The existential model of perfectionism and depressive symptoms: A short-term, four-wave longitudinal study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perfectionistic concerns (i.e., negative reactions to failures, concerns over others’ criticism and expectations, and nagging self-doubts) are a putative risk factor for depressive symptoms. This study proposes and supports the existential model of perfectionism and depressive symptoms (EMPDS), a conceptual model aimed at explaining why perfectionistic concerns confer risk for depressive symptoms. According to the EMPDS, perfectionistic concerns confer risk for depressive symptoms both through catastrophic interpretations that magnify relatively minor setbacks into seemingly major obstacles and through negative views of life experiences as unacceptable, dissatisfying, and meaningless. This investigation tests the EMPDS in a sample of 240 undergraduates studied using a 4-wave, 4-week longitudinal design. Hypotheses derived from the EMPDS were largely supported, with bootstrap tests of mediation suggesting that the indirect effect of perfectionistic concerns on depressive symptoms through catastrophic thinking and difficulty accepting the past is significant. Results indicated perfectionistic concerns are more an antecedent of, rather than a complication of, catastrophic thinking, difficulty accepting the past, and depressive symptoms. Consistent (but imperfect) support for the incremental validity of the EMPDS beyond either perfectionistic strivings or neuroticism was also observed. Overall, this investigation suggests persons high in perfectionistic concerns not only tend to catastrophize their life experiences but also struggle to accept their life experiences and to negotiate a sense of purpose, direction, and coherence in their lives. With both a catastrophic view of their present and a dark view of their past, this investigation also suggests persons high in perfectionistic concerns are at risk for depressive symptoms.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".