Perfectionism: A contributor to social anxiety and its cognitive processes

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed SEM model for the role of perfectionism in social anxiety and its cognitive processes.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation matrix of variables included in the model

Variables	Mean	SD	Range	1	2	3	4	5
1. DAA	10.62	4.10	4–19	–
2. SPP	37.33	12.56	15–66	.58***	–
3. Social anxiety	23.75	8.54	8–40	.71***	.54***	–
4. State anxiety	16.92	10.85	0–40	.23 (ns)	.41**	.61***	–
5. Self‐perception of Performance	31.67	11.66	7–54	.16 (ns)	.32*	.45**	.70***	–
6. Rumination	21.48	14.67	0–51	.36*	.39**	.53***	.66***	.81***

Note. n = 48. DAA = doubts about actions; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 2. Regression weights for model a

Dependent variables	Independent variables	Estimate	SE	CR	p
Social anxiety	DAA	.71	.22	6.88	***
State anxiety	Social anxiety	.89	.19	5.85	***
	DAA	−.40	.41	−2.64	.008
Self‐perception of performance	State anxiety	.67	.15	4.78	***
	DAA	−.04	.45	−.24	.811
	Social anxiety	.07	.26	.34	.737
Rumination	Self‐perception of performance	.75	.12	8.17	***
	Social anxiety	.07	.22	.54	.588
	DAA	.19	.41	1.61	.108

Note. n = 48. CR = critical ratio; DAA = doubts about actions; SE = standard error.

***p < .001.

Table 3. Regression weights for model b

Dependent variables	Independent variables	Estimate	SE	CR	p
Social anxiety	SPP	.54	.08	4.45	***
State anxiety	Social anxiety	.55	.17	4.01	***
	SPP	.11	.12	.80	.425
Self‐perception of performance	State anxiety	.68	.14	5.15	***
	SPP	.04	.12	.31	.759
	Social anxiety	.01	.20	.09	.927
Rumination	Self‐perception of performance	.70	.11	7.73	***
	Social anxiety	.18	.18	1.79	.074
	SPP	.07	.11	.69	.489

Note. n = 48. CR = critical ratio; SE = standard error; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism.

***p < .001.

Table 4. Fit indices for models a and b

Models	χ^2 (df)	p	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	RMSEA (90%CI)
Model a	1.01 (1)	.32	1.00	.01	.01	.00 to .39
Model b	.22 (1)	.64	1.00	.01	.00	.00 to .30

Note. n = 48. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Figure 2. The final SEM model for the role of DAA in social anxiety and its cognitive processes (a). The final SEM model for the role of SPP in social anxiety and its cognitive processes (b).

Table 5. Indirect effects for mediation models

Mediation Model	Indirect effect		Bootstrapping
	Estimate	SE	BC 95% CI
			Lower	Upper
Model a
(a) DAA → SA → StA	1.68	.34	1.08	2.48
(b) DAA → SA → StA → PP	1.21	.36	.62	2.11
(c) DAA → SA → StA → PP → R	1.04	.31	.57	1.85
(d) DAA → SA → R	1.43	.35	.87	2.30
(e) DAA → PP → R	.45	.42	−.42	1.22
(f) DAA → SA → PP	1.34	.31	.83	2.06
(g) DAA → StA → PP	.46	.29	−.09	1.06
(h) DAA → StA → PP → R	.39	.25	−.08	.92
(i) SA → StA → PP	.57	.15	.32	.93
(j) SA → StA → PP → R	.48	.12	.29	.80
(k) StA → PP → R	.65	.13	.43	.96
(l) SA → PP → R	.54	.16	.27	.90
Model b
(a) SPP → SA → StA	.26	.10	.10	.48
(b) SPP → SA → StA → PP	.19	.09	.07	.44
(c) SPP → SA → StA → PP → R	.16	.07	.06	.35
(d) SPP → SA → R	.29	.10	.12	.52
(e) SPP → PP → R	.29	.11	.06	.51
(f) SPP → SA → PP	.19	.08	.05	.41
(g) SPP → StA → PP	.26	.08	.11	.45
(h) SPP → StA → PP → R	.22	.08	.09	.42

Note. n = 48. BC = bias‐corrected; DAA = doubts about actions; SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; SA = trait social anxiety; SE, standard error; StA = state anxiety; PP = self‐perception of performance; R = rumination. 5,000 bootstrap samples.