Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

www.ejer.com.tr

Academic Risk Taking Behavior in University Students: Academic

Procrastination, Academic Locus of Control, and Academic Perfectionism

Sinem Evin AKBAY1, Ayca DELIBALTA2

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how
Received: 19 Sept. 2019 academic procrastination, academic locus of control,
Received in revised form: 14 Aug. 2020 and academic perfectionism predicts the tendency of
Accepted: 17. Sept. 2020 university students’ academic risk taking. Also, this
DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2020.89.8
study focused on understanding how academic
procrastination, academic locus of control, and
Keywords
academic perfectionism of university students had
academic risk taking, academic
procrastination, academic locus of power to predict the students' tendency of academic
control, academic perfectionism risk taking.
Research Methods: The study group of this research
consisted of 507 (351 female and 154 male)
undergraduate students studying at a state
university in Turkey during the 2018-2019 academic-
year fall semester. The study group was identified
using convenient sampling. In this study, the
"Personal Information Form", "Academic Risk Taking Scale", “Academic Procrastination
Scale”, "Perceived Social Self-efficacy Scale", “Academic Locus of Control Scale”, and
“Academic Perfectionism Scale” were used to collect data. The Pearson Moments
Multiplication Correlation Coefficient (r) and stepwise multiple regression analysis were used
in the analysis of the data. The upper margin of error is assumed to be 0.05.
Findings: According to the findings obtained, academic procrastination, academic locus of
control, and academic perfectionism respectively predicted the academic risk-taking
behaviors of university students significantly. Accordingly, as the academic procrastination,
academic external locus of control, and academic perfectionism decreased, academic internal
locus of control increased, and academic risk-taking behavior increased as well.
Implications for Research and Practice: Research can be done by using other variables to
understand academic risk-taking behavior. In addition, various activities can be planned for
students to take more risks in academic life, to show less procrastination behavior and to have
more internal locus of control.

© 2020 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved

1 Corresponding Author: Mersin University, TURKEY, e-mail:[email protected], ORCID:

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6189-1896
2 Mersin University, TURKEY, e-mail:[email protected], ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3455-

5760
 160 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Introduction
Education in the 21st century, is an important tool for individuals to develop
themselves in modern societies and to exist as qualified individuals in society. While
education provides support for individuals to be assertive, responsible, and realistic
thinkers, qualified education also brings academic success. Although it is not seen as
singularly sufficient for the society to gain momentum, academic achievement is one
of the main objectives of educational institutions. There are many variables that are
thought to be related to academic achievement. When the gains planned to be obtained
as a result of educational experiences are evaluated, we cannot talk about the existence
of certain uncertainties. In the face of these uncertainties, we can say that the position
of individuals will play a role in their success. In this context, the importance of taking
risks as one of the variables leading to academic success can be emphasized. According
to Tan, Lim and Manalo (2016) academic risk taking is sufficient in the learning
settings.
According to Assaily (2003), risk is defined as accepting the possibility of loss. Risk
taking involves the behavior of individuals against this possibility. In other words,
behavior with the acceptance of the possibility of unwanted consequences is called
taking risks. Young (1991) defines risk-taking behavior as being willing to engage in
an unknown behavior, and not primarily thinking of success and failure when trying
new and different things. Pannel et al. (2006) express risk-taking behavior as showing
courage when it comes to something unknown and emphasize that risk-taking is the
desire to try something new and different without focusing on the success or failure
as a result. Osman, Hamid and Hassan (2009) emphasize the importance of multi-
dimensional thinking, high-level thinking, self-management as well as the ability to
take risks in the academic platform.
Academic risk-taking behavior refers to the selection of school success tasks that
vary according to the likelihood of success of the students, and also receiving feedback
or having an expectation of feedback (Clifford, 1991). According to Korkmaz (2002),
academic risk-taking behavior is defined as the determination of students to strive
against the difficulties they face during the learning process. Also, Tan et al. (2016)
says that the students who can take academic risks can choose more difficult tasks in
an easy way. Furthermore, taking risk in academic settings mean that taking a chance
to make a mistake, or getting low scores etc. (Tan, 2017). When the literature is
examined, it is observed that there are many studies related to risk taking behavior
while studies related to academic risk-taking behavior are limited. While it is
emphasized that there is a negative relationship between risk-taking behavior and
academic achievement (Kıran Esen, 2005); there is a negative correlation between
academic risk-taking behavior and fear of negative evaluation (Cetin, İlhan & Yılmaz,
2014) and a positive relationship between problem solving skills and study skills
(İlhan, Cetin, Oner-Sunkur & Yılmaz, 2013). Academic risk-taking behavior is one of
the important factors related to academic achievement. For example, it is known that
there is a positive relationship between academic risk-taking behaviors and positive
attitude towards science (Deveci & Aydın, 2018). In addition, in the study conducted
by Deveci and Aydın (2018), it was found that students with high academic risk-taking
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 161
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

skills were creative, had higher critical thinking skills, and innovative thinking skills.
From these findings, it is obvious that academic success and academic risk-taking
behavior are related. On the other hand, the study conducted by Karademir and Akgul
(2019) emphasizes that students who perceive themselves as successful exhibit more
academic risk-taking behavior. In addition to these findings, Sunkur, Ilhan, Kinay and
Kılınc (2014) emphasized that there was a positive relationship between academic risk
taking and positive perfectionism, while there was a negative relationship between
academic risk-taking behavior and negative perfectionism.
When all these findings are taken into consideration, it is seen that academic risk-
taking behavior, which is accepted as positive in contrast to risk-taking behavior, has
an important role in students' academic lives. Students' being more successful,
innovative and brave in their academic lives is related to their ability to show academic
risk-taking behavior. In addition, it is observed that students with academic risk-
taking skills have critical thinking and problem-solving skills which are among the
necessary skills for both school life and after school life.
Procrastination can be defined as an individual, consciously and under their
control, delaying a task and leaving it to be completed at a later time. In addition,
procrastination includes the need for an individual to perform an activity or to
complete a task, while not having the motivation to perform it (Ackerman & Gross,
2005). When the literature is examined, it can be seen that procrastination behavior is
associated with many cognitive, emotional and personality variables. From an
emotional perspective, procrastination behavior is associated with fear of failure,
anxiety of evaluation (Soloman & Rothblum, 1984), and low self-confidence (Zhang,
Dong, Fang, Chai, Mei & Fan, 2017). From a cognitive perspective, perfectionism,
difficulty in decision making (Soloman & Rothblum, 1984) and low self-efficacy
(Haycock, McCarthy & Skay, 1998) are related to procrastination behavior. When the
personality dimension is considered, a positive relationship is observed between
neuroticism, which is one of the five factors of personality theory, and procrastination
behavior (Wang, Qian, Wang & Chen, 2011).
Academic procrastination behavior, which is a dimension of procrastination
behavior, was stated by Akbay (2009) as suspending the works related to academic life
(homework, exam preparation, reports to be submitted, etc.) of individuals. Senecal,
Julien and Guay (2003), on the other hand, have defined academic procrastination as
the tendency to delay starting academic tasks or delaying their completion irrationally.
It can be said that academic procrastination behavior in university students is quite a
common dynamic. Steel and Klingsieck (2016) underline that academic procrastination
is an important obstacle for students’ academic achievement. A study by Ozer (2005)
reveals that 52% of university students exhibit procrastination behavior. In another
study conducted by Soloman and Rothblum (1984), 46% of the students who
participated in the study reported that they exhibited procrastination behavior in term
papers, 27.6% postponed their studies for exams and 30.1% postponed their weekly
assignments. In other words, one in two university students has to cope with academic
procrastination behavior. When the literature is examined, a negative relationship is
observed between academic procrastination behavior and academic achievement
 162 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

(Balkıs & Duru, 2010), general competence, and levels of responsibility towards others
(Celikkaleli & Akbay, 2013). On the other hand, there is a positive relationship between
general procrastination behavior and anxiety, including academic procrastination, and
a negative relationship with time management skills (Kagan, 2009). Also, there is a
negative relationship between academic procrastination and well-being (Grunschel,
Schwinger, Steinmayr & Fries, 2016). Akca (2012), on the other hand, found a positive
relationship between self-sabotage, external locus of control and academic
procrastination behavior, while academic procrastination behavior, locus of control
and academic achievement predicted self-hindering behavior. In addition, risk taking
behavior positively predicts academic procrastination behavior (Afzal & Jami, 2018).
There is a negative correlation between academic risk-taking behavior, which is
emphasized as a positive behavior in contrast to risk-taking behavior, and
procrastination behavior (Watson, 2001). Miligram, Marshevsky and Sadeh (1995)
point out that risk taking is an important reason for academic procrastination. Ozer
(2005), supporting the thoughts of Miligram et al., also stated that one of the reasons
for academic procrastination behavior was to prevent themselves from taking risks. In
other words, it can be said that individuals show procrastination behavior because
they avoid taking risks in the academic platform.
According to Rotter (1966), reinforcement, reward and appreciation play an
important role in the acquisition and performance of skills and knowledge in human
nature; but what an individual sees as a reward or reinforcement may not be the same
for another person. One of the determinants of this situation is how they perceive the
reward and their behavior, which corresponds to that reward, is dependent or
independent of external forces (Rotter, 1966). Meaning, an individual thinking that the
control of their behavior is dependent on external factors or themselves. In other
words, it is related to the individual's view of their locus of control as internal or
external. Therefore, Rotter (1966) divides the locus of control into two as internal and
external locus of control. When individuals perceive their actions as a result of chance,
fate, and the power of others, they call it external locus of control, and if they perceive
their actions as a result of their characteristic features, they call it internal locus of
control. The academic locus of control is related to what the individual bases the
control of their actions in their academic life. External academic locus of control is
explained by an individual looking at their academic experiences as having an external
control (luck, fate, other people), whereas internal academic locus of control means
that the individual relates it to their own behavior and characteristics (Akın, 2007).
When the literature is examined, between internal locus of control and social self-
efficacy levels (Iskender & Akın, 2010) there is a positive relationship, there is a
negative relationship with internet addiction (Iskender & Akın, 2010), and a positive
relationship with self-confidence levels (Mooney, Sherman, & Lo Presto, 1991) and
positive thinking skills (Celik & Sarıcam, 2018). In an additional study, it is observed
that students take less risks in studies where their performance is rewarded or
evaluated (Condry & Chambers, 1978). In other words, individuals avoid taking risks
when they are controlled by external factors. In addition, while the students choose
less risky tasks while being evaluated by the teacher, they show that students tend to
take more risks in tasks requiring self-assessment (Hughes, Sullivan & Mosley, 1985;
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 163
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Salili, Maehr, Sorensen & Fyans, 1976). Similarly, this view was supported by Findley
and Cooper (1983), indicating that individuals can take more risks when they have an
external locus of control.
Perfectionism has been described by Pacht (1984) as individuals determining their
goals at a level so high that they are unlikely to succeed. In other words, perfectionism
can also be defined as an individual setting extremely high goals and then forcing
themselves to achieve these goals. When the reasons of perfectionism are considered,
it is observed that the goals are too high to be realistic, excessive efforts are made to
achieve these goals, there is too much focus on failure and excessive criticism of the
self by the individual (Burns, 1980; Hamachek, 1978; Hollender, 1965; Pacht, 1984;
Hewit & Flett). Perfectionist individuals tend to exhibit procrastination behavior
because they are afraid of judgment and failure (Patcht, 1984). Perfectionism can be
examined in two sub-dimensions: harmonized perfectionism that sets realistic goals,
strives to achieve these goals and, if necessary, can give up their goals, and discordant
perfectionism where unattainable goals are set and they are unsatisfied with their
efforts (Hamachek, 1978). One of the groups where perfectionism is very common is
students. One of the reasons for this is that especially the teachers have high
expectations from the students, and the problems of the students are exaggerated by
the teachers (Pacht, 1984). Teachers' expectations from the students are generally in the
academic field. Academic perfectionism, which is one of the types of perfectionism, is
defined as over-exertion of individuals by setting unrealistic and self-challenging
goals in the academic field (Odacı, Kalkan & Cıkrıkcı, 2017). When literature is
examined, a positive relationship is observed between perfectionism and academic
perfectionism (Odacı et al., 2017). There is a positive relationship between
perfectionism and anger (Buyukbayraktar, 2011), and a positive relationship between
discordant perfectionism and academic burnout (Zhang, Gan & Cham, 2007). There is
very limited research on academic perfectionism in the literature.
When the literature is reviewed, it is clear that students’ risk taking depends on a
lot of variables. Also, it is clear that there is not enough research about these variables.
So far, researchers have examined variables related to academic risk taking. However,
up to present, the important variables such as academic procrastination, academic
locus of control, and academic perfectionism have been ignored. Thanks to this study,
the relation between academic risk taking and academic procrastination, academic
locus of control, and academic perfectionism were examined. In this wise,
understanding academic risk taking was clarified.

Method
Research Design
This study is a relational screening model study conducted in order to investigate
the extent to which academic procrastination, academic locus of control, and academic
perfectionism predicted the academic risk-taking behaviors of university students.
Studies aiming to determine the existence and degree of co-change between two or
more variables are relational screening model studies (Kuzu, 2005).
 164 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Participants
The study group of this study consisted of 507 students studying in 4 major
faculties (Faculty of Education, Faculty of Science and Literature, Faculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences and Faculty of Engineering) at a university in the spring
term of 2018-2019. 351 of these students were female (69.2%) and 154 were male
(30.4%). Two students did not specify their gender. The age range of the participants
ranged from 18 to 33, with an average of 20.73 (SD = 1.84). Additionally, 151 of the
participants were first year (29.8%), 123 were second year (24.3%), 171 were third year
(33.7%), and 60 were fourth year (11.8%) students. Again, two students did not specify
their class level. In order to determine the study group, convenient sampling method
was used.

Research Instruments
Personal Information Form: In order to define the study group, the participants were
asked about their sex, class level and age, in the personal information form created by
the researchers.
Academic Risk-Taking Scale: ARTS, which aims to measure students' academic risk-
taking behaviors, was developed by Clifford (1991) and adapted into Turkish by
Korkmaz Baylav (2002). The scale reveals the students' learning status, their courage
to cope with the difficulties they face in the academic field, and their willingness or
unwillingness to learn. ARTS, which is a five-point Likert-type scale, consists of 36
items. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 36 and the highest score
is 180. Higher scores obtained from the scale indicates the ability to take risks in the
academic field. Korkmaz Baylav (2002), who carried out translation studies on both
primary school and university students, reported internal consistency coefficients
(Cronbach's Alpha) as .90 and .89, respectively, in the analysis of the reliability of the
scale. While the items included in the original scale were collected under four headings
(tendency to have negative feelings after failure, tendency to prefer difficult
operations, tendency to recover after failure, and tendency to be effective), it was
reported by the researcher that the items were collected under four headings in the
Turkish translation (inclination to not complete homework). As a result of the
reliability analysis conducted within the scope of this study, the internal consistency
coefficient of the scale was found to be .84.
Academic Procrastination Scale: Academic Procrastination Scale (APS), which aims
to measure the procrastination behaviors of individuals in the academic field, was
developed by Cakıcı (2003). In the scale developed by Cakıcı (2003), there are 19 items
including 12 positive and seven negative items that contain the tasks that students
should undertake in their learning lives (such as studying, preparing for exams,
preparing projects). APS is a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = "does not reflect me at
all”, 5 = "reflects me completely”). The lowest score from the APS is 19 while the
highest score is 95. Higher scores indicate higher academic procrastination behaviors
of the students. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach Alpha) coefficient of the
academic procrastination scale was reported as .92. However, internal consistency
reliability coefficient calculated for the first factor of the scale was .89 and it was .84 for
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 165
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

the second factor. Spearman Brown's two half test reliability was calculated as .87 for
the 10-item first half test, .86 for the second half-test with 9 items, and .85 in total. The
internal consistency reliability coefficient of the APS used in this study was found to
be .90.
Academic Locus of Control Scale: The Academic Locus of Control Scale (ALoCS) was
developed by Akın (2007) to measure students' beliefs about their ability to gain
control over academic outcomes. The five-point Likert-type (1 = “never reflects me”, 5
= "completely reflects me”) ALoCS consists of 17 items. It has two sub-dimensions:
internal locus of control (six items) and external locus of control (11 items). The lowest
score that can be obtained from the internal locus of control subscale is 6 and the
highest score is 30. The lowest score that can be obtained from the external locus of
control subscale is 11 and the highest score is 55. The increase in the score obtained
from each sub-dimension of the scale, which doesn't have reverse items, shows that it
has characteristics related to the related dimension. In the reliability analysis results,
internal consistency reliability coefficients of the scale were .94 for internal locus of
control and .95 for external locus of control. In the retest reliability analysis, the
coefficient of internal control was found to be .97, while the external control locus was
.93. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were .80 for internal control and .73 for
external control.
Academic Perfectionism Scale: The Academic Perfectionism Scale (APS) was
developed by Odacı, Kalkan and Cikrıkci (2017) to determine university students'
academic perfectionism attitudes in the academic field. The five-point Likert-type (1 =
“strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”) APS consists of 13 items. As a result of the
exploratory factor analysis, APS was reported to be a three-factor scale. Factors
explained in the scope of the study are as follows; the first factor was defined as “Self-
Doubt-six items”, the second factor was “Comparison-four items” and the third factor
was “Idealization-three items”. In addition to the three-factor structure, a total score
can also be obtained from the scale. For the scope of this study, it was conducted on
the total score. When the total score is evaluated, the lowest score that can be obtained
from the scale is 13 and the highest score is 65. There is no item on the scale that is
reversed. Higher scores indicate that university students have a perfectionist tendency
in their academic work. The internal consistency reliability coefficients for the sub-
dimensions of APS were .78, .69, .57, respectively, and the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient
for the whole scale was reported as .82. In the scope of this study, Cronbach's alpha
coefficient for APS was found to be .83.

Results
Pearson correlation coefficients between the academic risk-taking variable
(predicted) and academic procrastination, locus of control and academic perfectionism
(predictor) for 507 university students in the sample are given in Table 1.
 166 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Table 1
Correlations between Academic Risk Taking, Academic Procrastination, Academic Locus of
Control and Academic Perfectionism
1 2 3 4 5

1. Academic Risk Taking -

2. Academic Procrastination -.36(**) -

3. Academic Internal Locus of .18(**) -.11(**) -

Control

4. Academic External Locus of -.32(**) .28(**) -.29(**) -

Control

5. Academic Perfectionism -.26(**) .02 .11(**) .32(**) -

Mean 120.41 55.41 23.47 25.20 35.75

Ss 16.56 13.90 4.17 6.14 8.12

* p<.05 ** p<.001

Table 1 shows that there was a significant negative relationship between academic
risk-taking levels and academic procrastination (r = -.36, p <.001), academic external
locus of control (r = -.32, p <.001) and academic perfectionism (r = -. 26, p <.001) levels.
According to this result, as the academic procrastination levels of university students
decrease, external locus of control tendencies in the academic field decreases and they
take a less perfectionist attitude in academic sense, their academic risk-taking levels
increase. There was a significant positive relationship between academic risk taking
and academic internal locus of control (r = .18, p <.001). This finding reveals that the
increase in the tendency of university students to act with an internal locus of control
in the academic field will increase their academic risk-taking tendencies.
When the relationship between independent variables was examined; there was a
negative relationship between academic procrastination and academic internal locus
of control (r = -.11, p <.001), and a positive relationship between academic external
locus of control (r = .28, p <.001), whereas there was no relationship with academic
perfectionism (r = .02, p> .001). Significant negative correlation was found between
academic internal locus of control and academic external locus of control (r = -.29, p
<.001) and a positive correlation with academic perfectionism (r = .11, p <.001). Finally,
it can be said that there was a positive significant relationship between academic
external locus of control and academic perfectionism (r = .32, p <.001).
The results of the stepwise regression analysis of the variables of academic
procrastination, academic locus of control and academic perfectionism, which are
considered to be predictors of taking academic risk in university students, are given in
Table 2.
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 167
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Table 2
Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis on Academic Procrastination, Academic Locus of
Control and Academic Perfectionism as Predictors of Academic Risk-Taking
Model Variables B SHB β t R R2 F p
Constant 143.92 2.83 - 50.85
1 Academic .36 .13 73.34 .000
-.42 .05 -.36 -8.56
Procrastination
Constant 155.76 3.44 - 45.31
Academic
-.34 .05 -.29 -6.84
2 Procrastination .42 .18 55.34 .000
Academic External
-.65 .11 -.24 -5.72
Locus of Control
Constant 167.75 4.12 - 40.77
Academic
-.37 .05 -.31 -7.58
Procrastination
3 Academic External .47 .22 47.15 .000
-.44 .12 -.17 -3.77
Locus of Control
Academic
-.43 .09 -.21 -5.04
Perfectionism
Constant 153.85 5.88 - 26.18
Academic
-.38 .05 -.32 -7.67
Procrastination
Academic External
-.31 .12 -.11 -2.49
4 Locus of Control .49 .24 38.74 .000
Academic
-.50 .09 -.24 -5.70
Perfectionism
Academic Internal
.55 .17 .14 3.28
Locus of Control

*p<.01

According to Table 2, when standardized regression coefficients (β) were

considered, academic procrastination (β =-.32), academic external locus of control (β
=-.11), academic perfectionism (β =.24) and academic internal locus of control (β = .14)
significantly predicted academic risk-taking behavior, respectively (F(4-506) = 38.74, p<
.001). On the basis of these findings, academic procrastination, which is the strongest
predictor of academic risk-taking behaviors of university students, explained %13 of
total variance alone. Academic procrastination explained %18 of the total variance,
with academic external locus of control. While academic procrastination, academic
external locus of control, academic perfectionism together explained %22 of the total
variance, with the addition of academic internal locus of control, all variables jointly
accounted for %24 of academic risk-taking scores (R=0.49, R2 =0.24).

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether academic procrastination,
academic locus of control, and academic perfectionism variables predict academic
risk-taking behaviors of university students. The behavior patterns that students
acquire in their academic life will continue after university life. In other words, the
 168 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

behaviors acquired by students who spend most of their important development

processes in academic environments, such as schools, will be part of their identities
and accompany them throughout their lives. Characteristics such as assertiveness,
responsibility, and intrinsic motivation will not only lead the individual to academic
success throughout their university life but will also enable them to continue as
qualified individuals after university. Therefore, exploring the relationship between
these behaviors will enable students to discover the problems in their own lives. In
addition, the psychological counselor's awareness of these relationships during the
counseling process will facilitate the assessment of students who come with the
problem of academic procrastination in a more holistic way and provide more
comprehensive assistance.
One of the concepts related to academic achievement is the academic risk-taking
behavior expressed by Korkmaz (2002) as efforts made by students towards problems
in learning environments. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the relationship
between academic risk-taking behavior and academic procrastination behavior,
academic locus of control and academic perfectionism behavior. When the previous
studies are examined, it is stated that there is a positive relationship between academic
risk taking and perfectionism (Kılıc & Kinay, 2014) and a negative relationship
between academic risk taking and procrastination (Watson, 2001). In addition, it is
emphasized that there is a positive relationship between academic risk taking and
internal locus of control and a negative relationship between academic risk taking and
external locus of control (Prihadi et al., 2018). When all these studies are taken into
consideration, it is seen that they support the findings of this study.
According to the correlation table of the study, it was observed that there was a
negative relationship between academic risk-taking behavior and academic
procrastination behavior. Similar to these findings, Watson (2000) states that there is a
negative relationship between risk-taking behavior and procrastination behavior.
Soloman and Rothblum (1984) argue that individuals perform procrastination
behavior because they are afraid of failure. Academic risk-taking behavior explains the
desire of the individual to realize the behavior without thinking about success and
failure (Pannel et al., 2016). The opinion that individuals perform academic
procrastination behavior because they avoid taking academic risks have been
proposed by Miligram et al. (1995). In short, there can be a negative relationship
between performing academic procrastination behavior and avoiding academic risks,
since individuals focus on success and failure under procrastination behavior. In other
words, the success-oriented individual can perform procrastination because of
fear/anxiety of failure and avoid taking risks due to the same fear/anxiety. When the
data of this study were examined, the negative relationship between academic
procrastination and academic risk taking supports this idea.
Apart from these findings, while there was a negative significant relationship
between academic risk-taking behavior and external locus of control, there was a
positive and significant relationship between academic risk-taking behavior and
internal locus of control. Huges et al. (1976) stated that while students avoid taking
risks in teacher-assessment tasks, they take more risks in tasks requiring self-
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 169
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

assessment and emphasize that individuals do not take risks in external control-related
situations and undergo risk in internal control situations. Similarly, Condry and
Chambers (1978) emphasize that individuals take less risks in evaluation and
rewarding situations and that external control is an obstacle to the risk-taking behavior
of the individual. In another study, Prihadi et al. (2018) underline that individuals
exhibit less risk-taking behaviors when they think that the control of events is
dependent on outsiders. Maehr and Stallings (1972), who have a similar view, state
that when students are subjected to external evaluations such as teacher evaluations,
their autonomy is blocked and their performance decreases. In addition, it is
emphasized that students are reluctant to try difficult tasks when exposed to external
control (Maehr & Stallings, 1972). The reason for this may be that external evaluations
focus on whether or not a person achieves the task given, rather than addressing their
pleasure during learning. In other words, with an external locus of control, it may be
that the individual is focused on whether or not they can succeed, while they are
focused on enjoying themselves (Maehr & Stallings, 1972) and developing a skill
(Elliott & Dweck, 1981) with an internal locus of control. Because in the external locus
of control, individuals focus on performance rather than learning (Elliott & Dweck,
1981). Based on these findings, it is seen that when individuals achieve self-control in
their lives, they do not have the anxiety of being evaluated by others, and they can
exhibit risk-taking behavior. In other words, individuals with high internal locus of
control exhibit academic risk-taking behavior, whereas individuals with high external
locus of control avoid academic risk taking. The findings of the studies support the
previous studies. As can be seen from all these studies, individuals are more
comfortable taking risks when they have internal locus of control, that is, when they
evaluate their own behavior. However, when evaluation is externally oriented, that is,
an individual is subjected to the reward and discretion of an external individual, the
individual avoids taking risks.
When the study findings are examined, there is a negative significant relationship
between academic risk-taking behavior and academic perfectionism. In the light of this
information, it can be stated that students who show academic risk-taking behavior
are far from having a perfectionist attitude. Pannel et al. (2016) describe academic risk
taking as an individual's desire to try without focusing on the success or failure as a
result of the individual's behavior. Based on this statement, it is understood that there
is a negative relationship between risk taking and perfectionism. This opinion is
supported with the findings of this study. Previous studies have shown a negative
relationship between academic procrastination and academic achievement (Balkıs &
Duru, 2010). An important reason why individuals exhibit perfectionism is their
distorted focus on success (Patch, 1984). In short, the individual exhibits perfectionist
behavior because they avoid failure. When both academic procrastination behavior
and academic perfectionism behavior are examined, it is seen that an avoidance of
failure lies under both of them. Taking academic risks is more about courage than
focusing on success or failure. Individuals who exhibit academic perfectionism and
academic procrastination behaviors may not be able to take risks in their academic life
due having success as their main focus, and this study supports this view.
 170 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

When all variables were analyzed using standardized regression analysis, it was
observed that academic procrastination was the most powerful variable predicting
academic risk-taking behavior. When all variables were examined together, it was seen
that they predicted academic risk-taking behavior by 24%. This ratio is important and
cannot be underestimated. In other words, it is seen that academic procrastination,
academic locus of control, and academic perfectionism variables should be taken into
consideration while considering academic risk-taking behavior.
As a result, there is a negative relationship between academic risk-taking behavior
and academic procrastination and academic perfectionism. In other words,
individuals need to be far from academic perfectionism and academic procrastination
behaviors in order to exhibit academic risk-taking behavior. Considering that there is
a focus of success in the basis of these behaviors, it is predicted that individuals who
act with the desire to try something new without focusing on achieving or failing in
the academic environment may exhibit more academic risk-taking behavior. In
addition, while there is a negative relationship between external locus of control and
academic risk taking, a positive relationship between internal locus of control and
academic risk taking is observed. To explain, the external appreciation and reward is
an important obstacle for individuals to take risks in the academic environment. On
the other hand, when an individual makes their own assessment, they can be more
courageous and take more risks. Therefore, when the academic locus of control is
examined, it is possible that individuals with external locus of control perform less
academic risk-taking behavior and individuals with internal locus of control are more
likely to perform academic risk-taking behavior.
Academic risk-taking behavior has an important role in students' academic life and
is associated with many variables. However, when the research about academic risk
taking over the years are examined, it is seen that there are only a few national and
international studies in this field. For this reason, researchers who want to work on
this subject will make an important contribution to the literature in all quantitative and
qualitative studies covering the factors that affect academic risk-taking behavior and
what it affects. In addition, examining the demographic variables (age, sex, class level,
socio-economic status) that affect academic risk-taking behavior, or looking at their
relationship with parent and teacher attitudes, is recommended because it will provide
important information about academic risk-taking. In addition, the variables of
academic risk taking, academic procrastination, locus of control and academic
perfectionism have been examined in the universe of university students. Researchers
who want to do research on the subject working on different developmental periods
will benefit the literature. Considering the results of this research, in order to increase
the students' academic risk-taking behaviors, psychological counseling groups can be
started, or interviews can be organized in schools to reduce the academic
procrastination behaviors of the students. Apart from that, also, teachers can benefit
from this research to understand the reasons behind low academic risk taking on their
students and they can help their students to increase academic risk taking in the class
environment. In addition to increasing the internal locus of control of the students, one
of the main objectives of the education, education and training programs that can
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 171
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

reduce the external locus of control can be prepared, and each input, output and
stakeholder in education and training can be rearranged to provide students with an
internal control-oriented perspective. Counseling practices, workshops or interviews
can be planned in order to increase the awareness of the students in line with their
own goals, expectations and desires and to provide them with skills to reach them.

References
Ackerman, D.S., & Gross, B.L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task characteristics
of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 5-13. Retrived from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truevedb=edbveAN=1251134
8velang=trvesite=eds-live
Afzal, S., & Jami, H. (2018). Prevalence of academic procrastination and reasons for
academic procrastination in university students. Journal of Behavioural Sciences,
28(1), 51-69. Retrieved from http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/doap/PDF-
FİLES/04_v28_1_18.pdf
Akbay, S.E., & Gizir C.A. (2010). Cinsiyete gore universite oğrencilerinde akademik
erteleme davranisi: Akademik gudulenme, akademik ozyeterlik ve akademik
yukleme stillerinin rolu [Academic procrastination of university students
according to gender: The role of academic motivation, akademic self-efficacy
and academic attributional style]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of
Education, 6(1), 60-78.
Akbiyik, C., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2006). Elestirel dusunme eğilimleri ve akademik basari
[Critical thinking dispositions and academic achievement]. Cukurova University
Journal of the Faculty of Education, 3(32), 90-99.
Akin, A. (2007). Akademik kontrol odaği olceği: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi
[Academic locus of control scale: validity and reliability study]. Cukurova
University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 34(3), 9-17.
Assailly, J.P. (2013). Psychology of Risk-Taking. New York: Nova.
Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2010). Akademik erteleme eğilimi, akademik basari iliskisinde
genel ve performans benlik saygisinin rolu [Academic procrastination
tendency, the role of general and performance self-esteem in academic
achievement relationship]. Cukurova University Journal of the Faculty of
Education, 27, 159-170.
Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school
science. Journal Of Research İn Science Teaching, 46(2), 210-223. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tea.20270
Buyukbayraktar, C. (2011). Universite oğrencilerinde mukemmeliyetcilik ve ofke iliskisi [The
relationship between perfectionism and anger among university students]
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Selcuk University, Konya
 172 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Cakici, D.C. (2003). Lise ve universite oğrencilerinde genel erteleme ve akademik erteleme
davranisinin incelenmesi [An Examination of the general procrastination behavior and
academic procrastination behavior in high-school and university students]
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
Celik, İ., & Saricam, H. (2018). The relationships between positive thinking skills,
academic locus of control and grit in adolescents. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 6(3), 392–398.
Celikkaleli, O., & Akbay, S. E. (2013). Universite oğrencilerinin akademik erteleme
davranisi, genel yetkinlik inanci ve sorumluluklarinin incelenmesi
[Examination of academic procrastination behavior, general competence beliefs
and responsibilities of university students]. Ahi Evran University Journal of the
Faculty of Education, 14(2), 237-254.
Cetin, B., İlhan, M., & Yilmaz, F. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between
the fear of receiving negative criticism and of taking academic risk through
canonical correlation analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 146–
158. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1616.
Clifford, M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 263–297
Condry, J. D., & Chambers, J. (1978). İntrinsic motivation and the process of learning.
İn M. R. Lepper ve D. Greene (Eds.), The Hidden Costs of Reward. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Deveci, İ., & Aydin, F. (2018). Relationship between students’ tendencies toward
academic risk-taking and their attitudes to science. İssues in Educational
Research, 28(3), 560–577.
Grunschel, C., Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Fries, S. (2016). Effects of using
motivational regulation strategies on students’ academic procrastination.
Learning and individual differences journal, 49, 162-170.
Hamachek, D.E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15, 27-33. Retrieved from
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-08598-001
Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students:
the role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76,
317–324.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.
Hughes, B. H., Sullivan, H. J., & Mosley, M. L. (1985). External evaluation, task
difficulty, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 210-
215.
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 173
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Karademir, C.A., & Akgul, A. (2019). Students’ social studies-oriented academic risk-
taking behaviours and autonomous learning skills. Cypriot Journal of Educational
Sciences, 14(1), 56–68.
Kiran-Esen, B. (2003). Akran baskisi, akademik basari ve yas değiskenlerine gore lise
oğrencilerinin risk alma davranisinin yordanmasi [Prediction of high school
students' risk-taking behavior by peer pressure, academic achievement, and
age variables]. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 24, 79-85.
Korkmaz, H. (2002). Fen eğitiminde proje tabanli oğrenmenin yaratici dusunme, problem
cozme ve akademik risk alma duzeylerine etkisi [The effects of project based learning on
creative thinking ability, problem solving ability and level of academic risk taking in
science education] (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Hacettepe University,
Ankara.
Kuzu, A. (2011). Arastirmalarin planlanmasi. İcinde A.A. Kurt (Ed.). Bilimsel Arastirma
Yontemleri (ss. 19-45). Eskisehir: Publication of Anadolu University.
Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, C. (1995). Correlates of academic
procrastination: Discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. Journal of
Psychology, 129(2), 145-155
Mooney, S. P., Sherman, M. F., & Lo Presto C. T. (1991). Academic locus of control,
self-esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of college
adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69(3), 445–448. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb01542.x
Mooney, S.P., Sherman, M.F., & Lo Presto, C.T. (1991). Academic locus of control, self-
esteem, and perceived distance from home as predictors of college adjustment.
Journal of Counseling ve Development, 69(5), 445.
Odaci, H., Kalkan, M., & Cikrikci, O. (2017). Akademik mukemmeliyetcilik olceğinin
gelistirilmesi [Development of the academic perfectionism scale]. Ahi Evran
University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(1), 353-366.
Osman, K., Hamid, S.H.A., & Hassan, A. (2009). Standard setting: İnserting domain of
the 21st century thinking skills into the existing science curriculum in Malaysia.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2573-2577.
Ozer, B.U. (2005). Academic procrastination: prevalance, self-reported reasons, gender
difference and it’s relation with academic achievement (Unpublished Master’s
Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006).
Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural
landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407-1424.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1071/ea05037
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-26.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
 174 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-26.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976.
Senecal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003). Role conflict and academic procrastination: A
self- determination perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 135–
145. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.144
Slakter, M.J., Koehler, R.A., Hampton, S.H., & Grennell, R.L. (1971). Sex, grade level,
and risk taking on objective examinations. The Journal of Experimental Education,
39(3), 65-68.
Solomon, L.J. & Rothblum, E.D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503–509.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K.B. (2016). Academic Procrastination: Psychological
Antecedents Revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36–46.
Tan, E. (2017). The influence of global-local processing styles on academic risk taking
(Unpublished Master’s Thesis). National University of Singapure, Singapure.
Tay, B., Ozkan, D., & Tay, B.A. (2009). The effect of academic risk taking levels on the
problem solving ability of gifted students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(1), 1099-1104.
Vuletich, H.A., Kurtz-Costes, B., Bollen, K.A., & Rowley, S.J. (2019). A Longitudinal
Study of the Domain-Generality of African American Students’ Causal
Attributions for Academic Success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3),
459–474. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000299.
Wang, M., Qian, M., Wang, W., ve Chen, R. (2011). Effects of group counseling based
on self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in students with academic
procrastination. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25, 921-926. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198166.
Watson, D.C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor theory: a facet level analysis.
Personality and İndividual Differences, 30, 149-158.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706.
Zhang, Y., Dong, S., Fang, W., Chai, X., Mei, J., & Fan, X. (2018). Self-efficacy for self-
regulation and fear of failure as mediators between self-esteem and academic
procrastination among undergraduates in health professions. Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 23(4), 817-830. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10459-018-9832-3.
Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Cham, H. (2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and
engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 175
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

analysis. Personality and İndividual Differences, 43, 1529-1540. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907001602.

Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Akademik Risk Alma Davranışı: Akademik

Erteleme, Akademik Kontrol Odağı ve Akademik Mükemmeliyetçilik
Atıf:
Akbay, S. E., & Delibalta, A. (2020). Academic risk taking behavior in university
students: Academic procrastination, academic locus of control, and academic
perfectionism. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 89, 159-178. DOI:
10.14689/ejer.2020.89.8

Özet
Problem Durumu ve Araştırmanın Amacı: 21. yy.da eğitim, modern toplumlarda
bireylerin kendilerini geliştirebilmeleri ve toplum içinde nitelikli bireyler olarak var
olabilmeleri için önemli bir araçtır. Eğitim bireylere atılgan, sorumluluk sahibi ve
realist düşünebilen kişiler olmaları yolunda destek sağlarken, nitelikli eğitim yaşantısı
akademik başarıyı da beraberinde getirir. Toplumun ileriye ivme kazanmasında tek
başına yeterli olarak görülmese de akademik başarı eğitim kurumlarının en temel
hedefleri arasındadır. Akademik başarı ile ilişkili olduğu düşünülen birçok değişken
bulunmaktadır. Eğitim yaşantıları sonucu elde edilmesi planlanan kazanımlar
değerlendirildiğinde bir takım belirsizliklerin varlığından söz etmememiz mümkün
olamaz. Bu belirsizlikler karşısında kişilerin aldığı pozisyonun onların başarıları
üzerinde rol oynayacağını söyleyebiliriz. Bu bağlamda akademik başarıya kişileri
götürecek değişkenlerden biri olarak risk almanın önemine vurgu yapılabilir. Bu
çalışmanın amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik başarıları üzerinde önemli bir
yer sahibi olduğu düşünülen akademik risk alma davranışlarını akademik erteleme,
akademik kontrol odağı ve akademik mükemmeliyetçiliğin ne derecede yordadığını
incelemektir.
Araştırmanın Yöntemi: Bu çalışma, üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik risk alma
davranışlarını akademik erteleme, akademik kontrol odağı ve akademik
mükemmeliyetçiliğin ne derecede yordadığını incelemek amacıyla yapılan, ilişkisel
tarama modelinde betimsel bir çalışmadır. İki ya da daha fazla sayıdaki değişken
arasında birlikte değişimin varlığını ve derecesini belirlemeyi amaçlayan çalışmalar
ilişkisel tarama modeli araştırmalardır (Kuzu, 2005).
Katılımcılar: Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Türkiye’nin Güney bölgesinde yer alan
bir Üniversitenin 2018-2019 bahar döneminde 4 büyük fakültesinde (Eğitim Fakültesi,
Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, İİBF ve Mühendislik Fakültesi) öğrenim görmekte olan 507
öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Bu öğrencilerin 351’i kadın (%69,2), 154’ü erkektir (%30,4). İki
öğrenci cinsiyetini belirtmemiştir. Katılımcıların yaş aralığı 18 ile 33 arasında
değişmekte olup, ortalaması 20,73’tür (SS=1,84). Bununla birlikte katılımcıların 151’i
 176 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

birinci sınıf (%29,8), 123’ü ikinci sınıf (%24,3), 171’i 3. sınıf (%33,7) ve 60’ı da 4. sınıf
(%11,8) öğrencilerinden oluşmaktadır. Yine iki öğrenci sınıf düzeyini
belirtmemişlerdir. Çalışma gurubunun belirlenmesinde kolay ulaşılabileni örnekleme
yöntemi kullanılmıştır.
Araştırmanın Bulguları: Çalışma grubunu oluşturan 507 üniversite öğrencisi için
akademik risk alma değişkeni (yordanan) ile akademik erteleme, akademik kontrol
odağı ve akademik mükemmeliyetçilik değişkenleri (yordayıcı) arasındaki Pearson
korelasyon katsayıları incelendiğinde, örneklemin akademik risk alma düzeyleri ile
akademik erteleme (r =-.36, p<.001), akademik dışsal kontrol odağı (r =-.32, p<.001) ve
akademik mükemmeliyetçilik (r =-.26, p<.001) düzeyleri arasında negatif yönde
manidar bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Bu sonuca göre, üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik
erteleme düzeyleri düştükçe, akademik alandaki dışsal kontrol odağı eğilimleri
azaldıkça ve akademik anlamda daha az mükemmeliyetçi tutum içerisine girdikçe
akademik anlamda risk alma seviyeleri de artmaktadır. Akademik risk alma ile
akademik içsel kontrol odağı arasında ise (r =.18, p<.001) pozitif yönde manidar bir
ilişkiye rastlanılmıştır. Bu bulgu ise üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik alandaki içsel
kontrol odaklı hareket etme eğilimlerinin artmasının onların akademik risk alma
eğilimlerini arttıracağını ortaya koymaktadır.
Bağımsız değişkenlerin birbirleri ile olan ilişkilerine bakıldığında ise; akademik
erteleme ile akademik içsel kontrol arasında (r =-.11, p<.001) negatif yönde, akademik
dışsal kontrol arasında (r =.28, p<.001) pozitif yönde bir ilişki olduğu buna karşın
akademik mükemmeliyetçilikle arasında herhangi bir ilişkinin olmadığı (r =.02,
p>.001) görülmüştür. Akademik içsel kontrol ile akademik dışsal kontrol arasında (r
=-.29, p<.001) negatif yönde, akademik mükemmeliyetçilik arasında ise (r =.11, p<.001)
pozitif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki bulgusu elde edilmiştir. Son olarak akademik dışsal
kontrol odağı ile akademik mükemmeliyetçilik arasında (r =.32, p<.001) arasında
pozitif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu söylenebilir.
Üniversite öğrencilerinde akademik risk almanın yordayıcıları olduğu düşünülen
akademik erteleme, akademik kontrol odağı ve akademik mükemmeliyetçilik
değişkenlerine ilişkin aşamalı regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre, standardize edilmiş
regresyon katsayıları (β) dikkate alındığında, sırasıyla akademik erteleme (β=-.32),
akademik dışsal kontrol odağı (β=-.11), akademik mükemmeliyetçilik (β=.24) ve
akademik içsel kontrol odağının (β =.14) akademik risk alma davranışını anlamlı bir
şekilde yordadığı görülmektedir (F(4-506) =38.74, p< .001). Bu bulgular temelinde,
üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik risk alma davranışlarını en güçlü düzeyde
yordayan değişken olan akademik erteleme tek başına toplam varyansın %13’ünü
açıklamaktadır. Akademik erteleme, akademik dışsal kontrol odağı ile birlikte toplam
varyansın %18’ini açıklamaktadır. Akademik erteleme, akademik dışsal kontrol odağı,
akademik mükemmeliyetçilik birlikte toplam varyansın %22’sinin açıklarken bu
değişkenler akademik içsel kontrolün eklenmesiyle tüm değişkenler ortak olarak
akademik risk alma puanlarını %24’ünü açıklamaktadırlar (R=0,49, R 2 =0,24).
Sonuç ve Öneriler: Sonuç olarak akademik risk alma davranışı ile akademik erteleme
ve akademik mükemmeliyetçilik arasında negatif bir ilişki bulunmaktadır. Yani
 Sinem Evin AKBAY - Ayca DELIBALTA 177
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 89 (2020) 159-178

bireylerin akademik risk alma davranışını sergileyebilmeleri için akademik

mükemmeliyetçilik ve akademik erteleme davranışlarından uzak olmaları
gerekmektedir. Bu davranışların temelinde başarı odağı olduğu düşünüldüğünde
akademik ortamda başarmaya veya başarmamaya odaklanmadan yalnızca yeni bir
şey deneme isteği ile hareket eden bireylerin daha fazla akademik risk alma davranışı
sergileyebilecekleri öngörülmektedir. Ek olarak dışsal kontrol odağı ile akademik risk
alma arasında negatif ilişki olduğu gözlemlenirken, içsel akademik kontrol odağı ile
akademik risk alma arasında pozitif ilişki gözlemlenmektedir. Açıklamak gerekirse
dışarıdan gelecek olan takdir ve ödül bireylerin akademik ortamda risk almalarının
önündeki önemli bir engeldir. Diğer bir taraftan birey kendi değerlendirmesini kendisi
yaptığında daha fazla cesaretli olabilmekte ve daha çok risk alabilmekte olduğu
düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla akademik kontrol odağına bakıldığında dışsal kontrol
odağına sahip bireylerin daha az akademik risk alma davranışı gerçekleştirmesi, içsel
kontrol odağına sahip bireylerin ise daha fazla akademik risk alma davranışı
gerçekleştirmesi olası görülmektedir. Bu araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre şu önerilerde
bulunulabilir; öğrencilerin akademik risk alma davranışlarını artırmak amacıyla
öğrencilerin akademik erteleme davranışlarını azaltmak için psikolojik danışma
grupları açılabilir veya okullarda mülakatlar düzenlenebilir. Bunun dışında,
öğretmenler bu araştırmadan öğrencilerine akademik risk almanın engelleri
arkasındaki nedenleri anlamak için yararlanabilir ve öğrencilerine sınıf ortamında
akademik risk almayı artırmada yardımcı olabilirler. Öğrencilere iç kontrol odaklı bir
bakış açısı sağlamak için eğitim-öğretim faaliyetleri ve işleyişi yeniden gözden
geçirilebilir. Akademik erteleme davranışlarını azaltma, akademik
mükemmeliyetçiliği sağlıklı bir boyutta deneyimleyebilmeleri için rehberlik
uygulamaları, çalıştaylar veya mülakatlar planlanabilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: akademik risk alma, akademik erteleme, akademik kontrol odağı,
akademik mükemmeliyetçilik.