Assertiveness and Academic Procrastination

A Study on the Assertiveness and Academic Procrastination of

English and Communication Students at a Private University

 

American Journal of Scientific Research

Issue 9, 2010, pp. 62-71

 

By Fung Lan Yong, Lecturer

Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak

 

fyong@swinburne.edu.my

 

Abstract

English and Communication Skills is an important university course that aims to develop academic reading, academic writing, academic listening, and oral presentation skills.  To do well in this course, students need to demonstrate high levels of assertiveness but low levels of academic procrastination. The purpose of the study was to examine the assertiveness and academic procrastination of English and Communication Skills students at a private university in Malaysia.  A total of 407 students (majoring in either business or engineering) who had already passed English and Communication Skills participated in the study.  They sat the moral studies midterm exam in a multipurpose hall; only 171 were randomly chosen to complete the Rathus Assertiveness Scale.  The same group of students sat the moral studies final exam in the multipurpose hall; again, only 171 were randomly chosen to complete the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Student.  Responses on both instruments were coded using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.  Data were analyzed using SPSS, Version 17.0.  A three-way analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Age) on assertiveness revealed (1) significant group differences on four items, (2) significant gender differences on two items, and (3) significant age differences on four items.  Overall mean scores indicated that (1) business students were less assertive than engineering students, (2) female students were less assertive than male students, and (3) younger students were less assertive than older students.  A three-way analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Age) on academic procrastination revealed (1) significant group differences on only one item, (2) significant gender differences on seven items, and (3) significant age differences on ten items.  Overall means showed that (1) business students procrastinated more than engineering students on writing term papers, (2) male students procrastinated more than female students, and (3) older students procrastinated more than younger students.  Finally, implications and recommendations were made based on the significant findings.

 

 

Keywords:     Assertiveness, academic procrastination, English and Communication Skills

Introduction

 

Assertiveness

Assertiveness reflects people’s expression of their genuine feelings, standing up for their legitimate rights, and refusing unreasonable requests.  Assertive individuals resist undue social influences, disregard arbitrary authority figures, and refuse to conform to arbitrary group standards.  However, they are also highly capable of expressing positive feelings, including love and admiration.  In addition, assertive individuals frequently use the power of social influence to attain goals, for instance, they can successfully recruit others for important activities. Hence, they are often actively involved in politics, consumerism, conservation, or other worthwhile causes (Nevid & Rathus, 2007).

In contrast, lack of assertiveness leads to either submissive or aggressive behavior.  Submissive individuals not only possess low self-esteem, but also frequently smolder with resentments.  Aggressive individuals, on the other hand, often use physical or verbal attacks, threats, or insults to get the upper hand.  While the submissive are prone to socially inappropriate outbursts, the aggressive often end up as social outcasts or worse, inmates.

Assertiveness encompasses multidimensional aspects of human expression, including behavior, cognition, and affect.  Behaviorally assertive individuals are able to express their emotions, defend their goals, and establish favorable interpersonal relationships (Herzberger, Chan, & Katz, 1984), while cognitively and affectively assertive individuals can appropriately deal with both positive and negative emotions (Gladding, 1988). Kraft, Litwin, and Barber (1986) found that that cognitively assertive people possess the internal skills to cope with tragedies, while Saigh (1988) supported that such individuals are able to regain their assertiveness after experiencing traumatic events.

Cassell and Blackwell (2002) maintained that assertiveness exists on a continuum, including positively assertive, non-assertive, and negatively assertive.  Positively assertive individuals are able to express their emotions, attain specific goals, and experience peace and joy in their daily lives.  In contrast, non-assertive individuals tend to be highly anxious about their interpersonal interactions and fail to set logical goals.  Finally, negatively assertive individuals tend to set socially undesirable goals despite their high anxiety.

 

Academic Procrastination

Academic procrastination is an irrational tendency to delay at the beginning or completion of an academic task.  Many tertiary students intend to complete their academic tasks within the time frame, but they lack the motivation to get started. Due to their self-defeating behavior, academic procrastinators often experience dire consequences, including low self-esteem, depression, and academic failure.

Ferrari (1991, 1992, 2001) maintained that academic procrastinators fail to attain academic goals due to task avoidance and fear of failure.  They fail at doing what ought to be done to achieve goals (Lay, 1992; Lay & Silverman, 1996).  Ellis and Knaus (2000) stated that academic procrastinators have the tendency to avoid activities, using excuses to justify delay and avoid blame. Popoola (2005) postulated that academic procrastinators know what to do, want to perform, able to perform, attempt to perform, yet do not perform in the end.

Noran (2000) maintained that academic procrastinators often avoid important projects and other tasks to socialize or entertain themselves. They avoid unpleasant tasks to engage in activities that appear rewarding (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Tuckman, 2002).  Burka (2008) maintained that academic procrastinators often underestimate the time required to synthesize and evaluate information, while Ferrari (1991, 1992, 2001) noted that they were unable to achieve task completion due to low self-esteem.  Besides lacking self-efficacy, they are also highly self-conscious and self-critical (Effert &

Ferrari, 1989).

 

English and Communication Skills

English and Communication Skills is an important course that aims to improve tertiary students’ academic reading skills, academic writing skills, academic listening skills, and oral presentation skills. To do well in the course, students should possess assertiveness as well as the ability to avoid procrastination.  While assertiveness is important for students to succeed in oral presentation and group discussion, reading procedural texts and writing reports require the ability to overcome procrastination.

 

Significance of the Study

The body of literature reveals a lack of empirical research on assertiveness and academic procrastination of English and Communication Skills students at Malaysian universities.  Research on assertiveness and academic procrastination of non-native speakers of English at university level would help lecturers to gain a balanced view of the self-perceptions of these students in a social as well as intellectual context. Awareness of the constructs would lead to improved instructional design as well as more favorable course appraisal and academic performance.

Further, research on assertiveness and academic procrastination would enable lecturers to find ways to help students reach their fullest potential in English and Communication Skills.  The purpose of the study was to examine the assertiveness and academic procrastination of English and Communication students at a private university in Sarawak, Malaysia.   It was hypothesized that significant group, gender, and age differences existed in assertiveness and academic procrastination.  The level of significance was .05.

 

 

Methodology

 

Subjects

Subjects were business and engineering students who had already passed English and Communication Skills.  They were taking moral studies when this study was conducted.

Subjects who were administered Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1972, 1973) comprised 53.8% business students and 46.2% engineering students.  About 57.9% were male students and 42.1% were female students. Their mean age was 18.5 years.  Subjects who were administered the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Student (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) comprised 44.4% business students and 55.6% engineering students. About 60.8% were male students and another 39.2% were female students.  Their mean age was 18.5 years.

Graduate attributes of subjects taking English and Communication Skills include the following:  They would be capable in their chosen professional, vocational or study areas.  They could operate effectively and ethically in work and community situations. Besides being adaptable in managing change, they would be aware of both the local and international environments in which they would be contributing.  Finally, they would be entrepreneurial in contributing to innovation and development within their business, workplace, or community.

 

 

 

 

Instruments

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS)

Students’ assertiveness was assessed by administering Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1972, 1973).  Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) contains 30 items that require subjects to describe themselves using a code (3=very much like me; 1=slightly like me; -3=very much unlike me).

For the purpose of this study, RAS items were simplified and a Likert scale was used (5=Strongly agree; 4=Agree; 3=Uncertain; 2=Disagree; 1=Strongly disagree).  Each item was analyzed in order to obtain percentages of agreement.  Each item was also analyzed to determine whether significant group, gender, or age differences existed.

Previous research showed that RAS has high reliability (Del Greco, Breitbach, Rumer, McCarthy, & Suissa, 1986; Kearney, Beatty, Plax, & McCroskey, 1984; McCroskey and Beatty, 1985; Norton & Warnick, 1976; Pearson, 1979; Rathus, 1972, 1973).

Harris (1979) found that RAS was significantly correlated with Class 1 scales of the California Psychological Inventory that measures poise, ascendency, and self –assurance.  This finding provided evidence of the validity of RAS in assessing assertiveness and its usefulness in identifying clients for assertiveness training. Takasi, Shiomi, Masako, Ayako, Shinya, Norio, and Shoji (2003) correlated RAS scores of 170 workers with their trainers’ objective evaluations on assertive self-expression.  Pearson’s analysis showed that 19 items of RAS were significantly correlated with the objective evaluations, indicating that it has an acceptable level of validity.

 

Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS)

Academic procrastination was measured by administering Procrastination Assessment Scale – Student (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  Procrastination Assessment Scale – Student (PASS) is a 44-item instrument designed to measure the prevalence and reasons for academic procrastination.  The first part of PASS contains nine items used to measure the prevalence of procrastination in (a) writing a term paper, (b) studying for exams, and (c) keeping up with weekly reading assignments.

Three items require students to indicate to what degree they have procrastinated on (1) writing a paper, (2) studying for an exam, and (c) reading weekly assignments (1=Never; 2=Almost never; 3=Sometimes; 4=Nearly always; 5=Always).  Three items require them to indicate to what degree procrastination has been a problem for them in (a) writing a paper, (2) studying for an exam, and (c) reading weekly assignments (1=Not at all; 2=Almost never; 3=Sometimes; 4=Nearly always; 5=Always).  Three items require them to indicate to what extent they want to decrease their procrastination on (a) writing a paper, (2) studying for an exam, and (c) reading weekly assignments (1=Don’t want to; 2=Somewhat want to; 3=Definitely want to).

The second part of PASS is used to assess reasons for procrastination on writing a term paper.  It consists of 26 items (1=Not at all the reason; 2=Somewhat the reason; 3=Definitely the reason).  Reasons are categorized according to 13 factors:  Perfectionism, evaluation anxiety, low self-esteem, task aversiveness, laziness, time management, indecisiveness, peer pressure, dependency, lack of assertion, risk-taking, rebellion against control, and fear of success.

Previous research showed that PASS has test-retest reliability of .74 for prevalence and .56 for reasons for procrastination; the test-retest correlation for the total score was .80 (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  A study by Onwuegbuzie (2004) revealed that the coefficient alpha score reliability estimates of PASS measures were .84 for  procrastination, .85 for fear of failure, and .76 for task aversiveness.

In addition, previous research showed that PASS has high concurrent validity, with significant correlations with Beck Depression Inventory, Ellis Scale of Irrational Cognitions, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and Daily Avoidance Scale (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).  Howell and Watson (2007) reported an alpha coefficient of .75 across prevalence and perceived problem ratings for PASS.  A significant negative correlation of -.24 was found between PASS scores and a behavioral measure of procrastination.

 

Procedure

A total of 407 students (who had completed and passed English and Communication Skills) sat their moral studies midterm in a multipurpose hall in Week 4; only 171 were randomly chosen to complete RAS.  In Week 8, the same group of students sat their moral studies final exam in the multipurpose hall; again, only 171 were randomly chosen to complete PASS.  All the furniture in the multipurpose hall was coded; therefore, randomness could be determined by picking table numbers out of a box.

The researcher distributed the instruments with the assistance of a colleague.  She waited for about 20 minutes for students to complete each instrument.  On both occasions, all completed instruments were returned to her within 25 minutes.  Responses on both instruments were coded using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

Data were analyzed using SPSS, Version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., 2010).  A three-way analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Age) was run based on students’ responses on each item.  Items with high percentages were noted.  Means for items that yielded significant group, gender, or age differences were also calculated. Finally, implications and recommendations in relation to the teaching and learning of English and Communication Skills were made based on the significant findings.

 

Results

 

Three-way analysis of variance on assertiveness

A three-way analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Age) on assertiveness revealed significant group differences, F(1,169).  Business and engineering students significantly differed on four assertiveness items (see Table 1).

 

 Table 1:     Significant Group Differences on Assertiveness, F(1, 169)

 

                                                                                                            MS           F          p

 If a famous lecturer makes a comment that I think is incorrect,

 I will openly voice my opinion                                                          6.04       7.15    < .01                                                 

 I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and salespeople                   7.16       7.27     < .01

 

 I complain about poor service in a restaurant and elsewhere            4.69       4.11     < .05                                                                                                                                                 

 I am quick to express an opinion                                                       4.30       5.54      < .05

                                                                                                                                               

 

 

 

 

 

The three-way analysis of variance yielded significant gender differences (see Table 2).  Male and female students differed significantly on two assertiveness items,

F(1, 169).

 

Table 2:     Significant Gender Differences on Assertiveness, F(1, 169)

 

                                                                                                         MS             F          p

When someone praises me, I sometimes just don’t know

what to say                                                                                      5.25          5.71      < .05

                                                                                                                                   

If people in a theater or at a lecture are conversing

rather loudly, I would ask them to be quiet                                    4.89          4.70      < .05                                                                                                                                     

 

 

 

The three-way analysis of variance yielded significant age differences (see Table 3).  Significant age differences were found on four assertiveness items, F(4, 166).

. 

Table 3:     Significant Age Differences on Assertiveness, F(4, 166)

 

                                                                                                       MS              F          p

           

Most people seem to be more assertive than I am                         1.68          2.63    < .05

 

I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid        3.94          3.42     < .01

 

During an argument I am sometimes afraid that I will get

so upset  that I will shake all over                                                  2.67          2.47     < .05

 

I often have a hard time saying “No”                                             4.65         3.81     < .01   

           

 

 

Percentages on assertiveness

Assertiveness items that had more than 45 percent agreement were identified.  Many English and Communication students showed low assertiveness as reflected by five items (see Table 4): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4:     Percentages on Assertiveness, n = 171               

 

Item                                                                                                             Agreement (%)

 

I am careful to avoid hurting other people’s feelings, even when           

I have been unhappy                                                                                                   71.9                                                                                                                                        

I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid                                     46.2                                                                                                                                        

I tend to bottle up (hide) my feelings                                                                         45.5                                                                                                    

When someone praises me, I sometimes just don’t know what to say                       59.6                                                                                                                                        

There are times when I just can’t say anything                                                           65.0     2         

 

 

Three-way analysis of variance on academic procrastination

A three-way analysis of variance on academic procrastination yielded significant group differences (see Table 5).  Business and engineering students showed significant group differences on only one academic procrastination item, F(1, 169).

 

Table 5:     Significant Group Differences on Academic Procrastination, F(1, 169)

 

                                                                                                            MS           F           p

To what degree procrastination on writing a term paper

a problem to you                                                                                 3.73        4.16     < .05

 

 

                                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The three-way analysis of variance yielded significant gender differences (see Table 6).  Significant gender differences were found on seven academic procrastination items,

F(1, 169).

 

Table 6:     Significant Gender Differences on Academic Procrastination, F (1, 169)

 

                                                                                                            MS         F             p

 

To what degree do you procrastinate on studying for an exam         3.73        4.16     < .05

 

I felt uncomfortable approaching the lecturer

for extra information (lack of assertion)                                             1.93        4.31     < .05

                       

I did not know enough to write the paper                 

(low self-esteem)                                                                                 2.19         4.94    < .05

 

I really disliked writing term papers                          

(task aversiveness)                                                                              2.53         4.41    < .05                                                                        

I could not choose among all the topics                    

(indecisiveness)                                                                                   2.24         4.84    < .05

                       

I was concerned that if I got a good grade,

people would have even higher expectations

of me in the future (fear of success)                                                   2.13         4.72    < .05

 

I waited to see if the lecturer would provide

some more information about the paper                    

(dependency)                                                                                      2.84         6.41    < .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The three-way analysis of variance yielded significant age differences (see Table 7).  Significant age differences were found on ten academic procrastination items, F(3, 167).

 

Table 7:     Significant Age Differences on Academic Procrastination, F(3, 167)

 

                                                                                                            MS          F           p

To what degree is procrastination on writing a term paper

problem for you                                                                                  68.0      75.9     < .001

 

To what degree is procrastination on reading weekly

assignments a problem to you                                                             3.28       3.05    < .05

 

I was concerned/afraid that the lecturer

would not like my paper (evaluation anxiety)                                    2.30       4.87    < .005                                    

I did not know what to include in the paper             

(indecisiveness)                                                                                   1.11     2.72    < .05

 

I strongly disliked doing things assigned by others

(rebelliousness)                                                                                    3.46     8.21     < .001                                                                                                                                                

I did not know enough to write the paper (low self-esteem)             2.18     4.91    < .005                       

I really disliked writing term papers (task aversiveness)                    1.62     2.82      < .05 

 

I was afraid to do well because my classmates         

would dislike me (fear of success)                                                      1.86       5.96   < .005                                                                                    

I felt that it takes too much time to write a paper     

 (task aversiveness)                                                                             1.61       3.39   < .05                                                                                                                                                  

I was concerned that I would not meet my

own expectations (perfectionism)                                                       2.35       4.57   < .005 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The three-way analysis of variance yielded significant group, gender, and age interactions (see Table 8).  Significant group, gender, and age interactions were found on two academic procrastination items, F(1, 169).

 

 

Table 8:     Significant Group, Gender, and Age Interactions on Procrastination,

                   F(1, 169)

 

                                                                                                            MS         F           p

I felt uncomfortable approaching the lecturer

for extra information                                                                           2.19       4.90     < .05

 

I did not have enough energy to begin the task                                 2.24       4.75     < .05

 

 

 

Percentages on academic procrastination

Findings indicated that English and Communication Skills students had many reasons for procrastinating on writing a term paper.  Items that had more than 45% agreement were identified (see Table 9).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9:     Procrastination Items with More Than 45% agreement, n = 171

 

Item                                                                                        Somewhat the reason (%)

                                                                                                      for procrastination

 

I did not know what to include in the paper                                      57.3

(indecisiveness)

 

I waited until a classmate did his or her paper to

get some advice from him or her (dependency)                                 45.6                

 

I had too many other things to do

(time management)                                                                             49.7                                                                                                               

I did not know enough to write the paper                                          52.6                

(low self-esteem)        

 

I felt overwhelmed (stressed out) by the task                                                51.5                

(time management)

                                                                       

I had difficulty requesting information from others                           49.7                            

(lack of assertion)

 

I could not choose among all the topics                                             49.1    

(indecisiveness)

 

I did not have enough energy to begin the task                                 45.0                

(laziness)

                                                                       

I felt that it takes too much time to write a paper                              47.4                

(task aversiveness)     

 

I waited to see if the lecturer would provide

some more information about the paper                                             53.2                

(dependency)

                       

I set high standards for myself, but I worried           

that I would not be able to meet them                                                            46.8                

(perfectionism)

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

Assertiveness

Results of the study indicated significant group differences in assertiveness.  Business and engineering students who had taken English and Communication Skills significantly differed on four assertiveness items.  Engineering students had higher mean scores than their business peers.  More research is needed to examine as to why engineering students tend to be more assertive than business students.

Results indicated significant gender differences in assertiveness.  Male and female students who had taken English and Communication Skills differed significantly on two assertiveness items.  This finding was supported by previous research.  Sigler (2009) found significant gender differences in assertiveness, with male undergraduates reporting higher levels of assertive communication than their female counterparts.  Orr (2003) found that male college students were more comfortable than their female peers in terms of overall assertiveness and verbal assertiveness.

Significant age differences in assertiveness were found among English and Communication students.  This finding was supported by Rodriquez, Johnson, and Combs (2001) who found that older undergraduates had higher scores on positive assertiveness than their younger counterparts.

 

Implications on assertiveness

Overall, results showed that English and Communication students, particularly business students and female students need to improve their assertiveness. Assertiveness is less extolled in Malaysia, which has a collectivist culture.  Low assertiveness reflects that Malaysian students value cooperation, group success, and interdependence rather than competition, individual success, and independence. 

Previous research implied that low assertiveness with authority figures is perceived as respectful in some Asian countries (Hofstede, 2001).  Hence, high assertiveness may have negative connotations in Malaysia, giving the impression that one is rude or arrogant.  It runs counter to a face-saving culture that values compromise and indirect conflict management styles (Rose, Suppiah, Uli, & Othman, 2007).  It is therefore not surprising that many students in this study showed low assertiveness in terms of interpersonal relationships with peers and lecturers.

However, findings showed that many students were assertive on one particular item.  When asked to do something, 64.7 percent insisted to know why.  This finding was supported by DeVito (2007) who maintained that people might be assertive in one situation but not in another.  Findings imply that Malaysian students’ assertiveness tends to be situation-specific.  In terms of academic tasks, they are assertive in that they want to know the objectives.  In brief, they may be less assertive in social situations, but are determined when it comes to task fulfillment.

 

Academic procrastination

Results of the study indicated that English and Communication Skills students procrastinated somewhat due to indecisiveness, low self-esteem, task aversiveness, laziness, time management problems, perfectionism, and lack of assertion.

Findings of the study were supported by previous research.  Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that many undergraduate students procrastinated on writing term papers, studying for exams, and reading weekly assignments.  They procrastinated mainly due to task aversiveness, fear of failure, evaluation anxiety, low self-confidence, and maladaptive perfectionism.  Onwuegbuzie (2004) reported high levels of procrastination among graduate students across all three tasks. In addition, graduate students were found to have the same propensity to procrastinate as undergraduate students (Alexander & Onweugbuzie, 2007).

Mean scores revealed gender and age differences among English and Communication Skills students in academic procrastination, indicating that male students and older students tended to procrastinate more.  Findings of the study were supported by previous research.  Ozer, Demir, and Ferrari (2009) found that male students procrastinated more often than female students, while Rosario, Costa, Nunez, Gonzalez-Pienda, Solano, and Valle (2009) found that procrastination increased with grade levels.   

 

Implications of academic procrastination

Overall, findings imply that English and Communication students have a high tendency to procrastinate.  To perform better in the course, they need to know how to overcome procrastination.  Many researchers have provided information not only on the causes and effects of procrastination, but also ways to overcome it (Ederer, Aschemann, Essau, & O’Callaghan, 2008; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; O’Callaghan, 2009; Steel, 1996).

Finally, to promptly fulfill all the requirements of English and Communication Skills, students should receive supervision and support throughout the semester, especially in terms of writing term papers.  For instance, lecturers should use relevant didactic tools to teach the course, ensuring that students possess the proper prerequisites in academic reading, academic writing, and oral presentation.  Students, on the other hand, should develop positive attitudes toward learning and productive work patterns.  One way is by having effective time management and study skills that could help them gain a sense of control and freedom in their own learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

[1]      Alexander , E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (7), 1301-1310.

[2]        Burka, J. B. (2008). Procrastination: Why do it and what to do about it. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo.

[3]        Cassel, R. N., & Blackwell, J. (2002). Positive assertiveness begins with character education and includes the abuse of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(2), 77-79.

[4]        Del Greco, L., Breitbach, L., Rumer, S., McCarthy, R. H., & Suissa, S. (1986). Further examination of the reliability of the modified Rathus Assertiveness Schedule. Adolescence, 21(82), 483-485.

[5]        DeVito, J. (2007). The interpersonal communication book, 11^th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

[6]        Ederer, E., Aschemann, B., Essau, C. A., O’Callaghan, J. (2008). Procrastination among students in Austria and its prevention in academic teaching. Third International Conference on the Teaching of Psychology (ICTP).  http://www.ictp-2008spb.ru/presentations/participant/.

[7]       Effert, B. R., & Ferari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: Examining personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 151-156.

[8]        Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (2000). Overcoming procrastination. New York: New

 American Library.

[9]        Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported

characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68(2), 455-458.

[10]      Ferrari, J. R. (1992) Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor analysis of self-representation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75-84.

[11]      Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as a self-regulation failure of performance: Effects of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on working best under pressure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 391-406.

[12]     Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, L. J., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Publications.

[13]      Gladding, S. T. (1988). Counseling: A comprehensive profession. Princeton, NC: Merrill Publishing Company.

[14]      Harris, T. L. (1979). Congruent validity of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39(1), 181-186.

[15]      Herzberger, S. D., Chan, E., & Katz, J. (1984). The development of an assertivness self-report inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 317-323.

[16]      Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[17]      Howell, A. J., & Watson, D.C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with

achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167-178.

[18]      Kearney, P., Beatty, M. J., Plax, T. G., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Factor analysis of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and the personal report of communication apprehension-24: Replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 54, 851-854.

[19]      Kraft, W. A., Litwin, W. J., & Barber, S. E. (1986). Religious orientation and assertiveness: Relationship to death anxiety. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 93-95.

[20]      Lay, C. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person-task

characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 483-494.

[21]      Lay, C. H., & Silverman, S. (1996). Trait procrastination, anxiety, and dilatory behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 61-67.

[22]      Nevid, J. S., & Rathus, S. A. (2007). Psychology and the challenges of life,10^th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[23]      Noran, F. Y. (2000). Procrastination among students in institutes of higher learning. http://www.mahdzam.com/papers/procratinate/.

[24]      Norton, R., & Warnick, B. (1976). Assertiveness as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 3, 62-66.

[25]      O’Callaghan, J. (2009). Academic procrastination. Roehampton University.

http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/staff/JeanO’callaghan/procrastination.asp.

[26]      Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004).  Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 3-19.

[27]      Orr, K. S. (2003). College students’ comfort with assertive behaviors: An analysis of students with and without disabilities in three different postsecondary institutions. Texas A&M University. http://txspace.tamu.edu/handle/1969/71?mode=full.

[28]      Ozar, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 241-257.

[29]      Pearson, J. C. (1979). A factor analytic study of the items in the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension. Psychological Reports, 45, 491-497.

[30]     Popoola, B. I. (2005). A study on the relationship between procrastinatory behavior and academic performance of undergraduate students in a Nigerian university. African Symposium: Journal of Educational Research Network.

[31]      Rathus, S. A. (1972). An experimental investigation of assertive training in a group setting. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 81-86.

[32]      Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4, 398-406).

[33]      Rodriquez, G., Johnson, S. W., & Combs, D. C. (2001). Significant variables associated with assertiveness among Hispanic college women. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 184-190.

[34]      Rosario, P., Costa, M., Nunez, J. C., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Solano, P., & Valle, A. (2009). Academic procrastination: Associations with personal, school, and family variables. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 118-127.

[35]      Rose, R. C., Suppiah, W., Uli, J., & Othman, J. (2007). A face concern approach to conflict management – a Malaysian perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 121-126.

[36]     Saigh, P. A. (1988). Anxiety, depression, and assertion across alternating intervals of stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 338-341.

[37]      Sigler, K. A. (2009). A regional analysis of assertiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, NY: New York City. http://www.allacademic.com.

[38]      Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.

[39]      Steel, P (1996). It’s about time: The six styles of procrastination and how to overcome them. Penguin Group.

 [40]     SPSS Inc. (2010). SPSS Statistics 17.0. SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq: SPSS). Chicago, Illinois 60606.

[41]     Takashi, S., Shiomi, M., Masako, T., Ayako, S., Shinya, K., Norio, M., & Shoji, N. (2003). Development of the Japanese version of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule. Journal of Occupational Health, 25(1), 35-42.

[42]      Tuckman, B. W. (2002). Academic procrastinators: Their rationalizations and web-course performance. http://allsuccesscenter.ohio-state.edu/references/procratinator_APA_paper.htm.