The Influence of Perfectionism on Procrastination in Online Graduate
Education Students
Glenda Rakes
The University of Tennessee at Martin
United States
grakes@utm.edu
Karee Dunn
The University of Arkansas
United States
kedunn@uark.edu
Abstract: Both perfectionism and procrastination are prevalent among online students and
detrimental to student performance and possibly to persistence in a degree program. It is important
for online faculty to identify factors that may reduce students’ tendency to procrastinate. Because
procrastination can lead to decreased academic performance, it is important to better understand
the influence students’ perfectionism has on procrastination. The results indicated that higher
levels of procrastination were likely to occur if a student described him or herself as being more of
a perfectionist. Older students also appeared to also be at a greater risk for procrastination.
Suggestions are provided for working with perfectionistic students, especially older perfectionistic
students, to help reduce procrastination.
Introduction
Course offerings and university degree programs offered online have increased at a rapid rate in recent
years. Asynchronous programs have also increased dramatically with the advances in technology. By definition,
asynchronous online programs separate teacher and student physically, give students unprecedented freedom
concerning the management of their time, allow students freedom in choosing where learning takes place (as
opposed to regularly scheduled appearances in a physical classroom), and place more responsibility on students for
their own learning with the role of the teacher moving towards that of facilitator.
These changes in the learning environment increase opportunities for procrastination. Both perfectionism
and procrastination have been shown to cause problems for many students, but the problems can be more prevalent
in online students and online graduate students in particular. With knowledge of factors that influence
procrastination, faculty can help students mitigate this behavior. Thus, the purpose of this project was to explore the
influence of perfectionism and age on procrastination.
Academic procrastination
Schraw (2007) defines academic procrastination as “intentionally delaying or deferring work that must be
completed” (p. 12). Steel (2007) discusses the occasional use of the term procrastination to describe its use as a
positive, strategic behavior. He describes this use of the term by some as “functional delay” (p. 66). However, in his
meta-analysis of the procrastination literature, Steel confirms that such usage is secondary to the traditional use of
the term as passive, negative behavior. The use of the term in the present study refers to the traditionally used form
of the term procrastination.
Research indicates that procrastination can be a detriment to academic achievement because it restricts both
the quality and quantity of work produced by a student. Procrastination is described as the quintessential failure of
self-regulation (Steel, 2007). It leads to a number of negative results, including a decrease in long-term learning.
Students who procrastinate tend to express dissatisfaction with their courses (McCown and Johnson, 1991) and
receive lower grades than non-procrastinators (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986, Tice & Baumeister, 1997).
Despite the seemingly obvious consequences of this behavior, it is estimated that 80-95% of college
students procrastinate (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; O’Brien, 2002). Graduate students in one study demonstrated an even
greater tendency to procrastinate on academic tasks at a rate of up to 3.5 times that of a comparison group of
undergraduate students (Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
In face-to-face courses, the requirement to attend class meetings forces students to regularly focus on
course materials. At least part of students’ attention to course materials is distributed equally across the semester
(Elvers, Polzella, & Graetz, 2003). Online students in asynchronous online courses do not participate in regular class
meetings, so there is an increased temptation to procrastinate, often resulting in frustration and reduced learning.
Procrastination and perfectionism
Perfectionism is characterized by striving for flawlessness and extremely high standards for
performance along with the tendency to be overly critical of one’s behavior (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Perfectionist
beliefs play a role in procrastination. Many believe that perfectionists and procrastinators share important
characteristics. Both have high standards (Burke & Yuen, 1983). In addition, both types of individuals fear making
mistakes (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Flett et al., 1991). Researchers suggest that many people exhibit
procrastination because they are perfectionists (Burke & Yuen, 1983; Onwuegbuzie, 2000) and that the percentage
of individuals who exhibit both behaviors is higher among the graduate student population (Onwuegbuzie, 2000).
Perfectionists often impose extremely high standards on themselves and procrastinate because they do not believe
that they can meet those standards. Procrastinators are often unable to complete tasks because they focus excessively
on the standards set for them and focus too much over how others will evaluate them (Ferrari, 1989). For these
reasons, there is believed to be a strong relationship between perfectionism and academic procrastination
(Onwuegbuzie, 2000). The authors hypothesized that procrastination may be influenced by perfectionism as well as
age.
The Study
There is some research demonstrating positive associations between procrastination and perfectionism with
undergraduate students in face-to-face course environments. Results of these studies have been mixed. There is also
some indication that both perfectionism and procrastination is more prevalent in older students. Because the
relationship between perfectionism and procrastination has not been thoroughly researched in the online population
and has mixed results in the face-to-face classroom, this study addressed the following research question: Do
perfectionism and participant age significantly influence procrastination as measured by Procrastination Assessment
Scale-Students (PASS)?
Participants
The sample for this study consisted of 79 fully admitted graduate students enrolled in an asynchronous
online masters program in education an accredited mid-southern university that grants bachelors and masters
degrees. Participants were predominantly female (84%), which is typical of education majors, and ranged in age
from 21 to 46 years of age (M = 34.57). Participants’ experience with online courses varied from one course to 21
(M = 8.13).
Procedures
All measures were prepared for presentation online. No identifying information was collected. All
responses were voluntary and anonymous. Participants were invited to participate via email and were asked to
complete the questionnaire.
Measures
Almost Perfect Scale-Revised. The APS-R is a 23-item scale that measures the tendency toward
perfectionism and includes two subscales (i.e., Discrepancy and High Standards) (Slaney et al., 2001). The APS-R
utilizes a 7-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The Discrepancy subscale (12 items)
estimates the degree to which individuals perceive discrepancy between their expectations and actual performance.
The High Standards subscale (7 items) captures the degree to which individuals tend to set up a high standard (or
have a high expectation) for their own performance. The High Standards subscale was used for this study and met
criteria for internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .80.
Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students. The PASS is a widely used scale to measure academic
procrastination (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). It is a measure containing 44-items that measures the
prevalence of academic procrastination and the reasons for procrastination. Respondents were asked to describe their
behavior for specific academic tasks. Respondents answered the questions for each academic task using a 5-point
Likert scale for two questions: “To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?” (1 = “Never Procrastinate” to 5 =
“Always Procrastinate”) and “To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?” (1 = “Not at all a
problem” to 5 = “Always a problem”). Cronbach’s alpha for the PASS was .89; thus, the measure was deemed
reliable. The prevalence of procrastination subscale was used for the present study.
Data analysis
In order to examine the influence of Perfectionism and age on the variance in PASS (prevalence) scores,
the data were analyzed using linear multiple regression. The PASS (prevalence) score was entered as the dependent
variable and the Perfectionism (High Standards) score and participant age were entered as the predictor variables.
The significance and size of the coefficient of determination were examined to determine if the independent
variables had a significant influence on procrastination. Additionally, the magnitude of impact for each independent
variable was examined and interpreted.
Findings
Preliminary examination of the results indicated there was no extreme multicollinearity in the data (all
variance inflation factors were less than 2). Exploratory analysis also indicated that the assumptions underlying the
application of multiple linear regression (independence, normality, heteroschedasticity, and linearity) were met.
Variable means, standard deviation, and the correlation matrix are presented in Table 3. The regression results (see
Table 1) indicated that the set of independent variables significantly influenced 13.9% of the variance in
perfectionism (F (2, 76) = 6.14; p < .01). Cohen’s f2 measured effect size and was interpreted as approaching
moderate strength at 0.16, 95% CI [-.03,2.59] (Cohen, 1988). Both independent variables uniquely and significantly
contributed to the explained variance. In descending order of importance they were age (t = 2.54, p < .05) and
perfectionism (t = 2.00, p < .05).
Table 1
Results of Regression of Procrastination on Perfectionism and Age
Variable
b
Beta
Partial
t
Perfectionism
.21
.22
.22
0.81*
Age
.02
.27
.28
1.30*
Note. * p < .05, R2 = 0.139.
Conclusions
The results indicated that for this group of students, higher levels of procrastination were likely to occur if a
student described him or herself as being more of a perfectionist (r = .26). Older students also appeared to also be at
a greater risk for procrastination (r = .31). In the future, more data will be collected in order to more fully test this
model using structural equation modeling.
Based on the results it appears that steps need to be taken, especially with older more perfectionistic
students, to help students reduce procrastination. Research indicates that procrastination may be difficult to change
(Wohl, Pychyl, & Bennett, 2010), but some researchers have been successful in reducing procrastination through
instructional design. For example, Tuckman (2007) found that utilizing motivational scaffolding decreased
procrastination in online learners. Motivational scaffolding included features designed to increase student motivation
and collaboration. Additionally, because older adults in this study tended to procrastinate more, it may be important
to consider the additional time demands older students face as a result of family, work, and social life. For example,
Skibba (2009) found that many online instructors reported that using flexible due dates helped busy working adults
achieve higher levels of academic success.
With regard to the impact of perfectionism on online graduate students, faculty can support perfectionistic
students by building a supportive learning environment and presenting themselves as concerned more with student
learning than criticizing performance (Brophy & Rohrkemper, 1989). Online instructors need to be cognizant of the
problems caused by both perfectionism and procrastination when designing courses and interacting with students as
research does indicate that procrastination can be ameliorated through instructional design (Tuckman, 2007; Skibba,
2009) and perfectionism can be positively influenced by instructor support (Brophy & Rohrkemper, 1989).
References
Brophy, J., and M. Rohrkemper. (1989). Teachers’ strategies for coping with perfectionist students. Research Series
No. 198. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. ED 314 401.
Burke, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ellis, A., and Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet Books.
Elvers, G. C., Polzella, D. J., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal
differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 159-162.
Ferrari, J.R. (1989). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of procrastination. Psychological Reports,
64, 1057–1058.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and
treatment issues. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.), perfectionism (pp. 5-31). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Flett, G.L., Hewitt, P.L., Blankstein, K. R. & Koledin, S. (1991). Dimensions of perfectionism and Irrational
Thinking. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, 9, 185-201.
McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1991). Personality and chronic procrastination by university students during an
academic examination period. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 413-415.
O'Brien, W. K. (2002). Applying the transtheoretical model to academic procrastination. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Houston.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Academic procrastinators and perfectionistic tendencies among graduate students.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 103-110.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29, 3-19.
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between
high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.
Slaney, R., Rice, K., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. (2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130–145.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The
costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.
Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinator’s distance learning outcomes.
Computers and Education, 49, 414-422.
Shraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic
procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12-25.
Skibba, K. (2009). What faculty learn teaching adults in multiple course delivery formats. Presented at the TwentyFifth Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning; Madison, WI.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 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.
Wohl, M. J. A., Pychyl, T. A., & Bennett, S. H. (2010). I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-forgiveness for
procrastinating can reduce future procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 803-808.