心理学毕业论文外文翻译

DoingtheThingsWeDo:AGroundedTheoryofAcademicProcrastinationMostpeopleviewprocrastinationasanegativepersonalitytrait.Procrastinatorsarethoughttobeindifferenttothequalityoftheirworkandpossiblyoflowercognitiveabilitythantheirnonprocrastinatingpeers.Previousempiricalstudieshavesupportedthisviewofprocrastination,revealingthatprocrastinationresultsinlosttime,poorerhealth,decreasedlong-termlearning,andlowerself-esteem(Burns,Dittman,Nguyen,&Mitchelson,2021;Ferrari,Johnson,&McCown,1995;Milgram,Dangour,&Raviv,1992;Tice&Baumeister,2021;Wolters,2021).Anumberofstudiesalsohaveindicatedthatprocrastinationmaybelinkedtoanxietyandfearoffailure(Ferrari&Tice,2021).Thesefindingssuggestthatprocrastinationisanimpedimenttoacademicsuccessbecauseitdecreasesthequalityandquantityoflearningwhileincreasingtheseverityofstressandnegativeoutcomesinstudents’lives(Ferrarietal.,1995;Milgram,Gehrman,&Keinan,1992).However,previousstudieshavereportedthatmanycollegestudentsprocrastinatedespitetheseapparentconsequences(Conti,2021;Saddler&Buley,2021).Morethan70%ofcollegestudentsreportedthattheyprocrastinateregularly,androughly20%dosohabitually(Schouwenburg,1995).Higherabilitystudentsprocrastinatedmorethanlowerabilitystudents,andprocrastinationtendstoincreaseasstudentsadvanceintheiracademiccareersandbecamemoreself-regulated(Ferrari,1991).Thesefindingssuggestthatprocrastinationiscommonamongcollegestudents.Theyalsosuggestthatprocrastinationamongsuccessfulcollegestudentsmayhavelittleimpactonperformanceorperhapsmaybeadaptivebecauseitallowsindividualstoachieveasustainedlevelofflowandbetteruseoftheirstudytime(Brinthaupt&Shin,2021;Csikszentmihalyi,1990;Sommer,1990;Tullier,2021).Alternatively,ifprocrastinationdoesnotplayanadaptiveroleinsomesituations,thenmanycollegestudentsmaybeunderachievingbecauseofregularprocrastination.Webeginbyoverviewingtherationaleforthestudyandsummarizingourmethodology.Wethendefinetheconstructofacademicprocrastinationasintentionallydeferringordelayingworkthatmustbecompleted,consideritsdimensionality,andreviewexistingresearch.Wedescribeseveralstudiesthatreportadaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Next,wediscussthethreemaingoalsofthisresearch.ThepresentstudyThepurposeofthepresentresearchwastoconstructagroundedtheoryofprocrastinationonthebasisofcollegestudents’reportsabouttheirownprocrastination.Wedidsoforseveralreasons.Oneisthatthereisrelativelylittleresearchonprocrastination,eventhoughitisacommonlyoccurringphenomenonamongcollegestudents.Second,mostoftheexistingresearchhasreportedcorrelationsbetweenself-reportedprocrastinatorybehaviorandacademicoutcomes,suchasgradesandstudytime.Wehopedtoexpandonthisresearchbyprovidingamorein-depthdescrip-tiveaccountofacademicprocrastination.Third,andmostimportanttous,thereisnoexistingtheoryorprocessmodelofprocrastination.Weconductedthepresentresearchtoexaminetheprocessbywhichprocrastinationoccursandtoproposeapreliminaryparadigmmodel(Strauss&Corbin,2021)thatcanbetestedinfutureresearch.Weselectedgroundedtheorymethodologybecauseitisideallysuitedtoconstructadata-basedtheorythatcanbeusedasabasisforfutureresearch(Creswell,2021;Strauss&Corbin,2021).Currently,theexistingliteratureonacademicprocrastinationischaracterizedbylackofanexplicit,testabletheoryandtheviewthatprocrastinationhasanegativeimpactonacademicsuccess.Giventhewidespreadnatureofthephenomenon,wewonderedhowcollegestudentsviewtheirprocrastination,andwhethertheirexperiencesarealignedtotheprevailingviewsintheliterature.Webelievedthatagroundedtheoryanalysiswouldhelpresearchersidentifyadditionalaspectsofprocrastinationthatmightexplainitswidespreadcontinuedoccurrence.Groundedtheoryisaniterative,inductivemethodofdatacollectionbasedonindividualandgroupinterviewsthatattemptstodescribeacorephenomenonindetailandtorelateittopotentialcauses,consequences,andsituationalconditionsthataffectit(Creswell,2021;Strauss&Corbin,1994).Groundedtheoryusesparticipants’experiencesasdatatoconstructandvalidatetheemergenttheory.Theendproductofgroundedtheoryisaparadigmmodelthatsystematicallylinksantecedents,situationalconditions,copingstrategies,andconsequencestothephenomenonofinterest(Strauss&Corbin,2021).Theseincludeconditionsthatelicitthephenomenon,contextualfactorsthataffecthowthephenomenonisenacted,strategiesforimplementingthephenomenon,andconsequences.Ourmaingoalwastoconstructaparadigmmodelontheofcollegestudent’self-reports.DedinitionofprocrastinationDefinitionsofprocrastinationvaryfromauthortoauthor.Somearequitegeneralinnature,suchasSchouwenburg(1995),whodefinedprocrastinationasthebehaviorofpostponingtasks.Othersaremorespecific,suchasSolomonandRothblum(1984),whodescribedprocrastinationastheactofneedlesslydelayingtaskspastthepointofdiscomfort.Lay(1994)definedprocrastinationintermsofanintention–behaviordiscrepancy,inwhichadelayofbehaviordoesnotbecomeprocrastinatoryunlesstheindividualhassomegenuineintenttocompletethetask.Thegreaterthediscrepancybetweenintentandbehavior,themoreseveretheprocrastination.Mostresearchershaveemphasizedthreecorecriteriaforprocrastination:Itmustbedilatory,needless,andcounterproductive(Schouwenburg,1995).Oneproblemwiththesecriteriaisthattheextenttowhichbehaviorisneedlessorcounterproductiveisverydifficulttodocumentobjectively.wedefineprocrastinationforpresentpurposesasintentionallydeferringordelayingworkthatmustbecompleted.RelatingprocrastinationtobehavioralandaffectiveoutcomesAnumberofresearchershaveexaminedrelationshipsbetweenprocrastinationandacademicandnonacademicoutcomes.Moststudiesreportednegativecorrelationsbetweenprocrastination,grades,learning,andcompletionofcoursework.Forexample,Rothblum,Solomon,andMurakami(1986)foundthatprocrastinationrelatednegativelytocoursegradesandpositivelytoanxiety.TiceandBaumeister(2021)reportedthatself-reportedprocrastinatorsreceivedlowerfinalandtermpapergradesinoneexperiment,buttheyfailedtoreplicatethisfindinginasecondexperiment.Tuckman(1991)foundanegativecorrelationbetweenprocrastinationandcompletionofcourse-relatedhomework.Severalstudieshavereportedacorrelationbetweenprocrastinationandanxietyandaffectivedimensionsofone’seducationalexperiences.Forexample,TiceandBaumeister(2021)foundthatprocrastinationinitiallyreducedstressandnegativehealthsymptomsincollegestudentsbut,laterinthesamesemester,producedhigherstressandmorenegativesymptoms.SolomonandRothblum(1984)andLay,Edwards,Parker,andEndler(1989)reportedapositivecorrelationbetweenprocrastinationandanxiety.AlexanderandOnwuegbuzie(2021)foundanegativerelationshipbetweenself-reportmeasuresofhopeandfearoffailure.Theysuggestedthatincreasedhopemayserveasacopingmechanismforprocrastination.Avarietyofstudiesalsohaveexaminedtherelationshipbetweenprocrastinationandsocial–affectivevariables.Ferrarietal.(1995)reportedpositivecorrelationsbetweenprocrastinationandself-handicapping,taskavoidance,perfectionism,irrationalbeliefs,anddepression.Negativecorrelationswerereportedforselfesteem,internallocusofcontrol,andpersonalstandards.Schouwenburg(1995)foundanegativecorrelationbetweenprocrastinationandconscientiousnessbutnorelationshipwithfearoffailure.Lay(1994)reportedamodestyetsignificantcorrelationbetweenprocrastinationanddejection.Flett,Blankstein,andMartin(1995)concludedthatprocrastinationincreasesanxietyanddepression.Milgram,Gehrman,andKeinan(1992)reportedsimilarfindings.Wolters(2021)foundapositiverelationshipbetweenprocrastinationandwork-avoidancegoalsandanegativerelationshipwithself-efficacy.ThestudiescitedaboveandthosereviewedbyFerrarietal.(1995)consistentlyhavereportedpositivecorrelationsbetweenprocrastinationandundesirablebehaviorsoraffectiveoutcomes(e.g.,failuretocompleteassignmentsandlowself-esteem).Thesedatasuggesteitheranegativerelationshipornorelationshipatallbetweenprocrastination,grades,andoverallcourseachievement.Thusfar,itseemsreasonabletoconcludethattherearemaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastinationthatarerelatedtoundesirableacademicoutcomesinther＝0.10to0.30range.Incontrast,severalstudieshaveexaminedadaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Layetal.(1989)reportedthatprocrastinatorsexperiencedagreatersenseofchallengeandpeakexperienceimmediatelypriortoexams.Sommer(1990)andVachaandMcBride(1993)foundthatstudentswhoprocrastinateweremorelikelytocram,andthatcrammersoutperformednoncrammersbyusingagreatervarietyofstudystrategiestoachievemaximumefficiency.Sommerarguedthatsavvystudentsmaximizetheefficiencyoftheirstudytimethroughacarefullyorchestratedcycleofprocrastinationandcramming.BrinthauptandShin(2021)furtherexploredtherelationshipofcrammingtomaximumefficiencyandpeakexperience.Theyreportedthatcrammersperformedbetterontestsandreportedhigherlevelsof“flow”thannoncrammers.Theyarguedthatcrammingincreasesflowbecauseitincreasestheleveloftaskchallengeanddemandsahigherlevelofperformancefromthestudent.Collectively,thesestudiessuggestthatprocrastinationimprovesefficiency,challenge,andflow.Thepresentstudyhadthreegoals.Ourfirstgoalwastoconstructaparadigmmodelthatsystematicallyrelatesfiveaspectsoftheprocrastinationexperience.Theseaspectsincludeconditionsthatareantecedentsofprocrastination,adetailedanalysisofthephenomenonitself,situationalconditionsthataffectthephenomenon,strategiesusedbyindividualstotakeaction,andconsequencesoftakingaction.Oursecondgoalwastoexploreinmoredetailadaptiveandmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Previousresearchhasfocusedlargelyonmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination(Ferrarietal.,1995;Schouwenburg,1995;Solomon&Rothblum,1984;Tice&Baumeister,2021).Incontrast,webelievethattheremaybeadaptiveaspectsofprocrastination,suchasagreaterabilitytoengageinsustainedworkandincreasedflow(Brinthaupt&Shin,2021;Sommer,1990;Tullier,2021).Wesoughttoidentifythesefactorsandclarifyhowandwhytheybenefitlearners.Ourthirdgoalwastoidentifyemergentprinciplesthatguidestudents’procrastination.Theseprincipleswouldbesuitableobjectsofstudyinfutureresearchandmayhelppromotetheorydevelopmentandtesting.DiscussionThepurposeofthisresearchwastoexploretheprocrastinationphenomenoninmoredetail.Wedidsobyinterviewingsuccessfulcollegestudentsabouttheirownprocrastinationbehavior.Thestudywasexploratoryinnatureandbasedonverbalreportsthatmaybeincomplete.Wewishtoemphasizethattherationaleforthisstudywastoconstructapreliminaryparadigmmodelthatcouldbetestedinfutureresearch,ratherthantestanexistingtheory.Wealsoexploredingreaterdetailthepotentialadaptiveandmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Wepresentourconclusionsasclaimstobetestedandexpandedonbyfuturequalitativeandquantitativeresearch.Ourfindingsarebasedoninformants’perceptionsandattributionsregardingtheirbehavior.Oneofthekeycharacteristicsofaqualitativestudyisthatitfocusesonparticipants’perspectivesandisnotintendedtogeneralizetoabroaderpopulation(Creswell,2021).Wehadthreespecificresearchgoals.Thefirstgoalwastoconstructaparadigmmodelthatenabledustounderstandprocrastinationmoresystematically.Weconstructedaparadigmmodelofacademicprocrastinationthatincludedantecedentconditions,ananalysisofthephenomenonitself,situationalconditionsthataffectthephenomenon,strategiesusedbyindividualstotakeaction,andconsequencesoftakingaction.Thismodelextendedpreviousresearchintwoways.Onewastoexamineingreaterdetailavarietyofassumptions,copingstrategies,andconsequencesthanpreviousstudies.Asecondwastoviewprocrastinationinamoresystematicmannerthatfocusedonthebroaderissuesofwhyandhowcollegestudentsprocrastinate.WebelievethattheparadigmmodelshowninFigure1presentsasystematicanalysisoftheprocessofprocrastinationthatwillaidfuturequalitativeandquantitativeresearch.Weproposethatthemainfindingsofthemodel(i.e.,themes,macrothemes,andprinciples)areconsistentwithboththeadaptiveandmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastinationdiscussedinpreviousresearch.Oursecondgoalwastoexamineadaptiveandmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastinationinmoredetail.Previousresearchhasfocusedprimarilyonnegativeaspects,suchasanxiety(Ferrari,1991),healthproblems(Tice&Baumeister,2021),andloweredworkquality(Tuckman,1991).Weidentifiedinformants’perceptionsoftwoadaptiveandthreemaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Participantsindicatedthatadaptiveaspectshadagreaterimpactontheirprocrastinatorybehaviorthanmaladaptivefactors.Individualsprocrastinatedtomanagetheirtimemoreefficiently,reduceboredom,andworkmoreefficiently(Sommer,1990;Vacha&McBride,1993).Moststudentsfeltthattheycouldnotaccomplishtheseobjectiveswithoutprocrastinating.Incontrast,maladaptivefactorswereseenasrelativelyunimportant.Noneofourparticipantsreportedprocrastinatingentirelybecauseoflazinessorfearoffailure,eventhoughmostofourparticipantsreportedsomedegreeofboredom,laziness,anxiety,orfearoffailure.Ourfindingsareconsistentwithpreviousresearch,althoughthepresentstudyisthefirstthatweknowoftogivestudentstheopportunitytocomparetheadaptiveandmaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Whengiventhatopportunity,oursamplewasclearthattheyprocrastinatedforadaptivereasonsdespitesomeofthemaladaptiveconsequences.Ourthirdgoalwastoidentifyemergentprinciplesthatmayguidestudents’procrastination.Weidentifiedsixoverarchingprinciplesaffectingacademicprocrastination,whichwereverifiedbyparticipantsinPhases3and4ofthedatacollectionprocess.Thegistoftheseprincipleswasthatstudentsattempttoproducequalityworkwithaslittleeffortaspossible.Theydosobecausetheyleadbusylivesthatleavethemnootheroption.Studentsachievemaximumefficiencyusingavarietyofcognitiveandaffectivecopingstrategies,bybecomingshrewdjudgesofthecoursestheytakeandtheteacherswhoteachthem,andbyfocusingtheirresourcesonwhatmustbedoneratherthanonwhatmightbedone.Thesixprinciplesweidentifiedareconsistentwithpreviousresearchthathasexaminedtheadaptiveaspectsofprocrastination(Brinthaupt&Shin,2021;Sommer,1990;Vacha&McBride,1993).However,itisimportanttonotethatthesixprinciplesrepresentholisticconstructionsthatwemadeonthebasisofinterviews.Webelievethatmoststudents’commentswereconsistentwiththeseprinciples.Nevertheless,informantsrarelyarticulatedanyoftheseprinciplesexplicitly,withtheexceptionofPhase4,inwhichindividualswereaskedtocommentontheplausibilityoftheprinciples.Phase4interviewsdidnotyieldanymajordisagreementswiththesixprinciples.Collectively,ourfindingssupportseveralclaimsfrompreviousresearch,areincongruouswithothers,andyieldseveralnewfindings.Ourfindingssupporttheclaimthatprocrastinationproducesstressandmayhaveanadverseeffectonhealthandfeelingsofwell-being(Milgram,Dangour,&Raviv,1992;Tice&Baumeister,2021).Participantsuniformlyreportedhigherlevelsofstressandtensionasdeadlinesapproached.However,ourfindingsareinconsistentwithclaimsthatprocrastinationiscausedbyfearoffailureandlaziness,andthatprocrastinationleadstopoorerperformanceandlowergrades.Accordingtorespondents’reports,theyprocrastinatedforadaptivereasonsandrarelyfeltthatprocrastinationhadanegativeimpactonlearning.Virtuallyallrespondentsindicatedthattheylearnedmoreefficientlythantheywouldhavehadtheynotprocrastinated.Thismayexplain,inpart,thefactthatmostcollegestudentsprocrastinateonaregularbasisanddosowithgreaterfrequencyastheybecomemoreselfregulated(Ferrari,1991)Ourfindingsalsoextendtheliteraturebyprovidinganindepthlookattwoadaptiveaspectsofprocrastination,includingognitiveefficiencyandexperience,aswellaspositiveffectsonqualityofwork.Studentssometimesprocrastinatedintentionallytoimprovetheoverallqualityandefficiencyoftheirlives,eventhoughitaddedstressandtensionlateineachemesterforrelativelyshortperiodsoftime.Studentsdidsoecauseaddedstressandtensionwerenecessarycomponentsinheprocrastinationcyclethatenabledthemtoperformatpeakfficiency.Thepresentfindingsraisequestionsabouttheroleofprocrastinationinthecollegeclassroom.Oneiswhetherteachersandstudentsshouldbemoreacceptingofprocrastinationorevenattempttopromote“safeprocrastination.”Previousresearchhasindicatedthatmoststudentsprocrastinate,eventhoughtheyexperienceguiltandshamewhentheydoit(Ferrari,1991).Legitimizingtheprocrastinationprocessmaybenefitstudentsbyhelpingthembetterunderstandhowtomaximizetheefficiencyoftheirlearningwhileminimizingthenegativeaffectassociatedwithprocrastination.Controlledstudiescomparingteacherendorsementofprocrastinationversustraditionalclassroomswouldofferimportantinsightsintothisquestion.Asecondissueiswhatcanbedonetoreduceprocrastination.Ourfindingsindicatethatprocrastinationisdueinlargeparttoboredomandthefeelingthatmuchofwhatoneisaskedtolearnisirrelevanttoone’sacademicneeds,ifnotone’slifeingeneral.Makingcollegecoursesmorepracticalorrelevanttoprofessionalpracticemayreduceprocrastinationtosomeextent.Shorteningtheengthofcoursesmaybeeffectiveaswell.Manyrespondentsinthepresentstudyindicatedthattheywerelessbored,andprocrastinatedfarless,ina5-weekcoursethaninthetraditional14-weekversion.Mostofthesamerespondentswhohadcompletedanintensive3-weekcoursereportedthattheyneverprocrastinatedinsuchacourse.Inaddition,increasingtheinterestingnessoftopics(Ferrari,1991)orprovidingmeaningfulchoicestostudents(Kohn,1993)alsomayreduceprocrastination,althoughthispointisstrictlyconjecturalatthispoint.Atthistime,itisunclearwhetherclassroomsthatreduceprocrastinationresultinmorestudentengagementormorelearning.Thepresentfindingsshouldbeviewedasexploratoryforseveraleasons.Oneisthatweusedqualitativemethodsintendedtogenerateratherthanvalidateadata-basedtheory.Weviewthecurrentgroundedtheoryasameansforpromotingformativeinquiryaboutprocrastination,ratherthanasummativemodelofthephenomenon.Second,studentswereselectedintentionallybecausetheyprocrastinatedandweresuccessfulatdoingso.Atthistime,wehavenowayofknowingwhetherstudentswhoquitcollegeorflunkoutwouldreportsimilarbeliefsandbehaviorsaboutprocrastination.Neitherisitclearwhethernonprocrastinatorswouldmirrortheirprocrastinatingclassmates.Third,thepresentfindingspertaintosuccessful3rd-and4th-yearcollegestudents.Muchoftheplanningandstrategyusereportedbystudentswasspecifictothetraditional14-weeksemesterofthecollegeclassroom.Itisnotclearwhetherthepresentfindingsbearanyresemblancetoprocrastinationathomeorintheworkplaceorwithless-experiencedstudents.Wenoteseverallimitationsofthepresentwork.Oneisthatdataconsistedoftheopinionsofcollegestudentswhoviewedthemselvesassuccessfulprocrastinators.Itispossiblethattheseindividualsprovidederroneousstatements,orthatunsuccessfulprocrastinatorswouldreportdifferentbeliefsandbehaviors.Asecondlimitationisthatthereisnodirectempiricalevidencethatprocrastinationisadaptive.Futureresearchwillneedtocollectreplicabledatathatsupportthisclaim.AthirdlimitationisthattheparadigmmodelinFigure1isintendedtorevealrelationshipsamongvariousaspectsofprocrastinationratherthansuggestacausalrelationshipamongthefivecompoments.Thepresentfindingswarrantfuturestudiesoftwotypes.Weproposethatresearchersconductadditionalcorrelationalstudiesinwhichadaptiveandmaladaptivemeasuresarecorrelatedwithprocrastinatoryoutcomes.Regressionanalysescouldbeusedtoisolatethedirectandindirecteffectsofadaptiveandmaladaptivebehaviors.Therearenostudiesofthistypethatwenowofthatincludebothadaptiveandmaladaptivebehaviors.Asecondapproachistoconductin-depthqualitativestudiesthatcompareandcontrastsuchspecificthemesasadaptiveandaladaptiveaspectsofprocrastination.Qualitativestudiesmayhelpresearchersdistinguishamongmultiplereasonsforprocrastinating,includingwhichreasonsaremostimportantindifferentcircumstances.做好我们该做的事情——对学术拖延行为的扎根研究多数人把拖延症看作是负面的人格特征。拖延症被认为不关心自己工作的质量以及比没有得拖延症的同伴们有更低的认知能力。先前的研究提出拖延症导致了浪费时间，危害健康，影响长期学习，低自尊。一些研究表明拖延症与可能与焦虑和害怕失败相联系。这些研究表明拖延症对于学业的成功是一种障碍，因为它降低了学习的时间和质量同时又对学生增加了严重的压力和负面结果。然而，先前的研究显示尽管大学生拖延行为是显著的，70%以上的学生表示，他们的拖延是有规律的，粗略计算有20%这样的习惯。能力高的学生拖延行为多于能力低的学生，拖延趋势的增加是随着学生学习成绩的提高和变的更加自律。这个研究显示在大学生中，拖延现象普遍存在。他们同时提出对于优秀的大学生而言，拖延症的影响几乎不存在，因为它使个体获得一种持续的思维的流畅性以及更好的利用时间。或者，如果拖延症在一些情景中没有起到适应性作用，那么许多学生就可能会因为规律的拖延症而成绩不好。我们以概观这个研究的基本原理以及汇总方法论开始。我们把学术拖延症定义为故意的推迟或是拒绝必须完成的工作，考虑它的维度以及已有的研究我们描述一些报道拖延症适应性方面的研究。接下来，我们讨论这项研究中的三个主要的目标。现有研究：现有研究的目的是为了建构一个以大学生拖延症行为为基础的扎根研究的拖延症理论。我们这样做的原因如下：关于拖延症的研究并不多，尽管它是出现在大学生中的一个常见的现象。2，现存的多数研究已经报告了自我报告的拖延行为以及学习结果之间的相关，比如年纪和学习时间之间。我们希望增加这个研究的学术拖延症的深入程度。3，也是对我们最重要的一点，目前没有拖延症的理论和程序模型。我们建构现有的研究，通过拖延症的发生来检验这个过程，也提出一个在将来可以经受考验的初级的范例模型。作者选择扎根研究的方法是因为它适合建造一个在将来可以被当做基础使用的数据库理论。目前，现存的关于学业拖延症的著作都缺乏明确的可试验的理论，同时认为拖延症对于学业的成功有负面影响。给出了这种现象的本质后，我们猜想大学生会怎样看待他们的拖延症，他们的经历会不会与书中描写的流行的观点一致呢。我们相信扎根研究可以帮助研究者辨别拖延症的额外的一面，这一面可以解释它广泛持续的发生。扎根研究是一个反复的归纳的收集数据的方法，这种数据收集是基于个体访谈和团体访谈，这些访谈是为了描述一种核心现象的细节并且将它与潜在的原因、结果、以及影响它的环境条件联系在一起的。扎根研究使用访谈者的经验作为数据来建构和验证出现的理论。拖延症的定义：拖延的定义不尽相同，从作者到作家。有些是相当一般性的，如Schouwenburg(1995),：定义为拖延推迟任务的行为。其他人则更为具体，如SolomonandRothblum(1984):定义为没有必要的拖延任务直到自己觉得不舒服。Lay(1994)：拖延症是一种目的与行为的矛盾，行为的拖延并不就是拖延症，除非个体有着完成任务的内在意图。目的与行为的冲突越大，拖延症就越严重。许多研究者提出了拖延症的三条核心标准：拖拉的，没有必要的，达不到预期目的的。这个标准的一个问题是，没有必要和达不到目的的程度不好客观的测量。我们将拖延症定义为故意推迟或拖延一些必须完成的工作。拖延与行为和情绪的结果的关系：许多研究者都研究过拖延与学业和非学业结果（academicandnonacademicoutcomes）之间的关系。大部分研究报告了拖延与分数、学习和课程完成之间呈负相关。比如，Rothblum,Solomon和Murakami(1986)发现拖延会降低课程分数并且增加焦虑感。据Tice和Baumeister(2021)报告自称拖延的人在一次实验中得到了较低的期末考试分数，但是他们（T&B）的第二次实验并未重复这一发现。Tuckman(1991)发现拖延与课程有关作业的完成呈负相关。一些研究报告了拖延与焦虑感和个人教育体验中的情绪的维度（affectivedimensions）之间的关系。例如，Tice和Baumeister(2021)发现拖延最初时能减少大学生的压力和不健康症状，但是同一学期此后的时间会产生较大压力和更多不健康症状。Solomon和Rothblum(1984)等称拖延和焦虑感之间呈正相关。AlexanderandOnwuegbuzie(2021)发现自我报告方法中期望和对失败的恐惧呈负相关。他们提出期望越高拖延的应付机制就越严重。种类繁多的研究也检测拖延和社会类情绪变化之间的关系。Ferrarietal.(1995)称拖延与自我束缚、回避工作、完美主义、偏执和沮丧间呈正相关，与自尊心、自觉性和个人标准呈负相关。Schouwenburg(1995)发现拖延与勤奋呈负相关，但是与对失败的恐惧无关。Lay(1994)报告了拖延与忧郁间的一种温和而重要的关系。Flett,Blankstein,andMartin(1995)得出了拖延会增加焦虑和沮丧的结论。Flett,Blankstein,andMartin(1995)报告了相似的发现。Wolters(2021)发现拖延与回避工作目标呈正相关且与效率呈负相关。以上列举的和那些始终由Ferrarietal.(1995)回顾的研究报告了拖延和不良行为或情绪结果（undesirablebehaviorsoraffectiveoutcomes）间呈正相关（如，不能完成分配的任务和低自尊）。这些数据指示了拖延与分数和总体课程成绩之间的一种负相关或无关。迄今，似乎合理的总结是拖延导致不良学业结果的非适应性方面在r=0.10到0.30之间。然而，一些学生研究了拖延的适应性方面。Layetal.(1989)称拖延的人会在临考之前体验到更大的挑战和巅峰体验。Sommer(1990)，Vacha和McBride(1993)发现拖延的学生更倾向于临时抱佛脚，这些学生会用种类繁多的学习策略来达到最高学习效率以比其他学生做的更好。Sommer辩称有悟性的学生通过精心安排拖延和抱佛脚的循环来使他们学习时间的效率最大化。BrinthauptandShin(2021)进一步探索了用临时抱佛脚的方法达到最高效率和巅峰体验的关系。他们报告了用这个方法的学生在考试中表现的更好，还报告了比没有抱佛脚的学生更高水平的“思维的流畅性”。他们辩称抱佛脚的方法增加了思维流畅性，因为这种方法增加了考试的挑战性和学生对于高水平发挥的渴望。这些学生都表示拖延提高了效率，挑战和思维的流畅。目前的研究有三个目标。我们的第一个目标是建立一个范例模型，将拖延感受的五个方面系统的联系起来。这些方面包括发生在拖延之前的状态，拖延现象本身的细节分析，影响拖延现象的环境状况，个人采取行动使用的策略，和采取行动的频率。其次，我们要探索拖延适应性和非适应性方面的更多细节。先前的研究多将拖延的非适应性方面作为重点(Ferrarietal,1995;Schouwenburg,1995;Solomon和Rothblum,1984;Tice和Baumeister,2021)。相反，我们相信拖延可能有适应性方面，比如更好的重复性工作能力和增加思维流畅性(Brinthaupt和Shin,2021;Sommer,1990;Tullier,2021)。我们致力于辨别这些事实并澄清怎样以及为什么它们对学习者有利。第三，我们的目标是发现学生拖延的发生原则。这些原则会成为未来研究的合适课题，还可能有助于推动理论发展和测试。讨论：本次研究的目的是更详细的讨论拖延现象。我们成功的采访了大学生关于他们自己的拖延现象。这项研究是探索性的立足于口头报告的形式，可能并不完整。我们要强调的是，这项研究的原理是建立一个初步的典范模式，可以在今后的研究中测试，而不是测试一个现有的理论。我们还讨论了更详细的潜在适应和不适应的拖延问题。我们提出的理论，要求进行测试并且扩大未来的定性和定量的研究。我们的研究结果是基于参与者的观念和对他们的行为归因。定性研究关键一点在于它着重于参与者的观点，并不旨在一般化到所有人的身上(Creswell,2021)。我们有三个具体的研究目标。第一个目标是建立一种典范模式，使我们能够更加系统的了解拖延。我们建造一个学术拖延的范式模型，其中包括前提条件下，分析现象本身，情境条件下对现象的影响，以及个体采取的行动策略和采取行动的后果。这种模式在两方面扩大对以往的研究。其一是更加详细的审查了多种假设和对应策略，相比以前的研究结果更加重要。其二是观察拖延运用更加系统的方式，将重点放在更加广泛的问题大学生为何以及如何拖延上来。我们认为的范式模型介绍了对拖延系统分析的过程，这将有助于未来的定性和定量研究。我们提议，该模型的（即：主题，宏观主题和原则）的主要结果是在拖延的适应性和不适应和以前的研究讨论方面是一致的。我们的第二个目标是在更多的细节上检验拖延的适应和不适应方面。以前的研究主要集中于消极的方面，比如焦虑(Ferrari,1991)，健康问题(Tice和Baumeister,2021)和低工作质量(Tuckman,1991)。我们鉴别了被试关于拖延的两个适应方面和三个不适应方面。参与者表明，适应方面比不适应因素对他们的拖延行为有更加重大的影响。个体拖延的去做使他们的时间更加有效，减少烦恼，和提高工作效率的事情。(Sommer,1990;Vacha和McBride,1993)。大多数的学生感觉到没有拖延的话，他们无法完成那些目标。与此相反，不适应的因素看上去重要性要相对小一些。由于对失败恐惧和惰性，我们的参与者们没有一个会延迟报道。即使大部分的参与者报道的都是关于失败的无聊，惰性，愤怒和恐惧。我们的发现与最新的研究一致，尽管我们知道最新的课题是让学生对适应性方面和不适应性方面进行比较。当学生得到这个机会的时候，我们对你样本的做法是非常清楚的：即使出现不适应的结果，他们仍然对适应的原因一拖再拖。我们的第三个目标是鉴别紧急概念可能导致的学生的拖延。我们鉴定出六个首要原则影响学术拖延，在这些在数据采集过程的第三四阶段已经得到证实。这些原则的要旨是学生企图用尽可能少的努力去完成高质量的工作。他们之所以这样，是因为他们过着忙碌的生活使他们别无选择。学生使用各种不同的认知和情感的应对策略来获得最大的效率，通过对他们的课程和教他们的老师做出精明的判断，并且宁可集中利用他们的资源用在什么必须做上也不愿用在什么可以做上。我们鉴定过的这六个原则和先前已经检验的关于拖延的适应方面的研究调查是相一致的(Brinthaupt和Shin,2021;Sommer,1990;Vacha和McBride,1993)。然而，非常值得注意的是这六项原则代表着我们在此基础上做的采访的整体结构。我们相信大多数学生的评论和这些原则相一致。不过，第四阶段是个例外，在第四阶段中，个体被要求对这些貌似很有道理的原则做出评论，但很少有信息和这些原则衔接的很明确。第四阶段的采访并没有产生和这六个原则相悖的重大分歧。总的来说，我们的研究结果支持以往研究中的若干主张，一些新的发现和结论与他人的不相吻合。我们的研究结果支持这种说法，拖延产生的压力可能对健康和幸福的感情产生不利影响。参会者一致报告上级压力和紧张的最后期限临近。然而，我们的发现，该拖延是失败的恐惧和懒惰造成的不一致，而拖延导致较差的性能和更低的成绩。根据受访者的报告，他们拖延的原因，很少的人认识到，拖延会对学习产生负面影响。几乎所有受访者表示，他们没有发现不拖延比拖延的情况下，能够更有效的进行学习。这也许可以解释，部分是多数大学生定期拖延的原因了，因为他们有更大的频率越来越自我调节。我们的研究结果还扩展提供了一个在两个适