本研究主要目的在探就高中生之性別在取得之障礙與宣稱之障礙兩種自我跛足策略使用上的差異情形；探究不同成就目標導向、智力內隱理論、學業成敗歸因方式以及學生知覺教師態度對自我跛足策略使用的預測情形；以及取得之障礙與宣稱之障礙兩種自我跛足策略與學業成就的相關情形。 本研究採問卷調查法，研究對象為大台北高中生350名，男女人數各半。研究工具包括：自編的「成就目標導向量表」、「學業成敗歸因量表」、「智力內隱理論量表」、「學生知覺教師態度量表」以及「自我跛足策略量表」。以描述統計、t考驗、多元迴歸、積差相關進行統計處理。 研究結果發現： 一、男女生在自我跛足策略中的取得之障礙上沒有性別差異。 二、男女生在自我跛足策略中的宣稱之障礙上有性別差異，女生比男生較常使用宣稱之障礙。 三、表現目標導向、精熟目標導向、外在歸因、內在歸因、實體論、增加論、學生知覺教師成就目標態度以及學生知覺教師精熟目標，可有效預測取得之障礙。「表現目標導向」和「外在歸因」正向預測取得之障礙；「內在歸因」負向預測取得之障礙。 四、表現目標導向、精熟目標導向、外在歸因、內在歸因、實體論、增加論、學生知覺教師成就目標態度以及學生知覺教師精熟目標，可有效預測宣稱之障礙。「表現目標導向」與「外在歸因」正向預測宣稱之障礙；「增加論」負向預測宣稱之障礙。 五、表現目標導向、精熟目標導向、外在歸因、內在歸因、實體論、增加論、學生知覺教師成就目標態度以及學生知覺教師精熟目標，可有效預測自我跛策略使用。「表現目標導向」與「外在歸因」正向預測自我跛足策略的使用；「增加論」負向預測自我跛足策略的使用。 六、自我跛足策略與學業成績有顯著負相關，越使用自我跛足策略，其學業成績越不理想。自我跛足策略中，取得之障礙與學業成績有顯著負相關。至於宣稱之藉口與學業成績未達顯著相關。 本研究最後根據研究結果提出建議，以供教師、家長和後續研究者參考。

本研究旨在探討獎賞、成就目標取向與情緒與大學生頓悟性問題表現之關係，以及這些變項對大學生頓悟性問題的影響。本研究以台北地區的154位大學生為研究對象，其中男性有35位，女性有119位。研究工具包含創造性頓悟問題測驗、目標導向量表、以及三維情緒量表。本研究採單因子共變數分析與二因子共變數分析方式進行資料分析，研究發現陳述如下： 一、大學生之頓悟性問題解決表現在不同獎賞類型下沒有差異。 二、大學生之頓悟性問題解決表現在不同獎賞類型與四種成就目標取向交互作用 下沒有差異。 三、大學生之頓悟性問題解決表現在不同獎賞類型與八種情緒交互作用下沒有差 異。 四、四種成就目標取向與八種情緒對大學生之頓悟性問題解決表現有複雜的交互 作用效果；在成就目標取向與正向情緒交互作用下，頓悟性問題並無差異，但 在成就目標取向與負向情緒交互作用下，當負向情緒程度較低時，有較佳的頓 悟性問題表現。 / The main purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among rewards, achievement goals, and emotions in insight problem solving performances of college students. The participants in this study were 154 college students from Taipei area. Among the participants, 35 were males and 119 were females. Moreover, the employed instruments included Creative Insight Problem Test, The multiple Goals Scale, and The Inventory of Three-dimention Emotions. The collected data was analyzed by one-way ANCOVA and two-way ANCOVA. The main findings of this study were as follows: 1. Reward types did not have effects on college students’ insight problems performances. 2. The interactions of reward types and achievement goals did not have effects on college students’ insight problems performances. 3. The interactions of reward types and emotions did not have effects on college students’s insight problem performances. 4. The interactions of achievement goals and emotionshad complex effects on college students’ insight problem performances. Specifically, the interactions of achievement goals and positive eomotoions did not have effects on college students’ insight problem solving performances. On the contray, the interactions of achievement goals and negative eomotoions had effects on college students’ insight problem solving performances; those who with a low-degree of negative emotions had better insight problem solving performances than their counterparts.

本研究主要目的在於建構並驗證大學生成就目標、心理資本、學習投入對學習收穫之影響模式，採用立意抽樣的方式，以1136位大陸大學生為研究對象，使用大學生成就目標量表、大學生心理資本量表、大學生學習投入量表以及學習收穫量表進行測量，再以描述統計、信度分析、因素分析、多變量變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關、多元迴歸分析與結構方程模型等統計方法進行分析。結果發現： 一、在大學生對學習成就目標的追求中，最重視「精熟目標」。不同專業大學生在「表現目標」和「成就目標」總分上有顯著差異。 二、大學生的心理資本較佳，不同性別大學生的「自我效能」有顯著差異；不同專業大學生在心理資本的四個維度上均有顯著差異；不同年級大學生在「心理資本」和「希望」維度上有顯著差異。 三、大學生學習投入程度較好，不同性別大學生在「行為投入」和「學習投入」上有顯著差異；不同專業大學生在「認知投入」上有顯著差異。 四、大學生的學習收穫情況很好，不同年級大學生在「專業收穫」、「應用收穫」以及「學習收穫」上均有顯著差異。 五、大學生的成就目標、心理資本、學習投入和學習收穫間存有顯著正相關。 六、大學生成就目標各維度與學習投入、學習收穫各維度間有顯著正相關。 七、大學生心理資本中的「自我效能」、「希望」、「樂觀」均與學習為投入、學習收穫各維度之間有中度的顯著正相關；「復原力」與學習投入中的「情感投入」和「認知投入」以及學習收穫中的各維度呈現較弱的顯著正相關。 八、大學生學習投入各維度與學習收穫各維度間有顯著正相關。 九、大學生的「情感投入」，是預測「學習收穫」及各維度的重要變項。 十、大學生成就目標、心理資本除了對學習收穫有直接影響外，亦可經由學習投入對學習收穫產生間接影響。 本研究根據研究結果加以討論，並提出數點建議，以供後續相關實務工作及研究的參考。 / The study aimed to construct and examine the model of college students' achievement goals, psychological capital, learning engagement and learning outcomes. A total of 1136 college students of China were enrolled to collect measurement of constructs based on self-report questionnaires, which included " College Students' Achievement Goals Scale", " College Students' Psychological Capital Scale", " College Students' Learning Engagement Scale" and " College Students' Learning Outcomes Scale ". The statistical analysis were conducted by descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, factor analysis, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, multivariate regression analysis and structural equation modeling analysis. The study finding were as follows: 1. In the pursuit of college students' achievement goals, the most important was "mastery goal". There were significant differences in the scores of "performance goals" and "achievement goals" among college students of different discipline. 2. Psychological capital of college students was better. There were significant differences in the "self-efficacy" of college students with different gender. There were significant differences in the four dimensions of psychological capital among college students with different discipline. There were significant differences in the dimensions of "psychological capital" and "hope" among college students of different grades. 3. The college students had a better degree of learning engagement . There were significant differences in "behavioral engagement" and "learning engagement" among college students with different gender. There were significant differences in "cognitive engagement" among different discipline college students. 4. The college students learning outcomes were very well, students of different grades in the "professional outcomes", "application outcomes" and "learning outcomes" were significantly different. 5.There is a significant positive correlation between achievement goals, psychological capital, learning engagement and learning outcomes. 6. The dimensions of achievement goals were significant correlate positively with the dimensions of learning engagement and the dimensions of learning outcomes. 7. The college students' psychological capital of "self-efficacy", "hope" and "optimism" had a moderate significant positive correlation with the dimensions of learning engagement and learning outcomes. Resilience with "emotional engagement" and "cognitive engagement" had weak positive correlation; Resilience with the dimensions of learning outcomes had significant positive correlation. 8.There is a significant positive correlation between the dimensions of college students' learning engagement and the dimensions of learning outcomes. 9. "Emotional engagement" of college students is important variables in predicting "learning outcomes" and its dimensions. 10. The achievement goals and psychological capital of college students not only influence learning outcomes directly, also influence learning outcomes through learning engagement indirectly. Based on this research results, several suggestions were proposed for future practical application and futher research.

摘 要 本研究主要目的在於： 一、探討成就目標理論最新的發展趨勢。 二、探討考試焦慮在自我調節的學習策略中的內涵意義。 三、探討成就目標、學習策略、考試焦慮三者對學業表現的影響。 四、建構出成就目標、學習策略、考試焦慮、學業表現四者間的因果模式。 五、歸納研究結果，做為老師教學與輔導之參考，並對未來相關研究提出建議。 本研究採問卷調查方式，以多階段叢集抽樣方式進行，分別在全省北中南東四區各抽取3至4個縣市，每個縣市再隨機抽取一個學校，共抽得14個學校，每個學校再隨機抽取國一、國二、國三各一班，共計樣本1332人。調查工具有三，其一為Elliot & McGregor（2001）編製的「成就目標量表」、其二為改編自吳靜吉、程炳林（民81）修訂Pintrich, Smith, & McKeachie（1989）所編的「激勵的學習策略量表」（MSLQ）而成的「學習策略量表」、其三為余民寧（民92）所編製的「考試焦慮量表」。調查所得資料以描述統計、t檢定、單因子變異數分析、多元回歸分析、典型相關分析及結構方程模式SEM加以處理。 本研究得到以下結論： 一、國中生具有多種成就目標，教師需妥善引導。 二、國中生情緒調節能力稍弱，而以男生、高年級、北部學生最差。 三、認知焦慮較情緒焦慮對數學成績的影響力大，女生尤其較男生具有更高的認知焦慮。但是情緒焦慮對一年級的影響較其他年級大。 四、國中一年級學生相對於其他年級有較多的目標導向及較高的情緒焦慮，而在認知焦慮上各年級無差異。 五、在四種成就目標上，都是高焦慮組較高。在學習策略上，高焦慮組在一般認知、資源經營策略上較高，但在情緒調節上則以低焦慮組較高。在數學成績的比較上，低焦慮組較高。 六、對數學成績最具預測效果的因素有四：趨向精熟目標、認知評價過程及資源經營策略、考試焦慮中的認知焦慮。 七、逃避精熟目標、認知焦慮、情緒調節三者關係密切 八、考試焦慮與學習策略間具負向回饋圈特性，可以解釋兩者間無關的事實。 九、成就目標與學習行為的關係模式經修正後可適配，但模式不夠精簡。 最後，根據研究結果提出各項建議，以供教學實務上及未來研究參考。 關鍵詞：成就目標、學習策略、考試焦慮、情緒調節、結構方程模式 / The Relationship of Achievement Goals and Learning Behaviors Abstract The purpose of the present research is to: 一、discuss the recent development trends of achievement goals theory. 二、discuss the implication of test anxiety in self-regulatory learning strategy. 三、discuss the influence of achievement goals, learning strategies, and test anxiety on academic performance 四、construct the structure equation model (SEM) among achievement goals, learning strategies, test anxiety, and academic performance 五、induce the outcomes of the present research to submit a little suggestion as reference to teaching, guidance, and future related research The present research adopted a questionnaire survey in multiple-staged cluster sampling. First of all, sampling 3~4 cities or counties for each of four regions in Taiwan (including the north, the central, the south, and the east regions of the country). Then one junior high school was sampled for each cities and counties mentioned above. Finally, 14 schools were sampled. For each of those schools, one class of each grade was sampled, yielding a total of 1332 junior high school students. The tools of the present questionnaire survey were three. The first one was “achievement goals inventory” made by Elliot & McGregor (2001). Another one was “motivated strategies for learning questionnaire” (MSLQ) made by Pintrich, Smith, & McKeachie (1989), but the present research use its Chinese version revised by Wu & Cherng (1992). The other was “test anxiety inventory” made by Yu (2003). The raw data collected after the survey was handled with descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, canonic correlation and structure equation model (SEM). The conclusions of the present research are: 一、Junior high school students have multiple achievement goals, so teachers have to guide them carefully. 二、In contrast to the other three learning strategies, junior high school students have weaker emotion regulation strategy, specifically, male, senior, and the north junior high school students were the weakest. 三、Cognitive test anxiety has more influence on math than what the emotionality component does. Females have higher cognitive test anxiety than male, and emotionality component has more influence on juniors than the others. 四、In contrast to the other two grades, juniors have more diverse achievement goals and higher emotionality component, however, there is no difference of cognitive test anxiety among three grades. 五、Regarding the comparison between high and low test anxiety groups, the high one scored higher in multiple achievement goals, and general cognition, resource management of the learning strategies, but scored lower in emotion regulation of the learning strategies and math. 六、The best effect predictors of math scores were mastery-approach achievement goal, and cognitive appraisal process, resource management of the learning strategies, cognitive test anxiety. 七、Mastery-avoidance achievement goal, cognitive test anxiety, and emotion regulation of the learning strategies were closely related. 八、There is a negative feedback loop between test anxiety and learning strategy, which explains the low correlation between test anxiety and learning strategy. 九、SEM for the relationship of achievement goals and learning behaviors can fit the raw data collected well after modification by modification index, but the model is not parsimonious enough. Finally, according to the outcome, the present research submits a little suggestion for future research, and gives some advice for the practice of teaching. Key words: achievement goals, learning strategy, test anxiety, emotion regulation, structure equation model

本論文主要在探討拖延行為及其相關因素，共分成以下三個研究： 研究一的目的是編製一份拖延行為量表及拖延時感受量表。在拖延行為量表方面，區分為「學業拖延量表」及「一般拖延量表」兩種。 研究二的目的是探討時間觀、成就目標與拖延行為的關係。其中，在時間觀部分，包含有「未來」、「現在快樂主義」、「現在宿命論」、「過去－正向」、「過去－負向」五種時間觀取向；而「成就目標」則分成「趨向精熟」、「趨向表現」、「逃避精熟」、「逃避表現」四種目標導向。除此之外，本研究亦針對不同性質任務的拖延情形及性別、年級、是否有兼職或打工、創新行為與拖延行為、拖延時感受的關係，進行探討。 研究三的目的是探討拖延行為、情緒調節與拖延時感受的關係。其中，情緒調節部份分成「重新評估」及「壓抑」兩種調節方式。 經由統計分析的結果，各研究有以下的發現： 研究一以大學生為對象，有效樣本277人，扣除性別漏填3人，男有88人，女有186人。經由主成份分析結果，拖延行為量表中的「學業拖延量表」、「一般拖延量表」均為單一因素的量表，並且該兩種量表在內部一致性的信度分析方面，Cronbach α值分別為.70（學業拖延量表）、.90（一般拖延量表），在效標關聯效度方面，也均與「自我概念」、「學業成績表現」呈顯著負相關（r=-.21&#12316;-.33，p<.001）。而「拖延時感受量表」經因素分析結果共得「自圓其說」、「自責後悔」、「僥倖心理」、「自我調適」、「灰心逃避」五個因素，這五個因素在內部一致性的信度分析方面，除了「自我調適」分量表（3題）的Cronbach α值為.56外，其他四個因素的α值則介於.74&#12316;.82之間。 研究二也是以大學生為對象，有效樣本541人，扣除性別漏填1人，男有193人，女有347人。利用研究一所編製的量表進行施測，結果發現無論是在學業拖延或是一般拖延上，約有50﹪以上的人認為自己的拖延情形在中間程度（五點量表，中數為3）以上；而在拖延時感受部分，人在拖延時最常出現的感受是「自責後悔」（M=3.60，SD=.70）與「自我調適」（M=3.52，SD=.65）。在不同性質任務的拖延程度上，「自己不想做但又必須做的事情」最會拖延（M=2.99，SD=.84），「自己想做也喜歡做的事情」最不會拖延（M=1.95，SD=.70）。而「性別」、「是否有兼職或打工」在拖延程度上並無顯著的差異存在；但是，在拖延時的感受部分，男生在拖延時比女生較常感到「自圓其說」，女生則比男生在拖延時較常感到「自責後悔」；「沒有兼職或打工」的人比「有兼職或打工」者在拖延時較常感到「自圓其說」。至於，拖延行為與創新行為的關係，拖延程度越高的人創新行為的表現越低；而拖延時較少感到「自我調適」，或較常感到「灰心逃避」的人，其創新行為表現也較低。 在時間觀、成就目標與拖延行為關係方面，除了時間觀中的「未來」時間觀與拖延行為呈顯著負相關（r=-41、-.47，p<.001）之外、「現在快樂主義」與「過去－負向」兩種時間觀則均與拖延行為呈正相關（r=.08&#12316;.20，p<.05），亦即時間觀越是「現在快樂主義」、「過去－負向」，越不是「未來」取向者，其拖延的情形越高。至於，成就目標與拖延行為的關係，無論是「趨向精熟」、「趨向表現」、「逃避精熟」還是「逃避表現」的目標導向，則或多或少均與拖延行為呈負相關（r=-.13&#12316;.22，p<.01）；但是，成就目標對拖延行為的影響，則因為時間觀的作用達顯著時而式微。 研究三則以研究一所編製的量表對研究二的樣本進行分析，主要想要了解情緒調節是否能作為拖延行為與拖延時感受的調節變項。應用階層迴歸分析的結果發現，基本上情緒調節與拖延行為對拖延時感受的影響並無顯著的交互作用存在。但是，若從情緒調節、拖延行為對拖延時感受的主要效果來看，兩者則分別對拖延時感受具有不同顯著的影響。以拖延行為對拖延時感受的影響來看，拖延程度越高的人在拖延時越常感到「僥倖心理」、「灰心逃避」、「自圓其說」。而以情緒調節對拖延時感受的影響來看，情緒調節越是以「重新評估」方式來調節的人，在拖延時則越常感到「自責後悔」、「自我調適」，越不會感到「自圓其說」、「灰心逃避」；情緒調節若越是以「壓抑」方式來調節的人，在拖延時則越常感到「自圓其說」。除此之外，本研究也發現，「重新評估」的情緒調節方式與學業拖延呈正相關（r=.09，p<.05），但是相關不大；而且若從時間觀與情緒調節的關係來看，「重新評估」情緒調節方式與「未來」、「現在快樂主義」時間觀呈正相關（r=.21&#12316;.27，p<.001），與「過去－負向」時間觀呈負相關（-.15，p<.001）。可見，這樣的結果與研究二中時間觀與拖延行為的關係加以對照來看，「重新評估」可能不是影響一個人是否經常學業拖延的直接原因，真正影響的是他站在怎樣的時間觀取向下來進行「重新評估」的情緒調節。 綜合三個研究結果，我們獲得以下幾個主要結論：（一）本論文所編製的學業拖延量表、一般拖延量表及拖延時感受量表，無論是在信、效度上均是可以接受的，可作為測量個體拖延程度與輔導其拖延問題的參考工具。（二）拖延已是大學校園內普遍的一種行為，而這種行為的程度並不因「性別」或「是否有兼職或打工」而有所不同；真正影響一個人是否經常拖延的原因主要與個體的時間觀取向有關，當一個人的時間觀越是傾向於「未來」時間觀，越不傾向於「現在快樂主義」、「過去－負向」的人，則越少拖延。（三）當任務是自己想做也喜歡做時，大學生比較不會拖延；相反地，當任務是自己不想做但又必須做時，大學生則比較會拖延。（四）雖然性別、是否兼職或打工在拖延行為程度上並無顯著的差異；但是，在拖延時感受的比較上，男生在拖延時比女生較常感到「自圓其說」，女生則比男生較常感到「自責後悔」，而沒有兼職或打工的學生則比有兼職或打工的學生在拖延時較常感到「自圓其說」。（五）拖延程度越高的人，在拖延時越常感到「僥倖心理」、「灰心逃避」、「自圓其說」。（六）情緒調節越是傾向以「重新評估」方式來調節的人，在拖延時越常感到「自責後悔」、「自我調適」，越少感到「自圓其說」、「灰心逃避」；而情緒調節越是以「壓抑」方式來調節的人，在拖延時則越常感到「自圓其說」。（七）拖延行為程度越高的人，其創新行為的表現也越低。 最後，本論文根據以上的研究發現，進行綜合討論與結論，並據以對學校、輔導及未來研究提出相關的綜合建議。 關鍵字：拖延、學業拖延、一般拖延、拖延時感受、創新行為、時間觀、成就目標、情緒調節。 / This dissertation mainly explores procrastination through three studies. Study 1’s objectives are to develop inventories about procrastination. The measurement instruments include academic procrastination, general procrastination , feelings when procrastinating. Study 2’s objectives are to explore relationships among time perspective（TP）, achievement goals and procrastination. The five factors of TP include future, present-hedonistic, present-fatalistic, past-positive and past-negative orientations（Zimbardo ＆ Boyd, 1999）. The achievement goal variable includes a 4-dimensional goal orientation: approach-mastery, approach-performance, avoidance-mastery and avoidance-performance（Elliot ＆ McGregor, 2001）. Furthermore, this study also investigates: a）procrastination of different tasks, b）the difference of procrastination behaviors and feelings when procrastinating based on different variables such as sex, grades, whether or not the students have part-time work, and c）relationship between procrastination and innovative behaviors（Scott ＆ Bruce, 1994）. Study 3’s objectives are to determine the relationships among procrastination, emotion regulation and feelings when procrastinating. The two forms of emotion regulation include reappraisal and suppression（Gross ＆ John, 2003）. The following are some findings based on the three studies: In study 1, the participants were 277 college students（88 males, and 186 females）.The data was analyzed using Principle Component Analysis. Results yielded the following: 1）Both academic procrastination and general procrastination were unidimensional scales. The former’s reliability was Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .70 and the latter’s was .90. Two scales were related negatively to academic performance and self-concept（r=-.21&#12316;-.33, p<.001）. 2）Items of feelings when procrastinating were divided into five factors. These five factors were labeled as excuse-making（4 items, α=.82）, self-blame and regret（4 items, α=.74）, wishful thinking（3 items, α=.78）, self-adaptation（3 items, α=.56）, and dejection and avoidance（2 items, α=.78）. In study 2, the subjects were 541 college students（193 males, and 347 females）.All participants were measured by inventories developed in study 1. Results yielded the following: 1）More than 50﹪of students reported that their procrastination was higher than middle level. 2）People procrastinated more with tasks that they have to do but do not want to do; and less with tasks that they want to do and like to do. 3）No significant relationship was found between procrastination and sex, or whether or not the students have part-time work. However, males were more inclined to excuse themselves than females when they were procrastinating. In contrast, females were more inclined to blame themselves and feel regretful than males when they were procrastinating. Non-part-time workers were more inclined to excuse themselves than part-time workers when they were procrastinating. 4）People with higher procrastination levels tended to have lower scores of innovative behavior. 5）People with higher scores of future orientation, lower present-hedonistic TP and past-negative TP tended to have lower procrastination levels. In study 3, study 2’s participants were also part of study 3. The study primarily aimed to understand how “emotion regulation” functions as a moderator of the relation between procrastination level and feelings when procrastinating. Data was analyzed using Hierarchical Multiple Regression. Basically, we did not find the interaction between procrastination level and emotion regulation to explain variance of feelings when procrastinating. However, when examining the effects of procrastination level and emotion regulation individually, both variables significantly affected variance of feelings when procrastinating. When the analyzing between procrastination level and feelings when procrastinating, people with higher procrastination levels tended to have higher scores of wishful thinking, dejection and avoidance, and excuse-making when they were procrastinating. This indicated that the relationship between emotion regulation and feelings when procrastinating, people with higher reappraisal scores tended to have higher scores of self-blame and regret, higher scores of self-adaptation, lower scores of excuse-making, and lower scores of dejection and avoidance. Further, people with higher suppression scores tended to have higher scores of excuse-making. In addition, this study also found that emotion regulation by reappraisal was marginally related to academic procrastination（r=.09,p<.05）; but from the relationship between TP and emotion regulation, we found that reappraisal was related positively to future TP（r=.21, p<.001） and present-hedonistic TP（r=.27, p<.001）, and related negatively to past-negative TP（r=-.15, p<.001）.Therefore, in contrast with point 5 in the results of study 2 in this dissertation, academic procrastination may not be directly affected by reappraisal. In fact, the relation between reappraisal and academic procrastination was determined by one’s TP. Through the results of above three studies. From this dissertation 7 key points were concluded: 1） Reliability and validity of procrastination inventories which were developed in this dissertation were acceptable. Therefore, these inventories could be used when we want to measure one’s procrastination level and to resolve problems of procrastination. 2）Procrastination was a common behavior in campus. No significant relationship was found between procrastination level and sex, or whether or not the students have part-time work. Procrastination level was mainly affected by one’s TP. People with higher scores of future orientation, lower scores of present-hedonistic and past-negative TP tended to exhibit greater procrastination behavior. 3）People procrastinated more with tasks that they have to do but do not want to do; and less with tasks that they want to do and like to do. 4）There were differences when feelings when procrastinating were compared with different sex or whether or not the students have part-time work. Males were more inclined to excuse themselves than females when they were procrastinating. Females were more inclined to blame themselves and feel regretful than males when they were procrastinating. Non-part-time workers were more inclined to excuse themselves than part-time workers when they were procrastinating. 5）People with higher procrastination levels were more inclined to have scores of wishful thinking, dejection and avoidance, and excuse-making when they were procrastinating. 6）People with higher reappraisal scores of emotion regulation tended to have higher scores of self-blame and regret, higher scores of self-adaptation, lower scores of excuse-making, and lower scores of dejection and avoidance. People with higher suppression scores of emotion regulation tended to have higher scores of excuse-making. 7）People with higher procrastination level tended to exhibit lower scores of innovative behavior. Key words: procrastination, academic procrastination, general procrastination, feelings when procrastinating, innovative behavior, time perspective（TP）, 2×2 achievement goal, emotion regulation

許多組織為了建立競爭優勢，運用團隊成員的專業及經驗去解決問題，創造差異化的產品。這個趨勢可以解釋為何團隊的研究目前又開始熱門，特別是團隊知識歷程。“交融記憶系統”（TMS） 就是其中一個著重在瞭解團隊知識歷程的理論架構。“交融記憶系統”的構念，特別強調如何利用和組合分散在個人身上的專業，以幫助我們瞭解知識任務者的團隊如何充分發揮個別成員知識的價值（Lewis,2003） 。透過團隊的交融記憶系統，團隊成員可以建立各自專業，信賴且有效溝通，這似乎正是解決目前產業問題的良方。 Lewis（2003）為了在實務上有效應用交融記憶系統的理論，到各種不同目的與型態的團隊，編制了交融記憶系統量表。這個量表包括“專業”（Specialization）、“信賴”（Credibility）、與“協調”（Coordination）三個分量表，每個分量表各有五個題目，整個量表共有15題的5點李克特式量表。以其研究物件的團隊 來看，此量表可廣泛應用于研發創新團隊、中小型企業與新創公司等，幫助公司預估績效與提高競爭力。 本研究分為兩大部分。第一部分為量化研究，對Lewis（2003）所編量表進行修訂，以用來測量臺灣地區團隊的團隊交融記憶系統：為了驗證本量表效度，本研究收集了大量企業及學生團隊樣本，以統計方法分析績效良好團隊在交融記憶系統量表分數，是否顯著高於績效不彰團隊外，也分析交融記憶系統量表與團隊成員“依附風格” 、“創新行為”、“團隊創意觀念產生”、“成就目標” 之間的相關關係，以確認量表的建構效度。第二部份研究為質性研究，透過對實務團隊的深入訪談與實證，驗證交融記憶系統在成效良好團運作的現況。 本研究第一個成果在成功修訂交融記憶系統量表。修訂後的量表在統計分析後，績效良好團隊的交融記憶系統量表分數，顯著高於績效不彰團；和“依附風格”、“創新行為”、“團隊創意觀念產生”、“成就目標”之間的相關性，也和理論原始架構相符，證實了量表的信效度。本量表將可有效衡量臺灣各式團隊的交融記憶系統。 本研究的第二個成果，透過實務團隊的訪談與實證，驗證了交融記憶系統在國內成效良好團隊運作的現況。文化創意產業的紙風車兒童劇團 ，及TIC100創業競賽的冠軍團隊 ，這兩個成功典範團隊的運作中，雖然成員本身沒有認知到系統的存在，不過都有運作良好的團隊交融記憶系統，再度確認交融記憶系統理論架構在實務上團隊中的運作。 筆者透過成功典範的訪談與適合臺灣量表的建立，希望能做為業界建立與運作團隊時的參考，而對團隊的成功運作有所幫助。 關鍵字：交融記憶系統、團隊、研發、創造力