Perfectionism, situational mindfulness and self-compassion, and daily affect.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study of 154 community adults examined the relations of situational mindfulness and self-compassion to daily affect for individuals with higher levels of perfectionism. Participants (110 females, 44 males) completed measures of personal standards (PSP) and self-critical (SCP) higher order dimensions of perfectionism followed by measures of situational mindfulness and self-compassion and daily negative and positive affect for 14 consecutive days. In contrast to PSP, SCP was strongly correlated with lower mindfulness and self-compassion tendencies across daily stressors. Multilevel modeling analyses demonstrated that, compared to those with lower SCP or PSP, individuals with higher SCP or PSP experienced sharper decreases in daily negative affect and/or heightened increases in positive affect on days when they engaged in more mindfulness (i.e., overall and facets of observing, nonreactivity) and self-compassion (i.e., overall and facets of self-kindness, lower self-judgment, common humanity, lower overidentification) than usual. Results further distinguished SCP and PSP in terms of the differential effectiveness of additional strategies linked to sharper decreases in daily negative affect for individuals higher in SCP or heightened increases in daily positive affect for individuals higher in PSP. These findings support situational mindfulness and self-compassion as effective emotion regulation strategies for improving daily affect in perfectionistic individuals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".