Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The relationship between procrastination and academic performance:

A meta-analysis
Kyung Ryung Kim a,1, Eun Hee Seo b,
a
b

Department of Teacher Education, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodeamun-gu, Seoul 120-749, South Korea
Department of General Education, Seoul Womens University, #920 Humanities & Social Science Hall, 621 Hwarangro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul 139-774, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 6 February 2015
Received in revised form 25 February 2015
Accepted 26 February 2015
Available online 18 March 2015
Keywords:
Procrastination
Academic performance
Self-report
Measure
Meta-analysis

a b s t r a c t
Previous ndings on the relationship between procrastination and academic performance are inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis of 33 relevant studies involving a total of 38,529 participants to
synthesize these ndings. This analysis revealed that procrastination was negatively correlated with
academic performance; this relationship was inuenced by the choice of measures or indicators. The
use of self-report scales interfered with detection of a signicant relationship between procrastination
and academic performance. The demographic characteristics of participants in individual studies also
affected the observed relationship. Implications of this meta-analysis are discussed.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Procrastination, in the shape of delaying completion of an
assignment or putting off studying for an examination, is quite
common among the worldwide student population. Estimates
indicate that 80-95% of college students (OBrien, 2002) or at least
half of all students (Ozer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984) engage in procrastination and the prevalence of
the phenomenon appears to be growing (Steel, 2007).
Procrastination and its causes and effects, are therefore an interesting research subject.
There is a considerable body of empirical research on the
relationship between procrastination and performance, particularly academic performance. The results have, however been
inconsistent. Researchers have reported negative effects of procrastination on learning and achievement, such as lower grades
and course withdrawals (e.g. Aremu, Williams, & Adesina, 2011;
Balkis, 2013). The time pressure resulting from procrastination
can reduce accuracy and punctuality, and on this basis it can be
argued that procrastination will negatively inuence performance
(Van Eerde, 2003).
Other studies have failed to detect an association between procrastination and academic performance (e.g. Seo, 2011; Solomon &
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 10 2641 5952.
E-mail addresses: k.ryung@yonsei.ac.kr, topfam@hanmail.net
chrieve@swu.ac.kr, chrieve@hanmail.net (E.H. Seo).
1
Tel.: +82 10 7476 0314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038
0191-8869/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(K.R. Kim),

Rothblum, 1984) or even reported that procrastination had a positive effect on academic achievement (e.g. Brinthaupt & Shin, 2001;
Schraw & Wadkins, 2007). It has been suggested that students of
greater ability procrastinate more than those with lower ability
(Ferrari, 1991). Ferrari concluded that procrastination tended to
increase during the course of a students academic career, as learning became more self-regulated.
The nature of the relationship between procrastination and academic performance remains ambiguous as the data do not converge. The inconsistent results may be due to the use of small
samples; if this is the case a meta-analysis which integrates the
results of multiple studies statistically might determine the nature
and magnitude of any association between procrastination and
academic performance.
The conicting results of previous studies are also likely to be
due to the inuence of factors such as use of different measures,
use of contaminated self-report data and differences in the demographic characteristics of samples. Van Eerde (2003) insisted that
although many of the effect size categories were heterogeneous
among studies about procrastination, indicating that moderators
may play a role, the majority of studies did not account for
moderators. We therefore hypothesized the relationship between
procrastination and academic performance would be subject to
inuence by one or more variables. More specically we predicted
that the observed association would be inuenced by (a) the choice
of procrastination measure; (b) the choice of performance indicator; (c) use of self-report data and (d) the demographic prole of
the sample.

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

1.1. Procrastination measures

The choice of procrastination measure is affected by ones theoretical perspective on procrastination, broadly whether it is viewed
as (a) a functional or dysfunctional behavior and (b) a behavior or a
trait.
Researchers have traditionally regarded procrastination as a
maladaptive or dysfunctional strategy used in an attempt to cope
with conict or choices (Mann, 1982). Lay and Schouwenburg
(1993) and Solomon and Rothblum (1984) argued that because
denitions of procrastination refer to both behavioral delay and
psychological distress one should consider the magnitude of
procrastination in conjunction with the magnitude of its
negative psychological consequences; assumed to be emotional
discomfort, including guilt, depression, anxiety or stress. From this
perspective procrastination is a wholly dysfunctional behavior. The
Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984), the most widely used scale for measuring
procrastination in an academic context, is a representative
procrastination inventory based on the assumption that
procrastination is dysfunctional. It consists of items asking students to report the frequency with which they procrastinate, the
extent to which procrastination causes them a problem and their
desire to stop procrastination in six specied academic domains;
it also includes items designed to elicit reasons for procrastination.
Decisional Procrastination Scale (DP; Mann, 1982) is based on the
conict theory of decision making (Janis & Mann, 1977), according
to which procrastination is a maladaptive coping behavior (Ferrari,
Johnson, & McCown, 1995). The Tuckman Procrastination Scale
(TPS; Tuckman, 1991) assesses academic procrastination resulting
from inability to self-regulate or control task schedules (Ferrari
et al., 1995) is another inventory designed to measure procrastination as a maladaptive behavior (Hensley, 2014).
Recently, several researchers have described procrastination as
a functional delay (e.g. Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Choi &
Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; Howell & Watson, 2007). The word
procrastination originated from the Latin verb procrastinare, meaning putting forward until tomorrow, which does not have negative
connotations. Procrastination acquired negative connotations during the Industrial Revolution (Ferrari et al., 1995); until then procrastination was viewed neutrally and could be interpreted as a
wise course of (in)action (Steel, 2007). Procrastination can be
viewed as process that is regulated by internal, individual-level
norms for delay; it may be intentional and it may also be a wise
strategy (Van Eerde, 2003). Working within this framework Choi
and Moran (2009) developed and validated an Active
Procrastination Scale which consisted of items assessing outcome
satisfaction, preference for pressure, intentional decisions to procrastinate and ability to meet deadlines.
Early research on procrastination focused exclusively on the
behavioral aspects of procrastination, conceiving procrastination
as a task-specic avoidance behavior (Schouwenburg, 2004) i.e.
as situationally determined and relatively unstable across time
and contexts (Saddler & Buley, 1999; Wolters, 2003). In this paradigm the causes of procrastination are task or context variables
that increase aversion for the task or fear of failure, rather than
individual-level variables. Behavior-oriented measurement scales
such as the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI;
Schouwenburg, 1995) only assess behavior during the preceding
week.
If dilatory behavior becomes chronic and habitual it can be considered a typical response, or as a habit or trait (Schouwenburg,
2004). Nowadays, most researchers regard procrastination as a
personality trait which is stable across time and contexts.
Measurement scales for trait procrastination, including Lays
(1986) General Procrastination (GP) Scale and Aitkens (1982)

27

Procrastination Inventory (API), investigate behavior that is often

or usually displayed in various situations (Schouwenburg, 2004).
In summary, various measures of procrastination based on different theoretical perspectives have been used to examine the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance.
Because they are based on differing, sometimes conicting definitions of procrastination it is plausible to assume that they would
produce different results. We hypothesized that the choice of procrastination measure would inuence the observed relationship
between procrastination and academic performance.
1.2. Indices of academic performance
Various indices of academic performance including self-reported GPA, examination grades, assignment grades etc. have been
used to examine the relationship between procrastination and academic performance. Some researchers have reported that the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
depends on the choice of performance indicator, for example Tice
and Roy (1998) found that the correlation between procrastination
and academic performance varied from .26 to approximately
.66 depending on whether academic performance was indexed
using various examination or assignment grades. Jackson, Weiss,
Lundquist, and Hooper (2003) found that procrastination, measured using Tuckmans scale, was negatively correlated with
cumulative grade point average (GPA) but was not associated with
American College Test score (ACT). We hypothesized that the
choice of academic performance indicator would affect the
observed relationship between procrastination and academic
performance.
1.3. Differences between self-report and external data
Some researchers have suggested that the lack of consistency in
research on the relationship between procrastination and performance is probably the result of using contaminated self-report
data (e.g. Rotenstein, Davis, & Tatum, 2009; Steel, Brothen, &
Wambach, 2001). Previous studies have relied on self-report measures of procrastination, which are only weakly related to external
indicators of procrastination (Rotenstein et al., 2009). One study
(Steel et al., 2001) reported that the correlation between observed
or externally assessed procrastination and self-reported procrastination was 0.35 while the correlation between observed procrastination and course grade was 0.87; the correlation between
self-reported procrastination and course grade was only 0.36.
Self-report performance data, especially GPAs, are often used in
research because they are easy to obtain; however there is ongoing
concern about their reliability. Disappointingly, in their metaanalysis of the validity of self-reported GPAs, class ranks and test
scores Kuncel, Crede, and Thomas (2005) showed that self-reported grades were less valid than many researchers believe.
More than twice as many students as under-reported their grade
over-reported it (Bahrick, Hall, & Berger, 1996) in another study
the ratio of over-reporting to under-reporting was even higher, at
481 (Zimmerman, Caldwell, & Bernat, 2002). These results indicate that the using self-report data may bias the results of
investigations into the association between procrastination and
academic performance.
1.4. Demographic variables
Unfortunately there has been little reported research on procrastination among younger students, for instance elementary
and secondary students. Most studies of procrastination have used
samples of college students or adults. Steel (2007) and Van Eerde
(2003) found that younger people procrastinate more than older

28

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

people. ODonoghue and Rabin (1999) interpreted this nding as

an indication that as individuals age, they develop strategies for
overcoming or avoiding procrastination. Steel (2007) also argued
that as individuals age they would learn to avoid putting off tasks.
There is little evidence on cultural variations in the prevalence
of procrastination. One study (Ferrari, OCallaghan, & Newbegin,
2005) found that the reported prevalence of avoidant and arousal
procrastination was higher in English citizens than U.S. or
Australian citizens. They concluded that chronic procrastination
was common among westernized, individualistic, Anglophone
countries.
1.5. The purpose of this study
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the results of previous studies of the relationship between procrastination and academic performance and to identify factors which inuence the
relationship. This study had two specic objectives, (a) to calculate
an overall effect size for the association between procrastination
and academic performance and (b) to explore whether the association between procrastination and academic performance was
inuenced by the choice of measures or indictors, use of self-report
data or demographic variables.
These objectives were addressed using meta-analysis, which
helps to identify source of inter-study variability and can uncover
interesting associations between studies.
2. Methods
2.1. Sample
We searched the ERIC, Web of Science, Science Direct and
Proquest databases for relevant studies, primarily using the keywords procrastination, delay, performance, academic performance,
achievement and academic achievement. We restricted the search
to articles published between 1984 and 2014 because the most
widely used measure of procrastination, the PASS, was developed
in 1984.
Retrieved studies were only included in the analysis if they met
the following three criteria, (1) written in English; (2) reported
correlation coefcients and (3) reported measures on both procrastination and academic performance. Using these inclusion criteria we selected a sample of 33 studies, based on a total of 38,529
participants. Table 1 summarizes the studies included in the metaanalysis.
2.2. Meta-analytic procedures
First, we coded the sample size of each study, the correlation
coefcient (r) for procrastination and academic performance, the
procrastination index used (PASS; API; TPS; APSI, GP, Choi and
Morans (2009) scale; measure developed by researcher or the
others), whether procrastination data were self-reported or based
on external assessment, the performance index used (GPA; midterm or nal examination score; assignment grade; quiz score;
course grade; rating of homework or ACT), whether performance
data were self-reported or based on external assessment, age (secondary school student; college student; adult) and geographical
region (Asia; America; Europe; Africa or Oceania). When the publication did not provide the data we required we asked the authors
to provide this information by email; some did not respond and
this resulted in missing data.
Next, we assessed heterogeneity using the homogeneity statistic
Q for selecting xed or random effects models. We also calculated
the I2 index using the chi-square test to calculate the percentage

true heterogeneity. Huedo-Medina, Sanchez-Meca, MartinMartinez, and Botella (2006) dened low heterogeneity as
I2  25%, medium heterogeneity as I2  50% and high heterogeneity
as I2  75%.
We calculated weighted correlation coefcients (weighted
average r) using the sample sizes for individual studies and we also
computed average z and 95% condence intervals.
We hypothesized that the choice of measures, type of data (selfreport or external observation) and demographic prole of the
sample might affect the observed relationship between procrastination and performance. Additional analyses were carried
out to evaluate the inuence of these variables. First, we divided
the studies into 27 subgroups; eight subgroups for procrastination
measure, two subgroups for type of procrastination data (self-report; external observation), seven subgroups for performance indicator, two subgroups for type of performance data (self-report;
external observation), three subgroups for age, and ve subgroups
for geographic region. Next we assessed heterogeneity using Q and
the I2 index for selecting xed or random effects models and computed weighted correlation coefcients, average z and 95% condence intervals for each subgroup.
Finally, we applied the fail-safe N and tolerance level tests to
determine whether we could safely ignore potential publication
bias i.e. a systematic difference in the strength or direction of
associations in unpublished or unretrieved studies compared with
studies in our sample. According to Rosenthal (1979), researchers
should calculate the number of studies needed to convert the
results. If the number of additional studies needed to overturn
the conclusion is larger than the tolerance level, the nding is
robust. That is, le drawer problem is improbable.
All analyses were carried out using the MIX program (Metaanalysis with Interactive Explanations).

3. Results
Table 2 shows the results of meta-analysis of the correlations
between procrastination and academic performance; it reports
the number of studies (k), total sample size across studies (n),
weighted average effect size (r), average Fishers (z), 95% condence intervals, the heterogeneity statistics Q and I2 (%) which
were used to assess the percentage of total variance which was
attributable to between-study variance, fail-safe N, and tolerance
level. Before examining the effect size on each of variance, we computed the signicant probabilities of heterogeneity. The value of Q
was signicant (Q = 2247.29, p < .01, I2 = 97.37%), indicating that
the null hypothesis (homogeneity in the effect sizes for the correlation between procrastination and academic performance) should
be rejected, so we used a random effects model. The weighted
mean correlation between procrastination and academic performance was signicant (r = .13, p < .01). The value of Rosenthals
fail-safe N indicated that 4012 additional opposite results would
be needed to overturn the nding; this implies that the nding is
robust as the fail-safe N is larger than the relevant tolerance level.
When the analyses indicated signicant sample heterogeneity,
variances were calculated using a random effects model; a xed
effects model was used for homogeneous variables. The weighted
mean correlation between academic performance and procrastination was signicant when procrastination was measured using the
API (r = .20, p < .01), TPS (r = .18, p < .01), Lay scale (r = .33,
p < .01), Choi and Moran scale (r = .25, p < .01) or a scale developed
by the researcher (r = .28, p < .01); the association was not signicant when procrastination was measured using PASS (r = .05,
p > .05). The results related to PASS and the others were not robust
because both of them had fail-safe Ns which were less than the
relevant tolerance level. Procrastination measured using Choi and

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

29

Table 1
Studies included in the meta-analysis.
No

Author (year)

Sample

Procrastination scale

Performance measurement

1
2

Akinsola, Tella, and Tella (2007)

Aremu et al. (2011)

150
200

Tuckman
Lay

Course grade
GPA

Babadogan (2010)

77

Cakici

GPA

Balkis, Duru, and Bulus (2013)

281

API

GPA

Balkis (2013)

290

API

GPA

Beck, Koons, and Milgrim (2000)

411

PASS

Examination score

Burnam, Komarraju, Hamel, and Nadler (2014)

393

PASS

GPA

Choi and Moran (2009)

185

Chu and Choi (2005)

10

Corkin et al. (2011)

206

By researcher, Chu and

Choi
By researcher, Choi and
Moran
PASS

GPA

Course grade

11

Demeter and Davis (2013)

123

PASS

Quiz

12

Duru and Balkis (2014)

261

Aitken

GPA, ACT

13

Feizche, Young, and Hickson (2003)

206

PASS

GPA; course grade; assignment grade

14

Hensley (2014)

320

15

Howell and Watson (2007)

Choi and Moran,

Tuckman
PASS, Tuckman

Mid-term and nal examination scores; course

grade
Course grade

16

Howell, Watson, Powell, and Buro (2006)

Jackson et al. (2003)

219

PASS, Tuckman, By
researcher
Tuckman

Course grade

17

GPA; ACT score

18

Kennedy and Tuckman (2013)

671

Tuckman

Course grade

19
20

Kim and Seo (2013)

Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani (2008)

278
261

Choi and Moran

Tuckman

GPA
GPA

21
22
23

425
264
9,812

Lay
PASS
By researcher

GPA
Course grade
Course grade

40

Tuckman

Assignment grade

25

Klingsieck, Fries, Horz, and Hofer (2012)

Lowinger, He, Lin, and Chang (2014)
Lubbers, Margaretha, Werf, Kuyper, and
Hendriks (2010)
Michinov, Brunot, Le Bohec, Juhel, and Delaval
(2011)
Moon and Illingworth (2005)

Africa, college students

Africa, secondary
students
Europe, college
students
Europe, college
students
Europe, college
students
Europe, college
students
America, college
students
America, college
students
America, college
students
Europe, college
students
America, college
students
Europe, college
students
America, college
students
America, college
students
America, college
students
America, secondary
students
America, college
students
America, college
students
Asia, college students
America, college
students
Europe, Adults
Asia, college students
Europe, secondary
students
Europe, Adults

349

API

Mid-term and nal examination scores

26

Orpen (1998)

102

Schouwenburg

Final examination score

27

Owen and Newbegin (1997)

418

PASS, Tuckman

Course grade(English, math)

28

Rotenstein et al. (2009)

297

By researcher

Homework, course grade

29
30
31

Seo (2011)
Seo (2012)
Solomon and Rothblum (1984)

172
172
342

By researcher, PASS
Choi and Moran
PASS

Mid-term examination score

Mid-term examination score
Quiz

32

Steel et al. (2001)

152

By researcher

33

Tice and Baumeister (1997)

44

Lay

Quiz; mid-term and nal examination scores;

course grade
Examination scores; assignment grade; term
grade

24

America, college
students
Oceania, secondary
students
Oceania, secondary
students
Europe, college
students
Asia, college students
Asia, college students
Europe, college
students
America, college
students
America, college
students

Morans scale was positively correlated with performance whereas

procrastination measured using other scales was negatively correlated with performance.
The weighted mean correlation between procrastination and
performance was signicant when performance was indexed by
GPA (r = .12, p <.01), assignment grade (r = .64, p < .01), quiz
score (r = .29, p < .01) or course grade (r = .24, p < .01), but not
when performance was indexed using mid-term or nal examination score (r = .11, p > .05). The correlation was highest when performance was indexed using assignment grade. The ndings on the

230

170
95

GPA

association between performance and procrastination were not

robust when performance was indexed using mid-term or nal
examination score or homework rating.
The weighted mean correlation between procrastination and
performance was highest for the secondary school student subgroup (r = .32, p < .01). Procrastination was negatively associated
with performance in the college student subgroup (r = .16,
p < .01). The weighted mean correlation between procrastination
and performance was signicant in the Oceania (r = .46, p < .01),
Europe (r = .19, p < .05) and America (r = .18, p < .01) subgroups

30

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

Table 2
The correlation between procrastination and academic performance.
Average
z

Condence interval
(95%)

I2 (%)

Fail safe N

Tolerance
level

3.19**

[ .21,

.05]

2247.29**

97.37

4012

420

.05
.20
.18
.33
.25
.28

1.15
4.11**
2.26*
4.02**
10.21**
2.66**

[ .15, .04]
[ .29, .10]
[ .45, .07]
[ .49, .17]
[.20, .30]
[ .40, .01]

169.30**
44.60**
824.17**
51.75**
7.21
2062.59**

91.14
84.31
98.67
88.40
30.69
98.64

61
213
548
180
147
1251

95
50
70
45
40
155

.17

3.07**

[ .28,

06]

.69

20

35,878
2651

.18
.16

4.76**
1.76

[ .18,
[ .18,

.07]
.05]

1550.41**
158.55**

95.74
93.06

789
669

350
80

17
22
4
8
28
2
1

5390
4752
350
1377
25,847
594
219

.12
.11
.64
.29
.24
.15

2.82**
1.46
3.95**
2.90**
4.52**
3.68**

[ .20, .04]
[ 25, .03]
[ .42, .01]
[ .74, .05]
[ .34, .14]
[.07, .23]

152.03**
582.20**
9.81*
620.36**
1567.61**
.06

89.48
96.56
69.42
98.87
98.28
0

325
91
41
319
1203
4

95
120
30
50
150
20

Self-report data
Yes
No

20
62

6503
32,026

.08
.21

1.78
4.87**

[ .16, .01]
[ .29, .12]

238.49**
3271.08**

92.03
98.17

244
1673

110
320

Demographic characteristics
Age
Secondary school
College
Adult

8
71
3

21,598
15,638
1293

.32
.16
.15

4.25**
3.36**
2.08*

[ .46,
[ .25,
[ .30,

.17]
.07]
.01]

65.38**
2874.03**
1.36

89.29
97.60
78.47

1153
10,411
16

50
365
25

Geographical region
Asia
America
Europe
Africa
Oceania

7
60
9
2
4

1332
13,349
21,826
350
1672

.00
.18
.19
.25
.46

.05
4.64**
5.44*
.44
3.84**

[
[
[
[
[

.16, .15]
.28, .09]
.26, .12]
.87, 1.37]
.70, .23]

50.40**
2247.29**
108.47**
194.35**
101.35**

90.08
97.37
92.62
99.49
97.04

0
28,541
420
40
585

45
310
55
20
30

Sample total n

82

38,529

.13

17
8
12
7
6
29

4809
2577
3301
1661
1505
24,267

1
2

102
307

Self-report data
Yes
No

68
14

Performance indicators
GPA
Mid-term or nal examination scores
Assignment grade
Quiz
Course grade
Homework
ACT

Total
Procrastinationperformance
Procrastination indicators
PASS
API
TPS
GP
Choi & Moran
Measures developed by the
researchers
APSI
The others

*
**

Weighted
r

p < .05.
p < .01.

but not in the Africa (r = .25, p > .05) or Asia (r = .00, p > .05) subgroups. The correlation between procrastination and performance
was not robust in the adult subgroup or the Asia subgroup.
Self-reported procrastination was negatively associated with
performance (r = .18, p < .01) whereas the weighted mean
correlation between externally assessed procrastination and performance was not signicant (r = .16, p > .05). Procrastination
was negatively correlated with externally assessed performance
(r = .21, p < .01) whereas the weighted mean correlation between
procrastination and self-reported performance was not signicant
(r = .08, p > .05).
Table 3 shows associations between self-reported or externally
assessed procrastination and self-reported or externally assessed
performance. Self-reported procrastination was negatively correlated with externally assessed performance (r = .15, p < .01) but
was not associated with self-reported performance (r = .08,
p > .05). The weighted mean correlation between externally
assessed procrastination and externally assessed performance
was signicant (r = .39, p < .05).
4. Discussion
This study synthesized the results of previous studies of the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
and investigated potential factors of the relationship.

The meta-analysis revealed that procrastination is negatively

correlated with academic performance. It is possible that low
achievement is an inevitable corollary of procrastination; it seems
inevitable that if one were to delay the writing of a assignment and
consequently submit it late, or if one were to put off studying for
an examination and consequently fail to cover all the relevant
material this would be reected in poor grades.
The extant body of evidence on the relationship between procrastination and performance is inconsistent. We hypothesized
that this inconsistency occurred because the observed association
was inuenced by a number of variables, and this was conrmed
by our meta-analysis. Our results also corroborated Van Eerdes
(2003) report that many of the effect size categories were heterogeneous among studies about procrastination, indicating that
moderators may play a role. This study showed that the procrastination measures developed by Aitken (1982), Lay (1986)
and Tuckman (1991) and scales developed by researchers for use
in a specic study were negatively correlated with academic performance; however when procrastination was measured using
Choi and Morans (2009) scale the opposite association was
observed, as we expected. This indicates that the observed association between procrastination and academic performance is inuenced by the choice of procrastination measure. It also implies
that Choi and Morans (2009) scale measures different characteristics from other scales of procrastination. As mentioned in

31

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633
Table 3
The association between self-reported or actual procrastination and self-reported or actual performance.
Self-report
Procrastination

Performance

Yes

Yes
No
Yes
No

No

*
**

Sample total n

20
48
0
14

6503
29,375
0
2651

Weighted r

.08
.15

.39

Average z

95% CI

I2 (%)

Fail safe N

Tolerance level

1.78
4.30**

2.98*

[ .16, .01]
[ .22, .08]

[ .65, .13]

238.49**
1311.64**

1065.16 **

92.03
96.49

98.78

244
3313

306

110
250

80

p < .05.
p < .01.

introduction, Choi and Morans (2009) scale is based on a model of

procrastination which recognizes that it can be adaptive and
includes items intended to assess ability to meet deadlines and
outcome satisfaction, which might not lead to poor achievement.
These ndings raise doubts about whether or not we should call
people who are able to meet deadlines and are satised with their
results procrastinators. Some researchers have argued that active
procrastination is not procrastination at all, but rather a form of
purposeful delay (Corkin, Yu, & Lindt, 2011; Ferrari, 2010; Pychyl,
2009); it should be noted that Corkin et al. (2011) used the term
active delay rather than active procrastination. This meta-analysis
also provides support for the argument that active procrastination
should be distinguished from other forms of procrastination.
We also hypothesized that choice of performance indicator
would affect the observed association. Meta-analysis showed that
GPA, assignment grade, quiz score and course grade were negatively associated with procrastination. Interestingly, there was
considerable variation in the magnitude of the association across
the different performance indices we analyzed, with the correlation between procrastination and performance ranging from .12
to .64 depending on the performance indicator. These results suggest that the magnitude of the observed association between procrastination and academic performance is inuenced by the nature
of the performance indicator used. The largest average correlation
was found when performance was indexed by grade for an assignment. This may be because one of the criteria for evaluating assignments is punctual submission, which procrastinators often fail; it
may also be because assignment grades were externally determined in all the studies we analyzed. This nding is consistent
with the nding that GPA, which was usually self-reported, was
comparatively
weakly
correlated
with
procrastination.
Procrastination was more negatively correlated with externally
assessed performance than self-reported performance.
An important nding from this meta-analysis was that the
observed association between procrastination and academic performance was inuenced by whether performance was indexed
using self-report data or external observations. Interestingly
although self-reported procrastination was negatively linked to
performance, there was no signicant association between performance and externally assessed procrastination. This implies that
self-reported procrastination tends to be higher than externally
assessed procrastination, assuming that the method of measuring
performance is similar in both cases; in other words people seem
to exaggerate the extent to which they delay carrying out academic
work. Few people claim never to put off an assignment. Estimates
that 8095% of college students (OBrien, 2002) or at least half of all
students (Ozer et al., 2009; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) engage in
procrastination suggest that we all tend to believe that we are procrastinators and would do better if we were to kick this bad habit.
Observed performance was negatively correlated with procrastination, whereas there was no association between self-reported performance and procrastination, indicating that if
performance is indexed using external observations one is likely
to nd a strong association with procrastination. This implies that

the externally assessed performance is lower than self-reported

performance, assuming that the method of measuring procrastination is similar in both cases. This nding is consistent with research
suggesting that students tend to over-report their grades (Bahrick
et al., 1996; Zimmerman et al., 2002). This nding suggests that
use of self-report performance data is likely to reduce the observed
correlation between procrastination and academic performance.
To enable us to draw more accurate conclusions about the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
we conducted a four-way comparison of performance and procrastination indicators, comparing studies which had used self-report data for both procrastination and performance; self-report
procrastination data and external assessment of performance;
externally assessed procrastination and self-report performance
data or externally assessment of both procrastination and performance. We found that externally assessed procrastination was
negatively correlated with externally assessed performance. When
both variables were indexed using self-report instruments the
weighted mean correlation was not signicant, perhaps because
for both variables self-report data tend to be overestimates. These
ndings suggest that in some previous studies the negative relationship between procrastination and academic performance was
masked by reliance on self-report data. Our ndings accord closely
with previous research (Rotenstein et al., 2009; Steel et al., 2001)
concluding that self-report data are inaccurate and contaminated.
The other nding from this meta-analysis was that the observed
relationship between procrastination and performance is inuenced by the demographic prole of the study sample.
Procrastination was most strongly correlated with academic performance among secondary school students. This is related to earlier studies which reported that younger people procrastinate
more than older people (Steel, 2007; Van Eerde, 2003) and implies
that procrastination has more negative consequences for young
people than adults. There is therefore an argument for teaching
young people strategies for avoiding procrastination.
An interesting nding was that procrastination was negatively
correlated with performance in westernized and individualistic
regions such as America, Europe and Australia. This nding is consistent with the argument (Ferrari et al., 1995) that procrastination
acquired negative connotations at the time of the Industrial
Revolution and a report that chronic procrastination is common
in westernized, individualistic, Anglophone countries (Ferrari,
OCallaghan, & Newbegin, 2005). It appears that delaying a task is
likely to be interpreted more negatively in westernized, individualistic societies.
Overall our meta-analysis conrmed that procrastination is
negatively correlated with academic performance. The mixed
results of research on this relationship may be attributed to several
factors, including variability in the measures of procrastination and
performance used, particularly the use of self-report instruments,
and variability in the demographic prole of samples.
This study was subject to some limitations. First, although we
used several search engines to try to ensure that we retrieved all
of the relevant studies it is possible that we failed to include

32

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633

relevant unpublished studies or that our search strategy failed to

retrieve all the relevant studies from the databases we searched.
Strangely, we could nd only a few studies published in 1980s or
1990s. We were also unable to analyze some variables because
the number of studies which had used them was too small.
Further research using a variety of indices would be valuable.
This meta-analysis focused on the effects of choice of measure or
methodology; is also possible that the association between procrastination and academic performance is moderated by ability
and task variables (Van Eerde, 2003). Future studies should investigate the role of other potential factors (e.g. cognitive ability and
motivation).
Despite its limitations this study has several implications for
research and practice. First, delaying may be a harmful habit which
negatively affects student achievement. It still seems valid to interpret procrastination in an unfavorable light, in spite of the revival of
interest in the older, more positive view of procrastination and
arguments that it can sometimes be an adaptive strategy. We
should remain concerned about procrastination among the student
population and develop strategies to help students, particularly
young students, overcome or avoid procrastination. Second, socalled active procrastination might not be a form of procrastination at all; it might be more appropriate to consider it as a completely separate construct. Use of the term active procrastination
leads to the misunderstanding that it is good to put off studying
because such delay can be benecial; we therefore argue that it is
necessary to distinguish more clearly between active procrastination and procrastination. Third, researchers should bear in mind
that the observed association between procrastination and performance is inuenced by both the measures used and the demographic prole of the sample and should take this into
consideration when designing studies and interpreting results.
Finally, we recommend that researchers devise alternatives to
self-report instruments for indexing procrastination and other variables. Researchers should remember that participants cannot
evaluate themselves accurately and may not report honestly either.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a young researchers grant from
Seoul Womens University (2014).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
Aitken, M. (1982). A personality prole of the college student procrastinator.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.

Akinsola, M. K., Tella, A., & Tella, A. (2007). Correlates of academic procrastination
and mathematics achievement of university undergraduate students. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 363370.
Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role
of hope as a copying strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
13011310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.008.

Aremu, A. O., Williams, T. M., & Adesina, F. T. (2011). Inuence of academic

procrastination and personality types on academic achievement and efcacy of
in-school adolescents in Ibadan. IFE Psychologia, 19, 93113. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4314/ifep.v19i1.64591.

Babadogan, C. (2010). The impact of academic procrastination behaviors of the

students in the certicate program in English language teaching on their
learning modalities and academic achievements. Procedia Social and Behavior
Science, 2, 32633269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.499.
Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., & Berger, S. A. (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory
for high school grades. Psychological Science, 7, 265271. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00372.x.

Balkis, M. (2013). Academic procrastination, academic life satisfaction and

academic achievement: The mediation role of rational beliefs about studying.
Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(1), 5774.

Balkis, M., Duru, E., & Bulus, M. (2013). Analysis of the relation between academic
procrastination, academic rational/irrational beliefs, time preferences to study

for exams, and academic achievement: A structural model. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 28, 825839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-0120142-5.

Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of
behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, selfconsciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 15(5), 313.
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Shin, C. M. (2001). The relationship of cramming to academic
ow. College Student Journal, 35, 457472.

Burnam, A., Komarraju, M., Hamel, R., & Nadler, D. R. (2014). Do adaptive
perfectionism
and
self-determined
motivation
reduce
academic
procrastination? Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 165172. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.009.

Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and
validation of a new active procrastination scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 149,
195211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.2.195-212.

Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of

active procrastination behavior on attitude and performance. Journal of Social
Psychology, 145, 245264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017.

Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., & Lindt, S. F. (2011). Comparing active delay and
procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Learning and
Individual Differences, 21, 602606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.005.

Demeter, D. V., & Davis, S. E. (2013). Procrastination as a Tool: Expecting

unconventional components of academic success. Creative Education, 4(7A2),
144149. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2018.

Duru, E., & Balkis, M. (2014). The role of academic procrastination tendency on the
relationships among self doubt, self esteem and academic achievement.
Education and Science, 39(173), 274287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2014.10.012.

Feizche, B. A., Young, B. R., & Hickson, K. C. (2003). Individual differences in

academic procrastination tendency and writing success. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 15491557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(02)00369-0.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem,
social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245261. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(91)90018-L.
Ferrari, J. R. (2010). Still procrastinating? The no-regrets guide to getting it done.
Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.
Ferrari, J. R., OCallaghan, 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, 16.

Hensley, L. C. (2014). Reconsidering active procrastination: Relations to motivation

and achievement in college anatomy. Learning and Individual Differences, 36,
157164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.012.

Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with

achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personal and Individual
Differences, 43, 167178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023.

Howell, A. J., Watson, D. C., Powell, R. A., & Buro, K. (2006). Academic
procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioral postponement.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 15191530. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sanchez-Meca, J., Martin-Martinez, F., & Botella, J. (2006).
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or index?. Psychological
Methods, 11, 193206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.

Jackson, T., Weiss, K. E., Lundquist, J. J., & Hooper, D. (2003). The impact of hope,
procrastination, and social activity on academic performance of midwestern
college students. Education, 124, 310321.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conict,
choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

Kennedy, G. J., & Tuckman, B. W. (2013). An exploration into the inuence of

academic and social values, procrastination and perceived school belongingness
on academic performance. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 435470. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9220-z.

Kim, E. K., & Seo, E. H. (2013). The relationship of ow and self-regulated learning
to active procrastination. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(7), 10991114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1099.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of

undergraduates: Low self-efcacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of
procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915931. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001.

Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance
university setting. Distance Education, 33(3), 295310. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01587919.2012.723165.
Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade
point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the
literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 6382. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543075001063.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research
in Personality, 20, 474495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3.
Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management,
and academic behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 647662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00176-S.

Lowinger, R. D., He, Z., Lin, M., & Chang, M. (2014). The impact of academic selfefcacy, acculturation difculties, and language abilities on procrastination

K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 2633
behavior in chinese international students. College Student Journal, 28(1),
141152.
Lubbers, M. J., Margaretha, P. C., Werf, V. D., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. A. (2010).
Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality and
academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 203208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005.
Mann, L. (1982). Decision-making questionnaire. Unpublished inventory. Flinders
University of South Australia, Australia.

Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination,
participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers &
Education, 56, 243252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025.

Moon, S. M., & Illingworth, A. J. (2005). Exploring the dynamic nature of

procrastination: A latent growth curve analysis of academic procrastination.
Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 297309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2004.04.009.
OBrien, W. K. (2002). Applying the trans-theoretical model to academic
procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston.
ODonoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Incentives for procrastinators. Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 114, 769816.

Orpen, C. (1998). The causes and consequences of academic procrastination: A

research note. Westminster Studies in Education, 21, 7375. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0140672980210107.

Owen, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A

casual structure model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4),
869887.
Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination
among Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons.
Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 241257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
SOCP.149.2.241-257.
Pychyl, T. A. (2009). Active procrastination: Thoughts on oxymorons. Retrieved June
29, 2010, from: <http://www.psychologythoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200907/
active-procrastination-thoughts-oxymorons>.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The le drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.

Rotenstein, A., Davis, H. Z., & Tatum, L. (2009). Early birds versus just-in-timers:
The effect of procrastination on academic performance of accounting students.
Journal of Accounting Education, 27, 223232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaccedu.2010.08.001.
Saddler, C. D., & Buley, J. (1999). Predictors of academic procrastination in college
students. Psychological Reports, 84, 686688. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1999.84.2.686.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions,
measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown

33

(Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment

(pp. 7196). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions,
measurement, and research. In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, &
J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 317).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schraw, G., & Wadkins, T. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of
academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 1225. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12.

Seo, E. (2011). The relationships among procrastination, ow, and academic

achievement. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 209218. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.209.

Seo, E. (2012). Cramming, active procrastination, and academic achievement. Social

Behavior and Personality, 40(8), 13331340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/
sbp.2012.40.8.1333.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and

cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503509.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.31.4.503.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
6594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.

Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality,
performance, and mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 95106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00013-1.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,
performance, stress, and health: The costs and benets of dawding.
Psychological Science, 8(6), 454458.

Tice, D. M., & Roy, F. B. (1998). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,

stress, and health: The costs and benets of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8,
454458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validation of the
procrastination scale. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 473480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022.
Van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of
procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 14011418. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179187. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179.
Zimmerman, M. A., Caldwell, C. H., & Bernat, D. H. (2002). Discrepancy between selfreport and school-record grade point average: Correlates with psychosocial
outcomes among African American adolescents. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 86109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01421.x.