Perfectionism and Attitudes Towards Performance: Comparing and Contrasting the Impact of Perfectionism in Various Performance Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between performance domains and attitudes towards performance. The study sought to compare performance domains on performance anxiety, perfectionism, life satisfaction, self-esteem, and mood to determine whether performance domain impacts attitudes towards performance. The study consisted of 76 undergraduate students from the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. Completing an ANOVA revealed no significant differences between performance domains and attitudes towards performance on any of the dependent variables examined. However, the analysis revealed significant relationships between performance anxiety, self-esteem, negative affect, and perfectionism. A strong negative correlation was found between self-esteem and performance anxiety, whereas negative affect and perfectionism illustrated strong positive correlations with performance anxiety. Using a multiple regression model, self-esteem was the best predictor of performance anxiety, with perfectionism also demonstrating significant influence. Upon further examination of the data using a Correlation Matrix, the relationship between performance anxiety and perfectionism, exhibited that maladaptive forms of perfectionism tend to be the driving force of this relationship through the significant findings between performance anxiety and the APS-R Discrepancy scale.
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 | 0.000 | 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".