Objective: Taking Beswick, Rothblum, and Mann's seminal paper on academic procrastination as a starting point, we provide an updated review of academic procrastination and consolidate this knowledge with a procrastination typology. The goal of our study was to show that while the degree of procrastination is largely contingent on the trait of conscientiousness, the other four major personality traits determine how procrastination manifests. According to implications of need theory, we operationalised these four traits by the reasons students gave and the activities students pursued while procrastinating. Method: Participants were 167 students of an undergraduate introductory psychology course. It was designed as a self-directed computerised course enabled considerable amounts of procrastination. Students filled out a Big Five Inventory and wrote a short essay detailing: (a) what reason they saw as causing them to procrastinate, and (b) what activities they pursued while procrastinating. The reasons and activities were coded according to their fit to the personality traits. Results: Conscientiousness and its facets were the strongest correlates with procrastination. Moreover, in regression analyses, the other personality traits did not incrementally predict procrastination. However, the reasons ascribed to procrastination and the off-task activities pursued reflected the other personality traits. Conclusion: While conscientiousness is the core for all procrastination types, the other personality traits determine its phenomenology. Thus, the prominent understanding of a neurotic procrastinator might be misleading for research and practice. In fact, counsellors need to first address the conscientiousness core of procrastination and then match the subsequent interventions to the specific procrastination type.

Procrastination is a well-known phenomenon that often entails negative outcomes with regard to performance and subjective well-being. In an attempt to understand the (alarming) character of procrastination, a large body of research on the causes, correlates, and consequences of procrastination has been accumulating over the last 40 years. The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic characterization of the trends in procrastination research and to suggest future directions for research and practice. The systematic characterization comprises a comparison of procrastination to functional forms of delay (referred to as strategic delay) and a presentation of the theoretical approaches to explaining procrastination. The future directions suggested pertain to the development of a differentiated understanding of procrastination and of integral interventions.

No abstract

Procrastination is a common problem, but defining and measuring it has been subject to some debate. This paper summarizes results from students and employees (N = 2893) in Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Sweden using the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) and the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS; Steel, 2010), both assumed to measure unidimensional and closely related constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated inadequate configural fit for the suggested one-factor model for PPS; however, acceptable fit was observed for a three-factor model corresponding to the three different scales the PPS is based on. Testing measurement invariance over countries and students–employees revealed configural but not strong or strict invariance, indicating that both instruments are somewhat sensitive to cultural differences. We conclude that the PPS and IPS are valid measures of procrastination, and that the PPS may be particularly useful in assessing cultural differences in unnecessary delay.

No abstract