Academic Procrastination in Two Settings:

Motivation Correlates, Behavioral Patterns,

and Negative Impact of Procrastination in
Canada and Singapore
Robert M. Klassen*
University of Alberta, Canada
Rebecca P. Ang
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Wan Har Chong
Singapore National Institute of Education, Singapore
Lindsey L. Krawchuk
University of Alberta, Canada
Vivien S. Huan, Isabella Y.F. Wong and Lay See Yeo
Singapore National Institute of Education, Singapore
Two studies are reported examining academic procrastination and motivation
in 1,145 university students from Canada and Singapore. In Study 1, relation-
ships between procrastination and motivation variables were found to be
similar across contexts, with self-efcacy for self-regulated learning most
strongly associated with procrastination in both contexts. In Study 2, patterns
of procrastinating behavior and the negative impact of procrastination were
examined and compared in Canadian and Singaporean undergraduates. Par-
ticipants in both contexts reported writing to be the academic task most prone
to procrastination. More Singaporeans than Canadians were classied as nega-
tive procrastinators (i.e. rated procrastination as a negative inuence on aca-
demic functioning). In both contexts, negative procrastinators spent more time
procrastinating than neutral procrastinators and displayed lower self-efcacy
for self-regulated learning.apps_394 361..379
* Address for correspondence: Robert M. Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G5. Email: robert.klassen@
ualberta.ca
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2010, 59 (3), 361379
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00394.x
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
On dcrit deux recherches portant sur la motivation et la procrastination uni-
versitaire (tendance remettre au lendemain) de 1145 tudiants du Canada et
de Singapour. Dans la premire tude, les relations entre la motivation et la
procrastination sont apparues tre analogues dans les deux pays, la variable
la plus fortement associ la procrastination tant lauto-efcience pour
lapprentissage autorgul. Dans la deuxime tude, les schmas comportemen-
taux de procrastination et son impact ngatif ont t analyss et compars chez
les tudiants de 1 cycle canadiens et singapouriens. Les sujets des deux pays
ont mentionn la rdaction comme tant la tche universitaire la plus soumise
la procrastination. Davantage de Singapouriens que de Canadiens t classs
en procrastinateurs ngatifs (cest--dire que la procrastination est considre
comme tant un handicap pour les tudes). Dans les deux cas, les procrastina-
teurs ngatifs gaspillaient plus de temps que les procrastinateurs neutres et
manifestaient une moindre auto-efcience pour lapprentissage autorgul.
INTRODUCTION
Recent research has shown that procrastination is common in general popu-
lations, and is almost universal among university students (e.g. Steel, 2007).
Dened as unnecessarily postponing or avoiding tasks that must be com-
pleted (e.g. Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007), procrastination has been
reported to be associated with unsatisfactory academic performance and
higher levels of stress and anxiety (Ferrari, OCallaghan, & Newbegin, 2005;
Sirois, 2004). Among all of the variables that have been investigated in
relationship to academic procrastination, self-related variables like self-
regulation, self-efcacy, and self-esteem have received the most attention,
with recent research pointing to the role played by self-efcacy for self-
regulation as a key variable inversely related to academic procrastination
(Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008). The purpose of the current study is
to (a) explore the correlates of procrastination in two culturally diverse
contexts, (b) describe behaviors associated with procrastination, and (c)
examine academic and motivation proles of negative procrastinators (those
who report that procrastination negatively inuences academic functioning)
in Canada and Singapore.
Procrastination research is less well established than research involving
many other common psychological phenomena (Steel, 2007), even though
almost all undergraduates report procrastinating behaviors, and many adults
report problems with procrastination (e.g. Hammer & Ferrari, 2002). Pro-
crastination research involving undergraduate participants typically nds
modest negative correlations between procrastination and academic perfor-
mance (overall GPA and course GPA), with average correlations of -.19 for
overall academic performance across 41 studies in Steels recent meta-
analysis (2007). Only a few studies have explored procrastination using a
cross-cultural framework, and little research has explored procrastination in
East Asian contexts (e.g. Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuk, Huan, Wong,
362 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
& Yeo, in press; Zhang & Zhang, 2007). A recent study exploring adult
procrastination in Australia, Peru, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United
States, and Venezuela found that procrastination was common in each of
the settings, and that arousal and avoidant procrastination patterns
showed cross-cultural similarities (Ferrari, Diaz-Morales, OCallaghan,
Diaz, & Argumedo, 2007).
A number of theoretical links have been postulated about the processes
by which procrastination operates. Self-efcacy, or condence in ones
capabilities to carry out a task, has been shown to be related to procras-
tinating behaviors, with a hypothesised link that a persons lack of task or
domain condence leads to delaying of task initiation or task completion.
Procrastination has been called the quintessential self-regulatory failure
(Steel, 2007, p. 65; also see Van Eerde, 2000) wherein decits in self-
regulating behaviors, such as strategy use and monitoring thinking and
learning processes, lead to an avoidance of tasks. Recent research in a
Western cultural context (e.g. Klassen et al., 2008) has shown that
self-efcacy for self-regulated learning may be a key construct in explain-
ing procrastination, with the view that although knowledge of self-
regulation strategies is important, the condence to use strategies is a key
factor in initiation and completion of important tasks. Self-efcacy for
self-regulated learning refers to students beliefs in their capabilities to
employ self-regulatory strategies, and a recent validity study (Usher &
Pajares, 2008) showed relationships between self-efcacy for self-regulated
learning and academic self-efcacy, self-concept, task goal orientation, and
achievement.
Numerous studies have shown that low self-esteem is related to procrasti-
nating behaviors, whereby feelings of worthlessness lead to avoidance of
tasks that might result in failure (e.g. Ferrari, 2000), although the direction-
ality of the relationship is not yet clear. Finally, culturally inuenced values
and value orientations have been proposed as an inuence on procrastination
(Dietz, Hofer, & Fries, 2007). The current study extends the research by
examining procrastination patterns and behaviors from a cross-cultural
perspective.
Cross-cultural comparisons are useful in building theory because they
provide researchers with a valuable heuristic basis to test the external valid-
ity and generalizability of their measures, theories, and models (Marsh &
Hau, 2004, p. 59). One way that procrastination beliefs and behaviors may
vary across cultures is through differential understandings of self and theo-
ries of ability. For example, Heine (2003) reports differences in persistence
after failure in East Asian and North American cultures, and culturally
divergent responses to effort feedback between Japanese and Canadian
undergraduates. In academic settings, students from different cultures have
different ways of motivating themselves, and different understandings of the
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 363
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
importance of persistence, effort, and the value of academic performance
(Boekaerts, 2003).
A students academic practices, such as study time and procrastination,
may be related to culturally differing understanding of academic values and
behaviors. Dunn and Wallace (2004) found that Singaporean students spent
more time studying, memorised more material, and requested more explicit
instructions for assignments and exams than students in a Western cultural
context. Differences in closeness of student groups between Singaporean and
Western students were noted by Chia, Koh, and Pragasam (2008), who found
that students in Singapore spent more time in closely-knit social groups, and
as a result were more socially bonded and showed a stronger sense of afli-
ation to both their friendship groups and to their academic institution than
did students in Western contexts. Cultural background and values may inu-
ence an individuals choices about engaging in or avoiding a challenging
task, or may inuence the interpretation of procrastinating behaviors. For
example, students in collectivistic yet achievement-oriented settings (e.g.
Singapore) may interpret procrastination more negatively than students
from individualistic contexts because of higher levels of fear of failure and
a stronger inclination to avoid family shame and embarrassment (Chong,
2007). In addition, Asian students may perceive less freedom in pursuing
personal goals at the expense of academic goals than Western students, and
thus may be more likely to adopt academic goals into their personal goal
structures (Boekaerts, 2003). The perceived cost of procrastination may be
greater for students from collectivist contexts because procrastination might
be construed as conicting with personal/academic goals and family expec-
tations. These differences in cultural beliefs and behaviors may inuence
understandings of procrastination, especially relating to the perceived nega-
tive academic impact of procrastination.
The Present Study
The present study poses three questions in two studies. Study 1 examines the
question, Are motivation correlates of procrastination similar across cultures?
Based on the previous ndings that self-efcacy for self-regulated learning is
a general mechanism underlying procrastination, and from ndings from our
previous research (e.g. Klassen et al., in press; Klassen et al., 2008), we expect
similar relationships between procrastination and associated motivation
variables across cultures.
The rst question in Study 2 asks, What is the behavioral prole of under-
graduate procrastination in Canada and Singapore? Based on the theoretical
claim that students in achievement-oriented collectivist contexts have higher
fear of academic failure, a stronger inclination to avoid family shame and
embarrassment (e.g. Chong, 2007), and are more likely to adopt academic
364 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
goals as personal goals (Boekaerts, 2003), we predict that Singaporean stu-
dents will report lower hours of procrastination per day than Canadian
students. Based on research that shows Singaporeans to display higher levels
of collectivism (Hofstede, 2001) and to spend more time with social ingroups
at university than Western students (e.g. Chia et al., 2008), we predict that
Singaporean students spend more time on group-oriented activities when
procrastinating than Western students. Based on previous research con-
ducted in Western contexts (e.g. Fritzsche, Young, & Hickson, 2003), we
predict that students will report procrastinating more on writing tasks than
on other academic activities.
The nal question of the study asks, What proportion of students view their
procrastination as negative, and what factors are associated with negative
procrastination? Based on cultural differences in congruence of personal and
learning goals, and in fear of failure, we predict that Canadian students will
be less likely to interpret procrastination as having a negative impact on their
academic functioning than Singaporean students.
STUDY 1
In Study 1, we explored the relationships between self-reported procrastina-
tion and academic self-efcacy, self-regulation, self-efcacy for self-regulated
learning, and self-esteem.
Method
Participants. Study 1 involved 418 participants from universities in
Canada and Singapore, two countries that have been shown to display con-
trasting cultural values and cultural dimensions. According to Hofstedes
measurement of cultural dimensions, Canada ranks in the top decile on the
cultural value of individualism (tied with Netherlands at 4th of 53 countries),
whereas Singapore is tied with Thailand and West Africa at 39th of 52
countries for individualism (Hofstede, 2001). The two universities from
which the data were collected in this study are both large public universities
that share similar rankings in international comparisons (Times Higher
Education World University Rankings, 2007). Canada and Singapore are
economically prosperous, with comparison data showing similar levels of
school enrollment, per capita gross national income, and life expectancy
(World Bank, 2009).
Canadian participants were 192 undergraduates enrolled in a teacher edu-
cation program, with an estimated response rate between 75 per cent and 80
per cent. The sample was primarily female (83%), with a mean age of 22.6
years (SD = 5.17). Most students (91%) were born in Canada and described
themselves as Anglo-Canadian. Singaporean participants were 226 under-
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 365
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
graduates enrolled in a teacher education program, with an estimated
response rate between 85 per cent and 90 per cent. The sample was primarily
female (76%) with a mean age of 21.07 years (SD = 3.03). Most students were
born in Singapore (89%), and represented the ethnic mix of Singapore (i.e.
the majority of students with Chinese heritage, and minorities of students
with Malay and Indian heritage). English was the language of instruction in
both contexts.
Procedure. In both contexts, a researcher or instructor briey intro-
duced the project, and distributed surveys to be completed during scheduled
class time. Participants in both contexts were volunteers who completed
demographic information, including estimated GPA, which was measured
on a 4-point scale for the Canadian students and a 5-point scale for the
Singaporean students. For each of the measures, the items were summed
(after re-scoring reversed items) and the scale score was used to represent the
construct. The ve measures in Study 1 assessed procrastination, academic
self-efcacy, self-regulation, self-efcacy for self-regulated learning, and
self-esteem.
We used Tuckmans 16-item procrastination measure, which provides
a measure of the tendency to waste time, delay, and intentionally put off
something that should be done (Tuckman, 1991, p. 479). Recent studies
have shown Tuckmans measure to be reliable and valid (e.g. Howell &
Watson, 2007). Procrastination was measured using a 4-point scale,
anchored at 1 by Thats not really me and at 4 by Thats me for sure,
with a possible total score of 64 (e.g. I needlessly delay nishing jobs, even
when theyre important).
We used two components of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ) to assess participants academic self-efcacy and
self-regulation. The MSLQ is a widely used tool measuring motivational
orientations and strategy use (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).
The academic self-efcacy measure included ve items from the MSLQ
Self-Efcacy for Learning and Performance scale (e.g. I am condent I
can understand the most difcult material presented in the readings in my
classes). The self-regulation measure included 12 items designed to assess
students awareness, knowledge, and control of cognition (e.g. If course
materials are difcult to understand, I change the way I read the material).
For the MSLQ measures, we used a 7-point scale with descriptors at 1
(Not at all true of me) and 7 (Very true of me), with possible total
scores of 35 and 84 for the self-efcacy and self-regulation scales,
respectively.
Self-efcacy for self-regulated learning was measured with the scale used in
the academic motivation study conducted by Zimmerman, Bandura, and
Martinez-Pons (1992) and recently validated by Usher and Pajares (2008).
366 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
This self-efcacy measure assesses students beliefs in their capability to
implement academic self-regulated learning strategies. The 11 items in this
scale include items such as How well can you concentrate on school sub-
jects? Participants completed a 7-point scale with a possible total score of
77. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenbergs 10-item, 4-point Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1979), which has been widely used in procrastination and
other research (e.g. Ferrari, 2000).
Results
Table 1 presents reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for
procrastination and the motivation variables, and means and standard devia-
tions for GPA in the two groups. All measures displayed adequate reliability
in both contexts. Analysis with MANOVA revealed a signicant multivariate
effect, F(4, 358) = 21.83, p < .001, h
2
= .19. Using ANOVA with p-level xed
to .01 using a Bonferroni adjustment, Canadian participants scored signi-
cantly higher on procrastination, F(1, 417) = 17.51, p < .001, self-efcacy,
F(1, 417) = 20.96, p < .001, and self-esteem, F(1, 362) = 19.99, p < .001;
whereas Singaporean participants scored signicantly higher on self-
regulation F(1, 417) = 23.41, p < .001.
Table 2 presents correlation coefcients among the key variables that were
calculated separately in each context and then compared across contexts. The
patterns of relationship among the key variables showed strong similarities
between the Canadian and Singaporean samples. Although most of the
intercorrelations were higher for Singaporeans than Canadians, there were
TABLE 1
Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations of Procrastination, Motivation
Variables, and GPA in Canada and Singapore
Canada Singapore
h
2
a M SD a M SD
Procrastination* .87 37.97 7.93 .85 34.91 7.03 .04
Self-Efcacy* .90 25.59 5.04 .89 23.40 4.76 .05
Self-Regulation* .81 50.90 11.06 .81 55.73 9.32 .05
SESRL .79 57.29 9.01 .89 55.05 9.97 .01
Self-Esteem* .86 32.10 4.70 .87 29.83 4.70 .05
GPA 3.09 .42 3.07 .49
Note: Procrastination and Self-Esteem were 4-point scales. Self-Efcacy, Self-Regulation, and SESRL (Self-
Efcacy for Self-Regulated Learning) were 7-point scales. GPA was measured on a 4-point scale in Canada
and a 5-point scale in Singapore.
* p < .001.
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 367
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
no signicant differences in the relationships between procrastination
and any of the key variables across the two contexts (using Fisher Z-
transformations). In both contexts, procrastination was signicantly corre-
lated with all of the major variables, with the strongest correlation observed
between procrastination and self-efcacy for self-regulated learning (r = -.57
in Canada, and r = -.63 in Singapore). In both contexts the relationships
between procrastination and the variables fell within the condence range
suggested in Steels (2007) meta-analysis, providing evidence that the results
are consistent with results found in previous research, and supporting the
argument for cross-cultural validity.
Multiple regression was used to further examine the strength of the rela-
tionship between motivation variables and procrastination in each context.
With procrastination as the dependent variable, the four motivation variables
were entered as a block. For the Canadians, the four motivation variables
signicantly predicted procrastination, R
2
= .37, F(4, 191) = 27.67, p < .001.
Self-regulation (b = -.16, p = .03), self-efcacy for self-regulated learning (b =
-.47, p < .001), and self-esteem (b = -.19, p = .003) were signicant predictors
of procrastination, whereas academic self-efcacy (b = .05, p = .47) did not
contribute signicantly to the regression equation. For the Singaporeans, the
four motivation variables as a block signicantly contributed to prediction of
procrastination, R
2
= .43, F(4, 220) = 42.12, p < .001, with self-efcacy for
self-regulated learning (b = -.54, p < .001) and self-esteem (b = -.17, p = .003)
making signicant individual contributions. Academic self-efcacy (b = .08,
p = .19) and self-regulation (b = -.10, p = .16) did not make signicant
contributions to procrastination. Next, we used the Chow test procedure to
explore the equality of the sets of predictors of procrastination (e.g. Ghil-
agaber, 2004). Results fromthe Chowtest suggested no signicant differences
TABLE 2
Correlations among Procrastination, Motivation Variables, and GPA
Procrastination
Self-
Efcacy
Self-
Regulation SESRL
Self-
Esteem GPA
Procrastination 1 -.15* .42** .57** -.23** -.21**
Self-Efcacy -.23** 1 .31** .18* .36** .42**
Self-Regulation -.47** .46** 1 .53** .13 .31**
SESRL -.63** .35** .63** 1 .09 .33**
Self-Esteem -.37** .39** .39** .36** 1 .09
GPA -.25** .25** .28** .33** .21** 1
Note: Canadian participants are above the diagonal; Singaporean participants are below the diagonal.
SESRL = Self-Efcacy for Self-Regulated Learning.
* p < .01; ** p < .001.
368 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
in the sets of predictors across the two samples, DF = .90, p = .47. No evidence
of multicollinearity was found using SPSS 16.0 multicollinearity diagnostic
statistics.
Brief Discussion
Results from Study 1 supported our prediction that procrastination and
associated motivation variables operate in similar fashion across two cultur-
ally diverse contexts. Just as Ferrari et al. (2007) found cross-cultural simi-
larities in adults procrastination patterns, we found similarities in internal
reliability, correlations, and beta-weights predicting procrastination across
students in Canada and Singapore. In both contexts, procrastination was
most strongly related to participants condence to manage their learning
(i.e. self-efcacy for self-regulated learning). Beliefs about global self-esteem
were also signicantly related with procrastination ratings across contexts.
Students who rated their procrastination higher had lower GPAs in both
contexts. Results from the multiple regression analysis showed little variation
across contexts. For both groups, self-efcacy for self-regulated learning and
self-esteem were signicant predictors of procrastination, but self-regulation
was a signicant predictor only for the Canadian participants.
Procrastination may be a failure of self-regulation, but we suggest self-
efcacy for self-regulated learning is a key to understanding academic pro-
crastination across cultural contexts. Self-efcacy for self-regulated learning
appears to be a mechanism that underlies procrastination in the two con-
texts investigated in this study. Evidence from Study 1 suggests the cross-
cultural verity of Banduras (1993) contention that Self-regulatory skills
will not contribute much if students cannot get themselves to apply them
persistently in the face of difculties, stressors, and competing attractions
(p. 136). Findings from Study 1 show that motivation beliefs operate on
academic procrastination in similar ways for Canadian and Singaporean
undergraduates.
STUDY 2
Although a number of motivational and cognitive variables have been iden-
tied as contributing to procrastination in single culture contexts, little at-
tention has been paid to the cross-cultural differences in the behavioral
characteristics of procrastination (Ackerman & Gross, 2005), and the per-
ceived negative impact of procrastination. Procrastination behaviors (time
spent procrastinating, avoidance tasks that promote procrastination, and
activities engaged in when procrastinating) may differ across cultural con-
texts because of culturally related differences in interests, opportunities, and
understandings about motivation beliefs or because of cultural differences in
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 369
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
ingroup afliation or academic goals. Similarly, the prole of those for whom
procrastination is perceived as negative may differ across cultural contexts.
The purpose of Study 2 was to gain a cross-cultural understanding of (a)
daily procrastination (hours of procrastination in a typical day), (b) avoidance
tasks, that is, the types of academic tasks most prone toprocrastination, (c) the
replacement activities students engage in when delaying academic tasks, and
(d) the perceived negative impact of procrastination on academic functioning.
Before collecting the data for Study 2, pilot studies with 13 participants in
Canada and 10 participants in Singapore were conducted to investigate the
clarity of the measures and to generate items for the avoidance activities; that
is, the activities students engage in when they perceive themselves to be
procrastinating (procrastination was not dened for the students). Student
feedback resulted in the list of avoidance activities and in minor changes to
the survey in order to enhance understanding. Data from the pilot studies
were not included in subsequent analyses.
Method
Participants. Canadian participants were 389 undergraduate volunteers
enrolled in a teacher education program in a large western Canadian univer-
sity, with an estimated response rate of 90 per cent. The sample was predomi-
nantly female (79%), with a mean age of 22.30 years (SD = 4.09). Most
students were born in Canada (95%). There was no overlap between Cana-
dian participants in Study 1 and Study 2.
Singaporean participants were 337 undergraduates enrolled in a teacher
education program, with an estimated response rate of 85 per cent to 90 per
cent. The sample was primarily female (73%) with a mean age of 21.36 years
(SD = 2.73). Most students were born in Singapore (93%), and represented
the general ethnic mix of Singapore, with 71 per cent Chinese, 15 per cent
Malay, and 11 per cent Indian heritage. There was no overlap between
Singaporean participants in Study 1 and Study 2.
Procedure. Surveys were distributed and completed during class time
in the rst half of the semester. As in Study 1, GPAwas assessed by self-report
on a 4-point scale in Canada and a 5-point scale in Singapore. Participants
completed six measures assessing various behaviors associated with procras-
tination. First, participants rated daily procrastination (ve responses, from
less than one hour to more than six hours). Second, participants com-
pleted a descriptive measure (adapted from Ferrari & Scher, 2000) of ve
avoidance tasks that engendered procrastination (i.e. reading tasks, writing
tasks, studying tasks, research tasks, and talking with the instructor). The
avoidance tasks were rated on a 7-point scale in response to the question, On
what kinds of tasks do you most often procrastinate? Third, participants
370 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
rated the frequency of 14 replacement activities (generated from the pilot
study) they engage in when they perceive themselves to be procrastinating (e.g.
watch TV, go shopping) using a 7-point scale with anchors of Never and
Always. Fourth, participants rated the negative impact of procrastination
(How much does procrastination negatively inuence your academic func-
tioning?) with four response options: Not at all, Not too much, Quite a
lot, and Very much. Fifth, participants completed a three-item, 7-point
procrastination scale (Ackerman & Gross, 2005) that showed acceptable
reliabilities in both contexts (a = .93 in Canada, a = .88 in Singapore) (e.g. I
delay starting assignments). Sixth, participants completed the self-efcacy
for self-regulated learning scale (Zimmerman et al., 1992) used in Study 1.
Results
Behavioral Patterns of Procrastination. Most students in Canada (61%)
and Singapore (54%) reported less than two hours of daily procrastination,
with no signicant difference in the proportions of Canadian and
Singaporean students reporting less than two hours and three or more hours
of daily procrastination, c
2
(1) = 3.61, p = .06. In Canada and Singapore,
students ranked writing as the task most often procrastinated. In both con-
texts, students were signicantly more likely to rate writing as the task most
often procrastinated than the next highest tasks (in Canada, t[386] = 3.48,
p = .001, and in Singapore, t[336] = 5.75, p < .001). Talking to the instructor
was least likely to result in procrastination in both contexts, with ratings of
reading, studying, and research tightly clustered in both contexts.
Table 3 presents results for Canadians and Singaporeans for the 14
replacement activities generated from the pilot study. There was no correla-
tion in the order of rankings between the two contexts (Spearmans r = -.16,
p = .58). Canadian participants rated getting something to eat or drink as
their favorite replacement activity, followed by watching TV, and email-
ing. Singaporean participants rated having a nap/sleep as the favorite
replacement activity, followed by getting something to eat or drink, and
going online for web-surng.
Negative Impact of Procrastination. Participants were classied as nega-
tive or neutral procrastinators according to response to the question, In
general, how much does procrastination negatively inuence your academic
functioning? with response options of Quite a lot and Very much
(negative procrastinators) and Not at all and Not too much (neutral
procrastinators). Proportionately more Singaporean than Canadian partici-
pants classied themselves as negative procrastinators, c
2
(1) = 20.63, p < .001.
In Canada, 28 per cent of participants were classied as negative procrastina-
tors, with 72 per cent classied as neutral procrastinators. Among Canadian
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 371
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
negative procrastinators, 57 per cent reported spending three hours or more
per day in procrastination. In Singapore, 44 per cent of participants answered
Quite a lot or Very much when asked about the negative inuence of
procrastination and were classied as negative procrastinators, with 59 per
cent reporting spending three hours or more per day in procrastination.
Although we treated the impact of procrastination scale as a dichotomous
measure for illustrative purposes (i.e. in order to illustrate differences in
undergraduates who perceive their procrastination as harmful to their aca-
demic functioning, and those who do not), the measure could also be
construed as an interval scale. With this in mind, Singaporeans scored sig-
nicantly higher than Canadians on the 4-point negative impact of procras-
tination scale, F(1, 723) = 22.26, p < .001, h
2
= .03, and the scale showed
signicant correlations across country groups with GPA (r = -.31, p < .001),
daily procrastination (r = .30, p < .001), procrastination scale score (r = .33,
p < .001), and self-efcacy for self-regulated learning (r = -.30, p < .001).
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to investi-
gate differences in GPA, daily procrastination, procrastination scale score,
and self-efcacy for self-regulated learning according to negative impact of
procrastination and country. There was a signicant main effect for country
F(4, 556) = 53.39, p < .001, h
2
= .28, and for negative impact of procrastina-
tion, F(4, 556) = 21.49, p < .001, h
2
= .13, but no interaction effect. Table 4
reports levels of estimated GPA, daily procrastination, procrastination scale
scores, and self-efcacy for self-regulated learning scores for negative and
TABLE 3
Replacement Activities Students Engage in when Avoiding Academic Tasks
Canada Singapore
Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank
Get something to eat/drink 4.89 1.48 1 4.73 1.63 2
Watch TV 4.49 1.76 2 4.33 1.79 4
Email 4.45 1.70 3 4.00 1.78 8
Do household tasks 4.23 1.71 4 2.71 1.56 13
Talk with friends 3.98 1.76 5 3.47 1.79 11
Surf the internet 3.97 1.99 6 4.51 1.74 3
Have a nap 3.91 1.96 7 4.73 1.63 1
Do less urgent schoolwork 3.71 1.66 8 4.04 1.54 6
Exercise 3.47 1.79 9 3.40 1.73 12
Read books/magazines 3.34 1.74 10 4.03 1.57 7
Go out (movies/clubs/dinner) 3.19 1.75 11 3.90 1.76 9
Go online for chat 2.92 2.08 12 4.25 1.86 5
Go shopping 2.80 1.76 13 3.51 1.93 10
Play computer games 1.96 1.63 14 2.57 1.85 14
372 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
TABLE 4
Negative and Neutral Procrastinators in Canada and Singapore
Canada Singapore
Neutral
Procrastinators
Negative
Procrastinators Total
Neutral
Procrastinators
Negative
Procrastinators Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
GPA 3.25 .37 2.98 .37 3.18 .39 3.71 .58 3.50 .63 3.61 .61
Daily Procrastination 2.21 .84 2.75 1.01 2.35 .93 2.40 1.07 2.76 1.04 2.56 1.07
Procrastination Scale 12.74 5.16 16.37 4.38 13.75 5.21 10.66 4.07 12.66 4.05 11.53 4.18
SESRL 55.86 8.52 50.64 8.17 54.42 8.73 53.11 8.07 48.91 9.15 51.27 8.80
A
C
A
D
E
M
I
C
P
R
O
C
R
A
S
T
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
3
7
3

2
0
0
9
T
h
e
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
.
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
i
l
a
t
i
o
n

2
0
0
9
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
.
neutral procrastinators in each context. In Canada, negative procrastinators
had signicantly lower GPAs, F(1, 369) = 40.93, p < .001, h
2
= .10; higher
daily procrastination, F(1, 383) = 28.28, p < .001, h
2
= .07; higher procrasti-
nation scale score, F(1, 387) = 41.36, p < .001, h
2
= .10; and lower self-efcacy
for self-regulated learning, F(1, 388) = 29.87, p < .001, h
2
= .07 (p-level
Bonferroni-adjusted to .01), than neutral procrastinators.
In Singapore, negative procrastinators had signicantly higher daily pro-
crastination, F(1, 335) = 9.79, p < .001, h
2
= .03; higher procrastination scale
score, F(1, 336) = 20.11, p < .001, h
2
= .06; and lower self-efcacy for self-
regulated learning, F(1, 336) = 20.10, p < .001, h
2
= .06, than neutral procras-
tinators. The difference for GPA neared signicance, F(1, 198) = 5.87, p = .02,
h
2
= .03.
Brief Discussion
Even though most participants in Canada and Singapore spent less than two
hours per day procrastinating, a sizable minority in each country spent three
hours a day or more engaged in procrastination. However, the proportion of
students spending less than two hours and more than three hours per day did
not differ according to context. Hence, our prediction that students in Sin-
gapore might procrastinate less than Canadians was not borne out. Writing
tasks were most likely to be delayed or avoided in both contexts, but the
replacement activities varied according to context, with Canadians favoring
getting something to eat or drink as a delaying activity, whereas the Sin-
gaporeanundergraduates favoredtaking a napwhenavoiding academic tasks.
Our prediction that Singaporeans would be more likely to engage in group
activities as diversions (e.g. talk with friends or go out with friends) was not
borne out, with the top avoidance activities similar in each context. Aminority
of undergraduates viewed procrastination as negatively inuencing academic
functioning in each context, although the proportion of negative procrastina-
tors was higher in Singapore than in Canada. Hence, our nal prediction
that Canadian students would be less likely than Singaporean students to
interpret procrastination as having a negative impactwas supported.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of the two studies indicate that the correlates of procrastination
were similar in two culturally contrasting contexts, but there were differences
in the perceived negative impact of procrastination and in replacement activi-
ties that students engaged in when procrastinating. Our Study 1 prediction of
similar patterns of procrastination across groups was conrmed, supporting
the limited ndings of cross-national similarities in procrastination tenden-
cies (e.g. Ferrari et al., 2007). The results from Study 1 support previous
374 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
ndings (e.g. Klassen et al., in press; Klassen et al., 2008) that self-efcacy for
self-regulated learning is a generalisable feature of procrastination in diverse
cultural contexts.
Students from both contexts were most likely to procrastinate on writing
tasks. This is consistent with reports from previous studies in Western con-
texts (e.g. Fritzsche et al., 2003), but no previous studies have compared
avoidance tasks across cultures. If procrastination is most likely when tasks
are boring and difcult (Steel, 2007, p. 75), it appears that writing is
perceived as having less interest and to be more challenging than the other
potential procrastination tasks (e.g. reading and researching). Fritzsche et al.
(2003) suggest that providing regular feedback to writers may help reduce
levels of procrastination in undergraduates.
Given the higher levels of collectivism in the Singaporean context, we
predicted that students in Singapore may be more likely to engage in social
activities as replacement activities than students in Canada, but this predic-
tion was not borne out. Both groups of students rated getting something to
eat or drink as a favorite replacement activity (which may or may not be a
social activity), but Canadians rated doing household tasks and talking with
friends among their top ve replacement activities, whereas Singaporean
students rated having a nap, going online for chat, and surng the internet
among their top ve replacement activities. Ironically, Ferrari and Scher
(2000) found household chores as the most frequently procrastinated non-
academic tasks in their sample of American college students, but it may be
that Canadian students are likely to choose an aversive non-academic task
when avoiding academic tasks, along the lines of graduate students reports
of Ive never cleaned my apartment so much as when I was writing my
thesis. This pattern was not seen in Singaporean students, but the difference
may reect the different living conditions for undergraduates in the two
universities (i.e. living in on-campus rooms versus off-campus apartments)
rather than cultural differences. Future studies might investigate in a more
systematic manner the tasks students turn to when procrastinating.
Our prediction of lower daily procrastination in the Singaporean sample
was not conrmed, with similar proportions of students reporting procrasti-
nating more than three hours per day in each sample. Once again, the
universality of procrastination behaviors is supported, with students from
collectivist contexts reporting high levels of procrastination at the same rate
as students from individualist contexts. However, the negative perception of
procrastination varied across contexts, as was consistent with our prediction.
Singaporean students were more likely to rate procrastination as negatively
inuencing their academic functioning than Canadian students. Dietz et al.
(2007) suggest that procrastination is a link between value orientation and
the decision to engage in learning or leisure activities. Although the Dietz
et al. study did not examine value orientations from a cross-cultural perspec-
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 375
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
tive, we believe that the principle that value orientation inuences perception
of procrastinating behaviors is relevant for cross-cultural comparisons.
Value orientations may be more prescriptive in collectivist cultures, with less
freedom of action and narrower socialisation options. The personal goals
formed from value orientations are organisers of behavior (Boekaerts, 2003),
and may inuence perceptions of procrastination. Singaporean students may
interpret procrastination more negatively because the behavior ts less well
with their value orientation and personal goals than it does for Canadian
students. In other words, all students procrastinate, but the interpretation of
procrastination may be inuenced by cultural background.
Our results showed that less than a third of Canadians and nearly half
of Singaporeans classify themselves as negative procrastinators. The conse-
quences of perceived negative procrastination are damaging, and negative
procrastinators in Canada and Singapore reported more time spent procras-
tinating, lower levels of self-efcacy for self-regulated learning, and lower
GPA (for Canadians). The differential relationship between GPA and nega-
tive procrastination in Canada and Singapore may be due to differential
value orientations, with the Canadians who report procrastination as nega-
tive actually earning lower grades, whereas Singaporeans who rate them-
selves as negative procrastinators may do so largely due to feelings of conict
between personal goals and their procrastinating behavior. We did not
measure the link between negative procrastination and self-esteem; future
research might examine the direction and intensity of the association between
self-esteem and negative procrastination.
Findings from this research suggest that the impact of procrastination is
not a simple function of time spent procrastinating, but is also related to
interpretations of behavior that may be inuenced by cultural beliefs. Sin-
gaporeans did not report higher levels of daily procrastination, but they did
report greater negative impact of procrastination. One explanation for this
discrepancy may be differences in the difculty of the respective university
programs, but it is plausible that differing interpretation of procrastination
may also be a function of personal goals and value orientations. Although
this study provides a rst exploration of this phenomenon, future studies
should further examine how students cultural beliefs inuence their inter-
pretations of procrastination.
The study is limited by its reliance on self-report surveys from limited
samples from two universities in Canada and Singapore. Although the
samples shared many similarities, there are differences in education systems
and cultural beliefs (which were not measured, but assumed from previous
studies, e.g. Hofstede, 2001) that make equivalence across the two contexts
difcult to assess. Consequently, the results may not generalise well to
other populations in culturally Western or East Asian contexts. Although
this study provides useful initial data on academic procrastination across
376 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
cultures, future cross-cultural procrastination research should focus on
incorporating other methodological approaches, such as the use of behav-
ioral measures or perceptions of national character (PNC) data that may
provide evidence of between-culture differences in behavior (e.g. Heine,
Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008). In this study, negative procrastination was
dened by adverse academic impact, but procrastination also has been
associated with adverse affective impact (e.g. Steel, 2007), and future cross-
cultural studies might examine negative emotional outcomes associated
with procrastination. Finally, a future study would protably investigate
how culturally inuenced beliefs, such as self-enhancing and self-improving
motivations, might be linked to students explanations for academic
procrastination.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, D.S., & Gross, B.L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task charac-
teristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 513.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efcacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117148.
Boekaerts, M. (2003). How do students from different cultures motivate themselves
for academic learning? In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Teaching, learning, and
motivation in multicultural context (pp. 1331). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Chia, Y.M., Koh, H.C., & Pragasam, J. (2008). An international study of career
drivers of accounting students in Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong. Journal of
Education and Work, 21, 4160.
Chong, W.H. (2007). The role of personal agency beliefs in academic self-regulation.
School Psychology International, 28, 6376.
Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines and
academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 893906.
Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2004). Australian academic teaching in Singapore: Striving
for cultural empathy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41,
291304.
Ferrari, J.R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention
decit, boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185196.
Ferrari, J.R., Diaz-Morales, J.F., OCallaghan, J., Diaz, K., & Argumedo, D. (2007).
Frequent behavioral delay tendency by adults: International prevalence rates of
chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 458464.
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.
Ferrari, J.R., & Scher, S.J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academic and non-
academic tasks procrastinated by students: The use of daily logs. Psychology in the
Schools, 37, 359366.
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 377
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
Fritzsche, B.A., Young, B.R., & Hickson, K.C. (2003). Individual differences in
academic procrastination tendency and writing success. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 15491557.
Ghilagaber, G. (2004). Another look at Chows test for the equality of two heterosce-
dastic regression models. Quality and Quantity, 38, 8193.
Hammer, C.A., & Ferrari, J.R. (2002). Differential incidence of procrastination
between blue- and white-collar workers. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 21, 333338.
Heine, S.J. (2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-
improving motivations. In V. Murphy-Berman & J.J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-
cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 101128). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Heine, S.J., Buchtel, E.E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national com-
parisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological
Science, 19, 309313.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Howell, A.J., & Watson, D.C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement
goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
167178.
Klassen, R.M., Ang, R., Chong, W.H., Krawchuk, L.L., Huan, V., Wong, I., & Yeo,
L.S. (in press). A cross-cultural study of adolescent procrastination. Journal of
Research on Adolescence.
Klassen, R.M., Krawchuk, L.L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of
undergraduates: Low self-efcacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procras-
tination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915931.
Marsh, H.W., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between
academic self-concepts and achievements: Cross-cultural generalizability of the
internal/external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 5667.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and
predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801813.
Rosenberg, M.J. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded
theory of procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 1225.
Sirois, F.M. (2004). Procrastination and intentions to perform health behaviors: The
role of self-efcacy and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 115128.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review
of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 6594.
Times Higher Education World University Rankings (2007). The top 200 world
universities. Retrieved 15 February 2008 from http://www.timeshighereducation.
co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=144
Tuckman, B.W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastina-
tion scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473480.
378 KLASSEN ET AL.
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.
Usher, E.L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efcacy for self-regulated learning: A valida-
tion study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443463.
Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 372389.
World Bank (2009). Key development data and statistics. Retrieved 25 March 2009
from: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,
contentMDK:20535285~menuPK:1192694~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~
theSitePK:239419,00.html
Zhang, H.-M., & Zhang, Z.-J. (2007). Usability of Tuckman procrastination scale in
Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 1012.
Zimmerman, B.J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efcacy beliefs and personal goal-setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663676.
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 379
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied
Psychology.