Arts, Faculty of
Psychology, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Ko, Ariel Hoi Ching
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Perfectionism is a multidimensional and multifaceted personality construct requiring the self to be perfect or appear to be perfect. It is a personality vulnerability factor to a host of clinical and non-clinical problems. However, to date, not much is known about how perfectionism develops. The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) proposes a developmental framework for perfectionism. It posits that perfectionism arises from an asynchrony between the parent and the child. Asynchrony happens when a parent’s responsiveness and nurturance do not align with a child’s needs, and this can occur when caregivers engage in maladaptive parenting styles. Repeated experiences of asynchrony are theorized to give rise to attachment insecurities and foster perfectionism. The PSDM has received some empirical support, but most studies were conducted on adults and used a cross-sectional design. To address these research gaps, the current study employs a longitudinal design over a period of 2 years to investigate how perfectionism develops in children and adolescents aged 8 to 15 years. The general goal of the study is to determine whether maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment are developmental antecedents of perfectionism. Specifically, the primary aim of the study is to test a specific developmental pathway outlined by the PSDM, which posits that insecure attachment mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism. To achieve this, 107 parent-child dyads were recruited and asked to complete self-reported measures of parenting, attachment, and perfectionism at three time points, each spaced approximately one year apart. Study findings showed that maladaptive parenting and insecure attachment were associated with perfectionism concurrently and longitudinally. More importantly, parental psychological control directly predicted perfectionism, and uninvolved parenting indirectly contributed to perfectionism through insecure attachment, two years later. Exploratory analyses of specific paths in the mediation models showed that the mediation pathway likely did not vary by gender or age. The results provide both theoretical and clinical implications, offering empirical support for the PSDM while identifying areas for refinement. Furthermore, study results lay the groundwork for informing practical interventions to support children and adolescents with perfectionism.
THE EFFECTS OF MALADAPTIVE PARENTING AND INSECURE ATTACHMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERFECTIONISM IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A 2-YEAR LONGITUDINAL MEDIATION ANALYSIS by ARIEL HOI CHING KO B.A., University of British Columbia, 2017 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2019 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2025 © Ariel Hoi Ching Ko, 2025 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: The Effects of Maladaptive Parenting and Insecure Attachment on the Development of Perfectionism in Children and Adolescents: A 2-Year Longitudinal Mediation Analysis submitted by Ariel Hoi Ching Ko in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Examining Committee: Paul L. Hewitt, Professor, Psychology, UBC Supervisor David Kealy, Associate Professor, Psychiatry, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Susan Birch, Associate Professor, Psychology, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Frances Chen, Professor, Psychology, UBC University Examiner Daniel Cox, Professor, Counselling Psychology, UBC University Examiner Lavinia Damian, Professor, Psychology, Babeș-Bolyai University External Examiner iii Abstract Perfectionism is a multidimensional and multifaceted personality construct requiring the self to be perfect or appear to be perfect. It is a personality vulnerability factor to a host of clinical and non-clinical problems. However, to date, not much is known about how perfectionism develops. The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) proposes a developmental framework for perfectionism. It posits that perfectionism arises from an asynchrony between the parent and the child. Asynchrony happens when a parent’s responsiveness and nurturance do not align with a child’s needs, and this can occur when caregivers engage in maladaptive parenting styles. Repeated experiences of asynchrony are theorized to give rise to attachment insecurities and foster perfectionism. The PSDM has received some empirical support, but most studies were conducted on adults and used a cross-sectional design. To address these research gaps, the current study employs a longitudinal design over a period of 2 years to investigate how perfectionism develops in children and adolescents aged 8 to 15 years. The general goal of the study is to determine whether maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment are developmental antecedents of perfectionism. Specifically, the primary aim of the study is to test a specific developmental pathway outlined by the PSDM, which posits that insecure attachment mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism. To achieve this, 107 parent-child dyads were recruited and asked to complete self-reported measures of parenting, attachment, and perfectionism at three time points, each spaced approximately one year apart. Study findings showed that maladaptive parenting and insecure attachment were associated with perfectionism concurrently and longitudinally. More importantly, parental psychological control directly predicted perfectionism, and uninvolved parenting indirectly contributed to perfectionism through insecure attachment, two years later. iv Exploratory analyses of specific paths in the mediation models showed that the mediation pathway likely did not vary by gender or age. The results provide both theoretical and clinical implications, offering empirical support for the PSDM while identifying areas for refinement. Furthermore, study results lay the groundwork for informing practical interventions to support children and adolescents with perfectionism. v Lay Summary Perfectionism is the need to be or appear to be perfect, and research has shown that it negatively impacts people’s mental health and quality of life. However, not much is known about how perfectionism develops. The current study looks at how certain parenting practices and insecure attachment (i.e., unhealthy relationships with the self and others) affect perfectionism in children and adolescents. Findings showed that parents who practice psychological control (i.e., attempts to control the child through guilt or pressure) are likely to foster children with perfectionism two years later. Additionally, parents who are uninvolved are more likely to have children with perfectionism two years later, but only if the child develops insecure attachment. Results from the study not only help us better understand how perfectionism develops but can also inform effective treatment for children and adolescents dealing with perfectionism. vi Preface This dissertation is based on work conducted in the Perfectionism and Psychotherapy Lab at the University of British Columbia. All work presented is original, unpublished, and independently completed by the author, Ariel Hoi Ching Ko, under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Paul L. Hewitt. This study has been approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H16-01699). Ariel Hoi Ching Ko was the lead on this research project, conducting all data collection, completing all data analyses, and writing all versions of the dissertation. Generative AI (ChatGPT) was used to review and refine sentences and paragraphs for clarity and grammatical correctness. All final interpretations, analyses, and conclusions are entirely the author’s own, reflecting an original thought process and upholding academic integrity. Dr. Hewitt provided supervision, reviewed drafts of the dissertation, and provided feedback and edits. The R codes used in the analyses were checked by Yingchi Guo, a statistical consultant in the Department of Psychology. The dissertation is distinct from Ariel Hoi Ching Ko’s master’s thesis, which only focused on Time 1 data from this study. Data from the master’s thesis is not included in the current dissertation. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Perfectionism: A Multidimensional and Multifaceted Construct ............................................... 4 Trait Perfectionism ................................................................................................................. 5 Perfectionistic Self-Presentational Styles ............................................................................... 6 Intrapersonal or Self-Relational Perfectionism ...................................................................... 8 Perfectionism in Children and Adolescents ................................................................................ 9 The Cost of Perfectionism ..................................................................................................... 10 Perfectionism and Psychopathology ..................................................................................... 11 A Developmental Model of Perfectionism: The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model . 15 The Link Between Parenting and Perfectionism – Empirical Support ................................. 19 Authoritarian Parenting ..................................................................................................... 20 Permissive and Neglectful Parenting ................................................................................ 21 Parental Psychological Control ......................................................................................... 22 viii Perfectionistic Parenting (Anxious Rearing) .................................................................... 25 Parental Expectations and Criticism ................................................................................. 26 Parental Autonomy Support .............................................................................................. 27 The Influence of Attachment on Perfectionism – Empirical Support ................................... 28 Existing Empirical Evidence on the PSDM .......................................................................... 32 The Current Study ..................................................................................................................... 35 Goals and Hypotheses........................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 40 Methods..................................................................................................................................... 40 Research Design ................................................................................................................... 40 Power Analysis...................................................................................................................... 40 Participants ........................................................................................................................... 41 Time 1 (Baseline) .............................................................................................................. 42 Time 2 (One-Year Follow-Up) ......................................................................................... 43 Time 3 (Two-Year Follow-Up) ........................................................................................ 44 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 47 Measures ............................................................................................................................... 47 Youth Measures ................................................................................................................ 48 Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS) ............................................................. 48 Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale-Junior Form (PSPS-Jr) .................................. 49 Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory-Kids (PCI-Kids) ................................................. 50 Perception of Parents Scale-Child Scale (POPS-C) .................................................... 51 ix Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale (DAPCS) ....................................................................................................................... 52 Attachment Style Classification Questionnaire for Latency Age Children (ASCQ) ..... 53 Parent Measures ................................................................................................................ 54 Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Version (PSDQ-Short Version)....................................................................................................................................... 54 Data Analytic Plan ................................................................................................................ 55 Attrition and Missing Data................................................................................................ 56 Outliers and Normality ..................................................................................................... 58 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 59 Correlational Analyses ...................................................................................................... 59 Time-Lagged Mediation Models ...................................................................................... 59 Moderated Mediation Analyses ........................................................................................ 61 Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 63 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 63 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................. 63 Research Question 1: Correlation Analyses ......................................................................... 66 Hypothesis 1: Associations Within Time ......................................................................... 66 Time 1............................................................................................................................ 66 Time 2............................................................................................................................ 66 Time 3............................................................................................................................ 67 Hypothesis 2: Maladaptive Parenting and Perfectionism Across Time............................ 71 Hypothesis 3: Insecure Attachment and Perfectionism Across Time ............................... 72 x Research Question 2: Time-Lagged Mediational Effects ..................................................... 73 Hypothesis 4: Authoritarian Parenting as Predictor.......................................................... 73 Hypothesis 5: Parental Psychological Control as Predictor .............................................. 78 Hypothesis 6: Uninvolved Parenting as Predictor ............................................................ 84 Research Question 3: Moderated Mediation ........................................................................ 91 Hypothesis 7: Gender as Moderator ................................................................................. 91 Hypothesis 8: Age as Moderator....................................................................................... 91 Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 93 Links Between Maladaptive Parenting, Insecure Attachment, and Perfectionism ............... 95 Authoritarian Parenting and Perfectionism ....................................................................... 96 Parental Psychological Control and Perfectionism ........................................................... 98 Uninvolved Parenting and Perfectionism ......................................................................... 99 Insecure Attachment and Perfectionism ......................................................................... 101 Mediational Pathways in the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM)........... 103 Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Authoritarian Parenting and Perfectionism......................................................................................................................................... 103 Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Parental Psychological Control and Perfectionism .................................................................................................................. 104 Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Uninvolved Parenting and Perfectionism 105 Exploring Gender and Age as Moderators ......................................................................... 107 Reevaluating the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) .............................. 109 Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................................... 111 xi Future Directions ................................................................................................................ 113 Clinical Implications ........................................................................................................... 115 Adapting Dynamic-Relational Therapy (DRT) for Children and Adolescents .............. 115 The Role of Teachers in Intervention ............................................................................. 118 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 119 References .................................................................................................................................. 121 Appendix A: Correlations Among Study Variables and Youth Age and Gender .............. 161 xii List of Tables Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Child and Adolescent Participants Across Time Points....................................................................................................................................................... 45 Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Parent Participants Across Time Points ..................... 46 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Across Time Points ......................................... 65 Table 4 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 1 (N = 107)........................................................................................................................... 68 Table 5 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles, Insecure Attachment, and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 2 (N = 66) ......................................................................... 69 Table 6 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles, Insecure Attachment, and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 3 (N = 49) ......................................................................... 70 Table 7 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles at Time 1 and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 2 and Time 3 ............................................................................................. 72 Table 8 Correlations Among Insecure Attachment at Time 2 and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 3............................................................................................................................................ 73 Table 9 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Authoritarian Parenting (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) ....................................................................................... 74 Table 10 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Parental Psychological Control (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) ........................................................................................ 80 Table 11 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Uninvolved Parenting (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) ....................................................................................... 87 xiii List of Figures Figure 1 The Developmental Component of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2 Time-Lagged Mediation Models..................................................................................... 60 Figure 3 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism ................................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 4 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism ................................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 5 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion ..................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 6 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 7 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 8 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions....................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 9 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism....................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 10 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism ................................................................................................................................ 81 Figure 11 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion ..................................................................................................................................... 82 xiv Figure 12 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 13 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 14 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions....................................................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 15 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism ................................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 16 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism ................................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 17 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion ..................................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 18 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 19 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 20 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions....................................................................................................................................................... 90 xv Acknowledgements To Paul, I could not have asked for a better supervisor. I feel incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with and learn from you. Your brilliance, dedication, and support have profoundly shaped my research, clinical work, and personal growth. From my very first Psychology 100 lecture with you to the completion of this dissertation, you have been more than just a supervisor—you have been a mentor, an inspiration, and a pillar of knowledge and encouragement. Your patience, insight, and commitment to fostering my development have been invaluable, and I am deeply grateful for all that you have taught me. Thank you for your guidance and belief in me throughout this long journey. To mom and dad, your unwavering support—from early morning drives to the bus stop to picking me up at all hours and always ensuring I had warm, home-cooked meals—has made all the difference. The stable and nurturing home you provided allowed me to focus, grow, and thrive academically. I am forever grateful for your unconditional love and endless support. To my sister, brother, and friends, whenever you asked what I have been up to, this is what I have been working on for the past eight years. Thank you for keeping life fun and interesting and for reminding me that there is more to life than grad school. To Oliver Scarr, the one person outside of academia who is genuinely interested in my research, thank you for being my biggest cheerleader and for your emotional support throughout this dissertation journey. You have expanded my horizons and inspired me to embrace a life that is authentically and intrinsically my own. With you, everything feels possible. Finally, to all the research assistants and participants, this study would not have been possible without you. Thank you for your time, effort, and invaluable contributions to this research. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Perfectionism is a complex, detrimental, and pervasive personality orientation. What began as a concept relating to morality and human goodness has progressed into decades of research to define, understand, measure, and ultimately treat those suffering from perfectionism. There are several competing theories of the nature of perfectionism, including those by Frost et al. (1990), Hamachek (1978), Gaudreau and Thompson (2010), Hewitt et al. (2017), Rice and Ashby (2007), and Stoeber and Childs (2012). This study adopts the Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behaviour (CMPB) proposed by Hewitt et al. (2017) due to its global influence, widely used measures in children, adolescents, and adults, and strong empirical foundation. The Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behaviour provides a multidimensional and multifaceted approach to conceptualizing perfectionism. The CMPB distinguishes three distinct but interrelated components: trait dimensions of perfectionism (i.e., personality dispositions), perfectionistic self-presentational styles (i.e., interpersonal expressions of perfectionism), and intrapersonal or self-relational elements (i.e., one’s relationship with oneself). Perfectionism is a rich and complex construct in which individuals can present with various facets of perfectionism to differing degrees and patterns. The complexity of perfectionism is further demonstrated through its relational quality with the self and others, creating a “paradox” where the feared situation (e.g., perceived or actual rejection and/or failure) is enacted by engaging in perfectionistic tendencies and behaviours that are distancing and off-putting (Hewitt et al., 2017). Perfectionism has been described as “a problem in living” (p. 8) or a core vulnerability factor that affects not only the individual but also the people around them (Flett & Hewitt, 2020). Many individuals with perfectionism struggle to accept failures and mistakes, which makes it 2 difficult for them to practice self-compassion and forgiveness. Interpersonally, perfectionism can interfere with how one connects with others, often resulting in social disconnection (Chen et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2020). The internal world of someone with perfectionism is likened to “tortured souls” (Hofmann et al., 2012, p. 1332), where the pursuit of an ideal self is unattainable. This leads to a relentless cycle of chasing absolute excellence and the inevitable dissatisfaction that comes from perfection. Perfectionism extends beyond being “a problem in living” (Flett & Hewitt, 2020, p. 8); it has been identified as a core personality vulnerability factor for a range of psychological and physical issues across the lifespan (for reviews, see Egan et al., 2011; Hewitt et al., 2017; Sirois & Molnar, 2016). The perniciousness of perfectionism is no longer a phenomenon only observed in North America. Research on the detrimental effects of perfectionism has been reported in the United Kingdom (e.g., Coleman et al., 2022; Evans et al., 2022; O’Connor et al., 2014), Portugal (e.g., Bento et al., 2017; Teixeira et al., 2016), Spain (e.g., Castro et al., 2004; Ingles et al., 2016; Pamies & Quiles, 2014; Vicent et al., 2017), Italy (e.g., Curzio et al., 2018; Czepczor-Bernat et al., 2022; Vecchione & Vacca, 2021), Israel (e.g., Bachner-Melman et al., 2007; Freudenstein et al., 2012; Zohar et al., 2005), Turkey (e.g., Akkaya, 2017; Bas & Siyez, 2010), Poland (e.g., Romanowicz et al., 2018), Romania (e.g., Damian et al., 2017; Negru-Subtirica et al., 2023), Bosnia and Herzegovina (e.g., Cerkez & Efendic-Spahic, 2021), Iran (e.g., Chasetareh et al., 2022), Ecuador (e.g., Vicent et al., 2020; Vicent et al., 2022), Argentina (e.g., Oros et al., 2019), Australia (e.g., Choy & McInerney, 2005; Finch et al., 2023; Hamilton & Schweitzer, 2000; Tape, 2021), New Zealand (e.g., Hnat, 2018; Sotardi & Dubien, 2019), China (e.g., Li et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang & Cai, 2012), Korea (e.g., Lee & Park, 2011; Seong et al., 2022; Kwon, 2020), Singapore (e.g., Hong et al., 2017), Malaysia (e.g., Abdollahi et al., 2017; Aik et 3 al., 2020), and the Philippines (e.g., Reyes & McCutcheon, 2015). From the extensive international research on perfectionism, it is clear that problems with perfectionism affect people globally. The high costs associated with perfectionism, its cross-cultural influence, and the observed rise in perfectionism traits among young adults (Curran & Hill, 2019) and children and adolescents (Ko et al., in preparation) in Western countries over the past three decades highlight the importance of gaining a better understanding of how perfectionism develops. Various models explain the development of perfectionism, including the Social Expectations Model, Social Learning Model, Social Reaction Model, Anxious Rearing Model, and Overvaluation Model (Flett & Hewitt, 2022). Although these models emphasize different pathways to the emergence of perfectionism, the underlying process involves the child’s early experiences with their parents or significant adults. This is in line with theorists such as Karen Horney (1942), W. Hugh Missildine (1963), Marc Hollender (1965), and Don Hamachek (1978), who have all alluded that the early parent-child relationship plays a crucial role in the development of perfectionism. Expanding on earlier models of perfectionism development, the developmental component of Hewitt et al.’s (2017) Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) incorporates theories on early childhood experiences, attachment, self-psychology, and aversive affective states in understanding how perfectionism develops within an early relational context. Although empirical support exists for various mechanisms within the developmental portion of the PSDM (e.g., Chen et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2019), research has primarily focused on adults. The only study to date that examined the PSDM’s developmental pathway of perfectionism in children and adolescents is Ko (2019), who found that insecure attachment mediated the relationship between uninvolved parenting and various facets of perfectionism in a 4 cross-sectional study. Moreover, perfectionism researchers have predominantly focused on trait dimensions of perfectionism, overlooking other components such as perfectionistic self-presentation and intrapersonal components of perfectionism. Consequently, there is a disproportionate lack of empirical knowledge about the processes by which various facets of perfectionism develop among children and adolescents. The current study investigates the PSDM’s developmental framework of perfectionism over two years in a sample of parent-child dyads. Longitudinal mediation analysis—specifically, time-lagged mediation models—is used to examine the indirect effects of maladaptive parenting styles1 on various dimensions of perfectionism through insecure attachment. This study aims to enhance our understanding of the influence that early parent-child relationships and attachment have on the development of perfectionism. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply a longitudinal research design, utilizing both parent and child reports, to examine all components of the CMPB and elements of the PSDM’s developmental model of perfectionism in children and adolescents. Findings from this study may enable researchers to determine the temporal ordering of the mechanisms behind the development of perfectionism, contribute further empirical support for the PSDM, and have important clinical implications in establishing treatments for children and adolescents struggling with perfectionism. Perfectionism: A Multidimensional and Multifaceted Construct 1 The term “maladaptive” is used to describe parenting behaviours that are typically associated with negative child outcomes. It is not intended to assign judgment to parenting behaviours, but rather to reflect empirical associations observed in the literature. Additionally, the term “parenting style” is used in the study to stay consistent with the original conceptualizations by theorists such as Baumrind (1991), who used “style” to describe patterns of parenting. 5 The Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behaviour (CMPB; Hewitt et al., 2017) describes perfectionism as a dysfunctional, relational, and intrapersonal personality organization. Perfectionism has multiple facets (e.g., trait, self-presentational, and self-relational), and within each facet, there are multiple dimensions. Trait Perfectionism Trait dimensions of perfectionism are stable personality dispositions reflecting the need for or requirement of complete perfection in oneself and/or others (Hewitt & Flett, 1991a; Hewitt et al., 2017). There are three dimensions of trait perfectionism: self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., the requirement for the self to be perfect), other-oriented perfectionism (i.e., the requirement for others to be perfect), and socially prescribed perfectionism (i.e., the perception that others require the self to be perfect). Self-oriented perfectionism involves the need for the self to be perfect. Those with elevated levels of self-oriented perfectionism base their self-worth and concept of the self on achieving absolute perfection. It is believed that the fantasy of being perfect is obtainable, that it can be realized in all situations, and that anything short of perfection is an abject failure of the self. Individuals with high self-oriented perfectionism are simultaneously motivated by the need to achieve successful perfection and the need to avoid failure. Perceived failures are believed to be a reflection of the self as inadequate, worthless, and defective and are accompanied by powerful feelings of shame and defectiveness. People with self-oriented perfectionism tend to be highly self-punitive, often engaging in self-criticism and defeating evaluations of the self for not living up to their own self-imposed expectations of being perfect. Other-oriented perfectionism directs the need for perfection toward others, focusing on other people’s performance and conduct. The need for other people to be perfect is often directed 6 towards a significant other, family member, or people within the individual’s social circle in a “tyrannical manner” (Flett & Hewitt, 2022, p. 56). Those with high levels of other-oriented perfectionism are often quite hostile and critical toward the people from whom they are demanding perfection. Individuals with other-oriented perfectionism operate by evaluating those around them in an all-or-nothing fashion; people are either perfect or disappointments. By imposing perfection on others’ behaviours, judgment is deflected away from the self and focused externally, acting as a form of self-preservation by protecting one’s self-worth. Socially prescribed perfectionism is the perception that others demand or require the self to be perfect. Individuals with high socially prescribed perfectionism experience real or perceived external pressure from close others (i.e., parents or spouses), specific people (i.e., colleagues or friends), or society at large to perform at an impossible standard. The desire to live up to the actual or perceived imposed expectations is motivated by the relational needs of validation and acceptance by others or to avoid rejection and abandonment. It is believed that to matter to others and fulfill a sense of belonging, one must be perfect. Those with socially prescribed perfectionism believe that even if the prescribed perfectionistic expectations are satisfied, it will only increase the level of expectation for next time. Thus, there is a deep sense of hopelessness and helplessness in meeting endless unrealistic demands (Hewitt et al., 2017). Perfectionistic Self-Presentational Styles Perfectionistic self-presentation refers to the need to showcase a flawless image of oneself to others (Hewitt et al., 2003). The need to appear perfect to others is not necessarily accompanied by the actual need for the self to be perfect. Individuals with high levels of perfectionistic self-presentation prioritize maintaining a flawless and successful public persona. This can be expressed interpersonally and behaviourally through three facets: perfectionistic self- 7 promotion (i.e., overpromotion and proclamation of one’s perfection), nondisplay of imperfections (i.e., concealing and avoiding behaviours that may be viewed as imperfections, flaws or mistakes), and nondisclosure of imperfections (i.e., verbal concealment of perceived shortcomings or imperfections). People with perfectionistic self-promotion tend to actively present or communicate their purported “perfection” to others. However, the person engaging in perfectionistic self-promotion does not believe in their own supposed achievements or successes. There is a deep sense of shame and feelings of being deficient and inadequate, and the motivation here is to impress others and garner positive appraisals so they can attempt to strengthen their self-worth (Hewitt et al., 2017). On the outside, the person who is overcommunicating their accomplishments may seem collected and invulnerable, but on the inside, they are likely to be experiencing constant ruminative thoughts and feelings of being an imposter (Flett & Hewitt, 2022). Nondisplay and nondisclosure of imperfections both involve concealing perceived imperfections. Nondisplay of imperfections is the avoidance of behaviourally demonstrating flaws, whereas nondisclosure of imperfections is the avoidance of revealing the self verbally and not talking about any imperfections. Those with high levels of nondisplay of imperfections often avoid situations, activities, or tasks where less-than-perfect behaviours can be seen and evaluated by others. In circumstances where a mistake has been made, people with extreme nondisplay of imperfections will go to great lengths to cover up the mistake. Likewise, individuals with nondisclosure of imperfections abstain from talking about anything that may be perceived as a personal weakness or a flaw. This can manifest as defensively denying any issues with school, work, relationships, or life in general when there are actual challenges and limitations. Nondisclosure of imperfections can also look like quickly changing the topic so the person will 8 not have to speak about perceived flaws or mistakes. Individuals with pervasive nondisplay and/or nondisclosure of imperfections tend to be perceived as disingenuous, impersonal, and distant. These individuals are sensitive to failure and mistakes and feel vulnerable to the scrutiny of others. Concealing perceived imperfections is a defensive mechanism to protect one’s fragile sense of self (Hewitt et al., 2017). Intrapersonal or Self-Relational Perfectionism The intrapersonal component of perfectionism has traditionally been viewed as a cognitive feature of the perfectionism construct (Flett et al., 1998). However, more recently, this component has been redefined as a self-relational aspect, focusing on how individuals treat and interact with themselves (Hewitt et al., 2017). The intrapersonal component consists of several elements, including automatic perfectionistic self-statements that dictate the rigid pursuit of perfection (Flett et al., 1998). It also involves automatic and harshly self-critical statements directed at oneself in a dialogical fashion (Hewitt et al., 2024) as well as a lack of self-affirmation and self-soothing practices. In essence, the intrapersonal or self-relational component of perfectionism is captured, in part, by the internal dialogue of the perfectionistic individual. The ruminative nature of perfectionistic thoughts revolves around the need to be perfect (e.g., “Why can’t I be perfect”, “My work should be flawless”), and these self-statements become habitual, instinctive, and obsessional. The recriminating internal dialogue of a perfectionistic individual is mercilessly self-critical (e.g., “Why am I so stupid”, “I should be ashamed of myself”), reflecting the unforgiving nature of perfectionism and the punitive and cruel relationship with the self. The intrapersonal or self-relational component is thought of as more state-like than the trait or 9 interpersonal components, with perfectionistic and/or critical internal dialogue being activated only in certain contexts, such as failure experiences. Overall, the CMPB provides a comprehensive and descriptive model of perfectionism, addressing its complexity. It incorporates multiple components, such as traits, self-presentational styles, and intrapersonal facets, as well as multiple dimensions and domains of experience and behaviours. Thus, the CMPB offers a multidimensional and multifaceted understanding of perfectionism. Perfectionism in Children and Adolescents Perfectionism has been reported to emerge at an early age, with evidence indicating that it can be detected as early as age 4. In a study conducted by Gilbert et al. (2020) to validate the Overcontrol in Youth Checklist (OCYC), the researchers recruited a sample of depressed and healthy children aged 4 to 7. Perfectionism was measured as part of the OCYC with items such as “gets mad at him/herself when s/he makes a mistake, especially in front of others” and “becomes upset when s/he thinks s/he has done poorly on something”. The results revealed that children who were depressed scored higher on the perfectionism subscale compared to their healthy counterparts. Similarly, in a longitudinal study by Risley (2022), which examined whether perfectionism predicts increases in social anxiety, participants consisted of parent-child dyads. The children were recruited at age 1 and followed until they were ages 5 to 7. Children’s evaluative concerns (i.e., concern with others’ evaluations and making mistakes) were measured before they began kindergarten using the Impossibly Perfect Circle task (Goldsmith & Rothbart, 1996). This task was designed to create a scenario in which perfectionistic behaviour can be observed. For three minutes, children were asked to draw a perfect circle while a research 10 assistant critiqued the drawings (e.g., “That circle is too flat on top”). The study’s findings indicated that maternal overprotection—defined as when mothers help their child with tasks that the child is capable of completing on their own—was a predictor of children’s evaluative concerns observed in the Impossibly Perfect Circle task. This demonstrated that perfectionism can be empirically identified in preschool-aged children. Flett and Hewitt (2022) proclaimed that there is “an epidemic of perfectionism” (p. 41) among the younger population, estimating that approximately one in four children and adolescents experience perfectionistic tendencies and behaviours. Among ten studies that Flett and Hewitt (2022) examined, children and adolescents with perfectionism accounted for 23.5 to 41% of the studies’ sample. More alarming is that perfectionism levels among children and adolescents are on the rise. Portesova and Urbanek (2013) conducted a study on three cohorts of adolescents in the Czech Republic from 2000, 2005, and 2010. Results from their study showed that levels of perfectionism among Czech Republic adolescents are increasing. More recently, a meta-analysis by Ko et al. (in preparation) found that self-oriented perfectionism has risen among children and adolescents in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia over a 26-year span from 1995 to 2021. Thus, there is emerging evidence that perfectionism is not only prevalent but also pervasive and rising among children and adolescents. The Cost of Perfectionism The perniciousness of perfectionism has been well-documented in adult populations. There is also considerable evidence of perfectionism’s impact on achievement, relationships, mental health, and physical health among youth. While substantial research exists on the detrimental effects of perfectionism in adults, this and the following section specifically focus on studies involving children and adolescents unless otherwise noted. 11 Children with perfectionism tend to be hypercompetitive and often struggle with low frustration tolerance, particularly when they do not win games or secure first place in a competition. This can also manifest as distress when events do not go as planned. Some children with perfectionism may exhibit risk-averse behaviours, continually seek reassurance from caregivers, and avoid tasks in which they may not excel. Among adolescents, Adelson and Wilson (2021) and Flett and Hewitt (2022) have described how perfectionistic tendencies often interfere with the ability to complete schoolwork on time. Those with perfectionism may take an exceptionally long time to finish work, often needing to start over completely when a mistake is made. Some adolescents become overly focused on final grades, tying their self-worth to how well they perform academically. Others may repeatedly redo their work to meet an unattainable ideal, sometimes frantically searching for ways to fix perceived flaws or even hiding their work from others. For some, the dread of failing or not meeting their own high expectations can be so overwhelming that they avoid certain tasks altogether, choosing not to try at all. Procrastination is another common issue. Many people put off tasks because of the fear of falling short of their perfect vision. Interpersonally, adolescents with high levels of perfectionism may go to great lengths to ensure others perceive them as perfect, carefully curating their image by avoiding situations where their imperfections might be exposed (Hewitt et al., 2011). With social media, adolescents with perfectionism may actively portray a perfect life online while deliberately covering up perceived imperfections or problems (Flett & Hewitt, 2022). These behaviours reveal just how deeply perfectionism can affect adolescents in terms of their academic performance, social interactions, and emotional well-being. Perfectionism and Psychopathology 12 Indeed, research on perfectionism shows considerable evidence for the pernicious nature of perfectionism (Egan et al., 2011; Limburg et al., 2017; Morris & Lomax, 2014; Sirois & Molnar, 2016; Smith et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016). Many have identified perfectionism as an underlying determinant of impaired psychological well-being, poor physical health, and numerous domains of dysfunction across the lifespan. In a systematic review identifying 84 studies relating to perfectionism and psychopathology in children and adolescents, Morris and Lomax (2014) identified that the key associations between perfectionism and clinical disorders include depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Various studies have reported a significant association between self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism with depression among 10 to 15-year-old children (Hewitt et al., 2002), 8 to 12-year-old children (Dry et al., 2015), and grade 4 and 7 students (Stornelli et al., 2009). Huggins et al. (2008) further reported that socially prescribed perfectionism is a critical predictor of a diagnosis of depression in a sample of 10 to 11-year-old children. In another study by Herman et al. (2013), 547 African American children were followed over 7 years to assess the developmental trajectory of perfectionism. Results show that those with high socially prescribed perfectionism and self-oriented perfectionism-critical (i.e., a factor of self-oriented perfectionism that is overly self-critical of one’s work or performance; McCreary et al., 2004) had elevated levels of depression and anxiety in grade 12 and were at greater risk for major depressive disorder. Similarly, among a sample of high school students, O’Connor et al. (2010) found that socially prescribed perfectionism predicted depression while self-oriented perfectionism-critical predicted anxiety. The link between perfectionism, depression, and anxiety has also been observed in other parts of the world. In Australia, socially prescribed perfectionism was positively correlated with depression and anxiety in a sample of high school students (Einstein et 13 al., 2000); in Germany and Hong Kong, self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism was related to anxiety symptoms among a group of 12 to 17-year old adolescents (Essau et al., 2008); and in Romania, perfectionistic concerns (i.e., concerns regarding making mistakes, other people expecting perfection, and doubts about actions) predicted increased anxiety symptoms in adolescents (Damian et al., 2017). In addition to depression and anxiety, research has evidenced perfectionism as a risk factor for eating disorders. Boone et al. (2010) found that the presence of both high personal standards and evaluative concerns show the strongest connection with symptoms of eating disorders in a sample of 12 to 15-year-old adolescents. Likewise, Bento et al. (2010) reported that self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism are linked to problematic eating behaviours in teenagers. In a meta-analysis by Kehayes et al. (2019) involving samples of adolescents, perfectionistic concerns were identified as a significant risk factor for bulimic symptoms. Furthermore, Johnston et al. (2018) reported that in youths with eating disorders, higher levels of perfectionism were associated with the severity of symptoms at intake, 6 months, and 12 months follow-up. Lastly, studies have recognized perfectionism as a key component of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). In a sample of 7 to 14-year-old youth, perfectionism predicted the rigid perfectionism facet of OCPD and the ordering, cleaning, and obsession symptom dimensions of OCD (Sametoglu et al., 2022). Pozza et al. (2019) also found that perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty predicted increases in the severity of OCD symptoms in a large sample of 754 children and adolescents. Correspondingly, perfectionism beliefs were associated with the severity of OCD symptoms in a group of adolescents with a diagnosis of OCD (Soreni et al., 2014). 14 The perniciousness of perfectionism goes beyond clinical disorders. Empirical evidence has demonstrated the lethality of perfectionism in children and adolescents with the consistently observed link between perfectionism and suicidality (de Jonge-Heesen et al., 2021; Hewitt et al., 2014; Hewitt et al., 1997; O’Connor et al., 2010; Roxborough et al., 2012; Sommerfeld et al., 2019). Case studies of children and adolescents who have lost their lives to suicide or made serious attempts highlight the pervasive role of perfectionism (e.g., Berman et al., 2006). A meta-analysis of 45 studies involving undergraduate students, medical students, community adults, and psychiatric patients revealed a significant association between perfectionism and increased suicide risk (Smith et al., 2018). These findings underscore the need to focus on perfectionism in suicide assessment, treatment, and prevention (Flett & Hewitt, 2024). Research also shows that perfectionism is associated with interpersonal dysfunction. Flett and Hewitt (2022) highlighted ten studies that linked perfectionism with loneliness and/or social isolation (e.g., Chen et al., 2012; Goya Arce & Polo, 2017; Magson et al., 2019; Murphy, 2019; Ye et al., 2008). This illustrates the “paradox” of perfectionism—while it arises from a need for acceptance and belonging, it creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which perfectionistic behaviours push others away or maintain emotional distance. This dynamic leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness, reinforcing the belief that one is inherently not good enough. Subsequently, this drives further perfectionistic efforts to satisfy unmet relational needs. Apart from psychological difficulties, perfectionism has been implicated in poor physical health among children and adolescents, such as insomnia (Azevedo et al., 2010), cyclical vomiting (Ben-Amitay et al., 1998), and headaches (Kowal & Pritchard, 1990). Finally, perfectionism interferes with the treatment process. Research has found that elevated levels of perfectionism pre-treatment predict poorer treatment outcomes. For example, adolescents with 15 high degrees of perfectionism continue to have high levels of depression post-treatment regardless of the type of treatment (i.e., either CBT or medication; Jacobs et al., 2009). Similarly, Nobel et al. (2012) reported that in a randomized controlled trial of a school-based intervention program, pre-treatment levels of self-oriented perfectionism interfered with post-treatment depression outcome, and Mitchell et al. (2013) reported that in a group CBT program, children 6 to 13-years old with self-oriented perfectionism indicated higher levels of anxiety symptoms post-treatment and at 6 months follow-up. Johnston et al. (2018) also reported that perfectionistic youth are less likely to experience remission of eating disorder symptoms at a 12-month follow-up. The costs associated with perfectionism in children and adolescents reflect Flett and Hewitt’s (2022) sentiment that there is “an epidemic of perfectionism” (p. 41). More alarming is the documented increase in perfectionism among young adults (Curran & Hill, 2019) and children and adolescents (Ko et al., in preparation; Portesova & Urbanek, 2013), suggesting that the adverse outcomes associated with perfectionism are also on the increase. It is clear that there is an imperative need to improve the understanding of the development, maintenance, and treatment of perfectionism in children and adolescents. A Developmental Model of Perfectionism: The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model The Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM; Hewitt et al., 2017) examines how individuals interact with their internal experiences and the external world. It reflects the dynamic relationship between one’s intrinsic needs and experiences outside oneself. This model helps explain how perfectionism develops and its connection to various forms of dysfunction. The PSDM is a two-part theoretical framework on the developmental course of perfectionism and the link between perfectionism and maladjustment. The purpose of the current study is to 16 examine a specific pathway in the developmental component of the PSDM, which is influenced by theories of self-psychology (Kohut, 1971), attachment (Bowlby, 1988), and perfectionism. Kohut’s self-psychology theory posits that early and extensive improper empathic responses from parents induce developmental arrests in children, which are at the root of most psychopathology (Baker & Baker, 1987) and create what Kohut refers to as self-disorders (Kohut, 1971). Parents are often the first selfobjects (i.e., a figure that provides comfort, structure, and stability and is experienced as part of the self) for a child, and as a person develops, selfobjects extend to include grandparents, friends, teachers, and spouses. Kohut asserts that the internal needs of a person are required to be partially met by a selfobject, coining this as selfobject needs. When early selfobject needs are unmet because of parental empathic failures, pathology or self-disorders can develop. According to Kohut, parental empathic failures do not have to be intentional and are often unintended. Inappropriate or lack of parental empathy can occur when there is a poor fit between the parent and the child in terms of disposition, when the child has remarkably high demands of selfobject needs, and when there are physical or psychological limitations that render the parent unable to provide adequately for the child. Bowlby’s (1988) attachment theory also places importance on early parent-child relationships. Attachment theory alleges that the quality of the parent-child relationship in early childhood has long-term effects on how an individual experiences psychological connectedness to others (Bowlby, 1969). Bowlby theorized that those with relatively consistently loving and responsive parents are more likely to develop healthy internal working models of people, 17 relationships, and themselves.2 He labelled this observation as secure attachment, where the individual has a constructive and strong concept of the self, and closeness with other people is experienced as safe and welcomed. On the other hand, those with uninvolved or inconsistent caregivers tend to develop delicate internal working models of themselves and others. Bowlby defined this as insecure attachment, where the individual has an ingrained sense of self as unlovable and flawed, and interpersonal relationships are characterized by perverse dependence on (i.e., anxious attachment; Ainsworth et al.,1978) and/or unhealthy rejection of others (i.e., avoidant attachment; Ainsworth et al., 1978). Classic theorists of perfectionism have alluded to the nature of the parent-child relationship as the root of perfectionism and that perfectionism is a manifestation of unmet needs and an underlying sense of the self as defective. Alfred Adler (1930) theorized that perfectionism emerges from early childhood experiences. He suggested that all human beings experience an inferiority complex, and one way of responding to this feeling of inferiority is to strive to be perfect. Karen Horney (1950) viewed perfectionism as a neurotic conflict where behaviours that appear to be effective and mindful are actually a reflection of basic anxiety (i.e., fear of abandonment when needs are not met). For Horney, perfectionism develops as a way to cope with perceived inadequacies when individual needs of love and safety in early life go unsatisfied because of parental neglect or indifference. W. Hugh Missildine (1963) observed that there is a generational transmission of perfectionism in families, especially in families with demanding parents who have extremely high expectations. He claimed that perfectionism in adults mirrors 2 It is important to emphasize that parents need not be flawless but rather relatively consistently loving and responsive to be ‘good enough parents’ (Winnicott, 1965). 18 the individual’s early childhood experiences in that it reflects internalized parental standards. Lastly, Marc Hollender (1965) proposed that perfectionism stems from personal insecurities entrenched in a lack of or conditional approval and affection from parents. Taken altogether, early theorists of perfectionism emphasized that a suboptimal childhood environment, particularly actual or perceived inadequate parental caregiving, is the foundation of perfectionism. Building upon Kohut’s (1971) self-psychology, Bowlby’s (1998) attachment theory, and early theories of perfectionism, Hewitt et al.’s (2017) Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model postulate that perfectionism arises from an asynchrony in the parent-child relationship. Asynchrony refers to a mismatch between the caregiver and the child where the parent’s responsiveness and nurturance are not compatible with the child’s needs, and this is repeatedly experienced over the course of development. This asynchrony can be indicative of maladaptive parenting styles, such as authoritarian parenting, psychologically controlling parenting, or uninvolved parenting. However, asynchrony can also happen despite appropriate care and support from parents. It is sometimes the case that a child’s needs are exceptionally demanding, and no amount of parental nurturance and responsiveness is enough to fulfill those needs. Hewitt et al. (2017) hypothesized that deep-rooted and longstanding asynchrony gives rise to attachment insecurity, which shapes the individual’s internal working model of the self and others. Through repeatedly experiencing needs being unsatisfied, the individual learns to believe the self as defective and unworthy of needs being fulfilled and learns to understand others as unavailable or critical of them, hence why their needs are being unmet. The individual’s sense of the self is fragile, frail, and vulnerable, and the individual often experiences powerful, distressing affective states, such as shame, guilt, despair, and anger. The person comes to understand that the way to 19 have needs of belonging, connectedness, acceptance, or affirmation met and to have a sense of being good enough is to be perfect or appear to be perfect. Thus, perfectionism emerges as a motivation to repair one’s sense of self as flawed or damaged and to obtain acceptance and care from others. Simply put, the individual goes through life adhering to the understanding that, “If I am perfect, there will be nothing to criticize, to judge or to reject—nothing to be ashamed of—and I will be accepted, I will be whole, and I will have worth” (Hewitt et al., 2017, p. 101). Figure 1 illustrates the developmental component of the PSDM. The Link Between Parenting and Perfectionism – Empirical Support The role of maladaptive parenting as a developmental antecedent to perfectionism has received ample empirical support. Research on the link between maladaptive parenting and Attachment Problems, Development of Flawed Self, Aversive Affect & Self States Thwarted & Inordinate Need for Security, Need to Belong, Abandonment, Rejection Fears Thwarted & Inordinate Need for Security, Need to Belong, Need for Respect, Love, Acceptance Family, Peer Relationships Family, Peer Relationships Perfectionistic Behaviour: Traits, Self-Presentation, Cognitions, Interpersonal Concern with Mistakes & Actions Figure 1 The Developmental Component of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) 20 perfectionism has consistently shown that an authoritarian parenting style (i.e., extremely restrictive and punitive parenting that lacks warmth; Baumrind, 1991) and parental psychological control (i.e., parental practice that fosters guilt and shame while withdrawing love to pressure children to meet certain standards; Barber, 1996) are significant factors to developing perfectionism. Other parenting styles, such as permissive parenting, uninvolved/neglectful parenting, perfectionistic parenting (i.e., anxious rearing), parental expectations and criticisms, and parental autonomy support, have also been indicated to be relevant factors to perfectionism. Authoritarian Parenting A number of studies have shown the specificity of authoritarian parenting to socially prescribed perfectionism. In one of the earliest studies to examine this link, Flett et al. (1995) reported that authoritarian parenting was specifically linked to socially prescribed perfectionism but in men only. Later studies by Speirs Neumeister (2004), Miller et al. (2012), and Miller and Speirs Neumeister (2017) also found significant relationships between an authoritarian parenting style and socially prescribed perfectionism among three different groups of gifted college students. Other researchers have also looked at authoritarian parenting with different conceptualizations of perfectionism. For example, Frost et al.’s (1990) description of perfectionism as perfectionistic attitudes or cognitions involving concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and personal standards have all been positively linked with authoritarian parenting (Chen et al., 2022; Craddock et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2015; Hibbard & Walton, 2014; Kawamura et al., 2002; Soysa & Weiss, 2014). Slaney et al.’s (2001) account of perfectionism, which distinguishes between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, has the latter being correlated with mothers’ authoritarian parenting style (Patock-Peckham & Corbin, 2019). It appears that the demands and pressure coupled with the lack of warmth and support from an 21 authoritarian parenting style may be a primary influence on the development of perfectionism, particularly socially prescribed perfectionism. Permissive and Neglectful Parenting Aside from authoritarian parenting, Baumrind’s (1991) other typology of parenting styles, such as permissive parenting (i.e., non-disciplinary and indulgent but highly responsive parenting) and neglectful parenting (i.e., uninvolved and inattentive parenting with limited structure, affection, and interaction) has recently been linked with perfectionistic traits and self-presentational styles. In a study with university students from the United States and the Middle East, Walton et al. (2020) found that both authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles were positively associated with socially prescribed perfectionism. Likewise, Miller and Speirs Neumeister (2017) reported that uninvolved parenting was positively correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism. Similarly, Ko (2019) showed that authoritarian parenting was associated with socially prescribed perfectionism and nondisclosure of imperfections, whereas uninvolved parenting was linked with perfectionistic self-promotion and nondisclosure of imperfections in a group of 8 to 15-year-old youth. More recently, in a sample of 292 Hong Kong children between the ages of 8 and 12 years old, Chan et al. (2022) reported that mothers’ authoritarian and permissive parenting was significantly correlated with self-oriented perfectionism. It is important to note that Chan et al. (2022) did not include the socially prescribed perfectionism subscale in their study. The authors further noted that mothers’ authoritative parenting (i.e., a parenting practice that is assertive while being emotionally available and supportive) had a buffering effect on the relationship between self-oriented perfectionism and worry, while mothers’ permissive parenting strengthened the relationship between self-oriented perfectionism and worry in children. Other studies have also implicated 22 authoritative parenting as a protective factor against perfectionism. For example, Hibbard and Walton (2014) found that authoritative parenting was related to fewer doubts about actions and lower perceived parental criticism, while uninvolved parenting was positively associated with doubts about actions. Relatedly, Sapieja et al. (2011) reported that non-perfectionistic youth indicated higher levels of authoritative parenting compared to perfectionistic youth. These emerging findings on the role of permissive and neglectful parenting on perfectionism provide support for the theory that parents who are inconsistent or uninvolved in their care and nurturance are likely to foster children with negative working models of themselves. As such, the child may learn to engage in perfectionistic tendencies and behaviours in an attempt to secure love and acceptance to repair their sense of the self as defective (Hewitt et al., 2017). Parental Psychological Control Numerous studies have also demonstrated the effect of parental psychological control on perfectionism. Direct associations have been shown between parental psychological control and trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentational styles. In a sample of 104 mother-child dyads with children ages ranging from 7 to 10 years old, Kenney-Benson and Pomerantz (2005) had the pair participate in a 15-minute videotaped interaction where the child had to complete a challenging task. Maternal control was coded and operationalized as pressuring the child in an intrusive manner to achieve a certain outcome (i.e., doing part of the task for the child without the child asking for help and/or taking the pencil from the child) and efforts to manage the child’s behaviour (i.e., saying “take your hand off the page”, “hurry up”). Results showed that maternal control was significantly correlated with both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in children. In another study on 333 female college students, Reilly et al. (2016) reported positive associations between parental psychological control and socially prescribed 23 perfectionism. Finally, Ko (2019), focusing on children and adolescents, found that parental psychological control was significantly linked to all dimensions of trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation styles. Other descriptions of perfectionism have also been associated with parental psychological control. Soenens, Vansteenkiste, et al. (2005) was one of the first group of researchers to examine the link between parental psychological control and attitudinal elements of perfectionism (i.e., concern over mistakes and doubts about actions; Frost et al., 1990). In their study on female college students from Belgium, parental psychological control was positively correlated with students’ self-reported concern over mistakes and doubts about actions. Additionally, parental psychological control predicted the severity of perfectionistic attitudes. In subsequent studies on female college students (Soenens, Elliot, et al., 2005) and a sample of healthy adult women and female patients with eating disorders (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2008), the same association was found between parental psychological control and perfectionistic attitudes. More importantly, a longitudinal study on a sample of adolescents demonstrated that parental psychological control predicted elevated levels of attitudinal dimensions of perfectionism one year later (Soenens, Luyckx, et al., 2008). Other researchers from various parts of the world, such as Ireland (McArdle, 2009), the United States (Fletcher et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2016), Italy (Costa et al., 2016), and Israel (Rousseau et al., 2018) have also reported significant relationships between concern over mistakes and doubts about actions with parental psychological control. Aside from concern over mistakes and doubts about actions, unrelenting standards (as measured by the Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form; Young, 1998), self-critical perfectionism (i.e., a construct combining items on socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and self-criticism; Dunkley et al., 24 2003), and personal standards perfectionism (i.e., a construct combining items on self-oriented perfectionism and personal standards; Dunkley et al., 2003) have also been linked to parental psychological control (Deas et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2017). Recently, Curran et al. (2017) and Curran (2018) examined a specific type of psychological control, namely parental conditional regard (i.e., withdrawing love and affection when expectations are unmet; Barber, 1996) and found similar associations with various dimensions of perfectionism. In a sample of 316 adolescents, self-critical perfectionism and narcissistic perfectionism (i.e., a construct combining items on other-oriented perfectionism, high standards for others, and narcissistic grandiosity) were positively predicted by parental conditional regard (Curran et al., 2017). Likewise, parental conditional regard also positively predicted perfectionistic strivings (i.e., the pursuit of perfection and setting unrealistic high-performance standards) and perfectionistic concerns (i.e., doubts about one’s actions, sensitivity to mistakes, and critical evaluation of oneself) in another sample of adolescents (Curran, 2018). Findings from this body of research on parental psychological control and perfectionism lend support to the notion that individuals engage in perfectionistic behaviours in an attempt to obtain acceptance or acknowledgement from parents. From these studies, it is clear that perfectionism is likely to be fostered in individuals with parents who are psychologically controlling. Authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control are two of the major maladaptive parenting styles consistently empirically linked to perfectionism. Emerging evidence also shows that permissive parenting and neglectful/uninvolved parenting are relevant factors in perfectionism. Three other parenting styles, perfectionistic parenting (i.e., anxious rearing), parental expectations and criticisms, and parental autonomy support, have also received considerable research support. 25 Perfectionistic Parenting (Anxious Rearing) Anxious rearing practices refer to parents who focus on mistakes and emphasize the negative consequences of making mistakes (Flett et al., 2002). Children brought up with anxious rearing practices are exposed to parental worry about being imperfect and are often reminded of how others may negatively judge them for faults or errors. Mitchell et al. (2013) conducted a study on 77 mother-child dyads with children aged 7 to 12 years old to experimentally manipulate anxious rearing behaviours. Using a Figure Copy Task, children were asked to copy shapes as accurately as possible. This task was videotaped and coded for observable perfectionistic behaviour. To experimentally manipulate anxious rearing, mothers were randomly assigned to the anxious rearing condition or non-anxious rearing condition. Those in the anxious rearing condition were instructed to emphasize the accuracy of copying figures and the avoidance of making mistakes through verbal and non-verbal behaviours during the copy task. Results show that anxious rearing behaviours increased observable perfectionistic behaviours in children, particularly observed self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., repeated checking for mistakes and working slower to minimize making mistakes), without improving task performance. In a similar study, Affrunti and Woodruff-Borden (2017) used the same Figure Copy Task on 59 parent-child dyads (children aged between 7.5 and 13 years old). Anxious rearing was measured using a child self-report measure on perceived parental anxious rearing behaviours. The authors reported that anxious rearing predicted increased observed perfectionism in children. Similar relationships were found in a group of 257 university students from the United States. Segrin et al. (2019) found that students’ self-reported perceived parental anxious rearing was positively associated with a combined perfectionism factor involving Frost et al.’s (1990) personal standards, parental expectations, and parental criticism. The link between anxious rearing and 26 perfectionism could be in part due to the reported parental pressure perceived by individuals with perfectionistic parents (Randall et al., 2015) and perfectionistic parents’ self-reported heightened use of criticism as a discipline (Greblo & Bratko, 2014). Parental Expectations and Criticism Indeed, perception of parental expectations and criticism is associated with perfectionism in adults (e.g., Enns et al., 2002; Randolph & Dykman, 1998; Weinburger Biran & Reese, 2007) and children and adolescents. In a longitudinal study spanning 7 to 9 months with 15 to 19-year-old late adolescents, Damian et al. (2013) found that perceived parental expectations predicted increases in socially prescribed perfectionism over time. In a recent meta-analysis, Curran and Hill (2022) reported that parental expectations and parental criticism were positively correlated with all three perfectionism traits and that parental expectations and parental criticism have increased over the past 30 years. These results lend support to the plausible explanation that increases in parental expectations and criticism are at least partly responsible for the observed rise in perfectionism (Curran & Hill, 2019). Along similar lines of findings, McArdle and Duda (2004) found that parental expectations and criticism were positively correlated with concern over mistakes and doubts about actions in a group of 12 to 17-year-old athletes. Further, Clark and Coker (2009) observed that mothers with high levels of criticism had children with elevated levels of perfectionism in both mother-daughter and mother-son dyads. In another sample of 8 to 12-year-old children, Harvey et al. (2017) found that while self-oriented perfectionism-striving (i.e., striving for perfection; O’Connor et al., 2009) was associated with parental expectations, self-oriented perfectionism-critical (i.e., overly self-critical of own performance; O’Connor et al., 2009) was associated with both parental expectations and parental criticism. The relationship between parental expectations and parental criticism with perfectionism suggests that as children 27 grow in an environment with actual or perceived stringent expectations and demands from parents coupled with harsh criticism, children learn that to gain acceptance and/or love from parents, they must fulfil their expectations by being perfect. Parental Autonomy Support Lastly, the influence of parental autonomy support on perfectionism has been receiving attention in recent years. Parental autonomy support refers to parenting practices that foster independence, volition, and initiative-taking (Deci & Ryan, 2008). This type of parenting is generally regarded as a positive or beneficial parenting behaviour, which is more pronounced in Western countries that emphasize individualism. Reilly et al. (2016) reported that parental autonomy support was negatively linked with socially prescribed perfectionism, and in a group of South Korean adults, parental autonomy support was likewise negatively correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism (Seong et al., 2021). The same relationship is observed for attitudinal elements of perfectionism. For example, Turner and Turner (2011) and Gong et al. (2016) found that perceived parental autonomy support was negatively associated with concern over mistakes and doubts about actions. In a sample of adolescents in Ireland, McArdle (2009) similarly found a negative association between perceived mothers’ and fathers’ autonomy support with teens’ self-reported doubt about actions. The negative relationship between parental autonomy support with various dimensions of perfectionism suggests that parenting styles that are inadequate in cultivating individual expression and personal decision-making may play a role in the development of perfectionism. Taken together, various maladaptive parenting styles, such as authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, uninvolved parenting, parental psychological control, anxious rearing (perfectionistic parenting), parental expectations and criticism, and parental non-autonomy 28 support, emerge as important influential factors in perfectionism. The different parenting styles relevant to perfectionism underscore the complexity of how parenting can affect a child’s personality development and accentuate the balance between being responsive, supportive, flexible, and non-coercively disciplinary, but not overly involved, controlling, and critical. The Influence of Attachment on Perfectionism – Empirical Support The development of perfectionism, as described in the PSDM, postulates attachment insecurity as a key contributing factor (Hewitt et al., 2017). There has been extensive research on the relationship between insecure attachment and perfectionism in adults (e.g., Boysan & Cam, 2018; Celikbas & Yalcinkaya-Alkar, 2022; Dunkley et al., 2012; Gingras et al., 2020). In a group of Iranian college students, Besharat et al. (2014) found that anxious feelings in relationships (i.e., fear of being abandoned or unloved) were positively correlated with other-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism. In a sample of college couples from Canada, Lafontaine et al. (2019) reported gendered differences in terms of certain insecure attachment dimensions with specific trait perfectionism. For example, anxious and avoidant attachment was positively linked with self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism in women. Whereas in men, anxious and avoidant attachment were associated with self-oriented perfectionism, only avoidant attachment was correlated with other-oriented perfectionism. Socially prescribed perfectionism was not measured in Lafontaine et al.’s (2019) study. In a separate study on 206 mothers, Piotrowski (2020) found that anxious and avoidant attachment was positively associated with only socially prescribed perfectionism. No significant relationship was found between insecure attachment dimensions with self-oriented perfectionism and other-oriented perfectionism in this group of women. 29 The specificity of distinct insecure attachment dimensions with trait perfectionism regardless of gender has also been implicated. In Australian college students, insecure attachment styles, such as fearful (i.e., afraid of intimacy and rejection, and at the same time highly dependent on others; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and dismissive attachment (i.e., avoidant of intimacy and strongly independent; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), were correlated with self-oriented perfectionism, while fearful, dismissive, and preoccupied attachment styles (i.e., preoccupied with relationships and dependent on others for self-worth; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) were all correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism (Barnes & Caltabiano, 2017). However, in Canadian college students, Chen et al. (2015) found that all three insecure attachment styles (i.e., fearful, dismissive, and preoccupied attachment) were associated with both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. In another sample of Canadian college students, anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions were associated with socially prescribed perfectionism, while only the anxious attachment dimension was associated with self-oriented perfectionism (Lafontaine et al., 2021). While there is evidence to suggest that there may be some differences in terms of how the dynamic between attachment and perfectionism manifests in men and women and that certain insecure attachment dimensions may be more prominent for certain traits of perfectionism, given the current mixed findings, it is difficult to draw any concrete conclusions. What is clear from these findings is that attachment insecurity (i.e., attachment anxiety and avoidance) has been consistently linked with various trait dimensions of perfectionism. Aside from trait perfectionism, two studies have also reported relationships between perfectionistic self-presentational styles and insecure attachment in adults. In a large sample of university students, Chen et al. (2015) found that secure attachment was negatively correlated 30 with perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfections, and nondisclosure of imperfections. Insecure attachment styles were also positively correlated with all three perfectionistic self-presentational styles with the exception of preoccupied attachment and nondisclosure of imperfections. In a sample of Italian adults, Borroni et al. (2016) reported that both anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions predicted perfectionistic self-promotion. The relationship between insecure attachment and perfectionistic self-presentation is understudied, but there is emerging evidence that those with high perfectionistic self-presentation are also characterized by more sensitive internal working models of themselves and others where interpersonal relationships involve an acute push (i.e., avoidant attachment) and/or pull (i.e., anxious attachment) relational dynamic. Many studies in different countries (e.g., Gnilka et al., 2013; Gnilka et al., 2016; Iannantuono & Tylka, 2012; Lopez et al., 2006; Tziner & Tanami, 2013) have also consistently found that insecure attachment dimensions, such as anxious and avoidant attachment, are positively associated with attitudinal elements of perfectionism (i.e., concerns over mistakes, doubts about actions, and perceived discrepancy between one’s expectations and performance). Three separate studies in the United States (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000), Turkey (Ulu & Tezer, 2010), and Portugal (Oliveira et al., 2012) reported that insecure attachment predicted elevated levels of perfectionistic attitudes. Attitudinal elements of perfectionism are also found to mediate the relationship between anxious and avoidant attachment with depression in samples of college students cross-sectionally (Wei et al., 2004) and longitudinally (Wei et al., 2006). Perfectionistic attitudes have further been reported to mediate the association between insecure attachment and eating disorders (Cortes-Garcia et al., 2019; Dakanalis et al. 2014; Han et al., 2022). 31 Based on a review of the literature on attachment and perfectionism in adults, it is evident that insecure attachment is a relevant factor for perfectionism. Although the link between attachment and perfectionism has not been as widely studied in children and adolescents, there are a handful of studies that do report similar findings to those in adults. For example, in a sample of 16 to 19-year-old Canadian adolescents, preoccupied attachment was positively correlated with perfectionistic self-promotion, fearful and dismissive attachment was positively associated with nondisclosure of imperfections, and secure attachment was negatively correlated with both nondisplay and nondisclosure of imperfections (Chen et al., 2012). Similarly, in a group of 14 to 20-year-old female adolescents from Belgium, anxious attachment to both mothers and fathers and avoidant attachment to mothers were related to socially prescribed perfectionism (Boone, 2013). In contrast, anxious attachment to both parents and avoidant attachment to fathers were associated with perfectionistic self-promotion. Secure attachment representations to both parents, however, were negatively correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism and perfectionistic self-promotion. Boone’s (2013) findings suggest that in children and adolescents, the relationship between anxious attachment and perfectionism is more robust, while the association between avoidant attachment and perfectionism appear to depend on the attachment figure. Ko (2019) showed that insecure attachment was positively associated with all dimensions of trait perfectionism (i.e., self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism) and perfectionistic self-presentation (i.e., perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfections, and nondisclosure of imperfections) in a sample of 8 to 15-year-old Canadian youth. Finally, in a sample of 12 to 18-year-old adolescents in the United Kingdom, preoccupied and fearful attachment was positively correlated with attitudinal elements of perfectionism, while secure attachment showed a negative relationship (Taylor et al., 2017). 32 Additionally, Taylor et al. (2017) reported that attachment anxiety and perfectionistic attitudes together predicted internalizing problems in this group of adolescents. Even though there are few studies on the relationship between attachment and perfectionism in children and adolescents, emerging findings show comparable results to research on adults, further strengthening the role insecure attachment plays in perfectionism. Existing Empirical Evidence on the PSDM The aforementioned studies on the individual relationships between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism and insecure attachment and perfectionism only support specific links in Hewitt et al.’s (2017) developmental model of perfectionism in the PSDM. Thus, more thorough testing of multiple components of the model is required. Four studies currently provide a closer examination of Hewitt et al.’s (2017) proposed developmental framework of perfectionism. Chen et al. (2012) examined several elements of the PSDM, namely perfectionistic self-presentation, insecure attachment, and social disconnection. As mentioned previously, in a sample of 16 to 19-year-old adolescents, findings demonstrated a negative relationship between secure attachment and nondisplay and nondisclosure of imperfections, and positive associations between insecure attachment and perfectionistic self-promotion and nondisclosure of imperfections. Chen et al.’s (2012) study was the first to report a link between insecure attachment and perfectionistic self-presentation, but this only partially supports the developmental component of the PSDM, as other factors, such as maladaptive parenting, were not included. To follow up, Chen et al. (2015) conducted a more comprehensive investigation and looked at insecure attachment, need to belong, shame, and interpersonal components of 33 perfectionism (i.e., socially prescribed perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation) in a large group of 513 university students. Correlational analyses on attachment and perfectionism demonstrated that secure attachment was negatively correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism and all facets of perfectionistic self-presentation, while insecure attachment styles (i.e., preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful) were positively correlated with various components of trait and self-presentational perfectionism. More importantly and consistent with the PSDM, Chen et al. (2015) found that the need for belonging and shame mediated the association between insecure attachment and interpersonal components of perfectionism. This suggests that motivational factors driving perfectionism (i.e., need to belong) as well as vulnerability to negative affective states (i.e., shame) have an indirect effect on the relationship between insecure attachment and perfectionism, providing support for examining mediational pathways of perfectionism development. Although this study provides further empirical evidence for the developmental component of the PSDM, an evaluation of early parent-child relationships, a key factor in the model, is still missing. To fill in the research gap, Ko et al. (2019) tested the mediating effects of attachment insecurity and perceived defectiveness on the relationship between maladaptive parenting (operationalized as perceived lack of parental warmth, involvement, and support) and perfectionism in a sample of young adults. Congruent with earlier studies, significant positive associations were found between maladaptive parenting, attachment insecurity, perceived defectiveness, and various dimensions of perfectionism including self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and all perfectionistic self-presentational styles. Furthermore, maladaptive parenting had an indirect effect on all perfectionism components through different combinations of attachment insecurities and a perception of the self as defective, suggesting that 34 there may be unique developmental pathways for different dimensions of perfectionism. Although findings further support the developmental component of the PSDM, maladaptive parenting was measured as a combination of a perceived lack of parental warmth, involvement, and support. As such, we could not assess the specificity of different maladaptive parenting styles on different dimensions of insecure attachment and various components of perfectionism. More importantly, the maladaptive parenting, insecure attachment, and perfectionism link in the PSDM was only analyzed in adults. To address this, Ko (2019), in a cross-sectional study, examined whether maladaptive parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting) and insecure attachment are relevant developmental factors to perfectionism in a sample of 96 parent-child dyads with youth ranging from 8 to 15-years-old. Findings from this study suggest that maladaptive parenting styles and attachment insecurity are influential factors in various trait and self-presentational components of perfectionism. In particular, uninvolved parenting contributed to various trait and self-presentational perfectionism through insecure attachment. This was the first study to investigate the developmental component of the PSDM in children and adolescents. However, this study used a 1-item categorical measure of attachment in children and adolescents. Although the measure (i.e., Attachment Questionnaire in Children; Muris et al., 2001) can validly capture attachment representations in youth, a measure that assesses attachment insecurity dimensionally can provide a more thorough examination of childhood and adolescent attachment. Additionally, because this was a cross-sectional study, the temporal stability and causal pathways of the results could not be determined. To date, Chen et al. (2012), Chen et al. (2015), Ko et al. (2019), and Ko (2019) are the few studies to directly examine the developmental model of perfectionism outlined in the PSDM. 35 Together, they provide preliminary evidence for Hewitt et al.’s (2017) perfectionism developmental model but these findings have not yet been reproduced in younger populations in a longitudinal context. The Current Study The wealth of clinical and nonclinical problems associated with perfectionism in children and adolescents, along with individuals reporting higher levels of trait perfectionism over the past three decades (Curran & Hill, 2019; Ko et al., in preparation), make research on the developmental pathway of perfectionism imperative. Moreover, issues in early relationships, including those with parents and sometimes other family members, form the basis for an established treatment of perfectionism (Hewitt et al., 2023; Hewitt et al., 2024; Hewitt et al., 2018; Kealy et al., 2024; Mikail et al., 2022; Smith et al., in press) which is now being extended for children and adolescents (Kristen et al., in preparation). From a review of the current literature, empirical findings demonstrate that 1) various maladaptive parenting styles are linked with components of perfectionism, 2) insecure attachment is associated with various dimensions of perfectionism, and 3) there is preliminary evidence that insecure attachment mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism in adults and children and adolescents. However, several limitations exist in the current literature on the development of perfectionism. First, the vast majority of perfectionism studies have been conducted on adults, and the scarcity of research on developmental antecedents of childhood perfectionism is concerning. Second, research on perfectionism predominantly focused on trait dimensions of perfectionism, so the relationship between maladaptive parenting and attachment insecurity with perfectionistic self-presentation and intrapersonal components of perfectionism is less clear. 36 Third, the majority of the existing empirical support for the developmental portion of the PSDM (e.g., Chen et al., 2012; Chen et al.; 2015; Ko et al., 2019) relied solely on participants’ self-report and parental reports were not obtained. Fourth, although Ko (2019) examined the developmental component of the PSDM in children and adolescents using both parent and child reports, the study assessed attachment categorically and was conducted cross-sectionally. As such, the direction, stability, and causality of the observed effects cannot be ascertained. To begin addressing these research gaps, the present study investigates the PSDM’s developmental model of perfectionism in parent-child dyads over 2 years with three time points. Children and adolescents aged 8 to 15 were asked to complete self-report measures on perceived parenting styles, attachment, and perfectionism. Parents were also invited to complete measures on their parenting style. To build on previous studies and contribute to the current literature, we assessed several maladaptive parenting styles, specifically authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting. Authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control were selected due to the strong empirical support found in previous literature that connects them to perfectionism. Uninvolved parenting was included to fill a gap in the research, as its connection to perfectionism has not been as thoroughly examined. Other maladaptive parenting variables were not included because that would require running multiple additional models, which would increase the family-wise error rate. Therefore, the present study investigates the PSDM’s developmental model of perfectionism longitudinally in children and adolescents. It uses both self-reports and parental reports to examine multiple facets of maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and all three components of perfectionism (i.e., trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation styles, and intrapersonal perfectionism). Goals and Hypotheses 37 The overarching goal of the current study is to determine whether maladaptive parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting) and insecure attachment are developmental antecedents of perfectionism. To achieve this, the study seeks to address three research questions. The first research question explores whether maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism are interrelated. Specifically, three hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: Maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism will be positively correlated within each time point. Hypothesis 2: Maladaptive parenting styles at Time 1 will be positively correlated with dimensions of perfectionism at Time 2 and Time 3. Hypothesis 3: Insecure attachment at Time 2 will be positively correlated with dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. The second research question examines whether insecure attachment mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism. To address this, three hypotheses are posited: Hypothesis 4: Insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between authoritarian parenting at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Hypothesis 5: Insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between parental psychological control at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Hypothesis 6: Insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between uninvolved parenting at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. The third research question is exploratory in nature and seeks to determine whether significant mediation pathways vary based on gender and age. Prior research has shown that 38 perceptions of parenting (McGillicuddy-DeLisi & De Lisi, 2007), the link between parenting and perfectionism (Flett et al., 1995), and the link between insecure attachment and perfectionism (Lafontaine et al., 2019) differ by gender. Additionally, although findings in the literature are mixed, some studies have reported age-related increases in perfectionism (e.g., Bodenstein, 1997; Cook & Kearney, 2009; Vaillancourt & Haltigan, 2018). Thus, because the study sample included youths aged 8 to 15 at Time 1, it is possible that any observed indirect effects could vary due to developmental differences by age. Therefore, two exploratory hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 7: Gender may moderate the significant mediation pathways, such that the indirect effects of maladaptive parenting styles on perfectionism through insecure attachment may differ between boys and girls. Hypothesis 8: Age may moderate the significant mediation pathways, such that the indirect effects of maladaptive parenting styles on perfectionism through insecure attachment may vary based on age. The key aim of this study is to empirically test a specific pathway in the developmental framework of the PSDM, as outlined in Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6. To our knowledge, this is the first study to longitudinally examine the mediating role of insecure attachment in the relationship between maladaptive parenting styles and perfectionism in children and adolescents using both parent and child reports. This is also the first study to simultaneously examine all three components of the Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behaviour. This study uses time-lagged mediation models to effectively understand the indirect pathways that contribute to the development of perfectionism and whether these processes differ across gender and age groups. Findings from this study can not only contribute to the growing knowledge of developmental 39 antecedents to perfectionism but also shed light on areas of focus in treatment for children and adolescents struggling with perfectionism. 40 Chapter 2 Methods Research Design The current study uses a longitudinal design over two years, collecting data from a group of parent-child dyads at three different time points, each spaced approximately one year apart. The aim is to explore the influence of maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment on the development of trait, self-presentational, and intrapersonal perfectionism in children and adolescents. Specifically, using time-lagged mediation analyses, the study tests whether insecure attachment mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting styles and perfectionism. Power Analysis To ensure that the current study has sufficient statistical power to detect the hypothesized effects, we followed the guidelines from Pan et al. (2018) to determine the required sample size. Pan et al. (2018) conducted simulation studies to facilitate sample size planning for mediation analysis of longitudinal data. Their method of determining sample size for longitudinal mediation analysis has been referenced by many studies, some of which employ a similar study design as the present study (e.g., Antino et al., 2019; Silva & Miller, 2020; Silva & Miller, 2022; Willemen et al., 2022). For mediation models with longitudinal data, the minimum sample size required depends on the intraclass correlation (ICC; the intra-rater reliability), the magnitude of path a (i.e., effect of the independent variable on the mediating variable) and path b (i.e., effect of the mediating variable on the dependent variable), and the number of repeated measurements. To calculate the ICC, we used data collected from Ko’s (2019) master’s thesis study, which looked at the same sample as the current study and had similar measures of interest but at a single point in time (i.e., Time 1). Following Koo and Li’s (2016) guidelines for calculating ICC 41 in SPSS, a two-way mixed effects model and absolute agreement definition were specified. The average ICC based on the mean of multiple measurements was 0.39. With an ICC of 0.39, expected medium effect sizes for path a (i.e., effect of maladaptive parenting styles on insecure attachment) and path b (i.e., effect of insecure attachment on perfectionism) as demonstrated in previous literature (Ko, 2019; Ko et al., 2019), and three time points, a minimum sample size of N = 47 participants are required to achieve 80% power. Assuming a conservative estimate of a 30% attrition rate at each time point (Turk et al., 2021), the 107 participants recruited at Time 1 will be sufficient for a longitudinal mediation analysis. A post-hoc power analysis was conducted to determine whether the sample size of N = 107 was sufficient to detect the hypothesized mediation effects. This analysis was performed using the semPower package in R (Moshagen, 2021), which is used for power analysis in structural equation modelling. Actual values of the standardized effect sizes from the mediation pathways were used. With the significance level set at  = .05, the results of the post-hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect the indirect effect was 91.2%, well above the conventional threshold of 80% for adequate power. Participants The study was approved by the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H16-01699). All participants provided informed consent prior to participating in the study, and the study adhered to ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. Parent-child dyads were recruited through the Early Development Research Group (EDRG) at UBC. This group maintains a database of families who have previously consented to be contacted for research studies. Families from the Metro Vancouver Regional 42 District (MVRD) with children or adolescents aged 8 to 15 were eligible to participate. There were no exclusion criteria. Time 1 (Baseline) At Time 1, 107 parent-child dyads participated in the study. The children and adolescents were aged 8 to 15 (M = 11.53, SD = 1.73). Participants were in grades 2 through 10. Most of the youth participants identified as female (61.7%), while 38.3% identified as male. In terms of ethnicity, 54.7% identified as White, 18.9% as mixed race, 10.4% as Chinese, 5.7% as South Asian, 3.8% as Southeast Asian, 1.9% as Middle Eastern, and 4.7% as belonging to other races or ethnicities. Additionally, 86.0% of the youth reported having siblings, while 14.0% were an only child. Parents reported that 14.0% of the youth had a mental health disorder (i.e., ADHD, anxiety, depression, OCD, and Tourette’s Syndrome). Parents’ ages at Time 1 ranged from 32 to 64 years (M = 46.21, SD = 5.31). Most parents identified as female (85.0%), while 12.1% identified as male, and 2.8% identified as other gender constructs. In terms of race and ethnicity, 60.7% of parents were White, 16.8% identified as Chinese, 5.6% as South Asian, 4.7% as mixed race, 2.8% as South American, 1.9% as Southeast Asian, 0.9% as Middle Eastern, 0.9% as Japanese, 0.9% as Indigenous peoples, and 4.7% identified as other races or ethnicities. Regarding marital status, 83.2% of parents were married, 7.5% in a common-law relationship, 3.7% were separated, 3.7% were divorced, 0.9% were single, and 0.9% were widowed. When it comes to education, 50.5% of parents held a bachelor’s degree, 16.8% had some post-secondary school education, 16.8% held a master’s degree, 4.7% held a doctoral degree, 4.7% completed an associate or vocational school degree, 2.8% held a professional degree, 2.8% had a high school diploma or equivalent, and 0.9% had some high school education. Most families (60.7%) reported an annual household income over 43 $100,000, 27.1% earned between $50,001 and $100,000, 7.5% earned between $25,001 and $50,000, and 4.7% reported earning less than $25,000. Time 2 (One-Year Follow-Up) At Time 2, 66 parent-child dyads from the original sample participated, reflecting an attrition rate of 38.32%. This rate is higher than the conservative estimate of 30% typically expected at each time point (Turk et al., 2021). The section on attrition and missing data analysis will discuss the factors contributing to this attrition, its potential impact on the study, and the method for addressing it. The ages of the children and adolescents at Time 2 ranged from 9 to 16 years (M = 13.09, SD = 1.73). Participants reported being in grades 4 through 12 in school. Among the child and adolescent participants, 65.2% identified as female, while 34.8% identified as male. The ethnic composition was predominantly White (63.6%), with 19.7% identifying as mixed race, 7.6% as Chinese, 3.0% as South Asian, 1.5% as Southeast Asian, 1.5% as Middle Eastern, 1.5% as South American, and 1.5% as other races or ethnicities. Additionally, 81.8% of children and adolescents reported having at least one sibling, while 18.2% were an only child. Mental health disorders were indicated in 13.6% of youth participants. Parents’ ages at Time 2 ranged from 37 to 65 years (M = 48.08 years, SD = 4.99). The majority identified as female (83.3%), while 16.7% identified as male. In terms of race and ethnicity, most parents were White (65.2%), followed by Chinese (21.2%), mixed race (4.5%), South Asian (1.5%), South American (1.5%), Southeast Asian (1.5%), Middle Eastern (1.5%), Japanese (1.5%), and other races or ethnicities (1.5%). Regarding marital status, 83.3% of parents were married, 7.6% were in common-law relationships, 4.5% were separated, 3.0% were divorced, and 1.5% were widowed. In terms of education, 59.1% of parents had completed a 44 bachelor’s degree, 15.2% completed a master’s degree, 12.1% had some post-secondary school education, 6.1% held a professional degree, 3.0% had a doctoral degree, 3.0% had a high school diploma or equivalent, and 1.5% held an associate or vocational school degree. Regarding household income, 66.7% of families reported earning more than $100,000 annually, 25.8% reported incomes between $50,001 and $100,000, 4.5% earned between $25,001 and $50,000, and 3.0% earned less than $25,000. Time 3 (Two-Year Follow-Up) At Time 3, 49 parent-child dyads from the Time 2 sample participated, reflecting an attrition rate of 25.76%, which is below the expected rate of 30% (Turk et al., 2021). The reasons for attrition and its implications will be discussed in the section on attrition and missing data analyses. At Time 3, children and adolescents ranged in age from 10 to 18 years (M = 14.27, SD = 1.81) and were in grades 5 through 12. Among them, 57.7% identified as female, 38.5% as male, and 3.8% as other gender constructs. The youth were predominantly White (61.2%), with 20.4% identifying as mixed race, 12.2% as Chinese, 2.0% as Southeast Asian, 2.0% as Middle Eastern, and 2.0% as belonging to other races or ethnicities. Additionally, 85.7% of the youth reported having siblings, while 14.3% were an only child. Furthermore, 14.3% of the youth were indicated by their parents as having a mental health disorder. The ages of the parents at Time 3 ranged from 38 to 57 years (M = 48.73, SD = 4.20). The majority identified as female (85.7%), while 14.3% identified as male. Regarding ethnicity, the parents were predominantly White (61.2%), with other groups represented as follows: 24.5% identified as Chinese, 4.1% as mixed race, 2.0% as South American, 2.0% as Southeast Asian, 2.0% as Japanese, and 4.1% as belonging to other races or ethnicities. In terms of marital status, 45 81.6% of parents were married, 6.1% were in common-law relationships, 6.1% were separated from their spouse, 2.0% were divorced, 2.0% were single, and 2.0% were widowed. When it comes to education, 55.1% of parents had completed a bachelor’s degree, 14.3% had a master’s degree, 12.2% had some post-secondary school education, 8.2% held a professional degree, 4.1% held a doctoral degree, 4.1% had a high school diploma or equivalent, and 2.0% held an associate or vocational school degree. Most families (69.4%) reported an annual household income exceeding $100,000. Additionally, 18.4% reported incomes between $50,001 and $100,000, 8.2% earned between $25,001 and $50,000, and 4.1% earned less than $25,000. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of child and adolescent participants across the three time points, and Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of parent participants across the three time points. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Child and Adolescent Participants Across Time Points Characteristic Time 1 (N = 107) Time 2 (N = 66) Time 3 (N = 49) Children’s age (years) M = 11.53 (SD = 1.73) M = 13.09 (SD = 1.73) M = 14.27 (SD = 1.81) Grade 2 to 10 4 to 12 5 to 12 Gender (%) Female 61.7 65.2 57.7 Male 38.3 34.8 38.5 Other gender constructs – – 3.8 Race/ethnicity (%) White 54.7 63.6 61.2 Mixed race 18.9 19.7 20.4 Chinese 10.4 7.6 12.2 South Asian 5.7 3.0 – Southeast Asian 3.8 1.5 2.0 Middle Eastern 1.9 1.5 2.0 South American – 1.5 – Other 4.7 1.5 2.0 Has siblings (%) 86.0 81.8 85.7 Only child (%) 14.0 18.2 14.3 Mental health disorder (%) 14.0 13.6 14.3 46 Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of Parent Participants Across Time Points Characteristic Time 1 (N = 107) Time 2 (N = 66) Time 3 (N = 49) Parents’ age (years) M = 46.21 (SD = 5.31) M = 48.08 (SD = 4.99) M = 48.73 (SD = 4.20) Parent gender (%) Female 85.0 83.3 85.7 Male 12.1 16.7 14.3 Other gender constructs 2.8 – – Parent race/ethnicity (%) White 60.7 65.2 61.2 Mixed race 4.7 4.5 4.1 Chinese 16.8 21.2 24.5 South Asian 5.6 1.5 – Southeast Asian 1.9 1.5 2.0 Middle Eastern 0.9 1.5 – South American 2.8 1.5 2.0 Japanese 0.9 1.5 2.0 Indigenous peoples 0.9 – – Other 4.7 1.5 4.1 Marital Status (%) Married 83.2 83.3 81.6 Common-law 7.5 7.6 6.1 Separated 3.7 4.5 6.1 Divorced 3.7 3.0 2.0 Single 0.9 – 2.0 Widowed 0.9 1.5 2.0 Education level (%) Bachelor’s degree 50.5 59.1 55.1 Master’s degree 16.8 15.2 14.3 Some post-secondary 16.8 12.1 12.2 Doctoral degree 4.7 3.0 4.1 Professional degree 2.8 6.1 8.2 Associate/vocational degree 4.7 1.5 2.0 High school diploma 2.8 3.0 4.1 Some high school 0.9 – – Household income (%) > $100,000 60.7 66.7 69.4 $50,001 - $100,000 27.1 25.8 18.4 $25,001 - $50,000 7.5 4.5 8.2 < $25,000 4.7 3.0 4.1 47 Procedure At Time 1, participants were invited to the UBC Vancouver campus. Upon arrival, a trained research assistant greeted the families and provided an overview of the study’s purpose and procedures. The research assistant guided the parents through the consent form and the children and adolescents through the assent form, clearly explaining the consent to participate and confidentiality. Participants were given time to read the forms and ask questions. After the participants signed the consent and assent forms, they received copies for their personal records. To prevent communication between participants, the parent-child dyads were separated into different rooms to complete self-report measures. Once the measures were completed, the research assistant debriefed the families about the study. As a token of appreciation for their participation, parents and adolescents each received a $10 gift card, while younger children were given a t-shirt. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Time 2 and Time 3 were conducted online. At Time 2 (one year after initial participation) and Time 3 (two years after initial participation), participants who had consented to continued involvement were contacted to complete the same set of questionnaires that were administered at Time 1. Parents received an email with a link to both the parental and youth questionnaires and were asked to fill out the measures separately. It was requested that the same parent who accompanied the child and completed the measures at Time 1 also complete the measures at Time 2 and Time 3 to ensure consistency across the study. To compensate for their participation, the parent and child each received a $10 e-gift card. Measures All participants provided demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, and family composition. Parents also reported their marital status, education level, and annual 48 household income. Additionally, parents were asked to report whether their child had been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Youth Measures Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS). The CAPS (Flett et al., 2016) is a 22-item measure of trait perfectionism in children and adolescents. Participants rate each statement on a scale from 1 (false-not at all true of me) to 5 (very true of me). Examples of items include: “I try to be perfect in everything I do” (self-oriented perfectionism) and “There are people in my life who expect me to be perfect” (socially prescribed perfectionism).3 Scores from each subscale are summed, with higher scores indicating a greater endorsement of perfectionistic traits. The CAPS has been used in samples as young as 6 years old (Risley, 2022). Across samples of children and adolescents from Canada, China, Israel, and Russia, coefficient alphas for the CAPS range from .68 to .82 for self-oriented perfectionism and .68 to .89 for socially prescribed perfectionism (Flett et al., 2016). The test-retest reliability over one year was .65 for self-oriented perfectionism and .59 for socially prescribed perfectionism, while the three-year test-retest reliability was .51 for self-oriented perfectionism and .35 for socially prescribed perfectionism (Flett et al., 2016). In terms of concurrent validity, self-oriented perfectionism was associated with self-reports of a personal need for perfection, while socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with self-reports of perceptions of parental expectations for perfection (Flett et al., 2016). Furthermore, the CAPS was associated with related measures 3 The CAPS (Flett et al., 2016) only measured self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism; therefore, other-oriented perfectionism is not assessed. A measure of other-oriented perfectionism for children and adolescents was developed later (Hewitt et al., 2022). 49 of perfectionism, such as the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI) perfectionism subscale (Flett et al., 2016). Overall, the CAPS demonstrates good psychometric properties. In the current study, Cronbach's alpha for self-oriented perfectionism was .90 at Time 1, .91 at Time 2, and .91 at Time 3, reflecting high internal consistency at each time point. The test-retest reliability for self-oriented perfectionism across the three time points was .92, demonstrating strong stability of the measure over time. For socially prescribed perfectionism, Cronbach's alpha was .87 at Time 1, .92 at Time 2, and .93 at Time 3, indicating high internal consistency at each time point. The test-retest reliability for socially prescribed perfectionism across the three time points was .88, showing good stability of the scale over time. Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale-Junior Form (PSPS-Jr). The PSPS-Jr (Hewitt et al., 2011) is an 18-item measure of perfectionistic self-presentation styles in children and adolescents. Participants are asked to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Statements include: “I always have to look as good as I can” (perfectionistic self-promotion), “I do not want my friends to see even one of my bad points” (nondisplay of imperfection), and “I should always keep my problems secret” (nondisclosure of imperfection). The scores from the items are summed to obtain an overall score for each of the subscales, with higher scores indicating greater levels of perfectionistic self-presentation. The PSPS-Jr has been used in samples ranging from 8 to 20 years old (Hewitt et al., 2011). The internal consistency of the PSPS-Jr was measured using coefficient alphas from three different samples. For perfectionistic self-promotion, alphas ranged from .89 to .92; for nondisplay of imperfections, alphas ranged from .70 to .82; and for nondisclosure of imperfections, alphas ranged from .60 to .72 (Hewitt et al., 2011). In terms of test-retest reliability, a study conducted by Mackinnon and Sherry (2012) found that the reliability of the 50 total PSPS-Jr score over a 4-month period across three time points ranged from .95 to .96. Regarding validity, all subscales of the PSPS-Jr were found to correlate with the corresponding subscales of the CAPS, severity of depressive symptoms, and various maladaptive outcomes (Hewitt et al., 2011). These findings are consistent with the research on the PSPS in adults, providing further support for the reliability and validity of the PSPS-Jr. In the current study sample, Cronbach's alpha for perfectionistic self-promotion was .91 at Time 1, .92 at Time 2, and .91 at Time 3, indicating strong internal consistency at each time point. For nondisplay of imperfections, Cronbach's alpha was .75 at Time 1, .81 at Time 2, and .82 at Time 3, reflecting good internal consistency. For nondisclosure of imperfections, Cronbach's alpha was .64 at Time 1, .78 at Time 2, and .73 at Time 3, indicating adequate consistency. The test-retest reliability across the three time points was .81 for perfectionistic self-promotion, .79 for nondisplay of imperfections, and .66 for nondisclosure of imperfections, reflecting adequate stability. Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory-Kids (PCI-Kids). The PCI-Kids is derived from the adult version, the Perfectionistic Cognitions Inventory (PCI; Flett et al., 1998), which was designed to assess automatic perfectionistic thoughts related to perfectionistic behaviour. The PCI is a unidimensional measure consisting of 25 items, while the PCI-Kids have been condensed to six items. Participants are asked to indicate how often they experience perfectionistic thoughts on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all of the time). Examples of statements include “I should be perfect” and “I can’t stand to make mistakes.” This is the first study to use a shortened version of the PCI adapted for children and adolescents. The internal consistency of the PCI ranged from coefficient alphas of .94 to .96 across multiple community and clinical samples (Flett et al., 1998). The test-retest reliability over a 51 three-month period was .67 for undergraduate students and .85 for a sample of psychiatric patients (Flett et al., 1998). Regarding validity, the PCI showed significant correlations with all dimensions of trait perfectionism, as well as symptoms of depression and anxiety, and self-criticism (Flett et al., 1998). These findings support the PCI as a reliable and valid tool for assessing perfectionistic cognitions. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the PCI-Kids was .89 at Time 1, .91 at Time 2, and .90 at Time 3. The test-retest reliability across the three time points was .87. Overall, the PCI-Kids demonstrate good internal consistency and stability over time. Perception of Parents Scale-Child Scale (POPS-C). The POPS-C (Grolnick et al., 1991) is a 22-item measure of children’s perception of their parents across two key dimensions: autonomy support and parental involvement. Participants are asked to select the statement that best describes their mother and father separately. Each item presents four different statements indicating the frequency with which the mother and father engage in the specified behaviour from never, sometimes, usually, to always. Examples of items in each subscale include: “Some mothers/fathers always like their children to decide for themselves what to do” (autonomy support) and “Some mothers/fathers always have enough time to talk to their children” (involvement). The POPS-C is used with children as young as 8 years old (Grolnick et al., 1991). Cronbach’s alpha for maternal autonomy support is .53, maternal involvement is .56, paternal autonomy support is .67, and paternal involvement is .64 (Grolnick et al., 1991), suggesting adequate internal consistency. Test-retest reliability within a two-week period was .70 for maternal autonomy support, .62 for maternal involvement, .74 for paternal autonomy support, and .71 for paternal involvement (Kocayoruk, 2012). Furthermore, convergent validity was assessed by comparing the POPS-C subscales with self-reports and interviews from parents, 52 which found stronger support for the maternal subscales than the paternal subscales (Grolnick et al., 1991). In the current study, only the scale ratings for children’s perception of their parents’ involvement are used. Ratings for both parents were combined and reversed to create a composite score reflecting uninvolved parenting. Therefore, high scores indicate a higher level of perceived uninvolved parenting. Cronbach's alpha for uninvolved parenting was .74 at Time 1, .73 at Time 2, and .76 at Time 3, reflecting adequate internal consistency. The test-retest reliability across the three time points was .82 for uninvolved parenting, demonstrating good stability over time. Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale (DAPCS). The adapted DAPCS (Soenens et al., 2010) for middle childhood (Scharf et al., 2016) was used. The adapted DAPCS is a 15-item measure of children’s perception of parents’ psychological control in terms of dependency (i.e., “My parents only show their love for me as long as we keep doing everything together”) and achievement (i.e., “My parents are only friendly with me if I excel in everything I do”). Participants are asked to rate each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always). Studies show good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .76 and .92, and good convergent and discriminant validity (Scharf et al., 2016; Soenens et al., 2010). Test-retest reliability within an eight-week period was .77 for dependency-oriented psychological control and .88 for achievement-oriented psychological control (Deng et al., 2019). The DAPCS has been used with children as young as 6 years old (Scharf et al., 2016). In the current study, the dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented subscales were combined to represent a single construct reflecting parental psychological control. There is consensus among researchers that parental psychological control is a single construct (Barber, 53 1996; Soenens, Luyckx, et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2007) and other studies have examined parental psychological control as a unidimensional factor (e.g., Costa et al., 2016; Fletcher et al., 2012). Cronbach’s alpha for parental psychological control was .86 at Time 1, .93 at Time 2, and .93 at Time 3, indicating high internal consistency at each time point. The test-retest reliability across the three time points was .83, reflecting good stability over time. Attachment Style Classification Questionnaire for Latency Age Children (ASCQ). The ASCQ (Finzi-Dottan, 2012) is a 15-item measure of children’s and adolescents’ attachment styles adapted from Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) measure of adult attachment. Participants are asked to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (all wrong) to 5 (very right). The ASCQ has three subscales that reflect Ainsworth’s attachment dimensions: secure attachment (i.e., “I make friends with other children easily), anxious attachment (i.e., “I’m sometimes afraid that no one really loves me”), and avoidant attachment (i.e., “I find it uncomfortable and get annoyed when someone tries to get too close to me). The ASCQ is used with children as young as 7 years old (Finzi et al., 1996). Finzi et al. (2000) demonstrated appropriate internal consistency ( = .69 to .81) and test-retest reliability within a two-week period ( = .87 to .95). Other studies also reported Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .76 to .79 for secure attachment, .73 to .88 for anxious attachment, and .70 to .83 for avoidant attachment (Amirian et al., 2022; Finzi-Dottan et al., 2006; Grady et al., 2021). In terms of concurrent validity, Finzi et al. (2000) compared the ASCQ with the Trait Anxiety Inventory, Child Depression Inventory, and Child Suicidal Potential Scales for Aggression and found that those with a more secure attachment style had lower levels of anxiety, depression, and aggression. In contrast, those with a more anxious or avoidant attachment style had higher levels of anxiety and depression, and those with a more 54 avoidant attachment style had higher levels of aggression. Overall, the ASCQ has good psychometric properties. In the current study, the anxious attachment and avoidant attachment subscales were combined into a single insecure attachment construct for two reasons. First, previous research lacks consensus on how different dimensions of insecure attachment might uniquely contribute to perfectionism, making it difficult to hypothesize distinct pathways for each dimension. Second, combining the two subscales reduces the number of separate mediation models by examining one mediating variable instead of two, proactively addressing the family-wise error rate by minimizing the number of statistical tests conducted. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study sample for insecure attachment was .81 at Time 2 and .80 at Time 3, indicating good internal consistency at both time points. The test-retest reliability for insecure attachment across Time 2 and Time 3 was .82, indicating strong stability. Analyses of insecure attachment are only reported for Time 2 and Time 3.4 Parent Measures Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Version (PSDQ-Short Version). The PSDQ-Short Version (Robinson et al., 2001) is a 32-item measure of three parenting styles – authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. The parent is asked to make two ratings, one for themself and one for the other parent, on how often each behaviour is endorsed on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Examples of items include: “Encourages child to talk 4 The ASCQ was introduced at Time 2 and used again at Time 3 to assess attachment dimensions. At Time 1, a categorical measure, the Attachment Questionnaire for Children (Muris et al., 2001), was used. This measure provided participants with three categorical descriptions of attachment, asking them to select the one that best described their feelings toward relationships. The switch to the ASCQ at Time 2 and Time 3 allowed for a dimensional approach to attachment assessment. 55 about the child’s troubles” (authoritative parenting style), “Uses threats as punishment with little or no justification” (authoritarian parenting style), and “States punishment to child and does not actually do them” (permissive parenting style). Items are averaged to obtain an overall score on each subscale. The PSDQ-Short Version was designed for parents of children as young as 4 years old (Robinson et al., 2001). Cronbach’s alpha for authoritative parenting style is .86, authoritarian parenting style is .82, and permissive parenting style is .64 (Robinson et al., 2001), suggesting that the PSDQ has adequate internal reliability. Test-retest reliability within a nine-week period was .74 for authoritative parenting, .87 for authoritarian parenting, and .93 for permissive parenting (Oliveira et al., 2018). A handful of studies looked at the validity of the PSDQ and found that the three parenting styles mapped onto appropriate constructs. For example, authoritative parenting style was positively correlated with adaptive behaviours but negatively correlated with maladaptive behaviours and psychological distress, whereas authoritarian and permissive parenting styles showed the opposite associations (Olivari et al., 2013). The current study only includes the primary caregiver’s ratings (i.e., the parent who attended the study with the child) and focuses on authoritarian parenting. Cronbach’s alpha for authoritarian parenting was .79 at Time 1, .83 at Time 2, and .76 at Time 3, indicating moderate internal consistency at each time point. The test-retest reliability was .91 for authoritarian parenting, reflecting strong stability over time. Unless otherwise stated, references to authoritarian parenting—when discussed as a result or finding—refer to parent-reported data, while all other study variables refer to child-reported data. Data Analytic Plan 56 Statistical analyses for this study were conducted using SPSS Statistics Version 29 and R statistical software (R Core Team, 2023). Attrition and Missing Data The first stage of analysis involved examining attrition and missing data. The initial sample size was N = 107 at Time 1, which decreased to N = 66 at Time 2 and further to N = 49 at Time 3. The attrition rates were 38.32% from Time 1 to Time 2, 25.76% from Time 2 to Time 3, and a total of 54.21% from Time 1 to Time 3. The attrition rate of 38.32% between Time 1 and Time 2 was notably higher than the typical 30% attrition rate that is often expected at each time point for longitudinal studies (Turk et al., 2021). One key reason for this elevated attrition could be the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with this period. Many individuals were affected by the pandemic, and the new challenges brought about by COVID-19 likely made participation in research studies more difficult and less of a priority. Data from participants who dropped out were analyzed to determine whether there were any significant differences between those who completed the study and those who did not. When comparing individuals who completed the study at Time 2 with those who did not, no significant differences were found across baseline demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, education level, annual household income, presence of siblings, and history of mental health disorders) or study variables (e.g., maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism). However, a significant difference was found in authoritarian parenting (t(100) = -2.21, p = .03) between those who completed Time 3 (M = 1.63, SD = .35) and those who did not (M = 1.80, SD = .44). Previous research has demonstrated that parents with an authoritarian parenting approach tend to report higher levels of stress compared to those with authoritative or permissive parenting styles (Park & Walton-Moss, 2012). As such, 57 the heightened stress, combined with the impacts of COVID-19, may have decreased the likelihood of continued participation among parents with an authoritarian parenting style. Other than authoritarian parenting, all other baseline demographic and study variables showed no significant differences between Time 3 completers and dropouts. Next, missing data was analyzed. Little’s MCAR test was nonsignificant (Chi-Square = 291, DF = 258, p = .08), suggesting that the overall pattern of missing data was missing completely at random. However, although Little’s MCAR test indicates that missingness was consistent with being missing completely at random, differences between Time 3 completers and dropouts regarding authoritarian parenting suggest that missingness may be more accurately described as missing at random (MAR). The MAR assumption posits that the missing data is related to observed variables or a known variable (Rubin, 1976). Furthermore, missing data for participants who completed all three time points (N = 49) was examined. None of these participants were excluded, as no one had more than 50% missing data on any single scale of the measures used (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Among the 49 parent-child dyads who completed all three time points, the missing data was minimal, with only five missing observations out of 3,103 possible observations, representing 0.16% of the total data. Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) was chosen to address attrition and missing data. FIML uses all available data and directly estimates parameters and their standard errors in a single step (Graham, 2009; Nicholson et al., 2017). Essentially, FIML uses all available information from observed variables and other participants in its estimation of missing data patterns. Unlike other methods, it does not remove or impute missing values. FIML has 58 been demonstrated to provide unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors when the missing data follows the MAR assumption (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). While the final sample at Time 3 (N = 49) meets the power requirement as recommended by Pan et al. (2018), FIML was employed to maximize the use of all available data (N = 107) across time points, thereby reducing bias and improving parameter estimation. By retaining as much information as possible from participants with incomplete data, FIML produces more robust and less biased estimates. Outliers and Normality After examining attrition and missing data, the second stage of analysis involved identifying outliers and conducting normality testing on study variables. Five univariate outliers were identified using z-scores (>  3) and boxplots. They were Winsorized by converting the data points to the next highest value not considered to be an outlier. Multivariate outliers were assessed using the Mahalanobis Distance, and the results indicated no multivariate outliers for study variables. Normality was evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, as it is recommended for sample sizes larger than 50 (Field, 2018), and by examining skewness and kurtosis. Variables with p < .05 on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewness values >  1 were transformed. The distributions of authoritarian parenting at Time 1, parental psychological control at Times 1, 2, and 3, and perfectionistic cognitions at Times 1, 2, and 3 showed mild to moderate positive skewness (>  1 but <  2); therefore, a square root transformation was performed. After the square root transformation, only parental psychological control at Time 2 remained non-normal, as such, a log transformation was applied to normalize the distribution. Untransformed variables 59 were used to report descriptive statistics for interpretability and in non-parametric analyses. Transformed variables were applied for parametric tests to avoid violations of normality. Descriptive Statistics The third stage of analysis involved computing descriptive statistics for all study variables across time points. The untransformed variables were used to assess whether the current study sample is comparable to previous child and adolescent samples in the existing literature. Given the skewed distribution of some of the variables, descriptive statistics on means, standard deviations, medians, and interquartile ranges are reported. Correlational Analyses The fourth stage of analysis addresses Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Using the transformed variables, Pearson correlations were conducted to assess the within-time and across-time associations between maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism. Time-Lagged Mediation Models The fifth stage of the analysis examines Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6. Time-lagged mediation analyses with bootstrapping were conducted to examine the mediating effect of insecure attachment (at time 2) on the relationship between maladaptive parenting styles (at time 1) and components of perfectionism (at time 3). Mediation analyses were conducted using structural equation modelling (SEM) with the lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012). Missing data were handled using FIML, and Maximum Likelihood Estimation (ML) was selected to compute path coefficients, with 10,000 bootstrap samples performed to compute bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% confidence intervals. The BCa bootstrapping approach is non-parametric, adjusts for bias and skewness, and does not assume normality (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Thus, the 60 untransformed variables were used in the mediation analyses. A confidence interval that does not contain zero indicates a significant indirect effect (Hayes, 2013). For each time-lagged mediation model, path a (effect of Time 1 maladaptive parenting on Time 2 insecure attachment), path b (effect of Time 2 insecure attachment on Time 3 perfectionism), path c' (direct effect of Time 1 maladaptive parenting on Time 3 perfectionism), the indirect effect (the mediation effect), and the total effect (the sum of the direct and indirect effects) were specified. Fit indices are not reported for simple mediation models (e.g., X → M → Y), as these models are typically fully saturated (i.e., df = 0). This means that all possible paths are estimated, and no constraints are applied, resulting in a perfect fit with the data. Therefore, model fit indices are not meaningful. A total of eighteen time-lagged mediation models were examined. To account for multiple comparisons across the models and to reduce the risk of Type I error in the analyses, 99% BCa confidence intervals were also calculated. Figure 2 illustrates the time-lagged mediation models. Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Parental Psychological Control Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Nondisplay of Imperfections Nondisclosure of Imperfections Perfectionistic Cognitions Figure 2 Time-Lagged Mediation Models 61 Moderated Mediation Analyses The final stage of the analysis examines the exploratory Hypotheses 7 and 8, testing whether the mediated pathways vary by gender and age. Moderated mediation analyses were planned to be conducted only for the significant time-lagged mediation models. These analyses aimed to explore whether the indirect effects of maladaptive parenting on perfectionism via insecure attachment differed based on gender and age. Prior to running the moderated mediation models, simple linear regressions were performed to test for moderation effects on path a (Time 1 maladaptive parenting → Time 2 insecure attachment) and path b (Time 2 insecure attachment → Time 3 perfectionism) separately. If preliminary analyses indicated significant moderation effects, moderated mediation analyses would be conducted on the corresponding paths. However, if no moderation effects were found in the preliminary analyses, then moderated mediation would not be performed. For models involving moderated mediation, structural equation modelling (SEM) would be carried out using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Missing data would be handled using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML), and path estimates would be derived through Maximum Likelihood Estimation (ML). To obtain bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% and 99% confidence intervals, 10,000 bootstrap samples would be utilized. Untransformed variables would be used since bootstrapping is robust against skewness and non-normality (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Indirect effects would be deemed significant when confidence intervals do not include zero (Hayes, 2013). To evaluate model fit, fit indices would include the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual 62 (SRMR). According to established guidelines, a good-fitting model meets the criteria of CFI > .95, RMSEA < .06, and SRMR < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For models with gender as the moderator, girls would be coded as 0 and boys as 1. The difference in indirect effects between girls and boys would be calculated to determine whether the relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism via insecure attachment differed by gender. For models with age as the moderator, younger and older age groups would be defined as 1 SD below and above the mean age, respectively. The difference in indirect effects for younger and older youth participants would be computed to test whether the mediation pathway varied based on age. 63 Chapter 3 Results Descriptive Statistics Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the study variables across the three time points. The means and standard deviations of authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control are comparable to those in other studies that have used the same measures (e.g., Goldner & Scharf, 2024; Holliday, 2023; Rinaldi & Howe, 2012). Similarly, the means and standard deviations of self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfections, and nondisclosure of imperfections were compared to normative data from community samples of children and adolescents (Flett et al., 2016; Hewitt et al., 2011). All variables were comparable to the normative data, except for self-oriented perfectionism. Self-oriented perfectionism scores at Time 1 (M = 35.23, SD = 10.26), Time 2 (M = 36.10, SD = 10.71), and Time 3 (M = 35.83, SD = 10.80) were slightly higher in comparison to the community norms for children (M = 31.45, SD = 8.46) and adolescents (M = 29.38, SD = 8.34). Comparisons of uninvolved parenting, insecure attachment, and perfectionistic cognitions to previous study samples are limited due to the use of modified versions of the scales in the current study. Further inspection of Table 3 shows that the mean levels of perfectionism do not appear to differ across time points. To investigate this, a one-way repeated measures MANOVA was conducted for trait perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation subscales separately. A repeated measures ANOVA was used for perfectionistic cognitions. The multivariate test results revealed no significant overall main effect of time on the trait dimensions (Wilks’ Lambda = .88, F(4, 48) = 1.59, p = .19), indicating that self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed 64 perfectionism did not significantly change over time. Similarly, the multivariate test for the effect of time on perfectionistic self-presentation was not significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .79, F(6, 46) = 2.04, p = .08), suggesting that there were no significant changes for the facets of perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfections, and nondisclosure of imperfections over the three time points. Lastly, the Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was violated (χ2(2) = 12.07, p = .002) in the repeated measures ANOVA, so a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used. Results revealed that the effect of time was non-significant (F(1.65, 83.98) = 1.51, p = .18), indicating that levels of perfectionistic cognitions did not differ significantly over time. Overall, the findings suggest that the mean levels of trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, and perfectionistic cognitions remained stable over the two-year time period, with no statistically significant changes observed across the three time points. Finally, to examine whether demographic variables influenced the study variables, independent-samples t-tests revealed no significant differences in any of the study variables between youth with and without siblings at Time 1, between those with and without a mental health disorder diagnosis at Time 1, or based on whether the attending parent was the mother or father at Time 1. Additionally, correlational analyses showed no significant relationships between family annual household income and any study variables. Correlations between youth age and gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and study variables were also examined. A positive association was found between Time 1 youth age and Time 2 insecure attachment and Time 3 perfectionistic self-promotion, while Time 1 youth gender had a negative association with Time 3 nondisplay of imperfections (see Appendix A). Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Across Time Points Variable Time 1 (N = 107) Time 2 (N = 66) Time 3 (N = 49) M SD Mdn IQR M SD Mdn IQR M SD Mdn IQR Authoritarian Parenting 1.73 .41 1.58 .50 1.60 .40 1.50 .50 1.53 .37 1.42 .42 Parental Psychological Control 1.52 .51 1.33 .60 1.56 .62 1.33 .73 1.59 .68 1.27 .87 Uninvolved Parenting 1.88 .40 1.80 .60 1.82 .42 1.80 .65 1.90 .44 1.90 .80 Insecure Attachment – – – – 13.83 3.34 13.75 4.75 14.06 3.39 14.50 3.87 Self-Oriented Perfectionism 35.23 10.26 33.00 17.00 36.10 10.71 35.00 17.00 35.83 10.80 35.00 18.75 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism 23.31 7.99 22.00 13.00 22.71 9.37 21.00 15.50 22.58 9.39 22.00 13.50 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion 18.65 7.14 18.00 10.00 19.77 7.47 19.00 11.00 21.06 7.49 20.50 10.00 Nondisplay of Imperfections 18.76 4.57 18.00 5.00 19.45 4.84 19.00 8.00 19.67 5.29 20.00 8.00 Nondisclosure of Imperfections 10.56 3.15 10.00 4.00 10.65 3.41 10.00 5.00 11.08 3.12 11.00 5.00 Perfectionistic Cognitions 5.26 5.90 3.00 7.00 5.88 6.39 3.00 8.50 6.04 6.30 4.50 7.75 Note. Time 1 insecure attachment was assessed using a different measure and is not included in the current study. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, whereas all other variables were child-reported. Mdn = Median; IQR = Interquartile Range. Research Question 1: Correlation Analyses Correlational analyses were conducted to test whether maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism are intercorrelated both within time and across time. Hypothesis 1: Associations Within Time Hypothesis 1 predicts that maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism will be positively correlated at each time point. Consistent with the hypothesis, positive associations are observed among the study variables at each time point. Time 1. Table 4 presents correlational findings among study variables at Time 1. Authoritarian parenting was positively correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism and nondisclosure of imperfections. Parental psychological control showed significant positive associations with all dimensions of perfectionism. Additionally, uninvolved parenting was significantly correlated with perfectionistic self-promotion and nondisclosure of imperfections. These findings indicate that higher levels of maladaptive parenting styles are associated with increased levels of perfectionism across various dimensions. Time 2. Table 5 presents correlational findings among study variables at Time 2. Authoritarian parenting was positively correlated with perfectionistic cognitions. Parental psychological control showed significant positive correlations with all dimensions of perfectionism. Moreover, uninvolved parenting was significantly associated with socially prescribed perfectionism and all three facets of perfectionistic self-presentation. Insecure attachment was positively related to both parental psychological control and uninvolved parenting. Insecure attachment also exhibited significant correlations with all dimensions of 67 perfectionism. Correlational findings at Time 2 further support the relationships among maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and perfectionism. Time 3. Table 6 presents correlational findings among study variables at Time 3. Authoritarian parenting did not show any significant correlations with perfectionism at Time 3. However, consistent with Time 1 and Time 2, parental psychological control continued to exhibit significant positive relationships with all dimensions of perfectionism. Uninvolved parenting was significantly associated with nondisplay of imperfections. Similar to Time 2, insecure attachment was positively associated with both parental psychological control and uninvolved parenting. Additionally, insecure attachment was significantly associated with socially prescribed perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, nondisplay of imperfections, and perfectionistic cognitions. Findings at Time 3 reinforce the links between maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and various dimensions of perfectionism. In summary, results from the within-time correlational analyses show that parental psychological control consistently demonstrates the most robust associations with all facets of perfectionism. Authoritarian and uninvolved parenting also show associations with various dimensions of perfectionism, though these relationships vary across different time points. Moreover, insecure attachment consistently correlates with perfectionism (except for self-oriented perfectionism and nondisclosure of imperfections) at each time point. The inconsistent findings across time points may, in part, reflect the decreasing sample size from Time 1 to Time 3. Despite this, findings from the correlational analyses provide clear evidence that maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment are concurrently associated with perfectionism. Table 4 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 1 (N = 107) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Authoritarian Parenting – 2. Parental Psychological Control .11 – 3. Uninvolved Parenting -.10 .33*** – 4. Self-Oriented Perfectionism .09 .39*** .07 – 5. Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .20* .46*** .16 .66*** – 6. Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .07 .36*** .25** .63*** .59*** – 7. Nondisplay of Imperfections .11 .39*** .18 .63*** .49*** .69*** – 8. Nondisclosure of Imperfections .26** .33*** .35*** .43*** .40*** .55*** .57*** – 9. Perfectionistic Cognitions .10 .49*** .16 .78*** .62*** .65*** .64*** .48*** – Note. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, whereas all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed). 69 Table 5 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles, Insecure Attachment, and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 2 (N = 66) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Authoritarian Parenting – 2. Parental Psychological Control .18 – 3. Uninvolved Parenting -.03 .25* – 4. Insecure Attachment .18 .38** .33** – 5. Self-Oriented Perfectionism .20 .55*** .14 .38*** – 6. Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .21 .67*** .32** .36** .53*** – 7. Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .18 .43*** .29* .55*** .74*** .46*** – 8. Nondisplay of Imperfections .21 .53*** .27* .56*** .69*** .46*** .71*** – 9. Nondisclosure of Imperfections .19 .51*** .31** .44*** .42*** .55*** .46*** .55*** – 10. Perfectionistic Cognitions .28* .59*** .13 .38*** .80*** .59*** .68*** .62*** .42*** – Note. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, whereas all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed). 70 Table 6 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles, Insecure Attachment, and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 3 (N = 49) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Authoritarian Parenting – 2. Parental Psychological Control .29* – 3. Uninvolved Parenting .01 .38** – 4. Insecure Attachment -.07 .48*** .40** – 5. Self-Oriented Perfectionism .19 .50*** .02 .24 – 6. Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .21 .71*** .19 .39** .57*** – 7. Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .06 .42** .26 .30* .73*** .43*** – 8. Nondisplay of Imperfections -.00 .50*** .28* .50*** .67*** .47*** .73*** – 9. Nondisclosure of Imperfections .04 .36** .24 .26 .34* .39** .33* .38** – 10. Perfectionistic Cognitions .03 .62*** .11 .45*** .70*** .54*** .58*** .56*** .37** – Note. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, whereas all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed). Hypothesis 2: Maladaptive Parenting and Perfectionism Across Time Hypothesis 2 proposes that maladaptive parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting) at Time 1 will be positively correlated with dimensions of perfectionism at Time 2 and Time 3. The results support this hypothesis, with significant associations observed for specific maladaptive parenting styles and dimensions of perfectionism across time points. Table 7 summarizes the correlational findings. Authoritarian parenting at Time 1 demonstrated significant positive correlations with most dimensions of perfectionism at Time 2, except for perfectionistic self-promotion. Authoritarian parenting remained significantly associated with self-oriented perfectionism at Time 3. Parental psychological control at Time 1 was significantly correlated with all dimensions of perfectionism at Time 2. At Time 3, significant associations persisted for all dimensions of perfectionism except nondisclosure of imperfections. Lastly, uninvolved parenting at Time 1 did not exhibit any significant relationships with dimensions of perfectionism at either Time 2 or Time 3. Results indicate that authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control demonstrate longitudinal associations with perfectionism over time. Parental psychological control was consistently associated with perfectionism across all time points. On the other hand, the relationship between authoritarian parenting and perfectionism appears to be less stable, as the significant longitudinal associations observed at Time 2 are no longer present at Time 3. This inconsistency may be influenced by differences in authoritarian parenting levels between participants who dropped out and those who completed the study. Lastly, no significant associations were found between uninvolved parenting and perfectionism across any time point, suggesting the absence of a direct relationship. 72 Table 7 Correlations Among Maladaptive Parenting Styles at Time 1 and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 2 and Time 3 Variable Authoritarian Parenting Parental Psychological Control Uninvolved Parenting Time 2 Self-Oriented Perfectionism .38** .43*** -.02 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .36** .36** .13 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .22 .43*** .16 Nondisplay of Imperfections .25* .47*** .02 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .26* .27* .07 Perfectionistic Cognitions .37** .52*** -.03 Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism .29* .30* -.21 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .26 .46*** .04 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .17 .39** .06 Nondisplay of Imperfections .06 .38** .03 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .18 .14 -.17 Perfectionistic Cognitions .06 .30* -.08 Note. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, whereas all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed). Hypothesis 3: Insecure Attachment and Perfectionism Across Time Hypothesis 3 posits that insecure attachment at Time 2 will be positively associated with dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. The findings align with this hypothesis, demonstrating longitudinal effects where insecure attachment at Time 2 was significantly associated with socially prescribed perfectionism and nondisplay of imperfections at Time 3. These results suggest that insecure attachment is associated with perfectionism over time, particularly with the perception of external expectations and the tendency to conceal perceived flaws. Table 8 provides the correlational findings between insecure attachment at Time 2 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. 73 Table 8 Correlations Among Insecure Attachment at Time 2 and Dimensions of Perfectionism at Time 3 Variable Insecure Attachment Self-Oriented Perfectionism .16 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .33* Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .19 Nondisplay of Imperfections .36** Nondisclosure of Imperfections .05 Perfectionistic Cognitions .26 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed). Research Question 2: Time-Lagged Mediational Effects Time-lagged mediation analyses were performed to investigate whether insecure attachment (at time 2) mediates the relationship between maladaptive parenting styles (at time 1) and dimensions of perfectionism (at time 3). Hypothesis 4: Authoritarian Parenting as Predictor Table 9 presents the time-lagged mediation results for authoritarian parenting as the predictor. No significant indirect effects were observed in the mediation pathways from authoritarian parenting at Time 1 to dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3 through insecure attachment at Time 2. The total effect of the model on self-oriented perfectionism was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .32, p = .047, 95% CI [.02, 16.90]) but was not significant at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-3.30, 19.58]). Additionally, while path b of the model on nondisplay of imperfections was significant based on the p-value (b = .37, p = .043), the confidence intervals included zero, indicating non-significance at both the 95% (95% CI [-.11, 1.04]) and 99% (99% CI [-.39, 1.16]) confidence levels. These results do not support Hypothesis 4, as the mediational pathway from authoritarian parenting at Time 1 to dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3 through insecure attachment at Time 2 was not significant. Figures 3 to 8 visually depict each mediation model with authoritarian parenting as the predictor. Table 9 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Authoritarian Parenting (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) Dependent Variables (DV) path a path b path c’ Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 95% CI Indirect Effect 99% CI Total Effect Self-Oriented Perfectionism .06 .11 .31 .01 -.68, 2.61 -1.40, 3.60 .32* Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .06 .29 .27 .02 -.89, 3.09 -1.81, 4.28 .28 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .06 .15 .16 .01 -.48, 2.31 -1.01, 3.31 .17 Nondisplay of Imperfections .06 .37* -.00 .02 -.66, 2.08 -1.26, 2.75 .02 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .05 .02 .21 .00 -.26, .52 -.46, .77 .21 Perfectionistic Cognitions .06 .33 .12 .02 -.63, 2.26 -1.30, 2.93 .14 Note. path a = authoritarian parenting on insecure attachment; path b = insecure attachment on DV; path c’ = direct effect; indirect effect = path ab; total effect = path c. Bolded confidence intervals do not include a zero, indicating a significant indirect effect. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. The authoritarian parenting variable was parent-reported, and all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001. Indirect Effect = .01, 95% CI [-.68, 2.61], 99% CI [-1.40, 3.60] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Figure 4 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Indirect Effect = .02, 95% CI [-.89, 3.09], 99% CI [-1.81, 4.28] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .31 .11 .06 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism .27 .29 .06 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Figure 3 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism 76 Indirect Effect = .01, 95% CI [-.48, 2.31], 99% CI [-1.01, 3.31] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .02, 95% CI [-.66, 2.08], 99% CI [-1.26, 2.75] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .16 .15 .06 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion -.00 .37* .06 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Figure 5 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Figure 6 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections 77 Indirect Effect = .00, 95% CI [-.26, .52], 99% CI [-.46, .77] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .02, 95% CI [-.63, 2.26], 99% CI [-1.30, 2.93] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .21 .02 .05 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .12 .33 .06 Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Authoritarian Parenting Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Figure 7 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Figure 8 T1 Authoritarian Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions 78 Hypothesis 5: Parental Psychological Control as Predictor Table 10 presents the time-lagged mediation results with parental psychological control as the predictor. No significant indirect effects were observed for the mediation pathways from parental psychological control at Time 1 to dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3 through insecure attachment at Time 2. Several total effects, however, were significant. The total effect of the model on self-oriented perfectionism was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .30, p = .041, 95% CI [.04, .88]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.10, 1.03]). Path a, representing the effect of parental psychological control on insecure attachment, was also significant (b = .30, p = .003, 95% CI [.06, .24], 99% CI [.02, .28]). Similarly, the total effect of the model on socially prescribed perfectionism was significant at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels (b = .44, p = .001, 95% CI [.23, .92], 99% CI [.13, 1.03]). Path a remained significant (b = .31, p = .003, 95% CI [.06, .24], 99% CI [.03, .29]), while path c’—the direct effect of parental psychological control on socially prescribed perfectionism—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .37, p = .009, 95% CI [.12, .83]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.01, .94]). The total effect of the model on perfectionistic self-promotion was also significant at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels (b = .37, p = .011, 95% CI [.09, .68], 99% CI [.01, .78]). Path a was significant (b = .30, p = .003, 95% CI [.05, .24], 99% CI [.03, .28]), while path c’—the direct effect of parental psychological control on perfectionistic self-promotion—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .34, p = .023, 95% CI [.05, .66]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.04, .75]). 79 Finally, the total effect of the model on nondisplay of imperfections was significant at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels (b = .38, p = .004, 95% CI [.09, .46], 99% CI [.02, .52]). Path a remained significant (b = .31, p = .003, 95% CI [.06, .24], 99% CI [.03, .29]), and path c’—the direct effect of parental psychological control on nondisplay of imperfections—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .29, p = .043, 95% CI [.02, .42]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.04, .50]). Only path a—the effect of parental psychological control on insecure attachment—was significant for the models on nondisclosure of imperfections (b = .30, p = .004, 95% CI [.05, .24], 99% CI [.03, .29]) and perfectionistic cognitions (b = .31, p = .003, 95% CI [.06, .24], 99% CI [.03, .29]). The results do not support Hypothesis 5, which posits the mediational pathway from parental psychological control at Time 1 to dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3 through insecure attachment at Time 2. However, the significant direct effects—particularly for socially prescribed perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, and nondisplay of imperfections—indicate that parental psychological control predicts certain dimensions of perfectionism two years later, although this pathway is not mediated by insecure attachment. Figures 9 through 14 provide a visual representation of each mediation model with parental psychological control as the predictor. Table 10 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Parental Psychological Control (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) Dependent Variables (DV) path a path b path c’ Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 95% CI Indirect Effect 99% CI Total Effect Self-Oriented Perfectionism .30** .10 .27 .03 -.13, .22 -.20, .28 .30* Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .31** .24 .37** .07 -.00, .28 -.03, .37 .44*** Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .30** .10 .34* .03 -.08, .17 -.13, .22 .37* Nondisplay of Imperfections .31** .29 .29* .09 -.01, .18 -.04, .21 .38** Nondisclosure of Imperfections .30** .01 .12 .00 -.05, .05 -.07, .07 .12 Perfectionistic Cognitions .31** .29 .24 .09 -.01, .21 -.03, .27 .32 Note. path a = parental psychological control on insecure attachment; path b = insecure attachment on DV; path c’ = direct effect; indirect effect = path ab; total effect = path c. Bolded confidence intervals do not include a zero, indicating a significant indirect effect. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001. Indirect Effect = .03, 95% CI [-.13, .22], 99% CI [-.20, .28] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .07, 95% CI [-.00, .28], 99% CI [-.03, .37] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .27 .27 .27 .27 .10 .10 .10 .10 .30** .30** .30** .30** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism .37** .37** .37** .37** .24 .24 .24 .24 .31** .31** .31** .31** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Figure 9 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Figure 10 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism 82 Indirect Effect = .03, 95% CI [-.08, .17], 99% CI [-.13, .22] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .09, 95% CI [-.01, .18], 99% CI [-.04, .21] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .34* .34* .34* .34* .10 .10 .10 .10 .30** .30** .30** .30** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .29* .29* .29* .29* .29 .29 .29 .29 .31** .31** .31** .31** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Figure 11 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Figure 12 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections 83 Indirect Effect = .00, 95% CI [-.05, .05], 99% CI [-.07, .07] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .09, 95% CI [-.01, .21], 99% CI [-.03, .27] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .12 .12 .12 .12 .01 .01 .01 .01 .30** .30** .30** .30** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .24 .24 .24 .24 .29 .29 .29 .29 .31** .31** .31** .31** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 1 Parental Psychological Control Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Figure 13 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Figure 14 T1 Psychological Control → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions 84 Hypothesis 6: Uninvolved Parenting as Predictor Table 11 presents the time-lagged mediation results with uninvolved parenting as the predictor. Several significant indirect effects were observed in the mediation pathways from uninvolved parenting at Time 1 to dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3 through insecure attachment at Time 2. Specifically, the indirect effect of uninvolved parenting on socially prescribed perfectionism through insecure attachment was significant at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels (b = .10, p = .066, 95% CI [.50, 6.01], 99% CI [.01, 7.45]). Path a—the effect of uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment—was significant (b = .28, p = .007, 95% CI [.72, 4.16], 99% CI [.21, 4.86]), while path b—the effect of insecure attachment on socially prescribed perfectionism—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .37, p = .020, 95% CI [.21, 1.96]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.05, 2.32]). The direct effect of uninvolved parenting on socially prescribed perfectionism was not significant, indicating full mediation of the relationship through insecure attachment. Furthermore, the indirect effect of uninvolved parenting on nondisplay of imperfections through insecure attachment was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .11, p = .078, 95% CI [.19, 3.62]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.18, 4.30]). Path a—the effect of uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment—was significant (b = .28, p = .007, 95% CI [.73, 4.18], 99% CI [.23, 4.89]), while path b—the effect of insecure attachment on nondisplay of imperfections—was significant based on the p-value but not the confidence intervals (b = .40, p = .019, 95% CI [-.03, 1.07], 99% CI [-.28, 1.18]). The direct effect of uninvolved parenting on nondisplay of imperfections was non-significant, suggesting a pattern consistent with full mediation. 85 Similarly, the indirect effect of uninvolved parenting on perfectionistic cognitions through insecure attachment was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .11, p = .082, 95% CI [.29, 4.55]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.09, 5.74]). Path a—the effect of uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment—was significant (b = .28, p = .007, 95% CI [.73, 4.17], 99% CI [.22, 4.85]), while path b—the effect of insecure attachment on perfectionistic cognitions—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = .40, p = .022, 95% CI [.11, 1.44]) but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-.09, 1.69]). Again, the direct effect of uninvolved parenting on perfectionistic cognitions was not significant, supporting the notion of full mediation. No other significant indirect effects were found for the other models. However, for the model on self-oriented perfectionism, path a—the effect of uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment—was significant (b = .29, p = .006, 95% CI [.76, 4.21], 99% CI [.25, 4.90]), while path c’—the direct effect of uninvolved parenting on self-oriented perfectionism—was significant at the 95% confidence level (b = -.30, p = .037, 95% CI [-15.72, -.69], but not at the 99% confidence level (99% CI [-18.08, 1.36]). Only path a—the effect of uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment—was significant for the models involving perfectionistic self-promotion (b = .29, p = .006, 95% CI [.76, 4.21], 99% CI [.26, 4.90]) and nondisclosure of imperfections (b = .29, p = .006, 95% CI [.78, 4.23], 99% CI [.28, 4.90]). The results support Hypothesis 6, which posits a mediational pathway from uninvolved parenting at Time 1 to various dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3, mediated by insecure attachment at Time 2. The findings indicate that the mediational role of insecure attachment between uninvolved parenting and perfectionism may be more pronounced for certain 86 dimensions of perfectionism, particularly socially prescribed perfectionism, nondisplay of imperfections, and perfectionistic cognitions. The strongest evidence was found for socially prescribed perfectionism, with significant indirect effects observed at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. Figures 15 to 20 illustrate the mediation models where uninvolved parenting serves as the predictor. Table 11 Time-Lagged Mediation Results for Uninvolved Parenting (T1) → Insecure Attachment (T2) → Perfectionism (T3) Dependent Variables (DV) path a path b path c’ Indirect Effect Indirect Effect 95% CI Indirect Effect 99% CI Total Effect Self-Oriented Perfectionism .29** .25 -.30* .07 -.42, 5.84 -1.47, 7.43 -.22 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .28** .37* -.07 .10 .50, 6.01 .01, 7.45 .04 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .29** .20 .01 .06 -.71, 4.06 -1.49, 5.24 .06 Nondisplay of Imperfections .28** .40* -.08 .11 .19, 3.62 -.18, 4.30 .03 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .29** .12 -.22 .04 -.34, 1.29 -.57, 1.76 -.19 Perfectionistic Cognitions .28** .40* -.18 .11 .29, 4.55 -.09, 5.74 -.07 Note. path a = uninvolved parenting on insecure attachment; path b = insecure attachment on DV; path c’ = direct effect; indirect effect = path ab; total effect = path c. Bolded confidence intervals do not include a zero, indicating a significant indirect effect. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001. Indirect Effect = .07, 95% CI [-.42, 5.84], 99% CI [-1.47, 7.43] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .10, 95% CI [.50, 6.01], 99% CI [.01, 7.45] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. -.30* -.30* -.30* -.30* .25 .25 .25 .25 .29** .29** .29** .29** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Time 3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism -.07 -.07 -.07 -.07 .37* .37* .37* .37* .28** .28** .28** .28** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism Time 3 Figure 15 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism Figure 16 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism 89 Indirect Effect = .06, 95% CI [-.71, 4.06], 99% CI [-1.49, 5.24] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .11, 95% CI [.19, 3.62], 99% CI [-.18, 4.30] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. .01 .01 .01 .01 .20 .20 .20 .20 .29** .29** .29** .29** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Time 3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion -.08 -.08 -.08 -.08 .40* .40* .40* .40* .28** .28** .28** .28** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisplay of Imperfections Figure 17 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion Figure 18 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections 90 Indirect Effect = .04, 95% CI [-.34, 1.29], 99% CI [-.57, 1.76] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Indirect Effect = .11, 95% CI [.29, 4.55], 99% CI [-.09, 5.74] Note. Standardized parameter estimates are reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. -.18 .40* .40* .40* -.22 -.22 -.22 -.22 .12 .12 .12 .12 .29** .29** .29** .29** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Time 3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .40* .40* .40* .40* .28** .28** .28** .28** Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 2 Insecure Attachment Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 1 Uninvolved Parenting Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Time 3 Perfectionistic Cognitions Figure 19 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections Figure 20 T1 Uninvolved Parenting → T2 Insecure Attachment → T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions 91 Research Question 3: Moderated Mediation The purpose of the moderated mediation analyses was to explore whether the significant mediation pathways vary by gender and age. Prior to conducting the moderated mediation analyses, preliminary linear regression analyses were performed separately on path a (Time 1 uninvolved parenting → Time 2 insecure attachment) and path b (Time 2 insecure attachment → Time 3 perfectionism) within the significant mediation models to test for potential moderation effects. These analyses were performed on the following significant mediation models: a) Uninvolved Parenting (Time 1) → Insecure Attachment (Time 2) → Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (Time 3), b) Uninvolved Parenting (Time 1) → Insecure Attachment (Time 2) → Nondisplay of Imperfections (Time 3), and c) Uninvolved Parenting (Time 1) → Insecure Attachment (Time 2) → Perfectionistic Cognitions (Time 3). Hypothesis 7: Gender as Moderator Hypothesis 7 is exploratory, proposing that gender may moderate the significant mediation pathways, such that the indirect effects may differ between girls and boys. The results from the preliminary analyses showed that gender did not moderate path a (b = -.46, p = .51). Similarly, no evidence of moderation by gender was found for path b in the mediation models for socially prescribed perfectionism (b = -1.20, p = .10), nondisplay of imperfections (b = -.19, p = .79), and perfectionistic cognitions (b = -1.17, p = .10). Since the preliminary analyses did not show significant moderation effects by gender on either path a or path b for the tested mediation models, further moderated mediation analyses with gender as the moderator was not conducted. Hypothesis 8: Age as Moderator 92 Hypothesis 8 is also exploratory and posits that age may moderate the significant mediation pathways, such that the indirect effects may vary based on age. Preliminary analyses showed that age did not moderate path a (b = -1.49, p = .13). Likewise, age did not moderate path b in the models for socially prescribed perfectionism (b = -1.35, p = .35), nondisplay of imperfections (b = .13, p = .93), and perfectionistic cognitions (b = .83, p = .58). Given that no moderation effect was found for age on either path a or path b in the tested mediation models, no further moderated mediation analyses were performed. Although moderated mediation analyses were planned, the results of the preliminary analyses did not indicate significant moderation effects for either gender or age. Consequently, no additional moderated mediation analyses were carried out. 93 Chapter 4 Discussion “Successful parenting is a principal key to the mental health of the next generation” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 1). Understanding how maladaptive parenting styles influence core vulnerabilities, such as perfectionism, is crucial in mitigating the rise in mean levels of perfectionism observed over the past three decades (Curran & Hill, 2017; Ko et al., in preparation). The general aim of the current study was to determine whether maladaptive parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting) and insecure attachment serve as developmental antecedents of perfectionism in children and adolescents. Specifically, the study tested particular developmental pathways proposed in the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM; Hewitt et al., 2017). The model posits that asynchrony between a child’s psychological needs and parents’ capabilities to relatively consistently meet those needs results in the development of perfectionism. The PSDM further posits that maladaptive parenting styles can have both direct and indirect influences on the development of perfectionism. The indirect influence is captured in that maladaptive parenting gives rise to perfectionism through the development of insecure attachment. This is the first study to examine these specific developmental pathways longitudinally over a two-year period among children and adolescents. The study findings affirmed that maladaptive parenting styles are associated with perfectionism in youth concurrently and longitudinally and indicated that a previously understudied parental style of noninvolvement was associated with later perfectionism through the effects of insecure attachment. The findings provide support for components of the PSDM and provide evidence of the importance of maladaptive parenting styles in youth perfectionism. 94 Several hypotheses were proposed in the study. Hypothesis 1 predicted that maladaptive parenting styles, insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism would be positively correlated at each time point. The findings support this hypothesis and are generally consistent with previous research showing concurrent associations among variables. Hypothesis 2 predicted that maladaptive parenting styles at Time 1 would be associated with perfectionism components over time. The findings support this hypothesis for authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control, demonstrating longitudinal associations with various dimensions of perfectionism. Hypothesis 3 predicted that insecure attachment at Time 2 will be positively associated with dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Results support this hypothesis, showing that insecure attachment is correlated with socially prescribed perfectionism and nondisplay of imperfections one year later. Hypothesis 4 posited that insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between authoritarian parenting at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Results did not support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 5 posited that insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between parental psychological control at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Results also did not support this hypothesis but revealed significant direct effects on various components of perfectionism two years later. Hypothesis 6 posited that insecure attachment at Time 2 will mediate the positive relationship between uninvolved parenting at Time 1 and dimensions of perfectionism at Time 3. Findings did support this hypothesis, suggesting that insecure attachment serves as a mechanism linking uninvolved parenting to socially prescribed perfectionism, nondisplay of imperfections, and perfectionistic cognitions. Hypothesis 7 was exploratory and suggested that gender might moderate the significant mediation pathways. Preliminary analyses did not support this hypothesis, as no significant moderation effects were 95 observed. Finally, Hypothesis 8 was also exploratory and suggested that age might moderate the significant mediation pathways. Likewise, the preliminary results did not support this hypothesis. Overall, the study findings showed that maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment are predictors of perfectionism, providing further empirical support for Hewitt et al.’s (2017) developmental component of the PSDM. First, correlational results reveal that maladaptive parenting, insecure attachment, and perfectionism are associated concurrently and that some of these relationships persist over time. Second, significant direct effects show that parental psychological control predicts several dimensions of perfectionism two years later. This suggests that parents who engage in psychological control are likely to have children with stable levels of perfectionism. Lastly, several mediation models with uninvolved parenting as the predictor were significant and reflected a pattern consistent with full mediation. In particular, the indirect pathway from uninvolved parenting to socially prescribed perfectionism through insecure attachment was particularly robust. Further exploratory analyses showed that gender and age did not moderate paths a and b in the significant mediation models, suggesting that the observed indirect effects do not vary based on gender or age. The study’s findings highlight the role of parenting in the development of perfectionism and further our understanding by emphasizing the various developmental pathways resulting from different maladaptive parenting styles. This not only provides support for the PSDM but also offers areas in the model that may benefit from further refinement and exploration. Links Between Maladaptive Parenting, Insecure Attachment, and Perfectionism The intercorrelations among maladaptive parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting), insecure attachment, and dimensions of perfectionism underscore the critical role of parenting on children’s internal working models 96 and perfectionism over time. While prior studies have largely focused on concurrent associations or short-term longitudinal links (e.g., over several weeks or months), the current findings highlight that certain maladaptive parenting styles, particularly authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control, are not only linked to perfectionism in the present but continue to be associated with perfectionism two years later. Authoritarian Parenting and Perfectionism The relationship between authoritarian parenting and trait dimensions of perfectionism, such as self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism, is well-documented in the literature (e.g., Carmo et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2023; Flett et al., 1995; Miller et al., 2012; Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Speirs Neumeister, 2004; Walton et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2019). Similarly, numerous studies have highlighted the link between authoritarian parenting and perfectionistic cognitions (e.g., Chen et al., 2022; Craddock et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2015; Hibbard & Walton, 2014; Kawamura et al., 2002; Soysa & Weiss, 2014). The study’s findings not only replicate past research findings but also extend existing research by revealing a novel link between authoritarian parenting and various facets of perfectionistic self-presentation. No prior research has specifically examined this relationship. This novel finding indicates that authoritarian parenting is not only related to personality dispositions of perfectionism and perfectionistic thinking but also to interpersonal expressions of perfectionism. This suggests that, in addition to the adverse outcomes associated with perfectionism traits and perfectionistic thinking, authoritarian parenting may render children and adolescents vulnerable to negative outcomes linked to perfectionistic self-presentation styles, such as social anxiety, depression, narcissism, and anorexia nervosa (Casale et al., 2024). Furthermore, the associations between authoritarian 97 parenting and components of perfectionism were maintained one year later, underscoring the enduring relationship between authoritarian parenting and perfectionism. It is important to note that the relationship between authoritarian parenting and dimensions of perfectionism varied within and across time points. Notably, participants who dropped out of the study reported higher levels of authoritarian parenting compared to those who completed the study. This attrition bias may be related to the study’s use of parents’ self-reported ratings of their own parenting style, which could have led to feelings of discomfort or self-consciousness when reflecting on potentially less socially desirable parenting practices. Additionally, parents with more authoritarian tendencies may experience greater stress (Park & Walton-Moss, 2012), making it more difficult for them to commit to the demands of a longitudinal study during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is likely that the experience of those youth exposed to higher levels of authoritarian parenting is not fully represented in the study sample because of the attrition bias. This likely impacted the study findings by restricting the range of the authoritarian parenting variable and may explain the inconsistent links observed between authoritarian parenting and perfectionism. Nevertheless, the results still show a concurrent and longitudinal relationship between authoritarian parenting and certain dimensions of perfectionism. This association suggests that when parents focus heavily on obedience and punishment without offering warmth and support, their children might learn to perceive others as having demands for their perfection and develop a tendency to avoid disclosing flaws or perceived imperfections to others and to engage an internal dialogue that reflects powerful demands for perfection. Growing up in a home with strict rules and little affection can provide an environment where children learn that the only way to 98 receive love, mattering, and acceptance from their parents is to attempt to meet the perceived demands of perfection or to present themselves as perfect. Parental Psychological Control and Perfectionism Parental psychological control was consistently associated with all dimensions of perfectionism within and across all time points, except for the link between parental psychological control at Time 1 and nondisclosure of imperfections at Time 3. These findings align with a substantial body of previous research that has established a relationship between parental psychological control and perfectionism in the literature (e.g., Costa et al., 2016; Curran et al., 2017; Fletcher et al., 2012; Gong et al., 2016; Kenney-Benson & Pomerantz, 2005; McArdle, 2009; Reilly et al., 2016; Rousseau et al., 2018). Soenens and colleagues have extensively examined this link. In a cross-sectional study, Soenens, Elliot et al. (2005) found that parents with higher levels of perfectionism were more likely to engage in psychological control, which in turn predicted perfectionism in their daughters. Their research further demonstrated that parental psychological control predicted perfectionism, mediating the development of low self-esteem (Soenens, Vansteenkiste et al., 2005), depression (Soenens, Luyckx et al., 2008), and eating disorder symptoms (Soenens, Vansteenkiste et al., 2008) in adolescents. Recent research continues to support the associations between parental psychological control and perfectionism (e.g., Dieleman et al., 2020; Haspolat & Yalçın, 2023; Leung et al., 2022). The findings of this study highlight the important effect of parental psychological control on perfectionism, showing that the relationship is significant not only for current levels of perfectionism but also persists over time. Parental psychological control, characterized by the use of guilt, conditional love, and excessive expectations, may foster perfectionism by creating an environment in which children 99 feel their self-worth is contingent upon meeting their perceived parents’ demands for perfection. This is reflected in statements such as, “My parents make me feel guilty if my performance is inferior,” “My parents love me less if I perform badly,” and “My parents only respect me if I am the best at everything” (items from the parental psychological control measure, DAPCS; Scharf et al., 2016). In such environments, children may internalize the belief that they are only deserving of love and care if they are ‘perfect.’ Moreover, parental psychological control has been shown to induce feelings of shame (Gülseven et al., 2022; Rodger & Kealy, 2024), an emotion strongly associated with perfectionism (Dorevitch et al., 2020; Piotrowski et al., 2021; Schalkwijk et al., 2019; Stoeber et al., 2008). Children exposed to high levels of parental psychological control may frequently experience shame and, over time, learn to perceive themselves as defective or flawed. To cope with the distress of shame and the perception of themselves as defective or flawed, perfectionism may emerge as a defense (Hewitt et al., 2017). Uninvolved Parenting and Perfectionism While longitudinal correlations between uninvolved parenting and perfectionism were not significant, the within-time correlations suggest an important role for uninvolved parenting in fostering one component of perfectionism, namely perfectionistic self-presentation. Previous research on uninvolved parenting and perfectionism has demonstrated associations with socially prescribed perfectionism (Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Walton et al., 2020). Additionally, uninvolved parenting has been linked to perfectionistic attitudes (Hibbard and Walton, 2014). The relationship between uninvolved parenting and facets of perfectionistic self-presentation is a novel finding and suggests that children with uninvolved parents may adapt to this relational dynamic by presenting a façade of perfection that is incongruent with their authentic selves. This 100 is significant because perfectionistic self-presentation has been linked to social disconnection (Chen et al., 2012), as well as social anxiety, depression, and narcissism (Casale et al., 2024). While individuals may believe that concealing their perceived imperfections helps them gain acceptance and appear more likeable, this tendency paradoxically undermines their ability to form meaningful connections, ultimately thwarting the very needs they are striving to fulfill. Uninvolved parenting is characterized by minimal interaction and low responsiveness to the child (Agarwal & Dhenwal, 2024). These “absentee” parents often fail to meet their children’s emotional and relational needs (Agarwal & Dhenwal, 2024). As a result, children may perceive their parents’ lack of involvement as a reflection of their own inadequacy, believing they are not living up to their parents’ perceived or actual demands for perfection and that this failure is the reason for their parents’ detachment. They may also come to believe that in order to receive any recognition, sense of mattering, or caring from their parents, they need to present themselves as perfect and conceal their imperfections. Thus, insufficient attention and support from uninvolved parents may drive the need to be or appear perfect. The correlational findings support the PSDM's theorization that maladaptive parenting is relevant to perfectionism. Not only are maladaptive parenting styles associated with current levels of perfectionism, but more importantly, these associations are maintained longitudinally for authoritarian parenting and parental psychological control, indicating that these specific maladaptive parenting styles are linked to future levels of perfectionism. The asynchrony described in the PSDM between the parent and child can be attributed to authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, and uninvolved parenting. Caregivers who adopt these parenting styles are likely not meeting or insufficiently meeting the relational and emotional needs of their child. This may prompt some children to engage in perfectionistic behaviours as a means to 101 obtain a sense of belonging and of being lovable and good enough, or as a means of compensating for these unmet needs. Concerningly, the longitudinal associations between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism highlight the enduring impact of a parent’s behaviour on their child’s development. Insecure Attachment and Perfectionism Although the current work focused on insecure attachment as a mediating variable, there are findings from the study that increase our understanding of attachment and perfectionism in youth. The link between insecure attachment and perfectionism is in line with past research on adults (e.g., Borroni et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2015; Gnilka et al., 2013; Ko et al., 2019; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006; Wei et al., 2006; Wei et al., 2004) and children and adolescents (e.g., Boone, 2013; Chen et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017). This association suggests that those with a relational style characterized by anxiety, fear, or mistrust may adopt perfectionism to meet their unmet relational needs. Those with internal working models of the self as unlovable (i.e., anxious attachment) seek reassurance and fear rejection (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). These individuals may engage in perfectionistic tendencies in the hopes of garnering acceptance to maintain relational security. On the other hand, individuals with internal working models of others as unreliable and rejecting (i.e., avoidant attachment) distrust others and suppress their own attachment needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Such individuals may engage in perfectionism to maintain control and avoid reliance on others. Thus, the need to be perfect or to present the self as perfect may serve as a way to address unmet relational needs rooted in an individual’s attachment experiences. From this perspective, perfectionism can be understood as a reflection of attachment-related strategies. According to Shaver and Mikulincer (2007), individuals unconsciously engage 102 in hyperactivation or deactivation when their attachment system is triggered. Hyperactivation aims to establish closeness with the attachment figure, and for individuals with perfectionism, this can translate into the belief that being perfect or appearing perfect will earn them the validation and acceptance they seek (Hewitt et al., 2017). On the other hand, deactivation serves to suppress threats to the attachment system by establishing a sense of control. Perfectionism can fulfill this function by allowing individuals a sense of control over how they are portrayed to others, often through concealing perceived imperfections and avoiding personal disclosures. As such, the link between insecure attachment and perfectionism suggests that perfectionism may emerge as a strategy (or defense) to regulate the insecure attachment system. In line with the PSDM, the study findings highlight that a negative working model of the self and others is intricately linked to perfectionism. While the current study combined anxious and avoidant attachment into one single insecure attachment construct, past research has shown that specific attachment styles are associated with distinct dimensions of perfectionism. For example, anxious attachment has been more consistently linked to perfectionistic self-promotion (Boone, 2013; Chen et al., 2012), whereas avoidant attachment has been more closely associated with nondisclosure of imperfections (Chen et al., 2012; Ko et al., 2019). This suggests that attachment styles may differentially contribute to the development of various dimensions of perfectionism, potentially shaping distinct developmental pathways. This aligns with the concept that individuals with an anxious attachment style are more likely to engage in hyperactivation, while those with an avoidant attachment style are more inclined to engage in deactivation (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007). However, further research is needed to fully unravel the nuanced relationship between insecure attachment styles and particular elements of perfectionism. 103 In summary, the connection between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism, as well as insecure attachment and perfectionism, provides empirical support for the PSDM by demonstrating their relevance to perfectionism. More importantly, the longitudinal associations highlight the robustness of these relationships across developmental stages in children and adolescents. Mediational Pathways in the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) The findings from this work reveal that different maladaptive parenting styles may contribute to perfectionism in distinct ways. This suggests that there may be unique developmental pathways to various dimensions of perfectionism. Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Authoritarian Parenting and Perfectionism Authoritarian parenting did not show any direct or indirect effects on perfectionism in this study. However, it is important to not dismiss the potential role of authoritarian parenting in perfectionism development, given the substantial body of research that has consistently established a link between authoritarian parenting and perfectionism (e.g., Carmo et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022; Craddock et al., 2009; Flett et al., 1995; Gong et al., 2015; Hibbard & Walton, 2014; Kawamura et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2012; Miller & Speirs Neumeister, 2017; Soysa & Weiss, 2014; Speirs Neumeister, 2004; Walton et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2019). The null findings in this study may be attributed to three key factors. First, parents who withdrew from the study reported higher levels of authoritarian parenting compared to those who completed it. This difference may have reduced the variability in authoritarian parenting, making it more difficult to detect any potential effects due to the restricted range of scores. Second, the study used a parent-reported measure of authoritarian parenting, which may have been 104 influenced by social desirability bias, potentially influencing parents to underreport their authoritarian behaviours. Third, using a parent-reported measure does not capture children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ parenting. It is not uncommon for parents and children to have differing perceptions of parenting (Korelitz & Garber, 2016). Additionally, some studies have found that youth’s perceptions of parenting are more strongly associated with their perfectionism than parents’ self-reported parenting behaviours (Lavrijsen et al., 2021). Similarly, youth’s perceptions of their parents’ perfectionism show stronger associations with their own perfectionism than parents’ actual levels of perfectionism (Olsson et al., 2020). When it comes to the development of perfectionism, the child’s perception of parenting may hold greater significance than the actual parenting. Together, these methodological limitations could have contributed to the null findings. Nevertheless, the existing literature strongly suggests that authoritarian parenting likely plays a role in the development of perfectionism. Future research using child-reported perceptions of authoritarian parenting and mitigating the attrition bias in the current study could provide greater clarity into its developmental impact on perfectionism. Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Parental Psychological Control and Perfectionism Although parental psychological control did not show any indirect effects on perfectionism, it emerged as a strong direct predictor of perfectionism. Specifically, parental psychological control significantly predicted socially prescribed perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, and nondisplay of imperfections two years later. These findings inform us that parents who use psychological control are highly likely to contribute to the development and/or maintenance of perfectionism in their children over time. 105 It is unclear why parental psychological control only directly predicted certain dimensions of perfectionism. This suggests that the effect of parental psychological control may vary across different dimensions of perfectionism, with some effects being direct and others potentially operating through indirect pathways. The non-significant indirect effects indicate that insecure attachment may not serve as a mediator in this relationship; however, other factors may still play a role and warrant further investigation. According to Hewitt et al.’s (2017) developmental component of the PSDM, a flawed sense of self and aversive affect are also proposed as potential developmental antecedents of perfectionism. It is possible that the relationship between parental psychological control and perfectionism may be better explained by these factors. For instance, Ko et al. (2019) showed that perceived defectiveness mediated the link between maladaptive parenting (operationalized as lack of autonomy support, warmth, and involvement) and perfectionism in adults. Moreover, shame could also serve as a mediator. Chen et al. (2015) found that shame mediated the relationship between insecure attachment and perfectionism. These findings highlight the possibility that different maladaptive parenting styles may lead to perfectionism through distinct developmental pathways. Given the shame-inducing nature of parental psychological control (Gülseven et al., 2022; Rodger & Kealy, 2024), shame and perceived defectiveness may serve as more relevant mediators in the pathway linking parental psychological control to the development of perfectionism. Mediating Effect of Insecure Attachment on Uninvolved Parenting and Perfectionism The relationship between uninvolved parenting and perfectionism is mediated by insecure attachment. Specifically, the findings reveal significant indirect effects on socially prescribed perfectionism, nondisplay of imperfections, and perfectionistic cognitions. The absence of significant direct effects in these mediation models aligns with a pattern of full mediation. 106 Essentially, the lack of parental involvement does not directly affect perfectionism but sets the stage for the development of insecure attachment, which in turn predicts perfectionism. These findings align with Ko (2019), who found significant cross-sectional indirect effects of uninvolved parenting on all trait and self-presentational dimensions of perfectionism through insecure attachment. However, for the non-significant indirect effects observed in the current study (e.g., models predicting self-oriented perfectionism, perfectionistic self-promotion, and nondisclosure of imperfections), it is important to note that variables identified as mediators in cross-sectional analyses may not necessarily demonstrate mediation in longitudinal analyses (Maxwell et al., 2011). The discrepancy in findings highlights the importance of conducting mediation analyses on longitudinal data. One thing to note is that the study found a negative direct effect of uninvolved parenting on self-oriented perfectionism. This unexpected finding suggests that higher levels of uninvolved parenting predicted lower levels of self-oriented perfectionism two years later. While this deviates from theoretical expectations, it is possible that uninvolved parenting, characterized by a lack of pressure or expectations, might limit the internalization of perfectionism. Alternatively, this finding could reflect the unique characteristics of the study sample. Future research is needed to further investigate and clarify this unexpected outcome. Altogether, the mediational findings have implications for the PSDM. Although insecure attachment did not mediate the relationship between authoritarian parenting and perfectionism, authoritarian parenting still likely plays a role in the development of perfectionism given the robust associations documented in the literature. Additionally, while no significant indirect effects were found for parental psychological control on perfectionism, the direct effects indicate that parents who engage in psychological control are likely to contribute to their child developing 107 or maintaining perfectionism two years later. Finally, the mediating role of insecure attachment in the relationship between uninvolved parenting and various elements of perfectionism provides empirical support for a specific pathway proposed in the PSDM. This pathway describes that perfectionism develops from an asynchrony between the parent and the child. This asynchrony, characterized by a lack of responsiveness in effectively meeting needs from caregivers, fosters insecurity in a child’s relational model of the self and others (Bowlby, 1988). When children grow up in an environment where their needs are consistently unmet, they receive the message that they are unworthy of love, care, and having their needs satisfied. As a result, these children may form negative working models of the self and adopt maladaptive defenses, such as perfectionism, to cope with feelings of inadequacy and to compensate for their unmet attachment needs. From the mediational findings, it appears that an uninvolved parenting style follows this developmental trajectory, contributing to the emergence of perfectionism. These results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment serve as developmental antecedents to perfectionism. Exploring Gender and Age as Moderators The exploratory moderation analysis was to determine whether the observed significant mediation effects differed based on gender and age. There are inconsistent findings in the literature showing that sometimes the relationship between parenting and perfectionism and insecure attachment and perfectionism differs as a function of gender (e.g., Flett et al., 1995; Lafontaine et al., 2019; McGillicuddy-DeLisi & De Lisi, 2007) or age (e.g., Bodenstein, 1997; Cook & Kearney, 2009; Parker, 2002; Vaillancourt & Haltigan, 2018). Results revealed that gender and age did not moderate the relationship between uninvolved parenting and insecure attachment (path a) or between insecure attachment and various dimensions of perfectionism 108 (path b). Since neither path in the mediation models was moderated, it was not necessary to conduct further moderated mediation analyses. The lack of significant gender moderation aligns with some findings from prior research. For example, Carmo et al. (2021) found that perceived permissive parenting was associated with socially prescribed perfectionism, regardless of the child’s gender. Likewise, Hibbard and Walton (2014) reported that authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting styles had comparable influences on dimensions of perfectionism across males and females. Additionally, Miller et al. (2012) observed that gender did not predict permissive or authoritarian parenting nor socially prescribed perfectionism. These findings contrast with the studies by McGillicuddy-De Lisi and De Lisi (2007), Flett et al. (1995), and Lafontaine et al. (2019), which highlighted gender-based differences in the perception of parenting styles, perfectionism, and the link between insecure attachment and perfectionism, respectively. This suggests that gender may have a complex role in the development of perfectionism, and certainly, more research is needed. Age was also explored as a moderator, and findings indicated that it was not a significant moderator in the current study. The literature on age-related changes in perfectionism is mixed, with some studies showing increases in perfectionism with age, while others do not. One perspective suggests that as children grow older, they experience mounting pressures, which may contribute to an increasing pressure for perfection with age (Flett & Hewitt, 2022). Supporting this perspective, Bodenstein (1997) found that among intellectually gifted children, self-oriented perfectionism was higher among older girls but remained stable in boys. Additionally, socially prescribed perfectionism increased with age across the total sample. Similarly, Vaillancourt and Haltigan (2018) reported that socially prescribed perfectionism 109 increased most notably following the transition from elementary school to high school. Cook and Kearney (2009) observed that older children aged 16 to 17 years exhibited significantly higher levels of self-oriented perfectionism compared to younger children aged 12 to 13 years, though mean levels of socially prescribed perfectionism did not differ across age groups. Conversely, several studies have found no significant age-related differences in perfectionism. For example, Sand et al. (2021) reported that average levels of perfectionism did not differ by age in a sample of 16- to 19-year-old Norwegian adolescents. Similarly, Stoeber and Stoeber (2009) found that both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism were independent of age in a sample of university students. More recently, Stricker and Preckel (2021) found no increases in perfectionism over two years in a sample of 700 German adolescents. These findings suggest that specific dimensions of perfectionism may vary across certain age groups, but the overall relationship between age and perfectionism remains inconsistent. Further research is needed to better understand the potential role of age and its influence on perfectionism. Overall, the moderation findings indicate that the mediational pathway from uninvolved parenting to perfectionism through insecure attachment operates independently of the child’s gender and age. Reevaluating the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) The primary objective of the current study is to evaluate Hewitt et al.’s (2017) proposed developmental pathway to perfectionism in the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM). Study findings support certain aspects of the PSDM. Notably, the results indicate that both uninvolved parenting and parental psychological control predicted perfectionism in children 110 and adolescents two years later, albeit through different mechanisms – one operating indirectly and the other directly. Although the study findings support the PSDM in that maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment emerged as developmental antecedents to perfectionism, they also highlight areas where the PSDM may require refinement. Based on the results, it appears that different types of maladaptive parenting styles may lead to perfectionism through distinct pathways. For example, attachment insecurity may be more relevant for uninvolved parenting, whereas shame and a sense of the self as defective could be more prominent factors for parental psychological control. The asynchrony described in the PSDM can manifest in different forms, including such styles as authoritarian parenting, parental psychological control, or uninvolved parenting. Depending on how children perceive these experiences and come to understand themselves and others, the development of perfectionism may follow distinct pathways. This aligns with Damian et al. (2021), who emphasized that “parental behaviours play an important role in differentiating distinct developmental trajectories in adolescents” (p. 43). Given this, the PSDM could be refined to include distinct developmental pathways to perfectionism, offering a more nuanced understanding of how various maladaptive parenting styles contribute to the development of perfectionism. Additionally, the PSDM does not account for the possibility that children’s perfectionism could influence parental behaviours over time, suggesting a potential reciprocal relationship between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism. The development of perfectionism may be less linear and more dynamic, resembling a feedback loop in which perfectionism not only arises from maladaptive parenting but also perpetuates these maladaptive parenting styles over time. For example, perfectionistic children may do well academically and appear “unproblematic” as 111 they avoid or hide mistakes and strive to portray themselves as flawless. As such, parents would see no need to alter their parenting or even reinforce the belief that their current parenting style is contributing to their child’s “success.” This dynamic can further entrench perfectionism in the child. Currently, the developmental framework proposed by the PSDM suggests a universal pathway where maladaptive parenting leads to insecure attachment, ultimately contributing to the development of perfectionism. While this appears to hold true for uninvolved parenting, it remains unclear why this pathway is only significant for certain dimensions of perfectionism. Moreover, important questions remain: What developmental pathways might emerge for individuals who exhibit multiple dimensions of perfectionism? How might the interplay of multiple maladaptive parenting styles influence these pathways? The findings of this study point to more complex mechanisms, indicating that different dimensions of perfectionism likely arise from unique and diverse pathways. This highlights the need to refine the PSDM to account for these complexities and better capture the nuanced development of perfectionism. Strengths and Limitations This study significantly contributes to understanding the developmental pathway linking maladaptive parenting, insecure attachment, and perfectionism in children and adolescents. A key strength of this study is its longitudinal design. This study is the first to examine the developmental component of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM; Hewitt et al., 2017) longitudinally in children and adolescents, extending its application beyond adult populations. By following participants across two years and three time points, it provides stronger temporal inferences regarding the order of effects between parenting, attachment, and perfectionism compared to prior research relying on cross-sectional study designs. 112 Additionally, this study is the first to simultaneously assess all three components of the Comprehensive Model of Perfectionistic Behaviour (CMPB; Hewitt et al., 2017) in children and adolescents. This approach allows for a nuanced understanding of how different dimensions of perfectionism develop through distinct pathways. This study advances prior research, which has largely focused on trait dimensions of perfectionism. Despite the study’s strengths, several limitations must be considered when interpreting the findings. First, there is significant missing data due to attrition in the present study. While this was addressed using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML), the attrition at Times 2 and 3 might still influence the robustness of the findings. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may have significantly affected participation. This study could have implemented stronger retention strategies, such as increasing participant incentives and strengthening engagement through more frequent reminders, to minimize data loss. Second, the measurement of authoritarian parenting relied on parental self-reports, which may have been subject to social desirability bias, as parents may have underreported restrictive and punitive parenting behaviours. Additionally, attrition bias must be considered, as parents who dropped out of the study reported higher levels of authoritarian parenting, suggesting that the remaining sample likely had a restricted range with the distribution skewed toward parents with lower levels of authoritarian parenting. Furthermore, relying on parental self-reports did not allow for an assessment of children’s perceptions of authoritarian parenting, which may differ from parental accounts. While parental reports were included to address the limitations of previous research, using measures like the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri, 1991) would allow for more direct comparability with prior studies that have focused on perceived parenting. The present study could benefit from including both parental reports and children’s 113 perceptions of parenting on all parenting variables to provide a more comprehensive understanding of parenting dynamics. Third, the study measured attachment using a self-report questionnaire. While this method validly captures attachment representations in youth, more sophisticated techniques, such as the Child Attachment Interview (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008), could provide a richer understanding of attachment in children and adolescents. Moreover, the study did not differentiate between types of insecure attachment, such as anxious and avoidant attachment, which may have distinct relationships with perfectionism. However, given the mixed findings in the literature, more research is needed to clarify the link between types of insecure attachment and different dimensions of perfectionism. Fourth, the study's findings are limited in generalizability by the sample characteristics, which reflect a specific cultural and demographic context. The current sample is mainly composed of White mother-daughter dyads residing in Vancouver, Canada, which does not fully capture how parenting, attachment, and perfectionism manifest in diverse family structures and different cultural backgrounds and countries. Future Directions Addressing the limitations of the present study will strengthen the validity and generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, several potential avenues for future research are proposed that could further enhance our understanding of the development of perfectionism. First, the study did not examine maternal and paternal parenting styles separately due to the disproportionate number of mothers in the sample, limiting the ability to make meaningful comparisons with fathers. However, research suggests that parents may interact differently with sons and daughters based on socialized gender expectations (Leaper et al., 2007), and recent 114 findings suggest that mothers and fathers may differentially influence perfectionism in young adults (Ge et al., 2023). Given these potential differences, future research should further investigate the distinct roles of maternal and paternal parenting in the development of perfectionism. Second, future studies could benefit from larger samples and more advanced statistical approaches, such as cross-lagged mediation analyses, to further clarify bidirectional and reciprocal relationships between maladaptive parenting, insecure attachment, and perfectionism. This approach would help determine whether children’s perfectionism may, in turn, influence parenting behaviours, rather than assuming a unidirectional effect from parents to children. Examining these bidirectional or reciprocal processes would provide greater insight into whether children’s perfectionism shapes parenting over time or if the link between maladaptive parenting and perfectionism is truly unidirectional. Lastly, although the present study focused on the developmental antecedents of perfectionism, findings indicate that perfectionism levels remained stable over time. This aligns with some studies while contrasting with others that have documented changes in perfectionism over time in youth (e.g., Damien et al., 2021; Herman et al., 2013; Hong et al., 2017; Vaillancourt & Haltigan, 2018). However, direct comparisons across studies remain challenging due to the varying time frames and differences in measures used. As a result, the inconsistencies in findings suggest that the developmental trajectories of perfectionism may be sample-specific (Flett & Hewitt, 2022). The stability of perfectionism levels observed in this study suggests that it may be capturing the maintenance of perfectionism rather than its initial development. Given that research has identified perfectionistic tendencies in children as young as 4 years old (Gilbert et 115 al., 2020) and preschool-aged children aged 5 to 7 (Risley, 2022), it is possible that perfectionism had already developed before the study’s first time point (ages 8-15). Furthermore, it is well-established that personality development becomes relatively stable by the end of early childhood (Erikson, 1963). Future research focusing on younger age groups is essential to tease apart the developmental origins of perfectionism from the factors contributing to its stability and persistence over time. Clearly, much work remains to fully understand how perfectionism develops in children and adolescents. Addressing the study’s limitations in future research can help clarify the complex interplay between parenting, attachment, and perfectionism, contributing to a more comprehensive theoretical framework and informed practical interventions. Clinical Implications The current study sheds light on the predisposing and perpetuating factors of perfectionism by examining its developmental antecedents, providing valuable insights for early intervention and treatment models targeting children and adolescents. Most existing treatment studies on perfectionism are conducted on adults, leaving a significant gap in understanding effective interventions for children and adolescents. Adapting Dynamic-Relational Therapy (DRT) for Children and Adolescents Dynamic-Relational Therapy (DRT) is emerging as an effective treatment for perfectionism. Clinical trials revealed that after 10 sessions of DRT, 92% of participants exhibited clinically significant improvements in perfectionism levels following treatment (Hewitt et al., 2017). More recently, in a randomized controlled trial, Hewitt et al. (2023) showed that both group DRT and group psychodynamic supportive therapy (PST) resulted in significant 116 reductions in perfectionism levels from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up. Furthermore, DRT outperformed PST in reducing perfectionism levels and enhancing work and social adjustment. DRT focuses on the interpersonal dynamics and relational needs associated with perfectionism, aligning with the PSDM. Its formula-driven approach tailors treatment to the individual’s unique experiences, focusing on how perfectionism manifests, its purpose, maintenance factors, and associated costs (Hewitt et al., 2017; Hewitt et al., 2020). The core principles of DRT focus on exploring early relational experiences, such as childhood relationships with parents, addressing emotion regulation and self-criticism, examining interpersonal dynamics, and utilizing the therapeutic relationship to provide a corrective relational experience. This includes using interpretative, exploratory, and rupture-repair interventions to challenge perfectionistic defenses and interpersonal rigidity (Hewitt et al., 2020). Although clinical studies on DRT have been solely on adults, recent efforts are underway to adapt this treatment for children and adolescents (Ko et al., 2023; Kristen et al., in preparation). Drawing from Flasher (2000) and Proffer (1996) on case formulation and interpersonal treatment for children, respectively, the intervention targets in DRT can be modified to address current relational needs, facilitate affect regulation, alter expectations and interpretations of others, foster self-concept and self-esteem, and promote stable parent-child relationships. Addressing relational needs that may not have been met in children’s relationships with their parents involves helping them identify and accept these needs while developing responses that facilitate meeting them. Hewitt et al. (2017) suggest that certain parenting styles may give rise to children experiencing the self as flawed, defective and unlovable while also shaping their working model of others as critical, uncaring, or likely to abandon them. Thus, focusing on the 117 relational needs of self-worth and being “good enough”, along with the need for acceptance, connection, and belonging, is crucial—not just within the parent-child relationship but also in the child’s broader interpersonal environment. Moreover, affect regulation can be facilitated by providing corrective emotional experiences, helping children label emotions, and linking feelings to actions through affective mirroring. Altering expectations and interpretations of interpersonal interactions can be done through developing alternative, more accurate interpretations, increasing the child’s awareness of how their actions are affecting others, and drawing attention to positive interpersonal experiences. Self-concept and self-esteem can be strengthened through intentional ego-building through supportive interactions. This is where the therapist uses playfulness, wonder, and genuine affect to foster a secure sense of self in the child. A key adaptation of DRT for children and adolescents is its emphasis on promoting stable parent-child relationships. Working directly with parents to enhance their parenting may also be important for facilitating meaningful change in children. Given the study’s evidence supporting the role of parenting and attachment in the development of perfectionism, including parents in the therapy process beyond consultation and assessment is essential. Effective interventions should prioritize nurturing stable parent-child relationships and aiding children and adolescents in rebuilding a secure attachment base. Part of the intervention should also involve educating caregivers about the maintenance factors of perfectionism and training them to be more emotionally responsive while setting realistic, less demanding expectations for their child. For example, parents can support their child by helping them set realistic, personal goals that are attainable and not based on comparison to others. Encouraging a process- or effort-oriented mindset, rather than focusing on outcomes, can foster resilience and intrinsic motivation. 118 Moreover, providing children with opportunities to explore new experiences, take on challenges, and embrace risks helps build confidence and psychological flexibility. It is equally important for parents to create a space where mistakes, imperfections, and setbacks are normalized as part of growth. The overarching message should be that, regardless of successes or failures, the child is loved, valued, and enough. When adapting DRT to younger populations, interventions need to be developmentally tailored (Ko et al., 2023). In young children between the ages of 4 and 7, doll play therapy can be used to help them enact and recognize cyclical relational patterns in their interactions. For children in middle childhood (ages 8 to 13), story-based interventions can provide a structured way for them to recognize relational patterns and understand their role in maintaining them. Engaging in role-play exercises can further promote self-reflection and relational awareness. In adolescents (ages 14 to 17), treatment follows the core DRT framework for adults but with greater structure. Therapists may take a more active role in guiding adolescents toward recognizing maladaptive interpersonal patterns and addressing unmet attachment needs. The Role of Teachers in Intervention While parents significantly influence the development of perfectionism in children and adolescents, research shows that teachers also shape the trajectory of perfectionism. In a short-term longitudinal study of 14- to 19-year-old adolescents in Romania, Domocus and Damian (2018) found that perceived parental pressure predicted increases in perfectionistic concerns over time, while perceived anxious rearing was associated with higher levels of socially prescribed perfectionism. Furthermore, teacher support played a protective role, predicting longitudinal decreases in both self-oriented perfectionism and perfectionistic concerns. 119 Aside from parents, teachers are significant adults in the lives of children and adolescents. Domocus et al. (2019) discussed how teachers can either reinforce or exacerbate perfectionism in youths through teacher-student interactions and classroom practices. Domocus et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of training educators to recognize and effectively address perfectionism in students (see Adelson and Wilson (2021) for practical strategies in helping children overcome perfectionism in the classroom). The findings of this study emphasize the clinical importance of addressing parenting and attachment dynamics in therapy. Additionally, it is important to consider the role of teachers in intervention efforts. These insights mark the beginning of a critical area of research aimed at refining treatment interventions to support children and adolescents struggling with perfectionism. Conclusion This is the first study to investigate the developmental component of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model (PSDM) longitudinally in children and adolescents. Correlational findings showed that maladaptive parenting styles and insecure attachment were not only associated with perfectionism concurrently, but these relationships persisted over time. Moreover, direct effects indicated that parental psychological control predicted perfectionism two years later. Finally, time-lagged mediation results showed that insecure attachment mediated the relationship between uninvolved parenting and certain dimensions of perfectionism. These findings indicate that maladaptive parenting styles, directly and indirectly, predicted perfectionism in children and adolescents years later. The study results support the PSDM’s theoretical framework and provide additional insights into the developmental pathways to perfectionism. However, the study results also highlighted areas where the PSDM may require 120 refinement, including the consideration of distinct developmental pathways to perfectionism and the potential reciprocal relationships between parenting and child perfectionism. Ultimately, this study underscores the complexity of perfectionism development and offers a foundation for both theoretical advancements and practical interventions to support children and adolescents with perfectionism. 121 References Abdollahi, A., Hosseinian, S., Beh-Pajooh, A., & Carlbring, P. (2017). Self-concealment mediates the relationship between perfectionism and attitudes toward seeking psychological help among adolescents. Psychological Reports, 120(6), 1019-1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941177134 Adelson, J. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2021). Letting go of perfect: Empower children to overcome perfectionism (2nd ed.). Routledge. Adler, A. (1930). The feeling of inferiority and the striving for recognition. Section of Psychiatry, 20(12). https://doi.org/10.1177/00359157270200124 Affrunti, N. W., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2017). The Roles of Anxious Rearing, Negative Affect, and Effortful Control in a Model of Risk for Child Perfectionism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(9), 2547–2555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0767-8 Agarwal, T., & Dhenwal, S. (2024). Investigating the relationship of parenting styles with neuroticism and perfectionism. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 9718–9730. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i5.4644 Aik, C. P., Rabbani, M., & Amini, M. (2020). The association between perfectionism and social anxiety among adolescents in Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of Health & Translational Medicine, 23(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.22452/jummec.vol23no1.1 Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Erlbaum. Akkaya, S. (2017). A closer look at rumination in adolescence: Investigation of possible risk factors and moderators [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/26742 122 Antino, M., Rico, R., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2019). Structuring reality through the faultlines lens: The effects of structure, fairness, and status conflict on the activated flatlines-performance relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1444-1470. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0054 Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K., & Hill, A. P. (2010). Family patterns of perfectionism: An examination of elite junior athletes and their parents. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.005 Azevedo, M. H., Bos, S. C., Soares, M. J., Marques, M., Pereira, A. T., Maia, B., . . . Macedo, A. (2010). Longitudinal study on perfectionism and sleep disturbance. World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 11(22), 476-485. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622970903304467 Bachner-Melman, R., Lerer, E., Zohar, A. H., Kremer, I., Elizur, Y., Nemanov, L., Golan, M., Blank, S., Gritsenko, I., & Ebstein, R. P. (2007). Anorexia nervosa, perfectionism, and dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4). American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 144B(6), 748-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30505 Baker, H. S., & Baker, M. N. (1987). Heinz Kohut's self psychology: An overview. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.144.1.1 Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296-3319. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131780 Barnes, M. A., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2017). The interrelationship between orthorexia nervosa, perfectionism, body image and attachment style. Eating and Weight Disorders, 22, 177-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-016-0280-x Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a 123 four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 Bas, A. U., & Siyez, D. M. (2010). Perfectionism as a predictive factor of smoking, alcohol, and illicit drug use among high school students. Neuropsychiatric Investigation, 48, 256-263. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004 Berman, A. L., Jobes, D. A., & Silverman, M. M. (2006). Adolescent suicide: Assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11285-000 Besharat, M. A., Issazadegan, A., Etemadinia, M., Golssanamlou, S., & Abdolmanafi, A. (2014). Risk factors associated with depressive symptoms among undergraduate students. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2014.02.002 Ben-Amitay, G., Nevo, Y., Lieberman, D., Mester, R., & Harel, S. (1998). Cyclic vomiting syndrome in children. Harefuah, 134(8), 611. Bento, C., Pereira, A. T., Maia, B., Marques, M., Soares, M. J., Bos, S., Valente, J., Gomes, A., Azevedo, M. H. P., & Macedo, A. (2010). Perfectionism and eating behaviour in Portuguese adolescents. European Eating Disorders Review: The Journal of the Eating Disorders Association, 18(4), 328-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.981 Bento, C., Pereira, A. T. Roque, C., Saraiva, J. M. T., & Santos, A. J. F. M. E. (2017). Longitudinal effects of an intervention on perfectionism in adolescents. Psicothema, 29(3), 317-322. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.223 Bodenstein, T. (1997). Predictors of psychosocial adjustment among intellectually gifted children [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. York University. 124 Boone, L. (2013). Are attachment styles differentially related to interpersonal perfectionism and binge eating symptoms? Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 931-935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.006 Boone, L., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Goossens, L. (2010). An empirical typology of perfectionism in early-to-mid adolescents and its relation with eating disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(7), 686-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.03.022 Borroni, S., Bortolla, R., Lombardi, L. M. G., Somma, A., Maffei, C., & Fossati, A. (2016). The Italian version of Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale: Psychometric proprieties and its associations with pathological narcissism and adult attachment in an adult non clinical sample: Italian version of Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale. Personality and Mental Health, 10(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1328 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books. Boysan, M. & Cam, Z. (2018). An investigation into the role of attachment insecurities in obsessive-compulsive symptoms. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 46(5), 566-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2016.1262533 Briere, J., Runtz, M., Eadie, E., Bigras, N., & Godbout, N. (2017). Disengaged parenting: Structural equation modeling with child abuse, insecure attachment, and adult symptomatology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.036 Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 125 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13 Carmo, C., Oliveira, D., Brás, M., & Faísca, L. (2021). The influence of parental perfectionism and parenting styles on child perfectionism. Children, 8(9), Article 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8090777 Casale, S., Svicher, A., Fioravanti, G., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Pozza, A. (2024). Perfectionistic self-presentation and psychopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(2), e2966. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2966 Castro, J., Gila, A., Gual, P., Lahortiga, F., Saura, B., & Toro, J. (2004). Perfectionism dimensions in children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(5), 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.11.094 Çelikbaş, Z., & Yalçınkaya-Alkar, Ö. (2022). The relationship between attachment styles, ruminative response styles, dysfunctional attitudes and major depression diagnosis. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 40, 905-927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-022-00446-2 Čerkez, V. C., & Efendić-Spahić, T. (2021). Perfectionism and family interaction as determinants of somatization in adolescents. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 353-374. Chan, S., Lo, B. C. Y., Ng, T. K., & Cheng, K. H. F. (2022). Perfectionism and worry in children: The moderating role of mothers’ parenting styles. Current Psychology, 42, 18291–18299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02971-w Chasetareh, F., Barabadi, E., Khajavy, G. H., & Flett, G. L. (2022). Perfectionism and L2 126 achievement: The mediating roles of motivation and self-regulated learning among Iranian high school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221096916 Chen, C., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2015). Preoccupied attachment, need to belong, shame, and interpersonal perfectionism: An investigation of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.001 Chen, C., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Cassels, T. G., Birch, S., & Blasberg, J. S. (2012). Insecure attachment, perfectionistic self-presentation, and social disconnection in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.009 Chen, W., Yang, X., & Jiao, Z. (2022). Authoritarian parenting, perfectionism, and academic procrastination. An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 42(9), 1145-1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.2024513 Choe, S. Y., Lee, J. O., & Read, S. J. (2021). Parental psychological control perceived in adolescence predicts jealousy toward romantic partners in emerging adulthood via insecure attachment. Social Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12514 Choy, G., & McInerney, V. (2005). Perfectionism, self-concept and self-evaluative emotions in Australian primary school students. Australian Association for Research in Education 2005 Conference Papers. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/abs05.htm Clark, S., & Coker, S. (2009). Perfectionism, self-criticism and maternal criticism: A study of mothers and their children. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 321-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.020 127 Coleman, G., Furnham, A., & Treglown, L. (2022). Exploring the dark side of conscientiousness. The relationship between conscientiousness and its potential derailers: Perfectionism and narcissism. Current Psychology, 42, 27744-27757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03828-y Cook, C. R., & Kearney, C. A. (2009). Parent and youth perfectionism and internalizing psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 325–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.015 Cook, L. C., & Kearney, C. A. (2014). Parent perfectionism and psychopathology symptoms and child perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.020 Cortes-Garcia, L., Takkouche, B., Seoane, G., & Senra, C. (2019) Mediators linking insecure attachment to eating symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0213099 Costa, S., Hausenblas, H. A., Oliva, P., Cuzzocrea, F., & Larcan, R. (2016). Maladaptive perfectionism as mediator among psychological control, eating disorders, and exercise dependence symptoms in habitual exerciser. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5(1), 77– 89. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.004 Craddock, A. E., Church, W., & Sands, A. (2009). Family of origin characteristics as predictors of perfectionism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530802239326 Curran, T. (2018). Parental conditional regard and the development of perfectionism in 128 adolescent athletes: The mediating role of competence contingent self-worth. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 7(3), 284-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000126 Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138 Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2022). Young people’s perceptions of their parents’ expectations and criticism are increasing over time: Implications for perfectionism. American Psychological Association, 149(1-2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000347 Curran, T., Hill, A. P., & Williams, L. J. (2017). The relationships between parental conditional regard and adolescents’ self-critical and narcissistic perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.035 Curzo, O., Maestro, S., Rossi, G., Calderoni, S., Giombini, L., Scardigli, S., Ragione, L. D., & Muratori, F. (2018). Transdiagnostic vs. disorder-focused perspective in children and adolescents with eating disorders: Findings from a large multisite exploratory study. European Psychiatry, 49, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.12.024 Czepczor-Bernat, K., Modrzejewska, J., Modrzejewska, A., Calandri, E., Gattino, S., & Rollero, C. (2022). Dyadic predictors of child body shame in a Polish and Italian Sample. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148659 Dakanalis, A., Timko, C. A., Zanetti, M. A., Rinaldi, L., Prunas, A., Carra, G., Riva, G., & 129 Clerici, M. (2014). Attachment insecurities, maladaptive perfectionism, and eating disorder symptoms: A latent mediated and moderated structural equation modeling analysis across diagnostic groups. Psychiatry Research, 215, 176-184. Damian, L. E., Negru-Subtirica, O., Pop, E. I., & Stoeber, J. (2022). Becoming a perfectionistic adolescent: Perceived parental behaviors involved in developmental trajectories of perfectionism. European Journal of Personality, 36(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211012902 Damian, L. E., Negru-Subtirica, O., Stoeber, J., & Băban, A. (2017). Perfectionistic concerns predict increases in adolescents' anxiety symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 30(5), 551-561. Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru, O., & Baban, A. (2013). On the development of perfectionism in adolescence: Perceived parental expectations predict longitudinal increases in socially prescribed perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 688-693. Deas, S., Power, K., Collin, P., Yellowlees, A., & Grierson, D. (2011). The Relationship between Disordered Eating, Perceived Parenting, and Perfectionistic Schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35(5), 414–424. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 De Jonge-Heesen, K. W. J., Rasing, S. P. A., Vermulst, A. A., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Creemers, D. H. M. (2020). How to cope with perfectionism? Perfectionism as a risk factor for suicidality and the role of cognitive coping in adolescents. Journal of Rational-Emotive 130 & Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 39, 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-020-00368-x Deng, Y., Gao, X., Xu, C., Sun, Z., Yue, Y., & Liu, X. (2019). Reliability and validity test of Dependency-Oriented and Achievement-Oriented Psychological Control Scale in Chinese Adolescents. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/43.1214.r.20190410.1728.008.html Dieleman, L. M., Soenens, B., De Pauw, S. S. W., Prinzie, P., Vansteenkiste, M., & Luyten, P. (2020). The role of parental reflective functioning in the relation between parents’ self-critical perfectionism and psychologically controlling parenting towards adolescents. Parenting: Science and Practice, 20(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1642087 Domocus, I. M., & Damian, L. E. (2018). The role of parents and teachers in changing adolescents' perfectionism: A short-term longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.012 Domocus, I. M., Damian, L. E., & Benga, O. (2019). Teachers' role in the development of children's perfectionism. Perspectives on Early Childhood Psychology and Education, 4(2), 127–149. Dorevitch, B., Buck, K., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Phillips, L., & Krug, I. (2020). Maladaptive perfectionism and depression: Testing the mediating role of self-esteem and internalized shame in an Australian domestic and Asian international university sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01272 Dry, S. M., Kane, R. T., & Rooney, R. M. (2015). An investigation into the role of coping in preventing depression associated with perfectionism in preadolescent children. Frontiers in Public Health, 3, 190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00190 131 Dunkley, D. M., Berg, J., & Zuroff, D. C. (2012). The role of perfectionism in daily self‐ esteem, attachment, and negative affect. Journal of Personality, 80(3), 633-663. Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self-critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.234 Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(2), 203-212. Einstein, D. A., Lovibond, P. F., & Gaston, J. E. (2000). Relationship between perfectionism and emotional symptoms in an adolescent sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530008255373 Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism: Developmental origins and association with depression proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(6), 921–935. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Essau, C. A., Leung, P. W. L., Conradt, J., Cheng, H., & Wong, T. (2008). Anxiety symptoms in Chinese and German adolescents: Their relationship with early learning experiences, perfectionism, and learning motivation. Depression and Anxiety, 25(9), 801-810. Evans, C., Kreppner, J., & Lawrence, P. J. (2022). The association between maternal perinatal 132 mental health and perfectionism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 1052-1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12378 Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Finch, J., Water, A. M., & Farrell, L. J. (2023). Developing the HERO within: Evaluation of a brief intervention for increasing Psychological Capital (PsyCap) in Australian female students during the final year of school in the first year of COVID-19. Journal of Affective Disorders, 324, 616-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.12.169 Finzi, R., Cohen, O., Sapir, Y., Weizman, A. (2000) Attachment Styles in Maltreated children: A comparative Study. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 31, 113-128. Finzi, R., Har-Even, D., Weizman, A., Tyano, S., & Shnit, D. (1996). The adaptation of the attachment styles questionnaire for latency-aged children. Psychologia: Israel Journal of Psychology, 5(2), 167-177. Finzi-Dottan, R. (2012). Attachment Style Classification Questionnaire for Latency Age Children. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie Finzi-Dottan, R., Manor, I. & Tyano, S. (2006). ADHD, temperament, and parental style as predictors of the child’s attachment patterns. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37, 103-114. Flasher, L. V. F. (2000). Cyclical Maladaptive Patterns: Interpersonal Case Formulation for Psychotherapy with Children. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30(3), 239-254. Fletcher, K. L., Shim, S., & Wang, C. (2012). Perfectionistic concerns mediate the relationship between psychologically controlling parenting and achievement goal orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 876–881. 133 Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2020). Reflections on three decades of research on multidimensional perfectionism: An introduction to the special issue on further advances in the assessment of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(1), 3-14. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2022). Perfectionism in childhood and adolescence: A developmental approach. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000289-000 Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2024). The need to focus on perfectionism in suicide assessment, treatment and prevention. World Psychiatry, 23(1), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21157 Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Su, C., Vaillancourt, T., Boucher, D., Munro, Y., Davidson, L. A., & Gale, O. (2016). The child-adolescent perfectionism scale: Development, psychometric properties, and associations with stress, distress, and psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 634-652. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Gray, L. (1998). Psychological distress and the frequency of perfectionistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1363-1381. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. L., & MacDonald, S. (2002). Perfectionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 89–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Singer, A. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 51(1), 50-60. 134 Freudenstein, O., Valevski, A., Apter, A., Zohar, A., Shoval, G., Nahshoni, E., Weizman, A., & Zalsman, G. (2012). Perfectionism, narcissism, and depression in suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescent inpatients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53(6), 746-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.08.011 Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449-468. Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532-537. Ge, S., Chen, C., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2022). Father-daughter and mother-son relationships: Parental bonding behaviours and socially prescribed perfectionism in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111406 Gilbert, K., Barch, D. M., & Luby, J. L. (2020). The Overcontrol in Youth Checklist (OCYC): Behavioral and neural validation of a parent-report of child overcontrol in early childhood. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00907-3 Gingras, A., Lessard, I., Malletee, F., Brassard, A., Bernier-Jarry, A., Gosselin, P., & de Pierrepont, C. (2020). Couple adaptation to the birth of a child: The roles of attachment and perfectionism. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(3), 581-594. Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & Noble, C. M. (2013). Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism as Mediators of Adult Attachment Styles and Depression, Hopelessness, and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(1), 78–86. Gnilka, P. B., Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Moate, R. M. (2016). Adult Attachment, 135 Multidimensional Perfectionism, and the Alliances Among Counselor Supervisees. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(3), 285–296. Goldner, L., & Scharf, M. (2024). Parental psychological control and children’s curiosity and academic self-concept. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2024.2388058 Goldsmith, H. H., & Rothbart, M. (1996). The laboratory temperament assessment battery manual. Madison, WI: Personality Development Laboratory, University of Wisconsin. Gong, X., Fletcher, K. L., & Bolin, J. H. (2015). Dimensions of Perfectionism Mediate the Relationship Between Parenting Styles and Coping. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(3), 259–268. Gong, X., Paulson, S. E., & Wang, C. (2016). Exploring family origins of perfectionism: The impact of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 43–48. Goya Arce, A. B., & Polo, A. J. (2017). A test of the perfectionism social disconnection model among ethnic minority youth. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(6), 1181–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0240-y Grady, M. D., Yoder, J., & Brown, A. (2018). Childhood maltreatment experiences, attachment, sexual offending: Testing a theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7), 1-35. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530 Greblo, Z., & Bratko, D. (2014). Parents’ perfectionism and its relation to child rearing behaviors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 180–185. Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: 136 Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-517. Gülseven, Z., Maiya, S., & Carlo, G. (2022). The intervening roles of shame and guilt in relations between parenting and prosocial behavior in college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 183(6), 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2022.2098004 Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behaviour, 15(1), 27-33. Hamilton, T. K., & Schweitzer, R. D. (2000). The cost of being perfect: Perfectionism and suicide ideation in university students. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(5), 829-835. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2000.00801.x Han, G., Wang, C. D. C., Jin, L., & Bismar, D. (2022). Insecure attachment, maladaptive perfectionism, self-esteem, depression, and bulimic behaviours for women: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 44, 197-219. Harvey, B. C., Moore, A. M., & Koestner, R. (2017). Distinguishing self-oriented perfectionism- striving and self-oriented perfectionism-critical in school-aged children: Divergent patterns of perceived parenting, personal affect and school performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 136–141. Haspolat, N. K., & Yalçın, İ. (2023). Psychological symptoms in high-achieving students: The multiple mediating effects of parental achievement pressure, perfectionism, and academic expectation stress. Psychology in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23012 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 137 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. Herman, K. C., Wang, K., Trotter, R., Reinke, W. M., & Ialongo, N. (2013). Developmental trajectories of maladaptive perfectionism among African American Adolescents. Child Development, 84(5), 1633-1650. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12078 Hewitt, P. L., Blasberg, J. S., Flett, G. L., Besser, A., Sherry, S. B., Caelian, C., Papsdorf, M., Cassels, T. G., & Birch, S. (2011). Perfectionistic self-presentation in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the Perfectionistic Self-Presentation Scale-Junior Form. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 125-142. Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Chen, C., & Flett, G. L. (2014). Perfectionism, stress, daily hassles, hopelessness, and suicide potential in depressed psychiatric adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 36(4), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9427-0 Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Collins, L., & Flynn, C. A. (2002). Perfectionism in children: Associations with depression, anxiety, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(6), 1049-1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00109-X Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(1), 98-101. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mikail, S. F. (Eds.) (2017). Perfectionism: A relationship approach to conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guildford Press. Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Habke, M., Parkin, M., Lam, R. W., McMurtry, B., 138 Ediger, E., Fairlie, P., & Stein, M. B. (2003). The interpersonal expression of perfection: Perfectionistic self-presentation and psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1303-1325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1303 Hewitt, P. L., Ge, S., Smith, M. M., Flett, G. L., Cheli, S., Molnar, D. S., Ko, A., Mikail, S. F., & Lang, T. (2024). Automatic self-recriminations: Development and validation of a measure of self-condemnatory internal dialogue. Journal of Personality Assessment, 106(5), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2303429 Hewitt, P. L., Kealy, D., Mikail, S. F., Smith, M. M., Ge, S., Chen, C., ... & Ko, A. (2023). The efficacy of group psychotherapy for adults with perfectionism: A randomized controlled trial of dynamic-relational therapy versus psychodynamic supportive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(1), 29. Hewitt, P. L., Kristen, A., Mikail, S. F., & Flett, G. L. (2024). Dynamic-Relational Treatment of Pernicious Personality: Working with Perfectionism. In Training in Integrated Relational Psychotherapy: An Evidence-Based Approach (pp. 417-444). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Hewitt, P. L., Mikail, S. F., Dang, S. S., Kealy, D., & Flett, G. L. (2020). Dynamic-relational treatment of perfectionism: An illustrative case study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76, 2028-2040. Hewitt, P. L., Mikail, S. F., Flett, G. L., & Dang, S. S. (2018). Specific formulation feedback in dynamic-relational group psychotherapy of perfectionism. Psychotherapy, 55(2), 179. Hewitt, P. L., Newton, J., Flett, G. L., & Callander, L. (1997). Perfectionism and suicide ideation in adolescent psychiatric patients. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(2), 95-101. Hewitt, P. L., Smith, M. M., Flett, G. L., Ko, A., Kerns, C., Birch, S., & Peracha, H. (2022). 139 Other-oriented perfectionism in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the Other-Oriented Perfectionism Subscale-Junior Form (OOPjr). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(3), 327-345. Hewitt, P. L., Smith, M. M., Molnar, D. S., & Flett, G. L. (in preparation). Automatic self- recriminations: Development of a measure of self-critical internal dialogue. Hibbard, D. R., & Walton, G. E. (2014). Exploring the development of perfectionism: The influence of parenting style and gender. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(2), 269-278. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.2.269 Hnat, N. (2018). Gifted adolescents and multipotentiality: Links with stress, anxiety, perfectionism and career indecision. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Massey University. http://hdl.handle.net/10179/14433 Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1318-1335. Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6(2), 94-103. Holliday, M. (2023). Outcomes of positive discipline parent training: Authoritative parenting style and parent sense of competence. The Journal of Individual Psychology (1998), 79(2), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2023.a904858 Holmes, J. (2014). Attachment theory and personality development. In John Bowlby and attachment theory (pp. 85-110). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Hong, R. Y., Lee, S. S. M., Chng, R. Y., Zhou, Y., Tsai, F. F., & Tan, S. H. (2017). Developmental trajectories of maladaptive perfectionism in middle childhood. Journal of Personality, 85(3), 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12249 140 Horney, K. (1942). Self-analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, inc. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization. New York: Norton. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Huggins, L., Davis, M. C., Rooney, R., & Kane, R. (2008). Socially prescribed and self-oriented perfectionism as predictors of depressive diagnosis in preadolescents. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 18(2), 182-194. Iannantuono, A. C., & Tylka, T. L. (2012). Interpersonal and intrapersonal links to body appreciation in college women: An exploratory model. Body Image, 9, 227-235. Ingles, C. J., Garcia-Fernandez, J. M., Vicent, M., Gonzalvez, C., & Sanmartin, R. (2016). Profiles of perfectionism and school anxiety: A review of the 2 x 2 model of dispositional perfectionism in child population. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01403 Jacobs, R. H., Silva, S. G., Reinecke, M. A., Curry, J. F., Ginsburg, G. S., Kratochvil, C. J., & March, J. S. (2009). Dysfunctional attitudes scale perfectionism: A predictor and partial mediator of acute treatment outcome among clinically depressed adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(6), 803-813. Johnston, J., Shu, C. Y., Hoiles, K. J., Clarke, P. J. F., Watson, H. J., Dunlop, P. D., & Egan, S. J. (2018). Perfectionism is associated with higher eating disorder symptoms and lower remission in children and adolescents diagnosed with eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 30, 55-60. 141 Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000155 Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The relationship of perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 317– 327. Kealy, D., Hewitt, P. L., Söchting, I., Mikail, S. F., Smith, M. M., Flett, G. L., ... & Giannone, Z. (2024). A comparison of the effect of two types of brief psychodynamic group therapy on perfectionism-related attitudes, self-relatedness, and self-esteem. Psychotherapy Research, 1-18. Kehayes, I. L., Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Vidovic, V., & Saklofske, D. H. (2019). Are perfectionism dimensions risk factors for bulimic symptoms? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.022 Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfectionism: Implications for the development of children’s depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73(1), 23-46. King, A. J., Russon, J. M., Mensinger, J. L., & Jin, B. (2022). Parental psychological control, attachment insecurity and body shame: How relational factors impact disordered eating. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31, 2545–2555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02374-2 Ko, A. (2019). Parenting, attachment, and perfectionism: A test of the Perfectionism Social 142 Disconnection Model in children and adolescents. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of British Columbia. https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0380428 Ko, A., Hewitt, P. L., Cox, D., Flett, G. L., & Chen, C. (2019). Adverse parenting and perfectionism: A test of the mediating effects of attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and perceived defectiveness. Personality and Individual Differences. Ko, A., Hewitt, P.L., Curran, T., Flett, G.L., Smith, M.M., & Qian, E. (2025). A Meta-Analysis of Changes in Perfectionism Among Children and Adolescents From 1995 to 2021. Manuscript in preparation. Ko, A., Kristen, A., Ge, S., & Hewitt, P. L. (2023). Dynamic-relational treatment of perfectionism in children & adolescents [Poster presentation]. The Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia. Kocayoruk, E. (2012). The perception of parents and well-being of adolescents: Link with basic psychological need satisfaction. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3624-3628. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155-163. Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 1973–1995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0 Kowal, A., & Pritchard, D. (1990). Psychological characteristics of children who suffer from headache: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 31(4), 637-649. 143 Kwon, W., & Cho, S. (2020). Associations among perfectionism, anxiety, and psychological well-being/ ill-being in college athletes of South Korea. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 32(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.24985/ijass.2020.32.2.75 Lafontaine, M., Azzi, S., Bell-Lee, B., Dixon-Luinenburg, T., Guerin-Marion, C., & Bureau, J. (2021). Romantic perfectionism and perceived conflict mediate the link between insecure romantic attachment and intimate partner violence in undergraduate students. Journal of Family Violence, 36, 195-208. Lafontaine, M. Peloquin, K., Levesque, C., Azzi, S., Daigle, M., & Brassard, A. (2019). Beyond the simple association between romantic attachment insecurity and dyadic coping: An examination of romantic perfectionism as a mediator. Journal of Relationships Research, 10(12), 1-9. Lavrijsen, J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Is intelligence related to perfectionism? Multidimensional perfectionism and parental antecedents among adolescents across varying levels of cognitive ability. Journal of Personality, 89(5), 1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12606 Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. K. (2007). The socialization of gender. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561–587). Guilford Press. Lee, D. G., & Park, H. J. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in Korea. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(2), 320-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010365910 Leung, J. T. Y., Shek, D. T. L., Kwok, L. M. H., & Cheung, J. H. L. (2022). Actor–partner 144 interdependence of socially prescribed parenting perfectionism and parental control in Chinese families. Family Process, 62(2), 722-736. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12794 Li, X., Hou, Z. J., Chi, H. Y., Liu, J., & Hager, M. J. (2014). The mediating role of coping in the relationship between subtypes of perfectionism and job burnout: A test of the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism with employees in China. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.007 Limburg, K., Watson, H. J., Hagger, M. S., & Egan, S. J. (2017). The relationship between perfectionism and psychopathology: A Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73(10), 1301-1326. Lopez, F. G., Fons-Scheyd, A., Morua, W., & Chaliman, R. (2006). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 543-549. Mackinnon, S. P., & Sherry, S. B. (2012). Perfectionistic self-presentation mediates the relationship between perfectionistic concerns and subjective well-being: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.010 Magson, N. R., Oar, E. L., Fardouly, J., Johnco, C. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2019). The preteen perfectionist: An evaluation of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 50(6), 960-974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00897-2 Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716 145 McArdle, S. (2009). Exploring the development of perfectionistic cognitions and self-beliefs. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33, 597-614. McArdle, S., & Duda, J. L. (2004). Exploring social-contextual correlates of perfectionism in adolescents: A multivariate perspective. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28(6), 765-788. McCreary, M., Joiner, T. E., Schmidt, N. B., & Ialongo, N. S. (2004). The structure and temporal stability of the Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 16(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.57 McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., & De Lisi, R. (2007). Perceptions of family relations when mothers and fathers are depicted with different parenting styles. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(4), 425–442. Mikail, S. F., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ge, S. (2022). Group dynamic-relational therapy for perfectionism. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process, and Outcome, 25(3). Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Miller, A. L., Lambert, A. D., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Parenting style, perfectionism, and creativity in high-ability and high-achieving young adults. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(4), 344–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212459257 Miller, A. L., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. S. (2017). The influence of personality, parenting styles, and perfectionism on performance goal orientation in high ability students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(4), 313-344. Missildine, W. H. (1963). Your inner child of the past. New York: Simon & Schuster. 146 Mitchell, J. H., Broeren, S., Newall, C., & Hudson, J. L. (2013). An experimental manipulation of maternal perfectionistic anxious rearing behaviors with anxious and non-anxious children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 1–18. Morris, L., & Lomax, C. (2014). Review: Assessment, development, and treatment of childhood perfectionism: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 19(4), 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12067 Moshagen, M. (2021). semPower: Power analysis for structural equation modeling. R package version 1.1.0. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPower Mullinax, H. M., & Turner, L. A. (2023). Parental psychological control, early maladaptive schemas, and romantic attachment in emerging adults. Current Psychology, 43(2024), 8589–8601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01552-2 Muris, P., Meesters, C., van Melick, M., & Zwambag, L. (2001). Self-reported attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(5), 809-818. Murphy, E. (2019). Perfectly alone (and anxious): A test of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model in Adolescents. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Brock University. http://hdl.handle.net/10464/14122 Negru-Subtirica, O., Damian, L. E., Pop, E. I., & Crocetti, E. (2023). The complex story of educational identity in adolescence: Longitudinal relations with academic achievement and perfectionism. Journal of Personality, 91(2), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12720 Nicholson, J. S., Deboeck, P. R., & Howard, W. (2017). Attrition in developmental psychology: 147 A review of modern missing data reporting and practices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415618275 Nobel, R., Manassis, K., & Wilansky-Traynor, P. (2012). The role of perfectionism in relation to an intervention to reduce anxious and depressive symptoms in children. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-011-0133-5 O’Connor, R. C., Dixon, D., & Rasmussen, S. (2009). The structure and temporal stability of the Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 437-443. O'Connor, R. C., Rasmussen, S., & Hawton, K. (2010). Predicting depression, anxiety and self- harm in adolescents: The role of perfectionism and acute life stress. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(1), 52-59. O’Connor, R. C., Rasmussen, S., & Hawton, K. (2014). Adolescent self-harm: A school-based study in Northern Ireland. Journal of Affective Disorders, 159, 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.015 Olivari, M. G., Tagliabue, S., & Confalonieri, E. (2013). Parenting style and dimensions questionnaire: A review of reliability and validity. Marriage & Family Review, 49(6), 465-490. Oliveira, D. F., Carmo, C., Cruz, J. P., & Bras, M. (2012). Perfectionism and attachment representations in young adults. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 25(3), 514-522. Oliveira, T. D., Costa, D. S., Albuquerque, M. R., Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Miranda, D. M., & de Paula, J. J. (2018). Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Version (PSDQ) for use in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 40, 410-419. 148 Olsson, L. F., Hill, A. P., Madigan, D. J., & Woodley, G. (2020). Development of perfectionism in junior athletes: Examination of actual and perceived parental perfectionism. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(6), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1723387 Oros, L., Serppe, M., Chemisquy, S. N., & Leon, J. L. V. (2019). Construction of a scale to assess maladaptive perfectionism in children in its social dimension. Revista Argentina de Clinica Psicologica, 28(4), 385-398. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2019.1108 Pamies, L., & Quiles, Y. (2014). Perfectionism and risk factors for the development of eating disorders in Spanish adolescents of both genders. Annals of Psychology, 30(2), 620-626. https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.2.158441 Pan, H., Liu, S., Miao, D., & Yuan, Y. (2018). Sample size determination for mediation analysis of longitudinal data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(32), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0473-2 Park, H., & Walton-Moss, B. (2012). Parenting style, parenting stress, and children's health- related behaviors. Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics, 33(6), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e318258bdb8 Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjustment in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 615–622. Patock-Peckham, J. A., & Corbin, W. R. (2019). Perfectionism and self-medication as mediators of the links between parenting styles and drinking outcomes. Addictive Behaviours Reports, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100218 Piotrowski, K. (2020). How Good It Would Be to Turn Back Time: Adult Attachment and Perfectionism in Mothers and Their Relationships with the Processes of Parental Identity Formation. Psychologica Belgica, 60(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.492 149 Piotrowski, K., Bojanowska, A., Nowicka, A., & Janasek, B. (2021). Perfectionism and community-identity integration: The mediating role of shame, guilt, and self-esteem. Current Psychology, 42, 1308–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01547-1 Portesova, S., & Urbanek, T. (2013). Typology of perfectionism in a group of mathematically gifted Czech adolescents over one decade. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(8), 1116-1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613487603 Pozza, A., Albert, U., & Dettore, D. (2019). Perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty are predictors of OCD symptoms in children and early adolescents: A prospective, cohort, one-year, follow-up study. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 16(1), 53-61. Preacher, K. & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behaviour Research methods, instruments, and computers, 36, 717-731. Proffer, A. A. (1996). The interpersonal treatment of young children: Principles and Techniques. Psychotherapy, 33(1), 68-76. R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Randall, E. T., Bohnert, A. M., & Travers, L. V. (2015). Understanding affluent adolescent adjustment: The interplay of parental perfectionism, perceived parental pressure, and organized activity involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 41, 56–66. Randolph, J. J., & Dykman, B. M. (1998). Perceptions of parenting and depression-proneness in the offspring: Dysfunctional attitudes as a mediating mechanism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(4), 377-400. Reilly, E. E., Stey, P., & Lapsley, D. K. (2016). A new look at the links between perceived 150 parenting, socially-prescribed perfectionism, and disordered eating. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 17-20. Reyes, M. E. S., Layno, K. J. T., Castaneda, J. R. E., Collantes, A. A., Sigua, M. A. D., & McCutcheon, L. (2015). Perfectionism and its relationship to the depressive feelings of gifted Filipino adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(2), 317-322. Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 72-85. Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 879-891. Rinaldi, C. M., & Howe, N. (2012). Mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and associations with toddlers’ externalizing, internalizing, and adaptive behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.001 Risley, S. M. (2022). Longitudinal relations between child evaluative concerns and social anxiety: Does seeking perfectionism predict increases in social anxiety? (Publication No. 29133653) [Doctoral dissertation, Miami University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques: Vol. 3. Instruments & index (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rodger, J., & Kealy, D. (2024). Recollections of parental psychological control: Associations with dysfunctional individuation, depressive symptoms, and shame and guilt. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 88(3), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1521/bumc.2024.88.3.270 151 Romanowicz, M., Poraj, G., & Limiont, W. (2018). Perfectionism and aggression in artistically gifted persons. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 56(14), 204-229. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Rousseau, S., Scharf, M., & Smith, Y. (2018). Achievement-oriented and dependency-oriented parental psychological control: An examination of specificity to middle childhood achievement and dependency-related problems. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 378-394. Roxborough, H. M., Hewitt, P. L., Kaldas, J., Flett, G. L., Caelian, C. M., Sherry, S., & Sherry, D. L. (2012). Perfectionistic self-presentation, socially prescribed perfectionism, and suicide in youth: A test of the perfectionism social disconnection model. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 42(2), 217. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and Missing Data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335739 Sametoglu, S., Denissen, J. J. A., de Clercq, B., & de Caluwe, E. (2021). Towards a better understanding of adolescent obsessive-compulsive personality traits and obsessive-compulsive symptoms from growth trajectories of perfectionism. Development and Psychopathology, 34(4), 1468-1476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421000195 Sand, L., Bøe, T., Shafran, R., Stormark, K. M., & Hysing, M. (2021). Perfectionism in adolescence: Associations with gender, age, and socioeconomic status in a Norwegian sample. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 688811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.688811 Sapeija, K. M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Perfectionism and perceptions of parenting 152 styles in male youth soccer. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.20 Schalkwijk, F., Van Someren, E. J. W., & Wassing, R. (2019). A clinical interpretation of shame regulation in maladaptive perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.001 Scharf, M., Rousseau, S., & Smith, Y. (2016). Validation of the dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented psychological control scale in middle childhood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1200-1207. Segrin, C., Burke, T. J., & Kauer, T. (2020). Overparenting is associated with perfectionism in parents of young adults. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 9(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000143 Seong, H., Lee, S., & Lee, S. M. (2021). Is autonomy-supportive parenting universally beneficial? Combined effect of socially prescribed perfectionism and parental autonomy support on stress in emerging adults in South Korea. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02520-x Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult Attachment Strategies and the Regulation of Emotion. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 446–465). The Guilford Press. Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Datta, A. (2008). The Child Attachment Interview: A psychometric study of reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 939-956. Silva, K., & Miller, V. A. (2020). Does self-efficacy mediate the link between impulse control and diabetes adherence? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 45(4), 445-453. 153 Silva, K., & Miller, V. A. (2022). Parenting and the development of impulse control in youth with type 1 diabetes: The mediating role of negative affect. Applied Developmental Science, 26(1), 94-108. Sirois, F. M., & Molnar, D. S. (Eds.) (2016). Perfectionism, Health, and Well-Being. New York: Springer. Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069030 Smith, M. M., Hewitt, P.L., Sherry, S.B., Flett, G.L., Kealy, D., Tasca, G.A., Ge, S., Ying, F., & Bakken, K. (in press). A meta-analytic test of the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy for perfectionism: A replication and extension. Canadian Psychology. Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. M., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Mushquash, C., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2018). The perniciousness of perfectionism: A meta-analytic review of the perfectionism-suicide relationship. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 522-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12333 Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Gautreau, C. M., Mushquash, A. R., Saklofske, D. H., & Snow, S. L. (2017). The intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: Fathers' other-oriented perfectionism and daughters' perceived psychological control uniquely predict daughters' self-critical and personal standards perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 242-248. Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Rnic, K., Saklofske, D. H., Enns, M., & Gralnick, T. (2016). Are 154 perfectionism dimensions vulernability factors for depressive symptoms after controlling for neuroticism? A meta-analysis of 10 longitudinal studies. European Journal of Personality, 30(2), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2053 Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Vidovic, V., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2020). Why does perfectionism confer risk for depressive symptoms? A meta-analytic test of the mediating role of stress and social disconnection. Journal of Research in Personality, 86, 1-14. Soenens, B., Elliot, A. J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., & Duriez, B. (2005). The intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: parents' psychological control as an intervening variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 358. Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2008). Maladaptive perfectionism as an intervening variable between psychological control and adolescent depressive symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 465–474. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Luyten, P. (2010). Toward a domain-specific approach to the study of parental psychological control: Distinguishing between dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented psychological control. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 217–256. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionistic self-representations: The mediational link between psychological control and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 487-498. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Vandereycken, W., Luyten, P., Sierens, E., & Goossens, L. (2008). Perceived Parental Psychological Control and Eating-Disordered Symptoms: Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Possible Intervening Variable. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(2), 144–152. 155 Sommerfeld, E., & Malek, S. (2019). Perfectionism moderates the relationship between thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness and suicide ideation in adolescents. Psychiatric Quarterly, 90(4), 671-681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09639-y Soreni, N., Streiner, D., McCabe, R., Bullard, C., Swinson, R. Greco, A., Pires, P., & Szatmari, P. (2014). Dimensions of perfectionism in children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(2), 136-141. Sotardi, V. A., & Dubien, D. (2019). Perfectionism, wellbeing, and university performance: A sample validation of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) in New Zealand. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.023 Soysa, C. K., & Weiss, A. (2014). Mediating perceived parenting styles–test anxiety relationships: Academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 77–85. Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Factors Influencing the Development of Perfectionism in Gifted College Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 259–274. Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in high-ability students: Relational precursors and influences on achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(3), 238–251. Stoeber, J., & Childs, J. H. (2012). Perfectionism. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Springer. Stoeber, J., Kempe, T., & Keogh, E. J. (2008). Facets of self-oriented and socially prescribed 156 perfectionism and feelings of pride, shame, and guilt following success and failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1506–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.007 Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006 Stornelli, D., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, achievement, and affect in children: A comparison of students from gifted, arts, and regular programs. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(4), 267-283. Stricker, J., & Preckel, F. (2021). Global self-esteem differentially predicts multidimensional perfectionism in early adolescents two years later. Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(6), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316211016069 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. Tape, N. (2021). The scale of perfectionism and excellencism (SCOPE): An adolescent-based validation study for the measurement of perfectionism and excellencism. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Adelaide. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/133993 Taylor, E. P., Couper, R., & Butler, C. M. (2017). Adolescent perfectionism: Structural features of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale and correlates with attachment and psychopathology. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 90(4), 686-704. Teixeira, M. D., Pereira, A. T., Marques, M. V., Saraiva, J. M., & de Macedo, A. F. (2016). 157 Eating behaviors, body image, perfectionism, and self-esteem in a sample of Portuguese girls. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 38(2), 135-140. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2015-1723 Turk, F., Kellett, S., & Waller, G. (2021). Determining the potential link of self-compassion with eating pathology and body image among women: A longitudinal mediational study. Eating and Weight Disorders, 26, 2683-2691. Turner, L. A., & Turner, P. E. (2011). The relation of behavioural inhibition and perceived parenting to maladaptive perfectionism in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 840-844. Tziner, A., & Tanami, M. (2013). Examining the link between attachment, perfectionism, and job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29, 65-74. Ulu, I. P., & Tezer, E. (2010). Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism, Adult Attachment, and Big Five Personality Traits. The Journal of Psychology, 144(4), 327–340. Vaillancourt, T., & Haltigan, J. D. (2018). Joint trajectories of depression and perfectionism across adolescence and childhood risk factors. Development and Psychopathology, 30(2), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000979 Vaillancourt, T., & Haltigan, J. D. (2018). The codevelopment of symptoms of depression and socially prescribed perfectionism in adolescence: A diathesis-stress perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 30(2), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000952 Vecchione, M., & Vacca, M. (2021). An Italian adaptation of the Child-Adolescent 158 Perfectionism Scale: Testing measurement invariance across grade levels and exploring associations with academic achievement. PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255814 Vicent, M., Ingles, C. J., Sanmartin, R., Gonzalvez, C., & Garcia-Fernandez, J. M. (2017). Perfectionism and aggression: Identifying risk profiles in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.061 Vicent, M., Ingles, C. J., Sanmartin, R., Gonzalvez, C., Jimenez-Ayala, C. E., & Garcia- Fernandez, J. M. (2020). Psychometric properties of the child and adolescent perfectionism scale in Ecuadorian adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 272, 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.04.036 Vicent, M., Sanmartin, R., Cargua-Garcia, N. I., & Garcia-Fernandez, J. M. (2022). Perfectionism and emotional intelligence: A person-centered approach. International Journal of Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8660575 Walton, G. E., Hibbard, D. R., Coughlin, C., & Coyl-Shepherd, D. D. (2020). Parenting, personality, and culture as predictors of perfectionism. Current Psychology, 39, 681-693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9793-y Wang, H. (2023). The influence of parenting styles on attachment styles and parental influence on children’s cognitive development. SHS Web of Conferences, 180, 02026. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318002026 Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., & Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation in the United States and China. Child Development, 78, 1592–1610. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2007.01085.x. 159 Wei, M. F., Heppner, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Young, S. K. (2006). Maladaptive perfectionism and ineffective coping as mediators between attachment and future depression: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 67–79. Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, W. T. (2004). Maladaptive perfectionism as a mediator and moderator between adult attachment and depressive mood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 201–212. Weinburger Biran, M., & Reese, C. (2007). Parental influences on social anxiety: The sources of perfectionism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651070550010108 Willemen, A. M., Kuzminskaite, E., Maurice-Stam, H., Grootenhuis, M. A., Last, B. F., Schuengel, C., & Scholten, L. (2022). The working mechanisms of parental involvement in interventions for children with chronic illness. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31, 3037-3046. Winnicott, D.W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. New York, NY: International Universities Press Inc. Wright, E., Chase, M. A., Horn, T. S., & Vealey, R. S. (2019). United States parents’ perfectionism, parenting styles, and perceptions of specialization in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101571 Yang, H., Hong, C., Dao, X., & Zhu, L. (2015). Revising the Child and Adolescent 160 Perfectionism Scale: A Test of the Four-Factor Structure in a Chinese Sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175615578733 Ye, H. J., Rice, K. G., & Storch, E. A. (2008). Perfectionism and peer relations among children with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39(4), 415-426. Young, J. E. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form (1st ed.). New York: Cognitive Therapy Centre. Zhang, B., & Cai, T. (2012). Using SEM to examine the dimensions of perfectionism and investigate the mediating role of self-esteem between perfectionism and depression in China. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.3 Zohar, A. H., Goldman, E., Calamary, R., & Mashiah, M. (2005). Religiosity and obsessive- compulsive behaviour in Israeli Jews. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(7), 857-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.06.009 161 Appendix A: Correlations Among Study Variables and Youth Age and Gender Variable T1 Youth Age T1 Youth Gender T1 Authoritarian Parenting -.08 .12 T1 Parental Psychological Control -.07 .12 T1 Uninvolved Parenting -.15 .06 T2 Insecure Attachment .27* -.11 T3 Self-Oriented Perfectionism .20 -.17 T3 Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .22 -.07 T3 Perfectionistic Self-Promotion .32* -.19 T3 Nondisplay of Imperfections .23 -.28* T3 Nondisclosure of Imperfections .21 -.05 T3 Perfectionistic Cognitions .07 -.22 Note. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, T3 = Time 3. For youth gender, girls were coded as 0 and boys were coded as 1. Authoritarian parenting was parent-reported; all other variables were child-reported. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001 (2-tailed).
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Hewitt, Paul L. (Paul Louis)
The effects of maladaptive parenting and insecure attachment on the development of perfectionism in children and adolescents : a 2-year longitudinal mediation analysis
Text