预期想象对拖延的影响:想象过程和想象结果的效应分离

摘要 为了考察预期想象对不同拖延水平个体拖延行为的影响,本研究采用一般拖延量表(General Procrastination Scale)选取高拖延被试和低拖延被试,要求被试在进行模拟现实的拖延任务之前分别对任务过程和任务结果进行预期想象,比较不同拖延水平的被试在预期想象作用下拖延行为的变化。结果表明：(1)在两组被试中,相比于无想象条件下的拖延行为,对任务过程的预期想象增强拖延行为,对任务结果的预期想象削弱拖延行为;(2)对任务不同成分的预期想象所引发的情绪与拖延行为的变化相关显著。这说明情绪和预期想象是影响拖延的重要因素,合理地操纵对任务不同成分的预期想象可以有效干预拖延行为。     

基于fNIRS的运动执行与运动想象脑激活模式比较

使用《运动想象问卷−修订版》筛选出的30名被试(男女各半), 采用功能性近红外光谱成像技术(fNIRS)监测被试在执行实际举哑铃(男生, 4磅和8磅; 女生, 2磅和4磅)任务和想象举同等重量哑铃任务时, 其大脑皮层氧合血红蛋白浓度的变化。结果发现：男女被试在运动执行与运动想象任务下都激活了主运动皮层; 且运动执行的大脑激活水平高于运动想象。在执行实际运动任务时, 运动强度显著影响大脑皮层血氧浓度的变化, 表现出左半球偏侧化优势; 在执行想象运动任务时, 运动强度没有影响大脑皮层血氧浓度的变化, 且无偏侧化现象。     

奖赏预期对面孔情绪加工的影响：一项事件相关电位研究

采用事件相关电位(ERPs)技术考察了奖赏预期对人类面孔情绪识别的影响。实验采用线索-目标范式, 分别记录了被试在奖赏预期条件下以及无奖赏预期条件下对正性、中性和负性面孔进行情绪辨别任务的ERP数据。行为结果显示, 被试在奖赏预期条件下的反应时快于无奖赏预期条件下的反应时, 对情绪面孔的反应时快于对中性面孔的反应时。ERPs数据显示, 奖赏线索比无奖赏线索诱发了更正的P1、P2和P300成分。目标刺激诱发的P1、N170波幅以及N300均受到奖赏预期的调节, 在奖赏预期条件下目标诱发了更正的ERPs。P1、N170、VPP等成分没有受到面孔情绪的影响, 而额中央位置的N300波幅显示情绪(正性与负性)面孔与中性面孔加工的差异。重要的是, N300波幅出现奖赏预期与情绪的交互作用, 正、负情绪加工效应以及负性偏向效应受奖赏预期的差异性影响。正性情绪加工效应不受奖赏预期的影响, 而负性情绪加工效应和负性偏向效应在奖赏预期条件下显著大于无奖赏预期条件下。这些结果说明, 奖赏预期能够调节对面孔情绪的加工, 且不同加工进程中奖赏对情绪加工的调节作用不同。动机性信息调节注意资源的分配, 促进了个体在加工面孔情绪时的负性偏向。     

拖延刺激对注意偏向的影响及过程

研究是考察拖延个体对拖延相关信息的注意偏向及特点。实验1采用情绪Stroop范式,要求被试忽略刺激的语义,仅判断刺激的颜色。实验2采用修改后的点探测范式,以拖延词和中性词为线索,并操作线索和目标之间的时间间隔,被试的任务是判断目标刺激的位置。结果发现:高拖延的被试难以抵制拖延词的注意,在情绪Stroop任务中对拖延词的反应时间更长; 当拖延词和目标刺激的位置一致时,在短的线索—目标时间间隔(SOA)内,被试对目标刺激的反应时间更长,但当时间间隔长时,一致条件下的反应时更短。该研究表明,高拖延行为个体在有限的时间内难以抵制拖延信息的注意,对拖延刺激存在注意偏向。     

情绪面孔的意识神经相关物及其无意识自动加工：来自事件相关电位的证据

意识的神经相关物尚有争议, 且个体能否无意识自动检测视觉环境变化尚不清楚。本研究采用非注意视盲范式操控视觉意识, 并引入具有社会信息的情绪面孔, 探讨意识的神经相关物以及视觉意识与自动检测变化机制的关系。在A阶段, 部分被试对任务无关的情绪面孔处于无意识水平; 在B阶段, 所有被试对任务无关的情绪面孔处于意识水平; 在C阶段, 所有被试对任务相关的情绪面孔处于意识水平。结果显示, 任务无关的情绪面孔的意识过程诱发视觉意识负波(visual awareness negativity, VAN)、晚期正成分(late positivity, LP)和晚期枕区正成分(late occipital positivity, LOP)。此外, 无意识的情绪面孔能诱发视觉失匹配负波(visual mismatch negativity, vMMN), 且其幅值不受意识影响, 但是受任务相关性调制。这些结果提示对情绪面孔的视觉意识在不同的时间进程上有不同的ERP指标——VAN反映早期知觉经验, 而LP和LOP反映晚期意识过程, 而且面孔情绪信息的自动加工独立于视觉意识, 但是受视觉注意调制。     

情绪调节改善拖延行为的认知机制：任务厌恶中介作用

先前研究表明,使用适应性情绪调节策略越多则拖延行为越少,但情绪调节影响拖延行为的认知机制仍不清楚。拖延的时间决策模型认为拖延与否主要取决于任务厌恶与结果效用之间的权衡。因此,情绪调节可能是通过降低任务厌恶或提升结果效用来改善拖延。为探明此问题,本研究选取高拖延人群作为研究对象,分为积极重评组(34人)和无效策略组(34人),对两组被试进行了为期7天的经验采样法的纵向追踪(共14次)研究。结果发现：(1)后测中积极重评组执行意愿显著高于无效策略组,前测中两组无显著差异。(2)后测中积极重评组任务厌恶显著低于无效策略组,前测中两组无显著差异;后测中积极重评组结果效用显著高于无效策略组,前测中两组无显著差异。(3)任务厌恶降低量中介了情绪调节对拖延改善程度的作用,而结果效用提升量不能中介此作用。结果表明：情绪调节主要通过降低任务厌恶来提升执行意愿,从而降低拖延行为,这为从情绪调节角度干预拖延提供了坚实的理论依据。     

正负情绪对社会两难困境中合作决策的影响

本实验选取大学生被试共78名,运用"重复囚徒困境"范式对于社会合作决策进行研究,以无明确线索条件下合作-背叛的两难问题为实验任务,引入正负性情绪变量,考察不同情绪在合作决策过程中的影响。实验发现:(1)不同情绪唤起对于被试合作得分与信任水平得分的影响有显著差异:当被唤起积极情绪时,被试的合作水平较高,当被唤起消极情绪时则相反。(2)不同的计算机合作应对策略对于被试合作得分的影响不显著,但对合作信任得分有显著影响,当对手采用TFT策略时,被试的合作信任水平较高,当对手采用随机策略时则相反。(3)不同情绪唤起和计算机应对策略对被试的合作得分与信任得分都有显著影响,且两者间存在交互作用。结果表明:个体的合作行为及信任水平受到所唤起情绪和计算机应对策略的共同影响。     

情绪背景和社会预期对社会经济决策行为的影响

采用最后通牒博弈范式,探讨不同情绪背景对社会经济决策中社会预期效应的影响。以90名大学生为被试,利用不同效价的电影片段(正性、负性和中性)诱发相应的目标情绪。通过操作社会规范性信息启动被试对分配方案公平性的不同预期。结果发现:在负性和中性情绪背景下,高预期组更倾向于拒绝接受不公平分配。在正性情绪背景下,高预期组和低预期组面对不公平提议时的接受率没有显著差异。结果表明正性情绪背景使社会预期效应发生改变,回应者对分配方案的高预期不再对决策结果产生显著影响。     

行为与情绪的框架效应及其与个性的关系

本研究旨在探讨行为和情绪的框架效应及与个性的关系。采用"艾森克人格量表"对116名高校学生进行测查,区分个体的人格特点,并让被试阅读一个具有风险的手术问题的文字材料,其中一半被试阅读的材料以积极形式构建,另一半以消极形式构建,探察被试在不同情景之下的阅读行为和情绪表现。结果发现个体的神经质特性对不同再构造条件下的阅读时间和各种假设情景之下的情绪变化都具有显著的影响,被试在积极构造的情景中情绪反应更强烈。本研究证明了行为与情绪的框架效应,并且揭示了再构造过程对行为和情绪影响的个体差异。     

预期焦虑对面孔表情加工的影响

预期焦虑是由于对未发生结果的负性投射造成的焦虑情绪。本文比较了被试在不同预期焦虑水平下观看愉快、中性及恐惧面孔时的行为和脑电数据。发现在高预期焦虑水平下,恐惧面孔诱发的N170波幅显著大于低预期焦虑水平,而愉快和中性面孔在两种水平下诱发的波幅差异不显著;且预期焦虑水平对恐惧面孔诱发的N170波幅的调节强度与个体的特质焦虑得分显著相关。这些结果表明,预期焦虑水平会影响面孔表情加工,且不同情绪面孔受到的影响不同。我们推测,预期焦虑水平会通过影响杏仁核等脑区的激活来调节颞上回对恐惧面孔的加工。     

拖延的决策模型

拖延是指尽管预见到该行为会带来不利后果,人们仍自愿推迟开始或完成某一计划好的行为。先前的研究对拖延的类型、影响因素、成因以及干预等方面进行了广泛的探讨,然而拖延的决策过程——"现在做还是以后做?"认知机制还非常不清楚。因此,本文提出拖延决策模型试图从三方面阐明"现在做还是以后做?"的决策机制:首先,拖延动机和不拖延动机的斗争是决定是否拖延的根本;其次,拖延动机的斗争可以进一步简化为任务负性过程和任务正性结果的权衡;最后,主动推迟任务使负性过程发生延迟折扣是拖延的核心目的。拖延决策模型不仅有助于探明拖延的核心认知机制,也能够帮助预测拖延行为的发生及解释各种影响因素的作用机制,因此未来的研究可以借此整合一个从拖延的核心发生机制到各种影响因素的理论系统。     

Rethinking procrastination: positive effects of "active" procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance

Researchers and practitioners have long regarded procrastination as a self-handicapping and dysfunctional behavior. In the present study, the authors proposed that not all procrastination behaviors either are harmful or lead to negative consequences. Specifically, the authors differentiated two types of procrastinators: passive procrastinators versus active procrastinators. Passive procrastinators are procrastinators in the traditional sense. They are paralyzed by their indecision to act and fail to complete tasks on time. In contrast, active procrastinators are a "positive" type of procrastinator. They prefer to work under pressure, and they make deliberate decisions to procrastinate. The present results showed that although active procrastinators procrastinate to the same degree as passive procrastinators, they are more similar to nonprocrastinators than to passive procrastinators in terms of purposive use of time, control of time, self-efficacy belief, coping styles, and outcomes including academic performance. The present findings offer a more sophisticated understanding of procrastination behavior and indicate a need to reevaluate its implications for outcomes of individuals.     

Exploring the Time Preferences by Procrastinators: Night or Day,Which is the One?

In study 1, trait procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators claimed they were ‘night persons’, individuals who are most alert and active in the late afternoon and evening hours. However, there were no significant individual differences in time preference for a set of social and individual activities considered pleasurable. In study 2, participants kept daily records for six straight days of when they had engaged in activities. Proneness toward behavioral (but not decisional) procrastination was significantly related to number of activities performed in the evening. Together, these studies suggest that procrastinators may be ‘late starters’ who prefer to engage in daily activities later in the day than early in the morning. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

拖延对工作绩效的影响——压力偏好与任务类型的调节作用

本研究探索了压力偏好和任务类型在拖延行为对绩效产生作用过程中的调节作用。用问卷调查的方法对155人进行调查。结果发现：相比偏好压力者,厌恶压力者的工作绩效更容易受到拖延行为的影响;对于复杂任务,拖延对偏好压力者的绩效影响显著低于对厌恶压力者;而对于简单任务,两种类型人的绩效的差别并不明显。结论是,偏好压力者能够减弱拖延行为对其工作绩效的影响,尤其对于复杂任务,这种影响更加明显。     

Differentiating Procrastinators from Each Other: A Cluster Analysis

Procrastination refers to the tendency to postpone the initiation and completion of a given course of action. Approximately one-fifth of the adult population and half of the student population perceive themselves as being severe and chronic procrastinators. Albeit not a psychiatric diagnosis, procrastination has been shown to be associated with increased stress and anxiety, exacerbation of illness, and poorer performance in school and work. However, despite being severely debilitating, little is known about the population of procrastinators in terms of possible subgroups, and previous research has mainly investigated procrastination among university students. The current study examined data from a screening process recruiting participants to a randomized controlled trial of Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for procrastination (Rozental et al., in press). In total, 710 treatment-seeking individuals completed self-report measures of procrastination, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. The results suggest that there might exist five separate subgroups, or clusters, of procrastinators: “Mild procrastinators” (24.93%), “Average procrastinators” (27.89%), “Well-adjusted procrastinators” (13.94%), “Severe procrastinators” (21.69%), and “Primarily depressed” (11.55%). Hence, there seems to be marked differences among procrastinators in terms of levels of severity, as well as a possible subgroup for which procrastinatory problems are primarily related to depression. Tailoring the treatment interventions to the specific procrastination profile of the individual could thus become important, as well as screening for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses in order to target difficulties associated with, for instance, depression.     

拖延行为的干预:计划行为理论和实施意向的影响

本研究以计划行为理论为理论框架,通过实验操纵实施意向,采用日记法进行为期5天的纵向追踪,考察计划行为理论的4个核心变量和实施意向如何影响拖延行为的程度及其动态过程。134名大学生在前一周末共列举了接下来5个工作日内拟完成的668项学习相关任务,随后每天报告当天的任务完成情况。多层线性模型分析结果表明:(1)行为意向中介态度和行为控制感对拖延程度的影响,主观规范影响拖延程度的直接效应显著,但经由行为意向的间接效应不显著;(2)形成实施意向能显著降低拖延程度;(3)行为控制感和实施意向加速任务完成进程,行为控制感越强,或形成实施意向,均显著加快任务完成速度。研究结果对于如何进行拖延行为的干预有一定启示和借鉴。     

Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior

The author evaluated the effects of evaluation apprehension and trait procrastination on behaviors. The author examined private university students from southern California (N = 72) on two independent variables: evaluation threat (manipulated) and trait procrastination (nonmanipulated). The author found a significant interaction effect between type of evaluation threat and level of trait procrastination on the number of days to complete an assigned essay. Post hoc analyses showed high trait procrastinators in the high evaluation threat group significantly delayed returning essays compared with those in the low evaluation threat group. Also, in the low evaluation threat group, low trait procrastinators delayed more than did high trait procrastinators. These results suggest that educators can reduce behavioral delays by increasing evaluation threat, depending on a student's level of trait procrastination.     

不合规任务与工作拖延行为的关系：自我损耗和主动性人格的作用

工作拖延是当今职场人士面临的普遍困扰之一。基于资源保存理论,本研究从不合规任务视角探究工作拖延行为的成因。对196位员工的两时点调查数据进行层次回归分析,结果表明：不合规任务正向预测员工工作拖延行为,自我损耗在不合规任务与工作拖延行为之间起着中介作用,主动性人格负向调节不合规任务与自我损耗的正向关系以及自我损耗的中介效应。以上结果对预防或降低工作拖延行为具有启发意义。     

Writing apprehension and academic procrastination among graduate students

Academic procrastination has been associated with both fear of failure and task aversiveness. Researchers have reported that most undergraduate and graduate students delay academic tasks. Among the latter, a large proportion report procrastination in writing term papers. Such procrastination may originate from and lead to anxiety about writing so the present purpose was to investigate the relationship between scores on Daly and Miller's 1975 Writing Apprehension Test and on the two dimensions, i.e., fear of failure and task aversiveness, of Solomon and Rothblum's 1984 Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students. Participants were 135 graduate students of varied disciplinary backgrounds. Correlations between writing apprehension and academic procrastination stemmed from fear of failure (29) and task aversiveness (.41). Implications are discussed.