pass

Journal of Counseling Psychology1984,Vol.31,No.4,5<)3-509

Copyright 1984 by theAmerican Psychological Association, Inc.

Academic Procrastination: Frequency andCognitive-Behavioral Correlates

Laura J. Solomon and Esther D. RothblumUniversity of Vermont

This study investigated the frequency of college students' procrastination onacademic tasks and the reasons for procrastination behavior. A high percent-age of students reported problems with procrastination on several specific aca-demic tasks. Self-reported procrastination was positively correlated with thenumber of self-paced quizzes students took late in the semester and with par-ticipation in an experimental session offered late in the semester. A factoranalysis of the reasons for procrastination indicated that the factors Fear ofFailure and Aversiveness of the Task accounted for most of the variance. Asmall but very homogeneous group of subjects endorsed items on the Fear ofFailure factor that correlated significantly with self-report measures of de-pression, irrational cognitions, low self-esteem, delayed study behavior, anxie-ty, and lack of assertion. A larger and relatively heterogeneous group ofsubjects reported procrastinating as a result of aversiveness of the task. TheAversiveness of the Task factor did not correlate significantly with anxiety orassertion, but it did correlate significantly with'depression, irrational cogni-tions, low self-esteem, and delayed study behavior. These results indicatethat procrastination is not solely a deficit in study habits or time management,but involves a complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective com-ponents;

Procrastination, the act of needlesslydelaying tasks to the point of experiencingsubjective discomfort, is an all-too-familiarproblem. Ellis and Knaus (1977) estimatethat 95% of college students engage in pro-crastination. There is evidence that pro-crastination results in detrimental academicperformance, including poor grades andcourse withdrawal (Semb, Glick, & Spencer,1979), and that the tendency for students toprocrastinate increases the longer they arein college: freshmen procrastinate the least;seniors, the most (Semb et al., 1979).

Assessment of academic procrastinationhas focused almost entirely on the mea-surement of study habits, such as minutesspent studying and attitudes towardstudying (e.g., Ziesat, Rosenthal, & White,1978), and lessons completed in self-pacedinstruction courses (e.g., Miller, Weaver, &

This research was supported by a grant from theUniversity of Vermont. The authors extend their ap-preciation to Jeffrey A. Kelly and Mary Ellen Portini.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Laura J. Sol-omon, Department of Psychology, John Dewey Hall,University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405.

Semb, 1974). Yet procrastination involvesfar more than deficient time managementand study skills. Anecdotal data from pro-crastinators and from clinical observationsof procrastinators (Burka & Yuen, 1982)suggest numerous other possible reasons forthe behavior pattern. Some of these possi-ble reasons for procrastination are evalua-tion anxiety, difficulty in making decisions,rebellion against control, lack of assertion,fear of'the consequences of success, per-ceived aversiveness of the task, and overlyperfectionistic standards about competency.There has been no systematic attempt toinvestigate the reasons for procrastination.Furthermore, despite the objective nature ofprocrastination (i.e., one either meets adeadline or fails to meet it; a student handsin a term paper either late or on time), onlythree studies have incorporated behavioralmeasures in the assessment of procrastina-tion (Blatt & Quinlan, 1967; Dossett, La-tham, & Saari, 1980; Green, 1982). Thebehavioral measures used in these studieswere prompt versus delayed completion ofcourse requirements or speed with whichsurvey questionnaires were returned in

503

504 LAURA J. SOLOMON AND ESTHER D. ROTHBLUM

relation to a specific deadline. None of thestudies related the self-report of procrasti-nation to the behavioral measure.

Our study had three objectives: (a) todetermine the frequency of academic pro-crastination among college students and toassess the degree to which students feel it isa problem and would like to change theirbehavior; (b) to systematically assess thereasons for procrastination in order to betterunderstand the cognitions that contribute tothe behavior pattern; and (c) to compare theself-report of procrastination to behavioralmeasures of procrastination and to stan-dardized self-report scales of potentiallyrelated content areas (e.g., anxiety, studyhabits, depression, self-esteem, irrationalcognitions, and assertion).

Method

Subjects

The subjects of the study were 342 university stu-dents who were enrolled in two sections of an intro-ductory psychology course in the fall semester of 1982and who expressed willingness to participate in an in-class group assessment session. The sample included101 males and 222 females (19 subjects did not fill intheir sex on the computerized answer sheets). Twohundred and sixty-four subjects were freshmen, 43 weresophomores, 13 were juniors, 3 were seniors, and 19 didnot give their academic year. Ninety percent of thesubjects were 18 to 21 years of age.

One section of the introductory psychology coursewas structured such that students took self-pacedquizzes as they completed each chapter of the text. Inaddition, students in this section could receive extracourse credit for participation in psychology experi-ments. For the purposes of this study, students fromthis section were invited to participate in one of threeexperimental sessions scheduled at various times duringthe fall semester. One hundred students (29% of thestudents who had previously completed the in-classassessment battery) attended one of these experimentalsessions.

Self-Report Measures

We developed the Procrastination AssessmentScale—Students (PASS).1 It consists of two sections.The first section assesses the prevalence of procrasti-nation in six areas of academic functioning: (a) writinga term paper, (b) studying for an exam, (c) keeping upwith weekly reading assignments, (d) performing ad-ministrative tasks, (e) attending meetings, and (f) per-forming academic tasks in general.2 Specifically,subjects are asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scalethe degree to which they procrastinate on the task (1 =never procrastinate; 5 = always procrastinate) and the

degree to which procrastination on the task is a problemfor them (1 = not at all a problem; 5 = always a prob-lem). Because definitions of procrastination stress bothbehavioral delay and psychological distress, the degreeof procrastination and the degree to which it presentsa problem are summed for each academic task (for ascore ranging from 2 to 10) as well as across the six areasof academic functioning (for a total score ranging from12 to 60). In addition, subjects are asked to indicate ona 5-point Likert scale the extent to which they want todecrease their procrastination behavior on each aca-demic task (1 = do not want to decrease; 5 = definitelywant to decrease).

The second section of the PASS provides a procras-tination scenario (delay in writing a term paper) andthen lists a variety of possible reasons for procrastina-tion on the task: (a) evaluation anxiety, (b) perfec-tionism, (c) difficulty making decisions, (d) dependencyand help seeking, (e) aversiveness of the task and lowfrustration tolerance, (f) lack of self-confidence, (g)laziness, (h) lack of assertion, (i) fear of success, (j)tendency to feel overwhelmed and poorly manage time,(k) rebellion against control, (1) risk-taking, and (m)peer influence.3

Two statements are listed for each of these reasons,and students are asked to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale according to how much it reflects whythey procrastinated the last time they were in this sit-uation. For example, the two evaluation anxietystatements are "You were concerned the professorwouldn't like your work" and "You were worried youwould get a bad grade."

Behavioral Measures

Self-paced quizzes. Subjects in the self-paced sec-tion of the introductory psychology course took 23self-paced quizzes during the course of the semester.The number of self-paced quizzes that subjects tookduring the last third (5 weeks) of the semester wasadopted as a behavioral index of procrastination. Thatis, those students who took more of their quizzes duringthe last weeks of the semester were considered to begreater procrastinators than subjects who left fewerquizzes to the end of the semester. A frequency dis-tribution of the number of self-paced quizzes taken byall students during this time period indicates a range of0 to 23 and median of 12.5.

1 A copy of the Procrastination Assessment Scale—Students is available from the authors upon request.

2 In a pilot study that investigated the relative fre-quency of procrastination in academic, domestic, andsocial areas, students reported that procrastination wasmost common and presented more of a problem in ac-ademic areas. The six academic areas include most ofthe school tasks students are engaged in and for whichprocrastination is possible.

3 The list of possible reasons for procrastination wasgenerated in a pilot study in which undergraduate stu-dents and clinical psychology faculty were asked to in-dicate why they procrastinate on academic tasks. Anopen-ended format was used. All responses were cat-egorized and included in the PASS.

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION 505

Timing of experimental participation. Students inthe self-paced section of the introductory psychologycourse received extra course credit for participating inpsychology experiments. It was thus possible to recruitsubjects to participate in one of three group assessmentsessions scheduled at various times during the fall se-mester; the third session was scheduled during the lastweek of classes. The purpose of these group assessmentsessions was to determine, as an additional measure ofprocrastination, how late in the semester subjects cameto an experimental session. That is, students who choseto participate in the session held during the last weekof classes potentially represented a group of high pro-crastinators.

Course grades. As a measure of academic perfor-mance, course grades were obtained for students in theself-paced section of the introductory psychologycourse.

Procedure

At an in-class assessment session, students in bothsections of the introductory psychology course wereasked to complete a questionnaire battery measuringself-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Rosenberg,1965), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory—Traitversion; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968),punctuality and organized study habits (the DelayAvoidance scale of the Survey of Study Habits and At-titudes; Brown & Holtzman, 1966), assertion (TheCollege Self-Expression Scale; Galassi, DeLo, Galassi,& Bastien, 1974), procrastination (PASS), depression(Beck Depression Inventory; Beck & Beamesdorfer,1974), and irrational cognitions (Ellis Scale of IrrationalCognition; MacDonald & Games, 1972). Students inone section of the course received questionnaires in theorder listed; students in the other section receivedquestionnaires in the reverse order to counterbalancefor order effects.

Students in the self-paced section of the introductorypsychology course were asked to participate in a psy-chology experiment. They were given a letter listingthe dates and times of the experimental sessions andwere invited to attend one of the three sessions of theirchoice. The assessment sessions were scheduled duringthe early (October 15), middle (November 10), and late(December 15) part of the semester. At these sessions,subjects were asked to complete the PASS again.

At the end of the semester, we obtained course gradesand number of self-paced quizzes taken during the lastfive weeks of the semester from the psychology courseteaching assistant.

Results and Discussion

Data analyses revealed that 51 of the 342subjects incorrectly marked their ID num-bers on at least one of the four computerizedanswer sheets. This permitted comparisonswithin a particular questionnaire but notbetween questionnaires for these 51 subjects,as their ID numbers could not be matchedacross answer sheets. To determine

whether these subjects constituted a differ-ent population from the 291 subjects whocorrectly marked their ID numbers on allanswer sheets, we performed a t test to de-tect any difference between these two groupson their total endorsement of procrastina-tion on the PASS. Resulting means wereremarkably similar, M = 32.61 for the in-correct ID group; M = 33.53 for the correctID group; £(340) = .316, p > .10. Thus, thesubjects who correctly marked their IDnumbers did not constitute a different pop-ulation regarding self-reported procrasti-nation, and all further analyses were per-formed on this group only.

Frequency of Procrastination

Data on the frequency of procrastinationfor a variety of academic tasks reveal that46% of subjects reported that they nearlyalways or always procrastinate on writing aterm paper, 27.6% procrastinate on studyingfor exams, and 30.1% procrastinate onreading weekly assignments. To a lesserextent subjects procrastinate on adminis-trative tasks (10.6%), attendance tasks(23.0%); and school activities in general(10.2%).

In terms of the degree to which subjectsfelt procrastination was a problem for them,23.7% reported that it was nearly always oralways a problem when writing a term paper,21.2% said it was a problem when studyingfor exams, and 23.7% said it was a problemwhen doing weekly readings. Procrastinationwas less of a problem with the remainingtasks and school activities in general.

Regarding the extent to which subjectsreportedly wanted to decrease their ten-dency to procrastinate, 65.0% stated thatthey wanted or definitely wanted to reducetheir procrastination when writing a termpaper, 62.2% wanted to reduce it whenstudying for exams, and 55.1% wanted toreduce it when doing weekly readings. Forthe remaining tasks, fewer subjects wantedto reduce their procrastination behavior.

The high frequency of self-reported pro-crastination on writing term papers,studying for exams, and doing weekly read-ings indicated that these tasks are likely tobe viewed as most important by college stu-dents, and they are probably the tasks that


have the greatest effect on academic per-formance. Such tasks as attending classesor meetings, filling out forms, and registeringfor courses are less important to students;consequently, students view procrastinationas less of a problem with those tasks.

We performed analyses of variance to ex-amine possible sex differences in procrasti-nation. The results indicate that there werenonsignificant sex differences for any area ofacademic procrastination nor for total self-reported procrastination.

Behavioral Measures of Procrastination

Self-paced quizzes. The number ofself-paced quizzes that subjects took duringthe last third of the semester was of partic-ular interest in relation to subjects' earlierself-reports of academic procrastination onthe PASS. Significant positive correlationswere found between number of quizzes andself-reported procrastination on writing aterm paper (r = .24, p < .001), studying forexams (r = .19, p < .01), and doing weeklyreadings (r = .28, p < .0005). Thus, subjectswho reported frequently procrastinating onthese tasks also delayed taking their quizzes.Correlations between the number of quizzestaken late in the semester and procrastina-tion on administrative tasks and attendancetasks were not significant. The results arebased only on subjects in the self-pacedsection of the course (n = 161).

It is not surprising that self-paced quizzescorrelated most significantly with self-re-ported procrastination on doing weeklyreadings, an activity that is also fairly dis-crete and can be completed in a relativelyshort period of time. This reveals the situ-ational specificity of procrastination be-havior. However, even this correlation isrelatively low. Several reasons could ac-count for the remaining variance. First,most students enrolled in the introductorypsychology course are freshmen who may notbe able to easily predict their upcomingcollege work load. Students in more ad-vanced classes might have revealed astronger relationship between PASS scoresand timing of self-paced quizzes. Unfortu-nately, the size of our advanced studentsample was insufficient to perform thisanalysis. Second, the course instructors

repeatedly prompted students to completetheir self-paced quizzes. Consequently, thiswas not a completely unstructured task, andthe distribution of completed quizzes mayhave been restricted somewhat by virtue ofthese repeated prompts.

Attendance at experimental sessions.One hundred students attended one of threeexperimental sessions. We conducted ananalysis of variance to determine the rela-tionship between self-reported procrasti-nation and attendance in an experimentalsession held during the early, middle, or latepart of the semester. The results indicatethat there was a significant effect for exper-imental session with regard to self-reportedprocrastination on administrative tasks, F(2,99) = 3.41, p < .05. Subjects who attendedthe late session reported that they procras-tinated on administrative tasks significantlymore than did subjects who attended theearlier sessions (Ms = 4.02,4.10, and 5.75 forthe early, middle, and late experimentalsessions, respectively, for the sum of self-reported procrastination and the degree towhich procrastination presented a problem).No other effects were significant. Again,these results indicate the situational speci-ficity of procrastination.

Course grades. Course grade was notsignificantly correlated with self-reportedprocrastination. This nonsignificant rela-tionship was apparent for all types of aca-demic tasks. In this regard our results donot support those of Semb et al. (1979), whoreported a relationship between procrasti-nation and poor academic performance. Inour study, high procrastinators were as likelyas nonprocrastinators to receive a high grade.Thus, despite the relatively high frequencyof students who report procrastinating andwho perceive their procrastination to be aproblem, this student sample cannot readilybe identified by academic performance.

This lack of correlation between self-reported procrastination and course gradesmay be a methodological artifact. Theself-reported assessment of procrastinationused in this study (the PASS) asked studentsto report tendencies to procrastinate on ac-ademic activities in general without focusingon their psychology course in particular.Yet, our measure of academic performancewas based only on their grade in the intro-


ductory psychology course. Perhaps a morevalid test of the relationship between pro-crastination and performance would includereports of tendencies to procrastinate in eachcourse taken by the student and subsequentcourse grades. Until such a procedure isimplemented, the relationship betweenprocrastination and academic procrastina-tion will remain unclear.

Comparison of Procrastination With Self-Report Measures

Because this was an exploratory study ofvariables that contribute to procrastination,a number of self-report scales measuringcognitions, affect, or behaviors presumablyrelated to procrastination were included inthe study. Although it is not possible todraw conclusions about causality from theensuing correlations, the relationship be-tween procrastination and other cognitive,behavioral, and affective areas might indi-cate the direction for future research.

The self-report measures that correlatedmost significantly with the total score on thePASS were depression (r = .44, p < .0005),an affective measure; irrational cognitions(r = .30, p < .0005) and self-esteem (r = -.23,p < .0005), two cognitive measures; andpunctuality and organized study (r = -.24,p < .0005), a measure of behavior. Pro-crastination was significantly correlated withanxiety (r = .13, p < .05), but to a lesser de-gree than it was with the previously men-tioned measures, and there was no signifi-cant correlation between procrastination andassertion. If procrastination were primarilya study skills or time management deficit, asprevious studies suggest (Miller et al., 1974;Ziesat et al., 1978), we would expect pro-crastination to correlate with study habits tothe exclusion of most other self-reportmeasures. Although we did find a correla-tion between procrastination and studyhabits, of equal significance were cognitiveand affective measures. Specifically, indi-viduals who report high procrastination andwho perceive procrastination to be a problemalso report depressed affect, low self-esteem,and irrational cognitions. One explanationfor these correlations might be response set.That is, either individuals report little ten-dency to procrastinate and also endorse

many other indices of positive mental health(i.e., socially desirable responses), or theyendorse negative thought, affect, and be-havior patterns (i.e., negative response set).Another explanation might be that pro-crastination is related to general negativeaffect and cognitions about oneself.

Factor Structure of Reasons forProcrastination

We performed a factor analysis ofsubjects' reasons for procrastination. Thisanalysis consisted of a principal axis solutionwith squared correlations on the diagonals,followed by a varimax rotation of these fac-tors with eigenvalues, prior to rotation,greater than or equal to one. An item wasincluded as loading significantly on a factorif its factor value was, greater than or equalto ±.-50.

The first factor, which accounts for 49.4%of the variance, seems to reflect fear of fail-ure. Factor 1 taps items related to anxietyabout meeting others' expectations (evalu-ation anxiety), concern about meeting one'sown standards (perfectionism), and lack ofself-confidence. The second factor accountsfor 18% of the variance and relates to aver-siveness of the task and laziness. Items re-flect lack of energy and task unpleasantness.Factors 3 through 7 tap dependency, risk-taking, lack of assertion, rebellion againstcontrol, and difficulty making decisions,respectively. Because these five factors hadeigenvalues after the varimax rotation thatwere less than or equal to 1.50, they were notincluded in further analyses. Thus, thefactor analysis indicates that fear of failureand aversiveness of the task are the twoprimary independent reasons for procrasti-nation.

Analyses of variance of sex differences onthe two primary reasons for procrastinationyielded a significant difference for the Fearof Failure factor, F(l, 273) = 6.96, p < .001.Females were significantly more likely toendores items that reflected this factor(mean score for the five items was 10.63)than were males (mean score was 8.52).There was no significant sex difference onendorsement of items that reflected aver-siveness of the task.


Frequency of Endorsement of Reasons forProcrastination

Although a factor may account for a largeproportion of the variance independent ofthe other factors, this does not reflect thefrequency with which items constituting thefactor are endorsed by subjects. We con-structed frequency tabulations for each item,consisting of the percentage of subjects whohighly endorsed each item (i.e., marked 4 or5 on a 5-point scale in which 1 = not at allreflects why I procrastinated and 5 = defi-nitely reflects why I procrastinated).

Subjects' endorsement of items consti-tuting the Fear of Failure factor ranged from6.3% to 14.1%. In contrast, endorsement ofitems constituting the Aversiveness of theTask factor ranged from 19.4% to 47.0%.

Other items that were endorsed by at least20% of the subjects were "You had too manyother things to do" (60.8%) and "You feltoverwhelmed by the task" (39.6%), both ofwhich refer to difficulties in managing time.Furthermore, the item "You had a hard timeknowing what to include and what not toinclude in your paper," which refers to dif-ficulty in making decisions, was endorsed by32.2% of the subjects.

These results indicate that there are twogroups of procrastinators. First, a relativelysmall but extremely homogeneous group ofstudents report procrastinating as a resultof fear of failure. That is, although only 6%to 14% of students endorsed the items con-stituting the Fear of Failure factor as highlyrepresentative of why they procrastinate,this factor accounts for almost 50% of thevariance, over 4 times as much as the vari-ance accounted for by any other factor.Thus, students who endorse items consti-tuting this factor tend to endorse these itemsexclusively. The Fear of Failure factor in-cludes items relating to evaluation anxiety,overly perfectionistic standards for one'sperformance, and low self-confidence.Thus, students in this category procrastinatebecause they cannot meet their own or oth-ers' expectations, or because of concernsabout poor performance. When the Fear ofFailure factor is correlated with self-reportmeasures, this factor correlates significantlynot only with depression (r = .41, p < .0005),irrational cognitions (r = .30, p < .0005),punctuality and organized study habits (r =

-.48, p < .0005), and self-esteem (r = -.26,p < .005) but also with anxiety (r = .23, p <,0005). There is also a lower but significantnegative correlation between the Fear ofFailure factor and assertion (r = -.12, p <.05).

The second group of procrastinators con-sists of a large and relatively heterogeneousgroup that reports procrastinating as a resultof aversiveness of the task. That is, 19% to47% of subjects endorsed at least one itemconstituting the Aversiveness of the Taskfactor as highly representative of why theyprocrastinate. Because this factor ac-counted for only 18% of the variance, stu-dents were presumably endorsing items thatdid not load on this factor as well. This is inmarked contrast to the finding for the Fearof Failure factor. Thus, aversiveness of thetask is rarely the only reason why studentsprocrastinate on academic tasks. TheAversiveness of the Task factor items relateto a dislike of engaging in academic activitiesand a lack of energy. Presumably, studentswho endorsed these items also endorseditems reflecting difficulty in making deci-sions and time management, two areas thatwere frequently endorsed.

When the Aversiveness of the Task factorwas correlated with self-report measures,this factor was found to correlate signifi-cantly with depression (r = .36, p < .0005),irrational beliefs (r = .23, p < .0005), andpunctuality and organized study habits (r =-.53, p < .0005). However, it is noteworthythat the Aversiveness of the Task factor isnot significantly correlated with anxiety orassertion and that the factor's correlationwith self-esteem (r = -.13, p = .013), al-though significant, is quite low. Thus, onedifference between students who procrasti-nate because of aversiveness of the task andthose who procrastinate because of fear offailure is that the latter also report highanxiety and low self-esteem. An examina-tion of the items constituting the Fear ofFailure factor further highlights this finding;these items are indicative of evaluationanxiety and low self-confidence.

Two points are noteworthy here. First,procrastination resulting from aversivenessof the task correlates not only with studyhabits, a behavioral self-report measure, butalso with a number of cognitive and affectivecomponents. Procrastination resulting from


fear of failure similarly correlates with studyhabits as well as with cognitions and affect.Thus, procrastination should be regarded asa behavioral, affective, and cognitive phe-nomenon; to regard it as only one is to ignoreits complexity. Second, individuals whoprocrastinate as a result of fear of failure canbe distinguished from those who procrasti-nate because of aversiveness of the task bythe presence of anxiety and low self-esteem.Consequently, it is difficult to argue that thecorrelation of high procrastination withnegative characteristics, such as high de-pression or irrational cognitions, is due eitherto social desirability or to a negative responseset. If that were the case, high procrasti-nators in both groups would endorse anxietyand low self-esteem.

Contrary to prior assumptions, timemanagement is not an independent factorthat explains procrastination behavior.Although items constituting time manage-ment were highly endorsed, students si-multaneously endorsed other cognitive, af-fective, and behavioral reasons for procras-tinating.

In conclusion, it is useful to keep in mindthat procrastination is not merely a deficitof study habits and organization of time butinvolves a complex interaction of behavioral,cognitive, and affective components. Forthe group of procrastinators who report fearof failure, intervention strategies that ad-dress evaluation anxiety, perfectionism, andlow self-confidence might be appropriate.For the more heterogeneous group thatprocrastinates as a result of aversiveness ofthe task, a contingency management proce-dure might be one important aspect of theintervention.

In the past, counseling psychologists haveattempted to alter procrastination by im-proving time management and study skills(Green, 1982; Richards, 1975; Ziesat et al.,1978). This form of treatment may be avaluable component; however, it is not likelyto be sufficient in itself. Thus, students whocome to the attention of counselors and in-structors ^ for procrastination problems arelikely to have difficulties beyond time-management deficits. It is unlikely that thesuccessful intervention for procrastinationwill consist of a single-ingredient treatmentstrategy.; Recently some clinicians have

begun to use interventions for procrastina-tion that incorporate cognitive-behavioralstrategies (Burka & Yuen, 1983); this is apromising avenue for further research.

References

Beck, A. T., & Beamsdorfer, A. (1974). Assessmentof depression: The Depression Inventory. ModernProblems ofPharmacopsychiatry, 7,151-169.

Blatt,S.J.,&Quinlan,P. (1967). Punctual and pro-crastinating students: A study of temporal param-eters. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31,169-174.

Brown, W. P., & Holtzman, W. H. (1966). Survey ofstudy habits and attitudes. New York: Psycho-logical Corp.

Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1982, January). Mindgames procrastinators play. Psychology Today, pp.32-34,44.

Burka, J., & Yuen, L. (1983). Procrastination: Whyyou do it, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Ad-dison-Wesley.

Dossett,D., Latham, G. P., &Saari,L.M. (1980). Theimpact of goal setting on survey returns. Academyof Management Journal, 23, 561-567.

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming pro-crastination. New York: Institute for RationalLiving.

Galassi, J. P., DeLo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., & Bastien, S.(1974). The College Self Expression Scale: Ameasure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 5,165-171.

Green, L. (1982). Minority students' self-control ofprocrastination. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

- 29,636-644.MacDonald, A. P., & Games, R. G. (1972). Ellis'ir-

rational values: A validation study. Rational Liv-ing, 7,25-28.

Miller, L. K,, Weaver, F. H., & Semb, G. (1974). Aprocedure for maintaining student progress in apersonalized university course. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 7,87-91.

Richards, C. S. (1975). Behavior modification ofstudying through study skills advice and self-eohtrolprocedures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22,431-436.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescentself-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Semb, G., Glick, D. M., & Spencer, R. E. (1979).Student withdrawals and delayed work patterns inself-paced psychology courses. Teaching of Psy-chology, 6, 23-25.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R.(1968). Self-Evaluation Questionnaire. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting-Psychologists Press.

Ziesat, H. A., Rosenthal, T. L., & White, G. M. (1978).• Behavioral self-control in treating procrastination in

studying. Psychological Reports, 42,59-69.

Received February 6,1984Revision received April 27,1984 •

pass

Documents