The Nature of Procrastination 1 Running head : PROCRASTINATION The Nature of Procrastination

Abstract

Procrastination is prevalent and pernicious but not entirely understood, motivating this empirical and theoretical review. The review attempts to be exhaustive, drawing upon correlational, experimental, and qualitative findings. Summarizing 648 correlations, a meta-analysis of procrastination’s causes and effects reveals that neuroticism, rebelliousness, and sensationseeking show only a weak connection. Strong and consistent predictors of procrastination were task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy, impulsiveness, as well as conscientiousness and its facets of self-control, distractibility, organization, and achievement motivation. These effects prove entirely consistent with a hybrid of two theories of choice behavior, expectancy and hyperbolic discounting. Continued research into the prediction and treatment of procrastination should not be delayed, especially since its prevalence appears to be growing. The Nature of Procrastination 3 The Nature of Procrastination Procrastination is clearly prevalent. Though virtually all of us have at least dallied with dallying, some have made it a way of life. Estimates indicate that 95% of college students engage in procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977), approximately 75% consider themselves procrastinators (Potts, 1987), and almost one-half do it consistently and problematically (Day, Mensink, & O’Sullivan, 2000; Haycock, 1993; Micek, 1982; Onwuegbuzie, 2000a; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Even for the average student, procrastination is considerable, representing over one third of their reported daily activities (Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, & Blunt, 2000). Furthermore, these percentages appear to be on the rise (Kachgal, Hansen, & Nutter, 2001). Aside from being endemic during college, procrastination is also widespread in the general population, chronically affecting some 15-20% of adults (Harriott & Ferrari, 1996; “Haven’t Filed Yet,” 2003). Procrastination also appears to be a troubling phenomenon. People most strongly characterize it as being bad, harmful, and foolish (Briody, 1980). Justifying this viewpoint, several studies have linked it to individual performance, with the procrastinator performing more poorly overall (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Steel, Brothen, & Wambach, 2001; Wesley, 1994), and to individual well-being, with the procrastinator being more miserable in the longterm (Knaus, 1973; Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1997). At larger levels of analysis, procrastination has been linked to several organizational and societal issues. Gersick (1988) describes how teams consistently delay the bulk of their work until deadlines approach. The economists Akerlof (1991) and O’Donoghue and Rabin (1999) consider the relative lack of retirement savings behavior as a form of procrastination, where many start preparing for their later years far too late. In the political arena, procrastination has been used to describe Presidential decisions (Farnham, 1997; Kegley, 1989) and the banking practices of nations The Nature of Procrastination 4 (Holland, 2001), both where important decisions are disastrously delayed. Also, historical analysis indicates it has been a pernicious affliction for at least the last 3,000 years (Steel, 2003). Unfortunately for such an extensive and harmful phenomenon, much has yet to be learned about its causes or its effects, though there have been some notable reviews. To begin with, Ferrari, Johnson, and McCown’s (1995) book on the topic is extensive but focuses primarily on theory, with less emphasis on empirical findings. On the other hand, Van Eerde (2002) did conduct a meta-analysis on procrastination, but based on 88 articles, it represents approximately half the sources presently available. In addition, the review does not include several key variables (e.g., task effects, impulsiveness) or relevant experimental findings, and does not extend theoretical foundations. Finally, Steel (2003) has written an extensive theoretical and meta-analytic review of procrastination’s history and measurement, though this does not examine its correlates or causes. To further resolve procrastination’s conflicting findings and theories, I endeavor to review and synthesize the conceptual and empirical work completed thus far. To help summarize researchers’ prolific efforts, results are divided into the following subsections : Phenomenology of Procrastination, Task Characteristics, Individual Differences, and Demographics. Phenomenology of Procrastination deals with findings that are taken to reflect procrastination itself. Task Characteristics indicate environmental causes of procrastination. Individual Differences deals with relevant personality traits. Finally, Demographics reviews possible physical, cohort, and geographic moderators. Phenomenology of Procrastination Procrastination is defined as the voluntarily delay of an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse-off for the delay (Steel, 2003). Consequently, the nature of procrastination The Nature of Procrastination 5 should be observable in: I) Intention-Action Gap, II) Mood, and III) Performance. The intentionaction gap refers to the degree that people follow-up on their original work plans. Mood and performance assesses both subjective and objective utility respectively. If the definition of procrastination is accurate, the following three effects should be observed. Intention-Action Gap In procrastinating, most researchers suppose that delaying is not only irrational, but also unintentional (e.g., Silver & Sabini, 1981). They believe procrastinators do not purposefully put off their chores, but do so to the contrary of their original intent – an “is” vs. “ought” scenario. If this is true, it is of some importance as it confirms the basic nature of procrastination: it deals with intended tasks. Hypothesis 1: Procrastinators should delay contrary to the original intentions.