Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 January 2014
Received in revised form 11 September 2014
Accepted 27 October 2014
Keywords:
College students
Motivation
Procrastination
a b s t r a c t
This study examined passive and active procrastination among undergraduate anatomy students in terms of
background variables, motivational beliefs (i.e., belief about the speed of knowledge acquisition, self-efcacy,
and task value), and grades. Factor analysis revealed three discrete factors of active procrastination, one of
which was closely tied to passive procrastination and behavioral procrastination. Analyses indicated that the
relations to motivational beliefs and grades were markedly different for, on the one hand, two factors of active
procrastination (positive relations) and, on the other hand, passive procrastination and the third factor of active
procrastination (negative relations). After controlling for academic ability, only passive procrastination was a
statistically signicant predictor of grades. Results imply that the dimensions of active procrastination that
appear adaptive for learning may not reect behavioral procrastination, whereas the dimension of active procrastination that involves behavioral procrastination lacks adaptive associations.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.012
1041-6080/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
158
dimensions. The majority of research on active procrastination has examined the composite measure, examining relations of academic and
motivational constructs to the scale as a whole (e.g., Cao, 2012; Choi &
Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; Corkin et al., 2011). It is possible that
the composite scale endeavors to measure more distinct constructs than
can coexist within a single tendency. This possibility resonates with
concerns that active procrastinationwhich combines thoughtful task
delay with a failure to self-regulateis a self-contradictory concept
(Pychyl, 2009). Should this be the case, inferences based on the suprafactor of active procrastination may be inaccurate.
When examined separately, factors of active procrastination may
contain important differences. Intentional delay is likely unique from
other factors due to its conceptual similarity with arousal procrastination. Arousal procrastination involves purposefully delaying to increase
excitement level and thus motivation; however, this construct is called
into question by the argument that all procrastination is irrational
(Simpson & Pychyl, 2009; Steel, 2010). Wolters, Hussain, and Young
(2013) reported that the intentional delay factor had negative relations
to self-regulation and learning strategies. Hensley and Burgoon (2013)
found no factor but intentional delay had the expected associations
with self-reported postponement. Such ndings suggest that a composite scale might obscure differences among the dimensions of active procrastination. Additional inquiry is necessary to explore the structure and
associations of the individual factors.
2. Motivational beliefs in relation to procrastination
Beliefs about learning inform students' academic motivation, which
directs efforts toward educational goals (Eccles, 1983; Schommer,
1994). Previous research established certain motivational beliefs as
adaptive due to their consistent connections to effort, persistence, and
learning (Paulsen & Feldman, 2007; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).
The degree to which procrastination exhibits or lacks associations
with motivational beliefs indicates whether it is adaptive or maladaptive (Corkin et al., 2011). At the center of this study are three motivational beliefs about oneself as a learner: the amount of time learning
should take (speed of knowledge acquisition), the ability to learn
(self-efcacy), and the value of learning (task value).
Self-efcacy and task value are two key motivational beliefs. Selfefcacy reects how individuals judge their abilities to successfully accomplish specic tasks (Bandura, 1997). Task values characterize the
contribution of academic ability. There is also a need to test the construct validity of active procrastination and establish whether its factors
reect procrastination behaviorally. The present study addresses these
needs, with the major purpose of examining the factors of active procrastination and their differential relations to motivation, academic
ability and achievement, and behavioral measures of procrastination.
Three research questions guided the study.
First, what is the factor structure of active procrastination among
undergraduate anatomy students? Do all factors reect procrastination
behaviorally? The researcher anticipated that only the intentional delay
factor would be validated as behavioral procrastination.
Second, what differences exist in the relations between procrastination measures and motivation variables (i.e., beliefs about the speed of
knowledge acquisition, self-efcacy, and task value, as well as the interaction between self-efcacy and task value)? The researcher hypothesized
that intentional delay would have negative relations to the motivation
variables, distinct from the other factors of active procrastination.
Third, controlling for ACT score as an indicator of academic ability,
is a procrastination measure a statistically signicant predictor of
exam and course grades in anatomy? The researcher anticipated that
active procrastination factors would not predict achievement.
5. Method
The following section provides an overview of participants and the
measures they completed. Scales measured motivation and procrastination. Behavioral measures provided evidence of task delay.
5.1. Participants
The study took place at a large, public university in the Midwestern
United States during spring 2013. The participants were 320 traditionally
aged (Md = 19 years old) undergraduate students enrolled in Human
Anatomy, a four-credit prerequisite course. This required course served
primarily rst- and second-year students from multiple areas, including
pre-nursing and pre-allied medical professions. Consistent with typical
course enrollment, most participants (78%) were female. Eighty-three
percent were White, ve percent were Asian, and three percent each
were Hispanic, AfricanAmerican, or two or more ethnicities.
5.2. Procedure
The study took place during a two-week period as the students
began to work on Unit II: The Back and Upper Limb. This time period
was chosen to allow the students sufcient familiarity with the course
to develop motivational beliefs about it. The timing also situated the
measurement of motivation and procrastination prior to achievement.
The researcher visited class to describe the opportunity for students to
complete a condential online survey. As an incentive, the students
could enter a drawing to win one of ve $25 gift cards; no course credit
was awarded.
5.3. Measures
Demographic information came from university records. The central
measures selected for the study were based on motivational theory and
previous research (Choi & Moran, 2009; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
McKeachie, 1991; Tuckman, 1991; Wood & Kardash, 2002). With the
exception of the procrastination measures used to ascertain validity,
described below, all items were placed on seven-point Likert-type
scales with anchored end points (1 = not at all true of me, 7 = very
true of me) and a neutral middle option.
5.3.1. Passive procrastination
Passive procrastination was measured using the 15-item
course-specic adaption (Hensley & Burgoon, 2013) of the Tuckman
159
160
Table 1
Factor Analysis of the Domain-Specic Active Procrastination Scale.
Present study
SD
4.91
5.14
5.06
5.49
1.68
1.67
1.66
1.42
3.68
3.95
4.28
3.14
3.33
2.53
4.93
4.96
3.37
3.21
2.71
3.64
.93
.68
.65
.48
.07
.12
.20
.14
.04
.11
.01
.20
.73
.74
.73
.60
1.75
1.76
1.70
1.57
1.73
1.37
1.59
1.56
.09
.24
.27
.04
.02
.23
.42
.17
.62
.61
.57
.54
.50
.47
.40
.38
.16
.07
.04
.00
.07
.12
.20
.29
.61
.78
.74
.76
.75
.72
.82
.79
1.68
1.65
1.52
1.81
.15
.03
.32
.20
5.99
37.45
.85
.02
.03
.07
.06
2.28
14.25
.81
.88
.78
.40
.36
.97
6.04
.75
.79
.67
.70
.58
Note. In this course incorporated into each item. Factor-loading information in the two rightmost columns adapted from Choi and Moran (2009). For text of original items and full factor
loadings, refer to Choi and Moran (2009). In the present study, analyses focused on the three above-identied factors of active procrastination, rather than the 16-item Active Procrastination Scale as a whole. Bold text indicates the factor-loading value selected for each item and its associated factor. In all cases but one, values set in bold represent the highest loading for
each item.
161
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, alpha coefcients, and bivariate correlations.
M
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
SD
Passive procrastination
3.26
1.26 .95
Active procrastination
4.02
0.70 .70
(composite)
Ability to meet
5.15
1.33 .85
deadlines
Satisfying outcomes
3.85
1.07 .81
under pressure
Intentional decision
3.23
1.26 .75
6.43
4.39 n/a
Days of advance
studyinga
2.37
3.28 n/a
Days of advance quiz
submissionb
2.85
0.89 .75
Frequency of
procrastination
5.60
0.89 .80
Speed beliefc
Self-efcacy
5.44
1.15 .94
Task value
6.18
0.87 .88
ACT score
26.62
3.49 n/a
Exam grade
81.12 14.86 n/a
Course grade
83.12 12.29 n/a
10
11
12
13
__
.31
.25
.11
.20
.27
__
.54
.15
.36
.43
__
.07
__
.14 .34 __
.20
.35 .86
__
.51 __
.86
.66 __
.52
.92
.59 __
.66
.45 .59 .28
.50
.16
.40
.17
__
.36 __
.18
.14
.75
.17
.53
.37
.03
.29
.37
.13
.20
.14
.21
.56
.36
.11
.32
.42
.16
.41
.17
.12
.25
.30
.20 __
.02
.05
.03
.06
.13
.12
.17
.42
.34
.05
.21
.32
Note. Ability to meet deadlines, satisfying outcomes under pressure, and intentional decision to delay are the three factors of active procrastination.
*p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001.
a
How many days before an exam students began to study; higher numbers represent lower procrastination.
b
How many days before the due date students submitted an online quiz; higher numbers represent lower procrastination.
c
Reverse coded so that higher scores represent more complex beliefs (i.e., knowledge is acquired gradually).
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting procrastination variables.
Passive procrastination
Predictor variables
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 1
Step 1
Speed belief
Self-efcacy
Task value
.00
.46***
.13***
.01
.48***
.18**
.04
.52***
.07
.03
.54***
.13*
.04
.44***
.08
.13*
.16*
.16*
.29***
.29***
.14**
.31***
.02**
.32***
.32***
.17***
.35***
.03***
.17***
.17***
Step 2
Self-efcacy x task value
R2
R2
.11***
.11***
Note. Ability to meet deadlines, satisfying outcomes under pressure, and intentional decision to delay are the three factors of active procrastination.
indicates the standardized regression coefcient. The self-efcacy x task value interaction, tested in Step 2 for all four models, did not explain a signicant amount of additional variance
in Satisfying outcomes under pressure or Intentional decision to delay (Step 2 not shown).
As the study examined more than one criterion variable, it used a more conservative alpha level of .013 (.05/4) for the procrastination analyses.
*p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001.
162
1.5
Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting grades.
Passive Procrastination
0.5
-0.5
-1
Low Self-Efficacy
Low Task Value
High Self-Efficacy
High Task Value
expected due to aptitude or beliefs, and the negative role was particularly notable for overall course grade. Satisfying outcomes under pressure and intentional decision to delay were not statistically signicant
predictors of grades when the equation accounted for other relevant
variables.
7. Discussion
The ndings distinguished among self-reported passive procrastination and active procrastination factors in terms of motivation, achievement, and behavioral procrastination. The results demonstrated the
salience of students' academic ability and beliefs about the nature, attainability, and value of learning anatomy. The study's key contributions relate to the measurement and conceptualization of active procrastination.
Step 1
ACT
.34***
Step 3
Passive
procrastination
Satisfying outcomes
under pressure
Intentional decision
to delay
R2
R2
.29***
.30*** .35***
.08
.10
.33***
.23**
.07
.09
.28***
.13*
.14*
.37***
.24***
.05
.07
.21*
.12***
.12***
.22***
.10***
.30***
.29***
.02
.02
.09
.09
.24*** .12***
.02*
.12***
.28***
.15***
.32***
.04**
Note. Ability to meet deadlines was omitted from the model due to issues of multicollinearity
caused by high correlations with other predictor variables. indicates the standardized
regression coefcient. As the study examined more than one criterion variable, it used a
more conservative alpha level of .025 (.05/2) for the grade analyses (e.g., Wolters &
Benzon, 2013).
*p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001.
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Step 2
Speed belief
Self-efcacy
Task value
Course grade
Predictor variables
Low Self-Efficacy
Low Task Value
High Self-Efficacy
High Task Value
Fig. 2. Variation in ability to meet deadlines as a function of the self-efcacy by task value
interaction. Note. High/low self-efcacy and task values reect the amount one standard
deviation above/below their respective means, and passive procrastination and ability to
meet deadlines are centered at their respective means.
163
164
Eccles, J.S., & Wigeld, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents'
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215225 (Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/
2027.42/69045).
Grpel, P., & Steel, P. (2008). A mega-trial investigation of goal setting, interest enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
406411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.015.
Harrington, N. (2005). It's too difcult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 873883. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2004.12.018.
Hellman, C.M., & Caselman, T.D. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the Harvey Imposter Phenomenon Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(2), 161166. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8302_10.
Hensley, L.C., & Burgoon, J.M. (2013). Active and passive procrastination: Overall tendencies
or domain-specic behaviors? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 27May 1, 2013.
Keith, T.K. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston: Pearson Education.
Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and
web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly,
72, 847865.
McGee, D., Del Vento, A., & Bavelas, J.B. (1997). Trait and situational factors in procrastination: An interactional model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4), 889903.
Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G., Ravindran, B., & Nicholson, J. (1996). Engagement
in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others,
and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388422 (Retrieved
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8979871).
Muis, K.R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 42(3), 173190.
Nist, S.L., & Holschuh, J.P. (2005). Practical applications of the research on epistemological
beliefs. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(2), 8493.
Pajares, F. (2011). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of
Educational Research, 95(1), 2735.
Paulsen, M.B., & Feldman, K.A. (2007). The conditional and interaction effects of epistemological beliefs on the self-regulated learning of college students: Cognitive and
behavioral strategies. Research in Higher Education, 48(3), 353401. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11162-006-9029-0.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of
Michigan.
Pintrich, P.R., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In R.P. Perry, & J.C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning
in higher education: An evidence-based practice (pp. 731810). New York: Springer.
Pychyl, T.A. (2009). Active procrastination: Thoughts on oxymorons. Retrieved June 12,
2012, from. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200907/activeprocrastination-thoughts-oxymorons.
Rice, K.G., Richardson, C.M.E., & Clark, D. (2012). Perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 288302. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0026643.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//
0022-0663.82.3.498.
Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34, 355370.
Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understanding and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293319.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2008). Epistemological beliefs' contributions to study
strategies of Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(4), 920929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.920.