MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411438143 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8hpvr_v2

Motivation for Sport: A Comparison Between Perfectionism and Excellencism in Self-Determination Theory

2025· preprint· en· W4411438143 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thomas Boivin, Philippe Pétrin‐Pomerleau, Patrick Gaudreau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAmotivationPsychologyStructural equation modelingPerfectionism (psychology)Self-determination theoryIntrinsic motivationSocial psychologyExcellencePersonalityAutonomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Perfectionism creates motivational conflicts. However, researchers have repeatedly found positive associations between perfectionistic standards and autonomous motivation. One reason for this finding may be that researchers have not distinguished between perfectionistic standards and the pursuit of excellence, which may explain their somewhat unexpected results. Based on the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP), we recruited 328 sport participants to investigate the unique associations of perfectionistic standards and excellencism with sport motivations. We hypothesized that perfectionistic standards should primarily be associated with controlled types of motivation and amotivation, while excellencism would only predict autonomous types of motivation. As expected, results of structural equation modeling showed that excellencism was a positive and significant predictor of intrinsic, integrated, and identified motivation. Mean scores of introjected motivation, external motivation, and amotivation were very low in this sample, thus we carried out zero-inflated negative binomial structural equation modeling. The probability of reporting zero introjected motivation, external motivation, and amotivation was positively associated with excellencism. The probability of reporting zero external motivation was negatively associated with perfectionistic standards. We concluded that pursuing excellencism rather than perfectionistic standards should be encouraged, as it is associated with autonomous motivation in sport. Examining motivation through the theoretical lens of the MEP revealed that pursuing high standards – rather than pursuing perfectionistic standards – is responsible for the desirable associations with autonomous motivation. Our findings with sport participants are relevant to recreational sporting activities in which people participate mostly out of autonomous motivation.Keywords: Perfectionism, Excellencism, Motivation, Sport

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207