The Share of Genetic and Environmental Factors to Perfectionism: A Classical Twin Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2196363/v1

Background and aim: Genetic and environmental factors are both effective in creating different psychological traits. Therefore, in addition to recognizing the environmental factors affecting psychological traits, biological factors such as heritability also need to be studied. Thus, the present study aimed to measure the heritability of perfectionism among MZ and DZ twins.

Methods: 174 MZ and DZ twins participated in this study. This study used Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale to measure perfectionism and its subscales. The method used in this study was the classical univariate twin model.

Results: The results of this study showed that both self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) are explained by the CE model. Thus, SOP and SPP are 0.48 and 0.68 under the influence of common environmental factors (C) and 0.52 and 0.32 are under the influence of specific environmental factors (E). It was also found that the other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) is 0.42 under the influence of non-additive genetics (D) and 0.58 under the influence of the E effect. Finally, the effect of additive genetics (A) on total perfectionism was about twice that of the E effect.

Conclusion: Specific and shared environmental factors are effective in SOP and SPP. Total perfectionism is more influenced by genetic factors than environmental factors.

Heritability

Perfectionism

Other-oriented perfectionism

Classical twin studies

ACE model

Perfectionism considers as one of the major psychological health problems since it has been linked to an array of mental health issues (1, 2). Perfectionism is described as a personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance, accompanied by overly critical evaluations of one's behavior (3). Several studies indicated various dimensions of perfectionism (4–8). The three dimensions of the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HFMPS) are self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) which refers to setting personal high standards for one's actions and behavior, other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) which refers to setting exceedingly high standards for others which identified as the maladaptive dimension of perfectionism alongside the third dimension, and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) which refers to the tendency for an individual to believe that others expect perfection from him or her (9).

Perfectionism consider as one of the most prevalent characteristics among individuals (9), and is related to other psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm behaviors, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (10). Approximately, one-third of students in Australia and Norway are suffering from dysfunctional perfectionism (11, 12). Similarly, a meta-analysis study revealed that perfectionism increased from 1989 to 2016. They found that youth and new generations are more demanding of themselves and others (13).

Previous studies that have examined the contribution of genetics and the environment to perfectionism mainly used the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) (14–17). These studies found that concerns over mistakes (CM) was 29–54% heritable. Personal standards (PS) was also 36–42% heritable. The heritability of doubt about actions was also estimated at 27–47%. However, two other previous studies used a different scale (18, 19). In these two studies, the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI) was used, of which only one subscale is measuring to perfectionism. In addition, only one of these two studies, based on previous factor analysis studies (20), measured the heritability of SOP and SPP, which showed that SPP in girls and boys is 0.42 and 0.38 heritable, respectively, and SOP is heritable 0.30 in girls and 0.22 in boys. However, since the HFMPS scale was not used in the previous studies, it is necessary to measure the heritability of perfectionism using HFMPS as well. Also, as far as we know none of the previous studies have attempted to estimate the OOP heritability. Regarding variety of methods to examine the etiology of traits, one possible way would be twin studies as one of the most popular methods of behavioral genetics is the classical twin studies (21). Twin studies can provide the best conditions for measuring the impact of genetic and environmental factors on phenotypes.

The heritability of Dimensions of HFMPS, particularly OOP, has not been measured up until now. Besides that, since Iranzo-tatay et al. (18) -the only study that has reported the heritability of SOP and SPP- used EDI, not HFMPS, to measure the share of genes and environment of SOP and SPP, it is hard to be sure that these two dimensions are heritable. Also, since HFMPS is one of the widely used measures for perfectionism, and it has a dimension of which heritability has not been determined, so it needs to research the heritability of SOP, OOP, and SPP. Thus, in this study, we aimed to measure the contribution of genetic (additive and non-additive) and environmental (shared and unshared) components to perfectionism and its subscales.

This study was a classical twin study. The study population was all twins living in Isfahan in the summer of 2021. In total, 174 participants 16 to 50 years old, twins enrolled in this sub-study. Subjects were obtained from Isfahan Twin Registry (ITR) (22). At the beginning of the online research questionnaire, a consent form was included that participants could only participate in the project after reading the consent form, if they agreed with the research conditions. Isfahan Twins Registry research has already been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. The ethical code of this research is IR.mui.med.rec.1399.169.

The inclusion criteria were being at age range pairs being accessible, and living together for at least 10 years. Reluctance to participate in the research, absence of one of the twins, and not living together for more than 10 years were among the exclusion criteria of the research. In order to collect data first, a public call was announced by the ITR, then the responders who met the inclusion criteria were included in the research, and questionnaires were distributed among them. The research questionnaires included the consent form, the zygotic determination questionnaire, and the Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HFMPS).

Instruments

Hewitt and Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism scale (HFMPS)

The multidimensional scale of Perfectionism was created by Hewitt and Flett in 1991. This scale consists of 30 items that measure the three components of self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially prescribed perfectionism. Each component consists of 10 statements that are answered by a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". In a validation study, in a sample of 480 Iranian students, Besharat (23) in 2005 reported adequate and satisfactory internal consistency, the Cronbach’s Alfa for which was 0.89 for self-oriented perfectionism, 0.83 for other-oriented perfectionism, and 0.78 for socially prescribed (23). In a more recent study the Cronbach’s Alfa of SOP, OOP, and SPP reported 0.86, 0.82, and 0.87 respectively (24). Also In this study, the Cronbach’s Alfa of SOP, OOP, and SPP were 0.82, 0.70, and 0.86.

Zygosity questionnaire

This questionnaire was developed by Song et al. (22) in 2010. They first collected the genetic information of 2060 twins (1030 pairs). Then the research questionnaire was completed by the twins. Finally, it was found that the accuracy of this questionnaire to determine the identical twins was 97.2% and to determine the fraternal twins was 95%. This questionnaire identifies the identical and fraternal twins by using three questions. The first question determines whether the parents of the twins confuse them with each other. The second question determines whether twins are mistaken for teachers and their friends. And the final question is whether strangers confuse twins (22).

Statistical analysis

After this step, data were entered into SPSS software. Descriptive analysis was performed in this software and then the data were transferred to R software.

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was then applied to the data to confirm the hypothesis of homogeneity of distribution. Two tests of intra-pair correlation coefficient and homogeneity of variance were performed. ACE structural equation model used to calculate the share of three components of heritability (additive and non-additive genetics), common environment, and specific environment. The calculation of these components is done by the correlation between MZ (monozygotic) and DZ (dizygotic) twins. The packages that have been used in R software were lme4, mets, psych, and nortest. In R software, first, the coefficient of intra-pair correlation was determined. Intra-pair correlation measures the correlation of pairs in each zygosity group. If the coefficient of intra-pair correlation in MZ twins is greater than that of DZ twins, it is estimated that the effect of genetics on the phenotype is greater than the environment. If the coefficient of intra-pair correlation is equal to or higher in the fraternal twins, then it is estimated that the influence of the environment on that phenotype is greater than the impact of genetics. In the next step, the F test was performed to compare the pairs of MZ and DZ twins. The purpose of this step was to ensure homogeneity of variance among the twins in each zygosity group. After this model, ACE was performed on the data. Also, after the ACE model AE, CE, E, ADE, and DE models were performed on them, respectively. After performing the ACE model, model fit was determined using Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The AIC is used to select the best fit and the BIC is used to select the model that has the least amount of lost information. Better fitting models have smaller values. Also, after this test, the − 2L of models were compared with the reference models (ACE & ADE) using chi-square. It is recommended that models AE, CE, and E be compared with the ACE model and the DE model with the ADE model (15).

Before inferential statistical analysis, descriptive statistics of data were first analyzed. Table 1 indicates the demographic characteristics of the study population.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study population
Zygosity	Variable	No.	x̄	Std.	Min.	Max.
MZ	Sex	Male: 18 Female: 70 Total: 88	-	-	-	-
MZ	Age	-	27.04	8.10	16	49
DZ	Sex	Male: 16 Female: 70 Total: 86	-	-	-	-
DZ	Age	-	24.48	5.89	16	43

As shown in Table 1, most of the participants of this research were women. Also, the age of the MZ group ranges from16 to 49 years, and the age range of DZs is 16 to 43 years. The mean age of the MZ group is 27 years old, while the average of the DZ group is about 24 years old.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics
Variable	Zygosity	Pair	No.	x̄	Std.	Min.	Max.	r	F	KS
Perfectionism	MZ	Twin 1	44	82.95	17.33	51	119	0.66	0.10*	MZ: 0.06*
	MZ	Twin 2	44	87.86	17.52	49	123	0.66	0.10*
	DZ	Twin 1	43	91.65	16.22	53	131	0.46	0.00*
	DZ	Twin 2	43	89.91	14.59	57	121	0.46	0.00*
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP)	MZ	Twin 1	44	29.36	8.05	14	48	0.54	1.02*
	MZ	Twin 2	44	30.34	6.41	15	47	0.54	1.02*
	DZ	Twin 1	43	30.60	6.60	18	47	0.41	1.73*
	DZ	Twin 2	43	29.70	7.65	17	45	0.41	1.73*
Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP)	MZ	Twin 1	44	27.18	5.37	18	41	0.41	1.93*	DZ: 0.08*
	MZ	Twin 2	44	28.98	6.29	15	40	0.41	1.93*
	DZ	Twin 1	43	30.88	5.53	18	41	0.10	0.11*
	DZ	Twin 2	43	29.30	5.18	20	43	0.10	0.11*
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP)	MZ	Twin 1	44	26.41	7.80	10	41	0.68	0.06*
	MZ	Twin 2	44	28.54	8.61	11	50	0.68	0.06*
	DZ	Twin 1	43	30.16	7.96	11	48	0.68	1.13*
	DZ	Twin 2	43	30.18	6.91	14	49	0.68	1.13*
*: p>0.05

Table 2 demonstrates the intra-pair correlation of the MZ group in all variables except SPP, were significantly higher than the DZ correlation. Thus, it can be assumed that the effect of genetics on Perfectionism, SOP, and OOP is dominant over the environment. In addition, the F test shows that the variance in pairs of MZ and DZ is not significantly different from each other.

Table 3. Univariate ACE model of Perfectionism and its subscales
Model	A	C	D	E	-2LL	χ∆²	P	df	AIC	BIC
Perfectionism
ACE	0.40	0.26	-	0.34	-715.18	-	-	6	1442.37	1457.16
ADE	0.67	-	0.00	0.33	-715.63	-	-	6	1443.26	1458.05
AE	0.67	-	-	0.33	-715.63	0.89	0.35	5	1441.26	1453.59
DE	-	-	0.67	0.33	-717.12	2.98	0.08	5	1444.24	1456.57
CE	-	0.57	-	0.43	-716.40	2.44	0.11	5	1442.81	1455.14
E	-	-	-	1	-733.75	37.14	0.05	4	1475.38	1485.38
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP)
ACE	0.25	0.29	-	0.46	-576.22	-	-	6	1164.45	1179.25
ADE	0.56	-	0.00	0.44	-576.76	-	-	6	1165.52	1180.32
AE	0.56	-	-	0.44	-576.76	1.72	0.30	5	1163.52	1175.85
DE	-	-	0.56	0.44	-578.10	2.69	0.10	5	1166.21	1178.54
CE	-	0.48	-	0.52	-576.57	0.69	0.40	5	1163.15	1175.48
E	-	-	-	1	-587.84	23.22	9.05	4	1183.67	1193.54
Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP)
ACE	0.39	0.00	-	0.61	-543.68	-	-	6	1099.36	1114.15
ADE	0.00	-	0.41	0.59	-543.47	-	-	6	1098.94	1113.74
AE	0.39	-	-	0.61	-543.68	1.16	1.00	5	1097.36	1109.69
DE	-	-	0.42	0.58	-543.47	0.41	0.52	5	1096.95	1109.27
CE	-	0.28	-	0.72	-544.76	2.15	0.14	5	1099.52	1111.85
E	-	-	-	1	-548.22	9.07	0.01	4	1104.44	1114.30
Socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP)
ACE	0.00	0.68	-	0.31	-578.42	-	-	6	1168.84	1183.64
ADE	0.70	-	0.00	0.30	-582.87	-	-	6	1177.75	1192.54
AE	0.70	-	-	0.30	-582.87	8.90	0.00	5	1175.75	1188.08
DE	-	-	0.69	0.31	-586.37	6.99	0.00	5	11 82.74	1195.07
CE	-	0.68	-	0.32	-578.42	1.07	1.00	5	1166.84	1179.17
E	-	-	-	1	-605.63	54.41	9.05	4	1219.26	1229.12

Table 3 indicates the result of fitting ACE model to each perfectionism subscale (Perfectionism, SOP, OOP, and SPP). The value of the common environment (C) and specific environment (E) factors in this model were 0.48 and 0.52, respectively. OOP is also explained by the DE model. Therefore, non-additive genetic (D) and E play a role in the development of this trait. The share of these two factors is 0.42 and 0.58, respectively. SPP is also explained by purely environmental factors (common environment (C) and specific environment (E)). The share of common and specific environmental factors in this subscale is 0.68 and 0.32, respectively. Finally, the total score of perfectionism is explained by two factors, additive genetics (A) and specific environment (E). The share of these two factors is 0.67 and 0.33, respectively.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the contribution of genetics and the environment to perfectionism using this scale. These findings demonstrated perfectionism and other-oriented perfectionism are more heritable than self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism.

Iranzo-tatay et al. (18), found that SOP and SPP are 23% and 39% heritable, respectively. However, in the present study, considering using a different scale, HFMPS, it was found that SOP and SPP are under influence of environmental factors. Nonetheless, in the total score of perfectionism, the results of this study are in line with the findings by Iranzo-tatay et al. (18). Other classical twin studies used FMPS to determine different dimension of perfectionism. Nevertheless, considering perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, the present study can be compared with other studies. Since SPP falls into the category of perfectionistic concerns (26), this subscale can be compared to doubt about actions and concern over mistakes. Unlike other studies that have considered perfectionistic concerns to be heritable (14–17), we found that perfectionistic concerns is strongly influenced by the common and specific environment. Considering that SOP and personal standards are subsets of perfectionistic strivings, the result of this study was not in line with previous studies, where they determined that personal standards are strongly heritable from 0.27 to 0.54 (14–17). However, in this study, perfectionistic strivings is fully explained by environmental factors.

Since it has been found that SOP and SPP are mainly influenced by the environment, these environmental factors can be sought in other studies. Other studies have identified common and specific environmental factors in developing perfectionism mainly as parental criticism and expectations, harsh environments and trauma, and adverse childhood experiences. McArdle & Duda (27) found that perceived parental criticism was associated with doubt about actions and concern over mistakes. However, perceived parental expectations are only related to personal standards. Maloney et al. (28) in an etiology study found that there is a direct relationship between parental expectations and parental criticism, and perfectionism. Besides, specific environmental factors like childhood experiences such as abuse, maltreatment, and neglect are directly related to SPP (29). Egan et al. (30) found that perfectionism is highly correlated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Taken together, it is clear that childhood experiences (both shared and specific) play an important role in the development of perfectionism during childhood.

Also in this study, the share of genetic and environmental components of OOP was measured. Thus, it was found that OOP is 0.43 heritable. Previously, Bachner-Melman et al. (30) discovered three genes associated with perfectionism and anorexia nervosa. These genes can be involved in the development of some perfectionist behaviors and beliefs (31). But it should not be forgotten that according to the definitions, heritability refers to the genetic distribution of a trait at a specific time and population (32). Therefore, one of the reasons that the results of the present study are different from other studies is related to Iranian culture and population characteristics that might be led to minimize the effect of genetics in SOP and SPP. Previously it was found that achievement-oriented competencies, like educational and economic competencies are among the top priority of Iranian parents (33). Therefore, it can be understood that such values are among environmental factors that can result in perfectionism in Iranians.

Limitations: This study was limited to a small number of samples. Secondly, regarding that this study has done on a twin sample, the results of this study cannot be generalized to the non-twin’s population. Nonetheless, the effect of genetics has been eliminated in this. Third, not calculating the EEA hypothesis severely confront the research with limitation. Fourth, since the E factor measures both specific environmental factors and error of measurement, therefore this study may face measurement error.

environmental factors are effective in the development of perfectionism before genetics. Also, since it was found that perfectionism is influenced by the environment and genetics, it is necessary to conduct cross-sectional studies on this trait in order to determine the factors that have a significant role in the development of perfectionism.

A: Additive genes AIC: Akaike's Information Criterion BIC: Bayesian information criteria C: Common environment CM: Concern over mistakes D: Dominant genes DZ: Dizygotic E: Specific environment EDI: Eating disorder inventory FMPS: Frost multidimensional perfectionism scale HFMPS: Hewitt and Flett multidimensional perfectionism scale ITR: Isfahan twin registry MZ: monozygotic OOP: Other-oriented perfectionism SOP: Self-oriented perfectionism SPP: Socially prescribed perfectionism

Acknowledgements

We would like to show our gratitude to the Parsi Twins Association for collaborating with us. We are also immensely grateful to all people who helped us conduct this study.

Ethic approval and consent to participate

This study has been done as a sub-study of the Isfahan Twin Registry (ITR). The ITR was previously approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. The ethical code of this research is IR.mui.med.rec.1399.169. Also, the participation of employees was voluntary, based on written informed consent before data collection. Additionally, the aim and method of the study and the anonymity and confidentiality of their data were informed to them by researchers. Furthermore, all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations (Declarations of Helsinki).

Competing Interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest, or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not for profit sectors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Authors contributions

SP was responsible for data collection. SP wrote the drafted manuscript which subsequently was revised by MG, AA, and RS. AA, RS, and MG were responsible for designing the protocols of the study. MD and SP proposed the designing method and analyzed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

[1] Department of Psychology, Humanities Faculty, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. 2 Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Egan SJ, Wade TD, Shafran R, Antony MM. Cognitive-behavioral treatment of perfectionism. Guilford Publications; 2016.
Stoeber J. The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2018.
Stoeber J, Childs JH. The assessment of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: Subscales make a difference. J Pers Assess. 2010;92(6):577–85.
Hamachek DE. Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychol A J Hum Behav. 1978;15(1):27–33.
Frost RO, Marten P, Lahart C, Rosenblate R. The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognit Ther Res. 1990;14(5):449–68.
Terry-Short LA, Owens RG, Slade PD, Dewey ME. Positive and negative perfectionism. Pers Individ Dif. 1995;18(5):663–8.
Slaney RB, Rice KG, Mobley M, Trippi J, Ashby JS. The revised almost perfect scale. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2001;34(3):130–45.
Hewitt PL, Flett GL. Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;60(3):456.
Egan SJ, Wade TD, Shafran R. Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clin Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2011;31(2):203–12. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735810000723.
Limburg K, Watson HJ, Hagger MS, Egan SJ. The Relationship Between Perfectionism and Psychopathology: A Meta-Analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2017 Oct;73(10):1301–26.
Sironic A, Reeve RA. A combined analysis of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS), and Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R): Different perfectionist profiles in adolescent high school students. Psychol Assess. 2015 Dec;27(4):1471–83.
Stornæs AV, Rosenvinge JH, Sundgot-Borgen J, Pettersen G, Friborg O. Profiles of Perfectionism Among Adolescents Attending Specialized Elite- and Ordinary Lower Secondary Schools: A Norwegian Cross-Sectional Comparative Study. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2019;10. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02039.
Curran T, Hill AP. Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychol Bull. 2019;145(4):410.
Burcaş S, Creţu RZ. Perfectionism and Neuroticism: Evidence for a common genetic and environmental etiology. J Pers [Internet]. 2021 Jan 17;n/a(n/a). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12617.
Moser JS, Slane JD, Alexandra Burt S, Klump KL. Etiologic relationships between anxiety and dimensions of maladaptive perfectionismin young adult female twins. Depress Anxiety. 2012;29(1):47–53.
Wade TD, Bulik CM. Shared genetic and environmental risk factors between undue influence of body shape and weight on self-evaluation and dimensions of perfectionism. Psychol Med. 2007 May;37(5):635–44.
Tozzi F, Aggen SH, Neale BM, Anderson CB, Mazzeo SE, Neale MC, et al. The structure of perfectionism: A twin study. Behav Genet. 2004;34(5):483–94.
Iranzo-Tatay C, Gimeno-Clemente N, Barberá-Fons M, Rodriguez-Campayo M, Rojo-Bofill L, Livianos-Aldana L, et al. Genetic and environmental contributions to perfectionism and its common factors. Psychiatry Res. 2015;230(3):932–9.
Kamakura T, Ando J, Ono Y, Maekawa H. A twin study of genetic and environmental influences on psychological traits of eating disorders in a Japanese female sample. Twin Res. 2003 Aug;6(4):292–6.
Sherry SB, Hewitt PL, Besser A, McGee BJ, Flett GL. Self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in the Eating Disorder Inventory Perfectionism subscale. Int J Eat Disord. 2004 Jan;35(1):69–79.
Boomsma D, Busjahn A, Peltonen L. Classical twin studies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3(11):872–82.
Gharipour M, Haghjooy Javanmard S, Mansourian M, Sabri M, Khosravi E, Dianatkhah M, et al. Isfahan Twins Registry (ITR): An Invaluable Platform for Epidemiological and Epigenetic Studies: Design and Methodology of ITR. Twin Res Hum Genet Off J Int Soc Twin Stud. 2019 Dec;22(6):579–82.
Besharat MA. Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship Between Perfectionism and Personality. Educ Psychol Stud. 2005;21(3).
Mehr Afzon D, Sotoudeh Asl N, MAKVAND HOSSEINI S. Development of a Self-Critical Causal Model based on Perfectionism Mediated by Personality Traits in the Students of Islamic Azad University of Tehran. Islam LIFE STYLE CENTERED Heal [Internet]. 2021;4(supplement #AG00332):149–56. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=866774.
Song Y-M, Lee D, Lee MK, Lee K, Lee HJ, Hong EJ, et al. Validity of the zygosity questionnaire and characteristics of zygosity-misdiagnosed twin pairs in the Healthy Twin Study of Korea. Twin Res Hum Genet Off J Int Soc Twin Stud. 2010 Jun;13(3):223–30.
Stoeber J, Otto K. Positive Conceptions of Perfectionism: Approaches, Evidence, Challenges. Personal Soc Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2006 Nov 1;10(4):295–319. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.
McArdle S, Duda JL. Exploring the etiology of perfectionism and perceptions of self-worth in young athletes. Soc Dev. 2008;17(4):980–97.
Maloney GK, Egan SJ, Kane RT, Rees CS. An Etiological Model of Perfectionism. PLoS One [Internet]. 2014 May 1;9(5):e94757. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094757.
Chen C, Hewitt PL, Flett GL. Adverse childhood experiences and multidimensional perfectionism in young adults. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2019;146:53–7. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886919302107.
Egan SJ, Hattaway M, Kane RT. The Relationship between Perfectionism and Rumination in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Behav Cogn Psychother [Internet]. 2013/02/15. 2014;42(2):211–23. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/relationship-between-perfectionism-and-rumination-in-post-traumatic-stress-disorder/8BCCD0AFD272B5AD0B92ED7085FC82EA.
Bachner-Melman R, Lerer E, Zohar AH, Kremer I, Elizur Y, Nemanov L, et al. Anorexia nervosa, perfectionism, and dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4). Am J Med Genet Part B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2007;144(6):748–56.
Plomin R, DeFries JC, McClearn GE. Behavioral genetics. Macmillan; 2008.
Ramezani V, Abd Khodaee MS, Tabibi Z, Aghamohammadian HR. Cognitive dimensions of parenting styles of Iranian parents: A Qualitative Study. J Cogn Sci [Internet]. 2018 Dec 1;6(3):21–30. Available from: http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2995-en.html.

No competing interests reported.

The Share of Genetic and Environmental Factors to Perfectionism: A Classical Twin Study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Method

Instruments

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1