BSc Psychology Ethics Proposal Form

The ethics proposal form is quite straight forward and each section includes some guidance on
completing the form. The following is an example of the proposal form you need to complete for
you dissertation.

Student Name Tan E-Lynn

Supervisors Name Miss Nur Aini Alegrea Suner
Dissertation Title The relationship between conscientiousness, self-efficacy and
procrastination among University Students in Subang Jaya.

Brief background to the project and aim of your study

Procrastination is extremely prevalent in the society and is a phenomenon that affects almost
every single individual at some point in an individual’s life. Despite that, some individuals
have been found to procrastinate more than others. Studies have revealed that 80% to 95% of
university students engage in the act of procrastinating (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; O‟Brien, 2002).
While approximately 75% university students considered themselves procrastinators (Potts,
1987), nearly 50% were found to procrastinate consistently and problematically (Day,
Mensink, & O’Sullivan, 2000; Haycock, 1993; Micek, 1982; Onwuegbuzie, 2000a; Solomon
& Rothblum, 1984). Students reported procrastinating a considerable amount every day. It
was found that over one third of their day to day activities were commandeered by
procrastinating, commonly executed through playing video games, sleeping, surfing the
internet and watching television (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). Furthermore, the
increasing percentages over the years (Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001) have raised
concerns; more often than not, procrastinating is detrimental to a students’ academic
achievement. Frequent procrastination among university students have been associated with
delaying the completion of self-paced quizzes, missing assignment deadlines, obtaining low
grades and test anxiety (Beswick, Rothblum & Mann, 1988; Lay & Burns, 1991; Rothblum et
al., 1986). Hence, the need for further research into procrastination and its influencing
factors, especially among university students.

Procrastination is generally defined as “the purposive delay in the beginning and/or

completion of an overt or covert act, typically accompanied by subjective discomfort”
(Ferrari and Tice 2000) or "to voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite
expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007). These two definitions are congruent
with the assumptions that procrastinating is an action that individuals partake in deliberately,
and that it is a dysfunctional form of delaying. There are several different manifestations of
procrastination depending on its behavioural, cognitive and affective components. For
instance, decisional, academic, compulsive or neurotic procrastination. However, one of the
most common manifestation of procrastination in the present society is academic
procrastination (Jowkar and Delavarpur 2006). Defined as a student’s prevalent and persistent
desire to delay engaging in academic activities, nearly always amalgamated with
anxiety. Despite all the negative connotations associated with it, individuals of all ages still
procrastinate knowingly. One of the influencing factors put forth is that procrastinating is
reflective of an individual’s personality (Watson, 2001).

According to Johnson and Bloom (1995), the relationship between personality factors and
procrastination has been examined widely. For instance, investigations applying Costa and
McCrae's (1992) facets of the five-factor model have found procrastination to be correlated to
low conscientiousness. Defined as the personality trait of being careful and vigilant,
conscientious individuals are typically organised and efficient (McCown and Johnson (1991).
According to Costa and McCrae (1992), conscientiousness is composed of the facets:
competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation.
In studies by Johnson and Bloom (1995) and Schouwenburg and Lay (1995), high negative
correlations between procrastination and conscientiousness was found. Although trait
procrastination was moderately related to the higher-order factor Neuroticism in both studies,
when the trait was regressed on to all five factors (Costa and McCrae, 1992),
conscientiousness was essentially the sole contributor (Johnson and Bloom, 1995;
Schouwenburg and Lay, 1995). Thus, the remaining four factors of the Five-factor Model did
not account for additional variance in predicting trait procrastination. These findings led
Schouwenburg and Lay (1995) to propose that procrastination may be best understood as the
lack of conscientiousness.

Similarly, in a study by Johnson and Bloom (1995), a total of 202 undergraduate students
were recruited to complete a facet level analysis on the relationship between
conscientiousness and procrastination. All the conscientiousness facets were found to be
inversely related to procrastination with self-discipline being the strongest predictor. It was
reported that those who demonstrated low levels of conscientiousness were reported to have
higher tendency to procrastinate. In academic procrastination, this means that students who
exhibit low self-discipline may delay in submitting assignments and delay in exam
preparation as they may feel overwhelmed or are easily distracted by other activities [15,16].
On the other hand, students with high self- discipline tend to set goals and meet deadlines and
less likely to procrastinate [12].

Additionally, Lay, Kovacs and Danto (1998) examined the relationship between trait
procrastination and the big-five factor conscientiousness among school aged children. The
sample used was 149 children in grades 3-5, drawn from different schools. The participants
were also asked to answer self-report questionnaires measuring procrastination and
conscientiousness. Teacher ratings of the children on procrastination and each facet of
conscientiousness were also obtained. It was found that there was a significant negative
correlation between procrastination and conscientiousness among young children. This
suggests that procrastination may be a pattern established early on in an individual's academic
career. Furthermore, it was posited that children procrastinate due to a lack in self-discipline -
a facet of conscientiousness (Lay, Kovacs and Danto, 1998), further suggesting that
procrastination is correlated to conscientiousness. Another factor negatively associated with
procrastination is self-efficacy (Steel, 2007; Wilson & Nguyen, 2012).

Perceived self-efficacy is a pivotal source of motivation in an individual’s daily life. It is the

expectation of success established upon an individual’s own competencies (Zimmerman,
2008a). In other words, self-efficacy is defined as one’s beliefs in his or her own capabilities
to carry out the necessary actions, in order to complete a task successfully (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy plays a central role in the self-regulation of behaviour through its effects on
intention formation and strength, and persistence of action in the face of obstacles (Bandura,
1986). Given the self-regulation difficulties that characterize trait procrastination (Ferrari,
1992b), it is not surprising that several studies suggest a relationship between procrastination
and self-efficacy.

In a meta-analysis conducted by Steel (2007) of procrastination’s possible causes and effects,

based on 691 correlations, it was revealed that neuroticism, rebelliousness, and sensation
seeking show only a weak connection. However, self-efficacy was found to be a strong and
consistent predictors of procrastination. An explanation for this would be that procrastinators
are more likely to give up when faced with an obstacle that is believed to be too big to
overcome (Briody 1980). This is congruent with earlier studies where a negative correlation
was found between self-efficacy and procrastination (Ferrari, Parker, & Ware, 1992; Seo,
2008; Tan et al., 2008). Further suggesting that an individual’s lack of task or domain
confidence can result in delaying initiation or completion of tasks. Hence, the less self-
efficacious an individual is, the more inclined that individual is to procrastinate.

Furthermore, a study was conducted by Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani (2007) exploring the
relationships between academic procrastination and motivation in undergraduates with and
without learning disabilities (LD). A total of 208 participants were recruited for the study,
101 with LD and 107 without LD. Results from self-report surveys found that individuals
with LD reported significantly higher levels of procrastination and lower levels of
metacognitive self-efficacy than those without LD. In addition, procrastination was also
found to be strongly (inversely) related to self-efficacy for both (LD and non LD) groups.
Self-efficacy researchers suggest that individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to
display higher levels of task motivation, that is, to show greater effort, persistence, and
resilience, therefore, less likely to procrastinate (Powell, & Buro, 2006). Thus,
procrastination is inversely related to the strength of an individuals’ beliefs in their
capabilities to carry out a desired task (i.e., self-efficacy).

Although there have been a handful of studies investigating procrastination conducted in the
Malaysian context, the results found were mixed and contradict the literature highlighted
above. For example, correlational results from a study conducted by Baka and Khan (2016)
involving 148 Malaysian university students reported no significant associations between the
five personality traits and procrastination. In addition, it was also reported in Baka and
Khan’s (2016) study that the self-efficacy did not influence the tendency for university
student to procrastinate in their academic activities. Another study conducted in Malaysia by
Kok (2016) examined the relationship between procrastination and the motivational aspects
of self-regulation. In this study, a significant negative correlation between procrastination and
the intrinsic motivation was found; inversely, a significant positive correlation procrastination
and extrinsic motivation. Hence, the previous studies conducted in the Malaysian context
focused only on the relationship between procrastination and factors such as motivation and
the big-give personality as a whole. However, previous literature (van Eerde, 2003) has
highlighted conscientiousness to have the largest influence on procrastination out of the big-
five personality traits. Also, Baka and Khan’s (2016) research on Malaysian undergraduates
found that self-efficacy was not an influencing factor for procrastination, contradicting
previous results found in Western countries.

Therefore, confirming the correlations between conscientiousness, self-efficacy and

procrastination may prove useful in providing further insight regarding procrastination among
university students in Malaysia. The findings of this study may also prove useful in the
development of remedial counselling strategies for students who procrastinate. Hence, the
present study aims to investigate the relationship between conscientiousness, self-efficacy
and procrastination among university students in Subang Jaya.

It is hypothesised that:
1. There will be a significant relationship between conscientiousness and
procrastination.
2. There will be a significant relationship between self-efficacy and procrastination.
3. Conscientiousness will be a better predictor of procrastination than self-efficacy.
4. There will be a significant difference in procrastination between genders.
5. There will be a significant difference in procrastination between races.

Method: Design

A cross sectional design will be employed in this study. There are two independent variables;
conscientiousness and self-efficacy. The dependent variable will be the participants’
procrastination.

Method: Participants
Please explain the sample you plan to recruit for your study, identify the number of participants
you aim to recruit, from where you will be recruiting your sample and the anticipated ages of your
participants. If you are planning to recruit your participants from outside the university, please
state whether you have contacts in suitable organisations and whether you have permission to
seek participants from these organisations.

The sample will consist of university students between the ages of 18-28. University students
were chosen as participants because research indicates that 80–95% of tertiary students
engage in procrastination, and that almost 50% of students procrastinate consistently and
problematically (Day, Mensink, & O’Sullivan, 2000; Steel, 2007). The purposive sampling
method will be applied so that there will be an equal number of participants from each gender
and race. The participants will be recruited from universities and colleges in Subang Jaya.
The aimed sample size is 100 participants. Hence, the sample size will not unmanageably
large, but will also not be small enough to be considered a limitation (Moss, 2001).
Method: Materials

This study will use The Big Five Inventory (BFI). The BFI is a self-report inventory
consisting of 44 items (John et al., 2008). However, for the purpose of the study, only nine of
the items will be extracted and used to assess the participants’ conscientiousness (items 3, 8,
13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43). For example, “Does a thorough job”. Participants will be required
to rate these nine items on a five-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree).
The internal reliability for the questionnaire consisting only of items measuring
Conscientiousness showed an excellent reliability coefficient with the Cronbach’s Alpha
value of .888 (Ong, 2014) which is above the minimum level of .7 (DeVellis, 2003; Robinson
et al., 1991; Nunnally, 1978). Hence, no amendments to the nine items were necessary. See
Appendix C for the scale and scoring instruction.

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995). This scale comprises
ten items that measure self-efficacy on a four-point Likert scale (1 not at all true to 4 exactly
true). An example of an item is “I can usually handle whatever comes my way”. The scale
has good internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas between .76 and .90. See Appendix D
for the scale and scoring instruction.

General Procrastination Scale developed by Lay (1986). This questionnaire consists of 20

items designed to measure procrastination in student population. On a five-point Likert scale,
participants will be required to rate whether each statement is uncharacteristic or
characteristic of themselves (1 extremely uncharacteristic to 5 extremely characteristic).
Example of an items is “I usually make decisions as soon as possible”. The scale showed
high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha value of .91 (Lay, 1993). See Appendix E for the
scale and scoring instruction.

Method: Procedure

The survey will take place in colleges/universities in Subang Jaya, Malaysia. Firstly,
participants will be briefed on the aims of the study and purpose of the questionnaire. The
participants will also be informed of their right to withdraw at any time during the study. The
participants will also be assured of that the data provided will be treated with full
confidentiality. Consent forms will then be distributed to acquire the participants’ informed
consent. Following which, the questionnaires will be distributed. It is approximated that
participants will take 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaires. Once the survey is
complete, the participants will be debriefed and thanked for their time. Any question or
concerns that the participants may have will be addressed at this point.
Proposed Data Analysis:

In this research, descriptive statistics will be used to describe the basic features of the data
such as mean and standard deviation. Pearsons’ correlation will be used to analyse the
relationship between conscientiousness, self-efficacy and procrastination among
college/university students in Subang Jaya. Multiple regression will also be used to determine
whether conscientiousness or self-efficacy is the better predictor of procrastination. An
independent T-test will be run to examine gender differences in procrastination. One-Way
ANOVA test will be used to test the differences in procrastination among college/university
students of different races (Chinese, Malay and Indian).
Ethics Checklist

Yes No N/A
1 Will you describe the main experimental procedures to participants in
X ☐ ☐
advance, so that they are informed what to expect?
2 Will you tell participants that their participation is voluntary? X ☐ ☐
3 Will you obtain written consent for participation? X ☐ ☐
4 If your study is observational, will you ask participants for their consent to
☐ ☐ X
being observed?
5 Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from the study at any
X ☐ ☐
time and for any reason?
6 With questionnaires, will you give participants the option of omitting
X ☐ ☐
questions they do not want to answer?
7 Will you tell participants that their data will be treated with full
X ☐ ☐
confidentiality and that, if published, it will not be identifiable as theirs?
8 Will you debrief participants at the end of their participation (i.e. give
X ☐ ☐
them a brief explanation about the study)?
9 Will your study involve deliberately misleading participants in any way? ☐ X ☐
10 Is there any realistic risk of any participants experiencing either physical
or psychological distress or discomfort? If YES, please provide details in
the additional required information section (below) & state what you will X ☐ ☐
tell them to do if they should experience any problems (e.g. who to
contact for help).
11 Does your study involve work with animals? ☐ X ☐
12 Do participants fall into any of the following categories:
 Schoolchildren (under 18 years of age)
 People with learning or communication difficulties
 Patients
☐ X ☐
 People in custody
 People engaged in illegal activities (e.g. drug taking)
Note: you may also need to obtain CRB clearance (or equivalent for
overseas students)

If you ticked no to questions 1 to 8 or yes to questions 9 to 12 you will need to provide additional
information on your study below.
Additional Required Information

If a potential participant feels any form of discomfort they can simply decide not to partake in
the study or they may also contact The Befrienders at 04-281 5161/ 281 1108 or the College’s
counselling Unit Level 1 (Student Affairs Office) at 603.86001777 Ext. 2105.

Approval
I declare that the information supplied is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. I further
understand that any changes to my study will first need to be discussed and approved by my
dissertation supervisor and the psychology ethics committee.

Student signature_____________________________ Date_________________________

I am satisfied that the information, as presented, meets the necessary ethical standards and the
student may progress.

Supervisor Signature_________________________________ Date_________________________

Psychology Ethics Committee Decision

The Psychology Ethics Committee met on the **INSERT DATE** and reviewed your dissertation
ethics proposal.

Ethics rep. signature: Date: __________

Ethic Submission Reference Number:

Appendices

Appendix A

Informed Consent Form Participant No. ( )

Title of Research Project:

The correlation between different personality types and addiction to Facebook.

Description of the Research and Your Participation:You are invited to participate in a

research study conducted by Tan E-Lynn under the supervision of Ms Nur Aini Alegrea Suner.
The purpose of this research is to assess the Relationship between conscientiousness, self-
efficacy and procrastination. Your participation will involve answering 3 sets of short
questionnaires. The amount of time required for your participation will be approximately 15
minutes.

The purpose of the study: The purpose of the present study is to investigate whether there is a
correlation between conscientiousness, self-efficacy and procrastination.

Explanation of Procedures:If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to fill in
3 questionnaires, one to assess conscientiousness, one to assess self-efficacy and the other
assess procrastination. This study should take no longer than 20 minutes.

Risks and Discomforts:In the event you experience any discomfort and /or distress during or
after the current study, you may contact The Befrienders at 04-281 5161/ 281 1108 or the
College’s counselling Unit Level 1 (Student Affairs Office) at 603.86001777 Ext. 2105.

Potential Benefits: By participating in this study, you will help to further the research on the
relationship between conscientiousness, self-efficacy and procrastination. This will provide an
insight to academicians and practitioners on the matter of conscientiousness and self-efficacy,
facilitating a better understanding towards procrastination among college students.

Protection of Confidentiality: Your participation in this study will be kept completely

confidential. Various academics and practitioners may potentially use this information for
research purposes. However, your information will not appear in any of the written documents
or presentation.

Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to
participate and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time without the need to
provide any reason. You will not be penalized in any way should you decide not to participate
or to withdraw from the study. If, after having completed the study you change your mind
about your participation in the study, you can withdraw your data by contacting me
([email protected]), citing your participant number, and saying that you wish to withdraw
your data. You will be given 7 days to withdraw your data from the date of your participation.
YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD to be in this research project.

Thank you very much.

I have read and understood the information provided to me here. I have had all my
questions answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study and
understand that my consent does not take away my right to withdraw from this study at any
time as stated above.

------------------------------------ -----------------------------

Participant’s Signature Date

Note : There are 2 copies of this consent letter. Please sign/date one copy & return it to the
researcher as evidence of your informed consent. Please keep the other copy for your
record. Thank you.
Appendix B

Demographic Information Participant No. ( )

Age: _______

Gender: Male Female

University: ______________________________

Nationality: Malaysian Other

Race: Malay Chinese Indian Other

 Appendix C
The Big Five Inventory
How I am in general

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree
that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please write a number next to each
statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Disagree Neither agree Agree Agree
Strongly a little nor disagree a little Strongly

I am someone who…

1. _____ Does a thorough job

2. _____ Can be somewhat careless

3. _____ Is a reliable worker

4. _____ Tends to be disorganized

5. _____ Tends to be lazy

6. _____ Perseveres until the task is finished

7. _____ Does things efficiently

8. _____ Makes plans and follows through with them

9. _____ Is easily distracted

SCORING INSTRUCTIONS

To score the BFI, you’ll first need to reverse-score all negatively-keyed items:

Conscientiousness: 2, 4, 5, 9

To recode these items, you should subtract your score for all reverse-scored items from 6. For
example, if you gave yourself a 5, compute 6 minus 5 and your recoded score is 1. That is, a
score of 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1.

Next, you will calculate the scores by averaging the items (where R indicates using the
reverse-scored item).

Conscientiousness: 1, 2R, 3, 4R, 5R, 6, 7, 8, 9R

13 | P a g e
Appendix D
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

About: This scale is a self-report measure of self-efficacy.

Items: 10

Reliability:
Internal reliability for GSE = Cronbach’ alphas between .76 and .90.

Validity:
The General Self-Efficacy Scale is correlated to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction.
Negative coefficients were found for depression, stress, health, complaints, burnout and
anxiety.

Scoring:

Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true

All questions 1 2 3 4

The total score is calculated by finding the sum of all items. For the GSE, the score ranges
between 10 and 40, with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.

References:
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalised Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.
Wright, & M. Jonston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

14 | P a g e
 General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

Not at Hardly Moderately Exactly

all true true true true
1. I can always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the
means and ways to get what I want.
3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims
and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal
efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resoluteness, I know
how to handle unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest
the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing
difficulties because I can rely on my
coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem,
I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think
of a solution.
10. I can usually handle whatever comes
my way.

15 | P a g e
Appendix E
Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) – For student populations

Instructions:

People may use the following statements to describe themselves. For each statement, decide
whether the statement is uncharacteristic or characteristic of you using the following 5 point
scale. Note that the 3 on the scale is Neutral – the statement is neither characteristic nor
uncharacteristic of you. In the box to the right of each statement, fill in the number on the 5
point scale that best describes you.

Extremely Moderately Neutral Moderately Extremely

Uncharacteristic Uncharacteristic Characteristic Characteristic
1 2 3 4 5

1. I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before.

2.* I do not do assignments until just before they are to be handed in.

3.* When I am finished with a library book, I return it right away regardless of the date it is
due.

4. When it is time to get up in the morning, I most often get right out of bed.

5. A letter may sit for days after I write it before mailing it.

6. I generally return phone calls promptly.

7. Even with jobs that require little else except sitting down and doing them, I find they
seldom get done
for days.

8. I usually make decisions as soon as possible.

9. I generally delay before starting on work I have to do.

10.* I usually have to rush to complete a task on time.

11. When preparing to go out, I am seldom caught having to do something at the last minute.

16 | P a g e
12. In preparing for some deadline, I often waste time by doing other things.

13.* I prefer to leave early for an appointment.

14.* I usually start an assignment shortly after it is assigned.

15. I often have a task finished sooner than necessary.

16. I always seem to end up shopping for birthday or Christmas gifts at the last minute.

17. I usually buy even an essential item at the last minute.

18. I usually accomplish all the things I plan to do in a day.

19. I am continually saying “I’ll do it tomorrow”.

20. I usually take care of all the tasks I have to do before I settle down and relax for the
evening.

Note: Reversed-keyed items: 3,4,6,8,11,13,14,15,18,20

Note: * indicates items that differ from student to non-student forms

References
Lay, C. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20, 474-495.

17 | P a g e