Perfectionism and the stress process in intercollegiate athletes: examining the 2×2 model of perfectionism in sport competition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism to predict competition-related stress variables in intercollegiate athletes. A sample of 188 athletes (n=99 women) completed measures of sport perfectionism at Time 1 and 4-5 weeks later completed measures of coping, appraisal, affect, and goal progress after a competition. Results of moderated hierarchical regression analysis found support for the 2 × 2 model’s four hypotheses for challenge and control appraisals and goal progress. However, only two hypotheses were supported for threat appraisals, negative affect, and avoidance coping. Exploratory analysis found some evidence that goal progress moderated the relationship between perfectionism, coping, and control appraisals. Overall, the results indicated that pure personal standards perfectionism was associated with better outcomes than pure evaluative concerns perfectionism. For most variables, evaluative concerns perfectionism was related to the poorest outcomes. Overall, the results indicate the 2 × 2 model is a viable framework to evaluate the joint influences of perfectionism dimensions on
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".