Single subject design research paper
krys6295
procrastinationarticle2.pdf
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
_____________________
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Safia Afzal, Alumni,
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad-Pakistan. Email:
Humaira Jami, PhD, Assistant Professor, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-
Azam University, Islamabad-Pakistan. Email: [email protected]
Prevalence of Academic Procrastination and Reasons for Academic
Procrastination in University Students
*Safia Afzal and Humaira Jami, PhD
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
Pakistan
The study was designed to investigate the prevalence and reasons for
academic procrastination in public university students. The sample
consisted of 200 university students including 155 women and 45 men
students from social and natural sciences departments. Academic
procrastination and reasons for it were measured by Procrastination
Assessment Scale for Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a). Backward
linear regression analysis has shown that risk taking, task aversiveness,
and decision-making were significant predictors (reasons) for academic
procrastination while task aversiveness being strongest predictor with
medium level coefficient of regression. It was also revealed that
academic procrastination prevails at all three levels of education (MSc,
MPhil and PhD). Task aversiveness, time management, laziness,
rebellion against control, decision making, and lack of assertion were
more common reasons in students of social sciences than natural sciences
as shown by significant differences. Overall task aversiveness, fear of
failure, dependency, decision making and risk taking were common
reasons for indulging into academic procrastination.
Keywords. Academic procrastination, reasons for academic
procrastination, university students
The concept of procrastination is explained by Solomon and
Rothblum (1984a) as the tendency to delay initiation or completion of
important tasks to the point of discomfort. Procrastination can be an
enduring trait, viewed as a predisposition to postpone task which is
necessary to reach at some goal (Lay, 1986) that may be related to
temperament (Effert & Ferrari, 1995).
Academic Procrastination
Procrastination can be situation specific as Rothblum, Solomon,
and Murakmi (1986) explained academic procrastination as: a) To nearly
52 AFZAL AND JAMI
or always put off academic task; and b) to nearly or always experience
problematic level of anxiety associated with this procrastination.
Tuckman and Sexton (1989) viewed procrastination as the tendency to
put off or completely avoid an activity under one‟s control to reach goals.
Noran (2000) considers procrastinator as someone who knows that he/she
can do or want to do any task, plan and try for it; but does not complete it
or excessively delay and waste time in less important activities or
pleasure.
Procrastination is a common phenomenon among college and
university students (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Oweini & Harraty, 2005; Steel,
2007) that brings into negative outcomes on their academic achievement
(Janssen, 2015; Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2007). Steel (2007) in his
metanalytical study found that 70-95% of the students procrastinate that
is problematic in nature. It may be domain specific, as a study revealed
that students who procrastinate consistently perform poorly on term
assignments than students who do not procrastinate (Tice &
Baureminder, 1997). With technological advancement where online
learning as a tool for distant learning is important, procrastination is
found to affect performance in web-courses (Tuckman, 2005) and also in
online learning specifically when participants fail to be part of online
discussions because of procrastination and drop out courses (Michinov,
Brunot, Le Bohec, Juhel, & Delaval, 2011).
Reasons for Academic Procrastination
Solomon and Rothblum (1984b) in a study asked students and
faculty members for reasons for academic procrastination and they found
thirteen main reasons. A factor analysis (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a)
of the results yielded two major factors, “Fear of Failure” (evaluation
anxiety, perfectionism, and lack of self-confidence) and second factor
“Task Aversiveness” (aversiveness of the task and laziness). Along with
these two major factors, the other factors emerged were dependency, risk
taking, lack of assertion, rebellion against control, and difficulty making
decisions. Among these, tasks evasiveness was found to be the most
prevalent reason for academic procrastination. More aversive a task is
perceived more likely one is to avoid it (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a,
1984c). According to these researchers, academic procrastination is not
deficit in study habits or time management, but a complex interplay of
cognitive, behavioral, and affective components. Present study aims to
study the reasons for procrastination.
Some other studies have also suggested that procrastination is
linked to fear of failure, fear of rejection, perfectionism, fear of success,
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 53
social anxiety, depression (Ferrari, 1992), stress, life satisfaction (Aziz &
Tariq, 2013a), low self-efficacy, rationalization (Tuckman, 1991, 2005),
performance of task that are externally imposed (Lay, 1986), low self-
esteem and low self-concept, forgetfulness, disorganization, learned
resourcefulness, non-cooperativeness, life dissatisfaction, and lack of
energy (Effert & Ferrari, 1989). Three psychological explanations for
procrastination like indecision, irrational beliefs about self-worth, and
low self-esteem was studied by Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann (1988) on
245 students. Results indicated that procrastination is detrimental to
academic performance. It was also found that older students (21 years
and over) were less likely to procrastinate than younger students. Klassen
et al. (2007) also found age being related to academic procrastination.
A study was conducted by Rabin, Fogel, and Nutter-Upham
(2011) on academic procrastination in college students and they found
that executive functions including organizational ability, self-regulation,
planning, and monitoring significantly predict academic procrastination.
Low level of self-efficacy and motivation along self-regulation
significantly predicts academic procrastination (Klassen et al., 2007;
Steel, 2007; Tuckman, 2005; Milgram, Sroloff, & Rosenbaum, 1988).
Self-regulation including disorganization and lack of metacognitive skills
has been found to be related to procrastination. At the same time, those
students who have mastery approach and are goal-oriented show less
procrastination than those having avoidance-goal orientation (Howell &
Watson, 2007).
Gargari, Sabouri, and Norzad (2011) in their research on Iranian
students found that students who consider their success to be cause of
their abilities showed less procrastination than those who associate their
negative academic outcomes with internal factors; hence, show more
procrastination while completing their assignments. So, in their view
academic procrastination is a matter of perceived controllability related to
one‟s success and failure. Hen and Goroshit (2012) found that emotional
intelligence mediated between academic procrastination and GPA. This
signifies the importance of emotional regulation, while, taking up
academic tasks that may be because of learning deficits among students.
Choudhry (2008) also found link between procrastination and emotional
stability and conscientiousness.
54 AFZAL AND JAMI
Rationale of the Study
A few studies have been conducted in Pakistan (Aziz & Tariq,
2013; Choudhry, 2008; Fatima, 2001), but none has focused to find out
reasons underlying academic procrastination among university students
using Solomon and Rothblum model (1984a). Janssen (2015) studied the
prevalence of academic procrastination among high school and
undergraduate students and its relationship to academic achievement.
Results showed that college students reported significantly more
academic procrastination than high school students. Along with it, this
study also highlighted the importance of considering students age when
examining academic procrastination. Nonsignificant relationship was
found between academic procrastination and academic achievement, as
measured by grade point average.
Procrastination is a behavioral problem that many adults
experience on a daily regular basis, particularly on task which should be
completed by a specific deadline (Oweini & Haraty, 2005). The lives of
university students are characterized by frequent deadlines given by
university teachers and administrators to carry out various responsibilities
such as registration for courses, completion of course forms and
submission of class assignments or term papers (Popoola, 2005). A
common form of academic procrastination among students is waiting
until the last minute to turn in papers or to study for an examination
(Oweini & Haraty, 2005).
Present study is aimed to study relationship between academic
procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination and that among
all proposed reasons by Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) which are most
significant predictors of academic procrastination. This may help to plan
interventions based on the findings that how the most significant reasons
can be controlled to reduce academic procrastination in university
students. In Pakistani university setting, two broad disciplines for study
exist that is social sciences and natural sciences. Previous studies suggest
some inconsistent evidences of displaying procrastination in academic
setting for students across various disciplines (see e.g., Beswick et al.,
1988, Tice & Baureminder; 1997; Tuckman, 1998) that is also targetted
to be explored in current study.
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 55
Hypotheses
Following assumptions were made on the basis of literature
review:
There would be a positive relationship between reasons (i.e., task aversiveness, fear of failure, rebellion against control, lack of
assertion, decision making, dependency, and risk taking) and
academic procrastination.
The reasons for academic procrastination including fear of failure and task aversion are likely to predict academic procrastination more than
other reasons.
Younger group (MSc students) experience more academic procrastination than older group (MPhil/PhD students).
Method
Sample
Two hundred university students with age range 20 - 41 years
(M=23.10, SD= 3.03) were taken by using purposive sampling strategy
from two faculties (100 from social sciences and 100 from natural
sciences department) enrolled in MSc. (149, 74.5%), MPhil (36, 18 %),
and PhD (15, 7%) levels from a public university in Islamabad. Purpose
was to include all the students from the respective departments who were
present on the day of data collection and seeking their volunteer
participation. Women students were 155 (77.5 %) and men students were
45 (22.5 %).
Measures
Procrastination Assessment Scale Student (PASS). This scale
(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a) was designed to measure the cognitive
and behavioral antecedents of procrastination. The PASS was developed
to measure two areas: 1) the prevalence of academic procrastination,
perceiving it as a problem, motivation to reduce it and 2) the underlying
reasons. The first part has 18 items which measures the prevalence of
procrastination in six academic areas (a) Writing a term paper, (b)
Studying for an exam, (c) Keeping up with weekly reading assignments,
(d) Performing administrative tasks, (e) Attendance tasks, and (f)
Performing administrative tasks in general. Further, each academic area
has 3 items, considering prevalence of procrastination, perceiving it as a
56 AFZAL AND JAMI
problem, and motivation to reduce procrastination in the respective
academic area. In the present study, we were interested in prevalence of
procrastination only (For perceiving it a problem and desire to reduce it
see Afzal, 2009). For this, PASS has a 5- point Likert scale to measure
the prevalence (1 = Never procrastinated, 2 = Almost never
procrastinated, 3 = Sometimes procrastinated, 4 = Nearly always
procrastinated, 5 = Always procrastinated). Scores are summed for each
academic task for prevalence, perceiving it to be a problem, and desire to
reduce in respective area. A score ranging from 6 to 30 for three domains
separately is obtained across the six areas.
The second part assesses 13 reasons for academic procrastination
and it has 26 items (2 items for each reason). These thirteen reasons are
categorized in three major reasons as Task Aversiveness, Fear of Failure,
and the other reasons. Task Aversiveness includes Fear of Success,
Aversiveness of the Task, and Low Frustration Tolerance, Peer Influence,
Laziness, and Time Management. Fear of Failure includes Evaluation
Anxiety, Lack of Self-confidence, and Perfectionism. Other reasons
include Rebellion against Control, Lack of Assertion, Dependency,
Decision making, and Risk taking. Two statements are listed for each of
these reasons and students are asked to rate each statement. For example,
the two evaluation anxiety statements are: “You were concerned the
professor wouldn‟t like your work” and “You were worried you would
get bad grades” (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a). These are also rated on
5-point Likert scale. The second part of the PASS by providing a
procrastination scenario (in the present study “Delay in writing a term
paper”) helps in listing possible reasons for procrastination on the task.
In the present sample the reliability coefficients of PASS, its
domains and for reasons is .90 which shows PASS is a very reliable
measure. The alpha coefficient for reasons of procrastination was .80, and
alpha coefficient for prevalence was .74 (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a).
Howell and Watson (2007) has reported an alpha coefficient of .75
reliability across prevalence and perceived problem ratings for PASS. It
has got cross-cultural evidences of usage across many cultures with fair
level of reliability and validity (Alexander & Onweueghuzie, 2007;
Yong, 2010).
Procedure
As PASS was in English language, therefore, before
administering the scale it was ascertained either scale needs to be
translated, adapted, or just modification of some of the statements, or no
modification would be needed for the scale to be used in the present
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 57
research. For taking the decision and finalizing the scale the evaluation of
five Subject Matter Experts (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010; Kline, 2005;
Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) studying at PhD level was taken. On the
basis of their opinion, the modifications were carried out.
1. Explanation was added in parenthesis i.e., “writing a term paper
(for written assignments)”.
2. The term Advisor was elaborated with Supervisor in domain 5 i.e.,
Advisor/ Supervisor.
3. Explanation for university activities for domain 6 was added as
“University activities (seminars, conferences, etc)”.
4. Meaning of the word „resented‟ in items 25, 32, and 38 were added
in parenthesis in front of the word, for example, the item in the scale was
“You resented having to do things assigned by others” after modification
“You resented (show or feel indignation at; be aggrieved [Thompson,
1995]) having to do things assigned by others”.
Later, the try-out of the measure was carried out on 30 students
to check the comprehension for the PASS. Comments from the students
were taken regarding any difficulty they might have faced in responding
to the items of the scales. Reportedly, students did not find any difficulty
in understanding the items of both scales. Therefore, it was decided that
PASS was suitable for present study. For data collection of the main
study, students were approached by contacting the administration of the
department. PASS and Consent Form to be filled by the students were
shown to the administration authorities to address if they had any
inhibition in the ethical use of the material. After seeking permission, the
scale was administered in group form in classroom setting. Participants
were assured anonymity and confidentiality regarding the information
that would be used only for research purpose. They were informed that
there was no right and wrong responses on the scale and no time limit
was enforced for completing the scales. Participants were instructed to
complete the scale by considering their own academic procrastination and
related reasons. The scenario of writing a term paper (written assignment)
was provided to the participants and they were asked to rate on the
reasons that they thought were prevalent in them while doing that task.
Total number of students of social sciences department was 150 while
300 students were from natural sciences however, at the time of data
collection, only 201 participants were available. After collecting the data,
all questionnaires were scrutinized and 1 questionnaire was discarded
58 AFZAL AND JAMI
because 18 items of the questionnaire were not rated by the participant.
Students did not face any difficulty or any ambiguity in responding to the
scales. Analyses were carried out by using SPSS 18.0.
Results Pearson Product Moment Correlation was computed to study the
relationship between prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons
for academic procrastination. On the basis of correlation coefficient,
linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictability of
reasons for academic procrastination. Further, ANOVA was used to study
group differences with reference to educational level whereas
independent sample t-test was conducted to explore group differences
across study discipline.
The relationship between prevalence of academic procrastination
and reasons behind procrastination was computed through Pearson
Product Moment Correlation (See Table 1).
Table 1
Relationship Between Prevalence and Reasons of Academic
Procrastination in University Students (N = 200)
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Prevalence .45** 36** .27** .22** .34** 24** .34**
2 Task
aversiveness
57** .56** .36** .42** .51** .46**
3 Fear of
failure
.47** .40** .51** .50** .32**
4 Rebellion
against
control
.45** .43** .42** .30**
5 Lack of
assertion
.26** .36** .29**
6 Decision
making
.38** .27**
7 Dependency .31**
8 Risk taking
**p < .01.
Table 1 shows significant positive relationship between
prevalence of academic procrastination and for all the reasons for
academic procrastination that range from .22 to .45 (p < .01) minimum
for Lack of assertion and maximum for Task-aversiveness overall,
respectively. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 has been confirmed. All the
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 59
reasons are also significantly correlated that ranged from .26 to .57 (p <
.01). Results also establish the construct validity of the scale. All reasons
are also significantly correlated with each other, hence, showing that
same construct is being measured by these domains that are reasons for
academic procrastination. On the basis of correlation coefficients, linear
regression analysis was conducted on prevalence of academic
procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination. Results of the
analysis have shown that separately each reason is significantly
predicting academic procrastination at p = .00 significant level except
Lack of assertion which is predicting at p = .01, while Fear of Success is
predicting at .05 significant level (For details contact first author).
Backward linear regression analysis was carried out to determine
the comparative predictability of reasons for academic procrastination
(see Table 2) to test the Hypothesis 2.
Table 2
Backward Linear Regression Analysis Showing the Effect of Reasons for
Academic Procrastination on Prevalence of Academic Procrastination in
University Students (N = 200)
Model B SE β t p
Constant 5.93 1.38 4.27 .001
Task aversiveness .22 .06 .31 4.13 .001
Decision making .44 .18 .17 2.44 .02
Risk taking .35 .16 .16 2.22 .03
Fear of failure .09 .09 .08 .97 .33
Dependency .17 .20 .07 .87 .39
Rebellion against control .10 .21 .04 .47 .64
Lack of assertion .06 .12 .04 .50 .62
R = .50
R² = .25
∆R² = .24
Table 2 shows the ∆R² depicting 24% variance in prevalence of
academic procrastination can be accounted for by the predictors (reasons)
with F (191) = 9.47, p< .000. The results indicated that task aversiveness,
decision making, and risk taking are the strongest predictors for
prevalence of academic procrastination. Fear of failure is not predicting
as anticipated in comparative analysis. Therefore, second Hypothesis has
60 AFZAL AND JAMI
partially been accepted that is task evasiveness is predicting strongly, but
fear of failure does not in comparative analysis.
One Way ANOVA was run to delineate differences among
education groups in prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons
for procrastination.
Table 3
One Way ANOVA Comparing Three Education Levels on PASS in
University Students (N = 200)
Variables MSc
(n = 149)
MPhil
(n = 36 )
PhD
(n = 15)
M (SD) M(SD) M(SD) F(2,197) p
Prevalence 16.65(5.38) 16.65(5.38) 15.83(5.84) .41 .66
Task
aversiveness
27.64 (6.81) 25.08(6.49) 23.00(6.26) 4.74 .01
Fear of Failure 16.40(4.69) 15.69(4.73) 12.07(4.86) 5.82 .01
Rebellion
against control
5.11(1.96) 4.53(2.00) 4.40(1.84) 1.90 .15
Lack of
assertion
6.02(3.40) 5.31(2.42) 5.00(2.42) 1.27 .28
Decision
making
5.88(1.94) 5.69(2.14) 4.53(1.64) 3.21 .04
Dependency 5.87(1.95) 5.61(1.88) 4.00(1.60) 6.45 .00
Risk taking 5.10(2.37) 4.53(2.23) 4.07(1.98) 1.97 .14
Table 3 shows the results of ANOVA for comparing the
prevalence of academic procrastination among three educational levels.
Results indicate nonsignificant differences. Therefore, third hypothesis
that academic procrastination is more prevalent in younger group has
been refuted. This table also compares three educational levels on the
reasons of academic procrastination. Results indicate significant
differences in task aversiveness, fear of failure, decision making, and
dependency. Significant differences appear on these variables that‟s why
Tuckey‟s post hoc analysis was carried out for detailed comparison
among three groups.
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 61
Table 4
Post Hoc Analysis among MSc, MPhil, and PhD (N = 200)
95% CI
Scales F I > j D = i-j SE LL UL
Task Aversiveness 5.1 M.Sc.> PhD 4.7* 1.8 .40 9.0
Fear of Failure 5.8 M.Sc. > PhD 4.3* 1.2 1.2 7.3
Dependency 6.6 M.Sc. > PhD 1.8* .52 .64 3.1
MPhil > PhD 1.4* .60 .06 2.9
Difficulty in Making
Decisions
3.0 M.Sc. > PhD 1.3* .52 .10 2.6
Note. i-j = mean difference
*p < .05.
Post Hoc Analysis Using Tuckey‟s model was done for
significant F-values only. Post Hoc analysis shows in Table 4 that M.Sc.
students have significantly scored high than PhD students on task
aversiveness, fear of failure, dependency, and difficulty in making
decisions. However, MPhil students did not differ significantly from
M.Sc. and PhD students on these, but MPhil students differ significantly
from PhD students on Dependency.
Further, Independent Sample t-test was conducted to compare
social sciences (n = 100) and natural sciences‟ (n = 100) students on
PASS. For comparison on reasons, all 13 reasons are considered
separately. Table 5
Independent Sample t-test Comparing Natural and Social Sciences Students on
PASS (N=200)
PASS
Social
Sciences
(n = 100)
Natural
Sciences
(n = 100)
t(198)
p
Cohen’s
d M(SD) M(SD)
Task Aversiveness
Task aversiveness 5.16 (1.90) 4.82 (2.08) 1.20 .23 .17
Fear of success 4.75 (1.97) 5.14 (2.23) 1.31 .19 .18
Laziness 6.09 (2.31) 5.29 (2.23) 2.44 .02 .35
Peer influence 5.22 (1.81) 5.10 (2.01) .44 .12 .06
Time management 6.84 (1.81) 5.26 (1.95) 5.91 .00 .84 Task Aversiveness
overall
28.06 (6.27) 25.61 (7.20) 2.56 .01 .36
Table Continued
62 AFZAL AND JAMI
Table 5
Independent Sample t-test Comparing Natural and Social Sciences
Students on PASS (N=200)
PASS
Social
Sciences
(n = 100)
Natural
Sciences
(n = 100)
t(198)
p
Cohen’s
d M(SD) M(SD)
Fear of Failure
Fear of failure 16.22 (5.20) 15.66 (4.42) .82 .41 .12
Evaluation anxiety 5.63 (2.18) 5.44 (2.17) .62 .54 .09
Lack-of-self-
confident
4.96 (1.91) 4.78(2.02) 6.45 .52 .09
Perfectionism 5.22 (1.81) 5.10 (2.02) 6.04 .55 .06
Other Reasons
Rebellion against
control
5.35 (1.93) 4.55 (1.94) 2.29 .03 .41
Lack of assertion 6.29 (3.77) 5.34 (2.35) 2.14 .03 .30
Decision making 6.06 (1.89) 5.43 (2.04) 2.26 .03 .32
Dependency 5.61 (2.07) 5.75 (1.87) .50 .62 .07
Risk taking 5.08 (2.47) 4.76 (2.19) .97 .33 .14
Table 5 shows reasons for academic procrastination that are
prevalent in natural sciences and social sciences. Overall task
aversiveness is more common among social sciences‟ than natural
sciences‟ students. Under this broader category, ti me management and
laziness are the reasons that are more common among the students of
social sciences, hence, showing significant difference between the social
science and natural sciences. Rebellion against control, decision making,
and lack of assertion are also prevalent reasons for procrastination in
social sciences students showing significant differences. Non-significant
differences appeared on fear of failure overall and also on its separate
categories.
Discussion
The present study was aimed at studying the relationship between
prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons for academic
procrastination. As indicator of psychometric properties of PASS,
significant relationship was found between reasons for academic
procrastination that reflects the construct validity of PASS. At the same
time, as reported in instrument section, reliability .91 was also excellent
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 63
It was assumed that there is positive relationship between reasons
for academic procrastination and prevalence of academic procrastination.
The present study supports this assumption as positive relationship
between prevalence and reasons for academic procrastination is observed.
A study conducted by Tice and Baureminder (1997) also support this
assumption where students who procrastinated consistently performed
more poorly on written assignments than students who did not
procrastinate for various reasons. According to researchers (Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984a, 1984c), academic procrastination is not deficit is study
habits or time management, but a complex interplay of cognitive,
behavioral, and affective components.
The second hypothesis was that among reasons for academic
procrastination, task aversion and fear of failure positively predict
academic procrastination more than other reasons. Table 2 has revealed
that task aversiveness, decision making, and risk taking are the reasons
that appeared in hierarchy significantly predicting academic
procrastination more than any other reasons. Fear of failure did not
predict as assumed. Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) proposed that task
aversiveness and fear of failure hold major variance in academic
procrastination. In the current study, task aversiveness emerged as
significant predictor, but fear of failure did not show any significance.
This may be because of nature of scenario proposed to the students for
rating their reasons for academic procrastination that is “writing term
paper or assignments”. Lay (1986) suggested that task aversiveness
include task characteristics such as boredom and unpleasantness. It can
also be because of the reasons that come under task aversiveness
including fear of success, laziness, peer influence, and time management.
Students have rated the scenario according to these reasons.
Generally, written assignments are not much well prepared by the
students and it is observed that because of the easy internet access,
students indulge into plagiarism and they put less effort in such tasks.
This may be because they lack metacognitive skills in learning that leads
to procrastination (Howell & Watson, 2007). This is also reflected by
decision making as another reason for academic procrastination in current
sample. As students lack metacognitive ability, they may face difficulty
in information gathering and appropriate material to be quoted in the
assignment and then formatting as per standards of reporting. Another
factor for these findings can be lack of self-regulation and problems is
64 AFZAL AND JAMI
executive functioning that involves planning, monitoring, and
organizational abilities; as these decrease, procrastination increases
(Klassen et al., 2007; Milgram et al., 1988; Rabin et al., 2011; Steel,
2007; Tuckman, 2005).
Interestingly, risk taking appeared as third most significant
predictor. According to Oweini and Haraty (2005) common form of
academic procrastination among students is waiting until the last minute
to turn in papers or to study for an examination. Some individuals may
believe in putting their best in emergency situations when anxiety is at its
peak. Sensation seeking and thrill adds to flavor in life for some
individuals and they get habitual in delaying the task. This suggests to
study trait procrastination as linked to academic procrastination that may
be linked to temperament (Effert & Ferrari, 1995). Nevertheless, fear of
failure based on evaluation anxiety, lack of self-confidence, and
perfectionism, did not emerge as significant predictor as students hope
that they would pass written assignment, because scoring holds much
element of subjectivity at the part of the evaluator in written assignments
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The results can differ if scenario is changed
that is to written exam or public presentation.
Third hypothesis was that „younger group experience more
academic procrastination than older group.‟ Present study results did not
support this assumption as Table 3 shows nonsignificant differences
among students of three education levels on prevalence of academic
procrastination. The reason may be that all students hold similar feelings
for scenario (writing term paper/assignment) either belonging to MSc,
MPhil or PhD, hence, experiencing similar level of academic
procrastination. A study by Burka and Yuen (1983) also supports the
present study‟s findings. They have found that academic procrastination
is common among college and university students that may be depiction
of their age. Table 3 also shows that task aversiveness, fear of failure,
dependency, decision making, and risk taking are more common in
younger group than older group. The reason may be that younger group
(MSc.) may face much tough routine that involve more course work and
meeting deadlines than other levels. At the same time, self-regulation and
metacognitive skills are age related (Beswick et al., 1988; Klassen et al.,
2007) that may be less developed in younger group than older.
Results have shown that overall task aversiveness is more
common among social sciences‟ than natural sciences‟ students. Under
this broader category, time management and laziness are the reasons that
are more common among the students of social sciences comparatively.
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 65
This may be because students of social sciences have more free slots and
leisure time available for not having very tough schedule of classes and
lab work as of students of natural sciences. This make them lazy and least
concerned about time management, hence, they may procrastinate. A
study by Harris and Sutton (1983) showed that task appeal refers to
actions that we find unpleasant. Lay (1986) suggested that the definition
of task aversiveness be broaden to include person-task characteristics
such as uncertainty and boredom, which covers how unpleasant or
aversive a task is to perform. Rebellion against control, decision making,
and lack of assertion are also the more common reasons in students of
social sciences and natural sciences. This may be because students of
natural sciences get used to their defined schedule and amount of work
and planning required to prepare their written assignments. They may
have better metacognitive skills and self-regulation or receive more social
support from their teachers as compare to students of social sciences
while preparing written assignments. Natural sciences are also based on
all-or-none phenomenon, while social sciences need to cater complexity
and shades of social life that may also be reflected in more reasons for
procrastination among them.
Conclusion. Although, in the current study, all the reasons
proposed by Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) were found to be associated
with academic procrastination, nevertheless, aversion for an academic
task like writing a term paper, studying for an exam, keeping up with
weekly reading assignments, performing administrative tasks, and
maintaining attendance; along lack of decision making and risk taking
behavior were the strongest predictors of reasons academic
procrastination. Procrastination was equally prevalent among all
educational groups, however, junior students displayed more academic
task aversion, fear of failure, dependency, and decision making problems
than senior students. Interestingly, procrastination was found to be more
prevalent in social sciences‟ students than natural sciences‟, so are the
various reasons for procrastination. Therefore, junior and social sciences‟
students need attention to address their academic procrastination related
issues.
Limitations and Suggestions. Limitation of this present study
was that the sample was not equally distributed along gender and all
educational levels that may affect the external validity of the findings,
66 AFZAL AND JAMI
therefore, it is suggested to take equal distribution of sample along
gender and educational groups to make inferences more meaningful.
Another limitation was that the sample was not large enough and
randomly selected to generalize the findings. A nation-wide study at
university level can be taken up using random sampling to increase
external validity of the study. Current study was cross-sectional, in
future longitudinal studies can be taken up as differences along
educational group reveal that procrastination may vary with time,
increased level of training, and skills. Self-regulation and metacognitive
skills can be taken up in future studies as correlate of academic
procrastination. Modifications in PASS were done, but factor structure
was not confirmed. In future, confirmatory factor analysis is
recommended as indicator of construct validity. Indigenous measures to
study procrastination can be developed to study this phenomenon in
Pakistani context. More in-depth analysis along demographic variables
are suggested to study the phenomenon in detail.
Implications. Based on present findings, interventions for
students can be offered in respective departments to address reasons for
procrastination, which are evidently needed for students of social
sciences. Teachers can make written assignments more interesting so that
students have intrinsic motivation to learn from the assigned task. Report
writing skills can be improved through workshops and interventions to
help students handle their inhibitions while writing term
paper/assignments. In fact, at university level courses at M.Sc. level may
be developed to promote this skill among students. Time management
workshops can be arranged to address task aversiveness as a reason for
procrastination.
References
Afzal, S. (2009). Prevalence and reasons for academic procrastination
among university Students (Unpublished MSc Research Report).
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Aziz, S., & Tariq, N. (2013a). A web-based survey of procrastination and
its outcomes among Pakistani adolescents. Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, 23(1), 118-131.
Aziz, S., & Tariq, N. (2013b). Role of organization type, job tenure, and
job hierarchy in decisional procrastination and perceived locus of
control among executives. Pakistan Journal of Psychological
Research, 28(1), 25-50.
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 67
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Etiology the cause of procrastination
(Unpublished Master‟s Thesis). Carleton University, Canada.
Retrieved from http:// www.Carleton .ca /~ tpychyl/causes.htm.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, D. E., & Mann. L. (1988). Psychological
antecedents of student Procrastination. Journal of Australian
Psychology, 23(2), 203-214.
Choudhry, S. (2008). Relationship between personality traits and
procrastination among students (Unpublished MSc Research
Report). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid –i- Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing and
assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Effert, B. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: Examine
personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,
4, 151-156.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Correlates of academic procrastination:
Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 31, 503-509.
Fatima, G., (2001). Relationship of perceived parental control with
procrastination among adolescent (Unpublished MSc Research
Report). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid –i- Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination
interventories for adults: Adults and avoidance measures. Journal
of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 14 (2), 97-110.
Gargari, B. R., Sabouri, H., & Norzad, F. (2011). Academic
procrastination: The relationship between causal attribution styles
and behavioral postponement. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, 5 (2), 76-72.
Harris, N. N., & Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in
organizations: a framework for research. Human Relations, 36,
987-995.
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2012). Academic procrastination, emotional
intelligence, academic self-efficacy and GPA: A comparison
between students with and without learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 116-124.
68 AFZAL AND JAMI
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Association with
achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 167-178.
Janssen, J. (2015). Academic procrastination: Prévalence among high
school and undergraduate students and relationship to academic
achievement (Dissertation). Georgia State University. Retrieved
from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/epse_diss/103.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2007). Academic
procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-
regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931. Doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological Testing. Sage Publication.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal
of Research in Personality, 20(4), 474-495.
Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The
procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 197-212.
Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011).
Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning
environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243-252. Doi:
/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025
Noran, F. Y. (2000). Procrastination among students in institutes of
higher learning: Challenges for the K-Economy. Retrieved from
ttp://http:.mahdzan.com/papers/procrastinate/
Oweini, A., & Harraty, N. (2005). The carrots or the stick: What
motivate students [A Manuscript]. Lebanese American University,
USA.
Rabin, A. L., Fogel, J., & Upham-Nutter, E. K. (2011). Academic
procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported
executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 3(3), 344-357.
Rothblum, D. E., Solomon, J. L., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective,
cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low
procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6 (1), 387-
393.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984a). Academic procrastination:
Frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503-509.
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 69
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984c). Why Procrastinate: An
investigation of the root causes behind procrastination. Lethbridge
Undergraduate Research Journal, 4(3), 154-176.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and
theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure,
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.
Thompson, D. (1995). The concise oxford dictionary of current English
(9 th
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the
procrastination scale. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Measures, 51, 473-480.
Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as incentive to motivate
procrastination to study. Journal of Experimental Education, 66,
141 – 147.
Tuckman, B. W., & Sexton, T. L., (1989). The relation between self-
belief and self- regulated performance. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 5, 465-472.
Tuckman, B. W. (2005). Relations of academic procrastination,
rationalizations, and performance in a web course with deadlines.
Psychological Reports, 96(3), 1015-1021.
Tice, D. M., & Baureminder, R. F. (1997). Correlates of academic
procrastination and mathematics achievement of university under
graduates. Journal of counseling Psychology, 31, 503 –509.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development
research: A content analysis and recommendations for best
practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838. DOI:
10.1177/0011000006288127
Yong, L. F. (2010). A study of the assaertiveness and academic
procrastination of English and communication students at a
private university. American Journal of Scientific Research, 9, 62-
72.
Received February 29, 2016
Revisions Received July 18, 2018
Copyright of Journal of Behavioural Sciences is the property of University of the Punjab, Department of Applied Psychology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
