Alvaro Donato Gonzalez Thesis - ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND READING ABILITY AS A PREDICTOR OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS PDF

ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND READING ABILITY AS A PREDICTOR OF
ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
PSYCHOLOGY
(COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)
by
Alvaro Donato Gonzalez
SUMMER
2014
A Thesis
by
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair

Phillip Akutsu, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader

Marya Endriga, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader

Rebecca Cameron, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Alvaro Donato Gonzalez
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________

Jianjian Qin, Ph.D. Date
Department of Psychology
iii
Abstract
of
by
The current study examined ethnic differences in procrastination on six academic tasks
between 58 Asian, 28 African, 73 Latino, and 93White American college students, while
controlling for the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. In addition, reading
vocabulary, reading comprehension, task aversiveness, and fear of failure were examined
to determine which would be stronger predictors of procrastination among the six
academic tasks. Results showed ethnicity was the strongest predictor for keeping up with
weekly reading assignments. Reading vocabulary was the strongest predictor for
procrastination on performing academic tasks in general. Task aversiveness and fear of
failure were the strongest predictors of procrastination for writing a term paper and
studying for an exam. Task aversiveness was also the strongest predictor of
procrastination for attending meetings.
_______________________, Committee Chair

Phillip Akutsu, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to give my thanks and appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Phillip
Akutsu. His encouragement and guidance have sustained me throughout graduate school
and the thesis-writing process.
I am extremely grateful to my parents for their unfailing support and
encouragement. They have communicated their love and confidence in me through words
and gestures, and I have so much appreciation for all that they have done and continue to
do for me.
I am thankful for all current and past members of the research lab, Ting Ting Lee,
Ho Man Cheung, Tyler Virden, Chelsea Castillo, and Vanessa Mendez, who provided
their guidance, support, and encouragement.
I would also like to extend my thanks towards Dr. Marya Endriga and Dr.
Rebecca Cameron for joining my thesis committee and providing helpful feedback
throughout the project.
Finally, I am grateful to my fiancée, Kristin DeWaal, who has been my best
friend, cheering section, and more. Thank you for your love and patience, especially
through the difficult times. My ability to successfully complete this thesis and graduate
school is a reflection of your unwavering support and faith in me
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION..…………….………………………………………………… 1
Academic Procrastination ................................................................................. 3
Procrastination and Academic Performance ..................................................... 5
Procrastination and Ethnicity ........................................................................... 7
Procrastination and Other Demographic Factors ........................................... 11
Task Aversiveness .......................................................................................... 12
Fear of Failure ................................................................................................. 13
Reading Ability, Procrastination, and Academic Performance ...................... 16
Summary ......................................................................................................... 26
Present Study .................................................................................................. 29
2. METHOD ............................................................................................................. 34
Participants ...................................................................................................... 34
Measures and Scales ....................................................................................... 35
Procedures ....................................................................................................... 39
3. RESULTS. ............................................................................................................ 40
4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 69
vi
Summary and Interpretation of Findings in the Context of Previous
Literature ......................................................................................................... 69
Limitations ............................................................................................…….. 74
Clinical Implications ....................................................................................... 76
Future Directions in Research ......................................................................... 77
References ............................................................................................................................. 81
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Six Academic Procrastination Tasks,
Overall Procrastination, Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Task
Aversiveness, and Fear of Failure by Ethnicity……………...............................… 42
2. Correlations between Age, SES, the Six Academic Tasks, Overall Procrastination,
Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Task Aversiveness, and Fear of
Failure. .………………………………………………………...……………....… 44
3. Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL
SES, Ethnicity, and Reading Vocabulary as Predictors of Procrastination in
Keeping Up With Weekly Reading Assignments……………………….…….…50
4. Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL,
SES, Ethnicity, and Reading Vocabulary as Predictors of Procrastination in
Performing Academic Tasks in General……………………..…………………… 51
5. Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL,
SES, Ethnicity, and Reading Comprehension Score as Predictors of Procrastination
in Keeping Up With Weekly Reading Assignments……….………………….….. 53
6. Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, SES,
Ethnicity, Reading Vocabulary and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of
Procrastination in Writing a Term Paper……………………………….……….... 56
viii
Ethnicity, Reading Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of
Procrastination in Studying for Exams…………………………………..….......... 57
Procrastination in Keeping Up with Weekly Reading Assignments.…………….. 59
Procrastination in Attending meetings………………………………..………........60
Procrastination in Performing Academic Tasks in General…………………….… 62
Ethnicity, Reading Vocabulary, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of Procrastination
in Writing a Term Paper Paper……………………………………….…..…….… 63
in Studying for Exams………………………………………………………….… 65
in Keeping Up with Weekly Reading Assignments…………………...…………. 66
ix
in Performing Academic Tasks in General…………………………………….… 68
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Academic procrastination - unnecessarily delaying academic activities that one
ultimately intends to complete to the point of creating emotional discomfort - is a very
common and troubling phenomenon among undergraduate students (Klassen, Krawchuk,
& Rajani, 2008; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007). These academic tasks range
from simple homework assignments to the completion of a senior thesis. Estimates of
procrastination among undergraduate students indicate that 70%-90% engage in some
type of procrastination with 70% considering themselves as “procrastinators” and 20%
who procrastinate consistently and problematically (Klassen et al., 2008; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007).
Although some procrastination is expected and normal, problematic and habitual
procrastination can have negative consequences for undergraduate students (Chu & Choi,
2005; Ferrari, O’Callaghan, & Newbegin, 2005; Klassen et al., 2008; Onwuegbuzie,
2004). Students who procrastinate habitually have been linked to poor academic
performance (Klassen et al., 2010; Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Steel, 2007). Academic
procrastination is connected with negative behaviors and outcomes, which include but are
not limited to submitting late assignments, missing academic deadlines, cramming, test
and social anxiety, lower quality work, lower grades, and lower grade point averages
(Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Klassen et al., 2008; Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, &
Blunt, 2000). Students who procrastinate can suffer from both affective and health
2
problems (Beck, Koons, & Milgram, 2000). Past studies have shown that students who
procrastinate more often suffer from depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and an increase
in psychological distress (Ferrari et al., 1995; Rice, Richardson, & Clark, 2012). Due to
these negative outcomes, research has studied procrastination extensively and has
proposed various factors as contributors and predictors. These contributors and
predictors include task aversiveness and fear of failure (Clark & Hill, 1995; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984).
It is important to study academic procrastination so we can help students who are
suffering from this problematic behavior. While there has been extensive research on
academic procrastination and interventions to help students with this problem (Ferrari et
al., 1995), more research should be conducted to focus on other possible factors that may
contribute to procrastination. The information that is gathered through research and data
can help develop programs and treatments for students within the school setting. By
gathering more information, educators may be able to help prevent or see early warning
signs that students may be taking part in procrastination behaviors.
This literature review will address the following issues: 1) how often students
procrastinate, the types of tasks that undergraduate students procrastinate on, and
methodology; 2) how procrastination affects academic performance; 3) ethnic
differences; 4) demographic factors; 5) the different factors that contribute to academic
procrastination such as task aversivenes, and fear of failure; and 6) reading ability and its
relationship with procrastination.

3
Academic Procrastination
Academic procrastination is the postponement of academic tasks that include
writing term papers, studying for exams, and keeping up with reading assignments
(Ferrari et al., 1995). Among undergraduates, procrastination includes a wide range of
behaviors including watching television, napping, exercising, playing, surfing the web,
and eating/drinking which delay or restrict the completion of specific tasks of greater
academic importance (Pychyl et al., 2000). Past research indicates the rate of chronic
problematic academic procrastination among college students is 70%-95% (Klassen et
al., 2008). Among colleges students, about one-third of their daily activities consisted of
some form of procrastination (e.g., watching television, playing a game, spending time
with friends) instead of non-procrastination activities such as studying, reading, or
working on homework (Pychyl et al., 2000). Although procrastination has been studied
using different methodologies, the majority of studies have used questionnaires or
surveys to gather information among subjects and this method is considered a good
format for studying procrastination (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Beck et al.,
2000; Klassen et al., 2008; Seo, 2008). Students have reported they tend to procrastinate
more when writing term papers in comparison to completing reading assignments,
studying for exams, attending to administrative tasks including registering for classes,
filling out proper academic forms, obtaining a student identification card, or completing
attendance tasks which include making appointments with advisors and professors
(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). In contrast, other studies report students tend to
procrastinate more on completing reading assignments than writing term papers or

4
studying (Clark & Hill, 1994). Although Clark and Hill (1994) reported more students
procrastinating on reading assignments than writing term papers and studying, the overall
results of their were similar to those of Solomon and Rothblum (1984). Both used the
Procrastination Assessment Scale - Students (PASS), but one major difference between
these two studies was that Clark and Hill (1994) focused only on African American
college students, while Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984) subjects were only White
American college students. Both studies performed a factor analysis on a major portion
of the PASS that assessed possible reasons for procrastination and discovered that fear of
failure and task aversiveness accounted for the majority of variance in predicting
procrastination (Clark & Hill, 1994; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). In general, students
who report higher levels of procrastination tend to do poorer academically than students
who report lower levels of procrastination behaviors (Klassen et al., 2008). These
students who procrastinate regularly also tend to experience higher levels of stress,
anxiety, and depression in comparison to students who report lower levels of
procrastination (Klassen et al., 2010). Although some amount of procrastination is
considered to be average and normal (Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, & Ferrari, 2004),
procrastination is considered a serious and widespread problem that affects college
students across different university settings (Klassen et al., 2010).
In a comprehensive review of the literature on academic procrastination, the
majority of studies have used the PASS questionnaire (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie,
2007; Beck et al., 2000; Clark and Hill, 1995; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), Lay’s
procrastination scale (e.g. Ferrari et al., 1995; Ferrari et al., 2005; Harriott & Ferrari,
5
1996), or some other procrastination measure such as Tuckman’s 16-item procrastination
measure (e.g., Klassen et al. 2008; Klassen et al., 2010). Past studies on academic
procrastination that used all three measures have reported good validity and reliability.
As stated earlier, although most studies use surveys to study academic
procrastination, other studies have used different research methodologies to examine
procrastination. For example, Pychyl et al. (2000) used experience-sampling to collect
data on procrastination through the use of pagers and self-reports. In this study, the
students were randomly “paged” during the day to describe their current activity and
whether they considered themselves to be procrastinating at that exact moment.
Although this study found somewhat similar results to other procrastination studies that
used questionnaires, the limitation of this method was that it only captured a small
window of opportunity to see what the students were doing with their time. According to
the study, one-third of the students’ daily activities were considered “procrastinating”.
However, this ratio may be only capturing a student’s normal day-to-day experiences and
not providing the actual daily experience of a chronic procrastinator. In contrast,
proponents who use different research methods other than questionnaires to study
procrastination could argue the survey method could lead to students under-reporting
their procrastination behaviors due to major concerns about social desirability (De Jong,
Pieters, & Fox, 2010).
Procrastination and Academic Performance
Overall, the relationship between procrastination and academic performance has
been a negative one. Several studies have pointed out that procrastination can negatively
6
impact academic learning and achievement and has been found to be associated with
negative academic outcomes including missed deadlines for assignments, delay in taking
self-paced quizzes, low course grades, and higher course withdrawal (Onwuegbuzie,
2004). For example, students who report higher levels of procrastination have lower
grade point averages in comparison to students who report lower levels of procrastination
(Klassen et al., 2010; Steel, 2007). Although Steel (2007) explained the relationship
between these two variable was a relatively weak one, he stated that “procrastination is
usually harmful, sometimes harmless, but never helpful” (p. 80). Other negative
consequences of chronic academic procrastination included compromised academic
performance and progress, decreased learning, and strained relationships between
students and professors. In contrast, procrastination has been shown to be beneficial for
academic procrastination in some cases. This may be explained in the sense that some
students perform better while working under heightened stress and pressure and may
procrastinate to set up such stress inducing conditions (Chu & Choi, 2005). Research has
also shown that procrastinators tend to experience less stress and illness than non-
procrastinators earlier in the semester by avoiding anxiety-provoking behavior at the start
of the term (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Superstitious behavior may also explain why
individuals believe they can benefit from engaging in procrastination. Superstitious
behaviors arise when an individual is positively rewarded for engaging in procrastination
in previous academic experiences or situations. That is, procrastination is accidentally
reinforced (possibly via classical conditioning) because the individual associates the
positive reward with his/her procrastination behavior rather than it being due to his/her
7
increased efforts and activity while working under time pressure and this incorrect
assumption then increases the likelihood of procrastination occurring again to ensure the
same positive results. This procrastination behavior, however, does not have a clear
function in the execution of the academic task itself (Foster, Weigand, & Baines, 2006).
Procrastination and Ethnicity
Ethnicity is another important factor that many studies have researched about
academic procrastination. However, there are mixed results as to whether ethnicity is a
good predictor of procrastination. Some research suggests that there are no ethnic
differences with regards to academic procrastination in college student populations
(Prohaska et al., 2000). In fact, past research has shown similar results concerning
procrastination behaviors between African American and White American college
students. In both the Clark and Hill (1994) and Solomon and Rothblum (1984) studies,
approximately 30 to 35% of the subjects reported serious problems of procrastination on
writing assignments, studying for exams, and keeping up with weekly reading
assignments. Prohaska et al. (2000) examined ethnic differences in a population
composed mostly of ethnic minority students. Using the overall procrastination score
from the PASS, Prohaska et al. (2000) found no ethnic differences among African,
Latino, and White American college students. Although there were no overall
procrastination score differences among the ethnic groups, Prohaska et al. (2000) had
found that his results were similar to Clark and Hill’s study (1984) when comparing the
frequency of procrastination and whether the procrastination was considered problematic
on six different academic tasks with those reported in Solomon and Rothblum’s study
8
(1984). Both Prohaska’s (2000) and Clark and Hill’s (1994) studies, whose populations
were primarily composed of ethnic minority students, reported significant differences on
certain procrastination behaviors compared to Solomon and Rothblum’s population of
White American students. What the data revealed was that frequency in procrastination
for weekly reading assignments and activities in general were significantly higher
compared to those observed by Solomon and Rothblum (1984), but they were
significantly lower for writing a term paper and engaging in attendance tasks. Solomon
and Rothblum (1984) found that among a primarily White American population, the
academic tasks that involved the most procrastination were writing a term paper and
engaging in attendance tasks while Prohaska et al. (2000) and Clark and Hill (1994),
found that ethnic minorities procrastinated more on weekly reading assignments and
activities in general.
Although there has been research to suggest there are significant ethnic
differences on procrastination between African American, Latino, and White Americans,
there is very little research that has examined Asian American differences with other
ethnic groups. This gap in literature is likely to be a product of the “model minority”
myth surrounding Asian Americans (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Studies on Asian
American academic work ethic and success provide evidence for a pattern of high
academic achievement among Asian American students (Yao, 2010). The most popular
theories on why Asian Americans are successful in academia focus on the influence of
Asian American cultural values, particularly values that emphasize the importance of
education and hard work, the need to fulfill family obligations, and the need to respect
9
elders such as parents and teachers (Yao, 2010). Most children are aware of their
parent’s high expectations for academic success and associate their good performance
with their parent’s happiness, honor, and pride. Eighty percent of Asian American
parents expected their child to obtain at least a bachelors degree in comparison to 62% of
White American parents, 58% of African American parents, and 50% of Latino parents
(Peng & Wright, 1994). High academic expectations and performance is also reinforced
by their peer groups. The majority of Asian American students who are placed in honors
level classes tended to motivate each other more and distract each other less compared to
students in regular classes (Peng & Wright, 1994). Studies have shown that Asian
American students devote more time to their studies and were more likely to credit their
academic success to hard work and effort (Peng & Wright, 1994). Specifically, Asian
American students reported spending twice as much time on homework per week than
other students (Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). As a result, Asian American
students tend to be perceived as diligent, industrious, quiet, and respectful. These
perceptions reinforce the image of Asian Americans as the “model minority”. The lack
in research on Asian American students and procrastination might also be a product of
racism in research due to the model minority myth. Many times, researchers do not find
differences because they assume that all Asian American students are the same and do
not take into account that there are many different cultures within the scope of Asian
Americans (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Asian American students may often not be
included in studies of ethnicity because there is the misconception that they do not
encounter major challenges such as African and Latino American students (Museus &
10
Kiang, 2009). One final reason why they may not be included in studies of ethnicity is
because there are a high number of Asian Americans with college degrees and
researchers consider them to be successful. Although Asian Americans do have higher
numbers of college degrees, they still report with lower wager and hold fewer managerial
positions than non-Asian American peers (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Although there is no
explicit research that states Asian Americans procrastinate less than African, Latino, and
White American students, past research has shown that their work ethic and expectations
of academic success may be a good predictor of less procrastination behaviors and they
may be similar in procrastination to White American students, however due to the model
minority myth, not all Asian American students will do well.
Although research has shown no consistent ethnic differences in overall
procrastination, this may have to do to the assessment measure being used in previous
research. One limitation with past studies and the PASS was the way that procrastination
was operationally defined and measured. To measure procrastination, the majority of
studies using the PASS calculated a single overall score by summing the scores of 5-point
Likert scales on the frequency of procrastination and whether the student viewed their
procrastination as problematic on six academic tasks (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007;
Beck et al., 2000; Clark & Hill, 1995; Collins et al., 2008; Prohaska et al., 2000; Solomon
& Rothblum, 1984). The problem with operationally defining procrastination using this
method is that a student may report a high frequency of procrastination on a particular
academic task, but then may report that his or her procrastination is not problematic. The
summed score method on the PASS may also reflect a student who procrastinates very
11
little, but reports that his or her level of procrastination is very problematic. The problem
with using a summed score for procrastination using scales that measure frequency and
whether it is considered problematic is that it is difficult to determine whether the
student’s high overall procrastination score may be due to high frequency or viewing
procrastination as very problematic. It would be beneficial to examine the frequency of
procrastination and whether procrastination is viewed as problematic for different
academic tasks separately to determine any significant differences in procrastination in
specific academic areas in comparison to the summed overall procrastination score that
has been used in the past. The Prohaska et al. study (2000) provides a good example of
such an approach where there were no significant ethnic differences reported for the
overall PASS procrastination score, but some significant ethnic differences were reported
when frequency scores and whether procrastination is considered problematic scores
were viewed independently.
Procrastination and Other Demographic Factors
With regard to age and academic procrastination, among college students who
were 21 years of age or younger, no significant age differences have been reported
(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Yet, others have found a significant negative relationship
between age and procrastination when age is extended to include students who were older
than 21 years of age (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Prohaska et al., 2000).
Specifically, students whose ages were 21 and older reported less academic
procrastination that students under the age of 21.

12
The literature concerning gender differences on academic procrastination is
somewhat mixed. Although some studies have indicated no significant gender
differences in the incidence of procrastination (Ferrari, Özer, & Demir, 2009; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007), other studies have reported that men are more at risk for
being procrastinators than women (Milgram, Marshevsky, & Sadeh, 1994; Özer, Demir,
& Ferrari, 2009; Prohaska, Morrill, Atiles, & Perez, 2000).
The relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and procrastination has
very limited research. Chow (2011) concluded there may be a significant relationship
between SES and procrastination. This study reported that students who came from
lower SES backgrounds worried more about their financial situation than students who
came from a high SES background and an earlier study showed a strong relationship
between worrying and procrastination, where individuals who worried a lot tend to
procrastinate more than those who do not worry as much (Stober & Joorman, 2001).
Task Aversiveness
Task aversiveness is defined as how unenjoyable it is to perform a given task, and
is often associated with procrastination (Clark & Hill, 1994; Klassen et al., 2010;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Task aversiveness is positively related to procrastination
and is one of the factors that is most strongly associated with it (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000).
Research has shown that individuals were more likely to report higher levels of
procrastination for unpleasant tasks than for tasks viewed as neutral or pleasant (Milgram
et al., 1995). These types of aversive academic tasks were also considered to be the least
interesting and most challenging (Steel, 2007). In academia, writing term papers appears
13
to be a task that most college students procrastinate on, while less difficult and more
interesting tasks such as reading or researching were less likely to involve procrastination
(Klassen et al., 2010). As past research has shown, students tend to procrastinate on tasks
that are more challenging or difficult. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) concluded that the
likelihood of procrastination on a specific task depends on how unpleasant it is to
complete it. Boredom, frustration, and resentment are relatively stable components of
task aversiveness and there is a significant correlation between task aversiveness and
procrastination (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000).
There is currently little to no research on ethnic differences in task aversiveness.
However, because ethnic minority students tend to do more poorly academically and are
often not as prepared for college, they may view certain academic tasks as harder or more
unpleasant than White American students. As such, they might have higher levels of task
aversiveness on academic tasks than White American students.
Fear of Failure
Fear of failure is a common factor that is discussed when dealing with
procrastination in academia. A number of studies have shown that fear of failure is
positively related to procrastination (e.g., Prohaska et al., 2000; Clark & Hill, 1995;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). According to Ferrari et al. (1995), academic
procrastination can be viewed as a fear of academic failure. Students who experience
high levels of fear of failure will experience greater worry and anxiety about an
upcoming academic task such as an exam. In order to deal with the worry and anxiety
associated with the task, the student will avoid (procrastinate) this task and replace it with
14
another activity that is distracting or more pleasurable. By doing this, the student is
relieving any anxiety and worry that he or she may be feeling about the upcoming task
and this anxiety-reduction tends to reinforce his or her avoidance behavior (Ferrari et al.,
1995). By putting off studying for a major test, the student can say, “I know I could have
done better if I had had more time to study.” By doing this, procrastination may also be
seen as a self-handicapping strategy (Beck et al., 2000). Students may put off studying so
that they can attribute their test failure to the lack of studying rather than deficits in their
personal intellectual abilities. Therefore if a failure occurs, it is attributed to the lack of
preparation (i.e., limited study time due to procrastination) instead of the lack of
academic ability on the part of the individual (Smith, Snyder, & Perkins, 1983). By
engaging in procrastination behaviors, the student is protecting his or her self-esteem
because this process externalizes the failure rather than internalizing or attributing it to an
internal deficit. Self-handicapping can be linked to the self-serving bias. Students who
handicap themselves to prevent taking responsibility for personal failure provide an
example of this self-serving bias (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Smith et al., 1983). Research
has also shown that simply having test scores or grades associated with failure might
instigate avoidant behaviors (e.g., procrastination) (Schüler, Brandstätter, & Baumann,
2013).
There is very little research that has examined ethnic differences on fear of
failure. Past research has shown that African American, Latino American, and American
Indian students report with higher levels of fear of failure than White American students
(Coney& West, 1979; Evans, 2008). However, this research failed to consider that many
15
ethnic minority students come from lower socioeconomic status (SES) and have more
family obligations to work full time to help their families survive. Due to more financial
issues and higher family obligations, there is the possibility of a higher likelihood that the
student with lower SES may fail academically. Beyond financial issues, Latino
American and American Indian student also have reported higher levels of feeling
isolated and alone in academic settings. This heightened sense of isolation can contribute
to an increase in fear of failure because they lack the support that White American
students may have (Evans, 2008). The type of academic preparation by the student and
the academic setting and demands can also affect a student’s fear of failure. Past studies
have shown that Latino American and American Indian students verbalized their fear of
academic failure more than White American students, with many stating that the
academic program was more difficult than they had expected (Evans, 2008). Before
transferring to a 4-year college to complete a bachelor’s degree, many ethnic minority
students attend community colleges to reduce the costs of attending college and these
junior colleges may not prepare them as well. Also, American Indian students from
remote tribes or on reservations were unable to attain a highly competitive education
because their schools were not able to hire outstanding faculty due to the lack of financial
resources (Evans, 2008).
Aside from task aversiveness and fear of failure, research has also looked into
other factors that may contribute or decrease procrastination among students such as
self-efficacy, perfectionism, self-esteem, implicit theory, and self-control (Howell &
Buro, 2008; Flett et al., 2004; Klassen et al., 2010; Seo, 2008; Steel, 2007). While these
16
factors have shown some promise and may be important to study, task aversiveness and
fear of failure seem to have a fairly consistent and strong relationship with academic
procrastination.
Reading Ability, Procrastination, and Academic Performance
Past research have provided some evidence that reading ability may be a
significant predictor of procrastination. Due to the limited research available on reading
ability, procrastination, and academic performance with college students, a review of the
procrastination literature with other age groups will be cited in this section to help explain
how reading ability affects academic performance and procrastination. Reading ability
has been operationally defined in many ways in previous research including reading
comprehension and reading vocabulary (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2008; Derps &
Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Neddenriep & Hale, 2011). Reading comprehension is the level at
which an individual can understand the text and understand the interaction between the
words that are written. A student’s reading vocabulary pertains to the number of words
that he or she can easily recognize and understand when reading. The student’s ability to
read not only has an impact on current tasks that he or she may be working on, but the
outcome of those tasks would affect how the student views his or her ability to complete
those same tasks in the future (Klassen et al., 2008). For example, a student who does
not have strong reading ability may not do well with academic tasks that are primarily
reading-oriented.
The relationship between reading skills and academic achievement has been well-
documented in academia. Poor reading skills often lead to elevated dropout rates,
17
decreased grade retention, and overall poor academic achievement which can suppress an
individual’s learning potential (Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF], 2010; Neddenriep &
Hale, 2011). Within elementary school students, 33% of all fourth-graders in the U.S.
report test scores that are below a basic reading level (National Assessment Educational
Progress [NAEP], 2011). At the fourth-grade, students with a basic level of reading
ability should be able to locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use
their understanding of the text to identify details that support a given interpretation or
conclusion (NAEP, 2011). In 2009, 83% of the children from low-income families and
85% of low-income students who attended high-poverty schools in the U.S. failed to
reach a proficient level in reading (AECF, 2010). Having a higher level of reading ability
at elementary school was a good predictor of future academic success in high school. For
example, Georgia high school seniors who scored high on their reading ability in the
eighth grade were more successful on their Georgia High School Graduation Tests (Derps
& Onwuegbuzie, 2001). In 2002, 26% of all high school students in the U.S. reported
test scores that were below a basic reading level. At a basic reading level, a high school
student should be able to identify and relate aspects of the text to its overall meaning,
extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences, recognize interpretations, make
connections between ideas in the text to their personal experiences, and draw logical
conclusions (NAEP, 2011). Du Boulay (1999) believes that one of the biggest problems
in higher education is difficulty with reading with many students not being evaluated for
poor reading proficiency until they are well into their academic career. Students with
poor reading skills may find it more difficult to understand context within the literature
18
and this may lead to superficial understanding, which may result in poor grades on
assignments related to reading materials. They may also have difficulty attempting to
identify and interpret arguments that are presented in their academic text (Du Boulay,
1999).
In the U.S., there are also a significant number of students who have English as a
second language (ESL) and this can compromise their reading ability and academic
performance. For example, English language learners in U.S. schools have
disproportionately demonstrated reading difficulties at different grade levels according to
the National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Children who enter U.S. schools in
kindergarten and are English language learners face many challenges such as trying to
learn to read English which they are not yet proficient in (Kieffer, 2010). By fourth
grade, two out of every three Spanish-speaking students are unable to read English at
basic levels necessary for success in school. In the U.S., Latino students are retained or
held back more often, are disproportionately represented in special education programs,
and are 3 times more likely to drop out of school than White American students
(Petscher, 2009). The U.S. Department of Education (2002) reported that limited-
English-proficient (LEP) children are among the highest groups with reading failure. In
regard to college students, nursing students who speak English as a second language have
lower academic success compared with their native English-speaking counterparts
(Salamonson et al., 2010).
Many children with limited English proficiency may also have parents who are
poorly educated, come from low income families, and may attend schools that are
19
composed primarily of ethnic minorities and are low achieving (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998). With that in mind, socioeconomic status may be an important predictor to
consider with regard to reading success and failure. Low socioeconomic status families
also tend to receive less adequate nutrition, prenatal care, pediatric care, and incorporate
other conditions that may be detrimental to the health, safety, and development of young
children. Low SES children are more likely to report with poorer reading ability than
children who come from high-income families and schools that are located in low SES
communities tend to produce poorer readers than more affluent communities (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Significant ethnic differences have been found in reading among high school
students. According to Moore et al. (2010), there were statistically significant differences
in college ready reading levels among Latino, African American, and White American
students. Sixty three percent of Latinos and 66% of African American students were not
college ready in reading in comparison to only 47% of White American students.
Although the study reported lower levels of reading readiness among Latino and African
American students, the authors noted this discrepancy may be due to fewer academic
resources at public schools that are attended by a majority of ethnic minority students.
This may indicate that it may be the level of poverty in the community that the ethnic
minority students live in rather than ethnicity itself that contributes to these negative
findings. Racial stereotypes continue to persist in academia despite advances across the
last century in equity in educational opportunities and outcomes. Traditional stereotypes
are that African Americans have poorer academic abilities and skills in all academic
20
subjects relative to their White American and Asian American counterparts, and that by
early adolescence, youth become aware of and begin to endorse traditional race
stereotypes (Evans et al., 2011). By middle school, African American and White
American students report that White American students are better in academic domains
than African American students. Research has also shown evidence of stereotype threat
fir African Americans when asked to identify their racial identity before a test, African
American students performed worse than when they were not instructed identify their
race. Just asking for their racial identity forced African American students to think about
stereotypes concerning academic achievement, which in turn had a significant effect on
their academic performance (Chavous et al., 2003).
Research has shown that college students with poor reading abilities have more
difficulty with academic course work (Collins & Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Onwuegbuzie &
Collins, 2002; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004). Among undergraduate students, reading
comprehension scores on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test were found to be good
predictors of academic performance (Feldt, 1988; Roberts et al., 1990). Reading
comprehension and reading vocabulary were also found to be significant predictors of
performance in research methodology courses for graduate students, with poor reading
skills contributing to underachievement (Collins & Onwuegbuzie, 2002). As some
studies have shown, students who do not have very high reading ability tend to have
lower grades and scores than those with higher reading ability (Collins & Onwuegbuzie,
2002; Du Boulay, 1999; Neddenriep & Hale, 2011; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2002;
Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004). Poor scores on previous assignments could also affect a
21
student’s self-efficacy toward future reading and reading tasks. This lowered sense of
self-efficacy decreases their confidence in being able to complete the reading task
(Corkett et al., 2011). The task is now viewed as being more difficult because the student
believes that he or she may not have the necessary tools to complete the task at an
adequate level. As stated earlier, students tend to procrastinate on tasks that were
considered least interesting or more challenging (Steel, 2007). College students who
have poor reading comprehension and vocabulary would view tasks that were primarily
reading tasks as more difficult, which may lead to an increase in procrastination within
those tasks. Although these studies on reading ability and academic achievement used
samples of graduate students (Collins & Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Onwuegbuzie & Collins,
2002; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004), grade school children (Corkett et al., 2011), and
undergraduate students (Du Boulay, 1999), their overall findings were very similar to one
another.
The majority of reading ability studies have used questionnaires to collect data
with many studies using the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT) questionnaire for their
methodology for both undergraduate and graduate students (e.g., Collins &
Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Collins, et al., 2008; Feldt, 1988; Gerow, & Murphy, 1980;
Masterson, & Hayes, 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2002; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004;
Roberts et al., 1990). This test is used for assessment purposes and is frequently used in
research studies with norms being provided by semester and year for high school and
undergraduate college students (Masterson, & Hayes, 2004). This test also has adequate
score reliability and score validity as reported in the literature (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, &
22
Jiao, 2011). The NDRT consists of 118 multiple-choice items that covers seven reading
passages. These items are divided into subtests intended to measure comprehension (80
items) and vocabulary (38 items) (Collins et al., 2008).
Collins et al. (2008) studied the relationship between reading ability and
procrastination among African American graduate students. Specifically, they were
interested in two reading variables (reading comprehension and reading vocabulary) and
their relationship to procrastination. The researchers hypothesized that poor reading
ability would impact the tendency to procrastinate among African American graduate
students. At a graduate level, reading materials and assignments are more complex than
undergraduate levels and therefore, it is hypothesized that if the student is not confident
in their reading ability, then he or she may be more prone to procrastination because
reading tasks may be seen as more difficult. A canonical correlation was conducted to
identify any combination of reading ability (i.e., reading comprehension and reading
vocabulary) that might predict a combination of reasons for procrastination dimensions
(i.e., fear of failure and task aversiveness). Another canonical correlation analysis was
done to identify any combination of reading ability that might predict a combination of
sources of procrastination (e.g., writing assignments, studying, and keeping up on
reading). It was discovered that there was a significant multivariate relationship between
two reading ability variables and procrastination for African American graduate students.
The scale that the authors used to measure procrastination was the Procrastination
Assessment Scale-Student (PASS). The results revealed a relationship between poor
reading ability and academic procrastination. Researchers also found a significant

23
relationship between poor reading ability and academic procrastination associated with
writing a term paper, performing administrative tasks, attending meetings, keeping up
with weekly reading assignments, and, most notably, performing academic tasks in
general (Collins et al., 2008). These results suggest that reading ability is related to
academic procrastination among African American graduate students. However, future
studies should be conducted to gather more information about the relationship between
reading ability and academic procrastination. It was not clear whether “reading ability is
the cause of academic procrastination or whether academic procrastination inhibits
development of reading ability” (Collins et al., 2008, p. 503). Further research would be
necessary to determine whether students with poor reading abilities would experience
difficulties with complex reading materials and whether they would exhibit more
avoidant behaviors associated with reading tasks (procrastination) or procrastination
would create missed opportunities for the student to strengthen his or her reading abilities
(Collins et al., 2008).
Solomon and Rothblum (1984) conducted a study to investigate the frequency of
procrastination on academic tasks and the reasons for procrastination behavior using the
PASS. They systematically assessed the reasons for procrastination using a factor
analysis on the second portion of the PASS which has the reasons for procrastination
items. The first factor seemed to reflect fear of failure by clumping together items related
to anxiety about meeting others' expectations (evaluation anxiety), concern about meeting
one's own standards (perfectionism), and a lack of self-confidence. The first factor, fear
of failure, contributed to 49.4% of the variance. The second factor related to

24
aversiveness of the task and laziness and accounted for 18% of the variance in
procrastination. Thus, the factor analysis determined that fear of failure and task
aversiveness were two primary independent reasons for procrastination. Given this
model, a student’s confidence in reading comprehension and vocabulary would greatly
affect their likelihood of procrastinating on tasks related to reading. Students who
believe they do not have adequate reading skills to succeed could experience anxiety and
fear over upcoming assignments and tasks that are based primarily on reading. This
anxiety and fear of an upcoming reading task could prevent the student from doing the
task in a timely manner and encourage procrastination. Anxiety over their performance
and eventual evaluation of the reading task may also lead to procrastination. Chronic
procrastinators avoid activities that may show their limitations or deficiencies (Ferrari,
1991). Students who have poor reading abilities may avoid reading because the activity
may show what his or her true reading level may be. By putting off the reading
assignment and doing something that is enjoyable, the student would reinforce the
behavior of procrastination by alleviating the anxiety with a pleasant feeling (Ferrari et
at., 1995). Essentially, the student may be anxious over the reading task because he or
she may believe that they do not have the adequate skills needed to perform at an
acceptable level.
As stated earlier, individuals tend to engage in more procrastination behaviors on
tasks that are considered less enjoyable and unpleasant (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
With many different academic tasks given within their collegiate career, students may
place more value and enjoyment on some activities over others. Reading, writing, and
25
taking exams were among the tasks that college students viewed as least enjoyable and
with limited value (Schroth, Pankake, & Gates, 1999). What the student chooses to read
is based on the perception of the purpose of reading the material and any problems that
come up while reading. Thus, students who may view reading as unpleasant or not
enjoyable and encounter problems by doing so are more likely to procrastinate (Collins et
al., 2008; Solomon & Rothblum (1984). This negative perception may contribute to
procrastination (Collins et al., 2008)
Although it has been shown that both negative perceptions and poor reading
ability are good predictors of academic procrastination, there is no data or research to
differentiate which perspective would create more procrastination.
Although Collins et al. (2008) did find a relationship between a student’s reading
ability and procrastination, it was with a specific graduate student population – African
Americans - and there is no available research that has examined this relationship of
reading ability and procrastination for undergraduate students. Undergraduate students
vary differently in reading ability in comparison to graduate students, with graduate
students, on average, having higher reading ability than undergraduate students
(Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2002; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2004). Graduate students’ course
load and course reading are more difficult than undergraduate students and graduate
students are also required to have a higher reading level than undergraduate students.
With lower levels of reading ability than graduate students, undergraduate students may
potentially be more susceptible to procrastination behaviors. This would be an important
area to research because it would allow us to identify whether the same factors that
26
contribute to academic procrastination for graduate students could also affect
undergraduate students. Second, if it is found that reading ability is a significant
predictor of academic procrastination for undergraduate students, it would be useful to
provide services for those students who need more help in reading comprehension and
vocabulary as well as developing better criteria to help high school students to become
better prepared for college level work. Following Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Jiao’s
(2008) hypothesis, reading ability may be a factor in academic procrastination for
undergraduate students, but there may be a higher rate of procrastination among
undergraduates due to lower levels of reading ability across the population.
Summary
This literature review of the factors that may be related to academic
procrastination suggests several themes in the current literature.
1. Previous studies have shown academic procrastination is common and
problematic among undergraduate students with many negative consequences.
Students who procrastinate tend to submit late assignments, miss academic
deadlines, cram for exams, experience test and social anxiety, submit lower
quality work, and receive lower grade point averages (Ferrari, Johnson, &
McCown, 1995; Klassen et al., 2008; Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt,
2000).
2. There are also many different factors that contribute to procrastination
including age, gender, SES, task aversiveness, and fear of failure. In general,
younger students, males, and those from lower socioeconomic status were
27
more prone to procrastination (Klassen et al., 2010; Schouwenburg et al.,
2004; Steel, 2007). Individuals who had higher levels of task aversiveness
and fear of failure were also more likely to procrastinate (Milgram et al.,
1995; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995).
3. Finally, although there are many factors that may contribute and/or predict
academic procrastination, there is little research being conducted on the
influence of reading ability to procrastination. Reading ability, which consists
of reading comprehension and reading vocabulary, may have a significant
effect on a student’s academic performance. Lower levels of reading ability
negatively affect students in various ways such as elevated dropout rates,
decreased grade retention, and overall poor academic achievement (AECF,
2010; Collins & Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Du Boulay, 1999; Neddenriep & Hale,
2011). At the same time, reading ability was also found to be a significant
predictor of academic performance among undergraduate students (Feldt,
1988). In regard to procrastination, little research has been conducted to
examine the possible relationship between reading ability and academic
procrastination for undergraduate students. However, research with African
American graduate students found that reading ability was a good predictor of
academic procrastination (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2008).
4. Past studies have indicated that there are no ethnic differences in academic
procrastination for college students when using the PASS (Prohaska et al.,
2000). However, as stated before, one limitation with past studies and the
28
PASS was the way in which procrastination was operationally defined. To
measure procrastination, the majority of studies using the PASS calculated a
single aggregate score by summing the scores of 5-point Likert scales on the
frequency of procrastination and whether the student viewed their
procrastination as problematic on six academic tasks (Alexander &
Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Beck et al., 2000; Clark & Hill, 1995; Collins et al.,
2008; Prohaska et al., 2000; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984;). Past research has
shown that when looking at the frequency scale and problematic scale
separately, significant ethnic differences were found in comparison to the lack
of significant ethnic differences reported for the single aggregate score for
procrastination. It would be beneficial to examine the frequency of
procrastination and whether procrastination is viewed as problematic
separately to determine any significant differences in overall procrastination
in comparison to the summed procrastination score that has been used in the
past. Although past research has indicated that ethnic minority students tend
to procrastinate more on keeping up with weekly reading assignments in
comparison to White American students, further investigation should be
conducted to determine whether the underlying factor of procrastinating on
weekly reading assignments is due to limited reading ability (comprehension
and vocabulary) instead of solely ethnicity. It is well documented that ethnic
minorities tend to live in lower socioeconomic communities and have higher

29
levels of ESLs, which can increase the risk of having poorer reading skills
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
5. Ethnic differences on procrastination focused primarily on African American
and Latino students. There is little research comparing Asian Americans to
other ethnic minorities or to White American students. Studies on Asian
American academic work ethic and success provide evidence for a pattern of
high academic achievement among Asian American students (Yao, 2010).
The most popular theories on why Asian American students are successful in
academia focus on the influence of Asian American cultural values,
particularly values that emphasize the importance of education and hard work.
Asian American students report high parental expectations, devote more time
to their studies, spend twice as much time on homework per week, and
contribute their effort not ability, to academic success. However, this can lead
to a perpetuation of the “model minority” stereotype about Asian Americans
when several Asian American groups have been found to struggle with
academics.
Present Study
The present study examined ethnic group differences in procrastination behaviors
for specific academic tasks among Asian, African, Latino, and White American college
students. Previous studies have reported there are no significant ethnic differences in
overall levels of academic procrastination for ethnic minority groups (Prohaska et al.,
2000). However, there are few studies available which have examined this phenomenon
30
with various ethnic groups and this dearth of research has prevented any definitive
conclusions being drawn concerning this important area of study. Also, another
limitation of previous research is that procrastination is often studied as a single generic
construct and this has prevented an examination of whether there may be ethnic
differences in procrastination for certain types of academic tasks (e.g., studying for an
exam) (Clark & Hill, 1994; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2008; Prohaska et al., 2000;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
The current study examined ethnic differences in procrastination behaviors for six
different academic tasks using three methods for assessing procrastination: Problem
frequency, problem severity, and a combined score of problem frequency and severity.
In this manner, the present study hoped to gain more information on whether certain
ethnic groups procrastinate more on certain tasks and whether this is a critical issue of
problem frequency and/or severity for African, Asian, Latino, and White American
college students. The current study also attempted to determine if other critical factors
identified in the literature such as reading ability, fear of failure, and task aversiveness
may moderate this significant relationship of ethnicity and academic procrastination for
Asian, African, Latino, and White American students. For example, a recent study
showed that fear of failure played a critical role between the relationship of poor reading
ability and academic procrastination for African American students (Collins,
Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2008).
Also, since many Asian and Latino American students come from households
where English may not be the primary language, it is possible that English language and
31
reading ability could play a critical role as a mediator of ethnicity and academic
procrastination for these two ethnic minority groups.
Hypothesis 1 proposes that African and Latino American students will report
higher levels of overall academic procrastination than Asian and White American
students after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender,
ESL, and SES on specific academic tasks.
Hypothesis 2 proposes that African, and Latino American students will differ in
academic procrastination on six academic task areas than Asian and White American
students after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender,
ESL, and SES on specific academic tasks.
Hypothesis 2A: Asian and White American students will report higher
academic procrastination on writing term papers than African and Latino
American students after controlling for the significant contributions of the
covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES.
Hypothesis 2B: African and Latino American students will report higher
academic procrastination on studying for exams than Asian and White American
students after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age,
gender, ESL, and SES.
Hypothesis 2C: African and Latino American students will report higher
academic procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments than
Asian and White American students after controlling for the significant
contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES.

32
Hypothesis 2D: African and Latino American students will report higher
academic procrastination on performing administrative tasks than Asian and
White American students after controlling for the significant contributions of the
Hypothesis 2E: Asian and White American students will report higher
academic procrastination on attending meetings than African and Latino
Hypothesis 2F: African and Latino American students will report higher
academic procrastination on academic tasks in general than Asian and White
Hypothesis 3 proposes that African and Latino American students will differ in
reading vocabulary and comprehension than Asian and White American students after
controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and
SES.
Hypothesis 3A: African and Latino American students will report lower
levels of reading vocabulary than Asian and White American students after
controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL,
and SES.
Hypothesis 3B: African and Latino American students will report lower
levels of reading comprehension than Asian and White American students after
33
controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL,
and SES.
Hypothesis 4 proposes that Asian, African, and Latino American student will
have higher levels of task aversiveness and fear of failure than White American students
when controlling for the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES.
Hypothesis 5 proposes that reading comprehension and reading vocabulary will
be a stronger predictor of procrastination than ethnicity after controlling for the
significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES.
Hypothesis 6 proposes that task aversiveness and fear of failure will be stronger
predictors of procrastination than ethnicity and reading ability (comprehension and
vocabulary) while controlling for the significant contribution of the covariates of age,
gender, ESL, and SES.

34
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Initially, 305 participants were collected, however selection for the study was
based on completion of the demographics form which included age, gender, ethnicity,
ESL, and SES, and completion of all measures. After taking into account all the criteria
for inclusion in the study only 252 undergraduate students from a large northern
California university were used. Participants were recruited for the study through the
campus psychology research website and participants received course credit for their
participation. Data was collected on multiple ethnic groups, but statistical analyses were
focused on ethnic group comparisons of Asian, African, Latino, and White American
participants. To be included in the final analysis, participants had to meet all of the
following selection criteria: 1) only participants who self-identified themselves as being
Asian, African, Latino, or White American were included in the final sample, 2) only
participants who provide valid information about socioeconomic status were included in
the final sample to control for this important variable, and 3) only participants who
provided valid information for all other variables of interest in the study were included in
the final sample. The final sample consisted of 252 participants and the ethnic
distribution was 58 Asian American, 28 African American, 73 Latino American, and 93
White American college students. The gender distribution was 66 males and 186
females. The mean age of the final sample was 20.68 years and participants’ family of
35
origin socioeconomic index scores ranged from 3 to 66, with a mean SES index of 40.86
using the Hollingshead four factor index for social status (Hollingshead, 1975). The
number of participants in the final sample exceeded the minimum number of participants
(N = 107) needed for a multiple regression analysis with more than eight variables with a
power level of .80 and .05 alpha level for the effect size as outlined by Cohen (1992).
Measures and Scales
Independent variables
Demographic information. Participants were asked to provide demographic
information including ethnicity. Specifically, the participants were asked to self-identify
as Asian American, African American, Latino American, White American, or other.
Participants were given the option to check multiple boxes if needed to identify their
mixed ethnic heritage. Participants were asked about their gender (male or female) and
age (birthdate and chronological age in years and months). Marital status was
categorized as being single, married, divorced, separated, and widowed. Participants
were asked what primary language was spoken at home as well as their country of origin.
Participants were also asked if English was their second language or not, school major,
years in the U.S., expectations of academic success, employment, and number of
children. Students were asked what their perceived SES was during childhood and what
their perceived current SES is. Finally, participants were asked about their mother’s and
father’s level of education and work occupation.
To determine socioeconomic status of the participants’ families, the Hollingshead
Four Factor Index of Social Status (1975) was used to determine the SES of their family
36
of origin (childhood) and current family situation if the latter differed from specific
information provided for the family of origin. The Hollingshead Four Factor Index of
Social Status uses a formula based on the marital status of the parents, each parent’s
occupation, and each parent’s level of completed education to compute a final SES score
which ranges from eight to 66. The status score of an individual was calculated by
multiplying the scale value of occupation by a weight of five and the scale value of
education by a weight of three. If both parents were married and employed, the
socioeconomic index scores for that particular family was divided by two. However, if
the parent was single or if one of the married parents did not have gainful employment,
then it was not divided by two. The higher the socioeconomic index score, the higher the
SES the family will have.
Reading Ability. The Nelson Denny Reading Test Form G (NDRT; Brown,
Fishco, & Hanna, 1993) was used to measure reading ability among undergraduate
students. As stated earlier, the NDRT measures for reading comprehension and reading
vocabulary, which consists of 118 multiple-choice items covering seven passages
creating the subtests to measure comprehension (38 items) and vocabulary (80 items).
Collins and Onwuebuzie (2002) reported an internal consistency reliability of .96 for the
reading comprehension subtest (95% confidence interval [CI] = .94, .98) and .94 for the
reading vocabulary subtest (95% CI = .92, .96). Although previous research with
procrastination and reading ability had been done with graduate students only using this
measure, other research examining reading ability and other psychological phenomenon
have used NDRT as a reliable measure for reading ability among undergraduate students
37
(Masterson & Hayes, 2004).
Dependent variable
Procrastination. Procrastination was measured by using the Procrastination
Assessment Scale-Students (Appendix G), which was developed by Solomon and
Rothblum (1988). The PASS consists of two sections. The first section assesses the
prevalence of procrastination in six areas of academic functioning. These academic areas
were “writing a term paper”, “studying for exams”, “keeping up with weekly reading
assignments”, “performing administrative tasks”, “attending meetings”, and “performing
academic tasks in general”. Participants were asked to complete three 5-point Likert
rating scales for each of the academic areas indicating how often they procrastinate on
each one (1 = Never procrastinate, 5 = Always procrastinate), whether they consider their
procrastination in the area a problem (1 = Not a problem at all, 5 = Always a problem),
and whether they want to decrease their procrastination in the area (1 = Do not want to
decrease, 5 = Definitely want to decrease). An overall measure of general procrastination
on the PASS was created by taking the sum of the first two ratings on each
procrastination area and then adding up the scores across the six procrastination areas to
create a single summed score. Scores on this section of the PASS range from 12 to 60,
with higher scores being indicative of self-reported academic procrastination. For the
current study, the individual subscales of frequency and whether procrastination is
problematic were also examined separately on each of the 6 procrastination areas to
determine if ethnic differences may occur in these six areas concerning problem
frequency and/or severity.

38
The second section of the PASS reflects the specific reasons for the reported
procrastination. In this section, participants were given a scenario about each of the
procrastination areas above and then were presented with a list of reasons for the
procrastination on the 6 different tasks. Participants were asked to indicate how much
they endorse each of the 26 reasons using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all
reflects why I procrastinated, 5 = Definitely reflects why I procrastinated). As mentioned
before, Solomon and Rothblum (1988) conducted a factor analysis on the specific reasons
for why college students procrastinate and they reported two main factors, fear of failure
and task aversiveness. Scores for the Reasons of Procrastination Fear of Failure were
computed by averaging items 19, 24, 33, 39, and 42. Higher scores on the subtest of Fear
of Failure signify Fear of Failure as a reason for procrastinating. The scores for the
subtests of task aversiveness were created by taking the mean of items 27, 34, and 35.
Higher scores on the subtest of task aversivesness signify task aversiveness as a reason
for procrastinating.
A number of studies indicate that the PASS possesses adequate reliability and
validity (Clark & Hill, 1995; Collins et al., 2008; Prohaska et al., 2000; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984). The PASS has exhibited adequate levels of coefficient alpha
(prevalence, .75; perceived problems, .70) and test-retest reliability over a six-week
interval (prevalence, r = .74; perceived problems, r = .65) (Ferrari, 1989). The
coefficient alpha reliability estimates of the PASS scores were .86 (95% CI = .82, .89) for
the overall procrastination scale, .84 (95% CI = .79, .88) for the fear of failure factor, .77
(95% CI = .69, .83) for the task aversiveness factor, .82 (95% CI = .74, .87) for the
39
writing a term paper factor, .73 (95% CI = .61, .81) for the studying for examinations
factor, .65 (95% CI = .50, .76) for the keeping up with weekly reading assignments
factor, .86 (95% CI = .80, .90) for the performing administrative tasks factor, .83 (95% CI
= .76, .88) for the attending meetings factor, and .87 (95% CI = .81, .91) for the
performing academic tasks in general factor (Collins et al., 2008).
Procedures
Participants signed up for the study through the campus psychology research
website. When a participant arrived for the start of a research session, the principal
investigator met with the student and he/she was asked to provide both written and verbal
consent to participate in the study. When the participant agreed to participate in the
study, he/she received a copy of his/her written consent for his/her personal records and
the participants were then handed the questionnaires to complete. The survey took
approximately an hour and a half to complete. After completing the survey, the
participant received a debriefing form which explained the purpose of the study in greater
detail and provided contact information of the researcher should they have any further
questions about the study. The researcher then submitted course credit for their
participation through the psychology research website.

40
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Correlational analyses were performed on the frequency and problem scores for
the six procrastination tasks of writing a term paper, studying for exams, keeping up with
weekly reading assignments, performing academic administrative tasks, attending
meetings, and performing academic tasks in general, These results showed the frequency
and problem scores for each of the six procrastination tasks were highly correlated and it
would be best to combine these two scores to create a single mean score to represent
procrastination for the six academic tasks to be used in subsequent analyses.
Table 1 provides the means and standard deviations for procrastination on the six
academic tasks, overall procrastination, reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, task
aversiveness, and fear of failure for Asian, African, Latino, and White Americans.
Keeping up with weekly reading assignments was the task that was most procrastinated
on, while performing administrative tasks was the lowest. Overall, students tended to
procrastinate more on tasks associated with class performance and less on tasks that were
associated with policy and procedure. Table 2 provides the correlation matrix for age,
SES, the six academic tasks relating to procrastination, overall procrastination, reading
vocabulary, reading comprehension, task aversiveness, and fear of failure. It was found
that age was highly correlated with reading vocabulary. Several correlations were found
to be significant and these will be discussed later with regard to critical decisions that
41
were made to address issues of multicollinearity in the hierarchical multiple regression
analyses.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that Asian, African, and Latino American students would
report a higher overall score of procrastination than White American students, after
controlling for the significant contribution of age, gender, ESL, and SES. An ANCOVA
was performed to test this hypothesis and the results showed no significant effect for
ethnicity or the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES for the overall score of
procrastination.
Hypothesis 2 proposed there would be significant ethnic differences in levels of
procrastination on the six academic tasks among Asian, African, Latino, and White
American students, after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of
age, gender, ESL, and SES. Specifically, Hypothesis 2A proposed that Asian and White
American students would report higher procrastination on writing a term paper than
African, and Latino American students, after controlling for the significant contributions
of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. Hypotheses 2B-2D proposed that
African and Latino American students would report higher procrastination on studying
for exams, keeping up with weekly reading assignments, and performing administrative
tasks than Asian and White American students, after controlling for the significant
contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. Hypothesis 2E proposed
that Asian and White American students would report higher procrastination on attending
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for the Six Academic Procrastination Tasks, Overall Procrastination, Reading Vocabulary, Reading
Comprehension, Task Aversiveness, and Fear of Failure by Ethnicity
Asian American African American Latino American White American
(N = 58) (N = 28) (N = 73) (N = 93)
Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD
Writing a term paper 3.64 .82 3.59 .92 3.72 .80 3.42 .91
Studying for exams 3.66 .73 3.66 .86 3.63 .86 3.40 .96
Keeping up with weekly reading 3.84 .87 3.73 1.22 3.52 .93 3.15 1.02
assignments
Performing administrative tasks 2.34 1.17 1.82 .79 2.36 1.18 2.14 1.17
Attending meetings 2.54 1.17 2.37 1.51 2.42 1.17 2.57 1.20
Performing academic tasks in 2.80 .99 2.39 1.26 2.88 .95 2.53 .82
general
Overall procrastination 37.67 7.40 35.14 8.00 37.09 7.88 34.46 7.11
Note: Procrastination scores for the six academic tasks range from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always); Overall Procrastination scores range from 6-60;
Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High) and Reading Comprehension scores range from 0 (Low) to 36 (High). Task
Aversiveness and Fear of Failure scores range from 1 (Low) to 5 (High).
42
Table 1 (Cont.)
Means and Standard Deviations for the Six Academic Procrastination Tasks, Overall Procrastination, Reading Vocabulary, Reading
Comprehension, Task Aversiveness, and Fear of Failure by Ethnicity
Asian American African American Latino American White American
(N = 58) (N = 28) (N = 73) (N = 93)
Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD
Reading vocabulary 49.15 9.73 55.75 8.70 53.90 11.22 59.19 9.41
Reading comprehension 27.98 4.37 25.43 7.45 28.81 6.21 29.44 5.14
Task aversiveness 3.42 .97 3.21 1.00 3.34 1.12 3.25 .97
Fear of failure 2.44 1.08 2.16 .99 2.28 1.09 2.09 .98
43
Table 2
Correlations between Age, SES, the Six Academic Procrastination Tasks, Overall Procrastination, Reading Vocabulary, Reading
Comprehension, Task Aversiveness, and Fear of Failure
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 20.68 2.59 -
2. SES 40.85 13.41 .01 -
3. Writing a term paper 3.58 .87 .04 -.12 -
4. Studying for exams 3.56 .88 -.11 -.14* .50** -
5. Keeping up with weekly reading 3.48 1.02 -.14* .02 .39** .39** -
Assignments
6. Performing administrative tasks 2.21 1.14 -.02 -.04 .15** .13* .19** -
7. Attending meetings 2.50 1.17 .06 .01 .29** .21** .23** .37**
8. Performing academic tasks in general 2.68 .97 .02 -.12 .34** .26** .26** .15*
9. Overall procrastination 36.03 7.59 .04 -.10 .67** .60** .63** .57**
10. Reading vocabulary 54.97 10.63 .26** .23** .06 -.10 .07 -.01
11. Reading comprehension 28.48 5.71 .08 -.05 .11 -.03 .02 -.06
12. Task aversiveness 3.31 1.02 -.06 -.06 .39** .30** .28** .13**
13. Fear of failure 2.23 1.04 .05 -.11 .29** .26** .09 .05
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
44
Table 2 (Cont.)
Correlations between Age, SES, the Six Academic Procrastination Tasks, Overall Procrastination, Reading Vocabulary, Reading
Comprehension, Task Aversiveness, and Fear of Failure
Variables M SD 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Age 20.68 2.59
2. SES 40.85 13.41
3. Writing a term paper 3.58 .87
4. Studying for exams 3.56 .88
5. Keeping up with weekly reading 3.48 1.02
assignments
6. Performing administrative tasks 2.21 1.14
7. Attending meetings 2.50 1.17 -
8. Performing academic tasks in general 2.68 .97 .33** -
9. Overall procrastination 36.03 7.59 .68** .61** -
10. Reading vocabulary 54.97 10.63 .07 .09 .03 -
11. Reading comprehension 28.48 5.71 .03 .12 .04 .54** -
12. Task aversiveness 3.31 1.02 .24** .19** .39** -.07 -.07 -
13. Fear of failure 2.23 1.04 .08 .13* .22** -.25** -.15* .34** --
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
45
46
meetings than African, and Latino American students after, controlling for the significant
contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. Finally, Hypothesis 2F
proposed that African and Latino American students would report more procrastination
on performing academic tasks in general than Asian and White American students after,
controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and
SES.
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to determine
if there were significant ethnic differences on reported procrastination on the six
academic tasks, after controlling for the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. The
results of the MANCOVA on procrastination for the six academic tasks showed a
significant main effect for ethnicity, Pillai’s Trace = .126, F(3, 251) = 1.75, p = .027, and
a significant effect for the covariate of age, Pillai’s Trace = .059, F(1, 251) = 2.35, p =
.032. A Bonferroni correction was used to examine significance for the univariate tests
and a more stringent cut off score for significance was set at p < .008 (.05/6). In
reviewing the results of the analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), a significant main effect
for ethnicity, F(3, 251) = 6.73, p < .001, η2 = .01, was found for keeping up with weekly
reading assignments. For pairwise comparisons for ethnicity in the ANCOVAs, a
Bonferroni correction was used because the Levene’s tests showed the variances were not
equal for some of the six academic tasks. For keeping up with weekly reading
assignments, Asian and African American students reported higher procrastination than
White American students.

47
Hypothesis 3 proposed that African and Latino American students would report
lower reading vocabulary and reading comprehension scores than Asian and White
American students, after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of
age, gender, ESL and SES. A MANCOVA was performed to test this hypothesis and the
overall results for reading vocabulary and reading comprehension showed a significant
main effect for the covariates of age, Pillai’s Trace = .059, F(1, 251) = 7.62, p = .001,
gender, Pillai’s Trace = .080, F(1, 251) = 10.54, p < .001, ESL, Pillai’s Trace = .084,
F(1, 251) = 11.20, p < .001, SES, Pillai’s Trace = .036, F(1, 251) = 4.51, p = .012, and
ethnicity, Pillai’s Trace = .135, F(3, 251) = 5.89, p < .001. A Bonferroni correction was
used to examine significance for the univariate tests and a more stringent cut-off score for
significance was set at p < .025 (.05/2). However, in reviewing the results of the
ANCOVAs, only a significant main effect for the covariates of age, F(1, 251) = 13.88, p
< .001, η2 = .03, gender, F(1, 251) = 12.43, p = .001, η2 = .03, ESL, F(1, 251) = 21.13, p
< .001, η2 = .05, and ethnicity F(3, 251) = 6.73, p < .001, η2 = .05, were reported for
reading vocabulary. Specifically, younger adults reported lower reading vocabulary
scores than older adults. For gender, females reported lower scores on reading
vocabulary than males. Also, ESL students reported lower levels of reading vocabulary
than non-ESL students. Finally for ethnicity, Asian American students reported lower
scores on reading vocabulary than Latino and White American students. The ANCOVAs
for reading comprehension only showed a significant main effect for ethnicity, F(3, 251)
= 4.17, p = .007, η2 = .01. Specifically, African American students reported lower scores
on reading comprehension than Latino and White American students.

48
Hypothesis 4 proposes that Asian, African, and Latino American student would
have higher levels of task aversiveness and fear of failure than White American students,
after controlling for the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES. A MANCOVA was
performed to test this hypothesis and the overall results showed no significant effect for
ethnicity or the covariates of age, gender, ESL, and SES for the task aversiveness and
fear of failure.
Hypothesis 5 proposed that reading vocabulary and reading comprehension
scores would be stronger predictors of procrastination on the six academic tasks than
ethnicity, after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of age,
gender, ESL, and SES. However, tests for multicollinearity showed that age was highly
correlated with reading vocabulary so a decision was made to remove it as a covariate in
the subsequent regression analyses where reading vocabulary served as an independent
variable. Tests for multicollinearity also showed that scores for reading vocabulary and
comprehension were highly correlated so these independent variables were entered in
separate regression models for these analyses.
To test the hypothesis that reading vocabulary and comprehension would be
stronger predictors of procrastination than ethnicity, a hierarchical multiple regression
analysis was performed with the covariates of gender, ESL, and SES entered in the first
block, the dummy coded ethnic variables for Asian, African, Latino, and White
Americans in the second block (while excluding one to serve as the baseline group), and
finally, reading vocabulary or reading comprehension was entered in the third block to
predict procrastination on each of the six academic tasks.

49
First, the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses with reading
vocabulary as a predictor in the third step will be discussed. The overall multiple
regression models that examined reading vocabulary as a predictor in the third block for
procrastination on writing a term paper, studying for exams, performing administrative
tasks, and attending meetings were not found to be significant.
However, the hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on
keeping up with weekly reading assignments with reading vocabulary in the third block
was found to be significant, F(7, 251) = 3.65, p = .001 and accounted for 9% of the
explained variance (See Table 3). Specifically, ethnicity was a significant predictor of
procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments when examining the
differences in R2 and alternative models. Asian, African, and Latino American students
reported higher procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments than
White American students.
The hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting procrastination on
performing academic tasks in general with reading vocabulary as a predictor was also
found to be significant, F(7, 251) = 3.16, p = .003, and accounted for 8% of the explained
variance (See Table 4). Specifically, ethnicity and reading vocabulary were significant
predictors of procrastination on academic tasks in general. For ethnicity, Asian American
students reported higher procrastination on academic tasks in general than White
American students. Students with higher scores on reading vocabulary reported higher
procrastination on academic tasks in general than students with higher scores of reading
vocabulary. In reviewing the changes in R2 for the separate blocks in the regression
50
Table 3
Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL, SES, Ethnicity, and Reading
Vocabulary as Predictors of Procrastination in Keeping Up With Weekly Reading Assignments
Variable B SE B β R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .01
Gender .18 .14 .08
ESL .13 .15 .06
SES .01 .01 .05
Step 2 .08 .07
Gender .15 .14 .07
ESL -.03 .16 -.01
SES .01 .01 .06
Comparison Group: Asian American
African American -.13 .24 -.04
Latino American -.26 .18 -.11
White American*** -.71 .17 -.34
Comparison Group: African American
White American** -.57 .21 -.27
Comparison Group: Latino American
White American* -.45 .17 -.21
Step 3 .09 .02
Gender .21 .14 .09
ESL .06 .17 .03
SES .01 .01 .05
Reading Vocabulary .01 .01 .13
Note: Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
51
Table 4
Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL, SES, Ethnicity, and
Reading Vocabulary as Predictors of Procrastination in Performing Academic Tasks in General
Step 1 .03
Gender .13 .14 .06
ESL .22 .14 .11
SES -.01 .01 .07
Step 2 .04 .01
Gender .14 .14 .06
ESL .10 .15 .05
SES -.01 .01 -.04
Latino American .06 .18 .03
White American -.22 .17 -.11
White American .13 .21 .06
Step 3 .08 .04
Gender .23 .14 .11
ESL .25 .16 .12
SES -.01 .01 .06
Reading Vocabulary** .02 .01 .23
Note: Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
52
model, the results showed that reading vocabulary was a stronger predictor of
procrastination on academic tasks in general when examining all variables together on the
third block.
The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses using reading
comprehension as a predictor in the third step will now be discussed. The hierarchical
multiple regression models that examined ethnicity and reading comprehension as
predictors of procrastination on writing a term paper, studying for exams, performing
administrative tasks, attending meetings, and performing academic tasks in general were
not found to be significant.
keeping up with weekly reading assignments with reading comprehension as a predictor
was found to be significant, F(7, 251) = 3.27, p = .002, and accounted for 9% of the
explained variance (See Table 5). Specifically, ethnicity was found to be significant
predictor of procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments. Asian,
African, and Latino American students reported higher procrastination on keeping up
with weekly reading assignments than White Americans. In reviewing the changes in R2
for the separate blocks in the regression model and examining alternative models, the
results showed that ethnicity was a stronger predictor of procrastination on keeping up
with weekly reading assignments than reading comprehension.
Hypothesis 6 proposed that task aversiveness and fear of failure would be stronger
predictors of procrastination than ethnicity, reading ability, or reading comprehension
after controlling for the significant contributions of the covariates of gender, and SES.
53
Table 5
Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, ESL, SES, Ethnicity, and
Reading Comprehension as Predictors of Procrastination in Keeping Up With Weekly Reading
Assignments
Step 1 .01
Gender .18 .14 .08
ESL .13 .15 .06
SES .01 .01 .05
Step 2 .08 .07
Gender .15 .14 .07
ESL -.03 .16 -.01
SES .01 .01 .06
Step 3 .09 .02
Gender .15 .14 .07
ESL -.01 .16 -.01
SES .01 .01 .07
Reading Comprehension .01 .01 .06
Note: Reading Comprehension scores range from 0 (Low) to 36 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
54
Since reading vocabulary was a significant predictor of procrastination in the previous
analyses and not reading comprehension, only reading vocabulary was retained for the
following analyses. Tests for multicollinearity also showed that ESL was highly
correlated with reading vocabulary so a decision was made to remove it as a covariate in
subsequent regression analyses. Tests for multicollinearity also showed that task
aversiveness and fear of failure were highly correlated so these independent variables
should be entered in separate regression models.
To test the hypothesis that task aversiveness and fear of failure will be a stronger
predictor of procrastination than ethnicity and reading vocabulary after controlling for the
significant contributions of the covariates of gender and SES, hierarchical multiple
regressions analyses were performed with the covariates of gender and SES entered in the
first block, the dummy coded variables for Asian, African, Latino, and White American
in the second block (excluding one for the baseline group), reading vocabulary was
entered in the third block, and finally task aversiveness or fear of failure was entered in
the four block for each of the six academic tasks of procrastination.
First, the hierarchical multiple regression models using task aversiveness in the
fourth block will be discussed. The hierarchical multiple regression model that examined
task aversivness as a predictor of procrastination on performing administrative tasks was
not found to be significant.
writing a term paper with task aversiveness as a predictor was found to be significant,
55
F(7, 251) = 8.20, p < .001, and this model accounted for 19% of the explained variance
(See Table 6). Specifically, ethnicity, reading vocabulary, and task aversiveness were all
found to be significant predictors of procrastination on writing a term paper. For
ethnicity, Asian and Latino American students reported higher procrastination on writing
a term paper than White American students. For reading vocabulary, students with
higher levels of reading vocabulary reported more procrastination on writing a term
paper. Finally for task aversiveness, students with higher levels of task aversiveness
reported more procrastination on writing a term paper. In reviewing the changes in R2 for
the separate blocks for this regression model, the results showed that task aversiveness
was a stronger predictor of procrastination on writing a term paper when examining all
variables together on the fourth block.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on studying
for exams with task aversiveness as a predictor was also found to be significant, F(7,
251) = 4.66, p < .001, and this model accounted for 12% of the explained variance (See
Table 7). Specifically, only task aversiveness was a significant predictor of
procrastination on studying for exams when examining all variables together on the
fourth block. Students with higher levels of task aversiveness reported more
procrastination on studying for an exam.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on keeping up with
weekly reading assignments with task aversiveness as a predictor was also found to be
significant, F(7, 251) = 6.76, p < .001, and this model accounted for 16% of the
explained variance (See Table 8). Specifically, ethnicity and task aversiveness were
56
Table 6
Summary of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Gender, SES, Ethnicity, Reading
Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of Procrastination in Writing a Term Paper
Step 1 .01
Gender .04 .12 .02
SES -.01 .00 -.12
Step 2 .03 .02
Gender .05 .12 .02
SES .01 .00 -.08
Step 3 .05 .03
Gender .10 .13 .05
SES -.01 .00 -.12
Reading Vocabulary* .01 .00 .15
Step 4 .19 .16
Gender -.00 .12 .00
SES -.01 .00 -.09
Task Aversiveness*** .33 .05 .38
Note: Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High) and Task Aversiveness scores range
from 1 (Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
57
Table 7
Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of Procrastination in Studying for Exams
Step 1 .03
Gender .17 .12 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.13
Step 2 .04 .01
Gender .16 .12 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.12
African American .03 .20 .01
Step 3 .04 .00
Gender .15 .13 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Reading Vocabulary -.01 .01 -.03
Step 4 .12 .08
Gender .07 .12 .04
SES -.01 .01 -.11
Note: Note: Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High) and Task Aversiveness scores
range from 1 (Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
58
found to be significant predictors of procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading
assignments. For ethnicity, Asian, African, and Latino American students reported
higher procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments than White
American students. Asian American students also reported higher procrastination on
keeping up with weekly reading assignments than Latino American students. In addition,
students with higher levels of task aversiveness reported higher procrastination on
keeping up with weekly reading assignments. In reviewing the changes in R2 for the
separate blocks for this regression model and examining alternative models, the results
showed that ethnicity was the stronger predictor of procrastination on keeping up with
weekly reading assignments than task aversiveness.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on attending
meetings with task aversiveness as a predictor was found to be significant, F(7, 251) =
2.94, p = .006, and this model accounted for 8% of the explained variance (See Table 9).
Specifically, only task aversiveness was a significant predictor of procrastination on
attending meetings when examining all variables together on the fourth block. Students
with higher scores of task aversiveness reported more procrastination about attending
meetings.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on
performing academic tasks in general with task aversiveness as a predictor was found to
be significant, F(7, 251) = 3.97, p < .001, and this model accounted for 10% of the
explained variance (See Table 10). Specifically, ethnicity, reading vocabulary, and task
aversiveness were significant predictors. For ethnicity, Asian and Latino American
59
Table 8
Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of Procrastination in Keeping Up with Weekly
Reading Assignments
Step 1 .00
Gender .17 .15 .08
SES .01 .01 .02
Step 2 .08 .08
Gender .16 .14 .07
SES .01 .01 .07
Step 3 .09 .01
Gender .20 .14 .10
SES .01 .01 .04
Comparison Group: Latino
Step 4 .16 .07
Gender .12 .14 .05
SES .01 .01 .05
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
60
Table 9
Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of Procrastination in Attending Meetings
Step 1 .01
Gender .30 .17 .11
SES .01 .01 .01
Step 2 .02 .01
Gender .30 .17 .11
SES -.01 .01 -.01
Step 3 .03 .01
Gender .35 173 .13
SES -.01 .01 -.03
Step 4 .08 .05
Gender .26 .17 .10
SES -.01 .01 -.02
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
61
students reported higher procrastination on performing academic tasks in general than
White and African American students. For reading vocabulary, students with higher
reading vocabulary scores also reported higher procrastination on academic tasks in
general. Finally, students with higher scores of task aversiveness reported higher
procrastination on academic tasks in general. In reviewing the changes in R2 for the
separate blocks for the regression model and examining alternative models, the results
showed that reading vocabulary was the strongest predictors of procrastination on
academic tasks on performing academic tasks in general than task aversiveness.
The hierarchical multiple regression models using fear of failure in the fourth
block will now be discussed. The hierarchical multiple regression models that examined
fear of failure as a predictor of procrastination on performing administrative tasks and
attending meetings were not found to be significant.
writing a term paper with fear of failure as a predictor was found to be significant, F(7,
251) = 5.61, p < .001, and this model accounted for 14% of the explained variance (See
Table 11). Specifically, reading vocabulary and fear of failure were both found to be
significant predictors of procrastination about writing a term paper. For reading
vocabulary, students with higher levels of reading vocabulary reported higher
procrastination on writing a term paper. For fear of failure, students with higher levels of
fear of failure also reported higher procrastination about writing a term paper. In
reviewing the changes in R2 for the separate blocks for this regression model, the results
showed that fear of failure was a strongest predictor of procrastination on writing a term
62
Table 10
Vocabulary, and Task Aversiveness as Predictors of Procrastination in Performing Academic Tasks in
General
Step 1 .02
Gender .13 .14 .06
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Step 2 .03 .01
Gender .14 .14 .06
SES -.01 .01 -.06
Latino American * .44 .22 .17
Step 3 .07 .04
Gender -.21 .14 .10
SES -.01 .01 -.10
African American* -.50 .22 -.16
Reading Vocabulary * .02 .01 .20
Step 4 .10 .03
Gender .16 .14 .07
SES -.01 .01 -.09
White American * -.35 .16 -.17
Reading Vocabulary ** .02 .01 .20
Task Aversiveness** .16 .06 .17
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
63
Table 11
Vocabulary, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of Procrastination in Writing a Term Paper
Step 1 .01
Gender .04 .12 .02
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Step 2 .03 .02
Gender .05 .12 .02
SES -.01 .01 -.08
Step 3 .05 .03
Gender .10 .13 .05
SES -.01 .01 -.11
Latino American .05 .16 -.02
Score*
Step 4 .14 .09
Gender .04 .12 .02
SES -.01 .01 -.09
Latino American -.02 .15 .01
Fear of Failure*** .26 .05 .32
Note: Reading Vocabulary scores range from 0 (Low) to 80 (High) and Fear of Failure scores range from 1
(Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
64
paper than reading vocabulary.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on studying
for exams with fear of failure as a predictor was also found to be significant, F(7, 251) =
3.47, p < .001, and this model accounted for 9% of the explained variance (See Table
12). Specifically, only fear of failure was found to be a significant predictor of
procrastination on studying for exams. Students with higher scores of fear of failure
reported higher procrastination on studying for an exam.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on keeping
up with weekly reading assignments with fear of failure as a predictor was also found to
be significant, F(7, 251) = 3.75, p < .001, and this model accounted for 10% of the
explained variance (See Table 13). Specifically, ethnicity and reading vocabulary were
both significant predictors of procrastination in keeping up with weekly reading
assignments. For ethnicity, Asian, African, and Latino American students reported
higher procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments than White
American students. Also, Asian American students reported higher procrastination on
keeping up with weekly reading assignments than Latino American students. For reading
vocabulary, students with higher levels of reading vocabulary reported higher
procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading assignments. In reviewing the
changes in R2 for the separate blocks for this regression model, the results showed that
ethnicity was the stronger predictor of procrastination on keeping up with weekly reading
assignments than reading vocabulary.
The hierarchical multiple regression model predicting procrastination on

65
Table 12
Vocabulary, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of Procrastination in Studying for Exams
Step 1 .03
Gender .17 .12 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.13
Step 2 .04 .01
Gender .16 .12 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Step 3 .04 .00
Gender .15 .13 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Step 4 .09 .05
Gender .10 .12 .01
SES .17 .12 .06
African American .07 .20 02
Fear of Failure*** .20 .05 .24
(Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
66
Table 13
Vocabulary, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of Procrastination in Keeping Up with Weekly Reading
Assignments
Step 1 .01
Gender .17 .15 .08
SES .01 .01 .02
Step 2 .08 .07
Gender .16 .14 .07
SES .01 .01 .07
Step 3 .09 .01
Gender .21 .14 .09
SES .01 .01 .04
Step 4 .10 .01
Gender .19 .14 .08
SES .01 .01 .05
Reading Vocabulary * .01 .01 .14
Fear of Failure .08 .06 .08
(Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
67
performing academic tasks in general with fear of failure as a predictor was found to be
significant, F(7, 251) = 3.06, p < .001, and this model accounted for 9 % of the explained
variance (See Table 14). Specifically, ethnicity, reading vocabulary, and fear of failure
were all found to be significant predictors of procrastination on academic tasks in
general. For ethnicity, Asian and Latino American students reported higher
procrastination about performing academic tasks in general than African and White
American students. For reading vocabulary, students with higher reading vocabulary
scores also reported higher procrastination about performing academic tasks in general.
For fear of failure, students with higher scores of fear of failure reported higher
procrastination about performing academic tasks in general. In reviewing the changes in
R2 for the separate blocks for the regression model, the results showed that reading
vocabulary was a stronger predictor of procrastination on performing academic tasks in
general than ethnicity or fear of failure.

68
Table 14
Vocabulary, and Fear of Failure as Predictors of Procrastination in Performing Academic Tasks in
General
Step 1 .02
Gender .13 .14 .06
SES -.01 .01 -.12
Step 2 .04 .02
Gender .14 .14 .06
SES -.01 .01 -.06
Step 3 .07 .03
Gender .21 .14 .10
SES -.01 .01 -.10
White American * -.36 .16 -.18
Step 4 .09 .02
Gender .18 .14 .08
SES -.01 .01 -.09
Fear of Failure* .13 .06 .14
(Low) to 5 (High).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
69
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Summary and Interpretation of Findings in the Context of Previous Literature
The results of this study provided partial support for the proposed hypotheses.
Contrary to expectations, ethnic minority participants did not report a higher level of
overall procrastination than White American students. However, this finding is
consistent with the results of previous research that also failed to report significant ethnic
differences in overall procrastination scores (Prohaska et al., 2000; Stuart, 2013).
Specifically, in reviewing the overall procrastination scores, participants reported they
tend to procrastinate “sometimes” or very little. One reason for this lack of a significant
ethnic difference on overall procrastination may be due to the way these scores were
calculated. By creating a summed score across six academic tasks, lower scores on
certain academic tasks (e.g., performing administrative tasks) can help to negate higher
scores on other academic tasks (e.g., writing a term paper).
As predicted, African American students reported more procrastination in keeping
up with weekly reading assignments than White American students. However, contrary
to expectations, Asian American students reported more procrastination in keeping up
with weekly reading assignment than White American students. No other significant
ethnic differences were found for the five other academic tasks. Despite the number of
significant findings for the six academic tasks, these results support the importance of
examining these tasks separately as this can provide a better assessment of the types of
70
procrastination that a college student may experience rather than a single overall score of
procrastination. In a review of the six academic tasks, a specific pattern emerged which
showed the level of procrastination was often associated with whether it was an
academic task directly related to class performance or a general school policy or
procedure.
Specifically, participants would “almost never” or only “sometimes” procrastinate
on specific administrative tasks (e.g., paying tuition), attending meetings, or completing
academic tasks in general (e.g., registering for classes) which may lead to immediate
negative consequences. However, participants would “nearly always” procrastinate
about writing a term paper, studying for an exam, or keeping up with weekly reading
assignments. It is possible that students were more likely to find excuses to put off or
procrastinate on class requirements because they had several weeks to complete such
tasks. These results were similar to previous findings that showed students were more
likely to procrastinate on writing a term paper or keeping up with weekly reading
assignments than performing administrative tasks and attending meetings (Clark & Hill,
1984; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
Contrary to expectations, Asian American students reported lower scores on
reading vocabulary than Latino and White American students. However, as predicted,
African American students reported lower reading comprehension scores than White
American students. In contrast to expectations, Africa Americans also reported lower
reading comprehension than Latino Americans. With regard to Asian Americans, a high
percentage (63%) of self-identified Asian Americans in this study were found to be

71
Southeast Asians and past studies have shown that Southeast Asian students frequently
report with lower levels of reading ability (Le, 2010). A post-hoc assessment showed
that Southeast Asian American students in this study reported lower levels of reading
vocabulary than African, Latino, White American and other Asian American students.
The current finding that African American students reported lower scores on
reading comprehension than White Americans supports previous research findings
(Moore et al., 2010). With regard to Latino Americans, a high percentage (56%) self-
identified as ESL students and this could account for the lack of significant ethnic
differences in reading vocabulary and comprehension. That is, the present study showed
that ESL students reported with lower levels of reading vocabulary than non-ESL
students. Also, a post-hoc analysis of ethnic differences in ESL showed that Latino
American students, F(3, 251) = 12.85, p < .001, η2 = .12, reported higher numbers of ESL
students than African and White American students. This may suggest that the reason
Latino students report with lower levels of reading ability could be due to their ESL
status and not just their ethnic status of being Latinos. Overall, the scores for reading
ability and comprehension in the study were comparable to previous scores on these two
measures in past research (Moore et al., 2010).
Contrary to expectations, there were no significant ethnic differences found for
task aversiveness and fear of failure. There was no previous research examining ethnic
differences in task aversiveness. It was hypothesized, however, that ethnic minority
students would have higher task aversiveness on academic tasks due to their lower
academic performances. Students who are not as proficient in reading and writing may
72
view academic tasks such as writing a term paper and keeping up with weekly reading
assignments as more challenging and unpleasant. With regard to fear of failure, these
findings were not consistent with previous literature that stated African and Latino
Americans would have higher levels of fear of failure (Coney& West, 1979; Evans,
2008). One possible explanation why there were no ethnic differences could be the way
that data was collected for the sample. Although Evans (2007) found ethnic differences
on fear of failure, it could be due to the way the data was collected. A semi-structured
interview was used where students simply stated they were fearful of failing a course.
There were no set questions so each student was not asked the same question in this
study. In the current study, every student was asked the same items to calculate the scores
for fear of failure. However, the findings did support previous research that females
would report higher levels of fear of failure (Stuart, 2013).
The results of the present study partially supported the proposed hypotheses
concerning the predictive value of reading ability on procrastination. As predicted,
reading vocabulary was found to be a better predictor of procrastination on performing
academic tasks in general than ethnicity. These results were similar to previous findings
that showed reading vocabulary was a better predictor of academic tasks in general
(Collins et al., 2008). However, the relationship between reading vocabulary and
procrastination was different from previous research. The current study found that
students with higher reading vocabulary also reported higher levels of procrastination.
One possible explanation for this is the relationship of reading ability to procrastination
may be curvilinear. That is, both participants who have very low reading ability as well
73
as very high reading ability may engage in higher levels of procrastination for completely
different reasons. For the low reading ability students, they may engage in more
procrastination to avoid dealing with difficult tasks However, higher reading ability
students seem to believe that school is easy enough for them to procrastinate and still
achieve high level marks. As such, they put off the task to the last moment because they
feel as though they can complete it within the limited time frame. Contrary to
expectations, ethnicity was a better predictor of higher procrastination on keeping up with
weekly reading assignments than reading vocabulary and comprehension. Asian,
African, and Latino American students reported more procrastination on keeping up with
weekly reading assignments than White American students. At this time, it is not clear as
to why ethnicity is a better predictor of keeping up with weekly reading assignments, but
future research should take this into consideration. There were no other significant
predictors reported for the other academic tasks.
The results of the current study also provided partial support for the proposed
hypothesis concerning the predictive value of task aversiveness and fear of failure on
procrastination. Specifically for task aversiveness, students reported that the task being
too difficult or too long “sometimes reflected why they procrastinated”. For fear of
failure, students reported that they “never” or “sometimes” allowed the fear of receiving a
failing grade or negative criticism of their work to fuel their procrastination.. As
predicted, task aversiveness and fear of failure were better predictors of higher
procrastination on writing a term paper and studying for exams than ethnicity and reading
vocabulary. These results were similar to previous findings that showed task
74
aversiveness and fear of failure were the main reasons why students often procrastinate
(Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Contrary to expectations, ethnicity
was a better predictor of keeping up with weekly reading assignments and reading
vocabulary was a better predictor of academic tasks in general than task aversiveness.
Asian, African, and Latino American students reported more procrastination on keeping
up with weekly reading assignments than White American students. Again, it is not clear
as to why ethnicity is the strongest predictor of keeping up with weekly reading
assignments, but future research should take it into consideration. The results in the
present study found that reading vocabulary was positively associated with
procrastination, while previous studies reported that reading vocabulary was negatively
related to procrastination on academic tasks in general (Collin et al., 2008). Finally, task
aversiveness was a better predictor of higher procrastination on attending meetings. The
results were similar to previous findings that showed that task aversiveness was the main
reason that students procrastinated (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
Limitations
One limitation to the study was the lack of inclusion of other significant factors
that could be associated with academic procrastination. For example, certain types of
self-motivation factors such as self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-esteem may play an
important role in whether a student would procrastinate in general. Past research tends to
report that higher levels of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-esteem are negatively
related to procrastination (Klassen et al., 2010; Schouwenburg et al., 2004; Steel, 2007).
Students, who had higher levels of self-efficacy, self-regulation and self-esteem engaged
75
more in academia, were more persistent, worked harder, and were more confident.
Having higher levels of self-motivation factors also decreased a student’s perception that
a task was too difficult to complete. Despite the lack of inclusion of self-motivating
variables, the regression models in the current study with ethnicity, reading vocabulary,
reading comprehension, task aversiveness, and fear of failure were found to be significant
and accounted for 9% to 19% of the explained variances.
Another limitation includes generalizability from the current sample to larger
populations. First, the sample for this study was from a college student population. This
college population may differ from the high school or graduate student populations in a
number of ways including family of origin socioeconomic status, participant sex, and age
which may have impacted the results. However, the results of this study were similar to
other studies of procrastination in using a college sample and the current sample had a
wide variability among the students in terms of family of origin socioeconomic status and
age. For example, the majority of students from the present study procrastinated more on
tasks associated with grades rather than tasks associated with policies and procedures.
This finding supports previous studies that also found similar procrastination results
(Clark & Hill, 1984; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
Finally, another limitation of the current study was the sample size had a low
number of ethnic minority participants than was desired. Specifically, there were low
numbers of Asian and African American students. Since ethnic differences in reported
procrastination on weekly reading assignments and vocabulary and comprehension scores
were significant, it may be have been important to collect a more evenly distributed
76
sample in regard to ethnic minority students. However, despite the low number of ethnic
minority students, the results regarding ethnic differences in procrastination and reading
vocabulary and comprehension found significant differences.
Clinical Implications
The current study supported previous research that most of the procrastination
was taking place with tasks that are directly related to class performance and not on tasks
that are related to general policies and procedures. To help students understand the risks
associated with procrastination, freshmen orientation should include a number of
different workshops or information sessions that would include specific information
related to procrastination on class-related tasks.
Incoming freshmen may also be required to take specific courses aimed at helping
them to better prepare for a heavy college workload. These college preparation courses
should cover better studying habits, time management, and how to utilize other on-
campus resources such as tutoring services or the Writing Center. Courses should
emphasize how not to fall behind on your college workload to help better acclimate the
freshmen to college.
Incoming freshmen should be provided with more structured courses. One
possible explanation for procrastination on class performance tasks could be due to a lack
of structure in a college setting. Students who come from high school environments may
be used to having more structured classes that require assignments or exams to be done
on a weekly basis. In that setting, the student may procrastinate less because the
consequence of not doing so is more immediate. In a university setting, many times

77
exams and assignments are done every few weeks. Because the assignment/exam is later
rather than sooner, students may be compelled to procrastinate less because the
consequence of not doing so is not immediate. As such, freshmen courses should be
more structured to help incoming freshmen adjust to the college work load. As the
student progresses in their academic career, the course settings may become less and less
structured.
Future Directions in Research
Although there has been substantial research on how procrastination can have a
negative effect on a student’s academic performance (Klassen et al., 2010; Onwuegbuzie,
2004; Steel, 2007), more research should be conducted to determine the directionality of
the relationship between procrastination and academic performance. It is unclear whether
procrastination leads to poor academic performance or poor academic performance leads
to procrastination. It could be argued that poor academic performance could lead to
procrastination due to a lowered self-efficacy from previous tasks (Seo, 2008) or
procrastination could lead to poor academic performance due to missed opportunities to
learn or a lack of adequate time to perform tasks successfully (Klassen et al., 2010). As
such, further research should look into the directionality of this relationship.
Although the present study did not look into self-motivation factors such as self-
efficacy, self-regulation, and self-esteem, they may play an important role in whether a
student would procrastinate in general (Klassen et al., 2010; Schouwenburg et al., 2004;
Steel, 2007). Future studies should look into how these factors may contribute to
78
procrastination and should be examined to see if any of them are better predictors than
the current variables being studied.
There is currently very limited research on Asian American students and
procrastination. More specifically, there is very little research that examines the diversity
within the Asian American population. Many times, Asian American students are
lumped together and may be assumed to follow the model minority stereotype. While
this may be true for some Asian American cultures, it is not true for all. Southeast Asians
have the highest dropout rates in the country (Le, 2001). Current statistics show that 44%
of Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian American students are not proficient in English, 52%
have less than a high school education, and only 9% have attained a college degree. In
comparison, 31% of Chinese are not proficient in English, 23% have less than a high
school education, and 46% attain a college degree (Le, 2001). It would be useful to have
further research examine the possible ethnic differences between the different cultures
among Southeast Asians.
The current study was different from previous procrastination studies using the
PASS in that it focused on looking into the individual academic task scores rather than
just the overall summed score for procrastinate. By doing so, the researcher was able to
find ethnic differences on specific academic tasks that would have been overlooked by
research conducted using a summed score. The significant ethnic differences in keeping
up with weekly reading assignments would not have been discovered by using the
summed single procrastination score. By conducting more focused research on specific
academic tasks, this information can be vital in deciding how to work with ethnic
79
minority and White American students concerning issues of procrastination. Although
the original plan of looking into frequency and problematic scales for procrastination
could not be done because they were highly correlated, future research should continue to
look for new methods to better understand this significant problem of procrastination in
college populations.
The current study also shed a little more light on possible differences within the
Asian American student population. Specifically, a post-hoc assessment showed that
Southeast Asians may have accounted for the larger Asian American groups’ lower
scores on reading vocabulary have a high percentage of ESL students. These results
provide support against the model minority myth and emphasize the importance to look
at possible differences within this ethnic minority group.
What this current study has shown is that students tend to procrastinate in a
number of academic tasks, but higher levels of procrastination seem to be tied to those
academic tasks which have the strongest bearing on academic achievement and failure.
Given this tendency to procrastinate on class-related tasks or requirements, it is important
that colleges and universities become more proactive in reaching out to students who may
present with greater tendencies for procrastination and to engage in prevention and
education programs early in college students’ lives on campus. Specific steps should be
taken to help educate and alert students to help them deal with procrastination and time
management. Also, more research on procrastination would be beneficial for instructors
and university administration of colleges and universities with high dropout rates because
80
it may help keep their students to avoid those practices which may facilitate academic
failure.
81
References
Abbott, M. L. (2006). ESL Reading Strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin
Speaker Test Performance. Language Learning, 56(4), 633-670.
doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2006.00391.x
American College Testing (ACT). (2011, March 15). ACT Newsroom: Factsheet.
Retrieved from http://www.act.org/newsroom/factsheets/act.html
Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF). (2010). Why reading by the end of third grade
matters. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,
76(1), 27-31.
Barnes, W., & Slate, J. R. (2011). College-readiness rate in Texas: A statewide, multiyear
study of ethnic differences. Education and Urban Society, 46(1), 59-87.
doi:10.1177/0013124511423775
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in
response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(4), 405-417. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.405
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of student
procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23(2), 207-217.
doi:10.1080/00050068808255605
Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: A multi-
dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal
projects. Personality And Individual Differences, 28(1), 153-167.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00091-4
82
Bui, N. H. (2007). Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 147(3), 197-209. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.3.197-209
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (2008). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it
now. Cambridge: De Capo Press.
Clark, J. L., & Hill, O. W. (1994). Academic procrastination among African-American
college students. Psychological Reports, 75, 931–936.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.2.931
Chavous, T. M. et. al. (2003). Racial Identity and Academic Attainment Among African-
American Adolescents. Child Development 4(74). 1076-1090.
Chow, H. H. (2011). Procrastination among undergraduate students: Effects of emotional
intelligence, school life, self-evaluation, and self- efficacy. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 57(2), 234-240.
Collins, K. T. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Reading ability and the performance of
African American graduate students in research methodology courses. Journal of
College Literacy and learning, 31, 39-52.
Collins, K. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2008). Reading ability as a predictor of
academic procrastination among African American graduate students. Reading
Psychology, 29(6), 493-507. doi:10.1080/02702710802168568
Collins, K. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2011). The relationship between
reading ability and self-perception among African-American postgraduate
students. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 11(1), 43-53.

83
Coney, Y., & West, C.K. (1979) Academic pressures and the black adolescent.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 318-323.
Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J. N. (2003). Temporal stability of performance failure
appraisal inventory items. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise
Science, 7(4), 243-261. doi:10.1207/S15327841MPEE0704_3
Covington, M. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and
implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85 (1), 4-20.
Cox, R. (2009). It was just that I was afraid: Promoting success by addressing student's
fear of failure. Community College Review, 37 (1).
De Jong, M. G., Pieters, R., & Fox, J. (2010). Reducing social desirability bias through
item randomized response: An application to measure underreported
desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 14-27. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.1.14
Demps, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The relationship between eighth-grade
reading scores and achievement on the Georgia High School Graduation Test.
Research in the Schools, 8(2), 1-9.
Du Boulay, D. (1999). Argument in reading: What does it involve and how can students
become better critical readers? Teaching in Higher Education, 4(2), 147-62.
Evans, A. B., Copping, K. E., Rowley, S. J., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2011). Academic self-
concept in Black adolescents: Do race and gender stereotypes matter?. Self and
Identity, 10(2), 263-277. doi:10.1080/15298868.2010.485358

84
Evans, B. C. (2008). 'Attached to the umbilicus': Barriers to educational success for
Hispanic/Latino and American Indian nursing students. Journal of Professional
Nursing, 24(4), 205-217. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.06.026
Feldt, R. C. (1988). Predicting academic performance: Nelson-Denny reading test and
measures of college students' study of expository prose. Psychological
Reports, 63(2), 579-582. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.579
Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of
procrastination. Psychological Reports, 64, 1057–1058.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W.G. (1995). Procrastination and task
avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY: 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.
Ferrari, J. R., Özer, B., & Demir, A. (2009). Chronic procrastination among Turkish
adults: Exploring decisional, avoidant, and arousal styles. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 149(3), 302-307. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.3.402-408
Flett, G., Hewitt, P., Davis, R., & Sherry, S. (2004). Description and counseling of the
perfectionistic procrastinator. In H. Schouwenberg, C. Lay, J. R. Ferrari, & T.
Pychyl (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 181–194).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

85
Foster, D. J., Weigand, D. A., & Baines, D. (2006). The effect of removing superstitious
behavior and introducing a pre-performance routine on basketball free-throw
performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18(2), 167-171.
doi:10.1080/10413200500471343
Gerow, J. R., & Murphy, D. P. (1980). The validity of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test as
a predictor of performance in introductory psychology. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 40(2), 553-556. doi:10.1177/001316448004000240
Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of
adults. Psychological Reports, 78, 611–616. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.611
Hess, B., Sherman, M. F., & Goodman, M. (2000). Eveningness predicts academic
procrastination: The mediating role of neuroticism. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 15, 61–74.
Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B.B., Kennedy, C. (2004). A
new measure of perfectionism: The perfectionism inventory. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 82, 80–91
Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2008). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and
procrastination: A meditational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19,
151-154. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
Johnson-Ahorlu, R. (2013). Our biggest challenge is stereotypes: Understanding
stereotype threat and the academic experiences of African American
undergraduates. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 382-392.
doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0382
86
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress
appraisal. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action, (pp.
195–216). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging
reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 484-486.
doi:10.3102/0013189X10378400
Klassen, R. M., Ang, R. P., Chong, W., Krawchuk, L. L., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. F., &
Yeo, L. (2010). Academic procrastination in two settings: Motivation correlates,
behavioral patterns, and negative impact of procrastination in Canada and
Singapore. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 361-379.
doi:10.1111/j.14640597.2009.00394.x
Kosmas, J. M. (2003). The roots of procrastination: A sociological inquiry into why I
wait until tomorrow. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-
Knowledge, 2(2), 74-81.
Le, C. N. (2001). A Closer Look at Asian Americans and Education. New Horizons for
Learning [online], September 2001 <http://www.newhorizons.org/mult_le.htm>.
Le, C. N. (2010). Multiracial Asian Americans: Social Class, Demographic, and Cultural
Characteristics in K. Korgen (Eds.) Multiracial Americans and Social Class: The
Influence of Social Class on Racial Identity, New York: Routledge.
Le, C. N., (2014). Population Statistics & Demographics Asian-Nation: The Landscape
of Asian America. <http://www.asian-nation.org/population.shtml> (July 9, 2014).

87
Leganger, A., Kraft, P., & Roysamb, E. (2000). Perceived self-efficacy in health behavior
research: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Psychology and
Health, 15, 51–69.
Lewis, P. (1999). Stereotype threat, implicit theories of intESLigence, and racial
differences in standardized test performance. Dissertation Abstracts International,
59, 8-B, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 September 2012.
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General self-efficacy in
various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries.
International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80-89.
doi:10.1080/00207590444000041
Masterson, J., & Hayes, M. (2004). UK data from 197 undergraduates for the Nelson
Denny Reading Test. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(1), 30-35.
doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9817.2004.00212.x
Milgram, N., & Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, A. (1994). Correlates of academic
procrastination: Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. The Journal of
Psychology, 129, 145–155.
Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S. L., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R., &
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness
for college: A statewide study. Education and Urban Society, 42(7), 817-838.
doi:10.1177/0013124510379619
88
Museus, S.D. & Kiang, P.N. (2009). Deconstructing the model minority myth and how it
contributes to the invisible minority reality in higher education research. New
Direction for Institutional Research, 142, 5-15.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2010)
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Neddenriep, C. E., & Hale, A. D. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Reading
comprehension: Assessment and intervention for understanding. Psychology In
The Schools, 48(1), 1-3. doi:10.1002/pits.20538
Nemko, M. (2008). America’s most overrated product: The bachelor’s degree. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 54(B17).
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment
& Evaluation In Higher Education, 29(1), 3-19.
doi:10.1080/0260293042000160384
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. T. (2002). Reading comprehension among graduate
students. Psychological Reports, 90(3,Pt1), 879-882. doi:10.2466/PR0.90.3.879-
882
Omwuegbuzie, A. J., Mayes, E., Aruther, L., Johnson, J., Robinson, V., Ashe, S., &
Collins, K. T. (2004). Reading comprehension among African American graduate
students. Journal of Negro Education, 73(4), 443-457. doi:10.2307/4129628

89
Özer, B., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among
Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 241-257. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.241-257
Peng, S. S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian
American students. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 346-352.
Prohaska, V., Morrill, P., Atiles, I., & Perez, A. (2000). Academic procrastination by
nontraditional students. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 125-
134.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An
experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of
Social Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 239-254.
Roberts, M., Suderman, L., Suderman, R., & Semb, G. B. (1990). Reading ability as a
performance predictor in a behaviorally based psychology course. Teaching of
Psychology, 17(3), 173-175. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top1703_8
Sagar, S. S., & Stoeber, J. (2009). Perfectionism, fear of failure, and affective responses
to success and failure: The central role of fear of experiencing shame and
embarrassment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(5), 602-627.
Salamonson, Y., Koch, J., Weaver, R., Everett, B., & Jackson, D. (2010). Embedded
academic writing support for nursing students with English as a second language.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(2), 413-421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2009.05158.x
90
Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C. H., Pychyl, T. A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2004). Counseling the
procrastinator in academic settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schüler, J., Brandstätter, V., & Baumann, N. (2013). Failure cue priming and impaired
cognitive performance: Analyses of avoidance motivation as a mediator and fear
of failure as a moderator. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(5), 335-
343. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1942
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,
S. Wright &M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s
portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: Nelson.
Schwarzer, R., MuESLer, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general
self-efficacy on the internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 12, 145–161.
Seo, E. (2008). Self-efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between self-oriented
perfectionism and academic procrastination. Social Behavior and Personality,
36(6), 753-764. doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.6.753
Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Perkins, S. C. (1983). The self-serving function of
hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-handicapping
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 787-797.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.787
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

91
Solomon, L. J. & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
congnitive-behavioral correlate. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 65–94.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.
Steuer, F. B. (1996). Reading in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of
Psychology, 23(4), 226-230. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2304_4
Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism:
Differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and
depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(1), 49-60.
doi:10.1023/A:1026474715384
Stuart, E. M. (2013). The relationship of fear of failure, procrastination, and self-efficacy
to academic success in college for first and non first-generation students in a
provate non-selective institution (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3596272)
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference.
Washington, DC: Author.

92
Yao, M. P. (2010). An exploration of multidimensional perfectionism, academic self-
efficacy, procrastination frequency, and Asian American cultural values in Asian
American university students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70, 10-B,
PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 September 2012.

Alvaro Donato Gonzalez Thesis - ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND READING ABILITY AS A PREDICTOR OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alvaro Donato Gonzalez Thesis - ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND READING ABILITY AS A PREDICTOR OF ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETHNIC DIFFERENCES AND READING ABILITY AS A PREDICTOR OF

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of