Does Perfectionism Moderate the Relationship between Post-Secondary Student Stress and Academic Self-Efficacy, Self-Concept, and Burnout?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Self-critical perfectionism and stress have been implicated as risk factors for maladaptive academic outcomes (i.e., decreased academic self-efficacy, decreased academic self-concept, and increased academic burnout). The present study investigated a vulnerability-stress model, testing whether self-critical perfectionism moderates the relationship between stressor severity (academic and interpersonal) and academic outcomes. Exploratory analyses replaced self-critical perfectionism with rigid perfectionism in the model. Method: A sample of 384 post-secondary students (76.8% women, average age: 20.06) completed a cross-sectional survey involving questionnaires assessing the constructs of interest. Results: Stressor severity (both academic and interpersonal) was negatively associated with academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept, and positively associated with academic burnout, when controlling for perfectionism. Self-critical perfectionism was positively associated with academic burnout, and rigid perfectionism was positively associated with academic self-concept, when controlling for stressor severity. None of the interaction effects were statistically significant, failing to support a vulnerability-stress model. Discussion: Findings suggest that stressor severity (both academic and interpersonal) and self-critical perfectionism are strongly associated with maladaptive academic outcomes and may serve as risk factors for poor academic functioning. The lack of interaction effects suggests a vulnerability-stress model may not explain why perfectionism is associated with maladaptive academic outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".