A motivational approach to perfectionism and striving for excellence: Development of a new continuum-based scale for post-secondary students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perfectionism has been the object of many disputes. One such debate pertains to the nature of perfectionistic strivings. Whereas perfectionistic concerns (PC) have been shown to correlate with negative outcomes, perfectionistic strivings (PS) have been associated with mixed outcomes. This view of perfectionism assumes a motivational perspective; however, commonly used questionnaires assess motivation only implicitly. To create a more explicit measure of motivation as regard perfectionism, we aimed to assess perfectionism in post-secondary education based on Deci and Ryan's self-determination continuum. We posit that introjected motivation represents the variance common to both dimensions of perfectionism. External motivation is considered to be specific to PC and identified motivation to PS. Amotivation represents a lack of meaningful striving. Intrinsic motivation, lacking perfectionism's pressure, is conceptualized to be a self-determined form of striving for excellence. We further posited that this continuum is implicitly underlain by a continuum of self-definition as defined by Blatt. The resulting questionnaire showed an adequate structure with ESEM, followed a simplex structure, and had adequate reliabilities (Study 1a/Study 2). It also showed adequate convergent validity (Study 1b/Study 2). Finally, the questionnaire proved to be invariant over a 6-week period (Study 2). Results suggest that the degree of active goal pursuit, in addition to standards setting, could be a distinguishing characteristic between dimensions of perfectionism as well as striving for excellence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".