Social Factors of Procrastination: Group Work Can Reduce Procrastination Among Students

Social Psychology of Education (2022) 25:249–274
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09682-3
Social factors of procrastination: group work can reduce

procrastination among students
Markus Koppenborg1 · Katrin B. Klingsieck2
Received: 13 November 2020 / Accepted: 20 November 2021 / Published online: 6 January 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Research on procrastination covers a variety of individual factors (e.g., conscien-
tiousness) and this focus is reflected in interventions against procrastination. Less
emphasis is put on situational and social factors that may help students reduce pro-
crastination, such as social interdependence. Therefore, this study investigates the
relationship between interdependence with academic procrastination and affective
variables. Two vignette studies with student samples (N1 = 320, N2 = 193) were con-
ducted and data was analyzed with regression analyses and analyses of covariance.
Results of both studies show lower state procrastination in group work with interde-
pendence compared to individual work, especially in participants with high trait pro-
crastination. This difference is more pronounced when interdependence is accom-
panied by an active commitment to finish the task on time. Further, interdependent
group work is related to increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. The
results demonstrate the relevance of situational and social factors for academic pro-
crastination, and point toward new approaches for intervention.
Keywords Academic procrastination · Social factors · Group work ·

Interdependence · Commitment
* Markus Koppenborg
markus.koppenborg@uni-koeln.de
Katrin B. Klingsieck
katrin.klingsieck@uni-paderborn.de
1
Vice Rectorate for Teaching and Learning, University of Cologne, Köln, Germany
2
Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Psychology, Educational‑Psychological
Assessment and Intervention, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
250 M. Koppenborg, K. B. Klingsieck
1 Introduction
Do you remember a situation when you needed to start an important, yet unbear-
ably boring task? Chances are you may have procrastinated, putting off the task
again and again. Now imagine the same task as part of a group assignment in
which your partners depend on your contribution to do their part of the work.
Could this situation have changed the way you approached the task? This ques-
tion–can interdependence in group work help students procrastinate less–is the
focus of the present paper. Research on antecedents of procrastination and aca-
demic procrastination alike has mostly focused on individual factors (e.g., con-
scientiousness, self-control, or impulsiveness). By investigating how a situational
and social variable, namely interdependence, influences procrastination, this
research takes a different view. The results may not only inspire programs for the
reduction or even prevention of (academic) procrastination, but may also fill the
research gap concerning social aspects of procrastination (cf. Klingsieck, 2013).
Academic procrastination, the voluntary delay of an intended course of study-
related action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay (Steel & Kling-
sieck, 2016), is a common self-regulation failure (Pychyl & Flett, 2012; Steel,
2007) that seems quite prevalent among students (e.g., Day et al., 2000; Solo-
mon & Rothblum, 1984). It may be for this reason that the grand majority of
inquiries into procrastination addresses academic procrastination (however, there
are exceptions, cf. Nguyen et al., 2013; van Eerde, 2016). Typical consequences
of academic procrastination are not only lower academic achievement (Gareau
et al., 2018; Kim & Seo, 2015; Morris & Fritz, 2015), but also lower psychologi-
cal well-being (Çelik & Odaci, 2020; Krause & Freund, 2014), such as increased
anxiety and distress (Argiropoulou & Patra, 2020; Sirois & Tosti, 2012; Tice &
Baumeister, 1997).
Investigations into the antecedents and correlates of academic procrastination
have mostly focused on variables within the individual and have thus identified
a number of corresponding variables, such as personality traits and motivational
aspects (cf. Klingsieck, 2013; Steel, 2007; Steel & Klingsieck, 2016). This has
shaped the notion of academic procrastination as being predominantly rooted in
the individual. Similarly, most interventions focus on changing factors within
the individual (e.g., time-management skills, identifying and correcting dys-
functional thoughts; cf. van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018). Only few interventions
address aspects regarding the situation (e.g., stimulus control to avoid distraction)
and the social environment (e.g., support from peers), let alone group dynamics
that may result from interdependence. However, in line with the widely accepted
notion of behavior resulting from the interaction of personal and situational fac-
tors (e.g., Blum et al., 2018; Fleeson & Noftle, 2008; Furr & Funder, 2021), situ-
ational and social aspects should receive more attention with regard to explaining
and changing procrastination (cf. Klingsieck, 2013).
Taking a closer look at social factors of academic procrastination seems all
the more important, as learning and studying in higher education typically takes
place in some form of social system and is oftentimes organized in groups of
13
Social factors of procrastination: group work can reduce… 251
students. Accordingly, recommendations for collaborative and cooperative learn-

ing abound (e.g., Barkley et al., 2014). Many of these emphasize the importance
of interdependence between group members, which can be understood as a situ-
ation where “individuals share common goals and each individual’s outcomes
are affected by the actions of the others” (Johnson & Johnson, 2015; p. 857).
Establishing interdependence only seems reasonable, since interdependence has
been related to higher performance and satisfaction, as shown in higher educa-
tion (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Shaw et al., 2000) and in other domains
(e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2001; Weber & Hertel, 2007). This raises the question
whether students who tend to procrastinate when working on their own may ben-
efit from group work with a high level of interdependence. This question was to
be answered by the studies presented in this contribution. In these studies, we
compared academic procrastination when working on a group task with a high
level of interdependence with academic procrastination when working individu-
ally on the same task. The comparison was realized by using two vignette studies,
with study 1 employing a between-subjects design und study 2 seeking to repli-
cate the findings of study 1 using a within-subjects design. The within-subjects
design should also allow for detecting intra-individual effects of interdependence
on academic procrastination. Additionally, study 2 looks into whether an active
commitment to other group members can further reduce procrastination and in
how far interdependent group work also influences positive and negative affect as
compared to individual work. Implications are discussed regarding the design of
intervention and prevention measures, our theoretical understanding of procrasti-
nation, as well as consequences for research.
1.1 Personal and situational antecedents of academic procrastination
Commonly, procrastination is understood as a self-regulation failure (Pychyl & Flett,

2012; Steel, 2007). As such, procrastination and academic procrastination alike have
been associated with a variety of variables within the individual (for a comprehen-
sive overview see Klingsieck, 2013; Steel, 2007). Among the most prominent ones
are lower conscientiousness (Steel & Klingsieck, 2016), higher impulsiveness (Gus-
tavson et al., 2014; Rebetez et al., 2018; Steel, 2007), lower self-control (Przepiorka
et al., 2019; Steel, 2007), lack of cognitive and meta-cognitive learning strategies
(Howell & Watson, 2007), and lower self-efficacy (Steel, 2007; Van Eerde, 2003;
Wäschle et al., 2014).
While there is a rich body of research on antecedents and correlates with
regard to personal factors, situational factors of academic procrastination are by
far less studied (cf. Klingsieck, 2013). These studies show that certain task char-
acteristics may increase procrastination, such as general task aversiveness (Solo-
mon & Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007), and perceived task tediousness or task
difficulty (Senécal et al., 1997). Also, missing or ambiguous task information
(Hoppe et al., 2018) and a controlling teaching style (as opposed to an auton-
omy-supportive one; Codina et al., 2018) have been shown to increase procras-
tination, whereas deadlines, if not too lenient, seem to reduce procrastination,
13
especially when imposed by others (Milgram et al., 2001). Evidence further sug-
gests a link between procrastination and certain situational characteristics, such
as classroom climate (Corkin et al., 2014), lecturers’ teaching skills (Grunschel
et al., 2013; Patrzek et al., 2012; Schraw et al., 2007), or the degree of external
structure of the study program (Nordby et al., 2017).
The strong focus on individual factors conveys the common understanding of
procrastination as being a phenomenon rooted mainly in the individual. Conse-
quently, procrastination is understood by many researchers as a relatively sta-
ble disposition for unnecessary delay, some even arguing it can be completely
described by the personality facet of self-control (or lack thereof; Steel, 2007).
Consistent with this view, most scales have operationalized procrastination as
a stable trait (e.g., the General Procrastination Scale; Lay, 1986). However, it
is also possible to conceptualize procrastination as a state or episode occurring
within a given time span or situation (e.g.; Hoppe et al., 2018; Krause & Freund,
2014). State procrastination can be measured, for example, with the Academic
Procrastination State Inventory (APSI; Schouwenburg, 1995) or the Ecologi-
cal Momentary Assessment of Procrastination Scale (e-MAPS; Wieland et al.,
2018). Similar to other state/trait constructs, it only seems plausible that indi-
viduals high in trait procrastination experience more episodes of state procrasti-
nation than do those low in trait procrastination. Schouwenburg (1995) reported
a strong, yet far-from-perfect correlation between measures of trait and state
procrastination, indicating the potential influence of situational and/or intrain-
dividual factors on state procrastination. Thus, individuals, whether high in trait
procrastination or low, may be influenced by situational circumstances to show
state procrastination to a higher or lower extent.
In accordance with the focus on individual antecedents, many interventions
to reduce (academic) procrastination aim at changes within the individual (e.g.,
with regard to improving planning, time management, regulation of emotions or
changing dysfunctional cognitions; van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018). Only few
approaches include situational (e.g., stimulus control) and social aspects (e.g.,
support in study groups). In general, meta-analytic findings are promising in
that they demonstrate the general possibility of changing procrastination for the
better (cf. Rozental et al., 2018; van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018). At the same
time, heterogeneous effects of interventions may be seen as an encouragement
to further advance interventions to become more effective. This may also imply
to put a stronger focus on situational and social aspects that may help reduce
procrastination.
Taken together, procrastination is regarded a self-regulation failure and, as
such, it is oftentimes understood as a phenomenon mainly rooted within the
individual. This understanding has led research to focus on antecedents and cor-
relates at the level of the individual. Correspondingly, many inventories measure
procrastination as a trait and interventions mostly aim at changing individual
aspects. Situational aspects have received much less attention, and this applies
even more to social aspects, although evidence suggests they may also play an
important role in in a procrastination episode.
13
1.2 Social antecedents of academic procrastination
Limited research exists tying aspects of the social world to academic procrastina-
tion. In their conceptual article, Harris and Sutton (1983) propose social norms to
affect procrastination in the context of business and organizations. In higher educa-
tion, norms have been shown to decrease academic procrastination, if they suggest
starting promptly (Ackerman & Gross, 2016). Further, stereotype-threat has been
related to higher procrastination in women (Deemer et al., 2014). Peers appear to
increase procrastination when distracting from academic tasks (Chen et al., 2016;
Nordby et al., 2017; Senécal et al., 2003; Sirois & Giguère, 2018), although hints
from qualitative studies also indicate that procrastination can be increased by a lack
of social networks (Patrzek et al., 2012) or lack of peer support (Schraw et al., 2007).
Qualitative research also points towards the potential relevance of significant others’
attitudes towards procrastination (Klingsieck et al., 2013). These findings show that
social aspects seem of relevance for academic procrastination; however, the poten-
tial of social interdependence, as found in settings of group work, for reducing aca-
demic procrastination, has not been considered.
1.3 Interdependence in group work
Social interdependence can be defined as a situation where “individuals share com-

mon goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by the actions of the oth-
ers” (Johnson & Johnson, 2015; p. 857). As of yet, a potentially beneficial effect
of interdependent group work on procrastination has been put forward by theoreti-
cally-driven notions (Heath & Anderson, 2010; Paden & Stell, 1997) and results of
one qualitative investigation (Klingsieck et al., 2013). This study suggests academic
procrastination to be lower or even absent in interdependent group work because
unnecessary delaying one’s contribution would negatively affect other group mem-
bers. So far, no hints from quantitative studies exist that could substantiate this rela-
tionship. Lending support to our assumption, theoretical and empirical accounts
from different fields of psychology and beyond suggest beneficial effects of social
interdependence.
Studies from the area of management and organizational psychology distinguish
between different forms of interdependence. Task interdependence is usually under-
stood as the degree to which group members depend on each other’s contribution
to complete a task, such as materials, information or expertise (e.g., Van der Vegt
& Van de Vliert, 2001). Outcome or reward interdependence describes a situation
where individual outcomes depend on other members’ outcomes (Van der Vegt &
Janssen, 2003; Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 2001).
At the group level, task interdependence has been linked to higher levels of
performance and satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993, 1996) and prosocial behav-
ior (Wageman, 1995) and these findings have been corroborated at the individual
level for satisfaction (Shaw et al., 2000) and prosocial behavior (Comeau & Griffith,
2005; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004). Similarly, outcome or reward interdependence
13
has been linked to higher levels of performance and satisfaction at the group level
(Campion et al., 1996) and also at the individual level (Shaw et al., 2000). However,
inconsistencies in some findings (e.g., Campion et al., 1996) and empirical results
(Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003; Van der Vegt et al., 2001; Wageman, 1995) show
that both, task and outcome interdependence, should be given in order to increase
performance and satisfaction. Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert (2001) conclude that
outcome interdependence without task interdependence can result in social loaf-
ing, while high levels of both task and outcome interdependence should result in
increased performance and satisfaction among group members.
These findings are mirrored by studies from social psychology, which show
how perceived indispensability of an individual contribution to a group product
can enhance individual effort and performance (Weber & Hertel, 2007). For exam-
ple, in group tasks with a conjunctive task structure, the group’s success depends
on the contribution of the least capable member (Steiner, 1972). This member then
typically shows higher effort and performance as when working individually (Feltz
et al., 2014; Kerr & Hertel, 2011; Thürmer et al., 2017; Weber & Hertel, 2007). As
shown by Weber and Hertel (2007), this effect can partly be explained by the higher
instrumentality of the individual contribution and is moderated by the visibility of
members’ contributions, i.e., the evaluation potential. Correspondingly, a lack of
instrumentality may then encourage free riding (Kerr & Bruun, 1983), whereas a
lack of evaluation potential may encourage social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993).
In social psychology of education, interdependence lays at the heart of cooperative
learning, which has been shown to increase, among other variables, learners’ effort and
achievement when compared to individual work (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Springer
et al., 1999; Stevens, 2003). Building on the work of Deutsch (1960), cooperative learn-
ing and the associated Social Interdependence Theory differentiate between means and
outcome interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Johnson et al., 2007). Means
interdependence implies that in order to reach their goal members depend on each
other’s resources, roles, or contributions (e.g., by division of labor). Positive outcome
interdependence implies that each member can only reach his/her goal if all other mem-
bers reach their goals. (In contrast, negative outcome interdependence occurs when
each member can only reach his/her goal if other members do not reach their goals).
Aside from interdependence, four other components are essential, namely individual
accountability, social skills, promotive interaction (i.e., mutual support), and group pro-
cessing (i.e., deliberation on the learning process; Johnson & Johnson, 2002; Johnson
et al., 2007). Meta-analytic findings show that learning situations with such interde-
pendence are related to higher individual effort and achievement when compared to
working individually (Johnson et al., 2007; Roseth et al., 2008; Springer et al., 1999).
With regard to affective variables, meta-analyses further indicate relationships between
cooperative (interdependent) learning and increased self-esteem (Johnson & Johnson,
2002; Springer et al., 1999). Therefore, the present study also investigates the effect of
interdependent group work on positive and negative affect.
In summary, various accounts from different fields of psychology, sociology, and
beyond indicate that interdependence between group members can positively influ-
ence individual performance and affective variables when compared to individual
work. This not only raises the question whether interdependence can help reduce
13
procrastination, but also whether there are other variables that may even augment
the effect of interdependence. One of these variables is commitment.
1.4 Commitment and interdependence
Commitment refers to the active and public confirmation to others to perform a cer-
tain behavior (Cialdini, 2009). Commitment can facilitate execution of a desired
behavior as demonstrated in such different domains as volunteering (Cioffi & Gar-
ner, 1996), weight loss (Nyer & Dellande, 2010), recycling (Bryce et al., 1997),
or use of sustainable transportation (Matthies et al., 2006). The facilitating effect
of commitment has been explained by individuals’ need for consistency (Cialdini,
2009; cf. Festinger, 1957) and by internalized and social norms to conform to one’s
promises (Kerr et al., 1997), and is thought to be especially strong when occurring
voluntarily (Cialdini, 2009). It can be argued that commitment may also positively
affect procrastination. In the present study, we assumed that commitment to other
group members that promises a timely start of a given task enhances the beneficial
effects of interdependence and thus further reduces procrastination. While the effect
of commitment on behavior change seems quite robust, research typically does not
address the relationship between commitment and affective reactions. Therefore, we
sought to also shed light on the relationship between commitment and affect.
1.5 Present study and research hypotheses
The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether interdependence in
group work (with and without commitment) has the potential to reduce academic
procrastination as compared to individual work. Further, the study aimed to investi-
gate whether interdependent group work results in changes in positive and negative
affect. Aside from the practical relevance for intervention programs, this investiga-
tion would also contribute to the theoretical understanding of procrastination.
To this end, two vignette studies were conducted. Using a between-subjects
design, study 1 compared state procrastination of an individual task with state pro-
crastination of a group task with interdependence between group members. Study 2
replicated this comparison in a within-subjects design, thus, allowing for the inves-
tigation of intra-individual changes of procrastination. Study 2 also included a third
condition where a group task with interdependence was accompanied by an active
commitment to finish the task on time. Finally, study 2 compared the affective reac-
tions toward the three conditions (individual vs. interdependence vs. interdepend-
ence with commitment). In both studies, trait procrastination was statistically con-
trolled in order to isolate the effect of interdependence on state procrastination. Both
studies served to test the first hypothesis and answer the first research question:
H1 State procrastination is lower in group work with interdependence than in indi-

vidual work.
13
Q1 Is this relationship different for subjects with high vs. low levels of trait
procrastination?
Further, study 2 served to test the following hypotheses:
H2 State procrastination is lower in group work with interdependence and an active

commitment to other group members when compared to group work with interde-
pendence and no active commitment.
H3a Positive affect is higher in group work with interdependence than in individual
work.
H3b Negative affect is lower in group work with interdependence than in individual
work.
Study 2 also served to answer an additional research question concerning the role
of commitment with regard to affect:
Q2 How does positive and negative affect differ in group work with and without
active commitment?
2 General method
2.1 Overview
We conducted two vignette studies describing a typical academic task that was
described either as an individual task or as an interdependent group task. Partici-
pants were asked to rate their state procrastination with regard to the given scenario.
Both studies served to test hypotheses H1 and to answer question Q1, while study 2
tested hypotheses H2, H3a and H3b and answered questions Q2.
2.2 Variables and measures
2.2.1 Interdependence
Vignettes were used to manipulate the level of interdependence of an academic task

as an independent variable. In each vignette, a typical academic task was described,
i.e., assembling a bibliography on a given topic. Interdependence was manipulated
by describing the task either as an individual task to be performed alone or as a
group task with interdependence among group members. In this latter condition,
both task and outcome interdependence were realized simultaneously: Task inter-
dependence was realized by stating that other group members could only start their
part of the task once the protagonist (i.e., the participant) has finished his/her part.
Outcome interdependence was realized by stating that the results would be graded
on a group level. For exact vignette formulations, see Appendix.
13
Qualitative pretests using cognitive interviews with students of different majors

showed that the vignettes were perceived as very comprehensible, realistic, and easy
to imagine. Participants further indicated confidence in their ability to accurately
rate their procrastination in each scenario.
2.2.2 Trait procrastination
Participants’ general procrastination tendency was assessed with the German short
version of Lay’s (1986) General Procrastination Scale (GPS, Klingsieck & Fries,
2012; 9 Items) on a four-point rating scale ranging from very untypical (1) to very
typical (4), with Cronbach’s α ranging between 0.91 and 0.92 across the two studies.
In study 2, the score of trait procrastination was also used to divide the sample
into a group of non-procrastinators (1st quartile of GPS) and a group of procrastina-
tors (4th quartile of GPS). This dichotomization served to explore significant inter-
actions between task structure and trait procrastination.
2.2.3 State procrastination
As a dependent variable, state procrastination was assessed for each vignette using
a shortened version of the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI, Schou-
wenburg, 1995; German version: Patzelt & Opitz, 2014). The APSI asks participants
to think of a given time frame, and then rate the occurrence of a number of thoughts
and actions that reflect a procrastination episode (e.g., “I did so many other things
that there was insufficient time left for studying”; five-point scale ranging from
never (1) to constantly (5)). This scale seemed suitable for the present study because
the items can also be rated with a vignette scenario in mind. For the purpose of both
studies, the first dimension of the APSI was shortened from 12 items to four items
using iterative principal component analysis with three independent student sam-
ples. Confirmatory factor analyses with two independent student samples revealed
satisfactory model fit and internal consistency (for items and results, see ESM). In
its used form, core characteristics of procrastination were operationalized by only
four items. The wording of the four items was adapted to account for the specific
task in question, with Cronbach’s α between 0.75 and 0.88 across the two studies.
2.3 Participants
Data for both studies were collected from students within regular lectures at two
German public universities using paper–pencil surveys. Participation was voluntary,
and anonymity of the data was assured. Participants were assured that they could
end their participation at any time. There was no classroom pressure to participate.
All participants were blind to the purpose of the study, and gave their informed con-
sent before filling out the material. Ethical approval (e.g., from an ethics committee)
was not necessary.
13
2.4 Procedure
Participants first answered items on trait procrastination, after which they were
instructed to carefully read the vignettes and try to immerse themselves into the
scenarios. Participants then rated their typical state procrastination regarding the
task described in the vignette. They were instructed to do so as accurately and as
honestly as possible.
To assess the quality of the ratings on state procrastination, two additional
items measured ease of immersion into the scenarios (“How well could you
immerse yourself into the scenario?”; five-point scale ranging from very bad (1)
to very good (5)), and accurateness of the rating of state procrastination (“Given
a real scenario, how likely is it that you would act according to your ratings in the
item block above?”; five-point scale ranging from very unlikely (1) to very likely
(5)). Participants were excluded from analysis if their rating on any of the two
items was below three. A third item asked participants to state whether they had
imagined themselves working with two males, two females, or one male and one
female.
2.5 Statistical analyses
Study 1 used a between-subjects design to vary interdependence in two steps as

an independent variable with state procrastination as dependent variable. To test
hypothesis H1, ordinary least squares regression was calculated with interdepend-
ence as a predictor and state procrastination as criterion, while controlling for
trait procrastination, gender, and age. To answer research question Q1, the inter-
action between interdependence and trait procrastination was included into the
regression analysis in a second step.
Study 2 used a within-subjects design to vary interdependence in three steps as an
independent variable. State procrastination and positive and negative affect served
as dependent variables. To account for the repeated measurements while controlling
for the continuous variable of trait procrastination, three Mixed Analysis of Covari-
ance (ANCOVAs) were calculated to test hypotheses H2, H3a and H3b, respectively.
All significant interactions between interdependence and trait procrastination were
further analyzed using contrasts to compare levels of interdependence for non-pro-
crastinators (i.e., 1st quartile of GPS) and procrastinators (i.e., 4th quartile of GPS).
3 Study 1
Study 1 used a between-subjects design to test hypothesis H1 postulating that

state procrastination is lower in interdependent group work, as compared to indi-
vidual work; and to answer research question Q1 asking whether this relationship
is moderated by trait procrastination.
13
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants
A total of 353 students participated in study 1, of which 320 remained after applying
inclusion criteria (260 females, Mage = 23.00, SDage = 2.79). Most were enrolled in
Bachelor programs to become special education teachers (n = 238), or regular teach-
ers (n = 78). Participants had been enrolled in their programs for a mean duration of
M = 4.80 semesters (SD = 1.73). Post-hoc analysis showed that this study was pow-
ered to have a 99% chance of detecting a small to medium main effect (f2 = 0.08).
There were two levels of interdependence, with the vignette describing the task
either as a non-interdependent individual task or as an interdependent task with
interdependence among group members.
3.1.3 Design and data analysis
A between-subjects design was used with the task as a predictor with two levels
(non-interdependence vs. interdependence), trait procrastination as a continuous pre-
dictor, and an interaction term of interdependence and trait procrastination. Partici-
pants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Ordinary least squares
regression analyses were used with state procrastination as criterion while control-
ling for other variables. For all analyses, the predictor trait procrastination was mean
centered to correct for multicollinearity.
3.2 Results and short discussion
3.2.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows means and standard deviations of all variables. Results of the quality
variables indicate that participants found it easy to imagine themselves experiencing
the scenarios and judged the accurateness of their ratings as high. Of the 161 par-
ticipants in the condition of interdependence, 89 participants reported that they had
Table 1 Descriptive statistics Scale M SD

for quality variables, trait
procrastination, and state Quality variables
procrastination
Ease of immersion 1–5 4.20 0.60
Accurateness of rating 1–5 4.30 0.55
Trait procrastination (GPS) 1–4 2.71 0.63
State procrastination (APSI) 1–5 2.27 0.83
N = 320, GPS General Procrastination Scale; APSI Academic Pro-

crastination State Inventory
13
imagined working with two females, 7 with two males, 28 with one female and one
male, and 37 gave no indication.
Calculation of the zero order correlation between trait procrastination and state
procrastination resulted in r = 0.51 (p < 0.001), indicating a strong but far from per-
fect relationship between both variables (r > 0.2 small effect; r > 0.3 medium-sized
effect; r > 0.5 large effect; Cohen, 1988). Results of the two regression models are
shown in Table 2. In Model 1, state procrastination was regressed on interdepend-
ence while controlling for trait procrastination, gender, and age. Trait procrastination
significantly and positively predicted state procrastination. Further and more impor-
tantly, interdependence significantly and negatively predicted state procrastination.
The β coefficient resembled a medium-sized effect of interdependence (r = 0.39;
Cohen, 1988; Peterson & Brown, 2005). In Model 2, the interaction between inter-
dependence and trait procrastination was added as a predictor. As can be seen from
Table 2, the interaction coefficient was significant and negative. The β coefficient
resembled a small effect size of the interaction (r = 0.26; Cohen, 1988; Peterson &
Brown, 2005). In Model 2, the included predictors accounted for an overall explana-
tion of variance of R2 = 0.41.
3.2.3 Short discussion
Results show that participants rated their state procrastination significantly lower
when the task involved interdependence, as compared to the non-interdependence
condition (supporting H1). This relationship was more pronounced for participants
with high trait procrastination, thus giving a first answer for research question Q1.
Table 2 Hierarchical regression Model 1 Model 2

of interdependence and β β
trait procrastination on state
procrastination Age 0.02 0.02
Female − 0.08 − 0.08
Trait Procrastination a 0.54*** 0.69***
Interdependence − 0.34*** − 0.34***
Interdependence × Trait Procrastination − 0.21**
R2 0.39 0.41
F 49.3*** 43.4***
ΔR2 0.02**
ΔF 12.3**
N = 320
a
Trait Procrastination (GPS) mean centered for all regression analy-
ses
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001
13
This provides a first quantitative hint towards the beneficial effect of interdepend-
ence with regard to reducing procrastination among students.
No differences in ratings were found across gender and age of participants. This
is in line with a meta-analysis that could not substantiate correlations of procras-
tination with age and gender (Steel, 2007), although more recent studies suggest
procrastination to be lower among younger individuals and females (Beutel et al.,
2016; Steel & Ferrari, 2013). The strong relationship between trait procrastination
and state procrastination supports the general plausibility of the findings.
Although participants were randomly assigned to vignette conditions, unobserved
heterogeneity cannot be completely ruled out. Also, the between-subjects design
is not suitable to investigate intra-individual variation in state procrastination. For
these reasons, and to replicate findings of the first study, study 2 used a within-sub-
jects design.
4 Study 2
Study 2 served to replicate the findings of study 1 in a within-subjects design, and

to further test hypotheses H2, stating that commitment would lead to an additional
decrease of state procrastination in interdependent group work. Also, to test hypoth-
eses H3a and H3b and to answer research question Q2, affective reaction was com-
pared between the conditions of non-interdependence, interdependence and interde-
pendence with commitment.
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants
A new sample of 223 students took part in the survey, of which 193 remained after
applying inclusion criteria (139 female, Mage = 21.5, SDage = 1.96). Most partici-
pants were enrolled in Bachelor programs (n = 176) or Master programs (n = 12)
to become regular teachers (n = 151) or special education teachers (n = 30). Par-
ticipants had been enrolled in their programs for a mean duration of 4.2 semesters
(SD = 1.71). Post-hoc analysis showed that this study was powered to have a 95%
chance of detecting a small main effect ( η2p = 0.02, based on a correlation of 0.5
between repeated measures).
The same vignettes as in study 1 were used. Interdependence was varied in three
levels by describing the task either as (1) a non-interdependent individual task, (2)
an interdependent group task, or (3) an interdependent group task with commitment.
This last condition was identical to the interdependent condition, but added one sen-
tence describing a commitment to the group members to finish the task on time (for
13
vignette formulation, see Appendix). Participants received and rated all three sce-
narios sequentially and order of presentation was balanced across participants.
4.1.3 Affective reaction
As a second dependent variable, positive and negative affect was measured using the
two subscales of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al.,
1988) in its German version (Krohne et al., 1996). The PANAS presents 20 adjec-
tives to measure positive affect (e.g., “happy”) and negative affect (e.g., “afraid”) on
a five-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (5). Cronbach’s α of the
two subscales ranged between 0.83 and 0.89 across the three repeated measurements.
4.1.4 Design and data analysis
A mixed factorial 3 (interdependence: non-interdependence vs. interdependence

vs. interdependence with commitment) × 6 (order of presentation) design with trait
procrastination as a continuous covariate was used. The first factor was a within-
subjects variable, whereas the second factor was a between-subjects variable to con-
trol for sequence effects. Mixed Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to
analyze the data, and Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment was used to correct for vio-
lations of sphericity. For all significant interactions between interdependence and
trait procrastination, contrasts with Bonferroni-corrected p-values were calculated to
compare levels of interdependence for both non-procrastinators (i.e., 1st quartile of
GPS) and procrastinators (i.e., 4th quartile of GPS).
4.2 Results and short discussion
4.2.1 Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations of all variables are shown in Table 3. In the condi-
tion of interdependence (with commitment), 90 (86) participants reported that they
had imagined working with two females, 23 (20) with two males, 41 (44) with one
female and one male, and 39 (43) gave no indication.
An ANCOVA with state procrastination as a dependent variable revealed significant

main effects of interdependence, F(1.65, 298.51) = 13.83, MSE = 4.21, p < 0.001,
η2p= 0.07, and trait procrastination, F(1, 181) = 121.14, MSE = 79.29, p < 0.001, η2p =
0.40, and a significant interaction between interdependence and trait procrastination,
F(1.65, 298.51) = 52.46, MSE = 15.98, p < 0.001, η2p= 0.225.
For non-procrastinators (1st quartile in GPS; N = 48), contrasts with Bonfer-
roni-correction revealed significant differences between non-interdependence and
interdependence, F(1, 42) = 21.66, MSE = 3.80, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.34, and between
non-interdependence and interdependence with commitment, F(1, 42) = 27.62,
13
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of Scale M SD

all main variables of study 2
Age 21.5 1.96
Ease of immersion 1–5 4.19 0.55
Accurateness of rating 1–5
a. No interdependence 4.40 0.55
b. Interdependence 4.43 0.55
c. Interdependence with commitment 4.52 0.51
Trait procrastination (GPS) 1–4 2.60 0.64
State procrastination (APSI) 1–5
Positive affect (PANAS) 1–5
Negative affect (PANAS) 1–5
N = 193. GPS General Procrastination Scale; APSI Academic Pro-

crastination State Inventory, PANAS Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule
Table 4 Descriptive statistics of state procrastination, positive and negative affect for non-procrastinators
(1st quartile of GPS), and procrastinators (4th quartile of GPS) in study 2
Non-procrastinators (1st quartile Procrastinators (4th
of GPS) quartile of GPS)
M (SD) M (SD)
State procrastination
No interdependence 1.70 (0.48) 3.41 (0.92)
Interdependence 1.43 (0.43) 2.26 (0.91)
Interdependence with commitment 1.36 (0.41) 1.82 (0.73)
Positive affect
Negative affect
NQ1 = NQ4 = 48; GPS General Procrastination Scale
13
MSE = 5.90, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.40. Following Cohen’s convention ( η2p > 0.04 small
effect; η2p > 0.09 medium-sized effect; η2p > 0.25 large effect; Cohen, 1988), the
effects can be considered quite large. As can be seen from Table 4, in the group
of non-procrastinators, mean state procrastination was higher in non-interdependent
individual work as compared to interdependent group work both with and without
commitment.
For procrastinators (4th quartile in GPS; N = 48), contrasts with Bonferroni-cor-
rection revealed significant differences between non-interdependence and interde-
pendence, F(1, 42) = 65.43, MSE = 63.23, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.61, between non-inter-
dependence and interdependence with commitment, F(1, 42) = 85.86, MSE = 112.31,
p < 0.001, η2p = 0.67, and between interdependence and interdependence with com-
mitment, F(1, 42) = 14.62, MSE = 7.0, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.26. With large effect sizes
exceeding those in the group of non-procrastinators, mean state procrastination was
highest in non-interdependent individual work, lower in interdependent group work,
and lowest in interdependent group work with commitment (Table 4).
These results replicate the findings from Study 1 regarding H1 and research ques-
tion Q1. As in study 1, state procrastination was lower in the condition of inter-
dependence, and this effect was stronger for high trait procrastinators. In addition,
commitment lead to a further decrease of state procrastination in the group of pro-
crastinators, thus supporting hypothesis H2 in this group.
4.2.3 Positive affect
An ANCOVA with positive affect as a dependent variable revealed a significant

main effect of trait procrastination, F(1, 177) = 33.25, MSE = 34.93, p < 0.001, η2p =
0.16, and a significant interaction between trait procrastination and interdependence
F(1.65, 291.89) = 9.14, MSE = 1.56, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.05. Further, there was a sig-
nificant triple interaction between trait procrastination, interdependence and order of
presentation, F(8.25, 291.89) = 2.18, MSE = 0.37, p = 0.028, η2p = 0.06.
To explore the triple interaction, separate one-way ANOVAs were calculated for
each of the six levels of order of presentation, with trait procrastination as a metric
covariate, and Bonferroni-corrected p-values. Results showed no significant effects,
probably due to low statistical power. However, on a descriptive level, in all levels
of order of presentation, scores of positive affect were lower for non-interdependent
individual work compared to both conditions of interdependent work.
Exploring the interaction between interdependence and trait procrastination, con-
trasts with Bonferroni-corrected p-values revealed no significant differences between
levels of interdependence in the group of non-procrastinators. For procrastinators,
contrasts revealed significant differences between non-interdependence and interde-
pendence, F(1, 42) = 17.21, MSE = 5.23, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.29, and between non-inter-
dependence and interdependence with commitment, F(1, 42) = 21.86, MSE = 11.84,
p < 0.001, η2p = 0.34. These large effects (Cohen, 1988) indicate that interdependent
group work (with and without commitment) was associated with higher ratings on pos-
itive affect, but only for procrastinators, thus supporting hypothesis H3a for this group.
The results also give a first answer to research question Q2a by indicating that an active
13
commitment to other group members is not related to higher or lower positive affect
(see Table 4).
4.2.4 Negative affect
An ANCOVA with negative affect as a dependent variable revealed a significant main

effect of interdependence, F(1.64, 290.37) = 5.02, MSE = 0.68, p = 0.011, η2p = 0.03,
and a significant interaction between trait procrastination and interdependence, F(1.64,
290.37) = 6.80, MSE = 0.93, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.04.
For non-procrastinators, contrasts revealed no significant differences of negative
affect between levels of interdependence. For procrastinators, contrasts revealed a sig-
nificant difference of negative affect between non-interdependence and interdepend-
ence (without commitment), F(1, 42) = 7.86, MSE = 1.47, p = 0.046, η2p = 0.16, with
lower negative affect in interdependent work, as shown in Table 4 (medium-sized
effect; Cohen, 1988). There was no significant difference in negative affect between
interdependence and interdependence with commitment. These results support hypoth-
esis H3b, showing that interdependent group work is related to lower levels of negative
affect, but only in the group of procrastinators. The results also give a first answer to
research question Q2 by indicating that an active commitment to other group members
is not related to higher or lower negative affect (see Table 4).
4.2.5 Short discussion
Results replicate the findings of study 1, showing that state procrastination is lower
in interdependent group work compared to non-interdependent individual work. This
effect also applies to participants with low levels of trait procrastination, although it
was more pronounced in participants with high levels of trait procrastination. Further,
the latter group also showed an additional decrease of state procrastination when inter-
dependence was accompanied by commitment (thus supporting H2). These results add
to those of study 1 by showing that interdependence can lead to intra-individual varia-
tion of state procrastination and that this effect can be enhanced by an active commit-
ment to other group members.
Results also show that in comparison with non-interdependent individual work,
interdependent group work is related to higher levels of positive affect and lower lev-
els of negative affect, but only in the group of procrastinators (thus partly supporting
hypotheses H3a and H3b). This is consistent with other research showing beneficial
effects of interdependence on affective variables (cf. Section 1.3). Further, while an
active commitment to other group members is related to reduced state procrastination,
this relationship could not be found for positive or negative affect, thus giving a first
answer to our research question Q2.
13
5 General discussion
5.1 Summary
This study investigated whether or not academic procrastination can be reduced

by group settings in which there is interdependence among group members. In
two vignette studies, ratings on state procrastination were obtained with regard to
study scenarios with and without interdependence. Interdependence was manipu-
lated such that group members rely on each other’s contribution (task interde-
pendence) and receive group rewards (outcome interdependence). Results of both
studies showed that ratings on state procrastination were lower in interdepend-
ent group work than in non-interdependent individual work. This difference was
more pronounced for participants with high trait procrastination. In both stud-
ies, trait procrastination was a significant moderator for the relationship between
interdependence and state procrastination. This can be seen as an indicator that
state procrastination was reliably measured regarding the different scenarios.
These findings are in line with various accounts on the beneficial effects of inter-
dependence on effort and performance (cf. paragraph 1.3), and extend these by
also showing effects on procrastination.
In the group of high trait-procrastinators, ratings on state procrastination
regarding the vignette scenarios was further reduced when interdependent group
work was accompanied by an active and public commitment to finish the task on
time. Similar effects have been shown with regard to behavior change in other
domains, and this is typically explained by consistency theory (Cialdini, 2009; cf.
Festinger, 1957) and the influence of internalized or social norms to stick to one’s
promise (Kerr et al., 1997). This research expands these findings by indicating
that a commitment to other group members can enhance the beneficial effect of
interdependent group work.
Investigating affective reactions, the vignette with interdependent group work
resulted in an increase of positive affect and a decrease of negative affect, but
only in the group of procrastinators. This is consistent with findings in different
fields of psychology that show beneficial effects of interdependence on satisfac-
tion and self-esteem (Johnson et al., 2007; Shaw et al., 2000; Van der Vegt et al.,
2001). From the perspective of social psychology, Weber and Hertel (2007) spec-
ulated whether in interdependent tasks, indispensability of individual contribu-
tions can support self-worth (i.e., positive affect), or whether the emotional bur-
den of not letting the group down may also increase negative affect. The current
research supports the former assumption. However, more research is necessary to
substantiate these findings.
Taken together, the results can be seen as a first indication of the positive
effects of interdependence in group work with regard to reducing academic pro-
crastination. It further suggests that interdependence is related to favorable affec-
tive states. This underlines the importance to take situational factors, and espe-
cially social aspects, into account, when investigating, explaining, treating and
preventing academic procrastination.
13
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications
The results of the current study may carry important implications not only for the
theoretical understanding of procrastination but also for research and for interven-
tions and programs to reduce or prevent procrastination. Current interventions
against academic procrastination mainly focus on changes within the individual
(e.g., Rozental et al., 2018; van Eerde & Klingsieck, 2018) and put less emphasis
on situational or social aspects. Heterogeneous effects, however, point towards the
potential to improve the impact of many interventions against procrastination. The
results of the current studies suggest that social aspects, such as interdependence,
offer important contributions that may be incorporated into existing interventions.
Further, taking up the position that prevention is better than the cure (i.e., interven-
tions), our results also point towards the potential to preclude academic procrastina-
tion by designing tasks to be interdependent in nature. According to the results of
the current study, this would reduce state procrastination regardless of individual
trait procrastination, but even more so for students high in trait procrastination.
For example, teachers could adapt individual assignments to become interde-
pendent group tasks. Teachers may establish outcome interdependence by introduc-
ing group level rewards, in combination with task interdependence by assembling
groups in a way that each member contributes unique skills or other types of nec-
essary input; further, they may split larger assignments into smaller subtasks that
need to be completed sequentially by group members (Brewer & Klein, 2006; John-
son & Johnson, 2002; Weber & Hertel, 2007). Teachers and counselling staff may
also promote interdependence by advising students to form study groups and organ-
ize their learning activities in an interdependent manner. Further, students may be
advised to openly formulate specific commitments regarding their intended work,
to further support their work on the assignments. It should be noted, however, that
not all assignments may be suited to be completed by an interdependent group, for
example, when the implementation of group work is too difficult, too costly, or not
compliant with rules and regulations (Johnson et al., 2007).
Our results also carry implications for the theoretical understanding of procras-
tination. Current studies mainly focus on antecedents and correlates of procrastina-
tion that are located at the personal level. This shapes a theoretical understanding of
procrastination as a self-regulation failure mainly rooted within the individual. The
current findings point towards the need to consider situational and social aspects
when explaining the genesis of procrastination. This should result in a more com-
prehensive understanding of procrastination as a product of both personal and situ-
ational variables.
Finally, such an understanding should also carry implications for the measure-
ment of procrastination. So far, most investigations of procrastination do not explic-
itly distinguish between procrastination as a trait and procrastination as a state when
quantifying procrastination. The current results show that, though closely related,
both constructs are not identical. For researchers investigating procrastination,
the results show that it may be important to clearly and deliberately differentiate
between the two.
13
5.3 Limitations and future research
This contribution stresses the importance of social aspects when attempting to

reduce or even prevent academic procrastination. It has shown the relationship
between interdependence and state procrastination; however, there is an abundance
of other social aspects that have been shown to influence individual functioning in
groups, such as social support (e.g., Hüffmeier et al., 2014), group cohesion (e.g.,
Gully et al., 2012), and group identification (e.g., Solansky, 2011), intergroup com-
petition (e.g., Erev et al., 1993), or intragroup diversity of temporal styles (e.g.,
Gevers et al., 2006). Whether these and other aspects influence state procrastination
remains an open question.
It should also be noted that the current study compared individual work with-
out interdependence with group work with interdependence. By doing so it follows
studies on interdependence from educational and social psychology (e.g., Johnson &
Johnson, 2002; Weber & Hertel, 2007), thus drawing the comparison between indi-
vidual work and group work. However, it cannot be ruled out that the mere presence
of other group members had an effect on the dependent variables regardless of the
aspect of interdependence (e.g., by social comparison; Seta, 1982). Future research
could seek to delineate the findings of the present study.
Three additional limitations should be mentioned, namely generalizability, lack
of performance measures, and level of analysis. Although ratings of state procras-
tination have consistently been lower in conditions of interdependent group work,
at this point, it remains unclear whether these results generalize from a hypothetical
vignette scenario that is imagined by participants to actual tasks in the real world.
More research is necessary to investigate the effects using academic tasks in more
realistic settings, for example, by using field experiments. Second, this research
has focused on procrastination and not on performance. Although the relationship
between academic procrastination and academic performance has been shown (Kim
& Seo, 2015), future studies could also include measures of performance to further
qualify the effects of group work. Finally, the approach has focused on the effect
of interdependence on one individual team member. However, it is only plausible
that other members of a group are affected in one way or another by a member with
higher or lower trait procrastination (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012; Legood et al., 2018;
van Hooft & van Mierlo, 2018), which could be addressed in future research.
6 Conclusion
This contribution is a first hint from a quantitative study that group work with inter-
dependence between group members can reduce state procrastination, especially for
individuals with high trait procrastination and when accompanied by commitment.
This finding indicates ways to reduce or even prevent procrastination by adapting
academic assignments. Further, it extends the common understanding of procras-
tination as being a behavior that is predominantly rooted within the individual by
showing social aspects that seem to affect procrastination. Future research should
13
replicate these results in field studies using not only self-report measures of procras-
tination but also performance measures.
Appendix
Vignettes for study 1 and study 2
Individual work Group work with interdepend- Group work with interdependence
ence and with commitment
Imagine you are taking part in an obligatory course of your program. For course credit you have to
assemble a bibliography on a given topic by using a scientific data base. [The bibliography is due
three days from now at 12 pm.a]
You have to compile the bibliog- You have to compile the bibliography with two fellow students.
raphy by yourself Each of you has to contribute a part of the work
The result of your work will be The result of your group work will be graded. The two others can
graded only begin their part once your part is finished
You intend to work on the task You intend to work on the task You intend to work on the task this
this afternoon. You want to be this afternoon. You want to be afternoon. You promised your
finished by this evening finished by this evening fellow students to send them the
results of your part this evening
Your fellow students are two of your friends that are very dedicated
to their studies
The bibliography will be graded and this grade will make up 50% of your final course grade
a
This sentence was omitted in study 2
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-021-09682-3.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research did not receive
any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability All data are available upon request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Consent to participate All participants in the study provided informed consent.
Consent for publication All authors gave their consent for this publication.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
13
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
References
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2016). My instructor made me do it: Task characteristics of procrasti-
nation. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273842
Argiropoulou, M., & Patra, V. (2020). The role of psychological distress as a potential route through
which procrastination may confer risk for reduced life satisfaction. Current Psychology. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-020-00739-8
Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for
college faculty. Jossey-Bass.
Beutel, M. E., Klein, E. M., Aufenanger, S., Brähler, E., Dreier, M., Müller, K. W., et al. (2016). Procras-
tination, distress and life satisfaction across the age range – a German representative community
study. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054
Blum, G. S., Rauthmann, J. B., Göllner, R., Lischetzke, T., & Schmitt, M. (2018). The nonlinear interac-
tion of person and situation (NIPS) model: Theory and empirical evidence. European Journal of
Personality, 32, 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2138
Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchro-
nous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54,
331–354.
Bryce, W. J., Day, R., & Olney, T. J. (1997). Commitment approach to motivating community recycling:
New Zealand curbside trial. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 27–52.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics
and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46,
823–850.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics
and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
Çelik, Ç. B., & Odaci, H. (2020). Subjective well-being in university students: What are the impacts of
procrastination and attachment styles? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03069885.2020.1803211
Chen, B.-B., Shi, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). Do peers matter? Resistance to peer influence as a mediator
between self-esteem and procrastination among undergraduates. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1529.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01529
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pearson Education.
Cioffi, D., & Garner, R. (1996). On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commit-
ment and self-perception. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167296222003
Codina, N., Valenzuela, R., Pestana, J. V., & Gonzalez-Conde, J. (2018). Relations between student pro-
crastination and teaching styles: Autonomy-supportive and controlling. Frontiers in Psychology,
9(809), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00809
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Comeau, D., & Griffith, R. L. (2005). Structural interdependence, personality, and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. An examination of person-environment interaction. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/
10.1108/00483480510591453
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Wiesner, M. (2014). The role of the college classroom climate
on academic procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2014.04.001
Day, V., Mensink, D., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000). Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal of College
Reading and Learning, 30(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2000.10850090
Deemer, E. D., Smith, J. L., Carroll, A. N., & Carpenter, J. P. (2014). Academic procrastination in STEM:
Interactive effects of stereotype threat and achievement goals. The Career Development Quarterly,
62, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00076.x
13
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effects of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations,
13, 123–139.
Erev, I., Bornstein, G., & Galili, R. (1993). Constructive intergroup competition as a solution to the free
rider problem: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 463–478.
Feltz, D. L., Forlenza, S. T., Winn, B., & Kerr, N. L. (2014). Cyber buddy Is better than no buddy: A test
of the Köhler motivation effect in exergames. Games for Health Journal, 3(2), 98–105. https://doi.
org/10.1089/g4h.2013.0088
Ferrari, J. R., & Pychyl, T. A. (2012). “If I wait, my partner will do it:” The role of conscientiousness as
a mediator in the relation of academic procrastination and perceived social loafing. North American
Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 13–24.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Standford University Press.
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate: An emerging synthesis
in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4),
1667–1684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00122.x
Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. (2021). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions, In O. P. John
& R. W. Robins (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Guilford.
Gareau, A., Chamandy, M., Kljajic, K., & Gaudreau, P. (2018). The detrimental effect of academic
procrastination on subsequent grades: The mediating role of coping over and above past achieve-
ment and working memory capacity. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 32(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10615806.2018.1543763
Gevers, J. M., Rutte, C. G., & van Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in work groups: Implicit and
explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 52–72.
Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013). Exploring reasons and consequences of academic pro-
crastination: An interview study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 841–861.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0143-4
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (2012). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance.
Small Group Research, 43(6), 702–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468069
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2014). Genetic relations among pro-
crastination, impulsivity, and goal-management ability: Implications for the evolutionary origin
of procrastination. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1178–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567
97614526260
Harris, N. N., & Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in organizations: A framework for research.
Human Relations, 36(11), 987–996.
Heath, J., & Anderson, J. (2010). Procrastination and the extended will. In C. Andreou & M. D. White
(Eds.), The thief of time (pp. 1–24). Oxford University Press.
Hoppe, J., Preissler, I., & Förster, K. (2018). A cross-lagged panel design on the causal relationship of
task ambiguity and state procrastination: A preliminary investigation. North American Journal of
Psychology, 20, 383–396.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orienta-
tion and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–178.
Hüffmeier, J., Wessolowski, K., van Randenborgh, A., Bothin, J., Schmid-Loertzer, N., & Hertel, G.
(2014). Social support from fellow group members triggers additional effort in groups. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2021
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Social interdependence theory and university instruction –
theory into practice. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 119–129.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2015). Cooperation and Competition. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), Inter-
national encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (second edition). Elsevier.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecond-
ary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integra-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:
Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78–94.
Kerr, N. L., Garst, J., Lewandowski, D. A., & Harris, S. E. (1997). That still, small voice: Commit-
ment to cooperate as an internalized versus a social norm. Personality & Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 23(12), 1300–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312007
13
Kerr, N. L., & Hertel, G. (2011). The Köhler group motivation gain: How to motivate the ‘weak links’
in a group. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2010.00333.x
Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2015.02.038
Klingsieck, K. B., & Fries, S. (2012). Allgemeine Prokrastination: Entwicklung und Validierung einer
deutschsprachigen Kurzskala der General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). [General procras-
tination: Development and validation of the German short scale of the General Procrastination
Scale (Lay, 1986)]. Diagnostica, 58(4), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000060
Klingsieck, K. (2013). Procrastination. When good things don’t come to those who wait. European
Psychologist, 18(1), 24–34.
Klingsieck, K. B., Grund, A., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2013). Why students procrastinate: A qualita-
tive approach. Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1353/
csd.2013.0060
Krause, K., & Freund, A. M. (2014). Delay or procrastination – A comparison of self-report and behavio-
ral measures of procrastination and their impact on affective well-being. Personality and Individual
Differences, 63, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.050
Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Tausch, A. (1996). Untersuchung mit einer deutschen
Version der „Positive and Negative Affect Schedule“ (PANAS) [Investigation with the German ver-
sion of the ,Positive and Negative Affect Schedule‘ (PANAS)]. Diagnostica, 42(2), 139–156.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20,
474–495.
Legood, A., Lee, A., Schwarz, G., & Newman, A. (2018). From self-defeating to other defeating: Exam-
ining the effects of leader procrastination on follower work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12205
Matthies, E., Klockner, C. A., & Preissner, C. L. (2006). Applying a modified moral decision making
model to change habitual car use: How can commitment be effective? Applied Psychology, 55(1),
91–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00237.x
Milgram, N. A., Dangour, W., & Raviv, A. (2001). Situational and personal determinants of academic
procrastination. The Journal of General Psychology, 119(2), 123–133.
Morris, P. E., & Fritz, C. O. (2015). Conscientiousness and procrastination predict academic coursework
marks rather than examination performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, 193–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.007
Nguyen, B., Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). Procrastination’s impact in the workplace and the work-
place’s impact on procrastination. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(4), 388–
399. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12048
Nordby, K., Klingsieck, K. B., & Svartdal, F. (2017). Do procrastination-friendly environments make
students delay unnecessarily? Social Psychology of Education, 20(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11218-017-9386-x
Nyer, P. U., & Dellande, S. (2010). Public commitment as a motivator for weight loss. Psychology and
Marketing, 27(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20316
Paden, N., & Stell, R. (1997). Reducing procrastination through assignment and course design. Marketing
Education Review, 7(2), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1997.11488587
Patrzek, J., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2012). Academic procrastination: The perspective of university
counsellors. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 34(3), 185–201. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10447-012-9150-z
Patzelt, J., & Opitz, I. (2014). Deutsche Version des Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI-d).
[German version of the Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI-d)]. Köln: Gesis.
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
Przepiórka, A., Błachnio, A., & Siu, N. (2019). The relationships between self-efficacy, self-control,
chronotype, procrastination and sleep problems in young adults. Chronobiology International,
38(8), 1025–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2019.1607370
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An introduction to the
special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 203–212. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5
13
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Individualism/collectivism, perceived task interdependence and
teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: A test of the main and moderating effects.
Human Relations, 57(3), 347–366.
Rebetetz, M. M. L., Rochat, L., Barsics, C., & Van der Linden, M. (2018). Procrastination as a self-regu-
lation failure: The role of impulsivity and intrusive thoughts. Psychological Reports, 121(1), 26–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117720695
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and
peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
Rozental, A., Bennett, S., Forsström, D., Ebert, D. D., Shafran, R., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2018).
Targeting procrastination using psychological treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1588. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01588
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination. Theoretical notions, measurement, and research.
In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance. The-
ory, research, and treatment. (pp. 71–98). Plenum Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.99.1.12
Senécal, C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and situational factors in procrastination. An inter-
action model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4), 889–903.
Senécal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003). Role conflict and academic procrastination: A self-determina-
tion perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.
144
Seta, J. J. (1982). The impact of comparison processes on coactors’ task performance. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.281
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdependence and preference for group work: Main
and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members. Journal of Manage-
ment, 26(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600205
Sirois, F. M., & Giguère, B. (2018). Giving in when feeling less good: Procrastination, action control, and
social temptations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjso.12243
Sirois, F. M., & Tosti, N. (2012). Lost in the moment? An investigation of procrastination, mindfulness,
and well-being. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30, 237–248. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0151-y
Solansky, S. T. (2011). Team identification: A determining factor of performance. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 26(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111112677
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavio-
ral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503–509.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergradu-
ates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential
self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.
133.1.65
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological study of procras-
tinators’ characteristics from a global sample. European Journal of Personality, 27, 51–58. https://
doi.org/10.1002/per.1851
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents revisited.
Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12173
Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.
Stevens, R. J. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle
school literacy instruction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(2), 137–160.
Thürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2017). Planning and performance in small groups: Col-
lective implementation intentions enhance group goal striving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 603.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00603
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.
13
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. J., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams:
A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54,
51–69.
Van der Vegt, G., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innova-
tion. Journal of Management, 29, 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00033-3
Van der Vegt, G., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness. Review and
proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 50–67.
Van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35, 1401–1418.
Van Eerde, W. (2016). Procrastination and well-being at work. In F. M. Sirois & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Pro-
crastination, health, and well-being (pp. 233–253). Elsevier Academic Press.
Van Eerde, W., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2018). Overcoming procrastination? A meta-analysis of intervention
studies. Educational Research Review, 25, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.002
Van Hooft, E. A., & van Mierlo, H. (2018). When teams fail to self-regulate: Predictors and outcomes
of team procrastination among debating teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 464. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2018.00464
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1),
145–180.
Wäschle, K., Allgaier, A., Lachner, A., Fink, S., & Nückles, M. (2014). Procrastination and self-efficacy:
Tracing vicious and virtuous circles in self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 103–
114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.005
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of posi-
tive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),
1063–1070.
Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 973–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
93.6.973
Wieland, L. M., Grunschel, C., Limberger, M. F., Schlotz, W., Ferrari, J. R., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W.
(2018). The ecological momentary assessment of procrastination in daily life: Psychometric proper-
ties of a five-item short scale. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(2), 315–339.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
Markus Koppenborg is a research assistant at the Vice Rectorate for Teaching and Learning at the Uni-
versity of Cologne, Germany. His research comprises evaluation and quality assurance in higher educa-
tion, and the interaction between individual and social factors in procrastination among students.
Katrin B. Klingsieck is a professor for educational psychology at the Paderborn University, Germany. Her
research interests focus on procrastination, motivational and volitional aspects of self-regulation, self-
development, and the diagnostic competence of teachers.
13

Social Factors of Procrastination: Group Work Can Reduce Procrastination Among Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Factors of Procrastination: Group Work Can Reduce Procrastination Among Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Factors of Procrastination: Group Work Can Reduce Procrastination Among Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology of Education (2022) 25:249–274

Social factors of procrastination: group work can reduce

Markus Koppenborg1 · Katrin B. Klingsieck2

Keywords Academic procrastination · Social factors · Group work ·

students. Accordingly, recommendations for collaborative and cooperative learn-

1.1 Personal and situational antecedents of academic procrastination

Commonly, procrastination is understood as a self-regulation failure (Pychyl & Flett,

1.2 Social antecedents of academic procrastination

1.3 Interdependence in group work

Social interdependence can be defined as a situation where “individuals share com-

1.4 Commitment and interdependence

1.5 Present study and research hypotheses

H1 State procrastination is lower in group work with interdependence than in indi-

H2 State procrastination is lower in group work with interdependence and an active

2.2 Variables and measures

Vignettes were used to manipulate the level of interdependence of an academic task

Qualitative pretests using cognitive interviews with students of different majors

Study 1 used a between-subjects design to vary interdependence in two steps as

Study 1 used a between-subjects design to test hypothesis H1 postulating that

3.1.3 Design and data analysis

3.2 Results and short discussion

Table 1 Descriptive statistics Scale M SD

N = 320, GPS General Procrastination Scale; APSI Academic Pro-

Table 2 Hierarchical regression Model 1 Model 2

Study 2 served to replicate the findings of study 1 in a within-subjects design, and

4.1.4 Design and data analysis

A mixed factorial 3 (interdependence: non-interdependence vs. interdependence

4.2 Results and short discussion

An ANCOVA with state procrastination as a dependent variable revealed significant

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of Scale M SD

N = 193. GPS General Procrastination Scale; APSI Academic Pro-

NQ1 = NQ4 = 48; GPS General Procrastination Scale

An ANCOVA with positive affect as a dependent variable revealed a significant

An ANCOVA with negative affect as a dependent variable revealed a significant main

This study investigated whether or not academic procrastination can be reduced

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

5.3 Limitations and future research

This contribution stresses the importance of social aspects when attempting to

Vignettes for study 1 and study 2

Data availability All data are available upon request.

Consent to participate All participants in the study provided informed consent.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

1.1 Personal and situational antecedents of academic procrastination

1.2 Social antecedents of academic procrastination

1.3 Interdependence in group work

1.4 Commitment and interdependence

1.5 Present study and research hypotheses

2.2 Variables and measures

3.1.3 Design and data analysis

3.2 Results and short discussion

4.1.4 Design and data analysis

4.2 Results and short discussion

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

5.3 Limitations and future research