Academic procrastination in stem: interactive effects of stereotype threat and achievement goals.
Keywords: women in STEM, academic procrastination, stereotype threat, achievement goals
The shortage of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has emerged as an increasingly important career development issue in recent years. Despite a growing gender balance in the biological sciences, the National Science Foundation (2010) reported that only 21% of the bachelor's degrees in STEM were awarded to women in 2007. We wish to extend research on this shortage of women by examining academic procrastination as a possible early indicator of academic discontent. In the following sections, we also discuss the conceptual linkage between academic procrastination and two potentially important antecedents, stereotype threat and achievement goals, highlighting the shared relationship they hold with negative affect.
Certain IV, most individuals procrastinate, or delay engagement with a task, from time to time. However, the body of literature that has accumulated over the years suggests that individuals who engage in dilatory behavior may be doing so at their own peril. Procrastination is generally viewed as a failure of self-regulation (Baumeister, 1997) that has deleterious effects in numerous areas of functioning (e.g., health; Sirois, 2007) and under a host of different circumstances (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, &. Blunt, 2000). Perhaps the most popular context in which procrastination has been studied is the academic setting, because of the high frequency with which it occurs among students (Ozer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009) and because it has such important implications for academic and career development. Procrastination has been conceptualized as a self-handicapping strategy (Jones & Berglas, 1978). insofar as dilatory behavior allows one to postpone exposure to self-esteem threats that are expected to result from poor performance. Thus, procrastination may have the short-term benefit of protecting self-esteem, but performance is likely to suffer over the long term. Procrastination is often characterized by chronic self-doubt as evidenced by empirical linkages with work avoidance (Wolters, 2003) and test anxiety (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). It is not surprising, then., that fear of failure is also an antecedent of procrastination (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher, 1991; Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007) given that fear of failure is the affective component underlying anxiety and avoidance. Fear of failure appears to be particularly high among women in studies of procrastination (Ozer et al., 2009; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). A typical fear of failure situation for college women occurs in classroom settings in which there may be concern about confirming the stereotyped belief that they cannot perform well in typically male-dominated STEM fields compared with men (e.g., Cheryan, Plata, Davies, & Steele, 2009). The focus of the current project was on the interplay between such stereotype threat concerns and achievement goal pursuits in predicting women's levels of procrastination in STEM classrooms.
Stereotypes activated by either explicit reminders of a stereotype or more subtle implicit cues result in students' underperformance and low academic motivation (e.g., Stone & McWhinnie, 2008). Steele and colleagues (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995). have demonstrated that such stereotype activation becomes a 'threat in the air" (Steele, 1997, p. 614), which leads individuals who are targets of that stereotype to underperform. This finding has been replicated fir various stereotypes using a wide variety of tasks. For example, Spencer. Steele, and Quinn (1999) found that, among women who identified highly with mathematics, those who were told prior to taking a mathematics exam that the test had shown stereotypical gender differences in the past significantly underperformed compared with their male counterparts.
Stereotype threat can also come about in more subtle ways. The mere presence of posters or magazines in a STEM classroom or laboratory setting that are male typical can undermine women's interest and performance (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev (2003) showed that women who were outnumbered by men in a testing situation pertbrmed poorly on a math test. Thus, a classroom that is male dominated, for example, would likely result in an implicit stereotype threat for women (e.g., Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004). How stereotype threat negatively affects performance and motivation is less understood. The process is likely to be multifaceted and to depend on many moderating factors, making it a complicated process to untangle (Major & O'Brien, 2005). Therefore, much more research is needed to understand how stereotype threat operates. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement that a stereotype-threatening intellectual environment can mask a woman's true ability, leaving her with the perception that she does not have the skills needed to succeed (e.g., Cadinu, Maass, Frigerio, Impagliazzo, & Latinotti, 2003). Pursuit of an adaptive type of achievement goal may mitigate the effects of such an environment.
Elliot and McGregor (2001) identified four types of achievement goals: (a) mastery approach, (b) mastery avoidance, (c) performance approach, and (d) performance avoidance. Mastery approach goals represent aims to increase competence through the development of skill and understanding, whereas mastery avoidance goals refer to learning with an orientation toward avoiding a perceived decline in competence. Mastery approach goals are consistent positive predictors of academic and career-related outcomes (e.g., Creed, Tilbury, Buys, & Crawford, 2011), whereas mastery avoidance goals have negative implications for career development (de Lange, Van Yperen, Van der Heidjen, & Bal, 2010). Performance goals similarly contrast with respect to valence in that performance approach goals refer to learning with an orientation toward demonstrating high ability and appearing more capable than others, whereas performance avoidance goals refer to learning with an orientation toward avoiding the demonstration of low ability compared with others.
Because both types of avoidance goals are grounded in fear of ailure (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), it is reasonable to expect that they would transmit the effects of stereotype threat to procrastination. In fact, stereotype threat has been shown to be predictive of performance avoidance goal adoption (Smith, Sansone, & White, 2007), but the literature also suggests that mastery avoidance goals are directly predictive of procrastination, whereas performance avoidance goals are not (Howell & Buro, 2009; Howell & Watson, 2007). Therefore, these goals may not be best estimated as mediators of the effects of stereotype threat on procrastination, but rather as moderators of the stereotype threat--procrastination relationship. The transmission of effects implied by a mediation model would suggest that stereotype threat triggers the adoption of avoidance goals, which, in turn, facilitate procrastination. Perhaps, however, students bring with them to the STEM classroom a preexisting orientation toward adopting a certain type of achievement goal. This assumption is consistent with a goal orientation view of achievement motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) in that individuals are thought to possess goal tendencies that are largely shaped by prior achievement experiences. For women, this goal orientation may often be one of avoidance because many are likely to have encountered stereotype threat in previous STEM achievement situations.
The Present Study
There are three important aims of the present study. First, previous research has not tested stereotype threat and achievement goals as predictors of academic procrastination in the same context. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether these variables are related to one another in meaningful ways. Second, prior research (e.g., Howell & Buro, 2009) has examined the role of achievement goals as mediators of various effects on procrastination, but there have been no studies conducted to this point that evaluate the interactive effects of achievement goals on procrastination. Finally, career development researchers have done little research on procrastination since the seminal work of Solomon and Rothblum (1984) in the early 1980s. This is unfortunate because career counselors frequently address procrastination issues with their clients in university counseling center settings. Career counselors would likely benefit greatly from an expansion of the empirical literature base in this area.
The literature suggests that women are more likely to feel threatened by stereotyped cues activated in STEM classrooms (e.g., Cheryan et al., 2009), but they may also possess a general avoidance orientation related to STEM-based courses that can exacerbate the effects of stereotype threat in a given class. Pursuing mastery approach goals is likely to be beneficial to women in terms of diverting their attention away from normative comparisons that might yield evidence that is perceived to confirm negative stereotypes about their scientific ability. Thus, we hypothesized that both mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals would moderate (exacerbate) the effect of stereotype threat on procrastination for women but not for men. We also hypothesized that mastery approach goals would moderate (attenuate) the effects of stereotype threat on procrastination for women but not for men. We did not propose any hypotheses regarding performance approach goals because they are rooted in behavioral approach and affective avoidance tendencies, and thus have both positive and negative effects (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). To ensure that any observed effects were not simply due to perceptions of competence, we included a measure of science self-efficacy as a covariate.
Data were collected from 223 undergraduate students enrolled in various science classes (21.1% biology, 24.3% chemistry, 31.2% physics, and 23.4% psychology) at a midsized university in the southeastern United States. Participants primarily consisted of women (54.5% female,. 45.5% male) with ages ranging from 18 to 39 years (M = 21.3.1, SD = 2.73). Reported ethnicities were as follows: 77.5% Caucasian, 12.3% African/ African American, 4.0% Asian/Asian American, 2.6% Latino/Hispanic, 2.2% other, and 1.3% multiracial. (Percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.) Eighteen major areas of study were reported by participants, with 52.3% in STEM majors and 47.7% in non-STEM majors. Overall grade point average (GPA) ranged from 2.0 to 4.0 (M = 3.29, SD = 0.53); mean GPA within participants major areas of study was 3.38 (SD= 0.55).
Stereotype threat. Perceptions of stereotype threat were measured using five items, three of which were adapted from items used in previous research (Marx & Goff, 2005). Marx and Golf's (2005) items were originally developed to measure racial stereotype threat but were adapted to reflect individual perceptions of gender stereotypes (e.g., "I worry that my ability to perform well in my class is affected by my gender"). Moreover, we opted to measure the construct more broadly by developing two items designed to tap concerns related to gender group identification. An example item is "I am concerned about what other people think of my gender group." Participants rated their perceptions of stereotype threat on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly. agree). All five items used in the present study possessed good reliability (a = .86). Deemer, Thoman, Chase, and Smith (2014) documented evidence of the original three items' construct validity by demonstrating a positive correlation between stereotype threat and actual number of men in a classroom (i.e., women outnumbered by men).
Academic achievement goals. The Achievement Goal Questionnaire--Revised (Elliot & Murayama, 2008) consists of 12 items, with three items measuring each of the four achievement goal constructs. Participants respond on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Elliot and Murayama's (2008) work indicated good to excellent reliability for the Pertbrmance Avoidance (a = .94), Mastery Avoidance (a = .88), and Mastery Approach (a = .84) subscales. In the present study, alpha coefficients were .84 for Performance Avoidance, .68 for Mastery Avoidance, and .78 for Mastery Approach.
Academic procrastination. The Procrastination Assessment Scale--Students (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) was used to measure academic procrastination. The PASS is a 44-item questionnaire that consists of two subscales: Areas of Procrastination (AOP; 18 items) and. Reasons for Procrastination (26 items). Respondents are asked about the frequency with which they procrastinate, the extent to which they view procrastination as problematic, and their desire to reduce it. Only the six items in the AOP subscale related to degree of procrastination were used in the present study. Response options are presented in a Likert scale format ranging from 1 (never procrastinate/not at all a problem/do not want to decrease) to 5 (always procrastinate/always a problem/definitely want to decrease). The Cronbach's alpha was .80 in the present study.
Science self-efficacy. Five items from the Science Motivation Questionnaire (SMQ; Glynn & Koballa, 2006) were used to measure science self-efficacy in the present study. The SMQ is a 30-item measure that consists of: 6 five-item subscales designed to tap student motivation to learn science. Items are scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from I (never) to 5 (a/wins). The coefficient alpha for the Science Self-Efficacy subscale was .84 in the present study.
Participants were recruited from college STEM courses (biology, chemistry, and physics) and non-STEM courses (psychology) to yield a sample that was representative of diverse academic interests. All data were collected using an online survey. Research assistants entered the classrooms with the permission of course instructors and explained the purpose of the study. Those individuals who expressed interest in participating were asked to provide a valid e-mail address to which a link to the online survey could later be delivered. The survey link contained an informed consent statement consisting of a detailed description of the purpose of the study as well as participants' rights and responsibilities. Participants were asked to refer to the science class in which they were enrolled when responding to the stereotype threat items. Respondents were given $10 gift cards as remuneration for their involvement in the study.
Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. Reported academic majors were categorized by STEM (e.g., engineering, mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry) and non-STEM (e.g., education, psychology, business) disciplines. We performed preliminary analyses to examine potential between-group differences in the study variables. Separate 2 (men vs. women) x 2 (STEM vs. non-STEM) factorial analyses of variance revealed a significant main effect of gender for stereotype threat concerns, F(1, 197) = 13.26, p < .001, 12 = .06, such that women endorsed greater concerns about gender stereotypes than did men. This main effect was qualified by a significant Gender x Major Type interaction, F(1, 197) = 8.55, p = .004,12 = .04, whereby women in STEM majors (M = 3.38, SE = 0.17) reported more stereotype threat concerns compared with women in non-STEM majors (M = 2.68, SE = 0.12) and men in either type of major. There were also main effects of major type on mastery goal adoption, such that individuals in STEM majors scored significantly higher .compared with individuals in non-STEM majors on both mastery approach goals, F( 1,197) = 5.45, p = .021, [[eta].sup.2] = .03, and mastery avoidance goals, F(1, 192) = 4.87, p = .028, [[eta].sup.2] = .03. Results revealed a different pattern of effects for performance goal adoption whereby women endorsed performance approach goals, F(1,195) = 4.64, p = .032, [[eta].sup.2] = .02, and performance avoidance goals, F(1, 196) = 13.88, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .07, significantly more than did men. There were no gender or type of major differences observed for academic procrastination. The most surprising result that emerged from correlational analyses was that of a significant positive correlation between mastery approach goals and performance avoidance goals (r = .36, p < .001). Stereotype threat was also found to be positively associated with academic procrastination ( r = .18, p = .011).
TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Academic Major Variable Gender Academic Major Men Women STEM Non-STEM M SD M SD M SD M SD M Academic 2.65 0.69 2.61 0.79 2.82 0.68 2.54 0.85 2.72 procrastination Stereotype 2.39 0.84 2.90 1.22 2.69 1.15 2.66 0.98 2.67 threat Mastery approach 4.19 0.68 4.17 0.63 4.23 0.58 4.08 0.77 4.18 goals Mastery 3.77 0.88 3.75 0.81 3.83 0.78 3.61 0.94 3.76 avoidance goals Performance 3.78 0.99 4.18 0.72 3.99 0.87 4.01 0.89 4.00 avoidance goals Science 3.83 0.77 3.80 0.65 3.93 0.77 3.69 0.62 3.81 selfefficacy Overall SD Academic 0.75 procrastination Stereotype 1.09 threat Mastery approach 0.65 goals Mastery 0.84 avoidance goals Performance 0.87 avoidance goals Science 0.70 selfefficacy Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
We performed a series of hierarchical regression analyses to examine the moderating effect of achievement goals on the relationship between stereotype threat and academic procrastination. Stereotype threat, the achievement goals, and science self-efficacy were entered into the regression equation on Step 1, followed by the respective Stereotype Threat x Achievement Goal product term on Step 2. All predictor variables were centered at their means prior to computing the product terms (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).
Mastery approach goals. The Step 1 model for men was nonsignificant, F(3, 70) = 0.57, p = .635, [R.sup.2] = .02, given that stereotype threat (b = .06, p = .649), mastery approach goals ([beta] = .11, p = .395), and science self-efficacy ([beta] = -.11, p = .382) were all null predictors of academic procrastination. The Stereotype Threat x Mastery Approach Goal product term explained an additional 5% of the variance in academic procrastination, but the Step 2 model was not significant, [DELTA]F(1, 69) = 3.67, p = .060 ([beta] = -.28). A different pattern of results emerged for women in that the Step 1 model was shown to be significant, F(3, 92) = 8.23, p < .001, [R.sup.2]= .21. Mastery approach goals were significant negative predictors of academic procrastination ([beta] = -.44, p < .001), but stereotype threat ([beta] = .06, p = .523) and science self-efficacy ([beta] = -.01, p = .917) failed to reach significance. A significant interaction was detected on Step 2 given that the product term accounted for a unique increment of 3.7% of the variance in academic procrastination, [DELTA]F(1, 91) = 4.46, p = .037 ([beta] = -.21). The two-way interaction is graphically displayed in Figure 1. Predicted values of academic procrastination were plotted at one standard deviation above and below the means of stereotype threat and mastery approach goals. Post hoc testing indicated that the simple slopes were nonsignificant at low, medium, and high levels of mastery approach goals: t(90) = 1.71, p= .092 (b = .13); t(90) = 0.00, p = .998 (b = .00); and t(90) = -0.13, p = .209 (b = -.13), respectively.
Mastery avoidance goals. The regression analysis for men was not significant on Step 1,
F(3, 66) = 0.38, p = .772, [R.sup.2] = .02. Accordingly, stereotype threat ([beta] = .07, p = .613), mastery avoidance goals ([beta] = .03, p = .825), and science self-efficacy ([beta] = -.11, p = .452) all tailed to reach significance as predictors of academic procrastination. The addition of the Stereotype Threat x Mastery Avoidance Goal product term on Step 2 also failed to reach significance, [DELTA]F(1, 65) = 0.17, p = .685 ([beta] = -.06). Results indicated that the regression model for women was also not significant on Step 1, F(3, 91) = 2.23, p = .090, [R.sup.2] = .07. Neither stereotype threat ([beta] = .14, p = .191), mastery avoidance goals (b = -.13, p = .199), nor science self-efficacy ([beta] =--.15, p = .151) were significant predictors of academic procrastination. However, the product term explained a significant 3.9% of the variance on Step 2, [DELTA]F(1, 90) = 3.93, p = .050 (13 =--.20). A plot of the two-way interaction is presented in Figure 2. Post hoc testing of the simple slopes revealed that stereotype threat was a significant positive predictor of academic procrastination at low levels of mastery avoidance goals, t(89) = 2.34, p = .022 (b = .23), but not at medium, t(89) = 1.03, p = .304 (b = .07), or high levels, t(89) =--0.74, p = .461 (b =--.09).
Performance avoidance goals. For men, the performance avoidance goal model was nonsignificant on Step 1, F(3, 68) = 0.91, p = .442, R2= .04, given that stereotype threat ([beta] = .07, p = .569), performance avoidance goals ([beta] = .17, p = .188), and science self-efficacy ([beta] = -.11, p = .400) were all null predictors of academic procrastination. The addition of the Stereotype Threat x Performance Avoidance Goal product term on Step 2 was also not significant, [DELTA]F(1, 67) = 0.02, p = .880 ([beta] = .02). For women, the Step 1 regression model was not significant, F(3, 92) = 1.81, p = .151, R2= .06. Stereotype threat ([beta] = .14, p = .181), performance avoidance goals ([beta] = -.08, p = .444), and science self-efficacy ([beta] = -.14, p = .177) failed to reach significance as predictors of academic procrastination. However, the entry of the product term on Step 2 yielded a significant 5.5% of the variance explained, [DELTA]F(1, 91) = 5.68, p = .019 ([beta] = -.29). As shown in Figure 3, a post hoc analysis of the simple slopes revealed that stereotype threat was a significant positive predictor of academic procrastination at both low, t(90) = 2.76, p = .007 (b = .36), and medium, t(90) = 2.05, p = .044 (b = .15), levels of performance avoidance goals, but not at high levels of performance avoidance goals, t(90) = -0.69, p = .493 (b = -.07).
Women, especially those in STEM majors, reported greater stereotype threat concerns in their science classrooms compared with men. This finding provides ecological validation of past laboratory research demonstrating that, in contrived STEM settings, women are more likely than men to experience stereotype threat. Although men and women reported equal levels of procrastination in their science classrooms, women's but not men's procrastination was associated with greater stereotype threat concerns. This N'as especially true for women who did not spontaneously adopt high levels of performance avoidance or mastery avoidance goals. Thus, contrary to predictions, for women, greater stereotype threat concerns in the context of high avoidance goals x'ere associated with less procrastination compared with low levels of either type of avoidance goal. This represents a departure from previous research suggesting that avoidance goals are positively associated with procrastination (e.g., Howell & Watson, 2007). However, previous research did not focus on women in STEM classes.
One interpretation of these data is that women, especially those in STEM majors, may adopt an avoidance goal to avoid confirming the stereotyped belief that they cannot perform well in science. Given that research shows that people who are oriented toward loss and avoidance take minimal risks (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997), perhaps women who are concerned about stereotypes view procrastination as a risk not worth taking. In this case, the strategy for engaging with the stereotype-related task for women in the science classroom may be to engage in more careful, less dilatory academic behavior. The finding that avoidance goal adoption is associated with more efficient academic effort for women suggests that there may be certain factors at work that protect women from the negative cognitive and affective consequences of perceived failure. Personality factors, specifically need for achievement, may partly explain this result. Individuals who are high in need for achievement are typically undeterred by the negative characteristics of performance goals (both performance approach and performance avoidance), because they view themselves as having high competence and they view the goals as being facilitative of both academic interest and performance (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). Such high need for achievement may be what distinguishes college women in STEM from women in other academic majors. To be sure, it seems that a high degree of determination and persistence would be required to tolerate the sheer isolation (i.e., being greatly outnumbered by men) and. attitude biases that women may encounter from both instructors and students in STEM classes. This is a potentially unique aspect of this population that future researchers would do well to investigate. If this is in fact the case, it is ironic that women would adopt goals that are grounded in negative affect to prevent the onset of negative affect in the future. Yet, this seems to be a reasonable choice given that avoidance goals are likely to have less severe implications for academic functioning compared with the consequences of perceived failure. Active avoidance, an energizing implicit motive aimed at steering individuals away from failure, may partly explain why women in the present study found avoidance goals to be at least somewhat adaptive in decreasing procrastination.
Implications for Career Counseling
It is not uncommon for college students to seek services at university counseling centers to address issues related to academic procrastination. Indeed, academic procrastination can severely hamper one's career development to the extent that it negatively affects academic performance. Our results suggest that career counselors would do well to help such clients maintain focus on task mastery when stereotypic cues are present in the academic environment rather than concerning themselves with the results of their work. Developing a mastery approach orientation would involve helping clients to shift their attention away from potentially negative outcomes (e.g., poor grades) to developing their skills and understanding the tasks before them. Interventions that place emphasis on the here and now, such as meditation or relaxation training, coupled with cognitive interventions aimed at challenging distorted beliefs about academic performance and career *development (e.g., "If I don't do well in this class, I won't get the job I want"), can have the dual effect of reducing anxiety resulting from stereotype threat concerns and fostering the adoption of a mastery orientation. The practice implications of the stereotype threat--avoidance goal results are much less straightforward. Although avoidance goal adoption may mitigate tendencies to procrastinate in the short term, long-term adoption of such goals can lead to emotional exhaustion and attrition from STEM. Clearly, more research is needed on the joint longitudinal effects of avoidance goals and stereotype threat on STEM outcomes among women.
Limitations and Conclusion
Some limitations in the present study merit discussion. First, the data collected were cross-sectional and correlational in nature; thus, we cannot conclude that perceptions of stereotype threat are causally related to conditions in the laboratory classroom. The use of experimental methodology would not have been possible in an actual classroom anyway, nor would it have yielded accurate representations of the naturally occurring processes under investigation. Second, the reliability of the Mastery Avoidance subscale was low; therefore, the precision with which mastery avoidance motives were measured is somewhat questionable. These limitations notwithstanding, the present research shows academic procrastination as an important outcome of social and motivational variables. Procrastination often serves as a buffer to failure and self-esteem threats, and this defensive posture is evidenced by a marginally positive correlation with stereotype threat concerns for all students. However, our data indicate that procrastination may serve only threat-buffering functions for women in science when these women have not already adopted other strategies for protecting themselves. When these women adopted fewer avoidance goals, they may have felt more vulnerable to stereotype threat concerns and, hence, relied on procrastination as a means of buffering against failure. This finding is important, because it implies that women in science classrooms may be strategically adjusting their academic behavior to cope with stereotype threat concerns.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M., (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706-722. doi:10.1037//0022-35188.8.131.526
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, I, 145-174. doi:10.1037//1089-26184.108.40.206
Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: A multidimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personality and Individual Diffirences, 28, 153- 167. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00091-4
Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Frigerio, S., lmpagliazzo, L., & Latinotti, S. (2003). Stereotype threat: The effect of expectancy on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 267-285. doi:10.1002/ejsp.145
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic perfbrmance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270-295. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045-1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple correlation/ regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creed, P., Tilbury, C., Buys, N., & Crawford, M. (2011). Cross-lagged relationships between career aspirations and goal orientation in early adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 78, 92-99. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.010
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
Deemer, E. D., Thoman, D. B., Chase, j. P., & Smith, J. L. (2014).. Feeling the threat: Stereotype threat as a contextual barrier to women's science career choice intentions. Journal of Career Development, 41, 141-158. doi:10.1177/0894845313483003
de Lange, A. H., Van Yperen, N. W., Van der Heidjen, B. I., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Dominant achievement goals of older workers and their relationship with motivation-related outcomes. Journal of 'Vocational Behavior, 77,118-125. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.013
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.95.2.256
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. doi:10.1037//0022-35220.127.116.111
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustrations, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628. doi:10.1037/0022-0618.104.22.1683
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804-818. doi:10.1037//0022-3522.214.171.1244
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1991). Perfectionism, self-actualization, and personal adjustment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6,147-160.
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn in college science. In J. Mintzes & W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 25-32). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2009). Implicit beliefs, achievement goals, and procrastination: A mediational analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19,151-154. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.006
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individua! Differences, 43, 167-178. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017
Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 796-805. doi:10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1996
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206. doi:10.1177/014616727800400205
Major, B. N., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005. The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393-421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137
Marx, D. M., & Goff, P. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target's test performance and subjective experience. British journal of Social Psychology, 44, 645-657. doi:10.1348/014466604X17948
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885. doi:10.111141467-9280.2007.01995.x
National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and emineering indicators 2010 (NSB I 001 ). Arlington, VA: Author.
Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. The journal of Social Psychology, 149, 241-257. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.241-257
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 and Personality, 15, 239-254.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women's experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50, 835-850. doi:0360-0025/04/0600-0835/0
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 12-25. doi:10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.52
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. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.003
Smith, J. L., Sansone, C., & White, P. H. (2007). The stereotyped task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement motivation. journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 99-114. doi:10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.206
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509. doi:10.1037//0022-0220.127.116.113
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. journal 4. Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514:69.5.797
Stone, J., & McWhinnie, C. (2008). Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threat cues impact performance through dual processes. journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 445-452. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.006
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179-187. doi:10.1037//0022-0618.104.22.168
Eric D. Deemer; Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University; Jessi L. Smith, Department of Psychology, Montana State University; Ashley N. Carroll, Department of _Mythology, and Anna P. Carpenter, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Louisiana Tech , University. Ashley N. Carroll is now at Schmied-ing Developmental Centel; Arkansas Children's Hospital, Lowell, Arkansas. This research was supported in part by a National Science Foundation grant (HRD-1036767) awarded to Eric D. Deemer and jessi L. Smith. The data presented and views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eric D. Deemer, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-miT it: email@example.com).
[c] 2014 by the National Career Development Association. All rights reserved.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Deemer, Eric D.; Smith, Jessi L.; Carroll, Ashley N.; Carpenter, Jenna P.|
|Publication:||Career Development Quarterly|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||College major choice in STEM: revisiting confidence and demographic factors.|
|Next Article:||Missionary Kid Career Development: A Consensual Qualitative Research Investigation Through a Social Cognitive Lens.|