Diamonds are made under pressure?
Predictors of online procrastination and its effects on students’
well-being
Fabienne Scheder (12088218) Master Thesis Persuasive Communication
Graduate School of Communication Supervisor: dr. Annemiek Linn
Abstract
Over the past years, online media has emerged as a facilitative tool for students. However, it can also generate negative side effects, such as procrastination. A growing number of research suggests that the internet can significantly influence students’ productivity and well-being due to its distractive nature. The present study aimed to shed light on the predictors of online procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Building on recent literature, an online survey that included measures of online procrastination, self-control, mindfulness, feelings of guilt and well-being was conducted (N = 212). Results indicated that self-control, but not mindfulness was a significant predictor of online procrastination. Surprisingly, a mediation analysis revealed that online procrastination was not related to students’ well-being through feelings of guilt. Based on the findings, it is suggested to offer interventions
enhancing students’ self-control to help them successfully overcome online procrastination and feelings of guilt.
Introduction
“Never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow.”
–Mark Twain
In todays’ fast paced world, online media has drastically changed the way we handle deadlines and obligations, turning Twains’ ironic quote into a serious justification. Not only does online media increase the number of tasks we need to fulfill in a shorter period of time, but also creates more opportunities that can hinder us from completing them (Reinecke et al., 2018). Devices like smartphones, laptops, tablets and most recently smartwatches provide easy distractions from duties and responsibilities . The constant availability of media content serving users with entertainment, information and socialization at any time and any place creates strong temptations and leads to a state of being “permanently online, permanently connected” (Vorderer & Kohring, 2013, p. 188).
A growing number of research suggests that online media is used in order to escape aversive tasks such as completing personal projects, daily tasks, or academic tasks and thus conflicts with personal goals in our everyday life (Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016). One group for whom online media has become particularly indispensable are students. A study
conducted by CourseSmart and Wakefield Research found that 38% of students were not able to go more than 10 minutes without checking their devices (Kessler, 2011). This compulsive checking behavior shows that Internet applications are used as medium for ‘dysfunctional procrastination’ (Meier, Reinecke, & Meltzer, 2016), a behavior that describes individuals who chronically delay tasks (Ferrari, 1994) . Students report that the use of online media and especially social networking sites (SNS) like Facebook, make them lose track of time which leads to a delay of a task intended to get done, like writing a paper or studying for an exam (Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013).
With rising rates of students experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression in the last decade (Lipson, Lattie, & Eisenberg, 2019) the question evolves, if this compulsive
checking behavior is one of the drivers for poor well-being in the population and thus creates an important field to research. Previous work has analyzed the relationship between the tendency to delay unpleasant tasks and decreased well-being. Sirois (2014) for instance, found a strong link between procrastination and stress: When realizing the drawbacks of the
postponed work, negative self-evaluative thoughts and emotions can emerge, increasing levels of stress. Even though more support on the association between poor health outcomes and procrastination exists (Grunschel, Schwinger, Steinmayr, & Fries, 2016; Meier et al., 2016; Sirois, van Eerde, & Argiropoulou, 2015), the drivers for online procrastination in particular and how it is related to decreased well-being of students has not fully been analyzed.
According to Pychyl and Flett (2012) procrastination is characterized by self-regulatory failure that can increase the risk of stress and physical illness. Two traits that tend to be associated with facilitating self-regulation are self-control and mindfulness. Self-control has been mentioned as one of the main drivers for procrastination in general (Hofmann et al., 2014a; Meier et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2019; Steel, 2007). As media and particularly online media confronts students with many challenges for self-control, we also expect it to predict online procrastination. The second predictor suggested is mindfulness. Although mindfulness originates from Buddhist traditions that are thousands of years old, only recently it has been connected to online behaviors such as online procrastination (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Johannes et al., 2018; Sirois & Tosti, 2012). As research on mindfulness interventions is growing, it is another key concept that needs to be considered. Furthermore, the potential harming
consequences of online procrastination on students will be discussed. It is expected that the negative appraisal of online procrastination in form of feelings of guilt may serve as a mediator between online procrastination and well-being, as multiple studies have confirmed that the feeling of guilt is related to procrastination (Panek, 2014; Reinecke, Hartmann, & Eden, 2014). Taken together, the present study addresses two research questions:
(RQ1) What are the predictors of online procrastination and (RQ2) how is this related to students’ well-being?
By identifying potential coherences, interventions such as mobile applications can be created that may help students cope with triggers and burdens of the online environment and improve their well-being.
In the following section, evidence about online media-related procrastination is
reviewed. Furthermore, it is examined why self-control and mindfulness should predict online procrastination. Lastly, the potential effect of online procrastination on students’ well-being will be discussed and why feelings of guilt is expected to explain the relationship.
Theoretical Background Using online media for procrastination
A vast body of literature defines procrastination as “self-regulatory failure of not exerting self-control necessary for task engagement” (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013, p. 116). Thus, when procrastinating, individuals voluntarily delay an intended or important task. Often they procrastinate by engaging in pleasurable short-term activities like checking social media (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013). Contrary to strategic or rational delay, procrastination describes a more dysfunctional or irrational behavior, meaning that procrastinators typically realize that their behavior is useless and self-harming in the long term (Reinecke et al., 2018). However, the short-term benefits often seem to outweigh its long-term costs (Tice & Baumeister, 1997).
For many individuals, but especially for students, procrastinatory activities are tempting because they provide immediate gratifications such as a better mood (Meier et al., 2016). According to Zillmanns’ mood management theory (1988) individuals either want to increase or maintain their mood and media has been proven to provide pleasurable
only provides distal rewards (e.g. getting a degree) and is therefore perceived as stressful, boring or frustrating compared to a competing activity such as checking Instagram (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). In this case by checking Instagram, users receive immediate gratifications in the form of social interaction, archiving, self-expression, escapism (Lee, Lee, Moon, & Sung, 2015). These instant gratifications and short-term mood optimizations were recently demonstrated to be one of the key drivers of procrastination (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013).
Multiple studies have shown that the use of media is a very attractive procrastination task even when trying to resist the temptation (Hofmann & Kotabe, 2012). A study conducted by Reinecke & Hofmann (2016) supports this notion, concluding that in more than 60% of all media use occurrences, this specific media use conflicted with other important tasks. Media use particularly provokes the user to procrastinate when the activity is perceived to be more gratifying and enjoyable (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001). Furthermore, an intervention study by Hinsch and Sheldon (2013) found that when reducing internet use, procrastination is
decreasing. This highlights once more that there is indeed a conspicuous relationship between online media and procrastination.
In the context of online media Reinecke and colleagues (2018) argue that there are three main reasons why the internet is being used to procrastinate: (1) mobile connections and smartphones make media content permanently available at no cost or effort; (2) online
activities (e.g. social media, online videos, gaming) provide pleasurable experiences and provide instant mood optimization when confronted with an aversive task (such as writing a thesis) and (3) online media in particular are often selected impulsively and uncontrolled or out of habit. Two characteristics that may serve as predictors for students to procrastinate online will be discussed in the following section.
Baumeister (2002) defines self-control as “the self’s capacity to alter its own states and responses”. These responses include thoughts, changing emotions, regulating impulses, and altering performances (Baumeister, 2002). Self-control is seen as an important variable for goal selection, goal pursuit, and goal disengagement (Wrosch & Freund, 2001). Low levels of self-control have been associated with numerous individual and societal problems, including procrastination (Hofmann et al., 2014).
A growing number of research has started focusing on the relationship between self-control and the use of media (Bayer, Dal Chin, Campbell, & Panek, 2016; Hofmann et al., 2017; Panek, 2014). The desire to use media was shown to be hard to resist and brings a great challenge for the self-control of an individual in his or her everyday life (Hofmann et al., 2014). It should be expected that individuals who show low levels of self-control have more difficulties in resisting procrastination with media. Thus, not engaging in procrastination might be linked to higher levels of self-control. In line with this assumption, Hofmann and Kotabe (2014) conclude that due to the dysfunctional nature of media procrastination, an individuals’ level of self-control has a crucial role in the susceptibility of one’s
procrastinatory behavior with media. Reinecke and Hofmann (2016) suggest that the
temptation media use evokes demands a great amount of self-control resources and therefore often occurs, although it does not align with other current goals, such as finishing a term paper. A cross-sectional study by Reinecke and colleagues (2014) found that individuals with low levels of self-control reported increased procrastination behavior with TV and video games.
Multiple studies found a link between self-control and procrastination within the context of traditional media. However, research about exploring the relationship between online procrastination and self-control is rather scarce. With its constant availability, as well as the opportunity to send instant messages and receive push notifications, the user is
nature of online media leads to the automatic use without awareness and thus, creates an additional challenge for self-control (Bayer et al., 2016). This notion was supported by a study conducted by Panek (2014) showing that low self-control led to increased time spent on leisure media such as SNS and online videos. Another article that explored the relation
between self-control and online procrastination comes from Meier and colleagues (2014). This study found that self-control is a negative predictor of procrastinatory Facebook use.
With the rise of new SNS such as Instagram and TikTok, as well as gaming and streaming providers, the online media choices a user has are endless and can pose a challenge for self-control. Considering the gratifications the online environment can provide as a whole, it is from relevance to explore whether the relationship between self-control and online media use is even stronger than the one observed with Facebook use. It is thus predicted that:
H1: Self-Control is negatively related to online procrastination.
Mindfulness as a predictor of online procrastination
Many definitions of mindfulness can be found in the literature, the one most
mentioned with regard to well-being comes from Kabat-Zinn: “[Mindfulness means] paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” (2005, p. 3). In other words, being mindful means “being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p.822) without forming an opinion of it (Bamber & Kraenzle Schneider, 2016). Procrastination is a form of self-awareness that is negatively associated with mindfulness (Brown et al., 2007). By taking a judgmental attitude towards a task that causes a person problems completing, negative self-talk can be activated which could influence his or her task persistence (Sirois & Tosti, 2012). The presence of judgmental thoughts triggered by dealing with a difficult task was found to lead to frustration, self-criticism, and impulsive quitting of the task (Evans, Baer, & Segerstrom, 2009).
Mindfulness on the other hand, promotes acceptance of the critical task and negative
thoughts, which allows individuals to move past the negative state and continue with the task (Evans et al., 2009). Part of this neutral position is the absence of any emotional or
interpretative characteristics that could cause threat or discomfort (Sirois & Tosti, 2012). It can be argued that low mindfulness may be a factor reinforcing avoidance which frequently is associated with procrastination, because procrastinators are seeking emotional relief from stressful experiences (Sirois & Tosti, 2012). In their study, Sirois & Tosti (2012) found proof for this assumption, stating that lower levels of mindfulness were indeed associated with higher levels of self-reported procrastination.
Further on, Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest that mindfulness can help disregarding unhealthy habits such as online procrastination and thus can be relevant for the promotion of behavioral regulation. According to previous literature it can be expected that being mindful of the present moment can be particularly helpful, because it makes individuals aware of feelings of boredom or negative events. It is expected that when a student is aware that his or her thoughts and feelings are only an automatic response, a more rational response can be formed resulting in less mindfulness. The second hypothesis therefore reads as followed:
H2: Mindfulness is negatively related to of online procrastination.
Procrastination and well-being
Up to this date the only model that could provide a theoretical basis for the relationship between procrastination and well-being is the procrastination-health model (Sirois, 2007; Sirois, Melia-Gordon, & Pychyl, 2003). This model hypothesized that “habitual procrastination can have cumulative and deleterious effects on health via both direct or stress-mediated pathways, or indirect, behavioral pathways” (Sirois, van Eerde, & Argiropoulou, 2015, p. 2). Or in other words, although this model provides a useful guidance in
understanding how online procrastination can influence well-being, it fails to explain the triggers of online procrastination and the process how this behavior decreases well-being.
In the past, various negative consequences of procrastinatory behavior have been studied and documented. The majority of these findings particularly highlight effects on academic performance and well-being (Kim & Seo, 2015; Sirois & Kitner, 2015). A
representative study among a German population aged 14 to 95 revealed that procrastination was associated with impaired mental health, such as stress, depression, fatigue and reduced life satisfaction. These symptoms were most notable in the youngest cohort examined (14-29 years), a group predominantly consisting of students, drawing special attention to this sub-population (Beutel et al., 2016). An explanation for this effect is that students are permanently faced with the responsibility to independently self-direct their learning settings. Thus, in this case procrastination can become a serious problem to them (Meier et al., 2016).
Previous work on students’ procrastinatory behavior pointed out the negative consequences of academic performance and well-being (Ferrari, 1994; Meier et al., 2016; Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016; Sirois, 2014; Sirois et al., 2015). The constant delay of finishing work often leads to time pressure and poorer performance when trying to complete the task last minute (Ferrari, 2001). Facing the postponed work and/or becoming aware of their procrastination consequently leads to increased feelings of anxiety, stress, negative self-evaluations and emotions (Sirois, 2014; Sirois & Kitner, 2015). Particularly these negative self-evaluations in turn decrease the procrastinators psychological well-being (Meier et al., 2016). Which in turn can lead to further problems like reduced sleep quality through ones cognitive affective preoccupation with one’s tendency to delay tasks and its potential consequences (Reinecke et al., 2018).
Literature is dividing being into two main concepts of being: affective well-being and cognitive well-well-being (Hofmann et al., 2017). Affective well-well-being describes the frequency and intensity of ones’ positive and negative emotions and mood, or in other words:
how a person feels in a given moment (Luhmann et al., 2012). Cognitive well-being, refers to peoples specific and global evaluation of life or different life domains, such as life satisfaction (Luhmann et al., 2012). Academic procrastination was found to be related to low affective well-being, with students showing low positive and high negative affect (Steel, Brothen, & Wambach, 2001) as well as low cognitive well-being in form of low levels of satisfaction with their life and their studies (Grunschel & Schopenhauer, 2015). This paper will therefore define well-being as a combined concept of affective and cognitive well-being. Based on the existing literature the following hypothesis is posed:
H3: There is a negative relationship between online procrastination and students’ well-being.
Online procrastination, the feeling of guilt and its effect on students’ well-being
Up to this point, the majority of research conducted on procrastination has focused on cognitive components, such as self-esteem (Ferrari, 1994), self-regulation (Ferrari, 2001), or self-compassion (Sirois, 2014). Relatively little theoretical assumptions exist about the emotions that go along with procrastination.
As discussed above, people tent to procrastinate because they seek immediate mood optimization and need gratifications (Meier et al., 2016). Previous research indicated that procrastination is not always associated with pleasurable experiences, but also with negative emotions (Reinecke et al., 2014). An emotion suggested to go hand-in-hand with
procrastination, is guilt (Fee & Tangney, 2000). By worrying about their performance, procrastinators show higher levels of anxiety and feelings of guilt (Reinecke et al., 2018).
Guilt is a „dysphoric feeling associated with the recognition that one has violated a personally relevant moral or social standard“ (Kugler & Jones, 1992, p. 218). Often times, the feeling of guilt is accompanied by feelings of regret, making individuals wish they could undo
their actions (Fee & Tangney, 2000). Lavoie and Pychyl (2001, p. 434) state that “while those engaging in procrastination attempt to distract themselves with pleasurable activities, any enjoyment ultimately subsides and is replaced by regret, apprehension, and guilt.“ In his survey among college students, Panek (2014) found support for this assumption and
concludes that procrastination through media use is associated with feelings of guilt. A study conducted by Lavoie and Pychyl (2001) showed that out of all negative emotions inspected, guilt explained 25% of the variance in online procrastination. Based on these studies it can be assumed that students who procrastinate online also feel guilty about their behavior, thus it is predicted that:
H4: There is a positive relationship between online procrastination and feelings of guilt.
Early studies on the consequences of affect found that negative affect is related to higher levels of stress, depression, poor psychological well-being and poor psychological health (Dua, 1993). In this context, negative affect refers to the extent to which individuals experience negative emotions such as anger, sadness, fear and guilt (Snyder & Lopez, 2002). Moreover, negative affect was found to bear a negative relationship with life satisfaction (Singh & Jha, 2008). Which leads to the assumption that guilt will show a similar effect on well-being. However, to the best of our knowledge only very limited research has been done on guilt as an isolated characteristic of negative affect. Based on the findings from negative affect on well-being it is suggested that:
Moreover, Lavoie and Pychyl (2001) suggest that based on the relationship between procrastination and the feeling of guilt, procrastinators are not successful in relieving stress through task postponement. Previous studies on this topic found that the guilt experienced when using online media was also negatively related to vitality – a characteristic of well-being (Reinecke et al., 2014). Based on these studies it can be assumed that there is an indirect effect of online procrastination on well-being through the feeling of guilt, the hypothesis reads as followed:
H6: The effect of online-procrastination on well-being is mediated by feelings of guilt, in a way that high online-procrastination will lead to high feelings of guilt, which leads to decreased well-being.
Figure 1. Hypothesized Conceptual Model
Methods Participants
For this study, a convenient sample was used. The link to an open online survey was distributed among friends via Facebook and Instagram, by sending personal messages and
Online Procrastintion Mindfulness Self-Control Guilt Well-being RQ1 RQ2
posting it on Facebook Groups and in Instagram Stories (see Appendix A). When following the link participants were first provided with information about the aim of the study and then requested to give their consent. In order to be eligible for this study, individuals had to be aged 18 or older and a student (High School, University, Practical Degree, PhD, etc.). In the first part of the questionnaire, participants were asked to provide demographic information and had to indicate whether they were currently studying. Afterwards they completed the measures described below. 470 people started the questionnaire, 367 finished the survey (78%). Of those respondents, 122 were excluded because they indicated that they were not studying, and another 33 cases were removed due to being under aged. The final sample consisted of N = 212 students (86,8% female, Mage = 22.98, SD = 3.64). 60,8% of the
participants were located in Germany, 27,4% in the Netherlands and 12,6% in other countries. Most of respondents was completing their Bachelor’s degree at the time of the data collection (48,6%). 71,2% of the respondents was working next to their studies, most of them less than 10 hours per week (28,8%). 1
Measures
Self-control. The first predictor self-control was assessed with the thirteen items of the Self-Control Scale (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). This scale measures how good an individual can resist temptations. To indicate their self-control tendencies on items such as “I have a hard time breaking bad habits” and “I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun”, participants used a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The internal reliability of the measure was α = .80 (M = 3.16; SD = 0.61) in this sample.
Mindfulness. Mindfulness was measured using the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) developed by Brown and Ryan (2003). The scale assesses how
well an individual can remain present during daily tasks. Sample items include “I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present” and “I find myself doing things without paying attention”. On a six-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always), respondents were asked to rate how frequently they currently have each experience. The MAAS has a reported internal consistency of .87 (Brown and Ryan 2003), and the Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .83 (M = 3.72; SD = 0.73).
Online Procrastination. Online Prorcastination was measured using four items from the Procrastination Scale (Tuckman, 1991). These items were already used to measure procrastination with media (Reinecke et al., 2014) and Facebook (Meier et al., 2016). Items were adapted to measure internet use as procrastinatory behavior (“In the past week, I used the internet although I knew that I had an important task to complete.”, “In the past week, I used the internet although I had more important things to do.”, “In the past week, I used the internet while procrastinating upcoming work.”, In the past week, I used the internet although I had planned to get something done.”) Respondents were asked to estimate the frequency of procrastination with the internet on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) by thinking about their internet use in the last week when using any device. The scale displayed excellent internal consistency α = .90 (M = 3.03; SD = 1.00).
Guilt. To assess guilt, two items suggested by Panek (2014) were used, asking participants to rate the degree to which they felt the following statements described
themselves best in the past week (1 = “not at all like me” to 5 = “just like me”): “I often felt guilty about the amount of time spent online.” and “I often felt guilty about having engaged in certain activities online.” The internal consistency displayed is α = .73 (M = 2.97; SD = 1.09)
Well-being. Finally, well-being was measured creating a composite measure of affective and cognitive well-being. Based on the Scale of Positive and Negative Experiences (SPANE) by Diener and colleagues (2009), affective well-being was assessed. The scale creates a balanced score by including six positive feelings (e.g. happy, joyful, contented) and
six negative feelings (e.g. sad, afraid, angry). Respondents rated on a scale from 1 (very rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always) how much they experienced each feeling during the past week. The summed positive score (SPANE-P) had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 (M = 3.45; SD = 0.72) and the negative scale (SPANE-N) of α = .82 (M = 2.56; SD = 0.74). To measure Cognitive well-being the Satisfaction of Life Scale by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin (1985) was employed. Using a 7-point scale, respondents were asked to rate how much they agree or disagree (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with statements such as “In most ways my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life”. The scale showed high Internal consistency (M = 5.06; SD = 1.05; α = .84).
As described earlier in this paper, we define well-being as a concept of both, affective and cognitive well-being. Following Nielsen, Gwozdz, and De Ridder (2019) we therefore created a composite measure of both scales. For the sake of comparability, we first had to standardize the two scale. The 5-point affective well-being scale was rescaled to range from 0-6 by recoding the item points and multiplying it by 1.5. We further rescaled the 7-point cognitive well-being scale to range from 0 to 6. The final well-being scale showed very high internal consistency α = .91, with participants rating their well-being medium to high (M = 4.17; SD = 0.76).
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed by SPSS 25. The proposed hypothesized model (Figure 1) was tested by conducting several regression analysis as well as a mediation analysis, using PROCESS macro (Model 4; 5000 bootstraps) developed by Hayes (2013) for SPSS. To answer Research Question 1, the effect of self-control and mindfulness on online
procrastination was explored. It was hypothesized that (H1) self-control and (H2) mindfulness were both negatively related to online procrastination. A regression analysis was conducted
using self-control and mindfulness as independent variables and online procrastination as dependent variable.
In order to answer the second research question, four hypotheses were examined: It was assumed that (H3) online procrastination is negatively related to well-being, (H4) that there is a positive relationship between online-procrastination and guilt, (H5) and that feelings of guilt negatively relate to well-being. Finally, it was expected that the effect from online procrastination on well-being is mediated through feelings of guilt (H6). These four
hypotheses were analyzed with the PROCESS model 4 tool (Hayes, 2013). By using the tool, it was possible to complete an analysis of all assumptions simultaneously. Online
procrastination was used as an independent variable, well-being as a dependent variable and feelings of guilt served as mediation variable.
Results Descriptive statistics
The first step of the analysis was to examine participants general online behavior. Participants mainly used the internet at home with 3-4 hours a day (M = 4.00; SD = 1.49), 2-3 hours at school or university (M = 2.83; SD = 1.69) and 1-2 hours at work (M = 2.22; SD = 1.75). The most popular activities online were Social Media (94,8%), Music (60,8%), Internet TV (51,4%) and Web browsing (49,5%). In order to control for potential biases, participants were asked to indicate whether they were procrastinating while completing the online survey. 46.7% were procrastinating at the moment of the data collection2.
Research Question 1: Predictors of online procrastination
Research Question 1 tested two hypotheses which stated that self-control (H1) and mindfulness (H2) are negatively related to online procrastination, a regression analysis was conducted. The regression model predicting online procrastination was statistically
significant, F(2, 209) = 36,26, p < .001. The model thus very likely helps to predict online procrastination in the population of students. Together, the independent variables self-control and mindfulness predicted about 26% of the variance in online procrastination (R2 = .26). Self-control negatively predicted online procrastination, this effect was significant, t = - 7.01, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.99; -0.56] and moderate in strength, b = -.47 (see Appendix D for all effect sizes). In other words, the less self-control someone has, the more he or she is procrastinating online. The first hypothesis could therefore be confirmed. Mindfulness also seemed to predict online procrastination negatively, however, this effect was not significant, b = -.07, t = -1.00, p = .320, 95% CI [-0.28; 0.09]. Hypothesis 2 had to be rejected.
Research Question 2: Effect of online procrastination on students’ well-being The second research question analyzed the effect from online procrastination on students’ well-being by considering feelings of guilt as a mediator for this relationship. The mediation model was tested using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro (Model 4; 5000
bootstraps). With this mediation analysis it is possible to estimate the direct as well as indirect effects of the model. Hypothesis 3 suggested that there is a negative relationship between online procrastination and student’ well-being. Results indicated that even though there seems to be a negative relationship, the direct effect from online procrastination on well-being was not significant, b= - 0.06, SE= 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.05], p = .270. Hypothesis 3 had to be rejected. Nonetheless, a significant result was found regarding participants online
procrastination and feelings of guilt, b= 0.51, SE= 0.05, 95% CI [0.38, 0.64], p < .001. The more students procrastinate online, the more they report feelings of guilt. Results were in line with the predictions, hypothesis 4 could be confirmed. The fifth hypothesis assumed that there
is a negative relationship between feelings of guilt and students’ well-being. Results indeed showed a negative effect, however, this effect was statistically not significant, b= -0.09, SE= 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.02], p = .103. Thus, H5 failed to be supported. Finally, hypothesis 6 proposed that online procrastination and well-being would be negatively related through feelings of guilt. Results showed that the total indirect effect of online procrastination on students’ well-being was not significant and almost zero (b= -0.04, SE= 0.03, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.01]). Hence, there is no mediation and H5 had to be rejected. Guilt does not seem to explain the relationship between online procrastination and well-being.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to integrate and extend previous findings on the relationship between online procrastination and students’ well-being, by (a) determining the triggers that cause procrastinatory behavior online and (b) identifying the mechanisms that underlie this relationship. It was analyzed how students experience online procrastination and examined whether this links to decreased well-being due to increased feelings of guilt. Furthermore, they answered questions indicating their level of mindfulness and self-control.
The first research question examined the predictors of online-procrastination. The results confirm the assumption that self-control contributes to online procrastination in students. These findings underline Sirois and Pychyl’s (2013) argumentation that
procrastination is a form of self-regulatory failure, caused by low self-control. Hofmann and colleagues (2014, p. 266) further argue that self-control has a positive influence on ones’ “capacity to resist impulsive temptations and work toward long-term goals”. Hence, students with low self-control fail to resist the temptation and give in to immediate pleasures (Ferrari & Emmons, 1995). This effect has been found to be even stronger for media use activities that are perceived as highly gratifying (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001). Thus, high levels of self-control can protect students from dysfunctional online media use and make them less susceptible for
potential triggers. The findings of the current study are in line with previous research that examined the relationship between self-control and procrastination. Meier and colleagues (2016) for example found that the trait self-control negatively predicted the frequency of procrastination with the social network Facebook.
The second hypothesis expected that mindfulness was another predictor of online procrastination. The findings were contrary to the predictions and the results from Cheung and Ng (2019), who’s longitudinal study found that increased mindfulness predicted lower levels of procrastination. However, their study also revealed that the predictions of
procrastination on mindfulness appeared to be more consistent. Meaning that procrastination is even more likely to promote or suppress mindfulness. Taken these results into account, as well as the ones from the present study it can be argued that the effect from online
procrastination on mindfulness should be even stronger. Supposedly, students who are
constantly delaying tasks by engaging in online activities have trouble bringing their attention to experiences occurring in the present moment. Because of the permanent availability of online media, this effect should be expected to be even more notable, when it comes to online procrastination. Individuals with excessive social media use for instance, might focus too much on online media and thus report lower mindfulness as an outcome of online
procrastination (Sriwilai & Charoensukmongkol, 2016). Similar results were found in regard to smartphone use. Johannes and colleagues (2018) for instance, found that automatic texting behavior does not require the reflection of thoughts and feelings, which results in lower mindfulness. It thus occurs that the mental preoccupation to past, ongoing, or forthcoming online content makes it difficult for individuals to focus their attention to the time being resulting in decreased mindfulness (Johannes et al., 2018). For this reason it is suggested that future research should analyze mindfulness as a mediator between online procrastination and students’ well-being. In regard to the first research question it can be concluded that
self-control is a meaningful precursor of online procrastination. Mindfulness on the other hand, does not predict online procrastination.
With students being one of the most susceptible groups when it comes to negative health outcomes through procrastination the aim of the second research question was to identify the mechanism that underlies the relationship between online procrastination and well-being. Various studies have argued that procrastination with media and feelings of guilt are closely connected to each other (Fee & Tangney, 2000). It was predicted that online procrastination effects well-being through feelings of guilt, in a way that high online-procrastination will lead to high feelings of guilt, which leads to decreased well-being.
Students did indeed feel guilty about their procrastinatory behavior online, which goes in line with findings of Reinecke and colleagues (2014) and Panek (2014) in regard to
entertaining media use. Yet, no evidence was found that feelings of guilt mediated the relation between online procrastination and students’ well-being. A possible explanation for these findings might be that students experience cognitive dissonance when procrastinating online. (Simpson & Pychyl, 2009). According to Festinger (1957) when two cognitions conflict, dissonance occurs. These inconsistencies usually make people feel emotions of psychological discomfort, such as guilt (Simpson & Pychyl, 2009). In order to reduce the dissonance, a person comes up with avoidance strategies, such as finding justifications for the guilty actions (Festinger, 1957). In other words, students feel guilty about procrastinating online because they know that they have more important tasks to complete but come up with excuses (e.g. “diamonds are made under pressure”). By justifying their dysfunctional behavior, students bolster their threatened sense of self. Therefore, cognitive dissonance is used as a coping strategy to reduce levels of guilt, which could explain why online procrastination and the feelings of guilt involved are not influencing their well- being (Stice, 1992). Whether online procrastination can be linked to the theory of cognitive dissonance, however, needs to be studied in future research.
Another potential explanation lies in the nature of feelings of guilt. Instead of negatively influencing students’ well-being, guilt might actually serve as a way of repairing students’ urge to procrastinate online. A person feeling guilty experiences regret and is thus motivated to change his or her actions (Silfver, 2007). This could mean that because a student remembers feeling guilty while procrastinating, he or she may be less likely to repeat this behavior. Feelings of guilt ultimately would not influence well-being negatively, because students should not be as tempted to procrastinate online.
Taken together, the second research question can only be answered partially. While additional proof was found that students feel guilty about procrastinating online, there was no evidence that this was related to decreased well-being.
Limitations and future research
The findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the current study used a non-probability convenience sampling method which was distributed via social media channels. This not only led to a very unbalanced group of participants with a majority being female (86,8%), but also produced a biased sample as they were most likely
procrastinating online when coming across the survey link. In fact, almost half of the
participants (46,7%) indicated that they were currently procrastinating while completing the survey. It could be argued that these participants have a very indifferent attitude towards procrastinating online, meaning that they do not perceive it as problematic. Hence, online procrastination might not have any consequences on their well-being. Future research should use a random probability sampling method to rule out theses biases and increase the
representativeness of the entire student population.
Another limitation of this study refers to the strategy of data collection. The study simply relies on self-reported data. Participants were asked to answer questions about their internet use, procrastinatory behavior, and well-being in the past week through an online
survey. Even though online surveys are often used to measure behavior retrospectively
(Kahneman et al., 2004), it could still be argued that participants underestimated their level of online procrastination. This could be because participants are not aware of the fact that they are procrastinating, or because they cannot recall the number of hours spent procrastinating. When it comes to self-report items, the principal complain is that it provokes problems of social desirability and self-presentational bias. This is particularly critical for well-being, as people tend to say that they feel good even though they are not in order to appear normal (OECD, 2013). Future research is advised to make use of diary sampling measures, to receive a more complete picture of the causal interaction of students’ online procrastinatory behavior, feelings and well-being.
Lastly, the cross sectional nature of the current study needs to be mentioned as another limitation. No propositions can be made about causality or the direction of the effects between the variables. For future research it would be interesting to explore the relationship between online procrastination and well-being on the basis of longitudinal data. It would further allow to explore whether guilt has a stronger effect on well-being in the long run, as its impact might not be noticeable at the present moment.
Conclusion and implications
Overall, this study addressed an issue that is becoming more and more relevant in today’s media saturated environment: Online Procrastination amongst students. In a society where individuals feel the urge to be ‘permanently online’ (Vorderer & Kohring, 2013), online media affects students’ well-being more than ever. The current work extends previous research on the relationship between procrastination and well-being by first of all, specifically focusing on online media and additionally examining the potential mediating role of feelings of guilt.
Recently many interventions have been focusing on strategies that aim to increase mindfulness in order to prevent students from procrastinating online. However, the present research is questioning whether the right intervention determinant is targeted. Overall, the findings provide several practical implications for designing an intervention based on students’ self-control skills. By developing an effective treatment for online procrastination, students may be helped to exercise self-control over their online behavior and complete academic tasks as planned, avoiding feelings of guilt.
References
Bamber, M. D., & Kraenzle Schneider, J. (2016). Mindfulness-based meditation to decrease stress and anxiety in college students: A narrative synthesis of the research. Educational Research Review, 18, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.004
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670–676.
https://doi.org/10.1086/338209
Bayer, J. B., Dal Cin, S., Campbell, S. W., & Panek, E. (2016). Consciousness and self-regulation in mobile communication: Consciousness in mobile communication. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12067
Beutel, M. E., Klein, E. M., Aufenanger, S., Brähler, E., Dreier, M., Müller, K. W., Quiring, O., Reinecke, L., Schmutzer, G., Stark, B., & Wölfling, K. (2016). Procrastination, distress and life satisfaction across the age range – A german representative community study. PLOS ONE, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822– 848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Cheung, R. Y. M., & Ng, M. C. Y. (2019). Being in the moment later? Testing the inverse relation between mindfulness and procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.015
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 39, 247-266. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Dua, J. K. (1993). The role of negative affect and positive affect in stress, depression, self-esteem, assertiveness, Type A behaviors, psychological health, and physical health. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 119(4), 515–552.
Evans, D. R., Baer, R. A., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2009). The effects of mindfulness and self-consciousness on persistence. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 379–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.026
Fee, R. L., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 167–184.
Ferrari, J. R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem, interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(5), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90140-6
Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of procrastination and their relation to self-control and self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10(1), 135–142.
Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on 'working best under pressure' European Journal of Personality, 15(5), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.413 Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Grunschel, C., & Schopenhauer, L. (2015). Why are students (not) motivated to change
academic procrastination?: An investigation based on the transtheoretical model of change. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 187–200.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0012
Grunschel, C., Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Fries, S. (2016). Effects of using
motivational regulation strategies on students’ academic procrastination, academic performance, and well-being. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.008
Hayes, A. F. (2013). PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved from http://processmacro.org/index.html
Hinsch, C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2013). The impact of frequent social internet consumption: Increased procrastination and lower life satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1453
Hofmann, W., & Kotabe, H. (2012). A general model of preventive and interventive self-control: PI-model of self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(10), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00461.x
Hofmann, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R. R., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes, but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction: Trait self-control and well-being. Journal of Personality, 82(4), 265–277.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12050
Hofmann, W., Reinecke, L., & Meier, A. (2017). Of sweet temptations and bitter aftertaste: Self-control as a moderator of the effects of media use on well-being. In L. Reinecke & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International Perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 211-222). New York : Routledge.
Johannes, N., Veling, H., Dora, J., Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Buijzen, M. (2018). Mind-wandering and mindfulness as mediators of the relation between online vigilance and well-being [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2erwy
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method.
Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
Mashable Tech. Derived from http://mashable.com/2011/05/31/college-tech-device- Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic
performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038
Kugler, K., & Jones, W. H. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.318
Lavoie, J. A. A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyberslacking and the procrastination
superhighway: A web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 431–444.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900403
Lee, E., Lee, J.-A., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0157
Lipson, S. K., Lattie, E. G., & Eisenberg, D. (2019). Increased rates of mental health service utilization by U.S. college students: 10-year population-level trends (2007–2017). Psychiatric Services, 70(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800332 Luhmann, M., Hawkley, L. C., Eid, M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Time frames and the
distinction between affective and cognitive well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.04.004
Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C. E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011
Nielsen, K. S., Gwozdz, W., & De Ridder, D. (2019). Unraveling the relationship between trait self-control and subjective well-being: The mediating role of four self-control strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 706. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00706
OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en
Panek, E. (2014). Left to their own devices: “Guilty pleasure” media use and time management. Communication Research, 41(4), 561–577.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213499657
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 239–254.
Reinecke, L., Hartmann, T., & Eden, A. (2014). The guilty couch potato: The role of ego depletion in reducing recovery through media use. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12107
Reinecke, L., & Hofmann, W. (2016). Slacking off or winding down? An experience sampling study on the drivers and consequences of media use for recovery versus procrastination. Human Communication Research, 42, 441–461.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12082
Reinecke, L., Meier, A., Beutel, M. E., Schemer, C., Stark, B., Wölfling, K., & Müller, K. W. (2018). The relationship between trait procrastination, internet use, and psychological functioning: Results from a community sample of german adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 913. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00913
Rosen, L. D., Mark Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Silfver, M. (2007). Coping with guilt and shame: A narrative approach. Journal of Moral Education, 36(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240701325274
Simpson, W. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2009). In search of the arousal procrastinator: Investigating the relation between procrastination, arousal-based personality traits and beliefs about procrastination motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.013
Singh, K., & Jha, S. D. (2008). Positive and negative affect, and grit as predictors of
happiness and life satisfaction. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34, 40–45.
Sirois, F. M. (2007). I'll look after my health, later: A replication and extension of the procrastination health model with community-dwelling adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 15-26.
Sirois, F. M. (2014). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion. Self and Identity, 13(2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.763404
Sirois, F. M., & Kitner, R. (2015). Less adaptive or more maladaptive? A meta-analytic investigation of procrastination and coping: Procrastination and coping. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1985
Sirois, F. M., Melia-Gordon, M. L., & Pychyl, T. A. (2003). ìIíll look after my health, laterî: An investigation of procrastination and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1167-1184.
Sirois, F. M., & Tosti, N. (2012). Lost in the moment? An investigation of procrastination, mindfulness, and well-being. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0151-y
quality? Testing an application of the procrastination-health model. Cogent Psychology, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2015.1074776
Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood
regulation: Consequences for future self: Procrastination, mood regulation and future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011
Snyder C. & Lopez S.J., (2002), Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York
Sriwilai, K., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2016). Face it, don’t Facebook it: Impacts of social media addiction on mindfulness, coping strategies and the consequence on emotional exhaustion: Social media addiction, mindfulness and coping. Stress and Health, 32(4), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2637
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality, performance, and mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 95–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00013-1
Stice, E. (1992). The similarities between cognitive dissonance and guilt: Confession as a relief of dissonance. Current Psychology, 11(1), 69–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686829
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6),
454–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 473–480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022
Wrosch, C., & Freund, A. M. (2001). Self-regulation of normative and non-normative developmental challenges. Human Development, 44(5), 264–283.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000057066
Vorderer, P., & Kohring, M. (2013). Permanently online: A challenge for media and communication research. International Journal of Communication, 7, 188–196. https://doi.org/1932–8036/2013FEA0002
Appendix A Questionnaire Dear Respondent,
I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The goal of this research is to generate insights into students' online media use and their well-being. The study will take about 10 minutes and your participation will be highly
appreciated.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), we can guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your permission for this.
2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so.
3. You also have up to 7 days after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
4. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research. For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Fabienne Scheder (fabienne.scheder1@student.uva.nl) at any time.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NGAmsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.
Kind regards, Fabienne Scheder
Q2 I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Fabienne Scheder. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the
designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020- 525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. DemographicsQ3 Please indicate your age in numbers. ____________
Q4 What is your gender?
o
Maleo
Femaleo
Non-binaryo
OtherQ5 What is your country of origin?
Q6 In which country do you currently live?
▼ Afghanistan... Zimbabwe
Q7 Which one of the statements below best describes your living arrangements?
o
Living aloneo
Living with a partnero
Living with roommateso
Living with a parent/so
Other (Please specify) ________________________________________________ Q8 Are you currently studying?o
Yeso
NoQ9 What level of education are you currently completing?
o
High Schoolo
Practical degree (e.g. MBO, Berufsausbildung)o
Degree of applied scienceso
Bachelor's degreeo
Master's degreeo
Doctorate (e.g. PhD)o
Other (Please specify)________________________________________________ Q10 Are you working next to your studies?o
Yeso
NoQ11 Please indicate how many hours per week you are working:
o
less than 10 hourso
10 to 20 hourso
20 to 30 hourso
30 to 40 hourso
more than 40 hours Cognitive Well-BeingQ12 Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the scale below, indicate your agreement with each item. Please be open and honest in your responding.
Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Somewhat agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (7) In most ways my life is close to my ideal
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The conditions of my life are excellento
o
o
o
o
o
o
I am satisfied with my lifeo
o
o
o
o
o
o
So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.o
o
o
o
o
o
o
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothingo
o
o
o
o
o
o
Self-Control
Q13 Using the scale provided, please indicate how much each of the following statements reflects how you typically are.
Not at all (1) (2) (3) (4) Very much (5)
I am good at resisting temptation.
o
o
o
o
o
I have a hard time breaking bad habits.o
o
o
o
o
I am lazy.o
o
o
o
o
I say inappropriate things.o
o
o
o
o
I do certain things that are bad for me, ifthey are fun.
o
o
o
o
o
I refuse things that are bad for
me.
o
o
o
o
o
I wish I had more
self-discipline.
o
o
o
o
o
People would say that I have
iron self- discipline.
o
o
o
o
o
Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done.o
o
o
o
o
I have trouble concentrating.o
o
o
o
o
I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals.o
o
o
o
o
Sometimes I can’t stop myself fromo
o
o
o
o
Mindfulness
Q14 Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have each experience. Answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be.
doing something, even if I know it is wrong. I often act without thinking through all the
alternatives.
o
o
o
o
o
Almost Always (1) Very Frequently (2) Somewhat Frequently (3) Somewhat Infrequently (4) Very Infrequently (5) Almost Never (6) I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time later.o
o
o
o
o
o
I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else.o
o
o
o
o
o
I find it difficult to stay focused on what's happening in the present.o
o
o
o
o
o
I tend to walk quickly to get where I'm going without paying attention to what Io
o
o
o
o
o
Q16 Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have each experience. Answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than what you think your experience should be.
experience along the way. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab my attention.
o
o
o
o
o
o
I forget a person's name almost as soon as I've been told it for the first time.o
o
o
o
o
o
It seems I am "running on automatic," without much awareness of what I'm doing.o
o
o
o
o
o
Almost Always (1) Very Frequently (2) Somewhat Frequently (3) Somewhat Infrequently (4) Very Infrequently (5) Almost Never (6) I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.o
o
o
o
o
o
I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I'mdoing right
Q17 The aim of the following series of questions is to better understand your internet use habits of the past week. Please look back at the past 7 days and answer the questions as accurately and honestly as you can.
now to get there. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I'm doing.
o
o
o
o
o
o
I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time.o
o
o
o
o
o
I drive places on "automatic pilot" and then wonder why I went there.o
o
o
o
o
o
I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.o
o
o
o
o
o
I find myself doing things without paying attention.o
o
o
o
o
o
I snack without being aware that I'mInternet Use
Q18 Please estimate the number of daily hours you spent using the internet at the following locations in the past week (on any device):
At home:
o
less than 1 houro
1-2 hourso
2-3 hourso
3-4 hourso
4-5 hourso
more than 5 hoursInternet uni At school or university:
o
less than 1 houro
1-2 hourso
2-3 hourso
3-4 hourso
4-5 hourso
more than 5 hours Internet work At work:o
less than 1 houro
1-2 hourso
2-3 hourso
3-4 hourso
4-5 hoursQ19 What did you use the internet for most? Check all that apply. ▢ Chat rooms ▢ Social media ▢ Blogs ▢ Shopping ▢ Gaming ▢ Internet TV ▢ Web browsing ▢ News ▢ Music
▢ Other (Please specify) _______ Online Procrastination
Q20 Looking back at your last week, please indicate to what extent the following statements describe you best:
In the past week, I used the internet...
Always (1) Most of the
time (2)
About half
the time (3) Sometimes (4) Never (5) ...although I knew that I had an important task to complete.
