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

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. Plain language summary: Many people aspire to achieve excellence without ever trying to attain perfection. Excellence and perfection are different endpoints that set the tone for distinct aiming, striving, phenomenological experiences, and outcomes. A recent theory introduced the concept of excellencism in order to differentiate individuals striving for high yet flexible standards (referred to as excellence strivers) from those who relentlessly and inflexibly chase perfection (known as perfection strivers). In the current research, our overarching goal was to enhance theory with a new framework that would make it easier for researchers to use the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP). To achieve our goal, we conducted two studies with cross-sectional and longitudinal methods with university students (Study 1, N = 271) and college-aged athletes (Study 2, N = 296). We created the online MEP Shiny App (https://model-of-excellencism-and-perfectionism.shinyapps.io/Shiny%5fVersion2/) to simplify the process of testing and interpreting the differences between excellence and perfection strivers. Our findings underscored the importance of separating excellencism and perfectionism. In Study 1, perfection strivers savored positive school events less and had greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers. In Study 2, perfectionism was associated with higher goal attainment in sports. However, perfection strivers who failed to attain their goals experienced less savoring and enjoyment than excellence strivers. The positive sports experiences of perfection strivers depended on whether or not they attained their goals. Perfectionism is tricky and can be interpreted as a double-edged sword. It can be seen as beneficial, unneeded, or harmful depending on which outcomes and contexts researchers are looking at. Our findings highlighted the value of our newly proposed interpretational scenarios to make the MEP more accessible to other researchers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]