Relation between childhood peer victimization and adult perfectionism: are victims of indirect aggression more perfectionistic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using two independent samples and two different measures of perfectionism, this study investigated the hypothesized relation between retrospective accounts of perceived peer-inflicted emotional abuse during childhood and perfectionism in adulthood. Emotional victimization ('indirect' aggression) is characterized by behavior in which mental harm is inflicted on victims through exclusionary acts, gossiping, and rumor spreading. Study one: Self-reported questionnaires of indirect victimization [DIAS; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Osterman, 1992] and perfectionism [multidimensional perfectionism scale; Hewitt and Flett, 1991] were administered to 162 (mean age=20.14 years) female undergraduate psychology students. Results support the predicted positive relationship between recalled indirect peer victimization and current socially prescribed/self-oriented perfectionism. Study two: self-reports of indirect peer victimization and perfectionism (eating disorder inventory-perfectionism) were collected from 196 (mean age=19.5 years) female undergraduate students. Again, recalled indirect peer victimization was a statistically significant predictor of current socially prescribed/self-oriented perfectionism whereas recalled direct (physical, verbal) peer victimization held no relation. Discussion addresses the implications of these results, which hold importance for both the bullying and perfectionism literatures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".