Cross-sectional study shows self-efficacy mediates motivation types and procrastination in PhD students, suggesting therapy can reduce delays.
Procrastination is a phenomenon that is particularly prevalent in the academic context, with prevalence rates as high as 70%–95%. The literature suggests that motivation and self-efficacy are associated with success in academic settings, whereas procrastination seems to decrease students’ academic performance. However, the nature of the associations between motivation and procrastination among PhD students remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether self-efficacy is involved in the associations between five different types of regulation (intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, and external), conceptualized within the self-determination theory, and academic procrastination in a sample of PhD students. This cross-sectional study consisted of a sample of 522 PhD students of different specialties who completed self-reported measures of motivation (Motivation for PhD Studies Scale), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale) and procrastination (Irrational Procrastination Scale). Our results indicated that higher intrinsic, integrated, and identified regulation, as well as higher self-efficacy, were associated with lower levels of procrastination. Self-efficacy was a significant mediator of the associations between intrinsic, integrated, identified, and introjected regulation and procrastination. These results suggest that different types of regulation and academic procrastination, among PhD students, may be linked through perceived self-efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of self-efficacy in academic contexts and suggest the integration of strategies to increase self-efficacy into current interventions, such as cognitive‒behavioral therapy or acceptance and commitment therapy, to reduce doctoral students’ procrastination and promote their engagement in academic/scientific tasks, thereby facilitating the successful progression and completion of their doctoral studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santos et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: