The Nature of Procrastination: A
Meta-Analytic Review
Counseling the Procrastinator in
Academic Settings
Piers Steel
www.procrastinus.com
Piers Steel
1
Overview
Study details
Procrastination findings
Procrastination and performance
Weak correlates
Strong correlates
Traits & tasks
Theory of procrastination
Treatment implications
Piers Steel
2
Study Details
Almost 500 studies have been written that deal with
procrastination directly
These studies contain over 600 relevant correlations
Key terms:
K = Number of Samples/Studies Conducted
N = Total Sample Size
Correlations Effect Size
Weak  .20
Medium  .30
Large  .40
Piers Steel
4
Definition of Procrastination
Three key components:
1.
2.
3.
Overwhelmingly referred to as a negative
phenomenon – often seen as irrational
We delay voluntarily, it is our choice
We intend to do the task, not to avoid it entirely
To voluntarily delay an intended course of
action despite expecting to be worse-off for
the delay
Piers Steel
5
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
Piers Steel
6
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
1.80
(355)
2.20
(70)
3.14
(652)
2.43
(305)
Std
.48
(130)
.68
(2,874)
.55
(1,960)
.70
(2,142)
.79
(5,240)
.64
(1,822)
.64
(2,006)
.61
(1,677)
.56
(355)
.68
(70)
.97
(652)
-
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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Piers Steel
7
Procrastination & Performance
Over all, a weak (r=-.19, K=34, N=6,295) but
consistently negative relationship with
academic criteria (e.g., GPA, Exam, etc.)
Procrastination is usually harmful, sometimes
harmless, but never helpful
More serious results for financial/career
performance
Correlations are negative and moderate to strong
in strength
Piers Steel
8
Weak Correlates
These relationships have long been suspected
of being major causes of procrastination
Rebelliousness, Sensation-Seeking, Neuroticism,
and Irrational beliefs
Results here indicate, however, that they
generally either are :
Weak causes of procrastination
Strong causes only for a small percentage of
people
Piers Steel
9
Rebelliousness
Theory
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.
Results (K=21, N=4,350)
Almost no support
Correlations extremely weak
Except for adolescents, few report it as a reason
Piers Steel
10
Sensation-Seeking
Theory
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.
Results (K=9, N=1,810)
Almost no support
Correlations extremely weak
Few endorse it as a reason
Piers Steel
11
Neuroticism: Anxiety
Theory
People procrastinate on tasks because they are more
susceptible to experiencing stress and thus find them
more stressful
Results (K=44, N=8,540)
Little support
Correlations mostly weak and where strong, due to
impulsiveness
Procrastination seems to cause anxiety, not vice-versa
Piers Steel
12
Irrational Beliefs
Theory
Acts similarly to neuroticism. These beliefs create
anxiety and thus make certain tasks unpleasant.
Results (K=65, N=12,072)
Little support
Correlations mostly weak, except for general
irrational beliefs where it may be moderate
Fear of failure and perfectionism are extremely low
Self-perfectionists actually may be less likely to
procrastinate
Piers Steel
13
Strong Correlates
These relationships are generally more
recently seen as major causes of
procrastination
Traits: Self-Efficacy, Energy, Impulsiveness
& Self-Discipline, Achievement Motivation
Task Characteristics: Aversiveness, Delay
Results here indicate they either
describe or cause procrastination
Piers Steel
15
Low Self-Efficacy & Self-Esteem
Theory
Related to irrational beliefs in that people may
doubt their ability to do well
Results (K=26, N=4,217; K=33, N=5,846)
Good support
For self-efficacy, strong correlations. Helps to
explain the moderate relationship sometimes seen
with irrational belief inventories.
For self-esteem, moderate to weak correlations
Piers Steel
16
Depression & Energy
Theory
Related to irrational beliefs and low self-efficacy.
Burka and Yuen (1983) also discuss how it is
harder to initiate tasks when we are tired.
Results (K=53, N=10,233)
Moderate support
Depressed people are more pessimistic about
outcomes.
They are lethargic and thus more likely to find
energy-intensive tasks unpleasant.
Piers Steel
17
Impulsiveness & Self-Discipline
Theory
Impulsive people may be more likely to
procrastinate as they are beset with desires of the
moment and focus their attention upon them.
Results (K=17, N=3,190; K=18, N=3,877)
Very strong support
Procrastinators tend to show an intention-action
gap, indicating an impulsive shift in motivation
They tend to choose short-term benefits over
long-term gains, reflecting a core component of
poor self-regulation
Piers Steel
18
Need for Achievement
Theory
Those high in achievement motivation set
more difficult goals for themselves, find
work to be intrinsically engaging and thus
necessarily less aversive.
Results (K=38, N=6,136)
Strong support
Large (approximately .50) correlations
Piers Steel
19
Task Aversiveness: Trait & State
Theory
We seek to avoid aversive stimuli, and
consequently, the more aversive the situation, the
more likely we are to avoid it (e.g., procrastinate).
Results (K=10, N=1,069; K=8, N=938)
Very strong support for both state and trait types:
Aversive tasks tend to be procrastinated. People who find
tasks aversive, tend to be procrastinators
Researched with a variety of methodologies
Especially susceptible for boring or frustrating jobs
Piers Steel
20
Task Delay
Theory
The further away an event is temporally,
the less impact it has upon our decisions
Results (not correlational)
Very strong support from a variety of fields
(e.g., economics, behaviorism)
Students indicate that they would be less
likely to procrastinate as a deadline
approaches
Piers Steel
21
Theory of Procrastination
Big findings
Impulsiveness, Self-Discipline, Task delay
Indicates time a factor
Energy, Need for Achievement, Task
Aversiveness
Indicates value/valence a factor
Self-Efficacy, Self-Confidence
Indicates expectancy a factor
Piers Steel
22
Theory of Procrastination
Expectancy  Value
Utility 
  Delay
Any one of these variables can exacerbate
procrastination
This includes having an alternative course of
action nearby that is evaluated more
favorable
Piers Steel
23
Utility
90
Expectancy  Value
80
Utility 
  Delay
70
December 3rd
60
Socializing
50
40
30
Essay Writing
20
10
0
15-Sep
8-Oct
31-Oct
23-Nov
16-Dec
Time
Piers Steel
24
Treatment
Need for a diagnostic procedure.
There are many possible causes of procrastination
and then many different supporting factors
It may be expectancy, impulsiveness, task aversiveness,
or some combination
For any specific factor, we need to learn why
For example, if task aversiveness is driving the
procrastination for one individual, we still need to learn
why he or she finds it unpleasant
For some, though not many, it will be because they are
rebellious or have specific irrational beliefs
Piers Steel
25
General Treatment Goals
1. Reduce the aversiveness of the task
2. Increase competence with the task
3. Improve self-regulatory skills (e.g.,
organization, planning) to decrease
impulsiveness
4. Distance temptations
Piers Steel
26
Treatments
Techniques that likely will be broadly
successful are:
Energy Regulation
Goal Setting
Specific, Proximal, Challenging
Stimulus Control
Routine Building
Piers Steel
27
90
Background Temptations
No Goal Setting
Goal Setting
80
70
Utility
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Time
Piers Steel
28
Final Thought:
Procrastination Rising
We have been formally measuring
procrastination since 1978
It has been significantly rising over the last
25 years, as has debt, obesity and other
impulse related issues
The need for effective treatments has
never been greater than now
Piers Steel
29