Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The relationship between procrastination and academic performance:

A meta-analysis
Kyung Ryung Kim a,1, Eun Hee Seo b,⇑
a
Department of Teacher Education, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodeamun-gu, Seoul 120-749, South Korea
b
Department of General Education, Seoul Women’s University, #920 Humanities & Social Science Hall, 621 Hwarangro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul 139-774, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous findings on the relationship between procrastination and academic performance are inconsis-
Received 6 February 2015 tent. We conducted a meta-analysis of 33 relevant studies involving a total of 38,529 participants to
Received in revised form 25 February 2015 synthesize these findings. This analysis revealed that procrastination was negatively correlated with
Accepted 26 February 2015
academic performance; this relationship was influenced by the choice of measures or indicators. The
Available online 18 March 2015
use of self-report scales interfered with detection of a significant relationship between procrastination
and academic performance. The demographic characteristics of participants in individual studies also
Keywords:
affected the observed relationship. Implications of this meta-analysis are discussed.
Procrastination
Academic performance
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Self-report
Measure
Meta-analysis

1. Introduction Rothblum, 1984) or even reported that procrastination had a posi-

Procrastination, in the shape of delaying completion of an
assignment or putting off studying for an examination, is quite
common among the worldwide student population. Estimates
indicate that 80-95% of college students (O’Brien, 2002) or at least
half of all students (Ozer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984) engage in procrastination and the prevalence of
the phenomenon appears to be growing (Steel, 2007).
Procrastination and its causes and effects, are therefore an interest-
ing research subject.
There is a considerable body of empirical research on the
relationship between procrastination and performance, particu-
larly academic performance. The results have, however been
inconsistent. Researchers have reported negative effects of pro-
crastination on learning and achievement, such as lower grades
and course withdrawals (e.g. Aremu, Williams, & Adesina, 2011;
Balkis, 2013). The time pressure resulting from procrastination
can reduce accuracy and punctuality, and on this basis it can be
argued that procrastination will negatively influence performance
(Van Eerde, 2003).
Other studies have failed to detect an association between pro-
crastination and academic performance (e.g. Seo, 2011; Solomon &
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 10 2641 5952.
E-mail addresses: k.ryung@yonsei.ac.kr, topfam@hanmail.net
chrieve@swu.ac.kr, chrieve@hanmail.net (E.H. Seo).
1
Tel.: +82 10 7476 0314.
tive effect on academic achievement (e.g. Brinthaupt & Shin, 2001;
Schraw & Wadkins, 2007). It has been suggested that students of
greater ability procrastinate more than those with lower ability
(Ferrari, 1991). Ferrari concluded that procrastination tended to
increase during the course of a student’s academic career, as learn-
ing became more self-regulated.
The nature of the relationship between procrastination and aca-
demic performance remains ambiguous as the data do not con-
verge. The inconsistent results may be due to the use of small
samples; if this is the case a meta-analysis which integrates the
results of multiple studies statistically might determine the nature
and magnitude of any association between procrastination and
academic performance.
The conflicting results of previous studies are also likely to be
due to the influence of factors such as use of different measures,
use of contaminated self-report data and differences in the demo-
graphic characteristics of samples. Van Eerde (2003) insisted that
although many of the effect size categories were heterogeneous
among studies about procrastination, indicating that moderators
may play a role, the majority of studies did not account for
moderators. We therefore hypothesized the relationship between
procrastination and academic performance would be subject to
influence by one or more variables. More specifically we predicted
that the observed association would be influenced by (a) the choice
of procrastination measure; (b) the choice of performance indica-
(K.R. Kim),
tor; (c) use of self-report data and (d) the demographic profile of
the sample.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33
1.1. Procrastination measures
The choice of procrastination measure is affected by one’s theo-
retical perspective on procrastination, broadly whether it is viewed
as (a) a functional or dysfunctional behavior and (b) a behavior or a
trait.
Researchers have traditionally regarded procrastination as a
maladaptive or dysfunctional strategy used in an attempt to cope
with conflict or choices (Mann, 1982). Lay and Schouwenburg
(1993) and Solomon and Rothblum (1984) argued that because
definitions of procrastination refer to both behavioral delay and
psychological distress one should consider the magnitude of
procrastination in conjunction with the magnitude of its
negative psychological consequences; assumed to be emotional
discomfort, including guilt, depression, anxiety or stress. From this
perspective procrastination is a wholly dysfunctional behavior. The
Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984), the most widely used scale for measuring
procrastination in an academic context, is a representative
procrastination inventory based on the assumption that
procrastination is dysfunctional. It consists of items asking stu-
dents to report the frequency with which they procrastinate, the
extent to which procrastination causes them a problem and their
desire to stop procrastination in six specified academic domains;
it also includes items designed to elicit reasons for procrastination.
Decisional Procrastination Scale (DP; Mann, 1982) is based on the
conflict theory of decision making (Janis & Mann, 1977), according
to which procrastination is a maladaptive coping behavior (Ferrari,
Johnson, & McCown, 1995). The Tuckman Procrastination Scale
(TPS; Tuckman, 1991) assesses academic procrastination resulting
from inability to self-regulate or control task schedules (Ferrari
et al., 1995) is another inventory designed to measure procrastina-
tion as a maladaptive behavior (Hensley, 2014).
Recently, several researchers have described procrastination as
a functional delay (e.g. Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Choi &
Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005; Howell & Watson, 2007). The word
procrastination originated from the Latin verb procrastinare, mean-
ing ‘putting forward until tomorrow’, which does not have negative
connotations. Procrastination acquired negative connotations dur-
ing the Industrial Revolution (Ferrari et al., 1995); until then pro-
crastination was viewed neutrally and could be interpreted as a
wise course of (in)action (Steel, 2007). Procrastination can be
viewed as process that is regulated by internal, individual-level
norms for delay; it may be intentional and it may also be a wise
strategy (Van Eerde, 2003). Working within this framework Choi
and Moran (2009) developed and validated an Active
Procrastination Scale which consisted of items assessing outcome
satisfaction, preference for pressure, intentional decisions to pro-
crastinate and ability to meet deadlines.
Early research on procrastination focused exclusively on the
behavioral aspects of procrastination, conceiving procrastination
as a task-specific avoidance behavior (Schouwenburg, 2004) i.e.
as situationally determined and relatively unstable across time
and contexts (Saddler & Buley, 1999; Wolters, 2003). In this para-
digm the causes of procrastination are task or context variables
that increase aversion for the task or fear of failure, rather than
individual-level variables. Behavior-oriented measurement scales
such as the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI;
Schouwenburg, 1995) only assess behavior during the preceding
week.
If dilatory behavior becomes chronic and habitual it can be con-
sidered a typical response, or as a habit or trait (Schouwenburg,
2004). Nowadays, most researchers regard procrastination as a
personality trait which is stable across time and contexts.
Measurement scales for trait procrastination, including Lay’s
(1986) General Procrastination (GP) Scale and Aitken’s (1982)
27
Procrastination Inventory (API), investigate behavior that is often
or usually displayed in various situations (Schouwenburg, 2004).
In summary, various measures of procrastination based on dif-
ferent theoretical perspectives have been used to examine the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance.
Because they are based on differing, sometimes conflicting def-
initions of procrastination it is plausible to assume that they would
produce different results. We hypothesized that the choice of pro-
crastination measure would influence the observed relationship
between procrastination and academic performance.
1.2. Indices of academic performance
Various indices of academic performance including self-re-
ported GPA, examination grades, assignment grades etc. have been
used to examine the relationship between procrastination and aca-
demic performance. Some researchers have reported that the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
depends on the choice of performance indicator, for example Tice
and Roy (1998) found that the correlation between procrastination
and academic performance varied from .26 to approximately
.66 depending on whether academic performance was indexed
using various examination or assignment grades. Jackson, Weiss,
Lundquist, and Hooper (2003) found that procrastination, mea-
sured using Tuckman’s scale, was negatively correlated with
cumulative grade point average (GPA) but was not associated with
American College Test score (ACT). We hypothesized that the
choice of academic performance indicator would affect the
observed relationship between procrastination and academic
performance.
1.3. Differences between self-report and external data
Some researchers have suggested that the lack of consistency in
research on the relationship between procrastination and perfor-
mance is probably the result of using contaminated self-report
data (e.g. Rotenstein, Davis, & Tatum, 2009; Steel, Brothen, &
Wambach, 2001). Previous studies have relied on self-report mea-
sures of procrastination, which are only weakly related to external
indicators of procrastination (Rotenstein et al., 2009). One study
(Steel et al., 2001) reported that the correlation between observed
or externally assessed procrastination and self-reported pro-
crastination was 0.35 while the correlation between observed pro-
crastination and course grade was 0.87; the correlation between
self-reported procrastination and course grade was only 0.36.
Self-report performance data, especially GPAs, are often used in
research because they are easy to obtain; however there is ongoing
concern about their reliability. Disappointingly, in their meta-
analysis of the validity of self-reported GPAs, class ranks and test
scores Kuncel, Crede, and Thomas (2005) showed that self-re-
ported grades were less valid than many researchers believe.
More than twice as many students as under-reported their grade
over-reported it (Bahrick, Hall, & Berger, 1996) in another study
the ratio of over-reporting to under-reporting was even higher, at
48–1 (Zimmerman, Caldwell, & Bernat, 2002). These results indi-
cate that the using self-report data may bias the results of
investigations into the association between procrastination and
academic performance.
1.4. Demographic variables
Unfortunately there has been little reported research on pro-
crastination among younger students, for instance elementary
and secondary students. Most studies of procrastination have used
samples of college students or adults. Steel (2007) and Van Eerde
(2003) found that younger people procrastinate more than older
28 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33
people. O’Donoghue and Rabin (1999) interpreted this finding as
an indication that as individuals age, they develop strategies for
overcoming or avoiding procrastination. Steel (2007) also argued
that as individuals age they would learn to avoid putting off tasks.
There is little evidence on cultural variations in the prevalence
of procrastination. One study (Ferrari, O’Callaghan, & Newbegin,
2005) found that the reported prevalence of avoidant and arousal
procrastination was higher in English citizens than U.S. or
Australian citizens. They concluded that chronic procrastination
was common among westernized, individualistic, Anglophone
countries.
1.5. The purpose of this study
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the results of pre-
vious studies of the relationship between procrastination and aca-
demic performance and to identify factors which influence the
relationship. This study had two specific objectives, (a) to calculate
an overall effect size for the association between procrastination
and academic performance and (b) to explore whether the associa-
tion between procrastination and academic performance was
influenced by the choice of measures or indictors, use of self-report
data or demographic variables.
These objectives were addressed using meta-analysis, which
helps to identify source of inter-study variability and can uncover
interesting associations between studies.
2. Methods
2.1. Sample
We searched the ERIC, Web of Science, Science Direct and
Proquest databases for relevant studies, primarily using the key-
words procrastination, delay, performance, academic performance,
achievement and academic achievement. We restricted the search
to articles published between 1984 and 2014 because the most
widely used measure of procrastination, the PASS, was developed
in 1984.
Retrieved studies were only included in the analysis if they met
the following three criteria, (1) written in English; (2) reported
correlation coefficients and (3) reported measures on both pro-
crastination and academic performance. Using these inclusion cri-
teria we selected a sample of 33 studies, based on a total of 38,529
participants. Table 1 summarizes the studies included in the meta-
analysis.
2.2. Meta-analytic procedures
First, we coded the sample size of each study, the correlation
coefficient (r) for procrastination and academic performance, the
procrastination index used (PASS; API; TPS; APSI, GP, Choi and
Moran’s (2009) scale; measure developed by researcher or the
others), whether procrastination data were self-reported or based
on external assessment, the performance index used (GPA; mid-
term or final examination score; assignment grade; quiz score;
course grade; rating of homework or ACT), whether performance
data were self-reported or based on external assessment, age (sec-
ondary school student; college student; adult) and geographical
region (Asia; America; Europe; Africa or Oceania). When the pub-
lication did not provide the data we required we asked the authors
to provide this information by email; some did not respond and
this resulted in missing data.
Next, we assessed heterogeneity using the homogeneity statistic
Q for selecting fixed or random effects models. We also calculated
the I2 index using the chi-square test to calculate the percentage
true heterogeneity. Huedo-Medina, Sanchez-Meca, Martin-
Martinez, and Botella (2006) defined low heterogeneity as
I2  25%, medium heterogeneity as I2  50% and high heterogeneity
as I2  75%.
We calculated weighted correlation coefficients (weighted
average r) using the sample sizes for individual studies and we also
computed average z and 95% confidence intervals.
We hypothesized that the choice of measures, type of data (self-
report or external observation) and demographic profile of the
sample might affect the observed relationship between pro-
crastination and performance. Additional analyses were carried
out to evaluate the influence of these variables. First, we divided
the studies into 27 subgroups; eight subgroups for procrastination
measure, two subgroups for type of procrastination data (self-re-
port; external observation), seven subgroups for performance indi-
cator, two subgroups for type of performance data (self-report;
external observation), three subgroups for age, and five subgroups
for geographic region. Next we assessed heterogeneity using Q and
the I2 index for selecting fixed or random effects models and com-
puted weighted correlation coefficients, average z and 95% confi-
dence intervals for each subgroup.
Finally, we applied the fail-safe N and tolerance level tests to
determine whether we could safely ignore potential publication
bias i.e. a systematic difference in the strength or direction of
associations in unpublished or unretrieved studies compared with
studies in our sample. According to Rosenthal (1979), researchers
should calculate the number of studies needed to convert the
results. If the number of additional studies needed to overturn
the conclusion is larger than the tolerance level, the finding is
robust. That is, file drawer problem is improbable.
All analyses were carried out using the MIX program (Meta-
analysis with Interactive Explanations).
3. Results
Table 2 shows the results of meta-analysis of the correlations
between procrastination and academic performance; it reports
the number of studies (k), total sample size across studies (n),
weighted average effect size (r), average Fisher’s (z), 95% confi-
dence intervals, the heterogeneity statistics Q and I2 (%) which
were used to assess the percentage of total variance which was
attributable to between-study variance, fail-safe N, and tolerance
level. Before examining the effect size on each of variance, we com-
puted the significant probabilities of heterogeneity. The value of Q
was significant (Q = 2247.29, p < .01, I2 = 97.37%), indicating that
the null hypothesis (homogeneity in the effect sizes for the correla-
tion between procrastination and academic performance) should
be rejected, so we used a random effects model. The weighted
mean correlation between procrastination and academic perfor-
mance was significant (r = .13, p < .01). The value of Rosenthal’s
fail-safe N indicated that 4012 additional opposite results would
be needed to overturn the finding; this implies that the finding is
robust as the fail-safe N is larger than the relevant tolerance level.
When the analyses indicated significant sample heterogeneity,
variances were calculated using a random effects model; a fixed
effects model was used for homogeneous variables. The weighted
mean correlation between academic performance and procrastina-
tion was significant when procrastination was measured using the
API (r = .20, p < .01), TPS (r = .18, p < .01), Lay scale (r = .33,
p < .01), Choi and Moran scale (r = .25, p < .01) or a scale developed
by the researcher (r = .28, p < .01); the association was not signifi-
cant when procrastination was measured using PASS (r = .05,
p > .05). The results related to PASS and the others were not robust
because both of them had fail-safe Ns which were less than the
relevant tolerance level. Procrastination measured using Choi and
 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33 29

Table 1
Studies included in the meta-analysis.

No Author (year) Sample N Procrastination scale Performance measurement

1 Akinsola, Tella, and Tella (2007) Africa, college students 150 Tuckman Course grade
2 Aremu et al. (2011) Africa, secondary 200 Lay GPA
students
3 Babadogan (2010) Europe, college 77 Cakici GPA
students
4 Balkis, Duru, and Bulus (2013) Europe, college 281 API GPA
students
5 Balkis (2013) Europe, college 290 API GPA
students
6 Beck, Koons, and Milgrim (2000) Europe, college 411 PASS Examination score
students
7 Burnam, Komarraju, Hamel, and Nadler (2014) America, college 393 PASS GPA
students
8 Choi and Moran (2009) America, college 185 By researcher, Chu and GPA
students Choi
9 Chu and Choi (2005) America, college 230 By researcher, Choi and GPA
students Moran
10 Corkin et al. (2011) Europe, college 206 PASS Course grade
students
11 Demeter and Davis (2013) America, college 123 PASS Quiz
students
12 Duru and Balkis (2014) Europe, college 261 Aitken GPA, ACT
students
13 Feizche, Young, and Hickson (2003) America, college 206 PASS GPA; course grade; assignment grade
students
14 Hensley (2014) America, college 320 Choi and Moran, Mid-term and final examination scores; course
students Tuckman grade
15 Howell and Watson (2007) America, college 170 PASS, Tuckman Course grade
students
16 Howell, Watson, Powell, and Buro (2006) America, secondary 95 PASS, Tuckman, By Course grade
students researcher
17 Jackson et al. (2003) America, college 219 Tuckman GPA; ACT score
students
18 Kennedy and Tuckman (2013) America, college 671 Tuckman Course grade
students
19 Kim and Seo (2013) Asia, college students 278 Choi and Moran GPA
20 Klassen, Krawchuk, and Rajani (2008) America, college 261 Tuckman GPA
students
21 Klingsieck, Fries, Horz, and Hofer (2012) Europe, Adults 425 Lay GPA
22 Lowinger, He, Lin, and Chang (2014) Asia, college students 264 PASS Course grade
23 Lubbers, Margaretha, Werf, Kuyper, and Europe, secondary 9,812 By researcher Course grade
Hendriks (2010) students
24 Michinov, Brunot, Le Bohec, Juhel, and Delaval Europe, Adults 40 Tuckman Assignment grade
(2011)
25 Moon and Illingworth (2005) America, college 349 API Mid-term and final examination scores
students
26 Orpen (1998) Oceania, secondary 102 Schouwenburg Final examination score
students
27 Owen and Newbegin (1997) Oceania, secondary 418 PASS, Tuckman Course grade(English, math)
students
28 Rotenstein et al. (2009) Europe, college 297 By researcher Homework, course grade
students
29 Seo (2011) Asia, college students 172 By researcher, PASS Mid-term examination score
30 Seo (2012) Asia, college students 172 Choi and Moran Mid-term examination score
31 Solomon and Rothblum (1984) Europe, college 342 PASS Quiz
students
32 Steel et al. (2001) America, college 152 By researcher Quiz; mid-term and final examination scores;
students course grade
33 Tice and Baumeister (1997) America, college 44 Lay Examination scores; assignment grade; term
students grade

Moran’s scale was positively correlated with performance whereas
procrastination measured using other scales was negatively corre-
lated with performance.
The weighted mean correlation between procrastination and
performance was significant when performance was indexed by
GPA (r = .12, p <.01), assignment grade (r = .64, p < .01), quiz
score (r = .29, p < .01) or course grade (r = .24, p < .01), but not
when performance was indexed using mid-term or final examina-
tion score (r = .11, p > .05). The correlation was highest when per-
formance was indexed using assignment grade. The findings on the
association between performance and procrastination were not
robust when performance was indexed using mid-term or final
examination score or homework rating.
The weighted mean correlation between procrastination and
performance was highest for the secondary school student sub-
group (r = .32, p < .01). Procrastination was negatively associated
with performance in the college student subgroup (r = .16,
p < .01). The weighted mean correlation between procrastination
and performance was significant in the Oceania (r = .46, p < .01),
Europe (r = .19, p < .05) and America (r = .18, p < .01) subgroups
30 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33

Table 2
The correlation between procrastination and academic performance.

k Sample total n Weighted Average Confidence interval Q I2 (%) Fail safe N Tolerance
r z (95%) level
Total
Procrastination–performance 82 38,529 .13 3.19** [ .21, .05] 2247.29** 97.37 4012 420
Procrastination indicators
PASS 17 4809 .05 1.15 [ .15, .04] 169.30** 91.14 61 95
API 8 2577 .20 4.11** [ .29, .10] 44.60** 84.31 213 50
TPS 12 3301 .18 2.26* [ .45, .07] 824.17** 98.67 548 70
GP 7 1661 .33 4.02** [ .49, .17] 51.75** 88.40 180 45
Choi & Moran 6 1505 .25 10.21** [.20, .30] 7.21 30.69 147 40
Measures developed by the 29 24,267 .28 2.66** [ .40, .01] 2062.59** 98.64 1251 155
researchers
APSI 1 102 – – – – – – –
The others 2 307 .17 3.07** [ .28, 06] .69 0 4 20
Self-report data
Yes 68 35,878 .18 4.76** [ .18, .07] 1550.41** 95.74 789 350
No 14 2651 .16 1.76 [ .18, .05] 158.55** 93.06 669 80
Performance indicators
GPA 17 5390 .12 2.82** [ .20, .04] 152.03** 89.48 325 95
Mid-term or final examination scores 22 4752 .11 1.46 [ 25, .03] 582.20** 96.56 91 120
Assignment grade 4 350 .64 3.95** [ .42, .01] 9.81* 69.42 41 30
Quiz 8 1377 .29 2.90** [ .74, .05] 620.36** 98.87 319 50
Course grade 28 25,847 .24 4.52** [ .34, .14] 1567.61** 98.28 1203 150
Homework 2 594 .15 3.68** [.07, .23] .06 0 4 20
ACT 1 219 – – – – – – –
Self-report data
Yes 20 6503 .08 1.78 [ .16, .01] 238.49** 92.03 244 110
No 62 32,026 .21 4.87** [ .29, .12] 3271.08** 98.17 1673 320
Demographic characteristics
Age
Secondary school 8 21,598 .32 4.25** [ .46, .17] 65.38** 89.29 1153 50
College 71 15,638 .16 3.36** [ .25, .07] 2874.03** 97.60 10,411 365
Adult 3 1293 .15 2.08* [ .30, .01] 1.36 78.47 16 25
Geographical region
Asia 7 1332 .00 .05 [ .16, .15] 50.40** 90.08 0 45
America 60 13,349 .18 4.64** [ .28, .09] 2247.29** 97.37 28,541 310
Europe 9 21,826 .19 5.44* [ .26, .12] 108.47** 92.62 420 55
Africa 2 350 .25 .44 [ .87, 1.37] 194.35** 99.49 40 20
Oceania 4 1672 .46 3.84** [ .70, .23] 101.35** 97.04 585 30
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

but not in the Africa (r = .25, p > .05) or Asia (r = .00, p > .05) sub-
groups. The correlation between procrastination and performance
was not robust in the adult subgroup or the Asia subgroup.
Self-reported procrastination was negatively associated with
performance (r = .18, p < .01) whereas the weighted mean
correlation between externally assessed procrastination and per-
formance was not significant (r = .16, p > .05). Procrastination
was negatively correlated with externally assessed performance
(r = .21, p < .01) whereas the weighted mean correlation between
procrastination and self-reported performance was not significant
(r = .08, p > .05).
Table 3 shows associations between self-reported or externally
assessed procrastination and self-reported or externally assessed
performance. Self-reported procrastination was negatively corre-
lated with externally assessed performance (r = .15, p < .01) but
was not associated with self-reported performance (r = .08,
p > .05). The weighted mean correlation between externally
assessed procrastination and externally assessed performance
was significant (r = .39, p < .05).
4. Discussion
This study synthesized the results of previous studies of the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
and investigated potential factors of the relationship.
The meta-analysis revealed that procrastination is negatively
correlated with academic performance. It is possible that low
achievement is an inevitable corollary of procrastination; it seems
inevitable that if one were to delay the writing of a assignment and
consequently submit it late, or if one were to put off studying for
an examination and consequently fail to cover all the relevant
material this would be reflected in poor grades.
The extant body of evidence on the relationship between pro-
crastination and performance is inconsistent. We hypothesized
that this inconsistency occurred because the observed association
was influenced by a number of variables, and this was confirmed
by our meta-analysis. Our results also corroborated Van Eerde’s
(2003) report that many of the effect size categories were hetero-
geneous among studies about procrastination, indicating that
moderators may play a role. This study showed that the pro-
crastination measures developed by Aitken (1982), Lay (1986)
and Tuckman (1991) and scales developed by researchers for use
in a specific study were negatively correlated with academic per-
formance; however when procrastination was measured using
Choi and Moran’s (2009) scale the opposite association was
observed, as we expected. This indicates that the observed associa-
tion between procrastination and academic performance is influ-
enced by the choice of procrastination measure. It also implies
that Choi and Moran’s (2009) scale measures different characteris-
tics from other scales of procrastination. As mentioned in
 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33
Table 3
The association between self-reported or actual procrastination and self-reported or actual performance.
Self-report k Sample total n Weighted r
Procrastination Performance
Yes Yes 20 6503 .08
No 48 29,375 .15
No Yes 0 0 – –
No 14 2651 .39
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
introduction, Choi and Moran’s (2009) scale is based on a model of
procrastination which recognizes that it can be adaptive and
includes items intended to assess ability to meet deadlines and
outcome satisfaction, which might not lead to poor achievement.
These findings raise doubts about whether or not we should call
people who are able to meet deadlines and are satisfied with their
results procrastinators. Some researchers have argued that ‘active
procrastination’ is not procrastination at all, but rather a form of
purposeful delay (Corkin, Yu, & Lindt, 2011; Ferrari, 2010; Pychyl,
2009); it should be noted that Corkin et al. (2011) used the term
‘active delay’ rather than active procrastination. This meta-analysis
also provides support for the argument that active procrastination
should be distinguished from other forms of procrastination.
We also hypothesized that choice of performance indicator
would affect the observed association. Meta-analysis showed that
GPA, assignment grade, quiz score and course grade were nega-
tively associated with procrastination. Interestingly, there was
considerable variation in the magnitude of the association across
the different performance indices we analyzed, with the correla-
tion between procrastination and performance ranging from .12
to .64 depending on the performance indicator. These results sug-
gest that the magnitude of the observed association between pro-
crastination and academic performance is influenced by the nature
of the performance indicator used. The largest average correlation
was found when performance was indexed by grade for an assign-
ment. This may be because one of the criteria for evaluating assign-
ments is punctual submission, which procrastinators often fail; it
may also be because assignment grades were externally deter-
mined in all the studies we analyzed. This finding is consistent
with the finding that GPA, which was usually self-reported, was
comparatively weakly correlated with procrastination.
Procrastination was more negatively correlated with externally
assessed performance than self-reported performance.
An important finding from this meta-analysis was that the
observed association between procrastination and academic per-
formance was influenced by whether performance was indexed
using self-report data or external observations. Interestingly
although self-reported procrastination was negatively linked to
performance, there was no significant association between perfor-
mance and externally assessed procrastination. This implies that
self-reported procrastination tends to be higher than externally
assessed procrastination, assuming that the method of measuring
performance is similar in both cases; in other words people seem
to exaggerate the extent to which they delay carrying out academic
work. Few people claim never to put off an assignment. Estimates
that 80–95% of college students (O’Brien, 2002) or at least half of all
students (Ozer et al., 2009; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) engage in
procrastination suggest that we all tend to believe that we are pro-
crastinators and would do better if we were to kick this bad habit.
Observed performance was negatively correlated with pro-
crastination, whereas there was no association between self-re-
ported performance and procrastination, indicating that if
performance is indexed using external observations one is likely
to find a strong association with procrastination. This implies that
31
Average z 95% CI Q I2 (%) Fail safe N Tolerance level
1.78 [ .16, .01] 238.49** 92.03 244 110
4.30** [ .22, .08] 1311.64** 96.49 3313 250
– – – – –
2.98* [ .65, .13] 1065.16 ** 98.78 306 80
the externally assessed performance is lower than self-reported
performance, assuming that the method of measuring procrastina-
tion is similar in both cases. This finding is consistent with research
suggesting that students tend to over-report their grades (Bahrick
et al., 1996; Zimmerman et al., 2002). This finding suggests that
use of self-report performance data is likely to reduce the observed
correlation between procrastination and academic performance.
To enable us to draw more accurate conclusions about the
relationship between procrastination and academic performance
we conducted a four-way comparison of performance and pro-
crastination indicators, comparing studies which had used self-re-
port data for both procrastination and performance; self-report
procrastination data and external assessment of performance;
externally assessed procrastination and self-report performance
data or externally assessment of both procrastination and perfor-
mance. We found that externally assessed procrastination was
negatively correlated with externally assessed performance. When
both variables were indexed using self-report instruments the
weighted mean correlation was not significant, perhaps because
for both variables self-report data tend to be overestimates. These
findings suggest that in some previous studies the negative relation-
ship between procrastination and academic performance was
masked by reliance on self-report data. Our findings accord closely
with previous research (Rotenstein et al., 2009; Steel et al., 2001)
concluding that self-report data are inaccurate and contaminated.
The other finding from this meta-analysis was that the observed
relationship between procrastination and performance is influ-
enced by the demographic profile of the study sample.
Procrastination was most strongly correlated with academic per-
formance among secondary school students. This is related to ear-
lier studies which reported that younger people procrastinate
more than older people (Steel, 2007; Van Eerde, 2003) and implies
that procrastination has more negative consequences for young
people than adults. There is therefore an argument for teaching
young people strategies for avoiding procrastination.
An interesting finding was that procrastination was negatively
correlated with performance in westernized and individualistic
regions such as America, Europe and Australia. This finding is con-
sistent with the argument (Ferrari et al., 1995) that procrastination
acquired negative connotations at the time of the Industrial
Revolution and a report that chronic procrastination is common
in westernized, individualistic, Anglophone countries (Ferrari,
O’Callaghan, & Newbegin, 2005). It appears that delaying a task is
likely to be interpreted more negatively in westernized, individu-
alistic societies.
Overall our meta-analysis confirmed that procrastination is
negatively correlated with academic performance. The mixed
results of research on this relationship may be attributed to several
factors, including variability in the measures of procrastination and
performance used, particularly the use of self-report instruments,
and variability in the demographic profile of samples.
This study was subject to some limitations. First, although we
used several search engines to try to ensure that we retrieved all
of the relevant studies it is possible that we failed to include
32 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33
relevant unpublished studies or that our search strategy failed to
retrieve all the relevant studies from the databases we searched.
Strangely, we could find only a few studies published in 1980s or
1990s. We were also unable to analyze some variables because
the number of studies which had used them was too small.
Further research using a variety of indices would be valuable.
This meta-analysis focused on the effects of choice of measure or
methodology; is also possible that the association between pro-
crastination and academic performance is moderated by ability
and task variables (Van Eerde, 2003). Future studies should inves-
tigate the role of other potential factors (e.g. cognitive ability and
motivation).
Despite its limitations this study has several implications for
research and practice. First, delaying may be a harmful habit which
negatively affects student achievement. It still seems valid to inter-
pret procrastination in an unfavorable light, in spite of the revival of
interest in the older, more positive view of procrastination and
arguments that it can sometimes be an adaptive strategy. We
should remain concerned about procrastination among the student
population and develop strategies to help students, particularly
young students, overcome or avoid procrastination. Second, so-
called ‘active procrastination’ might not be a form of procrastina-
tion at all; it might be more appropriate to consider it as a com-
pletely separate construct. Use of the term ‘active procrastination’
leads to the misunderstanding that it is good to put off studying
because such delay can be beneficial; we therefore argue that it is
necessary to distinguish more clearly between active procrastina-
tion and procrastination. Third, researchers should bear in mind
that the observed association between procrastination and perfor-
mance is influenced by both the measures used and the demo-
graphic profile of the sample and should take this into
consideration when designing studies and interpreting results.
Finally, we recommend that researchers devise alternatives to
self-report instruments for indexing procrastination and other vari-
ables. Researchers should remember that participants cannot
evaluate themselves accurately and may not report honestly either.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a young researchers grant from
Seoul Women’s University (2014).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
Aitken, M. (1982). A personality profile of the college student procrastinator.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
⁄ dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9220-z.
Akinsola, M. K., Tella, A., & Tella, A. (2007). Correlates of academic procrastination
and mathematics achievement of university undergraduate students. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 363–370.
Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role
of hope as a copying strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
1301–1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.008.
⁄ procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 915–931. http://
Aremu, A. O., Williams, T. M., & Adesina, F. T. (2011). Influence of academic
procrastination and personality types on academic achievement and efficacy of
in-school adolescents in Ibadan. IFE Psychologia, 19, 93–113. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4314/ifep.v19i1.64591.
⁄ 10.1080/01587919.2012.723165.
Babadogan, C. (2010). The impact of academic procrastination behaviors of the
students in the certificate program in English language teaching on their
learning modalities and academic achievements. Procedia Social and Behavior
Science, 2, 3263–3269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.499.
Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., & Berger, S. A. (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory
for high school grades. Psychological Science, 7, 265–271. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00372.x.
⁄ Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management,
Balkis, M. (2013). Academic procrastination, academic life satisfaction and
academic achievement: The mediation role of rational beliefs about studying.
Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(1), 57–74.
⁄ Lowinger, R. D., He, Z., Lin, M., & Chang, M. (2014). The impact of academic self-
Balkis, M., Duru, E., & Bulus, M. (2013). Analysis of the relation between academic
procrastination, academic rational/irrational beliefs, time preferences to study
for exams, and academic achievement: A structural model. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 28, 825–839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-
0142-5.
⁄
Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of
behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-
consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 15(5), 3–13.
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Shin, C. M. (2001). The relationship of cramming to academic
flow. College Student Journal, 35, 457–472.
⁄
Burnam, A., Komarraju, M., Hamel, R., & Nadler, D. R. (2014). Do adaptive
perfectionism and self-determined motivation reduce academic
procrastination? Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 165–172. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.009.
⁄
Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and
validation of a new active procrastination scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 149,
195–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.2.195-212.
⁄
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of
‘active’ procrastination behavior on attitude and performance. Journal of Social
Psychology, 145, 245–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017.
⁄
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., & Lindt, S. F. (2011). Comparing active delay and
procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Learning and
⁄
Individual Differences, 21, 602–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.005.
Demeter, D. V., & Davis, S. E. (2013). Procrastination as a Tool: Expecting
unconventional components of academic success. Creative Education, 4(7A2),
144–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2018.
⁄
Duru, E., & Balkis, M. (2014). The role of academic procrastination tendency on the
relationships among self doubt, self esteem and academic achievement.
Education and Science, 39(173), 274–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2014.10.012.
⁄
Feizche, B. A., Young, B. R., & Hickson, K. C. (2003). Individual differences in
academic procrastination tendency and writing success. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 1549–1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(02)00369-0.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem,
social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245–261. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(91)90018-L.
Ferrari, J. R. (2010). Still procrastinating? The no-regrets guide to getting it done.
Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.
Ferrari, J. R., O’Callaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Prevalence of procrastination in
the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and avoidance delays
⁄
among adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 1–6.
Hensley, L. C. (2014). Reconsidering active procrastination: Relations to motivation
and achievement in college anatomy. Learning and Individual Differences, 36,
157–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.012.
⁄
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with
achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personal and Individual
Differences, 43, 167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023.
⁄
Howell, A. J., Watson, D. C., Powell, R. A., & Buro, K. (2006). Academic
procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioral postponement.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1519–1530. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sanchez-Meca, J., Martin-Martinez, F., & Botella, J. (2006).
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or index?. Psychological
Methods, 11, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.
⁄
Jackson, T., Weiss, K. E., Lundquist, J. J., & Hooper, D. (2003). The impact of hope,
procrastination, and social activity on academic performance of midwestern
college students. Education, 124, 310–321.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
⁄
Kennedy, G. J., & Tuckman, B. W. (2013). An exploration into the influence of
academic and social values, procrastination and perceived school belongingness
on academic performance. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 435–470. http://
⁄
Kim, E. K., & Seo, E. H. (2013). The relationship of flow and self-regulated learning
to active procrastination. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(7), 1099–1114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.7.1099.
⁄
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of
undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001.
⁄
Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance
university setting. Distance Education, 33(3), 295–310. http://dx.doi.org/
Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade
point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the
literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543075001063.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research
in Personality, 20, 474–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3.
and academic behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 647–662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00176-S.
⁄
efficacy, acculturation difficulties, and language abilities on procrastination
 K.R. Kim, E.H. Seo / Personality and Individual Differences 82 (2015) 26–33
behavior in chinese international students. College Student Journal, 28(1),
141–152.
⁄
Lubbers, M. J., Margaretha, P. C., Werf, V. D., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. A. (2010).
Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality and
academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 203–208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005.
Mann, L. (1982). Decision-making questionnaire. Unpublished inventory. Flinders
University of South Australia, Australia.
⁄
Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination,
participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers &
Education, 56, 243–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025.
⁄
Moon, S. M., & Illingworth, A. J. (2005). Exploring the dynamic nature of
procrastination: A latent growth curve analysis of academic procrastination.
Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 297–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2004.04.009.
O’Brien, W. K. (2002). Applying the trans-theoretical model to academic
procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston.
O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Incentives for procrastinators. Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 114, 769–816.
⁄
Orpen, C. (1998). The causes and consequences of academic procrastination: A
research note. Westminster Studies in Education, 21, 73–75. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0140672980210107.
⁄
Owen, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A
casual structure model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4),
869–887.
Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination
among Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons.
Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 241–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
SOCP.149.2.241-257.
Pychyl, T. A. (2009). Active procrastination: Thoughts on oxymorons. Retrieved June
29, 2010, from: <http://www.psychologythoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200907/
active-procrastination-thoughts-oxymorons>.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘‘file drawer problem’’ and tolerance for null results.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
⁄
Rotenstein, A., Davis, H. Z., & Tatum, L. (2009). Early birds versus just-in-timers:
The effect of procrastination on academic performance of accounting students.
Journal of Accounting Education, 27, 223–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaccedu.2010.08.001.
Saddler, C. D., & Buley, J. (1999). Predictors of academic procrastination in college
students. Psychological Reports, 84, 686–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1999.84.2.686.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions,
measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown
33
(Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. 71–96). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions,
measurement, and research. In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, &
J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 3–17).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schraw, G., & Wadkins, T. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of
academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 12–25. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12.
⁄
Seo, E. (2011). The relationships among procrastination, flow, and academic
achievement. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 209–218. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.209.
⁄
Seo, E. (2012). Cramming, active procrastination, and academic achievement. Social
Behavior and Personality, 40(8), 1333–1340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/
sbp.2012.40.8.1333.
⁄
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0167.31.4.503.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.
⁄
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality,
performance, and mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 95–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00013-1.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,
performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawding.
Psychological Science, 8(6), 454–458.
⁄
Tice, D. M., & Roy, F. B. (1998). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8,
454–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validation of the
procrastination scale. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 473–480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022.
Van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of
procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401–1418. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179–187. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179.
Zimmerman, M. A., Caldwell, C. H., & Bernat, D. H. (2002). Discrepancy between self-
report and school-record grade point average: Correlates with psychosocial
outcomes among African American adolescents. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 86–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01421.x.