Procrastination in Different Life-Domains:Is Procrastination Domain Specific?

Katrin B. Klingsieck

Published online: 25 April 2013# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Procrastination, putting off until tomorrow what one had intended to dotoday, is a well-known phenomenon in everyday life. In an attempt to understand thecharacter of procrastination, a large body of research has been accumulating over thelast 40 years. The present study was to evaluate the need to distinguish betweenprocrastination in different life-domains by gathering first hints as to whether pro-crastination is domain specific or domain general. In an online survey on 260 students(mean age=23.56; SD=3.74) the procrastination frequency in 6 different life-domains (academic and work, everyday routines and obligations, health, leisure,family and partnership, social contacts) was examined. Confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) and the analysis of mean-level differences revealed that procrastination isdomain specific, but not extremely so. The results encourage further investigationsinto the domain specificity of procrastination and suggest that future diagnoses of andinterventions for procrastination will profit from considering the life-domain procras-tination occurs in.

Keywords Procrastination . Academic procrastination . Life-domains . Domainspecificity

Procrastination, putting off until tomorrow what one had intended to do today, is awell-known and frequently experienced phenomenon. Procrastination is usuallydefined as “the purposive delay in the beginning and/or completion of an overt orcovert act, typically accompanied by subjective discomfort” (Ferrari 1998, p. 281) oras “to voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse offfor the delay” (Steel 2007, p. 66). These two definitions reflect the widespread notionin procrastination research that procrastination represents a dysfunctional form of

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185DOI 10.1007/s12144-013-9171-8

K. B. Klingsieck (*)Universität Paderborn, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften, Fach Psychologie, Warburger Straße 100,33098 Paderborn, Germanye-mail: katrin.klingsieck@uni-paderborn.de

delay. Few studies have examined the functional aspects of delay (for example, Chuand Choi 2005; Schraw et al. 2007).

A large body of research on this phenomenon has been accumulating in recentyears. Researchers have focused on academic procrastination (delay of study-relatedactivities in a student population). Estimates have indicated that up to 70 percent ofcollege students consider themselves procrastinators (for example, Schouwenburg1995) and that 50 percent procrastinate consistently and problematically (for exam-ple, Solomon and Rothblum 1984). Students were often engaged in such activities assleeping, reading, or watching TV instead of studying (Pychyl et al. 2000).

Studies have further shown that academic procrastination is related to pooracademic performance (Ferrari et al. 1995; Tice and Baumeister 1997), lower self-efficacy (Steel 2007; Wolters 2003), higher stress levels (Tice and Baumeister 1997),and higher anxiety levels (for example, Rothblum et al. 1986).

Although procrastination has also been found to chronically affect 20–25 percent ofadults in the general population (Ferrari et al. 2007; Harriot and Ferrari 1996), fewstudies have examined procrastination in non-academic life-domains. Among thosethat have are studies that have compared the procrastination of non-academic andacademic tasks among university students (Ferrari and Scher 2000; Milgram et al.1998, 1988).

Several studies have also investigated procrastination in the workplace (Ferrari1992; Hammer and Ferrari 2002; Harriot and Ferrari 1996; Lonergan and Maher2000) or among job-seekers (Lay and Brokenshire 1997; Senécal and Guay 2000). Afew have examined procrastination with regard to filing taxes (Kasper 2004) and topreparing financially for retirement (Akerlof 1991; O’Donoghue and Rabin 1999).

Further studies have dealt with the procrastination of health-related behavioramong university students (Sirois et al. 2003; Stead et al. 2010; Tice andBaumeister 1997) and community-dwelling adults (Sirois 2007) and with the pro-crastination of leisure activities (Ferrari 1993; Shu and Gneezy 2010). Moreover, onestudy has examined the regret that adults felt because of their chronic procrastinationin various life-domains (Ferrari et al. 2009).

The Present Study

Although the aforementioned studies have examined procrastination in other life-domains than the academic, no study has yet evaluated the need to distinguishbetween procrastination in different life-domains. The purpose of the present studywas to evaluate this need by gathering first clues with regard to the domain specific-ity, or domain generality, of procrastination.

An extensive body of literature, primarily with regard to school subjects, hasdemonstrated the profitability of studying domain specificity. These studies haveinvestigated the domain specificity of self-concept (Marsh 1990), goal orientation andself-efficacy (Bong 2001; Duda and Nicholls 1992), expectancy of success and taskvalue (Eccles et al. 1993), and motivation and engagement (Martin 2008).

Investigating the domain specificity of procrastination has implications for diagnosesof and interventions for procrastination. If procrastination is found to be domain general,then general instruments and interventions are appropriate. If, however, procrastination

176 Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185

is found to be domain specific, then instruments and interventions should consider thelife-domain procrastination occurs in.

The present study focuses on procrastination in six different life-domains. Iderived the six life-domains investigated by reviewing the literature on commonlyapplied classifications of life-domains, (for example, Gröpel and Kuhl 2006). Theyincluded academic and work (AW), everyday routines and obligations (EO), health(HE), leisure (LE), family and partnership (FP), and social contacts (SC).

The academic and work domain refers to all study-related and job-related activities(for example, studying for an exam, returning a job-related phone call). The everydayroutines and obligations domain refers to various kinds of activities that individualshave to do but that are not explicitly linked to the academic and work domain (forexample, tax return, administrative task, chores around the house). Typical activitiesin the health domain are making a doctor’s appointment, redeeming a doctor’sprescription, or engaging in wellness behaviors (for example, dieting). The leisuredomain comprises activities, such as getting tickets to a cultural event, pursuing ones’hobbies regularly, or doing volunteer work. The family and partnership domain refersto activities that persons pursue with or for their partners and family members (forexample, visiting parents, buying a Valentine’s Day gift for one’s partner). The finaldomain, social contacts, refers to different kinds of social activities (for example,returning a telephone call, writing an email, meeting friends).

To investigate the domain specificity of procrastination, I followed Martin’s (2008)suggestions for assessing domain specificity. I first employed a factor analyticalapproach in which the model fit between a domain general and a domain specificmodel was compared via confirmatory factor analysis. Second, I assessed mean-leveldifferences in procrastination frequency between domains and, thus, compared thefrequency across the life-domains. If procrastination is domain specific, the procras-tination frequency will vary as a function of the life-domains. If it is domain general,however, there should be few differences in frequency across life-domains.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of 260 students, 66.9 percent of which were female. For themajority of participants (96.5 percent), German was their mother tongue. The meanage was 23.56 (SD=3.74) years. Participants were either single (64.6 percent) or livedwith a partner (31.5 percent). Only 3.8 percent of the participants had children.Participants were enrolled in different fields of study (natural science: 41.8 percent;social science: 28.9 percent; engineering science: 27.3 percent; other: 2 percent) andhad been studying for on average of five semesters (M=5.57, SD=3.93).

Instruments

The procrastination measure was included into a comprehensive survey on variousaspects of life balance. The survey was composed of two parts. The first partcomprised socio-demographic questions and several instruments concerning the

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185 177

different aspects. The second part of the survey comprised instruments that assessed thefrequency and other aspects of procrastination in each domain. Before participants filledout the second part of the survey, they read a brief description of each domain’s contentand rated how typical it was for them to procrastinate in each domain (for example,“How typical is it for you to procrastinate in this life-domain?”; 1 [very untypical] to 5[very typical]). For the sake of valid answers in the following part of the survey,participants who rated their procrastination as very untypical (scale point: 1) did notanswer the follow-up questions for the domain concerned.

For the present study’s purpose, I only took the socio-demographic informa-tion and the procrastination measure into account. Seven items from an adaptedversion of the Procrastination Scale for Students (Glöckner-Rist et al. 2009)assessed the procrastination frequency among participants during the past twoweeks ranging from 1([almost] never) to 5 ([almost] always). For instance,participants rated this item: “I delay the completion of certain things”. The reliabilityof this scale was good in all domains (AW: α=.90; EO:α=.90; HE: α=.92; LE: α=.91;FP: α=.93; SC=.93).

Procedure

Participants were recruited via an online link that was posted on different socialnetworking websites (for example, Facebook) and could enter a lottery for giftcertificates in compensation for their participation. I recruited university students,and thus only one sample, for this study to derive first clues to domain specificitywhile allowing for a sound comparison with the results of previous procrastinationresearch, which has typically focused on academic procrastination. Overall, 279students completed the survey, of whom 17 were not included in the final samplebecause they did not invest a reasonable amount of time (17 minutes; I derived thistime from pretests) in completing the survey.

Statistical Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis The first step for investigating domain specificity callsfor finding the best fitting model by comparing a domain general and a domainspecific model. In this study, this comparison was based upon the seven itemsmeasuring procrastination frequency (Glöckner-Rist et al. 2009) in each of the sixdomains. The first model, the domain generality model, was a 1-factor model inwhich these 42 items jointly constituted one procrastination factor. The secondmodel, the domain specificity model, was a 6-factor model in which procrastinationwas freely estimated in each of the six domains (for example, academic procrastina-tion, leisure procrastination). The six factors were correlated because they cannot beexpected to be completely independent from each other.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using AMOS 17.0, tested the hypothesizedmodels. Maximum likelihood was the method of estimation. The root mean square errorof approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the χ2 test statisticevaluated the goodness of fit of the models. For RMSEAs, values of less than .05 and .08typically reflect a close and reasonable fit, respectively (Marsh et al. 1996). The CFIvaries along a 0–1 continuum, in which values at or greater than .90 and .95 typically

178 Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185

reflect acceptable and excellent fits to the data, respectively (McDonald and Marsh1990).

In CFA, parallel data (for example, parallel items in the six life-domains) posestatistical issues. Because the measurement errors for matching items across domainsare likely to be correlated, parameter estimates are probably biased. Thus, in additionto assessing the fit of these two competing models, further analyses evaluated thedecline in model fit when parallel correlations were constrained to be equal inaddition to the factors being correlated. Martin (2008) has shown that this is theappropriate analytical means by which to assess domain specificity while controllingfor correlated uniqueness.

Mean-Level Differences For the second step (comparison of procrastination frequen-cy across domains), an analysis of variance (repeated measurement design) and,thereafter, a series of paired-samples t-tests compared procrastination frequencyacross the different life-domains. Due to the special construction of the second partof the survey, participants who had rated their procrastination to be very untypical(scale point: 1) in one domain did not have to answer the follow-up questions for thedomain concerned (that is, AW: n=16, EO: n=10, HE: n=9, LE: n=31, FP: n=30,SC: n=28). In the analyses that follow, I accounted for these participants by settingtheir frequency ratings equal to zero in the domain concerned because their ratings areessential to a full investigation of the domain specificity of procrastination.

Results

Model Fit

The 6-factor model yielded the best fit (χ2=2165.80, df=805, CFI=.88, RMSEA=.08).The fit was significantly better (based on differences inχ2 and fit indices) than that of the1-factor model (χ2=9179.26, df=819, CFI=.27, RMSEA=.20).

The seven procrastination frequency items were the same for each domain. Toensure that this parallel data did not result in biased parameter estimates, additionalanalyses evaluated the decline in model fit when parallel correlations wereconstrained to be equal (see Martin 2008). In such analysis, domain specificity isindicated by a significant decline in model fit of the model with no constraints.Domain generality is indicated if there is not a markedly significant decline. Thecorrelations among the procrastination items in all six domains were set equal;that is, the within-domain correlations were constrained to equal the between-domain correlations. The constrained model yielded a significantly poorer fit(χ2=2421.33, df=846, CFI=.86, RMSEA=.09) than the model in which all of thecorrelations were freely estimated (χ2=2165.80, df=805, CFI=.88, RMSEA=.08)based on the differences in χ2 (255.54) with 41 degrees of freedom (p<.01;see Martin 2008).

Although these differences were not too extreme, they were present. Therefore, interms of model fit, the data support the domain specificity of procrastination becausethe best fitting model was the one in which each domain was separated and thecorrelations were freely estimated.

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185 179

Mean-Level Differences

In the case of mean-level differences in procrastination frequency across domains, ananalysis of variance (repeated measurement design) revealed significant mean-leveldifferences across domains, F (5, 1295) = 50.82, p<.01, η2=0.16. Accordingly, aseries of paired-samples t-tests examined procrastination frequency in the different life-domains in detail. Significant differences (p<.003 after Bonferroni correction) emergedfor all comparisons but for EO-HE, LE-FP, and FP-SC, indicating mean-level differencesin which the AW-mean (M=3.13, SD=1.19) was highest and the LE-mean (M=2.01,SD=1.09) was lowest. Table 1 summarizes the effects and presents the means (andstandard deviations) of each domain. The data on the mean-level differences of procras-tination frequency again points toward the domain specificity of procrastination.

In addition, a glance at the participant’s ratings of the question “How typical isprocrastination for you in each domain?” also provided clues in favor of the domainspecificity of procrastination. An analysis of variance (repeated measurement design)revealed significant and large mean-level differences, F (5, 1295) = 50.22, p<.01,η2=0.16. A series of paired t-tests provided a more detailed picture of thesedifferences. While no significant mean-level differences emerged for the comparisonsAW-EO, AW-HE, EO-HE, LE-FP, and LE-SC, significant (p<.003 after Bonferronicorrection) differences emerged between AW/EO/HE and LE/FP/SC.

It seems that procrastination is more typical in AW (M=3.55, SD=1.25), EO(M=3.45, SD=1.12), and HE (M=3.59, SD=1.10) and less typical in LE (M=2.64,SD=1.05), FP (M=2.58, SD=.97), and SC (M=2.88, SD=1.16). This observationmatched the distinctive pattern that emerged when the percentages for scale point 4(typical) and 5 (very typical) for each domain were evaluated. While the number ofparticipants who evaluated procrastination as typical or very typical were above 50percent for AW (56.3 percent), EO (51.9 percent), and HE (57.3 percent), the numberwas below 30 percent in LE (20.4 percent), FP (16.2 percent), and SC (28.8 percent).

Table 1 Mean-level differences of procrastination frequency across domains

M (SD) AW EO HE LE FP

AW 3.13 (1.19) –

EO 2.84 (1.05) Mdiff=0.29**,T=3.69

–

HE 2.76 (1.07) Mdiff=0.37**,T=4.13

Mdiff=0.08,T=1.06

–

LE 2.01 (1.09) Mdiff=1.11**,T=11.26

Mdiff=0.82**,T=9.95

Mdiff=0.74**,T=9.31

–

FP 2.25 (1.18) Mdiff=0.88**,T=9.20

Mdiff=0.59**,T=7.20

Mdiff=0.51**,T=6.27

Mdiff=−0.23*,T=−2.64

–

SC 2.27 (1.17) Mdiff=0.85**,T=8.70

Mdiff=0.56**,T=6.76

Mdiff=0.48**,T=5.93

Mdiff=−0.26*,T=−3.44

Mdiff=−0.03,T=−0.35

AW academic and work; EO everyday routines and obligations; HE health; LE leisure; FP family andpartnership; SC social contacts. Degrees of freedom = 259; N=260; *p<.003 **p<.0007 (Bonferronicorrected)

180 Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185

Discussion

The present study was intended to gather first clues with regard to the domainspecificity, or domain generality, of procrastination. The study examined the academ-ic and work (AW), everyday routines and obligations (EO), health (HE), leisure (LE),family and partnership (FP), and social contacts (SC) life-domains. The resultsdemonstrated that procrastination exists in all six life-domains. Few participants ratedprocrastination as very untypical for them. Procrastination, however, was moretypical for the academic and work, everyday routines and obligations, and healthdomains than for the leisure, family and partnership, and social contacts domains.

Altogether, the results provided first clues with regard to the question of pro-crastination’s domain specificity or domain generality. First, the domain specificmodel yielded a better fit in the confirmatory factor analysis than the domain generalmodel. Second, procrastination presented itself differently in each life-domain withregard to its frequency. Its frequency was highest in AW and lowest in LE.(Considering the fact that the AW is possibly the one domain characterized byexternal and concrete deadlines, the existence or non-existence of deadlines in adomain could possibly account for these frequency differences.) Both results supportthe notion of procrastination to be domain specific and, by that, encourage thedifferentiation between procrastination in different life-domains in the realm oftheoretical approaches, diagnostic tools, and intervention programs.

The results illustrate that further research to differentiate procrastination’s charac-teristics in various life-domains will be worthwhile. I believe the following three linesof research will be fruitful.

First, a broader choice of life-domains will strengthen future studies. Additionally,the life-domains that I have chosen for this study need to be critically reviewed andrevised in future studies. For instance, in this study, I combined the academic and thejob domains. In a sample of (European) university students, whose jobs are oftenrelated to their studies, this category might be tenable. Differentiating this domaininto study-related and job-related work might have produced more face validity. Inaddition, it seems possible that collapsing the family and the social contacts domaininto one domain might result in a more economical presentation. Moreover, I askedparticipants to name a domain that they felt was missing. Only a few made use of thisopportunity. The results suggested that a domain reflecting the religious and spiritualaspects of life and a domain focusing on “time for myself” could be included in afuture study.

Second, the two steps taken in this study (confirmatory factor analysis, mean-leveldifferences) could be enriched. Strictly speaking, the present study limits the inves-tigation of domain specificity to the self-reported frequency of procrastination,thereby missing the opportunity to investigate how procrastination itself may varyacross domains. For example, the reasons for and consequences of procrastinationand the correlation of procrastination with constructs that are usually associated withprocrastination (for example, Big Five, van Eerde 2003; Watson 2001; self-regulation, Dewitte and Lens 2000; Dietz et al. 2007; Wolters 2003) could becompared across domains.

Third, investigating the domain specificity of procrastination in a non-studentsample would strengthen future studies on the domain specificity of procrastination.

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185 181

Because student life is only a marginal representation of non-student life conditions,it would be illustrative to see whether a different pattern emerges in a non-studentpopulation. All in all, a study that compares a wide range of procrastination aspectsacross a wide range of life-domains in a diverse sample will contribute more deeply toour understanding of whether procrastination presents itself similarly in different life-domains or whether its characteristics vary as a function of life-domain.

The study’s limitations lie in the sampling and statistical procedures. The use of astudent sample does not allude to the extent to which the results generalize. Thus, theuse of non-student sample would have provide a more reasonable answer to thequestion of domain specificity of procrastination. Furthermore, the results may notgeneralize to individuals from other contexts because the sample was not random butrather convenient and respondents were limited to those with access to the Internet.The analyses relied on self-reported data only, thereby excluding insights that couldbe gained from actual behavioral indices of procrastination.

The handling of the missing values that resulted from the construction of thesurvey poses a statistical problem. I set ratings of participants who had rated theirprocrastination to be very untypical (scale point: 1) in one domain equal to zero forthe procrastination frequency measure in the domain concerned. I am aware that thisprocedure has artificially inflated the results. The exploratory purpose of this studymight make this procedure more acceptable. Furthermore, making participants an-swer questions that they could not answer, did not make sense. However, in futurestudies, I suggest that researchers use techniques of adaptive testing to avoid havingto resort to this strategy.

I also acknowledge that the comparative fit index (CFI) of the confirmatory factoranalyses hardly represents an acceptable fit. However, in light of the acceptableRMSEA, this should not cast doubt on the results. Against the background of theselimitations, it cannot be stressed enough that this study was meant to be a preliminarystudy on the domain specificity of procrastination. Yet, even as a preliminary study,the results have the potential to advance procrastination research and practice.

Previous research has suggested that procrastination has sufficient cross-temporaland situational stability to be considered a trait (Steel 2007). The present results suggestthat this stability is at least partly explained by what may be a procrastination-factor (p-factor), analogous to the g-factor of intelligence (Spearman 1904), that is incorporated inall domains. At the same time, differences between domains, however, might be due tothe special procrastination characteristics of the life-domains and, therefore, to adomain-factor (d-factor). The p-factor might pertain to self-regulation, conscientious-ness, and motivation, for example, while the d-factor might pertain to aspects unique tothe domain, such as task aversiveness, social affiliation, or body image.

The results also suggest that an instrument that assesses procrastination as adispositional variable without differentiating between domains might not capturethe complex nature of procrastination. Individuals might display unique profiles ofprocrastination in each of the life-domains. Accordingly, there seems to be merit indeveloping measurements that tap procrastination in different life-domains.Moreover, procrastination interventions would benefit from a more differentiatedapproach to overcoming procrastination by, for example, focusing on motivationalstrategies for procrastination in one domain (for example, AW) and on strategies ofsocial integration in others (for example, LE, SC).

182 Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185

In conclusion, the results seem to suggest that—in addition to investigating disposi-tional procrastination types, such as arousal, avoidance, and decisional (Steel 2010)—theinvestigation of procrastination types based on life-domains could expand procrastina-tion research. Introducing domain-specific differences into procrastination research willnot only enrich the theoretical framework but will also provide more valid instrumentsfor assessing procrastination, by that supporting the development of effectiveinterventions.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Carola Grunschel for her insightful and helpful commentsconcerning an earlier version of this article and Laura Thau for her support in collecting the data.

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 1–19.Bong, M. (2001). Between and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high

school students: self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.23.

Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: positive effects of “active” procrastinationbehavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 245–264.

Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2000). Exploring volitional problems in academic procrastinators. InternationalJournal of Educational Research. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00047-1.

Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learning routines, and academic procrastination.British Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1348/000709906X169076.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of academic motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journalof Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.290.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’sachievement self-perceptions during elementary school years. Child Development. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9308115032.

Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastination in the workplace: attributions for failure among individuals with similarbehavioral tendencies. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90108-2.

Ferrari, J. R. (1993). Christmas and procrastination: explaining lack of diligence at a realworld taskdeadline. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90171-X.

Ferrari, J. R. (1998). Procrastination. In H. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. 3,pp. 281–287). San Diego: Academic.

Ferrari, J. R., & Scher, S. J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academic and nonacademic tasksprocrastinated by students: the use of daily logs. Psychology in the Schools. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200007).

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (Eds.). (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance:Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.

Ferrari, J. R., Díaz-Morales, J. F., O’Callaghan, J., Díaz, K., & Argumedo, D. (2007). Frequent behavioraldelay tendencies by adults: international prevalence rates of chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. doi:10.1177/0022022107302314.

Ferrari, J. R., Barnes, K. L., & Steel, P. (2009). Life regrets by avoidant and arousal procrastinators: whyput off today what you will regret tomorrow? Journal of Individual Differences. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.163.

Glöckner-Rist, A., Engberding, M., Höcker, A., & Rist, F. (2009). Prokrastinationsfragebogen fürStudierende (PfS) [Procrastination Scale for Students]. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), Zusammenstellungsozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [Summary of items and scales in social science]. ZISVersion 13.00. Bonn: GESIS.

Gröpel, P., & Kuhl, J. (2006). Having time for life activities. Life balance and self-regulation. Zeitschrift fürGesundheitspsychologie. doi:10.1026/0943-8149.14.2.54.

Hammer, C. A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2002). Differential incidence of procrastination between blues- and white-collar workers. Current Psychology. doi:10.1007/s12144-002-1022-y.

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185 183

Harriot, J., & Ferrari, J. R. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among sample of adults. PsychologicalReports. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.611.

Kasper, G. (2004). Tax procrastination: Survey finds 29% have yet to begin taxes. Retrieved from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/3/prweb114250.htm. March 30.

Lay, C. H., & Brokenshire, R. (1997). Conscientiousness, procrastination, and person-task characteristics injob searching by unemployed adults. Current Psychology. doi:10.1007/s12144-997-1017-9.

Lonergan, J. M., & Maher, K. J. (2000). The relationship between job characteristics and workplaceprocrastination as moderated by locus of control. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,15, 213–224.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: theoretical and empiricaljustification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification ofmathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advancedstructural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315–353). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Martin, A. J. (2008). How domain specific is motivation and engagement across school, sport, and music?A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople and musicians. ContemporaryEducational Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.002.

McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.247.

Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal ofResearch in Personality. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(88)90015-3.

Milgram, N. A., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastination, generalized or specific, in college studentsand their parents. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00044-0.

O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Procrastination in preparing for retirement. In H. Aaron (Ed.),Behavioral dimensions of retirement economics (pp. 125–156). Washington D.C. and New York:Brookings Institution Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotion: an experience samplingstudy of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 239–254.

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and behavioral differencesbetween high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.4.387.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measurement, and research.In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory,research, and treatment (pp. 71–96). New York: Plenum Press.

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academicprocrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12.

Senécal, C., & Guay, F. (2000). Procrastination in job seeking: an analysis of motivational processes andfeelings of hopelessness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 267–282.

Shu, S. B., & Gneezy, A. (2010). Procrastination of enjoyable experiences. Journal of Marketing Research.doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.933.

Sirois, F. M. (2007). “I’ll look after my health, later”: a replication and extension of the procrastination—health model with community-dwelling adults. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179.

Sirois, F. M., Melia-Gordon, M. L., & Pychyl, T. A. (2003). “I’ll look after my health, later”: aninvestigation of procrastination and health. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.003.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive behavioralcorrelates. Journal of Counseling Psychology. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.31.4.503.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence”, objectively determined and measured. The American Journalof Psychology. doi:10.2307/1412107.

Stead, R., Shanahan, M. J., & Neufeld, R. W. J. (2010). “I’ll go the therapy, eventually”: procrastination,stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.028.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.

Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: do they exist? Personality and IndividualDifferences, 48, 926–934. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025.

Tice, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress,and health: the costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x.

184 Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185

van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality andIndividual Differences. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6.

Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis. Personality andIndividual Differences. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00019-2.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal ofEducational Psychology. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179.

Curr Psychol (2013) 32:175–185 185