Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Individual differences in academic procrastination tendencyand writing success

Barbara A. Fritzsche*, Beth Rapp Young, Kara C. Hickson

Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, PO Box 161390, Orlando, FL 32816, USA

Received 8 April 2002; received in revised form 21 September 2002; accepted 6 November 2002

Abstract

This study examined the relation between academic procrastination tendency and student writing suc-cess. We found that the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety,anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, less satisfaction with writing the paper,and lower grades. Additionally, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomesfor high procrastinators. These results have implications for understanding academic procrastination andthe use of academic interventions to address procrastination.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Procrastination; Academic procrastination; Writing; Academic support

1. Introduction

Procrastination can sometimes be beneficial, such as when the payment of US income tax isdelayed as long as legally permitted (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). Typically, however,procrastination is viewed as ‘‘the act of needlessly delaying tasks to the point of experiencingsubjective discomfort’’ (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984, p. 503). Thus, it is not surprising that pro-crastination is frequently not in one’s best interest. For college students particularly, academicprocrastination has been associated with depression (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), guilt (Pychyl,Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000), low grades (Wesley, 1994), anxiety (Rothblum, Solomon, &Murakami, 1986), neuroticism (Watson, 2001), irrational thinking (Bridges & Roig, 1997),cheating (Roig & DeTommaso, 1995), and low self-esteem (Ferrari, 1992, 2000).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0191-8869(02 )00369-0

Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-407-823-5350; fax: +1-407-823-5862.

E-mail address: [email protected] (B.A. Fritzsche).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

Procrastination may be an especially serious problem for student writing. In Solomon andRothblum’s (1984) study, more than 40% of the participants reported that they always or nearlyalways procrastinated on writing a term paper. In fact, more students reported that they pro-crastinate on writing papers than on any other academic activity. The high frequency of pro-crastination may hinder learning in writing-intensive classes because students typically need longperiods of planning and revision for their writing to succeed. Writing is a complex cognitiveactivity which often cannot be successfully managed in one hurried draft (Boice, 1997a, 1997b;Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975; Emig, 1971; Flower, 1988; Hayes & Flower,1986); furthermore, lack of revision can lead to writer’s block, as the writer tries unsuccessfullyto achieve perfection in the initial draft (Boice, 1997a; Rose, 1980). Moreover, when procrasti-nation precludes the possibility of revision, the consequences may extend beyond the assignmentgrade. US students, for example, are widely perceived to be deficient in writing skills, and manycollege graduates must accept low-level jobs as a result of this deficiency (Koretz, 1997; Pryor,1997).To treat situation-specific procrastination, such as academic procrastination on writing tasks,Ferrari (2001) outlines several possible behavior management techniques. We argue that addi-tional avenues of academic support may help student procrastinators. Many universities offerwriting centers in which peers work with peers (Harris & Kinkead, 1993; Harris, 1995; Kail &Trimbur, 1987; Murphy & Law, 1995). Also, well-established writing pedagogy frequentlyincorporates other types of feedback such as teacher-student conferences and in-class peerworkshops (Anson, 1989; Harris, 1986, 1992). Feedback on writing can complement other psy-chological treatments. Specifically, receipt of feedback on writing may help with two of the mainreasons identified for procrastination: fear of failure and task aversiveness (Solomon & Roth-blum, 1984). The feedback may help high fear-of-failure procrastinators by reducing unhelpfulperfectionism, and it may help task-averse procrastinators by making the writing seem lessunpleasant. And, although feedback on writing may not, in itself, be enough to overcome a dee-ply ingrained tendency to procrastinate, it may be related to better performance on assignedwriting. Given the importance of writing to academic and professional success, such a resultwould be beneficial in itself.In this study, we measured academic procrastination, writing behavior, anxiety, and gradesof students in writing-intensive courses. Moreover, we examined whether feedback on writingwas related to writing success for academic procrastinators. Specifically, we developed twohypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Academic procrastination was expected to be associated with anxiety about writinga major paper, delay behaviors on the writing assignment, less satisfaction with the writingexperience, lower paper grades, and lower grades in writing-intensive courses.

Hypothesis 2. High academic procrastinators were expected to be less likely to seek feedbackon their writing prior to submitting it for a grade. However, receipt of writing feedbackwas expected to moderate the relationship between individual differences in academic pro-crastination tendency and outcomes, such that receiving feedback would be more helpfulfor those who report a high tendency to procrastinate than for those with a low tendencyto procrastinate.

1550 B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 206 undergraduate students enrolled in writing-intensive classes from a large,US metropolitan university. The majority of participants were White (67%), women (63%), andfirst-year college students (69%). Participants represented 50 different college majors, and 80% ofthe participants were 18 or 19 years old (ages ranged from 17 to 38 years).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. ProcrastinationAcademic procrastination was measured with the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Stu-dents (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). This 52-item, self-report measure was designed toassess the prevalence of procrastination in six academic activities (e.g. writing a term paper).Participants rate on a 5-point scale the extent to which they procrastinate on the task(1=never procrastinate; 5=always procrastinate), to what degree procrastination on the taskis a problem (1=not at all a problem; 5=always a problem), and to what extent they want todecrease their tendency to procrastinate on this task (1=do not want to decrease; 5=definitelywant to decrease). Item scores were summed for each academic task and a total procrastinationscore was calculated. In addition, fear of failure and aversiveness of task procrastination reasonswere assessed using a 5-point scale (1=Not at all reflects why I procrastinated; 5=definitelyreflects why I procrastinated). Several studies (e.g. Bridges & Roig, 1997; Roig & DeTommaso,1995; Rothblum et al., 1986; Watson, 2001; Wesley, 1994) provide support for the validity of thePASS.

2.2.2. AnxietyAnxiety was measured with Spielberger’s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y (STAI).The STAI assesses both the enduring personality tendency to experience tension and worry (traitanxiety) and the amount of anxiety that is currently being experienced (state anxiety). Partici-pants report the extent to which the items (e.g. ‘‘I am jittery’’) describe them using a 4-point scale(1=not at all; 4=very much so). To assess the anxiety that participants experienced when writingtheir paper, we modified the instructions for the state anxiety scale from ‘‘. . .indicate how you feelright now, that is, at this moment’’ to ‘‘. . .indicate how you felt while working on your writingassignment.’’ Although this change could potentially lower reliability and validity, analysis indi-cated high internal consistency reliability (�=0.93). The STAI manual reports several studiessupporting the scale’s validity (Spielberger, 1983).

2.2.3. GradesGrades were operationalized as overall Grade Point Average (GPA), grade in the writing-intensive course, and grade on the major writing assignment examined for this study. GPA andcourse grade were obtained from the university database, and paper grade was obtained from thecourse instructor after the end of the semester.

B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557 1551

2.2.4. Writing-related delay behaviorsBehaviors were assessed with a 26-item Writing Behaviors Assessment (WBA) developed spe-cifically for this study according to well-established principles in the scholarly literature onrhetoric and composition (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1986). In addition, a subject matter expert with aPhD in English (Rhetoric, Linguistics, and Literature program) who has administered three dif-ferent writing centers over the past 10 years was an author of this WBA. Participants specify awriting assignment and respond to questions about their prewriting, writing, and revision activ-ities, e.g. ‘‘When did you intend to start prewriting for this assignment?’’ (1=15 or more daysafter you received the assignment; 5=the same day I received the assignment). Intentions (e.g. whendid you intend to write?), actual behavior (e.g. when did you actually write?), satisfaction (e.g.how satisfied were you with the time you started writing?), and typicality (e.g. how typical wasyour behavior?) scores were calculated by summing responses to the relevant items.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited from writing-intensive classes and from students who visited theuniversity’s writing center by offering $10.00 for their time. Participants self-selected a writingassignment which they considered ‘‘major’’ for use in this study. First, participants completed thePASS; then, after finishing the writing assignment, students returned to complete the WBA andthe STAI. Finally, after the semester ended, with the permission of the participants, we obtainedtheir grades.

3. Results

Table 1 presents scale intercorrelations, the number of items per scale, means, standard devia-tions, and coefficient alphas. As seen in Table 1, the tendency to procrastinate on writing taskswas associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later thanusual, and less satisfaction with writing the paper. Moreover, academic procrastination wasassociated with lower GPAs and grades in writing-intensive courses. These findings provide sup-port for Hypothesis 1.To examine the relation between feedback, academic procrastination, and writing success(Hypothesis 2), multiple regression analyses were calculated in which outcomes were regressedonto whether or not feedback was received, procrastination tendencies, and their interaction.Significant interaction terms indicate the presence of a moderator (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Cohen& Cohen, 1983). Prior to conducting the regression analyses, the continuous variables (the pro-crastination tendencies) were centered; that is, the scores were put in deviation form so that themean was set equal to zero (Aiken & West, 1991).Overall, 82% of the participants received feedback on their writing. Specifically, 30% receivedfeedback from a university writing consultant and 52% received feedback from at least one othersource (i.e. a roommate, friend, family member, or teacher). The overall regression of actualwriting behavior on procrastination scores for writing a term paper, receipt of feedback, and theirinteraction was statistically significant, F(3, 175)=8.173, P<0.001, R2=0.12. Specifically, therewas a main effect for receipt of feedback (�=0.189, t=2.574, P=0.011), suggesting that receiving


Table 1

Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and intercorrelations for procrastination, anxiety, and performance measures

Scale M S.D. � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Procrastination Assessment Scale–Students

1. Total 51.67 9.96 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.52 0.14 0.31 0.11 0.39 �0.19 �0.21 0.02 0.14 �0.07 �0.08 �0.20

2. Writing 9.91 2.38 0.72 0.47 0.30 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.37 0.20 0.27 �0.20 �0.23 �0.24 0.19 �0.12 �0.17 �0.30

3. Studying 10.13 2.42 0.74 0.43 0.15 0.24 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.06 0.30 �0.24 �0.20 �0.13 0.13 �0.06 �0.07 �0.13

4. Reading 10.21 2.55 0.70 0.06 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.05 0.16 �0.21 �0.18 �0.19 0.12 �0.08 �0.02 �0.11

5. Administrative 6.50 3.13 0.84 0.44 0.23 0.03 0.11 �0.01 0.27 0.01 �0.04 0.29 0.01 �0.02 �0.01 �0.06

6. Attendance 7.06 3.33 0.88 0.19 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.28 �0.14 �0.10 0.04 0.09 0.00 �0.07 �0.12

7. School activities 7.86 2.67 0.78 �0.06 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.06 �0.04 0.22 0.01 �0.02 0.04 �0.03

8. Fear of Failure 9.95 4.15 0.78 0.38 0.32 0.33 0.02 0.00 �0.13 �0.01 �0.03 �0.03 �0.04

9. Aversiveness of Tasks 8.99 3.03 0.68 0.25 0.32 �0.05 �0.11 �0.10 0.19 �0.25 �0.09 �0.13

STAI Anxiety

10. State Anxiety 41.65 11.07 0.93 0.35 0.04 �0.07 �0.21 0.04 �0.03 �0.31 �0.49

11. Trait Anxiety 37.63 8.97 0.90 �0.09 �0.07 �0.16 0.04 �0.09 �0.04 �0.15

Grades

12. Overall GPA 3.22 0.58 – 0.48 0.36 �0.13 �0.03 �0.11 �0.01

13. Course Grade 3.50 0.67 – 0.66 �0.04 0.01 0.03 0.16

14. Paper Grade 3.35 0.69 – 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.31

Writing Behaviors Assessment

15. Typicality 11.90 2.58 0.71 0.07 0.19 0.20

16. Intention 9.27 2.11 0.41 0.19 0.19

17. Actual Behavior 7.84 2.22 0.78 0.61

18. Satisfaction 10.96 2.70 0.76

Correlations that are statistically significant at P<0.05 are bold. N=206; however, paper grades were obtained for only 46 participants. There are 18 items in the Total

Procrastination Scale, three items in the Writing, Studying, Reading, Administrative, Attendance, School Activities and Aversiveness of Tasks Procrastination Scales,

and five items in the Fear of Failure Procrastination Scale.

B.A.Fritzsch

eet

al./

Perso

nality

andIndivid

ualDifferen

ces35(2003)1549–1557

1553

feedback was associated with writing the paper earlier than originally intended. There was also amain effect for procrastination on writing (�=�0.852, t=�3.135, P=0.002); that is, procrasti-nators tended to write their papers later than originally intended. These main effects must beinterpreted in light of the significant interaction between feedback and procrastination on writing(�=0.720, t=2.658, P=0.009). As illustrated by Fig. 1, low procrastinators wrote their papersearly, regardless of whether they received feedback on their writing. However, high procrastina-tors wrote their papers early only when they received feedback. These results provide support forHypothesis 2.

4. Discussion

The results of this study indicate that individual differences in academic procrastination ten-dency relate to a variety of negative personal and performance-related outcomes that can impactstudent writing and, ultimately, college success. Specifically, procrastination tendency was asso-ciated with increased anxiety, delayed writing behavior, and lower grades. Moreover, receipt offeedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. Thus,students may be able to mitigate some of the negative outcomes associated with their procrasti-nation tendency by seeking feedback on their writing prior to turning it in for a grade. These

Fig. 1. Feedback as a moderator of the relationship between writing procrastination and actual behavior.


benefits may arise from the feedback itself, the process of discussing the work, or the creation ofan earlier deadline for the writing prior to the ultimate submission.Although high procrastinators were less likely to seek feedback, some of them did seek it, andtheir receipt of feedback was associated with better outcomes. To provide extra motivation foracademic procrastinators, instructors might consider designing their writing assignments in sucha way that feedback is built into the assignments. For example, instructors could schedule peerworkshops during class, collect drafts or portions of a longer paper (e.g. collect the literaturereview and method sections separately from results and discussion sections), hold individualconferences with students, or require students to obtain feedback from sources such as the uni-versity’s writing center. Writing centers can be particularly effective interventions because they donot require extra instructor or class time, and because students can attend a writing center con-sultation even without a draft (for feedback on their ideas or advice on getting started). Writingcenters do not grade students, so students may speak more freely when they seek help there; thathonesty can net them more specific help. Additionally, requiring or making available writingcenter consultations, teacher–student conferences, or peer workshops can provide students withan additional deadline; if they habitually procrastinate to their deadline, the extra incentive tocomplete at least some work earlier. In other words, academic-based interventions can potentiallycomplement counseling-based interventions (i.e. see Ferrari et al., 1995) to help reduce academicprocrastination.The use of a self-report measure of writing behavior was a limitation of this study. Items werewritten to be as specific and behavioral as possible, but the internal consistency of the intentionsscale was low, indicating a need to improve this scale. We speculate that the low alpha was due tothe intentions scale being the most subjective of the constructs measured. The problem of self-report method bias was alleviated by studying criteria that were not based on self-report (i.e.grades) and by measuring academic procrastination tendency in a separate testing session thanthe assessment of writing behavior (e.g. see Bridges & Roig, 1997).Another limitation is that instructors provided paper grades for only 22% of participants, soanalyses based on paper grade had low power. No instructors refused to provide grades, butmany instructors could not be reached after the semester ended. Because most participants werefirst-year students, and because writing-intensive courses for first-year students tend to be taughtby non-tenure earning faculty such as instructors or adjuncts, turnover among these faculty wasthe chief reason paper grades could not be collected. Perhaps faculty turnover would have beenlower for more advanced students, but upper division classes are less likely to be writing-inten-sive. So the drawback of faculty turnover was balanced by the increased variety of majors repre-sented by the study.Because this study was not experimental, to state that feedback will negate the negative effects ofprocrastination would be premature. To better understand the role that feedback plays in the relationbetween procrastination tendency and writing outcomes, experimental studies should be conductedin which feedback is systematically manipulated and the context (e.g. the specific writing assignment,the quality of feedback) is controlled. Our study provides the impetus to do such work. In addi-tion, the real-world context of this study allowed us to examine the procrastination as it relates toactual writing assignments that have real consequences for students (e.g. anxiety, grades).Further research might also examine the relation between feedback and writing behaviors overa longer period than just one semester/one paper. We expect that a participant’s tendency to


procrastinate is not likely to be significantly affected by receiving feedback on their writing onetime. However, over time, these students’ writing habits might change. In addition, longer thesisand dissertation projects offer more opportunities for procrastination (i.e. see Pychyl, Morin, &Salmon, 2000), so research that spans longer periods of time might identify those points in thewriting process at which feedback is particularly helpful.Overall, this study suggests that a multifaceted approach for the treatment of academic pro-crastination may be important. Future experimental work could specify the ways in which feed-back can impact delay behaviors and, therefore, complement counseling interventions.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to the University of Central Florida, the University of Central Florida’s FacultyCenter for Teaching and Learning, and the International Writing Centers Association for fundingthis study. Thanks also to Christina Mendez and Christina Cureton for their research assistance.Preliminary work from this study was presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psy-chological Association (2000) and the Conference on College Composition and Communication(2001). The portion of data pertaining solely to participants’ writing center use will be discussedin a paper for writing center administrators in The Writing Center Journal.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Anson, C. M. (1989).Writing and response: theory, practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of

English.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Boice, B. (1997a). Which is more productive, writing in binge patterns of creative illness or in moderation? Written

Communication, 14, 435–459.Boice, R. (1997b). Work habits of productive scholarly writers: Insights from research in psychology. In G. A. Olson,& T. W. Taylor (Eds.), Publishing in rhetoric and composition (pp. 211–228). New York: State University of New

York Press.Bridges, K. R., & Roig, M. (1997). Academic procrastination and irrational thinking: a re-examination with contextcontrolled. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 941–944.

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. In Schoolscouncil research studies (Great Britain): project on written language of 11–18 year olds. London: Macmillan.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1982). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Ill: NCTE.Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: an exploratory factor analysis of self-presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75–84.

Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit, boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185–196.

Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Getting things done on time: conquering procrastination. In C. R. Snyder’s (Ed.), Coping with

stress: effective people and processes (pp. 30–46). New York: Oxford.Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: theory, research, andtreatment. NY: Plenum.


Flower, L. S. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50, 528–550.

Harris, J., & Kinkead, J. (Eds.). (1993).Writing centers in context: twelve case studies. Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers of English.

Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: the writing conference. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: writing center tutorials vs. peer responsegroups. College Composition and Communication, 43, 369–383.

Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27–42.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.Kail, H., & Trimbur, J. (1987). The politics of peer tutoring. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 11, 5–12.Koretz, G. (1997). The sheepskin paradox: college grads in lower-level jobs. Business Week, 6 October(3).Murphy, C., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1995). Landmark essays on writing centers. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

Pryor, F. L. (1997). Wages and the university educated: a paradox resolved. Monthly Labor Review, 120(July), 3–15.Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience sampling study ofundergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254.

Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., & Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning fallacy: an examination of thestudy habits of university students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 135–150.

Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psy-

chological Reports, 77, 691–698.Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: a cognitive analysis of writer’s block. CollegeComposition and Communication, 31, 389–401.

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between highand low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387–394.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 30, 149–158.

Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastinatory behavior on college performance.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 404–408.


Documents

Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success