This article was downloaded by: [Duke University Libraries]

On: 08 September 2013, At: 07:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Genetic

Psychology: Research and
Theory on Human Development
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

The Relationship of Motivation

and Flow Experience to
Academic Procrastination in
University Students
a
Eunju Lee
a
School of Humanities and Social Sciences Halla
University South Korea
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Eunju Lee (2005) The Relationship of Motivation and Flow
Experience to Academic Procrastination in University Students, The Journal of
Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 166:1, 5-15, DOI:
10.3200/GNTP.166.1.5-15

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.5-15

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
 and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013
 The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2005, 166(1), 5–14

The Relationship of Motivation

and Flow Experience to Academic
Procrastination in University Students
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

EUNJU LEE
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Halla University, South Korea

ABSTRACT. In this article, the author examined the relationships of motivation and flow
experience to academic procrastination in 262 Korean undergraduate students who com-
pleted a questionnaire on procrastination, flow, and motivation. The results indicated that
high procrastination was associated with lack of self-determined motivation and low inci-
dence of flow state. The results also indicated that, although amotivation and intrinsic moti-
vation showed significant unique effects on procrastination, they did not contribute sig-
nificantly to the variance in procrastination when the effects caused by flow experiences
were considered. The author discusses implications for practice and gives suggestions for
further research.
Key words: flow, procrastination, self-determined motivation

PROCRASTINATION is the lack or absence of self-regulated performance and

the tendency to put off or completely avoid an activity under one’s control (Tuck-
man & Sexton, 1989). As a student proceeds through school, the responsibility
for controlling performance shifts progressively from parents and teachers to the
student, and it reaches a high point during the college years. According to
Solomon and Rothblum (1984), as many as 50% of college students procrastinate
on academic tasks at least half of the time and an additional 38% report procras-
tinating occasionally.
Procrastination is a behavior that is endemic in the academic domain, and it
may be related to problems encountered by many college students. Solomon and
Rothblum (1984) have shown that students who habitually procrastinate believe
that their tendency to procrastinate significantly interferes with their academic
An earlier version of this article was presented at the meeting of the International Asso-
ciation of Applied Psychology, Singapore, July 2002.
Address correspondence to Eunju Lee, School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Halla University, San 66, Heungup, Wonju, 220–712, South Korea; elee@hit.halla.ac.kr
(e-mail).

5
 6 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

standing, capacity to master classroom material, and the quality of their lives.
Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami (1986) also suggested that procrastination
might be detrimental to academic performance, possibly leading to greater course
withdrawal and lower grades. Wesley (1994) supported these findings by show-
ing that procrastination was a significant negative predictor of college grade point
average.
Senécal, Koestner, and Vallerand (1995) have suggested that academic pro-
crastination is a motivational problem that involves more than poor time man-
agement skills or trait laziness. Procrastinators are difficult to motivate and, there-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

fore, are likely to put off doing school assignments and studying for exams until
the last possible moment (Tuckman, 1998). They may have difficulty acquiring
new knowledge if steps are not taken to enhance their motivation.
According to Tuckman and Sexton (1989), procrastination is the lack or
absence of self-regulated performance. Self-regulation concerns the way in which
individuals use internal and external cues to determine when to initiate, when to
maintain, and when to terminate their goal-directed actions. Researchers have
suggested that self-regulation can have powerful effects on academic outcomes
such as persistence, performance, learning, and affect (Vallerand & Bissonnette,
1992; Vallerand et al., 1992, 1993). Senécal et al. (1995) suggested that procras-
tination is another outcome that may be associated with self-regulation styles in
the academic domain.
Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991) have offered a comprehensive theory of self-
regulation. They distinguished among different forms of motivation on the basis
of the degree to which they can be considered self-determined. Those researchers
posited four main types of motivation that exist along a self-determination con-
tinuum. The four forms of motivation (from most self-determined to least self-
determined) are: (a) intrinsic motivation, (b) self-determined extrinsic motivation,
(c) non-self-determined extrinsic motivation, and (d) amotivation.
Intrinsic motivation refers to the engagement in an activity for its own sake
or for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the experience (Deci, 1975). In
contrast, extrinsically motivated behaviors are instrumental in nature and are per-
formed as a means to an end (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Deci and Ryan further clas-
sified extrinsic motivation into two types: self-determined extrinsic motivation
and non-self-determined extrinsic motivation. Self-determined extrinsic motiva-
tion is exhibited when individuals willingly participate in an activity because it
is valued and perceived to be of importance. Non-self-determined extrinsic moti-
vation is exhibited when individuals place pressure on themselves to perform an
activity or when their behaviors are perceived to be controlled by external fac-
tors. Finally, amotivation is characterized by the absence of intrinsic and extrin-
sic motivation. Individuals who feel that they have no sense of control over their
actions exemplify this condition.
In short, Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991) posited two forms of self-determined
motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation, self-determined extrinsic motivation) and
 Lee 7

two forms of non-self-determined motivation (i.e., non-self-determined extrinsic

motivation, amotivation). Extrinsic motivation is classified into self-determined
and non-self-determined extrinsic motivation, whereas intrinsic motivation is self-
determined. Senécal et al. (1995) suggested that students who had intrinsic rea-
sons for pursuing their studies were less likely to procrastinate, whereas those who
had extrinsic reasons were more likely to procrastinate. These previous findings
lead one to question if the relationship of procrastination to motivation is differ-
ent depending on whether motivation is self-determined or non-self-determined.
However, few researchers have examined this proposition.
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

On the basis of previous research results, I expected that procrastination would

negatively correlate with self-determined motivation and positively correlate with
non-self-determined motivation. That is, students with high self-determined extrin-
sic motivation, although they are extrinsically motivated, would be less likely to
procrastinate.
I also examined the flow experience of academic procrastinators. When
doing an activity, students sometimes become totally immersed in the activity to
the point of losing awareness of time, surroundings, and all other things except
the activity itself. Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990) used the term flow to describe
this optimal psychological state. The flow state includes many, if not all, of the
following characteristics: (a) the existence of a balance between the perceived
skills of an individual and the perceived challenges of a situation, (b) the pres-
ence of clear goals, (c) the presence of unambiguous feedback, (d) concentration
on the task at hand, (e) a loss of self-consciousness, and (f) a transformation of
time (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson & Marsh, 1996).
Many researchers have suggested that individuals who are highly motivated
would experience high instances of the flow state (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre,
1989; Graef, Csikszentmihalyi, & McManama-Gianinno, 1983; Haworth & Hill,
1992). Specifically, Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre demonstrated a positive link
between intrinsic motivation and the experience of this psychological state. When
people are freely doing what interests them (intrinsically motivated behaviors),
their behaviors are characterized by concentration and engagement that occurs
spontaneously and they become wholly absorbed in the activity (Csikszentmi-
halyi & Nakamura, 1989).
More recently, Kowal and Fortier (1999) demonstrated that individuals who
were motivated in a self-determined manner reported high instances of flow. They
suggested that self-determined forms of motivation might facilitate flow, whereas
non-self-determined forms of motivation might have detrimental influences on
flow states. Somuncuoglu and Yildirim (1999) also suggested that students who
were motivated in a self-determined manner were likely to be deeply engaged in
their learning process and to consequently experience the flow state.
Flow is an intrinsically enjoyable state and is accompanied by a number of
positive experiential characteristics, including feelings of control and enjoyment
of the process (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Therefore, one can assume that students
 8 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

who experience flow state are not likely to put off their learning tasks until later.
Messmer (2001) suggested that one of the keys to perform an activity in flow state
is to avoid procrastination. The author assumed that flow experience would be
associated not only with high self-determined motivation, but also with low pro-
crastination. However, these assumptions were speculative and no researchers
have examined the relationship between the extent of procrastination and flow
experience.
On the basis of previous research findings, I sought to clarify the motiva-
tional patterns and flow experiences of academic procrastinators. Specifically, I
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

examined the relationships between students’ academic procrastination and their

motivation and flow experience. I also was interested in exploring whether the
presumed relationships between procrastination and flow experiences were
caused by the covariance between flow and motivation or whether they were inde-
pendent of motivational effects. Therefore, I examined whether flow experiences
continued to be significantly related to procrastination even when the effects of
motivation measures were considered.

Method

Participants

The original participants for this study were 277 college students enrolled at
two relatively small universities in South Korea. I found invalid response profiles
(i.e., lack of variability, incomplete data) for 15 students, so I dropped their data
from the sample analyses. Analyses were based on 262 college students (138 men,
124 women). Students represented a variety of academic majors, and they were
enrolled in an educational psychology course. They ranged in age from 18 to 24
years (M age = 20.02, SD = 1.20). The majority of the students (84%) were sopho-
mores; 12% were freshmen, and 4% were seniors.

Procedures

In the second month of the first semester, I asked students to complete the writ-
ten questionnaire packets in their regular classrooms. I explained to the students
that the purpose of the questionnaire was to gain a better understanding of college
students’ feelings and behaviors related to learning activities. The questionnaire
took 20 min to complete. All responses were anonymous and confidential.

Measures

First, I translated the Procrastination Scale developed by Tuckman (1991) into

Korean and administered the instrument to assess students’ procrastination ten-
dencies. The scale contains 16 items using 4-point Likert-type response format
 Lee 9

from very true (4) to not at all true (1). Items on the scale include: “I needlessly
delay finishing jobs, even when they’re important,” “I postpone starting in on
things I don’t like to do,” and “When I have a deadline, I wait till the last minute.”
The reliability of the scale (Cronbach’s α) was .83 in this sample.
I administered the Korean version of the Flow State Scale (Jackson & Marsh,
1996) to assess flow. Because this scale was developed from athletes’ descrip-
tions of being in flow, I asked students to relate questions to the thoughts and feel-
ings they might have experienced during the learning process. The original ver-
sion consisted of nine subscales, but I included only the five subscales that
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

attained an acceptable level of reliability. The five subscales were: challenge–skill

balance (“I felt I was competent enough to meet the high demands of the situa-
tion”); clear goals (“I knew clearly what I wanted to do”); unambiguous feedback
(“I had a good idea while I was performing about how well I was doing”); con-
centration on task at hand (“My attention was focused entirely on what I was
doing”); and loss of self-consciousness (“I was not concerned with what others
may have been thinking of me”). Each subscale assessed four items. Students
rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale in terms of their level of agreement,
high agreement (5) or disagreement (1). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for five
subscales ranged from .77 to .84 (M = .80).
Finally, I translated the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1993)
into Korean and used the instrument to assess students’ learning motivation. Each
item of this scale represents a possible reason for why students go to school. In
the present study, I adopted intrinsic motivation, self-determined extrinsic moti-
vation, non-self-determined extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Examples
from each construct include: “because I experience pleasure and satisfaction
while learning new things” (intrinsic motivation); “because I think that education
will help me better prepare for the career I have chosen” (self-determined extrin-
sic motivation); “to get a more prestigious job later on” (non-self-determined
extrinsic motivation); and “I really feel that I am wasting my time at school”
(amotivation). I gave four possible responses for each of the four subscales, that
yielded a 16-item scale. Students rated the items on a 7-point Likert-type scale
from very true (7) to not at all true (1). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each
construct ranged from .83 to .93 (M = .86) in this sample.

Results

The first research question of this study concerned the relationships of stu-
dents’ academic procrastination with their motivation and flow experience.
Results are presented in Table 1. As expected, procrastination was significantly
and positively related to amotivation. I obtained a significant, negative correla-
tion between procrastination and self-determined extrinsic motivation and intrin-
sic motivation. Contrary to my prediction, non-self-determined extrinsic motiva-
tion was not significantly associated with procrastination. The results also showed
 Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

10

TABLE 1. Intercorrelations of Procrastination With Motivation and Flow (N = 262)

Motivation Flow
PRO AMO NSDEM SDEM INT Skill Goal Feed Conc Self

PRO —
AMO .28*** —
NSDEM .11 .39*** —
The Journal of Genetic Psychology

SDEM –.13* –.40*** .16** —

INT –.24*** –.50*** –.06 .36*** —
Skill –.30*** –.28*** –.16* .20** .30*** —
Goal –.41*** –.36*** –.03 .38*** .38*** .54*** —
Feed –.32*** –.18** –.13* .23*** .21** .49*** .64*** —
Conc –.29*** –.07 –.01 .07 .11 .39*** .32*** .25*** —
Self –.49*** –.12* –.19** –.06 .04 .22*** .08 .14* .15* —
M 2.78 1.95 2.10 2.13 3.63 3.50 3.16 3.41 2.67 3.38
SD .52 .73 .61 .68 .78 .71 .70 .67 .77 .81

Note. PRO = procrastination; AMO = amotivation; NSDEM = non-self-determined extrinsic motivation; SDEM = self-determined extrinsic motivation;
INT= intrinsic motivation; Skill = challenge-skill balance; Goal = clear goal; Feed = unambiguous feedback; Conc = concentration on the task at hand;
Self = loss of self-consciousness.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
 Lee 11

that procrastination was significantly and negatively correlated with all five of the
flow subscales.
I conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to investigate the
independent and joint contribution of motivation and flow measures to predict the
students’ academic procrastination. There were two purposes in performing this
multiple regression analysis. First, I was interested in determining whether flow
measures continued to be significantly related to procrastination even when the
effects of motivation variables were taken into account. Second, I wanted to iden-
tify motivation and flow variables, which were the strongest predictors of pro-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

crastination. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 2.

In the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, I entered four
motivation measures that accounted for 9% of the variance in students’ procras-
tination, F(4, 257) = 6.38, p < .001. Amotivation and intrinsic motivation were
significant predictors, and non-self-determined extrinsic motivation and self-
determined extrinsic motivation were not significant.
In the second step of the analysis, I entered the five flow measures. When I
added this set to the prediction equation, it accounted for an additional 32% of
the variance in procrastination, which constituted a significant increase in the
explained variance, F(7, 250) = 19.28, p < .001. I found significant negative
effects for loss of self-consciousness, clear goal, and concentration on the task-

TABLE 2. Results of the Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Pro-

crastination

β
Variable Step 1 Step 2

Motivation
amotivation .19* .11
non-self-determined extrinsic motivation .03 –.04
self-determined extrinsic motivation –.01 .03
intrinsic motivation –.14* –.07
Flow
challenge–skill balance .08
clear goal –.28***
unambiguous feedback –.06
concentration on the task –.14**
loss of self-consciousness –.44***
F value 6.38*** 19.28***
R2 .09*** .41***
∆R 2 .32***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

 12 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

at-hand items. Furthermore, after I entered these flow measures into the analysis,
motivation measures no longer had a significant unique effect. These results indi-
cated that procrastination was best predicted by students’ flow experiences rather
than by motivation. That is, the students who concentrated on the task at hand
and had clear goals with little self-consciousness tended not to procrastinate in
their academic work.

Discussion
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

In this study, I demonstrated that students who were motivated in a self-

determined manner (i.e., who engaged in practice for the pleasure and satisfac-
tion associated with the activity or who chose to participate for their own bene-
fit) reported low procrastination tendencies. Conversely, students with high
amotivation who had no sense of control over their learning processes reported
high procrastination tendencies. These results are consistent with Senécal et al.
(1995), in which less autonomous forms of motivation were associated with
higher levels of procrastination.
Furthermore, the relationship of extrinsic motivation to procrastination var-
ied depending on whether the task was self-determined or non-self-determined.
That is, high extrinsic motivation did not elicit procrastinating behaviors if it was
self-determined. These results indicated that procrastination was an individual
behavioral tendency associated with the lack of self-determination.
Few researchers have examined the relationship between procrastination
and flow experiences. In the present study, I showed that students’ procrastina-
tion tendencies were negatively related with their flow experiences. The more
students procrastinate in doing their academic work, the less likely they are to
experience flow state in learning processes. Specifically, students who were out
of balance between the perceived skills of themselves and the perceived chal-
lenges of a task were likely to procrastinate in their studies. In addition, students
who did not have clear goals, did not concentrate on the task at hand and had
high self-consciousness showed high procrastination tendencies.
These results provide useful strategies for teachers to reduce students’ pro-
crastination tendencies. That is, teachers should be sensitive to the balance
between students’ skills and the challenges of the task. In addition, teachers need
to help students to have clear goals in their work, to concentrate on the task at
hand, and to not be excessively self-conscious in learning.
Furthermore, in the present study, I found that procrastination was predicted
mainly by students’ flow experiences rather than by motivation. Although amotiva-
tion and intrinsic motivation showed significant unique effects on procrastination,
motivation did not contribute significantly to the variance in procrastination when
the effects caused by flow experience were considered. The results imply that the
relationship between procrastination and motivation was caused mainly by the
covariance between flow and motivation. At the same time, the results shed light on
 Lee 13

the flow, which rarely has been examined by researchers studying procrastination.
Therefore, this study contributes to the understanding of procrastination by explor-
ing significant correlations of students’ procrastinating behaviors.
I found that self-consciousness was the strongest and most significant predic-
tor among the five flow subscales. That is, high procrastinators were more likely to
be concerned with what others may have been thinking of them, how they were pre-
senting themselves, and about their performance during the learning process. These
results are consistent with Covington (1992) and Ferrari, Johnson, and McCown
(1995), who found that some people procrastinated as an avoidance technique to
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

protect their self-esteem. If they did poorly, then they could say that it was because
they put off studying until the last moment. If they did well despite procrastinating,
then others would perceive them as particularly able. By procrastinating, students
cloud the causal factors involved in performance, such that in the event of poor per-
formance, one may attribute the low grade to lack of effort rather than to low abil-
ity. In line with previous findings, on the basis of this study, I suggest that students
who are concerned with others’ evaluation may try to avoid the situation in which
they are to be evaluated by procrastinating their academic tasks. Teachers and edu-
cators should provide students with the learning environment in which comparison
and competition among students are not prominent.
The results of the present study contribute to theory and practice by high-
lighting the association of procrastination with motivation and flow experience.
If the conditions that increase the use of procrastination can be identified, then
perhaps these conditions can be changed. Therefore, this study should be of inter-
est to educators and counseling psychologists who, in their work with students,
seek to develop effective interventions that reduce task delays and increase per-
sonal responsibility for academic performance.
However, several limits of this study suggest that researchers should be cau-
tious in drawing definitive conclusions from the results. First, although the pre-
sent results indicated that motivation and flow are significant predictors of pro-
crastination, the amount of variance accounted for is modest. Another limitation
of the present study is that I selected the sample in a nonrandom way, and all of
the participants were Koreans. Thus, participants may not be representative of
university students in general. In future studies, researchers should consider
diverse populations to determine the robustness of the findings.

REFERENCES
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
ogy, 15, 41–63.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Jour-
nal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 815–822.
 14 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A

study of adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in educa-
tion (pp. 45–71) Vol. 3. San Diego, CA. Academic Press.
Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behav-
ior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation
(pp. 237–288) Vol. 38. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ferrari, J., Johnson, J., & McCown, W. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: The-
Downloaded by [Duke University Libraries] at 07:36 08 September 2013

ory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum.

Graef, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & McManama-Gianinno, S. (1983). Measuring intrinsic
motivation in everyday life. Leisure Studies, 2, 155–168.
Haworth, J., & Hill, S. (1992). Work, leisure, and psychological well-being in a sample of
young adults. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology, 2, 147–160.
Jackson, S., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure opti-
mal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18,
17–35.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from
self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355–368.
Messmer, M. (2001). Becoming a peak performer. Strategic Finance, 82(8), 8–10.
Rothblum, E., Solomon, L., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral
differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
33, 387–394.
Senécal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procras-
tination. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 607–619.
Solomon, L., & Rothblum, E. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive–
behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
Somuncuoglu, Y., & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal orienta-
tions and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 267–277.
Tuckman, B. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination
Scale. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 473–480.
Tuckman, B. (1998). Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastinators to study. Jour-
nal of Experimental Education, 66, 141–147.
Tuckman, B., & Sexton, T. (1989, April). Effects of relative feedback in overcoming pro-
crastination on academic tasks. Paper given at the meeting of the American Psycholog-
ical Association, New Orleans, LA.
Vallerand, R., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). On the predictive effects of intrinsic, extrinsic, and
amotivational styles on behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.
Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., Blais, M., Briere, N., Senécal, C., & Vallieres, E. (1992). The
Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in edu-
cation. Education and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017.
Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., Blais, M., Briere, N., Senécal, C., & Vallieres, E. (1993). On
the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the
concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Education & Psy-
chological Measurement, 53, 159–172.
Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastination behav-
ior on college performance. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 54, 404–408.

Received December 8, 2004