Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Procrastination is a prevalent and pernicious form of self-regulatory failure but not entirely
understood. Here, the relevant conceptual, theoretical, and empirical work is reviewed, drawing
upon correlational, experimental, and qualitative findings. Summarizing 684 correlations, a
meta-analysis of procrastinations causes and effects reveals that neuroticism, rebelliousness, and
sensation-seeking show only a weak connection. Strong and consistent predictors of
procrastination were task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy, impulsiveness, as well as
conscientiousness and its facets of self-control, distractibility, organization, and achievement
motivation. These effects prove consistent with Temporal Motivation Theory, an integrative
hybrid of expectancy theory and hyperbolic discounting. Continued research into the
procrastination should not be delayed, especially since its prevalence appears to be growing.
Menashe, Anderson, Malinow, & Illingworth, 1990; White, Wearing, & Hill, 1994), which is also
reflected in the meta-analytic work of Bogg and Roberts (2004).
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 ODonoghue 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 (Holland, 2001), both where important decisions are disastrously delayed.
Unfortunately for such an extensive and potentially harmful phenomenon, much has yet
to be learned about its causes or its effects, though there have been some notable reviews. To
begin with, Ferrari, Johnson, and McCowns (1995) book on the topic is extensive but focuses
primarily on measurement and theory, with less emphasis on empirical findings. On the other
hand, van Eerde (2003) did conduct a meta-analysis on procrastination, and though statistically
solid, it is also concise. Based on 88 articles, it focuses primarily on the five factor model of
personality and consequently does not: incorporate environmental variables (e.g., task effects) or
relevant experimental findings, consider several personality facets (e.g., impulsiveness) or
theoretical foundations, or include a moderator search or account for attenuation effects. Finally,
another book by Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, and Ferrari (2004) reviews the topic, but focuses
primarily on technical expositions of procrastination treatment programs for academic
counselors.
Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive and detailed examination of the
research on procrastination. With such a review, we can better elucidate its nature, understanding
when and why procrastination occurs as well as how to prevent it. The goal of this paper, then, is
threefold. The first goal is to establish the nature of procrastination conceptually. Exactly what it
is that we are examining? This involves reviewing its history, using its past and present usage to
build a definition, and then place this definition among related concepts.
With this conceptual foundation, the second goal is to broadly explore the causes and
correlates of procrastination, that is establish its nomological web. These relationships are
subsequently tested through meta-analytic review as well as by considering relevant descriptive
and experimental studies. Finally, these necessarily wide ranging results need to be integrated.
Consequently, these findings are evaluated with respect to Temporal Motivation Theory (Steel &
Knig, in press), a recent integrative motivational model that seeks to broadly explain selfregulatory behavior in a way that is consistent with a wide variety of theoretical perspectives
(e.g., economics, personality, expectancy theory, goal setting).
History of Procrastination
Readers interested in the history of procrastination might seek a book by Ringenbach
(1971), cited by Knaus (1979). This search is not recommended. Aitkens (1982) investigation
reveals that the work was never actually written. Her correspondence with Paul Ringenbach and
the publisher reveals it was actually an elaborate joke (i.e., a book on procrastination that was
never completed). See also Kaplan (1998) for another well-conducted academic article/prank.
The first historical analysis on procrastination was actually written by Milgram (1992). He
argues that technically advanced societies require numerous commitments and deadlines, which
gives rise to procrastination. Consequently, undeveloped agrarian societies are not afflicted.
Ferrari et al. (1995), in their book, take a similar though softened stand. They contend that
procrastination has existed throughout history but that it only acquired truly negative
connotations with the advent of the industrial revolution (circa 1750). Before then,
procrastination was viewed neutrally and could be interpreted as a wise course of (in)action. On
balance, there is some truth to procrastination being a modern malady as self-reports of
procrastination indicate that it may be on the rise (Kachgal et al., 2001). Despite this increase,
historical references indicate that our views about procrastination have been reasonably constant
over the ages: it is a prevalent problem.
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.
Clearly preceding the Industrial Revolution was a sermon written by a Reverend Walker
(1682). 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 searching
classical texts, where 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 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). Finally, there is Hesiod who wrote 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 (Gandhi,
Strohmeier, & Nagler, 2000). 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
surprising (as well as unsurprising) that we did not address it sooner.
Definition of Procrastination
As the earlier reference by Thucydides indicated, procrastination is occasionally used in a
positive sense. Several writers have mentioned it as a functional delay or as avoiding rush (e.g.,
Bernstein, 1998; Ferrari, 1993b). 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). However, the positive form of procrastination, as the historical analysis indicates, is
secondary in usage. The focus of this paper is on the primary, negative form of 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 et al., 1995). Initially, such definitional variation may seem to obscure procrastinations
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).
Building on this base, we procrastinate when we delay beginning or completing an
intended course of action (Beswick & Mann, 1994; Ferrari, 1993a; Lay & Silverman, 1996;
Milgram, 1991; Silver & Sabini, 1981). 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 peoples original intention is to delay.
Also, procrastination is most often considered to be the irrational delay of behavior
(Akerlof, 1991; Burka & Yuen, 1983; Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Silver & Sabini, 1981), and this
reflects the dictionary definition: defer action, especially without good reason (The Oxford
English Reference Dictionary, 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. Combining these
elements suggest that procrastination is: To voluntarily delay an intended course of action
despite expecting to be worse-off for the delay
.
Procrastination as a Personality Trait
Whether procrastination can also be considered a trait is an empirical question. Peoples
level of procrastination must show consistency across time and situation. However, there has
been sufficient research to address this point and it suggests procrastination has sufficient crosstemporal and situational stability. To begin with, there appears to be a biological or genetic
component to procrastination. A recent study by Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, and McGue (2003)
asked 118 identical and 93 fraternal male twins reared in the same family to indicate the degree
to which they were a procrastinator. 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.
Given that procrastination reflects personality, the focus then moves to where it fits in the
nomological web, particularly the five factor model. Conceptually, there is also considerable
overlap with conscientiousness. For example, Costa and McCraes (1992) self-discipline scale, a
Though this is the predominant opinion, 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.
has the highest utility. As the numerator of the equation indicates, activities that are high in
Expectancy (E) and Valence (V) should be more desirable. The denominator of the equation
captures the element of time. Enjoyable activities that are immediately realizable (D), that have a
short delay, should be more highly valued. As delay gets large, utility necessarily shrinks.
refers to the persons sensitivity to delay and the larger becomes, the greater is the sensitivity.
If this equation accurately reflects procrastination, only a handful of the relationships examined
in this meta-analysis should be significant.
For further integration of temporal motivation theory (i.e., an expectancy-value type theory) within a control theory
framework, see Vancouver and Day (2005).
Ottens (1982) makes this observation early on, noting that procrastinators perceive task situations in such ways so
as to exacerbate their aversiveness (p. 371).
Of note, Rawlins (1995) found that this was a more popular reason for very young adolescents, with 26% highly
endorsing this item. Also, Galu (1990) and Aldarando (1993) extracted procrastination dimensions similar to
rebellion, that is Autonomy and Passive-Aggressive respectively.
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
problem versus anxiety versions of their inventory correlated at .89.
57
9
11
67
14
57
25
38
35
16
54
- 95% Interval
Q
Confidence
Credibility
p<.0001
p=.042
p=.012
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.0008
p<.0001
p<.0001
.25 to .31
.07 to .21
.30 to .41
.19 to .26
.26 to .44
.21 to .28
-.14 to .00
-.52 to -.43
-.34 to -.27
.54 to .68
.31 to .38
.12 to .44
.00 to .28
.20 to .50
.02 to .43
.08 to .62
.06 to .43
-.36 to .23
-.70 to -.25
-.45 to -.15
.35 to .87
.15 to .54
-.05 to .19
-.13 to .20
10,277 .24
1,590 .12
2,069 .31
12,751 .19
2,384 .27
11,263 .20
3,856 -.06
6,616 -.39
6,138 -.26
2,784 .46
10,533 .28
p<.0001
p=.102
p=.064
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.0014
p<.0001
p<.0001
.21 to .26
.06 to .18
.26 to .37
.16 to .21
.20 to .34
.18 to .23
-.11 to .00
-.42 to -.35
-.29 to -.23
.40 to .51
.26 to .31
p=.102
p=.022
.01 to .10
-.05 to .09
-.04 to .16
-.17 to .22
.07
.03
p=.055
p=.022
.01 to .12
-.03 to .10
Agreeableness
Agreeableness
25
4,257
-.10
p=.002
-.07 to -.14
.03 to -.23
-.13
p=.002
Extraversion
Extraversion
Extraversion
Positive Affect
Impulsiveness
Sensation-Seeking
Boredom Proneness
26
18
11
21
11
3
4,802
3,951
1,704
3,779
2,055
408
-.12
-.11
-.18
.41
.17
.40
p=.06
p=.14
p=.108
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.0077
-.15 to -.09
-.14 to -.07
-.24 to -.13
.36 to .46
.09 to .25
.25 to .54
p=.050
p=.137
p=.096
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.006
-.18 to -.10
-.17 to -.08
-.28 to -.15
.46 to .58
.11 to .32
.32 to .70
-.25 to -.03
-.21 to -.04
-.34 to -.09
.29 to .75
-.08 to .51
.22 to .79
Table 2
A Meta-Analytic Summary of Procrastinations Correlational Findings: Conscientiousness
r - 95% Interval
Construct
K
N
Q
Confidence Credibility
r
- 95% Interval
Q
Confidence
Credibility
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness
Self-Control
Distractibility
Organization
Achievement Motivat.
Need for Achiev.
Intrinsic Motivation
20
22
13
24
35
17
18
3,902
4,040
2,247
4,542
6,386
3,545
3,069
-.63
-.59
.45
-.36
-.36
-.46
-.28
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.0003
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.258
-.66 to -.60
-.63 to -.54
.39 to .51
-.41 to -.31
-.40 to -.31
-.52 to -.40
-.31 to -.24
-.74 to -.52
-.78 to -.39
.29 to .61
-.57 to -.16
-.59 to -.13
-.67 to -.25
-.33 to -.21
-.75
-.74
.59
-.45
-.43
-.57
-.33
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p<.0001
p=.336
-.79 to -.71
-.81 to -.69
.51 to .66
-.51 to -.39
-.49 to -.38
-.64 to -.50
-.37 to -.29
-.90 to -.61
-1.0 to -.46
.37 to .81
-.73 to -.17
-.72 to -.15
-.83 to -.30
-.37 to -.30
Intention-Action Gap
Dilatory Behavior
Intention
Intention-Action Gap
15
6
6
2,681
433
533
.51
.06
.29
p=.0002
p=.0077
p=.472
.46 to .56
-.09 to .21
.22 to .36
.38 to .64
-.19 to .31
.29 to .29
.63
.07
.31
p=.0005
p=.0078
p=.460
.57 to .68
-.10 to .23
.24 to .38
.46 to .79
-.25 to .38
.31 to .31
Poor Performance
Performance - All
GPA
Course GPA
Final Exam
Assignments
41
19
10
11
13
7,405
3,220
2.067
947
1,973
-.20
-.17
-.26
-.17
-.20
p<.0001
p=.0003
p=.175
p<.0001
p<.0001
-.23 to -.16
-.22 to -.12
-.30 to -.21
-.29 to -.06
-.29 to -.12
-.39 to .00
-.35 to .00
-.30 to -.21
-.47 to .13
-.46 to .05
-.22
-.19
-.28
-.19
-.22
p<.0001
p=.0004
p=.196
p<.0001
p<.0001
-.26 to -.17
-.25 to -.14
-.33 to -.23
-.31 to -.06
-.33 to -.13
-.43 to .00
-.38 to .00
-.34 to -.21
-.53 to .16
-.52 to .07
8
10
938
1,069
.40
.40
p<.0001
p=.0003
.30 to .51
.31 to .49
Demographics
Age - Uncorrected
Age - Corrected
Sex (M=1, F=2)
16
16
44
3,248
3,248
8,756
-.15
-.48
-.08
p=.0032
p=.0035
p<.0001
-.20 to -.10
-.77 to -.18
-.12 to -.05
.17 to .64
.18 to .62
.44
.46
p<.0001
p=.0002
.32 to .55
.36 to .57
.16 to .72
.19 to .73
p=.0033
p=.0037
p<.0001
-.21 to -.11
-.83 to -.20
-.13 to -.06
-.31 to .00
-.88 to -.15
-.27 to .09