Cognitive nature of procrastination

E. Zabelina, Dastan Abdrakhmanovich Smanov
{"title":"Cognitive nature of procrastination","authors":"E. Zabelina, Dastan Abdrakhmanovich Smanov","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1003291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the typical social problems of the 21st century - procrastination - is defined as irrational postponement of desired goals indefinitely, even when aware of the negative consequences of this delay (Lay, 1997). Although possible causes of procrastination have long been cited, such as irrational beliefs (Ellis, Knaus, 1977), low self-esteem, and fear of failure (Burka, Yuen, 1983), cognitive predictors of procrastination have not been studied holistically as a system. Moreover, it remains unclear which cognitive mechanisms are involved in different types of procrastination. This study seeks to partially fill this gap by finding cognitive features of people prone to procrastination.The results of the study (N = 311) revealed differences in most of the diagnosed cognitive indicators, which suggests an important role of cognitive processes in the shaping of a procrastination tendency. Comparison of cognitive scores in the high and low procrastination groups showed that procrastinators had higher rates of cognitive closure, namely higher scores on the scales of order (p = 0.000), predictability (p = 0.052), decisiveness (p = 0.000), aspiration to cognitive closure (p = 0.000). Cognitive closure means motivation to receive an unambiguous response and cut off unnecessary, contradictory and interfering information. This is consistent with the data on higher stiffness in procrastinators (p = 0.05).Besides, procrastinators have a more pronounced frustational tolerance (p = 0.000), and a sense of self-improvement (p = 0.001). They have less vigilance (p = 0.000), but more overindulgence (p = 0.000), as well as more avoidance in decision-making (p = 0.000). Differences are also found on the temporal focus scale: people prone to procrastination are less focused not only on the future (p = 0, 000), but also on the present (p = 0, 000). Predictably, procrastinators had significantly lower levels of claims (p = 0.004) and self-esteem (p = 0.01). Procrastinators showed lower indicators of self-organization of activities: consistency (p = 0.000), purposefulness (p = 0.000), perseverance (p = 0.024), fixation (p = 0.000), self-organization (p = 0.000), orientation to the present (p = 0.000). At the same time, they have more pronounced cognitive copying strategies: avoiding behavior (p = 0.000), anxiety (p = 0.000), cognitive overestimation (p = 0.000), intolerance to stress situations (p = 0.000).The results of discriminant analysis made it possible to determine the indicators that have the greatest influence on inclusion in the group procrastinators. These are low orientation towards the present, avoidance in decision-making, vigilance, pursuit of cognitive closure, low tolerance of frustration, and low self-organization of activities. The study thus expands the understanding of the cognitive nature of procrastination. The results suggest that cognitive features such as a weak focus on the events of the present, a habit of avoiding decision-making, weakened vigilance, an increased desire for cognitive closure, low tolerance to frustration, and a low level of self-organization of activities are important predictors of procrastination.","PeriodicalId":285612,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Computing and Internet of Things","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Computing and Internet of Things","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1003291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the typical social problems of the 21st century - procrastination - is defined as irrational postponement of desired goals indefinitely, even when aware of the negative consequences of this delay (Lay, 1997). Although possible causes of procrastination have long been cited, such as irrational beliefs (Ellis, Knaus, 1977), low self-esteem, and fear of failure (Burka, Yuen, 1983), cognitive predictors of procrastination have not been studied holistically as a system. Moreover, it remains unclear which cognitive mechanisms are involved in different types of procrastination. This study seeks to partially fill this gap by finding cognitive features of people prone to procrastination.The results of the study (N = 311) revealed differences in most of the diagnosed cognitive indicators, which suggests an important role of cognitive processes in the shaping of a procrastination tendency. Comparison of cognitive scores in the high and low procrastination groups showed that procrastinators had higher rates of cognitive closure, namely higher scores on the scales of order (p = 0.000), predictability (p = 0.052), decisiveness (p = 0.000), aspiration to cognitive closure (p = 0.000). Cognitive closure means motivation to receive an unambiguous response and cut off unnecessary, contradictory and interfering information. This is consistent with the data on higher stiffness in procrastinators (p = 0.05).Besides, procrastinators have a more pronounced frustational tolerance (p = 0.000), and a sense of self-improvement (p = 0.001). They have less vigilance (p = 0.000), but more overindulgence (p = 0.000), as well as more avoidance in decision-making (p = 0.000). Differences are also found on the temporal focus scale: people prone to procrastination are less focused not only on the future (p = 0, 000), but also on the present (p = 0, 000). Predictably, procrastinators had significantly lower levels of claims (p = 0.004) and self-esteem (p = 0.01). Procrastinators showed lower indicators of self-organization of activities: consistency (p = 0.000), purposefulness (p = 0.000), perseverance (p = 0.024), fixation (p = 0.000), self-organization (p = 0.000), orientation to the present (p = 0.000). At the same time, they have more pronounced cognitive copying strategies: avoiding behavior (p = 0.000), anxiety (p = 0.000), cognitive overestimation (p = 0.000), intolerance to stress situations (p = 0.000).The results of discriminant analysis made it possible to determine the indicators that have the greatest influence on inclusion in the group procrastinators. These are low orientation towards the present, avoidance in decision-making, vigilance, pursuit of cognitive closure, low tolerance of frustration, and low self-organization of activities. The study thus expands the understanding of the cognitive nature of procrastination. The results suggest that cognitive features such as a weak focus on the events of the present, a habit of avoiding decision-making, weakened vigilance, an increased desire for cognitive closure, low tolerance to frustration, and a low level of self-organization of activities are important predictors of procrastination.
拖延症的认知本质
拖延症是21世纪典型的社会问题之一,它被定义为即使意识到这种拖延的负面后果,也不合理地无限期推迟预期目标(Lay, 1997)。虽然拖延症的可能原因早已被引用,如非理性信念(Ellis, Knaus, 1977)、低自尊和对失败的恐惧(Burka, Yuen, 1983),但拖延症的认知预测因素尚未作为一个系统进行整体研究。此外,目前尚不清楚不同类型的拖延症涉及哪些认知机制。这项研究试图通过发现容易拖延的人的认知特征来部分填补这一空白。研究结果(N = 311)揭示了大多数诊断的认知指标的差异,这表明认知过程在拖延倾向的形成中起着重要作用。高拖延症组和低拖延症组的认知得分比较表明,拖延症患者的认知关闭率更高,即在秩序(p = 0.000)、可预测性(p = 0.052)、决断性(p = 0.000)和渴望认知关闭(p = 0.000)方面的得分更高。认知封闭是指接受明确回应的动机,切断不必要的、矛盾的和干扰性的信息。这与拖延者的僵硬度较高的数据一致(p = 0.05)。此外,拖延者有更明显的挫折容忍度(p = 0.000)和自我完善感(p = 0.001)。他们的警惕性较低(p = 0.000),但更多的过度放纵(p = 0.000),以及更多的回避决策(p = 0.000)。在时间焦点量表上也发现了差异:倾向于拖延的人不仅对未来的关注较少(p = 0 000),而且对现在的关注也较少(p = 0 000)。可以预见的是,拖延者的要求水平(p = 0.004)和自尊水平(p = 0.01)明显较低。拖延者的自组织活动指标较低:一致性(p = 0.000)、目的性(p = 0.000)、毅力(p = 0.024)、固定性(p = 0.000)、自组织(p = 0.000)、面向现在(p = 0.000)。与此同时,他们有更明显的认知复制策略:避免行为(p = 0.000),焦虑(p = 0.000),认知高估(p = 0.000),对压力情况的不耐受(p = 0.000)。判别分析的结果可以确定对纳入拖延者群体影响最大的指标。这些因素包括:低当下取向、回避决策、警惕、追求认知封闭、低挫折容忍度、低活动自组织能力。因此,这项研究扩展了对拖延症的认知本质的理解。结果表明,认知特征,如对当前事件的关注不足、避免决策的习惯、警惕性减弱、对认知封闭的渴望增加、对挫折的容忍度低、活动的自我组织水平低等,是拖延症的重要预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信