- Email: [email protected]
Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success
Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success Barbara A. Fritzsche*, Beth Rapp Young, Kara C. Hickson Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, PO Box 161390, Orlando, FL 32816, USA Received 8 April 2002; received in revised form 21 September 2002; accepted 6 November 2002
Abstract This study examined the relation between academic procrastination tendency and student writing success. We found that the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, less satisfaction with writing the paper, and lower grades. Additionally, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. These results have implications for understanding academic procrastination and the use of academic interventions to address procrastination. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Procrastination; Academic procrastination; Writing; Academic support
1. Introduction Procrastination can sometimes be beneficial, such as when the payment of US income tax is delayed as long as legally permitted (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). Typically, however, procrastination is viewed as ‘‘the act of needlessly delaying tasks to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort’’ (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984, p. 503). Thus, it is not surprising that procrastination is frequently not in one’s best interest. For college students particularly, academic procrastination has been associated with depression (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), guilt (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000), low grades (Wesley, 1994), anxiety (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986), neuroticism (Watson, 2001), irrational thinking (Bridges & Roig, 1997), cheating (Roig & DeTommaso, 1995), and low self-esteem (Ferrari, 1992, 2000).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-407-823-5350; fax: +1-407-823-5862. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.A. Fritzsche). 0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(02)00369-0
1550
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Procrastination may be an especially serious problem for student writing. In Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984) study, more than 40% of the participants reported that they always or nearly always procrastinated on writing a term paper. In fact, more students reported that they procrastinate on writing papers than on any other academic activity. The high frequency of procrastination may hinder learning in writing-intensive classes because students typically need long periods of planning and revision for their writing to succeed. Writing is a complex cognitive activity which often cannot be successfully managed in one hurried draft (Boice, 1997a, 1997b; Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975; Emig, 1971; Flower, 1988; Hayes & Flower, 1986); furthermore, lack of revision can lead to writer’s block, as the writer tries unsuccessfully to achieve perfection in the initial draft (Boice, 1997a; Rose, 1980). Moreover, when procrastination precludes the possibility of revision, the consequences may extend beyond the assignment grade. US students, for example, are widely perceived to be deficient in writing skills, and many college graduates must accept low-level jobs as a result of this deficiency (Koretz, 1997; Pryor, 1997). To treat situation-specific procrastination, such as academic procrastination on writing tasks, Ferrari (2001) outlines several possible behavior management techniques. We argue that additional avenues of academic support may help student procrastinators. Many universities offer writing centers in which peers work with peers (Harris & Kinkead, 1993; Harris, 1995; Kail & Trimbur, 1987; Murphy & Law, 1995). Also, well-established writing pedagogy frequently incorporates other types of feedback such as teacher-student conferences and in-class peer workshops (Anson, 1989; Harris, 1986, 1992). Feedback on writing can complement other psychological treatments. Specifically, receipt of feedback on writing may help with two of the main reasons identified for procrastination: fear of failure and task aversiveness (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). The feedback may help high fear-of-failure procrastinators by reducing unhelpful perfectionism, and it may help task-averse procrastinators by making the writing seem less unpleasant. And, although feedback on writing may not, in itself, be enough to overcome a deeply ingrained tendency to procrastinate, it may be related to better performance on assigned writing. Given the importance of writing to academic and professional success, such a result would be beneficial in itself. In this study, we measured academic procrastination, writing behavior, anxiety, and grades of students in writing-intensive courses. Moreover, we examined whether feedback on writing was related to writing success for academic procrastinators. Specifically, we developed two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Academic procrastination was expected to be associated with anxiety about writing a major paper, delay behaviors on the writing assignment, less satisfaction with the writing experience, lower paper grades, and lower grades in writing-intensive courses. Hypothesis 2. High academic procrastinators were expected to be less likely to seek feedback on their writing prior to submitting it for a grade. However, receipt of writing feedback was expected to moderate the relationship between individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and outcomes, such that receiving feedback would be more helpful for those who report a high tendency to procrastinate than for those with a low tendency to procrastinate.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1551
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 206 undergraduate students enrolled in writing-intensive classes from a large, US metropolitan university. The majority of participants were White (67%), women (63%), and first-year college students (69%). Participants represented 50 different college majors, and 80% of the participants were 18 or 19 years old (ages ranged from 17 to 38 years).
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Procrastination Academic procrastination was measured with the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Students (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). This 52-item, self-report measure was designed to assess the prevalence of procrastination in six academic activities (e.g. writing a term paper). Participants rate on a 5-point scale the extent to which they procrastinate on the task (1=never procrastinate; 5=always procrastinate), to what degree procrastination on the task is a problem (1=not at all a problem; 5=always a problem), and to what extent they want to decrease their tendency to procrastinate on this task (1=do not want to decrease; 5=definitely want to decrease). Item scores were summed for each academic task and a total procrastination score was calculated. In addition, fear of failure and aversiveness of task procrastination reasons were assessed using a 5-point scale (1=Not at all reflects why I procrastinated; 5=definitely reflects why I procrastinated). Several studies (e.g. Bridges & Roig, 1997; Roig & DeTommaso, 1995; Rothblum et al., 1986; Watson, 2001; Wesley, 1994) provide support for the validity of the PASS. 2.2.2. Anxiety Anxiety was measured with Spielberger’s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y (STAI). The STAI assesses both the enduring personality tendency to experience tension and worry (trait anxiety) and the amount of anxiety that is currently being experienced (state anxiety). Participants report the extent to which the items (e.g. ‘‘I am jittery’’) describe them using a 4-point scale (1=not at all; 4=very much so). To assess the anxiety that participants experienced when writing their paper, we modified the instructions for the state anxiety scale from ‘‘. . .indicate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment’’ to ‘‘. . .indicate how you felt while working on your writing assignment.’’ Although this change could potentially lower reliability and validity, analysis indicated high internal consistency reliability (=0.93). The STAI manual reports several studies supporting the scale’s validity (Spielberger, 1983). 2.2.3. Grades Grades were operationalized as overall Grade Point Average (GPA), grade in the writingintensive course, and grade on the major writing assignment examined for this study. GPA and course grade were obtained from the university database, and paper grade was obtained from the course instructor after the end of the semester.
1552
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
2.2.4. Writing-related delay behaviors Behaviors were assessed with a 26-item Writing Behaviors Assessment (WBA) developed specifically for this study according to well-established principles in the scholarly literature on rhetoric and composition (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1986). In addition, a subject matter expert with a PhD in English (Rhetoric, Linguistics, and Literature program) who has administered three different writing centers over the past 10 years was an author of this WBA. Participants specify a writing assignment and respond to questions about their prewriting, writing, and revision activities, e.g. ‘‘When did you intend to start prewriting for this assignment?’’ (1=15 or more days after you received the assignment; 5=the same day I received the assignment). Intentions (e.g. when did you intend to write?), actual behavior (e.g. when did you actually write?), satisfaction (e.g. how satisfied were you with the time you started writing?), and typicality (e.g. how typical was your behavior?) scores were calculated by summing responses to the relevant items. 2.3. Procedure Participants were recruited from writing-intensive classes and from students who visited the university’s writing center by offering $10.00 for their time. Participants self-selected a writing assignment which they considered ‘‘major’’ for use in this study. First, participants completed the PASS; then, after finishing the writing assignment, students returned to complete the WBA and the STAI. Finally, after the semester ended, with the permission of the participants, we obtained their grades.
3. Results Table 1 presents scale intercorrelations, the number of items per scale, means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas. As seen in Table 1, the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, and less satisfaction with writing the paper. Moreover, academic procrastination was associated with lower GPAs and grades in writing-intensive courses. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1. To examine the relation between feedback, academic procrastination, and writing success (Hypothesis 2), multiple regression analyses were calculated in which outcomes were regressed onto whether or not feedback was received, procrastination tendencies, and their interaction. Significant interaction terms indicate the presence of a moderator (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Prior to conducting the regression analyses, the continuous variables (the procrastination tendencies) were centered; that is, the scores were put in deviation form so that the mean was set equal to zero (Aiken & West, 1991). Overall, 82% of the participants received feedback on their writing. Specifically, 30% received feedback from a university writing consultant and 52% received feedback from at least one other source (i.e. a roommate, friend, family member, or teacher). The overall regression of actual writing behavior on procrastination scores for writing a term paper, receipt of feedback, and their interaction was statistically significant, F(3, 175)=8.173, P<0.001, R2=0.12. Specifically, there was a main effect for receipt of feedback (=0.189, t=2.574, P=0.011), suggesting that receiving
Scale
M
S.D.
2
3
4
5
6
7
Procrastination Assessment Scale–Students 1. Total 51.67 9.96 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.52 2. Writing 9.91 2.38 0.72 0.47 0.30 0.16 0.20 0.21 3. Studying 10.13 2.42 0.74 0.43 0.15 0.24 0.15 4. Reading 10.21 2.55 0.70 0.06 0.19 0.12 5. Administrative 6.50 3.13 0.84 0.44 0.23 6. Attendance 7.06 3.33 0.88 0.19 7. School activities 7.86 2.67 0.78 8. Fear of Failure 9.95 4.15 0.78 9. Aversiveness of Tasks 8.99 3.03 0.68 STAI Anxiety 10. State Anxiety 41.65 11.07 0.93 11. Trait Anxiety 37.63 8.97 0.90 Grades 12. Overall GPA 3.22 0.58 – 13. Course Grade 3.50 0.67 – 14. Paper Grade 3.35 0.69 – Writing Behaviors Assessment 15. Typicality 11.90 2.58 0.71 16. Intention 9.27 2.11 0.41 17. Actual Behavior 7.84 2.22 0.78 18. Satisfaction 10.96 2.70 0.76
8
9
0.14 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.06
0.31 0.37 0.25 0.27 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.38
10 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.32 0.25
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.39 0.27 0.30 0.16 0.27 0.28 0.12 0.33 0.32
0.19 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.05
0.21 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.11
0.02 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.10
0.14 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.19
0.07 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.25
0.08 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.09
0.20 0.30 0.13 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.13
0.35
0.04 0.09
0.07 0.07
0.21 0.16
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.09
0.31 0.04
0.49 0.15
0.48
0.36 0.66
0.13 0.04 0.09
0.03 0.01 0.14
0.11 0.03 0.11
0.01 0.16 0.31
0.07
0.19 0.19
0.20 0.19 0.61
Correlations that are statistically significant at P<0.05 are bold. N=206; however, paper grades were obtained for only 46 participants. There are 18 items in the Total Procrastination Scale, three items in the Writing, Studying, Reading, Administrative, Attendance, School Activities and Aversiveness of Tasks Procrastination Scales, and five items in the Fear of Failure Procrastination Scale.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Table 1 Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and intercorrelations for procrastination, anxiety, and performance measures
1553
1554
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Fig. 1. Feedback as a moderator of the relationship between writing procrastination and actual behavior.
feedback was associated with writing the paper earlier than originally intended. There was also a main effect for procrastination on writing (= 0.852, t= 3.135, P=0.002); that is, procrastinators tended to write their papers later than originally intended. These main effects must be interpreted in light of the significant interaction between feedback and procrastination on writing (=0.720, t=2.658, P=0.009). As illustrated by Fig. 1, low procrastinators wrote their papers early, regardless of whether they received feedback on their writing. However, high procrastinators wrote their papers early only when they received feedback. These results provide support for Hypothesis 2.
4. Discussion The results of this study indicate that individual differences in academic procrastination tendency relate to a variety of negative personal and performance-related outcomes that can impact student writing and, ultimately, college success. Specifically, procrastination tendency was associated with increased anxiety, delayed writing behavior, and lower grades. Moreover, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. Thus, students may be able to mitigate some of the negative outcomes associated with their procrastination tendency by seeking feedback on their writing prior to turning it in for a grade. These
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1555
benefits may arise from the feedback itself, the process of discussing the work, or the creation of an earlier deadline for the writing prior to the ultimate submission. Although high procrastinators were less likely to seek feedback, some of them did seek it, and their receipt of feedback was associated with better outcomes. To provide extra motivation for academic procrastinators, instructors might consider designing their writing assignments in such a way that feedback is built into the assignments. For example, instructors could schedule peer workshops during class, collect drafts or portions of a longer paper (e.g. collect the literature review and method sections separately from results and discussion sections), hold individual conferences with students, or require students to obtain feedback from sources such as the university’s writing center. Writing centers can be particularly effective interventions because they do not require extra instructor or class time, and because students can attend a writing center consultation even without a draft (for feedback on their ideas or advice on getting started). Writing centers do not grade students, so students may speak more freely when they seek help there; that honesty can net them more specific help. Additionally, requiring or making available writing center consultations, teacher–student conferences, or peer workshops can provide students with an additional deadline; if they habitually procrastinate to their deadline, the extra incentive to complete at least some work earlier. In other words, academic-based interventions can potentially complement counseling-based interventions (i.e. see Ferrari et al., 1995) to help reduce academic procrastination. The use of a self-report measure of writing behavior was a limitation of this study. Items were written to be as specific and behavioral as possible, but the internal consistency of the intentions scale was low, indicating a need to improve this scale. We speculate that the low alpha was due to the intentions scale being the most subjective of the constructs measured. The problem of selfreport method bias was alleviated by studying criteria that were not based on self-report (i.e. grades) and by measuring academic procrastination tendency in a separate testing session than the assessment of writing behavior (e.g. see Bridges & Roig, 1997). Another limitation is that instructors provided paper grades for only 22% of participants, so analyses based on paper grade had low power. No instructors refused to provide grades, but many instructors could not be reached after the semester ended. Because most participants were first-year students, and because writing-intensive courses for first-year students tend to be taught by non-tenure earning faculty such as instructors or adjuncts, turnover among these faculty was the chief reason paper grades could not be collected. Perhaps faculty turnover would have been lower for more advanced students, but upper division classes are less likely to be writing-intensive. So the drawback of faculty turnover was balanced by the increased variety of majors represented by the study. Because this study was not experimental, to state that feedback will negate the negative effects of procrastination would be premature. To better understand the role that feedback plays in the relation between procrastination tendency and writing outcomes, experimental studies should be conducted in which feedback is systematically manipulated and the context (e.g. the specific writing assignment, the quality of feedback) is controlled. Our study provides the impetus to do such work. In addition, the real-world context of this study allowed us to examine the procrastination as it relates to actual writing assignments that have real consequences for students (e.g. anxiety, grades). Further research might also examine the relation between feedback and writing behaviors over a longer period than just one semester/one paper. We expect that a participant’s tendency to
1556
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
procrastinate is not likely to be significantly affected by receiving feedback on their writing one time. However, over time, these students’ writing habits might change. In addition, longer thesis and dissertation projects offer more opportunities for procrastination (i.e. see Pychyl, Morin, & Salmon, 2000), so research that spans longer periods of time might identify those points in the writing process at which feedback is particularly helpful. Overall, this study suggests that a multifaceted approach for the treatment of academic procrastination may be important. Future experimental work could specify the ways in which feedback can impact delay behaviors and, therefore, complement counseling interventions.
Acknowledgements Our thanks to the University of Central Florida, the University of Central Florida’s Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, and the International Writing Centers Association for funding this study. Thanks also to Christina Mendez and Christina Cureton for their research assistance. Preliminary work from this study was presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association (2000) and the Conference on College Composition and Communication (2001). The portion of data pertaining solely to participants’ writing center use will be discussed in a paper for writing center administrators in The Writing Center Journal. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Anson, C. M. (1989). Writing and response: theory, practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 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. Boice, B. (1997a). Which is more productive, writing in binge patterns of creative illness or in moderation? Written Communication, 14, 435–459. Boice, R. (1997b). Work habits of productive scholarly writers: Insights from research in psychology. In G. A. Olson, & T. W. Taylor (Eds.), Publishing in rhetoric and composition (pp. 211–228). New York: State University of New York Press. Bridges, K. R., & Roig, M. (1997). Academic procrastination and irrational thinking: a re-examination with context controlled. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 941–944. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. In Schools council research studies (Great Britain): project on written language of 11–18 year olds. London: Macmillan. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1982). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Ill: NCTE. Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: an exploratory factor analysis of self-presentation, selfawareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75–84. Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit, boredomness, intelligence, selfesteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185–196. Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Getting things done on time: conquering procrastination. In C. R. Snyder’s (Ed.), Coping with stress: effective people and processes (pp. 30–46). New York: Oxford. Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: theory, research, and treatment. NY: Plenum.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1557
Flower, L. S. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50, 528–550. Harris, J., & Kinkead, J. (Eds.). (1993). Writing centers in context: twelve case studies. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: the writing conference. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: writing center tutorials vs. peer response groups. College Composition and Communication, 43, 369–383. Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27–42. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. Kail, H., & Trimbur, J. (1987). The politics of peer tutoring. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 11, 5–12. Koretz, G. (1997). The sheepskin paradox: college grads in lower-level jobs. Business Week, 6 October(3). Murphy, C., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1995). Landmark essays on writing centers. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Pryor, F. L. (1997). Wages and the university educated: a paradox resolved. Monthly Labor Review, 120(July), 3–15. Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254. Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., & Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning fallacy: an examination of the study habits of university students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 135–150. Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691–698. Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: a cognitive analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31, 389–401. Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387–394. Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149–158. Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastinatory behavior on college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 404–408.
Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success Barbara A. Fritzsche*, Beth Rapp Young, Kara C. Hickson Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, PO Box 161390, Orlando, FL 32816, USA Received 8 April 2002; received in revised form 21 September 2002; accepted 6 November 2002
Abstract This study examined the relation between academic procrastination tendency and student writing success. We found that the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, less satisfaction with writing the paper, and lower grades. Additionally, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. These results have implications for understanding academic procrastination and the use of academic interventions to address procrastination. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Procrastination; Academic procrastination; Writing; Academic support
1. Introduction Procrastination can sometimes be beneficial, such as when the payment of US income tax is delayed as long as legally permitted (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). Typically, however, procrastination is viewed as ‘‘the act of needlessly delaying tasks to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort’’ (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984, p. 503). Thus, it is not surprising that procrastination is frequently not in one’s best interest. For college students particularly, academic procrastination has been associated with depression (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), guilt (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000), low grades (Wesley, 1994), anxiety (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986), neuroticism (Watson, 2001), irrational thinking (Bridges & Roig, 1997), cheating (Roig & DeTommaso, 1995), and low self-esteem (Ferrari, 1992, 2000).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-407-823-5350; fax: +1-407-823-5862. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.A. Fritzsche). 0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(02)00369-0
1550
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Procrastination may be an especially serious problem for student writing. In Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984) study, more than 40% of the participants reported that they always or nearly always procrastinated on writing a term paper. In fact, more students reported that they procrastinate on writing papers than on any other academic activity. The high frequency of procrastination may hinder learning in writing-intensive classes because students typically need long periods of planning and revision for their writing to succeed. Writing is a complex cognitive activity which often cannot be successfully managed in one hurried draft (Boice, 1997a, 1997b; Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975; Emig, 1971; Flower, 1988; Hayes & Flower, 1986); furthermore, lack of revision can lead to writer’s block, as the writer tries unsuccessfully to achieve perfection in the initial draft (Boice, 1997a; Rose, 1980). Moreover, when procrastination precludes the possibility of revision, the consequences may extend beyond the assignment grade. US students, for example, are widely perceived to be deficient in writing skills, and many college graduates must accept low-level jobs as a result of this deficiency (Koretz, 1997; Pryor, 1997). To treat situation-specific procrastination, such as academic procrastination on writing tasks, Ferrari (2001) outlines several possible behavior management techniques. We argue that additional avenues of academic support may help student procrastinators. Many universities offer writing centers in which peers work with peers (Harris & Kinkead, 1993; Harris, 1995; Kail & Trimbur, 1987; Murphy & Law, 1995). Also, well-established writing pedagogy frequently incorporates other types of feedback such as teacher-student conferences and in-class peer workshops (Anson, 1989; Harris, 1986, 1992). Feedback on writing can complement other psychological treatments. Specifically, receipt of feedback on writing may help with two of the main reasons identified for procrastination: fear of failure and task aversiveness (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). The feedback may help high fear-of-failure procrastinators by reducing unhelpful perfectionism, and it may help task-averse procrastinators by making the writing seem less unpleasant. And, although feedback on writing may not, in itself, be enough to overcome a deeply ingrained tendency to procrastinate, it may be related to better performance on assigned writing. Given the importance of writing to academic and professional success, such a result would be beneficial in itself. In this study, we measured academic procrastination, writing behavior, anxiety, and grades of students in writing-intensive courses. Moreover, we examined whether feedback on writing was related to writing success for academic procrastinators. Specifically, we developed two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Academic procrastination was expected to be associated with anxiety about writing a major paper, delay behaviors on the writing assignment, less satisfaction with the writing experience, lower paper grades, and lower grades in writing-intensive courses. Hypothesis 2. High academic procrastinators were expected to be less likely to seek feedback on their writing prior to submitting it for a grade. However, receipt of writing feedback was expected to moderate the relationship between individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and outcomes, such that receiving feedback would be more helpful for those who report a high tendency to procrastinate than for those with a low tendency to procrastinate.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1551
2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 206 undergraduate students enrolled in writing-intensive classes from a large, US metropolitan university. The majority of participants were White (67%), women (63%), and first-year college students (69%). Participants represented 50 different college majors, and 80% of the participants were 18 or 19 years old (ages ranged from 17 to 38 years).
2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Procrastination Academic procrastination was measured with the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Students (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). This 52-item, self-report measure was designed to assess the prevalence of procrastination in six academic activities (e.g. writing a term paper). Participants rate on a 5-point scale the extent to which they procrastinate on the task (1=never procrastinate; 5=always procrastinate), to what degree procrastination on the task is a problem (1=not at all a problem; 5=always a problem), and to what extent they want to decrease their tendency to procrastinate on this task (1=do not want to decrease; 5=definitely want to decrease). Item scores were summed for each academic task and a total procrastination score was calculated. In addition, fear of failure and aversiveness of task procrastination reasons were assessed using a 5-point scale (1=Not at all reflects why I procrastinated; 5=definitely reflects why I procrastinated). Several studies (e.g. Bridges & Roig, 1997; Roig & DeTommaso, 1995; Rothblum et al., 1986; Watson, 2001; Wesley, 1994) provide support for the validity of the PASS. 2.2.2. Anxiety Anxiety was measured with Spielberger’s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y (STAI). The STAI assesses both the enduring personality tendency to experience tension and worry (trait anxiety) and the amount of anxiety that is currently being experienced (state anxiety). Participants report the extent to which the items (e.g. ‘‘I am jittery’’) describe them using a 4-point scale (1=not at all; 4=very much so). To assess the anxiety that participants experienced when writing their paper, we modified the instructions for the state anxiety scale from ‘‘. . .indicate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment’’ to ‘‘. . .indicate how you felt while working on your writing assignment.’’ Although this change could potentially lower reliability and validity, analysis indicated high internal consistency reliability (=0.93). The STAI manual reports several studies supporting the scale’s validity (Spielberger, 1983). 2.2.3. Grades Grades were operationalized as overall Grade Point Average (GPA), grade in the writingintensive course, and grade on the major writing assignment examined for this study. GPA and course grade were obtained from the university database, and paper grade was obtained from the course instructor after the end of the semester.
1552
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
2.2.4. Writing-related delay behaviors Behaviors were assessed with a 26-item Writing Behaviors Assessment (WBA) developed specifically for this study according to well-established principles in the scholarly literature on rhetoric and composition (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1986). In addition, a subject matter expert with a PhD in English (Rhetoric, Linguistics, and Literature program) who has administered three different writing centers over the past 10 years was an author of this WBA. Participants specify a writing assignment and respond to questions about their prewriting, writing, and revision activities, e.g. ‘‘When did you intend to start prewriting for this assignment?’’ (1=15 or more days after you received the assignment; 5=the same day I received the assignment). Intentions (e.g. when did you intend to write?), actual behavior (e.g. when did you actually write?), satisfaction (e.g. how satisfied were you with the time you started writing?), and typicality (e.g. how typical was your behavior?) scores were calculated by summing responses to the relevant items. 2.3. Procedure Participants were recruited from writing-intensive classes and from students who visited the university’s writing center by offering $10.00 for their time. Participants self-selected a writing assignment which they considered ‘‘major’’ for use in this study. First, participants completed the PASS; then, after finishing the writing assignment, students returned to complete the WBA and the STAI. Finally, after the semester ended, with the permission of the participants, we obtained their grades.
3. Results Table 1 presents scale intercorrelations, the number of items per scale, means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas. As seen in Table 1, the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, and less satisfaction with writing the paper. Moreover, academic procrastination was associated with lower GPAs and grades in writing-intensive courses. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1. To examine the relation between feedback, academic procrastination, and writing success (Hypothesis 2), multiple regression analyses were calculated in which outcomes were regressed onto whether or not feedback was received, procrastination tendencies, and their interaction. Significant interaction terms indicate the presence of a moderator (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Prior to conducting the regression analyses, the continuous variables (the procrastination tendencies) were centered; that is, the scores were put in deviation form so that the mean was set equal to zero (Aiken & West, 1991). Overall, 82% of the participants received feedback on their writing. Specifically, 30% received feedback from a university writing consultant and 52% received feedback from at least one other source (i.e. a roommate, friend, family member, or teacher). The overall regression of actual writing behavior on procrastination scores for writing a term paper, receipt of feedback, and their interaction was statistically significant, F(3, 175)=8.173, P<0.001, R2=0.12. Specifically, there was a main effect for receipt of feedback (=0.189, t=2.574, P=0.011), suggesting that receiving
Scale
M
S.D.
2
3
4
5
6
7
Procrastination Assessment Scale–Students 1. Total 51.67 9.96 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.52 2. Writing 9.91 2.38 0.72 0.47 0.30 0.16 0.20 0.21 3. Studying 10.13 2.42 0.74 0.43 0.15 0.24 0.15 4. Reading 10.21 2.55 0.70 0.06 0.19 0.12 5. Administrative 6.50 3.13 0.84 0.44 0.23 6. Attendance 7.06 3.33 0.88 0.19 7. School activities 7.86 2.67 0.78 8. Fear of Failure 9.95 4.15 0.78 9. Aversiveness of Tasks 8.99 3.03 0.68 STAI Anxiety 10. State Anxiety 41.65 11.07 0.93 11. Trait Anxiety 37.63 8.97 0.90 Grades 12. Overall GPA 3.22 0.58 – 13. Course Grade 3.50 0.67 – 14. Paper Grade 3.35 0.69 – Writing Behaviors Assessment 15. Typicality 11.90 2.58 0.71 16. Intention 9.27 2.11 0.41 17. Actual Behavior 7.84 2.22 0.78 18. Satisfaction 10.96 2.70 0.76
8
9
0.14 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.06
0.31 0.37 0.25 0.27 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.38
10 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.32 0.25
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.39 0.27 0.30 0.16 0.27 0.28 0.12 0.33 0.32
0.19 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.05
0.21 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.11
0.02 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.10
0.14 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.19
0.07 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.25
0.08 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.09
0.20 0.30 0.13 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.13
0.35
0.04 0.09
0.07 0.07
0.21 0.16
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.09
0.31 0.04
0.49 0.15
0.48
0.36 0.66
0.13 0.04 0.09
0.03 0.01 0.14
0.11 0.03 0.11
0.01 0.16 0.31
0.07
0.19 0.19
0.20 0.19 0.61
Correlations that are statistically significant at P<0.05 are bold. N=206; however, paper grades were obtained for only 46 participants. There are 18 items in the Total Procrastination Scale, three items in the Writing, Studying, Reading, Administrative, Attendance, School Activities and Aversiveness of Tasks Procrastination Scales, and five items in the Fear of Failure Procrastination Scale.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Table 1 Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and intercorrelations for procrastination, anxiety, and performance measures
1553
1554
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
Fig. 1. Feedback as a moderator of the relationship between writing procrastination and actual behavior.
feedback was associated with writing the paper earlier than originally intended. There was also a main effect for procrastination on writing (= 0.852, t= 3.135, P=0.002); that is, procrastinators tended to write their papers later than originally intended. These main effects must be interpreted in light of the significant interaction between feedback and procrastination on writing (=0.720, t=2.658, P=0.009). As illustrated by Fig. 1, low procrastinators wrote their papers early, regardless of whether they received feedback on their writing. However, high procrastinators wrote their papers early only when they received feedback. These results provide support for Hypothesis 2.
4. Discussion The results of this study indicate that individual differences in academic procrastination tendency relate to a variety of negative personal and performance-related outcomes that can impact student writing and, ultimately, college success. Specifically, procrastination tendency was associated with increased anxiety, delayed writing behavior, and lower grades. Moreover, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. Thus, students may be able to mitigate some of the negative outcomes associated with their procrastination tendency by seeking feedback on their writing prior to turning it in for a grade. These
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1555
benefits may arise from the feedback itself, the process of discussing the work, or the creation of an earlier deadline for the writing prior to the ultimate submission. Although high procrastinators were less likely to seek feedback, some of them did seek it, and their receipt of feedback was associated with better outcomes. To provide extra motivation for academic procrastinators, instructors might consider designing their writing assignments in such a way that feedback is built into the assignments. For example, instructors could schedule peer workshops during class, collect drafts or portions of a longer paper (e.g. collect the literature review and method sections separately from results and discussion sections), hold individual conferences with students, or require students to obtain feedback from sources such as the university’s writing center. Writing centers can be particularly effective interventions because they do not require extra instructor or class time, and because students can attend a writing center consultation even without a draft (for feedback on their ideas or advice on getting started). Writing centers do not grade students, so students may speak more freely when they seek help there; that honesty can net them more specific help. Additionally, requiring or making available writing center consultations, teacher–student conferences, or peer workshops can provide students with an additional deadline; if they habitually procrastinate to their deadline, the extra incentive to complete at least some work earlier. In other words, academic-based interventions can potentially complement counseling-based interventions (i.e. see Ferrari et al., 1995) to help reduce academic procrastination. The use of a self-report measure of writing behavior was a limitation of this study. Items were written to be as specific and behavioral as possible, but the internal consistency of the intentions scale was low, indicating a need to improve this scale. We speculate that the low alpha was due to the intentions scale being the most subjective of the constructs measured. The problem of selfreport method bias was alleviated by studying criteria that were not based on self-report (i.e. grades) and by measuring academic procrastination tendency in a separate testing session than the assessment of writing behavior (e.g. see Bridges & Roig, 1997). Another limitation is that instructors provided paper grades for only 22% of participants, so analyses based on paper grade had low power. No instructors refused to provide grades, but many instructors could not be reached after the semester ended. Because most participants were first-year students, and because writing-intensive courses for first-year students tend to be taught by non-tenure earning faculty such as instructors or adjuncts, turnover among these faculty was the chief reason paper grades could not be collected. Perhaps faculty turnover would have been lower for more advanced students, but upper division classes are less likely to be writing-intensive. So the drawback of faculty turnover was balanced by the increased variety of majors represented by the study. Because this study was not experimental, to state that feedback will negate the negative effects of procrastination would be premature. To better understand the role that feedback plays in the relation between procrastination tendency and writing outcomes, experimental studies should be conducted in which feedback is systematically manipulated and the context (e.g. the specific writing assignment, the quality of feedback) is controlled. Our study provides the impetus to do such work. In addition, the real-world context of this study allowed us to examine the procrastination as it relates to actual writing assignments that have real consequences for students (e.g. anxiety, grades). Further research might also examine the relation between feedback and writing behaviors over a longer period than just one semester/one paper. We expect that a participant’s tendency to
1556
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
procrastinate is not likely to be significantly affected by receiving feedback on their writing one time. However, over time, these students’ writing habits might change. In addition, longer thesis and dissertation projects offer more opportunities for procrastination (i.e. see Pychyl, Morin, & Salmon, 2000), so research that spans longer periods of time might identify those points in the writing process at which feedback is particularly helpful. Overall, this study suggests that a multifaceted approach for the treatment of academic procrastination may be important. Future experimental work could specify the ways in which feedback can impact delay behaviors and, therefore, complement counseling interventions.
Acknowledgements Our thanks to the University of Central Florida, the University of Central Florida’s Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, and the International Writing Centers Association for funding this study. Thanks also to Christina Mendez and Christina Cureton for their research assistance. Preliminary work from this study was presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association (2000) and the Conference on College Composition and Communication (2001). The portion of data pertaining solely to participants’ writing center use will be discussed in a paper for writing center administrators in The Writing Center Journal. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Anson, C. M. (1989). Writing and response: theory, practice, and research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 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. Boice, B. (1997a). Which is more productive, writing in binge patterns of creative illness or in moderation? Written Communication, 14, 435–459. Boice, R. (1997b). Work habits of productive scholarly writers: Insights from research in psychology. In G. A. Olson, & T. W. Taylor (Eds.), Publishing in rhetoric and composition (pp. 211–228). New York: State University of New York Press. Bridges, K. R., & Roig, M. (1997). Academic procrastination and irrational thinking: a re-examination with context controlled. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 941–944. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. In Schools council research studies (Great Britain): project on written language of 11–18 year olds. London: Macmillan. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1982). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Ill: NCTE. Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: an exploratory factor analysis of self-presentation, selfawareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75–84. Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit, boredomness, intelligence, selfesteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185–196. Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Getting things done on time: conquering procrastination. In C. R. Snyder’s (Ed.), Coping with stress: effective people and processes (pp. 30–46). New York: Oxford. Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: theory, research, and treatment. NY: Plenum.
B.A. Fritzsche et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1549–1557
1557
Flower, L. S. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50, 528–550. Harris, J., & Kinkead, J. (Eds.). (1993). Writing centers in context: twelve case studies. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: the writing conference. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration: writing center tutorials vs. peer response groups. College Composition and Communication, 43, 369–383. Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27–42. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. Kail, H., & Trimbur, J. (1987). The politics of peer tutoring. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 11, 5–12. Koretz, G. (1997). The sheepskin paradox: college grads in lower-level jobs. Business Week, 6 October(3). Murphy, C., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1995). Landmark essays on writing centers. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press. Pryor, F. L. (1997). Wages and the university educated: a paradox resolved. Monthly Labor Review, 120(July), 3–15. Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254. Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., & Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning fallacy: an examination of the study habits of university students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 135–150. Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691–698. Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: a cognitive analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31, 389–401. Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387–394. Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149–158. Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastinatory behavior on college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 404–408.