【正文】 procrastinate, even though they experience guilt and shame when they do it (Ferrari, 1991). Legitimizing the procrastination process may benefit students by helping them better understand how to maximize the efficiency of their learning while minimizing the negative affect associated with procrastination. Controlled studies paring teacher endorsement of procrastination versus traditional classrooms would offer i m p o r t a n t insights into this question. A second issue is what can be done to reduce findings indicate that procrastination is due in large part to boredom and the feeling that much of what one is asked to learn is irrelevant to one’s academic needs, if not one’s life in general. Making college courses more practical or relevant to professional practice may reduce procrastination to some extent. Shortening the ength of courses may be effective as well. Many respondents in the present study indicated that they were less bored, and procrastinated far less, in a 5week course than in the traditional 14week version. Most of the same respondents who had pleted an intensive 3week course reported that they never procrastinated in such a course. In addition, increasing the interestingness of topics (Ferrari, 1991) or providing meaningful choices to students (Kohn,1993) also may reduce procrastination, although this point is strictly conjectural at this point. At this time, it is unclear whether classrooms that reduce procrastination result in more student engagementor more present findings should be viewed as exploratory for several easons. One is that we used qualitative methods intended to generate rather than validate a databased theory. We view the current grounded theory as a means for promoting formative inquiry about procrastination, rather than a summative model of the phenomenon. Second, students were selected intentionally because they procrastinated and were successful at doing so. At this time, we have no way of knowing whether students who quit college or flunk out would report similar beliefs and behaviors about procrastination. Neither is it clear whether nonprocrastinators would mirror their procrastinating classmates. Third, the present findings pertain to successful 3rd and 4thyear college students. Much of the planning and strategy use reported by students was specific to the traditional 14week semester of the college classroom. It is not clear whether the present findings bear any resemblance to procrastination at home or in the w o r k p l a c e o r with lessexperienced note several limitations of the present work. One is that data consisted of the opinions of college students who viewed themselves as successful procrastinators. It is possible that these i n d i v i d u a l s provided erroneous statements, or that unsuccessful procrastinators would report different beliefs and behaviors. A second limitation is that there is no direct empirical evidence that procrastination is adaptive. Future research will need to collect replicable data that support this claim. A third limitation is that the paradigm model in Figure 1 is intended to reveal relationships among various aspects of procrastination rather than s u g g e s t a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p a m o n g t h e f i v e poments. The present findings warrant future studies of two types. We propose that researchers conduct additional correlational studies in which adaptive and maladaptive measures are correlated with procrastinatory outes. Regression analyses could be used to isolate the direct and i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s o f a d a p t i v e a n d maladaptive behaviors. There are no studies of this type that we now of that include both adaptive and maladaptive second approach is to conduct indepth qualitative studies that pare and contrast such specific themes as adaptive and aladaptive aspects of procrastination. Qualitative studies may help researchers distinguish among multiple r e a s o n s f o r p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g , i n c l u d i n g w h i c h reasons are most important in different circumstances. 做好我們該做的事情 —— 對學(xué)術(shù)拖延行為的扎根研究 多數(shù)人把拖延癥看作是負(fù)面的人格特征。這些研究表明拖延癥對于學(xué)業(yè)的成功是一種障礙，因為它降低了學(xué)習(xí)的時間和質(zhì)量同時又對學(xué)生增加了嚴(yán)重的壓力和負(fù)面結(jié)果。他們同時提出對于優(yōu)秀的大學(xué)生而言，拖延癥的影響幾乎不存在，因為它使個體獲得一種持續(xù)的思維的流暢性以及更好的利用時間。接下來，我們討論這項研究中的三個主要的目標(biāo)。我們希望增加這個研究的學(xué)術(shù)拖 延癥的深入程度。目前，現(xiàn)存的關(guān)于學(xué)業(yè)拖延癥的著作都缺乏明確的可試驗的理論，同時認(rèn)為拖延癥對于學(xué)業(yè)的成功有負(fù)面影響。扎根研究使用訪談?wù)叩慕?jīng)驗作為數(shù)據(jù)來建構(gòu)和驗證出現(xiàn)的理論。Lay (1994)：拖延癥是一種目的與行為的矛盾，行為的拖延并不就是拖延癥，除非個體有著完成任務(wù)的內(nèi)在意圖。 我們將拖延癥定義為故意推遲或拖延一些必須完成的工作。據(jù) Tice 和 Baumeister (1997)報告自稱拖延的人在一次實驗中得到了較低的期末考試分?jǐn)?shù)，但是他們（ Tamp。例如， Tice和 Baumeister (1997)發(fā)現(xiàn)拖延最初時能減少大學(xué)生的壓力和不健康癥狀，但是同一學(xué)期此后的時間會產(chǎn)生較大壓力和更多不健康癥狀。 種類繁多的研究也檢測拖延和社會類情緒變化之間的關(guān)系。 Flett,Blankstein, and Martin (1995)得出了拖延會增加焦慮和沮喪的結(jié)論。這些數(shù)據(jù)指示了拖延與分?jǐn)?shù)和總體課程成績之間的一種負(fù)相關(guān)或無關(guān)。 Sommer (1990) ， Vacha 和 McBride (1993)發(fā)現(xiàn)拖延的學(xué)生更傾向于臨時抱佛腳，這些學(xué)生會用種類繁多的學(xué)習(xí)策略來達(dá)到最高學(xué)習(xí)效率以比其他學(xué)生做的更好。他們辯稱抱佛腳的方法增加了思維流暢性，因為這種方法增加了考試的挑戰(zhàn)性和學(xué)生對于 高水平發(fā)揮的渴望。這些方面包括發(fā)生在拖延之前的狀態(tài)，拖延現(xiàn)象本身的細(xì)節(jié)分析，影響拖延現(xiàn)象的環(huán)境狀況，個人采取行動使用的策略，和采取行動的頻率。Solomon 和 Rothblum,1984。Tullier, 2021)。 討論： 本次研究的目的是更詳細(xì)的討論拖延現(xiàn)象。我們還討論了更詳細(xì)的潛在適應(yīng)和不適應(yīng)的拖延問題。 我們有三個具體的研究目標(biāo)。其一是更加詳細(xì)的審查了多種假設(shè)和對應(yīng)策略，相比以前的研究結(jié)果更加重要。 我們的第二個目標(biāo)是在更多的細(xì)節(jié)上檢驗拖延的適應(yīng)和不適應(yīng)方面。個體拖延的去做使他們的時間更加有效，減少煩惱，和提高工作效率的事情。與此相反，不適應(yīng)的因素看上去重要性要相對小一些。當(dāng)學(xué)生得到這個機(jī)會的時候，我們對你樣本的做法是非常清楚的：即使出現(xiàn)不適應(yīng)的結(jié)果，他們?nèi)匀粚m應(yīng)的原因一拖再拖。他們之所以這樣，是因為他們過著忙碌的生活使他們別無選擇。 Vacha 和 McBride, 1993)。第四階段的采訪并沒有產(chǎn)生和這六個原則相悖的重大分歧。然而，我們的發(fā)現(xiàn)，該拖延是失敗的恐懼和懶惰造成的不一致，而拖延導(dǎo)致較差的性能和更低的成績。 我們的研究結(jié)果還擴(kuò)展提供了一個在兩個適應(yīng)性方面的拖延，包括認(rèn)知效率和高峰經(jīng)驗，以及對工作積極深入的文獻(xiàn)查找。一個是教師和學(xué)生是否應(yīng)該接受更多的拖延，甚至企圖推動“安全拖延”。 第二個問題是可以做些什么來減少拖延。在本研究中，許多受訪者表示，他們不太無聊，拖延了 5個星期的課程遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不足，比傳統(tǒng)的 14周的版本。目前的研究結(jié)果認(rèn)為應(yīng)探索數(shù)伊森斯。在這個時候，我們沒有誰從大學(xué)退學(xué)的學(xué)生是否或退學(xué)會報告類似行為的信念和拖延不得而知。目前尚不清楚是否目前的研究結(jié)果相似承擔(dān)任何拖延在家里或在工作場所或較少經(jīng)驗的學(xué)生。第二個限制是，沒有直接的實驗證據(jù)，拖延是適應(yīng)性的。我們建議進(jìn)行更多的研究人員在其中適應(yīng)和不適應(yīng)措施與拖延相關(guān)的相關(guān)研究。定性研究可以幫助研究人員區(qū)分多種原因拖延，包括其中的原因在不同情況下最重要的