Are Perfectionism Dimensions Vulnerability Factors for Depressive Symptoms after Controlling for Neuroticism? A Meta–analysis of 10 Longitudinal Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive evidence suggests neuroticism is a higher–order personality trait that overlaps substantially with perfectionism dimensions and depressive symptoms. Such evidence raises an important question: Which perfectionism dimensions are vulnerability factors for depressive symptoms after controlling for neuroticism? To address this, a meta–analysis of research testing whether socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, personal standards, perfectionistic attitudes, self–criticism and self–oriented perfectionism predict change in depressive symptoms, after controlling for baseline depression and neuroticism, was conducted. A literature search yielded 10 relevant studies (N = 1,758). Meta–analysis using random–effects models revealed that all seven perfectionism dimensions had small positive relationships with follow–up depressive symptoms beyond baseline depression and neuroticism. Perfectionism dimensions appear neither redundant with nor captured by neuroticism. Results lend credence and coherence to theoretical accounts and empirical studies suggesting perfectionism dimensions are part of the premorbid personality of people vulnerable to depressive symptoms. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it