CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders

Do perfectionists raise their standards after success? An experimental examination of the revaluation of standard setting in perfectionism

Kobori, Osamu, Hayakawa, Maiko, Tanno, Yoshihiko·2009·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.07.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Setting high standards is one of the core aspects of perfectionism. Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002) proposed that individuals with self-imposed perfectionism raise their standards after they successfully meet them. This study examines whether individuals with self-imposed perfectionism raise their goal after the feedback of success. Fifty-three college students, whose self-oriented perfectionism (SOP; Hewitt & Flett, 1991) was assessed, performed a task with a goal, and received feedback of success. Following the feedback, they were asked to choose (a) the same goal or (b) a more difficult goal for the next task. The logistic regression analysis revealed that the greater the SOP, the more likely the participants were to choose the difficult goal. The theoretical and clinical implications for the standard setting of perfectionism were discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.07.003

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The theory proposed that individuals with self-imposed perfectionism raise their standards after they successfully meet them, and this was found to be the case.

    “For example, the theory proposed that individuals with self-imposed perfectionism raise their standards after they successfully meet them and this was found to be the case (Kobori et al., 2009) although the reasons for resetting standards may be multifaceted (Krause et al., 2018).”

    From Coming of age: A reflection of the first 21 years of cognitive behaviour therapy for perfectionism (2023) · cites this paper as Kobori et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kobori, O., Hayakawa, M., & Tanno, Y.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
ORCID
Kobori, Osamu
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
515-521
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.07.003
OpenAlex
W1969060822
Cited by
41
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Keywords
self-oriented perfectionism, standard setting, success feedback, goal difficulty
MeSH terms
Achievement, Aspirations, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Personality Assessment, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review