Abstract
Abstract
Background:
Grieve et al. (2022) tested the effects of an intervention designed to reduce perfectionism. Contrary to their hypotheses, the intervention reduced both perfectionism and excellencism. Furthermore, excellencism positively correlated with negative outcomes (e.g. anxiety).
Aims:
A theory-driven framework (with five hypothetical scenarios) is proposed to reconsider how we interpret the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce perfectionism. Our goal was to offer a constructive reinterpretation of the results of Grieve et al. (2022) using our new framework derived from the Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism.
Method:
Secondary data analyses using the experimental and correlational results are published in the randomized control trial of Grieve et al. (2022).
Results:
Our re-examination of the results reveals that excellencism was reduced by a smaller extent (approximately 25% less) than perfectionism. Based on our framework, such a ratio provides conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention. Students entered the intervention as perfectionists and they ended up somewhere between the zones of excellence striving and non-perfectionism. Furthermore, our multivariate re-analysis of the bivariate correlations indicates that excellence strivers experienced better adjustment (lower anxiety, depression, stress, body-related acceptance, and higher self-compassion) compared with perfectionists.
Conclusion:
Future interventions should target the reduction of perfectionism and the maintenance of excellencism because excellencism relates to desirable outcomes. Our secondary data analysis was needed to inform researchers and practitioners about an alternative interpretation of Grieve and colleagues’ findings. Future interventions to reduce perfectionism should closely monitor excellencism and follow the interpretational guidelines advanced in this article.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Clinical Psychology,General Medicine