Perfectionism and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A Meta-Analytic Review
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
Over 25 years of research suggests an important link between perfectionism and personality traits included in the five-factor model (FFM). However, inconsistent findings, underpowered studies, and a plethora of perfectionism scales have obscured understanding of how perfectionism fits within the FFM. We addressed these limitations by conducting the first meta-analytic review of the relationships between perfectionism dimensions and FFM traits ( k = 77, N = 24,789). Meta-analysis with random effects revealed perfectionistic concerns (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and discrepancy) were characterized by neuroticism ([Formula: see text] = .50), low agreeableness ([Formula: see text] = −.26), and low extraversion ([Formula: see text] = −.24); perfectionistic strivings (self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards, and high standards) were characterized by conscientiousness ([Formula: see text] = .44). Additionally, several perfectionism–FFM relationships were moderated by gender, age, and the perfectionism subscale used. Findings complement theory suggesting that perfectionism has neurotic and non-neurotic dimensions. Results also underscore that the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionistic strivings hinges on instrumentation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it