Content uploaded by VINOTHKUMAR M
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by VINOTHKUMAR M on Jul 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The International Journal of Indian Psychology
ISSN 2348-5396 (e) | ISSN: 2349-3429 (p)
Volume 3, Issue 2, No.3, DIP: 18.01.045/20160302
ISBN: 978-1-329-83677-8
http://www.ijip.in | January - March, 2016
© 2016 I M Vinothkumar, Kousalya, V Rai; licensee IJIP. This is an Open Access Research distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy in the Relationship
between Flow and Academic Procrastination on Academic
Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
M. Vinothkumar1*, Kousalya2, Vindya. V. Rai2
ABSTRACT
Academic procrastination is common among students and is due to various reasons. One of the
reasons can be difficulty level of the task. To involve in the task and experience a deep sense of
enjoyment, there should be balance between students’ skills and task challenges which is a
characteristic of flow. The present study aimed to find out the moderating role of Hardiness and
Self-efficacy in the relationship between Flow and Academic Procrastination on Academic
Performance. For that 170 undergraduate students were taken from different streams using
stratified random sampling method. Procrastination Scale, Dispositional Flow Scale, Hardiness
Scale and Self-efficacy scales were used to measure the proposed variable in the model. Results
showed a significant negative relation between academic performance and procrastination and a
positive relation between Academic Performance, flow, and Self-efficacy. However, there seems
no significant relationship between academic performance and hardiness. Structural equation
modeling results reveal that procrastination has a significant direct effect on performance and
that self-efficacy plays a moderating role in the relationship between flow and procrastination on
academic performance, whereas hardiness is non-significant. Hence, it can be concluded from
the SEM analysis result that model can be partially accepted. The implications of the study
suggest designing the syllabus to match the abilities of all the students, training to elude
procrastination and to increase a student’s level of self-efficacy.
Keywords: Hardiness, Self-efficacy, Flow, Academic Procrastination, Academic Performance
Wellbeing is integral to the education process. Mental and physical wellbeing are good
predictors of academic performance. According to a report from the National Center for Clinical
Infant Programs, confidence, curiosity, intentionality, self-control, relatedness, capacity to
communicate and ability to cooperate are the key elements which will provide students the
knowledge of how to learn to reach out success in academics. But there are numerous factors
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, St. Agnes Centre For Post-Graduation & Research, Mangalore
2 M.sc Students, Department of Psychology, St. Agnes Centre For Post-Graduation & Research, Mangalore
*Responding Author
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 78
which could possibly distract a student from persevering success. Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson,
(2007) stated that the majority of the students submits their assignments before the dateline, there
are some who do hand in their work late or do not hand it in at all. There are multiple reasons as
to why the work was not handed in on time, most of the time the reasons given are illegitimate or
not plausible (Ferrari, Driscoll, & Diaz-Morales, 2007). Particularly researchers have noted
academic procrastination as a prominent cause for the aforesaid problem. Procrastination is the
action of delaying or postponing something. Academic procrastination can be described as
unnecessarily delaying academic activities that one ultimately intends to complete, to the point of
creating emotional discomfort (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Academic procrastination usually
tends to have negative consequences. Procrastination has been considered a self- handicapping
behavior that leads to wasted time, poor performance, and increased stress (Steel, 2007).
Investigators such as Ferrari et al., (2007); Ferrari and Tice (2000); Ferrari, Johnson, and
McCown, (1995) have often depicted procrastinators as lazy or self-indulgent individuals who
are unable to self-regulate. In contrast, non-procrastination has been associated with high
efficiency, productivity, and superior performance, and non-procrastinators are often described
as organized and highly motivated individuals.
Procrastination is something individuals deal with, on a daily basis. Students often spend their
time distracted and hence a given task remains incomplete. It has been estimated that over 70%
of students engage in procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977). According to Ferrari, Johnson, and
McCown (1995) there are some major cognitive distortions that lead to academic procrastination
are (a) Overestimate how much time they have left to perform tasks, (b) Overestimate how
motivated they will be in the future, (c) Underestimate how long certain activities will take to
complete and (d) Mistakenly assume that they need to be in the right frame of mind to work on a
project. Although both the practical literature and the academic literature have associated
negative connotations to procrastination, investigators have found that procrastination can induce
some short-term benefits. For example, Tice and Baumeister (1997) reported that compared with
non-procrastinators, procrastinators experience less stress and have better physical health when
deadlines are far off. In this sense, procrastination can be seen as a strategy that they use to
regulate negative emotions, thereby making the individual feel better, at least temporarily
(Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). Moreover, in principle, whether a person does a task far
ahead of a deadline or only slightly ahead of it does not necessarily affect the quality of the work
(Jaffe, 2013). Therefore, practically speaking, procrastination does not necessarily have a
negative impact on the effectiveness of the task performance. In a similar vein, Knaus (2000)
argued that not all delays lead to negative out-comes. For example, delays resulting from the
time that was spent planning and gathering vital preparatory information can be beneficial
(Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007; Choi & Moran, 2009). Many
people claim that even when they start to work at the last minute, they can still finish on time and
that they tend to work better and faster or generate more creative ideas under time pressure.
Based on the common conception that poor structuring, indiscipline impedes performance, it
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 79
would seem as an important way that increases procrastination, but it cannot be said that
procrastination is just due to poor time management or structuring work. A study by Solomon,
Laura (1984); Burka and Yuen (2008), indicate that procrastination is not solely a deficit in study
habits or time management, but involves a complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and
affective components towards a given task.
As already mentioned that procrastination may depend on the task, it requires an individual to be
involved in the task to get the optimum result. A task that is defined as either too easy or difficult
depending on skill may challenge the student’s desire to work towards the result. If students
perceive their skills to be in accordance with the task given, they are said to be in a state of flow.
Csikszentmihalyi (1992) stated that an imbalance between skills and challenges leads to either
boredom or anxiety, whereas the match of skills and challenges lead to flow. In essence, flow is
characterized by complete absorption in what one does and optimal experience. Csikszentmihalyi
(1990, 1997) and his colleagues defined optimal experiences as those that are accompanied by a
merging of action and awareness, strong concentration on the task at hand, and a loss of
awareness of time. At such times, people concentrate so hard on the current task that they forget
about time and the world around them: They are thoroughly engrossed. Further, these activities
are accompanied by positive emotions. They termed this quality of experience “flow.”
Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed
in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.
Csikszentmihalyi and other researchers have suggested that procrastination among successful
college students may have little impact on performance because it allows them to achieve a
sustained level of flow (Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989; Schraw,Wadkins, & Olafson
2007). Schraw, Wadkins, and Olafson(2007) suggested that peak work experience is one of the
adaptive aspects of procrastination. In their study, respondents indicated that procrastination
ultimately increases the likelihood of achieving a deep state of flow because procrastinators work
under pressure for an extended period of time in which all of their resources are focused on one
goal. Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) suggested a flow channel along which, as
opportunities for action (tasks) relative to skills dropped off and as challenges increasingly
exceeded the capacities for action, a region of boredom matched a region of anxiety, as
challenges increasingly exceeded capacities for action could lead to procrastination. It was found
that a high level of procrastination was associated with a low incidence of the flow state. They
also found that procrastinators experienced a greater sense of challenge and peak experience
immediately prior to examinations which interfere with one’s performance (Lee, 2005). Choi &
Moran (2009) revealed that time pressure resulting from procrastination can create a feeling of
stress and anxiety and can disturb the flow for few students whereas for others it creates a feeling
of challenge. Hinske et al., (2007) gave a few aspects that determine rewarding and challenging
experience in an individual and they are (a) Concentration (b) Clear (c) Immersion (d) control
and (e) challenge.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 80
The ability to view obstacles as a normal mode of life, genuine interest and curiosity about the
task and the self-control can make a person more focused towards working. Hardiness is an
aspect of personality that affects the way individuals view and behave in stressful situation
(Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). People high in hardiness tend to see the world as interesting
and meaningful one and they actively involved in various activities around them. Challenge,
commitment and control are the three components of a cognitive appraisal process termed as
Hardiness (Kobasa, 1979).Kobasa,Maddi, and Kahn (1982) defined Personality Hardiness as “a
constellation of personality characteristics that function as a resistance recourse in the encounter
with stressful life events”. Maddi (1997) stated that Personality Hardiness is composed of three
interrelated elements such as Commitment (the ability to feel deeply involved in activities of
life), Control (the belief one can control or influence events of one’s experiences), and Challenge
(the sense of anticipation of change as an exciting challenge to further development). A result
found by Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, and Blunt of Carlton University (2000) says that lack of self-
control could lead to procrastination. However, studies showed that hardiness is positively
related to physical and mental health and that it mitigated negative health outcomes of stressors
(Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Orr &
Westman (1990) revealed that hardiness is significantly related to psychological well-being and
adjustment. Kobasa (1979) stated that effects of hardiness on mental health are mediated by
appraisal and coping mechanism.
As mentioned before, procrastination could lead to poor performance that could affect one’s idea
about themselves and their skills. Self-efficacy describes students’ beliefs about whether they are
capable of successfully accomplishing a particular task, activity, or assignment (Bandura, 1997).
Wäschle, Allgaier, Lachner, Fink, and Nückles (2104) revealed that vicious circle of
procrastination and a virtuous circle of self-efficacy. Students who recorded high levels of
procrastination assessed their goal achievement as being low. As a consequence of low goal
achievement, they reinforced procrastination. Students who recorded high levels of self-efficacy
assessed their goal achievement as being high. As a consequence of high goal achievement, self-
efficacy increased. High self-efficacy students reported higher academic aspirations and pursuits
than low self-efficacy students. They also spent more time in homework, and primarily
associated learning activities with optimal experience says a study by Bassi, Steca, Fave,
Vittorio (2007). Self-efficacy mediated the effect of perceived goal achievement on
procrastination. It is assumed that students who perceive the tasks to be equivalent to their
capacities have a higher feeling of efficacy. According to a study by Rudina Shkullaku,
European University of Tirana (2013), there is a strong positive relationship between self-
efficacy and academic performance. Therefore, it can be stated as disturbed flow causes
procrastination, which in turn causes anxiety prior to examination thus hindering performance.
Academic procrastination could be due to various reasons and is on the rise. Tasks, assignments
remain pending due to it. The need for this study is to check if a student perceiving challenges at
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 81
hand to be too difficult or easy compared to his skills leads to academic procrastinating and if
hardiness and self-efficacy affects the relation between flow and the student’s academic
procrastination. Based on common conception that students who keep their work pending till the
last minute may fare poorly compared to those do not wait till the last minute, it can be used to
find out if academic procrastination in the end affects a student’s academic performance, the
results of which can be implicated to students. Another need is to fill the lack of knowledge
between the variables.
METHODS
The study adopted a predictive descriptive survey design which included both an examination of
the relationship among model constructs as well as an evaluation of the ability of the model to
determine the student’s academic performance. The sampling consisted of 250 undergraduate
students both males and females (51.8% female, 48.1% male) of different streams. Participants
were selected by random sampling method and administered four self-report Inventories viz.,
hardiness scale, dispostional flow state scale, procrastination scale and self-efficacy. During the
administration, appropriate instructions were given to them by stating the aim and objectives of
the proposed study. Before proceeding to the main study, due permission was obtained from the
concern college authority. The participants were assured that the individual anonymity of the
individual responses will preserved and only the summarized results were reported.
Measures
Hardiness Personality
Eighteen item Hardiness questionnaire developed by Maddi and Kobasa (1984) was used to
measure hardiness personality (ability of individuals to turn stressful circumstance into growth
inducing experiences). All the items are rated on a four point scale (0= not at all true; 3= very
true). The scale consists of three dimensions:
(i) Commitment measures the extent to which individuals seek involvement rather than
withdrawal. Commitment contains a vital motivational quality that compels the individual
to persist in pursuing a goal even in the fact of repeat obstacles, for example, “By working
hard, you can always achieve your goal”.
(ii) Control deals with the extent to which individual strives to exert over their circumstances
rather than feeling powerless. Perception of control or the degree to which a stressor is seen
as under an individuals’ control are thus important in the appraisal of threat (e.g., “Most
days, life is really interesting and exciting for me”.
(iii) Challenge measures the extent to which individuals strive to learn from experiences rather
than feeling threatened, one of the examples of an item is “My mistakes are usually difficult
to correct”.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 82
Dispositional Flow State Scale
Disposional flow sate scale is developed by Jackson and Eklund, (2004) and it consists of 36-
item which measures the nine dimensions of flow: challenge-skill balance, action-awareness
merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, concentration on task, sense of control, loss of self-
consciousness, time transformation, and autotelic experience. Each item will be rated according
to the respondent experience in a predetermined activity on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (always). Jackson and Eklund (2004)provide sufficient evidence to suggest that
DFS-2 is a suitable tool for studying flow dispositions. In a previous study using DFS-2
involving 386 participants aged between 17 and 72 years old, the internal consistency of the
instrument was reported to range from .81 to .90, with a mean alpha of .85 (Jackson & Eklund,
2002). Another cross validation study done on the instrument that involved 574 respondents
revealed reliability estimates of .78–.86, with a mean alpha of .82 observed (Jackson & Eklund,
2002). The instrument is deemed to have good construct validity based on the results reported in
the various studies (Jackson & Eklund, 2004).
Procrastination Scale
The scale was developed by Tuckman (1991) which measure procrastination tendencies.
Although to the largest extent, this scale was widely used to measure academic procrastination
(Klassen & Kuzucu, 2009). The scale was reported with a reliability of α = .86 whereas other
studies found that an average reliabilities of α = .89 (Lay 1986; Steel, 2010). The procrastination
Scale consists of 16-items which are scored on a four point Likert scale (i.e. 1 = that’s me for
sure, 2 = that’s my tendency, 3 = that’s not my tendency, 4 = that’s not me for sure). For
Example “I postpone starting in on things I don’t like to do.”
Self-Efficacy Scale
The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) developed by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf
Schwarzer (1992), consists of 10-item designed to assess optimistic self-beliefs. This is the belief
that one can perform a novel or difficult task, or cope with adversity in various domains of
human functioning. Perceived self-efficacy facilitates goal-setting, effort investment, persistence
in the face of barriers and recovery from setbacks, for example “I can always manage to solve
difficult problems if I try hard enough.”
Academic Performance
The Researcher collected students’ term’s marks and aggregated the marks to measure their
academic performance.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 83
RESULTS
Table 1, Mean, SD, and Correlation coefficient of Academic Performance, Procrastination,
Flow, Self-Efficacy and Hardiness
Constructs
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1
Academic
Performance 69.20 12.40 -
2
Procrastination
37.44
8.10
-.51**
-
3
Flow
116.75
18.35
.68**
-.73**
-
4
Self-Efficacy
27.35
5.06
.47**
-.592**
.64**
-
5
Hardiness
29.46
4.62
.09ns
-.17*
.14ns
.20**
-
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed). Ns – Not significant
From the above Table 1, the first column of the correlation coefficients showed the bivariate
relationship between the criterion variable and independent (i.e. Flow and Procrastination) and
moderating variables (i.e. Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance). The results revealed that
independent measures were significantly correlated with each other, for instance, the flow was
moderately and positively correlated with the criterion variable (r = .68, p < .01). While the
“procrastination” (r= -.51, p < .01) was negatively correlated with academic performance.
The moderating variables such as Self-efficacy and Hardiness was also included in the analysis,
the results shown that self-efficacy was positively inter-correlated with independent and criterion
variables (i.e. Academic Performance, r = .47; Flow r = .64; Procrastination r = -.51; and
Hardiness r = .20). Further, the results indicated that hardiness factors failed to show a statically
significant relationship with other variables, except self-efficacy (r = .20).
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 84
Table 2, Standardized and unstandardized path coefficients and significance level of direct
path of study variables
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, NS – not significant
SF – Self-Efficacy, FL – Flow, HRD – Hardiness, Procras – Procrastination, Acad Perf – Academic
Performance
Table 2 shows that the path coefficient between the Independent, moderating and outcome
variable. The results revealed that Flow (β = - 0.614, t-value = -9.630) has a significant direct
effect on Procrastination. Similarly, self-efficacy (β = - 0.18, t-value = - 2.912) have exceeded
the significant level of t-value (1.96) which implied that the constructs had a significant effect on
the procrastination. Contrarily, the hardiness factor (β = - 0.06, t-value = -1.211) shows an
insignificant relation relationship with procrastination.
Further, self-efficacy shows a moderate significant relationship between flow and procrastination
with β value of -.166; t value of -3,297 and which, in turn, significantly influence the students’
academic performance (i.e. β = - 0.614, t-value = -9.630). While looking the hardiness score on
the above table 2, it can be inferred that the variable failed to produce a moderating effect on
flow and procrastination. Further, the result has been depicted in the following figure 1.
Regression paths
Standardized
Unstandardized
Sig
Path
coefficient
(β)
Path
coefficient
(β)
Standard
error
Critical
Ratio
(t-value)
Flow Procrastination - .614 - .62 .064 -9.630 ***
SF Procrastination - .188 - .19 .065 -2.912 **
FL x SF Procrastination - . 166 - .17 .050 -3.297 ***
HRD Procrastination - .060 - .06 .050 -1.211 Ns
FL x HRD
Procrastination - . 095 - .10 .054 -1.764 Ns
Procras Acad Perf - .508 - .51 .066 -7.660 ***
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 85
Fig 1 The conceptual model represented in the form of a path model and a visual depicting
regressions estimated reported in the table 2.
Table 3, Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Structural Equation Models
χ2 (df) SRMR GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA
55.091(5)* 0.052 .926 .893 .853 .043
Note. N= 170; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (values < .06 suggest a very good fit,
values > .10 suggest a poor fit); GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index (values close to 1.0 suggest a perfect fit,
values close to 0 suggest a poor fit); CFI =Comparative Fit Index (values > .90 suggest a good fit);
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (values < .05 suggest a very good fit, values > .10
suggest a poor fit). *p < .01.
Table 3, displayed the result of goodness of the fit for the study variable showing various fit
indices such as χ² = 55.091 (p = 0.00), SRMR = .052, RMSEA = 0.43, GFI = .926, AGFI = .893,
and CFI = .853, which suggested that model exhibits the adequate fit.
DISCUSSION
In the present era, academic performance is given a lot of importance in every context. Be it for
an application for further studies or a job, academic performance is one of the main reasons a
candidate is preferred over the others. Other than the known factors of the bio-psycho-social
model like intelligence, socio-economic status, motivation, etc., what are the other factors that
affect a student’s performance?
This study was conducted with an interest to find out how hardiness and self- efficacy can
moderate the relationship between flow and academic procrastination that could bring about a
Hardiness
Academic
Perfomance
Flow
Procrastination
Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy X
Flow
Hardiness X Flow
β = -.06ns
β = -.61***
β = -.19**
β = -.16**
β = -.09ns
β = -.51***
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 86
change in the academic performance. From the results, we can conceptualize that there exists a
significant relationship between the chosen variables of the study. However hardiness has a non-
significant relationship with academic performance and procrastination. The dimensions of flow
are positively correlated with academic performance and all the dimensions except action
awareness and time transformation which non-significant, are negatively correlated with
procrastination. Researchers have found that challenge-skill balance was a significant predictor
of procrastination (Kim& Seo, 2013). One of the plausible reasons for procrastination is
helplessness in the face of complexity, which can be seen in terms of inability to match one’s
skills to the challenges- flow in short. Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) suggested that
when a person’s skill is higher than the challenge, it could lead to boredom which is another
factor for procrastinating.
The control dimension of hardiness is positively related to academic performance and negatively
related to procrastination. The other dimensions of hardiness, commitment and challenge have a
non- significant relation with both academic performance and procrastination.
From the path model, it is evident that flow and self-efficacy have a direct effect on
procrastination. Regression coefficient value reveals that self -efficacy plays a moderating role
between flow and procrastination which in turn directly affects academic performance. Burka
and Yeun (2008) suggest that the constant thought of, “what If I am unable to cut it” leads to
procrastination. Fear of failure intensifies and the student feels it is better not to work at all than
to fail. Students miss deadline, are faced with stress and waste their time instead of working on
goals (Solomon, Rothblum & Murakami, 1984) explains the effect of procrastination on
performance. The other chosen moderating variable, hardiness has no significant effect on
procrastination according to results. It is also seen that hardiness does not play a moderating role
in the relation between flow and procrastination on academic performance. It is assumed that
undergraduate studies other than honors program require students to take up subjects other than
their area of interest (e.g. If a student wants to take up psychology, he will also have to take up
economics, journalism, literature etc.). Sometimes students take up subjects other than their
interests due to various reasons like finance, family pressure, etc. This may hinder their
commitment towards studies overall and they may also have a sense of helplessness and loss of
control over their situation thus affecting their performance. This study hypothesized that there
will be a significant effect of the proposed model on the student’s academic performance.
Though hardiness does not seem to act as a moderating variable, self–efficacy does. Hence the
use of this model can contribute to a student’s performance other than other factors.
IMPLICATIONS
Students’ first and foremost have to be educated about procrastinating and must be given training
to elude procrastinating since more than 70% of the student population, procrastinate (Ellis and
Knaus, 1977) Teachers, from the model can help students in any grade increase their
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 87
performance. The main idea for the teachers and significant others is to increase the child’s self-
efficacy. This can be done through various ways like: (a) Mastery experiences – students’
successful experiences boost self-efficacy, while failures erode it. This is the most robust source
of self-efficacy; (b) Vicarious experience - observing a peer succeed at a task can strengthen
beliefs in one's own abilities; (c) Verbal persuasion - teachers can boost self-efficacy with
credible communication and feedback to guide the student through the task or motivate them to
make their best effort and (d) Emotional state -a positive mood can boost one's beliefs in self-
efficacy, while anxiety can undermine it. A certain level of emotional stimulation can create an
energizing feeling that can contribute to strong performances. Teachers can help by reducing
stressful situations and lowering anxiety surrounding events like exams or presentations.
It is also necessary for the teachers and parents understand the child’s performance ability. Every
time the child performs well, be it a small step or a big step, he/must be appreciated instead of
being looked over. Teachers must also understand that individuals have different capacities and
hence must introduce subjects and topics in a way that all students can comprehend easily. This
will enhance their skills in facing challenges. Students are not the only ones who have to be
trained. Syllabus’ have to be designed in such a manner that every child/student should be able to
master the subject and students must be given an option to pursue what they love.
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope
as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1301-1310.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bassi, M., Steca, P., Delle Fave, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). Academic self-efficacy beliefs and
quality of experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 301-312.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people
fail at self-regulation. Academic Press.
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (2008). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it now. Da
Capo Press.
Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a
new active procrastination scale. The Journal of social psychology, 149(2), 195-212.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
Perennial
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological
studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge university press.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977).Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet Books.
Farr, V. (2003). The Role of Celebration in Building Classroom-Learning Communities.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, East Tennessee State University.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 88
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A
task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(1),
73-83.
Ferrari, J. R., Driscoll, M., & Diaz-Morales, J. F. (2007). Examining the self of chronic
procrastinators: Actual, ought, and undesired attributes. Individual Differences Research,
5(2), 115-123.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment. Springer Science & Business Media.
Hinske, S., Lampe, M., Magerkurth, C., & Röcker, C. (2007). Classifying pervasive games: on
pervasive computing and mixed reality. Concepts and technologies for Pervasive Games-
A Reader for Pervasive Gaming Research, 1, 11-38
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal
orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 167-
178.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State
Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,
133–150.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The flow scale manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Jaffe, E. (2013). Why wait? The science behind procrastination. Observer, 26, 12-16.
Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal
processes. Self-efficacy: Thought control of action, 195-213.
Kim, E., & Seo, E. H. (2013). The relationship of flow and self-regulated learning to active
procrastination. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(7), 1099-
1113.
Knaus, W. J. (2000). Procrastination, blame, and change. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 15,153–166.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into
hardiness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(1), 1.
Kobasa, S. C., & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 839–850.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Zola, M. A. (1983). Type A and hardiness. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 6, 41–51.
Kobasa, S., Maddi, S. & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1), 168-177.
Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal,
anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of
Personality, 3,195–208.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543.
Moderating Roles of Hardiness and Self-Efficacy In the Relationship between Flow and Academic
Procrastination on Academic Performance: A Structural Equation Model Approach
© The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 89
Maddi, S. R. (1997). Personal Views Survey II: A measure of dispositional hardiness. In C. P.
Zalaquett & R. J. Woods (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources. New York:
Univ. Press.
Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive: Health under stress. Homewood, IL:
Dow Jones-Irwin.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). Theconstruction of meaning through vital
engagement. In C. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Orr, E., and Westman, M. (1990). Does hardiness moderate stress, and how?: A review. In
Rosenbaum, M. (ed.), Learned Resourcefulness: On Coping Skills, Self-Control, and
Adaptive Behavior, Springer, New York.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An
experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 239-254.
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.
Shkullaku, R. (2013). The relationship between self–efficacy and academic performance in the
context of gender among Albanian students. European Academic Research, 1 (4), 467-
478.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-
behavioral correlates. Journal of counseling psychology, 31(4), 503.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 65.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological science, 454-458.
Tuckman, B. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473-480.
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.
