discursive essay about academic procrastination

26 Planning a Discursive Essay

Discursive essay – description.

A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus discursive essay writing appeals to reason, not emotions or opinions. While it may draw some tentative conclusions, based on evidence, the main aim of a discursive essay is to inform the reader of the key arguments and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.

The writer needs to research the topic thoroughly to present more than one perspective and should check their own biases and assumptions through critical reflection (see Chapter 30).

Unlike persuasive writing, the writer does not need to have knowledge of the audience, though should write using academic tone and language (see Chapter 20).

Choose Your Topic Carefully

A basic guide to choosing an assignment topic is available in Chapter 23, however choosing a topic for a discursive essay means considering more than one perspective. Not only do you need to find information about the topic via academic sources, you need to be able to construct a worthwhile discussion, moving from idea to idea. Therefore, more forward planning is required. The following are decisions that need to be considered when choosing a discursive essay topic:

• These will become the controlling ideas for your three body paragraphs (some essays may require more). Each controlling idea will need arguments both for and against.
• For example, if my topic is “renewable energy” and my three main (controlling) ideas are “cost”, “storage”, “environmental impact”, then I will need to consider arguments both for and against each of these three concepts. I will also need to have good academic sources with examples or evidence to support my claim and counter claim for each controlling idea (More about this in Chapter 27).
• Am I able to write a thesis statement about this topic based on the available research? In other words, do my own ideas align with the available research, or am I going to be struggling to support my own ideas due to a lack of academic sources or research? You need to be smart about your topic choice. Do not make it harder than it has to be. Writing a discursive essay is challenging enough without struggling to find appropriate sources.
• For example, perhaps I find a great academic journal article about the uptake of solar panel installation in suburban Australia and how this household decision is cost-effective long-term, locally stored, and has minimal, even beneficial environmental impact due to the lowering of carbon emissions. Seems too good to be true, yet it is perfect for my assignment. I would have to then find arguments AGAINST everything in the article that supports transitioning suburbs to solar power. I would have to challenge the cost-effectiveness, the storage, and the environmental impact study. Now, all of a sudden my task just became much more challenging.
• There may be vast numbers of journal articles written about your topic, but consider how relevant they may be to your tentative thesis statement. It takes a great deal of time to search for appropriate academic sources. Do you have a good internet connection at home or will you need to spend some quality time at the library? Setting time aside to complete your essay research is crucial for success.

It is only through complete forward planning about the shape and content of your essay that you may be able to choose the topic that best suits your interests, academic ability and time management. Consider how you will approach the overall project, not only the next step.

Research Your Topic

When completing a library search for online peer reviewed journal articles, do not forget to use Boolean Operators to refine or narrow your search field. Standard Boolean Operators are (capitalized) AND, OR and NOT. While using OR will expand your search, AND and NOT will reduce the scope of your search. For example, if I want information on ageism and care giving, but I only want it to relate to the elderly, I might use the following to search a database: ageism AND care NOT children. Remember to keep track of your search strings (like the one just used) and then you’ll know what worked and what didn’t as you come and go from your academic research.

The UQ Library provides an excellent step-by-step guide to searching databases:

Searching in databases – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Did you know that you can also link the UQ Library to Google Scholar? This link tells you how:

Google Scholar – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Write the Thesis Statement

The concept of a thesis statement was introduced in Chapter 21. The information below relates specifically to a discursive essay thesis statement.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the discursive essay should not take a stance and therefore the thesis statement must also impartially indicate more than one perspective. The goal is to present both sides of an argument equally and allow the reader to make an informed and well-reasoned choice after providing supporting evidence for each side of the argument.

Sample thesis statements: Solar energy is a cost -effective solution to burning fossil fuels for electricity , however lower income families cannot afford the installation costs .

Some studies indicate that teacher comments written in red may have no effect on students’ emotions , however other studies suggest that seeing red ink on papers could cause some students unnecessary stress. [1]

According to social justice principles, education should be available to all , yet historically, the intellectually and physically impaired may have been exempt from participation due to their supposed inability to learn. [2]

This is where your pros and cons list comes into play. For each pro, or positive statement you make, about your topic, create an equivalent con, or negative statement and this will enable you to arrive at two opposing assertions – the claim and counter claim.

While there may be multiple arguments or perspectives related to your essay topic, it is important that you match each claim with a counter-claim. This applies to the thesis statement and each supporting argument within the body paragraphs of the essay.

It is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A neutral tone is crucial. Do not include positive or negative leading statements, such as “It is undeniable that…” or “One should not accept the view that…”. You are NOT attempting to persuade the reader to choose one viewpoint over another.

Leading statements / language will be discussed further, in class, within term three of the Academic English course.

Thesis Structure:

• Note the two sides (indicated in green and orange)
• Note the use of tentative language: “Some studies”, “may have”, “could cause”, “some students”
• As the thesis is yet to be discussed in-depth, and you are not an expert in the field, do not use definitive language
• The statement is also one sentence, with a “pivot point” in the middle, with a comma and signposting to indicate a contradictory perspective (in black). Other examples include, nevertheless, though, although, regardless, yet, albeit. DO NOT use the word “but” as it lacks academic tone. Some signposts (e.g., although, though, while) may be placed at the start of the two clauses rather than in the middle – just remember the comma, for example, “While some studies suggest solar energy is cost-effective, other critical research questions its affordability.”
• Also note that it is based on preliminary research and not opinion: “some studies”, “other studies”, “according to social justice principles”, “critical research”.

Claims and Counter Claims

NOTE: Please do not confuse the words ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ with moral or value judgements about right/wrong, good/bad, successful/unsuccessful, or the like. The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

In a discursive essay the goal is to present both sides equally and then draw some tentative conclusions based on the evidence presented.

• To formulate your claims and counter claims, write a list of pros and cons.
• For each pro there should be a corresponding con.
• Three sets of pros and cons will be required for your discursive essay. One set for each body paragraph. These become your claims and counter claims.
• For a longer essay, you would need further claims and counter claims.
• Some instructors prefer students to keep the pros and cons in the same order across the body paragraphs. Each paragraph would then have a pro followed by a con or else a con followed by a pro. The order should align with your thesis; if the thesis gives a pro view of the topic followed by a negative view (con) then the paragraphs should also start with the pro and follow with the con, or else vice versa. If not aligned and consistent, the reader may easily become confused as the argument proceeds. Ask your teacher if this is a requirement for your assessment.

Use previous chapters to explore your chosen topic through concept mapping (Chapter 18) and essay outlining (Chapter 19), with one variance; you must include your proposed claims and counter claims in your proposed paragraph structures. What follows is a generic model for a discursive essay. The following Chapter 27 will examine this in further details.

Sample Discursive Essay Outline 

The paragraphs are continuous; the dot-points are only meant to indicate content.

Introduction

• Thesis statement
• Essay outline (including 3 controlling ideas)

Body Paragraphs X 3 (Elaboration and evidence will be more than one sentence, though the topic, claim and counter claim should be succinct)

• T opic sentence, including 1/3 controlling ideas (the topic remains the same throughout the entire essay; it is the controlling idea that changes)
• A claim/assertion about the controlling idea
• E laboration – more information about the claim
• E vidence -academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• A counter claim (remember it must be COUNTER to the claim you made, not about something different)
• E laboration – more information about the counter claim
• E vidence – academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• Concluding sentence – L inks back to the topic and/or the next controlling idea in the following paragraph

Mirror the introduction. The essay outline should have stated the plan for the essay – “This essay will discuss…”, therefore the conclusion should identify that this has been fulfilled, “This essay has discussed…”, plus summarise the controlling ideas and key arguments. ONLY draw tentative conclusions BOTH for and against, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the topic. Also remember to re-state the thesis in the conclusion. If it is part of the marking criteria, you should also include a recommendation or prediction about the future use or cost/benefit of the chosen topic/concept.

A word of warning, many students fall into the generic realm of stating that there should be further research on their topic or in the field of study. This is a gross statement of the obvious as all academia is ongoing. Try to be more practical with your recommendations and also think about who would instigate them and where the funding might come from.

This chapter gives an overview of what a discursive essay is and a few things to consider when choosing your topic. It also provides a generic outline for a discursive essay structure. The following chapter examines the structure in further detail.

• Inez, S. M. (2018, September 10). What is a discursive essay, and how do you write a good one? Kibin. ↵
• Hale, A., & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Palgrave ↵

researched, reliable, written by academics and published by reputable publishers; often, but not always peer reviewed

assertion, maintain as fact

The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

Academic Writing Skills Copyright © 2021 by Patricia Williamson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Procrastination

Understanding academic procrastination, it's common, but not well understood..

Posted July 8, 2021 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

• What Is Procrastination?
• Find counselling near me

Procrastination is not an unfamiliar concept to students. Be it studying for a tough statistics mid-term, doing a boring and monotonous 2-hour transcription, or planning a daunting group project, students can often find solace in putting off doing tasks like these and find ways to disengage and browse cat videos on TikTok for hours. This type of procrastination is referred to as academic procrastination, as it’s related to putting off doing important things related to one’s coursework and schooling. I’ve invited my colleague and friend, Reza Feyzi Behnagh of the School of Education at SUNY, Albany, to write this post with me.

In the past two years and with the funding support from the National Science Foundation, Behnagh (a learning scientist) and Shaghayegh Sahebi, a computer scientist, together with their research team of graduate students, studied academic procrastination . (I have been a recent consultant.) They are looking at how students make plans, set goals , and break large projects into smaller chunks, how they go about studying and checking their progress, and whether and under what conditions they procrastinate.

To gain this understanding, they developed a mobile app (Proccoli) to help students plan and study for their coursework. Why Proccoli? Just like broccoli that kids avoid eating (or procrastinate eating until the end of their meal) while it is good for them, getting things done toward one’s goal might be unpleasant and daunting at first, but learning a cool concept, a nice grade, praise, or a degree or course to complete, make all the effort worth it. Their app is designed to help students set goals, break their goals into smaller chunks, keep track of their studies in a Pomodoro-style timer, and check out their progress in continuously updating charts.

The goal of the SUNY Albany team has been to model and understand academic procrastination in college-age students, how it happens and individual differences that affect it, and to be able to identify the ‘behavioral signature’ of academic procrastination, predict it, and ultimately to help students manage their emotions (e.g., anxiety , boredom ) and get things done!

How do we understand academic procrastination? Unless students tell us what they are doing, how long, how often, and when they are studying (are they pulling an all-nighter the night of their exam? Are they preparing well in advance?), there is no way for us to know for sure. The app and data we are gathering through the app give us a unique perspective to understand under what circumstances and how students procrastinate.

In the past two years, a large group of graduate and undergraduate students have used the app (80-120 a semester), creating hundreds of goals and subgoals (1100 goals and 400 in the past semester), logging and reporting hundreds of hours of study time. Part of our analyses point to two distinct clusters of students showing different learning dynamics (Yao et al., 2021): One group that studied more frequently and consistently since early on after setting their goal and another cluster of students who studied infrequently twice or three times before their deadline. We plan to align these study patterns with students’ grades and see if either group is more successful and which could be characterized as procrastination, considering other factors. Another interesting finding was that students who reported that they usually study to get a good grade or avoid getting a bad grade (i.e., performance goal-orientation) studied less regularly and less consistently, and their study pace dropped much faster than those with the goal of learning as much as they can from their schoolwork.

Research showed that one of the main reasons for academic procrastination is all the aversive emotions one feels about a task, like a tough exam, a boring homework, a standardized exam that will determine one’s future entry to the university, etc. (see Ferrari, 2010 for a good understanding). Much research (e.g., Berking & Whitley, 2014; Eckert et al., 2016) looked at ways of managing these emotions so that the student can get started, stick to doing the task they have been avoiding, and as a result improve their self-efficacy – the belief and confidence that one is in control and is able to accomplish what they intend to do. In their study, the SUNY Albany team (and I) hope to implement several of the emotion regulation strategies shown to help acknowledge, tolerate, and manage negative emotions, so that we can see whether these strategies help students procrastinate less in their academic tasks and whether they help students start working on the tasks they’ve been avoiding.

Stay tune for our published results.

Declaration: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1917949. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Berking, M., & Whitley, B. (2014). Affect regulation training (ART) . New York: Springer.

Eckert, M., Ebert, D. D., Lehr, D., Sieland, B., & Berking, M. (2016). Overcoming procrastination: Enhancing emotion regulation skills reduce procrastination. Learning and individual differences, 52 , 10-18.

Ferrari, J.R. (2010). Still procrastinating? The no regrets guide to getting it done . New York: J Wiley & Sons.

Yao, M., Sahebi, S., Feyzi Behnagh, R., Bursali, S., & *Zhao, S. (2021). Temporal processes associating with procrastination dynamics. In I. Roll, D. McNamara, S. Sosnovsky, R. Luckin, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12748 (pp. 459-471). Springer, Cham.

Proccoli Application: http://www.albany.edu/proccoli/

Deacon Joseph Ferrari, Ph.D., is the St. Vincent dePaul Distinguished Professor of Psychology at DePaul University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

REVIEW article

How study environments foster academic procrastination: overview and recommendations.

• 1 Department of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
• 2 Evaluation of Studies and Teaching and Higher Education Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
• 3 Department of Psychology, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany

Procrastination is common among students, with prevalence estimates double or even triple those of the working population. This inflated prevalence indicates that the academic environment may appear as “procrastination friendly” to students. In the present paper, we identify social, cultural, organizational, and contextual factors that may foster or facilitate procrastination (such as large degree of freedom in the study situation, long deadlines, and temptations and distractions), document their research basis, and provide recommendations for changes in these factors to reduce and prevent procrastination. We argue that increased attention to such procrastination-friendly factors in academic environments is important and that relatively minor measures to reduce their detrimental effects may have substantial benefits for students, institutions, and society.

Procrastination, voluntarily delaying tasks despite expecting to be worse off ( Steel, 2007 ), is common among students. Conservative estimates indicate that at least half of all students habitually procrastinate tasks that are important to them, such as reading for exams, writing term papers, and keeping up with weekly assignments ( Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ; Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ; Pychyl et al., 2000 ; Schouwenburg, 2004 ; Steel, 2007 ). Consequences are negative, both for academic performance and retention ( Ellis and Knaus, 1977 ; Klassen et al., 2008 ; Zarick and Stonebraker, 2009 ; Grau and Minguillon, 2013 ; Kim and Seo, 2015 ) as well as for health and well-being ( Flett et al., 1995 ; Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ; Stöber and Joormann, 2001 ; Sirois, 2014 ).

Despite the possibility that academic environments may contribute significantly to this situation, the majority of research efforts to clarify mechanisms involved in procrastination has focused on individual variables related to personality, motivation, affect, and others (for reviews, see van Eerde, 2003 ; Steel, 2007 ; Klingsieck, 2013 ). The present paper takes a different view, focusing on situational, social, contextual, cultural, and organizational factors common in academic environments. Based on the procrastination literature, we present a selection of such factors and show how they increase the probability of procrastination. Negative effects may be general in that most students suffer. Often, however, “procrastination-friendly” factors may also affect students differentially, those being prone to procrastination in the first place being particularly vulnerable (e.g., Nordby et al., 2017 ; Visser et al., 2018 ). Thus, ideas on how to address these factors to make the academic environment more “procrastination- un friendly” are important.

We identify nine broad factors known to increase procrastination. The factors selected serve as important examples rather than an exhaustive list. For each factor, we link it to common features of academic environments, providing examples and other forms of documentation to demonstrate its significance in facilitating procrastination. We then formulate specific advice on how the negative influence of each factor may be alleviated or remedied by relatively simple structural, organizational, and educational measures.

Characteristics of Academic Procrastination

Academic procrastination occurs when a student delays work related to academic tasks ( Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ; Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ; Pychyl et al., 2000 ; Schouwenburg, 2004 ; Steel, 2007 ). For such delays to be regarded as procrastination, the student voluntarily chooses to delay despite expecting to be worse off ( Steel, 2007 ). Thus, there is an important distinction between delays that are sensible and rational (e.g., “I chose to postpone my thesis submission because my supervisor advised me to revise the discussion part”) and those that are not (e.g., “I did not prepare for the seminar today, I watched a movie instead”). In effect, academic procrastination is a form of irrational delay, as the person acts against better judgment.

The delays seen in academic procrastination may result from late onset (e.g., “I did not start writing until just one week before deadline”) and impulsive diversions during work (e.g., “I was working, but got tired and had a coffee with a friend instead”) ( Svartdal et al., 2020 ). As is well documented in the research literature over the past 40 years, such delays and diversions are related to personality factors, as for example impulsiveness and a preference for short-term gratification, deficiencies in planning and self-regulation, low self-efficacy, tiredness, and low energy, and task avoidance ( van Eerde, 2000 ; Steel, 2007 ; Steel et al., 2018 ). The majority of this research has been correlational. Because procrastination is a complex phenomenon unfolding over time and in interaction with situational, social, contextual, cultural, and organizational factors, it is important also to focus on exogenous factors involved in this complex and dynamic phenomenon. The relative lack of such studies is unfortunate and clearly represents a gap in the procrastination field. We argue that this is particularly unfortunate in the academic area, as the student is confronted with situational, social, contextual, cultural, and organizational factors that are prone to instigate and maintain procrastination in tasks that constitute core student activities.

How Is Academic Procrastination Measured?

Academic procrastination is typically measured with self-report tools, as is general procrastination. In measuring academic procrastination, some scales focus on general tendencies to delay tasks unnecessarily, with few if any items covering academic tasks specifically. For example, the General Procrastination Scale (20 items; Lay, 1986 ), academic version, has 16 items common with the general version and four items addressing academic tasks specifically (e.g., Item 2, “I do not do assignments until just before they are to be handed in”). Similarly, the Tuckman procrastination scale (16 items; Tuckman, 1991 ) measures academic procrastination solely by general items (e.g., item 1 “I needlessly delay finishing jobs, even when they’re important”). Other academic procrastination scales focus on academic tasks exclusively, such as the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI; Schouwenburg, 1995 ) and the Procrastination Assessment Scale (PASS; Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ). The PASS contains 44 questions that address various forms of academic tasks (e.g., studying for an exam, writing a term paper) in terms of how often they are procrastinated, to which extent such procrastination represents a problem, and willingness to change.

Importantly, scores on academic procrastination scales have been validated against procrastination in real academic tasks. For example, Tuckman compared scores on his scale against actual performance points on voluntary homework assignments, where students had the opportunity to write and submit written material to gain extra course credits. He found a negative correlation, r =−0.54, between these measures, concluding that “students are well aware of their own tendencies and can report them with great accuracy” (p. 9). More recent findings (e.g., Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ; Steel et al., 2018 ) confirm a relatively close correspondence between students’ self-reported procrastination and relevant behavioral measures.

Detrimental Effects of Academic Procrastination

It is important to recognize that procrastination is not only an issue related to effective academic work. Although performance (grades) is negatively related to procrastination (for review, see Kim and Seo, 2015 ), other important problems associated with procrastination are stress, reduced well-being, and mental and physical health problems (e.g., Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ). For academic procrastination, the increased stress associated with procrastination seems to be important (e.g., Sirois, 2007 , 2014 ). Recognition of the procrastination problem as a health issue, as well as a performance issue, is imperative. In Norway, as well as in other European countries, surveys of student health indicate that an increasing number of students report psychological problems, often of serious nature. For example, in a large-scale survey among Norwegian students, the Students’ Health and Wellbeing Study ( Knapstad et al., 2018 ; N = 50,000), 29% of all students reported serious psychological problems. We do not know the role of procrastination in this situation, but it is likely that procrastination may be a contributing factor as well as a consequence. Hence, the role of the environmental factors in encouraging procrastinating is important to assess from a health perspective also.

Social and Contextual Factors Facilitating Procrastination

Rationale for selection of factors.

In the sections to come, we address situational, social, contextual, cultural, and organizational factors that are documented as facilitators of procrastination. In selection of factors, the authors first discussed a larger pool of factors and evaluated their relation to the academic situation. Then, based on expert judgment, we selected nine factors that met the following criteria: They (a) reflect well-documented research findings in the procrastination field; (b) represent factors present in the academic situation beyond the student’s control (e.g., long deadlines), or factors that cannot easily be remedied by the student independently of educational, social, or organizational measures (e.g., task aversion); and that (c) measures taken to change the factor is likely to reduce procrastination. The discussion of each factor is not intended as a complete review, as a review at this stage of research would be premature. Rather, for each factor, we highlight central findings connecting the factor to procrastination research, its relation to the academic environment, and remedies that may alleviate the detrimental effects associated with a given factor. Table 1 presents an overview of the factors discussed.

Table 1. Factors reliably associated with procrastination, and their relation to the study environment.

Note that the factors are quite heterogeneous. Some factors (e.g., large degree of freedom in the study situation, long deadlines) identify organizational and structural properties of the academic environment, whereas others emphasize subjective evaluations (e.g., task aversiveness). Also note that the factors discussed may demonstrate “main effects” as most students may be affected, as well as interactive effects where individual characteristics act as moderators. For example, temptations and distractions in the academic environment may be detrimental for most students, but particularly so for individuals high in impulsivity and distractibility (e.g., Steel et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, the order of factors discussed does not indicate differences in importance. In fact, the effect sizes associated with each factor may be difficult to quantify in academic contexts. Finally, a caution on the use of the term “factor.” We use this term to denote facets or variables in the academic settings that identify features known to relate strongly to procrastination. As these are exogenous factors in the procrastination equation, they represent potential conditions that can be altered in order to affect the probability of procrastination. In the present context, we do not make strong assumptions about causality; rather, we argue that such potential causal relations should receive increased attention in future research.

Large Degree of Freedom in the Study Situation

Relevant research.

In his comprehensive review of research on procrastination, Steel (2007) coined procrastination a quintessential self-regulatory failure. Procrastinators are present-oriented and impulsive and tend to score low on tests measuring conscientiousness and planning, and high on susceptibility to temptation ( Lay and Schouwenburg, 1993 ; van Eerde, 2003 ; Steel, 2010 ). Procrastinators make plans, only to reverse them when encountering distractions and temptations during goal implementation ( Steel et al., 2018 ). Hence, procrastinators are particularly vulnerable when working under unstructured conditions and when long-term plans are delegated to the individual.

Relation to the Academic Environment

Results from qualitative studies exemplify the negative role of freedom in the study situation in several ways, as too little regulations in studies ( Grunschel et al., 2013 ), low degree of external structure ( Klingsieck et al., 2013 ), or insufficient direction of lecturers ( Patrzek et al., 2012 ). Overall, students reported feeling lost and overwhelmed by the task of planning a whole course of studies, a semester, or even an exam phase on their own. Thus, students lacking self-management skills such as planning and prioritizing tasks (e.g., Lay and Schouwenburg, 1993 ) and metacognitive learning strategies (e.g., Wolters, 2003 ; Howell and Watson, 2007 ) should feel particularly lost when facing a situation with a large degree of freedom. The autonomy associated with a large degree of freedom in the study situation makes the student particularly vulnerable if skills are low (→Low focus on study skills training) and if the student fails to develop good habits and routines. Habits help people accomplish more and procrastinate less (e.g., Steel et al., 2018 ). Of note, study topics may vary in how much freedom they offer to the student. Some study programs are strictly structured and may even involve a common study group from start to finish (e.g., medicine), whereas other study topics are less structured and may also, by the nature of their contents, appear as more “procrastination friendly” (e.g., Nordby et al., 2017 ).

While direct procrastination prevention and intervention programs train the self-management skill of students (for a summary, see van Eerde and Klingsieck, 2018 ), remedies should also be implemented on the level of study programs and the level of courses. Especially for beginning students, unnecessary options present opportunities for students to procrastinate and should be accompanied by remedial measures. For example, Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) compared student performance under no-choice fixed working schedules determined by the teacher versus choice working schedules (the students could determine their own schedules) and found that performance was better when students had to follow the no-choice fixed working schedules. If possible, a detailed syllabus including a “timetable” of the course, all deadlines, expected learning outcomes, and resources such as literature can help downsize the large degree of freedom of a study situation (cf. Eberly et al., 2001 ). Concerning the study program, an orientation event in the first semester or even each semester might support students in seeing the program’s inherent structure. One should not only focus on the contents of the program but also on the best way to run through the program. An individual twist to the orientation could be a short workshop in which each student is encouraged to plan her or his semester, thereby downsizing the large degree of freedom by establishing a unique structure which, ideally, should take into account all other activities they wish to make time for (e.g., sports, family, job), as well. Teaching styles that support student autonomy ( Codina et al., 2018 ) may also be helpful. Finally, note that a large degree of freedom in the study situation is not alleviated by the introduction of more external control. Indeed, procrastination research demonstrates that external control is associated with increased procrastination (e.g., Janssen and Carton, 1999 ). We argue instead that unnecessary freedom should be reduced, as in the Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) study discussed.

Long Deadlines

The idea of hyperbolic discounting helps to explain why we procrastinate the start of an activity. For example, according to the Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT; Steel and König, 2006 ; Gröpel and Steel, 2008 ), motivation increases as a function of the expectancy of an outcome and the size or value of a goal, but decreases as the time span before this outcome lengthens and impulsiveness increases. Thus, procrastination is more likely to occur if the outcome of an activity offers rewards in the distant future, and more so if impulsiveness is high (as is the case in procrastinators). Hence, immediate temptations often come to dominate over distant rewarding goals.

Results from qualitative ( Schraw et al., 2007 ) and quantitative studies ( Tice and Baumeister, 1997 ; Schouwenburg and Groenewoud, 2001 ) support the idea that the tendency to procrastinate decreases as the deadline for the task in question is approaching. Students find tentative due dates as especially frustrating ( Schraw et al., 2007 ). In the absence of deadlines, students often set deadlines for themselves. Although such deadlines may work to reduce procrastination, they may actually reduce performance ( Ariely and Wertenbroch, 2002 ). Other research, focusing on planning, has demonstrated that individuals tend to underestimate the necessary time it takes to complete tasks (the planning fallacy; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 ; Kahneman and Lovallo, 1993 ) and to prefer longer deadlines when allowed to choose ( Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ). Recently, Zhu et al. (2019) demonstrated that long deadlines induce an inference of the focal task as more difficult, thereby making the student to allocate more time and resources to the task. However, the downside is that such elevated resource estimates may induce longer intention-action gaps (time before starting the task) and higher likelihood of quitting.

While students with a broad range of self-management skills are able to deal with long and tentative deadline by breaking distant goals into nearer sub-goals themselves, students who lack these skills would benefit from structural arrangements defining sub-goals with timely deadlines. For instance, having students hand in an outline for a paper after the first third of the semester, the first draft after the second third, and the final draft at the end of the semester help to break a distant goal down to nearer sub-goals. Ideally, this scaffolding of self-regulating learning and writing might function as a model for future tasks with long deadlines. In general, making goals proximate (e.g., in the form of sub-goals) may help the student increase performance and reduce procrastination (e.g., Steel et al., 2018 ). Also, as reviewed by Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) , adapting specific implementation intentions (“if-then”-plans rather than overall goal intentions) may have a strong effect on goal attainment. When students experience difficulties in goal striving, focusing on the main obstacle hindering progress is recommended (mental contrasting; e.g., Duckworth et al., 2011 ).

Task Aversiveness

Procrastination can be understood as a form of short-term mood-regulation ( Sirois and Pychyl, 2013 ). Bad mood and negative feelings associated with a task is often repaired by avoiding the task and engaging in a pleasant task instead. The role of task aversiveness in triggering procrastination has received strong support (for a summary, see Steel, 2007 ). Closer examination of the task aversiveness literature demonstrates that aversive tasks are characterized by lower autonomy, lower task significance, boredom, resentment, frustration, and difficulty ( Milgram et al., 1988 ; Milgram et al., 1995 ; Blunt and Pychyl, 2000 ; Steel, 2007 ). Moreover, Lay (1992) found that procrastinators tend to perceive common tasks in everyday life as more aversive compared to non-procrastinators, suggesting that procrastinators face the world with a negative bias toward task execution in general. As aversive conditions tend to motivate negatively by avoidance or escape, passivity is a likely effect ( Veale, 2008 ). In sum, working under negative motivation is common in procrastinators, and a negative motivational regime is associated with passivity.

As study-related tasks typically are imposed by others (teachers, exams), they represent an important part of the academic environment for students. Such conditions are known to induce aversiveness and thereby procrastination. For example, when applying the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students ( Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ), one prominent dimension turns out to be aversiveness of task . Time sampling as well as daily logs also show that the more students dislike a task, the more they procrastinate ( Steel, 2007 ). Results of qualitative interview studies support these findings ( Grunschel et al., 2013 ; Klingsieck et al., 2013 ; Visser et al., 2018 ).

Why students perceive academic tasks as aversive may be traced to the fact that students entering the university often lack adequate study skills to successfully managing mastery tasks 1 . Considering academic writing, for example, The Stanford Study of Writing indicates that, for most writers, the transition from high school to college writing is enormously challenging ( Rogers, 2008 ). Moreover, university students report a variety of problems associated with academic writing (e.g., being aware of not being able to meet expected standards; Achieve Inc., 2005 ). In the last decades, universities have addressed the need for training academic writing by implementing writing centers. However, as discussed in another section (→Low focus on study skills training), instruction covering study skills is rarely provided. Thus, students often perceive academic tasks as aversive due to their lack of perceived competence. This effect may be amplified by low academic self-efficacy commonly seen in new students. Academic self-efficacy is negatively correlated to procrastination ( r = −0.44; van Eerde, 2003 ), indicating that procrastinators perceive academic tasks as even more difficult (and therefore more aversive) compared to others. Indeed, a recent study 2 found that students perceive academic tasks (e.g., present at a seminar) as more aversive compared to non-academic tasks (e.g., clean one’s apartment), but for both categories, aversiveness scores correlated positively with dispositional procrastination scores.

The Self-Determination Theory ( Deci and Ryan, 2002 ) suggests that tasks and conditions which meet a learner’s need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness support the internalization of extrinsic regulations and values, which in turn makes the task less aversive. Learners are more likely to internalize a learning goal if they embrace the meaningfulness or rationale of a task or activity if the underlying task or activity promotes their feeling of competence and if they are able to connect with other learners and experience a feeling of relatedness. Thus, formulating meaningful learning goals that lead to learning activities that fit the students’ competence level will make the task less aversive. Carefully crafted group tasks (→Inefficient group work) can also reduce procrastination. These kinds of tasks should foster the self-determination of learners. If one then embeds the learning activities in realistic learning settings, learners might even get interested in the learning activity. Game-based learning provides an innovative possibility for learning settings ( Breuer and Bente, 2010 ). Finally, as discussed elsewhere (→Low focus on study skills training), programs for students entering the university should not shy away from offering training even in the most basic study skills.

Temptations and Distractions

Individuals are tuned toward attainment of positive outcomes and escape from or avoidance of aversive events. In procrastinators, this picture is exaggerated, with current attractive and aversive events dominating over distant ones. Procrastinators tend to be impulsive and present-biased ( van Eerde, 2003 ; Steel, 2007 ), scoring high on scales measuring susceptibility to temptation, distractibility, and impulsivity ( Steel et al., 2018 ). In fact, the correlation between distractibility and procrastination is very high, r = 0.64–0.72. Thus, procrastinators are especially vulnerable to environments with an abundance of temptations and distractors, as such environments tend to capture attention and divert planned behavior into more pleasurable activities available here and now. When working with aversive tasks (→Task aversiveness), this tendency increases, as the student will be motivated to escape the aversive situation as well as divert to something attractive ( Tice et al., 2001 ).

Academic environments offer a large number of temptations and distraction, Internet access being a prime example (e.g., Reinecke and Hofmann, 2016 ). Mobile phones and laptops may have internet access everywhere on campus, presenting a continuous temptation and distractor, even during lectures. Universities tend to rely on web-based information and registration systems, and there is an increasing emphasis on digital utilities designed to assist learning, all necessitating continuous Internet access. The downside is that this situation presents a continuous challenge to students, especially those low in self-control ( Panek, 2014 ). Internet use has often been shown to conflict with other goals and obligations ( Quan-Haase and Young, 2010 ; Reinecke and Hofmann, 2016 ), and Lepp et al. (2015) demonstrated that total usage of mobile phones among undergraduates is negatively related to academic performance. Procrastination implies that the individual spends less time on focal tasks ( Lay, 1992 ), and time spent on distracting tasks add to the problems procrastinators already experience. Internet multitasking (accessing the Internet while doing something else) is positively correlated with procrastination ( Reinecke et al., 2018a , b ), indicating that procrastinators are especially prone to suffer when Internet access remains unrestricted.

Intervention studies ( Hinsch and Sheldon, 2013 ) have demonstrated that reduction in leisure-related Internet use results in decreased procrastination and increased life satisfaction. Hence, limiting the availability of Internet use is a simple way of reducing these problems. Several companies practice restriction on use of mobile phones/laptops during meetings, and universities may consider similar measures. Universities may arrange wifi-free zones for teaching and studying, and teachers may ask students to turn off their laptops/phones during classes. For many, such advice may seem counterintuitive, as the use of “modern technology” in education is generally welcomed. However, given the detrimental effects associated with unrestricted Internet use seen in the part of the student population struggling with procrastination (i.e., half or more of all students), our advice is clear.

Limited Information for Proper Self-Monitoring

In self-regulated activities, three factors are particularly important for students ( Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996 ): The student must have some standard to aim for (e.g., obtain a good grade in a course), monitor progress toward this standard, and correct as necessary if progress deviates from what is necessary to reach the standard. Although all three factors are important, Baumeister and Heatherton (1996 , p. 56) pointed out that monitoring is crucial: “Over and over, we found that managing attention was the most common and often the most effective form of self-regulation and that attentional problems presaged a great many varieties of self-regulation failure.” As procrastination is considered a prime example of a self-regulation failure ( Steel, 2007 ), it is likely that managing attention when working toward long-term goals is particularly vulnerable in procrastinators.

Due to the large degree of freedom in the study situation, the successful student needs information to keep an updated track of status, given long-term plans. Unfortunately, the study situation typically provides limited information. In many cases, exams (often held at the end of the semester) are the main source of feedback for students. Other kinds of information on progress (e.g., time spent at the university, participation in classes, observation of other students) may be unreliable as indicators of being on track. Furthermore, as consequences of procrastination are positive in the short term but not so in the longer term, learning is biased in favor of immediate positive consequences, and corrective action from long-term negative consequences is less likely.

Measures that reflect goal-striving according to plan should be implemented. From the institutional/teacher perspective, such measures should focus on reading plans, course progress, and submissions, and should not be mixed up with study performance (e.g., grades). For example, as procrastination is a reliable predictor of study effort, high procrastinators spending less time in self-directed work ( Lay, 1992 ; Svartdal et al., 2020 ), actual time spent on self-directed studying may be relevant information for many. Self-testing, recommended as an effective learning strategy (→Low focus on study skills training), also assists self-monitoring. Activity diaries, inspired by behavioral activation for depression interventions (e.g., Jacobson et al., 2001 ), may increase students’ awareness of how they spend their time as students. In recent years, several mobile apps have been developed to help students keep track of how they spend their time in the study situation (e.g., Dute et al., 2016 ), but little is known about the effect such apps may have in reducing procrastination.

Low Focus on Study Skills Training

In a qualitative study, Grunschel et al. (2013) found that students reported a lack of study skills as a notable reason for academic procrastination. One likely explanation is that low skills make tasks more effort demanding, and individuals are more likely to procrastinate on effort-demanding tasks ( Milgram et al., 1988 ). Low academic skills also make academic tasks more frustrating, boring, and difficult, which are also factors reliably associated with task aversiveness ( Blunt and Pychyl, 2000 ). As discussed in another section, task aversiveness is a reliable predictor for procrastination (→Task aversiveness).

A large part of academic work is spent on self-directed learning, and the skills needed to properly maneuver in such an environment is essential for student success ( Kreber et al., 2005 ). Unfortunately, most students have not received instruction on effective and timely study skills (e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013 ; Dunlosky and Rawson, 2015 ), and universities are slow in implementing effective skills instruction ( Goffe and Kauper, 2014 ; Wieman and Gilbert, 2015 ). Teachers’ knowledge of effective study strategies is also lacking ( Morehead et al., 2016 ; Blasiman et al., 2017 ).

Study skill training programs produce beneficial effects in terms of academic performance and retention ( Hattie et al., 1996 ; Gettinger and Seibert, 2002 ; Robbins et al., 2004 ; Wibrowski et al., 2017 ). Moreover, studies point out that learning how to study effectively cannot be separated from course contents and the process of learning ( Weinstein et al., 2000 ; Durkin and Main, 2002 ; Wingate, 2007 ). That is, study skills training should be tailored for study programs or courses. They should suit the instructional context and teaching practices, expected achievement outcomes, and promote a high degree of learner activity. However, the impact of such skill learning interventions diminishes over time ( Wibrowski et al., 2017 ), suggesting that repetition may be crucial. Thus, dedicating a portion of instruction time or having a study skill seminar at the beginning of each semester or course may be a good strategy. Different interventions may be considered depending on the course tasks ( Schraw et al., 2007 ), students’ abilities and performance level ( Hattie et al., 1996 ). Furthermore, as knowledge of study skills are not automatically translated into good study habits, academic self-efficacy (see next section) is important for circumventing procrastination ( Klassen et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Self-Efficacy-Building Opportunities

Self-efficacy, our belief in our ability to manage a task, influences how willing we are to take on domain-specific challenges. The higher self-efficacy, the more likely we will take on a task ( Bandura and Schunk, 1981 ). Even when ability to perform a task is high, but self-efficacy for that ability is low, the likelihood of prioritizing the task goes down, and procrastination is likely ( Haycock et al., 1998 ; Klassen et al., 2008 ). Importantly, the relation between self-efficacy and procrastination is relatively strong and negative, r = −0.44 ( van Eerde, 2003 ).

Self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of academic performance ( Klomegah, 2007 ), yet is often neglected in course instruction. We have long known that students develop their self-efficacy for any academic task by gradually increasing proficiency with it ( Bandura, 1997 ). Furthermore, as self-efficacy tends to be context-specific and will not automatically transfer over different tasks or activities ( Zimmerman and Cleary, 2006 ), a relatively broad set of on efficacy-building experiences, course by course, is necessary (→Lack of study skill training), though not necessarily enough on its own ( Kurtovic et al., 2019 ). Other research has recently indicated that self-efficacy may be indirectly rather than directly related to academic procrastination ( Li et al., 2020 ), and that self-efficacy for self-regulation, for example, may be a strong predictor ( Zhang et al., 2018 ).

To improve self-efficacy, instructors can create more opportunities for mastery experiences by breaking down course assignments into manageable bits that are not too easy but still are possible for students to succeed at ( Bandura, 1997 ), and by helping students self-reflect on their performance such that they feel more self-efficacious in the forethought phase of subsequent work ( Zimmerman, 2000 ). As self-efficacy increases, and the likelihood of engaging in a task goes up ( Ames, 1992 ), anxiety goes down ( Haycock et al., 1998 ), establishing a virtuous circle of self-efficacy instead of a vicious circle of procrastination ( Wäschle et al., 2014 ). This can be done through in-class activities or short assignments where the goal is to scaffold student learning with positive feedback and concrete information for how to improve on increasingly challenging versions of the task ( Tuckman and Schouwenburg, 2004 ).

Inefficient Group Work

Students often work in groups (e.g., discussion groups, seminars), but often lack the basic skills for making group work effective. Group work also increases the probability of social loafing, the tendency for individuals to demonstrate less effort when working collectively than when working individually ( Karau and Williams, 1993 ). Students may therefore often prefer to work alone as an alternative. However, working alone is associated with increased procrastination ( Klingsieck et al., 2013 ). Qualitative evidence suggests that group work with interdependence between group members may reduce academic procrastination ( Klingsieck et al., 2013 ). In support, results from educational psychology have shown positive effects of interdependent group work on individual effort in settings of cooperative learning. These studies also demonstrate beneficial effects of interdependence on social support, self-esteem, and health outcomes of group members ( Johnson and Johnson, 2002 , 2009 ). Taken together, these findings indicate the potential benefit of group work with interdependence, which may be harnessed in educational settings to reduce academic procrastination.

Although the beneficial effects of student group work in higher education seem evident ( Springer et al., 1999 ; Johnson and Johnson, 2002 ), group work is neglected in curricula of many study programs, leading students to work individually on tasks and assignments and thus possibly promoting procrastination. Students in such programs may not always feel inclined to form study groups on their own and create more favorable group work conditions instead. This is especially unfortunate as methods and tools for group learning and studying abound.

Group work with interdependence may be well suited to reduce procrastination among group members. Implementing group work with interdependence should be quite straightforward, for example by having groups work on projects or by adapting individual assignments to become interdependent tasks. The latter can be achieved by designing subtasks that need to be completed sequentially by assembling groups in such a way that each member contributes unique skills, or by formulating group-level goals and rewards ( Weber and Hertel, 2007 ).

Influence of Peers

Prior research has indicated quite complex findings regarding the role of peers in facilitating or inhibiting procrastination (e.g., Nordby et al., 2017 ). Of the different ways in which peers may influence procrastination, three factors seem to be particularly important: social norms, observational learning, and distraction. Harris and Sutton (1983) suggested that an organization’s norms can either encourage or discourage procrastination, depending on whether norms suggest a prompt or delayed processing of tasks. Observational learning can support acquisition, inhibition, and triggering of many types of human behavior ( Bandura, 1985 ), including procrastination. Thus, learning from others may also influence procrastination as well as strategies against it.

With regard to social norms, Ackerman and Gross (2005) found less procrastination among students when perceived norms suggested to start promptly. Social learning of procrastination or strategies against it have not been demonstrated empirically. However, on a more general level, observational learning has been shown to influence students’ self-regulatory skills (e.g., Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004 ). Indirect support for this notion also comes from Klingsieck et al. (2013) and Nordby et al. (2017) , who report that peer behavior is taken into account by procrastinating students. With regard to social distraction, an early study reported peer influence to be a possible, yet not very frequent reason for procrastination ( Solomon and Rothblum, 1984 ). Both qualitative ( Klingsieck et al., 2013 ) and quantitative ( Chen et al., 2016 ) evidence support the idea that distraction by peers can be a source of academic procrastination. A lack of social integration has also been reported an antecedent of academic procrastination ( Patrzek et al., 2012 ), suggesting a balanced judgment on the role of peers and social contacts.

Communication of social norms to start tasks promptly can occur through regular class instruction, thus supporting timely beginning of students with a disposition to procrastinate. Social cognitive theory predicts that social learning is facilitated, among others, by the salience of both model behavior and vicarious reinforcements ( Bandura, 1985 ). Letting students reflect on and share their experiences with procrastination and strategies against it may support more productive observational learning.

This paper discusses nine factors characteristic of student study environments that, singly and in combination, increase the probability of procrastination. Clearly, given the high prevalence of academic procrastination, it is important to have an increased awareness of such risk factors and how they can be handled in order to prevent and reduce procrastination. Although we cannot control what students do, we can control how institutions encourage more productive behaviors for student success. We now briefly discuss how policymakers, universities, teachers, and students should approach these issues.

Do the Factors Point to Common Problem Areas?

Yes. We argue that the nine factors discussed can be loosely grouped into three themes (see Figure 1 ). First, four or five of the factors discussed (i.e., long deadlines, large degree of freedom in the study situation, temptations and distractions, poor self-monitoring information, and low focus on skills training), while being contextual and situational in nature, all relate directly to students’ ability to effectively self-regulate in the study situation. In effect, our overview indicates that the core problem of procrastination, poor self-regulation ( Tice et al., 2001 ; Steel, 2007 ; Hagger et al., 2010 ), is amplified by common aspects of the student environment. An important implication of this insight is that training in self-regulation techniques among students (which we recommend) should not only be tailored to the specific needs of the students (cf. Valenzuela et al., 2020 ) but should also be supplemented with specific contextual and organizational measures that can support productive self-regulation. Since it is well known that self-regulation in the academic setting is important for performance (e.g., Duckworth and Seligman, 2005 ), it is paradoxical that academic institutions organize academic student life in ways counter to this insight.

Figure 1. How procrastination-friendly factors relate to important themes in education.

Note that the problems in self-regulation seen in procrastination episodes may relate to skills factors (e.g., planning, monitoring), speaking for relevant skills training to strengthen self-regulation. However, often factors that undermine effective self-regulation are of primary importance in procrastination (e.g., Tice et al., 2001 ). For example, low energy and tiredness may render the individual more vulnerable to task-irrelevant temptations and distractions and increase task aversiveness, which in turn increases the probability of procrastination ( Tice et al., 2001 ; Baumeister and Tierney, 2011 ). Insufficient sleep, common in the student population (e.g., Lund et al., 2010 ), is an important source of low energy and tiredness. Importantly, Knapstad et al. (2018) found that the most frequently reported health problem (as measured by the Somatic Symptoms Scale, SSS-8; Gierk et al., 2014 ) among a large sample of Norwegian students was a “Feeling of tiredness and low energy,” 45% of the students indicating that they were “fairly much or “very much” affected. This suggests that factors that undermine self-regulation among students should receive increased attention.

Second, the academic context can be designed to redress the skills and motivational issues that are often associated with procrastination. Low focus on study skills training and relative lack of efficacy-building opportunities represent a problematic combination that may themselves contribute to students perceiving academic tasks as aversive, thereby increasing the probability of procrastination. All these combined represent a disadvantageous motivational regime for academic work. The present overview identified specific organizational measures that institutions can take to change this situation. As discussed, increased focus on study skills training in concert with regular teaching may be a solution, as repeated mastery experiences will build self-efficacy as well as reduce task aversion.

Third, we should address the social factors that distract students from their academic work. By acknowledging that procrastination is a trap for students working alone, more opportunities can be made to encourage more collaborative work with others. It is important to carefully design group work in that it resembles interdependent group work. Furthermore, group work with student peers can be deliberately designed to increase student accountability, facilitating more need for self-regulation and offering students the opportunity to observe others with more productive self-regulation skills.

Given the Large Number of Factors Discussed, Are Some Particularly Important?

We have not attempted to identify effect sizes to each of the variables discussed, and for many such estimates do not exist. Comparing the factors is, therefore, extremely difficult. Further, as several of the factors discussed have been linked to procrastination in correlational research, causality must be inferred with caution. Nevertheless, all the factors discussed have potentially large causal power to instigate and sustain procrastination. Overall, the factors examined focus on larger problem areas (i.e., self-regulation, skills and motivation, social factors), but each factor identifies concrete measures to be considered to implement changes.

In approaching such factors, all should ask: What can be changed on my part? Several of the factors (e.g., large degree of freedom in the study situation, long deadlines, temptations and distractions) address organizational and educational issues that should be addressed by organizations and teachers. Others (e.g., task aversiveness) imply more complex instructor-student interactions. For example, negative emotions in task aversiveness should be approached by teachers and students in cooperation by reducing task-associated risks and imbuing the tasks with personal relevance ( van Grinsven and Tillema, 2006 ; Rowe et al., 2015 ), by enabling and encouraging student ownership of learning tasks ( Rowe et al., 2015 ), and by facilitating frequent successful learning experiences that increase self-efficacy.

Does It Make Sense to Implement Changes in One or Few Factors, Leaving Out Others?

Given an abundance of factors discussed, each capable of instigating procrastination, the high occurrence of procrastination in the student population is not at all surprising. Would it help, then, to change one or perhaps a few factors? One possible answer is that focusing on one factor is better than doing nothing. However, the downside of such an approach is that this single factor may not generate noticeable changes alone. Our recommendation would rather be to evaluate several or all factors and then implement changes as suitable within a single course, across courses, or in study programs. Note here that several of the factors discussed are relatively closely interwoven. For example, a large degree of freedom in the study situation often also implies long deadlines, suggesting that two factors may be addressed at once.

In such evaluations, it should be noted that each of the factors discussed is presented at a rather abstract level, so that relevance and concrete implementations in various settings must be carefully considered. For example, study topics vary by their very nature in how much freedom they represent for the student. Some study programs are already strictly structured and typically involve a common study group from start to finish, indicating that such programs do not need an increased focus on structure. Other programs are less structured and may also, by the nature of their study contents, be more “procrastination friendly” (e.g., Nordby et al., 2017 ). In other cases, such as study skills training and efficacy-building opportunities, “the more, the better” seems appropriate when closely linked to actual course learning tasks.

In evaluating the need for implementation of changes, the relevant factor should be assessed not only at the institutional level but—probably more importantly—at the program and course level. This applies not only to a need-based evaluation (“What do students need in order to reduce their procrastination?”), but also to a competence evaluation (“Can we provide the necessary work required for this implementation?”). Note also that some measures may be quite easy to plan on paper, but difficult to implement in a more complex system of rules and bureaucracy. For example, although long deadlines should be warned against (they induce procrastination), finding alternative solutions that can handle shorter deadline in a proper way may require changes (e.g., legal or practical) that are not easily possible to implement.

Where to Start?

In developing prevention or interventions programs concerning procrastination, one has to keep the interplay between personal factors (i.e., student characteristics) and contextual factors (i.e., institutions, courses, and teachers) in mind. As can be seen from Table 2 , the recommendations on the institutional, course, and teacher side will only fully unfold their effectiveness if students are simultaneously prepared to work on their self-regulatory skills. Thus, the recommendations we present in this paper should be accompanied by a culture of goal-focused self-regulation training programs. And, as discussed, self-regulation training programs, whether preventive or interventional, should not be administered without paying attention to contextual procrastination-friendly factors.

Table 2. Recommended measures to reduce procrastination.

Given the high prevalence estimates of procrastination among students, a closer look at procrastination-friendly factors in the academic environment is clearly warranted. The present paper identifies nine such factors and provides suggestions on how they may be changed in order to understand, prevent, and reduce academic procrastination. Clearly, more research is needed in this area, both with regard to the factors themselves (how many are they?) as well as to their interplay and relative importance. Given the potential beneficial effects for students, institutions, and society, we conclude that researchers should pay increased attention to social, cultural, organizational, and contextual factors in their endeavors to understand academic procrastination.

Author Contributions

FS initiated the project, wrote the introduction and discussion parts. All authors contributed at least one section each to the review and edited the complete draft.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank Piers Steel and Efim Nemtcan for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Publication charges were covered by the publication fund of UiT The Arctic University of Norway.

• ^ We use «study skills» in a broad sense, referring to skills needed on the part of the student to successfully master various aspects of study tasks (cf. Tressel et al., 2019 ).
• ^ Svartdal et al. (2020) . Unpublished data.

Achieve Inc. (2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?. Washington, DC: Achieve Inc.

Google Scholar

Ackerman, D. S., and Gross, B. L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: task characteristics of procrastination. J. Market. Educ. 27, 5–13. doi: 10.1177/0273475304273842

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ames, C. (1992). “Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate,” in Student Perceptions in the Classroom , eds D. H. Schunk and J. L. Meece(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.), 327–348.

Ariely, D., and Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: self-control by precommitment. Psychol. Sci. 13, 219–224. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00441

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bandura, A. (1985). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bandura, A., and Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41, 586–598. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

Baumeister, R. F., and Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: an overview. Psychol. Inq. 7, 1–15. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1

Baumeister, R. F., and Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering The Greatest Human Strength. New York, NY: Penguin.

Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., and Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory 25, 784–792. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1221974

Blunt, A. K., and Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multi-dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 28, 153–167. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00091-4

Breuer, J., and Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. J. Comp. Game Cult. 4, 7–24.

Chen, B., Shi, Z., and Wang, Y. (2016). Do peers matter? Resistance to peer influence as a mediator between self-esteem and procrastination among undergraduates. Front. Psychol. 7:1529. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01529

Codina, N., Valenzuela, R., Pestana, J. V., and Gonzalez-Conde, J. (2018). Relations between student procrastination and teaching styles: autonomy-supportive and controlling. Front. Psychol. 9:809. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00809

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2002). “Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Determination Research , eds E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press), 3–33.

Duckworth, A. L., Grant, H., Loew, B., Oettingen, G., and Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions. Educ. Psychol. 31, 17–26. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.506003

Duckworth, A. L., and Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol. Sci. 16, 939–944. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x

Dunlosky, J., and Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 1:72. doi: 10.1037/stl0000024

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., and Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 14, 4–58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266

Durkin, K., and Main, A. (2002). Discipline-based study skills support for first-year undergraduate students. Active Learn. High. Educ. 3, 24–39. doi: 10.1177/1469787402003001003

Dute, D. J., Bemelmans, W. J. E., and Breda, J. (2016). Using mobile apps to promote a healthy lifestyle among adolescents and students: a review of the theoretical basis and lessons learned. JMIR mHealth uHealth 4:e39. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3559

Eberly, M. B., Newton, S. E., and Wiggins, R. A. (2001). The syllabus as a tool for student-centered learning. J. Gen. Educ. 50, 56–74. doi: 10.1353/jge.2001.0003

Ellis, A., and Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming Procrastination. New York, NY: Signet.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., and Martin, T. R. (1995). “Procrastination, negative self-evaluation, and stress in depression and anxiety,” in Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment , eds J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, and W. G. McCown (New York, NY: Plenum Press), 41–46.

Gettinger, M., and Seibert, J. K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic competence. Schl. Psychol. Rev. 31, 350–365. doi: 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086160

Gierk, B., Kohlmann, S., Kroenke, K., Spangenberg, L., Zenger, M., Brähler, E., et al. (2014). The somatic symptom scale-8 (SSS-8): a brief measure of somatic symptom burden. JAMA Inter. Medic. 174, 399–407. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12179

Goffe, W. L., and Kauper, D. (2014). A survey of principles instructors: why lecture prevails. J. Econ. Educ. 45, 360–375. doi: 10.1080/00220485.2014.946547

Gollwitzer, P. M., and Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 69–119. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Grau, J., and Minguillon, J. (2013). When procrastination leads to dropping out: analysing students at risk. ELearn Center Res. Pap. Ser. 6, 63–74.

Gröpel, P., and Steel, P. (2008). A mega-trial investigation of goal setting, interest enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 45, 406–411. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.015

Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., and Fries, S. (2013). Exploring reasons and consequences of academic procrastination: an interview study. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 841–861. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0143-4

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., and Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 495–525. doi: 10.1037/a0019486

Harris, N. N., and Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in organizations: a framework for research. Hum. Relat. 36, 987–995. doi: 10.1177/001872678303601102

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., and Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 99–136. doi: 10.3102/00346543066002099

Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., and Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: the role of self-efficacy and anxiety. J. Counsel. Dev. 76, 317–324. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02548.x

Hinsch, C., and Sheldon, K. M. (2013). The impact of frequent social internet consumption: increased procrastination and lower life satisfaction. J. Consum. Behav. 12, 496–505. doi: 10.1002/cb.1453

Howell, A. J., and Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 43, 167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017

Jacobson, N. S., Martell, C. R., and Dimidjian, S. (2001). Behavioral activation treatment for depression: returning to contextual roots. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 8, 255–270. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.8.3.255

Janssen, T., and Carton, J. S. (1999). The effects of locus of control and task difficulty on procrastination. J. Genet. Psychol. 160, 436–442. doi: 10.1080/00221329909595557

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2002). Social interdependence theory and university instruction – theory into practice. Swiss J. Psychol. 61, 119–129. doi: 10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.119

Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ. Res. 38, 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057

Kahneman, D., and Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking. Manag. Sci. 39, 17–31. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17

Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Stud. Manag. Sci. 12, 313–327.

Karau, S. J., and Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 681–706. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Kim, K. R., and Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 82, 26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., and Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33, 915–931. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001

Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). Procrastination: when good things don’t come to those who wait. Eur. Psychol. 18, 24–34. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000138

Klingsieck, K. B., Grund, A., Schmid, S., and Fries, S. (2013). Why students procrastinate: a qualitative approach. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 54, 397–412. doi: 10.1353/csd.2013.0060

Klomegah, R. Y. (2007). Predictors of academic performance of university students: an application of the goal efficacy model. Coll. Stud. J. 41, 407–415.

Knapstad, M., Heradstveit, O., and Sivertsen, B. (2018). Studentenes Helse- og Trivselsundersøkelse 2018. [Students’ Health and Wellbeing Study 2018]. Oslo: SiO.

Kreber, C., Castleden, H., Erfani, N., and Wright, T. (2005). Self-regulated learning about university teaching: an exploratory study. Teach. High. Educ. 10, 75–97. doi: 10.1080/1356251052000305543

Kurtovic, A., Vrdoljak, G., and Idzanovic, A. (2019). Predicting procrastination: the role of academic achievement, self-efficacy and perfectionism. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 8, 1–26. doi: 10.17583/ijep.2019.2993

Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. J. Res. Pers. 20, 474–495. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3

Lay, C. H. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person-task characteristics. J. Soc. Behav. Person. 7, 483–494.

Lay, C. H., and Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management, and academic behavior. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 8, 647–662.

Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., and Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of US college students. Sage Open 5, doi: 10.1177/2158244015573169

Li, L., Gao, H., and Xu, Y. (2020). The mediating and buffering effect of academic self-efficacy on the relationship between smartphone addiction and academic procrastination. Comput. Educ. 159:104001. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104001

Lund, H. G., Reider, B. D., Whiting, A. B., and Prichard, J. R. (2010). Sleep patterns and predictors of disturbed sleep in a large population of college students. J. Adolesc. Health 46, 124–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.016

Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., and Sadeh, C. (1995). Correlates of academic procrastination: discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. J. Psychol. 129, 145–155. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1995.9914954

Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., and Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. J. Res. Pers. 22, 197–212. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(88)90015-3

Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., and DeLozier, S. (2016). Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory 24, 257–271. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992

Nordby, K., Klingsieck, K., and Svartdal, F. (2017). Do procrastination-friendly environments make students delay unnecessarily? Soc. Psychol. Educ. 20, 491–512. doi: 10.1007/s11218-017-9386-x

Panek, E. (2014). Left to their own devices: college students’ “guilty pleasure” media use and time management. Commun. Res. 41, 561–577. doi: 10.1177/0093650213499657

Patrzek, J., Grunschel, C., and Fries, S. (2012). Academic procrastination: the perspective of university counsellors. Int. J. Adv. Counsel. 34, 185–201. doi: 10.1007/s10447-012-9150-z

Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., and Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning fallacy: an examination of the study habits of university students. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 15, 135–150.

Quan-Haase, A., and Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison of facebook and instant messaging. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30, 350–361. doi: 10.1177/0270467610380009

Reinecke, L., and Hofmann, W. (2016). Slacking off or winding down? An experience sampling study on the drivers and consequences of media use for recovery versus procrastination. Hum. Commun. Res. 42, 441–461. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12082

Reinecke, L., Meier, A., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., et al. (2018a). Permanently online and permanently procrastinating? The mediating role of Internet use for the effects of trait procrastination on psychological health and well-being. New Media Soc. 20, 862–880. doi: 10.1177/1461444816675437

Reinecke, L., Meier, A., Beutel, M. E., Schemer, C., Stark, B., Wölfling, K., et al. (2018b). The relationship between trait procrastination, Internet use, and psychological functioning: results from a community sample of German adolescents. Front. Psychol. 9:913. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00913

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., and Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 130, 261–288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

Rogers, P. M. (2008). The Development of Writers and Writing Abilities: A Longitudinal Study Across and Beyond the College-Span. Doctoral dissertation. Oakland, CA: University of California.

Rowe, A. D., Fitness, J., and Wood, L. N. (2015). University student and lecturer perceptions of positive emotions in learning. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 28, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.847506

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). “Academic procrastination,” in Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment , eds J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, and W. G. McCown (New York, NY: Plenum Press), 71–96. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0227-6_4

Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). “Procrastination in academic settings: general introduction,” in Counseling the Procrastinator in Academic Settings , eds H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, and J. R. Ferrari (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 3–17. doi: 10.1037/10808-001

Schouwenburg, H. C., and Groenewoud, J. T. (2001). Study motivation under social temptation; effects of trait procrastination. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 30, 229–240. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00034-9

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., and Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: a grounded theory of academic procrastination. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 12–25. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12

Sirois, F. M. (2007). “I’ll look after my health, later”: a replication and extension of the procrastination–health model with community-dwelling adults. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 43, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.003

Sirois, F. M. (2014). Procrastination and stress: exploring the role of self-compassion. Self Ident. 13, 128–145. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2013.763404

Sirois, F. M., and Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: consequences for future self. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Comp. 7, 115–127. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12011

Solomon, L. J., and Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. J. Counsel. Psychol. 31, 503–509. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., and Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 21–51. doi: 10.3102/00346543069001021

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol. Bull. 133, 65–94. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant, and decisional procrastinators: do they exist? Pers. Indiv. Differ. 48, 926–934. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025

Steel, P., and König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3, 889–913. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527462

Steel, P., Svartdal, F., Thundiyil, T., and Brothen, T. (2018). Examining procrastination across multiple goal stages: a longitudinal study of temporal motivation theory. Front. Psychol. 9:327. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00327

Stöber, J., and Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cogn. Ther. Res. 25, 49–60. doi: 10.1023/A:1026474715384

Svartdal, F., Klingsieck, K. B., Steel, P., and Gamst-Klaussen, T. (2020). Measuring implemental delay in procrastination: separating onset and sustained goal striving. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 156:109762. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109762

Tice, D. M., and Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: the costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychol. Sci. 8, 454–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x

Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., and Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: if you feel bad, do it! J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 53–67. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.53

Tressel, T., Lajoie, S. P., and Duffy, M. C. (2019). A guide for study terminology: reviewing a fragmented domain. Can. Psychol. 60, 115–127. doi: 10.1037/cap0000138

Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 51, 473–480. doi: 10.1177/0013164491512022

Tuckman, B. W., and Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). “Behavioral interventions for reducing procrastination among university students,” in Counseling the Procrastinator in Academic Setting , eds H. C. Shouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychl, and J. R. Ferrari (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 91–103. doi: 10.1037/10808-007

Valenzuela, R., Codina, N., Castillo, I., and Pestana, J. V. (2020). Young university students’ academic self-regulation profiles and their associated procrastination: autonomous functioning requires self-regulated operations. Front. Psychol. 11:354. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00354

van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Appl. Psychol. 49, 372–389. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00021

van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 35, 1401–1418. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6

van Eerde, W., and Klingsieck, K. B. (2018). Overcoming procrastination? A meta-analysis of intervention studies. Educ. Res. Rev. 25, 73–85. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.002

van Grinsven, L., and Tillema, H. (2006). Learning opportunities to support student self-regulation: comparing different instructional formats. Educ. Res. 48, 77–91. doi: 10.1080/00131880500498495

Veale, D. (2008). Behavioural activation for depression. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 14, 29–36. doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.107.004051

Visser, L., Korthagen, F. A., and Schoonenboom, J. (2018). Differences in learning characteristics between students with high, average, and low levels of academic procrastination: students’ views on factors influencing their learning. Front. Psychol. 9:808. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00808

Wäschle, K., Allgaier, A., Lachner, A., Fink, S., and Nückles, M. (2014). Procrastination and self-efficacy: tracing vicious and virtuous circles in self-regulated learning. Learn. Instruct. 29, 103–114. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.005

Weber, B., and Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: a meta-analytical review. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 973–993. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.973

Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., and Dierking, D. R. (2000). “Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation , eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 727–747. doi: 10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50051-2

Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., and Kitsantas, A. (2017). The role of a skills learning support program on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement: a longitudinal study. J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 19, 317–332. doi: 10.1177/1521025116629152

Wieman, C., and Gilbert, S. (2015). Taking a scientific approach to science education, Part II-Changing teaching. Microbe 10, 203–207. doi: 10.1128/microbe.10.203.1

Wingate, U. (2007). A framework for transition: supporting ‘learning to learn’ in higher education. High. Educ. Q. 61, 391–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00361.x

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 179–187. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179

Zarick, L. M., and Stonebraker, R. (2009). I’ll do it tomorrow: the logic of procrastination. Coll. Teach. 57, 211–215. doi: 10.1080/87567550903218687

Zhang, Y., Dong, S., Fang, W., Chai, X., Mei, J., and Fan, X. (2018). Self-efficacy for self-regulation and fear of failure as mediators between self-esteem and academic procrastination among undergraduates in health professions. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 23, 817–830. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9832-3

Zhu, M., Bagchi, R., and Hock, S. J. (2019). The mere deadline effect: why more time might sabotage goal pursuit. J. Consum. Res. 45, 1068–1084. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucy030

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation , eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidne (Cambridge, MA:Academic Press), 13–39. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B., and Schunk, D. (2004). “Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: a social cognitive perspective,” in Motivation, Emotion and Cognition, Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development , eds D. Dai and R. Sternberg (Abingdon: Routledge), 323–349.

Zimmerman, B. J., and Cleary, T. J. (2006). “Adolescents’ development of personal agency,” in The Role of Self-Efficacy Belief and Self-Regulatory Skill , eds F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing).

Keywords : academic procrastination, study environments, social factors, self-regulation, impulsivity, task aversiveness

Citation: Svartdal F, Dahl TI, Gamst-Klaussen T, Koppenborg M and Klingsieck KB (2020) How Study Environments Foster Academic Procrastination: Overview and Recommendations. Front. Psychol. 11:540910. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540910

Received: 06 March 2020; Accepted: 12 October 2020; Published: 02 November 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Svartdal, Dahl, Gamst-Klaussen, Koppenborg and Klingsieck. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Frode Svartdal, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

We use cookies

to give you the best experience possible.

By continuing we’ll assume you are on board with our cookie policy

• Annotated Bibliography
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Proposal
• Book Report
• Book Review
• Article Review
• Literature Review
• Literary Analysis
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Research Paper
• Discussion Board Post
• PhD Dissertation
• Term Papers
• Excel Homework
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Thesis Proposal
• Movie Critique Paper
• Reaction Paper
• Poem Writing Paper
• Scholarship Essay
• Questions-Answers
• Resume Paper
• Marketing Plan Paper
• Article Writing
• White Paper
• Letter Writing
• Business Letter Writing Service
• Motivation Letter
• LOR Writing Service
• Grant Proposal
• Healthcare White Paper
• Article Critique
• Film Review
• Synopsis Writing
• Speech Writing
• Business Plan
• Our Affiliate Program
• Interview Writing Help
• IB Extended Essay
• Blog Article Writing
• Article Rewriting
• Essay Outline Writing
• Capstone Project
• Business Report Writing
• Formatting Service
• Online Revision
• Write My Questionnaire
• Report Writing Service
• Math Problems
• Problem Solution Essay
• Rate My College Essay
• Nursing Concept Map
• Personal Statement
• Management Essay
• Multiple Choice Questions and Quiz
• Psychology Essay
• Linguistics Essay Writing Service
• Technology Essay Writing Service
• Economics Homework Help
• Summary Writing Service
• Brochure Content Writing Services
• Graduate Essay
• Graduate Papers
• Buy Expository Essay
• Engineering Assignment Writing
• SOP Writing Services
• Free Essays

Toll free: 1(888)813-7462 Toll free: 1(888)603-0097

Exploring Reasons and Consequences of Academic Procrastination

Research on procrastination has been carried out in various fields including psychology, education, economics, sociology, and political science. The bulk of the research has focused on the examination of the phenomenon within academic settings where a debate lingers regarding the nature, outcomes, and causes of procrastination. According to Park and Sperling, close to 50% students procrastinate in a constant and problematic fashion (12). The paper explores the conceptual underpinnings of procrastination, especially the connection between procrastination and self-efficacy.

Procrastination has been a common phenomenon throughout the human history. Hence, the belief that procrastination is a contemporary phenomenon is unfounded. In the distant past, procrastination was perceived neutrally and interpreted as a smart course of action and inaction. Today, procrastination is barely tolerated since the modern society values self-reliance and accomplishment. Academic procrastination remains one of the biggest causes of poor academic performance. Although the optimal objective of schooling centers in aiding students establishes in-depth understanding of diverse content domains, the soaring levels of academic procrastination may render this noble goal an illusion.

AI-content Free

The psychological characteristics of the procrastinators including anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem can be conceptualized as personality factors related to the fear of failure. It is essential to highlight that other motivational factors, in addition to fear of failure, may contribute to the problem of academic procrastination. The understanding of the root causes underpinning procrastination is central in finding valuable solutions to contain the rising tide of procrastination among the students.

Procrastination represents the act or practice of routinely delaying performance of tasks until the last minute. Procrastination represents a frequent failure to carry out tasks on time typified by an absence of self-regulated performance occasioned by weak or absent motivation. Procrastination may appear in the form of tasks delay and misplaced assignments that undermine the study process. Procrastinators manifest a gap between action and intention, which implies that procrastinators are highly inclined to postpone study tasks. Procrastination stems from weak levels of motivation towards learning, which contrasts with the functional motivational variables (Steel 65). Procrastination qualifies as a self-regulation failure occasioned by the incapability of procrastinators to cope with stress and high cognitive burdens.

A quick review of the literature demonstrates that procrastination is an object of low scientific research. Academic procrastination transpires when students without cause delay the completion of school projects, assignments, or academic-based activities. Academic procrastination correlates with reduced academic grades, high-stress levels, and poor well-being. Some of the studies have demonstrated that academic procrastination positively aligns with both anxiety and depression propelled by negative beliefs on self-worth (Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani 915). Solomon and Rothblum pioneering study on procrastination examine the incidence of academic procrastination among University students and evaluated the extent to which students view it as a problem. The study also examines the motives for procrastination to better comprehend the cognitions that contribute towards the behavioral pattern. Lastly, Solomon and Rothblum compare the self-report of procrastination to behavioral and cognitive measures of procrastination such as depression, anxiety, and self-esteem (Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani 916). The research study has unearthed that procrastination stemming from task aversiveness correlates with the study habits, as well as cognitive and affective components. Consequently, procrastination should be considered as a behavioral, emotional, and cognitive phenomenon. Therefore, to disregard either of three would be myopic.

Types of Procrastinators . Procrastination may fall into two categories: chronic procrastination and non-chronic (temporary) procrastination typified by a low frequency. Arousal (thrill-seeking) procrastination involves instances in which individuals wait until the deadline is near so as to derive the thrill-seeking experience tied to the last-minute dash. Avoidance procrastination (fear of failure) occurs when individuals delay carrying out tasks so as to minimize possible disclosure of personal inabilities (Steel 65). Decisional procrastination (indecision) represents instances in which individuals act indecisively as to whether or when to carry out the tasks.

Implosive procrastinators fail to pick up cues from the environment or delay gratification of pleasure. Implosive procrastinators may also show a lack of self-control, weak motivation for attaining targeted goals, and an enhanced level of disorganization. As a result, the implosive procrastinators encounter challenges in perceiving and estimating time. Perfectionist procrastinators show a heightened readiness to work but regularly postpone owing to the concern that he or she cannot undertake the task perfectly. Perfectionist procrastination is drawn from cognitive distortions or faulty thinking where the procrastinators are overly conscious and inclined to fear success or failure, which eventually leads to neurotic avoidance. Perfectionist procrastinators lack self-efficacy and self-esteem and are usually self-critical and self-conscious (Steel 65).

Buy a review of any article from our competent writers starting at just $11.99 a page. Full confidentiality and security of transactions are guaranteed

Overall, academic procrastinators manifest four cognitive dimensions which perpetuate and reinforce their task avoidance. First dimension is over estimation of time left to carry out tasks. Second, academic procrastinators tend to under-estimate the time needed to undertake tasks (Weiten, Dunn, and Hammer 122). Third, academic procrastinators tend to overestimate the future motivational states, and, lastly, academic procrastinators tend to insist on the requisite of emotional congruence to succeed at a task informed by the conviction that working out of mood is sub-optimal.

Causes of Procrastination . Academic procrastination represents a schism between the objectives and actions of college students since their objective of completing college education is hampered by their action of procrastinating on assignments. Students procrastinate through a myriad of ways including late submission of assignments, inability to meet schedules, and postponing writing of notes until assumed convenient time. Largely, the assessment of academic procrastination has centered on the appraisal of study habits including aspects such as lessons completed and minutes spent studying and attitudes toward studying (Rabin, Fogel, and Nutter-Upham 344). However, procrastination also involves other aspects beyond deficient time management and study skills.

Procrastinators may postpone tasks for a range of motives such as frustration tolerance, fear of failure, task aversiveness, social prescribed perfectionism, evaluation anxiety, and low self-esteem. The existing research also highlights the potential role of an unstable self-concept (Rabin, Fogel, and Nutter-Upham 345; Thakkar par. 2). As such, insecure students who despite possessing the knowledge and skills to perform well may view themselves as incapable of meeting the needed standards, which ultimately yields to procrastination.

Perfectionism qualifies as the first and biggest motive for procrastination among students. Although a majority of procrastinators do not view themselves as perfectionists, the tendency to seek perfection yields to “starts and spurts” performance whereby the procrastinator attacks the task at hand with great energy and then relapses due to low motivation or alienation (Wohl, Pychyl, and Bennet 803). Perfection presents a form of rigidity characterized by insistent attitude in which a procrastinator would not even start writing an assignment due to the perception that he or she cannot do it well. In some cases, chronic procrastinators tend to link their difficulties to personality flaws such as laziness, indiscipline, and poor organization and time management (Steel 66). Trait procrastinators are perceived to involve in dilatory behavior for several reasons such as protection of self-esteem via self-handicapping, avoidance of aversive tasks and anxiety, and demonstration of autonomy.

Procrastination may also stem from the lack of confidence, which hampers the capability of the students to carry out tasks they would ordinarily be capable of doing. Academic procrastination among college students is dominated by lack of initiative and incapability to behave consistently with goals or attitudes (Klingsieck 24). As such, procrastination may act as a device for averting big decisions and big actions. Academic procrastination may hinge on the task at hand; for instance, students report higher procrastination when writing term paper compared to when writing weekly assignment. Students may procrastinate owing to negative feelings or conflicted feelings regarding the different courses they undertake.

Lastly, procrastination may be fuelled by the students’ characteristics. Students manifest a broad range of characteristics and vary from unconcerned students to passionate and target-oriented students. Unconcerned students may only be interested in passing class tests, pursue the easiest way of studying, and tolerate apathy (Park and Sperling 13). Unconcerned students may also exercise destructive behaviors such as little studying or reading, as well as affinity for the last minute dash.

Characteristics of Procrastinators . Procrastinators manifest a myriad of characteristics including low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, irrational anxiety over success or failure, and heightened self-critical behavior. Self efficacy represents capacity to organize and execute courses of action needed to accomplish the designated forms of performances (Park and Sperling 13). Self-efficacy strongly impacts the choices and efforts that people make, as well as the time they persist in the face of the challenge. As such, the manner in which people act can be predicted by their confidence in their capabilities.

Original writing according to your instructions

Deadlines from 3 hours to 60 days

All disciplines covered

Confidentiality

24/7 Support

Plagiarism-free papers

Timely delivery

Skilled writers with Master’s/PhD degrees

Personal data security

Instant replies to all your questions

In most cases, chronic procrastinators exhibit a limited view on the distinction between urgency and priority. Procrastinators mostly focus on “comfort tasks” considered as most convenient, within reach, or attractive (Steel 65). Theorists suggest that those bearing an unstable self-concept engage in procrastination owing to the fear that they will fail to meet the set standards (Wohl, Pychyl, and Bennet 803). Chronic procrastinators manifest a self-concept typified by a significant number of adverse and procrastination-based attributes, significant levels of fear of adverse evaluation, severe symptoms of depression, and decreased levels of self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. Procrastinators are also highly self-critical and publicly self-conscious. The self-critical behavior may make the procrastinator numb to the extent that the procrastinator falters when starting to deal with the task. Procrastinators may also manifest an irrational fear of success or failure. Procrastinators may show traits of being overwhelmed, highly emotional. They also demonstrate less attachment to cognitive complexity and a tendency to link success to external and unstable factors (Richards 113).

Theoretical Considerations

The relative scarcity of research on procrastination implies that overarching theory of procrastination does not exist, and multiple measurement strategies are utilized to gauge the susceptibility to procrastination. The research relating to self-concept in academic procrastination is largely correlational, which limits the strength of such theories. Chronic procrastinators show reluctance to tarnish their self-presentational image and strategically procrastinate to avert appraisals of their capabilities.

Self-determination Theory. Multiple studies have shown that the assurance of the external reward for carrying out certain job may help the subject to find the assignment interesting. Self-determination theory highlights the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, in which the former is more potent compared to the latter. The self-determination stresses the value of ensuring that people rely on intrinsic motivation and not merely depend on external reward. In the early years of schooling, students write their homework because their parents pressure them to do so (Levesque 2181). By contrast, education during senior years necessitates that students find their studies imperative and rewarding. As students fully internalize their behavior, they acquire a greater sense of self-initiation or autonomy. Autonomous behavior varies from non-self directed behavior in the sense that it yields to the enhanced task initiative, positive feelings, and augmented consistency between actions and objectives.

Self-determination theory stipulates that there are five categories of self-regulation structured along the continuum of autonomy, namely: intrinsic regulation, amotivation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and external regulation. The first category of self-regulation, amotivated behavior, manifests the least degree of independence since there is little anticipation of reward. Students who lack motivation also illustrate a poor sense of purpose and low capability to decipher opportunities to modify the course of events (Levesque 2182). The external regulation characterizes the behavior directed via the use of rewards or constraints externally exerted by other people. Third, introjected regulation encapsulates the internalized behavior but not wholly recognized as flowing from the self.

Exclusive savings! Save 25% on your ORDER

15% OFF your FIRST ORDER (with the code toppapers15) + 10% OFF every order by receiving 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page

Fourth, the identified regulation embodies a situation in which the person admits that the performance is central to the attainment of personal values and goals. Hence, the individual embraces the behavior as stemming from the self. Intrinsic motivation represents actions that individuals are engaged in due to the pleasure and satisfaction that the performance of the assignment brings. The efficacy of intrinsic motivation is exemplified by the fact that intrinsically motivated students mostly find their school projects captivating, gratifying, and worthy of learning. Indeed, students who enjoy high levels of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning direct their endeavors in a way that augments academic accomplishment (Levesque 2182). Students who enjoy high self-efficacy regularly set elevated ambitions and look for help when needed. The capacity to seek help when needed demonstrates that the students can accurately appreciate the difficulty of the task, which is pertinent in remedying the problem.

Self-motivation theory directs that autonomous modes of self-regulation diverge from the non-autonomous forms of self-regulation in three ways. First, when individuals have self-directed motives for involving in an activity, they demonstrate greater initiative and persistence as compared to the cases when the student feels controlled. Moreover, when individuals engage in an activity based on autonomous reasons, they are more probable to experience widely positive emotions such as enjoyment and interest. By contrast, the non-autonomous modes of self-regulation are more likely to be connected to adverse and conflicted sentiments. Lastly, the autonomous forms of self-regulation are linked to integrated and consistent behaviors as compared to other types of self-regulation. Intrinsic forms of self-regulation enhance enjoyment of academic activities and improved feelings of competence, increased grades, better concentration, and more time spent on academic tasks (Klingsieck 24).

Critique of the Model . Critics of the current models of procrastination that describes procrastination as primarily a problem of deficit in self-regulation highlight that confidence in self-regulating is more crucial as compared to knowledge of self-regulation strategies. Self-regulation relates to the manner in which individuals exploit internal and external cues to initiate, sustain, and terminate their goal-inspired actions. Critics contend that present interpretation of procrastination is simplistic and ignores the central role played by confidence or self-efficacy in directing cognitive and metacognitive functioning (Levesque 2183). The restrictive view of procrastination holds that the downgrading on the priority of certain tasks does not constitute procrastination. The other conceptual divide relates to those who define procrastination via certain behaviors versus those defining procrastination in terms of personality traits that ought to be displayed habitually across diverse contexts. Critics also contend that referencing of self-regulation is restrictive since it disregards the function that motivation plays in the adoption of crucial metacognitive strategies. Indeed, for the most procrastinators, knowing what to do is not necessarily the issue since performance failures are mostly the outcome of absence of motivation.

The phenomenon of procrastination is firmly established anecdotally and empirically in academic settings, especially among college and university students. The core reason on why procrastination studies have centered on scholastic settings are connected with the adverse learning implications that may stem from the destructive behavior. Procrastination relates to motivation variables including self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Some researchers have conceptualized procrastination as a persistent and destructive form of self-regulatory failure. Research studies have established that procrastination is a prominent predictor of success in college and the establishment of a scale, to gauge upon which could be beneficial for college and universities. Procrastination is measured extensively via self-report measures intended to appraise academic or everyday procrastination (Balkis 57). The measures of academic procrastination explore such aspects as academic self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression.

Motivation versus Task Characteristics , A myriad of psychological variables and task characteristics have been explored widely to investigate why students procrastinate on academic tasks. Task aversiveness is a positive predictor of procrastination fuelled by the perception of tasks as unpleasant, complex, or tedious. In some instances, prior knowledge may impact procrastination behavior in the sense that course demanding less background knowledge may yield to higher levels of procrastination. Furthermore, the time allotted to undertake a task (considered as rewards and punishment) may influence the phenomenon of procrastination (Seel 2698). Students are less probable to procrastinate as deadline nears since the positive or negative repercussions of undertaking an assignment become more significant and immediate.

Make the right choice and get the

TOP quality papers

The temporal motivation theory incorporates the self-efficacy and self-regulatory aspects. Students who possess intrinsic motives for pursuing their studies are more likely to delay the completion of school assignments as compared to those showing less motivation. Research studies indicate that students with built-in motivation for pursuing academic tasks usually procrastinate less as compared to the students with less autonomous motives (Seel 2698). As such, procrastination can be regarded as a motivation problem that encompasses more than poor time management skills or laziness. Students who lack enthusiasm in the regulation of academic behavior procrastinate at a higher rate as compared to the students showing intrinsic motivation. The less autonomous modes of motivation are connected with increased levels of procrastination, as well as less persistence, inconsistency between behaviors and attitudes, and negative emotions (Klassen et al. 361).

The phenomenon of procrastination provides insights into the association between performance and motivation. Principally, self-regulation remains a powerful predictor of procrastination as compared to self-esteem. Overall, there exists a rich body of evidence illustrating that lower levels of self-regulating behavior breeds enhanced levels of procrastination, and that self-regulation is pertinent to the understanding of the phenomenon of procrastination (Seel 2699). Some research studies have explored the situational or instructional conditions impacting on procrastination such as promptness of assignment submission, the anticipations of the teacher on work quality, and teacher organization. Teachers who are known to provide vague directions to their students and harbor low expectations for their work may reinforce procrastination among the students.

Academic procrastination yields to negative outcomes such as lower grades, increased course withdrawals, poor classroom attendance, and increased student expels. Procrastination also bears an emotional component in the sense that procrastinators report feelings of inadequacy, guilt, embarrassment, tension, panic, embarrassment, self-deprecation, and anxiety. Largely, the bulk of emotional consequences of task delay stems from a cognitive component referred to as “self-downing” or a “pattern of doubting one’s capabilities yielding to hesitations, self-doubt, second-guessing, and sense of worthlessness. The pattern of “self-downing” may orchestrate feelings of worry, depression, helplessness, hostility, frustration, and irritation. The low frustration tolerance and the stress emanating from task avoidance may also act as a catalyst in the collapse of self-control.

Adaptive versus Maladaptive Reasons . One of the lingering questions regarding procrastination centers on whether it is, in some instances, adaptive, strategic, or beneficial. Some studies hold that some students view procrastination as a positive strategy that can enhance cognitive efficiency. Active procrastination represents a more positive, purposeful, and less incapacitating mode of procrastination in which students intentionally delay academic activity, yet meet the deadlines and deliver satisfactory outcomes. Students who possess high self-efficacy learning master to direct their learning processes by setting suitable goals for themselves and enlisting self-regulative influences that stimulate and guide their behavior. By contrast, students who procrastinate and display avoidance coping behavior, encounter numerous challenges that may undermine their academic performance (Babadogan 3263).

Some students gain from working under time pressures and actively pursue procrastination to exploit the thrill brought by time pressures. Other studies have also shown that student procrastinators experience less stress and illness relative to non-procrastinators early in the academic semester perhaps owing to the temporary relief of academic anxiety (Olubusayo 205). However, studies showing positive outcomes of procrastination are in the minority. Largely, the phenomenon of student procrastination comes out through the behavioral manifestations. Procrastination among students may be exhibited by the lack of intention or promptness in performing classroom projects. Academic procrastination may also be displayed by a preference for competing activities in abandonment of the crucial school assignments (Babadogan 3264). Lastly, academic procrastination among college students stems from discrepancy between intention and behavior. Procrastination is repeatedly associated with negative behaviors and such results as exploitation of self handicapping approaches, underachievement, adverse mental health effects including heightened anxiety and depression, anxiety over failure, and tendency to hand in late assignments (Grunschel, Patrzek, and Fries 841).

Procrastinating students fail to complete the task in time and may consequently feel overwhelmed, which creates tension and anxiety (Jiao, DaRos, Collins, and Onwuegbuzie 119). In the academia world, self-efficacy is a strong predictor of academic performance which manifests inverse relationship to procrastination. Self-efficacy represents an individual’s belief in his or her capability to accomplish a task at hand. Procrastination, a problem of epidemic proportions among college students, adversely influences students’ psychological adjustment and academic performance. Multiple research studies have established that procrastination is connected with higher course withdrawals. High self-efficacy for the self-regulated learning powerfully predicts strong performance while low self-efficacy for self-regulated learning predicts poor academic performance (Jiao, DaRos, Collins, and Onwuegbuzie 120). Chronic academic procrastinators receive significantly lower paper and examination grades as compared to the students who finish school-based activities on time.

Share our service with your friends and get 10% from every order they place

Cognitive, Affective, and Motivational Aspects of Procrastination . The construct of procrastination is multi-dimensional in nature since it encompasses behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. Research studies indicate that procrastination draws from poor self-regulation rendering it difficult for students to control thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Self-regulated students readily cope with the tasks at hand by planning actions and adopting a suitable strategy. Poor self-regulation can also be linked to low self-efficacy whereby procrastinators report being lazy and have reservations about their skills. Self-handicapping can be cited as the core source of procrastination (Onwuegbuzie and Jiao 145). The bulk of individuals who procrastinate are usually less confident in deriving positive outcomes. As a result, the students are highly irritable and anxious about their failures. Academic procrastination can be defined as a behavior product such as emotional upset. The cognitive component of procrastination draws from a discrepancy between intentions and actual behavior. Most students instinctively recognize procrastination as a form of “anti-motivation” that is widespread and may serve as an obstacle to the attainment of valued objectives (Onwuegbuzie and Jiao 146).

Procrastination may be propelled by a fear of failure grounded in the notion that the work that an individual undertakes dictates the individual’s capacity and ultimately self-worth. Procrastinators self-handicap in an effort to avert disapproval occasioned by a sub-par performance. Self-handicapping represents the actions carried out by students that serve to weaken their own capacity to perform at optimal levels (Sirin 447). For instance, when a chronic procrastinator fails at a certain task, the procrastinator can attribute the failure to not possessing sufficient time instead of an intrinsic incapacity. Procrastinators blame their failure on their lack of trying rather than lack of capability.

Strategies Oriented towards Sustaining Engagement and Learning Intentions. Procrastination is not merely a deficit of time management and study habits, but rather it involves an intricate interaction of cognitive, behavioral, and affective components. In exceptional circumstances, procrastination is deliberately planned, adaptive, and beneficial, which contrasts with the normative view of procrastination as maladaptive and characteristically involuntary. Considering academic procrastination as a self-regulation failure helps in constructing interventions tailored to distinct needs of procrastinating students. Since academic procrastination is not simply a time management issue, clinical interventions should be structured and implemented based on cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The core objective of cognitive-behavioral therapy is to improve the awareness of irrational beliefs so that they may be challenged and adjusted to mirror more accurate, adaptive, and reality-based thinking (Tan et al. 135). Hence, the interventions should tackle such aspects as low frustration tolerance, overgeneralizations, and entertaining unrealistic expectations. The strategies may center on controlling thoughts of self-efficacy and exploiting self-directed language grounded in positive self-affirmation (Tan et al. 136). The strategies may also be directed towards enhancing extrinsic motivation, promising the procrastinator rewards after completion of a task. The strategies to enhance intrinsic motivation may be designed to render the task more interesting while strategies to enhance task value may highlight the value and usefulness of the task for the future.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Academic procrastination represents a widespread and principally maladaptive behavior typified by behavioral disposition to postpone the performance of an assignment or decision. Procrastination may emanate from low self efficacy and low self-esteem propelled by the fear and anxiety over failure. The manner in which students regulate their behavior can have significant impacts on academic outcomes including performance, learning, curiosity, persistence, and self-esteem. Studies on academic procrastination show that students who procrastinate report a reduced school performance. Procrastinators manifest trait depression and anxiety, which undermines self-esteem. Although students identify a number of reasons for procrastinating, the bulk of the motives hinge on the fear of failure occasioned by performance anxiety, absence of self-confidence, and perfectionism.

The strategies to maintain engagement and learning intentions among procrastinators are centered on controlling motivation to ensure that the procrastinator completes the tasks at hand, especially when the student views the tasks as tiring, boring, or difficult. For groups of procrastinators that report fear of failure, the intervention strategies should address anxiety, low self-confidence, and perfectionism. The affective strategies intended to augment the cognitive strategies encompass building confidence and preserving a positive attitude. Other measures that can be implemented to minimize the impacts of academic procrastination encompass the instructors exploiting measured approaches towards class assignments to ensure that students have reduced the opportunities for academic procrastination. Although procrastination is pervasive and known to cause adverse health and educational outcomes, the empirical basis of procrastination research is less established as compared to those of other psychological constructs. Cleary, extra research on situational and chronic procrastination is required. Future research should attempt to integrate procrastination into the broader theory of learning. It should concentrate on integrating a model of the procrastination process into the existing models of motivation and learning.

Your academic success is just in a few clicks!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Behav Sci (Basel)

Procrastination in University Students: A Proposal of a Theoretical Model

Luis araya-castillo.

1 Facultad de Ingeniería y Empresa, Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez, Santiago 8330225, Chile

Mildred Burgos

2 Escuela de Administración y Negocios, Universidad Miguel de Cervantes, Santiago 8320170, Chile

Patricia González

3 Escuela de Psicología, Universidad Miguel de Cervantes, Santiago 8320170, Chile

Yuracid Rivera

4 Facultad de Administración y Negocios, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Providencia 7500912, Chile

Nicolás Barrientos

Víctor yáñez jara.

5 Instituto de Salud Pública, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 7591538, Chile

Francisco Ganga-Contreras

6 Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica 1000007, Chile

Walter Sáez

Procrastination is a phenomenon that affects university students and consists of not finishing a task or finishing it late, which has a direct impact on their academic performance. This is relevant because, in a context of high competition, higher education institutions and their decision-makers need to be aware of the factors that influence university students’ procrastination in order to implement actions that favor student attraction and retention. Based on the above, this research aims to propose a theoretical model of procrastination in university students, based on the literature review and content validation assessment through a semi-structured questionnaire. The proposed model is made up of nine dimensions: Psychological, Physiological, Social, Academic, Leisure, Time Management, Resources, Labor, and Environmental. Dimensions were obtained based on adequate levels of content validity provided by the literature and the questionnaire. In the future, the research proposes to study the way in which these dimensions are present in procrastination and design a scale that allows for their measurement.

1. Introduction

In our daily lives, we have to perform multiple tasks in different areas. This leads people to two paths: carrying out the task as soon as possible or postponing it; the latter being part of the tendency to delay the start or completion of a task [ 1 ], an act also known as procrastination [ 2 ]. This situation is not isolated: some research studies have found that the majority of people who procrastinate are young adults, [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Studies conducted in Latin America concluded that approximately 61% of people show some level of procrastination, while 20% do so on a regular basis [ 6 , 7 ]. This behavior is therefore present in a large majority of people, affecting areas of life such as work, health, and academia [ 8 ]. However, the fact that most affected people are young raises questions about the influence of procrastination in academia and higher education, a system that is relevant to every society. So much so that some people believe that the wealth or poverty of countries depends to a large extent on the quality of their higher education [ 9 ] as it is considered a key element in economic prosperity [ 10 ], vital for social progress [ 11 ], the central link in developing talent and culture [ 12 ], and essential for sustainable development and improvement of people’s well-being [ 13 ].

The above serves as a context for the purpose of this study, which is to propose a theoretical model of the factors involved in academic procrastination in university students. This is relevant because education basically focuses on the progressive development of students’ knowledge and skills, and on the creation of an environment of safety and healthy interaction among students, professors, and the rest of the people in the institution [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Understanding the factors that explain procrastinating behavior is not only relevant for students and universities but also for society as a whole, since, among all sectors, higher education is the one that relates the most to the growth of a society and its socio-economic development [ 17 ].

Therefore, this research studies the higher education sector in a way that is rigorous, practical, and functional for public policymakers and managers [ 18 ]. This analysis does not only have implications for Chile, as it shows that education has similar dynamics in other countries, except perhaps in low-income countries [ 19 ]. In order to meet the study aim, a literature review on academic procrastination was carried out based on a multidimensional approach, reviewing theories and areas of application in Latin American countries since 2008. As a result, six major dimensions were identified that cover the related aspects. Results were transferred to a semi-structured questionnaire for content validation and then applied to a theoretical sample. The responses identified nine dimensions, of which four are repeated from the theory (psychological, academic, physiological, and environmental dimensions) and five are highlighted from the questionnaire (social, time management, resources, leisure, and labor dimensions).

1.1. Procrastination

Procrastination is a relatively old phenomenon, as psychologist William James already recognized the emotional cost generated in people who suffered from it more than 120 years ago [ 20 ]. Lay [ 21 ] pointed out that procrastination considers importance to the individual whose action is being postponed, while Milgram, Mey-Tal, and Levison [ 22 ] discussed whether the performance of a task is voluntary or imposed, and Steel [ 2 ] wondered whether the person is aware of the negative consequences of this postponement [ 23 ].

Along these lines, Steel and Ferrari [ 5 ] defined procrastination as an insufficiency in self-regulation processes that causes the voluntary delay of planned activities [ 24 ] or an ineffective lifestyle that leads to a failure in the fulfillment and commitment to set targets. In this light, procrastination involves the action of not finishing a task or finishing it late, and this process is generally accompanied by feelings of nervousness or restlessness, and discouragement [ 25 ].

This habit is considered destructive since the cost of such behavior may cause psychological stress due to overexertion to meet deadlines [ 26 ], when not fulfilling responsibilities may lead to negative consequences and when the positive consequences of performing the task are higher [ 27 , 28 ].

The literature on the topic has been intensified in recent years, with several descriptive studies relating procrastination to other variables [ 24 ], including its status during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 29 ].

1.2. Procrastination in the Academic Field

In the academic field, procrastination can be defined as a behavior that involves always or almost always postponing the start or completion of academic tasks, or always or almost always experiencing problematic levels of anxiety associated with such postponement [ 30 ]. Likewise, Álvarez-Blas [ 31 ] defined academic procrastination as an unnecessary and unjustified delay in study-related tasks. In line with this, Schouwenburg [ 32 ] pointed out that there are two types of academic procrastination: sporadic and chronic. Sporadic academic procrastination refers to a one-off behavior while chronic academic procrastination is the generalized habit of delaying studying [ 33 ].

Literature relates procrastination to other (moderating or controlling) variables, such as self-efficacy [ 34 ], fear of failure [ 35 ] task aversion [ 36 ], lack of self-regulation [ 37 ], or disruptive classroom behavior [ 38 ], among others. Likewise, different studies have found that academic procrastination is associated with factors generated by academic tasks and limited time planning skills [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Other research studies aimed at understanding and explaining the manifestations of procrastination in everyday and academic life have associated them with mental representations; this may be because students may be imagining something that is not explicit or observable in the environment, but that is a problem that they somehow need to solve [ 45 ]. In line with this argument, a study conducted in Ecuador links performance and emotional regulation as predictors of academic procrastination in university students, with no difference between men and women [ 46 ].

Other authors have also shown a negative correlation between academic performance and university procrastination [ 47 , 48 , 49 ]. Although an ideal university student is successful, the demands of higher education lead to a high percentage of students not being able to achieve academic success due to procrastinating behavior among other issues [ 50 ].

In line with this, Cardona [ 51 ] mentioned that academic procrastination entails various consequences, including poor academic performance, demotivation, burnout, academic stress, and even dropping out of school. This is relevant as an estimated 80% to 90% of university students show dilatory behaviors at some point [ 24 ].

It is therefore possible to argue that there are multiple factors associated with dropping out and/or academic failure in higher education, and the emphasis on a specific factor depends on the authors’ perspective [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ].

The postponement of responsibilities is a phenomenon characteristic of modern societies. Academic procrastination is a variable of interest in the context of higher education due to the consequences of homework avoidance at the university. Academic procrastination has been studied by different disciplines or explanatory models, mainly in the field of psychology. However, since this is a phenomenon of human behavior, it is to be assumed that there are other factors that intervene in this condition.

Rosario et al. [ 61 ] conducted research on this variable in non-Latin American contexts and found out that about 20% of adults admit to procrastinating in routine tasks, about 25% of the adult non-student population report that procrastination is a significant problem, and in 40% of cases it has caused financial loss at both personal and organizational levels.

As for academic procrastination, studies by Tice and Baumeister [ 62 ] and Landry [ 63 ] have proven the extent of the problem, where approximately 20% of United States college students show persistent academic procrastination, while behaviors associated with procrastination are observed in more than 80% of them. Additionally, studies such as those by Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami [ 64 ], Rothblum [ 65 ] and Tice and Baumeister [ 62 ] show that academic procrastination is significantly related to poor academic performance, personal stress, and physical health in college students [ 63 ]. These authors identify influential factors such as performance, personal stress, and health.

While there is a great deal of research on academic procrastination in Latin America, there is little research on the specific elements associated with the concept. Therefore, it is necessary to find reliable information and data to determine the variables that influence academic procrastination in detail, considering the students’ environment, cultural context, and socio-demographic variables, among others. This also explains the interest in the theoretical review of the variable in order to find the elements that influence the concept.

2. Materials and Methods

This research is of a conclusive descriptive nature and a cross-sectional or sectional cut [ 66 ]. The aim of this study is to suggest a theoretical model for university procrastination based on background information from the literature, and validate it by applying a semi-structured questionnaire to a theoretical sample. To search for dimensions of the theoretical model of procrastination in university students, a literature review was carried out on different scales applied to this topic in the Scopus and Scielo databases, using the concepts (in English and Spanish) of “procrastination scales”, “academic procrastination”, “university procrastination”, and “student procrastination”, and focusing on the research in Latin American countries between 2008 and 2022. Scopus is used because it is the multidisciplinary database with the largest number of journals, in addition to having a strong Latin American presence in its catalog [ 67 ]. Scielo, on the other hand, is used because it is a regional database that integrates geographic collections from Latin American and African countries, whose main purpose is to make science generated in these territories visible [ 68 , 69 ]. The literature review made it possible to identify a series of factors that were grouped into six dimensions proposed by the researchers, determined mainly by their closeness or linkage to the concept according to the research reviewed. The results of this search were used later in an online questionnaire (conducted on the SurveyMonkey platform) completed mainly by students belonging to a group of Chilean universities located in the metropolitan region who volunteered to do so. The survey was applied from August 2017 to August 2019, and its dissemination was carried out through different academic networks that the authors have in the universities of the metropolitan region. A total of 320 responses were obtained from those invited to participate. All participating subjects gave their informed consent at the time of answering the questionnaire. The sample was non-probabilistic by convenience and consisted of students from different universities, programs, and modes of study. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to write down the factors that best represent procrastination in academic tasks. This information allowed us to identify the dimensions and items that should be considered in the model proposal. Content validity was understood as the degree to which the measure captures the domain of the concept under study [ 70 ]. Content validity is relevant in the development stage of the measurement instrument as it shows that the indicators included in the survey are a representative sample of the set to be used [ 71 ]. Figure 1 summarizes the above steps.

Summary of research stages.

Sample Description

The sample consisted of 320 people living in Chile, 62.19% of whom are female and 37.81% are male. The age ranges from 18 to 62 years and most respondents (79.69%) live in the metropolitan region, 8.13% in Valparaíso, 4.69% in the Bío-Bío region, 3.13% in the Araucanía region, 0.63% in the Tarapacá region, and 0.31% in the Coquimbo region. Respondents were also asked to specifically report their municipality of residence. The most frequently reported municipalities are Santiago, Puente Alto, La Florida, Ñuñoa, Maipú, Cerrillos, Quilicura, Lampa, Paine, Pudahuel, Renca, Maule, etc. As for their nationality, 96.88% are Chilean, while 3.12% are foreign nationals. The level of education of the sample was as follows: 63.75% of respondents have not completed a university undergraduate degree, 9.69% have completed a university undergraduate degree, 7.50% have completed secondary education, 5.63% have not completed a university postgraduate degree, 3.75% have completed a higher level technical degree, 3.44% have not completed a higher level technical degree, 2.50% have not completed studies at a professional institute, 2.19% have completed studies at a professional institute, and 1.55% have completed a university postgraduate degree. As for the level of undergraduate study, the most frequently reported degrees by respondents were audit, commercial engineering, psychology, human resources, social work, and accounting. As for employment, 44.69% of respondents are students, 40% study and work, 8.75% work, 4.06% are unemployed job seekers, and 2.50% are not in paid employment. As for the level of household income, 18% have an income between USD 0 and 336 (CLP 0 and 300,000), 29.93% have an income between USD 336 and 672 (CLP 300,000 and 600,000), 20.44% have an income between USD 672 and 1008 (CLP 600,000 and 900,000), 14.75% have an income between USD 1008 and 1344 (CLP 900,000 and 1,200,000), and 16.88% have an income over USD 1680 (CLP 1,500,000). In terms of the composition of the family unit, respondents report a range from two to five members.

3.1. Literature Review

Based on the literature review and the search of a multidimensional approach to the variable, theoretical advances and areas of application of academic procrastination were reviewed. The aim was to carry out a complete review of the literature regarding studies that suggest and/or validate models (scales) of university procrastination and their dimensions in Latin-American countries. This is shown in Table 1 .

Previous Scales on Procrastination.

Following the literature review, a total of 37 papers were found that use models with scales. This is the background for proposing the theoretical model: “Procrastination of University Students” (PUS). The PUS model is multidimensional and reflexive, as the latent variable (procrastination construct in university students) causes the observed variables (procrastination dimensions) [ 102 ]. The first proposal of the theoretical model is composed of 6 dimensions linked to procrastination in higher education students; namely: (1) Psychological; (2) Physiological; (3) Socio-demographic; (4) Academic; (5) Cultural; and (6) Environmental. The theoretical model considers the dimensions that are mostly incorporated by the studies in the academic literature, as well as the aspects or elements considered by each study. Table 2 shows detailed information on the dimensions, considered aspects, and authors.

Proposal for a Theoretical Model of Procrastination in University Students.

The six proposed dimensions cover all the relevant aspects reviewed in the literature; therefore, they can be used for content validation. The results show that the “Psychological” dimension includes factors such as motivation, personality dimensions, emotional intelligence, time management, and so on. The “Physiological” dimension is composed of biological variables: anxiety, self-regulation of learning, and vigor, among others. The “Socio-demographic” dimension is made up of aspects, such as gender, age, socio-economic and demographic variables. The “Academic” dimension includes control variables, distance learning, academic performance, level of education, dropping out, academic performance, GPA, study habits, and academic satisfaction, among others. The “Cultural” dimension mainly contains personal individual elements. Lastly, the “Environmental” dimension involves aspects such as risk factors, difficulties in performing tasks, lack of time, levels of dedication, and peer influence.

3.2. Questionnaire

The literature review yielded six dimensions that theoretically link a number of elements with procrastination in university students. These dimensions were assessed through a semi-structured online questionnaire on a sample of 320 respondents studying in Chilean universities. Respondents were asked to write down the factors or dimensions that best represent procrastination in academic tasks and relate them to a number of items on the topic.

As background information, respondents were asked several questions about how they deal with tasks on a daily basis from the point of view of procrastination. Table 3 shows the results when the respondents were asked to choose an item with which they most identify. From a total of 309 responses, 60.95% of respondents identified most with “I do my tasks in order of priority”; 19.37% with “I do my tasks whenever I have time”; 16.51% with “I do my tasks depending on the backlog”; 1.9% with “I do not do any task”; and 1.27% with “I only do the tasks I manage to get done”.

Respondents’ Results on How they Deal with Tasks.

In order to validate the content of the first proposal of the Theoretical Model “Procrastination of University Students”, the following question was asked: “What are the dimensions that best represent procrastination in academic tasks?” A total of 320 responses were collected, covering nine dimensions, from which four are repeated in the literature review and five enhanced their importance thanks to the questionnaire. The dimensions are Psychological, Social, Academic, Physiological, Time Management, Leisure, Resources, Environmental, and Labor. Table 4 shows the importance given by respondents to each dimension and its component elements.

Percentage of importance for each dimension and its associated factors.

The dimension that best represents procrastination in academic tasks according to the respondents was the Psychological one, with 22.91% of preferences, and the “lack of motivation” factor was the most chosen one (22.24%). This was followed by the Social dimension, with 19.34% of preferences, with the factor “family aspects” as the most relevant with 28.83%. In third place was the Academic dimension with 13.15%, where the “educational model” was the most representative factor with 21.85% of preferences. The Physiological dimension reported 12.28% of preferences, where “physiological needs” was the most relevant factor (26.6%). Time Management ranked fifth among the dimensions, with 9.58%, and “lack of time” as the dominant factor with 40.91%. The Leisure dimension emerged as a new dimension with 9.28% of preferences, with “recreational activities” as the most chosen factor (30.03%). Resources and Environmental dimensions showed similar percentages, with 5.31% and 5.10%, respectively, where “economic resources” dominated the former (84.43%), and “conflictive environment” the latter (41.03%). The Labor dimension least represented procrastination according to the respondents, with “workload” as the dominant factor with 70% of preferences.

3.3. Limitations

Owlia and Aspinwall [ 103 ] established that validity comprises two aspects: quantitative validity and qualitative validity. Qualitative validity identifies the dimensions linked to procrastination in the literature and reviews their validity through a questionnaire. Qualitative validity determines whether the measures capture the key factors of an unobservable construct, which is also in line with content validity. The latter is relevant for full validation and the subsequent scaling of the PUS model. Future research studies are expected to collect information through individual interviews, focus groups, and expert opinions, seeking to achieve category saturation [ 104 ]. The proposal, therefore, is to use qualitative tools as they allow for analyzing phenomena in greater depth than quantitative tools [ 105 ]. The proposal includes the following: fifteen in-depth interviews to be conducted to find out students’ perceptions of the procrastination construct and the dimensions that they consider relevant in evaluation; four focus groups to study and analyze students’ perceptions in interaction; and four experts in university procrastination can also participate, who should be asked to evaluate the proposed scale for procrastination in university students. This information will be used to validate the results obtained from the semi-structured online questionnaires applied to the students.

4. Conclusions

This research studies the factors that influence procrastination among university students in Latin America on this topic because none of the previous studies have covered the factors affecting this concept. The aim was to collect information in relation to the actions that have an impact on the backlog of academic tasks. After data collection, the dimensions that directly affect the student’s procrastination were considered through a repetitive search, and the content validity was given by the questionnaire. The analysis seems to conclude that the factors that mainly influence university students to postpone the fulfillment of an obligation or the development of action have to do with the psychological, social, and academic dimensions and the factors that integrate them.

These results are in line with other international studies that deem these dimensions relevant. Even so, they also highlight areas such as resources and labor, which for a certain percentage of students are distracting elements that prevent the fulfillment of their academic tasks. This is not a novelty, since due to the configuration of higher education systems in Latin America (and in Chile), many students must work in order to pay for their university studies, making both roles compatible. Academic procrastination is not a subject of the establishment of a repertoire of activities but is rather a self-regulatory model that includes aspects such as autonomous learning goals.

The aim of the research was to propose a theoretical model of procrastination in university students, which was achieved by means of quantitative instruments. However, the model still needs to corroborate its full validation through qualitative methods in order to carry out the corresponding factorial analysis, which will make the model reliable and accurately prove that procrastination in university students is explained by the aforementioned dimensions. This is not a trivial task, as a scale measuring procrastination in university students can finally be developed.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.A.-C.; Methodology, M.B.; Validation, V.Y.J.; Formal analysis, N.B.; Investigation, P.G. and Y.R.; Writing—review & editing, F.G.-C. and W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ethics committee review and approval was waived, as the survey was made available on an online platform for potential respondents to answer voluntarily. The survey was developed following institutional protocols and regulations for this type of research.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Advertisement

Academic procrastination and academic performance: Do learning disabilities matter?

• Published: 22 February 2019
• Volume 40 , pages 2490–2498, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Marina Goroshit 1 &
• Meirav Hen 1  

4725 Accesses

20 Citations

Explore all metrics

The growing number of students with learning disabilities (LD) in higher education increases the need to understand and address the factors that affect their academic performance. One of these factors is academic procrastination, which affects over 70% of college students, including students with LD. The present study examined the relationship between academic procrastination and academic performance, and the moderating role of LD in this relationship. Findings showed a negative effect of academic procrastination on GPA, and more strongly for students with LD, indicating that a high-level of procrastination might be more harmful for these students’ academic performance. These initial findings contribute to the body of knowledge concerning students with LD in higher education. They emphasize the need to support students with LD in a manner that will address the specific difficulties that may lead to higher rates of procrastination and subsequently lower academic achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education.

Keith S. Taber

Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework

Detlef Urhahne & Lisette Wijnia

Understanding procrastination: A case of a study skills course

T. Hailikari, N. Katajavuori & H. Asikainen

Andreassen, R., Jensen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2017). Investigating self-regulated study strategies among postsecondary students with and without dyslexia: A diary method study. Reading and Writing, 30 (9), 1891–1916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9758-9 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: An empirical investigation. Health Services Research, 26 (6), 767–786.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Baird, G., Scott, W., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning versus performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28 (7), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.7.881 .

Balkis, M. (2013). The relationship between academic procrastination and students’ burnout. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28 (1), 68–78.

Google Scholar  

Balkis, M., Duru, E., & Bulus, M. (2013). Analysis of the relation between academic procrastination, academic rational/irrational beliefs, time preferences to study for exams, and academic achievement: A structural model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0142-5 .

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R., & Mobley, M. F. (1993). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research . Newbury Park: Sage.

Boardman, A. G., Vaughn, S., Buckley, P., Reutebuch, C., Roberts, G., & Klingner, J. (2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82 (4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625067 .

Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Wiesner, M. (2014). The role of the college classroom climate on academic procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 32 , 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.001 .

Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The State of learning disabilities facts, trends and emerging issues (Third). New-York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. http://dx.doi.org/ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf .

Dunn, K. (2014). Why wait? The influence of academic self-regulation, intrinsic motivation, and statistics anxiety on procrastination in online statistics. Innovative Higher Education, 39 (1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9256-1 .

Eckert, M., Ebert, D. D., Lehr, D., Sieland, B., & Berking, M. (2016). Overcome procrastination: Enhancing emotion regulation skills reduce procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 52 , 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.001 .

Eggens, L., van der Werf, M. P. C., & Bosker, R. J. (2008). The influence of personal networks and social support on study attainment of students in university education. Higher Education, 55 (5), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9074-4 .

Fernie, B. A., Bharucha, Z., Nikčević, A. V., Marino, C., & Spada, M. M. (2017). A Metacognitive model of procrastination. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210 , 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.042 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ferrari, J. R. (2010). Still procrastinating? The no regrets guide to getting it done . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Glick, D. M., Millstein, D. J., & Orsillo, S. M. (2014). A preliminary investigation of the role of psychological inflexibility in academic procrastination. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3 , 81–88.

Goroshit, M. (2018). Academic procrastination and academic performance: An initial basis for intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46 (2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198157 .

Grund, A., & Fries, S. (2018). Understanding procrastination: A motivational approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 121 , 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.035 .

Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013). Exploring reasons and consequences of academic procrastination: An interview study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0143-4 .

Häfner, A., Oberst, V., & Stock, A. (2014). Avoiding procrastination through time management: An experimental intervention study. Educational Studies, 40 (3), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.899487 .

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York: Guilford Press.

Hen, M. (2018). Academic procrastination and feelings toward procrastination in LD and non-LD students: Preliminary insights for future intervention. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46 (2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198173 .

Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2014). Academic procrastination, emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47 (2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412439325 .

Katz, I., Eilot, K., & Nevo, N. (2014). “I’ll do it later”: Type of motivation, self-efficacy and homework procrastination. Motivation and Emotion, 38 (1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9366-1 .

Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82 , 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038 .

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students’ homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition Learning, 4 (2), 97–110.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L., & Rajani, S. (2008a). Procrastination and motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed-methods inquiry. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23 (3), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00271.x .

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008b). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (4), 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001 .

Klassen, R. M., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Krawchuk, L. L., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Yeo, L. S. (2009). Academic procrastination in two settings: Motivation correlates, behavioral patterns, and negative impact of procrastination in Canada and Singapore. Applied Psychology, 59 (3), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00394.x .

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V., & Hannok, W. (2013). Internalizing problems of adults with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46 (4), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411422260 .

Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance university setting. Distance Education, 33 (3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723165 .

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014a). Delay or procrastination – A comparison of self-report and behavioral measures of procrastination and their impact on affective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 63 , 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.050 .

Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014b). How to beat procrastination. European Psychologist, 19 (2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000153 .

Levy, Y., & Ramim, M. M. (2012). A study of online exams procrastination using data analytics techniques. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 8 , 97–113.

Malatincová, T. (2015). The mystery of “should”: Procrastination, delay, and reactance in academic settings. Personality and Individual Differences, 72 , 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.015 .

Mann, L. (2016). Procrastination revisited: A commentary. Australian Psychologist, 51 (1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12208 .

Marton-Williams, J. (1986). Questionnaire design. In R. Worcester & J. Downham (Eds.), Consumer market research handbook . London, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56 (1), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025 .

Milgram, N. N., & Amir, N. (1998). Academic procrastination in pre-, early and late adolescence . Unpubished report. Tel-Aviv University and the college of Judea and Samaria.

Milgram, N. (. N.)., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastination, generalized or specific, in college students and their parents. Personality and Individual Differences, 25 (2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00044-0 .

Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2006). Academic performance of college students: Influence of time spent studying and working. Journal of Education for Business, 81 (3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.3.151-159 .

Odaci, H. (2011). Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination as predictors of problematic internet use in university students. Computers & Education, 57 (1), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.005 .

Onji, K., & Kikuchi, R. (2011). Procrastination, prompts, and preferences: Evidence from daily records of self-directed learning activities. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40 (6), 929–941.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000160384 .

Owens, S. G., Bowman, C. G., & Dill, C. A. (2008). Overcoming procrastination: The effect of implementation intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38 (2), 366–384.

Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30 (4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5 .

Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., & Nutter-Upham, K. E. (2011). Academic procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33 (3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.518597 .

Reed, M. J., Kennett, D. J., Lewis, T., Lund-Lucas, E., Stallberg, C., & Newbold, I. L. (2009). The relative effects of university success courses and individualized interventions for students with learning disabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067013 .

Reed, M. J., Kennett, D. J., Lewis, T., & Lund-Lucas, E. (2011). The relative benefits found for students with and without learning disabilities taking a first-year university preparation course. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402483 .

Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M. E., & Clark, D. (2012). Perfectionism, procrastination, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59 (2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026643 .

Rosenberg, M. S., Bott, D., Majsterek, D., Chiang, B., Gartland, D., Wesson, C., et al. (1992). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15 (1), 65–70.

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12 .

Sirois, F. M. (2014a). Out of sight, out of time? A meta-analytic investigation of procrastination and time perspective. European Journal of Personality, 28 (5), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1947 .

Sirois, F. M. (2014b). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion. Self and Identity, 13 (2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.763404 .

Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7 (2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011 .

Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2009). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who are they and how do they perform? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (6), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338746 .

Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2014). Learning disability documentation in higher education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37 (1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713486888 .

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 .

Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51 (1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12173 .

Stewart, M., Stott, T., & Nuttall, A.-M. (2016). Study goals and procrastination tendencies at different stages of the undergraduate degree. Studies in Higher Education, 41 (11), 2028–2043. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1005590 .

Trainin, G., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28 (4), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126965 .

Troiano, P. F., Liefeld, J. A., & Trachtenberg, J. V. (2010). Academic support and college success for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40 (2), 35–44.

Visser, L., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Schoonenboom, J. (2018). Differences in learning characteristics between students with high, average, and low levels of academic procrastination: Students’ views on factors influencing their learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00808 .

Wolters, C. A., Won, S., & Hussain, M. (2017). Examining the relations of time management and procrastination within a model of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 12 (3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9174-1 .

Yerdelen, S., McCaffrey, A., & Klassen, R. M. (2016). Longitudinal examination of procrastination and anxiety, and their relation to self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: Latent growth curve modeling. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.1.0108 .

Zacks, S., & Hen, M. (2018). Academic interventions for academic procrastination: A review of the literature. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46 (2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198154 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee, 12208, Qiryat Shemona, Israel

Marina Goroshit & Meirav Hen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Goroshit .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in pursuing this publication.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies or experiments with animals.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Goroshit, M., Hen, M. Academic procrastination and academic performance: Do learning disabilities matter?. Curr Psychol 40 , 2490–2498 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00183-3

Download citation

Published : 22 February 2019

Issue Date : May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00183-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Learning disabilities
• Academic procrastination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Procrastination Essay for Students and Children

500+ words on procrastination essay.

Have you ever put off your homework till the last minute? Or perhaps studied for the test only a day before? Maybe delayed writing an essay till the last possible hour? All of us are guilty of delaying tasks and putting off important work until a later date.  This is essentially procrastinating. It is the action of purposefully delaying any task or activity. In this procrastination essay, we will see the reasons and the solutions to this problem.

As we will see in this procrastination essay, this is not a rare phenomenon. Almost everyone is guilty of it at some point in their lives. So we ask ourselves this question – why do people procrastinate even when they are so busy most of the time? We live in the 21st century, where time is our most precious commodity. And yet, we waste this precious resource procrastinating our time away.

Why do we Procrastinate?

The reasons for a person procrastinating can be varied. It depends on person-to-person and situation-to-situation. However, there are some universal reasons that cause people to delay their tasks and actions. One of the most important ones is the fear of failure. When a person delays doing an important task or is disinterested in finishing it, the cause could be a deep-rooted fear of failure. It is in human nature to avoid and fear failure. So by choosing to never finish the task, we can avoid the consequences as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Another reason is the lack of focus and determination. Feeling directionless and unfocused can often cause people to lose their wills to do their jobs. This leads to procrastination. Sometimes the lack of goals and objectives is also the reason a person loses their focus. Since they do not have an end-goal in mind, they end up wasting energy in other useless tasks.

There are other reasons a person may procrastinate. Sometimes, a person may be too much of a perfectionist. This distracts them from other tasks. And then there are other reasons like laziness, low energy levels, easy distractions, etc.

Read 10 Ways to Stop Procrastinating here.

How to Stop Procrastinating?

While procrastinating is a very natural fault we all share, if it gets out of hand it can get quite troublesome. Excessive procrastination can disrupt your life and cause you to lose control of your schedules and deadlines. So when the procrastination gets out of hand, you need to reign it in and get back in control.

One way to stop procrastinating is to break down the dreaded task into little steps. If the work or the task is too overwhelming, we tend to procrastinate about it. But if the job is broken down, then we can tackle one step at a time without being overwhelmed. You can also create a detailed timetable or a timeline of some sort to help you with the steps.

At other times changing your work environment may be beneficial. It can provide you with the boost necessary to stop procrastinating and finish the task. If possible get a friend or a parent to keep a check on your progress. It helps keep the motivation levels up and encourages you to finish the task on time.

The main concern is not to over-focus or blame yourself for procrastinating sometimes. We are all a victim to procrastination from time-to-time. As long as it does not derail your entire schedule, give yourself a break and just get back to work!

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App