The Nature of Procrastination
Running head: PROCRASTINATION
The Nature of 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
Piers.Steel@Haskayne.UCalgary.ca, 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
The Nature of Procrastination
2
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
The Nature of Procrastination
3
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 longterm (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
The Nature of Procrastination
4
(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).
The Nature of Procrastination
5
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
Chesterfield, stated, “no idleness, no laziness, no procrastination; never put off till tomorrow
what you can do today.”
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
The Nature of Procrastination
6
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
joke (i.e., a book on procrastination that was never completed). See also Kaplan (1998) for another well-conducted
academic article/prank.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination
7
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
The Nature of Procrastination
8
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 ˆ 2 (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
The Nature of Procrastination
9
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, samplesize 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,
3
Of note, the list is updated periodically and this comment is likely inaccurate after a recent revision.
The Nature of Procrastination 10
hyperbolic discounting, and irrational exuberance. Second, the Social Sciences Citation Index
(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
The Nature of Procrastination 11
moderator search based on age of participant was conducted. In addition, the studies were coded
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 nonjournals, 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 metaanalysis, 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).
The Nature of Procrastination 12
Categories of Research
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
The Nature of Procrastination 13
four sections: Internal Reliability, Scale Convergence, Divergent Validity, Convergent Validity,
and Domains of Procrastination.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 14
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.
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,
The Nature of Procrastination 15
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 16
Progress, Delay Finishing Tasks, and Missing Deadlines. Results are summarized in Table 3 and
strongly support the validity of procrastination measures.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 17
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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 18
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
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 Nature of Procrastination 19
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.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 20
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 21
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
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,
Ottens (1982) makes this observation early on, noting that “procrastinators perceive task situations in such ways so
as to exacerbate their aversiveness” (p. 371).
4
The Nature of Procrastination 22
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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 23
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
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 SelfEfficacy, 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
5
This one-item on procrastination was suggested for inclusion in the study by the present author.
The Nature of Procrastination 24
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
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).
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 25
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).
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
The Nature of Procrastination 26
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
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 selfcritical 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 27
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
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-
The Nature of Procrastination 28
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.
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 nonperfectionists, 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 selfconsciousness 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 selfconsciousness 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
The Nature of Procrastination 29
.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.
Low Self-Efficacy, Low Self-Esteem, & Self-Handicapping
As fear of failure was associated with neuroticism, so it is connected with both low selfefficacy 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
The Nature of Procrastination 30
procrastination is self-handicapping done to protect self-esteem in the face of a difficult task and
low self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy.
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). Metaanalytic 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 selfesteem 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
The Nature of Procrastination 31
heterogeneity by approximately 10% and indicates that global self-esteem is primarily connected
to procrastination (F(1,30)=3.14, p=.09).
Self-handicapping.
Self-handicapping is a collection of behaviors related to low self-efficacy and low selfesteem. 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 selfhandicapped 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
The Nature of Procrastination 32
opinion on this matter, procrastination and self-handicapping appear to be at least empirically
related.
Depression, Energy, Learned Helplessness, & Pessimism.
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 selfdislike. 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
The Nature of Procrastination 33
moderate for depression and energy but weak or non-significant for learned helplessness and
pessimism.
Depression.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 34
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 35
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
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,
The Nature of Procrastination 36
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.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 37
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
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 decisionmaking 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 38
Qualitative analysis of procrastination also indicates that typically the decision to procrastinate is
impulsive and unplanned (Quarton, 1992).
Distractibility.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 39
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.
(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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 40
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 41
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
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 selfreports.
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,
The Nature of Procrastination 42
conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The procrastination and conscientiousness variables loaded
together, while those related to neuroticism loaded on a separate dimension.
Self-control/Self-discipline.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 43
pertaining to impulsiveness. Impulsiveness is often considered to be the opposite pole of the selfdiscipline facet (Ones & Viswevaran, 1996).
Organization.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 44
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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 45
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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 46
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 47
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.
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 48
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.
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 peernot 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
“problem” versus “anxiety” versions of their inventory correlated at .89.
The Nature of Procrastination 49
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
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
9
This standard deviation differed trivially from that of three other countries considered: Canada, Netherlands, and
Israel.
The Nature of Procrastination 50
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).
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
The Nature of Procrastination 51
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 52
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
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:
Utilityi  Ei  Vi
(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
The Nature of Procrastination 53
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.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 54
& 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,
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-
The Nature of Procrastination 55
Utilityi 
Vi
Z  i D
(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
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).
The Nature of Procrastination 56
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
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:
The Nature of Procrastination 57
Utility 
Rate  Amount
Delay
(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
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:
Utilityi 
Ei  Vi
Z  i D
(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
The Nature of Procrastination 58
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 59
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
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 Nature of Procrastination 60
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.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 61
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
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
The Nature of Procrastination 62
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.
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
The Nature of Procrastination 63
(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
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 64
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 theorybased 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: JosseyBass.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 65
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 multidimensional 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 reexamination 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 66
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 67
 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 metaanalytic 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 68
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, socialesteem, 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 “realworld” 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 69
 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, 127137.
 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 selfcontrol and self-reinforcement: An exploratory study. Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality, 10, 135-142.
 Ferrari, J. R., & McCown, W. (1994). Procrastination tendencies among obsessivecompulsives 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 selfevaluation, 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,
The Nature of Procrastination 70
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, selfactualization, 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 selfdirective 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 metaanalysis. 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 71
 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 selfcritical 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 72
 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 selfhandicapping 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 73
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, 91103.
 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 74
 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 selfcontrol 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 75
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, 130136.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 76
 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. 57149): 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 77
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 with
extraversion? 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
The Nature of Procrastination 78
 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 79
 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. 7196). 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 80
 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.fuberlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/General_Perceived_SelfEfficac/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 wellbeing. 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).
The Nature of Procrastination 81
 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 82
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 and
measurement. 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, 6869.
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.
The Nature of Procrastination 83
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 metaanalysis. 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.
The Nature of Procrastination 84
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Graph of a student’s utility estimation for socializing versus writing an essay over the
course of a semester.
Utility
The Nature of Procrastination 85
90
80
70
60
Socializing
50
40
30
Essay Writing
20
10
0
15-Sep
8-Oct
December 3rd
31-Oct
Time
23-Nov
16-Dec
The Nature of Procrastination 86
Table 1
The Reliability of Procrastination Scales
Name
Academic Procrastination
Scale (APS)
Adult Inventory of
Procrastination (AIP)
Aitken Procrastination
Inventory (API)
Decisional Procrastination
Questionnaires (DPQI, DPQII)
General Procrastination Scale
(GPS)
Procrastination Assessment
Scale-Students (PASS)
PASS - Frequency
PASS - Problem
Procrastination Log - Behavior
Procrastination Self-Statement
Inventory (PSSI)
Test Procrastination
Questionnaire (TPQ)
That’s Me – That’s Not Me
Tuckman Procrastination Scale
(TPS)
Work Procrastination Scale
(WPS)
Items
K
N

Milgram & Toubina, 1999
21
7
1,279
.90
McCown & Johnson, 1989
15
17
2,803
.81
Aitken, 1982
19
3
276
.82
Mann, 1982; Mann et al., 1997
5
22
7,476
.79
Lay, 1986
20
36
5,396
.87
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984
12
3
591
.83
Lopez & Wambach, 1982
6
6
11
8
4
4
1,610
923
218
.74
.73
.64
Grecco, 1983
24
2
485
.83
10
2
238
.94
16
11
2,695
.86
Tuckman, 1991
35
3
300
.87
Steel, 2002
9
2
360
.88
Authors
Kalechstein, Hocevar, Zimmer,
& Kalechstein, 1989
Tuckman, 1991, 1999
The Nature of Procrastination 87
Table 2
The Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations of Procrastination Scales
Procrastination
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
APS
2.48
(130)
AIP
2.71
(3,216)
API
2.72
(2,052)
DPQ
2.62
(4,534)
GPS
2.81
(5,843)
PASS
2.93
(2,002)
PASS – Freq. 2.29
(2,006)
PASS – Prob. 2.06
(1,677)
Procras. Log
-
10 PSSI
11 TPQ
12 That’s Me/Not
Me
13 TPS
14 WPS
1.80
(355)
2.20
(70)
3.14
(652)
2.43
(305)
3.05
(228)
Std
.48
(130)
.68
(2,874)
.55
(1,960)
.70
(2,142)
.79
(5,240)
.64
(1,822)
.64
(2,006)
.61
(1,677)
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-
.60/.75
(20)
.46/.57 .24/.30
(2,288) (32)
.78/.93 .73/.80 .66/.79
(732) (160) (1,400)
.26/.31 .64/.75
(344) (141)
.60/.75
(102)
.47/.59
(102)
-
.70/.93
(403)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.88
(228)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.56
(355)
.68
(70)
.97
(652)
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.”
The Nature of Procrastination 88
Table 3
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings
 - 95% Interval
r - 95% Interval
Construct
Divergent Validity
Defensiveness
K
N
r
Confidence
Credibility
Residual

Confidence
Credibility
Residual
11
1,512
-.18
-.37 to -.09
-.42 to .06
23 to 87%
-.21
-.33 to -.11
-.49 to .07
21 to 87%
Convergent Validity
Other Report
Delay Starting Tasks
Lack of Task Progress
Delay Finishing Tasks
Missing Deadlines
6
3
7
17
7
986
197
927
2,087
533
.33
.37
.27
.31
.26
.24 to .42
.08 to .67
.15 to .39
.22 to .40
.15 to .37
.17 to .49
-.08 to .83
.01 to .54
-.02 to .64
.09 to .43
3 to 88%
7 to 96%
17 to 93%
63 to 91%
1 to 77%
.38
.44
.32
.36
.31
.27 to .47
.09 to .79
.17 to .42
.24 to .43
.17 to .40
.20 to .57
-.03 to .92
.02 to .63
-.02 to .74
.10 to .52
3 to 88%
7 to 94%
16 to 92%
62 to 91%
1 to 77%
The Nature of Procrastination 89
Table 4
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings
 - 95% Interval
r - 95% Interval
K
N
r
Confidence
Credibility
Residual

Confidence
Credibility
Residual
8
10
938
1,069
.40
.40
.28 to .53
.29 to .50
.08 to .73
.12 to .67
43 to 94%
27 to 90%
.44
.46
.30 to .57
.34 to .58
.10to .79
.14 to .79
42 to 94%
28 to 90%
Trait Anxiety, Neuroticism, Negative Affect
Trait Anxiety
28 5,470 .24
Neuroticism
17 3,594 .24
EPQ, BPP, & BFI
6 1,455 .13
NEO & EPI
11 1,911 .31
Negative Affect
7 1,299 .29
.20 to .27
.17 to .30
.03 to .23
.24 to .37
.22 to .35
.11 to .37
.00 to .47
-.08 to .34
.13 to .48
.16 to .41
14 to 70%
55 to 89%
9 to 93%
15 to 86%
1 to 80%
.28
.27
.16
.35
.33
.23 to .32
.20 to .35
.04 to .28
.27 to .42
.25 to .41
.12 to .43
-.01 to .56
-.10 to .41
.14 to .56
.19 to .47
14 to 70%
56 to 89%
10 to 93%
19 to 87%
1 to 80%
Irrational Beliefs, Fear of Failure, Perfectionism, Self-Consciousness, and Evaluation Anxiety
Irrational Beliefs
14 2,384 .27
.19 to .34
.02 to .52 48 to 89% .32
.25 to .45
Fear of Failure
13 1,938 .14
.08 to .21
-.04 to .33 20 to 85% .17
.10 to .25
Perfectionism: Self
18 2,579 -.03 -.09 to .04 -.26 to .20 33 to 83% -.03 -.11 to .04
Perfectionism: Other
11 1,311 .02 -.07 to .11 -.22 to .26 14 to 85% .02 -.09 to .13
Perfectionism: Social
11 1,527 .20
.14 to .26
.08 to .32
1 to 70%
.25
.17 to .32
Self-Conscious: Public 15 3,166 .21
.16 to .27
.05 to .38 20 to 82% .25
.20 to .34
Self-Conscious: Private 9 1,486 .19
.13 to .25
.08 to .31
1 to 73%
.23
.16 to .32
Evaluation Anxiety
17 3,406 .21
.16 to .25
.07 to .35 10 to 77% .24
.18 to .29
.03 to .62
-.04 to .38
-.31 to .24
-.27 to .31
.11 to .40
.06 to .44
.09 to .36
.07to .41
47 to 89%
19 to 84%
33 to 83%
14 to 85%
1 to 68%
17 to 81%
1 to 73%
11 to 78%
Construct
Task Aversiveness
Task Procrastination
Trait Procrastination
The Nature of Procrastination 90
Table 5
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings
 - 95% Interval
r - 95% Interval
Construct
K
N
Confidence Credibility
r
Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Self-Handicapping
Self-Efficacy
22 3,717 -.45 -.49 to -.41 -.58 to -.31
Self-Esteem
33 5,846 -.26 -.30 to -.23 -.41 to -.12
Global Self-Esteem 30 5,448 -.27 -.31 to -.23 -.41 to -.13
Social Self-Esteem
3
398 -.16 -.41 to .09 -.56 to .34
Diff. Idnt. & Self-Hnd. 16 2,801 .45
.38 to .52
.22 to .68
Diffuse Identity
6 1,350 .39
.24 to .53
.04 to .73
Self-Handicapping
10 1,451 .51
.46 to .57
.41 to .62
Residual

Confidence
Credibility
Residual
15 to 75%
22 to 71%
19 to 71%
5 to 98%
58 to 90%
62 to 97%
2 to 75%
-.53
-.31
-.32
-.19
.58
.50
.65
-.61 to -.51
-.35 to -.26
-.36 to -.27
-.49 to .11
.51 to .69
.31 to .70
.62 to .77
-.68 to -.38
-.48 to -.13
-.49 to -.15
-.62 to .25
.30 to .86
.11 to .88
.49 to .80
11 to 73%
24 to 72%
21 to 72%
5 to 97%
54 to 89%
56 to 96%
3 to 79%
Depression, Learned Helplessness, and Pessimism
Depression
27 5,729 .28
.25 to .32
Energy
10 1,992 -.30 -.38 to -.22
Locus of Control (Ext.) 10 1,964 .27
.19 to .36
Pessimism
12 1,944 .14
.22 to .05
11 to 70%
30 to 90%
40 to 91%
37 to 89%
.33
-.36
.33
.16
.29 to .37
-.45 to -.27
.24 to .46
.27 to .06
.20 to .47
-.61 to -.12
.06 to .61
-.12 to .44
11 to 70%
27 to 89%
35 to 91%
35 to 89%
Extraversion: Positive Affect, Impulsiveness, Distractibility, and Sensation-Seeking
Extraversion
14 3,244 -.05 -.17 to -05 -.47 to .38 82 to 96%
NON-EPQ
12 2,892 -.10 -.16 to -.05 -.26 to .05 10 to 82%
EPQ
2
352
.43 -.07 to .94 -.27 to .99 78 to 99%
Positive Affect
9 1,840 -.22 -.28 to -.15 -.37 to -.07 5 to 84%
Impulsiveness
16 2,885 .38
.33 to .43
.22 to .54 23 to 82%
Distractibility
12 1,970 .47
.41 to .54
.31 to .64 18 to 85%
Sensation-Seeking
9 1,818 .18
.13 to .22
-.13 to .49 57 to 95%
-.07
-.13
.52
-.25
.45
.56
.21
-.20 to .09
-.19 to -.06
-.09 to .99
-.33 to -.18
.42 to .55
.55 to .71
.08 to .37
-.57 to .45
-.30 to .05
-.23 to .99
-.42 to -.08
.24 to .66
.35 to .77
-.15 to .57
82 to 96%
9 to 82%
77 to 99%
5 to 84%
31 to 84%
27 to 87%
57 to 95%
.17 to .40
-.52 to -.09
.03 to .51
-.12 to .39
The Nature of Procrastination 91
Table 6
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings
 - 95% Interval
r - 95% Interval
Construct
K
N
Disagreeable: Rebellious & Hostile
Disagreeable
9 2,623
Rebellious
10 2,126
Hostile
9 1,961
r
Confidence
Credibility
Residual

Confidence
Credibility
Residual
.11
.12
.15
.03 to .19
.06 to .17
.08 to .21
-.11 to .32
-.01to .24
.00 to .30
36 to 92%
3 to 78%
5 to 84%
.12
.14
.18
.03 to .22
.07 to .22
.10 to .27
-.13 to .38
-.01 to .29
.00 to .36
39 to 92%
3 to 78%
5 to 84%
Openness to Experience: Intelligence
Openness to Exp.
10 2,567
Intelligence
12 1,860
.06
.02
.00 to .12
-.05 to .09
-.09 to .22
-.17 to .22
9 to 85%
12 to 83%
.07
.03
.00 to .15
-.06 to .11
-.10 to .25
-.21 to .26
8 to 85%
12 to 83%
Conscientiousness: Self-Control, Organization, Achievement Motivation
Conscientiousness
15 3,075 -.64 -.69 to -.59 -.79 to -.49
Self-Control
15 4,213 -.53 -.64 to -.42 -.94 to -.12
Self-Discipline
8 2,621 -.66 -.73 to -.59 -.84 to -.48
Organization
16 2,920 -.40 -.46 to -.33 -.61 to -.18
Achievement Motivat. 27 6,019 -.40 -.47 to -.33 -.75 to -.05
Need for Achiev.
14 3,210 -.47 -.54 to -.40 -.72 to -.22
Self-Regulation
7 1,481 -.54 -.64 to -.45 -.76 to -.32
49 to 89%
91 to 98%
66 to 96%
47 to 88%
84 to 95%
67 to 93%
36 to 94%
-.75
-.62
-.77
-.47
-.48
-.55
-.63
-.82 to -.70
-.82 to -.54
-.99 to -.80
-.58 to -.42
-.57 to -.40
-.67 to -.49
-.77 to -.54
-.92 to -.57
-.99 to -.15
-.98 to -.56
-.73 to -.21
-.88 to -.07
-.84 to -.26
-.88 to -.38
50 to 89%
91 to 97%
66 to 96%
50 to 89%
83 to 94%
67 to 93%
35to 94%
The Nature of Procrastination 92
Table 7
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastination’s Correlational Findings
 - 95% Interval
r - 95% Interval
Construct
K
Aspects of Procrastination
Dilatory Behavior
14
Intention
6
Intention-Action Gap
6
Performance
GPA
15
Course GPA
8
Final Exam
10
Assignments
7
Demographics
Age - Uncorrected
Age - Corrected
Sex (M=1, F=2)
14
14
35
N
r
Confidence
Credibility
Residual

Confidence
Credibility
Residual
2,564
433
533
.50
.06
.29
.45 to .55
-.14 to .26
.17 to .41
.46 to .64
-.36 to .49
.08 to .50
17 to 83%
18 to 94%
2 to 85%
.63
.07
.31
.55 to .68
-.16 to .31
.19 to .44
.47 to .80
-.42 to .56
.10 to .55
12 to 81%
18 to 94%
2 to 85%
3,220
1,814
851
1,087
-.14
-.26
-.18
-.31
-.19 to -.09
-.32 to -.19
-.33 to -.04
-.41 to -.21
-.29 to .00
-.40 to -.12
-.59 to .22
-.53 to -.09
10 to 79%
4 to 85%
48 to 93%
10 to 91%
-.17 -.22 to -.10
-.30 -.35 to -.21
-.21 -.35 to -.04
-.37 -.45 to -.23
-.35 to .00
-.46 to -.15
-.67 to .25
-.64 to -.10
9 to 78%
3 to 83%
48 to 93%
10 to 91%
2,999
2,999
7,289
-.15
-.48
-.09
-.21 to -.09
-.58 to -.38
-.13 to -.05
-.33 to .02
-.84 to -.12
-.29 to .11
22 to 84%
4 to 75%
46 to 79%
-.18
-.79
-.11
-.38 to .02
-.99 to -.55
-.40 to .18
21 to 84%
1 to 52%
52 to 82%
-.23 to -.10
-.62 to -.41
-.14 to -.05