NOTICE: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Learning

and Individual Differences. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review,

editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be

reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for

publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Learning and Individual

Differences, 25(1), 35-44, DOI 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.007

The definitive version may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.02.007

Please cite as:

Strunk, K. K., Cho, Y., Steele, M. R., & Bridges, S. L. (2013). Development and validation of a

2x2 model of time-related academic behavior: Procrastination and timely engagement.

Learning and Individual Differences, 25(1), 35-44.

*Title Page WITH author details

Running head: PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 1

Development and Validation of a 2×2 Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior:

Procrastination and Timely Engagement

Kamden K. Strunk, YoonJung Cho, Misty R. Steele, and Stacey L. Bridges

Oklahoma State University

Author Note

Kamden Strunk is affiliated with the School of Educational Studies and the Center for

Research on STEM Teaching and Learning in the College of Education at Oklahoma State

University. YoonJung Cho, Misty Steele, and Stacey Bridges are affiliated with the School of

Applied Health and Educational Psychology in the College of Education at Oklahoma State

University.

Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Kamden Strunk,

Oklahoma State University, College of Education, Center for Research on STEM Teaching and

Learning, 327 Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078. Email: [email protected].

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 2

Abstract

Procrastination is an educational concern for classroom instructors because of its negative

psychological and academic impacts on students. However, the traditional view of

procrastination as a unidimensional construct is insufficient in two regards. First, the construct

needs to be viewed more broadly as time-related academic behavior, encompassing both

procrastination and timely engagement. Secondly, the underlying motivation of these behaviors

needs to be considered. Therefore, we developed and validated a 2×2 model of time-related

academic behavior. The results of a confirmatory factor analysis supported a four-factor

structure, and correlation with a unidimensional measure of procrastination also supported this

model. Furthermore, the 2×2 model demonstrated significantly better fit to the data than

potentially competing models. Structural equation modeling with achievement goals revealed

that the 2×2 model unveiled relationships previously obscured in the traditional model, including

that procrastination appeared to be used as a performance-enhancing strategy, while timely

engagement was used to enhance mastery. The theoretical and practical implications of these

new relationships are discussed.

KEYWORDS: Procrastination; Timely Engagement; Approach Motivation; Avoidance

Motivation; Achievement Goals
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 3

Development and Validation of a 2×2 Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior:

Procrastination and Timely Engagement

1.1. Introduction

Academic procrastination has drawn research interest because of its prevalence and

educational implications for classroom instructors and administrators (van Eerde, 2003).

Researchers have consistently identified between 40% and 60% of students as involved in

procrastination to a moderate or high degree (Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Rothblum, Solomon, &

Murakami, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). This high prevalence of procrastination appears

to be observed similarly across cultures, as reported in the United States (Onwuegbuzie, 2004;

Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), Canada and Singapore

(Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuck, Huan, Wong, & Yeo, 2009), and Turkey (Ozer, Demir, &

Ferrari, 2009). Procrastination is associated with a number of aversive physical and

psychological outcomes. Individuals who procrastinate report more physical complaints

(Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986), more illness-related complaints, and visit healthcare

providers more frequently (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Anxiety and stress are also higher in those

who procrastinate more. Previous research has demonstrated that people who delay starting or

completing tasks to a greater degree tend to show higher levels of global anxiety (Tice &

Baumeister, 1997), domain-specific anxiety such as test anxiety (Rothblum, Solomon, &

Murakami, 1986), and math anxiety (Owens & Newbegin, 2000). In addition, procrastination has

a negative impact on academic performance, such as math and English scores (Owens &

Newbegin, 2000), and assignment grades in general (Howell, Watson, Powell, & Buro, 2006),

although its impact on overall course grades is less clear (Howell, Watson, Powell, & Buro,

2006; Owens & Newbegin, 1997).

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 4

As such, prior research makes apparent that procrastination presents problems and

challenges for learners such as aversive outcomes in psychological well-being, and poor

performance. To better help students regulate time-related academic behaviors (e.g.

procrastination or timely engagement), educators should assess the extent to which students

procrastinate on their academic work and why the delayed behavior occurs. However, gaps in the

previous literature prevent us from understanding student procrastination in a clear and

comprehensive way.

Traditionally, procrastination was defined as any behavioral delay in starting or finishing

a task (Beck, Koons, & Milgrim, 2000; Ferrari, O’Callaghan, & Newbegin, 2005; Klassen,

Krawchuck, Lynch, & Rajani, 2008; Meyer, 2000; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986;

Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). The traditional model of procrastination research is insufficient in

two regards. The first issue with the traditional model of procrastination is related to restricted

range of measurement. In the traditional model of procrastination, the construct of

procrastination is measured with the assumption that the individual can be classified by the

severity of his/her academic task-related behavioral delay. This assumption results in an implicit

continuum of classification ranging from ‘very little procrastination’ to ‘extreme

procrastination’. Because timely engagement is not measured, ‘very little procrastination’

becomes vague and undefined, encompassing a wide range of responses from little

procrastination to a high level of timely engagement. Students who rarely put off starting or

completing tasks but demonstrate varying degrees of timely engagement might be different on a

range of motivational, behavioral, and psychological characteristics. However, these students

with potentially different patterns of time-related academic behaviors are constrained into the

same category under ‘little procrastination’ in the traditional model of procrastination. From a
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 5

practical perspective, in their effort to cultivate students’ adaptive patterns of time-related

academic behaviors, educators are not only concerned about decreasing students’ academic

procrastination behaviors, but also facilitating timely engagement. Timely engagement, then, is

the missing endpoint to the measurement continuum of time-related academic behaviors, and the

more accurate and comprehensive measurement continuum needs to be extended from

procrastination on one end to timely engagement on the other end. This extended measurement

continuum provides a more complete picture of time-related academic behaviors.

The second issue with the traditional model relates to the view of procrastination as a

unidimensional construct, capturing only the presence or absence of dilatory behaviors with little

or no emphasis on underlying motivation for these behaviors. Various reasons or motivations

may lead a person to procrastinate or actively engage in a task in a timely manner.

Understanding why a person delays performing a task, or why a person engages in a task in a

timely manner is equally important as understanding the degree or severity of the procrastination

or timely engagement. The traditional model and measures of procrastination, however, do not

adequately account for the motivation behind the time-related academic behavior, thus leaving

out important information about the behavior itself. Simply measuring whether or not an

individual procrastinates or the degree to which an individual procrastinates does not create a

comprehensive picture of the nature of procrastination. Although there has been some research

that supports the idea that people have reasons to procrastinate (e.g., active versus passive

procrastination; Choi & Moran, 2009, Chu & Choi, 2005; Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007),

little research has attempted to measure underlying motivation for time-related academic

behaviors.
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 6

As mentioned above, some researchers have demonstrated the importance of considering

motivation in procrastination (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005) and have differentiated

procrastination into two general types of behaviors: passive procrastination and active

procrastination. Active procrastination involves the intentional delay of tasks to gain strategic

advantage with the goal of improving performance, whereas passive procrastination involves the

intentional delay of tasks to avoid particularly aversive tasks (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007;

Burns, Dittman, Nguyen, & Mitchelson, 2000; Carden, Bryant, & Moss, 2004; Deniz, Tras, &

Aydogan, 2009), or as a function of a failure to self-regulate (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000;

Klassien, Ang, Chong, Krawchuck, Huan, Wong, & Yeo, 2009; Klassen, Krawchuck, Lynch, &

Rajani, 2008; Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995). Similar to the concept of active

procrastination, Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson (2007) found a dominant theme in their

qualitative work of students procrastinating to obtain a better state of flow in their work, or to

increase the quality of their work under more time pressure. Prior research has provided

empirical evidence that active and passive procrastination are distinct and independent (Choi &

Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005) and that they show differential relationships with constructs in

motivation. For instance, individuals high in active procrastination showed a higher level of self-

efficacy and a lower level of extrinsic motivation than those high in passive procrastination (Chu

& Choi, 2005). This empirical evidence speaks to the need to further differentiate the types of

time-related academic behaviors by 1) incorporating the underlying motivation for

procrastination and timely engagement, and 2) the need for viewing procrastination as a

multidimensional construct.

Based on our thorough review of current literature on procrastination, we found that a

new model of procrastination and timely engagement was needed to more comprehensively
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 7

conceptualize time-related academic behaviors. The purpose of the present study was two-fold.

First, considering the two issues of the traditional model of procrastination reviewed above, we

developed a new conceptual model and measure of time-related academic behaviors that include

timely engagement as well as procrastination and consider underlying motivation for those time-

related academic behaviors. Second, we tested psychometric properties of the 2×2 measure of

procrastination and timely engagement and further tested construct validity by investigating how

different types of procrastination and timely engagement differentially relate to achievement

goals.

1.2. Development of a 2×2 Model of Procrastination and Timely Engagement

We incorporated the concept of ‘timely engagement’ into the existing model of

procrastination to provide a comprehensive picture of possible time-related academic behaviors.

In addition, we incorporated approach versus avoidance motivational valence into the model of

time-related academic behaviors (i.e. procrastination and timely engagement) in order to

conceptualize distinct types of time-related behaviors with different natures and functions. Elliot

and Covington (2001) stressed the importance of approach versus avoidance distinctions in

understanding human behavior. Approach motivation tends to drive human behavior through

positive and/or desirable events or outcomes, whereas avoidance motivation tends to drive

human behavior through negative and/or undesirable events or outcomes (Elliot, 1999). For

example, when the approach versus avoidance distinction was applied to explain procrastination

behaviors, procrastination behaviors with approach motivation might be driven by the desire to

gain an advantage on a task, or because one feels one performs better under time pressure. On

the other hand, the procrastination behaviors with avoidance motivation might be driven by the

desire to avoid an unpleasant task, anxiety associated with a task or the possibility of failure.
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 8

This approach versus avoidance motivation provides a meaningful lens through which to

examine the reasons for procrastination and timely engagement.

In the current study, therefore, we proposed a 2×2 model of procrastination and timely

engagement that includes two dimensions: 1) the ‘time’ dimension indicating which time-related

academic behaviors occur (i.e. procrastination versus timely engagement), 2) the ‘motivational

orientation’ dimension indicating why the time-related academic behaviors occur (i.e. approach

versus avoidance). This model provides the ability to conceptualize not only what time-related

academic behavior occurs, but also why the time-related academic behavior occurs. The

combination of the two dimensions resulted in four different ‘types’ of behavior (See Figure 1),

specifically, procrastination-approach, procrastination-avoidance, timely engagement-approach,

and timely engagement-avoidance, which are predicted to relate to a different constellation of

behavioral and psychological characteristics.

Procrastination-approach refers to the behavior of delaying starting or completing tasks

to obtain desirable outcomes. Procrastination-approach would be similar to what the literature

has characterized as active procrastination: delaying tasks in order to gain a strategic advantage

on the task (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005). By contrast, procrastination-avoidance

refers to the delay of tasks driven by the avoidance of undesirable outcomes, rather than the

approach of desirable ones. Procrastination-avoidance would be similar to the traditional type of

procrastination, given that it is normally driven by either self-regulatory failure (Brownlow &

Reasinger, 2000; Klassen, Ang, Chong, Krawchuck, Huan, Wong, & Yeo, 2009; Klassen,

Krawchuck, Lynch, & Rajani, 2008; Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995) or avoidant coping

style (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Burns, Dittman, Nguyen, & Mitchelson, 2000; Carden,

Bryant, & Moss, 2004; Deniz, Tras, & Aydogan, 2009).

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 9

Incorporating the approach versus avoidance distinction into the construct of ‘timely

engagement’, generates the same pattern of construct differentiation. Timely engagement-

approach refers to the behavior of engaging in tasks in a timely manner with approach

motivation, such as gaining an advantage on the task. Timely engagement-avoidance refers to the

behavior of engaging in a timely manner with an avoidance motivation such as avoiding

potential undesirable outcomes. A more thorough understanding of both procrastination and

timely engagement, and the underlying motivations associated with these time-related academic

behaviors may allow for further development of time-related academic behavior theory within

motivational theory, and lead to enhanced educational practice surrounding these behaviors.

1.3. Relationship between Procrastination/Timely Engagement and Achievement Goals

Achievement goals, including mastery and performance goals, both with approach versus

avoidance valence, have been of interest in educational research. They are associated with a

number of variables such as views of self (Elliot, 2005), self-handicapping (Midgley & Urdan,

2001), sense of well-being (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999), and self-efficacy (Anderman & Young,

1994; Middleton & Midgley, 2002; Linnenbrink, 2005; Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000).

These relationships are relevant for educators working to increase student success and learning in

the classroom. Because empirical research has shown that different types of achievement goals

tend to motivate students to engage in different patterns of learning patterns, one would expect

that different achievement goals may lead students to utilize different types of time-related

academic behaviors. Accordingly, we investigated how the four types of time-related academic

behaviors, based on the new 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement proposed in

the present study, are differentially related to different types of achievement goals.
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 10

Achievement goals are defined as purposes for academic work, and the current literature

on achievement goals discusses four types of goals: mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance

goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997;

Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Mastery-approach goals are characterized by

striving to develop competence or progressing in learning; performance-approach goals are

characterized by seeking to demonstrate competence or perform up to a normative standard;

mastery-avoidance goals are characterized by striving to avoid failing to gain competence or to

avoid losing competence; and performance-avoidance goals are characterized by seeking to hide

a lack of competence based on normative standards (Elliot & Murayama, 2008).

Prior research examining the relationship between procrastination and achievement goals

has utilized the traditional model of procrastination, in which procrastination is viewed as a

unidimensional construct. Several empirical studies evidenced the significant role of

achievement goals in predicting various levels of task-related delays, with mastery-approach and

performance-approach goals predicting a lower level of procrastination and mastery-avoidance

goals predicting a higher level of generalized procrastination (Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell &

Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009). These studies have found an intriguing and consistent pattern

regarding the relationship between achievement goals and generalized procrastination.

Regardless of whether achievement goals are mastery-oriented or performance-oriented, the

approach versus avoidance distinction emerged as a determining factor in the level of

procrastination as defined in the traditional model.

In the 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement, hypotheses regarding the

relationship between achievement goals and procrastination/timely engagement need to be

reformulated. The new 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement enables us to
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 11

examine how different achievement goals are associated with different types of procrastination

and timely engagement involving distinct underlying motivation. Although both mastery-

approach goals and performance-approach goals had generally predicted lower procrastination in

previous work, we hypothesized a different pattern of relationships, in conversation with

previous research findings (e.g. Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell & Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009),

while adjusting for the new conceptual framework of the 2×2 model of procrastination/timely

engagement. In general, we predicted that procrastination would be positively related to

performance goals, timely engagement would be positively related to mastery goals, and that

procrastination/timely engagement with approach motivation would be positively related to

achievement goals with approach orientation, while procrastination/timely engagement with

avoidance motivation would be positively related to achievement goals with avoidance

orientation. These general principles guided us to reformulate hypotheses regarding the

relationship between time-related academic behaviors and achievement goals. Specifically, it

was hypothesized that procrastination-approach would be predicted by performance-approach

goals, performance-avoidance goals, and mastery-approach goals; that procrastination-avoidance

would be predicted by performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals, and mastery-

avoidance goals; that timely engagement-approach would be predicted by performance-approach

goals, mastery-approach goals, and mastery-avoidance goals; and that timely engagement-

avoidance would be predicted by performance-avoidance goals, mastery-approach goals, and

mastery-avoidance goals. These hypothesized relationships are shown in Figure 2. In addition to

these hypothesized structural relationships, we hypothesized that an existing, generalized

measure for procrastination would be moderately positively correlated with both ‘types’ of
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 12

procrastination, while it would be moderately negatively correlated with both ‘types’ of timely

engagement.

2. Method

2.1 Participants

The sample consisted of 1496 undergraduate students from a large Midwestern

university, including 600 men and 891 women, with 5 participants not reporting gender. The

breakdown by classification was: 535 freshman, 273 sophomores, 356 juniors, and 329 seniors,

with 3 students not reporting classification. The mean age of participants was 20.61 (SD = 3.16),

and mean GPA was 3.29 (SD = .47).

2.2 Measures

2.2.1. 2×2 measure of time-related academic behavior

The new 2×2 measure of procrastination and timely engagement was developed for this

study. It contains four subscales: procrastination-avoidance (7 items, α = .81, sample item: I

delay starting tasks because they are overwhelming to me), procrastination-approach (7 items, α

= .86, sample item: I delay completing tasks to increase the quality of my work), timely

engagement-avoidance (5 items, α = .87, sample item: I begin working on a newly assigned task

right away to avoid falling behind), and timely engagement-approach (7 items, α = .85, sample

item: I start working right away on a new task so that I can perform better on the task). These

items were framed in a domain-general manner, asking participants to respond about their

behavioral in the academic context in general. This was because one goal of the study was to

validate the performance of the new measure with traditional measures of generalized

procrastination. These measures have traditionally been framed in a domain general manner, so

the 2×2 measure of procrastination and timely engagement was framed similarly (Lay, 1986,
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 13

Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Three subject matter experts evaluated survey items and items

with low inter-rater agreement were removed or rewritten for clarity. The pool of items to

participants included 30 items but 5 items were subsequently removed as a result of the initial

confirmatory factor analysis (Table 1). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale where

1 was “Strongly Disagree” and 7 was “Strongly Agree”.

2.2.2. Generalized measure of procrastination

Procrastination defined in the traditional model was measured using the Procrastination

Scale for Students (Lay, 1986; sample item: I generally delay before starting on work I have to

do.) in order to establish divergent and convergent validity of the 2×2 Measure of Procrastination

and Timely Engagement. This scale was selected because of its common use in research on the

traditional concept of procrastination. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1

was “Strongly Disagree” and 7 was “Strongly Agree”. The Procrastination Scale for Students

showed good reliability (DeVellis, 2003) in the current sample (α = .87).

2.2.3. Measure of achievement goals

The Achievement Goal Questionnaire developed by Elliot and Murayama (2008) was

used to assess the degree to which students pursue mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance,

performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. This scale includes four subscales

with three items each. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 was “Strongly

Disagree” and 7 was “Strongly Agree”. In the present samples, the reliabilities for all scales were

good, including mastery-approach (α = .81), mastery-avoidance (α = .71), performance-approach

(α = .83), and performance-avoidance (α = .79).

2.3. Procedure
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 14

Volunteers were recruited from a variety of undergraduate classes for paper-based survey

data collection administered during the class period. Participants were informed about the

purposes of the research. Students who did not wish to participate were asked to return the

packet blank. Participants returned the completed survey directly to the researcher, who

remained in the room for data collection. Participants were not offered any inducement such as

monetary compensation or extra credit for their participation. All participants were treated in

accordance with APA ethical guidelines, and these procedures were approved by the university

Institutional Review Board.

3. Results

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the 2×2

measure of procrastination and timely engagement. CFA was chosen because of the strong

theoretical basis for the instrument, as well as some exploratory factor analytic work done by

Strunk (2011, May). The initial CFA resulted in the exclusion of seven items from the measure

due to low factor loadings and lack of content validity as a result of item reviews. A resulting

second CFA performed with the low-loading items removed revealed that the four-factor model

is a good fit to the data (CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .05) with all indices

beating conventional cutoffs (.90 for CFI and TLI, .07 for RMSEA and SRMR; Schreiber, Stage,

King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). The one exception was the chi-square test which was significant

(χ2203 = 1470.277, p < .001). However, the chi-square statistic is often significant in large

samples when differences are not substantive, so we interpreted the other fit indices as more

relevant in this case due to the very large sample size (Byrne, 2012; Kline, 2011). The four

factors include procrastination-approach, procrastination-avoidance, timely engagement-

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 15

approach, and timely engagement-avoidance. Table 1 displays survey items loaded on each

factor and corresponding factor loadings.

Next, we further tested whether the 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement

demonstrated empirical advantages over potentially competing theoretical models. The four

potentially competing models considered and their model fit indices were as follows:

 Model 1: a two-factor model comprised of procrastination versus timely engagement

factors, in which procrastination and timely engagement constructs are not differentiated

by approach versus avoidance motivation. This model was tested because procrastination

alone has been a subject of extensive study, so it was necessary to determine if this

behavior dimension alone would be a good fit to the data (χ2274 = 2361.18, CFI = .78, TLI

= .76, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .09).

 Model 2: a two-factor model comprised of approach versus avoidance factors, in which

procrastination and timely engagement constructs are not differentiated. This model was

tested to determine if the differentiation of motivational valence alone without

consideration of behavior would be a fit to the data (χ2277 = 4739.45, CFI = .36, TLI =

.36, RMSEA = .17, SRMR = .29).

 Model 3: a three-factor model comprised of generalized procrastination, timely

engagement-approach, and timely engagement-avoidance, in which timely engagement is

differentiated by approach versus avoidance motivation while procrastination is not . This

model was tested to determine if separation of procrastination on motivational valence

was necessary, or if separation on motivational valence for timely engagement alone

would be sufficient (χ2272 = 2232.85, CFI = .89, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .05).
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 16

 Model 4: a three-factor model comprised of procrastination-approach, procrastination-

avoidance, and generalized timely-engagement, in which procrastination is differentiated

by approach versus avoidance motivation while timely engagement is not. This model

was tested to determine if separation on motivational valence for timely engagement was

necessary for good fit to the data, or if separation on motivational valence for

procrastination alone would be sufficient (χ2272 = 4529.00, CFI = .78, TLI = .76, RMSEA

= .10, SRMR = .09).

Comparing the model fit indices revealed that the four-factor model (i.e., the 2×2 model

of procrastination vs. timely engagement across approach vs. avoidance motivation) showed

better model fit (CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05) than the competing models (See Table

2 for a direct comparison of model fit indices). To assess the empirical advantage of the 2×2

model over potentially competing models, a chi-square difference test was conducted. In the

model comparison test between Model 1 and the 2×2 model, the chi-square difference test was

significant (Δχ29 = 727.25, p < .001). The chi-square difference test was also significant when the

2×2 model was compared with Model 2 (Δχ212 = 3105.52, p < .001). The chi-squared difference

test was also significant when the 2×2 model was compared with Model 3 (Δ χ27 = 598.912, p <

.001), and with Model 4 (Δχ27 = 2895.06, p < .001). However, because the chi-square test can

produce significant results in large samples that do not equate to substantive differences, the

difference in Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was also assessed. It has been suggested that changes

in CFI of over .01 are necessary for the difference to be interpreted as substantive (Byrne, 2008;

Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Little, 1997). The difference between model 1 and 2 far exceeded

this threshold (CFI = .57), as did the difference between models 1 and 3 (CFI = .15), as did

the difference between models 1 and 4 (CFI = .15), and the difference between models 1 and 5
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 17

was well in excess of this threshold (CFI = .04). Thus, both the chi-squared difference test and

the difference in CFI values supported the empirical advantage of the 2×2 model. The model

comparison results offered additional evidence that the 2×2 measure of procrastination and

timely engagement is valid, and that the model is the best fit for the observed data among

potentially competing models.

Reliabilities were then assessed for the four resulting scales using Cronbach’s α. All

scales showed good reliabilities (DeVellis, 2003) including procrastination-approach ( = .86),

procrastination-avoidance ( = .75), timely engagement-approach ( = .87), and timely

engagement-avoidance ( = .87). Descriptive statistics for the new scales can be found in Table

3.

Next, we tested how the new scales that make up the 2×2 measure of procrastination and

timely engagement are correlated with an existing measure of procrastination which utilizes the

unidimensional conceptualization of the construct, the Procrastination Scale for Students (Lay,

1986), to examine convergent and divergent validity. As expected, both timely engagement-

approach (r = -.61) and timely engagement-avoidance (r = -.60) correlated negatively with the

existing scale (Lay, 1986), while both procrastination-approach (r = .46) and procrastination-

avoidance (r = .46) correlated positively with the scale (See Table 3). The magnitude of

correlation indicated that these scales share significant variance to capture time-related academic

behaviors while they appear to be distinct constructs (Cohen, 1988). The strong negative

correlation of both timely engagement factors was expected due to their somewhat inverse nature

to generalized procrastination. On the other hand, the moderate relationship of procrastination-

approach and procrastination-avoidance was also expected due to the fact that theoretically the

generalized concept of procrastination is now split between two factors, each measuring a
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 18

portion of that more generic construct. Thus, the moderate degree of correlation was expected

and supportive of the underlying theory.

To further test content validity, we conducted Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in

Mplus version 6.11 using maximum likelihood estimation to examine the relationship between

four types of time-related academic behaviors and achievement goals. In this analysis, we

modeled the relationships between latent variables. Figure 2 shows a hypothesized model in

which performance goals were generally predicted to be related more strongly to procrastination,

mastery goals more strongly to timely engagement and that approach goals would be more

strongly related to procrastination/timely engagement with approach motivation, while avoidance

goals were predicted to be more strongly related to procrastination/timely engagement with

avoidance motivation. While the initial analysis showed acceptable fit to the data (χ2502 =

2185.44, χ2/df = 4.35, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04), there were a number

of non-significant paths in the model that were removed one at a time until all remaining paths

were significant. The path with the smallest standardized path coefficient was removed first,

which was that of performance approach goals predicting procrastination-approach (β < .01).

The model was retested and the path with the smallest standardized coefficient was removed,

which was that of performance avoidance goals predicting timely engagement-avoidance (β <

.01). The smallest remaining standardized path coefficient was that of performance approach

goals predicting timely engagement-approach (β = -.01), and it was removed next. The smallest

remaining coefficient was that of mastery avoidance goals predicting timely engagement-

avoidance (β = -.02), and it was removed next. Finally, the only remaining non-significant path

was that of performance-avoidance predicting procrastination-approach (β = .03), and it was

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 19

removed from the model. The final SEM model was a good fit to the observed data (χ2507 =

2188.48, χ2/df = 4.31, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04).

Procrastination-approach was negatively predicted by mastery approach goals (β = -.16).

Procrastination-avoidance was negatively predicted by performance-approach goals (β = -.33)

and mastery-avoidance goals (β = -.21) but was positively predicted by performance-avoidance

goals (β = .36). Timely-engagement approach was negatively predicted by mastery-avoidance

goals (β = -.04), but positively predicted by mastery-approach goals (β = .44). Finally, timely

engagement-avoidance was positively predicted by mastery-approach goals (β = .38). This

pattern of prediction was generally in line with the hypothesized model, with the exception of the

hypothesized paths that were not significant.

4. Discussion

Procrastination and timely engagement are practically important concepts for educators

and researchers to consider for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of students’ learning

behaviors. Empirical research has evidenced that these time-related academic behaviors are

significantly related to academic and psychological outcomes (Howell, Watson, Powell, & Buro,

2006; Owens & Newbegin, 1997; Owens & Newbegin, 2000; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami,

1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). This attests to the importance of attending to these time-related

academic behaviors in research toward promoting students’ timely engagement while

discouraging their engagement in procrastination behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of the

present study was the development and validation of a new conceptual model that considers both

procrastination and timely engagement as time-related academic behaviors, and differentiates

these behaviors on the basis of motivational orientation (i.e. approach versus avoidance

motivation).
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 20

The 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement challenges the traditional

model of procrastination in which procrastination is viewed as a unidimensional construct. The

construct validity of the 2×2 model was empirically tested using a new 2×2 measure of

procrastination and timely engagement, and was tested against competing models that reflect

theoretically possible variants of factor structures. The results demonstrated that the 2×2 model

offered the best fit with the observed data, while the alternative models showed relatively poorer

fit. Taken together, these findings demonstrated that neither the time-related behavior dimension

(i.e. procrastination versus timely engagement) nor the motivation dimension (i.e. approach

versus avoidance) alone is sufficient; it is necessary to consider these two dimensions

simultaneously. Adding timely engagement to the procrastination measurement continuum seems

to resolve the restriction of range issue that has characterized traditional procrastination research,

and considering underlying motivation of delayed or timely engagement helped advance our

understanding of different types of time-related academic behaviors.

To further test the validity of the new 2×2 model of time-related academic behaviors (i.e.,

procrastination and timely engagement), we examined how the constructs included in the new

measurement model were associated with traditionally defined generalized procrastination. The

traditional, generalized, measure of procrastination showed positive relationships with

procrastination-approach and procrastination-avoidance, while it showed negative relationships

with timely engagement-approach and timely engagement-avoidance. This correlation pattern

showed that the traditional view of procrastination as a unidimensional construct partially

captured the difference between procrastination and timely engagement by revealing opposite

directions of relationships with these constructs, but failed to differentiate approach versus
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 21

avoidance motivation, as indicated by similar relationships with both procrastination-approach

and procrastination-avoidance.

The traditional model of procrastination does not consider timely engagement as an

extended construct of time-related academic behaviors. Therefore, in the traditional model of

procrastination, people who report low procrastination could vary from a low level of timely

engagement to a high level of timely engagement. This means a person high in timely

engagement-approach would be classified simply as a person low in procrastination under the

unidimensional construct of procrastination (c.f., Lay, 1986; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami,

1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). The 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement

was developed to clarify these restricted measurement issues. Consistent with our hypothesis, the

data based on the 2×2 model revealed that mastery-approach goals were positively associated

with both timely engagement constructs, while there was a null relationship between

performance-approach goals and both timely engagement constructs. Previous studies, where the

traditional model of procrastination was used, found that both mastery-approach and

performance-approach goals were related to low levels of procrastination, but were unable to

provide information about their relationship with timely engagement. The 2×2 model used in the

present study helped clarify that timely engagement coupled with avoidance motivation was

positively linked to mastery-approach goals, which was not the case for performance-approach

goals. People with mastery-approach goals would be aware that delaying work would not help

them master skills and learn as much as possible, and are thus more inclined to engage in tasks in

a timely manner. In contrast, people with performance-approach goals were not necessarily

involved in timely engagement, perhaps because they tend to perceive that timely hard work

might signal their lack of ability. This differential pattern of relationships clearly demonstrated
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 22

the empirical validity of incorporating timely engagement into the model. The present study

provides valuable information about the phenomena of time-related academic behaviors, namely

procrastination and timely engagement.

In addition, we tested whether the incorporation of approach versus avoidance motivation

plays a meaningful role in the relationship with existing motivational constructs such as

achievement goals. A great deal of research has shown that people adopting different

achievement goals tend to show different learning patterns and employ different self-regulated

learning strategies (Howell & Watson, 2007). As expected, achievement goals were differentially

related to different ‘types’ of procrastination and timely engagement. Unlike the traditional

model of procrastination, in which a unidimensional construct of generalized procrastination was

considered, the four constructs measured in the 2×2 model of procrastination and timely

engagement revealed a number of novel and meaningful relationships that offer important

implications in the area of time-related academic behaviors.

In the traditional model of procrastination, approach types of achievement goals,

regardless of whether they are performance or mastery goals, were found to predict lower levels

of procrastination (Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell & Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009). The result of the

present study was consistent with prior studies using the traditional model of procrastination in

that both performance-approach and mastery-approach goals were associated with lower levels

of procrastination. However, what is noteworthy is that these two goals were linked to lower

procrastination with different motivation, meaning that both performance-approach oriented

students and mastery-approach oriented students tend to procrastinate less, but for different

reasons. Performance-approach goals were likely to result in a lower level of procrastination with

an avoidance motivation, while mastery-approach goals were likely to result in a lower level of
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 23

procrastination with approach motivation. Performance-oriented students may intentionally use

procrastination-approach as a performance-enhancing strategy. In other words, delaying a task

until closer to the deadline is believed to offer a strategic advantage, which the individual uses so

that they can demonstrate superior performance resulting from innate high ability rather than

hard work. In contrast, people adopting mastery-approach goals try to learn as much as possible,

without reference to external performance standards, so that they would not be likely to use

procrastination as a performance enhancement strategy (i.e. would be low in procrastination-

approach) because they do not consider procrastination-approach as an effective strategy for

gaining skills and learning. Further, a strong negative relationship between performance-

approach goals and procrastination-avoidance demonstrated that students adopting performance-

approach goals do not employ procrastination as a strategy to avoid failure or negative

experiences.

Previous research indicated positive relationships of traditionally defined procrastination

with avoidance types of achievement goals (i.e., both performance-avoidance and mastery-

avoidance goals) (Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell & Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009). Consistent with

prior research, the present study found that performance-avoidance goals are positively related to

procrastination-avoidance. However, mastery-avoidance goals showed the opposite pattern

demonstrating a negative relationship with procrastination-avoidance. Unlike the findings from

prior studies, this result indicated that students with avoidance types of achievement goals do not

always employ procrastination-avoidance strategies. Given that students adopting performance-

avoidance goals tend to strive to not perform worse than others is viable that they are likely to

use procrastination-avoidance as a strategy to avoid negative experiences such as fear of failure

and mask their lack of ability. Conversely, students with mastery-avoidance goals are not likely
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 24

to delay starting and completing tasks because those with this achievement goal are not afraid of

poor performance, but rather are concerned about not being able to learn and improve as much as

they could. Therefore, the separation of procrastination into procrastination-approach versus

procrastination-avoidance helped elucidate the nuanced nature of the relationship between

mastery-avoidance goals and procrastination.

The 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement revealed more distinct and

differentiated relationships with achievement goals, providing empirical evidence that

considering the underlying motivation of procrastination helped illuminated the unique nature

and function of different types of procrastination and timely engagement. Taken together, while

previous research found that approach versus avoidance goals play a determining role in

predicting procrastination (Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell & Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009), the

findings in the present study demonstrate that mastery versus performance goals, as well as

approach versus avoidance goals, play an important role in predicting procrastination with

distinct motivations. These relationships were obscured within the traditional model of

procrastination because the traditional model subsumes all time-related behaviors and

motivations under a single unidimensional construct.

We should note a few limitations of the study. Timely engagement-approach and timely

engagement-avoidance demonstrated a strong correlation, indicating a high degree of shared

variance in the underlying constructs. This may have attenuated the predictive relationships in

the structural equation model. However, collapsing timely engagement into a single factor

produced poorer fit with the observed data. Further, distinctive relationships of performance-

avoidance goals with timely engagement constructs (e.g. negative relationships with timely

engagement-approach and a null relationship with timely engagement-avoidance) provide

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 25

supporting evidence toward the separation of timely engagement constructs. Nevertheless, the

apparent overlap between these constructs observed in the present study warrants more future

work to further differentiate these two variables empirically, perhaps through revising and

developing survey items that tap into more distinctiveness in the two time engagement scales.

5. Conclusions

The empirical data presented in the current study demonstrated the validity of the 2×2

model of procrastination and timely engagement and its empirical advantages over the traditional

model of procrastination, and provided important information for further development and

refinement of this model. The development and validation of the new 2×2 model of

procrastination and timely engagement has many theoretical and practical implications. In terms

of theoretical implications, it is clear that conceptualizing various types of time-related academic

behaviors involving different motivations gives a significant theoretical advantage, as indicated

by additional specificity and accuracy in predictive relationships with motivation constructs such

as achievement goals. Different ‘types’ of time-related academic behavior, as specified in the

2×2 model, might be associated with a constellation of learning- and achievement-related

variables and differentially predict academic success among students. This research offers a

promising opportunity for future studies investigating time-related academic behaviors, their

antecedents, and their consequences, which may offer important insights for educators. Future

studies should also seek to replicate and expand on the results of the present study, and may also

seek to include academic performance as an outcome variable of interest.

From a practical stance, the 2×2 model of procrastination and timely engagement also

presents a potential for significant advance in intervention-based research on procrastination,

enabling researchers and educational practitioners to tailor interventions for students with time
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 26

management issues by considering not only the time-related academic behavior, but also the

underlying motivational orientation. The implications of such interventions would potentially

extend into student success, retention, and motivation.

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 27

References

Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope

as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1301-1310.

Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual

differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-

831.

Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of behavioral

procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem

and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 3-13.

Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today:

Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 15-34.

Burns, L. R., Dittmann, K., Nguyen, N. L., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2000). Academic

procrastination, perfectionism, and control: Associations with vigilant and avoidant

coping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 35-46.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carden, R., Bryant, C., & Moss, R. (2004). Locus of control, test anxiety, academic

procrastination, and achievement among college students. Psychological Reports, 95,

581-582.

Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a

new active procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 195-211.
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 28

Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active”

procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology,

145(3), 245-264.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Deniz, M. E., Tras, Z., & Aydogan, D. (2009). An investigation of academic procrastination,

locus of control, and emotional intelligence. Emotional Sciences: Theory and Practice,

9(2), 623-632.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C.

S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 52-72). New

York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,

illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613-628.

Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach

and avoidance temperament and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82(5), 804-818.

Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions

of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 865-906.

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 29

Ferrari, J. R., O’Callaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Prevalence of procrastination in the

United States, United Kingdom, and Australia: Arousal and avoidance delays among

adults. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 1-6.

Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A

meditational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 151-154.

Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal

orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167-178.

Howell, A. J., Watson, D. C., Powell, R. A., & Buro, K. (2006). Academic procrastination: The

pattern and correlates of behavioural postponement. Personality and Individual

Differences, 40, 1519-1530.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 24, 330-358.

Klassen, R. M., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Krawchuk, L. L., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Yeo,

L. S. (2009). Academic procrastination in two settings: Motivation correlates, behavioral

patterns, and negative impact of procrastination in Canada and Singapore. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 361-379.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Procrastination and

motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed-methods inquiry.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(3), 137-147.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York,

NY: Guilford.

Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in

Personality, 20, 474-495.

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 30

Linnenbrink. E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple

goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 97(2), 197-213.

Meyer, C. L. (2000). Academic procrastination and self-handicapping: Gender differences in

response to noncontingent feedback. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5),

87-102.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (2002). Beyond motivation. Middle school students’

perceptions of press for understanding math. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27,

373-391.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further

examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61-75.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 3-19.

Owens, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A causal

structural model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4), 869-887.

Owens, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (2000). Academic procrastination of adolescents in English and

mathematics: Gender and personality variations. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 15(5), 111-124.

Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among

Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 149(2), 241-257.

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 31

Pajares, M. F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-

beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 25(4), 406-422.

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral

differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

33(4), 387-394.

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of

academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12-25.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural

equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of

Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.

Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic

procrastination. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5), 607-619.

Seo, E. H. (2009). The relationship of procrastination with a mastery versus an avoidance goal.

Social Behavior and Personality, 37(7), 911-920.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-

behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503-509.

Strunk, K. K. (2011, May). The development of a new multidimensional measure of

procrastination. Presentation at the Association for Psychological Science, Washington,

DC.

Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,

stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454-

458.
PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 32

van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastication.

Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401-1418.

Table

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 32

Table 1

2!2 Measure of Time Related Academic Behavior: Items by Scales with Factor Loadings

Procrastination-Approach Loading S.E. Residual

1. I more effectively utilize my time by postponing tasks. .68 .02 .53
2. I delay completing tasks to increase the quality of my work .63 .02 .60
6. I put off starting tasks to increase my motivation .71 .02 .49
9. I feel a stronger state of “flow” in my tasks when working closer to a deadline. .68 .02 .54
14. I intentionally wait until closer to the deadline to begin work to enhance my .80 .01 .37
performance.
21. I delay tasks because I perform better when under more time pressure. .84 .01 .29
29. I rarely have difficulty completing quality work when starting a task close to the .50 .02 .75
deadline.
Procrastination-Avoidance
5. I put off tasks for later because they are too difficult to complete. .59 .02 .66
23. I avoid starting and completing tasks. .56 .02 .69
24. I often delay starting tasks because I am afraid of failure. .71 .02 .50
25. I delay starting tasks because they are overwhelming. .77 .02 .41
Timely engagement-Approach
4. I work further ahead of the deadline, at a slower pace, because it helps me .73 .01 .46
perform better.
8. I believe I can successfully complete most tasks because I start work immediately .74 .01 .46
after being assigned a task.
19. I do my best work well ahead of the deadline. .72 .01 .49
22. I start working right away on a new task so that I can perform better on the task. .81 .01 .34
27. I complete my tasks prior to their deadlines to help me be successful. .58 .02 .66
28. I begin working on difficult tasks early in order to achieve positive results. .80 .01 .36
Timely engagement-Avoidance
7. I start my work early because my performance suffers when I have to rush .80 .01 .37
through a task.
10. I do not start things at the last minute because I find it difficult to complete them .67 .02 .55
on time.
11. I begin working on a newly assigned task right away to avoid falling behind. .81 .01 .34
17. When I receive a new assignment, I try to complete it ahead of the deadline to .79 .01 .38
avoid feeling overwhelmed.
18. On extremely difficult tasks, I begin work even earlier so I can avoid the .72 .01 .48
consequences of putting it off for later.
Table

Running head: PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 33

Table 2

Comparisons of Model Fit Indices among Competing Models

χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf CFI ΔCFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

1. 2×2 Model of Time Related Academic Behavior 4.86 - - .92 - .91 .07 .05

2. 2 Factor Model of Procrastination and Engagement 15.87 727.25 9 .78 .15 .76 .10 .09

3. 2 Factor Model of Approach and Avoidance 44.57 3105.52 12 .36 .57 .36 .17 .29

4. 3 Factor Model of Procrastination with Two Motives and Engagement 8.20 598.91 7 .89 .04 .89 .07 .05

5. 3 Factor Model of Engagement with Two Motives and Procrastination 16.65 2895.06 7 .78 .15 .76 .10 .09

Note. The Δχ2 statistics and ΔCFI statistics compare the potentially competing models (2 through 5) to the hypothesized model (1). All
difference statistics are statistically significant at the p < .001 level.
Table

Running head: PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 34

Table 3

Correlations Between Key Variables and Descriptive Statistics

Measure SD 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Procrastination-Approach .74 -

2. Procrastination-Avoidance .75 .23* -

3. Timely Engagement-Approach .78 -.59* -.23* -

4. Timely Engagement-Avoidance .81 -.60* -.19* .87* -

5. Procrastination Scale for Students .54 .46* .46* -.61* -.61*

Note. * indicates significance at the p < .01 level. All means are zero due to unit-weighted factor

score calculations.
Figure

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 35

Approach

Timely Procrastination-
Engagement- Approach
Approach
Timely Engagement

Procrastination
PRESENCE OR
ABSENCE OF BEHAVIOR
IN MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION
REASONS FOR PROCRASINATION

Timely
Engagement- Procrastination-
Avoidance Avoidance

Figure 1 Avoidance

2!2 Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior

Figure

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 36

Performance Procrastination-
Approach Goal Approach
Orientation

Performance Procrastination-
Avoidance Avoidance
Goal
Orientation

Mastery Timely
Approach Goal Engagement-
Orientation Approach

Mastery Timely
Avoidance Engagement-
Goal Avoidance
Orientation

Figure 2

Hypothesized Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior with Achievement Goals

Figure

PROCRASTINATION AND TIMELY ENGAGEMENT 37

Performance Procrastination-
Approach Goal Approach
Orientation

-.33

Performance Procrastination-
Avoidance .36 Avoidance
Goal
Orientation

-.16

Mastery Timely
Approach Goal .44 Engagement-
Orientation Approach

.38

-.21
-.04
Mastery Timely
Avoidance Engagement-
Goal Avoidance
Orientation

Figure 3

Final Model of Time-Related Academic Behavior with Achievement Goals