1.
Introduction
Research
has shown that academic
procrastination is very common among university students:
almost all
occasionally procrastinate in one or another domain of their
studies, and
approximately every second student regularly procrastinates
(Rothblum, Solomon
& Murakami, 1986; Steel, 2007). However, research in this
area often lacks
precision in the definition of procrastination, with the
concept being used to
describe different types of delay varying from functional to
dysfunctional
(e.g., Klingsieck, 2013; Schraw, Wadkins & Olafson, 2007;
Steel, 2007). An
example of functional procrastination is a situation in which
a student studies
effectively and attains favourable results under pressure of
an approaching
deadline (e.g., Choi &
Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; Schraw
et al., 2007). Examples of dysfunctional procrastination are
delaying the
decided time for beginning study processes, moving scheduled
study periods for
the future and engaging in study-irrelevant behaviour (e.g.,
Schouwenburg,
1995). The
different and even contrasting definitions of procrastination
have made it
difficult to understand the phenomenon and to follow the
research. Further, the
definitions’ lack of precision also influences the way
researchers
operationalise these constructs and the analyses they perform.
To address this
pervasive problem, Klingsieck (2013) recently provided an
excellent
meta-analysis of the different definitions of procrastination
and of the trends
in procrastination research. She suggests that a clear
distinction should be
made between procrastination and strategic delay, in
other words,
between dysfunctional and functional forms of delay.
Klingsieck (2013) proposed
that the following seven parameters be used for this purpose:
1) the delay of
an overt or covert act; 2) the act is intended to be started
and/or completed;
3) the act is necessary or of personal importance; 4) the
delay is voluntary;
5) the delay is unnecessary or irrational; 6) the act is
delayed despite being
aware of the potential negative consequences; and 7) the delay
is accompanied
by subjective discomfort or other negative consequences.
According to
Klingsieck (2013), parameters 1 and 2 characterise any form of
delay, and 3 and
4 both procrastination and strategic delay. What
differentiates procrastination
from strategic delay is the nature of the delay itself. The
delay in
procrastination is unnecessary, irrational and even harmful
(5). In strategic
delay, a student is confident that the positive consequences
will eventually
outweigh the potential negative ones, whereas procrastination
involves negative
consequences and is accompanied by subjective discomfort or
other negative consequences
(6 and 7). To summarise, “there is no functional form of
procrastination, but
there is a functional form of delay” (Klingsieck 2013, 26), in
other words,
strategic delay.
In the light of Klingsieck’s distinction,
research that has emphasised
the adaptive forms of procrastination (e.g., Choi & Moran,
2009; Chu &
Choi, 2005; Ferrari, Johnson & McCown, 1995; Schraw, et
al., 2007) could be
considered as research on strategic delay. Choi and colleagues (Choi &
Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005) have used the terms
‘passive’ and ‘active’
procrastination. By passive procrastination they refer to
postponing tasks
“until the last minute because of an inability to make the
decision to act in a
timely manner” (Choi & Moran, 2009, 196). Their definition of
active procrastination fits Klingsieck's (2013) definition of
strategic delay
where students are highly motivated by time pressure, and are
able to complete
tasks before deadlines and achieve satisfactory outcomes.
Thus, typical of
active procrastinators is a preference for working under
pressure (Chu
& Choi, 2005). Corkin, Lu and Lindt (2011) have argued
that active procrastination
is distinct from procrastination in general, and should be
referred to as
‘active delay.’ Their definition of active delay is very close
to Klingsieck's
(2013) strategic delay. Corkin et al. (2011) also showed
active delay to be
associated with adaptive self-regulatory processes and
academic achievement,
and procrastination to be associated with mastery-avoidance
goals and a lack of
metacognitive strategy. Finally, Grunschel, Partzek and
Fries (2013a) used the term
‘purposeful delay,’ which can be considered synonymous with
strategic delay.
On the basis of this distinction between
procrastination and strategic
delay, procrastination can be defined as “the voluntary
delay of an intended
and necessary and/or [personally] important activity,
despite expecting
potential negative consequences that outweigh the positive
consequences of the
delay” (Klingsieck, 2013, 26). Klingsieck’s definition
extends Steel’s
(2007, 65) definition of procrastination as “a prevalent and
pernicious form of
self-regulatory failure.” Strategic delay may be defined here
as the
voluntary delay of an intended and necessary and/or
[personally] important
activity in which positive consequences are believed to
outweigh negative
consequences in the long run. From the point of view
of individual students,
procrastination and strategic delay can be closely intertwined
when examining individuals
in different study contexts, in different study situations and
at different
times. Therefore, to understand individual dilatory behaviour
more deeply, it
is important, as Klingsieck (2013) suggests, to expand the
investigation of
procrastination from one specific context and cover longer
periods of time and
different contexts. Furthermore, when exploring the nature of
procrastination
it is important to take into account the whole procrastination
process, from
its reasons and contexts to actual procrastination behaviour
and its
consequences, as in Grunschel, Partzek
and Fries (2013b).
The
present study aims to empirically test the theoretical model
of Klingsieck
(2013), in which strategic delay is separated from
procrastination, by using a
qualitative theory-driven and person-oriented approach. As a
starting point we
use the above-mentioned definitions of procrastination and
strategic delay. In
addition, the study aims to explore motivational, volitional
and situational
factors related to procrastination and strategic delay.
1.1
Motivational, volitional
and situational factors that promote procrastination
Theoretical
approaches in procrastination research vary (Klingsieck,
2013). The present
study focuses on the motivational-volitional and situational
dimensions of
procrastination. Researchers have identified many
motivational-volitional and situational
factors that accompany procrastination. Low intrinsic study
motivation,
problems in self-regulation, poor time-management and/or
organising skills and
weak self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to be key factors
in leading to
procrastination (e.g., Grunschel et al., 2013a; Lee, 2005;
Pychyl, Morin &
Salmon, 2000; Rebetez, Rochat & Van der Linden, 2015;
Steel, 2007; Strunk,
Cho, Steele & Bridges, 2013; Tice & Baumeister, 1997;
Wolters, 2003).
Many studies have shown a link between procrastination and
both extrinsic
motivation and a lack of motivation (Grunschel et al., 2013b;
Lee, 2005; Pychyl
et al., 2000; Rebetez et al., 2015; Tice & Baumeister,
1997). Lack of
self-regulation has also been shown to increase
procrastination (e.g., Steel,
2007). Self-regulation refers to a student’s own active role
in his or her
learning process (e.g., Pintrich, 1995; Vermunt & van
Rijswijk 1988;
Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Zimmermann, 1994). Characteristic
of
self-regulation is monitoring one’s actions, using
metacognition, and
regulating motivational and emotional states (e.g., Pintrich,
1995; Zimmerman,
1994). If these important skills are missing or if they are
poorly developed,
it is more difficult for a student to control his or her
cognition, motivation,
actions and emotions (Pintrich, 1995), and this lack of
control can promote
procrastination. Students who lack self-regulation skills
often struggle alone,
whereas students with good self-regulation skills are able to
seek help for
their study-related problems (Newman, 1994; Pintrich, 2004).
Klassen, Krawschuk and Rajani (2008)
interestingly showed that low self-efficacy
for self-regulation was a stronger predictor of the
tendency to
procrastinate than poor self-regulation skills or weak
self-efficacy beliefs
alone, or other motivation variables. According to them,
self-efficacy for
self-regulation “reflects an individual’s beliefs in his or
her capabilities to
use a variety of learning strategies, resist distractions,
complete schoolwork,
and participate in class learning” (p. 918). They showed that
“self-efficacy to
structure the learning environment […] leads to timely task
completion and
successful academic achievement” (Klassen, et al., 2008, 922).
Furthermore,
problems in self-regulation, together with underachievement
and the avoidance
of tasks seen as demanding, are characteristic of a
self-handicapping strategy
(e.g., Eerde, 2003; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994; Howell &
Watson, 2007),
which in turn has been shown
to be related to
procrastination (Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984; Steel,
2007). Self-handicapping is a cognitive strategy, which
concerns avoiding
effort, and in this way preventing potential failure from
lowering self-esteem.
For persons applying a self-handicapping strategy, avoiding
effort is a way to
make good performance less likely and to protect their sense
of
self-competence (Jones
& Berglas,
1978). Furthermore, typical of such a strategy is maladaptive
task-irrelevant
behaviour and a preference for external regulation in which
responsibility for
the learning process is shifted to the teacher (Heikkilä &
Lonka, 2006). In
addition, achievement goals are related to procrastination,
and can be divided
into mastery and performance goals. Mastery goals focus on
developing new
skills, whereas performance goals focus on demonstrating
ability and skills
(e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1994). Strong
achievement goals have been
shown to reduce procrastination, whereas having weak or no
achievement goals increases
procrastination (Howell & Buro, 2009). Further, the effect
of achievement
goals on study process and study success seems to be mediated
by students’
self-efficacy beliefs. The higher the students’ perceived
self-efficacy is, the
higher they set their goals, which in turn leads to better
academic achievement
(e.g., Cheng & Chiou, 2010).
Solomon and
Rothblum (1984) found that both fear of failure and feeling
the task at hand to
be disagreeable caused procrastination. In the case of fearing
failure,
procrastination has been explained by traits such as
perfectionism, anxiety and
low self-efficacy beliefs regarding one’s skills in organizing
and regulating
oneself in order to succeed at specific tasks (e.g., Bandura,
1997).
Experiencing a task as disagreeable has been explained by
problems in time
management. Fear of failure, low self-efficacy beliefs, task
aversiveness and
laziness have all been repeatedly mentioned as factors leading
to
procrastination (e.g., Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Eerde, 2003;
Ferrari &
Tice, 2000; Howell & Watson, 2007; Rothblum et al., 1986;
Wolters, 2003).
1.2
Aims of the study
The
present study has two objectives. Firstly, we aim to
empirically test the
theoretical model of Klingsieck (2013), in which strategic
delay is separated
from procrastination, by using a qualitative theory-driven and
person-oriented
approach. Secondly, we aim to clarify on how motivational,
volitional and
situational factors are related to procrastination and
strategic delay. The
purpose is to explore long-term dilatory behaviour,
i.e.,
procrastination and strategic delay, among university students
during the first
study year. Because research on academic procrastination has
mainly focused on
short-term, task-related procrastination, knowledge about
long-term dilatory
behaviour is scarce. There are, however, a few interesting
exceptions. A good
example of a long-term research design is Wäschle, Allgaier,
Lachner, Fink and
Nückles (2014): long-term procrastination and its relation to
self-efficacy
among university students were investigated using
self-monitoring protocols
during an academic term. The present study extends long-term
dilatory behaviour
to the whole academic year.
2. Methodology
2.1
Participants
The participants comprised Bachelor-level
humanities and law students
(N=28) from the University of Helsinki, whose study pace had
been slow during
their first academic year. These individuals lacked at least a
quarter of the
credits students at the university are expected to earn each
year. Students
earning less than 46 credits during their first year must
submit a report to
the university regarding their slow study pace, and create a
detailed plan for
future studies. The 46-credit limit is also the minimum
requirement for
receiving government-financed study grants, which are an
important student
benefit. We applied purposive sampling and invited these
students to
participate in interviews after their first year of study.
Two sample groups were assembled. The
first consisted of humanities
students from the Faculty of Arts, where graduation times are
the longest (more
than four years), and the second consisted of students from
the Faculty of Law,
where the average graduation times are the shortest
(approx.. three and a half years). In
addition, the two Bachelor
curricula are different in nature: the law curriculum is
professional,
comprised mainly of law studies with few optional courses,
whereas humanities
students can freely choose their minors and there are fewer
compulsory
elements.
A total of 154 humanities students were
enrolled in three Bachelor of
Arts undergraduate programs, of whom 27 (17.5%) had earned
less than 46
credits. Of these 27 students 17 (63%)
volunteered to be interviewed.
Their mean age was 24 years, ranging from 20 to 36. Altogether
27% of these
participants were male and 73% female. Male students were
slightly
over-represented in the sample, their proportion of the whole
cohort being
23%.
A total of 247 law students were enrolled
in Bachelor of Law
undergraduate program, of whom 36 students (15%) had earned
less than 46
credits. Of these 36 students, 11 (31%) volunteered to be
interviewed. Their
mean age was 22.5 years, ranging from 20 to 26. Altogether 55%
of these
participants were male and 45% female. Similarly to the
humanities sample, male
students were over-represented, their proportion of the whole
cohort being 43%.
In the Results section, the humanities students are referred
to as H, and law
students as L.
2.2
Materials
Research
on procrastination has mainly applied quantitative approaches
in which the data
have been collected through various self-report instruments.
To our knowledge,
only four studies have applied a qualitative approach in order
to explore
procrastination or delay in academic studying (Grunschel et
al., 2013b;
Klingsieck, Grund, Schmid & Fries, 2013; Patrzek,
Grunschel & Fries,
2012; Schraw et al., 2007). These studies vary in their
definitions of
procrastination and in their qualitative methodological
designs. Furthermore,
Schraw et al. (2007) questioned whether self-report
instruments could capture
all of the possible dimensions of procrastination and
therefore chose a
qualitative approach. We also opted for a qualitative
approach, but applied it
differently compared to the four above-mentioned qualitative
studies. Our
study’s sample comprised students whose study pace had been
slow during their
first university year, but we did not particularly ask the
students whether,
when or how they procrastinated. Instead, we used in-depth
interviews to
explore the study processes as well as the expectations,
experiences, interest
and motivation of students who had studied slowly during their
first year.
Further, we applied a qualitative person-oriented approach
(e.g., Vanthurnout,
2011), meaning that we used individual students as units of
analysis.
Interviewing university students after their first study year
made it possible
to expand the scope of our investigation of procrastination
and strategic delay
from individual assignments or courses to a whole academic
year.
The
participants volunteered to be interviewed after their first
study year. The
data collection was approved by the faculties. The students
were informed that
the results of the study would be used to enhance the program
design and the
development of the teaching-learning environments. The
students gave their
informed consent to participate in the study and were told
that they could
withdraw from it at any time.
The
interviews concentrated on three broad themes, which were
based on previous
research on motivational, volitional and situational factors
related to
dilatory behaviour. The first two explored the motivational
and volitional
dimensions of dilatory behaviour, whereas the third focused on
the situational
dimensions, as follows:
a)
Students’ evaluations of
themselves as university
students, their study aims and future goals, motivation to
study, and study
success,
b)
Descriptions of the
students’ study processes and
practices, and
c)
Experiences of the
teaching-learning environment.
Contrary to
Klingsieck et al. (2013) and Grunschel et al. (2013b), we did
not specifically
ask for the students’ views, explanations or definitions of
procrastination.
Instead, the interviews focused on their aims, study
processes, evaluations and
experiences of their first study year, and thus ‘circled
around’ the
phenomenon. By doing so we wanted to ensure that the students’
spontaneous and
personal views were heard, and that our questions did not
steer the students to
explore their first study year specifically from the point of
view of
procrastination. Consequently, our interviews were longer and
less structured
than those of Schraw et al. (2007), Klingsieck et al. (2013)
and Grunschel et
al. (2013b). The fourth and fifth authors acted as
interviewers; the fourth
author interviewed the law students and the fifth the
humanities students. The
length of the interviews varied from approximately forty
minutes to an hour,
and the interviews were transcribed verbatim. For each profile,
the most typical and representative extracts were selected. The selected
extracts were translated into English. Due to this translation
process, the
extracts do not represent authentic spoken English. To ensure
the anonymity of
the interviewees, the age and gender of the participants are
not revealed. All
students are referred to as ‘she’.
2.3
Procedure
We
applied a theory-driven approach in which we used Klingsieck’s
model (2013) as
a theoretical basis for the study. We developed the analysis
process by using
the model of deductive content analysis by Elo and Kyngäs
(2008) as the
starting point. All five authors were involved in the analysis
process, which consisted
of four phases. During Phase 1 the data were prepared for the
analysis and the
unit of analysis was defined. As we applied a person-oriented
approach, we used
individual students or whole interviews as units of analysis.
We also developed
a categorisation matrix in which criteria were created for the
seven parameters
(Table 1). Klingsieck’s descriptions of the seven parameters
of her model were
quite short, which presented several obstacles with respect to
our
theory-driven approach. Therefore it was important to create
more explicit
criteria. Most challenging was to devise criteria for
parameters 4 and 5, more
precisely to define the difference between voluntary
and unnecessary
delay. Defining this
difference was particularly important, because according to
Klingsieck,
parameters 3 and 4 represent strategic delay and parameters 5
to 7
procrastination. In addition, ‘unnecessary’ and ‘irrational’
in the description
of the parameter 5 seemed very different from each other,
which made this
parameter quite broad in nature. Finally, it was important to
define what we
meant by ‘act’. We defined it as study activities, processes,
assignments and
tasks during the first study year, in other words, not as a
specific study task
at a course level.
Table
1.
The
categorisation matrix. Criteria for the seven parameters for
the theory-driven
data analysis.
|
Klingsieck’s
seven parameters of delay (2013). |
Criteria
|
|
1)
An overt or covert act is delayed. |
Evidence
of delay, e.g., a low number of credits, unfinished
courses, or not following timetables and not meeting
deadlines. |
|
2)
The start or the completion of the act is intended. |
Evidence
of studies having been started and no evidence of
dropping out from the program. |
|
3)
The act is necessary or of personal importance. |
At
least one of the following elements: intention to
graduate from university, commitment to studying or
graduating, interest in studying or motivation to
study. |
|
4)
The delay is voluntary and not imposed on oneself by
external matters. |
No
evidence of external reasons for the delay, such as
sickness or family crisis. |
|
5)
The delay is unnecessary or irrational. |
Evidence of possibilities to act or
choose another way to proceed in studying, such as
working fewer hours, spending less time on hobbies, or
using more time for studying. No evidence of clear reasons for the
delay. |
|
6)
The delay is achieved despite being aware of its
potential negative consequences. |
Evidence of the awareness of possible
negative consequences. Awareness is explicitly stated. |
|
7)
The delay is accompanied by subjective discomfort or other negative consequences. |
Evidence of subjective discomfort or of
negative consequences. Discomfort is not necessarily expressed
by using only negative words. Therefore, jokes and
laughing are scrutinized within their contexts. |
Note.
Additional criteria for Phase 3 are presented in italics.
In
Phase 2 the categorisation matrix was
used to review all data parameter by parameter. The first and
fifth authors
independently analysed the interview transcripts of all 28
students by checking
each of the seven parameters of Klingsieck’s model one by one,
moving from the
first parameter to the seventh. Each interview transcript was
therefore
analysed independently by these authors in a cycle of seven
rounds. In each
round the data were coded for correspondence with criteria for
each parameter.
For example, for parameter 1 ‘An overt or covert act is
delayed’ we coded all
data segments in the interviews, which showed evidence of
delay of an act,
i.e., delay of study activities, processes, assignments or
tasks during the
first study year. The pieces of evidence were, for example,
unfinished courses,
not following timetables or not meeting deadlines. The two
authors then
compared their findings, and were unanimous about all
participants having
fulfilled the parameters 1 to 3: all students had delayed an
overt or covert
act (1), and intended to start and/or complete the act (2). It
was also clear
that the act had been necessary or of personal importance to
all students (3).
In addition, the two authors were unanimous regarding the
voluntary versus
involuntary nature of students’ dilatory behaviour (4).
Despite difficulties in
creating criteria for ‘unnecessary’ or ‘irrational’ dilatory
behaviour (5), the
comparisons concerning this showed no differences between the
two authors.
However, the authors differed slightly regarding parameters 6
and 7. In some
cases, it had been difficult to evaluate whether a student had
been aware of
the potential negative consequences (6). For Phase 3 we
clarified the criteria
for this parameter so that a student’s awareness needed to be
explicitly
stated, and thus not inferred by the authors. Furthermore, the
two authors
discussed criteria for ‘subjective discomfort and other
negative consequences’
(7). In most of the cases, parameter 7 was easy to evaluate,
although a number
of problematic instances were found in which students had
laughed and/or joked
about their dilatory behaviour. Thus,
subjective
discomfort seemed to be sometimes disguised by joking. The
criteria for parameter
7 was further specified so that joking or laughing about
dilatory behaviour
needed to be scrutinized within their contexts, and that
individual jokes would
not automatically fulfil this parameter. At the
end of this phase, all authors agreed on the adjusted
criteria.
Phase 3 concentrated
only on parameters 4 to 7,
because the previous phase showed that each participant
undoubtedly met
parameters 1 to 3. The 17 interviews transcripts of the
humanities students
were independently analysed by the second author, and the 11
interview
transcripts of the law students were analysed by the fourth.
The analysis
results were then compared and discussed between all authors.
In Phase 4 the student
profiles were created, with all
authors being involved. This phase concentrated particularly
on analysing the
individual profiles of students who met the criteria for
strategic delay, but
not all of the criteria for procrastination.
3. Results
3.1
The three dilatory
profiles
The first aim of the study was to
empirically test Klingsieck’s model
(2013), in which strategic delay and procrastination differ
from any kind of
delay in that the delay must be voluntary. The analysis
revealed that one
humanities student did not meet this criterion, because the
slow progress of
her studies due to external factors, more precisely, by
unexpected family
crises. Altogether ten
participants (37%) comprising six
humanities and four law students, perfectly fit into
Klingsieck’s characterization of
strategic delay (i.e., parameters 1 to 4). This profile was
named Strategic
delayers. The following
extract was very typical of the students in this profile:
Well,
it
[slow study pace] was mainly because of my own choices, I
mean how to use
your time…whether to study or go to work and so on, hobbies
as well. They are
just my own choices. Of course the other school [completing
studies at another
university] affected, and partly also the fact that some
courses took place
simultaneously. (Student
H5)
Four
students met all seven
parameters of Klingsieck’s (2013) model. These students were
aware of the
negative consequences of delay. Further, their delay was
unnecessary or
irrational:
I
don’t know how the others…maybe they just are able to study
and make it work, I
can’t. In one course I should have completed two essays, but
I just couldn’t do
the other one at all. I finished one essay and got a poor
grade, but that
other…it was just, I just could not start. I even talked to
the teacher and got
good advice on how to start and what points to include, but
somehow everything just
vanished from my head. Now I doubt whether I can ever
succeed in writing
essays, but I just have to try. (Student H13)
In
addition, all four students
expressed subjective discomfort, as the following extract
shows:
I’m
independent
and ambitious, but I easily get nervous and lose
self-confidence.
Then I start feeling that I cannot do this, and that I’d
just like to leave
everything…or is it wise to spend all my time on this and
just go crazy. So I
dropped out from many courses and felt like a loser.
(Student H8)
Interestingly,
13 students’
profiles (48%) could not be determined as representing either
Strategic
delayers or Procrastinators. Of these, seven students met the
first six
parameters meaning that these students were aware of the
potential negative
consequences of their dilatory behaviour, but had not
experienced subjective
discomfort or other negative outcomes. This was the only
aspect separating
these students from the four who met all seven parameters. We
therefore created
a Procrastinators
profile consisting
of two subgroups: Procrastinators
not
expressing subjective discomfort (n=6; 22%) and Procrastinators experiencing subjective discomfort
(n=4; 15%). This
can be seen as following Klingsieck’s model, because she
mentions that
procrastination often
entails
subjective discomfort or negative consequences, but not
always. The subgroup Procrastinators
not expressing subjective
discomfort consisted of one law and five humanities
students, and the
subgroup Procrastinators
experiencing
subjective discomfort consisted of three humanities and
one law student.
Despite the negative consequences of their unnecessary delay,
Procrastinators not
expressing subjective
discomfort did not exhibit anxiety or stress:
I’m
really bad in doing anything
independently. Maybe I do some assignments, but I don’t read
much of the
literature, which I should be able to do in this field. I’m
also too lazy to
reserve time for that. For example, I feel now so tired that
there is no way
I’m going to the library even though I should. Instead, I go home and do anything else but study.
Maybe at some point
I do some studying – a little [laughs]. (Student H6)
Finally,
the remaining seven
students met the parameters 1 to 5: their dilatory behaviour
had been
unnecessary or irrational, which was not characteristic of the
Strategic
delayers’ profile. These students had the possibility to
choose another way to
proceed in their studying, such as working fewer hours,
spending less time on
hobbies, or using more time to studying. However, there was no
evidence of
subjective discomfort and of being aware of potential negative
consequences,
which were typical of the Procrastinators’ profile. These
seven students seemed
to fall between the Strategic delayers and Procrastinators,
forming another profile
we termed Unnecessarily
delaying students
(n=7, 26%). Two students represented humanities and five law.
The following
extract was very typical of them:
I’m doing
OK
and have liked it here [at the Faculty of Law], but it was
quite a surprise how
much one should read and study for exams. I’ve had many
other things to do,
work and hobbies. I kept up my study pace quite nicely
during the fall
semester, but in the spring I started to slip. I realised
too late that I
didn’t start early enough and hadn’t read enough for the
exams. (Student L1)
Figure
1 summarises how
Klingsieck’s seven parameters (2013) were met in the
humanities and law
students’ dilatory profiles. Parameters 1 to 3 were met in all
profiles.
Strategic delayers met parameters 1 to 4 and Unnecessarily
delaying students
parameters 1 to 5. The first subgroup of Procrastinators,
i.e., Procrastinators
not expressing subjective discomfort, met parameters 1 to 6,
and the second
subgroup of Procrastinators, i.e., Procrastinators
experiencing subjective
discomfort, met all seven parameters.
3.2
Motivational, volitional
and situational factors related to strategic delay and
procrastination
The
second aim of the study
was to explore how motivational, volitional and situational
factors are related
to procrastination and strategic delay. Next, we explore each
dilatory profile
in more detail from the point of view of these factors.
3.2.1
Strategic delayers
The Strategic
delayers’ evaluations of themselves as students, their
study experiences,
and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment
were positive. Their
strong volition was expressed by good self-regulation and time
management, as
shown in the following extract:
I
think I have good time-management skills, because I have
been able to do a lot
of sports and work while studying. I think there is a nice
balance now and I’m
quite happy about what I’m able to do in one week. I try to
plan my schedule
about a month ahead. (Student
H2)
Some
students had encountered minor difficulties in self-regulation
or time
management, but had already sought help or changed their study
practices after
reflecting upon their life situation and study plans, which
also reflects
volition:
At
the beginning of the fall semester I lost my study rhythm,
but now I have found
a good one. I realised that I couldn’t be successful in
studying while both
working part-time and doing a lot of sports, so I had to
lessen my exercising
hours. (Student L9)
The
students in this profile were able to describe their study
processes and
practices in greater detail than those in the other profiles.
Furthermore,
strategic delayers seemed to be more successful at combining
their studies with
family and/or working life. All Strategic delayers also showed
personal
interest in studying as well as intrinsic motivation. The
following extract is
very representative of this profile:
I
chose this field as a result of my own personal interests.
The subject has
interested me through my whole school history. It was one of
my favourite
subjects at school. In addition, I’m devoted to a hobby,
which even increases
my interest in studying, because it gives me a personal
perspective on this
field.
(Student H9)
3.2.2
Unnecessarily delaying students
Unnecessarily
delaying
students shared
the same positive study experiences and high interest and
motivation with
strategic delayers, but seemed to show weaker volition, as the
following
typical extract shows:
There
seems
to be all kinds of disrupting factors…I’m sometimes nit in
the right mood
to study effectively. It’s difficult to describe this
feeling, it’s a kind of
lack of being able to concentrate…I would say that my
biggest problem is to
begin reading. After I have started, then it becomes easier,
but then something
interrupts my studying again. (Student L11)
Typical
of Unnecessarily
delaying students was also a discrepancy between their own
study objectives and
the actual study practices, in other words an intention-action
gap:
I’m
very
good at making plans, but quite poor at executing them. I
try to allow
myself free time as well, but studying seems to steal it. I
try to use my time
effectively, but because I work part-time, it’s often
difficult to really have
enough time for everything. (Student H16)
While
Strategic delayers had succeeded through their time management
and
self-regulation in combining studies, family life and work,
Unnecessarily
delaying students had more difficulty doing so, which resulted
in slower study
progress.
3.2.3
Procrastinators
Selecting one’s own
field of study had not been a
clear or easy task for the students in both subgroups of the Procrastinators
profile. These students
had selected their major subjects either on the basis of
success in this
subject in high school, or because they could not decide upon
a better option.
They might also have seriously considered other disciplines
before finally deciding,
as the following extracts indicate:
When
I realised that I don’t have the
skills and ambition [to reach my dream profession], I
created a backup plan. I
thought of different options, but this field has been my
choice for a couple of
years now. (Student H6, subgroup
Procrastinators not expressing
subjective discomfort)
Furthermore, most
students did not have clear plans
for the future, as the following extract shows:
Well,
it's not very convincing
[future employment]. Everyone asks me what I’m going to
become when I graduate,
and I cannot answer. Maybe something. Maybe a rare type of
expert, but who
could hire someone like that? (Student
H13, subgroup
Procrastinators experiencing subjective discomfort)
Time
management was also difficult for all students in this
profile:
Just
thinking about a calendar gives me the creeps. So I didn’t
have a calendar,
because I felt it would control my life. However, I finally
gave in very
reluctantly, and started to use a mobile calendar. That,
however, was actually
a good thing, because when it beeps it reminds me of things.
Maybe I just feel
that others have more free time than I have. Maybe others
are just better at
organising. Because I’m less focused as a person, my use of
time is not
efficient, and I realise that. (Student
H12, subgroup Procrastinators not expressing subjective
discomfort)
Procrastinators had also
missed lectures and stopped
attending some courses. Further, their study
experiences seemed less positive than those of the first two
dilatory profiles.
However, the subgroups differed from each other in
terms of their study
experiences in that Procrastinators
experiencing
subjective discomfort expressed more negative emotions
and had
less positive experiences than Procrastinators
not expressing subjective discomfort.
Clear differences were
noted between the two subgroups
in self-efficacy beliefs, experienced stress and study
motivation. Procrastinators
experiencing subjective
discomfort were less motivated to study than Procrastinators not expressing subjective discomfort:
The
most important reason for my
lowered interest was a feeling of strain or burden. Now when
I think about it
logically, there were no clear reasons for that feeling, but
what can you do
about your feelings? (Student
H3, subgroup Procrastinators
experiencing subjective discomfort)
Furthermore, Procrastinators
experiencing subjective discomfort seemed to lack the
ability to evaluate
their own knowledge and skills, whereas Procrastinators
not expressing subjective discomfort had a more
realistic view of themselves
as students, describing themselves honestly and in a manner
that showed no
without anxiety or stress:
Lazy.
Aimless. Floating. So I’m not the kind of person who has
clear long-term
objectives. I could be more active. In high school I liked
that someone was
watching and monitoring me. At university I should also have
someone with
authority to push me forward. You know, it’s too easy here
to think that I will
do this the next year, so delaying is not that harmful. I
know that some
students succeed at being efficient and organized, but I’m
not the only one
like this. (Student H12, subgroup
Procrastinators not expressing subjective discomfort)
The first study year of
Procrastinators experiencing subjective discomfort
had been much
more difficult than they had anticipated, and they were
puzzled by the problems
that had arisen. The
vicious
circle of procrastination resulted from a combination of lack
of regulation
skills, high workloads, lack of interest, low self-efficacy
beliefs, and
exhaustion, as the following typical extract indicates:
From
primary to upper secondary school I was a really good
student, but now I feel
that I can’t learn anything about any topic. This depresses
me. I don’t have
enough time to really learn something, and that feels bad.
Maybe I’m aiming too
high, and when I can’t reach my aims, I get depressed. (Student L4, subgroup
Procrastinators experiencing
subjective discomfort)
The
students were unevenly distributed in the profiles in terms of
their
discipline, except for the profile Strategic delayers, in
which about 37% of
both humanities and law students belonged. The humanities
students were
over-represented in both Procrastinators subgroups. Almost
half of the law
students belonged in the profile Unnecessarily delaying
students whereas only
13% of the humanities belonged in this profile.
4. Discussion
The
present study empirically tested Klingsieck’s (2013)
theoretical model, and
provided support for the suggestion to differentiate
procrastination from strategic delay. Interestingly, our
results showed that
dilatory behaviour is even more complex than Klingsieck
suggests. Our in-depth
qualitative analyses revealed forms of dilatory behaviour
lying somewhere
between procrastination and strategic delay, that do not meet
the criteria for
either strategic delay or procrastination: Unnecessarily
delaying students
showed no awareness of potential negative consequences and did
not exhibit
subjective discomfort, and Procrastinators not expressing
subjective discomfort
did not meet Klingsieck’s (2013) seventh criterion of
subjective discomfort or
other negative consequences. In addition, the results
interestingly showed only
a small percentage of students meeting all seven criteria of
procrastination,
making this form of dilatory behaviour the least common in our
data.
The
Strategic delayers had good self-regulation and
time-management skills as well
as self-efficacy for self-regulation, which was shown by
Klassen et al. (2008)
to impede procrastination. These students also exhibited
strong achievement
goals as well as interest and intrinsic motivation with
respect to studying,
all of which has been shown by
Howell and Buro (2009) to reduce procrastination. Furthermore, they
exhibited good metacognitive and reflective skills in
evaluating and developing
their study processes and practices. These students’ dilatory
behaviour was due
to their life situations and how they had prioritised their
study tasks.
Unnecessarily
delaying students were also motivated to study and showed an
interest in their
majors, as was the case with Strategic delayers. Many had
quite clear study
plans as well. However, typical of these students was an
intention-action gap:
they often could not execute their study plans, which
indicates problems in
self-regulation and time management. This is in line with
studies showing a
relation between self-regulation problems and dilatory
behaviour (e.g., Corkin
et al., 2011; Wolters, 2003).
Both
subgroups of the Procrastinators profile lacked
self-regulation and
time-management skills, had low self-efficacy for
self-regulation, and interest
in their major subject was lower than that of the two other
profiles. They also
lacked intrinsic motivation and clear goals. However,
Procrastinators not
expressing subjective discomfort seemed more motivated and
interested than
Procrastinators experiencing subjective discomfort. These
factors are in line
with research showing that low intrinsic study motivation,
problems in
self-regulation, poor time-management skills and weak
self-efficacy beliefs to
be key factors in promoting procrastination (e.g., Grunschel,
et al., 2013a; Lee,
2005; Pychyl, et al., 2000; Steel, 2007; Strunk, et al., 2013;
Tice &
Baumeister, 1997; Wolters, 2003).
Procrastinating students
often mentioned personal
characteristics when explaining their slow study pace, which
could indicate
trait procrastination (Schouwenburg, 1995). This is consistent
with research
that has emphasized the maladaptive nature of procrastination
(e.g., Pychyl, et
al., 2000; Schouwenburg, 1995; Solomon & Rothblum,
1984; Steel,
2007). Shraw et al. (2007) have reported that some students
postpone their
studying because of fatigue and burnout.
Wäschle et al. (2014)
showed that low goal achievement
decreased perceived self-efficacy and increased
procrastination. According to
them, this might be due to both an expectation of repeated
failure as well as negative
emotions, which was also evident in our ‘procrastinating’
students. Wäschle et
al. (2014, 112) further showed that “instead of increasing
their learning and
raising cognitive strategy use, these students tended to
irrationally postpone
their studying.” The procrastinating students in our study
also seemed to
‘freeze’ instead of act when confronting study problems, thus
indicating a
self-handicapping strategy (Eerde, 2003; Garcia &
Pintrich, 1994; Howell
& Watson, 2007).
Other
interesting differences were found between the humanities and
law students. As
mentioned earlier, the average graduation time in humanities
is longer than in
law. Our results were in line with this, because the
percentage of humanities
students was higher in the Procrastinators profile, whereas
that of the law
students was higher in the Unnecessarily delaying students
profile. The
difference is probably due to situational factors: the law
curriculum consists
largely of mandatory legal courses and leaves little freedom
of choice, whereas
humanities students must make their own decisions concerning
their minors. Thus
the results suggest that having the freedom to choose between
numerous
possibilities may promote procrastination, particularly for
students with low
self-regulation skills. However, because of the small sample
size, we cannot
make any generalisations of the relation between study context
and the nature
of dilatory behaviour.
Our
study has several limitations. The number of participants was
quite low and the
students represented a narrow range of academic disciplines,
i.e., humanities
and law. In addition, even though our qualitative approach and
means of data
collection were chosen deliberately, it is possible that
memory distortion may
have affected our data. Utilising the experience-sampling
method developed by
Csikszentmihalyi, Larson and Prescott (1977) combined with
interviews might
have improved the participants’ memories of their first study
year. Pychyl et
al., (2000) have successfully applied this method in
procrastination research.
Another option would have been to complement interviews with
other kinds of
self-report methods, such as self-monitoring protocols
(Wäschle et al., 2014)
or learning diaries. However, as all previously mentioned
data-collection
methods are based on self-reports, it would be important in
the future to
complement self-report data with evaluations by tutors or
study counsellors. It
is also possible that errors were made in assigning students
to dilatory profiles.
However, we tried to minimise the errors by involving all five
authors to
independently assign students to the dilatory profiles.
Much
of the research to date on procrastination and dilatory
behaviour has applied
mainly quantitative approaches and has focused on short-term
procrastination.
Our theory-driven, person-oriented approach and our focus on
long-term
procrastination yielded a profound understanding of factors
related to slow
study progress among university students. In our view, future research
into dilatory behaviour should endeavour either to be
qualitative or use
mixed-method or multi-method designs. In this way it is
possible to better
capture the richness and variation in dilatory behaviour.
The
results of the study can be applied to support the individual
study paths of
university students. The results imply that students
representing different
dilatory profiles need different kind of support during their
studies. While
Strategic delayers might do well in a study environment
offering ample
alternatives and a freedom of choice, for Unnecessarily
delaying students this
kind of an environment can be more harmful. Unnecessarily
delaying students can
benefit from support for developing their self-regulation and
time-management
skills. Further, the results indicate that Procrastinators
would have needed
help from the beginning of their university studies, and
during the spring term
the latest, because the harmful effects procrastination were
clearly visible
after the first study year. These students’ self-efficacy
beliefs had already
weakened and they had started to doubt their skills,
motivation and interest in
their study fields. Therefore, it is important to develop such
study-counselling
practices that can help diagnosing and solving students’ study
problems at an
early stage.
Keypoints
The study empirically
tested Klingsieck’s (2013)
theoretical model, and provided support for the suggestion to
differentiate
procrastination from strategic delay.
A qualitative approach
can better capture the richness
of dilatory behaviour.
The theory-driven,
person-oriented approach and the
focus on long-term procrastination yielded a profound
understanding of factors
related to slow study progress among university students.