Person. in&d. 01% Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 315-319, 1992 Printed in Great Britain

0191-8869/92 %5.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Press plc

PROCRASTINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: ATTRIBUTIONS FOR FAILURE AMONG INDIVIDUALS

WITH SIMILAR BEHAVIORAL TENDENCIES

JOSEPH R. FERRARI

Center for Life Studies, Cazenovia College, Cazenovia, NY 13035, U.S.A.

(Received II April 1991)

Summary-Working adults (n = 156) who attended college classes were categorized as procrastinators (n = 90) or nonprocrastinators (n = 66) and asked to complete a study where they evaluated the attributions for failure of a factitious employee described as either a ‘procrastinator’, a ‘perfectionist’ or unlabeled. Procrastinators attributed responsibility and blame for the employee’s behavior to the target regardless of the presence or absence of the label. Across story labels nonprocrastinating men assigned less causality and a curvilinear pattern of responsibility to the target. Nonprocrastinating women assigned more causal and responsibility attributes to the target across conditions. Furthermore, procrastinators more than nonprocrastinators indicated that the target labeled a procrastinator should be fired and not allowed to continue regular job duties. Results indicate that procrastinators evaluate other procrastinators harshly, despite their similar behavioral tendencies.

INTRODUCTION

Delaying task completion to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort has been labeled procrastination (Ellis & Knaus, 1977), and may be a tactic to protect a vulnerable self-esteem (Burka & Yuen, 1983). A growing body of literature suggests that habitual procrastination is not an effective technique for life success. Procrastination was related to low self-confidence and self-esteem and to high states of anxiety, depression, neurosis, forgetfulness, disorganization, noncompetitiveness and lack of energy (Beswick, Rothblum & Mann, 1988; Effert & Ferrari, 1989; Ferrari, 1989a, 1991a; Lay, 1986, 1987, 1988).

Experimental studies also indicate that procrastinators spend less preparation time on tasks likely to succeed and more time on projects likely to fail (Lay, 1990). Procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators attempt behavioral self-handicapping of task performance (Ferrari, 1991a). Compared to nonprocrastinators, procrastinators also engage in impression management strategies (Ferrari, 1991b) and actively avoid receiving diagnostic information about their own ability (Ferrari, 1991~).

Although research psychologists have begun to focus on procrastination as an area of interest, there remain no studies on procrastination and attributions for performance evaluations by trait similar others. Ferrari (1989a) reported that procrastinators believed that their personal task performance, even under the best of environmental conditions, would be outperformed by others. While this result may demonstrate some social comparison expectations by procrastinators, it remains unclear as to whom procrastinators compare their performance: nonprocrastinators, or other procrastinators. The present study was an initial attempt at exploring the attributions made by a self-proclaimed procrastinators in evaluating other procrastinators’ behavior.

Based on attribution theory (see Nisbett & Ross, 1980) a systematic bias is predicted in the way groups are perceived. Schiffman and Wagner (1985) hypothesized that socially-deprived groups seek to maintain their identity by attributing negative traits to groups most close to them. For example, unemployed individuals attribute more negative personality traits to similarly unem- ployed individuals than to employed individuals (Dekker & Ester, 1988). Other studies found perceived similarity affected physical attractiveness, hiring, salaries, ratings and career success (Baskett, 1973; Bowin & Attaran, 1988; Byrne & Wang, 1962; Latham, Wexley & Pursell, 1975; Pulakos & Wexley, 1983). The present study used a ‘real-world’ employment scenario to examine how perceived similarity with procrastinators affected attributions for poor job performance. Choosing to simulate procrastination tendencies which may occur in everyday job performance was

315

316 JOSEPH R. FERRARI

done to increase the context validity of the study. To further increase the generalizability of results beyond ‘ 18-2 1’ yr old populations, nontraditional age college students employed full-time were the study’s participants.

It was expected that procrastinators but not nonprocrastinators would attribute poor perform- ance more to the target individual described as a procrastinator as opposed to a label perceived as more socially acceptable (like a ‘perfectionist’). Procrastinators may try to distance themselves publically from being associated with the similar peer’s failure. In other words, they may try publically to ‘save face’ by stating that the targets are responsible for their actions. This possibility seems plausible since procrastinators are overly concerned about their own public image (Ferrari, 199 1 b). Furthermore, procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators may suggest that the procrastinating target should be punished (e.g. be fired or not continue in their regular duties) because of their behavioral tendencies. By suggesting punitive actions procrastinators would demonstrate the ultimate disapproval for the target’s behavior and a way to distance associations with the target.

METHOD

Participants and design

Men (n = 78) and women (n = 78) employed full-time and enrolled in evening undergraduate psychology courses volunteered for this study. The mean age across gender was 32.0 (SD = 6.7). Most participants (87.5%) had no experience as a psychology research subject and were majors in business degree programs. The design was a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial, with the between-subject variables of sex of the participant (men vs women), type of respondent (procrastinator vs nonprocrastinator) and label of protagonist (procrastinator vs perfectionist vs no label).

Procedure

With their instructor’s permission, a research assistant asked students during a 50min class session to volunteer for a psychology study involving the evaluation of an employment scenario and the completion of a personality inventory. After returning a signed consent form which also outlined the general procedure, each participant was given a folder containing the materials and the inventory. Participants were asked to work independently from other students in class (class size range = 15-32 students).

Instructions contained inside the folder asked participants to indicate their age, sex and major on an answer sheet. Then, the instructions asked participants to read a 140 word ‘real-world’ story describing ‘Mark Nolan’. The creation of this business scenario was a project for second year MBA/Industrial Psychology majors (approx. 15 students) enrolled in the author’s course. These graduate students were asked to write a brief realistic scenario about a company employee they had experienced in their own employment history whose behavior pattern may be called procrastination. The final scenario stated that Mr Nolan, a company auditor, was happily married and financially stable, an ‘ideas man’ with a knack of passing on enthusiam to others, and a friendly, likeable person who is a ‘team player’. Furthermore, Mr Nolan frequently was several days late for business deadlines because:

“ . . . he put off the start or completion of these assignments. When approached by peers . . . Mr Nolan stated ‘I am working on it’. He admits that for years he has had these tendencies in his personal life . . .”

All participants then were presented with one of three endings to Mr Nolan’s story (n = 52 per condition, with 26 men and 26 women). One third of the participants were told in their scenario that Mr Nolan ‘called himself a procrastinator’. A second third were told he ‘called himself a perfectionist’. The last third were not given any personality label but only told Mr Nolan’s personal history. The folders containing these employment scenarios were shuffled before distribution in order that assignment to condition would be random. Therefore, these scenarios constituted three levels of a between-groups variable called label: procrastination vs perfectionist vs no label.

After reading their scenario, participants were asked to complete eight five-point (1 = low; 5 = high) rating scales on their answer sheet. These items included indicating the extent to which

Trait similarity and procrastination 317

Mr Nolan himself was the cause of and responsible for his behavior, should he continue his present duties, and should he be fired. The last four items were ancillary items/manipulation checks. Specifically, they asked to what extent Mr Nolan’s behavior was realistic of the business world, likely to affect his company’s productivity, similar to your own tendencies and likely to be typical of an everyday procrastinator.

Finally, all participants were asked to complete Lay’s (1986) 20-item ‘Behavioral Procrastination’ scale. The scale was converted to five-point items to yield higher item variance and greater reliability. Keyed in the direction of high procrastination, items included “I generally return ‘phone calls promptly”, and “I usually buy even an essential item at the last minute”. The measure has a Cronbach alpha of 0.82 (Lay, 1986), retest reliability of 0.80 (Ferrari, 1989b), and adequate construct validity (see Lay, 1988, 1990; Ferrari, 1992a-c). When all completed folders were returned, the research assistant debriefed participants and answered any questions.

RESULTS

Procrastination categorization

Participants were categorized into procrastinators (n = 90) or nonprocrastinators (n = 66) based on a mean split of scores on the trait procrastination scale. Individuals who scored 259 were labeled “procrastinators” and those individuals who scored < 58 were labeled “nonprocrastina- tors”. This procedure yields two groups significantly different on trait procrastination tendencies, F(1,144) = 241.1, P < 0.001 (procrastinator M = 69.3, SD = 4.3; nonprocrastinator M = 53.4, SD = 4.4). There was no significant gender difference on the procrastination scale.

Ancillary and manipulation checks

A 2 (men vs women respondents) x 2 (procrastinators vs nonprocrastinator respondents) x 3 (no label vs procrastinating vs perfectionist target) between-subject analysis of variance was performed on how realistic was the employment scenario, how likely Nolan’s behaviors would adversely affect the company, how similar his tendencies were to the respondent’s own behavior and how likely it may be labeled everyday procrastination. Procrastinators compared to nonprocrastinators believed their story was more realistic of an actual employment situation, F(1,144) = 10.7, P < 0.001 (procrastination M = 4.3, SD = 0.9; nonprocrastinator M = 3.8, SD = l.l), and that the description of the target was similar to their own behavioral tendencies, F(1,144) = 5.2, P < 0.05 (procrastinator M = 2.9, SD = 0.7; nonprocrastinator M = 2.1, SD = 0.9). Both procrastinators and nonprocrastinators claimed that the target’s behavior would affect negatively the company’s performance (overall M = 4.2, SD = 1 .O). Finally, participants stated that the target’s behavior was typical of an everyday procrastinator (overall M = 4.0, SD = 0.7).

Table I. Mean rating on causal and responsibility ascription items, for partici- pants across conditions

“Mr Nolan is a .” Procrastinator Perfectionist No Label

Causal attribute Procrastinators

Men 4.3 (0.7) 3.6 (0.9) 4.1 (1.1) fn = 14) (n = 16) (n = 15)

Women

Nonprocrastinators Men

4.4 (0.9j 4.4 (0.9j 4.2 (0.8j (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 16)

4.3 (0.6) 3.9 (0.7) 3.7 (1.4) (n = 12) (n = 10) (n = II)

Women 3.7 (0.9) 4.1 (1.3) 4.4 (0.7) (n = II) (a = 13) (n = 10)

Responsibility attribute Procrastinators

Men 4.1 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 4.0 (0.9) Women 4.1 (0.8) 4.1 (0.8) 3.9 (0.5)

Nonprocrastinators Men 3.7 (0.8) 4.0 (0.8) 3.4 (0.9) Women 3.3 (0.9) 3.7 (1.2) 4.0 (1.0)

Note: values in parentheses are standard deviations. n = number of participants per condition.

PAlO 1313-F

318 JOSEPH R. FERRARI

Ascriptions of cause and responsibility

Table 1 presents the mean ratings by participants per condition for both causal and responsibility attribution items. A 2 (men vs women respondents) x 2 (procrastinator vs nonprocrastinator respondents) x 3 (no label vs procrastinating vs perfectionist target) between-Ss analysis of variance was performed on the participant’s ratings of the extent to which Nolan was the cause of his behavior. Only a marginally significant three-way interaction was obtained, F(1,144) = 3.4, P < 0.06. Post hoc tests (Tukey, P < 0.05) revealed that male procrastinators with the perfectionist target were significantly less likely to assign causal attributes to Nolan than procrastinators in the other label conditions. Among procrastinators, causal attributions to Nolan were less for men and more for women across procrastination, perfectionistic and no label conditions.

The same 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA performed on responsibility ascriptions yielded only a significant three-way interaction, F(1,144) = 3.8, P < 0.05. Subsequent post hoc tests (Tukey, P < 0.05) revealed among procrastinators a pattern similar to that obtained for causal attributions. Male procrastinators with the perfectionistic target were significantly less likely to assign responsibility to Nolan than procrastinators in the other conditions. Among nonprocrastinators, men showed a curvilinear pattern while women revealed an increasing linear pattern of responsibility attribu- tions across conditions.

Sanctions

To determine whether the target should be sanctioned for his behavior, the same 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA was performed on participant’s ratings of the extent to which Nolan should be permitted to continue his regular job duties. The higher number represents a more ‘harsh’ disposition. A significant respondent type x target label interaction was obtained, F( 1,144) = 4.7, P < 0.001. Post hoc tests (Tukey, P < 0.05) revealed that procrastinators with the procrastinating protagonist wanted Nolan not to continue his usual job duties (M = 4.1, SD = 1 .O) as compared to procrastinators with the perfectionist (M = 3.6, SD = 0.9) or no label (M = 3.4, SD = 0.8) stories, or nonprocrastinators with the procrastination (M = 3.2, SD = 0.9), perfectionist (M = 3.2, SD = 0.9) or no label stories (M = 3.4, SD = 0.9).

The same 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA was performed with the sanction of firing Nolan from his position. A significant main effect for respondent type was obtained, F(1,144) = 7.7, P < 0.001. Subsequent post hoc tests (Tukey, P < 0.05) revealed that procrastinators (M = 2.6, SD = 0.5) more than nonprocrastinators (M = 1.8, SD = 0.4) suggested that Nolan be fired from the company.

DISCUSSION

This study indicates that in evaluating the poor performance of a colleague who is described as similar to themselves, procrastinators (particularly women) attribute the behavior to the target and not to external, contextual factors. In fact, the target was blamed for his job performance by women procrastinators regardless of the presence or absence of a descriptive label. Participants believed the employee’s performance would affect his company’s productivity, yet only procrastinators stated the employee should be sanctioned by not performing his usual duties and, if needed, by having him terminated from his position. In short, it seems that procrastinators evaluate harshly individuals who compare similarly to themselves.

Possibly, the procrastinators were projecting displeasure with their own inadequacies and desired that the target (even though similar to themselves) should be punished. Clinical analogs indicate that many compulsive procrastinators are unhappy with their habitual tendencies (Burka & Yuen, 1983). In an attempt to ‘save-face’ and gain social approval procrastinators may be distancing themselves from possible associations made to the target (Schiffmann & Wagner, 1985). Conse- quently, they may believe that harsh, stern, inflexible treatment may be what is needed to discontinue compulsive delay tendencies. Of course, this explanation is speculative. Additional research should explore punative decisions by procrastinators.

It also was interesting to note that causal and responsibility ascriptions by women nonprocras- tinators tended to be reduced most when the target was labeled a procrastinator, less when labeled a perfectionist and least when no label was given. Perhaps these adult women were excusing the

Trait similarity and procrastination 319

employee’s performance because of his history of symptoms and generalized tendency. Schouten and Handelman (1987) found that men and women employees who were described with a history of depressive symptoms were given less punitive sanctions by ‘normal’ participants. These researchers failed to assess the participant’s current mood state. The present study extends their results by demonstrating that only female participants whose characteristics are nor like a target are likely to suggest a ‘lighter sentence’. Adult men and women participants with similar personality characteristics, in contrast, suggest harsh punishment.

Acknowledgements-Data were collected when the author was a Visiting/Substitute Assistant Professor at Baruch College/ CUNY, U.S.A. Gratitude is expressed to the graduate students who assisted in the creation, design and collection processes of this study, and to the faculty who donated class time so this study could be conducted.

REFERENCES

Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decisions as determined by competency and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 3433345.

Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D. & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents of a student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207-217.

Bowin, R. B. & Attaran, M. (1988). The effect of “getting along” and manager evaluation. Psychological Reporfs, 63, 471474.

Burka, J. B. & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it and what to do about it. Reading, Pa: Addison-Wesley. Byrne, D. & Wang, T. J. (1962). Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 246253. Dekker, P. & Ester, P. (1988). Attribution of mutual personality traits by employed and unemployed subjects. Psychological

Reports, 63, 583-586. Effert, B. & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: examining personality correlates. Journal of Social Behavior

and Personality, 4, 151~156. Ellis, A. & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet. Ferrari, J. R. (1989a). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Effects of task importance and performance privacy. Doctoral

dissertation, Adelphi University, Garden City, N.Y. Ferrari, J. R. (1989b). Reliability of academic and dispositional measures of procrastination. Psychological Reports, 64,

1057-1058. Ferrari, J. R. (1991a). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: protecting social-esteem, self-esteem or both? Journal of

Research in Personality, 25, 245-261. Ferrari, J. R. (199 I b). A preference for a favorable public impression by procrastinators: selecting among cognitive and

social tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, I2(1 I), 123331237. Ferrari, J. R. (1991~). Procrastination and project creation: choosing easy, nondiagnostic items to avoid self-relevant

information. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 619-628. Ferrari, J. R. (1992a). Procrastination and perfect behavior: an exploratory factor analysis of self-presentation, self-

awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research and Personality. In press. Ferrari, J. R. (1992b). Psychometric validation of two measures of adult procrastination. Submitted. Ferrari, J. R. (1992~). Arousal and avoidance as motives for different forms of procrastination. Submitted. Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N. & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation

of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550-555. Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474495. Lay, C. H. (1987). A modal profile analysis of procrastinators: a search for types. Personality and Indiuiduul Dtfirences,

8, 705-7 14. Lay, C. H. (1988). The relationship of procrastination and optimism to judgements of time to complete an essay and

anticipation of setbacks. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 201-214. Lay, C. H. (1990). Working to schedule on personal projects: an assessment of person-project characteristics and trait

procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 91-104. Nisbett, R. E. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of human judgements. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Pulakos, E. D. & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in

manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 129-139. Schiffmann, R. & Wagner: U. (1985). Wiegehen benachteiligte Gruppen mit einander urn? Gruppendynnmik, 16, 43-52. Schouten, P. G. W. & Handelman, M. M. (1987). Social basis of self-handicapping: the case of depression. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 103-l 10.