Doing the Things We Do: A Grounded Theory of Academic Procrastination

Transcription

1 Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 99, No. 1, /07/$12.00 DOI: / Doing the Things We Do: A Grounded Theory of Academic Procrastination Gregory Schraw University of Nevada, Las Vegas Theresa Wadkins University of Nebraska at Kearney Lori Olafson University of Nevada, Las Vegas The authors conducted a grounded theory study of academic procrastination to explore adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination and to help guide future empirical research. They discuss previous research on the definition and dimensionality of procrastination and describe the study in which interview data were collected in 4 stages, identifying 33 initial categories and 29 macrothemes. Findings were validated by member checks. The authors describe in detail informants perceptions of procrastination, which were used to construct a 5-component paradigm model that includes adaptive (i.e., cognitive efficiency, peak experience) and maladaptive (i.e., fear of failure, postponement) dimensions of procrastination. These dimensions, in turn, are related to conditions that affect the amount and type of procrastination, as well as cognitive (i.e., prioritizing, optimization) and affective (i.e., reframing, self-handicapping) coping mechanisms. The authors propose 6 general principles and relate them and the paradigm model to previous research. Limitations of the research are discussed, as well as implications for future theory development and validation. Keywords: adaptive and maladaptive strategies, paradigm model, procrastination Most people view procrastination as a negative personality trait. Procrastinators are thought to be indifferent to the quality of their work and possibly of lower cognitive ability than their nonprocrastinating peers. Previous empirical studies have supported this view of procrastination, revealing that procrastination results in lost time, poorer health, decreased long-term learning, and lower self-esteem (Burns, Dittman, Nguyen, & Mitchelson, 2000; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Milgram, Dangour, & Raviv, 1992; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Wolters, 2003). A number of studies also have indicated that procrastination may be linked to anxiety and fear of failure (Ferrari & Tice, 2000). These findings suggest that procrastination is an impediment to academic success because it decreases the quality and quantity of learning while increasing the severity of stress and negative outcomes in students lives (Ferrari et al., 1995; Milgram, Gehrman, & Keinan, 1992). However, previous studies have reported that many college students procrastinate despite these apparent consequences (Conti, 2000; Saddler & Buley, 1999). More than 70% of college students reported that they procrastinate regularly, and roughly 20% do so habitually (Schouwenburg, 1995). Higher ability students procrastinated more than lower ability students, and procrastination tends Gregory Schraw and Lori Olafson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Theresa Wadkins, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Kearney. We thank Matthew McCrudden for his comments on a draft of this article. Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed to Gregory Schraw, Department of Educational Psychology, Box , 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV gschraw@unlv.nevada.edu to increase as students advance in their academic careers and became more self-regulated (Ferrari, 1991). These findings suggest that procrastination is common among college students. They also suggest that procrastination among successful college students may have little impact on performance or perhaps may be adaptive because it allows individuals to achieve a sustained level of flow and better use of their study time (Brinthaupt & Shin, 2001; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Sommer, 1990; Tullier, 2000). Alternatively, if procrastination does not play an adaptive role in some situations, then many college students may be underachieving because of regular procrastination. We begin by overviewing the rationale for the study and summarizing our methodology. We then define the construct of academic procrastination as intentionally deferring or delaying work that must be completed, consider its dimensionality, and review existing research. We describe several studies that report adaptive aspects of procrastination. Next, we discuss the three main goals of this research. The Present Study The purpose of the present research was to construct a grounded theory of procrastination on the basis of college students reports about their own procrastination. We did so for several reasons. One is that there is relatively little research on procrastination, even though it is a commonly occurring phenomenon among college students. Second, most of the existing research has reported correlations between self-reported procrastinatory behavior and academic outcomes, such as grades and study time. We hoped to expand on this research by providing a more in-depth descrip- 12

2 ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 13 tive account of academic procrastination. Third, and most important to us, there is no existing theory or process model of procrastination. We conducted the present research to examine the process by which procrastination occurs and to propose a preliminary paradigm model (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) that can be tested in future research. We selected grounded theory methodology because it is ideally suited to construct a data-based theory that can be used as a basis for future research (Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Currently, the existing literature on academic procrastination is characterized by lack of an explicit, testable theory and the view that procrastination has a negative impact on academic success. Given the widespread nature of the phenomenon, we wondered how college students view their procrastination, and whether their experiences are aligned to the prevailing views in the literature. We believed that a grounded theory analysis would help researchers identify additional aspects of procrastination that might explain its widespread continued occurrence. Grounded theory is an iterative, inductive method of data collection based on individual and group interviews that attempts to describe a core phenomenon in detail and to relate it to potential causes, consequences, and situational conditions that affect it (Creswell, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Grounded theory uses participants experiences as data to construct and validate the emergent theory. The end product of grounded theory is a paradigm model that systematically links antecedents, situational conditions, coping strategies, and consequences to the phenomenon of interest (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These include conditions that elicit the phenomenon, contextual factors that affect how the phenomenon is enacted, strategies for implementing the phenomenon, and consequences. Our main goal was to construct a paradigm model on the basis of college students self-reports. An Overview of Previous Research Strauss and Corbin (1998) defined technical literature as research studies and theoretical or philosophical papers characteristic of professional and disciplinary writing. In raising the question of how technical literature can enhance theory development, Strauss and Corbin described nine ways of using existing literature within a grounded theory study. They proposed that it is acceptable to enter the field of study, for example, with some of the properties and relationships in mind and look for how their properties and dimensions might vary under a different set of conditions (p. 50). Findings from a study may also be used to illustrate where the literature is incorrect, is overly simplistic, or only partially explains phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 52). The following review of literature provides a summary of research into maladaptive and adaptive aspects of procrastination and serves as a point of comparison for the findings that emerged as we conducted our grounded theory analysis. Definitions of Procrastination Definitions of procrastination vary from author to author. Some are quite general in nature, such as Schouwenburg (1995), who defined procrastination as the behavior of postponing tasks. Others are more specific, such as Solomon and Rothblum (1984), who described procrastination as the act of needlessly delaying tasks past the point of discomfort. Lay (1994) defined procrastination in terms of an intention behavior discrepancy, in which a delay of behavior does not become procrastinatory unless the individual has some genuine intent to complete the task. The greater the discrepancy between intent and behavior, the more severe the procrastination. Most researchers have emphasized three core criteria for procrastination: It must be dilatory, needless, and counterproductive (Schouwenburg, 1995). One problem with these criteria is that the extent to which behavior is needless or counterproductive is very difficult to document objectively. Most studies have focused on the dilatory component by measuring whether academic work is completed before a deadline. We are unaware of any studies that have examined the relative needlessness of academic procrastination. Counterproductiveness typically is assessed by a comparison of grades or academic outcome measures between self-reported high and low procrastinators. Although some studies have reported differences between these groups (Tice & Baumeister, 1997), these results are difficult to interpret because individuals are selfselected rather than randomly assigned to the high- and lowprocrastination groups. Given that no definition of academic procrastination exists in the literature that is universally accepted, we define procrastination for present purposes as intentionally deferring or delaying work that must be completed. This definition is very close to definitions provided by a variety of dictionaries that we consulted. The Dimensionality of Procrastination Most researchers have conceptualized procrastination as some combination of three components, including fear of failure, task aversiveness, and laziness (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Wolters, 2003). Ferrari et al. (1995) reviewed four selfreport instruments that have undergone factor-analytic validation. Two instruments (Aitken, 1982; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) reported two factors, whereas two instruments (Lay, 1986; Tuckman, 1991) reported one factor. The Aitken (1982) and Solomon and Rothblum (1984) instruments purported to measure fear of failure and task aversiveness. The Tuckman (1991) instrument measured task avoidance, whereas the Lay (1986) instrument measured postponement. There is no study to date that has compared these four instruments in terms of construct or predictive validity; thus, it is unknown whether the four instruments measure two, three, or four separate constructs. Neither is it clear whether these instruments exhaust all possible dimensions of procrastination. For example, students may procrastinate because they dislike their teacher, do not care whether they receive a poor grade, or legitimately cannot find the time to complete all of their schoolwork. One serious weakness of these instruments, in our opinion, is that they exclude potentially adaptive aspects of procrastination, even though Ferrari (1994) distinguished between functional (e.g., delaying paying one s taxes) and dysfunctional procrastination (e.g., delaying a needed medical appointment) and suggested that a significant proportion of procrastinatory behaviors may be functional in nature.

3 14 SCHRAW, WADKINS, AND OLAFSON Relating Procrastination to Behavioral and Affective Outcomes A number of researchers have examined relationships between procrastination and academic and nonacademic outcomes. Most studies reported negative correlations between procrastination, grades, learning, and completion of course work. For example, Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami (1986) found that procrastination related negatively to course grades and positively to anxiety. Tice and Baumeister (1997) reported that self-reported procrastinators received lower final and term paper grades in one experiment, but they failed to replicate this finding in a second experiment. Tuckman (1991) found a negative correlation between procrastination and completion of course-related homework. Several studies have reported a correlation between procrastination and anxiety and affective dimensions of one s educational experiences. For example, Tice and Baumeister (1997) found that procrastination initially reduced stress and negative health symptoms in college students but, later in the same semester, produced higher stress and more negative symptoms. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) and Lay, Edwards, Parker, and Endler (1989) reported a positive correlation between procrastination and anxiety. Alexander and Onwuegbuzie (2006) found a negative relationship between self-report measures of hope and fear of failure. They suggested that increased hope may serve as a coping mechanism for procrastination. A variety of studies also have examined the relationship between procrastination and social affective variables. Ferrari et al. (1995) reported positive correlations between procrastination and self-handicapping, task avoidance, perfectionism, irrational beliefs, and depression. Negative correlations were reported for selfesteem, internal locus of control, and personal standards. Schouwenburg (1995) found a negative correlation between procrastination and conscientiousness but no relationship with fear of failure. Lay (1994) reported a modest yet significant correlation between procrastination and dejection. Flett, Blankstein, and Martin (1995) concluded that procrastination increases anxiety and depression. Milgram, Gehrman, and Keinan (1992) reported similar findings. Wolters (2003) found a positive relationship between procrastination and work-avoidance goals and a negative relationship with self-efficacy. The studies cited above and those reviewed by Ferrari et al. (1995) consistently have reported positive correlations between procrastination and undesirable behaviors or affective outcomes (e.g., failure to complete assignments and low self-esteem). These data suggest either a negative relationship or no relationship at all between procrastination, grades, and overall course achievement. Thus far, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are maladaptive aspects of procrastination that are related to undesirable academic outcomes in the r.10 to.30 range. In contrast, several studies have examined adaptive aspects of procrastination. Lay et al. (1989) reported that procrastinators experienced a greater sense of challenge and peak experience immediately prior to exams. Sommer (1990) and Vacha and McBride (1993) found that students who procrastinate were more likely to cram, and that crammers outperformed noncrammers by using a greater variety of study strategies to achieve maximum efficiency. Sommer argued that savvy students maximize the efficiency of their study time through a carefully orchestrated cycle of procrastination and cramming. Brinthaupt and Shin (2001) further explored the relationship of cramming to maximum efficiency and peak experience. They reported that crammers performed better on tests and reported higher levels of flow than noncrammers. They argued that cramming increases flow because it increases the level of task challenge and demands a higher level of performance from the student. Collectively, these studies suggest that procrastination improves efficiency, challenge, and flow. The present study had three goals. Our first goal was to construct a paradigm model that systematically relates five aspects of the procrastination experience. These aspects include conditions that are antecedents of procrastination, a detailed analysis of the phenomenon itself, situational conditions that affect the phenomenon, strategies used by individuals to take action, and consequences of taking action. Our second goal was to explore in more detail adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination. Previous research has focused largely on maladaptive aspects of procrastination (Ferrari et al., 1995; Schouwenburg, 1995; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). In contrast, we believe that there may be adaptive aspects of procrastination, such as a greater ability to engage in sustained work and increased flow (Brinthaupt & Shin, 2001; Sommer, 1990; Tullier, 2000). We sought to identify these factors and clarify how and why they benefit learners. Our third goal was to identify emergent principles that guide students procrastination. These principles would be suitable objects of study in future research and may help promote theory development and testing. Participants Method Sixty-seven undergraduates from a large midwestern university participated in partial completion of course requirements. Data were collected over eight academic semesters, including two 5-week summer sessions. All participants were enrolled in the same undergraduate educational psychology class and were pursuing a teaching certificate in elementary or secondary education. None of the researchers were instructors of these classes. Participants during Phase 1 were selected randomly; participants in Phases 2 4 were selected using theoretical sampling (i.e., selected specifically because they were frequent procrastinators). The sample consisted of 40 women and 27 men. All participants were between the ages of 20 and 33 years (M 22.3 years). Five students were minorities, including 3 African Americans and 2 Asian Americans. None of the students who participated appeared in more than one phase of the research. Table 1 summarizes the four stages and number of participants in each stage. Procedure Data were collected using grounded theory procedures described in Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Creswell (1998). Creswell (1998) suggested that a typical grounded theory study include 20 to 30 interviews that collectively saturate the categories that emerge during analysis. Data are collected in three or four phases that differ with respect to purpose and data collection strategies. The present study used a four-stage data collection strategy summarized in Table 1.

4 ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 15 Table 1 Four Phases in Data Collection Phase Coding Semester Purpose Participants (n) 1 Open 1 Identify codes within categories for further analysis. 26 (20 in focus groups; 6 individual interviews) 2 Axial 2 6 Explore codes in detail; relate codes to one another to construct themes. 18 individual interviews 3 Selective 6 and 7 Construct paradigm model and discuss themes in relation to model; 12 individual interviews establish story line that integrates paradigm model. 4 Selective 8 Test, validate, and explicate paradigm model until saturated; identify emergent principles consistent with paradigm model; conduct member checks. 11 individual interviews The goal of data collection in our study was to move systematically through the following sequence: (a) identify codes within categories, (b) combine codes to identify emergent themes, (c) test the plausibility of themes, and (d) construct a paradigm model of academic procrastination and identify principles associated with the phenomenon (Harry, Sturges, & Klingner, 2005). Phase 1 data collection included small focus groups and individual interviews that enabled us to create a list of codes within five categories in the paradigm model (i.e., antecedents of the phenomenon, definitions of the phenomenon, context and conditions that affect the phenomenon, coping strategies, and consequences of the phenomenon). The purpose of open coding is to identify salient topics worthy of closer study and explanation. We interviewed 26 individuals during Phase 1. Twenty of these individuals were interviewed in four focus groups ranging in size from 3 to 6 individuals. The function of these focus groups was to solicit initial thoughts and impressions about academic procrastination in a setting in which students could respond to each other (Krueger, 1994). Six additional students were interviewed individually following the focus groups. The general instructions were as follows: I m going to ask you about academic procrastination. I m interested in how you define it, factors that affect whether you procrastinate, and whether there are positive or negative consequences. I have a structured interview with some follow-up probes after each question. Please take your time when responding and focus on your own procrastination behavior rather than other students. If you would like to return to a point that you discussed earlier, feel free to do so. All interviews were based on open-ended responses to the following questions: 1. How would you describe academic procrastination? 2. What do you do when you procrastinate? 3. Are there situations where you are most likely to procrastinate? 4. How do you cope when you do procrastinate? 5. What are some of the positive and negative consequences of procrastination? These five questions correspond to the major components of the paradigm model described by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Table 2 shows 33 initial codes extracted from the interviews. A code constituted a meaningful topic of discussion related to procrastination. For example, many students mentioned the role of personal interest and poor quality of instruction as two factors that may lead to procrastination. Similar codes emerged during the focus groups and individual interviews. For this reason, we concluded that the focus group and individual interviews saturated the codes that were necessary to understand the phenomenon of academic procrastination. Phase 2 consisted of individual interviews intended to explicate codes in more detail. Phase 2 used axial coding, which clusters codes into themes and patterns related to a central phenomenon (i.e., academic procrastination). The Phase 2 data collection permitted us to construct a better understanding of each of the five main components in the paradigm model. We used a structured interview in which each individual responded to six questions and follow-up probes. Question 1 was intended to orient individuals to a typical procrastinatory situation. Questions 2 through 6 were based on the five questions presented in Phase 1 of data collection. However, follow-up probe questions were added to focus in more detail on salient categories mentioned during Phase Describe a typical situation in which you might procrastinate. 2. What causes you or other students to procrastinate? Probes: self, teacher, and task characteristics. 3. Please list as many reasons as you can why you procrastinate. Probes: adaptive (e.g., increased efficiency) and maladaptive (e.g., laziness). 4. What do you do to cope with procrastination? Probes: affective (e.g., positive self-talk) and cognitive (e.g., plan ahead) strategies. 5. Can you identify conditions or situations where you are most likely to procrastinate? Probes: directions, deadlines, and incentives. 6. What are the positive and negative consequences of procrastination? Probes: quality of life and quality of work. Eighteen participants responded to each question. After a question had been addressed, we probed specific categories that emerged during the analysis in Phase 1. We identified a variety of preliminary themes on the basis of the five categories and codes shown in Table 2. We combined themes in a manner consistent with the interviews. For example, themes in

5 16 SCHRAW, WADKINS, AND OLAFSON Table 2 Initial Categories and Codes in Phase 1 Category Antecedents of procrastination Definitions of procrastination Contexts and conditions that affect procrastination Coping strategies Consequences Code 1. Lack of personal interest 2. Lack of task-relevant knowledge 3. Aversive task 4. Better use of resources to delay work 5. Competing interests 6. Lack of focus 7. Laziness 8. Low motivation 9. Poor instruction 10. Putting things off that need to be done 11. Deferring necessary work 12. Postponing important tasks 13. Busy with other activities 14. Grades 15. Belief that effort doesn t help 16. Help from others 17. Low study self-efficacy 18. Poor study strategies 19. Teacher doesn t hold students accountable 20. Poor teaching 21. Stress 22. Make a schedule 23. Manage time 24. Plan and prioritize 25. Work with other students 26. Monitor negative self-talk 27. Use a variety of study strategies 28. Guilt 29. Less effort put into schoolwork 30. Greater productivity 31. Increased stress 32. Procrastination does not affect quality of work 33. Increased confidence the coping category appeared to group into two general types of themes, including affective and cognitive coping strategies. We labeled general themes within a category macrothemes because they subsumed related themes. For example, we grouped themes such as reframing and self-handicapping within the affective macrotheme and themes such as planning, prioritizing work, and budgeting resources within the cognitive macrotheme. It is important to note that Phase 2 provided us with the opportunity to organize and label themes that could be tested in Phase 3. Thus, macrothemes and themes identified in Phase 2 were viewed as tentative in nature, subject to revision or deletion in Phase 3. For Phase 3, we used selective coding, which refers to the process of testing the macrothemes and themes identified in Phase 2, relating the categories to one another, and developing a story line that integrates the paradigm model (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We interviewed 12 individuals using the structured interview from Phase 2 with several additional probes in each of the six questions. The additional probes asked participants to elaborate on themes identified in Phase 2. These interviews served a number of purposes. One was to replicate important codes and themes that we identified in Phases 1 and 2. A second purpose was to explore in more detail the relationship among macrothemes within each category. For example, we encouraged interviewees to discuss the relationship between adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination. A third purpose was to ask interviewees to discuss how the five categories in the paradigm model related to each other. For example, it was common for interviewees to discuss the relationship between one category (e.g., contextual conditions) and a second category (e.g., coping strategies) in a manner that shed light on the process of procrastination. This information helped us construct a plausible paradigm model that could be validated in Phase 4. A fourth goal was to construct a story line, which consists of a descriptive story about the central phenomenon of study. There were two main results of Phase 3. The first was identifying a variety of themes that we subsumed within macrothemes in each of the five categories. Macrothemes and themes are shown in Table 3. Collectively, we identified 29 themes that we grouped into 12 macrothemes. The second main result was constructing a preliminary paradigm model that we validated in Phase 4 of data collection and describe in detail in a subsequent section of this article. The preliminary paradigm model consisted of the macrothemes and themes identified thus far. Phase 4 was intended to verify and explicate the paradigm model constructed in Phase 3. We interviewed 11 individuals and asked them to respond to a paradigm model based on responses in Phase 3. This phase of data collection served several purposes. One was to conduct member checks on the preliminary paradigm model. Individuals were asked whether the themes and macrothemes were plausible to them. A second was to solicit comments and reactions regarding the credibility of the paradigm model. Individuals in Phase 4 were

6 ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 17 Table 3 Macrothemes and Themes in Phase 3 Category Macrotheme Theme Antecedents of procrastination 1. Task 1. Low background knowledge 2. Task difficulty 2. Self 3. Interest 4. Organizational skills 3. Teacher 5. Clear expectations for course 6. Well-organized course materials 7. Tests and graded assignments Definitions of procrastination phenomenon 4. Adaptive aspects of procrastination 8. Cognitive efficiency 9. Peak work experience 5. Maladaptive aspects of procrastination 10. Laziness 11. Fear of failure 12. Postponement of work Contexts and conditions that affect procrastination 6. Unclear directions 13. Ill-defined course content 14. Unclear criteria for grading 7. Deadlines 15. Lack of due dates for assignments 8. Lack of incentives 16. Low intrinsic motivation; high self-efficacy 17. Low impact of procrastination on grades Coping strategies 9. Cognitive 18. Identifying clear learning goals 19. Planning and organizing future work 20. Budgeting resources (time and effort) 10. Affective 21. Reframing 22. Protective self-talk 23. Stress reduction (physical and psychological) Consequences of procrastination 11. Quality of life 24. Cognitive efficiency 25. Improved quality of work 26. Peak work experience 12. Quality of work 27. Increased efficiency 28. Cognitive incubation 29. Less revision of work shown preliminary diagrams of the paradigm model and asked to comment on whether the model made sense to them and was consistent with their own procrastination behavior. A third was to invite participants to refine or add to any of the categories, macrothemes, or themes in the paradigm model. This last step helped to assure that the final paradigm model was fully saturated, dependable, and credible (Maxwell, 1996). Adequacy of the Research Process When communicating the results of a grounded theory study, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggested that researchers include detailed information about the research process, and they outlined a number of criteria for judging the adequacy of the research process. The seven criteria outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998) are essential for evaluating the analytic logic we used. If the information is provided, then readers can follow the logic of the researcher s complex coding procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 269). Criteria 1 through 7 move through the steps of conducting a grounded theory analysis and include sample selection (Criterion 1), the major categories emerging (Criterion 2) and the indicators that pointed to these categories (Criterion 3), how theoretical sampling proceeded (Criterion 4), the formulation of relationships between categories (Criterion 5) and the modification of hypotheses based on any noted discrepancies (Criterion 6), and the grounds on which final analytic decisions were made (Criterion 7). Tables 1, 2, and 3, along with the accompanying narrative, provide details regarding the analytic decisions that occurred within the current study. For example, Table 2 shows the initial categories that emerged during Phase 1 of the study (Criterion 1), and Table 3 indicates relationships between the macrothemes within each category (Criterion 5). The documentation of data collection and analysis within each of the four phases demonstrate the logic of the coding procedures. This detailed information about the research process also demonstrates the trustworthiness (Guba, 1981) of the study. For example, conducting member checks in Phase 4, establishing an audit trail, collecting detailed descriptive data, and cross-checking categories emerging from interviews during different phases are strategies that address the trustworthiness of a qualitative study. Results and Interpretation We present our findings in two sections. The first section focuses on the paradigm model constructed in Phases 1 3 and validated in Phase 4. The main goal of the paradigm model is to discuss themes that emerged within each category (e.g., adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination) and to relate these themes into an integrated story line that describes the process of procrastination. The second section focuses on six principles that emerged from the interviews and a critique of the paradigm model by interviewees in Phase 4. A Paradigm Model of Academic Procrastination The paradigm model is shown in Figure 1. This model includes antecedents of procrastination, the phenomenon itself, contexts and conditions, coping strategies, and consequences.

7 18 SCHRAW, WADKINS, AND OLAFSON Contexts and Conditions *Unclear Directions *Deadlines *Lack of Incentives Antecedents Phenomenon Coping Strategies Consequences *Self *Teacher *Task *Adaptive *Maladaptive *Cognitive *Affective *Quality of Life *Quality of Work Figure 1. A paradigm model of academic procrastination. Antecedents of procrastination. Participants attributed procrastination to three types of antecedents, including the characteristics of the self, teacher, and task (see Table 3). Personal interest was the most important self-related cause of procrastination. Less interest translated into more procrastination. Students tended to delay an assignment they did not enjoy doing. Another selfcharacteristic was good organizational skills. One participant stated that her strong organizational skills enable me to procrastinate as much as I want because I can always catch up when I want. Teacher characteristics played an important role. There was near universal agreement that well-organized instructors, who provide detailed syllabi, appropriate pacing, regular evaluation, and detailed evaluative feedback, inadvertently promote procrastination. One reason is that teacher-imposed structure enables students to plan more effectively and, therefore, to plan to procrastinate. Teacher expectations were crucial to the amount of procrastination as well. Teachers who expect less, are more flexible about grading criteria, and are willing to negotiate deadlines promote procrastination. Teachers who expect more work and better quality work decrease procrastination, although they may increase student performance anxiety. Virtually all respondents emphasized the importance of the first test. Students generally reported the importance of sizing up the instructor. As one student put it, I like to know what I m up against as soon as I can. Tests that are easy to study for also promote procrastination. Two task characteristics were mentioned as well. One was whether the learning task required extensive prior knowledge. Low prior knowledge requirements in a class such as world history increased procrastination and decreased anxiety, whereas high prior knowledge classes such as mathematics decreased procrastination and increased anxiety. A second task characteristic was task difficulty. Difficult tasks, such as major writing assignments, decreased procrastination and increased anxiety compared with less difficult tasks. The phenomenon of procrastination. Most researchers have described procrastination in a negative light (Flett et al., 1995; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). In contrast, participants in the current study described a wide variety of potentially adaptive characteristics, as well as maladaptive aspects of procrastination. Adaptive characteristics included cognitive efficiency and peak experience. Cognitive efficiency refers to maximizing learning in a minimal amount of time. Students accomplished this in several ways, including strategic planning, increased focus through concentrated effort, and reducing start-up time by working in one large block of time rather than numerous small blocks. Many students indicated that they identified the materials they would need well in advance, located those materials, and then set them aside for sometimes up to 10 weeks before beginning the project. Individuals highlighted the importance of flow, which Csikszentmihalyi (1990) referred to as the state of total involvement in an activity that consumes one s complete attention. Respondents indicated that procrastination ultimately increases the likelihood of achieving a deep state of flow because procrastinators work under pressure for an extended period of time (e.g., 12 hr) in which all of their resources are focused on one goal. Many individuals stated, I can t get in the flow unless I m under pressure. Many individuals reported that increased flow slowed down one s sense of time and squeezed out much of the boredom and frustration that normally accompanies academic studying. Peak experience was a crucial component of adaptive procrastination. Individuals reported a number of factors that increase peak experience. One is reaching an optimal level of pressure by delaying a task until it requires maximal effort and efficiency to be completed within the allotted time frame. All participants reported using this strategy because it helps me to turn up the volume in my head. A second way is to increase one s sense of personal challenge. Many students do so by creating a scenario in which they compete against themselves, balancing the possibility of

8 ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 19 failure against the excitement of finishing just before a deadline. Self-induced challenge appears to be especially effective when a task is viewed as boring or irrelevant to their personal goals because it enables them to reframe a task so that its completion is relevant to them for personal reasons, even though the task had no perceived intrinsic merit (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996). Maladaptive characteristics of procrastination included laziness, fear of failure, and postponement of work. Respondents were less likely to elaborate on maladaptive aspects of procrastination. Many admitted to some degree of laziness on their part, although only one individual in our sample indicated that laziness was the primary cause of his procrastination. Laziness was seen by many as a consequence of boredom rather than a cause of procrastination. Most students reported very low motivation for most of their classes because they were boring, irrelevant, and useless to their long-term goals. Fear of failure was another potential reason for procrastination (Tullier, 2000). Most respondents indicated that they experienced moderate fears of failure, but that these fears rarely prevented them from successfully completing a project. Indeed, most participants stated that being afraid that I might fail motivates me to work harder than I normally would. Usually I procrastinate because I don t have much fear of failure at all. When I m afraid, I start early and work harder. Postponement was mentioned frequently as a maladaptive aspect of procrastination. Individuals offered three reasons for postponement. One was prioritizing personal fun. All respondents indicated that they work hard to keep up with their course work. Often, they held part-time jobs and volunteered for charitable organizations. Students recognized the importance of blowing off steam with their friends. Indeed, most individuals budgeted in fun time when they planned to procrastinate. For example, one father of two young children stated, You can t live in the little bubble of school all the time. Another student emphasized the importance of balancing academic stress with recreational and social activities. We found that roughly 30% to 40% of student fun is planned; 60% to 70% occurs spontaneously when friends call or stop by unexpectedly. In contrast, students also postpone work because of fatigue and burnout due to long semesters. Most individuals reported fatigue and high levels of burnout, especially late in the semester immediately prior to entering the mobilization zone, when they attempt to complete virtually all of their reading, writing, and course work. Students reported being exceptionally distracted prior to this time, as if they were waiting impatiently for a battle to come. All students indicated that long semesters promote procrastination because there is a substantial interval (i.e., 6 to 8 weeks) in which it is not efficient to work on projects that are not due until the end of the semester. However, some students in our sample were enrolled in 5-week summer courses, and they found them much more interesting because things happen quickly. Several students also completed intensive 3-week summer sessions, which met 3 hr per day for 15 days. Procrastination was virtually unheard of in these classes. Students also reported substantially higher levels of interest and learning in the 3- and 5-week sessions. Contexts and conditions affecting procrastination. We identified three contextual macrothemes that affect procrastination, including unclear directions, deadlines, and lack of incentives. Teachers often did not provide enough information to students about the content and structure of the course. Especially frustrating for students were tentative due dates for assignments, unclear quality standards, and unclear criteria for grading. For example, roughly 50% of those interviewed indicated they dropped classes that did not provide specific information at the outset. They did so in part because lack of direction precluded efficient procrastination. In contrast, deadlines help students organize their time efficiently. Most students reported that they could not work without deadlines because they really motivate you to do your best in a short period of time. All students, especially chronic procrastinators, organized their academic life around deadlines. These individuals planned work periods to fall shortly before deadlines to optimize motivation while minimizing the amount of time invested in a project. As one procrastinator revealed, I like the home stretch factor I get when I m working under a tight deadline. This is about the only time that I can get really motivated to work. High teacher expectations also play an important role in procrastination. The higher the expectations and the greater the accountability the student was held to, the less procrastination each student reported. Courses that students perceive as easy invite a lot of procrastination for two reasons. One is that the teacher does not expect much. A second is that easy teachers often are more willing to extend deadlines or show more sympathy for student excuses for unfinished course work. Most of the students interviewed in this study were adept at reading and manipulating their instructors. They carefully scrutinized at the beginning of the semester whether teachers were softies or hard asses and usually opted for the softies. Approximately 25% to 40% of students reported dropping a class if it became apparent that the teacher expected too much and was inflexible regarding deadlines and late assignments. The remaining students indicated that they would take such a class only if I heard real good things about the instructor, and it was an advanced class in my academic major. Lack of incentives tend to increase procrastination. Few of the students we interviewed experienced a high degree of intrinsic motivation (Kohn, 1993; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Surprisingly, higher efficacy students experienced the least amount of motivation. These students felt so confident in their ability to succeed that they found it difficult or impossible to motivate themselves without a deadline or some external motivator in their lives. This may explain why older, more successful students tend to procrastinate more than others (Ferrari, 1991). Students in our study consistently reported starting earlier and working harder in low-efficacy domains compared with high-efficacy domains. However, this apparent trend differed from Wolters (2003), who reported that low-efficacy students were more likely to procrastinate. Unexpectedly, grades did not affect procrastination and did not provide meaningful incentives. Typical of most students was the observation that it s usually easy to get an A if you want it, and nobody is really looking anyway. Such a sentiment may be different in noneducation majors, such as biology, in which the curriculum may be more challenging or students may go on to highly competitive programs (e.g., medical school). Nevertheless, grades remain unimportant in general because few students perceive a relationship between procrastination and course performance. Indeed, more than 80% of the students interviewed in this study reported little or no relationship between grades and procrastination. Of the remaining 20%, most reported a positive

9 20 SCHRAW, WADKINS, AND OLAFSON relationship between the two. This finding deserves additional qualitative and quantitative research because it conflicts strongly with several correlational studies that reported a negative relationship between grades and procrastination (Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Tuckman, 1991). Coping strategies. One of our main goals in this research was to identify strategies that students use to cope with procrastination, especially when they work under tight deadlines. Students attempt to optimize learning by using cognitive and affective coping strategies, and there are a variety of teachable strategies that help students reduce procrastination (Sommer, 1990; Tullier, 2000; Vacha & McBride, 1993). Cognitive strategies include identifying clear goals, prioritizing those goals, and allocating appropriate resources to each goal. Planning and organization are crucial to the procrastination endeavor. Most respondents indicated that their ability to plan and, therefore, to procrastinate improved substantially over their academic careers. This may be one reason why students report more procrastination as their academic careers progress (Ferrari, 1991; Schouwenburg, 1995). Most students stated that they plan to procrastinate. They do so by identifying and gathering relevant resources, such as texts from the library, setting aside a large block of time at a later date to read, and setting aside a block of time immediately prior to a deadline to write a paper or cram for a final exam. Most experienced procrastinators scheduled their activities well in advance, usually during the 2nd or 3rd week of the semester, even though they did not begin the work for another 8 to 12 weeks. Students emphasized the importance of creating a good study environment that eliminates as many interruptions as possible once they began to work (Van Etten, Freebern, & Pressley, 1997). Two strategies of special importance were identifying an optimal time to work and setting aside a large block of time that enables individuals to achieve and sustain a state of flow. Regarding time, most students indicated that they studied best either early in the morning or late at night. Late in the afternoon and early evening were the most difficult times to study because of competing social events and entertainment options, such as television and movies. Regarding time blocks, individuals indicated that procrastination standardizes the studying process by relegating virtually all of one s work to the last 2 weeks of the semester. One student commented, I don t feel like I m missing anything great when I hole up in my room the last 2 weeks because all my friends are doing the same thing. Finding a large block of study time prior to the final weeks of the semester was difficult for most students because they were not motivated to work at peak efficiency prior to that time. Another important coping strategy was to distribute cognitive workload by working in groups or using preexisting resources, such as notes borrowed from friends or commercially available study guides. Small groups were identified as especially effective when feasible because a complex task can be distributed among three or more people (Derry, DuRussel, & O Donnell, 1998). Some students reported using this strategy even when it was not appropriate. For example, one participant enlisted experts to write several subsections of a research paper. She explained, I know this isn t the best way to do it, but it saves me a lot of time and energy, and I probably learn more from my friends than I would if I did it on my own. Another student was even more blunt in his appraisal: I m like a vampire. I prey on classmates and other students for their notes. If I can get them to do the work for me, so much the better. Students used a variety of affective coping strategies to help them maintain a positive attitude about procrastination and the stress it creates in their lives. These strategies augmented the cognitive strategies described above but did not replace them. Most respondents indicated that both cognitive and affective strategies were necessary to procrastinate with maximum efficiency. One important psychological strategy was cognitive reframing, in which individuals constructed explanations for their actions that framed those actions in a positive light. For example, most participants tricked themselves into believing that procrastination is the best way to get the job done. In part, this process involves the systematic underestimation of the difficulty of the task while simultaneously overestimating the positive benefits of procrastination. Sometimes this led to flagrantly unrealistic reframing, as when one person stated, You ve just got to tell yourself that procrastination is the right thing to do even though you know it isn t. Students also engaged in a great deal of protective self-talk in an effort to increase their self-efficacy for studying and to reduce stress. One form of positive self-talk is confidence building by using such statements as I know I can procrastinate and still get the job done. Another form is what we refer to as attributional handicapping to escape guilt or justify lower standards. For example, one student stated that procrastinating enables me to lower my standards without feeling like a lazy slob. The object becomes to do the best I can in a limited amount of time rather than to work way too hard on a boring task just because I ll feel bad if I don t. Many individuals also engaged in some kind of physical activity, such as exercise, to help reduce stress. Some students slept more. Some simply became overstressed and used this intense, but temporary, stress as a catalyst to get them over the hump. Regardless of their preferred strategy, all respondents agreed that, no matter how stressed I get, I know it won t last long, and that it makes the break afterwards a lot better. Perhaps strangest of all, a minority of respondents (i.e., 25%) reported coping with the stress of procrastination by making it an event, by which they meant reveling in the stress and perceived decadence of procrastination. Many of these students reported intense levels of partying immediately prior to the final drive to complete work in a manner analogous to the revelry of Mardi Gras. Intense reveling may help these students bracket the stress they experience in a more adaptive manner. As one student put it, It helps me balance the equation between stress and fun. Consequences of procrastination. All respondents reported mixed, often conflicted views regarding the consequences of procrastination. Everyone believed that procrastination was beneficial because it relieved boredom, increased work efficiency, and enabled students to have a life you can t have if you study all the time. On the other hand, there were many reservations about lost opportunities to develop a better understanding of the topic, feelings of laziness, and physical fatigue. These self-reports are consistent with the effects of procrastination reported by Ferrari (1991) and Tice and Baumeister (1997). Respondents expressed concerns about the quality of life and quality of work. Most participants felt that quality of life decreased, whereas quality of work was not affected when procrastinating. All students experienced fatigue, stress, guilt, and anxiety