‘‘I’ll look after my health, later’’: an investigation
of procrastination and health
Fuschia M. Sirois*, Michelle L. Melia-Gordon, Timothy A. Pychyl
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, B550 Loeb Building, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1S 5B6
Received 18 March 2002; received in revised form 10 September 2002; accepted 20 October 2002
A recent study on the negative health consequences of procrastination suggested that procrastination
was associated with higher stress and poor health (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). The current investigation
sought to clarify and extend these ﬁndings by examining the mediational role of stress and health behaviors
in the procrastination–illness relationship. It was hypothesized that in addition to stress, a behavioral
pathway would be implicated, with poor weliness behaviors and delay in seeking treatment for health
problems mediating the eﬀects of procrastination on health. The model was tested with a sample of uni-
versity students (n=122) during a high stress period. As expected, the results indicated that procrastina-
tion related to poorer health, treatment delay, perceived stress, and fewer weilness behaviors. The process
analyses supported the mediational role of stress and treatment delay, but not weliness behaviors, in the
procrastination–illness relationship. The model is consistent with current conceptualizations of the per-
sonality–health relationship, and presents procrastination as a behavioral style that may increase vulner-
ability for negative health outcomes.
#2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Procrastination; Health; Health behaviors; Stress; Treatment delay
Procrastination has been described as a behavioral style that reﬂects self-regulation failure
(Ferrari, 2001), and involves delay in the start and/or completion of a task (Ferrari & Tice, 2000).
Research indicates that procrastination is linked to a number of negative mental health states,
including anxiety (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Ferrari, 1991; Haycock, McCarthy, &
Skay, 1998; Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986;
0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter #2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-613-520-2600; fax: +1-613-520-3667.
E-mail address: email@example.com (F. M. Sirois).
Senecal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1995; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), depression (Beswick et al.,
1988; Martin, Flett, Hewitt, Krames, & Szanto, 1996; Saddler & Sacks, 1993; Senecal et al., 1995;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), and higher perceived stress (Flett, Blankstein, & Martin, 1995; Tice
& Baumeister, 1997). However, little attention has been given to the relationship between pro-
crastination and physical health status.
An initial investigation by Tice and Baumeister (1997) of the health costs of pro-
crastination suggests that procrastination may be associated with higher stress and
poorer health. University students who rated high on procrastination reported better health
and less stress at the beginning of the academic term, but were more stressed and had
poorer self-rated health by the end of term. However, the reasons for this relationship were
not empirically explored. Tice and Baumeister (1997) speculated that the higher stress experi-
enced by the procrastinators may have been responsible for their diminished state of health at the
end of term.
In this paper we brieﬂy review the current formulations of the personality–health rela-
tionship, followed by a conceptualization of how procrastination may relate to health
outcomes. A mediational model that reﬂects these hypothesized relationships is then presented
1.1. Overview of personality–health models
Current theoretical and empirical research on the relationship between personality and health
oﬀers some support for the associations between procrastination, stress and health suggested by
Tice and Baumeister (1997). Investigations of the eﬀects of stress on the immune system have
been a fruitful area of research in human psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) for over a decade. This
growing body of literature suggests that stressful life events are related to increased vulnerability
to infectious conditions such as the common cold (Cohen, Tyrrell, & Smith, 1991; Cohen &
Williamson, 1991; Lacey et al., 2000; Stone et al., 1992; Turner Cobb & Steptoe, 1996), as well as
poor health status (Jorgensen, Frankowski, & Carey, 1999).
Sergerstrom (2000) proposes that the personality–immune system relationship may be
explained by several psychosocial mediators, including the impact of stress as suggested by PNI
research. Speciﬁcally, the quantity or quality of stress experienced may be a function of person-
ality, and this stress in turn aﬀects the immune system. As Sergerstrom suggests, this relationship
is a complex one, with personality implicated in both the exposure to stressors and the subsequent
reactivity to these stressful events. Moreover, other psychosocial and behavioral factors may
inﬂuence immune functioning and the subsequent changes in health status, either interacting with
or independent of stressful events (Sergerstrom, 2000).
Similarly, Friedman (2000) states that there are two general types of mechanisms that mediate
the relationship between personality and health: (1) psychophysiological reaction patterns that
include changes in immune function due to stress; and (2) health behaviors. Other formulations
of how personality aﬀects health outcomes refer to these two routes as direct and indirect path-
ways (Contrada, Leventhal, & O’Leary, 1990). The former refers to the psychophysiological
reactivity associated with activation of the stress response and its associated neuroendocrine
pathways, whereas the latter reﬂects behavioral paths and the interaction of personality with the
1168 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
1.2. A conceptualization of procrastination and health
In terms of procrastination, the indirect behavioral pathway may be the more salient route for
understanding the possible deleterious eﬀects of procrastination on health. This is not to imply
that the stress experienced by procrastinators does not involve changes in immune functioning
that may compromise health. Indeed, the association between negative mood states and pro-
crastination is well established (Beswick et al., 1988; Ferrari & Beck, 1998; Ferrari, Johnson, &
McCown, 1995; Fo
´rrari & Tice, 2000; Martin et al., 1996; Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000;
Senecal et al., 1995; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), and these aﬀective changes are known to
negatively impact immune system functioning (Cohen et al., 1995; Irwin, Daniels, Smith, Bloom,
& Weiner, 1987). However, according to Milgram (1991) the emotional upset experienced by
procrastinators is a result of the behavior sequence of postponement; therefore, these negative
mood states are largely the result of the behavioral manifestations of procrastination rather than
the cause of the dilatory behavior.
Unlike other personality constructs, such as the Type A behavioral pattern, which may be
linked to health primarily through reactive or direct pathways (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974)
with behavior as a secondary route, procrastination can be thought of as inﬂuencing health pri-
marily through indirect behavioral means. Consequently, we argue that the tendency of procras-
tinators to delay tasks is the proximal cause of their negative mood states and increased stress, as
opposed to an innate physiological proneness to react to situations in a stressful way, that may
predispose them to poor health.
This conceptualization of procrastination as a behavioral style aﬀecting physical health ﬁts one of
the three major routes suggested by Suls and Rittenhouse (1990) to explain the relationship between
personality and increased illness risk. According to the ‘‘personality as predictor of dangerous
behavior model,’’ certain personality proﬁles lead to the creation or choice of situations that elicit
reactivity, create unnecessary stress, promote unhealthy behaviors, or hinder preventative beha-
viors. Moreover, it is a combination of unhealthy habits, such as poor diet, lack of activity,
exposure to stressors, and non-compliance with medical regimens, that is key for predicting illness
risk rather than the frequency or magnitude of any one behavior (Suls & Rittenhouse, 1990).
1.2.1. Big-ﬁve factors, health behaviors, and procrastination
Although the relationship between procrastination and health behaviors has not been formally
investigated, previous research suggests that certain higher-order personality dimensions may be
associated with a variety of health-related behaviors. Much of this research has employed the
ﬁve-factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1985) as a framework for understanding the
relationship between personality and health behavior patterns. Two consistent predictors of
health behaviors that have emerged from this research are conscientiousness and neuroticism.
Conscientiousness, the tendency towards persistence, goal-directedness, and organization, was
found in one study to be substantially related to higher rates of wellness behaviors (e.g. proper
diet, sleep and exercise), accident control (e.g. ﬁxing household hazards), and lower rates of traﬃc
risk-taking and substance-related risk-taking (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994). Other studies have
linked low conscientiousness to lower levels of health promoting behaviors such as exercise, and
higher levels of unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking and excessive drinking (Caspi et al., 1997;
Friedman et al., 1995; Lemos-Giraldez & Fidalgo-Aliste, 1997; Tucker et al., 1995).
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1169
Neuroticism, a disposition to experience strong negative emotions and vulnerability to stress,
may also aﬀect the immune system through a health behavior pathway (Sergerstrom, 2000).
Research suggests that both increased harmful health practices and fewer positive health beha-
viors are associated with this major personality trait (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994; Lemos-
Giraldez & Fidalgo-Aliste, 1997; Mechanic & Cleary, 1980; Vingerhoets, Croom, Jeninga, &
Recent investigations of the relation between procrastination and the ﬁve-factor model have
identiﬁed conscientiousness (Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Lay, 1997; Lay & Brokenshire, 1997; Lay,
Kovacs, & Danto, 1998; Milgram & Tenne, 2000; Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995) and neuroticism
(Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Milgram & Tenne, 2000; Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995; Watson, 2001)as
the two main factors associated with procrastination. These studies indicate that conscientious-
ness is highly, negatively related to procrastination and makes a signiﬁcant contribution to the
variance in procrastination scores, especially task avoidance procrastination (Milgram & Tenne,
2000). Nonetheless, when compared to conscientiousness, procrastination is the better predictor
of trait-speciﬁc dilatory behavior (Lay, 1997). Neuroticism, however, is positively associated with
procrastination, and is primarily related to goal-directed tentativeness (Schouwenburg & Lay,
1995) and decisional procrastination (Milgram & Tenne, 2000).
1.2.2. Mediators of the procrastination–health relationship
The connection between procrastination and conscientiousness (and to a lesser extent neuroti-
cism), and the impact of these higher-order personality factors on health behaviors, provides a
plausible explanation for the mediation of the eﬀects of procrastination on health. As Serger-
strom (2000) has suggested, the mediational role of health behaviors may work in conjunction
with or independent of the role of stress. Wellness behaviors are health promoting or maintaining
behaviors (e.g. exercise, proper diet) that may help buﬀer the eﬀects of stress as well as enhance
health states. However, these health behaviors are often viewed as challenging and/or unpleasant
(Turk & Meichenbaum, 1991). Given that task aversiveness is related to procrastination (Blunt &
Pychyl, 1998, 2000; Clark & Hill, 1994; Lay, 1992; Milgram, Marshevsky, & Sadeh, 1994; Mil-
gram, Sroloﬀ, & Rosenbaum, 1988), it is likely that procrastinators may ‘‘put oﬀ’’ many health
behaviors, such as wellness behaviors, that are viewed as unpleasant.
Procrastination may also relate to important therapeutic health behaviors such as treatment-
seeking. Treatment-seeking delay is a health-speciﬁc dilatory behavior often referred to as patient
delay and deﬁned as the period of time between the individual’s ﬁrst awareness of a symptom and
the time of medical consultation (Andersen, Cacioppo, & Roberts, 1995; Safer, Quincy, Jackson,
& Leventhal, 1979). Delay in seeking treatment for health problems has been conceptualized as a
multi-stage process comprised of delays in the appraisal of symptoms as signs of illness (appraisal
delay), the decision to seek treatment (illness delay), acting on this decision (behavioral delay),
and actually being seen by a medical professional (scheduling delay) (Andersen et al., 1995). It is
possible that procrastination, a personality variable that directly aﬀects behavior, may inﬂuence
the behavioral delay stage of treatment-seeking.
In the present study, we sought to clarify and extend the ﬁndings of Tice and Baumeister (1997)
regarding the relationships between procrastination and health. Tice and Baumeister found that
procrastination was related to both higher stress levels and increased symptom reporting at the
end of the academic term. However, self-reported symptoms are often inﬂated by the presence of
1170 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
neuroticism (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). Therefore, it is unclear if the higher reports of illness
by the procrastinators were attributable to neuroticism, inasmuch as neuroticism is positively
associated with procrastination (Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Milgram & Tenne, 2000; Schouwen-
burg & Lay, 1995; Watson, 2001). To address this potential confound we used an illness checklist
rather than a symptom checklist. The former reﬂects more concrete and enduring physical health
concerns, rather than passing symptoms that are often exacerbated by concurrent negative mood
states (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). We also assessed neuroticism in order to control for its
possible confounding eﬀects on self-reported health.
The ﬁndings of Tice and Baumeister (1997) also suggest that stress mediated the eﬀect of pro-
crastination on health status. However, this mediating role was not directly tested. Our ﬁrst
objective in the current study was to assess the hypothesized mediating role of stress in the pro-
crastination–illness relationship. Our second objective was to explore the role of other factors in
mediating the possible relationships between procrastination and health. In accordance with
current models of the personality–health relationship, it was expected that procrastination would
inﬂuence health through a behavioral pathway.
In addition, wellness behaviors such as exercise and proper diet, are well known to be aﬀected
by stress levels (Baum & Posluszny, 1999; Hudd et al., 2000; Steptoe, Wardie, Pollard, & Canaan,
1996), especially in student populations (Hudd et al., 2000; Lawrence & Schank, 1993). Given the
negative association between procrastination and conscientiousness, and the positive relationship
between conscientiousness and positive health behaviors, it was expected that procrastination
would be associated with fewer wellness behaviors. Thus, it was expected that wellness behaviors
would be associated with both high stress and poor health (see Fig. 1).
A ﬁnal health behavior that may mediate the procrastination–illness relationship, and yet
has received little attention with respect to personality, is treatment delay. Health pro-
blems that are not treated promptly or at all may linger or worsen, and may contribute
to a poorer overall state of health. By deﬁnition, treatment-seeking delay is a dilatory health
behavior. Therefore, it was hypothesized that trait procrastination would be related to treatment
delay, and that treatment-seeking delay would mediate the procrastination–illness relationship,
Fig 1. Proposed mediational model of the procrastination–illness relationship.
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1171
independent of stress. In sum, it may be that putting oﬀ looking after one’s health both pre-
ventatively and therapeutically, rather than stress alone, is responsible for procrastinators’ poorer
The proposed relationships between procrastination, stress, and health were examined with a
population of predominately ﬁrst-year university students. The ﬁrst year of university presents
students with many challenges and demands (Arthur, 1998; Holdaway & Kelloway, 1987) that
may compromise student well-being (Hudd et al., 2000). Understanding the associations between
procrastination, stress, health behaviors, and physical health may also provide useful insights for
enhancing student well-being.
A sample of 122 students (41 males, 81 females, mean age=21.2 years, S.D.=5.53, range=17–56
years) attending Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, completed a questionnaire package on
campus during the ﬁnal weeks of term. Overall, the sample was relatively young with 81% of the
sample comprised of students age 21 and under, and 55% of the sample falling in the 17–19 years
age range. The majority of the students were enrolled in the ﬁrst year of university (79.5%), and
an additional 15.6% were in their second year. The remaining students were enrolled in the third
or fourth year of university. Most of the students were enrolled full time (86.1%).
Students were recruited in one of three ways: by a poster campaign advertising the study that
was distributed campus-wide; by a sign-up for extra credits towards an introductory psychology
course; or by phone from a list of names obtained through a mass testing of introductory psy-
chology students. As an added incentive, students who participated also had their name entered
into a draw for a chance to win $200.
General questions about age, gender, and year of university enrollment were included to assess
the demographic characteristics of the sample.
Trait procrastination was assessed with Lay’s General Procrastination scale (GP) (Lay,
1994). Ferrari (1992) suggests that the UP is an eﬀective measure of dilatory behavior
across diﬀerent situations, and therefore this measure was considered an appropriate
choice for assessing the relationship between procrastination and health behaviors in the
current study. This 20-item scale assesses global tendencies towards procrastination across a
variety of daily tasks. Items such as ‘‘I am continually saying I’ll do it tomorrow’’ are scored on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 for false of me to 5 for true of me. The scale includes ten
reverse-scored items, and the mean of all items yields a single composite score with high values
indicating a higher tendency to procrastinate. The GP has demonstrated good internal
1172 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
consistency (Cronbach alpha=0.82) (Blunt & Pychyl, 1998; Lay, 1986), and good stability with a
test-retest reliability of 0.80 (Ferrari, 1989). The internal consistency for the current sample was
very good, Cronbach’s alpha=0.89.
The frequency and severity of daily stressors occurring within the past month was assessed with
an abbreviated version of the Hassles Scale (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). This 60-
item measure lists common daily stressors and asks the respondent to indicate whether the stres-
sor occurred within the last month. The severity of the stressor is also rated with 1 for somewhat
severe, 2 for moderately severe, or 3 for extremely severe. A severity score is calculated from a sum
of the 3-point ratings of the stressors and can range from 0 to 180, indicating the level of sub-
jective stress experienced. Research suggests that daily hassles assessments are better indicators of
subjective stress and its eﬀects on health than life events assessments (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof,
Folkman, & Lazarus, 1982; Kanner et al., 1981).
2.2.4. Wellness behaviors
The frequency of preventative and health maintaining behaviors was assessed with a Well-
ness Behavior Checklist (WBC), an original measure created for the current study. It consists
of 10 items that assess how often a variety of wellness behaviors are performed. Vickers,
Conway, and Hervig (1990) suggest that preventative health behaviors are multidimensional,
and that wellness maintenance behaviors form an empirically distinct subset of health behaviors
separate from those related to accident control and substance use. The items in the WBC were
chosen to reﬂect a set of health behaviors from this model related to health maintenance and
enhancement, such as diet, exercise, and rest/relaxation. For example, items such as ‘‘I eat
at least 3 meals a day’’ and ‘‘I eat fresh fruits and/or vegetables’’ reﬂected dietary habits.
Physical activity was assessed with items such as ‘‘I walk as much as possible, for
example, I take the stairs not the elevator, etc.’’ and ‘‘I exercise for 20 continuous min-
utes or more, to the point of perspiration’’. The frequency of these behaviors was rated on a
5-point scale with possible responses ranging from 1 for less than once a week to 5 for every day
for each of the listed behaviors. After reversing the score for 2 items, a mean of the 10 items was
calculated to produce an overall wellness behavior score with higher scores indicating more fre-
quent wellness behaviors. The WBC has demonstrated good internal consistency in other samples
of university students (e.g. Cronbach’s alpha=0.75,n=257; Sirois & Pychyl, 2002). Reliability
analysis of the WBC in the current study revealed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach
2.2.5. Physical health problems
The number of health problems experienced and whether or not these problems were treated
promptly was assessed with a Brief Medical and Treatment History questionnaire adapted for
this study from a brief medical history questionnaire developed previously (Sirois & Gick, 2002).
Fourteen physical problems were listed along with an additional item (‘‘other’’) which provided
blank space for the respondent to ﬁll in as necessary. Participants indicated whether they were
currently experiencing the health problem or had experienced it within the last year. For each
problem experienced, participants were asked to indicate whether they sought treatment
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1173
promptly. Prompt treatment was coded as ‘‘0’’, and delayed or no treatment coded as ‘‘1’’ for
each health problem listed. The total number of non-chronic health problems was summed for
each participant, and excluded chronic or life-threatening conditions such as cancer, heart pro-
blems, diabetes, arthritis, and chronic pain. These latter problems were excluded in order to
compensate for any long-term health conditions that may be more related to long-standing
factors than to procrastination per se.
2.2.6. Treatment delay
A Treatment Delay Index (TDI) was designed for the current study and calculated to deter-
mine the extent to which treatment for health problems was delayed, while controlling for dif-
ferences in the number of health problems reported. Certain health problems may require
immediate or ongoing attention and would tend to be treated promptly by most people, while
others tend not to elicit treatment-seeking because they may be perceived as less serious or trouble-
some. Cancer and infections were deemed to be serious/acute issues that would likely be treated
quickly or would include ongoing treatment once diagnosed and would therefore be treated by the
majority of people. However, headaches and ﬂus/colds are often not treated immediately or at all. It
was expected that the treatment delay ratings for these health issues would show very little var-
iance and they were therefore excluded from the calculation of the TDI. Although heart problems
are indeed serious health issues (and relatively rare in a sample of undergraduates), research
suggests that treatment delay of this health problem is prevalent and may be inﬂuenced by indi-
vidual diﬀerence factors (Dracup & Moser, 1997; Home, James, Petrie, Weinman, & Vincent,
2000). Therefore, this health item was included in the TDI calculation. The TDI was calculated
according to the following formula, where health problems exclude cancer, infections, headaches,
TDI ¼sum of treatment delay scores for health problems
number of health problems
The TDI values can range from ‘‘000, indicating that no treatment delay occurs across the various
health problems, to ‘‘100 suggesting a global tendency to delay the treatment of health issues.
Thus, the numeric value of the TDI reﬂects the proportion of all health problems reported for
which treatment was delayed.
A direct magnitude scale of the Five Factor Model of personality traits (Little, 2000) was used
to assess this personality factor. This brief measure of the Five Factor Model of Personality is
based on the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and assesses each of the ﬁve
personality factors on an 11-point scale. Ratings range from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating the most
identiﬁcation with a particular dimension, and 10 indicating the least identiﬁcation with a
domain. The ratings for Neuroticism were reverse scored so that higher values reﬂected stronger
identiﬁcation with this dimension. Burisch (1984) has argued that self-ratings are more directly
communicable, more economical, and potentially more valid than their lengthier questionnaire
1174 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
3.1. Data analysis
The proposed mediational model of the eﬀect of procrastination on health was tested using a
process analysis. According to Judd and Kenny (1981) three conditions need to be satisﬁed in
order to demonstrate mediation. First, the predictor variable (procrastination) must be related to
the outcome variable (illness). Second, the proposed mediator variable(s) (stress, treatment delay,
and wellness behaviors) must each be associated with the predictor variable to establish the ﬁrst
link in the causal chain. In addition, the mediator variable(s) must also be related to the outcome
variable (health status) after controlling for the predictor variable. Finally, mediation is estab-
lished when, after controlling for the mediating variable, the predictor variable exerts no eﬀect
upon the outcome variable.
The relations among the model variables were assessed by ﬁrst calculating the Pearson product
moment correlation coeﬃcients between procrastination and the health-related variables. Multi-
ple regression analyses were then performed in order to satisfy the requirements of process
analyses necessary to establish mediation (Judd & Kenny, 1981).
3.2. Preliminary analyses
The data were ﬁrst screened for missing values and missing data points were replaced with
the value of the variable’s overall mean. Two students did not report any health issues and
were subsequently excluded from the analyses because calculation of a TDI score was not
possible. The remaining sample of 120 students was included in the testing of the mediational
Potential associations between neuroticism, procrastination and illness were also assessed with
a correlational analysis in order to establish if neuroticism presented a possible confound to the
procrastination–illness relationship. Neuroticisin was not signiﬁcantly related to either procrasti-
nation (r=0.02) or illness (r=0.11) in the current sample, and therefore was not entered into
the regression equations.
3.3. Descriptive statistics
The procrastination scores of the current sample (M=2.86, S.D.=0.68) were comparable
to those reported in previous research with a university student sample (e.g. M=2.81,
S.D.=0.62; (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000). Overall, the participants were fairly healthy, reporting
few non-chronic health problems (M=3.49, S.D.=1.70) and an average frequency of
wellness behaviors (M=3.04, S.D.=0.62; scale midpoint=3). However, the tendency to delay
treatment of health issues was high, with participants reporting that treatment was delayed for
nearly three-quarters of the health problems (TDI mean=0.73, S.D.=0.34). Conversely, per-
ceived stress was relatively low (M=35.26, S.D.=20.09) given the possible maximum score of
180 with the hassles scale and the time when the data was collected (i.e. just before and during
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1175
3.4. Correlational analyses
The zero-order correlations between procrastination and the health-related variables are pre-
sented in Table 1. As expected, procrastination was associated with higher reports of stress and
illness, paralleling the results reported by Tice and Baumeister (1997) for the end-of-term student
sample. Procrastination was also associated with a tendency to delay treatment of health issues
and with the practice of fewer wellness behaviors. Both stress and treatment delay were related
to illness reporting. However, stress and treatment delay were not associated. Contrary to what
was expected, the practice of wellness behaviors was not signiﬁcantly related to health status or
3.5. Mediational analyses
The results of the proposed mediation models of the procrastination–illness relationship are
presented in Table 2. The standardized regression coeﬃcients for each predictor are presented, as
well as the change in variance attributable to each variable entered into the regression equation
change). When two predictor variables are included in the same analyses, the regression
statistics reﬂect the eﬀect of each variable when entered into the regression equation last.
3.5.1. Stress as a mediator of procrastination–illness
The results support a mediational model for stress in the procrastination–illness relationship as
speculated by Tice and Baumeister (1997). Stress had a signiﬁcant eﬀect on illness, was predicted
by procrastination scores, and uniquely predicted a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in illness
reports when procrastination was controlled. Consistent with current literature on the impact of
stress on health status, the unique proportion of variance in illness reporting explained by stress
was considerably higher than the proportion of variance accounted for by procrastination.
Accordingly, when the eﬀects of stress on illness were controlled for by entering stress ﬁrst into
the regression analyses, procrastination no longer signiﬁcantly predicted illness.
3.5.2. Treatment delay as a mediator of procrastination–illness
The mediational role of treatment delay in the procrastination–illness relationship was also
supported. As hypothesized, procrastination was related to treatment delay, which in turn was
Zero-order correlations between procrastination and health-related variables (Note: N=120)
Variables 1 2 3 4
1. Procrastination –
2. Stress 0.20*–
3. Treatment delay 0.19*0.10 –
4. Wellness behaviors 0.24** 0.15 0.12 –
5. Illness 0.20*0.24** 0.21*0.09
1176 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
associated with illness reporting. Treatment delay continued to exert an inﬂuence over illness
when the eﬀects of procrastination were controlled, and explained an additional 3% of the var-
iance in illness reporting beyond that explained by procrastination. However, the inﬂuence of
procrastination on illness was no longer signiﬁcant once the eﬀects of treatment delay were
removed. Treatment delay mediated the eﬀects of procrastination on illness independent of per-
ceived stress, because stress and treatment delay were not signiﬁcantly associated (r=0.09).
3.5.3. Wellness behaviors as a mediator of procrastination–illness
As expected, procrastination was associated with less frequent wellness behaviors. However,
wellness behaviors did not predict illness, and had no eﬀect on the procrastination–illness rela-
tionship when its inﬂuence was removed from the regression by entering the equation ﬁrst (R
change=0.00). Thus, the mediational role of this variable in the procrastination–illness relation-
ship was not supported.
Fig. 2 presents the revised mediational model of the procrastination–illness relationship sup-
ported by the current analyses. Wellness behaviors have been trimmed from the model, leaving
both stress and treatment delay as plausible variables to explain the relationship between pro-
crastination and health.
Regression analyses of the proposed procrastination-illness mediational model (N=120)
Outcome variable Predictor variable btR
Illness Procrastination 0.20 2.27*0.04 5.14*
Stress Procrastination 0.20 2.19*0.04 4.41*
Illness Stress 0.26 2.89*** 0.07 8.36**
Illness 1. Stress 0.23 2.57** 0.05 6.61**
2. Procrastination 0.14 1.51 0.02 2.28
Illness Procrastination 0.20 2.27*0.04 5.14*
Treatment delay Procrastination 0.19 2.08*0.04 4.34*
Illness Treatment delay 0.21 2.38*0.05 5.67*
Illness 1. Treatment delay 0.18 2.01*0.03 4.04*
2. Procrastination 0.17 1.88 0.03 3.52
Illness Procrastination 0.20 2.27*0.04 5.14*
Wellness Procrastination 0.24 2.65** 0.06 6.98**
Illness Wellness behaviors 0.09 0.99 0.01 0.65
Illness 1. Wellness behaviors 0.05 0.49 0.00 0.13
2. Procrastination 0.19 2.08*0.04 3.38
When two predictor variables are included in the same analyses, the regression statistics reﬂect the eﬀect of each vari-
able when entered into the regression equation last. When 1 predictor is entered, Fvalue is for (1, 118) degrees of
freedom; when two predictors are entered, Fvalue is for (1, 117) degrees of freedom.
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1177
It will be recalled that we sought to clarify and extend the initial ﬁndings of Tice and Baume-
ister (1997) regarding the relationship between procrastination and health. Our ﬁndings conﬁrm
the mediational role of stress in the procrastination–illness relationship as speculated by Tice and
Baumeister (1997). Procrastinators experienced more stress, which in turn was related to higher
reports of illness. Moreover, the current study oﬀered an additional explanation for the procras-
tinators’ higher reports of illness. Procrastination was associated with a greater tendency to delay
treatment of existing health problems, and treatment delay explained a signiﬁcant amount of
variance in illness reporting after accounting for the eﬀects of procrastination. Our ﬁndings sug-
gest that the relationship between procrastination and health is mediated through a behavioral
pathway; speciﬁcally through health behaviors.
The mediation of the eﬀects of procrastination on health may be best understood through Suls
and Rittenhouse’s (1990) ‘‘personality as a predictor of dangerous behavior’’ model. According
to this model, certain personality traits confer greater risk of illness through an indirect beha-
vioral pathway, both by greater physiological reactivity due to diﬀerent lifestyle choices and
because of greater tendency towards risky or unhealthy behaviors (Suls & Rittenhouse, 1990).
The inﬂuence of heightened physiological reactivity is similar to Sergerstrom’s (2000) conjecture
that personality is an integral part of the choices that may lead to the exposure and occurrence of
stressful events, as well as the subsequent reactivity to these stressors. The tendency of procrasti-
nators to delay unpleasant yet important tasks, such as completing a term paper, may result in
more stress as the deadline approaches and the task demands completion. For example, Ferrari
and Beck (1998) found that procrastinators experienced more negative aﬀect following fraudulent
excuse making for term work that was not completed on time. The higher stress levels experi-
enced due to this behavioral style may lead to negative immune changes that put procrastinators
at increased risk for illness. Indeed, in both the current study and the Tice and Baumeister (1997)
investigation, procrastinators reported experiencing greater stress at a time when the demand for
task completion was high (i.e. at the end of term).
Our mediational model of the eﬀects of procrastination on health is also in accordance with the
health behavior route suggested by Suls and Rittenhouse (1990). In addition to creating situations
that elicit reactivity by creating unnecessary stress, procrastination may lead to poorer health
Fig. 2. Revised mediational model of the procrastination–illness relationship. Numbers reﬂect standardized regression
1178 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
because it hinders the practice of preventative health behaviors. The procrastinators in our study
indicated that they delayed or omitted treatment of their existing health problems. Further, the
delay in treating health problems reported by the procrastinators mediated the eﬀects of this
personality trait on health. By putting oﬀ looking after their current health issues, procrastinators
may allow health problems to worsen, which may further negatively impact health status.
As expected, the tendency of procrastinators to delay treatment of health problems was not
related to perceived stress. Therefore, procrastinators may habitually put oﬀ a variety of impor-
tant health-related tasks that include aspects of self-care and health maintenance regardless of
other stressful demands. However, this may not be true for other types of health-related beha-
viors that are more sensitive to changes in stress levels. Indeed, the ‘‘personality as a predictor of
dangerous behavior’’ model (Suls & Rittenhouse, 1990) suggests that another behavioral route
between personality and health involves the engagement in unhealthy or risky behaviors such as
smoking, alcohol and drug abuse. These types of behaviors are often associated with both stress
(Anisman & Merali, 1999) and avoidant coping styles (Carver & Scheier, 1994; Carver, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989). Therefore, procrastination may be linked to other types of unhealthy beha-
viors, because it is related to stress. For example, a recent investigation found that procrastina-
tors used more avoidant coping styles, speciﬁcally drug and alcohol disengagement, to cope with
stress (Sirois & Pychyl, 2002).
Procrastination in the current study was also associated with the practice of fewer wellness
behaviors, supporting the conceptualization of procrastination as a personality trait that hinders
the practice of healthy behaviors in general. Surprisingly, wellness behaviors did not mediate the
procrastination–illness relationship and were not related to illness reporting in the current study.
Several factors may account for this ﬁnding. Although wellness behaviors such as dietary habits
and physical activity are important health behaviors subject to negative changes during the col-
lege years (Patrick, Grace, & Lovato, 1992), it may be that prolonged change in these key health
behaviors are necessary before they negatively aﬀect health. Future investigations of the role of
wellness behaviors in the procrastination–illness relationship should therefore take into account
the long-term health eﬀects of these behaviors.
Because the sample for the current study consisted of predominately young and healthy uni-
versity students who may make decisions to treat health problems diﬀerently from a general
population with more diverse health concerns, the genaralizability of the results to other popu-
lations with more serious or chronic health problems is limited. Further, delay of treatment may
not have had as signiﬁcant an eﬀect on such a young and healthy sample as it would on other
adult populations. However, the present study provides an individual diﬀerence perspective on
the reason for treatment delay in student populations and how this may impact health.
Although the relation between procrastination and illness was no longer signiﬁcant after con-
trolling for treatment delay, this relation was only modestly attenuated, suggesting that treatment
delay may only partially mediate the eﬀects of procrastination on health (Judd & Kenny, 1981).
Further, in order to fully establish the causal relationships implied by the mediational model, the
direction of the proposed causal eﬀects should be evaluated longitudinally (Kline, 1998). Ideally,
the mediating variables should be measured prior to the assessment of health status if causality is
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1179
to be assumed. Conclusions about the causal relationships regarding procrastination and health
are therefore limited by the single data collection of the current study.
Despite these limitations, the current study did assess the possible confound of negative aﬀect
on self-reported health, as this variable is well-known to inﬂuence illness reporting (Watson &
Pennebaker, 1989), and is associated with procrastination (Milgram et al., 1994; Schouwenburg &
Lay, 1995). Given that we found no association between neuroticism and illness reporting, our
health status assessment was not biased by this reporting variable. The use of a medical inventory
rather than a symptom checklist also suggests our health status measure was a more accurate
reﬂection of actual health problems.
5. Conclusions and future directions
Overall, the results of the current study are consistent with current conceptualizations of the
personality–health relationship that suggest personality inﬂuences health through both direct or
reactive pathways, and indirect or behavioral routes (Contrada et al., 1990; Friedman, 2000;
Sergerstrom, 2000). Procrastination, a personality trait marked by delay in the initiation and/or
completion of tasks (Ferrari & Tice, 2000), may lead to greater perceived stress, as well as the
delay or omission of important health behaviors. Consequently, procrastinators may experience
poor health as a result of each of these inﬂuences. The present study adds to the current research
on the possible negative consequences of procrastination (Flett et al., 1995; Tice & Baumeister,
1997) by demonstrating that procrastination is a personality style associated with increased vul-
nerability for negative physical health outcomes.
In the current study, procrastination was examined with respect to two health-related beha-
viors (treatment-seeking and wellness behaviors). Future research could expand the range of
health behaviors investigated and include areas such as safety-related behaviors (e.g. changing
smoke alarm batteries, reducing household hazards) and medical regimen adherence, as it is
likely that the tendency to procrastinate extends to other behaviors necessary for the maintenance
Although the health behaviors suggested may not be individually directly implicated in the
causal pathways associated with illness outcomes, they may nonetheless reﬂect the types of risky
health behaviors suggested by Suls and Rittenhouse (1990) to negatively aﬀect health when
they occur in combination. Further research is needed to assess the combined eﬀects of
unhealthy behaviors associated with procrastination on health to provide a more com-
plete picture of the behaviorally mediated health risks associated with procrastination.
Andersen, B. L., Cacioppo, J. T., & Roberts, D. C. (1995). Delay in seeking a cancer diagnosis: delay stages and
psychophysiological comparison processes. British Journal of Social Psychology,34, 33–52.
Anisman, H., & Merali, Z. (1999). Understanding stress: characteristics and caveats. Alcohol Research and Health,
Arthur, N. (1998). Gender diﬀerences in the stress and coping experiences of ﬁrst year postsecondary students. Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy,12(4), 21–36.
1180 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
Baum, A., & Posluszny, D. M. (1999). Health psychology: mapping biobehavioral contributions to health and illness.
Annual Review of Psychology,50, 137–163.
Beswick, O., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of student procrastination. Australian
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (1998). Volitional action and inaction in the lives of undergraduate students: state orienta-
tion, boredom and procrastination. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences,24(6), 837–846.
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multi-dimensional approach to task
aversiveness across stages of personal projects. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences,24(6), 837–846.
Booth-Kewley, S., & Vickers, R. R. (1994). Associations between major domains of personality and health behavior.
Journal of Personality,62(3), 281–298.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: a comparison of merits. American Psychologist,
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,66(1), 184–195.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56(2), 267–283.
Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moﬃtt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Personality
diﬀerences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(5),
Clark, J. L., & Hill, O. J. (1994). Academic procrastination among African-American students. Psychological Reports,
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Fireman, P., Gwaltner, J. M. J., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). State and trait
negative aﬀect as predictors of objective and subjective symptoms of respiratory viral infections. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,68, 139–169.
Cohen, S., Tyrrell, D. A. J., & Smith, A. P. (1991). Psychological stress and susceptibility to the common cold. New
England Journal of Medicine,325, 606–612.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, O. M. (1991). Stress and infectious disease in humans. Psychological Bulletin,109, 5–24.
Contrada, R. J., Leventhal, H., & O’Leary, A. (1990). Personality and health. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: theory and research (pp. 638–669). New York: The Guilford Press.
Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Neo ﬁve factor inventory: form S. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
DeLongis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, O., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and
major life events to health status. Health Psychology,1(2), 119–136.
Dracup, K., & Moser, D. K. (1997). Beyond sociodemographics: factors inﬂuencing the decision to seek treatment for
symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Heart and Lung,26(4), 253–262.
Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of procrastination. Psychological Reports,64,
Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports,68(2), 455–
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two adult measures of procrastination: arousal and avoidance
measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,14, 97–100.
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–
Ferrari, J. R., & Beck, B. L. (1998). Aﬀective responses before and after fraudulent excuses by academic procrastina-
tors. Education,118, 529–537.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. H., McCown, W. O. (Eds.). (1995). Procrastination, and task avoidance: theory, research, and
treatment. New York: Plenum Press.
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: a task-avoidance strategy
in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality,34, 73–83.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Martin, T. R. (1995). Procrastination, negative self-evaluation, and stress in depression
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1181
and anxiety: a review and preliminary model. In J. R. Ferrari, J. H. Johnson, & W. O. McGowan (Eds.), Procrasti-
nation and task avoidance: theory, research, and treatment (pp. 137–167). New York: Plenum Press.
Friedman, H. S. (2000). Long-term relations of personality and health: dynarnisms, mechanisms, tropisms. Journal of
Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Schwartz, J. E., Martin, L. R., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Wingard, L. R., & Criqui, M. H.
(1995). Childhood conscientiousness and longevity: health behaviors and cause of death. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,68, 696–703.
Friedman, M., & Roseninan, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Knopf.
Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: the role of self-eﬃcacy and
anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76(3).
Holdaway, E. A., & Kelloway, K. R. (1987). First year at university: perceptions and experiences of students. Canadian
Journal of Higher Education,17(1), 47–63.
Home, R., James, D., Petrie, K., Weinman, J., & Vincent, R. (2000). Patients’ interpretation of symptoms as a cause of
delay in reaching hospital during acute myocardial infarction. Heart,83(4), 388–393.
Hudd, S. S., Dumlao, J., Erdmann-Sager, D., Murray, D., Phan, E., Soukas, N., & Yokozuka, N. (2000). Stress at
college: eﬀects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. College Student Journal,34(2), 217–227.
Irwin, M., Daniels, M., Smith, T. L., Bloom, E., & Weiner, H. (1987). Impaired natural killer cell activity during
bereavement. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity,1, 98–104.
Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the ﬁve factors of personality to variance in
academic procrastination. Personally and Individual Diﬀerences,18(1), 127–133.
Jorgensen, R. S., Frankowski, J. J., & Carey, M. P. (1999). Sense of coherence, negative life events and appraisal of
physical health among university students. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences,27(6), 1079–1089.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, I. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement:
daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,4(1), 1–39.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lacey, K., Zaharia, M. D., Giiﬃths, J., Ravindran, A. V., Merali, Z., & Anisman, H. (2000). A prospective study of
neuroendocrine and immune alterations associated with the stress of an oral academic examination among graduate
students. Psychoneuroendocrinology,25(4), 339–356.
Lawrence, D., & Schank, M. J. (1993). Health status, health perceptions, and health behaviors of young adult women.
International Journal of Nursing Studies,30(6), 527–535.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality,20, 474–495.
Lay, C. H. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person–task characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality,7(3), 483–494.
Lay, C. H. (1994). Trait procrastination and aﬀective experiences: describing past study behavior and its relation to
agitation and dejection. Motivation and Emotion,18(3), 269–284.
Lay, C. H. (1997). Explaining lower-order traits through higher order factors: the case of trait procrastination, con-
scientiousness, and the speciﬁcity dilemma. European Journal of Personality,11(4), 267–278.
Lay, C. H., & Brokenshire, R. (1997). Conscientiousness, procrastination, and person-task charcateristics in job
searching by unemployed adults. Current Psychology,16(1), 83–96.
Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and
procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality,3, 195–208.
Lay, C. H., Kovacs, A., & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to the big-ﬁve factor conscientious-
ness: an assessment with primary-junior school children based on self-report scales. Personality and Individual
Lemos-Giraldez, S., & Fidalgo-Aliste, A. M. (1997). Personality dispositions and health-related habits and attitudes: A
cross-sectional study. European Journal of Personality,11(3), 197–209.
Little, B. R. (2000). Free traits and personal contexts: expanding a social ecological model of well-being. In
W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. Price (Eds.), Person–environment psychology: new directions and perspectives (2nd
ed.) (pp. 87–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
1182 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184
Martin, T. R., Flett, O. L., Hewitt, P. L., Krames, L., & Szanto, O. (1996). Personality correlates of depression and
health symptoms: a test of a self-regulation model. Journal of Research in Personality,30(2), 264–277.
Mechanic, D., & Cleary, P. D. (1980). Factors associated with the maintenance of positive health behaviour. Preventive
Milgram, N. (1991). Procrastination. In R. Dulbecco (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human biology (Vol. 6) (pp. 149–155). New
York: Academic Press.
Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, C. (1994). Correlates of academic procrastination: discomfort, task aversive-
ness, and task capability. The Journal of Psychology,129(2), 145–155.
Milgram, N., & Tenne, R. (2000). Personality correlates of decisional task avoidant procrastination. European Journal
of Personality,14(2), 141–156.
Milgram, N. A., Sroloﬀ, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in
Patrick, K., Grace, T. W., & Lovato, C. (1992). Health issues for college students. Annual Review of Public Health,13,
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, P. W. H., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience-sampling study
of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,15(5), 239–254.
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.
Saddler, C. D., & Sacks, L. A. (1993). Multidimensional perfectionism and academic procrastination: relationships
with depression in university students. Psychological Reports,73(3), 863–871.
Safer, M. A., Quincy, I. T., Jackson, T. C., & Leventhal, H. (1979). Determinants of three stages of delay in seeking
care at a medical clinic. Medical Care,17(1), 11–29.
Schouwenburg, H. C., & Lay, C. H. (1995). Trait procrastination and the big-ﬁve factors of personality. Personality
and Individual Diﬀerences,18(4), 481–490.
Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrastination. Journal of Social
Sergerstrom, S. C. (2000). Personality and the immune system: models, methods, and mechanisms. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine,22(3), 180–190.
Sirois, F. M., & Gick, M. L. (2002). An investigation of the health beliefs and motivations of complementary medicine
clients. Social Science and Medicine,55(6), 1025–1037.
Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2002, August). Academic procrastination: costs to health and well-being. In J. R.
Ferrari & T. A. Pychyl (chairs), Academic procrastination: a common event that’s not commonly understood.
Symposium presented at the 10th Annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, B. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology,31, 503–509.
Steptoe, A., Wardle, J., Pollard, T. M., & Canaan, L. (1996). Stress, social support and health-related behavior: a study
of smoking, alcohol consumption and physical exercise. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,41(2), 171–180.
Stone, A. A., Bovbjerg, D. H., Neale, J. M., Napoli, A., Valdimarsdottir, H., Hayden, F. G., & Gwaltney, J. M. (1992).
Development of common cold symptoms following experimental rhinovirus infection is related to prior stressful life
events. Behavioral Medicine,18, 115–120.
Suls, J., & Rittenhouse, J. D. (1990). Models of linkages between personality and disease. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
Personality and disease (pp. 38–63). New York: Wiley.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: The
costs and beneﬁts of dawdling. Psychological Science,8(6), 454–458.
Tucker, J. S., Friedman, H. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, L. R., & Criqui, M. H. (1995).
Childhood psychosocial predictors of adulthood smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology,25, 1884–1899.
Turk, D. C., & Meichenbaum, D. (1991). Adherence to self-care regimens: the patient’s perspective. In R. H. Rozensky,
J. J. Sweet, & S. M. Tovian (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical psychology, I: medical settings (pp. 249–266). New York: Plenum.
Turner Cobb, I. M., & Steptoe, A. (1996). Psychosocial stress and susceptibility to upper respiratory tract illness in an
adult population sample. Psychosomatic Medicine,58(5), 404–412.
F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184 1183
Vickers, R. R., Conway, T. L., & Hervig, L. K. (1990). Demonstration of replicable dimensions of health behaviors.
Preventive Medicine,19, 377–401.
Vingerhoets, A. J., Croom, M., Jeninga, A. J., & Menges, L. T. (1990). Personality and health habits. Personality and
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress: exploring the central role of negative
aﬀectivity. Psychological Review,96(7), 234–254.
Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the ﬁve factor model: a facet level analysis. Personality and Individual
1184 F.M. Sirois et al. / Personality and Individual Diﬀerences 35 (2003) 1167–1184