Factors that influence procrastination

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 16 May 2017

The introductory chapter included several parts that provide a basic frame of study. It presented the background of study about procrastination, which was followed by the statement of problem with four research objectives and related hypotheses. Major variables that might appear in the study were defined in terms of conceptual and operational definition, as well as the significance of study of study and limitations were presented.

1.1 Background to the Study

DeSimone (Ferrari, Johnson & McCown, 1995) stated that the term of procrastinate originated from Latin verb of "procrastinare", which means to delay something until tomorrow; whereby in ancient Egyptians, procrastination could be denoted into two meanings: valuable habit of avoiding unnecessary work, or negative habits of laziness in finishing job tasks (Ferrari et al., 1995).

In today's society, procrastination is a common phenomenon happening in our daily life. Example of procrastinate includes paid mobile bills after get barred, deliberately leave assignment when deadline is overdue, and et cetera. These examples are classic examples of procrastination that experienced by many of us in daily life. It can be classified into five subtitles, such as general procrastination, academic procrastination, decision-making procrastination, neurotic procrastination, and also non-obsession procrastination (Sirin, 2011). Procrastination is a behavior that will causes to low productivity, poor performance, and increased of stress (Chu & Choi, 2005), and characterized by most of the people as negative, harmful, and bad (Beheshtifar, Hoseinifar, & Moghadam, 2011), thus procrastination regarded to be a serious issue in societies.

Estimates indicate that 15 to 20 per cent of general population are procrastinators (Steel, 2007), around 75 to 95 per cent of students in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, developed behavior of procrastinate for academic tasks (Ferrari, O'Callghan, & Newbegin, 2005), and almost 20 to 40 per cent of college students perceived procrastination as a troubling phenomenon which they wish to reduce it (O'brien, 2002).

There is no complete consensus on the definition of procrastination. For example, Soloman and Rothblum (1984) defined procrastination to be unnecessary act of postponing tasks which hence led to negative consequences. Procrastination regarded by Lay (1994) in terms of discrepancy between behavior and intention. In short words, the severity of procrastination depends on discrepancy between intent and behavior. Schouwenburg (1995) defines procrastination as behavior of delaying tasks. In 2003, procrastination referred by Wolters as failure in perform tasks within desired time frame or delaying work until the last minutes.

Procrastination can also refers to be voluntary postpone of an intended course of action, and has been typically characterized as self-regulatory failure (Steel, 2007). Soloman and Rothblum (1984) specify that academic procrastination is a maladaptive behavior that caused psychological distress on students. Student procrastination can considered from the perspective of behavioral, which refers to an unfavorable habit in which students likely to delay or avoid tasks that distressing for them (Soloman & Rothblum, 1984). They are more likely to complete tasks that provide them with positive reinforcement, and tasks with short term gain (Noran, 2000).

Procrastination appears to have a complex set of causes. Predictors such as self-efficacy, perfectionism, and motivation are just a few contributing factors of procrastination. Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuk, Huan, Wong, and Lay (2009) reported that procrastination is associated with students' self-efficacy. A study on procrastination and its relationship with perfectionism had done been conducted (Seo, 2008). There are countless of factors could lead to behavior of procrastinate, in the light of this, researchers found that there is a need for them to study on it.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Based on the background of study, question of how one can determine factors that contribute to or influence procrastination levels emerged in researcher's mind. Previously, many research has been conducted regarding students' procrastination behavior, but not much on that its relationship with self-efficacy, perfectionism, and motivational level.

Self-efficacy is a person's belief in his or her ability to accomplish any given tasks on time (Bandura, 1997; as cited in Seo, 2008). Schraw, Wadkins and Olafson's (2007) stated that students with higher level of self-efficacy, tend to procrastinate more than others. They were extremely confident in their ability to complete tasks, and if there is no deadline or some extrinsic motivator for them, they found it difficult or even impossible to motivate them. In contrast, Wolter's study (2003) disagreed with it, and stated that students of low self-efficacy were more likely to engage in procrastinating works.

These results give rise to question of either students with lower level of self-efficacy more prone to develop procrastination behavior or those with high level of self-efficacy will more likely to avoid or delaying academic tasks. Another problem that still remain unclear is whether students' behavior of procrastinate are influence by level of self-efficacy or behavior of procrastination is the powerful determinant of self efficacy level. Due to these problems, it had sparked researcher's interest in identifying the role of self-efficacy on level of procrastination among college students. This enable researcher to gain understanding on procrastination and its connection with self-efficacy.

Motivation is a psychological and social forces that drives an individual to take part in certain activity or perform something. It can influence a student's exertion of effort as well as his or her persistence placed onto the assignment (LeUnes & Nation, 2002). In previous research, the primary aim was focused on either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation were related to procrastination. Most of the past research does not emphasized on whether level of motivation is one of the contributing factors of procrastination. In this case, researcher intends to find out either low or high motivational level will positively or negatively associated with academic procrastination.

Perfectionism is a multifaceted and multidimensional construct (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). It usually considered by others to be linked with negative outcome and symptom of maladaptive. Perfectionists often experienced procrastination, difficulty in making decision, fear of failure, low self-esteem, and so forth (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Sorotzkin, 1985). However, not all the facets and dimensions of perfectionism appears to be negative. Indeed, some of the perfectionism dimensional are resulting in positive outcome.

There are many studies focus on the relationship between perfectionism and procrastination. For instance, Ferrari and Tice (2000) stated that perfectionism which fear of failure were coordinated with procrastination. The findings reported that students with higher level of perfectionism more likely to demonstrate behavior of procrastinate. Due to procrastinate, it decreased the quantity and quality of learning that led to increment of stress and negative impact on students' lives. Thus, it supported that perfectionism play an important role in determining students' academic procrastination level. However, some studies discovered that perfectionism affect procrastination if there were existence of mediators such as feeling of shame and guilt (Fee & Tangney), self-efficacy (Seo, 2008) and others.

These studies leave open questions to researcher of whether perfectionism will increase or decrease the level of procrastination, or perfectionism itself unable to influence procrastination. Consequently, the question of whether perfectionism predict students' procrastination level remain unknown. Therefore, researcher are interested to identify if high level of perfectionism will increase or decrease level of procrastination, or there is no relation between both these variables.

Another variable such as gender differences and its relationship with procrastination level had not been widely studied by researchers. However, there were still some previous researches concluded that gender had not much association with procrastination, in which it appears that there is no gender differences on level of procrastination (Akinsola, Tella, & Tella, 2007; Sepehrian, & Lotf, 2011). These studies showed no relationship between procrastination and gender, but nonetheless there were also studies that proved gender differences will significantly influence the procrastination level. Yong (2010) and Klassen et al. (2009), both reported that there is gender differences in the rate of academic procrastination. It indicated that male students more likely to procrastinate than female. Such inconsistencies give insight for present study to identify if there is differences between male and female on procrastination level, and what could be the actual factor that cause variations.

Last, but not the least, there were little research on academic procrastination among college students had been studied within Malaysia. The generalizability of previous research are limited as the results produced might not applicable for students in Malaysia context. Thus, it may be uncertain whether the results of previous studies may generalize to population of Malaysia. Therefore, it is an important issue that should concern by researcher in order to yield a result that fit the context of Malaysia.

1.3 Objectives of the Research

To analyze the role of self-efficacy on level of academic procrastination among college students.

To determine the relationship between level of motivation and the level of academic procrastination among college students.

To evaluate the relationship between perfectionism attitude and the level of academic procrastination among college students.

To identify gender differences in influencing level of academic procrastination among college students.

1.4 Research Hypotheses

H1: Students who have lower level of self-efficacy more prone to develop procrastination behavior compared to students with higher level of self-efficacy.

H2: Students with lower level of academic motivation more likely to procrastinate than others with higher level of academic motivation.

H3: Students with high tendency of perfectionists will procrastinate more compared to students with lower perfectionism attitude.

H4: Academic procrastination does not differ across the gender of the students.

1.5 Limitations of the Study

As with any other studies, the present study has some limitations to be identified by researcher. The most obvious limitation of the study is the generality of findings to other population. The present study is for academic purposes, and hence it involved only students from Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC) as subjects. Though, the results might applicable for students in TARC, but it is impossible for researcher to draw a conclusion that it is valid for all students in this particular college. Thus, it may be uncertain whether the findings may generalize to other population.

Secondly, there is possibility that present study could interfered by extraneous variables. Extraneous variables are variables that are unrelated or not variables intended to be studied by researchers (McLeod, 2008), and thereby considered to be insignificance variables. Anyhow, existence of it might control over the variable that researcher wish to identify. It will make researcher unable to make conclusions that whether there is causal relationship between IV and DV, even though the result showed that both variables are associated. This is because IV might caused by third variable to associate with DV, yet without causal relationship between them.

These variables could influence the results of the study and hence lead to outcomes that may be inaccurate and bias. Subjects might be affected by either situational variables or participant variables, or both of these. In this case, the atmosphere of environment, condition of lights, temperature and weather might affect subjects' attitude when responding to the questionnaire. Apart from situational variables, subjects' responses could also affect by their emotion such as anxiety, nervousness, happiness and so on (McLeod, 2008).

Other than that, good-subject tendency is also considered as one of the limitations. The term 'good-subject tendency' refers to tendency of respondents to perform something or answering the set of questionnaire according to what they think the researcher wants from them. For example, when subjects know the purpose of the study, they might respond to the questionnaire or behave in a way In accordance to their belief on researcher's expectation (McBurney, & White, 2010).

1.6 Definition of Variables

1.6.1 Conceptual Definition

Academic procrastination is a problem emphasized on delaying tasks which leads to severe consequences for students, resulting in poor performance (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). On the other hand, Tuckman (2002) in reporting Ellis and Knaus, regarded academic procrastination as an avoidance behavior. For instance, due to unpleasant tasks, a student delay doing his assignment until the deadline is near.

Gender comprised of male and female is categorized as sex. Sex is an individual's biological status which typically differentiated between male or female. A person's biological sex is dependent on their sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia (American Psychological Association, 2011).

Motivation serves as a drive that initiates or directs a person to do certain tasks in order to satisfy needs (Aderman, 1999; Maslow, 1954; Murray, Poole, & Jones, 2006) (as cited in Goodman, Jaffer, Keresztesi, Mamdani, Mokgatle, Musariri, Pires, & Schlechter, 2011). Human beings are being motivated by a need. It contributes to drive which is the physiological expression of need. Once need leads drive to develop, it motivates individuals to respond and hence attain a goal (Coon & Mitterer, 2010)

Perfectionism is an interesting factor to look for upon the basis of procrastination. According to American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1994), perfectionism is the criteria for psychiatrists to determine whether a person is diagnose with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, and being classified as maladaptive (as cited in Dishon-Berkovits, 2011). It can be defined as a variable that impede a person from task completion due to his or her overly strict standards. Concisely, an individual unable to finish a task when fail to meet expectations or standards that innately established within them. In addition, Kilbert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Satio (2005) noted that perfectionism can have either aspects of adaptive or maladaptive, or even both (as cited in Dishon-Berkovits, 2011).

Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief on one's capacity to produce a desirable outcome (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). It carries the effect of motivating a person to engage in a particular activity or behavior. Generally, higher sense of self-efficacy might able to motivate an individual to exert greater amount of effort and persistence when encounter with obstacles. Conversely, the lower the perceived self-efficacy is, the higher the tendency to procrastinate. It might lead to emergence of negative thought in a person mind which obstruct them from perform a task, as they developed a perspective of being not efficacious. Hence, lack of perceived self-efficacy lends an avoidance behavior towards tasks or assignment appointed to them (Delamater & Myers, 2007).

1.6.2 Operational Definition

The research underlined the relationship between self-efficacy, motivation, perfectionism and level of academic procrastination. In order to convert these variables into measurable ones, self-efficacy should be clarified as perceived self-efficacy of subjects. On the other hand, the operational definition of independent variable is how researchers define self-efficacy. In this study, self-efficacy of Tunku Abdul Rahman College students (TARCian) is contingent upon subjects' respond on Sherer et al.'s General Self-efficacy Scale (GSE) that consisted of 17 items. The response format of each item is based on a 5-point Likert scale, from "1" representing strongly disagree to "5" representing strongly agree. Researchers will add on the scores of each item, and hence, it provides an indication of TARCian's general self-efficacy. Briefly, the higher the total score is, the more the perceived self-efficacy is developed by TARCian (Imam, 2007).

The operational definition of motivation in the study appears as being highly motivated or less motivated. Researchers identify levels of being motivated by summing up the score of respondents given to the 28 items in Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-C 28). Shortly, those with higher score reveal that they are more highly motivated than others and vice versa. Specifically, the way of operationally defining motivation based on the AMS-C 28 will be as follows:

Intrinsic motivation: Responses to 12 items emphasized on intrinsic of the 28 items.

Extrinsic motivation: Responses to 12 items emphasized on extrinsic of the 28 items.

Amotivation: Responses to four items that emphasized neither intrinsic nor extrinsic.

On other hand, the operational definition of perfectionism will measure how much of a perfectionist subjects are. Level of perfectionism depends on the respondents' score achieve from the Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS). The FMPS has 35 items, using a 5-point Likert scale format to measure perfectionism: 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Subjects whom achieve high score mean they are prone to the personality of high perfectionism. Contrarily, subjects are believed to less likely be a perfectionist if they attain a lower score.

It is important to make sure that all of the variables are not overlap and needed to be mutually exclusive. The level of academic procrastination would differentiate from occasional procrastination to severe procrastination. It would depend on the score a subject obtains in the Procrastination Scale for student populations developed by Lay (1986). For the purpose of this research. academic procrastination may be defined as any academic task that is delayed or avoided as a result of the discrepancy between intention and actual behavior to the extent that it produces negative affect in the procrastinator.

Gender will operate as either male or female which is the biological status of the college students that were in this study.

1.7 Significance of Study

Procrastination has become the most common issue that cause interference on individual's daily life, especially within context of academic. Students who procrastinate usually unable to complete important academic task on time, and may cause significant distress on their academic functioning. The aim of present study is to pinpoint causes of procrastination, for example self-efficacy, perfectionism, and motivational level are variables of great concern for researcher. If the present study proved that there were significant relationship between these variables and procrastination, it provides reliable information about students' procrastination, and may beneficial to several parties: students, instructors, parents, and Ministry of Education.

Firstly, even if there were not much of studies emphasized on whether instructors play an important role in influencing students' level of procrastination. Still, there were study indicated that tasks' characteristics control by instructor are tied with procrastination (Ackerman, & Gross, 2005). As an example, unclear directions from instructors tend to increase the level of procrastination. If students did not receive precise and detail information on particular course, most of them will be frustrated and delay their works (Schraw et al., 2007). Students were also more likely to procrastinate when assigned to academic tasks they characterize as unpleasant (Milgram, Marshevsky, & Sadeh, 1995).

By identify if academic motivation and self-efficacy are associated with procrastination, it enable instructors to gain insight on students' procrastination problem, on that account, they will try to improve their teaching skills or plan lessons that helpful in boost up their motivation and self-efficacy. For example, instructors could provide them with an interesting topic and reinforce their behavior with rewards. They are more likely to begin working on academic tasks earlier when rewards are given to them (Humphrey, & Harbin, 2010). Students are also more motivated to work when they perceive the tasks as pleasant and favorable, thereby procrastinate lesser. Besides that, instructors can learn from the study and provide students with clear instructions. In short words, students understand what they needed to do and what was the instructors' expectation. Therefore, they tend to be more motivated, and in this way, procrastination decreased (Humphrey, & Harbin, 2010).

Secondly, upon knowing the result of study, it encourage students to be aware of their procrastination problems and the negative consequences of procrastinate, example includes decreased subjective well-being, weak performance, and reduce achievements (Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, & Ferrari, 2004). It enable students to gain a deeper understanding on factors that heighten procrastination. In other words, for students with perfectionism attitude, it can help students to recognize their problems, understand why they are procrastinating, and in the end, motivate them to make commitment to change. Students could improve their problems by setting a deadline for themselves, because perfectionist will delay work endlessly until the last minute due to constantly criticizing on works. Through the study, students will be more attentive on the factors contribute to their procrastination behavior.

Next, it helps parents of children to be more aware of their problems in college. It stated that parenting style plays significant role on those who procrastinate due to perfectionistic thinking (Pychyl, Coplan, & Reid, 2002). Research indicated that parents' high expectations and criticism were positively associated with socially-prescribed perfectionism and is indirectly related to high level of procrastination (Frost et al., 1990; Frost, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1991). Constantly criticizing by parents will also cause them lack of motivation in doing things. Therefore, the present study help them to create consciousness that parenting styles have a primary effect on students' development of procrastination. Throughout the study, it help parents to understand importance of supportive behavior on their children in order to increase their motivation and thus, make changes on their parenting styles.

Lastly, study on contributing factors of academic procrastination provide suggestion for Ministry of Education (MOE) which in turn would filter down to improve the quality of education provided to students, and to the extent of reducing procrastination. Since instructors play role in students' procrastination, MOE should develop some specialized courses, seminars or training which required instructors to involve in it. The courses should teach instructors on skills of how to help students setting a behavioral goals to achieve, as setting behavioral goals appear to be a good start to defeat procrastination (Burka & Yuen, 1983). MOE may be able to encourage instructors to set up a reward system for students who completing tasks on time. Though, by rewarding students on what they should do is not the best way, but at least it can motivate students to try to work to achieve desirable goals (Parrott, n.d. ). Courses for instructors should also train them on effective and proper teaching styles, and make them aware of the importance of a clear expectations for what and how material is to be learned for students (Meeks & Austin, 2003). By giving students a detailed guidance on what should do, it can prevent them from delaying work as they need not to figure out what instructors want from them, and thus they can spend their time to fully concentrate on academic tasks or assignments (Meeks & Austin, 2003).

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this section, it will review previous studies that emphasized on variables such as self-efficacy, motivation, and perfectionism, and the relationship with procrastination. Research study on association between gender differences and procrastination are also included. This chapter will involved theoretical and conceptual framework which able to establish a more in-depth understanding on this present study.

2.1 Relationship between Self-efficacy and Procrastination

Self-efficacy indicates whether an individual believes that they are capable to accomplish assignment successfully or task assigned to them on time (Bandura, 1997). Krawchuk & Klassen (Bandura, 1997) stated that self-efficacy play role in determine individual choice of action, amount of persistence and effort allocate by them when faced difficulties. In short word, individual with low self-efficacy whom does not believe on their own more prone to develop avoidance behavior or delaying task (Krawchuk & Klassen, 2010).

Bandura (1997) stated that students with adequate self-efficacy would positively affect the amount of persistence and initiation individual willing to exert in completing a task while those reported with low self-efficacy is in high risk to engage in avoidance behavior (as cited in Seo, 2008). Seo (2008), in reporting a study conducted by Ferrari and his colleagues, emphasized on self-efficacy for daily tasks yet without self-efficacy for academic tasks and the probability to procrastinate. The findings suggested that students whom had higher level of self-efficacy are less likely to contribute to avoidance behavior, thus less frequent of procrastination compared with others (Seo, 2008).

On the other hand, self efficacy for self-regulated learning was believed to had close relationship with procrastination, because in some degree, procrastination can be defined as failure of self-regulatory (Steel, 2007). Zimmerman, Bandura and Martinez-Pons (1992) mentioned that students who displayed adequate self-efficacy for self-regulated learning are effective in performing tasks, setting SMART goals; apply appropriate strategies and effort, also being persistent. Generally, students whom are self-regulated learners tend to develop greater sense of self-efficacy; in contrast, students with low levels of self-efficacy were likely to be labeled as non self-regulated learners. It shows that students with low sense of self-efficacy might not being persistent throughout the process of accomplishing tasks. Therefore, low self-efficacy believed to correspond to the characteristics of procrastination such as delay or avoid in the face of difficulty.

Wolters's study (as cited in Seo, 2008) was also conducted to examine on relationship between procrastination and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning among college students. The findings suggested that procrastination was both positively and negatively related to self-efficacy (as cited in Tan et al., 2008). Meanwhile, Tuckman (1991) and Haycock, McCarthy, and Skay (1998) states that self-efficacy tend to had a significant inversely relationship with procrastination.

Other than that, a study conducted by Zimmerman et al. (1992) on self-motivation for academic attainment upon the basis of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal-setting proposed that greater sense of self-efficacy leads to higher goal setting which hence contribute to a strong negative relationship between self-efficacy and academic procrastination. In short, highly perceived self-efficacy causes low rate of procrastination among college students (Tan et al., 2008).

2.2 Relationship between Motivation and Procrastination

Motivation is an internal process that will affect human's effort in doing or accomplishing certain tasks. It can be categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation indicated that a person tend to do something because of innate desire to enjoy or they perceive the task as provide them with opportunity to learn, explore and actualize their potentials (Coon & Mitterer, 2010). By contrast with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation defined as people willing to exert effort in doing something because of some attractive outcome (Coon, & Mitterer, 2010). Examples of external rewards include pay, social status, obligations, and others.

A study conducted by Brownlow and Reasinger (2000) on the impact of intrinsically and extrinsically motivated on several variables including academic procrastination revealed that men who tend to procrastinate school works are less intrinsically motivated. There is no significant relationship between the level of procrastination and the women who were intrinsically motivated.

Senecal, Koestner, and Vallerand (1995) discovered that procrastination was least common to occur among students with intrinsic reasons compared with students who were driven by less autonomous reasons such as external regulation or amotivation. Their finding yielded similar results with past findings, indicating that less autonomous form of self-regulation or motivation were linked with three factors that leads to procrastination: lower persistence, inconsistency in attitudes and behaviors, and negative emotions (Senecal et al., 1995).

Senecal, Julien, and Guay (2003) conducted a study on the relationship between self-determined motivation in both school and interpersonal relationship and academic procrastination with role conflict as the mediator. Their initial belief is that students who are intrinsically motivated will less likely to experience role conflict between school and interpersonal relationship thus lowering the level of academic performance. The final results revealed that self-determined academic motivation and self-determined interpersonal motivation is negatively related with role conflict. Role conflict was positively correlated with academic procrastination (Senecal et al., 2003). This concludes that despite self-determined motivation will affect an individual's level of procrastination; it does not directly caused the procrastination. Procrastination is mediated by the role conflict variable that is influenced by the self-determined motivation of both academic and interpersonal relationship.

The study of Conti (2000) on work procrastination between intrinsically and extrinsically motivated individuals has a contradicting result indicating that individuals who "have to do" (extrinsic motivation) started and finished a project earlier compared to those who "wanted to do" (intrinsic motivation).

Buelna, Wells, and Scollay (2006) conducted a research to determine whether motivation or validation is a better factor in determining an individual's procrastination. Their findings revealed that there appears to be no significant relationship between the forms of motivation with procrastination. Apparently, validation turned out to be a better form of predictor in determining procrastination compared to motivation (Buelna et al., 2006).

Study by Lee (2005) on the relationship of motivation and flow experience with academic procrastination yielded results that indicated low level of self-determined motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and incidence of flow appears to have contributed to high academic procrastination. Despite that, Lee (2005) suggested if the effects were instigated by the flow experience were taken into account, both amotivation and intrinsic motivation did not contributed significant effects toward the level of procrastination.

2.3 Relationship between Perfectionism and Procrastination

According to Busko (1998), Burns (1980) was first to present perfectionism based on a uni-dimensional construct. His concept emphasized on self-directed cognition, and he stated that individual with tendency of being perfectionist is likely to make use of productivity and accomplishment to assess self-worth. However, concept of one-dimensional model on perfectionism had been rejected, and researchers replaced it with a more complex multidimensional model that comprised of both personal and social components (Hall, 2006).

In addition, Hewitt and Flett (1991) classified perfectionism into three dimensions: self-oriented perfectionism, other-oriented perfectionism, and socially-prescribed perfectionism. Each of these give rise to different meanings. Examples, individual who set a strict and unrealistic high standard for their own was known to be self-oriented perfectionist; other-oriented perfectionists tend to develop an unreasonable standards for others, while socially-prescribed perfectionist refers to one's belief that others hold high expectations over them.

It mentioned that socially-prescribed perfectionism is more consistently linked to maladaptive when compared to self-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). This may be due to self-oriented perfectionists were more likely to involve in activity that are easily to be complete (Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan & Mikail, 1991), whereby socially-prescribed perfection thought that they do not have much option, as others imposed standards over them (Tangney, 2002).

Solomon and Rothblum (1984) examined the frequency of procrastinate on academic tasks among college students and factors that lead to behavior of procrastinate. Results found that factor of Fear of Failure constitutes for approximately 50% of variance, which is four times more than variance accounted for by other factor. This factor included items of lack of self-confidence, overly perfectionist standards for one's performance, and evaluation anxiety. Thus, it revealed that procrastination is dependent on perfectionism with excessive fear of failure (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher, 1991; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

In 1992, Flett et al. administered a study on the relations between perfectionism and procrastination in college students. It stated that most of the previous studies does not emphasized on multidimensional perspective of perfectionism, and thus Flett et al.'s study was designed to reexamine association of both variables by focusing on different dimensions of it. Another purpose of this study was to work over again to identify possible factors that may lead to relation between perfectionism and procrastination. This finding proved that generalized and academic procrastination was strongly associated with socially-oriented perfectionism. In contrast, self-oriented and other-oriented perfectionism were less likely to correlate with procrastination due to individual's fear of failure (Flett et al., 1992).

In another study, Onwuegbuzie's research (2000) studied on the relationship between college students' academic procrastination and perfectionism. In 1999, Onwuegbuzie's previous study revealed that majority of students procrastinate on reading assignments that required to done weekly. This study indicated that there was a significant connection between overall academic procrastination and socially-prescribed perfectionism. The finding emerged in Onwuegbuzie's study, when compared with Ferrari's study (1992), and Saddler and Sacks (1993), these three studies tend to developed an indistinguishable findings. These studies established a concept that general procrastination was link with socially-prescribed perfectionism instead of self-oriented or other-oriented perfectionism. In this study, it suggested that students' behavior of procrastinate was consistent with fear of failure which is related to socially-oriented perfectionism, and it was compatible with previous research done by Pacht (1984). Other than that, Onwuegbuzie (2000) reported that perfectionism is one of the possible reasons give way to academic procrastination. In short, students who overly concerned on others' expectations, standards, and evaluation hold on them, will increase the probability of procrastinate. This is because they spend much more time on works, in order to produce a flawless outcomes. Due to time consuming, thus, led them to procrastinate in other works that is required to be done (Onwuegbuzie, 2000).

There was another study conducted by Yong (2010) to analyze prevalence and factors contributing to procrastination, and its relationship with assertiveness among university students in Malaysia. Findings indicated that students had many reasons for procrastinate, whereas item of "I set high standard for myself, but I worried that I would not be able to meet them" represented perfectionism had received more than 45% agreement from subjects enrolled in the study. Among those reasons, Yong's study had acknowledged that perfectionism could be one of the reasons that responsible for behavior of procrastination.

On the other hand, Chabaud, Ferrand, and Maury (2010) carried out a research to study the roles of perfectionism on procrastination behavior. Procrastination considered to be unreasonable tendency to postpone tasks that are required to complete within time (Lay, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) (as cited in Chabaud et al., 2010). Chabaud et al.'s study reported that perfectionism serves as a motivator for procrastination (Ferrari et al., 1995; Flett, Hewitt, & Martin, 1995; Onwuegbuzie, 2000). Findings of this study showed that those with low level of self-oriented perfectionism less likely to be associated with procrastinate. In fact, students without high personal standards does not seems to develop a close relations with high rates of procrastination (Ferrari et al., 1995) (as cited in Chabaud et al., 2010).

2.4 Relationship between Gender Differences and Procrastination

There is two different perspective available for researchers to approach gender differences and its relation with procrastination. It can distinguished by the amount of procrastination within males and females, and gender differences in correspond of procrastination (Pychyl et al., 2002).

Solomon and Rothblum (1984) in studying the recurrence and contributor of academic procrastination found out that there is no significant gender differences in the frequency of procrastination. Another study conducted by Rothblum, Solomon and Murakami (1986) also evidenced that though the amount of male and female procrastinate did not appears to be different, but female are at higher risk to develop procrastinatory behavior due to their anxiety level.

In the study of Haycock and colleagues (1998) to analyze whether anxiety, self-efficacy, age and gender have connection with procrastination, showed that sex and age were not an important predictors of procrastination. Researchers explained that as their study was the first to examine relationship of procrastination and self-efficacy with sex and age, therefore due to some limitations, it might not able to demonstrate either male or female will procrastinate more.

Other than that, Hess, Sherman and Goodman's study (2000) focused on usefulness of evening to predict academic procrastination of undergraduate students from United States . The result clarified that evening had impact on academic procrastination, yet it presented that there was non-existence of differences between male and female for tendency to develop procrastinatory behavior.

There was a study designed to understand interrelationship of academic procrastination with academic achievement, and if level of procrastination occurs differently in gender among Nigerian students (Akinsola et al., 2007). The study recorded that both male and female does not display differences in the level of procrastination, where gender alone does not sufficient to affect academic procrastination.

Sephrian and Lotf (2011) studied whether both coping skills and gender were associated with academic procrastination. Overall, the results showed that gender differences does not seems to be a predictor of procrastination. In the same year, there was another study conducted to emphasize on role of gender differences on academic procrastination among Turkish adolescents (Ozer & Ferrari, 2011). The result shown tend to be consistent with research reporting gender difference does not had significant impact in level of procrastination (e.g. Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum et al., 1986; Haycock et al., 1998; Hess et al., 2000; Akinsola et al., 2007; Sephrian & Lotf, 2011).

Even though, there were number of studies reported that the tendency of procrastinate occur differently in male and female does not exist. Still, there were studies that clearly hypothesize that there were gender difference in academic procrastination. Representative case such as, in study of Pychyl and colleagues (2002) who intended to study if tendency of adolescence procrastination has relation with gender differences, parenting style and self-worth, proved that parenting and gender do play roles in influencing amount of procrastinate.

For instance, male with paternal authoritative parenting does not seems to associate with procrastination, but females does show negative relation in this parenting style and procrastination. The findings of result consistent with other previous study which highlighted parental role, and significance of gender in procrastination. Example such as Rothblum et al. (1986) suggested that females with paternal authoritarian parenting more likely to engage in postponing or avoiding work tasks due to fear of failure in achieving parents' expectations.

A cross-cultural study had been conducted by Klassen et al. (2009) to explore relationship between motivation variables and procrastination level among adolescent from Canada and Singapore. The findings of results found out that there are gender differences between level of academic procrastination with motivation variables. It showed that males rated higher level of procrastination and positive self-esteem than females; whereby females rated more negative self-efficacy for self-regulation, self-esteem and test anxiety than males. Before that, previously conducted studies have declared relationships between gender differences for procrastination and test anxiety (Flett, Blankstein, & Martin, 1995) and for procrastination and low self-esteem (Flett et al., 1995). Klassen et al.'s (2009) findings tend to have results which consistent with both of these previous studies, where males had higher level of procrastination than females.

Ozer, Demir, and Ferrari (2009) carry out a study to know the prevalence and reasons of gender differences in procrastination among undergraduate students in a population of Turkish. Male students tend to procrastinate more than female in tasks assigned to them. In their study, differences of prevalence in academic procrastination between gender may contribute by variety of reasons, including laziness, fear of failure, risk taking and rebellion against control.

Besides that, Yong's study (2010) reported that there is gender differences in the rate of academic procrastination. It indicated that male students more likely to procrastinate than female.

Intention of Sharma and Kaur 's (2011) study is to determine whether gender differences will manipulate the level of procrastination and academic stress in adolescence. In terms of gender differences and procrastination, it revealed that no association exist between gender difference and procrastination, but on other hand, female had score higher level than male in fear of failure which classified as causal factor of procrastination. The result predicts that female may more susceptible to procrastinate in academic domain.

2.5 Theoretical Framework of the Study

There were plenty of theories had been used by theorists to explain the procrastination behavior. In the present study, researcher will focus on the following theoretical model to give explanation for procrastinatory behavior: psychoanalytic and psychodynamic theory, Temporal-Motivation Theory (TMT), Construal Level Theory (CLT).

2.5.1 Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Theory

Freud's psychodynamic theory (1953) discussed the concept of avoidance to be associated with anxiety, and detected by ego. Once the ego detected occurrence of anxiety, it will lead to establishment of ego defense mechanisms, and further contribute to situation that individual avoid completing tasks. He stated that individual's avoidance behavior is due to disruption of unintended matter that threatening to ego (as cited in Ferrari et al., 1995). This theory helps to explain the relation between motivation and procrastination. Once individuals perceive tasks as unpleasant for them and threaten to their ego, they were unlikely to be motivated (Milgram et al., 1995). In short, they will avoid or delaying in doing that particular task, which known as to procrastinate.

Looking from psychodynamic perspective, it stated that procrastination was considered to be related with previous childhood experiences, especially traumatic events (van der Kolk, 1987). It can also viewed as result of faulty child-rearing practices during childhood time. Researches had been conducted on parents' role and its relationship with procrastination. Ferrari et al. (1995) in reporting a study showed that disastrous results will more likely to happen on child who fostered by overcoercive parents who frequently set unrealistic and unachievable goal for them. Children raised up in this overcoercion family environment are at risk of develop feeling of self-worthlessness, and therefore causes procrastination (Missildine, 1963; as cited in Ferrari et al., 1995). In addition, there was also relationship between high parental expectation and procrastination, as parents' expectation has been linked with socially-prescribed perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990). There were studies reported that unrealistic expectation sets by parents will lead to consequences such as fears of failure, tendencies of perfectionist, and high demand for autonomy, that further contribute to procrastinatory behavior (Burka & Yuen, 1983).

Besides that, Ferrari and Olivette (1994) suggested that authoritarian parenting style do have certain degree of influence on development of procrastinators. Their findings of result declared that female bring up by indecisive mothers and authoritarian fathers are having more tendency to develop dysfunctional procrastination behavior. In terms of psychodynamic, procrastination has been viewed as a way for them to deal with these problematic family, and allow them to express their anger and dissatisfaction into a more socially desirable behavior. Specifically, they were more likely to be an avoidant procrastinator due to strict father and indecisive mother (Ferrari & Olivette, 1994).

In terms of the level of perfectionism, motivation and self-efficacy, the psychodynamic theory able to explain problem of students academic procrastination. This theory tries to explain that a person childhood experiences have major influence in their self-efficacy and motivational level as they disbelieve on their ability in accomplishing tasks (van der Kolk, 1987). This might due to previous experience of failure in achieving goal, and thus demotivated them to allocate effort on doing something . Furthermore, constantly evaluating or criticizing by parents might increase the tendency for individual to become perfectionist, as parents imposed high expectations on them (Ferrari & Olivette, 1994). They wish to be perfect, but caused by fear of failure, they probably will choose to procrastinate in order to prevent from being imperfect. By procrastinating work, it can comfort them even though unable to perform well. They will give an excuse that they do not have enough time. To sum up, this theory clearly asserts association between self-efficacy, motivation, and perfectionism on procrastination.

2.5.2 Temporal-Motivation Theory (TMT)

To identify reasons of why people procrastinate, it required us to determine whether there is drives that urge them to engage in certain activity, which known to be motivation (Calgary & Zurich, 2006). Time serves to be an important component in motivated behavior. Temporal-Motivation Theory (TMT) is an useful theory that assist in explain motivation towards procrastination, as it emphasized time as motivator. As reported by Calgary and Zurich (2006), TMT is an integrative model that formulated from core elements of other theories, such as hyperbolic discounting, and expectancy theory.

A common example for explanation of TMT is procrastination (Calgary & Zurich, 2006). It declared that preference reversal are commonly showed among procrastinator. It means, in a condition where individuals are require to choose activity with reward, they will most likely prefer near tasks with smaller reward rather than distant tasks with greater reward (Redden, 2007). Myerson and Green (1995) commented that in TMT, there is a model known as matching law, which best explain individual's behavior when it is needed for them to choose from variety of rewarding action.

The matching law worked based on the following equation:

Rate x Amount

Utility =

Delay

Utility denoted the meaning of preference, which refers to preferences increased leads to increase of utility. Both utility and preferences are parallel to each other. Rate used to point out the expectancy or likelihood that activity chosen will result in rewards, whereas amount of gain received as a return are explanation of amount. Last, delay considers on period of time a person needs to wait in order to receive outcome (Calgary & Zurich, 2006), and it had primary influence on the value of action perceived by others. After all, an action perceived to be less worthwhile, when there was prolonged delay. It indicates that actions perceived to have low utility are suspect to be delay. To sum things up, a person is likely to procrastinate work, when perceived actions as less worthwhile or low preferable (Milgram, Sroloff, & Rosenbaum, 1988).

Regarding to TMT, different rewards or losses associated with effect of delay on influencing expectancy and value are used to understand motivation. Steel (2007) stated that characteristics of tasks and difference features of individual accompanying with expectancy, such as self-efficacy and task difficulty. Follow by value, example includes aversiveness of task and achievement need; and delay sensitization (e.g. temporal distance, impulsiveness) are strongly correlated with procrastination. The following formula has been widely used in determine motivation:

EV

Motivation =

ΓD

Based on the above equation, it bring up the statement that motivation is outcome of Expectancy (E) multiply by Value (V), and will be divide with multiplication of Sensitivity to Delay ( Γ) and Delay (D). In this formula, Delay (D) is under the denominator part, the longer the delay, the lesser a person's is being motivated, where he or she is developing low motivational level (Steel, 2007). Expectancy consists of self-efficacy, where low level of it will indirectly influence a person's motivational level as Delay is associated with it. Example, a person is low in self-efficacy (E), she is lack of confidence in her ability to perform in certain activity, and it leads to the likelihood or desirability (V) for her to complete it is low (Steel & Konig, 2006).

Calgary and Zurich (2006) proposed that when EV is low, the time for her to obtain outcome (D) will prolonged as she might spend most of the time on questioning herself whether it should be done in this way or in other way, and is it right if she use this skill. She disbelief in her abilities, and hence, may get stuck in the process due to hesitation in making decision. Consequently, once delay increased, the motivation will then appears to be low. Contrarily, looking it from other way, if the motivational level is low, it give rises to an assumption that delay (D) where particularly refer by us as procrastination appears to be higher (Calgary & Zurich, 2006). As a conclusion, TMT make a clear assert that self-efficacy, motivation, and procrastination are coordinated with each another. In nutshell, changes in either one of them, will subsequently cause changes in others.

2.5.3 Construal Level Theory (CLT)

Construal Level Theory (CLT) has been used to explain association between procrastination and motivational level. This theory suggested that the way a person respond to future events are changed by temporal distance on how they mentally represent the tasks (Liberman, & Trope, 1998; Trope, & Liberman, 2003). The information for distant future events are represented by using more abstract features, which can known as high level construals. It means a person thought of more general information, instead of specific thinking (Trope & Liberman, 2003). In short, it processed to be more abstract if event is distant from an individual, whereas, it manifested as concrete when it is close event (Liberman, & Trope, 1998; Trope, & Liberman, 2003).

Based on this theory, there was study reported that individual is less likely to engage in performing, when tasks are distant where they did not think about it concretely (McCrea, Liberman, Trope, & Sherman, 2008). As an instance, it means the task is far from deadline, or did not thinking of doing task concretely. Under this circumstances, their motivational level tend to be low, and causes them to procrastinate (Ackerman, & Gross, 2005). This had been accounted by Shraw et al. (2007), who commented that deadlines able to help students to organize an effective time management, and in the study, students reported that they are less motivated and tend to procrastinate when work without deadlines. In conclusion, CLT justified that greater the temporal distance, higher the construal level, individual will most likely to procrastinate (Trope, & Liberman, 2003).

Likewise, according to Trope and Liberman (2003), individual's knowledge on what is needed to do in near and distant future events are fundamental for establishment of correlation between distance and level of construal. When the temporal distance of task is near, it said to be having low construal level, and believe to assumed by individuals as concrete, in which permit them to prepare for when, where, and how to work towards a goal (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). In other words, an earlier anticipated action leads to earlier completion, as a result, reduce procrastinatory behavior.

Individual tend to perform better when the tasks are difficult and form by more concrete constructs (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987), but it remains a question to researchers that whether concrete task lead to earlier completion. Time after time, findings of O'Donoghue and Rabin (1999) found to be contrast with study of Vallacher and Wegner. It uphold that tasks with concrete construal, especially when there is lack of incentives, it appears to increase the probability of individual to procrastinate (Steel & Konig, 2006), as the process for it to near completion is suffering, and seemingly they will avoid these unpleasant tasks (Milgram et al., 1988). Concisely, CLT give an explanation that a person's motivational level being affected when perceived tasks as uninteresting, and thence procrastination increased.

The main findings of McCrea et al.'s study reported that there was existence of association between concrete construal and procrastination. The results showed to be consistent with concepts of CLT that temporal distance will influence whether a person will complete tasks before a deadline. A close temporal distance, where it is at low construal level and represent the tasks at a more concrete level, it lessen individual's tendency to procrastinate. Vallacher and Wegner (1987) acknowledged that when a person think concretely about tasks and problems that may confront them in later time, it will motivated them to design a series of action beforehand in order for them to complete task successfully (Gollwitzer, 1999). To summarize it, CLT give an description of the link between temporal distance and construal level, and how both of these will affect person's motivation. As an example, Shirley would thinking of doing the task more concretely if a near distant event exist, and it enable her to develop reasonable thinking of what to do, and what problems might arise during the process of carrying out tasks. Thereby, it motivated her to work earlier in favor of ensure that she will able to accomplish task assigned without delay.

Alternatively, this theory has also showed linkage of procrastination and perfectionism. In this case, it is contrary to the link of procrastination and motivation as mentioned above. For example, an individual thought of by doing the tasks now, the close temporal distance will place them in near mode, where they can foresee all the problems or obstacles that will hinder them from doing a less than perfect job (Trope & Liberman, 2003). They think that the process might impeded and depressing if getting one's self to start working on the tasks by now. Since they have an assumption that it might resulting in poor performance and low grade. Therefore, they will choose to procrastinate and do it later in time, when there will be thought of more abstract since the task is distance from them. A belief that all impediments might disappear in the future some time, and thus they able to complete the tasks perfectly were stemmed in their mind (McCrea et al., 2008). To conclude, a perfectionist expected that it is a good choice for them to procrastinate as it always seems like it will be less barriers in future when doing job, which can assist them to perform a perfect job.

2.6 Conceptual Framework of the Study

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Self-Efficacy

Motivational Level

Perfectionism

Academic

Procrastination

The diagram above represents the conceptual framework of the present study. The independent variables (IVs) in this study are self efficacy, motivation and perfectionism, whereby dependent variable (DV) will be academic procrastination. In this study, researcher intended to identify whether these three IVs are predictor of DV. To find out did association between these IVs and DV exist, researchers will conclude it based on the results obtained from scoring of instruments used in the present study. Gender differences will also study by researcher to determine if tendency for both male and female to engage in procrastination tend to be different.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, it will explain on the instrument and analysis method being used by researcher to interpret data. It consists of the sample size, instrument used, procedures of the research study, and method of analyzing data.

3.1 Sample

The sample in this study were simple randomly selected by researcher. It included fifty males and females respectively. These 100 subjects with no restrictions of age in this study were recruited from School of Social Science and Humanities (SSSH) in Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC).

3.2 Instruments

In this study, a set of questionnaire will be distributed to the samples. Samples required to fill up the questionnaire with 100 items. There were four instrument used in this study such as Sherer et al.'s General Self-Efficacy Scale, Academic Motivation Scale, Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, and Lay's General Procrastination Scale. These four instruments were used to obtain relevant data of the study.

3.2.1 Sherer et al.'s General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSES)

General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSES) was developed by Sherer and colleagues (1982). The purpose of this instrument is to assess the general self-efficacy of sample in the study. This instrument was made up with total of 17 items. The response format of SGSES was based on a 5- point Likert scale. The score ranged from 1 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree". In SGSES, certain items were score reversely (eg. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17). The level of a person's self-efficacy is dependent on the total score of the 17 items. Higher the score, higher the level of self-efficacy. SGSES had an internal consistency value of .76 to .89 which considered to be quite high in two studies conducted on both students and managers (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). Contrarily, Imam (2007) in reporting study of Chen and Gully, mentioned that there was a which study show extremely low in test-retest reliability in SGSES.

3.2.2 Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)

Vallerand (1992) designed the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) with purpose of measure Self Determination Theory. There were three types of academic motivation included in this theory which are intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation. By utilizing AMS, researcher able to figure out whether respondents more prone to which type of academic motivation (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Hegarty (2011) mentioned that AMS is an instrument with 28 items and had been classified into 7 sub scales. Each of these subscales involve 4 items, and it is based on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 as "Does Not Correspond At All" to 7 as "Corresponds Exactly" (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Items in AMS were designated on the basis of why student went to college. Question such as "Why are you going to school" was being asked. The score of each sub scales when total up is known as Self Determination Index (SDI), which ranged form -18 to +18. The higher the score, it indicated that the particular respondent was more motivated intrinsically. Lastly, Vallerand and Bissonnette (1992) reported that internal consistency of AMS was .83.

3.2.3 Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS)

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) is a self-report measurement, consisted of 35 items. It was a multidimensional scale designed to measure on factors such as concern over mistakes (CM), doubts about actions (D), personal standards (PS), parental expectations (PE), parental criticism (PC) and organization (O) (Flett, Sawatzky, & Hewitt, 1995). The score of MPS is a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree". There were indication of positive outcome between the dimensions of personal standards and organization. Connection of both these dimensions suggested a productive manner of striving achievement and work (Frost et al., 1990). Obtained score in each dimensions will sum up and the total scores will represent the level of perfectionism. There was an equivalence association between MPS score and tendency of perfectionist (Frost et al., 1990). The MPS has an internal consistency of .73 to .93 and .90 for its subscale and overall scale respectively (Frost et al., 1990).

3.2.4 The General Procrastination Scale (GPS)

General Procrastination Scale was established by Lay in years of 1986, and encompassed of 20 items. This scale was designed to measure students' tendency to procrastinate in academic tasks. Lay (1986) stated that the scoring of GPS is based on a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 as "Extremely Uncharacteristic" to 5 as "Extremely Characteristic". In this scale, there were several items will calculate reversely by researcher (eg items 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18