Next Article in Journal
Attitudes toward Aging among College Students: Results from an Intergenerational Reminiscence Project
Previous Article in Journal
Neurocognitive and Psychological Outcomes among Children and Adolescents with Brain Tumors: Development of an Observational and Longitudinal Prospective Study Protocol
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/bs13070537
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism on Academic Procrastination among University Students in Pakistan

by
Muhammad Azeem Ashraf
1,
Namood-e Sahar
2,
Muhammad Kamran
3 and
Jan Alam
4,*
1
Research Institute of Education Sciences, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
2
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid e Azam University, Islamabad 04403, Pakistan
3
Department of Education, University of Loralai, Balochistan 85200, Pakistan
4
Department of Education, University of Wah, Rawalpindi 47010, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13(7), 537; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070537
Submission received: 30 May 2023 / Revised: 19 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination among university students and its differences among genders in Pakistan. It was hypothesized that self-efficacy and perfectionism would significantly impact academic procrastination and that there is a significant difference in students’ views concerning their gender. The sample comprised 405 university students, 104 male and 301 female. The study used the general self-efficacy scale, the multidimensional perfectionism scale, and the academic procrastination scale to measure the constructs. SmartPLS 4 was applied for the analysis of the data. The results indicated that all three variables—self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination—were present among university students. Perfectionism showed a significant effect on academic procrastination. However, self-efficacy showed no significant effect on academic procrastination. Further, no significant difference was found in students’ views concerning their gender. The findings provide significant evidence for stakeholders to improve academic procrastination among university students.

1. Introduction

The term procrastination emerged from the Latin words pro, which means “forward or onward, presumptuous, or in favor of,” and crastinus, suggesting “of tomorrow” [1]. Procrastination unnecessarily puts off everyday jobs to the point that one starts to feel uneasy [2]. Procrastination can be permanent or temporary and can be defined as a rationale for delaying behavioral or cognitive output, making a decision, or taking an action [3]. Academic procrastination involves failing to carry out an activity within the needed duration or delaying the task until the last-minute performance one eventually intends to accomplish [4]. Academic procrastination can lead to failure to achieve academic goals on time, resulting in the progression of emotional distress in individuals [5,6]. It also leads to incompetent behavioral consequences, and a person may have problems dealing with their surroundings effectively [7].
University students that procrastinate seem to delay and postpone their academic work, becoming self-explanatory and disregarding their academic obligations during their whole study period [8]. It appears to be a widespread tendency for university students to put off their academic work, which causes delays in finishing projects, preparing for exams, and submitting assignments and presentations [9]. Academic procrastination denotes a delay in academic activity in education and training [10]. It may be deliberate, unintentional, or habitual, but it substantially impacts university students’ learning and success [11].
Cognitive and behavioral factors that favor or hinder student performance in their academic activity and how they relate to academic success have stirred interest in educational psychology [12]. Of these factors, self-efficacy, defined by Bandura [13] as the personal capacity to cope with specific situations, is a determining psychological variable strongly predictive of academic achievement [14,15]. This is because self-efficacy involves beliefs about one’s capacity to organize and execute actions to achieve specific results [12].
Perfectionism is setting up higher values or standards by an individual for doing a task that is critically evaluated by the individual [16,17]. Adler was the first to describe the theory of perfectionism. He argued that the struggle for perfectionism is an inborn ability and is considered normal because of the propensity of human beings. However, he argues the difference between healthy perfectionism, which involves goals that are obtainable, and maladaptive perfectionism, which leads to obsessive order and fear of critique. High personal standards are not always problematic [18]. According to the Canadian Psychological Association, perfectionism is a personality trait linked with more interpersonal, emotional, and success-related problems. It is not considered a disease, but it is a susceptibility factor that can create difficulties in the lives of adults [19]. Many researchers considered perfectionism multidimensional rather than a unidimensional construct [16]. Perfectionism is a multidimensional construct with interpersonal and personal aspects [20]. The three main dimensions of perfectionism are other-oriented perfectionism (OOP), self-oriented perfectionism (SOP), and socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) [21].
Self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) is the motivational force for setting high standards for oneself, and the assessment of one’s behavior is based on these high standards [22]. Perfectionism directed at and from oneself is referred to as self-oriented perfectionism [23]. It involves establishing high criteria associated with productivity and success in a career [24]. This element of perfectionism entails a critical assessment of oneself, a focus on flaws and errors, and a greater drive to achieve perfection [21]. Other-oriented perfectionism (OOP) is setting high, idealistic standards for others and then harshly evaluating them in light of these standards [25]. Lack of trust, blame that is other-focused, and feelings of hostility against other people might come from others not living up to these expectations [26]. It involves having high and unrealistic expectations of other people [21]. Achieving the expectations and goals established for them by other people is known as socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) [27,28]. It is the idea that one should fulfill other people’s expectations. It includes being conscious of the expectations others have of you because you are a perfectionist [20].
The present study aimed to check the impact of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination among university students. This study investigated to what extent self-efficacy and perfectionism cause students to show academic procrastination. Research has been undertaken on these variables separately or with other variables. The present study was conducted to probe and scrutinize the relationship between these three variables, i.e., self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination. Each of these three variables is assumed to have a great impact on young adults. This is because academic procrastination poses a hindrance to success for students. So, the present study highlights some factors related to procrastination that will help students identify some causes. The main objectives of the study include:
  • To investigate self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination among university students;
  • To find the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on the academic procrastination of university students;
  • To determine differences in the respondents’ views concerning their gender about the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination.

1.1. Students’ Self-Efficacy towards Academic Perfectionism

In recent years, a growing emphasis has been placed on students’ ability to control their academic learning and performance [29]. Academically, students’ self-regulation is stimulated by metacognition, behavior, and motivation in their learning process [30]. Social cognitive theorists believe self-regulation comes after setting goals [31], which reveals a strong sense of efficacy in skills [32]. Setting up proximal goals enhances self-efficacy for academic achievement and arouses internal interest [33] because self-regulated learners use strategies [34]. Student self-monitoring and performance evaluation are prompted by setting goals [35]. Social cognitive theorists claim self-judgment and self-monitoring are outcomes of setting goals [36]. At the same time, motivation and self-regulation get support from setting self-efficacy and personal goals [37]. Self-efficacy affects the setting of goals, efforts, and persistence of a person [38], which directly or indirectly affects performance accomplishment [39]. Organizational goals involve personal goals, indicating parental expectations’ effects on children’s achievements [40]. In the light of social cognitive theory, students’ self-efficacy and parental expectations affect their goals [41]. Students’ class work, conducive environment development, and class participation are all outputs of self-efficacy [42], which help in academic achievement. Self-regulation leads to self-efficacy, which develops personal goals and academic/grade achievements that are components of perfectionism.

1.2. Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Students’ Engagement in Learning

Students’ motivation and learning are of the highest concern at all levels of education and are a chronic problem for all educationists [43]. Students are motivated when they know a topic or course is interesting, exciting, and important [44], leading to student engagement in learning [45]. Students’ motivations are directly concerned with their beliefs and capabilities in studies, which are the output of their self-efficacy [46], which can be perceived as self-concept and competence [47]. From self-efficacy to learning and achievement, it requires three basic mediators [48]. The first mediator is behavioral engagement, which requires students’ efforts, persistence, and instrumental support, from self-efficacy to learning and achievement [42]. The second mediator is cognitive engagement, which is supported by students’ learning strategies and metacognition [49]. The third mediator is motivational engagement, supported by interest in learning, valuing the topic or course, and its effects [50]. Strong self-efficacy beliefs help with persistence while completing a task or learning [51]. Self-doubt does not permit a student to complete their task, even if it is easy to perform [52]. Students with low academic self-efficacy rarely ask for help as they are not exposing their weaknesses to others, which is quite the opposite of high self-efficacy holders [53]. Students’ self-efficacy is positively related to their behavioral engagement [54]. While cognitive engagement allows students to continue cognitively in their learning process [55]. Because there may be occasions where the students are quite confident with their previous knowledge, which stimulates learning engagement [56], self-efficacy is based on a motivational construct that requires personal interest and the belief that the task or learning is important for the learner [57]. Engaging students in an activity improves their skills, knowledge, and experience to develop beliefs [58].

1.3. Procrastination among University Students

Students’ productivity and work accomplishment are important in almost all societies [59]. However, procrastination directly disrupts these norms, resulting in delays in work accomplishment and decision-making that lead to anxiety among students [60]. Procrastination has internal and external consequences. Internal consequences consist of self-blame, gloom, repentance, and frustration [61]. External consequences are costly and consist of weak academic and work progress, lost opportunities, and stressed relationships [61]. Research has proven that more than 50% of university students face frustration and anxiety due to procrastination in their assignment writing [62], while doctoral students discontinue their research and dissertation as a result of their procrastination [63]. Behaviorists connect procrastination to human preferences [64]. At the same time, psychodynamic theorists consider procrastination a rebellion against many demands [65]. Researchers consider unreasonable beliefs, ascription style, time importance, and self-esteem as major predictors of procrastination [66]. It is a strategy for protecting self-esteem that allows for actual performance under personal circumstances [67]. Bandura explained self-efficacy as an individual’s judgment while performing in certain situations [68]. Weak self-efficacy leads to procrastination [69].

1.4. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

The relationship between self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination could also be elaborated through theoretical frameworks. Lazarus and Folkman’s appraisal-anxiety theory proposes that the cognitive appraisal attached by an individual to task accomplishment determines the development of procrastination. If the task is appraised as beyond an individual’s capacity to accomplish (i.e., low self-efficacy), it will result in procrastination. It was also suggested by the theory that anxiety also plays an important contributory role in decreasing an individual’s self-efficacy, which might be because of a high ratio of past failures [70]. Likewise, when a student experiences repeated failures or fears, it might decrease their self-efficacy, increasing academic procrastination. Thus, the student would keep on leaving the academic assignments and tasks until the eleventh hour. On the contrary, students with a high sense of confidence in their abilities and capabilities to effectively accomplish the tasks would procrastinate less.
The control theory of self-regulation by Sirois et al. also attempts to explain the relationship between our study variables. According to the theory, perfectionism is signified by high standards for achieving any goal and high doubts about oneself for accomplishment, i.e., low self-efficacy. The perfectionist thus perceived their current state and the desired one as having many discrepancies they could not address, which eventually resulted in high procrastination [71]. In the present study, students with low self-efficacy regarding their academic tasks are unable to accomplish them. Also, high perfectionism is associated with low self-efficacy. Thus, students with high standards of perfectionism and low self-efficacy might have a high level of procrastination. Thus, the study aims to examine the following hypotheses:
  • There is a significant effect of self-efficacy and perfectionism on the academic procrastination of university students.
  • There is a significant difference in university students’ views concerning their gender about the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination.

2. Research Design

In the present study, a correlational survey research design was used as the study’s primary aim was to assess the relationship between self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination.

2.1. Sample

The present study sample consisted of 405 students enrolled in colleges and universities located in four provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan) and one semi-province (Gilgit-Baltistan) of Pakistan. Among all participants, 35 enrolled in Intermediate, 77 enrolled in Bachelors, 162 enrolled in a Master’s, 102 enrolled in an MPhil, and 29 enrolled in a Ph.D. Regarding gender, 104 were male, while 301 were female. Most students (67%) were between the ages of 20 and 25. Table 1 provides the participants’ information.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. General Self-Efficacy Scale

This study used the general self-efficacy scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem [72]. The scale consisted of 10 items that measure self-efficacy on 4-point Likert-type response patterns ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true). Low scores indicate low levels, and high scores indicate high levels of self-efficacy. Scores can range from 10 to 40. The study has reported the alpha reliability of academic procrastination as (alpha = 0.9.), perfectionism as (alpha = 0.823), and self-efficacy as (alpha = 0.632) in Table 2.

2.2.2. Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

In the present study, the multidimensional perfectionism scale developed by Hewitt et al. was used to measure perfectionism [73]. It has a total of 45 items divided into three sub-scales: self-oriented (SO), other-oriented (OO), and socially prescribed (SP). Every sub-scale consists of 15 items. A high score on any subscale represents a propensity to be a perfectionist on that measured aspect. The responses are given on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Items 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 24, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, and 45 of the scale were scored reversely. Hewitt and Flett reported a coefficient alpha of 0.86 for self-oriented perfectionism, 0.82 for other-oriented perfectionism, and 0.87 for socially prescribed perfectionism [74].

2.2.3. Academic Procrastination Scale

In the present study, the academic procrastination scale developed by McCloskey and Scielzo was used to measure academic procrastination [75]. The scale consisted of 25 items on a 5-point Likert-type response pattern ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). Low scores indicate a low level, and high scores indicate a high level of academic procrastination. The scores on the scale range from 25 to 125. Item numbers 1, 8, 12, 14, and 25 on the scale were reversed score items on the scale.

2.3. Ethical Consideration

In regard to research ethics and maintaining the study’s quality, ethical considerations were followed with the greatest attention. The Ethics Review Committee of the University of Loralai approved the study. Before participation in the study, participants’ consent was obtained. Moreover, participants were given the choice to withdraw at any time. All participants were briefed before participating in the questionnaire. The confidentiality and privacy of the participants’ information were maintained. No harm was caused to any animal or human throughout the study.

2.4. Procedure

A questionnaire was developed online, containing background information about the participants and the main instruments. After approval from relevant departments, the questionnaire was sent to student management offices in different universities, and these offices forwarded the questionnaire to the students. Before participation in the questionnaire, consent was obtained from all participants. Detailed instructions were given to fill out each questionnaire. All the participants were thanked for their precious time and full cooperation.

3. Results

The partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) via SmartPLS 4.0 was applied to analyze the data. The analysis used a measurement model for internal consistency, reliability, discriminant validity, and convergent validity. In the structural model, R square and path coefficient were performed along with multigroup analysis.
Convergent validity and internal consistency reliability are summarized in Table 2. All the constructs and indicators met reflective measurement criteria. As outer loadings (λ), the indicator reliability is achieved as (factor loading > 0.511) at the minimum level. The values for average (AVE) are (AVE > 0.193) at the minimum level, which shows the convergent validity as achieved. Composite reliability (CR) is (CR > 0.688) at the minimum level, which is the required value for internal consistency. The reliability indices for each construct are represented by rho-A (rho-A > 0.579). To highlight the collinearity of the items, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is indicated as (VIF > 1.118) at the minimum level. The descriptive statistics of all the items are indicated via mean and SD in Table 2. The mean score of almost all the items is (mean > 2.29, SD < 1). The mean score highlights the exitance of self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination among university students in Pakistan. All the details in the table indicate that measurement criteria have been met.
A construct is made unique compared to its counterparts by its discriminant validity, which determines whatever the author proposes. The discriminant validity must be greater than all others in columns and rows in its line [76]. As highlighted in Table 3, the diagonal values are greater than all their counterparts, indicating discriminant validity.
The structural model in Table 4 highlights R square, the sample mean, t statistics, and p values. The collinearity of the model was tested before the structural model highlighted in Table 2 via the variance inflation factor (VIF). A significant positive effect of perfectionism on academic procrastination is highlighted as (β = 0.452, T value = 11.319, p = 0.000, p < 0.001). According to this study, self-efficacy shows no significant effect on academic procrastination since (β = −0.030, T values = 0.362, p = 0.717, p > 0.05), as shown in Table 4.
Details of the path coefficient for the effects of perfectionism and self-efficacy are highlighted in the histograms in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. All values are shown to be highly significant and correlated, which ensures the existence of self-efficacy and perfectionism among university students in Pakistan. The bell-shaped histograms indicate the normality of the research data.
The data was passed through multiple group comparisons to find differences in students’ views concerning their gender. The sample size of male and female students was not equal, so the Welch test was applied to find differences. The detail in Table 5 for the effects of perfectionism on academic procrastination is as follows: (difference = 0.147, t value = 1.845, p value = 0.067, p > 0.05), which indicates no significant difference in students’ views concerning their gender as male and female. The detail of self-efficacy is (difference = 0.139, t value = 0.979, p value = 0.329, p > 0.05), indicating no significant difference.

4. Discussion

The study extends the present literature by examining the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination among university students in Pakistan. Further, it also investigated this impact regarding gender differences. The general self-efficacy scale, multidimensional perfectionism scale, and academic procrastination scale were applied to measure self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination.
This study’s first objective was to investigate self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination among university students. The findings of the descriptive analysis in Table 2 confirm that all these variables (self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination) were present. These findings are consistent with the findings of Kurtovic et al. about the existence of the three factors in educational institutions [77].
The second objective of this study is to find the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on the academic procrastination of university students. The findings indicate a highly significant impact of perfectionism on the academic procrastination of university students in Pakistan. Several studies [20,21,25] in the past provide similar evidence that perfectionism significantly impacts academic procrastination. Thus, the findings of this study are consistent with the previous literature.
Self-efficacy was found insignificant in its impact on academic procrastination in this study. These findings are consistent with the results of Honmore and Jhadav [78] on the effects of self-efficacy on academic procrastination among students. One possible reason is that family background and environment may influence students’ self-efficacy and academic procrastination [79]. The findings of this study are also in line with Ede, Sullivan, and Feltz’s [52] finding that self-doubt and incompetency do not allow students to complete a task, leading to academic procrastination.
The study’s third objective was to find a gender difference among the impacts of perfectionism and self-efficacy on academic procrastination. The findings show no significant differences among students’ genders in the effects of self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination. These results are similar to Ghosh and Roy’s findings that there is no significant difference in students’ opinions concerning their gender about self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination [80]. A similar study in the Pakistani context on the analysis of procrastination based on workload among university students in Pakistan indicated no gender difference among students [11]. Bandura explained that self-efficacy is a personal capacity that depends on context and situation [13]. The position and context for both male and female students are the same in relation to their academic procrastination as caused by self-efficacy and perfectionism.

5. Implications and Limitations

The results of this study offer an excellent understanding for different stakeholders (i.e., psychologists, teachers, policymakers, and students) in educational institutions about students’ academic procrastination. Perfectionism and self-efficacy must be considered when assessing students’ academic procrastination. The results help understand students’ perceptions of their self-beliefs and how these beliefs can affect their whole personalities and influence them to achieve their goals. It is helpful for students’ awareness to control external or internal happenings and can also interpret their perfectionism. Moreover, this study provides authentic ways for stakeholders to provide fruitful information and understand particular problems related to students’ beliefs about their capacities and potential to perform well. Furthermore, as self-efficacy decreases procrastination, a focus should be placed on supporting students in improving their self-efficacy. One way of doing this is by helping students set goals to achieve desired outcomes [81]. Setting goals for students helps them realize their main goals in the learning process and thus improve their self-efficacy.
However, this study’s findings also have some limitations that must be reported. First, this study used a self-reported questionnaire to collect the data, which may have an element of social acceptability among participants while providing their answers. Future studies may consider a mixed-methods approach to minimize this limitation. The second limitation is the generalizability of the data, as the data for this study were collected from university students only. Future studies should collect data from different populations, such as schools or colleges, to increase the study’s generalizability. The third limitation is the selection of instruments. This study used the general self-efficacy scale, the multidimensional perfectionism scale, and the academic procrastination scale to measure self-efficacy, perfectionism, and academic procrastination. Future studies may consider using different scales to measure these variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.-e.S. and M.A.A.; methodology, M.K., M.A.A. and J.A.; software, J.A.; validation, M.A.A., N.-e.S. and J.A.; formal analysis, J.A., M.K. and M.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.-e.S.; writing—review and editing, J.A., M.A.A. and N.-e.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the committee for ethics review of Hunan University, China.

Informed Consent Statement

Consent was obtained from all the participants/subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset for this study can be obtained from the corresponding author ([email protected]) upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Klein, E. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  2. Solomon, L.J.; Rothblum, E.D. Academic Procrastination: Frequency and Cognitive-Behavioral Correlates. J. Couns. Psychol. 1984, 31, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Song, Z.; Gull, N.; Asghar, M.; Sarfraz, M.; Shi, R.; Rafique, M.A. Polychronicity, time perspective, and procrastination behavior at the workplace: An empirical study. An. Psicol./Ann. Psychol. 2022, 38, 355–364. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wolters, C.A. Understanding Procrastination from a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective. J. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 95, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ellis, A.; Knaus, W.J. Overcoming Procrastination; Institute for Rational Living: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ferrari, J.R.; Johnson, J.L.; McCown, W.G. Procrastination research. In Procrastination and Task Avoidance; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tao, X.; Gull, N.; Akram, Z.; Asghar, M.; Zhang, J. Does polychronicity undermine procrastination behavior through ICTs? Insights from multi-level modeling. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 733574. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gutiérrez-García, A.G.; Huerta-Cortés, M.; Landeros-Velazquez, M. Academic Procrastination in Study Habits and its Relationship with Self-Reported Executive Functions in High School Students. J. Psychol. Neurosci. 2020, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wolters, C.A.; Won, S.; Hussain, M. Examining the relations of time management and procrastination within a model of self-regulated learning. Metacogn. Learn. 2017, 12, 381–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vargas, M.A.P. Academic Procrastination: The Case of Mexican Researchers in Psychology. Am. J. Educ. Learn. 2017, 2, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hussain, I.; Sultan, S. Analysis of Procrastination among University Students. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 5, 1897–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Contreras, F.E. Access, Achievement, and Social Capital: Standardized Exams and the Latino College-Bound Population. J. Hisp. High. Educ. 2005, 4, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy. The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  14. Feldman, D.B.; Kubota, M. Hope, Self-Efficacy, Optimism, and Academic Achievement: Distinguishing Constructs and Levels of Specificity in Predicting College Grade-Point Average. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2015, 37, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pajares, F.; Schunk, D. The Development of Academic Self-Efficacy. Develop. Achiev. Motiv. 2001, 7, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  16. Frost, R.O.; Marten, P.; Lahart, C.; Rosenblate, R. The Dimensions of Perfectionism. Cognit. Ther. Res. 1990, 14, 449–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Walton, G.E.; Hibbard, D.R.; Coughlin, C.; Coyl-Shepherd, D.D. Parenting, Personality, and Culture as Predictors of Perfectionism. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. John, K. Holding The Baby: Leadership that Inspires and Contains Ambition and Anxiety. In Democratising Leadership in the Early Years; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 38–86. [Google Scholar]
  19. Canadian Psychological Association. “Psychology Works” Fact Sheet: Perfectionism; Canada Corporation: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Flett, G.L.; Hewitt, P.L. Perfectionism: Theory, Research, and Treatment; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hassan, H.K.; Abd-El-Fattah, S.M.; Abd-El-Maugoud, M.K.; Badary, A.H. Perfectionism and performance expectations at university: Does gender still matter? Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 5, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Macedo, A.; Marques, M.; Pereira, A.T. Perfectionism and Psychological Distress: A review of the Cognitive Factors. Int. J. Clin. Neurosci. Ment. Health 2014, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Stoeber, J. How Other-Oriented Perfectionism Differs from Self-Oriented and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism: Further Findings. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2015, 37, 611–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wasylyshyn, K.M.; Masterpasqua, F. Developing Self-Compassion in Leadership Development Coaching: A Practice Model and Case Study Analysis. Int. Coach. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 13, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mohammad, A.W.; Igdifan, A.-S.I. Perfectionism among Talented Students and its Relationship to their Self-Esteem. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 2021, 16, 2752–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shafa, S.; Harinck, F.; Ellemers, N. Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word: Cultural Differences in Apologizing Effectively. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Perera, M.J.; Chang, E.C. Ethnic Variations between Asian and European Americans in Interpersonal Sources of Socially Prescribed Perfectionism: It’s Not Just About Parents! Asian Am. J. Psychol. 2015, 6, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Avishai Cohen, H.; Zerach, G. Associations between Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Anxiety Sensitivity, Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, and Severity of Somatic Symptoms among Individuals with Fibromyalgia. Pain Med. 2021, 22, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. McLoughlin, C.; Lee, M.J. Personalised and Self Regulated Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: International Exemplars of Innovative Pedagogy Using Social Software. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 26, 28–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lichtinger, E.; Kaplan, A. Employing a Case Study Approach to Capture Motivation and Self-Regulation of Young Students with Learning Disabilities in Authentic Educational Contexts. Metacogn. Learn. 2015, 10, 119–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schunk, D.H.; DiBenedetto, M.K. Motivation and Social Cognitive Theory. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 60, 101832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zimmerman, B.J. From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 48, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McIlroy, D.; Poole, K.; Ursavas, Ö.F.; Moriarty, A. Distal and Proximal Associates of Academic Performance at Secondary Level: A Mediation Model of Personality and Self-Efficacy. Learn. Individ. Diff. 2015, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Phan, H.P. Relations between Informational Sources, Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement: A Developmental Approach. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bloom, M. Self-Regulated Learning: Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring. Lang. Teach. 2013, 37, 46–51. Available online: https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/37.4tlt_art2.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2023). [CrossRef]
  36. McLoughlin, G.M.; Rosenkranz, R.R.; Lee, J.A.; Wolff, M.M.; Chen, S.; Dzewaltowski, D.A.; Vazou, S.; Lanningham-Foster, L.; Gentile, D.A.; Rosen, M.S.; et al. The Importance of Self-Monitoring for Behavior Change in Youth: Findings from the SWITCH® School Wellness Feasibility Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Rabin, E.; Henderikx, M.; Yoram, M.K.; Kalz, M. What are the Barriers to Learners’ Satisfaction in MOOCs and What Predicts Them? The Role of Age, Intention, Self-Regulation, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 36, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lunenburg, F.C. Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for Motivation and Performance. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Admin. 2011, 14, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ahmad, A.; Safaria, T. Effects of Self-Efficacy on Students’ Academic Performance. J. Educ. Health Commun. Psychol. 2013, 2, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Y.; Deng, C.; Yang, X. Family Economic Status and Parental Involvement: Influences of Parental Expectation and Perceived Barriers. School Psychol. Int. 2016, 37, 536–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sheu, H.-B.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Well-Being of College Students in China: Testing a Modified Social Cognitive Model. J. Career Assess. 2017, 25, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ucar, F.M.; Sungur, S. The Role of Perceived Classroom Goal Structures, Self-Efficacy, and Engagement in Student Science Achievement. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 35, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Medeiros, R.P.; Ramalho, G.L.; Falcão, T.P. A Systematic Literature Review on Teaching and Learning Introductory Programming in Higher Education. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2018, 62, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Keller, J.M. Motivation, Learning, and Technology: Applying the ARCS-V Motivation Model. Particip. Educ. Res. 2016, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kahu, E.; Nelson, K.; Picton, C. Student Interest as a Key Driver of Engagement for First Year Students. Stud. Success 2017, 8, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Desideri, L.; Ottaviani, C.; Cecchetto, C.; Bonifacci, P. Mind Wandering, Together with Test Anxiety and Self-Efficacy, Predicts Student’s Academic Self-Concept But Not Reading Comprehension Skills. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 89, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fabriz, S.; Hansen, M.; Heckmann, C.; Mordel, J.; Mendzheritskaya, J.; Stehle, S.; Schulze-Vorberg, L.; Ulrich, I.; Horz, H. How a Professional Development Programme for University Teachers Impacts Their Teaching-Related Self-Efficacy, Self-Concept, and Subjective Knowledge. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2021, 40, 738–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chong, W.H.; Liem, G.A.D.; Huan, V.S.; Kit, P.L.; Ang, R.P. Student Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Teacher Support for Learning in Fostering Youth Competencies: Roles of Affective and Cognitive Engagement. J. Adolesc. 2018, 68, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. González, A.; Paoloni, P.-V. Perceived Autonomy-Support, Expectancy, Value, Metacognitive Strategies and Performance in Chemistry: A Structural Equation Model in Undergraduates. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2015, 16, 640–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wentzel, K.R.; Muenks, K.; McNeish, D.; Russell, S. Peer and Teacher Supports in Relation to Motivation and Effort: A Multi-Level Study. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 49, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Anam, S.U.; Stracke, E. The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Learning English as a Foreign Language among Young Indonesians. TESOL J. 2020, 11, e00440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ede, A.; Sullivan, P.J.; Feltz, D.L. Self-Doubt: Uncertainty as a Motivating Factor on Effort in an Exercise Endurance Task. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2017, 28, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guthrie, J.T.; Wigfield, A. Literacy Engagement and Motivation: Rationale, Research, Teaching, and Assessment. In Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 57–84. [Google Scholar]
  54. Dogan, U. Student Engagement, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Academic Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance. Anthropologist 2015, 20, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Miller, B.W. Using Reading Times and Eye-Movements to Measure Cognitive Engagement. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 50, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aguilera-Hermida, A.P. College Students’ Use and Acceptance of Emergency Online Learning Due to COVID-19. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2020, 1, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vongkulluksn, V.W.; Matewos, A.M.; Sinatra, G.M.; Marsh, J.A. Motivational Factors in Makerspaces: A Mixed Methods Study of Elementary School Students’ Situational Interest, Self-Efficacy, and Achievement Emotions. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2018, 5, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Dogan, S.; Pringle, R.; Mesa, J. The Impacts of Professional Learning Communities on Science Teachers’ Knowledge, Practice, and Student Learning: A Review. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2016, 42, 569–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schneider, M.; Preckel, F. Variables Associated with Achievement in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 565–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Sverdlik, A.; Hall, N.C.; McAlpine, L.; Hubbard, K. The PhD Experience: A Review of the Factors Influencing Doctoral Students’ Completion, Achievement, and Well-Being. Int. J. Dr. Stud. 2018, 13, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Elzer, M.; Wolf, M.; Schultz, H.; Dettbarn, I.; Schloesser, A.-M. Psychopathology and Psychodynamics of Neurosis. In Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 181–224. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang, J.; Sperling, R.A.; Haspel, P. Patterns of Procrastination, Motivation, and Strategy Use across Class Contexts and Students’ Abilities. J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2015, 3, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Hidayah, R.; Mu’awanah, E. Psycho-Education for Doctoral Students in Coping with Procrastination in Academics towards Strengthening Career. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 13, 1024–1044. [Google Scholar]
  64. Singh, S.; Bala, R. Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Conscientiousness and Procrastination. Int. J. Work Organ. Emot. 2020, 11, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shin, J.; Grant, A.M. When Putting Work Off Pays Off: The Curvilinear Relationship between Procrastination and Creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 2021, 64, 772–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pogorskiy, E. Assessment, Development and Experimental Evaluation of Self-Regulatory Support in Online Learning; Durham University: Durham, UK, 2020; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/reader/341258110 (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  67. Machin, J.E.; Adkins, N.R.; Crosby, E.; Farrell, J.R.; Mirabito, A.M. The Marketplace, Mental Well-Being, and Me: Exploring Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Self-Compassion in Consumer Coping. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, P.C.; Mao, Z. The Relation among Self-Efficacy, Learning Approaches, and Academic Performance: An Exploratory Study. J. Teach. Travel Tour. 2016, 16, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Przepiórka, A.; Błachnio, A.; Siu, N.Y.-F. The Relationships between Self-Efficacy, Self-Control, Chronotype, Procrastination and Sleep Problems in Young Adults. Chronobiol. Int. 2019, 36, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sirois, F.M.; Molnar, D.S.; Hirsch, J.K. A Meta-Analytic and Conceptual Update on the Associations between Procrastination and Multidimensional Perfectionism. Eur. J. Pers. 2017, 31, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measure in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio Casual and Control Beliefs; Weinman, J., Wright, S., Johnston, M., Eds.; National Foundation of Educational Research-Nelson: Windsor, UK, 1995; pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hewitt, P.L.; Flett, G.L.; Turnbull-Donovan, W.; Mikail, S.F. The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, Validity, and Psychometric Properties in Psychiatric Sample. Psychol. Assess. 1991, 3, 464–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hewitt, P.L.; Flett, G.L. Perfectionism in the Self and Social Contexts: Conceptualization, Assessment, and Association with Psychopathology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 60, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. McCloskey, J.; Scielzo, S.A. Finally! The Development and Validation of the Academic Procrastination Scale. 2015. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273259879_Finally_The_Development_and_Validation_of_the_Academic_Procrastination_Scale (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  76. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Thiele, K.O. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: A Comparative Evaluation of Composite-Based Structural Equation Modeling Methods. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 616–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kurtovic, A.; Vrdoljak, G.; Idzanovic, A. Predicting Procrastination: The Role of Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 8, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Honmore, V.M.; Jadhav, M. Self-Efficacy and Emotional Intelligence among College Youth with Respect to Family Type and Gender. Indian J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 8, 587–590. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mishra, S.; Shanwal, V.K. Role of Family Environment in Developing Self Efficacy of Adolescents. Integr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 1, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ghosh, R.; Roy, S. Relating Multidimensional Perfectionism and Academic Procrastination among Indian University Students: Is There Any Gender Divide? Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2017, 32, 518–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Brown, T.C.; Latham, G.P. The Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Instruction Training on the Performance of Unionized Employees. Relat. Ind. 2000, 55, 80–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Behavsci 13 00537 g001 550
Figure 1. Path coefficient histogram for the effects of perfectionism on academic procrastination.
Figure 1. Path coefficient histogram for the effects of perfectionism on academic procrastination.
Behavsci 13 00537 g001
Behavsci 13 00537 g002 550
Figure 2. Path coefficient histogram for the effects of self-efficacy on academic procrastination.
Figure 2. Path coefficient histogram for the effects of self-efficacy on academic procrastination.
Behavsci 13 00537 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic information of participants (N = 405).
Table 1. Demographic information of participants (N = 405).
Variables FrequencyPercentageMissing
GenderMale10426%
Female30174%
Age (in years)20–2527067%24
25–304411%
30–35328%
Above 35359%
ProvinceBalochistan4411%7
Punjab27969%
Sindh256%
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa4411%
Gilgit Baltistan21%
Education12 years (Intermediate)359%
14 years (BA/BSc)7719%
16 years (MA/MSc/BS)16240%
18 years (MS/MPhil)10225%
Above 18 years (PhD)297%
Study DisciplineBusiness184%6
Humanities7118%
Natural Sciences9724%
Social Sciences21353%
Area of ResidenceRural13032%11
Urban26465%
Table
Table 2. Measurement model.
Table 2. Measurement model.
ItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s AlphaRho ACRAVEMeanSDVIF
Academic Procrastination 0.90.9010.9130.346
AP100.586 2.5060.0481.653
AP110.639 2.3950.0411.834
AP130.569 2.2910.0421.507
AP150.682 2.3360.0322.041
AP160.511 2.5010.0461.451
AP170.674 2.2300.0361.766
AP180.493 2.4570.0521.526
AP190.643 2.4420.0411.935
AP20.538 2.7310.0411.562
AP200.641 2.5650.0411.793
AP210.604 2.6590.0431.656
AP220.632 2.5560.0411.762
AP230.622 2.5140.0381.607
AP240.556 2.4960.0471.555
AP30.531 2.7680.0451.516
AP40.552 2.5460.0491.457
AP50.502 2.7460.0461.531
AP60.534 2.6740.0481.725
AP70.617 2.7010.0381.881
AP90.591 2.6100.0411.638
Perfectionism 0.8230.8180.8490.193
MP100.436 2.6420.0611.343
MP120.395 3.2350.0641.261
MP130.472 2.9630.0561.277
MP180.376 2.5750.0651.346
MP190.472 2.9230.0511.351
MP200.461 2.9330.0611.477
MP220.544 2.6910.0491.391
MP230.368 2.8420.0671.319
MP240.374 2.9630.0611.176
MP250.529 2.6420.0451.358
MP260.471 3.0000.0621.503
MP270.385 2.8300.0671.365
MP310.477 2.5140.0511.329
MP330.468 2.7950.0581.394
MP340.432 2.5800.0571.491
MP350.386 2.7460.0621.429
MP370.452 2.9090.0571.221
MP390.518 2.7680.0561.488
MP410.384 2.9930.0671.269
MP450.405 2.7280.0591.224
MP50.501 2.6300.0421.235
MP60.276 3.0670.0761.469
MP70.407 2.7190.0671.349
MP80.459 2.7310.0621.484
Self-Efficacy 0.6320.5790.6880.384
SE100.578 3.1260.321.309
SE20.897 2.8520.4651.118
SE70.558 2.8520.3211.255
SE80.294 2.9980.3221.281
Table
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 3. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Academic ProcrastinationPerfectionismSelf-Efficacy
Academic Procrastination0.588
Perfectionism0.4460.439
Self-Efficacy0.0680.2160.621
Table
Table 4. Structural model.
Table 4. Structural model.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
Perfectionism -> Academic Procrastination0.4520.4760.04011.3190.000
Self-Efficacy -> Academic Procrastination−0.030−0.0340.0830.3620.717
Table
Table 5. Gender Differences.
Table 5. Gender Differences.
Difference (Male–Female)t Value (Male vs. Female)p Value (Male vs. Female)
Perfectionism -> Academic Procrastination0.1471.8450.067
Self-Efficacy -> Academic Procrastination0.1390.9790.329
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ashraf, M.A.; Sahar, N.-e.; Kamran, M.; Alam, J. Impact of Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism on Academic Procrastination among University Students in Pakistan. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070537

AMA Style

Ashraf MA, Sahar N-e, Kamran M, Alam J. Impact of Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism on Academic Procrastination among University Students in Pakistan. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(7):537. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ashraf, Muhammad Azeem, Namood-e Sahar, Muhammad Kamran, and Jan Alam. 2023. "Impact of Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism on Academic Procrastination among University Students in Pakistan" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 7: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13070537

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop