Perfect fronts, fragile bonds: Prospective associations between perfectionistic self-presentation and peer experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although theory links perfectionism and negative social outcomes, little is known about their longitudinal associations in adolescence. As such, prospective, reciprocal associations between perfectionistic self-presentation and peer experiences were tested among a community sample of adolescents ( M age = 17.79, SD = 1.29; 72.38 % girls) via a random intercept cross-lagged panel model with four timepoints. Results demonstrated that, on average, adolescents higher on perfectionistic self-presentation had less favourable peer experiences. Moreover, there was a reciprocal relationship between non-display of imperfections and peer prosociality, such that within-person increases in attempts to conceal perceived flaws predicted decreases in receiving prosocial acts from peers which, in turn, promoted increases in this facet of perfectionistic self-presentation. However, findings also revealed a decrease in perfectionistic self-presentation in response to increases in peer prosociality, suggesting that, through positive peer experiences, adolescents may learn that perfectionism serves as a barrier to meaningful social relationships and adjust accordingly. • Examined teens' perfectionistic self-presentation and peer experiences across time • On average, perfectionistic self-presentation linked with negative peer experiences • Increased non-display of imperfections predicted decreased peer prosociality • Increased peer prosociality predicted decreased non-display of imperfections
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it