Running head: ASSOCIATIONS OF FLOW, TASKS, AND PROCRASTINATION

PAGE 1Flow, Tasks, and Procrastination

Running head: ASSOCIATIONS OF FLOW, TASKS, AND PROCRASTINATIONThe Associations of Flow, Task Perception, and ProcrastinationBrigham Young University - Hawaii

Abstract

Many factors have been found to influence procrastination (Steel, 2007). This study examines the performance construct of optimal flow and task perception in the context of procrastination on a single task. It was hypothesized that all three constructs would be significantly different between an interesting task group and a non-interesting task group. It was also hypothesized that flow and positive task perception would be significantly and positively related and that their interaction would significantly predict less procrastination. Subjects thought of a task that was either interesting or not interesting that they had completed recently and referenced it while they filled out all scales. Significant differences were found for flow, task perception, and procrastination between each group. Also, positive task perception was found to be highly related to flow. Task commitment interacting with flow predicted all three measures of procrastination.

The Associations of Flow, Task Perception, and ProcrastinationProcrastination has been defined as a delay of a task that doesnt have to be postponed and it is known or even desired, that the task be accomplished (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Many people procrastinate. In a recent study, Kachgal, Hansen, and Nutter (2001) found that 59.19% of students admit they always, or nearly always, procrastinate when writing a term paper, 55.11% when studying for exams, and 56.46% in reading weekly assignments. Rothblum, Solomon and Murakami (1986) discovered that 40% of the students reported high levels of procrastination.

Procrastination is a problem. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) discovered that students feel procrastination affects their academic performance, ability to accomplish work, and the quality of their lives. Solomon and Murakami (1986) found that procrastination was negatively correlated with GPA and that procrastinators reported more anxiety. They concluded that procrastination could be disadvantageous to grade performance and contribute to class withdrawal (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986). Academic procrastination is a worthy study if there are so many people indulging in it and if the effects on performance are so dramatic. Many different theories with varying results have been developed regarding possible causes and effects of procrastination; it has many dynamics (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Steel (2007) performed an extensive meta-analytic review of 691 works on procrastination and its many facets. Steel (2007) found weak average correlations for many different theories including neuroticism, rebelliousness, and sensation seeking. Strong correlations with procrastination were found with task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy, impulsiveness, and conscientiousness and its constructs of self-control, distractibility, organization, and achievement motivation (Steel, 2007). Steel (2007) also found that different demographics, such as age and gender, had a very weak correlation with procrastination. Diaz-Morales, Ferrari and Diaz (2006) confirmed the lack of association between age and procrastination; consequently, demographics were not looked at in this study.One theory that was excluded from the meta-analytic review (Steel, 2007) is the principles of flow experience. Flow has been studied only once in the context of procrastination (Lee, 2005). Lee (2005) looked at motivation and flow experience in relation to procrastination. He used only five of the nine facets of flow from the Flow State Scale and found them all to be significantly and negatively associated with procrastination. It was concluded that flow explained procrastination better than motivation (Lee, 2005). So what is flow? Jackson and Marsh (1996) performed a validity and reliability test on 9 factors of flow they defined in the study. The scale was validated and found reliable. The 9 factors are challenge-skill balance, action-awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, concentration on the task at hand, sense of control, loss of self-consciousness, transformation of time, and autotelic experience. They defined challenge-skill balance as when a balance is perceived between ones own skills and the difficulty of the task at hand; it is feeling equal to the task. Action-awareness merging is when ones involvement in the flow activity is so deep that it becomes spontaneous or automatic (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). In this factor, concentration is so intense that one is not self-aware but rather mentally immersed in the activity. Clear goals mean an individual is aware of what he/she is going to be doing; the path to accomplishment is clear. Unambiguous feedback refers to the knowledge one has that he/she is on the right path to succeed. Concentration on the task at hand is simply when one is completely focused on a task. Sense of control is when one has confidence that everything will go as planned. A loss of self-consciousness occurs when concern for the self disappears during flow as the person becomes one with the activity (Jackson & Marsh, 1996); it includes not worrying about what others are thinking of you. A transformation of time is when one becomes unaware of time because of deep concentration. The last factor, autotelic experience, is an intrinsically rewarding experiencean activity is autotelic if it is done for its own sake, with no expectation of some future reward or benefit (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). Flow may be associated with task perception. Ghani & Deshpande (1994) suggested the general constructs of flow and task perception (the way an activity/task is perceived) are linked. They said the theory of optimal flow explains behavior in terms of situational variables and in particular the meaning of the situation to the individual (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994). This means that flow could explain how one perceives a situation, or in other words, flow could explain task perception; therefore, the association of flow and perceived task characteristics was looked at in this study.Task characteristics have also been found to be related to procrastination. Froese, Nisly, and May (1984) looked at how procrastination was related to the nature of a task. It was hypothesized that difficult and boring tasks would result in more task delay than easy and interesting tasks. Tasks that had previously been placed in 4 categories (easy-interesting, easy-boring, difficult-boring, difficult-interesting) by students, were given to the subjects and procrastination was measured. They found subjects with easy-interesting tasks performed significantly less procrastination; all other tasks had varying results. It was concluded that task characteristics may influence procrastination but they suggested that people perceive tasks differently, even among the prearranged four categories in this experiment (Froese, Nisly, & May, 1984). Because people perceive tasks differently, procrastination may be better associated with how individuals perceive a task; or more specifically, personal interest in the activity may be associated with the amount of task delay. This was found to be accurate by Ackerman and Gross (2005); their results showed that those who were interested in assignments procrastinated significantly less. They concluded that teachers can make assignments interesting, clear, and requiring a variety of skill to reduce procrastination in the classroom. They also concluded that high levels of interest resulted in positive emotions (Ackerman and Gross, 2005). Their conclusions and suggestions coincide with Lees (2005) study of flow and procrastination. One is in flow when the assignment or task is clear and also when it is just demanding enough; also, when in flow, one has an autotelic experience where positive emotions are felt (Lee, 2005). Flow and task perception also seem to correspond on many different facets.

Little research has been done on the relationship of flow and procrastination. Lee (2005) found that lack of flow was significantly and strongly correlated with procrastination (Lee, 2005); however, he used only Koreans for subjects and suggested a more representative sample to increase the robustness of his findings. Consequently, a more representative sample was included in this study. Also, Lee (2005) only used five of the nine constructs of flow; all nine were measured in relationship to procrastination for this study. These modifications were made to see if flow still explains procrastination.Task perception has been discovered as being associated with procrastination (Ackerman & Gross, 2005; Steel, 2007). It was suggested that individuals perceive tasks differently (Froese, Nisly, & May, 1984); therefore, self-reports of task perception were used in this study. Ackerman and Gross (2005) concluded that the measurements of task interest explained the variance in procrastination the most; because of this, a closer look was given to task interest and its association with procrastination.

Resultant of previous research, the objective was to find the relationship of flow, task perception, and procrastination; this combination has not been looked at before. Procrastination, task perception, and flow (dependent variables) were measured for both a perceived interesting task and a perceived non-interesting task (independent variables). The independent variables were chosen for the purpose mentioned above: to give a closer look at task interest in relation to flow and procrastination. The dependent variables task perception, flow, and procrastination were chosen because the two prior have been found separately to be associated with the latter (Lee, 2005; Ackerman & Gross, 2005); and in spite of improvements made on this study (a focus on task interest, a more representative sample, and all nine facets of flow used), it was expected that task perception, flow, and procrastination would each be different per group. Specifically, it was hypothesized that positive task perception and flow would be significantly higher in the interesting task group than in the non-interesting task group; also, procrastination would be significantly higher in the non-interesting task group than in the interesting task group.

Furthermore, flow and perceived task characteristics have been suggested to be generally related and have overlapping constructs (Ackerman & Gross, 2005; Lee, 2005; Ghani & Deshpande, 1994). In consequence of these suggestions, the association of flow and task perception was measured and it was hypothesized that they would be significantly related.

Finally it was hypothesized that positive task perception and flow would significantly predict less procrastination; furthermore, the interaction between task perception and flow would be highly significant in its prediction of procrastination.MethodParticipants

There were 90 subjects obtained from both introductory psychology and social statistics classes at Brigham Young University Hawaii. The 90 subjects were split into two groups of 45 each; this number was chosen because the central limit theorem requires at least 32 subjects per group (Annis, 2006). The participants ages ranged from 18-24 years old. They consisted of 45 males and 45 females with many different ethnic backgrounds. Ethnicities included were Caucasian, Polynesian/Pacific Islanders, and Asian. Apparatus

The Flow State Scale was used to assess the flow experience of participants (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). This scale was found to be both valid and reliable. Jackson and Marsh (1996) performed a factor analysis on this scale and found nine factors within the 36 items; the nine factors were defined above. The Eigenvalues for all questions were found to be above .6 except for question 16 which was found to be .56. (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). They also found all questions to have an average cronbachs alpha of .83 with the lowest of .8.

11 items from an 18 item questionnaire called Questions Related to Participants Task Perceptions (Ferrari, Mason, & Hammer, 2006) were used to assess participants perceptions, and particularly interests, of a task. Ferrari, Mason, and Hammer (2006) used this scale to measure task perceptions in relation to procrastination and found a significant relationship.

To measure procrastination, the same method used by Ackerman and Gross (2005) and also by Janssen and Carton (1999) was used in this study. While a task was recalled by the participants, they answered two questions; the first question asked them to recall and write down the number of days or weeks they had to complete their task. The next question asked them to recall and write down the number of days or weeks before the tasks deadline when they began working on it. From these numbers, a procrastination ratio was found by dividing the second response by the first. These ratios were then classified into four procrastination levels according to quartile measurements. Participants were also asked two questions taken from the Procrastination Assessment ScaleStudents (Solomon & Rothblum, 1988); the questions referred to a task in general and were altered to refer to one specific task.Procedure

Toward the end of their class, students in both introductory psychology and social statistics classes were asked if they could participate in filling out some questionnaires. All subjects were then given a packet with the instructions needed to participate. The first page guaranteed anonymity and asked for the subjects agreement to participate by signing his/her name. At the top of the next page were demographic questions asking for their sex, age, and race. At the bottom of the page there were instructions to begin the experiment. This is the only place where the instructions differ for two groups. Participants in Group One were instructed to think of a recent task they had been required to do that was really interesting to them; participants in Group Two were instructed to think of a recent task they had been required to do that they were not interested in. Both groups were instructed to think of the task they had been required to do in the context of either academic, work, or church responsibilities; they were then directed to write down the task they thought of. This was done in order to set the stage for them to recall their behavior in response to the task.

On the next page, subjects were instructed to think of the task from the previous page as they filled out the questionnaire regarding task perception. After the task perception scale was completed, subjects were asked again to think of the original task, and were specifically asked to think of their experience while working on it as they filled out another questionnaire; this happened to be the Flow State Scale used to assess psychological flow experience. After this scale was completed, subjects were again reminded to keep the original task in their minds as they answered questions regarding their procrastination; the method explained in the apparatus was followed to assess procrastination. The last page, which was after all of the scales, gave a complete debriefing of the experiment, explained the purpose of the study, and thanked them for their participation. The last statement told the participants to turn in their packets on the instructors desk. Subjects took about 10-15 minutes to complete the entire packet and left the classroom close to the regular class dismissal time. Results

A Hotellings T test for independent samples was used to assess the difference of all three dependent variables (the nine factors of flow and the overall flow score, the 10 questions on task perception, and the three measures of procrastination) between Group One (in which participants thought of an interesting task) and Group Two (in which participants thought of a task that was not interesting). This was the most practical statistical analysis to use for measuring differences of multiple dependent variables across two independent groups.

The Hotellings T test performed to see difference of the procrastination measurements between the interesting task group and the non-interesting task group, revealed an overall significant main effect with F(3,69)=3.25, p=0.027. The first measurement of procrastination, which was the self-response reply of how much one procrastinated, was found to be significantly greater in the non-interesting task group than in the interesting task group with p=0.041. The second measurement of procrastination, which was the self-response of how much procrastination was a problem, was not found to be significantly different. The third measurement of procrastination, the procrastination ratio, was nearly found to be significant with p=0.12; the higher procrastination ratio was in the interesting task group.

The Hotellings T test performed to see the difference in the task perception questions between the task groups, revealed an overall significant main effect with F(10,65)=9.22, p=0.00001. Four of the ten questions had extremely significant results with p values