APRIL 2005OF MARKETING EDUCATION

JOURNAL

My Instructor Made Me Do It:

Task Characteristics of Procrastination

David S. Ackerman and Barbara L. Gross

Procrastination can have a negative effect on learning. Many inquiries can waste instructor time, but the primary reason is
previous studies have examined personality factors that con- that learning suffers. Marketing coursework often requires
tribute to procrastination. This study examines selected that students complete large-scale assignments (e.g., devel-
assignment characteristics controllable by the instructor that oping marketing plans, carrying out market research studies,
might influence student procrastination. Results found less and completing market analyses) that assume sustained effort
procrastination on assignments that were perceived as inter- throughout a prolonged period. Professors may allow several
esting, that required students to use a variety of skills, for weeks or even a full term for the completion of such assign-
which students perceived social norms and rewards for start- ments so that students have adequate time to conduct in-depth
ing promptly, and for which the instructor provided clear research, produce thoughtful analyses, integrate their learn-
instructions. Procrastination was not affected by fear, dead- ing, and practice new skills, only to find that many students
line pressure from other assignments, or the degree to which perform only perfunctory work because they simply started
the task was perceived as difficult or time consuming. too late. If procrastination can be affected by characteristics
of the task, then it is controllable by the instructor.
Considerable prior research has examined how personal-
ity variables affect procrastination. This study approaches
Keywords: procrastination; procrastinate; assignment; procrastination from another perspective: examining how
task; student task characteristics related to assignments and courses influ-
ence procrastination. Most of the task characteristics exam-

Procrastination is quite common in society. Most people ined were first suggested in a conceptual article by Paden and
Stell (1997), yet not measured or tested empirically. The
procrastinate at least occasionally (Kachgal, Hansen, and study reported here compares the task characteristics of par-
Nutter 2001). At least 20% of adults, however, characterize ticular critical incident assignments recalled by individual
themselves as chronic procrastinators (Harriott and Ferrari students, based on whether each student reported more or less
1996). We define procrastination as the delay of a task or procrastination behavior on his or her respective assignment.
assignment that is under one’s control. The delay should be
under the control of the individual, and the task should be one
that needs to be done. Procrastination involves knowing that CONSEQUENCES OF PROCRASTINATION
one needs to perform an activity or attend to a task, and per- Most studies of academic procrastination find that it leads
haps even wanting to do so, yet failing to motivate oneself to to lowered academic performance. Solomon and Rothblum
perform within the desired or expected time frame. (1984) found that students who habitually procrastinate
Procrastination may be even more widespread within an believe that their tendency to do so significantly interferes
academic context. Various studies have found procrastination with their academic standing, capacity to master classroom
to affect 50% to 95% of undergraduate students (cf. Janssen material, and quality of life. Although procrastination is not
and Carton 1999; Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter 2001; Pychyl gfdgf
et al. 2000; Pychyl, Morin, and Salmon 2000). Little differ- David S. Ackerman is an associate professor in the Department of Marketing,
ence in procrastination tendency has been found for different College of Business and Economics, at California State University,
ethnicities, ages, or genders (e.g., Ferrari and Beck 1998; Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8377; e-mail:
Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter 2001). In short, procrastination [email protected]. Barbara L. Gross is an associate professor in
the Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics, at Cali-
affects nearly everyone (Senecal, Koestner, and Vallerand
fornia State University, Northridge; e-mail: [email protected].
1995).
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, April 2005 5-13
Why should marketing educators care if their students DOI: 10.1177/0273475304273842
procrastinate? Late assignments and panicked last-minute © 2005 Sage Publications

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

6 APRIL 2005

always detrimental to performance (Lay 1986) and is moder- and activities. The students identified what activity/task they
ated by other variables such as cognitive ability (Beck, thought they should be doing at the time and what activity/
Koons, and Milgrim 2000), numerous studies have found task they actually were doing. The students who were pro-
procrastination related to lower grade point average, lower crastinating rated the activities they were currently engaged
performance on specific assignments, and lower achievement in as being less important than the activities or tasks they were
in individual classes (Owens and Newbegin 1997; Tice and procrastinating. They also rated the tasks they were engaged
Baumeister 1997; Tuckman 2002; Wesley 1994). in as more pleasant, less confusing, less difficult, and less
Although procrastination may serve to relieve stress in the stressful than the tasks/activities they were procrastinating.
short term, studies of student procrastination find that it also Still, relatively few studies have examined specific charac-
causes stress. Students frequently worry about their procras- teristics of the task itself or looked at how instructors can
tination and seek counseling because it leaves them feeling structure their courses and assignments to minimize procras-
anxious, guilty, and even more pressured (Ferrari, Johnson, tination. Instead, literature pertaining to reducing procrasti-
and McCown 1995; Pychyl et al. 2000). nation focuses on modifying the overall behavior or psycho-
logical state of the procrastinator (Ferrari, Johnson, and
McCown 1995; Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter 2001). Rela-
ANTECEDENTS OF PROCRASTINATION
tively few studies have examined strategies, such as assigning
A wide range of behavioral, affective, and cognitive fac- frequent quizzes (Tuckman 1998) or setting frequent and
tors have been identified as contributing to procrastination. A early due dates (Wesp 1986), that instructors might use in
dominant focus in the research literature has been to examine their classes to discourage procrastination.
the personality or psychological state of the procrastinating As one notable exception, Paden and Stell (1997), in a
individual. Procrastination behavior has been linked to lack conceptual article in the marketing education literature, rec-
of motivation, deficient self-regulation, external locus of con- ognized that academic assignments lend themselves to pro-
trol, perfectionism, trait and state anxiety, fear of failure, low crastination and that instructors may be able to modify
self-efficacy, and low self-confidence (Haycock, McCarthy, assignments and class formats to decrease procrastination
and Skay 1998; Janssen and Carton 1999; Pychyl et al. 2000; and improve performance and learning. Based on a review of
Saddler and Buley 1999; Senecal, Koestner, and Vallerand procrastination literature, and especially literature from
1995). Self-esteem is an important part of some of these human resources, the authors identified several task charac-
explanations. Burka and Yuen (1990) characterized procras- teristics expected to influence the degree of procrastination
tination as a way of expressing internal conflict and on academic assignments. These included task importance
protecting a vulnerable sense of self-esteem. (norms, deadlines, rewards, and interdependence), task
Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that most students’ appeal (interest level and skill variety), and task difficulty
explanations for their procrastination were related to fear of (knowledge required, scope of task, and clarity).
failure, taking on such specific forms as performance anxiety,
perfectionism, and lack of self-confidence. Procrastination
METHOD
has also been associated with disorganization, low conscien-
tiousness, and poor time-management skills (cf. Pychyl et al. The study reported here was conducted in a classroom
2000). Several cognitive variables have been found to context at two large public universities in the southwestern
correlate with procrastination, including irrational beliefs, United States. Data were collected during the second week of
external attribution styles, and distorted perceptions of the fall semester of 2002 and the third week of the spring
available and required time (Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter semester of 2003. Students in consumer behavior and intro-
2001; Vodanovich and Seib 1997). ductory marketing management courses, all of whom were
As compared with this focus on procrastinator characteris- seniors or juniors, were asked to individually recall and think
tics, less attention has been devoted to identifying the charac- about an important assignment they had completed during the
teristics of the tasks or activities that may influence procrasti- past semester. This allowed us to measure procrastination
nation behavior. Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice (1994) behavior on real assignments. With the recalled assignment in
suggested that procrastination serves to regulate negative mind, each student was then asked to fill out a questionnaire
emotions accompanying an unpleasant or uncomfortable about procrastination on that assignment and about various
task. Aversiveness of the task has been identified as a primary assignment-related variables.
motivator of procrastination (Solomon and Rothblum 1984). Because the surveys were administered by the professor
Milgram, Marshevsky, and Sadeh (1995) found that students during class time, the response rate was 100%. Altogether,
procrastinate more on academic tasks they characterize as 198 students participated. After discarding incomplete ques-
unpleasant than on those they characterize as pleasant. tionnaires, 194 questionnaires were used in the analysis.
Pychyl et al. (2000) intercepted and interviewed students, Eighty-eight male students and 106 female students submit-
some of whom were in the process of procrastinating tasks ted usable questionnaires. Three students did not answer the

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 7

question on gender. All responses were submitted anony- not as bad as procrastinating for 15 days on an assignment for
mously. Students were instructed to simply leave their com- which, say, 20 days are given.
pleted questionnaires on a table distant from the professor as
they exited the room. There were no differences on any of the Assignment-related measures. Nine constructs from the
measures between classes or sections. procrastination model developed by Paden and Stell (1997)
were operationalized as assignment-related measures. We
Measurement also included items to assess assignment-related fear (Solo-
mon and Rothblum 1984). Originally, 42 survey items were
Procrastination measure. To obtain a behavioral measure developed to measure these 10 constructs. Through pretests
of procrastination, students were first asked to think about an with students, the number of items was reduced to 30. Three
important assignment they had completed during the past additional items measure the individual’s self-reported pro-
semester and briefly describe it on the questionnaire form pensity to procrastinate. This was used as a covariate.
(example responses included term paper, analytical report, The 10 assignment-related constructs and their associated
industry analysis, and case analysis). Next, the questionnaire individual items are listed in Appendix 1. For all questions,
asked, “How many days or weeks did your instructor give you the response options consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale
to complete the assignment?” (M = 6.5 weeks), and, “How anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).
many days or weeks before the due date did you start the Scores for each of the 10 measures were derived by averaging
assignment?” (M = 3 weeks). This measured actual procrasti- the responses to the 3 scale items for that measure.
nation behavior on an assignment. To assess the validity of these measures, we gave the sur-
The response to the second question was divided into the vey questions to a sample of 58 students. The constructs mea-
response to the first question to derive a procrastination ratio sured (e.g., fear, norms, deadline pressure) were printed on
for each student. This measure followed from our definition the first page of a handout, and the survey questions were
of procrastination as the delay of a task or assignment that is printed on the second page. Students were asked to match the
under one’s control. It is also similar to the procedure used by survey questions to the appropriate constructs. For each con-
Janssen and Carton (1999). The larger the ratio, the more the struct, the percentage of students who correctly matched the
individual student procrastinated. A procrastination ratio of 1 construct and survey questions ranged from 89.7 % to 91.4%.
indicates that there was no procrastination, and the student To examine discriminant validity, the dimensionality of
started without delay. the items was tested through confirmatory actor analysis. The
For purposes of data analysis, a median split was per- analysis found a 10-factor model to have the best fit. This 10-
formed. The median ratio was 2.0, meaning that the median factor model had a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .91, a root
assignment was started halfway into the time given to com- mean square residual (RMSR) of .12, and total explained
plete it. Students with a procrastination ratio of lower than 2.0 variance of 82%.
(n = 90) were designated the low-procrastination group. Stu- Factor loadings using varimax rotation are displayed in
dents with a procrastination ratio of 2.0 or higher (n = 104) Appendix 2. Measures related to task importance loaded
were designated the high-procrastination group. A separate cleanly on five factors. Questions a1-a3 (see Appendix 1)
t test indicated that the proportions of men and women did measured fear or worry with regard to the assignment (M =
not differ significantly between the two conditions (t = 1.35, 3.81, α = .91). Items a4-a6 pertained to classroom norms
p = .18). about the degree to which it was expected that assignments
Because many students were exactly at the median, it was should be started early (M = 4.62, α = .63). Questions a7-a9
not possible to derive equal-sized groups. A post-hoc test in measured whether the student felt competing demands for his
which students with the median ratio of 2.0 were added to the or her time from other assignment deadlines (M = 4.21, α =
low-procrastination group, however, produced no significant .94). Questions a10-a12 asked about the incentives and
differences from the results as presented in this article. Also, a rewards given by instructors for not delaying (M = 4.28, α =
post-hoc test in which data at the median ratio of 2.0 were .83). Lastly, the presence of interdependence between the
eliminated, reducing power, produced no significant differ- assignment in question and other work in the course was mea-
ences from the original test. A further post-hoc test was done sured by Questions a13-a15 (M = 3.35, α = .56).
in which procrastination was measured as the absolute num- Questions related to task appeal loaded cleanly on two
ber of days that students delayed starting the assignment. This factors. The student’s interest in the assignment was mea-
test displayed similar but less clear results, with one fewer of sured by Questions b1-b3 (M = 4.22, α = .93). Skill variety
the measures (skill variety) significant. Perhaps this was due was measured by items b4-b6 (M = 5.17, α = .93). Assign-
to the fact that procrastination time is relative to the time ments requiring students to use a variety of skills may be per-
given for an assignment, so that, for example, procrastinating ceived as more positively challenging, thereby discouraging
for 15 days on an assignment for which 45 days are given is procrastination.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

8 APRIL 2005

Items measuring task difficulty loaded cleanly on three procrastination (F[1, 184] = 15.22, Mlow procrastination = 3.69,
factors. Questions c1-c3 measured student perception of the Mhigh procrastination = 2.68, p = .00). Third, interdependence
scope of the assignment and how time consuming it would be between the assignment and other work in the course resulted
(M = 5.54, α = .91). Questions c4-c6 measured the degree to in less procrastination (F[1, 184] = 8.96, Mlow procrastination =
which the student felt the assignment was difficult (M = 5.06, 3.63, Mhigh procrastination = 2.71, p = .00).
α = .92). Items c7-c9 measured the perceived clarity or lack of Lastly, the results suggest that norms in the classroom affect
ambiguity of instructions given for the assignment (M = 4.77, procrastination. As compared with the high-procrastination
α = .94). group, students who procrastinated less perceived that there
was a stronger classroom norm expecting the prompt execu-
Overall tendency to procrastinate. Finally, students were
tion of assignments (F[1, 184) = 13.93, Mlow procrastination = 4.79,
asked about their own proneness to procrastinate. This con-
Mhigh procrastination = 4.09, p = .00).
struct was measured by items d1-d3 (M = 4.21, α = .96)
There were no differences between the responses of the
shown in Appendix 1. By including a measure of overall ten-
low- and high-procrastination groups for two of the three task
dency to procrastinate, it was possible to compare the effects
difficulty measures: difficulty of the assignment (F[1, 184] =
of procrastination as a stable personality tendency with the
.00, Mlow procrastination = 5.04, Mhigh procrastination = 5.04, p = .99) and
effects of the assignment-related factors.
the degree to which the assignment was time consuming (F[1,
184] = 3.19, Mlow procrastination = 5.66, Mhigh procrastination = 5.35, p =
RESULTS .08). In addition, contrary to expectation based on prior evi-
dence surrounding the effects of fear of failure, no differences
A MANCOVA of procrastination (low-procrastination
were found between the two groups based on fear about the
group and high-procrastination group) on assignment-
assignment (F[1, 184] = .45, Mlow procrastination = 3.63, Mhigh procras-
related factors found significant differences for six of the
tination = 3.80, p = .51). Lastly, deadline pressure from other
assignment-related measures as well as on the subjects’ over-
courses had no effect (F[1, 184] = 1.24, Mlow procrastination = 4.79,
all tendency to procrastinate (F[1, 184] = 2.22, p = .02,
Mhigh procrastination = 5.06, p = .27).
Wilks’s Lambda = .73). The measure of overall tendency to
procrastinate was run as a covariate to control for the effects
of procrastination-relevant personality characteristics in the DISCUSSION
analysis (F[1, 184] = 2.04, p = .04). Although it had a signifi-
The results of this study found some, but not all, of the fac-
cant effect on the interest measure (F[1, 184] = 8.79, p = .00)
tors from Paden and Stell’s (1997) model to be significant.
and on the interdependence measure (F[1, 184] = 12.35, p =
First, the low-procrastination group reported more interest in
.00), the differences between groups after controlling for the
the assignment than did those who procrastinated more. This
covariate remained significant for several of the factors.
result makes sense, because individuals rarely procrastinate
Procrastination was affected by subject perceptions of the
enjoyable activities and interest is a great motivator (Strong-
assignment. The results are summarized in Table 1, and the
man and Burt 2000). Instructors will likely see less procrasti-
following section reports the findings. First, the results sug-
nation when they develop and use assignments perceived by
gest that interest in the assignment has a strong effect on pro-
students to be interesting. For example, using real and realis-
crastination. Those who had more interest in the assignment
tic projects, assignments that develop practical professional
procrastinated less (F[1, 184] = 16.33, Mlow procrastination = 4.78,
skills, and projects chosen because of their personal rele-
Mhigh procrastination = 3.72, p = .00). Similarly, the variety of skills
vance to students may decrease procrastination.
needed to complete the assignment affected procrastination
The variety of skills used in completing an assignment
(F[1, 184] = 5.18, Mlow procrastination = 5.29, Mhigh procrastination =
may also be related to interest. Assignments that require stu-
4.83, p = .02). Assignments perceived by students as requir-
dents to use a greater variety of skills may be perceived as
ing use of a greater variety of skills were associated with less
more interesting and so motivate students to start earlier.
procrastination.
Skills commonly required in marketing assignments include
The results also suggest that the way in which assignments
designing research instruments, collecting secondary data,
are administered affects procrastination. Three factors related
collecting primary data, analyzing data, developing conclu-
to assignment administration differed in the expected direc-
sions and strategic recommendations, developing strategic
tion as predicted by Paden and Stell’s (1997) model. First,
and tactical plans, writing, and making an oral presentation.
giving clear rather than ambiguous instructions reduced pro-
Such assignments further require that students demonstrate
crastination. Clarity of instructions was greater for the low-
conceptualization, critical thinking, problem-solving, and
procrastination group than for the high-procrastination group
communication skills. Assignments requiring that students
(F[1, 184] = 4.14, Mlow procrastination = 5.16, Mhigh procrastination =
use a variety of skills might be perceived as more difficult,
4.81, p = .03). Second, giving rewards appeared to reduce

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 9

TABLE 1
MEANS ON ASSIGNMENT-RELATED MEASURES FOR LOW AND HIGH PROCRASTINATION GROUPS

Measure Mean for Low-Procrastination Group Mean for High-Procrastination Group F Value

Fear 3.63 3.80 .45

Norms 4.79 4.09 13.93**
Deadline pressure 4.79 5.06 1.24
Rewards 3.69 2.68 15.22*
Interdependence 3.63 2.71 8.96**
Interest 4.78 3.72 16.33**
Skill variety 5.29 4.83 5.18*
Scope of task (time consuming) 5.60 5.22 3.19
Difficulty 5.04 5.04 .00
Clarity 5.16 4.61 4.81*
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

but our results found that difficulty was not a factor in It is interesting to note those factors that did not vary
procrastination. between the high- and low-procrastination groups. Contrary
Clarity of instructions was another factor found to be sig- to expectations based on research identifying fear of failure as
nificant in this study. Unambiguous instructions enable stu- an important factor contributing to procrastination (Solomon
dents to understand exactly what is expected and required to and Rothblum 1984), the results of this study found no effect
succeed on an assignment, and can reduce fear about starting. for fear. It appears that fear did not produce the paralyzing
Especially when it is the first time that a group of students has effect suggested by the literature. Fear with regard to the
engaged in a particular type of assignment, instructors may assignment was not included in Paden and Stell’s (1997)
reduce procrastination by laying out step-by-step instruc- model because it is not directly controllable by the instructor.
tions, being readily available to provide timely feedback and The instructor can, however, elicit fear through assignment
clarification, and sharing exemplary completed assignments and classroom factors that are controllable.
from past terms. Surprisingly, neither the perceived difficulty of the assign-
The results also suggest that procrastination is reduced ment nor how time consuming it was differed between the
when there are rewards or incentives for getting an early start. high- and low-procrastination groups. Given the lack of
Rewards sometimes include extrinsic rewards such as extra impact of fear, these results suggest that instructors can,
points for starting early or less tangible rewards such as within reason, give even formidable assignments without sig-
smiley face stickers or encouraging comments on work in nificantly increasing student procrastination. Our results sug-
progress. In addition, instructors sometimes provide remind- gest that instructors need not be afraid to give assignments
ers of the intrinsic rewards that derive from starting (and fin- that challenge students as long as the assignments are inter-
ishing) early. These include reminders that students who start esting and the students are provided relatively clear
early usually do a better job, that such students are able to instructions as to how to complete them.
obtain early feedback, and that such students feel more The results also seem to suggest that positive emotions felt
relaxed and less pressured as the due date nears. by students, especially interest, influence the degree of pro-
As suggested by Paden and Stell (1997), it appears that crastination more than do perceived difficulty or the time
building interdependence into the structure of a course can required. It appears that the way the instructor structures an
reduce procrastination. For example, breaking large assign- assignment (e.g., clarity of instructions, providing interesting
ments down into smaller interdependent parts, requiring mas- topics and opportunities for skill development, and providing
tery of one part of a course before going on to another, or rewards) may reduce procrastination by influencing how stu-
developing a series of shorter assignments that build on one dents feel about the assignment. Future research should look
another may encourage less procrastination than requiring at the mediating effects of emotions on the relationship
one comprehensive assignment due at the end of the term. between assignment-related factors and procrastination.
Social norms in a class were found in this study to have a Unexpectedly, having other deadlines seemed to have lit-
major impact on procrastination. Normative influence can tle effect on procrastination. Perhaps students lacked the time
come from other students who set a standard of either management skills to prepare for the impact of conflicting
promptness or procrastination for others to model. It can also assignments. This suggests that professors may want to help
come from instructor expectations and actions in the class their students to plan their overall work schedules for the
that set behavioral standards. term. In informal interviews, some instructors said they felt

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

10 APRIL 2005

they helped reduce the failure rate among their students and serve to provide more timely feedback for students to
advisees by requiring students to map out a schedule of their improve the final project.
weekly and monthly workloads in all their courses. One suggestion that came out clearly in the student inter-
A posttest supported the results of this study. A sample of views is that instructors need not fear that they are nagging
students (n = 59) were asked how much they felt each of the students by reminding them of impending deadlines. Stu-
factors in our main study would influence them to either pro- dents indicated that they like it when instructors set clear
crastinate or start early. Results suggested that, once again, norms and remind them of their expectations. With compet-
interest (78% of respondents) and rewards (80%) were major ing deadlines in other courses and yet developing time man-
factors potentially reducing procrastination and leading to an agement skills, students may see frequent reminders as a wel-
early start on assignments. Students also felt that interdepen- come aid to keeping on schedule.
dence of assignments (70%) and classroom norms (72%) The study of task characteristics affecting procrastination
helped them to start assignments early. One difference from also has potential implications for other contexts within
the main study is that a small majority of students (56%) felt higher education. Procrastination is not limited to students.
that the difficulty of an assignment might lead them to The study of task characteristics could be applied to examine
procrastinate. factors that influence procrastination among faculty mem-
Responses to posttest open-ended questions shed further bers. For example, research and publishing are major con-
light on the task characteristics that influence procrastination. texts within which procrastination sometimes takes place.
Student responses to open-ended questions revealed that Certainly, various aspects of the tasks of conducting and pub-
some students feel it is easiest to procrastinate on large lishing research are controllable by faculty members. Thus,
semester-long assignments. On one hand, students com- the findings of this research could be applied to examining
mented that the time when they started assignments was how to increase marketing faculty research productivity.
directly related to the time they had to complete the assign- Another area that future research might address is in the
ments and that a semester was too long a time period. On the performance of administrative tasks. Throughout their
other hand, others felt that having a longer time helped them careers, faculty members are responsible for large and time-
not to procrastinate and that a short deadline leads to procras- consuming administrative tasks such as compiling their per-
tination. Students felt that marketing instructors could break sonnel files, preparing committee reports, and reading and
down comprehensive assignments into smaller parts with grading student papers. Such tasks are frequently regarded as
some parts having earlier due dates, a finding that supports undesirable and so are often delayed. Future research could
the results of the main study. Students also commented that it use the findings in this study as a basis for examining how to
was helpful when instructors reminded them of impending design administrative tasks to minimize procrastination.
deadlines and of the benefits of starting early. There are limitations of the study presented in this article.
First, the results rely on recollections of past assignments.
Remembered procrastination behavior may differ from
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
actual behavior. As a direction for future research, experi-
This study suggests several implications for marketing mental manipulation of task characteristics would allow for
instructors wishing to reduce student procrastination. First, measurement of actual procrastination behavior under
instructors who provide interesting assignments for their stu- differing treatments.
dents may see better quality of results because of reduced In addition, task-related procrastination may vary with
procrastination. Students will get an earlier start on assign- such factors as age and work experience. For example, stu-
ments that capture their interest and presumably put more dents with hard-earned work experience may have quite dif-
time into them. Perhaps, as one instructor interviewed sug- ferent reactions to specific types of assignments than do stu-
gested, students could be given a choice of acceptable assign- dents recently out of high school. Future research should
ments and asked to choose one that is of interest to them. examine such mediating factors.
Another suggestion was to simply be cognizant of student
career interests and develop assignments that provide stu-
dents with opportunities to develop career-relevant
knowledge and skills.
APPENDIX 1
Second, instructors can help students not to procrastinate
Assignment-Related Questions
by breaking up large semester-long assignments into smaller
interdependent ones. One instructor suggested making parts Fear (M = 3.81, α = .91)
of the assignments due to correspond to the schedule of topics
a1. I worried that I wasn’t going to do well on that assignment.
taught in the class. Requiring several interdependent or itera-
a2. I thought maybe I would perform poorly on that assignment.
tive assignments may not only reduce procrastination but also a3. I wasn’t confident I could do well on that assignment.

(continued)

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 11

APPENDIX 1 (continued)

Norms (M = 4.62, α = .63) Skill Variety (M = 5.17, α = .93)

a4. In that class, work had to be started early. b4. The assignment required using a variety of skills.
a5. My instructor expected assignments to be started early. b5. I used a lot of different skills to complete that assignment.
a6. Most students started early on assignments for that class. b6. I had to approach the assignment using many different types
Deadline Pressure (M = 4.21, α = .94) of skills.

a7. I had many other assignments due before that one. Scope of Task (Time Consuming) (M = 5.54, α = .91)
a8. Many other assignments had to be finished before I could fin- c1. The assignment required a lot of time.
ish that one. c2. Completing that assignment occupied a lot of my free time.
a9. I had many other assignments with deadlines before that one. c3. The assignment was time consuming.
Rewards (M = 4.28, α = .83) Difficulty (M = 5.06, α = .92)
a10. Students benefited if they started early on the assignment. c4. I believed that was going to be a tough assignment.
a11. There were incentives for starting the assignment early. c5. That was a difficult assignment.
a12. We were rewarded for getting an early start on the assignment. c6. I knew that assignment would not be easy.
Interdependence (M = 3.35, α = .56) Clarity (M = 4.77, α = .94)
a13. Finishing other work in the course depended on first doing c7. The requirements for the assignment were clear.
that assignment. c8. I understood exactly what I had to do for that assignment.
a14. I had to complete the assignment before I could do other c9. I knew exactly what the instructor wanted for that
assignments for the course. assignment.
a15. I needed to finish the assignment before I could start other Propensity to Procrastinate (M = 4.21, α = .96)
work in the course.
d1. I delay starting assignments.
Interest (M = 4.22, α = .93) d2. I procrastinate on assignments.
b1. I was interested in the assignment. d3. I wait until the last minute to work on assignments.
b2. That assignment held my interest.
b3. I felt really involved with that assignment.

APPENDIX 2
Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings of Survey Items
Task Importance Items
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

a1 — — — .880 —
a2 — — — .933 —
a3 — — — .880 —
a4 — — — — .599
a5 — — — — .787
a6 — — — — .823
a7 — .926 — — —
a8 — .927 — — —
a9 — .930 — — —
a10 .881 — — — —
a11 .944 — — — —
a12 .928 — — — —
a13 — — .840 — —
a14 — — .948 — —
a15 — — .950 — —

(continued)

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

12 APRIL 2005

APPENDIX 2 (continued)

Task Appeal Items

Factor 1 Factor 2

b1 — .937
b2 — .953
b3 — .905
b4 .953 —
b5 .967 —
b6 .941 —

Task Difficulty Items

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

c1 — .871 —
c2 — .890 —
c3 — .900 —
c4 — — .869
c5 — — .878
c6 — — .886
c7 .953 — —
c8 .938 — —
c9 .927 — —
NOTE: Only factor loadings of > .4 are reported.

REFERENCES Owens, Anthony M., and Ian Newbegin. 1997. Procrastination in high school
achievement: A causal structural model. Journal of Social Behavior and
Baumeister, Roy F., Todd F. Heatherton, and Dianne M. Tice. 1994. Losing Psychology 12 (December): 869-87.
control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Aca- Paden, Nita, and Roxanne Stell. 1997. Reducing procrastination through
demic Press. assignment and course design. Marketing Education Review 7 (Sum-
Beck, Brett L., Susan R. Koons, and Debra L. Milgrim. 2000. Correlates and mer): 17-25.
consequences of behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic pro- Pychyl, Timothy A., Jonathan M. Lee, Rachelle Thibodeau, and Allan Blunt.
crastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. 2000. Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergrad-
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15 (5): 3-13. uate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality
Burka, Jane B., and Lenora M. Yuen. 1990. Procrastination: Why you do it, 15 (5): 239-54.
what to do about it. 2nd ed. New York: Perseus. Pychyl, Timothy A., Richard W. Morin, and Brian R. Salmon. 2000. Procras-
Ferrari, Joseph R., and Brett L. Beck. 1998. Affective responses before and tination and the planning fallacy: An examination of the study habits of
after fraudulent excuses by academic procrastinators. Education 118 (4): university students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15 (5):
529-37. 135-50.
Ferrari, Joseph R., Judith L. Johnson, and William. G. McCown, eds. 1995. Saddler, C. Douglas, and Joshua Buley. 1999. Predictors of academic pro-
Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. crastination in college students. Psychological Reports 84 (April):
New York: Plenum. 686-88.
Harriott, Jesse S., and Joseph R. Ferrari. 1996. Prevalence of procrastination Senecal, Caroline, Richard Koestner, and Robert J. Vallerand. 1995. Self-
among samples of adults. Psychological Reports 78 (2): 611-16. regulation and academic procrastination. Journal of Social Psychology
Haycock, Laurel A., Patricia McCarthy, and Carol L. Skay. 1998. Procrasti- 135 (5): 607-19.
nation in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal Solomon, Laura J., and Esther D. Rothblum. 1984. Academic procrastina-
of Counseling and Development 76 (Summer): 317-24. tion: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counsel-
Janssen, Tracy, and John S. Carton. 1999. The effects of locus of control and ing Psychology 31 (October): 503-9.
task difficulty on procrastination. Journal of Genetic Psychology 160 (4): Strongman, Kenneth T., and Christopher D. B. Burt. 2000. Taking breaks
436-42. from work: An exploratory inquiry. Journal of Psychology 134 (May):
Kachgal, Mera M., L. Sunny Hansen, and Kevin J. Nutter. 2001. Academic 229-42.
procrastination prevention/intervention strategies and recommendations. Tice, Dianne M., and Roy F. Baumeister. 1997. Longitudinal study of pro-
Journal of Developmental Education 25 (Fall): 14-24. crastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of
Lay, Clarry H. 1986. At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal dawdling. Psychological Science 8 (November): 454-58.
of Research in Personality 20 (December): 474-95. Tuckman, Bruce W. 1998. Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastina-
Milgram, Noach, Sergio Marshevsky, and Chaya Sadeh. 1995. Correlates of tors to study. Journal of Experimental Education 66 (Winter): 141-47.
academic procrastination: Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capa- ———. 2002. Academic procrastinators: Their rationalizations and web-
bility. Journal of Psychology 129 (2): 145-55. course performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Chicago, August.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016

 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 13

Vodanovich, Stephen J., and Hope M. Seib. 1997. Relationship between Wesley, Joseph C. 1994. Effects of ability, high school achievement, and
time structure and procrastination. Psychological Reports 80 (Febru- procrastinatory behavior on college performance. Educational and Psy-
ary): 211-15. chological Measurement 54 (Summer): 404-8.
Wesp, Richard. 1986. Reducing procrastination through required course
involvement. Teaching of Psychology 13 (October): 128-30.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016