Patient perfectionism and clinician impression formation during an initial interview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The negative impact of pre-treatment patient perfectionism on therapeutic alliance and outcomes has been well documented. However, there is much to learn about how patient perfectionism impacts the development of the therapeutic alliance. Our study addressed this by examining the extent to which trait and self-presentational components of perfectionism influence clinician's perceptions of patients during an initial interview. DESIGN: = 36.2; 40 men) recruited from outpatient mental health clinics. Each patient had a one-on-one, semi-structured interview with a clinician that lasted approximately 50 min. METHOD: Patients completed self-report measures assessing trait perfectionism, perfectionistic self-presentation, and symptom distress before the interview. Patients were then invited to discuss reasons for seeking treatment and to reflect on the two most challenging situations in their lives in which they had not coped well. Following the interview, clinicians indicated their overall impressions of patients by responding to three self-report questions and rated patients' distress and hostility via nine adjectives. RESULTS: After controlling for patients' symptom distress, other-oriented perfectionism and non-display of imperfection had small positive relationships with clinician-rated hostility; self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and non-disclosure of imperfection had small-to-moderate negative relationships with clinician impressions. Additionally, path analysis revealed other-oriented perfectionism and non-display of imperfection indirectly predicted less favourable clinician impressions through clinician-rated hostility. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of evaluating and addressing trait and self-presentation components of perfectionism early in the therapeutic process. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Higher levels of other-oriented perfectionism and non-display of imperfection were associated with greater clinician-rated hostility during an initial interview. Patient hostility mediated the relationship between patients' other-oriented perfectionism, non-display of imperfection, and less favourable clinician impressions. Our study highlights the importance of assessing and attending to patient perfectionism and displays of hostility during the earliest stages of therapeutic contact.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".