Review Reports - Perfectionism, Family Climate and Emotion Regulation in Childhood

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great paper presenting a study on how children perceived perfectionism and whether perfectionism is predicted by family climate and emotion regulation. Overall, I have a good impression of this paper. Please find below my feedback.

The expressive suppression subscale has a low internal consistency score (namely .57). I am wondering whether some items can be dropped to increase the reliability?
Similarly, the FES scale is also presenting a low reliabiltiy. I would advise to increase the reliability via some form of factor analysis or dropping some items since the consistency score is rather unacceptable.
Can the authors provide a sample item wording per subscale/scale?
In the descriptive statistics' table 1, I found some minimum values of zero, but why are there zeroes in summed composite scores?
Please explain the scoring for each scale/subscale.
The sample size is a bit small considering the large number of independent variables inside the regression models. Is there a power analyses a-priori or what about the rules-of-thumb to justify the sample size for the regression model?
Please also run regression diagnostics (e.g., homoskedasticity, normality of residuals, multicolinearity, outliers)

I hope the authors will find my comments helpful!

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript for publication in the journal Future. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are also grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address them. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections marked in red color in the re-submitted files. All page numbers and lines refer to the revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have. Sincerely, The authors

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The expressive suppression subscale has a low internal consistency score (namely .57). I am wondering whether some items can be dropped to increase the reliability?

Response 1: We appreciate the comment regarding the internal consistency of the expressive suppression subscale. We completely agree with it. We chose to retain all four items because scale length and Cronbach's α is highly sensitive to the number of items. However, to check the item homogeneity of this short subscale we estimated the Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIIC), which was found to be adequate. To address the reviewer’s comment, we added the following sentence in our paper (page 8, lines 352-355, see text in red):

“Due to the expressive suppression subscale's shortness (only four items), a lower α may be expected [75]. Adequate item homogeneity was confirmed by calculating for this specific subscale the Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIIC), which was 0.26, falling within the acceptable range for a short form [75].”

We also added a relevant reference in the text and the Reference Section (page 22, lines 875-876 see text in red)

Clark, L. A., Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995, 7 (3), 309–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.]

Comment 2: Similarly, the FES scale is also presenting a low reliability. I would advise to increase the reliability via some form of factor analysis or dropping some items since the consistency score is rather unacceptable.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the highly valuable feedback, specifically the comment regarding the internal consistency of the FES in our sample. We recognize that the obtained FES Cronbach's alpha (0.62), is below the conventional alpha 0.70 threshold. This finding is acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion section.

We used the FES because it is a widely-used, established multi-dimensional measure with strong construct validity. We have added the following text in the Materials and Methods section (page 8, lines 329-332, see text in red at the end of the FES description)

“Although, the obtained α is below the conventional .70 threshold, we opted to retain the full scale because its utility lies in measuring broad, distinct dimensions of the family environment, a design choice where maximal internal consistency is often sacrificed for conceptual breadth [71].”

Critically, studies utilizing the FES frequently report scale/subscale alpha values in this lower range (e.g., Boyd et al., 1997; Roosa & Beals, 1990; Sanford et al., 1994). Our item-deletion analysis confirmed that removing items did not significantly improve the overall alpha. Consequently, we retained the full instrument to preserve its theoretical integrity and consistency with extant literature. In the Discussion section (page 16, lines 636-640, see text in red) we have, also, introduced cautionary language when interpreting the findings related to the FES.

“Given the modest internal consistency of the FES, the observed relationships may be attenuated, requiring that the current findings be interpreted with appropriate caution. Subsequent research should address this measurement issue by validating the FES within this population or by considering alternative measures of the family environment to enhance reliability.”

We believe that by acknowledging the issue, justifying our methodological choice based on established psychometric literature for the FES, and tempering our interpretations, we have adequately addressed the reviewer's critical comment without altering the core statistical analysis.

Below are the References we used to address the Reviewer’s comment:

Boyd, C. P., Gullone, E., Needleman, I., & Burt, T. (1997). The Family Environment Scale: Reliability and normative data for an adolescent sample. Family Process, 36(4), 387–395.

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family Environment Scale Manual: Development, Applications, and Research. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Roosa, M. W., & Beals, K. P. (1990). The Family Environment Scale and the analysis of family data. Family Process, 29(1), 101–105.

Sanford, S., Bingham, C. R., & Zucker, R. A. (1994). Validity issues with the Family Environment Scale: Psychometric resolution and research application with alcoholic families. Family Process, 33(3), 315–326.

Comment 3: Can the authors provide a sample item wording per subscale/scale?

Response 3: Sample items per subscale/scale were added according to the Reviewer’s suggestion (pages 6-8, see text in red, Materials and Methods Section, Measures Subsection).

Comment 4: In the descriptive statistics' table 1, I found some minimum values of zero, but why are there zeroes in summed composite scores?

Response 4: Thank you for the comment. The total score for each subscale of the Family Environmental Scale (FES) is the sum of participants’ answers and ranges from 0 to 9. Possible answers are given in the form of True (1) – False (0). That is the reason why some FES subscales have 0 as a possible minimum score. This explanation is already available in the text, but if the Reviewer requires a better explanation we will be more than happy to provide it.

Comment 5: Please explain the scoring for each scale/subscale.

Response 5: Detailed description of the scoring system adopted for each measure used in this study is added in the Measures subsection ((pages 6-8, see text in red). Thank you for this very useful comment.

Comment 6: The sample size is a bit small considering the large number of independent variables inside the regression models. Is there a power analyses a-priori or what about the rules-of-thumb to justify the sample size for the regression model?

Response 6: The reviewer correctly raises a critical point regarding sample size. Although an a priori power analysis was not performed, the sample size of N=191 is deemed adequate based on statistical rules-of-thumb for multiple regression. The regression model in our study included m=11 independent variables, resulting in an N:m ratio of 17.36:1, which is well above the recommended 10:1 minimum (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, this sample size comfortably exceeds the requirement for detecting moderate effects in a model of this complexity (N ≥ 50 + 8 m, 50 + 8(11) = 138; Green, 1991). While this limits the power to detect very small effect sizes, the significant relationships that were observed across the model are considered robust given the statistical benchmarks met by the present sample size.

Below are the References we used to address the Reviewer’s comment:

Green, S. B. (1991). How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Comment 7: Please also run regression diagnostics (e.g., homoskedasticity, normality of residuals, multicolinearity, outliers)

Response 7: Thank you for this important comment. To address it we added the following paragraph to the Result’s section (page 11, lines 433-439, see text in red):

“Preliminary diagnostic checks confirmed that the assumptions of hierarchical regression were satisfied. Multicollinearity was not a concern (maximum VIF = 3.57), and the assumptions of normality and homoskedasticity of residuals were met as confirmed by visual inspection of plots and non-significant formal tests. Furthermore, no single observation exhibited undue influence on the model, with all Cook's Distance values being below the conventional cut-off of 1.0.”

I hope the authors will find my comments helpful!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled Perfectionism, family climate and emotion regulation in childhood . I believe that the topic of the paper is highly significant and relevant, with clear implications for practice, and that the paper as a whole represents a valuable contribution to the field it addresses.

The introduction is comprehensive and includes a large number of relevant references, which is commendable. However, it appears to be overly detailed and may to some extent burden the reader; therefore, it might be useful to consider condensing it. In addition, an error in the citation has been noted on line 65.

The methodology section requires certain clarifications. There is no information regarding approval from an ethics committee, which is an essential element in studies of this type. It is also necessary to describe in more detail where and how the participants completed the questionnaires. Furthermore, the question arises whether the sample was deliberately homogenized according to parents’ educational level, given that all participants are highly educated. If this were indeed a criterion for sampling, it should be clearly stated.

Regarding the instruments used, it was observed that some subscales demonstrated low reliability (e.g., ERQ-CA – Cronbach’s alpha for expressive suppression = 0.57). It would be important to indicate whether this issue was specifically considered and controlled for in the subsequent statistical analyses.

The discussion is detailed and grounded in relevant literature. Nevertheless, in addition to comparing the findings with previous studies, the authors could further elaborate on the interpretation of their results, that is, provide deeper insights into why their findings turned out the way they did.

Overall, the paper is of good quality, addresses an important topic, and has the potential to advance practice. With certain additions and clarifications, it would become even clearer and methodologically stronger. I look forward to the opportunity to read the revised version after corrections.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript for publication in the journal Future. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are also grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address them. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections marked in red color in the re-submitted files. All page numbers and lines refer to the revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have. Sincerely, The authors
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer #2

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled Perfectionism, family climate and emotion regulation in childhood. I believe that the topic of the paper is highly significant and relevant, with clear implications for practice, and that the paper as a whole represents a valuable contribution to the field it addresses.

Comment 1: The introduction is comprehensive and includes a large number of relevant references, which is commendable. However, it appears to be overly detailed and may to some extent burden the reader; therefore, it might be useful to consider condensing it. In addition, an error in the citation has been noted on line 65.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Your comment is very true, and gives us the opportunity to make the appropriate corrections. Thus, we removed the details that may burden the reader in the following sections of the introduction: a) Family characteristics and perfectionism, b) Emotional climate in the family and children's emotion regulation, and c) Emotion regulation and perfectionism. Specifically, we shortened descriptive sentences (e.g., defining cohesive families) and the final summary sentences, along with definitions (e.g., parental types into concise parenthetical descriptions); condensed the explanation of children adopting parental traits and the example of checking actions until satisfied; simplified the final sentence on parental psychopathology into a more direct statement; removed the redundant sentence stating that parental characteristics predict psychological control, which in turn predicts perfectionism, as this chain was already implied; streamlined the description of the negative outcomes (questioning abilities, anxiety, low self-esteem) that result from unmet expectations, as well as the contrasting research views on emotional expressiveness and focused the conclusion on the benefit of free expression when modeled by capable parents; removed paragraphs (regarding the family environment where socialization occurs and reflects the emotional climate); consolidated the findings from the undergraduate study into a more direct comparison between adaptive (reappraisal focus) and maladaptive (dysfunctional emotional regulation/stress focus); and combined citations where possible. However, the main concepts and all citations were maintained (see Introduction). We have to clarify that line 65 begins with citation [19].

Comment 2: The methodology section requires certain clarifications. There is no information regarding approval from an ethics committee, which is an essential element in studies of this type.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the necessity of ethical approval for conducting research involving children and adolescent participants. However, at the time this research was conducted in 2022, our institutional guidelines stipulated that cross-sectional surveys utilizing anonymous data collection methods, which did not involve any invasive procedures or collection of identifying personal information beyond demographic data, were deemed to fall under the Exempt Review category by the University’s research oversight body. Thus, there was no need to apply for ethical approval for the present research. However, all ethical requirement were met (i.e. written parental consent, voluntary participation, anonymity and confidentiality). All this information is explained in the Procedures Section.

Comment 3: It is also necessary to describe in more detail where and how the participants completed the questionnaires.

Response 3: To respond to this comment, we added the required information in the Procedure section of the manuscript (page 8, lines 364-368, see text in red):

“The evaluation procedure took place in a quite area in children's schools, where their anonymity was guaranteed. All tasks were administered individually to each child by the second author, who also gave detailed instructions of how to complete each questionnaire and informed participants about the voluntary and confidential nature of the study.”

Comment 4: Furthermore, the question arises whether the sample was deliberately homogenized according to parents’ educational level, given that all participants are highly educated. If this were indeed a criterion for sampling, it should be clearly stated.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We agree that parents’ educational background is highly relevant given our findings emphasizing the role of family climate factors in predicting perfectionism.

We want to clarify that our sample was not deliberately homogenized regarding the parental educational level. The high level of education observed in the parents of our sample could be a consequence of the high percentage of Greek population with a university degree. According to a research, in 2023, almost 45% of Greeks aged 25-34 had successfully graduated from tertiary education programs. See: https://greekanalyst.substack.com/p/greece-education-in-7-numbers.

Acknowledging though that this observed homogeneity limits the evaluation of variance in perfectionism that can be attributed to differing educational backgrounds, we added the following text in the limitations of our study (page 16, lines 640-650, see text in red):

“Furthermore, the sample was drawn from a relatively homogenous cultural and educational background, which may limit the cross-cultural/educational generalizability. For example, by not having lower educational strata represented, it is not possible to statistically isolate the unique influence of low vs. high parental education on the outcomes. While our regression analyses successfully identified the specific impact of achievement orientation, moral emphasis, and family control on children’s perfectionism within this group, the generalizability of these findings is constrained, as we cannot ascertain how these relationships might differ across socioeconomic strata. Future research should incorporate a more cultural and educational diverse sample to test the robustness of these family climate predictors across a broader spectrum of backgrounds.”

However, we would like to argue that our main findings remain robust, as specific aspects of the family climate, such as achievement orientation, moral emphasis, and control, are significant predictors of perfectionism. These identified factors represent specific parenting behaviors and value systems that are conceptually distinct from general educational level. Even among highly educated families, we observed significant variability in how achievement was prioritized, how control was exerted, and how emotions were managed, and these specific behaviors were the significant drivers of perfectionism variance.

Comment 5: Regarding the instruments used, it was observed that some subscales demonstrated low reliability (e.g., ERQ-CA – Cronbach’s alpha for expressive suppression = 0.57). It would be important to indicate whether this issue was specifically considered and controlled for in the subsequent statistical analyses.

Response 5: We appreciate the comment regarding the low reliability for the expressive suppression subscale. We completely agree with it. This subscale includes four items and, thus, scale length and Cronbach's α is highly sensitive to the number of items. However, to check the item homogeneity of this short subscale we estimated the Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIIC), which was found to be adequate. To address the reviewer’s comment, we added the following sentence in our paper (page 8, lines 352-355, see text in red). We hope our response satisfies the Reviewer.

We also added a relevant reference in the text and the Reference Section (page 22, lines 875-876 see text in red)

Clark, L. A., Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995, 7 (3), 309–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.]

Comment 6: The discussion is detailed and grounded in relevant literature. Nevertheless, in addition to comparing the findings with previous studies, the authors could further elaborate on the interpretation of their results, that is, provide deeper insights into why their findings turned out the way they did.

Response 6: Thank you for this comment. We absolutely agree with your suggestions. Thus, we added the following information:

(page 14, lines 557-561, see text in red):

This translates to perfectionistic concerns as the child perceives that mistakes equate to a loss of approval or love. The gap between the ‘actual self’ (making a mistake) and the ‘ideal self’ (the perfect, approved child) creates intense anxiety and pressure to meet impossibly high standards, leading to a profound fear of failure and excessive self-criticism [30, 33].

(page 14, lines 566-572, see text in red):

A family environment with a strong moral or religious emphasis can contribute to perfectionism by establishing absolute, non-negotiable standards of behavior. This fosters a specific type of perfectionism driven by a fear of transgression or moral failure, rather than purely academic or social standards. Children feel a need to be morally perfect manifesting rigid thinking regarding right and wrong, leaving no room for the normal ambiguity or imperfection inherent in human ethical development [47, 48, 69].

(page 14, lines 576-582, see text in red):

When children have little autonomy and are constantly regulated their internal locus of control is diminished. They learn that outcomes are determined by external regulation rather than their own competence. Perfectionism becomes a learned external regulatory strategy—a way to preemptively meet external demands and avoid the unpredictability of parental enforcement or criticism. This directly undermines the development of intrinsic motivation necessary for healthy goal pursuit

(pages 14-15, lines 585-600, see text in red):

Finally, the inclusion of expressive suppression highlights that perfectionism is not just about doing things perfectly, but about appearing perfect [63, 64, 65]. Emotion suppression is a behavioral manifestation of the need to maintain an unblemished external façade. If a child internalizes the family’s high standards (Achievement/Moral/Control), showing any negative emotion (sadness, frustration, anxiety) is perceived as an admission of falling short of that standard. Therefore, suppression becomes a maladaptive cognitive-behavioral loop that reinforces the perfectionistic drive to hide imperfection at great internal cost. In conclusion, these results highlight a powerful, interactive mechanism for perfectionism development. The familial conditions that prioritize achievement, morality, and control establish the external scaffolding of high standards and conditional acceptance, setting the stage for perfectionism. The learned emotional response (i.e., expressive suppression) acts as the critical maintenance strategy, ensuring the child adheres to this high-pressure environment by masking any evidence of failure or struggle and maintaining an image of flawlessness. This combination explains the variance by showing that perfectionism arises from both external demands and internalized, rigid coping strategies [25, 26].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “Perfectionism, Family Climate and Emotion Regulation in Childhood” for consideration in the journal Future. I appreciate the opportunity to review your work, which makes an important contribution to understanding how family dynamics and emotional processes shape perfectionism tendencies in children.

Your paper is well written, theoretically grounded, and methodologically sound. It addresses an underexplored topic—childhood perfectionism—by examining its relationship with family climate and emotion regulation. The study’s design, use of validated instruments, and clear presentation of findings are commendable. However, I would like to offer several suggestions that may help strengthen the manuscript and increase its clarity and impact.

Title

The title is clear, informative, and accurately reflects the study’s scope and variables.

Abstract

Consider making the abstract more concise and including precise numerical indicators (e.g., R² values or key effect sizes). Highlight the study’s main finding and practical implication more clearly to engage readers from diverse backgrounds.

Introduction

The introduction provides a strong overview of the literature but could be shortened to improve focus. Some theoretical explanations could be moved to the Discussion section. A clearer conceptual model or diagram showing the hypothesized links between family climate, emotion regulation, and perfectionism would strengthen the theoretical framing.

Methodology

The measures used are appropriate, but note that the reliability for expressive suppression (α = .57) is below ideal thresholds and should be acknowledged as a limitation.

Clarify the sampling method (e.g., convenience, random) and briefly describe how questionnaires were administered (e.g., individual, classroom setting). Indicate whether the total perfectionism score included both adaptive and maladaptive dimensions.

Results

The analyses are appropriate, but it would enhance transparency to include a correlation matrix and multicollinearity diagnostics for regression predictors. Reporting exact significance levels and standardized coefficients would improve interpretability.

Discussion

The discussion connects findings with existing literature. However, consider reducing repetition from the introduction and focusing on how your findings expand current understanding.

Limitations and Future Directions

You may want to more explicitly note the limitations of cross-sectional data for inferring causality and suggest potential longitudinal designs for future research. Expanding on cross-cultural generalizability would also be valuable.

References

Ensure formatting consistency.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript for publication in the journal Future. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript. We are also grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address them. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections marked in red color in the re-submitted files. All page numbers and lines refer to the revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to any further questions and comments you may have. Sincerely, The authors

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3

Dear Authors,

Comment 1:

Title

The title is clear, informative, and accurately reflects the study’s scope and variables.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive comment.

Comment 2: Abstract

Response 2: Thank you for this comment with which we absolutely agree. The Abstract was made more concise including the R² value and highlighting the main findings and the practical implications of the present study (page 1, lines 21-34, see text in red):

“While perfectionism is recognized as a complex personality trait with both adaptive and maladaptive facets in adults, the specific developmental and contextual factors that influence its emergence in children are poorly understood. This study addresses this critical gap by examining associations between children's perceptions of family climate and emotion regulation strategies. A sample of 191 children (94 boys, M_age= 11.27 years, SD = .97) completed standardized measures of perfectionism, family environment, and emotion regulation. Results indicated that both family climate and emotion regulation significantly predict perfectionism in children (R²= 0.36). Specifically, children's perceptions of high parental control, a strong achievement family orientation, and reliance on expressive suppression (hiding emotions) emerged as moderate, significant predictors. These findings clarify the developmental factors underlying perfectionism, providing actionable targets—particularly around adaptive parenting and emotion coping—for child and family support programs and preventative interventions focused on promoting long-term well-being.”

Comment 3: Introduction

Response 3: We thank you for raising this important point regarding our review of the literature and the need to shorten it to improve focus. Accordingly, we have substantially revised and shortened the Introduction and made the appropriate corrections.

Thus, we shortened the following sections of the introduction: a) Family characteristics and perfectionism, b) Emotional climate in the family and children's emotion regulation, and c) Emotion regulation and perfectionism. Specifically, we shortened descriptive sentences (e.g., defining cohesive families) and the final summary sentences, along with definitions (e.g., parental types into concise parenthetical descriptions); condensed the explanation of children adopting parental traits and the example of checking actions until satisfied; simplified the final sentence on parental psychopathology into a more direct statement; removed the redundant sentence stating that parental characteristics predict psychological control, which in turn predicts perfectionism, as this chain was already implied; streamlined the description of the negative outcomes (questioning abilities, anxiety, low self-esteem) that result from unmet expectations, as well as the contrasting research views on emotional expressiveness and focused the conclusion on the benefit of free expression when modeled by capable parents; removed paragraphs (regarding the family environment where socialization occurs and reflects the emotional climate); consolidated the findings from the undergraduate study into a more direct comparison between adaptive (reappraisal focus) and maladaptive (dysfunctional emotional regulation/stress focus); and combined citations where possible. However, the main concepts and all citations were maintained (see Introduction).

Finally, above the ‘Aim of the present study’ we added a paragraph presenting our theoretical framework which derives from the already pointed out evidence included in our Introduction (page 5, lines 207-220, see text in red):

Based on the aforementioned research evidence [4, 13, 14, 22] and the different theories of perfectionism, the present study aligns with a conceptual model which posits a dynamic link where family climate (control, achievement, moral emphasis) and emotion regulation strategies (suppression and reappraisal) may influence perfectionism (especially its maladaptive form) (Figure 1). This framework is justified because a demanding family environment creates significant emotional pressure (e.g., anxiety, shame). Emotion regulation then functions as the critical mechanism by which individuals cope with this pressure. The family context shapes the individual's habitual use of strategies; specifically, less adaptive coping (like suppression) may translate the external family demands into the internal distress characteristic of maladaptive perfectionism. Thus, emotion regulation and family dynamics impact on the development of perfectionistic tendencies.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the present study (based on previous evidence) [4, 13, 14, 22]

Additionally, we commented on it on the Discussion section (page 15, lines 601-608, see text in red):

“The findings of this study provide strong correlational support for a conceptual framework linking family dynamics, emotion regulation strategies, and perfectionism. Consistent results demonstrate significant associations among family climate factors, emotion regulation, and perfectionism. The study thus validates key theoretical predictions by showing that external environmental pressures from the family are reliably linked to specific internal behavioral coping mechanisms. This integration illustrates that perfectionism is associated with a cycle where environmental demands align with the use of particular emotional management strategies.”

Comment 4: Methodology

The measures used are appropriate, but note that the reliability for expressive suppression (α = .57) is below ideal thresholds and should be acknowledged as a limitation.

Response 4: We appreciate the comment regarding the reliability for the expressive suppression subscale. We completely agree with it. This subscale includes four items and, thus, scale length and Cronbach's α is highly sensitive to the number of items. However, to check the item homogeneity of this short subscale we estimated the Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIIC), which was found to be adequate. To address the reviewer’s comment, we added the following sentence in our paper (page 8, lines 352-355, see text in red). We hope our response satisfies the Reviewer.

We also added a relevant reference in the text and the Reference Section (page 22, lines 875-876 see text in red)

Clark, L. A., Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995, 7 (3), 309–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.]

Comment 5: Clarify the sampling method (e.g., convenience, random) and briefly describe how questionnaires were administered (e.g., individual, classroom setting). Indicate whether the total perfectionism score included both adaptive and maladaptive dimensions.

Response 5: Thank you for this comment. We clarified the sampling method as requested by adding one sentence at the end of the Participant’s subsection (page 6, lines 243-245, see text in red):

“A convenience sampling approach was utilized to recruit participants due to its feasibility for reaching the target population of school-aged children.”

We also added more information about the administration of the questionnaires in the Procedures’ subsection, as suggested by the Reviewer (page 8, lines 364-369, see text in red):

Regarding the Total Perfectionism Score and whether it includes both the adaptive and the maladaptive dimensions, the following information was added in the relevant paragraph of the Measures subsection as requested by the Reviewer (pages 6-7, lines 269-275, see text in red):

“The Total Perfectionism Score is calculated as the sum of the scores of all relevant items, excluding the Organization Subscale (the 6 items belonging to the Organization subscale are not included in the calculation of the total perfectionism score) [13]. This suggests the total score is intended to primarily measure the dysfunctional or maladaptive aspects of perfectionism, as the Organization subscale is often considered to represent the more positive/adaptive dimension of the trait within this framework.”

Comment 6: Results

Response 6: Thank you for this important comment. To address it we added the following paragraph to the Result’s section (page 11, lines 433-439, see text in red):

Comment 7: Discussion

The discussion connects findings with existing literature. However, consider reducing repetition from the introduction and focusing on how your findings expand current understanding.

Response 7: Thank you for this comment. We absolutely agree with your suggestions. We have omitted repetition from the Introduction and added the following information to expand current understanding of our findings:

(page 14, lines 557-561, see text in red):

“This translates to perfectionistic concerns as the child perceives that mistakes equate to a loss of approval or love. The gap between the ‘actual self’ (making a mistake) and the ‘ideal self’ (the perfect, approved child) creates intense anxiety and pressure to meet impossibly high standards, leading to a profound fear of failure and excessive self-criticism [30, 33].”

(page 14, lines 566-572, see text in red):

“A family environment with a strong moral or religious emphasis can contribute to perfectionism by establishing absolute, non-negotiable standards of behavior. This fosters a specific type of perfectionism driven by a fear of transgression or moral failure, rather than purely academic or social standards. Children feel a need to be morally perfect manifesting rigid thinking regarding right and wrong, leaving no room for the normal ambiguity or imperfection inherent in human ethical development [47, 48, 69].”

(page 14, lines 576-582, see text in red):

“When children have little autonomy and are constantly regulated their internal locus of control is diminished. They learn that outcomes are determined by external regulation rather than their own competence. Perfectionism becomes a learned external regulatory strategy—a way to preemptively meet external demands and avoid the unpredictability of parental enforcement or criticism. This directly undermines the development of intrinsic motivation necessary for healthy goal pursuit”

(pages 14-15, lines 585-600, see text in red):

“Finally, the inclusion of expressive suppression highlights that perfectionism is not just about doing things perfectly, but about appearing perfect [63, 64, 65]. Emotion suppression is a behavioral manifestation of the need to maintain an unblemished external façade. If a child internalizes the family’s high standards (Achievement/Moral/Control), showing any negative emotion (sadness, frustration, anxiety) is perceived as an admission of falling short of that standard. Therefore, suppression becomes a maladaptive cognitive-behavioral loop that reinforces the perfectionistic drive to hide imperfection at great internal cost. In conclusion, these results highlight a powerful, interactive mechanism for perfectionism development. The familial conditions that prioritize achievement, morality, and control establish the external scaffolding of high standards and conditional acceptance, setting the stage for perfectionism. The learned emotional response (i.e., expressive suppression) acts as the critical maintenance strategy, ensuring the child adheres to this high-pressure environment by masking any evidence of failure or struggle and maintaining an image of flawlessness. This combination explains the variance by showing that perfectionism arises from both external demands and internalized, rigid coping strategies [25, 26].”

Comment 8: Limitations and Future Directions

Response 8: We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the limitations of our study. We added the following text (page 15, lines 627-632, see text in red):

“As previously mentioned, the cross-sectional design of the study limits our ability to draw causal inferences about the relationships between the variables. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine the developmental trajectories of perfectionism, to identify the factors that contribute to its emergence and maintenance over time, and to establish the temporal precedence and directionality of these relationships.”

We also added the following text (page 16, lines 640-650, see text in red):

“Furthermore, the sample was drawn from a relatively homogenous cultural and educational background, which may limit the cross-cultural generalizability. For example, by not having lower educational strata represented, we cannot statistically isolate the unique influence of low vs. high parental education on the outcomes. While our regression analyses successfully identified the specific impact of achievement orientation, moral emphasis, and family control on children’s perfectionism within this group, the generalizability of these findings is constrained. We cannot ascertain how these relationships might differ across socioeconomic strata. Future research should prioritize incorporating a more cultural and educational diverse sample to test the robustness of these family climate predictors across a broader spectrum of backgrounds.”

Comment 9: References

Ensure formatting consistency.

Response 9: To respond to this comment, we went through the whole manuscript to make sure the format of our article adheres to the Journal guidelines. We made corrections in the section of References

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is fine, in my view. I do not have any further feedback to offer.