See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344388192

Relationship between academic pRocRastinaton and self-contRol:

the mediational Role of self-esteem

Article  in  College Student Journal · September 2020

CITATIONS READS

4 2,388

3 authors, including:

Bilge Uzun Özer Joseph R Ferrari

Bahçeşehir University DePaul University
16 PUBLICATIONS   315 CITATIONS    385 PUBLICATIONS   11,516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cross-cultural validation of Life Domain Regret Inventory (LDRI) View project

Decision Making View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph R Ferrari on 26 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Relationship between Academic
Procrastinaton and Self-Control: The
Mediational Role of Self-Esteem
Bilge Uzun
Bahcesehir University, Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance

Sera LeBlanc
Australian College of Applied Psychology

Joseph R. Ferrari
DePaul University

The present study examined the mediational effect of self-esteem on

the relationship between self-control and academic procrastination.
The sample consisted of 426 emerging adults (university students;
218 female, 208 male; Mage = 21.3 years old, SD = 1.5) who com-
pleted reliable and valid academic procrastination, self-control, and
self-esteem measures. Results revealed that academic procrastination
was negatively predicted by self-esteem, and self-control. Moreover,
findings suggested that self-esteem mediated the association of aca-
demic procrastination with self-control. Results are discussed in terms
of prevention and intervention implications.
Keywords: Academic Procrastination, Self-esteem, Self-control

Procrastination, the tendency to post- widespread phenomenon associated with neg-

pone an intended action or decision (Ferrari,
Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Ferari, 2010) is
not a new phenomenon; it has a long history
and a scientific past dating back to the 80’s.
Investigating the nature of procrastination
has attracted the interest of contemporary
researchers, yet, despite growing research
attention, much is still to be learned about
procrastination (Ferrari & Tibbett, 2017) in
relation to underlying causes and operating
mechanisms. Hence, it remains “one of the
least understood human miseries” (Ferrari,
1994, p. 673). When compared with other
psychological constructs, both the empirical
and theoretical underpinnings of procras-
tination are less defined, even though it is a
ative health outcomes (Howell et al., 2006;
Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008).
The negative outcomes associated with
procrastination in the academic context are
alarming, as general rates in undergraduate
samples are as high as 95% (Ellis & Knaus,
1977; Ferrari, 2010), with severe and chron-
ic levels estimated as high as 20% and 30%
(Ferrari et al., 1995). Furthermore, academic
procrastination has been found to reduce per-
formance in conjunction with increased phys-
ical and psychological issues; specifically, it
has been correlated with irrational beliefs, low
self-esteem, anxiety, depression and stress
(Ferrari & Pychyl, 2008; Ferrari & Tibbett,
2017). Substantial attention has been given

1
2 / College Student Journal
to academic procrastination in a university
demonstrating that academic procrastination
is closely related to lower levels of self-con-
trol (Digdon & Howell, 2008), self-efficacy
(Klassen et al., 2008) and academic perfor-
mance with a concurrent increase in anxiety
levels (Chabaud, Ferrand, & Maury, 2010).
Researchers have focused on various
aspects of academic procrastination includ-
ing cognitive and behavioral components
(Kachgal, Hansen, & Kevin, 2001; Schow-
uenburg et al., 2004). Studies based on the
cognitive perspective investigated why stu-
dents make the conscious decision to delay al-
though it has negative consequences (Ferrari,
2010; Karas & Spada, 2009). This line of re-
search investigated the relationship between
self-esteem and academic procrastination
(e.g., Tice, 1991). Self-esteem is used as a per-
sonality (Brown & Marshall, 2006) variable
representing the way people generally feel
about themselves. One of the most popular
theories concerning the etiology of procrasti-
nation conceptualizes chronic procrastination
as a method of self-protection for fragile
self-esteem (Burka & Yuen, 1983; Ferrari &
Tibbett, 2017). Theory suggests performance
reflects ability, which is also a reflection of
self-worth. This assertion would then lead to
a link between performance, ability and self-
worth; hence, failure at a task may become an
indicator for lack of ability and low self-worth
in the absence of procrastination or self-hand-
icapping. Therefore, in an academic setting,
students may develop a fear of failure, fueling
their academic procrastination behaviours
because of the strong emphasis placed on
success when defining self-worth. As such,
academic procrastination may serve a protec-
tive function reinforcing the behaviour: since
performance has been impaired by time con-
straints, performance does not equal ability
and therefore does not equal self worth. In this
way, academic procrastination serves as an
ego defensive mechanism; therefore, it may
be used frequently as a protective device by
those with fragile self-esteem (Burka & Yuen,
1983). In this respect, numerous studies found
a significant inverse relationship between
procrastination and self-esteem (e.g., Ferrari,
1994; Uzun Ozer, Demir, & Harrington, 2012
such that low self-esteem and weak self-effi-
cacy are related to frequent academic-related
delays (Beck, Koons, & Milgrim, 2000; Fer-
rari, 1994; Sirois, 2004) whereby, feelings of
worthlessness cause task avoidance that may
result in failure (Ferrari, 2010). In this vein,
the findings of the previous research demon-
strate that student self-esteem may be a strong
predictor of academic-related task delays and
may serve a mediating role between academic
procrastination and other variables.
Some researchers investigating be-
havioural aspects of academic procrastina-
tion (Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Beck et al., 2000;
Van Eerde, 2003) argued that self-control
is one of the strongest behavioral predic-
tors of all forms of procrastination. Broadly
speaking, self-control refers to the capacity
to modify and adapt the self in order to op-
timize the fit between self and the external
environment (e.g., Rothbaum, Weisz, &
Snyder, 1982). Specifically, Vohs and Bau-
meister (2004) identified four key domains
of self-control which include the effective
control of thoughts, emotions, impulses, and
performance. Therefore, self-control involves
the ability to restrain oneself from engaging
in behaviors that are known to have negative
implications (e.g. smoking, purchasing be-
havior, breaking laws or procrastinating; e.g.,
Faber & Vohs, 2004). Ferrari (2010) suggests
procrastination is a ‘self-control failure of
performance’ (p. 391) in which procrastina-
tors fail to regulate their performance in situa-
tions of stress and high cognitive loads. Thus,
the process of self-control involves making
a comparison of one’s behavioral state to
an ideal or standard of behavior (Duval &
Wicklund, 1972). Concordantly, researchers
 A Mediational Model of Academic Procrastination
(e.g., Klassen, et al., 2008; Howell & Watson,
2007) believe procrastinators have problems
regulating their behaviors and are engaging
in undercontrol. Relatedly, a metanalysis
(Ferrari, 2010) investigating cause and effect,
determined chronic everyday procrastination
was strongly predicted by trait characteristics
such as self-control (i.e. distractibility, organi-
zation, and achievement) and impulsiveness.
Thus, a strong body of evidence supports the
strong inverse relationship between self-con-
trol and forms of procrastination, suggesting
lower levels of self-control are related to
higher levels of academic procrastination
(e.g., Uzun Ozer, et. al., 2014).
These facts demonstrate the need for
close examination of academic procrastina-
tion among emerging adults (i.e., university
students) because of its frequency and debil-
itating impact. Yet, detailed models explain-
ing the contributing dynamics of academic
procrastination are limited; thus, numerous
questions remain with regards to root causes
and operating mechanisms. In this study we
explored causal correlates, putting forth a pre-
liminary model investigating the relationship
between academic procrastination, self-es-
teem and self-control in greater depth.
Taken together, low self-esteem exists in
the presence of low self-control may serve
as a powerful mediator between maladaptive
behaviours that increase the frequency of
academic procrastination among emerging
adults in university settings. Thus, the current
study built upon existing literature by pro-
viding a better understanding of the link be-
tween self-esteem, self-control and academic
procrastination.
Considering previous research (see Fer-
rari, 2010; Ferrari & Emmons, 1995; Ferrari
& Tibbett, 2017), it was hypothesized that
self-control would be negatively correlated
with academic procrastination. Similarly,
self-esteem was hypothesized to be negatively
associated with academic procrastination and
/3
positively related to self-control, suggesting
that students with lower levels of self-esteem
will have lower levels of self-control.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from undergraduate
students enrolled in various departments at a
major-state funded, urban university in Tur-
key. For the sample selection, proportional
sampling created five subgroups from five
faculties selected for the sample in the same
proportion, as they exist in the general pop-
ulation. The sample of 426 undergraduate
students included 218 female and 208 male
students. The participants consisted of 107
first year students, 78 sophomore, 160 junior,
and 81 senior students. The mean age of our
emerging adult participants was 21.3 years
old (SD = 1.5) with an age range between 18
and 25.
Data Collection Instruments
In the present study, variables were as-
sessed utilizing self-report reliable and valid
questionnaires, namely.
Tuckman procrastination scale (TPS;
Tuckman, 1991) assesses college students’
academic procrastination tendencies. It is 16
16 items reliable (α = 0.89; Tuckman, 2007)
and valid (r = -.47 with the General Self-Ef-
ficacy Scale) and demonstrated high internal
consistency (0.88), retest stability (0.82).
In the Turkish adaptation study, Uzun Özer,
Sackes, and Tuckman (2013) found the scale
to be reliable and valid (α = 0.90; r = 22 with
self-efficacy and r = 23 with self-esteem).
Self Control Schedule (SCS; Rosenbaum,
1980) assessed students’ tendencies to exert
self-control methods to resolve behavioral
problems. The scale consists of 36 items.
In the Rosenbaum’s study, an alpha coeffi-
cient was computed on six different samples
ranging from 0.78 to 0.86, indicating a high
4 / College Student Journal
internal consistency among items. The SCS’s
evidence for validity was provided by correla-
tions with Croskey’s Measure of Communi-
cation Apprehension (r = -.37; Rosenbaum,
1980). In a Turkish adaptation study, Siva
(1991) found the scale to be reliable and valid
(α = 0.79; test-retest r = 0.80; r = -22 with
locus of control).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES;
Rosenberg, 1965) assessed participants’ glob-
al self-esteem or self-worth. It is a 10 items
scale demonstrating high internal consistency
(α = .80). Evidence for convergent validity
was provided by positive correlations with the
Copersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (r = .60)
and the Health Self Image Questionnaire (r
= .83). In a Turkish adaptation studies, Celik
(2004) reported the scale to be reliable and
valid (α = 0.84; r = -22 with locus of control).
Procedures
Demographic questionnaires including an
explanation of the study and a set of scales
were administered to the participants during
regular classroom hours. After obtaining per-
missions from the Human Research Ethical
Committee and the instructor of each class,
volunteer students were asked to respond to
the scales.
Results
To test our hypothesized model, the
mediational role of self-esteem on the rela-
tionship between self-control and procras-
tination, a confirmatory factor analysis was
first conducted to ensure the model was an
acceptable fit to the data. Then the structural
model was tested to assess the hypothesized
relationship. The Maximum Likelihood
method in AMOS 25 (Byrne, 2016) was
utilized to examine the measurement and
structural model. Four indecies were used to
assess the goodness of fit of the models on
the basis of the traditional crriteria for good
fit: the comparative fit index, the incremental
fit index, the standardized root mean square
residual, and the root mean square error of
approximation (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Latent Variables
To test the model, indicators of the la-
tent construct were observed. The observed
indicators of the latent variables of procras-
tination, self-control and self-esteem were
parceled following the recommendation of
Russell, Kahn, Spoth, and Althmaier (1998).
Four parcels were created for each scale items
seperately. Item parcelling was chosen for the
variables in order to reduce the number of
parameters that would result from using indi-
vidual items thereby improving the estimation
of the effect (Russell et al., 1998). Bandalos
(2008) and Nasser and Wisenbaker (2003)
also asserted that parcel scores are more like-
ly to be distributed normally than those of sin-
gle items. Thus, ‘the resulting reduction in the
complexity of measurement models should
lead to more realistic models’ (Nasser and
Wisenbaker, 2003; p.730). The correlations
among the study variables were small to mod-
erate in magnitude (r = -.20 and r = -.48). As
expected, self-esteem and self-control were
negatively associated with procrastination.
Measurement Model
A test of the measurement model resulted
in a good fit to the data, scaled X2 (50, N =
426) = 134.67, p < 0.001, CFI = .96, IFI = .96,
RMSEA = .63. All of the variables were sig-
nificantly loaded on their perspectives latent
variables and appear to have been adequately
measured by their perspective indicators.
Structural Model
The structural model used to test the
hypothesis (see Figure 1) showed an excel-
lent fit to the data, scaled X2 (50, N = 426)
= 102.98, p < 0.001, CFI = .97, IFI = .97,
RMSEA = .50. Self-control and self-esteem
predicted procrastination. Seven percent of
 A Mediational Model of Academic Procrastination /5

Figure 1. Standardized parameter estimates of the structural model. Ps are the parcels
for latent variables. Numbers next to arrows indicate the relationships between the latent
and measured variables.

the variance in self-esteem and 46% of the Discussion

variance in procrastination was accounted
for in the model. Thus, the hypothesized
model was the best fitting model and used in
the subsequent boostrapping and invariance
testing analysis.
Boostraping
Significant levels of indirect effects for the
meditational model were tested by following
the boostrapt procedure recommended by
Shrout and Bolger (2002). Analysis showed
that indirect effects were normally distributed.
The indirect effects specified in the hypothe-
ses were estimated via bootstrapping (set at
1000), and bias corrected bootstrap (BC) and
95% confidence intervals were requested.
The bootstrap values provided significant me-
diated paths from self-control through self-es-
teem to procrastination (β = .31, p < .01).
The present study investigated the media-
tional affects of self esteem in the relationship
between self-control and academic procrasti-
nation. Results showed both self-esteem and
self control negatively predicted academic
procrastination, indicating lower levels
of self-esteem and self-control predicted
higher levels of academic procrastination.
Self-control was also a significant predictor
of self-esteem suggesting an indirect effect
on academic procrastination via self-esteem.
Results demonstrated that the hypothesized
relationship was well supported using the cur-
rent data. The findings, both statistically and
theoretically, supported the important effect
of self-esteem in the relationship between
self-control and academic procrastination
among emerging adults.
6 / College Student Journal
The present findings suggest individuals’
cognitions about themselves lead to their
behavioral control, which in turn directly pre-
dicted procrastination. Specifically, findings
revealed that students’ low levels of self-es-
teem led to decrease self-control, which re-
sulted in an increase in procrastination. The
results were consistent with the previous find-
ings demonstrating a relationship between
self-esteem and self-control (Steel, Brothen,
& Wambach, 2001; Tice & Bratslavsky,
2000). The findings also supported the theory
that contingencies of self-worth may serve
a self-regulatory function. Accordingly, in-
creased self-worth in an academic setting may
serve to enhance self-control, which in turn
decreases academic procrastination (Roth-
man, Baldwin, & Hertel., 2004).
Another important finding of the present
study may be the behavioral control features
of self-control. As suggested earlier (e.g.,
Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004), self-esteem
mechanisms may provide students with con-
trolling thoughts, feelings and behavior. In
line with self-control theory, it has been seen
as willpower or effortful control in cogni-
tive-affective processing systems, which is a
dynamic of delay of gratification (Mischel &
Ayduk, 2004).
Several implications may be drawn from
the findings of the present study for counsel-
ors and educators. The present study explored
the relationships between behavioral factors
such as self-control and its ability to mediate
personal cognitive factors among a represen-
tative sample of university students enrolled
in various departments at a major state funded
university. Therefore, the present study has
the potential to generate meaningful infor-
mation for understanding student procrasti-
nation associated with factors contributing
to cognitive and behavioral patterns. Hence,
the results of the present study may provide
valuable cues for both university counselors
and staff to develop new programs that may
reduce the negative effects of procrastination.
From an applied standpoint, the current
findings suggest interventions targeting both
the cognitive and behavioral components of
procrastination may be effective. In support,
interventions focused on enhancing self-con-
trol by creating routines, timetables and
predetermined activities have demonstrated
efficacy (Ferrari, 2010).
From a cognitive behavioral perspective,
cognitive restructuring, combined with be-
havioural experiments, has demonstrated
effictiveness and has been associated with
concurrent increases in self-esteem (Van
Eerde, 2003). In conclusion, taking an idio-
graphic approach, combining behavioral and
cognitive components and exploring alterna-
tive methods of delivery, may be a promising
avenue for future research, as they are theo-
retically supported and adventageous from
a practical standpoint, due to scalability and
cost effectiveness.
A limitation of the current study was the
use of a homogenous, university sample.
Further research with larger and more de-
mographically diverse populations would
strengthen the findings of the current study.
Therefore, it is suggested to conduct future
studies with samples from different universi-
ties and in different regions.
 A Mediational Model of Academic Procrastination /7

References Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (Eds.).

(1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). Is parcelling really necessary?
Research, and Treatment. NY: Plenum Press.
A comparison of results from item parcelling
Ferrari, J., & Pychyl, T. (2008). Procrastination: Current
and categorical variable methodology. Structural
Issues and New Directions, 15(5).
Equation Modeling, 15, 211-240. Doi: 10.1207/
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a
S15328007SEM0901_5
self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance
Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000).
strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research
Correlates and consequences of behavioral procras-
in Personality, 34(1), 73-83.
tination: The effects of academic procrastination,
Ferrari, J. R., & Tibbett, T. P. (2017). Procrastination. In
self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicap-
V. Zeigler-Hill & T.K. Shackelford (Eds). Encyclo-
ping. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,
pedia of Personality and Individual Differences, pp.
15(5), 3-13.
1–8. New York: Springer Meteor Press.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2004). Automatic
of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Is-
self-control. In R. F. Baumesister & K. D. Vohs
sues and answers (pp. 4-9). New York: Psychology
(Eds.), Handbook of self-control: Research, theory
Press.
and applications. NY: The Guilford Press.
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination:
do you do it, what to do about it. CA: Addison- Wes-
Associations with achievement goal orientation and
ley Publishing Company.
learning strategies. Personality and Individual Dif-
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with
ferences, 43(1), 167-178.
AMOS : Basic concepts, applications, and program-
Howell, A. J., Watson, D. C., Powell, R. A., & Buro, K.
ming (3rd edition). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(2006). Academic procrastination: The pattern and
Chabaud, P., Ferrand, C., & Maury, J. (2010). Individual
correlates of behavioural postponement. Personality
diffrerences in undergraduate student athletes: The
and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1519-1530.
roles of perfectionism and trait anxiety perception of
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit in-
procrastination behavior. Social Behavior & Person-
dexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
ality: An International Journal, 38(8), 1041-1056.
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Digdon, N. L., & Howell, A. J. (2008). College students
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
who have an eveningness preference report lower
Kachgal, M. M., Hansen, L. S., & Kevin, N. J. (2001).
self-control and greater procrastination. Chronobi-
Academic procrastination prevention/intervention
ology International: The Journal of Biological &
strategies and recommendations. Journal of Devel-
Medical Rhythm Research, 25(6), 1029-1046.
opmental Education, 25(1), 14-20.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objec-
Karas, D., & Spada, M. M. (2009). Brief cognitive-be-
tive self-awareness. NY: Academic Press.
havioural coaching for procrastination: a case series.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming procrastina-
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Re-
tion. NY: Signet.
search & Practice, 2(1), 44-53.
Faber, R. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). To buy or not to buy?
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008).
Self control and self-control failure in purshase be-
Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low
havior. In R. F. Baumesister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.),
self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of
Handbook of self-control: Research, theory and ap-
procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
plications. NY: The Guilford Press.
ogy, 33(4), 915-931.
Ferrari, J. R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cog-
Its relationship with self-esteem, interpersonal de-
nitive-affective processing system: The dynamics
pendency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality
of delay gratification. In R. F. Baumesister & K. D.
and Individual Differences, 17(5), 673-679.
Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-control: Research,
Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of
theory and applications. NY: The Guilford Press.
procrastination and their relation to self-control and
Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study
self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal of
investigating the impact of item parcelling on mea-
Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 135.
sures of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Educa-
Ferrari, J.R. (2010). Still Procrastinating? The No Re-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 63, 729-757.
grets Guide to Getting It Done. New York: John
Doi: 101177/0013164403258228.
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Roseberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescence self-im-
age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
 8 / College Student Journal
Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing
self-control behaviors: Preliminary findings. Behav-
ior Therapy, 11(1), 109-121.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982).
Changing the world and changing the self: A
two-process model of perceived control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5.
Rothman, A. J., Baldwin, A., & Hertel, A. (2004).
Self-control and behavior change: Disentangling
behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance.
In K. Vohs & R. Baumeister (Eds.), The handbook
of self-control (pp. 130-148). New York: Guilford
Press.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E.
M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental stud-
ies: A latent variable structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45,
18–29.
Schowuenburg, H. C., Lay, C. H., Pychyl, T. A., & Fer-
rari, J. R. (2004). Counseling the procrastinator in
academic settings. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in ex-
perimental and non- experimental studies: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 7, 422–445.
Sirois, F. M. (2004). Procrastination and counterfactual
thinking: Avoiding what might have been. British
Journal of Social Psychology 43, 269-286.
Siva, A. (1991). İnfertilede stresle başetme, öğrenilmiş
güçlülük ve depresyonun incelenmesi [Examining
stress coping, learned resourcefullness, and depres-
sion in infertility]. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrasti-
nation and personality, performance, and mood. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 95-106.
View publication stats
Tan, J., Ma, Z., & Li, X. (2015). Global self-esteem
mediates the effect of general self-efficacy on Chi-
nese undergraduates’ general procrastination. Social
Behavior and Personality: An international Journal,
43(8), 1265-1271.
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel
good: The place of emotion control in the context of
general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3),
149-159.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent
validity of the procrastination scale. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 473.
Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational
scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning
outcomes. Computers & Education, 49(2), 414-422.
Uzun Özer, B., Demir, A., & Harrington, N. (2012).
Psychometric properties of Frustration Discomfort
Scale in a Turkish Sample. Psychological Reports:
Measures & Statistics, 111(1), 117-128.
Uzun Özer, B., O’Callaghan, J., Bokszczanin, A., Eder-
er, E., & Essau, C. A. (2014). Dynamic interplay
of depression, perfectionism, and self-control on
procrastination. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 42(3), 309-319.
Uzun Özer, B., Saçkes, M., & Tuckman, W. B. (2013).
Psychometric Properties of the Tuckman Procrasti-
nation Scale in a Turkish Sample. Psychological Re-
ports: Measurement and Statistics, 113(3), 874-884.
Van Eerde, W. (2003). Procrastination: Self-regulation in
initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology, 49(3),
372-389. Doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00021
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding
self-control: An introduction. Handbook of self-con-
trol: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1–9).