毕业论文翻译原文

The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2005, 160(4), 436--442The Effects of Locus of Control and Task Difficulty on Procrastination TRACY JANSSEN Department of Psychology Beloit CollegeJOHN S. CARTON Department of Psychology OglethorpeUniversityABSTRACT.The authors investigated the effects of locus of controlexpectancies and task difficulty on procrastination. Forty-two collegestudents were administered an academic locus of control scal e and a taskthat was similar to a typical college homework assignment.The studentswere randomly assigned to 1 of 2 task difficulty levels. Although none ofthe results involving task difficulty was significant, several resultsinvolving locus of control were significant. Specifically, analysesrevealed that students with internal locus of control expectancies tendedto begin working on the assignment sooner than students with externallocus of control expectancies. In addition, students with internal locus ofcontrol completed and returned the assignment sooner than students withexternal locus of control. The results are discussed within the context of J.B. Rotter's (1966, 1975, 1982) social leaming theory.PROCRASTINATION refers to the act of needlessly delaying a taskuntil the point of some discomfort—a behavior problem that many adultsexperience on a regular basis (Ferrari, Johnson,&McCown, 1995). Mostresearch on procrastination has focused on college students; researchers have estimated that anywhere from 46% (Solomon&Rothblum, 1984) to 95% (Ellis&Knaus, 1977) of college students regularly procrastinate on academic assignments. Research findings suggest that, the longer students are in college, the more they tend to procrastinate (Semb, Glick,&Spencer, 1979), although most students 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, including test anxiety, missed deadlines for assignments, poor semester grades, depressed 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，researchers have sought to identify personality variables associated with it(for 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 consequences as contingent on their own behavior and abilities(internal control)rather than on some external force such as luck，chance，fate，or powerful others(external control;Rotter,1990).Because individuals with internal control expectancies perceive a contingent relation between theirbehavior and consequences，one might expect them to procrastinate less than individuals with external control expectancies.Previous research on the relation between locus of control and academic procrastination has produced mixed results.Several researchers have found no relation between the two variables (e.g.Briordy,1980; Ferrari,Parker，&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 success on exams to external factors.One reason for the inconsistent findings may be that most researchers have used generalized expectancy scales instead of specific academic expectancy scales to predict academic procrastination(Trice,1985). According to Rotter’s(1966，1975，1982)social learning theory，domain—specific expectancy scales should provide better predictions of specific behaviors than genera1ized scales do.In the present study，we sought to extend previous research on the relation between locus of control and academic procrastination in several ways.First，we used a specific expectancy scale for academic performance in order to measure students’locus of control.Second，to measure procrastination and improve the external validity of thefindings，we used a behavioral measure of procrastination that was similar to a typical course assignment，whereas many previous studies have used self-report scales.Third,to better understand the process of procrastination，we operationally defined procrastination in several ways:time taken to initiate an assigned task，time taken to complete the assigned task，and time takento return the assigned task.Previous researchers have assessed only 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 when they started and completed the task.Fourth，to investigate 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 difficult assignment will procrastinate more than those who receive the easy assignment.Hypothesis 3: There will be an interaction between locus of control and task difficulty, such that students with external locus of control expectancies who receive the difficult assignment will procrastinate the most.MethodParticipantsThe participants for the study were 42 undergraduate students(10 men and 32 women). Their mean age was 19.7 years (SD=0.65). The students were enrolled in two psychology courses at a relatively small, midwestern U.S. college.College students were selected so that we could replicate previous studies and because of the relatively high rates of procrastination observed in this population.The students were predominantly Caucasian (90%) and middle class. They received credit toward their course grade for their participation.MeasuresLocus of control. Students completed the Academic Locus of Control Scale(ALC; Trice, 1985). The ALC is a 28-item, true-false scale designed to assess locus of control with respect to academic outcomes, with higher scores indicating greater externality. Trice (1985) reported a Kuder-Richardson 20 internal consistency coefficient of 0.70 and a 5-week test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.92 for the ALC with college students. In addition, scores on the ALC have been shown to be correlated in predicted directions with academic achievement, class participation, homework completion, and scores on the Rotter Internal-External Control Scale (Trice, Ogden, Stevens,&Booth, 1987).Procrastination. We measured the students' procrastination by recording the amount of time that passed between the date the task wasassigned and the dates the students began, completed, and returned the task to the teaching assistant.Specifically, the students 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 teaching assistant. The questions about the article were presented on a work sheet that also included places for the students to record the times and dates they started, completed, and returned the assignment to the teaching assistant (the return date was verified by the teaching assistant, who checked the return box daily).Task difficulty. We manipulated task difficulty by using two 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 journal Psychological Science(Robinson&Roediger,1997). To check the difficulty manipulation, we asked the students to rate on a 5-point scale how difficult they perceived the article they were assigned(1=very easy, 5=very difficult).ProcedureThe students were randomly assigned to receive either the easy or the difficult article. At the beginning of the semester, the students were administered a consent form and the ALC. After the forms werecompleted, the professor (a 32-year-old, male, Caucasian, assistant professor) assigned the articles and work sheets. The students were instructed to return the work sheets to the professor's teaching assistant (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 told that the assignment had to be completed by the end of the semester. After all of the work sheets were returned, the students were debriefed on the purpose of the study.ResultsScores on the ALC were analyzed to determine each student's locus of controt. Scores ranged from 3 to 18, with 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 students. Students were separated at the median (9) into internal (n=22) and external (n=20) control groups.A 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. The independent variables were students' gender (male, female), locus of control (internal,external), and task difficulty (easy, difficult). The dependent variables were the number of days between the date the articlewas assigned and the dates the students reported beginning, completing, and returning the assignment.To check the task difficulty manipulation, we first analyzed the students' ratings of the difficulty 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 than the magazine article (M=2.62).With respect to the first hypothesis, there 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 assignment, 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 assignment earlier than students with external control expectancies (M=8.25 days).When procrastination was defined as the number of days that elapsed before students reported completing the assignment, there was a significant main effect of locus of control, F(l, 41)=6.54, p<0.01. As predicted, students with internal locus of control (M=6.05 days) took fewer days to complete the assignment than students with external locus of control (M=9.95 days).Finally, analysis of the number of days it took students to return the assignment revealed a significant main effect of locus of control, 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 assignment than students with external locus of control(M=12.15 days).Although several mean differences involving the task difficulty variable were in the predicted direction, none were statistically significant. In addition,there were no significant two- or three-way interactions on any dependent variable. Thus, the second and third hypotheses received no support. Moreover,there were no gender differences found on any measure, and an analysis of covariance holding age constant indicated that age differences did not account for the current results.DiscussionResearch has indicated that procrastination involves more than poor time-management skills. Rather, it involves a combination of affective, behavioral, and cognitive factors (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 ook less time to complete and return the academic assignment than did the students with external control expectancies. There also was a trend for the students with internal locus of control to let fewer days pass before beginning to work on the assignment than did the students with external locus of control.The effect of locus of control on students' procrastination did not depend on the difficulty level of the assignment, as indicated by the nonsignificant interaction between locus of control and task difficulty. However, additional research with other tasks seems warranted before one can conclude that task difficulty does not have an effect on procrastination. Although the students perceived the research article as more difficult than the magazine article, it is possible that there was not a large enough difference in the difficulty levels of the two articles to produce significant results in the present study. The relatively small sample size in the present study also may have contributed to the lack of significant findings regarding the task difficulty variable.As noted in the introduction, previous research examining the relation between locus of control and procrastination 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) Researchers often have administered generalized expectancy scales instead of specific academic expectancy scales to predict academic behavior; and (b) researchers have used different self-report scales to measure procrastination,and it is not currently known how well the different measures are correlated with one another.The present results are consistent with predictions based on Rotter'ssocial learning theory for behavioral differences between individuals with internal or external locus of control expectancies. The individuals who perceived a contingent relation between their behavior and environmental consequences procrastinated less than the individuals who perceived consequences as contingent on external factors such as luck, chance, or fate. Given that locus of control expectancies can be measured reliably by the time children are of preschool age (e.g., Mischel, Zeiss,&Zeiss, 1974; Skinner, 1986; Stephens&Delys, 1974)—and probably before procrastination habits develop—one can conclude that locus of control precedes and contributes to procrastination. However,because the present study was cross-sectional and correlational in design, it is impossible to conclusively determine the direction of causality. Thus, it is possible that procrastination contributes to locus of control or that the relation between the two variables is bidirectional. Future longitudinal research may help to determine the direction of causality.Another limitation of the present study is that the findings cannot be generalized beyond primarily Caucasian students attending college in the United States. Although it is important to study this population in order to compare the present results with the results of previous research, studies are needed with participants of different ages, ethnicities, and occupations to determine the robustness of the findings.REFERENCESBeswick, G，Rothbun, E. D,&Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents to student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207-217.Briordy. R. (1980). An exploratory study of procrastination. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 590.Ellis, A.,&Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rational 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). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum.Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T.,&Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination: Personality correlates with Myers-Briggs types, self-efficacy, and academic locus of control. Jour- nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 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. Personality and Individual differences, 8, 705-714.Lay. C. H.,&Burns, P. (1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for an examination:The role of trait procrastination and its interaction with optimism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 605-617.Mischel, W., Zeiss, R，&Zeiss, A. (1974). Internal-external control and persistence: Validation and implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale. Journal of Personality 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 processes in false recall and false recognition. Psychological Science, 8, 231-237.Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J.,&Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(Whole No. 609).Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal vs external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 56-67.Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and applications of social learning theory: Selected papers. New York: Praeger.Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493.Semb, G., Glick, D. M.,&Spencer, R. E. (1979). Student withdrawals and delayed work patterns in self-paced psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 6, 23-25. Skinner, E. A. (1986). The origins of young children's perceived control: Mother contingent and sensitive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9,359-382.Solomon, L. J.,&Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology; 31, 503-509. Stephens, M. W.,&Delys, P (1974). External control expectancies among disadvantaged children at preschool age. Child Development, 44, 670-674.Trice, A. D. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1043-1046.Trice, A. D.,&Milton, C. T. (1987). Locus of control as a predictor of procrastination among adults in correspondence courses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 1002. Trice, A. D., Ogden, E. P, Stevens, W.,&Booth, J. (1987). Concurrent validity of the academic locus of control scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,483-186.。