ACKERMAN; GROSS (2005)

Prévia do material em texto

APRIL 2005JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
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
previous studies have examined personality factors that con-
tribute to procrastination. This study examines selected
assignment characteristics controllable by the instructor that
might influence student procrastination. Results found less
procrastination on assignments that were perceived as inter-
esting, that required students to use a variety of skills, for
which students perceived social norms and rewards for start-
ing promptly, and for which the instructor provided clear
instructions. Procrastination was not affected by fear, dead-
line pressure from other assignments, or the degree to which
the task was perceived as difficult or time consuming.
Keywords: procrastination; procrastinate; assignment;
task; student
Procrastination is quite common in society. Most people
procrastinate at least occasionally (Kachgal, Hansen, and
Nutter 2001). At least 20% of adults, however, characterize
themselves as chronic procrastinators (Harriott and Ferrari
1996). We define procrastination as the delay of a task or
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
one needs to perform an activity or attend to a task, and per-
haps even wanting to do so, yet failing to motivate oneself to
perform within the desired or expected time frame.
Procrastination may be even more widespread within an
academic context. Various studies have found procrastination
to affect 50% to 95% of undergraduate students (cf. Janssen
and Carton 1999; Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter 2001; Pychyl
et al. 2000; Pychyl, Morin, and Salmon 2000). Little differ-
ence in procrastination tendency has been found for different
ethnicities, ages, or genders (e.g., Ferrari and Beck 1998;
Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter 2001). In short, procrastination
affects nearly everyone (Senecal, Koestner, and Vallerand
1995).
Why should marketing educators care if their students
procrastinate? Late assignments and panicked last-minute
inquiries can waste instructor time, but the primary reason is
that learning suffers. Marketing coursework often requires
that students complete large-scale assignments (e.g., devel-
oping marketing plans, carrying out market research studies,
and completing market analyses) that assume sustained effort
throughout a prolonged period. Professors may allow several
weeks or even a full term for the completion of such assign-
ments so that students have adequate time to conduct in-depth
research, produce thoughtful analyses, integrate their learn-
ing, and practice new skills, only to find that many students
perform only perfunctory work because they simply started
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
procrastination from another perspective: examining how
task characteristics related to assignments and courses influ-
ence procrastination. Most of the task characteristics exam-
ined were first suggested in a conceptual article by Paden and
Stell (1997), yet not measured or tested empirically. The
study reported here compares the task characteristics of par-
ticular critical incident assignments recalled by individual
students, based on whether each student reported more or less
procrastination behavior on his or her respective assignment.
CONSEQUENCES OF PROCRASTINATION
Most studies of academic procrastination find that it leads
to lowered academic performance. Solomon and Rothblum
(1984) found that students who habitually procrastinate
believe that their tendency to do so significantly interferes
with their academic standing, capacity to master classroom
material, and quality of life. Although procrastination is not
5
gfdgf
David S. Ackerman is an associate professor in the Department of Marketing,
College of Business and Economics, at California State University,
Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8377; e-mail:
david.s.ackerman@csun.edu. Barbara L. Gross is an associate professor in
the Department of Marketing, College of Business and Economics, at Cali-
fornia State University, Northridge; e-mail: barbara.gross@csun.edu.
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 27 No. 1, April 2005 5-13
DOI: 10.1177/0273475304273842
© 2005 Sage Publications
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
always detrimental to performance (Lay 1986) and is moder-
ated by other variables such as cognitive ability (Beck,
Koons, and Milgrim 2000), numerous studies have found
procrastination related to lower grade point average, lower
performance on specific assignments, and lower achievement
in individual classes (Owens and Newbegin 1997; Tice and
Baumeister 1997; Tuckman 2002; Wesley 1994).
Although procrastination may serve to relieve stress in the
short term, studies of student procrastination find that it also
causes stress. Students frequently worry about their procras-
tination and seek counseling because it leaves them feeling
anxious, guilty, and even more pressured (Ferrari, Johnson,
and McCown 1995; Pychyl et al. 2000).
ANTECEDENTS OF PROCRASTINATION
A wide range of behavioral, affective, and cognitive fac-
tors have been identified as contributing to procrastination. A
dominant focus in the research literature has been to examine
the personality or psychological state of the procrastinating
individual. Procrastination behavior has been linked to lack
of motivation, deficient self-regulation, external locus of con-
trol, perfectionism, trait and state anxiety, fear of failure, low
self-efficacy, and low self-confidence (Haycock, McCarthy,
and Skay 1998; Janssen and Carton 1999; Pychyl et al. 2000;
Saddler and Buley 1999; Senecal, Koestner, and Vallerand
1995). Self-esteem is an important part of some of these
explanations. Burka and Yuen (1990) characterized procras-
tination as a way of expressing internal conflict and
protecting a vulnerable sense of self-esteem.
Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that most students’
explanations for their procrastination were related to fear of
failure, taking on such specific forms as performance anxiety,
perfectionism, and lack of self-confidence. Procrastination
has also been associated with disorganization, low conscien-
tiousness, and poor time-management skills (cf. Pychyl et al.
2000). Several cognitive variables have been found to
correlate with procrastination, including irrational beliefs,
external attribution styles, and distorted perceptions of
available and required time (Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter
2001; Vodanovich and Seib 1997).
As compared with this focus on procrastinator characteris-
tics, less attention has been devoted to identifying the charac-
teristics of the tasks or activities that may influence procrasti-
nation behavior. Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice (1994)
suggested that procrastination serves to regulate negative
emotions accompanying an unpleasant or uncomfortable
task. Aversiveness of the task has been identified as a primary
motivator of procrastination (Solomon and Rothblum 1984).
Milgram, Marshevsky, and Sadeh (1995) found that students
procrastinate more on academic tasks they characterize as
unpleasant than on those they characterize as pleasant.
Pychyl et al. (2000) intercepted and interviewed students,
some of whom were in the process of procrastinating tasks
and activities. The students identified what activity/task they
thought they should be doing at the time and what activity/
task they actually were doing. The students who were pro-
crastinating rated the activities they were currently engaged
in as being less important than the activitiesor tasks they were
procrastinating. They also rated the tasks they were engaged
in as more pleasant, less confusing, less difficult, and less
stressful than the tasks/activities they were procrastinating.
Still, relatively few studies have examined specific charac-
teristics of the task itself or looked at how instructors can
structure their courses and assignments to minimize procras-
tination. Instead, literature pertaining to reducing procrasti-
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-
tively few studies have examined strategies, such as assigning
frequent quizzes (Tuckman 1998) or setting frequent and
early due dates (Wesp 1986), that instructors might use in
their classes to discourage procrastination.
As one notable exception, Paden and Stell (1997), in a
conceptual article in the marketing education literature, rec-
ognized that academic assignments lend themselves to pro-
crastination and that instructors may be able to modify
assignments and class formats to decrease procrastination
and improve performance and learning. Based on a review of
procrastination literature, and especially literature from
human resources, the authors identified several task charac-
teristics expected to influence the degree of procrastination
on academic assignments. These included task importance
(norms, deadlines, rewards, and interdependence), task
appeal (interest level and skill variety), and task difficulty
(knowledge required, scope of task, and clarity).
METHOD
The study reported here was conducted in a classroom
context at two large public universities in the southwestern
United States. Data were collected during the second week of
the fall semester of 2002 and the third week of the spring
semester of 2003. Students in consumer behavior and intro-
ductory marketing management courses, all of whom were
seniors or juniors, were asked to individually recall and think
about an important assignment they had completed during the
past semester. This allowed us to measure procrastination
behavior on real assignments. With the recalled assignment in
mind, each student was then asked to fill out a questionnaire
about procrastination on that assignment and about various
assignment-related variables.
Because the surveys were administered by the professor
during class time, the response rate was 100%. Altogether,
198 students participated. After discarding incomplete ques-
tionnaires, 194 questionnaires were used in the analysis.
Eighty-eight male students and 106 female students submit-
ted usable questionnaires. Three students did not answer the
6 APRIL 2005
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
question on gender. All responses were submitted anony-
mously. Students were instructed to simply leave their com-
pleted questionnaires on a table distant from the professor as
they exited the room. There were no differences on any of the
measures between classes or sections.
Measurement
Procrastination measure. To obtain a behavioral measure
of procrastination, students were first asked to think about an
important assignment they had completed during the past
semester and briefly describe it on the questionnaire form
(example responses included term paper, analytical report,
industry analysis, and case analysis). Next, the questionnaire
asked, “How many days or weeks did your instructor give you
to complete the assignment?” (M = 6.5 weeks), and, “How
many days or weeks before the due date did you start the
assignment?” (M = 3 weeks). This measured actual procrasti-
nation behavior on an assignment.
The response to the second question was divided into the
response to the first question to derive a procrastination ratio
for each student. This measure followed from our definition
of procrastination as the delay of a task or assignment that is
under one’s control. It is also similar to the procedure used by
Janssen and Carton (1999). The larger the ratio, the more the
individual student procrastinated. A procrastination ratio of 1
indicates that there was no procrastination, and the student
started without delay.
For purposes of data analysis, a median split was per-
formed. The median ratio was 2.0, meaning that the median
assignment was started halfway into the time given to com-
plete it. Students with a procrastination ratio of lower than 2.0
(n = 90) were designated the low-procrastination group. Stu-
dents with a procrastination ratio of 2.0 or higher (n = 104)
were designated the high-procrastination group. A separate
t test indicated that the proportions of men and women did
not differ significantly between the two conditions (t = 1.35,
p = .18).
Because many students were exactly at the median, it was
not possible to derive equal-sized groups. A post-hoc test in
which students with the median ratio of 2.0 were added to the
low-procrastination group, however, produced no significant
differences from the results as presented in this article. Also, a
post-hoc test in which data at the median ratio of 2.0 were
eliminated, reducing power, produced no significant differ-
ences from the original test. A further post-hoc test was done
in which procrastination was measured as the absolute num-
ber of days that students delayed starting the assignment. This
test displayed similar but less clear results, with one fewer of
the measures (skill variety) significant. Perhaps this was due
to the fact that procrastination time is relative to the time
given for an assignment, so that, for example, procrastinating
for 15 days on an assignment for which 45 days are given is
not as bad as procrastinating for 15 days on an assignment for
which, say, 20 days are given.
Assignment-related measures. Nine constructs from the
procrastination model developed by Paden and Stell (1997)
were operationalized as assignment-related measures. We
also included items to assess assignment-related fear (Solo-
mon and Rothblum 1984). Originally, 42 survey items were
developed to measure these 10 constructs. Through pretests
with students, the number of items was reduced to 30. Three
additional items measure the individual’s self-reported pro-
pensity to procrastinate. This was used as a covariate.
The 10 assignment-related constructs and their associated
individual items are listed in Appendix 1. For all questions,
the response options consisted of a 7-point Likert-type scale
anchored by strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).
Scores for each of the 10 measures were derived by averaging
the responses to the 3 scale items for that measure.
To assess the validity of these measures, we gave the sur-
vey questions to a sample of 58 students. The constructs mea-
sured (e.g., fear, norms, deadline pressure) were printed on
the first page of a handout, and the survey questions were
printed on the second page. Students were asked to match the
survey questions to the appropriate constructs. For each con-
struct, the percentage of students who correctly matched the
construct and survey questions ranged from 89.7 % to 91.4%.
To examine discriminant validity, the dimensionality of
the items was tested through confirmatory actor analysis. The
analysis found a 10-factor model to have the best fit. This 10-
factor model had a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of .91, a root
mean square residual (RMSR) of .12, and total explained
variance of 82%.
Factor loadings using varimax rotation are displayed in
Appendix 2. Measures related to task importance loaded
cleanly on five factors. Questions a1-a3 (see Appendix 1)
measured fear or worry with regard to the assignment (M =
3.81, α = .91). Items a4-a6 pertained to classroom norms
about the degree to which it was expected that assignments
should be started early (M = 4.62, α = .63). Questions a7-a9
measured whether the student felt competing demands for his
or her time from other assignment deadlines (M = 4.21,α =
.94). Questions a10-a12 asked about the incentives and
rewards given by instructors for not delaying (M = 4.28, α =
.83). Lastly, the presence of interdependence between the
assignment in question and other work in the course was mea-
sured by Questions a13-a15 (M = 3.35, α = .56).
Questions related to task appeal loaded cleanly on two
factors. The student’s interest in the assignment was mea-
sured by Questions b1-b3 (M = 4.22, α = .93). Skill variety
was measured by items b4-b6 (M = 5.17, α = .93). Assign-
ments requiring students to use a variety of skills may be per-
ceived as more positively challenging, thereby discouraging
procrastination.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 7
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
Items measuring task difficulty loaded cleanly on three
factors. Questions c1-c3 measured student perception of the
scope of the assignment and how time consuming it would be
(M = 5.54, α = .91). Questions c4-c6 measured the degree to
which the student felt the assignment was difficult (M = 5.06,
α = .92). Items c7-c9 measured the perceived clarity or lack of
ambiguity of instructions given for the assignment (M = 4.77,
α = .94).
Overall tendency to procrastinate. Finally, students were
asked about their own proneness to procrastinate. This con-
struct was measured by items d1-d3 (M = 4.21, α = .96)
shown in Appendix 1. By including a measure of overall ten-
dency to procrastinate, it was possible to compare the effects
of procrastination as a stable personality tendency with the
effects of the assignment-related factors.
RESULTS
A MANCOVA of procrastination (low-procrastination
group and high-procrastination group) on assignment-
related factors found significant differences for six of the
assignment-related measures as well as on the subjects’over-
all tendency to procrastinate (F[1, 184] = 2.22, p = .02,
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
analysis (F[1, 184] = 2.04, p = .04). Although it had a signifi-
cant effect on the interest measure (F[1, 184] = 8.79, p = .00)
and on the interdependence measure (F[1, 184] = 12.35, p =
.00), the differences between groups after controlling for the
covariate remained significant for several of the factors.
Procrastination was affected by subject perceptions of the
assignment. The results are summarized in Table 1, and the
following section reports the findings. First, the results sug-
gest that interest in the assignment has a strong effect on pro-
crastination. Those who had more interest in the assignment
procrastinated less (F[1, 184] = 16.33, Mlow procrastination = 4.78,
Mhigh procrastination = 3.72, p = .00). Similarly, the variety of skills
needed to complete the assignment affected procrastination
(F[1, 184] = 5.18, Mlow procrastination = 5.29, Mhigh procrastination =
4.83, p = .02). Assignments perceived by students as requir-
ing use of a greater variety of skills were associated with less
procrastination.
The results also suggest that the way in which assignments
are administered affects procrastination. Three factors related
to assignment administration differed in the expected direc-
tion as predicted by Paden and Stell’s (1997) model. First,
giving clear rather than ambiguous instructions reduced pro-
crastination. Clarity of instructions was greater for the low-
procrastination group than for the high-procrastination group
(F[1, 184] = 4.14, Mlow procrastination = 5.16, Mhigh procrastination =
4.81, p = .03). Second, giving rewards appeared to reduce
procrastination (F[1, 184] = 15.22, Mlow procrastination = 3.69,
Mhigh procrastination = 2.68, p = .00). Third, interdependence
between the assignment and other work in the course resulted
in less procrastination (F[1, 184] = 8.96, Mlow procrastination =
3.63, Mhigh procrastination = 2.71, p = .00).
Lastly, the results suggest that norms in the classroom affect
procrastination. As compared with the high-procrastination
group, students who procrastinated less perceived that there
was a stronger classroom norm expecting the prompt execu-
tion of assignments (F[1, 184) = 13.93, Mlow procrastination = 4.79,
Mhigh procrastination = 4.09, p = .00).
There were no differences between the responses of the
low- and high-procrastination groups for two of the three task
difficulty measures: difficulty of the assignment (F[1, 184] =
.00, Mlow procrastination = 5.04, Mhigh procrastination = 5.04, p = .99) and
the degree to which the assignment was time consuming (F[1,
184] = 3.19, Mlow procrastination = 5.66, Mhigh procrastination = 5.35, p =
.08). In addition, contrary to expectation based on prior evi-
dence surrounding the effects of fear of failure, no differences
were found between the two groups based on fear about the
assignment (F[1, 184] = .45, Mlow procrastination = 3.63, Mhigh procras-
tination = 3.80, p = .51). Lastly, deadline pressure from other
courses had no effect (F[1, 184] = 1.24, Mlow procrastination = 4.79,
Mhigh procrastination = 5.06, p = .27).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study found some, but not all, of the fac-
tors from Paden and Stell’s (1997) model to be significant.
First, the low-procrastination group reported more interest in
the assignment than did those who procrastinated more. This
result makes sense, because individuals rarely procrastinate
enjoyable activities and interest is a great motivator (Strong-
man and Burt 2000). Instructors will likely see less procrasti-
nation when they develop and use assignments perceived by
students to be interesting. For example, using real and realis-
tic projects, assignments that develop practical professional
skills, and projects chosen because of their personal rele-
vance to students may decrease procrastination.
The variety of skills used in completing an assignment
may also be related to interest. Assignments that require stu-
dents to use a greater variety of skills may be perceived as
more interesting and so motivate students to start earlier.
Skills commonly required in marketing assignments include
designing research instruments, collecting secondary data,
collecting primary data, analyzing data, developing conclu-
sions and strategic recommendations, developing strategic
and tactical plans, writing, and making an oral presentation.
Such assignments further require that students demonstrate
conceptualization, critical thinking, problem-solving, and
communication skills. Assignments requiring that students
use a variety of skills might be perceived as more difficult,
8 APRIL 2005
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
but our results found that difficulty was not a factor in
procrastination.
Clarity of instructions was another factor found to be sig-
nificant in this study. Unambiguous instructions enable stu-
dents to understand exactly what is expected and required to
succeed on an assignment, and can reduce fear about starting.
Especially when it is the first time that a group of students has
engaged in a particular type of assignment, instructors may
reduce procrastination by laying out step-by-step instruc-
tions, being readily available to provide timely feedback and
clarification, and sharing exemplary completed assignments
from past terms.
The results also suggest that procrastination is reduced
when there are rewards or incentives for getting an early start.
Rewards sometimes include extrinsic rewards such as extra
points for starting early or less tangible rewards such as
smiley face stickers or encouraging comments on work in
progress. In addition, instructors sometimes provide remind-
ers of the intrinsic rewards that derive from starting (and fin-
ishing) early. These include reminders that students who start
early usually do a better job, that such students are able to
obtain early feedback, and thatsuch students feel more
relaxed and less pressured as the due date nears.
As suggested by Paden and Stell (1997), it appears that
building interdependence into the structure of a course can
reduce procrastination. For example, breaking large assign-
ments down into smaller interdependent parts, requiring mas-
tery of one part of a course before going on to another, or
developing a series of shorter assignments that build on one
another may encourage less procrastination than requiring
one comprehensive assignment due at the end of the term.
Social norms in a class were found in this study to have a
major impact on procrastination. Normative influence can
come from other students who set a standard of either
promptness or procrastination for others to model. It can also
come from instructor expectations and actions in the class
that set behavioral standards.
It is interesting to note those factors that did not vary
between the high- and low-procrastination groups. Contrary
to expectations based on research identifying fear of failure as
an important factor contributing to procrastination (Solomon
and Rothblum 1984), the results of this study found no effect
for fear. It appears that fear did not produce the paralyzing
effect suggested by the literature. Fear with regard to the
assignment was not included in Paden and Stell’s (1997)
model because it is not directly controllable by the instructor.
The instructor can, however, elicit fear through assignment
and classroom factors that are controllable.
Surprisingly, neither the perceived difficulty of the assign-
ment nor how time consuming it was differed between the
high- and low-procrastination groups. Given the lack of
impact of fear, these results suggest that instructors can,
within reason, give even formidable assignments without sig-
nificantly increasing student procrastination. Our results sug-
gest that instructors need not be afraid to give assignments
that challenge students as long as the assignments are inter-
esting and the students are provided relatively clear
instructions as to how to complete them.
The results also seem to suggest that positive emotions felt
by students, especially interest, influence the degree of pro-
crastination more than do perceived difficulty or the time
required. It appears that the way the instructor structures an
assignment (e.g., clarity of instructions, providing interesting
topics and opportunities for skill development, and providing
rewards) may reduce procrastination by influencing how stu-
dents feel about the assignment. Future research should look
at the mediating effects of emotions on the relationship
between assignment-related factors and procrastination.
Unexpectedly, having other deadlines seemed to have lit-
tle effect on procrastination. Perhaps students lacked the time
management skills to prepare for the impact of conflicting
assignments. This suggests that professors may want to help
their students to plan their overall work schedules for the
term. In informal interviews, some instructors said they felt
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.
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
they helped reduce the failure rate among their students and
advisees by requiring students to map out a schedule of their
weekly and monthly workloads in all their courses.
A posttest supported the results of this study. A sample of
students (n = 59) were asked how much they felt each of the
factors in our main study would influence them to either pro-
crastinate or start early. Results suggested that, once again,
interest (78% of respondents) and rewards (80%) were major
factors potentially reducing procrastination and leading to an
early start on assignments. Students also felt that interdepen-
dence of assignments (70%) and classroom norms (72%)
helped them to start assignments early. One difference from
the main study is that a small majority of students (56%) felt
that the difficulty of an assignment might lead them to
procrastinate.
Responses to posttest open-ended questions shed further
light on the task characteristics that influence procrastination.
Student responses to open-ended questions revealed that
some students feel it is easiest to procrastinate on large
semester-long assignments. On one hand, students com-
mented that the time when they started assignments was
directly related to the time they had to complete the assign-
ments and that a semester was too long a time period. On the
other hand, others felt that having a longer time helped them
not to procrastinate and that a short deadline leads to procras-
tination. Students felt that marketing instructors could break
down comprehensive assignments into smaller parts with
some parts having earlier due dates, a finding that supports
the results of the main study. Students also commented that it
was helpful when instructors reminded them of impending
deadlines and of the benefits of starting early.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study suggests several implications for marketing
instructors wishing to reduce student procrastination. First,
instructors who provide interesting assignments for their stu-
dents may see better quality of results because of reduced
procrastination. Students will get an earlier start on assign-
ments that capture their interest and presumably put more
time into them. Perhaps, as one instructor interviewed sug-
gested, students could be given a choice of acceptable assign-
ments and asked to choose one that is of interest to them.
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.
Second, instructors can help students not to procrastinate
by breaking up large semester-long assignments into smaller
interdependent ones. One instructor suggested making parts
of the assignments due to correspond to the schedule of topics
taught in the class. Requiring several interdependent or itera-
tive assignments may not only reduce procrastination but also
serve to provide more timely feedback for students to
improve the final project.
One suggestion that came out clearly in the student inter-
views is that instructors need not fear that they are nagging
students by reminding them of impending deadlines. Stu-
dents indicated that they like it when instructors set clear
norms and remind them of their expectations. With compet-
ing deadlines in other courses and yet developing time man-
agement skills, students may see frequent reminders as a wel-
come aid to keeping on schedule.
The study of task characteristics affecting procrastination
also has potential implications for other contexts within
higher education. Procrastination is not limited to students.
The study of task characteristics could be applied to examine
factors that influence procrastination among faculty mem-
bers. For example, research and publishing are major con-
texts within which procrastination sometimes takes place.
Certainly, various aspects of the tasks of conducting and pub-
lishing research are controllable by faculty members. Thus,
the findings of this research could be applied to examining
how to increase marketing faculty research productivity.
Another area that future research might address is in the
performance of administrative tasks. Throughout their
careers, faculty members are responsible for large and time-
consuming administrative tasks such as compiling theirper-
sonnel files, preparing committee reports, and reading and
grading student papers. Such tasks are frequently regarded as
undesirable and so are often delayed. Future research could
use the findings in this study as a basis for examining how to
design administrative tasks to minimize procrastination.
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
actual behavior. As a direction for future research, experi-
mental manipulation of task characteristics would allow for
measurement of actual procrastination behavior under
differing treatments.
In addition, task-related procrastination may vary with
such factors as age and work experience. For example, stu-
dents with hard-earned work experience may have quite dif-
ferent reactions to specific types of assignments than do stu-
dents recently out of high school. Future research should
examine such mediating factors.
APPENDIX 1
Assignment-Related Questions
Fear (M = 3.81, α = .91)
a1. I worried that I wasn’t going to do well on that assignment.
a2. I thought maybe I would perform poorly on that assignment.
a3. I wasn’t confident I could do well on that assignment.
10 APRIL 2005
(continued)
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
Norms (M = 4.62, α = .63)
a4. In that class, work had to be started early.
a5. My instructor expected assignments to be started early.
a6. Most students started early on assignments for that class.
Deadline Pressure (M = 4.21, α = .94)
a7. I had many other assignments due before that one.
a8. Many other assignments had to be finished before I could fin-
ish that one.
a9. I had many other assignments with deadlines before that one.
Rewards (M = 4.28, α = .83)
a10. Students benefited if they started early on the assignment.
a11. There were incentives for starting the assignment early.
a12.We were rewarded for getting an early start on the assignment.
Interdependence (M = 3.35, α = .56)
a13. Finishing other work in the course depended on first doing
that assignment.
a14. I had to complete the assignment before I could do other
assignments for the course.
a15. I needed to finish the assignment before I could start other
work in the course.
Interest (M = 4.22, α = .93)
b1. I was interested in the assignment.
b2. That assignment held my interest.
b3. I felt really involved with that assignment.
Skill Variety (M = 5.17, α = .93)
b4. The assignment required using a variety of skills.
b5. I used a lot of different skills to complete that assignment.
b6. I had to approach the assignment using many different types
of skills.
Scope of Task (Time Consuming) (M = 5.54, α = .91)
c1. The assignment required a lot of time.
c2. Completing that assignment occupied a lot of my free time.
c3. The assignment was time consuming.
Difficulty (M = 5.06, α = .92)
c4. I believed that was going to be a tough assignment.
c5. That was a difficult assignment.
c6. I knew that assignment would not be easy.
Clarity (M = 4.77, α = .94)
c7. The requirements for the assignment were clear.
c8. I understood exactly what I had to do for that assignment.
c9. I knew exactly what the instructor wanted for that
assignment.
Propensity to Procrastinate (M = 4.21, α = .96)
d1. I delay starting assignments.
d2. I procrastinate on assignments.
d3. I wait until the last minute to work on assignments.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 11
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)
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
REFERENCES
Baumeister, Roy F., Todd F. Heatherton, and Dianne M. Tice. 1994. Losing
control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Beck, Brett L., Susan R. Koons, and Debra L. Milgrim. 2000. Correlates and
consequences of behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic pro-
crastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15 (5): 3-13.
Burka, Jane B., and Lenora M. Yuen. 1990. Procrastination: Why you do it,
what to do about it. 2nd ed. New York: Perseus.
Ferrari, Joseph R., and Brett L. Beck. 1998. Affective responses before and
after fraudulent excuses by academic procrastinators. Education 118 (4):
529-37.
Ferrari, Joseph R., Judith L. Johnson, and William. G. McCown, eds. 1995.
Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment.
New York: Plenum.
Harriott, Jesse S., and Joseph R. Ferrari. 1996. Prevalence of procrastination
among samples of adults. Psychological Reports 78 (2): 611-16.
Haycock, Laurel A., Patricia McCarthy, and Carol L. Skay. 1998. Procrasti-
nation in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal
of Counseling and Development 76 (Summer): 317-24.
Janssen, Tracy, and John S. Carton. 1999. The effects of locus of control and
task difficulty on procrastination. Journal of Genetic Psychology 160 (4):
436-42.
Kachgal, Mera M., L. Sunny Hansen, and Kevin J. Nutter. 2001. Academic
procrastination prevention/intervention strategies and recommendations.
Journal of Developmental Education 25 (Fall): 14-24.
Lay, Clarry H. 1986. At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal
of Research in Personality 20 (December): 474-95.
Milgram, Noach, Sergio Marshevsky, and Chaya Sadeh. 1995. Correlates of
academic procrastination: Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capa-
bility. Journal of Psychology 129 (2): 145-55.
Owens, Anthony M., and Ian Newbegin. 1997. Procrastination in high school
achievement: A causal structural model. Journal of Social Behavior and
Psychology 12 (December): 869-87.
Paden, Nita, and Roxanne Stell. 1997. Reducing procrastination through
assignment and course design. Marketing Education Review 7 (Sum-
mer): 17-25.
Pychyl, Timothy A., Jonathan M. Lee, Rachelle Thibodeau, and Allan Blunt.
2000. Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergrad-
uate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality
15 (5): 239-54.
Pychyl, Timothy A., Richard W. Morin, and Brian R. Salmon. 2000. Procras-
tination and the planning fallacy: An examination of the study habits of
university students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15 (5):
135-50.
Saddler, C. Douglas, and Joshua Buley. 1999. Predictors of academic pro-
crastination in college students. Psychological Reports 84 (April):
686-88.
Senecal, Caroline, Richard Koestner, and Robert J. Vallerand. 1995. Self-
regulation and academic procrastination. Journal of Social Psychology
135 (5): 607-19.
Solomon, Laura J., and Esther D. Rothblum. 1984. Academic procrastina-
tion: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology 31 (October): 503-9.
Strongman, Kenneth T., and Christopher D. B. Burt. 2000. Taking breaks
from work: An exploratory inquiry. Journal of Psychology 134 (May):
229-42.
Tice, Dianne M., and Roy F. Baumeister. 1997. Longitudinal study of pro-
crastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of
dawdling. Psychological Science 8 (November): 454-58.
Tuckman, Bruce W. 1998. Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastina-
tors to study. Journal of Experimental Education 66 (Winter): 141-47.
———. 2002. Academic procrastinators: Their rationalizations and web-
course performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Chicago, August.
12 APRIL 2005
APPENDIX 2 (continued)
Task Appeal Items
Factor 1 Factor 2
b1 — .937
b2 — .953
b3 — .905b4 .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.
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
Vodanovich, Stephen J., and Hope M. Seib. 1997. Relationship between
time structure and procrastination. Psychological Reports 80 (Febru-
ary): 211-15.
Wesley, Joseph C. 1994. Effects of ability, high school achievement, and
procrastinatory behavior on college performance. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement 54 (Summer): 404-8.
Wesp, Richard. 1986. Reducing procrastination through required course
involvement. Teaching of Psychology 13 (October): 128-30.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 13
 at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 18, 2016jmd.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
http://jmd.sagepub.com/