Exploring Relationships Between Procrastination, Perfectionism, Self-Forgiveness and Academic Grade: A Path Analysis.

Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade: A
path analysis.
Exploring relationships between procrastination,

perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic
grade: A path analysis.
Bethany Elaine Rapson
Supervisor: Tony Lawrence
24th April 2015.
A report presented in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry

University, towards the degree of a Bachelor of Science with Honours in
Psychology
Contents

path analysis.
Abstract....................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4
Academic Procrastination........................................................................................ 4
Factors Affecting Procrastination.............................................................................7
Procrastination and Perfectionism...........................................................................8
Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness....................................................................10
The Current Study................................................................................................. 10
Methodology............................................................................................................... 11
Design................................................................................................................... 11
Participants........................................................................................................... 11
Measures............................................................................................................... 11
Procedure.............................................................................................................. 13
Results....................................................................................................................... 14
Preliminary Data Screening...................................................................................14
Regression 1 Procrastination, PIA and PSO onto Self-Forgiveness......................15
Regression 2 PSO and PIA onto Procrastination..................................................16
Regression 3 PSO, PIA, Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness onto Average Grade
.............................................................................................................................. 17
Discussion................................................................................................................... 19
Findings and Interpretations................................................................................. 19
Limitations of the Current Study...........................................................................24
Directions for Future Research and Practical Implications.....................................25
Conclusions........................................................................................................... 26
References.................................................................................................................. 28
Appendices................................................................................................................. 32
1.
Aitken's Procrastination Inventory (1982).......................................................32
2.
Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990)......................................34
3.
Wohl's Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010)..............................................................36
4.
Certificate of Ethical Approval........................................................................37
5.
Introductory Text............................................................................................. 38
6.
Debrief............................................................................................................ 40
Abstract

path analysis.
The aim of the current study was to explore the relationships between procrastination, selfforgiveness for procrastination, perfectionism and average grade. The sample consisted of 55
first and second-year undergraduate students studying Psychology at Coventry University. Three
self-report measures were utilised for this study. Frosts Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
(1990) was used to measure perfectionistic traits, Aitkens Procrastination Inventory (1982) to
gauge procrastination and finally Wohls Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010) was employed to
measure self-forgiveness for procrastination. Participants were also required to submit their
average grades. Regression analyses were subsequently performed on the data, yielding some
significant findings. The perfectionism scale was divided into two separate variables - Personal
Standards and Organisation (PSO) and Parentally Introjected Anxieties (PIA) - prior to
performing the regression analyses. A significant negative relationship was found between
procrastination and self-forgiveness and a significant negative curvilinear relationship was
observed between PIA and self-forgiveness. Furthermore, PIA significantly and negatively
correlated with procrastination while PSO was found to significantly and positively correlate
with procrastination. No significant correlations were found between average grade and any
other variable. The results of these analyses were subsequently incorporated into a path analysis.
Implications for future research are discussed in terms of repeating the study, albeit with the
inclusion of a procrastination scale that measures both active and passive procrastination. A
qualitative study concerning further exploration of the unique relationship displayed between
PIA and procrastination is also recommended.

path analysis.
Introduction
Academic Procrastination
The term procrastination defines the act of delaying an often difficult, important task
with long-term rewards in favour of an easier, less important task from which instantaneous
rewards can be gained (Boice, 1996). The prevalence of problematic and chronic procrastination
in the general population is estimated to be around 15-20%
(Harriot and Ferrari 1996).
However, for students, this number is much higher a staggering 80-95% of college students
engage in procrastination (Ellis and Knaus, 1977 in Steel, 2007), with around half of the entire
student population reporting consistent and problematic procrastination (Day, Mensink and
OSullivan, 2000). This is especially detrimental to students, as strict deadlines must be met in
order to perform adequately in higher education. Student procrastinators have previously been
shown to perform more poorly overall and are at a higher risk of dropping out of education
altogether (De Paola and Scoppa, 2014). In addition, students whom engage in procrastination
report an overall lower level of life-satisfaction than non-procrastinators (zer and Sakes,
2011). Therefore, it is important that procrastination is studied, in order to understand the
mechanisms behind it and why it may be so prevalent within the student population. If the
problem is well understood, then direct interventions may be crafted to lower levels of
problematic procrastination for students, at a time where it is most crucial to complete tasks on
time.
Research has attempted to address why students seem to struggle a great deal more with
procrastination than the general population, especially university students. It has been suggested
that the very environment that students work in perpetuates procrastination. To elaborate,
students work towards deadlines which occur approximately four to six times per semester in the
form of coursework deadlines and examinations, usually towards the latter half of the semester.

path analysis.
The irregular timing of these deadlines is thought to have an overall negative effect on students
grades, as this irregularity promotes some students to passively engage in study until a deadline
arises. This theory is supported by Gaynor and Millham (1976, cited in DeRoma et al. 2003)
who found that students who were set weekly quizzes performed better than students who took
only one midterm and one final exam. However, this may alternatively be explained by the
students having simply learned the material in the weekly examinations more recently, leading to
improved recall and thus improved performance. Therefore, it is not necessarily an indicator of
better self-regulated learning in this condition versus procrastination. However, it is an
indication that external motivation, in this case in the form of weekly tests, may play a key role
in preventing procrastination.
Conversely, students who possess intrinsic motivations for completing work, such as for
self-improvement through learning, are less likely to procrastinate than students with extrinsic
motivations (Senecal, Koestner and Vallerand, 1995). Again, this may be due to the irregularity
of deadlines which are categorised as an extrinsic motivation to complete work. However,
students with intrinsic motivations do still procrastinate to some level. Seo (2013) separated
procrastinators into two categories active procrastinators and passive procrastinators. In this
study, it was found that active procrastinators possessed a similar level of intrinsic motivations to
non-procrastinators and that passive procrastinators had higher extrinsic and lower intrinsic
motivations. This accounts for some of the variance in procrastination in those with highly
intrinsic motivations and is also indicative of two distinct categories of student procrastinators.
Student procrastination is fundamentally prevalent within schools and universities,
however the drop-out rate for students attending university in the UK was only 7.4% in 2010/11
(HEFCE, 2013). Compared with the estimated 80-95% of students whom engage in
procrastination, this number might be expected to be much higher due to the negative

path analysis.
implications of procrastination discussed previously. This suggests that procrastination may be

too broad a definition and that procrastinators may be broken down into two distinct groups those who procrastinate actively and those who procrastinate passively. Choi and Moran (2009,
cited in Seo, 2013) define active procrastinators as those who deliberately decide to delay a task
in order to become better motivated, while passive procrastinators are those who procrastinate in
the traditional sense for the purpose of task avoidance.
Chu and Choi (2005) compared active procrastinators, passive procrastinators and nonprocrastinators. They found that active procrastinators and non-procrastinators tended to achieve
similarly high GPAs and exhibit lower levels of stress and depression than passive
procrastinators. A limitation to this study may be that it was cross-sectional and entirely based
upon self-report. However, there would be little reason to give false information concerning
procrastination as it is a well-known fact that the majority of students procrastinate (Ellis and
Knaus, 1977 cited in Steel 2007). Furthermore, Elliot (2002, cited in Steel, 2007) reported crosstemporal stability of procrastination to be .77 over a ten-year period, suggesting that
procrastination habits do not tend to change over time. This article may prove useful in
explaining why some procrastinators achieve grades in line with those who do not engage in
procrastination. Another study by Seo (2012) compared active procrastinators and passive
procrastinators performance on the same examination. Both groups engaged in cramming one
day or less prior to the examination. Having done the same amount of preparation, active
procrastinators were found to perform significantly better than passive procrastinators.
Therefore, it likely that procrastination affects students according to the individual effects that
stress and anxiety have on their ability to work efficiently. It seem that passive procrastinators
work efficiency decreases as the deadline nears and stress reaches peak levels, while active
procrastinators work consistently better under stressful conditions.

path analysis.
Factors Affecting Procrastination

It is easy to view the act of procrastination as a modern problem, brought about by the
information age where distractions are prevalent in the immediate environment in the form of
social media and technology. The internet does indeed play a role in procrastination this was
supported in a survey conducted by Thatcher, Wretschko and Fridjhon (2007). However, such
distractions are but one aspect of an increasingly complex phenomenon. Steel (2007) conducted
a meta-analysis to investigate possible causes of procrastination using 691 correlations from
previous studies. Steel terms the phenomenon as self-regulatory failure caused by task
aversiveness, poor self-efficacy, impulsiveness and a lack of conscientiousness. He also found
that neuroticism, rebelliousness and sensation-seeking played a role in self-regulatory failure,
albeit to a lesser extent. It is noted that procrastination is caused by either internal factors - such
as individual differences or variances in the degree of specific personality traits held by the
individual- or, alternatively, environmental factors such as task aversiveness and timing of
rewards and punishments for completing or failing to complete a task.
The degree to which a person procrastinates can, to some extent, be reliably predicted by
their personality traits. A survey study was conducted by Johnson and Bloom (1995) comparing
scores from the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McRae, 1992) and Aitkens Procrastination Inventory
(1982). Of the five personality factors, conscientiousness and neuroticism were significantly
correlated with procrastination, while agreeableness, openness to experience and extraversion
were not. Conscientiousness was found to negatively correlate with procrastination scores with
lack of self-discipline found to be the best positive predictor of procrastination. Conversely,
neuroticism was positively correlated with procrastination scores, specifically the facets of
impulsiveness and vulnerability. Additionally, neuroticism was negatively correlated with
conscientiousness. A possible explanation for this, as outlined by Johnson and Bloom (1995) is
that procrastinators lack the organisational skills needed to complete a task, which come under
7

path analysis.
the umbrella of conscientiousness, leading to anxiety and neuroticism. Additionally, high

neuroticism scores suggest that procrastinators tend to have lower self-confidence and a lack of
reflection or deliberation. The relationship between conscientiousness and procrastination gains
further support from Lee, Kelly and Edwards (2006) who found that conscientiousness to
account for 24% of the variance in procrastination.
A further factor contributing to procrastination is that of self-handicapping. Ferrari
(2004) conducted an experiment comparing the degree to which procrastinators and nonprocrastinators self-handicapped on the same task. It was found that procrastinators were
significantly more likely to self-handicap. Procrastination may be explained as a selfhandicapping behaviour, used for the purpose of creating an alternative excuse, if the individual
should fail or perform poorly on a task. If a person feels they may perform poorly, they may well
procrastinate as a means of self-handicapping. The ultimate function of this behaviour is to serve
as an explanation for failure that does not reflect the individuals true ability. An individual who
possesses low conscientiousness and high neuroticism is most likely to self-handicap in general
(Bobo, Whitaker and Strunk, 2013). This is consistent with previous research in the area of
personality and procrastination, suggesting that self-handicapping may be a reliable and
consistent reason for an individual to procrastinate.
Procrastination
and
Perfectionism
A recent study by Stewart and De George-Walker (2014) implicates the role of

perfectionism in self-handicapping behaviour. These two variables were significantly and
positively correlated, along with low-self efficacy. It is suggested that perfectionists sabotage
their level of self-efficacy through setting unrealistic goals and personal expectations, ultimately
leading to self-handicapping behaviours such as procrastination, lack of effort or failing to

path analysis.
practice. This correlation between perfectionism and self-handicapping was replicated among
university students (Karner-Huuleac, 2014).
Further support for the relationship between academic procrastination and perfectionism in
university students is provided by Jadidi, Mohammadkhani and
Tajrishi (2011). The
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, 1990) was utilised, along with the Procrastination
Assessment Scale-Students (Solomon and Rothblum, 1984). Three dimensions of perfectionism
were found to be significantly and positively correlated with procrastination - concern over
mistakes, parental criticism and doubts about actions. However, the organisation dimension was
negatively correlated with procrastination, while no significant relationship was found for
personal standards and parental expectations. From these findings, we can infer that
procrastination is a form of self-handicapping, more so in perfectionists. Concern over mistakes
and doubts about actions certainly seem to predispose self-handicapping behaviour, as mistakes
will therefore not actually be a reflection of the perfectionists true ability, but a consequence of
procrastination instead.
Perfectionism was found by Flett, Hewitt and Dyck (1989) to be significantly and positively
correlated with trait anxiety and slightly correlated with trait neuroticism. The interaction of
perfectionism and periods of substantial stress predicted neuroticism and trait anxiety. These
findings have implications for the established correlation between perfectionism and
procrastination. It has previously been mentioned that neuroticism is a reliable predictor of
procrastination, and this trait is also demonstrated in perfectionists. The fact that stress
perpetuates this correlation suggests that when facing a deadline or an upcoming examination, a
perfectionist may be more vulnerable to experiencing higher levels of anxiety. Perfectionists
tend to set unrealistically high goals for themselves, causing anxiety as these goals are typically

path analysis.
too difficult to reach (Burka and Yuen, 2008). This, in turn, causes the task to become aversive to
the individual and may lead to procrastination (Steel, 2007).
Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness

Self-forgiveness for procrastinating has been found to have a significant effect on levels of
future procrastination. Wohl, Pychyl and Bennet (2010) conducted a study exploring the
association between self-forgiveness for procrastination and future academic procrastination on a
similar task. Procrastination was measured along with self-forgiveness prior to the students
taking the initial examination. Following this exam, students were asked to rate their feelings
towards the exam in terms of positive or negative affect, and also their performance.
Subsequently, procrastination was measured a second time, prior to a second examination, in
order to assess whether self-forgiveness promoted a decrease in future procrastination. Findings
indicated that self-forgiveness for procrastinating reduced subsequent procrastination by
reducing negative affect associated with the outcome of an examination. On the other hand,
students who did not self-forgive reported high negative affect and continued to procrastinate for
the second exam. They concluded that self-forgiveness reduces negative affect which, in turn,
reduces future procrastination.
The Current Study

The current study investigates the complex relationships between procrastination, perfectionism,
self-forgiveness for procrastinating and academic grade. It is hypothesised that procrastination
will have a positive relationship with the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism such as doubts
about actions, parental criticisms and concern over mistakes, as previous research suggests.
Furthermore, it is hypothesised that perfectionism will have a negative relationship with selfforgiveness, with those high in perfectionism being less likely to self-forgive for engaging in
10

path analysis.
procrastination. Lastly, it is predicted that procrastination will be negatively correlated with

average grade, in line with previous research (De Paola and Scoppa, 2014).
Methodology
Design
This study uses a quantitative correlational design, examining four variables using data collected
via an online survey. The relationship between perfectionism, extent of procrastination, selfforgiveness for procrastinating and academic grade are examined.
Participants
The participant population consisted of 56 undergraduate Psychology students currently
attending Coventry University. All participants were in the first or second year of their course at
the time of the study. This student sample was used intentionally, rather than through
convenience, as the aim was to investigate the effects of the variables on academic performance.
One participant had to be omitted from data analysis for submitting false information, leaving 55
usable datasets.
Measures
Procrastination
Aitken's (1982) Procrastination Inventory was used to measure the extent of
procrastination. This scale consists of 19 statements which participants must respond to on a
scale of 1 (strongly disagree) -5 (strongly agree) depending on the extent to which they perceive
the statement to apply to them. Ferarri, Johnson and McCown (1995) found the coefficient alpha
for this scale to be .82, suggesting high reliability.
11

path analysis.
Perfectionism
Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart and Rosenblate,
1990) was used to assess individual levels of perfectionism. This scale contains 35 statements
which participants respond to using a 5-point likert scale (strongly disagree-strongly agree),
depending upon the extent to which they feel that the statement applies to them. The scale is
divided into six subscales designed to measure participants levels of organisation, concern over
mistakes, personal standards, parental criticism, parental expectations and doubts about actions.
This specific scale was chosen due to its ubiquity and wide use within academic publications
(Hill et al. 2004). Furthermore, the variety of subscales allow for deeper analysis. Frost et al.
(1995 cited in Rukmini, Sudhir and Math 2014: 242) found Chronbachs alpha for the six
subscales to range from .77 to .93, suggesting high internal consistencies for all subscales. In
addition to this, test-retest reliability was reported by Amaral et al. (2013) to be .86, with a four
week interval between the initial and subsequent test.
Self-Forgiveness for Procrastinating
Self-forgiveness for engaging in procrastination was measured using the scale developed
and used by Wohl, Pychyl and Bennett (2010) in their own study in the area of procrastination
and self-forgiveness. This scale contains only three statements - "I dislike myself for
procrastinating", "I criticise myself because of my tendency to procrastinate" and "I put myself
down because of my tendency to procrastinate". Each statement is rated by the participant using
a 7-point likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Chronbachs alpha,
as measured by Wohl et al. (2010), was .84, suggesting high internal consistency and reliability.
This scale was chosen for the present study, as it is the most recently developed scale with the
purpose of measuring self-forgiveness for procrastinating.
12

path analysis.
Academic Grade
Students academic grade was measured via self-report. Following completion of the
questionnaires, participants were prompted to enter all of their available coursework and essay
marks from their first semester of the current academic year. Average grades were subsequently
calculated for each participant using SPSS.
Procedure
Prior to data-gathering, a full outline of the study was sent to Coventry Universitys
Ethics Committee for approval. The present study gained ethical approval on the 23 rd of October,
2015. A copy of the certificate can be found in the appendices (Appendix 4).
Participants accessed the online survey via Sona Systems, a website hosted by Coventry
University (2015). Through this website, first and second year Psychology students were able to
earn credits for participating in research conducted by third year Psychology students. The
present study was placed online in the form of an online survey. An incentive for participation
was provided in the form of earning compulsory research participation credits upon completion
of the study.
Once the participant had clicked on the study, they were directed to a page containing
introductory information about the study and clear instructions for successful completion of the
survey. It also contained details of standard ethical procedures and my contact details, should
they have wished to withdraw their data following completion of the study, or for further
information. A copy of the information given is provided below (Appendix 5).
Once the participant had agreed to proceed to take part in my study, they were directed to
the first set of questions from the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS). All 35
questions were displayed on a single page and in the order they occurred in on the original copy
of the FMPS. Once this section was complete, participants proceeded to the next set of questions
13

path analysis.
taken from the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API). Upon completion of this second section,
participants would proceed to the third set of questions taken from a study by Wohl et al. (2010).
All three of the above questionnaires contained statements which participants were required to
respond to on a likert-type scale, depending on the extent that they agreed that the statement was
applicable to them. A response for each question was compulsory.
The fourth and final section of the survey requested that the participant provided their
grades for the autumn/winter semester 2014/15. Individual essay and examination grades were
accepted. Six boxes were provided for participants to type in their numeric grades, with just one
box being compulsory. This was because the survey was online between the months of
December and February, and the number of grades received by each individual would vary over
the course of this time period. Average grades were then calculated using SPSS following data
collection. Once the participant had completed all four sections of the study, a short debrief was
displayed, a copy of which is provided below (Appendix 6).
Results
Preliminary Data Screening
Cooks D was used to detect any influential cases within the data. One case was identified
using this test and was subsequently eliminated from the dataset.
Originally, the FMPS was divided into six sub-scales for analysis concern over mistakes,
parental expectation, parental criticism, doubts about actions, organisation and personal
standards. However, tolerance statistics for preliminary regressions using all six subscales were
very low. To rectify this problem, principal component analysis with varimax rotation of
components was utilised. A scree plot displayed just two clear components, instead of the
previous six. The first component consisted of concern over mistakes, parental expectations,
14

path analysis.
parental criticism and doubts about actions. This new variable was termed as parental
introjected anxieties (PIA). The other component consisted of organisation and personal
standards, and was simply termed personal standards and organisation (PSO). The regression
principal component scores for these two components were used in all subsequent regressions.
Regression 1 Procrastination, PIA and PSO onto Self-Forgiveness

A number of preliminary tests were performed to check that the data satisfied assumptions of
multiple regression analysis. These included collinearity diagnostics (tolerance), the DurbinWatson test, a histogram of residuals to check normality of the dependent variables, Cooks
Distance to identify highly influential cases and finally a plot of Z-RESID and Z-PRED to check
the linearity assumption and the homoscedasticity of variances assumption. No problems in the
data were detected from these tests. However, the plot of Z-PRED and Z-RESID displayed
evidence for a curvilinear relationship within the regression of procrastination, PIA and PSO
onto self-forgiveness. Subsequent investigation suggested that this curvilinear relationship was
manifesting with the PIA and PSO variables. A squared terms for these potential curvilinear
effects were incorporated into the regression model for these two variables.
A multiple regression analysis was performed with PSO, PIA, the squared curvilinear terms
for these two variables and procrastination as the independent variables and self-forgiveness as
the dependent variable. The multiple correlation between self-forgiveness and the three
aforementioned predictor variables was .657. Adjusted R square was .374, which indicates that
37.4% of variability in self-forgiveness was accounted for by these three variables. The standard
error of estimate was 4.04.
Overall the predictor variables were significantly related to the outcome variable: F (5,49) =
7.453, p < .001.
15

path analysis.
Upon examination of the individual regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a
significant negative relationship was found between procrastination and self-forgiveness:
Beta=-.63, t (49) = -4.27, p < .001. Secondly, a non-significant negative relationship was found
between personal standards and organisation and self-forgiveness: Beta=-.11, t (49) = -.8, p
=.429, together with a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=-.39, t (49) = -.91, p = .37.
Finally, a significant negative relationship was found between parentally introjected anxieties
and self-forgiveness: Beta=-1.83, t (49) = -2.72, p = .009, paired with a significant curvilinear
relationship Beta=-.29, t (49) = -2.63, p = .011.
Examining the variables, we can see that procrastination is the best significant indicator of
self-forgiveness. That is, the higher the score on the procrastination inventory, the less likely
they are to be self-forgiving for their procrastination. Meanwhile, parentally introjected anxieties
have a significant negative linear and curvilinear relationship with self-forgiveness suggesting
that those at the extreme ends of the PIA scale are both less likely to self-forgive. Those in the
middle of this scale would be most likely to practice self-forgiveness. Finally, a non-significant
negative relationship between personal standards and organisation and self-forgiveness suggests
that this is not a strong predictor of self-forgiveness.
Regression 2 PSO and PIA onto Procrastination

As before, the data was first screened to ensure it met assumptions of multiple regression
analysis. A collinearity (tolerance) test, Durbin-Watson test ,a histogram of residuals, Cooks
Distance, and a Z-RESID and Z-PRED plot were utilised and no problems were found.
Although, Z-RESID and Z-PRED plots indicated that there may be a curvilinear relationship in
the data, and further investigation suggested this was between PSO and procrastination, and also
PIA and procrastination. A squared terms for these potential curvilinear effects were
incorporated into the regression model for these two variables.
16

path analysis.
A multiple regression analysis was performed with PSO, PIA and the squared curvilinear
terms for these two variables with procrastination as the dependent variable. The multiple
correlation between procrastination and the aforementioned predictor variables was .676.
Adjusted R square was .414, which indicates that 41.4% of variability in self-forgiveness was
accounted for by these variables. The standard error of estimate was 8.6.
Overall the predictor variables were significantly related to the outcome variable: F (4,50) =
10.54, p < .001.
Examining the regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a significant positive
relationship was found between PSO and procrastination: Beta=.46, t (50) = 4.04, p < .001, and
also a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta= -.10, t (50) = -.91, p = 3.68. Furthermore, a
significant negative relationship was observed between PIA and procrastination: Beta = -.51, t
(50) = -4.86, p < .001, and a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=.02, t (50) = .136, p
= .89.
From this regression, we can see clearly that PSO and PIA are both significant predictors of
procrastination. Parental Introjected Anxieties appears to have a moderately negative
relationship with procrastination. Conversely, Personal Standards and Organisation is positively
correlated with procrastination, suggesting that the higher the individual is on the PSO scale, the
more they appear to engage in procrastination.
Regression 3 PSO, PIA, Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness onto Average

Grade
Firstly, the data was screened to ensure that it met the assumptions of multiple regression
analysis. A collinearity (tolerance) test, Durbin-Watson test ,a histogram of residuals, Cooks
Distance, and a Z-RESID and Z-PRED plot were utilised and no problems were found. Z-RESID
17

path analysis.
and Z-PRED plots did indicate that there may be a curvilinear relationship in the data, and
further investigation suggested this was concerning PSO, PIA and self-forgiveness. A squared
terms for these potential curvilinear effects were incorporated into the regression model for these
three variables.
A multiple regression analysis was performed with the independent variables being PSO,
PIA, self-forgiveness and procrastination, and squared terms of the former three variables to
detect any possible curvilinear effects. The dependant variable in this case was average grade.
The multiple correlation between the predictor variables and the outcome variable was .381.
Adjusted r-square was .018, indicating that 1.8% of the variability in average grade was
accounted for by these four variables. The standard error of estimate was 9.266.
Overall the predictor variables as a group were not significantly related to the outcome
variable: F (7,47) = 1.143, p = .353.
Examining the regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a non-significant negative
relationship was found between PSO and average grade: Beta=-.07, t (47) = -.393, p = .696, and
also a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta= .14, t (47) = -.878, p = .384. Furthermore, a
non-significant positive relationship was observed between PIA and average grade: Beta=.25, t
(47) = 1.34, p = .187, and a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=.18, t (47) = .1.17, p
= .25. Additionally, a non-significant negative relationship was found between self-forgiveness
and average grade: Beta=-.09, t (47) = -.43, p = .67, and a non-significant curvilinear
relationship: Beta=-.11, t (47) = -.69, p = .49. Lastly, procrastination ha a non-significant
negative correlation with average grade: Beta=-.07, t (47) = -.33, p = .74.
From this regression, we can see that none of the variables are significantly related to
average grade. A non-significant positive curvilinear relationship was found between PIA and
average grade, suggesting that those who score higher in this dimension of perfectionism also
18

path analysis.
have higher grades overall. Although, this was non-significant, therefore not much value can be
placed on this relationship. All other variables were slightly and non-significantly negatively
related to academic grade. Figure 1 displays the final path model incorporating all of the above
regressions.
Figure 1: Path model of the relationship between procrastination, PIA, PSO, self-forgiveness and
average grade.
Discussion
Findings and Interpretations
Regression analyses revealed several significant relationships between four of the five
variables measured in the study. The first regression analysis revealed a negative relationship
between procrastination and self-forgiveness for procrastination, suggesting that the more severe
the procrastination, the less likely the individual would be to self-forgive. Furthermore, a
19

path analysis.
negative curvilinear relationship was observed between PIA and self-forgiveness, suggesting that
on the extreme ends of PIA, self-forgiveness for procrastination is more likely. Finally PSO had
a non-significant negative effect on self-forgiveness. Results from the second regression analysis
concerning procrastination revealed that PIA had a significant negative effect, while PSO had a
significant positive effect on this variable. Those with high PIA scores procrastinated less, while
those with high PSO scores tended to procrastinate more. Lastly, none of the variables were
found to have any significant effect on average grade.
Self-Forgiveness
To begin with, procrastination was found to have a direct negative effect on selfforgiveness for procrastinating. That is, those who procrastinated to a larger extent were less
likely to forgive themselves for engaging in procrastination. This relationship was to be
expected, as those who procrastinate to a smaller extent, and thus experience less consequences
from procrastinating, would logically be more inclined to forgive themselves for engaging in the
behaviour. However, Klassen, Krawchuk and Rajani (2007) report that those who experience
negative outcomes do not necessarily procrastinate to a larger extent. Previous findings also
reveal that an individuals style of procrastination active or passive largely predicts
positive and negative outcomes, with passive procrastinators experiencing more undesirable
consequences (Chu and Choi, 2005; Seo, 2012). Regardless of this, 95% of procrastinators do
indeed wish to reduce it (O Brien, 2002 cited in Steel, 2007), therefore it is logical that a
proportion of this group may also be unforgiving of themselves for their behaviour.
Parentally Introjected Anxieties was also found to have a significant effect on selfforgiveness. However, this relationship was inversely curvilinear, suggesting that those with
scores in the middle of the scale are least likely to self-forgive for engaging in procrastination.
The PIA variable consisted of the following dimensions of perfectionism - concern over
20

path analysis.
mistakes, parental expectations, parental criticisms and doubts about actions. Those with higher
and lower PIA scores are more likely to self-forgive for engaging in procrastination than those
with moderate scores. This relationship between high PIA and high self-forgiveness was an
unexpected one. However, this may be explained by the fact that those with high PIA scores
tended not to procrastinate initially, therefore the self-forgiveness for procrastinating scale was
redundant in this case. Low PIA correlating with high self-forgiveness is an intuitive
relationship, as those with low PIA are assumed to be less anxious about their actions overall.
This would surely mean that they would be more able to forgive themselves for procrastination.
It was those with moderate scores on the PIA scale whom were least likely to self-forgive. It may
be that moderate PIA scorers procrastinate where high PIA scorers do not, and therefore have
reason to be unforgiving of themselves for procrastination.
Procrastination
Firstly, PIA was found to have a significant negative relationship with procrastination.
Those with high PIA scores tended not to engage in procrastination. These findings are
inconsistent with previous research by Jadidi et al. (2011), who found that concern over
mistakes, parental criticisms and doubts about actions were significantly and positively
correlated with procrastination. Therefore, three out of four of the dimensions of perfectionism
included within the PIA variable were previously found to perpetuate procrastination. In this
case, perhaps the pressure that the individual experiences from their parents, in the form of
parental criticisms and parental expectations, leads them to be overly concerned about making
mistakes and creates doubts over their actions. In theory, and in accordance with Wohl et al.
(2010), this would instil negative affect in the individual with high PIA, and thus increase
procrastination.
21

path analysis.
Further evidence for this contradictory relationship can be found in a study that
investigated parenting styles and procrastination (Zakeri, Esfahani and Razmjoee, 2013). They
found that receiving a behavioural strictness-supervision parenting style tended to increase the
likelihood of engaging in academic procrastination. This parenting style is reminiscent of the
style of parenting that a perfectionist with high PIA scores might have received in terms of
parents with high expectations (parental expectations) and criticisms (parental criticisms).
However, the findings from the current study contradict these previous findings. Maybe, in this
sample at least, those with high PIA scores do not procrastinate because the need to please their
parents and live up to their expectations exceeds the influence of the negative emotions and
doubts they experience that would otherwise lead to procrastination. It may be that this particular
sample have developed a hardiness to parental criticisms and the negative emotions that they
encourage that ultimately lead to procrastination. Alternatively, there may be something unique
about this group of students relationship with their parents, in that the strict parenting they
receive seems to work in the opposite way to previous findings, and help to prevent
procrastination, rather than perpetuate it.
A further unexpected relationship occurred within the data analysis. Those with high
personal standards and organisation (PSO) scores were found to engage in procrastination to a
larger extent. This is also contradictory to previous findings which state that the organisation
dimension of perfectionism is clearly and definitely correlated with lower instances of
procrastination (Jadidi et al. 2011). Organisation is also a key facet of conscientiousness, which
has been found to account for 24% of the variance in procrastination (Lee et al. 2006).
Therefore, conscientiousness is currently found to be the personality trait that holds the most
influence over procrastination, and those high in this particular trait are consistently found to
have lower scores of procrastination. The present findings, however, contradict that. Taking the
previous findings into account, it is likely that the personal standards dimension provided a
22

path analysis.
greater influence over the higher scores on the procrastination scale. These findings indicate that
those with high personal standards may engage in procrastination due to these high standards.
The standards that those high in perfectionism set for themselves may be unrealistically high and
therefore anxiety-inducing. It has previously been suggested that individuals with perfectionistic
standards tend to procrastinate because of these high goals (Burka and Yuen, 2008). The current
findings concerning high personal standards and higher instances of procrastination provide
support for this theory.
Average Grade
The current study yielded no significant results concerning any of the variables in
relation to average grade. PSO, PIA, procrastination and self-forgiveness for procrastinating
each had no significant effect on academic performance. Although, the largest non-significant
relationship was observed between PIA and average grade, with those high on the PIA scale also
achieving slightly higher grades. This is consistent with previous research that found that those
who procrastinate less, as high PIA scorers were found to do in this study, also tended to have
higher grades (De Paola, 2014; zer and Sakes, 2011). Perhaps, with a larger sample size this
result may have been revealed as statistically significant. However, in this case, there was no
significance and therefore the relationship is not reliable.
A further factor that may explain the lack of a significant relationship between
procrastination and average grade is that of active procrastination. Active procrastinators are
those whom procrastinate to serve a purpose, usually to achieve peak motivation and arousal.
Chu and Choi (2005) found that active procrastinators tended to score similar grades to nonprocrastinators. This certainly may have had implications on the present lack of significant
findings, as the procrastination measure used did not discriminate between active and passive
procrastinators. High scorers on the overall procrastination scale may have been active
23

path analysis.
procrastinators and therefore also high achievers, which may help to explain the lack of findings
for this variable. However, passive procrastinators would also have scored highly on this scale
and would assumedly provide at least a slight negative correlation with average again. Again,
such findings may have been brought to light with a larger sample size.
Limitations of the Current Study

Overall, this study produced some useful findings that are relevant to the existing
literature. However, there are a few aspects to the study that could have been improved upon.
Firstly, the number of participants that the data was gathered from was quite low, at just 55.
Perhaps, if the sample were larger, a significant finding may have been produced within the
regression analysis for average grade. Furthermore, the study was based entirely upon self-report
measures. Steel (2001) compared a self-report measure of procrastination to an observable
measure of procrastination and found discrepancy between the two scores. This suggests that,
when measuring procrastination, self-report may not be an entirely reliable measure, as
responses would be based upon actual behaviour, but also significantly influenced by selfconcept. Furthermore, there remains the potential for untruthful responses, especially in terms of
the self-reporting of average grade. Social desirability may have resulted in some participants
reporting higher grades than they actually achieved. In future, grades should be gathered, with
permission of the participant, by other means such as contacting the university directly.
The present study was cross-sectional, administering three measures at one point in time.
However, this may not be an overly concerning issue, as procrastination has previously been
found to be a relatively stable behaviour over time. Elliot (2002) found that procrastination
possesses sufficient cross-temporal and situational stability. He administered a measure of
procrastination at two points in time over a 10-year period, and yielded a .77 correlation between
the two scores. Further evidence to suggest that procrastination is indeed a reliable personality
24

path analysis.
trait comes from a twin study by Arvey et al. (2003, cited in Steel, 2007). He concluded that a
genetic component reliably accounted for 22% of the variance in procrastination. Just one
measure of procrastination at one point in time will therefore yield reliable data that is consistent
throughout time. Self-forgiveness, however, has been suggested to be largely influenced by
positive or negative affect (Wohl et al. 2010), suggesting that responses to this measure would
have been somewhat based upon how the participant was feeling at the time of participation.
Another potential issue that must be mentioned is that of order effects. The
questionnaires were given to each participant in an identical order. This may have produced
order effects, as the questions and responses to the previous questionnaires may have influenced
responses to later questions. To combat this issue, the questionnaires should have been presented
to the participants in a random order, to avoid the possibility of order effects occurring.
The present study also failed to gather detailed demographic information about the
participants. However, it is assumed that the majority of the participants were female, aged 1820, based on demographic data from first and second-year Psychology students as a whole. Steel
(2007) cited evidence that found little difference in procrastination scores between males and
females. Therefore, gender does not provide a great influence on procrastination scores.
However, there may have been a gender difference between perfectionism and self-forgiveness
that was not brought to light in the present study.
Directions for Future Research and Practical Implications

The present study failed to find a significant result between average grade, perhaps due
to the lack of distinction in the present study between active and passive procrastination. Future
studies in the general area of procrastination should endeavour to use an additional scale for the
purpose of identifying active procrastinators, such as the one used by Choi and Moran (2009) in
their own study. Previous findings suggest that active procrastinators perform at the same level
25

path analysis.
of non-procrastinators, academically speaking (Seo, 2013; Choi and Moran, 2009; Chu and
Choi, 2005), therefore they may be more likely to be self-forgiving as a result. This hypothesis
has yet to be explored in the literature.
The present study revealed a unique relationship between parentally introjected anxieties
and procrastination. That is, participants who reported more pressure from their parents, and thus
more anxieties in terms of harbouring concern over mistakes and doubting their actions, were
found to procrastinate less. This was in contradiction to previous findings, and thus requires
more exploration. This relationship requires exploration in more depth, to reveal the reasons why
this pool of participants differed from the previous norm. A qualitative study involving those
with low scores of procrastination who also have highly critical parents would be suitable for
this purpose.
The results from the current study may be usefully applied to practical interventions. This
study found that perfectionists who hold high personal standards are least likely to be selfforgiving for their procrastination habits and therefore procrastinate to a greater extent.
Treatment of procrastination must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, however, the present
study puts forward the idea that perfectionists without anxieties may also be problematic
procrastinators. It suggests that these types of perfectionists whom hold high personal standards
may also be affected by procrastination. Treatment for these perfectionists may involve
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, with the overall aim of lowering their personal standards to a
realistically achievable level. It is assumed that in doing so, this will make tasks less aversive as
the need to perform perfectly will not be so strong.
Conclusions
The current study explored the relationships between perfectionism, procrastination, selfforgiveness and average grade, building upon previous work and suggestions for future research
26

path analysis.
by Wohl et al. (2010). Analysis revealed some results that are in line with, and conform previous
findings. However, some findings were new and unexpected, specifically that of the negative
relationship between parentally introjected anxieties and procrastination. This relationship
requires further exploration, as it is one that has not previously been found. As previously
suggested, a qualitative study concerning this negative relationship between PIA and
procrastination would certainly shed some more light on this issue. The present findings also
have practical usefulness in terms of developing therapeutic techniques for perfectionistic
procrastinators. In conclusion, the relationships found in the current study largely contradict
previous findings. It is for this reason that further exploration of these relationships is suggested.
27

path analysis.
References
Aitken, M. E. (1982) 'A personality profile of the college student procrastinator (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982)'. Dissertation Abstracts International 43,
722
Amaral, A. P. M., Soares, M. J., Pereira, A. T., Bos, S. C., Marques, M., Valente, J., Nogueira, V.,
Azevedo, M. H., and Macedo, A. (2013) Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale:
the portugese version. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry 40(4), 144-149
Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., and McGue, M. (2003) The determinants of
leadership: The role of genetics and personality 18th Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Orlando, FL cited in Steel, P. (2007) The
nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential selfregulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94
Bobo, J. L., Whitaker, K. C., and Strunk, K. K. (2013) Personality and student selfhandicapping: A cross-validated regression approach. Personality and Individual
Differences 55, 619-621
Boice, R. (1996) Procrastination and Blocking: A Novel,
Westport: Greenwood Press
Practical Approach.
Burka, J. B., and Yuen, L. M. (2008) Procrastination: why you do it, what to do about it now
Cambridge: Da Capo Press
Chu, A. H. S., and Choi, J. N. (2005) Rethinking Procrastination: Positive Effects of Active
Procrastination Behaviour on Attitudes and Performance. The Journal of Social
Psychology 145(3), 245-264
Choi, J. N., and Moran, S. V. (2009) Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a
new active procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology 149, 195-212 cited
in Seo, E. H. (2013) A comparison of active and passive procrastination in relation to
academic motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality 41(5), 777-786
Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992) NEO Personality Inventory Revised Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources cited in Johnson, J. L., and Bloom, A. M. (1995)
An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of personality to variance in academic
procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences 18(1), 127-133
Coventry University (2015) Sona Systems [online] via <https://coventry.sona-systems.com> [12
November 2014]
Day, V., Mensink, D., and OSullivan, M. (2000) Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal
of College Reading and Learning 30, 120134
De Paola, M., and Scoppa, V. (2014) Procrastination, academic success and the effectiveness of
a remedial program. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 1-20
28

path analysis.
DeRoma, V. M., Young, A., Mabrouk, S. T., Brannan, K. P., Hilleke, R. O., and Johnson, K. Y.
(2003) Procrastination and student performance on immediate and delayed quizzes.
Education 124(1), 40-48
Elliot, R. (2002) A ten-year study of procrastination stability. Unpublished masters thesis,
University of Louisiana, Monroe cited in Steel, P. (2007) 'The Nature of Procrastination:
A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure'.
Psychology Bulletin 133(1), 65-94
Ellis, A., and Knaus, W. J. (1977) Overcoming Procrastination. New York: Signet Books cited
in Steel, P. (2007) 'The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical
Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure'. Psychology Bulletin 133(1), 65-94
Ferrari, J. (2004) Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem, or
both? Journal of Research in Personality 25, 245-261
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., and McCown, W. G. (1995) Procrastination and Task Avoidance:
Theory, Research and Treatment New York: Plenum Press
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., and Dyck, D. G. (1989) Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism and
anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences 10(7), 731-735
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. and Rosenblate, R. (1990) 'The Dimensions of Perfectionism'.
Cognitive Therapy and Research 14(5), 449-468
Frost, R., Turcotte, T., Heimberg, R. G., Mattia, J., Holt, C., and Hope, D. (1995) Reactions to
mistakes in subjects with high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes.
Cognitive Therapy Research 19, 195205. Cited in Rukmini, S., Sudhir, P. M., and Math,
S. B. (2014) Perfectionism, Emotion Regulation and Their Relationship to Negative
Affect in Patients with Social Phobia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 36(3),
239-245: 242
Harrington, N. (2004) Its too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination.
Personality and Individual Differences 39, 873-883
Harriott, J., and Ferrari, J. R. (1996) Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults.
Psychological Reports 78, 611616
HEFCE (2013) Non-continuation rates at English HEIs: Trends for entrants 2005-06 to 2010-11
[online] available from <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201307/#d.en.81697>
[2 April 2015]
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., and Kennedy, C. (2004) A
New Measure of Perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment 82(1), 80-91
Jadidi, F., Mohammedkhani, S., and Tajrishi, K. Z. (2011) Perfectionism and academic
procrastination. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 30, 534-537
29

path analysis.
Johnson, J. L., and Bloom, A. M. (1995) An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of
personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and Individual
Differences 18(1),
127-133
Karner-Huuleac, A. (2014) Perfectionism and self-handicapping in adult education. Procedia
Social and Behavioural Sciences 142, 434-438
Kim, K. R., and Seo, E. H. (2015) The relationship between procrastination and academic
performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 82, 26-33
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., and Rajani, S. (2007) Low self-efficacy to self-regulate
predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33,
915-931
Lee, D., Kelly, K. R., and Edwards, J. K. (2006) A closer look at the relationships among trait
procrastination, neuroticism and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual
Differences 40, 27-37
O Brien, W. K. (2002) Applying the transtheoretical model to academic procrastination.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation cited in Steel, P. (2007) The nature of procrastination:
A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.
Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94
zer, B. N., and Sakes, M. (2011) Effects of academic procrastination on college students life
satisfaction. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 12, 512-519
Senecal, C., Koestner, R., and Vallerand, R. J. (1995) Self-regulation and academic
procrastination. The Journal of Social Psychology 135(5), 607-619
Seo, E. H. (2012) Cramming, Active Procrastination and Academic Achievement. Social
Behavioural and Personality 40(8), 1333-1340
Seo, E. H. (2013) A comparison of active and passive procrastination in relation to academic
motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality 41(5), 777-786
Solomon, L. J., and Rothblum, E. D. (1984) Academic Procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive- behavioural correlates. Journal of Counselling Psychology 31(4), 503-550
Steel, P. (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94
Steel, P., Brothen, T., and Wambach, C. (2001) Procrastination and personality, performance,
and mood. Personality and Individual Differences 30, 95-106
Stewart, M. A., and De George-Walker, L. (2014) Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of
control and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences 66, 160164
30

path analysis.
Thatcher, A., Wretschko, G., and Fridjhon., P. (2007) Online flow experiences, problamtic
Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers in Human Behaviour 24, 22362254
Wohl, J. A., Pychyl, T. A., and Bennett, S. H. (2010) 'I forgive myself, now I can study: How
self-forgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future procrastination'. Personality and
Individual Differences 48, 803-808
Zakeri, H., Esfahani, B. N., and Razmjoee, M. (2013) Parenting styles and academic
procrastination. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 84, 57-60
31

path analysis.
Appendices
1. Aitken's Procrastination Inventory (1982)
This inventory will help you to evaluate your procrastination level. For each for the items below,
please indicate the extent to which you STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) or STRONGLY AGREE (5) with
the statement.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
1.
I delay starting things until the last minute.
2.
Im careful to return library books on time.
3.
Even when I know a job needs to be done, I never
want to start it right away.

4.
I keep my assignments up to date by doing my

work regularly from day to day.
5.
If there was a workshop that would help me learn

not to put off starting my work, I would go.
6.
I am often late for my appointments and meetings.
7.
I use the vacant hours between classes to get
started on my evenings work.

8.
I delay starting things so long I dont get them

done by the deadline.
9.
I am often frantically rushing to meet deadlines.
10.
It often takes me a long time to get started on
something.
11.
I dont delay when I know I really need to get the

job done.
12.
If I had an important project to do, Id get started

on it as quickly as possible.
13.
When I have a test scheduled soon, I often find

myself working on other jobs when a deadline is
near.
32

path analysis.
14.
I often finish my work before it is due.
15.
I get right to work at jobs that need to be done.
16.
If I have an important appointment, I make sure
the clothes I want to wear are ready the day before

17.
I arrive at college appointments with plenty of

time to spare.
18.
I generally arrive on time to class.
19.
I overestimate the amount of work that I can do in
a given amount of time.
2. Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990)
Participants rate the below statements on a 5-point scale.

Strongly disagree - Disagree - Neutral - Agree - Strongly Agree
My parents set very high standards for me.
Organization is very important to me.
As a child, I was punished for doing things less than perfectly.
If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likely to end up a second-rate person.
My parents never try to understand my mistakes.
It is important to me that I be thoroughly competent in what I do.
33

path analysis.
I am a neat person.
I try to be an organized person.
If I fail at school, I am a failure as a person.
I should be upset if I make a mistake.
My parents want me to be the best at everything.
I set higher goals than most people.
If someone does a task at school better than I do, then I feel as if I failed the whole task.
If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure.
Only outstanding performance is good enough in my family.
I am very good at focusing my efforts on attaining a goal.
Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right.
I hate being less than the best at things.
I have extremely high goals.
My parents expect excellence from me.
People will probably think less of me if I make a mistake.
I never feel that I can meet my parents expectations.
If I do not do as well as other people, it means I am an inferior being.
Other people seem to accept lower standards from themselves than I do.
If I do not do well all the time, people will not respect me.
My parents have always had higher expectations for my future than I have.
I try to be a neat person.
I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things that I do.
Neatness is very important to me.
I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than most people.
I am an organized person.
I tend to get behind in my work because I repeat things over and over.
It takes me a long time to do something right.
The fewer mistakes I make, the more people will like me.
34

path analysis.
I never feel that I can meet my parents standards.
3. Wohl's Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010)
Please state whether you agree or disagree with the statements below.
1= Strongly disagree
2=Mostly agree
3=Agree a little
4=Neutral
5=Disagree a little
6=Mostly disagree
7=Strongly disagree
I dislike myself for procrastinating

I criticise myself because of my tendency to
1
1
35
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7

path analysis.
procrastinate
I put myself down because of my tendency to
procrastinate
4. Certificate of Ethical Approval
Certificate of Ethical Approval

Student:
36

path analysis.
Bethany Rapson
Project Title:
The effects of procrastination, self-forgiveness and perfectionism on academic achievement.
This is to certify that the above named student has completed the Coventry University Ethical
Approval process and their project has been confirmed and approved as Medium Risk
Date of approval:
23 October 2014
Project Reference Number:

P26998
5. Introductory Text
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the complex relationships between procrastination,
perfectionism and self-forgiveness for procrastinating and their effects on academic
performance.
Description
What is the purpose of this study?
The purpose of this study is to investigate the complex relationships between procrastination,
perfectionism and self-forgiveness for procrastinating and their effect on academic performance.
Why have I been chosen to participate?
This study measures procrastination (amongst other factors) and its effect on academic
performance. As a student of Coventry University, you will have certain deadlines to meet for
37

path analysis.
assignments and examinations and subsequently receive a grade based on your academic
performance.
Do I have to participate?
Participation is completely voluntary. If you would like to withdraw from the study at any point
during the study, you may do so with no repercussions. Also, if you would like to withdraw your
information from the study following completion, you may do so within the two weeks after
participating in the study. You may do this by contacting the study supervisor (Bethany Rapson)
via the email address listed below and providing your participation information number. If you
should decide to do so, all of the information you provided within the study will be destroyed.
There will be no consequences if you decide to withdraw your data.
What will happen in the experiment?
You will be presented with three consecutive questionnaires which you must respond to as
honestly and truthfully as possible. At the end of the study, you will need to submit your average
grade for semester one. It is imperative to the integrity of the research that you respond to this
truthfully.
What are the disadvantages of participation?
I do not foresee any disadvantages in making the decision to take part in this study.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
As an undergraduate student, you will gain an insight into what a dissertation project might look
like. You will eventually be required to create your own similar project as part of your course, so
this may give you some ideas for how to conduct your project. If you are a Psychology student,
you will also receive research participation credits for taking part.
What if something goes wrong?
If this project must be terminated at some point in the future, you will still receive your research
participation credits for taking part. If you should decide you withdraw your participation you
may contact the study supervisor (Bethany Rapson) via the email address provided below and
your data will subsequently be destroyed upon your request.
Will my participation/performance by confidential?
Both your responses to the questionnaire and your average grade will be kept anonymous. You
will only be identifiable by your participation information number, which is randomly assigned
when you choose to take part in the study. Please note that there is no way to identify who you
are from this number, therefore you will remain anonymous. Your data will be stored on a
password protected computer file along with your participant information number. Once the data
is analysed, the raw data on the computer file will be destroyed. Any hard-copies will be stored
in a locked cabinet and will also be destroyed once they have served their use for this specific
study.
What will happen to the results of the study?
The results will be written up and will form the basis of my dissertation.
38

path analysis.
Who is organising and funding the research?

The research is organised by Bethany Rapson and Tony Lawrence, who is my supervisor for this
project. No funding is required for this research.
Contact for further information:
Bethany Rapson
E-mail: rapsonb2@uni.coventry.ac.uk
If you wish to make a complaint with respect to any component of this experimental procedure that you were
dissatisfied with, you may contact Prof. Ian Marshall (Chair of Coventry University Ethics Committee) email:
Ian.Marshall@Coventry.ac.uk
6. Debrief
Thank you for your participation. The questionnaires you just completed, along with your
grades, will help provide additional insight into the effects that procrastination, perfectionism
and self-forgiveness for procrastinating all have on academic performance. Previous research
indicates that those who forgive themselves for procrastinating will procrastinate less often
(Wohl et al. 2010).
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the study supervisor
(Bethany Rapson) on the following email address - rapsonb2@uni.coventry.ac.uk. Once again,
you may withdraw your data within two weeks of completing the study.
If you have a particular interest in this area of Psychology, you may find the following
reference useful.
Wohl, J. A., Pychyl, T. A., & Bennett, S. H. (2010) 'I forgive myself, now I can study: How selfforgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future procrastination'. Personality and
Individual Differences 48 803-808.
39

path analysis.
If you find procrastination to be a persistent and disruptive occurrence in your academic

life, please do not hesitate to seek help from the University. You may contact the Counsellors
and Mental Health advisors on counsell.ss@coventry.ac.uk. They conduct workshops on how to
manage exam anxiety and stress, which may be helpful if you find you are procrastinating
frequently.
40

Exploring Relationships Between Procrastination, Perfectionism, Self-Forgiveness and Academic Grade: A Path Analysis.

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Exploring Relationships Between Procrastination, Perfectionism, Self-Forgiveness and Academic Grade: A Path Analysis.

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade: A