Because excellencism is more than good enough: On the need to distinguish the pursuit of excellence from the pursuit of perfection.

Abstract

An unresolved and controversial issue in the perfectionism literature is whether perfectionism is beneficial, harmful, or unneeded. The model of excellencism and perfectionism (MEP) was recently developed to address this question by distinguishing the pursuit of perfection from the pursuit of excellence (Gaudreau, 2019). In this article, we report the results of the first empirical test of the core assumptions of the MEP. Across five studies (total N = 2,157), we tested the conceptual, functional, and developmental distinctiveness of excellencism and perfectionism. In Study 1, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with two samples supported the hypothesized two-factor structure of the newly developed Scale of Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE). Study 2 provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity from scores obtained from the SCOPE, and showed that, over and above excellencism, perfectionism was not associated with additional benefits (e.g., life satisfaction) or reduced harms (e.g., depression). Studies 3-4 focused on the academic achievement of undergraduates and showed that, compared to excellence strivers, perfection strivers more often aimed for perfect A+ grades (Study 3), but in fact achieved worse grades (Study 4). Study 5 adopted a four-wave longitudinal design with undergraduates and showed that excellencism and perfectionism were associated with an upward and a downward spiral of academic development. Overall, the results support the core assumptions of the MEP and show that perfectionism is either unneeded or harmful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).