Cited by 534Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesStudent Stress and CopingGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation

Academic procrastination: psychological antecedents revisited

Steel, Piers, Klingsieck, Katrin B·2016·Australian Psychologist

Abstract

ObjectiveTaking Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann's seminal paper on academic procrastination as a starting point, we provide an updated review of academic procrastination and consolidate this knowledge with a procrastination typology. The goal of our study was to show that while the degree of procrastination is largely contingent on the trait of conscientiousness, the other four major personality traits determine how procrastination manifests. According to implications of need theory, we operationalised these four traits by the reasons students gave and the activities students pursued while procrastinating.MethodParticipants were 167 students of an undergraduate introductory psychology course. It was designed as a self‐directed computerised course enabled considerable amounts of procrastination. Students filled out a Big Five Inventory and wrote a short essay detailing: (a) what reason they saw as causing them to procrastinate, and (b) what activities they pursued while procrastinating. The reasons and activities were coded according to their fit to the personality traits.ResultsConscientiousness and its facets were the strongest correlates with procrastination. Moreover, in regression analyses, the other personality traits did not incrementally predict procrastination. However, the reasons ascribed to procrastination and the off‐task activities pursued reflected the other personality traits.ConclusionWhile conscientiousness is the core for all procrastination types, the other personality traits determine its phenomenology. Thus, the prominent understanding of a neurotic procrastinator might be misleading for research and practice. In fact, counsellors need to first address the conscientiousness core of procrastination and then match the subsequent interventions to the specific procrastination type.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ap.12173

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
Corresponding author
Steel, Piers
Venue
Australian Psychologist
Published
2016-02
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
36-46
ISSN
  • 0005-0067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-9544
OpenAlex
W2269702721
Cited by
534
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
32.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Australian Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Keywords
academic procrastination, conscientiousness, Big Five personality traits, needs theory, self-directed learning, undergraduate students, counseling intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review