Osvaldo Jiménez
Psychology 166
May 8th, 2003
I’ll think of a good title later
“God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die. “ (quoted from Calvin & Hobbes, as seen on
Through his depiction of Calvin & Hobbes, it is obvious that American cartoonist Bill Watterson (Creator of “Calvin & Hobbes”) knows something about pop culture’s notion of falling behind in their life accomplishments. This phenomenon, which is termed “procrastination,” is prevalent in American society. Although some refer to procrastination only as academic work, it can also affect a range of areas, from relationships to work to washing the dishes.
In terms of academic procrastination, Ellis & Knaus reported that approximately 70% of students had a chronic problem of procrastination (1977, as cited in Beck et al., 2000). This demonstrates that procrastination has become a frequent problem, especially in the system of higher education. Ellis & Knaus go on to report about the severity of the problem of procrastination, as they indicate that the majority of college students procrastinate so much that they begin to experience anxiety (1977, as cited in Onwuegbuzie, 2000). In addition, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that studies have shown, “College students who procrastinate in their academic work are also likely to have unhealthy sleep, diet, and exercise patterns” (Glenn, 2002). However, two of the most prolific authors on the topic of procrastination, Joseph R. Ferrari & Timothy A. Pychyl stated that procrastination is still a “…misunderstood and largely ignored phenomena” (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2000). Thus, this paper will provide an analysis of the research on procrastination by looking at circumstances such as gender, anxiety, academic achievement, and self-efficacy. Through those findings the paper will propose a program that will reduce tendencies to procrastinate.
How did procrastination come about? There are a couple of different notions of how procrastination came to be in its current state. One view comes from the behaviorists, which state, “…procrastination is a learned habit developing from a human preference for pleasurable activities and short-term rewards” (Haycock et al., 1998). A concrete example of this would be the task of writing a paper. For some, this task is not very pleasurable, and they may revert to playing video games instead of paper writing, which provides the short-term reward of entertainment over the long-term reward of finishing the paper.
Another view as to the source of procrastination came about from the psychodynamic lens of psychology. McCown et al. gives an overview of three of the main ideas that have come from this field in psychology. The first states, “Missildine, for example (1964) believes the causal roots of procrastination to be either of two extremes of childrearing: an overindulgent parent encouraging underachievement, or an overdemanding parent encouraging a rebellious lassitude” (as cited in McCown et al., 1987). Another theory that McCown et al. states is that procrastination often arises from an individual trying to “get back’ at one’s parents” (1987). The last theory claims that procrastination is a form of avoiding an “unconscious death anxiety” (1987). All of these theories have also been supported as being popular theories in Haycock et al.’s work (1998). However, since there is not a substantial amount of evidence for any of these theories, they are largely ignored by modern researchers. In fact when McCown et al. does mention the psychodynamic theory, it is only to mention that the empirical evidence that resulted from his study does not support any of the psychodynamic theories proposed (McCown et al. 1987). However these theories still have a high rate of popularity and familiarity with the general public.
Although it has been stated that procrastination has been ignored, the evidence has pointed to procrastination as being a trait with significant consequences. In addition to what has been reported above in the Chronicle for Higher Education, procrastination has been correlated with higher levels of drinking, tobacco use, and recreational drug use (Sirois & Pychyl, 2002). Although these studies do not show causation, because high levels of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use are commonly known to be detrimental to the physical health and well being of an individual, one should simply be aware of the phenomena. Nonetheless, these are not the only effects that have been correlated with procrastination.
The bulk of the research on procrastination has been done in the past 25 years, and that research has concentrated on trying to find empirical evidence of correlations between procrastination and a multitude of cognitive and demographic elements. One of the most general elements, finding differences in procrastination among males and females, has found a mixed bag of results. In Haycock et al.’s experiments in procrastination, they found that gender was not a significant predictor of procrastination (1998). This finding was also reported in Ferrari’s research on gender, as he reported no significant findings between gender and scores on a procrastination survey. In fact Ferrari goes on to report, “This fact was consistent with other studies examining academic procrastination (e.g. Ferrari, 1989a; Frost et al., 1990; Solomon & Rothblum 1984) indicating that the tendency to delay academic tasks is both common to men and women” (1992). This demonstrates that there is a heavy amount of research that supports the notion that there is no type of correlation between procrastination and gender.
However, further studies indicated significant differences between men and women in the procrastination levels. In their second study, Rothblum et al. found there to be some significant differences in gender when dealing with the topic of procrastination. Particularly, they found that females tended to report more frequent symptoms of anxiety when practicing procrastination. This was especially true when they compared these reports between women and time of sessions, where time was varied as the amount of time before a midterm. Rothblum et al. states, “…female high procrastinators reported more anxiety-related physical symptoms during the last session than did male high procrastinators” (1986). In addition, Milgram et. al’s group found there to be specific correlations between procrastination in everyday life and personality variables such as life satisfaction and self-regulation. Milgram et al’s group found these correlations apply specifically to males (1988). However, no other variables in their study, such as the relationship between procrastination and emotional reaction to the task, were found to have significant gender differences. Milgram et al. describe this discrepancy and theorizes about why this difference is evident, claiming, “That the relationship between procrastination and the personality correlates was found only with men may be due to attitudinal differences toward routine activities included in the procrastination scale” (1988). Although they do not provide any support for this argument, this statement demonstrates that Milgram et al. are trying to make sense of something that they view as a discrepancy. One can deduce this by noticing that they are trying to provide an explanation for the gender differences in solely one area. Had Milgram et al.’s group thought that there would have been gender differences across most variables, then most likely they would be theorizing about why they were not evident in their experimental results.
Another characteristic that seems to have inconsistent findings is that of grade point average or academic success. In Lay and Schouwenburg’s studies, they found, “Trait procrastination was unrelated to the intended grade in the course (r = -.20) and to self-reported grade-point-average to date (r=-.14)” (1993). Though the correlation coefficients look close to being significant, they are still small enough that they could be due to other factors. Moreover, Solomon & Rothblum’s research did not find a significant correlation between the course grade for the course they were measuring, and the self-reported procrastination scores of the students (1984). Recent studies have also pointed to the non-significant correlation between academic success and procrastination as well (Glenn, 2002). Nevertheless, there seems to be a virtually equal amount of evidence that supports claims that procrastination is linked to academic success. In their study two years later, Rothblum et al. write, “Self-reported procrastination was negatively correlated with grade point average for the semester (r =-.22, p<.001)” (1986). Other researchers have reported similar findings, as Ferrari et al. mention, “Self-reported frequent academic procrastination has been related to missing deadlines for submitting assignments, delaying the taking of self-paced quizzes, claiming test anxiety, and obtaining low course and semester grades (Beswick, Rothblum & Mann, 1988; Lay & Burns, 1991; Rothblum et. al., 1986)” (1992).
The equal amount of evidence in support and against the relationship between procrastination is best reported by Beck et. al. who states, “…several investigators have reported academic procrastination leading to lowered course grades or grade-point averages (e.g., Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Wesley, 1994), while others have found few academic implications (e.g., Beswick, 1988; Lay, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum 1988)” (2000). Although there seems to be a lot of contradictory evidence, one way to analyze this is by looking at correlation coefficients of the contradictory studies. From this one could deduce that the correlation between procrastination and academic grades might be weak. Because of the low correlation coefficients found in both of the studies that were analyzed, one could hypothesize that the link between procrastination and academic success is weak. Having a weak link between the two items can explain why the correlation coefficient in the studies could waiver back and forth between being statistically significant and not. This would provide an answer for the contradictory evidence that has been given, and is supported by the low coefficients we were able to find in the studies.
Numerous studies have not only looked at these variables that were discussed, but also at other measurable cognitive elements as predictors of procrastination. Haycock et al. summarizes the major ones as being, irrational beliefs, attribution style, beliefs about time, self-esteem, optimism, and self-handicapping strategies (1998). Although these predictors were all formulated by other people and most have empirical evidence backing them, Haycock et al. later discusses how many of them have been contested as being significant predictors. In contrast, two of the latest studies have only shown one type of correlation between procrastination. Instead of finding that procrastination was significantly correlated to any of these mentioned cognitive variables, they have found that self-efficacy is the variable most strongly linked to procrastination (Ferrari et al., 1992; Haycock et al., 1998). In fact, in Ferrari et al.’s research, they found it to be the only significant predictor of procrastination. One could say that there is also some contradictory research in terms of this cause as well. In earlier research Solomon & Rothblum had found that the two most significant correlates of procrastination were fear of failure and task aversiveness (1984). However, because of the date of this study is still relatively early in terms of when the theory of self-efficacy gained popularity, one explanation could be that Solomon & Rothblum did not know to look for this type of correlation, and were instead looking for external factors. In addition, there have been links between self-efficacy and anxiety, as Haycock et al. state, “When people experience weak efficacy in potentially threatening situations, they also tend to experience increased anxiety” (1998). This inverse relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety has also been demonstrated by Bandura et al., who write, “...the positive experience of successful action is considered to be one of the best eradicators of anxiety" (1974). Thus, one could conclude that there is a complex interaction between these variables when one is experiencing procrastination, where cognitive variables such as self-efficacy, could be affecting the physiological state of the person, which could be displayed through higher anxiety levels. This would fall in line with Solomon and Rothblum’s research as they state in their paper that procrastination “involves a complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components” (1984).
According to Bandura, self-efficacy is defined as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (1977). He emphasizes that self-efficacy is different from outcome expectations, by stating, “individuals can come to believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but question whether they can perform those actions” (1977). Thus, one can speculate that there could be a relationship between self-efficacy and procrastination; by stating if a person does believe that they can successfully execute the behavior required to produce an outcome (self-efficacy), than they may put off completing the task (procrastination). In addition, Bandura stated later in one of his books, “People experience high anticipatory and performance distress on tasks in which they perceive themselves to be inefficacious, but as the strength of their self-judged efficacy increases, their fear arousal declines” (1986). This could explain the reasons that some of the researchers mentioned found or reported that anxiety and fear of failure were being highly related to procrastination (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Lay 1993). If these people did not have a high sense of self-efficacy, then this would imply that they would have a high arousal of fear, which could in turn cause high levels of anxiety among procrastinators. Nevertheless, there is still other research that points to task aversion as being a main predictor of procrastination (Milgram et al., 1988; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). In this case, self-efficacy could also be related as the possible cause of task aversion, as Bandura cites himself when writing “People avoid activities that they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but they undertake and perform assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1977a)" (as cited, 1982). This supports the theory that self-efficacy is a major factor in procrastination by stating that if people don’t feel they can cope, they will begin to exercise task aversion. The link between coping and self-efficacy has been shown also by Bandura, when he sates, “people who judge themselves inefficacious dwell upon their coping deficiencies and view trying situations as fraught with danger” (1986). Therefore, this would propose the relationship between task aversion and self-efficacy, by communicating that if someone does not think that they can finish the problem, they are more likely to not finish the problem. These links between self-efficacy, task aversion, and fear of failure have been further strengthened by Milgram et al., who report that the reason people procrastinate on some things and not others is due to the emotional reaction that the person has towards a specific task (1988). Since one of the biggest variables or causes of self-efficacy is the emotional mood of a subject, where Bandura states that having a positive mood enhances self-efficacy, we have strengthened the correlation that occurs between self-efficacy and procrastination. In addition, we have been able to construct procrastination as being a complex interaction of events and states, with self-efficacy showing evidence of being a probable factor in causing procrastination. The behavioral symptoms that have been displayed and correlated with procrastination can also be correlated with self-efficacy. This analysis has given a strong claim and support for the two studies by Ferrari et al. and Haycock et al., which showed self-efficacy as being highly correlated to procrastination.
Other than the alternatives that we have presented so far, which have reported to link procrastination with self-efficacy through the factors given such as anxiety, task aversion, and fear of failure. There are two other studies that have provided some evidence of other effects that have some correlation with procrastination. Another researcher who has devoted many articles to procrastination, Clarry Lay, has noted that he theorizes that procrastination is not linked to anxiety but rather to depression (Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993). Although similar, Lay & Schouwenburg make the distinction between the two, stating, “Anxiety is linked to cognitions about fearful or harmful event in the future. Depression, on the other hand, concerns ‘actual or perceived loss, failure, or degradation’ in the past” (1993). In their studies, Lay & Schouwenburg find that there is an interaction across time before a due date. They basically state that before making plans for the course they had higher depression levels, but after the course was completed they were more likely to have higher anxiety levels at this point (1993). This would support their reasoning as to depression being a major correlate with procrastination. However, self-efficacy would seem to be related to both, since there could be a reciprocal reaction that takes place between levels of self-efficacy and depression. Since personal mastery is one of the strongest ways to raise self-efficacy from Bandura’s research (1998), one could deduce that experiencing failures could be devastating to one’s self-efficacy, which could then be related to the definition of depression.
The other study that proclaims a link to procrastination is Tuckman & Sexton, who believe that there is a correlation between procrastination and self-belief (1992). In their article they mention Bandura’s work, and say that self-efficacy is generally related to self-belief, with the only difference being that self-efficacy is, “a situationally specific belief, one that is determined each time a situation arises, rather than a more enduring characteristic such as an aspect of personality” (Tuckman & Sexton, 1992). Even though this is an alternative view of what affects procrastination, it is very similar to self-efficacy. However, other research points to the fact that procrastination does differ depending on different situations. As stated previously Milgram et al. reported that people do tend to procrastinate on some tasks more than others, and that whether or not they procrastinated on a specific task was largely dependent on whether they liked the task or not (1988). Since this was previously related to the emotional liking of self-efficacy, it would make a stronger case that self-efficacy is the strongest predictor and correlate to procrastination.