Keeping Up with the Joneses: Friends’ Perfectionism and Students’ Orientation Toward Extrinsic Aspirations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kasser and Ryan (1993,1996) have contrasted two types of life values: intrinsic aspirations, which include community contribution, building close relationships, and self-growth, and extrinsic aspirations, which include fame, wealth, and physical beauty. Prioritization of extrinsic relative to intrinsic aspirations has been related cross-sectionally to decreased well-being (Kasser, 2002). However, the influence of close others in the etiology of young adults' prioritization of extrinsic aspirations, and the prospective effects of aspirations on well-being, are not well understood. In a multiple-informant prospective study of 341 university students (mean age = 19.4; 64% Caucasian; 74% female), we examined the influence of friends' and family members' perfectionism on participants' aspirations, and the outcomes of prioritization of extrinsic aspirations. Having friends high in other-oriented perfectionism was significantly positively related to prioritization of extrinsic over intrinsic aspirations. Furthermore, living with friends amplified the effect. Last, prioritization of extrinsic aspirations at T1 was related to decreased subjective well-being and self-concordance for goals 3 months later. The study provides preliminary evidence for a relationship between friends' other-oriented perfectionism and students' orientation toward extrinsic aspirations, as well as negative prospective consequences of students' orientation to extrinsic aspirations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".