Problem 4 – Intention to Procrastinate
Academic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioural
postponement (Howell, 2006)
Focus on: understanding the idea of temporal discounting; you don't have to know all the details of the
methods, but it is helpful to look at how the study variables are measured (e.g. behavior vs self-
reports); support found for temporal discounting? Other results?
They examined whether students’ submission patterns revealed a hyperbolic pattern of
temporal discounting, such that few assignments are submitted far ahead of the deadline and
submission of assignments accelerates at an increasing rate as the deadline becomes
imminent. They further examined whether variables related to self-regulation – namely, self-
reported procrastination, implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived
academic control – correlated with behavioural postponement. Results revealed strong
behavioural evidence of temporal discounting, especially among those who identified
themselves as procrastinators. Among the self-regulation measures, only say-do
correspondence consistently correlated with procrastination.
Procrastination = the tendency to delay initiation or completion of important tasks or to
delay tasks to the point of discomfort.
Temporal discounting = tendency to discount the value of delayed rewards.
For example, studying for an exam may be postponed while the rewards of such
behaviour (such as attainment of a good mark and/or avoidance of a poor mark) are
distant, and studying may increase in occurrence when rewards become more
immediate.
A major aim in the current research was to examine whether a hyperbolic pattern of
postponement emerges for submission of a series of computer-based course assignments.
The hyperbolic pattern of postponement can be conceptualized as a failure of self-
regulation, such that procrastinators relative to non-procrastinators have a reduced
ability to resist social temptations when the benefits of academic preparation are
distant.
Present study sought to examine the relationship between procrastination and
implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived control.
o An implementation intention (or plan) involves determining the when, where
and how of one’s behaviour in relation to accomplishing a personal goal.
o Say-do correspondence refers to the extent to which individuals do what
they say they will do or carry out promises they have made.
o Perceived academic control reflects students’ beliefs about whether factors
within themselves or outside of themselves determine academic success.
We predicted that:
Students would reveal a pattern of temporal discounting on a series of computer-
based course assignments, such that few assignments would be submitted far ahead
of the deadline and, as the deadline approaches, submission of assignments would
accelerate at an increasing rate;
This pattern would especially characterize those who describe themselves as
procrastinators;
1
, Implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived academic control
would correlate positively with each other and negatively with both self-reported
procrastination and behavioural postponement.
Method: for each assignment, students completed a subset of learning objectives for the
chapter and commented critically upon them. For each student, they recorded the time prior
to the midnight deadline that each assignment was submitted, with assignments submitted
past the deadline recorded as ‘‘0’’.
Results:
The data reveal that a large number of students made
submissions close to the submission deadline. These
findings were consistent across the seven assignments. The
data also suggest an increase in submissions about a day
prior to the deadline.
Assignment submissions follow a hyperbolic pattern, with
the number of submissions increasing in a positively
accelerated fashion as the deadline becomes imminent.
Among those high in self-reported procrastination, the hyperbolic function accounted
for 93.8% of variation in the frequency of assignment submissions. Among those low
in self-reported procrastination, the hyperbolic function still accounted for 69.2% of
the variation.
Discussion
Assignment submissions:
Our behavioural findings reveal a tendency to postpone submission of assignments
until the hours immediately prior to the submission deadline. The findings show an
increasing rate of assignment submissions as the deadline becomes imminent.
The tendency to postpone assignment submissions was most pronounced among
students who reported that they procrastinated on their assignment submissions. The
behavioural measure of postponement consistently correlated with self-report
measures of procrastination, suggesting that assignment submission tendencies
reflected delays in the doing, and not just in the submission, of assignments.
The behavioural measure did not correlate with grades. This may also reflect the
relative specificity of the behavioural measure in contrast to the more generalized
performance assessment.
Nomological network of procrastination:
The three self-report procrastination measures correlated significantly with each other
and with the behavioural measure of postponement.
The three measures of self-reported procrastination correlated significantly with say-
do correspondence.
o This suggests that those who report a tendency to procrastinate also have a
generalized tendency not to do what they said they will do.
o The generalized nature of this measure suggests overlap with personality
dimensions, particularly the five-factor dimension of conscientiousness.
The findings revealed that say-do correspondence did not correlate with the
behavioural measure of postponement, perhaps because some students promised to
themselves (quite reasonably) that they would complete the assignment within the
final hours of the deadline and subsequently did so. This tendency toward planned
2
, postponement, or ‘‘pseudo-procrastination’’, would detract from an overall association
between behavioural postponement and say-do correspondence.
Say-do correspondence correlated significantly with implementation intentions, such
that those who reported a general tendency to do as they say also reported a
tendency to make use of implementation intentions to facilitate studying.
Implementation intentions, however, were not consistently related to procrastination.
o Combining the findings concerning implementation intentions and say-do
correspondence, it appears that procrastination may involve deficits in the
latter more than in the former.
Perceived academic control correlated with course grades and these two variables
showed no consistent relationship with procrastination or the remaining self-
regulation variables.
o The lack of association between perceived control and procrastination may
reflect the fact that ‘‘control over one’s own academic success’’ can take many
forms including, perhaps, the deliberate allocation of time for the completion
and submission of assignments in the final hours leading-up to task deadline.
o It may also mean, however, that believing that one exerts significant influence
over one’s own academic success is not a safeguard against procrastination.
Despite perceiving themselves as responsible for their own academic successes,
students high in perceived control may nonetheless experience difficulty resisting the
temptation of more immediately reinforcing activities.
The correlation between perceived academic control and grades may partially reflect
a retrospective assessment of control based on performance; that is, ‘‘I did well
(poorly) in the course, therefore, I must be (must not be) in control’’.
Limitations and future directions:
Representativeness of our student sample was limited, participants were first-year
undergraduates.
Measurement limitations.
o Use of say-do correspondence and implementation intentions which were
internally consistent and face valid, and which correlated significantly with
each other, but evidence of their construct validity is lacking.
o Students’ grades in their introductory psychology course were used as an
index of their academic performance. This may not be highly reflective of their
overall academic performance, and grade point averages are stronger
correlates of procrastination than are grades in a single course.
o Behavioural measure of postponement was derived from students’ submission
of assignments into an online discussion group composed of about 10
students per group. Students could see the time at which fellow members
submitted their assignments and the content of the submissions made by their
peers the social nature of the assignment might reduce postponement
tendencies by providing pressure to demonstrate one’s academic competency
by submitting assignments ahead of the deadline; OR both informational and
normative social influence processes may promote postponement.
With precise times of submission logged automatically for later compilation and
analysis, the current methodology affords a novel and objective means of examining
variables that increase or decrease students’ proclivity to delay course work.
3
Academic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioural
postponement (Howell, 2006)
Focus on: understanding the idea of temporal discounting; you don't have to know all the details of the
methods, but it is helpful to look at how the study variables are measured (e.g. behavior vs self-
reports); support found for temporal discounting? Other results?
They examined whether students’ submission patterns revealed a hyperbolic pattern of
temporal discounting, such that few assignments are submitted far ahead of the deadline and
submission of assignments accelerates at an increasing rate as the deadline becomes
imminent. They further examined whether variables related to self-regulation – namely, self-
reported procrastination, implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived
academic control – correlated with behavioural postponement. Results revealed strong
behavioural evidence of temporal discounting, especially among those who identified
themselves as procrastinators. Among the self-regulation measures, only say-do
correspondence consistently correlated with procrastination.
Procrastination = the tendency to delay initiation or completion of important tasks or to
delay tasks to the point of discomfort.
Temporal discounting = tendency to discount the value of delayed rewards.
For example, studying for an exam may be postponed while the rewards of such
behaviour (such as attainment of a good mark and/or avoidance of a poor mark) are
distant, and studying may increase in occurrence when rewards become more
immediate.
A major aim in the current research was to examine whether a hyperbolic pattern of
postponement emerges for submission of a series of computer-based course assignments.
The hyperbolic pattern of postponement can be conceptualized as a failure of self-
regulation, such that procrastinators relative to non-procrastinators have a reduced
ability to resist social temptations when the benefits of academic preparation are
distant.
Present study sought to examine the relationship between procrastination and
implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived control.
o An implementation intention (or plan) involves determining the when, where
and how of one’s behaviour in relation to accomplishing a personal goal.
o Say-do correspondence refers to the extent to which individuals do what
they say they will do or carry out promises they have made.
o Perceived academic control reflects students’ beliefs about whether factors
within themselves or outside of themselves determine academic success.
We predicted that:
Students would reveal a pattern of temporal discounting on a series of computer-
based course assignments, such that few assignments would be submitted far ahead
of the deadline and, as the deadline approaches, submission of assignments would
accelerate at an increasing rate;
This pattern would especially characterize those who describe themselves as
procrastinators;
1
, Implementation intentions, say-do correspondence, and perceived academic control
would correlate positively with each other and negatively with both self-reported
procrastination and behavioural postponement.
Method: for each assignment, students completed a subset of learning objectives for the
chapter and commented critically upon them. For each student, they recorded the time prior
to the midnight deadline that each assignment was submitted, with assignments submitted
past the deadline recorded as ‘‘0’’.
Results:
The data reveal that a large number of students made
submissions close to the submission deadline. These
findings were consistent across the seven assignments. The
data also suggest an increase in submissions about a day
prior to the deadline.
Assignment submissions follow a hyperbolic pattern, with
the number of submissions increasing in a positively
accelerated fashion as the deadline becomes imminent.
Among those high in self-reported procrastination, the hyperbolic function accounted
for 93.8% of variation in the frequency of assignment submissions. Among those low
in self-reported procrastination, the hyperbolic function still accounted for 69.2% of
the variation.
Discussion
Assignment submissions:
Our behavioural findings reveal a tendency to postpone submission of assignments
until the hours immediately prior to the submission deadline. The findings show an
increasing rate of assignment submissions as the deadline becomes imminent.
The tendency to postpone assignment submissions was most pronounced among
students who reported that they procrastinated on their assignment submissions. The
behavioural measure of postponement consistently correlated with self-report
measures of procrastination, suggesting that assignment submission tendencies
reflected delays in the doing, and not just in the submission, of assignments.
The behavioural measure did not correlate with grades. This may also reflect the
relative specificity of the behavioural measure in contrast to the more generalized
performance assessment.
Nomological network of procrastination:
The three self-report procrastination measures correlated significantly with each other
and with the behavioural measure of postponement.
The three measures of self-reported procrastination correlated significantly with say-
do correspondence.
o This suggests that those who report a tendency to procrastinate also have a
generalized tendency not to do what they said they will do.
o The generalized nature of this measure suggests overlap with personality
dimensions, particularly the five-factor dimension of conscientiousness.
The findings revealed that say-do correspondence did not correlate with the
behavioural measure of postponement, perhaps because some students promised to
themselves (quite reasonably) that they would complete the assignment within the
final hours of the deadline and subsequently did so. This tendency toward planned
2
, postponement, or ‘‘pseudo-procrastination’’, would detract from an overall association
between behavioural postponement and say-do correspondence.
Say-do correspondence correlated significantly with implementation intentions, such
that those who reported a general tendency to do as they say also reported a
tendency to make use of implementation intentions to facilitate studying.
Implementation intentions, however, were not consistently related to procrastination.
o Combining the findings concerning implementation intentions and say-do
correspondence, it appears that procrastination may involve deficits in the
latter more than in the former.
Perceived academic control correlated with course grades and these two variables
showed no consistent relationship with procrastination or the remaining self-
regulation variables.
o The lack of association between perceived control and procrastination may
reflect the fact that ‘‘control over one’s own academic success’’ can take many
forms including, perhaps, the deliberate allocation of time for the completion
and submission of assignments in the final hours leading-up to task deadline.
o It may also mean, however, that believing that one exerts significant influence
over one’s own academic success is not a safeguard against procrastination.
Despite perceiving themselves as responsible for their own academic successes,
students high in perceived control may nonetheless experience difficulty resisting the
temptation of more immediately reinforcing activities.
The correlation between perceived academic control and grades may partially reflect
a retrospective assessment of control based on performance; that is, ‘‘I did well
(poorly) in the course, therefore, I must be (must not be) in control’’.
Limitations and future directions:
Representativeness of our student sample was limited, participants were first-year
undergraduates.
Measurement limitations.
o Use of say-do correspondence and implementation intentions which were
internally consistent and face valid, and which correlated significantly with
each other, but evidence of their construct validity is lacking.
o Students’ grades in their introductory psychology course were used as an
index of their academic performance. This may not be highly reflective of their
overall academic performance, and grade point averages are stronger
correlates of procrastination than are grades in a single course.
o Behavioural measure of postponement was derived from students’ submission
of assignments into an online discussion group composed of about 10
students per group. Students could see the time at which fellow members
submitted their assignments and the content of the submissions made by their
peers the social nature of the assignment might reduce postponement
tendencies by providing pressure to demonstrate one’s academic competency
by submitting assignments ahead of the deadline; OR both informational and
normative social influence processes may promote postponement.
With precise times of submission logged automatically for later compilation and
analysis, the current methodology affords a novel and objective means of examining
variables that increase or decrease students’ proclivity to delay course work.
3
