Perfectionism, neuroticism, and daily stress reactivity and coping effectiveness 6 months and 3 years later.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study addressed a fundamental gap between research and clinical work by advancing longitudinal explanatory conceptualizations of stress and coping processes that trigger daily affect in the short- and long-term for individuals with higher levels of personality vulnerability. Community adults completed measures of 2 higher order dimensions of perfectionism (personal standards [PS], self-criticism [SC]), neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Then, 6 months later and again 3 years later, participants completed daily questionnaires of stress, coping, and affect for 14 consecutive days. PS was associated with aggregated daily problem-focused coping and positive reinterpretation, whereas SC was uniquely associated with daily negative social interactions, avoidant coping, negative affect, and sadness at Month 6 and Year 3. Multilevel modeling results demonstrated that both individuals with higher PS and those with higher SC were emotionally reactive to event stress, negative social interactions, and avoidant coping at Month 6 and Year 3 and to less perceived control at Year 3. Positive reinterpretation was especially effective for individuals with higher SC at Month 6 and Year 3. The effects of PS on daily stress reactivity and coping (in)effectiveness were clearly distinguished from the effects of neuroticism and conscientiousness, whereas the SC effects were due to shared overlap with PS and neuroticism. The present findings demonstrate the promise of using repeated daily diary methodologies to help therapists and clients reliably predict future client reactions to daily stressors, which, in turn, could help guide interventions to break apart dysfunctional patterns connected to distress and build resilience for vulnerable individuals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".