bs_bs_banner

INVITED CONTRIBUTION

Academic Procrastination: Psychological Antecedents Revisited

Piers Steel1 and Katrin B Klingsieck2
1
Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, and 2Psychology Department, University of Paderborn

Objective: Taking Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann’s seminal paper on academic procrastination as a starting point, we provide an updated review
of academic procrastination and consolidate this knowledge with a procrastination typology. The goal of our study was to show that while the
degree of procrastination is largely contingent on the trait of conscientiousness, the other four major personality traits determine how
procrastination manifests. According to implications of need theory, we operationalised these four traits by the reasons students gave and the
activities students pursued while procrastinating.
Method: Participants were 167 students of an undergraduate introductory psychology course. It was designed as a self-directed computerised
course enabled considerable amounts of procrastination. Students filled out a Big Five Inventory and wrote a short essay detailing: (a) what
reason they saw as causing them to procrastinate, and (b) what activities they pursued while procrastinating. The reasons and activities were
coded according to their fit to the personality traits.
Results: Conscientiousness and its facets were the strongest correlates with procrastination. Moreover, in regression analyses, the other
personality traits did not incrementally predict procrastination. However, the reasons ascribed to procrastination and the off-task activities
pursued reflected the other personality traits.
Conclusion: While conscientiousness is the core for all procrastination types, the other personality traits determine its phenomenology. Thus,
the prominent understanding of a neurotic procrastinator might be misleading for research and practice. In fact, counsellors need to first address
the conscientiousness core of procrastination and then match the subsequent interventions to the specific procrastination type.

Key words: academic procrastination; counselling; delay; interventions; typology.

What is already known on this topic What this paper adds

1 Academic procrastination poses a serious threat to students’
academic achievement and subjective well-being.
2 Failures in self-regulation are the core of academic
procrastination.
3 Typologies of procrastination reduce the complexity of the mul-
tifaceted construct of procrastination and serve as orientation
for counsellors.
1 Further establishes conscientiousness and its facets are at the
core of procrastination.
2 Other personality traits do not necessarily influence the degree
of procrastination, but they can influence how it manifests.
3 When counselling academic procrastinators, knowing the
unique configuration of the other four personality traits can be a
helpful guideline for the counselling process.

One of the seminal empirical papers on procrastination
was published in Australian Psychologist. In their article, “Psycho-
logical Antecedents of Student Procrastination,” Beswick,
Rothblum, and Mann (1988) examined three, then popular,
Correspondence: Piers Steel, University of Calgary, HROD-SGMA, SH444 –
2500 University Drive, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada. Fax: 403-282-
0095; email: piers.steel@haskayne.ucalgary.ca
Research Team Description:
Piers Steel is a Distinguish Research Chair at the Haskayne School of Busi-
ness, University of Calgary. He researches productivity issues, including
motivation, selection and assessment.
Katrin B. Klingsieck is an assistant professor at the University of Paderborn
(Germany). Her research interests are procrastination, academic writing,
teacher’s competences, and university didactics.
Accepted for publication 4 August 2015
doi:10.1111/ap.12173
psychological explanations for procrastination: indecision (Janis
& Mann, 1977), irrational beliefs about self-worth (Ellis &
Knaus, 1977), and low self-esteem (Burka & Yuen, 1983). Using
a series of self-report measures that tap into these constructs,
they correlated scores from respondents with one of the first
procrastination scales, the Procrastination Assessment Scale for Stu-
dents (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Additionally, as a
behavioural measure of procrastination, they recorded the
taken time to hand in three assignments with a deadline and the
grades of the students in a course. There was evidence for the
association between indecision and procrastination (both self-
reported and behavioural) and between low self-esteem and
procrastination (both self-reported and behavioural). However,
the association between irrational beliefs about self-worth and
procrastination was only evident for self-reported procrastina-
tion. As concomitants of procrastination, they found anxiety
and depression to be associated with procrastination (both
self-reported and behavioural). Over and above, they found a

36 Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46

© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
negative association of self-reported procrastination and final
course grade. This paper has been cited several hundred times in
the following decades, often drawn on to exemplify the detri-
mental effects procrastination has to academic achievement and
subjective well-being.
As this work has been published, the research on procrasti-
nation has flourished and the knowledge about this multifac-
eted phenomenon has grown. While the interest in the
association of procrastination with low self-esteem, anxiety,
depression, and academic achievement is still widespread, the
research on the relationship between procrastination and inde-
cision and irrational beliefs has largely concluded or has evolved
into substantially different expressions. The goal of the present
paper was to give an updated review of the research on ante-
cedents of academic procrastination and to consolidate this
knowledge with a typology of academic procrastination.
Procrastination Research: Where Are We
Now Since 1988?
Defining Procrastination and Academic
Procrastination
In the last few decades, several different understandings and
connotations of delay and procrastination arose. While some
authors see functional forms of procrastination (e.g., Chu &
Choi, 2005; Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007), others clearly
take the view that procrastination inherently has no functional
aspects (e.g., Corkin, Yu, & Lindt, 2011; Klingsieck, 2013a).
Steel’s definition of procrastination sides with the latter group,
highlighting the acratic or “weakness of the will” nature of
procrastination, that is “to voluntarily delay an intended course
of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel’s
2007, p. 66). If procrastination requires us to expect to be worse
off, then purposeful, functional and positive delay cannot be
procrastination.
Academic procrastination is procrastination restricted to the
tasks and activities related to and/or relevant for learning and
studying. The terms “academic procrastination” and “student
procrastination” are used interchangeably. Consequently, refin-
ing Steel’s (2007) general definition, we define academic/
student procrastination as “to voluntarily delay an intended
course of study-related action despite expecting to be worse off for
the delay.”
Antecedents of Academic Procrastination
Research into the antecedents of procrastination has special-
ised considerably. Klingsieck (2013a) systematises procrastina-
tion research into four perspectives. First, the differential
psychology perspective understands procrastination as a per-
sonality trait linking it to other traits (e.g., conscientiousness,
neuroticism) and trait-like variables (e.g., perfectionism, self-
esteem, optimism, intelligence). Second, the perspective of
motivational and volitional psychology understands procrasti-
nation as a failure in motivation and/or volition relating pro-
crastination to motivational aspects (e.g., intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, self-determination, flow, goal orientation,
locus of control, self-efficacy) and volitional aspects (e.g., self-
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Academic procrastination
control, action control, general volitional problems, learning
strategies, time management). Third, the clinical psychology
perspective focuses on the clinically relevant extent of procras-
tination, linking it to anxiety, depression, stress, and person-
ality disorders. Finally, there is the situational perspective,
which is recently becoming more popular. It investigates situ-
ational and contextual aspects of procrastination such as task
characteristics, and teacher characteristics.
The perspectives that Beswick et al. (1988) stressed are the
first and third, that is differential psychology (indecision, low
self-esteem) and the clinical psychology (irrational beliefs about
self-worth, anxiety, depression). In the following, we will high-
light the antecedents of academic procrastination that repeat-
edly surface for each perspective.
Quantitative studies on antecedents of
academic procrastination
From the differential psychology perspective, conscientiousness
and all its facets are related to low procrastination (e.g., Steel,
2007; van Eerde, 2003; Watson, 2001). For example, academic
procrastinators are low in self-discipline and high in impulsive-
ness. The relationship with neuroticism is more complex: While
socially prescribed perfectionism (i.e., meeting the standards of
others) relates positively to academic procrastination, self-
oriented perfectionism (i.e., meeting one’s own standards)
relates negatively to academic procrastination (e.g., Bong,
Hwang, Noh, & Kim, 2014; Flett, Hewitt, & Martin, 1995),
although weakly in either case. In addition, academic procras-
tinators report low self-esteem (e.g., Rebetez, Rochat, & Van der
Linden, 2015; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Of note, the causal
relationship of these traits with procrastination can be recipro-
cal, such as impulsiveness creating procrastination, which in
turns handicaps efforts to address one’s impulsiveness.
With regard to motivational aspects, a mastery goal orienta-
tion (Howell & Watson, 2007; Seo, 2009) and high self-efficacy
(Ferrari, Parker, & Ware, 1992; Wäschle, Allgaier, Lachner, Fink,
& Nückles, 2014) seem to prevent academic procrastination.
With regard to volitional aspects, academic procrastination is
associated with a reduced use of cognitive and meta-cognitive
learning strategies (e.g., Howell & Watson, 2007; Wolters,
2003), low levels of perseverance and high levels of distractibil-
ity while working on a task (e.g., Dewitte & Schouwenburg,
2002), and poor planning skills (Rabin, Fogel, & Nutter-Upham,
2011). Over and above, it is related to a low level of self-efficacy
for self-regulation (Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008).
Within the clinical perspective fear of failure (Haghbin,
McCaffrey, & Pychyl, 2012; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984),
anxiety (Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Spada, Hiou,
& Nikcevic, 2006), and depression (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984;
Uzun Ozer, O’Callaghan, Bokszczanin, Ederer, & Essau, 2014)
are studied as enablers of academic procrastination. Again, the
causal relationship can be reciprocal or reversed, such as where
anxiety is the outcome of procrastination rather than the source.
Finally, the situational antecedents of academic procrastina-
tion are task-inherent characteristics such as attractiveness,
importance, or difficulty (e.g., Ackerman & Gross, 2005;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), with teacher characteristics (see
later) specifically associated with academic procrastination.
37
Academic procrastination
Lately, qualitative studies on academic procrastination have
drawn attention to a wide spectrum of situational antecedents.
Qualitative studies on antecedents of
academic procrastination
Very few qualitative studies on procrastination are available to
complement the continuous growing number of quantitative
studies on procrastination. In their grounded theory study of
academic procrastination, however, Schraw et al. (2007) iden-
tified three sources of antecedents to academic procrastination:
self (interest, organisational skills), teacher (clear expectations
for the course, well-organised course materials, tests and graded
assignments), and task (low background knowledge, task diffi-
culty). Applying qualitative content analysis, three other quali-
tative studies underline the importance of teacher and task
characteristics (Grunschel, Patrzek, & Fries, 2013a; Klingsieck,
Grund, Schmid, & Fries, 2013; Patrzek, Grunschel, & Fries,
2012) when explaining academic procrastination. In addition,
Klingsieck et al. (2013) stress the social antecedents of procras-
tination such as role models and attitudes of significant others
towards procrastination. Looking at the reasons students report
for their procrastination, Grunschel et al. (2013a) showed that
students who had already sought help because of procrastina-
tion reported more serious reasons (e.g., anxiety, serious illness)
than students who had not done so. Over and above, Patrzek
et al. (2012)—by shifting from investigating students’ percep-
tions to investigating the perceptions of university counsellors—
contribute a different perspective on the same reasons. While all
four studies emphasise self-regulation skills as a major contribu-
tor to academic procrastination in the case of personal
antecedents, they also highlight antecedents related to task
characteristics, teacher’s characteristics, institutional conditions,
and social aspects.
Explaining academic procrastination with the temporal
motivation theory (TMT)
Whatever new antecedents are revealed, all studies consistently
conclude that failures in self-regulation are the core of academic
procrastination. The underlying theme in all perspectives and
the most prominent finding in all studies of both approaches,
quantitative and qualitative, is that procrastination is a “quin-
tessential self-regulatory failure” (Steel, 2007). TMT summarises
this phenomenon from a time discounting perspective (Gröpel
& Steel, 2008; Steel & König, 2006; Steel & Weinhardt, in press).
This integrative theory incorporates the core validated con-
structs of major motivational theories, namely expectancy (e.g.,
self-efficacy), value (e.g., task aversiveness), and time sensitivity
(e.g., impulsiveness) as the principle predictors of procrastina-
tion. In its most parsimonious expression, these three constructs
are organised into an equation: motivation = (expec-
tancy × value)/(1 + impulsiveness × delay). Motivation is
increased as the expectancy of an outcome and its size or value
increases. Motivation is decreased as the delay before this
outcome and an individual’s impulsiveness increases (Figure 1).
Procrastination, on the other hand, occurs because of preference
reversal. A proximally or immediately available temptation (i.e.,
the solid line) pulls or distracts away from a former intention
(i.e., the dashed line). According to this theory, procrastination
38
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Figure 1 Preference Reversal for Implementing an Intention versus Pro-
crastinating as a Function of Time Remaining to the Target Task’s (Dashed
Line) and Temptation’s (Solid Line) Deadline or Rewards.
is more likely to occur if the outcome of a presently unpleasant
activity (e.g., essay writing) offers rewards, even ample ones, in
the distant future (e.g., better grades).
Consequences of Academic Procrastination
Empirical studies on academic procrastination and its conse-
quences underline the common notion that academic procras-
tination entails negative consequences for students pertaining to
their academic achievement and their subjective well-being.
The Beswick et al. (1988) study finds itself supported now by a
vast amount of studies showing that procrastination comes
along with lower grades (e.g., Fritzsche, Young, & Hickson,
2003; Klassen et al., 2008; Moon & Illingworth, 2005; Steel,
Brothen, & Wambach, 2001; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; van
Eerde, 2003). In particular, grades related to work done during
the course, rather than final exams, are compromised most
(Morris & Fritz, 2015). Furthermore, health-related conse-
quences are mental stress, physical stress reactions, sleep-
related problems, exhaustion and illness (e.g., Grunschel et al.,
2013a; Patrzek et al., 2012; Rothblum et al., 1986; Tice &
Baumeister, 1997). The affective consequences include anxiety,
anger, shame, dissatisfaction, sadness, feeling pressured, feeling
guilty, or feeling uneasy (e.g., Grunschel et al., 2013a; Patrzek
et al., 2012; Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000; Rothblum
et al., 1986; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). Students also reported
experiencing negative consequences regarding their private
lives (e.g., lack of social networks, negative reactions of others,
financial costs, interferences with career plans), that spill over
into the academic domain (Grunschel et al., 2013a; Patrzek
et al., 2012).
Finally, Steel and Ferrari (2013), in a large epidemiological
study, found that procrastination was associated with the
amount of education received which, with men procrastinating
more than women, accounts for hundreds of thousands fewer
male graduates. These studies stress the need for interventions
for academic procrastination, which is currently met by univer-
sity counselling centres and self-help books. Unfortunately, few
of these interventions appear to be based on sound motivational
principles or research (Steel & Klingsieck, 2013), with some
exceptions (e.g., Häfner, Oberst & Stock, 2014).
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Typologies of Procrastination
Almost concurrent with the publication of the Beswick et al.
(1988), the first papers on typologies of academic procrastina-
tion were published (Lay, 1987; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).
They complement the effort to establish antecedents and treat-
ments for procrastination as not all procrastinators may have
the same root causes or may respond to the same interventions.
Many other attempts to organise this multifaceted phenomenon
into typologies have followed, among which the differentiation
between arousal and avoidance procrastinators is the most
prominent (e.g., Ferrari, 1992). While arousal procrastination is
due to the nominally misguided belief that one works best
exclusively under pressure, avoidance procrastination is due to
imagined and actual fears. However, more recent findings do
not support the existence of this typology of procrastination
(Simpson & Pychyl, 2009), with Ferrari’s foundational paper on
the topic being clearly un-replicable after scores of attempts
(Steel, 2010a).
As an alternative with more support, Schouwenburg (2004)
provides a different typology of procrastination. He suggests that
all procrastination has a common base of impulsiveness or con-
scientiousness, which is consistent with TMT, neurobiology,
evolutional psychology, comparative psychology (Steel, 2010b)
and Gustavson, Miyake, Hewitt and Friedman’s (2014) twin
research finding impulsiveness accounts for 100% of procrasti-
nation’s genotypic variance. However, the way this procrastina-
tion manifests can differ according to levels of neuroticism and
extraversion and their interaction, which together forms four
basic groups. For example, being low on neuroticism but high
on extraversion may create the “happy-go-lucky” type while
being low on extraversion may create the more solitary
“dreamer.”
Although, there is considerable informal consensus for this
typology. In a review of previous qualitative typology attempts,
Gueorguieva (2011) notes that “one can readily see that differ-
ent theorists use different labels when referring to similar types
of procrastination” (p. 31). While basing this review on a sample
of mixed empirical rigor (i.e., four popular non-fiction self-help
books and three typologies outlined in Counseling the Procrasti-
nator in Academic Settings), Gueorguieva still found that these
typological efforts largely grouped into the neuroticism and
extraversion duet that Schouwenburg (2004) suggests. Specifi-
cally, she found support for the following classifications. First,
there are Anxious Idealists, who fear failure and being judged,
representing those high in neuroticism. Second, there are Day-
dreamers, who are easily bored by tasks, who would be high in
extraversion. Third, there are Avoidant Postponers, who postpone
tasks that threaten their feelings of autonomy, whose high need
for autonomy suggests they are high in neuroticism, but low in
extraversion (Bagby et al., 2001). In addition, Gueorguieva
found a fourth agreeableness based type, that is the People
Pleaser, who tends to overcommit by not daring to say no.
Although the emphasis is on neuroticism and extraversion, the
inclusion of the personality trait of agreeableness is an interest-
ing development, which we later discuss.
Taking a more quantitative approach to typologies, a consid-
erable amount of work has been based on exploring reasons for
procrastination, starting with Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984)
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Academic procrastination
PASS, which has a section dedicated to assessing reasons for
procrastination. Despite only 10% of the population giving fear
of failure or perfectionist standards as the reason for their delays
(Steel, 2007), as Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found during
their original investigation of the topic, the homogeneity of
student responses—“students who endorse items constituting
this factor tend to endorse these items exclusively” (p. 508)—
makes this the most easily identified procrastination typology.
They are also the most likely to seek treatment (Day, Mensink,
& O’sullivan, 2000; Enns & Cox, 2002), so many student coun-
selling programmes focus on the perfectionist procrastinator
(e.g., Flett, Hewitt, Davis, & Sherry, 2004), despite the weak and
sometime negative associations between perfectionism and pro-
crastination overall.
In contrast, the second group to be derived from the PASS is
much larger in size, although are second to be extracted as they
are less consistent in item endorsement. They procrastinate due
to “dislike of engaging in academic activities and a lack of
energy” (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; p. 508). The lack of
energy is indicative of low extraversion and indeed being tired is
one of the primary reasons for putting tasks off (Gröpel & Steel,
2008). On the other hand, Day et al. (2000) updated the PASS
by creating the Academic Procrastination Questionnaire, which also
seeks to identify the underlying reasons for procrastination.
While the two major reasons were again related to neuroticism
(i.e., evaluation anxiety, discourage/depressed) and extraver-
sion (i.e., ambivalent, socially focused), this time the positive
pole of extraversion, that is socially focused, was the most
endorsed, by almost 40% of students.
Instead of focusing on self-diagnosed reasons for procrastina-
tion, other researchers have tried to develop personality pro-
files. Here again, the features of neuroticism or anxiety and
extraversion or energy are repeatedly found, although not
always favouring a single pole of the factors. Lay (1987), using
modal profile analysis based on task and personality self-
responses, found several profiles associated with procrastina-
tion, all of which had a combination of neuroticism or anxiety
and low energy. McCown, Johnson, and Petzel (1989) using
principal component analysis with the Eysenck Personality Ques-
tionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), found three profiles:
one neuroticism related, one extraverted/autonomy related,
and one extraversion and neuroticism related. Notably, these
groups were high in extraversion, exemplified by taking on too
many tasks. In their profile analysis, Milgram, Gehrman, and
Keinan (1992) also found neuroticism identifies procrastination
types. Neuroticism occurred at both ends of the continuum with
two groups of procrastinators, one with high and one with low
manifest upset. Watson (2001), using Multidimensional Scaling
of the PASS and the Five Factor Model, replicated the three
profiles found by McCown et al. (1989), although argued that
the first profile, neuroticism related, was also described by being
low in extraversion or introverted. In short, procrastination for
“general school activities is mainly related to low extraversion
and neuroticism” (p. 157).
Three more recent efforts were Grunschel, Patrzek, and Fries
(2013b), Rebetez et al. (2015), and Rozental et al. (2015).
Grunschel et al. created their own scales to assess reasons for
academic delay, which collapsed into four factors. Although
somewhat constrained by the limited set of reasons they
39
Academic procrastination
investigated, they found two types associated with procrastina-
tion: a worried/anxious type and a discontent with studies type,
almost identical to Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984) initial
investigation. Rebetez et al. cluster analysed a battery of cogni-
tive, emotional, and motivational factors, extracting two neu-
rotic types associated with procrastination that is those who
were poorest at emotional regulation and those who experi-
enced emotional-related difficulties. Finally, Rozental et al.
cluster analysed procrastination along with measures related to
anxiety, depression, and quality of life resulting in the clusters:
severe procrastinators (22%), well-adjusted procrastinators
(14%), primarily depressed procrastinators (12%), average
(8%), and mild procrastinators (5%).
Clearly and consistently, as Schouwenburg (2004) suggested,
the field has found procrastination groups related to neuroti-
cism and extraversion, with the neuroticism-related procrasti-
nator most often found. Solomon and Rothblum (1984) note
that this is apparently due to the coherence of this group’s
responses rather than its size. Despite trait anxiety or neuroti-
cism displaying weak correlations with procrastination, there is
a subset of people who vividly experience anxiety phenomeno-
logically as causal.
The Present Study
The goal of the study was to test the hypothetical procrastina-
tion taxonomy that Schouwenburg (2004) proposed, but never
formally examined. As reviewed, there is repeated evidence that
procrastination, although impulsivity-driven, still clusters
around neuroticism and extraversion. However, TMT suggests
that this typology may be incomplete.
While TMT does support that traits connected to expectancy
and value (i.e., neuroticism and extraversion) are likely candi-
dates to form clusters, it does not rule out other personality
traits as well. As TMT is partially derived from Need Theory
(Steel & König, 2006), there should be a predictable relationship
between an individual’s personality profile and the tasks they
pursue when procrastinating. To some extent, personality traits
can be interpreted as the observable manifestations of underly-
ing needs (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Winter, John, Stewart,
Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Those high in the need for affilia-
tion, for example, are more likely to find socialising satisfying,
more likely to engage in it, and therefore more likely to be
viewed as extraverts. Consequently, TMT would indicate that
people would procrastinate by performing tasks associated with
their personality, as they likely find them rewarding. This is
consistent with early although informed findings on this topic,
as per McCown and Johnson (1991) who suggest that likely,
“Procrastinators with high neuroticism . . . avoid studying to
reduce anxiety,” while “Extraverted procrastinators may put off
for different reasons; they are overcommitted socially” (p. 415).
Consistent with Gueorguieva (2011), TMT indicates that pro-
crastination types would also form around agreeableness and
openness to experience.
Why has this been found only sporadically? Much of the
previous research was based on an abbreviated personality
model that favoured just neuroticism and extraversion (e.g., the
EPQ) and dependent on reasons that were constrained to a
defined and brief list. Consequently, what may have happened
40
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
during previous attempts to form procrastination typologies is
that authors simply rediscovered established personality dimen-
sions, having held conscientiousness as constant (i.e., limiting
the pool to procrastinators). Also, if authors only use measures
that focus on neurotic or extraverted reasons for procrastination
(e.g., Grunschel et al., 2013b), then they have slanted their
results accordingly.
In contrast, this paper widens the scope to all five personality
traits and to a rich repertoire of reasons for procrastination. We
test Schouwenburg’s (2004) hypothesis in two ways. First, we
expect to find that procrastination is closely related to conscien-
tiousness and weakly related to the remaining four personality
traits. After controlling for conscientiousness, we expect that no
other personality traits will have a significant association.
Hypothesis 1: Procrastination is strongly related to conscientiousness
and its facets.
Hypothesis 2: After controlling for conscientiousness and its facets, no
other personality traits are significantly related to procrastination.
Second, we test if the remaining personality traits, although
not correlated with the degree of procrastination itself, are
related to how procrastination is expressed. While previous
research has favoured factor analytic and clustering techniques,
this is problematic as invariably if one personal trait is held
constant through selection, factor analytic work based on per-
sonality indicators should recreate the other four traits. To avoid
this, we take a mixed method qualitative-quantitative approach
by having students generate their own reasons for procrastina-
tion as well as what activities they pursue while procrastinating.
After coding these open-ended explanations and activities as to
whether they represent a particular personality trait (e.g.,
socialising represents extraversion), we examine whether they
are associated with their personality profile. That is, although
conscientiousness should largely determine the extent of pro-
crastination, we expect that the other personality traits influ-
ence how this procrastination manifests.
Hypothesis 3: Reasons for procrastination and activities involved in
while procrastinating are associated with other non-conscientiousness
personality traits.
Methods
Setting and Participants
Motivation research design usually provides too much control at
the expense of realism and generalisability (Bazerman, 2001).
In response, there has been a push to use natural decision
making (NDM) settings (Klein, 2008). As Lipshitz, Klein,
Orasanu, and Salas (2001) review, “NDM is an attempt to
understand how people make decisions in real-world contexts
that are meaningful and familiar to them” (p. 332). We used a
computerised personal system of instruction (PSI), similar to
Steel et al. (2001), which addresses this concern. PSIs are self-
directed courses, a less massive version of massive open online
courses or MOOCs, both of which are well known to enable
considerable amounts of procrastination, but in a standardised
and realistic environment (Bartholet, 2013; Lamwers &
Jazwinski, 1989). From an original group of 217 who enrolled
in a PSI introductory psychology course, the sample comprised
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
P Steel and KB Klingsieck Academic procrastination

167 undergraduate students who both finished the course and the present activity tedious and wanting to do something dif-
provided informed consistent, consisting of 40.6% men and ferent, more varied. Closed to experience was wanting to return
59.4% women. to a familiar routine. Coding was done in groups of participants.
As one subsection concluded, the coding guide was expanded
Measures with specific examples drawn from the assignments to aid
coding of the next subsection. At the end, the first group was
The 15-week introduction to psychology course was divided
recoded once again with the expanded coding guide.
into 19 self-paced chapters, which provided a variety of oppor-
After double-coding of the 145 students who provided
tunities for delay, at the end of which students completed a
consent and completed this portion of the course, only 17 of the
supervised final exam. About two-thirds through the course,
assignments were deemed completely uncodable, leaving 128
students submitted a short essay detailing: (a) what reason they
usable cases. While reasons and activities could be coded as
saw as causing them to procrastinate (“Consider when you do
representing multiple traits simultaneously, for the latter, only
most often procrastinate. What would you say is the major
20 cases in total could be coded as representing either agreea-
reason that causes your procrastination?”), and (b) what activi-
bleness or openness to experience. As these cases also often
ties they pursued while procrastinating (“Consider how you
showed characteristics of either extraversion or neuroticism, the
most often procrastinate. What would you say is the major
activity categories were limited exclusively to extraversion and
activity that you do when procrastinating?”). Personality traits
neuroticism, given the remaining traits had inadequate statisti-
were measured at the beginning of the course using The Big
cal power. Where agreement could not be reached, cases were
Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), which is
excluded from analysis. For the reason category agreement was
a 44-item personality measure assessing the big five traits.
88% while for the activity category agreement was 84%. After
Cronbach’s alpha for each trait is as follows: extraversion (0.83),
considering Cohen’s Kappa, which controls for chance, agree-
agreeableness (0.72), conscientiousness (0.76), neuroticism
ment was almost identical, at 73% and 72%, respectively. Inci-
(0.83), and openness to experience (0.76).
dent rates as well as example excerpts are reported for each trait
To better explore the trait of conscientiousness, three of the
in the results.
NEO PI-R’s (Costa & McCrae, 1992) conscientiousness facet
scales were employed: need for order, self-discipline, and
achievement striving. Reflecting its close connection to procras- Results
tination, the self-discipline scale has several items that appear to
be assessing the procrastination concept (i.e., “I waste a lot of Conscientiousness and Personality
time before settling down to work”) and thus should demon-
To begin with, we determine if procrastination is derivable from
strate the strongest association with procrastination itself,
conscientiousness and its facets. Table 1 provides the
although negative in direction. Cronbach’s alpha for each facet
interrcorrelations among the personality traits, the facets of
is as follows: need for order (.68), self-discipline (.79), and
conscientiousness, and procrastination.
achievement striving (.78).
As can be seen, conscientiousness and its facets are the strong-
Finally, procrastination was measured with the Irrational Pro-
est correlates with procrastination, supporting Hypothesis 1. As
crastination Scale (Steel, 2010a). It was designed to assess the
expected, self-discipline shows the strongest connection.
irrational or acratic delay definition of procrastination (i.e.,
Together, these results confirm that conscientiousness forms the
Steel, 2007), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. To gain test–retest
core of procrastination. As for the remaining personality traits,
reliability, the scale was administered twice, at the beginning
we investigate this in two regressions. First, as per Table 2, we
and end of the course, generating a stability coefficient of 0.68.
show that conscientiousness facets substantively predict above
The average score across both administrations, which minimises
conscientiousness, while the remaining traits are not significant.
situation-specific method variance (Kammeyer-Mueller, Steel,
In addition, with just conscientiousness allowed to enter first,
& Rubenstein, 2010) such as mood, was used as our measure of
excluding its three facets, the remaining personality traits still
procrastination.
do not incrementally predict. As per Table 3, Hypothesis 2 is
Coding Procedures supported.

A coding guide was created to sort the reasons and activities
from each student’s Written Assignment into the Big Five traits.
Guidelines were to code a reason or activity as +1 if it repre-
sented the high end of the trait, −1 if it represented the low end
of the trait, and zero if it was unrepresentative. Accordingly,
Extraversion was coded as bored and wanting to do something
more exciting or wanting to socialise. Introversion was any
statement regarding needing to be alone. Agreeableness was
wanting to be helpful or agreeing to peer pressure. Disagreea-
bleness was rebelliousness, autonomy seeking, or scepticism
and suspicion about others. Neuroticism was finding activities
too anxiety provoking. Emotional stability was excessive calm-
ness about task completion. Openness to experience was finding
Personality Traits and Reasons for Procrastination
Our third hypothesis is that the phenomenology of procrastina-
tion, reflected in the reasons ascribed to procrastination and the
off-task activities pursued, is connected to the other personality
traits. Extraversion proved to be the most popular reason for
procrastinating with 57 cases indicating it is a cause (41% of
cases) and 92 indicating it as an effect (76% of cases). Students
reported to procrastinate on a task because they want to do
something more exciting or to socialise (e.g., “The major reason
I procrastinate is my friends. I would rather spend time with my
friends than doing schoolwork”). Regarding its opposite pole,
introversion, only four cases were coded as a cause (3% of

Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46 41

© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Academic procrastination P Steel and KB Klingsieck

Table 1 Intercorrelations Among Procrastination, Personality Traits, and Facets of Conscientiousness

M SD Proc Extra Agree Cons Neuro OtE NfO SeDi AS

Procrastination 2.99 0.82 1.00

Extraversion 2.56 0.77 −0.10 1.00
Agreeableness 3.97 0.53 −0.12 0.18* 1.00
Concientiousness 3.64 0.60 −0.60** 0.09 0.30** 1.00
Neuroticism 2.79 0.84 0.16* −0.31** −0.33** −0.23** 1.00
Openness to Experience 3.59 0.60 −0.03 0.16* 0.04 0.01 −0.14 1.00
Need for Order 3.27 0.65 −0.43** 0.08 0.06 0.59** 0.02 0.05 1.00
Self-Discipline 3.59 0.71 −0.78** 0.17* 0.17* 0.68** −0.25** −0.01 0.48** 1.00
Achievement Striving 3.62 0.69 −0.48** 0.23** 0.22** 0.58** −0.21** −0.05 0.37** 0.65** 1.00

Note. Proc: Procrastination; Extra: Extraversion; Agree: Agreeableness; Cons: Conscientiousness; Neuro: Neuroticism; OtE: Openness to Experience; NfO: Need
for Order; SeDi: Self-Discipline; AS: Achievement Striving; SD: standard deviation. Degrees of freedom, 166; N, 167; *p < .05 **p < .01.

Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Procrastination these percentages are in line with what Solomon and Rothblum
(1984) first detected for the neurotic procrastinator type. Neu-
Variables R 2
corr ΔR 2
B SE B ß
rotic procrastinators reported procrastinating a task because of
Step 1 0.36** task-related anxiety and to engage in activities that are explicitly
Conscientiousness −0.82** 0.08 −0.60** chosen to distract from that anxiety. For example: “If I come
Step 2 0.61** 0.26 across an assignment that I feel will have a significant effect on
Conscientiousness −0.19 0.10 −0.14 my grade, I begin to fear and put off the project.” Emotional
Achievement Striving 0.10 0.08 0.09 stability, neuroticism’s opposite pole, was coded as a cause 10
Need for Order −0.04 0.08 −0.03 times (7% of cases) and as an activity 18 times (14% of cases).
Self-Discipline −0.84** 0.09 −0.73** Students reported procrastinating a task because they felt no
Step 3 0.61** 0.00 pressure to engage in the task. Instead of working on the task,
Conscientiousness −0.22* 0.11 −0.16*
they slept, watched TV or used the Internet. For example: “I feel
Achievement Striving 0.09 0.08 0.08
that by being so calm, I do not feel threatened to get something
Need for Order −0.02 0.08 −0.01
done and almost don’t care about the consequences.”
Self-Discipline −0.84 0.09 −0.73
Agreeableness was viewed as a cause of procrastination in
Openness to Experience −0.06 0.07 −0.04
only nine cases (7% of cases). Students reported procrastinating
Extraversion 0.02 0.06 0.01
Agreeableness 0.03 0.08 0.02
a task because of agreeing to peer pressure or conformity and
Neuroticism −0.04 0.05 −0.42 because of wanting to be helpful. For example: “I would rather
spend time helping and being with people that I love instead of
Note. R2corr, R2 corrected; ΔR2, change in R2; *p < .05; **p < .01. being engulfed in something that I am not really fond of doing.”
Just one case suggested its opposite pole, disagreeableness. Spe-
cifically: “I am calling my friend because I am suspicious in what
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Procrastination they are doing.”
Finally, openness to experience was interpreted as a cause of
Variables R2corr ΔR2 B SE B ß procrastination in 44 instances (32% of cases). Students
Step 1 0.36** reported procrastinating a task because they were bored by
Conscientiousness −0.82** 0.08 −0.60** monotony and because they wanted to do something more
Step 2 0.35** 0.00 varied. For example: “I would rather have a variety of new and
Conscientiousness −0.84** 0.09 −0.62 interesting things to do every night than follow the same day-
Openness to Experience −0.03 0.09 −0.02 to-day schedule.” There were no instances coded as its opposite
Extraversion −0.05 0.07 −0.05 pole.
Agreeableness 0.12 0.11 0.08 The correlation between traits and tasks are summarised in
Neuroticism 0.02 0.07 0.02 Table 4. As can be seen, the results support the hypothesis,
especially with the personality traits of extraversion and neu-
Note. R2corr, R2 corrected; ΔR2, change in R2; *p < .05; **p < .01. roticism. Consistent with Solomon and Rothblum’s (1984)
seminal work, these are the two traits that are easiest to identify
(i.e., having the highest correlations). Hypothesis 3 is supported.
cases) and nine cases coded as an effect (7% of cases). Students
reported procrastinating a task because they wanted to be alone,
such as “I prefer quiet, solitary activities. . . . I am often dis- Discussion
tracted from everyday chores by the desire to simply sit and be.”
Neuroticism was coded as a cause of procrastination 13 times Our findings confirm and expand Schouwenburg’s (2004)
(9% of cases) and as an effect six times (5% of cases). Notably, typology. Conscientiousness and its facets (e.g., self-discipline,

42 Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46

© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Table 4 Correlations among Personality Traits with Self-Report Reasons for Procrastination and Activities Done When Procrastinating Coded in Terms of
Personality Traits
Trait Procrastination reasons
Extra. Agree. Neurotic.
Extraversion 0.32* −0.00 −0.18
Agreeableness 0.11 0.19* −0.05
Neuroticism −0.04 −0.06 0.33*
Openness −0.18 0.07 −0.14
Note. *p < .05.
impulsiveness) are at the core of procrastination, here account-
ing for 61% of the variance. After controlling for conscientious-
ness, the remaining personality traits have no connection.
Given that causation requires correlation (though correlation
does not confirm causation), we can conclude these traits are
not substantively causal. However, as Schouwenburg suggests,
while they might not necessarily influence the degree of pro-
crastination, they can influence how it manifests. This is what
we also found.
Again, as per Schouwenburg (2004), the major traits associ-
ated with the phenomenological experience for why we pro-
crastinate or the activities chosen while procrastinated are
predictably related to neuroticism and extraversion. Those high
in neuroticism report putting off because of anxiety while those
low reported insufficient concern or worry. Those high in extra-
version report putting off mostly for social reasons while those
low reported lack of energy or need for solitude. In addition,
there was similar although attenuated connection for agreea-
bleness and openness for experience, detectable for reasons, but
not activities. By far, the dominant personality profile for pro-
crastination was high extraversion (e.g., a need to socialise) and
high openness to experience (e.g., a desire for variety to avoid
boredom). Together they accounted for 70% of the cases.
This is an important finding for student counselling. A special
issue of the Journal of Rational-Emotive Cognitive-Behaviour
Therapy focused on establishing the causal nature of perfection-
ism and procrastination found the present situation “perplex-
ing” (Pychyl & Flett, 2012, p. 206). On one hand, there are low
correlations with irrational beliefs or perfectionism, while on
the other hand, there are a preponderance of procrastinators
seeking clinical treatment who report anxiety as causal. As way
of reconciliation, there certainly is a coherent type that ascribe
its procrastination to neurotic-related tendencies, but as
Schouwenburg (2004) suggested and meta-analytic results
confirm (Steel, 2007), this is still rooted in low conscientious-
ness, namely impulsivity. Impulsiveness, in turn, does not
operate in a vacuum. For temporal discounting to occur, there
needs to be a reward or punisher to be discounted. These
rewards will differ predictably according to personality type.
Addressing these rewards and punishers is consistent with TMT
(i.e., expectancy and value). Consequently, without impulsive-
ness, anxiety should rationally drive people to action. As
McCown, Petzel, and Rupert (1987) stated, it is equally likely
that neurotics experience their anxiety as a prompt to get
started so as to remove the unwanted source of stress as quickly
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Academic procrastination
Procrastination activities
Openness Extraversion Neurotic.
−0.10 0.47* −0.08
−0.13 0.14 0.01
−0.09 −0.14 0.35*
0.24* −0.10 −0.20*
as possible. That anxiety can lead to effort is a view shared by
many prominent researchers, exemplified by Norem’s (2002) or
Oettingen’s (2014) books on the topic.
This does not preclude offering anxiety-related interventions
for the neurotic procrastinator. Treating dysfunctional perfec-
tionism or disabling anxiety is worthy in its own right, regard-
less of its relationship to procrastination. However, it would be
ill-advised to assume that the neurotic profile applies to all
procrastinators instead of just a minority of them. As Solomon
and Rothblum (1984) suggested, it is approximately 10%, close
to the percentage we found here. For other types of procrasti-
nators, which are necessarily in the majority, forms of therapy
that are not anxiety focused should be recommended. Each of
these procrastination types, influenced by their individual per-
sonality profiles, will have to deal with a specific set of tempta-
tions that they need to distance and undesirable although
necessary tasks they need to reframe, manage or craft. Given
that the universal and indeed most powerful connection with
procrastination is through conscientiousness, addressing this
trait and its facets, especially impulsiveness and self-discipline, is
recommended as being the backbone of all interventions with
all forms or typologies of procrastination. As Steel (2010b)
reviews, there are a wide variety of impulsivity treatments, from
precommitment to stimulus control. To eschew these options by
focusing on less effective techniques that apply only to a sub-
section of procrastinators reflects a dogmatic commitment to a
very constrained set of psychological theories.
Future Research and Limitations
The setting for this paper focused on the student experience.
While the association between how procrastination manifests
and personality were detected, there were fewer activities asso-
ciated with agreeableness or openness to experience. This might
not replicate in other life domains. Steel (2010b), for example,
clusters nine different areas of procrastination into three super-
ordinate groups: success (e.g., career, finance, education), self-
development (health, self-development, spirituality), and
intimacy (friends, family, parenting). Similarly, Klingsieck
(2013b) found six different life domains: academic and work,
everyday routines and obligations, health, leisure, family and
partnership, and social contacts. We might expect agreeable-
ness, being a more social trait, to have greater relevance in social
contacts and intimacy matters.
43
Academic procrastination
Instead of using open-ended questions for reasons and then
coding them, we could create an academic style questionnaire
with clear categories for all personality traits and at both ends
of their continuum. This would reduce coding errors and
allow for a much larger survey-based assessment. A more
precise breakdown of types could be gained, including confir-
mation that specific ends of traits (e.g., high extraversion or
high openness to experience) are more easily connected by
respondents to their procrastination. As it stands, the split of
responses is often uneven, which makes the estimates here
conservative. An uneven split reduces the size of correlations.
Finally, with an appropriate typology of procrastination in
hand, we could match therapies to styles. For all procrastina-
tors, the facets of conscientiousness, especially impulsiveness,
needs to be addressed. In addition, neurotic procrastination
would likely benefit from anxiety-targeted therapies, like
Rational–Emotive Cognitive–Behaviour Therapy (Pychyl &
Flett, 2012). Emotionally stable procrastinators would likely be
more responsive to mental contrasting, which increases
anxiety but also the likelihood to perform (Kappes, Singmann,
& Oettingen, 2012). Similarly, agreeable procrastinators could
be treated by assertiveness training while disagreeable, rebel-
lious or autonomy seeking procrastinators might address their
demand resistance, for example through paradoxical interven-
tions (Shoham-Salomon, Avner, & Neeman, 1989). The open-
ness to experience procrastinator could be taught interest
enhancement (Gröpel & Steel, 2008). In order to offer
evidence-based interventions, future research should invest
in studies evaluating the effectiveness of such type-specific
therapies.
Conclusion
Coming back to the Beswick et al. (1988) paper, we conclude
that procrastination research has consistently grown in the last
decades, leading to a deeper and more nuanced understanding
of this phenomenon. Nowadays, research looks into both per-
sonal and situation aspects of procrastination, applies both
quantitative and qualitative research methods and aims at pro-
viding university counselling services with research-based sug-
gestions for interventions.
References
Ackerman, D. S., & Gross, B. L. (2005). My instructor made me do it: Task
characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27,
5–13. doi:10.1177/0273475304273842
Bagby, R. M., Gilchrist, E. J., Rector, N. A., Dickens, S. E., Joffe, R. T.,
Levitt, A., . . . Kennedy, S. H. (2001). The stability and validity of the
sociotropy and autonomy personality dimensions as measured by the
Revised Personal Style Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25,
765–779. doi:10.1023/A:1012975524455
Bartholet, J. (2013). I was pleasantly surprised. Scientific American, 309,
72–73. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0813-72
Bazerman, M. H. (2001). Consumer research for consumers. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27, 499–504. doi:10.1177/0273475307312194
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological
antecedents of student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23,
207–217. doi:10.1080/00050068808255605
44
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Bong, M., Hwang, A., Noh, A., & Kim, S. I. (2014). Perfectionism
and motivation of adolescents in academic contexts.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 711–729.
doi:10.1037/a0035836
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it, what to
do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive
effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and
performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 245–264.
doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.2.195-212
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., & Lindt, S. F. (2011). Comparing active delay and
procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective.
Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 602–606.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.005
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification:
Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 258–265.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.258
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory
(NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional
manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Day, V., Mensink, D., & O’sullivan, M. (2000). Patterns of academic
procrastination. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30,
120–134. doi:10.1080/10790195.2000.10850090
Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations,
and incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in
procrastinators and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16,
469–489. doi:10.1002/per.461
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York:
Institute for Rational Living.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of
perfectionism: A critical analysis. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.),
Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–62).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). Hodder and Stoughton.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination
inventories for adults: Arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97–110.
doi:10.1007/BF00965170
Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T., & Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination:
Personality correlates with Myers-Briggs types, self-efficacy, and
academic locus of control. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7,
495–502.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Davis, R. A., & Sherry, S. B. (2004). Description
and counseling of the perfectionistic procrastinator. In H. C.
Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling
the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 181–194). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Dimensions of
perfectionism and procrastination. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W.
G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 113–136). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Fritzsche, B. A., Young, B. R., & Hickson, K. C. (2003). Individual
differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1549–1557.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00369-0
Gröpel, P., & Steel, P. (2008). A mega-trial investigation of goal setting,
interest enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Personality and
Individual Differences, 45, 406–411. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.015
Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013a). Exploring reasons and
consequences of academic procrastination: An interview study.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 841–861.
doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0143-4
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013b). Exploring different types of
academic delayers: A latent profile analysis. Learning and Individual
Differences, 23, 225–233. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.014
Gueorguieva, J. M. (2011). Procrastination a measurement of types.
University of Illinois at Chicago.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2014).
Genetic relations among procrastination, impulsivity, and
goal-management ability implications for the evolutionary origin of
procrastination. Psychological Science, 25, 1178–1188.
doi:10.1177/0956797614526260
Haghbin, M., McCaffrey, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2012). The complexity of the
relation between fear of failure and procrastination. Journal of
Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30, 249–263.
doi:10.1007/s10942-012-0153-9
Häfner, A., Oberst, V., & Stock, A. (2014). Avoiding procrastination
through time management: An experimental intervention study.
Educational Studies, 40, 352–360.
doi:10.1080/03055698.2014.899487
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with
achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 167–178. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017
Janis, L. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis
of conflict. Choice and commitment. New York: Free Press.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five
inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California,
Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Steel, P. D., & Rubenstein, A. (2010). The other side
of method bias: The perils of distinct source research designs.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 294–321.
doi:10.1080/00273171003680278
Kappes, A., Singmann, H., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Mental contrasting
instigates goal pursuit by linking obstacles of reality with instrumental
behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 811–818.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.002
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic
procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate
predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 33, 915–931. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors: The Journal
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 456–460.
doi:10.1518/001872008X288385
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013a). Procrastination: When good things don’t come
to those who wait. European Psychologist, 18, 24–34.
doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000138
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013b). Procrastination in different life-domains: Is
procrastination domain specific? Current Psychology, 32, 175–185.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179
Klingsieck, K. B., Grund, A., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2013). Why students
procrastinate: A qualitative approach. Journal of College Student
Development, 54, 397–412. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0060
Lamwers, L. L., & Jazwinski, C. H. (1989). A comparison of three strategies
to reduce student procrastination in PSI. Teaching of Psychology,
16(1), 8–12. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1601_2
Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastinators: A search for
types. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 705–714.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90069-9
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of
naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
14, 331–352. doi:10.1002/bdm.381
McCown, W. G., Johnson, J. L., & Petzel, T. (1989). Procrastination, a
principal components analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,
10, 197–202. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90204-3
McCown, W., & Johnson, J. L. (1991). Personality and chronic
procrastination by university students during an academic
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society
Academic procrastination
examination period. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
413–415. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90058-J
McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of
some hypothesized behaviors and personality variables of college
student procrastinators. Personality and Individual Differences, 8,
781–786. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90130-9
Milgram, N. A., Gehrman, T., & Keinan, G. (1992). Procrastination and
emotional upset: A typological model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 1307–1313. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90173-M
Moon, S. M., & Illingworth, A. J. (2005). Exploring the dynamic nature of
procrastination: A latent growth curve analysis of academic
procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 297–309.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.009
Morris, P. E., & Fritz, C. O. (2015). Conscientiousness and procrastination
predict academic coursework marks rather than examination
performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, 193–198.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.007
Norem, J. (2002). The positive power of negative thinking. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science
of motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Patrzek, J., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2012). Academic procrastination:
The perspective of university counsellors. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 34, 185–201.
doi:10.1007/s10447-012-9150-z
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory
failure: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of
Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30, 203–212.
doi:10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of
emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate student
procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 239–254.
Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., & Nutter-Upham, K. E. (2011). Academic
procrastination in college students: The role of self-reported executive
function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33,
344–357. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.518597
Rebetez, M. M. L., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2015). Cognitive,
emotional, and motivational factors related to procrastination: A
cluster analytic approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 76,
1–6. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.044
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective,
cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and low
procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387–394.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.4.387
Rozental, A., Forsell, E., Svensson, A., Forsström, D., Andersson, G., &
Carlbring, P. (2015). Differentiating procrastinators from each other: A
cluster analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 1–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1059353
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Procrastination in academic settings:
General introduction. In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, &
J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings
(pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A
grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 12–25. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12
Seo, E. H. (2009). The relationship of procrastination with a mastery goal
versus an avoidance goal. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 37, 911–919. doi:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.7.911
Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R., & Neeman, R. (1989). You’re changed if
you do and changed if you don’t: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical
interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57,
590–598. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.590
Simpson, W. K., & Pychyl, T. A. (2009). In search of the arousal
procrastinator: Investigating the relation between procrastination,
45
Academic procrastination
arousal-based personality traits and beliefs about procrastination
motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 906–911.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.013
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination:
Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, 503–509. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.4.387
Spada, M. M., Hiou, K., & Nikcevic, A. V. (2006). Metacognitions,
emotions, and procrastination. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy,
20, 319–326. doi:10.1891/jcop.20.3.319
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and
theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.
Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Steel, P. (2010a). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do
they exist? Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 926–934.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025
Steel, P. (2010b). The procrastination equation: How to stop putting
things off and start getting stuff done. Toronto, ON: Random House
Canada.
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and
personality, performance, and mood. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 95–106. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00013-1
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An
epidemiological study of procrastinators’ characteristics from a global
sample. European Journal of Personality, 27, 51–58.
doi:10.1002/per.1851
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). Procrastination. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.),
Oxford Bibliographies in Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 3, 889–913.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.22527462
46
P Steel and KB Klingsieck
Steel, P., & Weinhardt, J. (in press). The building blocks of motivation. In
N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesveran (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of
procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The costs and
benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x
Uzun Ozer, B., O’Callaghan, J., Bokszczanin, A., Ederer, E., & Essau, C.
(2014). Dynamic interplay of depression, perfectionism and
self-regulation on procrastination. British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 42, 309–319. doi:10.1080/03069885.2014.896454
van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of
procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
1401–1419. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6
Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet
level analysis. Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 149–158.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00019-2
Wäschle, K., Allgaier, A., Lachner, A., Fink, S., & Nückles, M. (2014).
Procrastination and self-efficacy: Tracing vicious and virtuous circles in
self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 103–114.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.005
Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E.
(1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in
personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230–250.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.230
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated
learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 179–187.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179
Australian Psychologist 51 (2016) 36–46
© 2016 The Australian Psychological Society