UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The cognitive antecedents of procrastination among secondary students Gorden, Lori J. 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 G67.pdf [ 5.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054270.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054270-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054270-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054270-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054270-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054270-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054270-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054270-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054270.ris

Full Text

THE  COGNITIVE ANTECEDENTS OF PROCRASTINATION AMONG SECONDARY STUDENTS by LORI J . GORDEN B.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology)  We accept  t h i s t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  THE  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1987 (c)Lorr J, Gorden, 1987  In  presenting  this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  of  department publication  this or of  thesis for by  his  or  the  representatives.  It  is  C/MAJ5ELL/A/Q  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6G/8D  an advanced  Library shall make it  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written  permission.  Department of  that the  for  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  requirements  QcT>/5,/W7  P5YCtfQLOQV  ii ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to which secondary  to i n v e s t i g a t e the extent  students in the A r t s and  Sciences  programme p r o c r a s t i n a t e on school work, the extent to which these s t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem which they would l i k e to change and the extent to which p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a f f e c t s academic achievement. a l s o sought  The  study  t o d i s c o v e r d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  r e l a t e d to gender and grade.  Furthermore,  t h i s study  assessed c o g n i t i o n s r e l a t e d to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . and negative s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s were examined to whether high and  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorse  Positive  determine particular  types of c o g n i t i v e themes. The P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement  Inventory  was  a d m i n i s t e r e d to 204 A r t s and S c i e n c e s s t u d e n t s from secondary Columbia.  s c h o o l s in a suburban/rural  community  s t u d e n t s to respond was  respond  Part B asked  to 12 q u e s t i o n s about study h a b i t s and  used t o determine  student.  in B r i t i s h  Part A of the inventory asked s t u d e n t s to  to 41 p o s i t i v e and negative s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s .  two  a P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score f o r each  Demographic data p e r t a i n i n g to gender, grade,  age,  academic achievement and f u t u r e p l a n s were a l s o c o l l e c t e d . Data about the extent of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary  s t u d e n t s and the degree to which students see  this  as a problem which they would l i k e to change were examined using descriptive s t a t i s t i c s .  Inferential  s t a t i s t i c s were  i i i used to t e s t e i g h t hypotheses.  Analyses  of  variance  determined the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the means of s p e c i f i e d groups on c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s . The students  r e s u l t s of the study  c o n f i r m that secondary  in the A r t s and S c i e n c e s programme do p r o c r a s t i n a t e  on academic tasks and do see would l i k e to change.  t h i s as a problem that  R e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e that there  no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ln the extent among males and  they  females but  are  of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  that there are d i f f e r e n c e s  r e l a t e d to grade l e v e l . However, a t r e n d ln p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n r e l a t e d to length of time spent Furthermore, the r e s u l t s c o n f i r m negative  in school was  not  evident.  that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has  a  impact on academic achievement.  F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s of the study  suggest that  low  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s endorse p o s i t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s more than do high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorse negative procrast1nators.  se1f-statements The  more than do  low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s  low  in the sample  endorsed the f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s : F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s , Work F a c i l i t a t i v e  Items and P e r f e c t i o n i s m .  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorsed these s u b s c a l e s :  High Negativiatic  I n t o l e r a n c e , Immobilizing  Mood, Low  U n r e a l i s t i c Planning,  S e i f - C o n t r o l , R i s k t a k i n g and  Low  S i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t s were found on  the  Self-Esteem.  Low  Seif-Competence,  R i s k t a k i n g s u b s c a l e while s i g n i f i c a n t grade e f f e c t s were found on the P e r f e c t i o n i s m  subscale.  iv CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT  1i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  LIST OF TABLES  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  x  CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION  1  Statement of the Problem  .  .  .  .  .  1  D e f i n i t i o n of Key Terms  .  .  .  .  .  3  Objectives  .  .  .  .  .  4  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study  .  .  .  .  .  5  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study  .  .  .  .  .  6  of the Study  Overview of the Study .  .  .  .  .  .  6  CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  8  Prevalence of Academic P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  .  .  8  Parameters of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  .  .  12  .  15  Cognitive-Behavioural  .  .  Theory and Treatment  R e l a t e d Behavioural T h e o r i e s and Treatments of Procrastination . . . . . . . Cognitive Hypotheses  Antecedents of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  22 .  29 42  V CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY  44  Sample S e l e c t i o n  . .  .  Procedure  .  Measurement  Instrument  Data A n a l y s i s Summary  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  45  .  .  .  .  48  .  . .  .  .  .  .  51  .  .  .  .  .  61  .  .  .  .  .  67  CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS  68  Descriptive Analysis  .  .  Subscale C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  .  .  .  .  .  . .  Statistical  Analyses of the Hypotheses  .  Summary  .  .  .  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION  .  .  Summary  .  .  .  68 .  Analyses  .  .  .  Inferential  .  .  .  .  70  .  71 .  74  . 1 1 1  CHAPTER FIVE:  Results  .  .  .  and D i s c u s s i o n  Limitations Implications Conclusion  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1 1 5  .  .  .  .  . 1 1 9  .  .  115  .  .  f o r Counselling .  .  .  .  .  .  and Recommendations .  .  .  REFERENCES APPENDIX A: STUDENT CONSENT INFORMATION  129 130 . 1 3 3 134  .  .  . 1 4 0  APPENDIX B: DIRECTIONS TO PSSI  142  APPENDIX C: PROCRASTINATION SELF-STATEMENT INVENTORY  144  APPENDIX D: LETTERS OF PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY  150  vi LIST OF TABLES Table  Page  3.1  Procrastination Subscales  3.2  Subscales Added by the I n v e s t i g a t o r  59  3.3  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Procrastination Score by School and Age . . . .  63  4.1  D i s t r i b u t i o n of S u b j e c t s by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scor*© • • • » • • *  69  4.2  F r e q u e n c i e s of Responses on Items 47, 48 and 54 . . . . .  70  4.3  Self-Statement Inventory . . . . . .  .  52  Subscale R e l i a b i l i t i e s , Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , Number of items, Highest/Lowest Scores and Standard E r r o r s of Measurement  72  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Scores on Negative Items f o r S u b j e c t s i n High and Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . .  74  4.5  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Negative Items by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  76  4.6  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Scores on P o s i t i v e Items f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . .  75  4.7  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : P o s i t i v e Items by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  78  4.8  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale I Scores f o r S u b j e c t s l n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . .  79  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale I N e g a t i v i s t i c I n t o l e r a n c e by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . .  81  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale II Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . .  80  4.4  4.9  4.10  vii 4.11  4.12  4.13  4.14  4.15  4.16  4.17  4.18  4.19  4.20  4.21 4.22  4.23  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale I I Immobi1Izing Mood by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . .  82  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale I I I Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  83  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale I I I - Low Seif-Competence by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . .  84  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale IV Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  83  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale IV U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . .  .  86  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale V Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  85  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale V F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . .  87  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale VI Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  88  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale VI - Low S e l f - C o n t r o l by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . . .  89  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale A Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  88  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale A - H o s t i l i t y by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade .  91  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale B Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  90  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale B - R i s k t a k i n g by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade .  92  vii i 4.24  4.25  4.26  4.27  4.28  4.29  4.30  4.31  4.32  4.33  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale C Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  93  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale C - Fear of Success by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . . .  94  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale D Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  93  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale D P e r f e c t i o n i s m by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender Grade . . . . . . . .  96  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale E Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  95  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale E - Fear of F a i l u r e by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . . .  97  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale F Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  98  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale F - Low Self-Esteem by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . . . .  99  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale G Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . .  98  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Subscale G - Work F a c i l i t a t l v e Items by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade . . . . .  .101  4.34  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale B Scores f o r Male and Female S u b j e c t s .  .  100  4.35  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale D Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Grades 10, 11 and 12  .  102  4.36  Post Hoc Comparison of the D i f f e r e n c e s Among the Means of Grades 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s on Subscale D . . . . .  .103  Ix 4.37 4.38 4.39  I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Grade on the Low Self-Competence Subscale  .  104  I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Gender on the U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g Subscale  .  104  I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Grade on the F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s Subscale  105  4.40  I n t e r a c t i o n s of Gender by Grade on the F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s Subscale .  .  105  4.41  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scores f o r Males and Females .  106  4.42  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Procrastination Score by Gender and Grade . .  4.43  4.44  .  .  .107  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scores f o r Grades 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s . . . . . . .  108  Post Hoc Comparison of the D i f f e r e n c e s Among the Means of Grades 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s on P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score . .  .  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Achievement Scores f o r Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups . . . . . • . .  .110  4.46  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s Scores f o r Males and Females  .110  4.47  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e : Achievement by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  4.45  of Achievement . . . .  .  109  112  X ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish t o thank the members of my t h e s i s committee, Dr.  Stephen Marks, Dr. Donald A l l i s o n , and Dr. R i c h a r d Young  for their assistance. and  expertise  I am s i n c e r e l y g r a t e f u l  which they have so k i n d l y  Appreciation  f o r the time  shared.  i s a l s o due t o my two c o l l e a g u e s , Chuck  Spurgeon and Les Dukowski, f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l  s u g g e s t i o n s and  support. Finally, my f a m i l y ,  I am thankful  f o r the ongoing encouragement of  e s p e c i a l l y my husband, N e i l , and our c h i l d r e n ,  Matthew and J e s s i c a , who have p a t i e n t l y waited f o r me t o complete t h i s t h e s i s .  1  CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION  P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been d e s c r i b e d of everyday needlessly  life  ( S a b l n l 8, S i l v e r ,  postponing or a v o i d i n g  as a  1982).  The act of  a task i s a problem  which many I n d i v i d u a l s are wei1-acquainted. recall  e x p e r i e n c e s when we  the humor that  i s often  psychopathology  with  Most of us can  s t r u g g l e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ;  t r i g g e r e d by the s u b j e c t  our f a m i l i a r i t y with i t (Grecco,  suggests  1984).  Despite the prevalence of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , r e s e a r c h e r s have p a i d  little  r e s e a r c h and and,  a t t e n t i o n to t h i s phenomenon.  Empirical  l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with the t o p i c i s sparse  t h e r e f o r e , our understanding of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and i t s  causes  i s l i m i t e d (Grecco, 1984).  contribute  T h i s study w i l l  t o an understanding of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  by  I n v e s t i g a t i n g the extent and c o g n i t i v e antecedents of academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary  Statement of  The problem  the  of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  school s t u d e n t s .  Pro-Elem  i s e s p e c i a l l y acute in  academic s e t t i n g s (Burka 8. Yuen, 1983).  An estimate by  E l l i s and Knaus (1977) that 95% of c o l l e g e procrastinate  a t t e s t s to i t s p r e v a l e n c e .  level  students  The s t r e s s of  2. evaluation,  the p r e s s u r e of d e a d l i n e s  and  the  recurrent  demands on s t u d e n t s to complete d i f f i c u l t  and  tedious  f o s t e r s the tendency of s t u d e n t s to p r o c r a s t i n a t e Grleger,  1982;  (Boyd &  Grecco, 1984).  There i s evidence that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has impact on student f u n c t i o n i n g . counselling assistance  a negative  Many s t u d e n t s seek  f o r depression  and  chronic  r e l a t e d to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (Boyd & G r l e g e r , Yuen, 1983).  tasks  anxiety  1982;  Burka &  Furthermore, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n weakens academic  performance, r e s u l t i n g ln poor grades, course withdrawals and  f a i l u r e s (Green, 1982;  Rothblum, Solomon & Murakami,  1986). The  a v a i l a b l e research  on academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  focuses e x c l u s i v e l y on post-secondary s t u d e n t s . have not school  Studies  examined the procrast1nat1ve behaviour of  high  s t u d e n t s , even though It can be assumed that  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n does occur among t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . extent to which secondary s t u d e n t s p r o c r a s t i n a t e which t h i s behaviour accounts f o r detrimental performance i s unknown. A l s o not c o g n i t i v e components u n d e r l y i n g  and  to  academic  known are the a f f e c t i v e and the p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of  group. Knowledge of these v a r i a b l e s c o u l d be of help  The  significant  in the development of e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g  i n t e r v e n t i o n s and programmes aimed at h e l p i n g overcome p r o b l e m a t i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  this  students  3. In the l i t e r a t u r e , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been t r e a t e d as a problem of d e f i c i e n t study and time management s k i l l s 1984).  (Burka & Yuen, 1982; Solomon & Rothblum,  However, reasons f o r academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may  extend beyond weaknesses In those s k i l l Perfectionism,  f e a r of f a i l u r e ,  success, depression  areas.  f e a r of the consequences of  and anxiety  about e v a l u a t i o n  are among  the p o s s i b l e reasons f o r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (Grecco, 1984; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). These f a c t o r s i n v o l v e  cognitive  components such as e x p e c t a n c i e s , d e c i s i o n s and m o t i v a t i o n s (Grecco, 1984), which, a c c o r d i n g  to cognitive-behavioural  theory, can be accessed through an examination of covert self-statements 1981). will and  or "Internal  speech" (Kendall  & Hoi Ion,  An assessment of the c o g n i t i o n s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  contribute  t o an understanding of t h i s psychopathology  I t s treatment.  D e f i n i t i o n of Kev Terms  For  the purposes of t h i s study, academic  procrastination  i s d e f i n e d as the unnecessary postponement  or avoidance of an academic task and  that one has decided t o do  Is e n t i r e l y capable of doing, but does not do ( S a b i n i &  Silver,  1982).  T h i s excludes forms of " l e g i t i m a t e  delay"  ( E l l i s 8. Knaus, 1977, p. 7) such as postponement due t o "skill  d e f l c l e n c e s , purposeful  planning,  f a l l i b l e memory, or  4. physical  i n t e r f e r e n c e " (Grecco, 1984, p. 5 ) .  Procrastination intentional  i s not r a t i o n a l , reasonable, or even  behaviour;  i t i s irrational  behaviour which i s  s e i f-decept i ve and s e i f - s a b o t a g i n g ( S i l v e r 8. S a b i n i ,  1982),  o  I n v o l v i n g an experience of c o n s i d e r a b l e a n x i e t y or " s u b j e c t i v e d i s c o m f o r t " f o r the i n d i v i d u a l Rothblum,  (Solomon &  1984, p. 1 ) .  In t h i s study, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  i s operationally defined  as a high score on the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n S e l f - R a t i n g S c a l e (Grecco,  1984). O b j e c t i v e s of the Study  T h i s study examines the f o l l o w i n g : 1.  the s e i f - r e p o r t e d extent of the academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of secondary students e n r o l l e d in the A r t s and S c i e n c e s programme;  2.  the extent t o which A r t s and S c i e n c e s students experience academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem and the extent t o which s t u d e n t s would l i k e t o stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on school tasks;  3.  d i f f e r e n c e s In the extent t o which males and females In the A r t s and S c i e n c e s programme procrastinate;  5. 4.  d i f f e r e n c e s in the extent to which Grades il  10,  and 12 s t u d e n t s in the A r t s and S c i e n c e s  programme p r o c r a s t i n a t e to determine procrastination  whether  i n c r e a s e s or decreases the  longer one remains l n s c h o o l ; 5.  the e f f e c t of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on  academic  achievement; 6.  the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s to gender, grade and extent of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study  Burka and Yuen (1982) suggest that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n complex  is a  problem that can seldom be overcome through  conventional study and time management approaches. Procrastination  i n v o l v e s a f f e c t i v e and c o g n i t i v e components,  yet we know very l i t t l e about the way  i n which thoughts,  f e e l i n g s and b e l i e f s r e l a t e to the problem of c h r o n i c postponing (Grecco, 1984).  These c o g n i t i o n s need to be more  f u l l y understood so that treatment programmes can be developed which a t t e n d to the complex  antecedents of  procrast1nat1 on. I n t e r v e n t i o n s which e f f e c t i v e l y t r e a t c o u l d be c r i t i c a l who  plan t o e n r o l l  f o r many s t u d e n t s .  procrastination  High school s t u d e n t s  i n post-secondary educational  programmes  6. should develop  strategies  T h o s e s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d be high  school  f o r overcoming p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . a c q u i r e d and  years, better preparing students  academic c h a l l e n g e s of post-secondary about  the n a t u r e  school  students  effective  and  extent  and  could f a c i l i t a t e  s u b j e c t s in t h i s study  the development  be  entirely  correlate  on  results  limitations,  Knowledge  10,  self-report  Study  11  or  12  schools.  groups.  i n the i n two  Furthermore,  measures.  t h e r e f o r e , which are  inherent  Arts Western  R e s u l t s may  measures w i t h  to behavioural  of  group.  were e n r o l l e d  secondary  g e n e r a l i z a b l e to other  relies  the  i n Grade  Canadian r u r a l / s u b u r b a n  the  programmes.  c o u n s e l l i n g programmes f o r t h i s  S c i e n c e s programme  for  this  no  not  study  attempt  T h e r e may  Overview of  Chapter  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the s t u d y  in s e l f - r e p o r t  One.  Chapter  Two  Study  has  been p r e s e n t e d  contains a review  l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d i n g a conceptual  to  be  measures.  An  the  o f p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among h i g h  L i m i t a t i o n s of  All  practised during  foundation  of  the  for  this  in  7. research.  The methodology i s s t a t e d  f o l l o w e d by a p r e s e n t a t i o n  i n Chapter Three,  of the r e s u l t s and a d i s c u s s i o n  of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study i n Chapters Four and F i v e .  8. CHAPTER  REVIEW OF THE  The areas of  review of the interest.  TWO  LITERATURE  literature  The  first  i s o r g a n i z e d around  section  two  includes a discussion  of the p r e v a l e n c e of academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , i t s parameters and  the c o g n i t i v e and  treatment of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  behavioural  The  theories  second s e c t i o n  e i g h t c o g n i t i v e antecedents of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and the r a t i o n a l e f o r the s e l f - s t a t e m e n t  inventory  and  outlines provides  used ln t h i s  study. The that  organization  of the  l i t e r a t u r e review i s s i m i l a r to  i n Grecco's d i s s e r t a t i o n (1984).  o u t l i n e was  Grecco's  f o l l o w e d because It i s the most  format f o r o r g a n i z i n g r e l a t e d to the  general  appropriate  the c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o u r a l  literature  t o p i c of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  Prevalence of Academic P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  No  s t u d i e s have measured the extent of  among secondary s t u d e n t s .  The  procrastination  prevalence of the problem in  academic s e t t i n g s i s e v i d e n t ,  however, ln the research  c o l l e g e student p o p u l a t i o n s .  E l y and  that 33%  on  Hampton (1973) found  of a sample of 75 freshmen e n r o l l e d in a  I n s t r u c t i o n a l programme p r o c r a s t i n a t e d .  Three  self-paced  studies  9. ( H i l l , H i l l , Chabot, 8. B a r r a l 1 , 1978; Murakami, 1986;  Rothblum, Solomon, &  Solomon 8. Rothblum, 1984)  used s e l f - r e p o r t  measures on which c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s r a t e d t h e i r own procrastination.  In the Solomon et a l . sample of  undergraduates, 6% never p r o c r a s t i n a t e d , 35%  perceived 295  almost never  p r o c r a s t i n a t e d , 49% sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t e d , 9%  nearly  always p r o c r a s t i n a t e d and  1% always p r o c r a s t i n a t e d .  Hill  c o l l e g e students,  et a l . sample of 500  p r o c r a s t i n a t e d , 38%  al.,  10% u s u a l l y p r o c r a s t i n a t e d . 40.6%  of the sample of 379  the  seldom  o c c a s s i o n a l 1y p r o c r a s t i n a t e d ,  p r o c r a s t i n a t e d h a l f the time, 17% f r e q u e n t l y and  12%  In  23%  procrastinated  In the study by Rothblum et students reported  nearly  always or always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on academic t a s k s .  These  s t u d i e s suggest that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s a widespread phenomenon that a f f e c t s n e a r l y a l l c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s some of the time, and that  i s an acute problem f o r between 10%  to 40%  of  population. Studies  i n d i c a t e c o n f l i c t i n g evidence  d i f f e r e n c e s In the extent procrastinate.  regarding  to which males and  females  In the Rothblum et a l . study (1986),  of the males and  44.8%  of the females met  31.6%  c r i t e r i a f o r high  l e v e l s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , although t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was significant.  not  However, in the Grecco study, there were  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n based on Males, i n that study, s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n than d i d females (Grecco, 1984).  on  gender.  10.  Furthermore,  there Is some evidence of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  c o g n i t i v e antecedents endorsed by males and females.  In the  Rothblum, Solomon and Murakami study (1986), females s c o r e d h i g h e r on t e s t a n x i e t y items and than d i d males.  Furthermore,  lower on s e l f - c o n t r o l  Grecco  items  (1984) c i t e s an  unpublished study by Rothblum and Solomon (1983) i n which males endorsed  Items r e l a t e d to r e b e l l i o n  to a u t h o r i t y  and  r i s k - t a k i n g , w h i l e females endorsed e v a l u a t i o n a n x i e t y and perfectionism  items.  From student r e p o r t s , i t appears that the tendency p r o c r a s t i n a t e Increases the longer they remain  to  in school so  that c o l l e g e s e n i o r s p r o c r a s t i n a t e more than do c o l l e g e freshmen (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  In one study, 60% of  the freshmen r e p o r t e d that they seldom p r o c r a s t i n a t e , w h i l e 57% of the sophomores, 46% of the J u n i o r s and 43% of s e n i o r s r e p o r t e d that they seldom p r o c r a s t i n a t e ( H i l l  et a l . , 1978).  S t u d i e s r e l a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and academic achievement reveal  c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. The H i l l  (1978) study shows only a s l i g h t p o i n t average  et a l .  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  grade  and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , whereas the study by  Rothblum et a l . (1986) i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n , s u g g e s t i n g that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n poor academic achievement.  The  latter  negative  i s r e l a t e d to  i s corroberated in a  study by Green (1982) which found p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n to be of  the main causes f o r student f a i l u r e and dropout.  one  It i s  11. p o s s i b l e that i n cases where achievement  i s not a d v e r s e l y  a f f e c t e d by p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , s t u d e n t s are s k i l l e d at making effective  l a s t minute e f f o r t s (Beery, 1975).  T h i s would  h e l p t o e x p l a i n the I n c o n s i s t e n t evidence. Only  two s t u d i e s measured the extent t o which c o l l e g e  s t u d e n t s experience academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as p r o b l e m a t i c . Solomon and Rothblum (1984) r e p o r t e d that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was experienced as p r o b l e m a t i c f o r 23.7% of the students i n w r i t i n g a term paper, 21.2% In s t u d y i n g f o r exams and 23.7% in doing weekly r e a d i n g s .  In the Rothblum, Solomon and  Murakami study (1986), 40.6% of the students r e p o r t e d always or n e a r l y always e x p e r i e n c i n g a n x i e t y w h i l e p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . Regarding  the degree t o which s t u d e n t s would l i k e t o change  t h e i r behaviour, 65% s t a t e d they wanted t o reduce p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n when w r i t i n g papers, 62% when s t u d y i n g f o r exams and 55.1% when doing weekly r e a d i n g s (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). procrastination  Boyd and G r i e g e r (1982) p o i n t out that i s very f r e q u e n t l y the p r e s e n t i n g i s s u e f o r  student c l i e n t s i n c o l l e g e c o u n s e l l i n g c e n t e r s . support  T h i s would  the suggestion that s t u d e n t s want t o change t h e i r  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n behaviour doing s o .  and a c t i v e l y seek a s s i s t a n c e i n  12. Parameters of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  Procrastination  Is s i m i l a r t o other  c o n s t r u c t s , such as as a n x i e t y experienced, t o some extent,  psychological  and d e p r e s s i o n ,  i n that  by most people (Grecco, 1984).  Many of us engage l n "discomfort  dodging" (Knaus, 1982) from  time t o time, postponing unpleasant but important while reassuring ourselves According  it is  that we w i l l  tasks  soon begin our work.  t o Knaus (1982), t h i s p e r i o d i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  f a l l s within  the parameters of normal f u n c t i o n i n g .  when the problem becomes h a b i t u a l  i n that  However,  i t i s highly  p r a c t i s e d and r e s i s t a n t t o change, then i t may be symptomatic of m i l d t o severe forms of p s y c h o l o g i c a l disturbance  (Knaus, 1982).  Grecco (1984) p o i n t s out that although p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s l i n k e d t o many n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s , neuroses i n that c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l though one may f e e l and  i t d i f f e r s from most  Is e x e r c i s e d .  Even  that one l a c k s c o n t r o l over the problem  i t s consequences, the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r does make a  "choice"  about whether to a c t or to postpone.  of the d e c i s i o n t o delay,  there  a f f e c t , such as g u i l t , anxiety Knaus (1982) s t a t e s that  As a r e s u l t  i s some concomitant or d e p r e s s i o n .  " p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n can be  r e l a t i v e , v a r i a b l e , s i t u a t i o n a l , m u l t l f a c e t e d , or multidimensional"  negative  (p. 174). An i n d i v i d u a l who  13. procrastinates efficient anxiety  In one  s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n may  be  highly  i n some other e q u a l l y s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . L i k e  or d e p r e s s i o n ,  time in i t s expression r e f e r s to the behavioural  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n v a r i e s at any and  degree.  given  Multidimensionallty  i n t e r a c t i o n of c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and  components r e s u l t i n g in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ,  and  p o i n t s to the complexity of the problem. These i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s are noted by E l l i s and  Knaus (1977):  P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has a c l e a r - c u t element of disturbance: It c o n s i s t s of an emotional problem and has d i s t i n c t l y s e l f - d e f e a t i n g a s p e c t s . It stems from i r r a t i o n a l c h o i c e s . It i n c l u d e s a degree of compulsiveness. It b r i n g s poor and i n e f f i c i e n t r e s u l t s . A n d . . . ( i t ) e v o l v e s as a pernicious hablt...(that) develop(s) into a v i c i o u s c y c l e . . . 1 e a d i n g to self-damnatIon which leads to more p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . (p.8) S i l v e r and  S a b l n i argue that whenever postponing or  " p u t t i n g o f f " has  a r a t i o n a l b a s i s then It i s not,  definition, procrastination. these authors, i s i n h e r e n t l y  P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , according I r r a t i o n a l in that  " r e c o g n i z i n g what ought to be done and else"  (1981, p.  by to  i t involves  then doing something  218):  Only agents capable of r e c o g n i z i n g what they ought to do are capable of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . It i s an i r r a t i o n a l i t y p a r a s i t i c on r a t i o n a l i t y . ( S a b l n i & S i l v e r , 1982, p. 130) The  authors o u t l i n e four a s p e c t s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  which underscore the 1.  One  i r r a t i o n a l i t y of the  behaviour.  meets a l e s s Important o b l i g a t i o n In order  to  14. a v o i d a more important w r i t i n g a term paper,  obligation.  one does housework.  accomplishments as equal and behaves i n an 2.  One  irrational  irrational  i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e , the  behaviour 3.  Individual  c a l c u l a t i o n s w i t h i n an  For example, a d e c i s i o n t o watch  t e l e v i s i o n " f o r Just f i v e minutes" decision  By t r e a t i n g the  manner.  makes r a t i o n a l  time frame.  For example, i n s t e a d of  i s repeated u n t i l  i s r a t i o n a l , but when the  there i s no time  i s s e l f - d e f e a t i n g and  left,  then  irrational.  One with a " f i x e d I n t e n t i o n " t o accomplish  a task,  e x h i b i t s "wavering m o t i v a t i o n " ( S i l v e r & S a b i n i , 1981, 218).  the  p.  Here the i n d i v i d u a l m a i n t a i n s a r e a d i n e s s to work,  but becomes e a s i l y d i s t r a c t e d thereby a c c o m p l i s h i n g For example, b r i n g i n g books on v a c a t i o n with the of completing a paper and then f o r g o i n g l e i s u r e dramatizes t o the i n d i v i d u a l However, because he i s not completed.  little.  intention activities,  h i s commitment to work.  i s d i s t r a c t e d by His i r r a t i o n a l i t y  I r r e l e v a n t t r i v i a , work lies  in h i s maintenance  of a r e a d i n e s s to work, or " p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n f i e l d " , and h i s u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o make a c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n t o postpone work activities. 4.  One  has very high standards f o r accomplishment but  l a c k s a p l a n which would f a c i l i t a t e t h i s achievement. p e r f e c t i o n i s m and d e f i c i e n t p l a n n i n g may p e r s e v e r a t i o n , a behaviour which i s involvement  with  Here,  r e s u l t in  marked by o b s e s s i v e  l e s s a n x i e t y - p r o d u c i n g a s p e c t s of the task.  15. P e r s e v e r a t i o n p r e v e n t s involvement with those a s p e c t s which are  necessary f o r task completion.  i n d i v i d u a l may  For example, an  r e w r i t e the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a paper many  times so as t o c r e a t e a " p e r f e c t " p i e c e of work, but i n so doing r e a l l y a v o i d s the main task i t s e l f . marked by  T h i s behaviour i s  irrationality.  C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o u r a l Theory and  Cognitive-behavioural  Treatment  theory Is s p e c i f i c a l l y  concerned  with the Impact of c o g n i t i o n s on behaviour and emotion. I t s t h e r a p e u t i c methods aim at m o d i f y i n g a c t i o n s and f e e l i n g s by changing i r r a t i o n a l maladaptive  b e l i e f s , dysfunctional  internal  speech.  thoughts or  The major proponents of  c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o u r theory are E l l i s and Beck whose t h e o r i e s and treatment of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n are summarized below. RatIonal-Emotive  Therapy  R a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e therapy, developed p r i m a r i l y by A l b e r t Ellis  (1970), assumes that  irrational  thoughts, which stem  from the b e l i e f system of an i n d i v i d u a l , are at the root of most p s y c h o l o g i c a l  d i s t u r b a n c e . The c e n t r a l  s t a t e d i n E l l i s ' A-B-C  paradigm  theory of RET i s  (1977) as f o l l o w s :  Point A  r e f e r s to the a c t i v a t i n g experience or e x t e r n a l event impinges on an i n d i v i d u a l . rational  Point B r e f e r s to b e l i e f s ,  or I r r a t i o n a l , which g i v e r i s e to a c h a i n  that  16. of  thoughts  ( s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s or s e l f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n s )  r e s u l t i n g i n emotional  and behavioural consequences at P o i n t  C. The  f o l l o w i n g example w i l l  paradigm:  the i n d i v i d u a l  or s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s :  too much work and with my  A-B-C  the assignment of a term composition  a c t i v a t i n g event; thoughts  i l l u s t r a t e the  friends,  responds with  i s the these  "I can't do t h i s paper.  I ' l l probably  fail  anyway.  i n s t e a d " ; the emotional  It's  I ' l l go out  and behavioural  consequences are a n x i e t y , d e p r e s s i o n and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . B e l i e f s are s a i d to be r a t i o n a l  i f they can be  verified  by e m p i r i c a l data, are a p p r o p r i a t e to a given r e a l i t y , result  l n adaptive emotional  and behavioural  consequences  that f u r t h e r the b a s i c g o a l s of the i n d i v i d u a l E l l i s & Knaus, 1977). empirically  B e l i e f s are i r r a t i o n a l  f a l s e , u n s u i t a b l e to the r e a l i t y  o c c u r r i n g , and r e s u l t  (Ellis, i f they  1977; are  that i s  i n n e g a t i v e , s e i f - d e s t r u c t i v e or  s e l f - d e f e a t i n g emotional Irrational  and  and behavioural  consequences.  b e l i e f s s t i m u l a t e o v e r - r e a c t i o n s , such as rage or  a n x i e t y , or u n d e r - r e a c t i o n s , such as i n e r t i a ( E l l i s & Knaus, 1977). E l l i s and Knaus (1977) have i d e n t i f i e d three  irrational  b e l i e f s that lead to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : a) self-downing, low f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e and c) h o s t i l i t y . or a b e l i e f  i n one's worth 1essness,  b)  Self-downing,  stems from the  17. e s c a l a t i o n t o " a b s o l u t l s t i c , dogmatic, d i r e n e c e s s i t i e s " ( E l l i s 8. Knaus, 1977, p. 15) the d e s i r e t o perform adequately  or to a t t a i n the love o r approval  tasks  of o t h e r s .  When those d e s i r e s that one assumes "should",  "ought" or  "must" be a t t a i n e d are not r e a l i z e d , the r e s u l t  isa  " p u t t i n g down of o n e s e l f " , which i n turn leads t o depression,  a n x i e t y , hopelessness  and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . E l l i s  and Knaus (1977) I l l u s t r a t e the e f f e c t s of  self-downing:  Your a b s o l u t l s t i c demand ( r a t h e r than your r e l a t i v i s t i c d e s i r e ) t o do well at almost anything, then, may impel you t o a v o i d doing that t h i n g on time or t o f i n d an excuse f o r never doing i t at all. T h i s demand, and the a n x i e t y t o which i t almost i n e v i t a b l y leads, w i l l sap your e n e r g i e s , take away your i n c e n t i v e f o r f i n i s h i n g important t a s k s , focus your a t t e n t i o n on o t h e r s ' o p i n i o n s r a t h e r than on the value of a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a p r o j e c t , convince you that no good reason e x i s t s f o r doing many t h i n g s , minimize your Joy In a c t i v e l y doing something, s i d e t r a c k you from g a i n i n g s k i l l and ease at performance; and In many other ways sabotage your b u c k l i n g down t o do t h i n g s , ( p . 16) Low f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e , the second d i r e c t cause of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ( E l l i s 8, Knaus, 1977), Involves the hedonist I n s i s t e n c e that l i f e ought t o be easy and that one's wants ought t o be g r a t i f i e d to s u f f e r short-term  immediately.  The i n d i v i d u a l  refuses  d i s c o m f o r t s or u n p l e a s a n t r i e s , d e s p i t e  long term b e n e f i t s , and so p r o c r a s t i n a t e s .  For example, an  I n d i v i d u a l might postpone s t u d y i n g t o a v o i d the s t r e s s and tedium a s s o c i a t e d with  t h i s task and, d e s p i t e the long-term  gains that accompany academic success, short-term aval 1.  p l e a s u r e s that an evening  I n s i s t on the  of s o c i a l i z i n g would  18. E l l i s and Knaus (1977) i d e n t i f y h o s t i l i t y as the t h i r d Irrational belief of  that precedes p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  h o s t i l i t y , anger, resentment  Feelings  or rage are generated when  u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s about how  one ought  to be  treated  by o t h e r s are v i o l a t e d . Given the b e l i e f that the w o r l d i n g e n e r a l , and people i n p a r t i c u l a r , ought t o be f a i r and t r e a t you w e l l , then, i f they don't, you won't t r y y o u ' l l show them by p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . (Rorer, 1983, p. 2) A c c o r d i n g t o E l l i s and Knaus (1977), s e l f - d o w n i n g and  low  f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e are more p r e v a l e n t causes of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n than  hostility.  The goal of r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e therapy i s t o change the c l i e n t ' s p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n behaviour and negative emotions directly disputing h i s irrational  beliefs.  therapist  i n the examination  i s to a s s i s t  the c l i e n t  a l t e r a t i o n of those b e l i e f s through d i r e c t  The task of the  Arnkuff, Cognitive  and  instruction,  verbal p e r s u a s i o n , p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e feedback, c o g n i t i v e r e h e a r s a l , and performance  by  assignments  modeling,  (Mahoney &  1978). Theory  C o g n i t i v e theory, an approach  developed by Aaron  i s s i m i l a r to rational-emot1ve therapy i n that  Beck,  i t emphasizes  the r o l e of aberrant c o g n i t i o n s i n the development of  psychological  disorders.  e x p e r i e n c e s and  Each I n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t e s  r e g u l a t e s h i s behaviour a c c o r d i n g  of fundamental b e l i e f s , or program of r u l e s , o u t s i d e of the awareness of the person. r i s e to s e l f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n s and automatic thoughts. a r b i t r a r y may  These r u l e s g i v e  v i s u a l images c a l l e d or  f a u l t y or d y s f u n c t i o n a l  which in turn generate negative  to a set  operating  Rules that are absolute  stimulate  his  emotions and  too thoughts,  maladaptive  behaviour (Beck, 1976). I n d i v i d u a l s with p s y c h o l o g i c a l  disorders  typically  e x h i b i t e r r o r s in t h i n k i n g c a l l e d " c o g n i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n s " . These d i s t o r t i o n s include p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n , p o l a r i z e d thinking, s e l e c t i v e a b s t r a c t i o n , a r b i t r a r y inference overgenerallzatlon  and  (Beck, 1976).  Personalization  i s the  incorrect referral  events to o n e s e l f .  For example, one may  cause of a negative  event f o r which one was  of  external  see oneself not  as  the  responsible.  P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n a l s o r e f e r s to s i t u a t i o n s In which i n d i v i d u a l s compare themselves with o t h e r s . hearing  that another student has won  must be dumb or I would have won p.  "A  student,  a p r i z e , t h i n k s , 'I  the p r i z e . ' " (Beck,  1976,  92). P o l a r i z e d , or " a l l - o r - n o t h i n g " , t h i n k i n g (Burns, 1980a)  r e f e r s to the tendency to evaluate  oneself  In extremes.  20. T h i s d i s t o r t i o n forms the b a s i s f o r p e r f e c t i o n i s m , self-downing  and  ( E l l i s & Knaus, 1977), which lead to  p r o c r a s t i nat i on. S e l e c t i v e a b s t r a c t i o n , or mental f i l t e r i n g 1980a), i s the tendency to focus on negative context.  For example, a student  Arbitrary  Inference  evidence.  of  she  ignores or f o r g e t s the  of her answers were c o r r e c t . r e f e r s to the tendency to Jump to  c o n c l u s i o n s or make negative supporting  d e t a i l s out  becomes depressed as  d w e l l s on her exam e r r o r s but she f a c t that the m a j o r i t y  (Burns,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which  A student  may  lack  avoid a p a r t i c u l a r  assignment because he assumes, without cause, that  failure  is inevitable. Overgeneralization  i s an u n j u s t i f i e d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  based on a s i n g l e experience. conclude that he  i s complete f a i l u r e due  T h i s i s r e l a t e d to personal casts himself  to one  poor mark.  l a b e l l i n g whereby an i n d i v i d u a l  and  l a b e l l i n g , as can  the other  cognitive  lead to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  David Burns, an a s s o c i a t e of Aaron Beck's, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as an aspect Cycle":  may  as a " f a i l u r e " or as " l a z y " .  Overgeneralization distortions,  For example, a student  of depression  and  formulates the  "Lethargy  21 . S e i f - d e f e a t i n g thoughts: There's no p o i n t in doing anything...I'11 probably f a i l i f I t r y . Things are too d i f f i c u l t . I don't f e e l l i k e doing anything, so I don't have t o . . . S e l f - d e f e a t i n g emotions: You f e e l t i r e d , bored, apathetic, seif-hating...helpless... Self-defeating actions: ...You a v o i d people, work, and a l l p o t e n t i a l l y s a t i s f y i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Consequences...: ...Your decreased p r o d u c t i v i t y conv i n c e s you that you a c t u a l l y are Inadequate... (Burns, 1980a, p.80) Burns (1980a) o u t l i n e s 13 mind-sets a s s o c i a t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , or "do-nothingism". hopelessness, h e l p l e s s n e s s , to c o n c l u s i o n s , perfectionism,  are:  overwhelming y o u r s e l f ,  s e i f - l a b e l i n g , u n d e r v a l u i n g the  Jumping  rewards,  f e a r of f a i l u r e , f e a r of success, f e a r of  c r i t i c i s m or d i s a p p r o v a l , low-frustration As  They  with  tolerance,  coercion  and  g u i l t and  in r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e  resentment,  self-blame.  therapy, the g o a l s of  cognitive  therapy are to h e l p the c l i e n t become aware of e r r o r s in t h i n k i n g , r e c o g n i z e the negative impact of those thoughts, and  substitute  the maladaptive thoughts with more o b j e c t i v e  and  adaptive t h i n k i n g patterns.  There are  however, between r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e having to do with t h e r a p e u t i c d i d a c t i c and  confrontational  client's irrational  thoughts.  and  style.  differences,  cognitive Ellis'  latter discovers  thoughts  approach i s  ln that he o v e r t l y d i s p u t e s Beck, in c o n t r a s t ,  c o l l a b o r a t i v e approach between t h e r a p i s t and the  therapy  f o r himself  the  (Mahoney & A r n k o f f , 1978).  the  stresses  c l i e n t wherein  inaccuracy of  his  Burns, f o r example,  a  22. asks p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s  to keep a D a l l y Record of  Dysfunctional  Thoughts aimed at exposing i n a c c u r a t e c o g n i t i o n s 1980a).  (Burns,  Furthermore, c l i e n t s are encouraged to t e s t  v a l i d i t y of personal performance.  To  hypotheses through a c t i v e  t h i s end,  Burns recommends  the  behavioural  14  s e l f - a c t 1 vat ion e x e r c i s e s f o r p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , a l l of which mobilize  the c l i e n t and  t a r g e t d i s t o r t i o n s In t h i n k i n g  processes.  Related  Behavioural T h e o r i e s and of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  Treatments  A t t r l b M t l p n Theory A t t r i b u t i o n theory  i s concerned with the way  in which  I n d i v i d u a l s a s c r i b e causes f o r the a c t i o n s of themselves others  ( A n t a k l , 1982).  and  It Is a l s o concerned with the e f f e c t  of a t t r i b u t i o n s on f u t u r e c o g n i t i o n s , emotions  and  behav1 our. The  e a r l y a t t r i b u t i o n theory  of F r i t z Heider (1958)  suggested that people e x p l a i n behaviour by a t t r i b u t i n g either  Internal  causes.  (personal)  T h i s formulation  or e x t e r n a l was  (environmental)  l a t e r extended by Welner to a  mode] of achievement m o t i v a t i o n  (1982).  the m o t i v a t i o n  Is Influenced by  perception (Antakl,  of an  Individual  Welner argued that  of the causes of past successes and  1982).  his  failures  23. These a t t r i b u t i o n s t y p i c a l l y f a l l 1.  ability,  luck.  2. e f f o r t , 3. task d i f f i c u l t y  These elements may  dimensions: first  i n t o four  be c l a s s i f i e d  and  categories:  4. chance or  along  two  i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l and s t a b l e - u n s t a b l e .  The  dimension, I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l , p e r t a i n s to locus of  control.  Ability  possessed by  the  and  I n d i v i d u a l , and  under one's c o n t r o l . external of the  e f f o r t both r e f e r to q u a l i t i e s  Task d i f f i c u l t y  and  internal  and  chance are  f a c t o r s , however, which are not under the c o n t r o l  individual.  The  second dimension,  r e l a t e s to the s t a b i l i t y achievement. they do not unstable  are t h e r e f o r e  Ability  stable-unstable,  of the four components i n f l u e n c i n g  and  task d i f f i c u l t y  change over time;  are s t a b l e because  luck and e f f o r t , however, are  because they are s u b j e c t  to change (Covington &  Beery, 1976). These dimensions Influence a f f e c t i v e and behavioural  the  reactions.  individual's cognitive, An a t t r i b u t i o n of  success to i n t e r n a l causes, such as a b i l i t y , w i l l  likely  enhance s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and promote f u r t h e r achievement whereas an a t t r i b u t i o n of success to e x t e r n a l  causes, such  as luck, w i l l  have a n e g l i g i b l e impact on  future  performance.  Likewise,  attributes failure  to I n t e r n a l and despair that  an  i n d i v i d u a l who  s t a b l e f a c t o r s , such as a b i l i t y ,  of ever doing b e t t e r .  I n d i v i d u a l s who  Indeed, research  are depressed,  will indicates  test-anxious,  24. socially-anxious,  low i n s e l f - e s t e e m or low i n  achievement-motivation (Grecco,  t y p i c a l l y make such  attributions  1984).  However, i n d i v i d u a l s who a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e t o i n t e r n a l but u n s t a b l e causes, such as lack of e f f o r t , w i l l  maintain  hope f o r f u t u r e s u c c e s s f u l performance (Burka & Yuen, 1983). It  i s i n t h i s way that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n can be seen as a  s t r a t e g y which p r o t e c t s s e l f - e s t e e m and defends a g a i n s t the experience of f a i l u r e and concomitant  depression.  ( P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ) does ensure that a b i l i t y i s never completely t e s t e d . I f s t u d e n t s , a f t e r p u t t i n g o f f e f f o r t u n t i l the l a s t minute, f i n a l l y perform at a "mediocre" l e v e l , they can always say i t was a last-minute j o b , c e r t a i n l y not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e i r true c a p a b i l i t i e s . And, on the other hand, i f they do very w e l l , i t enhances t h e i r sense of ability. (Beery, 1975, p. 201) P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a l l o w s i n d i v i d u a l s t o take comfort belief  i n the  that t h e i r performance does not a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t  their a b i l i t y .  In a s o c i e t y which equates performance with  a b i l i t y , and both with s e l f - w o r t h , many i n d i v i d u a l s f i n d the a t t r i b u t i o n of f a i l u r e t o a b i l i t y (Beery,  1975).  t o be very t h r e a t e n i n g  A c c o r d i n g t o Beery, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  breaks  the performance equals a b i l i t y equation because a complete e f f o r t has not been made.  Thus, one's sense of s e l f - w o r t h  can be p r e s e r v e d . Besides p r o t e c t i n g s e l f - e s t e e m , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n s t r e n g t h e n s m o t i v a t i o n f o r f u t u r e work.  Bandura t h e o r i z e d  25. that e x p e c t a t i o n s of personal e f f i c a c y e f f o r t and p e r s i s t e n c e .  influence motivation,  A t t r i b u t i o n of f a i l u r e to lack of  e f f o r t r e s u l t s i n the s u s t a i n i n g of hope and  i n the  enhancement of e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s , whereas " s t r o n g e f f o r t that produces f a i l u r e weakens e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s , r e d u c i n g m o t i v a t i o n to perform p.  the a c t i v i t y "  thereby  (Bandura,  1977,  162).  Behavioural The  S e l f - C o n t r o l Theory  aim of behavioural s e l f - c o n t r o l  i s to p r o v i d e  c l i e n t s s t r a t e g i e s f o r m o d i f y i n g t h e i r own approach u t i l i z e s the operant and contingency  behaviour.  techniques of s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l  reinforcement, a l o n g with the c o g n i t i v e  techniques of self-mon1 t o r i n g and s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n . client her own  This  The  i s t r a i n e d to use these approaches to c o n t r o l h i s or responses  (Mahoney 8. A r n k o f f , 1978).  Stimulus c o n t r o l the environment.  The  i s a technique which r e l i e s on cues i n frequency  of a behaviour,  s t u d y i n g , i s r e i n f o r c e d in the presence  such  of c e r t a i n  as  stimuli.  In the study s k i l l s and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n r e s e a r c h i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h i s procedure,  s u b j e c t s have been  instructed  to e s t a b l i s h a set time and p l a c e to study, to remove a l l d i s t r a c t i o n s from the area, to do a l l s t u d y i n g at that p l a c e and to a v o i d doing anything e l s e there (Beneke & H a r r i s ,  26. 1972;  H a r r i s 8. Ream, 1972; H a r r i s 8, T r u j i l l o ,  1975; Lopez &  Wambach, 1982; R i c h a r d s , 1975; Z i e s a t , Rosenthal, & White, 1978).  Several s e l f - h e l p and popular psychology books make  s i m i l a r s u g g e s t i o n s f o r d e a l i n g with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 1983;  E l l i s & Knaus, 1977; M o r r i s 8, Charney, 1983).  basic  intent  behaviour  i s to increase stimuli  The  a s s o c i a t e d with adaptive  ( s t u d y i n g ) and t o reduce s t i m u l i  u n d e s i r a b l e responses  (Bliss,  a s s o c i a t e d with  (procrastination).  Evidence r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s t i m u l u s control  i s somewhat c o n f l i c t i n g .  found s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l  A number of s t u d i e s which  to be e f f e c t i v e have used  procedure  l n combined treatment  difficult  t o determine which technique produced  this  formats and t h e r e f o r e i t i s the r e s u l t s  (Beneke 8. H a r r i s , 1972; H a r r i s 8. Ream, 1972; H a r r i s & Trujillo,  1975; Lopez 8. Wambach, 1982; Z i e s a t , Rosenthal, 8.  White, 1978).  In a study by C. Steven R i c h a r d s (1975), i t  was found that s t i m u l u s - c o n t r o l f o r s t u d y i n g was not as e f f e c t i v e as other Contingency  approaches.  reinforcement techniques  involve  s e i f - a d m i n i s t e r e d rewards or punishments subsequent to c e r t a i n responses.  S e l f - r e w a r d , used t o Increase the  frequency of an a c t i v i t y ,  i s contingent on the occurrence of  some d e s i r e d response, such as s t u d y i n g . asked t o l i s t  favorite  I n d i v i d u a l s are  l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s , such as watching  t e l e v i s i o n , r e a d i n g f a v o r i t e books, shopping or p l a y i n g  27. s p o r t s and t o engage i n one of these a c t i v i t i e s f o l l o w i n g task completion (Beneke 8, H a r r i s , 1972; Green, 1982; 8. K a r o l y ,  1976; Z i e s a t , Rosenthal,  Self-reward  Greiner  8. White, 1978).  i s a technique recommended o f t e n  psychology and time management l i t e r a t u r e  i n the popular  ( B l i s s , 1983;  Burka 8, Yuen, 1983? E l l i s 8. Knaus, 1977; Knaus, 1979; Mackenzie 8. Waldo, 1981; M o r r i s 8. Charney, 1983; Porat, 1980;  Scott,  1980).  Evidence on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s e l f - r e w a r d i n Improving academic behaviours i s not c o n s i s t e n t . and Karoly  (1976) found s e l f - r e w a r d d i d not enhance the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of study s k i l l s  a d v i c e , whereas two s t u d i e s  (Green, 1982; Z i e s a t et a l . , 1978) found that was e f f e c t i v e  self-reward  in increasing studying.  Self-punishment stimulus  Greiner  i s a technique i n which  aversive  i s self-administered (or a p o s i t i v e stimulus i s  self-removed) subsequent t o the occurrence of an u n d e s l r e d response (Mahoney 8c A r n k o f f ,  1978).  In the l i t e r a t u r e ,  punishments f o r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n behaviour 1)  include:  denying y o u r s e l f something you d e s i r e (Beneke &  H a r r i s , 1972; Knaus, 1979); 2) 1972;  E l l i s 8, Knaus, 1977); 3)  you  p e r f o r m i n g unpleasant chores (Beneke 8. H a r r i s ,  f i n i n g y o u r s e l f or sending money t o an o r g a n i z a t i o n  abhor ( M o r r i s 8. Charney, 1983);  28. 4)  wearing a rubber band on your w r i s t and  y o u r s e l f with  snapping  i t a f t e r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n begins (Knaus,  Z i e s a t et a l . ,  1979;  1978).  Z i e s a t , Rosenthal  and White (1978) found no evidence  that  seif-punishment reduced p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of s t u d y i n g . Seif-mon1 t o r i n g i s a procedure by which an  individual  observes and r e c o r d s h i s or her own  behaviour  purpose  Again, s e v e r a l  of g u i d i n g f u t u r e a c t i o n s .  recommend s e i f-mon 1 t o r i n g approaches Burns,  1980a; E l l i s 8. Knaus, 1977;  f o r the authors  (Burka 8. Yuen,  1983;  Knaus, 1979), although  evidence r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s technique i n a l t e r i n g academic behaviour  i s inconsistent.  found that s e i f - m o n i t o r i n g alone does not behaviour  (Bristol  K a r o l y , 1976;  8, Sloane, 1974;  S t u d i e s have  improve study  Green, 1982;  G r e i n e r 8.  Z i e s a t , Rosenthal, 8, White, 1978). However,  s e i f - m o n i t o r i n g combined with other techniques, such  as  study a d v i c e ( R i c h a r d s , McReynolds, H o l t , 8. Sexton,  1976)  and s e l f - r e w a r d (Green,  1982)  is effective  in i n c r e a s i n g  academic behaviours. Two  s t u d i e s attempted  to teach secondary  s t u d e n t s techniques of s e l f - c o n t r o l  of study  school behaviour.  Methodological problems in the H a r r i s and Ream (1972) study prevented c l e a r  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s . However, i n  the H a r r i s and T r u j i l l o (1975) study,  self-control  29. procedures in a combined treatment format were found to effective  be  in improving the study h a b i t s of j u n i o r secondary  students.  Cognitive  Antecedents of  Procrastination  As t h i s study used P a t r i c k Grecco's self-statement  inventory  (1984), the e i g h t  cognitive  antecedents of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n which have been i d e n t i f i e d Grecco as most f r e q u e n t l y  appearing in the  which form the b a s i s of the s e c t i o n of the  literature,  e i g h t areas of  t h i n k i n g a s s o c i a t e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n are  poor p l a n n i n g , Low  self-esteem  t h i n k i n g and  f e a r of s u c c e s s , r i s k t a k i n g ,  depression and  and  anxiety  and  Inventory, are examined in t h i s  l i t e r a t u r e review. The  f e a r of f a i l u r e ,  by  low  perfectionism, hostility,  f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance.  r e l a t e to s e v e r a l  areas of  are d e a l t with throughout.  Perfectionism Perfectionism throughout the Knaus, 1977;  i s causally  l i n k e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  l i t e r a t u r e (Burka & Yuen, 1983;  Knaus, 1979;  E l l i s 8,  Solomon 8. Rothblum, 1984).  d e f i n e s a p e r f e c t i o n i s t as one who  has  Burns  set u n a t t a i n a b l e  and  30. unreasonable standards f o r h i m s e l f , s t r i v e s  compulsively  towards unreachable g o a l s , and equates h i s sense of s e l f - w o r t h with h i s accomplishments (Burns, 1980b). neurotic perfectionism healthy  i s to be d i s t i n q u l s h e d from  r e v e a l e d not so much ln o u t s t a n d i n g behavior",  as ln impossible  a t t i t u d e s , which hinder and  achievement or " p e r f e c t unrealistic  i n h i b i t , r a t h e r than motivate,  U n r e a l i s t i c standards set one  up  E l l i s 8. Knaus, 1977).  f o r disappointment  and  s e i f - a p p r a i s a l , which in turn f o s t e r a n x i e t y ,  depression, (Grecco,  Perfectionism i s  standards and  i n d i v i d u a l (Burka & Yuen, 1983;  negative  the  p u r s u i t of e x c e l l e n c e , r e f e r r e d to by Hamachek as  normal p e r f e c t i o n i s m (Hamachek, 1978).  an  This  and withdrawl  1984).  from performance s i t u a t i o n s  Burns (1980b) i d e n t i f i e s three e r r o r s in  t h i n k i n g common to p e r f e c t i o n i s t s : thinking ( i . e . ,  " a l l or  " I f I don't get an A,  I'm  a  nothing" failure"),  o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ("Since I f a i l e d today, I ' l l always f a i l " ) and highest  "should"  grade").  statements ("I  should always achieve  These c o g n i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n s lead to  ruminations that are non-productive and  seif-critical  (Burns, 1980b). Burka and Yuen (1983) i d e n t i f y s i x p e r f e c t i o n i s t b e l i e f s which are a s s o c i a t e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . 1.  " M e d i o c r i t y Breeds Contempt":  the p e r f e c t i o n i s t  b e l i e v e s that h i s or her everyday performance must match  the  31. that of h i s or her ideal s e l f , and when i t does not, he f e e l s mediocre.  Comfort  i s found i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  the mediocre or average performance  because  can be a t t r i b u t e d t o  last-minute e f f o r t , r a t h e r than lack of a b i l i t y . 2.  " E x c e l l e n c e Without E f f o r t " :  the p e r f e c t i o n i s t  b e l i e v e s that a l l t a s k s must be accomplished with ease. When c o n f r o n t e d with d i f f i c u l t put f o r t h e f f o r t , 3. it  t a s k s , disappointment at having t o  leads to avoidance or d e l a y .  "Going I t Alone":  the p e r f e c t i o n i s t b e l i e v e s that  i s a s i g n of weakness t o delegate t a s k s or t o seek  a s s i s t a n c e , and so, when work becomes overwhelming, s/he p r o c r a s t i n a t e s Instead. 4.  "There I s a Right Way":  r a t h e r than r i s k making a  wrong d e c i s i o n or c h o i c e , a p e r f e c t i o n i s t may e n d l e s s l y postpone decision-making. 5.  "I Can't Stand t o Lose":  p e r f e c t i o n i s t s may a v o i d  a c t i v i t i e s that b r i n g them i n t o d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n with others. 6.  " A l l or Nothing":  p e r f e c t i o n i s t s with  a t t i t u d e are not s a t i s f i e d with only a p a r t i a l of t h e i r g o a l s .  this achievement  They become d i s c o u r a g e d when e v e r y t h i n g  they s e t out t o do i s not accomplished, when t h i n g s do not turn out e x a c t l y as planned, when they perform well but not p e r f e c t l y , or when the r e c o g n i t i o n they f e e l not forthcoming.  they deserve i s  32. In each case c i t e d above, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n serves protective function Justify  in that  i t a l l o w s an  i n d i v i d u a l to  lowered performance e x p e c t a t i o n s  about performance i s assuaged and  a  so that  self-esteem  anxiety  i s not  threatened. Fear of F a l l u r e Fear of f a i l u r e by s e v e r a l  authors (Beery, 1975;  Yuen, 1983; 1981;  i s c i t e d as a cause of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Bliss,  Burns, 1980a; Knaus, 1979;  Solomon 8, Rothblum, 1984).  1976,  1983;  Mackenzie 8. Waldo,  Although there  i s a vast  l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to f e a r of f a i l u r e , anxiety achievement m o t i v a t i o n  that  and  i s beyond the scope of  study, a s p e c t s of the t o p i c r e l e v a n t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n are  Burka 8,  this  to c o g n i t i v e theory  and  reviewed.  Grecco (1984) d e f i n e s f e a r of f a i l u r e as "a f e e l i n g of anxiety  associated  in c e r t a i n persons with the tendency to  avoid s i t u a t i o n s involving evaluation failure"  (p. 59).  represents wrote:  According  the p o s s i b i l i t y  to c o g n i t i v e theory,  a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s or an  "The  and  s p e c i f i c psychological  ideation.  fear  Beck (1976)  p r o c e s s i s the  awareness, r e c o g n i t i o n , a n t i c i p a t i o n that something undesirable  may  occur." (p. 137).  emotional s t a t e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  Anxiety, tension,  of  however, i s an  nervousness,  33. shakiness and even f e e l i n g s of t e r r o r (Beck, anxiety  1976). As  i s an key component of both f e a r of f a i l u r e and i t s  concomitant  " p a r a l y s i s of w i l l "  (Beck,  1967), the  d i s t i n c t i o n between f e a r and a n x i e t y i s an Important one. Fear of f a i l u r e i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o p e r f e c t i o n i s m . Individuals  experience f e e l i n g s of a n x i e t y and d e p r e s s i o n  when t h e i r p e r f e c t i o n i s t i d e a l s a r e not achieved (Knaus, 1979).  Failure  objective rather  Is not n e c e s s a r i l y  determined  by an  s t a n d a r d ( i . e . , a f a i l i n g grade on an exam) but  i s a subjective  c r i t e r i o n or an i n t e r n a l i z e d standard  which In some cases may be unreasonably  high ( i . e . , a f i r s t  c l a s s student can view a second c l a s s performance as a f a i l u r e ) (Beery,  1975).  Fear of f a i l u r e i s l i n k e d t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s lack of self-confidence,  or p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n  When i n d i v i d u a l s view themselves they have s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e However, an I n d i v i d u a l  as equal  (Grecco,  1984).  t o a task, then  (Covington 8, Beery,  1976).  may have high standards but  i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n h i s or her a b i l i t y .  Their  negative s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n may r e s u l t i n negative  emotional  consequences, such as a n x i e t y , g u i l t or sadness (Grecco, 1984).  In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , a n x i e t y and other negative  emotions I n t e r f e r e with f a c i l i t a t l v e  thinking  processes  ( i . e . , problem s o l v i n g thoughts) and t a s k - r e l e v a n t  behavior  (Grecco, 1984; W i l l i a m s , 1982), r e s u l t i n g i n task  avoidance  or  procrastination.  34. Fear of f a i l u r e r e l a t e s to two important the l i t e r a t u r e .  The f i r s t  "personal e f f i c a c y " individuals will  concepts i n  i s Bandura's theory  (Bandura, 1977).  be more l i k e l y  regarding  Bandura argued that  t o perform  t a s k s when they  are convinced that they w i l l  be e f f e c t i v e . A negative sense  of s e l f - e f f i c a c y w i l l  i n task-avoidance.  The  result  second important  anxiety on performance. of c o g n i t i v e responses  concept  i n v o l v e s the impact of  W i l l i a m s (1982) d i s c u s s e d two types d u r i n g task performance:  t a s k - r e l e v a n t and t a s k - i r r e l e v a n t  reponses.  T a s k - r e l e v a n t responses a r e o r g a n i z i n g s e l f - t a l k responses which are h e l p f u l t o performance (e.g. I must t r y harder, I must c o n c e n t r a t e , go more s l o w l y , etc.). T a s k - i r r e l e v a n t responses are d i s o r g a n i z i n g s e l f - t a l k responses which are u n h e l p f u l t o performance (e.g. I can't do t h i s task, e t c . ) . (p. 197) W i l l i a m s p o i n t e d out that anxious respond  i n d i v i d u a l s tend t o  t o t a s k s with t a s k - i r r e l e v a n t s e l f - t a l k which  i n t e r f e r e s with task  completion.  Meichenbaum and h i s a s s o c i a t e s i d e n t i f i e d a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n common t o i n d i v i d u a l s who f e a r f a i l u r e and negative evaluation  in stressful  achievement s i t u a t i o n s . T h i s p a t t e r n  i n v o l v e s c o g n i t i o n s or s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s that are task i r r e l e v a n t , negative s e l f - r e f e r e n t , c a t a s t r o p h i c , and s p i r a l i n g downward ( i . e . , negative c o g n i t i o n s r e s u l t i n negative emotions which i n t u r n r e s u l t  i n f u r t h e r negative  c o g n i t i o n s ) (Meichenbaum, Henshaw, & Himel,  1982).  35. Fear of f a i l u r e r e s u l t s in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n because negative c o g n i t i o n s and because the  a f f e c t I n h i b i t task completion,  I n d i v i d u a l seeks to a v o i d the  and  adversive  performance s i t u a t i o n . Fear of Success Fear of success has been c i t e d by s e v e r a l reason why  individuals procrastinate  Rorer, 1983; out  that,  authors as a  (Burka & Yuen,  Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  1983;  Rorer (1983) p o i n t s  In f a c t , i t i s the consequences of success that  are f e a r e d .  He  i d e n t i f i e s examples of the way  in which t h i s  f e a r leads to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . 1.  An  because he  I n d i v i d u a l may  f e a r s b e i n g set up  future s i t u a t i o n course, the work.  2.  An  in some  too s u c c e s s f u l  ln t h i s  fall,  and  more d i f f i c u l t  show everyone how  stupid I  i n d i v i d u a l p r o c r a s t i n a t e s because he lead to a p u n i s h i n g  too s u c c e s s f u l  3.  " I f I am  failure  am.")  success w i l l  I wi11  (i.e.,  for greater  teacher might want to a s s i g n me  Then I wi11  r e a l 1y  a v o i d success i n one s i t u a t i o n  An  situation, (i.e.,  in s c h o o l , other s t u d e n t s w i l l  lose a l l my  f e a r s that  not  "If I like  friends.")  i n d i v i d u a l avoids d e a l i n g with  important  am  me,  36. personal (i.e.,  i s s u e s by never f i n i s h i n g  l e s s important  by not f i n i s h i n g s t u d y i n g , one never has t o face  one's u n s a t i s f a c t o r y personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . success  tasks  i s not a t t a i n e d so that important  Therefore,  Issues can be  avoided. In each case, p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n p r o t e c t s the i n d i v i d u a l from concomitants  of success p e r c e i v e d t o be i n t o l e r a b l e .  Risk Taking I n d i v i d u a l s may r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n by c l a i m i n g that they work best under p r e s s u r e and so leave tasks u n t i l  the "eleventh hour" q u i t e i n t e n t i o n a l l y ( E l l i s &  Knaus, 1977).  S c o t t (1980) suggests  that people do r e q u i r e  s t i m u l a t i o n , and, f o r some, a last-minute rush can p r o v i d e excitement.  Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that some  s t u d e n t s enjoyed deadlines.  the t h r i l l  of f i n i s h i n g work Just b e f o r e  The r i s k t a k i n g of some p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s has been  d e s c r i b e d by Burka and Yuen  (1983):  Many p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s d e s c r i b e the t h r i l l of b e i n g on the b r i n k of d i s a s t e r . They f e e l e l a t e d when, by d e l a y i n g , they take a s i t u a t i o n t o i t s l i m i t s and emerge v i c t o r i o u s . As one p r o c r a s t i n a t o r d e s c r i b e d , " I t ' s l i k e w a l k i n g a l o n g a very narrow c l i f f and t r y i n g to see how c l o s e you can get t o the edge b e f o r e f a l l i n g o f f . ( p . 48) By  i n c r e a s i n g the r i s k of f a i l i n g or doing p o o r l y ,  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a l l o w s some i n d i v i d u a l s t o f e e l  s p e c i a l when  37. they a r e able to be s u c c e s s f u l d e s p i t e the o b s t a c l e s of time (Burka 8. Yuen, 1983). Host 1 1 i t v P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n becomes an a c t of h o s t i l i t y when I n d i v i d u a l s postpone t a s k s i n order to r e t a l i a t e a g a i n s t o t h e r s (Burka 8, Yuen, 1983).  Burka and Yuen (1983) present  cases wherein i n d i v i d u a l s who f e e l h u r t , s l i g h t e d and betrayed by o t h e r s f i g h t back by d e l a y i n g on tasks.  E l l i s and Knaus (1977) suggest  important  that such  individuals  I r r a t i o n a l l y b e l i e v e that o t h e r s must always t r e a t them well and so f e e l upset when t h i s i s not the case. " P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n becomes your means of i n f l i c t i n g some p a i n or d i s c o m f o r t on those who hurt you" (Burka & Yuen, 1983, p. 49). C o g n i t i v e t h e o r i e s downplay the psychodynamlc p e r s p e c t i v e which l i n k s p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and p a s s i v e - a g g r e s s i o n (Grecco,  1984).  Although c o g n i t i v e  t h e o r i s t s do a s s o c i a t e h o s t i l i t y with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n some cases,  i t Is not regarded as a p r e v a l e n t  cause.  P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s simply do not f e e l p a r t i c u l a r l y angry...(and w h i l e ) resentment can sometimes c o n t r i b u t e to your lack of m o t i v a t i o n , ( i t ) i s u s u a l l y not c e n t r a l t o the problem. (Burns, 1980a, p. 78) A c c o r d i n g t o E l l i s and Knaus (1977), h o s t i l i t y may  38. merely be a j u s t i f i c a t i o n in that one may responsibility as "The  f o r one's p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  choose to blame o t h e r s r a t h e r than f o r d e l a y i n g on t a s k s .  teacher  i s out  to get me"  take  Se1f-statements  such  a l l o w the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r  to a t t r i b u t e h i s or her poor performance to someone e l s e . Poor P l a n n i n g G r e l n e r and Karoly (1976) d e f i n e p l a n s as f o l l o w s : P l a n s can be viewed as a s p e c i a l c l a s s of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n t e n t i o n statements, which s p e c i f y not only a terminal goal f o r s e l f - c o n t r o l (e.g., to lose 20 pounds) but a l s o the s t r a t e g i e s f o r a t t a i n i n g that goal (e.g., e x e r c i s e 15 minutes per day, eat only 1,000 c a l o r i e s ' worth of food per day), (p. 495) P r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s sometimes have d i f f i c u l t i e s r e a l i s t i c p l a n s (Grecco,  1984).  developing  The p r o c r a s t I n a t o r may  know  what i t Is he hopes to a c h i e v e , but have no " r e c i p e " to f o l l o w i n order to a t t a i n h i s goal Often  (Sabini & S i l v e r ,  the g o a l s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s are vague or  grandiose  (Jones,  seif-appraisal a student may  1982).  unreasonably  1975), l e a d i n g i n v a r i a b l y to negative  (Burns,  1980b; Grecco, 1984).  For example,  wish to achieve an o u t s t a n d i n g grade on  assignment, but because s/he  an  l a c k s a r e a l i s t i c p l a n by which  to complete h i s or her task, i s set up  for f a i l u r e ,  a n x i e t y and negative s e i f - e v a l u a t i o n (Grecco,  1984).  P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s tend to be u n r e a l i s t i c about t h e i r g o a l s because they o f t e n think l n terms of an ideal s i t u a t i o n , as i f there were no l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e i r time or energy. (Burka 8. Yuen, 1983, p. 134)  39. The  l i t e r a t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y time management  self-help  literature,  i s r i f e with  treatment  overcoming the problem of poor p l a n n i n g . overcoming t h i s d e f i c i t  and  approaches f o r  Suggestions  Include d e f i n i n g long-term  for  and  short-term o b j e c t i v e s and g o a l s , s p e c i f y i n g the s t e p s by which to achieve  those o b j e c t i v e s and s c h e d u l i n g one's time  (Burka & Yuen, 1983;  Burns, 1980a; E l l i s 8. Knaus,  G r e i n e r 8. K a r o l y , 1976;  Lakein,  1973;  1977;  P o r a t , 1980? S c o t t ,  1980).  Depressjon Depression several 1977;  i s c i t e d as a cause of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n by  authors  (Beck, 1967? Burns, 1980a? E l l i s 8. Knaus,  Solomon 8. Rothblum, 1984).  Grecco (1984) p o i n t s out  that the s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and i n d i v i d u a l s are s i m i l a r  depressed  in that they r e v e a l " p e r f e c t i o n i s m ,  harsh s e l f - s t a n d a r d s , v u l n e r a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m , m o t i v a t i o n a l deficits, unrealistic attributional  s t y l e , task postponement  (and) a n x i e t y " (p. 64). Aaron Beck (1967) wrote that a l o s s of p o s i t i v e m o t i v a t i o n and an  i n a b i l i t y to s e l f - m o b i l i z e are symptomatic  of m i l d to severe  forms of  depression.  (The depressed person) can d e f i n e f o r h i m s e l f what he should do, but does not experience any i n t e r n a l s t i m u l u s to do i t . Even when urged, c a j o l e d , or threatened, he does not seem able to arouse any d e s i r e to do these t h i n g s . (Beck, 1967, p. 26)  40. In cases of m i l d d e p r e s s i o n , only on  an  i n d i v i d u a l may  those t h i n g s which do not b r i n g  procrastinate  immediate  g r a t i f i c a t i o n , w h i l e in cases of moderate d e p r e s s i o n , lack m o t i v a t i o n  to perform b a s i c everyday  I n d i v i d u a l s who  are s e v e r e l y depressed may  complete p a r a l y s i s of w i l l According  may  tasks. experience  (Beck, 1967).  to c o g n i t i v e theory,  l o s s of m o t i v a t i o n  he  i s the r e s u l t of  a depressed person's irrational  beliefs  ( E l l i s 8, Knaus, 1977), or c o g n i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n s , such  as  overgeneralization, polarization, selective abstraction, p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Perfectionism,  and  a r b i t r a r y inference  (Beck, 1976).  other e r r o r s in t h i n k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , lead to negativism, self-esteem  and hopelessness (Beck, 1967).  i d e n t i f i e s seif-statements of depressed persons: can't  do anything  hopeless"  (p. 65).  that reveal  "I'm  Grecco (1984)  the negative  no good, e v e r y t h i n g  r i g h t and probably never w i l l . Beck p o i n t e d out  that as  depressed i n d i v i d u a l a n t i c i p a t e s that any will  diminished  r e s u l t in a negative  outlook  i s awful. All is  long as  the  course of a c t i o n  outcome, i n t e r n a l m o t i v a t i o n  is  quashed (Beck, 1967). Beck noted that depressed p a t i e n t s o f t e n a t t r i b u t e their but  I n a c t i v i t y , not  to symptoms of a temporary  illness,  r a t h e r to f i x e d , i n g r a i n e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s (Beck,  I  41. 1967). T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n supports Seligman's a t t r i b u t i o n a l r e f o r m u l a t i o n of the learned h e l p l e s s n e s s theory  (Peterson  &  Seligman, 1980). Seligman p o s i t e d that h e l p l e s s n e s s , lowered s e l f - e s t e e m and depression r e s u l t when i n d i v i d u a l s a t t r i b u t e the cause of negative events  to i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e and g l o b a l  ( r a t h e r than e x t e r n a l , u n s t a b l e and s p e c i f i c ) f a c t o r s (Peterson, decreased  1982).  Depressed i n d i v i d u a l s would tend to see  p r o d u c t i v i t y as evidence  and w o r t h l e s s n e s s  (Beck, 1967).  of l a z i n e s s ,  Inadequacy  When i n d i v i d u a l s a t t r i b u t e  poor performance to u n s t a b l e f a c t o r s such as lack of s e l f esteem Is p r o t e c t e d , severe d e p r e s s i o n motivation  i s enhanced (Covington  effort,  i s avoided  & Beery, 1976). T h e r e f o r e ,  although p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s o f t e n a symptom of  depression,  It can a l s o act to stave o f f d e p r e s s i o n , depending on "attributional Low  s t y l e " of the  and  individual  the  (Layden, 1982).  F r u s t r a t i o n Tolerance Low  f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e , a c c o r d i n g to E l l i s and Knaus  (1977), i s one d e s c r i b e s an that one  of the main causes of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . It  individual's irrational  and h e d o n i s t i c b e l i e f  s h o u l d not have to expend e f f o r t nor wait  term p a y - o f f s , but should  f o r long  i n s t e a d have a l l d e s i r e s g r a t i f i e d  Immediately.  Students who  e x h i b i t a low  frustration  t o l e r a n c e may  be u n w i l l i n g to postpone immediate wants  42. (i.e.,  for a social  l i f e ) in order to achieve  long term  g o a l s and d i s t a n t rewards ( E l l i s 8, Knaus, 1977;  Solomon 8.  Rothblum, 1984). Summary These e i g h t areas of t h i n k i n g are not the only types of c o g n i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with p r o b l e m a t i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n but they have been most f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d and, a c c o r d i n g to Grecco  in the  (1984), were r e a d i l y  literature  translated  i n t o items on the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement  Inventory.  Hypotheses  The review of the l i t e r a t u r e g i v e s r i s e to the following  hypotheses.  Given the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement  Inventory  (PSSI), 1.  High p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s w i l l  endorse  s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s more than w i l l  negative  low  procrast i nators. 2.  3.  Low  procrastinatorswill  endorse  positive  self-  statements more than w i l l  high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s .  High p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s w i l l  endorse  se1f-statement  s u b s c a l e s more than w i l l  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and will  endorse  negative low  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  p o s i t i v e self-statement subscales  43. more t h a n w i l l 4.  There w i l l  There w i l l  There w i l l  differences  of s e l f - s t a t e m e n t be no g r a d e  endorsement 6.  procrastinators.  be no g e n d e r  endorsement 5.  high  level  t o which males and f e m a l e s 7.  There w i l l which  8.  be d i f f e r e n c e s  Grade  10,  Procrastination academic  11, and will  achievement.  subscales. differences  of s e i f - s t a t e m e n t be no d i f f e r e n c e  l n the  subscales. l n the extent  procrastinate. i n the extent  12 s t u d e n t s  have  ln the  to  procrastinate.  a negative effect  on  44. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY The r e s e a r c h on academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y on post-secondary  students.  focuses  The purpose of t h i s  study was t o i n v e s t i g a t e s e i f - r e p o r t e d academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary  students i n the A r t s and  S c i e n c e s programme t o determine  the extent t o which these  s t u d e n t s put o f f doing school assignments and the extent t o which s t u d e n t s experience p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem and would l i k e t o change t h e i r behaviour.  The e f f e c t of gender  and grade on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and the e f f e c t of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on academic achievement were a l s o examined. T h i s study a l s o assessed c o g n i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with problematic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  An inventory c o n t a i n i n g 41  items r e p r e s e n t i n g s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s which e i t h e r  facilitate  or i n h i b i t work behavior was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o the s t u d e n t s . Knowledge of what secondary themselves  that i n t e r f e r e s with completion of school  assignments, efficient  s t u d e n t s t y p i c a l l y say t o  o r what they do not say that c o u l d f a c i l i t a t e  and t i m e l y work completion, c o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t  ln the development of c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n s aimed at h e l p i n g students overcome p r o b l e m a t i c academic procrastination.  45. In t h i s chapter, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample s e l e c t i o n , procedures, measurement instrument, n u l l hypotheses,  and  data a n a l y s i s are presented.  Sample S e l e c t i o n  D e s c r i p t i o n of the P o p u l a t i o n The sample employed in the study was s c h o o l s , H.D. Secondary, Langley 50 km.  S t a f f o r d J u n i o r Secondary  i n School  s e l e c t e d from  two  and Aldergrove  D i s t r i c t 35, Langley, B r i t i s h  Columbia.  i s a suburban-rural community l o c a t e d approximately from Vancouver, B.C.  A wide range of  l e v e l s i s represented in t h i s area.  socio-economic  R e s i d e n t s own  or are  employed i n l o c a l b u s i n e s s e s or commute to b l u e - c o l l a r or w h i t e - c o l l a r Jobs i n Vancouver. Some r e s i d e n t s , of A l d e r g r o v e , work on the nearby Defense base and there are s t i l l  specifically  Department of N a t i o n a l a few f a m i l i e s i n that p a r t  of Langley f o r whom farming Is a primary or secondary of  source  income. The sample of 204 s t u d e n t s was  J u n i o r Secondary  drawn from H.D.  and Aldergrove Secondary  Stafford  s c h o o l s because  the s t u d e n t s at these s c h o o l s r e p r e s e n t e d a range of socio-economic  backgrounds and because the p r i n c i p a l s of  both s c h o o l s were amenable t o the study b e i n g conducted at their schools.  Although  the i n v e s t i g a t o r i s employed as a  c o u n s e l l o r at one of the s c h o o l s , she had not taught any of  46. the s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d in the study. The sample was population  drawn from a Grade 10,  11 and  i n the A r t s and S c i e n c e s (academic  u n i v e r s i t y ) programme.  12  or p r e -  A r t s and S c i e n c e s s t u d e n t s were  s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s study f o r three reasons. assumed that s t u d e n t s with severe and  First,  long-term  learning  d i f f i c u l t i e s are t y p i c a l l y not a d v i s e d to pursue a c a d e m i c a l l y r i g o r o u s p r e - u n i v e r s ! t y stream.  i t was  the  Therefore,  academic problems f o r the A r t s and S c i e n c e s group would more l i k e l y be r e l a t e d t o study h a b i t s than to other d e f i c i t s . Second, the academic t a s k s of t h i s programme are s i m i l a r k i n d to those at the c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y  level  typical  of demands which f o s t e r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  1984).  Third,  i t was  In  and are  (Grecco,  assumed that s t u d e n t s in the A r t s and  S c i e n c e s programme, by t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of courses which  lead  to f u r t h e r education r a t h e r than d i r e c t e n t r y i n t o the j o b market, have i n d i c a t e d some l e v e l of commitment to academic s t u d i e s , and t h e r e f o r e should understand good study and time management s k i l l s .  the s i g n i f i c a n c e of These students are  l i k e l y t o have some cognizance of t h e i r own  study h a b i t s and  any t e n d e n c i e s to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on academic t a s k s . D e s c r i p t i o n of the Sample Of the sample of 204 s u b j e c t s used were e n r o l l e d at Aldergrove Secondary  i n t h i s study,  156  w h i l e 48 were e n r o l l e d  47. at H.D. S t a f f o r d J u n i o r Secondary. Aldergrove Secondary  were not i n c l u d e d i n the sample as they  refused to p a r t i c i p a t e Although  Three s t u d e n t s at  i n the study.  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was not of p a r t i c u l a r  interest  in this  study, data r e g a r d i n g age were c o l l e c t e d . Students sample ranged from 15 t o 19 years o l d .  i n the  F o r t y (19.6%) of the  s t u d e n t s were 15 years o l d , 75 (36.8%) were 16 years o l d , 55 <27.0%) were 17 years o l d , 30 (14.7%) were 18 years o l d , and 4 (2.0%) were 19 years o l d . As there i s some evidence of gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n both procrastination  (Grecco, 1984) and the c o g n i t i v e  antecedents  endorsed by s t u d e n t s (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986), gender d i f f e r e n c e s were examined i n t h i s study.  From  A l d e r g r o v e , there were 77 males and 79 females. S t a f f o r d , there were 24 males and 24 females.  From H.D. Males  employed i n the study t o t a l l e d 101, w h i l e females  totalled  103. The r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s that the tendency t o p r o c r a s t i n a t e i n c r e a s e s as s t u d e n t s p r o g r e s s through (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). among the secondary  grade  college  Differences in procrastination  l e v e l s was of i n t e r e s t  in t h i s  study and so an adequate sample from Grades 10, 11 and 12 was sought.  Of the 156 Aldergrove s u b j e c t s , there were 43  Grade 10, 56 Grade 11 and 57 Grade 12 s t u d e n t s .  A l l 48 of  48. the H.D. The  S t a f f o r d students were e n r o l l e d i n Grade focus of t h i s study was  the academic  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of students in the A r t s and programme.  10.  Sciences  These s t u d e n t s were drawn from French  10  and  Algebra 11 and 12 c l a s s e s , as both French and Algebra are requirements  of t h i s programme.  As the A r t s and  Sciences  programme i s the academic or p r e - u n l v e r s i t y stream,  i t was  a n t i c i p a t e d that the m a j o r i t y of the s t u d e n t s would be p l a n n i n g t o a t t e n d c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y .  In f a c t , of the  sample of 204 s t u d e n t s , 87 s t u d e n t s (42.6%) planned a t t e n d u n i v e r s i t y and 88 s t u d e n t s (43.1%) planned college.  Only  to  to a t t e n d  18 s t u d e n t s (8.8%) expressed an i n t e n t  J o i n the workforce  to  Immediately a f t e r g r a d u a t i o n , w h i l e  11  s t u d e n t s (5.4%) had p l a n s other than s t a t e d above.  Procedure  The P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement  Inventory  a d m i n i s t e r e d t o the students i n June, 1987 final  examinations.  It was  (PSSI) was  just p r i o r to  assumed that d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d  of heightened academic demands, the s t u d e n t s would be aware of t h e i r own  t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s a s s o c i a t e d with  getting  s t a r t e d and completing school work. The  test  (PSSI) was  each I n d i v i d u a l  d i s t r i b u t e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r to  i n c l a s s a l o n g with a statement  s u b j e c t s that p a r t i c i p a t i o n was  advising  v o l u n t a r y , that the study  49. was not connected t o t h e i r school at  and that they c o u l d stop  any time with a b s o l u t e l y no jeopardy  s t a n d i n g . A l s o , the statement  informed  to their  course  the students  that the  t e s t was anonymous, that t h e i r answers would be kept i n strict  confidence,  and that only general  r e s u l t s would be  r e p o r t e d (See Appendix A f o r statement and Appendix C f o r quest i o n n a i r e ) . Each i n d i v i d u a l  r e c e i v e d a copy of the d i r e c t i o n s i n  which s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o think back t o a time when they had a school  assignment (homework, s t u d y i n g ,  paper, e t c . ) t o do that they d i d not f e e l  like  term  doing.  They were asked t o read a l i s t of 41 statements that people t y p i c a l l y make t o themselves when f a c e d with difficult  o r unpleasant  boring,  academic t a s k s , and t o I n d i c a t e i n  the answer column how f r e q u e n t l y they had s i m i l a r w h i l e they were d e c i d i n g whether or not t o work.  thoughts The  f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e d response c h o i c e ranged from "hardly to  "very o f t e n " .  ever"  The f i v e responses corresponded t o l e t t e r s  A t o E i n the answer column and s u b j e c t s simply  circled a  l e t t e r t o I n d i c a t e t h e i r ch o i c e (See Appendix B ) . In a d d i t i o n t o the 41 s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s , s u b j e c t s were asked t o respond t o f i v e  items (items 42 through 46) from  the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Log (Strong et a l . , 1979).  Subjects  again responded on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e which ranged from "hardly ever" extent  t o "very o f t e n " .  of student  These items measured the  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (e.g., "I t a l k on the  50. phone or v i s i t with  f r i e n d s when I should be doing  school  work">. F i v e items (items 47 through 51)  from the  P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n S e l f - R a t i n g S c a l e (Grecco, the extent  1984)  measured  to which students p e r c e i v e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a  problem. Two  items (52 and 53) asked s u b j e c t s to r e p o r t  s p e c i f i c school work behavior deadline t h e i r  ( i . e . , how  on  c l o s e to the  l a s t major assignment was  completed and  c l o s e to exam time they began to s t u d y ) .  Item 54 was  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e by the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  T h i s item asked  s u b j e c t s to r a t e the extent  added  to which they would l i k e to stop  p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on school work.  On each item above,  s u b j e c t s responded on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e which i n d i v i d u a l l y explained.  how  was  S u b j e c t s c i r c l e d t h e i r c h o i c e s ln  the answer column. Items 55 through 59 p r o v i d e d d e s c r i p t i v e information p e r t a i n i n g to the grade, age,  sex, school  achievement  f u t u r e p l a n s of the s t u d e n t s . Students responded by a p p r o p r i a t e answers l n the answer column. were a v a i l a b l e in the classroom to v e r i f y  Report  and  circling cards  so that students were able  l e t t e r grade averages f o r the school  achievement  i tern. F o l l o w i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,  the  I n v e s t i g a t o r read a statement which o u t l i n e d the purpose of the r e s e a r c h . A statement p e r t a i n i n g to s u b j e c t consent  as  51. well as the d i r e c t i o n s to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were a l s o read to the s u b j e c t s by the i n v e s t i g a t o r (See Appendix A ) . q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e q u i r e d approximately complete.  The  15 minutes to  i n v e s t i g a t o r c o l l e c t e d the  a f t e r every student had  The  questionnaires  finished.  Measurement Instrument  The P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement by P a t r i c k R. Grecco In 1984,  Inventory,  developed  examines c o g n i t i o n s r e l a t e d to  academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and n o n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e l i s t s p o s i t i v e and negative  self-statements  which have been shown, In Grecco's study,  to d i f f e r e n t i a t e  low from high academic p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . The PSSI c o n t a i n s 24 antecedents literature.  items which r e f l e c t many of  the  a s s o c i a t e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n the Themes of d e p r e s s i o n , h o s t i l i t y , poor p l a n n i n g ,  l o w - f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e , low s e l f - c o n t r o l , and n e u r o t i c l s m are represented  low  In 21 of the statements and  are grouped i n t o f i v e s u b s c a l e s as f o l l o w s : I n t o l e r a n c e , Immobilizing  Mood, Low  U n r e a l i s t l c P l a n n i n g , Low  S e l f - C o n t r o l . The  Negative  Self-Competence, sixth  c o n t a i n i n g three p o s i t i v e or work f a c i l i t a t l v e l a b e l e d F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s (see Table 3.1 complete l i s t i n g of subscale  self-esteem  items).  subscale,  items, i s for a  52. Table 3.1 P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement Item Number  Subscale 3  Inventory  Subscales  Items  I - N e g a t i v i s t i c Intolerance I Just don't  feel  like i t .  10  I r e a l l y can't stand a l l the work I have t o do.  19  There's so much to do, I don't begin.  22  I can't stand doing t h i s work.  Subscale 8  know where t o  II - Immobilizing Mood I don't have t o be p e r f e c t about t h i s work.  11  I want t o do well but I don't want t o put so much e f f o r t into i t .  12  Others are probably doing b e t t e r .  14  I ' l l be i n a b e t t e r mood  25  I ' l l wait u n t i l  27  Since I won't get i t done now I might as well not begin.  Subscale  later.  I'm more i n the mood.  I I I - Low Seif-Competence  1  I ' l l probably f a l l  2  I can't do t h i s work.  7  They're a s k i n g too much of me.  23  if I try.  T h i s work i s too hard.  53. Table 3.1 Item Number  (continued)  Items  Subscale IV - U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g 5  There's p l e n t y of time.  6  I ' l l j u s t do something to i t .  15  I'll  do i t l a t e r .  else f i r s t  then I ' l l  get  I s h o u l d be working but I don't want t o .  Subscale V - F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s 13  I t ' s harder to put  17  I ' l l do 1ater.  21  If I p l a n my work ahead of time I can get more accomplished.  Subscale VI - Low  i t now  i t o f f than  i t i s to do i t .  so I can be f r e e to do other t h i n g s  Self-Control  16  I j u s t don't want to wait to have a good time.  18  I've got so much to do,  20  I want to enjoy myself now until later.  24  I shouldn't have to work so hard.  I won't do any of i t . and not have to wait  54. Subscale comprised  I, l a b e l e d N e g a t i v i s t i c I n t o l e r a n c e , i s  of items r e f l e c t i n g a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e , p o s s i b l y  h o s t i l e , a t t i t u d e toward academic t a s k s ; items i n t h i s subscale a l s o r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  to depression  (Grecco,  1984). Subscale which r e f l e c t  I I , l a b e l e d Immobilizing Mood, c o n t a i n s the "manana" a t t i t u d e .  items  The lack of  p r o d u c t i v i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s who score high on these would l i k e l y be r e l a t e d t o a n x i e t y o r d e p r e s s i o n  items  (Grecco,  1984). Subscale  I I I , l a b e l e d Low Seif-Competence, i s comprised  of items which r e l a t e t o E l l i s and Knaus's (1977) concept of self-downing.  I n d i v i d u a l s who score high on these  p r o c r a s t i n a t e because they expect because they f e e l Subscale  to f a i l  items  or do p o o r l y , and  incompetent.  IV, l a b e l e d U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g , c o n t a i n s  items which r e f l e c t a " s e l f - d e f e a t i n g , problem s o l v i n g deficit"  (Grecco,  1984, p. 163) and, a c c o r d i n g t o Grecco,  i s the best s u b s c a l e p r e d i c t o r of academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Subscale V, l a b e l e d F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s , i s the only s u b s c a l e that c o n t a i n s the p o s i t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s which c h a r a c t e r i z e the c o g n i t i o n s of low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . I n d i v i d u a l s who score high on t h i s s c a l e l i k e l y have a "planful  and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach" t o academic t a s k s  (Grecco,  1984, p. 164).  55. Subscale VI,  l a b e l e d Low  Self-Control,  i s comprised of  Items which r e f l e c t poor management of one's own and  i s r e l a t e d to E l l i s and  frustration  Knaus's (1977) concept of  has  low  tolerance.  Subscale s c o r e s are o b t a i n e d e a s i l y by a subject  behavior  a s s i g n e d to each item as  1 = hardly  ever had  2 = r a r e l y had  the  the  follows:  thought the  4 = o f t e n had  thought  5 = very o f t e n had In a d d i t i o n  value  thought  3 = sometimes had the  adding the  thought  the  to the 24  thought items r e p r e s e n t i n g  cognitions,  the PSSI a l s o c o n t a i n s a 12-1 tern c r i t e r i o n measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , which Grecco c a l l s the Self-Rating Scale  <PSRS).  Procrastination  T h i s s e c t i o n of the  c o n t a i n s f i v e statements (items 42 through 46) Procrastination  Log  ( S t r o n g et a l . , 1979)  student's p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n behavior. 0.62  test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y  Procrastination 51)  ask  perceive  subjects  Log.  An  to consider  t h e i r own  five  a  the  items (47  through  the extent to which they  procrastination  frequency, s e r i o u s n e s s ,  on academic performance, and  The  S t r o n g et a l . r e p o r t  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem.  are asked to r a t e t h e i r own dimensions:  from  which measure a  c o e f f i c i e n t for  additional  questionnaire  on  Subjects  these  study time l o s t ,  s a t i s f a c t i o n with use  impact  of study  56. time.  T h i s p o r t i o n of the PSRS was developed by Grecco.  There a r e two f i n a l  items i n the PSRS (items 52 and 53)  which a l s o measure a student's  academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  A t o t a l P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score (P-score> ranging from 12 to 60 i s c a l c u l a t e d by adding the value s u b j e c t has a s s i g n e d 53).  (1 t o 5) that a  t o each of the 12 items (42 through  A high P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score f a l l s w i t h i n the top  t h i r d of p o s s i b l e s c o r e s . 44 t o 60.  Thus, the range of high s c o r e s i s  A low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score f a l l s w i t h i n the  bottom t h i r d of p o s s i b l e s c o r e s , The  i n the range of 12 t o 27.  l a s t f i v e items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ask s u b j e c t s t o  p r o v i d e demographic information p e r t a i n i n g to grade, age, sex and l e t t e r grade average and f u t u r e p l a n s . Reliabi1itv Grecco r e p o r t s that the i n t e r n a l  consistency  c o e f f i c i e n t , c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the Chronbach alpha was .84.  The alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the s i x s u b s c a l e s range  from .59 t o .74 (Grecco, The initial  formula,  test-retest  1984).  reliability  was computed 4 weeks a f t e r  t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n with 97 s u b j e c t s .  test-retest  The  c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the t o t a l score was .68.  The  c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the s i x s u b s c a l e s range from .56 to .78 (Grecco,  1984).  57.  Validity Grecco (1984) r e p o r t s that the c o n s t r u c t  there  and p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of the PSSI.  Evidence p e r t a i n i n g to c o n s t r u c t there  Is sound evidence of  v a l i d i t y suggests that  i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the  self-statements  a s s o c i a t e d with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the PSSI and the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : depression  (as measured by a short  of the Beck Depression Inventory) and anxiety neuroticlsm  form  and  ( a s measured by the N e u r o t l c l s m s c a l e of the  Eysenck P e r s o n a l i t y  Inventory).  There Is a negative  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the PSSI and these v a r i a b l e s : d e f e n s i v e n e s s ( a s measured by the Eysenck L i e s c a l e ) , self-esteem  (as measured by the Rosenberg s c a l e ) and  self-control  (as measured by the S e l f - C o n t r o l s c a l e on the  C a l i f o r n i a Psychological  Inventory).  (For a d e t a i l e d  d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e s u l t s see Grecco, 1984, pp. 166 - 174.) The p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y of the PSSI was determined by a comparison of the t o t a l behavioral  score  and s u b s c a l e s c o r e s  to a  measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . A l i m i t e d , but  s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ( r = .19) was c a l c u l a t e d s u g g e s t i n g "that  the PSSI i s capable of making guarded  p r e d i c t i o n s about respondents' f u t u r e  procrastination  behavior" (Grecco, 1984, p. 177).  Additional Items The 24 items of the PSSI represent  the f i n a l  v e r s i o n of  58. Greece's inventory f o l l o w i n g c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n and item analysis.  An i n i t i a l  pool of 54 items, obtained by  open-ended c o g n i t i v e assessment and items d e r i v e d from the l i t e r a t u r e , was t h e r e f o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e f i n e d and only items that proved able t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n c r i t e r i o n groups were r e t a i n e d . However, a c c o r d i n g t o the o b s e r v a t i o n s of the i n v e s t i g a t o r , 12 of the items e l i m i n a t e d are statements t y p i c a l l y made by secondary school statement, "The teacher secondary students  students.  One such  i s out t o get me", i s made by  as a way of e x p l a i n i n g t h e i r own lack of  motivation  i n a course. J u n i o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , on whom the  instrument  was developed, a r e e n r o l l e d i n l a r g e r c l a s s e s and  have l e s s contact with  the i n s t r u c t o r .  They are not as  l i k e l y t o a t t r i b u t e t h e i r own lack of m o t i v a t i o n t o instructor bias.  A l s o , f o r some secondary students,  in school has generated a c e r t a i n degree of h o s t i l i t y t h e i r peers. might t h i n k : f o r me".  I t i s p o s s i b l e that students at t h i s  success from  level  "Doing too well on t h i s c o u l d cause a problem  These two items p l u s 10 o t h e r s have been  i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  (For a complete  of a d d i t i o n a l items, see Table 3.2.)  The 12 statements  represent  list  the f o l l o w i n g i d e a t i o n a l themes a s s o c i a t e d with  procrastination:  hostility  items), f e a r of success  (3 items), r i s k t a k i n g (2  (2 items), p e r f e c t i o n i s m (2 items),  f e a r of f a i l u r e (2 items) and low seif-competence (1 item).  59. Table Subscales  Added by the I n v e s t i g a t o r  Item number  Subscale  Items  A -  Hostility  28  I don't l i k e the  32  They shouldn't  36  The  Subscale  3.2  teacher  teacher.  g i v e me  i s out  such t i g h t  to get  me.  B - Risktaking  30  I work b e t t e r at the  39  I work b e t t e r under p r e s s u r e .  Subscale  l a s t minute.  C - Fear of Success  31  The  33  Doing too well at school me.  Subscale  deadlines.  b e t t e r I do,  the more that  i s expected of  me.  c o u l d cause problems f o r  D - Perfectionism  29  I must get an e x c e l l e n t grade.  38  I must do e x c e l l e n t work.  60. Table 3.2 (continued) Item Number  Items  Subscale E - Fear of F a i l u r e 34  I'm a f r a i d  of what may happen i f I don't do w e l l .  40  I'm so anxious I can't even  start.  Subscale F - Low Self-Esteem 37  What good does i t do t o work. anyway.  Subscale G - Work F a c i l i t a t i v e  I won't do well  Items  4  Once I s t a r t  i t ' s not so bad.  9  Every l i t t l e b i t i s that much c l o s e r t o f inishing.  26  I ' l l do i t now so I can r e l a x  later.  35  I don't have t o l i k e i t , I j u s t  41  I may not l i k e i t , I Just have t o do i t .  have t o do i t .  61.  These s i x thematic  groups were i d e n t i f i e d as s i x a d d i t i o n a l  s u b s c a l e s of negative Along with  items (Subscales A through F>.  the above negative  items, f i v e p o s i t i v e or  work-facl11 t a t 1ve items were added t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e . felt  I t was  that t h i s would g i v e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e more balance  In  terms of p o s i t i v e and negative s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s . T h i s group of items was i d e n t i f i e d as one a d d i t i o n a l s u b s c a l e G) of p o s i t i v e items.  (Subscale  (See Table 3.2 f o r a l i s t of these  items.> One a d d i t i o n a l Item (item 54) i s i n c l u d e d i n the Procrastination Self-Rating Scale. to  r a t e the extent  T h i s item asks s u b j e c t s  t o which they would l i k e t o stop  p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on school work.  R e s u l t s of t h i s item are  reported separately. No other changes or a d d i t i o n s t o the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Self-Statement  Inventory  were made.  Data A n a l y s i s  Demographic data and item responses f o r each s u b j e c t were c o p i e d onto a F o r t r a n Coding Form and en te re d The  subsequently  i n t o a computer f i l e at the U.B.C. Computing  f i l e was then checked, and e r r o r s were c o r r e c t e d .  Centre. Three  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were m i s s i n g responses t o some items and two questionnaires  were s p o i l e d .  These f i v e  questionnaires  were not among the 204 used i n the a n a l y s i s .  62. Test  Analyses An item a n a l y s i s of the t e s t data was performed u s i n g  the computer programme LERTAP (Nelson, and  inferential  (Lai,  data were generated  1974).  Descriptive  by the programme SPSSx  1986).  PrelImlnarv  Analyses  Although  there was no t h e o r e t i c a l  basis f o r formulating  hypotheses r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of school attended or student's age with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , these v a r i a b l e s needed to be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s because of t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the o v e r a l l were the school attended  variance.  These two f a c t o r s  and the age of the s u b j e c t s .  T h e r e f o r e , a 2X5 (school by age) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was performed with P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score as the dependent variable.  The computer programme SPSSx was used.  significance Included The  A  l e v e l of 0.05 was chosen and a l l s u b j e c t s were  i n the a n a l y s e s .  (See Table  3.3.)  r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d that age and school  attendance d i d not a f f e c t o v e r a l l these were not f a c t o r s of i n t e r e s t  P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score.  i n t h i s study, both were  e l i m i n a t e d as f a c t o r s in f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s . Descriptive  Analyses  Three q u e s t i o n s were examined u s i n g d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s only.  As  These q u e s t i o n s were:  63. Table 3.3 A n a l y s i s of Variance P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score by School and Age  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Main e f f e c t s  5  43.79  0.54  School (S)  1  116.79  1.45  Age (A)  4  27.41  0.34  S x A  2  8.58  0.11  Explalned  7  33.74  0.42  Residual  196  80.63  Total  203  79.01  *p < .05  Mean Square  F  64. 1.  The extent to which s t u d e n t s i n the A r t s and S c i e n c e s programme p r o c r a s t i n a t e on academic assignments.  2.  The extent to which students view t h e i r  own  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem. 3.  The extent to which s t u d e n t s would l i k e t o stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on academic t a s k s .  To examine the f i r s t  q u e s t i o n , a P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score f o r  each student was  computed and s t u d e n t s were d i v i d e d  h i g h , medium and  low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n groups. The number of  s t u d e n t s i n each group was  into  then examined.  To examine the second q u e s t i o n , the f r e q u e n c i e s of student responses on  items 47 and 48 were computed and examined.  To examine the t h i r d q u e s t i o n , the f r e q u e n c i e s of student responses on  item 54 were computed and examined.  Hypotheses In order t o f a c i l i t a t e the a n a l y s i s of the data, the hypotheses 1.  were r e s t a t e d i n the n u l l  form as f o l l o w s :  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l not s c o r e different  <p < 0.05)  significantly  on the combined t o t a l  negative s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s than  of  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  65. 2.  High p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s w i l l different  not score  significantly  <p < 0.05) on the combined t o t a l of  p o s i t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s than low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . 3.  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l different  Males w i l l  significantly  <p < 0.05) on the each of the  self-statement 4.  not score  s u b s c a l e s than low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  not score s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  (p < 0.05) on each of the s e l f - s t a t e m e n t than 5.  females.  Grades 10, 11 and 12 students w i l l significantly self-statement  6.  subscales  There w i l l  different  not score  (p < 0.05) on each of the  subscales.  be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  d i f f e r e n c e <p < 0.05) i n the mean P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score of males and females 7.  There w i l l  be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  d i f f e r e n c e <p < 0.05) i n the mean P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scores of Grade 10, 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s . 8.  There w i l l  be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  d i f f e r e n c e <p < 0.05) i n the mean achievement of high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  score  66.  inferential  Analyses  To examine the e f f e c t of high or low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , gender and grade on the score of a l l negative items combined, a 2X2X3 (high/low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  groups by gender  by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with the t o t a l  score on a l l  negative items as a dependent v a r i a b l e was performed. To examine the e f f e c t of high or low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , gender and grade on the score of a l l p o s i t i v e items combined, a 2X2X3 (high/low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n groups by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with t o t a l positive  score on a l l  items as a dependent v a r i a b l e was performed.  To examine the e f f e c t of high or low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , gender and grade on each s u b s c a l e s c o r e , a 2X2X3 (high/low procrastination  groups by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of  v a r i a n c e with each subscale as a dependent v a r i a b l e was performed. To examine the e f f e c t of gender and grade on Procrastination  Score, a 2X3 (gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of  v a r i a n c e with P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  Score as the dependent  v a r i a b l e was performed. To examine the e f f e c t of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , gender and grade on achievement ( a s measured by student averages i n the p r e v i o u s term), a 2X2X3  l e t t e r grade  (high/low  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with achievement as the dependent v a r i a b l e was performed.  67. Summary  Chapter Three began with a d e s c r i p t i o n  of the p o p u l a t i o n  and the s e l e c t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample. of the procedure description hypotheses  f o r data c o l l e c t i o n was  An  outline  f o l l o w e d by a  of the measurement instrument, the n u l l and the p l a n f o r data a n a l y s e s .  the data a n a l y s i s are presented i n Chapter  The r e s u l t s of Four.  68. CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS  In the p r e c e d i n g chapter, the procedure f o r data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s were d i s c u s s e d .  In t h i s chapter,  the d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b s c a l e s are p r e s e n t e d f o l l o w e d by the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s e s f o r each of the hypotheses.  Descriptive  Analysis  One of the c e n t r a l concerns of t h i s study was the s e l f - r e p o r t e d extent t o which secondary s t u d e n t s i n the A r t s and  S c i e n c e s programme p r o c r a s t i n a t e  on academic  tasks.  In Chapter Three, the method f o r determining a subject's  Procrastination  procrastination possible scores, procrastination to 43.  Score was d e s c r i b e d .  score f a l l s w i t h i n  the bottom t h i r d of  i n the range from 12 t o 27. score f a l l s w i t h i n  A high p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  t h i r d of p o s s i b l e s c o r e s ,  A low  A medium  the middle range from 28  score f a l l s w i t h i n  the top  i n the range from 44 t o 60.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t s  i n t o low, medium and high  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n groups based on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  score are  p r e s e n t e d i n Table 4.1 a l o n g with the r e l a t e d d e s c r i p t i v e stat ist ies.  69. Table 4.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score  Procrastination Group  Frequency  Percent  Mean  Low  20  9.80  22.70  4.13  124  60.78  36.23  4.49  60  29.41  49.15  3.69  Total  204  100.00  A l s o of i n t e r e s t  i n t h i s study was the extent  Medium High  A r t s and Science s t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e  S.D.  to which  t h e i r own academi c  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem and the extent to which they would l i k e t o stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on academic On the item feel  tasks.  (item 47) which asked "How o f t e n do you  that you p r o c r a s t i n a t e over school  assignments?",  8.8%  of the s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d that they p r o c r a s t i n a t e r a r e l y or h a r d l y ever, w h i l e 33.8% i n d i c a t e d that they p r o c r a s t i n a t e very  often. On the item (item 48) which asked "How s e r i o u s a  problem do you c o n s i d e r  your p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ? " , 34.4%  i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r problem was s e r i o u s t o very  serious  w h i l e 26% i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r problem was not s e r i o u s .  70. On the item (item 54) which asked, "To what extent would you l i k e t o stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on school work?", only 7.4% responded with "not at a l l " .  However, 21.6%  i n d i c a t e d that they would l i k e t o stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g , and 40.2%  i n d i c a t e d that they would very much l i k e t o stop  p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on school  assignments. Table 4.2  Frequencies of Responses on Items 47, 48 and 54 Item  Frequency  Value  Percent  47  1 (Hardly ever) 2 3 (Somet imes) 4 5 (Very Often)  10 8 81 36 69  4.9 3.9 39.7 17.6 33.8  48  1 (No problem) 2 3 (Not g r e a t e r than most) 4 5 (Very s e r i o u s problem)  31 22 81  15.2 10.8 39.7  35 35  17.2 17.2  1 (Not at a l l ) 2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very much)  15 10 53 44 82  7.4 4.9 26.0 21.6 40.2  54  Subscale  Characteristics  Test r e l i a b i l i t i e s are i n f l u e n c e d by the length of t e s t (Ferguson,  1981).  Each of the s u b s c a l e s i n t h i s study  71. c o n t a i n e d only a small number of items, and as a r e s u l t , some of the subtest r e l i a b i l i t i e s ANOVA are not h i g h . Inventory 0.56  computed u s i n g Hoyt's  The P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Seif-Statement  s u b s c a l e s (Subscales I t o VI) range from a low of  t o a high of 0.77.  The s u b s c a l e s added by the  i n v e s t i g a t o r (Subscales A t o G) range from a low of 0.12 t o a high of 0.87.  Subscale  F c o n t a i n e d only one item, and  t h e r e f o r e , a Hoyt r e l i a b i l i t y  and s t a n d a r d e r r o r of  measurement c o u l d not be computed.  When a l l negative (work  i n h i b i t i n g ) items i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were combined, a reliability  of 0.88 was computed.  The combining of a l l  p o s i t i v e (work f a c i l i t a t i v e ) items y i e l d e d a r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.69.  A complete l i s t  of r e l i a b i l i t i e s  i s found  i n Table  4.3.  Inferential  Analyses  As d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s were of p a r t i c u l a r  interest  i n t h i s study,  i t was decided  that only these two extreme groups would be used l n the inferential  analyses.  The high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  groups, however, were not equal 4.1),  (see Table  and as problems i n the a n a l y s e s c o u l d be c r e a t e d by  this situation  (Ferguson,  e q u a l i z e the f r e q u e n c i e s . was  i n frequency  kept  1981), a d e c i s i o n was made t o The high p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group  Intact with 60 s u b j e c t s .  The low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  72. T a b l e 4.3 S u b s c a l e R e l i a b i l i t i e s , Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , Number o f i t e m s , H i g h e s t / L o w e s t S c o r e s and S t a n d a r d E r r o r s o f Measurement Mean S c o r e  S.D.  Subscale I Negat i v i s t i c Intolerance  13.20  3.41  4  20  0.72  1 .57  S u b s c a l e II Immobi1i z i ng Mood  15.22  4.72  6  28  0.71  2.32  Subscale I l l Low S e l f Competence  8.99  3.24  4  19  0 .77  1 .34  11.19  2.31  3  15  0 .59  1 .21  7.72  2.44  3  15  0.56  1 .32  10.18  3.56  4  20  0 .75  1 .54  Subscale  S u b s c a l e IV Unrealist ic Pl ann i ng Subscale V Fac i 1 i t a t i ve Planfu1ness S u b s c a l e VI Low S e l f Control  Note.  No. High of Score i terns  Low Score  Hoyt Standard Reliability Error  Two h u n d r e d f o u r s u b j e c t s w r o t e each s u b t e s t .  73.  T a b l e 4.3 ( c o n t i n u e d ) S u b s c a l e R e l i a b i l i t i e s , Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , Number o f i t e m s , H i g h e s t / L o w e s t S c o r e s and S t a n d a r d E r r o r s o f Measurement Subscale  Mean S c o r e  S.D.  No. High of Score items  Low Score  Hoyt Reliability  Standard Error  Subscale A Hostility  7.36  2.83  3  15  3  0.62  1.43  Subscale B Risktaking  5.44  2.42  2  10  2  0.80  0.77  Subscale C Fear of Success  4.44  1.86  2  10  2  0.45  0.97  Subscale D Perfectionism  6.54  2.26  2  10  2  0.87  0.58  Subscale E Fear of Fal1ure  4.66  1.66  2  10  2  0.12  1.10  Subscale F Low S e l f Esteem  1.72  0.96  1  5  1  Subscale G 15.29 Work F a c i l i t a t l v e I terns  3.25  5  23  5  0.53  1.99  Negative items Combi ned  88.93  17.43  33  135  46  0.88  5.98  P o s i t i v e items Combi ned  23.00  4.99  8  36  8  0.69  2.59  Note.  Two h u n d r e d  f o u r s u b j e c t s w r o t e each s u b t e s t .  74. group was extended  t o include 40 of the lowest s c o r i n g  s u b j e c t s i n the middle group.  The frequency  i n each  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group used i n the a n a l y s e s , then, was 60 so that 120 s t u d e n t s i n t o t a l were used, approximately 58.8% of the sample.  Statistical flypothesjg  Analyses of the Hypotheses  1  Hypothesis 1 s t a t e s that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l not score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the combined t o t a l of negative s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s than low p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s . The data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s had a mean s c o r e of 99.2 on negative se1f-statements, w h i l e low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s had a mean s c o r e of 79.8 on these items (See Table 4.4) Table 4.4 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Scores on Negative Items f o r S u b j e c t s i n High and Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D. Minimum Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  60  79.80  15.81  46  125  High P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  60  99.20  15.59  58  135  The e f f e c t s due t o high or low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  group,  75. gender and grade were examined u s i n g a 2X2X3 (group by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . summarized i n Table 4.5.  This analysis i s  An examination  of t h i s t a b l e  i n d i c a t e s that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due only t o p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group, and that the mean score of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on negative s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than that o b t a i n e d by low procrast i nators. T h e r e f o r e , the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Hypothesis  2  Hypothesis  2 s t a t e s that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l not  score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the combined t o t a l of p o s i t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s than The  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s that low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s had  a mean score of 24.90 on p o s i t i v e se1f-statements p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s had a mean s c o r e of 21.27 on these  while  high  items  (see Table 4.6) Table 4.6 Mean and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Scores on P o s i t i v e Items f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  60  24.90  4.68  11  36  High P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  60  21.27  5.55  8  34  76. TABLE 4.5 A n a l y s i s of Variance Negative Items by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  3080.67  12.49  Group  1  8605.58  34.90 *  Gender  1  5.18  0.02  Grade  2  500.93  2.03  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  188.15  0.76  Group x Gender  1  157.02  0.64  Group x Grade  2  280.49  1.14  Gender x Grade  2  159.53  0.65  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  242.68  0.98  2  242.68  0.98  11  1249.89  5.07  Residual  108  246.55  Total  119  339.29  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  * p < .05  77. The  e f f e c t s due  to low or high p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group,  gender and grade were examined u s i n g a 2X2X3 (group by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . summarized in Table 4.7. s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due  This analysis i s  T h i s t a b l e shows that there was  only to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group  that the mean score of low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s was  an  and  significantly  higher on p o s i t i v e items than that of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . The  second h y p o t h e s i s was  Hypotheses 3. 4 and  rejected.  5  Hypothesis 3 s t a t e s that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on each of the  not  seif-statement  s u b s c a l e s than low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s that males w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on each of the s u b s c a l e s than  score  seif-statement  females.  Hypothesis 5 s t a t e s that Grades 10, will  not  11 and  12  not s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on each of  self-statement The  students the  subscales.  e f f e c t s due  to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group, gender  and  grade were examined f o r each subscale u s i n g a 2X2X3 (group by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . are summarized i n ANOVA T a b l e s 4.9,  4.11,  4.19,  4.31  4.21,  e f f e c t s due  4.23,  4.25,  4.27,  4.29,  These 4.13,  analyses 4.15,  and 4.33.  to each v a r i a b l e are presented  The  separately  4.17, main  78. Table 4.7 A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e Positive  Items  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  4  120.45  4.43  Group  1  369.38  13.59  Gender  1  20.12  0.74  Grade  2  26.27  0.97  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  7.67  0.28  Group x Gender  i  0.14  0.01  Group x Grade  2  1.81  0.07  Gender x Grade  2  15.99  0.59  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  25.56  0.94  2  25.56  0.94  11  51.93  1.91  Residual  108  27.17  Total  119  29.46  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  * p < .05  F  79.  followed  by a d i s c u s s i o n  significance  of s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s .  l e v e l of 0.05 was chosen f o r a l l .  Hypothesis 3 - P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n An  A  Group  examination of the ANOVA t a b l e s  i n d i c a t e s that  was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due t o p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  there  group on a l l  PSSI s u b s c a l e s ( S u b s c a l e s I t o VI) and on a l l but three of the s u b s c a l e s ( S u b s c a l e s A t o G) added by the student Investigator.  Only on Subscales A ( h o s t i l i t y ) , C (Fear of  Success) and E (Fear of F a i l u r e ) was there no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due t o p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  group.  T a b l e s i n d i c a t i n g means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n groups, and a d i s c u s s i o n  of the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between the means, are presented f o r each s u b s c a l e . separately  Hypothesis 3 i s examined  f o r each s u b s c a l e .  Subscale I - N e g a t l v l s t l c  Intolerance Table 4.8  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale I Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups  Variables  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  11.88  3.22  6  18  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  15.12  3.25  4  20  80. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e shows that the mean score of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  h i g h e r on the  N e g a t i v i s t i c I n t o l e r a n c e subscale than the mean score of low procrastinators.  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized  i n Table 4.9.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g N e g a t i v i s t i c  Intolerance  was r e j e c t e d .  Subscale  II - Immobilizing Mood Table 4.10 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale II Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups  Variables  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  12.50  4.02  6  23  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  18.13  4.50  9  28  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l s that the mean score of high p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the Immobilizing Mood subscale than the mean score of low procrast1nators.  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized i n Table 4.11.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o Immobilizing Mood was r e j e c t e d .  81 . Table 4.9 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale I - N e g a t i v l s t i c  Intolerance  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  92.86  Group  1  223.98  Gender  1  9.65  0.94  Grade  2  19.69  1.92  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  11.97  1.16  Group x Gender  1  1.53  0.15  Group x Grade  2  8.83  0.86  Gender x Grade  2  20.72  2.02  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  2.34  0.23  2  2.34  0.23  11  39.63  3.86  Residual  108  10.28  Total  119  12.99  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  9.04 21.79 *  82. Table 4.11 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale II - Immobilizing  Mood  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  263.90  14.29  Group  1  724.66  39.23 *  Gender  1  7.09  0.38  Grade  2  47.89  2.59  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  9.22  0.49  Group x Gender  1  13.25  0.72  Group x Grade  2  15.67  0.85  Gender x Grade  2  2.73  0.15  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  3.69  0.20  2  3.69  0.20  11  100.83  5.46  Residual  108  18.47  Total  119  26.08  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  83. Subscale  I I I - Low Seif-Competence Table 4.12  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale I I I Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variables  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  8.08  2.88  4  18  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  9.98  3.36  4  18  The  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s that  the mean score  of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Low Se1f-Competence s u b s c a l e than the mean s c o r e of low procrastinators. The  This analysis  i s summarized i n Table 4.13.  t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g Low Seif-Competence was  rejected.  Subscale  IV - U n r e a l i s t i c  Planning Table 4.14  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale IV Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  9.65  2.22  4  14  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  12.53  1.91  7  15  84. Table 4.13 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale I I I - Low Self-Competence by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  34.39  3.59  Group  1  77.24  8.08 *  Gender  1  18.44  1.93  Grade  2  5.47  0.57  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  15.76  1.65  Group x Gender  1  2.98  0.31  Group x Grade  2  33.19  Gender x Grade  2  5.48  0.57  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  7.64  0.80  2  7.64  0.80  11  21.06  2.20  Residual  108  9.56  Total  119  10.62  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  3.47 *  85. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e shows that the mean score of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g s u b s c a l e than procrastinators.  h i g h e r on the  the mean score of low  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized i n Table 4.15.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g was rejected.  Subscale V - F a c i l i t a t l v e  Planfulness Table 4.16  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale V Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  8.78  2.26  4  15  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  6.83  2.53  3  15  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of  i n d i c a t e s that the mean score  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  higher on the  F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s subscale than the mean score of high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s .  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized  4.17. The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s concerning P l a n f u l n e s s was r e j e c t e d .  Facilitatlve  i n Table  86. Table 4.15 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale IV - U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of Variance  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  16.79  4  69.15  Group  1  189.01  Gender  1  3.74  0.91  Grade  2  10.34  2.51  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  6.45  1.57  Group x Gender  1  21 .39  Group x Grade  2  5.45  1.33  Gender x Grade  2  4.10  0.99  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  0.29  0.07  2  0.29  0.07  11  28.13  6.83  Residual  108  4.12  Total  119  6.34  Main E f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Exp 1ai ned  *p < .05  45.19 *  5.19 *  87. Table 4.17 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale V - F a c i l i t a t i v e  Planfulness  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Main e f f e c t s  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  32.94  Group  1  91 .95  Gender  1  0.97  0.17  Grade  2  8.07  1.39  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  3.86  0.67  Group x Gender  1  2.76  0.48  Group x Grade  2  3.11  0.54 *  Gender x Grade  2  5.79  1.00 *  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  7.03  1.21  2  7.03  1 .21  11  15.01  2.59  Residua]  108  5.79  Total  119  6.64  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  5.69 15.88 *  88. Subscale VI - Low S e l f - C o n t r o l Table 4.18 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale VI Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  8.28  2.81  4  16  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  12.75  3.33  6  20  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s that the mean score of high p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the Low Self-Control  s u b s c a l e than the mean score of low  procrastinators.  This analysis  i s summarized  l n Table 4.19.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g Low S e l f - C o n t r o l  was  rejected.  Subscale A - H o s t i l i t y Table 4.20 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale A Scores f o r S u b j e c t s l n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  6.90  2.65  3  15  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  7.85  2.87  3  15  89. Table 4.19 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale VI - Low S e l f - C o n t r o l by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Main e f f e c t s  Mean Square  F  4  154.83  16.09  Group  1  529.77  55.08 *  Gender  1  9.91  1.03  Grade  2  5.29  0.55  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  7.36  0.77  Group x Gender  1  4.78  0.49  Group x Grade  2  1.82  0.19  Gender x Grade  2  14.07  1.46  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  11.57  1.20  2  11 .57  1 .20  11  61.75  6.42  Residual  108  9.62  Total  119  14.44  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  * p < .05  90. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of high  i n d i c a t e s that  the mean  and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the H o s t i l i t y  were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . summarized  scores  subscale  This analysis i s  i n Table 4.21.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o H o s t i l i t y must be accepted.  Subscale B - R i s k t a k i n g Table 4.22 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale B Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  4.82  2.18  2  10  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  6.02  2.54  2  10  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  Maximum  r e v e a l s that the mean score of  high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the Risktaking  subscale  procrast1nators.  than the mean score of low  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized  i n Table 4.23.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g R i s k t a k i n g was rejected.  91 . Table 4.21 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale A - H o s t i l i t y by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  9.03  1.16  Group  1  19.33  2.49  Gender  1  2.09  0.27  Grade  2  4.01  0.52  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  5.78  0.74  Group x Gender  1  8.48  1.09  Group x Grade  2  5.44  0.70  Gender x Grade  2  1.28  0.16  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  11.72  1.51  2  11 .72  1.51  11  8.04  1.03  Residual  108  7.78  Total  119  7.79  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  92. Table 4.23 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale B - R i s k t a k i n g by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Main e f f e c t s  Mean Square  F  4  27.87  Group  1  50.62  10.03 *  Gender  1  55.10  10.92 *  Grade  2  2.29  0.45  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  6.32  1.25  Group x Gender  1  10.48  2.08  Group x Grade  2  2.69  0.54  Gender x Grade  2  5.22  1 .03  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  8.46  1.68  2  8.46  1.68  11  14.55  2.88  Res1 dual  108  5.05  Total  119  5.93  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  * < .05  5.52  93. Subscale  C - Fear of Success Table 4.24 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale C Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups  Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  4.58  1.94  2  10  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  4.23  1.89  2  10  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  i n d i c a t e s that  Maximum  the mean score  of high and low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s on the Fear of Success s u b s c a l e were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y summarized  different.  This analysis i s  i n Table 4.25.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g  Fear of Success must be  accepted.  Subscale D -  Perfectionism Table 4.26  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale D Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  7.28  2.04  2  10  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  5.87  2.55  2  10  94. Table 4.25 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale C - Fear of Success by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Main e f f e c t s  Mean Square  F  4  4.47  1.24  Group  1  7.69  2.14  Gender  1  0.15  0.04  Grade  2  7.09  1 .97  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  1.94  0.54  Group x Gender  1  2.48  0.69  Group x Grade  2  1.04  0.29  Gender x Grade  2  1.75  0.49  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  10.17  2.82  2  10.17  2.82  11  4.36  1.21  Residual  108  3.60  Total  119  3.67  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  95. The a n a l y s i s of variance of  Indicates  that  the mean score  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the  Perfectionism  s u b s c a l e than the mean score of high  procrastinators.  This analysis  i s summarized  i n Table 4.27.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g P e r f e c t i o n i s m  was  rejected.  Subscale E - Fear of F a i l u r e Table 4.28 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale E Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  4.38  1.42  2  8  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  4.77  1.96  2  10  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y summarized  i n d i c a t e s that mean s c o r e s of on the Fear of F a i l u r e s u b s c a l e  different.  This analysis i s  i n Table 4.29.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o Fear of F a i l u r e must be accepted.  96. Table 4.2? A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale D - P e r f e c t i o n i s m by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  24.41  4.57  Group  1  52.53  9.83 *  Gender  1  1.01  Grade  2  18.72  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  2.34  0.44  Group x Gender  1  0.19  0.04  Group x Grade  2  4.71  0.88  Gender x Grade  2  0.37  0.07  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  1 .46  0.27  2  1.46  0.27  11  10.21  1.91  Residual  108  5.34  Total  119  5.79  Main E f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  0.19 3.50 *  97. Table 4.29 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale E - Fear of F a i l u r e by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Mean Square  F  4  3.50  1.15  Group  1  2.79  0.92  Gender  1  7.61  2.50  Grade  2  0.34  0.11  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  0.97  0.32  Group x Gender  1  0.37  0.12  Group x Grade  2  0.70  0.23  Gender x Grade  2  1.66  0.55  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  0.86  0.28  2  0.86  0.28  11  1.87  0.62  Residual  108  3.04  Total  119  2.94  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  Degrees of Freedom  98. Subscale F - Low Self-Esteem Table 4.30 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale F Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  1.43  .89  1  5  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  1.95  1.05  1  5  The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s that of high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the mean s c o r e  h i g h e r on the Low  Self-esteem s u b s c a l e than the mean s c o r e of low procrastinators.  This analysis  i s summarized  i n Table 4.31.  The t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g Low Self-Esteem was rejected.  Subscale G - Work F a c i l i t a t l v e  Items  Table 4.32 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale G Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  16.12  3.14  6  23  High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  60  14.43  3.78  5  20  99. Table 4.31 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale F - Low Self-Esteem by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  2.82  2.88  Group  1  5.18  5.29 #  Gender  1  0.86  0.88  Grade  2  1.24  1.27  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  0.36  0.37  Group x Gender  1  0.47  0.48  Group x Grade  2  0.63  0.64  Gender x Grade  2  0.19  0.19  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  0.34  0.34  2  0.34  0.34  11  1.25  1.28  Residual  108  0.98  Total  119  1.01  Main e f f e c t s  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  *p < .05  100. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e s that the mean score of  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the Work  Facilitative  Items than the mean score of high  procrastinators. The  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized l n Table 4.33.  t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the Work F a c i l i t a t i v e  Items was r e j e c t e d .  Hypothesis 4 - Gender Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s that males w i l l significantly s u b s c a l e s than  different  not score  on each of the s e i f - s t a t e m e n t  females.  An examination  of the ANOVA t a b l e s above I n d i c a t e s that  there was a s i g n i f i c a n t  effect  due t o gender i n only one of  the s u b s c a l e s , Subscale B - R i s k t a k i n g (see ANOVA Table 4.23).  In t h i s case, the mean s c o r e o b t a i n e d by males was  significantly  h i g h e r than that o b t a i n e d by females. For  Subscale B, the f o u r t h h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  Table 4.34 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale B Scores f o r Male and Female S u b j e c t s Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Males  53  6.15  2.22  2  10  Females  67  4.84  2.45  2  10  Total  120  Maximum  101 . Table 4.33 A n a l y s i s of Variance Subscale G - Work F a c i l i t a t l v e  Items  by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of v a r i a n c e  Main e f f e c t s  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  31.24  2.51  Group  1  92.74  7.44 *  Gender  1  12.24  0.98  Grade  2  9.71  0.78  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  4.13  0.33  Group x Gender  1  1.64  0.13  Group x  Grade  2  2.74  0.22  Gender x Grade  2  4.76  0.38  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  8.74  0.70  2  8.74  0.70  11  14.82  1.19  Residual  108  12.47  Total  119  12.69  Group x Gender x Grade Explalned  * p < .05  102. The s c o r e s on a l l other s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s u b s c a l e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t  f o r males and females.  T h e r e f o r e , the f o u r t h h y p o t h e s i s was accepted on those subscales.  Hypothesis 5 - Grade Hypothesis 5 s t a t e s that Grade 10, 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s will  not s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t  on each of the  self-statement subscales. An examination  of the ANOVA t a b l e s (see ANOVA T a b l e s  4.9, 4.11, 4.13, 4.15, 4.17, 4.19, 4.21, 4.23, 4.25, 4.27, 4.29, 4.31, 4.33) i n d i c a t e s that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due t o grade i n only one of the s u b s c a l e s , Subscale D - P e r f e c t i o n i s m (see ANOVA Table 4.27).  For Subscale D, the  f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . Table 4.35 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Subscale D Scores f o r S u b j e c t s i n Grade 10, 11 and 12 Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Grade 10  54  7.15  2.30  2  10  Grade 11  37  5.76  2.22  2  10  Grade 12  29  6.55  2.60  2  10  Total  120  103. A post hoc comparison of the d i f f e r e n c e s among these means was done u s i n g Tukey's method f o r m u l t i p l e comparisons ( G l a s s & Hoptklns,  1984).  d i f f e r e n c e between  Grade 10 and Grade 11 was s i g n i f i c a n t  at  T h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s that the  the 0.05 l e v e l . Table 4.36 Post Hoc Comparison of the D i f f e r e n c e s Among the Means of Grades 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s on Subscale D  Compar1son  Means  Di f f e r e n c e s  Sx  Q  Gr. 10  Gr. 11  7.15 - 5.76  1.39  .3488  3.985 *  Gr. 10  Gr. 12  7.15 - 6.55  .60  .3763  1.595  Gr. 11  Gr. 12  5.76 - 6.55  -.79  .4054  1.949  * p < .05 The s c o r e s on a l l other s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s u b s c a l e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t subjects.  f o r Grade 10, 11 and 12  T h e r e f o r e , the f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s was accepted f o r  those s u b s c a l e s .  Significant  Interactions  The ANOVA T a b l e s 4.13, 4.15 and 4.17 show s i g n i f i c a n t first-order  interactions.  ANOVA Table 4.13 (Subscale I I I -  104. Low Self-Competence) r e v e a l s a group by grade  Interaction.  ANOVA Table 4.15 (Subscale IV - U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g ) shows a group by gender i n t e r a c t i o n .  ANOVA Table 4.17 (Subscale V  - F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s ) i n d i c a t e s both group by grade and gender by grade I n t e r a c t i o n s .  The four  first-order  i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e shown i n T a b l e s 4.37, 4.38, 4.39 and 4.40. Table 4.37 I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Grade on the Low Self-Competence Subscale Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  High  Procrastination  N  Mean  S.D.  N  Mean  S.D.  Grade 10  26  7.96  2.78  28  9.89  2.91  Grade 11  13  9.85  3.26  24  9.67  3.54  Grade 12  21  7.14  2.35  8  11.25  4.37  Table 4.38 I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Gender on the U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g Subscale Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  High  Procrastination  N  Mean  S.D.  N  Mean  S.D.  Males  30  9.73  2.08  23  11.83  1.72  Fema1es  30  9.57  2.37  37  12.97  1 .91  105. Table 3.39 I n t e r a c t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group by Grade on the F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s Subscale Low P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  High  Procrastination  N  Mean  S.D.  N  Mean  S. D.  Grade 10  26  9.04  2.18  28  7.14  2.52  Grade 11  13  8.46  2.40  24  6.17  1.81  Grade 12  21  8.67  2.33  8  7.75  3. 96  Table 4.40 I n t e r a c t i o n s of Gender by Grade on the F a c i l i t a t i v e P l a n f u l n e s s Subscale Females  Males N  Mean  S.D.  N  Mean  S.D.  Grade 10  43  7.58  2.62  48  8.06  2. 17  Grade 11  26  6.65  1.98  30  7.50  2.39  Grade 12  32  8.13  2.67  25  8.12  2.67  Since no hypotheses had been formulated with r e g a r d t o i n t e r a c t i o n s between the v a r i a b l e s of group, gender and grade, no attempt has been made t o I n t e r p r e t  these  interact ions. There were no second order  interactions.  106.  Hypotheses 6 Hypothesis 6 s t a t e s that there w i l l difference  i n the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  Score of males and  females. The data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d  that males had a mean  Procrastination  Score of 38.28 w h i l e females had a mean  Procrastination  Score of 39.12 (see Table 4.41).  Table 4.41 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scores f o r Males and Females Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Males  101  38.28  8.46  16  57  Females  103  39.12  9.32  13  58  The e f f e c t s due t o gender and grade were examined u s i n g 2X3 (gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with Procrastination analysis  Score as the dependent v a r i a b l e .  i s summarized i n Table 4.42.  This  An examination of  t h i s t a b l e shows that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due t o gender. The s i x t h h y p o t h e s i s was accepted.  107. Table  4.42  A n a l y s i s of Variance Procrastination  Source of v a r i a n c e  Score by Gender and Grade  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  3  260.77  3.39  Gender  1  16.53  0.22  Grade  2  373.19  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  10.47  0.14  Gender x Grade  2  10.47  0.14  5  160.65  2.09  Residual  198  76.95  Total  203  79.01  Main e f f e c t s  Explained  *p < .05  4.85 *  108. Hypotheses 7 Hypothesis 7 s t a t e s that there w i l l difference 11 and  be no  significant  i n the mean P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score of Grades 10,  12 s t u d e n t s .  The data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that Grade 12 students had the lowest P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score while Grade 11 s t u d e n t s had the h i g h e s t (see Table 4.43). Table  4.43  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Scores f o r Grades 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Grade 10  91  38.59  9.08  13  57  Grade 11  56  41.41  7.84  27  55  Grade 12  57  36.21  8.94  16  58  The e f f e c t  due  to Grade were examined u s i n g a  Maximum  2X3  (gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score as the dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized in Table 4.42. there was  An examination  a significant  h y p o t h e s i s was  effect  of t h i s t a b l e r e v e a l s that due  to grade.  The  seventh  rejected.  A post hoc comparison of the d i f f e r e n c e s among these means was  done u s i n g Tukey's method f o r m u l t i p l e comparisons  ( G l a s s & Hopkins, 1984).  T h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s that the  109. d i f f e r e n c e between the means of Grade 11 and Grade 12 students was s i g n i f i c a n t  (see Table  4.44).  Table 4.44 Post Hoc Comparison of the D i f f e r e n c e Among the Means of Grade 10, 11 and 12 S u b j e c t s on P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score Comparisons  Means  Differences  Sx  Q  Gr. 10  Gr. 11  38.59 - 41.41  -2.82  1.053  2.678  Gr. 10  Gr. 12  38.59 - 36.21  2.38  1.032  2.307  Gr. 11  Gr. 12  41.41 - 36.21  5.20  1.108  4.693 *  ______  Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 s t a t e s that there w i l l  be no s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean achievement score of high and low procrast i nators. The data a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that the mean achievement score of low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was 5.68 while the mean achievement score of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was 4.73 (see Table  4.45).  110. Table 4.45 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Achievement Scores f o r Low and High P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Groups Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Low  60  5.63  .93  2  7  High  60  4.73  1.21  1  7  Total  120  The data a n a l y s i s a l s o r e v e a l e d that the mean achievement s c o r e of the females i n the sample was 5.37 w h i l e the mean achievement score of the males was 5.00 (see Table 4.46).  Table 4.46 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Achievement Scores f o r Males and Females Variable  N  Mean  S.D.  Minimum  Maximum  Males  53  5.00  1.14  2  7  Females  67  5.37  1.18  1  7  Total  120 The e f f e c t s due t o low or h i g h p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group,  gender and grade were examined u s i n g a 2X2X3 (group by gender by grade) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with achievement as the dependent v a r i a b l e .  T h i s a n a l y s i s i s summarized i n  Hi. Table 4.47.  An  examination of t h i s t a b l e r e v e a l s that  was  a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t due  The  achievement of  higher  to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was  higher  gender.  significantly  than the achievement of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  achievement of females in the sample was  there  The  significantly  than that of males.  The  e i g h t h h y p o t h e s i s was  rejected.  Summary  The  purpose of t h i s study was  to i n v e s t i g a t e  s e l f - r e p o r t e d academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary s t u d e n t s in the A r t s and S c i e n c e s extent  programme to determine  to which these s t u d e n t s put  assignments and  the extent  The  o f f doing school  to which s t u d e n t s experience  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as problematic behaviour.  and would l i k e to change t h i s  data c o l l e c t e d I n d i c a t e d  that almost 30%  the s t u d e n t s i n the sample o f t e n p r o c r a s t i n a t e on work, that 34.4% 40.2%  the  of  academic  view t h i s as a s e r i o u s problem, and  that  would very much l i k e to stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on  assignments. The  study a l s o assessed c o g n i t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with  problematic and  procrastination.  The  d i f f e r e n c e s between high  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s in t h e i r endorsement of 33  items r e p r e s e n t i n g s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s behaviour and  e i g h t p o s i t i v e items  negative  which i n h i b i t work representing  112. Table 4.47 A n a l y s i s of Variance Achievement by P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Group, Gender and Grade  Source of variance  Main e f f e c t s  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Square  F  4  9.19  Group  1  31.46  29.71 *  Gender  1  5.16  4.87 *  Grade  2  1.31  1.23  2-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  5  1 .72  1 .63  Group x Gender  1  0.24  0.23  Group x Grade  2  2.31  2.18  Gender x Grade  2  1.32  1.24  3-Way I n t e r a c t i o n s  2  2.04  1 .92  2  2.04  1 .92  11  4.50  4.25  Residual  108  1.06  Total  119  1.38  Group x Gender x Grade Explained  * p < .05  8.68  113. s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s which f a c i l i t a t e work behaviour examined.  The I n f e r e n t i a l  were  a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d that the mean  score of high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on negative  items than that of low p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s .  A l s o , the  mean score of low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y on p o s i t i v e null  higher  items than that of high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s .  The  hypotheses were r e j e c t e d . The  41 item q u e s t i o n n a i r e was comprised  of s i x  s u b s c a l e s d e v i s e d by the t e s t author and an a d d i t i o n a l s u b s c a l e s Included by the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  seven  Each subscale was  examined f o r the e f f e c t s due t o high or low p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n group, gender and grade. p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorsed  The a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d the high the f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than d i d low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s : Negatlvlstic  I n t o l e r a n c e , Immobilizing Mood, Low S e l f -  Competence, U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g , Low S e l f - C o n t r o l , R i s k t a k i n g and Low Self-esteem. endorsed  Low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  the f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than d i d  high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s : F a c i l i t a t l v e P l a n f u l n e s s , P e r f e c t i o n i s m and Work F a c i l i t a t l v e Items. f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t : of F a i l u r e and Fear of Success.  R e s u l t s f o r the Hostility,  Fear  The a n a l y s e s f u r t h e r  i n d i c a t e d that the s c o r e s of males on the R i s k t a k i n g Subscale were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the s c o r e s of females.  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n  the endorsement of any of the other s u b s c a l e s .  F i n a l l y , the  114.  analyses  i n d i c a t e d the s c o r e s of Grade 10, 11 and 12  students were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the P e r f e c t i o n i s m s u b s c a l e , but not on any of the other  subscales.  The e f f e c t s of gender and grade on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n score were i n v e s t i g a t e d . that  The i n f e r e n t i a l a n a l y s e s  indicated  there was no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  score due t o gender, but that due t o grade.  there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  The Grade 12 students  lowest mean p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  i n the sample had the  s c o r e , w h i l e Grade 11 s t u d e n t s  had the h i g h e s t mean p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  score.  T h e r e f o r e , the  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o gender was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o grade was r e j e c t e d . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n achievement was a l s o examined. r e v e a l e d that  t o academic  The I n f e r e n t i a l  analysis  the achievement of students with a low  procrastination  score was higher than the achievement of  students with a high p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  score.  The n u l l  115. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION  Summary The l i t e r a t u r e has shown that procrastination  the problem of  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute i n academic  settings  and that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has a negative Impact on academic performance and student f u n c t i o n i n g  (Boyd & G r i e g e r ,  1982;  Burka & Yuen, 1983; Green, 1982; Rothblum, Solomon & Murakami,  1986).  procrastination research level.  Even though i t has been assumed that o c c u r s among secondary s t u d e n t s , a v a i l a b l e  has focused e x c l u s i v e l y on s t u d e n t s at the c o l l e g e T h i s study sought t o examine  the extent t o which  secondary s t u d e n t s i n the A r t s and S c i e n c e s programme procrastinate perceive  on academic t a s k s ,  the extent t o which they  t h i s as a problem which they would l i k e t o change,  and the extent t o which p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n achievement.  a f f e c t s academic  As there i s some evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e  of gender and grade d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , t h i s study a l s o sought t o d i s c o v e r procrastinate increases  whether  males  more than females, and whether  or decreases with grade  Procrastination  procrastination  level.  i n v o l v e s more than d e f i c i e n t time  management or study s k i l l s (Burka 8. Yuen, s t u d i e s suggest that negative c o g n i t i o n s  1982). inhibit  Recent task  116. completion and p o s i t i v e c o g n i t i o n s completion (Grecco, 1984; Williams,  1982).  Solomon & Rothblum,  high  and  task 1984;  T h i s study sought to examine  r e l a t i o n s h i p of p o s i t i v e and seif-statements,  facilitate  negative s e l f - t a l k ,  to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and  low p r o c r a s t ! n a t o r s  c o g n i t i v e antecedents. be of s i g n i f i c a n t help  the or  to d i s c o v e r  whether  endorse p a r t i c u l a r types of  Knowledge of these v a r i a b l e s  could  in the development of e f f e c t i v e  c o u n s e l l i n g programmes aimed at h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s overcome p r o c r a s t i nat1 on. The  o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study were t o examine the  following: 1.  the s e l f - r e p o r t e d extent of the academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of secondary s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in the A r t s and  2.  S c i e n c e s programme;  the extent to which A r t s and  Sciences students  experience academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a problem and would l i k e to stop p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on academic tasks. The  study a l s o sought to t e s t the  High p r o c r a s t ! n a t o r s seif-statements 2.  Low  will  endorse negative  more than w i l l  procrastinators will  f o l l o w i n g hypotheses:  low  procrastinators.  endorse p o s i t i v e s e l f -  statements more than w i l l  high  procrastinators.  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l  endorse negative  117. seif-statement  subscales  procrast!nators  more than w i l l  and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  endorse p o s i t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t more than w i l l 4.  There w i l l  high  There w i l l  There w i l l  subscales  procrastinators.  subscales.  be no grade l e v e l d i f f e r e n c e s l n the  endorsement of s e i f - s t a t e m e n t 6.  will  be no gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n the endorsement  of s e i f - s t a t e m e n t 5.  low  subscales.  be no d i f f e r e n c e i n the extent t o which  males and females p r o c r a s t i n a t e . 7.  There w i l l  be d i f f e r e n c e s l n the extent t o which  Grade 10, 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s p r o c r a s t i n a t e . 8.  Procrastination will  have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on  academic achievement. To accomplish these o b j e c t i v e s and t o t e s t the hypotheses, a sample of 204 A r t s and S c i e n c e s s t u d e n t s was drawn from two secondary s c h o o l s  i n Langley, B.C.  were asked t o complete the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Inventory which c o n t a i n e d  two p a r t s .  to respond t o e i g h t p o s i t i v e or seif-statements self-statements.  Students  Seif-Statement  Part A asked  subjects  work-facl11tative  and 31 n e g a t i v e or w o r k - i n h i b i t i v e Part B ( P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n S e l f - R a t i n g S c a l e )  asked s t u d e n t s t o respond t o 12 q u e s t i o n s about study  habits  and was used t o determine a P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score f o r each s t u d e n t . Demographic Information p e r t a i n i n g t o gender.  118. grade, age,  academic achievement and  f u t u r e p l a n s was  also  col 1ected. Data r e g a r d i n g the extent of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary s t u d e n t s , and  the extent  to which these  students  see t h i s as a problem which they would l i k e t o change, were gathered.  D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s were used t o examine the  results. The null  e i g h t other hypotheses were r e f o r m u l a t e d  form and  tested using inferential  case, an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was  statistics.  used t o t e s t  In each  the  d i f f e r e n c e between means to determine i f there was statistically  in the  a  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of s p e c i f i e d groups on  certain variables. In terms of the o b j e c t i v e s of the study, c o n f i r m that secondary s t u d e n t s  the  i n the A r t s and  results  Sciences  programme do p r o c r a s t i n a t e on academic t a s k s and do see as a problem that they would l i k e t o c o r r e c t .  this  There appear  to be no s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t s on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , and although  there were grade e f f e c t s , the r e s u l t s d i d not  c o r r o b o r a t e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h that suggested  a trend in  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n r e l a t e d to length of time in s c h o o l . E f f e c t s of gender and grade were evident on only two  subscales.  The  r e s u l t s of t h i s study a l s o i n d i c a t e that there i s a negative e f f e c t of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on academic achievement. F i n a l l y , the study confirmed  that low p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s  endorse p o s i t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s and s u b s c a l e s more than  do  119. high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorse negative  s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s and s u b s c a l e s more than do low procrast1nators.  Results and Discussion  Hypothesis Onet significantly  d i f f e r e n t on the combined t o t a l  s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s than Resultst  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l  of negative  low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s .  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d . High  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y total  not score  higher on the combined  of negative s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s than d i d low  procrast i nators. Discussion:  The r a t i o n a l e f o r Hypothesis One stems from  the c o n t e n t i o n of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s that negative self-talk  i n t e r f e r e s with task completion.  c o g n i t i v e t h e o r i s t s , a downward s p i r a l  A c c o r d i n g t o the  i s c r e a t e d i n which  negative c o g n i t i o n s lead t o negative emotions and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ( E l l i s & Knaus, 1977; Grecco, 1984; Meichenbaum, Henshaw, & Hlmel, demonstrate support  1982). The r e s u l t s  f o r the s u p p o s i t i o n that high  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s , when c o n f r o n t e d with t e d i o u s or d i f f i c u l t work that they do not wish statements  t o do, tend t o make more negative  about the work and about themselves  procrast1nators.  than do low  120. Hypothesis Two:  High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the combined t o t a l self-statements Results:  score  of p o s i t i v e  than low p r o c r s t i n a t o r s . The  null hypothesis  was  rejected.  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher total  not  of p o s i t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s  Low  on the combined  than d i d high  procrastinators. Discussion:  The  r e s u l t s r e v e a l that students  who  r a r e l y p r o c r a s t i n a t e make statements to themselves that work-facl1itative.  are  These statements r e f l e c t a p o s i t i v e and  r e a l i s t i c approach to p l a n n i n g and  accomplishing  academic  tasks. Hypothesis Three:  High p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s w i l l  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on each of the subscales  not  score  self-statement  than low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  Results: are presented  r e s u l t s of Hypothesis 3 f o r each  The  and d i s c u s s e d  subscale  separately.  Subscale I - N e a a t l v l s t l c I n t o l e r a n c e Results:  The  null hypothesis  was  rejected.  High  p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on N e g a t l v i s t i c Intolerance  than low  Discussion:  The  r e f l e c t s a negative  procrast1nators. N e g a t l v i s t i c Intolerance a t t i t u d e about school  subscale  work.  Results  suggest that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s engage in s e l f - t a l k  that  121. Is s t r o n g l y negative, hostility  (Burka & Yuen, 1983}  Subscale ll  The  procrast1nators  E l l i s 8, Knaus, 1977).  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  scored  Mood than low  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on  or depressed.  The  procrastination  be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s who  that depression,  Subscale III - Low  Seif-Competence  The  inability  in t u r n ,  and  rejected.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on  Seif-Competence than low  High Low  procrastinators.  E l l i s and  Knaus (1977) c i t e d self-downing  of the main causes of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  theory of s e l f - e f f i c a c y s t a t e s that  tasks.  leads to f u r t h e r  to s e l f - m o b i l i z e .  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s scored  they w i l l  anxious  i s o f t e n symptomatic of m i l d to severe forms  and  Discussion:  are  score  David Burns (1980a) that  l o s s of m o t i v a t i o n  that  Immobilizing  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e support f o r the views of  Aaron Beck (1967) and  Resultst  High  A c c o r d i n g to Grecco, i n d i v i d u a l s who  t h i s s u b s c a l e may  of depression  rejected.  procrast1nators.  Discussion:  as one  elements of  - I m m o b i l i z i n g Mood  Results:  high on  perhaps c o n t a i n i n g  be e f f e c t i v e w i l l  Bandura's  i n d i v i d u a l s who  believe  be more l i k e l y to perform  A negative sense of s e i f - e f f i c a c y r e s u l t s in  task-avoidance (Bandura, 1977).  The  E l l i s and  the r e s u l t s of t h i s study.  Knaus are supported by  views of Bandura  and  122. High p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorsed items which r e f l e c t a low sense of self-competence. Subscale iv - U n r e a l i s t i c P l a n n i n g Results:  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s scored  High  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on U n r e a l i s t i c  P l a n n i n g than low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . Discussion:  S i l v e r and S a b l n i wrote that  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s o f t e n know what they hope t o achieve but lack a " r e c i p e " t o f o l l o w (1982).  A student who l a c k s a  r e a l i s t i c and a p p r o p r i a t e  plan which w i l l enable the t i m e l y  completion academic tasks  i s s e t up f o r f a i l u r e .  results  The  of t h i s study suggest that high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s  to make s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s  that  tend  i n d i c a t e u n r e a l i s t i c or  i d e a l i s t i c a t t i t u d e s about time, as If there were no r e a l limitations  on t h e i r time or energy (Burka & Yuen, 1983).  Subscale V - F a c i l i t a t l v e Results:  Planfulness  The nul1 h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  Low  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s scored  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on F a c i l i t a t l v e  Planfulness  procrastInators.  than high  Discussion:  The r e s u l t s  reveal  that  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s  tend t o make statements that r e f l e c t a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g and planful  approach t o work.  represent  adaptive,  work-completion.  The se1f-statements i n t h i s s c a l e  c o p i n g statements that f a c i l i t a t e  The s t u d e n t s who s c o r e d  high  on t h i s s c a l e  123. do not make statements  to themselves which lead to negative  a f f e c t , ruminations about t h e i r work and p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Subscale VI - Low S e i f - C o n t r o l Results:  The  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  rejected.  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on Self-Control  than  Discussion:  Low  low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s . A c c o r d i n g to Grecco,  endorse t h i s s c a l e may behavior.  High  They may  be unable  individuals  who  to manage t h e i r  own  p r o c r a s t i n a t e because they have, as  E l l i s and Knaus (1977) suggest, These i n d i v i d u a l s may  a low-frustration tolerance.  have the i r r a t i o n a l  belief  that g o a l s  s h o u l d be a t t a i n e d e a s i l y , without work, and that one  should  not have to forgo short-term p l e a s u r e s l n order to a t t a i n long-term  goals.  The r e s u l t s here suggest  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s do  that high  indeed endorse low s e l f - c o n t r o l  items.  Subscale B - R i s k t a k i n g Results:  The  n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  rejected.  High  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on R i s k t a k i n g than  low p r o c r a t i n a t o r s . o  Discusslon: who  A number of authors r e f e r to  c l a i m to work best under p r e s s u r e and so  leave work u n t i l & Knaus, 1977; thrill  individuals  intentionally  the l a s t minute (Burka & Yuen, 1983;  Solomon & Rothblum, 1984;  Ellis  S c o t t , 1980). The  of r i s k - t a k i n g , of the "eleventh hour" rush, i s  124, linked to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  High p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s  in t h i s  study endorsed r i s k t a k i n g items s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than d i d low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . Subscale D - P e r f e c t i o n i s m Results:  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  was r e j e c t e d .  Low  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s s c o r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on P e r f e c t i o n i s m than high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . DlscMggJiont were s i g n i f i c a n t , by  the l i t e r a t u r e .  Although the r e s u l t s on t h i s  subscale  they were not i n the d i r e c t i o n suggested Perfectionism  Is c i t e d throughout the  l i t e r a t u r e as a l e a d i n g cause of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (Burka & Yuen, 1983; E l l i s & Knaus, 1977; Knaus, 1979; Solomon 8. Rothblum, 1984).  Yet, low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i n t h i s study  endorsed the P e r f e c t i o n i s m high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .  items s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than d i d  One e x p l a n a t i o n  f o r these r e s u l t s i s  that the items may not have been i n t e r p r e t e d by the s u b j e c t s as r e p r e s e n t i n g u n r e a l i s t i c a l 1 y high or grandiose but r a t h e r as r e p r e s e n t i n g h e a l t h y Subscale F - Low Results:  standards of e x c e l l e n c e .  Self-Esteem  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  was r e j e c t e d .  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y Self-Esteem  higher  High  on Low  than low p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s .  Discussion: subscale,  standards  Although there was only one item  the item s i g n i f i c a n t l y  in t h i s  d i s t i n g u i s h e d between high  125. and  low p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s .  T h i s item,  l i k e the Low  Seif-Competence items, r e f l e c t s a sense of negative (i.e.,  efficacy  there i s no p o i n t i n t r y i n g because one won't do  we 11). Subscale  G - Work F a c i l i t a t i v e  Resultst  Items  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  Low  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s s c o r e d s l g n f i c a n t l y higher on the Work F a c i l i t a t i v e Items than d i d high p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s . Discussion: facilitative  The endorsement of the p o s i t i v e or work  items added t o the inventory by the  i n v e s t i g a t o r r e a f f i r m s the h y p o t h e s i s that i n d i v i d u a l s who do not p r o c r a s t i n a t e make adaptive s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s when faced with work that they do not wish t o do.  Low  p r o c r a s t 1 n a t o r s focus on t a s k s and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g than waste time on negative  rather  rumination.  Non-si an i f leant R e s u l t s ; The  f o l l o w i n g s u b s c a l e s added t o the inventory by the  I n v e s t i g a t o r d i d not show s i g n f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the extent  t o which they were endorsed by high and low  procrast1nators:  Subscales A, C and E ( H o s t i l i t y , Fear of  Success and Fear of F a i l u r e ) . There i s evidence of The  that f e a r of f a i l u r e  i s an  antecedent  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (Rothblum, Solomon, 8, Murakami, 1986). items p r e s e n t e d  i n t h i s r e s e a r c h , however, may not  126. adequately represent f e a r of f a i l u r e . As Beery failure  i s a r e l a t i v e term  In t h a t , f o r some, " f a i l u r e "  connotes any achievement s h o r t of p e r f e c t i o n . evoked by the f e a r of f a i l u r e items c o n t a i n e d here may I n d i v i d u a l s who  suggests,  The a n x i e t y  I n h i b i t s work completion.  The  not have r e f l e c t e d the s e l f - t a l k of  are a f r a i d of  failing.  L i k e w i s e , the f e a r of success and h o s t i l i t y  items  may  not have a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s made by procrastInators.  The  items may  have been a s s o c i a t e d , by  s t u d e n t s In the sample, with statements  the  t y p i c a l l y made by  younger s t u d e n t s . Hypothesis Four:  Males w i l l  not s c o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y  d i f f e r e n t on each of the s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s u b s c a l e s than females. Results:  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  one s u b s c a l e .  accepted f o r a l l but  Only on Subscale B, R i s k t a k i n g , d i d males  score s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than females.  There were no  s i g n i f i c a n t gender e f f e c t s on any other s u b s c a l e . Discussion:  There  i s some evidence  males and females endorse d i f f e r e n t of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  in the l i t e r a t u r e Ideational  that  antecedents  In an unpublished study by Rothblum and  Solomon (1983) c i t e d by Grecco  (1984), males endorsed  r e l a t e d t o r i s k - t a k i n g more than d i d females. are c o r r o b o r a t e d i n t h i s study.  items  Those r e s u l t s  127. Hypothesis F i v e :  Grade 10, 11 and 12 s t u d e n t s w i l l  not  score s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on each of s e l f - s t a t e m e n t subscales. Results: one s u b s c a l e .  The n u l l  h y p o t h e s i s was  accepted f o r a l l but  Only on Subscale D, P e r f e c t i o n i s m , were there  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s due  to grade  level.  Grade 10 s t u d e n t s  had the h i g h e s t mean s c o r e , and Grade 11 s t u d e n t s had lowest mean s c o r e .  the  The post hoc comparision of the r e s u l t s  showed that the d i f f e r e n c e between the means of Grade 10 Grade 11 s t u d e n t s was Discussion:  significant.  As the endorsement of the P e r f e c t i o n i s t  items r e v e a l s no t r e n d , i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r p r e t results.  and  the  Regarding a l l other s u b s c a l e s , the r e s u l t s support  the h y p o t h e s i s that grade  level  does not e f f e c t  the  endorsement by high and  low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s of p a r t i c u l a r  ideational  antecedents.  or c o g n i t i v e  Hypothesis S i x : difference  There w i l l  be no  significant  i n the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Score of males and  females. Results:  The n u l l  h y p o t h e s i s was  accepted.  The  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of gender on P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Discussion:  Score.  Evidence r e g a r d i n g gender d i f f e r e n c e s  r e l a t e d to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n one study (Grecco, 1984) to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  i s somewhat c o n f l i c t i n g .  Only  showed gender d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d  In that study, males s c o r e d h i g h e r on  128. procrastination  than females.  Other s t u d i e s  (Rothblum,  Solomon & Murakami, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) i n d i c a t e that there are no d i f f e r e n c e s and  females p r o c r a s t i n a t e .  i n the extent t o which males  T h i s study adds support to the  evidence that males and females do not score d i f f e r e n t l y on items which measured the extent of t h e i r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Hypothesis Seven: difference and  There w i l l  i n the P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  be no s i g n i f i c a n t Scores of Grades 10, 11  12 s t u d e n t s . Results:  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  s i g n i f i c a n t grade l e v e l d i f f e r e n c e s Scores.  ln Procrastination  Grade 11 s t u d e n t s had the h i g h e s t  Procrastination mean s c o r e .  There were  mean  Score w h i l e Grade 12 s t u d e n t s had the lowest  A post hoc comparison of the d i f f e r e n c e s among  the Grade 10, 11 and 12 means r e v e a l e d  that  the d i f f e r e n c e  between the Grade 11 and 12 s c o r e s was s i g n i f i c a n t . Discussion; of grade l e v e l the  There i s some evidence, i n the l i t e r a t u r e ,  e f f e c t s on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  tendency t o p r o c r a s t i n a t e  remains i n school  increases  I t appears that  the longer one  (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  of t h i s study a l s o reveal  grade l e v e l  The r e s u l t s  e f f e c t s on  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n but do not i n d i c a t e a t r e n d s i m i l a r t o that in other s t u d i e s . to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  The r e s u l t s here do not lend themselves  129. Hypothesis E i g h t ; in  There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e  the mean achievement score  of high  and low  procrast1nators. Results;  The n u l l  h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d .  Low  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r achievement than high  scores  procrastinators.  Discussion:  There i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence p e r t a i n i n g  to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and achievement. Beery (1975) noted that high p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s a r e o f t e n to make e f f e c t i v e last-minute achievement  i s not adversely  able  e f f o r t s so that t h e i r affected.  Other s t u d i e s show a  negative c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and achievement (Hill,  Hill,  Chabot & B a r r a l 1 ,  Murakami, 1986).  1978; Rothblum, Solomon, &  The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest  that  A r t s and S c i e n c e s s t u d e n t s who p r o c r a s t i n a t e do not achieve as high  on r e p o r t c a r d grades as those s t u d e n t s who do not  procrastinate.  LlmltflUong  The  research  sample was r e s t r i c t e d t o A r t s and S c i e n c e s  s t u d e n t s i n Grades 10, 11 and 12. sample attended two s c h o o l s school  district.  A l l s t u d e n t s i n the  i n the same suburban/rural  A l l s t u d e n t s i n the sample agreed t o  p a r t i c i p a t e on a volunteer  basis.  These f a c t o r s might  130. affect  the g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y of the f i n d i n g s t o the general  secondary student  population.  T h i s study was based e x c l u s i v e l y on s e l f - r e p o r t measures with no attempt t o c o r r e l a t e r e s u l t s t o behavioural measures.  T h i s may l i m i t the r e s u l t s t o what the students  were prepared  t o say about themselves and t o t h e i r own  s u b j e c t i v e Judgements about t h e i r study h a b i t s . Furthermore, there a r e shortcomings inherent u s i n g self-report cognitions.  inventories to c o l l e c t  i n f o r m a t i o n about  S e l f - r e p o r t i n v e n t o r i e s , u n l i k e open-ended  c o g n i t i v e assessment techniques,  "Increase  that responses are only approximations  of the a c t u a l  c o g n i t i o n s , or worse, are f a b r i c a t i o n s " 1984).  the l i k e l i h o o d  (Grecco, p. 80,  In f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , open-ended assessment  devices  c o u l d be used.  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r C o u n s e l l i n g and Recommendations  The  r e s u l t s of the study c o n f i r m that many secondary  students who a r e p l a n n i n g t o a t t e n d  post-secondary  e d u c a t i o n a l programmes p r o c r a s t i n a t e on academic t a s k s . Given  the f i n d i n g s of t h i s r e s e a r c h that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s  detrimental  t o academic performance, and given the present  c o m p e t i t i v e c l i m a t e surrounding  entrance  i n t o many c o l l e g e  and u n i v e r s i t y programmes and the Job market, t h i s problem  131, Is one which deserves s u b s t a n t i a l T h i s study r e v e a l e d  consideration.  that many secondary s t u d e n t s are  concerned about p r o b l e m a t i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n to change t h e i r b e h a v i o r .  and would  like  Students themselves r e c o g n i z e the  d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , both emotional and academic.  Given student r e c o g n i t i o n  of the problem,  c o u n s e l l i n g programmes aimed at h e l p i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may be well Procrastination  received  s t u d e n t s overcome  at the secondary  Is a complex problem, which  level.  involves  more than d e f i c i e n t study and time management s k i l l s .  The  r e s u l t s of t h i s research  may  be  i n d i c a t e that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  l i n k e d t o c o g n i t i o n s which e l i c i t  unproductive r u m i n a t i o n . findings for counselling  negative a f f e c t and  What are the I m p l i c a t i o n s interventions?  Yuen <1982) suggest, study s k i l l s a d v i c e , and behavioural  of such  I f , as Burka and time management  s e l f - c o n t r o l programmes alone are u l t i m a t e l y  I n e f f e c t i v e i n t r e a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , what s t r a t e g i e s would be u s e f u l ?  Given the r e s u l t s of the present study, i t  would appear that c o u n s e l l i n g dysfunctional  i n t e r v e n t i o n s which modify  thoughts may well  procrastinators.  be a p p r o p r i a t e  David Burns <1980a) recommends a number of  s e l f - a c t l v a t l o n e x e r c i s e s which help t o reveal in t h i n k i n g and m o b i l i z e secondary l e v e l  clients.  work.  distortions  C e r t a i n l y s t u d e n t s at the  can be made aware of the way i n which t h e i r  own t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s i n h i b i t school  therapy f o r  Students c o u l d ,  t h e i r a b i l i t y t o complete in conjunction  with more  132. traditional  approaches,  expose maladaptive positive  be given e x e r c i s e s which help to  t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s and promote a more  attitude.  The r e s u l t s of the study a l s o suggest p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may  be symptomatic of other forms of  psychological  disturbance.  that h a b i t u a l  academic postponing may  study s k i l l s knowledge, and or  other d i s o r d e r s .  that  C o u n s e l l o r s need to be aware  indeed may  more than lack of indicate depression  Grecco's P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  Inventory c o u l d be a u s e f u l not o n l y to help uncover  tool  ln c o u n s e l l i n g sessions,  themes l n the t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s of  s t u d e n t s , but a l s o t o suggest d e b i l i t a t i n g emotional  Seif-Statement  the presence of more  problems which are i n need of  attent ion. A suggestion f o r improvement of the PSSI would be t o expand the inventory so that of  i t addresses the r e l a t i o n s h i p  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n t o task d i f f i c u l t y .  In t h i s study,  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been d e f i n e d as the postponement of a task that one  i s capable of doing, but does not do.  Yet, in  the study, no r e a l measure of student p e r c e p t i o n of task difficulty or  was  sought.  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s not known whether  not the s t u d e n t s l n the sample i n f a c t p r o c r a s t i n a t e d on  assignments  which they Judged t o be d i f f i c u l t  their capabilities.  or beyond  Items which ask s t u d e n t s to r a t e , f o r  example, s u b j e c t d i f f i c u l t y  and subsequently extent of  133. p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n might overcome t h i s l i m i t a t i o n of the i nventory. A suggestion f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would be to t e s t e f f e c t s of c o g n i t i v e techniques  f o r overcoming  p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n among secondary  students.  the  E x e r c i s e s , such  as those recommended by Burns <1980a), c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d quite readily  i n t o a group programme and r e s u l t s  compared to study s k i l l s or behavioural approaches.  then  self-control  Such r e s e a r c h c o u l d help pave the way  e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g programmes aimed at  for truly  treating  problematic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .  Conclusion Based on the measures used in t h i s study and a n a l y s e s a p p l i e d , high p r o c r a s t I n a t o r s endorsed w o r k - i n h i b l t i v e se1f-statements procrastInators.  Low  the  negative,  more than than d i d  p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s endorsed  low  positive,  w o r k - f a c i 1 I t a t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s more than d i d high procrastinators.  These r e s u l t s suggest  that there i s a  r e l a t i o n s h i p between negative c o g n i t i o n s and p r o c r a s t i n a t i v e behavior which s h o u l d be addressed research. may  f u r t h e r in c o u n s e l l i n g  Knowledge of the antecedents  of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n  a s s i s t counsellors in developing Interventions for  s t u d e n t s whose c h r o n i c postponing on school stands  i n the way  wei1-being.  of academic success and  assignments  emotional  134.  REFERENCES A n t a k i , C. < 1 9 8 2 ) . A b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a t t r i b u t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n a l t h e o r i e s . In C. Antaki & C. Brewin ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change (pp. 3 - 2 1 ) . London: Academic P r e s s . A n t a k i , C., 8, Brewin, C. (Eds.) ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change. London: Academic P r e s s . Bandura, A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory. C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  Englewood  B a r - T a l , D. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The e f f e c t s of t e a c h e r s ' behaviour on pupils' attributions: a review. In C. Antaki 8< C. Brewin ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change (pp. 1 7 7 - 1 9 4 ) . London: Academic P r e s s . Beck, A . T . ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Philadelphia:  Depressions  Causes and treatment-  U n i v e r s i t y of P h i l a d e l p h i a P r e s s .  Beck, A.T. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . C o g n i t i v e therapy and the emotional d i s o r d e r s . New York: New American L i b r a r y . Beery, R.G. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Fear of f a i l u r e l n the student experience. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l . 5 4 , 190-203,  Beneke, W.N., 8, H a r r i s , M.B. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Teaching s e l f - c o n t r o l of study b e h a v i o r . B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and Therapy. 1P_,  35-41.  B l i s s , E.C. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Bantam Books.  G e t t i n g t h i n g s done.  B l i s s , E.C. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Bantam Books.  Doing i t now.  Borg, W.R., 8. G a l l , M.D. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . An i n t r o d u c t i o n . New York:  New York:  New York:  Educational r e s e a r c h : Longman Inc.  Boyd, J . , 8i G r l e g e r , R. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Sei f-acceptance problems. In R. G r i e g e r 8. I.Z. G r l e g e r ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i o n and emotional d i s t u r b a n c e (pp. 1 1 0 - 1 3 2 ) . New York: Human Sciences Press. B r i s t o l , M.M., 8, Sloane, H.M., J r . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . E f f e c t of contingency c o n t r a c t i n g on study r a t e on t e s t performance. Journal of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s . 2,  271-285.  135. Burka, J.B., & Yuen, L.M. (1982, J a n u a r y ) . Mind games p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p l a y . Psychology Today. 32-44. Burka, J.B., & Yuen, L.M. (1983). P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : WJiy_ VQV. do iitt What t o do about i t . Massachusetts: Addlson-Wesley. Burns, D.D. (1980a). F e e l i n o good: The new mood therapy. New York: New American L i b r a r y . Burns, D.D. (1980b, November). The p e r f e c t i o n i s t ' s f o r s e l f - d e f e a t . Psychology Today. 34-52.  script  Burns, D.D., & Beck, A.T. (1978). C o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n of mood d i s o r d e r s . In J . Foreyt & D. RathJen ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e behavior therapy: Research and appl1cat ion (pp. 109-134). New York: Plenum Press. Covington, M., learning.  8, Beery, R. (1976). S e l f - w o r t h and school New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston.  Doctor, R.M., Aponte, J . , Burry, A . , 8. Welch, R. (1970). Group c o u n s e l i n g v e r s u s behavior therapy In treatment of col lege underachlevement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, fi, 87-89. Ellis, A. (1970). Reason and emotion i n p s y c h o t h e r a p y . New York: L y l e S t u a r t . E l l i s , A . (1977). The b a s i c c l i n i c a l theory of r a t i o n a l emotive therapy. In A . E l l i s 8. R. G r i e g e r ( E d s . ) , Handbook of r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e therapy (pp. 3-34). New York: S p r i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Co. E l l i s , A . , 8, Knaus, W.J. (1977). Overcoming ProcrastinationNew York: I n s t i t u t e for Rational Living. Ely,  D.D., & Hampton, J.D. (1973). P r e d i c t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n in a s e l f - p a c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l system, (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 0755501)  Ferguson, G . A . (1981). S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n p s y c h o l o g y and e d u c a t i o n (5th e d . ) . New York: McGraw-Hill. F o r e y t , J . , 8. Rathjen, D. (1978). C o g n i t i v e behavior therapy: Research and a p p l i c a t i o n . New York: Plenum Press.  136. G a r f i e l d , S., 8, B e r g i n , A. (Eds.) (1978). Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (2nd e d . ) . New York: John Wiley & Sons. G l a s s , G.V. 8= Hopkins, K.D. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n education and psychology (2nd E d . ) . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . Grecco, P.R. (1984). A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l assessment of p r o b l e m a t i c academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Development of a p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n s e l f - s t a t e m e n t i n v e n t o r y . (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a School of P r o f e s s i o n a l Psychology, F r e s n o ) . Green, L. (1982). M i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - c o n t r o l of procrastination. Journal of C o u n s e l i n g Psychology. 22, 636-644. G r l e g e r , R., 8. G r i e g e r , I.Z. (Eds.) (1982). C o g n i t i o n and emotional d i s t u r b a n c e . New York: Human S c i e n c e s Press. G r e i n e r , J.M., 8. K a r o l y , P. (1976). E f f e c t s of s e l f - c o n t r o l t r a i n i n g on study a c t i v i t y and academic performance: An a n a l y s i s of s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g , s e l f - r e w a r d , and s y s t e m a t i c p l a n n i n g components. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2_(6), 495-502. Groveman, A.M., R i c h a r d s , C.S., 8. Caple, R. (1977). E f f e c t s of s t u d y - s k i l l s c o u n s e l i n g versus b e h a v i o r a l s e l f c o n t r o l techniques i n the treatment of academic performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 4_, 186. Hamachek, D.E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and n e u r o t i c p e r f e c t i o n i s m . Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior. 27-33. H a r r i s , M.B., & Ream, F. (1972). A program t o improve h a b i t s of high-school s t u d e n t s . Psychology l n S c h o o l s . 9_, 325-330. H a r r i s , M.B., 8. T r u j i l l o , A.E. (1975). Improving study h a b i t s of J u n i o r high school s t u d e n t s through s e l f management versus group d i s c u s s i o n . Journal of C o u n s e l i n g Psychology. 2 2 ( 6 ) , 513-517. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of i n t e r p e r s o n a l relations. New York: Wiley.  study  137. H i l l , M.B., H i l l , D.A., Chabot, A.E., & B a r r a l 1 , J . F . (1978). A survey of c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and student procrastination. C o l l e g e Student J o u r n a l . 1 2 , 256-262. Jones, A.C. (1975). G r a n d i o s i t y b l o c k s w r i t i n g p r o j e c t s . T r a n s a c t i o n a l Anal vs i s Journal . 5_, 415. K e n d a l ] , P.C., & Hoi Ion, S.D. (1981). A s s e s s i n g s e l f - r e f e r e n t speech: Methods i n the measurement of self-statements. In P.C. Kendall & S.D. Hoi Ion ( E d s . ) , Assessment s t r a t e g i e s f o r c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s (pp. 85-118). New York: Academic Press. Knaus, W.J. (1979). Po U now: How t o stop procrastinating. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Knaus, W.J. (1982). The parameters of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . In R. G r i e g e r & R.Z. G r i e g e r ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e and emotional d i s t u r b a n c e (pp. 174-196). New York: Human Science Press. Krohne, H.W. and Laux, L. (Eds.) (1982). Achievement. s t r e s s and a n x i e t y . Washington, D . C : Hemisphere. Lai,  C. (1986). UBC SPSSX,: S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s extended v e r s i o n r e l e a s e 2 . 0 (under MTS). Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  L a k e l n , A. (1973). How t o get c o n t r o l 1lfe. New York: S i g n e t .  of vour time and your  Layden, M.A. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e therapy. In C. Antaki & C. Brewin ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change (pp. 63-82). London: Academic Press. Lopez, F.G. & Wambach, C A . (1982). E f f e c t s of p a r a d o x i c a l and s e l f - c o n t r o l d i r e c t i v e s i n c o u n s e l l i n g . Journal Qt C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 2 2 ( 2 ) , 1 1 5 - 1 2 4 . Mackenzie, A., & Waldo, K.C. (1981). About time: A woman's guide t o time management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mahoney, M., 8. A r n k o f f , D. (1978). C o g n i t i v e and self-control therapies. In S. G a r f i e l d & A. B e r g i n ( E d s . ) , Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change <2nd ed,? (PP. 689-722). New York: John Wiley & Sons.  138. Meichenbaum, D., Henshaw, D., & Himel, N. (1982). Coping with s t r e s s as a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g p r o c e s s . In H.W. Krohne 8. L. Laux ( E d s . ) , Achievement, s t r e s s , and a n x i e t y (pp. 127-142). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. M o r r i s , S., 8. Charney, N. (1983, O c t o b e r ) . Stop i t . Whipping p r o c r a s t 1 n a t i o n — n o w . Psychology Today. 80-81. Nelson, L.R. (1974). Guide to LERTAP use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago. Peterson, C. 8. Seligman, M.E.P. (1980). H e l p l e s s n e s s and a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t v l e i n d e p r e s s i o n . Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a . Peterson, C. (1982). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s and a t t r i b u t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s in d e p r e s s i o n . In C. Antakl & C. Brewin ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change (pp. 97-115). London: Academic P r e s s . P o r a t , F. (1980). C r e a t i v e p r o c r a s t I n a t l o n ' vour own 1 I f e . San F r a n c i s c o : Harper &  Organizing Row.  R i c h a r d s , C.S. (1975). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n of s t u d y i n g through study s k i l l s advice and s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures.  J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l I n g P s y c h o l o g y , 22<5>, 431436.  R i c h a r d s , C.S., McReynolds, W.T., H o l t , S., 8. Sexton, T. (1976). E f f e c t s of i n f o r m a t i o n feedback and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d consequences on s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g study b e h a v i o r . Journal of C o u n s e l i n g Psychology. 2 3 , 316-321. Rimm, D. , 8, Masters, J . (1979). Behavior therapy techniques and e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . (2nd. ed.) New York: Academic P r e s s . Rorer, L.G. (1983). "Deep" RET: A r e f o r m u l a t i o n of some psychodynamic e x p l o r a t i o n s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and Research. 2 d ) , 1-10. R o s a t i , P.A. (1975). P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p r e f e r PSI. Education Research and Methods. 8, 17-22. Rothblum, E.D., 8, Solomon, L. (1983). Cogn 111 ve-behav 1 o r a 1 antecedents of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont, B u r l i n g t o n .  139. Rothblum, E.D., Solomon, L . J . 8. Murakami, J . (1986). A f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(4), 387-394. S a b i n i , J . , 8, S i l v e r , M. (1982). M o r a l i t i e s of everyday 1 1 f e . Oxfords Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . S c o t t , D. (1980). How t o put more time l n vour l i f e . York: New American L i b r a r y . S i l v e r , M., 8. S a b i n i , J . (1981). P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . f o r the Theory of S o c i a l Behavior. _ ( 2 ) , 207-221.  New  Journal  S i l v e r , M., 8. S a b i n i , J . (1982, January). When i t ' s not r e a l l y p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Psychology Today. 39-42. Solomon, L . J . , & Rothblum, E.D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 3_(4), 503-509. Strong, S.R., Wamback, C.A., Lopez, G.G., & Cooper, R.K. (1979). M o t i v a t i o n a l and e q u i p p i n g f u n c t i o n s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n c o u n s e l i n g . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 26, 98-109. Weiner, B. (1982). An a t t r i b u t i o n theory of m o t i v a t i o n and emotion. In H. W. Krohne & L. Laux ( E d s . ) , Achievement, s t r e s s , and a n x i e t y (pp. 223-245). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. W i l l i a m s , J.G. (1982). Expectancy x v a l u e : A model of how a t t r i b u t i o n s a f f e c t e d u c a t i o n a l attainment. In C. Antaki 8, C. Brewin ( E d s . ) , A t t r i b u t i o n s and p s y c h o l o g i c a l change (pp. 195-210). London: Academic P r e s s . Wilson, G.T. (1978). C o g n i t i v e behavior therapy: Paradigm s h i f t or p a s s i n g phase. In J . Foreyt & D. Rathjen ( E d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e behavior therapy: R e s e a r c h and a p p l i c a t i o n <PP- 7-32). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Z i e s a t , H.A., Rosenthal, T.L., 8, White, G.M. (1978) Behavioral s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t r e a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of s t u d y i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 42(1), 59-69.  140.  APPENDIX A STUDENT CONSENT  INFORMATION  141.  Dear  Student:  I am c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h on the study h a b i t s of secondary s t u d e n t s to determine t o what extent students h a b i t u a l l y put o f f doing school work t o the l a s t minute, t o what extent students see t h i s as a problem which they would l i k e t o change, and t o what extent study h a b i t s e f f e c t academic achievement ( r e p o r t c a r d g r a d e s ) . F i n a l l y , I am examining the statements students t y p i c a l l y make t o themselves when they a r e d e c i d i n g whether or not to do school work. T h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o our knowledge of study h a b i t s and so c o u l d f a c i l i t a t e the development of c o u n s e l l i n g programmes which would be e f f e c t i v e i n h e l p i n g students overcome academic problems. Student  Consent  Information:  As t h i s r e s e a r c h has no connection with t h i s course or with your s c h o o l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s completely v o l u n t a r y . You may stop at any time with a b s o l u t e l y no Jeopardy t o your academic s t a n d i n g . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l take approximately f i f t e e n minutes t o complete should you decide t o p a r t i c i p a t e . Your completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l i n d i c a t e that your personal consent t o p a r t i c i p a t e as a s u b j e c t i n t h i s study has been gi ven. Note that you are not b e i n g asked t o i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Your i n d i v i d u a l answers w i l l be kept in s t r i c t e s t c o n f i d e n c e and only general r e s u l t s w i l l be reported. Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n , Lorl  Gorden  142.  APPENDIX B DIRECTIONS TO PSSI  143. D i r e c t ions: P l e a s e think back t o the l a s t time that you had a school assignment (homework, s t u d y i n g , term paper, e t c . ) to do that you r e a l l y didn't f e e l l i k e doing. When was that? Re-create that time as v i v i d l y as you can, as i f you were r e e x p e r i e n c i n g the s i t u a t i o n at t h i s moment. R e a l l y see yourself. Imagine where you were, what work you had to do, the t h i n g s that were going through your head. Below i s a p a r t i a l l i s t i n g of statements that people make t o themselves ( t h e i r thoughts) when c o n f r o n t e d with doing school work they f i n d d i f f i c u l t , b o r i n g , or otherwise unpleasant. Read each statement and I n d i c a t e on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e how f r e q u e n t l y you may have been t h i n k i n g a s i m i l a r thought w h i l e you were d e c i d i n g t o work or n o t . Choose the l e t t e r that best c h a r a c t e r i z e s your e x p e r i e n c e . The s c a l e i s i n t e r p r e t e d as f o l l o w s : A B C D E  = = = = =  h a r d l y ever had the thought r a r e l y had the thought sometimes had the thought o f t e n had the thought very o f t e n had the thought  The u s e f u l n e s s of t h i s survey w i l l e n t i r e l y depend on your honest and thoughtful responses. P l e a s e respond on the b a s i s of your a c t u a l experience and not on what you think should be the r i g h t or c o r r e c t way of responding. There a r e no " r i g h t " or "wrong" answers t o these statements. P l e a s e do not omit any of the statements. To summarize, I want you t o i n d i c a t e , by c i r c l i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e l e t t e r beside each statement, how o f t e n a p a r t i c u l a r thought has o c c u r r e d t o you as you are t h i n k i n g about t h i s event.  144.  APPENDIX C PROCRASTINATION SELF-STATEMENT INVENTORY  Part A:  145.  Items 1 through 41: Please relate the following 41 statements to the last time you were confronted with school work that you did not want to do. Rate how frequently you make the following statements using the rating scale below. Circle the appropriate letter.  A Hardly ever  B C 0 Rarely Sometimes Often  E Very often  1. I ' l l probably fail i f I try.  A  B  C  D  E  2. I can't do this work.  A  B  C  0  E  3. I Just don't feel like i t .  A  B  C  D  E  4. Once I start it's not so bad.  A  B  C  D  E  5. There's plenty of time, I ' l l do i t later.  A  B  C  D  E  6. I ' l l just do something else f i r s t then I ' l l get to i t .  A  B  C  D  E  7. They're asking too much of me.  A  B  C  D  E  8. I don't have to be perfect about this work.  A  B  C  D  E  9. Every l i t t l e bit is that much closer to finishing.  A  B  C  D  E  10. I really can't stand all the work I have to do.  A  B  C  D  E  11. I want to do well but I don't want to put so much effort into it.  A  B  c  D  E  12. Others are probably doing better.  A  B  C  D  E  13. It's harder to put i t off than it i s to do i t .  A  B  C  D  E  14. I ' l l be ln a better mood later,  A  B  C  D  E  15. I should be working but I don't want to.  A  B  C  0  E  146.  A Hardly ever  B C D Rarely Sometimes Often  E Very often  16. I Just don't want to wait to have a good time.  A  B  C  D  E  17. I ' l l do It now so I can be free to do other things later.  A  B  C  D  E  18. I've got so much to do, I won't do any of i t .  A  B  C  D  E  19, There's so much to do I don't know where to begin.  A  B  C  D  E  20. I want to enjoy myself now and not have to wait until later.  A  B  C  D  E  21. If I plan my work ahead of time I can get more accomplished.  A  B  C  D  E  22. I can't stand doing this work.  A  B  C  D  E  23. This work i s too hard.  A  B  C  D  E  24. I shouldn't have to work so hard.  A  B  C  D  E  25. I ' l l wait until I'm more in the mood.  A  B  C  D  E  26. I ' l l do i t now so I can re 1 ax later.  A  B  C  D  E  27. Since I won't get It done now I might as well not begin.  A  B  C  D  E  28. I don't like the teacher.  A  B  C  D  E  29. I must get an excellent grade.  A  B  c  D  E  30. I work better at the last minute.  A  B  c  D  E  31. The better I do, the more that is expected of me.  A  B  c  D  E  32. They shouldn't give me such tight deadlines.  A  B  c  D  E  33. Doing too well at school could cause problems for me.  A  B  c  D  E  147.  A Hardly ever  B C D Rarely Sometimes Often  E Very often  34. I'm afraid of what may happen If I don't do wei1.  A  B  C  D  E  35. I don't have to like It, I just have to do i t .  A  B  C  D  E  36. The teacher is out to get me.  A  B  C  D  E  37. What good does i t do to work. I won't do well anyway.  A  B  C  D  E  38. I must do excellent work.  A  B  C  D  E  39. I work better under pressure.  A  B  C  D  E  40. I'm so anxious I can't even start.  A  B  C  D  E  41. I may not like i t , I just have to do i t .  A  B  C  D  E  Part B» Here are some general questions about your study habits. You will be asked about the extent to which you procrastinate, or unnecessarily put off doing school assignments until the last minute. Items 42 through to 46: Please rate how frequently the following items apply to you. Circle the appropriate letter. A Hardly ever  B C D Rarely Sometimes Often  E Very often  42. I work on papers and assignments well before they are due.  A  B  C  D  E  43. I keep up with the reading required for my courses.  A  B  C  D  E  44. I watch TV or listen to music when I should be doing school work.  A  B  C  D  E  45. I talk on the phone or visit with friends when I should be doing school work.  A  B  C  D  E  46. I go out when I should be doing school work.  A  B  C  D  E  148. Items 47 through 59: Please answer the following by circling the appropriate letter. 47.  How often do you feel that you procrastinate (i.e. needlessly delay) over school work assignments?  A Hardly ever  48.  How serious a problem do you consider your procrastination?  A No problem  49.  How much of your available study time do you feel that you lose because of procrastination?  A 0-20%  C 40-60%  50.  How would you rate the impact that procrastination has had on your academic performance?  A Almost no impact  Moderate impact  A Very satisfied  E Very often  Sometimes  C D Not greater than most  E Very ser i ous problem E 80-100%  Strongly negative impact  51.  How satisfied are you with your use of available study time?  52.  When do you usually complete major school assignments?  A B C Several Several A few weeks days days before before before  D The night before  53.  How soon before your last major exam did you begin to study?  A B C Several Several A few weeks days days before before before  0 E Two The days night before before  54.  To what extent would you like to stop procrastinating on school work?  A Not at al1  C Neutral  C Neutral  D  E Very dissatisfied E Late  E Very much  149. 55.  What is your grade level?  A 10  56.  What is your age?  A 15  57.  What is your sex?  A Male  58.  What was your letter grade average on the last report card?  59.  What are your plans after graduation from high school?  B  11  B 16  12  C 17  D 18  E 19  B Female  B  A university  C  C+  B college  C  D  C work  D other  E  150.  APPENDIX D LETTERS OF PERMISSION  TO CONDUCT STUDY  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054270/manifest

Comment

Related Items