Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 14011418

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

A meta-analytically derived nomological network

of procrastination
Wendelien van Eerde*
Faculty of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology,
PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands

Received 7 February 2002; received in revised form 3 September 2002; accepted 6 November 2002

Abstract
This meta-analysis contains the correlations of 121 studies examining the relation between procrastina-
tion and personality variables, motives, aect, and performance. The largest negative eect sizes were
found in relation to conscientiousness and self-ecacy, and the largest positive relation was found with
self-handicapping. Aect was moderately related, as well as performance outcomes, and motives were
weakly correlated. Many of the eect size categories were heterogeneous, indicating that moderators may
play a role. However, the majority of studies did not account for moderators. It is argued that this is a
serious shortcoming and that a dierent type of research is needed to study procrastination in a meaningful
way.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Procrastination; Meta-analysis

1. Introduction

This article aims to assess the phenomenon of procrastination systematically by integrating the
results of previous studies in a meta-analysis. Based upon this analysis, an overview will be given
of the current knowledge in the area, and suggestions for future research will be presented. Most
of the research on procrastination is not driven by a commonly shared theory. The aim would be
to address the processes that play a role in procrastination, and it would imply a shift in focus in
the research, from a strict individual dierences to a broader view on intra-individual processes
and social context. Also, a second, further removed and perhaps more idealistic aim, is to even-
tually disprove some of the claims as presented in self-help books in the popular literature that
essentially stress the problematic nature of procrastination.

* Tel.: +31-40-247-2023; fax: +31-40-243-7161.

E-mail address: w.v.eerde@tm.tue.nl (W. van Eerde).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(02)00358-6
1402 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

1.1. Procrastination as a trait

Procrastination has typically been dened as a trait or behavioural disposition to postpone or

delay performing a task or making decisions (Milgram, Mey-Tal, & Levison, 1998). Dening
procrastination is problematic in the sense that it is an intra-individual process that is regulated
by internal norms of delay. To others, delay may or may not appear to be procrastination (cf. Mil-
gram, Srolo, & Rosenbaum, 1988), depending on their own norms and attributions. Delay can be
purposely planned, and it can be a wise strategy. However, procrastination can be distinguished from
planning because the delay is not purposely planned, but rather postponing the implementation of
what was planned. Everyone may procrastinate at some occasion, but the trait denition appears to
indicate that the individual delays actions or decisions whether it is appropriate to a particular sit-
uation or not. Why would an individual have this tendency? It appears to be the inability to delay
gratication, also called the lack of impulse control. Impulse control is the ability to give up short-
term outcomesusually seen as more pleasantfor long-term outcomes. Mischel and colleagues
(e.g. Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988) showed the positive eects of impulse control over many years
(for an example relating self-control to procrastination see also Ferrari & Emmons, 1995).
In an historical overview of procrastination (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995) it was noted
that the Latin verb procrastinare, meaning putting forward until tomorrow, did not have
negative connotation until the mid-18th century, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
To this day, procrastination has moral connotations (Sabini & Silver, 1982); it implies not living
up to others or ones own obligations, which can lead to feelings of guilt. In general, it is seen as
a dysfunctional habit, with psychological consequences such as experienced guilt or negative
aective well-being, and a decrease in performance outcomes, and social consequences such as an
image of undependability. This moral connotation may be part of, or may in fact be, the problem
experienced. In other cultures, not as inuenced by a protestant work ethic, characterized by a
dierent pace of life (cf. Levine & Norenzayan, 1999), there may not be a problem. But in an
achievement oriented society, where individuals are expected to meet obligations within a certain
time span, procrastination may be a serious problem, as demonstrated by the number of books
and programs related to help individuals to stop procrastinating, notably in the United States.

1.2. Previous studies on procrastination

With the exception of a few studies, research on procrastination has been performed in these
cultures that stress the undesirability of procrastination. Another limitation of most previous
studies is that, due to the intra-individual nature of procrastination, it is measured through self-
reports. Although reports from others could be used, assuming that others would know whether
the behaviour was purposely delayed or not, this has not been done often. However, several
validated self-report scales are in existence (see Ferrari et al., 1995, for an overview and items).
Dierences in operationalisation can be observed, with a focus on procrastination measured as
postponing actions, i.e. behavioural procrastination, for example the General Procrastination
Scale (Lay, 1986), a 20-item scale with items such as I usually buy even an essential item at the
last minute, or the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (McCown & Johnson, 1989 in Ferrari et
al., 1995). Another scale emphasizes postponing decisions, i.e., decisional procrastination, as a
subscale of decisions making styles (Mann et al., 1998), a 5-item subscale with items such as I
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1403

waste a lot of time on trivial matters before getting to the nal decision. Other authors focus on
the domain in which it is assessed, i.e. general procrastination, academic procrastination, and
procrastination in daily life (e.g. Milgram et al., 1998).
These scales aim to assess the tendency to postpone actions or decisions, from an individual
dierence perspective. That is, dierences between individuals are assessed with respect to this
tendency or trait, and most studies compare procrastinators versus nonprocrastinators, using a
median split on the self-report scale. Most studies have been conducted using a cross-sectional
correlational design, and some involved the measurement of the variables at several occasions,
such as class sessions.
The focus has been on individual dierences, rather than task or context. Although procrasti-
nation as a behaviour may be seen as an outcome of several processes, determined by personality,
motives, task, and context as antecedents, procrastination has been studied as an independent
trait variable, and the relations with other traits, motives, aect, and performance have been
assessed concurrently or at a later point in time. These relations will be discussed below.

1.3. Demographics and cognitive ability

One may assume that characteristics such as age, gender or education may have an impact on
procrastination, due to dierent values or experiences within a subpopulation. There may be
dierent values or attributional processes that play a role for men or women. Regarding age, it is
possible that individuals may overcome their procrastination tendency as they grow older. Or
conversely, one may argue that a habit becomes stronger and more dicult to change over time.
Cognitive ability may perhaps play a role, in that tasks are simply too dicult to perform are post-
poned because of it. Or assuming that both cognitive ability would enhance on-task attention and
procrastination implies o-task attention, this would assume a negative relation between cognitive
ability and procrastination. In previous research, intellectual capacity and ability tests, such as the
Scholastic Aptitude Test, used as a college entrance criterion, have been related to procrastination.

1.4. Personality

One of the questions that this review addresses is to what extent procrastination is related to
other personality traits. Do people who have a tendency to procrastinate dier on other traits
from those who report they do not?
In previous research, several claims have been made with respect to the personality of those who
report procrastination: rst, they are low on conscientiousness, and second, high on neuroticism
(see for a meta-analysis on the complete Big Five Model of Personality, Van Eerde, in press). For
similar reasons as neuroticism, trait anxiety has also been assessed as related to procrastination.
Pessimism, implying low generalized expectancies, would also be related to procrastination.

1.5. Self-image

In much research, it is assumed that procrastination is related to low self-esteem, either as a

determinant or a consequence. Self-ecacy, the extent to which one is condent that a certain
task can be successfully accomplished, is also assumed to be negatively related to procrastination.
1404 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

1.6. Motives

Fear of failure and perfectionism have been proposed as motives to avoid certain tasks. In other
words, procrastinators do not want to be confronted with negative feedback on their perfor-
mance. This may even result in so-called self-handicapping, the creation of impediments to suc-
cessful performance (cf. Urdan & Midgley, 2001). That is, procrastination is helpful to create the
idea that one could have done better, if only one had started earlier. Now, performing worse can
be attributed to the delay and not to ones own ability, a so-called ego-defensive strategy.

1.7. Aect

How is procrastination related to aect? Not all individuals appear to be concerned about their
procrastination, but some may realize they have not adhered to their obligation. Attributions of
the procrastination and resulting time pressure will play a role in the experience of outcomes, that
is, when the time pressure is seen as exceeding ones resources, and is self-attributed, it may
increase feelings of guilt, anxiety, and depression. When the time pressure is still seen as man-
ageable, and if it can be attributed to sources outside oneself, negative psychological outcomes
need not occur. Time pressure may even lead to positive outcomes, such as increased stimulation,
especially for tasks that are experienced as boring (Freedman & Edwards, 1988).
In previous research, procrastination has been viewed as a dysfunctional tendency only, and it
has been examined in combination with low aective well-being, in particular anxiety and
depression, which was also a claim in the case of neuroticism, which includes both. Although
these two variables are just as likely to be antecedents as outcomes of procrastinationwhen
depressed or anxious, one procrastinates, or procrastination leads to depression or anxietythere
is no indication from previous studies whether to consider them as antecedents or consequences.

1.8. Performance

As procrastination is dened as postponing or delay on performing a task or decision, it can be

assumed to inuence performance, as the time pressure caused by the delay can decrease punc-
tuality or accuracy. Not only task performance, but broader functioning may be aected by
procrastination as well, depending on the task or context (see Van Eerde, 2000). However, there
may be positive eects of delay, whether it was purposely or not, for example, more information
or thinking can improve the quality of a decision. One of the important moderators can be
assumed to be the diculty of the task. Increasing time pressure in dicult tasks is likely to lead
to decreased quality and/or punctuality, but time pressure in performing easy tasks may lead to
increased eciency. Here it may be important to consider how general someones tendency to
procrastinate is. Whereas procrastinating occasionally in a particular context may not be dys-
functional, performance may be aected negatively when procrastination is so general that it
occurs with any task.
Most studies in the literature are concerned with academic procrastination of students, i.e.
related to studying and behaviour in school or university. The performance measures included
grades, grade point average, missing deadlines, the time spent on preparing a task, and complet-
ing tasks, such as assignments.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1405

Summarizing, the aim of this meta-analysis is to systematically assess and integrate the research
on procrastination. The variables included are classied as personality; self-image; motives; aect;
and performance.

2. Method

2.1. Study selection

A search for empirical studies on procrastination was conducted, using PsycLIT of the Amer-
ican Psychological Association, limiting the search by using procrastination in the key phrase
or descriptor elds, and limiting publication type by empirical studies, in order to nd the studies
in which procrastination was actually measured. This search resulted in 104 articles. Also, this
computer search was supplemented by a so-called ancestry approach: articles were traced by
references, and where possible obtained. Retrieved studies were included in the meta-analysis if
they met the following three criteria:

1. A self-report scale of procrastination was used. This selection criterion was chosen to
increase the probability that procrastination was assessed in a valid way. Practically, this
limited the studies to those conducted after 1982, after which scales were used to measure
procrastination.
2. An eect size could be found in the article that indicated the direct relation between
procrastination and the variable. When a relation was called nonsignicant in the article,
a conservative estimation, an eect size of zero, was included.
3. Independent subgroups reported within an article were analysed separately. If more than
one eect size pertaining to an eect category was available, the more encompassing cri-
terion was chosen (e.g. overall course grade, rather than grades for each part of a course). If
several eect sizes applying to the same eect category were available, then these were
averaged (via a Fishers z transformation) before inclusion.

2.2. Variables

The eect sizes were correlations, or other indicators of eects (F, t, w2) transformed to corre-
lations (see Mullen, 1989). The eect sizes were grouped into six main categories containing the
correlations between procrastination and:

1. Demographics and cognitive ability, i.e. age; gender; scores on intellectual ability tests; and
scores on the Scholastic Aptitudes Test.
2. Personality variables: correlations between scores on a procrastination self-report scale
with self-reports of other traits (a) conscientiousness; (b) neuroticism (c) trait anxiety; and
(d) pessimism.
3. Self-image, including (a) self-esteem and (b) self-ecacy.
4. Motives: (a) fear of failure; (b) perfectionism; and (c) self-handicapping.
1406 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

5. Aect: (a) state anxiety, including test anxiety and agitation; (b) depression, including
dejection.
6. Performance: self-reports or independent measures of (a) whether a deadline was missed or
not; (b) how much time was spent on preparing a task; (c) how much time was spent on
performing a task, such as an assignment; (d) grades obtained in a specic course; and (e)
grade point average.

2.3. Integration of eect sizes

The Rosenthal (1978, 1991) meta-analytic procedures were used to compare and combine
the eect sizes (for a comparison with two other meta-analytic approaches, see Johnson,
Mullen, & Salas, 1995). The correlations were transformed to Fishers zs and multiplied by
their degrees of freedom (n
3). These weighted Fishers zs were summed across studies within
each eect category and divided by the total degrees of freedom in the category to obtain the
average weighted Fishers z of each eect category. This Fishers z was transformed back into
r to obtain the weighted mean correlation for the eect category, and 95% condence inter-
vals were computed for the weighted means. Subsequently, the w2 for homogeneity of results
was computed within each eect category (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991) to estab-
lish whether the ndings can be interpreted as belonging to the same population of eect
sizes.

3. Results

After examination of the articles, the selection described above resulted in 88 articles, given in
the Appendix, from which I retrieved the eect sizes of 121 independent samples, with a total of
18,196 subjects. Sample sizes in the studies ranged from 32 to 618, with an average of 172. The
percentage of women in the samples ranged between 0 and 100%, with an average of 84%, indi-
cating that women were overrepresented in the studies.
The total range of ages in the samples ran from 16 to 43. In 60 samples, the age of the samples
was reported as mean or median. Averaging these statistics in the 60 samples resulted in a mean
age of 23, which indicates that the participants were relatively young.
The type of participants was recorded, to obtain an impression of their identity: 60 samples
consisted of college psychology students; 29 were identied as college students with other majors
than psychology; seven of the samples included (high) school children; six contained non-student
adults; and in three samples the identity was not reported.
Many studies only mentioned one eect size, so that many of the categories contained
few correlations. The number of studies (k), total sample size per category, the average
results of each category weighted by the degrees of freedom of the total sample size in that
category, the 95% condence interval around the average, and the homogeneity of the
ndings, tested using a w2 test, are presented in Table 1. The eect sizes can be considered
to be signicantly dierent from zero when the condence interval does not include the
zero.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1407

Table 1
Average eect sizes

Number of Sample Average 95% Condence w2(k
1)

studies k total n weighted r interval

Demographic/ability
Age 11 2929
0.06
0.10 to
0.02 27.99***
Gender 54 10,948
0.05
0.05 to
0.05 90.98***
Intellectual Ability 4 678 0.00
0.08 to 0.08 0.80
Scholastic Aptitude Test 4 476 0.10 0.01 to 0.19 3.38

Personality
Conscientiousness 10 2496
0.63
0.67 to
0.59 46.34***
Neuroticism 10 2590 0.26 0.22 to 0.30 35.20***
Trait Anxiety 10 2271 0.24 0.20 to 0.28 23.01**
Pessimism 5 1027 0.19 0.13 to 0.25 33.87***

Self-image
Self Esteem 21 3683
0.28
0.31 to
0.25 48.66***
Self-Ecacy 11 2882
0.44
0.47 to
0.41 55.09***

Motives
Fear of Failure 5 1541 0.18 0.13 to 0.23 7.12
Perfectionism 7 1064 0.12 0.06 to 0.18 31.74***
Self-Handicapping 7 1262 0.46 0.41 to 0.51 19.06

Aect
State Anxiety 19 3730 0.22 0.19 to 0.25 46.94***
Depression 11 2245 0.30 0.26 to 0.33 12.22

Performance
Missing Deadline 10 848 0.29 0.23 to 0.35 4.59
Task Preparation Time 5 596
0.20
0.28 to
0.12 4.73
Task Completion Time 4 300 0.06
0.05 to 0.17 15.19**
Task Delay 22 3736 0.35 0.32 to 0.37 117.05***
Course Grade 15 2303
0.17
0.21 to
0.13 51.95***
Grade Point Average 9 1522
0.28
0.33 to
0.23 26.35***

Gender: men=0; women =1.

** P< 0.01.
*** P< 0.001.

3.1. Demographic/cognitive ability antecedents

Age was negatively related to procrastination, that is, procrastinators are somewhat more likely
to be found in a younger age group. Also, gender was related to procrastination: it is slightly less
likely to nd female procrastinators than male. As this is contrary to what most of the individual
studies report, I took a closer look at the results. After leaving out the studies that only report
nonsignicant results of gender, there appears to be a bias in the data: instead of always reporting
an eect size, these were only reported for larger samples, most probably when gender dierences
1408 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

were signicant (eect sizes reported k=25, n=247 vs. eect sizes reported as nonsignicant
k=28, n =160; t(35.60)=2.62, P<0.05). This means that the eect size in this meta-analysis
is a very conservative one, considering that over half of the number of studies reported
nonsignicant gender dierences. However, the nonsignicance may only have been due to
the lack of power in the smaller samples. Leaving the studies out that report nonsignicant
gender dierences leads to an eect size of almost double magnitude [r=
0.09, w2(1,
24)=68.5, P<0.001]. Note that both the age and gender categories were heterogeneous
according to the w2 test, indicating that it is possible that other variables may explain the
variation in eect sizes.
Convincingly, intellectual ability was not related to procrastination, as the condence interval
included the zero. The scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test were positively related to procras-
tination, but with a small eect size (r=0.10).

3.2. Traits

The largest average eect size was found for conscientiousness (r=
0.63). Neuroticism
showed an eect size of a moderate magnitude, and the eect size indicating the relation with
trait anxiety was of a similar magnitude (r=0.24). Pessimism had only a small relation to
procrastination.

3.3. Self-image

Self-image appears to be an important variable in relation to procrastination, resulting in eect

sizes for self esteem (r=
0.28) and self-ecacy (r=
0.44).

3.4. Motives

The eect sizes of fear of failure and perfectionism were small. Note that the eect sizes for fear
of failure were homogeneous. The self-handicapping motive appears to be more important,
showing an average correlation with procrastination of r=0.46.

3.5. Aect

Both state anxiety and depression were moderately related to procrastination. Depression was
found to be consistently related in all 11 studies, whereas the relation between anxiety and pro-
crastination appears to be moderated, as indicated by the high w2 value.

3.6. Performance

The eect categories missing a deadline (r=0.29) and task preparation (r=
0.20)
were homogeneous, suggesting a direct relation between procrastination and these variables.
The grades were negatively and moderately related to procrastination, and the time needed
to complete a task was not, as indicated by the inclusion of the zero in the condence
interval.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1409

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis provided a nomological network for the construct procrastination, by sys-
tematically relating age and gender, intellectual ability, personality variables, motives, aect, and
performance to procrastination. The largest average correlations were found of procrastination
with the personality factor conscientiousness (negative), self-ecacy (negative), and self-handi-
capping. How should these results be interpreted? The very large eect size indicating the negative
relation between conscientiousness and procrastination leads to doubts whether procrastination
can be distinguished from conscientiousness. Looking at the facets of conscientiousness, self-dis-
cipline has been shown to have the highest negative correlation with procrastination (e.g. Johnson
& Bloom, 1995, p. 130, r=
0.75), and this correlation is just as high as was found for the facet
self-discipline and the total scale of conscientiousness (e.g. Grin & Hesketh, 2001, r=0.76). This
would be an argument to consider procrastination a facet of conscientiousness, and to measure
self-discipline, rather than procrastination, as an individual dierence variable.
Self-ecacy and self-handicapping were suggested to be indicative of the tendency to avoid
negative performance feedback. However, this idea was not conrmed by the results for fear of
failure and perfectionism, which would also relate to this tendency, but for which much lower
eect sizes were found. Thus, procrastination appears be related to a higher extent to ones self-
image than to the threat of receiving negative performance feedback. However, the larger eect
size for self-handicapping may also be the result of the artefact that the constructs self-handi-
capping and procrastination overlap considerably. Conceptually, procrastination has been
dened as one of the ways to self-handicap (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). And empirically, a recent
study (Ross, Canada, & Rauss, 2002) also demonstrated the similarity between procrastination
and self-handicapping in relation to the Big Five Model of Personality.
Another nding in this meta-analysis is that it is more likely that younger rather than older people
procrastinate, even within this restricted sample of a majority of college students. It may indicate that
one learns to procrastinate less, or that students who did not improve may have dropped out of col-
lege. Also, contrary to the individual studies, these results indicate that it is slightly more likely that
men procrastinate more than women, even within this sample with a majority of women. Still, this is
a small eect size, and a heterogeneous one, but it indicates a signicant dierence between the sexes.
Considering that the majority of categories of the eect sizes in this meta-analysis is hetero-
geneous, the search for moderators is important. Some of the possible moderators that need to be
investigated are task characteristics, especially the dierence between tasks that are too challen-
ging or not challenging enough. Theoretically, the relation between procrastination and perfor-
mance should be moderated by ability, and task characteristics such as autonomy, diculty, and
the degree to which one should be exible and adaptable (see also Grin & Hesketh, 2001, for
these arguments relating to conscientiousness). Delay should not have the same eect on all per-
formance measures, and that is indeed what the results of this analysis demonstrate. That is,
missing a deadline and using less time to prepare are directly related to procrastination, but
completing a task has no relation with procrastination, and the other performance categories
were heterogeneous, indicating that other moderating factors may play a role. Dierent courses
with dierent requirements may aect the relation.
The extent to which performance outcomes are aected should theoretically be (partly) medi-
ated by the degree of dysfunctional psychological outcomes. That is, if individuals are concerned
1410 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

with the fact that they procrastinated, they may not give full attention to the task, possibly
aecting performance negatively. As not everyone is equally aected emotionally by procrasti-
nation (cf. Milgram & Naaman, 1996), those who are not aected should not be performing
worse.
One of the limitations is that the performance measures were necessarily restricted to student
performance. In other contexts, the results may be dierent. This calls for research on a wider
range of behaviours. The inuence of procrastination on some everyday behaviours have been
studied, such as returning surveys (Ferrari, 1992), or cashing in gift certicates (Ferrari, 1993).
But there are no studies that related procrastination to work performance.
Another limitation may be the scales used in some of the research that may have confounded
procrastination with the feelings about procrastination, such as the Procrastination Assessment
Scale for Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) in particular (cf. Milgram & Naaman, 1996), so
that the correlations of procrastination with aect may be somewhat inated (see van Eerde, in
press).
The nonexperimental designs do not allow a conclusion as to whether procrastination is pre-
ceded or followed by, confounded with, or spuriously correlated with, a certain variable. A more
general limitation involves the use of self-reports. If one admits to doing these so-called irrational
things, perhaps admitting to procrastination is more likely. In most of the studies included,
common method bias may have caused the correlations to be inated. These limitations may have
been reected in the eect sizes between procrastination and neuroticism, trait anxiety, and state
anxiety, which are highly similar in magnitude.
The research in this review has been conducted from a dispositional point of view, and the
interaction with situational or other important variables could not be assessed. It is unclear to
what extent the eect sizes may generalize to tasks other than studying and to other populations
than students. As stated before in the model, the psychologically relevant dimensions of situa-
tions that trigger procrastination should be studied. Some authors addressed this issue by
exploring the dimensions relevant to task perception, in particular task aversiveness (e.g. Blunt &
Pychyl, 2000; Lay, 1992; Milgram, Marchevsky, & Sadeh, 1995), but these studies are the excep-
tion rather than the rule, and there are not enough to combine meta-analytically.
Overall, the correlations give a dysfunctional view on procrastination, but given the limitations
of previous studies, can anything be concluded from this meta-analysis on how procrastination
aects performance? The high negative correlation between procrastination and conscientious-
ness and self-ecacy may indicate that procrastination is a predictor of poor performance,
because conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991) has been demonstrated to be a predictor of
performance at work, and self-ecacy has been shown to be positively related to performance
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). However, the relation may also be in the opposite direction: poor
performance may lead to anxiety, depression, lower self-ecacy and conscientiousness and a
higher degree of procrastination to escape from the negative consequences. Also, ability can be
expected to moderate the relation: procrastination may have a dierent eect on performance for
individuals with high ability on the specic task than for individuals with low ability. Addition-
ally, the same type of moderators may apply to conscientiousness and procrastination, that is, the
extent to which a job requires accuracy and punctuality. For example, in professions such as
accountancy, missing deadlines may have important nancial consequences, whereas it may be
less relevant in creative professions, where a good solution may be more important than getting it
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1411

exactly on time. There is some empirical indication that this argument is supported within the job
of scientist. Feist (1998) concluded in his meta-analysis on personality and creativity that scien-
tists are more conscientious than nonscientists. That is, there are distinctions between those who
become scientists and those who do not. However, he also concluded that within the profession,
less creative scientists, compared with more creative ones . . .are more conscientious, conven-
tional, and closed-minded (p. 300). Also, conscientiousness was negatively related to beha-
vioural exibility (Grin & Hesketh, 2001), which may not be useful in all performance
situations, particularly those that require innovative solutions. Also, other studies have found a
negative relation between creative behaviour and conscientiousness (Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001),
although one study only found it for persons with high creative ability (King, McKee-Walker, &
Broyles, 1996). Perhaps procrastination is functional to creativity because it may serve to incu-
bate ideas. This may be enhanced by the paradoxical eect found for thought suppression
(Wegner, 1994), i.e. actively avoiding or not thinking of something, may lead to intensied
thinking of these suppressed thoughts, which may ultimately lead to better ideas.
Another functional aspect of procrastination may also be the temporary relief from pressures
experienced, useful to balancing ones energy. Tice and Baumeisters study (1997) showed that
procrastination had short term benets and long term costs in terms of health. Early in the
semester, symptom checklists, weekly measures of stress, and recorded visits to health-care pro-
fessionals were correlated negatively with procrastination, but late in the semester, the corre-
lations were positive. On the other hand, the students grades during the semester were all
correlated negatively with procrastination, and in total, total health was worse for those who
procrastinated, and it may be concluded that the early benets were outweighed by the later costs.
The authors concluded that further work is needed, because those who admit they procrastinated
were self-selected. For example, it is possible that those who admit that they procrastinate may be
more emotional or anxious to start with. Only random assignment of people in conditions that
allow them to procrastinate can rule out this alternative explanation.
Some more recent studies have broadened the scope and addressed procrastination in dierent
designs, such as longitudinally over the phases in personal projects (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000), or
over the duration of a semester (Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Wang & Jentsch, 1998). Also, some
experiments have been conducted that demonstrated that procrastination may be evoked experi-
mentally (e.g. Ferrari & Tice, 2000; Senecal, Lavoie, & Koestner, 1997), but these are dicult to
combine, as each experiment addresses a dierent question.
A dierent type of research on procrastination is needed that should pay attention to the pro-
cesses involved in procrastination, as well as the relevant dimensions of the situation, its devel-
opment over time, and what task and social inuences may play a role in dysfunctional and
functional eects. Diary studies may be used in studying procrastination (cf. Scher & Ferrari,
2000), with distinct advantages such as the relative short interval between events and reporting,
the possibility of studying processes over time, and of analysing phenomena at the within-person
level, in addition to the between-person level. More useful insights can be gained by using dier-
ent methods, such as event sampling (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). Pychyl et al.s
study provides interesting information on how the respondents experienced their tasks over time
while procrastinating.
In future research, the emotion associated with procrastination may be organized in a theore-
tical framework of aective well-being. Daniels (2000) presented and supported empirically a
1412 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

model of aective well-being at work. In addition to the commonly found factors, negative and
positive aectivity, ve lower order factors were presented. Two of these factors have been
researched in relation to procrastination: Anxietycomfort and depressionpleasure. In contrast,
the three remaining factors, angerplacidity; boredomenthusiasm; and tirednessvigour have
been neglected. Particularly the latter two would seem to be important to investigate with respect
to procrastination.
Also, an important eld of study is procrastination in groups, because student and work groups
are often used for increasingly complex tasks. Questions such as do groups regulate procrasti-
nation of their members?, is social loang the same as procrastination?, or is procrastination a
phenomenon at the group level? would be interesting to answer in future research.
A dierent approach to studying procrastination may lead to more specic insights that can be
used in interventions, be it by training or reorganizing tasks, teams, or procedures, to overcome
the dysfunctional aspects of procrastination, and perhaps enhance potential functional aspects.
In everyday life, deadlines are extremely important, and where there are deadlines, people pro-
crastinate. A realistic view on procrastination is more important than a moral judgment. Instead
of labelling persons procrastinators and nonprocrastinators, it would be wiser to think of con-
textual and process variables that induce procrastination and that moderate the outcomes. Future
studies should reect this more often. Although the results of this meta-analysis provides insight
into individual dierences, a more comprehensive theoretical framework of procrastination is still
needed.

Appendix. Studies included in the meta-analysis

*Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of beha-
vioral procrastination: the eects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem,
and self-handicapping. In J. R. Ferrari, & Pychyl, T. A. (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues
and new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15, 313.
*Berzonsky, M. D., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Identity orientation and decisional strategies. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 20, 597606.
*Beswick, G., & Mann, L. (1994). State orientation and procrastination. In J. Kuhl, & J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: action versus state orientation (pp. 391396). Seattle:
Hogrefe & Huber.
*Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of student pro-
crastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207217.
*Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (1998). Volitional action and inaction in the lives of undergraduate
students: state orientation, procrastination, and proneness to boredom. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 24, 837846.
*Bridges, K. R., & Roig, M. (1997). Academic procrastination and irrational thinking: a re-
examination with context controlled. Personality and Individual Dierences, 22, 941944.
*Burns, L. R., Dittmann, K., Nguyen, N. L., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2000). Academic procrasti-
nation, perfectionism, and control: associations with vigilant and avoidant coping. In J. R. Fer-
rari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new directions (special issue).
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15, 3546.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1413

*Chissom, B., & Iran-Nejad, A. (1992). Development of an instrument to assess learning stra-
tegies. Psychological Reports, 71, 10011002.
*Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Exploring volitional problems in academic procrastinators.
Paper presented at the 7th Workshop on Achievement and Task Motivation, Leuven, Belgium,
1215 May 2000.
*Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Procrastinators lack a broad action perspective. European
Journal of Personality, 14, 121140.
*Eert, B. R., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: examining personality cor-
relates. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 151:156.
*Fee, R. L., & Tangney, J. P. (2000). Procrastination: a means of avoinding shame or guilt? In
J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new directions (special
issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15, 167184.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1991). A preference for a favorable public impression by procrastinators:
selecting among cognitive and social tasks. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12, 12331237.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: some self-reported characteristics. Psycho-
logical Reports, 68, 455458.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: protecting self-esteem, social
esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245261.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Procrastination and project creation: choosing easy, nondiagnostic 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 indivi-
duals with similar behavioral tendencies. Personality and Individual Dierences, 13, 315319.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: an exploratory factor analysis of
self-presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 26, 7584.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults:
arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97
110.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1993). Christmas and procrastination: explaining lack of diligence at a real-
world task deadline. Personality and Individual Dierences, 14, 2533.
*Ferrari, J. R. (1994). Dysfunctional procrastination and its relationship with self-esteem,
interpersonal dependency, and self-defeating behaviors. Personality and Individual Dierences, 17,
673679.
*Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: factor analysis of attention decit, bor-
edomness, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl
(Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Beha-
vior and Personality. 15, 185197.
*Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: eects of cog-
nitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on working best under pressure. European Journal of
Psychology, 15, 391406.
*Ferrari, J. R., & Beck, B. L. (1998). Aective responses before and after fraudulent excuses by
academic procrastinators. Education, 118, 529537.
*Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). Some experimental assessments of indecisives: support
for a non-cognitive failures hypothesis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 527538.
1414 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

*Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Examining behavioral processes in indecision: Deci-
sional procrastination and decision-making style. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 127137.
*Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2001). Behavioral information search by indecisives. Person-
ality and Individual Dierences, 30, 11131123.
*Ferrari, J. R., & 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., Harriott, J. S., Evans, L., Lecik-Michna, D. M., & Wenger, J. M. (1997).
Exploring the time preferences of procrastinators: night or day, which is the one? European
Journal of Personality, 11, 18196.
*Ferrari, J. R., Parker, J. T., & Ware, C. B. (1992). Academic procrastination: personality
correlates with Myers-Briggs Types, self-ecacy, and academic locus of control. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 7, 495502.
*Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: a
task-avoidance strategy in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 7383.
*Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblated, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfec-
tionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449468.
*Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults.
Psychological Reports, 78, 611616.
*Harriott, J., Ferrari, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (1996). Distractibility, daydreaming, and self-critical
cognitions as determinants of indecision. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 337344.
*Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastination in college students: the
role of self-ecacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 317324.
*Hess, B., Sherman, M. F., & Goodman, M. (2000). Eveningness predicts academic procrasti-
nation: the mediating role of neuroticism. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination:
current issues and new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15,
6174.
*Jackson, T., Weiss, K. E., & Lundquist, J. J. (2000). Does procrastination mediate the rela-
tionship between optimism and subsequent stress? In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Pro-
crastination: current issues and new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality. 15, 203212.
*Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the ve factors of
personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18,
127133.
*Lay, C., & Silverman, S. (1996). Trait procrastination, anxiety, and dilatory behavior. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 21, 6167.
*Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 20, 474495.
*Lay, C. H. (1988). The relationship of procrastination and optimism to judgment of time to
complete an essay and anticipation of setbacks. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3,
201214.
*Lay, C. H. (1990). Working to schedule on personal projects: an assessment of person-project
characteristics and trait procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 91103.
*Lay, C. H. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person-task characteristics.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 483494.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1415

*Lay, C. H. (1994). Trait procrastination and aective experiences: describing past study
behavior and its relation to agitation and dejection. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 269284.
*Lay, C. H. (1997). Explaining lower-order traits through higher-order factors: the case of trait
procrastination, conscientiousness, and the specicity dilemma. European Journal of Personality,
11, 869887.
*Lay, C. H., & Brokenshire, R. (1997). Conscientiousness, procrastination, and person-task
characteristics in job searching by unemployed adults. Current Psychology: Developmental,
learning, personality, social, 16, 8396.
*Lay, C. H., & Burns, P. (1991). Intentions and behavior in studying for and 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. A., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of
appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal
of Personality, 3, 195208.
*Lay, C. H., Knish, S., & Zanatta, R. (1992). Self-handicappers and procrastinators: a com-
parison of their practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of Research in Personality, 26,
242257.
*Lay, C. H., Kovacs, A., & Danto, D. (1998). The relation of trait procrastination to the big-
ve factor conscientiousness: an assessment with primary-junior school children based on self-
reports. Personality and Individual Dierences, 25, 187193.
*Lay, C. H., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management, and
academic behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 647662.
*Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., Nakamura, H., Vaughan,
G., & Yang, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural dierences in self-reported decision-making style and
condence. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 325335.
*Martin, T. R., Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Krames, L., & Szanto, G. (1996). Personality cor-
relates of depression and health symptoms: a test of a self-regulation model. Journal of Research
in Personality, 31, 264277.
*McCown, W., Johnson, J., & Petzel, T. (1989). Procrastination, a principal components ana-
lysis. Personality and Individual Dierences, 10, 197202.
*McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of some hypothesized
behaviors and personality variables of college student procrastinators. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 8, 781786.
*Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, C. (1995). Correlates of academic procrastination:
discomfort, task aversiveness, and task capability. Journal of Psychology, 129, 145155.
*Milgram, N., & Tenne, R. (2000). Personality correlates of decisional and task avoidant pro-
crastination. European Journal of Personality, 14, 141156.
*Milgram, N., & Toubiana, Y. (1999). Academic anxiety, academic procrastination, and par-
ental involvement in students and their parents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
345361.
*Milgram, N. A., Batori, G., & Mowrer, D. (1993). Correlates of academic procrastination.
Journal of School Psychology, 31, 487500.
*Milgram, N. A., Gehrman, T., & Keinan, G. (1992). Procrastination and emotional upset: a
typological model. Personality and Individual Dierences, 13, 13071313.
1416 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

*Muszynski, S. Y., & Akamatsu, T. J. (1991). Delay in completion of doctoral dissertations in

clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 119123.
*Owens, A. M., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 869887.
*Prohaska, V., Morrill, P., Atiles, A., & Perez, A. (2000). Academic procrastination by non-
traditional students. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and
new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15, 125134.
*Pychyl, T. A., Morin, R. W., & Salmon, B. R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning fal-
lacy: an examination of the study habits of university students. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl
(Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Beha-
vior and Personality. 15, 135150.
*Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic
procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691698.
*Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Aective, cognitive, and behavioral
dierences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387394.
*Saddler, C. D., & Sacks, L. A. (1993). Multidimensional perfectionism and academic procras-
tination: Relationships with depression in university students. Psychological Reports, 73, 863871.
*Sarmany Schuller, I. (1998). Category width cognitive style and decision making processes.
Studia Psychologica, 40, 250254.
*Sarmany Schuller, I. (1999). Procrastination, need for cognition, and sensation seeking. Studia
Psychologica, 41, 7385.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1991). De diagnostiek van procrastinatie bij studenten [Diagnosing
procrastination in students]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 46, 379385.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1991). Determinanten van uitstelgedrag bij studenten: Procrastinatie,
faalangst, motivatie en zelfregulatie [Determinants of dilatory behavior of students: procrastina-
tion, fear of failure, motivation and self-regulation]. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs, 9, 250257.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1992). Procrastinators and fear of failure: an exploration of reasons for
procrastination. European Journal of Personality, 6, 225236.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: theoretical notions, measurement,
and research. In J. R. J. Ferrari, J. J., & McCown, W. G. (Eds.) Procrastination and task avoid-
ance. Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 7196). New York: Plenum Press.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality and academic competence. Unpublished summary,
University of Groningen, Groningen.
*Schouwenburg, H. C. (1997). Results of questionnaire among participants of skills courses
taught by the Academic Assistance of the University of Groningen from January 1995 to August
1996. Unpublished report, University of Groningen, Groningen.
*Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. (2000). Study motivation under social temptation;
eects of trait procrastination. Personality and Individual Dierences, 27, 112.
*Schouwenburg, H. C., & Lay, C. H. (1995). Trait procrastination and the Big-Five factors of
personality. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18, 481490.
*Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrasti-
nation. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 607619.
*Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cogni-
tive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503509.
 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418 1417

*Specter, M. H., & Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Time orientations of procrastinators: focusing on the
past, present, or future? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 197202.
*Stainton, M., Lay, C. H., & Flett, G. L. (2000). Trait procrastinators and behavior/trait-spe-
cic cognitions. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new
directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 15, 297312.
*Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality, performance,
and mood. Personality and Individual Dierences, 30, 95106.
*Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: the costs and benets of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454458.
*Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473480.
*Vodanovich, S. J., & Seib, H. M. (1997). Relationship between time structure and procrasti-
nation. Psychological Reports, 80, 211215.
*Wang, A. Y., & Jentsch, F. G. (1998). Point-of time eects across the semester: is there a
sampling bias? Journal of Psychology, 132, 211219.
*Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the ve-factors model: a facet level analysis. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 30, 149158.
*Wesley, J. C. (1994). Eects of ability, high school achievement, and procrastinatory behavior
on college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 404408.

References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2000). Task aversiveness and procrastination: a multi-dimensional approach to task aver-
siveness across stages of personal projects. Personality and Individual Dierences, 28, 153167.
Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of ve aspects of aective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53, 275294.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientic and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2, 290309.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults: arousal and avoidance
measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14, 97110.
Ferrari, J. R. (1993). Christmas and procrastination: explaining lack of diligence at a real-world task deadline. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 14, 2533.
Ferrari, J. R., & Emmons, R. A. (1995). Methods of procrastination and their relation to self-control and self-rein-
forcement. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 135142.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. J., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance. Theory, research, and
treatment. New York: Plenum Press.
Ferrari, J. R., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Procrastination as a self-handicap for men and women: a task-avoidance strategy
in a laboratory setting. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 7383.
Freedman, J. L., & Edwards, D. R. (1988). Time pressure, time allocation, and enjoyment. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The
social psychology of time: new perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.
Grin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2001). Some questions about the relationship between conscientiousness and performance.
Poster presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Johnson, B. T., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 94106.
Johnson, J. L., & Bloom, A. M. (1995). An analysis of the contribution of the ve factors of personality to variance in
academic procrastination. Personality and Individual Dierences, 18, 127133.
1418 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 14011418

King, L. A., McKee-Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the ve-factor model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 189203.
Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474495.
Lay, C. H. (1992). Trait procrastination and the perception of person-task characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 7, 483494.
Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 30, 178205.
Mann, L., Radford, M., Burnett, P., Ford, S., Bond, M., Leung, K., Nakamura, H., Vaughan, G., & Yang, K. S.
(1998). Cross-cultural dierences in self-reported decision-making style and condence. International Journal of
Psychology, 33, 325335.
Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, C. (1995). Correlates of academic procrastination: discomfort, task aversive-
ness, and task capability. Journal of Psychology, 129, 145155.
Milgram, N., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastination, generalized or specic, in college students and their
parents. Personality and Individual Dierences, 25, 297316.
Milgram, N., & Naaman, N. (1996). Typology in procrastination. Personality and Individual Dierences, 20, 679683.
Milgram, N. A., Srolo, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 197212.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of
gratication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 687696.
Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience sampling study of
undergraduate student procrastination. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and
new directions (special issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15 (pp. 239254.
Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185193.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ross, S. R., Canada, K. E., & Rausch, M. K. (2002). Self-handicapping and the Five Factor Model of personality:
mediation between neuroticism and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Dierences, 32, 11731184.
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities of everyday life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scher, S. J., & Ferrari, J. R. (2000). The recall of completed and noncompleted tasks through daily logs to measure
procrastination. In J. R. Ferrari, & T. A. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination: current issues and new directions (special
issue). Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15 (pp. 255265.
Senecal, C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and situational factors in procrastination. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 12, 889903.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503509.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-ecacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 124, 240261.
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress, and health: the
costs and benets of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454458.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: what we know, what more there is to learn. Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 115138.
Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49, 372389.
Van Eerde, W. Procrastination in academic settings and the Big Five Model of personality: a meta-analysis. In H. C.
Schouwenburg, T. A. Pychyl, C. H. Lay, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings.
Washington DC: APA Books (in press).
Wang, A. Y., & Jentsch, F. G. (1998). Point-of time eects across the semester: is there a sampling bias? Journal of
Psychology, 132, 211219.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 3452.
Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual dierences in creativity: personality, story writing, and hobbies. Eur-
opean Journal of Personality, 15, 297310.