Introduction
The study of perfectionism among students has gained increasing relevance due to shifting priorities among modern youth, who are increasingly oriented toward achieving high standards and building successful careers (Panina, 2020; Egan et al., 2024; Tian, Hou, 2024). This trend is driven by prevailing societal attitudes toward success and achievement (Stepanova, Smirnova, Blazevich, 2023), heightened competition (Cox, Enns, Clara, 2002), the influence of social networks (Yuzhakova, Zhelonkina, Basalaeva, 2017; Padoa, Pellegrini, Iafrate, 2018; Shu, 2023), and elevated parental expectations, which often translate into personal perfectionism among young people (Camp et al., 2022).
Research on student perfectionism is grounded in multidimensional models, proposed by R. Frost et al. (Frost et al., 1993), who identified key dimensions of perfectionism such as personal standards, organization, concern over mistakes; doubts about their own actions; parental expectations, and parental criticism. Another model by G. Flett and P. Hewitt (Flett et al., 1998) delineates three types of perfectionism: self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism. According Hewitt, self-oriented perfectionism, which aligns with Frost’s “personal standards” and “organization,” is generally considered adaptive, as it does not entail negative consequences for the individual. In contrast, socially prescribed perfectionism, akin to maladaptive perfectionism, is characterized by the belief that one must meet the high expectations imposed by others (Flett, Hewitt et al.,1998).
Empirical studies have demonstrated that socially prescribed perfectionism is associated with increased risk of depression (Haddadi, Tamannaeifar, 2022; Liu et al., 2024), social anxiety (Gavrichenko, Bubnovskaya, 2021; Wu et al., 2022), and diminished psychological well-being among students (Rusina, 2024; Tarasova, 2021; Xu, 2023).
Conversely, adaptive perfectionism is positively correlated with high self-esteem, low anxiety, and enhanced academic integration (Permyakova, Tyukalova, Permyakov, 2024; Siah et al. 2022). Personal attributes such as self-esteem, resilience, perseverance, and self-efficacy can mitigate the negative effects of high levels of perfectionism and support psychological well-being even if level of perfectionism is high (Pham et al., 2023).
Despite the breadth of research on student perfectionism, most studies have adopted a monocultural approach. However, the growing prevalence of maladaptive perfectionism (Liu et al., 2024), — often arising from external pressures such as societal or familial expectations — highlights the need for cross-cultural investigations (Mikhailova, Farennikova, 2022; Permyakova, Sheveleva, 2015).
The present study aims to compare perfectionism among students in China, Kazakhstan, and Russia, with particular attention to gender differences. The research is grounded in cultural-historical theory, which emphasizes the importance of the “social situation of development” (Vygotsky, 1984). This concept encompasses ethnic, economic, and cultural contexts, as well as a broad spectrum of social and familial norms and values that shape the development of perfectionism among youth in different cultural and social environments (Kholmogorova, Garanyan, Tsatsulin, 2019).
The ‘cultural dimension’, as articulated in cultural-historical theory, underscores the social determinants of psychological development through the mechanism of ‘interiorization’ (Kholomogorova, 2016).
Accordingly, the study hypothesizes that student perfectionism will vary primarily due to cultural norms historically embedded in each society and transmitted through education and upbringing.
The specific hypotheses are as follows:
- There are differences in perfectionism indicators among Chinese, Russian, and Kazakh students.
- There are gender-based differences in perfectionism among students from China, Russia, and Kazakhstan.
- There are differences in perfectionism between male and female students within each country: China, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Materials and Methods
Instrument. The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990) (Zolotareva, 2018; Stöber, 1998) was utilized. The English version was translated into Russian and Chinese using the back-translation method. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for adaptive perfectionism was 0.946 (Chinese context) and 0.849 (Russian context); for maladaptive perfectionism, 0.943 and 0.780, respectively.
Procedure. The survey was conducted online after obtaining informed consent from all participants.
Statistical Analysis. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparisons between two independent samples, while the Kruskal- Wallis H test was employed for comparisons among three groups as a more common test for three and more independent samples. Descriptive statistics included means and standard deviations. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0.
Participants. The study included 737 students: 249 from China (Henan Pedagogical University), 298 from Kazakhstan (Turan University, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University), and 190 from Russia (Ural Federal University) (Table 1).
Results
A comparative analysis of perfectionism among students from the three countries revealed significant differences in both maladaptive and adaptive dimensions (Table 2).
Parental Expectations: Kazakh students reported significantly higher parental expectations (H = 70,165, p ≤ 0,001; M = 16.17 ± 4,10). Pairwise comparisons confirmed statistically significant differences between Kazakh and both Chinese and Russian students (p < 0,05), as well as between Chinese and Russian students (p < 0,001).
Parental Criticism: Chinese students exhibited significantly higher parental criticism (H = 22,743, p < 0,001; M = 10,77 ± 4,09), with significant differences compared to Kazakh (p < 0,001) and Russian (p < 0,01) students. No significant difference was observed between Kazakh and Russian students.
These findings suggest that socio-cultural and familial traditions exert a stronger influence on maladaptive perfectionism among students in China and Kazakhstan compared to Russia.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample
|
Students |
Gender |
Number |
Age |
|
China |
Men |
136 (54,6% ) |
19,24 ± 1,05 |
|
Women |
113 (45,4%) |
19,00 ± 1,13 |
|
|
Kazakhstan |
Men |
120 (40,3%) |
19,00 ± 0,79 |
|
Women |
178 (59,7%) |
19,80 ± 0,80 |
|
|
Russia |
Men |
89 (40, 5%) |
19,50 ± 1,34 |
|
Women |
101(59, 5%) |
19,00 ± 1,07 |
Table 2. The results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism of students from China, Kazakhstan and Russia
|
Параметры /Parameters |
China (N = 249) |
Kazakhstan (N = 298) |
Russia (N = 190) |
Kruskal—Wallis |
p |
|||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1. Concern over Mistakes |
24,05 |
9,29 |
25,13 |
6,53 |
24,45 |
6,68 |
1,286 |
0,526 |
|
2. Doubts about actions |
12,43 |
3,63 |
12,43 |
3,03 |
12,48 |
2,89 |
0,256 |
0,88 |
|
3. arental Expectations |
15,27 |
4,71 |
16,17 |
4,10 |
13,11 |
3,30 |
70,165 |
0,001 |
|
4. Parental criticism |
10,77 |
4,09 |
9,24 |
3,53 |
9,55 |
3,20 |
22,743 |
0,001 |
|
5. Personal Standards |
22,65 |
5,19 |
23,57 |
4,39 |
19,89 |
4,99 |
67,638 |
0,001 |
|
6. Organization |
22,88 |
4,60 |
23,75 |
3,65 |
22,11 |
4,58 |
20,248 |
0,001 |
|
7. Adaptive perfectionism |
45,53 |
8,40 |
47,32 |
6,88 |
42,00 |
8,33 |
54,624 |
0,001 |
|
8. Maladaptive perfectionism |
62,52 |
19,32 |
62,97 |
13,46 |
59,59 |
12,67 |
5,65 |
0,059 |
Adaptive Perfectionism: Kazakh students demonstrated higher levels of adaptive perfectionism, particularly in ‘personal standards’ (N = 67,638, p < 0,001) and ‘organization’ (N = 20,248, p < 0,001). By pairwise comparison using U Mann-Whitney test these indicators were significantly higher than those observed among Chinese (p < 0,05) and Russian (p < 0,001) students. Chinese students also scored higher than Russian students (p < 0,001).
‘Parental criticism’ indicator (Н=22,743, p ≤ 0,001) was significantly more pronounced among Chinese students (М = 10,77±4,09). Pairwise comparison shows more pronounced level among Chinese students in comparison with Kazakh (p ≤ ,001) and Russian students (p ≤ 0,01), but no difference between Kazakh and Russian students has been identified. Therefore, it can be concluded that the factor of socio-cultural and family traditions has a greater impact on the indicators of destructive perfectionism of students from China and Kazakhstan than from Russia.
The data on adaptive perfectionism indicate a higher level among Kazakhstani students in terms of ‘personal standards’ (N = 67,638, p < 0,001), and ‘organization’ (N = 20,248, p < 0,001). A pairwise comparison using the Mann-Whitney U-test has revealed confirmation of these data, the value of adaptive perfectionism in Kazakh students is higher than in Chinese (p < 0.05) and Russian (p < 0.001) ones. Higher indicators in the Chinese sample compared with the Russian one (p < 0.001) have also been revealed.
The elevated adaptive perfectionism among Kazakh students may reflect greater goal awareness, possibly influenced by the requirement to work in their field after graduation, which accompanies university grants. For Chinese students, higher personal standards in comparison with Russian students may be attributed to intense societal competition in Chinese society.
To test the second hypothesis, a comparison was made of the perfectionism of students from China, Russia and Kazakhstan depending on gender (Table 3).
Table 3 presents the results of a comparative analysis of indicators of perfectionism among male students.
As it can be seen from Table 3, the data are similar to those obtained from the general sample. In a pairwise comparison using the Mann- Whitney U-test, the most pronounced differences were found in the indicators of ‘parental expectations’ (p < 0,001) and ‘parental criticism’ (p < 0,01) among Chinese male students in comparison with Russian ones.
Therefore, we can conclude that among male students, Chinese participants were most susceptible to social pressure, particularly parental criticism, reflecting traditional Chinese values emphasizing respect for authority, achievement and success (Li, 2001).
Adaptive perfectionism did not differ between Kazakh and Chinese male students but was higher in both groups compared to Russian males, primarily due to “personal standards” (p<0,001).
Overall, both adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism were higher among male students from Kazakhstan and China than among their Russian counterparts.
Table 3 Results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism among male students from China, Kazakhstan and Russia
|
Parameters |
China (N = 136) |
Kazakhstan (N = 120) |
Russia (N = 89) |
Kruskal—Wallis |
p |
|||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1. Concern over Mistakes |
24,88 |
9,49 |
24,69 |
6,27 |
24,25 |
6,91 |
0,984 |
0,612 |
|
2.Doubts about actions |
12,49 |
3,49 |
12,27 |
2,95 |
12,05 |
3,06 |
1,152 |
0,562 |
|
3. Parental Expectations |
16,04 |
4,67 |
16,15 |
4,07 |
13,67 |
3,00 |
28,868 |
0,001 |
|
4.Parental criticism |
11,07 |
4,14 |
9,44 |
3,49 |
9,58 |
3,12 |
14,577 |
0,001 |
|
5.Personal Standards |
23,44 |
5,31 |
24,13 |
4,69 |
21,11 |
4,68 |
23,232 |
0,001 |
|
6. Organization |
23,60 |
4,34 |
23,72 |
3,92 |
23,36 |
4,80 |
0,751 |
0,687 |
|
7. Adaptive perfectionism |
47,04 |
8,21 |
47,84 |
7,69 |
44,47 |
8,12 |
9,843 |
0,007 |
|
8. Maladaptive perfectionism |
64,47 |
19,25 |
62,55 |
13,48 |
59,55 |
12,42 |
6,334 |
0,042 |
Table 4. Results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism among female student from China, Kazakhstan and Russia
|
Parameters |
China (N = 113) |
Kazakhstan (N = 178) |
Russia (N = 101) |
Kruskal—Wallis |
p |
|||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1. Concern over Mistakes |
23,05 |
8,99 |
25,43 |
6,71 |
24,62 |
6,50 |
6,058 |
0,048 |
|
2.Doubts about actions |
12,36 |
3,80 |
12,53 |
3,09 |
12,86 |
2,68 |
1,437 |
0,488 |
|
3.Parental Expectations |
14,34 |
4,61 |
16,19 |
4,14 |
12,61 |
3,48 |
50,205 |
0,001 |
|
4.Parental criticism |
10,42 |
4,01 |
9,10 |
3,57 |
9,53 |
3,29 |
8,274 |
0,016 |
|
5. Personal Standards |
21,70 |
4,90 |
23,20 |
4,14 |
18,82 |
5,03 |
51,215 |
0,001 |
|
6. Organization |
22,01 |
4,77 |
23,76 |
3,47 |
21,00 |
4,09 |
33,862 |
0,001 |
|
7. Adaptive perfectionism |
43,71 |
8,31 |
46,97 |
6,27 |
39,82 |
7,94 |
57,08 |
0,001 |
|
8. Maladaptive perfectionism |
60,17 |
19,23 |
63,25 |
13,49 |
59,62 |
12,95 |
4,274 |
0,118 |
Table 5. Results of a comparative analysis of Chinese students’ perfectionism depending on gender
|
Parameters |
Men, China (N = 136) |
Women, China (N = 113) |
U Mann-Whitney |
p |
||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1.Concern over Mistakes |
24,88 |
9,49 |
23,05 |
8,99 |
6696 |
0,080 |
|
2. Doubts about actions |
12,49 |
3,49 |
12,36 |
3,80 |
7627,5 |
0,920 |
|
3.Parental Expectations |
16,04 |
4,67 |
14,34 |
4,61 |
5917 |
0,002 |
|
4.Parental criticism |
11,07 |
4,14 |
10,42 |
4,01 |
6943,5 |
0,189 |
|
5.Personal Standards |
23,44 |
5,31 |
21,70 |
4,90 |
6065 |
0,004 |
|
6.Organization |
23,60 |
4,34 |
22,01 |
4,77 |
6260,5 |
0,012 |
|
7.Adaptive perfectionism |
47,04 |
8,21 |
43,71 |
8,31 |
6097,5 |
0,005 |
|
8.Maladaptive perfectionism |
64,47 |
19,25 |
60,17 |
19,23 |
6654 |
0,069 |
Table 6. Results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism of Kazakhstani students depending on gender
|
Parameters |
Men, Kazakhstan (N = 120) |
Women, Kazakhstan (N = 178) |
U Mann—Whitney |
p |
||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1.Concern over Mistakes |
24,69 |
6,27 |
25,43 |
6,71 |
10017,5 |
0,363 |
|
2. Doubts about actions |
12,27 |
2,95 |
12,53 |
3,09 |
10188,5 |
0,498 |
|
3. Parental Expectations |
16,15 |
4,07 |
16,19 |
4,14 |
10577 |
0,887 |
|
4. Parental criticism |
9,44 |
3,49 |
9,10 |
3,57 |
10000 |
0,349 |
|
5. Personal Standards |
24,13 |
4,69 |
23,20 |
4,14 |
9438 |
0,088 |
|
6. Organization |
23,72 |
3,92 |
23,76 |
3,47 |
10575,5 |
0,886 |
|
7. Adaptive perfectionism |
47,84 |
7,69 |
46,97 |
6,27 |
9901,5 |
0,285 |
|
8. Maladaptive perfectionism |
62,55 |
13,48 |
63,25 |
13,49 |
10224 |
0,532 |
Таблица 7 / Table 7
Результаты сравнительного анализа перфекционизма российских студентов в зависимости от пола
Results of a comparative analysis of Russia students’ perfectionism depending on gender
|
Parameters |
Men, Russia (N = 89) |
Women, Russia (N = 101) |
U Mann—Whitney |
p |
||
|
M |
σ |
M |
σ |
|||
|
1. Concern over Mistakes |
24,25 |
6,91 |
24,62 |
6,50 |
4308 |
0,621 |
|
2. Doubts about actions |
12,05 |
3,06 |
12,86 |
2,68 |
3623 |
0,020 |
|
3. Parental Expectations |
13,67 |
3,00 |
12,61 |
3,48 |
3451 |
0,006 |
|
4. Parental criticism |
9,58 |
3,12 |
9,53 |
3,29 |
4470 |
0,948 |
|
5. Personal Standards |
21,11 |
4,68 |
18,82 |
5,03 |
3307 |
0,002 |
|
6.Organization |
23,36 |
4,80 |
21,00 |
4,09 |
3316 |
0,002 |
|
7. Adaptive perfectionism |
44,47 |
8,12 |
39,82 |
7,94 |
2979 |
0,001 |
|
8.Maladaptive perfectionism |
59,55 |
12,42 |
59,62 |
12,95 |
4453,5 |
0,914 |
So, we can conclude that male Chinese students have higher perfectionism compared to women, and they have a greater tendency to perceive parents as people delegating very high expectations.
Table 6 presents the results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism indicators of male and female students from Kazakhstan.
According to Table 6, there are no statistically significant differences in indicators of perfectionism between Kazakhstani male and female students.
Table 7 presents the results of a comparative analysis of perfectionism indicators among Russian students, depending on gender.
According to the Table 7, significant differences are observed in the indicator ‘doubts about the course of action’ (U=3623, p≤0,05), which is higher among Russian female students (M=12,86±2,68), the indicator ‘parental expectations’ (U=3451, p≤0,01) is significantly higher among male students. Consequently, we can state that in the Russian culture, destructive perfectionism in men is enhanced by an external factor, due to meeting the expectations of others, while in women it is due to an internal one, related to self-assessment of their activities.
According to the indicators ‘personal standards’ (U=3307, p≤0,01), ‘organization’ (U=3316, p≤0,01) and ‘adaptive perfectionism’ (U=2979.5, p≤0,001), the data are significantly higher among Russian male students compared to women.
Discussion
Perfectionism continues to draw significant scholarly interest due to the growing prevalence of socially prescribed perfectionism among students, which is increasingly linked to adverse psychological outcomes. In our cross-cultural study, we identified meaningful differences in maladaptive perfectionism across student samples from China, Kazakhstan, and Russia.
These findings align with the cultural-historical perspective, which posits that personality development is shaped by internalized four universities across three countries. While the findings offer valuable insights, they may not be fully generalizable to broader student populations. Future research should expand the sample to include a more diverse range of institutions and regions, allowing for a more nuanced analysis of how cultural norms shape perfectionistic orientations. Longitudinal designs and qualitative methods may further enrich our understanding of the developmental trajectories and lived experiences of perfectionism in different cultural contexts.