PROCRASTINATION, THESIS WRITING AND JUN6IAN

PERSONALITY TYPE

By

MARY SUSAN HASKINS

B.A., University of Colorado, 1971

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

i n

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Department of Counselling Psychology)

We accept t h i s thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

February, 1988

(c) Mary Susan Haskins, 1988

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it

freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive

copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my

department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or

publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written

permission.

Department of Counselling Psychology

The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3

Date March 14, 1988

( i i )

ABSTRACT

This study sought to examine the re l a t i o n s h i p between the

procrastination involved in thesis writing and Jungian personality

type.

A sample of 50 graduate students enrolled in the Department of

Counselling Psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia

par t i c i p a t e d in the study. These i n d i v i d u a l s were c l a s s i f i e d into one

of two groups: those who procrastinated while writing t h e i r thesis and

those who did not. Procrastination was measured using length of time

taken to complete the thesis coupled with s e l f - r e p o r t . The 50

subjects were then administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which

measures Jungian personality type. These two groups were then

compared to determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t differences in personality type

existed between the procrastinating and nan-procrastinating groups.

Five hypotheses were tested. A t-test (two t a i l e d ) was performed

using the continuous scores of the four scales of the MBTI to test the

f i r s t four hypotheses to determine i f a s t a t i s t i c a l difference could

be found between these two groups on these dimensions. No differences

were found on the f i r s t three scales (extraversion-introversion;

s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n ; t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) , but a s i g n i f i c a n t difference

was found on the judging-perceiving index (p=.008). Procrastinators

tended to score toward the perceiving end of the scale while non-

procrastinators scored toward the judging end of the continuum.

A chi-square analysis using tire dichotomous scores of the MBTI

was performed to test the f i f t h hypothesis which predicted that a

( i i i )

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types would be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s than

n a n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted (p=.0017)

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s do tend to c o r r e l a t e

with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

< i v J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . .

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION . . . . .

Rationale for the Study

Statement of the Problem

Theoretical Perspective

Purpose of the Study . . . .

Sig n i f i c a n c e of the Study

D e f i n i t i o n s of Key Terms . .

Overview of the Study . . . .

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Proc r a s t i n a t i o n . . . . .

Jungian Psychological Type Theory .

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Jungian Personality Type and Learning Theory

Jungian Typology and Procrastination

Summary . . .

(V)

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY . . . .

Descr ipt ion and Se lect ion of the Sample

Procedures Used in Co l l ec t ing Data

Instrumentation . .

Items and Scoring

P red i c t i ve V a l i d i t y

Construct V a l i d i t y

Rei i abi1i ty

Research Design, Hypotheses and Data Analys is

CHAPTER FOUR

- RESULTS

Demographic Data

Results of Hypotheses .

Type D i s t r i bu t i on Tables

Conclusion

CHAPTER FIVE

40

40

41

42

44

46

48

51

52

55

58

62

65

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . 66

Discussion of Results .

Overview . . . .

Demographic Data Regarding Sample

Measuring Procras t inat ion .

Findings of the Study

66

66

67

69

69

( v i )

L i m i t a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s -for Future Research . • . 73

L i m i t a t i o n s . . . . . . . . 73

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Research . . . . 7 5

REFERENCES . . . . . . . 7 8

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . 85

Appendix A: L e t t e r of Contact . . . . . 8 6

Appendix B: I n s t r u c t i o n Sheet . . . . . 8 8

Appendix C: Subject Consent Form . . . . . 9 0

Appendix D: Demographic Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . 92

( v i i )

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2.1 Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Psychological Types . . 25

2.2 Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 16 Psychological Types . 31

2.3 Frequency Di s t r i b u t i o n s of Types Among C l i n i c a l

and Experimental Psychologists . . . . 3 6

4.1 Self-Reported Procrastination of the Procrastinating

and Non-Procrastinating Groups . . . . 5 7

4.2 t-test Comparison of Procrastinating and Non-

Procrastinating Groups on Continuous Dimensions . 60

4.3 Chi-square Comparison of NFP's Between Procrastinators

and Non-Procrastinators . . . . 6 1

.4.4 Procrastinators and Non-Procrastinators Compared

According to D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type . . . . 6 2

4.5 Comparison of Procrastinators (N=25) and Non-

Procrastinators (N=25) According to Jungian

Personality Type . . . . . . 6 3

4.6 Myers-Briggs Type Table D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample

Population . . . . . . 64

4.7 Data from Sample Population Regarding D i s t r i b u t i o n

of Type on Each MBTI Index . . . . 6 5

( v i i i )

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would l i k e to extend my thanks to my thesis committee, and

espe c i a l l y to my chairperson, Dr. Steve Marks. He offered me immense

support and encouragement in th i s task.

Appreciation i s also due to the ind i v i d u a l s who shared their time

and energy by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th i s study.

In addition, I would l i k e to thank Pat Henderson, my parents and

my co-workers for their support as I undertook t h i s endeavour.

A special thanks to Nand Kishor for his techical expertise and

patience.

F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to dedicate t h i s to the memory of my

mother who died prior to i t s completion.

To a l l , I express my thanks.

(1)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Procrastination, the act of deferring or delaying necessary

acti o n , i s a psychopathology of everyday l i f e . While the severity of

the discomfort resulting from procrastination can range from mild

i r r i t a t i o n with oneself to a major a f f e c t i v e disorder, i t i s a

phenomenon with which everyone can i d e n t i f y . Beyond the expressed

subjective discomfort which accompanies pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n , very real

objective consequences sometimes devastating can result from i t s

presence in a person's l i f e . Consider the adolescent female who puts

off acquiring a means of b i r t h c o n t r o l , or the married couple who

remains unhappily wedded for t h i r t y years, or the business executive

who i s f i r e d for f a i l i n g to keep up his or her accounts. The examples

are myriad. C l e a r l y , the practice of procrastination can wreak havoc

in people's l i v e s . This i s a study of one pa r t i c u l a r form of

procrastination which i s es p e c i a l l y costly in academic settings: the

act of delaying the completion of the f i n a l paper (either thesis or

major paper) required for a Master's.degree.

Rationale for the Study

Procrastination exacts a considerable price in academic s e t t i n g s .

E l l i s and Knaus (1977) have estimated that 95 percent of a l l college

students engage in pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Course withdrawal, poor grades

and academic underachievement are a l l r e s u l t s of procrastination

(2)

(Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer', 1979). The tendency for students to

procrastinate appears to increase the longer students are in college .

Semb, Glick and Spencer (1979) found that freshmen procrastinate the

least and seniors the most. Procrastination at the graduate level

reaches near epic proportions, e s p e c i a l l y as i t relates to the f i n a l

paper (thesis or d i s s e r t a t i o n ) . Less than 50 percent of those who

begin graduate school with the intention of earning a degree actually

do so (Creager, 1965; Knox, 1970; S e l l s , 1973). S t a t i s t i c s are not

available to indicate how much of t h i s a t t r i t i o n rate i s due to

f a i l u r e to complete the f i n a l paper, but anecdotal data from

procrastinators and th e i r committees indicate that the problem of

completing t h i s f i n a l paper i s widespread amoung otherwise competent

and highly functioning graduate students. While graduate student

f o l k l o r e abounds with s t o r i e s regarding the procrastination involved

in thesis w r i t i n g , there has been very l i t t l e research conducted on

th i s t o p i c . C l e a r l y , t h i s i s a problematic area in the academic world

that has received l i t t l e attention from researchers.

Statement of the Problem

Procrastination i s a mysterious behavior both to those who endure

i t as well as those who would explain i t . As Sabini and S i l v e r (1982)

point out, the procrastinator i s someone who knows what he or she

wants to do, appears capable of doing i t , i s often in some sense

trying to do i t yet does not do i t . Various reasons have been

postulated to explain the phenomenon: fear of f a i l u r e , evaluation

anxiety, problems in decision making, r e b e l l i o n against c o n t r o l , fear

(3)

of success, perfectionism, low self-esteem and perceived aversiveness

of the task (Burka & Yuen, 1982). The relatively sparse research

pertaining to procrastination is reflected in Solomon and Rothblum's

point that prior to their study in 1984, no one had attempted a

systematic study of the reasons for procrastination. Most studies

have confined themselves to seeing procrastination as a time

management problem or a deficit in study s k i l l s (Miller, Weaver, &

Semb, 1974; Ziesat, Rosenthal, & White, 1978). Solomon and Rothblum

(1984) found, however,^that procrastination involves a complicated

interaction among behavioral, cognitive and affective components.

Blatt and Quinlan (1967) concluded from their research that nothing

short of a total personality theory should be applied to the study of

procrastinators and non-procrastinators because of the fundamental

differences they found between the two groups. This may be an

important key to the understanding of procrastination. While it is a

practice which cuts across a l l socio-economic levels and affects al l

ethnic groups, a l l ages, a l l occupations and both genders (Burka &

Yuen, 1984), there may be certain individuals who are more prone to

procrastination than others because of personality factors. Myers and

McCaulley (1985) suggest that procrastination is a result of the way

certain personality types process information. There have, however,

been no studies published to date which investigate the relationship

between procrastination and personality type. This study explored

this relationship and sought to answer the question, "Do those who

procrastinate on the thesis and those who do not differ significantly

in personality type?".

(4)

Theoretical Perspective

Carl Jung postulated a theory of personality type (1921) based

on his c l i n i c a l observations and advocated that i t be used as a tool

for empirical research. In 1962, Myers made this passible by

publishing an instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It

was designed to implement Jung's theory so that the ideas of type

could be tested and put to p r a c t i c a l use.

Jung hypothesized that human beings re l a t e to the world with one

of two fundamentally d i f f e r e n t modes or "at t i t u d e s " . Some (those he

termed "extraverts") get their psychic energy from the outer world of

people and things while others ("introverts") are c l e a r l y more

comfortable r e l a t i n g to their inner world of ideas. In the

extraverted a t t i t u d e , psychic energy flows outward toward the outer

world or object. The introverted attitude is characterized by a

psychic flow of energy inward with concentration on subjective factors

and inner responses. A second "attitude" he observed was the way in

which in d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e to the outer world. Some function primarily

by perceiving the world while others tend to make conclusions about

the world. How they do th i s perceiving or judging w i l l be determined

by which "functions" they prefer to u t i l i z e . One can perceive either

i n t u i t i v e l y or with the senses but not both simultaneously. One

judges or makes decisions using either l o g i c or values, but either

thinking or fe e l i n g w i l l i n e v i t a b l y have to be suspended for a

conclusion to be made. Intuition and sensation are the two mutually

(5)

exclusive " i r r a t i o n a l " functions and thinking and feelin g comprise the

two " r a t i o n a l " functions, according to his model.

The MBTI seeks to measure these preferred ways of dealing with

both the world and subjective experiences. The r e s u l t s of the MBTI

indicate people's personality type by stating their preferred

orientation to l i f e : extraversion (E) or introversion ( I ) , their

preferred perceptive function: sensing (S) or i n t u i t i n g (N), and their

preferred judgment function: thinking <T) or feelin g (F). In

addition, to c l a r i f y further the differences that occur in the

psychological types developed by Jung, Myers added a fourth preference

which distinguishes preferred attitudes or ways of managing the outer

world ( i . e . , work habits): judgment (J) or perception (P). Those who

prefer perceiving (either S or N) w i l l score P, whereas those who

favor judging (either T or F) when dealing with the external

environment w i l l score J .

Type theory assumes that children are born with a predisposition

to prefer certain functions and attitudes over others and that they

w i l l develop these functions as long as the environment does not

impede or hamper t h i s development. While the preferred function i s

developed, there i s a r e l a t i v e neglect of the opposite pole of the

same preference. In other words, i f one prefers thinking when making

conclusions about the world, the fe e l i n g function w i l l be neglected.

If one u t i l i z e s the sensation function when perceiving, the i n t u i t i v e

process w i l l be undeveloped. In th i s model, environment i s cru c i a l

because i t can foster development of a person's natural preferences

and s k i l l s or i t can discourage and f r u s t r a t e his or her natural bent

by providing a c t i v i t i e s that are less s a t i s f y i n g and motivating. Jung

(6)

maintained that i f i n d i v i d u a l s who were naturally predisposed in one

di r e c t i o n were forced by their environment to behave otherwise,

neurosis or (in extreme cases) even psychosis could develop in later

l i f e .

Jung argued that the less preferred fucntions would by

d e f i n i t i o n be awkward and not always under conscious control of the

ego. In youth, the task i s to develop the dominant and a u x i l i a r y (or

second function). In m i d - l i f e , he considered i t necessary to develop

the less preferred and i n f e r i o r functions in order to individuate.

The "way to God" or "wholeness" in la t e r years would be made possible

by developing the fourth function which i s largely unconscious and

exists in the "shadow" as p o t e n t i a l i t y .

Myers and McCaulley (1985) hypothesize that procrastination may

occur in certain i n d i v i d u a l s because of their p a r t i c u l a r personality

type. Individuals who tend to score extremely high on the P side of

the judging/perceiving index may be e s p e c i a l l y vulnerable to

pro c r a s t i n a t i o n . They suggest that those who have a d e f i c i t in their

judgment attitude ( i . e . , extreme perceputal type^}) may exhibit

problems related to " d i f f u s i o n , d r i f t i n g , procrastination and

confusion over d i r e c t i o n " (p.70). These in d i v i d u a l s tend to remain in

the perceptual mode (either S or N) when a judgment attitude (T or F)

i s required for decision-making and action. In other words, their

perceptual f a c u l t i e s are under conscious control of their ego while

their judgment functions sometimes are not. Their judgment attitude

tends to be awkward and these i n d i v i d u a l s therefore can become stuck

in what they do best: perceiving rather than acting. As noted

e a r l i e r , when in d i v i d u a l s are faced with a task which forces them to

(7)

u t i l i z e t h e i r weaker and more awkward attitudes and/or functions, a

considerable amount of dysfunction and d i s t r e s s tends to occur.

In addition, i n t u i t i v e - f e e l i n g - p e r c e p t i v e (NFP) types have been

found to have a poorly developed sense of time. Intuitives tend to be

future oriented while sensation types are more focused on the present

(Myers & McCaul1ey, 1985). If the i n t u i t i v e i s also a perceptive type

(NP), s/he w i l l have very l i t t l e sense of time and w i l l have greater

d i f f i c u l t y with time management than those who either have a strong

judging attitude (SJ, NJ, TJ, FJ) or those who are more grounded in

the present (SP). Individuals who rely primarily on their i n t u i t i o n

when dealing with the external world w i l l have flashes of i n s i g h t , see

tremendous p o s s i b i l i t i e s in the future but have l i t t l e or no grounding

in space or time and hence suffer from an i n a b i l i t y to manage time. A

strong judging function (T or F) or sensation (S) i s required i f one

is to make decisions and manage time e f f e c i v e l y . This poorly

developed sense of time appears to be made even worse, however, i f the

intuit i v e - p e c e p t i v e individual i s also a f e e l i n g type. Feeling types,

by d e f i n i t i o n , base their decisions on values as opposed to l o g i c .

The i n t u i t i v e - p e r c e p t i v e type has a greater chance of e f f e c t i v e time

management i f his or her rat i o n a l function i s one which u t i l i z e s logic

as opposed to values when making decisions. The NFP type, therefore,

appears to be a high r i s k candidate for having problems with

pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

Purpose of the Study

It i s no secret to academia that a considerable number of

(8)

supposedly g i f ted ind iv idua l s do not receive degrees due to the

f a i l u r e to complete the thes i s requirement. For many that do complete

their theses, a s i g n i f i c a n t number perceive themselves to be

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressed, more anxious, more a l ienated, less

opt imis t i c and less f r i end l y during the years spent writ ing the i r

thes i s than during the year a f ter completion (McRae & Skelton, 1 9 7 9 ) .

Given these f ac t s , i t i s surpr i s ing that very few, i f any, studies

have been conducted to examine the problems re lated to procras t inat ion

on the thes i s . The purpose of th i s study, then, was to begin to

examine th i s unresearched and problematic area with the expressed

intent of demystifying th i s puzzl ing graduate student behavior. Given

the mounting evidence that learning can be f a c i l i t a t e d by becoming

aware of learning s ty les as predicted by persona l i ty types, th i s study

was an attempt to provide hard data l i nk ing procras t inat ion with

persona l i ty type so that potent ia l procras t inators could be i d e n t i f i e d

ear ly in the i r t r a i n i n g . It would then be poss ib le to implement

e f f e c t i v e treatment s t ra teg ies to address the i r pa r t i cu l a r def ic iences

and prevent the considerable waste in time, money and stress current ly

experienced in graduate schools.

This study tested Myers and McCaulley's hypothesis that

procras t inators tend to be perceptive types while non-procrast inators

tend to be judging types. Their contention i s that i nd iv idua l s with

high percept ive scores tend to procras t inate as a habitual mode of

behavior and those with high judgment scores do not. In add i t i on , i t

tested the notion that NFP types (due to the way they process and act

on information) would be more l i k e l y to be procrast inators than other

persona l i ty types. It was beyond the scope of th i s study to

(9)

investigate procrastination as a fixed personality t r a i t . It d i d ,

however, test Myers and McCaulley's hypothesis on t h i s t a s k - s p e c i f i c

si tuati on.

The secondary purpose of the study was of a sore exploratory

nature which was to analyze the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types within the two

groups (of procrastinators and non-procrastinators) to determine i f a

s i g n i f i c a n t number of s p e c i f i c types appeared to cluster in either

group. This was done to determine i f differences other than those

predicted by the l i t e r a t u r e might e x i s t .

Significance of the Study

The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study was thre e f o l d . As has been pointed

out, procrastination has been primarily viewed as a phenomenon which

is randomly d i s t r i b u t e d through out the population, a f f e c t i n g a l l

ages, occupations, socio-economic le v e l s and both genders. It has

t r a d i t i o n a l l y been treated in a s i m p l i s t i c fashion and only recently

has been considered a complicated phenomenon with cognitive, a f f e c t i v e

and behavioral components. While researchers have called for a more

comprehensive study of pr o c r a s t i n a t i o n , there have been no studies to

date which have applied personality theory to the phenomenon. This

study does just that.

Secondly, the study tested Myers and McCaulley's currently

untested theory that procrastination i s indeed a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a

par t i c u l a r personality type. The implications of t h i s finding could

hold s i g n i f i c a n c e both for ind i v i d u a l s (in terms of enhancing

self-understanding) and for higher education at large as well . Having

(10) •

a r o o t problem more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e s the

implementation of e f f e c t i v e treatment i n t e r v e n t i o n s .

F i n a l l y , t h i s study has c o n t r i b u t e d to the p r a c t i c a l l y

n o n - e x i s t e n t body of l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with the act of t h e s i s w r i t i n g

i t s e l f , although the t h e s i s i s a common requirement f o r a graduate

degree i n many d i s c i p l i n e s . P r i o r to t h i s s t u d y , no attempt had been

made to i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e reasons f o r the f a c t t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e

number of s t u d e n t s postpone g e t t i n g t h e i r degrees f o r years (due to

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on t h e i r t h e s i s ) i n s p i t e of obvious o c c u p a t i o n a l and

economic consequences f o r themselves and t h e i r f a m i l i e s .

D e f i n i t i o n s of Key Terms

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : T h i s study used the d e f i n i t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n

p r o v i d e d by Wedeman (1985): The tendency to delay or av o i d a task one

i n t e n d s to complete. The p a r t i c u l a r task i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study was

the c o m p l e t i o n of the t h e s i s r e q u i r e d f o r graduate s t u d e n t s to r e c e i v e

t h e i r degree in C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h

Columbia. P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s were o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as those who

delayed the com p l e t i o n of t h e i r t h e s e s u n t i l t h e i r f i f t h year and

s e l f - r e p o r t i n g always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s t a s k .

N o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s were d e f i n e d o p e r a t i o n a l l y as those who completed

t h e i r theses w i t h i n two years of co m p l e t i n g t h e i r coursework and

s e l f - r e p o r t e d never or almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s t a s k .

P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was t h e r e f o r e measured by b e h a v i o r a l delay as well as

s e l f - r e p o r t (to scre e n out other f a c t o r s which might have c o n t r i b u t e d

to the de l a y other than p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ) .

(11)

The following are brief descriptions of terms related to Jungian

typology as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Terms

such as "extravert", " i n t r o v e r t " , "thinker", " f e e l e r " , "judger", etc.

are defined below. The use of such words to describe people i s simply

a convention intended to save time and space when r e f e r r i n g to peopie

who prefer various attitudes and functions as defined by Jung. At no

time i s i t intended to reduce a person to a mere category or l a b e l .

a t t i tude: A term used by Jung to indicate a person's preferred

orientation of l i b i d o ; a person with an introverted attitude (I!

orients l i b i d o inwardly to the intra-psychic world, while a person

with an extraverted attitude (E) orients l i b i d o outwardly to the world

of objects. In other words, the introvert w i l l give and receive

energy to and from their inner world while extraverts receive and give

energy primarily to and from the outer world. Myers added an

additional a t t i t u d e , the judging-perceiving a t t i t u d e , to Jungian

theory. This dimension indicates the way in which a person manages

the outer world. Those who are found to have a judging attitude (J)

wil l tend to prefer to use their rational function (either thinking or

feeling) when r e l a t i n g to the outer world. Those who have a

perceiving attitude (P) w i l l tend to u t i l i z e their preferred

i r r a t i o n a l function (either sensation or i n t u i t i o n ) when managing the

outer world.

continuous score: A transformation of preference scores on the MBTI

as i f there was no dichotomy by setting a midpoint at 100 and

subtracting the numerical portion of the preference score from 100 for

preferences E, S, T, and J , and by adding the numerical portion to 100

for preferences I, N, F, and P. Use of continuous scores allows the

(12)

strength of the preference to be taken into consideration.

dichotomouB score: The basic score used to describe each MBTI

preference, made up of a l e t t e r indicating d i r e c t i o n of the

preference. Only the d i r e c t i o n , not strength, of the preference is

indicated when dichotomous scores are used.

extravert (E): A person who habitually turns his or her energy

outward from subject to object and i s dependent upon the object.

Myers uses the term to refer to a person who focuses perception and

judgment primarily upon people and things (the outer world).

Operationally, i t refers to a person who obtains a preference score on

the extraversion side of the extraversion/introversion index of the

MBTI.

f e e l i no (F): One of the four basic functions described by Jung

(1921). He defined " f e e l i n g " as a "process that takes place primarily

between the ego and a given content...imparting...to the content a

d e f i n i t e value in the sense of acceptance or r e j e c t i o n " (p.434). Jung

distinguished i t from emotion. It i s the function that evaluates an

object, determines whether i t i s desirable or undesirable and i t s

degree of importance. Myers defines " f e e l i n g " as judging primarily in

a personal way to determine valued and not valued. Operationally, a

"f e e l e r " i s a person who obtains a preference score on the f e e l i n g

side of the thinking/feeling index of the MBTI.

function: As defined by Jung, a function i s a p a r t i c u l a r form of

psychic a c t i v i t y that remains the same in p r i n c i p l e under varying

conditions.- He maintained there were four (and only four) functions

that people u t i l i z e : sensation (S), i n t u i t i o n (N), thinking (T) and

feeli n g (F). Thinking and f e e l i n g represent two mutually exclusive

(13)

ways of j u d g i n g or making d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e x t e r n a l w o r l d .

Sensing and i n t u i t i n g r e p r e s e n t two opposing ways of p e r c e i v i n g or

t a k i n g i n data from the e x t e r n a l w o r l d .

i n t r o v e r t ( I ) : A person who h a b i t u a l l y withdraws energy or l i b i d o

from the o b j e c t or outer world and i n t o him or h e r s e l f . Myers uses

the term to d e s c r i b e a person whose main i n t e r e s t i s in the i n n e r

world of i d e a s . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a

p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the i n t r o v e r s i o n s i d e of the i n t r o v e r s i o n /

e x t r a v e r s i o n index of the MBTI.

i n t u i t i o n (N): One of the four b a s i c f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by Jung. It

i s the act of becoming aware of t h i n g s i n d i r e c t l y by way of the

u n c o n s c i o u s . It i s a way of p e r c e i v i n g by which the unconscious t a c k s

a s s o c i a t i o n s or i d e a s onto o u t s i d e s t i m u l i . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , an

i n t u i t o r i s a person who o b t a i n s a p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the i n t u i t i o n

s i d e of the s e n s i n g / i n t u i t i o n index of the MBTI.

judqer ( J ) : T h i s term r e f e r s to a person who r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on a

judging p r o c e s s ( e i t h e r t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g ) when d e a l i n g with the

outer w o r l d . T h i s term i s not meant to connote "judgmental". A

"judger" i n the Jungian sense i s someone who p r e f e r s r e l a t i n g to the

outer world by emphasizing p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n making. It i s

d i s t i n g u i s h e d from those who r e l y p r i m a r i l y on a p e r c e i v i n g mode where

they deal with the outer world through the s e n s a t i o n or i n t u i t i v e

f u n c t i o n . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a

p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the j u d g i n g s i d e of the j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g index

of the MBTI.

ju d g i n g p r e f e r e n c e s ( J ) : The j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s the way i n

which a person w i l l manage the outer w o r l d . Those who are found to

(14)

have a ju d g i n g a t t i t u d e are those who p r e f e r to u t i l i z e e i t h e r t h e i r

t h i n k i n g (T) or f e e l i n g (F) f u n c t i o n when managing the outer w o r l d .

The j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g dichotomy as an a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s an a d d i t i o n

to Jungian theory as developed by Myers.

MBTI: R e f e r s to the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r which was designed as

an instrument t o measure Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . It was f i r s t

p u b l i s h e d i n 1962. It i s the instrument used i n t h i s study to

i d e n t i f y type p r e f e r e n c e s .

p e r c e i ver (P): T h i s term r e f e r s to a person who p r e f e r s to r e l y on a

p r i m a r i l y p e r c e p t i v e a t t i t u d e ( s e n s i n g or i n t u i t i o n ) when d e a l i n g with

the outer w o r l d . O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who o b t a i n s a

p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e on the p e r c e i v i n g s i d e of the j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g

index of the MBTI.

p e r c e p t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s (P): . The p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s the

way i n which a person manages the outer w o r l d . Those who are found to

have a p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e are those who p r e f e r to u t i l i z e t h e i r

s e n s a t i o n (S) or i n t u i t i v e (N) f u n c t i o n when d e a l i n g with the outer

w o r l d . The p e r c e i v i n g - j u d g i n g dichotomy as an a t t i t u d e r e p r e s e n t s an

a d d i t i o n to Jungian t h e o r y as developed by Myers.

p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e : The score f o r each of the four i n d i c e s

( e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n ; s e n s i n g / i n t u i t i n g ; t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g ;

j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g ) which i n d i c a t e s the d i r e c t i o n of a p r e f e r e n c e and

i t s magnitude ( e . g . , F= 14). The p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e i s computed by

s u b t r a c t i n g the l e s s e r raw score from the g r e a t e r raw s c o r e on a given

d i m e n s i o n , m u l t i p l y i n g the d i f f e r e n c e by two, and then adding a p o i n t

i f the p r e f e r e n c e i s zero or i n the d i r e c t i o n of I,N,T,P ( f o r males)

or I,N,F,P ( f o r f e m a l e s ) . A p o i n t i s s u b t r a c t e d from the t o t a l i f the

(15)

preference i s in the d i r e c t i o n of E,S,F,J (for males) or E,S,T,J (for

females).

personality type: For the purposes of t h i s study, personality type

sha l l mean the p a r t i c u l a r combination of four indexed flyers-Briggs

Type Indicator preferences as indicated by a four l e t t e r code. There

are 16 possible combinations or types in Myers' scheme. Myers

elaborated upon Jung's notion of judging and perceiving by creating a

fourth dimension, thus increasing Jung's o r i g i n a l schema of eight

types to 16.

sensi ng (S): One of the four basic functions described by Jung. It

i s the process of becoming aware of things d i r e c t l y through any of the

f i v e senses with the emphasis on immediate evidence. Sensing is

related not only to external stimuli but inner ones as well (as Jung

defined i t ) . Myers does not include the inner processes in her

d e f i n i t i o n of sensing. Operationally, a "sensor" i s a person who

obtains a preference score on the sensing side of the sensing/

i n t u i t i n g index of the MBTI.

thi nking (T): One of the four functions described by Jung. It i s a

l o g i c a l , impersonal way of judging to determine true or f a l s e .

Operationally, a "thinker" i s a person who obtains a preference score

on the thinking side of the thinking/feeling index of the MBTI.

Overview of the Study

This study consists of f i v e chapters. Chapter One i s the

introduction. Chapter Two i s a review of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e .

Chapter Three contains a description of the methodology: description

(16)

and s e l e c t i o n of sample, p r o c e d u r e s , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , r e s e a r c h desi

hypotheses and data a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter

Four and a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s and l i m i t a t i o n s are found i n

Chapter F i v e .

(17)

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The relevant l i t e r a t u r e regarding the following s p e c i f i c areas of

study are reviewed in t h i s chapter:

1. procrastination-—academic procrastination and thesis writing

2. Jungian psychological type theory

3. the liyers-Briggs Type Indicator as a measure of Jungian

typology

4. Jungian typology as i t relates to procrastination

5. Jungian typology and learning theory

Procrastination

P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , the tendency to delay or avoid a task one

intends to complete, i s a universal phenomenon in human experience.

Even Shakespeare found i t s i g n i f i c a n t enough to cause Hamlet to lament

his unwillingness to do that which he has "cause, and w i l l , and

strength, and means to do't" (Hamlet 4.4.45-46). Despite i t s

u n i v e r s a l i t y , i t has received scant attention from researchers. This

is s u r p r i s i n g , given the t o l l i t takes in academic set t i n g s . H i l l ,

H i l l , Chabot, and B a r r a l l (1978) found that procrastination i s a

substantial problem among college students. Ely and Hampton 11973)

and Rosati (1975) reported that between 22 to 33 percent of college

students procrastinated on assignments. Rothblum, Solomon, and

Murakami (1986) found that more than 40 percent of the students they

investigated reported high levels of procrastination. They also found

a s i g n i f i c a n t negative correl ation•between procrastination and grade

(18)

point average indicating that procrastination i s related to poor

academic performance. E l l i s and Knaus (1977) estimate that f u l l y 95

percent of college students engage in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Academic

underachievement, poor grades and course withdrawal have a l l been

found to be r e s u l t s of procrastination (Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer, 1979).

Biggs and Felton (1973) and Shaeffer (1973) linked p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ,

lack of goal setting and poor study habits to 44 percent of students

admitted to college who were either terminated or placed on probation

for academic reasons.

More than 50 percent'of those who begin a graduate program with

the intention of earning a degree f a i l to do so (Creager, 1965; Knox,

1970). It i s not known how much of t h i s f a i l u r e i s due to time

f i n a l l y running out on p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , nor, i s i t known to what

extent procrastination a f f e c t s those who do f i n a l l y succeed in earning

their degree. What appears to be c l e a r , however, i s the fact that

procrastination i s widespread in academic settings and i t s e f f e c t s are

consi derab1e.

Even less research has been done on thesis writing, in spite of

anecdotal data which t e s t i f y to the trauma and stress involved in

writing a thesis or d i s s e r t a t i o n . McRae and Skelton (1979) found that

subjects perceived themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more alienated,

depressed, anxious and less optimistic and less f r i e n d l y during the

year(s) when they were writing their thesis than they were during the

year fallowing i t s completion. For many ind i v i d u a l s (especially

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) , this.period of time for writing can take up to f i v e

years, and sometimes even longer for those who receive extensions

beyond the f i v e year l i m i t . This i s c l e a r l y a s i g n i f i c a n t length of

(19)

time to be experiencing a l i e n a t i o n , depression, and anxiety.

Marriages and friendships are frequently strained. The costs in terms

of emotional, f i n a n c i a l and physical well being are often

considerable. Given these costs, i t appears important that research

be undertaken to begin to explore the phenomenon of procrastination in

thesis writing. The purpose of t h i s study, then, i s to address this

issue by investigating the personality components of those who

procrastinate on their thesis as opposed to those who do not. If

s i g n i f i c a n t personality differences can be found on the MBTI between

procrastinators and non-procrastinators, those vulnerable to

procrastination on the thesis could be i d e n t i f i e d and strategies to

remedy this potential problem could be implemented at the outset of

graduate programs. This could p o t e n t i a l l y reduce or possibly prevent

the tremendous cost currently experienced by procrastinators.

As Green (1982) points out, procrastination has received minimal

theoretical a n a l y s i s . Until recently, most studies on procrastination

have defined i t as being a time management or study s k i l l s d e f i c i t

( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974; Ziesat, Rosenthal, White, 1978).

As a consequence, treatment of procrastination has centered mostly on

behavioral techniques (Green, 1982; Richards, 1975). Researchers have

found that procrastination can be reduced through negative

reinforcement ( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974), po s i t i v e reinfocement

(B r i s t o l & Sloane, 1974; Lu, 1976) and through guidelines and imposed

deadlines (Keenan, Bono, & Hursh, 1978). Self-control techniques have

been found to reduce procrastination (Groveman, Richards, & Caple,

1977; Jackson & Van Zoost, 1972; Kirschenbaum & P e r r i , 1982; Richards,

1975, 1981; Sieveking, Campbell, R i l e i g h , St Savitsky, 1971). Green

(20)

(1982) found that self-monitoring plus self-reward was most e f f e c t i v e

in reducing procrastinative behaviors.

The most obvious component to procrastination i s behavioral

delay. A l l researchers agree that included in i t s d e f i n i t i o n i s the

tendency to delay or avoid a task. But beyond t h i s s t a r t i n g point,

diverqent points of view begin to emerge. Solomon and Rothblum (1984)

challenge the idea that procrastination can be defined, assessed and

treated adequately by focusing solely on the behavioral dimension.

They claim that procrastination i s a complicated int e r a c t i o n of

cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral components. Burka and Yuen (1982)

lend support to t h i s position by stating that "procrastination i s a

complex psychological problem that seldom yields to simple remedies"

(p.32).

Wedeman (1985) defines i t as the tendency to delay or avoid a

task one intends to complete. Her d e f i n i t i o n introduces the cognitive

component involved in procrastination: i t i s b a s i c a l l y i r r a t i o n a l . As

Sabini and S i l v e r (1982) point out, not everyone who puts things off

is a procrastinator: note the adolescent who avoids doing the dishes

because s/he knows that Hon w i l l do them i f s/he s t a l l s long enough.

It i s sometimes rational to s t a l l or avoid doing an onerous task i f

chances are great that the s t a l l i n g may in fact ensure that the task

w i l l not have to be done at a l l . P r ocrastination, however, i s

avoiding a task that must be done. It depends on a person s knowing

what to do and then not doing i t . It i s a manifestation of the human

capacity for being divided i n t e r n a l l y . This internal tension produces

an additional element which appears to be ever-present in

procrastination: a f f e c t i v e discomfort. Rothblum, Solomon, and

(21)

Murakami (1986) include the a f f e c t i v e component of anxiety in their

d e f i n i t i o n of academic procrastination maintaining that

procrastination constitutes more than a reasonable length of time to

complete a task; " i t must include problematic levels of anxiety as

well" (p.387).

Most recent investigations of procrastination report high levels

of a f f e c t i v e discomfort accompanying the practice of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

Burka and Yuen (1982) maintain that procrastinators, regardless of

whether they incur academic consequences, suffer anxiey, lowered

self-esteem, a sense of fraudulence and self-deprecation. Solomon and

Rothblum (1984) found that procrastination correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y

with self-report measures of depression, i r r a t i o n a l cognitions, low

self-esteem, anxiety and lack of a s s e r t i o n . They conclude that any

d e f i n i t i o n of procrastination should include both behavioral delay and

psychological d i s t r e s s . Grecco (1984) found that procrastination

correlated p o s i t i v e l y with neuroticism and depression. Powers (1984)

concluded that procrastinators demonstrate lower self-esteem, have

less time competence than the norm and report f e a r , anxiety and

depression as a consequence of their delaying behavior.

The causes of procrastination beyond a d e f i c i t in time

management or study s k i l l s — - h a v e only recently been investigated in a

systematic way (Rothblum,. Beswick, & Mann, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon, &

Murakami, 1986; Solomon It Rothblum, 1984). These investigators

conclude that "time management i s not an independent factor that

explains procrastination behavior. Although items constituting time

management were highly endorsed, students simultaneously endorsed

other cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral reasons for procrastinating"

(22)

(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984, p. 509). Burka and Yuen (1982) suggest

numerous reasons for procrastination: evaluation anxiety, d i f f i c u l t y

in decision making, r e b e l l i o n against c o n t r o l , fear of f a i l u r e , fear

of the consequences of success, perceived aversiveness of the task,

and overly p e r f e c t i o n i s t i c standards regarding competency. Powers

(1984) found that procrastinators are more internal in their locus of

control than the norm. Wedeman (1985) compared procrastination with

perfectionism, autonomy, f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance, fear of success, fear

of f a i l u r e , lack of planfulness, and r e a l i t y interference in 226

students. She found that f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance was found to be

strongly and negatively related to procrastination. Lack of

planfulness and perfectionism were moderately and negatively related

to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Fear of success was moderately and positively-

related to procrastination among male subjects.

C l e a r l y , procrastination i s a complex topic which does appear to

include cognitive, a f f e c t i v e and behavioral dimensions. Frey and

Becker (1958) found personality factors (introversion/extraversion)

which correlated with i n d i v i d u a l s who either f a i l e d to appear cr

continuously postponed appointments for experimental purposes. Blatt

and Qunilan (1967) compared procrastinating and punctual students on

several time parameters and found that punctual students had greater

future time extension in fantasy productions, reported less

preoccupation with death and did s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on a scale

assumed to assess the capacity for a n t i c i p a t i o n and planning. They

conclude that fundamental differences exist between those who l i v e

primarily in the present and others who rely on continuity and purpose

between past, present and future. They emphasize the need for further

r e s e a r c h to develop p e r s o n a l i t y theory i n t h i s a r e a .

While s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have noted p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n v o l v e d

in p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g b e h a v i o r , t h e r e has been no attempt to study the

p e r s o n a l i t y p r o f i l e s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i n a comprehensive way.

Powers (1984) concludes i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n that "the p e r s o n a l i t y of

a p r o c r a s t i n a t o r ( i . e . , l o c u s of c o n t r o l and i n n e r - o t h e r d i r e c t e d n e s s )

i n f l u e n c e s how s/he p e r c e i v e s h i s / h e r p r o c r a s t i n a t i v e b e h a v i o r .

T h i s . . . i m p l i e s that f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the dynamics of

o r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . . . needs to i n c l u d e the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s " (p.3343-B).

Jungian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type Theory

C a r l Jung f i r s t p u b l i s h e d h i s theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l types i n

1921. His theory grew out of o b s e r v a t i o n s of both c o l l e a g u e s and

c l i e n t s and was f i r s t i n s p i r e d by the c o n f l i c t s t hat both he and

A l f r e d A d l e r had with Freud (Mattoon, 1981). Jung was d i s t r e s s e d over

h i s own break with Freud and spent years a t t e m p t i n g to an a y l z e the

reasons f o r i t . He t h e r e f o r e spent a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of e f f o r t

and thought s t u d y i n g the q u a r r e l between Freud and Adler which l e d to

A d l e r ' s withdrawal from Freud's c i r c l e i n 1911.

A d l e r , l i k e Jung a few years l a t e r , had been a valued member of

the Vienna p s y c h o a n a l y t i c group. When A d l e r ' s d i f f e r e n c e s with Freud

became i r r e c o n c i l a b l e , A d l e r r e s i g n e d from the group and formed h i s

own s o c i e t y . T h e i r disagreement c e n t e r e d around the e t i o l o g y of

n e u r o s i s . Freud b e l i e v e d i t s o r i g i n was sexual c o n f l i c t and A d l e r

found the o r i g i n to be in the w i l l to power and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s

r e l a t i o n s h i p to s o c i e t y . S i n c e both A d l e r and Jung had s i m i l a r

(24)

u p b r i n g i n g s , were p r o d u c t s of the sane i n t e l l e c t u a l environment and

had pursued the same i n t e r e s t s f o r a decade, Jung q u e s t i o n e d how and

why such i d e o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d have emerged between the two.

He h y p o t h e s i z e d that t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s l a y i n d i f f e r e n t ways of

p e r c e i v i n g the world. His P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types e x p l o r e d h i s t o r y ,

l i t e r a t u r e and mythology comparing other p a i r s of i d e o l o g i c a l r i v a l s

as w e l l : P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e , A p o l l o and D i o n y s i u s , S p i t t e l e r and

Goethe as w e l l as s e v e r a l church f a t h e r s . His argument b a s i c a l l y

s t a t e d that these two r i v a l r i e s were the consequence of two b a s i c and

c o n f l i c t i n g p e r c e p t u a l ways of l o o k i n g at the world or " a t t i t u d e s " and

l a b e l l e d them " e x t r a v e r s i o n " and " i n t r o v e r s i o n " .

Jung c h a r a c t e r i z e d the e x t r a v e r t e d a t t i t u d e as being a flow of

p s y c h i c energy toward the outer world or the o b j e c t . I n t r o v e r s i o n i s

c o n v e r s e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a flow of p s y c h i c energy inward toward the

s u b j e c t . Both a t t i t u d e s are p r esent i n each i n d i v i d u a l , but one tends

to be dominant and under g r e a t e r c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l of the ego while

the other i s l e s s developed and e x i s t s more as p o t e n t i a l i t y than

a c t u a l i t y .

Jung found these two a t t i t u d e s to be i n s u f f i c i e n t i n

c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the human p e r s o n a l i t y , however, and h y p o t h e s i z e d that

two other d i c h o t o m i e s or four " f u n c t i o n s " a l s o e x i s t . Sensing and

i n t u i t i o n r e p r e s e n t two dichotomous ways of p e r c e i v i n g the world w h i l e

t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g r e f l e c t opposing ways of j u d g i n g ( e i t h e r

l o g i c a l l y and i m p e r s o n a l l y or s u b j e c t i v e l y and a c c o r d i n g to v a l u e s as

opposed to l o g i c ) . He b e l i e v e d these p a i r e d f u n c t i o n s to be

i n c o m p a t i b l e or m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . If a person i s d e c i d i n g whether

something i s t r u e or f a l s e ( t h i n k i n g ) , then e v a l u a t i o n of i t s r e l a t i v e

(25)

importance (feeling) must be postponed. Likewise, i f a person i s

ascertaining facts (sensation), then i n t u i t i o n (consideration of their

p o s s i b i l i t i e s ) will produce inaccuracies. While a l l four functions or

ways of being are possible within an indivudual, Jung hypothesized

that people tend to prefer either i n t u i t i o n or sensation and either

thinking or f e e l i n g . People could then be characterized by types:

extraverted or introverted, a thinker or a f e e l e r , a sensor or an

i n t u i t o r . When combined with one another, these preferences w i l l

provide eight d i f f e r e n t personality types. Jung emphasized that the

interaction of these d i f f e r e n t preferences with one another w i l l

provide d i f f e r i n g and somewhat predictable personality p r o f i l e s .

Table 2.1. Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of

Psychological Types.

Extraverted Sensing

Extraverted Intuition

Extraverted Thinking

Extraverted Feeling

Introverted Sensing

Introverted Intuition

Introverted Thinking

Introverted Feeling

According to Jung, i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l prefer certain functions

over others, just as they have a preference for either introversion or

extraversion. He theorized that one function would be dominant and a

second, or a u x i l i a r y , would have a co-determining influence. He saw

the secondary function as supplementing the f i r s t . That i s , i f the

dominant function was perceptive (either sensing or i n t u i t i n g ) , then

the a u x i l i a r y would be one of judgment (either thinking or f e e l i n g ) .

While many people have a f a i r l y wel1-developed a u x i l i a r y function,

(26)

r e l a t i v e l y few have c o n s c i o u s use of a t h i r d f u n c t i o n . The f o u r t h and

l e a s t d e v e l o p e d , or the " i n f e r i o r " f u n c t i o n remains u n c o n s c i o u s and

p a r t of the "shadow". Jung t h e o r i z e d t h a t the i n f e r i o r f u n c t i o n would

be the o p p o s i t e of the dominant f u n c t i o n . In o t h e r words , i f t h i n k i n g

i s a person s s u p e r i o r f u n c t i o n , then f e e l i n g would be the i n f e r i o r or

f o u r t h f u n c t i o n .

There has been a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h done to

t e s t J u n g ' s t h e o r y of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . A summary of t h e s e e f f o r t s

f o i l o w s .

Gray and Whee lwright (1944) began i n v e s t i g a t i n g type t h e o r y by

f i n d i n g e v i d e n c e of the p a i r i n g of spouses of o p p o s i t e t ypes i n

m a r r i a g e . In 1945 they p u b l i s h e d an a r t i c l e s t u d y i n g the i r r a t i o n a l

( s e n s i n g and i n t u i t i o n ) and r a t i o n a l ( t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g ) f u n c t i o n s .

By 1946 they had d e v e l o p e d a 7 5 - i t e m s e l f - r e p o r t i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d

to i d e n t i f y p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e . T h e i r s c a l e s measured

e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n , s e n s a t i o n / i n t u i t i o n , and t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g .

In 1946, i n a s tudy of 200 i n d i v u d u a l s , they found t h a t 54 p e r c e n t

were i n t r o v e r t e d and 46 p e r c e n t were e x t r o v e r t e d .

Eysenck (1953) found what he c o n s i d e r e d to be a c o n f i r m a t i o n of

J u n g ' s a t t i t u d e of e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i on as one of the t h r e e

d i m e n s i o n s of p e r s o n a l i t y ( a l o n g wi th n e u r o t i c i s m and p s y c h o t i c i s m i .

In a l a t e r s t u d y ( c i t e d i n M a t t o o n , 1981) , Eysenck found ( u s i n g f a c t o r

a n a l y s i s ) t h a t e x t r a v e r t s are h i g h on s o c i a b i l i t y and i m p u l v i e n e s s ,

w h i l e i n t r o v e r t s s c o r e low on t h e s e f a c t o r s . C a r r i g a n (1960) was l e s s

c o n v i n c e d , however, t h a t e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n i s a b a s i c

d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y s t a t i n g , t'hat w h i l e e v i d e n c e was a c c u m u l a t i n g ,

the " u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n has not been

(27)

conclusively demonstrated" (p. 355).

Myers provided some ot the f i r s t empirical evidence for Jung s

typology by constructing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In an

i n i t i a l study (1962b), she used the MBTI to study 8,561 subjects and

found 55 percent were extraverted and 45 percent were introverted.

These findings were very similar to Gray and Wheelwright's findings

over 15 years e a r l i e r and lent further c r e d i b i l i t y to Jung's theories.

Since that i n i t i a l study, the MBTI has become the most po s i t i v e

endorsement of Jung's type theory to date and has been extensively-

used to measure personality type.

Bradway (1964) asked 28 Jungian analysts to categories themselves

according to Jung's typology and then administered both the

Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire and the MBTI. This validated the

extraversion/introversion dimension on both instruments. S i g n i f i c a n t

correlations were obtained for the sensation/intuition dimension on

both instruments and s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s on the thinking/feeling

dimension were obtained from the Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire.

Strieker and Ross (1964) used the MBTI to test Jung's hypotheses

that: 1. the attitudes and functions are stable over time and not

e a s i l y changed (they found moderate s t a b i l i t y ) ; 2. the attitudes and

functions are q u a l i t a t i v e l y dichotomous (scores were not bimodal); 3.

the functions and attitudes were interacting (the scales did not

i n t e r a c t ) . They therefore concluded that their r e s u l t s offered l i t t l e

support for the s t r u c t u r a l properties attributed to the typology by

Jung.

Gorlow, Simonson, and Krauss (1966) used a Q sort factor analysis

in an attempt to v e r i f y Jung's typology. They accounted for 46.03

(28)

percent of the total variance by i d e n t i f y i n g six factors which

corresponded to Jungian types: 1. extraverted-feeling, 2.introverted

thinking, type A, 3. extraverted-thinking, 4. introverted-thinking,

type B, 5. extraverted-sensing, 6. e x t r a v e r t e d - i n t u i t i o n . These

findings lend support to Jungian theory.

Ball (1967) did a factor analysis of extraver si on / introver si on

and t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g . He found six factors which accounted for 42

percent of the total variance a l l of which were defined in terms of

E/I, T/F or both. He concluded that the dimensions postulated by Jung

were useful in explaining divergent human behaviors by organizing them

conceptually. Cook (1970) found support for the extraversion/

introversion factor but l i t t l e v e r i f i c a t i o n of the four functions.

H i l l (cited in Mattoon, 1981) investigated whether Jung's eight types

would be evident within a sample of variables from instruments

considered to be t h e o r e t i c a l l y consistent with Jungian typology. H i l l

concluded that six of the eight factors could be interpreted within

the Jungian system: i n t u i t i o n vs. thinking, i n t r o v e r s i o n , perceiving

introvert vs. perceiving extravert, sensing extravert, f e e l i n g

extravert, and thinking. These r e s u l t s offered further limited

support for Jung's theory.

Steele and Kelly (cited in Mattoon, 1981, p.57) found a high

c o r r e l a t i o n between the MBTI and the Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire. . Palmiere (1972) found predictable differences in

attitude and behavior between extraverts and introverts using the MBTI

and the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test). She found that introverts

produce a larger quantity of fantasy than do extraverts. Higher

"fantasy scores" (both more words and more ideas) were produced by

(29)

introverted subjects.

Jung theorized that attitude type may have a b i o l o g i c a l

foundation. Two studies have indicated that brain function d i f f e r s

between introverts and extraverts. Mattoon (1981, p.59) c i t e s an

Australian study in which Savage measured brain waves using an EES and

found the alpha amplitude of extraverts to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher

than that of i n t r o v e r t s . Gale, Coles and Blaydon replicated these

re s u l t s in 1969 (cited in Mattoon, 1981). McLeod and Bleweitt (cited

in Mattoon, 1981) under Eysenck's supervision, found that i d e n t i c a l

twins were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a l i k e in extraversion/introversi on

(r=.499) than fraternal twins (r=-.331). (These researchers could not

find an explanation for the negative c o r r e l a t i o n between fraternal

twins except possible measurement error. Mattoon (1981) suggests that

fraternal twins may tend to develop d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s in order to

d i f f e r e n t i a t e themselves from one another.)

Carlson and Levy (1973) examined several s p e c i f i c behaviors with

Jungian type theory. They found that introverted thinking types were

s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p=<,002) more able to memorize i n t e r i o r i z e d , neutral

material while extraverts were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p=<.002) more accurate

in recognizing f a c i a l expression and f i c t i t i o u s proper names. They

also found that i n t u i t i v e perceptive types were more accurate in

interpreting emotional expression than were sensing judging types. In

a f i n a l study, they also found that extraverted i n t u i t i v e s were

overrepresented amoung volunteers for social s e r v i c e . These findings

c l e a r l y support Jung's theory of psychological types and suggest ways

in which his theory can be u t i l i z e d to deepen the understanding of

complicated personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Devito (1985), in his review

(30)

a r t i c l e , pointed out the need tor further research which addresses

behavioral v a l i d a t i o n of typological constructs. In one such study,

Carskadon (1979) found that those who scored as extraverts on the MBTI

were found to exhibit a variety of behaviors i n d i c a t i v e of

extraversion (less physical distance, more talkativeness, better

r e c a l l of other people's names).

While the above mentioned research does not conclusively support

Jung's theories, there i s c e r t a i n l y enough supportive evidence to lend

respectable c r e d i b i l i t y to his constructs, given both Jung's

imprecision in defining his concepts and the d i f f i c u l t y inherent in

measuring any theoretical construct. His typology can undoubtedly be

used for the purpose for which he formulated i t :

It i s not the purpose of a psychological typology

to c l a s s i f y human beings into categories...Its

purpose i s rather to...make a methodical i n v e s t i ­

gation and presentation of the empirical material

possible...It i s a c r i t i c a l tool for the research

worker, who needs d e f i n i t e points of view and

guidelines i f he i s to reduce the chaotic profusion

of individual experiences to any kind of order.

(1921, p.555)

The Myers-Briqqs Type Indicator (MBTI)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was the instrument used in

t h i s study. The MBTI was developed out of Jung's type theory as

interpreted primarily by Isabel Briggs-Myers (Myers & Myers, 1980).

It was the result of 20 years of collaboration between Isabel

Briggs-Myers and her mother, Katharine C. Briggs. It was introduced

in 1962 (Myers, 1962a) and was designed to implement Jung's theory of

personality type by sorting people into groups or personality types

(31)

( D e v i t o , 1985). It i s c u r r e n t l y the most widely used instrument

measuring Jungian t y p o l o g y . The Center f o r A p p l i c a t i o n s of

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type (CAPT) c u r r e n t l y l i s t s n e a r l y 1200 s t u d i e s which

have been p u b l i s h e d u s i n g the MBTI f o r r e s e a r c h purposes.

Myers o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d and s c a l e d the o r i g i n a l Jungian (Jung,

1923) a t t i t u d e s of e;:traversion (E) and i n t r o v e r s i o n ( I ) , as well as

the *our p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s : s e n s i n g ( S ) , i n t u i t i o n (N), t h i n k i n g

(T) and f e e l i n g ( F ) . In a d d i t i o n , Myers added a f o u r t h dimension or

" a t t i t u d e " which i s designed to i n d i c a t e whether a person p r e f e r s the

p e r c e p t u a l (P) mode (s e n s i n g or i n t u i t i n g ) or the judging (J) modality

( t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g ) when d e a l i n g with the e x t e r n a l environment. The

instrument t h e r e f o r e c o n s i s t s of four s e p a r a t e d i c h o t o m i e s

(EI,SN,TF,JP). Given the four d i c h o t o m i e s , 16 d i f f e r e n t f o u r - l e t t e r

types are p o s s i b l e . S e e T a b l e 2 . 2 .

Table 2.2 Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 16

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types.

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

The a d d i t i o n of the JP dimension by Myers expands Jung s o r i g i n a l

e i g h t types to 16 and r e p r e s e n t s an e l a b o r a t i o n of Jung's t h e o r y . The

JP index i s designed to p r o v i d e a guide to the dominant f u n c t i o n of an

i n d i v i d u a l . A c c o r d i n g to type theory as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers,

e x t r a v e r t s r e v e a l t h e i r dominant f u n c t i o n when d e a l i n g with the

e x t e r n a l environment, w h i l e i n t r o v e r t s r e s e r v e t h e i r dominant f u n c t i o n

(32)

f o r d e a l i n g with the i n t e r n a l or i n t r a - p s y c h i c world (Myers, 1962b).

The JP s c a l e g i v e s the dominant f u n c t i o n of an e x t r a v e r t and the

a u x i l i a r y of an i n t r o v e r t . S i n c e the e x t r a v e r t ' s dominant f u n c t i o n

p r e f e r s the outer w o r l d , i t w i l l show up on the JP p r e f e r e n c e . The

dominant f u n c t i o n does not show up on the JP p r e f e r e n c e f o r

i n t r o v e r t s , however. I n t r o v e r t s p r e f e r not to use t h e i r dominant

process i n d e a l i n g with the outer w o r l d . The dominant f u n c t i o n i s

t h e r e f o r e determined by s i m u l t a n e o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g the JP and EI

p r e f e r e n c e s . The part of Jung's theory r e f e r r i n g to dominant and

a u x i l i a r y f u n c t i o n s i s not well developed i n Jung's w r i t i n g s , however,

(see M c C a u l l e y , 1981, pp. 301-302) and i s the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l p a r t

of Myers' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Jung. D e v i t o (1985) s t a t e s i n h i s review

that t h e r e i s c u r r e n t l y no r e s e a r c h which adequately t e s t s the

a s s e r t i o n s r e g a r d i n g dominant and a u x i l i a r y f u n c t i o n s .

I n f o r m a t i o n gathered from the MBTI data bank (MBTI r e s u l t s scored

by CAPT, the Center f o r the A p p l i c a t i o n s of Type) i n d i c a t e s t h a t

frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s among the 16 types vary depending upon the

p o p u l a t i o n under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . If the 16 types were normally

d i s t r i b u t e d i n a g i v e n p o p u l a t i o n , one would expect one s i x t e e n t h or

6.25 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n to f a l l i n each of the 16 t y p e s . Such

even d i s t r i b u t i o n s are r a r e (Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985). Trends have

been found to e x i s t w i t h i n s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s , von Fange (1961)

a d m i n i s t e r e d the MBTI to Canadian school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and found that

d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g j u d g i n g types (J) outnumbered p e r c e p t i v e types (P) by

86 percent to 13 p e r c e n t . Cacioppe ( c i t e d i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985)

gave the MBTI to graduate s t u d e n t s i n b u s i n e s s and found 89 percent

p r e f e r r i n g t h i n k i n g over f e e l i n g and 69 p e r c e n t p r e f e r r i n g j u d q i n g

over p e r c e i v i n g . Simon (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d p r o f e s s i o n a l f i n e a r t i s t s

and found that 91 percent p r e f e r r e d i n t u i t i o n over s e n s i n g and 70

percent scored as f e e l e r s as opposed to t h i n k e r s .

Myers and McCaulley (1985) m a i n t a i n that while i n t r o v e r t e d

i n t u i t i v e types are r a r e (75 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n i n the U . S .

p r e f e r s both ex t r aver s i on and s e n s i n g ) , t h e i r numbers are inore

f r e q u e n t at h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s . A g r e a t e r preponderance of

i n t u i t i v e s have a l s o been found among c o u n s e l l o r s . In a sample of 359

c o u n s e l l o r s , 67 p e r c e n t were i n t u i t i v e s (33 percent sensing) and 76

percent were f e e l i n g types as opposed to t h i n k i n g t y p e s . T h i s would

suggest that i n the present study (which i s c o n f i n e d to C o u n s e l l i n g

Psychology graduate s t u d e n t s ) , a h i g h e r preponderance of NF types w i l l

be found than would be expected by chance.

A f u r t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n s t r u m e n t , i t s s c o r i n g , as well as

a review of the l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y

i s found i n Chapter Three.

Jungian P e r s o n a l i t y Type and L e a r n i n g Theory

I n v e s t i g a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n t a s k - s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s has not

been d i r e c t l y undertaken by r e s e a r c h e r s . There i s , however, a growing

body of l i t e r a t u r e which i s r e l e v a n t because i t c o r r e l a t e s p e r s o n a l i t y

type to p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g s t y l e s . A p p l i c a t i o n of the MBTI to

l e a r n i n g theory i s a r e l a t i v e l y new f i e l d of s t u d y . Eggins (1979)

s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s of t h r e e d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l models on 350

s t u d e n t s and c o r r e l a t e d t h e i r s u c c e s s e s with t h e i r ^ p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s .

He found t h a t w h i l e S-N types succeeded with a l l t h r e e models, S-P and

(34)

N-P types were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by the i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e s i g n .

N-P types remembered s i g n i f i c a n t l y more with the model that imposed

the l e a s t s t r u c t u r e and allowed i n d i v i d u a l s to d i s c o v e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s

f o r t h e m s e l v e s . They remembered s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s when taught with a

h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d method. The S-P types were most s u c c e s s f u l with the

h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d model which p r o v i d e d c o n c r e t e examples and took

advantage of t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n a l s k i l l s . She concluded t h a t the

s c a l e s of the MBTI d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r a c t with l e a r n i n g outcomes.

C o r r e l a t i o n s have been found betwen p e r s o n a l i t y type and

p r e f e r r e d l e a r n i n g s t y l e s u s i n g the MBTI. E x t r a v e r t e d - f e e l i n g types

have been found to p r e f e r group l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (McCaulley &

N a t t e r , 1974). I n t u i t i v e types p r e f e r s e l f - p a c e d l e a r n i n g and c o u r s e s

t h a t a l l o w them to study on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e ( C a r l s o n Levy,

1973; McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974). T h i n k i n g types p r e f e r s t r u c t u r e d

c o u r s e s with c l e a r g o a l s (Smith, I r e y , & M c C a u l l e y , 1973). These

same s t u d i e s found j u d g i n g types p r e f e r r i n g to l e a r n from m a t e r i a l

p r e s e n t e d i n an o r d e r l y way w h i l e p e r c e p t i v e types are more l i k e l y to

r e p o r t s t a r t i n g too l a t e on a s s i g n m e n t s , l e t t i n g t h e i r work p i l e up

and having to cram at the end. Sensing types tend to set modest

academic g o a l s f o r themselves ( G r a n t , 1965; McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974;

and Sachs, 1978) and they t r y to meet these g o a l s by p l a n n i n g t h e i r

time and working i n a s y s t e m a t i c way (McCaulley & N a t t e r , 1974).

I n t r o v e r t s d i d not f i n d l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s u s i n g groups or

e x p e r i m e n t a l l e a r n i n g h e l p f u l and were observed by t h e i r peers as not

p a r t i c i p a t i n g (Haber, 1980; Kilmann i T a y l o r , 1974). Sensing types

p r e f e r mathematics l a b o r a t o r i e s while i n t u i t i v e s p r e f e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l

l a b o r a t o r i e s ( G o l l i d a y , 1975). McCaulley and N a t t e r (1974) found that

(35)

f e e l i n g t ypes are more l i k e l y to r e p o r t i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e i r

s t u d i e s because of t h e i r . s o c i a l l i f e and they p r e f e r group p r o j e c t s to

i n d i v i d u a l a ssignments. Judging types were found to work more

e f f i c i e n t l y a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s c h e d u l e s and get t h e i r assignments i n

on time (McCaulley fc N a t t e r , 1974).

In drawing c o n c l u s i o n s from t h i s growing body of l i t e r a t u r e ,

Myers and McCaulley (1985) summarize by s t a t i n g t h a t the most

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g s t y l e appear to be between

s e n s a t i o n and i n t u i t i v e t y p e s . I n t u i t i v e types p r e f e r l e a r n i n g

s i t u a t i o n s where they work with people and where f l e x i b i l i t y and

p e r c e p t i o n of nuances i n b e h a v i o r are r e q u i r e d . (ISTJ types c l e a r l y

d i s l i k e human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g ) . Sensing t y p e s , on the other hand,

appear to l i k e and do b e t t e r i n e d u c a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s t h a t teach

content (math and s c i e n c e e s p e c i a l l y ) i n an o r g a n i z e d , h i g h l y

s t r u c t u r e d and r i g o r o u s way.

P e r r y (1975, c i t e d i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y , 1985) found s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s i n type between members of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l

A s s o c i a t i o n who had chosen c l i n i c a l as opposed to e x p e r i m e n t a l

c a r e e r s . C l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s ( d e f i n e d i n P e r r y ' s study as

p r a c t i o n e r s ) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y type from those

i n v o l v e d i n e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y . ISTP and INTP types made up

almost 37% of the e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g i s t sample. These same types

comprised OX of the c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n . While 24% of the c l i n i c a l

p s y c h o l o g i s t s were INFJ's, t h i s type o n l y comprised 37. of the

e x p e r i m e n t a l group. See Table 2.3.

(36)

T a ble 2.3 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Types among

C l i n i c a l and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g i s t s

Source: I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among S e l e c t e d

P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s of P s y c h o l o g i s t s and

T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n by H.tf.

P e r r y . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . Notre Dame

U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.

C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o o . i s t s E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g i s t s

E 567. 437.

I 44'/. 56%

S 47. 337.

N 96/i 667.

T 247. 67X

F 767. 337,

J 567. 577.

P 447. 43X

T h i s study i d e n t i f i e s p e r s o n a l i t y type d i f f e r e n c e s between those

who choose to p r a c t i c e p s ychology as opposed to those who choose to

r e s e a r c h i t . E s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t are the d i f f e r e n c e s on the SN and

TF d i m e n s i o n s . N e a r l y a l l of the c l i n i c i a n s s c o r ed N w h i l e a

s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of e x p e r i m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s scored

S. A g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of t h i n k i n g types were found i n the

e x p e r i m e n t a l group w h i l e t h e r e were more f e e l e r s i n the c l i n i c a l

group.

C l e a r l y , i t appears t h a t c e r t a i n types of i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l p r e f e r

s e l f - d i r e c t e d l e a r n i n g (I) w h i l e o t h e r s r e q u i r e f r e q u e n t i n t e r a c t i o n

with o t h e r s (E) i n order to l e a r n s u c c e s s f u l l y . • Mathematical and

s c i e n t i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d p r o j e c t s w i l l appeal to S and T types w h i l e N

and F types are more c o m f o r t a b l e i n d e a l i n g with the l e s s exact

s c i e n c e s and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the a r t s . Judging types appear to be

b e t t e r at o r g a n i z i n g themselves while p e r c e p t i v e types tend to be more

l i k e l y to be l e s s e f f i c i e n t and more spontaneous and open to new

p o s s i b i l i t i e s . O b v i o u s l y , these data demonstrate the c o m p l e x i t y of

type d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e a r n i n g as well as suggest p o s s i b l e t r e n d s and

p a t t e r n s worthy of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

Jungian Typology and P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n

There have been few, i f any, s t u d i e s to date which i n v e s t i g a t e

the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e , much

l e s s any r e s e a r c h s p e c i f i c a l l y comparing those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e on

t h e i r t h e s i s with those who do not to determine i f they d i f f e r on

p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , as was p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r ,

t h e r e have been no s t u d i e s to date which simply i n v e s t i g a t e the

f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the phenomenon of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s

( r e g a r d l e s s of p e r s o n a l i t y i s s u e s ) . Jungian t h e o r y , however, suggests

that a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n (both as a h a b i t u a l mode

of b e h a v i o r and a l s o i n t a s k - s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s ) and p e r s o n a l i t y may-

e x i s t . What f o l l o w s i s a summary of the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s

argument.

Regarding p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of b e h a v i o r , Myers

and McCaulley (1985) t h e o r i z e t h a t " p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n comes from

p e r c e p t i o n with a d e f i c i t of judgment" (p.14) and b e l i e v e that

"Extremes i n the p e r c e p t u a l type may show problems r e l a t e d to

d i f f u s i o n , d r i f t i n g , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and c o n f u s i o n over d i r e c t i o n " (p.

70) . G iven J u n g i a n t h e o r y as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers and M c C a u l l e y , i t

i s a p p r o p r i a t e in any a c t i v i t y f i r s t to u t i l i z e e i t h e r S or N to

o b s e r v e a s i t u a t i o n and then use a judgment f u n c t i o n (T or F) to

d e c i d e on the a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n . Myers and M c C a u l l e y (1985) m a i n t a i n

tha t those who s c o r e P on the MBTI tend to remain l o n g e r i n the

o b s e r v i n g or p e r c e i v i n g mode, w h i l e j u d g i n g types t y p i c a l l y move more

r a p i d l y t h r o u g h p e r c e p t i o n to a c o n c l u s i o n . In an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y , K e i r s e y and Bates m a i n t a i n t h a t p e o p l e

"who choose c l o s u r e over open o p t i o n s are l i k e l y to be j u d g i n g types"

(1984, p . 2 2 ) . The j u d g i n g type t ends to r e p o r t a sense of urgency

u n t i l a pending d e c i s i o n has been made w h i l e a p e r c e i v i n g type w i l l be

more l i k e l y to e x p e r i e n c e r e s i s t a n c e to making a d e c i s i o n , e x p r e s s i n g

the need for more d a t a . They c o n c l u d e t h a t p e r c e i v e r s are p r o c e s s

o r i e n t e d w h i l e j u d g e r s are more outcome o r i e n t e d .

S m i t h , I r e y , and M c C a u l l e y (1973) , i n f a c t , found i n t h e i r study-

tha t p e r c e p t i v e t y p e s were more l i k e l y to r e p o r t s t a r t i n g too l a t e on

a s s i g n m e n t s , l e t t i n g t h e i r work p i l e up and h a v i n g to cram at the end.

They a l s o found t h a t j u d g i n g t y p e s tended to work more e f f i c i e n t l y

a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s c h e d u l e s and get t h e i r a s ignments i n on t i m e .

These f i n d i n g s l end s u p p o r t to Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s h y p o t h e s i s .

In a d d i t i o n , Myers and M c C a u l l e y (1985) a l s o t h e o r i z e t h a t NFP

t y p e s w i l l be e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n due to the way

they p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . These p a r t i c u l a r t y p e s appear e s p e c i a l l y

prone to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n due to t h e i r poor o r i e n t a t i o n toward t i m e .

They tend to l a c k the g r o u n d i n g i n r e a l i t y t h a t e i t h e r s e n s a t i o n or

t h i n k i n g would p r o v i d e and t h e i r i n t u i t i v e - f e e l i n g f u n c t i o n s , c o u p l e d

with a h igh p e r c e p t i v e s c o r e c r e a t e a d e f i c i t i n p r o c e s s i n g t ime

a p p r o p r i a t e l y .

Summary.

The above l i t e r a t u r e suggests that c e r t a i n p r e d i c t i o n s can be

made r e g a r d i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , t h e s i s w r i t i n g and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t

t y p e . F i r s t , i t appears r e a s o n a b l e to p r e d i c t that those with s t r o n g

P ( p e r c e i v i n g ) s c o r e s w i l l be those i n d i v i d u a l s who tend to

p r o c r a s t i n a t e on t h e i r t h e s i s u n t i l the d e a d l i n e becomes a f a c t o r

w h i l e those s c o r i n g J ( judging) w i l l n o t . S e c o n d l y , the p r o c r a s t i ­

n a t i n g group may be composed of a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP

t ypes than would be expected by chance.

T h i s study t e s t e d the above hypotheses s i n c e very l i t t l e a c t u a l

r e s e a r c h has been conducted i n t h i s a r e a . I t s f i n d i n g s are a c o n t r i ­

b u t i o n to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as well as Jungian

theory as i n t e r p r e t e d by Myers and her c o l l e a g u e s .

(40)

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

T h i s study examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the tendency to

p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a Master's t h e s i s and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y

t y p e . T h i s chapter i n c l u d e s a d i s c u s s i o n of the sample p o p u l a t i o n ,

p r ocedures used i n c o l l e c t i n g d a t a , i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , the r e s e a r c h

d e s i g n , the hy p o t h e s e s , and the s t a t i s t i c a l t o o l s used f o r data

a n a l y s i s .

D e s c r i p t i o n and S e l e c t i o n of the Sample

F i f t y s u b j e c t s c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y e n r o l l e d i n the Department

of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Masters Program at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h

Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i r t y - f o u r of the s u b j e c t s were

women and 16 were men. The number of s u b j e c t s e l i g i b l e f o r

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study was i n e v i t a b l y s m a l l , given the d i f f i c u l t y

i n h e r e n t i n l o c a t i n g s u b j e c t s who s u c c e s s f u l l y met the e l i g i b i l i t y

c r i t e r i a .

Names of a l l s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n the program from 1978 to 1982

were p r o v i d e d by the C o u n s e l l i n g P sychology Department. [Data were not

computerized p r i o r to 1978 and were u n a v a i l a b l e . Students e n r o l l e d

a f t e r 1982 were by d e f i n i t i o n i n e l i g i b l e because t h e i r t h e s i s d e a d l i n e

(1988) extended beyond the scope of t h i s study ( 1 9 8 7 ) ] .

Two l i s t s were generated from these names. One l i s t c o n s i s t e d of 59

i n d i v i d u a l s who completed t h e i r t h e s e s w i t h i n two year s of co m p l e t i n g

(41)

t h e i r coursework ( p o t e n t i a l n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . A second l i s t was

composed of 71 i n d i v i d u a l s who had taken f i v e y e a r s (or l o n g e r ) to

comple te t h e i r t h e s e s ( p o t e n t i a l p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r

t h e s e two p a r t i c u l a r groups i s p r o v i d e d i n the f o l l o w i n q s e c t i o n

r e g a r d i n g i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n .

I n i t i a l l y , n i n e t y s u b j e c t s (45 from each group) were randomly

s o l i c i t e d by mai l from these l i s t s . Appendix A c o n t a i n s the

s o l i c i t a t i o n l e t t e r . T h i s l e t t e r was f o l l o w e d up by a phone c a l l two

weeks l a t e r . Of the 9 0 i n d i v i d u a l s i n i t i a l l y s o l i c i t e d , 27 had moved

and c o u l d not be l o c a t e d , n i n e r e s p o n d e n t s were d i s q u a l i f i e d because

they d i d not f i t the n e c e s s a r y c r i t e r i a f o r e i t h e r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g

or n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p , and f o u r e i t h e r f a i l e d to f o l l o w -

through or d i r e c t l y chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t u d y . As a

s u b j e c t was d i s q u a l i f i e d because of one of the t h r e e r e a s o n s l i s t e d

a b o v e , s /he was r e p l a c e d t h r o u g h a random s e l e c t i o n from the r e m a i n i n g

names on the a p p r o p r i a t e l i s t . T h i s p r o c e d u r e was c o n t i n u e d u n t i l

each group had 25 s u b j e c t s . At t h a t p o i n t , seven of the i n i t i a l 59

i n d i v i d u a l s were l e f t i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n q pool and 16 of the 71

i n d i v i d u a l s remained i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g p o o l .

P r o c e d u r e s Used i n C o l l e c t i n g Data

Those p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s t u d y were i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d

the f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s ( a l l of which were c l e a r e d through the U . B . C .

E t h i c s Committee) by the r e s e a r c h e r :

1. An i n s t r u c t i o n sheet (Ap'pendix B) , i n d i c a t i n g the manner i n

which to p r o c e e d . S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to f i r s t s i g n the consent

(42)

forms (Appendix C ) , f i l l out the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix

D) and then comple te the MBTI per i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s .

2. A demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e

3 . A MBTI b o o k l e t

4. A MBTI computer answer sheet

5. The r e s e a r c h e r s c o r e d the MBTI i m m e d i a t e l y and shared the

r e s u l t s wi th them as w e l l as p r o v i d e d them wi th an MBTI

r e p o r t f o r m .

A l l answer s h e e t s and consent forms were n u m e r i c a l l y coded to

p r o t e c t the s u b j e c t s ' i d e n t i t y d u r i n g d a t a a n a l y s i s .

I n s t r u m e n t a t i on

Two i n s t r u m e n t s were r e q u i r e d f o r t h i s s t u d y : one to measure

p e r s o n a l i t y type and one to measure p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . The M y e r s - B r i g g s

Type I n d i c a t o r was the measure used to d e t e r m i n e p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . A

r e v i e w of i t s s c o r i n g , v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y f o l l o w s the d i s c u s s i o n

of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

W h i l e the MBTI has been w i d e l y a c c e p t e d f o r use as a measure of

J u n g i a n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e , measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s

i s c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d as t h e r e are c u r r e n t l y few i f

any i n s t r u m e n t s i n e x i s t e n c e which a d e q u a t e l y measure t h i s

p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r . As was ment ioned earlier, v e r y l i t t l e s y s t e m a t i c

r e s e a r c h on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been c o n d u c t e d to date and v a l i d ,

r e l i a b l e measures of i t are (as ye t ) u n a v a i l a b l e .

As was p o i n t e d out i n C h a p t e r Two, r e s e a r c h e r s have tended to

use b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y to measure academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Z i e s a t ,

(43)

R o s e n t h a l , and White (1978) used number of minutes s t u d y i n g to

o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . M i l l e r , Weaver, and Semb (1974)

measured p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n by c o u n t i n g the number of l e s s o n s completed

in s e l f - p a c e d i n s t r u c t i o n c o u r s e s . B l a t t and Q u i n l a n (1967)

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p unctual and p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s by a s s e s i n g when

w i t h i n a semester they met a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t . There are

o b v i o u s l y problems with these o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s as d e l a y could

be e x p l a i n e d by f a c t o r s other than p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

More recent r e s e a r c h has i n c l u d e d s e l f - r e p o r t as well as

b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y i n d e f i n i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Solomon and Rothblum

(1984) argue that s e l f - r e p o r t i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r to be i n c l u d e d i n

the measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n because i t i s not s i m p l y a

b e h a v i o r a l problem. Those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e tend to r e p o r t high

l e v e l s of s u b j e c t i v e d i s t r e s s as well as d elayed a c t i o n (Solomon,

Murakami, Greenberger, fe Rothblum, 1983; Rothblum, Beswick, fe Mann,

1984; Solomon fe Rothblum, 1984; Rothblum, Solomon, fe Murakami, 1986).

Solomon and Rothblum (1984) i n c l u d e d both b e h a v i o r a l measures as

w e l l as s e l f - r e p o r t s to d i s t i n g u i s h between p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s . They developed a s e l f - r e p o r t

i n s t r u m e n t , the P r o c r a s t i n a t i v e Assessment S c a l e - S t u d e n t s (PASS),

which asks s u b j e c t s to i n d i c a t e on a 5-point s c a l e the degree to which

they p r o c r a s t i n a t e on s p e c i f i c t a s k s (l=never p r o c r a s t i n a t e ; 5=always

p r o c r a s t i n a t e ) and the degree to which p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the task was

a problem f o r them (t=not a problem; 5=always a p r o b l e m ) . They found

s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e l f - r e p o r t e d measures of

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y . Thus, s u b j e c t s who r e p o r t e d

f r e q u e n t l y p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on these t a s k s tended to delay t a k i n g t h e i r

(44)

q u i z z e s as w e l l . Other s t u d i e s have a l s o tended to c o n f i r m the

v a l i d i t y of s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . S e l f - r e p o r t e d

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n has been v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t delay i n s u b m i t t i n g course

assignments (Rothbium, Beswick, ?< Mann, 1984) and delay i n

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n psychology experiments (Solomon & Rothblum, 1934) as

wel 1 .

For the purposes of t h i s s t u d y , academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was

measured u s i n g both b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y and s e l f - r e p o r t . S u b j e c t s who

completed t h e i r theses w i t h i n two years of c o m p l e t i n g t h e i r coursework

and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as never or almost

never having been a problem f o r them were c o n s i d e r e d

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , on the other hand, were d e f i n e d

as those who took the f u l l f i v e years (or l o n g e r ) to complete t h e i r

f i n a l papers while s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e p o r t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as having

always or n e a r l y always been a problem f o r them. T h i s s e l f - r e p o r t

measure was u t i l i z e d to screen out other f a c t o r s which might have

e x p l a i n e d the b e h a v i o r a l delay such as s e r i o u s i l l n e s s , more thorough

i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s , e t c . T h i s s a l i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n ( i . e . , time

taken to complete the t h e s i s and the s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n )

was d e r i v e d from the demographic q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix D).

The r a t i o n a l e f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the MBTI f o r measuring

p e r s o n a l i t y type was developed i n Chapter Two. What f o l l o w s i s a

d i s c u s s i o n of i t s s c o r i n g , v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y .

Items and S c o r i n g

The MBTI i s int e n d e d f o r normal p o p u l a t i o n s and i s not i n t e n d e d

(45)

to be a measure of psychopathology l i k e some p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s .

It measures p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions non-judgmental 1y (both p o l a r i t i e s

may be viewed as s t r e n g t h s ) . To i d e n t i f y t y p e s , the MBTI uses f o r c e d

c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s to i d e n t i f y the four b i - p o l a r p r e f e r e n c e s :

e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i o n ( E I ) , s e n s i n g - i n t u i t i n g (SN), t h i n k i n g -

f e e l i n g (TF) and judgment-perception ( J P ) . The s c o r i n g then generate

raw score or p o i n t t o t a l s f o r E, I, S, N, T, F, J , and P and

p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s which are made up of a l e t t e r to i n d i c a t e the

d i r e c t i o n of the p r e f e r e n c e and a number i n d i c a t i n g the s t r e n g t h of

the p r e f e r e n c e a f t e r a t i e - b r e a k i n g f o r m u l a i s a p p l i e d . Two people

both i d e n t i f i e d as ENTJ may have very d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s .

For example, one i n d i v i d u a l might have p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e s of E41, N20,

T07 and J l ? w h i l e another c o u l d have E17,N40, T i l and J05. Myers and

B r i g g s designed the instrument to i n d i c a t e the f o u r l e t t e r s of

p r e f e r e n c e ( i . e . , ENTJ), and c o n s i d e r data on the s t r e n g t h of the

p r e f e r e n c e as an i n c i d e n t a l by-product (Wentworth, 1980). Used i n

t h i s f a s h i o n , the data w i l l produce dichotomous s c o r e s . T h i s i s

c o n s i s t e n t with the t h e o r y u n d e r l y i n g the MBTI which a s s e r t s that the

p r e f e r e n c e r e p r e s e n t s fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t r a v e r t s and

i n t r o v e r t s , f o r i n s t a n c e . Each of the s c a l e s , E I , SN, TF, and JP i s

t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d to r e f l e c t an u n d e r l y i n g dichotomy.

Myers a l s o c r e a t e d a mechanism f o r o b t a i n i n g c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s i

s t r e n g t h of p r e f e r e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y or d e s i r a b l e f o r

r e s e a r c h . P u t t i n g the midpoint at 100, the p r e f e r e n c e s c a r e vaiue i s

s u b t r a c t e d from 100 i f the s c o r e i s E, S, T or J and added to the

v a l u e i f the score i s I, N, F or P. Continuous s c o r e s are based on

the premise that e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on , f o r example, i s a

(46)

c o n t i n u o u s , normally d i s t r i b u t e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension. T h i s

opposes type theory which sees them as d i c h o t o m i e s . There i s no

agreement at present as to the most a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r e s c o n t i n u o u s or

dichotomous to use. D e v i t o (1985) sugges t s u s i n g c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s

i n r e s e a r c h (to prevent the need f o r freq u e n c y d a t a , l a r g e samples and

non-parametric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s because p a r a m e t r i c s t a t i s t i c s i s

p o s s i b l e u s i n g the f o u r c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s ) and the d i c h o t o m i e s and

f o u r - l e t t e r types i n c o u n s e l l i n g . For the purposes of t h i s s t u d y ,

data were a n a l y z e d both ways.

The r e a c t i o n to the MBTI r e g a r d i n g i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y

has been mixed, but g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e . D e v i t o (1985) i n h i s review

suggests t h a t the instrument m e r i t s s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n by

p s y c h o l o g i s t s because i t s a t i s f i e s many of the c r i t e r i a of a

p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t . In a d d i t i o n , he c o n s i d e r s i t u s e f u l f o r

e d u c a t i o n , c o u n s e l l i n g , c a r e e r guidance and r e s e a r c h . The most r e c e n t

manual of the MBTI was p u b l i s h e d i n 1985 (Myers it M c C a u l l e y ) . It

c i t e s e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h on the c o n s t r u c t i o n , the v a l i d a t i o n ,

r e l i a b i l i t y and t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s of the i n s t r u m e n t . The MBTI

i s c o n s i d e r e d the most p o s i t i v e endorsement of Jung's a t t i t u d e s and

f u n c t i o n s t o date ( 6 o s s e , 1978). C a r l y n (1977) reviewed the e x t e n s i v e

l i t e r a t u r e on the s t a t i s t i c a l a n y a l y s i s of the MBTI and c i t e s numerous

c o r r o b o r a t i o n s of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI as i t

r e l a t e s to Jungian t y p o l o g y .

P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y

C a r l y n (1977) found t h a t the MBTI has been shown to have some

(47)

p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y i n c e r t a i n a r e a s : c h o i c e of major, GPA, drop-out

p o t e n t i a l and s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l u m c h o i c e s . Bradway (1964) asked 28

Jungian a n a l y s t s to c l a s s i f y themselves on E I , SN, and TF. There was

1007. agreement on E I , 687. on SN and 617. on TF between

s e l f - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and MBTI s c o r e s . Myers and Davis (1977) s t u d i e d

5355 medical s t u d e n t s and f o l l o w e d them up 12 years l a t e r . They found

t h e i r c h o i c e of s p e c i a l t y to be c o n s i s t e n t with e x p e c t a t i o n s from type

t h e o r y . The c u r r e n t MBTI Manual (1985) p r e s e n t s f u r t h e r data which

i n d i c a t e t h a t s e l f - r a t i n g s of type and the type i n d i c a t e d by the

instrument have c l o s e r correspondance than would be expected by

chance. It a l s o p r e s e n t s many f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g SN and TF to d i v e r s e

v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s .

Conary (1966) found a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between MBTI types

and academic achievement. He a l s o concluded that s p e c i f i c MBTI types

were found to predominate i n c e r t a i n c u r r i c u l a . S t r i e k e r , S c h i f f m a n ,

and Ross (1965) a s s e s s e d the a b i l i t y of the MBTI to p r e d i c t freshman

year GPA and drop-out p o t e n t i a l . Using the c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e

p r o c e d u r e , they found t h a t dichotomous type c a t e g o r i e s had a g r e a t e r

p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y than d i d c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s , although both were

v a l i d .

D e v i t o (1985) c o n c l u d e s i n h i s review that the r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g

type and academic and v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s i s i n t e r e s t i n g , u s e f u l i n

c o u n s e l l i n g , but l e n d s o n l y a s l i g h t e v i d e n c e of v a l i d i t y to the

i n s t r u m e n t . Acknowledging t h a t the MBTI i s not intended to be an

instrument to p r e d i c t c a r e e r c h o i c e , he suggests u s i n g i t as an

adjun c t to a more v a l i d instrument (the Strong Campbell I n t e r e s t

Inventory) i f at t e m p t i n g to p r e d i c t v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e or i n t e r e s t .

(48)

C o n s t r u c t V a l i d i t y

There has been e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h i n the area of c o n s t r u c t

v a l i d i t y . In the MBTI Manual (Myers fe M c C a u l l e y , 1985), the r e s u l t s

of many s t u d i e s are c i t e d which found c o r r e l a t i o n s between MBTI s c a i e s

and other t e s t s . The v a r i a b l e s r e g a r d i n g p e r s o n a l i t y i n the MBTI

have been c o r r e l a t e d with p e r s o n a l i t y measures ( A d j e c t i v e Check l i s t ,

N=152; C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y , N=1218, 713; Comrey

P e r s o n a l i t y S c a l e s , N= 139, 102; Edwards P e r s o n a l i t y P r e f e r e n c e Survey,

N=236; Emotions P r o f i l e Index, N = 60; Eysenck P e r s o n a l i t y

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , N=93; Maudsley P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=52; FIRO-B, N=

100, 200, 100, 1228); Jungian Type Survey, N=47; Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c

P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=225; Omnibus P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , N=484,

648; P e r s o n a l i t y Research I n v e n t o r y , N=507, 722; S t e i n

S e l f - D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , N=34, 41; Brown S e l f - R e p o r t I n v e n t o r y ,

N=149; S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , N=66, 122, 149, 484,

645; S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y I n v e n t o r y , N=60; Study of V a l u e s , N=1351,

236, 238, 65, 877; Rokeach Dogmatism S c a l e , N=68) , and i n t e r e s t

i n v e n t o r i e s ( O p i n i o n , A t t i t u d e , and I n t e r e s t S c a l e s , N=484, 658, 46;

Kuder O c c u p a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t S urvey, N=100; Strong-Campbell I n t e r e s t

I n v e n t o r y , N=912, 843, 157; H o l l a n d ' s V o c a t i o n a l P r e f e r e n c e I n v e n t o r y ,

N=405). The manual a l s o c i t e s s t u d i e s which c o r r e l a t e the MBTI with

10 other i n s t r u m e n t s r e l a t e d to e d u c a t i o n (Terman's Concept Mastery

T e s t , Kolb L e a r n i n g S t y l e I n v e n t o r y , R o t t e r ' s I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l Locus

of C o n t r o l , f o r example).

Randomly choosing t h r e e of the above-mentioned s t u d i e s , one f i n d s

<49)

the f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . In a study c o r r e l a t i n g the

P e r s o n a l i t y Research Inventory (N=507), s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were

found between t a l k a t i v e n e s s and e x t r a v e r s i o n (.70), t o l e r a n c e f o r

c o m p l e x i t y and i n t u i t i o n (.34) and p e r c e p t i o n (.47). G r e g a r i o u s n e s s

c o r r e l a t e d with e x t r a v e r s i o n (.22) and s e n s a t i o n (.31). A t t i t u d e

toward work c o r r e l a t e d with t h i n k i n g (.22) and with judgment (.36).

In a l l , s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s (above .20 at the .01 l e v e l of

s i g n i f i c a n c e or g r e a t e r ) were found on 16 out of the 25 P.R.I, s c a l e s .

C o r r e l a t i o n s between the Jungian Type Survey (N=47), an instrument

designed to measure the same Jungian f u n c t i o n s as the MBTI (except f o r

J P ) , are moderately high and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (E .68, p <. 01;

I .66, p<.01; S .54, p<.01; N .47, p<.01; T .33, p<.01; and F .23,

p<.05). F i v e s t u d i e s (with N's r a n g i n g from 65 to 1351) c o r r e l a t e d

the MBTI with the A l l p o r t - V e r n o n - L i n d s e y Study of V a l u e s . S i g n i f i c a n t

c o r r e l a t i o n s were found on a l l s i x s c a l e s . F c o r r e l a t e d with the

r e l i g i o u s s c a l e (.38) and the s o c i a l s c a l e (.38). E and S c o r r e l a t e d

with the p o l i t i c a l s c a l e (.26 & .29). I, N and P c o r r e l a t e d with the

a e s t h e t i c s c a l e (.25, .50, .45). E, S and T c o r r e l a t e d with the

economic s c a l e (.22, .58, .39). N and T c o r r e l a t e d with the

t h e o r e t i c a l s c a l e (.28 and .42 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . While the above

c o r r e l a t i o n s are moderate at b e s t , they are a l l i n the d i r e c t i o n one

would expect i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the MBTI. Given the d e f i n i t i o n of the

c o n s t r u c t s , one would expect E and S to c o r r e l a t e with A l l p o r t ' s

p o l i t i c a l s c a l e , f o r i n s t a n c e , s i n c e they a l l manifest an i n t e r e s t i n

people and working with f a c t s . These c o r r e l a t i o n s t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e

some ev i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the MBTI.

Mendelsohn (1965) supported the v a l i d i t y of the MBTI and s t a t e d

(50)

i t was c a p a b l e of being a b l e to r e l a t e m e a n i n g f u l l y to a l a r g e number

of v a r i a b l e s : p e r s o n a l i t y , i n t e r e s t , a b i l i t y , v a l u e s , academic

c h o i c e s , b e h a v i o r r a t i n g s and performance measures. Grant (1965)

found t h a t summary d e s c r i p t i o n s compiled from 1413 freshmen r e g a r d i n g

t h e i r b e h a v i o r s and a t t i t u d e s were s i m i l a r to the d e s c r i p t i o n s of type

found i n the 1962 MBTI Manual. C a r l y n (1977), i n h i s review a r t i c l e ,

d i s c u s s e s numerous s t u d i e s which support the v a l i d i t y of each

p r e f e r e n c e when c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y . Ross (1966) c o r r e l a t e d the

MBTI with a b a t t e r y of 32 t e s t i n s t r u m e n t s (10 s c a l e s from a

p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y , 15 a b i l i t y t e s t s and seven i n t e r e s t t e s t s ) . He

concluded that the MBTI s c a l e s were l i n k e d with the v a r i a b l e s of

p e r s o n a l i t y , a b i l i t y and i n t e r e s t . He a l s o m a i n t a i n e d , however, that

the s c a l e s r e f l e c t s u r f a c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r than t y p o l o g i c a l

d i f f e r e n c e s . Myers and B r i g g s , however, have not claimed that item

content r e f l e c t s the c o n s t r u c t s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e i r i n t e n t , r a t h e r , was

to develop q u e s t i o n s which would "be the straws t h a t t e s t the wind,

not a measure of the wind i t s e l f " (Wentworth, 1980, p.67).

Webb (1964) found r e l a t i v e independence between dichotomous type

dimensions used by Myers. S t r i e k e r and Ross (1964) contend that the

content of items used f o r SN and TF s c a l e s appear to be c o n s i s t e n t

with Jung's c o n c e p t u a l d e f i n i t i o n s , but EI and JP may measure

something other than the d e f i n i t i o n s suggested by Myers. Carskadon

(1979) found a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between those measuring E on

the MBTI and s e v e r a l b e h a v i o r a l i n d i c a t o r s of e x t r a v e r s i o n . D e v i t o

(1985) e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y echoes C a r l s o n and Levy (1973) who recommend

f u r t h e r b e h a v i o r a l s t u d i e s to v a l i d a t e t y p o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s . In

c o n c l u s i o n , MBTI s c o r e s do appear to c o r r e l a t e i n the expected

(51)

d i r e c t i o n s with other i n s t r u m e n t s t h a t ' appear to be t a p p i n g the same

c o n s t r u c t s .

Re I i a b i 1 i ty

S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s r e p o r t e d f o r the MBTI y i e l d r e s p e c t a b l e

r e s u l t s f o r a p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t . In c o l l e g e student samples,

Myers (1962b) r e p o r t e d s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s r a n g i n g from .71 to

.88 f o r E I , .80 to .90 f o r SN, .68 to .86 f o r TF and .80 to .87 f o r

JP. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , she found lower r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r u n d e r - a c h i e v i n g

j u n i o r high school s t u d e n t s : .60 to .80 f o r E I , .59 to.75 f o r SN, .19

to .57 f o r TF and .62 to .81 f o r JP. She e x p l a i n s t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y by

n o t i n g that r e l i a b i l i t y s c o r e s are a f u n c t i o n of how c l e a r the

s u b j e c t s are r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s . C l a r i t y i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

(between T and F) can be the l a t e s t t o develop and i s more l i k e l y to

be confused i n people o p e r a t i n g below t h e i r p o t e n t i a l . S t r i e k e r and

Ross (1963) r e p o r t e d Alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s of c o l l e g e and high school

samples. These ranged from .76 to .83 f o r E I , .74 to .80 f o r SN, .64

to .74 f o r TF and .78 to .84 f o r JP. They contended that these

r e l i a b i l i t i e s were comparable to those of b e t t e r known i n s t r u m e n t s

with l o n g e r s c a l e s .

Mendelsohn (1970) s t a t e d t h a t t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y e v i d e n c e

f o r the MBTI i s weak. Myers (1962b) a g r e e d , and maintained t h a t

l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r were needed. S i n c e that t i m e ,

Carskadon (1977), C a r l y n (1977), Levy, Murphy, and C a r l s o n (1972) have

a l l p u b l i s h e d t e s t - r e t e s t s t u d i e s . McCaulley (1978) summarized s i x

d i f f e r e n t samples whose test-re.te"st r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .75 to

.83 f o r E I , .6? to .83 f o r SN, .56 to .78 f o r TF and .64 to .87 f o r

JP. The per c e n t r e p o r t i n g the same l e t t e r p r e f e r e n c e s i n four of

these ranged from 74 to 84 percent f o r E I , 70 to 88 percent f o r SN, 73

to 90 percent f o r TF and 66 to 76 percent f o r JP. People r e p o r t i n g

a l l f o u r l e t t e r s the same was 31 to 47 per c e n t and t h r e e or a l l four

the same was from 60 to 88 p e r c e n t . Howes and Carskadon (1979) found

t h a t when changes i n type o c c u r r e d , i t was u s u a l l y o n l y i n one

p r e f e r e n c e and that p r e f e r e n c e had been weak on the o r i g i n a l s c o r e s .

T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of males on TF appears to be the l e a s t s t a b l e

( D e v i t o , 1985).

In summary, the ge n e r a l consensus i s that the MBTI performs about

as well as most other p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s . It appears to i d e n t i f y -

a d e q u a t e l y the s t r e n g t h of p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions t h a t correspond to

Jung 's t y p o l o g y .

Research D e s i g n . Hypotheses and Data A n a l y s i s

Two groups of i n d i v i d u a l s those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e d w h i l e

w r i t i n g t h e i r t h e s e s (25 s u b j e c t s ) and those who d i d not p r o c r a s t i n a t e

(25 s u b j e c t s ) were compared i n t h i s study to determine i f they

d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . These s u b j e c t s were

a d m i n i s t e r e d the MBTI and t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y type was determined u s i n g

both dichotomous and c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s .

As was d i s c u s s e d i n Chapters One and Two, one might expect

d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the

J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g dimension of the MBTI. The l i t e r a t u r e d i d not

suggest that one would expect d i f f e r e n c e s between these two groups on

(53)

the o t h e r t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses

were t e s t e d :

1. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n cont inuum of

the MBTI.

2. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the S e n s a t i o n / I n t u i t i o n cont inuum of the

MBTI.

3. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g cont inuum of the MBTI.

4. The p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l t end to s c o r e c l o s e r to the

P e r c e p t i o n end of the cont inuum of the MBTI than the n o n -

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s who w i l l tend to s c o r e c l o s e r to the J u d g i n g end of

the c o n t i n u u m .

These f o u r h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d u s i n g a t - t e s t and the

c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s of the MBTI. P r o b a b i l i t y was se t at the

c o n v e n t i o n a l l y a c c e p t e d .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the s o c i a l

s c i e n c e s . In t h i s d e s i g n , p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

r e p r e s e n t e d the independent v a r i a b l e s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were

the E I , SN, T F , and JP d i m e n s i o n s of the MBTI.

5. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types

i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p .

It was sugges ted i n C h a p t e r s One and Two t h a t a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of

NFP t y p e s might be found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p . T h i s

h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d by u s i n g d ichotomous s c o r e s and a c h i square

a n a l y s i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s w i t h i n

the two g r o u p s . The c h i square a n a l y s i s was a l s o u t i l i z e d to e x p l o r e

(54)

the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types w i t h i n the two groups to determine i f other

d i f f e r e n c e s might e x i s t which have not been p r e d i c t e d by the r e s e a r c h

to date,

(55)

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g

s e c t i o n s : demographic d a t a , r e s u l t s of hy p o t h e s e s , and type

d i s t r i b u t i o n d a t a .

Demographic Data

F i f t y s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . T h i r t y - f o u r of the

s u b j e c t s were women and 16 were men. A l l were graduate s t u d e n t s

e i t h e r c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y e n r o l l e d i n the Department of C o u n s e l l i n g

Psychology Masters Program at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columia. A l l

were admitted to the program between the years 1978 and 1982.

These s u b j e c t s were randomly s o l i c i t e d i n s t e p s by mail from two

l i s t s : one c o n s i s t i n g of p o t e n t i a l p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=71), and one

co m p r i s i n g t h e i r n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g c o u n t e r p a r t s (N=59). These

l i s t s were p r o v i d e d by the Department of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . Of

the 90 s u b j e c t s who were i n i t i a l l y s o l i c i t e d , 27 had moved and co u l d

not be l o c a t e d . Nine respondents were d i s q u a l i f i e d because they d i d

not f i t the ne c e s s a r y c r i t e r i a f o r e i t h e r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g or

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group, and four e i t h e r f a i l e d to f o l l o w through or

d i r e c t l y chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the s t u d y . As s u b j e c t s were

e l i m i n a t e d f o r the above r e a s o n s , a d d i t i o n a l s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d

(56)

randomly from the remaining pool u n t i l each group had 25 s u b j e c t s .

When a t o t a l number of 50 was a c h i e v e d , seven of the i n i t i a l 59

remained i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g pool and 16 remained i n the

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g p o o l .

The p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group (N=25) c o n s i s t e d of 17 females and 8

males. The mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s w i t h i n t h i s

group was 5.88 and ranged from 5 years to 8 years (S.D.=.971). Of the

29 i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study who f i t the e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a

of t a k i n g f i v e - p l u s years to complete t h e i r t h e s e s , f o u r were

e l i m i n a t e d because they d i d not r e p o r t always or n e a r l y always

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . (One i n d i v i d u a l took 8 y e a r s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d almost

never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ; 1 s u b j e c t took 6 y e a r s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d

sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ; 2 s u b j e c t s took 5 years and r e p o r t e d

sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g ) . Of the r e m aining 25 s u b j e c t s , 9 r e p o r t e d

always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and 16 s e l f - r a t e d themselves as n e a r l y always

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , none r e p o r t e d never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g .

The n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group (N=25) c o n s i s t e d of 8 males and i7

f e m a l e s . The mean number of y e a r s taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s i n t h i s

group was 1.474 years (SD=.497) and ranged from 9 months to 2 y e a r s .

F i v e of the 30 s u b j e c t s i n i t i a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the study were

e l i m i n a t e d because they f a i l e d to r e p o r t never or almost never

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . These f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s s e l f - r e p o r t e d sometimes

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g . Of the r e m aining 25 i n d i v i d u a l s , 11 r e p o r t e d almost

never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and 14 r e p o r t e d never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g .

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , none of the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s s e l f - r a t e d themselves

as always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g .

While t h e r e were no r e l i a b i l i t y nor v a l i d i t y s t u d i e s done on the

(57)

measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n used f o r t h i s s t u d y , i t was assumed t h a t

combining s e l f - r e p o r t with b e h a v i o r a l d e l a y would be an adequate

measure. Using the Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ,

t h i s study d i d i n f a c t f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between

s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and time taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s . (r=

.7725, p<.05).

Table 4.1 below v i s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s the s e l f - r e p o r t e d

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of both groups.

Table 4.1 S e l f - R e p o r t e d P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of the

P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups

P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=29)

Never Almost

Never

X

Somet imes

XXX

Ne a r l y

Always

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

Always

XXXX

XXXX

X

X= 1 s u b j e c t

Mean no. of y r s . t o w r i t e t h e s i s : 5.88

Never

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XX

Almost

Never

XXXX

XXXX

XXX

N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=30)

Sometimes N e a r l y Always Near 1y

Always

XXXX

X

X= 1 s u b j e c t

Mean no. of y r s . to w r i t e t h e s i s : 1.474

A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was performed to determine i f any

d i f f e r e n c e s between gender e x i s t e d between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found [ J t^llls 0)] i n d i c a t i n g

(58)

that gender was not a f a c t o r between the two groups. A c h i - s q u a r e

a n a l y s i s of gender and p e r s o n a l i t y type (using dichotomous s c o r e s on

the MBTI) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y types

between the two gender groups as well C7C**"<11)=13. 16, p= .28].

A t - t e s t ( t w o - t a i l e d ) was c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the co n t i n u o u s s c o r e ;

of the MBTI to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between males and

females on the four i n d i c e s ( E I , SN, TF, J P ) . No s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n s c a l e Ct(48)=

-0.28, p =.78 ]; the Sensation/1 n t u i t i o n s c a l e Ct<48)= -.58, p = .5651; or

the J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g s c a l e Ct(48)= -1.57, p =. 123]. S i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s , however, were found on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g index

Ct (21.34)= -2. 74, p= .0121. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the males i n the

study tended to s c o r e T ( t h i n k i n g ) w h i l e the females tended to s c o r e

toward the F ( f e e l i n g ) end of the continuum. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with

f i n d i n g s by other r e s e a r c h e r s (MyersSt M c C a u l l e y , 1985) who use t h i s

instrument and c o n s e q u e n t l y l e n d s f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y to the MBTI.

R e s u l t s of Hypotheses

A t - t e s t (two t a i l e d ) was performed u s i n g the cont i n u o u s s c o r e s

of the MBTI to t e s t the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses:

1. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n continuum of the

MBTI. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not

r e j e c t e d . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the

(59)

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group on t h i s dimension

Et(48)= .55, p= .5863.

2. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the S e n s a t i o n / I n t u i t i o n continuum of the MBTI.

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not r e j e c t e d .

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the two groups on t h i s

dimension Ct(48)= 1 . 53, p= .133].

3. There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g continuum of the MBTI.

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was accepted and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was not r e j e c t e d .

No d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups were found on t h i s dimension

Ct(48)= 1.18, p= .245].

4. The p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group w i l l tend to s c o r e c l o s e r to the

P e r c e i v i n g end of the continuum of the MBTI than the

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group who w i l l tend to score near the Judging end

of the continuum. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d . S i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s were found between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

on the J u d g i n g / P e r c e i v i n g index with p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to score

P and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to s c o r e J [t(46.86)= 2.79, p=

.0.08).

A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s u s i n g dichotomous s c o r e s was conducted to

determine the f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s :

5. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types i n

the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group.

H y p o t h e s i s accepted [ t l ! l ) = 9.82, p= .0017].

It was p r e d i c t e d i n hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e s

would be found on the E I , SN, and TF s c a l e s between the two groups.

(60)

D i f f e r e n c e s were p r e d i c t e d , however, on the JP i n d e x . The t - t e s t

conducted confirmed a l l four h y potheses. Table 4.2 below summarizes

the r e s u l t of the f i r s t f o ur hypotheses t e s t e d .

Table 4.2 t - t e s t Comparison of P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and

N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups on Continuous Dimensions

Var i abl e Group Number Mean t value p_ d i f f'

EI P r o c r a s t . 25 105.64

N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 101.48

SN P r o c r a s t . 25 129.88

N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 120.92

TF P r o c r a s t . 25 108.12

N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 102.44

JP P r o c r a s t . 25 112.36

N o n - P r o c r a s t . 25 91.16

0.55 0.586 no

1.50 0.133 no

1.18 0.245 no

79 0.008 yes

A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s which compared the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g groups a c c o r d i n g to p e r s o n a l i t y type was conducted

to determine i f the d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s t r i b u t i o n between these two

groups was s i g n i f i c a n t . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found: y*- (11) =

22.53, p= .02, although any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s from t h i s must be made

c a r e f u l l y g i v e n the s m a l l sample s i z e i n v o l v e d .

More s p e c i f i c a l l y , e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h had suggested t h a t NFP types

might tend to p r o c r a s t i n a t e more than other p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s .

(61)

H y p o t h e s i s 5 p r e d i c t e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types

would be found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o c o n f i r m e d . No

d i f f e r e n c e s were found between ENFP's and INFP's i n the two groups

s u g g e s t i n g that the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n index i s not a r e l e v a n t -

f a c t o r between the two groups [JC*"U)=0.0, p = 1.0]. When ENFP's and

INFP's were combined, however, and then compared with a l l the other

types i n a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y more NFP's were found i n

the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group

[ T fl

( l ) = 9 . 8 2 , p = .0017]. See Table 4.3.

Tab 1e 4.3 C h i - s q u a r e Comparison of NFP's between

P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

Others I&ENFP

Raw

T o t a l

P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

N=8

Exp.Val.=14

Row P e t . =327.

C o l . P e t . =28. 6/.

T o t a l Pet.=16%

N=17

Exp.Val.=11

Row Pe t . =68'/.

Col.Pet.=77.3"/.

T o t a l Pet.=347.

507.

Non-

P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

N=20

Exp.Val.=14

Row Pet.=80%

C o l . P e t . =71. 47.

T o t a l Pet.=407.

N = 5

Exp.Val.=11

Row Pe t . =207.

Col.Pet.=22.7%

T o t a l Pet.=107.

25

507.

Column

T o t a l

28

567. 447.

50

1007.

(62)

Type D i s t r i b u t i o n T a b l e s

The f o l l o w i n g T a b l e s (4.4, 4 . 5 , 4 .6 and 4 .7 ) i l l u s t r a t e

g r a p h i c a l l y the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y type between the two

groups u s i n g the d ichotomous s c o r e s of the MBTI.

T a b l e 4.4 P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s Compared A c c o r d i n g to D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type .

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP I NFP INTP

N = 0 N = 0 N=l N = 3 N=0 N = 0 N = 9 N = 0 EV = 0 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV = 2 EV = 0 EV = 0 EV = 6 EV=1

PRO GRR 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 0.0% N = J- vJ 0.0% 0.0% 20. 0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18% 0. 0%

N = 0 N=l N = 4 N=l N = 0 N = 0 N = 3 N = 2 EV = 0 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV = 2 EV = 0 EV = 0 EV = 6 EV = 1

N-P GRP 0.0% 4.0% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 8.07. N = 25 0.0% 100% 80. 0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100%

0.0% 2.0% 8.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 4.0%

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

N=l N=0 N = 8 N=l N = 0 N=l N=l N = 0 EV=.5 EV = 0 EV = 5 EV=1.5 EV=1.5 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV=1.5

PRO GRP 4.0% 0.0% 32.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0 % N = 25 100% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 1007. 20. 0% 0. 0%

2.0% 0.0% 16.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 20.0% 0.0%

N=0 N=0 N = 2 N = 2 N = 3 N=0 N = 4 N = 3 EV=.5 EV=0 EV = 5 EV=1.5 EV=1.5 EV=.5 EV=2.5 EV=1.5

N-P GRP 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 8.0% 12.0% 0.0% 16.0% 12.0% N = 25 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 66.7% 100% 0.0% 80. 0% 1007.

0. 0% 0. 07. 4.0% 4.0% 6.0% 0.0% S.0% 6.0%

PRO GRP= P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group N-P GRP= N o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group N= Number EV= E x p e c t e d V a l u e based on g i v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n of the da ta Row % Column % T o t a l %

(63)

T a b l e 4 .5 Compar i son of P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) a c c o r d i n g to J u n g i a n P e r s o n a l i t y Type . (X= P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ; 0= Non-P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s )

Number

10

9 X X

8 X X

7 X X

6 x X

5 X X

4 0 V A

0 X 3 0 X X 0

0 X X 0 ^ 0 X X 0 0

0 X X 0 0 1 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 0

o X 0 X 0 X 0 0 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X o X 0

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

10

9

8 X

X 7 X

X 6 X

X 5 X

X 4 X 0

X 0 T .J X 0 o o

X 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0

1 X X o X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0 X X 0 X 0 0 X 0 X 0 0

0 X 0 X 0 X o X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

(64)

T a b l e 4 .6 M y e r s - B r i g g s Type T a b l e D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample P o p u l a t i o n [P= P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25); NP= N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g

Group (N=25); x = 17. of t o t a l sample (N=50)l

SENSATION TYPES INTUITIVE TYPES

WITH THINKING WITH FEELING WITH FEELING WITH THINKING

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

INTROVERTED P=0 JUDGING NP=0

P = 0 NP = 1 x>:

P=l NP = 4

X X X X X XXXX X

P=3 NP=1

X X X >! X ;•: >: x

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

INTROVERTED PERCEPTIVE

P = 0 NP = 0

P = 0 NP = 0

P = 9 NP = 3

XXX XX xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

XXXX

P = 0

NP=2 XXXX

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

EXTRAVERTED PERCEPTIVE

P=l NP = 0 xx

P=0 NP=0

P = 8 NP=2

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

p=i NP=2

xxxxx

X

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

EXTRAVERTED JUDGING

P=0 NP-3

P = l NP=0

P = l NP = 4

P = 0

NP = ;

(65)

Table 4.7 Data from Sample P o p u l a t i o n Regarding D i s t r i b u t i o n of Type

on Each MBTI Index.

T o t a l Sample(N=50)

Index Number Percent

Ex t r a v e r t s 26 527.

I n t r o v e r t s 24 48%

Sensors 6 127.

I n t u i t o r s 44 887.

T h i n k e r s 16 327.

F e e l e r s 34 687.

Judgers 22 447.

P e r c e i v e r s 28 567.

P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25) N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group (N=25)

Index Number 7. of group Number 7. of group

E x t r a v e r t s 12 487. 14 56%

I n t r o v e r t s 13 52% 11 44%

Sensors 2 8% 4 167.

I n t u i t o r s 23 92% 21 84%

T h i n k e r s 5 20% 11 44%

F e e l e r s 20 80% 14 56%

Judgers 6 . 24% 16 64%

P e r c e i v e r s 19 76% 9 36%

C o n c l u s i on

The r e s u l t s from t h i s study found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n

p e r s o n a l i t y type between the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g

g roups. Judgers were l e s s l i k e l y to be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w h i l e the

p e r c e i v e r s tended to be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . A high p r o p o r t i o n of NFP

types belonged to the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group wh i l e a more normal

d i s t r i b u t i o n was found among the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .

(66)

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS, LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY,

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Th i s chapter c o n t a i n s two major s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n

d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s of the s t u d y . The second s e c t i o n c o v e r s

l i m i t a t i o n s df the study and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

D i s c u s s i o n of the R e s u l t s

Overview

T h i s study s major o b j e c t i v e was to determine i f p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s

and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e .

More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t e x p l o r e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the tendency

to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a Master's t h e s i s and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y

type as measured by the MBTI. Two groups were compared to determine

i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y type c o u l d be found between those who

p r o c r a s t i n a t e d i n w r i t i n g t h e i r t h e s i s and those who d i d n o t .

T h i s study sought to t e s t two s p e c i f i c and c u r r e n t l y u n t e s t e d

t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e .

L i t e r a t u r e has suggested (see Chapters One and Two) that p e r s o n a l i t y

f a c t o r s might be i n v o l v e d i n the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e . Myers and

McCaulley (1985) have h y p o t h e s i s e d t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would d i f f e r

from n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on one s p e c i f i c index of the MBTI: the

( 6 7 )

. i u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g s c a l e with p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s t e n d i n g to be the

p e r c e i v e r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s the j u d g e r s . They based t h i s

h y p o t h e s i s on the assumption that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n o c c u r s when

i n d i v i d u a l s r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e i r p e r c e p t u a l mode at the expense of

t h e i r judgment or d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a t t i t u d e . T h i s study s p e c i f i c a l l y

addressed t h i s t heory by comparing p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and non-

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on a l l four of the MBTI's i n d i c e s to see i f

d i f f e r e n c e s d i d o c c u r . It was p r e d i c t e d that t h e r e would be no

d i f f e r e n c e on the f i r s t t h r e e i n d i c e s ( e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on ,

s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n , t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) but that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would

sc o r e P and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would s c o r e J on the j u d g i n g -

p e r c e i v i n g i n d e x .

S e c o n d l y , the study e x p l o r e d the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types to see i f

a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g o c c u r r e d between the

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . It was h y p o t h e s i s e d that a

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of NFP types might be found i n the

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group as opposed to the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group.

T h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t y type appears to have a p o o r l y d e f i n e d

o r i e n t a t i o n toward time and hence might be v u l n e r a b l e to

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

Demographic Data Regarding Sample

The above o b j e c t i v e s were addressed by a d m i n i s t e r i n g the MBTI to

two groups of s u b j e c t s and then comparing t h e i r s c o r e s . These two

groups were r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous. A l l s u b j e c t s i n both groups were

graduate s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n the C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology Department at

(68)

the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. An equal number of males and

females were r e p r e s e n t e d i n each group. No d i f f e r e n c e s were found

between the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s r e g a r d i n g gender

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was not a r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e i n t h i s s t u d y . The one

v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g them was the p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n f a c t o r .

One group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ,

c o n s i s t e d of those i n d i v i d u a l s who took at l e a s t f i v e years to w r i t e

t h e i r t h e s e s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d always or n e a r l y always p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g

on t h i s p r o j e c t . T w e n t y - f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s made up t h i s group. The

mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s was 5.88 and ranged

from f i v e to e i g h t y e a r s .

The second group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ,

were 25 s u b j e c t s who completed t h e i r t h e s e s w i t h i n two years and

r e p o r t e d never or almost never p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t . The

mean number of years taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s f o r t h i s group was

1.474 years and ranged from nine months to two y e a r s .

The t o t a l sample (both groups combined) had an a p p r o x i m a t e l y

equal number of i n t r o v e r t s (487.) and e x t r a v e r t s (527.) and a s l i g h l y

h i g h e r percentage of p e r c e i v e r s (567.) than j u d g e r s (447.). There was a

much higher percentage of i n t u i t o r s (887.) than s e n s o r s (127.). There

were more f e e l i n g types (68%) than t h i n k e r s (327.) with more males

p r e f e r r i n g t h i n k i n g and more females p r e f e r r i n g f e e l i n g (as i s almost

always the case with MBTI s a m p l e s ) . T h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t

with f i n d i n g s i n other s t u d i e s which have measured the p e r s o n a l i t y -

t ypes of c o u n s e l l o r s . C o u n s e l l o r s tend to be high on the N and F

dimensions with more or l e s s equal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on the E-I and J-P

i n d i c e s . These f i n d i n g s lend f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y to the MBTI as well as

(69)

c r e d i b i l i t y to t h i s s t u d y .

Measuring P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n

Measuring p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was somewhat p r o b l e m a t i c as t h e r e i s no

instrument to date which i s widely accepted as a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e

measure of t h i s b e h a v i o r . T h i s s t u d y , t h e r e f o r e , combined time taken

to w r i t e the t h e s i s with s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n or d e r to

d i f f e r e n t i a t e the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s from the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e r e was a high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between time

taken to w r i t e the t h e s i s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n or lac k

t h e r e o f (r= .7725, p<.05). Nine i n d i v i d i u a l s d i d not meet both

c r i t e r i a ( i . e . , t h e i r s e l f - r e p o r t d i d not c o r r e l a t e with time taken)

and they were, t h e r e f o r e , screened out of the study e n s u r i n g that

those i n the study were c l e a r l y e l i g i b l e f o r one of the two groups.

F i n d i n g s of the Study

The f i r s t f o u r hypotheses were i n t e n d e d to f i n d i f t h e r e were

d i f f e r e n c e s between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the

fo u r i n d i c e s of the MBTI. It was h y p o t h e s i z e d that d i f f e r e n c e s

would be found on the p e r c e i v i n g - j u d g i n g index o n l y . T h i s was

conf i rmed.

Hy p o t h e s i s 1: R e s u l t . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the e x t r a v e r s i o n -

i n t r o v e r s i o n index of the MBTI. H y p o t h e s i s i s accepted and the n u l l

h y p o t h e s i s i s not r e j e c t e d .

(70)

Pi s c u 5 5 i on . When t h e s e two groups were compared

on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d i m e n s i o n , no d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d . T h i s

i n d i c a t e s t h a t n e i t h e r e x t r a v e r t s nor i n t r o v e r t s appear to be more

l i k e l y to p r o c r a s t i n a t e than the o t h e r . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t

wi th Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y as i t does not sugges t t h a t

d i f f e r e n c e s s h o u l d e x i s t an t h i s d i m e n s i o n . E x t r a v e r i o n - i n t r o v e r s i a n

was not found to be a p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

H y p o t h e s i s 2: R e s u l t . There i s no d i f f e r e n c e between

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n

index of the MBTI.

Pi s c u s s i on . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the

s e n s a t i o n - i n t u i t i o n index of the MBTI between the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g g r o u p s . N e i t h e r i n t u i t o r s nor s e n s o r s were more

l i k e l y to p r o c r a s t i n a t e than the o t h e r i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t u d y . T h i s

f i n d i n g i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i th Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y and l e n d s

e v i d e n c e to the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the s e n s i n g - i n t u i t i v e d i m e n s i o n i s not

a f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

H y p o t h e s i s 3: R e s u l t . T h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on the t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g index

of the MBTI. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d and the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s not

r e j e c t e d .

Pi s c u s s i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s Myers and

M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y as w e l l . No d i f f e r e n c e s were found on the

t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g s c a l e of the MBTI between the two groups s u g g e s t i n g

t h a t t h i s d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y i s not a f a c t o r r e l a t i n g to

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as i t p e r t a i n s to t h e s i s w r i t i n g .

H y p o t h e s i s 4: R e s u l t . P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l tend to s c o r e toward

(7.1)

the p e r c e i v i n g end of the j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g continuum w h i l e

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s w i l l tend to s c o r e toward the j u d g i n g s i d e of the

continuum. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d . T h i s d i r e c t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s was

c onfirmed s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do tend to be p e r c e p t i v e

t ypes as measured by the MBTI w h i l e n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s tended to

s c o r e toward the j u d g i n g end of the continuum.

D i s c u s s i o n . T h i s i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g .

While no d i f f e r e n c e s were found between p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n t o r s on the other t h r e e s c a l e s of the MBTI, t h e r e was

c l e a r l y a d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups on the J-P continuum.

With the midpoint set at 100, the mean s c o r e f o r the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g

group was 112.36. The mean s c o r e f o r the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group

was 91.16. T h i s f i n d i n g c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s Myers and McCaulley s

c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may occur more f r e q u e n t l y with

i n d i v i d u a l s who are p e r c e i v e r s as opposed to j u d g e r s , thereby

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s may indeed be i n v o l v e d i n

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .

F i n a l l y , a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s was conducted to determine i f

d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y types was s i g n i f i c a n t

between these two groups. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was f o u n d ,

a l t h o u g h the small sample s i z e i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t a t i s t i c a l

t e s t c e r t a i n l y r e s t r i c t s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these f i n d i n g s .

H y p o t h e s i s 5: R e s u l t . There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r

number of NFP types i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than i n the

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group. H y p o t h e s i s i s a c c e p t e d .

(72)

D i s c u s s i o n . T h i s f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s t e s t e d the

s u g g e s t i o n found i n e a r l i e r r e s e a r a c h l i n k i n g NFP types to

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o c o n f i r m e d . When the NFP

types were compared with a l l the other types i n a c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s ,

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more NFP's were found i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group than

in the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group.

While the sample s i z e i s small given the p o s s i b i l i t y of 16 t y p e s ,

i t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t such a t r e n d was found i n these

d a t a . It does appear that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do tend to be NFP types

w h i l e the p e r s o n a l i t y type of the n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i s not c l e a r l y

apparent and appears to be more eve n l y d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the

other remaining t y p e s .

Four types were not r e p r e s e n t e d at a l l i n the sample: I S T J , ISTP,

ISFP and ESFP. What i s common to a l l these groups i s S. As has been

mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e r e was a high percentage of i n t u i t i v e types i n

t h i s sample as would be expected given t h e i r s p e c i a l i t y area

( C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y ) . Of the remaining 12 t y p e s , 447. were e i t h e r

ENFP or INFP types ( n e a r l y 787. of these were the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) and

another 20% c o n s i s t e d of INFJ and ENFJ types (807. of these were the

n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) . I S F J , ESTP and ESFJ each made up 27. of the

sample. INTP c o n s i s t e d of 47., ENTP, ESTJ and ENTJ each comprised 67.

of the sample and INTJ made up 87..

( 7 3 )

L i m i t a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research

L i m i t a t i o n s

The primary l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s study was i t s sample s i z e . There

were 25 s u b j e c t s i n each group and t h i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y small number

of s u b j e c t s to be c o n s i d e r e d when u s i n g an instrument l i k e the MBTI.

T h i s l i m i t a t i o n was e s p e c i a l l y pronounced when u s i n g dichotomous

s c o r e s to a n a l y z e the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types where 16 p o s s i b l e types

c o u l d be r e p r e s e n t e d .

The i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study were a l l part of a

s p e c i f i c graduate student p o p u l a t i o n ( C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y ) . The

c u l t u r a l , economic and e d u c a t i o n a l p r o f i l e of such a p o p u l a t i o n cannot

be s a i d to r e p r e s e n t more than a small segment of s o c i e t y . To the

extent that response s t y l e s to the t e s t i n s t r u m e n t s were i n f l u e n c e d by

t h i s set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the study i s l i m i t e d i n i t s

g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y .

Another l i m i t a t i o n i s one which i s p r a c t i c a l l y u n a v o i d a b l e when

co n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h with human s u b j e c t s . That i s the problem of

u l t i m a t e r e l i a n c e upon the w i l l i n g n e s s of people to v o l u n t e e r t h e i r

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s t u d y . The random s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s w i t h i n

each group was an attempt to c o n t r o l f o r t h i s confounding a s p e c t , but

s u b j e c t s who had been s e l e c t e d were s t i l l f r e e to d e c l i n e to

p a r t i c i p a t e . While the number of those who d i d d e c l i n e was r e l a t i v e l y

s m a l l , t h e r e was a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of i n d i v i d u a l s who had moved

from the area and c o u l d not be l o c a t e d . Whether s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y type e x i s t between those who moved away and

(74)

those who remained w i t h i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia i s a

q u e s t i o n t h a t remains unanswered by t h i s s t u d y .

Another l i m i t a t i o n p e r t a i n s to the l a c k of a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e

i n strument f o r the measurement of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . T h i s study was

unable to compare p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of b e h a v i o r with

p e r s o n a l i t y type s i n c e t h e r e are c u r r e n t l y no w i d e l y accepted measures

of t h i s b e h a v i o r . It was, t h e r e f o r e , c o n f i n e d to one s p e c i f i c

b e h a v i o r a l measure of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : the tendency to delay the

c o m p l e t i o n of the Master's t h e s i s . It c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , be assumed

that the c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s and

p e r s o n a l i t y type a u t o m a t i c a l l y g e n e r a l i z e s to other forms of

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , i t cannot be i n f e r r e d from t h i s study

t h a t c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s cause p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . C o r r e l a t i o n

does not imply c a u s a t i o n . T h i s study merely suggests that c e r t a i n

p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s do appear to p l a y a r o l e i n the phenomenon of

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s p r o j e c t . It a l s o suggests that c e r t a i n

p e r s o n a l i t y types do appear to be more v u l n e r a b l e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n

on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r task than other t y p e s .

While t h i s study took c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e c a u t i o n to ensure that

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on the t h e s i s was i n f a c t the v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g

the two groups (by i n s i s t i n g upon both s e l f - r e p o r t and b e h a v i o r a l

d e l a y ) , t h e r e are i n h e r e n t l i m i t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s e l f - r e p o r t i n any

s t u d y . I n d i v i d u a l s who may have indeed p r o c r a s t i n a t e d were e l i m i a t e d

from the study i f they d i d not s e l f - r e p o r t t h i s b e h a v i o r . S i m i l a r l y ,

s e l f - r e p o r t on the MBTI does not take u n c o n s c i o u s m o t i v a t i o n s , e t c .

i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when measuring p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . C l e a r l y , t h e r e

can be a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e p a n c y between what an i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t s

(75)

and how s/he a c t u a l l y behaves.

In s p i t e of these l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t does appear c l e a r -from

t h i s study s f i n d i n g s t h a t Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l type i s indeed a

r e l e v a n t f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n the tendency to p r o c r a s t i n a t e on w r i t i n g a

Master's t h e s i s . C e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y t ypes appear more v u l n e r a b l e to

p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g on t h i s task than o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , i t a l s o lends

e v i d e n c e to support the theory t h a t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may occur as a

consequence of the h a b i t u a l tendency to u t i l i z e a p e r c e p t u a l a t t i t u d e

when a j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e would be more a p p r o p r i a t e .

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research

Given the f a c t t h a t very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted on

t h e s i s w r i t i n g , the f i e l d i s wide open f o r f u t u r e s t u d y . T h i s study

has made a c o n t r i b u t i o n i n a n a l y z i n g how c e r t a i n graduate s t u d e n t s

appear to s t a l l on t h e i r f i n a l p r o j e c t by s u g g e s t i n g that c e r t a i n

p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s may c o n t r i b u t e to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on t h i s t a s k .

P e r s o n a l i t y type i s o b v i o u s l y o n l y one f a c t o r i n v o l v e d i n the f a c t

that n e a r l y o n e - h a l f of a l l graduate s t u d e n t s f a i l to graduate due to

non-completion of t h e i r f i n a l p r o j e c t . A c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n c e study

i n t e r v i e w i n g both p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s would be a

v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s a rea of i n t e r e s t .

In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e simply i s l i t t l e c u r r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l data

a v a i l a b l e on how s e r i o u s t h i s problem i s i n graduate s c h o o l s . Are

t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n numbers of i n d i v i d u a l s who f a i l to graduate due

to non-completion of t h e i r t h e s i s among the d i f f e r e n t departments

w i t h i n a u n i v e r s i t y ? If s o , why? Do u n i v e r s i t i e s d i f f e r i n t h e i r

(76)

a b i l i t y to a s s i s t t h e i r graduate s t u d e n t s i n c o m p l e t i n g the t h e s i s

requirement on time? If s o , what f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s

phenomenon and what f a c t o r s i n h i b i t i t from o c c u r r i n g ?

S e c o n d l y , t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t need f o r a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e

i nstrument to measure p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . While c o n t r i b u t i o n s have been

made i n t h i s f i e l d ( G r e c c o , 1984; Solomon St Rothbl urn, 1984), much more

work needs to be done i n t h i s area b e f o r e a widely accepted measure of

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n w i l l be a v a i l a b l e . Once an a p p r o p r i a t e instrument has

been c o n s t r u c t e d , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n as a h a b i t u a l mode of behavior can

be compared more r e a d i l y with p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e .

F i n a l l y , f u r t h e r s t u d i e s must r e p l i c a t e t h i s s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s

l i n k i n g p e r s o n a l i t y type with p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . A l o n g i t u d i n a l study

c o u l d be run by a d m i n i s t e r i n g the MBTI to those e n t e r i n g t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e programs and then comparing t h e i r performance with t h e i r

MBTI s c o r e s . If t h i s s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s are r e p l i c a t e d , i n t e r v e n t i o n

s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d then be implemented to a s s i s t NFP types or those

s c o r i n g high on the p e r c e p t u a l end of the J-P s c a l e to develop t h e i r

j u d g i n g ( d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ) f u n c t i o n s . A l a r g e r sample ( p o s s i b l y

comparing r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from s e v e r a l d i s c i i p i i n e s ) i s c l e a r l y

n e c e s s a r y to add v a l i d i t y to these r e s u l t s .

F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to determine s p e c i f i c ways i n which

those who do appear to have a d e f i c i t i n t h e i r j u d g i n g a t t i t u d e c o u l d

l e a r n to r e l y l e s s on t h e i r p e r c e p t u a l a t t i t u d e and more on t h e i r

j u d g i n g a b i l i t i e s .

C l e a r l y , the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are myriad. What

i s s i g n i f i c a n t about t h i s s t u d y i - s that i t has begun to f i n d a

c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on c o m p l e t i n g a Master's t h e s i s

(77)

and p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e . It has, there-fore, j u s t i f i e d the need f o r

f u t u r e study i n t h i s a r e a .

(78)

REFERENCES

B a l l , E . B. (1967) . A f a c t o r a n a l y t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g y of C . 6. J u n g . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 28, 4277-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 63-3524)

B i g g s , B. E . , & F e l t o n , 6. S. (1973) . Reduc ing t e s t a n x i e t y of c o l l e g i a t e b l a c k low a c h i e v e r s i n an academic s e t t i n g . The J o u r n a l of Negro E d u c a t i o n . 42, 54 -57 .

B l a t t , S. J . , it Q u i n l a n , P. (1967) . P u n c t u a l and p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g s t u d e n t s : A s tudy of t e m p o r a l p a r a m e t e r s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 31_, 169-174.

Bradway, K. (1964) . J u n g ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s . J o u r n a l of A n a l y t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 9, 129-135.

B r i s t o l , M. M . , & S l o a n e , H. N . , J r . (1974) . E f f e c t s of c o n t i n g e n c y c o n t r a c t i n g on s t u d y r a t e on t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s . 7_, 271-285 .

B u r k a , J . B. , & Yuen , L . M. (1982) . Mind games p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p l a v . P s y c h o l o g y T o d a y . J a n u a r y . 3 2 - 3 4 , 4 4 .

B u r k a , J . B . , & Yuen , L . M. (1984) . P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Whv you do i t , what to do about i t . R e a d i n g , MA: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y .

C a r l s o n , R. , it L e v y , N. (1973) . S t u d i e s of J u n g i a n t y p o l o g y : I . Memory, s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n , and s o c i a l a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i ty . 41 . 559-576.

C a r l y n , M. (1977) . An assessment of the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t . 41 . 461-473.

C a r r i g a n , P. (1960) . E x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on as a d i m e n s i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y : A r e a p p r a i s a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 57. 329-360.

C a r s k a d o n , T . 6. (1977) . T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s of c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s on the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 41_, 1011-1012.

C a r s k a d o n , T . G. (1979) . B e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t r a v e r t s and i n t r o v e r t s as measured by the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r : An e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n . R e s e a r c h i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l T y p e . 2, 78-82 .

(79)

Conary, F. M. (1966). R e l a t i o n of c o l l e g e freshmen's p s y c h o l o g i c a l

types to t h e i r academic t a s k s . P r e s e n t e d at American Personnel and

Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C. C i t e d i n

flyer s - B r i ggs Type I n d i c a t o r : An annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y of

the l i t e r a t u r e . Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,

E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c .

Cook, D. A. (1970). Is Jung's t y p o l o g y t r u e ? A t h e o r e t i c a l and

e x p e r i m e n t a l study of some assumptions i m p l i c i t i n a theory of

p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1971, 31_, 2979-B. U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 70-21,987)

C r e a g e r , J . A. (1965). P r e d i c t i n g d o c t o r a l attainment with GRE and

other v a r i a b l e s (Tech. Rep. £ 2 5 ) . N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s

Research Counci 1 j_ O f f i c e of S c i e n t i f i c P e r s o n n e l ,

Washington D.C.

D e v i t o , A. J . (1985). Review of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In J .

V. M i t c h e l l , J r . ( E d . ) , The Nineth Mental Measurements

Yearbook: V o l . II (pp.1030-1032). U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska

P r e s s .

E g g i n s , J . A. (1979). The i n t e r a c t i o n between s t r u c t u r e i n l e a r n i n g

m a t e r i a l s and the p e r s o n a l i t y type of l e a r n e r s . Unpublished

d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana U n i v e r s i t y .

E l l i s , A., & Knaus, W. J . (1977). Overcoming p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . New

York: I n s t i t u t e f o r R a t i o n a l L i v i n g .

E l y , D. D. , h. Hampton, J . D. (1973). P r e d i c t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i n

a s e l f - p a c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l system. (ERIC Document

Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 075501)

Eysenck, H. J . (1953). The s t r u c t u r e of human p e r s o n a l i t y . London:

Methuen.

F r e y , A. H., & B e c k e r , W. C. (1958). Some p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of

s u b j e c t s who f a i l to appear f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l appointments.

J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22_(3), 164.

G o l l i d a y , J . M. (1975). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i v e

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h r e e methods of u t i l i z i n g l a b o r a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s

i n s e l e c t e d t o p i c s of j u n i o r c o l l e g e mathematics. D i s s e r t a t i o n

A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 36.(02), 61 1A. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No.

75-16,383)

Gorlow, L., Simonson, N. R., & K r a u s s , H. (1966). An e m p i r i c a l

i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Jungian t y p o l o g y . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l

and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5, 108-117.

(80)

Gosse, J . M. (1978). The Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l types as measured by

the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to

m a r i t a l adjustment ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y , 1979). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,

39(10-B), 5066.

Gr a n t , W. H. (1965). Behavior of Myers-Briggs type i n d i c a t o r types

(Research R e p o r t ) . Auburn, Alabama: Auburn U n i v e r s i t y , Student

C o u n s e l i n g S e r v i c e .

G r e c c o , P. R. (1984). A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l assessment of

p r o b l e m a t i c academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : Development of a

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n s e l f - s t a t e m e n t i n v e n t o r y ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,

C a l i f o r n i a School of P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1984.) Di s s e r t a t i on

A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 46J2) , 640-B.

Green, L. G. (1982). M i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - c o n t r o l of

p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 29(6) ,

636-644.

Gray, H., & W h e e l r i g h t , J . B. (1944). Jung's p s y c h o l o g i c a l types and

m a r r i a g e . S t a n f o r d Medical B u l l e t i n . 2_, 37-39.

Groveman, A. M. , R i c h a r d s , C. S., & C a p l e , R. B. (1977). E f f e c t s of

s t u d y - s k i l l s c o u n s e l i n g v e r s u s b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s

i n the treatment of academic performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s .

41_, 186.

Haber, R. A. (1980). D i f f e r e n t s t r o k e s f o r d i f f e r e n t f o l k s : Jung's

t y p o l o g y and s t r u c t u r e d e x p e r i e n c e s . Group and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

S t u d i e s . 5, 113-119.

H i l l , M. B., H i l l , D. A., Chabot, A. E., & B a r r a l l , J . F. (1978). A

survey of c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and student p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Col 1eqe

Student J o u r n a l . 12. 256-262.

Howes, R. J . , i Carskadon, T. G. (1979). T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s

f o r M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r as a f u n c t i o n of mood changes.

Research i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type. 2_, 67-72.

J a c k s o n , B. T., & Van Z o o s t , B. L. (1972). Changing study b e h a v i o r s

through r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g

P s y c h o l o g y . 19., 192-195.

Jung, C. 6. (1921). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Keenan, J . B., Bono, S. F., & Hursh, D. E. (1978). Shaping time

management s k i l l s : Two examples i n PSI. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i z e d

I n s t r u c t i o n . 3_, 46-49.

(81)

K e i r s e y , D., & B a t e s , M. (1984). P l e a s e understand me. Del Mar, CA:

Gnosology Books, L t d .

Kilmann, R. H. , & T a y l o r , V. ( 1974). A c o n t i n g e n c y approach to

l a b o r a t o r y l e a r n i n g : P s y c h o l o g i c a l types versus e x p e r i m e n t a l

norms. Human R e l a t i o n s . 2 7 ( 9 ) . 891-909.

Kirschenbaum, D. S., & P e r r i , M. G. (1982). Improving academic

competence i n a d u l t s : A review of r e c e n t r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 29. 76-94.

Knox, W. J . ( 1970). O b t a i n i n g a Ph.D. i n p s y c h o l o g y . Ameri can

P s y c h o l o g i s t . 25., 1026-1032.

Levy, N., Murphy, C., J r . , & C a r l s o n , R. (1972). P e r s o n a l i t y types

among Negro c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l

Measurement, 32, 641-653.

Lu , P. H. (1976). M o d i f i c a t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g b e h a v i o r i n

p e r s o n a l i z e d system of i n s t r u c t i o n ( T h i r d N a t i o n a l Conference on

P e r s o n a l i z e d Systems of I n s t r u c t i o n i n Higher E d u c a t i o n ) .

Washington DC. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 125971)

Mattoon, M. A. (1981). Jungian psychology i n p e r s p e c t i v e . New York:

M a c m i l l a n .

M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1978). A p p l i c a t i o n of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r to

medicine and other h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n s (Monograph I, C o n t r a c t No.

231-76-0051, He a l t h Resource A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , DHEW), G a i n s v i l l e ,

F l o r i d a : Center f o r A p p l i c a t i o n of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types.

M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1981). Jung's theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l types and the

Myers - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . In P. McReynolds ( E d . ) , Advances i n

P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment (294-352). San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .

M c C a u l l e y , M. H. , «e N a t t e r , F. L. (1974). P s y c h o l o g i c a l

(Myers-Briggs) type d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n . In F. L. N a t t e r , ?!

S. A. R o l l i n ( E d s . ) , The Governor's Task Fo r c e on D i s r u p t i v e

Youth: Phase II Re p o r t . T a l l a h a s s e e , FL: O f f i c e of the

Governor. [Report out of p r i n t . T h i s c h a p t e r a v a i l a b l e from Center

f o r A p p l i c a t i o n s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type, 6 a i n e s v i l l e , F L . l

McRae, B. C., & S k e l t o n , T. M. (1979). Changes i n s e l f - p e r c e o t i o n as a

r e s u l t of Ph. D. a t t a i n m e n t . Unpublished M a n u s c r i p t , C o u n s e l l i n g

and P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s , D a l h o u s i e U n i v e r s i t y , H a l i f a x , Nova

S c o t i a , Canada.

Mendelsohn, G. A. (1965). Review of Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In 0.

K. Buros ( E d . ) , S i x t h Mental Measurement Yearbook (3rd e d . ) .

Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon P r e s s .

(82)

Mendelsohn, 6. A. (1970). Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . In 0. K. Buros

E d . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and r e v i e w s . Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon

P r e s s .

M i l l e r , L. K., Weaver, F. H., & Serab, 6. (1974). A,procedure f o r

m a i n t a i n i n g student p r o g r e s s i n a p e r s o n a l i z e d u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e .

J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s . 7_i 87-91.

Myers, I. B. (1962a). I n f e r e n c e s as to the dichotomous n a t u r e of

Jung's t y p e s . American Psychol ooi s t , 17., 364.

Myers, I. B. (1962b). The M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r manual. Palo

A l t o : C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s .

Myers, I. B., & D a v i s , J . A. (1977). R e l a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l type

to t h e i r s p e c i a l t i e s 12 y e a r s l a t e r . Paper prese n t e d at the

meeting of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Los A n g e l o s ,

September 1964. [ R e p r i n t e d i n M c C a u l l e y , M. H. The Myers

L o n g i t u d i n a l Medical Study (HRA C o n t r a c t No. 231-76-0051,

Monograph 11). G a i n e s v i l l e , FL: Center f o r the A p p l i c a t i o n of

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type.]

Myers, I. B. , & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the

development and use of the M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r . P a l o

A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s .

Myers, I. B., & Myers, P. B. (1980). 6 i f t s d i f f e r i n g . Palo A l t o , CA:

C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s .

P a l m i e r e , L. (1972). I n t r o - e x t r a - v e r s i o n as an o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e

i n f a n t a s y p r o d u c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A n a l y t i c a l P s c y c h o l o g y . 17(2) .

116-131.

Powers, B. E. (1984). R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l o c u s of c o n t r o l and

i n n e r - o t h e r d i r e c t e d n e s s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and the p e r c e i v e d

o r i g i n of t h e i r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n t r i g g e r i n g cues ( D o c t o r a l

d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i t e d S t a t e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1984).

D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45.(10), 3343-B.

R i c h a r d s , C. S. (1975). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n of s t u d y i n g through

study s k i l l s a d v i c e and s e l f - c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s . J o u r n a l of

C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22. 431-436.

R i c h a r d s , C. S. (1981). Improving c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' s t u d y b e h a v i o r s

through s e l f - c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s : A b r i e f r e v i e w . B e h a v i o r a l

C o u n s e l i n g Q u a r t e r l y . 1_, 159-175.

R o s a t i , P. A. (1975). P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s p r e f e r PSI. E d u c a t i o n Research

and Methods. 8. 17-19.22.

(83)

Ross, J . (1966). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between a Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y

i n v e n t o r y and t e s t s of a b i l i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y , and i n t e r e s t .

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y . 18, 1-17.

Rothblum, E. 0. , Beswick, G. , & Mann, L. ( 1984). P s y c h o l o g i c a l

antecendents of student p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t ,

F l i n d e r s U n i v e r s i t y of South A u s t r a l i a , A d e l a i d e , A u s t r a l i a .

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J . , % Murakami, J . (1986). A f f e c t i v e ,

c o g n i t i v e , and b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low

p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 33.(4) ,

387-394.

S a b i n i , J . , it S i l v e r , M. (1982). M o r a l i t i e s of everyday l i f e .

O x ford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

Sachs, L. (1978). [ E n t e r i n g Resources Q u e s t i o n n a i r e data f o r Ohio

S t a t e U n i v r e s i t y medical s t u d e n t s . ] Unpublished raw d a t a .

S e l l s , L. W. (1973). Sex and d i s c i p l i n e d i f f e r e n c e s i n d o c t o r a l

a t t r i t i o n . P r e sented at the Graduate Assembly's Committee on the

S t a t u s of Women, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y .

Semb, G. , G l i c k , D. M., & Spencer, R. E. (1979). Student withdrawals

and delayed work p a t t e r n s i n s e l f - p a c e d psychology c o u r s e s .

Teaching of P s y c h o l o g y . 6_, 23-25.

S h a e f f e r , P. E. (1973). Academic p r o g r e s s of disadvantaged m i n o r i t y

s t u d e n t s : A 2-year s t u d y . J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l ,

14., 41-46.

Shakespeare, W. (1988). Hamlet. New York: Bantam Books.

S i e v e k i n g , N. A., C a m p b e l l , M. L., R i l e i g h , W. J . , & S a v i t s k y , J .

(1971). Mass i n t e r v e n t i o n by mail f o r an academic impediment.

J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 18., 601-602.

Simon, R. S. (1979). Jungian types and c r e a t i v i t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l

f i n e a r t i s t s . U npublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i t e d S t a t e s

U n i v e r s i t y .

S mith, A., I r e y , R., & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. (1973). S e l f - p a c e d

i n s t r u c t i o n and c o l l e g e s t u d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y . E n g i n e e r i n g

Educat i on. 63. 435-440.

Solomon, L. J . , Murakami, J . , Gree n b e r g e r , C., & Rothblum, E. D. (1983). D i f f e r e n c e s between high and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s as a

d e a d l i n e approaches: A q u a l i t a t i v e s t u d y . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t ,

U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont.

(84)

Solomon, L. J . , & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n :

Frequency and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l of

C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 31 (4) , 503-509.

S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1963). I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s and r e l i a b i l i t y

of the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r s c a l e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s .

12., 287-293.

S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1964). An assessment of some s t r u c t u r a l

p r o p e r t i e s of the Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g y . J o u r n a l of

Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 68., 62-71 .

S t r i e k e r , L. J . , S c h i f f m a n , H., & Ross, J . (1965). P r e d i c t i o n of

c o l l e g e performance with the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r .

E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1081-1095.

von Fange, E. A. (1961). I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the

p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e of e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l . Unpublished

d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a .

Webb, S. C. (1964). An a n a l y s i s of the s c o r i n g system of the

Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r . E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and

Measurement. 24_, 765-781.

Wedeman, S. C. (19B5). P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : An i n q u i r y i n t o i t s e t i o l o g y

and phenomenology ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of

P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1985). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,

4 6 ( 5 ) , 1733-B.

Wentworth, M. T. (1980). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l adjustment

and Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l types of c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Di s s e r t a t i o n

A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4J_(9-A), 3893. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No.

8105629)

Z i e s a t , H. A., R o s e n t h a l , T. L. , & White, 6. M. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l

s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t r e a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of s t u d y i n g .

P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 42, 59-69.

(85)

(86)

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF INITIAL CONTACT

(88)

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTION SHEET

(90)

APPENDIX C

SUBJECT CONSENT FORM

(92)

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHIC

QUESTIONNAIRE

(93)

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Type of Master's degree c u r r e n t l y sought or a l r e a d y

c o n f e r r e d : M.A. M.Ed, ( p l e a s e c i r c l e )

2. Have you completed your t h e s i s or major paper? If s o , when?

month year

3. When d i d you begin your s t u d i e s f o r the above Master's

degree?

month year

4. To what degree was/is p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a f a c t o r i n the l e n g t h

of time i t h a s / i s t a k i n g you to complete your t h e s i s or major

paper? ( p l e a s e c i r c l e )

Never

A

F a c t o r

Almost

Never A

F a c t o r

Sometimes

A

F a c t o r

N e a r l y

Always

A F a c t o r

Always

A

F a c t o r

Yes

No

Do you wish to have a Myers-Briggs Report Form

mailed you once the s c o r i n g has been completed?

THIS COMPLETES THE DEM06RAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY.