畢業(yè)論文翻譯原文

1、The Journal of Gen etic Psychology. 2005, 160(4), 436-442The Effects of Locus of Control and Task Difficulty on ProcrastinationTRAC Y JANSSEN Departme nt of Psychology Beloit CollegeJOHN S. CARTONDepartment of Psychology OglethorpeUn iversityABSTRACT. The authors investigated the effects of locus of

2、 control expectancies and task difficulty on procrastination. Forty-two college stude nts wereadm ini stered an academic locus of con trol scafe and a task that was similar to a typical college homework assig nmen t.The stude nts were ran domly assig ned to 1 of 2 task difficulty levels. Although no

3、ne of the results involving task difficulty was significant, several results involving locus of control were significant. Specifically, analyses revealed that stude nts with in ternal locus of con trol expecta ncies ten ded to beg in work ing on the assig nmen t so oner tha n stude nts with exter na

4、l locus of con trol expecta ncies. In additi on, stude nts with in ter nal locus of con trol completed and returned the assig nment sooner tha n stude nts with exter nal locus of con trol. The results are discussed within the con text of J. B. Rotter's (1966, 1975, 1982) social leaming theory.PR

5、OCRASTINATION refers to the act of needlessly delayi ng a task un til the point of some discomfort a behavior problem that many adults experie nee on a regular basis (Ferrari, Joh nson,&McCow n, 1995). Most research on procrast in atio n has focused on college stude nts; researchers have estimat

6、ed that any where from 46% (Solomo n&Rothblum, 1984) to 95% (Ellis&Kn aus, 1977) of college stude nts regularly procrast in ate on academic assig nmen ts. Research findings suggest that, the Ion ger stude nts are in college, the more they tend to procrastinate (Semb, Glick,&Spencer, 1979

7、), although most stude nts perceive such behavior as a problem that they would like to eliminate (Solomon&Rothblum,1984). In addition, procrastination has been associated with a variety of difficulties, in cludi ng test an xiety, missed deadli nes for assig nmen ts,poor semester grades, depresse

8、d affect, low self-esteem, and social anxiety (e.g., Beswick,Rothbun, &Mann , 1988;Ferrari, 1991;Ferrari et al, 1995;Lay, 1986, 1987;Lay&Burns , 1991;Solomon&Rothblum, 1984)TO better understand Procrastination, researchershave sought to identify personality variables associated with it(f

9、or a review , see Ferrari et al., 1995)One variable that has been studied is locus of control of reinforcement. locus of control refers to a generalized expectancy reflecting the degree to which individuals perceive consequencesas con ti ngent on their own behavior and abilities(i nternal con trol)r

10、ather tha n on some external force such as luck , chanee, fate, or powerful others(external control;Rotter,1990).Because individuals with internal control expectancies perceive a contingent relation between their behavior and consequences one might expect them to procrastinate less than individuals

11、with external control expectancies., &Ware, 1992).However, Trice and Milton(1987)found that procrastinators had grater external locus of control than nonprocrastinators.In addition, Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami found that procrastinators were more likely than nonprocrastinators to attribute s

12、uccess on exams to exter nal factors.One reason for the inconsistent findings may be that most researchershave used gen eralized expecta ncy scales in stead of specific academicexpecta ncyscales to predict academicprocrastination(Trice,1985). According to Rotter ' s(1966 1975 , 1982)social learn

13、ing theory, domain specific expectancy scales should provide better predicti ons of specific behaviors tha n gen era1ized scales do.In the present study we sought to extend previous research on the relati on betwee n locus of con trol and academic procrast in atio n in several ways.First , we used a

14、 specific expectancy scale for academic performanee in order to measure students ' locufs control.Second, to measure procrastination and improve the external validity of the findings, we used a behavioral measure of procrastination that was similar to a typical course assignmen, whereas many pre

15、vious studies have used self-report scales.Third,to better understand the process of procrasti natio n, we operati on ally defi ned procrast in ati on in several ways:time taken to initiate an assigned task, time taken to complete the assigned task and time takento retur n the assig ned task.Previou

16、s researchershave assessed) nly the date at which an assignment was returned, a procedure that makes it impossible to determine whether there were differences between individuals with internal and external control expectancies with respect to whe n they started and completed the task.Fourtho inv est

17、igate the effects of task difficulty on Procrastination , we assigned two different tasks.The hypotheses for the study were as follows:Hypothesis 1: Students with internal control expectancies will procrastinate less than those external control expectancies.Hypothesis 2: Students who receive the dif

18、ficult assignment will procrasti nate more tha n those who receive the easy assig nment.Hypothesis 3: There will be an in teracti on betwee n locus of con trol and task difficulty, such that students with external locus of control expectancieswho receive the difficult assignmentwill procrastinate th

19、e most.MethodParticipa ntsThe participants for the study were 42 undergraduate students(10 men and 32 women). Their mean age was 19.7 years (SD=0.65). The stude nts were en rolled in two psychology courses at a relatively small, midwestern U.S. college.College students were selected so that we could

20、 replicate previous studies and because of the relatively high rates of procrastination observed in this population.The students were predo minan tly Caucasia n( 90%) and middle class. They received credit toward their course grade for their participatio n.MeasuresLocus of con trol. Stude nts comple

21、ted the Academic Locus of Con trol Scale(ALC; Trice, 1985). The ALC is a 28-item, true-false scale designed to assess locus of con trol with respect to academic outcomes, with higher scores indicating greater externality. Trice (1985) reported a Kuder-Richardson 20 internal consistency coefficient o

22、f 0.70 and a 5-week test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.92 for the ALC with college stude nts. In additi on, scores on the ALC have bee n show n to be correlated in predicted directions with academic achievement, class participation, homework completio n, and scores on the Rotter In ternal-Exte

23、rnal Con trol Scale (Trice, Ogde n, Steve ns,&Booth, 1987).Procrastination. We measured the students' procrastination by record ing the amount of time that passed betwee n the date the task was assig neda nd the dates the stude nts bega n, completed, and retur ned the task to the teachi ng a

24、ssista nt.Specifically, the stude nts were asked to take home a psychology article, read it,provide written answers to two questions about the article, and return their answers to the professor's teachi ng assista nt. The questi ons about the article were prese nted on a work sheet that also in

25、cluded places for the stude nts to record the times and dates they started, completed, and retur ned the assig nment to the teachi ng assista nt (the return date was verified by the teach ing assista nt, who checked the return box daily).Task difficulty. We mani pulated task difficulty by using two

26、articles of equal length and similar topic but of presumably different difficulty levels. The easy article was an article on human memory, written for the general public, in the magazine Psychology Today (Neimark, 1995). The difficult article was a research article on human memory taken from the jou

27、r nal Psychological Scie nce(Rob inson&Roediger,1997). To check the difficulty manipulation, we asked the students to rate on a 5-point scale how diff icult they perceived the article they were assig ned(1二very easy, 5=very difficult).ProcedureThe stude nts were ran domly assig ned to receive ei

28、ther the easy or the difficult article. At the beg inning of the semester, the stude nts were administered a consent form and the ALC. After the forms were completed, the professor (a 32-year-old, male, Caucasian, assistant professor) assigned the articles and work sheets. The students were in struc

29、ted to return the work sheets to the professor's teachi ng assista nt (a 21-year-old, female, Caucasian, senior college student) for grading as soon as they were done. Thus, no specific due date was provided (in order to enhance variability in procrastination), although the students had been tol

30、d that the assig nment had to be completed by the end of the semester. After all of the work sheets were retur ned, the stude nts were debriefed on the purpose of the study.ResultsScores on the ALC were an alyzed to determ ine each stude nt's locus of con trot. Scores ran ged from 3 to 18, with

31、an overall mean of 9.64 (SD=3.81). Separate analyses for men and women resulted in the following means: men, 10.10(SD=2.85); women, 9.50 (SD=4.09). The mean scores for each gender were not significantly different, and they were comparable to means reported by Trice(1985) for college stude nts. Stude

32、nts were separated at the median (9) into internal (n二22) and exter nal (n二 20) con trol groups.A 2 x 2 x 2 an alysis of varia nee was used to an alyze the data. The in depe ndent variables were stude nts' gen der (male, female), locus of control (internal,external), and task difficulty (easy, d

33、ifficult). The depe ndent variables were the nu mber of days betwee n the date the article was assig ned and the dates the stude nts reported beg inning, completi ng, and retur ning the assig nment.To check the task difficulty manipulation, we first analyzed the stude nts' rat ings of the diffic

34、ulty levels of the two articles. As expected, there was a significant main effect of task difficulty, F(1,41)=11.91, P<0.01, indicating that the students rated the research article (M=3.90) as more difficult to complete tha n the magaz ine article (M=2.62).With respect to the first hypothesis, th

35、ere was a marginally significant main effect of locus of control when procrastination was defined as the number of days that passed before students began the assig nment, F(1, 41)=3.04, p<0.09. Thus, there was a tendency for students with internal control expectancies (M=5.55 days) to begin the a

36、ssignment earlier than students with external control expectancies (M=8.25 days).When procrastination was defined as the number of days that elapsed before stude nts reported completi ng the assig nment, there was a significant main effect of locus of control, F(l, 41)=6.54, p<0.01. As predicted,

37、 students with internal locus of control (M=6.05 days) took fewer days to complete the assig nment tha n stude nts with exter nal locus of control (M=9.95 days).Fin ally, an alysis of the nu mber of days it took stude nts to return the assignment revealed a significant main effect of locus of contro

38、l, F(l, 41)=6.23, p<0.05. As predicted, students with internal locus of control (M=7.64 days) took fewer days to return the assig nment tha n stude nts with exter nal locus of con trol(M=12.15 days).Although several mean differences involving the task difficulty variable were in the predicted dir

39、ecti on, none were statistically sig ni fica nt. In additi on ,there were no sig ni fica nt two- or three-way in teractio ns on any depe ndent variable. Thus, the sec ond and third hypotheses received no support. Moreover,there were no gen der differe nces found on any measure, and an analysis of co

40、varianee holding age constant indicated that age differe nces did not acco unt for the curre nt results.Discussi onResearch has in dicated that procrasti nati on invo Ives more tha n poor time-ma nageme nt skills. Rather, it invo Ives a comb in atio n of affective, behavioral, and cognitive factors

41、(Ferrari et al,1995; Solomon & Rothblurm, 1984). The results of the present study suggest that one cognitive factor is locus of control of reinforcement. Specifically, in this study, the students with internal control expectancies for academic outcomes t)ok less time to complete and return the a

42、cademic assig nment tha n did the stude nts with exter nal con trol expecta ncies. There also was a trend for the stude nts with intern al locus of con trol to let fewer days pass before begi nning to work on the assig nment tha n did the stude nts with exter nal locus of con trol.The effect of locu

43、s of control on students' procrastination did not depend on the difficulty level of the assignment, as indicated by the non sig ni fica nt in teractio n betwee n locus of con trol and task difficulty. However, additi onal research with other tasks seems warra nted before one can conclude that ta

44、sk difficulty does not have an effect on procrasti natio n. Although the stude nts perceived the research article as more difficult than the magazine article, it is possible that there was not a large eno ugh differe nee in the difficulty levels of the two articles to produce significant results in

45、the present study. The relatively small sample size in the prese nt study also may have con tributed to the lack of significant findings regarding the task difficulty variable.As no ted in the in troducti on, previous research exam ining the relati on betwee n locus of con trol and procrast in ati o

46、n has produced mixed results. On the basis of the present results, we believe that there is a relation between the two variables and that the inconsistency in earlier findings may be attributable to two factors: (a) Researchersoften have adm ini stered gen eralized expecta ncy scales in stead of spe

47、cific academic expecta ncy scales to predict academic behavior; and (b) researchers have used differe nt self-report scales to measure procrasti natio n,and it is not curre ntly known how well the differe nt measures are correlated with one ano ther.The prese nt results are con siste nt with predict

48、i ons based on Rotter's social lear ning theory for behavioral differe nces betwee n in dividuals with internal or external locus of control expectancies.The individuals who perceived a con ti ngent relati on betwee n their behavior and en vir onmen tal consequencesprocrastinated less than the i

49、ndividuals who perceived con seque nces as contingent on exter nal factors such as luck, cha nee, or fate. Given that locus of control expectancies can be measured reliably by the time childre n are of preschool age (e.g., Mischel, Zeiss，& Zeiss, 1974; Ski nn er, 1986; Stephe ns&Delys, 1974)

50、 and probably before procrastination habits develop one can conclude that locus of control precedes and con tributes to procrast in ati on. However,because the prese nt study was cross-sectional and correlational in design, it is impossible to con clusively determ ine the directi on of causality. Th

51、us, it is possible that procrasti natio n con tributes to locus of con trol or that the relati on betwee n the two variables is bidirecti on al. Future Ion gitud inal research may help to determ ine the directi on of causality.Another limitation of the present study is that the findings cannot be ge

52、neralized beyond primarily Caucasian students attending college in the United States. Although it is important to study this population in order to compare the prese nt results with the results of previous research, studies are needed with participants of different ages, ethnicities, and occupations

53、 to determ ine the robust ness of the findin gs.REFERENCESBeswick, G, Rothbun, E. D,&Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedentstostude nt procrast in ati on. Australia n Psychologist, 23, 207-217.Briordy. R. (1980). An exploratory study of procrastination. Dissertation Abstracts In ternatio nal,

54、 41,590.Ellis, A.,&Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rati onal Living.Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68, 455-458.Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L.,&McCown, W. G. (1995). Procras

55、tination and task avoida nee: Theory, research, and treatme nt. New York: Plenum.Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T.,&Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination: Pers on ality correlates with Myers-Briggs types, self-efficacy, and academic locus of con trol. Jour- nal of Social Behavior and Pers on

56、ality, 7, 495-502.Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastination: A search for types. Pers on ality and In dividual differe nces, 8, 705-714.Lay. C. H.,&Burns, P. (

57、1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for an exam in ati on: The role of trait procrast in atio n and its in teractio n with optimism. Journal of Social Behavior and Perso nality, 6, 605-617.Mischel, W., Zeiss, R , &Zeiss, A. (1974). Internal-external control and persistenee: Validati on an

58、d implicatio ns of the Sta nford Preschool Intern al-Exter nal Scale. Jour nal of Perso nality and Social Psychology, 29, 265-278.Neimark, J. (1995). It's magical, it's malleable, it's memory. Psychology Today, 28, 44-49.Robinson, K. J.,&Roediger, H. L.(1997). Associative processesin false recall and false recog niti on. Psychological Scie nee, 8