ArticlePDF Available

" If I Wait, My Partner Will Do It: " The Role of Conscientiousness as a Mediator in the Relation of Academic Procrastination and Perceived Social Loafing



The relations of academic procrastination with perceived social loafing and conscientiousness among undergraduate study-group partners were examined. Using 70 dyads (140 students: 87 women, 53 men), we found that when conscientiousness scores were controlled statistically from self-report data, partial correlates indicated that academic procrastination was not significantly related to perceived social loafing. Results suggested that conscientiousness may be an underlying source trait for both procrastination and social loafing. This is of interest in terms of personality theory as well as the psychological processes that these measures may reflect, particularly how duty and self-discipline may affect the intention-action gap that undermines everyday voluntary action. The concepts of procrastination and social loafing appear similar in various ways. For example, both concepts involve the expenditure of minimal amounts of energy toward task activities found across research populations and task settings (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Karau & Williams, 1993). Similarly, both procrastination and social loafing relate to task aversiveness (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000) – " if I wait, perhaps I can avoid doing this unpleasant task. " Both constructs may also be understood as a failure to voluntarily live up to commitments or duties to self (procrastination) or others (social loafing). However, there may be important differences between these concepts. Procrastination typically is defined as a voluntary delay of an individual's intended action toward some task despite foreseeable negative consequences and a potentially overall worse outcome (e.
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Joseph R. Ferrari, DePaul
University, Department of Psychology, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue, Chicago,
IL, 60614, Or, Tim Pychyl,
North American Journal of Psychology, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 1, 13-24.
“If I Wait, My Partner Will Do It:” The Role of
Conscientiousness as a Mediator in the Relation
of Academic Procrastination and Perceived
Social Loafing
Joseph R. Ferrari Timothy A. Pychyl
DePaul University and Carleton University
The relations of academic procrastination with perceived social loafing
and conscientiousness among undergraduate study-group partners were
examined. Using 70 dyads (140 students: 87 women, 53 men), we found
that when conscientiousness scores were controlled statistically from
self-report data, partial correlates indicated that academic procrastination
was not significantly related to perceived social loafing. Results
suggested that conscientiousness may be an underlying source trait for
both procrastination and social loafing. This is of interest in terms of
personality theory as well as the psychological processes that these
measures may reflect, particularly how duty and self-discipline may
affect the intention-action gap that undermines everyday voluntary
The concepts of procrastination and social loafing appear similar in
various ways. For example, both concepts involve the expenditure of
minimal amounts of energy toward task activities found across research
populations and task settings (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Karau
& Williams, 1993). Similarly, both procrastination and social loafing
relate to task aversiveness (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000) – “if I wait, perhaps I
can avoid doing this unpleasant task.” Both constructs may also be
understood as a failure to voluntarily live up to commitments or duties to
self (procrastination) or others (social loafing). However, there may be
important differences between these concepts.
Procrastination typically is defined as a voluntary delay of an
individual’s intended action toward some task despite foreseeable
negative consequences and a potentially overall worse outcome (e.g.,
Ferrari, 2010; Ferrari et al., 1995; Milgram, 1991; Pychyl, 2010; Steel,
2007). Social loafing implies a reduction in effort within collective
settings where individual performance is not identifiable (e.g., George,
1996; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). One implication of these
definitions is that procrastination may have negative consequences for
only the individual, while social loafing has adverse consequences for the
group. From a personality and social-psychological research perspective,
this individual versus group focus may be the reason that these behaviors
have not been investigated together.
Unfortunately, both procrastination and social loafing may be seen as
a part of academic life specifically and characteristic qualities of
individuals more generally (e.g., “they’re lazy”). Within the study of
procrastination, for instance, Ferrari and colleagues (1995; 2010) argued
that some individuals delay as a maladaptive lifestyle across a variety of
settings (such frequent delays constitute chronic, trait-like
procrastination: Lay, 1986). In contrast, other individuals focus their task
delays on a specific situational setting such as studying, reading, or
working on term papers (labeled academic procrastination: Ferrari &
Pychyl, 2000). From this latter perspective, we argue that it is important
to explore the context in which personal goals and procrastination may
arise (e.g., Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Pychyl & Binder, 2004; Pychyl &
Little, 1998; Scher & Ferrari, 2000). Although trait and more context-
specific forms of procrastination share numerous personality correlates,
such as self-handicapping, disorganization, low self-esteem, and low self-
confidence (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2000, for representative research), we
focused the present studies on academic procrastination, because we
wanted to explore the potential for social loafing opportunities along with
frequent everyday task delays relevant for students.
Finding a significant relation between academic procrastination and
social loafing in the present study seems logical, given previous research.
For example, Ferrari (1994) found that procrastination was related to
interpersonal dependency, the tendency to let others “bail out” persons
who delay tasks. That is, procrastinators’ last-minute efforts may result
in others doing tasks for them. Like social loafing, interpersonal
dependency permits others to perform a target task; unlike social loafing,
however, interpersonal dependency entails presenting oneself as helpless
as a way to manipulate others into action out of a feeling of sympathy
and care (Peterson, 1993). However, Ferrari and Patel (2004) reported
that peers do not perceive procrastinators favorably when the perceived
procrastinators expect their peers to assume responsibility for completing
tasks. It seems that procrastinators may be viewed unfavorably by those
who must assume responsibility to complete the task (Ferrari, 1992).
Given these relations, in the present study we expected academic
procrastination tendencies to be significantly related to perceived social
Based on previous research, we also hypothesized that academic
procrastination and perceived social loafing would share common
variance with the major personality trait of conscientiousness (Costa &
McCrea, 1990). Costa and McCrea defined conscientiousness within
their five-factor model of personality (FFM) as being a basic tendency
composed of six facets: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement
strivings, self-discipline, and deliberation. In past research using
undergraduate student samples, several studies reported that academic
procrastination was related to low conscientiousness but not to other
traits in the FFM (Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Lay & Brokenshire, 1997;
Watson, 2001). Similarly, Lay, Kovacs, and Danto (1998) found that
procrastination was related to low conscientiousness in young children.
Finally, based on consistency and magnitude of these findings, Lay
(1997) argued that conscientiousness was the essential source trait of
In contrast to procrastination, we found no published research that
examined the role of conscientiousness with social loafing. Nevertheless,
other personality characteristics have been studied in relation to social
loafing. Personality traits studied in relation to social loafing included
higher scores on the need for cognition (Smith, Kerr, Markus, & Stasson,
2001), beliefs about being superior in performance to others
(Charbonnier, Huguert, Brauer, & Monteil, 1998; Huguert, Charbonnier,
& Monteil, 1999), low achievement motivation (Hart, Karau, Stasson, &
Kerr, 2004), and low affiliation motivation (Sorrentino & Sheppard,
Despite the lack of research linking social loafing to
conscientiousness, it is certainly plausible that the propensity for social
loafing is determined, at least in part, by the trait of conscientiousness.
For instance, expectancy-value approaches to social loafing (see Karau &
Williams, 1993) might expect individuals low in conscientiousness to
attach less value to effortful tasks and to be more likely to take advantage
of any opportunity to reduce their effort when there appears to be low
instrumentality (i.e., when there is less of a link between their efforts and
the final outcome because they are working in a group).
To make this link, we must move from the specifics of the Five-
Factor Model that defines the facets of conscientiousness to the Five-
Factor Theory that McCrea and Costa (1999, 2008) proposed. This
theory provides a conceptual link between traits and other aspects of the
personality system. In this case, conscientiousness is one of the basic
tendencies in the model, while procrastination and social loafing may be
conceptualized as one of our many characteristic adaptations. Given this
proposed theoretical relation between traits and characteristic adaptations
of task avoidance or delay, we expected that conscientiousness would be
related to both constructs and that at least some of the variance common
to both procrastination and social loafing would be accounted for by
In order to investigate the hypothesized relations between
conscientiousness, procrastination, and social loafing, we used a sample
that included students and their study partners in a class activity as
respondents to assess participants’ academic procrastination and social
loafing tendencies. These students were working in pairs on classroom-
based projects. Dyads have unique properties, such as the lack of
subgroup coalitions and the ability to mutually influence the other dyad
partner’s behaviors in a reciprocal fashion.
In this study, we examined perceived social loafing, as we did not
actually measure individual effort – just perceptions of effort. We believe
our findings are of interest and important conceptually, because results
from prior perceived social loafing studies (e.g., George, 1992; 1995;
Tata, 2002) demonstrated a match between perceived and actual loafing
in terms of moderating variables. The use of both the individuals’ self-
report data as well as their study-partners’ data was important in our
study, as by definition social loafing includes group performance. We
were able to explore perceptions of academic procrastination, social
loafing, and conscientiousness by participants and an observer of the
participants’ procrastination. In addition, including university
undergraduates as our participants enabled us to capture a real-world
context to assess the link between these maladaptive task-related
All 140 participants (87 women, 53 men; age range = 18 21; M =
20.0 years old, SD = 1.1) were enrolled in a senior-year psychology class
at a large urban public university. This class involved small-group work
that allowed us to solicit participation of pairs of individuals who were
working together. All participants received course credit for
Psychometric Measures
Aitken’s (1982) Procrastination Inventory. A 19-item uni-
dimensional measure, this scale assesses academic procrastination
tendencies among college students, with high scores indicating frequent
delays in completing tasks and assignments. Respondents rate each item
along a 5-point scale (1 = false of me; 5 = true of me). Sample items
include “Even when I know a job needs to get done, I never want to start
it right away,” and “I am often late for my appointments and meetings.”
The authors reported a coefficient alpha of 0.82, and with the present
sample alpha was .80 (M score = 54.9, SD = 12.0).
Costa and McCrea’s (1990) Conscientiousness subscale from their
NEO-Personality Inventory. A well-known, frequently used, reliable and
valid inventory designed to measure five higher-order personality factors,
each of six lower-order dimensions that define conscientiousness were
included. Each of the 48-items is rated along a 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The six facets of the conscientiousness
scale include: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-
discipline, and deliberation. Sample items include, “I have a clear set of
goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion,” and “There are so
many little jobs that need to be done that I sometimes just ignore them
all” (reverse score). With the present sample, the conscientiousness scale
had an overall mean score of 174.2 (SD = 59.5) and an overall coefficient
alpha of 0.76 (subscale range = 0.70 to 0.88).
George’s (1992; 1995) Social Loafing Scale. This 10-item measure is
a uni-dimensional scale that measures the degree of effort individuals put
forth toward collective tasks; that is, the extent to which individuals
demonstrate effort on shared tasks in the presence of others who also are
involved in completing the task. For our study, items were reworded to
assess perceptions of the study-partner rather than self. Sample items
include “Does not do his or her share of the work,” and “Defers
responsibilities to others he or she should assume him or herself.” This
measure assesses perceptions of social loafing within an academic
context (such as working on collective or shared group projects). George
reported a coefficient alpha of .73, and with the present sample alpha was
0.72 (M score = 18.6, SD = 7.1).
Students participated in a study that examined study habits in the
context of both personal and group situations by signing up to attend a
testing session. Participants were asked to bring to the testing session a
classmate who was a “study partner” of a dyad-based task within a
course where working with the participant on the same course materials
was required. This study-partner criterion required that the contribution
of each member was dependent on the other and that each partner made a
difference to the productivity and the final assignment grade of the other
member in the dyad. With the exception of a few pairs, the dyad was
formed by personal choice. The recruitment announcement specified that
the participant and the study partner must have met frequently so they
would be able to be honest, fair, and objective in their assessments of
each other’s related work habits.
At the testing session, the participant and study partner returned
signed consent forms and then, independently, completed the three
psychometric measures (in counterbalanced order). The participant was
instructed to respond to the inventories with self as the referent. The
study partner was instructed to reply in reference to the target
participant’s tendency toward academic procrastination, social loafing,
and conscientiousness when working on the assignments from class. We
believed the target participant was a better judge of his or her
procrastination tendency across situations, while the work-partner might
be a better judge of social loafing. After the inventories were completed,
all respondents were debriefed and thanked for their time. It took each
dyad under 30 minutes to complete all measures in this study.
Initially, t-tests for matched pairs (using case-wise deletion where
necessary due to missing data) between the participant and their study
partners were performed on the three self-report scale scores. There were
no significant differences on mean scores between self and informant
(i.e., study partner) reports on academic procrastination, perceived social
loafing, or conscientiousness (see Table 1). Both participants and their
study partners reported similar personality profiles. That is, the
participants claimed, and their study partner confirmed, similar perceived
levels of procrastination, social loafing, and conscientiousness in the
TABLE 1 Mean Score and Zero-order Correlates Between Personality
Variables for Participants and Their Study Partner
Academic Social
M Procrastination Loafing
Academic Procrastination:
Participant’s self-perception 55.0 (12.0)
Study partner’s perception of participant 54.6 (11.8)
Perceived Social Loafing:
Participant’s self-perception 19.1 (7.1) .32**
Study partner’s perception of participant 17.2 (6.2) .45**
Participant’s self-perception 168.9 (54.1) -.53** -.31*
Study partner’s perception of participant 179.5 (62.2) -.25* -.30*
n = 67-70 dyads * p < .05 ** p < .01
Note. Value in parenthesis is standard deviation.
Zero-order correlations then were calculated for the scale scores.
Table 1 presents the correlation coefficients separately for the
participants and their study partners. As noted in the table, for both the
participants and their study partners’ ratings of them, academic
procrastination was significantly positively correlated with social loafing,
and both the scores for academic procrastination and perceived social
loafing were significantly negatively correlated with conscientiousness.
These results support other research findings that procrastinators claim to
let others do tasks for them (Ferrari, 1992; 1994) and related to low
conscientiousness (Schouwenburg & Lay, 1994; Watson, 2001).
Fischer z-tests next were performed on these correlation coefficients
to determine whether the magnitude of the difference between self-data
and other-data was significantly different for the relations among
academic procrastination, perceived social loafing, and con-
scientiousness. The magnitude of the coefficients between academic
procrastination and social loafing for participants and their partners were
not significantly different, but between academic procrastination and
conscientiousness the difference was significant (p < .05). Results
indicated that for participants, their self-perceptions of their levels of
academic procrastination and conscientiousness were more strongly
opposite than the perceptions made by their study partner. Perhaps,
because the participants were more cognizant of their own behavior
patterns, more aware of their internal states and intentions, and had a
greater opportunity to observe their own tendency to delay academic
tasks than their partner could, the self-data reflected a much larger,
negative correlation between procrastination and conscientiousness.
TABLE 2 Partial Correlates (controlling for conscientiousness) Between
Personality Variables for Participants and Their Study Partner
Academic Procrastination
Perceived Social Loafing:
Participant’s self-perception .17
Study partner’s perception of participant .40***
n = 67-70 dyads * p < .001
We speculated that procrastination and perceived social loafing in
academic settings may be linked by the same basic tendency in terms of a
personality system (McCrae & Costa, 1999) namely,
conscientiousness. Consequently, we calculated partial correlates
between academic procrastination and social loafing controlling for
conscientiousness. Table 2 presents the partial correlation coefficients.
As noted from the table, for participants’ self-ratings only, the relation
between academic procrastination and perceived social loafing becomes
non-significant when conscientiousness was statistically controlled. It
may be that conscientiousness mediates the relation between
procrastination and social loafing statistically, and serves as Lay (1997)
noted, as the source trait for both behavioral tendencies.
Our research explored the relations among measures of
conscientiousness, procrastination and social loafing. We hypothesized
that the measures of procrastination and social loafing would be
positively correlated. Moreover, we expected that the Big Five trait of
conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1990) would be related to both
procrastination and social loafing negatively, as the basic tendency of
conscientiousness would predict lower levels of the characteristic
adaptations of needless task delay or “buck passing,” respectively. Our
results supported the understanding of the role of this basic personality
trait in the participantsacademic work. Students who had higher levels
of conscientiousness, whether measured through self- or other-report,
demonstrated lower levels of procrastination and social loafing.
These results reflect similar findings in past research that examined
the relation between procrastination and conscientiousness (e.g., Johnson
& Bloom, 1995; Lay, 1997; Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995; Watson, 2001).
Interestingly, the magnitude of the correlations for the conscientiousness-
procrastination relation were significantly different for self- versus other-
data, with the relation for the study-participant’s report showing a lower
(but statistically significant) negative correlation. In contrast, the
relations between conscientiousness and social loafing were equivalent
for both self- and other-report data. This outcome is most probably due to
the nature of procrastination and social loafing, such that the participant’s
study-partner has clear access to the participant’s social loafing as it
affects him or her directly, whereas how much the participant
procrastinates may not be as readily available, particularly in terms of the
items included in the scale (e.g., “Even when I know a job needs to get
done, I never want to start it right away”). In any case, the key finding is
that conscientiousness does indeed correlate with both procrastination
and social loafing, and for the self-report data, statistically controlling for
conscientiousness removes the shared variance between procrastination
and social loafing indicating that conscientiousness may well be a source
trait for these maladaptive behaviors (Lay, 1997).
Although our approach and data analyses were correlational, ruling
out any causal inferences based on the findings, both the personality
theory upon which we premised our research (McCrae & Costa, 1999,
2008) as well as the nature of conscientiousness itself, invite reasonable
speculations about how to interpret these results. As we noted, our results
may be explained within the context of the Five Factor Theory of
Personality (McCrae & Costa, 1999, 2008), with the basic tendency of
conscientiousness influencing a common characteristic adaptation to task
engagement, namely avoidance. This avoidance, as we have seen in this
study, may take one of two forms: 1) the individual’s needless delay of
task engagement or completion through procrastination, or 2) less than
optimal- or fair-sharing of the task load through social loafing. Although
this reasoning is sound within the framework of a trait-based theory, it is
somewhat unappealing as it can be seen as explaining a lower-order trait
(procrastination or social loafing) with a higher-order trait.
Another perspective on our results emerges from a consideration of
the nature of conscientiousness itself, which, in addition to such
attributes as order and achievement striving, includes the facets of
dutifulness, self-discipline and deliberation. To the extent that an
individual has higher levels of these attributes, it is reasonable to assume
that his or her approach to intentions will be different. For example,
planful deliberation about academic tasks, a feeling of dutifulness
towards them as well as the self-discipline to regulate one’s own
behavior, would help prevent a gap between intention and action that we
commonly define as procrastination, and may well be a causal factor in
social loafing. In fact, as Searle (2001) argues, this intention-action gap
would be filled by the individual just “hauling off and doing” what he or
she intended to do, as opposed to needlessly delaying or avoiding the
work through procrastination or social loafing. This focus on agency,
active deliberation and individual choice is Pychyl’s (2011) emphasis for
future research on procrastination, as the various antecedents of action,
whether personality or other situational variables, are not sufficient to
cause action. Psychology must address “. . . an irreducible conscious self
acting on the basis of reasons under the constraints of rationality and on
the presupposition of freedom [in order to] make sense of responsibility
and all of its attendant notions” (Searle, 2001; p. 89).
While the results of our study may not generalize to larger groups,
our results are interesting in exploring the link between these three
concepts in dyadic work groups. Furthermore, we recruited participants
and study partners that we assumed met frequently before the start of the
study, in order to provide honest, fair, and objective assessments of each
other’s related habits. However, we had no criteria to insure that their
pre-study relationship existed. Future studies need to include larger
groups and manipulation checks on the group-member relationships and
background knowledge.
Perhaps most important, our study is limited due to the common
variance present in our data analysis. Future studies that are not limited to
self-report measures of consciousness, procrastination and social loafing
may be more appropriate and avoid this possible confounding effect.
Despite these limitations, the findings of our study provide an
interesting and novel perspective on two problematic study behaviors in
relation to individual differences. Future research might focus on how
aspects of the self that may affect conscientiousness, such as self-
regulatory strength, influence procrastination and social loafing. This sort
of focus is much more appealing and has more explanatory power than a
simple trait-level explanation of our intentional action.
Aitken, M. (1982). A personality profile of the college student procrastinator.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(3-A) 722-723.
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T.A. (2000). Task aversivness and procrastination: A multi-
dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal
projects. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 153 – 167.
Charbonnier, E., Huguert, P., Brauer, M.,& Monteil, J.M. (1998). Social loafing
and self-beliefs: People's collective effort depends on the extent to which
they distinguish themselves as better than others. Social Behavior and
Personality, 26, 329-340.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York &
London: Guildford Press.
Ferrari, J.R. (1992). Procrastination in the workplace: Attributional failure among
individuals with similar behavioral tendencies. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 315 – 319.
Ferrari, J.R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-
esteem, interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality
and Individual Differences, 15, 673-679.
Ferrari, J.R. (2010). Still procrastinating? The no regrets guide to getting it
done. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Ferrari, J.R., Johnson, J.L., & McCown, W.G. (1995). Procrastination and task
avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum/Springer
Science Publications.
Ferrari, J.R., & Patel, T. (2004). Social comparisons by procrastinators: Rating
peers with similar and dissimilar delay tendencies. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37, 1493 – 1501.
Ferrari, J.R., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000) (Eds). Procrastination: Current issues and
new directions. Special issue of the Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality (Corte Madera, CA: Select Press).
George, J.M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191 – 202.
George, J.M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case
of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
68, 327-338.
George, J.M. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of
feelings of focus of attention and work motivation. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior: An annual series
of analytic essays and critical reviews, Vol (pp. 75 109). Stamford, CT:
JAI Press, Inc.
Hart, J.W., Karau, S.J., Stasson, M., & Kerr, N.A.(2004). Achievement
motivation, expected coworker performance, and collective task motivation:
Working hard or hardly working? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, JM (1999). Productivity loss in
performance groups: People who see themselves as average do not engage in
social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 118-
John, O.P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook
of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.
John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, J.L. & Bloom, A.M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the five
factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality
and Individual Differences, 18, 127-133.
Karau, S.J., & Williams, K.D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and
theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work:
The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 37, 822-832.
Lay, C.H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of
Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.
Lay, C.H. (1988). The relation of procrastination and optimism to judgments of
time to complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 3, 201-214.
Lay, C.H. (1997). Explaining lower-order traits through higher-order factors: The
case of trait procrastination, conscientiousness, and the specificity dilemma.
European Journal of Personality. 11, 267-278.
Lay, C.H., Kovacs, A. & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to
the big five factor conscientiousness: an assessment with primary-junior
school children based on self-report scales. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25, 187-193
McCrea, R.R, & Costa, P. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L.A.
Pervin & O.P. John (Eds) Handbook of personality: Theory and research
edition). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrea, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (2008). The five factor theory of personality. In
O.P. John, R.W. Robins, and LA. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality
(pp. 159-181). New York: Guilford Press.
Peterson, C. (1993). Helpless behavior. Behavior Research & Therapy, 31, 289
– 295.
Pychyl, T.A. (2011). Agency, responsibility and autonomy: An existential
perspective on procrastination as self-regulation failure. Paper presented at
the 7
Biennial conference on Counseling the Procrastinator in the
Academic Context, Amsterdam.
Pychyl, T.A. (2010). The procrastinator’s digest: A concise guide to solving the
procrastination puzzle. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
Pychyl, T.A., & Binder, K. (2004). A project-analytic perspective on academic
procrastination and intervention. In H.C. Schouwenburg, C. Lay, T.A.
Pychyl, & J.R. Ferrari (Eds.). Counseling the procrastinator in academic
contexts. American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C.
Pychyl, T.A., & Little, B.R. (1998). Dimensional specificity in the prediction of
subjective well-being: Personal projects in pursuit of the Ph.D. Social
Indicators Research, 45.
Scher, S., & Ferrari, J.R. (2000).The recall of completed and non-completed tasks
through daily logs to measure procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 15, 255 – 265.
Schouwenburg, H.C. & Lay, C.H. (1995). Trait procrastination and the big-five
factors of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 18 (4), 481-
Searle, J.R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Smith, B.N., Kerr, N.A., Markus, M.J., & Stasson, M.F. (2001). Individual
differences in social loafing: Need for cognition as a motivator in collective
performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 150-158.
Solomon, L.J., & Rothblum, E.D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency
and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
31(4), 503-509.
Sorrentino, R.M., & Sheppard, B.H. (1978). Effects of affiliation-related motives
on swimmers in individual versus group competition: A field experiment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 704-714.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
Tata, J. (2002). The influence of accounts of perceived social loafing in work
teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 292 – 308.
Watson, D.C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.
Author Notes: The authors express their gratitude to Tara Wheeldon and David
D. Van Dyk (Carleton University) who assisted in data collection and analysis.
The order of authors was determined alphabetically. For questions or reprints
contact Timothy A. Pychyl, Carleton University, Department of Psychology,
1125 Colonel by Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1S 5B6, or Joseph R. Ferrari, DePaul University,
Department of Psychology, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60614,
Copyright of North American Journal of Psychology is the property of North American Journal of Psychology
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
... Although they may purposely procrastinate, they can still complete the task eventually, which means that social loafing may not increase significantly. This study took the active and passive procrastinators division from the literature [25,26] and explored the differences in active and traditional procrastination motivations between these groups in order to verify the statement of Ferrari and Pychyl [42] that passive procrastination is more linked to dependent personality and induces higher social loafing. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were also proposed: Hypothesis 2.1: Passive and active procrastinators are significantly different in terms of traditional procrastination motivation, with passive procrastinators exhibiting higher traditional procrastination motivation. ...
... Individuals seek to profit by exerting less effort when working in a team. During teamwork, there is a low correlation between the efforts of a procrastinator and the final outcome when social loafing occurs [42]. Passive procrastinators tend to rely on others in the event of a group task assignment [34]; this placing of responsibilities on others may result in social loafing. ...
... To increase the validity of the social loafing measurements, the participants were investigated in the context of a group task assignment. Evaluation by their peers rather than self-assessment by the participants provided the basis for a more objective investigation of social loafing [42]. ...
... Despite being a thoroughly studied phenomenon (see Karau and Williams, 1993), the relationship between social loafing and procrastination is not much explored. Ferrari and Pychyl (2012) pointed out that social loafing and procrastination share similarities. For example, both constructs imply reduced motivation to engage in goal-directed task activities and reduced commitment to oneself (procrastination) or to others (social loafing). ...
... Given the similarities between these phenomena, a moderate correlation between perceived social loafing and procrastination, r = 0.30-0.45, was reported (Ferrari and Pychyl, 2012). In the present study, we assessed self-rated social loafing, expecting a similar relation to procrastination. ...
Full-text available
Standard definitions of procrastination underscore the irrational nature of this habit, a critical criterion being that the procrastinating individual delays despite expecting to be worse off for the delay. However, an examination of more than 175 items in 18 procrastination scales reveals that they do not address such a forward-looking criterion. Consequently, scales run the risk of not separating maladaptive and irrational delays from other forms of delay. We propose that forward-looking considerations may not be the best way of operationalizing the irrationality involved in procrastination and argue that scales should instead focus on past negative consequences of unnecessary delay. We suggest a new scale to measure such procrastination-related negative consequences and demonstrate that this scale, used separately or combined with established procrastination scales, performs better in predicting negative states and correlates to procrastination than established scales. The new scale seems to be helpful in separating trivial forms of unnecessary delay from maladaptive forms and hence represents a potentially valuable tool in research and clinical/applied efforts.
... When inquiring about the problems related to the academic life, it becomes essential to mention aspects related to motivation -set of processes involved in the activation, direction, and In the academic domain, it has been reported that students procrastinate less when they manifest a determined intention to finish a school task (Lin & Bai, 2014), and when they have the habit of thinking more carefully about what they are doing (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012). However, a clear difference between the numerous motivational processes involved has been reported. ...
Purpose The present research was based on an online questionnaire. A total of 256 undergraduate psychology students aged 18–44 ( M = 23.61; SD = 0.57) from the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina took part in the study (137 women; 53.3%). A sociodemographic and academic survey and the locally adapted versions of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Tuckman Procrastination Scale were used in this study. Participants were contacted by an email advertisement in which the main purpose of the study was explained, and the instruments remained open from September to November of 2021. Descriptive analyses – means, standard deviations and frequencies – were calculated using IBM SPSS v.25, and mediation and moderation analyses were conducted on PROCESS macro. Design/methodology/approach Academic achievement has always been a concern in the high undergraduate's community. Numerous studies have addressed psychological aspects of students' academic life; however, a past-positive (PP) time perspective, a warm and sentimental view of past events that took place in someone's life, has not been profoundly contemplated. The fact that students might organize their activities, employ different strategies to fulfill their tasks and motivate themselves to pursue their academic goals based primarily on their past experiences calls the attention on conducting research on this time perspective dimension and its relationship with procrastination and academic motivation. It was hypothesized that the PP time perspective would positively predict academic achievement via the mediation of academic motivation in a way that the potentiate effect of PP time perspective on academic achievement would be increased in highly motivated students, but this effect would be reduced in less motivated students. Also, it was hypothesized that the relationship between motivation and academic achievement would be negatively moderated by procrastination such that academic achievement would increase with academic motivation; however, that increase would be attenuated by procrastination. Findings Academic achievement was positively associated with PP time perspective ( r = 0.39; p < 0.01) and academic motivation (0.36; p < 0.01) and negatively associated with procrastination ( r = −0.15; p < 0.05). Results showed that academic motivation mediated the relationship between PP time perspective and academic achievement ( ß = 1.37; R ² = 0.21; p < 0.001). Additionally, procrastination moderated the relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement but only at the low ( ß = 0.76; p < 0.001) and medium ( ß = 0.44; p < 0.001) levels of procrastination, while at high levels of procrastination, that relationship was not statistically significant ( ß = 0.11; p > 0.05). Originality/value This is the first study that examined the mediated role of academic motivation in the relationship between PP time perspective and academic achievement and that included the moderating role of procrastination.
... Finally, the approach has focused on the effect of interdependence on one individual team member. However, it is only plausible that other members of a group are affected in one way or another by a member with higher or lower trait procrastination (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012;Legood et al., 2018;van Hooft & van Mierlo, 2018), which could be addressed in future research. ...
Full-text available
Research on procrastination covers a variety of individual factors (e.g., conscien-tiousness) and this focus is reflected in interventions against procrastination. Less emphasis is put on situational and social factors that may help students reduce procrastination , such as social interdependence. Therefore, this study investigates the relationship between interdependence with academic procrastination and affective variables. Two vignette studies with student samples (N 1 = 320, N 2 = 193) were conducted and data was analyzed with regression analyses and analyses of covariance. Results of both studies show lower state procrastination in group work with interdependence compared to individual work, especially in participants with high trait procrastination. This difference is more pronounced when interdependence is accompanied by an active commitment to finish the task on time. Further, interdependent group work is related to increased positive affect and decreased negative affect. The results demonstrate the relevance of situational and social factors for academic procrastination , and point toward new approaches for intervention.
... Along with procrastination, they are predictors of college students' learning outcomes (Morris & Fritz, 2015). Conscientiousness also correlates negatively with cognitive failures and distractability of university students (Kamboj & Yadav, 2018), which may have an impact on the course of study activities (Ferrari & Pychyl, 2012). Also, conscientiousness moderates relations among fear of failure, evaluation anxiety, and behavioral procrastination (Dziewulska & Markiewicz, 2018). ...
... Hacia mediados de la década de 1980 diversas investigaciones confirmaron que posiblemente habría unos rasgos básicos de personalidad característicos para la mayoría de la gente, identificándose cinco factores conocidos popularmente como Big Five o los "cinco grandes": el neuroticismo -incluye la inestabilidad emocional-, la extraversión -incluye el deseo de compañía, una autoestima alta y energía vital-, la apertura a la experiencia -incluye la curiosidad, el aprecio por el arte y la aventura-, la agradabilidad -incluye la empatía y la confianza-, y la conciencia -incluye un mayor sentido del deber y de la planificación-. La procrastinación puede estar relacionada con los cinco factores del modelo Big Five, tal como señalan las investigaciones de algunos autores (Ferrari y Pychyl, 2012;Karatas, 2015). ...
Full-text available
La gestión del tiempo es un elemento clave en la formación artística. En este sentido la procrastinación resulta determinante en el día a día de los estudiantes. En esta investigación se analiza la relación entre la procrastinación y los factores de personalidad obtenidos a través del BIG FIVE Inventory (BFI-10) en una muestra de 887 estudiantes. Los datos mostraron una relación negativa significativa de la procrastinación con tres de los cinco factores de personalidad, en concreto: responsabilidad (r = -.426; p = .000), cordialidad (r = -.153; p = .000) y extraversión (r = -.103; p = .003). En cambio no presenta correlación ni con el neuroticismo (r = .022; p = .538), ni con la apertura a la experiencia (r = .033; p = .346).
Full-text available
Academic procrastination (Koopmans, 2017) The short-form academic procrastination previously developed by Van de Bilt (2016) was retested with a new sample (n = 359) Saxion AMA students. In addition, the predictive value of a second short-form academic procrastination instrument tested: the APS-S (McCloskey, 2011) and a personality conscientiousness scale. Multiple regression analysis with the total academic procrastination related items indicated a total of eight items that explained 14.9 percent of the variance based on study success. These eight items can be viewed as related to trait procrastination and can therefore be used for short form questionnaire to predict study speed.
Full-text available
Niniejsze opracowanie przybliża zagadnienia związane z funkcjonowa-niem nowoczesnych przedsiębiorstw w kontekście gospodarowania czasem. Stwierdzono, że szczegółowe formułowanie celów, identyfikowanie oraz eliminowanie strat cza-sowych i prokrastynacji, stosowanie metod zarządzania czasem oraz stała kontrola umożliwiają efektywne gospodarowanie czasem. Dopełnienie opracowania stanowi nawiązanie do organizacji wysokich technologii, w których gospodarowanie czasem jest niezwykle ważnym i widocznym procesem.
Full-text available
A Dutch version of the PASS was constructed and used by the author and a short form version was created. This (Dutch written) Thesis investigates academic procrastination on Saxion University. An effect-measurement of the PASS (Dutch version) followed to test its predictability for study performance of Saxion students. Significant correlations were found on certain parts and specific items. A total of seven to nine procrastination items could predict at best 19% of the study performance. Nonetheless it stays uncertain if procrastination is the best predictor of study success. Therefore it is desirable to do follow-up research and testing a combination scale with added items about conscientiousness. Written by Ruben van de Bilt for the project: procrastination Questionnaires.
Full-text available
El presente estudio tiene como objetivo la evaluación del impacto e implementación de un programa grupal piloto basado en la ACT para la reducción de la procastinación académica en estudiantes universitarios, analizando así mismo, los cambios producidos en el autoconcepto académico y elementos motivacionales. Los estudiantes participantes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a un grupo experimental (N = 7), en el que se aplicó un programa de cinco sesiones, y un grupo control sin intervención (N = 15). Los instrumentos de medida aplicados fueron la Escala de Evaluación de la Procastinación, el Cuestionario MAPE-3 para la evaluación de la motivación, y la escala de autoconcepto académico perteneciente al Cuestionario AF-5. Los resultados muestran cambios estadísticamente significativos en procrastinación académica, miedo al fracaso y autoconcepto académico. Aunque modesto, este estudio presenta datos a favor de la aplicación de la ACT como una posibilidad terapéutica en la reducción de la procastinación en los estudiantes universitarios.
Full-text available
For five consecutive days, participants listed daily tasks they intended to complete. Recall of listed tasks served as the primary dependent variable. Characteristics of the task, including whether or not the task was actually completed, did not, in general, predict recall. The one exception was that the rated importance of the task to one's family did increase the likelihood of recall. Individual differences in avoidant procrastination were negatively related to the likelihood of recalling listed tasks. Avoidant procrastination also was related (positively) to false positive rates, the degree to which individuals "recalled" tasks that they had not listed the previous day. These findings suggest that procrastinators may have general cognitive processing strategies that are different from non-procrastinators. However, further research is needed to explore the information processing abilities of people who delay completing tasks.
Publisher Summary The dominant paradigm in current personality psychology is a reinvigorated version of one of the oldest approaches, trait psychology. Personality traits are “dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions.” In this context, trait structure refers to the pattern of co-variation among individual traits, usually expressed as dimensions of personality identified in factor analyses. For decades, the field of personality psychology was characterized by competing systems of trait structure; more recently a consensus has developed that most traits can be understood in terms of the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model. The consensus on personality trait structure is not paralleled by consensus on the structure of affects. The chapter discusses a three-dimensional model, defined by pleasure, arousal, and dominance factors in which it is possible to classify such state-descriptive terms as mighty, fascinated, unperturbed, docile, insolent, aghast, uncaring, and bored. More common are two-dimensional systems with axes of pleasure and arousal or positive and negative affect. These two schemes are interpreted as rotational variants—positive affect is midway between pleasure and arousal, whereas negative affect lies between arousal and low pleasure.