing less than perfection from me”,
the Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale (Hewitt et al., 2003), comprising 27 items that assess how participants express signs of perfectionism to other people, such as “I strive to look perfect to others” to gauge perfectionistic self-promotion, “I do not want people to see me do something unless I am very good at it” to gauge non-display of imperfection, and “Admitting failure to others is the worst possible thing” to gauge non-disclosure of imperfection.

As hypothesised, when participants felt their parents did not demonstrate adequate levels of autonomy support, involvement, or warmth, they exhibited socially prescribed perfectionism—often regarded as maladaptive—as well as the three facets of perfectionistic self-presentation. Anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, and a sense they are defective partly mediated these relationships (Ko et al., 2019).

The role of parental style: Emulating parents

Social learning models offer an additional explanation of how the behaviour of parents might shape the perfectionistic beliefs and behaviours of their children (Flett, Hewitt, et al., 2002). That is, children tend to observe and to imitate the behaviour of prominent individuals in their life, such as their parents. Parents, therefore, who express beliefs or exhibit behaviours that epitomise perfectionism might reinforce these tendencies in their children. The perfectionism of parents might thus foster perfectionism in their children (for evidence, see Appleton et al., 2010; Vieth & Trull, 1999).

To assess this model, Carmo et al. (2021) conducted a study in which 119 children, aged between 10 and 14, completed a series of measures including

the Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (for the Portuguese variant, see Bento et al., 2010), designed to measure the extent to which these participants experience self-oriented perfectionism—or the motivation to pursue high standards—or socially prescribed perfectionism—or the motivation to fulfill the high standards that other people impose,
the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991), designed to measure three parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive.

Finally, both the mother and father of these children also completed an instrument: the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, designed to measure self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism. As the findings revealed,

specific facets of perfectionism in parents were strongly and positively associated with the same facets of perfectionism in the children, consistent with social learning models (Carmo et al., 2021),
typically, perfectionism in fathers coincided with perfectionism in sons, whereas perfectionism in mothers coincided with perfectionism in daughters, suggesting that children were more inclined to emulate the parent of their sex,
unsupportive parenting styles tended to foster perfectionism in daughters but not sons.

Individual characteristics that may diminish maladaptive perfectionism

The role of personality traits

Whether individuals exhibit maladaptive perfectionism may also depend on their personality. For example, as Walton et al. (2020) revealed in a study of 242 undergraduate students,

if participants demonstrated elevated levels of emotional stability—and thus tended to be resilient and relaxed rather than anxious or neurotic—they were not as likely to report excessive concerns over mistakes, doubts about their actions, or other hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism,
the other personality traits, as measured by the Big Five Inventory (John et al. 1991)—such as openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness—were not significantly associated with maladaptive perfectionism.

The motives and mindsets that diminish this perfectionism

Some motives and mindsets tend to diminish maladaptive perfectionism or similar inclinations. To illustrate, some people experience a growth mindset, in which they believe the capabilities, character, and qualities of individuals can be modified over time. Other people experience a fixed mindset, in which they believe the capabilities, character, and qualities of individuals tend to be immutable rather than modifiable. As research has shown, this fixed mindset tends to elicit the hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism.

To illustrate, in one study, published by Gaudreau et al. (2025) in the Social Psychology of Education, 156 undergraduate students completed a series of instruments. These instruments included

a measure that assesses whether participants believe that intelligence is modifiable (De Castella & Byrne, 2015), comprising items like “With enough time and effort I think I could significantly improve my intelligence level”,
a measure that assesses whether participants feel they can improve after failing an assignment (Yeager et al., 2016), exemplified by items like “(If I fail, this means I’m probably not very smart)”,
the Scale of Excellencism and Perfectionism (Gaudreau et al., 2022), designed to assess whether people tend to pursue excellence or perfection. The pursuit of excellence, corresponding to items like “My general goal in life is to work very hard until I reach excellence”, tends to be adaptive, predicting better marks over time. In contrast, the pursuit of perfection, corresponding to items like “My general goal in life is to be a flawless person”, tends to be maladaptive, predicting a deterioration over time.

As hypothesised, individuals who believed that intelligence is modifiable, epitomising a growth mindset, were more likely to pursue excellence but less likely to pursue perfection. A second study replicated these findings, also revealing that people who feel they cannot improve after a failure are more likely to pursue perfection but not excellence. This pursuit of perfection also coincided with excessive rumination after failures (Gaudreau et al., 2025). Presumably, when individuals believe they can improve over time, they perceive errors as opportunities to grow, diminishing their preoccupation with perfection.

Interventions that may diminish maladaptive perfectionism

Brief interventions

Researchers have designed and evaluated a range of interventions, often derived from cognitive behavioural therapy, to curb maladaptive perfectionism (e.g., Arpin-Cribbie et al., 2012; Lloyd, Fleming, et al. 2014; Lloyd, Schmidt, et al., 2015; Pleva & Wade, 2007; Riley et al., 2007; Steele & Wade, 2008; Steele, Waite, et al., 2013). For instance, Arana et al. (2017) examined the impact of a brief intervention, comprising five sessions, each lasting two hours, in which clients attended in groups. The intervention was designed to supplant maladaptive perfectionism with more adaptive beliefs and behaviours, so individuals could maintain their standards but derive their identity from other facets of life. Specifically

during the first session, participants learned about the causes of perfectionism and the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive variants,
during the next two sessions, participants learned about automatic thoughts, conditional assumptions, and core beliefs that often underpin perfectionism—as well as insights on how to recognise, evaluate, and modify these thoughts,
during the fourth session, participants learn about how to identify and change perfectionistic behaviours,
finally, during the fifth session, participants learned about the adverse impact of perfectionism in social settings and also how to foster self-compassion: a state that might diminish this perfectionism.

Examples of automatic thoughts, conditional assumptions, or core beliefs that underpin maladaptive perfectionism include “I cannot complete this task well so I should not even try”, ““Because of this error, they will think I am useless”, “If I do not perform well, I must be a failure”, and “I am inherently inadequate”.

To evaluate this intervention, 24 participants who had exhibited the hallmarks of maladaptive perfectionism completed these five sessions. The researchers administered several instruments before and after this intervention, such as

the almost perfect scale-revised (Slaney et al., 2001), designed to measure the degree to which individuals set lofty goals, called standards, and castigate themselves if they do not reach these lofty standards, called discrepancy, typified by items like “Doing my best never seems to be enough”,
the Beck Depression Inventory to measure depression and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory to measure anxiety.

Consistent with the hypotheses, after the intervention, maladaptive perfectionism, as gauged by the discrepancy subscale, subsided. Depression and anxiety also decreased (Arana et al., 2017).

Online interventions

Some research has also explored whether interventions that are designed to curtail perfectionism can be implemented online. To illustrate, Visvalingam et al. (2023) evaluated an online intervention, called the Intentional Imperfection Program, that lasts about two hours. During this online intervention, participants learn a range of techniques, such as mindfulness, compassion, self-compassion, distress tolerance, and social capabilities. In particular, the intervention comprises five modules:

During the first module, participants learn about various facets of perfectionism, including adaptive and maladaptive variants, as well as the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (for a test of this model, see Sherry et al., 2013)—a model that implies the perfectionism can elicit aloof or hostile behaviour towards other people as well as increase the sensitivity of individuals to rejection, impairing relationships and wellbeing. Participant are invited to consider how perfectionism may affect their own life.
During the second module, participants are exposed to techniques that can temper this sensitivity to rejection, such as mindfulness, self-compassion, distancing, and relaxation practices.
During the third module, participants learn how to manage feelings of hostility towards other people, such as assertiveness training and experiential ownership—or the realisation these feelings are indicative of their reactions and not the fault of someone else. In addition, participants watch short videos in which individuals demonstrate the hallmarks of perfectionism, such as a belligerent response to criticism and an intense reaction to a mild rebuff. Finally, participants watch the same scenarios except the person responded appropriately.
During the fourth module, participants learn about how to minimise social disconnection. For example, these individuals contemplate the qualities of a good friend—because people often need to offer support to receive support (Leahy et al., 2011). In addition, participants identify the people in their life with whom they would like to cultivate more trusting friendships and a plan on how to achieve this goal.
During the final module, participants receive a worksheet to encourage them to apply the skills they have learned in their daily lives. For instance, they are invited to enter times in their diary in which they will apply these skills.

In this study, 70 university students, all of whom had reported moderate or high levels of perfectionism, completed this intervention. Both before and two months after this intervention, these participants completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt et al., 1991) to gauge self-oriented perfectionism, socially-prescribed perfectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism. Finally, participants completed measures of hostility (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), sensitivity to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996), depression (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), anxiety (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) and perceived social support (Zimet et al., 1988). After completing the intervention—and attesting to the benefits of this program

self-oriented perfectionism, or the degree to which participants felt distressed in response to their imperfections or mistakes, and socially-prescribed perfectionism, or the degree to which these individuals felt that other people in their life impose unrealistic expectations on them, diminished significantly,
consequently, hostility, rejection sensitivity, depression, and anxiety also decreased significantly,
perceived social support improved (Visvalingam et al., 2023).

Future researchers could subject this intervention to a randomised control trial to override the limitations of this study.

Duration of these benefits

Some research has assessed whether the effects of interventions that are designed to manage perfectionism tend to endure. Bento et al. (2017), for example, revealed that such benefits can last at least six months. In this study, almost 1000 Portuguese adolescents were assigned to one of three conditions:

In the first condition, participants attended a session that was designed to diminish perfectionism.
In the second condition, participants attended a session that was designed to instil healthy habits.
In the final condition, participants were not exposed to any intervention.

The session that was designed to diminish perfectionism invoked the principles that Antony and Swinson (2009) recommended in their book entitled “When perfect isn’t good enough”. For example, during this session,

facilitators defined perfectionism and differentiated adaptive characteristics, such as a passion to pursue excellence, from maladaptive characteristics, such as intense shame after committing errors,
facilitators discussed the effects of these maladaptive characteristics on daily life and academic progress, such as the adverse consequences of avoidance,
the participants answered questions that assess maladaptive characteristics in particular settings, such as intense concerns over mistakes, severe criticism of themselves, fear of shame, and feelings of failure, illustrated by questions like “Do you do things you do not like to be accepted by others?”, “Do you feel that even people who like you are always judging and criticising your appearance?” or “Do you think you should always do everything right?”,
facilitators presented some insights on how participants can manage perfectionism, such as weigh or monitor themselves less often, maintain a slightly dishevelled hairstyle, or complete one task before commencing the next task.

Before, two months after, and six months after these sessions, all participants completed the Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (Flett et al., 2016; for the Portuguese version, see Bento et al., 2014). This instrument comprises questions that assess self-oriented perfectionism, such as “I get upset if there is even one mistake in my work”, and socially-prescribed perfectionism, such as “Other people always expect me to be perfect”. Unlike the other participants, the individuals who attended the session on perfectionism exhibited a decrease in self-oriented perfectionism (Bento et al., 2017). This reduction lasted at least six months. Socially-prescribed perfectionism, however, did not significantly diminish over time.