Exploring the Components of Psychological Inflexibility in Youth with Perfectionist Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the key components of psychological inflexibility in youth with perfectionist traits, focusing on how cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal processes contribute to maladaptive outcomes. Methods and Materials: A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 26 participants aged 18–25 from Mexico who self-identified as having perfectionist tendencies. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, ensuring diversity in gender, education, and socioeconomic background. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using NVivo 14 software. To ensure rigor, constant comparison, peer debriefing, and iterative coding were conducted, leading to the identification of central themes and subthemes. Findings: Analysis revealed four overarching themes of psychological inflexibility in perfectionist youth: (1) cognitive rigidity, including black-and-white thinking, failure sensitivity, and rumination; (2) emotional avoidance, characterized by suppression of emotions, reliance on external validation, and detachment strategies; (3) behavioral control and avoidance, manifested in over-preparation, procrastination, rigid routines, and withdrawal from opportunities; and (4) interpersonal strain, encompassing fear of negative evaluation, conditional self-worth, and difficulties with collaboration. These findings indicate that perfectionist youth experience a reinforcing cycle where rigid standards amplify inflexibility, sustaining maladaptive coping and social disconnection. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that psychological inflexibility is a central mechanism through which perfectionism leads to maladaptive outcomes in youth. By illuminating the lived experiences of young perfectionists, this research provides insights into how cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and interpersonal patterns interact to maintain inflexibility. The findings underscore the need for interventions, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, that cultivate psychological flexibility and support adaptive coping in perfectionist youth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".