The Impact of Perfectionistic Self-Presentation on the Cognitive, Affective, and Physiological Experience of a Clinical Interview
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perfectionistic self-presentation is proposed as a deleterious interpersonal style that has an influence in clinical contexts that involves promoting a public image of perfection and avoiding displays and self-disclosures of imperfections. A sample of 90 clinical patients taking part in a clinical interview were assessed in terms of their levels of perfectionistic self-presentation and trait perfectionism and their affective, cognitive, and physiological reactions. Perfectionistic self-presentation dimensions were associated with (1) greater distress before and after the interview, (2) negative expectations and greater threat prior to the interview, and (3) post-interview dissatisfaction. Analyses of physiological data found that perfectionistic self-presentation was associated with higher levels of heart rate when discussing past mistakes, and, as expected, the need to avoid disclosing imperfections predicted higher levels of and greater change in heart rate when discussing past mistakes. Analyses that controlled for trait perfectionism and emotional distress showed that the need to avoid disclosing imperfections was a unique predictor of (1) appraisals of the interviewer as threatening before the interview and as dissatisfied after the interview; (2) negative pre and post self-evaluations of performance; and (3) greater change in heart rate when discussing mistakes. Perfectionistic self-presentation is discussed as an interpersonal style that can influence therapeutic alliance and treatment success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it