A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination

1402 W. van Eerde / Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 1401–1418
1.1. Procrastination as a trait
Procrastination has typically been defined as a trait or behavioural disposition to postpone or
delay performing a task or making decisions (Milgram, Mey-Tal, & Levison, 1998). Defining
procrastination is problematic in the sense that it is an intra-individual process that is regulated
by internal norms of delay. To others, delay may or may not appear to be procrastination (cf. Milgram,
Sroloff, & Rosenbaum, 1988), depending on their own norms and attributions. Delay can be
purposely planned, and it can be a wise strategy. However, procrastination can be distinguished from
planning because the delay is not purposely planned, but rather postponing the implementation of
what was planned. Everyone may procrastinate at some occasion, but the trait definition appears to
indicate that the individual delays actions or decisions whether it is appropriate to a particular situation
or not. Why would an individual have this tendency? It appears to be the inability to delay
gratification, also called the lack of impulse control. Impulse control is the ability to give up shortterm
outcomes—usually seen as more pleasant—for long-term outcomes. Mischel and colleagues
(e.g. Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988) showed the positive effects of impulse control over many years
(for an example relating self-control to procrastination see also Ferrari & Emmons, 1995).
In an historical overview of procrastination (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995) it was noted
that the Latin verb procrastinare, meaning ‘‘putting forward until tomorrow’’, did not have
negative connotation until the mid-18th century, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
To this day, procrastination has moral connotations (Sabini & Silver, 1982);it implies not living
up to others’ or one’s own obligations, which can lead to feelings of guilt. In general, it is seen as
a dysfunctional habit, with psychological consequences such as experienced guilt or negative
affective well-being, and a decrease in performance outcomes, and social consequences such as an
image of undependability. This moral connotation may be part of, or may in fact be, the problem
experienced. In other cultures, not as influenced by a protestant work ethic, characterized by a
different pace of life (cf. Levine & Norenzayan, 1999), there may not be a problem. But in an
achievement oriented society, where individuals are expected to meet obligations within a certain
time span, procrastination may be a serious problem, as demonstrated by the number of books
and programs related to help individuals to stop procrastinating, notably in the United States.
1.2. Previous studies on procrastination
With the exception of a few studies, research on procrastination has been performed in these
cultures that stress the undesirability of procrastination. Another limitation of most previous
studies is that, due to the intra-individual nature of procrastination, it is measured through selfreports.
Although reports from others could be used, assuming that others would know whether
the behaviour was purposely delayed or not, this has not been done often. However, several
validated self-report scales are in existence (see Ferrari et al., 1995, for an overview and items).
Differences in operationalisation can be observed, with a focus on procrastination measured as
postponing actions, i.e. behavioural procrastination, for example the General Procrastination
Scale (Lay, 1986), a 20-item scale with items such as ‘‘I usually buy even an essential item at the
last minute’’, or the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (McCown & Johnson, 1989 in Ferrari et
al., 1995). Another scale emphasizes postponing decisions, i.e., decisional procrastination, as a
subscale of decisions making styles (Mann et al., 1998), a 5-item subscale with items such as ‘‘I