A test of the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism: Well-being in the sport domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2 x 2 model of dispositional perfectionism posits that four within-person combinations of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism (i.e., high/high, high/low, low/high, low/low) can be distinguished on the basis of their distinct etiological and functional features. The goal of this study was to examine whether subtypes of perfectionism are distinctively associated with subjective well-being (i.e., positive affect, subjective vitality, and life-satisfaction) in the sport domain. A sample of 208 athletes, aged from 14 to 28 years (M = 18.30, SD = 3.25), completed the short form of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Cox, Enns & Clara, 2002), the 10-item positive affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1998), the Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Results of moderated multiple regression analyses provided support for the hypotheses of this model. Pure self-oriented perfectionism was associated with equally high levels of positive affect and vitality, and to significantly higher levels of life-satisfaction compared to non-perfectionism. Furthermore, pure socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with significantly lower levels of positive affect, vitality, and life-satisfaction compared to other subtypes of perfectionism. This study provided initial support for the tenets of the 2 x 2 model of perfectionism in the sport domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".