Academic Procrastination in Two Settings: Motivation Correlates,Behavioral Patterns,and Negative Impact of Procrastination in Canada and Singapore

Two studies are reported examining academic procrastination and motivation in 1,145 university students from Canada and Singapore. In Study 1, relationships between procrastination and motivation variables were found to be similar across contexts, with self‐efficacy for self‐regulated learning most strongly associated with procrastination in both contexts. In Study 2, patterns of procrastinating behavior and the negative impact of procrastination were examined and compared in Canadian and Singaporean undergraduates. Participants in both contexts reported writing to be the academic task most prone to procrastination. More Singaporeans than Canadians were classified as negative procrastinators (i.e. rated procrastination as a negative influence on academic functioning). In both contexts, negative procrastinators spent more time procrastinating than neutral procrastinators and displayed lower self‐efficacy for self‐regulated learning. On décrit deux recherches portant sur la motivation et la procrastination universitaire (tendance à remettre au lendemain) de 1145 étudiants du Canada et de Singapour. Dans la première étude, les relations entre la motivation et la procrastination sont apparues être analogues dans les deux pays, la variable la plus fortement associéà la procrastination étant l'auto‐efficience pour l'apprentissage autorégulé. Dans la deuxième étude, les schémas comportementaux de procrastination et son impact négatif ont été analysés et comparés chez les étudiants de 1° cycle canadiens et singapouriens. Les sujets des deux pays ont mentionné la rédaction comme étant la tâche universitaire la plus soumise à la procrastination. Davantage de Singapouriens que de Canadiens été classés en procrastinateurs négatifs (c'est‐à‐dire que la procrastination est considérée comme étant un handicap pour les études). Dans les deux cas, les procrastinateurs négatifs gaspillaient plus de temps que les procrastinateurs neutres et manifestaient une moindre auto‐efficience pour l'apprentissage autorégulé.     

Evaluation of a trial-based interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis

We evaluated the viability of an interview-informed synthesized-contingency analysis (IISCA) conducted in a trial-based format with 3 children with autism spectrum disorders who engaged in problem behavior. We compared results to those from typical trial-based and traditional functional analyses and found high degrees of correspondence. The trial-based IISCA format took the least amount of time to conduct and was associated with the lowest frequencies of problem behavior. Results are discussed in terms of merits of each of the 3 types of functional analysis arrangements and directions for future research.     

Why Should I Respect You? A Critique and a Suggestion for the Justification of Mutual Respect in Contractualism

Contractualism is a normative theory which characterizes principles of right in terms of the idea of mutual respect. In this theory, mutual respect is regarded as having deliberative priority over other values. This essay aims to examine how contractualists can provide a satisfactory justification for prioritizing mutual respect. I will argue that the “value of mutual respect argument,” which is a justification commonly adopted by contractualists, is inadequate because an unconditional priority of mutual respect cannot be grounded on the desirability of a relationship of mutual respect. Then, I will suggest that a “consistency argument” can provide a better justification of why the idea of mutual respect should have priority. Mutual respect is of special importance, not because it is highly desirable, but rather because it is required by an a priori guiding principle of consistency. Individuals become inconsistent if they ask others to respect them as reason-assessing individuals, while at the same time refusing to respect others in the same way.     

The Faulty Magnitude Detector: Why SNARC‐Like Tasks Cannot Support a Generalized Magnitude System

Do people represent space, time, number, and other conceptual domains using a generalized magnitude system (GMS)? To answer this question, numerous studies have used the spatial‐numerical association of response codes (SNARC) task and its variants. Yet, for a combination of reasons, SNARC‐like effects cannot provide evidence for a GMS, even in principle. Rather, these effects support a broader theory of how people use space metaphorically to scaffold their understanding of myriad non‐spatial domains, whether or not these domains exhibit variation in magnitude.