Perfectionism predicts disordered eating and gambling via focused self-concept among those high in erroneous beliefs about their disordered behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Perfectionism, a focused self-concept, and erroneous beliefs have been implicated in the development and maintenance of various disordered behaviors. However, researchers have yet to examine how these factors combine to explain different disordered behaviors. Herein, we addressed this gap and hypothesized a moderated-mediation model whereby perfectionism fosters the development of disordered behaviors through a focused self-concept. Critically, the effect of a focused self-concept on disordered behaviors is specific to people with erroneous beliefs about their disordered behaviors. The model was tested in the contexts of disordered gambling and disordered eating, particularly dietary restraint. METHOD: In Study 1, participants were community members who gamble (N = 259). In Study 2, participants were university women (N = 219). In both studies, participants completed self-report measures of all constructs that are both reliable and valid. RESULTS: In Study 1, as expected, there was a positive association between perfectionism and disordered gambling, which was mediated by financially focused self-concept. This mediation was only observed among participants who scored high on illusion of control and belief in luck. Likewise, in Study 2, there was a positive association between perfectionism and dietary restraint, which was mediated by appearance focused self-concept. The mediation effect was only observed among participants who believed that maladaptive dietary restraint behaviors were safe and efficacious. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the transdiagnostic utility of our model, which may help explain an array of disordered behaviors, including other addictive behaviors as well as behaviors that involve rigid adherence to rules and control.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".