No Text Content!
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 20, 474-495 (1986)At Last, My Research Article on Procrastination CLARRY H. LAY York UniversityThis paper considered three studies designed to examine procrastinatory behavior.In Study I. a general form (G) of a true-false procrastination scale was created.This form was based on an earlier version of the scale containing parallel formsA and B. Procrastination was positively related to measures of disorganizationand independent of need-achievement, energy level, and self-esteem. High scorerson the procrastination scale were more likely to return their completed inventorylate. Procrastination was unrelated to grade-point average (R = - .lO). In StudyII, subjects completed Form G of the procrastination scale and a variation ofLittle’s (1983) Personal Projects Questionnaire. Based on ratings of their personalprojects, procrastinators and nonprocrastinators were distinguished in a numberof ways, foremost being the nonprocrastinator’s more positive response to theproject dimension of stress and the procrastinator’s greater sensitivity to howenjoyable the project was in terms of time spent. In Study III. after completinga personality inventory, air-passengers awaiting their flight departure were askedto take an envelope with them and to mail it back on a designated date. Pro-crastinators were less accurate in doing so than were nonprocrastinators. Variousaspects of procrastinatory behavior were discussed. including a reconsiderationof the defining of the construct. Cc’1986 Academic Press, Inc. This paper describes the beginnings of a program designed to examineindividual and situational correlates of procrastinatory behavior. Research on procrastination conducted to date has developed largelywithin educational and counseling contexts. Techniques and courses havebeen devised to reduce the procrastinatory behavior of students andother clients. For example, Zeisat, Rosenthal, & White (1978) have applieda self-control technique and Rosati (1975) a personalized system of in-struction to this aim. The approach in much of this work has been derived This research was partially supported by internal grants from the Faculty of Arts, YorkUniversity, and from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Theauthor thanks Gail Kuwahara, Debbie Solaryk, and Rena Borovilos for their researchassistance, and Mr. E. Warrick, General Manager, Lester B. Pearson International Airport,for his cooperation in carrying out Study III. Thanks are also due to Brian Little forgenerously providing unpublished correlation data reported in Study II. Request for reprintsshould be sent to Clarry Lay, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 KeeleStreet, Downsview, Canada, M3J lP3. 4740092-6566/86 $3.00Copyright Q 1986 by Academic Press, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. PROCRASTINATION 475primarily from assumptions about the nature of procrastinatory behavior.Systematic assessment of the construct is often lacking. Burka & Yuen (1983) described the character and motives of theprocrastinator as inferred from their counseling contact with such self-proclaimed individuals. Among other themes, Burka and Yuen indicatedthat procrastinators may be overwhelmed by fear of failure or by fearof success. Further, some procrastinatory behavior may represent a formof rebellion to those in authority. Their treatment of such people rangesfrom having them become completely aware of their motives for pro-crastinating to training them in time-management programs. Rorer (1983) has recently offered a summary and elaboration of severalinterpretations of procrastinatory behavior put forward by Ellis and Knaus(1977). For one, and like Burka and Yuen, procrastination is viewed asa response to fear of failure or rejection. Procrastinatory behavior mayalso be a result simply of one’s unwillingness to act on unpleasant ordifficult tasks (cf. Sabini & Silver, 1982). A third interpretation involvesresentment based on perceived unfair treatment by others toward oneself.One response to such treatment is to procrastinate. This idea is similarto the Burka and Yuen (1983) view of the procrastinator as rebelling. Rorer’s (1983) elaboration of Ellis and Knaus also involved the con-sideration of fear, although not fear of failure, nor even of success, perse, but rather a fear of the possible consequences of success. For Rorer,success increases anxiety and leads to procrastination, particularly inmixed reinforcement situations in which painful consequences are as-sociated with pleasurable events. There have been a few exceptions to the clinical and counseling per-spective to the study of procrastination. They are represented by a surveystudy of college faculty and student procrastination (Hill, Hill, Chabot,& Barrall, 1978) and four dissertations (apparently, although perhaps notsurprisingly, all unpublished) by Briody (1978), Taylor (1979), Aitkep(1982), and Skiffington (1982). Burka & Yuen (1983) and Nelson (1983) have pointed to a growingrequest for help by procrastinators in both academic and business en-vironments. The present research program has not developed in directresponse to this need, however. Rather, the project is more generallyoriented toward providing a better understanding of the concept of pro-crastination and of the individual and situational correlates of such behavior. In a forerunner to this paper (described in Lay, 198.5), two 18-itemparallel forms of a true-false personality scale to measure individualdifferences in procrastinatory behavior were developed. The developmentof Forms A and B of the procrastination scale was guided to a largeextent by the work of Jackson (1970). For purposes of scale construction,procrastination was defined as “the tendency to postpone that which isnecessary to reach some goal.” From an initial pool of procrastination 476 CLARRY H. LAYitems, 18 true-keyed and 18 false-keyed statements were selected. Thecriteria for item selection involved an endorsement proportion between.lO and .90, a high item-total procrastination scale score correlation(generally greater than .30) and a lower item correlation with a socialdesirability scale (Jackson, 1967b) and with each of a number of irrelevantcontent scales. ’ In a factor analysis in that study, Factor I of three rotated factors wasof particular interest. This factor was defined by both forms of the pro-crastination scale along with neurotic disorganization (Jackson, 1967a)at one pole and an organization scale (Jackson, 1976) at the other.Jackson (1967a) has described the high scorer on the neurotic disorga-nization scale as someone who “finds it difficult to focus his attentionon the details of everyday activity; absent-minded, easily distracted andpoorly organized; has trouble accomplishing things on time and is veryforgetful.” Statements pertaining to procrastinatory behavior had beeneliminated from the neurotic disorganization scale prior to the factoranalysis. This factor clearly suggested an “organization-disorganization”component to procrastinatory behavior, a component which appears atboth a cognitive and a behavioral level. In addition, and noteworthy,self-esteem, energy level, anxiety (Jackson, 1976), and achievement(Jackson, 1967b) were all found to be independent of procrastination.These relationships were pursued further in Studies 1 and III of the threestudies described in this paper. In Study I a general form (Form G) of the procrastination scale referredto above was created. This scale excluded items reflecting student-onlytype behavior, such as preparing an essay. Scores on this form wererelated to a number of behavioral measures, primarily the number ofdays taken to return the completed inventory by mail and the respondent’sundergraduate grade-point average. In Study II subjects responded to an Inventory containing Form G ofthe procrastination scale and on a second occasion were handed a versionof Little’s (1983) Personal Projects Analysis to be completed and returnedby mail. The relationship between various aspects of the Projects Analysisand scores on the procrastination scale was assessed. In Study III the relationship between procrastination scale scores andaccuracy in remembering to mail back an envelope was examined. Thelatter task was offered to subjects in the guise of a consumer study onthe efficiency of the Federal postal service. Subjects were drawn frompassengers waiting at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport to flyout of Toronto to other Canadian destinations.’ The procrastination scale items, Forms A, B. and G, and relevant item statistics areavailable from the author. PROCRASTINATION 477 STUDY IThis study involved the derivation of Form G of the procrastination scale and an assessmentof the relationship between this scale and a number of behavioral measures. One behavioralmeasure was the number of days taken to return the completed inventory by mail. Asecond measure was the subject’s grade-point average. Whereas a measure of need-achieve-ment was unrelated to procrastination in the forerunner study referred to above, this studysought to examine the relationship between procrastination and a measure of actualachievement.Procrastination scores were also related to some of the same personality scales includedin the earlier study. A measure of rebelliousness was added, this inclusion reflecting thestatement by Burka and Yuen (1983) that some procrastinatory behavior represents anattempt to rebel.MethodThe procrastination scale: Form G. A 20-item general form of the procrasfination scale(Form G) was derived from items comprising Forms A and B. In devising Form G, itemswhich referred to the preparation of an essay, or other “student-only” content, wereeliminated. Items which appeared to go beyond the working definition of procrastinationby including reasons or speculations for, or for not procrastinating, were also omitted.The remaining 10 best true-keyed and 10 best false-keyed items, with the exception ofone newly written true-keyed item, were included in Form G.Procedure and subjects. Items from Form G were embedded in Inventory G along withitems from the following previously mentioned scales: neurotic disorganization, organization,energy level, self-esteem, achievement, and desirability. An eighth scale was added, therebelliousness scale from the Differential Personality Inventory (Jackson. 1967a). Therewere 128 items in all.Inventory G was distributed to 110 students at the beginning of an Introductory Psychologyclass. The subjects also received a stamped envelope addressed to the author’s homeaddress and instructions on returning the completed inventory. The subjects were askedto mail it back within 6 days. At the time of the study there were 149 students enrolledin the course section. From the 110 students who were present in class to receive theinventory, there were 81 returns by mail (74%) over a 20-day period. Five returns hadmore than two missing responses and were eliminated from the subject pool. Of the 76remaining subjects, I5 were male and 61 female.The date of the postmark for each returned inventory was recorded. Unfortunately, fornine of the 76 subjects, the return envelope was either not postmarked or the postmarkwas not legible.Grade-point average for each subject was obtained at a later date from the Office ofStudent Programs. Grade-point average was based on a minimum of four courses.One other type of information was available for each of the subjects. This related totheir performance on the final exam in their Introductory Psychology course. The examconsisted of 75 multiple-choice items over a 2-hr time limit. In addition to the gradeobtained, the duration of time in minutes to complete the test was recorded. The examperiod was viewed as a highly contained, time-limited structure. Whether procrastinatorytendencies manifest themselves in such a situation was the object of this assessment.Results and DiscussionThe mean score on the 20-item procrastination scale was 9.4. The standard deviationwas 4.4. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .82. Scores on the procrastination scale correlatedas follows with the other scales in Inventory G: organizafion (- .49). neurotic disorganization 478 CLARRY H. LAY(.69), energy level (- .09), rebelliousness (.34), self-esteem (- .03), achievement (- .W),and desirability (- .43).As in the forerunner-study, procrastinators tended to score high on the neurotic dis-organization scale and low on the organization scale. Also consistent with that study,scores on the procrastination scale were unrelated to need-achievement. energy level, andself-esteem. Supporting the contention that procrastinators may be rebelling, procrastinationscores related significantly @