exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade:...

40
 Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade: A  path analysis.  Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiv eness and academic grade: A path an alysis. Bethany Elaine Rapson Spervisor: !ony "awrence #$ th  April #%&'. A report presented in the Faculty of Health and ife !ciences, "oventry #niversity, towards the degree of a $achelor of !cience with Honours in %sychology (ontents 1

Upload: beth-rapson

Post on 04-Nov-2015

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

This document consists of the research I undertook during my final year as a Psychology undergraduate at Coventry University.

TRANSCRIPT

Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade: A path analysis. Exploring relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness and academic grade: A path analysis.

Bethany Elaine RapsonSupervisor: Tony Lawrence24th April 2015.

A report presented in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, towards the degree of a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Psychology

Contents

Abstract3Introduction4Academic Procrastination4Factors Affecting Procrastination7Procrastination and Perfectionism8Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness10The Current Study10Methodology11Design11Participants11Measures11Procedure13Results14Preliminary Data Screening14Regression 1 Procrastination, PIA and PSO onto Self-Forgiveness15Regression 2 PSO and PIA onto Procrastination16Regression 3 PSO, PIA, Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness onto Average Grade17Discussion19Findings and Interpretations19Limitations of the Current Study24Directions for Future Research and Practical Implications25Conclusions26References28Appendices321.Aitken's Procrastination Inventory (1982)322.Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990)343.Wohl's Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010)364.Certificate of Ethical Approval375.Introductory Text386.Debrief40

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to explore the relationships between procrastination, self-forgiveness for procrastination, perfectionism and average grade. The sample consisted of 55 first and second-year undergraduate students studying Psychology at Coventry University. Three self-report measures were utilised for this study. Frosts Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990) was used to measure perfectionistic traits, Aitkens Procrastination Inventory (1982) to gauge procrastination and finally Wohls Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010) was employed to measure self-forgiveness for procrastination. Participants were also required to submit their average grades. Regression analyses were subsequently performed on the data, yielding some significant findings. The perfectionism scale was divided into two separate variables - Personal Standards and Organisation (PSO) and Parentally Introjected Anxieties (PIA) - prior to performing the regression analyses. A significant negative relationship was found between procrastination and self-forgiveness and a significant negative curvilinear relationship was observed between PIA and self-forgiveness. Furthermore, PIA significantly and negatively correlated with procrastination while PSO was found to significantly and positively correlate with procrastination. No significant correlations were found between average grade and any other variable. The results of these analyses were subsequently incorporated into a path analysis. Implications for future research are discussed in terms of repeating the study, albeit with the inclusion of a procrastination scale that measures both active and passive procrastination. A qualitative study concerning further exploration of the unique relationship displayed between PIA and procrastination is also recommended.

IntroductionAcademic ProcrastinationThe term procrastination defines the act of delaying an often difficult, important task with long-term rewards in favour of an easier, less important task from which instantaneous rewards can be gained (Boice, 1996). The prevalence of problematic and chronic procrastination in the general population is estimated to be around 15-20% (Harriot and Ferrari 1996). However, for students, this number is much higher a staggering 80-95% of college students engage in procrastination (Ellis and Knaus, 1977 in Steel, 2007), with around half of the entire student population reporting consistent and problematic procrastination (Day, Mensink and OSullivan, 2000). This is especially detrimental to students, as strict deadlines must be met in order to perform adequately in higher education. Student procrastinators have previously been shown to perform more poorly overall and are at a higher risk of dropping out of education altogether (De Paola and Scoppa, 2014). In addition, students whom engage in procrastination report an overall lower level of life-satisfaction than non-procrastinators (zer and Sakes, 2011). Therefore, it is important that procrastination is studied, in order to understand the mechanisms behind it and why it may be so prevalent within the student population. If the problem is well understood, then direct interventions may be crafted to lower levels of problematic procrastination for students, at a time where it is most crucial to complete tasks on time. Research has attempted to address why students seem to struggle a great deal more with procrastination than the general population, especially university students. It has been suggested that the very environment that students work in perpetuates procrastination. To elaborate, students work towards deadlines which occur approximately four to six times per semester in the form of coursework deadlines and examinations, usually towards the latter half of the semester. The irregular timing of these deadlines is thought to have an overall negative effect on students grades, as this irregularity promotes some students to passively engage in study until a deadline arises. This theory is supported by Gaynor and Millham (1976, cited in DeRoma et al. 2003) who found that students who were set weekly quizzes performed better than students who took only one midterm and one final exam. However, this may alternatively be explained by the students having simply learned the material in the weekly examinations more recently, leading to improved recall and thus improved performance. Therefore, it is not necessarily an indicator of better self-regulated learning in this condition versus procrastination. However, it is an indication that external motivation, in this case in the form of weekly tests, may play a key role in preventing procrastination. Conversely, students who possess intrinsic motivations for completing work, such as for self-improvement through learning, are less likely to procrastinate than students with extrinsic motivations (Senecal, Koestner and Vallerand, 1995). Again, this may be due to the irregularity of deadlines which are categorised as an extrinsic motivation to complete work. However, students with intrinsic motivations do still procrastinate to some level. Seo (2013) separated procrastinators into two categories active procrastinators and passive procrastinators. In this study, it was found that active procrastinators possessed a similar level of intrinsic motivations to non-procrastinators and that passive procrastinators had higher extrinsic and lower intrinsic motivations. This accounts for some of the variance in procrastination in those with highly intrinsic motivations and is also indicative of two distinct categories of student procrastinators.Student procrastination is fundamentally prevalent within schools and universities, however the drop-out rate for students attending university in the UK was only 7.4% in 2010/11 (HEFCE, 2013). Compared with the estimated 80-95% of students whom engage in procrastination, this number might be expected to be much higher due to the negative implications of procrastination discussed previously. This suggests that procrastination may be too broad a definition and that procrastinators may be broken down into two distinct groups - those who procrastinate actively and those who procrastinate passively. Choi and Moran (2009, cited in Seo, 2013) define active procrastinators as those who deliberately decide to delay a task in order to become better motivated, while passive procrastinators are those who procrastinate in the traditional sense for the purpose of task avoidance. Chu and Choi (2005) compared active procrastinators, passive procrastinators and non-procrastinators. They found that active procrastinators and non-procrastinators tended to achieve similarly high GPAs and exhibit lower levels of stress and depression than passive procrastinators. A limitation to this study may be that it was cross-sectional and entirely based upon self-report. However, there would be little reason to give false information concerning procrastination as it is a well-known fact that the majority of students procrastinate (Ellis and Knaus, 1977 cited in Steel 2007). Furthermore, Elliot (2002, cited in Steel, 2007) reported cross-temporal stability of procrastination to be .77 over a ten-year period, suggesting that procrastination habits do not tend to change over time. This article may prove useful in explaining why some procrastinators achieve grades in line with those who do not engage in procrastination. Another study by Seo (2012) compared active procrastinators and passive procrastinators performance on the same examination. Both groups engaged in cramming one day or less prior to the examination. Having done the same amount of preparation, active procrastinators were found to perform significantly better than passive procrastinators. Therefore, it likely that procrastination affects students according to the individual effects that stress and anxiety have on their ability to work efficiently. It seem that passive procrastinators work efficiency decreases as the deadline nears and stress reaches peak levels, while active procrastinators work consistently better under stressful conditions. Factors Affecting ProcrastinationIt is easy to view the act of procrastination as a modern problem, brought about by the information age where distractions are prevalent in the immediate environment in the form of social media and technology. The internet does indeed play a role in procrastination this was supported in a survey conducted by Thatcher, Wretschko and Fridjhon (2007). However, such distractions are but one aspect of an increasingly complex phenomenon. Steel (2007) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate possible causes of procrastination using 691 correlations from previous studies. Steel terms the phenomenon as self-regulatory failure caused by task aversiveness, poor self-efficacy, impulsiveness and a lack of conscientiousness. He also found that neuroticism, rebelliousness and sensation-seeking played a role in self-regulatory failure, albeit to a lesser extent. It is noted that procrastination is caused by either internal factors - such as individual differences or variances in the degree of specific personality traits held by the individual- or, alternatively, environmental factors such as task aversiveness and timing of rewards and punishments for completing or failing to complete a task. The degree to which a person procrastinates can, to some extent, be reliably predicted by their personality traits. A survey study was conducted by Johnson and Bloom (1995) comparing scores from the NEO-PI-R (Costa and McRae, 1992) and Aitkens Procrastination Inventory (1982). Of the five personality factors, conscientiousness and neuroticism were significantly correlated with procrastination, while agreeableness, openness to experience and extraversion were not. Conscientiousness was found to negatively correlate with procrastination scores with lack of self-discipline found to be the best positive predictor of procrastination. Conversely, neuroticism was positively correlated with procrastination scores, specifically the facets of impulsiveness and vulnerability. Additionally, neuroticism was negatively correlated with conscientiousness. A possible explanation for this, as outlined by Johnson and Bloom (1995) is that procrastinators lack the organisational skills needed to complete a task, which come under the umbrella of conscientiousness, leading to anxiety and neuroticism. Additionally, high neuroticism scores suggest that procrastinators tend to have lower self-confidence and a lack of reflection or deliberation. The relationship between conscientiousness and procrastination gains further support from Lee, Kelly and Edwards (2006) who found that conscientiousness to account for 24% of the variance in procrastination. A further factor contributing to procrastination is that of self-handicapping. Ferrari (2004)conducted an experiment comparing the degree to which procrastinators and non-procrastinators self-handicapped on the same task. It was found that procrastinators were significantly more likely to self-handicap. Procrastination may be explained as a self-handicapping behaviour, used for the purpose of creating an alternative excuse, if the individual should fail or perform poorly on a task. If a person feels they may perform poorly, they may well procrastinate as a means of self-handicapping. The ultimate function of this behaviour is to serve as an explanation for failure that does not reflect the individuals true ability. An individual who possesses low conscientiousness and high neuroticism is most likely to self-handicap in general (Bobo, Whitaker and Strunk, 2013). This is consistent with previous research in the area of personality and procrastination, suggesting that self-handicapping may be a reliable and consistent reason for an individual to procrastinate.Procrastination and PerfectionismA recent study by Stewart and De George-Walker (2014) implicates the role of perfectionism in self-handicapping behaviour. These two variables were significantly and positively correlated, along with low-self efficacy. It is suggested that perfectionists sabotage their level of self-efficacy through setting unrealistic goals and personal expectations, ultimately leading to self-handicapping behaviours such as procrastination, lack of effort or failing to practice. This correlation between perfectionism and self-handicapping was replicated among university students (Karner-Huuleac, 2014).Further support for the relationship between academic procrastination and perfectionism in university students is provided by Jadidi, Mohammadkhani and Tajrishi (2011). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, 1990) was utilised, along with the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (Solomon and Rothblum, 1984). Three dimensions of perfectionism were found to be significantly and positively correlated with procrastination - concern over mistakes, parental criticism and doubts about actions. However, the organisation dimension was negatively correlated with procrastination, while no significant relationship was found for personal standards and parental expectations. From these findings, we can infer that procrastination is a form of self-handicapping, more so in perfectionists. Concern over mistakes and doubts about actions certainly seem to predispose self-handicapping behaviour, as mistakes will therefore not actually be a reflection of the perfectionists true ability, but a consequence of procrastination instead.Perfectionism was found by Flett, Hewitt and Dyck (1989) to be significantly and positively correlated with trait anxiety and slightly correlated with trait neuroticism. The interaction of perfectionism and periods of substantial stress predicted neuroticism and trait anxiety. These findings have implications for the established correlation between perfectionism and procrastination. It has previously been mentioned that neuroticism is a reliable predictor of procrastination, and this trait is also demonstrated in perfectionists. The fact that stress perpetuates this correlation suggests that when facing a deadline or an upcoming examination, a perfectionist may be more vulnerable to experiencing higher levels of anxiety. Perfectionists tend to set unrealistically high goals for themselves, causing anxiety as these goals are typically too difficult to reach (Burka and Yuen, 2008). This, in turn, causes the task to become aversive to the individual and may lead to procrastination (Steel, 2007).Procrastination and Self-ForgivenessSelf-forgiveness for procrastinating has been found to have a significant effect on levels of future procrastination. Wohl, Pychyl and Bennet (2010) conducted a study exploring the association between self-forgiveness for procrastination and future academic procrastination on a similar task. Procrastination was measured along with self-forgiveness prior to the students taking the initial examination. Following this exam, students were asked to rate their feelings towards the exam in terms of positive or negative affect, and also their performance. Subsequently, procrastination was measured a second time, prior to a second examination, in order to assess whether self-forgiveness promoted a decrease in future procrastination. Findings indicated that self-forgiveness for procrastinating reduced subsequent procrastination by reducing negative affect associated with the outcome of an examination. On the other hand, students who did not self-forgive reported high negative affect and continued to procrastinate for the second exam. They concluded that self-forgiveness reduces negative affect which, in turn, reduces future procrastination.The Current StudyThe current study investigates the complex relationships between procrastination, perfectionism, self-forgiveness for procrastinating and academic grade. It is hypothesised that procrastination will have a positive relationship with the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism such as doubts about actions, parental criticisms and concern over mistakes, as previous research suggests. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that perfectionism will have a negative relationship with self-forgiveness, with those high in perfectionism being less likely to self-forgive for engaging in procrastination. Lastly, it is predicted that procrastination will be negatively correlated with average grade, in line with previous research (De Paola and Scoppa, 2014).MethodologyDesignThis study uses a quantitative correlational design, examining four variables using data collected via an online survey. The relationship between perfectionism, extent of procrastination, self-forgiveness for procrastinating and academic grade are examined.ParticipantsThe participant population consisted of 56 undergraduate Psychology students currently attending Coventry University. All participants were in the first or second year of their course at the time of the study. This student sample was used intentionally, rather than through convenience, as the aim was to investigate the effects of the variables on academic performance. One participant had to be omitted from data analysis for submitting false information, leaving 55 usable datasets.MeasuresProcrastinationAitken's (1982) Procrastination Inventory was used to measure the extent of procrastination. This scale consists of 19 statements which participants must respond to on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) -5 (strongly agree) depending on the extent to which they perceive the statement to apply to them. Ferarri, Johnson and McCown (1995) found the coefficient alpha for this scale to be .82, suggesting high reliability. PerfectionismFrost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart and Rosenblate, 1990) was used to assess individual levels of perfectionism. This scale contains 35 statements which participants respond to using a 5-point likert scale (strongly disagree-strongly agree), depending upon the extent to which they feel that the statement applies to them. The scale is divided into six subscales designed to measure participants levels of organisation, concern over mistakes, personal standards, parental criticism, parental expectations and doubts about actions. This specific scale was chosen due to its ubiquity and wide use within academic publications (Hill et al. 2004). Furthermore, the variety of subscales allow for deeper analysis. Frost et al. (1995 cited in Rukmini, Sudhir and Math 2014: 242) found Chronbachs alpha for the six subscales to range from .77 to .93, suggesting high internal consistencies for all subscales. In addition to this, test-retest reliability was reported by Amaral et al. (2013) to be .86, with a four week interval between the initial and subsequent test. Self-Forgiveness for ProcrastinatingSelf-forgiveness for engaging in procrastination was measured using the scale developed and used by Wohl, Pychyl and Bennett (2010) in their own study in the area of procrastination and self-forgiveness. This scale contains only three statements - "I dislike myself for procrastinating", "I criticise myself because of my tendency to procrastinate" and "I put myself down because of my tendency to procrastinate". Each statement is rated by the participant using a 7-point likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Chronbachs alpha, as measured by Wohl et al. (2010), was .84, suggesting high internal consistency and reliability. This scale was chosen for the present study, as it is the most recently developed scale with the purpose of measuring self-forgiveness for procrastinating. Academic GradeStudents academic grade was measured via self-report. Following completion of the questionnaires, participants were prompted to enter all of their available coursework and essay marks from their first semester of the current academic year. Average grades were subsequently calculated for each participant using SPSS. ProcedurePrior to data-gathering, a full outline of the study was sent to Coventry Universitys Ethics Committee for approval. The present study gained ethical approval on the 23rd of October, 2015. A copy of the certificate can be found in the appendices (Appendix 4). Participants accessed the online survey via Sona Systems, a website hosted by Coventry University (2015). Through this website, first and second year Psychology students were able to earn credits for participating in research conducted by third year Psychology students. The present study was placed online in the form of an online survey. An incentive for participation was provided in the form of earning compulsory research participation credits upon completion of the study. Once the participant had clicked on the study, they were directed to a page containing introductory information about the study and clear instructions for successful completion of the survey. It also contained details of standard ethical procedures and my contact details, should they have wished to withdraw their data following completion of the study, or for further information. A copy of the information given is provided below (Appendix 5). Once the participant had agreed to proceed to take part in my study, they were directed to the first set of questions from the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS). All 35 questions were displayed on a single page and in the order they occurred in on the original copy of the FMPS. Once this section was complete, participants proceeded to the next set of questions taken from the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API). Upon completion of this second section, participants would proceed to the third set of questions taken from a study by Wohl et al. (2010). All three of the above questionnaires contained statements which participants were required to respond to on a likert-type scale, depending on the extent that they agreed that the statement was applicable to them. A response for each question was compulsory. The fourth and final section of the survey requested that the participant provided their grades for the autumn/winter semester 2014/15. Individual essay and examination grades were accepted. Six boxes were provided for participants to type in their numeric grades, with just one box being compulsory. This was because the survey was online between the months of December and February, and the number of grades received by each individual would vary over the course of this time period. Average grades were then calculated using SPSS following data collection. Once the participant had completed all four sections of the study, a short debrief was displayed, a copy of which is provided below (Appendix 6). ResultsPreliminary Data ScreeningCooks D was used to detect any influential cases within the data. One case was identified using this test and was subsequently eliminated from the dataset.Originally, the FMPS was divided into six sub-scales for analysis concern over mistakes, parental expectation, parental criticism, doubts about actions, organisation and personal standards. However, tolerance statistics for preliminary regressions using all six subscales were very low. To rectify this problem, principal component analysis with varimax rotation of components was utilised. A scree plot displayed just two clear components, instead of the previous six. The first component consisted of concern over mistakes, parental expectations, parental criticism and doubts about actions. This new variable was termed as parental introjected anxieties (PIA). The other component consisted of organisation and personal standards, and was simply termed personal standards and organisation (PSO). The regression principal component scores for these two components were used in all subsequent regressions.Regression 1 Procrastination, PIA and PSO onto Self-ForgivenessA number of preliminary tests were performed to check that the data satisfied assumptions of multiple regression analysis. These included collinearity diagnostics (tolerance), the Durbin-Watson test, a histogram of residuals to check normality of the dependent variables, Cooks Distance to identify highly influential cases and finally a plot of Z-RESID and Z-PRED to check the linearity assumption and the homoscedasticity of variances assumption. No problems in the data were detected from these tests. However, the plot of Z-PRED and Z-RESID displayed evidence for a curvilinear relationship within the regression of procrastination, PIA and PSO onto self-forgiveness. Subsequent investigation suggested that this curvilinear relationship was manifesting with the PIA and PSO variables. A squared terms for these potential curvilinear effects were incorporated into the regression model for these two variables.A multiple regression analysis was performed with PSO, PIA, the squared curvilinear terms for these two variables and procrastination as the independent variables and self-forgiveness as the dependent variable. The multiple correlation between self-forgiveness and the three aforementioned predictor variables was .657. Adjusted R square was .374, which indicates that 37.4% of variability in self-forgiveness was accounted for by these three variables. The standard error of estimate was 4.04.Overall the predictor variables were significantly related to the outcome variable: F (5,49) = 7.453, p < .001.Upon examination of the individual regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a significant negative relationship was found between procrastination and self-forgiveness: Beta=-.63, t (49) = -4.27, p < .001. Secondly, a non-significant negative relationship was found between personal standards and organisation and self-forgiveness: Beta=-.11, t (49) = -.8, p =.429, together with a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=-.39, t (49) = -.91, p = .37. Finally, a significant negative relationship was found between parentally introjected anxieties and self-forgiveness: Beta=-1.83, t (49) = -2.72, p = .009, paired with a significant curvilinear relationship Beta=-.29, t (49) = -2.63, p = .011.Examining the variables, we can see that procrastination is the best significant indicator of self-forgiveness. That is, the higher the score on the procrastination inventory, the less likely they are to be self-forgiving for their procrastination. Meanwhile, parentally introjected anxieties have a significant negative linear and curvilinear relationship with self-forgiveness suggesting that those at the extreme ends of the PIA scale are both less likely to self-forgive. Those in the middle of this scale would be most likely to practice self-forgiveness. Finally, a non-significant negative relationship between personal standards and organisation and self-forgiveness suggests that this is not a strong predictor of self-forgiveness. Regression 2 PSO and PIA onto ProcrastinationAs before, the data was first screened to ensure it met assumptions of multiple regression analysis. A collinearity (tolerance) test, Durbin-Watson test ,a histogram of residuals, Cooks Distance, and a Z-RESID and Z-PRED plot were utilised and no problems were found. Although, Z-RESID and Z-PRED plots indicated that there may be a curvilinear relationship in the data, and further investigation suggested this was between PSO and procrastination, and also PIA and procrastination. A squared terms for these potential curvilinear effects were incorporated into the regression model for these two variables.A multiple regression analysis was performed with PSO, PIA and the squared curvilinear terms for these two variables with procrastination as the dependent variable. The multiple correlation between procrastination and the aforementioned predictor variables was .676. Adjusted R square was .414, which indicates that 41.4% of variability in self-forgiveness was accounted for by these variables. The standard error of estimate was 8.6.Overall the predictor variables were significantly related to the outcome variable: F (4,50) = 10.54, p < .001.Examining the regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a significant positive relationship was found between PSO and procrastination: Beta=.46, t (50) = 4.04, p < .001, and also a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta= -.10, t (50) = -.91, p = 3.68. Furthermore, a significant negative relationship was observed between PIA and procrastination: Beta = -.51, t (50) = -4.86, p < .001, and a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=.02, t (50) = .136, p = .89.From this regression, we can see clearly that PSO and PIA are both significant predictors of procrastination. Parental Introjected Anxieties appears to have a moderately negative relationship with procrastination. Conversely, Personal Standards and Organisation is positively correlated with procrastination, suggesting that the higher the individual is on the PSO scale, the more they appear to engage in procrastination.Regression 3 PSO, PIA, Procrastination and Self-Forgiveness onto Average GradeFirstly, the data was screened to ensure that it met the assumptions of multiple regression analysis. A collinearity (tolerance) test, Durbin-Watson test ,a histogram of residuals, Cooks Distance, and a Z-RESID and Z-PRED plot were utilised and no problems were found. Z-RESID and Z-PRED plots did indicate that there may be a curvilinear relationship in the data, and further investigation suggested this was concerning PSO, PIA and self-forgiveness. A squared terms for these potential curvilinear effects were incorporated into the regression model for these three variables.A multiple regression analysis was performed with the independent variables being PSO, PIA, self-forgiveness and procrastination, and squared terms of the former three variables to detect any possible curvilinear effects. The dependant variable in this case was average grade. The multiple correlation between the predictor variables and the outcome variable was .381. Adjusted r-square was .018, indicating that 1.8% of the variability in average grade was accounted for by these four variables. The standard error of estimate was 9.266.Overall the predictor variables as a group were not significantly related to the outcome variable: F (7,47) = 1.143, p = .353.Examining the regression coefficients for each predictor variable, a non-significant negative relationship was found between PSO and average grade: Beta=-.07, t (47) = -.393, p = .696, and also a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta= .14, t (47) = -.878, p = .384. Furthermore, a non-significant positive relationship was observed between PIA and average grade: Beta=.25, t (47) = 1.34, p = .187, and a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=.18, t (47) = .1.17, p = .25. Additionally, a non-significant negative relationship was found between self-forgiveness and average grade: Beta=-.09, t (47) = -.43, p = .67, and a non-significant curvilinear relationship: Beta=-.11, t (47) = -.69, p = .49. Lastly, procrastination ha a non-significant negative correlation with average grade: Beta=-.07, t (47) = -.33, p = .74.From this regression, we can see that none of the variables are significantly related to average grade. A non-significant positive curvilinear relationship was found between PIA and average grade, suggesting that those who score higher in this dimension of perfectionism also have higher grades overall. Although, this was non-significant, therefore not much value can be placed on this relationship. All other variables were slightly and non-significantly negatively related to academic grade. Figure 1 displays the final path model incorporating all of the above regressions.

Figure 1: Path model of the relationship between procrastination, PIA, PSO, self-forgiveness and average grade.

DiscussionFindings and InterpretationsRegression analyses revealed several significant relationships between four of the five variables measured in the study. The first regression analysis revealed a negative relationship between procrastination and self-forgiveness for procrastination, suggesting that the more severe the procrastination, the less likely the individual would be to self-forgive. Furthermore, a negative curvilinear relationship was observed between PIA and self-forgiveness, suggesting that on the extreme ends of PIA, self-forgiveness for procrastination is more likely. Finally PSO had a non-significant negative effect on self-forgiveness. Results from the second regression analysis concerning procrastination revealed that PIA had a significant negative effect, while PSO had a significant positive effect on this variable. Those with high PIA scores procrastinated less, while those with high PSO scores tended to procrastinate more. Lastly, none of the variables were found to have any significant effect on average grade.Self-ForgivenessTo begin with, procrastination was found to have a direct negative effect on self-forgiveness for procrastinating. That is, those who procrastinated to a larger extent were less likely to forgive themselves for engaging in procrastination. This relationship was to be expected, as those who procrastinate to a smaller extent, and thus experience less consequences from procrastinating, would logically be more inclined to forgive themselves for engaging in the behaviour. However, Klassen, Krawchuk and Rajani (2007) report that those who experience negative outcomes do not necessarily procrastinate to a larger extent. Previous findings also reveal that an individuals style of procrastination active or passive largely predicts positive and negative outcomes, with passive procrastinators experiencing more undesirable consequences (Chu and Choi, 2005; Seo, 2012). Regardless of this, 95% of procrastinators do indeed wish to reduce it (O Brien, 2002 cited in Steel, 2007), therefore it is logical that a proportion of this group may also be unforgiving of themselves for their behaviour.Parentally Introjected Anxieties was also found to have a significant effect on self-forgiveness. However, this relationship was inversely curvilinear, suggesting that those with scores in the middle of the scale are least likely to self-forgive for engaging in procrastination. The PIA variable consisted of the following dimensions of perfectionism - concern over mistakes, parental expectations, parental criticisms and doubts about actions. Those with higher and lower PIA scores are more likely to self-forgive for engaging in procrastination than those with moderate scores. This relationship between high PIA and high self-forgiveness was an unexpected one. However, this may be explained by the fact that those with high PIA scores tended not to procrastinate initially, therefore the self-forgiveness for procrastinating scale was redundant in this case. Low PIA correlating with high self-forgiveness is an intuitive relationship, as those with low PIA are assumed to be less anxious about their actions overall. This would surely mean that they would be more able to forgive themselves for procrastination. It was those with moderate scores on the PIA scale whom were least likely to self-forgive. It may be that moderate PIA scorers procrastinate where high PIA scorers do not, and therefore have reason to be unforgiving of themselves for procrastination.ProcrastinationFirstly, PIA was found to have a significant negative relationship with procrastination. Those with high PIA scores tended not to engage in procrastination. These findings are inconsistent with previous research by Jadidi et al. (2011), who found that concern over mistakes, parental criticisms and doubts about actions were significantly and positively correlated with procrastination. Therefore, three out of four of the dimensions of perfectionism included within the PIA variable were previously found to perpetuate procrastination. In this case, perhaps the pressure that the individual experiences from their parents, in the form of parental criticisms and parental expectations, leads them to be overly concerned about making mistakes and creates doubts over their actions. In theory, and in accordance with Wohl et al. (2010), this would instil negative affect in the individual with high PIA, and thus increase procrastination.Further evidence for this contradictory relationship can be found in a study that investigated parenting styles and procrastination (Zakeri, Esfahani and Razmjoee, 2013). They found that receiving a behavioural strictness-supervision parenting style tended to increase the likelihood of engaging in academic procrastination. This parenting style is reminiscent of the style of parenting that a perfectionist with high PIA scores might have received in terms of parents with high expectations (parental expectations) and criticisms (parental criticisms). However, the findings from the current study contradict these previous findings. Maybe, in this sample at least, those with high PIA scores do not procrastinate because the need to please their parents and live up to their expectations exceeds the influence of the negative emotions and doubts they experience that would otherwise lead to procrastination. It may be that this particular sample have developed a hardiness to parental criticisms and the negative emotions that they encourage that ultimately lead to procrastination. Alternatively, there may be something unique about this group of students relationship with their parents, in that the strict parenting they receive seems to work in the opposite way to previous findings, and help to prevent procrastination, rather than perpetuate it.A further unexpected relationship occurred within the data analysis. Those with high personal standards and organisation (PSO) scores were found to engage in procrastination to a larger extent. This is also contradictory to previous findings which state that the organisation dimension of perfectionism is clearly and definitely correlated with lower instances of procrastination (Jadidi et al. 2011). Organisation is also a key facet of conscientiousness, which has been found to account for 24% of the variance in procrastination (Lee et al. 2006). Therefore, conscientiousness is currently found to be the personality trait that holds the most influence over procrastination, and those high in this particular trait are consistently found to have lower scores of procrastination. The present findings, however, contradict that. Taking the previous findings into account, it is likely that the personal standards dimension provided a greater influence over the higher scores on the procrastination scale. These findings indicate that those with high personal standards may engage in procrastination due to these high standards. The standards that those high in perfectionism set for themselves may be unrealistically high and therefore anxiety-inducing. It has previously been suggested that individuals with perfectionistic standards tend to procrastinate because of these high goals (Burka and Yuen, 2008). The current findings concerning high personal standards and higher instances of procrastination provide support for this theory.Average GradeThe current study yielded no significant results concerning any of the variables in relation to average grade. PSO, PIA, procrastination and self-forgiveness for procrastinating each had no significant effect on academic performance. Although, the largest non-significant relationship was observed between PIA and average grade, with those high on the PIA scale also achieving slightly higher grades. This is consistent with previous research that found that those who procrastinate less, as high PIA scorers were found to do in this study, also tended to have higher grades (De Paola, 2014; zer and Sakes, 2011). Perhaps, with a larger sample size this result may have been revealed as statistically significant. However, in this case, there was no significance and therefore the relationship is not reliable.A further factor that may explain the lack of a significant relationship between procrastination and average grade is that of active procrastination. Active procrastinators are those whom procrastinate to serve a purpose, usually to achieve peak motivation and arousal. Chu and Choi (2005) found that active procrastinators tended to score similar grades to non-procrastinators. This certainly may have had implications on the present lack of significant findings, as the procrastination measure used did not discriminate between active and passive procrastinators. High scorers on the overall procrastination scale may have been active procrastinators and therefore also high achievers, which may help to explain the lack of findings for this variable. However, passive procrastinators would also have scored highly on this scale and would assumedly provide at least a slight negative correlation with average again. Again, such findings may have been brought to light with a larger sample size.Limitations of the Current StudyOverall, this study produced some useful findings that are relevant to the existing literature. However, there are a few aspects to the study that could have been improved upon. Firstly, the number of participants that the data was gathered from was quite low, at just 55. Perhaps, if the sample were larger, a significant finding may have been produced within the regression analysis for average grade. Furthermore, the study was based entirely upon self-report measures. Steel (2001) compared a self-report measure of procrastination to an observable measure of procrastination and found discrepancy between the two scores. This suggests that, when measuring procrastination, self-report may not be an entirely reliable measure, as responses would be based upon actual behaviour, but also significantly influenced by self-concept. Furthermore, there remains the potential for untruthful responses, especially in terms of the self-reporting of average grade. Social desirability may have resulted in some participants reporting higher grades than they actually achieved. In future, grades should be gathered, with permission of the participant, by other means such as contacting the university directly. The present study was cross-sectional, administering three measures at one point in time. However, this may not be an overly concerning issue, as procrastination has previously been found to be a relatively stable behaviour over time. Elliot (2002) found that procrastination possesses sufficient cross-temporal and situational stability. He administered a measure of procrastination at two points in time over a 10-year period, and yielded a .77 correlation between the two scores. Further evidence to suggest that procrastination is indeed a reliable personality trait comes from a twin study by Arvey et al. (2003, cited in Steel, 2007). He concluded that a genetic component reliably accounted for 22% of the variance in procrastination. Just one measure of procrastination at one point in time will therefore yield reliable data that is consistent throughout time. Self-forgiveness, however, has been suggested to be largely influenced by positive or negative affect (Wohl et al. 2010), suggesting that responses to this measure would have been somewhat based upon how the participant was feeling at the time of participation.Another potential issue that must be mentioned is that of order effects. The questionnaires were given to each participant in an identical order. This may have produced order effects, as the questions and responses to the previous questionnaires may have influenced responses to later questions. To combat this issue, the questionnaires should have been presented to the participants in a random order, to avoid the possibility of order effects occurring.The present study also failed to gather detailed demographic information about the participants. However, it is assumed that the majority of the participants were female, aged 18-20, based on demographic data from first and second-year Psychology students as a whole. Steel (2007) cited evidence that found little difference in procrastination scores between males and females. Therefore, gender does not provide a great influence on procrastination scores. However, there may have been a gender difference between perfectionism and self-forgiveness that was not brought to light in the present study.Directions for Future Research and Practical ImplicationsThe present study failed to find a significant result between average grade, perhaps due to the lack of distinction in the present study between active and passive procrastination. Future studies in the general area of procrastination should endeavour to use an additional scale for the purpose of identifying active procrastinators, such as the one used by Choi and Moran (2009) in their own study. Previous findings suggest that active procrastinators perform at the same level of non-procrastinators, academically speaking (Seo, 2013; Choi and Moran, 2009; Chu and Choi, 2005), therefore they may be more likely to be self-forgiving as a result. This hypothesis has yet to be explored in the literature.The present study revealed a unique relationship between parentally introjected anxieties and procrastination. That is, participants who reported more pressure from their parents, and thus more anxieties in terms of harbouring concern over mistakes and doubting their actions, were found to procrastinate less. This was in contradiction to previous findings, and thus requires more exploration. This relationship requires exploration in more depth, to reveal the reasons why this pool of participants differed from the previous norm. A qualitative study involving those with low scores of procrastination who also have highly critical parents would be suitable for this purpose. The results from the current study may be usefully applied to practical interventions. This study found that perfectionists who hold high personal standards are least likely to be self-forgiving for their procrastination habits and therefore procrastinate to a greater extent. Treatment of procrastination must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, however, the present study puts forward the idea that perfectionists without anxieties may also be problematic procrastinators. It suggests that these types of perfectionists whom hold high personal standards may also be affected by procrastination. Treatment for these perfectionists may involve Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, with the overall aim of lowering their personal standards to a realistically achievable level. It is assumed that in doing so, this will make tasks less aversive as the need to perform perfectly will not be so strong. ConclusionsThe current study explored the relationships between perfectionism, procrastination, self-forgiveness and average grade, building upon previous work and suggestions for future research by Wohl et al. (2010). Analysis revealed some results that are in line with, and conform previous findings. However, some findings were new and unexpected, specifically that of the negative relationship between parentally introjected anxieties and procrastination. This relationship requires further exploration, as it is one that has not previously been found. As previously suggested, a qualitative study concerning this negative relationship between PIA and procrastination would certainly shed some more light on this issue. The present findings also have practical usefulness in terms of developing therapeutic techniques for perfectionistic procrastinators. In conclusion, the relationships found in the current study largely contradict previous findings. It is for this reason that further exploration of these relationships is suggested.

ReferencesAitken, M. E. (1982) 'A personality profile of the college student procrastinator (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982)'. Dissertation Abstracts International 43, 722Amaral, A. P. M., Soares, M. J., Pereira, A. T., Bos, S. C., Marques, M., Valente, J., Nogueira, V., Azevedo, M. H., and Macedo, A. (2013) Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: the portugese version. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry 40(4), 144-149Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., and McGue, M. (2003) The determinants of leadership: The role of genetics and personality 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Orlando, FL cited in Steel, P. (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94Bobo, J. L., Whitaker, K. C., and Strunk, K. K. (2013) Personality and student self-handicapping: A cross-validated regression approach. Personality and Individual Differences 55, 619-621Boice, R. (1996) Procrastination and Blocking: A Novel, Practical Approach. Westport: Greenwood PressBurka, J. B., and Yuen, L. M. (2008) Procrastination: why you do it, what to do about it now Cambridge: Da Capo PressChu, A. H. S., and Choi, J. N. (2005) Rethinking Procrastination: Positive Effects of Active Procrastination Behaviour on Attitudes and Performance. The Journal of Social Psychology 145(3), 245-264Choi, J. N., and Moran, S. V. (2009) Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology 149, 195-212 cited in Seo, E. H. (2013) A comparison of active and passive procrastination in relation to academic motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality 41(5), 777-786Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992) NEO Personality Inventory Revised Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources cited in Johnson, J. L., and Bloom, A. M. (1995) An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences 18(1), 127-133Coventry University (2015) Sona Systems [online] via [12 November 2014]Day, V., Mensink, D., and OSullivan, M. (2000) Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal of College Reading and Learning 30, 120134De Paola, M., and Scoppa, V. (2014) Procrastination, academic success and the effectiveness of a remedial program. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 1-20DeRoma, V. M., Young, A., Mabrouk, S. T., Brannan, K. P., Hilleke, R. O., and Johnson, K. Y. (2003) Procrastination and student performance on immediate and delayed quizzes. Education 124(1), 40-48Elliot, R. (2002) A ten-year study of procrastination stability. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Louisiana, Monroe cited in Steel, P. (2007) 'The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure'. Psychology Bulletin 133(1), 65-94Ellis, A., and Knaus, W. J. (1977) Overcoming Procrastination. New York: Signet Books cited in Steel, P. (2007) 'The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure'. Psychology Bulletin 133(1), 65-94Ferrari, J. (2004) Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality 25, 245-261Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., and McCown, W. G. (1995) Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory, Research and Treatment New York: Plenum PressFlett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., and Dyck, D. G. (1989) Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences 10(7), 731-735Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. and Rosenblate, R. (1990) 'The Dimensions of Perfectionism'. Cognitive Therapy and Research 14(5), 449-468Frost, R., Turcotte, T., Heimberg, R. G., Mattia, J., Holt, C., and Hope, D. (1995) Reactions to mistakes in subjects with high and low in perfectionistic concern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy Research 19, 195205. Cited in Rukmini, S., Sudhir, P. M., and Math, S. B. (2014) Perfectionism, Emotion Regulation and Their Relationship to Negative Affect in Patients with Social Phobia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 36(3), 239-245: 242Harrington, N. (2004) Its too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences 39, 873-883Harriott, J., and Ferrari, J. R. (1996) Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults. Psychological Reports 78, 611616HEFCE (2013) Non-continuation rates at English HEIs: Trends for entrants 2005-06 to 2010-11 [online] available from [2 April 2015]Hill, R. W., Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., Kibler, J., Vicente, B. B., and Kennedy, C. (2004) A New Measure of Perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 82(1), 80-91Jadidi, F., Mohammedkhani, S., and Tajrishi, K. Z. (2011) Perfectionism and academic procrastination. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 30, 534-537

Johnson, J. L., and Bloom, A. M. (1995) An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences 18(1), 127-133Karner-Huuleac, A. (2014) Perfectionism and self-handicapping in adult education. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 142, 434-438Kim, K. R., and Seo, E. H. (2015) The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 82, 26-33Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., and Rajani, S. (2007) Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, 915-931Lee, D., Kelly, K. R., and Edwards, J. K. (2006) A closer look at the relationships among trait procrastination, neuroticism and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences 40, 27-37O Brien, W. K. (2002) Applying the transtheoretical model to academic procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation cited in Steel, P. (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94zer, B. N., and Sakes, M. (2011) Effects of academic procrastination on college students life satisfaction. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 12, 512-519Senecal, C., Koestner, R., and Vallerand, R. J. (1995) Self-regulation and academic procrastination. The Journal of Social Psychology 135(5), 607-619Seo, E. H. (2012) Cramming, Active Procrastination and Academic Achievement. Social Behavioural and Personality 40(8), 1333-1340Seo, E. H. (2013) A comparison of active and passive procrastination in relation to academic motivation. Social Behaviour and Personality 41(5), 777-786Solomon, L. J., and Rothblum, E. D. (1984) Academic Procrastination: Frequency and cognitive- behavioural correlates. Journal of Counselling Psychology 31(4), 503-550Steel, P. (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133(1), 65-94Steel, P., Brothen, T., and Wambach, C. (2001) Procrastination and personality, performance, and mood. Personality and Individual Differences 30, 95-106Stewart, M. A., and De George-Walker, L. (2014) Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences 66, 160-164Thatcher, A., Wretschko, G., and Fridjhon., P. (2007) Online flow experiences, problamtic Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers in Human Behaviour 24, 2236-2254Wohl, J. A., Pychyl, T. A., and 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, 803-808Zakeri, H., Esfahani, B. N., and Razmjoee, M. (2013) Parenting styles and academic procrastination. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 84, 57-60

Appendices1. Aitken's Procrastination Inventory (1982)

This inventory will help you to evaluate your procrastination level. For each for the items below, please indicate the extent to which you STRONGLY DISAGREE (1) or STRONGLY AGREE (5) with the statement.1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree1.I delay starting things until the last minute.12345

2.Im careful to return library books on time.12345

3.Even when I know a job needs to be done, I never want to start it right away.12345

4.I keep my assignments up to date by doing my work regularly from day to day.12345

5.If there was a workshop that would help me learn not to put off starting my work, I would go.12345

6.I am often late for my appointments and meetings.12345

7.I use the vacant hours between classes to get started on my evenings work.12345

8.I delay starting things so long I dont get them done by the deadline.12345

9.I am often frantically rushing to meet deadlines.12345

10.It often takes me a long time to get started on something.12345

11.I dont delay when I know I really need to get the job done.12345

12.If I had an important project to do, Id get started on it as quickly as possible.12345

13.When I have a test scheduled soon, I often find myself working on other jobs when a deadline is near.12345

14.I often finish my work before it is due.12345

15.I get right to work at jobs that need to be done.12345

16.If I have an important appointment, I make sure the clothes I want to wear are ready the day before12345

17.I arrive at college appointments with plenty of time to spare.12345

18.I generally arrive on time to class.12345

19.I overestimate the amount of work that I can do in a given amount of time.12345

2. Frost's Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990)

Participants rate the below statements on a 5-point scale.Strongly disagree - Disagree - Neutral - Agree - Strongly AgreeMy parents set very high standards for me.Organization is very important to me.As a child, I was punished for doing things less than perfectly.If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likely to end up a second-rate person.My parents never try to understand my mistakes.It is important to me that I be thoroughly competent in what I do.I am a neat person.I try to be an organized person.If I fail at school, I am a failure as a person.I should be upset if I make a mistake.My parents want me to be the best at everything.I set higher goals than most people.If someone does a task at school better than I do, then I feel as if I failed the whole task.If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure.Only outstanding performance is good enough in my family.I am very good at focusing my efforts on attaining a goal.Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is not quite right.I hate being less than the best at things.I have extremely high goals.My parents expect excellence from me.People will probably think less of me if I make a mistake.I never feel that I can meet my parents expectations.If I do not do as well as other people, it means I am an inferior being.Other people seem to accept lower standards from themselves than I do.If I do not do well all the time, people will not respect me.My parents have always had higher expectations for my future than I have.I try to be a neat person.I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things that I do.Neatness is very important to me.I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than most people.I am an organized person.I tend to get behind in my work because I repeat things over and over.It takes me a long time to do something right.The fewer mistakes I make, the more people will like me.I never feel that I can meet my parents standards.

3. Wohl's Self-Forgiveness Scale (2010)

Please state whether you agree or disagree with the statements below.1= Strongly disagree2=Mostly agree3=Agree a little4=Neutral5=Disagree a little6=Mostly disagree7=Strongly disagree

I dislike myself for procrastinating1234567

I criticise myself because of my tendency to procrastinate1234567

I put myself down because of my tendency to procrastinate1234567

4. Certificate of Ethical Approval

Certificate of Ethical ApprovalStudent:Bethany Rapson

Project Title:The effects of procrastination, self-forgiveness and perfectionism on academic achievement.

This is to certify that the above named student has completed the Coventry University Ethical Approval process and their project has been confirmed and approved as Medium Risk

Date of approval:23 October 2014

Project Reference Number:P26998

5. Introductory Text

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to investigate the complex relationships between procrastination, perfectionism and self-forgiveness for procrastinating and their effects on academic performance.DescriptionWhat is the purpose of this study?The purpose of this study is to investigate the complex relationships between procrastination, perfectionism and self-forgiveness for procrastinating and their effect on academic performance.Why have I been chosen to participate?This study measures procrastination (amongst other factors) and its effect on academic performance. As a student of Coventry University, you will have certain deadlines to meet for assignments and examinations and subsequently receive a grade based on your academic performance. Do I have to participate?Participation is completely voluntary. If you would like to withdraw from the study at any point during the study, you may do so with no repercussions. Also, if you would like to withdraw your information from the study following completion, you may do so within the two weeks after participating in the study. You may do this by contacting the study supervisor (Bethany Rapson) via the email address listed below and providing your participation information number. If you should decide to do so, all of the information you provided within the study will be destroyed. There will be no consequences if you decide to withdraw your data.What will happen in the experiment?You will be presented with three consecutive questionnaires which you must respond to as honestly and truthfully as possible. At the end of the study, you will need to submit your average grade for semester one. It is imperative to the integrity of the research that you respond to this truthfully.What are the disadvantages of participation?I do not foresee any disadvantages in making the decision to take part in this study.What are the possible benefits of taking part?As an undergraduate student, you will gain an insight into what a dissertation project might look like. You will eventually be required to create your own similar project as part of your course, so this may give you some ideas for how to conduct your project. If you are a Psychology student, you will also receive research participation credits for taking part. What if something goes wrong?If this project must be terminated at some point in the future, you will still receive your research participation credits for taking part. If you should decide you withdraw your participation you may contact the study supervisor (Bethany Rapson) via the email address provided below and your data will subsequently be destroyed upon your request.Will my participation/performance by confidential?Both your responses to the questionnaire and your average grade will be kept anonymous. You will only be identifiable by your participation information number, which is randomly assigned when you choose to take part in the study. Please note that there is no way to identify who you are from this number, therefore you will remain anonymous. Your data will be stored on a password protected computer file along with your participant information number. Once the data is analysed, the raw data on the computer file will be destroyed. Any hard-copies will be stored in a locked cabinet and will also be destroyed once they have served their use for this specific study.What will happen to the results of the study?The results will be written up and will form the basis of my dissertation. Who is organising and funding the research?The research is organised by Bethany Rapson and Tony Lawrence, who is my supervisor for this project. No funding is required for this research.Contact for further information:Bethany RapsonE-mail: [email protected] you wish to make a complaint with respect to any component of this experimental procedure that you were dissatisfied with, you may contact Prof. Ian Marshall (Chair of Coventry University Ethics Committee) email: [email protected]

6. Debrief

Thank you for your participation. The questionnaires you just completed, along with your grades, will help provide additional insight into the effects that procrastination, perfectionism and self-forgiveness for procrastinating all have on academic performance. Previous research indicates that those who forgive themselves for procrastinating will procrastinate less often (Wohl et al. 2010).If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the study supervisor (Bethany Rapson) on the following email address - [email protected]. Once again, you may withdraw your data within two weeks of completing the study. If you have a particular interest in this area of Psychology, you may find the following reference useful.Wohl, 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.If you find procrastination to be a persistent and disruptive occurrence in your academic life, please do not hesitate to seek help from the University. You may contact the Counsellors and Mental Health advisors on [email protected]. They conduct workshops on how to manage exam anxiety and stress, which may be helpful if you find you are procrastinating frequently.

27