Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
87
Theorists and researchers suggested there was a link between procrastination and ego defensive behavior many years ago. Knaus (1973)
postulated that engaging in procrastination was the result of two major
irrational beliefs that the procrastinator embraces: (a) the procrastinator
is inadequate (dispositional); and, (b) the world is too difficult or
demanding (situational). Burka and Yuen (1982, 1983) suggested that,
for the procrastinator, performance equals ability which, in turn, equals
self-worth. Thus, failure at a task indicates corresponding lack of ability
and a low self-worth. Subsequently, the individual develops a fear of
failure because of the emphasis placed on success in defining self-worth.
By procrastinating, the equation becomes one of inequality. Since perAuthor Info: Cheryl Meyer, School of Professional Psychology, Wright State University,
Colonel Glenn Hwy., Dayton, OH 45407; (937) 775-3300; cheryl.meyer@wright.edu.
Authors Notes: The author wishes to thank Dr. Richard Sherman, Dr. Stephen Hinkle and
Dr. Gary Stasser for their assistance, direction and editorial comments regarding this
research. The author is greatly indebted to Debra A. Zendlovitz for her personal and
professional support of this research.
Ferrari, J.R. & Pychyl, T.A. (Eds.). Procrastination: Current Issues and New Directions.
[Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2000, Vol. 15, No. 5, 87102.
2000 Select Press, Corte Madera, CA, 415/209-9838.
88
Meyer
89
90
more passive and simply involve verbally claiming that performance has
been impeded by factors beyond the handicappers control.
It was suggested that men choose more behavioral self-handicaps
such as performance inhibiting drugs (Kolditz & Arkin, 1982) and
alcohol consumption (Tucker, Vuchinich & Sobell, 1981), while women
choose more self-reported handicaps such as test anxiety (Smith, Snyder
& Handelsman, 1982; Harris, Snyder, Higgins & Schrag, 1986), physical symptoms (Smith, Snyder & Perkins, 1983) and traumatic life events
(Degree & Snyder, 1985).
Bordini, Tucker, Vuchinich & Rudd (1986) provided some support
for the hypothesis that women tend not to engage in behavioral selfhandicaps. When investigating the use of alcohol consumption as a selfhandicap in women following noncontingent success they did not find a
significant increase in alcohol consumption. They concluded, that women
do not choose the behavioral self-handicaps experimenters have offered
because of the stigma attached with the choices which have been provided (i.e. alcohol or drugs). Stigma may be a plausible explanation
because women have been found to behaviorally self-handicap in subsequent experiments (Ferrari, 1991). In addition, recent research suggests
if both types of handicaps are available, both men and women use selfreported self-handicaps whereas only high self-handicapping men will
use behavioral self-handicaps (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1992).
In the present experiment, situation specific self-handicapping
through the use of procrastination was examined. Participants were
given a warm-up test to prepare them for a subsequent intelligence
test. They were given noncontingent success, contingent success or
noncontingent failure feedback. Participants were asked to schedule an
appointment to return to take the actual intelligence test and were
instructed it was either functional or not functional to delay returning. It
was expected that participants receiving noncontingent success feedback would disregard any functionality instructions and act to the contrary. Contingent success participants were expected to follow functionality instructions and maximize any potential advantage demonstrating
little or no handicapping. The impact of gender on these effects was
examined.
METHOD
Participants
There were 180 participants with an equal number of men and
women in each experimental condition. A total of 201 students participated in the study. Twenty-one sets of data were eliminated from
analysis either due to missing data or by random elimination to obtain
Meyer
91
92
naire was included to add interpretative information regarding participants behavior and to discern how participants were attributing their
performance on the warm-up test. If participants were attributing their
performance internally, it is more likely that they would utilize an egodefense such as self-handicapping than if participants were attributing
their performance externally. If participants were attributing their performance externally, then there would be no need for an ego defense
such as self-handicapping. The external attribution itself would serve as
an ego defense.
The items assessing performance were included to discern what type
of performance participants anticipated on the IPS and whether anticipated performance was related to amount of procrastination. The items
were derived from items utilized in attributional questionnaires in similar research. There were overlapping measures of externality which
would complement the measure of internality. In this way the questionnaire also served as a check to insure participants were responding
consistently.
Participants were also presented with a rolling calendar on which to
schedule the date and time (hour) for their next appointment to return to
take the IPS. Participants were informed that they were able to schedule
an appointment anytime from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and were to indicate their selection by initialing their time slot or
marking it with an X.
Manipulation checks on the delay instructions and the perceived
validity and nature of the IPS were also included. There were three
questions on the manipulation check which were short answer in form.
Finally, participants completed the Procrastination Assessment ScaleStudents (PASS). Scores on the PASS can range from 12 to 60. Higher
scores represent greater tendencies toward procrastination (Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984). The PASS is multiple choice in format and assesses
the students amount of procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination.
Procedure
Upon arrival, all participants received the same set of initial instructions which provided the rationale for the experiment and information
regarding the Intellectual Performance Scale. Participants were informed they were participating in the first of a two-session experiment in
which they would be working with the Intellectual Performance Scale or
the IPS, a measure of intelligence which had purportedly been found to
be correlated with other measures of intelligence. They were told the test
had been developed by a team of researchers at Harvard University to
represent a shortened form of an intelligence test and the purpose of the
Meyer
93
present study was to collect norms for the test for their university. They
were informed that their performance should be as true a reflection as
possible so in order to familiarize them with the test, a warm-up test
would be completed. The warm-up test was purportedly formatted like
the IPS, although shorter in length. Participants were told they would
complete the actual IPS in the next session and afterward would receive
extensive feedback regarding their intellectual performance and relative
standing among university students.
If participants did not know an answer they were encouraged to use
their best guess and not leave any blanks. Participants were then provided with one of two forms of the warm-up test (solvable vs. insolvable)
and randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: (a)
Noncontingent success, in which they received success feedback (16 out
of 20 correct) even though they had completed an insolvable form of the
test; (b) Noncontingent failure, in which they received failure feedback
(4 out of 20 correct) on an insolvable form of the test; or (c) Contingent
success, in which they received success feedback (16 out of 20 correct)
on a solvable form of the test. Participants within a condition all received
the same score regardless of their actual performance.
Following completion of the warm-up test, participants were
randomly assigned to one of three groups. In group one, participants
completed the attributional questionnaire while the experimenter scored
their tests. After receiving their feedback regarding their performance,
participants were then asked to schedule an appointment to return to take
the IPS. Depending on the condition, at this point participants were
either informed that procrastination was functional and would enhance
performance or were informed that procrastination was not functional
and would hurt performance.
The sequence of events for the second group was identical to the
first group except that these participants completed the attributional
questionnaire immediately after receiving their feedback regarding performance as opposed to before receiving their feedback regarding performance.
The third group also followed the same sequence of events as groups
one and two except that participants completed their attributional questionnaire after receiving feedback regarding their performance and after
scheduling their appointment to return to take the IPS.
No participants were allowed to review the test questions along with
their feedback for obvious reasons. All participants were instructed that
they needed to schedule an appointment to return to take the IPS. They
were told the test would take 45 minutes to complete and could be
administered any time Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. until
94
finals week. However, they were told that they could not take the test the
same day as the warm-up test. If participants had been informed that it
was functional to procrastinate the experimenter indicated that research
had found the greater the delay between taking the IPS and the warmup test, the better the score on the IPS. The purported rationale for this
effect was that students apparently found themselves in a mental set from
the warm-up which often impaired performance on the IPS if appointments were scheduled in close proximity. Conversely, participants who
were informed that it was not functional to procrastinate were provided
with a similar bogus set of instructions.
When all the scheduling data had been gathered, all participants
received the manipulation check, followed by the PASS. Participants
were debriefed, informed there was no second part to the study, provided
credit and thanked for their participation.
Design
Ten participants were included in each cell of a 2 (gender) 2
(functional vs. nonfunctional) 3 (timing of the attributional questionnaire) 3 (noncontingent success vs. noncontingent failure vs. contingent success) completely between participants design.
RESULTS
Manipulation Check
Information from the manipulation check indicated all participants
were aware that the IPS was a measure of intelligence and that the IPS
was reportedly correlated with other measures of intelligence. Additionally, every participant understood the functional/nonfunctional instructions for procrastination. Participants in the former condition indicated
that they were aware procrastination would help their performance while
participants in the latter condition indicated that they were aware that
procrastination would hurt their performance.
Amount of Procrastination
The main dependent measure in the study was the amount of
scheduled delay between completing the warm-up test and the scheduled appointment time to return to take the IPS. This was calculated by
the number of business days which elapsed between the two sessions.
The dependent measure was also calculated using actual number of days
and using hours but results were similar so are not reported here.
A main effect for functionality was found for amount of delay,
F(1,144) = 56.65, p < .0001. As predicted, participants who were
informed that it was functional to procrastinate waited a longer number
Meyer
TABLE 1
Group
95
Contingent
Success
Feedback
Noncontingent
Success
Noncontingent
Failure
Males
Functional
Nonfunctional
11.47
2.40
21.40
2.70
11.73
4.60
Females
Functional
Nonfunctional
10.87
7.73
9.07
2.80
21.60
3.80
96
20
MALES
N
15
Days
10
NC
F
CS
|
Functional
|
Not functional
20
Days
15
NC
F
FEMALES
CS
10
NC
|
Functional
FIGURE 1
|
Not functional
Meyer
97
98
Meyer
99
In fact, fear of success was found to be a gender related construct with the
correlation between fear of success and fear of failure higher for women
than for men (Mulig, 1985). If men and women were behaving this way,
it was indeed self-protective although not self-handicapping.
The amount of procrastination in the present study may have been
affected by the fact that participants did not delay in scheduling their
next appointment. In an investigation into the procrastination of everyday life, Milgram, Sroloff and Rosenbaum (1988) postulated that procrastination is a phenomena that has two faceswhen and how procrastination occurs. When refers to the time a task is actually performed,
while how refers to handling of task scheduling and adherence to said
schedule. Milgram, Sroloff and Rosenbaum suggested these aspects are
separate but correlated and that individuals who schedule promptly and
adhere to their schedule will perform tasks earlier than individuals who
delay in scheduling or postpone a scheduled task.
Given these findings, in future studies, instead of scheduling their
second appointment, a designated location with designated hours could
be set up for participants to report to when returning to complete the
second session of the experiment. This obviously would not be as
economical as the present design but would avoid two confounds. First,
an attenuated procrastination effect due to participants scheduling their
second session immediately after their first session (as evidenced by
Milgram, Sroloff & Rosenbaum, 1988) would be avoided. Second,
participants in the present experiment may have ultimately self-handicapped behaviorally by not returning for the second half of the experiment, but at this point it is impossible to discern whether participants
would have selected this option. If a designated location were utilized,
the experimenter could note the time and date the participant returned,
debrief the participant and administer experimental credit.
This proposed method would also clear up some ambiguity as to
whether procrastination in this study could be classified as a behavioral
self-handicap or an intention for behavior (Leary & Sheppard, 1986). It
could be argued that the present study did not investigate behavioral selfhandicaps at all but rather an intention for behavior since participants did
not, in fact, engage in procrastination but only reported their intentions to
procrastinate (because participants did not have to return for the second
part of the study). Clearly, in this new design, procrastination would now
constitute a behavioral self-handicap.
Another explanation for the present findings may be related to the
purpose of self-handicapping. Berglas and Jones (1978) suggested selfhandicapping is a self-attribution which serves to bolster the individuals
self-esteem. Consequently, an individual should be as likely to self-
100
Meyer
101
102