SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Feedback systems as interferers in perfectionism: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Perfectionism is a multidimensional construct characterized by the striving for exceptionally high standards and critical self-evaluation. It can manifest in both adaptive and maladaptive forms. Feedback systems exert a considerable cognitive influence on individuals as the emotional and behavioral responses to feedback are often shaped by its valence-positive or negative. This study aimed to examine the relationship between feedback systems and perfectionism, including its various dimensions, and to assess how specific interventions influence perfectionistic traits. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines across six academic databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and ERIC. The initial search yielded 441 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 studies were selected for detailed analysis. Results: A clear association emerged between feedback valence and perfectionism. Four major outcome domains were identified as dependent variables: emotional response, behavior, task performance, and physiological (biomarker) indicators. Among adaptive perfectionists, positive feedback was linked to improved behavioral outcomes, whereas negative feedback elicited negative emotional and performance-related consequences. In contrast, maladaptive perfectionists showed a heightened vulnerability to negative feedback, displaying impaired emotional regulation, decreased performance, and elevated stress-related physiological markers. Conclusion: Feedback directed at individuals with perfectionistic traits elicits distinct psychological and physiological responses. While positive feedback can foster beneficial outcomes in adaptive perfectionists, negative feedback-especially in maladaptive perfectionists-can have substantial adverse effects, highlighting the importance of developing individualized feedback strategies as part of the clinical and therapeutic interventions for individuals with perfectionistic vulnerability. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251015998.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.