The Relationship Between Perfectionism and Psychopathology: A Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The clinical significance of 2 main dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns) was examined via a meta-analysis of studies investigating perfectionism in the psychopathology literature. METHOD: We investigated relationships between psychopathology outcomes (clinical diagnoses of depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders; symptoms of these disorders; and outcomes related to psychopathology, such as deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation, and general distress) and each perfectionism dimension. The relationships were examined by evaluating (a) differences in the magnitude of association of the 2 perfectionism dimensions with psychopathology outcomes and (b) subscales of 2 common measures of perfectionism. RESULTS: A systematic literature search retrieved 284 relevant studies, resulting in 2,047 effect sizes that were analysed with meta-analysis and meta-regression while accounting for data dependencies. CONCLUSION: Findings support the notion of perfectionism as a transdiagnostic factor by demonstrating that both dimensions are associated with various forms of psychopathology.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".