Article

Time & Society

0(0) 1–23
I will do it tomorrow! ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Exploring the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0961463X16678251
dimensionality of tas.sagepub.com

procrastination in
Poland
Aneta M Przepiorka and
Agata Blachnio
Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic
University of Lublin, Poland

Juan F Dı́az-Morales
Dpto. Psicologı́a Diferencial y del Trabajo, Facultad de
Psicologı́a, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the widely
used general procrastination, decisional procrastination, and adult inventory
of procrastination scales in both undergraduate and adult Polish populations.
Polish versions of these scales were filled out by 390 student and 513 adult
participants. Principal component analysis indicated one-factor structure for
each scale. The pattern of loadings was congruent between student and adult
samples. The item-total correlation coefficients were adequate in each sample,
with higher Cronbach’s alpha values in adults compared to students, who
reported higher procrastination scores in general procrastination and decisional
procrastination scales. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the unidimen-
sional model emerged as the best fit when the three scales were considered
together. The results of the study suggest that Polish versions of the three
procrastination scales are effective and reliable and contribute to the inter-
national debate about the dimensionality of procrastination.

Keywords
Procrastination, factor structure, Poland

Corresponding author:
Aneta M Przepiorka, Institute of Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.
Email: aneta.przepiorka@gmail.com

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

2 Time & Society 0(0)

Introduction
Most likely, one negative consequence of poor planning of future behavior
is chronic procrastination, the purposive and frequent delay in beginning or
completing a task to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort
(Schouwenburg et al., 2004). Although procrastination is a phenomenon
well known for thousands of years, it is only recently that systematic
research has been conducted into its manifestations, causes, consequences,
and cures (Ferrari, 2010; Steel, 2011). Compelling evidence has shown that
procrastination may include substantial impairment in personal, academic,
and occupational functioning (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2013; Sirois et al., 2003;
Steel, 2007). People who have tendencies to procrastinate suffer from a
considerable number of negative consequences. For instance, procrastin-
ation is related to poor mental health (Stead et al., 2010) and interferes
with health treatment frequency – it is related to less frequent dental and
medical check-ups. Additionally, those with high procrastination exhibit
fewer household safety behaviors (Sirois, 2007) and a higher level of
stress (Flett et al., 1995; Sirois, 2014). Procrastination was found to be a
predictor of work-related stress (Mohsin and Ayub, 2014). As Ferrari
(1991c) also showed, procrastination is related to lower self-esteem and
higher social anxiety and to a stronger tendency toward self-handicapping.
Procrastination is also related to negative emotions such as shame-prone-
ness (Fee and Tangney, 2000) or guilt (Blunt and Pychyl, 2005).
One series of trans-cultural studies showed that in different countries the
proportion of chronic procrastinators in the population is around 15–20%
(Ferrari et al., 2007). Although according to previous literature reviews (Van
Eerde, 2003) the tendency to delay starting to perform tasks is common
among adults, large and significant differences emerged between countries
when raw procrastination scores were examined: UK adults reported signifi-
cantly higher chronic procrastination compared to those from Peru, the US,
Spain, and Australia; the lowest tendencies to procrastinate were reported
among adults from Venezuela. In general, studies have shown that procras-
tination level is similar in men and women. Most studies found no significant
difference by sex, although Van Eerde’s (2003) meta-analysis stated that a
tendency to procrastinate was more common among men. Regarding age,
some studies showed a significant negative correlation between procrastin-
ation and age (Ferrari et al., 2005; Hammer and Ferrari, 2002), indicating
that procrastination moderately decreases with age. This negative relation-
ship between age and procrastination has been replicated by other researchers
(i.e., r ¼ .27, Dı́az-Morales et al., 2008; r ¼ .19, Gupta et al., 2012).
Regarding the measure of procrastination, several experimental or
quasi-experimental studies have been conducted in real situations,

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 3

using different behavioral indices (see Ferrari et al., 1995). For example, in
the workplace, employees were confronted with tasks in which they were
likely to fail (Van Eerde, 2003) or with tasks that had open-ended deadlines
(Ferrari, 2001). In the case of students, a common behavioral index of
procrastination was the time of submitting course assignments relative to
assignment due dates. The students who scored higher on procrastination
were more likely to postpone the submission of assignments than were those
who scored lower on the procrastination scale (Digdon and Howell, 2008).
Several reliable and valid measures of chronic procrastination based
on questionnaires have been validated in different cultural contexts
(Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a; Ferrari et al., 1995, 2009; Mariani and
Ferrari, 2012; Steel, 2010). Lay’s general procrastination scale (GP; Lay,
1986) measures dilatory behavior across different situations related to per-
sonality variables such as low self-control, rebelliousness, or extraversion. It
is composed of 20 items such as ‘‘I am continually saying I’ll do it tomorrow’’
or ‘‘When preparing to go out, I am seldom caught doing something at the last
minute.’’ GP scores have been related to external attributes or excuses for
delays (Ferrari, 1993) and poor performance when environmental stressors
existed that heightened arousal at task deadlines (Ferrari, 2001).
Researchers typically found the scale to have a single-factor structure
(Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006; Ferrari et al., 2005), although in the Italian
sample, two factors were identified (Mariani and Ferrari, 2012). The adult
inventory of procrastination (AIP; McCown et al., 1989) measures chronic
tendency to postpone tasks in various situations. It examines procrastin-
ation motivated by fears (e.g., success or failure), avoidance of disclosure of
lack of skills, and insecurities of performance (Ferrari, 1991a). The AIP is
composed of 15 items, such as ‘‘I am not very good at meeting deadlines’’
or ‘‘I don’t get things done on time.’’ It is a global measure of frequent
procrastination, examining a variety of tasks in order to deflect potential
disclosure of perceived inabilities and incompetence (Ferrari, 1993) and self-
relevant information about one’s skills and competence (Ferrari, 1991b).
Two factors were extracted in a Spanish sample of adults, labeled lack
of punctuality and lack of planning (Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a); the two
factors extracted in a Turkish adult sample were named positive aspects of
avoidance and negative aspects of avoidance (Ferrari et al., 2009); in Italian
adult samples, the AIP turned out to be one-dimensional (Mariani and
Ferrari, 2012).
Whereas the GP and AIP scales were developed to assess the fre-
quency with which people postpone performing everyday behavioral tasks
or activities, a more cognitive measure of procrastination (indecision) is
the decisional procrastination (DP) scale (Mann, 1982); DP is defined as
the purposive delay in making decisions within some specific time frame

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

4 Time & Society 0(0)

(Effert and Ferrari, 1989). DP is a reliable and valid measure composed of

five items such as ‘‘I delay making decisions until it is too late’’ or ‘‘I put
off making decisions.’’ One factor has been found in previous studies
(Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a).
Placing procrastination among related concepts, Schouwenburg et al.
(2004) considered procrastination as a concept clustered of related traits:
trait procrastination, weak impulse control, lack of persistence, lack of
work discipline, lack of time management skill, and the inability to work
methodically. Thus, recently, trait procrastination has begun to be analyzed
from a multidimensional point of view, in terms of the dimensions of the
most frequently used procrastination scales. Psychometric perspective ana-
lysis of procrastination started when the factorial structure of the three
combined scales was first analyzed in a study conducted among
Spanish adults (Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a). Four reliable components
were identified: dilatory behaviors, a summary of the predisposition to mani-
fest intentional behavior gaps; indecision, putting off making a decision
within some specific time frame; lack of punctuality, such as an inability
to work diligently on a task to meet its deadline; and lack of planning,
meaning a lack of self-discipline to stay focused on a target task. The prin-
cipal component, dilatory behaviors, constitutes the most ‘‘pure’’ compo-
nent of procrastination because it gives count of the shared variance of
the three scales of procrastination. Subsequently, Steel (2010) replicated
a similar psychometric study with these three scales among English
speakers and found three similar factors: GP, rushing and appointment keep-
ing, and promptness and doing tasks immediately. Finally, Mariani and
Ferrari (2012) tested different structure models using the same scales of
procrastination.
Not surprisingly, many different instruments have been proposed to
measure this needless and irrational delay, but, from the beginning of
research on procrastination, only recently has the dimensionality of the
construct begun to be considered (Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a). The aim
of present study was to investigate the psychometric properties (i.e., factor-
ial structure and reliability) of the widely used procrastination scales trans-
lated into Polish on student and adult populations and to compare the
results with previous studies conducted in other countries. The factorial
structure, reliability, and convergent validity of these scales were analyzed
in both student and adult groups. It was hypothesized that GP and DP
would be one-dimensional scales, whereas the AIP would have two factors.
It was also hypothesized that higher procrastination would be more fre-
quent among students and that procrastination scores would be similar for
both sexes. Finally, the prevalence of procrastination among Polish people
will be analyzed and compared to the rates obtained in other countries.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 5

Methods
Instruments
GP scale (Lay, 1986) comprises 20 items, rated using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). It measures global tendency
towards procrastination across a variety of daily tasks. Examples of the
items are: ‘‘When it is time to get up in the morning, I most often get right
out of bed,’’ or ‘‘I generally delay before starting on work I have to do.’’
The DP scale (Mann, 1982) is a self-reported scale that assesses the delay
in making decisions; it contains five items (e.g., ‘‘I don’t make a decision unless
I really have to’’). Participants were instructed to respond to the assertions
provided using a 5-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).
The AIP (McCown et al., 1989) measures the tendency to avoid tasks and
contains 15 items (e.g., ‘‘I don’t get things done on time’’). It consists of 15
items with a 5-point response scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).
All the three scales had shown adequate reliability in previous studies, with
the following alpha coefficients for GP, DP, and AIP, respectively: .84, .81,
and .83 (Spain; Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a), .84, .79, and .75 (Italy; Mariani
and Ferrari, 2012), and .84, .79, and .83 (United Kingdom; Steel, 2010).
The authors who are native speakers of Polish translated the scales into
Polish. Following that, the Polish translation was translated back into
English by a professional English translator and the original English ver-
sion was compared with the back-translated English version. Next, we
compared the translations in terms of ambiguity and adequacy and chose
the most appropriate translation.

Procedure
Student participants were recruited using the snowball approach, whereas
adult participants were recruited via the Polish national Ariadna survey
panel. Undergraduate students received an email with an invitation to par-
ticipate in the online study and a request to forward the invitation to their
friends, with age restrictions specified. The adults who were registered
in that panel received an invitation to take part in the study via email.
In the panel there are over 70,000 registered participants from different
regions of Poland.
Statistical analysis was conducted using the SPSS 20.0 and Lisrel statis-
tical programs (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993). An exploratory factorial ana-
lysis (EFA) was performed for each scale. The adequacy of the sample was
evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test and Barlett’s sphericity test
(p < .01) was adequate. The principal component analysis method with
Oblimin rotation was used, with the selection criterion of eigenvalues >1.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

6 Time & Society 0(0)

Reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. In order to test the simi-
larity between student and adult samples, congruence coefficients were cal-
culated (Tucker, 1951). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
test age and sex differences in the three procrastination scales. Finally,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multi-group confirmatory factor
analysis (MCFA) were performed to test sex and age factorial invariance
and to test the fit of the three procrastination scales together to previous
measurement models published in the literature.

Participants
A total of 903 students and adults participated in the study. The question-
naires were administered to 390 students (65.2% of them female) aged from
15 to 25 years (M ¼ 21.81 years, SD ¼ 1.57) who agreed to participate in a
voluntary research with no financial remuneration. As regards education,
2.1% were high school students and the rest of the group were university
students. Also, the 513 adults aged from 25 to 74 years (M ¼ 47.21 years,
SD ¼ 13.48), who agreed to participate on a voluntary basis with no finan-
cial remuneration, filled out the three procrastination scales. In the adult
group, 56.5% of the participants were women. As regards education, 1.2%
had elementary school education, 9.6% had finished technical schools and
30% high schools, 16.2% had incomplete higher education, and 29.8%
possessed master’s degrees. Married participants were 78% of the adult
group. As far as community size is concerned, 31.6% of adult participants
came from the countryside, 11.3% from small towns of up to 20 thousand
inhabitants, 17.2% from medium-sized towns (20–99 thousand inhabit-
ants), 15.4% from large towns (100–500 thousand inhabitants), and
11.3% from cities of over 500 thousand inhabitants.

Results
First, the factorial structure of each scale was extracted in each age group
independently. The items, means, standards deviations, factor loadings, and
item-total correlations of the three scales are shown in Tables 1 to 3 for both
samples – students and adults.
In the sample of students, one-factor solution was obtained for GP,
which explained 23.53% of the total variance (see Table 1). The Kaiser–
Mayer–Olkin index (KMO ¼ .83) and the Bartlett test of sphericity
(2 ¼ 1543.48, df ¼ 190, p < .001) in this sample were adequate.
Cronbach’s a for GP was .82. As regards DP, a one-factor solution with
eigenvalue > 1.0 was extracted that accounted for 47.85% of the total vari-
ance (see Table 2). The KMO index was .76 and the Bartlett test of

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 7

Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), item-total correlations (ITC), and
factor loadings for the polish version of the general procrastination scale from
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in student and adult samples.
Students Adults

M EFA M EFA
General procrastination items (SD) loadings ITC (SD) loadings ITC

1. I often find myself performing 3.07 (1.28) .25 .29 3.02 (1.20) .54 .55
tasks that I had intended to
do days before.
2. I often miss concerts, sport- 2.24 (1.28) .35 .39 2.24 (1.21) .38 .41
ing events, or the like,
because I don’t get around to
buying tickets on time.
3. When planning a party, I make 2.30 (1.20) .38 .40 1.98 (1.03) .46 .46
the necessary arrangements
well in advance.
4. When it is time to get up in 3.23 (1.39) .50 .49 2.40 (1.37) .47 .49
the morning, I most often get
right out of bed.
5. A letter may sit for days after 2.40 (1.30) .40 .43 2.23 (1.28) .55 .55
I write it before I mail it.
6. I generally return phone calls 2.31 (1.17) .25 .30 2.01 (1.03) .43 .44
promptly.
7. Even with jobs that require 2.64 (1.22) .57 .55 2.32 (1.14) .64 .63
little else except sitting down
and doing them, I find they
seldom get done for days.
8. I usually make decisions as 2.51 (1.22) .34 .36 2.00 (0.98) .59 .57
soon as possible.
9. I generally delay before 3.17 (1.29) .61 .57 2.52 (1.20) .69 .68
starting on work I have to do.
10. I usually have to rush to 3.26 (1.19) .55 .53 3.18 (1.11) .33 .37
complete a task on time.
11. When preparing to go out, I 3.19 (1.27) .46 .46 2.78 (1.27) .23 .28
am seldom caught having to
do something at the last
minute.
12. In preparing for some dead- 3.18 (1.29) .53 .51 2.56 (1.17) .64 .62
lines, I often waste time by
doing other things.
13. I prefer to leave early for an 2.35 (1.26) .45 .46 1.88 (1.04) .56 .57
appointment.
(continued)

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

8 Time & Society 0(0)
Table 1. Continued.
Students Adults

M EFA M EFA
General procrastination items (SD) loadings ITC (SD) loadings ITC

14. I usually return a ‘‘R.S.V.P.’’ 2.56 (1.11) -.43 .44 2.04 (0.95) .57 .55
request very shortly after
receiving it.
15. I often have a task finished 3.08 (1.12) .61 .56 2.21 (0.95) .69 .66
sooner than necessary.
16. I always seem to end up 2.90 (1.25) .49 .49 2.96 (1.21) .56 .56
shopping for birthday gifts at
the last minute.
17. I usually buy even an essential 2.83 (1.23) .54 .54 2.67 (1.17) .66 .65
item at the last minute.
18. I usually accomplish all the 2.82 (1.14) .61 .58 2.19 (0.91) .66 .63
things I plan to do in a day.
19. I am continually saying ‘‘I’ll do 3.17 (1.21) .69 .64 2.51 (1.16) .75 .74
it tomorrow.’’
20. I usually take care of all the 2.72 (1.17) .41 .41 2.37 (1.03) .47 .47
tasks I have to do before I
settle down and relax for the
evening.
% of explained variance 23.53 31.16

sphericity (2 ¼ 355.45, df ¼ 10, p < .001) was acceptable. The internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s a) of DP was .72. Finally, in the AIP, one factor was
extracted that explained 41.45% of variance (see Table 3). The KMO index
was .86, the Bartlett test of sphericity (2 ¼ 1342.00, df ¼ 105, p < .001)
showed that exploratory analyses can be conducted. Cronbach’s alpha
was .82. Pearson coefficient of correlation between the three scales
(p < .001) was r ¼ .65 between GP and DP, r ¼ .74 between GP and AIP,
and r ¼ .56 between DP and AIP.
In the adult sample, we obtained a one-factor solution for GP, which
explained 31.16% of the total variance (see Table 1). The KMO index (.89)
and the Bartlett test of sphericity (2 ¼ 3388.59, df ¼ 190, p < .001) for this
sample were adequate. Cronbach’s a for GP was .87. Regarding DP, one-
factor solution with eigenvalue >1.0 was extracted, which accounted for
66.53% of the total variance (see Table 2). The KMO index was .858 and
the Bartlett test of sphericity was acceptable (2 ¼ 1217.79, df ¼ 10,
p < .001). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) of DP was .87. Finally,
in the AIP, one factor was extracted that explained 39.67% of the variance
(see Table 3). The KMO index was .902 and the Bartlett test of sphericity

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 9

Table 2. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), item-total correlations (ITC), and
factor loadings for the polish version of decisional procrastination (DP) from explora-
tory factor analysis (EFA) in student and adult samples.

Students Adults

Decisional M EFA M EFA

procrastination items (SD) loadings ITC (SD) loadings ITC

1. I waste a lot of time 3.53 (1.20) .61 .62 2.71 (1.11) .80 .80
on trivial matters
before getting to
the final decision.
2. Even after I make a 3.12 (1.24) .67 .67 2.77 (1.09) .83 .82
decision I delay
acting upon it.
3. I don’t make a deci- 3.02 (1.27) .75 .73 2.88 (1.18) .80 .80
sion unless I really
have to.
4. I delay making a 2.52 (1.31) .64 .66 2.11 (1.02) .80 .79
decision until it is
too late.
5. I put off making 2.90 (1.23) .77 .74 2.57 (1.12) .86 .85
decisions.
% of explained 47.85 66.53
variance

(2 ¼ 3017.69, df ¼ 105, p < .001) showed that exploratory analyses can be
conducted. Cronbach’s alpha was .86. Pearson’s coefficient of correlation
(p < .001) was r ¼ .78 between GP and DP, r ¼ .75 between GP and AIP,
and r ¼ .67 between DP and AIP.
In order to test the factorial invariance across sex and age, we performed
a MCFA for each procrastination scale. The models were tested using a
covariance matrix and each model was estimated using maximum likeli-
hood. Configural, metric, and scalar levels of measurement invariance
were tested. Configural invariance refers to the same items being related
to each factor. Metric invariance depicts the equivalence of factor loadings
that describe the strength of the associations between specific items and
their factors. Finally, scalar invariance refers to the equivalent intercepts
of the items. Model fit was based on several recommended criteria (Bentler,
1992), the Chi-square test (2), the comparative fit index (CFI > .90), the
normed fit index (NFI > .90), the goodness of fit index (GFI > .95) and
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: .08–.10 mediocre,

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

10 Time & Society 0(0)

Table 3. Means of items (M), standard deviations (SD), item-total correlations (ITC),
and Factor loadings for the polish version of the adult inventory of procrastination
from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in student and adult samples.

Students Adults

Adult inventory of pro- M EFA M EFA

crastination items (SD) loadings ITC (SD) loadings ITC

1. I pay my bills on 1.85 (1.17) .38 .40 1.74 (1.07) .50 .26
time.
2. I am prompt and on 2.09 (1.21) .66 .61 1.73 (.96) .62 .35
time for most
appointments.
3. I lay out my clothes 2.94 (1.36) .39 .43 2.42 (1.19) .58 .32
the night before I
have and appoint-
ment so I won’t be
late.
4. I find myself run- 2.90 (1.33) .73 .69 2.29 (1.10) .75 .51
ning later than I
would like to be.
5. I don’t get things 2.57 (1.24) .65 .59 2.12 (1.07) .73 .57
done on time.
6. If someone was 2.66 (1.44) .40 .44 2.37 (1.17) .50 .40
teaching a course
on how to get
things done on
time I would
attend.
7. My friends and 2.87 (1.37) .71 .66 2.28 (1.16) .80 .62
family think I wait
until the last
minute.
8. I get important 2.74 (1.23) .56 .51 2.33 (1.01) .62 .45
things done with
time to spare.
9. I am not very good 2.47 (1.20) .67 .60 2.12 (1.11) .74 .58
at meeting
deadlines.
10. I find myself run- 3.39 (1.30) .37 .40 3.12 (1.13) .44 .37
ning out of time.
(continued)

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 11
Table 3. Continued.

Students Adults

Adult inventory of pro- M EFA M EFA

crastination items (SD) loadings ITC (SD) loadings ITC

11. I schedule doctor’s 2.37 (1.27) .28 .37 1.99 (.96) .54 .33
appointments when
I am supposed to
without delay.
12. I am more punctual 2.57 (1.28) .66 .60 2.19 (1.03) .64 .30
than most people I
know.
13. I do routine main- 3.23 (1.29) .20 .27 2.69 (1.10) .43 .25
tenance (e.g. chan-
ging the car’s oil)
on things I own as
often as I should.
14. When I have to be 2.43 (1.38) .68 .63 2.02 (1.09) .74 .50
somewhere at a
certain time my
friends expect me
to run a bit late.
15. Putting things off 2.71 (1.36) .60 .54 2.36 (1.12) .68 .54
till the last minute
has cost me money
in the past year.
% of explained 41.45 39.67
variance

.06–.08 acceptable, and <.05 excellent fit). We used the Chi-square differ-
ence test as an index of incremental fit to calculate improvements over
competing models, but as the Chi-square difference has the same limitations
as the overall likelihood ratio test, we also used the CFI and the expected
cross-validation index (ECVI) (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Vandenberg,
2002). Lower ECVI values indicate the model with a better fit.
Thus, MGCFA were carried out, specifying this one-factor model in
each scale. In the first stage, a one-factor baseline model was estimated
separately for women and men (sex invariance) as well as for students
and adults (age invariance). This procedure served to confirm the under-
lying factor structure of the scales for each sex and age group; it fulfills
the requirements for the testing of factorial invariance. The next model
was estimated simultaneously for both sexes and age groups to provide

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

12 Time & Society 0(0)

a baseline model against which to compare more restrictive models (sex and
age configural invariance, see Tables 4 to 6). In the third model, all estim-
able factor loading parameters were constrained equally across groups
(sex and age metric invariance). Finally, sex scalar invariance was tested
if metric invariance was supported.
Sex configural invariance test indicated mediocre fit for the GP, DP
and AIP scales, and sex metric invariance was supported for GP
(
2 ¼ 10.36,
df ¼ 19) and DP (
2 ¼ 1.24,
df ¼ 5). Sex scalar invariance
was supported also for DP (
2 ¼ 2.06,
df ¼ 3) (see Tables 4, 5 and 6,
respectively).
Regarding age measurement equivalence, configural invariance test indi-
cated also mediocre fit for GP, DP and AIP scales, and age metric invari-
ance was supported in DP (
2 ¼ 11.02,
df ¼ 5) (see Tables 4, 5, and 6,
respectively).
Third, ANOVA was carried out in order to test sex, age (student vs.
adult), and age  sex interaction effects on GP, DP, and AIP scales
(see Table 7). The analyses indicated significant differences between stu-
dents and adults in the GP scale, F(1, 903) ¼ 89.13 p < .001; Z2 ¼ .090,
in the DP scale, F(1, 903) ¼ 41.66, p < .001; Z2 ¼ .044, and in the AIP,
F(1, 903) ¼ 118.19 p < .001; Z2 ¼ .116. Sex differences did not reach a sig-
nificant level for any of these three scales, and neither was the sex  age
interaction effect significant. We performed the planned t-test for each
sample to compare the results according to sex. In the adult sample,
men scored higher on the GP (M ¼ 49.65, SD ¼ 11.91) and AIP
(M ¼ 34.69, SD ¼ 10.18) procrastination scales compared to women
(M ¼ 46.86, SD ¼ 12.19 and M ¼ 32.91, SD ¼ 9.77 respectively), GP:
F(1, 512) ¼ 6.781, p < .01, Z2 ¼ .013 and AIP: F(1, 512) ¼ 4.052, p < .05,
Z2 ¼ .004. Sex differences in DP did not reach a significant level,
F(1, 512) ¼ 3.375, p ¼ .067, (men: M ¼ 13.44, SD ¼ 4.40; women:
M ¼ 12.71, SD ¼ 4.56). In the student sample, there were no differences in
any of the procrastination scales between males and females, GP:
F(1, 389) ¼ .602, p ¼ .439, DP: F(1, 389) ¼ .043, p ¼ .836, and AIP:
F(1, 389) ¼ .637, p ¼ .425.
In the fourth step, prevalence rates of GP and AIP were calculated
for Poland and compared with men and women across countries with dif-
ferent languages included in the transcultural paper by Ferrari et al. (2007).
In this analysis, we included only Polish adult participants, who had
the fourth mean GP score (M ¼ 48.07) compared to adults from the UK
(M ¼ 52.46), Peru (M ¼ 50.01), the US (M ¼ 49.22), Spain (M ¼ 46.51),
Australia (M ¼ 44.72), and Venezuela (M ¼ 44.33). In the case of the AIP,
Polish adults scored a mean of M ¼ 33.68 (SD ¼ 9.98), which gives
them the fifth position compared to the UK (M ¼ 39.01), the US

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

 Przepiorka et al.

Table 4. Model fit of the GP scale, sex and age factorial invariance.

2 df RMSEA (90% CI) ECVI (90% CI) NFI CFI GFI
2 (
df)

Women 1018.46 170 .095 1.99 (1.82, 2.18) .71 .75 .84
Men 783.40 170 .102 2.47 (2.23, 2.73) .69 .75 .82
Sex configural invariance 1801.87 340 .098 2.18 (2.03, 2.33) .70 .75 .82
Sex metric invariance 1812.23 359 .095 2.15 (2.00, 2.30) .70 .75 .82 10.36 (19)
Sex scalar invariance 1862.75 378 .093 2.25 (2.06, 2.36) .69 .75 .81 50.52 (19)***
Students 541.79 170 .074 (.067, .081) 1.55 (1.38, 1.73) .68 .75 .88
Adults 1493.94 170 .125 (.12, .13) 3.15 (2.91, 3.41) .68 .72 .77
Age configural invariance 2035.73 340 .105 (.10, .11) 2.44 (2.28, 2.60) .68 .73 .77
Age metric invariance 2096.77 360 .105 (.099, .11) 2.46 (2.30, 2.62) .67 .72 .77 61.04 (20)***
***p < .001.
df: degree freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; ECVI: expected cross-validation index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit
index; GFI: goodness-of-fit index.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

13
 14

Table 5. Model fit of the DP scale, sex and age factorial invariance.

2 df RMSEA (90% CI) ECVI (90% CI) NFI CFI GFI
2 (
df)

Women 17.95 5 .069 (.036, .10) .069 (.052, .100) .98 .98 .99
Men 17.44 5 .084 (.043, .13) .11 (.081, .15) .97 .98 .98
Sex configural invariance 35.39 10 .075 (.049, .10) .084 (.068, .11) .97 .98 .98
Sex metric invariance 36.63 15 .057 (.034, .080) .074 (.058, .098) .97 .98 .98 1.24 (5)
Sex scalar invariance 38.69 18 .051 (.028, .072) .092 (.065, .11) .97 .98 .98 2.06 (3)
Students 13.71 5 .066 (.025.,.10) .083 (.065, .12) .96 .97 .98
Adults 36.86 5 .113 (.081, .15) .11 (.083, .16) .97 .97 .97
Age configural invariance 50.18 10 .094 (.069, .12) .10 (.080, .13) .97 .97 .97
Age metric invariance 61.20 15 .083 (.062, .10) .10 (.079, .13) .96 .97 .97 11.02 (5)
Age scalar invariance 130.47 18 .118 (.099, .14) .19 (.15, .23) .92 .93 .97 69.27 (3)***
***p < .001

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Time & Society 0(0)
 Przepiorka et al.

Table 6. Model fit of the AIP scale, sex and age factorial invariance.

2 df RMSEA (90% CI) ECVI (90% CI) NFI CFI GFI
2 (
df)

Women 784.77 90 .118 (.11, .13) 1.53 (1.38, 1.70) .76 .79 .84
Men 428.04 90 .104 (.094, .11) 1.39 (1.22, 1.59) .78 .82 .86
Sex configural invariance 1212.80 180 .11 (.11, .12) 1.48 (1.36, 1.61) .77 .80 .86
Sex metric invariance 1241.75 195 .109 (.10, .12) 1.48 (1.36, 1.61) .76 .80 .85 28.95* (15)
Students 508.78 90 .108 (.099, .12) 1.41 (1.25, 1.60) .71 .75 .86
Adults 770.22 90 .123 (.12, .13) 1.66 (1.49, 1.85) .79 .81 .83
Age configural invariance 1278.99 180 .12 (.11, .12) 1.55 (1.43, 1.68) .76 .79 .83
Age metric invariance 1318.28 195 .113 (.11, .12) 1.56 (1.44, 1.69) .75 .79 .83 39.29* (15)
Note: *p < 0.05

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

15
16 Time & Society 0(0)

Table 7. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and the number of participants (n) for
the GP (General Procrastination), DP (Decisional Procrastination), and AIP (Adult
Inventory of Procrastination) scales according to age and sex.

Students Adults Total

M SD n M SD n M SD n

GP Women 55.60 12.08 260 46.86 12.19 290 50.99 12.89 550
Men 56.57 10.70 130 49.65 11.91 130 52.20 11.94 353
Total 55.92 11.63 390 48.07 12.14 513 51.46 12.54 903

DP Women 15.12 4.24 260 12.71 4.56 290 13.85 4.57 550
Men 15.02 4.48 130 13.45 4.40 223 14.03 4.49 353
Total 15.08 4.32 390 12.97 4.51 513 13.92 4.54 903

AIP Women 39.22 9.98 260 32.91 9.97 290 35.88 10.35 550
Men 40.06 9.64 130 34.69 10.18 223 36.67 10.30 353
Total 39.50 9.86 390 33.68 9.98 513 36.19 10.33 903

(M ¼ 35.64), Perú (M ¼ 35.98), Australia (M ¼ 33.97), Spain (M ¼ 32.38),

and Venezuela (M ¼ 31.29). The correlation between GP and AIP was
r ¼ .78, p < .001.
Finally, CFA was used in order to determine the fit of three structural
models, that is: (a) unidimensional structure, (b) four-dimensional structure
(dilatory behaviors, indecision, lack of punctuality, and lack of planning;
Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a), and (c) three-factor model of procrastination
(GP, rushing and appointment keeping, and task promptness; Steel, 2010).
The fit indices for one-dimensional, four-dimensional structure, and
three-factor model indicated better fit indices four measurement model,
compared to one-factorial and three-factorial measurement models (see
Table 8).

Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to analyze the factor structure
and reliability of the Polish version of the most frequently used procrastin-
ation scales on student and adult Polish samples. Also, demographic dif-
ferences for the scale (age and sex) were investigated and the prevalence of
procrastination was estimated. Consistent with the recommendations of
Paunonen and Ashton (1998), in order to establish the cross-cultural
equivalence of a questionnaire, certain criteria must be applied, including

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

 Przepiorka et al.

Table 8. Model fit of three measurement models.

2 df RMSEA (90% CI) ECVI (90% CI) NFI CFI GFI
2 (
df)

Model 1: One factor 6076.69 740 .089 (.087–.092) 6.91 (6.64–7.19) .69 .73 .75
Model 2: Three factors 4757.85 737 .078 (.076–.080) 5.46 (5.22–5.70) .74 .78 .79 1318.84*** (3) (Models 2 vs. 1)
Model 3: Four factors 4617.38 734 .077 (.074–.079) 5.31 (5.08–5.55) .74 .78 .80 140.47*** (3) (Models 3 vs. 2)
***p < .001.
df: degree freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; ECVI: expected cross-validation index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit
index; GFI: goodness-of-fit index.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

17
18 Time & Society 0(0)

a satisfactory translation of the questionnaire, which may be verified by

back-translation, and the comparison of the psychometric properties of the
questionnaire in the original culture with those found in the foreign culture.
It is important to note that cultural values and traditions most probably
play an important role in defining which behaviors are characterized as
procrastination within a particular culture. In the present study, a correct
translation and adaptation of three scales to the Polish-speaking culture
were provided. The reliability of GP, AIP, and DP scales was acceptable
with the present samples and similar to previous studies in other countries
(Ferrari et al., 2007). Cronbach’s alphas were closer to .80 and .90 among
students and adults, respectively. These findings indicated a better internal
consistency of the scales in the case of adults.
Principal component analysis on GP, DP and AIP data yielded one-
factor structure in Polish student and adult samples. In the case of GP
and DP, the expectations based on previous studies where one-dimensional
structure had been found (Dı́az-Morales et al., 2006a; Steel, 2010) were thus
confirmed. The two-factor structure of the AIP was not replicated in the
present study despite results similar to those obtained among an Italian
sample: one-factor structure was found (Mariani and Ferrari, 2012).
Testing the factorial structure in the multi-group analysis, partial invariance
regarding sex was supported for three procrastination scales, but not
regarding age (only for DP).
The partial measurement invariance obtained in the present study sup-
ported the reported internal consistency indices and correlation coefficients,
but mean scores and differences must be compared across groups with
caution (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). Metric factorial invariance was sup-
ported only for GP and DP, whereas scalar invariance was supported only
for DP. The lack of scalar invariance in GP and AIP might stem from
unspecified factors such as social desirability, social norms, developmental
changes, and/or gender roles. This means that the factor scores did not
express the measured traits in the same way in each sex and age group;
thus, comparisons of the mean scores between sex and age groups may be
misleading.
Three different construct models were tested. The one-model was not
supported in the present study. This result is in contrast with one-dimen-
sional factor solution obtained for the three scales among Turkish adults
(Özer, 2014). Fit indices for four-dimensional (Spanish) model were slightly
better than three-dimensional (English), but none of these indices indicated
a great fit.
Previous studies showed that procrastination is related to education,
marital status, or occupation (Dı́az-Morales, 2006b); therefore, we also
explored demographic characteristics – sex and age.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 19

Students scored higher on procrastination than adults. This may be

related to the developmental stages, where students and adults face different
obligations (cf. Erikson, 1964). As procrastination means delaying respon-
sibilities and not doing tasks timely, adults may have a lower tendency to
postpone duties than students. In adulthood, people have to take up more
responsibility connected with their roles as parents or employees. This result
is therefore consistent with the negative relationship between procrastin-
ation and age presented in the meta-analysis of 16 studies done by Steel
(2007). Similarly, Steel and Ferrari (2013) showed on an Internet sample of
16,413 English-speakers that procrastination was related to sex, age, marital
status, education, and nationality.
In terms of sex differences, the study showed a higher prevalence of
procrastination among males but only in the adult sample; in the student
group, there were no significant differences. This may be related to the fact
that women, especially adult women, face multiple obligations and perform
different roles; combining professional with private life, they have to deal
with tasks immediately and cannot postpone completing them (Trask,
2014). Even in the workplace, women had lower tendencies to procrastinate
that men did (Nguyen et al., 2013). The authors showed that procrastin-
ation was a mediator in the relationships between sex and employment or
between sex and salary (Nguyen et al., 2013). This evidence supports
the meta-analysis conducted by Van Eerde (2003), which stated that the
tendency to procrastinate was more common among male than among
female participants. However, other empirical studies found no significant
sex difference in behavioral procrastination (GP and AIP). These inconsis-
tencies in the results may stem from cultural and societal influences, which
could be the object of future research (cf. Perrone-McGovern et al., 2014).
Finally, the prevalence of procrastination was estimated among adult
Poland participants. Comparing their procrastination levels with those
found in Australia, Perú, Spain, the UK, the US, and Venezuela, Polish
adults took the fourth and the fifth place in the mean score on GP and the
AIP, respectively.
The present study is not free from limitations that should be mentioned.
Firstly, the scales had a self-report character. However, the study by
Krause and Freund (2014) showed that self-reported measures procrastin-
ation were even more reliable than behavioral ones. The presented measures
need further investigation in terms of their divergent validity. The study
also lacks explanatory power, since no personality characteristics related to
procrastination were included. We only analyzed demographic variables
(age and sex).
Considering the serious consequences of chronic procrastination,
this topic deserves more attention. As procrastination may be detrimental

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

20 Time & Society 0(0)

to mental health, less positive self-regulatory behaviors (Ferrari and

Dı́az-Morales, 2014) and worse stress coping capabilities (Ferrari, 2010),
this study gains further importance by investigating the scale of the phe-
nomenon of procrastination among Poles and by examining the possible
demographic characteristics related to it. This study was aimed to fill a gap
in Poland, where little attention has been attached to the procrastination
phenomenon. It has been studied so far in the context of self-handicapping
strategies (see Doliński and Szmajke, 1994). At this stage, we may state that
young males have a higher tendency to procrastinate and therefore prevent-
ive actions should be specifically designed for this target group. Overall,
the results provided evidence for the validity and reliability of the three
scales.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: AMP was supported by the founda-
tion for Polish science (FNP, START 88.2015-W). JFDM was supported by
research grant from Ministerio EconomûÙa y Competitividad (PSI2011-26967) of
Spain.

References
Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the
Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin 112: 400–404.
Blunt A and Pychyl TA (2005) Project systems of procrastinators: A personal pro-
ject-analytic and action control perspective. Personality and Individual
Differences 38: 1771–1780.
Cheung GW and Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 9: 233–255.
Dı́az-Morales JF, Ferrari JR and Cohen JR (2008) Indecision and avoidant pro-
crastination: The role of morningness-eveningness and time perspective in
chronic delay lifestyles. The Journal of General Psychology 135: 228–240.
Dı́az-Morales JF, Ferrari JR, Dı́az K, et al. (2006a) Factorial structure of three
procrastination scales with Spanish adult population. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment 22: 132–137.
Dı́az-Morales JF, Ferrari JR, Dı́az K, et al. (2006b) Procrastination and demo-
graphic characteristics in Spanish adults: Further evidence. The Journal of
Social Psychology 146: 629–633.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 21
Digdon NL and Howell AJ (2008) College students who have an eveningness pref-
erence report lower self-control and greater procrastination. Chronobiology
International 25: 1029–1046.
Doliński D and Szmajke A (1994) Strategia Samoutrudniania. [The self-handicap-
ping strategy]. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo PTP.
Effert BR and Ferrari JR (1989) Decisional procrastination: Examining personality
correlates. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 4: 151–161.
Erikson EH (1964) Insight and Responsibility. New York: Norton.
Fee RL and Tangney JP (2000) Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or
guilt? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 15: 167–184.
Ferrari JR (1991a) Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting social-esteem,
self-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality 25: 245–261.
Ferrari JR (1991b) A preference for a favorable public impression by procrastin-
ation: Selecting among cognitive and social tasks. Personality and Individual
Differences 12: 1233–1237.
Ferrari JR (1991c) Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics.
Psychological Reports 68(2): 455–458.
Ferrari JR (1993) Christmas and procrastination: Explaining lack of diligence at a
‘‘real-world’’ task deadline. Personality and Individual Differences 14: 25–33.
Ferrari JR (2001) Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects
of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on ‘‘working best under pres-
sure.’’. European Journal of Personality 15: 391–406.
Ferrari JR (2010) Still Procrastinating: The No Regrets Guide to getting it Done.
New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Ferrari JR and Dı́az-Morales JF (2014) Procrastination and mental health coping:
A brief report related to students. Individual Differences Research 12(1): 8–11.
Ferrari JR, Dı́az-Morales JF, O’Callaghan J, et al. (2007) Frequent behavioral delay
tendencies by adults: International prevalence rates of chronic procrastination.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38: 458–464.
Ferrari JR, Doroszko E and Joseph N (2005) Procrastination in corporate settings:
Sex, status, and geographic comparisons of arousal and avoidance types.
Individual Differences Research 3: 140–149.
Ferrari JR, Johnson J and McCown W (1995) Procrastination and Task Avoidance:
Theory, Research, and Treatment. New York: Plenum Press.
Ferrari J, Özer B and Demir A (2009) Chronic procrastination among Turkish
adults: Exploring decisional, avoidant, and arousal styles. The Journal of
Social Psychology 149: 302–308.
Flett GL, Blankstein KR and Martin TR (1995) Procrastination, negative self-evalua-
tion, and stress in depression and anxiety: A review and preliminary model. In: Ferrari
JR, Johnson JL and McCown WG (eds) Procrastination and Task Avoidance: Theory,
Research, and Treatment. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 137–167.
Gupta R, Hershey DA and Gaur J (2012) Time perspective and procrastination in
the workplace: An empirical investigation. Current Psychology 31: 195–211.
Hammer CA and Ferrari JR (2002) Differential incidence of procrastination
between blue-and white collar workers. Current Psychology 21: 333–338.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

22 Time & Society 0(0)
Jöreskog KG and Sörbom D (1993) Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
Simplis Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ: SSI.
Krause K and Freund AM (2014) Delay or procrastination – A comparison of self-
report and behavioral measures of procrastination and their impact on affective
well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 6: 375–380.
Lay CH (1986) At last, my research on procrastination. Journal of Research in
Personality 20: 479–495.
McCown W, Johnson J and Petzel T (1989) Procrastination, a principal components
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 10: 197–202.
Mann L (1982) Decision making questionnaire: Parts I and II. In: Ferrari JR,
Johnson JL and McCown W (eds) Procrastination and Task Avoidance. New
York: Plenum Press.
Mariani MG and Ferrari JR (2012) Adult Inventory of Procrastination scale (AIP):
A comparison of model with and Italian sample. Testing, Psychometric,
Methodology in Applied Psychology 19: 3–14.
Mohsin FZ and Ayub N (2014) The relationship between procrastination, delay of
gratification, and job satisfaction among high school teachers. Japanese
Psychological Research 56(3): 224–234.
Nguyen B, Steel P and Ferrari JR (2013) Procrastination’s impact in the workplace
and the workplace’s impact on procrastination. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment 21: 388–399.
Özer BU (2014) Psychometric properties of adult inventory of procrastination in a
Turkish sample. Journal of Adult Development 21(1): 43–47.
Paunonen SV and Ashton MC (1998) The structured assessment of personality
across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29: 150–170.
Perrone-McGovern KM, Wright SL, Howell DS, et al. (2014) Contextual influences
on work and family roles: Gender, culture, and socioeconomic factors. Career
Development Quarterly 62(1): 21–28.
Schouwenburg HC, Lay CH, Pychyl TA, et al. (2004) Counseling the Procrastinator
in Academic Settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sirois FM (2007) ‘I’ll look after my health, later’: A replication and extension of the
procrastination-health model with community-dwelling adults. Personality and
Individual Differences 43(1): 15–26.
Sirois FM (2014) Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-compassion.
Self and Identity 13(2): 128–145.
Sirois FM, Melia-Gordon ML and Pychyl T (2003) ‘‘I’ll look after my health, later’’:
An investigation of procrastination and health. Personality and Individual
Differences 35: 1167–1184.
Stead R, Shanahan, MJ and Neufeld, RW (2010). ‘‘I’ll go to therapy, eventually’’:
Procrastination, stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences
49: 175–180.
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.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016

Przepiorka et al. 23
Steel P (2011) The procrastination equation. Toronto, ON: Random House.
Steel P and 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.
Tucker LR (1951) A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Personnel
Research Section Report No. 984. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
Trask BS (2014) Women, Work, and Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities.
New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Vandenberg RJ (2002) Toward a further understanding of and improvement in
measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research
Methods 5: 139–158.
Van Eerde W (2003) A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procras-
tination. Personality and Individual Differences 35: 1401–1418.

Downloaded from tas.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on December 5, 2016