Young people’s perceptions of their parents’ expectations and criticism are increasing over time: Implications for perfectionism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence demonstrates rising self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism among young people from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (Curran & Hill, 2019). One reason why perfectionism is increasing may be that rising competitiveness and individualism are requiring parents to engage in anxious, overly involved, and/or overly controlling forms of parenting. Yet, data to support this claim are limited and contested. In two meta-analyses, we expanded upon and tested this claim by examining whether excessive parental expectations and harsh parental criticism are correlated with perfectionism (Study 1) and whether these perceived practices are changing over time among American, Canadian, and British college students (Study 2). In Study 1, meta-analyses found small-to-moderate positive mean weighted effects of parental expectations and parental criticism on self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism, and large positive mean weighted effects of parental expectations and parental criticism on socially prescribed perfectionism. In Study 2, using cross-temporal meta-analysis, we found that mean levels of parental expectations and parental criticism had linearly increased between 1989 and 2019 among college students. With rising competitiveness, individualism, economic inequality, and pressure to excel at school and college as the societal background, increases in parental expectations and parental criticism offer the most plausible explanation for rising perfectionism to date. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".