- Email: [email protected]
Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis
Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis Andrew J. Howell a,⁎, Karen Buro b a b
Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 2P2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Grant MacEwan College, Canada T5J 2P2
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 February 2008 Received in revised form 12 June 2008 Accepted 10 August 2008 Keywords: Procrastination Implicit Theories Achievement goal orientations Self-regulation
a b s t r a c t As a maladaptive behavioural outcome, procrastination should correlate with beliefs about ability and achievement goals that are themselves relatively maladaptive. Accordingly, procrastination should be predicted by entity as opposed to incremental implicit theories (i.e., viewing attributes such as ability as relatively fixed vs. malleable, respectively) and by avoidance goal orientations as opposed to approach goal orientations. Among 397 undergraduates, entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals positively predicted procrastination whereas incremental beliefs and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals negatively predicted procrastination. The prediction of procrastination by entity beliefs was mediated by mastery-avoidance goals. Results are cast in terms of self-regulatory models of procrastination. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Procrastination is commonly conceptualized as involving failure of self-regulation (e.g., Steel, 2007). As such, it should be possible to predict procrastination using variables implicated in models of selfregulation applied to learning. Self-regulated learning is defined as the “active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features of the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). Two variables emphasized in models of self-regulated learning are implicit theories and achievement goal orientations. 1. Implicit theories and achievement goal orientations An important variable associated with motivation and learning is the extent to which personal attributes, such as ability, are viewed as fixed or malleable (Dweck, 1999; Dweck, Chui, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Endorsement of an entity theory means that attributes are perceived as relatively stable and unchangeable. Endorsement of an incremental theory means that attributes are viewed as malleable and open to influence. Theory and evidence suggest that adoption of an incremental view, relative to an entity view, is associated with more adaptive cognitive and behavioural consequences, including greater effort and persistence when confronted with adversity (Dweck et al., 1995). The achievement goal framework posits that people differ in the extent to which they adopt various goals concerning their achievement behaviour and that these differences are associated with
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 497 5329; fax: +1 780 497 5308. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.J. Howell). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
distinctive emotional, motivational, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2000). Elliot and McGregor (2001) conceptualized a “2 × 2 achievement goal framework” involving four goal orientations: The mastery-approach orientation involves striving to learn all there is to learn; the mastery-avoidance orientation involves avoiding failing to learn what there is to learn; the performance-approach orientation involves seeking to perform better than others; and the performance-avoidance orientation involves avoiding poor performance relative to others. Students may adopt multiple goal orientations simultaneously (Pintrich, 2000); as such, the degree to which each orientation is adopted is often the focus of measurement (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Studies examining associations between goal orientation scores and indices of achievement-related functioning suggest that approach-oriented goals are associated with a more adaptive profile of functioning than avoidance-oriented goals (Moller & Elliot, 2006). Dweck et al. (Dweck, 1999; Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) posited that entity beliefs promote the adoption of performance-related goals (i.e., goals concerned with demonstrating one's fixed level of competence) whereas incremental beliefs promote the adoption of mastery-approach goals (i.e., goals concerned with developing one's alterable level of competence). Only two studies have examined all four orientations in relation to entity and incremental theories. Elliot and McGregor (2001, Study 3) demonstrated that mastery-avoidance goals were positively associated with entity beliefs and negatively associated with incremental beliefs. In contrast, Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, and Moller (2006) showed that incremental beliefs correlated positively with mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goal orientations whereas entity beliefs correlated positively with performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations.
152
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2. Implicit theories, goal orientations, and procrastination
4. Method
Given that approach-related goal orientations tend to be associated with adaptive self-regulatory processes whereas avoidance orientations tend to be associated with maladaptive selfregulatory processes (Moller & Elliot, 2006), procrastination should be associated more with the latter than the former. Howell and Watson (2007) revealed that the mastery-approach goal orientation correlated negatively with procrastination whereas the mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination. Performance-oriented goals were not associated with procrastination. No research has examined relationships between implicit theories and procrastination. However, Rhodewalt (1994) and Ommundsen (2001) examined relationships among implicit theories of ability, goal orientations, and self-handicapping. While not equivalent to procrastination, meta-analyses have revealed self-handicapping to be a significant positive correlate of procrastination (Steel, 2007; van Eerde, 2003) and self-handicapping motivates some maladaptive postponement behaviour (e.g., Ferrari & Tice, 2000). Also, Dweck (1999) speculated on a self-handicapping process in which entity theorists defensively withdraw their effort to preserve attributions to ability in the face of success. Rhodewalt (1994) had undergraduates complete measures corresponding to self-handicapping, entity and incremental beliefs, and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. An entity view correlated positively with self-handicapping whereas an incremental view was not associated with self-handicapping. Mastery-approach goals correlated negatively with self-handicapping whereas performanceapproach goals correlated positively with self-handicapping. Ommundsen (2001) had 9th graders complete measures of self-handicapping, implicit theories, and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. Entity beliefs correlated positively with self-handicapping, whereas incremental beliefs related negatively to self-handicapping. A performance-approach goal orientation was unrelated to self-handicapping, whereas a masteryapproach orientation was negatively related to self-handicapping.
4.1. Participants
3. The current study The present study examined associations between incremental and entity theories, the four goal orientations comprising the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework, and procrastination. The first purpose was to examine relations between implicit theories and procrastination and between goal orientation and procrastination. It was hypothesized that entity beliefs would predict higher procrastination and that incremental beliefs would predict lower procrastination. It was also hypothesized that a mastery-approach goal orientation would predict lower procrastination whereas a mastery-avoidance goal orientation would predict higher procrastination. The second purpose was to test whether achievement goal orientations mediate the relationship between implicit theories and procrastination.
Participants were 397 introductory psychology students (mean age = 20.6) who participated as part of a larger study concerning subjective well-being and academic functioning. Females comprised 72% of the sample. 4.2. Measures The four items comprising the entity scale of Dweck's (1999) domain-general measure of implicit theories assessed the extent to which personal attributes are viewed as stable or enduring whereas the four items comprising the incremental scale assessed the extent to which attributes are seen to be malleable. All items are rated on a scale with endpoints 1 (strongly agree) and 6 (strongly disagree). Scale scores are calculated by summing across items. Elliot and McGregor (2001) reported alpha coefficients of .82 and .85 for the entity and incremental scales, respectively, and Dweck et al. (1995) established the discriminant validity of the scales (e.g., against measures of cognitive abilities and social desirability). The Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) is comprised of 12 items, with three items composing each of the four achievement goal orientations. Items are rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Scores for each goal orientation are calculated by averaging across the three items. Elliot and McGregor reported evidence attesting to the reliability of the mastery-approach (α = .87), mastery-avoidance (α = .89), performanceapproach (α = .92) and performance-avoidance (α = .83) dimensional scales. They also validated the measure by showing, for example, that endorsement of avoidant goals positively correlated with measures of negative affect whereas endorsement of approach goals positively correlated with need for achievement. The 16-item Procrastination Scale (Tuckman, 1991) measures the tendency to delay task initiation or completion, as well as tendencies toward indecisiveness and poor time management in the completion of tasks. Items are rated on 4-point scales with endpoints labeled 1 (that's me for sure) and 4 (that's not me for sure). In producing total scores, the rating scale was reversed prior to summing across the 16 items, so that higher scores indicated greater procrastination. Tuckman (1991) established the internal consistency of the Procrastination Scale (α = .90) and reported significant associations between Procrastination Scale scores and a behavioural measure of procrastination. 5. Results 5.1. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. In line with predictions, entity beliefs correlated positively with procrastination
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all variables Variable
M
SD
Observed range
Possible range
Pearson Inter-correlations among variables 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Entity beliefs 2. Incremental beliefs 3. Mastery-approach 4. Mastery-avoidance 5. Performance-approach 6. Performance-avoidance 7. Procrastination Scale 8. Age
13.02 15.35 5.12 4.24 3.90 5.06 40.49 20.60
4.16 4.08 1.24 1.55 1.77 1.27 8.60 2.91
4.00–23.00 4.00–24.00 1.33–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 18.00–63.00 17.00–31.00
4.00–24.00 4.00–24.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 16.00–64.00 –
(.71) −.61⁎⁎⁎ −.11⁎ .14⁎⁎ .10⁎ .10⁎ .15⁎⁎ −.13⁎
(.80) .09 −.07 −.04 −.12⁎ −.10⁎ .14⁎⁎
(.74) .32⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ −.36⁎⁎⁎ .04
(.85) .10⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ − .03
(.93) .29⁎⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.08
(.59) −.06 −.14⁎⁎
(.92) .05
Note. Sample size was 397 for all variables with the exception of the Procrastination Scale, for which it was 394. Values in parentheses are alpha coefficients. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
(r = .15, p b .01) whereas incremental beliefs correlated negatively with procrastination (r = −.10, p b .05). Entity beliefs correlated negatively with a mastery-approach orientation (r = −.11, p b .05) and positively with mastery-avoidance (r = .14, p b .01), performance-approach (r = .10, p b .05), and performance-avoidance (r = .10, p b .05) goal orientations. Incremental beliefs correlated inversely with a performance-avoidance orientation (r = −.12, p b .05) but were uncorrelated with the remaining goal orientations. Procrastination was negatively correlated with a mastery-approach goal orientation (r = −.36, p b .001) and, to a lesser extent, a performance-approach goal orientation (r = −.15, p b .01); these correlations differed from each other, z = 3.23, p b .01. Conversely, a mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination (r = .14, p b .01). Correlations involving age also appear in Table 1. To adjust for restricted age range, these correlations were recalculated employing a formula in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), using a population standard deviation of 13.13 based on 2006 Canadian census data for the 18–65 age range (values in parentheses are the adjusted correlations between age and each achievement-related variable): entity beliefs (−.49), incremental beliefs (.55), mastery-approach (.17), masteryavoidance (−.15), performance-approach (−.36), performance-avoidance (−.53), and procrastination (.21). In terms of gender differences, women scored lower than men on incremental beliefs (M = 14.98, SD = 4.00 vs. M = 16.31, SD = 4.16), t(395) = −2.92, p b .001, and women scored higher than men on mastery-approach goals (M = 5.21, SD = 1.18 vs. M = 4.88, SD = 1.38), t(395) = 2.35, p b .05; mastery-avoidance goals (M = 4.36, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 3.91, SD = 1.54), t(395) = 2.58, p b .01, and performance-avoidance goals (M = 5.14, SD = 1.23 vs. M = 4.84, SD = 1.35), t(395) = 2.06, p b .05. No differences emerged between women and men, respectively, for entity beliefs (M = 13.11, SD = 4.00 vs. M = 12.77, SD = 4.56), performance-approach goals (M = 3.88, SD = 1.76 vs. M = 3.95, SD = 1.82), or procrastination (M = 40.07, SD = 8.65 vs. M = 41.62, SD = 8.40). 5.2. Multiple regression analyses A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted in which procrastination scores were regressed on the two implicit theories in the first step and the four achievement goal orientations were added in the follow-up step, in line with the hypothesized precedence of implicit theories over goal orientations. Given gender and age differences on some variables, the regression analysis was reconducted entering gender and age first; no substantive changes to the findings reported next occurred. Results (see also Table 2) from the first step revealed that implicit theories accounted for a significant but small (2.1%) amount of variance in procrastination, F(2,391) = 4.28, p b .01. Procrastination was predicted by entity beliefs (β = .13, t(391) = 2.08, p b .05), but not by incremental beliefs. Results for the second step revealed that 20% of variance was accounted for when achievement goal orientations were added, ΔF(4,387) = 22.12, p b .001. In this model, mastery-approach goals (β = −.41, t(387) =
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting procrastination Variable Step 1 Entity beliefs Incremental beliefs Step 2 Entity beliefs Incremental beliefs Mastery-approach Mastery-avoidance Performance-approach Performance-avoidance
SE B
β
.27 −.05
.13 .13
.13⁎ −.02
.12 −.04 −2.82 1.46 −.37 −.21
.12 .12 .34 .27 .24 .33
.06 −.02 −.41⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ −.08 −.03
B
Note: R2 = .02 (p b .01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = .18 (p b .001) for Step 2. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .001.
153
−8.17, p b .001) and mastery-avoidance goals (β = .26, t(387) = 5.34, p b .001) significantly predicted procrastination. Additional analyses were conducted in order to test whether goal orientations mediated the association between implicit theories and procrastination. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation requires that the predictor variables (implicit theories) predict the dependent variable (procrastination), the predictor variables predict the hypothesized intervening variables (goal orientations), the intervening variables predict the dependent variable, and the relationship between the predictor and dependent variable is attenuated when intervening variables are controlled. Step one of the above regression analysis revealed that entity beliefs were a significant positive predictor of procrastination whereas incremental beliefs were not. To determine if the predictor variables predicted the hypothesized mediating variables, each type of achievement goal orientation was regressed on entity and incremental theories of ability. Mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals were not predicted by implicit theories. For mastery-avoidance goals, the model was significant, F(2,394) = 4.02, p b .05. Entity beliefs were significant positive predictors of mastery-avoidance goals, β = .15, t(394) = 2.45, p b .05. Step two in the above analysis revealed that mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals were significant negative and positive predictors of procrastination, respectively. These findings, coupled with those from the preceding analyses, indicate that the relation between entity beliefs and procrastination might be explained by mastery-avoidance goals. Therefore, whether mastery-avoidance goal orientations mediated the prediction of procrastination by entity beliefs was tested by simultaneously regressing procrastination on entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals. The model was significant, F(3,390) = 4.67, p b .01. Only mastery-avoidance goals were a direct predictor of procrastination, β = .12, t(390) = 2.31, p b .02, suggesting that the mastery-avoidance goal orientation mediated the association between entity beliefs and procrastination. A statistical test of mediation, the z′ test described by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002), supported the interpretation of a significant mediation effect; z′ = 1.79, p b .01. 6. Discussion Entity beliefs positively correlated with procrastination whereas incremental beliefs negatively correlated with procrastination. These correlations presumably reflect the cognitive and behavioural correlates of implicit theory adoption, such that incremental beliefs encourage consideration and adoption of those factors over which one has some control during the completion of a challenging task (e.g., effort, persistence, emotion management) whereas entity beliefs do so significantly less. The mastery-approach goal orientation was inversely associated with procrastination whereas the mastery-avoidance goal orientation was positively correlated with procrastination. In addition, a performance-approach orientation was inversely associated with procrastination, but to a lesser extent than the masteryapproach orientation. These findings likely reflect the advantageous cognitive and behavioural correlates of approach-oriented goals, such as higher intrinsic motivation and higher self-efficacy associated with the mastery-approach orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006). They support growing evidence of the benefits of the mastery-approach orientation and further distinguish it from the mastery-avoidance orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006). Entity beliefs were associated negatively with the masteryapproach orientation and positively with the remaining three goal orientations whereas incremental beliefs were associated negatively with a performance-avoidance orientation. Despite some inconsistencies, the most stable findings concerning these relationships across the current and prior studies (i.e., Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & McGregor,
154
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2001) are the tendency for mastery-approach goals to be positively associated with incremental beliefs (or negatively associated with entity beliefs) whereas mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals tend to be positively related with entity beliefs (or negatively associated with incremental beliefs). These associations are consistent with arguments that an incremental view is more adaptive, or at least less inimical, than an entity view. In regression analyses, mastery-avoidance goal orientations were found to mediate the relationship between entity beliefs and procrastination. That is, entity beliefs were associated with a mastery-avoidance orientation, perhaps reflecting a desire to avoid losing one's inherent ability, which in turn was associated with elevated procrastination. Again, this is consistent with a view of each of these three achievement-related variables as relatively maladaptive. 6.1. Procrastination as self-regulation failure Steel (2007) argued that procrastination is reflected in the equation E × V / ГD, where E = expectancy or likelihood of an outcome occurring, V = value or desirability of an outcome, Г = sensitivity to time delays, and D = the time until a rewarding stimulus becomes available. According to this function, a pattern of temporal discounting characterizes procrastination, wherein the value of distant, large rewards is downplayed relative to more immediately available, smaller rewards. From this perspective, it could be argued that incremental beliefs are associated with lower levels of procrastination because such conceptions encourage a consideration of mediating factors (e.g., one's effort level, the learning strategies one could adopt, the achievement goals one could adopt) that facilitate the attainment of outcomes (Dweck et al., 1995) and that, therefore, heighten expectancies of success. Indeed, incremental theorists make optimistic predictions about their likelihood of task success and highly value successful completion of difficult tasks, whereas entity theorists hold a negative expectancy regarding future success and experience negative affect such as boredom during academic tasks, reducing the perceived value of diligently working toward task completion (Dweck, 1999). With respect to temporal considerations, long-term goals may be sacrificed by entity theorists in the service of securing, in the short-term, positive judgments of ability (Dweck, 1999). With respect to goal orientations, approach-oriented achievement goals, and especially mastery-approach goals, reflect a high need for achievement in the learner (Moller & Elliot, 2006), such that outcomes pursued in the aim of mastery become imbued with positive emotion (higher value) and a greater expectation of success. Similarly, masteryapproach goals promote high self-efficacy, encourage the valuing of competence, and enhance task interest (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000). The remaining goal orientations are associated with such qualities as fear of failure, perceived incompetence, or lowered valuing of competency (Moller & Elliot, 2006), suggesting a negative expectancy and reduced value of academic tasks. Finally, masteryapproach goal orientations promote more immediate effort toward long-term projects (Covington, 2000), thereby reducing temporal discounting. 6.2. Limitations and future directions The current findings are limited by the cross-sectional design of the study. Experiments which manipulate implicit theories or goal orientations as potential antecedents of procrastination are needed. The current findings revealed that associations among implicit theories, goal orientations, and procrastination are small in magnitude. Nonetheless, the results were consistent with other recently reported findings (e.g., Howell & Watson, 2007) and relationship strengths were in line with those reported previously concerning the
same or similar variables (e.g., Ommundsen, 2001). Most importantly, the emerging relationships were in keeping with theoretical accounts of associations among implicit theories, goal orientations, and academic outcomes. It would be instructive to further study aspects of implicit theories and goal orientations with respect to their relationship with factors emphasized in Steel's (2007) temporal discounting theory of procrastination. Individuals endorsing mastery-approach goals and incremental beliefs may be more future-time oriented (and hence less sensitive to delays preceding rewarding outcomes) than those who adopt alternative views. Such individuals may also be better able to delay immediate gratification as they diligently work toward what they believe is a valuable and attainable outcome. Future research may help to situate future time orientation and academic delay of gratification, along with implicit theories, goal orientations, and other variables involved in self-regulated learning, within the widening nomological web of procrastination. References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173−1182. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171−200. Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666−679. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Pensylvania: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256−273. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267−285. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 52−72). New York: Guildford Press. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501−519. Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 73−83. Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167−178. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple pathways to learning and achievement: The role of goal orientation in fostering adaptive motivation, affect, and cognition. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance New York: Academic Press. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83−104. Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 139−156. Pintrich, R. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451−502). New York: Academic Press. Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-handicapping behaviour: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67−85. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65−94. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 473−480. van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401−1418.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis Andrew J. Howell a,⁎, Karen Buro b a b
Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J 2P2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Grant MacEwan College, Canada T5J 2P2
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 8 February 2008 Received in revised form 12 June 2008 Accepted 10 August 2008 Keywords: Procrastination Implicit Theories Achievement goal orientations Self-regulation
a b s t r a c t As a maladaptive behavioural outcome, procrastination should correlate with beliefs about ability and achievement goals that are themselves relatively maladaptive. Accordingly, procrastination should be predicted by entity as opposed to incremental implicit theories (i.e., viewing attributes such as ability as relatively fixed vs. malleable, respectively) and by avoidance goal orientations as opposed to approach goal orientations. Among 397 undergraduates, entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals positively predicted procrastination whereas incremental beliefs and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals negatively predicted procrastination. The prediction of procrastination by entity beliefs was mediated by mastery-avoidance goals. Results are cast in terms of self-regulatory models of procrastination. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Procrastination is commonly conceptualized as involving failure of self-regulation (e.g., Steel, 2007). As such, it should be possible to predict procrastination using variables implicated in models of selfregulation applied to learning. Self-regulated learning is defined as the “active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features of the environment” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 453). Two variables emphasized in models of self-regulated learning are implicit theories and achievement goal orientations. 1. Implicit theories and achievement goal orientations An important variable associated with motivation and learning is the extent to which personal attributes, such as ability, are viewed as fixed or malleable (Dweck, 1999; Dweck, Chui, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Endorsement of an entity theory means that attributes are perceived as relatively stable and unchangeable. Endorsement of an incremental theory means that attributes are viewed as malleable and open to influence. Theory and evidence suggest that adoption of an incremental view, relative to an entity view, is associated with more adaptive cognitive and behavioural consequences, including greater effort and persistence when confronted with adversity (Dweck et al., 1995). The achievement goal framework posits that people differ in the extent to which they adopt various goals concerning their achievement behaviour and that these differences are associated with
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 780 497 5329; fax: +1 780 497 5308. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.J. Howell). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
distinctive emotional, motivational, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2000). Elliot and McGregor (2001) conceptualized a “2 × 2 achievement goal framework” involving four goal orientations: The mastery-approach orientation involves striving to learn all there is to learn; the mastery-avoidance orientation involves avoiding failing to learn what there is to learn; the performance-approach orientation involves seeking to perform better than others; and the performance-avoidance orientation involves avoiding poor performance relative to others. Students may adopt multiple goal orientations simultaneously (Pintrich, 2000); as such, the degree to which each orientation is adopted is often the focus of measurement (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Studies examining associations between goal orientation scores and indices of achievement-related functioning suggest that approach-oriented goals are associated with a more adaptive profile of functioning than avoidance-oriented goals (Moller & Elliot, 2006). Dweck et al. (Dweck, 1999; Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) posited that entity beliefs promote the adoption of performance-related goals (i.e., goals concerned with demonstrating one's fixed level of competence) whereas incremental beliefs promote the adoption of mastery-approach goals (i.e., goals concerned with developing one's alterable level of competence). Only two studies have examined all four orientations in relation to entity and incremental theories. Elliot and McGregor (2001, Study 3) demonstrated that mastery-avoidance goals were positively associated with entity beliefs and negatively associated with incremental beliefs. In contrast, Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, and Moller (2006) showed that incremental beliefs correlated positively with mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goal orientations whereas entity beliefs correlated positively with performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations.
152
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2. Implicit theories, goal orientations, and procrastination
4. Method
Given that approach-related goal orientations tend to be associated with adaptive self-regulatory processes whereas avoidance orientations tend to be associated with maladaptive selfregulatory processes (Moller & Elliot, 2006), procrastination should be associated more with the latter than the former. Howell and Watson (2007) revealed that the mastery-approach goal orientation correlated negatively with procrastination whereas the mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination. Performance-oriented goals were not associated with procrastination. No research has examined relationships between implicit theories and procrastination. However, Rhodewalt (1994) and Ommundsen (2001) examined relationships among implicit theories of ability, goal orientations, and self-handicapping. While not equivalent to procrastination, meta-analyses have revealed self-handicapping to be a significant positive correlate of procrastination (Steel, 2007; van Eerde, 2003) and self-handicapping motivates some maladaptive postponement behaviour (e.g., Ferrari & Tice, 2000). Also, Dweck (1999) speculated on a self-handicapping process in which entity theorists defensively withdraw their effort to preserve attributions to ability in the face of success. Rhodewalt (1994) had undergraduates complete measures corresponding to self-handicapping, entity and incremental beliefs, and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. An entity view correlated positively with self-handicapping whereas an incremental view was not associated with self-handicapping. Mastery-approach goals correlated negatively with self-handicapping whereas performanceapproach goals correlated positively with self-handicapping. Ommundsen (2001) had 9th graders complete measures of self-handicapping, implicit theories, and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. Entity beliefs correlated positively with self-handicapping, whereas incremental beliefs related negatively to self-handicapping. A performance-approach goal orientation was unrelated to self-handicapping, whereas a masteryapproach orientation was negatively related to self-handicapping.
4.1. Participants
3. The current study The present study examined associations between incremental and entity theories, the four goal orientations comprising the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework, and procrastination. The first purpose was to examine relations between implicit theories and procrastination and between goal orientation and procrastination. It was hypothesized that entity beliefs would predict higher procrastination and that incremental beliefs would predict lower procrastination. It was also hypothesized that a mastery-approach goal orientation would predict lower procrastination whereas a mastery-avoidance goal orientation would predict higher procrastination. The second purpose was to test whether achievement goal orientations mediate the relationship between implicit theories and procrastination.
Participants were 397 introductory psychology students (mean age = 20.6) who participated as part of a larger study concerning subjective well-being and academic functioning. Females comprised 72% of the sample. 4.2. Measures The four items comprising the entity scale of Dweck's (1999) domain-general measure of implicit theories assessed the extent to which personal attributes are viewed as stable or enduring whereas the four items comprising the incremental scale assessed the extent to which attributes are seen to be malleable. All items are rated on a scale with endpoints 1 (strongly agree) and 6 (strongly disagree). Scale scores are calculated by summing across items. Elliot and McGregor (2001) reported alpha coefficients of .82 and .85 for the entity and incremental scales, respectively, and Dweck et al. (1995) established the discriminant validity of the scales (e.g., against measures of cognitive abilities and social desirability). The Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) is comprised of 12 items, with three items composing each of the four achievement goal orientations. Items are rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). Scores for each goal orientation are calculated by averaging across the three items. Elliot and McGregor reported evidence attesting to the reliability of the mastery-approach (α = .87), mastery-avoidance (α = .89), performanceapproach (α = .92) and performance-avoidance (α = .83) dimensional scales. They also validated the measure by showing, for example, that endorsement of avoidant goals positively correlated with measures of negative affect whereas endorsement of approach goals positively correlated with need for achievement. The 16-item Procrastination Scale (Tuckman, 1991) measures the tendency to delay task initiation or completion, as well as tendencies toward indecisiveness and poor time management in the completion of tasks. Items are rated on 4-point scales with endpoints labeled 1 (that's me for sure) and 4 (that's not me for sure). In producing total scores, the rating scale was reversed prior to summing across the 16 items, so that higher scores indicated greater procrastination. Tuckman (1991) established the internal consistency of the Procrastination Scale (α = .90) and reported significant associations between Procrastination Scale scores and a behavioural measure of procrastination. 5. Results 5.1. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. In line with predictions, entity beliefs correlated positively with procrastination
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for all variables Variable
M
SD
Observed range
Possible range
Pearson Inter-correlations among variables 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Entity beliefs 2. Incremental beliefs 3. Mastery-approach 4. Mastery-avoidance 5. Performance-approach 6. Performance-avoidance 7. Procrastination Scale 8. Age
13.02 15.35 5.12 4.24 3.90 5.06 40.49 20.60
4.16 4.08 1.24 1.55 1.77 1.27 8.60 2.91
4.00–23.00 4.00–24.00 1.33–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 18.00–63.00 17.00–31.00
4.00–24.00 4.00–24.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 1.00–7.00 16.00–64.00 –
(.71) −.61⁎⁎⁎ −.11⁎ .14⁎⁎ .10⁎ .10⁎ .15⁎⁎ −.13⁎
(.80) .09 −.07 −.04 −.12⁎ −.10⁎ .14⁎⁎
(.74) .32⁎⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ −.36⁎⁎⁎ .04
(.85) .10⁎ .18⁎⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ − .03
(.93) .29⁎⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.08
(.59) −.06 −.14⁎⁎
(.92) .05
Note. Sample size was 397 for all variables with the exception of the Procrastination Scale, for which it was 394. Values in parentheses are alpha coefficients. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
(r = .15, p b .01) whereas incremental beliefs correlated negatively with procrastination (r = −.10, p b .05). Entity beliefs correlated negatively with a mastery-approach orientation (r = −.11, p b .05) and positively with mastery-avoidance (r = .14, p b .01), performance-approach (r = .10, p b .05), and performance-avoidance (r = .10, p b .05) goal orientations. Incremental beliefs correlated inversely with a performance-avoidance orientation (r = −.12, p b .05) but were uncorrelated with the remaining goal orientations. Procrastination was negatively correlated with a mastery-approach goal orientation (r = −.36, p b .001) and, to a lesser extent, a performance-approach goal orientation (r = −.15, p b .01); these correlations differed from each other, z = 3.23, p b .01. Conversely, a mastery-avoidance orientation correlated positively with procrastination (r = .14, p b .01). Correlations involving age also appear in Table 1. To adjust for restricted age range, these correlations were recalculated employing a formula in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), using a population standard deviation of 13.13 based on 2006 Canadian census data for the 18–65 age range (values in parentheses are the adjusted correlations between age and each achievement-related variable): entity beliefs (−.49), incremental beliefs (.55), mastery-approach (.17), masteryavoidance (−.15), performance-approach (−.36), performance-avoidance (−.53), and procrastination (.21). In terms of gender differences, women scored lower than men on incremental beliefs (M = 14.98, SD = 4.00 vs. M = 16.31, SD = 4.16), t(395) = −2.92, p b .001, and women scored higher than men on mastery-approach goals (M = 5.21, SD = 1.18 vs. M = 4.88, SD = 1.38), t(395) = 2.35, p b .05; mastery-avoidance goals (M = 4.36, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 3.91, SD = 1.54), t(395) = 2.58, p b .01, and performance-avoidance goals (M = 5.14, SD = 1.23 vs. M = 4.84, SD = 1.35), t(395) = 2.06, p b .05. No differences emerged between women and men, respectively, for entity beliefs (M = 13.11, SD = 4.00 vs. M = 12.77, SD = 4.56), performance-approach goals (M = 3.88, SD = 1.76 vs. M = 3.95, SD = 1.82), or procrastination (M = 40.07, SD = 8.65 vs. M = 41.62, SD = 8.40). 5.2. Multiple regression analyses A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted in which procrastination scores were regressed on the two implicit theories in the first step and the four achievement goal orientations were added in the follow-up step, in line with the hypothesized precedence of implicit theories over goal orientations. Given gender and age differences on some variables, the regression analysis was reconducted entering gender and age first; no substantive changes to the findings reported next occurred. Results (see also Table 2) from the first step revealed that implicit theories accounted for a significant but small (2.1%) amount of variance in procrastination, F(2,391) = 4.28, p b .01. Procrastination was predicted by entity beliefs (β = .13, t(391) = 2.08, p b .05), but not by incremental beliefs. Results for the second step revealed that 20% of variance was accounted for when achievement goal orientations were added, ΔF(4,387) = 22.12, p b .001. In this model, mastery-approach goals (β = −.41, t(387) =
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting procrastination Variable Step 1 Entity beliefs Incremental beliefs Step 2 Entity beliefs Incremental beliefs Mastery-approach Mastery-avoidance Performance-approach Performance-avoidance
SE B
β
.27 −.05
.13 .13
.13⁎ −.02
.12 −.04 −2.82 1.46 −.37 −.21
.12 .12 .34 .27 .24 .33
.06 −.02 −.41⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ −.08 −.03
B
Note: R2 = .02 (p b .01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = .18 (p b .001) for Step 2. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .001.
153
−8.17, p b .001) and mastery-avoidance goals (β = .26, t(387) = 5.34, p b .001) significantly predicted procrastination. Additional analyses were conducted in order to test whether goal orientations mediated the association between implicit theories and procrastination. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation requires that the predictor variables (implicit theories) predict the dependent variable (procrastination), the predictor variables predict the hypothesized intervening variables (goal orientations), the intervening variables predict the dependent variable, and the relationship between the predictor and dependent variable is attenuated when intervening variables are controlled. Step one of the above regression analysis revealed that entity beliefs were a significant positive predictor of procrastination whereas incremental beliefs were not. To determine if the predictor variables predicted the hypothesized mediating variables, each type of achievement goal orientation was regressed on entity and incremental theories of ability. Mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals were not predicted by implicit theories. For mastery-avoidance goals, the model was significant, F(2,394) = 4.02, p b .05. Entity beliefs were significant positive predictors of mastery-avoidance goals, β = .15, t(394) = 2.45, p b .05. Step two in the above analysis revealed that mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals were significant negative and positive predictors of procrastination, respectively. These findings, coupled with those from the preceding analyses, indicate that the relation between entity beliefs and procrastination might be explained by mastery-avoidance goals. Therefore, whether mastery-avoidance goal orientations mediated the prediction of procrastination by entity beliefs was tested by simultaneously regressing procrastination on entity beliefs and mastery-avoidance goals. The model was significant, F(3,390) = 4.67, p b .01. Only mastery-avoidance goals were a direct predictor of procrastination, β = .12, t(390) = 2.31, p b .02, suggesting that the mastery-avoidance goal orientation mediated the association between entity beliefs and procrastination. A statistical test of mediation, the z′ test described by MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002), supported the interpretation of a significant mediation effect; z′ = 1.79, p b .01. 6. Discussion Entity beliefs positively correlated with procrastination whereas incremental beliefs negatively correlated with procrastination. These correlations presumably reflect the cognitive and behavioural correlates of implicit theory adoption, such that incremental beliefs encourage consideration and adoption of those factors over which one has some control during the completion of a challenging task (e.g., effort, persistence, emotion management) whereas entity beliefs do so significantly less. The mastery-approach goal orientation was inversely associated with procrastination whereas the mastery-avoidance goal orientation was positively correlated with procrastination. In addition, a performance-approach orientation was inversely associated with procrastination, but to a lesser extent than the masteryapproach orientation. These findings likely reflect the advantageous cognitive and behavioural correlates of approach-oriented goals, such as higher intrinsic motivation and higher self-efficacy associated with the mastery-approach orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006). They support growing evidence of the benefits of the mastery-approach orientation and further distinguish it from the mastery-avoidance orientation (Moller & Elliot, 2006). Entity beliefs were associated negatively with the masteryapproach orientation and positively with the remaining three goal orientations whereas incremental beliefs were associated negatively with a performance-avoidance orientation. Despite some inconsistencies, the most stable findings concerning these relationships across the current and prior studies (i.e., Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & McGregor,
154
A.J. Howell, K. Buro / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 151–154
2001) are the tendency for mastery-approach goals to be positively associated with incremental beliefs (or negatively associated with entity beliefs) whereas mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals tend to be positively related with entity beliefs (or negatively associated with incremental beliefs). These associations are consistent with arguments that an incremental view is more adaptive, or at least less inimical, than an entity view. In regression analyses, mastery-avoidance goal orientations were found to mediate the relationship between entity beliefs and procrastination. That is, entity beliefs were associated with a mastery-avoidance orientation, perhaps reflecting a desire to avoid losing one's inherent ability, which in turn was associated with elevated procrastination. Again, this is consistent with a view of each of these three achievement-related variables as relatively maladaptive. 6.1. Procrastination as self-regulation failure Steel (2007) argued that procrastination is reflected in the equation E × V / ГD, where E = expectancy or likelihood of an outcome occurring, V = value or desirability of an outcome, Г = sensitivity to time delays, and D = the time until a rewarding stimulus becomes available. According to this function, a pattern of temporal discounting characterizes procrastination, wherein the value of distant, large rewards is downplayed relative to more immediately available, smaller rewards. From this perspective, it could be argued that incremental beliefs are associated with lower levels of procrastination because such conceptions encourage a consideration of mediating factors (e.g., one's effort level, the learning strategies one could adopt, the achievement goals one could adopt) that facilitate the attainment of outcomes (Dweck et al., 1995) and that, therefore, heighten expectancies of success. Indeed, incremental theorists make optimistic predictions about their likelihood of task success and highly value successful completion of difficult tasks, whereas entity theorists hold a negative expectancy regarding future success and experience negative affect such as boredom during academic tasks, reducing the perceived value of diligently working toward task completion (Dweck, 1999). With respect to temporal considerations, long-term goals may be sacrificed by entity theorists in the service of securing, in the short-term, positive judgments of ability (Dweck, 1999). With respect to goal orientations, approach-oriented achievement goals, and especially mastery-approach goals, reflect a high need for achievement in the learner (Moller & Elliot, 2006), such that outcomes pursued in the aim of mastery become imbued with positive emotion (higher value) and a greater expectation of success. Similarly, masteryapproach goals promote high self-efficacy, encourage the valuing of competence, and enhance task interest (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000). The remaining goal orientations are associated with such qualities as fear of failure, perceived incompetence, or lowered valuing of competency (Moller & Elliot, 2006), suggesting a negative expectancy and reduced value of academic tasks. Finally, masteryapproach goal orientations promote more immediate effort toward long-term projects (Covington, 2000), thereby reducing temporal discounting. 6.2. Limitations and future directions The current findings are limited by the cross-sectional design of the study. Experiments which manipulate implicit theories or goal orientations as potential antecedents of procrastination are needed. The current findings revealed that associations among implicit theories, goal orientations, and procrastination are small in magnitude. Nonetheless, the results were consistent with other recently reported findings (e.g., Howell & Watson, 2007) and relationship strengths were in line with those reported previously concerning the
same or similar variables (e.g., Ommundsen, 2001). Most importantly, the emerging relationships were in keeping with theoretical accounts of associations among implicit theories, goal orientations, and academic outcomes. It would be instructive to further study aspects of implicit theories and goal orientations with respect to their relationship with factors emphasized in Steel's (2007) temporal discounting theory of procrastination. Individuals endorsing mastery-approach goals and incremental beliefs may be more future-time oriented (and hence less sensitive to delays preceding rewarding outcomes) than those who adopt alternative views. Such individuals may also be better able to delay immediate gratification as they diligently work toward what they believe is a valuable and attainable outcome. Future research may help to situate future time orientation and academic delay of gratification, along with implicit theories, goal orientations, and other variables involved in self-regulated learning, within the widening nomological web of procrastination. References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173−1182. Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171−200. Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 666−679. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Pensylvania: Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256−273. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267−285. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 52−72). New York: Guildford Press. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501−519. Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 73−83. Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167−178. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple pathways to learning and achievement: The role of goal orientation in fostering adaptive motivation, affect, and cognition. In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance New York: Academic Press. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83−104. Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 139−156. Pintrich, R. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451−502). New York: Academic Press. Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual differences in self-handicapping behaviour: On the application of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67−85. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65−94. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 5, 473−480. van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401−1418.