Gender, Socioeconomic Status, Cultural Differences, Education, Family Size and Procrastination: A Sociodemographic Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Procrastination describes a ubiquitous scenario in which individuals voluntarily postpone scheduled activities at the expense of adverse consequences. Steel (2007) pioneered a meta-analysis to explicitly reveal the nature of procrastination and sparked intensive research on its demographic characteristics. However, conflicting and heterogeneous findings reported in the existing literature make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. In addition, there is still room to further investigate on more sociodemographic features that include socioeconomic status, cultural differences and procrastination education. To this end, we performed quantitative sociodemographic meta-analyses (k = 193, total n = 106,764) to fill this gap. It was found that the general tendency and academic procrastination tendency of males were stronger than females (r = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.02–0.05). No significant effects of differences in socioeconomic status (i.e., poor or rich), multiculturalism (i.e., Han nation or minorities), nationality (i.e., China or other countries), family size (i.e., one child or > 1 child), and educational background (i.e., science or arts/literature) were found to affect procrastination tendencies. Furthermore, it was noteworthy that the gender differences in procrastination tendencies were prominently moderated by measurements, which has a greater effect on the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API) (r = 0.035, 95% CI: −0.01–0.08) than on the General Procrastination Scale (GPS) (r = 0.018, 95% CI: −0.01–0.05). In conclusion, this study provides robust evidence that males tended to procrastinate more than females in general and academic profiles, and further indicates that procrastination tendencies do not vary based on sociodemographic situations, including socioeconomic status, multiculturalism, nationality, family size, and educational background.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 67 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.