THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ACADEMIC EXCUSE-MAKING: Examining Individual Differences in Procrastination

199

0361-0365/98/0400- 0199$15.00/0 q 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1998

THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OFACADEMIC EXCUSE-MAKING:Examining Individual Differences in Procrastination

Joseph R. Ferrari, Sabrina M. Keane, Raymond N. Wolfe,and Brett L. Beck

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :Students from two colleges (n 4 546) differing in admission selectivity completedmeasures of academic procrastination and excuses. Procrastination was higheramong students at the selective college than students at the nonselective college.Academic procrastination was motivated by task aversiveness for students at theselective college and by fear of task failure and fear of social disapproval for stu-dents at the nonselective college. At the nonselective college only, procrastinatorscompared to nonprocrastinators reported more often using both legitimate and fraud-ulent excuses in college and during the current semester. Participants reported thatexcuses were self-generated for the purpose of gaining more assignment time andthat most instructors did not require proof for excuses. The characteristics of coursesand instructors likely to promote excuse-making by both procrastinators and non-procrastinators also were examined. These results reflect the need by administratorsand personnel to consider individual and situational differences when implementingstudent-centered intervention programs.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

As many as 70% of American college students engage in frequent academic

procrastination (Ellis and Knaus, 1977; Hill et al., 1978), the purposive delay in

completing academically related tasks (Solomon and Rothblum, 1984). The

present study examined the rates of legitimate and fraudulent academic excuses

self-reported by academic procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators.

Rothblum and her colleagues (Rothblum et al., 1986; Solomon and Rothblum,

1984) found that college students reported procrastinating more often when

writing a term paper (46%) than when reading an assignment (30%), studying

Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meetings of the Eastern Psychological Asso-

ciation (March 1995) and the Midwestern Psychological Association (May 1995), and as an invited

address to the Chicago-area Academic Advisors Association (February 1996).

Joseph R. Ferrari and Sabrina M. Keane, DePaul University; Raymond N. Wolfe, SUNY, College

at Geneseo; Brett L. Beck, Bloomsburg University. Address correspondence to: Joseph R. Ferrari,

Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore, Chicago, IL 60614.

200 FERRARI, KEANE, WOLFE, AND BECK

for an exam (28%), or attending to academic (23%) and administrative (11%)

tasks. Frequent academic procrastination has been reported across racial catego-

ries and gender, and is associated with claiming test anxiety, writer’ s block,

obtaining low course and semester grades, and earning low cumulative GPA

(Beswick et al., 1988; Boice, 1996; Clark and Hill, 1994; Lay and Burns, 1991;

Rothblum et al., 1986; Wolfe and Johnson, 1995). Wesley (1994) reported that

procrastination was more likely among college students who had low high

school averages and who performed poorly on aptitude tests. In fact, procras-

tination on academic tasks extends to faculty who may not obtain tenure and

promotion because of few (if any) publications in professional journals (see

Boice, 1992, 1993, 1995).

Some studies indicate that fear of failure and aversiveness of the task may be

primary motives for academic procrastination (Milgram et al., 1993; Solomon

and Rothblum , 1984). Academic procrastination among college students has

been correlated positively and significantly with an avoidant, diffuse sense of

identity (Ferrari et al., 1995b), and students have delayed more on academic

tasks they perceived as unpleasant, boring, or difficult than on pleasant and

easy tasks (Milgram et al., 1993). In addition, students who regarded them-

selves as less capable on academic tasks (students similar, perhaps, to those

who attend less selective colleges) were more likely than other students to delay

on these tasks and express an interest in changing their delaying behaviors

(Milgram et al., 1994).

It is possible academic procrastinators engage in excuse-making to avoid

aversive tasks or personal self-esteem threats (Ferrari et al., 1995a; Schouwen-

burg, 1995). Snyder, Higgins, and Stucky (1983) believe that excuse-making

protects one’ s self-esteem by shifting sources of threat from aspects central to a

sense of self to sources less central. Avoidant behavior, such as delaying the

submission of assigned papers, must be excused by the procrastinator in order

to preserve the person’ s sense of self-worth (Boice, 1996; Schouwenburg,

1992). In an unpublished master’ s thesis, Beck (1985) reported that 60% of

college students at a university campus reported using a false excuse to avoid

taking a scheduled test or turning in an assignment on time. Caron, Krauss-

Whitbourne, and Halgin (1992) found that 68% of college students at a north-

eastern college reported using fraudulent excuses, and that the aim of 91% of

fraudulent excuses was to gain more time for the task. Ninety percent of the

students who used a fraudulent excuse reported having the excuse accepted;

professors seldom requested proof for the excuse.

To the extent that academic procrastination is a purposive avoidance strategy,

it follows that procrastinators should exceed nonprocrastinators in claiming ex-

cuses for not completing academic tasks, and that this should be true for both

legitimate and fraudulent excuses. The present study also examined the fre-

quency of legitimate and fraudulent excuses, the nature of these excuses, and

PROCRASTINATION AND EXCUSES 201

the causes and consequences of fraudulent excuse-making among academic

procrastinators and nonprocrastinators from two colleges. Ferrari et al. (1995b)

compared students from three colleges and found that students at a nonselective

college (i.e., one with low academic admission standards in terms of SAT and

high school GPA) were less likely to report frequent procrastination than stu-

dents at moderately and highly selective colleges. There was no significant

difference across settings, however, in the belief that task delays created prob-

lems for performance. These authors hypothesized that students at selective

colleges may be high achievers who subjectively consider any delay in begin-

ning an assigned task as ª procrastination.º

In fact, studies report that overachievement behavior among students from

selective colleges may be due in part to self-doubt in one’ s ability coupled with

a strong desire to be successful (Yost et al., 1994), and is related to low self-

esteem, high self-handicapping, and withdrawal in effort (i.e, perhaps, procras-

tination) on some tasks (Oleson et al., 1995). Research evidence indicates that

people who report personal responsibility for success and who are high in

achievement motivation persevere as if they genuinely believe in their self-

efficacy (Weiner, 1985). The present study explored academic procrastination

among male and female students from different institutions, which varied with

either high or lower academic admission standards. These institutional settings

and gender comparisons were chosen to examine the generality of academic

procrastination by men and women at different colleges, and to ascertain

whether students at those settings reported different motives for their tendency

to engage in frequent academic procrastination.

It should be noted, however, that Lay and Schouwenburg (1993) reported that

academic procrastination among college students was not motivated by fear of

failure or task avoidance, and not correlated with time management skills.

Given the association between academic procrastination and inefficient mal-

adaptive skills (see Ferrari et al., 1995a), further investigation into the motives

for academic procrastination seemed warranted. Thus, the present study investi-

gated whether self-reported academic procrastination and its motives differed

across institutional settings and gender, and whether procrastinators and non-

procrastinators differed in their self-reports of real and phony excuses.

Selective and nonselective institutions were compared because they permitted

an examination of the different motives for engaging in academic procrastina-

tion, as well as an extension into aspects of academic excuse-making. It was

expected that academic procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators would

report higher rates of using fraudulent and/or legitimate excuses, particularly

among procrastinators at a nonselective (perhaps, less academically challeng-

ing) institution. Procrastinators may be individuals whose self-confidence is

low and whose patterns of attribution serve to (or are designed mainly to) pro-

tect their public image (Milgram et al., 1993). No a priori predictions were


made regarding individual differences, (e.g., gender or procrastination style) in

the types, causes, or situational consequences of academic excuses because

prior research on these topics is sparse (e.g., Caron et al., 1992). Such informa-

tion, however, may be useful for officials in education when developing effec-

tive curriculum and service programs that target an institution’ s particular popu-

lation of students.

METHOD

Settings and Participants

Students from two undergraduate institutions in the northeastern U.S. partici-

pated in this study. The two colleges were similar with respect to location,

student ethnic identity, and socioeconomic status. The schools differed, how-

ever, in their admission standards with respect to both SAT total score and the

percentage of persons who ranked in the top one-fifth of their high school

graduating class (Kelly and Quinlan, 1993). One college, where the average

SAT total score for incoming freshmen was 682 and the percentage of entering

freshmen ranking in the top fifth of their class was about 12%, was designated

ª nonselectiveº for this study. The second college, where the average SAT total

was 995 and about 40% of the incoming freshmen were in the top fifth in their

class, was designated a ª selectiveº college.

Participants at each campus ranged in age from 18 to 21 (M 4 18.7; S.D. 4

0.4) and were lower-division (i.e., first- or second-year) college students. Most

participants (80%) were Caucasians of European-American descent, from blue-

collar, working-class families, and nearly all participants (98.8%) were full-time

students. Women outnum bered men among respondents at each college: At the

nonselective college, n 4 257, with 185 (71.9%) women and 72 (28.0%) men;

and at the selective college, n 4 289, with (76.5% ) women and 68 (23.5%)

men. Chi-square tests comparing each sample with its respective campus base

rate showed that women compared to men were significantly overrepresented at

each college.

Measures

The Procrastination Assessment ScaleÐ Students (PASS: Solomon and Roth-

blum, 1984) uses a 5-point Likert response format to assess three aspects of

academic procrastination. Six items measure prevalence or frequency of pro-

crastination in various academic situations (e.g., studying for an exam) and six

items measure perceived problems associated with procrastination in these

areas. The PASS then presents 26 possible reasons for delays in writing a term

paper, with each reason rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 4 low; 5 4 high) for

the extent to which it is likely to contribute to procrastination. Reliability as-


sessments of each part of the PASS have yielded adequate levels of coefficient

alpha (frequency, r 4 0.75; problems, r 4 0.70; and reasons, r 4 0.80) and

acceptable retest reliability over a six-week interval (frequency, r 4 0.74; prob-

lems, r 4 0.65; and reasons, r 4 0.67: Ferrari, 1989). The PASS also has

shown some construct and predictive validity (Beswick et al., 1988; Rothblum

et al., 1986; Solomon and Rothblum, 1984). Instructors’ ratings of student pro-

crastination correlate significantly positively with PASS scale scores by stu-

dents (Milgram et al., 1993). Academic procrastination as assessed by the PASS

is positively associated with other forms of self-handicapping in academic ac-

tivities (Wesley, 1994) and is negatively associated with self-efficacy in aca-

demic activities (Ferrari et al., 1992).

The Questionnaire on Academic Excuses (QAE: Caron et al., 1992) was used

to measure fraudulent and legitimate excuse-making. Respondents rated along

5-point scales (1 4 very infrequently; 5 4 very frequently) four separate items

that asked how often they used fraudulent and legitimate excuses across aca-

demic situations while in college and in the present semester (see Table 2).

Subsequently, respondents provided details of the circumstances in which they

resorted to the use of an excuse. Respondents reported the percentage of times

they used items from a list of 11 events as fraudulent and as legitimate excuses

(Table 3). Respondents also answered single items addressing the purpose for

using fraudulent excuses, the origin of these excuses, as well as instructor and

course characteristics for when a fraudulent excuse was most likely to be used

(Table 4). The QAE can be administered in large testing sessions and elicits

fairly accurate information, although no reliability coefficients have been re-

ported (Caron et al., 1992).

Procedure

All participants signed a consent form approved by their campus’ s Human

Subjects Committee, and all completed the same questionnaires during the mid-

dle of the semester while enrolled in psychology classes. Over 90% of students

in each class agreed to participate, and these respondents were representative of

students at each institution. At both institutions scales were administered along

with other inventories to groups of 25 to 30 students.

RESULTS

Analysis of Academic Procrastination

Scores on the 26 reasons for academic procrastination were entered into a

principle component factor analysis to compute subscales on the motives for

academic procrastination. A three-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than

1.00 explained 54.2% of the common variance (loadings . 0.45). Rotations


(varimax) produced one factor with 11 scale items that explained 32.1% of the

variance and focused on fear of failure as a motive for task delays. A second

factor, which explained 13.6% of the common variance, contained seven items

and focused on fear of social disapproval or possible threat to getting along

with peers for quality performance as a motive for procrastination. A third

factor explained 8.5% of the common variance with eight scale items that fo-

cused on task aversiveness as a motive for procrastination. For each participant,

the sum of scores on items that loaded on each of the three factors were com-

puted, and both factor scores and summed scores were analyzed (all subscale

scores appear in Table 1).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the PASS variables. A 2 (gen-

der) 2 2 (college status) MANOVA was performed on the frequency of, and

problems with, procrastination scales of the PASS, and on the three factor

scores and sum scores generated as reasons for procrastination. There was no

gender main effect or significant interaction effect on any of these measures.

However, there was a significant main effect for college, MANOVA F (1, 538) 4

12.66, p , .0001, with students from the selective college self-reporting higher

rates of procrastination than students from the nonselective college. Students at

the nonselective college also more often reported fear of failure, MANOVA F (1,

538) 4 11.39, p , .001, and fear of social disapproval, MANOVA F (1, 538) 4

21.44, p , .0001, as motives for academic procrastination. Students at the

TABLE 1. Mean Score and Standard Deviation on Self-Reported Procrastinatio n

Variables for Students at Colleges Varying in Admission Selectivity

Selectivity Status

Scale Nonselective Selective

Reliability College College

Variables (alpha) (n 4 257) (n 4 289)

Frequency of Procrastination .68

16.64

(3.79)

17.44**

(3.77)

Problem with Procrastination .72

15.27

(3.74)

15.98

(3.51)

Reasons for Procrastination

fear of failure (11 items) .82

26.75

(4.04)

24.96**

(4.63)

task aversiveness (8 items) .73

21.52

(5.51)

23.56*

(6.29)

fear of social disapproval (7 items) .75

12.67

(4.76)

11.04**

(4.02)

*p , .01; **p , .001.

Coefficient alpha based on total sample size (n 4 546). Value in parentheses is standard deviation.

Scores ranges: Frequency 4 6±30; Problem 4 6±30; Fear of Failure 4 11±55; Task Aversiveness

4 8±40; Fear of Social Disapproval 4 7±35.


selective college, in contrast, reported task aversiveness as their motive for task

delays at academics, MANOVA F (1, 538) 4 6.44, p , .01.

Following Milgram et al.’ s (1993) recommendation and consistent with other

studies (see Ferrari et al., 1995a), frequency and perceived problems were

treated as separate variables. Classification into high vs. low procrastinators

was based solely on the frequency variable to compare participants at both

colleges on their tendencies toward excuse-making. The mean score on this

scale across all participants, irrespective of college, was 16.78 (S.D. 4 3.84).

Those scoring $ 1 S.D. above the grand mean were designated ª procrastina-

torsº (n 4 116). Those scoring # 1 S.D. below the grand mean were desig-

nated ª nonprocrastinatorsº (n 4 108). There were significantly more self-

reported procrastinators at the selective college (procrastinator n 4 76, 50

women and 26 men; nonprocrastinator n 4 43, 33 women and 10 men) than at

the nonselective college (procrastinator n 4 40, 25 women and 15 men; non-

procrastinator n 4 65, 55 women and 10 men) x 2(1, n 4 225) 4 15.42, p ,

.0001.

The Use of Legitimate and Fraudulent Excuses

A 2 (gender) 2 2 (selectivity status) 2 2 (procrastination type) MANOVA was

performed on the use of legitimate and fraudulent excuses across academic

situations in college and in the current semester. There were no significant

three-way interactions and no gender 2 status or gender 2 procrastination

two-way interactions. However, there were significant status 2 procrastination

two-way interactions. Table 2 presents the mean score and standard deviation

for reported use of legitimate and fraudulent excuses by nonprocrastinators and

procrastinators at both college campuses.

There were significant interactions on the use of legitimate excuses in col-

lege, MANOVA F (1, 220) 4 4.53, p , .04, and in the present semester, MANOVA

F (1, 220) 4 9.17, p , .01. Procrastinators at the nonselective college reported

significantly more use of legitimate excuses in college and in the present se-

mester than students in the three other classifications (Tukey, p , .05). Further-

more, there also were significant interactions on the use of fraudulent excuses

in college, MANOVA F (1, 220) 4 5.50, p , .02, and in the current semester,

MANOVA F (1, 220) 4 5.17, p , .02. Procrastinators at the nonselective college

reported they most often used fraudulent excuses in college and in the present

semester compared to students in the other three conditions (Tukey, p , .05).

Excuses Used by Nonprocrastinators and Procrastinators

The 11 academic excuses from the QAE, completed separately for legitimate

and for fraudulent usage, were entered into internal consistency analyses. With


TABLE 2. Mean Score and Standard Deviation on Self-Reported Legitim ate and

Fraudulent Excuses by Nonprocrastinators and Procrastinators Between College

Selectivity Status

College Selectivity Status

Nonselective Selective

nonPROC. PROC. nonPROC. PROC.

Excuse Category (n 4 65) (n 4 40) (n 4 43) (n 4 76)

Use of Legitim ate Excuses

in college

2.06b

(1.11)

2.65a

(1.33)

2.05b

(1.23)

2.12b

(1.23)

this semester

2.77b

(1.42)

4.64a

(0.87)

1.77b

(1.09)

1.92b

(1.17)

Use of Fraudulent Excuses

in college

1.77 b

(1.03)

2.39a

(1.47)

1.95 b

(1.17)

1.88 b

(1.25)

this semester

2.58b

(1.48)

4.28a

(1.24)

1.86b

(1.10)

2.00b

(1.23)

Abbreviations are as follows: nonPROC. 4 nonprocrastinato rs (PASS score # 1 S.D.); PROC. 4

procrastinator s (PASS score $ 1 S.D.). Value in parentheses is standard deviation.

Scale range: 1 4 very infrequent, 5 4 very frequent. Superordinent s indicate significantly different

comparisons, with a higher than b.

the present sample of participants, the reliability coefficient (Spearman r) for

legitimate excuses was 0.67 and for fraudulent excuses was 0.66. Table 3 pre-

sents the percentage of procrastinators and nonprocrastinators at both colleges

who used the set of excuses for legitimate and fraudulent purposes. Chi-square

analyses were performed at each college to see whether procrastination was

associated with use of legitimate and fraudulent excuses.

Legitimate excuses. At the nonselective college, procrastinators compared to

nonprocrastinators claimed more often that their alarm failed to go off, x 2(1, n

4 105) 4 3.56, p , .05, they left their paper/assignment in their dorm room, x 2

(1, n 4 105) 4 3.69, p , .05, and they were personally sick, x 2(1, n 4 105)

4 3.88, p , .05. In contrast, at the selective college nonprocrastinators com-

pared to procrastinators claimed more often that they had a family emergency

that required their efforts, x 2(1, n 4 119) 4 8.56, p , .003.

Fraudulent excuses. At the nonselective college, procrastinators compared to

nonprocrastinators reported more often that they used a family emergency as a

phony reason, x 2(1, n 4 105) 4 7.34, p , .01. At the selective college, pro-

crastinators compared to nonprocrastinators reported more often that they used

being personally sick as a phony excuse x 2(1, n 4 119) 4 6.63, p , .01.


TABLE 3. Percentage of Nonprocrastinators and Procrastinators at Selective and

Nonselective Colleges Using Excuses Legitim ately and Fraudulently

College Selectivity Status



List of Excuses (n 4 65) (n 4 40) (n 4 43) (n 4 76)

Alarm failed to go off

LEGITIMATE 9.2 22.5 4.7 6.6

FRAUDULENT 10.8 15.0 7.0 9.2

Overslept

LEGITIMATE 10.8 22.5 4.7 13.2

FRAUDULENT 15.4 25.0 9.3 17.1

Computer failed to work

LEGITIMATE 1.5 7.5 4.7 7.9

FRAUDULENT 4.6 0.0 4.7 6.6

Left paper in dorm room

LEGITIMATE 10.8 25.0 9.3 9.2

FRAUDULENT 10.8 10.0 4.7 7.9

Was out of town

LEGITIMATE 13.8 15.0 4.7 9.2

FRAUDULENT 9.2 10.0 7.0 9.2

Personally sick

LEGITIMATE 30.8 50.0 30.2 27.6

LEGITIMATE 23.1 37.5 16.3 38.2

Best friend died

LEGITIMATE 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

FRAUDULENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6

Grandmother dies

LEGITIMATE 1.5 0.0 4.7 1.3

FRAUDULENT 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.7

Grandfather died

LEGITIMATE 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.3

FRAUDULENT 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.3

Family emergency

LEGITIMATE 9.2 15.0 23.3 5.3

FRAUDULENT 1.5 10.0 18.6 7.9

Did not understand the

assignment

LEGITIMATE 32.3 22.5 14.0 17.1

FRAUDULENT 26.2 15.0 14.0 7.9

Abbreviations are as follows: nonPROC. 4 nonprocrastinat ors (PASS score # 1 S.D.); PROC. 4

procrastinators (PASS score $ 1 S.D.).


Antecedents and Consequences of Fraudulent Excuses

Each fraudulent excuse’ s purpose and origin(s), as well as the instructor ’ s

response and the likelihood of repeating the excuse, were analyzed via chi-

squares comparing frequencies of various alternatives selected. Table 4 summa-

rizes the results of these tests. There were no significant differences between

procrastinators and nonprocrastinators with respect to purpose or origin of

fraudulent excuses, and no significant difference between colleges on these di-

mensions. However, there were significant differences within colleges on the

reasons for using a phony excuse. At the nonselective college, x 2(3, n 4 73) 4

11.78, p , .002, and at the selective college, x 2(4, n 4 76) 4 12.56, p , .001,

students reported that the phony excuse was used most often to gain additional

time to complete the task. At the selective (but not the nonselective) college

there was a significant difference in the origin of fraudulent excuses, x 2(4, n 4

76) 4 14.31, p , .006. Students indicated that most often they just made up

the excuse.

Across colleges, students noted that professors typically accepted their phony

excuse (65.9% ) and rarely rejected the excuse. Students also reported that most

often (79.2%) the professor did not require proof for the excuse. In addition,

students at the nonselective compared to those at the selective college indicated

that they were more likely to repeat the fraudulent excuse, x 2(3, n 4 223) 4

4.10, p , .04, and not use a different approach to get out of the task in the

future, x 2(3, n 4 223) 4 4.15, p , .04.

The QAE also surveyed the course and instructor characteristics associated

with fraudulent excuses (see Table 4). Chi-square analyses indicated no signifi-

cant individual or college differences on the use of phony excuses with differ-

ent course characteristics. Students usually used phony excuses in lower-level

and in large lecture courses. In terms of instructor characteristics that promoted

the use of fraudulent excuses, at the nonselective college nonprocrastinators

compared to procrastinators reported significantly more often that they would

use a phony excuse with a female instructor than a male instructor, x 2(7, n 4

73) 4 3.67, p , .05. Also, students at the nonselective compared to the selec-

tive college claimed to use phony excuses if the instructor was young, x 2(7, n

4 223) 4 4.68, p , .03, and lenient, x 2(7, n 4 223) 4 4.27, p , .03.

Students at the selective college, however, reported significantly more often

than students at the nonselective college that they would use a phony excuse if

they knew the instructor, x 2(7, n 4 223) 4 4.48, p , .03.

DISCUSSION

Academic Procrastination

The present study found that students from the selective college claimed

more often that they were procrastinators than did students from the nonselec-


TABLE 4. Percentage of Responses to List of Antecedents and Consequence for

Fraudulent Excuses by Students at Private and Public Colleges

College Status



(n 4 65) (n 4 40) (n 4 43) (n 4 76)

Purpose of Fraudulent Excuses

to gain more time 64.1 48.3 38.1 52.2

to avoid assignment 0.0 20.7 9.5 8.7

(other reasons) 41.9 31.0 47.6 39.1

Origin of Fraudulent Excuses

just made up 37.2 46.7 52.4 56.5

friend’ s idea 4.7 10.0 0.0 10.9

worked before 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0

don’ t recall 25.9 23.3 33.3 8.7

(other reasons) 11.6 10.0 14.3 8.7

Instructor’ s Response to

Fraudulent Excuses

accepted it 69.8 50.0 68.4 69.6

required proof 25.0 10.0 25.0 25.0

rejected it 2.3 13.3 0.0 2.2

gave alternatives 27.9 33.3 26.3 28.3

Likelihood of Repeating

Fraudulent Excuses

would repeat it 35.7 39.3 4.8 0.0

would not repeat 42.9 21.4 19.0 29.5

would use different approach

next time 2.4 3.6 23.8 34.1

(other solutions) 4.8 10.7 4.8 6.8

Course Characteristics for Use of

Phony Excuse

large lecture 24.5 35.0 45.2 37.7

small discussion 34.9 33.3 31.0 40.3

lower-level course 43.4 40.2 47.6 41.6

upper-level course 9.4 12.0 9.5 13.0

laboratory section 8.5 9.4 11.9 7.8

Instructor’ s Characteristics for

Use of Phony Excuse

know person well 31.3 20.0 38.1 41.6

don’ t know person 15.6 22.5 38.1 26.0

male instructor 3.1 5.0 9.5 15.6

female instructor 12.5 2.5 14.3 15.6

young instructor 18.8 7.5 19.0 29.9

older instructor 6.3 7.5 16.7 14.3

strict 17.2 32.5 16.7 24.0

lenient 56.3 45.0 66.7 64.9


tive college. However, there was no significant difference across colleges in

student perceptions that task delays created problems for performance, consis-

tent with Ferrari et al. (1995b). The reason for setting differences in academic

procrastination prevalence may be the subjective nature of the phenomenon

(Ferrari et al., 1995a; Wesley, 1994). It is unlikely that students at nonselective

colleges immediately begin and complete assignments more often than students

from selective colleges. In fact, program evaluation studies of students at non-

selective colleges indicated that many were underachievers (e.g., Ferrari et al.,

1992). Yet those students did not believe that academic procrastination partic-

ularly interfered with their performance.

A likely explanation is that students at the selective college had a stronger

work ethic and (perhaps) were more likely to be high overachievers than stu-

dents at the other setting (Eisenberger, 1992; Weiner, 1985). Weiner (1985)

claimed that persons who ordinarily expect to succeed (such as those high in

achievement motivation who may be attending selective colleges) attribute their

poor performance to lack of effort, whereas those who ordinarily expect to fail

(low-achievement, low-motivation students perhaps found at less selective col-

leges) most often attribute their poor performance to lack of ability. For exam-

ple, suppose that all students were given an assignment on Monday morning

that was due Friday morning of the same week. Those students with a strong

work ethic or strong need for achievement might well view themselves as pro-

crastinating if they did not begin the assignment by Monday evening, or Tues-

day, whereas those with a less strong work ethic/achievement need may not

perceive themselves as procrastinators until, say, Wednesday evening or Thurs-

day (ª after all, there’ s still plenty of timeº ).

Another possible explanation is that students from the selective college may

procrastinate more or less deliberately. Ferrari et al. (1995a) proposed that some

people procrastinate as an avoidance technique to protect their self-esteem. Pro-

crastination as a protective self-esteem strategy is supported by the concept of

self-handicapping, such that individuals claim excuses for potential failure to

avoid threats to their self-esteem (Arkin and Baugardner, 1985). Ferrari (1991)

and Wesley (1994) found that, compared to nonprocrastinators, procrastinators

actually self-handicap their task performances more often. Perhaps the pressure

to succeed more often and at high levels is stronger for students at a selective

college than for students at a nonselective college. Consequently, there may be

a greater need by students at a selective college to seek external attributions that

shift causes of potential failure away from the self, as procrastination does (ª I

didn’ t have enough time to do itº ). High rates of self-reported academic pro-

crastination can thus be expected from students at more selective colleges.

The difference in procrastination frequency between students at the two col-

leges was associated with a difference in pattern of reasons given for task de-

lays. Task aversiveness motivated procrastination at the selective college, and


fear of failure and peer disapproval for getting ahead prompted procrastination

at the nonselective college. These different patterns of motives for procrastina-

tion may explain why academic procrastination may not always be related to

failure or aversiveness motives (Lay and Schouwenburg, 1993). Perhaps in the

present study students at the selective college came up against the requirements

of academic work and were aware that it is tough and demanding (task aver-

siveness), whereas students at the nonselective college were more reluctant to

risk outperforming their peers and thus perhaps losing friends (fear of social

disapproval). Students at the nonselective college may have gotten where they

were by doing little or nothing Ð they rest assured that the educational estab-

lishment will not flunk them out and that they will graduate by default. They

feel fully entitled; they expect something in the way of reward for nothing in

terms of effort. A slightly less important motive, but one that still mattered to

these students, was risking friends’ acceptance. This latter group of students

may have been a set of individuals whose self-esteem was less secure and more

prone to threats.

Academic Excuse-making

In this study (see Table 2), at the nonselective college procrastinators com-

pared to nonprocrastinators reported greater usage of both legitimate and fraud-

ulent excuses in college and in the current semester, replicating Caron et al.’ s

(1992) findings but with students from two different campuses. There also ap-

pears to be situational and individual differences in the frequency of these aca-

demic excuses. On one occasion, a given excuse may be legitimate; on another

occasion, it may be fraudulent. For example, claiming to be ill was a legitimate

excuse reported more often by academic procrastinators than nonprocrastinators

at the nonselective college, yet sickness was used as a fraudulent excuse more

often by procrastinators than nonprocrastinators at the selective college. In con-

trast, stating that there was a family emergency was a fraudulent excuse identi-

fied more often by procrastinators than nonprocrastinators at the nonselective

college, while this same reason was reported as a legitimate excuse more often

by procrastinators than nonprocrastinators at the selective college. Thus, as with

personality variables and excuse-making (see Snyder et al., 1983), it is impor-

tant to consider individual differences in excuse-making at varied academic

settings.

In addition, it was interesting to note the antecedent and consequent condi-

tions for fraudulent excuses by students. Students reported that the goal for the

phony excuse was to ª gain more timeº and that it was often ª just made upº by

themselves. It is possible that the need for additional time reflected the stu-

dents’ overconcern about the amount of time needed for a task, a characteristic

of chronic procrastinators (Lay and Burns, 1991). Also, it seems that students


vary their use of phony excuses with the characteristics of the course and the

instructor (Table 4). Typically, fraudulent excuses by both academic procras-

tinators and nonprocrastinators would be used in lower-level (first or second

year) lecture courses, and most often with lenient, young instructors. Further-

more, most respondents noted that their instructors accepted the phony excuse,

rarely requiring proof for the excuse, and that (at least at the nonselective col-

lege) they would probably use the same excuse again.

Limitations and Future Directions

Unfortunately, many of these varied interpretations are very speculative. Re-

sults from the present study were based on data collected from only two col-

leges labeled here as ª selectiveº and ª nonselective.º The criteria for such labels

was limited to academic performance, and it is quite possible that both institu-

tions and their students differed in a number of other important variables. It is

not known, for example, whether students who engaged in academic procras-

tination compared to nonprocrastinators actually performed differently in

classes and on their GPA. Previous studies have explored the link between high

academic procrastination and low school performance (e.g., Beswick et al.,

1988; Wolfe and Johnson, 1995). However, in the present study, information on

grades was not available to the authors, even though they were to be used

solely for research purposes. The present study also did not collect information

on many other variables that might have helped in understanding why some

students engaged in academic procrastination and others did not. These vari-

ables include (but are not limited to) whether students were first-generation

college students, parental education, parental occupation, and whether the stu-

dent was working full- or part-time while attending college. Harriott and Ferrari

(1996) recently reported that for adults, occupation and education level were

predictive of whether they engaged in chronic procrastination, and such infor-

mation may impact on a child’ s academic procrastination tendencies.

Data collected in this study also relied on only self-report information from

students who in the past made false statements to an authority figure. Because

procrastination and excuse-giving are not positively regarded attributes (Ferrari

et al., 1995a), the present study should have included a social desirability ques-

tionnaire to assess ª faking-goodº responses.

Nevertheless, to our knowledge this study is only one of three systematic

studies on academic excuses, and the first investigation in this area to examine

individual differences. Establishing an association between individual differ-

ence variables and excuse-making is an important first step to more causal

examinations. In addition, it might not have been possible methodologically to

verify the use of excuses, since most instructors (90% found in Caron et al.,


1992; 79% self-reported by participants in the present study) do not require

proof for an excuse.

Studies are needed to examine the impact of academic procrastination in

academic effort and attributions regarding outcome. Such studies remain impor-

tant for understanding student development. Future studies of academic pro-

crastination should examine individual differences in motivation for purposeful

academic task delays. These studies may lead to strategies that would facilitate

instructional techniques and personal counseling to promote student develop-

ment and growth. Since students may differ in their commitment to academic

task completion across settings, college administrators and counselors should

consider interventions designed to reduce avoidance in accordance with the

student population at their institution. In short, the present findings suggest that

one treatment does not fit all.

The present study points to excuse-making as a potentially fruitful area of

educational research. Measures of other individual difference variables, (e.g.,

self-deception, impression management, and Machiavellianism) might be

brought to bear. Results of such studies should be of interest to counseling

psychologists, who in their work with students seek to develop effective inter-

ventions that reduce task delays and increase personal responsibility for aca-

demic performance.

Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to Bill Levine for data entry and to ClarryLay, Esther Rothblum, C. R. Snyder, and Susan Krauss-Whitbou rne for helpful sugges-tions in editing.

REFERENCES

Arkin, R. M., and Baumgardner, A. H. (1985). Self-handicapp ing. In J. H. Harvey and G.Weary (eds.), Attributions: Basic Issues and Applications . New York: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., and Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among nor-mal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psycho-logical Bulletin 104: 3±22.

Beck, L. (1985). Prediction of socially undesirable behavior: Lying, cheating, shoplifting.Unpublished master’ s thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., and Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents to stu-dent procrastination. Australian Psychologist 23: 207±217.

Boice, R. (1992). The New Faculty Member. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Boice, R. (1993). New faculty involvem ent of women and minorities. Research in

Higher Education 34: 291±341.Boice, R. (1995). Developing teaching, then writing among new faculty. Research in

Higher Education 36: 415±456.Boice, R. (1996). Procrastination and Blocking . Westport, CT: Praeger.Caron, M.D., Krauss-Whitbou rne, S., and Halgin, R.P. (1992). Fraudulent excuse-making

among college students. Teaching of Psychology 19: 90±93.Clark, J. L., and Hill, O. W. (1994). Academic procrastination among African-Am erican

college students. Psychological Reports 75: 931 ±936.


Ellis, A., and Knaus, W. T. (1977). Overcoming Procrastination . New York: Signet Books.Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review 99: 248 ±267.Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of procrastina-

tion. Psychological Reports 64: 1057 ±1058.Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapp ing by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-

esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality 25: 245 ±261.Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T., and Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination: Person-

ality correlates with Myers-Briggs types, self-efficacy, and academic locus of control.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 7: 495±502.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J, and McCown, W. (1995a). Procrastination and Task Avoid-ance: Theory, Research, and Treatment . New York: Plenum Press.

Ferrari, J. R., Wolfe, R. N., Wesley, J. C., Schoff, L. A., and Beck, B. L. (1995b). Ego-identity and academ ic procrastination among university students. Journal of CollegeStudent Development 36: 361 ±367.

Harriott, J., and Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples ofadults. Psychological Reports, 78: 611 ±616.

Hill, M. B., Hill, D. A., Chabot, A. E., and Barrall, J. F. (1978). A survey of collegefaculty and student procrastination. College Student Journal 12: 256 ±262.

Johnson, J. L., and Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the fivefactors of personality to variance in academ ic procrastination . Personality and Individ-ual Differences 18: 127±133.

Kelly, M., and Quinlan, K. (1993). College Admissions Data Handbook . Concord, MA:Orchard House.

Lay, C. H., and Burns, P. (1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for an examination:The role of trait procrastination and its interaction with optim ism. Journal of SocialBehavior and Personality 6: 605 ±617.

Lay, C. H., and Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management,and academic procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 8: 647±662.

Milgram, N. A., Batori, G., and Mowrer, D. (1993). Correlates of academic procrastina-tion. Journal of School Psychology 31: 57±67.

Milgram, N. A., Marshevsky, S., and Sadeh, C. (1994). Correlates of academ ic procras-tination: Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. Unpublished manuscript,Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Israel.

Oleson, K. C., Yost, J. H., and Poehlmann, K. M. (1995, May). Overachievemen t andunderachievement : The relationship of a new scale measuring self-doubt and need forsuccessful outcom es to related concepts in the literature. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., and Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, andbehavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of CounselingPsychology 33: 387±394.

Schouwenburg , H. C. (1992). Procrastinators and fear of failure: An exploration of rea-sons for procrastination. European Journal of Personality 6: 225 ±236.

Schouwenburg , H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measure-ment, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. Johnson, and W. McCown (eds.), Procrastina-tion and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment (pp. 71±96). New York:Plenum Press.

Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., and Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in Searchof Grace. New York: Wiley.

Solomon, L. J., and Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency andcognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology 31: 503 ±509.


Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psy-chological Review 92: 548 ±573.

Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievem ent, and procrastinationbehavior on college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54:404 ±408.

Wolfe, R. N., and Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college perfor-mance. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55: 177 ±185.

Yost, J. H., Poehlmann, K. M., and Arkin, R. M. (1994, May). An attributional model ofoverachievemen t. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psycho-logical Association, Chicago, IL.

Received September 9, 1996.

Documents

THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ACADEMIC EXCUSE-MAKING: Examining Individual Differences in Procrastination