1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx

1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a
scholarly journal in the field of Communication Studies;
Specifically an article related to social media and mass media
communication.
· Then, you are going to write a paper (Minimum 800 words do
not include titles, in-text citations and a works cited or
references page) ) and submit as well.
Article
Investigating the
Relationships Among
Resilience, Social Anxiety,
and Procrastination
in a Sample of
College Students
Chen-Yi Amy Ko and Yuhsuan Chang
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Abstract
This study investigated the relationships among resilience,
social anxiety, and pro-
crastination in a sample of college students. Specifically,
structural equation modeling
analyses were applied to examine the effect of resilience on
procrastination and to

test the mediating effect of social anxiety. The results of this
study suggested that
social anxiety partially mediated the relationship between
resilience and procrastin-
ation. Students with higher levels of resilience reported a lower
frequency of pro-
crastination behavior, and resilience had an indirect effect on
procrastination through
social anxiety. The results of this study clarify the current
knowledge of the mixed
results on resilience and procrastination behaviors and offer
practical learning
strategies and psychological interventions.
Keywords
Resilience, social anxiety, procrastination
Introduction
A notable surge of interest in procrastination has been reported
in the past two
decades. Procrastination is a serious concern for societies that
increasingly
employ modern information technology and implicitly promote
immediate grati-
fication (Rozental & Carlbing, 2014).
During the 1970s, the prevalence of self-reported

procrastination was
4%–5% in the adult population, compared with 15%–20% in the
most recent
Psychological Reports
2019, Vol. 122(1) 231–245
! The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033294118755111
journals.sagepub.com/home/prx
Corresponding Author:
Yuhsuan Chang, College of Management, Yuan Ze University,
135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chungli, Taoyuan
City, Taiwan.
Email: [email protected]
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118755111
journals.sagepub.com/home/prx
report (Steel, 2012). The prevalence of procrastination in the
general population
was reported to be approximately 20% (Steel, 2007).Worldwide,
20%–25% of

adults report chronic procrastination tendencies in the domains
of work and
personal lives (Balkis & Duru, 2007; Ferrari & Dı́az-Morales,
2014). Most pro-
crastinators see their delaying behaviors as inappropriate,
problematic, and in
need of change (Skowronski & Mirowska, 2013).
Procrastination is associated
not only with negative consequences for the activity being
delayed but also with
decreased psychological well-being and performance and
increased distress
(Rozental & Carlbring, 2014; Sirois, 2007; Stead, Shanahan, &
Neufeld, 2010).
Procrastination is particularly common among college students.
A study esti-
mated that approximately 80% of college students are
procrastinators, and pro-
crastination was identified as one of the most common problem
behaviors
requiring improved management (Steel & Ferrari, 2013; Walker
& Stewart,
2000). Procrastination is generally defined as a purposeful
voluntary delay in
task completion (Steel, 2007). Studies have reported a variety of
factors con-
tributing to procrastination, including individual and task
characteristics.
Individual factors relating to procrastination can be at the
cognitive, emotional,
and self-perception levels, including depression (Steel, 2007),
anxiety (Kamran &
Fatima, 2013), irrational belief (Pychyl & Flett, 2012), self-
esteem (Steel &
Ferrari, 2013), self-efficacy (Hen & Goroshit, 2014), and fear of

failure (Steel
& Ferrari, 2013). In addition, the characteristics of the task can
affect some
individuals’ propensity for procrastination. Task characteristics
associated
with the timing of rewards and punishment encourage
individuals to avoid the
assignments that they are supposed to implement. Factors
pertaining to pro-
crastination have been examined as self-contained mechanisms;
thus, procras-
tination has been systematically examined at an intrapsychic
level, but factors
related to interaction with others have been largely omitted.
Resilience and procrastination
Resilience is a vital characteristic associated with
procrastination in the context
of social interaction. Resilience is traditionally viewed as a
protective mechanism
deployed when facing external distress (Sullivan, 2001). In
addition, resilience
can represent the dynamic processes that involve interactions
with family,
school, and community (Aspinwall & Stauginer, 2003; Greene,
2002). Chen
(2014) referred to resilience as the ability that enables an
individual to overcome
or adapt to adversity and create positive outcomes across the
duration of the
interaction with their environment. Resilience essentially
represents the effects of
a personality that facilitate healthy adaptation to challenging
environments
(Luthar, 2006) and is an indicator of positive mental health and

work outcomes
(Kotzé & Lamb, 2012). However, studies have reported mixed
results regarding
the relationship between resilience and procrastination. Some
studies have
indicated that resilience is positively related to procrastination.
For example,
232 Psychological Reports 122(1)
Öksüz and Güven (2013) reported that individuals with high
psychological resili-
ence tend to procrastinate more than individuals with low
resilience. They sug-
gested that individuals with higher resilience procrastinate more
because they
believe that they can solve problems with higher self-efficacy.
However, negative
associations between resilience and procrastination have also
been reported. For
example, Shin and Kelly (2015) reported that individuals with
higher resilience
showed fewer procrastination behaviors at all stages of the
career decision-
making process. They considered resilience to reflect on
individuals’ personal
resources and suggested promoting resilience as a strategy to
reduce career
difficulties. These inconsistent results may be due to the various
aspects of resili-
ence. Tusaie and Dyer (2004) indicated that the definition of
resilience varies
among study objectives and theoretical developments; thus, the
mixed results

might reflect this variation and require further clarification. The
aim of the
current study was to further illustrate the relationship between
resilience and
procrastination. We adopted resilience as an adaptive indicator
of external
environments and procrastination as a failure of self-regulation
that reflects
maladaptive outcomes. Procrastination is empirically associated
with poor
health and academic performance and thus does not reflect
positive adaptation
to environments. However, resilience represents increased
adaptation and can
affect health, success, and life quality through reaction to
obstacles (Windle,
Bennett, & Noyes, 2011). Thus, it is theoretically reasonable to
assume that
individuals with resilience possess more resources to solve
problems and are
less likely to report procrastination.
Resilience and social anxiety
Studies have indicated that resilience can be viewed as a stress
coping ability
(Connor & Davison, 2003) and reported that individuals with
resilience have the
tendency to exhibit well-adjusted social behaviors (Wagnild,
2003) and positive
emotions. The relationship between resilience and anxiety has
been documented
in several studies (Steel, 2007). As a defense against adversity,
resilience was
found to be negatively associated with anxiety (Beutel,
Glaesmer, Wiltink,

Marian, & Brähler, 2010). The relationship between resilience
and general anx-
iety has been examined, but there has been little discussion
about the specific
relationship with social anxiety (Yngve, 2016).
Schlenker and Leary (1982) suggested that social anxiety as ‘‘a
dominant,
persistent anxiety that leads individuals to avoid a variety of
social situations.’’
When individuals with social anxiety interact with others, they
exhibit avoidance
behaviors and attempt to escape from situations that involve
external feedback
and evaluation. Turner, Beidel, Dancu, and Keys (1986)
reported that social
anxiety affected individuals’ academic and work performance.
For example,
individuals with social anxiety may possess an irrational fear to
express opinions
during meetings or be reluctant to join social activities related
to their job and
Ko and Chang 233
even career promotion. Overall, people with social anxiety are
extremely anxious
and worry about being negatively evaluated in actual and
imagined experiences.
However, individuals with resilience can help to reduce social
anxiety because
they possess greater resources, not only through individual
adaptation but also
from family and community. For example, Chen (2014) reported

that primary
school students with higher resilience tend to experience less
social anxiety.
Social anxiety and procrastination
Studies have identified a significant relationship between
general anxiety and
procrastination (Bilal, 2009; Farran, 2004; Glick, Millstein, &
Orsillo, 2014).
Rahardjo, Juneman, and Setiani (2013) examined the
relationship between anx-
iety and academic procrastination among social science college
students and
reported that individuals with higher anxiety tend to engage in
more academic
procrastination when using computers. Similarly, in a study of
intermediate
science students in Pakistan, Kamran and Fatima (2013)
revealed that increased
anxiety was followed by increased procrastination among
female students.
Overall, studies have confirmed the relationship between
anxiety and procras-
tination; however, the mechanism of anxiety remains unclear.
In particular, the objective of this study was to examine social
anxiety,
because this aspect of anxiety involves potential interactions
with others and
is relatively dynamic in social contexts compared with other
symptoms of anx-
iety. The relationship between social anxiety and
procrastination can be con-
ceptualized through self-presentation theory. Self-presentation
theory suggests

that social anxiety increases when people are motivated to make
an impression
on real or imagined listeners, and when they perceive or
imagine disappointing
feedback from audiences (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Thus,
individuals with social
anxiety tend to rate themselves more negatively and attempt to
control their self-
image due to fear of failure. Therefore, their motivation for
procrastination differs
considerably from that of individuals with general anxiety.
Individuals with social
anxiety are more concerned with evaluation in a social context
than with doubting
their capacity to complete a task. Thus, as a mediator in a social
context, social
anxiety represents further intervention to the outcome variable.
For example,
Manes et al. (2016) examined social anxiety as a mediator in the
relationship
between attachment and depression by noting that an attachment
style is
formed through interactions with significant others.
Purpose of the current study
The aim of the present study was to further clarify the
relationship between
resilience and procrastination by examining social anxiety as a
mediator. We
hoped to fill the gap in current research caused by mixed results
regarding the
relationship between resilience and procrastination and extend
the current

understanding of resilience in the context of interactions with
others. We
hypothesized that resilience is negatively associated with
procrastination
through the effect of social anxiety and that social anxiety is
positively associated
with procrastination behaviors.
Method
Participants and procedure
The participants were students in Taiwan (N¼ 321). Male and
female students
accounted for 29.3% and 70.4%, respectively, with 62.4% aged
<20 years and
35.5% aged 21–25 years. The cohort comprised freshman
students (40.8%),
sophomore students (21.5%), junior students (32.1%), senior
students (3.4%),
and graduate students (2.2%). The data were collected through
convenience
sampling, and the questionnaire was in two sections. The first
section included
demographic details such as gender, age, education, college,
and years. The
second section asked participants to rate their personal
situation.
Measures
Resilience: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC;
Conner & Davidson, 2003). The

Chinese version of CD-RISC is used to assess the construct of
resilience (Wang,
2015). The CD-RISC consisted of 25 five-point Likert-type
items, ranging from
‘‘rarely true (¼0)’’ to ‘‘true nearly all of the time (¼4).’’ The
total score ranges
from 0 to 100 with higher scores reflecting greater resilience.
The CD-RISC scale
was composed of five subscales: personal competence,
trust/tolerance/
strengthening effect of stress, acceptance of change and secure
relationships,
control, and spiritual influences. In the previous research, the
reliability measure
alpha was .89 (Connor & Davidson, 2003) and .953 (Wang,
2015). In this study,
the alpha values were .90 for the resilience.
Social anxiety: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick
& Clarke, 1998). The SIAS
was used to measure social anxiety in this study. The SIAS is a
20-item five-point
questionnaire with response from ‘‘Not at all (¼0)’’ to
‘‘Extremely (¼4)’’.
Mattick and Clarke’s (1998) research showed that the high
internal as seen in
reliability coefficients of SIAS scale was .94. In this study, the
Chinese version
of SIAS scale was used (Yang, 2003), and the coefficient of the
overall social
anxiety was .92 in the current research.
Procrastination: General Procrastination Scale (GP-S; Lay,
1988). The GP-S was used to
measure procrastination and consists of 20-item Likert scale,
ranging from

‘‘strongly disagree (¼1)’’ to ‘‘strongly agree (¼5). Higher
numbers of total
scores indicate higher level of procrastination. Several research
showed the
Ko and Chang 235
20-item GP-S alpha coefficient as .82 (Lay, 1986), .85 (Lay,
Edwards, Parker, &
Endler, 1989), and .78 (Ferrari, 1991a). In present study, the
alpha coefficient of
overall procrastination was .85.
Results
Descriptive and bivariate analyses
The SPSS 22.0 software package was used to analyze all data.
As seen in Table 1,
the values for skewness and kurtosis were in the acceptable
range (<|2|), which
indicated that all variables were in normal distribution.
Furthermore, none of
the cases with multivariate outliers were significant (p< .01)
when using
Mahalanobis distance statistics (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Most of the
social anxiety and resilience results revealed significant
relationships with pro-
crastination (Table 2). Specifically, social anxiety was
negatively correlated with
resilience and positively correlated with procrastination. In
addition, higher
resilience was associated with lower procrastination. The

correlations in
Table 2 indicated that it was appropriate to proceed with
hypothesis testing.
Structural equation model analysis
Measurement model analyses. We used statistical equation
modeling to test the
relationships between the latent variables of resilience, social
anxiety, and
Table 1. Descriptive statistic of observed variables.
Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis
CDRISC_PC 20.93 4.45 0.01 0.04
CDRISC_TTS 17.55 3.49 0.19 �0.06
CDRISC_AC 13.10 2.64 0.13 �0.10
CDRISC_CON 7.00 2.28 �0.04 �0.39
CDRISC_SI 5.06 1.23 �0.05 0.07
CDRISC_T 51.34 8.73 0.03 0.11
SIAS_T 31.28 12.02 0.02 �0.14
Pro_T 54.98 10.27 0.01 0.38
Note: N¼ 321. M: Mean; SD: standard deviation. CDRISC_PC:
Items Total for Personal Competence of
Resilience from CD-RISC scale; CDRISC_TTS: Items Total for
Trust/Strengthening effect of stress of
Resilience from CD-RISC scale; CDRISC_AC: Items Total for
Acceptance of change and secure relation-
ships of Resilience from CD-RISC scale; CDRISC_CON: Items
Total for Control of Resilience from

CD-RISC scale; CDRISC_SI: Items Total for Spiritual
influences of Resilience from CD-RISC scale;
CDRISC_T: Items Total for Resilience from CD-RISC scale;
SIAS_T: Items Total for Social anxiety from
SIAS scale; Pro_T: Items Total for Procrastination from GP-S
scale.
procrastination, and we used the maximum likelihood estimation
procedures of
AMOS 22.0 in the SPSS software package to confirm the latent
variable meas-
urement models. To construct the measurement model, the item
parceling tech-
nique was employed. Social anxiety and procrastination were
indicated by four
parcels, created by pairing items with the highest and lowest
factor loadings
(Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). As seen in Table 3, the loadings
of the three
measured variables were statistically significant (p< .01).
Therefore, respective
indicators of the latent variables were adequate when measuring
the latent vari-
ables. The indices for the hypothesized measurement model
exhibited excellent
fits (e.g., �2 (62, N¼ 321)¼ 112; �2/df¼ 1.81; comparative fit
index (CFI)¼ .98;
goodness of fit index (GFI)¼ .95; root mean square error of
approximation

(RMSEA)¼ .05, p< .01). Therefore, we used the proposed
measurement
models to examine the theoretical structural models.
Structural model and mediator analysis. The indices for the
hypothesized structural
model exhibited excellent fits (e.g., �2 (62, N¼ 321)¼ 112;
�2/df¼ 1.81;
CFI¼ .98; GFI¼ .95; RMSEA¼ .05, p< .01; Figure 1).
Resilience negatively
predicted procrastination (�¼�.36, p< .001) and social anxiety
(�¼�.45,
p< .001), whereas social anxiety positively predicted
procrastination (�¼ .31,
p< .001).
Mediator analyses. The standard path coefficients for the paths
from resilience to
social anxiety, social anxiety to procrastination, and resilience
to procrastination
Table 2. Intercorrelations among observed variables.
Variable CDR_PC CDR_TTS CDR_AC CDR_CON CDRI_SI
CDR_T SIAS_T Pro_T
CDR_PC 1
CDR_TTS .58** 1
CDR_AC .66** .63** 1
CDR_CON .60** .55** .59** 1
CDR_SI .28** .30** .33** .27** 1

CDR_T .82** .87** .84** .66** .45** 1
SIAS_T �.39** �.32** �.42** �.26** �0.04 �.41** 1
Pro_T �.43** �.26** �.41** �.37** �0.11 �.41** .45** 1
Note: N¼ 336. CDRISC_PC: Items Total for Personal
Competence of Resilience from CD-RISC scale;
CDRISC_TTS: Items Total for Trust/Strengthening effect of
stress of Resilience from CD-RISC scale;
CDRISC_AC: Items Total for Acceptance of change and secure
relationships of Resilience from CD-
RISC scale; CDRISC_CON: Items Total for Control of
Resilience from CD-RISC scale; CDRISC_SI:
Items Total for Spiritual influences of Resilience from CD-
RISC scale; CDRISC_T: Items Total for
Resilience from CD-RISC scale; SIAS_T: Items Total for Social
anxiety from SIAS scale; Pro_T: Items
Total for Procrastination from GP-S scale.
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
Ko and Chang 237
in the overall model (�¼�.45, p< .001; �¼ .31, p< .001; and
�¼�.36, p< .001,
respectively) satisfied the conditions established by Holmbeck
(1997) for exam-
ining the mediation effect. The path between resilience and
procrastination was

restricted to zero in the fully mediated model. The differences
among the chi-
square values, degrees of freedom, and Akaike information
criterion (AIC)
Table 3. Factor loadings for the measurement models.
Measure and variable Beta model
Resilience
CDR_PC .81***
CDR_TTS .74***
CDR_AC .83***
CDR_CON .72***
CDR_SI .37***
Procrastination
Pro_1 .78***
Pro_2 .84***
Pro_3 .77***
Pro_4 .81***
Social anxiety
SIAS_1 .88***
SIAS_2 .85***

SIAS_3 .90***
SIAS_4 .82***
Note: N¼ 321.
***p< .001.
Figure 1. Structural model of resilience, social anxiety, and
procrastination.
statistics for each model were compared in the partially
mediated model. The
results showed that the partially mediated model had a closer fit
than the fully
mediated model with a lower AIC statistic. Moreover, the
difference between the
two models was significant (��2 (1, N¼ 321)¼ 29.967, p<
.001); the partially
mediated model was a closer fit for the data. Resilience directly
affected pro-
crastination, and it also indirectly affected procrastination
through social
anxiety.
Discussion
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine the relationships
among resili-
ence, social anxiety, and procrastination and (b) to test the
mediating effect of
social anxiety. The results indicated that social anxiety serves

as a partial medi-
ator. Individuals with higher levels of resilience reported lower
procrastination,
and resilience had an indirect effect on procrastination
behaviors.
First, we expected that resilience would negatively predict
procrastination
and that resilient individuals would be less likely to
procrastinate. This result
agrees with the concept of resilience as a promoter of self-
regulation and a
positive adaptation to environments (Gardner, Dishion, &
Connell, 2008).
Previous studies have indicated that when individuals lack
confidence to finish
tasks and fear the outcome of failure, they will tend to
procrastinate instead of
completing the task (Ellis & Knaus, 1977). Some individuals
attempt to avoid
the situations that make them feel unpleasant or uneasy, which
may cause pro-
crastination when they have tasks to complete. Ferrari (1991b)
asserted that
procrastination can be caused by the individual doubting their
ability to accom-
plish a task, and then the fear that they would be poorly
evaluated by others.
However, resilient individuals usually believe in their own
ability to achieve the
task or manage the situation, and they possess the belief that
‘‘This is not dif-
ficult; I am going to make it.’’ This belief is reflected in
resilient individuals
reporting less fear of failure and reductions in their tendency to
delay tasks.

In addition, Friborg, Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, and
Hjemdal (2005)
suggested that resilient individuals are more organized, follow
rules more easily,
and have a clearer path to their goals, which could help them to
persist until
their task is completed despite unpleasant states or moods.
Resilient individuals
have a positive self-view and are confident in their strengths
and abilities, which
could explain their lower tendency to procrastinate.
Second, resilience is negatively associated with social anxiety.
The current
results indicated that resilient individuals experience lower
levels of social anx-
iety, which is consistent with the finding of past studies (Chen,
2014; Yngve,
2016). A possible explanation is that, in social situations,
resilient individuals
tend to evaluate themselves positively, believe in their
decisions, be confident in
their performance, express opinions often, and have a low
expectation of failure,
which may decrease the anxiety that derives from the fear of
failure in social
Ko and Chang 239
situations. Furthermore, resilient individuals are reported to
have good social
skills and can communicate well with others. Lacking social
skills is regarded as
a major contributor to social anxiety. Poor social skills could

lead to poor
interpersonal relationships, and thus cause social anxiety.
Moreover, resilient
individuals have strong social skills and can interact and
converse with people in
social situations and react appropriately to them, which may
decrease the pos-
sibility of poor self-evaluation (Clark & Wells, 1995; Creed &
Funder, 1998;
Leary & Kowalski, 1995; Liebowitz, 1999; Rapee & Heimberg,
1997).
Finally, social anxiety is positively associated with
procrastination.
The results revealed that individuals who suffer higher social
anxiety procras-
tinate more. A possible explanation is that individuals tend to
procrastinate to
avoid aversive conditions or unpleasant states as well as when
they fear failure
or poor evaluation. People with higher social anxiety fear poor
evolution, failing
to reach expectations, and disapproval and therefore might
attempt to postpone
making telephone calls, discussing difficult issues at work,
scheduling
health appointments, and completing other tasks that involve
interacting
with people. Resilience indirectly affects procrastination with
social anxiety as
a mediator.
Implications of this study
Our findings have valuable implications for learning practices.
We highlight the

importance of focusing on interpersonal aspects in the
understanding of pro-
crastination. Because procrastination negatively affects work
and academic
study, training and learning programs have been developed in
schools.
Traditionally, time management training was proposed as an
effective interven-
tion for reducing procrastination and improving learning
outcomes (Häfner,
Oberst, & Stock, 2014). The results of this study can provide
insight for the
construction of resilience training programs for effective
learning to enable stu-
dents to manage difficulties appropriately. For example, the
Penn Resiliency
Program equips individuals with a set of practical skills that
strengthen their
ability to overcome adversity (Brunwasser, Gillham, & Kim,
2009). During the
training, abilities such as emotional control, solution finding,
self-belief, creating
support, and realistic positivity are developed. Focusing on
promoting resilience
capacity is analogous to teaching a person how to fish so that
they can eat for a
lifetime. When resilience is improved, behaviors that are linked
to positive adap-
tation to environment are reinforced and negative behaviors
such as procrastin-
ation will be less likely to occur.
Although resilience has been reported to be a crucial factor
contributing to
procrastination, it is not the only element that must be
addressed in a treatment

setting. Steel (2007) suggested various interventions to target
the difficulties
experienced by an individual. Therefore, other treatment
methods should be
considered for reducing procrastination. For example, cognitive
behavioral
therapy has been proven to be an appropriate treatment for
reducing procras-
tination, and it has been reported to result in positive outcomes
(Balkis & Duru,
2007; Rozental & Carlbring, 2013). The benefit of cognitive
behavioral therapy
is that it helps clients to concentrate on replacing inflexible
thought patterns with
behavioral skills and teaches them to modify patterns of
delaying behavior
(Rozental & Carlbring, 2013).
Limitations and future research
Two limitations should be noted in this study. First, we
measured general pro-
crastination behaviors. The results might vary if specific types
of procrastination
are assessed instead. Corkin, Yu, and Lindt (2011) asserted that
active delay is a
distinct aspect of procrastination and can be associated with
desirable academic
outcomes. It may be productive for future research to
investigate the different
types of procrastination in relation to academic and emotional

outcomes.
Second, the sample was restricted to university students in
Taiwan and the
results should be generalized with caution. Several studies have
shown that
Asian participants self-report higher social anxiety than
European participants
(Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 2000). Factors such
as individualism,
collectivism, and perception of social norms contribute to the
higher social anx-
iety experienced by individuals from collectivistic cultures
(Hofmann, Asnaani,
& Hinton, 2010). The pressure to follow social rules and to
maintain group
harmony also contributes to higher anxiety (Heinrichs et al.,
2006). Future
studies targeting validation of the results should consist of
larger and diversified
cultural samples. We believe that despite these limitations, the
current study
advances understanding of the relationships among resilience,
social anxiety,
and procrastination. This study successfully conceptualized
procrastination
from social and interpersonal perspectives and suggested
practical intervention
to reduce procrastination behaviors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
References
Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (2003). A psychology of
human strengths:
Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive
psychology.
In L. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Towards a
psychology of human strengths
(pp. 9–22). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Ko and Chang 241
Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2007). The evaluation of the major
characteristics and aspects of
the procrastination in the framework of psychological
counseling and guidance.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 376–385.
Beutel, M. E., Glaesmer, H., Wiltink, J., Marian, H., & Brähler,
E. (2010). Life satisfac-
tion, anxiety, depression and resilience across the life span of
men. The Aging Male,
13(1), 32–39.
Bilal, A. (2009). Academic procrastination and anxiety among
young adults in relation to

academic performance (Master’s thesis). University of the
Punjab, Lahore.
Brunwasser, S. M., Gillham, J. E., & Kim, E. S. (2009). A meta-
analytic review of the
Penn Resiliency Program’s effect on depressive symptoms.
Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 77(6), 1042–1054.
Chen, S. H. (2014). A survey of resilience and social anxiety on
senior primary school
pupils in Keelung city (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
National Taiwan Ocean
University, Keelung, Taiwan.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social
phobia. Social Phobia:
Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment, 41(68), 00022–00023.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a
new resilience scale: The
Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and
Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S., & Lindt, S. F. (2011). Comparing active
delay and procrastina-
tion from self-regulated learning perspective. Learning and
Individual Differences,
21, 6027–606.
Creed, A. T., & Funder, D. C. (1998). Social anxiety: From the
inside and outside.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 19–33.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming procrastination:
How to think and act rationally
in spite of life’s inevitable hassles. New York, NY: Institute for
Rational Living.
Farran, B. (2004). Predictors of academic procrastination in
college students (Master’s
Dissertation, Fordham University). Retrieved from
http://fordham.bepress.com/dis-
sertations/AAI3125010/
Ferrari, J. R. (1991a). A preference for a favorable public
impression by procrastinators:
Selecting among cognitive and social tasks. Personality and
Individual Differences,
12(11), 1233–1237.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991b). Self-handicapping by procrastinators:
Protecting self-esteem,
social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality,
25(3), 245–261.
Ferrari, J. R., & Dı́az-Morales, J. F. (2014). Procrastination and
mental health coping: A
brief report related to students. Individual Differences
Research, 12(1), 8–11.
Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., &
Hjemdal, O. (2005).
Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence.
International Journal of Methods
in Psychiatric Research, 14(1), 29–42.

Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M. (2008).
Adolescent self-regulation as
resilience: Resistance to antisocial behavior within the deviant
peer context. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(2), 273–284.
Glick, D. M., Millstein, D. J., & Orsillo, S. M. (2014). A
preliminary investigation of the
role of psychological inflexibility in academic procrastination.
Journal of Contextual
Behavioral Science, 3(2), 81–88.
Greene, R. R. (2002). Resiliency: An integrated approach to
practice, policy, and
research. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 486.
Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/209788789?accountid¼8004
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3125010/
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3125010/
http://search.proquest.com/docview/209788789?accountid8004
Häfner, A., Oberst, V., & Stock, A. (2014). Avoiding
procrastination through time man-
agement: An experimental intervention study. Educational
Studies, 40(3), 352–360.
Heinrichs, N., Rapee, R. M., Alden, L. A., Bögels, S., Hofmann,

S. G., Oh, K. J., &
Sakano, Y. (2006). Cultural differences in perceived social
norms and social anxiety.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(8), 1187–1197.
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2014). Academic procrastination,
emotional intelligence,
academic self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between
students with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2),
116–124.
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., & Hinton, D. E. (2010). Cultural
aspects in social anxiety
and social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 27(12),
1117–1127.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual,
and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-
clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65(4), 599–610.
Kamran, W., & Fatima, I. (2013). Emotional intelligence,
anxiety and procrastination in
intermediate science students. Pakistan Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology,
11(2), 3–6.
Kotzé, M., & Lamb, S. (2012). The influence of personality
traits and resilience on
burnout among customer service representatives in a call centre.

Journal of Social
Sciences, 32(3), 295–309.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison
of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models.
Organizational Research Methods,
3(2), 186–207.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on
procrastination. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20(4), 474–495.
Lay, C. H. (1988). The relationship of procrastination and
optimism to judgments of time
to complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks. Journal of
Social Behavior and
Personality, 3(3), 201.
Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D., & Endler, N. S.
(1989). An assessment of
appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an
examination period.
European Journal of Personality, 3(3), 195–208.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). The self-presentation
model of social phobia. In
R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier
(Eds.), Social
Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 94–112).
New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Liebowitz, J. (Ed.). (1999). Knowledge management handbook.

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of
research across five dec-
ades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology: risk,
disorder, and adaptation (pp. 739–795). New York, NY: Wiley.
Manes, S., Nodop, S., Altmann, U., Gawlytta, R., Dinger, U.,
Dymel, W., & Petrowski,
K. (2016). Social anxiety as a potential mediator of the
association between attach-
ment and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 264–
268.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and
validation of measures of social
phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour
Research and Therapy,
36(4), 455–470.
Norasakkunkit, V., & Kalick, S. M. (2002). Culture, ethnicity,
and emotional distress
measures: The role of self-construal and self-enhancement.
Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(1), 56–70.
Ko and Chang 243
Okazaki, S. (2000). Asian American and White American

differences on affective distress
symptoms: Do symptom reports differ across reporting
methods? Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 603–625.
Öksüz, Y., & Güven, E. (2014). The relationship between
psychological resilience and
procrastination levels of teacher candidates. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 3189–3193.
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-
regulatory failure: An
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 30(4), 203–212.
Rahardjo, W., Juneman, J., & Setiani, Y. (2013). Computer
anxiety, academic stress, and
academic procrastination on college students. Journal of
Education and Learning
(EduLearn), 7(3), 147–152.
Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-
behavioral model of anxiety in
social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–
756.
Rozental, A., & Carlbring, P. (2013). Internet-based cognitive
behavior therapy for pro-
crastination: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
JMIR Research
Protocols, 2(2), e46.

Rozental, A., & Carlbring, P. (2014). Understanding and
treating procrastination: A
review of a common self-regulatory failure. Psychology, 5(13),
1488–1502.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and
self-presentation: A concep-
tualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641–649.
Shin, Y. J., & Kelly, K. R. (2015). Resilience and decision-
making strategies as predictors
of career decision difficulties. The Career Development
Quarterly, 63(4), 291–305.
Sirois, F. M. (2007). ‘‘I’ll look after my health, later’’: A
replication and extension of the
procrastination–health model with community-dwelling adults.
Personality and
Individual Differences, 43(1), 15–26.
Skowronski, M., & Mirowska, A. (2013). A manager’s guide to
workplace procrastin-
ation. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 78(3), 4–9.
Stead, R., Shanahan, M. J., & Neufeld, R. W. (2010). ‘‘I’ll go to
therapy, eventually’’:
Procrastination, stress and mental health. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49(3),
175–180.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review of

quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin,
133(1), 65–94.
Steel, P. (2012). The procrastination equation. Edinburgh,
Scotland: Pearson Education
Ltd.
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and
procrastination: An epidemiological
study of procrastinators’ characteristics from a global sample.
European Journal of
Personality, 27(1), 51–58.
Sullivan, R. (2001). What makes a child resilient? Time
Magazine, 157(11), 35–38.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate
statistics (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Dancu, C. V., & Keys, D. J.
(1986). Psychopathology of
social phobia and comparison to avoidant personality disorder.
Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 95(4), 389–394.
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of
the construct. Holistic
Nursing Practice, 18(1), 3–10.
Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful aging:

Comparison among low and high
income older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 29(12),
42–49.
Walker, L. J. S., & Stewart, D. W. (2000). Overcoming the
powerlessness of procrastin-
ation. Guidance & Counseling, 16(1), 39–43.
Wang, S. H. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Chinese
version of the Connor-Davidson
resilience scale (Master’s Thesis). National Changhua
University of Education,
Taiwan.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A
methodological review of resilience
measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(1),
8.
Yang, J. F. (2003). The relations of social anxiety, internet
social anxiety and character-
istics of the Internet (Master’s thesis). National Taiwan
University, Taiwan.
Yngve, A. (2016). Resilience Against Social Anxiety: The Role
of Social Networks in Social
Anxiety Disorder (master thesis). Retrieved from
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/
get/diva2:968637/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Author Biographies
Chen-Yi Amy Ko received her MBA degree from the Yuan Ze
University. This

published paper was part of her master thesis and her academic
advisor was Dr.
Yuhsuan Chang. She is currently a project manager in the
Cooler Master
company.
Yuhsuan Chang received her PhD in counseling psychology
from the Purdue
University. She is currently an associate professor in the
College of
Management at Yuan Ze University in Taiwan. Her research and
professional
interests include personality assessment, perfectionism, stress
and coping, career
decisions and behaviors, and workplace mental health
promotion.
Ko and Chang 245
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Sage
Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2018
_____________________

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Safia Afzal, Alumni,
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad-Pakistan. Email:
[email protected]
Humaira Jami, PhD, Assistant Professor, National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-i-
Azam University, Islamabad-Pakistan. Email: [email protected]
Prevalence of Academic Procrastination and Reasons for
Academic
Procrastination in University Students
*Safia Afzal and Humaira Jami, PhD
Islamabad
Pakistan
The study was designed to investigate the prevalence and
reasons for
academic procrastination in public university students. The
sample
consisted of 200 university students including 155 women and
45 men
students from social and natural sciences departments.

Academic
procrastination and reasons for it were measured by
Procrastination
Assessment Scale for Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a).
Backward
linear regression analysis has shown that risk taking, task
aversiveness,
and decision-making were significant predictors (reasons) for
academic
procrastination while task aversiveness being strongest
predictor with
medium level coefficient of regression. It was also revealed that
academic procrastination prevails at all three levels of
education (MSc,
MPhil and PhD). Task aversiveness, time management, laziness,
rebellion against control, decision making, and lack of assertion
were
more common reasons in students of social sciences than natural
sciences
as shown by significant differences. Overall task aversiveness,
fear of
failure, dependency, decision making and risk taking were
common

reasons for indulging into academic procrastination.
Keywords. Academic procrastination, reasons for academic
procrastination, university students
The concept of procrastination is explained by Solomon and
Rothblum (1984a) as the tendency to delay initiation or
completion of
important tasks to the point of discomfort. Procrastination can
be an
enduring trait, viewed as a predisposition to postpone task
which is
necessary to reach at some goal (Lay, 1986) that may be related
to
temperament (Effert & Ferrari, 1995).
Academic Procrastination
Procrastination can be situation specific as Rothblum, Solomon,
and Murakmi (1986) explained academic procrastination as: a)
To nearly
52
AFZAL AND JAMI
or always put off academic task; and b) to nearly or always

experience
problematic level of anxiety associated with this
procrastination.
Tuckman and Sexton (1989) viewed procrastination as the
tendency to
put off or completely avoid an activity under one‟s control to
reach goals.
Noran (2000) considers procrastinator as someone who knows
that he/she
can do or want to do any task, plan and try for it; but does not
complete it
or excessively delay and waste time in less important activities
or
pleasure.
Procrastination is a common phenomenon among college and
university students (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Oweini & Harraty,
2005; Steel,
2007) that brings into negative outcomes on their academic
achievement
(Janssen, 2015; Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2007). Steel
(2007) in his
metanalytical study found that 70-95% of the students
procrastinate that

is problematic in nature. It may be domain specific, as a study
revealed
that students who procrastinate consistently perform poorly on
term
assignments than students who do not procrastinate (Tice &
Baureminder, 1997). With technological advancement where
online
learning as a tool for distant learning is important,
procrastination is
found to affect performance in web-courses (Tuckman, 2005)
and also in
online learning specifically when participants fail to be part of
online
discussions because of procrastination and drop out courses
(Michinov,
Brunot, Le Bohec, Juhel, & Delaval, 2011).
Reasons for Academic Procrastination
Solomon and Rothblum (1984b) in a study asked
students and
faculty members for reasons for academic procrastination and
they found
thirteen main reasons. A factor analysis (Solomon & Rothblum,
1984a)

of the results yielded two major factors, “Fear of Failure”
(evaluation
anxiety, perfectionism, and lack of self-confidence) and second
factor
“Task Aversiveness” (aversiveness of the task and laziness).
Along with
these two major factors, the other factors emerged were
dependency, risk
taking, lack of assertion, rebellion against control, and
difficulty making
decisions. Among these, tasks evasiveness was found to be the
most
prevalent reason for academic procrastination. More aversive a
task is
perceived more likely one is to avoid it (Solomon & Rothblum,
1984a,
1984c). According to these researchers, academic
procrastination is not
deficit in study habits or time management, but a complex
interplay of
cognitive, behavioral, and affective components. Present study
aims to
study the reasons for procrastination.
Some other studies have also suggested that procrastination is

linked to fear of failure, fear of rejection, perfectionism, fear of
success,
PREVALENCE AND REASONS OF ACADEMIC
PROCRASTINATION 53
social anxiety, depression (Ferrari, 1992), stress, life
satisfaction (Aziz &
Tariq, 2013a), low self-efficacy, rationalization (Tuckman,
1991, 2005),
performance of task that are externally imposed (Lay, 1986),
low self-
esteem and low self-concept, forgetfulness, disorganization,
learned
resourcefulness, non-cooperativeness, life dissatisfaction, and
lack of
energy (Effert & Ferrari, 1989). Three psychological
explanations for
procrastination like indecision, irrational beliefs about self-
worth, and
low self-esteem was studied by Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann
(1988) on
245 students. Results indicated that procrastination is

detrimental to
academic performance. It was also found that older students (21
years
and over) were less likely to procrastinate than younger
students. Klassen
et al. (2007) also found age being related to academic
procrastination.
A study was conducted by Rabin, Fogel, and Nutter-Upham
(2011) on academic procrastination in college students and they
found
that executive functions including organizational ability, self-
regulation,
planning, and monitoring significantly predict academic
procrastination.
Low level of self-efficacy and motivation along self-regulation
significantly predicts academic procrastination (Klassen et al.,
2007;
Steel, 2007; Tuckman, 2005; Milgram, Sroloff, & Rosenbaum,
1988).
Self-regulation including disorganization and lack of
metacognitive skills
has been found to be related to procrastination. At the same
time, those

students who have mastery approach and are goal-oriented show
less
procrastination than those having avoidance-goal orientation
(Howell &
Watson, 2007).
Gargari, Sabouri, and Norzad (2011) in their research on Iranian
students found that students who consider their success to be
cause of
their abilities showed less procrastination than those who
associate their
negative academic outcomes with internal factors; hence, show
more
procrastination while completing their assignments. So, in their
view
academic procrastination is a matter of perceived controllability
related to
one‟s success and failure. Hen and Goroshit (2012) found that
emotional
intelligence mediated between academic procrastination and
GPA. This
signifies the importance of emotional regulation, while, taking
up
academic tasks that may be because of learning deficits among
students.

Choudhry (2008) also found link between procrastination and
emotional
stability and conscientiousness.
54
AFZAL AND JAMI
Rationale of the Study
A few studies have been conducted in Pakistan (Aziz & Tariq,
2013; Choudhry, 2008; Fatima, 2001), but none has focused to
find out
reasons underlying academic procrastination among university
students
using Solomon and Rothblum model (1984a). Janssen (2015)
studied the
prevalence of academic procrastination among high school and
undergraduate students and its relationship to academic
achievement.
Results showed that college students reported significantly more
academic procrastination than high school students. Along with
it, this
study also highlighted the importance of considering students
age when

examining academic procrastination. Nonsignificant
relationship was
found between academic procrastination and academic
achievement, as
measured by grade point average.
Procrastination is a behavioral problem that many adults
experience on a daily regular basis, particularly on task which
should be
completed by a specific deadline (Oweini & Haraty, 2005). The
lives of
university students are characterized by frequent deadlines
given by
university teachers and administrators to carry out various
responsibilities
such as registration for courses, completion of course forms and
submission of class assignments or term papers (Popoola, 2005).
A
common form of academic procrastination among students is
waiting
until the last minute to turn in papers or to study for an
examination
(Oweini & Haraty, 2005).

Present study is aimed to study relationship between academic
procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination and
that among
all proposed reasons by Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) which
are most
significant predictors of academic procrastination. This may
help to plan
interventions based on the findings that how the most
significant reasons
can be controlled to reduce academic procrastination in
university
students. In Pakistani university setting, two broad disciplines
for study
exist that is social sciences and natural sciences. Previous
studies suggest
some inconsistent evidences of displaying procrastination in
academic
setting for students across various disciplines (see e.g., Beswick
et al.,
1988, Tice & Baureminder; 1997; Tuckman, 1998) that is also
targetted
to be explored in current study.

PROCRASTINATION 55
Hypotheses
Following assumptions were made on the basis of literature
review:
task
aversiveness, fear of failure, rebellion against control, lack of
assertion, decision making, dependency, and risk taking) and
academic procrastination.
failure and
task aversion are likely to predict academic procrastination
more than
other reasons.
students) experience more academic
procrastination than older group (MPhil/PhD students).
Method
Sample
Two hundred university students with age range 20 - 41 years

(M=23.10, SD= 3.03) were taken by using purposive sampling
strategy
from two faculties (100 from social sciences and 100 from
natural
sciences department) enrolled in MSc. (149, 74.5%), MPhil (36,
18 %),
and PhD (15, 7%) levels from a public university in Islamabad.
Purpose
was to include all the students from the respective departments
who were
present on the day of data collection and seeking their volunteer
participation. Women students were 155 (77.5 %) and men
students were
45 (22.5 %).
Measures
Procrastination Assessment Scale Student (PASS). This scale
(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a) was designed to measure the
cognitive
and behavioral antecedents of procrastination. The PASS was
developed
to measure two areas: 1) the prevalence of academic
procrastination,
perceiving it as a problem, motivation to reduce it and 2) the

underlying
reasons. The first part has 18 items which measures the
prevalence of
procrastination in six academic areas (a) Writing a term paper,
(b)
Studying for an exam, (c) Keeping up with weekly reading
assignments,
(d) Performing administrative tasks, (e) Attendance tasks, and
(f)
Performing administrative tasks in general. Further, each
academic area
has 3 items, considering prevalence of procrastination,
perceiving it as a
56
AFZAL AND JAMI
problem, and motivation to reduce procrastination in the
respective
academic area. In the present study, we were interested in
prevalence of
procrastination only (For perceiving it a problem and desire to
reduce it
see Afzal, 2009). For this, PASS has a 5- point Likert scale to
measure

the prevalence (1 = Never procrastinated, 2 = Almost never
procrastinated, 3 = Sometimes procrastinated, 4 = Nearly
always
procrastinated, 5 = Always procrastinated). Scores are summed
for each
academic task for prevalence, perceiving it to be a problem, and
desire to
reduce in respective area. A score ranging from 6 to 30 for three
domains
separately is obtained across the six areas.
The second part assesses 13 reasons for academic
procrastination
and it has 26 items (2 items for each reason). These thirteen
reasons are
categorized in three major reasons as Task Aversiveness, Fear
of Failure,
and the other reasons. Task Aversiveness includes Fear of
Success,
Aversiveness of the Task, and Low Frustration Tolerance, Peer
Influence,
Laziness, and Time Management. Fear of Failure includes
Evaluation
Anxiety, Lack of Self-confidence, and Perfectionism. Other

reasons
include Rebellion against Control, Lack of Assertion,
Dependency,
Decision making, and Risk taking. Two statements are listed for
each of
these reasons and students are asked to rate each statement. For
example,
the two evaluation anxiety statements are: “You were concerned
the
professor wouldn‟t like your work” and “You were worried you
would
get bad grades” (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984a). These are also
rated on
5-point Likert scale. The second part of the PASS by providing
a
procrastination scenario (in the present study “Delay in writing
a term
paper”) helps in listing possible reasons for procrastination on
the task.
In the present sample the reliability coefficients of PASS, its
domains and for reasons is .90 which shows PASS is a very
reliable
measure. The alpha coefficient for reasons of procrastination
was .80, and

alpha coefficient for prevalence was .74 (Solomon & Rothblum,
1984a).
Howell and Watson (2007) has reported an alpha coefficient of
.75
reliability across prevalence and perceived problem ratings for
PASS. It
has got cross-cultural evidences of usage across many cultures
with fair
level of reliability and validity (Alexander & Onweueghuzie,
2007;
Yong, 2010).
Procedure
As PASS was in English language, therefore, before
administering the scale it was ascertained either scale needs to
be
translated, adapted, or just modification of some of the
statements, or no
modification would be needed for the scale to be used in the
present
PROCRASTINATION 57

research. For taking the decision and finalizing the scale the
evaluation of
five Subject Matter Experts (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010; Kline,
2005;
Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) studying at PhD level was
taken. On the
basis of their opinion, the modifications were carried out.
1. Explanation was added in parenthesis i.e., “writing a term
paper
(for written assignments)”.
2. The term Advisor was elaborated with Supervisor in domain
5 i.e.,
Advisor/ Supervisor.
3. Explanation for university activities for domain 6 was added
as
“University activities (seminars, conferences, etc)”.
4. Meaning of the word „resented‟ in items 25, 32, and 38 were
added
in parenthesis in front of the word, for example, the item in the
scale was
“You resented having to do things assigned by others” after
modification

“You resented (show or feel indignation at; be aggrieved
[Thompson,
1995]) having to do things assigned by others”.
Later, the try-out of the measure was carried out on 30 students
to check the comprehension for the PASS. Comments from the
students
were taken regarding any difficulty they might have faced in
responding
to the items of the scales. Reportedly, students did not find any
difficulty
in understanding the items of both scales. Therefore, it was
decided that
PASS was suitable for present study. For data collection of the
main
study, students were approached by contacting the
administration of the
department. PASS and Consent Form to be filled by the students
were
shown to the administration authorities to address if they had
any
inhibition in the ethical use of the material. After seeking
permission, the
scale was administered in group form in classroom setting.

Participants
were assured anonymity and confidentiality regarding the
information
that would be used only for research purpose. They were
informed that
there was no right and wrong responses on the scale and no time
limit
was enforced for completing the scales. Participants were
instructed to
complete the scale by considering their own academic
procrastination and
related reasons. The scenario of writing a term paper (written
assignment)
was provided to the participants and they were asked to rate on
the
reasons that they thought were prevalent in them while doing
that task.
Total number of students of social sciences department was 150
while
300 students were from natural sciences however, at the time of
data
collection, only 201 participants were available. After
collecting the data,
all questionnaires were scrutinized and 1 questionnaire was

discarded
58
AFZAL AND JAMI
because 18 items of the questionnaire were not rated by the
participant.
Students did not face any difficulty or any ambiguity in
responding to the
scales. Analyses were carried out by using SPSS 18.0.
Results
Pearson Product Moment Correlation was computed to
study the
relationship between prevalence of academic procrastination
and reasons
for academic procrastination. On the basis of correlation
coefficient,
linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the
predictability of
reasons for academic procrastination. Further, ANOVA was
used to study
group differences with reference to educational level whereas
independent sample t-test was conducted to explore group
differences

across study discipline.
The relationship between prevalence of academic
procrastination
and reasons behind procrastination was computed through
Pearson
Product Moment Correlation (See Table 1).
Table 1
Relationship Between Prevalence and Reasons of Academic
Procrastination in University Students (N = 200)
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Prevalence .45** 36** .27** .22** .34** 24** .34**
2 Task
aversiveness
57** .56** .36** .42** .51** .46**
3 Fear of
failure
.47** .40** .51** .50** .32**
4 Rebellion
against

control
.45** .43** .42** .30**
5 Lack of
assertion
.26** .36** .29**
6 Decision
making
.38** .27**
7 Dependency .31**
8 Risk taking
**p < .01.
Table 1 shows significant positive relationship between
prevalence of academic procrastination and for all the reasons
for
academic procrastination that range from .22 to .45 (p < .01)
minimum
for Lack of assertion and maximum for Task-aversiveness
overall,
respectively. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 has been confirmed. All
the

PROCRASTINATION 59
reasons are also significantly correlated that ranged from .26 to
.57 (p <
.01). Results also establish the construct validity of the scale.
All reasons
are also significantly correlated with each other, hence, showing
that
same construct is being measured by these domains that are
reasons for
academic procrastination. On the basis of correlation
coefficients, linear
regression analysis was conducted on prevalence of academic
procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination.
Results of the
analysis have shown that separately each reason is significantly
predicting academic procrastination at p = .00 significant level
except
Lack of assertion which is predicting at p = .01, while Fear of
Success is

predicting at .05 significant level (For details contact first
author).
Backward linear regression analysis was carried out to
determine
the comparative predictability of reasons for academic
procrastination
(see Table 2) to test the Hypothesis 2.
Table 2
Backward Linear Regression Analysis Showing the Effect of
Reasons for
Academic Procrastination on Prevalence of Academic
Procrastination in
University Students (N = 200)
Model B SE β t p
Constant 5.93 1.38 4.27 .001
Task aversiveness .22 .06 .31 4.13 .001
Decision making .44 .18 .17 2.44 .02
Risk taking .35 .16 .16 2.22 .03
Fear of failure .09 .09 .08 .97 .33
Dependency .17 .20 .07 .87 .39
Rebellion against control .10 .21 .04 .47 .64

Lack of assertion .06 .12 .04 .50 .62
R = .50
R² = .25
∆R² = .24
Table 2 shows the ∆R² depicting 24% variance in prevalence of
academic procrastination can be accounted for by the predictors
(reasons)
with F (191) = 9.47, p< .000. The results indicated that task
aversiveness,
decision making, and risk taking are the strongest predictors for
prevalence of academic procrastination. Fear of failure is not
predicting
as anticipated in comparative analysis. Therefore, second
Hypothesis has
60
AFZAL AND JAMI
partially been accepted that is task evasiveness is predicting
strongly, but
fear of failure does not in comparative analysis.
One Way ANOVA was run to delineate differences among

education groups in prevalence of academic procrastination and
reasons
for procrastination.
Table 3
One Way ANOVA Comparing Three Education Levels on PASS
in
University Students (N = 200)
Variables MSc
(n = 149)
MPhil
(n = 36 )
PhD
(n = 15)
M (SD) M(SD) M(SD) F(2,197) p
Prevalence 16.65(5.38) 16.65(5.38) 15.83(5.84) .41 .66
Task
aversiveness
27.64 (6.81) 25.08(6.49) 23.00(6.26) 4.74 .01

Fear of Failure 16.40(4.69) 15.69(4.73) 12.07(4.86) 5.82 .01
Rebellion
against control
5.11(1.96) 4.53(2.00) 4.40(1.84) 1.90 .15
Lack of
assertion
6.02(3.40) 5.31(2.42) 5.00(2.42) 1.27 .28
Decision
making
5.88(1.94) 5.69(2.14) 4.53(1.64) 3.21 .04
Dependency 5.87(1.95) 5.61(1.88) 4.00(1.60) 6.45 .00
Risk taking 5.10(2.37) 4.53(2.23) 4.07(1.98) 1.97
.14
Table 3 shows the results of ANOVA for comparing the
prevalence of academic procrastination among three educational
levels.
Results indicate nonsignificant differences. Therefore, third
hypothesis
that academic procrastination is more prevalent in younger
group has

been refuted. This table also compares three educational levels
on the
reasons of academic procrastination. Results indicate significant
differences in task aversiveness, fear of failure, decision
making, and
dependency. Significant differences appear on these variables
that‟s why
Tuckey‟s post hoc analysis was carried out for detailed
comparison
among three groups.
PROCRASTINATION 61
Table 4
Post Hoc Analysis among MSc, MPhil, and PhD (N = 200)
95% CI
Scales F I > j D = i-j SE LL UL
Task Aversiveness 5.1 M.Sc.> PhD 4.7* 1.8 .40 9.0
Fear of Failure 5.8 M.Sc. > PhD 4.3* 1.2 1.2 7.3

Dependency 6.6 M.Sc. > PhD 1.8* .52 .64 3.1
MPhil > PhD 1.4* .60 .06 2.9
Difficulty in Making
Decisions
3.0 M.Sc. > PhD
1.3* .52 .10 2.6
Note. i-j = mean difference
*p < .05.
Post Hoc Analysis Using Tuckey‟s model was done for
significant F-values only. Post Hoc analysis shows in Table 4
that M.Sc.
students have significantly scored high than PhD students on
task
aversiveness, fear of failure, dependency, and difficulty in
making
decisions. However, MPhil students did not differ significantly
from
M.Sc. and PhD students on these, but MPhil students differ
significantly
from PhD students on Dependency.
Further, Independent Sample t-test was conducted to compare

social sciences (n = 100) and natural sciences‟ (n = 100)
students on
PASS. For comparison on reasons, all 13 reasons are considered
separately.
Table 5
Independent Sample t-test Comparing Natural and Social
Sciences Students on
PASS (N=200)
PASS
Social
Sciences
(n = 100)
Natural
Sciences
(n = 100)
t(198)

p
Cohen’s
d M(SD) M(SD)
Task Aversiveness
Task aversiveness 5.16 (1.90) 4.82 (2.08) 1.20
.23 .17
Fear of success 4.75 (1.97) 5.14 (2.23) 1.31 .19 .18
Laziness 6.09 (2.31) 5.29 (2.23) 2.44 .02 .35
Peer influence 5.22 (1.81) 5.10 (2.01) .44 .12 .06
Time management 6.84 (1.81) 5.26 (1.95) 5.91 .00 .84
Task Aversiveness
overall
28.06 (6.27) 25.61 (7.20) 2.56 .01 .36
Table Continued
62
AFZAL AND JAMI
Table 5

Independent Sample t-test Comparing Natural and Social
Sciences
Students on PASS (N=200)
PASS
Social
Sciences
(n = 100)
Natural
Sciences
(n = 100)
t(198)
p
Cohen’s
d M(SD) M(SD)

Fear of Failure
Fear of failure 16.22 (5.20) 15.66 (4.42) .82 .41 .12
Evaluation anxiety 5.63 (2.18) 5.44 (2.17) .62 .54 .09
Lack-of-self-
confident
4.96 (1.91) 4.78(2.02) 6.45 .52 .09
Perfectionism 5.22 (1.81) 5.10 (2.02) 6.04 .55 .06
Other Reasons
Rebellion against
control
5.35 (1.93) 4.55 (1.94) 2.29 .03 .41
Lack of assertion 6.29 (3.77) 5.34 (2.35) 2.14 .03 .30
Decision making 6.06 (1.89) 5.43 (2.04) 2.26 .03 .32
Dependency 5.61 (2.07) 5.75 (1.87) .50 .62 .07
Risk taking 5.08 (2.47) 4.76 (2.19) .97 .33 .14
Table 5 shows reasons for academic procrastination that are
prevalent in natural sciences and social sciences. Overall task
aversiveness is more common among social sciences‟ than

natural
sciences‟ students. Under this broader category, ti me
management and
laziness are the reasons that are more common among the
students of
social sciences, hence, showing significant difference between
the social
science and natural sciences. Rebellion against control, decision
making,
and lack of assertion are also prevalent reasons for
procrastination in
social sciences students showing significant differences. Non-
significant
differences appeared on fear of failure overall and also on its
separate
categories.
Discussion
The present study was aimed at studying the relationship
between
prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons for
academic
procrastination. As indicator of psychometric properties of
PASS,

significant relationship was found between reasons for academic
procrastination that reflects the construct validity of PASS. At
the same
time, as reported in instrument section, reliability .91 was also
excellent
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).
PROCRASTINATION 63
It was assumed that there is positive relationship between
reasons
for academic procrastination and prevalence of academic
procrastination.
The present study supports this assumption as positive
relationship
between prevalence and reasons for academic procrastination is
observed.
A study conducted by Tice and Baureminder (1997) also support
this
assumption where students who procrastinated consistently
performed
more poorly on written assignments than students who did not

procrastinate for various reasons. According to researchers
(Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984a, 1984c), academic procrastination is not
deficit is study
habits or time management, but a complex interplay of
cognitive,
behavioral, and affective components.
The second hypothesis was that among reasons for academic
procrastination, task aversion and fear of failure positively
predict
academic procrastination more than other reasons. Table 2 has
revealed
that task aversiveness, decision making, and risk taking are the
reasons
that appeared in hierarchy significantly predicting academic
procrastination more than any other reasons. Fear of failure did
not
predict as assumed. Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) proposed
that task
aversiveness and fear of failure hold major variance in academic
procrastination. In the current study, task aversiveness emerged
as

significant predictor, but fear of failure did not show any
significance.
This may be because of nature of scenario proposed to the
students for
rating their reasons for academic procrastination that is “writing
term
paper or assignments”. Lay (1986) suggested that task
aversiveness
include task characteristics such as boredom and
unpleasantness. It can
also be because of the reasons that come under task
aversiveness
including fear of success, laziness, peer influence, and time
management.
Students have rated the scenario according to these reasons.
Generally, written assignments are not much well prepared by
the
students and it is observed that because of the easy internet
access,
students indulge into plagiarism and they put less effort in such
tasks.
This may be because they lack metacognitive skills in learning
that leads
to procrastination (Howell & Watson, 2007). This is also

reflected by
decision making as another reason for academic procrastination
in current
sample. As students lack metacognitive ability, they may face
difficulty
in information gathering and appropriate material to be quoted
in the
assignment and then formatting as per standards of reporting.
Another
factor for these findings can be lack of self-regulation and
problems is
64
AFZAL AND JAMI
executive functioning that involves planning, monitoring, and
organizational abilities; as these decrease, procrastination
increases
(Klassen et al., 2007; Milgram et al., 1988; Rabin et al., 2011;
Steel,
2007; Tuckman, 2005).
Interestingly, risk taking appeared as third most significant
predictor. According to Oweini and Haraty (2005) common form
of

academic procrastination among students is waiting until the
last minute
to turn in papers or to study for an examination. Some
individuals may
believe in putting their best in emergency situations when
anxiety is at its
peak. Sensation seeking and thrill adds to flavor in life for some
individuals and they get habitual in delaying the task. This
suggests to
study trait procrastination as linked to academic procrastination
that may
be linked to temperament (Effert & Ferrari, 1995).
Nevertheless, fear of
failure based on evaluation anxiety, lack of self-confidence, and
perfectionism, did not emerge as significant predictor as
students hope
that they would pass written assignment, because scoring holds
much
element of subjectivity at the part of the evaluator in written
assignments
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The results can differ if scenario is
changed
that is to written exam or public presentation.

Third hypothesis was that „younger group experience more
academic procrastination than older group.‟ Present study
results did not
support this assumption as Table 3 shows nonsignificant
differences
among students of three education levels on prevalence of
academic
procrastination. The reason may be that all students hold similar
feelings
for scenario (writing term paper/assignment) either belonging to
MSc,
MPhil or PhD, hence, experiencing similar level of academic
procrastination. A study by Burka and Yuen (1983) also
supports the
present study‟s findings. They have found that academic
procrastination
is common among college and university students that may be
depiction
of their age. Table 3 also shows that task aversiveness, fear of
failure,
dependency, decision making, and risk taking are more common
in
younger group than older group. The reason may be that

younger group
(MSc.) may face much tough routine that involve more course
work and
meeting deadlines than other levels. At the same time, self-
regulation and
metacognitive skills are age related (Beswick et al., 1988;
Klassen et al.,
2007) that may be less developed in younger group than older.
Results have shown that overall task aversiveness is more
common among social sciences‟ than natural sciences‟ students.
Under
this broader category, time management and laziness are the
reasons that
are more common among the students of social sciences
comparatively.
PROCRASTINATION 65
This may be because students of social sciences have more free
slots and
leisure time available for not having very tough schedule of
classes and

lab work as of students of natural sciences. This make them lazy
and least
concerned about time management, hence, they may
procrastinate. A
study by Harris and Sutton (1983) showed that task appeal
refers to
actions that we find unpleasant. Lay (1986) suggested that the
definition
of task aversiveness be broaden to include person-task
characteristics
such as uncertainty and boredom, which covers how unpleasant
or
aversive a task is to perform. Rebellion against control,
decision making,
and lack of assertion are also the more common reasons in
students of
social sciences and natural sciences. This may be because
students of
natural sciences get used to their defined schedule and amount
of work
and planning required to prepare their written assignments.
They may
have better metacognitive skills and self-regulation or receive
more social

support from their teachers as compare to students of social
sciences
while preparing written assignments. Natural sciences are also
based on
all-or-none phenomenon, while social sciences need to cater
complexity
and shades of social life that may also be reflected in more
reasons for
procrastination among them.
Conclusion. Although, in the current study, all the reasons
proposed by Solomon and Rothblum (1984a) were found to be
associated
with academic procrastination, nevertheless, aversion for an
academic
task like writing a term paper, studying for an exam, keeping up
with
weekly reading assignments, performing administrative tasks,
and
maintaining attendance; along lack of decision making and risk
taking
behavior were the strongest predictors of reasons academic
procrastination. Procrastination was equally prevalent among all

educational groups, however, junior students displayed more
academic
task aversion, fear of failure, dependency, and decision making
problems
than senior students. Interestingly, procrastination was found to
be more
prevalent in social sciences‟ students than natural sciences‟, so
are the
various reasons for procrastination. Therefore, junior and social
sciences‟
students need attention to address their academic
procrastination related
issues.
Limitations and Suggestions. Limitation of this present study
was that the sample was not equally distributed along gender
and all
educational levels that may affect the external validity of the
findings,
66
AFZAL AND JAMI
therefore, it is suggested to take equal distribution of sample
along

gender and educational groups to make inferences more
meaningful.
Another limitation was that the sample was not large enough
and
randomly selected to generalize the findings. A nation-wide
study at
university level can be taken up using random sampling to
increase
external validity of the study. Current study was cross-
sectional, in
future longitudinal studies can be taken up as differences along
educational group reveal that procrastination may vary with
time,
increased level of training, and skills. Self-regulation and
metacognitive
skills can be taken up in future studies as correlate of academic
procrastination. Modifications in PASS were done, but factor
structure
was not confirmed. In future, confirmatory factor analysis is
recommended as indicator of construct validity. Indigenous
measures to
study procrastination can be developed to study this
phenomenon in

Pakistani context. More in-depth analysis along demographic
variables
are suggested to study the phenomenon in detail.
Implications. Based on present findings, interventions for
students can be offered in respective departments to address
reasons for
procrastination, which are evidently needed for students of
social
sciences. Teachers can make written assignments more
interesting so that
students have intrinsic motivation to learn from the assigned
task. Report
writing skills can be improved through workshops and
interventions to
help students handle their inhibitions while writing term
paper/assignments. In fact, at university level courses at M.Sc.
level may
be developed to promote this skill among students. Time
management
workshops can be arranged to address task aversiveness as a
reason for
procrastination.
References

Afzal, S. (2009). Prevalence and reasons for academic
procrastination
among university Students (Unpublished MSc Research Report).
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Aziz, S., & Tariq, N. (2013a). A web-based survey of
procrastination and
its outcomes among Pakistani adolescents. Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, 23(1), 118-131.
Aziz, S., & Tariq, N. (2013b). Role of organization type, job
tenure, and
job hierarchy in decisional procrastination and perceived locus
of
control among executives. Pakistan Journal of Psychological
Research, 28(1), 25-50.
PROCRASTINATION 67
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Etiology the cause of
procrastination

(Unpublished Master‟s Thesis). Carleton University, Canada.
Retrieved from http:// www.Carleton .ca /~ tpychyl/causes.htm.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, D. E., & Mann. L. (1988).
Psychological
antecedents of student Procrastination. Journal of Australian
Psychology, 23(2), 203-214.
Choudhry, S. (2008). Relationship between personality traits
and
procrastination among students (Unpublished MSc Research
Report). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid –i- Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing
and
assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement.
Singapore:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Effert, B. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional
procrastination: Examine
personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality,
4, 151-156.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Correlates of academic
procrastination:
Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 31, 503-509.
Fatima, G., (2001). Relationship of perceived parental control
with
procrastination among adolescent (Unpublished MSc Research
Report). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid –i- Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two
procrastination
interventories for adults: Adults and avoidance measures.
Journal
of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 14 (2), 97-110.
Gargari, B. R., Sabouri, H., & Norzad, F. (2011). Academic
procrastination: The relationship between causal attribution
styles
and behavioral postponement. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, 5 (2), 76-72.
Harris, N. N., & Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in

organizations: a framework for research. Human Relations, 36,
987-995.
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2012). Academic procrastination,
emotional
intelligence, academic self-efficacy and GPA: A comparison
between students with and without learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 116-124.
68
AFZAL AND JAMI
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination:
Association with
achievement goal orientation and learning strategies.
Personality
and Individual Differences, 43, 167-178.
Janssen, J. (2015). Academic procrastination: Prévalence among
high
school and undergraduate students and relationship to academic
achievement (Dissertation). Georgia State University. Retrieved
from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/epse_diss/103.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2007).

Academic
procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-
regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931. Doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological Testing. Sage Publication.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on
procrastination. Journal
of Research in Personality, 20(4), 474-495.
Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The
procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 197-212.
Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval,
M. (2011).
Procrastination, participation, and performance in online
learning
environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243-252. Doi:
/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025
Noran, F. Y. (2000). Procrastination among students in
institutes of

higher learning: Challenges for the K-Economy. Retrieved from
ttp://http:.mahdzan.com/papers/procrastinate/
Oweini, A., & Harraty, N. (2005). The carrots or the stick: What
motivate students [A Manuscript]. Lebanese American
University,
USA.
Rabin, A. L., Fogel, J., & Upham-Nutter, E. K. (2011).
Academic
procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported
executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 3(3), 344-357.
Rothblum, D. E., Solomon, J. L., & Murakami, J. (1986).
Affective,
cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low
procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6 (1), 387-
393.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984a). Academic
procrastination:
Frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503-509.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315
PROCRASTINATION 69
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984c). Why Procrastinate:
An
investigation of the root causes behind procrastination.
Lethbridge
Undergraduate Research Journal, 4(3), 154-176.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic
and
theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure,
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.
Thompson, D. (1995). The concise oxford dictionary of current
English
(9
th
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent
validity of the
procrastination scale. Journal of Educational and Psychological

Measures, 51, 473-480.
Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as incentive to motivate
procrastination to study. Journal of Experimental Education, 66,
141 – 147.
Tuckman, B. W., & Sexton, T. L., (1989). The relation between
self-
belief and self- regulated performance. Journal of Social
Behavior
and Personality, 5, 465-472.
Tuckman, B. W. (2005). Relations of academic procrastination,
rationalizations, and performance in a web course with
deadlines.
Psychological Reports, 96(3), 1015-1021.
Tice, D. M., & Baureminder, R. F. (1997). Correlates of
academic
procrastination and mathematics achievement of university
under
graduates. Journal of counseling Psychology, 31, 503 –509.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale
development
research: A content analysis and recommendations for best

practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838. DOI:
10.1177/0011000006288127
Yong, L. F. (2010). A study of the assaertiveness and academic
procrastination of English and communication students at a
private university. American Journal of Scientific Research, 9,
62-
72.
Received February 29, 2016
Revisions Received July 18, 2018
Copyright of Journal of Behavioural Sciences is the property of
University of the Punjab,
Department of Applied Psychology and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 28:144–156, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 8756-8225 print/1540-4730 online
DOI: 10.1080/87568225.2014.883887

Acceptance and Commitment Training: A Brief
Intervention to Reduce Procrastination Among
College Students
CAMILLE L. SCENT
Private practice, Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
SUSAN R. BOES
University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, USA
Academic procrastination is a multifaceted problem with cog-
nitive, behavioral, and motivational correlates. Considered from
an acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) point of view,
these correlates relate to experiential avoidance and cognitive
fusion. This article describes a brief ACT intervention for
reducing
procrastination.
KEYWORDS acceptance and commitment therapy, college
students, procrastination
Today’s college students are bombarded with more distractions
than ever
before: YouTube, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, chat, Skype,
texting, not to
mention old standbys like television and video games—
countless ways
to connect, explore and be entertained. Is it any wonder, then,
that
procrastination—the voluntary “delay [of] an intended course of
action
despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007, p.
66)—is
on the rise among this group (Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001;
Steel, 2007)?

What can college counselors do to stem this tide of dilatory
behav-
ior? Numerous factors contribute to procrastination, including
the timing of
rewards and punishments, task aversion, irrational beliefs, low
self-efficacy,
self-handicapping, and low conscientiousness (Steel, 2007).
Popular inter-
ventions focus primarily on helping students change cognitions
related
to these causes as well as teaching self-management/time
management
Address correspondence to Camille L. Scent, EdS, 11815
Northfall Lane, Suite 1006,
Alpharetta, GA 30009, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
144
mailto:[email protected]
Acceptance and Commitment Training 145
skills (Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, & Ferrari, 2004). However,
Solomon and
Rothblum (1984) noted that teaching time management alone is
insufficient
for reducing procrastination, and Longmore and Worrell (2007)
reviewed
numerous studies suggesting that directly challenging
cognitions is not
necessary in order to effect behavioral change.
An alternative to these strategies is acceptance and commitment
therapy

(ACT). ACT posits that psychological problems stem from
experiential avoid-
ance and cognitive fusion, that is, taking thoughts literally
(Hayes, Strosahl,
& Wilson, 2011). Treatment focuses on helping clients develop
skills in
nonjudgmental acceptance of present-moment thoughts and
feelings in the
service of pursuing valued life goals (Harris, 2009). Such a
focus seems par-
ticularly well suited to the treatment of procrastination, which
is by definition
a problem of avoidance (Dionne & Duckworth, 2011).
Russ Harris, a leading ACT trainer, has described ACT as
“existen-
tial humanistic cognitive behavioral therapy” (Harris, 2006).
Developed out
of a theory of language and cognition called relational frame
theory and
grounded in a philosophy of science called functional
contextualism, ACT
is an approach to therapy that incorporates mindfulness and
acceptance
processes into behavior change strategies. The aim of therapy is
increased
psychological flexibility, the ability to choose actions based on
one’s val-
ues even while experiencing unwanted or unpleasant private
events, that is,
thoughts and feelings. Rather than attempting to change or
control unwanted
thoughts, feelings, memories, and so forth, as traditional
cognitive behavior
therapy does, the focus in ACT is on altering the way such
private events

function. Experiential exercises, metaphors, and mindfulness
training, along
with more traditional behavioral interventions, are used to
undermine the
language traps that are theorized to cause cognitive fusion and
experien-
tial avoidance. A key difference between ACT and other
psychotherapies
is that these processes are viewed as a normal part of human
psychology
rather than as an indication of abnormality (Hayes, Masuda, &
De Mey,
2003; Hayes et al., 2011; for a more thorough description of
ACT, see http://
contextualscience.org/act).
The current article presents an intervention using training in
ACT to ame-
liorate procrastination among college students. Literature on
procrastination
is examined in light of ACT theory. Evidence concerning the
prevalence and
problematic nature of procrastination among college students is
reviewed,
antecedents and correlates of procrastination are considered,
and relevant
ACT processes explained. The workshop format and content are
shared
along with suggestions for implementation on college campuses.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Prevalence and Correlates
Data collected from more than 2,000 students during the early
1990s indicate

that the behavior of procrastination is normally distributed
among the college
146 C. L. Scent and S. R. Boes
population, and the mean rate is high (Schouwenburg, 2004b).
Zarick and
Stonebraker (2009) found that nearly all college students admit
to procras-
tinating at least occasionally, and that 42% usually or always
procrastinated
despite consequences of poor quality work, missed deadlines,
and lower
grades.
Similarly, Solomon and Rothblum (1984) reported that 46% of
college
students procrastinated on term papers, 30% on reading
assignments, and
27% on exam preparation, and that these behaviors caused
problems for
a majority of students. In a multidisciplinary meta-analytic
review of more
than 200 sources, Steel (2007) cited studies indicating that 50%
to 95% of
college students procrastinate, resulting in poor performance
and dimin-
ished well-being. Steel also found that a majority of people
characterize
procrastination as harmful and that 95% of procrastinators want
to reduce the
tendency.
Given the ubiquitous nature of procrastination and its negative

con-
sequences, it is not surprising that Schouwenburg (2004a) has
identified
a variety of contributors to this common problem. Students’
thoughts and
feelings about tasks as well as their tendency to prefer activities
offering
immediate rather than delayed benefits all influence their
susceptibility to
procrastination. In addition, procrastination is often considered
a personality
trait (Ferrari, 2004; Schouwenburg, 2004b; Senécal, Lavoie, &
Koestner, 1997;
Steel, 2007, van Eerde, 2004).
COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES
The desire to avoid unpleasantness is an intuitive motivation for
delaying
tasks, borne out in research findings. In one of the early and
frequently cited
studies on procrastination, Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found
that dislike
of the task was a primary contributor for 47% of students.
Students who
consider a task to be unpleasant, boring, or uninteresting are
much more
likely to delay starting and/or completing it; this is true even
among stu-
dents whose academic success is not negatively impacted by
their delaying
behavior (Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007; Steel, 2007).
Steel (2007) has suggested that chronic procrastinators may
simply find
more of life’s tasks and duties aversive. Supporting this idea,

Brownlow
and Reasinger (2000) found that students with low rates of
procrastination
are more likely to find school tasks inherently satisfying than
are severe
procrastinators. In general, students seem to procrastinate more
on tasks
they perceive as effortful or anxiety provoking (Ferrari, 2004;
Ferrari & Scher,
2000; Wolters, 2003; Zarick & Stonebraker, 2009).
The possibility of being evaluated on a task increases
procrastination as
well, prompting longer delays before starting an aversive task
and slower
rates of completion (Senécal et al., 1997). This finding suggests
procrasti-
nation is a form of self-handicapping and is related to a fear of
failure.
Senécal and colleagues (1997) suggested procrastination is
widespread
among college students because the omnipresent threat of
evaluation acti-
vates fear of failure. Students are more likely to procrastinate
when they
doubt their ability to complete a task successfully or have
negative expecta-
tions about a task (Seo, 2009; Wolters, 2003). However,
students who forgive
themselves for past procrastination are better able to focus on a
current task

and less likely to procrastinate on it (Wohl, Pychyl, & Bennett,
2010).
MOTIVATIONAL AND PERSONALITY CORRELATES
A sense of having little control over one’s life and of being
vulnerable to
external influences correlates positively with procrastination
(Ferrari & Diaz-
Morales, 2007). Senécal, Koestner, and Vallerand (1995) found
that students
who were intrinsically motivated were less likely to
procrastinate than were
externally or amotivated students. Similarly, Brownlow and
Reasinger (2000)
found that an external locus of control is predictive of
procrastination.
Task salience is another predictor of procrastination. According
to Zarick
and Stonebraker’s (2009) rational choice theory of
procrastination, students
choose to procrastinate when the benefits they expect to receive
now by
delaying—more leisure time, avoidance of unpleasant tasks, and
so forth—
outweigh anticipated future costs such as anxiety, stress, lower
quality work,
and missed deadlines. This is similar to Schouwenburg’s
(2004b) cost-benefit
explanation for procrastination, in which future rewards are
discounted in
favor of more immediate rewards. As the once distant rewards
become
nearer in time, their perceived value increases, and
procrastinators attend

to them.
Schouwenburg (2004b) also suggested that procrastination is
one per-
sonality trait in a cluster of traits, including weak impulse
control, lack of
persistence, lack of work discipline, lack of time management
skills and
inability to work methodically, which cause delaying behavior.
Steel’s (2007)
review specified high distractibility, low organization, low
achievement moti-
vation, and high intention-action gap as personality constructs
associated
with procrastination and collectively reflecting self-regulatory
failure.
The Relevance of ACT
If procrastination is generally conceived of as a failure in self-
regulation, the
specific triggers noted above can be grouped into three general
areas: cogni-
tive (the ideas students hold about their abilities and the tasks
before them),
behavioral (avoiding uncomfortable feelings triggered by a
task), and moti-
vational (discounting the importance of a task). ACT addresses
these three
areas through the processes of: acceptance and defusion, self-
as-context and
mindfulness, and values and committed action (Harris, 2009).
From an ACT standpoint, procrastination, like any other
maladaptive
behavior, reflects psychological inflexibility: the inability to

contact the
148 C. L. Scent and S. R. Boes
present moment as it is and to continue or change behavior in
pursuit
of valued ends (Hayes et al., 2011). The primary processes
which lead
to psychological inflexibility are cognitive fusion and
experiential avoid-
ance (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006). Cognitive
fusion occurs
when an individual overidentifies, or fuses, with thoughts which
then domi-
nate behavior, restricting the available repertoire of responses
(Harris, 2009;
Hayes et al., 2011). Overidentification with thoughts often
contributes to
experiential avoidance: the attempt to control, eliminate, or
avoid unwanted
private experiences such as thoughts, feelings, and memories
(Harris,
2009).
Cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance can be seen in
many
antecedents to procrastination. Students’ fears of failure, doubts
about
self-efficacy and/or negative thoughts about a task prompt
uncomfortable
feelings; students wish to avoid these feelings, and thus they
delay start-
ing and/or finishing the task. Fused with their thoughts about
the task and

naturally wanting to avoid discomfort, they lose sight of their
goal to do
well academically, resulting in procrastination and its
potentially damaging
effects.
As we have seen, research has identified task aversion, fear of
failure,
task salience, and locus of control as common contributors to
procrastination.
ACT conceptualizes these factors as indicators of psychological
inflexibil-
ity and offers an alternative and promising approach to
treatment through
development of:
● acceptance and defusion—the willingness to simply have
thoughts, even
unwanted ones, and to detach from the content of those
thoughts;
● mindfulness and self-as-context—the ability to maintain
nonjudgmental
contact with present-moment experiences and have a sense of
self that
is flexible and recognizes the changing nature of experience;
and
● values and committed action—the ability to identify closely
held values
and take actions that move in the direction of those values
without needing
to change thoughts or feelings (Biglan, Hayes, & Pistorello,
2008, Harris,
2009).

Together these processes promote psychological flexibility
(Hayes et al.,
2011) and can enable procrastination-prone students to make
self-regulatory
choices that promote their well-being and support their life
goals.
Though Dionne and Duckworth (2011) note that ACT seems
particularly
well suited to the treatment of procrastination, no applications
or studies test-
ing this theory could be found in the literature. The next section
describes a
trial two-session workshop format using ACT as an intervention
for reducing
procrastination. Such a program shows promise for expanding
the reach of
services at university counseling centers.
THE INTERVENTION
This program consisted of two 11/2-hour small group
workshops, spaced one
week apart, and held on campus. Participants were recruited
through adver-
tisements on the university’s electronic bulletin board system,
announce-
ments sent to faculty teaching orientation and psychology
classes, and a
notification in the campus faculty newsletter. Eight participants
completed
the first workshop; six also attended the second. Both

1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx

1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx

Similar to 1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx (20)

More from christiandean12115

More from christiandean12115 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1. You are asked to find and read a peer-reviewed article from a s.docx