Running head: SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
The Role of Time Perspective in Self-Handicapping Procrastination
by
Coltan B. Thompson
201103423
Presented to Dr. E. Koch
in Psychology 341
Psychology of the Self
Department of Psychology
St. Francis Xavier University
November 25, 2013
1
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
Self-handicapping is a useful strategy for some individuals to cope with anticipated
negative performance feedback (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003). Self-handicapping
involves shifting the cause of negative performance feedback from the self and onto an obstacle
which the individual has devised beforehand, thereby evading a threat to the self-concept
(Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003). An individual may be self-handicapping when
they attribute failure to not having enough time to complete a task or by actively choosing to do
things other than prepare for an important task when the true cause of failure is an incompetence
(Beck, Koons, & Milgram, 2000). Individuals are often even aware that they are creating these
convenient excuses and recognize the strategic usefulness of these self-handicaps against selfthreats (Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003; Ferrari et al., 1998, as cited in Beck, Koons,
& Milgram, 2000). Self-handicapping naturally lends itself to the subject of procrastination,
which occurs whenever one actively avoids an important task by engaging in a lesser task instead
(Steel, as cited in Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012). Self-handicapping and procrastination have
been found to be highly correlated (Beck, Koons, & Milgram, 2000) and self-handicapping has
been found to predict procrastination (Steel, as cited in Strunk & Steele, 2011). A large portion of
the literature has looked at academic procrastination in University students; one of the main and
obvious ways in which University students procrastinate is in delaying study, so that poor
subsequent grades can be thought of as a lack of effort and not ability (Beck, Koons, & Milgram,
2000). Ironically, a chronic procrastinator would not know if his/her failure is actually due to a
lack of intellect because procrastination prevents one from displaying his/her full capabilities; the
individual is protected from discovering his/her true capacities. Some have suggested that when
an individual is both a procrastinator and a self-handicapper, it is likely that the latter developed
out of the former: individuals may adapt procrastination to be used as a self-handicap (Beck,
Koons, & Milgram, 2000). It is fear of doing badly and facing negative information about the
2
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
self-concept that impels self-handicapping (Strunk & Steele, 2011). Thus, procrastination
impelled by the self-handicap motive is highly avoidant.
Other veins of research have identified two radically different motivational bases for
procrastination: arousal procrastination and avoidant procrastination. The former suggests that
procrastinators get a “charge” out of doing something last minute; the latter involves putting off a
task out of fear of negative feedback that might threaten the self-view (Ferrari & Diaz-Morales,
2006). Avoidant procrastination seems to be the subject of study more often and its motive seems
to lend itself far more readily to self-handicapping. If fear of failure impels one to procrastinate
and self-handicapping is driven by the same fear of negative feedback then, as suggested above,
these individuals probably realize that they can self-handicap using their tendency to
procrastinate. Ultimately the feared task must be performed, at which point these procrastinators
may seek a means to protect against negative feedback: a self-handicap proves a viable option.
A concept highly related to procrastination is time perspective, an individual difference in
the conception of past, present, and future (Lennings & Burns, 1998, as cited in Gupta, Hershey,
& Gaur, 2012). Future aspirations, ambitions, and goals are believed to be related to one's
dominant time perspective (Nuttin, 1984 & Nuttin and Lens, 1985, as cited in Gupta, Hershey, &
Gaur, 2012) so one can see how different time perspectives might be implicated in
procrastination and how one utilizes time in the present. Zimbardo's Five Factor Model is widely
used in the analysis of time perspective. The model has five orientations of time perspective: two
past orientations in the form of past-positive and past-negative time perspectives, two present
orientations in the form of present-hedonistic and present-fatalistic time perspectives, and future
orientation (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Past-positive individuals associate the past with pleasant
cognitions, are nostalgic, and optimistic; past-negative individuals have opposite feelings toward
the past and may be anxious, depressive, and aggressive (Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012).
3
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
Research intended to predict each of the five time perspectives using the Big Five personality
traits found that agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness negatively correlate with
past-negative time perspective while neuroticism (unsurprisingly) positively correlates with pastnegative time perspecetive (Dunkel & Weber, 2010). Present-hedonistic individuals seek
immediate gratification, are thrill-seekers, and begrudge present sacrifices for future gain;
present-fatalistic individuals see a predestined future without much room for agency and they
tend to be depressed, anxious, and aggressive (Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012). Future oriented
individuals tend not to pursue activities that go against future goals; they are conscientious, seek
reward, and look toward the future with determination (Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012). Research
has shown that past-negative time perspective and procrastination correlate while past-positive
time perspective does not (Diaz-Morales et al., 2008, as cited in Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012).
This finding is not consistent across other studies, however (Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012) It
has also been found that present-fatalistic individuals tend to procrastinate while future oriented
individuals and present-hedonistic individuals tend not to (Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur, 2012).
Similar, generalized findings suggest that those who look on their personal past positively
and those who perceive that they have control over their future tend to be more future focused
(Fingerman & Perlmutter, 2001). Anticipating a positive future life event has also been
demonstrated to encourage future orientation (Fingerman & Perlmutter, 2001). The nature of
anticipation may actually alter how one perceives time as a defence mechanism: if a future
outcome or event is believed to be negative, it feels more temporally distant; if a future outcome
or event is believed to be positive, it feels temporally proximal (Peetz, Wilson, & Straham,
2009). As a result of this, feeling distanced from an anticipated negative outcome decreases
motivation and effort (Peetz, Wilson, & Straham, 2009). This may be the way in which negative
affect and procrastination are linked as relates to past-negative and present-fatalistic time
4
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
perspectives: both time perspectives are associated with far more negative affect generally than
any of the others. Individuals with these time perspectives likely anticipate future events and
outcomes more negatively which might make future events seem distal and therefore reduce
effort by way of procrastination.
While ample study of the relationship between time perspective and procrastination has
been done, very little investigation of the relationship (if any) between time perspective and selfhandicapping has been carried out. Since self-handicapping and procrastination highly correlate
and procrastination seems to be a function of self-handicapping, we should expect that
individuals who procrastinate as a means of self-handicapping will tend to hold one or more time
perspectives dominantly. To identify which time perspective self-handicapping procrastinators
hold is the purpose of the present study.
Theoretically, there is strong reason to believe that the time perspectives correlated with
procrastination—past-negative and present-fatalistic—are highly correlated with selfhandicapping. Neither of the time perspectives are future focused or look positively on the
future. They likely view future events through a more negative lens, one which also creates a
sense of distance, and therefore encourages the “I'll do it tomorrow” spirit of procrastination. As
it turns out, evasion of the future is a marked property of present-fatalistic orientation (Gupta,
Hershey, & Gaur, 2012) and present-fatalistic orientation correlates positively with avoidant
procrastination (Ferrari & Diaz-Morales, 2006). Since evasion of the future along with the
characteristics of avoidant procrastination are also motives toward self-handicapping behaviour,
it is reasonable to hypothesize a relationship between present-fatalistic orientation and selfhandicapping. The same relationship can be anticipated of past-negative time perspective, though
with less confidence. The past-negative orientation shares in negative affect but has a more
dubious relationship with procrastination.
5
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
The literature on procrastination has focused heavily on the academic domain which is
understandable given that procrastination in academia is commonly faced and is arguably the
foremost example of procrastination in people's minds. The applications for research in this area
are also very great. However, the present research seeks to analyze procrastination in nonacademic domains and in the mature adult population as opposed to students. This will be done
as a means of expanding the understanding of procrastination generally and specifically as it
relates to self-handicapping. Gupta, Hershey, & Gaur (2012) express a need for further study into
the exact relationship between time orientation and procrastination: the present research attempts
to do this by identifying which time perspectives self-handicapping procrastinators possess.
Understanding this could imply that for certain individuals (identified by their time perspective)
procrastination really is employed simply as a means of self-handicapping. Knowing the time
perspective(s) of individuals who use procrastination to self-handicap could reveal more about
the motives of those who self-handicap. If the time perspective(s) of self-handicappers who
procrastinate can be determined, further investigation could determine whether or not those time
perspective(s) are stable across different domains or if there is something unique to
procrastination-based self-handicapping. Further, it could be that avoidant procrastination is little
more than a prevalent form of self-handicapping or that self-handicapping is a mediator between
the time perspectives shown to correlate with procrastination.
Two studies will be conducted to determine which time perspective(s) is associated with
procrastination in self-handicappers. Procrastination will be measured in both studies through
observation and via a self-report, while self-handicapping and time perspective will be measured
via self-report. Of the three variables, procrastination is the only one that lends itself to any kind
of objective observation; as such, the opportunity to measure procrastination in this way will be
capitalized upon. Collecting two different types of procrastination data will allow for comparison
6
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
between how participants rate themselves on procrastination and how much procrastination
behaviour they display. Thus, less confidence will be put in the responses of those whose selfreport data radically differs from their behaviour. In the first study motivation to procrastination
will be manipulated by conveying task difficulty differently to the different conditions. In the
second study, correlations will be sought between self-handicapping, time perspective, and
procrastination. For both studies it is hypothesized that individuals who procrastinate as a means
of self-handicapping will display the present-fatalistic orientation foremost due to its consistent
association with procrastination and the similarities in affect between individuals with the
present-fatalistic time perspective and self-handicappers. The past-negative time perspective is
also hypothesized to be found in procrastinating self-handicappers due to affective similarities
between individuals with past-negative orientation and self-handicappers, though to a lesser
extent. The relationship between past-negative orientation and procrastination is uncertain
therefore the hypothesized relationship between past-negative orientation and self-handicapping
is also affected. The past-positive, present-hedonistic, and future orientations will have no
relationship to self-handicapping.
Study 1: Method
Participants
Approximately 100 females and males will be recruited from the Antigonish area as part
of a popular psychology awareness campaign. The study will be cast as a pilot test for a new
intelligence measure. The study will be falsely advertised as collecting anonymous data. No
compensation for participation will be given.
Materials
Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). The ZTPI
consists of 56 items phrased as statements. Respondents select how much a statement (e.g., “You
7
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
can't really plan for the future because things change so much.”) applies to them using a Likerttype scale (1 = very uncharacteristic, 5 = very characteristic). The ZTPI provides feedback on
each of the five time perspective orientations and determines which orientation(s) are most
dominant in the respondent.
Self-Handicapping Scale Short Form (SHS; Strube, 1986). The SHS is a 10 item (e.g., “I
tend to rationalize when I don't live up to others' expectations”) scale which uses a Likert-type
response format (1 = disagree very much, 6 = agree very much).
Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP; Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995). The AIP is
a 15-item Likert-type scale running from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree) with seven reverse scored
items (Ferrari & Diaz-Morales, 2006). It assesses an individual's avoidant procrastination by
measuring “fears of success or failure, avoidance of disclosure of skill inabilities, and
insecurities of performance” (Ferrari, 1991, as cited in Ferrari & Diaz-Morales, 2006).
Procedure
An original group of volunteers will be brought into the lab to be screened for tendency
to self-handicap using the SHS. Individuals demonstrating high self-handicapping will be
contacted a week later via telephone to participate in the study. Participants will be brought into
the lab to complete the ZTPI and AIP. They will then be randomly assigned to two conditions: a
control condition and an experimental condition. In the experimental condition, participants will
be gathered into a waiting room where the experimenter will inform them that the online task
they will perform is a test of intelligence and that they will, in fact, receive results on their
performance (the study had been advertised as collecting data anonymously). This manipulation
is intended to excite the preexisting self-handicapping tendencies of participants; as selfhandicappers, none of the participants are likely to face the possibility of being informed that
they are unintelligent without a ready excuse. The control condition will be told that while the
8
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
online task will test their intelligence, their results will be collected in mass and no individual
performance results will be returned. In both conditions the experimenter will then inform the
participants that the study will commence shortly. The experimenter will leave the participants
alone in the waiting room for ten minutes before returning, at which time the experimenter will
inform the participants that do to an unexpected set-back, there will be a one-hour delay. During
this time the participants can stay in the waiting room to socialize, they can use the computers to
surf the internet, or they can complete a series of online practice games which they are told will
prepare them for the test and have been shown to boost scores. For the succeeding hour,
participants will be informed of the time every 15 minutes. Hidden cameras placed in the waiting
room and computer lab will monitor how participants spent their time. Each participant will be
given a computer log-in so that time spent on completing the games can be measured. Together,
time spent putting off completing the more advantageous task (for the experimental group) of
completing the games will be taken as a measure of procrastination (self-handicapping by
procrastination to be exact). When the hour is finished, the experimenter will return again to
inform participants that there is no intelligence test and that their propensity to procrastinate was
actually being measured. All deception will be disclosed and participants will be thanked and
dismissed.
[A note on anticipated findings: in the experimental condition, past-negative and presentfatalistic individuals will put off the practice games longest. In this way, if negative performance
feedback is encountered, they can say “If I had done those practice games I would have scored
higher” rather than accept the negative feedback. In the control condition, because there is no
threat to one's intelligence, self-handicapping will not be especially elicited. So also, because in
the control participants do not expect results, completing the online games is not framed as an
important task—thus, there should be no reason to procrastinate; thus there should be an even
9
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
distribution of those completing or not completing the games across all five time perspectives in
the control.]
Study 2: Method
Participants
Approximately 150 males and females from the Antigonish area will be recruited as part
of the same popular psychology awareness campaign as in study 1, this time under the guise of
studying a link between socio-economic status and social conformity.
Materials
As in study one, Zimbardo's Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), the Self-Handicapping
Short Form (SHS), and the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP) will be administered.
Procedure
Participants will come into the lab and will be administered three preliminary measures,
the ZTPI, SHS, and AIP and will be told that these measures are relevant to social conformity.
Participants will then be administered a form to collect information on socioeconomic status,
such as annual income, worth of assets, etc., and a fallacious social conformity questionnaire.
Before participants are dismissed they will be informed that the final piece of information that
will be needed is an online questionnaire. They will be told that the questionnaire, while it might
seem unrelated, is integral to the study and that they have a week to go to the website the
questionnaire is hosted on and complete it. Participants will be provided with a link to the
questionnaire via email and a slip of paper with the website url before leaving the lab. The
participants will be thanked and dismissed. The exact nature of the questionnaire will not be
described, but the participants may access it at any time after leaving the lab. The survey will be
lengthy, dryly written, and centre on a fringe topic of environmental policy—ie, it will be
designed to discourage participant interest. The questionnaire may be completed and saved in
10
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
portions, ie, it will not have to completed all at once. Reminder emails to complete the survey
will be sent out on the fourth and sixth day. Participants have two reasons to procrastinate: the
tasks' completion is an obligation with a deadline, and the task is dry and generally uninteresting.
On the seventh day participants will be sent out a debriefing email explaining the true nature of
the study. If anyone desires further information, they will be encouraged to contact the
experimenter.
[Note on anticipated results: the data of participants who scored high in self-handicapping
and also procrastinated in completing the questionnaire will be analyzed. A dominant time
perspective will be sought in this subgroup, and it is expected that for those who self-handicap
and procrastinate (or, as has been suggested, procrastinate as a means of self-handicapping), the
present-fatalistic orientation will be most present, followed by the past-negative orientation.]
11
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
References
Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgram, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of behavioral
procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem
and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 3-13.
Dunkel, C. S. & Weber, J. L. (2010). Using three levels of personality to predict time
perspective. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse
Psychological Issues, 29(2), 95-103. doi:10.1007/s12144-010-9074-x
Fingerman, K. L. & Perlmutter, M. (1995). Future time perspective and life events across
adulthood. Journal of General Psychology, 122(1), 95-111. doi:10.1080/00221309.1995.
9921225
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Ferrari, J. R. & Diaz-Morales, J. F. (2006). Procrastination: Different time orientations reflect
different motives. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 707-714. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.
2006.06.006
Gupta, R., Hershey, D. A., & Gaur, J. (2012). Time perspective and procrastination in the
workplace: An empirical investigation. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse
Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 31(2), 195-211. doi:10.1007/s12144-0129136-3
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Williamson, A. U., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self handicapping,
defensive pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative study of university students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 617-628. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617
12
SELF-HANDICAPPING PROCRASTINATION
Peetz, J., Wilson, A. E., & Strahan, E. J. (2009). So far away: The role of subjective temporal
distance to future goals in motivation and behavior. Social Cognition, 27(4), 475-495.
Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.stfx.ca/docview/229588392?
accountid=13803
Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 7(3), 211-224. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0703_4
Strunk, K. K., & Steele, M. R. (2011). Relative contributions of self-efficacy, self-regulation,
and self-handicapping in predicting student procrastination . Psychological Reports,
109(3), 983-989. doi:10.2466/07.09.20.PR0.109.6.983-989
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individualdifferences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271-1288.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
13