European Journal of Personality, Vol.

11:3, 187196 (1997)

Exploring theTime Preferences of Procrastinators:

Night or Day,Which is the One?*
JOSEPH R. FERRARI{, JESSE S. HARRIOTT,
LUCY EVANS, DENISE M. LECIK-MICHNA,
and JEREMY M. WENGER
De Paul University, Chicago, IL, USA

Abstract
In study 1, trait procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators claimed they were
`night persons', individuals who are most alert and active in the late afternoon and
evening hours. However, there were no significant individual differences in time
preference for a set of social and individual activities considered pleasurable. In study 2,
participants kept daily records for six straight days of when they had engaged in
activities. Proneness toward behavioral (but not decisional) procrastination was
significantly related to number of activities performed in the evening. Together, these
studies suggest that procrastinators may be `late starters' who prefer to engage in daily
activities later in the day rather than early in the morning. & 1997 by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Eur. J. Pers., 11: 187196 (1997)
No. of Figures: 0. No. of Tables: 0. No. of References: 35.

INTRODUCTION
A growing body of empirical literature has explored the antecedents and
consequences of chronic, habitual delays in the start and/or completion of tasks
(see Ferrari, Johnson, and McCown, 1995). Individuals who frequently exhibit this
lifestyle pattern have been labeled procrastinators (Burka and Yuen, 1983).
Procrastination has been reported pervasively within everyday settings (Ellis and
Knaus, 1977) and among normal (nonclinical) adult populations (Harriott and
Ferrari, 1996). Correlational studies report that trait procrastination has been
*Portions of study 1 were presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Boston, MA, March, 1995.
{Correspondence to: J. R. Ferrani, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North Kenmore
Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614, USA.

CCC 08902070/97/03018710$17.50
& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 9 September 1996

Accepted 10 January 1997

188

J. R. Ferrari et al.

related to low self-esteem, low self-confidence, low self-control, and high states of
perfectionism, noncompetitiveness, self-deception, dysfunctional impulsivity,
depression, and anxiety (Effert and Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari, 1991a; 1993; Ferrari
and Emmons, 1995; Flett, Blankstein and Martin, 1995; Flett, Hewitt and Martin,
1995; Lay, 1995; Lay, Edwards, Parker and Endler, 1989). Furthermore, procrastination is inversely related to the Big-5 factor of Conscientiousness (Lay, 1995).
Experimental studies reveal that individuals who engage in frequent task delay
behaviors (i.e. `procrastinators') often self-handicap their task performance (Ferrari,
1991b), avoid self-relevant diagnostic information (Ferrari, 1991c), and even
recommend severe reprimands for poor performance observed in other procrastinators (Ferrari, 1992). Thus, it seems that procrastination is associated with a
maladaptive lifestyle, with serious personal and social consequences.
Some information also is known about the nature of activities completed by trait
procrastinators. Compared to nonprocrastinators, trait procrastinators avoid
activities that would reveal information concerning their abilities (Ferrari, 1991d)
and prefer to work on easy, unchallenging tasks (Ferrari, 1991c). Furthermore, trait
procrastinators make poor estimates about the amount of time needed to complete
activities (Lay, 1988) and do not act on their intentions (Lay and Burns, 1991). In
line with these studies on tasktime relations, the present studies focused on what
time of day (morning or evening) trait procrastinators prefer to engage in activities.
Study 1 asked trait procrastinators whether they were more `day persons' who
preferred to perform activities in the morning or `night persons' who preferred to
perform activities in the evening, and requested ratings of time preferences for a set
of leisure activities. Study 2 asked procrastinators to keep a daily diary of their
activities in order to provide real-time assessment of timetask preferences associated
with decisional and behavioral types of procrastination. Information obtained from
these brief, exploratory studies may shed some additional light on the activities that
procrastinators perform during everyday situations. Taken together with other
tasktime studies on trait procrastination, a better understanding of activities procrastinators perform and do not perform may be gained. Because of the exploratory
nature of the present studies, no a priori predictions were made.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants
Sixty-one college undergraduates (age, M=18.6 years, SD=1.1 years) attending a
medium-sized, private university in the mid-western U. S. A. who enrolled in an
introductory psychology class participated in this study. Participants received extra
credit points for volunteering for this study.
Procedure
During the second week of class, students were asked by a male research associate
to complete several self-report instruments as part of a larger, descriptive study
(Harriott, Ferrari and Dovidio, 1996). After giving informed consent and completing
EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Temporal preference of procrastinators

189

demographic items such as age and gender, participants took about 20 minutes to
complete (in random order) the following inventories.
(i) Mann's (1982) Decisional Procrastination Scale. A reliable and valid measure of
a cognitive form of procrastination (i.e. indecision), this inventory is a five-item,
five-point scale in which decisional procrastination is considered a coping
pattern with high scores indicating a tendency to put off decisions by performing other tasks (see Burnett, Mann and Beswick, 1989; Janis and Mann,
1977). Inventory items include `I delay making decisions until it is too late' or `I
put off making decisions'. The scale has a Cronbach alpha of 0.80 (retest
r=0.69: Effert and Ferrari, 1989), and with the present sample an alpha of 0.71
(M=12.7, SD=4.1). The inventory is a valid measure of indecision (Berzonsky
and Ferrari, 1996), with scores shown to be predictive of course and career
decision-making (Burnett et al., 1989) and related to measures of low selfconcept and inefficient problem-solving (Burnett, 1991).
(ii) The Adult Inventory of Procrastination of McCown and Johnson (1989). A 15item, five-point scale (1, untrue of me; 5, true of me) that is a behavioral index
of frequent task delays across a number of situations (e.g. item 7, reverse scored:
`I pay bills on time'). Studies indicate that scores on the scale are reflective of
frequent task delays (Ferrari et al., 1995), low self-control (Ferrari and
Emmons, 1995), low self-esteem, and self-defeating behaviors (Ferrari, 1994).
The scale also has good temporal stability (retest r=0.86) and internal
consistency (alphas 50.70; see Ferrari et al., 1995). The coefficient alpha in the
present sample was 0.80.
(iii) Wallace's (1993) Day/Night-Alertness Questionnaire. A ten-item, truefalse
scale developed to indicate whether a person is a `night person' (someone who is
most alert and active during the late afternoon and evening hours), or a `day
person' (someone who is more alert and active during the morning hours: e.g. `I
am most productive during the morning'). High scores indicate more alertness
and activity during the day. This scale has been shown to be a reliable and valid
measure (see Wallace, Turosky and Kokoszka, 1992). With the present sample,
this scale's coefficient alpha was 0.71.
Approximately two weeks after completing the scales, students were asked by a
male research associate to participate in a second study for additional extra credit
(Ferrari and Mautz, 1997). Within that study, participants checked which time of
day (morning, afternoon, or evening) they preferred when engaging in each of eight
pleasurable, leisure activities. Nonacademic tasks were chosen to increase the
generalizability of results. Burger (1992) reported that these activities were judged
enjoyable when performed alone or with others during one's free time (i.e. time not
spent studying, in class, at work, or so on). The eight activities common among
young adults were going shopping, eating out for any meal, seeing a movie with a
friend, pleasure reading, exercising alone (e.g. jogging), spending time with a friend,
working on a hobby alone, and playing some group sport (e.g. basketball).
Participants were instructed to indicate which of the three time slots throughout the
day they engaged in these tasks. It took participants about five minutes to complete
this timetask checklist. At a debriefing session, participants were asked whether
they perceived any association between the two data collection procedures
& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

190

J. R. Ferrari et al.

(completing psychometric scales and then the checklist). None of the participants
perceived any association between experiences.
Results
All the 61 persons who first completed the psychometric scales agreed to participate in
the second data collection procedure. To assess individual differences in timetask
preferences, participants were categorized into trait procrastinators and
nonprocrastinators based on extreme scores on both the cognitive (decisional) and
behavioral procrastination scales (see Ferrari et al., 1995, for the detailed rationale of
this procedure). Based on the group mean for the decisional (M=12.7, SD=2.1) and
behavioral (M=37.3, SD=10.1) scales, individuals who scored greater than or equal to
one standard deviation above the mean on both inventories were classified as
`procrastinators' (n=13; seven men, six women). Individuals who scored less than or
equal to one standard deviation below both procrastination inventory mean scores
were classified as `nonprocrastinators' (n=13; five men, eight women). There was no
significant gender difference in the number of trait procrastinators and nonprocrastinators nor on their mean scores for either procrastination measure.
Classification by this methodology has been used frequently in previous studies (e.g.
Ferrari, 1991b; Ferrari and Emmons, 1995), and the lack of a significant gender
difference in procrastination has been replicated consistently (cf. Ferrari et al., 1995;
Harriott and Ferrari, 1996). Therefore, no further gender comparisons were preformed.
A t-test for independent samples was performed between trait procrastinators and
nonprocrastinators on their preference for day or night activities. Trait procrastinators self-reported that they were more night persons (M=4.15, SD=2.46),
while nonprocrastinators claimed to be more day persons (M=7.32, SD=2.20),
t(24)=72.18, p<0.04. Furthermore, chi-squared analyses were performed on the
time interval (morning, afternoon, or evening) trait procrastinators and nonprocrastinators preferred to perform each of the eight pleasurable activities. There
was no significant difference between procrastinators and nonprocrastinators in
choice of time interval preferred when engaging in the activities. Activities then were
combined into `social' (shopping, eating out, seeing movie with a friend, time with a
friend, and playing a sport with friends) or `alone' (reading, exercising, working on a
hobby). Again, there was no significant difference between trait procrastinators and
nonprocrastinators for when they preferred to engage in social or alone activities.
Discussion
Trait procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators indicated they are more `night
persons', individuals who prefer activities later in the day and in the evening rather
than in the morning. However, when asked to state the daily time interval for when
they preferred to engage in a set of enjoyable activities, trait procrastinators and
nonprocrastinators did not differ significantly in their preference. Additionally, there
was no significant individual difference in preference of time interval for social or
alone activities.
The issue remains: if trait procrastinators are night persons then what activities do
they prefer to do at night? This first study failed to answer that question. Perhaps
study 1 suffered from methodological limitations, since a small sample of activities
EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Temporal preference of procrastinators

191

were used from which to choose time interval preferences. These activities also were
judged pleasurable among young adults other than participants in study 1 (see
Burger, 1992). Personality researchers have noted that ideographic information may
be more appropriate in assessing individual differences than nomothetically derived
stimuli (see e.g. Krahe, 1992; Pervin, 1996). Also, it is possible that trait
procrastinators and nonprocrastinators may not differ significantly in when they
prefer to engage in enjoyable activities, but they may differ in when they prefer to
perform perceived aversive activities. In addition, it is possible that procrastinators
were responding in a socially desirable manner, publicly stating that they prefer
activities at any time of the day. Related to this possibility, procrastinators may say
that they prefer to do activities in the evening but may actually find that they do
those activities at any time of the day. It is also possible that, theoretically, trait
procrastinators may believe that they are night persons because they postpone daily
activities. However, when those activities finally are completed this may occur that
evening or the following morning, thereby reflecting no specific time interval for the
activity.
Given all these limitations, a second study was performed that instructed participants to record logs or diaries of their daily activities across a week. Participants
were to record activities that occurred each day and when these activities occurred, in
the morning (am) or evening (pm). Also, participants completed a measure of social
desirability, as a `control' procedure to assess whether they had a need for social
approval in responding. Participants were not categorized into extreme high or low
procrastinators, thereby reducing the sample size. Instead, all participants were
included and separate (partial-regression) analyses for cognitive (decisional) and
behavioral procrastination types were performed. Study 2, then, provided an
ideographic profile of when procrastinators performed activities, whether those
activities were perceived as enjoyable, and whether they were performed either alone
or with others.
STUDY 2
Method
Participants
Young adults, enrolled in an upper division social psychology course (N=58; 40
women, 18 men; age, M=21.7 years, SD=2.5 years) at the same U. S. midwestern,
private university as persons in study 1, were asked to participate in the present study
for extra course credit. Most participants were single (96%), Caucasian (68%), and
either juniors or seniors (69.2%). None of these individuals had participated in
study 1.
Procedure
During the second week of class, students were asked to complete a set of
psychometric research inventories and demographic items for extra credit. After
signing and dating a consent form, participants completed demographic items
(gender, age, marital status, race, and educational class) and then Mann's (1982)
& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

192

J. R. Ferrari et al.

Decisional Procrastination Scale and the Adult Inventory of Procrastination of

McCown and Johnson (1989), both discussed in study 1. With the present sample,
the alpha coefficients for these scales were 0.82 and 0.84, respectively. Also,
participants completed the Social Desirability Scale of Crowne and Marlowe (1960),
a 33-item truefalse inventory. This well established, reliable, and valid scale assesses
a person's desire to be liked by others, with high scores indicating a greater need for
social desirability. The scale has an internal consistency of 0.88, retest reliability of
0.89 (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960), and with the present sample, a coefficient alpha
of 0.86. It took participants approximately 25 minutes to complete the scales and
items.
Approximately two weeks after completing the inventories, participants were
asked to participate for extra class credit in a diary study for the next six days.
Because this was a social psychology class, students were asked to record each of
their activities throughout the day that were at least ten minutes in length. The diary
procedure used in this study was a modification of the `Rochester Interaction
Record' (Reis and Wheeler, 1991), in which persons recorded activities or
interactions (lasting at least ten minutes) each day at mid-day and at night just
before going to bed. Each diary entry requested participants to state the day (from 1
to 6), number of minutes for the event, whether the event occurred in the morning
(before 12 o'clock noon) or evening (after noon until bedtime), and the number of
other people and their gender at that event. Also, participants were instructed to
indicate whether the interaction took place at school, work, home, hobby or pastime,
or other situation. In addition, participants were asked to rate each diary entry in
terms of enjoyableness on nine-point scales (1, very unenjoyable; 9, very enjoyable).
At a brief follow-up session, participants were asked anonymously to indicate
how long (in minutes) it took them to record a diary entry, and with nine-point scales
(1, low; 9, high), how accurate they believed they were in keeping a diary and how
inconvenient it was to record daily diaries. After returning this information
participants were asked what they thought the study was about, and by show of
hand and discussion whether they suspected any connection between the psychometric and diary studies.
Results
Manipulation checks
Among the adults, 75.9% of the 61 individuals agreed to participate by signing and
dating a consent form and then actually completed each day's diary. To assess
whether the 44 participants (31 women, 13 men; age, M=20.1 years, SD=1.5 years)
were significantly different from the 14 persons (ten women, four men; age, M=20.3
years, SD=1.1 years) who either decided not to participate or did not complete the
study, t-tests for independent samples were performed between participants and
nonparticipants on mean scores for the three self-report scales. There were no
significant differences between these two groups on decisional and behavioral
procrastination nor the social desirability inventories.
As in study 1, there were no significant gender differences among participants'
mean scores on either procrastination measure. Across all participants, however,
decisional procrastination scores (M=11.4, SD=2.4) were significantly related with
EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Temporal preference of procrastinators

193

behavioral procrastination scores (M=32.8, SD=9.4), r=0.66, p<0.001. In

contrast, social desirability scores were not significantly correlated with decisional
procrastination (r=0.15) or behavioral procrastination (r=0.06) scale scores. Social
desirability scale scores also were not significantly related to length of time to record
a diary (r=0.09), perceived accuracy in daily records (r=0.11), or level of inconvenience to record their diary on a daily basis (r=0.16). At debriefing, no
participant reported that they perceived a connection between the psychometric
scales they completed two weeks earlier and the diary procedure.
Activity analyses
On average, participants recorded five daily activities (SD=4.1) with an average
length of 22.2 minutes for each event (SD=7.4). They considered their activities,
overall, to be neither strongly aversive or pleasurable (M=4.7, SD=2.1). In order to
assess both decisional and behavioral types of procrastination, a regression analysis
between procrastination scores and timetask variables was performed. Given the
small sample size of participants, this procedure permitted a higher statistical power
than ANOVA procedures.
Partial correlates were performed separately for decisional procrastination
(controlling for behavioral procrastination), and behavioral procrastination
(controlling for decisional procrastination), since these variables were strongly
associated. `Decisional-proneness' and `behavioral-proneness' procrastination then
were correlated with the total number of activities, number of am and pm activities,
number of males and females present at these activities, length of time (min) per
activity, enjoyableness ratings of activities, the number of activities performed at
different locations (home, school, or work), and the total number of activities
performed either alone or with others.
Proneness toward decisional procrastination was not significantly related to the
total number of activities, am activities, pm activities, men present, women present,
nor task enjoyableness. However, there was a significant negative relation between
decisional procrastination proneness and length of time per activities, r=70.41,
p<0.05. Participants reported that the more they were indecisive, the shorter time
they spent on activities.
Proneness toward behavioral procrastination also was not significantly related to
the number of activities, am preference, females present, length of activity, or task
enjoyableness. Behavioral procrastination scores, however, were significantly
positively related to the number of pm activities, r=0.47, p<0.01, but negatively
related to the number of men present, r=70.43, p<0.03. Participants claimed that
the more often they delayed tasks the more often they engaged in activities during
the night, and men were less often to be present when they performed activities.
There were no significant partial correlates between decisional and behavioral
procrastination and the number of activities recorded at different locations
performed either alone or with others.
Discussion
The main purpose of this second study was to ascertain whether types of
procrastination (decisional and behavioral) were associated with activities
& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

194

J. R. Ferrari et al.

performed during the day or night. Although there was no significant relation with
the total number of interactions, proneness toward behavioral (but not decisional)
procrastination was related to afternoonnight activities, and activities were less
likely to be associated with men. These results support study 1 in that trait
procrastination may be related to being a `night person'.
Interestingly, both types of procrastination were not significantly related to the
length of activity time, whether activities occurred in different situations (e.g. work
or home), and ratings of pleasure on the activities. It should be noted that these
results occurred independent of a preference for social desirability, and were claimed
to be relatively accurate reports requiring little time to complete. As in study 1,
however, it appears that frequent (behavioral) procrastination tendencies were
associated with the evening time of the day.

CONCLUSIONS
Across both studies, it seemed that trait procrastination might be related to being a
`night person' with a tendency to do most activities during the afternoon and/or
evening. However, the number of interactions and their perceived satisfaction (i.e.
enjoyment) was not significantly related to procrastination. These result occurred
despite the fact that a number of other studies report that the profile and
performance of individuals who report chronic task delays seemed maladaptive and
self-sabotaging (Ferrari et al., 1995). The present studies raised the notion that
frequent procrastinators may not have strikingly different activities than
nonprocrastinators, they just chose to have them later in the day.
It is difficult to determine why asking participants in study 2 to keep a running
record of their actual activities (thereby permitting a more ideographic profile of
experiences) did not produce markedly different details in time-preference data than
those obtained in study 1 (where participants simply responded to nomothetically
derived categories). It is unlikely that social desirability affected reporting, because in
study 2 it was not significantly related to decisional or behavioral procrastination
scores. Separating data-collection phases in both studies (i.e. self-reports on psychometric scales followed by activity ratings or diaries two weeks later) controlled for
any context effects or demand characteristics in the methodological procedures
(Council, 1993); and no carry over effects were found. The selection of participants
in study 1 based on extreme scores from cognitive and behavioral procrastination
scales has been effectively used in other studies (e.g. Ferrari, 1991a; b; 1994; Ferrari
and Emmons, 1995).
However, requesting participants in study 2 to record diaries for only six days may
have limited the opportunity for significant individual differences to emerge. It also
is possible that the small sample sizes in both studies 1 and 2 may have limited the
generalizability of these data. Clearly, future studies are needed to assess whether
methodological factors affected the results of both present studies, or whether these
results truly reflect procrastination and time preferences for activities. In any case,
these present exploratory studies suggest that trait procrastinators tend to perform
more activities in the evening.
EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Temporal preference of procrastinators

195

REFERENCES
Berzonsky, M. D. and Ferrari, J. R. (1996). `Identity orientation and decisional strategies',
Personality and Individual Dierences, 220: 597606.
Burger, J. M. (1992). Desire for Control, Plenum, New York.
Burka, J. B. and Yuen, L.M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it and what to do about it,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Burnett, P. C. (1991). `Decision-making style and self-concept', Australian Psychologist, 24:
5558.
Burnett, P. C., Mann, L. and Beswick, G. (1989). `Validation of the Flinders Decision Making
Questionnaire on course decision making by students', Australian Psychologist, 24: 285292.
Council, J. (1993). `Contextual eects in personality research', Current Directions in
Psychology, 2: 3134.
Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. (1960). `A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology', Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24: 349354.
Eert, B. R. and Ferrari, J. R. (1989). `Decisional procrastination: examining personality
correlates', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4: 151156.
Ellis, A. and Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination, Institute for Rational Living,
New York.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991a). `Compulsive procrastination: some self-reported personality
characteristics', Psychological Reports, 68: 455458.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991b). `Self-handicapping by procrastinators: protecting self-esteem, socialesteem, or both?', Journal of Research in Personality, 25: 245261.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991c). `A preference for a favorable public impression by procrastinators:
selecting among cognitive and social tasks', Personality and Individual Dierences, 12:
12331237.
Ferrari, J. R. (1991d). `Procrastination and project creation: choosing easy, non-diagnostic
items to avoid self-relevant information', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6:
619628.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). `Procrastination in the workplace: attributions for failure among
individuals with similar behavioral tendencies', Personality and Individual Dierences, 13:
315319.
Ferrari, J. R. (1993). `Procrastination and impulsivity: two sides of a coin?'. In: McCown, W.,
Shure, M.B. and Johnson, J. (Eds), The impulsive client: Theory, research, and treatment,
pp. 265276, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Ferrari, J. R. (1994). `Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem,
interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors', Personality and Individual
Dierences, 15: 673679.
Ferrari, J. R., and Emmons, R. A. (1995), `Methods of procrastination and their relation to
self-control and self-reinforcement', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10: 135142.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and McCown, W. (1995), Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment, Plenum, New York.
Ferrari, J. R. and Mautz, W. T. (1997), `Predicting perfectionism: applying tests of behavioral
rigidity', Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53: 16.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R. and Martin, T. R. (1995), `Procrastination, negative selfevaluation, and stress in depression and anxiety'. In: Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and
McCown, W. (Eds), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment,
pp. 137167, Plenum, New York.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L. and Martin, T. R. (1995). `Dimensions of perfectionism and
procrastination'. In: Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and McCown, W. (Eds), Procrastination
and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment, pp. 113136, Plenum, New York.
Harriott, J. and Ferrari, J. R. (1996), `Prevalence of chronic procrastination among samples of
adults', Psychological Reports, 78, 611616.
Harriott, J., Ferrari, J. R. and Dovidio, J. F. (1996), `Distractibility, daydreaming, and selfcritical cognitions as determinants of indecision', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
11: 337344.
& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

196

J. R. Ferrari et al.

Janis, I. L. and Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conict, choice,
and commitment, Free Press, New York.
Krahe, B. (1992). Personality and social psychology: Towards a synthesis, Sage, London.
Lay, C. H. (1988). `The relation of procrastination and optimism to judgements of time to
complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
3: 201214.
Lay, C. H. (1995). `Trait procrastination, agitation, dejection, and self-discrepancy'. In:
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and McCown, W. (Eds), Procrastination and task avoidance:
Theory, research, and treatment, pp. 97112, Plenum, New York.
Lay, C. H. and Burns, P. (1991). `Intentions and behavior in studying for an examination: the
role of trait procrastination and its interaction with optimism', Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 6: 605617.
Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. and Endler, N. S. (1989). `An assessment of
appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period', European
Journal of Personality, 3: 195208.
Mann, L. (1995), `Decision-making Questionnaire'. In: Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L. and
McCown, W. (Eds), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment,
pp. 62, Plenum, New York.
McCown, W. and Johnson, J. (1989). `Adult Inventory of Procrastination'. In: Ferrari, J. R.,
Johnson, J. L. and McCown, W. (Eds), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory,
research, and treatment, pp. 64, Plenum, New York.
Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality, Wiley, New York.
Wallace, B. (1993). `Day persons, night persons, and variability in hypnotic susceptibility',
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 827833.
Wallace, B., Turosky, D. D. and Kokoszka, A. (1992). `Variability in the assessment of
imagery vividness', Journal of Mental Imagery, 16: 221230.
Reis, H. T. and Wheeler, L. (1991). `Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction
Record', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24: 269318.

EUR. J. PERS., VOL. 11: 187196 (1997)

& 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.