The Associations of Flow, Task Perception, and Procrastination Brigham Young University Hawaii 55-220 Kulanui Street Laie, HI 96762 Introduction Hypotheses Results Results continued Procrastination has been defined as a delay of a task that doesn’t have to be postponed and it is known, or even desired, that the task be accomplished (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Procrastination happens and it’s a problem; Rothblum, Solomon, and Murakami (1986) found that 40% of subjects reported high levels of procrastination. It was also found that procrastination is negatively correlated with GPA (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986). Solomon & Rothblum (1984) discovered that students feel procrastination affects their academic performance, ability to accomplish work, and the quality of their lives. Procrastination has many dynamics (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Steel (2007) performed an extensive meta-analytic review of 691 works on procrastination and its many facets. He found procrastination to be strongly correlated with task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy, impulsiveness, and conscientiousness and its constructs of self-control, distractibility, organization, and achievement motivation. What is flow? “A positive experiential state that occurs when the performer is totally connected to the performance” (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). There are 9 facets of Flow; they are: Challenge-Skill Balance, Action-Awareness Merging, Clear Goals, Unambiguous Feedback, Complete concentration, A sense of control, A loss of self-consciousness, Transformation of Time, and Autotelic experience. The construct of flow was not included in the thorough meta-analysis. Lee (2005) was the first to look at flow and procrastination; she only used 5 of the 9 factors of flow and found that all 5 were significantly related to procrastination. She suggested that a more representative sample would increase the robustness of the results (Lee, 2005). Flow may be associated with task perception. It was suggested that optimal flow “explains behavior in terms of situational variables and in particular the meaning of the situation to the individual” (Ghani & Deshpande, 1994). The association is logically coherent. Task Perception is associated with procrastination. Steel (2007), and Ackerman and Gross (2005) have both found that the more aversive, and particularly the less interesting, a task is perceived, the more one procrastinates. The purpose of this study is to better understand each construct, particularly procrastination, in order to improve performance. This study is unique because this combination has never been looked at before, the relationship of flow and task perception has never been tested, and the relationship of flow and procrastination has only been studied once (Lee, 2005). Improvements of past experiments have been made. A more representative sample and all 9 constructs of flow were used as suggested by Lee (2005). Task interest was given a closer look because of the findings of Steel (2007) and Ackerman & Gross (2005). DVs: procrastination, flow, and task perception. IVs: perceived interesting task and perceived non-interesting task. Positive task perception and flow would be significantly higher in the interesting task group than in the non-interesting task group Procrastination will be significantly higher in the non interesting task group than in the interesting task group. Task perception and flow will be significantly related. DV: Procrastination IVs: flow and task perception Positive task perception and flow will significantly predict less procrastination A Hotelling’s T² test was utilized to assess the difference of all three dependent variables (task perception, flow, and procrastination) between both groups (perceived interesting task and perceived non-interesting task). A correlation matrix was utilized to measure the associations of flow and task perception. Multiple Regressions were utilized to measure the predictability of flow and task perception on procrastination. Hypothesis 1 Results for Hypothesis 3 Multiple Regression Summary for Procrastination (self-response measure, n=75) F(10,64)=1.9318, p=0.0567 Variable Beta *p<0.05 P value Commitment*Flow -0.72* 0.005 Value*Flow 0.56* 0.042 Difficulty*Flow -0.17 0.45 Effort Required*Flow -0.03 0.869 Confidence*Flow 0.02 0.933 Clarity*Flow -0.05 0.813 Enjoyable*Flow -0.01 0.949 Importance*Flow -0.005 0.976 Stressful*Flow 0.09 0.717 Positive Impact*Flow -0.1 0.585 Hypothesis 2 Results for Hypothesis 1 Hotelling’s T² Summary for Task Perception F(10,65)=9.22, p=0.00001 Task Perception Variable Interesting Task Group Mean (n=42) Non-interesting Task Group Mean (n=35) t value *p<0.00001 Commitment 4.17 2.77 6.08* Value 4.12 2.69 5.48* Difficulty 3.05 2.54 1.61 Effort Required 3.56 3.11 1.57 Confidence 3.8 3.49 1.25 Clarity 3.78 -0.08 Enjoyable 3.68 1.69 7.77* Importance 3.83 1.42 Stressful 3.07 2.86 0.61 Positive Impact 4.07 2.57 5.94* Discussion Hypothesis 3 In regards to hypothesis 1 it is concluded that task interest influences how one perceives a task, how one experiences a task (flow experience), and whether one procrastinates. In regards to hypothesis 2 it is concluded that flow experience and positive task perception are strongly related. In regards to hypothesis 3 it is concluded that the interaction of flow and some task perception items predicted procrastination very strongly (self-response measure only). The number of subjects, although valid, was relatively low. Many of the insignificant items showed strong trends, and with more subjects, could be significant. The measurement of task perception was not validated, therefore each question was treated as a separate variable. With a validated and thorough scale of task perception, more could be gained. Also, an average methodology for calculating procrastination ratios was used and may not represent accurate results for this measure of procrastination only. Interesting findings included the role of task interest in performance (flow and procrastination), and the interaction of task commitment and flow predicting all measures of procrastination. Future research should look at a more in-depth analysis of task interest. What makes a task perceivably interesting? The interaction of task commitment and flow should be given a closer look. What circumstances, internally and externally, generate stronger commitment? If we could better understand how people perceive tasks to be interesting and what influences commitment, then we could begin to improve performance (obtain more flow and procrastinate less). Method Hotelling’s T² Summary for Flow F(36,38)=2.32, p=0.0059 Flow Variable Interesting Task Group Mean (n=41) Non-interesting Task Group Mean (n=35) t value *p<0.05 Challenge-skill balance 3.8 3.13 3.51* Action-awareness merging 3.42 3.19 1.14 Clear goals 4.05 3.66 2.09* Unambiguous feedback 3.73 3.43 1.56 Concentration on task 3.59 2.71 4.08* Paradox of control 3.76 3.56 0.96 Loss of self-consciousness 3.23 3.58 -1.41 Transformation of time 3.03 3.16 -0.57 Autotelic experience 3.74 1.92 8.28* Overall flow score 3.65* Participants 77 subjects from a western U.S. University. 42 subjects in the interesting task group 35 in the non-interesting task group (central limit theorem requires 32 min per group). Ethnicities included were Polynesian/Pacific Islander, Caucasian, and Asian (a representative sample). The Flow State Scale (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). “I felt in total control of what I was doing” “Things just seemed to be happening automatically” Questions Related to Participants’ Task Perceptions (Ferrari, Mason, & Hammer, 2006). “How much did you value this task?” “How difficult was this task for you?” 2 questions from the Procrastination Assessment Scale—Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Procrastination ratios were calculated as described by Ackerman and Gross (2005). Subjects were given a packet with all instructions to participate Packet included all scales mentioned in Apparatus 15 minutes to complete Subjects were then debriefed Apparatus Hotelling’s T² Summary for Procrastination F(3,69)=3.25, p=0.027 Procrastination Measurement Interesting Task Group Mean (n=41) Non-interesting Task Group Mean (n=35) t value *p<0.05 Self Response 2.66 3.34 -2.08* Was a Problem 2.53 2.37 0.52 Ratio 0.49 0.62 -1.59 Results for Hypothesis 2 Correlations of Task Perception and Flow (n=75) Task Perception Variable Flow *p<0.05 Commitment 0.48* Value 0.53* Difficulty -0.34* Effort Required -0.08 Confidence 0.63* Clarity 0.47* Enjoyable 0.55* Importance 0.01 Stressful -0.31* Positive Impact 0.39* References Ackerman, D. S. & Gross, B. L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 5-13. Ferrari, J. R., Mason, C. P., & Hammer, C. (2006). Procrastination as a predictor of task perceptions: Examining delayed and non-delayed tasks across varied deadlines. Individual Differences Research, 4(1), 28-36. Froese, A. D., Nisly, S. J., & May, R. M. (1984). The effects of task interest and difficulty on procrastination. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 87(3-4), 119-128. Ghani, J. A. & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human—computer interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 381-391. Jackson, S. A. & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17-35. Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 5-14. Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(4), 387-394. Solomon, L. J. & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive- behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503-509. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94. Procedure