See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/225713805
Correlates of Academic Procrastination and Students’ Grade Goals
Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · June 2008
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-008-9028-8
CITATIONS READS
55 1,706
7 authors, including:
Rebecca P. Ang Robert Klassen
National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Si… The University of York
150 PUBLICATIONS 3,841 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 4,274 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Lay See Yeo Isabella Y. F. Wong
National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
34 PUBLICATIONS 665 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 544 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teach at first sight: Teach at first sight: Expert teacher gaze across two cultural settings (ESRC UK PhD studentship) View project
International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lay See Yeo on 08 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
DOI 10.1007/s12144-008-9028-8
Correlates of Academic Procrastination
and Students’ Grade Goals
Crystal X. Tan & Rebecca P. Ang &
Robert M. Klassen & Lay See Yeo &
Isabella Y. F. Wong & Vivien S. Huan &
Wan Har Chong
Published online: 29 April 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract This study examined correlates of academic procrastination and students’
grade goals in a sample of 226 undergraduates from Singapore. Findings indicated
that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was significantly and negatively related
to procrastination. High self-efficacy for self-regulated learning also predicted
students’ expectations of doing well and low self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
predicted students’ expectations of not doing well academically. Additionally, help-
seeking predicted students’ expectations of doing well academically while academic
stress predicted students’ expectations of not doing well academically. Implications
for education and educational practice were discussed.
Academic procrastination can be understood as the voluntary delay of the
completion of an academic task within the expected or desired time frame despite
expecting to be worse off for the delay (Senécal et al. 1995; Steel 2007). It can also
be described as delaying the start of a task that one eventually intends to complete
until he or she experiences emotional discomfort about not having performed the
activity earlier (Lay and Schouwenburg 1993). Other researchers have explained
procrastination as a deficit in self-regulated performance (Chu and Choi 2005;
DeRoma et al. 2003). Academic procrastination can therefore be understood as a
This project was partially supported by the Undergraduate Research Experience on Campus (URECA)
program from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
C. X. Tan : R. P. Ang : L. S. Yeo : I. Y. F. Wong : V. S. Huan : W. H. Chong
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
R. M. Klassen
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
R. P. Ang (*)
Division of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
e-mail: [email protected]
136 Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
type of “anti-motivation” wherein individuals decide not to move towards carrying
out and finishing a chosen academic task. This behavior is common among adults as
well as students in the high school and college levels (Wolters 2003). For example,
80%–95% of college students engage in procrastination (Ellis and Knaus 1977) and
about 50% procrastinate in a consistent and problematic fashion (Day et al. 2000).
Academic procrastination has been found most widespread when writing term
papers, studying for examinations, and completing weekly assignments (Solomon
and Rothblum 1984), and such behavior results in detrimental academic performance
(e.g. poor grades and course withdrawal) and increased health risks such as
depression and anxiety (Semb et al. 1979; Solomon and Rothblum 1984).
It is not surprising that procrastination is closely related to motivation variables
such as self-efficacy for self-regulated learning; some researchers have conceptual-
ized procrastination as a form of self-regulatory failure (Chu and Choi 2005; Steel
2007). Individuals who posses self-efficacy for self-regulated learning know how to
direct their learning processes by setting appropriate goals for themselves, apply apt
strategies to attain their goals and enlist self-regulative influences that motivate and
guide their efforts (Zimmerman et al. 1992). Moreover, according to Zimmerman
(1989, 1990), self-regulated learners display a high sense of self-efficacy in their
capabilities, which influences the knowledge and skill goals they set for themselves
and their commitment to fulfill these challenges. In contrast, non self-regulated
learners might display low task persistence, effort and interest, which resemble
behavioral characteristics of procrastination. In his research, Wolters (2003) sought
to understand academic procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. In
a series of two studies using undergraduate samples, he found that procrastination
was strongly and negatively related to self-efficacy, and to a lesser extent, the use of
metacognitive strategies (Wolters 2003). Zimmerman et al. (1992) also found self-
efficacy for self-regulated learning to be significantly correlated with students’ grade
goals (r=.30, p<.05). Zimmerman et al.’s (1992) finding was in line with previous
research studies: the higher the perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goals students
set for themselves (Bandura and Wood 1989; Locke and Latham 1990). Collectively,
there appears to be consistent empirical evidence suggesting a negative correlation
between self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and procrastination.
Test anxiety is another variable that may be related to procrastination. Some
researchers studying test anxiety suggested that high-anxious children are not
persistent or avoid difficult tasks, manifesting behavioral characteristics similar to
that of procrastination (Hill and Wigfield 1984). There is some empirical evidence to
suggest that students who viewed a task as aversive or who expressed greater levels
of anxiety or fear of failing a task showed a higher incidence of procrastination
(Clark and Hill 1994; Lay 1994; Solomon and Rothblum 1984). Other researchers
argue that test anxiety might be related to perceptions of competence instead
(Nicholls 1976). In a similar vein, Benjamin et al. (1981) concluded that although
high anxious students seemed to put in as much effort as low-anxious students, they
appeared to be very ineffective and inefficient learners who often did not use suitable
cognitive strategies for achievement. In addition, higher levels of test anxiety were
related to lower levels of test and quiz performances, as well as grades (Pintrich and
De Groot 1990). Taken together, while there is some research linking test anxiety to
procrastination, empirical evidence is not conclusive at this point.
Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144 137
In a discourse on procrastination within an academic context, academic
achievement will invariably be discussed. Asian students appear to be scoring
above international averages on comprehensive international assessments such as
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, Kelly et al. 2000).
While Asian students’ consistently high achievement patterns have been well
documented (Sue and Okazaki 1990), higher academic stress levels and associated
mental health concerns among Asian students have also been reported. In a review
of the literature in the area of academic stress, there appears to be two main sources
of academic stress affecting Asian students: academic stress arising from self
expectations and academic stress arising from expectations of others such as parents
and teachers (Ang and Huan 2006; Wong et al. 2005). Given that test anxiety and
social anxiety have been shown to have links with procrastination, it is plausible that
stress arising from expectations might also be similarly associated with procrasti-
nation although this has not been specifically explored. Interestingly, in a large scale
survey conducted in Singapore, Ho and Yip (2003) found that a majority of students
ranked education as the greatest stressor of their lives, with examination grades
ranked as the most important aspect of school life but also the aspect they reported to
be least satisfied with. This suggests that while grades were regarded with high
importance, the students perceived that they could not attain the standards that they
deemed to be satisfactory.
Another variable that may be related to procrastination is help-seeking. Looking
for assistance and support from teachers and peers is a vital instrumental act in the
achievement domains of school and work (Karabenick 2003; Karabenick and Knapp
1988). A learner who engages in help-seeking shows awareness of difficulty he or
she cannot overcome alone, and remedies that difficulty by seeking help from peers
or instructors when needed. According to Pintrich et al. (1993), help-seeking is
considered an adaptive resource management strategy and believed to be used by
learners who are motivated. A large body of research indicates that help-seeking is a
characteristic of students capable of monitoring and evaluating what they learn
(Ablard and Lipscultz 1998; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons 1990). Knowledge
monitoring reflects an active, instrumental approach to learning, and therefore it is
expected that students who use knowledge monitoring strategies effectively will be
more likely to seek academic help when necessary.
While much has been studied about procrastination in adults and undergraduates
across academic and nonacademic contexts, and across individuals in the United
States, United Kingdom, and Australia (Ferrari et al. 2005; Ferrari and Scher 2000;
Lee 2005), there is surprisingly little research exploring this subject in an Asian
context. It is equally important to explore the correlates of procrastination, that is, to
establish its nomological net across countries and contexts. The present study seeks to
examine two related research questions. We were interested in examining the
relationship between several motivational and learning strategies variables and
academic procrastination, as well as the relationship between these same variables
and undergraduates’ grade goals or expectations regarding their grade for a common
course at the end of the academic year. Specifically, we expected self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning to be negatively related to procrastination. We expected test anxiety
and academic stress to be positively related and help-seeking to be negatively related to
procrastination, although the research base supporting these predictions is relatively
138 Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
sparse at present. Likewise, we expected self-efficacy for self-regulated learning to be
positively related to undergraduates’ expectations of doing well at the end of the
academic year, and that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning would be negatively
related to undergraduates’ expectations of not doing well at the end of the academic
year. We expected help-seeking to be positively related to undergraduates’ expect-
ations of doing well academically, while test anxiety and academic stress would be
negatively related to undergraduates’ expectations of not doing well academically.
Materials and Methods
Participants, Consent and Procedure
Participants were 226 undergraduate students (54 males and 172 females) pursuing a
major in Education from National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University in Singapore. The mean age of the undergraduate students was
21.07 years (SD=2.43). Participation rate was approximately 90%.
The purpose of the study was explained to the participants and consent to participate
in the study was obtained from all the participants involved. The participants took part
in this study on a voluntary basis. Participants’ responses were anonymous.
Questionnaires were administered to participants in an organized classroom setting.
All questionnaires were administrated in English and no translation was needed as
English is the medium of instruction for all schools and universities in Singapore.
Measures
Procrastination Scale (PS) The 16-item Procrastination Scale (Tuckman 1991)
measures procrastination tendencies in students. Participants rated items on a Likert
scale from 1 (That’s really not me) to 4 (That’s me for sure). Sample items include “I
postpone starting on things I don’t like to do” and “When I have a deadline, I wait
till the last minute”. In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for
PS was 0.85.
Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning Scale (SESRLS) The 11-item scale
(Zimmerman et al. 1992) was used to measure students’ efficacy for self-regulated
learning, defined as students’ perceived capability to use self-regulated learning
strategies such as planning and organizing their academic activities, using cognitive
strategies to understand and remember materials taught, resisting distractions,
participating in class, and structuring their environment so as to make it conducive
to study. The items on this scale were scored on a 7-point Likert Scale, from 1 (Not
well at all) to 7 (Very well). Sample items include “How well can you finish
homework assignments by deadlines?” and “How well can you study when there are
other interesting things to do?” In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha reliability
estimate for SESRLS was 0.89.
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire-Test Anxiety scale (MSLQ-Test
Anxiety) The 5-item MSLQ-Test Anxiety scale (Pintrich et al. 1993) was used to
Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144 139
measure students’ worry and concern over taking exams. The items on this subscale
of MSLQ were scored on a 7-point Likert Scale, from 1 (Not true of me) to 7 (Very
true of me). Sample items include “When I take a test I think about items on other
parts of the test I can’t answer” and “When I take tests I think of the consequences of
failing.” In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for MSLQ-
Test Anxiety was 0.78.
Academic Expectations Stress Inventory (AESI) The 9-item AESI (Ang and Huan
2006) was used to measure academic stress arising from expectations of parents/
teachers and expectations of self. Although two subscale scores can be obtained, this
study used only the total score. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (Never True) to 5 (Almost Always True). Sample items include “I feel I have
disappointed my parents when I do poorly in school” and “I feel stressed when I
don’t live up to my own standards.” In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha
reliability estimate for AESI was 0.87.
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire-Help-Seeking (MSLQ-Help-
Seeking) The 4-item MSLQ-Help-Seeking scale (Pintrich et al. 1993) was used to
measure help-seeking tendencies in students. The items on this subscale of MSLQ
were scored on a 7-point Likert Scale, from 1 (Not true of me) to 7 (Very true of me).
Sample items include “I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand
well” and “I try to identify students in my classes whom I can ask for help if
necessary.” In the present sample, the Cronbach alpha reliability estimate for MSLQ-
Help-Seeking was 0.63.
Expected Grade We asked the undergraduates to state their academic grade goals,
defined as one’s expected grade at the end of the academic year. Students were free
to write a letter grade ranging from A to F for a common foundational course
required of all Education majors. We used this procedure to obtain students’
expected grade which was similar to the procedure used in Zimmerman et al.’s
(1992) study. Of 226 undergraduates, 14.2% expected to obtain a grade of A, 68.6%
expected to obtain a grade of B, and 7.5% expected to obtain a grade of C, with
9.7% of the participants choosing not to provide a response for this question. All
undergraduates expected to pass the course with no student expecting a grade lower
than a C. We were interested to examine whether certain motivational and learning
strategies variables were significantly related to undergraduates’ expectations of
doing well or not doing well at the end of the academic year. Therefore, for the
purposes of the present study, an expectation of obtaining a grade of A was
operationalized as an expectation of doing well academically, while an expectation
of obtaining a grade of C was operationalized as an expectation of not doing well
academically.
Results
A standard multiple regression analysis was performed to examine our first research
question and its associated hypotheses, specifically, to investigate whether
140 Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
motivational and learning strategies variables such as self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning, test anxiety, academic stress, and help-seeking were significantly associated
with procrastination. The predictors as a set accounted for 44.5% of the variance in
procrastination scores, F (4, 210)=42.12, p<.05. As expected, self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning was a significant predictor of procrastination (β=−.68, p<.05);
specifically, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and procrastination have a
strong and inverse relationship whereby lower levels of self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning was associated with higher levels of procrastination (see Table 1).
Two sets of binary logistic regression analyses were performed to examine our
second research question and associated hypotheses using outcome variables of an
expectation of obtaining a grade of A and an expectation of obtaining a grade of C,
respectively. In the first logistic regression analysis, a test of the full model with self-
efficacy for self-regulated learning, test anxiety, academic stress, and help-seeking as
possible predictors, against a constant-only model was statistically significant, χ2 (4,
N=226)=34.34, p<.05, and this indicated that the predictors as a set could reliably
predict an expectation of obtaining a grade of A. The variance accounted for by the
set of predictors was approximately 27% (Nagelkerke R2 =.27) and the prediction
model accurately classified 84.5% of all the cases. Examination of individual
predictors indicated that two out of four predictors reliably predicted the outcome of
the expectation of obtaining a grade of A. The two statistically significant predictors
were self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (Wald statistic=15.11, p<.05, odds
ratio=3.46, CI for odds ratio=1.85; 6.46) and help-seeking (Wald statistic=4.98,
p<.05, odds ratio=1.70, CI for odds ratio=1.07; 2.71). The odds of an outcome of
obtaining a grade of A are 246% higher with every 1-unit increase in self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning, and 70% higher with every 1-unit increase in help-seeking.
In the second logistic analysis, a test of the full model with self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning, test anxiety, academic stress, and help-seeking as possible predictors,
against a constant-only model was statistically significant, χ2 (4, N=226)=11.86, p<.05,
and this indicated that the predictors as a set could reliably predict an expectation of
obtaining a grade of C. The variance accounted for by the set of predictors was
approximately 13% (Nagelkerke R2 =.13) and the prediction model accurately
classified 91.5% of all the cases. Examination of individual predictors indicated that
two out of four predictors reliably predicted the outcome of the expectation of
obtaining a grade of C. The two statistically significant predictors were self-efficacy for
self-regulated learning (Wald statistic=4.78, p<.05, odds ratio=0.55, CI for odds ratio=
0.32; 0.94) and academic stress (Wald statistic=6.52, p<.05, odds ratio=2.30, CI for
Table 1 Relations between motivational and learning strategies variables, and procrastination
Criterion: procrastination
Predictors B SEB β t
Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning −.48 .04 −.68 −12.08*
Test anxiety .01 .06 .01 0.21
Academic stress .10 .06 .10 1.71
Help−seeking .08 .10 .05 0.83
*p<.05
Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144 141
odds ratio=1.21; 4.34). A 1-unit increase in self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
reduces the odds of an outcome of obtaining a grade of C by 45%. In other words, the
lower an individual’s self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, the higher the chance of
obtaining a grade of C. With respect to academic stress, the odds of an outcome of
obtaining a grade of C are 130% higher with every 1-unit increase in academic stress.
Discussion
This study examined the relationship between several motivational and learning
strategies variables and academic procrastination, as well as the relationship between
these same variables and undergraduates’ expectations regarding their grade for a
common course at the end of the academic year. Findings from multiple regression
analysis indicated that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was strongly and
negatively related to procrastination. Test anxiety, academic stress and help-seeking did
not emerge as statistically significant predictors of procrastination. Results from logistic
regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was a
significant predictor for both undergraduates’ expectation of getting a grade of A as
well as their expectation of getting a grade of C. Specifically, high self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning predicted expectations of doing well academically and low self-
efficacy for self-regulated learning predicted expectations of not doing well academically.
In addition, help-seeking predicted undergraduates’ expectation of getting a grade of A
while academic stress predicted undergraduates’ expectation of getting a grade of C.
In line with previous research, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning has
emerged as the variable that was strongly and consistently related to procrastination
and students’ grade goals or expectations (e.g., Bandura and Wood 1989; Locke and
Latham 1990; Zimmerman et al. 1992). Students who perceive themselves as
capable of regulating and structuring their own learning (or self-regulated learners)
would engage in procrastination to a much lesser extent than other students. Previous
research has also linked perceived self-efficacy to students’ effort and persistence
while engaged in academic tasks, and to their class performance (Bandura 1997;
Pajares 1996). Additionally, past work has shown that students who exhibit a more
superficial engagement in academic work and who are less persistent may get lower
grades compared to other students (Meece and Holt 1993; Urdan 1997). Wolters
(2003) aptly summarized these findings by providing three reasons why students
who have self-efficacy for self-regulated learning would be able to effectively
harness their knowledge and manage their learning. First, these individuals possess
knowledge concerning cognitive strategies, and when used appropriately, increase
and enhance students’ learning. Second, these individuals possess metacognitive
skills and can effectively monitor and control important aspects of their learning
behavior. Third, these individuals exhibit adaptive motivational beliefs and attitudes
and an orientation toward mastery goals.
Findings from the present study also showed that help-seeking predicts students’
expectation of getting a grade of A. When students show adaptive help-seeking, they
are aware that they are facing difficulties in their work which cannot be overcome
independently. Thus, help-seeking appears to be indicative that students take an
active role in their own learning by requesting assistance from their peers or
142 Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
instructors when necessary. Research has found that help-seeking can maintain task
involvement, ward off possible failure, and in due course, optimize students’ chances
for mastery and autonomy (Newman 2000). With good control of their own learning
process, students might have the confidence to predict doing well academically.
Previous episodes of success after assistance might also contribute to students
having greater confidence in predicting that they would obtain a good grade at the
end of the academic year. Collectively, both self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
and help-seeking conjointly predicted students’ expectation of doing well academ-
ically. As Pintrich and De Groot (1990) reasoned, these individuals are interested in
the value of the tasks they work on in their classrooms, and in placing great
importance and value in their work, they would expect to do well in it.
On the other hand, academic stress predicted students’ expectation of getting a
grade of C. It is plausible that students who struggle with academic stress related
issues perceive that they are unable to do well academically. Put differently,
academic stress may affect students’ perception of their grade goals or expectations.
For example, results from international assessments have indicated that students in
Japan report more often that they were not doing well in mathematics despite scoring
well on achievement tests (Leong 2002). Likewise, in Singapore, while examination
grades were reported to be the most important aspect of school, it was also the one
aspect about school that students reported that they were least satisfied with (Ho and
Yip 2003). Furthermore, the association between academic stress and physical and
mental health has been well documented. For example, in Korea, graduating from a
high ranking university is a passport to a good job, high wages, and high social
status (Chung et al. 1993), hence Korean students spend large amounts of time
studying after school and on weekends, and leisure was comparatively rare. Hence it
was not surprising that Juon et al. (1994) found academic stress to be one of the
predictors of suicidal behaviors among Korean adolescents. In addition, Haines et al.
(1996) found that mental and physical health problems are associated with poorer
academic outcomes (e.g. grade point averages, retention).
Collectively, findings from this study have implications for education and
educational practice. Interventions designed to assist struggling learners and
specifically to decrease procrastination, would benefit from maintaining a primary
focus on developing self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Instead of attempting to
increase self-efficacy per se, interventions could focus on adaptive motivational
attitudes and beliefs, and cognitive and metacognitive strategies that help the learner
to plan, monitor, manage and enhance learning. Adaptive help-seeking and effective
management of academic stress within the educational context would also be helpful
for the learner.
Some limitations of the study warrant comment. This study is correlational and
cross-sectional in nature, and we did not seek to establish causal relations between
the variables. For example, the design of the current study does not allow us to
determine if procrastination should be viewed as a consequence of or an influence on
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Therefore caution needs to be exercised in
drawing conclusions from the study pertaining to causality and directionality. Also,
this study relied on data obtained from self-reports. In particular, procrastination
focused on students’ self-reports of their tendency to postpone getting started on
tasks. Ferrari and colleagues (Ferrari 1994; Harriott and Ferrari 1996) highlighted the
Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144 143
distinction between decisional and behavioral forms of procrastination. Future
studies could include behavioral indicators of procrastination so as to explore in a
more comprehensive manner the relationship between motivational and learning
strategies variables and procrastination. Finally, the present study used a sample of
undergraduates and it would be helpful for further research to establish the
generalizability of these findings to other student populations.
These limitations notwithstanding, this paper extends previous research and
contributes to the existing literature base on the relationship between motivational
and learning strategies variables and academic procrastination, as well as the
relationship between these variables and undergraduates’ grade goals. There are
limited published research studies in this topic area using Asian samples and the
present study fills this specific gap, providing some insight into understanding
correlates of academic procrastination and students’ grade goals.
References
Ablard, K. E., & Lipscultz, R. E. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving students: Relations to
advanced reasoning, achievement goals, and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 94–101.
Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2006). Academic expectations stress inventory: Development, factor analysis,
reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 522–539.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). The perceived controllability and performance standards on self-
regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.
Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. G., & Holinger, D. P. (1981). Test anxiety: Deficits in
information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 816–824.
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination
behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 245–264.
Chung, B., Kim, H., Lee, S., Kwon, K., & Lee, J. (1993). Restoring Korean education from the bandage
of entrance examination education. Seoul: Nanam.
Clark, J., & Hill, O. (1994). Academic procrastination among African American college students.
Psychological Reports, 75, 931–936.
Day, V., Mensink, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000). Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 30, 120–134.
DeRoma, V. M., Young, A., Mabrouk, S. T., Brannan, K. P., Hilleke, R. O., & Johnson, K. Y. (2003).
Procrastination and student performance on immediate and delayed quizzes. Education, 124, 40–48.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. NY: Signet Books.
Ferrari, J. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem, interpersonal
dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 673–679.
Ferrari, J. R., O’Callaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Prevalence of procrastination in the United States,
United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and avoidance delays among adults. North American
Journal of Psychology, 7, 1–6.
Ferrari, J. R., & Scher, S. J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academic and nonacademic tasks
procrastinated by students: The use of daily logs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 359–366.
Haines, M. E., Norris, M. P., & Kashly, D. A. (1996). The effects of depressed mood on academic
performance in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 519–526.
Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults. Psychological
Reports, 78, 611–616.
Hill, K., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major educational problem and what can be done about it.
Elementary School Journal, 85, 105–126.
Ho, K. C., & Yip, J. (2003). YOUTH.sg: The state of youth in Singapore. Singapore: National Youth
Council.
Juon, H., Nam, J. J., & Ensminger, M. E. (1994). Epidemiology of suicidal behavior among Korean
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 663–677.
144 Curr Psychol (2008) 27:135–144
Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered approach.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 37–58.
Karabenick, S. A., & Knapp, J. R. (1988). Help Seeking and the Need for Academic Assistance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80, 406–408.
Kelly, D. L., Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2000). Profiles of student achievement in mathematics at
the TIMSS international benchmarks: U.S. performance and standards in an international context.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Lay, C. (1994). Trait procrastination and affective experiences: Describing past study behavior and its
relation to agitation and dejection. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 269–284.
Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management, and academic
behavior. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8, 647–662.
Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in
university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 5–14.
Leong, F. K. S. (2002). Behind the high achievement of East Asian students. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 8, 87–108.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Meece, J., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 582–590.
Newman, R. S. (2000). Social influences on the development of children’s adaptive help seeking: The role
of parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review, 20, 350–404.
Nicholls, J. (1976). When a scale measures more than its name denotes: The case of the Test Anxiety
Scale for Children. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 44, 976–985.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity
of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Semb, G., Glick, D. M., & Spencer, R. E. (1979). Student withdrawals and delayed work patterns in self-
paced psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 6, 23–25.
Senécal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrastination. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 607–619.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive behavioral
correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential
self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an
explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913–920.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473–480.
Urdan, T. (1997). Examining the relations among early adolescent students’ goals and friends’ orientation
toward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165–191.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95, 179–187.
Wong, J., Salili, F., Ho, S. Y., Mak, K. H., Lai, M. K., & Lam, T. H. (2005). The perceptions of
adolescents, parents and teachers on the same adolescent health issues. School Psychology
International, 26, 371–384.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social
cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173–201.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-setting. American Educational Research Journal,
29, 663–676.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating
grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
51–59.
View publication stats
