How does perfectionism affect academic achievement? Examining the mediating role of accurate self-assessment

Perfectionism, a multidimensional disposition encompassing both positive and negative attributes, has been widely examined in a number of different fields, one of which is academics. However, results of research on the precise connection between perfectionism and academic success remain largely inconclusive. The present study, therefore, attempted to identify this underlying mechanism by examining the mediating role of accurate self-assessment in the relationship between perfectionism and academic achievement of college students. The results revealed that while perfectionistic concerns and strivings did not directly affect academic achievement, their indirect effects were statistically significant. Perfectionistic concerns negatively predicted academic achievement through inaccurate self-assessment, whereas perfectionistic strivings positively predicted academic achievement through accurate self-assessment. These findings are expected to promote a practical and balanced understanding of academic perfectionism by explaining the relationship between the sub-dimensions of perfectionism and academic achievement.     

How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making

In two studies, we investigate the effects of individuals’ power motivation on decision-making. We distinguish between two types of power motivation [McClelland, D. C. (1970). The two faces of power. Journal of International Affairs, 24, 29–47; Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: The Free Press] and demonstrate that both types of power motivation facilitate influential decision-making but that each type plays a different role in different contexts. In a conflict context (Study 1), individuals’ personalized (self-serving) power motivation was associated with antisocial decisions, and in a healthcare context (Study 2), individuals socialized (other-serving) power motivation was associated with prosocial decisions. Furthermore, the type of power motivation elicited in each context was associated with less perceived need to deliberate over the relevant policy decision. In separating out the independent effects of each type of power motivation, we are able to explain more variance in decision-making behavior across various contexts than in models using aggregate power motivation (personalized plus socialized).