Self-critical perfectionism and depression maintenance over one year: The moderating roles of daily stress–sadness reactivity and the cortisol awakening response.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study of depressed outpatients (N = 43) examined daily stress-sadness reactivity and the cortisol awakening response (CAR) as moderators of the relationship between self-critical (SC) perfectionism and depression over one year. Participants completed perfectionism measures at baseline (Time 1), daily diaries and salivary sampling six months later (Time 2), and an interviewer-rated depression measure at Time 1, Time 2, and one year after baseline (Time 3). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of moderator effects demonstrated that patients with higher SC perfectionism and higher levels of daily stress-sadness reactivity (i.e., greater increases in daily sadness in response to increases in daily stress) had less improvement in depressive symptoms at Time 3 relative to those of other patients, adjusting for the effects of Time 1 and Time 2 depression. Furthermore, higher SC perfectionism in conjunction with an elevated CAR predicted higher levels of depression at Time 3. In addition, lower SC perfectionism in combination with higher levels of stress-sadness reactivity/CAR was associated with the lowest levels of depression at Time 3. These findings highlight the importance of targeting dysfunctional self-critical characteristics that exacerbate the impact of heightened stress-sadness reactivity and CAR to generate better treatment outcomes for patients with higher SC perfectionism. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".