From theory to research: Interpretational guidelines, statistical guidance, and a shiny app for the model of excellencism and perfectionism

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Personality Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1177/08902070231221478
Patrick Gaudreau, Benjamin J. I. Schellenberg, Matthew Quesnel
{"title":"From theory to research: Interpretational guidelines, statistical guidance, and a shiny app for the model of excellencism and perfectionism","authors":"Patrick Gaudreau, Benjamin J. I. Schellenberg, Matthew Quesnel","doi":"10.1177/08902070231221478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After decades of research and debates about whether perfectionism is healthy or unhealthy, the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP) recently differentiated between people striving for high standards (excellence strivers) and those pursuing perfectionistic standards (perfection strivers). In this study, we devised and tested an interpretational framework of nine scenarios to help determine whether perfectionism is beneficial, unneeded, or harmful by comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. In a cross-sectional study with university students ( N = 271; Study 1), we found that perfection strivers savor positive school events less and have greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers. In a prospective/longitudinal design with college-aged athletes ( N = 296; Study 2), perfectionism was associated with higher athletic achievement. However, perfection strivers who failed to attain their goals experienced lower savoring and enjoyment than excellence strivers. Our findings highlighted the value of our interpretational scenarios as a hub to facilitate the comparison of MEP findings, while showing how to test MEP hypotheses with five popular statistical analyses. Furthermore, the MEP Shiny App is a valuable contribution to expedite the process of comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. Overall, this research forged a substantive-methodological pathway that strengthens and enhances the practicality of the MEP.","PeriodicalId":51376,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Personality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231221478","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After decades of research and debates about whether perfectionism is healthy or unhealthy, the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP) recently differentiated between people striving for high standards (excellence strivers) and those pursuing perfectionistic standards (perfection strivers). In this study, we devised and tested an interpretational framework of nine scenarios to help determine whether perfectionism is beneficial, unneeded, or harmful by comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. In a cross-sectional study with university students ( N = 271; Study 1), we found that perfection strivers savor positive school events less and have greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers. In a prospective/longitudinal design with college-aged athletes ( N = 296; Study 2), perfectionism was associated with higher athletic achievement. However, perfection strivers who failed to attain their goals experienced lower savoring and enjoyment than excellence strivers. Our findings highlighted the value of our interpretational scenarios as a hub to facilitate the comparison of MEP findings, while showing how to test MEP hypotheses with five popular statistical analyses. Furthermore, the MEP Shiny App is a valuable contribution to expedite the process of comparing the outcomes of excellence and perfection strivers. Overall, this research forged a substantive-methodological pathway that strengthens and enhances the practicality of the MEP.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从理论到研究:优秀主义和完美主义模型的解释指南、统计指导和闪亮应用程序
经过数十年关于完美主义是健康还是不健康的研究和争论,"追求卓越与完美主义模型"(MEP)最近区分了追求高标准的人(追求卓越者)和追求完美主义标准的人(追求完美者)。在本研究中,我们设计并测试了一个由九种情景组成的解释框架,通过比较追求卓越者和追求完美者的结果,帮助确定完美主义是有益的、不必要的还是有害的。在一项以大学生为研究对象的横断面研究中(研究 1:271 人),我们发现完美主义者比卓越主义者更不喜欢学校的积极活动,而且辍学意愿更强。在一项针对大学适龄运动员的前瞻性/纵向设计研究中(样本数=296;研究2),完美主义与较高的运动成绩相关。然而,与追求卓越者相比,追求完美者在未能实现其目标时,其品味和享受程度较低。我们的研究结果凸显了我们的解释情景作为一个枢纽的价值,便于对 MEP 研究结果进行比较,同时展示了如何通过五种流行的统计分析来检验 MEP 假设。此外,"卓越教育计划闪亮应用 "也是一项宝贵的贡献,它加快了比较卓越和完美奋斗者成果的进程。总之,这项研究开辟了一条实质性方法论途径,加强和提高了 MEP 的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Personality
European Journal of Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
8.50%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: It is intended that the journal reflects all areas of current personality psychology. The Journal emphasizes (1) human individuality as manifested in cognitive processes, emotional and motivational functioning, and their physiological and genetic underpinnings, and personal ways of interacting with the environment, (2) individual differences in personality structure and dynamics, (3) studies of intelligence and interindividual differences in cognitive functioning, and (4) development of personality differences as revealed by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
期刊最新文献
Long-Term Advantages of Adolescent Optimism: Nonlinear Associations With Adult Outcomes and its Protective Role in Buffering Socioeconomic Risk When and why do individuals high in narcissistic rivalry attain social status? How much can personality predict prosocial behavior? Personalideer: A comprehensive review of personality studies in cervids Perceptions of a good life: Associations with culture, age, wellbeing, and health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1