MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410065011 · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104611

Perfectionism, anxiety sensitivity, and statistics anxiety: A test of the vulnerability-stress model using a 2-wave longitudinal study

2025· article· en· W4410065011 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean P. Mackinnon, Sean Alexander, Ren Chen, Robert A. Cribbie, Gordon L. Flett, Taylor G. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Personality · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaDalhousie UniversityYork University
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyAnxiety sensitivityPerfectionism (psychology)Vulnerability (computing)Longitudinal studyClinical psychologySensitivity (control systems)Stress (linguistics)Test anxietyDevelopmental psychologyTest (biology)StatisticsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We predicted that low statistics grades, anxiety sensitivity, and trait perfectionism would be associated with increased statistics anxiety and worsened statistics attitudes. We also expected a grades by personality interaction, consistent with the vulnerability-stress model. Participants included 423 students currently taking a statistics class. We used a two-wave longitudinal design using self-reported online surveys at the beginning of term and after final grades were released. Grades were self-reported letter grades in statistics classes. Grades predicted increased statistics anxiety and worsened attitudes. Anxiety sensitivity predicted increased statistics anxiety. Self-critical perfectionism positively predicted statistics anxiety, but not attitudes. Rigid perfectionism was not significantly associated with either outcome. No interaction effects were statistically significant, failing to support the vulnerability-stress model.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in PersonalitySame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207