Longitudinal Study of Procrastination, Performance, Stress, and Health: The Costs and Benefits of Dawdling

Abstract

Procrastination is variously described as harmful, innocuous, or even beneficial. Two longitudinal studies examined procrastination among students. Procrastinators reported lower stress and less illness than nonprocrastinators early in the semester, but they reported higher stress and more illness late in the term, and overall they were sicker. Procrastinators also received lower grades on all assignments. Procrastination thus appears to be a self-defeating behavior pattern marked by short-term benefits and long-term costs.

Full text

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Research Report
LONGITUDINAL STUDY
OF
PROCRASTINATION,
PERFORMANCE, STRESS, AND HEALTH:
The Costs
and
Benefits
of
Dawdling
Dianne M Tice
and
Roy F. Baumeister
Case Western Reserve Umverstty
Abstract—Procrasttnatton ts variously descnbed a? harmful, tn-
nocuous, or even beneficial Two longitudinal studies examined pro-
crastination among students Procrasttnators reported lower stress
and less illness than nonprocrasttnators early in the semester, but they
reported higher stress and more illness late in the term, and overall
they were sicker Procrastinators also received lower grades on atl
assignment's Procrasttnatton thus appears to be a self-defeating be-
havior pattem marked by short-term benefits and long-term costs
Doing one's work and fulfilling other obligations in a timely fash-
ion seem like integral parts of rational, proper adult funcuoning Yet
a majonty of the population admits to procrastinating at least some-
times,
and substantial minonties admit to significant personal, occu-
pational, or financial difficulties resulting from their dilatory behavior
(Ferran, Johnson, & McCown, 1995)
Procrastinauon is often condemned, particularly by people who do
not think themselves guilty of it (Burka & Yuen, 1983, Ferran et dl,
1995) Cntics of procrastination depict it as a lazy self-indulgent
habit of putting things off for no reason They say it is self-defeating
m that It lowers the quality of performance, because one ends up with
less time to work (Baumeister & Scher, 1988, Ellis & Knaus, 1977)
Others depict it as a destructive strategy of self-handicappmg (Jones
& Berglas, 1978), such a,s when people postpone or withhold effort so
as to give themselves an excuse for anticipated poor performance
(Tice, 1991, Tice & Baumeister, 1990) People who finish their tasks
and assignments early may point self-nghteously to the stress suffered
by procrastinators at the last minute and say that putting things off is
bad for one's physical or mental health (see Boice, 1989, 1996, Roth-
blum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986 Solomon & Rothblum, 1984)
On the other hand, some procrastinators defend their practice
They point out correctly that if one puts in the same amount of work
on the project, it does not matter whether this is done early or late
Some even say that procrastination improves perfonnance, because
the imminent deadline creates excitement and pressure that elicit peak
performance "I do my best work under pressure," in the standard
phrase (Ferran, 1992, Ferran et al, 1995, Uy, 1995) Even if it were
true that stress and illness are higher for people who leave things unul
the last minute—and research has not yet provided clear evidence that
in fact they both are higher—this might be offset by the enjoyment of
carefree times earlier (see Ainslie, 1992)
The present investigation involved a longitudinal study of the ef-
fects of procrastination on quality of performance, stress, and illness
Early in the semester, students were given an assignment with a
deadline Procrastinators were identified usmg Lay's (1986) scale
Students' well-being was assessed with self-reports of stress and ill-
Address correspondence
Case Western Reserve Unive
7123,
e-mail dxt2@po cwiu
o Dianne M Tice Department of Psychology,
sity 10900 Euclid Ave Cleveland OH 44106-
ness The validity of the scale was checked by ascertaining whethtr
students tumed in the assignment early, on time, or late Finally, task
performance was assessed by consulting the grades received Com-
peting predictions could be made
STRESS AND ILLNESS
Possible Costs
Procrastination has been linked to a vanety of negaUve mental
health vanables Solomon and Rothblum (1984) found that procras-
tination was significantly correlated with depression, irrational be-
liefs,
low self-esteem, anxiety, and poor study habits (Unfortunately
the scale these authors used to measure procrastinauon operational-
lzed It as dilatory behavior accompanied by negative affect about the
dilatory behavior, leaving open the possibility that other people may
procrastinate memly without adverse effects, see Flett, Blankstein, &
Martin, 1995 ) Lay, Edwards, Parker and Endler (1989) found that
anxiety levels in procrastinators who have delayed studying are ex-
tremely high near the exam penod, and Fen-an et al (1995) cited
several similar findmgs from unpublished studies (see pp 29-30)
Researchers have frequently found a link between dejection and pro-
crastinauon, and Lay (1995) showed that dejecUon is an outcome of
procrastinauon (rather than a cause) Hett, Blankstein, and Martin
(1995) reported that scores on a procrastination scale were positively
correlated with measures of perceived stress, negauve life events, and
daily hassles Thus, a vanety of evidence suggests that procrastinauon
IS linked to negative mental health
Possible Benefits
Procrasunators might claim that focusing on the last-mmute efforts
and stresses is misleading Yes, procrastinators may suffer more than
other people at the last minute but that may conceal a patteni of sU-ess
suffered by nonprocrasunators who do their wonying and hard work-
ing earlier in the project penod In this view, procrastinators may
suffer late whereas others suffer early, but the total amount of suf-
fenng could be the same Indeed, it could even be that procrastinators
suffer less, because they compress the su«ss into a short penod
PERFORMANCE
In pnnciple, procrasunation would not necessanly have any effect
on task performance Whether a task is done far ahead of the deadline
or only slightly ahead of it does not necessanly make any difference
in the quality of the work Thus, there is a reasonable theoreucal basis
for the null hypothesis prediction that procrasunation would not affect
quality of performance Sull, both procrasunators and their cnucs
Copynght © 1997 Amencan Psychological SocietyVOL 8, NO 6, NOVEMBER 1997

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Dianne M Tice and Roy F
ave pfx>posed possible r
xteds why task perfonnance may be af-
Possible Costs
On the negative side, it seems plausible that procrastination could
I
esult in less effort on the task If the person underesUmates how much
time a task will take—a problem that is endemic to nearly all planning
(Buehler, Gnffin, & Ross, 1994) and perhaps especially to procrasu-
nators (Aitken, 1982, cited in Ferran et al, 1995, p 44, McCown,
1986)—the late starter may be unable to find the additional time
required for success
Even if the estimate of time is accurate, the late starter may per-
form worse because unforeseen delays or obstacles anse Task-related
setbacks (e g , computer difficulues) or extraneous interferences (e g ,
personal problems) may temporanly impair one's capacity to work,
and if the project has been put off until the last minute, the result may
be failure In contrast, if most of the work is already completed before
the delay, or if the delay occurs when there is still plenty of ume to
finish, sausfactory completion of the task may sull be possible
Moreover, performance may be worse under stress If the person
performs the task with the deadline approaching and finds greater
stress at that point, then he or she may suffer vanous negauve effects
of sU-ess or pressure (eg, Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976,
Baumeister, 1984, Glass, Singer, & Fnedman, 1%9)
Possible Benefits
The negauve effects of stress on task performance are not uniform,
and It IS possible that some people may not expenence them Indeed,
: forms of stress can improve performance (e g , Hanson, 1986)
People who are not harmed by stress would have less reason to per-
form a task far ahead of the deadline, and self-selected procrasunators
might well be such people
If one IS not adversely affected by su«ss and pressure, then m some
ways It makes sense to postpone the task unul near the deadline
Sometimes addiuonal, useful infonnation is made available only near
the deadline Indeed, if one assumes that a student is leammg new
matenal all semester long, then he or she should be able to wnte a
better paper at the end of the term than at the beginning
Another possible benefit of waiUng is that efficiency may increase
Some people may find that in the absence of extemal constraints, they
waste ume explonng tangenual ideas and possibiliues, and so they
perform effectively and efficiently only under the discipline imposed
by the deadline Others may find that without extemal constraints,
they lack motivation to perfomi well, after all, a deadline is an im-
portant fonn of extnnsic motivaUon, and m the relative absence of
mtnnsic motivation, a deadline may be the main or sole moUvator (see
Amabile et al, 1976) The procrastinators' claim that they do their
best work under pressure thus could have some jusuficauon
ParOcipants were 44 students taking a health psychology course
They volunteered
At the start of the semester, the due date for the tenn paper was
announced, and students were also told that if they could not meet the
deadline they could have an automatic extension to a specific later
date Four weeks into the fall semester, participants filled out Uy's
(1986) General Procrasunauon Scale
FOT
the next 30 days, they com-
pleted daily symptom checklists and weekly measures of stress and
work requirements
At the end of the semester, the date that each student handed m the
required paper was recorded (specifically, whether the paper was
tumed in early, on Ume, dunng the automauc extension of the dead-
line, or late) When students tumed in their papers for the course, they
were also asked to fill out a quesuonnaire reporting how relieved they
felt about having completed the work
The lnsuiictor for the class did not have access to the students'
self-report measures, so grading was blind to procrastinauon status In
addition, participants were repeatedly assured that the instructor
would not see the self-report measures This confidenUality helped
ensure that the self-reports would not be contaminated by students'
wishes to communicate anything (e g , excuses for poor poformance)
to the mstmctor Only after the semester was ended did the students
who chose to allow their matenals to be used in this study provide
their names linked to their subject numbers so that grades could be
matched to personality and health reports All students were fully
debnefed
Results and Discussion
Procrastination
behavior
Scores on the General Procrasunauon Scale were correlated with
the date the paper was handed m, r = 45 Procrastinators turned m
their papers significantly later than nonprocrasunators (Unless oth-
erwise noted, all correlaUons are significant at p < 05 or better, with
42 degrees of freedom For ease of discussion, high scorers on the
procrasunauon scale are refeaed to as procrasunators, and low scorers
are referred to as nonprocrasunators ) Of the 7 students tuming in their
papers late (l e, after both the deadline and the extension), only 1
student scored below the median on the procrasunation measure, and
more than half scored more than one standard deviation above the
mean procrasunauon score, confirming the validity of Lay's measure
of procraiUnation
Grades
Procrasunators received significantly lower grades than nonpro-
crasunators both on the term paper, r = - 29, and on the two exams,
r = -64
Health
Procrasunauon scores were correlated with stress, r = - 29, and
symptom reporting, r = - 36 The negauve conelations mean that
procrasunators expenenced significanUy less stress and fewer symp-
toms than nonprocrastmators Procrasunators also reported signifi-
cantly more relief after tunung in their papers than nonprocrastinators
Taken together, the pattem of results provides mixed evidence
about the costs and benefits of procrastinauon Procrasunators re-
ceived poorer grades but reported better health than nonprocrastma-
tors Unfortunately, an alternative explanation for the health benefits
of procrasunauon is possible given the Uining of the daU collection
The health measures were completed m the early part of the semester.
VOL 8, NO 6, NOVEMBER 1997

PSYCHOUXJICAL SCIENCE
Procrastination, Performance, Stress,
and
Health
whereas
any
adverse effects
of
procrasunauon
on
sUiess
and
health
would presumably anse late
m the
semester Study
2
was conducted
to mvesUgate this possibility
STUDY
2
Study
2
was designed
to
replicate
the
finding that procrastinators
expenence less sU^ss and fewer symptoms
of
physical illness early
in
the semester
and to
determine whether this outcome reverses
and
procrasunators suffer poorer health
as
semester deadlines approach
We predicted that the conflation between procrasunauon
and
illness
would
be
negaUve early
in the
semester (replicaung Study
1) but
posiuve
at the end of
the term
Method
Participants were
60
sUidents taking
a
health psychology course
They volunteered Two failed
to
complete the matenals,
and
another
took
the
class
but
declined
to
allow
his or her
data
to be
used
for
research,
the
data
for
these
3
students were dropped
The procedure
for
Study
2
was similar to the procedure
for
Study
1 except that students also filled out reports
of
any visits to health-care
professionals and
a
number
of
addiuonal quesuonnaires were admin-
istered in the last week of
class
Also, to provide converging evidence,
we used the McCown and Johnson (1989, cited m Fen-an
et
al, 1995)
measure
of
procrastinauon
m
addiUon
to
Lay's measure
The
final
quesuonnaires were similar
to the
quesuonnaires completed
in the
first month
of
class Students reported the number
of
symptoms they
had expenenced
in the
past week,
the
amount
of
sU-ess they
had
expenenced
m the
week,
and the
number
of
visits they
had
made
to
the health-care center
m the
past month
For
health-care visits,
we
excluded rouUne visits such
as for
birth control
or
allergy shots
Results
and
Discussion
All the findings for Lay's scale in Study
1
were replicated in Study
2 First, scores
on
this procrasunation scale were con-elated with
be-
havioral procrasunation (tuming
in the
paper late),
r = 37
(Unless
otherwise noted,
all
correlations
are
significant
at p < 05 or
better,
with 56 degrees
of
freedom
) Of
the
6
students tuming
in
their papers
late (after both the deadline and the extension), only
1
student scored
below
the
median
on the
procrasunauon measure,
and two
thirds
scored more than
one
standard deviauon above
the
mean procrasti-
nauon score, confirming
the
validity
of
the scale Second, procrasti-
nauon scores were negauvely correlated with early symptom reports,
r
= -
45,
and
su«ss raUngs,
r = -
31
Thus, early
in the
semester,
procrasunators expenenced significantly less sU-ess
and
fewer symp-
toms
of
physical illness than nonprocrastinators There
was no
rela-
Uonship between procrasunauon and health-care visits dunng the first
month
of
the semester,
r = (X)
Thus, procrastmaUon seems innocu-
ous
or
even beneficial
to
health early
in the
semester
Third, procrastination scores were negatively correlated with
grades on the assigned paper,
r = -
26, and with grades on the exams,
r
= -
66 Thus, procrasunators received significantly lower grades
than nonprocrasunators
on all
tasks
in
both sUidies
The mam contnbuUon
of
Study
2
concerned health outcomes late
in
the
semester (which
had not
been assessed
in
Study
1) As pre-
dicted,
the
seemingly beneficial relaUonship between procrasunation
and health
was
reversed
at the end of
the semester Procrastmat(
^
reported more symptoms,
r = 65,
more sU^ss,
r = 68, and mo
visits
to
health-care professionals,
r =
37. than nonprocrasUnatoi
Procrasunators
may
enjoy
a
healthy, su^ss-fi-ee life when deadlin
are
far off,
but they suffer more than other people when deadlines a
imminent (see
Fig 1)
It
IS of
some interest
to ask
whether
the
late-semester costs
<,
procrasunation outweigh the early-semester benefits The present dai
i
do
not
offer
a
complete answer because health
was not
measured
conUnually over the enure semester, and
it is
not possible to esumate
at what point the shift fTom benefit
to
cost may have occurred Sull
It seems reasonable simply to add our data, weighung them so that the
assessments
of
30 days
of
early-semester health
and
1 week
of
late-
semester health would
be
equally represented Combinmg the data in
that
way
yields
the
conclusion that procrastinators suffered signifi-
cantly more symptoms,
r = 46, and
marginally significantly more
SU-ess,
r =
25, than nonprocrastinators They also visited health-care
professionals
for
illness more often,
r = 27 In
sum, combining
all
data in Study 2 leads to the conclusion that procrastinators were sicker
than nonprocrastinators
Analyses were also computed using McCown and Johnson's Adult
Inventory
of
ProcrastinaUon (AIP) instead
of
Lay's General Procras-
tinauon Scale The two scales were highly correlated with each other,
r
= 86, and
results using
the AJP
were similar
to
those
for
Lay's
scale
The AIP was
negauvely correlated with symptoms
and
stress
early
in
the semester, positively correlated with symptoms, stress, and
clinic visits
at
the end
of
the semester, and posiUvely correlated with
total symptoms
and
clinic visits summed across
all
measurements
It
correlated negatively with exam grades
and
positively with date
of
handing
in
the term paper Thus,
it
too associated trait procrasunauon
with better health early but poorer health later and overall, with poorer
performance, and with lateness The only result not replicated signifi-
cantly was the negative correlauon between procrastination scores and
Fig
1
Number
of
symptoms (per week) reported
by
proerasunators
and nonprocrasunators
in
Smdy
2
Participants were categonzed
as
procrastinators
and
nonprocrasunators based
on a
median split
of
Lay's General Procrasunauon Scale
The
numbers
in the
figure
rep-
resent the mean number
of
symptoms reported each week by procras-
tinators and nonprocrasunators The mean score on the scale was 42
7
the median was 45,
and
the range
was 18-^3
VOL 8, NO 6, NOVEMBER 1997

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Dianne M Ticc and Roy F Baumeister
; rades on the term paper AIP s<
Ith term paper grades;s did not correlate significantly
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of the present mvesugauon shed light on the benefits
iind costs of procrastinauon As noted at the outset, there are plausible
tlieoreucal bases for a broad range of compeUng predicuons about the
effects of procrasunauon The results do not fully support any one
\ lew. and so a proper evaluation of procrasunauon may need to com-
promise between its stemest cnucs and its most opUmisUc apologists
The main results can be summanzed as follows
First. It appears that procrasUnaUon does bnng short-term benefits
to health Procrasunators do appear to benefit from the carefree, ca-
sual situauon they create for themselves early m the project phase
Nonprocrastmators get nght to work on the project and apparently
begin to suffer from the suess and health problems nght away, too
There are thus at least two significant benefits of procrasunauon.
which are that suess is lowered and illness is reduced by putting off
the task As long as the deadline remains remote, procrasunators are
better off
Second, however, the stress and health benefits of procrasUnation
are reversed as Ume goes by Toward the end of the project penod.
procrasunators reported greater suess and more illness than nonpro-
crasunators Thus, although procrasunation may produce initial ben-
efits.
It produces significant costs later on. as the deadline approaches
Third, the cumulauve effect of procrasunation on suess and health,
summed across early and late measures, is negauve Total suess and
illness are higher for procrastinators than for nonprocrasunators Or.
to put It another way. the early benefits are outweighed by the later
costs Procrasunauon does not simply shift the same amount of sUess
and illness from early to late in the project penod. rather, it apparently
increases the amount of sUess and illness Further work to corroborate
this finding is needed, however
Fourth, procrastinators end up producing infenor work The pres-
ent studies found no support for the claim that procrastinators do
better work because of moU vauonal or other consequences of deadline
pressure Rather, the present results are consistent with the view that
postponing work on a project may lead to compromises and sacnfices
in quality Procrasunation is not a neuual or innocuous form of time
management, let alone a helpful or beneficial one (as some people
claim)
A potential altemative explanation for procrastinators' lower
grades is that procrasunators are less intelligent or less talented stu-
dents than others Several pnor smdies have refuted that suggesUon.
however, by showing no relauon between procrasunauon and intelli-
gence (Ferran. 1991. Taylor. 1979). and occasional findmgs have
even linked procrasunauon to higher scholastic apuuide scores (Ait-
ken.
1982. cued in Ferran et al. 1995. p 44) Hence, it seems most
likely that the procrasunation itself is to blame for the poor perfor-
It IS worth emphasizing that the present findings are based on
self-selecuon into procrasUnator and nonprocrasUnator groups Al-
though self-selecuon weakens the causal inferences that could be
made had there been expenmental randomizauon. it increases some of
the theoreucal and pracucal importance of the results Thus, if the
present suidy had shown that health and performance were impaired
among people who had been randomly assigned to procrasunate. other
VOL 8. NO 6. NOVEMBER 1997
procrasunators might object that they would not suffer the same fate
Some procrasunators do in fact claim that they, unlike other pec^le.
benefit by doing theu best work under last-minute pressure The pres-
ent findings refute such a claim, however. Even people who freely
choose to procrasunate and believe procrasunauon to be beneficial
end up doing worse and being sicker than others
Limitations of this work must be acknowledged Without random
assignment and expenmental control, we cannot assert that procras-
unation causes the sUess and health effects Our results arc essenually
correlauonal The possibility that procrasunauon causes sUvss that in
tum causes illness is perhaps the most plausible account of our find-
ings,
but the data do not provide evidence regarding those possible
causal relauonships Furthermore, although high scores on the pro-
crasunauon scales predicted tuming the paper in late, we can only
assume (as opposed to directly venfymg) that the self-idenufied pro-
crasunators actually did procrasunate on their assignments Apart
from the two procrasunation scales themselves, there is no way to
differenUate among people who might have planned all along to do
the work al the last minute, people who ended up working at the last
minute because they just did not get around to working on their
assignments (although they meant to), and people who may have
ended up working at the last minute for other reasons (such as unex-
pected cnses) All we can say is that self-idenufied procrasunators
tended to work at the last minute (more than other students) and to
suffer vanous consequences A final limitauon is that the present
studies used samples of university students UniversiUes might con-
ceivably cluster their deadlines more than other msututions (e g . at
the end of the semester), thereby making procrasunation more costly
than would be the case if deadlines were diffused
IMPLICATIONS
The present results suggest that procrastination should be consid-
ered as one category of self-defeating behavior because it apparently
leads to suess. illness, and infenor perfonnance It corresponds to the
pattem of short-term gams and long-tenn costs, which is a common
feature of self-defeaung behaviors (Baumeister. 1997. Baumeister &
Scher. 1988. Loewenstein & Eister. 1992. Platt. 1973)
Choosing short-term benefits over greater long-temi ones is also a
hallmark of poor self-regulation, a finding first idenUfied by early
studies of delay of grauficauon (Mischel. 1974. 1996) This pattem
also extends to alcohol and dmg abuse, violence, and other impulsive
acts (see Baumeister. Heatherton. & Tice, 1994. for review) In view
of the present findings, claims that procrasunauon is innocuous or
beneficial appear to be raUonalizaUons for self-indulgent behavior
The present evidence suggests that procrasunators enjoy themselves
rather than working at assigned tasks, until the nsing pressure of
imminent deadlines forces them to get to work In this view, procras-
unauon may denve from a lack of self-regulauon and hence a depen-
dency on extemally imposed forces to moUvate work
An altemative view is that procrasunators sincerely but mistakenly
believe that they can improve performance by such postponement
According to this view, a procrasUnator who has both the ume and the
inchnauon to work on the task far ahead of the deadline might sull put
It off. because of a sincere belief that he or she will perform better by
waiung unul later One might even admire the procrasUnator for the
willpower shown, while feelmg sony for the person because of the
false assumpuon behind that exercise Sull. there is httle evidence to
457

PSYCHO1X)GICAL
SCIENCE
ProCTasUnaUon, Performance, Stress, and Health
support
this view Correlational findings firom questionnaire research
point
toward
a
deficit
m
self-control
as the
explanation Flett, Hewitt,
and
Marun (199S) found that procrastinators scored
low on a me:
of
self-control,
and
Shouwenburg (1995) found that procrasunators
reported
poor work discipline Ferran
et al
(1995,
p 44)
proposed
that
low
Conscienuousness
is the
main
Big
Five charactensUc
of
procrastinators
CONCLUSION
Part
of
the appeal
of
procrasunation
may be
that
it
confers genuine
benefits
m the
short run Procrasunators
may
find that they feel better
and
are
healthier when
the
deadline
is far off and
they postpone
the
task
These benefits
are
eventually more than offset
by the
costs,
however,
because
the
stress and illness suffered
by
procrasunators late
in
the
task exceed
and
outweigh
the
initial benefits Furthermore,
procrasunauon
appears
to
result
in
work
of
infenor quality
Thus,
despite
its
apologists
and its
short-term benefits, procrasti-
nation
cannot
be
regarded
as
either adapuve
or
innocuous Procrasu-
nators
end up
suffenng more and performing worse than other people
Acknowledgments—Findings
from this drucle were presented
at the an-
nual
convention
of
the
Amencan Psychological Society
in
San Francisco,
June
1996
REFERENCES
Ainslie
G
(1992)
Picotconomics
The
straiegic mieracnon
of
successive motnanonal
suites within
the person.
Cunbndge England Cambndge Umversity Press
Amabile
TM
DeJong,
W
&
Lepper
MR
(1976)
Effect,
of
entemally
imposed
deadlines
on
subsequent intrinsic motivation Joumat
of
PersonaUty
and
Social
Psychology
34
92-98
Baumeister
RF
(1984) Choking under pressure Self consciousness
and
paradoxical
effects
of
incentives
on
skillful perfonnance Joumal
of
PersonaUty
and
Social
Psychology
46
610-620
Baumeister
RF
(1997) Esteem
threat,
self-regulatory breakdown
and
emouonal distress
as
factors
in
self-defeaung behavior
R^vwH
o/G(rnfra//'n'c/ioiox>
/
145-174
Baumeister
RF
Heathenon
TF
&
Tice
DM
(,l<m)
Losing control Hoy^andwhy
people
fad at
self
regulation. San
Diego Academic Press
Baumeister
RF
&
Scher
SJ
(1988) Self-defeaung behavior pattems among nonnal
individuals Review
and
analysis
of
common self-destnicuve tendencies Psycho
logical
Bulletin, 104
3-22
Boice
R
(1989) Procrastmation busyness
and
bingeing Behavior Research
and
Therapy
27
605-611
Boice
R
(1996) Binge wnting
and
procrasttnatton/blockmg
amongst
new
professors
Manuscnpl submitted
for
publication
Buehler
R, Gnffin. D &
Ross
M
(1994) Explonng
the
'planning fallacy
Why
people underestimate their task completion Umes Joumal
of
Personality
and
Sociat
Psychology
67
366-381
BuriuuJB
&
Yuen
LM
(1983) Procrastination
Why you do it and
what
lo do
abt>ut
It
Reading
PA
Addison
Wesley
Ellis
A
& Knaus. WJ
(1977)
Overcoming
proc:
Rauonal
Living
Ferran
JR
(1991) Compulsive pixxrastination Some self-reported personality char
tensucs
Psychological
Reports
68
455-458
Fenvi
J R
(1992) Psychometnc validation
of two
adult measures
of procrasunau.
Arousal
and
avoidance measures Joumal
of
Psychopathology
&
Behavioral
^
sessment
14
97-100
Fenan
JR
Johnson
JL
&
McCown
WG (Edi)
(1995)
Procrastination
and lu
avoidance Theory
research, and
treatment
New
York Plenum Press
Flett.
GL
Blank.'itein
KR
&
Martm
TR
(1995)
Procrasunation
negauve
sel
evaluadon
and
stress
in
depression
and
anxiety
A
review
and
preliminary
modi.
In J R
Ferrsn
J L
Johnson
& W G
McCown
(Eds )
Procrastination
and tas
avoidance Theory research
and
treatment
(pp
137-167)
New
York Plenum
Press
Flett.
GL
Hewitt
PL
&
MarUn
TR
(1995)
Dimensions
of
perfectiomsm
and pro
crasunauon
In J
R
Ferran
J L
Johnson
& W
G
McCown
(Eds )
Procrastmation
and
task avoulance Theory
research, and
treatment
(pp
113-136)
New
York
Plenum Press
Glass
DC
Singer
JE
&
Fnedman
LN
(1%9)
Psychic cost
of
adapUUon
to an
environmental stressor Joumal
of
PersonaUty
and
Social Psychology
12
200-210
Hanson
PG
(1986)
The joy of
stress
Fairway
KS
Andrews
McMeel
&
Parker
Jones
EE
&
Berglas
SC
(1978) Control
of
atuibuuons about
the
self through self
handicapping strategies
The
appeal
of
alcohol
and the
role
of
underachievemeni
PersonaUty
and
Social Psychology Bulletm
4
200-206
Lay
CH
(1986)
At
last
my
research article
on
procrastination Joumal
of
Research
m
PersonaUty
20
474-495
Lay
CH
(1995) Trait procrasunation agitauon dejection
and
self-discrepancy
In J R
Fenan
JL
Johnson
&WG
McCown
(Eds )
Procrastination
and
task
avoidance
Theory research
and
treatment
(pp
97-112)
New
York Plenum Press
Lay
CH
Edwards
JM
Parker
JDA
&
Endler
NS
(1989) An assessment of
appraisal anxiety coping and procrasunation dunng an examination penod
Eu
ropean Joumal
of
Personality
3
195-208
Loewenstem
G
&
Eister
J
(Eds)
(1992) Choiceo^ertime
New
York Russell Sage
McCown
W
(1986) Behavior
of
chronic college-student procrasunators
An
expenmen
tal
study Social Science
and
Behavioral Documents
17 133
Mischel
W
(1974) Processes
m
delay
of
graUficaUon
In
L
Berkowitz
(Ed )
Advances
tn
expenmental social psychology
(Vol
7 pp
249-292)
San
Diego Academic
Mischel
W
(1996) From good intenUons
to
willpower
In P
Gollwitrer
& J
Bargh
(Eds) The
psychology
of
action
(pp
197-218)
New
York Gmlfoid Press
Platt.
J
(1973) Social traps
Amencan
Psychologist
28
641-651
Rothblum
ED
Solomon
LJ
&
Murakami.
J
(1986) Affective cogniUve
and
behav
loral differences between high
and
low
procrastmators Joumal
of
Counseling
Psychology
33
387-394
Shouwenburg
HC
(1995) Academic
procrastination
Theoreucal notions measurement
and
research
In J
R
Fenan
J
L
Johnson
& W G
McCown
(Eds
)
Procrastina
tion
and
task avoidance Theory research
and
treatment
(pp 71-%) New
York
Solomon
LJ & Rothblum. E D
(1984) Academic procrasunauon Frequency
and cog
nitive behavioral correlates Joumal
of
Counseling Psychology
31
503-509
'lor
R
(1979) Procrasunauon
The
personality
and
situationat conelates
of
procras
40(4)
DM
(1991) Esteem protection
or
enhancement'
Self handicapping
moU'
attnbuUons differ
by
trait self esteem Joumat
of
Personality
and
Sociat
P
ogy 60
711-725
Tice
DM
&
Baumeister
RF
(1990) Self esteem self-handicapping
an
presentation
The
sd^tegy
of
inadequate pracUce Joumal
of
Perwnality
5,
464
(RECEIVED
8/12/96.
ACCEPTED
12/1/%)
VOL
8. NO 6,
NOVEMBER
1997