Education Economics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cede20

Unintentional procrastination, self control, and

academic achievements

Iris Franz

To cite this article: Iris Franz (2020): Unintentional procrastination, self control, and academic
achievements, Education Economics, DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2020.1801596

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1801596

Published online: 04 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cede20
EDUCATION ECONOMICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2020.1801596

Unintentional procrastination, self control, and academic

achievements
Iris Franza,b
a
MSU Denver, Denver, CO, USA; bUniversity of St. Thomas, Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study measures students’ unintentional procrastination, as captured Received 15 January 2020
by ‘the number of days delayed,’ or ‘delay.’ ‘Delay’ is the difference Accepted 6 July 2020
between the day that a student indicated that he or she would work on
KEYWORDS
a homework assignment, and the day that he or she actually worked on Economics of education;
that assignment as recorded by Blackboard. Regression results self-control; procrastination;
demonstrate that ‘delay’ is negatively associated with homework score, academic achievements;
grade in principles of micro-and-macroeconomics, as well as cumulative academic performance
GPA. Furthermore, starting homework later than one’s plan matters more
than starting homework late per se. Finally, students do not update their JEL CLASSIFICATIONS
priors about their own behavior. D90; I20

1. Introduction
People have self-control issues. We tend to seek immediate gratification and postpone costly actions
(O’Donoghue and Rabin 1999, 2000). As such, self-control seems to be an asset: the ability to delay
gratification and carry out costly action promptly has become a key to success, such as studying hard
and getting good grades, meeting project deadlines, living within one’s means, and staying on a diet
(Laibson 1997).
At school, self-control issues arise when students postpone studying until days or hours before a
major exam, or wait until the last minute to start working on an assignment, such as homework or a
term paper. Research shows that about 80–95% of college students procrastinate in academic work
(Ellis and Knaus 1977; O’Brien 2002; Steel 2007), and almost 50% of them habitually and consistently
procrastinate (Day, Mensink, and O’Sullivan 2000; Haycock, McCarthy, and Skay 1998; Onwuegbuzie
and Jiao 2000). Reasons for students to procrastinate include ‘fear of failure,’ ‘lack of energy,’ ‘task
unpleasantness,’ ‘lack of motivation,’ and ‘lack of task competence’ (Solomon and Rothblum 1984;
Klingsieck et al. 2013).
It seems obvious why procrastination could be detrimental to academic performance: given the
same deadline, the longer one waits to start working on an assignment, the less time is permitted
for that assignment. As a result, one might conjecture that the later a student starts working on
an assignment, the lower the quality of the completed (and sometimes unfinished) assignment.
Nevertheless, postponing working on an assignment does not necessarily suggest self-control
issues. While some students are procrastinating, others take the time to study lecture notes and
the textbook to better prepare themselves for the homework assignment. Still others claim that
they ‘work better under pressure,’ and purposefully start working on an assignment only a few
days, or a few hours, before the deadline. Therefore, not all procrastination suggest the lack of
self-control. Rather, some procrastination are ‘intentional.’ In particular, delaying working on an

CONTACT Iris Franz ifranz@msudenver.edu, franzw@stthom.edu, irisfranz@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 I. FRANZ

assignment, depending on the circumstances (e.g. studying the course material before attempting
the homework), could possibly improve, rather than jeopardize, the quality of the assignment.
As such, the number of days that a student waits until starting to work on an assignment is no
longer a good measurement of (the lack of) self-control. Instead, an appropriate measurement of
self-control should reveal whether a student has deviated from his/her study plan, or if the
student had purposefully waited until the last minute to work on an assignment.
This study measures students’ unintentional procrastination. The author observes the behaviors of
students in several principles of micro-and-macroeconomics classes, taught between spring 2015
and spring 2017 at the University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX. On a day when a homework assignment
was posted on Blackboard, the author, also the instructor of the classes, asked each student to indi-
cate which day he or she planned to start working on that assignment. Unbeknownst to the students,
the author observed the day that each student actually started working on the assignment, as
recorded by Blackboard. Not surprisingly, the 2 days did not always coincide.
The difference between the day that a student planned to work on an assignment, and the day
that the student actually worked on that assignment, is called ‘the number of days delayed,’ or
‘delay,’ in this paper. ‘Delay’ indicates the number of days the student unintentionally procrastinated
working on the assignment. Furthermore, ‘delay’ measures the degree of the student’s lack of self-
control. The larger ‘delay,’ the more the student has procrastinated unintentionally, and the more
self-control issue the student has.
Notice that ‘delay’ is not measured in the ‘absolute’ term – that is, it is not measured by the
number of days the student waited until working on the homework since it was posted. Rather,
‘delay’ is measured by the day the student planned to work on the homework and the day he or
she actually worked on the homework. If the student indicated that he or she would do the home-
work on ‘Sunday’ (the due date of the assignment) and he/she actually did so, then the student
delayed 0 days. This way, this study distinguishes students who procrastinated intentionally (that
is, those who planned to work on the due date and actually did so) from those who procrastinated
unintentionally (those who planned to work on an earlier day but failed to do so).
A positive delay does not always suggest self-control issues. Perhaps students do not care much
about obtaining a good grade. Therefore, it is a rational choice to postpone assignments that require
effort, which is unpleasant and costly to the students. However, research reveals that students often
‘pester’ their professors into giving extra points, although doing so is also costly (Franz 2010). This
shows that students do care about their grades to some extent.
A positive delay could also be caused by unexpected sickness or family emergency.1 Yet, emer-
gency does not occur every day. If a student consistently delays working on homework many
times that could suggest a self-control issue.
This study finds that students who procrastinate unintentionally, as measured by relatively larger
‘delay,’ are more likely to (1) score lower in a homework assignment, (2) perform worse in principles of
micro-and-macroeconomics, and (3) obtain a lower grade point average (GPA).
The major finding of this study is that, self-control issue has a negative association with academic
achievements. This finding is coherent with the literature: research shows that students with higher
scores on self-control tend to have higher GPAs (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham 2003; De Paola
and Scoppa 2015; Duckworth and Seligman 2006; Horn and Kiss 2018; Non and Tempelaar 2016;
Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone 2004). Furthermore, studies also find that self-control outdoes IQ
in predicting academic achievements of adolescents (Duckworth and Seligman 2005).
Nevertheless, there has been little research about procrastination in studying with data observed
in the field. For instance, Horn and Kiss (2018) and Non and Tempelaar (2016) analyze how students’
time preferences could affect their academic performance. However, they measure students’ time
preferences by hypothetical questions like ‘would you prefer $1000 now or $1100 next year?’
rather than facing students with a real choice. Even if an individual indicates that he/she prefers
$1100 later to $1000 now in the questionnaire, it does not necessarily imply that the individual
would make the same choice in his/her real life.
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 3

Laboratory and field experiments, where subjects make real choices that affect their actual payoffs,
give us a better idea of their real time preference. For instance, in Bisin and Hyndman’s (2014) field
experiment, subjects, who are also students, are asked to perform a simple task – sorting alphabets –
for a monetary reward. The research confirms that students are mostly biased to the present and tend
to procrastinate.
Yet, students’ time preference and procrastination in sorting a word in the alphabetical order
could be quite different from their time preference in human capital investment – that is, studying.
It would be ideal if students’ procrastination behavior is measured by their actual studying behavior.
Otherwise, one lacks the smoking gun to connect students’ procrastination to their academic
achievements. For instance, to prioritize studying, one might procrastinate house chores. Therefore,
using procrastination behavior in house chores (or other activities) to predict one’s academic achieve-
ments could be misleading.
Wong (2008) observes students’ procrastination behavior in studying, which allows him to connect
procrastination with academic performance. In his research, students are required to report their own
optimal study date, the date that they planned to study, and the date that they actually studied. This
way, students could be categorized into ‘time-consistent,’ ‘sophisticated,’ and ‘naivetes.’
With the link between students’ procrastination in studying and their academic record, Wong
(2008) was able to conclude that time-consistent students outperform those who are time inconsist-
ent. The only issue is that his research relies on students’ self-report, which could be subjective and
plagued by the noise in the data caused by students’ imperfect and limited memory.
De Paola and Scoppa (2015) successfully captured college freshmen’s procrastination behavior by
recording the number of days they waited to register for classes since the date of their admission
notice. Unlike self-reports, the observations were objectively documented by the registrar of the uni-
versity. De Paula and Scoppa argue that after receiving the admission notice, the longer a student
waited until registering for classes, the more he or she procrastinated. They conclude that procrasti-
nation, as measured by the number of days a student waited to register for classes, is a strong indi-
cator for academic success.
Unlike Wong (2008), De paola and Scoppa (2015) measure students’ procrastination in registering
for classes, which cannot be directly connected to their academic performance. Furthermore, De
Paola and Scoppa record students’ procrastination in the ‘absolute’ term. As a result, the data are
not informative as to whether students procrastinated intentionally or unintentionally. To students
who intentionally procrastinated, registration was probably not their top priority; perhaps they
planned to register at a later day because they had other more important things to do. The naive
students, on the other hand, put off registration because they inaccurately predicted that they
‘would do it very soon.’
This paper contributes to the literature of students’ self-control and procrastination in several
ways. First, the measurement of procrastination is in a relative term – delay – the difference
between the day that a student planned to do the homework, and the day that the student
actually did it. This way, one can tell whether the students’ procrastination was intentional or
unintentional.
Second, this study observes students’ time preference in studying. This is also the major difference
of this paper from the literature. Unlike many papers that measure procrastination in tasks unrelated
to human capital investment, this paper measures students’ procrastination in doing their homework.
Students face a real choice as to which day to do the homework, rather than some hypothetical ques-
tions about money in a questionnaire. Moreover, students’ behaviors are observed objectively on
Blackboard, so the data are more reliable than students’ self-report. Finally, this study captures indi-
viduals’ behaviors outside of the laboratory, which better reflects the reality.
The rest of the paper will proceed as follows: Section 2 introduces the method of data collection.
Section 3 describes the data collected in the field. Section 4 details regression models and expec-
tations, and Section 5 presents regression results. Section 6 discusses policy implications, as well
as whether students update the priors of their own behaviors. Section 7 concludes.
4 I. FRANZ

2. Data collection
2.1. Subjects
Students who took principles of microeconomics (ECON 1332) and principles of macroeconomics
(ECON 1331) taught by the author from spring 2015 to spring 2017 at the University of St. Thomas
(UST), Houston, TX, were solicited for the study (see Table 1). Each class had 20–30 students.
Except for one adult learner, all students were typical full-time college students, between 18 and
22 years old. They were diversified in gender, as well as cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
In the beginning of the study, the students were guaranteed confidentiality of their personally
identifiable data and signed the consent approved by the UST Human Subject Committee. Extra
credits were offered as an incentive for participation. Due to the low marginal cost of participation
(5 minutes of class time; details below), the initial participation rate was 100%. However, some stu-
dents, typically poor performers, dropped out later and their data were excluded. In addition, stu-
dents who failed to submit any assignment were dropped from the data set.

2.2. Procedure
In the beginning of each semester, the instructor discussed this research project with all students in
classes listed in Table 1. The students were told that the purpose of this project is to understand their
study plan; in particular, the day that they plan to work on homework assignments. However, stu-
dents were not aware that the instructor later checked the day that they actually started working
on the homework assignments.

2.3. Homework assignments

In each class listed in Table 1, the instructor gave five graded open-book homework assignments on
Blackboard, a web tool for higher education. Each assignment contained 10–18 multiple choice ques-
tions.2 In addition, each assignment became available on a Tuesday at 12:30 pm, and was due the
following Sunday at 11:59 pm.
The due dates of the homework assignments were indicated on the syllabus. Moreover, on a
Tuesday when an assignment became available, the instructor announced in class that a homework
assignment ‘will become available today at 12: 30 pm.3’ On the following Thursday during class time
(after the assignment became available for 2 days), the instructor reminded students about the
assignment.
Each student had two attempts for each assignment before the due date and the higher score
counted. The second attempt was optional. Each attempt was timed for 150 minutes. Therefore, stu-
dents could work on homework assignments without time pressure. If a student started the first

Table 1. Classes included in the study.

Semester Class Title Section Meeting Days and Time
Spring 2015 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section B TTH 9:35–10:50 am
Spring 2015 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section C TTH 11:00 am–12:15 pm
Fall 2015 Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 1331 Section A TTH 9:35–10:50 am
Fall 2015 Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 1331 Section B TTH 11:00 am–12:15 pm
Spring 2016 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section B TTH 9:35–10:50 am
Spring 2016 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section C TTH 11:00 am–12:15 pm
Spring 2016 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section N TTH 3:35–4:50 pm
Fall 2016 Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 1331 Section A TTH 9:35–10:50 am
Fall 2016 Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 1331 Section B TTH 11:00 am–12:15 pm
Spring 2017 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section B TTH 9:35–10:50 am
Spring 2017 Principles of Microeconomics ECON 1332 Section C TTH 11:00 am–12:15 pm
The textbook the university uses is ‘Economics’ by McConnell, Brue and Flynn. The first four chapters in micro-and macroeconomics
are the same. Material starts to differ after the first midterm exam.
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 5

attempt but failed to finish it before the due time, the system would submit the assignment automati-
cally and gave credit to the student for the questions he or she had completed. The students were
allowed to work in groups.
After each attempt, Blackboard informed the student the number of mistakes he or she made,
without indicating which answer was wrong. Once an assignment was due, students could no
longer attempt the assignment, and Blackboard graded all students’ assignments automatically. At
the end of the semester, the worst assignment was dropped from each student’s record.
Each homework assignment had the same weight and was normalized to 100 points. For instance,
if an assignment had 15 questions, then each question counted 6.67 points. But in an assignment that
had 10 questions, each question counted 10 points. At the end of the semester, after dropping the
worst assignment, the average score of the assignments counted 20% of the students’ final grade.
The weight of assignments, as well as assignment policy (no late assignments, two attempts
allowed in each assignment, etc.) were indicated on the syllabus. In addition, the instructor
announced the assignment policy at the beginning of the semester in each class.

2.4. Study plan

On a Tuesday when a new assignment became available, the instructor gave the students a short
questionnaire during the class. The questionnaire asked students to indicate on which day they
planned to start working on the assignment. Each student could choose among Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday (the due date), or ‘I do not plan to work on my assignment this
week (I am out of town, etc.).’ It is worth noting that, throughout the data collection period, no
student ever chose the last option.
Each homework assignment contained material that was covered in the week before. This allowed
students to digest the course material, and it gives students more information to decide which day to
attempt the homework.
Students were assured that their grades will not be affected whether or not they worked on an
assignment on a different day from his or her original plan as indicated on the questionnaire. In
other words, students were not bond to their plan. In addition, the instructor promised not to look
at the students’ study plan questionnaire until the semester was over and the grades were submitted.
This eliminated instructor’s bias, as well as students’ incentive to ‘impress’ the instructor by putting
down an earlier date.

2.5. Procrastination
Blackboard keeps a record as to exactly which day a student started working on an assignment. Let Ai
be the day that the student actually worked on Homework i, i = 1 · · · 5. This is how Ai is coded:
Tuesday=2, Wednesday=3, Thursday=4, Friday=5, Saturday=6, and Sunday=7.4
Let the day that a student planned to start working on Homework i be Pi , coded the same way as
Ai . Let the number of days delayed, or ‘delay’ be Di , where Di = Ai − Pi .
For instance, if a student indicated on the questionnaire that he or she would like to start working
on Homework 3 on Friday, but actually did so on Sunday, then D3 = A3 − P3 = 7 − 5 = 2.
It is possible that Di , 0. That is, occasionally, a student worked on an assignment earlier than he
or she had planned. However, this happened less than 9% of the time. In contrast, Di . 0 happened
most of the time (see Table 2).

Table 2. Delay.
Delay < 0 Delay = 0 Delay > 0 Total
Count 115 366 872 1349
Percentage 8.23% 27.13% 64.64% 100.00%
6 I. FRANZ

3. Data description
Through spring 2015 to spring 2017 (5 semesters in all), the author was able to collect most data of
students’ plan to work on a homework assignment (Pi ), as well as the actual day students worked on
the assignment (Ai ). Thus the author was able to calculate the number of days delayed for most
assignments.

3.1. Missing observations of Di

Because ‘delay’ Di is equal to Ai − Pi , a student does not have an observation of Di if either Ai or Pi is
missing. For instance, if a student missed the Tuesday class when Homework i became available, then
he or she did not participate in the questionnaire to indicate as to which day he or she planned to
start working on Homework i. Therefore, he or she has no record of Pi , and thus, no record of Di .
Additionally, if a student missed Homework i, then he or she had no record of Ai , and as a result, no
record of Di .

3.2. Potential underestimation of Ai and partial remedy

Ai is ranging from 2 (Tuesday) to 7 (Sunday) if the student submitted the assignment before the due
date. If the student missed Homework i, then there is no record of Ai . Since the due date for each
homework assignment was a Sunday, missing the assignment suggests that, if late assignments
had been accepted, then the student ‘would have’ submitted the homework on the following
Monday or later, or perhaps never. This means Ai ‘could have been’ equal to 8, a number larger
than 8, or ∞. As such, missing assignments cause variable Ai to be underestimated.
One can partially alleviate the underestimation of Ai by recording the data in two ways and run the
same regression with two sets of data. The first is treating missing assignments as missing obser-
vations (that is, dropping missing assignments from the data). The second is recording missing
assignment as Ai = 8. Yet, this partial remedy does not eradicate the issue of underestimation, for
the student could have attempted the assignment later than Monday (Ai . 8) or never (Ai = 1).
Note that dropping missing assignments raises the average homework score, because students
received zero points for a missed assignment. Therefore, recording missing assignment as ‘being sub-
mitted on Monday’ probably better reflects students’ true homework score.

3.3. Demographic information

In a separate online questionnaire approved by the UST Human Subject Committee, students
reported their demographic information, including race, gender, and major.

3.4. Summary of statistics

Table 3 summarizes all homework assignments submitted by the deadline. Table 4 summarizes all
homework assignments scores, submitted on time of not; specifically, missing assignments were
recorded ‘submitted on Monday.’ In both tables, the count of ‘Actual’ is higher than the count of
‘Delay,’ because Di is missing if either Pi or Ai is missing. In Table 4, the count of ‘Actual’ is higher
than that of Table 3, because all missing assignments are recorded as submitted with zero points
in Table 4. In addition, since all missing assignments were counted as ‘submitted on Monday’ in
Table 4, one can calculate more observations of ‘Di .’ As such, the count of ‘Delay’ is higher in
Table 4 than in Table 3. Yet, the count of ‘Delay’ is still fewer than ‘Actual’ in Table 4 due to
missing Pi .
Tables 5 and 6 summarize students’ grades in economics as well as their cumulative GPA. Note
that the number of observations is the number of students who took the classes. Therefore, the
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 7

Table 3. Summary statistics: missing assignments dropped.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. N
Homework Score 85.960 15.659 1230
Actual 5.253 1.799 1230
Delay 1.146 1.679 1113
Male 0.427 0.495 1230
Junior/Senior 0.280 0.449 1230
Asian 0.127 0.333 1230
Black 0.060 0.238 1230
Hispanic 0.404 0.491 1230
White 0.247 0.432 1230
EMP 0.011 0.106 1230
Business major 0.234 0.427 1230
Other majors 0.148 0.355 1230
Micro 0.675 0.469 1230

number of missing assignments does not affect the number of observations. In Table 5, missing
assignments (with no record of Ai ) were dropped from the calculation of the mean and median of
‘Actual.’ However, in Table 6, missing assignments were recorded as Ai = 8. As such, both ‘Actual’
and ‘Delay’ are higher in Table 6 than in Table 5.

4. Regression models and expectations

The purpose of this study is to examine whether a student’s unintentional procrastination has an
association with his/her academic achievements. Three variables capture students’ procrastination:
Ai , the actual day that the student started working on Homework i; Di , the number of days a
student delayed on Homework i; and M, the number of missing assignments.
Assuming that, when filling out the questionnaire about their homework plan, the students had to
consider the amount of time needed to study before attempting the assignment, then variable Di
would probably serve as a more accurate measurement of unintentional procrastination than Ai .

4.1. Unintentional procrastination and homework score

The regression model can be expressed as follows:
Homework Score = a0 + a1 A + a2 D + X a + u, (1)
where Homework Score stands for the score earned for each homework assignment between spring
2015 and spring 2017. A is the actual day the assignment was first attempted, and D is the number of
days delayed for that particular assignment. X is a vector of control variables, including the race,

Table 4. Summary statistics: missing assignments recorded as ‘submitted on Monday’.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. N
Homework Score 78.668 28.247 1349
Actual 5.491 1.884 1349
Delay 1.328 1.803 1196
Male 0.434 0.496 1349
Junior/Senior 0.279 0.449 1349
Asian 0.123 0.329 1349
Black 0.058 0.233 1349
Hispanic 0.405 0.491 1349
White 0.244 0.43 1349
EMP 0.011 0.105 1349
Business major 0.235 0.424 1349
Other majors 0.148 0.355 1349
Micro 0.678 0.467 1349
8 I. FRANZ

Table 5. Summary statistics: missing assignments dropped.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. N
EconGrade 3.081 0.812 255
GPA 3.059 0.602 255
Actual (mean) 5.274 1.284 255
Actual (median) 5.361 1.622 255
Delay (mean) 1.178 1.077 255
Delay (median) 1.133 1.277 255
Missing assignment 0.404 0.719 255
Male 0.412 0.493 255
Junior/Senior 0.282 0.451 255
Asian 0.125 0.332 255
Black 0.063 0.243 255
Hispanic 0.435 0.497 255
White 0.239 0.427 255
EMP 0.012 0.108 255
Business major 0.227 0.42 255
Other majors 0.141 0.349 255
Micro 0.663 0.474 255

Table 6. Summary statistics: missing assignments recorded as ‘submitted on Monday’.

Variable Mean Std. Dev. N
EconGrade 3.081 0.812 255
GPA 3.059 0.602 255
Actual (mean) 5.439 1.308 255
Actual (median) 5.486 1.66 255
Delay (mean) 1.327 1.15 255
Delay (median) 1.263 1.37 255
Male 0.412 0.493 255
Junior/Senior 0.282 0.451 255
Asian 0.125 0.332 255
Black 0.063 0.243 255
Hispanic 0.435 0.497 255
White 0.239 0.427 255
EMP 0.012 0.108 255
Business major 0.227 0.42 255
Other majors 0.141 0.349 255
Micro 0.663 0.474 255

gender, major, years in college, and the subject control variable (whether data were collected from
microeconomics classes (micro = 1), or macroeconomics classes (micro = 0)). Furthermore, dummy
variables are included to control for different assignments (HW2, HW3, HW4, or HW5).
Because missing assignments cause variable Ai to be underestimated, the author runs the
regression of Equation (1) with two sets of data. In the first set of regressions, observations with
missing Homework i will be dropped. In the second set of regressions, however, missing Homework
i is recorded as Ai = 8 and Di = 8 − Pi . That is, missing assignments are treated as ‘having been sub-
mitted on Monday with zero points.’

4.2. Tobit regressions

When missing assignments are recorded as ‘submitted on Monday with zero points,’ the data are cen-
soring from below. Therefore, a tobit model is appropriate.

4.3. Individual fixed effects

Unobservable individual characteristics could be correlated with the decision on whether to procras-
tinate on homework assignments. This can be controlled for by the fixed effects model. As each
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 9

student submitted more than one assignment each semester, one can run Regression (1) again with
individual fixed effects.

4.4. Unintentional procrastination and academic achievements

Academic achievements can also be measured by the grade received in principles of micro-or-macro-
economics. Therefore, the regression equation can be expressed as follows:
EconGrade = b0 + b1 A + b2 D + b3 M + X b + e; (2)
where EconGrade is the grade that the student received in principles of micro-or-macroeconomics,
ranging from A(4.0), A − (3.7), B + (3.3) . . . to D(1.0) and F(0). A stands for Ai or MD(Ai ); namely, the
mean or median day that the student actually started working on an assignment. D stands for Di
or MD(Di ); that is, the mean or the median of the number of days the student delayed working on
a homework assignment. M is the number of missing homework assignments, where 0 ≤ M ≤ 4 (stu-
dents who missed all five assignments were dropped from the data set). Finally, X is a vector of
control variables, similar to that in Equation (1).
The author will again run the regression in Equation (2) twice. The first set of regressions will
exclude missing assignments from the calculation of Ai and MD(Ai ) (and thus Di or MD(Di )). In the
second set of regressions, the calculation of Ai and MD(Ai ) will include missing assignments but
treat them as ‘submitted on Monday.’ There will be no variable M (the number missing assignments)
in the second set of regressions.
Another measurement of academic achievements is the cumulative grade point average (GPA):
GPA = g0 + g1 A + g2 D + g3 M + X g + 1. (3)
Equation (3) is similar to Equation (2), although the dependent variable is now a student’s cumulative
GPA. Due to the issue of missing assignments, Equation (3) will also be run twice, similar to Equation
(2).
By regressing GPA on the measurements of procrastination obtained in economics classes, this
study assumes that a student had similar, if not exactly the same, procrastination behaviors across
different classes. In other words, if a student procrastinates in economics assignments, then he or
she probably also procrastinates in other classes.

4.5. Expected signs of the coefficients

4.6. Explanatory variables
Variables A and D in Equation (1), as well as variables A, D, and M in Equations (2) and (3) are the
measurements of procrastination. Therefore, one expects negative coefficients of variables A, D,
and M in Equations (1), (2), and (3).
However, as mentioned, a student might choose to start working on a homework assignment late
because he or she would like to study lecture notes and the textbook first. If most students attempted
assignments late because they studied first, then the coefficient of A might be positive. As a result, the
sign of variable A’s coefficient is ambiguous.

4.7. Control variables

X is a vector of control variables including gender, years in college (whether students are juniors and
seniors (JS = 1), or freshmen and sophomores (JS = 0)), ethnicity, and majors.
The reference major is ‘major undecided.’ EMP stands for students majoring in engineering, math,
or physics; these students typically have relatively high math aptitude and outperform their peers in
10 I. FRANZ

economics classes (Butler, Finegan, and Siegfried 1998). Therefore, one expect EMP to be positively
associated with Homework Score in Equation (1) and EconGrade in Equation (2).
One would expect variable JS to be positively associated with work quality and academic achieve-
ments in Equations (1), (2), and (3). Other things being equal, juniors and seniors are probably more
knowledgeable and more serious about their studying than their freshmen and sophomore
counterparts.
In race control variables, the reference race is ‘Other.’ The university is diversified in race and cul-
tural background. Except for Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White, about 16% of the students identify
their race as ‘Other.’ This includes mixed races and students from the Middle East, India, and Pakistan.
The expected signs of race control variables, as well as gender control variable (variable ‘Male’), are
unknown in Equations (1), (2), and (3).
‘Micro’ is a control variable that indicates where the data were collected from. ‘Micro’ = 1 if the
data were collected from microeconomics classes; ‘Micro’ = 0 if the data were collected from macro-
economics classes. Anecdotal evidence from College Confidential,5 an online student forum, suggests
that students typically find microeconomics more challenging than macroeconomics, due probably
to math and graphs involved in microeconomics. Therefore, the expected sign of ‘Micro’ coefficient is
negative in Equations (1) and (2), but unknown in Equation (3).
Note that some students took both micro-and-macroeconomics classes taught by the same
instructor. However, they always did so in different semesters, as the instructor never taught both
micro-and-macroeconomics in the same semester throughout the data collection period. Therefore,
the same student who took both micro-and-macroeconomics from the same instructor was treated
as two distinct students, as the student’s year (freshman, sophomore, junior or senior), econ grade
(micro or macro), and cumulative GPA have all changed.

4.8. Limitations
One drawback of this data set is the lack of the SAT scores to control for students’ IQ. The UST Human
Subject Committee permitted the collection of the SAT scores directly from students only. Unfortu-
nately, many students were transfer students who came to the university without the SAT scores.
Other students took the ACT instead of the SAT. Still others took the SAT but forgot about their scores.
Eventually, less than half of the students reported their SAT scores from their memory. While these
students reported their SAT scores, they indicated that they might not remember their scores cor-
rectly, as the test ‘was taken a long time ago.’ Since the reliability of these self-reported SAT scores
is questionable, they are not included in the analysis.

5. Regression results
5.1. Unintentional procrastination and homework score
Table 7 displays four sets of regression results of Equation (1). Regressions (1) and (2) drop obser-
vations with missing assignments. Regression (1) is an OLS model, and Regression (2) controls for
individual fixed effects.
Regressions (3) and (4) treat missing assignments as ‘submitted on Monday with zero points.’
Regression (3) is a Tobit model, and Regression (4) is a Tobit model with individual fixed effects.
In Regressions (1) and (2), one can observe that, each day delayed is negatively associated with the
homework score by about 1 point, and the result is statistically significant at the 5% and 1% level,
respectively. In addition, the actual day students work on the assignment does not seem to matter.
Nevertheless, Regressions (3) and (4) depict a more dire story. Since no one missed assignments
intentionally, failing to submit the homework on time can be an indication of serious procrastination
issues.6 Regressions (3) and (4) demonstrate that both ‘actual day’ and ‘delay’ matter. For instance, in
Regression (4), after controlling for individual fixed effects, each day delayed from the plan is
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 11

Table 7. Homework score.

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Missing Asgmt Dropped Missing Asgmt Dropped Missing Asgmt as Mon Missing Asgmt as Mon
HW Score, OLS HW Score, FE HW Score, Tobit HW Score, Tobit FE
Actual −0.196 0.820 −2.794∗∗∗ −2.793∗∗∗
(−0.58) (1.84) (−5.10) (−4.86)
Delay −0.706∗ −1.191∗∗ −3.446∗∗∗ −3.346∗∗∗
(−1.99) (−2.89) (−6.16) (−5.87)
Male −1.204 −0.675 −1.855 −1.811
(−1.24) (−0.28) (−1.17) (−1.00)
Junior/Senior −0.0160 6.174∗ −1.342 −0.916
(−0.01) (2.22) (−0.72) (−0.43)
Asian 4.084∗ 12.71∗∗ 6.597∗ 8.330∗
(2.35) (2.63) (2.33) (2.54)
Black 4.676∗ 9.154 10.95∗∗ 11.52∗∗
(2.08) (1.41) (2.98) (2.73)
Hispanic 3.552∗ 8.575∗ 4.981∗ 5.500∗
(2.58) (2.36) (2.24) (2.16)
white 1.204 6.530 3.840 4.957
(0.81) (1.58) (1.60) (1.79)
EMP 9.792∗ 5.011 3.100 3.564
(2.27) (0.58) (0.44) (0.45)
Business −0.101 −0.687 −0.756 −0.790
(−0.08) (−0.22) (−0.38) (−0.35)
Other Major 2.014 0.0492 4.578 4.690
(1.41) (0.01) (1.94) (1.74)
Micro 2.093∗ 2.949 3.030 2.757
(2.09) (1.59) (1.86) (1.53)
_cons 85.16∗∗∗ 55.18∗∗∗ 97.40∗∗∗ 96.50∗∗∗
(39.66) (6.12) (27.70) (25.45)
/
var(e.hw) 646.1∗∗∗
(22.94)
sigma_u 9.041∗∗∗
(8.12)
sigma_e 23.77∗∗∗
(40.25)
N 1113 1113 1196 1196
t statistics in parentheses.
∗
p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01, ∗∗∗ p , 0.001.

negatively associated with 3.3 points in the homework score. Moreover, one additional ‘actual day’ is
negatively associated with homework score for almost 2.8 points.
A negative coefficient in ‘Actual’ indicates that, students probably did not start homework on a
later date to better prepare themselves for the homework (such as studying the textbook). Moreover,
the quality of students’ work does not improve when they work ‘under pressure;’ that is, when the
deadline is approaching.

5.2. Control variables

Regressions (1), (2), (3), and (4) exhibit similar results in the control variables. As expected, students
who major in engineering, math, and physics (EMP) seem to score higher in these econ homework
assignments than their non-EMP counterparts, although some results are not statistically significant.
This is due probably to EMP students’ relatively high math aptitude – perhaps these students with
good math foundation selected themselves into economics classes, or perhaps good math foun-
dation helped these EMP students to excel in economics.
Some race control variables are significant. All regressions seem to suggest that Asian, Black, His-
panic and White students are scoring higher than students of ‘other races.’ Recall that many foreign
students, including those from India, Pakistan, and Middle East countries, indicate their race as ‘other
12 I. FRANZ

races.’ Some of these students had to learn economics the first time with English as a second
language, which could be challenging. This might explain why their homework scores are lower
than their counterparts.

5.3. Unintentional procrastination and grades in economics

Tables 8 exhibits regression results of Equation (2).
In Regressions (1A) and (1B), missing assignments are excluded from the calculation of Ai , MD(Ai ),
Di , and MD(Di ). In regressions (2A) and (2B), missing Ai is recorded as Ai = 8 and Di = 8 − Pi . In
addition, Regressions (1A) and (2A) measure Ai and Di in the mean, whereas Regressions (1B) and
(2B) measure Ai and Di in the median.
None of the four regressions suggest an association between actual day and the grade in econ-
omics. That is to say, attempting the assignment in a later day per se has no association with
grade in micro-or-macroeconomics.
Regressions (1A) and (1B) demonstrate a negative association between ‘delay’ and the grade in prin-
ciples of micro-and-macroeconomics. One day of delay measured in the mean or median is negatively
associated with EconGrade by about one-tenth of a letter grade. The results are statistically significant
at the 5% level. Furthermore, the number of missing assignments is a strong indicator of poor perform-
ance in economics. One missing assignment is negatively associated with almost half a letter grade.

Table 8. Econ grade.

(1A) (1B) (2A) (2B)
Missing Excluded Missing Excluded Missing as Mon. Missing as Mon.
EconGrade EconGrade EconGrade EconGrade
Actual_Mean −0.0138 −0.0886
(−0.32) (−1.95)
Delay_Mean −0.0990∗ −0.131∗∗
(−1.97) (−2.60)
Actual_Median 0.00463 −0.0519
(0.13) (−1.42)
Delay_Median −0.0870∗ −0.102∗
(−1.99) (−2.33)
Missing_Assignment −0.405∗∗∗ −0.415∗∗∗
(−6.18) (−6.38)
Male −0.0290 −0.0374 −0.0165 −0.0338
(−0.31) (−0.39) (−0.16) (−0.33)
Junior/Senior 0.0260 0.0206 0.0188 0.0262
(0.24) (0.19) (0.16) (0.22)
Asian 0.0232 0.0417 0.0537 0.101
(0.13) (0.23) (0.28) (0.53)
Black −0.259 −0.274 −0.131 −0.140
(−1.18) (−1.25) (−0.57) (−0.60)
Hispanic 0.198 0.201 0.209 0.227
(1.37) (1.39) (1.39) (1.49)
White 0.162 0.172 0.229 0.275
(1.03) (1.09) (1.40) (1.66)
EMP 0.981∗ 0.994∗ 0.924∗ 0.952∗
(2.30) (2.33) (2.06) (2.09)
Business major −0.211 −0.203 −0.216 −0.207
(−1.79) (−1.72) (−1.67) (−1.58)
Other major 0.0599 0.0559 0.154 0.156
(0.43) (0.40) (0.99) (0.99)
Micro −0.281∗∗ −0.288∗∗ −0.296∗∗ −0.308∗∗
(−2.85) (−2.93) (−2.85) (−2.95)
_cons 3.541∗∗∗ 3.433∗∗∗ 3.807∗∗∗ 3.551∗∗∗
(14.45) (15.79) (14.46) (15.22)
N 255 255 255 255
t statistics in parentheses.
∗
p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01, ∗∗∗ p , 0.001.
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 13

Regressions (2A) and (2B) treat missing assignments as Ai = 8 to partially alleviate the underesti-
mation of Ai and MD(Ai ) due to missing assignments. One can observe similar results here as those in
Regressions (1A) and (1B). Regressions (2A) and (2B) demonstrate a negative association between
‘delay’ and EconGrade. One day of delay is negatively associated with about one-tenth a letter
grade in economics, although the results are slightly more statistically significant than Regressions
(1A) and (1B).

5.4. Control variables

Students who major in EMP excelled in econ classes, as suggested by the literature (Butler, Finegan,
and Siegfried 1998). EMP students outperformed their non-EMP counterparts by about one letter
grade, and the results are statistically significant at the 5% level.
Regressions (1A) and (1B) also suggest that business majors performed worse in econ classes com-
pared to their non-business counterparts. All else equal, business majors scored about one-fifth of a
letter grade lower than those who have not declared their majors, and the results are mostly statisti-
cally significant at the 10% level.
The results are due probably to self-selection. The University of St. Thomas is a liberal arts
college that requires all students to take 6 credit hours of social and behavioral science. Students
can choose from economics, geography, international studies, political science, psychology, and
sociology.
While non-business majors are free to choose any two courses from the six fields listed above,
business majors are required to take principles of micro-and-macroeconomics to graduate. Non-
majors who chose to take economics to satisfy social and behavioral science requirement were
probably more comfortable with numbers and graphs than business majors, who had no
choice but to take economics classes. Clearly, students forced to take a course are likely to do
worse than their counterparts who elect to take the same course. Hence, business majors per-
formed worse in principles of micro-and-macroeconomics than those who had not yet declared
their majors.
All four regressions reveal that, grade in microeconomics is almost one-third of a letter grade lower
than that in macroeconomics, and the results are statistically significant at the 1% level. This is due
probably to the nature of the two courses. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students typically find
microeconomics more technical and intimidating than macroeconomics.

5.5. Unintentional procrastination and GPA

In Regressions (1A) and (1B), missing assignments are excluded from the calculation of Ai , MD(Ai ), Di ,
and MD(Di ). In regressions (2A) and (2B), missing Ai is recorded as Ai = 8 and Di = 8 − Pi . In addition,
Regressions (1A) and (2A) measure Ai and Di in the mean, whereas Regressions (1B) and (2B) measure
Ai and Di in the median.
Regressions (1A) and (1B) demonstrate a negative association between ‘delay’ and the GPA.
One day of delay measured in the mean or median is negatively associated with the GPA by
almost one-tenth of a letter grade. The results are statistically significant at the 5% level. Further-
more, missing assignments is a strong indicator of a lower GPA. One missing assignment is nega-
tively associated with more a quarter of a grade point. The results suggest that, if a student
procrastinates unintentionally in doing economics homework, he or she is likely to do so in study-
ing other subjects as well.
Regressions (2A) and (2B) treat missing assignments as Ai = 8, and demonstrate a negative associ-
ation between ‘delay’ and the GPA. One day of delay is negatively associated with about 0.1 point in
the GPA, the results are statistically significant at the 1% level.
None of the four regressions suggest an association between actual day and the GPA. These
results are similar to those in Table 8. These similar results will be discussed in Section 6.
14 I. FRANZ

5.6. Control variables

Table 9 reveals that, other things being equal, female students outperform their male cohorts in the
GPA by approximately 0.12–0.14 points, and the results are statistically significant at the 10% level.
Research shows that, typically, eighth-grader girls are more self-disciplined than their boy counter-
parts (Duckworth and Seligman 2006). Perhaps this self-discipline gives female students an edge,
whether they are in middle school or college.
Moreover, African American students seem to obtain lower GPAs than the reference race (other
races). There exists a vast literature about why African Americans typically have lower academic
achievements than others. The causes include, but are not limited to, poverty, sociological, and his-
torical forces (Gabriel 2010), quality of education in early school years (Allen 1992), and stereotype
threat (Steele and Aronson 1995). However, it is beyond the scope of this study.

6. Discussion
6.1. ‘Delay’ matters more than ‘Actual’
All regressions from Tables 7–9 demonstrate a negative association between ‘Delay’ and academic
performance, measured by homework score, grade in principles of micro-and-macroeconomics, as
well as the GPA.

Table 9. GPA.
(1A) (1B) (2A) (2B)
Missing Excluded Missing Excluded Missing as Mon. Missing as Mon.
GPA GPA GPA GPA
Actual_Mean −0.00775 −0.0504
(−0.24) (−1.49)
Delay_Mean −0.0777∗ −0.108∗∗
(−2.03) (−2.88)
Actual_Median 0.0120 −0.0130
(0.45) (−0.48)
Delay_Median −0.0767∗ −0.103∗∗
(−2.30) (−3.18)
Missing_Assignment −0.255∗∗∗ −0.263∗∗∗
(−5.09) (−5.30)
Male −0.134 −0.143 −0.118 −0.136
(−1.84) (−1.96) (−1.55) (−1.78)
JuniorSenior −0.0204 −0.0258 −0.0455 −0.0420
(−0.25) (−0.32) (−0.52) (−0.48)
Asian −0.0393 −0.0219 −0.0274 0.0195
(−0.28) (−0.16) (−0.19) (0.14)
Black −0.443∗∗ −0.452∗∗ −0.366∗ −0.368∗
(−2.64) (−2.70) (−2.14) (−2.14)
Hispanic −0.0821 −0.0775 −0.0816 −0.0608
(−0.75) (−0.70) (−0.73) (−0.54)
White 0.114 0.124 0.154 0.195
(0.95) (1.03) (1.26) (1.59)
EMP 0.412 0.414 0.376 0.373
(1.27) (1.27) (1.12) (1.11)
Business_major −0.0618 −0.0550 −0.0433 −0.0362
(−0.69) (−0.61) (−0.45) (−0.37)
MajorOther 0.125 0.120 0.220 0.217
(1.18) (1.13) (1.90) (1.86)
Micro −0.0237 −0.0304 −0.0366 −0.0482
(−0.31) (−0.41) (−0.47) (−0.62)
_cons 3.404∗∗∗ 3.300∗∗∗ 3.562∗∗∗ 3.334∗∗∗
(18.19) (19.92) (18.16) (19.27)
N 255 255 255 255
t statistics in parentheses.
∗
p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01, ∗∗∗ p , 0.001.
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 15

Regressions (3) and (4) in Table 7 also show a negative association between ‘Actual’ and home-
work score. However, no such an association is established between ‘Actual’ and ‘Econ Grade,’ or
‘Actual’ and the GPA in Tables 8 and 9. Although attempting the homework on a later day is nega-
tively associated with the homework score, it is not associated with the grade in economics or the
GPA.
Regression results from Tables 8 and 9 suggest that starting homework late per se says little about
unintentional procrastination. Therefore, one does not see a negative association between ‘Actual’
and grade in economics, or the GPA.
Instead, attempting the homework later than planned – that is, variable ‘Delay’ – is a better indi-
cation of unintentional procrastination and the lack of self-control. This is probably the reason why all
regressions in Tables 7–9 demonstrate a strong negative association between ‘Delay’ and academic
performance.

6.2. Prior update?

Bayesian statistics assumes that one has a prior distribution over the events. Upon observing the data,
a rational individual would update the prior. Yet, do students really update their priors? The quick
answer is, probably not.
Section 2 mentioned that students were asked to indicate when they would start working on a
homework assignment on five different dates throughout the semester; namely, the dates when
Homework 1, Homework 2, Homework 3, Homework 4, and Homework 5 became available,
respectively.
In other words, each student had several opportunities to observe his/her own behavior to see
whether he or she tended to delay working on an assignment. Did these observations help the
student to become a better predictor of the behavior of his/her future-self?
The short answer is no. If students had updated their priors, then variable Delay would display a
downward trend. Nevertheless, the data indicate otherwise (see Table 10). In fact, according to the
ANOVA results, Delay actually exhibits an upward trend. Using Homework 1 as the baseline,
Column (1) in Table 10 demonstrates that, other things equal, Homework 5 was delayed for half a
day more than Homework 1. The result is statistically significant at the 1% level.
Furthermore, if missing assignments are recorded as ‘submitted on Monday,’ (Column (2)), then
Delay not only exhibits an upward trend, but the results are also more statistically significant.
Other things being equal, Homework 3 was delayed 0.34 days more than Homework 1; Homework

Table 10. (No) prior update.

(1) (2)
Missing asgmt. as missing data Missing asgmt. as submitted on Mon.
Delay Delay
Homework 1 0 0
(.) (.)
Homework 2 −0.0728 −0.00755
(−0.48) (−0.05)
Homework 3 0.158 0.340∗
(1.02) (2.12)
Homework 4 0.172 0.426∗∗
(1.11) (2.67)
Homework 5 0.468∗∗ 0.653∗∗∗
(2.85) (3.85)
_cons 1.024∗∗∗ 1.066∗∗∗
(9.72) (9.56)
N 1115 1196
t statistics in parentheses.
∗
p<0.05, ∗∗ p<0.01, ∗∗∗ p , 0.001.
16 I. FRANZ

4, 0.43 days more; and Homework 5, 0.65 days more. The results are significant at the 5%, 1%, and
0.1% level, respectively.
Why did students delay more and more? One possibility is that, students might have strategically
missed the last assignment. Because the worst assignment is dropped from the record, the good per-
formers who did the first four assignments well might have purposefully chosen to miss the last
assignment. However, no one indicated that he or she intended to miss an assignment on the ques-
tionnaire. Assuming that students were honest when filling out the questionnaire, one can rule out
this possibility.
Another explanation is that, the later into the semester, the busier the students became, due prob-
ably to term papers, projects, and presentations assigned in other classes. In addition, Homework 5
was due in the end of the semester, when students were the most overwhelmed cramming for their
final exams.
If students were fully forward-looking, or behave like ‘econs,’7 then they would have calculated the
time needed for all assignments in other classes and planned accordingly. This is especially true
because all professors at the University of St. Thomas are required to give a course syllabus with sche-
dule clearly planned at the beginning of each semester. However, the ANOVA results demonstrate
otherwise; in particular, students did not update their priors about how many days they tended to
delay working on a homework assignment. This suggests that students are not ‘econs’ and do not
update their prior.

6.3. Limitations
Although this study finds a negative association between unintentional procrastination and aca-
demic achievements, the direction of causality is ambiguous. Procrastination could lead to poor per-
formance. However, poor performers might tend to procrastinate.
Ideally, to identify the causal relationship, one would have to randomly assign some students to
study early, and some to procrastinate, and then compare the results. However, such an experiment
would be unethical as most, if not all, students care about their grades. Such a design of the exper-
iment would also fail to pass any Human Subject Committee.

6.4. Application to education

Educators have pondered ways to intervene with procrastination behavior. However, studies show
that students’ ‘self-imposed deadlines’ does not help to change their own procrastination behavior
(Anderberg, Cerrone, and Chevalier 2018; Ariely and Wertenbroch 2002).
This paper has not established a causal relationship between procrastination and poor academic
performance. Nevertheless, the regression results provide implications for teachers and parents of
school-aged children, as well as professors working with college students.
Since variable ‘actual’ is not associated with academic performance, intentional procrastination
does not matter. This result shows the importance of adhering to the study plan. Parents and teachers
of school-aged children can train them to devise their own study schedule, and most importantly, to
‘stick to the plan.’ For instance, if a child fails to carry out the plan 1 day due to a loose tooth, that is
okay. However, if the child constantly falls behind the schedule due to various distractions – such as
computer games, comic books, or TV, then that is a problem.
Professors can address the issue with unintentional procrastination. In college, if poor performers
(in fear of failing the task) tend of procrastinate unintentionally, then the professor can assign plenty
of hands-on exercises in classes or during lab sessions before assigning homework. Frequent prac-
tices help students to become familiar with the questions and knowledgeable in the subject. Conse-
quently, students are more confident and less afraid of failures. As such, students are less likely to
procrastinate due to fear of failure.
 EDUCATION ECONOMICS 17

On the other hand, if unintentional procrastination causes poor academic performance, then the
professor can give incentives, such as extra credits, for early submission of homework assignments.
This could motivate students to finish their homework earlier, achieving a better learning outcome.
However, the incentive of early homework submission will not improve the learning results of stu-
dents who intentionally procrastinate (even if they might be induced to submit homework early),
because these students did not have an issue to begin with.

7. Conclusion
This paper collects field data to examine students’ unintentional procrastination in homework assign-
ments, measured in ‘delay’ – the number of days a student had delayed working on an assignment
relative to his or her original plan.
Regression results demonstrate a negative association between unintentional procrastination and
all measurements of academic achievements, including homework score, the grade in principles of
micro-and-macroeconomics, and the GPA. After controlling for an underestimation issue, one day
of delay is negatively associated with homework score by more than three points. The results are stat-
istically significant at the 0.1% level, with and without controlling for individual fixed effects.
In addition, ‘delay’ and the number of missing assignments are negatively associated with the
grade in micro-or-macroeconomics, as well as the cumulative GPA. One day of delay in homework
is negatively associated with one-tenth of a letter grade in economics, while one missing homework
assignment is negatively associated with almost half of a letter grade in economics. Similar negative
associations are observed between delay and the GPA, and between the number of missing assign-
ments and the GPA.
One important implication of the regression results is that, starting the assignment late per se does
not matter as much as starting the assignment later than planned.
In this study, homework assignments were relatively small assignments. If the assignment was
larger and required longer time to complete, such as a term paper, then one might observe a
bigger negative association between delay and the score received for the assignment.
The main results of this study – the negative association between unintentional procrastination
and academic achievements – may be applied to the workplace as well. Assuming that students
who procrastinate unintentionally at school are also likely to do so at workplace after graduation,
then firms are doing the right thing in reviewing transcripts before hiring new employees. Since
regressions demonstrate a negative association between ‘delay’ and GPA, firms might be able to
find potential employees with good self-control and discipline by looking at their GPAs, and
perhaps their grades in micro-and-macroeconomics.

Notes
1. A great majority of our students are full-time students, between 18 and 22 years old. Unlike adult learners, our
students typically do not have a family to take care of, and they do not hold a full-time job.
2. There was one exception: Homework 4 in spring 2017 had only seven multiple choice questions.
3. ECON 1332 Section N was the only exception. The class met on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 3:35 pm. Therefore, the
assignments became available 3 h before the class met. In that class, the instructor announced ‘The homework
assignment has been posted.’
4. One can also code Tuesday = 1, Wednesday = 2, and so on, but this does not affect the regression results.
5. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/ap-tests-preparation/537093-economics-micro-vs-macro.html, accessed
March 2017.
6. Section 1 discussed reasons, other than procrastination, for missing homework assignments.
7. Thaler (2015) calls rational and highly intelligent beings ‘econs.’

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
18 I. FRANZ

References
Allen, W. 1992. “The Color of Success: African-American College Student Outcomes at Predominantly White and
Historically Black Public Colleges and Universities.” Harvard Educational Review 62 (1): 26–45. doi:10.17763/haer.62.
1.wv5627665007v701.
Anderberg, D., C. Cerrone, and A. Chevalier. 2018. “Soft Commitment: A Study on Demand and Compliance.” Applied
Economic Letters 25 (16): 1140–1146. doi:10.1080/13504851.2017.1400648.
Ariely, D., and K. Wertenbroch. 2002. “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment.”
Psychological Science 13 (3): 219–224. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00441.
Bisin, A., and K. Hyndman. 2014. “Present-Bias, Procrastination and Deadlines in a Field Experiment (No. w19874).”
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Butler, J. S., T. A. Finegan, and J. J. Siegfried. 1998. “Does More Calculus Improve Student Learning in Intermediate Micro
and Macro Economic Theory?” Journal of Applied Econometrics 13 (2): 185–202. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1255.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., and A. Furnham. 2003. “Personality Traits and Academic Examination Performance.” European
Journal of Personality 17 (3): 237–250. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0984.
Day, V., D. Mensink, and M. O’Sullivan. 2000. “Patterns of Academic Procrastination.” Journal of College Reading and
Learning 30: 120–134. doi:10.1080/10790195.2000.10850090.
De Paola, M, and V. Scoppa. 2015. “Procrastination, Academic Success and the Effectiveness of a Remedial Program.”
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 115: 217–236. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.007.
Duckworth, A. L., and M. E. Seligman. 2005. “Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of
Adolescents.” Psychological Science 16 (12): 939–944. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x.
Duckworth, A. L., and M. E. Seligman. 2006. “Self-Discipline Gives Girls the Edge: Gender in Self-Discipline, Grades, and
Achievement Test Scores.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1): 198–208. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198.
Ellis, A., and W. J. Knaus. 1977. Overcoming Procrastination. New York: Signet Books.
Franz, W. J. I. 2010. “Grade Inflation Under the Threat of Students’ Nuisance: Theory and Evidence.” Economics of
Education Review 29 (3): 411–422. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.013.
Gabriel, T. 2010. “Proficiency of Black Students is Found to be Far Lower than Expected.” The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2010/11/09/education/09gap.html.
Haycock, L. A, P. McCarthy, and C. L. Skay. 1998. “Procrastination in College Students: The Role of Self-Efficacy and
Anxiety.” Journal of Counseling and Development 76: 317–324. doi:10.1002/jcad.1998.76.issue-3.
Horn, D., and H. J. Kiss. 2018. “Which Preferences Associate with School Performance. Lessons from an Exploratory Study
with University Students?” PloS One 13 (2): e0190163. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190163.
Klingsieck, K. B., A. Grund, S. Schmid, and S. Fries. 2013. “Why Students Procrastinate: A Qualitative Approach.” Journal of
College Student Development 54 (4): 397–412. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0060.
Laibson, D. 1997. “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 443–478.
doi:10.1162/003355397555253.
Non, A., and D. Tempelaar. 2016. “Time Preferences, Study Effort, and Academic Performance.” Economics of Education
Review 45: 36–61. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.06.003.
O’Brien, W. K. 2002. “Applying the Transtheoretical Model to Academic Procrastination.” Doctoral diss., ProQuest
Information & Learning.
O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 1999. “Doing it Now or Later.” The American Economic Review 89 (1): 103–124. doi:10.
1257/aer.89.1.103.
O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 2000. “The Economics of Immediate Gratification.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
13 (2): 233–250. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Q. G. Jiao. 2000. “I’ll Go to the Library Later: The Relationship between Academic Procrastination
and Library Anxiety.” College & Research Libraries 61 (1): 45–54. doi:10.5860/crl.61.1.45.
Solomon, L. J., and E. D. Rothblum. 1984. “Academic Procrastination: Frequency and Cognitive - Behavioral Correlates.”
Journal of Counseling Psychology 31 (4): 503–509. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503.
Steel, P. 2007. “The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory
Failure.” Psychological Bulletin 133 (1): 65–94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.
Steele, C. M., and J. Aronson. 1995. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African Americans.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5): 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.
Tangney, J. P., R. F. Baumeister, and A. L. Boone. 2004. “High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology,
Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success.” Journal of Personality 72 (2): 271–324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.
00263.x.
Thaler, R. 2015. “Unless You Are Spock, Irrelevant Things Matter in Economic Behavior.” The New York Times. http://nyti.
ms/1P6gcfd.
Wong, W. 2008. “How Much Time-Inconsistency Is There and Does It Matter? Evidence on Self-Awareness, Size, and
Effects.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 68: 645–656. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2008.09.005.