Presentation based on Kamden Strunk's dissertation study: Building a New Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior. Involves the intersection of motivational valence and procrastination/timely engagement. Presentation given in August of 2012.

1. BUILDING A NEW MODEL OF TIME-
RELATED ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR:
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY
ENGAGEMENT × MOTIVATIONAL
ORIENTATION
Kamden K. Strunk

2. PROCRASTINATION IS A PROBLEM
 Researchers identify 40% to 60% of students as high in
procrastination (Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Ozer, Demir, & Ferrari,
2009; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum,
1984).
 The same levels are identified in cross-cultural studies,
demonstrating this is not isolated to the U.S. or even
Western contexts (Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuch, Huan,
Wong, & Yeo, 2009; Ozer, Demir, Ferrari, 2009).
 Procrastination is association with negative health
effects (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Tice & Baumeister,
1997), adverse psychological outcomes (Owens & Newbegin,
2000), and lowered academic performance (Owens &
Newbegin, 2000; Tice & Baumeister, 1997).

3. THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
 What is procrastination?
 Traditionally, it has been defined as something that
happens to the individual, rather than something the
individual chooses to perform.
 In the traditional model, all people procrastinate to one
degree or another.
 Procrastination can be understood in this
conceptualization as a deficit of the individual, inherent
in the person, which becomes explicit in their behavior
in the form of procrastination.

4. THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
 Personality:
 Neuroticism (Hess, Sherman, & Goodman, 2000; Johnson & Bloom,
1995; van Eerde, 2003)
 Perfectionism (Flett, Blanksten, Hewitt, & Koledin, 1992; Onwuegbuzie,
2000; Saddler & Buley, 1999)
 It is who the person is, not what the person does.
 Self-protective mechanism:
 Self-handicapping (Beck, Koons & Milgram, 2000; van Eerde, 2003)
 Avoidant coping/cognitive style (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007;
Burns, Dittmann, Nguyen, & Mitchelson, 2000; Carden, Bryant, & Moss,
2004; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2008; Deniz, Tras, & Aydogan, 2009;
Fritsche, Young & Hickson, 2003; Owens & Newbegin, 1997)
 It is unintentional as a result of a deficient thinking style.

5. THE TRADITIONAL MODEL
 Inability to Self-Regulate
 Low self-regulation (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Senecal,
Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995)
 Low self-efficacy for self-regulation (Klassen, Ang, Chong,
Krawchuck, Huan, Wong, & Yeo, 2009; Klassen, Krawchuck,
Lynch, & Rajani, 2008; Klassen, Krawchuch, & Rajani, 2008)
 In either case, the dilatory behavior happens to the
individual due to a constitutional inability to self-regulate.

6. THE PROBLEM
 Each of these approaches treats the individual as
self-unaware and deficient in the act of
procrastination.
 However, there is evidence to suggest that
procrastination is a motivated behavior, that
individuals engage in it for specific reasons to
satisfy their goals.
 For example, Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson (2007)
found in qualitative work that students procrastinate
to avoid failure at times, and at times to increase
their performance under more time pressure.

7. THE PROBLEM
 Others have suggested procrastination may be
motivated.
 Active versus Passive Procrastination (Choi & Moran,
2009; Chu & Choi, 2005)
 Different Goals Relate Differently to Procrastination
(Howell & Buro, 2009; Seo, 2009).
 Any model of procrastination that does not consider
the motivation of the individual is incomplete and
theoretically problematic.

8. TIMELY ENGAGEMENT
 So too is a model that does not consider timely
engagement, as current models do not.
Extreme
Procrastination
Little
Procrastination
Started Work On The
Way Out of Class
Today
Waited until the Day
After the Due Date to
Start
Extreme Timely
Engagement

9. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
 Building on the previous work in Active
Procrastination, Strunk, Cho, Steele, and Bridges
(2012) developed a 2×2 model of time-related
academic behavior.
 This model integrates timely engagement and
procrastination, and crosses those with motivational
valence.

10. ProcrastinationTimely
Engagement
Approach
Avoidance
Procrastination-
Approach
Procrastination-
Avoidance
Timely Engagement-
Approach
Timely Engagement-
Avoidance

11. NOT JUST WHAT, BUT WHY
 It is necessary to consider not only the behavior,
but the motivation.
 In order to understand students’ time-related
academic behavior, it is necessary to understand
the underlying motivation.
 In previous research, the 2×2 Measure of Time-
Related Academic Behavior has been related to
achievement goals, has shown convergent and
divergent validity with traditional measures of
procrastination, and is the best fit to observed data
among competing models in confirmatory factor
analyses.

12. PURPOSE
 A set of variables has been established that seems
useful in predicting procrastination:
 Personality
 Self-efficacy
 Self-regulation
 Self-efficacy for self-regulation
 Achievement goal orientation
 However, how will these variables be related to the
2×2 model of time-related academic behavior, and
how will these relationships build that model while
providing insight for educational practice?

13. PARTICIPANTS
 A total of 1,227 participants completed the survey.
They were recruited through emails to their student
email accounts.
 All participants were undergraduate students
enrolled in at least one face-to-face class.
 Emails were sent to 5,000 students randomly
selected by IRIM for two consecutive semesters.
 Age: M = 21.67, SD = 5.39
 371 men, 752 women.
 261 freshmen, 262 sophomores, 286 juniors, and
301 seniors (17 reporting ‘other’)
 GPA: M = 3.28, SD = .53

14. PARTICIPANTS
 All academic majors were represented in the sample.
 In terms of ethnicity, the sample did significantly
deviate from the total population at the university (χ2 =
43.687, p < .001). The sample contained an
overrepresentation of those identified as ‘American
Indian/Alaskan Native’ and ‘Asian or Pacific Islander’
underrepresentation of those identified as ‘Other’.
 There was also a significant underrepresentation of
men and overrepresentation of women (χ2 = 151.597,
p < .001).
 Overall response rate was 12%.

15. INSTRUMENTS
 2×2 Measure of Time-Related Academic Behavior
 25 items
 Previously showed reliability coefficients exceeding .8
and good fit in confirmatory analyses.
 MSLQ
 56 item scale, only 18 are used here, as has been done
in previous research (e.g. Howell & Watson, 2007,
Klassen, et al., 2008).
 Only the self-efficacy and self-regulation scales were
used.
 Mini-IPIP
 20 items
 Reliabilities typically exceed .7, and correlates well with
longer measures of personality.

16. INSTRUMENTS
 AGQ-R
 12 items
 The most popular measure for achievement goals, and
tends to show reliabilities above .8. The authors claim
good fit in confirmatory analysis.
 Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation
 11 items
 Part of a longer instrument containing 2 scales, but is
routinely separated. Shows reliabilities exceeding .85 in
prior research.
 Demographic Questionnaire

17. PROCEDURE
 The email contained a survey link, which included
the consent form.
 Each participant followed directions to create a
unique participant ID.
 Participants were entered for one of four $50.00
cash awards for their participation. There was a
new drawing each semester.
 After approximately 15 weeks, students received a
new email asking them to participate again for the
longitudinal data collection. Of those who
participated, 10.7% participated a second time.

18. DATA ANALYSIS
 Psychometric and Measurement Analyses
 Structural Modeling within Time One data
 Path Modeling for Longitudinal Data
 Person-Centered Analysis (Cluster Analysis)

19. FOR BREVITY…
 In the CFA and Structural Analyses:
 The step-by-step analytic work of modeling and
refitting is skipped in this presentation of results as
there are many models to present.
 I will present only the final models used in
interpretation here.

20. 2×2 MEASURE OF TIME-RELATED ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR

21. 2×2 MEASURE OF TIME-RELATED ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR

22. 2×2 MEASURE OF TIME-RELATED ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR
ΔCFI < .01

23. 2×2 MEASURE OF TIME-RELATED ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR
ΔCFI < .001

24. CFA FOR OTHER KEY MEASURES
 MSLQ: The final model approached reasonably good fit
to the observed data, though it did not reach
conventional cutoffs for fit indices (2
115 = 1037.71, 2/df
= 9.02, CFI = .90, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .08, SRMR =
.07).
 Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation: The final model fit the
observed data reasonably well, though it was still not a
good fit (2
42 = 325.74, 2/df = 7.76, CFI = .94, TLI = .92,
RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04).
 AGQ-R: The final model was a reasonably good fit to the
observed data (2
47 = 344.27, 2/df = 7.32, CFI = .95,
TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04).
 Mini-IPIP: The final model was a reasonably good fit to
the data(2
157 = 815.60, 2/df = 5.19, CFI = .91, TLI =
.89, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05).

26. Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy
for
Self-
Regulation
Procrastination-
Approach
Procrastination-
Avoidance
Timely Engagement-
Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance
.18
-.15
-.32
-.14
-.42
-.16
.43
.29
-.22
.41
.31
.64
.18

28. Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Procrastination-
Avoidance
Procrastination-
Approach
Timely Engagement-
Approach
Timely Engagement-
Avoidance
-.08
-.31
-.09
-.34
.22
-.07
.45
.42
-.06

29. -.21
.30
.19
-.33
-.11
-.33
-.27
.30
.35
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Imagination
Conscientiousne
ss
Self-Efficacy
Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
for Self-
Regulation
Procrastinatio
n-Avoidance
Procrastinatio
n-Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance
Performance-
Avoidance
Goals
Performance-
Approach
Goals
Mastery-
Avoidance
Goals
Mastery-
Approach
Goals
.10
-.19
-.20
.24
.22
.34
-.06
-.12
.32
.72 -.51
.60
.24 -.11
.23
-.10
.31 .20
.10
-.12
.12 .23
.16
.28
.11
.09
.11
.13
.11
.80

30. Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Imagination
Conscientiousne
ss
Procrastinatio
n-Avoidance
Procrastinatio
n-Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance
Performance-
Avoidance
Goals
Performance-
Approach
Goals
Mastery-
Avoidance
Goals
Mastery-
Approach
Goals
Self-Efficacy
Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
for Self-
Regulation
.80
-.33
-.33
.34
.35

31. Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Imagination
Conscientiousne
ss
Procrastinatio
n-Avoidance
Procrastinatio
n-Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance
Performance-
Avoidance
Goals
Performance-
Approach
Goals
Mastery-
Avoidance
Goals
Mastery-
Approach
Goals
Self-Efficacy
Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
for Self-
Regulation
.19
-.11
-.21
-.27
.32
.72 -.51
.60
.24 -.11
.80

32. Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Imagination
Conscientiousne
ss
Procrastinatio
n-Avoidance
Procrastinatio
n-Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Approach
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance
Performance-
Avoidance
Goals
Performance-
Approach
Goals
Mastery-
Avoidance
Goals
Mastery-
Approach
Goals
Self-Efficacy
Self-
Regulation
Self-Efficacy
for Self-
Regulation
-.33
.34
.35
.23
-.10
.31 .20
.10
-.12
.12 .23
.16
.28
.11
.09
.11
.13
.11
.80

34. Self-Efficacy
Self-Regulation
Self-Efficacy for
Self-Regulation
Procrastination-Approach,
Time Two
Procrastination-
Avoidance, Time Two
Timely Engagement-
Approach, Time Two
Timely Engagement-
Avoidance, Time Two
-.23
-.56
.42
.30
.13 (NS)
.57

35. Procrastination-Approach, Time
Two
Procrastination-Avoidance,
Time Two
Timely Engagement-Approach,
Time Two
Timely Engagement-
Avoidance, Time Two
Performance Approach Goal
Orientation
Performance Avoidance
Goal Orientation
Mastery Approach Goal
Orientation
Mastery Avoidance Goal
Orientation
.09
-.06
.05
.03
-.12
.11
.06
.11
-.02
.03
.05
-.02

36. Procrastination-Approach,
Time Two
Procrastination-Avoidance,
Time Two
Timely Engagement-Approach,
Time Two
Timely Engagement-
Avoidance, Time Two
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
-.25
-.26
.18
.30
.25

37. Procrastination-
Approach, Time
Two
Procrastination-
Avoidance, Time
Two
Timely
Engagement-
Approach, Time
Two
Timely
Engagement-
Avoidance, Time
Two
Self-Efficacy for
Self-Regulation
Self-Efficacy Self-Regulation
Performance
Approach Goals
Mastery Approach
Goals
Neuroticism
Imagination/
Intellect
-.22 .18 -.52 .40 .29
.14 .59
.25 .49
.18.19

38. 0.625
0.675
0.725
0.775
0.825
0.875
0.925
0.975
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3.75
4.25
4.75
5.25
5.75
6.25
6.75
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MSE
R2

39. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4

41. DISCUSSION
 The 2×2 Measure of Time-Related Academic
Measure
 Appears to have a structure that is invariant and
reliable.
 Is useful in understanding time-related academic
behavior.
 Unit-weighted scores should be useful for other
researchers (as supported by the minute differences
between congeneric and tau-equivalent reliabilities)
 Is also stable across time, making it useful for
longitudinal research.
 Offers empirical advantages over existing measures.

42. DISCUSSION
 Other Measures
 Were relative good-fitting in CFA models.
 The AGQ needs more research… especially given the
lower reliability in the congeneric model, which is a
troubling finding for the dimensionality of the measure.
 In general, measures produced good fit and moderate-
to-good reliabilities.

43. DISCUSSION
 Structural Modeling
 Self-efficacy was only associated with lower levels of
procrastination-avoidance. This is significant, and shows
the need for differentiation by valence.
 Self-efficacy leads to higher procrastination-avoidance.
Shows a balance with self-efficacy, where too little leads
to one type of procrastination, too much to another,
perhaps.
 Worth noting that the influence was stronger for self-
efficacy for self-regulation. This variable is emerging as
perhaps one of the most important for time-related
academic behavior research.

44. DISCUSSION
 Structural Modeling
 The pattern with achievement goals again emerged.
 Procrastination may be a performance-enhancement
strategy, while timely engagement is a mastery
attainment strategy.
 This points to the idea of a context-dependence in time-
related academic behaviors, and is supported by the
longitudinal analyses.

45. DISCUSSION
 Structural Analyses
 Personality showed the expected associations in time
one data.
 However, it is worth noting the differentiation by type
was again observed with these associations.
 Again here, the longitudinal prediction is quite weak,
suggesting the hypothesis that procrastination is who
someone is rather than what he/she does is flawed.
 Additionally, in the integrated model, the predictive
influence flows through goals. So personality may
influence goal structure, which influences behavioral
choices.

46. DISCUSSION
 Cluster Analysis (Person-Centered Analysis)
 Each of the four clusters offers insight on ‘groups’ of
people, and how motivational variables may operate
around time-related academic behavior.
 It is worth noting the way that goals cluster around
behaviors, with self-efficacy for self-regulation again
emerging as much higher in procrastination profiles and
much lower in timely engagement profiles.
 These profiles again lend themselves to the hypothesis
of context-dependence in time-related academic
behavior.
 Further research could determine if people ‘jump’ profile
from course to course, semester to semester.

47. CONCLUSIONS
 Time-related academic behaviors are strategies.
 They must be viewed holistically, including timely
engagement and procrastination together and
understanding the underlying motivation.
 Deficit theory in this area offers an incomplete and
perhaps incorrect understanding.
 Intervention research seeking to increase self-efficacy
may result in unintended consequences.
 Self-regulation may also be insufficient in intervention.
 Goals may be the key in intervention…I.e., students
need to have goals that drive timely engagement
strategy use, but also the self-efficacy to use those self-
regulated behaviors.