The Nature of Procrastination: A

Meta-Analytic Review
Counseling the Procrastinator in
Academic Settings

Piers Steel
www.procrastinus.com

Piers Steel 1
 Overview
Study details
Procrastination findings
Procrastination and performance
Weak correlates
Strong correlates
Traits & tasks
Theory of procrastination
Treatment implications

Piers Steel 2
 Study Details
Almost 500 studies have been written that deal with
procrastination directly
These studies contain over 600 relevant correlations
Key terms:
K = Number of Samples/Studies Conducted
N = Total Sample Size
Correlations Effect Size
Weak  .20
Medium  .30
Large  .40

Piers Steel 4
Definition of Procrastination
Three key components:
1. Overwhelmingly referred to as a negative
phenomenon – often seen as irrational
2. We delay voluntarily, it is our choice
3. We intend to do the task, not to avoid it entirely

To voluntarily delay an intended course of

action despite expecting to be worse-off for
the delay

Piers Steel 5
Table 1

The Reliability of Procrastination Scales

Name Authors Items K N 

Academic Procrastination
Milgram & Toubina, 1999 21 7 1,279 .90
Scale (APS)
Adult Inventory of
McCown & Johnson, 1989 15 17 2,803 .81
Procrastination (AIP)
Aitken Procrastination
Aitken, 1982 19 3 276 .82
Inventory (API)
Decisional Procrastination
Mann, 1982; Mann et al., 1997 5 22 7,476 .79
Questionnaires (DPQI, DPQII)
General Procrastination Scale
Lay, 1986 20 36 5,396 .87
(GPS)
Procrastination Assessment
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984 12 3 591 .83
Scale-Students (PASS)
PASS - Frequency 6 8 1,610 .74
PASS - Problem 6 4 923 .73
Procrastination Log - Behavior Lopez & Wambach, 1982 11 4 218 .64
Procrastination Self-Statement
Grecco, 1983 24 2 485 .83
Inventory (PSSI)
Test Procrastination Kalechstein, Hocevar, Zimmer,
10 2 238 .94
Questionnaire (TPQ) & Kalechstein, 1989
That’s Me – That’s Not Me Tuckman, 1991, 1999 16 11 2,695 .86
Tuckman Procrastination Scale
Tuckman, 1991 35 3 300 .87
(TPS)
Work Procrastination Scale
Steel, 2002 9 2 360 .88
(WPS)

Piers Steel 6
Table 2

The Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations of Procrastination Scales

Procrastination Mean Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 APS 2.48 .48

(130) (130)
2 AIP 2.71 .68
-
(3,216) (2,874)
3 API 2.72 .55 .60/.75
-
(2,052) (1,960) (20)
4 DPQ 2.62 .70 .46/.57 .24/.30
-
(4,534) (2,142) (2,288) (32)
5 GPS 2.81 .79 .78/.93 .73/.80 .66/.79
-
(5,843) (5,240) (732) (160) (1,400)
6 PASS 2.93 .64 .26/.31 .64/.75
- - -
(2,002) (1,822) (344) (141)
7 PASS – Freq. 2.29 .64 .60/.75
- - - - -
(2,006) (2,006) (102)
8 PASS – Prob. 2.06 .61 .47/.59 .70/.93
- - - - -
(1,677) (1,677) (102) (403)
9 Procras. Log
- - - - - - - - -
10 PSSI 1.80 .56
- - - - - - -
(355) (355)
11 TPQ 2.20 .68
- - - - - - -
(70) (70)
12 That’s Me/Not 3.14 .97
- - - - - - -
Me (652) (652)
13 TPS 2.43
- - - - - - - -
(305)

Piers Steel 7
Procrastination & Performance
Over all, a weak (r=-.19, K=34, N=6,295) but
consistently negative relationship with
academic criteria (e.g., GPA, Exam, etc.)
Procrastination is usually harmful, sometimes
harmless, but never helpful
More serious results for financial/career
performance
Correlations are negative and moderate to strong
in strength

Piers Steel 8
 Weak Correlates
These relationships have long been suspected
of being major causes of procrastination
Rebelliousness, Sensation-Seeking, Neuroticism,
and Irrational beliefs
Results here indicate, however, that they
generally either are :
Weak causes of procrastination
Strong causes only for a small percentage of
people

Piers Steel 9
 Rebelliousness
Theory
Externally imposed schedules are more likely
experienced as aversive, and thus avoided. Also, by
delaying work and starting it on one’s own schedule,
autonomy is reasserted.
Results (K=21, N=4,350)
Almost no support
Correlations extremely weak
Except for adolescents, few report it as a reason

Piers Steel 10
 Sensation-Seeking
Theory
People high in this trait are easily bored and
long for excitement, and thus they may
intentionally put off work to feel the tension of
working close to a deadline.
Results (K=9, N=1,810)
Almost no support
Correlations extremely weak
Few endorse it as a reason

Piers Steel 11
 Neuroticism: Anxiety
Theory
People procrastinate on tasks because they are more
susceptible to experiencing stress and thus find them
more stressful
Results (K=44, N=8,540)
Little support
Correlations mostly weak and where strong, due to
impulsiveness
Procrastination seems to cause anxiety, not vice-versa

Piers Steel 12
 Irrational Beliefs
Theory
Acts similarly to neuroticism. These beliefs create
anxiety and thus make certain tasks unpleasant.
Results (K=65, N=12,072)
Little support
Correlations mostly weak, except for general
irrational beliefs where it may be moderate
Fear of failure and perfectionism are extremely low
Self-perfectionists actually may be less likely to
procrastinate

Piers Steel 13
 Strong Correlates
These relationships are generally more
recently seen as major causes of
procrastination
Traits: Self-Efficacy, Energy, Impulsiveness
& Self-Discipline, Achievement Motivation
Task Characteristics: Aversiveness, Delay
Results here indicate they either
describe or cause procrastination
Piers Steel 15
Low Self-Efficacy & Self-Esteem
Theory
Related to irrational beliefs in that people may
doubt their ability to do well
Results (K=26, N=4,217; K=33, N=5,846)
Good support
For self-efficacy, strong correlations. Helps to
explain the moderate relationship sometimes seen
with irrational belief inventories.
For self-esteem, moderate to weak correlations

Piers Steel 16
 Depression & Energy
Theory
Related to irrational beliefs and low self-efficacy.
Burka and Yuen (1983) also discuss how it is
harder to initiate tasks when we are tired.
Results (K=53, N=10,233)
Moderate support
Depressed people are more pessimistic about
outcomes.
They are lethargic and thus more likely to find
energy-intensive tasks unpleasant.

Piers Steel 17
Impulsiveness & Self-Discipline
Theory
Impulsive people may be more likely to
procrastinate as they are beset with desires of the
moment and focus their attention upon them.
Results (K=17, N=3,190; K=18, N=3,877)
Very strong support
Procrastinators tend to show an intention-action
gap, indicating an impulsive shift in motivation
They tend to choose short-term benefits over
long-term gains, reflecting a core component of
poor self-regulation

Piers Steel 18
 Need for Achievement
Theory
Those high in achievement motivation set
more difficult goals for themselves, find
work to be intrinsically engaging and thus
necessarily less aversive.
Results (K=38, N=6,136)
Strong support
Large (approximately .50) correlations

Piers Steel 19
Task Aversiveness: Trait & State
Theory
We seek to avoid aversive stimuli, and
consequently, the more aversive the situation, the
more likely we are to avoid it (e.g., procrastinate).
Results (K=10, N=1,069; K=8, N=938)
Very strong support for both state and trait types:
Aversive tasks tend to be procrastinated. People who
find tasks aversive, tend to be procrastinators
Researched with a variety of methodologies
Especially susceptible for boring or frustrating jobs

Piers Steel 20
 Task Delay
Theory
The further away an event is temporally,
the less impact it has upon our decisions
Results (not correlational)
Very strong support from a variety of fields
(e.g., economics, behaviorism)
Students indicate that they would be less
likely to procrastinate as a deadline
approaches

Piers Steel 21
 Theory of Procrastination
Big findings
Impulsiveness, Self-Discipline, Task delay
Indicates time a factor
Energy, Need for Achievement, Task
Aversiveness
Indicates value/valence a factor
Self-Efficacy, Self-Confidence
Indicates expectancy a factor

Piers Steel 22
 Theory of Procrastination
Expectancy  Value
Utility 
  Delay
Any one of these variables can exacerbate
procrastination
This includes having an alternative course of
action nearby that is evaluated more
favorable

Piers Steel 23
 90
80 Expectancy  Value
Utility 
70   Delay
December 3rd
60 Socializing
Utility

50
40
30 Essay Writing
20
10
0
15-Sep 8-Oct 31-Oct 23-Nov 16-Dec
Time
Piers Steel 24
 Treatment
Need for a diagnostic procedure.
There are many possible causes of procrastination
and then many different supporting factors
It may be expectancy, impulsiveness, task aversiveness,
or some combination
For any specific factor, we need to learn why
For example, if task aversiveness is driving the
procrastination for one individual, we still need to learn
why he or she finds it unpleasant
For some, though not many, it will be because they are
rebellious or have specific irrational beliefs

Piers Steel 25
 General Treatment Goals
1. Reduce the aversiveness of the task
2. Increase competence with the task
3. Improve self-regulatory skills (e.g.,
organization, planning) to decrease
impulsiveness
4. Distance temptations

Piers Steel 26
 Treatments
Techniques that likely will be broadly
successful are:
Energy Regulation
Goal Setting
Specific, Proximal, Challenging
Stimulus Control
Routine Building

Piers Steel 27
 90
Background Temptations
80
No Goal Setting
70 Goal Setting
60

50
Utility

40

30

20

10

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Time
Piers Steel 28
 Final Thought:
Procrastination Rising
We have been formally measuring
procrastination since 1978
It has been significantly rising over the last
25 years, as has debt, obesity and other
impulse related issues
The need for effective treatments has
never been greater than now

Piers Steel 29