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.     

Response error and processing biases in confidence judgment

Previous studies showed that random error can explain overconfidence effects typically observed in the literature. One of these studies concluded that, after accounting for random error effects in the data, there is little support for cognitive‐processing biases in confidence elicitation. In this paper, we investigate more closely the random error explanation for overconfidence. We generated data from four models of confidence and then estimated the magnitude of random error in the data. Our results show that, in addition to the true magnitude of random error specified in the simulations, the error estimates are influenced by important cognitive‐processing biases in the confidence elicitation process. We found that random error in the response process can account for the degree of overconfidence found in calibration studies, even when that overconfidence is actually caused by other factors. Thus, the error models say little about whether cognitive biases are present in the confidence elicitation process. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experiencing Range in an Electric Vehicle: Understanding Psychological Barriers

Range of electric vehicles (EVs) has long been considered a major barrier in acceptance of electric mobility. We examined the nature of how range is experienced in an EV and whether variables from other adaptation contexts, notably stress, have explanatory power for inter‐individual differences in what we term comfortable range. Forty EVs were leased to a sample of users for a 6‐month field study. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of range experiences were performed, including regression analyses to examine the role of stress‐buffering personality traits and coping skills in comfortable range. Users appraised range as a resource to which they could successfully adapt and that satisfied most of their daily mobility needs. However, indicators were found that suggested suboptimal range utilisation. Stress‐buffering personality traits (control beliefs, ambiguity tolerance) and coping skills (subjective range competence, daily range practice) were found to play a substantial role in comfortable range. Hence, it may be possible to overcome perceived range barriers with the assistance of psychological interventions such as information, training, and interface design. Providing drivers with a reliable usable range may be more important than enhancing maximal range in an electric mobility system.