寬恕是一種跨文化人類共通的美德、是一種正向的心理特質，一種真正的生命智慧。因其有益於人際和諧、幸福感與身心健康，寬恕在近年來成為心理學所關注的議題。本研究旨在探究反芻思考、未來時間觀與寬恕之現況，以及反芻思考與未來時間觀如何影響寬恕的建構，藉以深入瞭解反芻思考、未來時間觀與寬恕之關係。 本研究採用問卷調查法，以「多向度反芻焦點量表」、「未來時間態度量表」與「特質寬恕量表」為研究工具，研究對象為20歲以上成人共1,413位。所得有效問卷資料經描述統計、多變量變異數分析、區別分析、結構方程式模型等統計方法處理，研究發現如下： 1.20歲以上成人之反芻思考、未來時間觀與特質寬恕現況尚佳。 2.不同背景變項之成人在反芻思考整體及其分向度上有部分差異。 （1）女性在「情緒焦點反芻」與「意義焦點反芻」上之得分顯著高於男性。 （2）高齡者的反芻思考整體與各向度之得分明顯較低。 3.不同背景變項之成人在未來時間觀整體及其分向度上有部分差異。 （1）成人早期（20-30歲）與高齡者（60歲以上）在「未來時間觀點」沒有顯著差異，高齡者在「未來目標價值」與「對未來的準備與行動」上則顯著高於20-30歲之成人。 （2）年長、高教育水準、已婚且有宗教信仰者，有較佳的未來時間觀。 4.不同背景變項之成人在特質寬恕整體及其分向度上有部分差異。 （1）男性在「寬恕命運」上之得分顯著高於女性。 （2）男性、年長、高教育水準、已婚且有宗教信仰者，有較高的寬恕傾向。 5.探討不同類型反芻思考與未來時間觀、特質寬恕之關係，研究發現：情緒焦點與評價焦點此兩種類型反芻思考，與未來時間觀、特質寬恕呈負相關；而意義焦點反芻與未來時間觀、特質寬恕呈正相關。 6.未來時間觀在反芻思考與特質寬恕間扮演中介角色，亦即，未來時間觀在情緒焦點反芻思考、評價焦點反芻思考與未來時間觀、特質寬恕之間有部分中介效果，在意義焦點反芻思考與未來時間觀、特質寬恕之間有完全中介效果。 本研究根據上述研究發現，分別對寬恕教育、諮商輔導提出建議，以作為教育工作者及後續研究之參考。 / Forgiveness is a kind of cross-cultural universal virtue of human, positive psychological strength, and authentic wisdom of life. Forgiveness has become an important topic of psychological researches in last decades, due to the benefits of interpersonal harmony, well-being, physical and mental health. The study aimed to investigate the current condition of the adults in Taiwan of their rumination, future time perspective, and dispositional forgiveness, and furthermore addressed the relationships among these variables. The present study adopted the questionnaire investigation, comprising “Multidimensional Focused Rumination Scale”, “Attitude toward Future Time Scale”, and “Dispositional Forgiveness Scale” was conducted. Participants were 1,413 adults aged 20 and over in Taiwan. The effective data based on the questionnaire were then analyzed by using the descriptive statistics, MANOVA, discriminant analysis, structural equation modeling and bootstrapping. The findings were summarized as follows: 1.The present condition of Taiwan aged 20 and over adults’ rumination, future time perspective, and dispositional forgiveness was generally fine. 2.In terms of rumination, gender and age had a significant difference in overall rumination and its dimensions. I.The female participants had higher “emotion-focused rumination” and “meaning-focused rumination” scores than the male participants. II.The elder participants reported less ruminative thinking than other age groups. 3.In terms of future time perspective, age, educational level, marital status and religion had a significant difference in overall future time perspective and its dimensions, while gender had no significant difference. I.There is no difference between younger and elder participants on “the perception of future time”, however, the elder participants reported higher “the valence of future goal” and “preparation and action for the future” than younger participants. II.The elder, high educated, married and religious believer, had better future time perspective. 4.In terms of dispositional forgiveness, gender, age, educational level, marital status and religion had a significant difference in overall dispositional forgiveness and its dimensions. I.The male participants had higher “forgiveness of fate” scores than the female participants. II.The male, elder, high educated, married and religious believer had a strong tendency to forgive. 5.In terms of different kind of rumination relate to future time perspective and dispositional forgiveness: Emotion-focused rumination and evaluation-focused rumination were negatively related to future time perspective and dispositional forgiveness, while meaning-focused rumination was positively related to future time perspective and dispositional forgiveness. 6.Future time perspective mediated the relationship between the rumination and the forgiveness. Furthermore, future time perspective partly mediated the relationship between the emotion-focused rumination and the dispositional forgiveness, partly mediated the relationship between the evaluation-focused rumination and the dispositional forgiveness, and completely mediated the relationship between the meaning-focused rumination and the dispositional forgiveness. According to the above findings, this study proposes suggestions for forgiveness education, counseling and guidance, and future studies.

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

在全球化的背景下，企業間的競爭變得愈加劇烈，需要員工提供寶貴的意見想法，方能幫助組織成長與發展，因此瞭解員工說與不說的背後原因，便顯得更加重要。本研究以社會情緒選擇理論（socioemotional selectivity theory, SST）理論為基礎，並以兩種未來時間觀：開放式未來時間觀（open-ended future time perspective）與限制式未來時間觀（limited future time perspective）分類方式進行探討，期望進一步瞭解其對兩種員工意見表達行為：建言行為（voice behavior）與沉默行為（silence behavior）的影響效果，以及兩種調節焦點：促進性焦點（promotion focus）、預防性焦點（prevention focus）在其中所扮演的中介角色。同時，本研究探討知覺心理安全氛圍（perceived psychological safety climate）對未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係的調節效果。本研究採問卷調查法施測，共蒐集249對員工-同事對偶樣本。研究結果顯示：（一）開放式未來時間觀與促進性建言呈顯著正相關；開放式未來時間觀與抑制性建言未具有顯著相關；限制式未來時間觀與沉默行為呈顯著正相關；（二）調節焦點並未中介未來時間觀與意見表達行為間之關係；（三）知覺心理安全氛圍並未調節未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係。最後，針對研究結果，進一步討論理論與實務意涵、研究限制與未來研究方向。 / This study is based on the socioemotional selectivity theory (SST), and has three objectives: First, to assess the effect of future time perspective (open-ended / limited) on opinion expression behavior (voice / silence). Second, to test the mediating role of regulatory focus (promotion / prevention) in the relationship between the future time perspective and the opinion expression behavior. Third, to examine the moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate on the relationship of future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. The results collected of 249 valid dyad (employee-colleague) pair showed that (1) open-ended future time perspective was positively related to promotive voice behavior, but not to prohibitive voice behavior; limited future time perspective was positively related to silence behavior. (2) regulatory focus did not mediate the relationship between future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. (3) no support was found for the expected moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate in the future time perspective—opinion expression behavior relationship. Finally, the study’s implications for theory and practice are discussed, its limitations are identified, and directions for future research are suggested.