Skip to main content

Two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in Iranian general and clinical samples

Abstract

Background

Studies in Western cultures have shown that perfectionism is conceptualized by two-factor higher-order model including perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. However, little is known about the construct of perfectionism in Eastern societies. Thus, we examined the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in Iranian general and clinical samples.

Methods

We recruited a general population sample (n = 384) and patients with major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, and eating disorders (n = 152) from Tehran, Iran from September 2016 to December 2017. They completed the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire, Perfectionism Inventory, and Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21.

Results

The two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism showed adequate fit with data for females from the general population and clinical sample. Data for males were only available from the general population, and the model showed adequate fit with the data first after removing the Rumination scale of the perfectionistic concerns. The perfectionistic strivings dimension showed no or negative association with depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, but perfectionistic concerns dimension showed positive correlation with these indices in all samples for both males and females.

Conclusions

The results support the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in samples of Iranian females from the general population and clinical sample. However, the results were different for males from the general population. In other words, the modified two-factor higher-order model showed acceptable fit with the data for males from the general population only after removing the Rumination scale from perfectionistic concerns. These differences among males and females were discussed.

Peer Review reports

Background

A number of theoreticians discuss about conceptualization of perfectionism. Sigmund Freud [1] considered perfectionism as a unidimensional construct that was pathological in nature. Hamachek [2] was the first to introduce two types of perfectionism: normal and neurotic. He identified “normal perfectionists” as “those who derive a very real sense of pleasure from the labors of a painstaking effort and who feel free to be less precise as the situation permits” (p. 27). In contrast, he described neurotic perfectionists as “the people whose efforts never seem quite good enough. … they are unable to feel satisfaction because in their own eyes they never seem to do things good enough to warrant the feeling” (p. 27).

Following Hamachek [2], some researchers argued that perfectionism is multidimensional. Hewitt and Flett [3] identified Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP), Other Oriented Perfectionism (OOP), and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP). Also, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate [4] formulated perfectionism by a number of dimensions including Personal Standards (PS), Concern over Mistakes (CM), Doubt about Actions (DA), Parental Expectation (PE), Parental Criticism (PC), and Organization (Or). As an attempt to integrate views of Hewitt and Flett [3], and Frost et al. [4], Hill et al. [5] framed a model of perfectionism that captures Planfulness (Pl), Organization (Or), Striving for Excellence (SE), Concern over Mistakes (CM), Need for Approval (NA), High Standards for Others (HSO), Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP), and Rumination (Ru). These three research groups developed three separate measures to assess perfectionism based on their own model: Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) [4], Hewit Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS) [3], and Perfectionism Inventory [5].

The multidimensional conceptualization of perfectionism encountered two primary criticisms. First, factor analytic studies using these measures consistently showed that these dimensions loaded on two higher-order factors named “Perfectionistic Strivings” (PS), and “Perfectionistic Concerns” (PC) rather than multiple factors [6,7,8]. And these two higher order factors showed different patterns of relationship with indices of psychopathology and wellbeing. Perfectionistic concerns showed association with psychopathology indices such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms (see Egan et al. for a review [9]), and poorer health [10]. Perfectionistic strivings correlated positively with experience of positive affect [11, 12], but showed weak or negative relationship with psychopathology [13, 14]. These distinct relationship patterns are in line with two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism. In addition, patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) [15], Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) [16], Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) [17] and Eating Disorders (EDs) [18] scored higher on scales such as CM, DA, and SPP that constitute perfectionistic concerns than healthy control subjects. On the other hand, these studies did not find significant differences between clinical groups and healthy controls on scales such as SOP and PS that loaded on perfectionistic strivings. Second, some researchers suggested that various proposed dimensions (e.g. Parental Expectation, Parental Criticism, and Doubt about Actions) might be variables that simply correlate with perfectionism or outcome, but are not a genuine part of the perfectionism concept [13, 19, 20]. In addition, Stoeber and Damian [21] and Stoeber [22] discussed other oriented perfectionism is better considered as a form of perfectionism outside the two-factor model because it is directed at others.

Based on the second criticism, Shafran et al. [23] argued against multidimensional, and two-dimensional perspectives on perfectionism and introduced the concept of “clinical perfectionism” as a unidimensional construct. Clinical perfectionism referred to “the overdependence of self-evaluation on the determined pursuit of personally demanding, self-imposed standards in at least one highly salient domain, despite adverse consequences” [23] (p. 778). This definition was “strongly in favor of returning to a unidimensional approach to the study of perfectionism” [20] (p 1223) with heavy emphasis on the perfectionistic strivings. They devised a measure named Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ) to measure clinical perfectionism. However, exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies using the CPQ indicated that “clinical perfectionism” is better described by a two-dimensional approach: Personal Standards (PS) and Evaluative Concerns (EC) [21, 24, 25]. Finally, Egan et al. [26] reported that exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution for CPQ in both community and eating disorder samples.

Interestingly, most of the research concerning the construct of perfectionism come almost completely from Western cultures and little is known about the construct of perfectionism among Eastern societies. To our knowledge, a few studies compared the Eastern and Western samples in terms of perfectionism. Smith et al. [27] have made comparisons between Chinese and Canadian students with regard to the construct of perfectionism. They found that the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism (i.e., perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) fit with the data in both groups, and the path coefficients were invariant across Canadian and Chinese samples. A recent study compared Middle Eastern students with US students with regard to perfectionism [28]. The authors reported that Middle Eastern students scored significantly higher than US students on Parental Expectations and Self-Oriented Perfectionism. Given the mixed findings and some significant differences, it is not plausible to assume that findings on perfectionism construct in West always generalize to Eastern populations. Investigating the exact nature of a perfectionism within different cultural contexts has important theoretical, research-related, and clinical implications. It helps to understand and define the construct in a culturally sensitive manner, which in turn determine what should be measured in research and what must be targeted in clinical practice.

Thus, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the higher order factor of perfectionism among Iranian females and males from the general population, and patients with psychological problems in clinical settings. Based on the evidence on two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in Western cultures and findings of smith et al. [27], we predicted that perfectionism among Iranian general population and clinical sample consisted of two higher order factors: (1) Perfectionistic Strivings (PS) (consisted of Personal Standards from CPQ, as well as Organization, Striving for Excellence, and Planfulness from PI), and (2) Perfectionistic Concerns (PC) (consisted of Evaluative Concern from CPQ, as well as Concern over Mistakes, Need for Approval, and Rumination from PI). We omitted Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP) scale from the model based on the previous literature that announced it is not a genuine part of perfectionism [12, 13]. In addition, based on Stoeber [22] who showed other oriented perfectionism is better considered as a form of perfectionism outside the two-factor model, the High Standards for Others (HSO) scale was excluded from the model. We anticipated that the PC would positively correlate with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, while PS would show no relationship or significant negative relationship with these symptoms.

Methods

Participants

The present study was part of a larger cross-sectional project investigating the etiological and maintaining mechanisms of perfectionism through structural equation modeling. The participants were recruited from the general population and clinics. The general population sample included 403 participants (204 females) in Tehran, Iran. They were selected via proportional quota sampling based on the last census data of Statistical Center of Iran (Statistical Centre of Iran, 2011). Proportional quota sampling is a type of non-random sampling. It sometimes referred to as a non-probability sampling method. Proportional quota sampling is usually utilized in surveys and opinion polls, where the total number of people to be surveyed is typically decided in advance. In this method, the sample was split between distinct subgroups or strata. Inclusion criteria were being between 18- and 50-years old, having completed high school, and living in Tehran for at least 6 previous years. Nineteen participants had skipped more than 10% of the items. Therefore, the data of 384 subjects (187 females) were analyzed.

The clinical sample consisted of 152 patients with MDD (n = 40, females = 26), OCD (n = 39, females = 24), SAD (n = 35, females = 26), or EDs (n = 38 females, bulimia nervosa = 31, anorexia nervosa = 7).

Monte Carlo Simulation Studies suggest that SEM models could be safely evaluated with small samples [29].They generally proposed a sample size of 150 to 200 people is sufficient for confirmatory factor analysis studies. Therefore, in the present study, we determined the sample size of N = 400 for the general population and N = 150 for the clinical sample.

Material and procedure

The research procedure was approved by Ethical Review Board of University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation sciences. All participants provided written consent. In order to gather data from general population sample, five social workers selected participants according to quota sampling matrix from visitors in health centers, parks, and/or cultural houses of Tehran, Iran. Participants were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires.

The clinical sample consisted of patients referred to the first author (R.M.) by psychiatrists or clinical psychologists for an evaluation using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate in the study. They were asked to complete a series of questionnaires and to return them to the researchers within one week.

Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ)

The CPQ [30] assesses cognitive, emotional and behavioral components of clinical perfectionism over the past month by means of 12 items that are responded using a four-point Likert scale (from “not at all” to “all of the time”). A number of studies have demonstrated the validity and reliability of CPQ and indicated that the it captures two factors named Personal Standards (PS) and Evaluative Concern (EC) [25, 26]. The example of the items is as follow: “Have you been told that your standards are too high?” (PS factor); “Have you been afraid that you might not reach your standards?” (EC factor). As shown in the results section, Table 2, subscales of the CPQ showed acceptable McDonald's Omega coefficient. The CPQ can be seen in Additional file 1.

Perfectionism Inventory (PI)

Hill et al. [5] developed a 59-item PI in order to combine and capture the core structures of FMPS and HMPS. Subjects are asked to respond on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The PI consisted of 8 subscales including Concern over Mistakes (CM) (e.g., “To me, a mistake equals failure”), Need for Approval (NA) (e.g., “I am over-sensitive to the comments of others”), Rumination (Ru) (e.g., “If I make a mistake, my whole day is ruined”), High Standards for Others (HSO) (e.g., “I’m often critical of others”), Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP) (e.g., “My parents are difficult to please”,) Organization (Or) (e.g., “I like to always be organized and disciplined”), Planfulness (Pl) (e.g., “I find myself planning many of my decisions”), and Striving for Excellence (SE) (e.g., “I have to be the best in every assignment I do”). The exploratory principal components analysis resulted in a two higher order factor solution called “Conscientious Perfectionism” (based on Or, SE, Pl, and HSO) and “Evaluative Perfectionism” (based on CM, Ru, NA, and PPC). Jamshidi et al. [31] reported satisfactory structural validity, convergent validity, and internal consistency of the Persian version of PI. As illustrated in the results section, Table 2, all subscales of the PI showed acceptable to good McDonald's Omega coefficient. The PI can be seen in Additional file 1.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21)

The DASS-21 is a self-report instrument consisted of three subscales that measure symptoms of depression (e.g., “I felt down-hearted and blue”), anxiety (e.g., “I felt I was close to panic”), and stress (e.g., “I found myself getting agitated”) over the past week. Participants were asked to answer the items using a 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (apply to me very much) scale [32]. The Persian version of the DASS-21 has acceptable construct and convergent validity as well as internal consistency [33]. Internal consistency of DASS-21 and in its subscales in general population were as follow: DASS-21 total = 0.92; Depression = 0.85; Anxiety = 0.81; Stress = 0.83. Among clinical sample, internal consistency was as follow: DASS-21 total = 0.92; Depression = 0.84; Anxiety = 0.83; Stress = 0.87. The DASS-21 can be seen in Additional file 1

Statistical analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation and fixing a factor loading method was performed using AMOS 23 [34] to test the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism. To establish the fit of the model, we considered the χ2/df-ratio less than 3, as well as Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) with cut off ≥ 0.95 as acceptable [35]. We Also considered the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) with values ≤ 0.08 indicating adequate fit [35]. Internal consistency of subscales of CPQ and PI were assessed using McDonald's Omega coefficient. The association of PS and PC Higher order factors with indices of depression, anxiety, and stress were assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

Demographic information

In general population sample, the mean age of the males was 33.23 (SD = 9.18) and females 32.71 (SD = 9.78). The mean age of the four clinical groups were as follow: MDD = 29.87 (SD = 5.94); OCD = 31.25 (SD = 5.52); SAD = 28.37 (SD = 6.37); and EDs = 30.38 (SD = 5.55). Further demographic characteristics of general population and clinical sample are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic information for the sample from the general population and the clinical sample

Measurement model

In order to test the dimensionality of each subscale, independent CFA was performed to examine the measurement model of Concern over Mistakes, Need for Approval, Evaluative Concern, Rumination, Planfulness, Organization, Personal Standards, and Striving for Excellence subscales. All factor loadings of the models were significant and all subscales showed unidimensional construct. The McDonald's Omega of the subscales ranged from 0.75 to 0.86 showing satisfactory internal consistency (Table 2).

Table 2 Measurement model and McDonald's Omega of subscales

Confirmatory factor analysis of two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism

Analysis of clinical data showed that two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism with a from perfectionistic strivings higher order factor (including Planfulness, Organization, Personal Standards, and Striving for Excellence subscales) and perfectionistic concerns higher order factor (including Concern over Mistakes, Need for Approval, Evaluative Concern, and Rumination subscales) showed adequate fit (χ2(19, N = 152) = 34.01, p = 0.02, χ2/df-ratio = 1.79, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.02, 0.10]), and SRMR = 0.05) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Higher order two dimensional model of perfectionism in the clinical sample. CPQ Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire, PI perfectionism inventory, SRW standardized regression weight, *p < 0.01

In the sample from the general population the two-factor higher-order model resulted in poor fit (χ2(19, N = 384) = 246.62, p < 0.0001, χ2/df-ratio = 12.98, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.75, IFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.14, 90% CI [0.12, 0.16], and SRMR = 0.11). Scrutinizing data indicated that the factor loading of the Rumination scale on perfectionistic concerns was not significant (t = 1.89, p = 0.08). Conducting CFA without Rumination scale resulted in relatively adequate fit (χ2(13, N = 384) = 67.86, p < 0.0001, χ2/df-ratio = 5.22, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.07, 0.12]). Given the evidence for the gender differences on rumination [36], we decided to run the CFA separately for males and females.

The two-factor higher-order model for females from the general population showed good fit (χ2(19, N = 187) = 50.92, p < 0.0001, χ2/df-ratio = 2.68, GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.88, IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.05, 0.12], SRMR = 0.06) (Fig. 2). On the other hand, CFA of a corresponding model for males indicated lack of fit (χ2(19, N = 197) = 115.9, p < 0.001, χ2/df-ratio = 6.10, GFI = 0.89, AGFI = 0.77, IFI = 0.85, CFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.16, 90% CI [0.13, 0.19], and SRMR = 0.11). Rumination scale was the source of problem as its factor loading on Perfectionistic Concerns was not significant (t = 1.20, p = 0.22). After removing the Rumination scale, model for males showed good fit with data (χ2(13, N = 197) = 37.05, p < 0.001, χ2/df-ratio = 2.85, GFI = 0.95, AGFI = 0.89, IFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.09, 90% CI [0.06, 0.13]), and SRMR = 0.09 (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure2

Higher order two dimensional model of perfectionism among women from general population. CPQ Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire, PI perfectionism inventory, SRW standardized regression weight, *p < 0.01

Fig. 3
figure3

Modified higher order two dimensional model of perfectionism among general population men. CPQ Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire, PI perfectionism inventory, SRW standardized regression weight, *p < 0.01

Relationship of Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns with depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms

In order to test the relationship pattern of Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns with depression, anxiety, and stress the Pearson correlation coefficient was used (Table 3). Among females from general population and clinical samples, Perfectionistic Strivings was not significantly correlated with depression, anxiety, stress and DASS-21 total scores. However, among males from general population, Perfectionistic Strivings showed negative significant correlation with indices of depression, anxiety, stress, and DASS total scores. In all three groups, Perfectionistic Concerns was significantly associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and DASS-21 total scores.

Table 3 Correlation of personal standards and evaluative concerns with depression, anxiety, stress and DASS-21 total scores

Discussion

Testing—rather that assuming- the generalizability of the psychological models that have been developed in Western cultures is a clinical and research necessity. Researchers and clinicians would have access to standardized and culturally sensitive measures derived from those models, which contributes to more reliable and valid research and clinical practice. If researchers and practitioners simply assume the cross-cultural generalizability of the models, they may ignore the unique characteristics of the cultural contexts [27]. Thus, the primary aim of the present study was to explore the higher order dimensions of perfectionism in Iranian general population and clinical samples. As far as we know, this was the third study that investigate the construct of perfectionism concept in an Eastern society after smith et al. [6] and Walton et al. [28].

The results of CFA for females from the general population and clinical sample showed that two-factor higher-order model (consisting of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) fit with data. These results are consistent with previous researches that support a two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in various Western populations [4, 6,7,8]. These findings implied that the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism was generalizable to Iranian females from both the general population and clinical samples. However, the results were slightly different for males from the general population. The CFA showed that the modified two-factor higher-order model showed acceptable fit with the data for males only after removing the Rumination scale from perfectionistic concerns. In other words, among Iranian males from the general population rumination does not make a significant contribution to perfectionistic concerns. Jamshidi and colleagues [31] found that among Iranian high school students (149 females and 164 males) Rumination did not load on perfectionistic concerns in their factor analysis of higher order structure of Perfectionism Inventory. Unfortunately, they did not report the results of male and female students separately. Consistent with our findings, a more recent study of Iranian female college students (n = 832) indicated that Rumination has most robust factor loading on perfectionistic concerns [37]. Although a gender difference in rumination has been shown in previous researches in other contexts [36, 38], the findings in our study might also to some extent reflect a paternal culture within which rumination is considered a female habit, and males are encouraged not to think too much about past events, future uncertainties, or failures. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any previous study of the higher order construct of perfectionism among other Eastern or Middle-East populations. The construct of perfectionistic concerns might in essence be different among Iranian men. While perfectionistic males and females are similarly concerned about their future failures or mistakes (e.g., Concern over Mistakes, and Evaluative Concern subscales), and they are very sensitive to others’ opinion on their achievements or failures (e.g., Need for Approval subscale), it seems that males are less prone to think about mistakes than females (e.g., Item 24 of the PI “If I make a mistake, my whole day is ruined”). Thus, future researches should further explore gender differences in construct of perfectionistic concerns in Eastern societies. One question that remains unanswered is whether rumination is a central component of perfectionism or simply a correlate. This question was already raised in relation to other dimensions of perfectionism (e.g. Parental Expectation, Parental Criticism, and Doubt about Actions) [13, 19, 23]. Therefore, future research should investigate the precise role of rumination with regard to perfectionism and its dimensions.

The pattern of relationships of Perfectionistic Concerns and Perfectionistic Strivings dimensions with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress verified the two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in Iran. Among females from the general population and clinical sample, the Perfectionistic Strivings showed no relationship with psychopathological indices. While, among males from the general population, the Perfectionistic Strivings correlated with lower level of depression, anxiety, and stress. This pattern of correlations is highly consistent with findings of previous studies on Western cultures [9, 14, 39]. In addition, the findings might suggest the cross-cultural consistency of the perfectionism in Western and Iranian populations. On the other hand, the different relationship pattern of Perfectionistic Strivings with psychopathological indices among males and females might be due to the differences in social expectations on Iranian males and females. Traditionally, Iranian culture expects males to have high goals and standards on education, work, and money-making so they could take on full financial responsibility for their family. While increasing opportunities to professional and educational achievement for females are provided nowadays, some cultural norms still expect females to concentrate on traditional female roles (i.e., raising children and taking care of the household). Males are to a higher extent encouraged to achieve high perfectionistic standards. Another potential explanation might be that some self-report instruments of perfectionism are based on the societal norms for middle class white males, while other instruments such as those capturing body image are typically developed based on norms for middle class white females. Consequently, the former instruments might fail to capture the contextually specific targets of perfectionism that might be more specific to traditionally female than male roles, and thus produce gender differences that are an artifact of measurement. Perfectionistic Concerns significantly correlated with depression, anxiety and stress among both general population and clinical sample.

A notable strength of the study is the size of the samples from the general and clinical populations. However, the results should be interpreted with regard to its limitations. First, the study carried out among those between 20 and 50 years old and could not be generalizable to Iranian younger and older people. Second, in light of the lack of valid information about reliability and validity of Persian version of HMPS and FMPS, we could not use these measures in the present study. Lack for such instruments hindered us to assess the construct of perfectionism in a comprehensive manner in Iranian population. In addition, our results cannot be adequately compared with previous literature that used HMPS and FMPS. Therefore, future researches should concentrate on investigating psychometric properties of HMPS and FMPS and then replicate this study with those instruments. Third, the absence of measures of wellbeing or life satisfaction was another limitation of the study. Examining relationship of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns with wellbeing, quality of life, or social adjustment indices would clarify more functional or dysfunctional nature of each dimension of perfectionism. Thus, future researches should investigate the relationship pattern of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns with wellbeing, quality of life, or social adjustment indices. Lastly, we could not compare the higher-order model of perfectionism among males and females of clinical sample because of small sample size of males in clinical sample. Gender differences might be highly present and culturally different from one culture to another. Therefore, future studies should investigate potential gender differences in clinical groups.

Conclusion

The main conclusion of this research is that perfectionism could be conceptualized by two-factor higher-order model including perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns among Iranian women of general population and clinical samples. However, the results indicated that among Iranian men of general population, Rumination might not be a genuine component of the perfectionistic concerns. Therefore, future research should explore the precise role of Rumination in the perfectionism. The results of the present study indirectly implied that parents and teachers should pay attention to the differences of positive and negative perfectionism and try their best to form positive perfectionism in the children. Also, current findings can help Iranian researchers and psychotherapists to assess and conceptualize negative and positive perfectionism astutely.

Availability of data and materials

University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences has approved and supported that only researchers of the manuscript will have access to the dataset, so the data used in this study is not available for public view. Still, requests can be written officially to the university.

Abbreviations

SOP:

Self-oriented perfectionism

OOP:

Other oriented perfectionism

SPP:

Socially prescribed perfectionism

PS:

Personal standards

CM:

Concern over mistakes

DA:

Doubt about actions

PE:

Parental expectation

PC:

Parental criticism

Or:

Organization

SE:

Striving for excellence

NA:

Need for approval

HSO:

High standards for others

PPP:

Perceived parental pressure

Ru:

Rumination

FMPS:

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

HMPS:

Hewit Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

PS:

Perfectionistic strivings

PC:

Perfectionistic concerns

MDD:

Major depressive disorder

SAD:

Social anxiety disorder

OCD:

Obsessive–compulsive disorder

EDs:

Eating disorders

CPQ:

Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire

PS:

Personal standards

EC:

Evaluative concerns

DASS-21:

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

GFI:

Goodness-of-Fit Index

AGFI:

Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index

IFI:

Incremental Fit Index

CFI:

Comparative Fit Index

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

SRMR:

Standardized root mean square residual

References

  1. 1.

    Freud S. Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. In: Strachey j, editor. Ed and Trans: The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. 20. London: Hogarth; 1926/1959. p. 77–175.

  2. 2.

    Hamachek DE. Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychol J Hum Behav. 1978;15:27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hewitt PL, Flett GL. Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60:465–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Frost RO, Marten P, Lahart CM, Rosenblate R. The dimensions of perfectionism. Cogn Ther Res. 1990;14:449–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hill RW, Huelsman TJ, Furr RM, Kibler J, Vicente BB, Kennedy C. A new measure of perfectionism: the perfectionism inventory. J Pers Assess. 2004;82(1):80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bieling P, Summerfeldt L, Israeli A, Antony M. Perfectionism as an explanatory construct in comorbidity of axis I disorders. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2004;26(3):193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dunkley DM, Blankstein KR, Berg JL. Perfectionism dimensions and the five-factor model of personality. Eur J Pers. 2011;26:233–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dunkley DM, Blanksteinc KR, Mashebd RM, Grilo CM. Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of ‘“clinical”’ perfectionism: A reply to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behav Res Therapy. 2006;44:63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Egan SJ, Wade TD, Shafran R. Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: a clinical review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31(2):203–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Molnar DS, Reker DL, Culp NA, Sadava SW, DeCourville NH. A mediated model of perfectionism, affect, and physical health. J Res Pers. 2006;40(5):482–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bieling PJ, Israeli A, Smith J, Antony MM. Making the grade: the behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Pers Individ Differ. 2003;35(1):163–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Stoeber J, Otto K. Positive conceptions of perfectionism: approaches, evidence, challenges. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(4):295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Stoeber J. The psychology of perfectionism: theory, research, applications. London: Routledge; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dunkley DM, Blankstein KR, Berg J-L. Perfectionism dimensions and the five-factor model of personality. Eur J Pers. 2012;26(3):233–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sassaroli S, Lauro LJR, Ruggiero GM, Mauri MC, Vinai P, Frost R. Perfectionism in depression, obsessive–compulsive disorder and eating disorders. Behav Res Ther. 2008;46:757–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lundh L-G. Perfectionism and acceptance. J Rational-Emot Cognitive-Behav Ther. 2004;22(4):251–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Frost RO, Steketee G. Perfectionism in obsessive–compulsive disorder patients. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35(4):291–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bulik CM, Sullivan PF, Kendler KS. Genetic and environmental contributions to obesity and binge eating. Int J Eat Disord. 2003;33:293–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Damian LE, Stoeber J, Negru O, Băban A. On the development of perfectionism in adolescence: perceived parental expectations predict longitudinal increases in socially prescribed perfectionism. Pers Individ Differ. 2013;55(6):688–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hewitt PL, Flett GL, Besser A, Sherry SB, McGee B. Perfectionism is multidimensional: a reply to Shafran, Cooper and Fairburn. Behav Res Ther. 2003;41(10):1221–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Stoeber J, Damian LE. The Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire: further evidence for two factors capturing perfectionistic strivings and concerns. Pers Individ Differ. 2014;61(3):38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Stoeber J. How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2014;36(2):329–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Shafran Z, Cooper Z, Fairburn CG. Clinical perfectionism: a cognitive–behavioural analysis. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40:773–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dickie L, Surgenor LJ, Wilson M, McDowall J. The structure and reliability of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire. Pers Individ Differ. 2012;52:865–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Moloodi R, Pourshahbaz A, Mohammadkhani P, Fata L, Ghaderi A. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire: findings from a clinical and non-clinical sample in Iran. Pers Individ Differ. 2017;119:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Egan SJ, Shafran R, Lee M, Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Doll HA, et al. The reliability and validity of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire in eating disorder and community samples. Behav Cogn Psychotherapy. 2016;44(1):79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Smith MM, Saklofske DH, Yan G, Sherry SB. Cultural similarities in perfectionism. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2015;49(1):63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Walton GE, Hibbard DR, Coughlin C, Coyl-Shepherd DD. Parenting, personality, and culture as predictors of perfectionism. Curr Psychol. 2020;39(2):681–93.

  29. 29.

    Kyriazos TA. Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology. 2018;9(08):2207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. The clinical perfectionism questionnaire. 2003.

  31. 31.

    Jamshidy B, Hosseinchari M, Haghighat S, Razmi MR. Validation of new measure of perfectionism. J Behav Sci. 2009;3(1):35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lovibond S, Lovibond P. Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney: Psychology Foundation; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Asghari A, Saed F, Dibajnia P. Psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a non-clinical Iranian sample. Daneshvar Raftar. 2008;2(2):82–102.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Arbuckle JL. Amos 23.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Brown TA, Arbuckle JL. Amos (version 23.0). Chicago: Guilford publications; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Johnson DP, Whisman MA. Gender differences in rumination: a meta-analysis. Pers Individ Differ. 2013;55(4):367–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Aliv MM, Hashemi Nosratabad T, Khanjani Z, Bakhshipour-Radsari A, Jabari S. Psychometric properties of the new version of the inventory of perfectionism in Iranian adolescent girls. J Appl Psychol. 2014;8(1):119–38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Rood L, Roelofs J, Bögels SM, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Schouten E. The influence of emotion-focused rumination and distraction on depressive symptoms in non-clinical youth: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29(7):607–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Molnar DS, Flett GL, Sadava SW, Colautti J. Perfectionism and health functioning in women with fibromyalgia. J Psychosom Res. 2012;73(4):295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Muhammed Hussein Mousavinasab for editing this text.

Funding

University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences financially supported this research, Grant Number 94/801/T/ 26318. However, the university had no role in designing, gathering and analyzing the data, and preparing the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AP, PM, LF, and AG designed and supervised the research. RM conducted the study. Also, RM analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abbas Pourshahbaz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants signed a written consent. The research procedure was approved by the ethics committee of University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Consent for publication

Identifiable demographic information has been removed from this manuscript to ensure anonymity. Thus, the consent to publish is not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no actual or potential conflicts of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within 3 years of beginning the work submitted that could inappropriately influence their work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire, Perfectionism Inventory, and Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moloodi, R., Pourshahbaz, A., Mohammadkhani, P. et al. Two-factor higher-order model of perfectionism in Iranian general and clinical samples. BMC Psychol 9, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00529-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Perfectionism
  • Perfectionistic strivings
  • Perfectionistic concerns
  • Higher order construct
  • Iran