historical roots of procrastination - university of calgarysteel/procrastinus/meta/the nature...

The Nature of Procrastination

Running head: PROCRASTINATION


Piers Steel

University of Calgary

Piers Steel, Human Resources and Organizational Development, University of Calgary.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Piers Steel, 444 Skurfield Hall,

2500 University Drive N.W., University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, or

[email protected], or Fax: 403-282-0095

I would like to sincerely thank Henri Schouwenburg for his enthusiasm in this endeavor as well

as his willingness to share and translate his considerable research on procrastination.

1

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

Procrastination is prevalent and pernicious but not entirely understood, motivating this empirical

and theoretical review. Though several definitions exist, integrating them indicates

procrastination is an intended action that is voluntarily delayed, despite expectations that this

delay will fail to maximize one’s utility. A meta-analysis of procrastination’s causes and effects

reveals several consistent findings regarding task effects, individual differences, and

procrastination’s intrinsic aspects. To explain these findings, expectancy and hyperbolic

discounting theory are summarized and evaluated, revealing that only a combination of these

theories is consistent with procrastination’s strongest and most reliable findings. Continued

research into the prediction and treatment of procrastination should not be delayed, especially

since its prevalence appears to be growing.

Keywords: Procrastination, picoeconomics, irrational delay, meta-analysis

2


THE NATURE OF PROCRASTINATION

Procrastination is clearly prevalent. Though virtually all of us have at least dallied with

dallying, some have made it a way of life. Estimates indicate that 95% of college students engage

in procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977), approximately 75% consider themselves procrastinators

(Potts, 1987), and almost one-half do it consistently and problematically (Day, Mensink, &

O’Sullivan, 2000; Haycock, 1993; Micek, 1982; Onwuegbuzie, 2000a; Solomon & Rothblum,

1984). Even for the average student, procrastination is considerable, representing over one third

of their reported daily activities (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). Furthermore, these

percentages appear to be on the rise (Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001). Aside from being

endemic during college, procrastination is also widespread in the general population, chronically

affecting some 15-20% of adults (Harriott & Ferrari, 1996).

Procrastination also appears to be a troubling phenomenon. People most strongly

characterize it as being bad, harmful, and foolish (Briody, 1979). Justifying this viewpoint,

several studies have linked it to individual performance, with the procrastinator performing more

poorly overall (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Steel, Brothen, & Wambach, 2001; Wesley,

1994), and to individual well-being, with the procrastinator being more miserable in the long-

term (Knaus, 1973; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). At larger levels of

analysis, procrastination has been linked to several organizational and societal issues. Gersick

(1988) describes how teams consistently delay the bulk of their work until deadlines approach.

The economists Akerlof (1991) and O’Donoghue and Rabin (1999) consider the relative lack of

retirement savings behavior as a form of procrastination, where many start preparing for their

later years far too late. In the political arena, procrastination has been used to describe

Presidential decisions (Farnham, 1997; Kegley, 1989) and the banking practices of nations

3


(Holland, 2001), both where important decisions are disastrously delayed. Similarly, The

Economist discusses how procrastination shapes events internationally (e.g., “The Uruguay

round’s next deadline,” 1992; “The politics of procrastination,” 1999), such as France’s decision

to delay giving its Pacific territory of New Caledonia independence.

Unfortunately for such an extensive affliction, little is decisively known about its causes

or its effects. The nature of procrastination has proven elusive with conflicting theories and

findings. To counter this disarray, this paper endeavors to review and synthesize the conceptual

and empirical work completed thus far. To begin with, the definition and history of

procrastination is considered. From there, this exploration of procrastination seeks to summarize

findings meta-analytically as well as to incorporate exploratory and experimental work. Using

these meta-analytic findings, two competing theories of motivation often used to explain

procrastination are evaluated. Finally, several promising topics for future research efforts are

identified.

What is Procrastination?

Like many common-language terms drafted into scientific study, definitions for

procrastination tend to be almost as plentiful as there are people researching this topic (see

Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). Initially, such definitional variation may seem to obscure

procrastination’s nature, but it may also serve to partially illuminate it. Different attempts to

refine our understanding can be complementary rather than contradictory. In addition, any

common theme likely reveals a core or essential element. It is evident that all conceptualizations

of procrastination recognize that there must be a postponing, delaying, or putting off a task or a

decision, in keeping with its Latin origins of “pro,” meaning “forward, forth, or in favor of,” and

“crastinus,” meaning “of tomorrow” (Klein, 1971).

4


Building on this base, we procrastinate when we delay beginning or completing an

intended course of action (Beswick & Mann, 1994; Ferrari, 1993a; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993;

Lay & Silverman, 1996; Milgram, 1991; Sabini & Silver, 1982). This is a useful distinction as

there are thousands of potential tasks that we could be doing at any time, and it becomes

cumbersome to think we are putting them all off. It also separates procrastination from simple

decision avoidance (Anderson, 2003), where people’s original intention is to delay. Also,

procrastination is most often considered to be the irrational delay of behavior (Akerlof, 1991;

Briody, 1980; Burka & Yuen, 1983; Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; Sabini &

Silver, 1982; Sanders, 1994), and this reflects the dictionary definition: “defer action, especially

without good reason” (OED, 1996). Being irrational entails choosing a course of action despite

expecting that it will not maximize your utilities, that is your interests, preferences, or goals of

both a material (e.g., money) and a psychological (e.g., happiness) nature (Read, 2001).

Combining these elements suggest that procrastination is: “To voluntarily delay an intended

course of action despite expecting to be worse-off for the delay

.”

Historical references indicate that the prevalence and problems of procrastination have

been reasonably constant over the ages.1 Starting with the Industrial Revolution, Samuel Johnson

(1751) wrote about procrastination indicating, “it is one of the general weaknesses, which, in

spite of the instruction of moralists, and the remonstrances of reason, prevail to a greater or less

degree in every mind.” A contemporary of Johnson, Phillip Stanhope (1749), the Earl of

1 Interested readers might also seek a book by Ringenback (1971) on the history of procrastination, cited by Knaus (1979; 2000). This search is not recommended. Aitken’s (1982) investigation reveals that the work was never actually written. Her correspondence with Paul Ringenbach and the publisher reveals it was actually an elaborate joke (i.e., a book on procrastination that was never completed). See also Kaplan (1998) for another well-conducted academic article/prank.

5


Chesterfield, stated, “no idleness, no laziness, no procrastination; never put off till tomorrow

what you can do today.”

Clearly preceding the Industrial Revolution was a sermon written by a Reverend Walker

in the 17th century (Pychyl, 1999). There he makes it quite clear that procrastination is extremely

sinful, that he and other ministers have rallied their congregations against it repeatedly, and that

there are other texts available that speak similarly. This sermon can be further predated by John

Lyly, an English novelist patronized by Queen Elizabeth I. Lyly made himself famous through a

1579 work Eupheus, a book that relies highly on proverbs for content. Within he writes,

“Nothing so perilous as procrastination” (1579/1995).

Earlier research into the nature of procrastination is obtainable through the Perseus

Project (Crane, 1999), an extensive electronic collection of classical texts. Searching this

database, there are several illuminating references. Focusing on the more notable sources, we

find in 44 B.C. Marcus Cicero spoke upon this subject. Cicero was the consul of Rome, its

highest political office, and an infamous orator who spoke against several political opponents

such as Catiline, who Cicero had killed, and Mark Anthony, who had Cicero killed. In a series of

speeches denouncing Mark Anthony, he states, “in the conduct of almost every affair slowness

and procrastination are hateful”(Philippics, 6.7). Roughly 400 years earlier were the musings of

Thucydides, an Athenian general who wrote extensively on the war with the Spartans, including

various aspects of personalities and strategies. He mentions that procrastination is the most

criticized of character traits, useful only in delaying the commencement of war, so as to allow

preparations that speed its conclusion (Histoires, 1.84.1).2 Finally, there is Hesiod who wrote

2 As this reference indicates, procrastination is occasionally used in a positive sense, as in functional delay or avoiding rush (e.g., Bernstein, 1994; Ferrari, 1993b; Subotnik, Steiner, & Chakraborty, 1999). For example, “Once we act, we forfeit the option of waiting until new information comes along. As a result, no-acting has value. The more uncertain the outcome, the greater may be the value of procrastination [italics added]” (Bernstein, 1998; p. 15). The focus of this paper, however, is on the primary, negative form of procrastination.

6


near 800 BC. Hesiod is one of the first recorded poets of Greek literature, and thus provides one

of the first citations possible. His words are worth repeating in full (Works and Days, l. 413):

Do not put your work off till to-morrow and the day after; for a sluggish worker does not

fill his barn, nor one who puts off his work: industry makes work go well, but a man who

puts off work is always at hand-grips with ruin.

As an additional Eastern reference, there is the Bhagavad Gita. Written approximately 500 BC, it

is considered to be the most widely read and influential spiritual text of Hinduism (De, 1996).

Within it, Krishna maintains: “Undisciplined, vulgar, stubborn, wicked, malicious, lazy,

depressed, and procrastinating; such an agent is called a Taamasika agent” (18.28). Of special

note, Taamasika people are considered so lowly that mortal rebirth is denied to them. Rather,

they go to hell.

Given this constancy of opinion, from today to the beginning of recorded history,

procrastination must be considered an almost archetypal human failing. It also makes it rather

unsurprising that we did not address it sooner.

Method

Meta-Analytic Method

The summary of the results primarily followed the Hunter and Schmidt (1990)

psychometric meta-analytic procedure. It is designed for estimating the mean effect size and the

amount of residual variance in observed scores after considering artifacts, usually sampling error

and unreliability. Mean effects sizes are expressed as correlations, consequently requiring the

conversion of t-scores, d-scores, and F-scores where necessary and possible. Corrections were

employed for dichotomizing a continuous variable, uneven splits, range restriction as well as

range enhancement, similar to range restriction but where one selects only extreme scores. When

7


a study used multiple measures of procrastination or of another target variable, these were

averaged so only one, independent correlation was included in the analysis.

Of note, the confidence interval refers to the precision with which the expected mean

effect is measured, and consistent with the random effects model, the heterogeneous form is

employed here (Whitener, 1990). The credibility interval refers to the limits within which an

observed effect will likely be in any particular population, that is the degree of generalizability. It

is based on the residual variance after accounting for sampling error and, in this study,

unreliability. To avoid negative residual variance (i.e., when expected sampling error is greater

than observed variance), this study employs the Iterative Homogeneity of Variance Index (IHVI;

Steel & Kammeyer-Mulller, 2003). For the entire range of possible true population variances, the

IHVI iteratively calculates the probability that they may have given rise to the observed variance.

Averaging the sum of these probabilities creates an improved unbiased estimate of observed

variance that prevents negative residual variance. In addition, the IHVI technique can provide

confidence intervals around the residual variance itself, indicating its likely minimum and

maximum amount. This method, instead of the traditional Q statistic, is employed, indicating the

percentage of variance likely unexplainable by sampling error and reliability.

Aside from the Iterative Homogeneity of Variance Index, the meta-analytic method used

here does differ from Hunter and Schmidt (1990) in one other respect. Their equation for

estimating (i.e., moderator effect, between-studies variance) tends to underestimate as the

number of studies decreases (Hall & Brannick, 2002; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002;

Cornwell & Ladd, 1993). The reason for this bias is primarily due to using the sample-size

weighted mean correlation in place of true , which if could be obtained would give a less biased

finding. Brannick (2001) offers a simple fix to this problem and it is consistent with the random

8


effects model and other variance estimates (e.g., the standard deviation); multiply the obtained

figure by K/(K-1) and this correction is employed.

Finally, for estimating the effects of unreliability, Hunter and Schmidt (1990) suggest that

the reliability of scales may be obtained from studies other than those used in any specific

analysis. Consequently, the reliability of each measure for each study was based upon the

sample-size weighted average of all studies using that scale within this meta-analysis. When no

study provided the needed reliability, the sample-size weighted average of similar measures was

employed. This allowed the reliability correction to be conducted on an individual study level

rather than through artifact distribution. As typical, refers to the reliability corrected, sample-

size weighted, mean effect size.

Literature Review

Explorations into procrastination have cut across a variety of fields, including

psychology, sociology, political science, and economics, requiring a broad search to gather the

appropriate publications. As an initial resource, the Procrastination Research Group (2002) has

attempted to maintain a list of articles, chapters, books, and dissertations on procrastination and a

copy of it is maintained on-line. Though admirably extensive, this list is incomplete, especially

with regards to articles from the fields further from psychology.3 To supplement this list, the

following steps were taken.

First, several databases were searched. For all available years to present, the computer

databases of ABI/INFORM, EconLit, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Proquest Digital

Dissertations, and the Academy of Management Online Article Retrieval System were explored,

primarily using the keywords of: procrastination, dynamic inconsistency, temporal discounting,

hyperbolic discounting, and irrational exuberance. Second, the Social Sciences Citation Index

3 Of note, the list is updated periodically and this comment is likely inaccurate after a recent revision.

9


(i.e., Web of Science) was searched for all publications that cited an article regarding

procrastination assessment (e.g., the PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Third, if an author was

found to publish more than one article on procrastination, they were contacted where possible.

This was done to better uncover individual research programs on procrastination (i.e., “file

drawer” problem). Fourth, once procrastination-focused references were obtained, each

publication’s own reference list was also examined for other publications. Masters and doctoral

dissertations were included in this review as well as unpublished works, when the requisite

author was reachable and responsive. Foreign-language articles were also included. In total, 438

sources were initially identified for review. After excluding those that mentioned procrastination

peripherally or failed to provide data (e.g., counseling case studies of procrastination), this

review considers 166 separate works: 7 book chapters, 5 conference proceedings, 2 unpublished

papers, 2 electronic sources, 112 journal articles, and 38 theses. In total, 678 correlations were

summarized. All studies were double-coded and discrepancies resolved to ensure accuracy.

Moderator Search

Though it is unlikely that all the variance in results can be accounted, it can be

substantially reduced through a moderator search. At a minimum, Wortman (1994) recommends

investigating differences in methodology. On this point, there is little variance, with most studies

using a correlational design based on self-reports. This leads to the possibility of system-wide

mono-method bias, though the extent of this as a problem has been addressed in specific studies

(e.g., Steel et al., 2001; Scher & Osterman, 2002). Still, several methodological variables can be

considered. As typical in psychological research, most of the studies employed young, university

students. To address whether this is a limitation to the generalizability of the findings, a

moderator search based on age of participant was conducted. In addition, the studies were coded

10

Piers Steel, 09/23/02,

By way of these efforts, 50 new articles, book chapters, or proceedings, 12 unpublished dissertations, and 9 new unpublished manuscripts or conference papers were found


according to whether the samples represented student, general, or adolescent/child populations.

Second, it is also possible that some studies were conducted more carefully than others. The

difficult of estimating study quality is extreme (Wortman, 1994), though as mentioned, most of

the results are based on a relatively straightforward correlational design and thus quality is not

expected to have a substantial impact. Still, studies were coded as being from journals and non-

journals, with the expectation that journal articles on-average are better quality. Also, extreme

correlations were examined to determine if they represented outliers, as per Huffcutt and Arthur

(1995). Studies over four standard deviations from the mean were typically excluded from the

analysis, though at times it was possible to check and correct such extreme scores with the lead

author. By this way, two typographically errors were detected as the sign of the correlation was

reversed in print.

Ultimately, the impact of methodological differences was minimal. Neither age, journal

status, nor group significantly moderated any relationships. There proved to be only one

detectable source of variance: the measures employed. Similar though not identical indices were

grouped together to provide sufficient K for meta-analysis. When theory indicates that different

scales or tests used may have a significant effect, a moderator search was conducted.

There are a variety of techniques for detecting these possible moderators during meta-

analysis, though recent work by Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2002) unambiguously indicated

that weighted least squares (WLS) regression provides the most accurate results. Consequently,

WLS is employed here, with categorical variables dummy coded. As recommended (Tabachnick

& Fidell, 1989), analysis is limited to when there is at least five cases (K) per moderator variable.

Results are reported where statistically significant (p<.01).

Categories of Research

11


This is the classic apples and oranges problem of meta-analysis


The results are classified into five broad or super-ordinate groups. The first summarizes

the convergence within and among procrastination measures. The second group is a cluster of

studies that connect procrastination to the nature of the task itself. The third is the largest of four,

dealing with individual differences associated with procrastination. The fourth includes studies

that address intrinsic aspects of procrastination. Finally, demographic predictors of

procrastination are examined. For all but the first group, the review of the research is presented

in a set format. The topic is first introduced, then defined, and then related to other constructs. In

addition, the ways that a topic might create procrastination are briefly considered followed by a

summary of the results. After this summary, the research upon which this conclusion is based is

examined, usually in two or more subsections. Regarding the interpretation of the correlations, a

weak effect is considered around .20, a moderate effect is around .30, and a strong effect is .40 or

greater.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Convergence Within & Among Procrastination Measures

Ideally, we would like different measures of procrastination to correlate fairly highly. It

indicates widespread convergent validity, where all the indices are assessing procrastination to a

substantive extent. Initial research indicated that circumstances were less than ideal, with Ferrari

et al. (1995) noting, “it is possible that the use of an inappropriate measure [of procrastination]

would result in erroneous conclusions, either wrongly supporting or rejecting one’s hypothesis”

(p. 70). Fortunately, more recent findings indicate fairly good agreement among measures. The

reliability, convergence, and validity of procrastination measures are covered in the following

four sections: Internal Reliability, Scale Convergence, Divergent Validity, Convergent Validity,

and Domains of Procrastination.

12


Borsato, 2001 had some nice stuff on time perspective.


Internal Reliability.

Determining the internal reliability is often the initial step of evaluating any scale. At a

minimum, we would like each measure to at least agree with itself. In total, 124 samples were

located that contained reliability data regarding a procrastination scale that was administered

more than once and that reported the appropriate statistics. Results are summarized in Table 1.

All coefficients are expressed as Cronbach’s alpha, requiring conversion of split-half reliabilities

where necessary. However, additional commentary for two scales is provided below.

The Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984)

has two relevant scales, degree of frequency and degree of problem, which are at times

separately administered. For both scales in conjunction, it has an internal reliability of .83 (K=3),

which reduces to .74 (K=8) for the frequency scale and .73 (K=4) for the problem scale. Both

scales correlate together at .89 (Beswick et al., 1988; Smith, 1994). Of particular note, Ferrari

(1989a) indicates the PASS’s reliability to be much lower, as low as .34, and this is often what is

reported (e.g., Corcoran & Fischer, 2000). However, in subsequent publication (Ferrari et al.,

1998), he cites his original work but gives much higher figures. These later figures are

considered the more accurate.

Also, the Decisional Procrastination Questionnaires (DPQI, Mann, 1982; DPQII, Mann,

Burnett, Radford, & Ford, 1997) are examined together as the only difference is that the earlier

version has the item “I don’t make decisions unless I really have to,” while the latter uses “When

I have to make a decision I wait a long time before starting to think about it.” For these five-item

measures, the internal reliability is .79 (K=22). Of note, the DPQ is specific to delaying decisions

while the other questionnaires deal with behaviors.

Scale Convergence.

13


Needs to be checked


There have been a limited number of times different measures of procrastination have

been simultaneously administered and relationships reported. Total results, including means and

standard deviations for each measure, are displayed in Table 2. Of these, findings are almost

exclusively confined to the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP), the Decisional

Procrastination Questionnaire (DPQ), and the General Procrastination Scale (GPS) and these are

discussed here in greater detail. Overall results are quite good, especially after correcting for

attenuation.

The lowest average correlation is .46 or .57 corrected for attenuation, found between the

AIP and the DPQ, based on a K of 14 and an N of 2,288. It can be expected that this correlation

would be the smallest given the conceptual differences between behavioral and decisional

procrastination. However, the average correlation between the DPQ and another behavioral

procrastination measure, the GPS, is much higher, .66 or .79 corrected for attenuation, based on a

K of 9 and an N of 1,400.

Finally, the average correlation between the AIP and the GPS is .57 or .68 corrected for

attenuation, based on a K of 10 and an N of 1,058. This is unusual given that it is lower than the

correlation between the DPQ and the GPS despite both being behavioral measures of

procrastination. There has been one notable but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to explain this

discrepancy. Ferrari (1992b) suggests that the difference was due to the GPS assessing arousal

procrastination, putting off to seek thrills, while the AIP assessing avoidance procrastination,

putting off to protect self-esteem. This original finding has often been repeated (e.g., Ferrari,

1993a; Ferrari et al., 1995) and others have based their research upon it (e.g., Blunt & Pychyl,

1998; Flett, Hewitt, & Martin, 1995). However, Ferrari’s results should be stronger, being based

on an exploratory factor analysis that has failed to replicate (Ferrari, 2000). Furthermore, as

14


reflected in the meta-analytic work conducted here, GPS’s correlation with self-esteem is -.286

(K=9, N=1,091), while AIP’s correlation is -.235 (K=4, N=645). Not only are these two

correlations not significantly different (p>.05), but it appears that GPS actually may have the

stronger self-esteem association. Alternatively, if we take Ferrari’s (1992a, 1992b) initial results

(r=.07, K=3, N=326) to be outliers, and they do appear to be so (p<.00001), no other explanation

is needed. By eliminating them, the average correlation between the AIP and the GPS rises to .78

or .93 corrected for attenuation, with no significant heterogeneity in results.

Divergent Validity

In absence of established theory, it is difficult to determine what procrastination should

be unrelated to. At a minimum, though, it should prove essentially orthogonal to defensiveness,

that is social-desirability, response distortion, and lie scales. This independence may be difficult

to achieve since procrastination does have negative connotations and people may wish to conceal

it. As Table 3 reveals, there is a significant correlation between defensiveness and

procrastination, but fortunately it is also quite weak, r = -.18 (K=11).

Convergent Validity

Though high correlations among procrastination measures is desirable, forms of

validation other than self-report is also needed. To this end, two other types of data have been

gathered, the correlation between self-report with other-report as well as with observed behavior.

Regarding observed behavior, the number of (in)actions that can represent procrastination is

immense, though are organized here into four major groups: Delay Starting Tasks, Lack of Task

Progress, Delay Finishing Tasks, and Missing Deadlines. Results are summarized in Table 3 and

strongly support the validity of procrastination measures.

15


To begin with, six studies have been conducted examining the relationship between self

and other ratings of procrastination. The average correlation proved to be .33 (N = 986) or .38

corrected for attenuation. Though these results are reasonable, future research may uncover still

higher correlations. The majority of these results are based on teacher’s observation of children

and adolescents using novel rating scales with uncertain reliability.

For the remaining observed measures of procrastination, researchers have been prolific in

developing ways of observing procrastination. Efforts range from Christmas shopping to Ph.D.

completion. Unfortunately, they typically represent “immediate” criteria (Thorndike, 1949),

easily obtainable but only distally related to the construct of interest. This may be an inherent

research limitation to this area. Uncontestable eyewitness testimony to procrastination is rare.

Though delaying is fairly evident, several other components of procrastination are very

subjective and whose existence can only be inferred from actions. For example, it can be hard to

unequivocally state that a task was intended or that delaying it decreased a person’s utility.

Within trait or disposition research, this is a common problem as objective, shared reality (“alpha

press”) may differ substantially from one’s personal interpretation (“beta press”; Murray, 1938).

Despite these limitations, the correlation between observed and self-reported

procrastination is quite good. As Table 4 indicates, the typically correlation exceeds .30, above

what the .20-.30 range that Michel (1968) estimates for “personality coefficients.” However,

future efforts should continue improving the use of observed measures, for as Tellegen (1991)

sensibly notes that “the behaviors in question must be inherently recognizable as…expressing a

particular disposition” (p. 19). Looking at the upper range of the credibility intervals, it may be

possible for to find behaviors that correlate with procrastination as high as .60 or .70.

Domains of Procrastination

16


Of note, most constructs of interest have both a general trait and a domain-specific

expression, with typical measures capturing both (Smith, 1976). Procrastination is no exception,

though here the terms are typically described as chronic and situational (e.g., Blatt & Quinn,

1967; Ellis & Knaus, 1977). In other words, though people tend to consistently procrastinate

across different situations, they are still susceptible to the influences of individual domains. The

degree to which procrastination scales are generalizable is dependent on the impact of situational

specificity. Investigating this, researchers have looked at the factor structure of individual scales

as well as comparing domain specific measures of procrastination.

Regarding the factor structure of procrastination, some measures, such as the TPS and the

DPQ, were specifically developed to load on a single factor. Others show less unity, with Somers

(1992) indicating that the GPS loaded on five factors. More recently, Vestervelt (2000)

conducted an exploratory factor analysis on several procrastination measures simultaneously,

extracting the two dimensions of general trait procrastination and punctuality regarding routine

personal tasks. Exclusively in the academic realm, Han (1993) closely examined several areas

measured by the PASS. He found that some academic tasks (i.e., reading assignments, writing

term papers, and studying for exams) were closely linked, generating an average r of .72, but

generated substantially lower associations with others areas (i.e., administrative tasks, making

appointments), r of .35. Finally, Froelich (1987) had respondents indicate whether they

procrastinate for a wide range of household, financial, personal, social, work, and school tasks.

Incidence rates went from 86% (school work) to 2% (balancing checkbook). Domain-specific

effects clearly exist.

What creates domain-specific effects has been closely examined by Milgram and his

colleagues in a series of studies. Comparing life-routine and academic procrastination, they

17


Expand


found the average correlation to be .53 (K=4, N=286; excluding one early and extreme outlier of

r=.06). However, in Milgram, Mey-Tal, and Levison’s (1998) study, they found the correlation

to be .65 despite using a diversity of academic (i.e., class presentations, final exams, and lengthy

papers) and routine tasks (e.g., dental visits, dishwashing, and paying tuition). These high

correlations may be due to Milgram et al.’s item selection as they mostly represent behaviors that

are typically unpleasant. Accordingly, Milgram et al. interpret these findings as consistent with

an appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model for procrastination. We tend to avoid tasks that we find

aversive. This suggests that tasks can be selected across a wide range of domains as long as

people tend to uniformly like or dislike them. That task aversiveness is a key feature in

determining the appearance of procrastination is discussed more fully in the following section

Task Nature & Procrastination.

Task Nature & Procrastination

Procrastination involves voluntary choosing one behavior or task over that of other

options despite expecting to be eventually worse off for the choice. Consequently, we cannot

irrationally delay all our tasks, but simply favor some over others. Unless we procrastinate

randomly, the nature of the task itself must then have some effect upon our decisions. True to

this conclusion, about 50% of people respond that their procrastination was due to some task

characteristic (Briody, 1980). Two predictable effects have been observed: I) Timing of Rewards

& Punishments, and II) Task Aversiveness. First, we tend to favor tasks that are more pleasant in

the short-term even if they are detrimental to ourselves in the long-term. Second, the more

intrinsically unpleasant is a task, the more likely we are to avoid doing it. These outcomes are

intuitively obvious and, in fact, they are so dependably replicated that they can be considered

“laws” of behavior.

18


If Milgram really wants to assess this, it would be best to ask if people tend to put off academic responsibilities to the point of problem, if they tend to put off everday life, if they tend to put off work. This will tell you if people delay in one domain as well as another without asking about specific tasks. E.g., Are their tasks or activities that you tend to put off too long in your everyday life? Then, continue with similar questions for other areas.


Timing of Rewards & Punishments

It has long been observed that the further away an event is temporally, the less impact it

has upon our decisions (e.g., Lewin, 1935). Ainslie (1975) gives a historical account of this

phenomenon from a predominantly psychological perspective under the rubric of impulsiveness,

while Lowenstein (1992) traces its roots from a predominantly economic standpoint in terms of

temporal discounting. Support for this effect is bountiful, with sufficient research to formally

place it as one of the psychological laws of learning (Schwartz, 1989) or the dominant economic

model of intertemporal choice or discounted utility (Lowenstein & Elster, 1992). Unfortunately,

the research on temporal effects specific to procrastination has not been correlational, and thus is

not summarized meta-analytically. Still, there are some useful examples.

In his essay on procrastination, Samuel Johnson (1751) posits temporal proximity as a

cause in that it is natural “to be most solicitous for that which is by its nearness enabled to make

the strongest impressions.” More recently, this preference for the present has been resurrected as

an explanation. Essentially, the rational choice for any course of action is to maximize our

overall utility. However, we tend to favor our present utility far, far more than the well-being of

our future selves. Mazur (1996, 1998) investigated this from a psychological paradigm, finding

that pigeons will indeed put off a small amount of work now for a delayed reward in favor of

having to do much more work later for the same result. Similarly, O’Donoghue and Rabin (1999)

used the economic discounted utility model to describe various forms of human procrastination

such as our tendency to inadequately save for retirement. Also, self-report methodology indicates

the importance of temporal proximity. When students were asked how much they would

procrastinate under various conditions, they indicated it would diminish as the task nears

19


completion or as a deadline approaches (Strongman & Burt, 2000; Schouwenburg &

Groenewoud, 2001).

Task Aversiveness

Task aversiveness is almost a self-explanatory term. Also known as dysphoric affect

(Milgram, Sroloff, & Rosenbaum, 1988) or task appeal (Harris & Sutton, 1983), it refers to

actions that we find unpleasant. Its relationship is predictable. By definition, we seek to avoid

aversive stimuli, and consequently, the more aversive the situation, the more likely we are to

avoid it (e.g., procrastinate). Though there may be a variety of reasons we dislike a task, if we do

find it unpleasant, research indicates we are indeed more likely to put it off. Of note, the hedonic

nature of the task can only account for procrastination in combination with that regarding

temporal placement. By itself, it primarily predicts only task avoidance, not task delay.

One way of assessing why people procrastinate is to directly ask them. To this end,

several researchers administered the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students. Part of it asks

respondents to indicate why, out of 26 possible reasons, they might procrastinate writing a term

paper. Factor analysis of responses consistently generates a dimension best described as

“Aversiveness of Task,” with its most popular item, “Really dislike writing term papers,”

endorsed by 45% of the respondents (Kachgal et al., 2001; Peterson, 1987; Rawlins, 1995;

Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Using a comparable format, Briody (1980), Froelich (1987), and

Haycock (1993) found that two top-rated reasons for procrastinating a task were that it was either

unpleasant or boring and uninteresting. Using an open-ended format, Ferrari (1993a) elicited a

similar reason why people Christmas shopped late. They disliked shopping.

In addition, aversiveness has been investigated for several different types of tasks,

including personal projects, daily tasks, academic tasks (such as publication), and job search

20


(Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Clark & Hill, 1994; Onwuegbuzie, 2000; Peterson, 1987; Schouwenburg, 1991; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984)


behaviors. This research has employed a variety of methodologies, including the more rigorous

formats of time sampling and daily logs (Ferrari & Scher, 2000; Pychyl et al., 2000).

Consistently and strongly, the more people dislike a task, the more they consider it effortful or

anxiety producing, the more they procrastinate (ρ=.46, K=8). Interestingly, two moderators of

this effect are reported. First, aversiveness effects intensify if the projects are short-term (Lay,

1987, 1990). Second, this relationship between procrastination behavior and task aversiveness

was moderated by conscientiousness, with low conscientiousness apparently increasing the effect

of task pleasantness on procrastination (Lay & Brokenshire, 1997; see also Somers, 1992). Also,

the correlation between trait procrastination and finding tasks aversive in general is also strong

and stable (ρ=.46, K=10). This indicates that one reason why some people procrastinate more is

simply because they find more of life’s chores and duties aversive.4

Finally, several researchers have considered what type of task adversity is best correlated

with procrastination. Jobs characterized by lower autonomy, task significance, and feedback

were likely to increase decisional procrastination (Lonergan & Maher, 2000), though less related

to behavioral procrastination (Coote-Weymann, 1988; Galué, 1990). Instead, behavioral

procrastination was most strongly associated with the aversive task components of frustration,

resentment, and particularly boredom (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Briody, 1980; Haycock, 1993;

Strongman & Burt, 2000). Similar results were found using experimental methodology (Senécal,

Lavoie, & Koestner, 1997; Sigall, Kruglanski, & Fyock, 2000). The more boring and difficult a

task was made, the more likely people delayed doing it.

Individual Differences & Procrastination

4 Ottens (1982) makes this observation early on, noting that “procrastinators perceive task situations in such ways so as to exacerbate their aversiveness” (p. 371).

21

Piers Steel, 01/03/-1,

Important finding indicating the Murray scenario. Need for achievement counterbalancing aversiveness?


There is some evidence that there may be a biological or genetic component to

procrastination. A recent unpublished study by Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, and McGue (2002)

asked 118 identical and 93 fraternal male twins reared in the same family to indicate the degree

to which they were a “procrastinator” on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Never, 7=Always).5 The

intraclass correlations for this item for identical twins was .24 and for the fraternal twins it

was .13; suggesting that approximately 22% of the variance on this item was associated with

genetic factors. Also, eight short-term studies (N = 715) were located that had test-retest

reliability data. After an average delay of 33.6 days, the average correlation was .75. In addition,

Elliot (2002) managed to obtain long-term test-retest data for 281 participants who took the

Adult Inventory of Procrastination. With a hiatus of 10 years, the correlation was .77, a further

indication that procrastination is sufficiently stable to be a trait. Individual differences do appear

to matter. Attempts to specify the relationship between procrastination and individual differences

have been prolific.

These studies conducted on procrastination are primarily correlational. Researchers

typically administer multiple self-report personality measures including one that assesses

procrastination, and then explore the relationships. This reflects researchers’ basic interest in

“trait” procrastination, a variable that precludes experimental manipulation. Despite the

prevalence of the five-factor model, the field of personality lacks definitive terminology at the

facet level (John & Sanjay, 1999), and many constructs are similar to one another. To reduce

redundancy and illuminate potential patterns, comparable constructs are grouped for discussion.

Facets are considered comparable if they can be grouped under a common trait and if they also

share a similar theoretical association with procrastination. By eliminating the repetition of

etiologies, these groups should be helpful, though they should not be considered definitive. For

5 This one-item on procrastination was suggested for inclusion in the study by the present author.

22


example, self-handicapping is strongly related to low self-esteem but also may be treated as a

form of emotional self-regulation. This is a common clustering problem and somewhat

unavoidable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992).

Continuing, results are clustered into eight sub-groups, with the first four being

neuroticism or its aspects: I) Neuroticism: Trait Anxiety & Negative Affect, II) Irrational Beliefs:

Fear of Failure, Perfectionism, Self-Consciousness, & Evaluation Anxiety, III) Low Self-

Efficacy, Low Self-Esteem, & Self-Handicapping, IV) Depression, Energy, Learned

Helplessness, & Pessimism, V) Extraversion: Positive Affect, Impulsiveness, Distractibility, &

Sensation-Seeking, VI) Disagreeableness: Rebelliousness & Hostility, VII) Openness to

Experience: Intelligence/Aptitude, and VII) Conscientiousness: Self-Control, Organization,

Achievement Motivation, & Self-Regulation Finally, Tables 4 through 6 meta-analytically

summarizes all these findings.

Neuroticism: Trait Anxiety & Negative Affect

Following up on task aversiveness, some researchers have also explored trait anxiety as a

source of procrastination. Trait anxiety is extremely similar to worrying, neuroticism, or negative

affect. As depicted by the neuropsychologist Gray (1987) and other researchers (Carver &

White, 1994; Tellegen, 1985), they likely all describe manifestations of the behavioral inhibition

system, a brain function that alerts people to danger or punishment. Typically, researchers argue

that if people procrastinate on tasks because they are aversive or stressful, then those who are

more susceptible to experiencing stress should procrastinate more. Consequently, the highly

anxious, who can find cataclysmic interpretations in benign events, should be irrationally putting

off much of life’s large and little duties. However, others argue that this is too simple a depiction.

As McCown, Petzel and Rupert (1987) discuss, it is equally plausible that neurotics would be

23

Piers David Gareth Steel, 01/03/-1,

Parkes (1986) JPSP,51, 1277-1292, argues that anxious people are more likely to withdraw from stressful situations.


extremely prompt so as to remove the dreaded task as quickly as possible. Also, the

consequences of facing a deadline unprepared may be so terrible that anxious people work

exceedingly hard to avoid ever confronting such circumstances. Empirically, results indicate that

neither rendition is completely correct. Trait anxiety, on balance, has a weak connection to

procrastination. One may contrast this conclusion with what is typically declared in several

articles and clinical books in this area, that procrastinators are stress-prone (e.g., Brown, 1991;

Burka & Yuen, 1983; Ellis & Knaus, 1977).

Neuroticism & trait anxiety.

Results do not support anxiety as a source of procrastination. Studies that directly assess

trait anxiety or chronic worrying have found a weak correlation (r=.24, K=28), the same as with

neuroticism (r=.24, K=17).6 Furthermore, neuroticism’s connection to procrastination appears to

be primarily due to impulsiveness, not anxiety. Results analyzed at the facet level indicated that

neuroticism’s connection to procrastination was “largely a matter of impulsiveness”

(Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995, p. 488; also, Johnson & Bloom, 1995), and it added little unique

variance over conscientiousness. Support for this conclusion can be found by segmenting the

results by measure: the EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976), the BPP (Harary & Donahue, 1994),

and the BFI (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) do not nest impulsiveness with neuroticism to the

same extent as the NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1992) or the EPI (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975).

Examining the studies that used the EPQ, BPP, and BFI alone suggests a mean correlation of just

.11 while those that used the NEO and EPI suggests a mean correlation of .31. Separating results

into these two groups accounts for 50% of the variance (F(1,14)=13.95, p<.01).

6 This analysis excludes the recent work by Hess, Sherman, and Goodman (2000), who found a correlation of .51 with neuroticism. Unfortunately, the measure they used was unusual in that it included specific reasons for procrastination (e.g., fear of failure) scores along with behavioral procrastination scores. Naturally, those who indicate they procrastinate for neurotic reasons are more likely to be neurotic.

24


Finally, there are two other anxiety related issues. First, McCown et al. (1987) reported a

curvilinear relationship between neuroticism and procrastination that explained approximately

61% of the variance. This is an extremely strong finding, but not equally robust. Unfortunately,

no supporting result has been reported in any subsequent work (Johnson & Bloom, 1995;

Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995; Steel et al., 2001), and McCown et al.’s original work could be

considered anomalous. Second, Blatt and Quinn (1967) argued that procrastination was due to a

form of anxiety, specifically death. Testing this, Donovan (1995) found a correlation of .28

between procrastination and the Death Anxiety Scale, which is not significantly different from

the results obtained for general anxiety.

Negative affect.

Regarding negative affect as a trait (as a state is covered later under the heading Mood),

research indicates a moderate correlation with self-report procrastination. Meta-analytic review

indicates its average correlation is .29 (K=7). However, it appears to be essentially unrelated to

observed procrastination (Steel et al., 2001). Such a dichotomy suggests that those who are more

anxious or have more negative affect may be harsher judges of their own behavior, but are not

necessarily poorer performers. Research in other areas supports such an interpretation (Carver &

Scheier, 1990; Ellis, 1989; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990).

Irrational beliefs: Fear of Failure, Perfectionism, Self-Consciousness, & Evaluation Anxiety

Irrational belief, cognition, or thought is a broad term that includes several dysfunctional

or anxiety-provoking worldviews. Ellis (1973) characterizes them as: (1) almost certainly

hindering the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment of desires, and (2) almost completely arbitrary

and unprovable. Since these beliefs create anxiety, they may foment procrastination in a similar

manner as thought for neuroticism; they make certain tasks increasingly unpleasant. In the words

25


Ottens (1982), “the pressure exerted by such unrealistic expectations cause tasks to become more repugnant.”


This may be a little extreme. Really, procrastination is a combination of finding task events unlikeable (negative affect?) and being impulsive. Suggests and interaction effect.


of Aitken (1982), “The higher the possibility of rejection (real or imagined), the more likely it is

that the individual will experience anxiety as he approaches the task. Since even thinking about

the project evokes feeling of anxiety, the procrastinator starts an alternate task or distraction” (p.

32).

Of all possible irrational beliefs, Knaus (1973) argues that only two are closely related to

procrastination, that is believing oneself to be inadequate and believing the world is too difficult

and demanding. Researchers have followed in Ellis and Knaus’ footsteps by investigating among

procrastinators the prevalence of irrational beliefs as well as three specific manifestations.

Particularly close attention has been paid to fear of failure, perfectionism, and evaluation anxiety,

all reasons related to being worried about receiving harsh appraisal. Though clinical work

stresses that irrational beliefs are a major source of procrastination (Burka & Yuen, 1984; Ellis &

Knaus, 1977), empirical surveys fail to unequivocally support this assertion. Results are irregular

and often weak, though a socially prescribed form of perfectionism generates more consistent

findings.

Irrational beliefs.

To begin with, researchers have administered a wide range of irrational beliefs or self-

critical cognitions inventories along with a measure of procrastination. Meta-analytic review

indicates its average correlation is .27 (K=14). Stronger results have been obtained with the

problem avoidance subscale, but this is a trivial finding as it is almost synonymous with

procrastination as typically measured.

Fear of failure.

Regarding fear of failure, it reflects concern that our efforts will not be up to the accepted

standard. Meta-analytic review indicates its average correlation is .14 (K=13). Other research

26


indicates that it does appear to be the source of at least some procrastination. Solomon and

Rothblum (1984) extracted a fear of failure dimension from a factor analysis of 26

procrastination reasons, a finding repeatedly replicated (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Clark &

Hill, 1994; Onwuegbuzie, 2000b; Peterson, 1987; Rawlins, 1995; Schouwenburg, 1992). The

dimension consists of evaluation anxiety, low self-confidence, and perfectionism. Its most

popular item was endorsed by approximately 17% of respondents (Kachgal et al., 2001; Solomon

& Rothblum 1984), and a typical item is “Were concerned you wouldn’t meet your own

expectations.” Generating a similar finding, though using an open-ended questionnaire, Briody

(1980) and Haycock (1993) found 16% and 7% of people gave fear of failure as a reason,

respectively. This discrepancy between correlational and frequency data likely indicates a form

of counterbalancing; people may also cite fear of failure as a reason for not procrastinating.

Perfectionism.

Empirically and conceptually, perfectionism is closely related to fear of failure (Flett,

Hewitt, Blankstein, & Mosher, 1991; Knaus, 1973). As standards become higher and more

important, so increases the likelihood and devastation of failure. Research has typically explored

three forms of perfectionism: (1) self perfectionism, where we set our own standards, (2) other

perfectionism, where we set standards for significant others, and (3) socially prescribed

perfectionism, where we believe significant others have set standards for us. Results indicate that

only socially prescribed perfectionism is related to procrastination. As the meta-analytic review

in Table 4 indicates, the average correlation for self-perfectionism it is -.03 (K=18), for other-

perfectionism it is .02 (K=11), and for socially-prescribed perfectionism is .20 (K=11).

According to Haycock (1993), only 7% of people report perfectionism as contributing to their

procrastination.

27


Should supplement this with the recent book by Flett.


In addition, the Almost Perfect Scale (Slaney, Ashby, & Trippi, 1995) of perfectionism

has four items related to procrastination. As reviewed by Enns and Cox (2002) and Slaney, Rice,

and Ashby (2002), perfectionists generally scored the same or lower on procrastination than non-

perfectionists, the exception being when the perfectionists were also seeking clinical counseling.

Self-Consciousness

Self-consciousness is similar to perfectionism, though tends to load on a different

dimension when factor-analyzed (Ferrari, 1992b). Self-consciousness refers to concerns about

norms, and like perfectionism, it has a public and private form. People high in public self-

consciousness can be described as other-directed self-monitors, always attempting to make a

good impression (Schlenker & Weigold, 1990). Alternatively, those privately self-conscious also

self-monitor but do so in their attempt to maintain authenticity with their internal values. The

hypothesized relationship of self-consciousness to procrastination is similar to that of

perfectionism. By attending to norms, the emotional impact of failing to meet them should

increase (Beck, Koons, & Milgram, 2000). Unlike perfectionism, the public/social form of self-

consciousness does not generate a substantially higher correlation (r=.20, K=15) than the

private/self form (r=.19, K=9).

Evaluation anxiety.

Finally, researchers have investigated evaluation anxiety or test anxiety with a wide range

of measures. Meta-analytic results indicate its relationship is almost identical to that of trait

anxiety; it has a weak but reliable connection with procrastination with an average correlation

of .21 (K=17). Using an experimental design, Senécal et al. (1997) found further support.

Procrastinators are more likely to put off difficult and boring tasks when they expect to be

evaluated.

28


Low Self-Efficacy, Low Self-Esteem, & Self-Handicapping

As fear of failure was associated with neuroticism, so it is connected with both low self-

efficacy and low self-esteem (Ellis & Knaus, 1977). Specifically, people suffering from irrational

beliefs may doubt their ability to do well (i.e., low self-efficacy) and believe that any failure to

perform to standard suggests inadequacy as a person (i.e., low self-esteem). Independent of fear

of failure, self-efficacy and self-esteem have also been argued to have direct links to

procrastination and performance (Bandura, 1986; Burka & Yuen, 1983; Judge & Bono, 2001).

Procrastinators might not feel that their actions will change their situation, and thus they

concentrate on managing their emotional reactions to the situation instead. Consequently, to

cope, they tend to use an emotion-oriented rather than a task-oriented style (Berzonsky, 1992;

Flett, Blankstein, & Martin, 1995). A particularly well-researched form of this emotion-focused,

dysfunctional self-regulation is self-handicapping, that is when people place obstacles that hinder

their own good performance. The motivation for self-handicapping is often to protect self-esteem

by giving people an external reason, an “out,” if they fail to do well (Jones & Berglas, 1978;

Smith, Snyder, & Handelsman, 1982).

The research conducted does indicate that procrastination has a weak to moderate but

reliable relationship with self-esteem and strong and reliable relationships with self-efficacy and

self-handicapping. It is likely that low self-efficacy and self-esteem may decrease the desirability

of a given task, which in turn creates procrastination. Empirically, it also seems that at least some

procrastination is self-handicapping done to protect self-esteem in the face of a difficult task and

low self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy.

29

Piers David Gareth Steel, 01/03/-1,

On the other hand, procrastination can be easily argued to cause both these blights itself. Chronic procrastination should diminish one’s sense of competence and damage self-concept. Because of this reciprocal causation, it is difficult to tease them apart, and at present, it is unclear whether any existing relationships are influential or inconsequential.


Essentially, efficacy is another word for competence. Consequently, self-efficacy reflects

beliefs about our own ability to successfully achieve a desired outcome. Bandura (1986) argues

that when our self-efficacy is weak, it reduces expectancy about success, damages motivation,

and ultimately hinders task initiation and persistence (i.e., it causes procrastination). Meta-

analytic review indicates its average correlation is -.45 (K=22). Also, two other studies support

of the importance of self-efficacy. Briody (1980) did find 8% of respondents stating that low

self-confidence was a cause of procrastination. Micek (1982) found that procrastinators were

more likely to give up on their efforts when encountering an obstacle (r=.40).

Self-esteem.

Low self-esteem is associated with diminished self-confidence and increased anxiety

(Burka & Yuen, 1983). It may cause procrastination in a manner similar to low self-efficacy.

People feel that tasks are beyond their capabilities and to engage in them would merely confirm

their own lack of worth. Consequently, those with low self-esteem may avoid difficult tasks

altogether or handicap themselves to prevent any easy inferences about ability. To do otherwise

is to risk an aversive impact upon their self-concept. As meta-analytic review indicates, the

average correlation for self-esteem is -.26 (K=33). However, past research indicates that self-

esteem can be divided into global, which consists of general self-efficacy and self-liking

(Tafarodi & Swann, 2001), and social, which refers to feelings of adequacy within social groups

(Van Tuinen & Ramaniah, 1979). Dividing findings into these two categories reduced

heterogeneity by approximately 10% and indicates that global self-esteem is primarily connected

to procrastination (F(1,30)=3.14, p=.09).

Self-handicapping.

30

Piers, 01/03/-1,

Could expand with decisional self-esteem.


Though this is a fairly strong and robust finding, likely, it is partly due to criterion contamination. Many of the self-efficacy or competency measures include questions regarding the expected observed effects of self-efficacy, such as task persistence (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982) or work effectiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Since procrastination is inherently described as failing to persist and being irrational, these measures necessarily relate to procrastination because they describe it. The correlation with actual self-assessed self-efficacy, not observed behavior, is likely lower though still significant.


Self-handicapping is a collection of behaviors related to low self-efficacy and low self-

esteem. They hinder performance and are often used to cloud conclusions regarding one’s

ability. It is also associated with a diffuse/avoidant identity style (Berzonsky, 1992), a

personality type that seeks to avoid relevant information about oneself. The relationship between

procrastination and self-handicapping or diffuse/avoidant identity style is strong, with an average

correlation of .45 (K=16). Though moderator analysis does not indicate that self-handicapping

and diffuse/avoidant identity style are noticeably different (R2=.02, F(1,16)=.40, p=.54), they are

reported separately given their conceptual differences.

As additional evidence, procrastinators tend to spend more time on projects if they are

likely to fail, while the opposite relationship is seen for non-procrastinators (Lay, 1990).

Similarly, procrastinators voluntarily entered into conditions or engaged in activities that self-

handicapped their performance on evaluative tests (Ferrari, 1991c; Ferrari & Tice, 2000).

However, it is debatable whether self-handicapping should strictly be considered a form

of procrastination. Empirically, Clay, Knish, and Zanatta (1992) found several divergent

relationships between self-handicappers and procrastinators. Conceptually, there also appears to

be differences. As Brown and Marshall (2001) discuss, an honest attempt at the task for people

with low self-efficacy and self-esteem promises the gain of a little pride if they succeed, though

at the risk of significant shame and humiliation if they fail. Given their “bounded” worldview,

albeit perhaps faulty, it is to their benefit not to make an unambiguous bid at succeeding. Their

“procrastination” is then done purposefully, to maximize their overall utility. Regardless of one’s

opinion on this matter, procrastination and self-handicapping appear to be at least empirically

related.

Depression, Energy, Learned Helplessness, & Pessimism.

31


An interesting example of self-handicapping is offered by Boice (1989). He found that professors procrastinating about writing tended to handicap themselves by believing that they needed large amounts of exclusive, together.uninterrupted time to pursue publishing, time that rarely materialized.


Depression, energy, learned helplessness, and pessimism are closely related to each other

and to neuroticism, irrational beliefs, and low self-efficacy or self-esteem. Beck (1993), for

example, describes depression as being due to irrational beliefs that result in pessimism and self-

dislike. Similarly, several studies have shown that neuroticism greatly increases susceptibility to

depression (Ruiz-Caballero & Bermudez, 1995; Saklofske, Kelly, & Jansen, 1995), and Costa

and McCrae (1992) go so far as to include depression as a facet of neuroticism in their

personality scale. Regarding learned helplessness and pessimism, several researchers argue that

they are strongly connected to depression, both theoretically and empirically (Abramson,

Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Peterson, Colvin, & Lin,

1992). In addition, McCown, Johnson, and Petzel (1989) conducted a principal components

analysis on several psychological inventories administered to a group of procrastinators. They

found that depressed affect, neuroticism, and diminished feelings of control over the situation

tended to load together, indicating that collectively they could represent at least one of the causes

of procrastination. Like other traits, it is expected that depression, learned helplessness, and

pessimism may create procrastination by increasing the aversiveness of some tasks, perhaps by

reducing motivation or energy. They may also help foster procrastination by decreasing

expectancies regarding successful completion, or in other words, by exacerbating the belief that

any effort to complete the task would be wasted. Empirically, results are in the same scope as

with its sister traits of irrational beliefs, neuroticism, and the like. Correlations tend to be

moderate for depression and energy but weak or non-significant for learned helplessness and

pessimism.

Depression.

32


Clinical depression has several characteristics that make it a likely suspect for causing

procrastination. Depressed people are often unable to take pleasure in life’s activities, they tend

to lack energy, and have problems concentrating (DSM-IV, 1994), all symptoms that make task

completion difficult. In fact, the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beck, 1972) even includes

an item reminiscent of procrastination itself: “I put off making decisions more than I used to.” As

summarized, depression is associated with procrastination but moderately, with an average

correlation of .28 (K=27).

Energy.

Aside from depression in general, several studies have focused on one of its symptoms,

lethargy or lack of energy. Sensibly enough, Burka and Yuen (1983) discuss how it is harder to

initiate tasks when we are tired. Empirical work suggests that they are correct; the average

correlation between procrastination and energy level is -.30 (K=10).

In addition, tiredness is one of the top three reasons students given for putting off work

(Strongman & Burt, 2000), and approximately 28% of students indicated, “Didn’t have enough

energy to begin the task” as a source of procrastination (Kachgal et al., 2001; Peterson, 1987;

Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Notably, this item was also associated with others indicating task

aversiveness. As our energy wanes, working apparently becomes painful or more difficult (see

also Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).

Learned helplessness & pessimism.

Learned helplessness and pessimism are in many ways the same phenomenon, reflecting

a belief about the nature of the world and ourselves. Essentially, people who have these qualities

tend to believe that their successes are not due to their actions and consequently their efforts are

somewhat irrelevant. The connection to procrastination is consequently obvious. People who

33


lack motivation to act are also less likely to initiate action (i.e., to procrastinate). To confirm this

empirically, two tactics have been favored, though each have failed to generate clear results.

The first and most popular method has been to define pessimism in terms of attributional

style; the tendency to attribute one’s successes to causes that are outside of oneself (i.e., external

attribution) and relatively permanent (i.e., stable attribution) indicates pessimism and learned

helplessness. Unfortunately, research has focused almost exclusively on just the locus of control

dimension, which alone has an uncertain connection with pessimism. Quite easily, people may

believe that their accomplishments are due largely to external causes but still have a high

expectancy of success (e.g., “they feel lucky”). Still, findings indicate that procrastinators likely

do make more external causal attributions for their achievements. The average correlation is .27

(K=10).

A second method for assessing pessimism or learned helplessness has been to directly ask

respondents if they agree with a series of statements about “generalized outcome expectancies,”

typically using the Life Orientation Test (Scheier & Carver, 1985). It asks questions such as, “If

things can go wrong, they will” (i.e., pessimism) or “I expect things to turn out for the best” (i.e.,

optimism). As Table 5 summarizes, results indicate an average correlation of .14 (K=12).

Other research indicates that the relationship between procrastination and pessimism or

optimism may be too complex to be described in a general linear fashion. For example, Senécal

and Guay (2000) conducted an intriguing study where they compare job-hunting measures of

procrastination and hopelessness, finding a correlation of .29 between the two. Also, Sigall et

al.’s (2000) experimental investigation indicates it is possible to be too optimistic. They found

that extremely optimistic participants were more likely to procrastinate in initiating an aversive

task. An examination of their expectations indicates that they thought they could delay and still

34


finish before the deadline. This finding is similar to Day et al.’s (2000) description of the socially

active optimistic who are confident in their ability to successfully delay their work until later.

The correlation of this optimistic type with procrastination is .37.

Extraversion, Impulsiveness, Distractibility, & Sensation-Seeking

Extraversion is one of the more interesting, possible causes of procrastination, but also

one of the more complicated. As Carl Jung (1966) describes them, extraverts focus their psychic

energy outwards, becoming enthralled with the world around them. Similarly, Eysenck (1975)

characterizes them as seekers of external engaging experiences, mostly to compensate for being

under stimulated. Consequently, extraverts are usually described as sociable, optimistic,

outgoing, energetic, expressive, exciting, and impulsive (Brand, 1997; Guilford, 1977). It is

important to note that the exact definition of impulsiveness and its structure wanders somewhat

as well as with which personality trait it best represents (Revelle, 1997). Typically, it indicates

spontaneity and a tendency to act upon whims and inclinations.

Some aspects of extraversion have already been discussed. Optimism (i.e., pessimism)

and energy level are also aspects of depression, and impulsiveness has been studied as part of

neuroticism. These preliminary findings demonstrate some of the complexities of extraversion as

procrastination’s relationship with these facets conflict. Both lethargy and impulsiveness predict

procrastination, but the first indicates a lack of extraversion while the second suggests an

abundance of the trait. To better address this discrepancy, extraversion, impulsiveness,

distractibility, and sensation-seeking will be discussed individually. Despite this separation, the

findings for extraversion are very mixed, though results are more consistent for the remaining

traits.

Extraversion.

35


Paradoxically, extraversion has been argued as both preventing and causing

procrastination. In terms of prevention, low energy should make many tasks more aversive, and

thus procrastination more likely. Since extraverts tend to be more energetic, they should

procrastinate less. In terms of causation, extraverts are more outgoing by definition and this

should result in being increasingly involved in activities. Consequently, extraverts may

overextend themselves by taking on new tasks prematurely, forcing the delay and the finish of

other responsibilities. In keeping with this paradox, there are results that support both sides.

Initially, evidence suggests that extraversion is irrelevant to procrastination. As Table 5

indicates, its average correlation is -.05 (K=14). On the other hand, results are significantly

different (R2=.827, F(1,11)=52.75, p<.001) if we analyze the EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975)

separately. Impulsiveness is strongly associated with the EPQ’s extraversion (Pearson, 1990),

more strongly than with other extraversion measures (Watson & Clark, 1997). With the EPQ, the

average correlation is .43 while for the remaining measures it is -.10. Consequently, it does

appear that the EPQ is emphasizing the impulsivity and sociability aspects of extraversion, while

the remaining measures underscore its energy component.

Also of note, McCown et al. (1989), using principal components analysis, describe a type

of procrastinator as extraverted and outgoing. Similarly, Briody (1980), Froelich (1987),

Haycock (1993), and Strongman and Burt (2000) all indicate that a common distraction that

facilitates procrastination is social activities with friends.

Positive Affect.

Positive affect should be negatively associated with procrastination. Those high on it tend

to have less negative affect and more energy, two mutually supporting relationships.

Consequently, positive affect is a more unified construct than extraversion and should give more

36


consistent results. Accordingly, the observed mean correlation is -.22 (K=9) and the credibility

intervals do not pass through zero.

Impulsiveness.

Where trait anxiety is perceived as representing the “behavioral inhibition system” or

BIS, impulsiveness is primarily seen as representing the “behavioral activation system” or BAS

(Pickering, Corr, Powell, Kumari, Thorton, & Gray, 1997). The BAS acts to motivate people in

their pursuit of rewarding experiences and is a necessary cognitive component for proper

functioning. However, an overactive BAS should result in characteristics such as rapid decision-

making and shorter attention spans, which in turn may increase procrastination.

Impulsive people may be more likely to procrastinate as they are likely beset with desires

of the moment and focus their attention upon them (Blatt & Quinn, 1967). Given that thoughts of

the future do not weigh heavily in their decisions, they often end up pursuing immediate

gratification, neglecting or ignoring longer-term responsibilities. Evidence suggests that it does

play a role. As reviewed in Table 5, the average correlation between procrastination and

impulsiveness is .38 (K=16).

Other research using related criteria is supportive. Procrastinators tend not to have a

future temporal orientation (Lasane & Jones, 2000; Specter & Ferrari, 2000), and tend to dislike

structure or routine (Somers, 1992). Also, they tend not to be stimulus-screeners (Lay, 1987).

Non-screeners are more sensitive to pleasantness of tasks, and thus more likely to be impulsive.

Qualitative analysis of procrastination also indicates that typically the decision to procrastinate is

impulsive and unplanned (Quarton, 1992).

Distractibility.

37


It has long been noted that attention is critical to self-control. Sigmund Freud

(1923/1961) and William James (1890) speak to it and other more recent prominent researchers

such as Austin and Klein (1996), Simon (1994), and Kuhl (2000) maintain this view. By way of

an explanation, Klinger (1996, 1999) indicates that changes in flow of thought are preceded by

an emotionally arousing cue. Consequently, management of distracting cues could facilitate

procrastination prevention so that one either fails to encode these cues or limits their processing

so that they are not fully valued. Results firmly support the importance of distractibility. Its

average correlation is extremely strong and consistent at .47 (K=12). Also, Haycock (1993)

identified the availability of distractions as one of the top reasons contributing to procrastination.

Sensation-seeking.

Sensation seeking, like impulsiveness, is also interpreted as the result of an overactive

BAS. People high in this trait are easily bored and long for excitement, and thus they may

intentionally put off work to feel the tension of working close to a deadline. However, their

delays may be more purposefully planned than the purely impulsive and thus the rationality of

this strategy, and consequently whether it should be considered procrastination, is debatable.

Feasibly, this tactic could actually add significant pleasure and increase performance (Sommer,

1990; Revelle, 1997), and without it, work could become tedious and slogging. However, Ainslie

(1992) argues that this habit may also become addictive, resulting in ever-increasing delays as

we begin to relish ever-increasing risks. Ultimately, sensation-seekers may find that their

pleasure has been bought with substantially diminished performance and long-term regret.

Evidence suggests that some procrastination is motivated by sensation-seeking, but not

very much. As Table 5 summarizes, the average correlation with procrastination is .18 (K=9). An

additional finding suggesting sensation-seeking’s marginal importance is from Kachgal et al.

38


(2000) and Solomon and Rothblum (1984). They extracted a risk-taking dimension by examining

the reasons for procrastinating. It was not well endorsed with only 6.4% of students responding

positively to its most popular item, “Looked forward to the excitement of doing this task at the

last minute.” Likewise, Froehlich (1987) found that one of the lowest rated reasons for

procrastinating was, “I like the excitement and challenge of doing things at the last minute.”

Disagreeableness: Rebelliousness and Hostility

According to the clinical literature (Burka & Yuen, 1983; Knaus, 1979), rebelliousness,

hostility, and disagreeableness are thought to be major motivations for procrastination. For those

with these personality traits, externally imposed schedules are more likely experienced as

aversive, and thus avoided. Also, by delaying work and starting it on one’s own schedule,

autonomy is reasserted. The possibility of this etiology has led to the development of paradoxical

treatments, where people are directed to procrastinate and by rebelling against this directive, start

work early (e.g., Mulry, Fleming, & Gottschalk, 1994; Shoham-Salomon, Avner, & Neeman,

1989).

Empirically though, results are significant but extremely weak. Kachgal et al. (2000) and

Solomon and Rothblum (1984) did extract a dimension titled “Rebellion against Control” when

examining reasons for procrastinating. However, its most popular item “You resented people

setting deadlines for you,” was endorsed by under 5% of respondents.7 Meta-analytically, the

average correlation is below .16 (see Table 6). Given the diversity of the measures, they are

reported separately despite not being significantly different (F(2,26)=2.51, p=.10).

Openness to Experience: Intelligence/Aptitude

7 Of note, Rawlins (1995) found that this was a more popular reason for very young adolescents, with 26% highly endorsing this item. Also, Galué (1990) and Aldarando (1993) extracted procrastination dimensions similar to rebellion, that is “Autonomy” and “Passive-Aggressive” respectively.

39


May want to meta-analyze the correlation between the factors and overall procrastination. Also,, Aldarando found a passive-aggressive dimension.


Openness to experience is sometimes referred to culture, intellect, or need for cognition.

As McCrae (1996) describes it, “Openness is a broad and general dimension, seen in vivid

fantasy, artistic sensitivity, depth of feeling, behavioral flexibility, intellectual curiosity, and

unconventional attitudes” (p. 323). Also, of the big-five personality traits, it shows the strongest

relationship with intelligence and scholastic aptitude (Beier & Ackerman, 2001), which are

consequently summarized here. There have yet to be any direct hypotheses between openness or

intelligence and procrastination and accordingly, results do not suggest there is any. Openness to

experience shows a scant correlation of .06 (K=10) while for intelligence/aptitude, it is even lower

at .02 (K=12).

Conscientiousness: Self-Control, Organization, Achievement Motivation, & Self-Regulation

The connection between conscientiousness and procrastination is very strong. Ones and

Viswesvaran (1996) summarize much of work done on conscientiousness, noting that people

high in this trait are described as planful, organized, industriousness, persistent, goal-directed,

and self-controlled. Consequently, conscientiousness has links to procrastination similar to that

of extraversion and positive affect, due to the commonality between healthy levels of energy and

industriousness as well as between impulsiveness and self-control. However, conscientiousness’

connection to procrastination goes well beyond this, partly because the two constructs show

considerable overlap. At a descriptive level, it is difficult to see procrastinatory behavior as

anything but low conscientiousness. For example, Costa and McCrae (1992) describe those high

in this trait as “sensible and rational in making decisions” (p. 25), while those low in it as “more

lackadaisical in working towards their goals” (p. 16).

In addition, Ones and Viswesvaran’s (1996) general theory of conscientiousness suggest

that conscientiousness is associated with several process mechanisms that should lessen

40


procrastination. First, the conscientious should spend more time on the tasks, meaning that less

delay must necessarily be more likely. Second, they persist in pursuing their goals, meaning that

they are again less likely to put off tasks when faced with temptations or obstacles. Third, they

avoid counterproductive behaviors, which procrastination should represent at times.

Conscientiousness.

Considerable research has been conducted connecting conscientiousness to

procrastination. Since this trait, out of all those examined, has provided the most consistent

results and the largest correlations with procrastination, it warrants a close examination. Several

studies have shown that there was some connection between procrastination and competitiveness

or super-ego strength (Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Wessman, 1973). However, only relatively

recently has this been done explicitly with researchers administering both self-report measures of

procrastination and detailed assessments of conscientiousness from the five-factor model of

personality. As Table 6 indicates, the average correlation is -.64 (K=15). Of note, Scher and

Osterman (2002) found a virtually identical relationship when using other- instead of self-

reports.

In addition, once conscientiousness had been partialled out of the correlations between

procrastination and the other four trait factors, virtually none of them reached either practical or

statistical significance (Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995). Also,

Schouwenburg (1995) factor analyzed several measures related to procrastination,

conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The procrastination and conscientiousness variables loaded

together, while those related to neuroticism loaded on a separate dimension.

Self-control/Self-discipline.

41


Focusing on self-control/discipline, it primarily reflects organization and energy and does

indeed seem to be the deciding component of procrastination. By definition, self-discipline is

closely related. As Milgram and Naaman (1996) state in a scholarly fashion: “The ability to

regulate one’s behavior in the service of one’s professed goals and in the face of cues that elicit

competing dilatory responses is an asset, and the antithesis of the maladaptive coping patterns

associated with chronic procrastination” (p. 682). More simply, the Costa and McCrae’s (1992)

self-discipline scale contains several items strongly reminiscent of procrastination itself (e.g., “I

waste a lot of time before settling down to work”).

Researchers have studied self-discipline using a wide variety of self-control,

organization, and planning scales. Results, as reported in Table 6, indicate an average correlation

of -.53 (K=15). However, some measures seem to be more strongly connected to procrastination

than others. Focusing on those that specifically indicate self-discipline, which is very central to

the self-control construct, we find results are stronger, showing an average correlation of -.66

(K=8), though not significantly so (F(1,13)=2.03, p=.18).

Other supporting research includes Schouwenburg’s (1995) factor analysis, which

suggests that self-discipline may be equivalent to trait procrastination or that it is at least a

proximal cause of procrastination behavior. Similarly, procrastinators tend to choose short-term

benefits over long-term gains, reflecting a core component of poor self-regulation (Tice &

Baumeister, 1997). Finally, one can also add much of the previously mentioned research

pertaining to impulsiveness. Impulsiveness is often considered to be the opposite pole of the self-

discipline facet (Ones & Viswevaran, 1996).

Organization.

42


Organization refers to a collection of scales that deal with ordering, structuring, and

planning one’s life. It can reduce procrastination in several ways, such as by assisting goal

setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), gap reflection (Oettingen, 1996) or automatic habits that

preclude the decision to do otherwise (Bargh & Barndollar, 1996). As expected, results do

indicate that organization is antithetical to procrastination, with an average correlation of -.40

(K=16).

Achievement motivation.

Another aspect of conscientiousness that is strongly related to procrastination is

achievement motivation. Those high in achievement motivation set more difficult goals for

themselves and often enjoy performance for its own sake (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Spence &

Helmreich, 1983). One way it may affect procrastination is by allowing work to be intrinsically

engaging and thus necessarily less aversive. Accordingly, one of the first findings in the field of

procrastination is that procrastinators tend to have lower achievement drives (Lum, 1960). Also

supportive are the results already obtained regarding locus of control, a broad indicator of

intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As meta-analytically summarized, need for

achievement or intrinsic motivation has an average correlation of -.40 (K=27). Results dealing

specifically with need for achievement suggest an even higher correlation of -.47 (K=14). In

addition, Lay’s (1987) efforts in typology extracted a type of procrastinator that he termed the

“underachiever.”

Self-Regulation.

Self-regulation refers a collection of skills that deal with better managing one’s own

behavior. They have a quasi-trait status, being learnable but also strongly related to the

personality trait of self-control (Rachlin, 2000). Several general measures of self-regulation have

43


been administered, and though they do not reveal which specific mechanisms might best reduce

procrastination, they do support that it is controllable. The average correlation is -.54 (K=7).

Aspects of Procrastination

As defined, procrastination is composed of several elements, especially the following

three sub-groups: I) Intention-Action Gap, II) Mood, and III) Performance. The intention-action

gap refers to whether procrastinators are less likely to follow-up on their work plans.

Procrastinators naturally should have a larger discrepancy between what they plan to do and their

actual behavior. Mood and performance assesses both subjective and objective utility

respectively. Procrastinators should, in the long-term, have a tendency to feel more discomfort

and/or to perform more poorly. With the exception of mood, all these findings are summarized

meta-analytically in Table 7.

Intention-Action Gap

In procrastinating, some researchers suppose that delaying is not only irrational, but also

unintentional. They believe procrastinators do not purposefully put off their chores, but do so to

the contrary of their original intent – an “is” vs. “ought” scenario. If this is true, it is of some

importance as it confirms the basic nature of procrastination: it deals with intended tasks.

Procrastination does appear to be often involuntary, with procrastinators typically agreeing with

the statement, “No matter how much I try, I still put things off” (r=.64; Stainton, 1993). Other

research supports this assertion.

To begin with, several studies have compared procrastination with self-reported work

intentions over several time periods. The two variables are almost completely independent, and

thus procrastinators usually intend to work as hard as anyone else or harder (r=.06, K=6). Given

this typical lack of difference, researchers have focused on how consistently procrastinators act

44


Time Management. This suggests that people are not acting in their long-term utility. That at some point, they switch doing what they intend to do, and end up doing something else.


upon these intentions. One way this has been assessed is by administering procrastination

measures in conjunction with a self-report intention-action discrepancy measure, such as Kuhl’s

(1994) state-oriented hesitation scale or Schouwenburg’s (1992) dilatory behavior scale. As

Table 7 indicates, dilatory behavior correlates on average .50 with procrastination (K=14).

In addition, several researchers investigated this topic by collecting information on both

intended and actual work habits. Once both self-report and observed measures have been

gathered, it is relatively straightforward to calculate an intention-action gap and observe its

relationship with procrastination. As Table 7 indicates, the average correlation was .29 (K=6). Of

note, the size of this gap is highly contingent on the time separating intention and action. It

increases the further ahead procrastinators plan their actions (i.e., one week versus two; Steel,

2002b). On the other hand, the gap decreases and even reverses as the deadline begins to loom

(Steel et al., 2001). In the final hour, it is the procrastinator who is doing more work than

intended.

Mood

It has long been suggested that procrastination impacts mood, especially state anxiety.

Since its psychological beginnings, procrastination has been viewed as a way of temporarily

evading anxiety that unfortunately becomes compounded when later faced (Mayers, 1946;

Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). In this way, procrastination may initially improve mood though

later it may worsen it. The empirical evidence concerning mood is less than definitive though.

Since mood changes, procrastinators may feasibly feel remorse for their inactions at any time,

perhaps even after the experimental session or academic semester has ended. Consequently, if

we just tested more frequently or possibly over longer time periods, a previously undetected

mood difference could easily appear. On the other hand, moods have the potential to show a

45


Lay’s work on failing to adher to a schedule is relevant, as is Sroloff’s.


relationship with procrastination where none may exist. Specifically, those in poorer moods are

often more likely to indicate they procrastinate regardless of their actual behavior (Carver &

Scheier, 1990; Sarason et al., 1990; Stainton et al., 2000; Steel et al., 2001). Perhaps because of

these research complications, the evidence regarding the relationship between procrastination

and mood is very mixed and meta-analytic summary does not appear to be advisable.

Supporting the importance of mood, Tice reports that procrastination could be motivated

by mood repair (Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000; Tice, Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001). Students

who were experimentally manipulated into an unhappy mood were more likely to try lifting their

spirits before practicing for an informal math test. However, the long-term success of this

strategy seems doubtful, with Pychyl (1995) finding a correlation of .46 between project guilt

and project procrastination.

More support for the importance of mood comes from researchers who have used

repeated measures of state anxiety or mood over the duration of an academic course. Student

procrastinators tend to be more anxious across the entire semester (Rothblum, Solomon, &

Murakami, 1986),8 and tend to experience less stress early on but more stress later on, and more

stress overall (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). This last finding has been replicated in part, where the

relationship between procrastination and state agitation (i.e., anxiety) was observed, but only as

an increase at the course end (Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993). Similarly, employee procrastinators

tend to continue worrying about their work after leaving the office (r=.31; Van Eerde, 1998).

Finally, Froelich (1987) and Haycock (1993) asked students retrospectively how they felt after

procrastinating, with over 80% of the responses categorized as negative.

8 Unfortunately, this study is less than decisive as they operationalized procrastination as delay in conjunction with negative affect, and thus virtually guaranteeing this effect. On the other hand, Beswick et al. (1988) report that the “problem” versus “anxiety” versions of their inventory correlated at .89.

46


Other researchers, though, indicate no significant relationship between mood and

procrastination. When the state anxiety of students was examined just before and then during

exams, no relationship between it and procrastination was detected (Lay, Edwards, Parker, &

Endler, 1989; Lay & Silverman, 1996). Also, student procrastinators did not become more

agitated or dejected after recollecting their study habits, indicating that their relative lack of work

was not particularly stressful to them (Lay, 1994). Similarly, a study using experience-sampling

methodology over a five-day period, did not find any significant relationship between

procrastination and negative mood (Pychyl et al., 2000), despite a strong guilt relationship

(r=.42). Finally, countering Lay and Schouwenburg’s (1993) results, Somers (1992) found no

significant association between mood and procrastination on the final day of class.

Performance

Most people would intuitively guess that procrastination impacts performance. People

who leave things closer to the final hour simply should have less time to prepare. In addition,

given that procrastination is closely related to conscientiousness and that conscientiousness is a

consistent predictor of performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991), we would expect procrastination

to demonstrate similar properties. Alternatively, some people report using procrastination as

performance enhancing strategy, that it helps marshal one’s resources to cope with an oncoming

deadline (Chissom & Iran-Nejad, 1992; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). In the words of Sommer

(1990): “The students mobilize their full intellectual and physical prowess. With nonstop

perspicuity they swoop down on the material, mold it, master it, and deposit it in the nick of

time” (p. 6). Results, as summarized in Table 7, indicate a weak but negative relationship

between GPA and procrastination. The average correlation was -.14 (K=15). As the credibility

interval indicates, procrastination is usually harmful, sometimes harmless, but never helpful.

47


Isn’t there some note that this will cause more problems with graduate work?

Piers, 01/03/-1,

Ferrari 1998 did some research on fraudulent excuses and mood.


Other performance criteria confirm the dangers of procrastination. Consistently, it shows

negative correlations with course GPA, final exam scores, and assignment grades (see Table 7).

Moving away from academic indicators, Elliot (2002) investigated the self-reported impact of

procrastination on people’s health and financial well-being. The negative impact of delays on

health and trait procrastination was -.22, while for finances it was -.42, both statistically

significant. Similarly, Mehabrian (2000) found a significant correlation of -.26 between

career/financial success and procrastination. Notably, evaluation of success was based on peer-

not self-report.

Demographics

It is unlikely that any personality trait is evenly distributed throughout a population.

Fortunately, researchers have consistently provided the information needed to evaluate four

possible demographic moderators of procrastination: age, sex, year, and nation. Results are based

on aggregating individual level correlations but also include an examination at a group level.

Means levels of procrastination were reported for 121 samples, of which 9 where based

on unique scales. The remaining 112 used a form of the AIP, API, DPQ, GPS, PASS, and the

TPS (see Table 1) and the analyses are confined to this subset. These procrastination measures

were converted into a common five-point metric, dummy coded, and then entered first into a

WLS (weighted least squares) multiple regression analysis. The subsequent step was to enter the

variable of interest (e.g., age). Of note, though individual-level data tends to replicate at the

group-level (Steel & Ones, 2002), this is not a necessary outcome (Ostroff, 1993; Van Raaji,

1984). Meta-analytic results are summarized in Table 7.

Age

48


People should procrastinate less as they age and learn. As O’Donoghue and Rabin

(1999b) conclude, “many people procrastinate only moderately do so not because of intrinsic

self-control, but because they have developed schemes to overcome procrastination” (p. 807). It

is evident that we can learn how to avoid procrastination. Ainslie (1992) as well as Baumeister et

al. (1994) review considerable research showing people tend to procrastinate less with repeated

practice. Initial, uncorrected results are reported in Table 7, showing that indeed procrastination

appears to decrease with age (r=-.15, K=14). However, these results suffer from extreme range

restriction. Correcting with a standard deviation based on those of age 12 and up (i.e., σ = 19.5

years; US Census Bureau, 2000)9, the findings become extremely strong. Those in their final

years, perhaps because of a universal and unavoidable deadline, are putting off very little.

The effect of age on procrastination was also analyzed on a group level. The results,

however, were not significant, (R2 = .02, F(1,105) = 2.14, p = .12). This failure to replicate may

be because range restriction was still intense at the group level, where the average mean age was

22.3 and the standard deviation was 4.38.

Sex

The expected influence of sex on procrastination is difficult to predict. Previous

investigation into gender differences and the related construct of impulsiveness have found

mixed results (Feingold, 1994). Men may score higher, lower, or the same as women depending

on the measure. After correcting for uneven splits, men do appear to procrastinate only slightly

more than women (r=-.09, K=35). At a group level, there were 101 samples that reported the

percentage of men that comprise the group. Like age, though, the results were not significant at

this higher level of analysis (R2 = .02, F(1,94) = 1.62, p = .21).

9 This standard deviation differed trivially from that of three other countries considered: Canada, Netherlands, and Israel.

49


Year

As mentioned at the start of this paper, Kachgal et al. (2001) believe procrastination is on

the rise. Since cohort effects in personality do appear to exist (e.g., Twenge, 2000) and since

procrastination is susceptible to environmental influences (e.g., task aversiveness), this is a

definite possibility. Publication year for the reported samples spanned almost 25 years, from

1978 to 2002. Using publication year to indicate sample year, two analyses were conducted.

First, after controlling for the procrastination measure, year of publication still has a significant

effect (R2 = .03, F(1,94) = 3.96, p < .05). Second, if age and sex are also controlled, the effect

of year intensifies (R2 = .06, F(1,92) = 7.29, p < .01). As suspected, people are reporting more

procrastination.

Nation

That nations differ in mean personality traits has been well established (Steel & Ones,

2002). Though proper cross-cultural comparison requires a considerable foundation to ensure

measurement equivalence, a preliminary investigation is possible. Approximately 88% of all

procrastination studies have taken place in two very comparable countries (i.e., minimal

translation concerns): Canada and the United States. Both nations’ procrastination are

indistinguishable (R2 = .00, F(1,91) = .17, p = .69).

Summary

Efforts to understand procrastination have been intensive, with hundred of studies

covering a wide range of situations and variables. As the credibility intervals in Table 3 through

7 indicate, many of these findings generalize, a surprisingly strong result given the potential

conceptual variability in the tests used to assess procrastination. Of these results, task nature,

self-efficacy, impulsiveness and distractibility, conscientiousness and its facets, and the

50


Replace this with some sort of moderator analysis


intention-action gap demonstrate the strongest, clearest, and most steady relationships. On the

other hand, several characteristics that were thought to give rise to procrastination, in particular

trait anxiety and sensation seeking, demonstrate weak relationships. Also, self-handicapping,

despite its strong empirical relationship, is conceptually at odds with procrastination. Though

people may self-handicap by delaying, the delay is initiated purposefully and thus cannot be

easily considered irrational. It is uncertain if self-handicappers truly expect to be worse off.

A Theory of Procrastination

Procrastination should be explainable by motivational theories. Classically, Kanfer

(1990) subdivides motivational research into: direction of behavior (i.e., what a person does),

intensity of action (i.e., how hard a person works), and persistence (i.e., how long a person

works). Alternatively, Campbell (1999) uses the analogous and thus equally appropriate

descriptors of: choice to perform, choice of effort level, and choice of duration of effort.

Procrastination is a motivational problem in that it represents choosing to perform a task that is

less than optimal, that leads to inferior well-being or performance.

To determine what motivational theory explains procrastination best, meta-analysis

fortunately can provide an excellent foundation (Miller & Pollock, 1994). Specifically, theory

validation typically proceeds by corroborating expected effects with that observed (Watkins,

1997). As uncovered here, there are several strong and unambiguous findings regarding

procrastination. It increases with the aversiveness and the temporal distance of the task. It is

strongly related to the personality traits of self-efficacy, impulsiveness, and distractibility as well

as to conscientiousness’ facets of self-control and need for achievement. Finally, it appears to be

due to people failing to act upon their intentions (i.e., dilatory behavior) rather than not intending

to act at all. There are two theories of procrastination that speak to these effects: expectancy and

51


When you insert demographics, make sure you mention that one was corrected for uneven splits and the other for range restriction. For age, make sure you mention work in the self-regulation field that emphasizes this.


hyperbolic discounting. However, neither of them alone can fully explain these observations,

suggesting that a hybrid of them may be appropriate.

Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory or Expectancy x Value (E x V) theory represents an extensive family

of individual formulations. Vroom (1964) first introduced the notion to industrial organizational

psychology, but it has an earlier history in the cognitive field (e.g., Rotter, 1954) that in turn can

be predated by economic investigations under the rubric of subjective expected utility (Bernouli,

1738 as cited in Savage, 1972/1990). In essence, E x V theories believe that a process akin to

rational gambling determines choices among courses of action. For each of your options, you

make two considerations: i) what is the probability that this outcome would be achieved, and ii)

how much do you value the expected outcome. You multiply these two components together and

the action that is appraised as largest is the one you likely pursue. Specifically:

(1)

These two components, E and V, should relate to procrastination in a conventional

manner. When either of them diminishes, the likelihood of pathological delay should increase.

Results corroborate this prediction. Expectancy can often be interpreted as self-efficacy, that is

one’s judgment about one’s own competence (Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990). Value, in

turn, is intimately related to need for achievement (Atkinson, 1964; McClelland, 1985; Ronen,

1994). As expected, both self-efficacy and need for achievement show strong negative

correlations with procrastination. Also, this motivational model is consistent with the observation

that procrastination increases with the aversiveness of tasks, and that it is more strongly

connected to global self-esteem (i.e., self-competency linked) than social self-esteem.

52


In addition, expectancy theory indicates that need for achievement’s relationship with

procrastination should decrease when other motivational needs start to rise in strength. Of note,

this is also consistent with Kuhl’s (1994) theory of action control. As discussed by Blunt and

Pychyl (1998), they conclude that procrastination may be when a given intention fails to

successfully compete against other impulses (i.e., “action tendencies”). Empirically, Schneider

and Green (1977) review considerable literature indicating that this is likely the case. Also,

Cantor and Blanton (1996) review work that indicates “a person who is high in many needs may

be more prone to immobilization, because of the heightened likelihood that competing cues will

be of equal strength” (p. 346).

However, a major limitation to E x V models is that they are episodic, and thus it is more

difficult for them to account for behavior over time and events (Kanfer, 1990). More directly,

Luce (1990) notes that “quite clearly any empirical realization of a decision tree has a strong

temporal aspect…” and the failure to include time “…is a clear failing of the modeling” (p. 228).

In particular, it is difficult for E x V models to differentiate task avoidance from task delay. This

limitation may partially explain Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) meta-analytic finding that they

predict behavior (i.e., performance) over time often rather weakly and significantly less well than

one’s intention to perform.

Hyperbolic Discounting

An alternative theory of motivation is picoeconomics or hyperbolic discounting, and it

has been used very effectively to describe and to explain procrastination (e.g., Ainslie, 1975,

1992; Ainslie & Haslam, 1992; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; Mazur, 1996, 1998; O’Donoghue

& Rabin, 1999; Pychl et al., 2000). Curiously, its acceptance is more widespread in economics,

being almost entirely ignored or overlooked in the general field of motivation (e.g., Franken,

53


1994; Kanfer, 1990; Kleinbeck, Quast, Thierry, Häcker, 1990; Mitchell, 1997). The essentials of

this theory will first be outlined, followed by considering its consistency with the empirical

results summarized here.

Ainslie (1992), under the title of Picoeconomics, and Ainslie and Haslam (1992), under

the title of Hyperbolic Discounting, discuss a theory that helps to account for choice of behavior

over time. The theory draws support from a variety of research literatures, including sociology,

social psychology, psychodynamic psychology, and in particular, behaviorist psychology as well

as economics. In its basic form, the theory is simple. Essentially, people are beset with choosing

among a variety of possible rewarding activities. In choosing among them, there is an innate

tendency to inordinately undervalue future events. Procrastination becomes likely, as we tend to

put off tasks leading to distant but valuable goals in favor of ones with more immediate but

lesser rewards. Inevitably though, time marches forward and as the once future events loom ever

closer, we see their value more clearly. Eventually, we experience regret if we have irrationally

put-off pursuing more valuable goals to the extent that they can no longer be realistically

achieved.

Going beyond this qualitative description, hyperbolic discounting tries to mathematically

express the effects of temporal discounting. Summarizing the efforts from the behaviorist and the

economic perspectives, Ainslie (1992) notes several attempts to provide an accurate equation.

The simplest and most widespread version of the matching law is likely Mazur’s (1987)

equation10:

10 Several other attempts have been made at further refining this equation, but with no established successes. For example, explorations into using other mathematical expression (e.g., Logue, Rodriguez, Pena-Correal, & Maruo, 1984), particularly exponential functions, but they tend not to be as accurate (Green, Myerson, & McFadden, 1997; Kirby & Marakovic, 1995), though are still favored in economic circles due to their close resemblance to a purely rational discount model. There, in economics, this phenomenon is studied under the rubric of time preference or implicit interest rate (Antonides, 1991).

54


Of these attempts, the matching law is one of the first and simplest (Chung & Herrnstein, 1967). It is the dominant model for describing choice among various concurrently administered variable interval schedules (Ainslie, 1992). In other words, when we must choose between several courses of action that all result in a reward but at different times, this model predicts best, often accounting for more than 90% of the variance in the aggregate behaviors of adult people (see Myerson & Green, 1995). Similarly, a related version of this law used in the economic field also shows strong validity (see Lowenstein & Prelec, 1992).


(2)

V represents value, essentially identical to E x V models. D indicates delay, how long we must

wait to receive the payout. Since delay is in the denominator of the equation, the longer the

delay, the less valued the course of action is perceived. refers to the person’s sensitivity to

delay. The larger becomes, the greater is the sensitivity. Z is a constant derived when rewards

are immediate, often set at 1. It prevents the equation rocketing towards infinity under periods of

small delay and thus, in Shizgal’s (1999) terminology, can be considered the determinant of

“instantaneous utility.” In addition, the reciprocal of this equation can be used to predict

preferences among punishers instead of rewards (Mazur, 1998); people prefer distant punishers

to those of a more instant nature.

Since hyperbolic discounting, like expectancy theory, maintains a Value term, it is also

consistent with findings regarding task aversiveness and need for achievement. However, its

addition of a delay term permits it to be consonant with procrastination’s temporally based

findings as well as the intention-action gap. To begin with, the timing of tasks is captured

directly through hyperbolic discounting’s delay term. As expected, we are more likely to pursue

tasks that offer speedy rewards than those with more distal resolution. The individual difference

variables of distractibility and impulsiveness or self-control are all associated with , a person’s

sensitivity to delay (Ainslie, 1975; Ostaszewski, 1996, 1997). As increases, so does the impact

of any perceived delay. Consequently, impulsive people should be more likely to be motivated

by immediate repercussions rather than distal ones and thus should procrastinate more by pursing

a strategy of short-term hedonism.

In addition, hyperbolic discounting explicitly predicts the observed intention-action gap

(e.g., Lowenstein & Elster, 1992; Read, 2001). When choices are made regarding distal courses

55


of action, the effect of delay is minimal. Our decisions, consequently, tend to be more rational,

reflecting just the magnitude of reward. As time progresses, however, delays shorten and their

effects become more pronounced. Because of this, our original intentions can suddenly change

and we find ourselves pursuing smaller but more readily realizable rewards. Also, Green, Fry,

and Myerson (1994) found that temporal discounting tends to decrease with age, just as

procrastination does.

However, hyperbolic discounting does not easily account for the strong relationship that

self-efficacy demonstrates with procrastination. This shortcoming could be rectified, though, if

hyperbolic discounting could be integrated with expectancy theory.

Integration

Combining expectancy with hyperbolic discounting should improve both theories. As

mentioned, a major limitation to expectancy theory is the inability to consider changes over time

(Kanfer, 1990; Luce, 1990), while for hyperbolic discounting, it is the failure to incorporate

expectancy itself. Other researchers have already proposed various integrations of expectancy

theory with some hyperbolic time-discounting (Lowenstein & Prelec, 1992; Rachlin, 1990;

Schowenburg & Groenewoud, 1997). However, virtually no empirical or formal work has

followed up these theoretical suggestions. Fortunately, there is a strong precedent justifying a

straightforward combination. Consider the original matching law, upon which the present

hyperbolic discounting is now based:

(3)

These terms reflect the original behaviorist understanding of motivation. Later, when this

equation was translated into cognitivist terms and subjective evaluation was emphasized,

Amount was described as Value, but Rate was dropped since it can partially be expressed in

56


terms of delay alone (i.e., over repeated trials, rate indicates average delay). Rate refers to the

frequency that actions lead to rewards or, alternatively, the probability of acquiring the expected

outcome. By returning Rate to the equation and also expressing it in terms of subjective

evaluation, that is expectancy, hyperbolic discounting and expectancy theory can be efficiently

partnered. The final equation should be:

(4)

Of course, other modifications can be argued. From expectancy theory, for example,

Vroom (1964) broke down expectancy into two components: expectancy and instrumentality.

Expectancy, in this case, refers to whether you can successfully complete the intended course of

action. Instrumentality refers to whether rewards would be forthcoming, given you were

successful. Research indicates that this modification is actually detrimental to predicting

behavior rather than helpful (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). Still, other possibly fruitful

refinements have been proposed, including terms that account for resource allocation (e.g.,

Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980), future orientation (e.g., Raynor &

Entin, 1982), and losses versus gains (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Regardless of the

individual formulation, E x V is the core aspect.

An Example of Procrastination

To understand how expectancy and hyperbolic discounting impact procrastination, it

helps to stress that tasks are implicitly in competition with one another for expression. When

there is but a single option, it will always have the highest utility by default and thus will always

be pursued. However, when there are multiple prospects, then Expectancy and Value become

critical. A goal or task that is extremely high on these elements should maintain a high utility,

even if it is significantly delayed and discounted. Consequently, procrastination is unlikely as it

57


should be motivationally dominant. Alternatively, tasks with lackluster qualities are more easily

superceded and thus more susceptible to procrastination. Regarding discounting, its effects are

relatively clear. Procrastination is more likely to occur when the target task’s rewards rather than

costs are delayed.

To illustrate these characteristics, the following prototypical example is put forth – the

college student’s essay paper. Though the written assignment is given at the beginning of a

semester, often it is ignored until the last few weeks or even scant days. This is unsurprising

given that we pursue whatever course of action that has the highest present level of utility. For

many students, writing an essay paper may often be an activity that is neither tackled with

confidence (i.e., low Expectancy) nor intrinsically rewarding (i.e., low Value). Rather, the only

recompense experienced is that of achievement, not felt until the end of the semester or perhaps

even later when grades are posted. Compounding the matter, social activities are available that

are intrinsically and likely enjoyable; there is no substantive delay in their pursuit and their

rewards.

Consider a college student who has been assigned an essay on September 15th, the start of

a semester, due on December 15th, the course end. This student likes to socialize but he likes to

get good grades even more. Figure 1 maps the changes in expected utility for him over the course

of the semester regarding his two choices, studying vs. socializing. Since socializing’s positive

component is perpetually in the present, it maintains a uniformly high utility evaluation. For

writing, its reward is temporally distant initially, diminishing its utility. Only towards the

deadline does the effects of discounting decrease and writing becomes increasingly likely. In this

example, the switch in motivational rank occurs on December 3rd, leaving just 12 days for

58


As already observed, the top reason reported for procrastination is simply having too many other things to do (Kachgal et al., 2001; Peterson, 1987; Schouwenburg, 1991; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).


concentrated effort. During the final hour, it is quite likely that earnest but empty promises (i.e.,

intentions) are made to start working earlier next time (see Lay et al., 1989; Stainton, 1993).

Summary

Integrating expectancy and hyperbolic discounting theories provides a coherent

explanation of procrastination that reflects the consistent and strong results found here.

Consequently, we would likely procrastinate an important task when we excessively discount its

distant rewards but not its imminent punishers. In addition, procrastination can be exacerbated

when we are surrounded by easily realizable temptations, options with smaller but more quickly

obtainable benefits. Some researchers have already interpreted procrastination in terms akin to

this (e.g., Ainslie, 1992; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; O’Donoghue & Rabin, 1999). Other

researchers, though not explicitly using temporal discounting, have still described procrastination

similarly. Ferrari and Emmons (1995) emphasize procrastinators’ need for immediate pleasure

and, later, Ferrari and Beck (1998) suggest that “although an effective coping strategy in the

short-term, may be an emotionally expensive and maladaptive strategy in the long-term” (p.

536). Also, Knaus (1973) refers to procrastinators as short-range hedonists, while Tice and

Baumeister (1997) characterize it as “a self-defeating behavior pattern marked by short-term

benefits and long-term costs” (p. 454).

Future Research

The topics of research available to fully explore procrastination and its underpinnings are

still extensive. The motivational literature has tended not to incorporate the notion of temporal

discounting, evidently key to understanding procrastination, and thus can only offer limited

contributions. Consequently, there is much interesting work to be done in the scientific

fundamentals of description and control.

59


Regarding description, several individual difference variables that were thought to give

rise to procrastination proved to have low or practically non-significant correlations. However,

clinical practice and self-reports do indicate some may still remain as contributors to

procrastination. Likely, these variables represent one of several avenues by which tasks are made

aversive. For example, those who fear failure abhor evaluative events that lack the certainty of

success, while those who are rebellious despise externally imposed deadlines. Whether these

traits translate into chronic procrastination depends on a host of external variables, including:

people’s innate impulsiveness and need for achievement, the availability of temptations, and the

frequency of encountering these tasks they particularly dread. Future research, then, should not

immediately dismiss these traits, but rather determine if they are more distally related. They

should be important, but only for a subset of the population and only when their lives are

confined to specific situations.

Given that the reasons underlying why people procrastinate may be multifaceted, we

need a diagnostic procedure that identifies the most promising and pliable junctures in order to

lay the foundation for treatment. As theory indicates, there are a variety of reasons why people

might irrationally delay a task. As mentioned, they may be surrounded by easily available

temptations. They may be excessively impulsive. The task itself may be seen as excessively risky

or aversive. Each of these possibilities demands a very different response, and until we can fully

assess people’s procrastination etiology, our efforts at helping must necessarily be haphazard.

Of particular relevance to diagnosis, there appears to be a connection between brain

functioning and procrastination. In a recent review by Skolyes and Sagan (2002), they note:

Something in our brains has to give the inner cues that start us doing things, keep us

going, and, if need be, change what we are doing. Usually that executive function belongs

60


to our prefrontal cortex. When it is injured, people tend to lose initiative. They may be

able to do things, but they don’t get around to it. (p. 45)

So far the only investigation of this as a source of procrastination has been a doctorate thesis by

Stone (1999), who failed to find a significant effect. Still closer examination is warranted,

including that of other promising brain areas. For example, the anterior cingulate has a pivotal

role in preventing impulsive behavior and maintaining attention to the task at hand.

Regarding control, our traditional treatments for procrastination should be more

extensive. Within an industrial-organizational context, it is primarily limited to goal setting and

to stress coping (Karoly, 1993; Terry, Tonge, & Callan, 1995). However, there are many other

methods of regulation that are largely overlooked or their efficacy only vaguely understood. As

an initial example, Galué (1990) and Weymann’s (1988) workplace investigations indicate that

the most control over procrastination could be achieved by exploiting environmental

contributors. Consequently, we should be able to more easily reduce procrastination by simply

adjusting situational aspects, specifically the proximity to temptation and prevalence of stimulus

cues. For example, email is definitely a popular avenue of procrastination, with over 90% of

college computer users reporting that they use it to irrationally delay (Brackin, Ferguson, Skelly,

& Chambliss, 2000). Since its icon is perpetually within the field of view and its access borders

on instantaneous, simply making it less visible or delaying access to it should decrease

procrastination. As a form of precommitment, a software option could be available that requires

users to reiterate their desire to read their mail before access is given. Any modest delay should

be effective by decreasing the utility of trivial emailing and providing additional opportunities

for willpower to exert itself.

61


Finally, researchers may choose to apply this expectancy-hyperbolic discounting hybrid

to venues other than procrastination. As a general theory of motivation, it should have relevance

to a broad range of activities, including addiction, consumer behavior, and aggression. For

example, Glomb, Steel, and Arvey (2002) indicate that aggressive behavior can be largely

understood in terms of Value and the discounting function of , specifically as the interplay of

trait anger and trait impulsiveness. Also, Berkowitz (1997) discusses how the certainty (i.e.,

Expectancy) as well as the severity of punishment (i.e., Value) inhibits aggression. Similarly, he

relates violence to Delay in that, “the strength of the tendency to perform a goal-oriented

response (in this case, to inflict an injury) and to avoid performing the action (that is, to inhibit

one’s aggression because of the possibility of punishment) increased the closer the organism

came to the goal” (p. 202).

Conclusion

References to procrastination can be found in some of the earliest records available,

stretching back at least 3000 years. Looking towards tomorrow, procrastination does not appear

to be leaving us anytime soon. On the contrary, it and other problems due to temporal

discounting appear to becoming more frequent.

In the workplace, problems due to procrastination and lack of self-control appear to be on

the rise as jobs are expected to become increasingly unstructured or at least self-structured

(Cascio, 1995; Hunt, 1995). This absence of imposed direction means that the competent worker

must create order out of the imminent chaos – he or she must self-manage or self-regulate

(Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997). As structure continues to decrease, the opportunity to procrastinate

will concomitantly increase. Consumer behavior appears no less susceptible. Examination of

62


credit card purchases revealed about five times as much last-minute Christmas shopping in 1999

as was done in 1991 (“Many Shoppers,” 1999).

Furthermore, the virulence and prevalence of distracting temptations, an enabler of

procrastination, also appears to be escalating. As a review by Ainslie (1992) indicates,

technological advances are speeding the delivery mechanisms for many of our needs.

Unfortunately, these mechanisms tend to favor substandard experiences that satisfy these needs

only weakly. Due to temporal discounting, more satisfying ventures are put aside in favor of

these shallow but more immediate options. For example, there is a tendency to passively engage

in vicarious entertainment to the exclusion of almost all other life endeavors. By constantly

surrounding ourselves with easily available but inferior options, we have done ourselves a

disservice. With Clark (1997) ominously extrapolating that this trend could lead to a dystopia,

convenient access to poorer choices is decidedly inconvenient.

Unfortunately, this future may be difficult to avoid given the basic nature of

procrastination, evidently an outcome of a fundamental feature of our motivational landscape. To

combat procrastination and our inherent irrationality, we will often need to implement in

advance self-control mechanisms to limit our choices. Though we do have the capacity to use

self-correction and can prepare for our inevitable fallibility, the benefits of these self-control

mechanisms are necessarily delayed and thus discounted. Ironically, the more susceptible we

become to procrastination, the less likely we will execute a cure.

63


References

References marked with an asterisk indicates studies included in the meta-analysis.

Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358-372.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Abry, D. A. (1999). A structural model of self-regulatory behavior and college student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 7-A.

Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463-496.

Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ainslie, G., & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic discounting. In G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 57-92). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Aitken, M. E. (1982). A personality profile of the college student procrastinator. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43 722.

Akerlof, G. A. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. American Economic Review, 81(2), 1-19. Aldarondo, F. (1993). A preliminary investigation of a two-motive theory of procrastination.

(Master’s dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1993). Masters Abstracts International, 32, 1221.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139-167.

Antonides, G. (1991). Psychology in economics and business. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., & McGue, M. (2002). The determinants of leadership: The role of genetics and personality. Unpublished manuscript.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. New York: Van Nostrand.Austin, J. T., & Klein, H. J. (1996). Work motivation and goal striving. In K. Murphy (Ed.),

Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 209-257). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co, Publishers.

Bargh, J. A., & Barndollar, K. (1996). Automaticity in action: The unconscious as repository of chronic goals and motives. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 457-481). New York: The Guilford Press.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

64


Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Beck, A. T. (1993). Cognitive approaches to stress. In R. Woolfold & P. Lehrer (Eds.), Principles and practice of stress management (2nd ed., pp. 333-372). New York: Guilford.

Beck, A. T., & Beck, R. W. (1972). Screening depressed patients in family practice: A rapid technique. Postgraduate Medicine, 52, 81-85.

Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615-628.

Berkowitz, L. (1997). On the determinants and regulation of impulsive aggression. In S. Feshbach & J. Zagrodzka (Eds.), Aggression: Biological, developmental, and social perspectives (pp. 187-211). New York: Plenum Press.

Bernouli, D. (1738). Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis, Commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae (pp. 175-192).

Bernstein, P. (1994). Procrastination - a value or a cost. Journal of Portfolio Management, 20, 1.Bernstein, P. (1998). Against the gods. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 60, 771-788. Berzonsky, M. D., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Identity orientation and decisional strategies.

Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 597-606. Beswick, G., & Mann, L. (1994). State orientation and procrastination. In J. Kuhl & J.

Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 391-396). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207-217.

Blatt, S. J., & Quinn, P. (1967). Punctual and procrastinating students: A study of temporal parameters. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 169-174.

Blunt, A. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: A multi-dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personality & Individual Differences, 28, 153-167.

Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (1998). Volitional action and inaction in the lives of undergraduate students: State orientation, procrastination and proneness to boredom. Personality & Individual Differences, 24, 837-846.

Borsato, G. N. (2001). Time perspective, academic motivation, and procrastination. (Master’s dissertation, San Jose State University, 2001). Masters Abstracts International, 40, 239.

Brackin, T., Ferguson, E., Skelly, B., & Chambliss, C. (2000). College students' use of electronic communication technology: Introverts versus extraverts: Ursinus College.

Brand, C. R. (1997). Hans Eysenck's personality dimensions: Their number and nature. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 17-35). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science Inc.

Brannick, M. T. (2001, April). Reducing bias in the Schmidt-Hunter meta-analysis. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.

Bridges, K. R., & Roig, M. (1997). Academic procrastination and irrational thinking: A re-examination with context controlled. Personality & Individual Differences, 22, 941-944.

Briody, R. (1980). An exploratory study of procrastination. (Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 590.

65


Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Great expectations: Optimism and pessimism in achievement settings. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 239-255). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Brown, R. T. (1991). Helping students confront and deal with stress and procrastination. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 6, 87-102.

Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 15-34.

Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burns, L. R., Dittmann, K., Nguyen, N.-L., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2000). Academic procrastination, perfectionism, and control: Associations with vigilant and avoidant coping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 35-46.

Busko, D. A. (1998). Causes and consequences of perfectionism and procrastination: A structural equation model. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 399-429). San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Cantor, N., & Blanton, H. (1996). Effortful pursuit of personal goals in daily life. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 338-359). New York: The Guilford Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In E. T. Higgins, & R. M. Sorrentino, (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-52). New York: Guilford Press.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

Cascio, W.F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.

Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270-295.

Chissom, B., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1992). Development of an instrument to assess learning strategies. Psychological Reports, 71, 1001-1002.

Clark, J. L., & Hill, O. W. (1994). Academic procrastination among African-American college students. Psychological Reports, 75, 931-936.

Clark, J. M. (1997). Cybernautical perspective on impulsivity and addiction. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 82-91). New York: The Guilford Press.

Clehouse, R. E. (2000). Determining persistence indicators of students enrolled in for-profit postsecondary institutions. Unpublished EdD, Northern Illinois University.

Conti, R. (1996). Procrastination: a social psychological perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 760.

66


Coote-Weymann, E. (1988). Procrastination in the workplace: Dispositional and situational Determinants of Delay Behavior at Work. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.

Corcoran, K., & Fischer., J. (2000). Measures for clinical practice: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Cornwell, J. M., Ladd, R. T. (1993). Power and accuracy of the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analytic procedures. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 53, 877-895.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO personality inventory-revised. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crane, G. R. (1999) The Perseus project. Retrieved December 15, 2001, from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

Davis, J. K. (1999). The effects of culture on high school academic procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, California.

Davis, R. A., Flett, G. L., & Besser, A. (2002). Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5, 331-345.

Day, V., Mensink, D., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Patterns of academic procrastination. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30, 120-134.

De, S. (1996). The historical context of The Bhagavad Gita and its relation to Indian religious doctrines. Retrieved January 31, 2002, from http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/de.htm

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000a). Exploring volitional problems in academic procrastinators. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 733-750.

Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000b). Procrastinators lack a broad action perspective. European Journal of Personality, 14, 121-140.

Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. (in press). Procrastination, temptations, and incentives. European Journal of Personality.

Donovan, J. M. (1995). Relating psychological measures to anthropological observations: Procrastination as a field proxy for death anxiety? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 465-472.

Dunn, G. (2000). Procrastination, stress, and coping: An investigation of the relationship between procrastination and hardiness. Unpublished Honours Bachelor of Arts, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Durden, C. A. (1997). Life satisfaction as related to procrastination and delay of gratification. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Angelo State University, Texas.

Effert, B. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: Examining personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 4, 151-161.

Elliot, R. (2002). A ten-year study of procrastination stability. Unpublished Masters, University of Louisana, Monroe.

Ellis, A. (1973). Humanistic psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Ellis, A. (1989). Comments on my critics. In M. E. Bernard & R. DiGiuseppe (Eds.), Inside

rational-emotive therapy: A critical appraisal of the theory and therapy of Albert Ellis. San Diego: Academic Press.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet Books.

67


Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (1995). The nature and assessment of perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Eysenck, H. J. (1975). The inequality of man. San Diego, CA: EdITS/Educational & Industrial Testing Service.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, H., & Eysenck, S. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Farnham, B. R. (1997). Roosevelt and the Munich crisis: A study of political decision-making. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fee, R. L., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 167-184.

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429-526.

Ferrari, J. R. (1989a). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of procrastination. Psychological Reports, 64, 1057-1058.

Ferrari, J. R. (1989b). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Effects of performance privacy and task importance. (Doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 5377.

Ferrari, J. R. (1991a). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68, 455-458.

Ferrari, J. R. (1991b). Procrastination and project creation: Choosing easy, nondiagnostic items to avoid self-relevant information. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 619-628.

Ferrari, J. R. (1991c). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245-261.

Ferrari, J. R. (1992a). Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults: Arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97-110.

Ferrari, J. R. (1992b). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor analysis of self-presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 75-84.

Ferrari, J. R. (1993a). Christmas and procrastination: Explaining lack of diligence at a “real-world” task deadline. Personality & Individual Differences, 14, 25-33.

Ferrari, J. R. (1993b). Procrastination and impulsiveness: Two sides of a coin? In W. G. McCown, J. L. Johnson & M. B. Shure (Eds.), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 265-276). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Ferrari, J. R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem, interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality & Individual Differences, 17, 673-679.

Ferrari, J. R. (1995). Perfectionism cognitions with nonclinical and clinical samples. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 143-156.

Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analysis of attention deficit, boredomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 185-196.

68


Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on 'Working Best Under Pressure'. European Journal of Personality, 15, 391-406.

Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Examining behavioral proceses in indecision: Decisional procrastination and decision-making style. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 127-137.

Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2001). Behavioral information search by indecisives. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1113-1123.

Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1994). Procrastination as revenge: Do people report using delays as a strategy for vengeance? Personality & Individual Differences, 17, 539-544.

Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of procrastination and their relation to self-control and self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 135-142.

Ferrari, J. R., & McCown, W. (1994). Procrastination tendencies among obsessive-compulsives and their relatives. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 162-167.

Ferrari, J. R., & Olivette, M. J. (1994). Parental authority and the development of female dysfunctional procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 87-100.

Ferrari, J. R., & Scher, S. J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academic and nonacademic tasks procrastinated by students: The use of daily logs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 359-366.

Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: A task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 73-83.

Ferrari, J. R., Harriott, J. S., & Zimmerman, M. (1999). The social support networks of procrastinators: Friends or family in times of trouble? Personality & Individual Differences, 26, 321-331.

Ferrari, J. R., Harriott, J. S., Evans, L., Lecik-Michna, D. M., & Wenger, J. M. (1997). Exploring the time preferences of procrastinators: Night or day, which is the one? European Journal of Personality, 11, 187-196.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.

Ferrari, J. R., Keane, S. M., Wolfe, R. N., & Beck, B. L. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of academic excuse-making: Examining individual differences in procrastination. Research in Higher Education, 39, 199-215.

Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T., & Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination: Personality correlates with Myers-Briggs types, self-efficacy, and academic locus of control. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 495-502.

Ferrari, J. R., Wolfe, R. N., Wesley, J. C., Schoff, L. A., & Beck, B., L. (1995). Ego-identity and academic procrastination among university students. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 361-367.

Ferrari, J., & Beck, B. (1998). Affective responses before and after fraudulent excuses by academic procrastinators. Education, 118, 529-537.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Procrastination, negative self-evaluation, and stress in depression and anxiety: A review and preliminary model. In J. R. Ferrari & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research,

69


and treatment. The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 137-167). New York: Plenum Press.

Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., Hewitt, P. L., & Koledin, S. (1992). Components of perfectionism and procrastination in college students. Social Behavior & Personality, 20, 85-94.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Dimensions of perfectionism and procrastination. In J. R. Ferrari & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 113-136). New York: Plenum Press.

Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1991). Perfectionism, self-actualization, and personal adjustment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 147-160.

Franken, R. E. (1994) Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 12-66). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published in 1923).

Froehlich, R. A. (1987). A descriptive study of general procrastination in a group-oriented treatment setting. (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1151.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The Dimensions of Perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.

Glomb, T., Steel, P., & Arvey, R. (2002). Aggression and workplace violence. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.). Frontiers of industrial and organizational psychology: Emotions and work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493-509.

Greatrix, J. (1999). Subjective vs objective measures of stress: Do procrastinators actually benefit. Unpublished Honours Bachelor of Science, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Grecco, P. R. (1984). A cognitive-behavioral assessment of problematic academic procrastination: development of a procrastination self- statement inventory. (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology - Fresno, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 640.

Green, L., Myerson, J., & McFadden, E. (1997). Rate of temporal discounting decreases with amount of reward. Memory & Cognition, 25, 715-723.

Guilford, J. P. (1977). Will the real factor of extraversion-introversion please stand up? A reply to Eysenck. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 412-416.

Guilfoyle, E. C. (1986). The effects of psychological reactance and paradoxical and self-directive forms of brief psychotherapy on procrastination. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 4327.

Hall, S. M., & Brannick, M. T. (2002). Comparison of two random-effects method of meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,377-389.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

70


Han, S. (1993). A multivariate study of procrastination: cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors in prediction. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2512.

Harary, K., & Donahue, E. (1994). Who do you think you are? Explore your many-sided self with Berkeley Personality Profile. San Francisco: Harper.

Harriott, J. S., Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (1996). Distractability, daydreaming, and self-critical cognitions as determinants of indecision. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 337-344.

Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults. Psychological Reports, 78, 611-616.

Harriott, K. (1999). A correlational pilot study examining affect and procrastination on the internet. Unpublished manuscript, Ottawa, Carleton University.

Harris, N. N., & Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in organizations: A framework for research. Human Relations, 36, 987-995.

Havel, A. (1993). Differential effectiveness of selected treatment approaches to procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Quebec, Canada.

Haycock, L. A. (1993). The cognitive mediation of procrastination: an investigation of the relationship between procrastination and self-efficacy beliefs. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2261.

Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 317-324.

Hess, B., Sherman, M. F., & Goodman, M. (2000). Eveningness predicts academic procrastination: The mediating role of neuroticism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 61-74.

Holland, T. (2001). The perils of procrastination. Far Eastern Economic Review, 164, 66-72. Holmes, R. A. (2000). The effect of task structure and task order on subjective distress and

dilatory behavior in academic procrastinators. Unpublished PhD, Hofstra University. Huang, J. C.-H. (1999). The attributional processes and emotional consequences of

procrastination. (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 367.

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334.

Hunt, E. B. (1995). Will we be smart enough?: A cognitive analysis of the coming workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jackson, T., Weiss, K. E., & Lundquist, J. J. (2000). Does procrastination mediate the relationship between optimism and subsequent stress? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 203-212.

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vols. 1-2). New York: Holt.John, O. P., & Sanjay, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 102-138). New York: The Guilford Press.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

71


Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality & Individual Differences, 18, 127-133.

Johnson, J., & McCown, W. (1989, May). Validation of an adult inventory of procrastination. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association.

Johnson, S. (1751/2001). [On-line]. Available: http://charon.sfsu.edu/Johnson/Johnson.html. (Reprinted from Rambler No. 134).

Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., Bell, S., & Saddler, C. D. (1991). Helping high school students improve their academic skills: A necessary role for teachers. High School Journal, 74, 198-202.

Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self- handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.

Jung, C. G. (1966). Two essays on analytical psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kachgal, M. M., Hansen, L. S., & Nutter, K. J. (2001). Academic procrastination

prevention/intervention: Strategies and recommendations. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 14-24.

Kalechstein, P., Hocevar, D., Zimmer, J. W., & Kalechstein, M. (1989). Procrastination over test preparation and test anxiety. In R. Schwarzer, H. M. van der Ploeg & G. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 6, pp. 63-76). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Kammeyer-Muelller, J., & Steel, P. (under review). Siphoning the bathwater away from the baby: Controlling instability and method variance when estimating predictor importance. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation Theory. In M. Dunnette & L. Houghs (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp.124-151). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 1-56.

Kaplan, J. C. (1998). Molecular basis of procrastination. Cloning of a gene for help in decision making. M S-Medecine Sciences, 14, 525-528.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23-52.

Kegley, C. W. (1989). The Bush administration and the future of American foreign policy: Pragmatism, or procrastination? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 19, 717-731.

Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: Evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 64, 22-30.

Klein, E. (1971). A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Kleinbeck, U., Quast, H.-H., Thierry, H., & Häcker, H. (Eds.). (1990). Work motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

72


Klinger, E. (1996). The contents of thoughts: Interference as the downside of adaptive normal mechanisms in thought flow. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Klinger, E. (1999). Thought flow: Properties and mechanisms underlying shifts in content. In J. A. Singer & P. Salovey (Eds.), At play in the fields of consciousness: Essays in honor of Jerome L. Singer (pp. 29-50). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Knaus, W. J. (1973). Overcoming procrastination. Rational Living, 8(2), 2-7.Knaus, W. J. (1979). Do it now. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Knaus, W. J. (2000). Procrastination, blame, and change. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 15, 153-166.Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and state orientations. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),

Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 9-46). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lamba, G. (1999). Effect of gender-role and self-efficacy on academic procrastination in college students. (Master’s dissertation, Truman State University, 1999). Masters Abstracts International, 38, 481.

Lasane, T. P., & Jones, J. M. (2000). When socially induced temporal myopia interferes with academic goal-setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 75-86.

Lavoie, J. A. A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyberslacking and the procrastination superhighway: A web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 431-444.

Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.

Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastinators: A search for types. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 705-714.

Lay, C. H. (1988). The relationship of procrastination and optimism to judgments of time to complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 3, 201-214.

Lay, C. H. (1990). Working to schedule on personal projects: An assessment of person-project characteristics and trait procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5, 91-103.

Lay, C. H. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person-task characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 483-494.

Lay, C. H. (1994). Trait procrastination and affective experiences: Describing past study behavior and its relation to agitation and dejection. Motivation & Emotion, 18, 269-284.

Lay, C. H. (1997). Explaining lower-order traits through higher-order factors: The case of trait procrastination, conscientiousness, and the specificity dilemma. European Journal of Personality, 11, 267-278.

Lay, C. H., & Brokenshire, R. (1997). Conscientiousness, procrastination, and person-task characteristics in job searching by unemployed adults. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 16, 83-96.

73


Lay, C. H., & Burns, P. (1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for an examination: The role of trait procrastination and its interaction with optimism. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 605-617.

Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management, and academic behavior. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8, 647-662.

Lay, C. H., & Silverman, S. (1996). Trait procrastination, anxiety, and dilatory behavior. Personality & Individual Differences, 21, 61-67.

Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality, 3, 195-208.

Lay, C. H., Knish, S., & Zanatta, R. (1992). Self-handicappers and procrastinators: A comparison of their practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 242-257.

Lay, C. H., Kovacs, A., & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to the big-five factor conscientiousness: An assessment with primary-junior school children based on self-report scales. Personality & Individual Differences, 25, 187-193.

Lee, J. (2000). A comparison of the personal constructs of students scoring high, medium and low on a measure of academic procrastination. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw Hill.Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewoods

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Loebenstein, A. M. (1996). The effects of subgoal setting and academic self-efficacy on

procrastination (self-efficacy). (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology - San Diego, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 1446.

Loers, D. L. (1985). Responsiveness to paradoxical intervention: Client characteristics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2814-2815.

Logue, A. W., Rodriguez, M. L., Pena-Correal, T. E., & Mauro, B. C. (1984). Choice in a self-control paradigm: Quantification of experience-based differences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 53-67.

Lonergan, J. M., & Maher, K. J. (2000). The relationship between job characteristics and workplace procrastination as moderated by locus of control. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 213-224.

Lopez, F., & Wambach, C. (1982). Effects of paradoxical and self-control directives in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 115-124.

Lowenstein, G. (1992). The fall and rise of psychological explanations in the economics of intertemporal choice. In G. Lowenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 3-34). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lowenstein, G., & Elster, J. (Eds.). (1992). Choice over time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. In G. Lowenstein & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 119-145). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Luce, R. D. (1990). Rational versus plausible accounting equivalences in preference judgments. Psychological Science, 1, 225-234.

74


Lum, M. K. M. (1960). A comparison of under- and overachieving female college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 109-115.

Lyly, J. (1579/1995). Gales’ quotations [Computer Software]. Princeton Junction, NJ: Cognetics Corp.

Mann, L. (1982). Decision-making questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Flinders University of South Australia.

Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1-19.

Mallows, C. (1999). Existential aspects of procrastination. Unpublished Honours Bachelor of Arts, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1-19.

Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., et al. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in self-reported decision-making style and confidence. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 325-335.

Many shoppers won’t do today what they can do on Dec. 24. (1999, November 24). The New York Times, p. 12.

Mariano, C. M. (1993). A study of Ed.d.s, Ph.d.s and ABDs in educational administration (dissertation completion, Ed.d. candidates, Ph.d. candidates). (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2069.

Martin, A. (1999). Etude prospective de la procrastination academique: Le role des illusions positives, de la perception illusoire du temps et de la motivation. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Martin, T. R., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Krames, L., & Szanto, G. (1996). Personality correlates of depression and health symptoms: A test of a self-regulation model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 264-277.

Mayers, A. N. (1946). Anxiety and the group. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 103, 130-136.

Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons & J. E. Mazur (Eds.), The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value. Quantitative analyses of behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 55-73). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Mazur, J. E. (1996). Procrastination by pigeons: Preferences for larger, more delayed work requirements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 159-171.

Mazur, J. E. (1998). Procrastination by pigeons with fixed-interval response requirements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 185-197.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.

McCown, W., & Johnson, J. (1989). Differential arousal gradients in chronic procrastination. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Alexandria, VA.

McCown, W., Johnson, J., & Petzel, T. (1989). Procrastination, a principal components analysis. Personality & Individual Differences, 10, 197-202.

75


McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of some hypothesized behaviors and personality variables of college student procrastinators. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 781-786.

McCrae, R. R., (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness, Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323-337

McKean, K. J. (1994). Using multiple risk factors to assess the behavioral, cognitive, and affective effects of learned helplessness. Journal of Psychology, 128, 177-183.

Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement of individual success potential or "emotional intelligence". Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 126, 133-239.

Micek, L. (1982). Some problems of self-autoregulation of volitional processes in university students from the point of view of their mental health. Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenske University, 31, 51-70.

Milgram, N. A. (1991). Procrastination. In R. Dulbecco (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human biology (Vol. 6, pp. 149-155). New York: Academic Press.

Milgram, N. A., Batori, G., & Mowrer, D. (1993). Correlates of academic procrastination. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 487-500.

Milgram, N. A., Gehrman, T., & Keinan, G. (1992). Procrastination and emotional upset: A typological model. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 1307-1313.

Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 197-212.

Milgram, N. N., & Tenne, R. (2000). Personality correlates of decisional and task avoidant procrastination. European Journal of Personality, 14, 141-156.

Milgram, N., & Naaman, N. (1996). Typology in procrastination. Personality & Individual Differences, 20, 679-683.

Milgram, N., & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academic anxiety, academic procrastination, and parental involvement in students and their parents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 345-361.

Milgram, N., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastination, generalized or specific, in college students and their parents. Personality & Individual Differences, 25, 297-316.

Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1994). Meta-analytic synthesis for theory development. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 457-483). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Mitchell, T. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. In L. L.

Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 57-149): Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.

Mulry, G., Fleming, R., & Gottschalk, A. C. (1994). Psychological reactance and brief treatment of academic procrastination. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 9, 41-56.Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.

O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Incentives for procrastinators. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 769-816.

76


Oettingen, G. (1996). Positive fantasy and motivation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 236-259). New York: The Guilford Press.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). A general theory of conscientiousness at work: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical findings. Paper presented at the 11th annual convention of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000a). I'll being my statistics assignment tomorrow: The relationship between statistics anxiety and academic procrastination. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000b). Academic procrastinators and perfectionistic tendencies among graduate students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 103-109.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2000). I'll go to the library later: The relationship between academic procrastination and library anxiety. College & Research Libraries, 61, 45-54.

Orellana-Damacela, L. E., Tindale, R. S., & Suárez-Balcázar, Y. (2000). Decisional and behavioral procrastination: how they relate to self-discrepancies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 225-238.

Ostaszewski, P. (1996). The relation between temperament and rate of temporal discounting. European Journal of Personality, 10, 161-172.

Ostaszewski, P. (1997). Temperament and the discounting of delayed and probabilistic rewards: Conjoining European and American psychological traditions. European Psychologist, 2, 35-43.

Ostroff, C. (1993). Comparing correlations based on individual-level and aggregated data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 569-582.

Ottens, A. J. (1982). A guaranteed scheduling technique to manage students' procrastination. College Student Journal, 16, 371-376.

Owens, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A causal structural model. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 869-887.

Pearson, P. R. (1990). Is impulsiveness aligned with psychoticism or withextraversion? Journal of Psychology, 124, 347-348.

Peterson, C., Colvin, D., & Lin, E. H. (1992). Explanatory style and helplessness. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 1-13.

Peterson, K. E. (1987). Relationships among measures of writer's block, writing anxiety, and procrastination. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1505.

Pickering, A. D., Corr, P. J., Powell, J. H., Kumari, V., Thornton, J. C., & Gray, J. A. (1997). Individual differences in reactions to reinforcing stimuli are neither black nor white: To what extent are they Gray? In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 36-67). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science Inc.

Potts, T. J. (1987). Predicting procrastination on academic tasks with self-report personality measures. (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra Univeristy, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 1543.

Procrastination Research Group (2002). References for books, journal articles and theses about procrastination. Available from Procrastination Research Group Web site, http://www.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/prg/research/research_complete_biblio.html

77


Prohaska, V., Morrill, P., Atiles, I., & Perez, A. (2000). Academic procrastination by nontraditional students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 125-134.

Pychyl, T. A. (1995). Personal projects, subjective well-being and the lives of doctoral students (goal oriented). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Pychyl, T. A. (1999). A brief history of procrastination. Retrieved December 15, 2001, from http://superior.carleton.ca/~tpychyl/history.html

Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. (2002). Parenting and Procrastination: Gender differences in the relations between procrastination, parenting style and self-worth in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 271-285.

Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 3-13.

Quarton, J. P. (1992). How do adults experience chronic procrastination? A field guide for visitors from outer space. (Doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3789.

Rachlin, H. (1990). Why do people gamble and keep gambling despite heavy losses? Psychological Science, 1, 294-297.

Rachlin, H. (2000). The science of self-control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Rawlins, D. R. (1995). A study of academic procrastination in middle-school-aged children.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of New York, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 1708.

Raynor, J. O., & Entin, E. (1982). Achievement motivation as a determinant of persistence in contingent and noncontingent paths. In J. O. Raynor & E. Entin (Eds.), Motivation, career striving, and aging (pp. 83-92). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Read, D. (2001). Intrapersonal dilemmas. Human Relations, 54, 1093-1117.Reasinger, R., & Brownlow, S. (1996). Puttting off until tomorrow what is better done today:

Academic procrastinatoin as a function of motivation toward college work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association.

Revelle, W. (1997). Extraversion and impulsivity: The lost dimension? In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of human nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at eighty (pp. 189-212). Oxford, UK: Pergamon/Elsevier Science Inc.

Ringenbach, P. T. (1971). Procrastination through the ages: A definitive history. Palmer, Lake CO: Filter Press.

Ronen, S. (1994). An underlying structure of motivational need taxonomies: A cross-cultural confirmation. In H. C. Triandis, M. Dunnette, & L. Houghs (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp.241-269). Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall. Ruiz-Caballero, J. A, & Bermudez, J. (1995). Neuroticism, mood, and retrieval of negative

personal memories. Journal of General Psychology, 122, 29-35. Saddler, C. D., & Buley, J. (1999). Predictors of academic procrastination in college students.

Psychological Reports, 84, 686-688.

78


Saddler, C. D., & Sacks, L. A. (1993). Multidimensional perfectionism and academic procrastination: Relationships with depression in university students. Psychological Reports, 73, 863-871.

Saklofske, D. F, Kelly, I. W, & Janzen, B. L. (1995). Neuroticism, depression, and depression proneness. Personality & Individual Differences, 18, 27-31.

Sanders, M. I. (1994). Procrastination, anticipation, and the timing of inevitable aversive events. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 1224.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Anxiety, cognitive interference, and performance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 1-18.

Sarmany, S. I. (1999). Procrastination, need for cognition and sensation seeking. Studia Psychologica, 41, 73-85.

Savage, L. J. (1990). Historical and critical comments on utility. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in action: Contemporary approaches (pp. 41-54). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted from The foundations of statistics, 2nd ed., 1972, New York: Dover).

Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

Scher, S. J., & Ferrari, J. R. (2000). The recall of completed and noncompleted tasks through daily logs to measure procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 255-266.

Scher, S. J., & Osterman, N. M. (2002). Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: Exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychology in Schools, 39, 385-398.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1990). Self-consciousness and self-presentation: Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 820-828

Schneider, F. W., & Green, J. E. (1977). The need for affiliation and sex as moderators of the relationship between need for achievement and academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 15, 269-277.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1991). The diagnosis of procrastination in students. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden, 46, 379-385.

Schouwenburg, H. (1995, October 10). Procrastination and personality: An empirical study among university students. Message posted to Oblov electronic mailing list.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1992). Procrastinators and fear of failure: An exploration of reasons for procrastination. European Journal of Personality, 6, 225-236.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Procrastinating and failure-fearing students in terms of personality-describing adjectives. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden, 48, 43-44.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 71-96). New York: Plenum Press.

Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. T. (1997). Studieplanning: Ein werkboek voor studenten [Study planning: A workbook for students]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

79


Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. T. (2001). Study motivation under social temptation; effects of trait procrastination. Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 229-240.

Schouwenburg, H. C., & Lay, C. H. (1995). Trait procrastination and the Big Five factors of personality. Personality & Individual Differences, 18, 481-490.

Schwartz, B. (1989). Psychology of learning and behavior (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999, 2001). Skalen zur erfassung vun lehrer-und. Retrieved September 27, 2002, from http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/General_Perceived_Self-Efficac/Startpage_English/startpage_english.htm

Senécal , C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrastination. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 607-619.

Senécal , C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and situational factors in procrastination: An interactional model. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 889-903.

Senécal, C., & Guay, F. (2000). Procrastination in job-seeking: An analysis of motivational processes and feelings of hopelessness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 267-282.

Shizgal, P. (1999). On the neural computation of utility: Implications from studies of brain stimulation reward. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 500-524). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R., & Neeman, R. (1989). You're changed if you do and changed if you don't: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical interventions. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 57, 590-598.

Sigall, H., Kruglanski, A., & Fyock, J. (2000). Wishful thinking and procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 283-296.

Silver, M., & Sabini, J. (1981). Procrastinating. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 11, 207-221.

Simon, H. A. (1994). The bottleneck of attention: Connecting thought with motivation. In W. D. Spaulding (Ed.), Nebraska symposium in motivation: Vol. 41. Integrative views of motivation, cognition, and emotion (pp. 1-21). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2002). Academic procrastination: Costs to health and well-being. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Chicago.

Skiffington, S. T. (1982). The development and validation of a self-report measure of general procrastination: the time utilization inventory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2003.

Skoyles, J. R., & Sagan, D. (2002). Up from dragons. New York: McGraw-Hill.Slaney, R. B., Ashby, J. S., & Trippi, J. (1995). Perfectionism: Its measurement and career

relevance. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 279-297.Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring

perfectionism: The Almost Perfect Scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Smith, P. C. (1976). Behavior, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 745-775).

80


Smith, T. (1994). Personality correlates of learning and study activities in college students. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R, & Handelsman, M. M. (1982). On the self-serving function of an academic wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 42, 314-321.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.

Somers, M. M. (1992). Getting around to it, eventually: Work attitudes and behaviours of student procrastinators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Sommer, W. G. (1990). Procrastination and cramming: How adept students ace the system. Journal of American College Health, 39, 5-10.

Specter, M. H., & Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Time orientations of procrastinators: Focusing on the past, present, or future? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 197-202.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 10-74). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Stainton, M. (1994). The development and application of a procrastinatory cognitions inventory. Unpublished MA, York University, Canada.

Stainton, M., Lay, C. H., & Flett, G. L. (2000). Trait procrastinators and behavior/trait-specific cognitions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 297-312.

Stanhope, P. D. (1749/1968). Bartlett’s familiar quotations (14th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Steel, P. (2002a). [Correlations of procrastination with the big five personality traits]. Unpublished raw data.

Steel, P. (2002b). The measurement and nature of procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.

Steel, P., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96-111.

Steel, P., & Ones, D. (2002). Personality and happiness: A national level of analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 767-781.

Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality, performance, and mood. Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 95-106.

Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revisited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 481-491.

Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 25, 49-60.

Stone, D. A. (2000). The neuropsychological correlates of severe academic procrastination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.

Strong, S. R., Wambach, C. A., Lopez, F. G., & Cooper, R. K. (1979). Motivational and equipping function of interpretation in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 98-109.

Subotnik, R., Steiner, C., & Chakraborty, B. (1999). Procrastination revisited: The constructive use of delayed response. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 151-160.

81


Strongman, K. T., & Burt, C. D. B. (2000). Taking breaks from work: An exploratory inquiry. Journal of Psychology, 134, 229-242.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd Ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem: Theory andmeasurement. Personality & Individual Differences, 31, 653-673.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structure of mood and personality and their relevance for assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681-706). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence, and assessment. In W. M. Grove & D. Chicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (Vol. 2., pp. 10-35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Terry, D. J., Tonge, L., & Callan, V. J. (1995). Employee adjustment to stress: The role of coping resources, situational factors, and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping An International Journal, 8, 1-24.

The politics of procrastination. (1999). The Economist, 351, 48.The Uruguay round’s next deadline: Death by procrastination. (1992). The Economist, 324, 68-

69. Thorndike, E. L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: Wiley. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,

stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454-458.Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion regulation in

the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 149-159. Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes

precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 53-67.

Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 473-480.

Tuckman, B. W., & Abry, D. (1998). Developing a motivational model of college achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.

Twenge, J. (2000). The age of anxiety? The birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 1007-1021

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.

US Census Bureau (2000). http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Van Eerde, W. (1998). Work motivations and procrastination: Self-set goals and action

avoidance. Unpublished Ph.D., Universitiet van Amsterdam.Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s Expectancy Models and Work-Related Criteria:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575-586.Van Raaij, W. F. (1984). Micro and macro economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology,

5, 385-401.Van Tuinen, M., & Ramanaiah, N. V. (1979). A multimethod analysis of selected

self-esteem measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 16-24.

82


Vestervelt, C. M. (2000). An examination of the content and construct validity of four measures of procrastination. Unpublished MA, Carleton University, Canada.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Rupp, D. E. (1999). Are procrastinators prone to boredom? Social Behavior & Personality, 27, 11-16.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Seib, H. M. (1997). Relationship between time structure and procrastination. Psychological Reports, 80, 211-215.

Voicu, D. (1992). An examination of parent-child relations and psychological adjustment in relation to trait procrastination. Unpublished master’s dissertation, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Walsh, J. J., & Ugumba-Agwunobi, G. (2002). Individual differences in statistics anxiety: the

roles of perfectionism, procrastination and trait anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 239-251.

Watkins, J. (1997, June). Popperian ideas on progress and rationality in science. The Critical Rationalist, 2. Retreived December 15, 2001, from http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/tcr/volume-02/number-02/v02n02.html

Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level analysis. Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wedeman, S. C. (1985). Procrastination: an inquiry into its etiology and phenomenology. Unpublished PHD, University of Pennsylvania.

Wernicke, R. A. (1999). Mediational tests of the relationship between perfectionism and procrastination. (Master’s dissertation, The American University, 1999). Masters Abstracts International, 37, 1982.

Wesley, J. C. (1994). Effects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastinatory behavior on college performance. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 54, 404-408.

Wessman, A. E. (1973). Personality and the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 103-114.

Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315-321.

Wortman, P. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 97-109). New York: Russell Sage Foundation

Zamanpour, H. (2000). The mediational roles of performance-avoidance goals pursuit and procrastination in the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

83


Figure Caption

Figure 1. Graph of a student’s utility estimation for socializing versus writing an essay over the course of a semester.

84


0102030405060708090

15-Sep 8-Oct 31-Oct 23-Nov 16-Dec

Time

Utility

Socializing

Essay Writing

December 3rd

85


Table 1

The Reliability of Procrastination Scales

Name Authors Items K NAcademic Procrastination Scale (APS) Milgram & Toubina, 1999 21 7 1,279 .90

Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP) McCown & Johnson, 1989 15 17 2,803 .81

Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API) Aitken, 1982 19 3 276 .82

Decisional Procrastination Questionnaires (DPQI, DPQII) Mann, 1982; Mann et al., 1997 5 22 7,476 .79

General Procrastination Scale (GPS) Lay, 1986 20 36 5,396 .87

Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS) Solomon & Rothblum, 1984 12 3 591 .83

PASS - Frequency 6 8 1,610 .74PASS - Problem 6 4 923 .73

Procrastination Log - Behavior Lopez & Wambach, 1982 11 4 218 .64Procrastination Self-Statement Inventory (PSSI) Grecco, 1983 24 2 485 .83

Test Procrastination Questionnaire (TPQ)

Kalechstein, Hocevar, Zimmer, & Kalechstein, 1989 10 2 238 .94

That’s Me – That’s Not Me Tuckman, 1991, 1999 16 11 2,695 .86Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS) Tuckman, 1991 35 3 300 .87

Work Procrastination Scale (WPS) Steel, 2002 9 2 360 .88

86


Modified from Strong, Wambach, Lopez, & Cooper, 1979;


Table 2

The Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations of Procrastination Scales

Procrastination Mean Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 APS 2.48(130)

.48(130)

2 AIP 2.71(3,216)

.68(2,874) -

3 API 2.72(2,052)

.55(1,960) - .60/.75

(20)4 DPQ 2.62

(4,534).70

(2,142) - .46/.57(2,288)

.24/.30(32)

5 GPS 2.81(5,843)

.79(5,240) - .78/.93

(732).73/.80(160)

.66/.79(1,400)

6 PASS 2.93(2,002)

.64(1,822) - - - .26/.31

(344).64/.75(141)

7 PASS – Freq. 2.29(2,006)

.64(2,006) - - - - .60/.75

(102) -

8 PASS – Prob. 2.06(1,677)

.61(1,677) - - - - .47/.59

(102) - .70/.93(403)

9 Procras. Log - - - - - - - - -

10 PSSI 1.80(355)

.56(355) - - - - - - -

11 TPQ 2.20(70)

.68(70) - - - - - - -

12 That’s Me/Not Me

3.14(652)

.97 (652) - - - - - - -

13 TPS 2.43(305) - - - - - - - -

14 WPS 3.05(228)

.88(228) - - - - - - -

Note: Means and standard deviations of all measures reported on a 1 to 5 scale. Numbers in parentheses represent total sample size for each figure. Correlations are reported as “raw/unattenuated.”

87


Table 3

A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings

- 95% Interval - 95% IntervalConstruct K N Confidence Credibility Residual Confidence Credibility Residual

Divergent ValidityDefensiveness 11 1,512 -.18 -.37 to -.09 -.42 to .06 23 to 87% -.21 -.33 to -.11 -.49 to .07 21 to 87%

Convergent ValidityOther Report 6 986 .33 .24 to .42 .17 to .49 3 to 88% .38 .27 to .47 .20 to .57 3 to 88%Delay Starting Tasks 3 197 .37 .08 to .67 -.08 to .83 7 to 96% .44 .09 to .79 -.03 to .92 7 to 94%Lack of Task Progress 7 927 .27 .15 to .39 .01 to .54 17 to 93% .32 .17 to .42 .02 to .63 16 to 92%Delay Finishing Tasks 17 2,087 .31 .22 to .40 -.02 to .64 63 to 91% .36 .24 to .43 -.02 to .74 62 to 91%Missing Deadlines 7 533 .26 .15 to .37 .09 to .43 1 to 77% .31 .17 to .40 .10 to .52 1 to 77%

88


Table 4



Task AversivenessTask Procrastination 8 938 .40 .28 to .53 .08 to .73 43 to 94% .44 .30 to .57 .10to .79 42 to 94%Trait Procrastination 10 1,069 .40 .29 to .50 .12 to .67 27 to 90% .46 .34 to .58 .14 to .79 28 to 90%

Trait Anxiety, Neuroticism, Negative AffectTrait Anxiety 28 5,470 .24 .20 to .27 .11 to .37 14 to 70% .28 .23 to .32 .12 to .43 14 to 70%Neuroticism 17 3,594 .24 .17 to .30 .00 to .47 55 to 89% .27 .20 to .35 -.01 to .56 56 to 89%

EPQ, BPP, & BFI 6 1,455 .13 .03 to .23 -.08 to .34 9 to 93% .16 .04 to .28 -.10 to .41 10 to 93%NEO & EPI 11 1,911 .31 .24 to .37 .13 to .48 15 to 86% .35 .27 to .42 .14 to .56 19 to 87%

Negative Affect 7 1,299 .29 .22 to .35 .16 to .41 1 to 80% .33 .25 to .41 .19 to .47 1 to 80%

Irrational Beliefs, Fear of Failure, Perfectionism, Self-Consciousness, and Evaluation AnxietyIrrational Beliefs 14 2,384 .27 .19 to .34 .02 to .52 48 to 89% .32 .25 to .45 .03 to .62 47 to 89%Fear of Failure 13 1,938 .14 .08 to .21 -.04 to .33 20 to 85% .17 .10 to .25 -.04 to .38 19 to 84%Perfectionism: Self 18 2,579 -.03 -.09 to .04 -.26 to .20 33 to 83% -.03 -.11 to .04 -.31 to .24 33 to 83%Perfectionism: Other 11 1,311 .02 -.07 to .11 -.22 to .26 14 to 85% .02 -.09 to .13 -.27 to .31 14 to 85%Perfectionism: Social 11 1,527 .20 .14 to .26 .08 to .32 1 to 70% .25 .17 to .32 .11 to .40 1 to 68%Self-Conscious: Public 15 3,166 .21 .16 to .27 .05 to .38 20 to 82% .25 .20 to .34 .06 to .44 17 to 81%Self-Conscious: Private 9 1,486 .19 .13 to .25 .08 to .31 1 to 73% .23 .16 to .32 .09 to .36 1 to 73%Evaluation Anxiety 17 3,406 .21 .16 to .25 .07 to .35 10 to 77% .24 .18 to .29 .07to .41 11 to 78%

89


Table 5



Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Self-HandicappingSelf-Efficacy 22 3,717 -.45 -.49 to -.41 -.58 to -.31 15 to 75% -.53 -.61 to -.51 -.68 to -.38 11 to 73%Self-Esteem 33 5,846 -.26 -.30 to -.23 -.41 to -.12 22 to 71% -.31 -.35 to -.26 -.48 to -.13 24 to 72%

Global Self-Esteem 30 5,448 -.27 -.31 to -.23 -.41 to -.13 19 to 71% -.32 -.36 to -.27 -.49 to -.15 21 to 72%Social Self-Esteem 3 398 -.16 -.41 to .09 -.56 to .34 5 to 98% -.19 -.49 to .11 -.62 to .25 5 to 97%

Diff. Idnt. & Self-Hnd. 16 2,801 .45 .38 to .52 .22 to .68 58 to 90% .58 .51 to .69 .30 to .86 54 to 89%Diffuse Identity 6 1,350 .39 .24 to .53 .04 to .73 62 to 97% .50 .31 to .70 .11 to .88 56 to 96%Self-Handicapping 10 1,451 .51 .46 to .57 .41 to .62 2 to 75% .65 .62 to .77 .49 to .80 3 to 79%

Depression, Learned Helplessness, and PessimismDepression 27 5,729 .28 .25 to .32 .17 to .40 11 to 70% .33 .29 to .37 .20 to .47 11 to 70%Energy 10 1,992 -.30 -.38 to -.22 -.52 to -.09 30 to 90% -.36 -.45 to -.27 -.61 to -.12 27 to 89%Locus of Control (Ext.) 10 1,964 .27 .19 to .36 .03 to .51 40 to 91% .33 .24 to .46 .06 to .61 35 to 91%Pessimism 12 1,944 .14 .22 to .05 -.12 to .39 37 to 89% .16 .27 to .06 -.12 to .44 35 to 89%

Extraversion: Positive Affect, Impulsiveness, Distractibility, and Sensation-SeekingExtraversion 14 3,244 -.05 -.17 to -05 -.47 to .38 82 to 96% -.07 -.20 to .09 -.57 to .45 82 to 96%

NON-EPQ 12 2,892 -.10 -.16 to -.05 -.26 to .05 10 to 82% -.13 -.19 to -.06 -.30 to .05 9 to 82%EPQ 2 352 .43 -.07 to .94 -.27 to .99 78 to 99% .52 -.09 to .99 -.23 to .99 77 to 99%

Positive Affect 9 1,840 -.22 -.28 to -.15 -.37 to -.07 5 to 84% -.25 -.33 to -.18 -.42 to -.08 5 to 84%Impulsiveness 16 2,885 .38 .33 to .43 .22 to .54 23 to 82% .45 .42 to .55 .24 to .66 31 to 84%Distractibility 12 1,970 .47 .41 to .54 .31 to .64 18 to 85% .56 .55 to .71 .35 to .77 27 to 87%Sensation-Seeking 9 1,818 .18 .13 to .22 -.13 to .49 57 to 95% .21 .08 to .37 -.15 to .57 57 to 95%

90


Table 6



Disagreeable: Rebellious & HostileDisagreeable 9 2,623 .11 .03 to .19 -.11 to .32 36 to 92% .12 .03 to .22 -.13 to .38 39 to 92%Rebellious 10 2,126 .12 .06 to .17 -.01to .24 3 to 78% .14 .07 to .22 -.01 to .29 3 to 78%Hostile 9 1,961 .15 .08 to .21 .00 to .30 5 to 84% .18 .10 to .27 .00 to .36 5 to 84%

Openness to Experience: IntelligenceOpenness to Exp. 10 2,567 .06 .00 to .12 -.09 to .22 9 to 85% .07 .00 to .15 -.10 to .25 8 to 85%Intelligence 12 1,860 .02 -.05 to .09 -.17 to .22 12 to 83% .03 -.06 to .11 -.21 to .26 12 to 83%

Conscientiousness: Self-Control, Organization, Achievement MotivationConscientiousness 15 3,075 -.64 -.69 to -.59 -.79 to -.49 49 to 89% -.75 -.82 to -.70 -.92 to -.57 50 to 89%Self-Control 15 4,213 -.53 -.64 to -.42 -.94 to -.12 91 to 98% -.62 -.82 to -.54 -.99 to -.15 91 to 97%

Self-Discipline 8 2,621 -.66 -.73 to -.59 -.84 to -.48 66 to 96% -.77 -.99 to -.80 -.98 to -.56 66 to 96%Organization 16 2,920 -.40 -.46 to -.33 -.61 to -.18 47 to 88% -.47 -.58 to -.42 -.73 to -.21 50 to 89%Achievement Motivat. 27 6,019 -.40 -.47 to -.33 -.75 to -.05 84 to 95% -.48 -.57 to -.40 -.88 to -.07 83 to 94%

Need for Achiev. 14 3,210 -.47 -.54 to -.40 -.72 to -.22 67 to 93% -.55 -.67 to -.49 -.84 to -.26 67 to 93%Self-Regulation 7 1,481 -.54 -.64 to -.45 -.76 to -.32 36 to 94% -.63 -.77 to -.54 -.88 to -.38 35to 94%

91


Table 7



Aspects of ProcrastinationDilatory Behavior 14 2,564 .50 .45 to .55 .46 to .64 17 to 83% .63 .55 to .68 .47 to .80 12 to 81%Intention 6 433 .06 -.14 to .26 -.36 to .49 18 to 94% .07 -.16 to .31 -.42 to .56 18 to 94%Intention-Action Gap 6 533 .29 .17 to .41 .08 to .50 2 to 85% .31 .19 to .44 .10 to .55 2 to 85%Performance

GPA 15 3,220 -.14 -.19 to -.09 -.29 to .00 10 to 79% -.17 -.22 to -.10 -.35 to .00 9 to 78%Course GPA 8 1,814 -.26 -.32 to -.19 -.40 to -.12 4 to 85% -.30 -.35 to -.21 -.46 to -.15 3 to 83%Final Exam 10 851 -.18 -.33 to -.04 -.59 to .22 48 to 93% -.21 -.35 to -.04 -.67 to .25 48 to 93%Assignments 7 1,087 -.31 -.41 to -.21 -.53 to -.09 10 to 91% -.37 -.45 to -.23 -.64 to -.10 10 to 91%

DemographicsAge - Uncorrected 14 2,999 -.15 -.21 to -.09 -.33 to .02 22 to 84% -.18 -.23 to -.10 -.38 to .02 21 to 84%Age - Corrected 14 2,999 -.48 -.58 to -.38 -.84 to -.12 4 to 75% -.79 -.62 to -.41 -.99 to -.55 1 to 52%Sex (M=1, F=2) 35 7,289 -.09 -.13 to -.05 -.29 to .11 46 to 79% -.11 -.14 to -.05 -.40 to .18 52 to 82%

92

historical roots of procrastination - university of calgarysteel/procrastinus/meta/the nature...

Documents