1
Conscientiousness and Gender as Predictors of Procrastination Among Vrije
Universiteit (VU) Students
Surname, First Name
Student #
Behavioural & Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
P_BSTATIS_1: Statistics 1
Tutor Name
Group #
15 December 2025
Word count: 972
, 2
Conscientiousness and Gender as Predictors of Procrastination Among VU Students
Procrastination is frequently cited as an obstacle that prevents students from fulfilling
their academic potential and maintaining general psychological well-being (Hailikari,
Katajavuori & Asikainen, 2021). Procrastination can be defined as a self-regulatory
deficiency that leads to an inclination to delay essential steps to attain some goal (Balkis &
Duru, 2024). Chronic procrastination often leads to study delays, stress, and lower life
satisfaction (Schouwenburg et al., 1995). These negative outcomes emphasise the importance
of identifying the underlying personality traits that contribute to this behaviour.
Conscientiousness has been identified as one of these traits (Gautam et al., 2019).
Sirois et al. (2019) supported this association by demonstrating a correlation between lower
levels of conscientiousness and higher levels of procrastination.
Gender appears to be another factor explaining variability in procrastination. Previous
research indicated that male students tend to procrastinate more than female ones (Nieberding
& Heckler, 2021). Building on this prior research, this study examines whether
conscientiousness predicts procrastination among university students and whether
procrastination varies between female and male students. It is hypothesised that there is a
negative association between conscientiousness and procrastination and that male students
procrastinate more than female students.
Method
Participants
The participants (N = 400) were selected through convenience sampling from
Statistics 1 tutorial groups at VU. Of these participants, 325 (81%) identified as female, 71
(18%) as male, and 4 participants did not report on gender (1%). Participants who did not
report gender were excluded from the gender analysis of this research (N = 396). The age of
Conscientiousness and Gender as Predictors of Procrastination Among Vrije
Universiteit (VU) Students
Surname, First Name
Student #
Behavioural & Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
P_BSTATIS_1: Statistics 1
Tutor Name
Group #
15 December 2025
Word count: 972
, 2
Conscientiousness and Gender as Predictors of Procrastination Among VU Students
Procrastination is frequently cited as an obstacle that prevents students from fulfilling
their academic potential and maintaining general psychological well-being (Hailikari,
Katajavuori & Asikainen, 2021). Procrastination can be defined as a self-regulatory
deficiency that leads to an inclination to delay essential steps to attain some goal (Balkis &
Duru, 2024). Chronic procrastination often leads to study delays, stress, and lower life
satisfaction (Schouwenburg et al., 1995). These negative outcomes emphasise the importance
of identifying the underlying personality traits that contribute to this behaviour.
Conscientiousness has been identified as one of these traits (Gautam et al., 2019).
Sirois et al. (2019) supported this association by demonstrating a correlation between lower
levels of conscientiousness and higher levels of procrastination.
Gender appears to be another factor explaining variability in procrastination. Previous
research indicated that male students tend to procrastinate more than female ones (Nieberding
& Heckler, 2021). Building on this prior research, this study examines whether
conscientiousness predicts procrastination among university students and whether
procrastination varies between female and male students. It is hypothesised that there is a
negative association between conscientiousness and procrastination and that male students
procrastinate more than female students.
Method
Participants
The participants (N = 400) were selected through convenience sampling from
Statistics 1 tutorial groups at VU. Of these participants, 325 (81%) identified as female, 71
(18%) as male, and 4 participants did not report on gender (1%). Participants who did not
report gender were excluded from the gender analysis of this research (N = 396). The age of
