Cognitive Flexibility Mediating the Link Between Perfectionism and Impostor Feelings Among Female Undergraduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between perfectionism and impostor feelings among female undergraduate students in Canada. A descriptive correlational research design was employed with a total sample of 400 female undergraduate students selected through stratified random sampling based on the Morgan and Krejcie (1970) table. Standardized self-report instruments were used: the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost et al., 1990) to assess perfectionism, the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS; Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010) to measure cognitive flexibility, and the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS; Clance, 1985) to assess impostor feelings. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27 for descriptive and correlation analyses and AMOS version 21 for structural equation modeling (SEM). Model fit was evaluated through indices including χ²/df, GFI, AGFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA, with significance determined at p < .05. Results revealed significant relationships among the study variables. Perfectionism was positively correlated with impostor feelings (r = .57, p < .001), while cognitive flexibility was negatively correlated with both perfectionism (r = −.48, p < .001) and impostor feelings (r = −.53, p < .001). The SEM analysis demonstrated excellent model fit (χ²/df = 1.48, GFI = .95, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .035). Perfectionism exerted a significant direct effect on impostor feelings (β = 0.38, p < .001) and a negative effect on cognitive flexibility (β = −0.41, p < .001). Cognitive flexibility significantly predicted lower impostor feelings (β = −0.33, p < .001) and partially mediated the perfectionism–impostor relationship (indirect β = 0.13, p < .01). The findings suggest that cognitive flexibility functions as a protective cognitive mechanism that mitigates the negative impact of perfectionism on impostor feelings. Enhancing cognitive flexibility may therefore reduce self-doubt and promote adaptive coping among perfectionistic female students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".