The Relationship of Motivation and Flow Experience to Academic Procrastination in University Students

Abstract

In this article, the author examined the relationships of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in 262 Korean undergraduate students who completed a questionnaire on procrastination, flow, and motivation. The results indicated that high procrastination was associated with lack of self-determined motivation and low incidence of flow state. The results also indicated that, although amotivation and intrinsic motivation showed significant unique effects on procrastination, they did not contribute significantly to the variance in procrastination when the effects caused by flow experiences were considered. The author discusses implications for practice and gives suggestions for further research.

Full text

The
Journal
of
Genetic
Psychlology,
2005,166(1),
5-14
The
Relationship
of
Motivation
and
Flow
Experience
to
Academic
Procrastination
in
University
Students
EUNJU
LEE
School
of
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences
Halla
University,
Southt
Korea'
ABSTRACT.
In
this
article,
the
author
examined
the relationships
of
motivation
and flow
experience
to
academic
procrastination
in
262
Korean
undergraduate
students who
com-
pleted
a
questionnaire
on
procrastination,
flow,
and
motivation.
The
results indicated
that
high
procrastination
was
associated
with
lack
of
self-determined
motivation
and
low
inci-
dence
of
flow state.
The
results
also
indicated
that, although amotivation
and intrinsic moti-
vation
showed
significant
unique
effects
on procrastination,
they
did
not
contribute
sig-
nificantly
to
the
variance
in
procrastination
when
the
effects
caused by
flow
experiences
were considered.
The
author
discusses
implications for practice
and
gives
suggestions
for
further
research.
Key words:
flow,
procrastination,
self-determined
motivation
PROCRASTINATION
is
the
lack
or
absence
of
self-regulated
performance
and
the tendency
to
put
off
or completely
avoid
an
activity
under
one's
control
(Tuck-
man
&
Sexton,
1989).
As
a
student
proceeds
through
school,
the
responsibility
for
controlling
performance
shifts
progressively
from
parents and teachers
to
the
student,
and it
reaches
a
high
point
during
the college
years.
According
to
Solomon
and
Rothblum
(1984),
as
many
as
50%
of
college
students
procrastinate
on
academic tasks
at
least
half
of
the time
and an
additional
38%
report
procras-
tinating
occasionally.
Procrastination
is
a
behavior
that
is
endemic
in
the
academic
domain,
and
it
may
be
related
to
problems
encountered by
many
college students.
Solomon
and
Rothblum
(1984)
have
shown
that
students
who
habitually
procrastinate
believe
that their
tendency
to
procrastinate
significantly
interferes
with
their
academic
An
earlier
version
of
this
article
wvas
presented
at
thte
meeting
of
the
International
Asso-
ciation
of
Applied
Psyclhology,
Singapore,
July
2002.
Address correspondence
to
Eunju
Lee,
Sclhool
of
Humanities
and
Social
Sciences,
Halla
University,
San
66,
Heingup,
Wonju,
220-712,
South
Korea;
elee@hit.hallaac.kr
(e-mail).
5

6
Thte
Journal
of
Genetic Psychology
standing, capacity
to
master
classroom material,
and
the
quality
of
their
lives.
Rothblum, Solomon,
and
Murakami
(1986) also
suggested
that procrastination
might
be
detrimental
to
academic
performance,
possibly
leading
to
greater
course
withdrawal and
lower
grades.
Wesley (1994)
supported these
findings
by show-
ing
that procrastination
was a
significant
negative
predictor
of
college
grade
point
average.
Senecal,
Koestner, and Vallerand (1995)
have
suggested that
academic
pro-
crastination is
a
motivational
problem that
involves more than
poor
time
man-
agement
skills
or
trait
laziness.
Procrastinators
are difficult
to motivate
and,
there-
fore,
are
likely
to
put
off
doing
school
assignments
and
studying
for
exams until
the
last
possible moment
(Tuckman,
1998).
They
may
have
difficulty
acquiring
new
knowledge
if
steps
are
not
taken
to
enhance
their
motivation.
According
to
Tuckman
and
Sexton (1989),
procrastination
is
the lack
or
absence
of
self-regulated
performance.
Self-regulation
concerns the
way
in which
individuals
use
internal
and external cues
to
determine when
to
initiate, when
to
maintain,
and
when
to
terminate their goal-directed
actions.
Researchers
have
suggested that
self-regulation
can
have
powerful
effects
on
academic
outcomes
such
as
persistence,
performance,
learning,
and
affect
(Vallerand
&
Bissonnette,
1992;
Vallerand
et
al.,
1992,
1993).
Senecal
et
al.
(1995)
suggested
that
procras-
tination is
another outcome that
may
be
associated
with
self-regulation
styles
in
the
academic
domain.
Deci
and
Ryan
(1985,
1991)
have offered a
comprehensive
theory
of
self-
regulation.
They distinguished
among different forms
of
motivation
on
the basis
of
the degree
to
which
they can
be
considered self-determined.
Those researchers
posited
four
main types
of
motivation
that exist
along
a
self-determination
con-
tinuum.
The
four forms
of
motivation (from
most self-determined
to
least
self-
determined)
are:
(a)
intrinsic
motivation,
(b)
self-determined
extrinsic motivation,
(c)
non-self-determined
extrinsic motivation,
and
(d)
amotivation.
Intrinsic
mnotivation
refers
to
the
engagement in
an
activity
for
its
own
sake
or
for
the
pleasure
and
satisfaction
derived
from
the experience
(Deci, 1975).
In
contrast, extrinsically motivated behaviors
are
instrumental
in
nature
and are
per-
formed
as
a
means
to
an
end
(Deci
&
Ryan,
1985).
Deci
and Ryan
further
clas-
sified
extrinsic
motivation
into
two
types:
self-determined
extrinsic motivation
and
non-self-determined
extrinsic motivation.
Self-determined
extrinsic
motiva-
tion
is
exhibited when
individuals willingly
participate
in an
activity
because
it
is
valued and perceived
to
be
of
importance.
Non-self-determined extrinsic
moti-
vation
is exhibited when
individuals
place
pressure
on
themselves
to
perform
an
activity or when
their behaviors
are
perceived
to
be
controlled
by
external
fac-
tors.
Finally,
antotivation
is
characterized
by
the
absence
of
intrinsic
and extrin-
sic motivation.
Individuals
who feel
that
they have
no sense
of
control
over
their
actions exemplify this condition.
In
short,
Deci
and
Ryan
(1985,
1991)
posited
two forms
of
self-determined
motivation
(i.e.,
intrinsic
motivation,
self-determined
extrinsic
motivation)
and

Lee
7
two
forns
of
non-self-determined
motivation
(i.e.,
non-self-determined
extrinsic
motivation,
amotivation).
Extrinsic
motivation
is
classified
into
self-determined
and
non-self-determined
extrinsic
motivation,
whereas
intrinsic
motivation
is self-
determined.
Senecal et
al.
(1995)
suggested that
students who
had
intrinsic rea-
sons
for
pursuing
their studies
were
less
likely to
procrastinate,
whereas
those
who
had
extrinsic
reasons
were
more
likely
to
procrastinate.
These
previous
findings
lead
one
to
question
if
the relationship
of
procrastination
to
motivation
is
differ-
ent
depending
on
whether
motivation
is
self-determined
or
non-self-determined.
However,
few
researchers have examined this proposition.
On
the
basis
of
previous research
results,
I
expected
that procrastination
would
negatively
correlate
with self-determined
motivation
and
positively
correlate
with
non-self-determined
motivation.
That
is,
students
with high self-determined
extrin-
sic
motivation, -although
they
are
extrinsically
motivated,
would be
less
likely to
procrastinate.
I
also
examined
the
flow
experience
of
academic
procrastinators.
When
doing
an
activity,
students
sometimes
become totally
immersed
in
the
activity
to
the
point
of
losing
awareness
of
time,
surroundings,
and
all
other
things
except
the
activity
itself. Csikszentmihalyi
(1975, 1990)
used the
termflow
to
describe
this
optimal
psychological
state.
The
flow
state
includes
many,
if
not
all,
of
the
following
characteristics:
(a)
the
existence
of
a
balance
between
the
perceived
skills
of
an
individual and
the perceived
challenges
of
a
situation,
(b)
the pres-
ence
of
clear
goals,
(c)
the
presence
of
unambiguous
feedback,
(d)
concentration
on
the task
at
hand,
(e)
a
loss
of
self-consciousness,
and
(f)
a
transformation
of
time
(Csikszentmihalyi,
1990;
Jackson
&
Marsh,
1996).
Many
researchers
have
suggested that
individuals who
are
highly
motivated
would
experience
high
instances
of
the
flow
state
(Csikszentmihalyi
&
LeFevre,
1989;
Graef,
Csikszentmihalyi,
&
McManama-Gianinno,
1983;
Haworth
&
Hill,
1992).
Specifically,
Csikszentmihalyi
and
LeFevre
demonstrated
a
positive
link
between
intrinsic
motivation
and
the experience
of
this
psychological
state.
When
people
are
freely
doing what interests them
(intrinsically motivated behaviors),
their
behaviors
are
characterized
by
concentration
and
engagement that
occurs
spontaneously
and
they
become
wholly
absorbed
in
the
activity
(Csikszentmi-
halyi
&
Nakamura,
1989).
More
recently,
Kowal
and
Fortier
(1999)
demonstrated that
individuals
who
were motivated
in a
self-determined
manner reported
high
instances
of
flow.
They
suggested
that self-determined
forms
of
motivation
might
facilitate
flow,
whereas
non-self-determined
forms
of
motivation
might
have detrimental influences
on
flow
states.
Somuncuoglu
and
Yildirim
(1999)
also
suggested
that
students
who
were motivated
in
a
self-determined
manner
were
likely
to
be
deeply
engaged
in
their
learning process
and to
consequently
experience the flow
state.
Flow
is
an
intrinsically
enjoyable
state
and
is
accompanied
by
a
number
of
positive
experiential characteristics,
including
feelings
of
control
and
enjoyment
of
the
process (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990).
Therefore, one
can
assume
that
students

8
Thie
Jouirnal
of
Genetic
PsyclholoRy
who
experience flow state
are
not
likely
to
put
off
their
learning
tasks
until
later.
Messmer
(2001)
suggested
that one
of
the keys to
perform
an
activity
in
flow
state
is to
avoid
procrastination.
The
author
assumed
that
flow experience would
be
associated
not
only
with
high
self-determined
motivation, but
also
with low pro-
crastination.
However,
these assumptions
were speculative
and
no
researchers
have examined
the relationship
between
the extent
of
procrastination
and flow
experience.
On
the basis
of
previous
research
findings, I
sought
to
clarify
the
motiva-
tional
pattems
and
flow
experiences
of
academic
procrastinators.
Specifically,
I
examined
the
relationships between students'
academic
procrastination
and their
motivation and
flow experience.
I
also was
interested
in
exploring
whether
the
presumed relationships
between
procrastination
and flow
experiences
were
caused
by the covariance between flow and motivation
or
whether
they
were
inde-
pendent
of
motivational
effects.
Therefore,
I
examined
whether
flow
experiences
continued
to
be significantly
related
to
procrastination
even
when
the
effects
of
motivation measures were considered.
Method
Participants
The
original
participants
for
this study
were
277
college
students enrolled
at
two
relatively small universities
in South
Korea.
I
found
invalid
response
profiles
(i.e.,
lack
of
variability,
incomplete
data)
for
15
students, so
I
dropped
their
data
from
the
sample
analyses.
Analyses were
based
on
262 college students
(138
men,
124
women).
Students
represented
a
variety
of
academic majors,
and they were
enrolled in
an
educational
psychology
course.
They ranged
in
age
from
18
to
24
years
(M
age
=
20.02,
SD
=
1.20).
The
majority
of
the
students
(84%)
were
sopho-
mores;
12%
were freshmen, and
4%
were seniors.
Proceduires
In
the
second
month
of
the first
semester,
I
asked students
to
complete the
writ-
ten questionnaire
packets
in
their
regular
classrooms.
I
explained
to
the
students
that
the
purpose
of
the
questionnaire
was
to gain
a
better
understanding
of
college
students'
feelings
and
behaviors related
to
learning
activities.
The
questionnaire
took
20 min
to complete.
All responses
were anonymous
and
confidential.
Measures
First,
I
translated the Procrastination
Scale
developed
by
Tuckman
(1991)
into
Korean and
administered
the
instrument
to
assess
students'
procrastination
ten-
dencies.
The
scale
contains
16
items using
4-point
Likert-type
response format

Lee
9
from
very
tnre
(4)
to
not
at
all
true
(1).
Items
on
the
scale
include:
"I
needlessly
delay
finishing
jobs,
even
when
they're
important:'
"I
postpone
starting
in
on
things
I
don't
like
to
do:'
and
"When
I
have a
deadline,
I
wait
till
the
last
minute."
The
reliability
of
the
scale
(Cronbach's
a)
was
.83
in
this sample.
I
administered
the
Korean
version
of
the
Flow
State Scale
(Jackson
&
Marsh,
1996)
to
assess
flow.
Because
this
scale
was
developed
from athletes'
descrip-
tions
of
being
in
flow,
I
asked
students
to
relate
questions
to
the
thoughts
and
feel-
ings
they
might
have
experienced
during
the
learning
process.
The
original
ver-
sion consisted
of
nine
subscales,
but
I
included
only
the
five
subscales that
attained
an
acceptable
level
of
reliability.
Thefive
subscales
were:
challenge-skill
balance
("I
felt
I
was
competent
enough
to
meet
the
high
demands
of
the
situa-
tion"); clear
goals ("I
knew
clearly
what
I
wanted
to
do");
unambiguous
feedback
("I had
a
good
idea
while
I
was
performing
about
how
well
I
was
doing");
con-
centration
on
task
at
hand ("My
attention
was
focused
entirely
on
what
I
was
doing");
and
loss
of
self-consciousness
("I
was
not
concerned
with
what
others
may have been
thinking
of
me").
Each
subscale
assessed
four
items. Students
rated
each
item
on
a
5-point
Likert-type
scale in
terms
of
their
level
of
agreement,
high
agreement
(5)
or
disagreement
(1).
Cronbach's
alpha
coefficients
for
five
subscales
ranged
from
.77
to
.84
(M
=
.80).
Finally,
I
translated
the
Academic
Motivation
Scale
(Vallerand
et
al.,
1993)
into
Korean
and
used
the
instrument
to
assess
students' learning
motivation. Each
item
of
this
scale
represents
a
possible
reason
for
why
students
go to
school.
In
the
present
study,
I
adopted
intrinsic
motivation,
self-determined
extrinsic moti-
vation,
non-self-determined
extrinsic motivation,
and
amotivation.
Examples
from
each
construct
include:
"because
I
experience
pleasure
and
satisfaction
while learning
new
things"
(intrinsic
motivation);
"because
I
think that
education
will
help
me
better
prepare
for
the
career
I
have
chosen" (self-determined
extrin-
sic motivation);
"to
get
a
more
prestigious
job
later
on"
(non-self-determined
extrinsic
motivation);
and
"I
really
feel
that
I
am wasting my time
at
school"
(amotivation).
I
gave
four
possible
responses
for
each
of
the
four
subscales,
that
yielded
a
16-item scale.
Students rated
the
items
on a
7-point
Likert-type
scale
from
very
true
(7)
to
not
at
all
tr(e
(1).
Cronbach's
alpha
coefficients
for
each
construct
ranged
from
.83
to
.93
(M
=
.86)
in
this
sample.
Results
The
first
research
question
of
this
study
concerned
the
relationships
of
stu-
dents'
academic procrastination
with
their
motivation
and
flow experience.
Results
are
presented in
Table
1.
As
expected,
procrastination
was
significantly
and
positively
related
to
amotivation.
I
obtained
a
significant,
negative
correla-
tion between
procrastination
and
self-determined
extrinsic
motivation
and
intrin-
sic
motivation.
Contrary
to my
prediction,
non-self-determined
extrinsic
motiva-
tion
was
not significantly
associated
with
procrastination.
The
results
also
showed

10
Thle
Jouirnal
of
Genetic
PsycholoRy
Co
tr3oq~~~~0
0
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .±.
o
'o
n
o
C-t
a
0~~~~~~~~~~~*
*~~~~c*
0
-~~~~~~~~~~~N
~
S~~~~~~~~C
00
m
t cs
00s
o
c
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t
n ~
~
~
~~~~~
ZIo
41
'X-
_0
In
oo
c
.-
*
*
0
0
**
xu
S I
vo
co
'
OcO
O
Cf)
en
Coo
04~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
C >
...
V
=~~~~~C
C_
C)...
00\
0t
n
Cf
0
0
I:
A0fiD8.O.D-m
O
-
..
o
-
'-
a0
o
E
r
P
O
*
~*
**
-x-il
-
*
* *
*00ao
-
0
110C°
1:C uXC
0
*
°
(/20>
,z
!,1

Lee
11
that procrastination
was
significantly
and
negatively
correlated
with
all
five
of
the
flow
subscales.
I
conducted
a
hierarchical
multiple
regression
analysis
to
investigate-the
independent
and
joint
contribution
of
motivation
and
flow
measures
to
predict
the
students'
academic
procrastination.
There
were
two
purposes
in
performing
this
multiple
regression
analysis.
First,
I
was
interested
in
determining
whether
flow
measures
continued
to
be
significantly
related
to
procrastination
even
when
the
effects
of
motivation
variables
were
taken
into
account.
Second,
I
wanted
to
iden-
tify
motivation
and
flow
variables,
which
were
the
strongest
predictors
of
pro-
crastination.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are shown
in Table
2.
In
the
first
step
of
the
hierarchical
multiple
regression
analysis,
I
entered
four
motivation
measures
that
accounted
for
9%
of
the
variance
in
students'
procras-
tination,
F(4,
257)
=
6.38,
p
<
.001.
Amotivation
and
intrinsic
motivation
were
significant
predictors,
and
non-self-determined
extrinsic
motivation
and
self-
determined
extrinsic
motivation
were
not significant.
In the
second
step
of
the
analysis,
I
entered
the
five
flow
measures.
When
I
added
this
set
to
the
prediction
equation,
it
accounted
for
an
additional
32%
of
the
variance
in
procrastination,
which
constituted
a
significant
increase
in
the
explained
variance,
F(7,
250)
=
19.28,
p
<
.001.
I
found
significant
negative
effects
for
loss
of
self-consciousness,
clear
goal,
and concentration
on
the
task-
TABLE
2.
Results
of
the
Hierarchical
Regression
Analysis
Predicting
Pro-
crastination
Variable
Step
I
Step
2
Motivation
amotivation
.19*
.11
non-self-determined
extrinsic
niotivation
.03
-.
04
self-determined
extrinsic
motivation
-.
01
.03
intrinsic
motivation
-.
14*
-.
07
Flow
challenge-skill
balance
.08
clear
goal
-.
28
unambiguous
feedback
-.
06
concentration
on
the
task
-.
14
loss
of
self-consciousness
-.
44
F
value
6.38***
19.28***
K2
.09***
.41**
R
2
.3209*
*p
<.05.
**p
<
.01.
***p
<.00.1.

12
The
Jouirnal
of
Genetic
Psycholoav
at-hand
items.
Furthermore,
after
I
entered
these
flow
measures
into the
analysis,
motivation measures no
longer
had
a
significant
unique
effect.
These
results
indi-
cated
that procrastination
was
best predicted
by
students'
flow
experiences
rather
than by motivation.
That
is,
the students who
concentrated
on
the task at hand
and
had
clear goals
with
little
self-consciousness
tended
not
to
procrastinate
in
their
academic
work.
Discussion
In
this
study,
I
demonstrated that
students
who
were motivated
in
a
self-
determined
manner
(i.e.,
who
engaged
in
practice
for the
pleasure
and
satisfac-
tion
associated
with
the activity
or
who
chose
to
participate
for
their
own
bene-
fit)
reported
low
procrastination
tendencies.
Conversely,
students
with
high
amotivation who
had no sense
of
control over
their
learning
processes reported
high
procrastination
tendencies.
These
results
are
consistent with
Sen6cal
et
al.
(1995),
in
which less
autonomous forms
of
motivation
were
associated
with
higher
levels
of
procrastination.
Furthermore,
the
relationship
of
extrinsic motivation
to procrastination
var-
ied
depending
on
whether
the task
was
self-determined
or
non-self-determined.
That
is,
high
extrinsic motivation did
not
elicit
procrastinating behaviors
if
it
was
self-determined.
These
results indicated that procrastination
was
an
individual
behavioral
tendency
associated with
the
lack
of self-deternination.
Few researchers
have
examined
the relationship
between
procrastination
and
flow experiences.
In
the
present
study,
I
showed
that
students'
procrastina-
tion
tendencies
were negatively
related
with
their
flow
experiences.
The more
students
procrastinate
in
doing their academic
work,
the
less
likely
they
are to
experience
flow
state in
learning
processes.
Specifically,
students
who were
out
of
balance
between
the
perceived
skills
of
themselves
and
the perceived chal-
lenges of
a
task
were
likely
to
procrastinate
in
their
studies.
In
addition, students
who did
not
have
clear
goals,
did
not
concentrate
on
the
task
at
hand
and
had
high
self-consciousness showed high procrastination
tendencies.
These
results
provide useful
strategies
for
teachers
to
reduce
students'
pro-
crastination tendencies.
That
is,
teachers
should be sensitive
to
the
balance
between
students'
skills
and the
challenges
of
the task.
In
addition, teachers
need
to
help
students
to
have
clear goals
in
their
work, to
concentrate
on
the
task
at
hand,
and
to
not
be
excessively
self-conscious
in learning.
Furthermore,
in
the
present
study,
I
found
that
procrastination
was
predicted
mainly
by
students'
flow
experiences
rather
than by
motivation.
Although
amotiva-
tion and
intrinsic
motivation showed significant
unique
effects on
procrastination,
motivation did
not
contribute
significantly
to
the
variance
in
procrastination when
the
effects
caused by flow experience were
considered.
The
results
imply
that
the
relationship
between procrastination
and
motivation
was
caused
mainly
by
the
covariance
between flow
and
motivation.
At
the
same
time,
the results
shed
light
on

Lee
13
the
flow,
which
rarely
has been examined
by
researchers
studying
procrastination.
Therefore,
this study contributes
to
the
understanding
of
procrastination by
explor-
ing
significant correlations
of
students'
procrastinating
behaviors.
I
found
that
self-consciousness
was
the strongest
and
most
significant
predic-
tor
among the
five
flow
subscales.
That
is,
high
procrastinators
were
more
likely to
be concemed
with
what
others
may
have been
thinking
of
them, how
they
were pre-
senting
themselves,
and
about their
performance
during the learning
process.
These
results are consistent
with
Covington
(1992)
and
Ferrari,
Johnson,
and
McCown
(1995),
who
found
that
some
people
procrastinated
as
an
avoidance
technique
to
protect
their
self-esteem.
If
they
did
poorly,
then
they
could say
that
it
was because
they
put
off
studying until the
last
momenL
If
they
did
well
despite
procrastinating,
then
others
would
perceive
them
as
particularly
able.
By
procrastinating,
students
cloud the
causal factors involved
in performance, such
that
in the
event
of
poor
per-
formnance,
one may attribute
the
low
grade
to
lack
of
effort
rather
than
to
low
abil-
ity.
In line
with
previous findings,
on
the
basis
of
this
study,
I
suggest
that
students
who
are
concerned
with
others'
evaluation
may
try
to
avoid
the situation
in
which
they are
to
be
evaluated
by procrastinating their academic
tasks.
Teachers
and
edu-
cators
should provide students
with
the
leaming
environment
in
which comparison
and
competition
among
students
are
not
prominent.
The
results
of
the present
study
contribute to
theory
and practice
by
high-
lighting the
association
of
procra'stination
with
motivation and flow
experience.
If
the
conditions that increase
the
use
of
procrastination
can
be
identified, then
perhaps
these conditions
can
be
changed.
Therefore,
this study
should
be
of
inter-
est
to
educators
and
counseling
psychologists
who,
in
their
work with
students,
seek
to
develop effective
interventions
that
reduce
task
delays
and increase
per-
sonal
responsibility
for
academic performance.
However,
several
limits
of
this
study
suggest that
researchers
should be
cau-
tious
in
drawing
definitive
conclusions
from
the
results.
First,
although the pre-
sent
results indicated that
motivation
and
flow
are
significant predictors
of
pro-
crastination, the
amount
of
variance
accounted for
is
modest.
Another
limitation
of
the
present study
is
that
I
selected
the
sample
in
a
nonrandom
way,
and
all
of
the
participants were
Koreans.
Thus, participants
may
not
be representative
of
university
students
in
general.
In
future
studies, researchers
should
consider
diverse
populations
to
determine
the robustness
of
the
findings.
REFERENCES
Covington,
M.
(1992).
Making
the
grade:
A
self-worth perspective
on
motivation
and
school
reform.
NewYork-
Cambridge
University Press.
'
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(1975).
Play
and
intrinsic
rewards.
Journal
of
Humanistic
Psychol-
ogy,
15,
41-63.
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(1990). Flow:
The
psychology
of
optimal
experience.
New
York:
Harper
Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi,M.,
&
LeFevre,
J.
(1989).
Optimal
experience
in
work
and
leisure.
Jour-
nal
of
Personality
&
Social
Psychology,
56,
815-822.

14
The
Journal
of
Genetic
Psychology
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.,
&
Nakamura,
J.
(1989).
The
dynamics
of
intrinsic
motivation:
A
study
of
adolescents.
In
C.
Ames
&
R.
Ames
(Eds.),
Research
on
motivation
in
educa-
tion
(pp.
45-71)
Vol.
3.
San
Diego,
CA.
Academic
Press.
Deci,
E.
(1975).
Intrinsic
motivation.
New
York:
Plenum.
Deci,
E.,
&
Ryan,
R.
(1985).
Intrinsic
motivation
and
self-determination
in
human
behav-
ior.
New
York:
Plenum.
Deci,
E.,
&
Ryan,
R.
(1991).
A
motivational
approach
to
self:
Integration
in
personality.
In
R.
Dienstbier
(Ed.),
Nebraska
symposium
on
motivation:
Perspectives
on
motivation
(pp.
237-288)
Vol.
38.
Lincoln:
University
of
Nebraska
Press.
Ferrari,
J.,
Johnson,
J.,
&
McCown,
W.
(1995).
Procrastination
and
task
avoidance:
The-
ory,
research,
and
treatment.
New
York:
Plenum.
Graef,
R.,
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.,
&
McManama-Gianinno,
S.
(1983).
Measuring
intrinsic
motivation
in everyday
life.
Leisure
Studies,
2,
155-168.
Haworth,
J.,
&
Hill,
S.
(1992).
Work,
leisure,
and
psychological
well-being
in
a
sample
of
young
adults.
Journal
of
Community
&
Applied
Psychology
2,
147-160.
Jackson,
S.,
&
Marsh,
H.
(1996).
Development
and
validation
of
a
scale
to
measure
opti-
mal
experience:
The
Flow
State
Scale.
Journal
of
Sport
&
Exercise
Psychtology,
18,
17-35.
Kowal,
J.,
&
Fortier,
M.
(1999).
Motivational
determinants
of
flow:
Contributions
from
self-determination
theory.
The
Journal
of
Social
Psychiology,
139,
355-368.
Messmer,
M.
(2001).
Becoming
a
peak
performer.
Strategic
Finance,
82(8),
8-10.
Rothblum,
E.,
Solomon,
L.,
&
Murakami,
J.
(1986).
Affective,
cognitive,
and
behavioral
differences
between
high
and
low
procrastinators.
Journal
of
Colnseling
Psyclhology,
33,
387-394.
Sendcal,
C.,
Koestner,
R.,
&
Vallerand,
R.
(1995).
Self-regulation
and
academic
procras-
tination.
The
Journal
of
Social
Psychology,
135,
607-619.
Solomon,
L.,
&
Rothblum,
E.
(1984).
Academic
procrastination:
Frequency
and
cognitive-
behavioral
correlates.
Journal
of
Counseling
Psyclology,
31,
503-509.
Somuncuoglu,
Y.,
&'Yildirim,
A.
(1999).
Relationship
between
achievement
goal
orienta-
tions
and
use
of
learning
strategies.
Journal
of
Educational
Research,
92(5),
267-277.
Tuckman,
B.
(1991).
The
development
and
concurrent
validity
of
the
Procrastination
Scale.
Educational
&
Psychlological
Measurement,
51,
473-480.
Tuckman,
B.
(1998).
Using
tests
as an
incentive
to
motivate
procrastinators
to
study.
Jour-
nal
of
Experimental
Education,
66,
141-147.
Tuckman,
B.,
&
Sexton,
T.
(1989,
April).
Effects
of
relative
feedback
in
overcoming
pro-
crastination
on
academic
tasks.
Paper
given
at
the
meeting
of
the
American
Psycholog-
ical
Association,
New
Orleans,
LA.
Vallemnd,
R.,
&
Bissonnette,
R.
(1992).
On
the
predictive
effects
of
intrinsic,
extrinsic,
and
amotivational
styles
on
behavior:
A
prospective
study.
Journal
of
Personality,
60,599-620.
Vallerand,
R.,
Pelletier,
L.,
Blais,
M.,
Briere,
N.,
Sendcal,
C.,
&
Vallieres,
E.
(1992).
The
Academic
Motivation
Scale:
A
measure
of
intrinsic,
extrinsic,
and
amotivation
in
edu-
cation.
Education
and
Psychological
Measurement,
52,
1003-1017.
Vallerand,
R.,
Pelletier,
L.,
Blais,
M.,
Briere,
N.,
Senecal,
C.,
&
Vallieres,
E.
(1993).
On
the
assessment
of
intrinsic,
extrinsic,
and
amotivation
in
education:
Evidence
on
the
concurrent
and
construct
validity
of
the
Academic
Motivation
Scale.
Education
&
Psy-
clhological
Measurement,
53,
159-172.
Wesley,
J. C.
(1994).
Effects
of
ability,
high
school
achievement,
and
procrastination
behav-
ior
on
college
performance.
Educational
&
Psychological
Measurement,
54,
404-408.
Received
December
8,
2004

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: The Relationship of Motivation and Flow Experience to
Academic Procrastination in University Students
SOURCE: J Genet Psychol 166 no1 Mr 2005
WN: 0506002348001
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.heldref.org/
Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.