MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391311001 · doi:10.1177/07342829241230710

Perceived Pressure for Perfection Within Friendships Triggers Conflict Behaviors, Depressive Symptoms, and Problematic Drinking: A Longitudinal Actor–Partner Interdependence Model

2024· article· en· W4391311001 on OpenAlexaff
Andy J. Kim, Simon Sherry, Sean P. Mackinnon, Ivy‐Lee L. Kehayes, Martin M. Smith, Sherry H. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerfectionSocial psychologyDepressive symptomsLongitudinal studyStructural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Friendships are important for the mental well-being of emerging adults. Socially prescribed perfectionism, where individuals feel pressured to be perfect by others, can be destructive, leading to conflict with others, depressive symptoms, and problematic drinking. However, its impact on friendships is not well-explored. This study examined 174 emerging adult friendship dyads using a 4-wave, 4-month dyadic design. Data were analyzed using longitudinal actor–partner interdependence models. Using a novel friend-specific measure of socially prescribed perfectionism, we found that an individual’s perceived expectation to be perfect from a friend was positively associated with increased conflict between friends, as well as with higher levels of depressive symptoms and problematic drinking in the individual. Findings lend credence to longstanding theoretical accounts and case histories suggesting socially prescribed perfectionism leads to harmful individual and relational outcomes and extends them to the specific context of friendships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207