INTRODUCTION

University students in late youth or early adulthood (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022) opt for their studies as a pathway for self-development or to pursue a vocation (Schneller & Holmberg, 2014). These students often have to combine family and professional obligations with their studies and opt for distance education. This student body has a high motivation for their studies, which enables them to cope with numerous obstacles (Carlsen et al., 2016). On the one hand, young adults’ passion for learning entails dedicating time, developing an identity and feeling fulfilled according to achievement and vocational goals (Sverdlik et al., 2021). On the other hand, there is a thin line that relates achievement goals and perfectionism in academic performance (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2015). The latter, shows a complex relationship with academic performance, as perfectionistic efforts potentially do contribute to higher performance in the face of perfectionistic concerns that hinder and diminish students’ well-being (Madigan, 2019). To understand these implications in the student’s life, from positive education (see Seligman & Adler, 2019), we pursue to study the variables involved in the psychological well-being of students in distance education and in their academic success and what role they play (Williams et al., 2018).

One of the most widely used indicators to measure psychological well-being is engagement ( Leiter & Maslach, 2017). This has been studied in the workplace and positive consequences have been found in workers such as higher motivation and performance, better health and less perceived stress (see Leiter & Maslach, 2017). It has also been analyzed in academia (see Barr et al., 2015; Lisbona et al., 2012; Merhi et al., 2018; Salanova et al., 2005). Engagement is defined as an enduring and positive state of mind with work (Leiter & Maslach, 2017) and includes three dimensions: vigor, referring to high levels of cognitive resources and persistence in coping with obstacles; dedication to the task performed or set of tasks; and absorption, or the ability to concentrate deeply, with the feeling that time “flies by”. Therefore, academic engagement is considered a positive motivational construct where students are highly and intrinsically motivated (Salanova et al., 2005). This explains their greater persistence in the face of academic tasks and difficulties, or their higher academic satisfaction and performance (Salanova et al., 2005; Tinto, 2012).

Intrinsic motivation stems from the individual’s own desires and needs; for example, vocation and enjoyment for the mere performance of the corresponding activity (Deci & Ryan, 2002). In this sense, passion and perfectionism would explain high student motivation and persistence to achieve academic engagement, especially in distance education students, where their motivations for study are closely linked to personal development (Schneller & Holmberg, 2014). Specifically, academic passion can be defined as a high motivation for studies, devoting significant time and effort to them, being a central part of a person’s identity (Vallerand et al., 2020). It is a predictor of student happiness and satisfaction (Bernabé et al., 2014). According to Vallerand et al. (2020), there are two underlying processes for a person to develop passion towards an activity. The first is the valuation of the activity, either by interest, importance or experienced affectivity. The second is the internalization of it as part of his or her personal identity or the degree to which the activity represents the individual’s self-concept. People with high passion will experience high motivation and persistence even in situations where a significant investment of energy and effort with high demands is required (Barr et al., 2015). This explains why passion is also an important predictor of academic performance (Vallerand et al., 2020). On the other hand, perfectionism is a multidimensional personality disposition toward the pursuit of excellence accompanied by high self-demand (Hewitt & Fleet, 1991). In academia, adaptive perfectionism is linked to higher levels of satisfaction, psychological well-being, self-esteem, high academic goals and greater self-determination (Lagos et al., 2017). However, the explanatory models of both variables show a “hidden side” for both perfectionism and passion. In both cases they have presented positive and negative consequences on students’ well-being (see Vallerand et al., 2020). On the one hand, according to the dual passion model (Vallerand et al., 2020), passion can be either harmonious or obsessive. In the former, the student would study in a controlled and autonomous way, experiencing well-being for the pleasure of performing the tasks involved in his or her studies and learning. While, in the second, the student is emotionally dependent on the activity, perceives less control and is conditioned to the search and need for external rewards such as social acceptance (Lafrenière et al., 2012). Something similar has been observed in the processes of self-regulation of one’s own learning, where Richardson et al. (2012) point out how autonomy and self-regulation contributed to internalize the activity as part of the individual’s identity, due to the fact that responsibility is shifted to the individual, making him/her responsible for the goals that are set, in what terms and with what deadlines. This is in contrast to a totally externally regulated context in which the person would merely meet the deadlines already set. Thus, passion also acts as a regulator between beliefs and learning (Sverdlik et al., 2021). In this regard, Vallerand et al. (2020) link the experience of harmonious passion with positive affect and flow, whereas negative affect and anxiety relate it to the obsessive dimension of passion. Both dimensions are associated with persistence (Vallerand et al., 2020), understood as an active coping strategy, although they do not have the same experience. That is, persistence in the obsessive dimension would result more rigid, less self-controlled and less adaptive compared to persistence in those students with high scores in the passion harmony dimension (Vallerand et al., 2020). This would contribute to explain the explanatory and differentiated role of harmonious passion with respect to academic engagement, in accordance with studies such as Lisbona et al. (2012). Thus, students who experience greater harmonious passion towards their studies devote sustained and persistent efforts over time to activities and situations that require a greater investment of personal energy even in the face of a low number of resources, obtaining more positive results (Bernabé et al., 2014).

On the other hand, regarding perfectionism and engagement, several studies initially linked perfectionism in general with more maladaptive coping and poorer outcomes (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Madigan, 2019). Subsequent research (Verner-Fillion & Vallerand, 2016) evidenced that perfectionism shows both positive relationships with adaptive outcomes e.g., academic engagement (see Damian et al. 2017), and with maladaptive outcomes such as workaholism (see Stoeber et al., 2018). Specifically, according to Hewitt and Flett (1991), perfectionism can be classified into Self-oriented and Socialized, depending on whether the mandates originate, respectively, from oneself or are imposed by others. That is, depending on whether the person sets high standards of demand for a task or set of tasks and internalizes them as part of his or her identity. In the academic field, Flett and Hewitt (2014) analyze how self-oriented perfectionism, which presents a highly heterogeneous profile, is related to greater stress before exams. However, there is contrary evidence associating self-centered perfectionism with positive consequences such as positive affect, subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and academic performance (Ashby et al., 2012; Hewitt & Fleet, 1991). In contrast, the role of socialized perfectionism is more clearly linked to higher levels of both negative affect, depression, anxiety, stress, and poorer academic performance (Ashby et al., 2012). According to Jowett et al. (2016) it is externally imposed perfectionistic concerns that are negatively linked to engagement and positively linked to burnout, while those of internal and self-imposed origin are associated with an internal attribution of success and adequate academic performance (Aguilar-Durán, 2020). De la Fuente et al. (2020) points out different coping strategies depending on the type of perfectionism of the students. In the case of perfectionist efforts, the positive emotions experienced predispose to the use of problem-focused coping strategies and to engagement; in contrast, in the case of perfectionist concerns, negative emotions predispose to the use of emotion-focused strategies and to a state of burnout.

Madigan (2019), in her meta-analysis establishes that perfectionism, especially self-oriented perfectionism, has been linked to higher academic engagement given that those students with high standards of demand are more involved with the task, and invest more effort, motivation and perseverance. In a similar line, Stoeber (2012) evidenced in another meta-analysis the perfectionist eagerness with higher academic performance. However, other authors do not observe conclusive results on the relationship between perfectionism and greater academic success (Stoeber & Otto 2006), psychological well-being (Lagos et al., 2017) or engagement (Jowett et al., 2016). Thus, it seems that the influence of other intermediate variables, such as passion that would explain these differences, (Madigan, 2019; Verner Fillon & Vallerand, 2016).

Perfectionism will be considered an antecedent of academic passion to regulate study (Verner-Filion & Vallerand, 2016), in the sense that it responds to a personality disposition and the passion construct is a more contextual and motivational variable. Specifically, self-oriented perfectionism shares with harmonious passion the higher degree of integration, attunement and alignment with the person’s identity; on the other hand, socialized perfectionism has in common with obsessive-type passion its mainly external origin, less integration in the self and the experience of less self-control and greater negative affect. This autonomy, characteristic of harmonious passion, is one of the three basic needs of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Therefore, those variables and characteristics that are linked to this need will be linked to greater psychological well-being or engagement (Jowett et al., 2016; Lagos et al., 2017; Vallerand et al., 2020). Thus, the student with a higher level of self-demand will tend to study harmoniously and therefore will experience greater academic engagement. Whereas, if perfectionism is of external origin, the demand comes from external mandates, the passion would be obsessive or with less self-regulatory control and would be guided by social contingencies, experiencing lower academic engagement (Bernabé et al., 2014; Madigan, 2019). Therefore, the aim of the present study is to analyze the effects of perfectionism on academic engagement and the regulatory role of passion for studies as a mediating variable. Figure 1 shows the expected relationships Thus, it is expected, on the one hand, that self-oriented perfectionism will have a mediated effect, directly and inversely with the harmonious and obsessive dimension, respectively on academic engagement; and, on the other hand, that socialized perfectionism will present a direct relationship with the obsessive dimension and inversely with the harmonious dimension of passion and also differentiated effects on academic engagement. Specifically, the hypotheses of the present work are:

HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis 1. Self-oriented perfectionism has a direct relationship with harmonious passion and an inverse relationship with obsessive passion and differential mediated effects on academic engagement.

Hypothesis 2. Socialized perfectionism has a direct relationship with the obsessive dimension and an inverse relationship with the harmonious dimension of passion and differential mediated effects on academic engagement.

METHOD

Participants

The sample was composed of 545 university students in late youth and adulthood [19 - 35 years]. All came from the National University of Distance Education. Most of them were undergraduates (97%) while the rest were studying for a university master’s degree. The sample, of which 74% were women, had a mean age of 27 years (SD=4.13). 47.5% were in their 4th degree, 21.3% were in their 3rd degree, 26.6% were in the first years of their degree. 79.4% of the participants are pursuing health science degrees, 12.4% are pursuing social science degrees, 3.6% are pursuing engineering degrees, and 2.7% are pursuing educational science degrees.

Variables and instruments

Sociodemographic variables

An ad hoc questionnaire was developed to record the sociodemographic and educational variables of the participants. Thus, different scales were used to obtain information on gender, year of birth and current degree.

Perfectionism

Perfectionism was measured using the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) by Hewitt and Flett (1991) adapted to the Spanish population by Carrasco et al. (2009). It is composed of two dimensions: self-oriented perfectionism (e.g., “One of my goals is to be perfect in everything I do”) and socially prescribed perfectionism (e.g., “My family expects me to be perfect”). Both are composed of 5 items. The items used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= Strongly disagree; 5= Strongly agree). The internal consistency of the self-oriented perfectionism scale was a =.90 and a =.84 for the socialized perfectionism scale.

Passion

The Spanish adaptation of the passion scale for university students (Lisbona et al., 2012) was used. It evaluates the degree and level of passion regarding an activity where they invest time and energy. It is composed of two dimensions: harmonious passion (e.g. “I am totally involved in my studies”) and obsessive passion (e.g. “My mood depends on whether or not I am able to learn something”) of 6 items each. The response scale is a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= Completely disagree to 5 = Completely agree). The instrument showed an internal consistency of a =.81 and a =.83 for the harmonious and obsessive passion dimensions, respectively.

Academic engagement

The Spanish version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Survey (UWES-S; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) was used for students. It consists of 17 items, grouped into three dimensions: Vigor (6 items; e.g. “I can continue studying for long periods”), Dedication (5 items; e.g. “I am proud of doing this career”) and Absorption (6 items; e.g. “I am immersed in my studies”). The response scale is a 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = Never; 6 = Always). The average of the scale as a whole is used as an indicator of academic engagement, showing an internal consistency of a = .93.

All the scales used show satisfactory internal consistency values according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994).

Procedure

The participants completed a questionnaire using Qualtrics® that included the study variables. The time required to complete the questionnaire was 20 minutes maximum. Exponential non-discriminatory snowball sampling was used to recruit participants ( Hernández Ávila & Carpio, 2019). Adult university students were contacted through subject forums where they in turn invited other adult students to participate. They were given a document requesting their participation and guaranteeing their anonymity and confidentiality in the answers provided. After giving their consent to participate in the research, they answered the questions. The study was conducted within the framework of the Declaration of Helsinki ( World Medical Association, 2015) and in accordance with the norms of the UNED Bioethics Committee.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and correlation) and reliability analysis of the scales are analyzed. For the reliability analysis of the scales, values above .70 in Cronbach’s alpha were considered as indicative of reliability ( Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Subsequently, for the purpose of the study, the data were analyzed using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method with the SmartPLS ® software (Ringle et al., 2005). For the analysis of the proposed model, the Partial Least Square - SEM (PLS-SEM) methodology was followed, since the objective is the prediction of the constructs of the proposed exploratory model (Hair et al., 2017). The objective of PLS is to predict dependent, latent and manifest variables by maximizing the explained variance (R2) in the dependent variables and minimizing the error of the residual variance of the endogenous variables in any regression of the model (Wold, 1985). Thus, the technique is an alternative, robust and flexible approach to the traditional one (Martínez-Avila & Fierro-Moreno, 2018). Standardized data were used in the analysis and missing data were excluded. Significance was assessed by Bootstrapping with 500 samples of 100 cases (t-value = 1.96; p <.05).

To test the reliability of the model indicators, the composite reliability index (ρc) is considered. Values of ρc greater than .60 indicate good reliability (Werts et al., 1971). To assess convergent and discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion was followed. Convergent validity would be sufficient for the model if AVE > .50. Discriminant validity would be satisfactory if √AVE (η1) > Cor (η1, η2). The HTMT criterion is also used, where the ratio must be less than 1 (Gold et al., 2001). Subsequently, for the study of multicollinearity of the variables that compose the structural model, the VIF value will be used, values lower than 5 are indicative of absence of multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2017). For the study of mediation effects, according to Nitzl et al. (2016), Confidence Intervals (CI90%) are estimated and Variance Accounted For (VAF) is calculated. A mediation effect occurs when the IC90% range does not contain the value zero (Hair et al., 2014). To assess the magnitude of the effects, VAF value > 80% is indicative of full mediation. In addition to the R2 as a predictive criterion, the Q2 indicator is examined to assess the predictive relevance of the structural model using the Stone-Geiser test (Geiser, 1974; Stone, 1974), values should be greater than zero (Chin, 1998).

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the descriptive analyses of the variables and the Cronbach’s alpha values of the scales used. All correlations between variables are statistically significant (p < .01; p < .05).

Regarding the proposed model (Figure 1), the composite reliability values of the variables that configure it are above .60 (ρc = [.88 - .93]) being indicative of an adequate reliability of the measures (Werts et al., 1971). Regarding convergent and discriminant validity in the model, for all constructs, the common variance between the indicators and their constructs was greater than .50 (AVE = [.55 - .83]). According to the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981) these values would be satisfactory. Furthermore, the square root of AVE is higher than the correlations with all the other constructs (√AVE = [.73 - .91]), so an adequate degree of convergent and discriminant validity among the variables is observed. Complementarily, the HTMT ratio for the correlations of the indicators shows satisfactory values (HTMT= [.10 - .72]), therefore, there is an adequate convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs in the model.

The proposed model reflects the indirect effect of perfectionism on academic engagement through its two dimensions, with no evidence of multicollinearity (VIF= [1.09 - 1.18]. In the model studied, an R2 = .45 is observed for academic engagement, being a moderate value (Hair et al., 2017). Additionally, regarding the predictive relevance of the structural model, the Q2 = [.435 - .630] values are adequate values of predictive validity of the model (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2017). Adequate levels of fit are also observed (SRMR < .08; R2= .45; p < .005). The coefficients of the structural model can be found in Table 2.

Regarding mediation analysis, the results show indirect effects of self-oriented perfectionism on engagement both through the harmony dimension (b = .12; p = .000) and the obsession dimension (b = .05; p = .000). In agreement with Hair et al. (2014) VAF values > 20% and < 80% are obtained, indicative of partial mediation. Although the indirect effect is superior in the harmonious versus obsessive dimension, the differential effects between both mediators are not shown to be statistically significant in the case of self-oriented perfectionism (b = .05; CI90% = [-.011 - .103] BC= [-.010 - .104]). As for the effects of socialized perfectionism, an indirect effect on engagement is observed through the harmonious dimension of passion (b = -.07; p = .003 Vs. = .01; p = .082). This mediation would be partial (VAF = 33.8%). No significant direct effect of socialized perfectionism on the obsessive dimension of passion is observed (b = .08; p = .062). Thus, the total indirect effect of self-oriented perfectionism on engagement occurs through both harmonious and obsessive passion, with partial mediation in both cases. Socialized perfectionism, however, shows smaller total indirect effects and only marginally through the harmony dimension of passion (Figure 2).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The general aim of the present study was to analyze the indirect effects of perfectionism on academic engagement through the passion for their studies experienced by adult distance learners. First, it is observed that self-oriented perfectionism explains students’ harmonious passion although the results are inconclusive regarding the relationship between socialized perfectionism and the obsessive dimension, in line with previous studies (Verner-Filion & Vallerand, 2016). On the other hand, regarding the passion experienced by students, the results show that although both types, harmonious and obsessive, are linked to high levels of academic engagement, it is harmonious passion that shows a stronger relationship for the sample analyzed, in line with previous work (Lisbona et al., 2012). Regarding hypothesis 1, in relation to the indirect effects analyzed, the results indicate that self-oriented perfectionism is linked to higher academic engagement when students experience harmonious and balanced academic passion. But, on the other hand, it is also observed that these self-imposed standards are related to certain degrees of study obsession and are not necessarily associated with lower academic engagement. Although the magnitude of the effect of harmonious passion on academic engagement is larger, the mediation effects do not differ from each other. One possible explanation for these findings is that both the desire to preserve the ideal self, fear of failure, and external evaluation by students converge to explain participants’ academic engagement (Vallerand et al., 2020). However, in view of the results, students’ internally derived perfectionistic beliefs seem to have a higher predictive role on academic engagement. This is explained because self-imposed standards of internal origin are associated with an internal attribution of successes (Aguilar-Durán, 2020), which raise the level of demand and therefore the motivation and persistence necessary to achieve such goals, so they will be related to a greater extent with the degree of academic engagement. As for hypothesis 2, socialized perfectionism is negatively related to academic engagement and harmonious passion; however, no mediation effects of obsessive passion with engagement are observed. Therefore, the results do not allow us to confirm the maladaptive consequences in students who study obsessively, without limits or control over study behavior. But they do point to the positive role of the adaptive effects of perfectionism in academia when studying is done in a balanced or harmonious way ( Ashby et al., 2012; Hewitt & Fleet, 1991). It is observed, therefore, that greater autonomy and control in study behavior is linked to more adaptive coping strategies (Merhi et al., 2018) that regulate perfectionistic beliefs to achieve greater academic engagement. According to the resource conservation model (Hobfoll, 1989), studying with limits and in balance, characteristic of harmonious passion, acts as a personal resource that reduces the negative effects associated with socially prescribed beliefs, such as loss of well-being, lack of control, or fear of external evaluation. On the other hand, studying without limits or guided by external approval or social prestige, characteristic of obsessive passion, reduces the adaptive role that perfectionist beliefs of internal origin may have.

The results therefore seem to indicate, in view of the indicators of the structural model, the explanatory role that students’ self-oriented perfectionist beliefs have on academic engagement through the harmonious passion with which they approach their studies. Thus, self-imposed demands will be positively related to a more balanced and controlled study activity, while socially prescribed beliefs will be positively related to a less balanced and autonomous experience of the participants. However, the results found should be taken with caution because, according to the dual passion process model, negative consequences can be expected in the long term if perfectionist beliefs become rigid mandates of demand, which can lead to lower academic engagement by experiencing less harmonious passion, as the results suggest. This is a fine line where other variables may be at work, such as coping, perceived efficacy, resilience, or personal strengths (Merhi et al., 2018).

All the above, together, places the focus on the importance of implementing strategies from universities to foster in students a greater passion for their studies, through the acquisition of an active role in their learning and the establishment of challenging, autonomous and flexible goals. Promoting active student learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), through their own involvement in setting their own goals and standards will generate better academic engagement results, specifically with harmonious, balanced and more controlled passion. This phenomenon of the student as an active protagonist of his or her learning is also clearly linked to the impact on academic performance and satisfaction, thanks to greater self-regulation of learning. With it, the student actively participates in setting his or her own academic goals, internalizing them as his or her own (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Precisely, one of the ways to promote a more balanced passion in studies goes through an adequate previous orientation based, for example, on the vocational preferences, personal and/or professional development and self-realization of the student (Harward, 2016; Tinto, 2012), without obviating flexibility in terms of achievement beliefs.

All the above, together, places the focus on the importance of implementing strategies from universities to foster in students a greater passion for their studies, through the acquisition of an active role in their learning and the establishment of challenging, autonomous and flexible goals. Promoting active student learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), through their own involvement in setting their own goals and standards will generate better academic engagement results, specifically with harmonious, balanced and more controlled passion. This phenomenon of the student as an active protagonist of his or her learning is also clearly linked to the impact on academic performance and satisfaction, thanks to greater self-regulation of learning. With it, the student actively participates in setting his or her own academic goals, internalizing them as his or her own (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Precisely, one of the ways to promote a more balanced passion in studies goes through an adequate previous orientation based, for example, on the vocational preferences, personal and/or professional development and self-realization of the student (Harward, 2016; Tinto, 2012), without obviating flexibility in terms of achievement beliefs.

Finally, although participation in the research was voluntary, which could encourage greater participation by more motivated students, the sample collected yielded a wide range of scores for the variables analyzed. It would also be interesting to find the differentiating effects of the variables analyzed with the incorporation of one of the indicators most commonly used to measure psychosocial distress, burnout. The introduction of academic burnout as a counterpoint to academic engagement could contribute in the future to obtaining a broader view in the analysis of student well-being or discomfort.

REFERENCES

Aguilar-Durán, L. A. (2020). Perfeccionismo y vida académica: Un estudio correlacional en estudiantes de psicología. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 13(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13209

Ashby, J. S., Noble, C. L., & Gnilka, P. B. (2012). Multidimensional perfectionism, depression, and satisfaction with life: Differences among perfectionists and tests of a stress-mediation model. Journal of College Counseling, 15(2), 130– 143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2012.00011.x

Asociación Médica Mundial. (2015). Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM – Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos. https://cutt.ly/o833fxI

Barr, T., Sessa, V., Sumner, K., & Bragger, J. (2015). Applying the job demands-resources model towards understanding student stress. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4981.4885

Bernabé, M., Lisbona, A., Palací, F. J., & Martín-Aragón, M. (2014). Social identity, passion and well-being in university students, the mediating effect of passion. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E81. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.85

Carlsen, A., Holmberg, C., Neghina, C., & Owusu-Boampong, A. (2016). Closing the Gap. Opportunities for distance education to benefit adult learners in higher education. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Carrasco, Á., Belloch, A., & Perpiñá, C. (2009). La evaluación del perfeccionismo: Utilidad de la Escala Multidimensional de Perfeccionismo en población española. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 35(152), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.33776/amc.v35i152.1225

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed282491

Chin, W. (1998). The partial least square approach to structural equation modeling. En G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-369). Lawrance Erlbaum.

Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & Baban, A. (2017). Perfectionism and school engagement: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 105(15), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.044

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. En E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431–441). University of Rochester Press.

de la Fuente, J., Lahortiga-Ramos, F., Laspra-Solís, C., Maestro-Martín, C., Alustiza, I., Aubá, E., & Martín-Lanas, R. (2020). A structural equation model of achievement emotions, coping strategies and engagement-burnout in undergraduate students: A possible underlying mechanism in facets of perfectionism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 2106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062106

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). A proposed framework for preventing perfectionism and promoting resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51(9), 899–912. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pits.21792

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika, 61, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101

Gold, A., Malhotra, A. Y Segar, A. (2001). Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Managament Information Systems, 18(1), 185 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

Hair, J., Hult, H., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

Harward, D. (2016). Well-being and higher education: A strategy for change and the realization of education’s greater purposes. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://cutt.ly/a838WID

Hernández Ávila, C. E., & Carpio, N. (2019). Introducción a los tipos de muestreo. Revista ALERTA, 2(1), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.5377/alerta.v2i1.7535

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.60.3.456

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

Jowett, G. E., Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., & Curran, T. (2016). Perfectionism, burnout and engagement in youth sport: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.01.001

Lafrenière, M. A. K., St-Louis, A. C., Vallerand, R. J., & Donahue, E. G. (2012). On the relation between performance and life satisfaction: The moderating role of passion. Self and Identity, 11(4), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868. 2011.616000

Lagos, N., Sanmartín, R., Urrea, M. E., Hernández-Amorós, M. J., Granados, L., & García-Fernández, J. M. (2017). ¿Predice el perfeccionismo las altas metas académicas en estudiantes chilenos de educación superior? International Journal of Development and Educational Psychology, 2(1), 307–313. https://doi. org/10.17060/ijodaep.2017.n1.v2.943

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2017). Burnout and engagement: Contributions to a new vision. Burnout Research, 5, 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.04.003

Lisbona, A., Bernabé, M., Palací, F. J., Gómez-Bernabéu, A., & Martín-Aragón, M. (2012). Estudiar con pasión: Relación con la iniciativa personal y el engagement. Ciencia y Trabajo, Special Issue, 89–95.

Madigan, D. (2019). A meta-analysis of perfectionism and academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 967–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09484-2

Martínez Ávila, M., & Fierro Moreno, E. (2018). Aplicación de la técnica PLS-SEM en la gestión del conocimiento: un enfoque técnico práctico. RIDE. Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 8(16), 130-164. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v8i16.336

Méndez-Giménez, A., Cecchini-Estrada, J. A., & Fernández-Río, J. (2015). Perfeccionismo, metas de logro 2×2 y regulaciones motivacionales en el contexto de la educación física. Aula Abierta, 43(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aula.2014.09.001

Merhi, R., Sánchez-Elvira, Á., & Palací, F. J. (2018). The role of psychological strengths, coping strategies and well-being in the prediction of academic engagement and burnout in first-year university students. Acción Psicológica, 15(2), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.2.21831

Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2022). UN Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030. https://cutt.ly/L834eKp

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 M3. University of Hamburg. https://cutt.ly/o834uFH

Salanova, M., Martínez, I., Bresó, E., Llorens, S., & Gumbau, R. (2005). Bienestar psicológico en estudiantes universitarios: Facilitadores y obstaculizadores del desempeño académico. Anales de Psicología, 21(1), 170–180.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES – Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. https://cutt.ly/L834pM3

Schneller, C., & Holmberg, C. (2014). Distance education in European higher education: the students (no2). UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Seligman, M., & Adler, A. (2019). Positive education. En J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. Sachs (Eds.), Global happiness and wellbeing policy report: 2019. (pp. 52 - 71). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Stoeber, J., Damian, L. E., & Madigan, D. J. (2018). Perfectionism: a motivational perspective. En J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: theory, research, and applications. Routledge.

Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x

Sverdlik, A., Rahimi, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (2021). Examining the role of passion in university students’ academic emotions, self-regulated learning and well-being. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714211037359

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press.

Vallerand, R. J., Chichekian, T., & Paquette, V. (2020). Passion in education: Theory, research, and applications. En G. Liem, & D. McInerney (Eds.), Educational interventions: A sociocultural perspective. Information Age Publishing.

Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2016). On the differential relationships involving perfectionism and academic adjustment: The mediating role of passion and affect. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.018

Werts, C. E., Jöreskog, K. G., & Linn, R. L. (1971). Comment on “The estimation of measurement error in panel data”. American Sociological Review, 36(1), 110– 113. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093511

Williams, N., Horrell, L., Edmiston, D., & Brady, M. (2018). The impact of positive psychology on higher education. The William & Mary Educational Review, 5(1). 83–94. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/wmer/vol5/iss1/12

Wold, H. (1985). Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Partial least squares. Wiley.

---

Received: 20 April 2022
Accepted: 08 September 2022
Published: 13 June 2023