Osvaldo Jiménez
Psychology 166
May 8th, 2003
I’ll think of a good title later
“God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far
behind that I will never die. “ (quoted from Calvin & Hobbes, as seen on http://www.gigausa.com/gigaweb1/quotes2/quautwattersonbillx001.htm)
Through his depiction of Calvin & Hobbes, it is obvious that American cartoonist Bill
Watterson (Creator of “Calvin & Hobbes”) knows something about pop culture’s notion of
falling behind in their life accomplishments.
This phenomenon, which is termed
“procrastination,” is prevalent in American society. Although some refer to procrastination only
as academic work, it can also affect a range of areas, from relationships to work to washing the
dishes.
In terms of academic procrastination, Ellis & Knaus reported that approximately 70% of
students had a chronic problem of procrastination (1977, as cited in Beck et al., 2000). This
demonstrates that procrastination has become a frequent problem, especially in the system of
higher education.
Ellis & Knaus go on to report about the severity of the problem of
procrastination, as they indicate that the majority of college students procrastinate so much that
they begin to experience anxiety (1977, as cited in Onwuegbuzie, 2000). In addition, the
Chronicle of Higher Education reported that studies have shown, “College students who
procrastinate in their academic work are also likely to have unhealthy sleep, diet, and exercise
patterns” (Glenn, 2002).
However, two of the most prolific authors on the topic of
procrastination, Joseph R. Ferrari & Timothy A. Pychyl stated that procrastination is still a
“…misunderstood and largely ignored phenomena” (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2000). Thus, this paper
will provide an analysis of the research on procrastination by looking at circumstances such as
gender, anxiety, academic achievement, and self-efficacy. Through those findings the paper will
propose a program that will reduce tendencies to procrastinate.
How did procrastination come about? There are a couple of different notions of how
procrastination came to be in its current state. One view comes from the behaviorists, which
state, “…procrastination is a learned habit developing from a human preference for pleasurable
activities and short-term rewards” (Haycock et al., 1998). A concrete example of this would be
the task of writing a paper. For some, this task is not very pleasurable, and they may revert to
playing video games instead of paper writing, which provides the short-term reward of
entertainment over the long-term reward of finishing the paper.
Another view as to the source of procrastination came about from the psychodynamic
lens of psychology. McCown et al. gives an overview of three of the main ideas that have come
from this field in psychology. The first states, “Missildine, for example (1964) believes the
causal roots of procrastination to be either of two extremes of childrearing: an overindulgent
parent encouraging underachievement, or an overdemanding parent encouraging a rebellious
lassitude” (as cited in McCown et al., 1987). Another theory that McCown et al. states is that
procrastination often arises from an individual trying to “get back’ at one’s parents” (1987). The
last theory claims that procrastination is a form of avoiding an “unconscious death anxiety”
(1987). All of these theories have also been supported as being popular theories in Haycock et
al.’s work (1998). However, since there is not a substantial amount of evidence for any of these
theories, they are largely ignored by modern researchers. In fact when McCown et al. does
mention the psychodynamic theory, it is only to mention that the empirical evidence that resulted
from his study does not support any of the psychodynamic theories proposed (McCown et al.
1987). However these theories still have a high rate of popularity and familiarity with the
general public.
Although it has been stated that procrastination has been ignored, the evidence has
pointed to procrastination as being a trait with significant consequences. In addition to what has
been reported above in the Chronicle for Higher Education, procrastination has been correlated
with higher levels of drinking, tobacco use, and recreational drug use (Sirois & Pychyl, 2002).
Although these studies do not show causation, because high levels of alcohol, drug, and tobacco
use are commonly known to be detrimental to the physical health and well being of an
individual, one should simply be aware of the phenomena. Nonetheless, these are not the only
effects that have been correlated with procrastination.
The bulk of the research on procrastination has been done in the past 25 years, and that
research has concentrated on trying to find empirical evidence of correlations between
procrastination and a multitude of cognitive and demographic elements. One of the most general
elements, finding differences in procrastination among males and females, has found a mixed
bag of results. In Haycock et al.’s experiments in procrastination, they found that gender was not
a significant predictor of procrastination (1998). This finding was also reported in Ferrari’s
research on gender, as he reported no significant findings between gender and scores on a
procrastination survey. In fact Ferrari goes on to report, “This fact was consistent with other
studies examining academic procrastination (e.g. Ferrari, 1989a; Frost et al., 1990; Solomon &
Rothblum 1984) indicating that the tendency to delay academic tasks is both common to men
and women” (1992). This demonstrates that there is a heavy amount of research that supports
the notion that there is no type of correlation between procrastination and gender.
However, further studies indicated significant differences between men and women in the
procrastination levels. In their second study, Rothblum et al. found there to be some significant
differences in gender when dealing with the topic of procrastination. Particularly, they found
that females tended to report more frequent symptoms of anxiety when practicing
procrastination. This was especially true when they compared these reports between women and
time of sessions, where time was varied as the amount of time before a midterm. Rothblum et al.
states, “…female high procrastinators reported more anxiety-related physical symptoms during
the last session than did male high procrastinators” (1986). In addition, Milgram et. al’s group
found there to be specific correlations between procrastination in everyday life and personality
variables such as life satisfaction and self-regulation.
Milgram et al’s group found these
correlations apply specifically to males (1988). However, no other variables in their study, such
as the relationship between procrastination and emotional reaction to the task, were found to
have significant gender differences. Milgram et al. describe this discrepancy and theorizes about
why this difference is evident, claiming, “That the relationship between procrastination and the
personality correlates was found only with men may be due to attitudinal differences toward
routine activities included in the procrastination scale” (1988). Although they do not provide
any support for this argument, this statement demonstrates that Milgram et al. are trying to make
sense of something that they view as a discrepancy. One can deduce this by noticing that they
are trying to provide an explanation for the gender differences in solely one area. Had Milgram
et al.’s group thought that there would have been gender differences across most variables, then
most likely they would be theorizing about why they were not evident in their experimental
results.
Another characteristic that seems to have inconsistent findings is that of grade point
average or academic success.
In Lay and Schouwenburg’s studies, they found, “Trait
procrastination was unrelated to the intended grade in the course (r = -.20) and to self-reported
grade-point-average to date (r=-.14)” (1993). Though the correlation coefficients look close to
being significant, they are still small enough that they could be due to other factors. Moreover,
Solomon & Rothblum’s research did not find a significant correlation between the course grade
for the course they were measuring, and the self-reported procrastination scores of the students
(1984). Recent studies have also pointed to the non-significant correlation between academic
success and procrastination as well (Glenn, 2002). Nevertheless, there seems to be a virtually
equal amount of evidence that supports claims that procrastination is linked to academic success.
In their study two years later, Rothblum et al. write, “Self-reported procrastination was
negatively correlated with grade point average for the semester (r =-.22, p<.001)” (1986). Other
researchers have reported similar findings, as Ferrari et al. mention, “Self-reported frequent
academic procrastination has been related to missing deadlines for submitting assignments,
delaying the taking of self-paced quizzes, claiming test anxiety, and obtaining low course and
semester grades (Beswick, Rothblum & Mann, 1988; Lay & Burns, 1991; Rothblum et. al.,
1986)” (1992).
The equal amount of evidence in support and against the relationship between
procrastination is best reported by Beck et. al. who states, “…several investigators have reported
academic procrastination leading to lowered course grades or grade-point averages (e.g.,
Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Wesley, 1994), while others
have found few academic implications (e.g., Beswick, 1988; Lay, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum
1988)” (2000). Although there seems to be a lot of contradictory evidence, one way to analyze
this is by looking at correlation coefficients of the contradictory studies. From this one could
deduce that the correlation between procrastination and academic grades might be weak.
Because of the low correlation coefficients found in both of the studies that were analyzed, one
could hypothesize that the link between procrastination and academic success is weak. Having a
weak link between the two items can explain why the correlation coefficient in the studies could
waiver back and forth between being statistically significant and not. This would provide an
answer for the contradictory evidence that has been given, and is supported by the low
coefficients we were able to find in the studies.
Numerous studies have not only looked at these variables that were discussed, but also at
other measurable cognitive elements as predictors of procrastination. Haycock et al. summarizes
the major ones as being, irrational beliefs, attribution style, beliefs about time, self-esteem,
optimism, and self-handicapping strategies (1998).
Although these predictors were all
formulated by other people and most have empirical evidence backing them, Haycock et al. later
discusses how many of them have been contested as being significant predictors. In contrast,
two of the latest studies have only shown one type of correlation between procrastination.
Instead of finding that procrastination was significantly correlated to any of these mentioned
cognitive variables, they have found that self-efficacy is the variable most strongly linked to
procrastination (Ferrari et al., 1992; Haycock et al., 1998). In fact, in Ferrari et al.’s research,
they found it to be the only significant predictor of procrastination. One could say that there is
also some contradictory research in terms of this cause as well. In earlier research Solomon &
Rothblum had found that the two most significant correlates of procrastination were fear of
failure and task aversiveness (1984). However, because of the date of this study is still relatively
early in terms of when the theory of self-efficacy gained popularity, one explanation could be
that Solomon & Rothblum did not know to look for this type of correlation, and were instead
looking for external factors. In addition, there have been links between self-efficacy and anxiety,
as Haycock et al. state, “When people experience weak efficacy in potentially threatening
situations, they also tend to experience increased anxiety” (1998). This inverse relationship
between self-efficacy and anxiety has also been demonstrated by Bandura et al., who write,
“...the positive experience of successful action is considered to be one of the best eradicators of
anxiety" (1974). Thus, one could conclude that there is a complex interaction between these
variables when one is experiencing procrastination, where cognitive variables such as selfefficacy, could be affecting the physiological state of the person, which could be displayed
through higher anxiety levels. This would fall in line with Solomon and Rothblum’s research as
they state in their paper that procrastination “involves a complex interaction of behavioral,
cognitive, and affective components” (1984).
According to Bandura, self-efficacy is defined as “the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (1977). He emphasizes that
self-efficacy is different from outcome expectations, by stating, “individuals can come to believe
that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but question whether they can
perform those actions” (1977). Thus, one can speculate that there could be a relationship
between self-efficacy and procrastination; by stating if a person does believe that they can
successfully execute the behavior required to produce an outcome (self-efficacy), than they may
put off completing the task (procrastination). In addition, Bandura stated later in one of his
books, “People experience high anticipatory and performance distress on tasks in which they
perceive themselves to be inefficacious, but as the strength of their self-judged efficacy
increases, their fear arousal declines” (1986). This could explain the reasons that some of the
researchers mentioned found or reported that anxiety and fear of failure were being highly
related to procrastination (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Lay 1993). If these people did not have
a high sense of self-efficacy, then this would imply that they would have a high arousal of fear,
which could in turn cause high levels of anxiety among procrastinators. Nevertheless, there is
still other research that points to task aversion as being a main predictor of procrastination
(Milgram et al., 1988; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). In this case, self-efficacy could also be
related as the possible cause of task aversion, as Bandura cites himself when writing “People
avoid activities that they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but they undertake and perform
assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1977a)" (as cited,
1982). This supports the theory that self-efficacy is a major factor in procrastination by stating
that if people don’t feel they can cope, they will begin to exercise task aversion. The link
between coping and self-efficacy has been shown also by Bandura, when he sates, “people who
judge themselves inefficacious dwell upon their coping deficiencies and view trying situations as
fraught with danger” (1986).
Therefore, this would propose the relationship between task
aversion and self-efficacy, by communicating that if someone does not think that they can finish
the problem, they are more likely to not finish the problem. These links between self-efficacy,
task aversion, and fear of failure have been further strengthened by Milgram et al., who report
that the reason people procrastinate on some things and not others is due to the emotional
reaction that the person has towards a specific task (1988). Since one of the biggest variables or
causes of self-efficacy is the emotional mood of a subject, where Bandura states that having a
positive mood enhances self-efficacy, we have strengthened the correlation that occurs between
self-efficacy and procrastination. In addition, we have been able to construct procrastination as
being a complex interaction of events and states, with self-efficacy showing evidence of being a
probable factor in causing procrastination. The behavioral symptoms that have been displayed
and correlated with procrastination can also be correlated with self-efficacy. This analysis has
given a strong claim and support for the two studies by Ferrari et al. and Haycock et al., which
showed self-efficacy as being highly correlated to procrastination.
Other than the alternatives that we have presented so far, which have reported to link
procrastination with self-efficacy through the factors given such as anxiety, task aversion, and
fear of failure. There are two other studies that have provided some evidence of other effects
that have some correlation with procrastination. Another researcher who has devoted many
articles to procrastination, Clarry Lay, has noted that he theorizes that procrastination is not
linked to anxiety but rather to depression (Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993). Although similar, Lay
& Schouwenburg make the distinction between the two, stating, “Anxiety is linked to cognitions
about fearful or harmful event in the future. Depression, on the other hand, concerns ‘actual or
perceived loss, failure, or degradation’ in the past” (1993).
In their studies, Lay &
Schouwenburg find that there is an interaction across time before a due date. They basically
state that before making plans for the course they had higher depression levels, but after the
course was completed they were more likely to have higher anxiety levels at this point (1993).
This would support their reasoning as to depression being a major correlate with procrastination.
However, self-efficacy would seem to be related to both, since there could be a reciprocal
reaction that takes place between levels of self-efficacy and depression. Since personal mastery
is one of the strongest ways to raise self-efficacy from Bandura’s research (1998), one could
deduce that experiencing failures could be devastating to one’s self-efficacy, which could then be
related to the definition of depression.
The other study that proclaims a link to procrastination is Tuckman & Sexton, who
believe that there is a correlation between procrastination and self-belief (1992). In their article
they mention Bandura’s work, and say that self-efficacy is generally related to self-belief, with
the only difference being that self-efficacy is, “a situationally specific belief, one that is
determined each time a situation arises, rather than a more enduring characteristic such as an
aspect of personality” (Tuckman & Sexton, 1992). Even though this is an alternative view of
what affects procrastination, it is very similar to self-efficacy. However, other research points to
the fact that procrastination does differ depending on different situations. As stated previously
Milgram et al. reported that people do tend to procrastinate on some tasks more than others, and
that whether or not they procrastinated on a specific task was largely dependent on whether they
liked the task or not (1988). Since this was previously related to the emotional liking of selfefficacy, it would make a stronger case that self-efficacy is the strongest predictor and correlate
to procrastination.
Since it has been revealed that self-efficacy is the strongest predictor of procrastination,
in order to devise a way to combat procrastination, one must look at ways of raising selfefficacy. By raising the self-efficacy of a student, one can lower the amount of procrastination of
a student. Should there be dissenters out there that still believe that the symptoms are important
reasons that people tend to procrastinate and not because of self-efficacy itself, one can argue
that since we have found links that show self-efficacy lowers the threat of these reasons, one can
theoretically devise a good program of treatment that solely focuses on self-efficacy that these
dissenters will be pleased with.
Before we reach the stage of devising a program aimed at raising self-efficacy, we must
understand the basic tenets of self-efficacy and how they work first. Being that Albert Bandura
is the foremost expert on this topic, we will use his research and theories as a primary guide into
learning about self-efficacy. Before one can begin to devise the program to raise the selfefficacy, one needs to understand the factors that are behind this cognitive theory. Bandura
states that there are four main methods of increasing self-efficacy. The first deals with he calls
mastery experiences. Bandura states that if someone successfully accomplishes some task a
large number of times in succession, that person is more likely to believe that they can complete
the task later on. Another way of increasing self-efficacy is through modeling experiences.
When person A models a behavior for person B, person B will be more likely to think that they
can successfully complete the task. The third way of increasing self-efficacy is through social or
verbal persuasion, as by its definition persuasion can change a person’s beliefs. The last method
of increasing efficacy is through emotional and physical moods (1998). For example, when one
is happy, one tends to believe that they can successfully accomplish more. In order to devise a
successful program, one will start looking at the different factors in influencing self-efficacy, and
look for methods that can be used to enhance those factors.
Bandura’s first factor, increasing personal mastery experience, is one of the most
important facets of self-efficacy. Bandura himself stated, “The most effective way of instilling a
strong sense of efficacy is through mastery experiences. Successes build a robust sense of
efficacy” (1998). From this one can denote that mastery experiences can be the most powerful
promoter of self-efficacy, and can thus curb the amount of procrastination that one performs on a
task. In order to provide a program that could have real world implications, one will try to
devise a program that would reduce the amount of procrastination that a college student would
have in writing a term paper. Bandura et al. has stated before that one way to increase a
successful sense of mastery experiences is to reduce the very difficult or demanding task into a
series of smaller subtasks of greater difficulty that would be easy for the subject to master on
each level (1974). One way to do this would be set out the term paper so that the subject has to
go through the different subtasks of writing a paper in a scheduled way. The self-efficacy
program could devise the paper for him so that he will have different phases of the task, literature
review, analysis, outline, rough draft, and polishing up the final draft. By making the tasks easy
to perform at the beginning, such as (logon and search for “termX”) the program would
gradually make the tasks harder. An example of a sequence of tasks would be, “search for the
term on the psycinfo database, read a couple of abstracts on that particular topic, go and check
out those couple of books from the library, then read and takes notes on one of the articles”. If
you start with a program like this, and make it increasingly more difficult but still stay within the
limits of what the subject can do, the subject can begin to feel a greater sense of mastery over
these topics. If the level of difficulty can just be ramped so that the student deals with a slightly
greater number of books each time, then they can easily get through all of the research. In order
to write the paper, one way to build the graduated subtasks is to break up writing the paper into
first some headings for the different areas of the paper, followed by a more detailed outline, and
then have the students slowly start writing the content for the paper, starting with something as
small as a paragraph and then working their way to a page and finally finishing the entire paper.
This type of program might fall into the time management and study skills program that some
researchers have found to be slightly helpful in preventing procrastination (Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984). However, as some researchers have stated, time management interventions are
not significantly effective on their own (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Glenn, 2002).
Another possible way of increasing social efficacy is through social modeling. One of
Bandura et al.’s findings on modeling suggests that participant modeling works best when there
are at least a medium amount of aids given to someone in order to have them overcome any
anxiety that they might have (1974). Thus, one way to set this up is to have a program that
follows a similar social modeling structure to Delancey Street. In the Delancey Street model,
where previous drug addicts and other ex-convicts try to learn some profitable traits in order to
work as a member of the society, the people that have been in the program for longer, or have
already gone through the program, end up serving as mentors to new people that have just been
admitted. In this fashion, one can see that there is some social modeling taking place where the
older members model the behavior to the newer members. In a similar fashion, in modeling how
not to procrastinate, one could have a structure in the program where the older people who used
to procrastinate end up modeling the behavior of how best to write a term paper to the newer
people who still have problems with the behavior. By having the older procrastinators who no
longer procrastinate serve as mentors to these young people, it can provide the amount of aids
needed in order to make the increase in self-efficacy effective. Bandura et al. also state that
having social modeling can eliminate any recurring fears that subjects may have that stem from
the behavior, such as the fear of failure or other anxieties examined in our analysis (1974).
Hence, this mentoring model can also be used for those subjects who need to overcome some
fear or anxiety associated with procrastination.
The third way of increasing self-efficacy is through social persuasion. Albert Bandura
points to several ways that one can increase self-efficacy through persuasion, specifically, by
using techniques of “credibility, expertness, consensus, degree of appraisal disparity, and
familiarity with task” (1998). One of the premier experts in the area of using these factors is
Robert Cialdini, who has written several editions of his popular book, “Influence: Science and
Practice”. If one focuses on the aspects of increasing credibility and expertness in the mentors of
the procrastination program, then one could increase the self-efficacy of the mentees in the
program. According to Cialdini’s book, one way to increase credibility is by increasing the
liking and the similarity of the person (2001). If one matches the mentors with the individuals in
the program such that the pair shares a great amount of similarities, then this can increase liking
between the pair, which will increase their credibility, and will hence, have more power to
persuade the people that are participating in the program. One way to increase the expertise of
the mentors in the program is to have a model where they end up being educated on the different
practices of self-efficacy and procrastination. In this case, they would learn about self-efficacy,
procrastination, and the hardest parts about writing a term paper. If they are made aware of the
research, and the keys of what is associated with procrastination, and how what they do as
mentors helps affect the people in lowering their procrastination, then they can be seen as experts
in the field of procrastination, and thus provide a valuable and persuasive figure to the people in
the program.
The last possible way of increasing self-efficacy is through the emotional state of the
subject. Bandura states that one way of changing this is, “…to reduce people's stress and
depression, build their physical strength and change misinterpretations of their physical states”
(1998). If people are experiencing stress and depression, then it could be that they are suffering
from the fear of failure that could have been brought on by low self-efficacy. If they talk to their
mentors by addressing the fear of failure, and design the subject’s subtasks so that they succeed
each time, this could greatly enhance or change their emotional state.
This would be
accomplished by reducing the stress that sometimes accompanies the writing of a paper. In
addition, if the mentors address any of the previous failures that the participants might have had,
and show them through mastery experiences that they accomplish the task of writing a term
paper, this could reduce any extra depression that they might have experienced from any other
failures. Moreover, if they receive positive feedback from their mentors on their progress, this
might increase their emotional state and strengthen them emotionally by making them more
satisfied with what they have accomplished.
Having the mentors address these specific
problems, if present in the participants, can have a successful impact on the participants selfefficacy. Therefore, if one combines these four different facets of working on self-efficacy, then
one can carry out a successful program that could create a serious impact in aiding
procrastinators to finish their tasks on time.
Although procrastination has been viewed by some researchers as being caused by one
specific variable, from the analysis the strongest and majority of the evidence points to
procrastination as being a complex set of interactions between several variables, with the biggest
predictor of procrastination being self-efficacy levels. If a program is devised such that it
addresses ways to raise the four individual factors that have an effect on self-efficacy, then it can
be successful in not only raising self-efficacy, but also in eliminating some of the other effects
that have come with not having much self-efficacy, and instead having high rates of
procrastination. Devising a mentor model such that a previous procrastinator helps guide a
current procrastinator in setting up a program where they break up a difficult task into several
easier subtasks, and educating these mentors on the issues of self-efficacy would be a strong realworld application of these theories that Bandura proposes.
References
Bandura, A., Jeffery, R. W., & Wright, C. L. (1974). Efficacy of Participant Modeling as a
Function of Response Induction Aids. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 56-64.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. (pp. 79-85) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and Collective Efficacy in Human Adaptation and Change. in J. G.
Adair, Advances in psychological science: Vol. 1. Personal, social and cultural aspects.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and Consequences of Behavioral
Procrastination: The effects of Academic Procrastination, Self-Consciousness, SelfEsteem and Self-Handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, Special
Issue: Procrastination and New Directions. 3-13.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. (pp. 143-202). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
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., & Pychyl, T. A. (Eds.) (2000). Foreword: The Scientific Study of Procrastination:
Where Have We Been and Where Are W Going? Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality, 15, Special Issue: Procrastination and New Directions.
Glenn, D. (2002). Procrastination in College Students Is a Marker for Unhealthy Behaviors,
Study Indicates. Chronicle for Higher Education. Internet Source.
http://chronicle.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=/private/users/che
/htdocs/daily/2002/08/2002082602n.htm&DocOffset=1&DocsFound=19&QueryZip=pro
crastination&Collection=%0A%0AWeekly49&Collection=Weekly48&Collection=Week
ly47&Collection=DailyNews2002
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.
Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait Procrastination, Time Management, and
Academic Behavior. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8, 647-662.
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.
Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The Procrastination of Everyday Life.
Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 197-212.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Academic Procrastinators and Perfectionistic Tendencies Among
Graduate Students. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, Special Issue:
Procrastination and New Directions. 103-109.
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.
Sirois, F. M. & Pychyl, T. A. (2002). Academic procrastination: Costs to health and well-being.
Presented at the APA Convention in Chicago. Internet Source.
http://www.carleton.ca/%7Etpychyl/prg/conferences/apa2002/apaslides2002/index.htm
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic Procrastination: Frequency and Cognitive
Behavioral Correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503-509.
Tuckman, B. W., Sexton, T. L. (1992). Self-Believers Are Self-Motivated: Self-Doubters Are
Not. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 425-428.