Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS)

1. Abstract

The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), developed by clinical psychologists Paul L. Hewitt and Gordon L. Flett (1991), is one of the most widely utilized and thoroughly validated psychometric instruments designed to assess perfectionism as a multifaceted, interpersonal, and intrapersonal personality construct. Prior to the introduction of the MPS, psychological literature predominantly conceptualized perfectionism as an unidimensional, cognitive vulnerability characterized solely by the setting of unrealistically high personal standards. Hewitt and Flett demonstrated that perfectionism possesses both personal and social dimensions, leading to the formulation of three distinct behavioral and motivational traits: Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), reflecting the setting of exacting standards for oneself and rigorous self-scrutiny; Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP), involving unrealistic expectations and harsh evaluations directed toward peers, family members, and coworkers; and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP), denoting the pervasive perception that others hold unattainable standards for oneself and that acceptance is conditional upon absolute flawlessness.

The scale comprises 45 self-report items evenly distributed across the three dimensions (15 items per subscale). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), with 4 designated as the neutral midpoint. Extensive psychometric evaluations across clinical, collegiate, community, and adolescent populations demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .86 to .89 for Self-Oriented Perfectionism, .79 to .82 for Other-Oriented Perfectionism, and .86 to .88 for Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. Test-retest reliability across intervals spanning several weeks to several months consistently yields coefficients above .75 to .88, confirming trait-like temporal stability. Factor-analytic investigations (both exploratory and confirmatory) consistently corroborate the tri-factorial architecture across clinical psychiatric cohorts and non-clinical groups. The MPS demonstrates prominent construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, demonstrating differentiated predictive associations with major depressive disorder, suicide ideation, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive phenomena, eating pathology, interpersonal dysfunction, and stress generation. This comprehensive review delineates the psychometric infrastructure, theoretical underpinnings, empirical validation, scoring protocols, and complete verbatim item inventory of the Hewitt and Flett MPS.

2. Keywords

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, Hewitt and Flett MPS, Self-Oriented Perfectionism, Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, Other-Oriented Perfectionism, perfectionism assessment, psychometrics, trait perfectionism, cognitive vulnerability, clinical assessment

3. Authors

The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) was authored and psychometrically established by:

• Paul L. Hewitt, Ph.D., R.Psych. — Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). Dr. Hewitt is a leading international authority on the psychopathology, interpersonal dynamics, assessment, and psychotherapy of perfectionism. His research lab focuses extensively on perfectionistic personality style, vulnerability to depressive disorders, and interpersonal psychotherapy models for personality disturbance.
• Gordon L. Flett, Ph.D., FRSC — Professor of Psychology and former Canada Research Chair in Personality and Health in the Department of Psychology at York University (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Dr. Flett is a globally recognized scholar specializing in personality traits, health psychology, perfectionism across the lifespan, resilience, and the psychological costs of mattering versus alienation.
• Key Clinical Collaborators: Early psychiatric validation studies were conducted in collaboration with Wanda Turnbull-Donovan, Ph.D., and Samuel F. Mikail, Ph.D., ABPP, focusing on the scale’s diagnostic utility and psychometric viability among inpatient and outpatient clinical psychiatric cohorts.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale is to provide a comprehensive, psychometrically rigorous, and clinically sensitive measurement of trait perfectionism that accounts for both intrapersonal drives and interpersonal social processes. Prior to Hewitt and Flett’s seminal work, existing measurement scales, such as the Burns Perfectionism Scale (1980) or the perfectionism subscale of the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner et al., 1983), conceptualized perfectionism as a singular construct predominantly centered on high achievement aspirations and fear of personal mistakes. Hewitt and Flett identified that such unifactorial definitions conflated internal motivations with social expectations, masking critical diagnostic distinctions.

From a theoretical and diagnostic perspective, the MPS was engineered to accomplish several pivotal objectives:

• Distinguishing Intrapersonal from Interpersonal Loci: The instrument disaggregates perfectionistic behavior into where the perfectionistic demands originate (internal drive vs. perceived external coercion) and to whom those demands are directed (the self vs. others).
• Elucidating Vulnerability to Psychopathology: Clinical literature has long implicated perfectionism in severe affective disorders, eating disorders, and suicide risk. The MPS serves as a diagnostic tool that clarifies why certain individuals decompensate under achievement stress (frequently driven by Self-Oriented Perfectionism), whereas others suffer profound interpersonal alienation, helplessness, and severe suicidality driven by the perceived inability to ever satisfy conditional acceptance (Socially Prescribed Perfectionism).
• Assessing Interpersonal Friction and Personality Pathology: By isolating Other-Oriented Perfectionism, the instrument provides clinicians and organizational researchers with a validated index of interpersonal hostility, hypercritical evaluation of spouses or colleagues, lack of empathy, and traits congruent with narcissistic, paranoid, and histrionic personality dynamics.
• Treatment Planning and Therapeutic Monitoring: In psychotherapeutic settings, the MPS aids clinicians in identifying whether cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, or relational interventions should target harsh self-beratement, rigid expectations of romantic partners, or entrenched cognitive distortions surrounding interpersonal rejection and conditional self-worth. Longitudinal administration allows tracking of changes in perfectionistic cognitions across evidence-based therapeutic courses.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct of perfectionism as conceptualized by Hewitt and Flett is characterized as a multidimensional personality style defined by the relentless striving for flawlessness, exceptionally demanding standards of performance, and hypercritical self- or other-evaluations. Rather than viewing perfectionism simply as a set of behaviors or cognitive strategies, Hewitt and Flett conceptualized it as a core characterological trait deeply intertwined with self-definition, identity, and relational dynamics. The MPS operationalizes this construct across three specific dimensions:

1. Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP)

Self-Oriented Perfectionism entails the cognitive and motivational tendency to set exceedingly high, unattainable standards for oneself, coupled with rigorous self-scrutiny and an intolerance of one’s own shortcomings. Individuals high in SOP do not simply pursue excellence; they require absolute perfection in their endeavors, defining their core self-worth through flawlessness. Representative behavioral tendencies include continuous self-monitoring, intense self-blame upon perceived failure, all-or-nothing thinking regarding personal achievements, and an inability to experience enduring satisfaction even after substantial accomplishments. Although SOP shares variance with adaptive achievement striving, conscientiousness, and academic motivation, its compulsive, rigid, and unrelenting character renders individuals highly susceptible to burnout, depressive episodes, and performance anxiety when exposed to uncontrollable negative life events.

2. Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP)

Other-Oriented Perfectionism reflects an interpersonal orientation wherein an individual holds unrealistic, rigid standards for others and demands that significant others, colleagues, or subordinates perform flawlessly. Individuals elevated on OOP exhibit a hypercritical stance toward the deficiencies of others, characterized by blame, contempt, impatience, and an unwillingness to accept human error or average performance in those around them. Unlike SOP, which directs internal distress inward, OOP projects unrealistic expectations outward. Consequently, OOP is rarely associated with internalizing distress such as depressive affect, but is strongly correlated with interpersonal conflict, marital discord, lack of trust, cynical hostility, and personality traits allied with narcissism and antisocial tendencies.

3. Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP)

Socially Prescribed Perfectionism captures the interpersonal belief that other people (parents, romantic partners, supervisors, society at large) hold unrealistically high, impossible expectations for oneself, and that these others will judge, reject, or abandon the individual if these expectations are not met. The core dynamic of SPP is an external locus of control and a perception of conditional acceptance: the individual feels trapped in a relentless cycle of needing to satisfy demanding standards imposed from the outside, while simultaneously perceiving those standards as inherently unattainable. SPP is consistently the most pathological and debilitating of the three dimensions, exhibiting profound links to chronic hopelessness, pervasive shame, generalized social anxiety, severe major depression, borderline personality features, and elevated rates of active suicide ideation and lethal self-harm behaviors.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underlying the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale bridges psychodynamic, interpersonal, and cognitive-behavioral traditions of personality and psychopathology. Historical foundations can be traced to psychodynamic theorists such as Karen Horney (1950), who described the “tyranny of the should” and the creation of an idealized self-image that neurotically demands perfection to ward off feelings of basic anxiety and self-contempt. Similarly, Alfred Adler noted that while striving for superiority is a fundamental human drive, compensatory strivings for god-like infallibility emerge from deep-seated feelings of inferiority and relational vulnerability.

Hewitt and Flett integrated these clinical observations with contemporary cognitive-behavioral frameworks, notably Aaron T. Beck‘s cognitive diathesis-stress model and Albert Ellis‘s Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), which underscores the irrational demand for absolute competence and universal approval. Hewitt and Flett’s critical contribution was to recognize that perfectionism cannot be understood solely as an isolated cognitive schema (such as “I must never fail”); it is inherently transactional and social.

According to Hewitt and Flett’s Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behavior, perfectionism operates across three levels of personality functioning:

1. Perfectionistic Traits (The Foundation): Assessed directly by the MPS, these stable, global personality dimensions (SOP, OOP, SPP) define the core motivational and evaluative dispositions of the individual.
2. Perfectionistic Self-Presentation (Interpersonal Expression): Expressed through efforts to publicly project an image of perfection, avoid appearing imperfect, and conceal behavioral mistakes.
3. Perfectionistic Cognitions (Intrapsychic Ruminations): Fleeting, automatic, and repetitive thoughts concerning the necessity of being perfect, which constantly reinforce distress on an hourly or daily basis.

A fundamental theoretical tenet of this framework is the Specific Vulnerability Hypothesis (diathesis-stress paradigm). Hewitt and Flett proposed that perfectionism dimensions do not act as broad, uniform risk factors; rather, specific dimensions interact synergistically with congruent life stressors. Specifically, individuals high in Self-Oriented Perfectionism are uniquely vulnerable to depressive episodes when confronted with ego-threatening achievement stressors (e.g., academic failure, career setback), whereas individuals high in Socially Prescribed Perfectionism decompensate when exposed to interpersonal stressors (e.g., social rejection, relationship dissolution, perceived disapproval). This interactionist model has received substantial empirical support in prospective, longitudinal investigations.

7. Validity

The validity of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale has been rigorously documented across hundreds of studies involving diverse clinical psychiatric, adolescent, collegiate, athletic, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established in Hewitt and Flett’s seminal 1991 paper published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Across multiple samples comprising over 1,100 university undergraduates and psychiatric patients, structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analysis confirmed that the three subscales tap unique domains of variance. Inter-correlations between the subscales reveal that while SOP and OOP share modest positive correlations (typically r = .25 to .40), and SOP and SPP correlate moderately (r = .20 to .45), they operate as distinct constructs with divergent psychological correlates.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive investigations demonstrate clear convergent and discriminant profiles for each subscale:

• Self-Oriented Perfectionism: Correlates strongly with measures of high personal standards, intrinsic motivation, conscientiousness, self-criticism, and the irrational belief that one must be completely competent. Critically, it shows discriminant validity through low or non-significant correlations with locus of control, fear of negative evaluation, and interpersonal dependency.
• Other-Oriented Perfectionism: Correlates positively with authoritarianism, interpersonal dominance, narcissism, disagreeableness, and expressions of outward hostility, while displaying non-significant or negative correlations with altruism, empathy, and social anxiety.
• Socially Prescribed Perfectionism: Converges robustly with external locus of control, chronic shame, fear of negative evaluation, public self-consciousness, neuroticism, conditional self-regard, and depressive symptomatology (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory scores, typically r = .40 to .60). It is discriminable from intrinsic achievement striving and exhibits an inverse relationship with perceived personal autonomy and self-esteem.

Predictive and Clinical Validity

In psychiatric samples (Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991), the MPS demonstrated exceptional diagnostic utility. Inpatients with major depressive disorder scored significantly higher on both SOP and SPP compared to non-clinical controls. Prospective longitudinal studies have established that baseline SPP significantly predicts future depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and suicide ideation over 4-month to 1-year intervals, even after controlling for baseline depression. In eating disorder populations, both SOP and SPP reliably differentiate clinical anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa patients from healthy controls, predicting chronic dietary restraint and treatment resistance.

8. Reliability

The Hewitt and Flett MPS possesses excellent psychometric reliability, consistently demonstrated across diverse clinical and non-clinical populations.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of the MPS subscales has been extensively replicated. In the original validation studies (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt et al., 1991), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were established as follows:

• Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP): Alpha values consistently range between α = .86 and .89 in student populations, and up to α = .88 to .91 in psychiatric inpatient and outpatient samples.
• Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP): Alpha values range from α = .86 to .88 in general adult populations, demonstrating strong item homogeneity and construct coherence.
• Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP): Alpha values range from α = .74 to .82 (typically reported at α = .79 in the foundational normative cohort), representing acceptable to good internal reliability for an interpersonal evaluation scale.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

The temporal stability of the MPS reflects its conceptualization as a stable, trait-like personality instrument:

• Over a 3-month interval in university samples, Hewitt and Flett (1991) reported test-retest reliability coefficients of r = .88 for Self-Oriented Perfectionism, r = .85 for Other-Oriented Perfectionism, and r = .75 for Socially Prescribed Perfectionism.
• Longer-term investigations over 6 to 12 months in community and clinical samples continue to yield stability coefficients ranging from r = .65 to .80, indicating that perfectionistic traits remain remarkably stable across time in the absence of targeted psychological intervention.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Hewitt and Flett MPS has been examined using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across numerous linguistic and cultural adaptations worldwide.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale construction phases, principal components analyses followed by varimax and oblique rotations were conducted on large item pools. The resulting scree plots and eigenvalue criteria unambiguously supported a three-factor solution, accounting for a substantial percentage of the total scale variance. The 45 items loaded cleanly onto their designated theoretical constructs: Factor 1 (Self-Oriented Perfectionism), Factor 2 (Other-Oriented Perfectionism), and Factor 3 (Socially Prescribed Perfectionism), with typical primary factor loadings exceeding .45 and minimal cross-loadings (rarely exceeding .25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent structural investigations utilizing CFA have systematically confirmed the superiority of the three-factor oblique model over alternative unidimensional or orthogonal two-factor specifications. Structural equation modeling across diverse cohorts demonstrates robust model fit parameters:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically between .90 and .95 in adequately powered samples.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ≥ .90.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently falls between .045 and .062 (with 90% confidence intervals well below the .08 threshold for acceptable error of approximation).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Routinely below .06.

While some measurement researchers have noted localized error covariance among reverse-scored items (a common methodological artifact in self-report psychometrics), modeling method factors for reverse-coded items reliably produces outstanding fit indices. Furthermore, higher-order factor models in cross-instrument research (synthesizing the Hewitt & Flett MPS with the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, or FMPS) consistently reveal that the MPS SOP scale loads heavily onto an overarching “Perfectionistic Strivings” higher-order dimension, whereas the SPP scale constitutes the primary marker for the “Perfectionistic Concerns” higher-order dimension.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report personality inventory / psychological rating scale.
• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional trait perfectionism (intrapersonal and interpersonal manifestations).
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older (a specialized version, the Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale [CAPS], exists for younger age groups). Suitable for non-clinical, organizational, and clinical psychiatric settings.
• Item Count: 45 items (15 items per subscale).
• Response Format: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral / Undecided
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP) (15 items): Items 1, 6, 8 (Reverse), 12 (Reverse), 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 28, 32, 34 (Reverse), 36 (Reverse), 40, 42.
  • Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP) (15 items): Items 2 (Reverse), 3 (Reverse), 4 (Reverse), 7, 10 (Reverse), 16, 19 (Reverse), 22, 24 (Reverse), 26, 27, 29, 38 (Reverse), 43 (Reverse), 45 (Reverse).
  • Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP) (15 items): Items 5, 9 (Reverse), 11, 13, 18, 21 (Reverse), 25, 30 (Reverse), 31, 33, 35, 37 (Reverse), 39, 41, 44 (Reverse).
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Reverse Scoring: A total of 18 items are reverse-scored (indicated by “Reverse” above). For reverse-scored items, recode the values as follows: 1 → 7, 2 → 6, 3 → 5, 4 → 4, 5 → 3, 6 → 2, 7 → 1. (Mathematically: Recoded Score = 8 − Raw Score).
  • Subscale Sums: Sum the item scores (incorporating reverse-scored values) for each respective subscale. Each subscale has a theoretical range of 15 to 105 points.
  • Total Score Caution: Authors strongly advise against computing a single composite total score, as summing across SOP, OOP, and SPP obscures critical diagnostic patterns and conflates distinct psychological and interpersonal dynamics.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 1991 (Initial empirical development introduced in abstract form in 1989; full psychometric scale and psychiatric validation published in 1991).
• Copyright & Commercial Distribution: The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) is copyrighted by Paul L. Hewitt, Ph.D., and Gordon L. Flett, Ph.D. The commercial test kit, normative conversion tables, and formal clinical manual are published and distributed internationally by Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS).
• Research Accessibility: The scale has been made available by the authors for non-commercial academic research and educational purposes. Researchers can consult the authors’ institutional websites (such as the Perfectionism and Psychopathology Lab at the University of British Columbia) to review research-only terms of use. Commercial, healthcare system, occupational, and clinical practice administrations require licensing and test purchases through MHS.

12. References

Aminizadeh, S., Dolatshahi, B., Pourshahbaz, A., Babapour, B., Yousefzadeh, I., Zamanshoar, E., & Eshaghi, M. (2013). Psychometric properties of Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1(4), 205–209.

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14(6), 34–52.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (Eds.). (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10458-000

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Perfectionism, neuroticism, and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(7), 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90124-7

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Endler, N. S., & Tassone, C. (1995). Perfectionism and components of state and trait anxiety. Current Psychology, 13(4), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686861

Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(2), 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.2.276

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (2017). Perfectionism: A relational approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Guilford Press.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psychological Assessment, 3(3), 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.3.464

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. W. W. Norton & Company.

13. Items of the Scale