Gender differences in the influence of personality on academic procrastination in Peruvian college students

Diferencias de género en la influencia de la personalidad sobre la procrastinación académica en estudiantes universitarios peruanos

Diferenças de gênero na inluência da personalidade sobre a procrastinação acadêmica em estudantes universitários peruanos

Sergio Dominguez-Lara1* ; Rony Prada-Chapoñan2; Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera3

1 Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima, Perú ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2083-4278

2 Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo, Perú ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4268-6325

3 Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Ambato, Ecuador ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0134-5927

* Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Av. Tomás Marsano 242 (5.° piso), Lima 34, Perú. Tel.: (+051) 5136300, anexos 2186-2096. sdominguezl@usmp.pe; sdominguezmpcs@gmail.com

Recibido, septiembre 8/2018;
Concepto de evaluación, octubre 24/2018;
Aceptado, diciembre 10/2018

Como citar este articulo / How to cite this article: Dominguez-Lara, S., Prada-Chapoñan, R., & Moreta-Herrera, R. (2019). Gender differences in the influence of personality on academic procrastination in Peruvian college students. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 22(2), 125-136. doi: http://www.doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2019.22.2.7


The objective of the present study was to analyze whether there are differences between men and women in terms of the influence of personality dimensions on academic procrastination. Participants were 986 students aged between 16 and 40 years (69.8 % women, Mage = 20.81 years), students of different professional careers from two universities located in Lima. The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) and the Big Five Inventory-15P (BFI-15P) were the instruments administered. An invariance analysis of a structural regression model that indicates the influence of personality on academic procrastination was implemented. The results show that personality explains a significant percentage of the variability of the dimensions of academic procrastination. However, the influence of two dimensions, consciousness and neuroticism, is greater in women. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed, as well as the need to strengthen curricular plans aimed at enhancing resources and reducing those aspects that could negatively affect the academic behavior of the student.

Key words: academic procrastination, personality, college students, invariance, structural regression.


El objetivo del presente estudio fue determinar la existencia de diferencias entre hombres y mujeres en cuanto a la influencia de las dimensiones de personalidad sobre la procrastinación académica en 986 alumnos de entre 16 y 40 años (69.8 % mujeres; Medad = 20.81 años) de distintas carreras profesionales de dos universidades ubicadas en Lima. Para esto, se administró la Escala de Procrastinación Académica (EPA) y el Big Five Inventory-15P (BFI-15P), y se implemento un análisis de invarianza de un modelo regresión estructural. Los resultados mostraron que la personalidad explica un porcentaje significativo de la variabilidad de las dimensiones de la procrastinación académica, y que la influencia de las dimensiones responsabilidad y neuroticismo fue mayor en las mujeres. Se discuten las implicancias teóricas y prácticas de los hallazgos, así como la necesidad de fortalecer planes curriculares orientados a potenciar recursos y reducir los aspectos que podrían afectar negativamente la conducta académica del estudiante.

Palabras clave: procrastinación académica, personalidad, estudiantes universitarios, invarianza, regresión estructural.


O objetivo do presente estudo foi determinar a existência de diferenças entre homens e mulheres com respeito à influência das dimensões de personalidade sobre a procrastinação acadêmica em 986 alunos de 16 a 40 anos (69,8 % mulheres; Midade = 20,81 anos) de diferentes carreiras profissionais de duas universidades localizadas em Lima. Para isso, administrouse a Escala de Procrastinação Acadêmica (EPA) e o Big Five Inventory-15P (BFI-15P) e implementou-se uma análise de invariância de um modelo de regressão estrutural. Os resultados mostraram que a personalidade explica uma porcentagem significativa da variabilidade das dimensões da procrastinação acadêmica e que a influência das dimensões responsabilidade e neuroticismo foi maior nas mulheres. São discutidas as implicâncias teóricas e práticas das descobertas, bem como a necessidade de fortalecer planos curriculares orientados para potencializar recursos e reduzir os aspectos que poderiam afetar negativamente a conduta acadêmica do estudante.

Palavras-chave: procrastinação acadêmica, personalidade, estudantes universitários, invariância, regressão estrutural.


Academic Procrastination (AP) refers to postponing activities at the school setting (Argumendo et al., 2005), and is defined as the action to voluntarily and needlessly delay carrying out activities for many reasons causing subjective malaise (Dominguez-Lara, 2016) and academic problems (Patrzek Sattler, van Veen, Grunschel, & Fries, 2015). In this sense, the person who procrastinates interacts in a reward game, a mix of tension and stress, due to the deferment, followed by the distension and reward after completing a task at the last minute (Alba & Hernández, 2013).

Two key components are estimated in AP: a) delaying activities; and b) academic self-regulation (Dominguez, Villegas, & Centeno, 2014; Moreta-Herrera & Durán-Rodríguez, 2018). The first one characterizes to a great extent the procrastinating behavior and shows actions carried out to prolong a course of action on the task at hand; and the second refers to goal-directed behavior and action planning (Steel, 2007), this being the most important element, since the core of the main procrastinating behavior is the failure of the self-regulation processes (Steel, 2007; Steel, & Ferrari, 2013).

AP prevalence is significant and diverse (e.g., Balkis, & Duru, 2009; Dominguez-Lara, 2017; Òzer, 2011; Òzer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009), and among its consequences in the academic scope, the ones that stand out are: school problems (Furlan, Ferrero, & Gallart, 2014), low academic self-efficacy (Hen & Goroshit, 2014), psychological inflexibility (Glick & Orsillo, 2015), disruptive behavior (Patrzek et al., 2015), loss of motivation towards future tasks (Sánchez, 2010), and school desertion or permanence in the institution beyond the time expected to finish studies (Garzón, & Gil, 2017; Gómez, Ortiz & Perdomo, 2016; Rozental, & Carlbring, 2014). Also, at the personal level, AP is related to depression (Steel & Klingsieck, 2015), stress, fatigue, guilt and anxiety (Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007), among others.

Understanding the origin and maintenance of procrastinating behavior in university students is complex as there is a set of factors both contextual and institutional (e.g., vague instructions of teachers) as well as personal (personality traits) that affect its dynamics (Schraw et al., 2007). In this last group offactors, the vision ofuniversity work and the way academic activities are organized stand out (Patrzek et al., 2015).

From the point of view of the most relevant personal explanatory aspects of general and academic procrastination, the association with personality is included, specially from the big five factors model (5GF) (Steel & Klingsieck, 2016; Van Eerde, 2004). Thus, for example, in general procrastination, there is an inverse relation with the conscientiousness trait and a positive relation with neuroticism (Kim, Fernandez, & Terrier, 2017; Steel & Klingsieck, 2016; Van Eerde, 2004), just as with academic procrastination in a similar condition (Boysan & Kiral, 2017; Karatas & Bademcioglu, 2015; Zhou, 2018). There is also evidence of association with extraversion, although to a lesser degree, while with the agreeableness and openness traits its relation is virtually non-existent (Kim et al., 2017; Steel & Klingsieck, 2016). No Peruvian studies analyzing these two variables jointly were found.

The Conscientiousness trait is associated with respect for rules and self-control in order to attain objectives (John & Srivastava, 1999). It is coherent to think that the stronger its presence is, the fewer the failings in self-regulation leading people to develop secondary activities or delay them will be (Rahimi, Hall, & Pychyl, 2016). On the other hand, as AP is related to aversion and perception of high difficulty of tasks (Òzer et al., 2009), it is understood that this situation is threatening to the procrastinator due to the predominantly negative affective base associated with neuroticism (Smith, Barstead, & Rubin, 2017).

Gender differences in procrastination and personality

The study of gender differences is one of the largest scope fields in current psychology. Many constructs have been studied from this perspective to give relevant information, like narcissism (Grijalva et al., 2015), social anxiety (Asher, Asnaani, & Aderka, 2017), school success (Spinatha, Eckert, & Steinmayr, 2014), academic engagement (Kessels, Heyder, Latsch, & Hannover, 2014), among others, including personality and procrastination.

Even though meta-analytical studies indicate that the association between procrastination and gender is significant (Steel, 2007; Van Eerde, 2004), such relation is virtually non-existent in terms of magnitude (|r| < .10). Nonetheless, discordant evidence has been found. Some studies point out that men procrastinate more than women (Khan, Arif, Noor, & Muneer, 2014; Olea & Olea, 2015; Òzer et al., 2009; Steel & Ferrari, 2013), probably due to impulsiveness connections that characterize men (Strüber, Lück, & Roth, 2008), while other reports do not find such differences (Lai, Badayai, Chandrasekaran, Lee, & Kulasingam, 2015; Mahasneh, Bataineh, & Al-Zoubi, 2016; Moreta-Herrera, Durán-Rodríguez & Villegas-Villacrés, 2018). In the case of Peruvian university students, differences in terms of delaying activities were insignificant, but men showed less self-regulated academic behavior (Dominguez-Lara, & Campos-Uscanga, 2017).

On the other hand, the study of the differences and similarities between men and women with respect to 5GF has generated interesting evidence. Neuroticism appears with greater intensity in women at different stages of their lifespan: adolescence (De Bolle et al., 2015; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011), adulthood (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, & Allik, 2008; Weisberg, DeYoung, & Hirsh, 2011) and old age (Chapman, Duberstein, Sõrensen, & Lyness, 2007). The conscientiousness factor is higher in women only in adolescence (De Bolle et al., 2015) as in adulthood there are similar scores in men and women (Chapman et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2011; Weisberg et al., 2011).

Agreeableness is another trait that has demonstrated differences in favor of women (De Bolle et al., 2015; Weisberg et al., 2011), and as for extraversion, some studies indicate similarities between genders (De Bolle et al., 2015; Chapman et al., 2007; Soto et al., 2011), but the perspective changes when cultural factors are analyzed: there is more extraversion in women from more egalitarian countries and is equivalent according to gender in countries with greater inequalities (Schmitt et al., 2008). Finally, openness does not show substantial differences between men and women (Chapman et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2011).

As for studies aimed at comparing Peruvian men and women regarding 5GF, differences in favor of women only in conscientiousness and agreeableness were found in adulthood (Schmitt et al., 2008). There seems to be no consensus in university students, since whereas a study highlights that women significantly stand out in neuroticism, extraversión and openness factors (Niño de Guzmán, Calderón, & Cassaretto, 2003), another study mentions that women score higher in extraversión, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Roa-Meggo, 2017).

Personality and academic procrastination: mediating role of gender

Even though personality differences between men and women may or not have an impact in procrastination (Nadeem, Malik, & Javaid, 2016), their conscientiousness and neuroticism dimensions have become important predictors. In this sense, differences between men and women in such factors could explain an important part of variability in AP. In addition, differences between men and women as for the influence of personality traits on AP is an emerging research field since today only a study has addressed the topic. In that work, using a structural equation approach, it was concluded that the influence of 5GF on AP is similar in Chinese men and women (Zhou, 2018). However, its arguments are based on general adjustment indicators of the proposed invariance analyses, and a comparative analysis of individual parameters was not conducted (e.g., regression coefficients), even though one of the dimensions (extraversion) showed a positive significant influence in the group of women and not in that of men.

In this sense, the purpose of the present explanatory study (Ato, López, & Benavente, 2013) was to analyze the influence of personality on AP in Peruvian university students and whether such influence differs according to gender.

For these reasons, and based on cumulative evidence on the relationship between personality and procrastination, it is necessary to consider gender as a moderating potential variable of procrastinating behavior of university students based on personality traits.



The sample was obtained using a convenience sampling and consisted of 986 students (69.8% women) between 16 and 40 years old (Mage = 20.81; DEage = 2.78), mostly single (93.8%) who are currently working (27.6%). Participants were recruited from four professional majors (18.1% Administration, 19.8% Accounting, 8% Tourism and 54.2% Psychology) of two private universities and were studying between the second and eighth term when being evaluated.


Academic Procrastination Scale (EPA; Busko, 1998). This scale evaluates two dimensions of AP, Postponing activities (three items) and Academic Self-Regulation (nine items) (Dominguez-Lara, 2016; Dominguez-Lara et al., 2014). The items show five response options (from Never to Always). The higher the score, the greater the presence of the evaluated construct. The version adapted to university students from Lima was used and has psychometric studies in university students where its internal structure of two factors is evident, as well as its favorable reliability indicators of scores and construct (Dominguez-Lara, 2016; Moreta-Herrera, 2018).

Big Five Inventory-15P (BFI-15P; Dominguez-Lara, & Merino-Soto, 2018a). It is a self-report measure that consists of 15 scaled items in a five-point ordinary format ranging from I strongly disagree to I strongly agree. The BFI-15 assesses 5GF (three items each): extraversion, agreeableness, responsibility, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness. The interpretation of the scores is direct: the higher the score, the greater the presence of the evaluated dimension. The BFI-15P validation study gives an account of a structure with five differentiated factors under the ESEM (Study on Health and Medical Education) methodology and acceptable reliability indicators, considering that they are brief measures (Dominguez-Lara, & Merino-Soto, 2018a, in press).


This study was developed within a large project approved by the Instituto de Investigación de Psicología of the first author's university, considering fulfillment of ethical requirements. The authorizations in the second institution were obtained through the corresponding Faculty authorities. The students were assessed in a usual class schedule with a previous verbal request for their collaboration, as well as through the signing of an informed consent, which specified that their participation was completely voluntary.

Data Analysis

Before the main analyses were conducted, descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and dispersion statistics (asymmetry and kurtosis) of each of the study variables were reported. Likewise, data approximation to normality was assessed through the calculation of the standardized asymmetry index (IEA; Malgady, 2007), expecting magnitudes between 25 and .50. In addition, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lilliefors normality test was considered taking the absolute most extreme difference (D), in which values between 10 and .30 indicate a small distance to normality (Dominguez-Lara, in press).

Reliability of scores was estimated through a coefficient and average inter-item correlation (r..; Clark, & Watson, 1995), where magnitudes between .15 and .20 are considered acceptable for broad constructs like assessed personality traits since a is influenced by the number of items. In order to give evidence on the equivalence of reliability estimation between men and women the W statistics was used, based on a method oriented to comparing a coefficients from instruments with few items (Feldt, & Kim, 2006; Merino-Soto, 2016).

After this, men and women were compared in the personality and AP dimensions, taking as reference the d of Cohen (1992), the effect magnitude measure: <20, insignificant difference; between .20 and .50, small; between .50 and .80, moderate; and >.80, large.

Later, a structural regression model was analyzed on the personality influence of AP dimensions and its invariance between the groups. Before the structural model assessment itself, an oblique model was analyzed (which included dimensions of BFI-15 and of EPA) (Kline, 2016). For this purpose, the weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method was used based on polymorphic matrices because items are ordinal measures. The analyses were carried out with the Mplus version 7 software (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998-2015).

Initially, the oblique model viability was determined in each group through the adjustment index magnitude CFI > .90 (Blackburn, Donnelly, Logan, & Renwick, 2004; McDonald & Ho, 2002; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), and that the CI upper limit of RMSEA is not greater than .10 (West, Taylor, & Wu, 2012). The measurement invariance was gradually assessed following the specialized literature Pendergast, von der Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund, 2017): configural invariance (equivalence of measurement model), metric invariance (equivalence of factor loadings) and strong (equivalence of thresholds); and compliance of each of them was valued using the variation in the adjustment index magnitude among models, specifically the CFI and RMSEA, based on Chen's proposal (2007) (to reject the measurement invariance if ΔCFI < -.01 y ΔRMSEA > .01) and of Meade, Johnson y Braddy (2008) (to reject if ΔCFI < -.002, ΔRMSEA ≥ .007).

Once the measurement invariance was verified, the structural model was assessed in each group, indicating the variability amount of AP dimensions attributed to the personality dimensions by means of the determination coefficient (R2). As there are no criteria to value it in the structural equation model scope, breakpoints were used based on multiple regression: a R2 of .02, .13 and .26 was qualified as small, medium and large, respectively (Ellis, 2010). Subsequently, the model's structural invariance was analyzed in two phases: 1) a multigroup factor analysis without equality restrictions in order to propose it as a base model (non-restricted model); and 2) to establish a model that restricts equality of all involved parameters (restricted model) (e.g. that neuroticism influences delaying activities is similar in both groups).

The two aforementioned models (restricted and non-restricted) were statistically compared considering variation in x2 (Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2006), and if such change is not significant, it is tentatively concluded that the model is invariant; i.e. that the influence of personality factors on AP is similar in both groups. Subsequently, modification indexes (MI; Sõrbom, 1989) were analyzed associated to misspecifications (MS; Saris, Satorra, & Van der Veld, 2009) through a specialized module (Dominguez-Lara, & Merino-Soto, 2018b). In this sense, equality restrictions of those regression coefficients that show significantly high change indexes (IM) and that are also indicated as misspecifications (MS) were released and were again compared to the base model.


Findings from basic descriptive aspects to invariance analysis of personality influence on academic procrastination according to gender are presented below.

Descriptive analysis

The studied variables show acceptable magnitudes of asymmetry and kurtosis, as well as a reasonable approach to univariate normality considering the IEA (< .25) and the D (< .20) (See Table 1).

Table 1. Personality and Academic Procrastination Descriptive and Comparative Analysis

Comparative and reliability analysis

As for the personality dimensions, women score higher in neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness (d > .20). As for AP, men and women score higher in delaying activities and academic self-regulation (d ≥ .30), respectively (See Table 1). Regarding reliability, the estimations reach acceptable magnitudes in most cases (a ≈ .60, and rij.. > .20), and were not significantly different among men and women (p < .05, in all cases).

Invariance of the structural regression model

Previous analysis of measurement invariance indicates that the adjustment of the oblique model was acceptable in men and women separately (See section A, Table 2), that correlation among factors was moderate and construct reliability was acceptable for all variables (See Table 3), which allows for the analysis of measurement invariance. In this sense, once this procedure is carried out, variations in CFI and RMSEA indicate compliance of the metric, strong and configural invariance (See section B, Table 2).

Table 2. Measurement and structural invariance analysis

Table 3. Correlation between the latent variables of the structural model and Reliability Construct

Later, the structural model establishing the influence of personality dimensions on the AP (image 1) was analyzed separately in men and women, obtaining acceptable adjustment indexes (section C, Table 2). In this sense, it was observed that in the group of women the invariance (R2) explained by the personality traits on delaying activities is significantly higher (R2men = .038, IC95% .000, .080; R2women = .107, IC95% .063, .151), although in both cases in small magnitude. As for academic self-regulation (R2men = .628, IC95% .561, .695; R2women = .836, IC95% .813, .859), influence in both groups is great. Individually, a positive significant influence of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness and openness on the academic self-regulation in both groups (image 1) was observed. On the other hand, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness have a significant influence on delaying activities in the group of women, and only extraversion in the group of men (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Structural model parameters in men (left) and women (right). ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05 (Interfactorial correlations were omitted by simplicity).

Then, structural invariance was explored, i.e., if the regression coefficients of the proposed model are invariant between men and women, and after analyzing both models jointly, an acceptable adjustment was obtained (section C, Table 2). In this way, restricted and non-restricted models were compared, finding statistically significant differences between each other (Δx2/gl (11) = 27.892, p < .01). In this case, MI were analyzed from the SSV model. Therefore, equality restriction was released to the influence of neuroticism on delaying activities men = .068 ;p = .415; βwomen = .245; p < .001) as such restriction was identified as misspecification (MImen = 58.040; MIwomen = 58.053). Even though the general adjustment improved (Δx2/gl (10) = 14.970, p = .133), it was identified that the influence of conscientiousness on academic self-regulation men = .538; p < .001; βwomen = .653; p < .001) should be lax MImen = 21.885; MIwomen = 21.893), and thus, the difference remained insignificant (Δx2/gl(9) = 9.599, p = .384). Finally, equality restriction of the influence of neuroticism on the academic self-regulation men = .068; p = .347; βwomen = -.108; p = .062) was released (MImen = 11.000; MIwomen = 10.987), ending the analysis without a significant difference between the non-restricted model and the modified model (Δx2/gl (8) = 7.411, p = .493). To sum up, the influence of neuroticism and conscientiousness on the AP is distinct according to gender.


The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of personality on AP, considering the possible gendered mediation.

The joint study of personality and procrastination is subject to a continuous process of development and analysis (e.g., Steel, 2007); however, today those variables, demographic and psychological, that help to better understand their relationship are important. Gender is one of them. In this respect, gender differences in the influence of personality on AP is a recent topic (Zhou, 2018), and there is a need to deepen them in order to delimit teaching activities, considering personality as a stable element of the student. The study had three key moments: the comparative analysis, the structural model analysis (personality influence on AP) and the joint analysis of the structural model between men and women.

As for differences between men and women in personality traits, women scored higher in neuroticism, which is vastly documented in international literature (De Bolle et al., 2015; Chapman et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2011; Weisberg et al., 2011), although the studies developed with Peruvian samples have shown divergent results, as one study indicates that women present higher neuroticism (Niño de Guzmán et al., 2003) while others do not (Roa-Meggo, 2017; Schmitt et al., 2008). Regarding the agreeableness trait, the results found in this study argued what has already been reported: women are kinder than men (De Bolle et al., 2015; Roa-Meggo, 2017; Schmitt et al., 2008; Weisberg et al., 2011). Lastly, in the conscientiousness trait there were few differences found in favor of women but are consistent with findings in Peruvian population (Roa-Meggo, 2017; Schmitt et al., 2008), although differ from international literature where there are no differences (Chapman et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2011; Weisberg et al., 2011).

Regarding AP, men were closer to a procrastinator profile (higher scores in delaying activities and lower scores in academic self-regulation) than women, which is consistent with the literature to the extent that it is more likely to observe a procrastinating and less self-regulated behavior in men than in women (Dominguez-Lara, & Campos-Uscanga, 2017; Khan et al., 2014; Olea, & Olea, 2015; Özer et al., 2009; Steel, & Ferrari, 2013).

As mentioned by Nadeem et al (2016), personality differences influence AP and can be quantified in its two dimensions. From its behavioral dimension (delaying activities), in the group of men there is only a significant but weak influence, extraversion, while in women the negative influence of conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness influencing positively stands out. This allows to infer that a particular profile of students who tend to delay is characterized by an unstable personality (neuroticism), which deter giving priority to activities (conscientiousness) and easily get distracted by novelties (openness). The negative relationship between procrastination and conscientiousness is consistent with what was stated by Rahmi et. al (2016). As for the second dimension, academic self-regulation, functional core of AP, there is greater consistency between men and women as the extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness traits influence positively and to a great extent in both groups, which delimits more precisely a student profile.

In this sense, the student is expected to be sufficiently sociable (extraversion), as well as to possess appropriate social skills that facilitate interaction with others (agreeableness), to have planning and control over their activities (conscientiousness) and to show openness to new things, which would facilitate a greater presence of goal-oriented behaviors (Steel, 2007).

Generally, the results are consistent with the literature since the expected influence of conscientiousness and neuroticism on AP can be appreciated (Boysan & Kiral, 2017; Karatas & Bademcioglu, 2015; Rahimi et al., 2016; Zhou, 2018). However, they disagree with studies indicating that there is no influence on procrastination due to the agreeableness and openness traits (Boysan & Kiral, 2017; Karatas & Bademcioglu, 2015; Kim et al., 2017; Steel & Klingsieck, 2016; Zhou, 2018).

However, in most studies men and women were analyzed separately, so statistical information is not provided to allow a more precise comparison of the role of gender in this influence. In this sense, the assessed structural model indicated that some personality traits have a distinct influence. To start with, in the comparative analysis it was mentioned that neuroticism negatively influenced the postponement of activities only in the group of women, and such premise was confirmed through an invariance analysis. Likewise, it was previously mentioned that all dimensions, except for neuroticism, significantly influence academic self-regulation in men and women, but the structural invariance analysis shows that conscientiousness and neuroticism influence academic self-regulation, to a greater extent in women, regardless of their magnitude.

To conclude, the significant presence of neuroticism and low conscientiousness constitute a major risk factor for women, at least in this sample. In other words, it is known that the neuroticism appears to a greater extent in women (De Bolle et al., 2015; Chapman et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2008; Soto et al., 2011; Weisberg et al., 2011), which would directly and inversely impact the postponing of activities and academic self-regulation, respectively, configuring the appearance of a risk profile (Dominguez-Lara, 2016).

Regarding the practical implications, the findings show the relevance of personality traits as risk or protective factors in procrastinating behavior, especially in the group of women, so that from these aspects plans for personality strengthening can be promoted in specific areas in order to minimize the negative impact of an inadequate personality development. In addition, given that the male sex is more prone to procrastination in the academic setting, this allows to foresee mechanisms for counteracting the negative impact that this behavior has on the processes of andragogical teaching and learning.

As for limitations of this study, it must be pointed out that the work was carried out with university students from private institutions in Metropolitan Lima City, and even though these results give relevant information on personality mechanics and academic procrastination, it is not possible to generalize the results because it is necessary to study other population segments including public education centers and other cities of the country and the region. Likewise, thelack of equivalence of the groups classified by sex should be considered as there was greater participation of women.

It is recommended in the future to conduct studies on the mechanics of personality behavior, sex and academic procrastination in students from secondary school, university and technological institutions so that these results can be generalized, as well as to include some variables relevant to procrastination issues like self-efficacy or perfectionism, which can clarify this aspect even more. In the same way, it is convenient to consider age, since the procrastinating behavior progressively increases mainly in adolescence and decreases in adulthood (Rodriguez & Clariana, 2017), perhaps due to variations inherent to personality traits in the transit from one vital stage to another (Mõttus, Allik, Hřebíčková, Kööts-Ausmees & Realo, 2016).


Alba, A., & Hernández, J. (2013). Procrastinación académica en estudiantes de la Escuela Nacional de Enfermería y Obstetricia. En E. Tepichín (presidencia). IV Congreso Nacional de Tecnología aplicada a Ciencias de la Salud (pp. 1-9). Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica Óptica y Electrónica, Puebla.

Argumendo, D., Díaz, K., Calderón, A., Díaz, J., & Ferrari, J. (2005). Evaluación de la confiabilidad y la estructura factorial de tres escalas de procrastinación crónica. Revista de Psicología, 23(1), 115-138. Recuperado de revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/psicologia/article/view/985

Asher, M., Asnaani, A., & Aderka, I.M. (2017). Gender differences in social anxiety disorder: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.05.004

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2006). Robust chi square difference testing with mean and adjusted test statistics. Recuperado de https://www.statmodel.com/download/we-bnotes/webnote10.pdf

Ato, M., López, J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. doi: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511

Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2009). Prevalence of academic procrastination behavior among pre-service teachers, and its relation with demographics and individual preferences. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(1), 18-32. Recuperado de https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d943/3fab4dffdd391ff6f9ea7f64200d1303f759.pdf

Blackburn, R., Donnelly, J. P., Logan, C., & Renwick, S. J. D. (2004). Convergent and discriminative validity of interview and questionnaire measures of personality disorders in mentally disordered offenders: A multitrait-multimethod analysis using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(2), 129-150. doi: 10.1521/pedi.

Boysan, M., & Kiral, E. (2017). Associations between procrastination, personality, perfectionism, self-esteem and locus of control. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(3), 284-296. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2016.1213374

Busko, D. A. (1998). Causes and consequences of perfectionism and procrastination: A structural equation model (tesis de maestría no publicada). Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph. Recuperado de http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Chapman, B. P., Duberstein, P. R., Sörensen, S., & Lyness, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in Five Factor Model personality traits in an elderly cohort. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1594-1603. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.028

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, F., McCrae, R. R., Lõckenhoff, C. E., Costa Jr, P. T., Aguilar-Vafaie, M. E., ... Terracciano, A. (2015). The emergence of sex differences in personality traits in early adolescence: A cross-sectional, cross-cultural study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 171-185. doi: 10.1037/a0038497

Dominguez-Lara, S. (En prensa). Magnitud del efecto para pruebas de normalidad en investigación educativa. Investigación en Educación Médica.

Dominguez-Lara, S. (2016). Datos normativos de la Escala de Procrastinación Académica en estudiantes de psicología de Lima. Evaluar, 16(1), 20-30. Recuperado de https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/revaluar/article/viewFile/15715/15506

Dominguez-Lara, S. (2017). Prevalencia de procrastinación académica en estudiantes universitarios de Lima Metropolitana y su relación con variables demográficas. Revista de Psicología-UCSP, 7(1), 81-95. Recuperado de http://ucsp.edu.pe/investigacion/psicologia/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/4.-Procrastinaci%C3%B3n-acad%C3%A9mica-en-estudiantes-universitarios.pdf

Dominguez-Lara, S., & Campos-Uscanga, Y. (2017). Influencia de la satisfacción con los estudios sobre la procrastinación académica en estudiantes de psicología: un estudio preliminar. Liberabit, 23(1), 123-135. doi: 10.24265/liberabit.2017.v23n1.09

Dominguez-Lara, S., & Merino-Soto, C. (2018a). Dos versiones breves del Big Five Inventory en universitarios peruanos: BFI-15p y BFI-10p. Liberabit, 24(1), 81-96. doi: 10.24265/liberabit.2018.v24n1.06

Dominguez-Lara, S., & Merino-Soto, C. (2018b). Estructura interna del BFI-10P y BFI-15P: un estudio complementario con enfoque CFAy ESEM. RevistaArgentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 10(3), 22-34. doi: 10.30882/1852.4206.v10.n3.21037

Dominguez-Lara, S., & Merino-Soto, C. (2018c). Análisis de las malas especificaciones en modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 10(2), 19-24. doi: 10.30882/1852.4206.v10.n2.19595

Dominguez-Lara, S., Villegas, G., & Centeno, S. (2014). Procrastinación académica: Validación de una escala en una muestra de estudiantes de una universidad privada. Liberabit, 20(2), 293-304. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1729-48272014000200010

Ellis, P. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Feldt, L. S., & Kim, S. (2006). Testing the difference between two alpha coefficients with small samples of subjects and raters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 589-600. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282488

Furlan, L., Ferrero, M., & Gallart, G. (2014). Ansiedad ante los exámenes, procrastinación y síntomas mentales en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 6(3), 31-39. Recuperado de https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/racc/article/view/8726

Garzón, A., & Gil, J. (2017). El papel de la procrastinación académica como factor de la deserción universitaria. Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(1), 307-324. doi: 10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n1.49682

Glick, D. M., & Orsillo, S. M. (2015). An investigation of the efficacy of acceptance-based behavioral therapy for academic procrastination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 400-409. doi: 10.1037/xge0000050

Gómez, C. A., Ortiz, N. F., & Perdomo, L. M. (2016). Procrastinación y factores relacionados para su análisis en la educación superior. I+D Revista de Investigaciones, 7(1), 32-39. Recuperado de www.udi.edu.co/revistainvestigacio-nes/index.php/ID/article/view/63

Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins R. W, & Yan, T. (2015). Gender Differences in Narcissism: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261-310. doi: 10.1037/a0038231

Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2014). Academic procrastination, emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 116-124. doi: 10.1177/0022219412439325

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. En L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). Nueva York: Guilford Press.

Karatas., H., & Bademcioglu, M. (2015). The explanation of the academic procrastination behaviour of pre-service teachers with five factor personality traits. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 6(2), 11-25. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.292

Kessels, U., Heyder, A., Latsch, M., & Hannover, B. (2014) How gender differences in academic engagement relate to students' gender identity. Educational Research, 56(2), 220-229. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2014.898916

Khan, M. J., Arif, H., Noor, S. S., & Muneer, S. (2014). Academic procrastination among male and female university and college students. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 65-70. Recuperado de http://sbbwu.edu.pk/journal/FWUJournal,Winter%202014%20Vol.8,No.2/9.%20Academic%20Procrastination%20among%20.pdf

Kim, S., Fernandez, S., & Terrier, L. (2017). Procrastination, personality traits, and academic performance: When active and passive procrastination tell a different story. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 154-157. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.021

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lai, C. S., Badayai, A. R., Chandrasekaran, K., Lee, S. Y., & Kulasingam, R. (2015). An exploratory study on personality traits and procrastination among university students. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(3), 21-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.s.2015040301.14

Mahasneh, A. M., Bataineh, O. T., & Al-Zoubi, Z. H. (2016). The relationship between academic procrastination and parenting styles among jordanian undergraduate university students. The Open Psychology Journal, 9, 25-34. doi: 10.2174/1874350101609010025

Malgady, R. (2007). How skew are psychological data? A standardized index of effect size. The Journal of General Psychology, 134(3), 355-359. doi: 10.3200/GENP.134.3.355-360

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in over-generalizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568-592. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568

Merino-Soto, C. (2016). Diferencias entre coeficientes alfa de Cronbach, con muestras y partes pequeñas: Un programa VB. Anales de Psicología, 32(2), 587-588. doi: 10.6018/analesps.32.2.203841

Moreta-Herrera, R., & Durán-Rodríguez, T. (2018). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Procrastinación Académica (EPA) en estudiantes de psicología de Ambato, Ecuador. Revista Salud & Sociedad 9(3), 236-247. doi: 10.22199/S07187475.2018.0003.00003

Moreta-Herrera, R., Durán-Rodríguez, T., & Villegas-Villacrés, N. (2018). Regulación Emocional y Rendimiento como predictores de la Procrastinación Académica en estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Psicología y Educación, 13(2), 155-166. doi: 10.23923/rpye2018.01.166

Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Hřebíčková, M., Kööts-Ausmees, L., & Realo, A. (2016). Age differences in the variance of personality characteristics. European Journal of Personality, 30(1), 4-11. doi: 10.1002/per.2036

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nadeem, M., Malik, A. A., & Javaid, F. (2016). Link between personality traits and procrastination among university students. Journal of Educational Research, 19(2), 92-104. doi: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-4314919871/link-between-personality-traits-and-procrastination

Niño de Guzmán, I., Calderón, A., & Cassaretto, M. (2003). Personalidad y rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Psicología, 21(1), 119-143. Recuperado de http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/123456789/2382/2003_Ni%C3%B1o%20de%20Guzm%C3%A1n_Personalidad%20y%20rendimiento%20acad%C3%A9mico%20en%20estudiantes%20universitarios.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Olea, M. T., & Olea, A. N. (2015). Perceptiveness and sense impression of procrastination across correlates. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 37-43. Recuperado de www.isca.in/IJSS/Archive/v4/i1/6.ISCA-IRJSS-2014-271.pdf

Özer, B. U. (2011). A cross sectional study on procrastination: who procrastinate more? International Conference on Education Research and Innovation, 18, 34-37. Recuperado de https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/50fc/3cbc75c77de3e103e1c912014958e97df131.pdf

Özer, B., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among Turkish students: possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 149(2), 241-257. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.149.2.241-257

Patrzek, J., Sattler, S., van Veen, F., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: a panel study. Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 1014-1029. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.854765

Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017). Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002

Rahimi, S., Hall, N. C., & Pychyl, T. A. (2016). Attributions of responsibility and blame for procrastination behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, art. 1179. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01179

Roa-Meggo, Y. (2017). Gender relations and differences between gratitude and personality in university students of Lima-Perú. Psychologia, 11(1), 49-56. Recuperado de http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/psych/v11n1/1900-2386-psych-11-01-00049.pdf

Rodríguez, A., & Clariana, M. (2017). Procrastinación en estudiantes universitarios: su relación con la edad y el curso académico. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 26(1), 45-60. doi: 10.15446/rcp.v26n1.53572

Rozental, A., & Carlbring, P. (2014). Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure. Psychology, 5(13), 1488-1502. doi:

Sánchez, A. (2010). Procrastinación académica: Un problema en la vida universitaria. Studiositas, 5(2), 87-94. Recuperado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3717321

Saris, W. E, Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation modeling or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561-582. doi: 10.1080/10705510903203433

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168-182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: a grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 12-25. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12

Smith, K. A., Barstead, M. G., & Rubin, K. H. (2017). Neuroticism and conscientiousness as moderators of the relation between social withdrawal and internalizing problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(4), 772-786. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0594-z

Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54(3), 371-384. doi: 10.1007/BF02294623

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 330-348. doi: 10.1037/a0021717

Spinatha, B., Eckert, C., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Gender differences in school success: what are the roles of students' intelligence, personality and motivation? Educational Research, 56(2), 230-243. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2014.898917

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 733(1), 65-94. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.6

Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological study of procrastinators' characteristics from a global sample. European Journal of Personality, 27, 51-58. doi: 10.1002/per.1851

Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. (2015). Procrastination. En J. D. Wright (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2.a ed., Vol. 19; pp. 73-78). Oxford: Elsevier.

Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36-46. doi: 10.1111/ap.12173

Strüber, D., Lück, M., & Roth, G. (2008). Sex, aggression and impulse control: An integrative account. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition, 74(1), 93-121. doi: 10.1080/13554790801992743

Van Eerde, W (2004). Procrastination in academic settings and the Big Five Model of personality: a meta-analysis. En H. C. Schouwenburg, T. A. Pychyl, C. H. Lay, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 29-40) . Washington D. C.: APA Books.

Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, art. 178. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. En R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-234). Nueva York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zhou, M. (2018). Gender differences in procrastination: The role of personality traits. Current Psychology. Avance online. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-9851-5