Journal of Management Sciences. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
Available online at http://www.jmsjournal.com
ISSN: 2149-3324 ©2015
The Relationship between the Academic
Procrastination and the Academic Self-efficacy for
Academic Achievements in Female High School
Students in Isfahan in the 2013–2014 Academic Year
Leila Roghani1*, Taghi Aghahoseini2, Fazlollah Yazdani2
1
Department of Curriculum development, Meymeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Meymeh, Iran
PhD, Faculty Member Department of Curriculum development, Meymeh Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Meymeh, Iran
2

Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
Received: 20 March 2015
Accepted: 25 June 2015
Published: 25 October 2015
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the academic procrastination and
the academic self-efficacy for academic achievements of female high school students in Isfahan in the 2013–2014
academic year. A descriptive correlation design was used in this research. The statistical population of this
research was all of the female high school students in Isfahan in the 2013–2014 academic years. One hundred and
sixteen students were selected through random multi-stage sampling using a Morgan table. The data were
gathered from Solomon and Roth–Blum's PASS questionnaire (1984), Yilmaz et al 's academic self-efficacy
questionnaire (2007), and an education operation form. Correlation tests, multiple regression, variance analysis,
and structural equations were used to analyze the data. The results showed that self-efficacy and academic
procrastination could explain the changes related to academic achievement. Among academic procrastination
indices, procrastinating for examinations had a negative and meaningful relationship with academic achievement.
The path coefficients of procrastination on examinations and procrastination on assignments on self-efficacy were
−0.43 and −0.21, respectively, which were meaningful. In addition, the path coefficients of procrastination on
examinations and procrastination on assignments and self-efficacy for academic achievement were −0.26, −0.14,
and −0.25, respectively, which were also meaningful. In general, the research findings showed that procrastination
and self-efficacy were powerful predictors of academic achievement.
Keywords: Academic Procrastination, Academic Self-efficacy, Academic Achievement.
Introduction
Procrastination in Latin is the synthesis of “pro,” which means “forward,” “forth,” or “supporting from” and
“crustiness,” which means tomorrow or till tomorrow. Synonyms for this term are shillyshallying, dilatoriness,
and putting off till tomorrow, particularly because of habitual carelessness, laziness, or unnecessary postponement
or delay. The definition of procrastination has a wide range, from delaying beginning or completing an action ,to
delaying continuing an action because of a mental disorder (Solomon and Roth–Blum, 1984) to irrationally
delaying behavior . In general, however, it is defined as delaying or postponing an action that a person should do
and, as a result, experiencing a level of anxiety from the procrastination.
385
J. Manag. Sci. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
According to its complexity and cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, procrastination presents in
different ways, including academic procrastination, procrastination in decision making, and obsessive
procrastination. The most common manifestation of its form, however, especially in education, is academic
procrastination, which is a problem of students that is defined as tendency to refuse an activity, delay a task until
the future, or use an excuse to justify a delay in doing an academic activity. The rate of procrastination in students
is 46% to 95% .According to some researchers, approximately one-fourth of student's report that they
procrastinate despite how much it causes them stress or low education operations. Solomon and RothBlum (2006)
showed that students whose procrastination was a habit believed that their tendency to procrastinate was
meaningfully related to their academic situations, their ability to master classroom materials, and their quality of
life.
Different research has cited many reasons for academic procrastination such as low classroom grades,
education drops examination stress and anxiety, low achievement (Howell and Watson, 2007), time management,
weak self-efficiency, unhappiness at the difficulty of doing tasks (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007), and
irrational beliefs based on being unable to progress (Kagan et al., 2010). Therefore, procrastination behavior in
students causes them to be unable to apply their real abilities in the learning process and consequently to fail
(Kagan et al., 2010). In fact, procrastination is related to the incorrect perception of one’s own abilities that is
known as self-efficacy. Everyone’s actions in certain situations depend on behavioral, environmental and
cognitive conditions, especially the cognitive factor. This factor is related to people’s beliefs about whether their
behaviors in particular situations will have desirable outcomes or not. According to Barnard’s self-efficacy theory
(1993), early experiences and cognitive behaviors determine when people find that they have not been admitting
their incorrect beliefs or what causes them fear in different situations, but then find themselves more able and
effective if they come to accept what has threatened them. When they are working, in spite of doing their work
successfully, they doubt their ability and efficacy, and this decreases their efficiency. Judge and Bono (2009)
believe that self-efficacy not only decreases fears and expectable visits but also increases the amount of a person’s
effort through his or her expectations of possible success. The expectation of efficacy determines where people
make efforts and where they resist encountering restrictions. As the level of self-efficacy increases, the person
shows better actions and behaviors and tries to work better. Probably no homework is without procrastination and
self-efficacy. Some authors have mentioned cognitive elements of doing homework. Therefore, it is not surprising
that the main key of academic achievement is a powerful sense of self-efficacy, or, belief in one’s ability to do a
task to achieve a certain goal. So, homework depends greatly on procrastination or delaying beginning or
completing a task in a desirable time limit. Procrastination and self-efficacy are two constructs that influence
academic achievement.
In a survey about students’ academic achievements with perfectionism, self-efficacy, and procrastination as
related variables, the results showed that perfectionism as a mediating variable between procrastination and selfefficacy was associated with positive and negative effects. In spite of this, other evidence has shown that
academic procrastination has little relationship with academic self-efficacy. Klassen et al (2008), through
correlation analysis, showed that academic procrastination had an inverse relationship with mean scores,
academic self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-respect. The extreme inverse relationship between the selfefficacy required for self-regulation and procrastination showed that learners with powerful beliefs in their
personal abilities regulated their learning environments and minimized procrastination. Moreover, in this survey,
the results of multiple linear regressions showed when self-efficacy for self-regulation entered the study, the mean
scores and academic self-efficacy were not individually meaningful predictors of procrastination, but selfregulation and self-respect remained as important factors for predicting procrastination. After calculating all
variables, self-efficacy for self-regulation was an important predictor of procrastination. In this survey, academic
self-efficacy was a weak predictor of procrastination while self-efficacy for self-regulation appeared as an
effective factor in procrastination.
According to the above-mentioned discussion, the research about the relationship between the academic
procrastination and the academic self-efficacy for academic achievement is partially paradoxical. This subject has
not been surveyed in Iran, particularly in high school. So the basic question of this research is “Is there any
relationship between academic procrastination and academic self-efficacy and academic achievement in girl
students in Isfahan high schools?” Therefore, the main goal of this study is to survey the relationship between
academic procrastination and self-efficacy and academic achievement of girl students in Isfahan high schools.
Materials and Methods
According to descriptive and survey research and with the aim of studying the relationship between the
academic procrastination and the academic self-efficacy for academic achievement using correlation, 116 students
were selected through random multi-stage sampling in Isfahan’s girls’ high schools in academic year 2013-2014.
386
J. Manag. Sci. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
Research tools: The Procrastination Assessment Student Version Scale (PASS) was created by Solomon and
RuthBlum (1984), who worked with 21 students to survey academic procrastination in three dimensions:
homework preparation, preparing for examinations, and midterm report preparation. The respondents replied to
each statement using a Likert 4-point scale from “seldom” to “almost always.” For academic achievement, the
students’ averages from their final tests, which were prepared by the Ghalamchi Cultural Center in academic year
2013-2014, were used for academic performance appraisal.
Results
Due to recognition of the research sample, demographic features of the sample were calculated related to
frequency and percent and are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic features relating to frequency and percent.
Variable
Classes
15 years
16 years
17 years
18 years
First grade
Second grade
Third grade
Pre university grade
Age
Grade
Frequency
15
30
49
22
22
26
51
17
Percent
12.9
25.9
42.2
19.0
19.0
22.4
44.0
14.7
Descriptive indicators of the research variables relating to mean score, standard deviation, and Pearson’s
correlation coefficient are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive indicators and Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Variable
Academic achievement
Academic self-efficacy
Academic procrastination
Procrastination in exam
preparation
Procrastination in doing
assignment
Mean score
5150
20.41
30.77
13.58
SD
529.06
3.12
6.32
3.32
1
1
0.45
-0.39
-0.38
2
1
-0.44
-0.47
3
1
-0.79
4
1
17.19
4.21
-0.29
-0.28
0.87
0.40
As we see in Table 2, there is a significant and positive correlation between academic self-efficacy and
academic achievement, which means that increasing self-efficacy, enhances students’ academic achievement.
Moreover, there is a significant and inverse relationship between procrastination and academic achievement.
This means that increasing procrastination in student's decreases self-efficacy and academic achievement.
Table 3. The results of simultaneous multiple regression analysis between self-efficacy and procrastination for
academic achievement.
Model level
Procrastination
In exam preparation
Procrastination
In doing assignment
Self-efficacy
387
Nonstandard
coefficient
B
Standard
coefficient
Standard
error
Beta
4621.79
-27.65
482.93
15.50
-15.75
11.22
57.56
15.81
0.17
0.12
0.34
t
Sig.
9.57
-1.78
0.000
0.07
-1.40
0.16
3.64
-
R
R2
F
sig.
0.51
0.26
13.11
0.001
J. Manag. Sci. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
The results in Table 3 show that the multiple correlation coefficients (R) between the sum of the predicting
variables (self-efficacy and academic procrastination) and the criterion variable (academic achievement) is 0.51
and the determination coefficient (R2) is 0.26. This shows that the amount of variance explained and academic
achievement change with the predicting variables and the significance of F shows that the regression model is
suitable. The significance levels of T for self-efficacy, procrastination on examinations, and procrastination on
assignments are less than 0.05, and therefore, the regression coefficients for predicting academic achievement
by procrastination on exams and assignments and self-efficacy variables are significant. We will then survey the
structural equation model’s goodness of fit with the research variables using smart PLS. A structural equation
model is a multi-variable tool for showing reasonableness, and it is based on the path analysis of variables.
Table 4. Path coefficients, t-test and the results of research hypothesis.
No
Research hypothesis
H1
Exam procrastination
→academic self-efficacy
Assignment procrastination→
academic self-efficacy
Exam procrastination→
academic self-efficacy
Assignment procrastination→
Academic achievement
Academic self-efficacy→
academic achievement
H2
H3
H4
H5
Effect
coefficient
−0.4337
T
Sig.
Result
−7.706
p<0.01
Admitted
−0.2113
−3.7867
p<0.01
Admitted
−0.2607
−3.9905
p<0.01
Admitted
−0.145
−2.4446
p<0.01
Admitted
0.251
3.7583
p<0.01
Admitted
/T/> 1.96 significant p<0.05, /T/ >2.58 significant at p<0.05
As reported in Table 4, the path coefficients for exam procrastination and assignment procrastination on selfefficacy are −0.43 and −0.21, respectively. The T significance levels of these paths are less than 0.01, and
therefore, they are significant. Also, the path coefficients of exam and assignment procrastination and selfefficacy for academic achievement are −0.26 and −0.14, respectively. The T levels of these paths are also less
than 0.01, so they are significant too. Direct and indirect effect coefficients resulted in model goodness of fit
being calculated to determine the mediator role of self-efficacy related to exam and assignment procrastination.
Table 5. Direct and indirect path coefficients of research variables on academic achievement.
Measurement variables
Academic self-efficacy
Exam procrastination
Assignment procrastination
Direct effect
0.251
−0.260
−0.145
Indirect effect
----−0.107
−0.03
Total effect
0.251
−0.367
−0.175
As seen in Table 5, corrected model goodness of fit and exam and assignment procrastination have values of
−0.26 and −0.14 for direct effects and −0.10 and −0.03 for indirect effects. So the total effects of these variables
on academic achievement after considering the mediator effect of self-efficacy are −0.36 and −0.17,
respectively.
Conclusion
Students’ academic achievement is one of the most important dimensions of our country’s education
system and can be mentioned as the main indicator of education quality assessment. Academic achievement is
the effect of internal and external factors, and the internal factors include academic procrastination and selfefficacy. So the aim of the present research was to determine the relationship between academic procrastination
and academic self-efficacy and academic achievement in female high school students in Isfahan. Multiple
correlation coefficient results show that there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic
procrastination and academic achievement. These findings are the same as the findings of Howell et al (2006),
Solomon and Roth Blue (2005), Hewitt (2011), Yao (2009).
No education assignment is without procrastination and self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) believed that the
main key to academic achievement is a powerful sense of self-efficacy, or a belief in one’s ability to do a task in
order to reach a certain goal. On the other hand, education assignments depend heavily on procrastinating or
delaying beginning or completing a task in a desirable time limit (Ferrari et al., 2005). Procrastination and selfefficacy are two constructs that influence academic achievement. In this case, the inverse relationship between
388
J. Manag. Sci. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
self-efficacy and procrastination shows that learners with powerful beliefs about their abilities adjust their own
learning activities and minimize procrastination. To explain this finding, it can be said that students with high
self-efficacy are certain in their homework, such as reading books, doing classroom assignments and being
ready for exams, and they also accept their behavioral outcomes, so they refuse to postpone their academic
affairs. Therefore, this group has reported higher academic achievement (Rothblum et al., 2006).
Other research findings have determined the multiple correlation coefficients between the academic
procrastination and the academic self-efficacy. Kelassen et al (2008) showed that procrastination has a negative
impact on academic self-efficacy. Also, it can be said that this finding is the same as those of Klassen and
Kuzucu (2009) that showed a relationship between the academic self-efficacy and the academic procrastination.
Procrastinators have such features as refusing to explain their abilities, preferring low-level homework, weak
time management, concentrating on the past, and having difficulty with decision making. Therefore, they lose
opportunities, delay completing work, and leave their tasks incomplete. So their self-efficacy, or, beliefs and
expectations about their abilities to do tasks effectively and do what they have to do is decreased (Bandura,
1997).
Another finding from this research is that academic procrastination components can well explain the
changes in academic achievement. In this regard, Lee (2005) showed that there is a negative relationship
between academic procrastination and academic achievement and that students with low academic
procrastination had better academic achievement than did those with high academic procrastination. Path
analysis results show that exam and assignment procrastination and self-efficacy have a significant effect on
students’ academic achievement. This finding conforms to the findings of Duru (2007), Locke and Latham
(2000), Wolters et al (2005), Hewitt (2011) and Yao (2009). Anxiety that results in procrastination, fear of
failure, and inadequacy compared with other people causes reduced positive and logical perceptions of one’s
own abilities, so people reduce their endeavors, which activates processes that decrease time. Thus, the ground
for procrastination is laid, reading on examination night is adequate for the student, and he/she will postpone
studying until exam night (Effert and Ferrari, 2009), with the result being decreased academic achievement.
Also, it can be said that academic achievement is not the result of only one factor but that various factors
influence this variable, some of which are attitudinal factors. Although there are many attitude structures that
have direct application in the classroom, it is a student’s beliefs in his/her own abilities that enable able him/her
to do the tasks.
The research results show that learners who believe they have ability use higher-level learning strategies
(such as meta-cognitive strategies), show more discipline in their academic affairs, earn higher grades, have
fewer psychological problems compared with those who do not trust in their abilities, and have more
sustainability (Locke and Letham, 2000). Also, Wolters et al (2005) reported that low levels of self-efficacy
cause academic procrastination. They argued that learners with high levels of attitude and cognitive involvement
and low levels of procrastination are very purposeful and have high levels of self-efficacy, which is a powerful
predictor of their academic achievement. In this regard, Herrington et al (2003) and Patrick et al (2009)
explained that low levels of procrastination accompanied by high levels of self-efficacy cause successful
academic performance. The limitation of this research is that it was restricted to girls in high school. This is
important because the psychological features of women and men and also academic grades may have influenced
the research results. Thus, on the basis of the results, it is suggested that in education processes, plans be
developed with the aim of students’ acceptance of academic responsibility to prevent the arousal of
procrastination. Also, teachers should design the classroom structure so that students insist on development,
empowerment, and mastering the assignments instead of insisting on competition and/or fear of lack of
competency.
References
Alexander E, Onwuegbuzie A, 2007. Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy.
Personality Differences. 42: 1301–1310.
Bandura A, 1977. Self-efficacy Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84(2):
216-248.
Duru MBE, 2007 . The Evaluation of the Major Characteristics and Aspects of the Procrastination in the
Framework of Psychological Counseling and Guidance. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 7
(1): 376-385.
Effert B, Ferrarie J, 2009. Decisional procrastination: Examining personality correlates. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality. 56: 478-484.
Ferrari JR, O’Callaghan J, Newbegin I, 2005. Prevalence of procrastination in the United States, United
Kingdom and Australia: Arousal and avoidance delays among adults. North American Journal of
Psychology. 7: 1-6.
389
J. Manag. Sci. Vol., 1 (12), 385-390, 2015
Herrington J, Oliver R, Reeves TC, 2003. Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 19(1): 59-71.
Hewitt A, 2011. Perfectionism Is Multidimensional: a reply to Shafran, Cooperand Fairburn. Behaviour
Research and Therapy. 41: 1221–1236.
Howell A, Watson DC, 2007. Procrastination: associations with achievement goal orientation and learning
strategies. Personality and Individual Differences. 18: 127133.
Howell J, Watson D, Powell RA, Buro K, 2006. Academic procrastination: thepattern and correlates of
behavioural postponement. Personality and Individual Differences. 40: 1519-1530.
Judge T, Bono JE, 2009. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 86: 80-92.
Kagan M, Cakir O, Ilhan T, Kandemir M, 2010. The explanation of the academic procrastination behavior of
university students with perfectionism obsessive – compulsive and five factor personality traits.
Procedia Social and Behavior Sciences. Vol. 2.
Klassen RM, Krawchuk LL, Rajani S, 2008. Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to
self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 33: 915–
931.
Klassen RM, Kuzucu E, 2009. Academic Procrastination and Motivation of Adolescents in Turkey.
Educational Psychology. 29 (1): 69-81.
Lee E, 2005. The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university
students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 166: 5–14.
Locke EA, Latham GP, 2000. Atheory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
Patrick H, Allison R, Kaplan A, 2009. Early adolescents' perceptions of classroom social environment,
motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99(1): 83-98.
Rothblum ED, Solomon LJ, Murakami J, 2006. Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high
and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 33: 387- 394.
Solomon J, Rothblum D, 2006. Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive- behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 31: 503-509.
Solomon LJ, Rothblum ED, 1984. Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitivebehavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 31(4): 503–509.
Wolters CA, Pintrich PR, Karabenick SA, 2005. Assessing academic self-regulated achievement. Psychology
Bulletin. 91: 461-481.
Yao M, 2009. An Exploration of Multidimensional Perfectionism, Academic Self- efficacy, Procrastination
Frequency, and Asian American Cultural Values. Graduate Program in Psychology. The Ohio State
University.
Yilmaz M, Gürçay D, Ekici G, 2007. Akademik öz-yeterlik ölçeginin Türkçeye uyarlanmasi. Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Journal of Education). 33: 253–259.
390