主动、被动和非拖延者的执行功能:谁更强大,谁更挣扎?

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zahra Ahmadi Javid, Farzad Nasiri, Mehdi Zemestani
{"title":"主动、被动和非拖延者的执行功能:谁更强大,谁更挣扎?","authors":"Zahra Ahmadi Javid, Farzad Nasiri, Mehdi Zemestani","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2518570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory among active, passive, and non-procrastinators using a quantitative methodology and a causal-comparative design. A total of 177 university students (59 active procrastinators, 59 passive procrastinators, and 59 non-procrastinators) participated in the study. The structured clinical interviews, the Active Procrastination Scale, and Tuckman's Procrastination Scale were utilized to categorize the participants. The Tower of London Test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Go/No-Go Task, and the 1-back Task were used to evaluate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory, respectively. The results of the one-way MANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups regarding problem-solving (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and cognitive flexibility (<i>p =</i> 0.04). Active procrastinators exhibited the best performance in these domains. However, no significant differences were observed in inhibition (<i>p =</i> 0.15) and working memory (<i>p =</i> 0.38). This study demonstrated that the type of procrastination significantly impacts cognitive abilities. These findings can be applied to the design of educational and psychological interventions to enhance cognitive abilities and improve the management of procrastination. Encouraging individuals to adopt more active procrastination strategies may improve their cognitive performance and mitigate the negative effects of passive procrastination.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Executive functions in active, passive and non-procrastinators: Who thrives and who struggles?\",\"authors\":\"Zahra Ahmadi Javid, Farzad Nasiri, Mehdi Zemestani\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2025.2518570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory among active, passive, and non-procrastinators using a quantitative methodology and a causal-comparative design. A total of 177 university students (59 active procrastinators, 59 passive procrastinators, and 59 non-procrastinators) participated in the study. The structured clinical interviews, the Active Procrastination Scale, and Tuckman's Procrastination Scale were utilized to categorize the participants. The Tower of London Test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Go/No-Go Task, and the 1-back Task were used to evaluate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory, respectively. The results of the one-way MANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups regarding problem-solving (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and cognitive flexibility (<i>p =</i> 0.04). Active procrastinators exhibited the best performance in these domains. However, no significant differences were observed in inhibition (<i>p =</i> 0.15) and working memory (<i>p =</i> 0.38). This study demonstrated that the type of procrastination significantly impacts cognitive abilities. These findings can be applied to the design of educational and psychological interventions to enhance cognitive abilities and improve the management of procrastination. Encouraging individuals to adopt more active procrastination strategies may improve their cognitive performance and mitigate the negative effects of passive procrastination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2518570\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2025.2518570","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在利用定量方法和因果比较设计来调查主动、被动和非拖延者的问题解决、认知灵活性、抑制和工作记忆。共有177名大学生参加了这项研究(59名主动拖延者,59名被动拖延者,59名非拖延者)。采用结构化临床访谈、主动拖延量表和塔克曼拖延量表对被试进行分类。采用伦敦塔测试、威斯康辛卡片分类测试、Go/No-Go任务和1-back任务分别评估学生的问题解决能力、认知灵活性、抑制能力和工作记忆。单因素方差分析的结果表明,在解决问题方面,两组之间存在显著差异(p p = 0.04)。积极的拖延者在这些方面表现最好。但在抑制(p = 0.15)和工作记忆(p = 0.38)方面无显著差异。本研究表明,拖延症的类型显著影响认知能力。这些发现可以应用于教育和心理干预的设计,以提高认知能力和改善拖延症的管理。鼓励个体采取更多的主动拖延策略可以提高他们的认知表现,减轻被动拖延的负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Executive functions in active, passive and non-procrastinators: Who thrives and who struggles?

This study aimed to investigate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory among active, passive, and non-procrastinators using a quantitative methodology and a causal-comparative design. A total of 177 university students (59 active procrastinators, 59 passive procrastinators, and 59 non-procrastinators) participated in the study. The structured clinical interviews, the Active Procrastination Scale, and Tuckman's Procrastination Scale were utilized to categorize the participants. The Tower of London Test, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), the Go/No-Go Task, and the 1-back Task were used to evaluate problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and working memory, respectively. The results of the one-way MANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups regarding problem-solving (p < 0.001) and cognitive flexibility (p = 0.04). Active procrastinators exhibited the best performance in these domains. However, no significant differences were observed in inhibition (p = 0.15) and working memory (p = 0.38). This study demonstrated that the type of procrastination significantly impacts cognitive abilities. These findings can be applied to the design of educational and psychological interventions to enhance cognitive abilities and improve the management of procrastination. Encouraging individuals to adopt more active procrastination strategies may improve their cognitive performance and mitigate the negative effects of passive procrastination.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信