Person. indiuid. Diff: Vol. 13, No. 12, pp. 1307-1313, 1992 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0191~8869/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

PROCRASTINATION AND EMOTIONAL UPSET: A TYPOLOGICAL MODEL*

NORMAN A. MILGRAM,~ TSVIKA GEHRMAN and GIORA KEINAN

Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv 69978, Israel

(Received 4 January 1992)

Summary-The study investigated the personality profiles that emerge from dichotomizing subjects on two axes: (1) high vs low procrastination in handling the routines of daily living; and (2) high vs low manifest emotional upset experienced with reference to those routine tasks on which they, in fact, procrastinate. Anticipatory emotional upset was also investigated. It referred to the upset that would be experienced if subjects were to procrastinate on routine tasks that are, in fact, performed promptly and efficiently. The two kinds of emotional upset were found to be moderately intercorrelated and were weakly, if at all, correlated with procrastination. Profile analysis placed 99 of 164 Israeli engineering students in four groups approximating the four hypothesized procrastination-emotional upset types. Groups high in procrastina- tion tended to be higher than groups low in procrastination on three hypothesized antecedents of procrastination: anxiety, the repressor/sensitizer construct, and pessimism. People who do not procrasti- nate as a rule, but are high in manifest upset when they do, were found to be lowest on these personality measures. The reverse was found for people high in procrastination. It was concluded that the three personality measures presumed to contribute to procrastination are adversely affected by the high frequency of emotional upset about procrastination experienced by those who procrastinate a great deal in handling life routines.

INTRODUCTION

The number of studies of procrastination has been rising exponentially during the past decade. At least four different kinds of procrastination have been investigated: academic, decisional, neurotic, and life routine. The first category has received the most interest because of the adverse consequences of academic procrastination for millions of students, and the availability of these students for research and treatment. The other kinds of procrastination are, however, widespread, and merit investigation in their own right both for theoretical and for applied purposes. The present study deals with the fourth, procrastination in handling the routines of daily living.

Many investigations have focused on procrastination antecedents, personality traits that are purported to predispose people to procrastinate in various life situations: poor self-regulation and passive aggressiveness (Milgram, Sroloff & Rosenbaum, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1980), fear of failure, test anxiety, social anxiety, and self-consciousness (Ferrari, 1991; Rothblum, Solomon & Murakami, 1986; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), and pessimism (Lay, 1986, 1988; Scheier, Weintraub & Carver, 1986).

These personality traits are conceptually distinguishable, and, in many instances, empirically independent of one another. This observation leads to the conclusion that procrastinators are not all of one personality mold. Lay (1987) drew the same conclusion from several counter-intuitive findings in his own research (Lay, 1986), namely that procrastination across Ss was unrelated to self-esteem, energy level, and need-achievement. He suggested that one subset of procrastinators may be characterized by low levels of self-esteem, energy level or need-achievement, and another subset by higher levels, with an overall mean not different from that of non-procrastinators.

His application of modal profile analysis (Skinner & Lei, 1980) with reference to 24 personality measures yielded two procrastination profiles generally consistent with this formulation. A second application of modal profile analysis to larger numbers of Ss with 14 personality variables (6

*This paper is based on the thesis submitted by the second author to the Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s degree in Psychology. The first and third author served as thesis advisers. This paper was written by the first author during Sabbatical leave as a Visiting Professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Appreciation is expressed to the Chair and Department members for their help during this period.

tTo whom correspondence should be addressed.

1307

1308 NORMAN A. MILGRAM et al.

common to both analyses) yielded two procrastination profiles for men and one for women. The male profiles differed in breadth of interest, sensitivity to rejection, inner- vs outer-directed self-monitoring, and private self-consciousness. The female profile was characterized by neurotic disorganization, inefficiencies in mental functioning, low energy level, and low self-esteem.

One reason for the complexity of Lay’s findings was the eclectic choice of antecedent discriminating variables, and the absence of an organizing principle for their selection and operation. This is understandable given the exploratory nature of empirical work on typologies in procrastination. One way to organize procrastination types is based on the issue of manifest emotional upset about behavioral procrastination.

There has been controversy in the field as to whether inefficiency scheduling and delaying behavior constitutes “true” procrastination if it is not accompanied by emotional upset about this behavior. Several investigators have stipulated that emotional upset is a necessary component of procrastination (Silver, 1974; Milgram, 1991). Milgram has suggested the inefficient, delaying behavior constitutes procrastination only when the task itself is regarded as legitimate, the individual regards his or her own behavior in handling this task as substandard, blames oneself for the unacceptable behavior, and consequently feels emotionally upset or guilty about it. Procrastinators experience this emotional upset when they attribute their inefficient scheduling and unreliable adherence to schedule to lack of self-discipline and weakness of character, and then engage in self-blame and recrimination. Procrastinators may also become upset because of the adverse practical consequences of their procrastinatory behavior-becoming mired in a never ending series of routines, missing deadlines, etc.

On reflection, however, it is clear that many people procrastinate behaviorally without experiencing emotional upset. These people may be marching to the beat of a different drummer, may possess unconventional standards of achievement and/or of promptness, and accept their procrastinatory behavior without feeling upset or guilty. It would appear reasonable, therefore, to use the construct of manifest emotional upset to differentiate between these types of procrastinators.

Although the theoretical implications of the presence or absence of manifest emotional upset are unclear for people who do not procrastinate as a rule, they may be explored. While these people, by definition, display little overall behavioral procrastination across tasks, they do procrastinate on a few tasks, with some reporting emotional upset over inefficient handling of these tasks and others reporting relative equanimity over their lapses from efficient behavior. It is hypothesized, therefore, that factor analysis of an unselected sample will yield two orthogonal axes: behavioral efficiency vs inefficiency x presence vs absence of manifest emotional upset.

We also postulated a second, subtle form of emotional upset, anticipatory emotional upset. This construct refers to the emotional upset people say they would feel if they were to procrastinate on tasks that, in fact, they complete promptly. We define anticipatory emotional upset as a cognitive assessment about one’s hypothetical affective response to circumstances that do not typically arise in their life experience. This assessment is acquired in the course of one’s previous procrastinatory history, and is derived from prior experiences of emotional upset following procrastinatory behavior that were described above. Anticipatory emotional upset is presumed to function as an aversive cue promoting prompt scheduling and schedule adherence in those routine tasks with which it is associated.

The relationship of manifest or post-procrastinatory emotional upset and anticipatory or pre-performance emotional upset is unclear. On the one hand, we might hypothesize a positive relationship of the two: people who experience a high level of emotional upset about those tasks on which they, in fact, procrastinate would also report a high level of anticipatory emotional upset with references to those tasks that they handle with dispatch. This hypothesized relationship is based on the assumption that people possess a personality trait represented by a generalized cognitive-affective aversive response disposition about task scheduling and schedule adherence in life routines.

One may, however, argue for a state- or task-dependent response disposition, analogous to the trait-state discrimination emphasized by Mischel (1984) and Spielberger (1966). People rate the tasks they postpone as more aversive and unpleasant than the tasks they perform with dispatch (Milgram et al., 1988). Procrastinators may experience less emotional upset about the former tasks

Procrastination and emotional upset 1309

because they regard them as less important and/or because the emotional cost-gain ratio of these tasks is unfavorable. On the other hand, they may report considerable anticipatory emotional upset about not handling promptly and efficiently certain other tasks that they do perform on time. These other tasks may be very important to them and/or the emotional cost-gain ratio of these tasks may be more favorable. If procrastination-relevant emotional upset is task-dependent, then the relationship of manifest and anticipatory upset becomes more complex, possibly even an inverse relationship. These competing hypotheses were investigated in the present study.

Correlates of the proposed typology

Three personality traits were hypothesized to be antecedents of procrastination: anxiety, R/S or the repressor/sensitizer variable, and pessimism. The highly anxious person attributes greater aversiveness and threat to many life tasks, including routine tasks of daily living, than less anxious people. Task aversiveness in turn is associated with procrastination (Milgram et al., 1988), so that we would hypothesize that highly anxious people procrastinate more than those low on anxiety.

The R/S variable refers to one’s perceptual threshold for threatening events and to consequent approach/avoidance responses with reference to these events (Byrne, 1969). Sensitizers, who are characterized by a lower perceptual threshold for threatening events, tend to experience unpleasant reactions to these events, and prefer to avoid them. Consequently, they are more likely to develop procrastinatory patterns of dealing with the mildly stressful routines of daily living than repressors. The latter regard fewer tasks as inherently aversive, and are less likely to procrastinate. We would hypothesize that sensitizers would procrastinate more than repressors.

Pessimism has been defined as a generalized cognitive-affective trait or expectancy that things will turn out badly as a consequence of which it is deemed prudent to avoid doing these kinds of things and to restrict oneself to involvements that do not end up that way (Scheier & Carver, 1985). This kind of expectancy and the associated avoidant behavior have also been implicated in theories of procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Lay, 1988; Milgram et al., 1988), so that it is reasonable to hypothesize a pessimism-procrastination relationship.

These personality traits are presumed to adversely affect efficient scheduling and schedule adherence. The personality trait-procrastination relationship may, however, be bi-directional. Milgram (1988) found that people who were prompt in scheduling and adhered to schedule were higher in life satisfaction than those who procrastinated. Chronic procrastination in handling the routines of daily living may raise anxiety level, heighten R/S orientation, and make one more pessimistic than otherwise. This may be especially true for those procrastinators who experience emotional upset about their inefficient handling of routine tasks. Such people may engage in invidious social comparison, contrast themselves unfavorably with others, and become more extreme in these personality measures than those procrastinators who are low in emotional upset. This latter hypothesis was investigated in the present study.

METHOD

Subjects

Ss were 176 engineering (technician) students attending the Tel-Aviv College and specializing in electronics, bio-technology, or industry and administration. The S breakdown with respect to these three majors was l/4, l/4, and l/2, respectively, with half first year students and half second year. Twelve failed to complete the test battery and were excluded from further analyses. The remaining Ss were 105 men and 59 women, ranging in age from 18 to 36 (mean age 23.4, SD = 6.62) 85% were native born, 7.5% were born in Asia or Africa and 7.5% in Western Europe or South America. Approximately half of the native born Ss had parents from Asia or Africa, with limited formal education. Distribution of education among the parents was consistent with this ethnic breakdown: elementary education or less, 44%; high school education, 50%; education beyond high school, 6%.

Instruments

Procrastination Scale. This scale consisted of 19 items taken from the Tel-Aviv Procrastination Scale (Milgram et al., 1988). The items referred to routine, recurrent tasks of daily living that these

1310 NORMAN A. MILGRAM et al.

Table I. Means standard deviations, range, and alpha of all scales

Procrastination Manifest upset Anticipatory upset Anxiety Repressor/sensitizer Pessimism

Range Means SD Alpha

l-4 2.17 0.47 0.83 l--I 2.29 0.64 0.91 I4 2.29 0.82 0.91 IL4 I .86 0.44 0.88 l-2 0.38 0.16 0.95 l-5 1.56 0.58 0.63

students performed (e.g. laundry, answering correspondence, making a medical or dental appoint- ment, etc.). Ss rated each item on a scale from (1) doing the task immediately to (4) doing the task at the last minute if not later.

Emotional Upset Scale. After completing the previous scale, Ss were asked to report ratings of emotional upset on all 19 tasks, according to whether or not they had procrastinated on the task in question. They were to rate their feelings of emotional upset about having procrastinated only on those tasks to which they had given high procrastination ratings (3 and 4). The emotional upset scale provided ratings from (1) no feelings of emotional upset or self-recrimination about having procrastinated on the task in question to (4) a great deal of emotional upset. The mean per task rating on these tasks was termed the manifest emotional upset score. Ss were instructed to give a different kind of emotional upset rating to those tasks on which they had not procrastinated (procrastination rating of 1 or 2). They were asked to imagine how they would feel if they had actually delayed on the task in question, and rate their feelings in this hypothetical circumstance on the corresponding 4-point scale. The mean per task hypothetical rating was designated the anticiputory emotional upset score. For the sake of brevity, the two kinds of emotional upset are henceforth referred to as manifest and anticipatory upset, respectively.

Trait Anxiety Scale. This scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Luchene, 1970) consists of 20 items rated on a 4-point scale from (1) hardly ever to (4) nearly always, with high scores reflecting high trait anxiety.

Repressor-Sensitization Scale. The R/S Scale (Byrne, 1969) contains 127 items requiring a correct/incorrect response. Since items were phased in both directions, scores were adjusted so that a high R/S score reflected a sensitizing response.

Pessimism Scale. The Life Orientation Test (LOT) was constructed by Scheier and Carver (1985) to measure a characteristically optimistic vs a pessimistic orientation to life. It contains 12 items, of which 4 are distracters that do not enter into the scoring, 4 express optimistic sentiments, and 4 pessimistic sentiments. Items were rated on a scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, with high scores reflecting pessimism.

Procedure

Permission to conduct the study in the college was given first by the Chief Administrator of the college. Each student had the option to refrain from participation in the study. The test battery was group administered under provisions of total anonymity by classroom, eight in all, randomly selected from twice that number. Class size varied from 18 to 32 students. Most students completed the test battery in 50-80 min.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, range of scores, and Cronbach alpha values of all scales are summarized in Table 1. It may be noted that the means of all scales tended toward the more positive pole on all variables. Since analyses performed separately for men and women yielded comparable findings, it was decided to report the more reliable findings based on the combined sample. The intercorrelations of these scales, summarized in Table 2, support the hypothesized typology. Procrastination and manifest upset were weakly intercorrelated. Procrastination was unrelated to, and manifest upset weakly correlated with, the three personality traits.

The profile analysis approach used here were taken from Overall and Klett (1972). The items in this factor analysis refer to the 164 Ss themselves, and the factors to the groups to which the 164 Ss are assigned on the basis of their highest weighting for a given factor. Since the various

Procrastination and emotional upset 1311

Table 2. Intercorrelations of all measures

Manifest upset (MU) Anticipatory upset (AU) Anxiety (Anx) Repressor/sensitizer Pessimism

PKX MU AU AllX R/S

-0.13* 0.00 0.28*** 0.04 0.26*** 0.04 0.03 0.18. 0.03 0.75***

-0.12 0.14* 0.00 0.58**’ 0.55***

‘P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Proc = procrastinators.

scales differed in mean and standard deviation, all scores were standardized before being entered into the analysis. The SPSSX program required for this analysis was capable of handling only 100 items at a time. Accordingly, two factor analyses were computed, the first on the first 100 Ss and the second on the last 100, recognizing the overlap of 36 Ss in the two analyses. Performing a second analysis also provided an opportunity to cross validate the factorial results of the first against the second. Six factors/groups emerged in each analysis, with four common to both analyses.

The four groups in order of emergence may be designated as follows:

(A) low procrastination with high manifest upset (N = 40); (B) high procrastination with low manifest upset (N = 29); (C) low procrastination with low manifest upset (N = 18); (D) high procrastination with high manifest upset (N = 12).

People were assigned to the four types on the basis of the two analyses. The other 65 Ss were not loaded on any of the four groups, or were loaded on groups with few Ss that were not confirmed by both analyses.

To confirm that the four groups actually differed on procrastination and manifest upset, separate one-way analyses of variance were performed on these variables. F ratios for these analyses (d’ = 3, 95) were 10.28 and 12.05 (Ps < O.OOl), respectively. Scheffe analysis of procrastination are summarized in Table 3. Between group differences, significant beyond the 0.05 level, were indicated by different lowercase letters of the alphabet. As might be expected from the profile analysis, Group B, designated as high in procrastination, was, in fact, higher in procrastination than Groups A and C, the groups designated as low in procrastination. Group D, however, also designated as high in procrastination, fell between Group B and the low procrastination groups (A and C), and did not significantly differ in procrastination from these groups. The groups designated as high in manifest upset (A and D) were, indeed, higher than their respective comparison groups (C and B), although the difference between Groups D and B did not reach formal significance.

As noted in the Table 3, the number of Ss differed widely from group to group (chi square = 18.54, P < 0.001). For the low procrastination groups, the percent of Ss with high manifest upset (A) was greater than that of Ss with low (C), 40.4 and 18.2, respectively (chi square = 7.60, P < 0.01). Conversely, in the high procrastination groups, the percent of Ss with low upset (B) tended to be greater than that of Ss with high (D), 29.3 and 12.1, respectively (chi square = 3.12, P < 0.10). One may conclude that in the present sample of Ss assigned to the four groups, high manifest upset was more common in people low in procrastination and less common in people high in procrastination.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations of all scales by typology

High procrastinators Low procrastinators

High upset Low upset High upset Low upset Group D Group B Group A Group C (N = 12) (N = 29) (N = 40) (N = 18)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Procrastination 0.32 (0.9lPb 0.97 (0.96) 0.14 (0.74)b -0.31 (0.67)b Manifest upset 0.18 (0.95)a.b -0.35 (0.75)b,C 0.23 (0.74) -0.97 (0.62) Anticipatory upset 0.26 (0.70) -0.64 (0.76)b 0.54 (0.71)” 0.21 (0.90) Anxiety 0.86 (0.84) -0.01 (0.83)b -0.80 (0.52) -0.10 (0.89)b Repressor/sensitizer 0.97 (0.94) 0.16 (0.95)b - 0.92 (0.6 I) 0.13 (0.72)b Pessimism -0.25 (0.79Y.b 0.32 (I .03)” -0.71 (0.70jb -0.07 (0.79Y.b

“~b~cBetween group differences. significant beyond the 0.05 level

1312 NORMAN A. MILGRAM et al.

Separate one-way analyses of variance of the four groups were computed for anticipatory upset and the three personality traits. The findings, summarized in Table 3, were consistent with prediction in some, but not all instances. As hypothesized, Group D (high procrastination and high manifest upset) was higher than all other groups on anxiety and R/S. Group B (high procrastina- tion and low manifest upset) was also higher than Group A (low procrastination and high manifest upset) in these personality traits, but, contrary to hypothesis, this group was identical in these traits to the other low procrastination group (C). An unexpected finding that completed these group comparisons was that Group A (low in procrastination but high in manifest upset) was the lowest of all four groups in anxiety and R/S.

The findings on pessimism were partly consistent with hypothesis. Group B (highest in procrastination) was more pessimistic than a low procrastination group (Group A), but did not differ from the other groups. Contrary to hypothesis, Group D (high procrastination and high manifest upset) was not higher in pessimism than Group B (high procrastination and low manifest upset) or the low procrastination groups.

There was a modest relationship of manifest and anticipatory upset (r = 0.28) the higher the upset over actual procrastination excesses, the higher the upset over hypothetical excesses. Additional support for this relationship was the similar ascending rank order of manifest and anticipatory group means, A, D, B, C for the former and A, D, C, B for the latter. When intercorrelations of the major variables were examined separately for each of the four groups identified by the factor analysis, the manifest-anticipatory upset correlation was found to be significant for the low manifest upset groups, B and C, only (r = 0.52 and 0.73, Ps < 0.01, respectively). All other within group correlations of the various measures were non-contributory.

DISCUSSION

Behavioral procrastination and manifest upset over procrastination yielded four groups of Ss whose characteristics were largely consistent with the proposed typological model. Ss in the largest single group in our profile sample (Group A) do not delay in performing routine life tasks, and experience high manifest upset when they occasionally do so, and high anticipatory upset at the thought of doing so even when they do not. Their emotional upset about their procrastinatory behavior, real or imagined, is not associated with high scores on the three personality traits. On the contrary, they are lower or lowest on all three. This finding runs counter to commonly held beliefs in society that prompt people are more anxious, sensitive to possible threat, and fearful that things will turn out badly, than “laid back” people who take their time over life routines. For prompt people in the present study, anticipatory upset and post-procrastination upset are contraindications of adverse personality trait scores. These affective response dispositions would appear to serve as aversive cues maintaining efficient scheduling and schedule adherence on many routine tasks of daily living.

It is important to make a distinction between per task mean level of upset and the frequency of upset in these groups. Manifest upset over procrastination is, of course, a rare occurrence for people who do not procrastinate as a rule, and a ubiquitous one for people who do. Anticipatory upset may be a rare experience for all Ss, since it was elicited here under direct questioning and does not necessarily occur spontaneously. The distinction between level and frequency may account for the high scores on the personality measures in the high procrastination groups. Ss in Group D, characterized by moderate procrastination and high manifest upset, were more anxious and higher in R/S than Ss in Group B, who were highest in procrastination, but low in manifest upset. The former group have the worst of both worlds. Since they procrastinate on many routines, they are more frequently upset than people who procrastinate less (Group A and C) or people who procrastinate more, but care less (Group B). Given that they are upset more of the time than people in any other group, it is understandable that they would also be highest in anxiety and sensitivity to threat. They are, however, no more pessimistic than the low procrastination groups.

The high pessimism score of Group B may account for their lack of emotional upset about procrastination, real or imagined. Since they believe strongly that things will not work out, they may have come to believe that it does not pay to make the effort or to worry about the consequences

Procrastination and emotional upset 1313

of not making the effort. Further studies are necessary to determine if this latter group corresponds to the profile identified by Lay (1987) as low in need-achievement and energy level.

The moderate relationship between manifest and anticipatory upset was restricted to Groups B and C, who were low in manifest upset to begin with. This suggests that a low level of emotional upset about procrastination, real or imagined, is a characterological disposition impervious to affective and behavioral parameters of life routines. By contrast, moderate and high levels of anticipatory and manifest emotional upset may be affected by diverse task parameters.

There were a number of important, original findings in the present study. People who are high and low in procrastination in routine life tasks are also divisible into those with high vs low emotional upset levels about their procrastinatory behavior. These groups differ in personality trait antecendents. People with high levels of manifest upset on relatively few routine tasks are less anxious than others. These and other findings are tentative and warrant further investigation with new S groups and with a comprehensive battery of antecedent and consequent personality measures.

REFERENCES

Byrne, D. (1969). Repressor-sensitization as a dimension of personality. In Maher, B. (Ed.), Progress in experimenfal personality research (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

Ellis, A. & Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rational Living. Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68, 455458. Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474495. Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastinators: A search for types. Personality and Individual Dzfirences,

g, 7055714. Lay, C. H. (1988). The relationship of procrastination and optimism to judgments of time to complete an essay and

anticipation of setbacks. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 3, 201-214. Milgram, N. (1988). Procrastination in daily living. Psychological Reporfs, 63, 752-754. Milgram, N. (1991). Procrastination. In Encyclopedia of human biology, Volume 6. New York: Academic Press. Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B. & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in

Personalily 22, 197-2 12. Mschel, W. (1984). Convergence and change in the search for consistency. American Psychologist, 39, 351-364. Overall, J. E. & Klett, C. J. (1972). Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenbaum, M. (1980). A schedule for assessing self-control behaviors: Preliminary findings. Behavior Therapy, II,

109-121. Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J. & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differences between high and

low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 3877394. Scheier. M. F. & Carver. C. S. (1985). Optimism. coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome

expectancies. Health Psychology,’ 4, 2 19-247. . - Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K. &Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5I, 125771264. Silver, M. (1974). Procrastination. Counferparr; 1, 49954. Skinner. H. A. & Lei. H. (1980). Modal profile analvsis: A computer program for classification research. Educational

Psychology and Measurement: 40, 7699772. . . .-

Solomon, L. J. & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 5033509.

Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.