The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(2), 195–211

Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications

Why Not Procrastinate? Development and

Validation of a New Active
Procrastination Scale
JIN NAM CHOI
Seoul National University

SARAH V. MORAN
McGill University

ABSTRACT. Procrastination has been studied as a dysfunctional, self-effacing behavior

that ultimately results in undesirable outcomes. However, A. H. C. Chu and J. N. Choi
(2005) found a different form of procrastination (i.e., active procrastination) that leads to
desirable outcomes. The construct of active procrastination has a high potential to expand
the time management literature and is likely to be adopted by researchers in multiple areas
of psychology. To facilitate the research on this new construct and its further integration
into the literature, the authors developed and validated a new, expanded measure of active
procrastination that reliably assesses its four dimensions. Using this new measure of active
procrastination, they further examined its nomological network. The new 16-item measure
is a critical step toward further empirical investigation of active procrastination.
Keywords: active procrastination, construct validation, personality, scale development,
time management

“It’s easy to see procrastination as a bad thing, something you do when you should be
doing something else . . . [but] embracing procrastination . . . can help restore your
motivation.” (B. Halford, 2006)

MOST RESEARCHERS (e.g., Bond & Feather, 1988; Ellis & Knaus, 1977;
Ferrari, 2001; Knaus, 2000; Tice & Baumeister, 1997) have defined procrastina-
tion along pessimistic behavioral lines with relatively negative consequences.
For example, Harriott and Ferrari (1996) found procrastination to be a prevalent
behavior among students and adults, hampering their ability to successfully
complete tasks on time. Recently, Chu and Choi (2005) provided an alternative

Address correspondence to Jin Nam Choi, College of Business Administration, Seoul

National University, Shinlim-dong, San 56-1, Kwanak-ku, Seoul 151-916, South Korea;
jnchoi@snu.kr (e-mail).

195
196 The Journal of Social Psychology

perspective and demonstrated that not all procrastination behaviors are harm-
ful or are precursors of negative consequences. Specifically, they proposed two
distinct types of procrastinators. Passive procrastinators are traditional procras-
tinators who postpone their tasks until the last minute because of an inability to
make the decision to act in a timely manner. In contrast, active procrastinators
make intentional decisions to procrastinate, using their strong motivation under
time pressure, and they are able to complete tasks before deadlines and achieve
satisfactory outcomes.
Contrary to popular wisdom, Chu and Choi (2005) found that active procras-
tinators did possess desirable behavioral and attitudinal characteristics, leading to
positive personal outcomes. Their results were particularly provocative because
although active procrastinators reported the same level of procrastination as did
their traditional or passive counterparts, they demonstrated time perceptions, atti-
tudes, coping styles, and academic performance that were nearly identical to (and
in some cases even better than) those of nonprocrastinators. By differentiating the
two types of procrastinators, Chu and Choi moved toward a more sophisticated
understanding of procrastination as a task-related behavior.
In their initial conceptualization, Chu and Choi (2005) proposed that active
procrastination is characterized by the following four characteristics: (a) prefer-
ence for time pressure, (b) intentional decision to procrastinate, (c) ability to meet
deadlines, and (d) satisfaction with outcome. Developing a 12-item scale, they
successfully revealed the presence of a new, constructive form of procrastination
that was, in many respects, quite different than the traditional form of procrastina-
tion. Given the intuitive appeal and the novel nature of the active procrastination
construct, we believe that researchers in various areas, including social, personal-
ity, educational, and industrial and organizational psychology, will be motivated
to reexamine the role of procrastination in their theoretical spaces.
Not surprisingly, scholars in various disciplines, including marketing, engi-
neering, social psychology, and personality psychology, have promptly recognized
the rather counterintuitive assertions and findings related to active versus passive
procrastination (e.g., Bernold, 2007; Hu, Huhmann, & Hyman, 2007). In his
lengthy discussion of implications of active procrastination, Bui (2007) stated
that Chu and Choi (2005) “introduced a novel idea for the area of procrastination
research: the notion that delaying one’s work can actually be helpful and related
to positive characteristics. Researchers have studied that idea very little, and it is
worthy of further investigation” (p. 207). Despite Bui’s call for additional empirical
studies on active procrastination, in the current literature, researchers now simply
acknowledge the presence of an adaptive type of procrastinator in interpreting their
findings (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007), perhaps
because of the nascent developmental stage of this construct and lack of empirical
research using active procrastination as a measured variable.
Unfortunately, Chu and Choi (2005) failed to confirm the hypothesized four-
dimensional structure of active procrastination and to provide a valid and reliable
 Choi & Moran 197

measurement tool for further investigation of the construct. Moreover, the reli-
ability of Chu and Choi’s scale was only marginal (α = .67), which presents the
need for further refinement of the scale. In the present study, building on Chu
and Choi’s initial conceptualization, we elaborate on the theoretical underpin-
nings of the four defining characteristics of active procrastination. On the basis
of this theoretical development, we constructed and empirically validated a new
measure of active procrastination by using the widely accepted scale validation
procedure (Hinkin, 1998). We further expanded the nomological network of
active procrastination by examining its relations with other general personal-
ity characteristics. By providing an instrument that can yield reliable and valid
responses of active procrastination, this study paves the way for more rigorous
empirical investigation of this novel construct and facilitates its integration into
the literature.

Four Defining Characteristics of Active Procrastination

As a multidimensional construct, active procrastination is an observable

behavioral characteristic that encompasses a person’s affective preference for
time pressure, cognitive decision to procrastinate, behavioral capacity to meet
deadlines, and ability to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Chu and Choi (2005)
mentioned that they used these four dimensions of active procrastination
to construct measurement items, but they did not provide any theoretical
reasons why these four dimensions comprise critical defining characteristics
of active procrastination. However, to better understand the construct of active
procrastination, we must specify the aspects of human behavior that underlie
its defining characteristics, including behaviors related to time management,
goal achievement, and performance. The benefit of active procrastination may
be related to an individual’s capacity to flexibly organize time and the ability to
self-motivate, coupled with constructive use of time pressures that effectively
drive active procrastinators toward their goals (Golwitzer & Bayer, 1999). These
processes signify effective and efficient self-regulatory mechanisms that create a
movement toward objectives and their successful attainment. Next, we elaborate
further on the four dimensions of active procrastination.

Preference for pressure. Although it has been argued that procrastination leads to
time pressure that causes stress, for some people, time pressure can create a feel-
ing of challenge that does not necessarily engender negative psychological states
(Freedman & Edwards, 1988). When confronted with last-minute time pressure,
active procrastinators tend to enjoy the feeling of being challenged, which results
in increased motivation (Chu & Choi, 2005). Active procrastinators seem to prefer
pressure and thus are motivated by both an intrinsic need to deal with challenge and
external demands to complete the task on time (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
198 The Journal of Social Psychology

Intentional decision to procrastinate. Traditional, or passive, procrastinators

tend to drift from one activity to another without much planning or organiza-
tion of their time (Bond & Feather, 1988). In contrast, nonprocrastinators have
been viewed as those who are good at managing their time in an orderly and
efficient manner (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Knaus, 2000). In contrast with both pas-
sive procrastinators and nonprocrastinators, active procrastinators preplan their
task activities in an organized way though they do not develop or adhere to a
rigid schedule or time structure. With this elasticity in time perception and use
patterns, active procrastinators are willing to make deliberate decisions to post-
pone things they have planned to do, and they will change their schedule even
on short notice. Thus, instead of being fixated on their routine or prescheduled
activities (characteristic of nonprocrastinators), active procrastinators freely
and intentionally reshuffle their task activities to respond to changing external
demands (Chu & Choi, 2005).

Ability to meet deadlines. The main reason that procrastination has been regarded
as a self-handicapping behavior is that procrastinators often fail to complete
tasks on time, thus producing disappointing results for themselves (Ferrari, 2001;
Knaus, 2000). This pattern is perhaps due to passive procrastinators’ tendency
to underestimate the time needed to complete a particular task and thus to be
overwhelmed or overstressed by time pressure at the last minute (Tice & Bau-
meister, 1997). Active procrastinators, in contrast, are able to properly estimate
the minimum amount of time required to finish a task and push themselves to
proceed efficiently toward the goal, even with (or perhaps because of) last minute
pressure. This difference may be due to distinct ways of dealing with stressful
situations: Unlike passive procrastinators, who largely rely on emotional- or
avoidance-coping strategies, active procrastinators use more task-oriented coping
strategies under stress (Chu & Choi, 2005).

Outcome satisfaction. Because active procrastinators know how to motivate them-

selves under pressing conditions, make intentional decisions to procrastinate, and
complete tasks on time, they usually obtain satisfactory task outcomes even
though they procrastinate. At the core of passive procrastination is the failure to
control one’s focus on the task at hand and the tendency to gravitate toward activi-
ties that are more pleasant than carrying out the task (Tice & Baumeister, 1997).
Passive procrastinators desire immediate gratification of their needs, which can
alleviate stress in the short run but can result in self-defeating outcomes (Harriott
& Ferrari, 1996; Knaus, 2000). In this situation, the discrepancy between what a
person should do and what he or she actually does leads to a negative outcome.
In contrast, active procrastinators intentionally decide to put off their tasks, but
at the last moment, through the effective and efficient use of their time, they suc-
cessfully complete the task, achieving a rewarding outcome.
 Choi & Moran 199

Nomological Network Associated With Active Procrastination

Once the difference between traditional and active procrastination is estab-

lished, it is imperative to construct a nomological network of theoretically
related variables. According to Cronbach and Meehl (1955), demonstrating a
construct’s relations with other relevant constructs will clarify what the con-
struct is and increase its distinctiveness in a theoretical space. This provision of
observable interpretations of the construct in relation to other relevant constructs
is a critical component of construct validation (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004;
Hinkin, 1998).
Chu and Choi (2005) showed that active procrastination is positively related
to purposive use of time and perceived time control, whereas it is negatively asso-
ciated with time structure. Because active procrastinators prefer time pressure
and frequently postpone or reprioritize task activities, they are likely to be more
sensitive about the goals of their time use and have less rigid conceptions of time,
which, in turn, provides them with an increased sense of control over their time.
Similarly, Macan (1994) found that individuals who made to-do lists and adhered
to scheduled activities (highly structured time) perceived less control over their
time. In the present study, we proposed that active procrastination is positively
related to polychronicity, or preference to work on several tasks simultaneously
(Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin 1999; Hecht & Allen, 2005). Because
of their fluid perception of time, high sense of time control, and willingness
to change their work schedule, active procrastinators may have a polychronic,
instead of monochronic, orientation to time, engaging in and managing multiple
tasks at the same time.
Although procrastination has mostly been studied in terms of its negative
outcomes (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Ferrari, 2001), Chu and Choi (2005) showed
that active procrastination has positive implications for individuals in terms of
self-efficacy, depression, stress coping, and performance. Successful time man-
agement and self-regulation need not necessarily mean rigid regulation of activi-
ties (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990). By freeing themselves from a
strict time structure and shifting attention from routine and schedules to effective
accomplishment of the goal, active procrastinators may experience less stress and
engage in more constructive responses to work-related stress (e.g., time pressure),
which, in turn, induces higher performance and greater overall life satisfaction.
In the present study, we further enriched the nomological network of active
procrastination by examining its relations to other personality characteristics. To
this end, we used the Big Five personality framework, which has been widely
accepted as representing relatively independent and comprehensive dimensions
of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1985). These dimensions have also been found
to have implications for individual performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
The five personality dimensions are characterized by discrete qualities: (a)
conscientiousness is associated with being exacting, disciplined, planning, and
200 The Journal of Social Psychology

responsible; (b) emotional stability is characterized by calmness, composure, and

a serene attitude; (c) extroversion is associated with being sociable, assertive,
and active; (d) agreeableness represents personal qualities such as cooperation,
sympathy, and courtesy; and (e) openness to experience is associated with being
intelligent, imaginative, and broad-minded. We expected active procrastination
to be negatively related to conscientiousness because a conscientious person is
well-organized and disciplined; therefore, he or she is more likely to be a non-
procrastinator than an active procrastinator. We further predicted that active pro-
crastination is positively related to emotional stability and extraversion because
active procrastinators need high levels of self-confidence and positive energy,
which allow them to choose to actively reorganize their task activities and which
inoculate them from stress caused by time pressure at the last moment.

Method

Participants and Data Collection Procedure

We invited undergraduate business students from a Canadian university to

participate in the present study by filling out a questionnaire entitled “Survey of
University Students’ Use of Time.” Participation was voluntary, with a raffle of
seven $50 U.S. prizes as an incentive. Of the 300 questionnaires distributed, 185
questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 61.7%). This sample was 63%
female (n = 115) and 37% male (n = 68). Most participants (96.8%) were full-
time students with an average university attendance of 2.8 years. The distribu-
tion of the participants’ ethnic backgrounds was as follows: 74.1% White, 1.6%
African American, 2.7% Hispanic, and 20% Asian. More than half of the sample
(59.4%) spoke English as their first language, followed by French (22.7%) and
other languages (17.3%).

Measures

In addition to the new measure of active procrastination, the survey included

various time-related perceptions and behaviors, personality variables, and individual
outcomes. All constructs were measured using multiitem indexes with a response for-
mat of a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).

Active procrastination. Drawing on the 12-item measure developed by Chu and

Choi (2005), we constructed a new, expanded scale of active procrastination com-
prising 40 items. We developed these items by taking into account various cogni-
tive, affective, and behavioral mechanisms that may underlie the four dimensions
of active procrastination (i.e., preference for time pressure, intentional decision to
procrastinate, ability to meet deadlines, and outcome satisfaction). Each dimen-
 Choi & Moran 201

sion was assessed by 10 items. We checked the face validity and content coverage
of the 40 items by pilot-testing the questionnaire and obtaining feedback from
10 undergraduate students. The 40-item scale was subsequently slightly modified
before administration to the study sample (a full set of items are available from
Jin Nam Choi upon request).

Passive procrastination. The level of passive or traditional procrastination was mea-

sured by five items (α = .74; e.g., “Even after I make a decision I delay acting upon
it”) that have been used in previous studies (Mann, 1982; Schouwneburg, 1995).

Time use and perceptions. We assessed participants’ structured use of time (time
structure) using four items (α = .70; e.g., “I feel uneasy if I have to skip things that
I am used to doing every day”) developed by Bond and Feather (1988). The extent
to which participants used their time with clear goals (purposive use of time) was
measured by Bond and Feather’s three-item scale (α = .70; e.g., “I tend to wander
rather aimlessly from one activity to another during the day,” reverse coded). We
measured perceived time control using three items (α = .81; e.g., “I can use my
time the way I want to use it”) developed by Macan et al. (1990). To measure the
extent to which participants preferred to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously
(polychronicity), we adopted four items (α = .81; e.g., “I like to juggle several
activities at the same time”) developed by Bluedorn et al. (1999).

Big Five personality characteristics. To measure participants’ personality attri-

butes, we used Goldberg’s (1992) markers for the Big Five personality factors.
The scale consisted of several adjectives pertaining to each personality attribute.
For example, conscientiousness was measured by the degree to which participants
rated themselves as organized, efficient, careful, and conscientious (four-item
scale, α = .76). The emotional stability scale measured the extent to which par-
ticipants saw themselves as anxious, emotional, irritable, and nervous (four items,
α = .72). Extraversion was measured by the following four adjectives (α = .71):
extraverted, assertive, energetic, and active. The agreeableness scale included
five descriptors (α = .83): agreeable, kind, cooperative, sympathetic, and warm.
Last, the openness to experience scale comprised five descriptors (α = .79): intel-
lectual, creative, imaginative, bright, and innovative.

Individual outcomes. The present study included three individual outcomes.

First, life satisfaction was measured by a four-item index (α = .82; e.g., “In
general, I am satisfied with my life”). Second, as a measure of academic per-
formance, participants reported their GPA. Last, participants self-rated their
performance level in the class (six categories ranging from below average to
top 10% of the class).
202 The Journal of Social Psychology

Results

Scale validity refers to the relation between a theoretical construct and its
operationalization or measure (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Therefore, the aim of
scale validation is to “test the extent to which operationalizations of a construct
‘behave’ in a manner consistent with the theoretical expectations” (Chen et al.,
2004, p. 277). We validated our new measure of active procrastination accord-
ing to the common practice of scale development (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988;
Hinkin, 1998). Before we analyzed the data, we checked the distribution of
responses to scales used by examining skewness and kurtosis. This examination
revealed that all variables were normally distributed, with the exception of
agreeableness and life satisfaction. In addition, gender, age, race, and school year
showed no significant association with any dimension or with the composite score
of active procrastination.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

With a multidimensional construct, the first criterion to consider is the

underlying factor structure of the scale items. To this end, we conducted an EFA
of the 40 items developed to measure the four dimensions of active procrastina-
tion, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We carried out a series of
EFAs to obtain a preliminary view of the overall relational structure of the items,
as well as to eliminate items that were obvious outliers (i.e., no connections with
other items in the same dimension) or conceptually ambiguous (i.e., representing
multiple dimensions).
The first EFA with all 40 items using principal component analysis with
varimax rotation generated 10 factors with eigenvalues ranging from 1 to 6. One
by one, we removed items that constituted a single-item factor or had high cross-
loadings on multiple factors. While doing so, we also considered the content
domain represented by each item so that the final EFA solution offered a balanced
representation of the four dimensions underlying active procrastination. After we
removed 24 items, the EFA resulted in a 16-item, 4-factor solution that explained
61% of the total item variance. As shown in Table 1, each factor included four
items representing specific dimensions of active procrastination. In this final
EFA model, each factor showed eigenvalues between 2.1 and 2.8 and accounted
for 13–17% of the total variance, indicating that each dimension makes a fairly
comparable, balanced contribution to the entire construct.

CFA

We tested the underlying factor structure of the 16 items obtained from the
EFA by imposing the theoretical expectations through the CFA. To validate the
hypothesized multidimensional structure, we created a two-layer factor model in
TABLE 1. List of Items and Factor Loadings for the New Scale of Active Procrastination

Factor loading
Factor Item 1 2 3 4

1. Outcome My performance tends to suffer when I have to race against deadlines (R). .778 .334 .116 –.032
satisfaction I don’t do well if I have to rush through a task (R). .763 .251 .111 .038
If I put things off until the last moment, I’m not satisfied with their
outcomes (R). .753 .188 .154 –.039
I achieve better results if I complete a task at a slower pace, well ahead of
a deadline (R). .724 .226 .239 –.064
2. Preference for It’s really a pain for me to work under upcoming deadlines (R). .230 .816 .090 .227
pressure I’m upset and reluctant to act when I’m forced to work under pressure (R). .169 .788 .073 .074
I feel tense and cannot concentrate when there’s too much time pressure
on me (R). .373 .737 .060 .017
I’m frustrated when I have to rush to meet deadlines (R). .360 .609 .198 .039
3. Intentional To use my time more efficiently, I deliberately postpone some tasks. .135 .114 .785 –.082
decision I intentionally put off work to maximize my motivation. –.043 .232 .702 –.227
In order to make better use of my time, I intentionally put off some tasks. .283 –.070 .673 .087
I finish most of my assignments right before deadlines because I choose
to do so. .211 .109 .576 –.001
4. Ability to meet I often start things at the last minute and find it difficult to complete them
deadlines on time (R). –.054 .052 –.256 .738
I often fail to accomplish goals that I set for myself (R). .037 .155 .036 .731
I’m often running late when getting things done (R). –.031 .086 –.363 .729
I have difficulty finishing activities once I start them (R). –.029 –.004 .202 .602
Choi & Moran

Note. (R) = reverse-coded item. Factor loadings of the corresponding items within the subdimension are in boldface.
203
204 The Journal of Social Psychology

which the suprafactor of active procrastination was indicated by its four dimen-
sions, which were, in turn, indicated by its four corresponding items (Arbuckle,
2005). This two-stage factor model was consistent with the empirical patterns
observed in the present data, exhibiting acceptable model fit, χ2(100, N = 185) =
186.24, p < .001; comparative fit index = .92; root mean square error of approxi-
mation = .058). Attempts to reduce the number of dimensions from four to three
or two resulted in a significantly worse fit (all ps < .01, based on χ2 difference
tests). In the four-dimensional model, all four dimensions were significant indica-
tors of the suprafactor of active procrastination (all ps < .05), and all items loaded
significantly on their corresponding dimensions (all ps < .001), supporting the
theoretically predicted factor structure and convergent validity of responses to the
new scale of active procrastination (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988).

Scale Reliability

Following validation of the dimensional structure of the construct, each

scale must be checked for internal consistency to ensure that it represents a
coherent, reliable assessment of a construct (Chen et al., 2004). Because reli-
ability represents the extent to which the scale produces scores that are free from
measurement error, it is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of a sound
measure (Hinkin, 1998). As shown in Table 2, the level of reliability (Cronbach’s
α) associated with the current participants’ responses to the scales assessing the
four dimensions ranged between .70 and .83, providing evidence of acceptable
internal consistency. The participants’ responses to the entire 16-item scale of
active procrastination also exhibited an acceptable reliability coefficient of .80.

Nomological Network

With the underlying factor structure validated and acceptable scale reliabili-
ties verified, the next step for scale validation is to check predictive or criterion-
related validity, which involves an examination of the nomological network of the
construct (Chen et al., 2004; Hinkin, 1998). To test whether the active procrasti-
nation scale produces the theoretically predicted relations with other established
constructs, we examined their correlation coefficients (see Table 2).
The active procrastination score was not related to traditional procrastina-
tion (r = .07, ns), further confirming that it is a distinct form of procrastination
(Chu & Choi, 2005). Also supporting our expectations, active procrastination
was negatively related to time structure (r = –.22, p < .01), which indicates that
active procrastinators have a fluid, flexible concept of time. In contrast, it was
positively associated with time control and polychronicity (r = .26, p < .001
and r = .19, p < .01, respectively), suggesting that active procrastinators tend
to engage in more multitasking and perceive greater sense of control over their
time than do others.
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Interscale Correlations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. Active procrastination 4.39 0.82 .80 —

2. Preference for pressure 4.35 1.31 .83 .82 —
3. Intentional decision 3.81 1.28 .62 .31 .70 —
4. Ability to meet
deadlines 5.21 1.02 .37 .15 –.11 .70 —
5. Outcome satisfaction 4.19 1.37 .81 .61 .41 –.05 .83 —
6. Passive procrastination 4.04 1.09 .07 .08 .33 –.61 .25 .74 —
7. Time structure 4.42 1.27 –.22 –.26 –.12 .16 –.30 –.23 .70 —
8. Purposive use of time 4.82 1.26 .10 .16 –.23 .35 .03 –.34 .04 .70 —
9. Time control 4.73 1.19 .26 .19 .09 .48 –.01 –.38 .20 .30 .81 —
10. Polychronicity 4.09 1.28 .19 .10 .20 .01 .16 .06 .04 –.06 .12 .81 —
11. Conscientiousness 5.30 1.02 –.03 –.03 –.17 .33 –.14 –.34 .31 .21 .33 –.13 .76 —
12. Emotional stability 3.70 1.22 .20 .25 –.01 .19 .10 –.05 –.12 .26 .17 .03 –.04 .72 —
13. Extraversion 5.04 0.96 .17 .14 .15 .08 .07 –.09 .09 .21 .17 .21 .05 .02 .71 —
14. Agreeableness 5.72 0.86 –.09 –.10 .02 –.07 –.08 .04 .01 .01 –.09 –.12 .24 –.11 .09 .83 —
15. Openness to
experience 5.22 0.91 .11 .04 .07 .07 .11 –.05 .05 .19 .13 .00 .13 –.10 .28 .09 .79 —
16. Life satisfaction 5.34 0.86 .32 .26 .20 .18 .19 –.05 –.03 .39 .33 .14 .08 .25 .31 .08 .26 .73 —
17. GPA 3.22 0.41 .11 .11 –.05 .23 .04 –.17 .12 .21 .21 .04 .30 .06 .16 –.02 .23 .14 — —
18. Self-reported
performance 3.77 1.52 .21 .20 .05 .27 .07 –.19 .01 .20 .21 .04 .25 .05 .19 –.01 .33 .23 .66 —

Note. Italicized numbers in the diagonal indicate reliability coefficients (alpha) of each scale. r > .15, p < .05; r > .19, p < .01; r > .24, p < .001.
Choi & Moran
205
206 The Journal of Social Psychology

Of the Big Five personality factors, as expected, emotional stability and

extraversion were positively related to active procrastination (r = .20, p < .01 and
r = .17, p < .05, respectively). Contrary to our expectations, conscientiousness
was not a significant negative predictor of active procrastination (r = –.03, ns),
perhaps because of its strong positive relation with the ability-to-meet-deadlines
dimension (r = .33, p < .001).
Last, active procrastination had significant positive correlations with life
satisfaction and self-reported performance (r = .31, p < .001 and r = .21, p <
.01, respectively). However, unlike Chu and Choi’s (2005) results, the objective
performance measure (i.e., GPA) was not significantly related to active procras-
tination (r = .11, ns.), even though the direction was positive.

Incremental Validity

As a final step in construct validation, we examined the incremental valid-

ity of the new scale of active procrastination to determine its unique added
value in explaining relevant outcomes above and beyond existing personality
measures, such as the Big Five personality factors. To this end, we conducted
hierarchical regression analyses using life satisfaction, GPA, and self-reported
performance as dependent variables. To provide a theory-driven, generalizable
test of the incremental contribution of the four active procrastination dimen-
sions, we entered them simultaneously in the second step of the hierarchical
regression, following the first step that included the Big Five factors (Hunsley &
Meyer, 2003). As presented in Table 3, results showed that the four dimensions
of active procrastination explained significant additional variance of two of the
three outcome measures (i.e., life satisfaction and self-reported performance,
∆R2 = .06, p < .05, and ∆R2 = .05, p < .05, respectively) after controlling for
the effects of the Big Five personality factors. Specifically, life satisfaction was
significantly predicted by intentional decision and ability to meet deadlines (β
= .15 and .13, respectively, both ps < .05). Self-reported performance was pre-
dicted by preference for pressure and ability to meet deadlines (β = .18 and .16,
respectively, both ps < .05). We observed approximately the same amount of
additional explained variance was observed when we used a composite score of
active procrastination instead of the four-dimensional measures. None of these
regression equations, such as homoscedasticity and normality of residuals, vio-
lated basic assumptions for the analysis. The R2 change of .05 and .06 indicated
that the active procrastination dimensions had a semipartial r ranging between
.22 and .25, which falls between small and medium effect size (r = .10–.30;
Cohen, 1992), even after controlling for the effects of Big Five factors. The
results suggest that the new active procrastination scale possesses reasonable
incremental validity and, thus, makes a distinct contribution to the understanding
of key individual outcomes.
 Choi & Moran 207

TABLE 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Big Five Factors and Active

Procrastination Predicting Individual Outcomes

Self-reported
Life satisfaction GPA performance
Predictor Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Conscientiousness .03 .02 .30*** .26** .23** .18*

Emotional stability .28*** .23** .08 .04 .07 .01
Extraversion .24** .19** .10 .09 .11 .07
Agreeableness .06 .09 –.11 –.09 –.09 –.06
Openness to experience .21** .19** .18* .17* .29*** .28***
Preference for pressure .09 .06 .18*
Intentional decision .15* –.04 .07
Ability to meet deadlines .13* .10 .16*
Outcome satisfaction .04 .02 –.08
R2 .20*** .26*** .15*** .17** .18*** .23***
Change in R2 .06** .02 .05*

*
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new measure of
active procrastination that would allow this construct to be systematically inves-
tigated and effectively incorporated into the literature. Given the prompt attention
to this new construct in various disciplines (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie,
2007; Bernold, 2007; Bui, 2007; Hu et al., 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007),
researchers appear willing to engage in substantial empirical efforts to investigate
its implications within their domains of interest. At this early stage of construct
development, it is imperative to possess a well-developed measure of active pro-
crastination with sufficient reliability and validity because the use of inadequate
measures presents a serious threat to both the interpretation of study results and
the accumulation of knowledge of the phenomenon in question (Hinkin, 1998).
To this end, expanding Chu and Choi’s (2005) initial measure of active pro-
crastination, we assembled 40 items representing its four theoretical dimensions.
Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of survey data, we devel-
oped a 16-item measure of active procrastination that confirms the four-dimen-
sional structure of the construct. The new scale of active procrastination provides
clear advantages over Chu and Choi’s initial measure in several respects. First, in
contrast to the initial measure’s marginal reliability, the responses to the new scale
clearly exhibited acceptable reliability on both the composite measure and the
four individual dimensional measures of active procrastination. Second, unlike
208 The Journal of Social Psychology

the rather ambiguous and weak factor structure observed in the initial measure,
the new scale clearly supported the four-dimensional factor structure, confirm-
ing the underlying theoretical components of active procrastination. Third, in
contrast with the original measure, the four dimensions of the new measure were
represented by the same number of items and made comparable contributions to
the suprafactor of active procrastination. These strengths of the new scale, along
with the validity and reliability observed in the current sample of 185 participants,
provide great flexibility for researchers who may want to focus on just one or
two of the dimensions or on the overall level of active procrastination. This final
measure can also be easily administered in various contexts (both academic and
organizational settings) and facilitate a more sophisticated understanding of pro-
crastination behavior than is currently available in the literature.
In addition, this study further expanded the nomological network of the
active procrastination construct by examining its relations with polychronicity
and the Big Five personality dimensions. Reconfirming Chu and Choi’s (2005)
finding, the present data indicated that active procrastination is distinct from
traditional procrastination. Moreover, active and passive (i.e., traditional) pro-
crastination measures showed quite different, often opposite, relations with other
variables examined in this study (see Table 2). The present data further support
the hypothesis that active procrastination is negatively related to highly struc-
tured use of time, which may contribute to an increased perception of control
of one’s time. It also supports the contention that active procrastinators tend to
engage in multitasking, which likely necessitates continuous reorganization and
reprioritization of their task activities. The present study also shows that active
procrastination has significant relations to two of the Big Five personality factors.
To actively procrastinate, individuals appear to need to possess a certain level of
self-reliance and stability as well as active and energetic engagement with others
and the task at hand. This is because escaping from preplanned activities and
subjecting oneself to last-minute pressure is a risky behavior that requires self-
confidence and energy.
Overall, we believe that the present study paves the way for more rigorous
empirical investigation of active procrastination. There are several directions for
further research that could enrich the understanding of this new construct. First,
both the present research and Chu and Choi’s (2005) study used undergraduate
students as the study sample, which left the question open as to whether active
procrastination can induce the same favorable effects in other groups of people.
We speculate that most professional workers dealing with tight deadlines with
substantial time pressure and frequent, unpredictable interruptions in their work
(e.g., management consultants, professors, software engineers) may benefit from
flexible time management behaviors such as active procrastination. In contrast, in
relatively routine and predictable task situations, nonprocrastination, or a mono-
chronic orientation to time, would likely be a better task strategy (Hecht & Allen,
2005). Future studies could explore the possibility that diverse requirements for
 Choi & Moran 209

task completion and productivity moderate the effect of active procrastination on

individual well-being and performance.
Second, researchers could investigate whether societal culture sets a bound-
ary condition for the role of active procrastination. Typically in Western cultures,
procrastination is regarded as a negative behavior that is indicative of laziness,
leading to poor performance and satisfaction as well as negative self-image.
Therefore, it is easy to understand why people in Western cultures would balk at
the idea of a positive form of procrastination. However, in other cultures, people
may perceive time differently (e.g., cyclical or curvilinear rather than linear), and
they may be quite tolerant of slowness or lack of punctuality. In short, people from
different cultures may possess different assumptions and views related to time
flow, time structure, and temporal reference points of past, present, and future,
all of which influence time-related perceptions and values and further prescribe
time management behavior (Mosakowski & Earley, 2000).
Last, because the construct of active procrastination was proposed recently
(Chu & Choi, 2005), further expansion of its nomological network and ensuing
theoretical elaboration of the construct is necessary. For example, given that
active procrastination is driven by a strong self-regulatory process (Golwitzer &
Bayer, 1999), it may have meaningful connections with such variables as locus
of control, goal orientations, and other social cognitive processes associated with
performance management. In addition to testing the validity of the active pro-
crastination phenomenon in different cultural and professional contexts, future
studies should adopt a longitudinal research design to investigate temporal fluc-
tuations or developmental processes involved in active procrastination patterns.

AUTHOR NOTES
Jin Nam Choi is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Graduate
School of Business at Seoul National University, Korea. His research interests include
team processes and effectiveness in organizational settings, innovation implementation
at the individual and team levels of analysis, individual and contextual determinants
of individual and team creativity, and impacts of social networks on knowledge and
creativity in organizations. Sarah V. Moran was a doctoral candidate in organizational
behavior at McGill University, Desautels Faculty of Management. Her current research
interests include global leadership strategies; cross-cultural management; and stakeholder
influence upon project implementation, management, and completion in international
organizations.

REFERENCES
Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of
hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1301–1310.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development
Corporation.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
210 The Journal of Social Psychology

Bernold, L. E. (2007). Preparedness of engineering freshman to inquiry-based learning.

Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133, 99–106.
Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity
and the inventory of polychronic values: Development of an instrument to measure a
fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
14, 205–230.
Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use
of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 321–329.
Bui, N. H. (2007). Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 147, 197–209.
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multi-level
construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Danereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level
issues: The many faces of multi-level issues (Vo1. 3, pp. 273–303). Oxford, England:
Elsevier.
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active”
procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 145, 245–264.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet.
Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects
of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on “working best under pressure.”
European Journal of Personality, 15, 391–406.
Freedman, J. L., & Edwards, D. R. (1988). Time pressure, task performance, and
enjoyment. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 113–133). Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25, 186–192.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Golwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Implementation intentions and affective goal pursuit:
Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Halford, B. (2006). The power of procrastination. Chemical and Engineering News, 84,
28.
Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults.
Psychological Reports, 78, 611–616.
Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being
from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing
at a time? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 98, 155–178.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement
goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
167–178.
Hu, J., Huhmann, B. A., & Hyman, M. R. (2007). The relationship between task
complexity and information search: The role of self-efficacy. Psychology & Marketing,
23, 253–270.
 Choi & Moran 211

Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and
assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assess-
ment, 15, 446–455.
Knaus, W. J. (2000). Procrastination, blame, and change. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 15, 153–166.
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 381–391.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students’ time
management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of Education
Psychology, 82, 760–768.
Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire II. Flinders University of South
Australia, Australia. Unpublished inventory.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “Adequate Taxonomy”: Intel-
ligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.
Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assumptions in strategy
research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 796–812.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measure-
ment, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procras-
tination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 71–96). New York:
Plenum Press.
Tice, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: The cost and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.

Received February 1, 2007

Accepted November 9, 2007