Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive thinking as a coping response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined perfectionism and general coping ability as assessed by a new measure of constructive thinking. A sample of 77 students completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI). The MPS provides measures of selforiented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism, while the CTI provides various measures, including summary scores of global constructive thinking, emotional coping, behavioral coping, categorical thinking, personal superstitious thinking, naive optimism, and esoteric thinking. Subjects also completed a measure of depressive symptoms so that we could examine perfectionism and coping independent of current levels of adjustment. The main finding was that socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with less constructive thinking and more negative coping across most of the CTI subscales, and these associations remained significant after removing variance due to levels of depression symptoms. Self-oriented perfectionism was adaptive in that it was associated with active forms of behavioral coping, but it was maladaptive in that it was associated with a form of emotional coping involving reduced self-acceptance. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the cognitive treatment of perfectionists. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in: Flett, G. L., Russo, F. A., & Hewitt, P. L. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and constructive thinking as a coping response. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 12(3), 163-179. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02354594
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".