Accelerat ing t he world's research.

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION
AND MOBILE PHONE
mustafa pamuk

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Academic Procrast inat ion and Mobile Phone ( was present ed as oral at Int ernat ional Academ…
must afa pamuk

T he Relat ionships among Academic Procrast inat ion, Self-Cont rol, and Problemat ic Mobile Use: Consi…
Ayça Çebi, Tuğba BAHÇEKAPILI

ADDICTA 4(1) Invest igat ing Adolescent s' Behaviors on t he Int ernet and Problemat ic Int ernet Usage
ADDİCTA Dergisi
 ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND MOBILE PHONE
Ufuk ERDOĞAN, uerdogan@firat.edu.tr

Mustafa PAMUK, mustafapamuk@firat.edu.tr

Süleyman Eren YÜRÜK, seyuruk@firat.edu.tr

Kübra PAMUK, mustafapamuk42@gmail.com

Abstract

This study aims to examine students’ academic procrastination behaviors in relation to

mobile phones, which have become indispensable elements of daily life. Survey model is used
for this research. To collect data; demographic information form, problematic mobile phone
use scale, and academic procrastination scale were applied for 481 students at high school. To
analyse these data; correlation, t-test, One-way Variance (ANOVA) analysis, Scheffé test, and
regression were used. Results showed that academic procrastination was moderately
correlated with problematic mobile phone use (r=.31). Furthermore, there were significant
differences between academic procrastination and independent variables (mobile phone
addiction and daily phone use time), except gender. In addition, it was found that academic
procrastination was significantly predicted by “mobile phone addiction”, “daily phone use
time”, and “gender”, respectively. The results of the study were discussed together with the
results of different studies and suggestions were made.
Keywords: Academic procrastination, mobile phone addiction, daily mobile phone use
Main Topic: Barriers to Learning or Social Studies Education

Introduction

One of the behaviors that put people in trouble most of the time is procrastination.
Solomon and Rothblum (1984) defined procrastination as “the act of needlessly delaying
tasks to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort”. According to Senécal, Koestner, and
Vallerand (1995) procrastination is a motivational problem that involves more than poor time
management skills or trait laziness. Another point of view (Solomon and Rothblum, 1984)
procrastination is not solely deficit in study habits or time management, but involves a
complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. The academic
domain stands as one of the very common domains where procrastination behavior is most
commonly observed. Students procrastinate doing their homework, class work, finishing their
projects, as well as preparing for examinations, or many other things in the academic sense.
Such procrastination turns out to be ‘academic procrastination’ in the literature. Binder (2000)
defined academic procrastination as any academic task that is delayed or avoided as a result of
the discrepancy between intention and actual behavior to the extent that it produces negative
affect in the procrastinator. When literature is analyzed, it is found that academic
procrastination behavior is examined in terms of various variables such as depression
(Saddler, & Sacks, 1993), stress (Rahardjo, Juneman, & Setiani, 2013), subjective well-being
(Binder,2000), perfectionism (Çakıcı, 2003; Eraslan-Çapan, 2010; Kağan, Çakır, İlhan, &
Kandemir, 2010; Saddler, & Sacks, 1993; Sarıoğlu, 2011), big five personality traits (Çam,
2013; Kağan, Çakır, İlhan, & Kandemir, 2010), self-esteem (Aydoğan, 2008; Çakıcı, 2003;
Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008), self-handicapping (Akça, 2012), self-regulation
(Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008; Senécal, Koestner, & Vallerand,1995), life satisfaction
(Eraslan-Çapan, 2010), hope (Uzun-Özer, 2009), academic motivation (Akbay, 2009;
Senécal, Julien,& Guay, 2003), academic achievement (Balkıs & Duru, 2010; Çakıcı, 2003),
obsessive-compulsive (Kağan, Çakır, İlhan, & Kandemir, 2010), general procrastination
(Çakıcı, 2003; Çam, 2013; Ekşi, & Dilmaç, 2010), problematic internet usage (Odacı, 2011;
Odacı, & Berber-Çelik, 2011). Another variable thought to be the least examined in relation to
academic procrastination is problematic mobile phone use.

In addition to being a means of communication and having rapidly spreading use

around the world, mobile phones, in particular the new generation of smart mobile phones, are
technological tools due to offering many functions, such as providing short message service
(SMS) to users, taking photos, playing games, using the Internet, connecting to social
networks, providing navigation services, having a video player functionality, watching TV
and shopping (Tan, Pamuk, & Dönder, 2013). It is an obvious fact that mobile phones
facilitate people's lives. However, the problematic use of the mobile phone can sometimes
cause problems (Chesley, 2005; Ha, et al., 2008; Lee, et al, 2007; Punamaki et al., 2007; Van
den Bulck, 2007). Whether the use of mobile phones affects students' academic
procrastination behavior or not is wondered.

This study aims to examine high school students’ academic procrastination behaviors
in relation to their use of mobile phones, which have become indispensable elements of daily
life. In this context, the effect of the daily mobile phone use periods and students’ addiction to
cell phones on their academic procrastination behavior is examined. Whether gender affects
the academic procrastination behavior or not is also examined.

METHOD
Sample

The sample group of this study is 481 students from high schools in Elazığ in Turkey. 283
(58,8 %) of the students are female, 198 (41,2%) of them are male, average age of students is
15,8 (Sd: .74).

Instruments

Problematic Mobile Phone Use Scale (PMPUS): The Problematic Mobile Phone Use Scale
developed by Bianchi and Phillips (2005) was adapted to Turkish by Şar and Işıklar (2012). In
the frame of adaptation works, the scale items were primarily translated into Turkish and then
the opinions of nine specialists were taken, and the translation was improved in line with
those opinions. The English and Turkish forms generated were filled out by 30 undergraduate
students having a good command of English with 2-week intervals. The correlation value
between English and Turkish forms was calculated as 0,78 and both scales were accepted
equal. The scale was applied to 300 students for validity – reliability analyses. For Turkish
form of the scale, The PMPUS has a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.88. As a result
of these values obtained, Turkish form of the scale was accepted as reliable and valid. The
scores that may be gotten over a 5-point Likert type scale with 27 questions vary between 27
and 135. As the scores that are gotten over the scale get higher, the mobile phone addiction
increases.

Academic procrastination scale (APS): The APS was developed by Cakici (2003) with the
aim of determining students’ academic procrastination behavior; the scale consists of 19
statements, 12 negative and 7 positive, involving tasks students have a responsibility to
perform in their academic lives. The APS has a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.92.
Cronbach alpha coefficients calculated for the scale’s first and second factors are 0.89 and
0.84, respectively.

Procedure
Survey model is used for this research and to collect data; demographic information
form, PMPUS, and APS were applied to students at high schools in Elazığ in Turkey.
PMPUS was used to determine the addicted and non-addicted groups. PMPUS was
categorised by using mean and standard deviation as addicted group and non addicted group.
Correlation test, t test, one way variance (ANOVA), and regression were used in this study.
Furthermore, to find out the differences among groups, Scheffe test was used.

FINDINGS

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and alpha reliabilities for variables.
1 2 Cronbach's Alpha
1. MPA** 1 .95
2. APS .31* 1 .85
Mean 59,5 51,7
Standart Deviation 28,3 13,2
*p<.01 **Mobile phone Addiction

As seen in Table 1, the results indicated that there was a positive and moderate
relationship between mobile phone addiction and academic procrastination (r=.31).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and t values of academic procrastination of high school students according to gender
Gender
Female Male
(n=283) (n=198) t p
X Sd X Sd
APS 50,8 13,3 53 13,2 -1,704 .089
p<.05
As seen in Table 2, there was no significant difference between males and females in
relation to academic procrastination (t(479)=-1,704; p>.05).
Table 3. Means, standard deviations and t values of academic procrastination of high school students according to mobile
phone addiction
Mobile Phone Addiction
Addict Nonaddict
(n=117) (n=108) t p
X Sd X Sd
APS 47,3 12,6 56,2 12,7 -5,255 .000*
*p<.05
As seen in Table-3, there was a significant difference between addicted group and
nonaddicted group in relation to academic procrastination (t(223)=-5,255; p<.05). When these
results analysed, it was seen that means of addicted students ( x = 56,2, Sd=12,7) were
higher than means of nonaddicted students( x =47,3, Sd=12,6).
 Table 4. Means, standard deviations and F values of academic procrastination of high school students according to daily
phone use time
Daily use
A B C
<1 hour 1-3 4≥ F P Differences
n=324 n=98 n=59
A<B, B<C
X Sd X Sd X Sd
APS 50,1 13,1 52,8 12,4 58,8 13 11,544 .000* A<C
*p<.05

As seen in Table 4, the result showed that significant difference was found between
AP and daily phone use time (F(2-478)= 11,544; p<.05). Scheffe test was performed to
determine the groups which caused difference. According to this significant difference,
students who have mobile phone use 4 or over 4 hours was found to have more academic
procrastination score than those who have mobile phone use 1-3 hour per day and less than 1
hour per day. Furthermore, students who have mobile phone use 1-3 hours per day was found
to have more academic procrastination score than those who have mobile phone use less than
1 hour per day.

Table 5. Variables to predict academic procrastination

β
2
Model t R R F p
1. Daily use ,198 4,418* ,198 ,039 19,515 .000*
2. Daily use ,215 4,774* ,226 ,051 12,915 .000*
Gender ,111 2,471* .014*
3. Daily use ,151 3,305* .001*
Gender ,112 2,544* ,314 ,099 17,414 .011*
MPA ,227 5,011* .000*
*p<.05

A stepwise regression analysis was used to test the strength of the predictor variables
on predicting the academic procrastination and the results are presented in Table 5. As shown
in Table 5, in the first step of the stepwise regression analysis was examined the ‘daily use of
mobile phones’ and the β value to indicate the strength of variable on predicting the academic
procrastination behavior was found as .198. Daily use of mobile phones can significantly
predict the students' academic procrastination behavior (p <.05). When other variables held
constant, it was found that "Daily use of mobile phones" variable can explain as much as
about 4% of the academic procrastination behavior (R2 = 0.039).

In the second step of the stepwise regression analysis, the ‘gender’ variable was
included in the model. It was found that "Daily use of mobile phones" and “Gender” variables
can explain 5% of the students’ academic procrastination behavior (R2 = 0.051) together.
When other variables held constant, in this step, the β value indicating the strength of variable
on predicting the academic procrastination behavior for daily use of mobile phones is 0.215,
and 0.111 for the “gender” variable. Both students’ daily use of mobile phones and their
gender can significantly predict the students' academic procrastination behavior (p <.05).
 In the third step of the stepwise regression analysis, the MPA variable was also
included in the model, as well as “Daily use of mobile phones” and “Gender” variables. These
three variables can explain approximately 10% of the students’ academic procrastination
behavior (R2=0.099); and each variable in this step predicts academic procrastination behavior
significantly. In this step, when the standardized β values of the variables are examined, it can
be said that MPA (β=.227, p<.05), daily use (β=.151, p<.05) and gender (β=.112, p<.05) can
predict the students’ academic procrastination behavior significantly, in order of priorities.

Discussion and Conclusion

According to the findings of the study, there was no significant difference when the
students' academic procrastination behavior was examined according to gender variable.
There are some studies which have found similar results (Akinsola, Tella & Tella, 2007;
Çavdar & Mutlu, 2011; Kızılkaya-Cumaoğlu & Diker-Coşkun, 2012; Şirin, 2011; Yigit &
Dilmaç, 2011). In some studies is seen that men shows more academic procrastination
behaviour (Aydogan, 2008; Cetin, 2009).

Mobile phone addiction, daily use of mobile phone and gender variables were found to
be predictors of the students’ academic procrastination behavior. These three independent
variables (mobile phone addiction, daily use of mobile phone and gender) explain
approximately 10% of the variance for the academic procrastination behavior. The most
important predictor variables are mobile phone addiction (MPA) and daily use of mobile
phones. In addition, it was also found that there exist a moderate positive relationship (r=.31)
between academic procrastination and mobile phone addiction. As the duration of daily use of
mobile phones increases, the academic procrastination behavior increases, too (F3-478 =
11.544; p <.05). The fact that mobile phones, especially smart phones, have many of the
features offered by computers and internet may result in similar effects computers and internet
have upon individuals. Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) found that Facebook users reported
having lower Grade Point Average (GPAs) and spend fewer hours per week studying than
nonusers. The findings Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) obtained seems similar to the results
of this study; that is to say, as the duration of daily use of mobile phones increases, the
academic procrastination behavior increases. Both studies indicate that the time to be
allocated for studying is spent on different things (Facebook and mobile phones).

It is an obvious fact that mobile phones, smart mobile phones recently emerged in
particular, provide convenience for the users. For the users, mobile phones have virtuallay
become a portable computer. According to Tan, Pamuk, and Dönder (2013) individuals can
interact with mobile phones almost everywhere (at home, at school, on the bus, in the street,
at the café, in the canteen, in bed, or even in the toilet). However, the facts that mobile phones
are very easy to carry and provide such convenience for the users may sometimes turn out to
be disadvantages rather that advantages for the individuals. For the young people, one of the
largest user groups, it can lead to academic procrastination behavior instead of studying
because of the increase in the duration of daily use of mobile phones. If they only think of
their mobile phones, students may have concentration problems even if they are in class, or
doing something academic. Paul, Baker and Cochran (2012) found that the time spent on
online social networks (OSN) was found to be heavily influenced by the attention span of the
students.
 In line with the findings of this research, it can primarily be studied in different groups
about the effects of mobile phone addiction on academic procrastination and academic
performance. In addition, the guidance programs focusing on the effects of mobile phones can
be applied to groups of students in schools.

Brief biographies of the authors

Author 1

The author works at Firat University, Faculty of Education-Educational Sciences

Deparment. The author research interests include Educational Administration and supervision.

Author 2

The author works at Firat University, Faculty of Education-Educational Sciences

Deparment-Guidance and Psychological Counseling. The author research interests include
counseling, psychometry and effects of technology.

Author 3
The author works at Firat University, Faculty of Education Computer Education &
Educational Technology Department. The author research interests include computer and
educational technology.

Author 4
The author works at high school as school counselor in Turkey. The author studies on
effects of technology on students.

REFERENCES

Akbay, S.E. (2009). Cinsiyete göre üniversite öğrencilerinde akademik erteleme davranışı:
akademik güdülenme, akademik özyeterlik ve akademik yükleme stillerinin rolü.
Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,,
Mersin.

Akça, F. (2012). An investigation into the self-handicapping behaviors of undergraduates in

terms of academic procrastination, the locus of control and academic success.
Journal of Education and Learning, 1,2,288-297.

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.

Aydoğan, D. (2008). Akademik erteleme davranışının benlik saygısı, durumluluk kaygı ve öz-
yeterlik ile açıklanabilirliği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,, Ankara.

Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2010). Akademik erteleme eğilimi, akademik başarı ilişkisinde genel
ve performans benlik saygısının rolü. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 27, 159-170.
Binder, K. (2000). The effects of an academic procrastination treatment on student
procrastination and subjective well-being. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual
distress, and family satisfaction. J Marriage Fam.,67:1237–1248.

Çakıcı, D. Ç. (2003). Lise ve üniversite öğrencilerinde genel erteleme ve akademik erteleme

davranışının incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Çavdar, D. & Mutlu, T. (2011, 3-5 Ekim). Üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik erteleme
davranışları ile internet bağımlılıkları arasındaki ilişki. This paper was presented at
XI. Ulusal Psikolojik Danışmanlık ve Rehberlik Kongresi
Çetin, Ş. (2009). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin akademik erteleme davranışlarına ilişkin
görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 25, 1-7.

Ekşi, H., & Dilmaç, B.(2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin genel erteleme, karar vermeyi
erteleme ve akademik erteleme düzeylerinin sürekli kaygı açısından incelenmesi.
Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,23(2), 433-450.

Eraslan-Çapan, B. (2010). Relationship among perfectionism, academic procrastination and

life satisfaction of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5,
1665-1671.
Ha JH, Chin B, Park DH, Ryu, SH., & Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive cellular
phone use in Korean adolescents. Cyberpsychol Behav.11:783–784.

Kağan, M., Çakır, O., İlhan, T., & Kandemir, M. (2010). The explanation of the academic
procrastination behaviour of university students with perfectionism, obsessive–
compulsive and five factor personality traits. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2(2), 2121-2125.
Kirschner, P.A., & Karpinski, A.C. (2010).Facebook® and academic performance. Computer
in Human Behaviour. 26(6), 1237-1245.

Kızılkaya-Cumaoğlu, G., & Diker-Coşkun, Y. (2012). Öğretmenlerin akademik erteleme

davranışı ile teknoloji kullanım durumları arasındaki ilişki. Turkish Studies-
International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or
Turkic, 7/4,2237-2247.
Lee H, Kim MS, Son HK, Ahn, S., Kim, JS, & Kim, YH.(2007). Discriminating power of
sociodemographic and psychological variables on addictive use of cellular phones
among middle school students. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi. 2007;37:957–965.

Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on
student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior. 28, 2117–2127

Punamaki RL, Wallenius M, Nygard CH, Saarni, L., & Rimpelä A. (2007). Use of
information and communication technology (ICT) and perceived health in
 adolescence: the role of sleeping habits and waking-time tiredness. J
Adolesc.,30:569–585.

Rahardjo, W., Juneman, J., & Setiani, Y. (2013). Computer Anxiety, Academic Stress, and
Academic Procrastination on College Students. Journal of Education and
Learning, 7(3).

Odaci, H. (2011). Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination as predictors of

problematic internet use in university students. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1109-
1113.

Odacı, H., & Berber-Çelik, Ç. (2011, 22-24 September). Relationship between university
students’ problematic internet use and their academic self efficacy, academic
procrastination, and eating attıtudes. This paper was presented at 5th International
Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, Fırat University, ELAZIĞ-
TURKEY.
Saddler, C. D., & Sacks, L. A. (1993). Multidimensional perfectionism and academic
procrastination: Relationships with depression in university students. Psychological
Reports, 73(3), 863-871.
Sarıoğlu, A.F.(2011). Öğretmen adaylarının akademik erteleme eğilimi ile mükemmeliyetçilik
düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi,
İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Senécal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003). Role conflict and academic procrastination: A self‐
determination perspective. European journal of social psychology, 33(1), 135-145.

Senécal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic
procrastination. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5), 607-619.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503.
Şirin, E.F. (2011). Academic procrastination among undergraduates attending school of
physical education and sports: Role of general procrastination, academic motivation
and academic self-efficacy. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(5), 447-455.
Tan, Ç., Pamuk, M., & Dönder, A. (2013,13-15 May). Loneliness and mobile phone. This
paper was presented as oral at 13th International Educational Technology
Conference, Kuala Lumpur-Malaysia.

Uzun-Özer, B. (2012). Bir grup lise öğrencisinde akademik erteleme davranışı: Sıklığı, olası
nedenleri ve umudun rolü. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(32), 12-
19.

Yiğit, R., & Dilmaç, B. (2011). Ortaöğretimde öğrencilerinin sahip oldukları insani değerler
ile akademik erteleme davranışlarının bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi.
Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 159-178.
Van den Bulck J. (2007). Adolescent use of mobile phones for calling and for sending text
messages after lights out: Results from a prospective cohort study with a one-year
follow up. Sleep, 30:1220–1223.