Procrastination

Full text

The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Second Edition
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. (2015). Procrastination. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), The international encyclopedia
of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 19; pp. 73-78). Oxford: Elsevier.

Abstract
Procrastination is a pervasive and pathological delay, where we put off despite expecting to be
worse off. It is associated with other forms of self-regulatory failure, rooted in our neurobiology,
though can be exacerbated by environmental features. Though several effective treatments for it
are available, procrastination is self-perpetuating as procrastinators will often focus on emotional
coping strategies, putting off dealing with the source of their delays.
Keywords
1. conscientiousness
2. decision making
3. impulsiveness
4. irrational behaviour
5. motivation
6. personality
7. preference reversal
8. self-efficacy
9. self-regulation
10. time
11. value
12. volition

Part 1. Definition and Types of Procrastination
Terms and references that can be ascribed to procrastination occur throughout the historical record,
dating back to ancient Eqypt’s middle of the 18th Dynasty, under the reign of Thutmosis III. (i.e.,
“Friend, stop putting off work and allow us to go home in good time”). It appears in most major
religious texts, including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. It is also increasingly common,
with approximately 25% of the modern population confessing that they typically procrastinate.
Given its prevalence, it is unsurprising that the term has been used in various ways to describe
different forms of delay. However, among all these descriptions, common themes do emerge.
Definitions of Procrastination
Procrastination is typically taken as an irrational or a self-defeating delay, to be worse off for putting
off. After a historical review of definitional efforts, Steel (2007) integrates previously established key
components to produce, “to voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be
worse off for the delay.” Further building on this effort, Klingsieck (2013a) refines this definition to,
“the voluntary delay of an intended and necessary and/or [personally] important activity, despite
expecting potential negative 3 procrastinated, it should be: i) intended, ii) voluntarily delayed, iii)
foreseeably pathological. However, there is tension among all these components as they all can be
considered continuous dimensions. An “intended” task may range from a flippant notion to a
proclaimed goal. Circumstances may make goal pursuit easy, meaning any delay is clearly
voluntarily, to extremely difficult verging on the impossible. The problematic consequences of the
delay can range from the obvious to the unapparent in both likelihood and magnitude. Though there
are some delays that are clearly procrastination and some that aren’t, it can be debated when one
becomes the other.
Differences between Procrastination and Strategic Delay
Procrastination requires delay but is not equivalent to delay. However, at times the notion of
“active” or “positive” procrastination will arise, referring to a strategic self-serving delay (Chu &
Choi, 2005). This is not compatible with the dominant use of the term or procrastination’s strong
association with self-regulatory failure. However, there are forms of positive or purposeful delay
that superficially appear similar to procrastination. In particular, purposely leaving a manageable
portion of a project until near the deadline, taking advantage of increased motivation that occurs
then, can be beneficial. In contrast, involuntarily leaving excessive amounts of work until just before
the deadline because one can’t find motivation earlier typically is not. In the former, the person can
choose to work earlier but prefers not to. In the latter, the person may prefer to work earlier but
cannot find the motivation. Helping to differentiate the two is the question “How useful would it be
for you to have more motivation earlier, well before the deadline?” While everyone might find more
motivation desirable, for the procrastinator this will be especially so.
Types of Procrastination
Typologies of procrastination can be organized by life domain (e.g., academic or health), by self-
reported reason or justification (e.g., rebellion or arousal), and by cause (e.g., self-efficacy or value
driven). Since procrastination appears to require some sort of impulsive weakness of the will, where
we act against our own best interests, it is facilitated by proximity to temptations or environmental
cues. Personality traits are predictive of what temptations procrastinators tend to be susceptible to,

resulting in different phenomenologies of procrastination (Schouwenburg, 2004). People high in the
personality trait of extraversion, for example, will ascribe their procrastination to their need to
socialize while conversely those low in extraversion (i.e., introverts) will attribute their
procrastination to their need for solitude. Most studied among these is the neurotic or perfectionist
procrastinator, who is most likely to seek clinical treatment and has given rise to the belief that
perfectionism causes procrastination in general. Though there is almost no association between
perfectionism and procrastination, impulsive perfectionists should personally experience their
perfectionism as being the cause of their procrastination and this particular typology may respond
well to techniques for managing anxiety.
Demographic Differences
Though procrastination is found within all societies and all time periods, there are areas of
prevalence (Steel and Ferrari, 2013). To begin with, it is associated with a modernized society as
greater access to temptation increases the incident rates of procrastination. Sensibly, the easier and
more enjoyable it is to put off tasks, the more people procrastinate. Cultural values also may
influence the rate of procrastination among nations, with Ireland reporting the most procrastination
among English speaking countries. Procrastination, being self-defeating, is associated with lower
levels of income and education and less relationship success. In short, procrastinators are more
likely to be unemployed, less educated and single. Finally, procrastination is seen more in men than
women and in the younger rather than older. Notably, sex differences in procrastination partially
explain women’s rise both academically and in the workforce.
Part 2. Measurement of Procrastination
As per the definition of procrastination, there are certain inherent problems in identifying when
procrastination occurs. It may not be entirely clear to the observer or even the individual. The
degree of intentionality of the task is not always evident and possibly malleable in retrospect.
Obstacles may intervene hindering speedy completion of the task that are as seen insurmountable
by the individual but only inconvenient by an observer. Also, the consequences of the delay may not
be evident, allowing the overly optimistic, who truly believes there is plenty of time left, to appear to
be a procrastinator to a dispassionate observer. Finally, standards and desires differ so the exact
same consequences for delay can be procrastination by one, who is worse off, but not for another
(Silver and Sabini, 1981).
Self-Report
Procrastination, like personality measures, can be measured as an overall general trait or by specific
life-domain. Typically, improved measurement can be achieved by using as specific a measure as the
context will allow. By 2006, there have been at least ten procrastination measures used in research
(Steel, 2007), with several more developed since.
General Measures
Among the most popular of the general measures of procrastination are the General Procrastination
Scale (GPS), the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP), Tuckman’s Procrastination Scale (TPS) and
the Decisional Procrastination Scale (DPS). Notably, the first three of this list is often characterized as
representing behavioural procrastination, the delay of a task, while the last of these represents

decisional procrastination, the delay of choice. While there is support for goal choice and goal
pursuit to represent distinct stages, the DPS does show strong associations with the other
behavioural measures and even contains an item ‘‘Even after I make a decision I delay acting upon
it.” It is questionable whether the decision procrastination, as measured, is a separate construct.
More recently, there appears to be criterion contamination problems among many of these
measures (Steel, 2010). They assess procrastination by not only asking if the person delay irrational
(e.g., “Putting off until the last minute has cost me money in the past”), but also if the person is
prompt (e.g., “I generally return phone calls promptly”) or if the person simply delays (e.g., “I find
myself running later than I would like to be”). While the last two components are related to
procrastination, they are not procrastination itself. Failing to be prompt is not the same as
procrastinating and simply being busy or overcommitted can cause delay.
In response, the Pure Procrastination Scale has been developed that focuses purely on irrational
delays, comprised of items from the DPS, the GPS and the AIP that load together and reflect the
traditional definition of procrastination (Steel, 2010). It shows improved associations with key
outcome variables, such as subjective well-being, and proves to be functionally equivalent to the
Irrational Procrastination Scale, which is designed to assess procrastination as an irrational delay.
Specific Measures
With life domains ranging from the marital to the financial, there are numerous potential ways to
focus procrastination. Though some other specific measures have been used, such as procrastination
regarding household safety, only one area has proven dominant: Academic. In particular, Solomon
and Rothblum’s (1984) seminal measure, the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Student (PASS) is
often employed in this context, though somewhat basic in construction. It asks students to rate
“School Activities in General” as well as five specific tasks (e.g., writing a term paper, keeping up with
weekly readings) in term of how much they procrastinate, whether their procrastination is a
problem, and do they want to stop procrastinating. In addition, there is a separate “Reasons for
Procrastination Scale,” which provides 26 possible explanations for student’s procrastination.
Given that procrastination is equally or even more of concern in many other life domains, including
financial, such as failing to put enough aside for retirement, and health, such as failing to seek
treatment, more specific measures for other domains should be entertained.
Observed
Difficulties in observing procrastination have not prevented several attempts. To the extent that the
outcome of delay is clearly foreseeable, adverse, and there is task commitment, observed measures
of procrastination are likely valid, especially in the aggregate. Like self-report measures, academia
has proven to be of particular interest.
Academic Measures
Difficulties in observing procrastination are assuaged somewhat in an academic setting. Goals can be
assigned, such as quizzes or essays, ensuring that a majority of students have a degree of intention.
Problems of procrastination are well known in this setting and early starts are repeatedly counselled.

The effect of delay is foreseeable and adverse, at least in many cases. Consequently, academic self-
reports of procrastination and observed delays in this context are substantively associated (Steel et
al., 2001). Specific assignments typically used includes: class attendance, course grade, quiz grade,
and meeting a deadline for an assignment. Other less common academic aspects assessed include:
getting a PhD, publication rate, getting tenure, and timing of experimental participation. In
particular, a computerized personal system of instruction, often now used in Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs), provides an almost ideal venue to study academic procrastination. The pace of
assignment completion, which is among the best inconspicuous measures of observed
procrastination, can be automatically assessed for an extremely large number of people. Using this
as a measurement foundation, a comprehensive set of interventions and diagnostics can be
explored.
Other Measures
Other attempts to assess procrastination behavioural are far more limited. Interesting examples
include when Christmas shopping is done, a gift receipt or cheque is cashed, or a letter is mailed. To
some extent, an open critique is that the delay may not be irrational but due to the participant
simply being busy or uninterested. One exception to this is by Reuben et al. (2007), who gave MBA
students the option of either cashing a smaller cheque now or a larger cheque later. Though most
students choose the smaller but immediate cheque, they did not cash it until after they would have
received the larger but later one.
Looking forward, more success may be achieved by creating observed or behavioral measure at the
group, neighborhood or nation level. It would be constructed by identifying common, foreseeable
and almost universally beneficially tasks required for most people. For example, this may include the
degree they pay their bills on time, the number of cancelled dentist appointments, the degree of
preparation for retirement, or the ratio of gym memberships to gym attendance. While individual
exceptions to this self-regulatory tasks may occur, especially if there are financial constraints, in
aggregate it would reveal if a community was indeed prone to procrastination.
Self-Deception
Because procrastination has ambiguous aspects, it leaves the possibility for self-deception. We can
retrospectively recast our behaviour as unintentional (e.g., “I wasn’t really planning to do that
anyway”), as unforeseeable (e.g., “I thought I had enough time!”), or as beneficial (e.g., “It is
probably best I didn’t get that done”). This can be considered an emotional coping strategy, where
people look for explanations that are pleasing or self-serving (Sirois and Pychyl, 2013). This strategy
is common in impulse related disorders, where people sacrifice larger but later benefits for short-
term rewards. Consequently, procrastinators may tend to congregate and compare themselves to
other procrastinators to facilitate downward counterfactuals, where we contrast our situation with
those even worse off. Denial, aside from making procrastination difficult to assess, also perpetuates
the condition. Taking a task oriented strategy, rather than an emotional coping strategy, tends to
reduce the degree of procrastination. At times, procrastinators must accept and forgive themselves
for their procrastination before they can move from an emotional to a task oriented coping style
(Wohl et al., 2010).
Part 3. Research Perspectives

Concerning the field of psychology, theoretical approaches to procrastination can be grouped into
several perspectives (Klingsieck, 2013a). These perspectives are: differential psychology, the
perspective of motivational and volitional psychology, the perspective of clinical psychology, the
situational perspective, and the perspective of neurobiology.
Perspective of Differential Psychology
Differential psychology understands procrastination as a personality trait. Studies in this perspective
have built up an extensive nomological network of procrastination and have focused on studying the
relationship of procrastination with other trait and trait-like variables (Klingsieck, 2013a).
The Big Five
The Big Five is a common personality taxonomy used to study procrastination (Steel, 2007; van
Eerde 2003). Increased procrastination is mainly associated with decreased conscientiousness while
the factors of extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness are not significantly related
to procrastination. Neuroticism has an intermittent relationship with procrastination, depending on
the measure, which disappears once conscientiousness is controlled for. In addition, some studies
have examined the relationship between intelligence and procrastination, but have found no
correlation (cf. Steel, 2007).
Perfectionism
Early works in the field viewed procrastination as primarily caused by irrational beliefs, such as
perfectionism (Burka & Yuen, 2008). Correlational results do not support this notion, indicating a
relatively minor contribution compared to other constructs, especially self-efficacy and
impulsiveness. However, the role of perfectionism continues to be debated. One reasons for the
mixed results might be the different approaches to operationalize perfectionism. Within some
articles it is understood as a one-dimensional construct, while other authors understand
perfectionism as a multidimensional construct (e.g., procrastination associated with socially
prescribed perfectionism versus procrastination associated with self-oriented perfectionism).
Alternatively, perfectionism’s perceived relationship may be due to an increased likelihood of
neurotic procrastinators seeking treatment – a self-selection effect – combined with any other major
personality trait, high or low, will be experienced by an individual as being instrumental in causing
their procrastination (Schouwenburg, 2004). However, this does not preclude that treating
pathological perfectionism beliefs could help the neurotic procrastinator.
Self, Self-Esteem, and Self-Handicapping
Procrastination is also related to low self-esteem and certain identity aspects such as a diffuse ego
identity and greater discrepancies between actual, ought, and desired self. Whether this is a cause
or consequence of procrastination is debatable. To the extent that low self-esteem is related to low
self-efficacy, it can be viewed as a cause. To the extent that low esteem is due to the compromised
performance resulting from procrastination, it is an effect. On balance, the mostly widely adopted
position in the procrastination field is the former of these, that it is a cause, especially with regards
to self-handicapping. Delaying tasks until it becomes difficult to determine a person’s true capability
can be a self-esteem protecting strategy. On the other hand, it can be argued that self-handicapping
is a more calculated act and does not reflect the impulse driven behaviour typically associated with
procrastination. In either case, they both represent self-defeating delays, but may respond to
different treatments. Self-handicappers would best be treated by challenging underlying irrational
beliefs. Procrastinators would best be treated by reducing the preference reversal effects of
impulsiveness.

Time, Time Orientation, and Time Preferences
Concerning time-related personality styles, procrastination is associated with circadian rhythms
known as the “eveningness” type (Digdon and Howell, 2008). With regard to time-orientations,
procrastinators seem to display a reduced focus on the future, a fatalistic focus on the present (only
avoidance procrastination) or a hedonistic focus on the present (only arousal procrastination), and
negative attitudes about the past (Jackson et al., 2003).
Perspective of Motivational and Volitional Psychology
The motivational and volitional psychology perspective understands procrastination as a failure in
motivation and/or volition (Klingsieck, 2013a), leading to the intention–action gap (Steel, 2007).
Motivational Aspects
Concerning motivational aspects, procrastination is less likely to occur in the case of intrinsically,
self-determined, or flow-inducing activities. Furthermore, low procrastination is related to a mastery
goal orientation and internal locus of control. Self-efficacy is often studied with regard to academic
procrastination. However, studies display mixed results concerning the role of self-efficacy. Some
studies understand and investigate test and self-efficacy as individual contributors to
procrastination, while others focus on the mediating role of self-efficacy between perfectionism and
procrastination. However, meta-analytically it has on average a strong connection (Steel, 2007).
Behavioural Economics and Temporal Motivation Theory
The phenomenon of procrastination violates the mainstream economic assumption of rationality,
being a purposeful and self-defeating delay. Consequently, the field of behavioural economics,
which relaxes the rationality assumption, has shown more interest in the phenomenon. Typically,
economists adopt a version of the behavioural psychology’s matching law, which has similarities to
classical economics’ subjective expected utility equation, except that rewards are hyperbolically
discounted. The concept of hyperbolic discounting or time discounting allows for an interdisciplinary
bridge between psychology and economics in the explanation of procrastination. Within this realm,
procrastination is related to picoeconomics and the rational choice framework, as well as the
concept of present-biased preferences.
The Temporal Motivation Theory (Steel and König, 2006) explains procrastination from a time
discounting perspective. It is an integrative theory that incorporates the best validated aspects of
the core motivational theories. Results were that the constructs of expectancy (e.g., self-efficacy),
value (e.g., task aversiveness), and time sensitivity (e.g., impulsiveness) are the major predictors of
procrastination. These constructs are organized into an equation consistent with other major
theories, particularly Expected Utility Theory, Hyperbolic Discounting, and the Matching Law.
Mathematically expressed, motivation = (expectancy × value) /(1 + impulsiveness × delay).
Motivation increases as the expectancy of an outcome and the size or value of an outcome increase.
Motivation decreases as the delay before this outcome and the impulsiveness increases. As per
Figure 1, procrastination occurs due to preference reversal, where a proximally or immediately
available temptation pulls or distracts away from a former intention. According to this theory,
procrastination is more likely to occur if the outcome of an unpleasant activity offers rewards in the
distant future.

<Figure 1 near here>
Volitional Aspects
Concerning volitional aspects, procrastination is associated with decreased self-regulation,
decreased self-control, decreased action control or volitional problems in general. More specifically,
procrastinators seem to lack time management strategies, seem to be easily distracted by attractive
action opportunities, and display a less frequent use of learning strategies.
Perspective of Clinical Psychology
The clinical psychology perspective focuses on the conditions of and interventions for the clinically
relevant extent of procrastination (Klingsieck, 2013a). In explaining procrastination, these theoretical
approaches often draw on psychoanalysis, cognitive behaviourism, and neuropsychology (for a
summary, see Steel, 2012). Of all the perspectives, it is the clinical one that puts the negative
consequences and correlates of procrastination intensely into focus because these determine
whether procrastination is clinically relevant or not.
Affective and Cognitive Aspects: Fear of Failure, Test Anxiety, and Depression
Self-help books often state that the most prominent causes of procrastination are irrational beliefs,
such as fear of failure or test anxiety. Thus, procrastination is often investigated within a framework
of coping styles and anxiety (e.g., Burka & Yuen, 2008).
Depression is considered both a cause (through the mechanism of diminished energy) and a
consequence (through the mechanism of reduced performance) of severe procrastination. However,
procrastination is related to depression only for clients diagnosed with depression, being that
procrastination is a symptom of the condition.
Behavioural Aspects: ADHD
In realm of procrastination’s link to impulsiveness, the relationship between procrastination and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is discussed but rarely studied. The Axis 1 disorder
ADHD is identified by procrastination among other symptoms, such as inattentiveness, difficulty in
getting work done, and organizational problems. However, like depression, procrastination is related
to ADHD only for persons diagnosed with ADHD, it being a symptom of the condition. For individuals
who are not diagnosed with ADHD, procrastination is not associated with attention deficits.
However, procrastinators are more likely to be prone to boredom than non-procrastinators and, like
those with ADHD, seek more stimulating situations (Ferrari, 2010).
Situational Perspective
Although intuitively obvious, especially given the volitional problems of procrastinators, few studies
have been conducted that focus on environment characteristics that promote procrastination. Thus,
the situational perspective encompasses only a small subset of theoretical ideas and empirical
studies on procrastination. The situational perspective understands procrastination as a
phenomenon that is evoked by certain environmental characteristics (Klingsieck, 2013a). The
features associated with procrastination are: task difficulty and attractiveness, plausibility of the

assignment, autonomy, teachers’ or supervisors’ characteristics, and the proximity and saliency of
temptations and distractions.
Perspective of Neurobiology
Research endeavors in the field of neurobiology have been scarce, although the dualistic theory of
mind provides a promising model to explain procrastination (cf. Steel, 2012). Referred to by various
terms, such as Hot/Cool, Passion/Reason, or System 1/System 2, it indicates that the prefrontal
cortex often makes or maintains intentions. However, when the mechanisms of the prefrontal cortex
are exhausted or compromised, decision making relocates to the limbic system. The limbic system is
much more susceptible to short-term temptations and distractions. Consequently, we make
intentions to act but find it difficult to follow through despite wishing we would. Drawing on
historical records, functional magnetic resonance image research, genetic studies, comparative
psychology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology, Steel (2012) finds considerable
support for this model. There is also empirical evidence that procrastination can be largely explained
by problems with the prefrontal cortex role as the executive function (Rabin et al., 2011).
Part 4. Impact in Different Life Domains
Procrastination research has investigated procrastination in a variety of different life domains,
however, studies that compare procrastination’s characteristics across different domains are yet to
be conducted (Klingsieck, 2013a; for a first endeavour see Klingsieck, 2013b). The life domains
studied are education (i.e., academic procrastination), work and financial, health, and subjective
well-being. Each of them are briefly discussed below.
The procrastination of study-related activities in a student population is often studied under the
term academic procrastination. While procrastination also focuses on procrastination in other life
domains, this domain is the most studied within procrastination research. The research mainly
focuses on reasons and consequences of procrastination showing that procrastination can have a
detrimental impact on achievement and on subjective well-being of students.
Research on procrastination with regard to job related aspects has concentrated on procrastination
of job search behaviours and workplace performance. Procrastination has been shown to be
negatively related to implementation intention formation, but to positively predict intention–
behaviour discrepancies and the extent to which job seekers engage in other activities instead of
performing planned job search activities. Moreover, it is also negatively related to the process
quality of job seeking. Research concerning procrastination in the workplace is surprisingly scarce.
This is striking given that Steel (2012) reviews estimates that put procrastination at over 25 percent
of most people’s work time, potentially reducing productivity by $1.25 trillion in the United States
alone. Studies have included identifying what job characteristics exacerbate procrastination (i.e., the
situational perspective) and well as the consequences of procrastination. For instance,
procrastination is frowned upon in the workplace. Interestingly, although procrastination is often
understood as a deficit in self-management, it does not seem to be related to deficits in managing
others. Concerning the procrastination of important financial aspects, studies have shown that the
majority of people by their own standards feel that they have procrastinated savings for their
retirement too long. The same holds true for procrastinating on taxes.
The health domain is one of the more procrastination relevant area, speaking to the speed of
seeking treatment or “patient compliance” in treatment programs. Constructs studied in the health
domain are often the same as for academic procrastination (e.g., self-efficacy, self-control),
indicating that this is largely the same phenomenon and the results are transferable. Within the

health area, procrastination presents itself as a self-regulation deficit leading to the intention-action-
gap with regard to dieting, physical training, and preventive medical check-ups. For example, colon
cancer is among the deadliest despite being the most treatable, simply because people delay getting
colonoscopies.
Procrastination has been shown to have various negative effects on subjective well-being. For
example, it has been shown to result in augmented stress and regret. Procrastinators often report
having feelings of personal failure due to their procrastination and frustration regarding their
inability to start earlier. Furthermore, studies have shown that procrastination can also pertain to
enjoyable activities, where people put off pleasurable pursuits. Although procrastination might
function as a short term mood repair, in the long run it has negative consequences on subjective
well-being.
Part 5. Treatments
The negative consequences of procrastination have led to the development of various intervention
programs and to the publication of numerous self-help books to overcome procrastination. One of
the oldest treatment ideas is the idea of behaviour control. Most interventions have focused on
either teaching self-management strategies (e.g., goal setting, time management, planning,
monitoring, creating the right environment for studying) or implementing therapeutic strategies to
tackle negative affect and cognitions (e.g., cognitive restructuring).
The number of these self-help books concerning procrastination has grown steadily in recent years.
The works written by counselling psychologists emphasize irrational beliefs, such as perfectionism
and low self-esteem, by procrastinators (e.g., Burka & Yuen, 2008). The works written by research
psychologists (e.g., Ferrari, 2010; Steel, 2012) indicate that procrastination is primarily a self-
regulation failure and an impulse-related issue. Consequently, they focus on improving self-
regulation skills and situational or stimulus control.
Therapeutic strategies in overcoming procrastination pertain to techniques of cognitive restructuring
(to tackle negative cognitions), relaxation exercise (to tackle negative affect), time restriction, and,
paradoxical interventions. For example, a special issue of the Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (REBT; Dryden, 2012) came out in which different approaches
concerning REBT are delineated. Anxiety based treatments are likely to be most effective for the
perfectionist or neurotic procrastinator. On the other hand, the outpatient clinic at the University of
Münster (Germany) has built a special outpatient clinic for procrastinators focusing on cognitive-
behavioural therapy that may be more broadly applicable. The methods they employ include
realistic goal setting, stimulus control, and self-motivation.
Most trainings aiming at overcoming procrastination foster strategies concerning self-management
such as goal setting, time management, planning, monitoring, and creating the right environment for
studying. For a summary of these interventions, see Schouwenburg et al. (2004).

Cross References
 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Across the Lifespan
 Motivation in Clincal Interventions
 Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy
 Behaviour Therapy with Adults
 Work motivation
 Personality and values at work
 Development of executive functions during childhood
 Decision Making, Psychology of
 Future Time Perspective and Motivation
 Self-efficacy
 Subjective Wellbeing, Psychology of
 Chronotype
 Conscientiousness
 Emotional Regulation
 Personality and Economics
 Self-regulation
 Decision Making: Nonrational Theories
 Motivational and volitional processes in health self-regulation
 Motivation and Actions, Psychology of
 Grit
 Expectancy-Value-Cost Model of Motivation
 Depression
 Anxiety and anxiety disorders

References
Burka, J. B., Yuen, L. M. 2008. Procrastination: Why you do it, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Da
Capo.
Chu, A. H. C., Choi, J. N. 2005. Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination
behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 345-264.
Digdon, N. L., Howell, A. J. 2008. College students who have an eveningness preference report lower
self-control and greater procrastination. Chronobiology International, 25, 1029-1046.
Dryden, W. 2012. Dealing with procrastination: The REBT approach and a demonstration session.
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4), 264-281.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., McCown, W. G. 1995. Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory,
research, and treatment. New York: Plenum.
Ferrari, J. R 2010. Still procrastinating: The no-regrets guide to getting it done. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jackson, T., Fritch, A., Nagasaka, T., Pope, L. 2003. Procrastination and perceptions of past, present,
and future. Individual Differences Research, 1, 17-28.
Klingsieck, K. B. 2013a. Procrastination: When good things don’t come to those who wait. European
Psychologist, 18, 24–34.
Klingsieck, K. B. 2013b. Procrastination in different life-domains: Is procrastination domain specific?
Current Psychology, 32, 175-185.
Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., Nutter-Upham, K. E. 2011. Academic procrastination in college students: The
role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344-357.
Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., Zingales, L. 2007. Procrastination and impatience (No. w13713). National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., Murakami, J. 1986. Affective, cognitive and behavioral differences
between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.
Schouwenburg, H. C. 2004. Procrastination in academic settings: General introduction. In H. C.
Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in
academic settings (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schouwenburg, H. C., Lay, C. H., Pychyl, T. A. Ferrari, J. R. 2004. (Eds). Counseling the procrastinator
in academic settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Silver, M., Sabini, J. 1981. Procrastinating. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 11(2), 207-221.
Sirois, F., Pychyl, T. 2013. Procrastination and the Priority of Short-Term Mood Regulation:
Consequences for Future Self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115-127.
Solomon, L. J., Rothblum, E. D. 1984. Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral
correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503-509.

Steel, P., Ferrari, J. 2013. Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological study of
procrastinators’ characteristics from a global sample. European Journal of Personality, 27(1),
51-58.
Steel, P. 2007. The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin 133, 65–94.
Steel, P. 2010. Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist? Personality and
Individual Differences, 48, 926-934.
Steel, P. 2012. The procrastination equation: How to stop putting things off and start getting things
done. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Steel, P., König, C. J. 2006. Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 3,
889-913.
Steel, P., Brothen, T., Wambach, C. 2001. Procrastination and personality, performance, and mood.
Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 95-106.
van Eerde, W. 2003. A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality
and Individual Differences 35, 1401–1419.
Wohl, M., Pychyl, T., Bennett, S. 2010. I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-forgiveness for
procrastinating can reduce future procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences,
48(7), 803-808.

Figure 1