Content uploaded by Simantini Ghosh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simantini Ghosh on Feb 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Procrastination and Anxiety amongst Indian College Students: The Role of Perceived
Parenting Styles, Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy
Nayantara Vohra and Simantini Ghosh
Department of Psychology, Ashoka University
Author Note
Simantini Ghosh: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0791-7255
Nayantara Vohra: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6141-1610
Nayantara Vohra is now at the Department of Counselling and Clinical Psychology,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Both authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Simantini Ghosh,
Department of Psychology, Ashoka University, India. Email: simi@ashoka.edu.in
2
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the factors associated with
procrastination and anxiety, both of which can impact a student’s college experience
significantly. The research question we examined was whether perceived parenting styles,
locus of control and self-efficacy could predict anxiety and procrastination in our sample of
college students. The participants were college students in India (N = 156), who responded to
an online survey with self-report questionnaires measuring the variables of interest. The
results found that procrastination was significantly correlated with general (r = -0.597) and
social self-efficacy (r = -0.241), and locus of control (r = 0.276), while anxiety was
significantly correlated with these variables (r = -0.420, r = -0.248, r = 0.294, respectively)
and the acceptance-involvement dimension of parenting (r = -0.227). A multivariate
regression was conducted with procrastination and anxiety as outcome variables, locus of
control, social and general self-efficacy, parental acceptance-involvement, parental strictness-
supervision, and helicopter parenting included as covariates and gender, history of child
sexual abuse, history of parental neglect, and ongoing treatment for a mental health concern
included as factors. These predictors significantly contributed to the variance in
procrastination (R2 = 0.3826) and anxiety (R2 = 0.4009). General self-efficacy emerged as the
only significant predictor (
= -0.612) of procrastination in the model described, while gender
(
= -0.117), ongoing treatment for a mental health concern (
= 0.147) and general self-
efficacy (
= -0.451) emerged as significant predictors of anxiety. These results suggest that
general self-efficacy can be a variable of further investigation for interventions targeted
towards improving procrastination and anxiety among college students.
Keywords: perceived parenting styles, locus of control, self-efficacy, procrastination,
anxiety
3
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Procrastination and Anxiety amongst Indian College Students: The Role of Perceived
Parenting Styles, Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy
College life can be challenging for many students who are trying to manage their time
and balance a number of different domains like extra-curriculars, social engagements, other
roles and responsibilities, as well as their academics. According to a survey by the American
Psychiatric Association, the percentage of U.S. college students undergoing treatment for
mental health concerns has witnessed an increase from 19 to 34% between 2007 and 2017
(Lipson, Lattie, & Eisenberg, 2018). In India, too, the conversation surrounding college
student mental health has seen an upward trend with a flurry of media reports concerning this
topic. While systematic research in this area is still limited, a recent study found that around
15% of college students had either severe or extremely severe depression and around 37%
had moderate depression (Deb, Banu, Thomas, Vardhan, Rao, & Khawaja, 2016).
With their hectic schedules, college students also often struggle with academic
procrastination and anxiety. Procrastination, often conceptualised as a maladaptive
behaviour, can be defined as the voluntary delay of a course of action that an individual
originally intended to carry out, despite being aware of the adverse consequences of the delay
(Steel, 2007, p. 66). Thus, procrastination is different from merely choosing to carry out a
course of action at a later time. Researchers investigating academic procrastination have
noted that as many as 70-95% of undergraduate students engage in this behaviour (Klassen,
Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008, p. 916).
Yet, despite the high rates of procrastination, it appears to be a phenomenon that
causes distress to the individual, with an overwhelming majority of people who procrastinate
claiming that they would like to reduce it (O’Brien, 2002). This feeling of distress or
discomfort is generally considered to be anxiety (Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay, 1998, p. 317).
Not surprisingly, some researchers even include the experience of anxiety as a significant
4
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
part of their definition of procrastination (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986, p. 387).
Anxiety is an unpleasant internal state which involves the anticipation of a threatening
situation that may occur in the future. It is different from fear, which occurs in response to a
real or definite threat. Anxiety is associated with both avoidant behaviour and cautious or
vigilant behaviour in preparation for the anticipated threat (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013).
Previously, procrastination has been conceptualized from a behavioural approach as a
learned behaviour that develops from the human tendency to engage in pleasurable activities
that are rewarding in the short-term (McCown, 1986), or from a psychodynamic approach,
where it is understood as a means of rebellion against parents who are overindulgent or
overly demanding (Blatt & Quinlan, 1967; McCown, Petzel, & Rupert, 1987).
Procrastination has also been conceptualised in terms of cognitive factors like irrational
beliefs, attribution style, self-esteem, self-handicapping strategies etc. (Beswick, Rothblum,
& Mann, 1988; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986;
Ferrari, 1992).
Anxiety and problematic procrastination can end up defining a student’s entire college
experience. Previous research has demonstrated that procrastination is associated with a
number of negative outcomes like depressive symptoms, low self-esteem, missed deadlines,
test anxiety, low academic performance etc. (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Ferrari,
1991; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Lay, 1986, 1987; Lay & Burns, 1991; Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984). By investigating the predictive factors related to procrastination and
anxiety, the current study contributes to the literature on the mental health of college students
in India. There is an urgent need for such research so that preventative and remedial measures
can be developed based on it. It is especially important that the research is grounded in the
Indian context because factors like parenting, perceived control and gender often play out
5
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
differently than in the West given the collectivistic nature of Indian society. The central
purpose of our study is to examine the association of perceived parenting styles, locus of
control and self-efficacy with procrastination and anxiety amongst Indian college students.
Perceived Parenting Styles
Parental behaviour has been investigated and categorised into distinct ‘parenting
styles’ based on the parents’ attitudes, style of discipline, communication and other
behaviours towards the child. Baumrind’s classification of parenting styles, based on the
parent’s degree of demandingness and responsiveness, is still the most widely used (McClun
& Merrell, 1998). Demandingness is conceptualised as the setting of expectations and goals
for the child, enforced through demands for maturity, supervision and disciplinary action
while responsiveness is conceptualised as the parents’ efforts towards fostering individuality
and self-regulation by being supportive and responsive to children’s needs (Baumrind, 1991,
p. 61-62). Parents who use an authoritarian style of parenting are usually high on
demandingness and low on responsiveness (Soysa & Weiss, 2014, p. 78) while parents with a
permissive parenting style are usually highly responsive and low on demandingness (McClun
& Merrell, 1998, p. 383). The authoritative parenting style, on the other hand, creates a
balance between the degree of demandingness and responsiveness. Authoritative parents set
high expectations for the child, however, they are responsive to the child’s questions and
needs and are willing to discuss the rationale behind the rules they have put in place for the
child (Soysa & Weiss, 2014, p. 78).
Adding to Baumrind’s typology, Maccoby and Martin (1983) distinguished between
parents whose low levels of control (or demandingness) indicated trust in the child or
indulgence in the child’s wishes, and parents whose low levels of control indicated a lack of
engagement with the child or a deflection of child-rearing responsibilities (Lamborn, Mounts,
6
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). These parenting styles were named ‘indulgent permissive’
and ‘neglectful permissive’ respectively (Lamborn et al., 1991).
Table 1
Maccoby & Martin’s Parenting Styles
High Responsiveness
Low Responsiveness
High Demandingness
Authoritative
Authoritarian
Low Demandingness
Indulgent Permissive
Neglectful Permissive
The current study used an instrument (Lamborn et al., 1991) roughly based on
Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) model that measures parenting on two dimensions, namely,
acceptance-involvement (similar to responsiveness) and strictness-supervision (similar to
demandingness). By retaining the quantitative scores on these two subscales rather than
creating categories for parenting styles, we were able to separate the associations of
acceptance-involvement and strictness-supervision with procrastination and anxiety. Thus,
we could perform a more thorough analysis of perceived parenting variables.
Cultural variables play a major role in shaping parenting styles. For instance,
collectivist cultures tend to emphasise family obligations and interdependence, whereas
individualistic cultures tend to emphasise independence and autonomy. Often, in collectivist
cultures, restrictiveness is not associated with a lack of warmth (Sondhi, 2017). In fact, it is
common for parents to expect obedience, adherence to family values and fulfilment of
familial social obligations. Such interdependence tends to be more or less absent in families
in individualistic cultures (Sondhi, 2017). Thus, these cultural differences must be considered
when drawing conclusions regarding the role of parenting styles.
In general, the authoritative parenting style tends to promote positive emotional
development and social development in children and adolescents (McClun & Merrell, 1998,
7
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
p. 388). For instance, children with authoritative parents tend to have lower levels of anxiety
and better academic performance as compared to other children (Dornbusch, Ritter, &
Leiderman, 1987; Gruener, Muris, & Merckelbach, 1999; Muris, Meesters, Merckelbach, &
Hlsenbeck, 2000; Muris & Merckelbach, 1998; Silva et al., 2007; Spera, 2005). The paucity
of research is apparent in studies on procrastination and parenting styles, specifically in India.
Even in the West, little has been done to directly investigate the association of parenting
styles with procrastination. A recent study investigated the association of authoritative and
authoritarian parenting styles with test anxiety, focusing on the mediating effect of
maladaptive perfectionism and academic procrastination. Results indicated that perceived
authoritarian parenting by the father was positively correlated with test anxiety, with both
academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism serving as mediators in the
relationship (Soysa & Weiss, 2014). Given the conceptual and empirical link between
procrastination and anxiety, we expected that perceived parenting factors would be related to
procrastination. These associations were investigated in the current study.
Another form of parenting which has gained research attention in recent years is
helicopter parenting, which is employed by parents who are over-involved and over-
protective of their children (Odenweller, Booth-Butterfield, & Weber, 2014). They may
intervene and make decisions, or try to solve problems for their children and show personal
investment in their goals. It has been suggested that helicopter parenting could adversely
affect the child’s self-esteem and confidence (Rutherford, 2011) and contribute to the
development of an external locus of control (Gibbs, 2009). Although helicopter parenting has
been found to be weakly associated with the authoritarian parenting style (Odenweller et al.,
2014), it is a distinct construct that does not fit into previous typologies of parenting styles.
Given that psychodynamic theories of procrastination conceptualise it as a form of rebellion
against overly demanding or indulgent parents (Blatt & Quinlan, 1967; McCown, Petzel, &
8
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Rupert, 1987), it would be interesting to investigate the association between helicopter
parenting and procrastination. Further, helicopter parenting has been found to be positively
related to neuroticism (Odenweller et al., 2014), which suggests that it may also be related to
anxiety.
Like most psychological research, it is evident that the studies on parenting styles
conducted in the Western context greatly outnumber the limited studies conducted in other
cultures. As a result, the findings from these non-Western empirical studies are equivocal. A
larger body of rigorous research about perceived parenting styles and procrastination and
anxiety is required in the Indian context to draw robust conclusions that are applicable to the
Indian population.
Locus of Control
Locus of control orientation refers to the individual’s perception of control over their
own behaviour. A person with an internal locus of control orientation perceives a sense of
internal control over behaviour, whereas a person with an external locus of control believes
that his or her behaviour is determined by an external force – like fate, luck, chance or
powerful others – outside of his or her control (McClun & Merrell, 1998). An external locus
of control has been found to be associated with negative outcomes in terms of academic
achievement, mental health etc. while an internal orientation has been associated with
positive outcomes in these areas (McClun & Merrell, 1998).
A few studies have investigated the association of locus of control with
procrastination and anxiety related to academics. In a study with undergraduate students, it
was found that those who were internally oriented reported lower procrastination and lower
test anxiety scores as compared to those participants who were externally oriented (Carden,
Bryant, & Moss, 2004). Another study conducted with a sample of Israeli-Jewish students
found that individuals with an internal locus of control orientation reported lower anxiety, a
9
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
higher level of aspiration and greater academic success (Bar-Tal, Kfir, Bar-Zohar, & Chen,
1980).
While most of this research is based on self-reported data, an experimental study
about locus of control & procrastination conducted with college students found similar results
(Janssen & Carton, 1999). Students randomly assigned to two levels of task difficulty were
instructed to read a given psychology article and answer two questions based on the article.
One group was assigned an easy article, meant for laypersons, while the other group was
assigned a relatively difficult article from a research journal. Interestingly, task difficulty was
not associated with the students’ procrastination levels. Instead, results indicated that the
students with an internal locus of control with respect to academic outcomes began working
on the assignment before students with an external locus of control, regardless of task
difficulty. They also completed and submitted the assignment faster than the students with an
external orientation (Janssen & Carton, 1999).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perception of his or her ability to perform well
in a particular situation (Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay, 1998, p. 318). According to self-
efficacy theory, individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities play an important role in determining
their choice of tasks, the amount of effort put into the task, persistence and ultimately
performance (Bandura, 1997). In addition, low self-efficacy can result in behaviour
avoidance, whereas high self-efficacy can contribute to behaviour initiation as well as
persistence (Haycock, McCarthy, & Skay, 1998, p. 318). It is important to note that, unlike
self-esteem, which is a global measure of self-worth, self-efficacy is a domain-specific factor
that is often assessed in relation to a particular task or particular kinds of tasks (Klassen,
Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008, p. 918). Self-efficacy can be divided into two components –
efficacy expectations, which are individuals’ beliefs regarding their ability to accomplish
10
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
particular tasks, and outcome expectations or individuals’ beliefs regarding the probability of
particular behaviours leading to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1986).
Individuals with high efficacy expectations have been found to report lower levels of
procrastination than those with low efficacy expectations. A study conducted with college
students found that while anxiety levels and efficacy expectations had significant
relationships with procrastination individually, only cumulative efficacy strength (a measure
of the individual’s degree of confidence that he or she can complete a task) emerged as a
significant predictor when these variables were entered into a regression model (Haycock,
McCarthy, & Skay, 1998, p. 321). Another study found that while academic self-efficacy was
correlated with procrastination, it did not emerge as a significant predictor of procrastination
when self-efficacy for self-regulation was entered into the hierarchical regression model
(Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008, p. 922). Self-efficacy for self-regulation is defined as a
person’s perception of their ability to successfully self-regulate their learning. This could
include using different learning strategies, resisting distractions, finishing assignments on
time, participating in class discussions etc. (Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008, p. 918).
Since self-efficacy by itself does not emerge as a clear predictor of procrastination, more
empirical research is required to gain a complete understanding of the relationship between
the two variables.
Keeping in mind the literature on the association of anxiety with locus of control
orientation and self-efficacy, Gallagher, Bentley and Barlow (2014) conducted a meta-
analytic review to examine the role of perceived control over anxiety-provoking events.
While perceived control is not viewed as synonymous with locus of control and self-efficacy,
the interrelatedness of these theories of control with perceived control has been
acknowledged. Prior empirical research supported the prediction that beliefs about the
uncontrollability of anxiety-producing situations contribute to the maintenance of anxiety
11
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
symptoms (Barlow, 2002). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that there is a strong
negative correlation between perceived control and anxiety, both at the trait level and at the
psychopathological level (Gallagher, Bentley, & Barlow, 2014).
Chorpita and Barlow (1998) contend that a child’s experience of uncontrollable
events during childhood, as determined by parental factors like intrusiveness and over-
protectiveness, contribute to the development of a sense of perceived control. In particular,
the authoritative parenting style has been found to be associated with the development of an
internal locus of control and a positive self-concept (McClun & Merrell, 1998, p. 388). In
contrast, the authoritarian parenting style is associated with an external locus of control along
with a more negative self-concept than either the permissive or the authoritative parenting
styles (McClun & Merrell, 1998, p. 388). Given these associations between parenting styles
and perceived control variables and their individual relationships with procrastination and
anxiety, further research with all these variables together is warranted. Our study aimed to
integrate these variables into a model as predictors of procrastination and anxiety.
Gender Differences
Investigations of gender differences in research related to academics have produced
mixed results. For instance, studies on academic anxiety have generally found that female
students experience test anxiety to a greater extent as compared to male students (Chapell et
al., 2005). Further, Chapell found that for female college students, low test anxiety was
associated with higher grade point averages, however, no significant differences were
reported for male college students (p. 271). Some research has found that while women
experience more procrastination-related anxiety than men, there are no significant differences
in the prevalence of procrastination amongst women and men (Rothblum, Solomon, &
Murakami, 1986; Ferrari, 2001). Other studies have found significant gender differences
(Pychyl, Coplan, & Reid, 2002) with mixed results. Some have found that women have a
12
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
greater tendency to procrastinate than men (Paludi & Frankell-Hauser, 1986) while a recent
study from India found that male students reported higher procrastination than female
students (Shahnawaz, 2016). Thus, gender differences in procrastination and anxiety need
further investigation, specifically in the Indian context where attitudes towards academics
may differ among men and women.
A few empirical studies have demonstrated a correlation between our two outcome
variables, procrastination and anxiety (Carden, Bryant, & Moss, 2004; Rothblum, Solomon,
& Murakami, 1986). Further, Milgram (1999) proposed a theoretical model of appraisal-
anxiety-avoidance to understand procrastination. According to this model, people experience
anxiety in response to a specific task when they are faced with a fear of failure.
Consequently, they attempt to alleviate their anxiety through task delay or avoidance, i.e.
procrastination (Milgram & Toubiana, 1999, p. 345). Despite this theoretical and empirical
link, previous research examining the factors associated with procrastination has overlooked
the role of anxiety and vice versa. It is imperative to study the predictors of both
procrastination and anxiety in the same study so that their influence on each other is not
discounted.
Purpose of the current study
The current study had two specific aims. The hypotheses and research questions were
formulated on the basis of past research.
Specific Aim 1 – To test whether perceived parenting styles, locus of control
orientation and self-efficacy are associated with procrastination and anxiety.
Research Question 1.1: What is the relationship of perceived acceptance-involvement
and strictness-supervision from parents with procrastination?
Research Question 1.2: What is the relationship of perceived acceptance-involvement
and strictness-supervision from parents with anxiety?
13
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Research Question 1.3: What is the relationship of helicopter parenting with
procrastination and anxiety?
Hypothesis 1.1: A self-reported external locus of control orientation will be positively
correlated with procrastination and anxiety.
Hypothesis 1.2: Self-reported general and social self-efficacy will be negatively
correlated with procrastination and anxiety.
Specific Aim 2 – To assess whether perceived parenting styles, locus of control
orientation and self-efficacy can be integrated into a model as predictors of procrastination
and anxiety.
Research Question 2.1: Can perceived parenting styles, locus of control orientation
and self-efficacy be integrated into a model as predictors of procrastination and anxiety?
Method
Participants
The participants of the study were Indian adults, all of whom were enrolled as
students at universities in India at the time of the study. 275 individuals began filling the
survey, out of which 178 (65%) completed the entire survey. The inclusion criterion for the
study was that participants must be Indian college students above the age of 18. The
exclusion criterion was that participants should not have lived outside of India for 4 or more
years. This information was obtained using the demographic form, which was a part of the
survey. The responses of 22 participants were not considered for analysis as they did not
meet these criteria. Thus, having accounted for the eligibility criteria and completeness of the
responses to the survey, the responses of 156 participants were ultimately analysed (Mean
age = 20.3 years, SD = 2.08). Demographic characteristics of the participants are reported in
Table 2. The participants were from different parts of India and were students of diverse
14
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
disciplines including economics, law, psychology, biology, history, management,
architecture, computer science and so on.
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Materials
Demographic Questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire, which also acted as a
screening procedure to identify participants who meet the eligibility criteria, was created for
the present study. It was a comprehensive form which included questions about the
participant’s age, gender, nationality, country of residence, university, socio-economic
background, sexual orientation, history of mental illness, child sexual abuse and trauma. The
Demographic Characteristics
Age, mean SD
20.3 2.08
Gender, n (%)
Female
Male
Non-binary
Transgender
Rather not answer
107 (68.59)
45 (28.85)
1 (0.64)
1 (0.64)
2 (1.28)
Type of Household, n (%)
Two-parent household
Single-parent household
Joint family
Other
111 (71.15)
9 (5.77)
31 (19.87)
5 (3.21)
Residential University, n (%)
Yes
No, lives close to campus on their
own/with flatmates
No, lives at home with family
120 (76.92)
14 (8.97)
22 (14.10)
Family Total Monthly Income, n (%)
> 78,062
39,033-78,062
29,200-39,032
19,516-29,199
11,708-19,515
3,908-11,707
<3,908
Rather not answer
93 (59.62%)
27 (17.31%)
4 (2.56%)
2 (1.28%)
1 (0.64%)
-
1 (0.64%)
28 (17.95%)
15
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
modified Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale was referred to for formulating questions
regarding family income, education and occupation (Saleem, 2019).
Procrastination Assessment Scale – Students (PASS) (Appendix A). This
instrument for measuring procrastination amongst students, created by Solomon and
Rothblum (1984), is divided into 2 parts and consists of 44 items in total. The first part
assesses procrastination in 6 academic areas: paper-writing, studying for exams, completing
weekly readings, completing administrative jobs, attending meetings, and general completion
of academic tasks. There are 3 items each for these 6 domains that must be answered by
providing a rating on a 5-point Likert scale. The second part evaluates the reasons for
procrastination amongst students on the basis of 26 items that, again, must be answered on a
5-point Likert scale (Mortazavi, Mortazavi, & Khosrorad, 2015). A number of studies have
reported that the Procrastination Assessment Scale possesses adequate psychometric
properties – reliability and validity. Reliability scores have been reported as .82 for the
section on prevalence as per academic domain and .89 for the section on reasons for
procrastination. Cronbach’s alpha with test-retest reliability over 6 weeks was found to be .74
for the first part of the scale and .65 for the second part (Mortazavi, Mortazavi, & Khosrorad,
2015).
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (Appendix B). The Depression Anxiety Stress
Scale (DASS) was developed by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) in order to assess the
psychological status of individuals. The original scale consists of 42 items, each of which has
a 4-point Likert type scale. The score for each subscale is calculated separately. DASS has
been found to be highly correlated to the Beck Depression Inventory (r=.74) and the Beck
Anxiety Inventory (r=.81). It possesses satisfactory discriminant and convergent validity
amongst samples taken from a non-clinical population (Crawford & Henry, 2003; Lovibond
& Lovibond, 1995). Further, the internal consistency for each of the subscales is high, with
16
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Cronbach’s alpha being .96, .89 and .93 for the depression, anxiety and stress subscales
respectively (Basha & Kaya, 2016).
The shortened version of the DASS, the DASS-21, has been found to have satisfactory
construct validity with high reliabilities for each of the three subscales. It is considered a
better instrument than the full-length DASS because of its shorter length and the removal of
problematic items that were present in the original 42-item version (Henry & Crawford,
2005). Validation studies for the DASS-21 conducted in Asian countries (like China and
Vietnam and with a Nepali population in Hong Kong) have demonstrated adequate
psychometric properties (Wang et al., 2016; Tran, Tran, & Fisher, 2013; Tonsing, 2014). The
anxiety subscale of the DASS-21 was used for analysis.
General Self-Efficacy Scale (Appendix C). This 23-item instrument, developed by
Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, and Rogers (1982), consists of two
subscales: general self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. The internal consistency of each
subscale is high, with Cronbach’s alpha for the general self-efficacy scale being 0.86 and for
the social self-efficacy scale being 0.71 (Yildirim & Ilhan, 2010).
Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Appendix D). This instrument,
developed by Rotter (1966), is the most commonly used and widely cited measure of locus of
control. It consists of 29 items, out of which 6 are filler items, meant to maintain some
amount of ambiguity regarding the purpose of the scale. The items present a pair of
statements out of which one represents an internal orientation while the other represents an
external orientation. The respondent is faced with a forced-choice between the two statements
(Wang & Lv, 2017).
A higher score on the test indicates that the person is more externally oriented while a
lower score indicates that the person is internally oriented. In the original study, the scale was
found to have adequate coefficient alphas as well as test-retest reliability after a period of one
17
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
month. A meta-analysis conducted recently of 120 studies that used the Internal-External
Locus of Control Scale revealed a satisfactory average reliability of .70 (Ng, Sorensen, &
Eby, 2006). This instrument has also been used for cross-cultural research (Smith,
Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995).
Parenting Styles Questionnaire (Appendix E). Developed by Lamborn et al. (1991),
the Parenting Styles Questionnaire consists of two subscales – the acceptance/involvement
subscale, which assesses the extent of the respondents’ perception of their parents as
responsive, loving and involved, and the strictness/supervision subscale which examines the
extent to which the respondents’ parents monitor or supervise them. The
acceptance/involvement subscale consists of 10 items with Cronbach’s alpha=.72. The
strictness/supervision subscale consists of 9 items with Cronbach’s alpha=.76 (Lamborn et
al., 1991).
Items from the Parenting Styles Questionnaire were used in a study on the association
of parenting styles with academic achievement amongst a sample of Indian adolescents. The
study found that for the acceptance/involvement items, reliability was .64, and for the
strictness/supervision items, reliability was .63 (Garg, Levin, Urajnik, & Kauppi, 2005).
Helicopter Parenting Instrument (Appendix F). Developed by Odenweller, Booth-
Butterfield, and Weber (2014), the Helicopter Parenting Instrument (HPI) consists of 15
items measured on 7-point Likert scales. The reliability of the instrument has been found to
be close to 0.80, and it has demonstrated strong construct validity through its positive
associations with conformity orientation and authoritarian parenting, variables to which it is
theoretically related (Odenweller et al., 2014).
Table 3
Instruments Used to Measure Predictor and Outcome Variables
Variable
Instrument
Author(s)
Reliability
18
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Perceived Parenting
Styles
Parenting Styles
Questionnaire
Helicopter
Parenting
Instrument (HPI)
Lamborn, Mounts,
Steinberg, &
Dornbusch (1991)
Odenweller, Booth-
Butterfield, &
Weber (2014)
.72 –
acceptance/involvement
subscale
.76 –
strictness/supervision
subscale
.80
Locus of Control
Internal-External
Locus of Control
Scale
Rotter (1966)
.70
Self-Efficacy
General Self-
Efficacy Scale
Sherer, Maddux,
Mercandante,
Prentice-Dunn,
Jacobs, & Rogers
(1982)
0.86 – general self-
efficacy subscale
0.71 – social self-
efficacy subscale
Procrastination
Procrastination
Assessment Scale –
Students (PASS)
Solomon &
Rothblum (1984)
0.82 – prevalence
0.89 – reasons
Anxiety
Depression Anxiety
Stress Scale
(DASS-21)
Lovibond &
Lovibond (1995)
0.96 – depression
subscale
0.89 – anxiety subscale
0.93 – stress subscale
Procedure
Posts giving a brief description of the study were shared on Facebook and WhatsApp
groups for recruitment of participants. These included public groups like Network Capital
and students’ groups for different universities in order to reach individuals who would be
eligible to participate in the study. Further recruitment was carried out through snowball
sampling. Reminders were sent to the prospective participants to encourage participation. The
questionnaires used for the study were administered by designing a survey on the online
platform, Survey Monkey. The first page of the survey was for informed consent. The
participants were provided with some more information about the study including the
eligibility criteria. They were also informed of their rights as participants, of the
19
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
confidentiality of their responses, the potential benefits and risks of participation and the
contact details of the researchers. After providing informed consent, the participants filled the
demographic questionnaire. To prevent order effects, the order in which the instruments to
measure perceived parenting styles scale, locus of control, self-efficacy scale, procrastination
and anxiety were presented to the participants was shuffled. At the end of the survey,
participants were provided with a database of support resources in case they wished to seek
professional help for a mental health concern.
Ethical Concerns
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ashoka University and
no ethical concerns were raised.
Results
First, the scores for each variable including procrastination, anxiety, locus of control,
self-efficacy, perceived parenting styles and helicopter parenting were calculated based on
responses to the instruments used to measure these variables. There were separate scores for
social self-efficacy and general self-efficacy as per the sub-scales of the General Self-
Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). Further, separate scores were calculated for the
acceptance-involvement and strictness-supervision subscales of the Parenting Styles
Questionnaire (Lamborn et al., 1991). These scores were then standardised by dividing the
participants’ score by the maximum possible score on that scale. Thus, the scores were
converted to proportions between 0 and 1 for each variable.
20
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Bivariate Correlations
Table 4
Correlation Matrix of Variables of Interest
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Procrastination
2. Anxiety
0.308***
3. Locus of
Control
0.276***
0.294***
4. Social Self-
Efficacy
-0.241**
-0.248**
-0.143
5. General Self-
Efficacy
-0.597***
-0.420***
-0.380***
0.375***
6. Acceptance-
Involvement
-0.060
-0.227**
-0.268***
0.194*
0.145
7. Strictness-
Supervision
-0.120
-0.022
0.012
-0.060
-0.059
0.218**
8. Helicopter
Parenting
0.123
0.058
0.129
-0.216**
-0.167*
0.046
0.356***
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Correlation analysis was conducted to assess the associations between procrastination,
anxiety, external locus of control orientation, general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy,
parents’ acceptance-involvement, parents’ strictness-supervision and helicopter parenting.
The results of the correlation analysis are reported in Table 4.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1.1, the analysis indicated a small positive correlation
between external locus of control and procrastination (r = 0.276, p < .001), and a small
positive correlation between external locus of control and anxiety (r = 0.294, p < .001).
Further, the results indicated that there is a small negative correlation between social self-
efficacy and procrastination (r = -0.241, p = 0.002), and a moderate negative correlation
between social self-efficacy and anxiety (r = -0.248, p = 0.002). General self-efficacy was
found to be moderately negatively correlated with procrastination (r = -0.597, p < .001), and
with anxiety (r = -0.420, p < .001). These findings supported Hypothesis 1.2 about self-
efficacy. Perceived acceptance-involvement from parents was not significantly correlated
with procrastination. However, a small negative correlation was found between perceived
21
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
acceptance-involvement from parents and anxiety. Perceived strictness-supervision from
parents was not significantly correlated with either procrastination or anxiety. In addition, no
significant correlation was found between helicopter parenting and procrastination, or
between helicopter parenting and anxiety. Thus, Research Questions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 were
addressed.
Univariate regressions
Several linear regressions were conducted with single predictors on each dependent
variable to assess which factors should be controlled for in the final multivariate regression
model. The factors that were assessed were age, gender, year of the programme, type of
household, whether the university is residential, history of child sexual abuse, history of
childhood adversity, history of parental neglect, whether the individual is currently
undergoing treatment for a mental health concern and whether they experienced a highly
stressful life event in the past one year. The results of these regressions indicated that anxiety
was significantly predicted by gender (R2 = 0.12, Adjusted R2 = 0.108, F(2, 151) = 10.29, p <
.001), history of child sexual abuse (R2 = 0.034, Adjusted R2 = 0.027, F(1, 144) = 5.076, p =
.026), history of parental neglect (R2 = 0.04, Adjusted R2 = 0.034, F(1, 146) = 6.131, p =
0.014), and ongoing treatment for a mental health concern (R2 = 0.204, Adjusted R2 = 0.199,
F(1, 147) = 37.66, p < .001) while procrastination was significantly predicted by ongoing
treatment for a mental health concern (R2 = 0.073, Adjusted R2 = 0.066, F(1, 147) = 11.52, p
< .001). All of these factors were included in the multivariate regression model as controls
along with the predictors.
Multivariate regression
A multivariate regression was conducted with procrastination and anxiety as the
outcome variables since they were moderately correlated with each other. Locus of control,
social self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, parental acceptance-involvement, parental
22
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
strictness-supervision, and helicopter parenting were included as covariates in the model.
Gender, history of child sexual abuse, history of parental neglect, and ongoing treatment for a
mental health concern were included as factors in the regression model. Assumption checks
were conducted for multicollinearity, linearity, normality, homoscedasticity and
independence of observations and all the assumptions were met.
Table 5
Multivariate Regression on Procrastination
R-Squared
Adjusted R-Squared
F(11, 122)
p-value
0.3826
0.327
6.874
<0.001
Table 6
Coefficients from Multivariate Regression on Procrastination (Table 5)
Coefficients
B
SE
t
p
(Intercept)
0.891422
0.144313
6.177
<0.001
GenderMale
0.045798
0.026121
1.753
0.0821
GenderOther
0.150570
0.136471
1.103
0.2721
MentalHealthYes
0.021256
0.033104
0.642
0.5220
CSAYes
0.005429
0.037076
0.146
0.8838
NeglectYes
0.011658
0.032672
0.357
0.7218
LOC
0.098554
0.078218
1.260
0.2101
SSE
-0.005165
0.085626
-0.060
0.9520
GSE
-0.612386
0.101122
-6.056
<0.001
AI
0.102002
0.098676
1.034
0.3033
SS
-0.099822
0.063397
-1.575
0.1179
HP
0.076388
0.117354
0.651
0.5163
The results of the regression on procrastination indicated that the predictors
significantly contributed to the outcome, explaining 38.26% of the variance in procrastination
(Adjusted R2 = 0.327, F(11, 122) = 6.874, p < .001). In this model, only general self-efficacy
emerged as a unique predictor of procrastination ( = -0.612, p < .001).
Table 7
Multivariate Regression on Anxiety
23
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
R-Squared
Adjusted R-Squared
F(11, 122)
p-value
0.4009
0.3469
7.421
<0.001
Table 8
Coefficients from Multivariate Regression on Anxiety (Table 7)
Coefficients
B
SE
t
p
(Intercept)
0.71166
0.20743
3.431
0.000822***
GenderMale
-0.11732
0.03755
-3.125
0.002225**
GenderOther
0.28552
0.19616
1.456
0.148096
MentalHealthYes
0.14710
0.04758
3.091
0.002469**
CSAYes
0.02110
0.05329
0.396
0.692836
NeglectYes
0.06481
0.04696
1.380
0.170121
LOC
0.10855
0.11243
0.966
0.336202
SSE
-0.19101
0.12308
-1.552
0.123261
GSE
-0.45110
0.14535
-3.103
0.002377**
AI
0.09143
0.14184
0.645
0.520402
SS
-0.06344
0.09113
-0.696
0.487615
HP
-0.01698
0.16868
-0.101
0.920005
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Further, the results of the regression on anxiety indicated that the predictors
significantly contributed to the outcome, explaining 40.09% of the variance in anxiety
(Adjusted R2 = 0.347, F(11, 122) = 7.421, p < .001). General self-efficacy (
= -0.451, p =
.002), gender (
= -0.117, p = .002), and ongoing treatment for a mental health concern (
=
0.147, p = .002) emerged as unique predictors of anxiety.
Self-Efficacy as a mediating variable
In addition to the correlational analysis and multivariate regression, we conducted
mediation analyses using the “medmod” package (R Core Team, 2019) of the software
Jamovi (The jamovi project, 2020) to further understand the relationships among the
variables of interest. Given that helicopter parenting was found to be significantly correlated
with both general and social self-efficacy (Table 4), but did not emerge as a significant
predictor for procrastination or anxiety in the multiple regression model, we investigated the
role of general and social self-efficacy as mediators in the relationships between helicopter
24
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
parenting and the outcome variables, procrastination and anxiety. As per the results, general
self-efficacy mediated the relationship between helicopter parenting and procrastination with
the indirect effect (
= 0.142, p = 0.04) accounting for 79.9% of the variance in the model
(Figure 1). General self-efficacy also mediated the relationship between helicopter parenting
and anxiety with the indirect effect (
= 0.153, p = 0.048) accounting for 84.7% of the
variance in the model (Figure 2).
We went on to investigate the role of social self-efficacy as a mediator in the
relationship between helicopter parenting and procrastination and anxiety. We found that
social self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between helicopter parenting and
procrastination with the indirect effect (
= 0.07, p = 0.048) accounting for 39.2% of the
variance in the model (Figure 1). In addition, social self-efficacy emerged as a significant
mediator in the relationship between helicopter parenting and anxiety with the indirect effect
(
= 0.116, p = 0.039) accounting for 92.66% of the variance in the model (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Path Diagram Illustrating the Indirect Effect between Helicopter Parenting and
Procrastination through GSE and SSE
Helicopter Parenting
Procrastination
General Self-Efficacy
-0.2270
(0.035)
-0.6251
(<.001)
0.0356
(0.704)
Social Self-Efficacy
0.108
(0.344)
-0.322
(0.006)
-0.216
(0.005)
25
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Figure 2
Path Diagram Illustrating the Indirect Effect between Helicopter Parenting and Anxiety
Through GSE and SSE
Given the results of the multivariate regression which found that general self-efficacy
uniquely predicted both procrastination and anxiety while locus of control did not emerge as
a significant predictor, we decided to assess whether general self-efficacy mediates the
relationship between locus of control and procrastination and anxiety. We found that general
self-efficacy mediates the relationship between locus of control and procrastination with the
indirect effect (
= 0.204, p < .001) accounting for 79.2% of the variance in the model
(Figure 3). In addition, general self-efficacy was found to be a partial mediator in the
relationship between locus of control and anxiety with the indirect effect (
= 0.193, p <
.001) accounting for 46.6% of the variance in the model (Figure 4).
Helicopter Parenting
Anxiety
-0.2270
(0.035)
-0.6721
(<.001)
-0.0276
(0.863)
Social Self-Efficacy
0.009
(0.958)
-0.322
(0.006)
-0.359
(0.002)
General Self-Efficacy
26
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Figure 3
Path Diagram Illustrating the Indirect Effect between LoC and Procrastination through GSE
Figure 4
Path Diagram Illustrating the Indirect Effect between LoC and Anxiety through GSE
Lastly, we assessed whether the relationship between general self-efficacy and each
outcome variable was mediated by the other outcome variable. We found no significant
indirect effect on the association between general self-efficacy and procrastination through
anxiety (Figure 5). So, anxiety does not mediate the relationship between general self-
Locus of Control
Anxiety
General Self-Efficacy
-0.336
(<.001)
-0.574
(<.001)
0.221
(0.043)
Locus of Control
Procrastination
General Self-Efficacy
-0.336
(<.001)
-0.6064
(<.001)
0.0535
(0.407)
27
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
efficacy and procrastination. Further, we found that there was no significant indirect effect on
the association between general self-efficacy and anxiety through procrastination (Figure 6).
In other words, procrastination does not mediate the relationship between general self-
efficacy and anxiety (all tables in Appendix G).
Figure 5
Path Diagram Illustrating the Direct Effect between GSE and Procrastination
Figure 6
Path Diagram Illustrating the Direct Effect between GSE and Anxiety
Discussion
General Self-Efficacy
Procrastination
Anxiety
-0.6687
(<.001)
0.0460
(0.325)
-0.5987
(<.001)
General Self-Efficacy
Anxiety
-0.629
(<.001)
0.134
(0.325)
-0.584
(<.001)
Procrastination
28
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
The purpose of the study was to understand if perceived parenting styles, alongside
variables such as self-efficacy and locus of control are associated with procrastination and
anxiety among Indian college students. To our knowledge, for the first time in India, our
study attempts to integrate the psychodynamic, humanistic and cognitive perspectives by
investigating the association of procrastination and anxiety with parenting styles (a variable
relevant to psychodynamic theories) and with locus of control (a variable relevant to the
humanistic perspective) and self-efficacy (a variable relevant to the cognitive perspective).
Initial correlation analysis revealed that, as expected, general self-efficacy and social
self-efficacy were significantly associated with both procrastination and anxiety. From the
multivariate regression analysis, General Self Efficacy emerged as the only significant
predictor of both procrastination and anxiety, and gender emerged as a moderator of anxiety.
Although the initial correlational analysis showed variables such as Locus of control and
Helicopter Parenting to be associated with social and/or general self-efficacy, they didn’t
predict ether procrastination or anxiety in a statistically significant manner in the multivariate
regression model. We therefore tested if the effects of these variables on our outcome
variables were mediated by self-efficacy variables, and this seems to be the case in this
sample. Finally, we ran further mediation analyses to confirm that the two outcome variables
were not mediated by one another.
A closer inspection of the correlation indices suggests that who had lower levels of self-
efficacy were more likely to have higher levels of procrastination. These findings are
consistent with past research that found a link between low self-efficacy and behaviour
avoidance and high self-efficacy and behaviour initiation, persistence (Haycock, McCarthy,
& Skay, 1998), given that procrastination is conceptually very similar to behaviour
avoidance. However, the present study goes a step further by establishing separate
relationships between both general and social self-efficacy and procrastination, in an
29
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
academic context. The moderate positive association between social self-efficacy and
academic procrastination is a novel finding which highlights that low social self-efficacy is
related to higher procrastination, perhaps on specific academic tasks like meeting professors
and advisors, preparing for presentations etc.
Previous studies have reported associations between procrastination and social or
interpersonal variables. One study had found that procrastinators self-reported more public
self-consciousness than non-procrastinators (Ferrari, 1991). A 2018 study by Ko & Chang
found a positive association between social anxiety and procrastination. Social anxiety refers
to the fear of being scrutinised and evaluated by other people (Stein & Stein, 2008). Our
research furthers these findings by demonstrating that social self-efficacy is also related to
procrastination. Arguably, having low self-efficacy with respect to social situations may be
associated with the fear of negative evaluation by others, a feature of social anxiety, which is
conceptually linked to the fear of failure. Notably, procrastination has been associated with a
fear of failure in the past (Milgram & Toubiana, 1999). Future studies could investigate
whether social self-efficacy is related to procrastination through a third variable like fear of
negative evaluation or fear of failure.
The results of the correlation analyses also suggest that those who had lower general
and social self-efficacy had higher levels of anxiety. According to Milgram and Toubiana’s
(1999) appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model, when people experience a fear of failure in
response to a particular task, they feel anxious, and engage in procrastination to alleviate the
anxiety. The fear of failure mentioned here indicates that the individual has doubts in their
ability to accomplish the task, implying that the individual may have low self-efficacy, which
then causes anxiety. This is consistent with our results that found a negative relationship
between self-efficacy and anxiety. As per the appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model, it is anxiety
that then mediates the relationship between the individual’s appraisal of the task (based on
30
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
self-efficacy) and the procrastination on the task. The results of our study, however, found
that general self-efficacy uniquely predicted both procrastination and anxiety in a
multivariate regression model. This indicates a direct relationship between self-efficacy and
procrastination that was confirmed by our mediation analysis which indicated that anxiety
was not a significant mediator in the relationship. In other words, the relationship between
self-efficacy and procrastination could not be explained by the level of anxiety. These results
provide further insight into our current knowledge of procrastination and anxiety, and suggest
that the appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model does not apply to the sample of college students
studied in our research.
Correlation analysis also revealed a positive association between an external locus of
control and both procrastination and anxiety, in line with our hypothesis. These findings are
consistent with the existing literature in which both correlational and experimental studies
have suggested a relationship between locus of control orientation and procrastination
(Carden, Bryant, & Moss, 2004; Janssen & Carton, 1999). Since having an external locus of
control indicates that the individual tends to attribute external causes to events, it is
understandable that they would be more likely to procrastinate given that they perceive that
their behaviour is anyway outside of their control. Anxiety, too, has been found to be
associated with perceptions of low control as per a meta-analysis by Gallagher, Bentley and
Barlow (2014). In the present study, locus of control did not emerge as a unique predictor of
either procrastination or anxiety in a regression model that included general self-efficacy,
social self-efficacy and parenting variables. Instead, it appears that the association between
locus of control and procrastination and anxiety can be explained by mediation via general
self-efficacy. As per our mediation analysis, locus of control had an indirect impact on the
level of procrastination and anxiety through general self-efficacy, which was found to be a
significant mediator. These results further our understanding of the path through which locus
31
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
of control may have been found to be associated with procrastination and anxiety in past
empirical research.
Perceived acceptance-involvement from parents was found to be negatively related to
anxiety. That is, those who reported low parental acceptance-involvement also reported
higher anxiety scores, but no relationship was found between parental strictness-supervision
and anxiety. This is an interesting finding which may be indicative of cultural differences in
parenting. In collectivistic cultures like India, parents are more likely to expect obedience, an
adherence to family values and fulfilment of familial social obligations from their children
(Sondhi, 2017). Such parental restrictiveness and supervision tends to be the norm and is not
related to a lack of warmth from the parent (Sondhi, 2017). Thus, it may be speculated that
the direct association between perceived strictness from parents and negative outcomes like
anxiety in the child that has been reported in Western research may be weaker in the Indian
context.
However, as discussed earlier, research on the development of anxiety has found that
parental intrusiveness and overprotectiveness influence the child’s perceived sense of control
(Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). So, there is reason to consider that helicopter parenting may
affect the child’s self-efficacy. In fact, our results found that there is a negative correlation of
small effect size between helicopter parenting and both social and general self-efficacy.
Further mediation analysis also indicated that there is a relationship between helicopter
parenting and procrastination and anxiety through general self-efficacy, which acts as a
mediator. This finding is consistent with the results of a 2016 study which found that
helicopter parenting has an indirect effect on physical and mental health including level of
anxiety through self-efficacy (Reed, Duncan, Lucier-Greer, Fixelle, & Ferraro, 2016). Our
study delineates the influence of both general and social self-efficacy on the relationship
between helicopter parenting and anxiety. Further, one study by Hong, Hwang, Kuo, and Hsu
32
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
(2015) found an indirect relationship between parental monitoring and procrastination
through helicopter parenting. Our results increase the complexity of our understanding of the
association between helicopter parenting and procrastination by highlighting the role of
general and social self-efficacy in the relationship.
Overall, our results indicate that among the variables studied, the strength of the
association with procrastination and anxiety is highest for general self-efficacy. Our analyses
also highlight the crucial role played by general self-efficacy in the relationship of the
perceived parenting variables and locus of control with procrastination and anxiety. These
findings suggest that it is the individual’s belief in their ability to perform well in different
situations that is the key factor which influences their tendency to procrastinate. Thus, having
doubts in one’s capabilities increases the likelihood that one will delay carrying out the task.
The delay may be a result of difficulty understanding how to begin the task. On the other
hand, perhaps the delay allows the individual to later attribute their weak performance to
external factors like lack of time spent on the task rather than internal factors like their own
abilities to accomplish the task. It would be interesting to assess the applicability of these
theories about the role of self-efficacy in future studies.
Another interesting finding is the role of gender as a unique predictor of anxiety but
not procrastination. Male students were found to have lower levels of anxiety than others.
This finding is consistent with past literature on gender differences in anxiety symptoms and
specifically in anxiety disorder prevalence. Anxiety disorders have consistently been reported
to have higher prevalence rates among women than men (McLean, Asnaani, Litz, &
Hofmann, 2011). Further research is required to understand the role of gender in
procrastination theoretically and even empirically, given the mixed results from different
studies.
33
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
The current study has some limitations that should be kept in mind when the results
are interpreted. The study was cross-sectional in design due to the infeasibility of using a
longitudinal design for the present research. Thus, the results of the study are correlational in
nature and causality cannot be established. In addition, the recruitment of participants was
carried out through online platforms which could have led to a self-selection bias of
participants who felt that the research was relevant to their experiences. The completion rate
for the survey was 65% but it is important to note that the responses marked as incomplete
include those of participants who may not have gone beyond the informed consent. Lastly,
the study investigated only a selected set of variables and cannot address all the variables that
may be associated with procrastination and anxiety. For example, variables like task
characteristics, sibling relationships and academic performance were not considered for this
study.
Another caveat that we recognise is that this research was conducted during the early
stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of data collection, the illness had not been
declared a pandemic and very few cases had been reported in India. However, it is important
to acknowledge the possibility that this unique global situation may have had an influence on
participants’ responses.
The study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, it enhances
the understanding of the construct of procrastination and the antecedent factors associated
with both procrastination and anxiety as described previously. Thus, on the basis of our
findings, we developed a more comprehensive theory of procrastination which integrates
different perspectives. Further, the current study provides empirical support for further
research on this topic as has been discussed. Experimental research could examine
interventions to help reduce procrastination and anxiety among college students. Since self-
efficacy is a changeable attribute (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002), subsequent studies can
34
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
investigate whether there are differences in procrastination and anxiety before and after an
intervention to enhance self-efficacy is employed. The development of useful interventions to
decrease procrastination could have a tremendous impact on college students who struggle
with academic work because of their tendency to put it off.
35
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
References
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and
panic (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Kfir, D., Bar-Zohar, Y., & Chen, M. (1980). The relationship between locus of
control and academic achievement, anxiety, and level of aspiration. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 50(1), 53–60. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1980.tb00797.x
Basha, E., & Kaya, M. (2016). Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS): The study of
validity and reliability. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(12), 2701 -
2705. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2016.041202.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, p. 56-95.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents to student
procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207-217.
Blatt, S.J., & Quinlan, P. (1967). Punctual and procrastinating students: A study of temporal
parameters. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 169–174.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57(1), 110-119. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13
36
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Carden, R., Bryant, C., & Moss, R. (2004). Locus of control, test anxiety, academic
procrastination, and achievement among college students. Psychological Reports,
95(2), 581–582. doi:10.2466/pr0.95.2.581-582
Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., &
McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and
graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268-274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268
Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in
the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 3–21. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.124.1.3.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2003). The depression anxiety stress scales (DASS):
Normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 42, 111–131.
Deb, S., Banu, P. R., Thomas, S., Vardhan, R. V., Rao, P. T., & Khawaja, N.
(2016). Depression among Indian university students and its association with
perceived university academic environment, living arrangements and personal issues.
Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 23, 108–117. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2016.07.010
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., & Leiderman, P. H. (1987). The relation of parenting style to
adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics.
Psychological Reports, 68, 455-458.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor analysis of
self-presentation, self-awareness and self-handicapping components. Journal of
Research in Personality, 26, 75–84.
37
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L.. & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum.
Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit,
boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 16, 185–196.
Gallagher, M. W., Bentley, K. H., & Barlow, D. H. (2014). Perceived control and
vulnerability to anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 38(6), 571–584. doi:10.1007/s10608-014-9624-x
Garg, R., Levin, E., Urajnik, D., & Kauppi, C. (2005). Parenting style and academic
achievement for East Indian and Canadian adolescents. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 36(4), 653-661.
Gibbs, N. (2009, November 30). The growing backlash against overparenting. Time.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940697,00.html
Gruener, K., Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1999). The relationship between anxious rearing
behaviors and anxiety disorders symptomatology in normal children. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychology, 30, 27-35.
Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: The
role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76(3), 317–
324. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02548.x
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-
clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–
239. doi:10.1348/014466505x29657
38
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Kuo, Y. C., & Hsu, W. Y. (2015). Parental monitoring and
helicopter parenting relevant to vocational students’ procrastination and self-regulated
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 139–146.
Janssen, T., & Carton, J. S. (1999). The effects of locus of control and task difficulty on
procrastination. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160(4), 436–
442. doi:10.1080/00221329909595557
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of
undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of
procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915–
931. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Ko, C.-Y. A., & Chang, Y. (2018). Investigating the relationships among resilience, social
anxiety, and procrastination in a sample of college students. Psychological Reports,
003329411875511. doi:10.1177/0033294118755111
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5),
1049. doi:10.2307/1131151
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20, 474-495.
Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastination: A search for types.
Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 705-714.
Lay, C. H., & Burns, P. (1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for an examination: The
role of trait procrastination and its interaction with optimism. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6, 605-617.
39
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306145850
Lipson, S. K., Lattie, E. G., & Eisenberg, D. (2018). Increased rates of mental health service
utilization by U.S. college students: 10-Year population-level trends (2007–2017).
Psychiatric Services, appi.ps.2018003. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800332
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales.
Sydney: Psychology Foundation.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent
child interaction. In P. H. Müssen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social
development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
McLean, C. P., Asnaani, A., Litz, B. T., & Hofmann, S. G. (2011). Gender differences in
anxiety disorders: Prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(8), 1027–
1035. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.03.006
McClun, L. A., & Merrell, K. W. (1998). Relationship of perceived parenting styles, locus of
control orientation, and self-concept among junior high age students. Psychology in
the Schools, 35(4), 381–390.
McCown, W. (1986). An empirical investigation of the behaviors of procrastinators. Social
and Behavioral Science Documents, 16, 1–89.
McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of some hypothesized
behaviors and personality variables of college student procrastinators. Personality and
Individual Differences, 8, 781–786.
40
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Milgram, N., & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academic anxiety, academic procrastination, and
parental involvement in students and their parents. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(3), 345–361.doi:10.1348/000709999157761
Mortazavi, F., Mortazavi, S. S., & Khosrorad, R. (2015). Psychometric properties of the
Procrastination Assessment Scale-Student (PASS) in a student sample of Sabzevar
University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal,
17(9). doi:10.5812/ircmj.28328
Muris, P., Meesters, C., Merckelbach, H., & Hlsenbeck, P. (2000). Worry in children is
related to perceived parental rearing and attachment. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 38, 487-497.
Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1998). Perceived parental rearing behaviour and anxiety
disorders symptoms in normal children. Personality and Individual Differences, 25,
1199-1206.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087.
O’Brien, W. K. (2002). Applying the transtheoretical model to academic procrastination.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
Odenweller, K. G., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2014). Investigating helicopter
parenting, family environments, and relational outcomes for millennials.
Communication Studies, 65(4), 407–425. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811434
Paludi, M. A., & Frankell-Hauser, J. (1986). An idiographic approach to the study of
women’s achievement striving. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 89–100.
Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. M. (2002). Parenting and procrastination: Gender
differences in the relations between procrastination, parenting style and self worth in
early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 271–285.
41
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Quach, A. S., Epstein, N. B., Riley, P. J., Falconier, M. K., & Fang, X. (2013). Effects of
parental warmth and academic pressure on anxiety and depression symptoms in
Chinese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 106–116.
doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9818-y
R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version
3.6) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/.
Reed, K., Duncan, J. M., Lucier-Greer, M., Fixelle, C., & Ferraro, A. J. (2016). Helicopter
parenting and emerging adult self-efficacy: Implications for mental and physical
health. Journal of Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0466-x
Reitman, D., Rhode, P. C., Hupp, S. D., Altobello, C. (2002). Development and validation of
the Parental Authority Questionnaire – Revised. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 24(2), 119-127.
Rothblum, E.D., Solomon, L.J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral
differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
33, 387-394.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
Rutherford, M. B. (2011). The social value of self-esteem. Social Science and Public Policy,
48, 407–412. doi:10.1007=s12115-011-9460-5
Saleem, S. M. (2019). Modified Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale updated for the year
2019. Indian Journal of Forensic and Community Medicine, 6(1), 1-3.
https://doi.org/10.18231/2394-6776.2019.0001
Shahnawaz, G. (2016). Procrastination among students: The role of gender, perfectionism
and self-esteem. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 77, 191-210.
42
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.
(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 51(2), 663–671. doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
Silva, M., Dorso, E., Azhar, A., & Renk, K. (2007). The relationship among parenting styles
experienced during childhood, anxiety, motivation, and academic success in college
students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(2),
149–167. doi:10.2190/cs.9.2.b
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30(3),
377–400. doi:10.1080/00207599508246576
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum. E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.
Sondhi, R. (2017). Parenting adolescents in India: A cultural perspective. In Child and
Adolescent Mental Health (pp. 91-102). doi: 10.5772/66451
Soysa, C. K. & Weiss, A. (2014). Mediating perceived parenting styles–test anxiety
relationships: Academic procrastination and maladaptive perfectionism. Learning and
Individual Differences, 34, 77-85.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationships among parenting practices, parenting styles,
and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125-146.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Stein, M. B., & Stein, D. J. (2008). Social anxiety disorder. The Lancet, 371(9618), 1115-
1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60488-2
43
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial
maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-
1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on
adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
The jamovi project (2020). jamovi. (Version 1.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from
https://www.jamovi.org.
Thergaonkar, N. R. & Wadkar, A. J. (2007). Relationship between test anxiety and parenting
style. Journal of Indian Association of Child Adolescent Mental Health, 2(4), 10-12.
Tonsing, K. N. (2014). Psychometric properties and validation of Nepali version of the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21). Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 63–
66. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2013.11.001
Tran, T. D., Tran, T., & Fisher, J. (2013). Validation of the depression anxiety stress scales
(DASS) 21 as a screening instrument for depression and anxiety in a rural
community-based cohort of northern Vietnamese women. BMC Psychiatry,
13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-244x-13-24
Wang, L., & Lv, M. (2017). Internal-External Locus of Control Scale. Encyclopedia of
Personality and Individual Differences, 1–4. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_41-1
Wang, K., Shi, H., Geng, F., Zou, L., Tan, S., Wang, Y., Neumann, D. L., Shum, D. H. K., &
Chan, R. C. K. (2016). Cross-cultural validation of the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scale-21 in China. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54039-001
Wolfradt, U., Hempel, S., & Miles, J. N. V. (2003). Perceived parental styles,
depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 521-532.
44
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Yildirim, F., & Ilhan, I. O. (2010). The validity and reliability of the General Self-Efficacy
Scale-Turkish form. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 1-7.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.
45
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix A
Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS)
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
For each of the following activities, please rate the degree to which you delay or
procrastinate. Rate each item on the given scale according to how often you wait until the last
minute to do the activity [Likert Scale A]. Then indicate on the given scale the degree to
which you feel procrastination on that task is a problem [Likert Scale B].
Likert Scale A:
Never Procrastinate
Almost Never
Sometimes
Nearly Always
Always Procrastinate
Likert Scale B:
Not At All a Problem
Almost Never
Sometimes
Nearly Always
Always a Problem
Items:
I. WRITING A TERM PAPER
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
II. STUDYING FOR EXAMS
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
III. KEEPING UP WITH WEEKLY READING ASSIGNMENTS
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
IV. ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS: FILLING OUT FORMS, REGISTERING
FOR CLASSES, GETTING ID CARD, ETC.
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
V. ATTENDANCE TASKS: MEETING WITH YOUR ADVISOR, MAKING AN
APPOINTMENT WITH A PROFESSOR, ETC.
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
VI. SCHOOL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL
To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?
To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?
46
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix B
Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21)
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
Please read each statement and select the option which indicates how much the statement
applied to you over the last academic year. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not
spend too much time on any statement.
Likert Scale:
Did not apply to me at all
Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time
Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of the time
Applied to me very much, or most of the time
Items:
1. I was aware of dryness of my mouth
2. I experienced breathing difficulty (eg, excessively rapid breathing, breathlessness in
the absence of physical exertion)
3. I experienced trembling (eg, in the hands)
4. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself
5. I felt I was close to panic
6. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (eg, sense of
heart rate increase, heart missing a beat)
7. I felt scared without any good reason
47
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix C
General Self-Efficacy Scale
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
This questionnaire is a series of statements about your personal attitudes and traits. Each
statement represents a commonly held belief. Read each statement and decide to what extent
it describes you. There are no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some of
the statements and disagree with others. Please indicate your own personal feelings about
each statement below by marking the option that best describes your attitude or feeling.
Please be very truthful and describe yourself as you really are, not as you would like to be.
Likert Scale:
Disagree Strongly
Disagree Moderately
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree Moderately
Agree Strongly
Items:
1. I like to grow house plants. Filler
2. When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work. GSE
3. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should. R GSE
4. If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can. GSE
5. Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality. Filler
6. It is difficult for me to make new friends. R SSE
7. When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them. R GSE
8. I give up on things before completing them. R GSE
9. I like to cook. Filler
10. If I see someone I would like to meet, I go to that person instead of waiting for him or her
to come to me. SSE
11. I avoid facing difficulties. R GSE
12. If something looks too complicated, I will not even bother to try it. R GSE
13. There is some good in everybody. Filler
14. If I meet some one interesting who is hard to make friends with, I’ll soon stop trying to
makes friends with that person. R SSE
15. When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick with it until I finish it. GSE
16. When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it. GSE
17. I like science. Filler
18. When trying to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful. R
GSE
19. When I’m trying to become friends with someone who seems uninterested at first, I don’t
give up easily. SSE
20. When unexpected problems occur, I don’t handle them well. R GSE
21. If I were an artist, I would to draw children. Filler
22. I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult to me. R GSE
23. Failure just makes me try harder. GSE
24. I do not handle myself well in social gatherings. R SSE
25. I very much like to ride horses. Filler
26. I feel insecure about my ability to do things. R GSE
48
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
27. I am a self-reliant person. GSE
28. I have acquired my friends through my personal abilities at making friends. SSE
29. I give up easily. R GSE
30. I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in my life. R GSE
Note – Items marked R are reversed in scoring. Items marked Filler are not scored. Items
marked GSE contribute to the General Self-efficacy Subscale. These are summed to produce
the General Self-efficacy Subscale score. Items marked SSE contribute to the Social Self-
efficacy Subscale. These are summed to produce the Social Self-efficacy Subscale score. The
General and Social Self-efficacy Subscale scores are not summed to give an overall score.
49
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix D
Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
For each question select the statement that you agree with the most.
Items:
1. a. Children get into trouble because their patents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them.
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest
in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he
tries.
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental
happenings.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders hive not taken advantage of their opportunities.
7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others.
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite
course of action.
10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair
test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really
useless.
11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do
about it.
50
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a matter of
good or bad fortune anyhow.
14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.
15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right
place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. Luck has little or nothing to do
with it.
17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can
neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events.
18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental
happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.
23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you.
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
51
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking.
29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a
local level.
Note – Score one point for each of the following – 2.a, 3.b, 4.b, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a, 9.a, 10.b, 11.b,
12.b, 13.b, 15.b, 16.a, 17.a, 18.a, 20.a, 21.a, 22.b, 23.a, 25.a, 26.b, 28.b, 29.a.
A high score = External Locus of Control
A low score = Internal Locus of Control
52
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix E
Parenting Styles Questionnaire
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
Please answer the following questions with respect to your father.
5-Point Likert Scale:
Usually false - - - Usually true
Items:
1. I can count on him to help me out, if I have some kind of problem.
2. He keeps pushing me to do my best in whatever I do.
3. He keeps pushing me to think independently.
4. He used to help me with my school work if there was something I didn’t understand.
5. When he wants me to do something, he explains why.
6. When I get a poor grade, he encourages me to try harder.
7. When I get a good grade, he praises me.
8. He knows who my friends are.
5-Point Likert Scale:
Not very often - - - Very often
Items:
9. He spends time just talking with me.
10. We do something fun together.
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
Please answer the following questions with respect to your mother.
5-Point Likert Scale:
Usually false - - - Usually true
Items:
1. I can count on her to help me out, if I have some kind of problem.
2. She keeps pushing me to do my best in whatever I do.
3. She keeps pushing me to think independently.
4. She used to help me with my school work if there was something I didn’t understand.
5. When she wants me to do something, she explains why.
6. When I get a poor grade, she encourages me to try harder.
7. When I get a good grade, she praises me.
8. She knows who my friends are.
5-Point Likert Scale:
Not very often - - - Very often
Items:
9. She spends time just talking with me.
10. We do something fun together.
53
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Note – The items above form the acceptance-involvement subscale. The scores are summed
for the items regarding the father and mother and then the average is taken for each item.
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
Please answer the following questions with respect to both your parents.
5-Point Likert Scale:
Usually false - - - Usually true
Please answer the following questions with respect to both your parents:
1. My parents try to know where I go at night.
2. My parents try to know what I do with my free time.
3. My parents try to know where I am when I am not in class.
4. My parents REALLY know where I go at night.
5. My parents REALLY know what I do with my free time.
6. My parents REALLY know where I am when I am not in class.
Note – The items above form the strictness-supervision subscale.
54
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix F
Helicopter Parenting Instrument
Instructions (as stated in the survey filled by participants):
Please answer the following questions with respect to both your parents.
7-Point Likert Scale:
Never - - - - - Always
Items:
1. My parent tries to make all of my major decisions.
2. My parent discourages me from making decisions that he or she disagrees with.
3. If my parent doesn’t do certain things for me (e.g., doing laundry, cleaning room,
making doctor appointments), they will not get done.
4. My parent overreacts when I encounter a negative experience.
5. My parent doesn’t intervene in my life unless he or she notices me experiencing
physical or emotional trauma.
6. Sometimes my parent invests more time and energy into my projects than I do.
7. My parent considers oneself a bad parent when he or she does not step in and ‘‘save’’
me from difficulty.
8. My parent feels like a bad parent when I make poor choices.
9. My parent voices his or her opinion about my personal relationships.
10. My parent considers himself or herself a good parent when he or she solves problems
for me.
11. My parent insists that I keep him or her informed of my daily activities.
12. When I have to go somewhere (e.g., doctor appointments, academic meetings, the
bank, clothing stores), my parent accompanies me.
13. When I am going through a difficult situation, my parent always tries to fix it.
14. My parent encourages me to take risks and step outside of my comfort zone.
15. My parent thinks it is his or her job to shield me from adversity.
55
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Appendix G
Table G1
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Helicopter Parenting (HP) and
Procrastination with General Self-Efficacy (GSE) as the Mediator
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.1419
0.0691
2.055
0.040
79.9
Direct
c
0.0356
0.0936
0.380
0.707
20.1
Total
c + a x b
0.1775
0.1142
1.554
0.120
100.0
Note. The labels are a (HP → GSE), b (GSE → Procrastination), c (HP → Procrastination).
Table G2
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Helicopter Parenting (HP) and Anxiety with
General Self-Efficacy (GSE) as the Mediator
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.1526
0.0771
1.980
0.048
84.7
Direct
c
-0.0276
0.1599
-0.173
0.863
15.3
Total
c + a x b
0.1250
0.1735
0.720
0.471
100.0
Note. The labels are a (HP → GSE), b (GSE → Anxiety), c (HP → Anxiety).
Table G3
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Helicopter Parenting (HP) and
Procrastination with Social Self-Efficacy (SSE) as the Mediator
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.0696
0.0352
1.975
0.048
39.2
Direct
c
0.1079
0.1141
0.946
0.344
60.8
Total
c + a x b
0.1775
0.1142
1.554
0.120
100.0
Note. The labels are a (HP → SSE), b (SSE → Procrastination), c (HP → Procrastination).
Table G4
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Helicopter Parenting (HP) and Anxiety with
Social Self-Efficacy (SSE) as the Mediator
56
PROCRASTINATION AND ANXIETY AMONGST INDIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.11578
0.0561
2.0651
0.039
92.66
Direct
c
0.00917
0.1724
0.0532
0.958
7.34
Total
c + a x b
0.12496
0.1735
0.7204
0.471
100.0
Note. The labels are a (HP → SSE), b (SSE → Anxiety), c (HP → Anxiety).
Table G5
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Locus of Control (LoC) and Procrastination
with General Self-Efficacy (GSE) as the Mediator
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.2036
0.0466
4.368
<.001
79.2
Direct
c
0.0535
0.0645
0.830
0.407
20.8
Total
c + a x b
0.2572
0.0716
3.590
<.001
100.0
Note. The labels are a (LoC → GSE), b (GSE → Procrastination), c (LoC → Procrastination).
Table G6
Mediation Estimates in the Relationship between Locus of Control (LoC) and Anxiety with
General Self-Efficacy (GSE) as the Mediator
Effect
Label
Estimate
SE
Z
p
% Mediation
Indirect
a x b
0.193
0.0559
3.45
<.001
46.6
Direct
c
0.221
0.1090
2.03
0.043
53.4
Total
c + a x b
0.414
0.1075
3.85
<.001
100.0
Note. The labels are a (LoC → GSE), b (GSE → Anxiety), c (LoC → Anxiety).
