THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN CHINESE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

by

Keqiao Liu
May, 6th, 2010

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo,

State University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Master of Arts

Department of Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………......iii

Chapter

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1

1.1. Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………..1

1.2. Research Question………………………………………………………………4

1.3. Definitions………………………………………………………………………..5

1.3.1. Academic Procrastination……………………………………………………5

1.3.2. Academic Achievement……………………………………………………….6

2. Literature Review………………………………………………………………7

3. Methods…………………………………………………………………………14

3.1. Procedure………………………………………………………………………14

3.2. Sample ………………………………………………………………………….14

3.3. Instrument……………………………………………………………………….15

3.4. Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………19

4. Results……………………………………………………………………………21

5. Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………31

6. Limitations……………………………………………………………………….34

7. Implications…………………………………………………………………….36

Reference……………………………………………………………………………..39

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………..44

Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………46

Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………..50

Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………56
Abstract

Penyelidikan ini bertujuan untuk menyemak prokrastinasiakademik dan hubungannya d
engan
pencapaian akademik di antara 91 pelajar Cina di sebuah bandardi Selatan
bahagian dari
China. Gender dan pembolehubah utama akademikdipertimbangkan dalam kajian ini.
Setelah menganalisa data, didapati bahawa peserta dalam kajianmenunjukkan moderat
kecenderungan penangguhan. Dan prokrastinasi akademiksecara signifikan negatif
berkorelasi dengan pencapaian
akademik. pembolehubah jantinatidak berdampak pada akademik
kecenderungan penangguhan, tetapi berpengaruh pada hubunganantara akademik
prokrastinasi dan prestasi akademik. Namun, akademik utamatidak mempunyai
pengaruh terhadap prokrastinasi akademik mahupunhubungannya dengan pencapaian
akademik.
Pada akhir kertas, keterbatasan dan implikasi kertas dibahas.
Sebelum kajian menunjukkan bahawa prokrastinasi akademikadalah masalah umum di 
antara
mahasiswa. Ellis dan Knaus (1977) menganggarkan bahawa 95%dari mahasiswa unive
rsiti di
Amerika Syarikat menunda-nunda. Solomon dan Rothblum (1984)menunjukkan bahaw
a 46% daripada
peserta universiti Amerika kajian sering atau selalumenunda-nunda pada menulis
kertas panjang; 27,6% menunda pada belajar untuk ujian, dan30,1% pada menunda-
nunda
membaca tugas mingguan. Kajian lain (Rothblum, Sulaiman &Murakami, 1986)
pada pelajar universiti Amerika menunjukkan bahawa 40,6% daripeserta skor tinggi,
iaitu di atas 33,3%, pada skala prokrastinasi. Lebih baru kajian(Klassen,
Krawchuk & Rajani, 2008) dilakukan di sebuah universiti Kanadamenunjukkan hasil
yang serupa sebagai
Ellis dan Knaus '(1977), menyimpulkan bahawa "hampir semuapelajar pasti
diri mereka sebagai Penunda, dengan 89% daripada pelajarmelaporkan lebih dari 1 jam
penangguhan pada hari "(hal. 927). Selain itu, sebuah kajian Turki(Klassen & Kuzucu,
2009) terhadap prokrastinasi akademik remaja 'menunjukkanbahawa "lebih dari 80% da
ri
remaja Turki melaporkan menghabiskan lebih dari satu jammenunda-nunda setiap hari,
dengan lebih daripada 40% pelaporan menghabiskan tiga jamatau lebih menunda-
nunda selama
sekolah khas hari "(p.77). penangguhan Akademik merupakanfenomena luas di
dunia akademik.

Berdasarkan kajian sebelum ini, Klassen, Krawchuk, dan Rajani(2008) dibahagikan
prokrastinasi akademik ke prokrastinasi akademik positif dannegatif. Positif
prokrastinasi akademik ditakrifkan sebagai penangguhan bahawamahasiswa manfaat d
ari, untuk
Misalnya, melalui prestasi yang lebih baik akademik, seperti untuknegatif akademik
penangguhan-yang lebih umum-pelajar menderita daripada itu,misalnya di
bentuk kecemasan. Alasan untuk perbezaan ini masih perlu untukdieksplorasi. Saat ini,
kajian tentang prokrastinasi akademik terutama berfokus padanegatif akademik
penangguhan (Rothblum, Sulaiman & Murakami, 1986; Prohaskaet al, 2000.;
Howell & Watson, 2007; Tan et al, 2008;. Klassen & Kuzucu,2009). Dan jangka waktu
"Prokrastinasi akademik" sering berdiri untuk prokrastinasiakademik negatif. Dalam
hal ini
kertas, pusat penyelidikan tentang prokrastinasi akademik negatif.Bila istilah
"Prokrastinasi akademik" digunakan, selalu merujuk padaakademik negatif
penangguhan.
Akademik penangguhan diyakini berkaitan dengan pelbagaipembolehubah seperti
pencapaian akademik,
umur, kecemasan, wilayah rawankebosanan, kemurungan, takut gagal,
gender, perfeksionisme, peraturan, dan sebagainya (Solomon &Rothblum, 1984;
Flett et al, 1992;. Owens & Newbegin, 1997; Vodanovich & Rupp,1999; Gropel &
Baja, 2008; Klassen, Krawchuk & Rajani, 2008). Yang terpenting,akademik
penangguhan memainkan peranan negatif dalam mempengaruhikerjaya masa depan p
elajar.
Menurut Boice (1996), penangguhan bermaksud "menghindari
atau menunda tugas yang
perlu dilakukan. "memprediksi mengelakkan tugas-seperti"rendahnya tahap penglibatan 
kerja dan
tinggi tingkat kejenuhan selama awal kerjaya "(Salmela-Aro,Tolvanen & Nurmi,
2009).

Sementara itu, pencapaian
akademik boleh menentukan masadepan mencari pekerjaan seseorang. Dalam
China, ketika pelajar mula mencari pekerjaan, kebanyakansekolah akan mengeluarkan 
salinan rasmi
nya / kehormatan akademik dan transkrip sebagai lampiran untukmeneruskan. Pengusa
ha
akan lebih mungkin untuk merekrut mahasiswa yang mencapaiprestasi akademik yang l
ebih tinggi.
Oleh kerana itu, pencapaian
akademik mempunyai kesanterhadap prospek pekerjaan pelajar.

Beberapa kajian yang dilakukan di negara yang berbeza, menunjukkan bahawa

pencapaian akademik 
berkaitan dengan prokrastinasi akademik (Rothblum, Sulaiman & Murakami, 1986;
Owens 
& Newbegin, 1997; Howell & Watson, 2007; Klassen & Kuzucu, 2009). Oleh kerana itu, 
masuk akal untuk menduga bahawa hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan 
pencapaian akademik boleh mempengaruhi masa depan kerjaya seseorang. 
Oleh kerana itu, tidak hanya kurangnya kajian prokrastinasi akademik dalam 
dunia non-Barat, tetapi juga pengaruh besar daripada prokrastinasi akademik dan 
pencapaian akademik pada prospek kerjaya membangkitkan minat dalam melakukan
kajian 
akademik penangguhan dan sifat hubungan dengan pencapaian akademik. 
Selanjutnya, Zhang dan Zhang (2007) tuntutan tentang kelangkaan kajian yang relevan 
pada prokrastinasi akademik di China mengilhami saya untuk melakukan kajian di
China. 
Penyelidikan yang dicadangkan meluas kajian tentang prokrastinasi akademik di China
dan 
memberikan dasar bagi penelitian di masa depan. 

Ketika mempelajari prokrastinasi akademik dan hubungannya dengan akademik 

prestasi di perguruan tinggi China, saya menganggap jenis kelamin sebagai faktor yang
relevan, kerana 
gender diyakini berkaitan dengan prokrastinasi akademik (Gropel & Steel, 2008; 
Klassen et al, 2009) .. Namun, faktor-faktor lain, seperti bangsa dan usia, tidak
dianggap. 
Hal ini kerana para peserta, mahasiswa di China, bentuk yang agak 
kumpulan homogen dalam hal bangsa dan usia. 

1.2.Research Questions

Mengenai isu prokrastinasi akademik dan hubungannya dengan pelajar 

prestasi di China, kajian ini akan menjawab soalan-soalan berikut:

1. Apakah status prokrastinasi akademik saat mahasiswa di China? 

2. Apa hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan akademik 
prestasi? 
3. Apakah gender memainkan peranan apa pun dalam hubungan antara prokrastinasi
akademik dan 
prestasi akademik? 

4. Apakah jenis universiti (seni berasaskan versus berasaskan ilmu pengetahuan)

mempengaruhi akademik 
penangguhan? 

  

1.3.Definitions 
1.3.1. Kelewatan Akademik 

penangguhan Akademik merupakan penangguhan yang terjadi dalam bidang

akademik 
tatacara. 

  

Ellis dan Knaus penangguhan (1977) ditakrifkan sebagai "menunda sesuatu sampai
masa depan 
waktu menunda atau menangguhkan tindakan terhadap sesuatu yang anda telah
memutuskan untuk melakukan "(hal. 7); 
Burka dan Yuen (1983) menyatakan bahawa "setiap kali anda meletakkan sesuatu dari
anda 
menunda-nunda, terlepas dari alasan kelewatan anda "(hal. 5); Ness (1988) ditakrifkan 
sebagai "mengelakkan atau menunda tugas yang perlu dilakukan" (hal. 8). Boice (1996)
ditakrifkan 
sebagai terdiri "sebahagian besar daripada memilih untuk mendapatkan bantuan jangka
pendek melalui tindakan yang mudah dan 
akan bermanfaat, yang umumnya mengelakkan bahkan pemikiran (dan kecemasan
syarikat) 
melakukan lebih sukar, delayable, hal-hal penting "(hal XIX). Dietz, Hofer, dan Fries 
(2007) dianggap prokrastinasi sebagai keutamaan "untuk memilih alternatif bercuti 

ketika ada konflik antara motivasi belajar dan aktiviti rekreasi "(hal. 893). 
Seperti yang dilihat dari atas, ada definisi bersama mengenai penangguhan telah
tercapai. 
Dalam kajian saya, saya mengadopsi Ellis dan Knaus (1977) dan (1988) Ness's
definisi. Ini adalah 
kerana (1983) definisi Burka dan Yuen adalah terlalu jelas; Boice (1996) dan Dietz, 
Hofer, dan Fries '(2007) adalah separa-misalnya, definisi ini merangkumi yang
memerlukan 
bantuan adalah alasan untuk menunda-nunda, tetapi mereka tidak menyatakan bahawa
dalam mengejar kesempurnaan 
orang mungkin juga menunda-nunda (Flett et al, 1992.). 

1.3.2. Academic Achievement

Prestasi akademik, dalam kajian ini, ditakrifkan sebagaigabungan dari nilai ujian,
pangkat akademik, dan kehormatan akademik. Pada
sebahagianbesar penyelidikan yang mempelajari
hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan pencapaian akademik, akademik
penangguhan berkaitan dengan pelajar dan skor IPK grade (tice &Baumeister, 1997;
Prohaska et al, 2000;. Howell & Watson, 2007; Klassen, Krawchuk& Rajani, 2007;
Zarick & Stonebraker, 2009). Dalam kajian saya, bagaimanapun,saya akan fokus pada 
skor kelas,
kerana saiz IPK tidak banyak digunakan di China. Saya juga akanmemperhatikan
aspek yang lain pencapaian
akademik, seperti pangkat akademikdan penghargaan akademik,
yang, seperti saya berasumsi, positif berkaitan dengan skor kelas.
2. Ulasan Sastera 

Penelitian tentang penangguhan, terutama dalam tatacara prokrastinasi akademik,

tidak 
didokumentasikan hingga 1980-an (Schouwenburg, 2004). Sejak itu, berbagai
penelitian 
menunjukkan bahawa prokrastinasi akademik negatif berkaitan dengan akademik 
prestasi, dan bukti yang diperolehi menyoroti pelbagai faktor yang relevan. Untuk 
Misalnya, (1998) kajian di Australia Orpen pelajar sekolah menengah menunjukkan
bahawa 
prokrastinasi akademik adalah positif berkaitan dengan motivasi luaran pelajar, 
yang terlibat dalam pemprosesan pengetahuan akademik pada paras, dan itu 
negatif yang berkaitan dengan motivasi intrinsik pelajar, yang bergerak di dalam
peringkat 
pemprosesan. Deep-level pemprosesan berperanan paling penting dalam
pembelajaran, yang 
vital untuk prestasi akademik. Oleh kerana itu, prokrastinasi akademik berkaitan negatif 
terhadap prestasi akademik pelajar. Seiring dengan hubungan negatif yang pergi 
sikap negatif bahawa pelajar merasa terhadap kursus akademik mereka. 

Juga, keputusan dijumpai (Tan et al, 2008.) Dari mahasiswa di Singapura yang
"mahasiswa 
yang menganggap diri mereka sebagai mampu mengatur dan penataan belajar mereka
sendiri 
akan melakukan penangguhan dalam tahap yang jauh lebih rendah berbanding dengan
pelajar yang lain "(hal. 141). 
Seperti motivasi intrinsik, rasa kawalan untuk belajar sendiri sangat penting untuk 
prestasi akademik. Jadi penemuan ini juga menyokong hubungan negatif antara 
prokrastinasi akademik dan prestasi akademik. 
Untuk Dietz, Hofer, dan Fries (2007), keputusan tentang bagaimana menyelesaikan
tugas-tugas akademik 

dianggap sebagai "langkah penting pertama dalam cara untuk pencapaian akademik"
(hal. 903) untuk 
6-pelajar kelas 8 di Jerman. Yang penting adalah bahawa keputusan seperti itu boleh 
mencegah atau angkat prokrastinasi akademik. Sebagai contoh, keputusan yang
dirancang boleh 
mencegah prokrastinasi akademik, yang pada gilirannya memprediksi lebih baik
akademik 
prestasi. Sekali lagi, prokrastinasi akademik dan pencapaian akademik 
negatif berkaitan. 

  

Satu kajian yang dilakukan di antara Afrika mahasiswa pascasarjana Amerika (Collins, 
Onwuegbuzie & Jiao, 2008) mendapati bahawa kemampuan membaca dan
prokrastinasi akademik 
yang negatif yang berkaitan. Menurut kajian, kemampuan membaca merupakan faktor
penting 
yang boleh mempengaruhi prestasi akademik pelajar, sehingga wajar untuk 
kesimpulan dari hasil ini juga, bahawa prestasi akademik negatif yang berkaitan
dengan 
akademik penangguhan. 

  

Selanjutnya, kajian yang dilakukan oleh Bruinsma dan Jansen (2009) di sebuah
universiti Belanda 
menunjukkan bahawa "pelajar dengan jumlah terendah penangguhan cenderung untuk
mendapatkan 
pertama mereka tahun diploma lebih cepat "(hal. 111). Di Belanda, adalah umum untuk 
perguruan tinggi untuk memberikan pelajar ijazah tahun pertama rasmi. Dalam rangka
untuk mendapatkan ijazah 
pelajar harus berhasil menyelesaikan program domain-khusus.Selain itu, itu 
menunjukkan bahawa prestasi akademik tahun pertama akan mempengaruhi tahun
kemudian. Pada 
titik ini, prokrastinasi akademik tampaknya menjadi faktor fatal dalam memutuskan
negatif 
pencapaian akademik. 

Menurut banyak penelitian, prokrastinasi akademik mempunyai hubungan negatif

dengan 
grade nilai dan IPK-yang merupakan elemen dari pencapaian akademik. Setelah
mengumpulkan 
data dari mahasiswa dan fakulti di universiti AS, Zarick dan Stonebraker (2009) 
menyatakan bahawa prokrastinasi akademik adalah penyebab untuk "kerja berkualiti
rendah, terlambat 
tugas, atau nilai lebih rendah "(hal. 213). Klassen, Krawchuk dan Rajani (2008)
menunjukkan 
bahawa ada korelasi negatif antara prokrastinasi akademik di satu pihak 
dan IPK dan skor kelas di sisi lain ketika mahasiswa Kanada tidak
pengalaman manfaat dari penangguhan, seperti menjadi lebih fokus di bawah masa
yang 
tekanan. Penyelidikan lain (Rothblum et al, 1986;. Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Prohaska
et 
al., 2000) juga menunjukkan korelasi negatif antara prokrastinasi akademik 
dan IPK / kelas. 

  

Menurut kajian diatas, prokrastinasi akademik negatif yang berkaitan dengan 

pencapaian akademik. Dengan kata lain, ketika pelajar menunjukkan tinggi akademik 
kecenderungan penangguhan, lebih rendah pencapaian akademik selaras dengan itu,
dan ketika 
pelajar menunjukkan kecenderungan prokrastinasi akademik rendah, lebih tinggi
akademik 
prestasi disajikan. Hubungan ini biasanya dijelaskan oleh para penyelidik di 
prokrastinasi akademik istilah-kausal meramalkan pencapaian akademik. 

  

Namun demikian, Owens dan Newbegin (1997), yang melakukan kajian mereka di 
Australian Catholic sekolah tinggi, mencadangkan sudut pandang yang berbeza
pandangan tentang 

hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan skor kelas. Mereka memperkenalkan 

idea bahawa nilai kelas adalah prediktor untuk prokrastinasi akademik, daripada wakil 
sebaliknya, walaupun mereka mengakui hubungan negatif antara kedua-dua. Dengan
demikian, 
perbezaan antara kajian dan penyelidikan di atas adalah apakah akademik 
kelewatan atau grade skor adalah penyebabnya. 

Tanpa mempertimbangkan hubungan sebab-akibat yang mungkin ada di

antara akademik
prokrastinasi dan prestasi akademik, Howell dan Watson (2007)diringkaskan
set korelasi antara "penangguhan rendah, organisasi yang lebihbesar, lebih tinggi kogni
tif
dan meta-kognitif strategi penggunaan, pemprosesan dalam dannilai yang lebih tinggi 
"(hal. 176). Ini
ringkasan singkat juga mewujudkan idea umum dari parapenyelidik disebutkan sebelum
nya.
Untuk semua dari mereka, prokrastinasi akademik tidak negatifberkaitan dengan akade
mik
berprestasi, meskipun hubungan kausal adalah dipertikaikan.Mendasarkan sekarang
kajian tentang kesimpulan ini, saya diharapkan untuk melihathubungan negatif antara
prokrastinasi akademik dan pencapaian akademik, dengankeutamaan untuk melihat
penangguhan akademik sebagai prediktor.

Di luar pencapaian
akademik, penyelidikan tentang prokrastinasiakademik menunjukkan bahawa
berkaitan dengan pembolehubah yang
lain. Ferrari, Johnson, danMcCown (1995) disintesis
berbagai
penelitian tentang prokrastinasi akademik di manamereka mengenalpasti variasi
pembolehubah yang mungkin berkaitan dengan itu. Misalnya,mereka menunjukkan yan
g mungkin positif
hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan depresi dankemungkinan

negatif hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan harga diri.Tentang 

pengaruh pembolehubah-pembolehubah ini, saya berasumsi bahawa dalam kajian ini,
yang dipilih secara rawak 
sampel daripada penduduk mahasiswa perguruan tinggi yang merupakan wakil
daripada penduduk 
secara keseluruhan dapat meminimumkan kesan. Selain itu, kajian ini dianggap
sebagai 
dasar, sehingga pembolehubah-pembolehubah ini boleh dipertimbangkan dalam kajian
selanjutnya. Namun, ada dua 
pembolehubah-usia dan gender yang perlu diambil kira, kerana kedua-dua 
adalah pembolehubah fizikal yang setiap orang mempunyai. 

  

Ada kajian (Prohaska et al, 2000;. Zhang & Zhang, 2007; Gropel & Steel, 2008) 
menyatakan bahawa orang tua menjadi, diri lebih-peraturan yang mereka miliki, dan
semakin sedikit 
penangguhan yang mereka lakukan. Di sisi lain, Owens dan Newbegin (1997) 
disimpulkan bahawa penangguhan "mungkin perilaku yang dipelajari," tua siswa
sehingga menjadi 
lebih mungkin untuk menunda-nunda. Penjelasan untuk ini percanggahan mungkin 
bahawa peserta dari kumpulan pertama kajian adalah mahasiswa salah satu atau 
lebih tua dari 18, sedangkan peserta kajian kedua adalah pelajar sekolah menengah. 
  

Ketika mempertimbangkan gender, beberapa kajian (Zhang & Zhang, 2007; Howell &
Buro, 2009; 
Klassen & Kuzucu, 2009) menyatakan bahawa tidak ada perbezaan gender ditemui
dalam bidang akademik 
penangguhan. Namun, kajian lain (Gropel & Steel, 2008;. Klassen et al, 2009) 
menegaskan bahawa perbezaan gender ada di prokrastinasi akademik, di bahwa laki-
laki 
mempunyai kecenderungan prokrastinasi lebih tinggi dari perempuan. Lebih menarik,
Zarick dan 
Stonebraker (2009) mendapati bahawa meskipun laki-laki menunda-nunda lebih dari
perempuan, 

prestasi akademik menunjukkan tidak ada perbezaan yangsignifikan antara lelaki dan w
anita.
Kesimpulan pertama yang ditarik dari belajar pelajar remaja danuniversiti dari
negara yang berbeza. Penemuan kedua adalah berdasarkanpada
usia remaja dan pelbagai
kumpulan dari berbagai negara. Keputusan terakhir ini diperolehidari
sebuah universiti di Amerika Syarikat
dengan peserta pelajar dan fakulti. Para peserta universiti di tigakumpulan
berasal dari jurusan kajian akademik yang berbeza. Jadi tidak adapersamaan antara
sampel, yang mungkin menjelaskan perbezaan dalam hasil kajian.

Dalam kajian ini, para peserta 2 dan 3 mahasiswa tahun, sehingga 

perbezaan usia ini harus diabaikan. Untuk alasan ini, jenis kelamin tetapi tidak dianggap
usia 
sebagai pembolehubah dalam kajian ini. 

  

Sebagai komplikasi lebih lanjut untuk keterbandingan penemuan kajian, dalam kajian di 
mahasiswa, peneliti nyaris tidak dianggap sebagai kesan besar akademik 
akademik penangguhan. Sebahagian besar kajian dilaksanakan pada mata pelajaran
yang mengambil 
psikologi yang berkaitan dengan program (Sulaiman & Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum,
Sulaiman & 
Murakami, 1986; Flett et al, 1992;. Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Mann et al, 1998) .. Untuk 
beberapa kajian lain, tidak ada utama disebutkan (Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999; Zhang & 
Zhang, 2007). Mengenai ini, kajian ini merupakan salah satu yang pertama untuk
menguji 
pengaruh akademik utama sistematik. Hal ini secara khusus direka untuk melihat
apakah ada 
perbezaan antara pelajar yang berada di jurusan seni berasaskan dan mereka 
berasaskan ilmu pengetahuan jurusan. 

  

Setakat ini kajian tentang prokrastinasi akademik telah dilakukan di pelbagai 

negara-negara di antara peserta yang berbeza pada peringkat akademik yang berbeza,
yang menyebabkan 
masalah bahawa ciri-ciri bersama antar sampel kajian yang berbeza tidak dapat 
dijumpai. Dalam hal ini, pada umumnya dari hasil kajian tidak dibenarkan. Seperti
Zhang 
dan Zhang (2007) menunjukkan, kajian lebih lanjut mengenai prokrastinasi akademik
adalah 
saat ini diperlukan di China. Oleh kerana itu, tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk
mempelajari 
hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik dan pencapaian akademik di China 
mahasiswa, dengan pertimbangan utama gender dan akademik.

3. Kaedah 
3.1.Procedure 

Dalam kajian ini, kaedah kajian tinjauan digunakan untuk menjelajah hubungan 
antara prokrastinasi akademik dan pencapaian akademik antara China 
mahasiswa. 

3.2.Sample 

Dua universiti yang dipilih daripada lebih daripada 10 universiti di bandar menengah 
di bahagian tengah-Selatan China. Bandar ini merupakan yang kedua terbesar dalam
mengembangkan 
wilayah. Kedua-dua universiti adalah yang terbaik di bandar itu, tetapi di antara 
kedua-dua peringkat universiti di China. Salah satu universiti, yang memiliki sekitar
21.000 penuh-masa 
pelajar, mempunyai fokus pada seni, yang satu lagi, yang memiliki sekitar 30.000
penuh-masa 
pelajar, mempunyai fokus pada ilmu pengetahuan. Mahasiswa di dua universiti berasal
dari 
pelbagai daerah di China. Sebahagian besar mahasiswa baik yang berasal dari
keluarga kelas menengah 
atau luar bandar keluarga. Alasan bagi saya untuk memilih dua universiti adalah:
pertama, sebuah 
sejumlah besar universiti di saham China beberapa ciri yang sama kerana kedua-
paling 
dari mereka berada di bandar-bandar berkembang dan universiti peringkat kedua,
kedua-dua, itu 
nyaman bagi saya untuk mengumpul data di sana. 

  

Untuk memilih peserta, saya melawat masing-masing dua sekolah pada hari kerja, dan
kemudian 
dipilih secara rawak kelas untuk membahagikan kuesioner penelitian ini. Namun, 
kerana pelajar akan diminta untuk memberikan prestasi akademik mereka masa lalu 

maklumat di universiti, saya hanya merancang merekrut mahasiswa tahun ke-2-

4. Untuk ini 
tujuan, saya secara lisan meminta tahun-peringkat pelajar sebelum penyebaran
kuesioner. 
Selain itu, kerana besar akademik adalah pembolehubah dalam kajian ini, saya juga
menanyakan hal ini secara lisan 
maklumat sebelum pengedaran. Para peserta diberitahu secara mendalam 
tentang tujuan dan pengendalian kajian sebelum mengisi kuesioner (lihat 
Apendiks A dan B). Setelah menyelesaikan kuesioner, wawancara adalah kenyataan 
disediakan (lihat Lampiran D) untuk memastikan bahawa para peserta tahu apa yang
mereka lakukan. 
Dalam kajian ini, saya satu-satunya orang yang pengsan dan mengumpulkan
kuesioner. 
Penyertaan benar-benar sukarela. Aku merekrut peserta sophomore 46, yang 
mengambil jurusan dalam bahasa Bahasa Jepun, untuk universiti berasaskan seni dan
SMP 45 peserta, yang 
mengambil jurusan teknik, untuk universiti berasaskan ilmu pengetahuan. Di antara 46
peserta 
jurusan di Jepun, ada 16 laki-laki dan 30 perempuan, dan antara 45 
peserta jurusan teknik, ada 35 laki-laki dan 10 perempuan. 

  

Proporsi etnisitas belum direkodkan. Menurut data tahun 2005 dari 

Biro Nasional Statistik China, kebanyakan orang di China berasal dari Han 
etnik. Khususnya, di kota China, lebih dari 99% orang Han, jadi 
etnik sangat tidak mungkin sebuah pembolehubah perancu dalam kajian ini. 
3.3.Instrument 
Kuesioner (lihat Lampiran C) daripada kajian ini mengandungi dua bahagian: satu
bertujuan 
pelajar mengukur 'penangguhan status, dimana Tuckman 16-item 

Kelewatan Skala (TPS) yang ditubuhkan, yang bertujuan lain untuk mengukur pelajar
akademik 
berprestasi, yang item dirancang, penyelidik. Kuesioner 
merangkumi versi bahasa Inggeris dan Cina. Alasan yang jelas untuk dimasukkannya 
versi China adalah bahawa bahasa Inggeris bukan bahasa pertama orang Cina. Tapi 
pelajar di China biasanya mula untuk belajar bahasa Inggeris di sekolah menengah
(atau bahkan SD 
sekolah), dan semua mahasiswa harus lulus ujian Bahasa Inggeris nasional untuk
mendapatkan mereka 
sarjana, maka versi bahasa Inggeris dimasukkan juga. 

  

16-item Tuckman Kelewatan Skala (TPS) (lihat Bahagian I dari Lampiran B). 
Kelewatan ini Tuckman Skala merupakan alat untuk mengukur penangguhan 
dalam tetapan akademik (Ferrari, Johnson & McCown, 1995).Awalnya 
direka oleh Tuckman (1991) dalam bahasa Bahasa Inggeris.Pada awalnya, sebuah
TPS 72-item itu 
dirancang dan dikendalikan atas 50 perguruan tinggi AS junior dan senior, setelah
faktor 
analisis, versi 35-item diperolehi dan diuji pada 183 perguruan tinggi AS 
pelajar; dengan analisis faktor lebih lanjut, TPS 16-item diperolehi.Dalam 
(1991) kajian Tuckman's, kebolehpercayaan untuk skala 35-item 0,90, untuk 
16-item skala adalah 0,86. Kesahan bersamaan TPS dalam kajian yang 
ditunjukkan oleh hubungan negatif dengan Self-Efficacy Umum 
Skala dan prestasi diri ditetapkan. 

  

Skala Likert 4-titik digunakan untuk skor TPS 16-item-"Itu adalah saya untuk 
yakin, "" Itu kecenderungan saya, "" Itu bukan kecenderungan saya, "dan" Itu bukan
aku 

pasti. "Contoh-contoh dari TPS 16-item" Aku tidak perlu menunda penyelesaian 
pekerjaan, bahkan ketika mereka penting, "" Ketika saya punya tenggat waktu, saya
tunggu sampai 
minit terakhir, "dan" Aku meletakkan masa yang diperlukan ke dalam tugas bahkan
membosankan, seperti 
belajar. " 
Untuk TPS 16-item, rentang kehandalan 0,86-0,90 untuk kajianyang
dilakukan di AS dan Kanada mahasiswa (Tuckman, 1998;
Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999; Klibert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling &Saito, 2005;
Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch & Rajani, 2008; Klassen, Krawchuk &Rajani,
2008). Kesahan skala ini diperolehi dengan menyambung denganpelbagai
pembolehubah, seperti akademik efikasi diri, harga diri, danmembantu mencari, tapi
paling penting untuk kajian ini adalah korelasi yang signifikansecara statistik
dengan pelajar IPK (Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch & Rajani, 2008;Klassen,
Krawchuk & Rajani, 2008).

Berdasarkan bukti-bukti di atas, penggunaan umum dari TPS16-item dalam
negara-negara Barat yang dikehendaki. Di China, ketika belajarakademik
penangguhan, penyelidik biasanya mengadopsi definisinegara-negara Barat '
dan instrumen (Wei, 2006; Zhang & Zhang, 2007; Chen, Dai &Dong, 2008;
Wang & Luo, 2009). Untuk versi China (Zhang & Zhang, 2007),
kebolehpercayaan untuk TPS 16-item 0,56; kesahihan diuji melalui
berkaitan dengan faktor-faktor seperti harga diri.Kebolehpercayaan yang lebih rendah d
aripada

Untuk TPS 16-item, rentang kehandalan 0,86-0,90 untuk kajianyang
dilakukan di AS dan Kanada mahasiswa (Tuckman, 1998;
Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999; Klibert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling &Saito, 2005;
Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch & Rajani, 2008; Klassen, Krawchuk &Rajani,
2008). Kesahan skala ini diperolehi dengan menyambung denganpelbagai
pembolehubah, seperti akademik efikasi diri, harga diri, danmembantu mencari, tapi
paling penting untuk kajian ini adalah korelasi yang signifikansecara statistik
dengan pelajar IPK (Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch & Rajani, 2008;Klassen,
Krawchuk & Rajani, 2008).

Berdasarkan bukti-bukti di atas, penggunaan umum dari TPS16-item dalam
negara-negara Barat yang dikehendaki. Di China, ketika belajarakademik
penangguhan, penyelidik biasanya mengadopsi definisinegara-negara Barat '
dan instrumen (Wei, 2006; Zhang & Zhang, 2007; Chen, Dai &Dong, 2008;
Wang & Luo, 2009). Untuk versi China (Zhang & Zhang, 2007),
kebolehpercayaan untuk TPS 16-item 0,56; kesahihan diuji melalui
berkaitan dengan faktor-faktor seperti harga diri.Kebolehpercayaan yang lebih rendah d
aripada

versi bahasa Inggeris, itu diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Cina.Terjemahan itu
dilakukan oleh penutur asli bahasa Cina yang kedua adalahBahasa Inggeris.
Selanjutnya, kuesioner ditinjau dalam versi bahasa Inggerisdengan fakulti
ahli. Atas saranan mereka, soalan yang terkemuka di kuesioneradalah
dihapuskan. item itu meminta pelajar untuk memilih daripadabeberapa pilihan tentang
kemungkinan hubungan antara prokrastinasi akademik danakademik
prestasi, misalnya, "prokrastinasi akademik negatif yang berkaitandengan
prokrastinasi akademik "Selanjutnya., sintaks dari item yang telahdisesuaikan untuk
lebih sesuai dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggeris atas usul daritinjauan lain.

Kerana gender adalah pembolehubah bebas dalam
kajian ini,pelajar diminta untuk menyediakan
gender maklumat di awal dari kuesioner.

Analisis 3.4.Statistical

Pakej Statistik untuk Sains Sosial (SPSS) digunakan untukmenganalisis data.
Sebelum analisis, item 3 dalam kuesioner direka sendiripencapaian akademik
telah dihapuskan, kerana IPK tidak digunakan di dua sekolah.Selama analisis, hilang ke
s
telah dihapuskan.

Data terlebih dahulu dianalisa secara keseluruhan. Kemudian,berbanding pada pembol
ehubah
akademik utama. Gender pembolehubah diuji bersama-sama
dengan dua bahagian analisis.
Untuk bahagian pertama analisis, kecenderungan prokrastinasiakademik mahasiswa ad
alah
dikira melalui menggunakan salah satu-sample t-test, bersama-sama
dengan Cronbach Alpha
kebolehpercayaan perhitungan TPS 16-item. Genderpembolehubah diuji dengan meng
gunakan
uji t-bebas. Setelah menganalisa hubungan antara item dalamdireka sendiri
kuesioner pencapaian akademik, wakil dan item boleh dipercayaidipilih,
menggunakan korelasi Pearson, untuk berkaitan denganprokrastinasi akademik. Gende
r
pembolehubah dipertimbangkan dalam hubungan antaraprokrastinasi akademik dan
pencapaian akademik.

Untuk bahagian kedua dari analisis data, prosedur analisis di ataspada dasarnya

berulang-ulang, mendasarkan pada pembolehubah utamaakademik.
4. Results

For academic procrastination, Figure 1 indicates the distribution of students’ academic

procrastination scores. For the 16-item TPS, 64 is the highest point score for academic

procrastination, so people who score around 40 points should be regarded as moderate

procrastinators. In this study, the mean score is 38.81 (SD=6.88624). Using

one-sample t-test to compare the mean score (38.81) of this study with the medium

score (40) of moderate academic procrastinators, it is found that students in the two

universities show no statistically significant patterns in academic procrastination,

t(90)=-1.644, p=1.04. In other words, students in this study generally could be defined

as moderate procrastinators. Next, the gender variable is taken into consideration.

Testing through independent t-test, males and females show no difference in academic

procrastination, t(89) =-1.027, p=0.307. Finally, the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability is

0.756, which points out the internal consistency of the 16-item TPS in this research.

Figure 1. The distribution of students’ academic procrastination scores

For academic achievement, each item within the questionnaire is relatively

independent and can be regarded as an indicator of academic achievement. In order to

test the consistency of the self-designed academic achievement questionnaire, items 1,

4, 5, and 6 are correlated with each other by using Pearson correlation (see Table 1),

because only these 4 items in the academic achievement questionnaire consist

numerical data. As seen from Table 1, the correlation between item 5 (average grade

of last semester) and item 6 (overall average grade) is the strongest among all the

correlations (r=0.862, p<0.01). This result is consistent with the common expectation,

so it provides evidence for the questionnaire reliability. Next, considering item 1

(NCEE score), its correlation with items 4 (cumulative credit average of last year), 5,

and 6 does not present more than moderate correlations, though the correlation

between items 1 and 5 is statistically significant. This result does not present as strong

relationship as Berry and Sackett’s (2009) study, who pointed out the predictive

nature of the SAT scores. The explanation for this contradiction is that the Chinese

education system is different from that in the U.S.. Lastly, the correlations of item 4

with items 5 and 6 also do not present any strong correlation. The reason for this

result is that not every course has the same number of credit points, so it is possible

for a high grade course to contribute only few credit points.

Table 1. Correlations

ITEM1

ITEM4

ITEM5

ITEM4

.107

ITEM5

.297*

.144
ITEM6

.075

.177

.862**

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note. ITEM1 measures National College Entrance Exam (NCEE),

ITEM4 measures the cumulative credit average of university students of last

year,

ITEM5 measures the estimated average grade of university students of last

semester,

ITEM6 measures the estimated overall average grade of university students till

now.

Though in this study it seems that the NCEE cannot predict the academic performance

in university, the relationship between item 1 (NCEE score) and 2 (high school rank)

is still tested to see whether the replies of participants are consistent, which could be

used as evidence for reliability. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between items 1

and 2.
Figure 2. The relationship between ITEM1 and ITEM2

Note. ITEM2 measures academic rank in high school.

On the right side of the y-axis, 1 equals option A of item 2, so 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E.

As seen from Graph 2, people who reported having a higher NCEE score generally

ranked higher in high school, while people who reported having a lower NCEE score

generally ranked lower in high school. This is consistent with the common belief that

better high school performance leads to better NCEE performance.

In these two universities, even most universities in China, students are ranked by their

cumulative credit average rather than the grade scores. Thus, the relationship between

items 4 and 7 is explored. Like in the analysis for the relationship between items 1

and 2, on the right side of the y-axis, 1=option A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E. Based on

Figure 3, higher cumulative credit average relates to higher academic rank, while

lower cumulative credit average relates to lower academic rank. The data is
consistent.

Figure 3. The relationship between ITEM4 and ITEM7

Note. ITEM7 measures academic rank in university.

At last, the relationship between items 7 and 9 (frequency of receiving an academic

scholarship) is examined (Figure 4), since academic rank is the determinant for

awarding academic scholarships. Item 8 (whether an academic scholarship was ever

received or not) is considered as a transitional item, while item 10 (additional

comments) is a complementary item, so both of them have not been included in the

analysis. For both x- and y-axis, 1=option A, 2=B, 3=C. Actually, item 7 has 5

options; but the reason for including only 3 options (A, B, C) in the graph is that only

students ranked at or above average have the opportunity to gain an academic

scholarship, so options D and E (lower than average/among the last ones) are not

considered. It can be seen from the graph that students who were at the higher rank
level obtained the academic scholarships more frequently. Therefore, the relationship

between items 7 and 9 also proves the consistency of the participants’ answers.

Figure 4. The relationship between ITEM7 and ITEM9

Note. ITEM9 measures times of receiving academic scholarship in university.

The above evidence basically indicates the rather high reliability of the self-designed

academic achievement questionnaire.

To examine the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement, the 16-item TPS score is correlated with items 5 and 6 of the academic

achievement questionnaire. The explanations for only choosing items 5 and 6 are: first

of all, the self-designed academic achievement questionnaire presents good reliability;

secondly, items 5 and 6 exhibit the highest correlation among all the available

correlations in the academic achievement questionnaire; thirdly, each item in the

academic achievement questionnaire is rather independent, not like items in the

16-item TPS; fourthly, these two items contain numerical data. The results show that
the 16-item TPS is significantly negatively correlated with both item 5 (r=-0.409,

p<0.01) and 6 (r=-0.359, p<0.01), which is consistent with the previous research and

supports the study hypothesis, though the strength of the correlations is moderate. In

other words, the result demonstrates that academic procrastination is negatively

related to academic achievement. Next, the correlation between TPS and academic

achievement is tested with considering about the gender variable. For the 51 males,

the correlation between TPS and item 5 is significantly negative (r=-0.558, p<0.01);

between TPS and item 6 is also significantly negative (r=-0.573, p<0.01). For the 40

females, the correlation between TPS and item 5 is significantly negative (r=-0.393,

p<0.05); between TPS and item 6 is negative, though not significant (r=-0.123, p>

0.05). Generally, the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement seem to be more closely related for males. And this relationship is not so

tightly related for females—even for the significant correlation (r=-0.393, p<0.05),

the strength is less than moderate.

According to the above, participants in this study tends to be moderate procrastinators

with no gender difference. And academic procrastination is significantly negatively

correlated with academic achievement. However, it seems that though females

procrastinated, their procrastination has less correlated with their academic

achievement than males.

As the difference in academic major (art-based or science-based major) is a variable

in this study, the data is divided based on this variable. Because the two schools
represent the academic major difference, the distinction in the analysis below is

actually made between the different schools.

Art-based university. For academic procrastination, the mean score is

38.9783. After running one-sample t-test, participants in this university could

be regarded as moderate procrastinators, t (45)=-1.054, p=0.298. The gender

factor had no influence on academic procrastination, t (44)=-0.971, p=0.337.

For the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement, items 5 and 6 in the self-designed academic achievement

questionnaire are related to academic procrastination. The results indicate

that academic procrastination does significantly negatively relate with both

item 5 (r=-0.491, p<0.01) and 6 (r=-0.389, p<0.01). Thus, for the art-based

university, academic procrastination negatively correlates with academic

procrastination. Then, gender variable is put into this relationship. For the 16

males, the correlation between TPS and 5 is significantly negative (r=-0.702,

p<0.01); between TPS and item 6 is also significantly negative (r=-0.681,

p<0.05). For the 30 females, the correlation between TPS and item 5 is

significantly negative (r=-0.435, p<0.05); between TPS and item 6 is

negative, though not significant (r=-0.188, p > 0.05). Generally, the

relationship between academic procrastination and academic achievement

seem to be more closely related for males. And this relationship is not so
tightly related for females—even for the significant correlation (r=-0.435,

p<0.05), the strength is just about moderate.

Thus, participants in this school tend to be moderate procrastinators with no

gender difference. At the same time, academic procrastination is significantly

negatively correlated with academic achievement. However, it seems that

though females procrastinated, their procrastination has less correlation with

their academic achievement than males.

Science-based university. For academic procrastination, the mean score is

38.6444. After running one sample t-test, participants in this university were

also considered as moderate procrastinators, t (44)=-1.253, p=0.217. Gender

has no impact on academic procrastination, t (43)=-0.468, p=0.642.

For the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement, items 5 and 6 in self-designed academic achievement

questionnaire are correlated with academic procrastination. The findings

indicate that academic procrastination does significantly negatively relate

with both item 5 (r=-0.390, p<0.05) and 6 (r=-0.399, p<0.05). Thus, for the

science-based university, academic procrastination negatively correlates with

academic achievement as well. Next, gender variable is put into this

relationship. For the 35 males, the correlation between TPS and 5 is

significantly negative (r=-0.517, p<0.01); between TPS and item 6 is also

significantly negative (r=-0.550, p<0.01). For the 10 females, the correlation

between TPS and item 5 is negative, not significant (r=-0.186, p>0.05);

between TPS and item 6 is positive, not significant (r=0.265, p>0.05). In

general, the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement seem to be more closely related for males. Meanwhile, this

relationship is not so tightly related for females. Furthermore, for females,

the correlation between TPS and item 6 is even positive, which might due to

the small sample size.

Therefore, participants in this school also tend to be moderate procrastinators

with no gender difference. Like before, academic procrastination is

significantly negatively correlated with academic achievement. However, it

seems that though females procrastinated, their procrastination has less

correlation with their academic achievement than males.

Comparing academic procrastination. After running independent t-test, the

outcome reveals no significant difference between these two universities with

respect to academic procrastination, t (89)=0.230, p=0.819.

5. Summary and Conclusion

The data analysis shows that participants in this study exhibited a moderate

procrastination tendency with no gender difference, though whether this result can be

generalized is still under discussion. Nevertheless, gender difference does show in the

relationship between academic procrastination and academic achievement. Males

generally exhibits closer relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement. But for females, even them were defined as moderate procrastinators in

this study, their procrastination relates much less to their academic achievement when

comparing with male students.

For Research Question 1, participants in this study tend to be moderate procrastinators,

since the mean score for their academic procrastination is not statistically significantly

higher than the medium score of the scale which indicates moderate procrastination.

Unlike some of the previous research (Gropel & Steel, 2008; Klassen et al., 2009),

gender variable demonstrates no influence on academic procrastination. As the

16-item TPS aims to test negative academic procrastination, higher procrastinators in

this study are perceived to have poorer academic performance (Rothblum, Solomon &

Murakami, 1986; Prohaska et al., 2000; Howell & Watson, 2007; Tan et al., 2008;

Klassen & Kuzucu, 2009). For example, such negative influence might be presented

by higher academic procrastination tendency, lower GPA and grade scores (Rothblum
et al., 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Prohaska et al., 2000). However, more research

is required to obtain generlizable results in order to understand the academic

procrastination tendency of Chinese university students.

For Research Question 2, academic procrastination is significantly negatively related

to academic achievement, though the strength of the correlation is moderate. So,

people who procrastinated more tended to have lower academic achievement, which

is consistent with previous research (Howell & Watson, 2007; Collins, Onwuegbuzie

& Jiao, 2008; Bruinsma & Jansen, 2009). However, when put gender variable into

consideration, males show closer relationship between academic procrastination and

academic achievement. In other words, the negative correlation between academic

procrastination and academic achievement is stronger for males than for females;

though a larger sample size is needed to determine this definitively.

For Research Question 3, gender variable has no influence on academic

procrastination tendency (Zhang & Zhang, 2007; Howell & Buro, 2009; Klassen &

Kuzucu, 2009), but it did lead to the difference between the relationship of academic

procrastination and academic achievement. As mentioned before, the relationship

between academic procrastination and academic achievement seems to be more

significant and have greater strengthen for males than females. This could be

explained as male moderate academic procrastinators suffered more from their

academic procrastination with regard to their academic achievement than females.

Though it can also be seen as lower academic achievement would let males suffer

more academic procrastination than females.

For Research Question 4, the difference on academic major has no impact on either

the academic procrastination tendency of students or the relationship between

academic procrastination and academic achievement. Thus, previous studies on the

similar majors (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon & Murakami, 1986;

Flett et al., 1992; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Mann et al., 1998) or given no

information about students’ academic major (Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999; Zhang &

Zhang, 2007) are believed to be able to generalize to university students in different

academic majors. Therefore, in studying the academic procrastination of university

students, people can utilize the relevant articles of their interest without worrying

about the academic major variable.

6. Limitations

The internal validity of this study might be impaired by confounding variables such as

students’ academic level, students’ SES, and attitude in answering the questionnaire.

For the art-based school, the participants were all sophomores, while for the

science-based school, the participants were all juniors. This difference might

influence the data analysis, since difference in academic major is a variable in the

study. Regarding students’ SES, though students in these two universities mostly

come from middle-class and rural families, the SES proportion might not be the same

for the two school samples. Different SES could lead to different education

experience, personality, and so on, which in turn can have an impact on participants’

replies. Next, the attitude of students in dealing with the questionnaire could either

enhance or impair the quality of the research results. In sum, variables like these

might reduce the internal validity of this study.

At the same time, the external validity of the study also poses some problems. There

were only 91 participants in this research, 46 for one university and 45 for the other.

The sample size is rather small, so it might not represent students in these two

universities. Also, the two universities are the two best universities in that middle-size

city, so the results from these two universities might not be generalizable to other

universities in that city or the entire country. Furthermore, since the city is in a
developing province, the result might not be generalizable to other, developed areas of

China. And as the two universities are among the second-level universities in China,
the results might not be generalizable to the universities at other levels. Due to these

factors, the generalization of the study result is limited.

As for the instrument, the 16-item TPS is originally designed in English and for U.S.

students, so to use it on Chinese students might not lead to the same effect. What is

more, there are only 16 items in the TPS, which might not be enough for accurately

measuring the academic procrastination of students. On the self-designed academic

achievement questionnaire, only 9 valid items are available for measuring students’

academic achievement, which is rather limited. And the information of NCEE score,

grade, and rank was provided by participants under estimation, so the accuracy of the

reports is not guaranteed. Therefore, the instrument might also impair the validity of

the study.
7. Implications

From the preceding limitations, to recruit more participants, to include more

universities in different areas at different levels, to monitor more variables such as

SES, and to use more detailed and culture-guided instruments in future research could

better examine the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement. Furthermore, adding other research methods could also be a good way

to study this relationship. For example, researchers can use qualitative research

methods, like asking participants to keep a journal about their academic life, which

would later serve as a data point for analysis. Also, interview could be another

research method, through which researchers could purposefully ask questions that

they are interested in.

In China, university students generally do not tend to view academic procrastination

as a very big issue. However, for high school students, academic procrastination

might be dealt with more serious. The reason for such difference might due to the

large population in China—more than 1.3 billion, so not every high school student

can enjoy university education, which lead to the highly competitive high school

education life. After students successfully entering into universities, it is relatively

easy for them to graduate. Thus, for Chinese university, it is hard to enter but easy to

come out. For this phenomenon, high school teachers emphasize a lot on homework
with deadline, while university teachers either give no strict deadline or no homework

at all. This difference in teacher’s role might provide a mean for future study.
Furthermore, the tests—usually only one test for each course in a semester (there are

only two semesters in China)—in university are relatively easy to pass than tests in

high school. Therefore, all of these differences between high school and university

education might lead to the different views on academic procrastination. So, Chinese

university students might tend to procrastinate more than students in different

academic levels or university students in some other countries.

For researchers who are interested in conducting studies in related areas, more

research about the reasons of academic procrastination should be done. This might

lead to action studies of academic procrastination, because the purpose for people to

study the negative effects of academic procrastination is to prevent its occurrence.

For example, the possible difference between Chinese high school and university

students could be related to teacher’s role in their academic life. Teachers who give

out more strict deadline have greater possibility for preventing procrastination, while

teachers who do not have strict deadline might cause students to procrastinate. This

finding could be used to inform educators in order to prevent the occurrence of

academic procrastination, thought this should be viewed for the perspective of culture.

At present, self-regulation occupies a great amount of explanation for academic

procrastination (Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008;

Klassen & Kuzucu, 2009), which explains why under the similar education

environment some students tend to procrastinate while some not. This knowledge

provide an encouragement for educators to build up students’ self-regulation, since it

is believed that more self-regulation, less academic procrastination. Then, with the

combination of studies in self-regulation and in other aspects like the external

influence (e.g. teachers), ways to prevent academic procrastination might be found

out—such methods not only should emphasize on the internal aspects of students, but

also the environment that students are in.

Some researchers have already provided means to prevent academic procrastination.

For example, Tuckman (1998) said that testing could be a solution for academic

procrastination. And instructors who divide assignments into smaller units and

emphasize the impact of assignments on grades might also prevent academic

procrastination (Zarick & Stonebraker, 2009), because “procrastinators are people

who are vulnerable to distractions” and “who do not have problems in facilitating

their behavior” (Dewitte & Schouwenburg, 2002, p. 486).

References:

Berry, C. M. & Sackett, P. R. (2009). Individual Differences in course choice result in

underestimation of the validity of college admissions systems. Psychological

Science, 20, 822-830.

Boice, R. (1996). Procrastination and blocking. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Bruinsma, M. & Jansen, E. P. W. A. (2009). When will I succeed in my first-year

diploma? Survival analysis in Dutch higher education. Higher Education

Research and Development, 28, 99-114.

Burka, J. B. & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about

it. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Chen, X., Dai, X. & Dong, Q. (2008). A research of Aitken Procrastination Inventory

applied to Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16,

22-23.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Jiao, Q. G. (2008). Reading ability as a

predictor of academic procrastination among African American graduate students.

Reading Psychology, 29, 493-507.

Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and

incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and

the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16, 469-489.

Dietz, F., Hofer, M. & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines and

academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,

893-906.
Ellis, A. & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task

avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. NYC: Plenum Press.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., Hewitt, P. L. & Koledin, S. (1992). Components of

perfectionism and procrastination in college students. Social Behavior and

Personality, 20, 85-94.

Gropel, P. & Steel, P. (2008). A mega-trial investigation of goal setting, interest

enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Personality and Individual

Differences, 45, 406-411.

Howell, A. J. & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and

procrastination: A meditational anaylsis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19,

151-154.

Howell, A. J. & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement

goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences,

43, 167-178.

Klassen, R. M., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Krawchuk, L. L., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F.

& Yeo, L. S. (2009). A cross-cultural study of adolescent procrastination. Journal

of Research on Adolescence, 19, 799-811.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L. & Rajani, S. (2008). Procrastination

and motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed-methods

inquiry. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 137-147.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L. & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of

undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of

procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915-931.

Klassen, R. M. & Kuzucu, E. (2009). Academic procrastination and motivation of

adolescents in Turkey. Educational Psychology, 29, 69-81.

Klibert, J. J., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. & Saito, M. (2005). Adaptive and

maladaptive aspects of self-oriented versus socially prescribed perfectionism.

Journal of College Student Development, 46, 141-156.

Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., Nakamura, H.,

Vaughan, G. & Yang, K. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported

decision-making style and confidence. International Journal of Psychology, 33,

325-335.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn

Ness, R. V. (1988). Eliminating procrastination without putting off. Bloomington, IN:

Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Orpen, C. (1998). The causes and consequences of academic procrastination: A

research note. Westminister Studies in Education, 21, 73-75.

Owens, A. M. & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A

causal structural model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12,

869-887.

Prohaska, V., Morrill, P., Atiles, I. & Perez, A. (2000). Academic procrastination by

nontraditional students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15,

125-134.
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J. & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and

behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.

Salmela-Aro, K., Tolvanen, A. & Nurmi, J. (2009). Achievement strategies during

university studies predict early career burnout and engagement. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 75, 162-172.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings. DC:

American Psychological Association.

Solomon, L. J. & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and

cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.

Tan, C. X., Ang, R. P., Klassen, R. M., Yeo, L. S., Wong, I. Y. F., Huan, V. S. & Chong,

W. H. (2008). Correlates of academic procrastination and students’ grade goals.

Current Psychology, 27, 135-144.

Tice, D. M. & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,

performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychology

Science, 8, 454-458.

Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the

procrastination scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473-480.

Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as incentive to motivate procrastinators to study.

Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 141-147.

Vodanovich, S. J. & Rupp, D. E. (1999). Are procrastinators prone to boredom? Social

Behavioral and Personality, 27, 11-16.

Wang, Y. & Luo, J. (2009). A research on impulsivity and delay discounting

differences between high and low procrastinators. Psychological Science (China),

F, 371-374.

Wei, Y. (2006). The relationship study on the relationship between procrastination

behaviors and bad personality disposition. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, 27,

29-32.

Willford, A. M. (2009). Secondary school course grades and success in college.

College and University, 85, 22-33.

Zarick, L. M. & Stonebraker, R. (2009). I’ll do it tomorrow: The logic of

procrastination. College Teaching, 57, 211-215.

Zhang, H. & Zhang, Z. (2007). Usability of Tuckman procrastination scale in Chinese

college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 10-12.

Appendix A:

Recruitment script to be read to university students

...!.....,..................,......

....................................

Hello! My name is Keqiao Liu, coming from the State University of New York at

Buffalo. I am a master’s student in Educational Psychology. My purpose here is to

collect questionnaire data as part of my thesis for the degree.

...................................

......,...,.......

My research is about the relationship between academic procrastination and academic

achievement. My interest is to explore if there is any relationship between academic

procrastination and academic achievement; if so, what kind relationship it is.

......................,............

........................,..........

.......,...........................

.......,.......,........ 15 .....

At the beginning of the questionnaire, if you can, please check your gender, because I
want to know if gender plays any role in predicting the relationship between academic

procrastination and academic achievement. My questionnaire contains two parts. The

first part aims to measure your academic procrastination; the second part aims to

know your academic achievement. All the items in this questionnaire are carefully

chosen, so please select the answers that fit you best. You need 15 minutes to finish

the study.

..................,............,...

............,......................

........,..........................

............,......................

........,........................

Although your participation is very important for my study, it is voluntary. You can

choose to not answer any question. No direct benefits will result from your

participation, though I hope you can understand yourself better through this study. No

cost and compensation will be involved in the study. The risk of the study is no more

than minimal. However, you might experience possible emotional problem, when you

participate this study.

.................................
Data is collected anonymously, so it will not be used to identify individuals.

.................................,.

...................................

........................,..........

.......

Any question regarding this study and your emotional problem, please feel free to

contact me and my advisor. Our contact information is available on the Information

Sheet. For your rights as research participants, please contact the Social and

Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board. The contact information is available

on the Information Sheet.

..................

For more detailed information, please see the Information Sheet.

........!

Thank you for your participation!

Appendix B:

............

The Relationship between Academic Procrastination and Academic Achievement

....

Information Sheet

..

Introduction

........................ ..........

........... .......................

., ....., ....... .., ..........

This research is conducted by Ms. Keqiao Liu, at the State University of New York at

Buffalo, with the investigation entitled as—the Relationship between Academic

Procrastination and Academic Achievement. The goal of this study is to explore if

there is any relationship between academic procrastination and academic achievement,

and what kind of relationship that might exist. Gender will also be considered.

....

Voluntary Status

........... .......................

.. ............., ................. .

., ..........., ......................

...............,.............

Your participation in this study is completely confidential. As a student myself I know

that your time is extremely valuable. Each question has been carefully chosen so

please answer each question to the best of your ability. However, you have the right

not to answer any question, and no penalty or loss of benefits will result from this

choice. Participants may withdraw without penalty at any time and their data will be

destroyed.

....
Time Commitment

............. ....... 15 .............

..

I have tried to make the whole survey as brief as possible. It will take approximately

15 minutes to complete.

..

Procedure

...... 2 .... ........ Tuckman ....,......

.............................
......,.... 2 .............,.........

......

The whole questionnaire contains two parts. The first is the Tuckman Procrastination

Scale (TPS), which aims to measure university students’ academic procrastination; the

second part aims to measure your academic achievement.

For my research, your answers for the two parts will be correlated. Also, your gender

will be considered as a factor in the research.

..

Confidentiality

...................................
...........

..................

All questionnaires collected in classes will be anonymous. After collecting the

questionnaires, they will be sealed in envelopes. None of the data collected will be

used to identify particular individuals.

The data will be destroyed after the passing of my research paper.

..

Risk
...................................

..........,....... Jaekyung Lee ...........

................,.......—
1)......... ..:0797-8111154 ....:.....

...... 10 . 341000

2)...... ..:0797-8301258 . 13766355413,....:

hqying1120@163.com,....:......... 4 . 341000

Your participation in this study might lead to possible emotional problem for you. You

can reach my advisor Dr. Jaekyung Lee and me for any emotional problem that is

caused by this study. My advisor and I will do our best to help you solve your

problem. When this is not enough, we will direct you to the resources that show as

below.

1) The Third Renmin Hospital at Ganzhou, China—by telephone at

0797-8111154; by mail at No.10 North Zhangjiang Ave., Zhanggong district,

Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China 341000.

2) Xinyou Counseling at Ganzhou, China—by telephone at 0797-8301258,

and 13766355413; by email at hqying1120@163.com; or by mail at No.4

Jiangguo Road, Zhanggong district, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China 341000.

..

Benefits

.................,.................

.,.......................

There are no direct benefits for you to participate in this study, though this study may

assist you in better understanding yourself and help me understand the relationship

between academic procrastination and academic achievement.

.....

Costs and compensation

....................,.........

There is no cost for you to participate in this research. There is no compensation

provided for participation in this study.

..

Consent
....................

Your response to this questionnaire indicates your consent to participate.

....

Contact

...........,....., .................

. .Dr. Jaekyung Lee. . . . : the Department of Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, Amherst NY 14260;.......

...(716)-392-5557 .(797)-812-1623 (..),.Dr. Lee.(716)-645-1132;

........... Kliu9@buffalo.edu, .Dr. Lee. jl224@buffalo.edu .

Any questions, concerns or complaints, and emotional problem that you have about

this study can be answered by Keqiao Liu and her advisor Dr. Jaekyung Lee. Ms.
Keqiao Liu and Dr. Lee can be reached through the Department of Counseling,

School, and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, Amherst NY 14260, or

by telephone –for Ms. Keqiao Liu at (716)-392-5557 or (797)-812-1623 (China); for

Dr. Lee at (716)-645-1132, or by email—for Ms. Keqiao Liu at Kliu9@buffalo.edu ;

for Dr. Lee at jl224@buffalo.edu

..................,................

...........,......,...(.........)..

..................:515 Capen, University at Buffalo,

Buffalo, NY 14260; .....: SBSIRB@research.buffalo.edu, ;...:

(001)-(716)-645-6474.

If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research project, or

questions, concerns or complaints about the research and wish to speak with someone

who is not a member of the research team, you should contact (anonymously, if you

wish) the Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board, 515 Capen,

University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, e-mail SBSIRB@research.buffalo.edu,

phone 716/645-6474.
........!

Thank you very much for your participation in this research!

...,

Sincerely,

...

Keqiao Liu
Appendix C:

....

(Questionnaire)

.. (Gender): .(Female) .(Male)

....:(Part I:)

Tuckman ....

(Tuckman Procrastination Scale)

1. .......,........,.......
(I needlessly delay finishing jobs, even when they’re important.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

2. .......,.....

(I postpone starting in on things I don’t like to do.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

3. ...“.....”.

(When I have a deadline, I wait till the last minute.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

4. .............

(I delay making tough decisions.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

5. .................

(I keep putting off improving my work habits.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

6. ..............
(I manage to find an excuse for not doing something.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

7. .........,...,................

(I put the necessary time into even boring tasks, like studying.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

8. ...............

(I am an incurable time waster.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

9. ...........,..........

(I’m a time waster now but I can’t seem to do anything about it.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

10. .........,..........

(When something is too tough to tackle, I believe in postponing it.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

11. .........,.......

(I promise myself I’ll do something and then drag my feet.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

12. .........,.......

(Whenever I make a plan of action, I follow it.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

13. ...............,...........

(Even though I hate myself if I don’t get started, it doesn’t get me going.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

14. ............,.........

(I always finish important jobs with time to spare.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

15. ...............,.............
(I still get stuck in neutral even though I know how important it is to get started.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)
C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

16. ...............

(Putting something off until tomorrow is not the way I do it.)

A. ......(That is me for sure)

B. ......(That is my tendency)

C. ........(That is not my tendency)

D. .......(That is not me for sure)

....:(Part II :)

....
(Academic Achievement)

1. ....... .

(What is your score for national college entrance exam? )

2. ..............

(In high school, what is your usual academic rank?)

A. ... (Among the top ones)

B. .. (Better than average)

C. .. (Average)

D. .. (lower than average)

E. .... (Among the last ones)

3. .... GPA . .[........]

(What is your GPA in university? [Please skip, if you do not know])
4. .......... .

(What is your last year’s cumulative credit average? )

5. ............ .

(What is your last semester’s estimated average grade? ___________)

6. ...,............... .

(In university, what is your estimated overall average grade till

now? )
7. ...,.............

(In university, what is your usual academic rank?)

A. ... (Among the top ones)

B. .. (Better than average)

C. .. (Average)
D. .. (lower than average)

E. .... (Among the last ones)

8. ...,.............

(In university, have you ever received an academic scholarship?)

A. . (Yes)—... 9 . (Answer Item 9)

B. . (No)—... 9 . (Skip Item 9)

9. ...,. .........

(In university, you received academic scholarship.)

A. .. (Every time)

B. .. (Frequently)

C. .. (Occasionally)
10. ...,................... ......:(In

university, do you have any other academic achievement that has not been

mentioned here? If yes, please indicate :) ________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
Appendix D:

..“............”.....

Debriefing Statement for “The Relationship between Academic Procrastination

and Academic Achievement”

................................

This study is for my master thesis. Your participation is voluntary and anonymous.

......,............................
..,................................

...............:1...................

2. ..............3. .................

..

Through using questionnaire, the goal of the study is to examine the relationship

between college students’ academic procrastination and academic achievement.

Meanwhile, gender is considered as a factor which may potentially influence the

relationship. In this study, my research questions are: 1. What is the current college

students’ academic procrastination status in Ganzhou (China)? 2. Is there a

relationship between academic procrastination and academic achievement? 3. Does

gender play any role in the relationship between academic procrastination and

academic achievement?

.............. Tuckman ...............,

..............,.................

The first part of the questionnaire is the Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS), which
aims to measure your academic procrastination; the second part is designed by me,

which aims to measure your academic achievement.

...................................

..........,....... Jaekyung Lee ...........

................,.......—

1)......... ..:0797-8111154 ....:.....

...... 10 . 341000

2)...... ..:0797-8301258 . 13766355413,....:

hqying1120@163.com,....:......... 4 . 341000

Your participation in this study might lead to possible emotional problem for you. You

can reach my advisor Dr. Jaekyung Lee and me for any emotional problem that is

caused by this study. My advisor and I will do our best to help you solve your

problem. When this is not enough, we will direct you to the resources that show as

below.

1) The Third Renmin Hospital at Ganzhou, China—by telephone at

0797-8111154; by mail at No.10 North Zhangjiang Ave., Zhanggong district,

Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China 341000.

2) Xinyou Counseling at Ganzhou, China—by telephone at 0797-8301258,

and 13766355413; by email at hqying1120@163.com; or by mail at No.4

Jiangguo Road, Zhanggong district, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China 341000.

....................:1)Procrastination: Why You Do It,

What to Do about It by Jane B. Burka & Lenora M. Yuen;2)Overcoming

Procrastination by Albert Ellis & William J. Knaus;3)Procrastination and Task

Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment by Joseph R. Ferrari, Judith L. Johnson

& William G. McCown;4)Eliminating Procrastination without Putting It Off by Ross

Van Ness. ............,..... kliu9@buffalo.edu,...

(716)392-5557,..............

If you are interested in related reading material of this research, you can refer to: 1)

Procrastination: Why You Do It, What to Do about It by Jane B. Burka & Lenora M.

Yuen;2)Overcoming Procrastination by Albert Ellis & William J. Knaus;3)

Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research, and Treatment by Joseph R.

Ferrari, Judith L. Johnson & William G. McCown;4)Eliminating Procrastination

without Putting It Off by Ross Van Ness. All these books can be available by Keqiao

Liu at Kliu9@buffalo.edu and (716)392-5557 or school library.

...........,....., .................

. .Dr. Jaekyung Lee. . . . : the Department of Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, Amherst NY 14260;.......

...(716)-392-5557 .(797)-812-1623 (..),.Dr. Lee.(716)-645-1132;

........... Kliu9@buffalo.edu, .Dr. Lee. jl224@buffalo.edu .

Any questions, concerns or complaints, and emotional problem that you have about

this study can be answered by Keqiao Liu and her advisor Dr. Jaekyung Lee. Ms.

Keqiao Liu and Dr. Jaekyung Lee can be reached through the Department of

Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology, University at Buffalo, Amherst NY

14260, or by telephone –for Ms. Keqiao Liu at (716)-392-5557 or (797)-812-1623

(China); for Dr. Lee at (716)-645-1132, or by email—for Ms. Keqiao Liu at

Kliu9@buffalo.edu ; for Dr. Lee at jl224@buffalo.edu

..................,................

...........,......,...(.........)..

..................:515 Capen, University at Buffalo,

Buffalo, NY 14260; .....: SBSIRB@research.buffalo.edu, ;...:

(001)-(716)-645-6474.

If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research project, or

questions, concerns or complaints about the research and wish to speak with someone

who is not a member of the research team, you should contact (anonymously, if you

wish) the Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board, 515 Capen,

University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, e-mail SBSIRB@research.buffalo.edu,

phone 716/645-6474.
........!

Thank you for your participation!