2010 APIR Procrastination-libre1

Academic Procrastination in Two Settings:

Motivation Correlates, Behavioral Patterns,

and Negative Impact of Procrastination in

Canada and Singapore

Robert M. Klassen*

University of Alberta, Canada

Rebecca P. Ang

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Wan Har Chong

Singapore National Institute of Education, Singapore

Lindsey L. Krawchuk

University of Alberta, Canada

Vivien S. Huan, Isabella Y.F. Wong and Lay See Yeo

Singapore National Institute of Education, Singapore

Two studies are reported examining academic procrastination and motivationin 1,145 university students from Canada and Singapore. In Study 1, relation-ships between procrastination and motivation variables were found to besimilar across contexts, with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning moststrongly associated with procrastination in both contexts. In Study 2, patternsof procrastinating behavior and the negative impact of procrastination wereexamined and compared in Canadian and Singaporean undergraduates. Par-ticipants in both contexts reported writing to be the academic task most proneto procrastination. More Singaporeans than Canadians were classified as nega-tive procrastinators (i.e. rated procrastination as a negative influence on aca-demic functioning). In both contexts, negative procrastinators spent more timeprocrastinating than neutral procrastinators and displayed lower self-efficacyfor self-regulated learning.apps_394 361..379

* Address for correspondence: Robert M. Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G5. Email: robert.klassen@

ualberta.ca

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2010, 59 (3), 361379

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00394.x

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

On dcrit deux recherches portant sur la motivation et la procrastination uni-versitaire (tendance remettre au lendemain) de 1145 tudiants du Canada etde Singapour. Dans la premire tude, les relations entre la motivation et laprocrastination sont apparues tre analogues dans les deux pays, la variablela plus fortement associ la procrastination tant lauto-efficience pourlapprentissage autorgul. Dans la deuxime tude, les schmas comportemen-taux de procrastination et son impact ngatif ont t analyss et compars chezles tudiants de 1 cycle canadiens et singapouriens. Les sujets des deux paysont mentionn la rdaction comme tant la tche universitaire la plus soumise la procrastination. Davantage de Singapouriens que de Canadiens t classsen procrastinateurs ngatifs (cest--dire que la procrastination est considrecomme tant un handicap pour les tudes). Dans les deux cas, les procrastina-teurs ngatifs gaspillaient plus de temps que les procrastinateurs neutres etmanifestaient une moindre auto-efficience pour lapprentissage autorgul.

INTRODUCTION

Recent research has shown that procrastination is common in general popu-

lations, and is almost universal among university students (e.g. Steel, 2007).

Defined as unnecessarily postponing or avoiding tasks that must be com-

pleted (e.g. Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007), procrastination has been

reported to be associated with unsatisfactory academic performance and

higher levels of stress and anxiety (Ferrari, OCallaghan, & Newbegin, 2005;

Sirois, 2004). Among all of the variables that have been investigated in

relationship to academic procrastination, self-related variables like self-

regulation, self-efficacy, and self-esteem have received the most attention,

with recent research pointing to the role played by self-efficacy for self-

regulation as a key variable inversely related to academic procrastination

(Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008). The purpose of the current study is

to (a) explore the correlates of procrastination in two culturally diverse

contexts, (b) describe behaviors associated with procrastination, and (c)

examine academic and motivation profiles of negative procrastinators (those

who report that procrastination negatively influences academic functioning)

in Canada and Singapore.

Procrastination research is less well established than research involving

many other common psychological phenomena (Steel, 2007), even though

almost all undergraduates report procrastinating behaviors, and many adults

report problems with procrastination (e.g. Hammer & Ferrari, 2002). Pro-

crastination research involving undergraduate participants typically finds

modest negative correlations between procrastination and academic perfor-

mance (overall GPA and course GPA), with average correlations of -.19 foroverall academic performance across 41 studies in Steels recent meta-

analysis (2007). Only a few studies have explored procrastination using a

cross-cultural framework, and little research has explored procrastination in

East Asian contexts (e.g. Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuk, Huan, Wong,

362 KLASSEN ET AL.

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

& Yeo, in press; Zhang & Zhang, 2007). A recent study exploring adult

procrastination in Australia, Peru, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United

States, and Venezuela found that procrastination was common in each of

the settings, and that arousal and avoidant procrastination patterns

showed cross-cultural similarities (Ferrari, Diaz-Morales, OCallaghan,

Diaz, & Argumedo, 2007).

A number of theoretical links have been postulated about the processes

by which procrastination operates. Self-efficacy, or confidence in ones

capabilities to carry out a task, has been shown to be related to procras-

tinating behaviors, with a hypothesised link that a persons lack of task or

domain confidence leads to delaying of task initiation or task completion.

Procrastination has been called the quintessential self-regulatory failure

(Steel, 2007, p. 65; also see Van Eerde, 2000) wherein deficits in self-

regulating behaviors, such as strategy use and monitoring thinking and

learning processes, lead to an avoidance of tasks. Recent research in a

Western cultural context (e.g. Klassen et al., 2008) has shown that

self-efficacy for self-regulated learning may be a key construct in explain-

ing procrastination, with the view that although knowledge of self-

regulation strategies is important, the confidence to use strategies is a key

factor in initiation and completion of important tasks. Self-efficacy for

self-regulated learning refers to students beliefs in their capabilities to

employ self-regulatory strategies, and a recent validity study (Usher &

Pajares, 2008) showed relationships between self-efficacy for self-regulated

learning and academic self-efficacy, self-concept, task goal orientation, and

achievement.

Numerous studies have shown that low self-esteem is related to procrasti-

nating behaviors, whereby feelings of worthlessness lead to avoidance of

tasks that might result in failure (e.g. Ferrari, 2000), although the direction-

ality of the relationship is not yet clear. Finally, culturally influenced values

and value orientations have been proposed as an influence on procrastination

(Dietz, Hofer, & Fries, 2007). The current study extends the research by

examining procrastination patterns and behaviors from a cross-cultural

perspective.

Cross-cultural comparisons are useful in building theory because they

provide researchers with a valuable heuristic basis to test the external valid-

ity and generalizability of their measures, theories, and models (Marsh &

Hau, 2004, p. 59). One way that procrastination beliefs and behaviors may

vary across cultures is through differential understandings of self and theo-

ries of ability. For example, Heine (2003) reports differences in persistence

after failure in East Asian and North American cultures, and culturally

divergent responses to effort feedback between Japanese and Canadian

undergraduates. In academic settings, students from different cultures have

different ways of motivating themselves, and different understandings of the

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 363


importance of persistence, effort, and the value of academic performance

(Boekaerts, 2003).

A students academic practices, such as study time and procrastination,

may be related to culturally differing understanding of academic values and

behaviors. Dunn and Wallace (2004) found that Singaporean students spent

more time studying, memorised more material, and requested more explicit

instructions for assignments and exams than students in a Western cultural

context. Differences in closeness of student groups between Singaporean and

Western students were noted by Chia, Koh, and Pragasam (2008), who found

that students in Singapore spent more time in closely-knit social groups, and

as a result were more socially bonded and showed a stronger sense of affili-

ation to both their friendship groups and to their academic institution than

did students in Western contexts. Cultural background and values may influ-

ence an individuals choices about engaging in or avoiding a challenging

task, or may influence the interpretation of procrastinating behaviors. For

example, students in collectivistic yet achievement-oriented settings (e.g.

Singapore) may interpret procrastination more negatively than students

from individualistic contexts because of higher levels of fear of failure and

a stronger inclination to avoid family shame and embarrassment (Chong,

2007). In addition, Asian students may perceive less freedom in pursuing

personal goals at the expense of academic goals than Western students, and

thus may be more likely to adopt academic goals into their personal goal

structures (Boekaerts, 2003). The perceived cost of procrastination may be

greater for students from collectivist contexts because procrastination might

be construed as conflicting with personal/academic goals and family expec-

tations. These differences in cultural beliefs and behaviors may influence

understandings of procrastination, especially relating to the perceived nega-

tive academic impact of procrastination.

The Present Study

The present study poses three questions in two studies. Study 1 examines the

question, Are motivation correlates of procrastination similar across cultures?

Based on the previous findings that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning is

a general mechanism underlying procrastination, and from findings from our

previous research (e.g. Klassen et al., in press; Klassen et al., 2008), we expect

similar relationships between procrastination and associated motivation

variables across cultures.

The first question in Study 2 asks, What is the behavioral profile of under-

graduate procrastination in Canada and Singapore? Based on the theoretical

claim that students in achievement-oriented collectivist contexts have higher

fear of academic failure, a stronger inclination to avoid family shame and

embarrassment (e.g. Chong, 2007), and are more likely to adopt academic

364 KLASSEN ET AL.


goals as personal goals (Boekaerts, 2003), we predict that Singaporean stu-

dents will report lower hours of procrastination per day than Canadian

students. Based on research that shows Singaporeans to display higher levels

of collectivism (Hofstede, 2001) and to spend more time with social ingroups

at university than Western students (e.g. Chia et al., 2008), we predict that

Singaporean students spend more time on group-oriented activities when

procrastinating than Western students. Based on previous research con-

ducted in Western contexts (e.g. Fritzsche, Young, & Hickson, 2003), we

predict that students will report procrastinating more on writing tasks than

on other academic activities.

The final question of the study asks, What proportion of students view their

procrastination as negative, and what factors are associated with negative

procrastination? Based on cultural differences in congruence of personal and

learning goals, and in fear of failure, we predict that Canadian students will

be less likely to interpret procrastination as having a negative impact on their

academic functioning than Singaporean students.

STUDY 1

In Study 1, we explored the relationships between self-reported procrastina-

tion and academic self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-efficacy for self-regulated

learning, and self-esteem.

Method

Participants. Study 1 involved 418 participants from universities in

Canada and Singapore, two countries that have been shown to display con-

trasting cultural values and cultural dimensions. According to Hofstedes

measurement of cultural dimensions, Canada ranks in the top decile on the

cultural value of individualism (tied with Netherlands at 4th of 53 countries),

whereas Singapore is tied with Thailand and West Africa at 39th of 52

countries for individualism (Hofstede, 2001). The two universities from

which the data were collected in this study are both large public universities

that share similar rankings in international comparisons (Times Higher

Education World University Rankings, 2007). Canada and Singapore are

economically prosperous, with comparison data showing similar levels of

school enrollment, per capita gross national income, and life expectancy

(World Bank, 2009).

Canadian participants were 192 undergraduates enrolled in a teacher edu-

cation program, with an estimated response rate between 75 per cent and 80

per cent. The sample was primarily female (83%), with a mean age of 22.6

years (SD = 5.17). Most students (91%) were born in Canada and describedthemselves as Anglo-Canadian. Singaporean participants were 226 under-



graduates enrolled in a teacher education program, with an estimated

response rate between 85 per cent and 90 per cent. The sample was primarily

female (76%) with a mean age of 21.07 years (SD = 3.03). Most students wereborn in Singapore (89%), and represented the ethnic mix of Singapore (i.e.

the majority of students with Chinese heritage, and minorities of students

with Malay and Indian heritage). English was the language of instruction in

both contexts.

Procedure. In both contexts, a researcher or instructor briefly intro-

duced the project, and distributed surveys to be completed during scheduled

class time. Participants in both contexts were volunteers who completed

demographic information, including estimated GPA, which was measured

on a 4-point scale for the Canadian students and a 5-point scale for the

Singaporean students. For each of the measures, the items were summed

(after re-scoring reversed items) and the scale score was used to represent the

construct. The five measures in Study 1 assessed procrastination, academic

self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, and

self-esteem.

We used Tuckmans 16-item procrastination measure, which provides

a measure of the tendency to waste time, delay, and intentionally put off

something that should be done (Tuckman, 1991, p. 479). Recent studies

have shown Tuckmans measure to be reliable and valid (e.g. Howell &

Watson, 2007). Procrastination was measured using a 4-point scale,

anchored at 1 by Thats not really me and at 4 by Thats me for sure,

with a possible total score of 64 (e.g. I needlessly delay finishing jobs, even

when theyre important).

We used two components of the Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire (MSLQ) to assess participants academic self-efficacy and

self-regulation. The MSLQ is a widely used tool measuring motivational

orientations and strategy use (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).

The academic self-efficacy measure included five items from the MSLQ

Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance scale (e.g. I am confident I

can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings in my

classes). The self-regulation measure included 12 items designed to assess

students awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition (e.g. If course

materials are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material).

For the MSLQ measures, we used a 7-point scale with descriptors at 1

(Not at all true of me) and 7 (Very true of me), with possible total

scores of 35 and 84 for the self-efficacy and self-regulation scales,

respectively.

Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was measured with the scale used in

the academic motivation study conducted by Zimmerman, Bandura, and

Martinez-Pons (1992) and recently validated by Usher and Pajares (2008).

366 KLASSEN ET AL.


This self-efficacy measure assesses students beliefs in their capability to

implement academic self-regulated learning strategies. The 11 items in this

scale include items such as How well can you concentrate on school sub-

jects? Participants completed a 7-point scale with a possible total score of

77. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenbergs 10-item, 4-point Self-Esteem

Scale (Rosenberg, 1979), which has been widely used in procrastination and

other research (e.g. Ferrari, 2000).

Results

Table 1 presents reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for

procrastination and the motivation variables, and means and standard devia-

tions for GPA in the two groups. All measures displayed adequate reliability

in both contexts. Analysis with MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate

effect, F(4, 358) = 21.83, p < .001, h2 = .19. Using ANOVA with p-level fixedto .01 using a Bonferroni adjustment, Canadian participants scored signifi-

cantly higher on procrastination, F(1, 417) = 17.51, p < .001, self-efficacy,F(1, 417) = 20.96, p < .001, and self-esteem, F(1, 362) = 19.99, p < .001;whereas Singaporean participants scored significantly higher on self-

regulation F(1, 417) = 23.41, p < .001.Table 2 presents correlation coefficients among the key variables that were

calculated separately in each context and then compared across contexts. The

patterns of relationship among the key variables showed strong similarities

between the Canadian and Singaporean samples. Although most of the

intercorrelations were higher for Singaporeans than Canadians, there were

TABLE 1Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations of Procrastination, Motivation

Variables, and GPA in Canada and Singapore

Canada Singapore

h2a M SD a M SD

Procrastination* .87 37.97 7.93 .85 34.91 7.03 .04

Self-Efficacy* .90 25.59 5.04 .89 23.40 4.76 .05

Self-Regulation* .81 50.90 11.06 .81 55.73 9.32 .05

SESRL .79 57.29 9.01 .89 55.05 9.97 .01

Self-Esteem* .86 32.10 4.70 .87 29.83 4.70 .05

GPA 3.09 .42 3.07 .49

Note: Procrastination and Self-Esteem were 4-point scales. Self-Efficacy, Self-Regulation, and SESRL (Self-

Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning) were 7-point scales. GPA was measured on a 4-point scale in Canada

and a 5-point scale in Singapore.

* p < .001.



no significant differences in the relationships between procrastination

and any of the key variables across the two contexts (using Fisher Z-

transformations). In both contexts, procrastination was significantly corre-

lated with all of the major variables, with the strongest correlation observed

between procrastination and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (r = -.57in Canada, and r = -.63 in Singapore). In both contexts the relationshipsbetween procrastination and the variables fell within the confidence range

suggested in Steels (2007) meta-analysis, providing evidence that the results

are consistent with results found in previous research, and supporting the

argument for cross-cultural validity.

Multiple regression was used to further examine the strength of the rela-

tionship between motivation variables and procrastination in each context.

With procrastination as the dependent variable, the four motivation variables

were entered as a block. For the Canadians, the four motivation variables

significantly predicted procrastination, R2 = .37, F(4, 191) = 27.67, p < .001.Self-regulation (b = -.16, p = .03), self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (b =-.47, p < .001), and self-esteem (b = -.19, p = .003) were significant predictorsof procrastination, whereas academic self-efficacy (b = .05, p = .47) did notcontribute significantly to the regression equation. For the Singaporeans, the

four motivation variables as a block significantly contributed to prediction of

procrastination, R2 = .43, F(4, 220) = 42.12, p < .001, with self-efficacy forself-regulated learning (b = -.54, p < .001) and self-esteem (b = -.17, p = .003)making significant individual contributions. Academic self-efficacy (b = .08,p = .19) and self-regulation (b = -.10, p = .16) did not make significantcontributions to procrastination. Next, we used the Chow test procedure to

explore the equality of the sets of predictors of procrastination (e.g. Ghil-

agaber, 2004). Results from the Chow test suggested no significant differences

TABLE 2Correlations among Procrastination, Motivation Variables, and GPA

Procrastination

Self-

Efficacy

Self-

Regulation SESRL

Self-

Esteem GPA

Procrastination 1 -.15* .42** .57** -.23** -.21**Self-Efficacy -.23** 1 .31** .18* .36** .42**Self-Regulation -.47** .46** 1 .53** .13 .31**SESRL -.63** .35** .63** 1 .09 .33**Self-Esteem -.37** .39** .39** .36** 1 .09GPA -.25** .25** .28** .33** .21** 1

Note: Canadian participants are above the diagonal; Singaporean participants are below the diagonal.

SESRL = Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning.

* p < .01; ** p < .001.

368 KLASSEN ET AL.


SAMSUNGHighlight

SAMSUNGHighlight

in the sets of predictors across the two samples, DF = .90, p = .47. No evidenceof multicollinearity was found using SPSS 16.0 multicollinearity diagnostic

statistics.

Brief Discussion

Results from Study 1 supported our prediction that procrastination and

associated motivation variables operate in similar fashion across two cultur-

ally diverse contexts. Just as Ferrari et al. (2007) found cross-cultural simi-

larities in adults procrastination patterns, we found similarities in internal

reliability, correlations, and beta-weights predicting procrastination across

students in Canada and Singapore. In both contexts, procrastination was

most strongly related to participants confidence to manage their learning

(i.e. self-efficacy for self-regulated learning). Beliefs about global self-esteem

were also significantly related with procrastination ratings across contexts.

Students who rated their procrastination higher had lower GPAs in both

contexts. Results from the multiple regression analysis showed little variation

across contexts. For both groups, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and

self-esteem were significant predictors of procrastination, but self-regulation

was a significant predictor only for the Canadian participants.

Procrastination may be a failure of self-regulation, but we suggest self-

efficacy for self-regulated learning is a key to understanding academic pro-

crastination across cultural contexts. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning

appears to be a mechanism that underlies procrastination in the two con-

texts investigated in this study. Evidence from Study 1 suggests the cross-

cultural verity of Banduras (1993) contention that Self-regulatory skills

will not contribute much if students cannot get themselves to apply them

persistently in the face of difficulties, stressors, and competing attractions

(p. 136). Findings from Study 1 show that motivation beliefs operate on

academic procrastination in similar ways for Canadian and Singaporean

undergraduates.

STUDY 2

Although a number of motivational and cognitive variables have been iden-

tified as contributing to procrastination in single culture contexts, little at-

tention has been paid to the cross-cultural differences in the behavioral

characteristics of procrastination (Ackerman & Gross, 2005), and the per-

ceived negative impact of procrastination. Procrastination behaviors (time

spent procrastinating, avoidance tasks that promote procrastination, and

activities engaged in when procrastinating) may differ across cultural con-

texts because of culturally related differences in interests, opportunities, and

understandings about motivation beliefs or because of cultural differences in



ingroup affiliation or academic goals. Similarly, the profile of those for whom

procrastination is perceived as negative may differ across cultural contexts.

The purpose of Study 2 was to gain a cross-cultural understanding of (a)

daily procrastination (hours of procrastination in a typical day), (b) avoidance

tasks, that is, the types of academic tasks most prone to procrastination, (c) the

replacement activities students engage in when delaying academic tasks, and

(d) the perceived negative impact of procrastination on academic functioning.

Before collecting the data for Study 2, pilot studies with 13 participants in

Canada and 10 participants in Singapore were conducted to investigate the

clarity of the measures and to generate items for the avoidance activities; that

is, the activities students engage in when they perceive themselves to be

procrastinating (procrastination was not defined for the students). Student

feedback resulted in the list of avoidance activities and in minor changes to

the survey in order to enhance understanding. Data from the pilot studies

were not included in subsequent analyses.

Method

Participants. Canadian participants were 389 undergraduate volunteers

enrolled in a teacher education program in a large western Canadian univer-

sity, with an estimated response rate of 90 per cent. The sample was predomi-

nantly female (79%), with a mean age of 22.30 years (SD = 4.09). Moststudents were born in Canada (95%). There was no overlap between Cana-

dian participants in Study 1 and Study 2.

Singaporean participants were 337 undergraduates enrolled in a teacher

education program, with an estimated response rate of 85 per cent to 90 per

cent. The sample was primarily female (73%) with a mean age of 21.36 years

(SD = 2.73). Most students were born in Singapore (93%), and representedthe general ethnic mix of Singapore, with 71 per cent Chinese, 15 per cent

Malay, and 11 per cent Indian heritage. There was no overlap between

Singaporean participants in Study 1 and Study 2.

Procedure. Surveys were distributed and completed during class time

in the first half of the semester. As in Study 1, GPA was assessed by self-report

on a 4-point scale in Canada and a 5-point scale in Singapore. Participants

completed six measures assessing various behaviors associated with procras-

tination. First, participants rated daily procrastination (five responses, from

less than one hour to more than six hours). Second, participants com-

pleted a descriptive measure (adapted from Ferrari & Scher, 2000) of five

avoidance tasks that engendered procrastination (i.e. reading tasks, writing

tasks, studying tasks, research tasks, and talking with the instructor). The

avoidance tasks were rated on a 7-point scale in response to the question, On

what kinds of tasks do you most often procrastinate? Third, participants

370 KLASSEN ET AL.


rated the frequency of 14 replacement activities (generated from the pilot

study) they engage in when they perceive themselves to be procrastinating (e.g.

watch TV, go shopping) using a 7-point scale with anchors of Never and

Always. Fourth, participants rated the negative impact of procrastination

(How much does procrastination negatively influence your academic func-

tioning?) with four response options: Not at all, Not too much, Quite a

lot, and Very much. Fifth, participants completed a three-item, 7-point

procrastination scale (Ackerman & Gross, 2005) that showed acceptable

reliabilities in both contexts (a = .93 in Canada, a = .88 in Singapore) (e.g. Idelay starting assignments). Sixth, participants completed the self-efficacy

for self-regulated learning scale (Zimmerman et al., 1992) used in Study 1.

Results

Behavioral Patterns of Procrastination. Most students in Canada (61%)

and Singapore (54%) reported less than two hours of daily procrastination,

with no significant difference in the proportions of Canadian and

Singaporean students reporting less than two hours and three or more hours

of daily procrastination, c2(1) = 3.61, p = .06. In Canada and Singapore,students ranked writing as the task most often procrastinated. In both con-

texts, students were significantly more likely to rate writing as the task most

often procrastinated than the next highest tasks (in Canada, t[386] = 3.48,p = .001, and in Singapore, t[336] = 5.75, p < .001). Talking to the instructorwas least likely to result in procrastination in both contexts, with ratings of

reading, studying, and research tightly clustered in both contexts.

Table 3 presents results for Canadians and Singaporeans for the 14

replacement activities generated from the pilot study. There was no correla-

tion in the order of rankings between the two contexts (Spearmans r = -.16,p = .58). Canadian participants rated getting something to eat or drink astheir favorite replacement activity, followed by watching TV, and email-

ing. Singaporean participants rated having a nap/sleep as the favorite

replacement activity, followed by getting something to eat or drink, and

going online for web-surfing.

Negative Impact of Procrastination. Participants were classified as nega-

tive or neutral procrastinators according to response to the question, In

general, how much does procrastination negatively influence your academic

functioning? with response options of Quite a lot and Very much

(negative procrastinators) and Not at all and Not too much (neutral

procrastinators). Proportionately more Singaporean than Canadian partici-

pants classified themselves as negative procrastinators, c2(1) = 20.63, p < .001.In Canada, 28 per cent of participants were classified as negative procrastina-

tors, with 72 per cent classified as neutral procrastinators. Among Canadian



negative procrastinators, 57 per cent reported spending three hours or more

per day in procrastination. In Singapore, 44 per cent of participants answered

Quite a lot or Very much when asked about the negative influence of

procrastination and were classified as negative procrastinators, with 59 per

cent reporting spending three hours or more per day in procrastination.

Although we treated the impact of procrastination scale as a dichotomous

measure for illustrative purposes (i.e. in order to illustrate differences in

undergraduates who perceive their procrastination as harmful to their aca-

demic functioning, and those who do not), the measure could also be

construed as an interval scale. With this in mind, Singaporeans scored sig-

nificantly higher than Canadians on the 4-point negative impact of procras-

tination scale, F(1, 723) = 22.26, p < .001, h2 = .03, and the scale showedsignificant correlations across country groups with GPA (r = -.31, p < .001),daily procrastination (r = .30, p < .001), procrastination scale score (r = .33,p < .001), and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (r = -.30, p < .001).

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to investi-

gate differences in GPA, daily procrastination, procrastination scale score,

and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning according to negative impact of

procrastination and country. There was a significant main effect for country

F(4, 556) = 53.39, p < .001, h2 = .28, and for negative impact of procrastina-tion, F(4, 556) = 21.49, p < .001, h2 = .13, but no interaction effect. Table 4reports levels of estimated GPA, daily procrastination, procrastination scale

scores, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning scores for negative and

TABLE 3Replacement Activities Students Engage in when Avoiding Academic Tasks

Canada Singapore

Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank

Get something to eat/drink 4.89 1.48 1 4.73 1.63 2

Watch TV 4.49 1.76 2 4.33 1.79 4

Email 4.45 1.70 3 4.00 1.78 8

Do household tasks 4.23 1.71 4 2.71 1.56 13

Talk with friends 3.98 1.76 5 3.47 1.79 11

Surf the internet 3.97 1.99 6 4.51 1.74 3

Have a nap 3.91 1.96 7 4.73 1.63 1

Do less urgent schoolwork 3.71 1.66 8 4.04 1.54 6

Exercise 3.47 1.79 9 3.40 1.73 12

Read books/magazines 3.34 1.74 10 4.03 1.57 7

Go out (movies/clubs/dinner) 3.19 1.75 11 3.90 1.76 9

Go online for chat 2.92 2.08 12 4.25 1.86 5

Go shopping 2.80 1.76 13 3.51 1.93 10

Play computer games 1.96 1.63 14 2.57 1.85 14

372 KLASSEN ET AL.


TABLE 4Negative and Neutral Procrastinators in Canada and Singapore

Canada Singapore

Neutral

Procrastinators

Negative

Procrastinators Total

Neutral

Procrastinators

Negative

Procrastinators Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

GPA 3.25 .37 2.98 .37 3.18 .39 3.71 .58 3.50 .63 3.61 .61

Daily Procrastination 2.21 .84 2.75 1.01 2.35 .93 2.40 1.07 2.76 1.04 2.56 1.07

Procrastination Scale 12.74 5.16 16.37 4.38 13.75 5.21 10.66 4.07 12.66 4.05 11.53 4.18

SESRL 55.86 8.52 50.64 8.17 54.42 8.73 53.11 8.07 48.91 9.15 51.27 8.80

AC

AD

EM

ICP

RO

CR

AS

TIN

AT

ION

373

2

00

9T

he

Au

tho

rs.Jo

urn

al

com

pila

tion

2

00

9In

terna

tion

al

Asso

ciatio

no

fA

pp

liedP

sych

olo

gy.

neutral procrastinators in each context. In Canada, negative procrastinators

had significantly lower GPAs, F(1, 369) = 40.93, p < .001, h2 = .10; higherdaily procrastination, F(1, 383) = 28.28, p < .001, h2 = .07; higher procrasti-nation scale score, F(1, 387) = 41.36, p < .001, h2 = .10; and lower self-efficacyfor self-regulated learning, F(1, 388) = 29.87, p < .001, h2 = .07 (p-levelBonferroni-adjusted to .01), than neutral procrastinators.

In Singapore, negative procrastinators had significantly higher daily pro-

crastination, F(1, 335) = 9.79, p < .001, h2 = .03; higher procrastination scalescore, F(1, 336) = 20.11, p < .001, h2 = .06; and lower self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, F(1, 336) = 20.10, p < .001, h2 = .06, than neutral procras-tinators. The difference for GPA neared significance, F(1, 198) = 5.87, p = .02,h2 = .03.

Brief Discussion

Even though most participants in Canada and Singapore spent less than two

hours per day procrastinating, a sizable minority in each country spent three

hours a day or more engaged in procrastination. However, the proportion of

students spending less than two hours and more than three hours per day did

not differ according to context. Hence, our prediction that students in Sin-

gapore might procrastinate less than Canadians was not borne out. Writing

tasks were most likely to be delayed or avoided in both contexts, but the

replacement activities varied according to context, with Canadians favoring

getting something to eat or drink as a delaying activity, whereas the Sin-

gaporean undergraduates favored taking a nap when avoiding academic tasks.

Our prediction that Singaporeans would be more likely to engage in group

activities as diversions (e.g. talk with friends or go out with friends) was not

borne out, with the top avoidance activities similar in each context. A minority

of undergraduates viewed procrastination as negatively influencing academic

functioning in each context, although the proportion of negative procrastina-

tors was higher in Singapore than in Canada. Hence, our final prediction

that Canadian students would be less likely than Singaporean students to

interpret procrastination as having a negative impactwas supported.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results of the two studies indicate that the correlates of procrastination

were similar in two culturally contrasting contexts, but there were differences

in the perceived negative impact of procrastination and in replacement activi-

ties that students engaged in when procrastinating. Our Study 1 prediction of

similar patterns of procrastination across groups was confirmed, supporting

the limited findings of cross-national similarities in procrastination tenden-

cies (e.g. Ferrari et al., 2007). The results from Study 1 support previous

374 KLASSEN ET AL.


findings (e.g. Klassen et al., in press; Klassen et al., 2008) that self-efficacy for

self-regulated learning is a generalisable feature of procrastination in diverse

cultural contexts.

Students from both contexts were most likely to procrastinate on writing

tasks. This is consistent with reports from previous studies in Western con-

texts (e.g. Fritzsche et al., 2003), but no previous studies have compared

avoidance tasks across cultures. If procrastination is most likely when tasks

are boring and difficult (Steel, 2007, p. 75), it appears that writing is

perceived as having less interest and to be more challenging than the other

potential procrastination tasks (e.g. reading and researching). Fritzsche et al.

(2003) suggest that providing regular feedback to writers may help reduce

levels of procrastination in undergraduates.

Given the higher levels of collectivism in the Singaporean context, we

predicted that students in Singapore may be more likely to engage in social

activities as replacement activities than students in Canada, but this predic-

tion was not borne out. Both groups of students rated getting something to

eat or drink as a favorite replacement activity (which may or may not be a

social activity), but Canadians rated doing household tasks and talking with

friends among their top five replacement activities, whereas Singaporean

students rated having a nap, going online for chat, and surfing the internet

among their top five replacement activities. Ironically, Ferrari and Scher

(2000) found household chores as the most frequently procrastinated non-

academic tasks in their sample of American college students, but it may be

that Canadian students are likely to choose an aversive non-academic task

when avoiding academic tasks, along the lines of graduate students reports

of Ive never cleaned my apartment so much as when I was writing my

thesis. This pattern was not seen in Singaporean students, but the difference

may reflect the different living conditions for undergraduates in the two

universities (i.e. living in on-campus rooms versus off-campus apartments)

rather than cultural differences. Future studies might investigate in a more

systematic manner the tasks students turn to when procrastinating.

Our prediction of lower daily procrastination in the Singaporean sample

was not confirmed, with similar proportions of students reporting procrasti-

nating more than three hours per day in each sample. Once again, the

universality of procrastination behaviors is supported, with students from

collectivist contexts reporting high levels of procrastination at the same rate

as students from individualist contexts. However, the negative perception of

procrastination varied across contexts, as was consistent with our prediction.

Singaporean students were more likely to rate procrastination as negatively

influencing their academic functioning than Canadian students. Dietz et al.

(2007) suggest that procrastination is a link between value orientation and

the decision to engage in learning or leisure activities. Although the Dietz

et al. study did not examine value orientations from a cross-cultural perspec-



tive, we believe that the principle that value orientation influences perception

of procrastinating behaviors is relevant for cross-cultural comparisons.

Value orientations may be more prescriptive in collectivist cultures, with less

freedom of action and narrower socialisation options. The personal goals

formed from value orientations are organisers of behavior (Boekaerts, 2003),

and may influence perceptions of procrastination. Singaporean students may

interpret procrastination more negatively because the behavior fits less well

with their value orientation and personal goals than it does for Canadian

students. In other words, all students procrastinate, but the interpretation of

procrastination may be influenced by cultural background.

Our results showed that less than a third of Canadians and nearly half

of Singaporeans classify themselves as negative procrastinators. The conse-

quences of perceived negative procrastination are damaging, and negative

procrastinators in Canada and Singapore reported more time spent procras-

tinating, lower levels of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, and lower

GPA (for Canadians). The differential relationship between GPA and nega-

tive procrastination in Canada and Singapore may be due to differential

value orientations, with the Canadians who report procrastination as nega-

tive actually earning lower grades, whereas Singaporeans who rate them-

selves as negative procrastinators may do so largely due to feelings of conflict

between personal goals and their procrastinating behavior. We did not

measure the link between negative procrastination and self-esteem; future

research might examine the direction and intensity of the association between

self-esteem and negative procrastination.

Findings from this research suggest that the impact of procrastination is

not a simple function of time spent procrastinating, but is also related to

interpretations of behavior that may be influenced by cultural beliefs. Sin-

gaporeans did not report higher levels of daily procrastination, but they did

report greater negative impact of procrastination. One explanation for this

discrepancy may be differences in the difficulty of the respective university

programs, but it is plausible that differing interpretation of procrastination

may also be a function of personal goals and value orientations. Although

this study provides a first exploration of this phenomenon, future studies

should further examine how students cultural beliefs influence their inter-

pretations of procrastination.

The study is limited by its reliance on self-report surveys from limited

samples from two universities in Canada and Singapore. Although the

samples shared many similarities, there are differences in education systems

and cultural beliefs (which were not measured, but assumed from previous

studies, e.g. Hofstede, 2001) that make equivalence across the two contexts

difficult to assess. Consequently, the results may not generalise well to

other populations in culturally Western or East Asian contexts. Although

this study provides useful initial data on academic procrastination across

376 KLASSEN ET AL.


cultures, future cross-cultural procrastination research should focus on

incorporating other methodological approaches, such as the use of behav-

ioral measures or perceptions of national character (PNC) data that may

provide evidence of between-culture differences in behavior (e.g. Heine,

Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008). In this study, negative procrastination was

defined by adverse academic impact, but procrastination also has been

associated with adverse affective impact (e.g. Steel, 2007), and future cross-

cultural studies might examine negative emotional outcomes associated

with procrastination. Finally, a future study would profitably investigate

how culturally influenced beliefs, such as self-enhancing and self-improving

motivations, might be linked to students explanations for academic

procrastination.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, D.S., & Gross, B.L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task charac-

teristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 513.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117148.

Boekaerts, M. (2003). How do students from different cultures motivate themselves

for academic learning? In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and

motivation in multicultural context (pp. 1331). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age.

Chia, Y.M., Koh, H.C., & Pragasam, J. (2008). An international study of career

drivers of accounting students in Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong. Journal of

Education and Work, 21, 4160.

Chong, W.H. (2007). The role of personal agency beliefs in academic self-regulation.

School Psychology International, 28, 6376.

Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines and

academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 893906.

Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2004). Australian academic teaching in Singapore: Striving

for cultural empathy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41,

291304.

Ferrari, J.R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention

deficit, boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal

of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185196.

Ferrari, J.R., Diaz-Morales, J.F., OCallaghan, J., Diaz, K., & Argumedo, D. (2007).

Frequent behavioral delay tendency by adults: International prevalence rates of

chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 458464.

Ferrari, J.R., OCallaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Prevalence of procrastination in

the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and avoidance delays

among adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 16.

Ferrari, J.R., & Scher, S.J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academic and non-

academic tasks procrastinated by students: The use of daily logs. Psychology in the

Schools, 37, 359366.



Fritzsche, B.A., Young, B.R., & Hickson, K.C. (2003). Individual differences in

academic procrastination tendency and writing success. Personality and Individual

Differences, 35, 15491557.

Ghilagaber, G. (2004). Another look at Chows test for the equality of two heterosce-

dastic regression models. Quality and Quantity, 38, 8193.

Hammer, C.A., & Ferrari, J.R. (2002). Differential incidence of procrastination

between blue- and white-collar workers. Current Psychology: Developmental,

Learning, Personality, Social, 21, 333338.

Heine, S.J. (2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-

improving motivations. In V. Murphy-Berman & J.J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-

cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 101128). Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska Press.

Heine, S.J., Buchtel, E.E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national com-

parisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological

Science, 19, 309313.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Howell, A.J., & Watson, D.C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement

goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,

167178.

Klassen, R.M., Ang, R., Chong, W.H., Krawchuk, L.L., Huan, V., Wong, I., & Yeo,

L.S. (in press). A cross-cultural study of adolescent procrastination. Journal of

Research on Adolescence.

Klassen, R.M., Krawchuk, L.L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of

undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procras-

tination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915931.

Marsh, H.W., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between

academic self-concepts and achievements: Cross-cultural generalizability of the

internal/external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 96, 5667.

Pintrich, P.R., Smith D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and

predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801813.

Rosenberg, M.J. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded

theory of procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 1225.

Sirois, F.M. (2004). Procrastination and intentions to perform health behaviors: The

role of self-efficacy and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and

Individual Differences, 37, 115128.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review

of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 6594.

Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2007). The top 200 world

universities. Retrieved 15 February 2008 from http://www.timeshighereducation.

co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=144

Tuckman, B.W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastina-

tion scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473480.

378 KLASSEN ET AL.


Usher, E.L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A valida-

tion study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443463.

Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 372389.

World Bank (2009). Key development data and statistics. Retrieved 25 March 2009

from: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,

contentMDK:20535285~menuPK:1192694~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~

theSitePK:239419,00.html

Zhang, H.-M., & Zhang, Z.-J. (2007). Usability of Tuckman procrastination scale in

Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 1012.

Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for

academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-setting.

American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663676.



2010 APIR Procrastination-libre1

Documents

Transcript of 2010 APIR Procrastination-libre1