Kim & Seo (2015): Procrastination and Performance
Kim and Seo's 2015 meta-analysis in Personality and Individual Differences pooled studies relating procrastination to academic performance. The overall relationship was negative but modest: procrastinators get somewhat worse grades on average. The effect depended heavily on how procrastination was measured, observed delay (like late submissions) predicted performance much more strongly than self-report questionnaires, and on which outcome was used. The paper is the field's best single answer to whether procrastination costs marks: yes, but it is not the main driver of academic outcomes.
| Citation | Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26–33. |
|---|---|
| Study type | Meta-analysis of studies linking procrastination measures to academic performance |
| Key finding | Overall negative correlation between procrastination and performance, modest in size |
| Key moderator | Behavioural measures of delay showed much stronger negative links with performance than self-report scales; outcome type and sample also moderated the effect |
What the study found
The authors pooled correlations between procrastination and academic performance across dozens of independent samples. On average, more procrastination meant lower grades, GPA and exam scores, but the pooled correlation was small. The interesting result was the moderation: when researchers measured actual delay, submission timestamps, observed lateness, the negative link with performance was substantially stronger than when students merely rated themselves on a procrastination questionnaire. Self-report scales seem to capture guilt and self-perception as much as behaviour.
Why it matters
It replaces two bad folk theories with data. Against 'I work best under pressure', the behavioural evidence says real delay costs real marks. Against 'procrastination is ruining my life', the modest effect size says grades are driven by many things, ability, teaching, hours studied, of which delay is one. The measurement finding also matters for research and self-assessment: what you do with deadlines tells you more than how procrastinatey you feel. The costs found here sit alongside Tice and Baumeister's finding that procrastinators also pay in stress and illness.
Caveats
Correlational inputs mean causation is not settled: low ability or low interest could cause both delay and poor grades. Nearly all samples were university students, and performance was usually GPA or exam scores, which compress real differences. The modest average also hides variation, for students whose work quality depends on iteration, like writing, last-minute completion plausibly costs far more than the pooled number suggests.
Peer-reviewed meta-analysis in Personality and Individual Differences. Verified via Crossref.
Related
Tice & Baumeister on the stress and health costsProcrastinating on revision and exams
Frequently asked questions
Does procrastination affect grades?
Yes, negatively, but modestly on average. This meta-analysis found procrastinators earn somewhat lower grades, with the effect clearly stronger when actual delay behaviour is measured rather than questionnaire scores. The bigger reliable costs of procrastination may be stress, guilt and lost sleep rather than the grade itself.