The Problem of Procrastination - Essay Example

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Number Date Research Report on Procrastination Abstract Procrastination is an aspect that is carried out by many students in different contexts. The study highlighted in the report was conducted to identify how attention and the working of the memory influence the effect of procrastination on different students. The research was conducted through administering a demographic questionnaire, a PASS procrastination questionnaire, the use of an operation span task, and a Stroop task. The results from the study were analysed and presented in comparative tables to provide a clear impression of the outcomes from the participants. Apparently, only results of 62 participants were used for the study contrary to the total of 109 participants that were used for the study. Introduction Procrastination is a complicated concept to comprehend. To some people, procrastination is easier to understand whereas it is rather a mystery to others. Apparently, most procrastinators do so due to inner fears, dreams, hopes, memories, doubts, and pressures. However, most of them fail to understand what is going on inside because they use procrastination to avoid uncomfortable feelings and the feeling of vulnerability (Solomon & Rothblum 448). Procrastinators are always afraid of failure hence they delay circumstances surrounding their performance to avoid the outcomes. Eventually, procrastinators have a complicated relationship with time. Their wishful thinking and the impression that time could be used to outwit their challenges is one of the factors that increases their propensity to procrastination (MacLeod 186). It would be crucial if the procrastinators contemplated the effect of their actions in the long term. Seemingly, Howell et al. argue that procrastinators do so with four main intentions. The probability of payoff is one of the reasons why most people are involved in procrastination. The pursuit of pleasure and the prevention of pain are other main reasons for procrastination. Finally, some people are engaged in procrastination a way to postpone punishment. Different groups of people such as students, employees, and employers procrastinate due to one of the mentioned reasons. Procrastination is a phenomenon that might affect a large number of people unless everybody develops methods to beat the feeling. Therefore, there are different ways that can be employed to beat procrastination. Some of these methods might only be used in specific contexts while others can be used diversely. Competence and confidence are one of the ways that can be used to beat procrastination. With confidence and the desire to be ahead of others, an individual is less prone to postpone or delay issues. Motivation and will power are other ways that can be used to overcome procrastination. In case an individual has enough external and internal drive to work through challenges, there is a high probability of accomplishing tasks to avoid letting down their motivators. Seemingly, focus and attention is a better method of avoiding procrastination in circumstances where learning and assessment are involved. Having clear goals and planning on how to achieve those goals might also prevent procrastination. For an individual who has already experienced procrastination, it becomes difficult to focus on these methods of beating it. Procrastination is born out of a supplementary habit that forces the individual to postpone crucial tasks to create time for the habitual activity (Solomon & Rothblum 452). It would, therefore, become difficult to outwit the pleasure of the habitual activity at the expense of regular tasks. Eventually, all these measures can also be integrated to provide an individual with a wide range of options to deal with the problem of procrastination. Students are among the groups of people that are highly affected by procrastination. Some of the common areas where procrastination affects students include carrying out assignments, keeping up with readings, studying for an exam, and performing academic activities in general (Howell et al. 1524). Among students, the fear of failure and the evaluation of threat are some of the major causes of procrastination. Apparently, research indicates that there is a connection between procrastination among students and the use of social media. Most students delay or postpone their tasks to obtain time to be on social media (Rabin et al. 350). However, there are different levels of procrastination effect among different students. The working memory of the student and the ability of the student to show attention are some of the factors that affect the differences in procrastination effect among students. Eventually, all the four reasons for procrastination apply to students in different contexts. However, these factors are influenced by the personality of the students and their adaptive characteristics to the curriculum of the school. Conduction of the study was done amid revelation about a high number of cases of procrastination among students. The main aim of the study was to investigate the effect of procrastination among students. The study intended to find out how the attention of the students affects their propensity to procrastinate. This was conducted through identifying the level of attention of the participants in the study. The level of attention was therefore related to the mean and median procrastination. Seemingly, the study intended to find out how the working memory of the student affected his level of procrastination. These aims of the study were evaluated in the procedures of the study to come up with comprehensive results. Based on the prior research conducted on procrastination, the study was conducted on the assumption that a higher level of attention reduces the level of procrastination of the student. On the other hand, a higher working memory capacity also reduces the level of procrastination of the student. The two hypotheses were the centre of the evaluation and presentation of the results from the study. There are diverse components of engagement in a learning set up such as exams and assignments that might cause a student to procrastinate. Results Every study has results attributed to the aims of the study and the methods used to carry out the study. The study results, however, indicate what was identified during the study and does not necessarily have to reflect what was expected from the study. Attention and Procrastination. Since the Stroop interference was used to determine the level of attention of the participants for the study, results of the Stroop test were highlighted alongside the results gathered from the procrastination questionnaires. The results of the participants based on the relationship between attention and procrastination were presented in tables highlighting the Stroop interference results, the procrastination results from the questionnaire, and the results from the t – score. The study found out that the number of participants with a higher Stroop interference was higher than the number of participants with a lower Stroop interference ranging at a mean of 11.09 and 405.53 respectively. The results were presented in groups of low Stroop interference and high Stroop interference developed through a median split of the participants. The procrastination questionnaires were filled in by the participants by answering random questions developed in the questionnaire. After that, it was also identified that the number of students with self – proclaimed procrastination was higher among the group with high Stroop interference compared to the participants in the group with a lower Stroop interference with means of 36.61 and 32.26 respectively. Eventually, the t – test constructed from the study indicate that there was a two-sample location test meaning that the means of procrastination and the means of Stroop test were equal or rather related. In all the cases of presentation of the results, it was identified that the standard deviation of the low Stroop interference group was lower than the standard deviation of the group of high Stroop interference in the Stroop test results and vice versa in the procrastination results. In the results detailing the Stroop test, they ranged 200.91 and 215.03 respectively. In the results detailing self – procrastination, they ranged 8.89 and 8.0 respectively. Working Memory and Procrastination. In the introduction to the study, it was clearly stated that identifying the relationship between the working memory and procrastination among students was one of the aims of the study. Seemingly, the presentation of the results was divided into two groups of low operation Span Scores and high Operation Span Scores developed through a median split. The study identified that the number of participants with a low Operations Span Scores was smaller than the number of participants with high Operation Span Scores ranging at a mean of 25.39 and 54.84 respectively. The standard deviation for the two groups also corresponded with the mean ranging at 9.28 and 10.92 respectively. Seemingly, the participants had filled in questionnaires answering questions that would determine their procrastination based on the working of their memory. The study found out that there were a high number of participants with self - reported procrastination in the low Operational Span Scores group compared to the low number of participants with self - reported procrastination in the group of high Operational Span Scores ranging at 34.61 and 34.26 respectively. Seemingly, the t – test developed from the results indicated that there was a two-sample location test meaning that the means of procrastination and the means of Operational Span Scores were equal or rather related. Discussion The research results were rather complicated to evaluate since they represent an analysis of more than two variables approached from different angles. However, the results on attention and procrastination clearly indicated that the number of participants with a higher Stroop interference was higher than the number of participants with a lower Stroop interference. Based on the evaluation of the study materials, it was highlighted that the greater Stroop interference in the results would indicate worse attention. Eventually, this shows that a higher number of the participants expressed poor attention while only a few of the participants expressed high attention. Seemingly, the results from the procrastination questionnaires reflected that the number of students with self – proclaimed procrastination was higher among the group with high Stroop interference compared to the participants in the group with a lower Stroop interference. According to the evaluation of the study tools, it was also highlighted that higher questionnaire scores would indicate greater self – reported procrastination. In this case, it appears that the participants in the high Stroop interference group exhibited the greatest level of self – procrastination. Comparing to the results obtained during the Stroop test, it is clear that both experiments justify that the students with low levels of attention exhibited the highest levels of procrastination. Seemingly, the results on working memory and procrastination clearly indicated that the number of participants with a low Operations Span Score was smaller than the number of participants with high Operation Span Scores. Based on an earlier evaluation of the tools of the study, it was highlighted that greater operation span scores indicated a greater working memory capacity. Eventually, this implies that most of the participants had a greater working memory capacity. The results from the PASS procrastination and demographic questionnaires also indicated that there were a high number of participants with self – reported procrastination in the low Operational Span Scores group compared to the low number of participants with self-reported procrastination in the group of high Operational Span Scores. Comparison of the results from the procrastination questionnaires and the Operational Span Scores approves the fact that students with a low working memory capacity are likely to be highly procrastinate compared to students with a greater working memory capacity. Attention is the ability of the student to listen and comprehend what the teacher explains in the classroom. If a student pays attention in the classroom and other learning setups, he is likely to grasp all the information that would enable him to carry out further readings. As discussed earlier, it is clear that some of the areas where most students procrastinate include examinations, assignments, and general academic activities (Ferrari 187). The main reason why the students procrastinate in these contexts is because of the fear of failing because they do not have the content required. Some of the students procrastinate for hoping that they might obtain solutions later from friends. However, this type of procrastination can be avoided through paying attention. This enables the students to be equipped for any academic activity since they have all the information needed. Apparently, attention is an intrinsic trait that a student needs to adapt and become committed to upholding regarding class work. A working memory capacity is the normal ability of an individual to remember things they have heard, seen, or touched before. Apparently, all academic activities and exercises involve the ability to remember what was taught in class or any other learning environment. Even if the student pays attention during lessons, the inability to remember the context of the lesson makes it difficult for him to handle tasks, assignments, pass an examination. Therefore, having a low working memory capacity would force the student to postpone tasks and assignments so that he can revisit the notes meditated during the lesson. However, the memory capacity can be obtained through frequent practice of grasping simple contents. Apparently, the study also had various limitations. It is clear that the participants were aware that they would be tested on their attentive abilities. This might have offset premeditated instincts among some of the participants resulting in biased results. It would be more appropriate to conduct the research in a more natural learning environment where the students cannot predict the procedure (Unsworth et al. 503). Seemingly, it is clear that the study only focused on attention and memory capacity which are factors that influence the occurrence of procrastination among students. However, the study could also have diversified its coverage by addressing the factors that cause procrastination among students. This would have enabled them to understand factors that led to aspects such as lack of attention. For future research, I would recommend that more emphasis is put on studying ways in which students can beat procrastination. It is clear that even the students do not understand the aspect of procrastination yet it affects them. Studying solutions might make it easier to combat the situation. I would also recommend that future research uses unconditioned classroom and other learning environment settings. This would help to obtain the truthful impressions of the students. It is, therefore, evident that attention and the memory capacity of the students are huge factors that influence their procrastination. Works Cited Ferrari, Joseph. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit, boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task-delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 15(5), 185-197 Howell, Andrew. J., Watson, David. C., Powell, Russell. A., & Buro, Karen. (2006). Academic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioral postponement. Personality and Individual Difference, 40, 1519-1530 MacLeod C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. Rabin, L.A., Fogel, J. &Nutter-Upham, K.E. (2011). Academic procrastination in college students: the role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344-57 Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1994). Procrastination Assessment Scale- Students (PASS). In J. Fischer & K. Corcoran (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice (pp. 446-452). New York: The Free Press. Unsworth, Nash., Heitz, Richard.P., Schrock, Josef.C., & Engle, Randall.W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498 - 505. Read More

Students are among the groups of people that are highly affected by procrastination. Some of the common areas where procrastination affects students include carrying out assignments, keeping up with readings, studying for an exam, and performing academic activities in general (Howell et al. 1524). Among students, the fear of failure and the evaluation of threat are some of the major causes of procrastination. Apparently, research indicates that there is a connection between procrastination among students and the use of social media.

Most students delay or postpone their tasks to obtain time to be on social media (Rabin et al. 350). However, there are different levels of procrastination effect among different students. The working memory of the student and the ability of the student to show attention are some of the factors that affect the differences in procrastination effect among students. Eventually, all the four reasons for procrastination apply to students in different contexts. However, these factors are influenced by the personality of the students and their adaptive characteristics to the curriculum of the school.

Conduction of the study was done amid revelation about a high number of cases of procrastination among students. The main aim of the study was to investigate the effect of procrastination among students. The study intended to find out how the attention of the students affects their propensity to procrastinate. This was conducted through identifying the level of attention of the participants in the study. The level of attention was therefore related to the mean and median procrastination. Seemingly, the study intended to find out how the working memory of the student affected his level of procrastination.

These aims of the study were evaluated in the procedures of the study to come up with comprehensive results. Based on the prior research conducted on procrastination, the study was conducted on the assumption that a higher level of attention reduces the level of procrastination of the student. On the other hand, a higher working memory capacity also reduces the level of procrastination of the student. The two hypotheses were the centre of the evaluation and presentation of the results from the study.

There are diverse components of engagement in a learning set up such as exams and assignments that might cause a student to procrastinate. Results Every study has results attributed to the aims of the study and the methods used to carry out the study. The study results, however, indicate what was identified during the study and does not necessarily have to reflect what was expected from the study. Attention and Procrastination. Since the Stroop interference was used to determine the level of attention of the participants for the study, results of the Stroop test were highlighted alongside the results gathered from the procrastination questionnaires.

The results of the participants based on the relationship between attention and procrastination were presented in tables highlighting the Stroop interference results, the procrastination results from the questionnaire, and the results from the t – score. The study found out that the number of participants with a higher Stroop interference was higher than the number of participants with a lower Stroop interference ranging at a mean of 11.09 and 405.53 respectively. The results were presented in groups of low Stroop interference and high Stroop interference developed through a median split of the participants.

The procrastination questionnaires were filled in by the participants by answering random questions developed in the questionnaire. After that, it was also identified that the number of students with self – proclaimed procrastination was higher among the group with high Stroop interference compared to the participants in the group with a lower Stroop interference with means of 36.61 and 32.26 respectively. Eventually, the t – test constructed from the study indicate that there was a two-sample location test meaning that the means of procrastination and the means of Stroop test were equal or rather related.

Read More