The Effects of an Academic Procrastination Treatment

on Student Procrastination and Subjective Well-Being

Kelly Binder

A thesis submitted to

the FacuIty of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Carleton University

Ottawa, Ontario

September 1,2000

O 2000, Kelly Binder

 National Library Bibliothèque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services seMces bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington
OttawaON KlAONQ Ottawa ON K IA ON4
Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïlm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be prïnted or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être i m p h é s
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
 Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine the effectiveness of a six-week

campus-based treatment program designed to help students overcome their academic

procrastination- Measures of procrastination and subjective well-being ( S m ) were used

to determine treatment efflcacy. Fifty Carleton University students participated in this

research that compared a self-selected treatment group (n=15) to a comparison group

receiving Personal Projects Analysis (PPA) but no treatment (0=17) and a comparison

group receiving neither PPA nor treatment (11'1 8). The results from the Procrastination

Assessment Scale-Students (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) and Acadernic

Procrastination State Inventoty (APSI; Schouwenburg; 1994) found that, at the end of

treatment, procrastination decreased significantly for the treatment group relative to the

comparison groups. Sirnilarly, within-subjects analysis revealed that appraisals for the

project dimension procrastination were significantiy lower for the treatment group. only.

Separate analysis of the PPA project factors (Little, 1983) found no significant

differences between groups. However, within-subjects analysis found that appraisais of

project structure (Le., project dimension control and tirne adequacy). project comrnunity

(Le., project dimension orher's view)and project eficacy (Le., project dimension

outcorne) increased ~ i ~ d f i c a n t lat

y ,the end of treatment, for the treatment group only.

Contrary to what was expected, thtre was no significant change in scores for the

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985) and both

positive and negative affect scales (Diener & Emmons, 1984) for any of the three groups.

The implications of these results are discussed dong with future directions for research in

the area of academic procrastination treatment.

 Acknowledgements

Fïnally, my thesis on procrastination! 1know 1am not unique when 1Say that 1

had to overcome many obstacles to get to this point. Doing the necessary work needed to

successfully compIete a thesis inevitably involves personal struggle and perseverance for

any graduate student. However, doing this monumental task w M e pregnant posed a

whole new set of challenges! Thankfûlly, I survived but were it not for the support of

many individuais, 1do not think 1would have made it to this point.

First and foremost, 1 wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Tim Pychyl, for his guidance,

support and insight. 1 still recall your cornments when 1 first came to see you regarding

my research ideas. You told me you needed another student Like you needed a hole in the

head. However, you did agree to accept me as a rnember of the Procrastination Research

Group and 1am tmly gratefbl for that. Well, after three long years, I just hope you did not

regret your decision! Although, 1am sure you are breathing a sigh of relief now that 1 am

finally finished. Thank you, Tim. for allowing me to pursue research of a clinical nature

despite al1 its added complexities.

1 would like to thank al1 my friends for their continuous support; particularly,

Sheri and Kathy for our 3-way daily emails - they helped to keep me sane! Thank God

there was someone else out there who knew what 1 was going through and aHowed me to

vent about it! Also, thank you to rny "across-the-miles" friends: Arsalan, Kylie and Dil.

I appreciated your frequent check-ins and our lengthy supportive chats.

1 also want to thank my family for al1 their love and support but especially to my

partner, Roger, who has stuck with me through it dl. Thank you for your understanding,
encouragement, patience, humour and iove. Words cannot express how much you mean

to me,

Finally, to rny unborn child, please forgive me for dl the stress 1 put both of us

under- It brought me great comfort knowing that you were always there with me during

these past eight months. 1 can hardly wait to hold you in my arms!
 Table of Contents

Paoe
__e

Introàuction ............................................................................................1

Definition of Procrastination .................................................................... -2

. *
Academic Procrastmation ........................................................................ -4
. .
Treatment for Procrastmation .................................................................... -8

Subjective Well-Being ............................................................................. 20

Rationale and Hypotheses for the Present Study.............................................. 23

Method ............................................................................................... 27

Participants and Recruitment ................................................................ - 2 7

Procedure ....................................................................................... -35

Acadernic Procrastination Workshop and Research Procedure ................................. 36

Results ................................................................................................ -4

Analysis Overview ............................................................................... 46

Procrastination Assessrnent Scale-Students (PASS) Scores ............................... -46

Acadernic Procrasthation State Inventory (APSI)......................................... ..49

Subjective Well-Being ( S m ) Measures ................................................... - 3 2

Personal Projects Analysis ....................................................................... ..55

Project Factors .................................................................................... 3 5

Within-subjects Analysis .................................................................... - 3 5

 Table of Contents (continued)

.
Page

Project Dimensions ................................................................................ -58

Discussion ..........................................................................................
..63

Satisfaction With Life and Affect Scales .....................................................66

Personal Projects as a Measure of SWB ..................................................... -71

Limitations of the Research and Future Directions .............................................. 83

Conclusions .......................................................................................... -90

Endnotes .............................................................................................. -92

References ........................................................................................... -93

Appendices

Appendix A l : hforrned Consent Form for Treatment Group .........................-103

Appendix A2:Informed Consent Form for Cornparison Group 1 (with PPA) ......-1OS

Appendix A3: Inforrned Consent Fonn for Cornparison Group 2 (without PPA)...107

Appendix B 1: Debriefing Sumrnary for Treatment Group .............................. 109

Appendix B2: Debriefing Sumrnary for Cornparison Group 1 (with PPA) ..........-111

Appendùr B3: Debriefing Summary for Cornparison Group 2 (without PPA) ......-113

Appendix C: Procrastination Assessment Scaie-Students (PASS).................... -115

Appendix D: Acadernic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI)....................... 124

Appendix E 1: Satisfaction with Life Scale ( S m )....................................-127

 Table of Contents (continued)

Page

Appendix E2: Positive and Negative Affect Scales..................................... -129

Appendix F 1: Personal Projects Analysis (PPA)........................................ ..131

Appendix F2: Modified Instructions for Persond Projects AnaIysis (PPA)..........137

Appendix G: Between-session Assigrment # 1.......................................... -139

Appendix H: Poster Announcement ......................................................-142

 List of Tables

-
Paoe

Table 1. Original Five Factors of PPA and Their Respective

Project Dimensions. ............................................................... 34

Table 2- Summarized Testing Schedule for Ail Groups

Across AU Time Intervals.. ...................................................... .35

Table 3. Age and Gender: Descriptives Across Groups.. ............................--45

Table 4. Mean PASS Scores Across Groups Over Time.. .............................-47

Table 5. APSI: Means and Standard Deviations for

Three Factors Across Time and Group. ...................................... ..S1

Table 6 . Mean SWLS Scores Across Groups Over Time. ............................ -53

Table 7. Mean Positive and Negative Affect Scores

Across Groups Over Time.. ..................................................... -54

Table 8. Sample of Student Acadernic Projects.. ....................................... .56

Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations Between Groups

Over T h e for Five Factors of PPA. ........................................ - 3 7

Table 10. Treatment Group: Paired-Samples 1test Results of

Pre- vs. Post- Test Ratings for al1 Significant PPA Factors.. .................59

Table I 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Project

Dimensions Across Groups and Time.. ....................................... -61

Table 12. Treatment Group: Paired-Samples test Results of

Pre- vs. Post- Test Ratings for al1 Significant PPA Dimensions.. ..........62

vii
 The Effects of an Academîc Procrastination Treatrnent

on Student Procrastination and Subjective WelI-Being

Procrastination may be defined as the postponement of task completion usudly

resulting in a state of unhappiness (Ferrari, Johnson, & McCown, 1995; Milgram, 1991)

or subjective discornfort (Burka & Yuen, 1983). Specifically, academic procrastination is

a pervasive and potentidly maladaptive behavior for many university and college students

often resulting in feelings of psychological distress (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

Schouwenburg (cited in Ferrari et al., 1995) described student procrastination as a result

of three behavioral manifestations: 1) lack of promptness, either in intention or in

behavior: 2) intention-behavior discrepancy; and 3) preference for cornpeting activities

(p-72)-

As many as 90% of students procrastinate and about 25% of this population report

their procrastination to be chronic (Knaus, 1998). Furthermore, the tendency to

needlessly delay tasks is a seIf-perceived behavioral problem (Solomon & Rothblum,

1984). This self-awareness has been demonstrated by McCown and Roberts (1993) who

found that a si,onificant number of students believed their procrastination interfered with

their academic performance and increased their feelings of stress. It is, therefore,

understandable that students may seek clinical treatment for their procrastination.

As of yet, no systematic characterization of treatment for procrastination has been

found in the literature- Perhaps even more surprisingiy, there is a paucity of outcome

research studying the effectiveness of procrastination intervention (Ferrari et al., 1995).

Thus, the purpose of this research was to examine the effects of treatment on academic
procrastination. Moreover, the psychological welI-being of students was exarnined over

the course of procrastination treatrnent.

The thesis begins with a discussion of the definition of procrastination. This is

followed by the specific definition of academic procrastination and the many

consequences related to it- The remaining sections explore procrastination treatment

approaches, outcome research, treament-related research issues, and a generd overview

of subjective well-being (SWB) in relation to task avoidance. This literature review

concludes with an overview of the guiding hypotheses for the research.

Definition of Procrastination

Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition of procrastination, the

construct does appear to be rnulti-dimensional in nature in that it includes behavioral,

affective and cognitive components (Ferrari et al., 1995; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

Both behavioral and affective components are reflected in Milgram's (199 1) definition of

procrastination: "1) a behavior sequence of postponement; 2) resulting in a substandard

behaviord product; 3) involving a task that is perceived by the procrastinator as being

important to perform; and 4) resulting in a state of emotional upset" (as cited in Ferrari et

al., 1995, p. 11). However, as Ferrari and his colleagues point out, procrastination does

not always result in substandard behaviors or poor results. Many individuds, in fact,

perform efficiently under time constraints. With respect to behavior, other researchers

have defined procrastination in terms of the degree of frequency or severity. In other

words, an individual may be considered a procrastinator if he or she has the chronic

tendency to habitually postpone the initiation or completion of a task (Burka & Yuen,
 1982; Ferrari, 1993; Lay 1986; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986). For example,

Rothblum, Solomon and Murakami (1986) have wntten that "self-reported

procrastination constitutes more than a reasonable length of time to complete a task, but

must include both fkequent delay and considerable anxiety7'(p. 387). This definition also

includes an affective component which will be discussed fùrther in the section regarding

the consequences of academic procrastination.

The cognitive component of procrastination involves the discrepancy between

intentions and actual behavior (e-g., Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Ferrari, 1994: Lay, 1986).

However, should the student who delays working on a particular assignment be

considered procrastinating if he or she is waiting for fùrther input from the professor, for

exarnple? In this case, Ferrari's distinction between dysfruzctiorzal versus f~irzctio~znl

procrastination rnay be relevant (Ferrari et al., 1995). Dysfunctional procrastination is

defined as "the time past the optimal beginning point for completion of an important task

that has a high probability of needing completion and that does not have unreasonable

demands of personal costs associated with attempted completion" (Ferrari et al., 1995. p.

12)- In contrast, functional procrastination is defined as "...similar behavior evoked for

actions that have a low probability of needing completion or have excessively high costs

associated with personal completion at their optimal time" (Ferrari et al., 1995, p. 12).

Thus, using the above example, the student who delays completing his or her assignment

may be exhibiting a form of functional procrastination, in that, if he or she were to go

ahead and complete the assignment it may result in high personal cost to the student if the

professor were to modi@ some aspect of the assignment ofter he or she completed it. In
other words, sometimes procrastinating may prove to be beneficid in particuiar situations

(Birner, 1993).

In s u , there does appear to be some consensus with respect to the theoreticai

definition of the construct of procrastination in that it contains some degree of behavioral,

cognitive, and affective components. However, controversy over a comprehensive

definition still exists. For instance, Silver (1974) argues that it is difficult to define

procrastination because what one individual may consider delaying a task may be what

another individual considers punctual. Furthemore, sorne theonsts believe that a person

is not considered to be a procrastinator if he or she is not "consciously aware" that he or

she is engaging in task delay behavior (Ferrari, 199la; Ferrari, 1992; Senécal, Koestner,

& Vallerand. 1995; Senécal, Koestner, & Vallerand, 1997; Silver & Sabini, 1981; Silver

& Sabini, 1982).

In addition to the various ways in which procrastination may be defined, the

literature also makes note of the various kinds of procrastination. These range from

situational to dispositional procrastination (e-g., F e M & Pychyl, 2000). The focus of

the present research examined academic procrastination exclusively, therefore, only this

type of procrastination is discussed in the following section.

Academic Procrastination

Definition. Academic procrastination is considered to be a form of situational

procrastination, which has been descnbed as behavior that is linked to a specific task

(Harris & Sutton, 1983). Burka and Yuen (1983) have said that it is common for college

students to delay academic tasks to the point of experiencing considerable anxiety. .

Rothblum, Solomon and Murakami (1986) provide support for this statement in their

research by defining academic procrastination as "a) to nearly always or always put off

academic tasks, and b) to nearly always or always experience problematic levels of

anxiety associated with this procrastination" (p. 387). In their reference to academic

procrastination, Lay, Knish and Zanatta (1992) expand upon this definition to include

specific behaviors that contribute to student procrastination. The authors state that

academic procrastination stems from, "a lack of practice or preparation, reduced effort,

and perhaps.. ,unfavorable perfomzance settings, but at least the selection of unfavorable

preparation settings. For example, students may choose to study in places that will

promote distraction and delay" (p. 243-244). This last statement is a reflection of self-

sabotage or self-handicapping (e-g. Ferrari, 199lb). In either case. it may be considered

self-defeating behavior (Boice, 1996; Ellis & Knaus, 1977).

For the purpose of this research. academic procrastination may be defined as any

academic task that is delayed or avoided as a result of the discrepancy between intention

and actual behavior to the extent that it produces negative affect in the procrastinator.

Conseciuences. From the literature, severd consequences of academic

procrastination have been noted. The first of these include objective outcornes such as,

lower grades (Burka & Yuen, 1983; Ferrari et A. 1995; Knaus, 1998; Tice & Baumeister,

1997), higher course withdrawals (Semb, GIick & Spencer, 1979; Rothblum, Solomon &

Murakami, 1986),poorer classroom attendance and student dropouts (Knaus, 1998).

However, it is important to point out that zcademic procrastination does not always result

in these consequences. For instance, Pychyl, Morin and Salmon (2000), found no

significant difference in GPA between procrastinators and non-procrastinators.

 Tice and Baumeister (1997) found poorer health to be another negative

consequence of academic procrastination. In their research, stress levels, number of

health care visits and physical symptoms in college students were gathered over the

course of the semester. Procrastinators reported lower stress and Iess illness compared to

non-procrastinators at the beginning of the semester, but they reported higher stress and

more illness by the end of the semester. Overall, procrastinators were il1 more ofien and

received lower grades on their assi,grnents. The authors concluded that procrastination

appears to be a self-defeating behavior pattern marked by short-term benefits and long-

term costs (Tice & Baumeister, 1997).

Secondly, the affective component of procrastination illustrates that there are

emotional consequences of task delay. When individuais are aware that they are

procrastinating, they may experience a number of intemal feelings including inadequacy,

self-deprecation. embarrasment, guilt, sense of fraudulence, tension, panic, and overall

anxiety (Burka & Yuen, 1983). In fact, according to Knaus (1998), "self-efficacy,

personal confidence and productivity are tightly linked" such that "a combination of low

self-efficacy and anxiety can jointly contribute to expectations of failure, which results in

a downward spiral of paraiyzing procrastination" (p. 43).

Furthemore, Knaus believes that much of the emotional consequences of task

delay stem from a large co,@tive component referred to as "self-downing" or a "pattern

of doubting one's abilities [that] can lead to second-guessing, hesitations, self-doubt.. .a

sense of worthlessness, procrastination, and more self-doubts" (p. 43). In h m ,this may

lead to feelings, such as, helplessness, depression, worry, hostility, fnistration, and

irritation. In the case of students, low fnistration tolerance is often the result of fading to
manage oneself in te= of academics especially when, "new responsibilities can also

evoke resistance in those used to a less responsible lifestyle" (Knaus, 1998, p. 13). This

lack of self-regdation may be considered an indirect consequence of task avoidance

when the mediating variable of stress is taken into account. That is to Say, the stress

resulting fiom task avoidance rnay simply be a catalyst in the breakdown of self-control.

Evidence to support the role of stress in the breakdown of self-control may be

found in the research of Muraven, Baumeister and Tice (1999) who state that self-

regulation "involves altering one's own responses (e-g.,cognitive processes, feelings. and

behaviors)" (p. 446). The authors compare self-replation to that of a muscle which

when strengthened through exercise increases its power and stamina. This analogy

between self-replation and physical strength is rdevant in terms of procrastination if one

considers that failure to self-regulate "occurred because people have limited resources for

self-regdation and these become depleted in a manner akin to a muscle's becorning

fatigued'' (Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice, 1999, p. 447). Further, Muraven & Baumeister

(in press) have found a pattern of fatigue and depletion in terrns of self-replation that

revealed: "a) coping with stress has after-effects that encompass a variety of self-

remlatory breakdowns.. .[and] b) coping with emotional distress shows sirnilar patterns"

(cited in Muraven et al., 1999, p. 447). Thus, in terms of procrastination, the

consequence of stress or emotional distress is an important one relative to self-replation.

Given that stress and emotiond Oistress have a significant negative impact upon self-

replation, there is potential f o r this relationship to interfere with an individual's ability to

overcorne her or his procrastination. When the associations between these relationships

are considered in reverse, it becomes plausible to assume that helping individu&

overcome their procrastination may positively impact upon their well-being. Therefore, a

crucial component of procrastination treatment would be to help procrastinators become

better self-regdators. This may be accomplished through various therapeutic approaches

that are discussed in the following section,

Treatment for Procrastination

This section has been divided into three main parts. The first of these descnbes

several treatment approaches for procrastination. This is followed by the results of

several outcome research studies- Finally, various treatment research issues are explored.

Treatment approaches. As academic procrastination is not merely a time

management issue (Ferrari et al.. 1995), clinical interventions have been designed and

implemented based Iargely on co,onitive-behavioral therapy (Boice, 1996; Burka & Yuen,

1983; Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Knaus. 1998). This therapy originated as a derivative of the

ABC mode1 of emotional distress (see Kuelwein & Rosen, 1993) which States:

...we experience an activating event (A) in a particular way because of Our beliefs
(B) about this event, which cause us to react behaviorally and emotionally with

certain consequences ( C ) . Therefore, it is largeiy Our beliefs (B) about events,

rather than the events themselves, that detennine Our ernotions and behaviors.

(P.2 )
Due to the fact that one is often unaware of one's own core beliefs, it is typically the

event itself that is often blamed for one's emotional distress instead. Therefore, the main

goal of cognitive-behavioral therapy is to increase the awareness of irrational beliefs so

that they may be challenged and modified to reflect more accurate, adaptive, and reality-
based thinking (e-g., Beck, 1976; Ellis, 1991). As a result, making overgeneralizations

and demands, catastrophizing or minimiung events, and having unredistic expectations

and low hstration tolerance may be addressed and improved upon.

Early on, Ellis (1962) noted the effectiveness of using a cognitive-behavioral

approach with clients in his own clinical practice. He observed that clients' progress

occurred when cognitive changes were made and then developed his own technique

called rational-ernotive therapy (RET) (see Ellis, 1980, 1985, 1991). According to

Kuelwein & Rosen (1993), cognitive therapy is collaborative and empincaily focused

because it allows for: 1) an agenda to be set between client and therapist each session, 2)

feedback to be given on behalf of the client to the therapist, 3) therapist and client to act

as a tearn to investigate the client's cognitions and test their accuracy and adaptiveness,

and 4) empirical evidence to be gathered by the client from outside of the sessions. The

psychological theory underlying the effectiveness of cognitive therapy in terms of the

third and fourth tenet, namely, testing one's beliefs, mây be explained as folIows:

Because the results are often at odds with those the client expected, a discrepancy

is produced within the client's own rnind, thus dnving home both the inaccuracy

and inadequacy of the client's theory. This result produces an uncornfortable

disequilibrîum and a nse of affect. The client is not oniy primed by discornfort or

curiosity for cognitive change but the increased affect also often serves to

punctuate and intensiw the new learning. (Kuelwein & Rosen, 1993, p. 10)

These four tenets have been incorporated into some of the programs designed to

treat procrastination. One example is the cognitive-behavioral treatment approach offered

by Johnson and McCown (see Ferrari et al., 1995, chap. 9) referred to as the "Doing It
Now" @IN) program. This therapeutic intervention involves 10 sû-uctured sessions
applying techniques such as self-monitoring and relaxation to overcome dysfunctional

cognitions and anxiety. According to these authors, there are two main characteristics of

procrastinators: 1) neurotic avoidarzce which is associated with overarousal, resulting in

anxiety; and 2 ) la& of conscientiousness which is associated with underarousai, resulting

in impukivity.

In their DIN program, Johnson and McCown include strategies to help both types

of procrastinators. For instance, anxiety-reducing techniques such as relaxation exercises

are implemented to help those students suffenng with overarousal. For the low-

conscientious procrastinator, the authors recornmend obtaining verbal commitrnents from

clients with respect to estimated time of task completion. However, the main strategy of

treatment for both cases is in using cognitive-behaviord therapy to challenge and

restructure c o w t i v e distortions. According to Ferrari et al. (1995) "cognitive challenges

or irrational feus are perhaps the most important aspect of treatment for the typically

anxious procrastinator" (p. 201)- During specific sessions of the DIN, atternpts to modify

existing dysfunctional beliefs of participants involved presenting them with various

vignettes depicting people who do not complete t s k s in an efficacious manner.

Participants were divided into groups and asked to identify potential cognitions that the

subjects of these vignettes may hold, and then speculate as to how these cognitions may

interfere with completing the tasks. Although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that this

process allowed participants to recognize the disadvantate of such irrational thinking

which. in mm, would initiate change in their own dysfunctional cognitions.

 Evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive restructuring has been found in other

types of interventions as well. For example, Jason and Burrows (1983) ùnplernented a 6-

week program designed to help high school students cope with the developmental

transitions often experienced after graduation. These d e s t o n e s included such events as

entering college, university or the workforce, engagement or break-up of a relationship, or

moving away from home. Similar to the DIN, this program incorporated anxiety-

reducing strategies dong with cognitive restructuring techniques. After participating in

the program, students were found to have better scores on measures of self-efficacy and

rational beliefs, compared to controls- When instmcted to role-play while presented with

scenes depicting potentially traumatic transition events, progam participants used

significantly more cognitive restructuring strategies than the control group.

Other sources of treatrnent for procrastination have been found in the self-help

literature. For example, Knaus (1998) has written books on the subject of procrastination

and suggests various cognitive-behaviord techniques to help his readers become more

productive and goal-oriented. The mantra of his Do It Now! method is "...doing

reasonable things, in a reasonable way, within a reasonable rime" (p. 14). What Knaus

considers "reasonable" is defined by common sense such that one's actions remain

rational and non-extreme, hence, providing one with a sense of balance and control over

one's life.

Based upon the ABC method of Ellis (1985, 1991), ffiaus recommends to his

readers and clients that they identify their own false beliefs that lead to self-defeating

feelings, then dispute these irrational ideas. To help, Knaus suggests to his readers to ask

themselves the following questions: How c m 1be absolutely sure 1 will fail at task A? If
I do not make an effort to attempt to do task A, what will the consequences be? How will

1feel about it? Knaus notes that another way to challenge one's îrrational thoughts may

be to think of what one would tell one's friend if he or she was in a similar situation. In

short, making conscious effort to be aware and then correct self-defeating thoughts is a

large component in overcoming procrastination. According to Knaus, this is particulady

true for people who engage in catastrophic or black-or-white thinking, for example, "If I

fail at task A, my life will be ruined." As Knaus explains further,

Some of us fall into the extremist thinking trap when we exaggerate the

consequences of situations and threaten ourselves by the images we create. To get

beyond self-induced catastrophic threats, redefine the threat experience and make

it manageable. For example, if you tell yourself, "1 would be destroyed if 1

failed," what does failure mean? What does destroy mean? Who would destroy

you? Would you make Iife miserable for yourself? How? For what purpose?

What alternative views are reasonable? (p. 181)

Other treatment approaches for overcoming procrastination have included a time

management component dong with seIf-replation and self-monitoring strategies. For

example, Boice (1 996) highlights ten fundamental principles of efficacy that have been

developed and tested against matched controls to help writers who chronically

procrastinate. They are as folIows: 1) wait, be calm, and develop patience instead of

rushing before writing; 2) begin before feeling ready instead of collecting, filing,

rearranging, and oudining ideas; 3) work in bnef, daily sessions; 4) stop and take breaks

when needed; 5) balance prelirninaries such as collecting, organizing, and outlining with

actuai writing; 6 ) habitually monitor for negative self-talk and practice redirecting self-
defeating thinking and habits; 7) manage emotions by working at a moderate Pace such

that writing is not rushed and superficial; 8) moderate attachments and reactions to

wrïting by remaining Iess attached to work emotionally; 9) let others, even crïûcs. do

some of the work; and 10) fimit wasted effort such as rushing work until fatigue sets in

(impatience) and overreacting to an interruption or criticism (intolerance). In terms of

Boice's research and treaunent suggestions, it is important to note that much of academic

procrastination invoIves writing tasks set in the academic environment, hence Boice's

fi-amework on "writing blocks" provide an effective aspect of treatment strategies for

academic procrastination more generally.

In addition to their cognitive-behaviord treatment approach, Burka and Yuen

(1983) have d s o enlisted several time management strategies for helping individuais

overcome their procrastination. The authors refer to these strategies as behavioral goals

that include: 1) making tasks that need to get done observable to others, and 2) rnaking

these actions specific, concrete, and broken down into smdl steps. The authors also

suggest procrastinators seiect a particular goal over the course of two weeks and monitor

when they make progress and when they procrastinate in addition to the thoughts and

feelings they experience. They encourage visualizing progress, optirnizing the chance of

success, sticking to a time iirnit, starting before feeling in the mood to start, avoiding

excuses, focusing on one step at a time, getting beyond the first obstacle, being flexible

about altering the goal if necessary, eliminating the need for perfection, and rewarding

progress made.

In sum, based upon past intervention approaches and techniques, it would seem as

though treating procrastination using a coapïtive-behavioral approach would require

 increasing the awareness of client's thoughts, feelings and behavior, then asking clients to

consistently challenge and dispute their own negative self-taik that has been derived from

their irrationd beliefs. Theoreticdy, the reshaping of these distorted cognitions serves to

regdate the negative thoughts and emotions that sustain procrastination behavior.

Overall, the treatments techniques reviewed have their roots fimily planted in

cognitive-behavioral theory. However, from a research standpoint, it remains Iargely

unknown whether these approaches are indeed effective at irnproving self-regulation in

procrastinators. Several outcorne studies examining treatment eEFicacy are presented in

the following section.

Outcome research- To date, there are only a handful of published studies on the

effectiveness of treatment progams for acadernic procrastination. Furtherrnore, Ferrari et

al. (1995) argue that barely meaningful clinical results (Le., according to Jacobson and

Truax (1991), less than -5 standard deviations) are yielded in much of the research that is

available. For instance, Ferrari and his co1leagues (cited in Ferrari et al., 1995) conducted

their own meta-analysis which was based on a compilation of fifteen outcome studies

involving 234 high-school and college students. The authors found the treatment effect

for procrastination interventions of to be -47 standard deviations relative to a control

group. By cornparison, Johnson and McCown (cited in Ferrari et d.,1995) found an

effect size of -70over a no treatment condition in their study of 67 students who

completed the "Do It Now" (Dm) stmctured program. Participants in the DIN program

also fared better than individuals who received ten sessions of brief psychodynarnic

psychotherapy @=15) yielding an effect size of -21 for the variable change in

procrastination scores (Ferrari et al., 1995).

 Research done by Schubert Walker (in press), examined the effectiveness of a six-

week counselling program designed to help students overcome their procrasthation.

Cornparisons were made between 12 students in a procrastination treatment group to 37

students in a study skills group and 19 students in a discussion group about the comrnon

transition issues of university students, The therapeutic mode1 for the procrastination

treatment group attempted to foster positive self-perceptions, elirninate negative affect,

and change behaviors- The techniques employed in the treatment included: 1) helping

each student identify her or his own pattern of procrastination and the fears associated

with it and; 2) helping students acquire and practice various cognitive. behavioral, and

motivational coping strategies that would enable them to develop a more constructive and

productive pattern of managing their academic lives. The results indicated that the

greatest decrease in procrastination, as rneasured by Lay's General Procrastination S c d e

(Lay, 1986),occurred in the procrastination treatrnent group relative to the two

cornparison groups. The success of this treatment may be explained through its objective;

namely, by irnproving one's own sense of personal power, one's self-worth and self-

conuol are improved theïeby helping to regulate the cycle of avoidance.

In sum, the available outcome research suggests that several procrastination

treatments have shown to be effective to some extent. However, there are a number of

important issues that need to be considered further in the approach to treatment-

Treatment research issues. Despite the previously mentioned outcome studies,

there remains a paucity of research studying the efficacy of existing treatments for

procrastination (Boice, 1996;Ferrari et al., 1995). However, actual reports of effect sizes

notwithstanding, the notion of whether a treatment is tmly "meaningfW or "clinically

significant" becomes an even greater issue. On the one hand, it rnay be argued that,

"when no convincing body of outcome data exists, psychotherapeutic interventions are

appropriate if they are guided by reasonable psychological theory" (Ferrari et al., 1995, p.

188). On the other hand, this position may be viewed as being a superficial and

inadequate explanation for such a complex issue. Given the lack of consensus regarding

standardization arnongst chicians, researchers, and consumers (Jacobson & Truax,

199l), it is not surprising that this issue remains unresolved. Possible explanations for

the lack of agreement on this issue may be due to the difficulty of finding a good

theoretical fit among a diverse range of disorders "from marital problems, antisocial

children, headaches, anxiety disorders, depressions, to chronic pain, and with therapies as

diverse as cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic" and that certain "criterion may be

considered too stringent by some (cg., researchers who work with schizophrenic adults or

autistic children)" (Jacobson & Revenstorf, 1988, p. 134).

Various suggestions of what defines a treatrnent to be clinically significant have

been put forth. According the Jacobson and Tmax (199 1):

Clinically si,~ficant change would be inferred in the event that a postueatment

score fails within (closer to the mean of) the functional population on the variable

of interest. When the score satisfies this criterion, it is statistically more likely to

be drawn from the functional than from the dysfunctional population. (p. 13)

Other standards of clinical significance include: a level of change that is recognizable

among peers and significant others (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978 as cited in Jacobson &

Truax, 1991; Kendall & Grove, 1988)-an improvement by the end of therapy such that a

"normative" level of functioning is observed (Kendall & Norton-Ford, 1982; Nietzel &
Tnill, 1988), or "changes that significantly reduce one's risk for various health problems"

(Jacobson & Truax, 1991, p. 12). Accordhg to past psychotherapeutic treatments of

anxiety or depression, "meaningfbl improvement" was defined by an effect size of

approximately -80 or greater (Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980).

However, not ail researchers have the opinion that conventional statistical analysis

is appropriate for determining the efficacy of treatrnent (Barlow, 1981;Garfield, 1981;

Jacobson. Follette, & Revenstorf, 1984; Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980). For example, the

use of the effect size statistic may not be the most appropriate indicator of meaningful

change, as Jacobson and Revenstorf (1988) explain:

..,the effect size statistic is a measure of the magnitude of the treatment effect,

which could be very large although trivial from a clinician's standpoint- Since the

magnitude of a treatment effect relative to a control group has nothing to do with

how favorably a g o u p compares after therapy to well functioning peers, effect

size is unrelated to Our concept of clinical significance. For example, if a

treatinent for obesity produces an average weight loss of eight pounds, whereas a

no treatment controI group averages no weight loss, assurning a normal, moderate

amount of variability, the effect sizes will be huge but the clinical significance of

the differences could be negligible (e.g., a group averaging 250 pounds at pretest

and 242 pounds at posttest). Whatever benefits of meta-analysis using the effect

size statistic, such analyses cannot be used to determine the efficacy of any type of

psychotherapy, if eficacy is defined as the ability of clients to function normally

(like their peers who do not seek therapy) when therapy is over. (p. 138)
 In short, the issues mentioned above that pertain to the "ciinical significance" of

treatment effects still remains open to debate and are important to consider when

examining outcome research, in general.

Another research issue, as it pertains to determining the effectiveness of treatment.

involves the expenmental design. In the case of field research or quasi-experiments

(Campbell, 1957)- various aspects of a typical research laboratory or "controlled setting"

(Cook & Campbell, 1979) may not be present. For example, random assignment is not

possible in most clinical studies, particularly academic counselling centers, because

researchers work with existing samples in treatment. In this instance, control groups are

characteristically referred to as "cornparison" groups because they are not the typical

controls of a pure experimental design (Cook & Campbell. 1979: Posavac & Carey.

1992).

However, even in the event that random assignment may occur, withholding

treatment from a no-treatment group, "...may seern ethically questionable if potentially

bendicial treatments are withheld from persons who might need or deserve them" (Cook

& Campbell, 1979, p. 347). Although,

The problem of withholding treatments is reduced, of course, when resources are

scare and it is simply not possible to provide everyone with the treatment. In this

case, the investigator knows that there wilI have to be no-treatment controls. But

he or she has no parantee that these controls will be equivalent to the treatment

group, since in many settings there will be pressure to distribute the treatment to

those who are thought to merit or need it most rather than to a randomly selected

group. (p.349-350)
 Another solution to address the ethical dilemma associated with withholding

treatment may include offering controls treatment at a later date if it is indeed successful

(Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Given that quasi-experimental designs are not without shortcornin,os, it is

beneficial to incorporate other design elements to improve upon the validity and

interpretability of the results in terms of treatment effrcacy. One suggestion, according to

Cook and Campbell (1979), is to include pre- versus post-testing as well as intermediary

testing. Posavac and Carey ( 1992) agree with these recornmendations and inciude other

suggestions as mentioned in the following paragaph:

The validity of outcome evaluations seekng to demonstrate causal relationships

c m be increased by: (1) observing the participants at additiond times before and

afier the program; (2) observing additional people who have not received the

program: and (3) using a variety of variables. some expected to be influenced by

the program and others not expected to be affected. (p. 159)

To date. the existing outcome research related to procrastination treatment (e-g.,

Ferrari et ai., 1995) has not addressed these issues. For example, many of the studies

(e-g., Schubert Walker) used only pre- and post-measures, not additional intermediary

testing. Similady, the outcome variables in the studies were often lirnited to pre- and

post-measures of procrastination, as opposed to including other related outcomes of

procrastination such as meaures of subjective well-being.

Subiective Well-Being;

It may be recalled that negative affect is a consequence of academic

procrastination (e-g., Burka & Yuen, 1983; Knaus, 1998). Therefore, in order to fully

determine the effectiveness of procrastination treatrnent, it is important to examine not

only the behavioral aspects of procrastination but changes in individual's subjective well-

being (SWB).

It is not uncornmon to hear humorous jokes and anecdotes about procrastination

such that it is not regarded seriously enough to be considered problematic (Ferrari et al.,

1995). However, the tmth of the matter is that task avoidance may produce a state of

emotional upset arnong many individuals (Milgram, 1991). The negative psychological

States arising from procrastination can be exarnined most generally in the context of

SWB.

Subjective well-being (SWB) is comprised of borh cognitive and affective

components. The cognitive aspect of SWB refers to one's perceived quality of life and

may be measured by using a life satisfaction scale (see Diener, Emmons, Larsen &

Griffin, 1985); while positive and negative affect scales have been used as outcome

measures for the affective aspects of SWB (Pavot & Diener, 1993a, 1993b). In some

cases, the affective component of SWB has been shown to be an important component in

relation to procrastination. For example, research done by Pychyl, Lee, Thibodeau, and

Blunt (2000) have found guilt (negative affect) and procrastination to be positively

correlated. Similady, Pychyl(1995) found that doctoral students' academic

procrastination produced negative affect including guilt, anxiety, and stress. In another

instance, Ferrari (1994) found that feelings of guilt were related to behavioral
procrastination. However, there is virtually no research measuring the level of SWB

before and afier procrastination treatment. Therefore, one goal of this research was to

examine the impact academic procrastination treatment had upon the SWB of students in

relation to their acadernic procrastination.

An dtemative to measures of life satisfaction and affect as an assessment of SWE3

is personal project analysis (PPA) (Little, 1983, 1989). PPA has been defined, in part, as,

"an integrated set of assessment components which allow the counsellor to snidy the

content, structure, dynamics, and impact of the everyday pursuits and goals of their

clients" (Little, 1986, p. 596). Little's PPA methodology provides a means of temporally

tracking the daily projects (in this case, academic on-going activities) of respondents

(procrastinators) and dlows each project to be rated alone a number of dimensions, some

of which have been correlated with well-being. In other words, PPA provides knowledge

of what a person is doing and how rheyfeel about what they are doing (e.g Little, 1983).

In general, individuds have reponed higher levels of well-being when their

personal projects were perceived as meaningfu1, structured, not overly suessful and

supported by others (Little, 1989). Pdys and Little (1983) found that projects deemed

enjoyable, somewhat difficult, considered important in the short-term, and socially

supported by others were associated with an increased sense of Iife satisfaction. Past

research has also indicated a relationship between projects that have been self-initiated

and Iife satisfaction in that individuals with higher life satisfaction are more likely to

engage in projects that are self-initiated compared to individuds with lower life

satisfaction (Yetim, 1993). There are d s o numerous other studies exarnining persona1

projects that found significant correlations between specific project dimensions and SWB
(see Pychyl& Little, 1998 for a review). For exarnple, research done by Brunstein (1993)

found project cornmitment (determination, urgency and willingness), project attainability

(opportunity, control and support) and project progress to be highly predictive of SWB

over time.

Although these past studies involving PPA did not examine S W B with respect to

procrastination explicitly, they are important because they provide a basis for cornparison

for outcome research exaMning the effects of treatment for procrastination in relation to

SWB, in general. In other words, past literature exarnining PPA and SWB may help to

determine the appropriate outcome variables needed to determine the effectiveness of

procrastination treatmen t.

However, there does appear to be some research examining the relationship

between SWB and procrastination. For exarnple, research done by Pychyl and Little

(1998) revealed a correlation between perceptions of life satisfaction and procrastination.

Personal projects research has also found a significant relationship between project

efficacy and SWB. For exarnple, project outcome - the extent to which individuals

perceive themselves to be efficacious in completing their projects - was found to be the

strongest predictor of life satisfaction (Little, 1989). Other researchers have found

effectiveness to be a predictor of SWB as well (Bandura, 1977; Emmons, 2986; Wilson,

1990). In a recent study done by McGregor and Little (1998), goal eficacy (i.e., how

Iikely one's projects are perceived to be successfùl) was significantly associated with

happiness (Le., operationalized by conventional SWB measures) and hedonistic

participants (Le., those with identities that revealed a propensity towards fun and

pleasure) were happiest if they were accomplishing their goals. Specifically, McGregor
and Littie found that the project dimensions difficulty, stress, challenge, time pressure,

and outcome to aIl have a loading greater than -50on the factor efficacy. These findings

are relevant in terms of procrastination if one considers that the PPA factor efficacy

relates directly to task completion. As Knaus (1998) notes, "...people who believe that

they are generally ineffectual, or ineffectual at a specific task, are more inclined to

procrastinate" (p. 43). Therefore, self-efficacy may be considered to be an important

indicator of the effectiveness of academic procrastination treatment,

As can be seen from the preceding cursory review of the research literature

relating PPA appraisal dimensions to SWB, project dimensions provide important

information about an individual's SWB, particularly in relation to procrastination

treatment effects. This is reflected in Little's (1998) belief that, "if.. .features of personal

project systems influence well-being, then dinical, counseling, and organizational efforts

to improve project systems should result in increases in well-being" (p. 204). For

example, to the extent that procrastination intervention techniques or treatment is

effective, it is conceivable that an individual's appraisal of project outcome would

increase over time. At the end of treatment, the individual would rate his or her project as

higher on the probability of a successful outcome, and, as we have seen, this is a strong

indication of an overall increase in the individual's SWB.

Rationale and Hypotheses for the Present Snidv

The main purpose of the present research was to determine whether an academic

procrastination treatment would reduce the procrastination behaviour of its participants.

It was hypothesized that students receiving Beatment for procrastination would show a

decrease in their procrastination post-test scores relative to their pre-test scores.

Although there is some research indicating that academic procrastination

treatment is effective, most of this research is limited by the research design, particularly

the Iack of measures of SWB. In this regard, the second purpose of this study was to

explore the effectiveness of an academic procrastination treatrnent approach in tems of

increasing self-reported levels of SWB as measured by traditional scales of life

satisfaction and affect as well as through PPA.

With respect to the traditionai measures of SWB, it was hypothesized that

participants receiving treatment would have increased scores with respect to life

satisfaction and positive affect, and decreased negative affect scores at the post-test

relative to the pre-test. No sie~ficantchanges in SWB scores were expected for the

cornparison groups.

With respect to PPA and S m ,project factors structrtre, eflcacy, memzing and

corn muni^ were anticipated to increase while stress was expected to decrease. The

rationale for each of these predictions is discussed below.

Given that much of the treatment literature involves specific techniques and time

management strâtegies (e-g., breaking tasks down into smailer steps) for overcorning

procrastination (e.g., Burka & Yuen, 1983; Boice, 1996; Knaus, 1998), it is conceivable

that participants may perceive their projects to have a certain amount of structure, such

that they are considered manageable (e-g., Little, 1998). To that end, it was hypothesized

that, over the course of treatment, project structure wouId increase significantly for the

treatrnent group relative to the no-treatment group.

 In light of the previously mentioned relationship between project efficacy and

S W B (e-g., Little, 1983; McGregor & Little, 1998), it is understandabIe that

procrastinators may perceive themselves as lacking in sufficient self-efficacy needed to

complete their academic projects successfully. However, by incorporating various self-

regulatory strategies into treatment (e-g., addressing the self-handicapping statements that

sustain irrational thoughts), it is anticipated that participants will become more self-

efficacious with respect to project completion. Thus, by the end of the treatrnent,

marnent participants' appraisais of project efficacy were expected to be higher than no-

treatment participants, relative to before treatment began.

Sirnilarly, to the extent that students are progressing on their projects (Le., nor

procrastinating) it is expected that they will find their projects more enjoyable and, hence.

more meaningful (e-g., Little, 1986, 1989; Palys Br Little, 1983). Therefore. project

meaning was hypothesized to increase as a result of treatment for academic

procrastination.

It was also hypothesized that an increase in students' appraisal of project

community would occur for the treatment group compared to the no-treatment group.

This is a logical assumption given the arnount of sharing and persond disclosure that

occurs within the setting of group treatment. That the therapeutic milieu is expected to

foster an increased sense of cornrnunity in its participants may be due, in part, to the fact

that as project goals are discussed, they become more visible tu others. As Little (1998)

States, "project cornmunity can be enhanced by helping individuals talk about the projects

that are deeply important to them with key individuds in their families or workplace so

that they are able to gain support for projects about which others may have been unaware"
(Little, 1998, p. 209). It may further be specuiated that in the context of treatment,

increased visibility of projects may, in turn,increase the social support needed to make

the treatment a success. Given that the academic environment is common to al1 students

may also be one reason as to why, "group therapy ...seems particularly helpful for coIIege

students and not particularly useful for nonstudents" (Ferrari et al, 1995, p. 190).

Finally, it is anticipated that by participating in the treatment sessions, project

stress will be sia&ficantiy reduced. This is expected to occur given the relationship

between stress and the procrastinator as Burka and Yuen (1983) write, "Contrary to the

myth that they are reiaxed, easygoing, and lazy, we have seen that most procrastinators

are in fact Iikely to be beset with fear, worry, and tension" (p. 175). Therefore, the

inclusion of relaxation or visualization exercises (e-g., Burka 8r Yuen, 1983: Knaus,

1998) dong with the other previously mentioned procrastination treatment strategies rnay

help students to feel that they can effectively manage their workloads and feel less

anxious while working on academic tasks.

 Method

Particiwants and Recruitment

In total, 50 Carleton University students participated in this research. Fifteen of

these participants belonged to the treatment (or workshop) group. The remaining 32

participants belonged to one of hvo c o m p ~ s o n

groupsl. Students in the treatrnent group

were self-identified procrastinators who sought out counselling in response to a campus

poster announcement on a first-corne-first-served basis (see Appendix H). The remaining

students were randomly selected from the Procrastination Research Group mass testing

pool based upon scoring in the top 30% on the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API)

(1983) measure. In other words. these students were considered to be high

procrastinators relative to the rest of the students who completed the mass testing

questionnaire. These students in the top 3 0 ' ~percentile were then contacted by telephone

and, upon volunteering to participate in this study, were randornly assigned to one of two

comparison groups. The first cornparison group @=17) received Personal Projtcts

Andysis (PPA) while the second comparison group (g=18) did not receive PPA or any

f o m of treatrnent. The remaining psychological measures, as described below, were

completed by al1 participants (see Table 2). Grade-raising, introductory psychology

experiment course credits were awarded to any student who was eligible.
 Materials and Procedure

Materials

Ail participants completed a battery of measures across four tirne periods. The

measures used in this study included: the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students

(PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), the Academic Procrastination State Inventory

(APSI; Schouwenburg, 1994), two measures of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) [The

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) and positive and negative affect

scaies @iener & Emrnons, l984)], and a modified version of Personal Projects Andysis

(PPA; Little, 1983). These measures are described in detail below and are provided in

Appendices C, D. E l , E2, F1 and F2, respectively.

Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS ). The PASS is a reliable and

vdid (Solomon & Rothblum. 1984, 1988), two-pan, 44-item scde developed to measure

cognitive and behaviorai aspects of student academic procrastinction (see Appendix C ) .

The fxst haif of the test lists six academic pursuits including writing a term pzper,

studyinj for an exam, keeping up with weekiy reading assignments, performing

administrative tasks, attending meetings and perfomiing other general acadernic tasks.

Each of the six tasks are rated on the frequency of, reasons for and desire to stop

procrastinating using three 5-point Likert scales (ranging from "a" = never procrastinate,

nor a t al1 a problem, and do not want tu decrease, respectively, to 'e" = ahvays

procrastinate, always a problenz, and defnitely want to decrease, respectively). A total

score is obtained by first assigning a numerical value to the 5-point Likert scale (Le., a=l,
b=2, c=3, etc.) and then summing the fnst two questions of each of the six procrastination

areas. The higher the score the greater the degree of self-reported procrastination.

The second half of the test presents a hypothetical procrastination situation

involving the recollection of a term paper that has been delayed by the respondent.

Twenty-six potential reasons for procrastinating on this task are provided (e-g., "Really

disliked writinp term papers.") and students are asked to rate each reason on a 5-point

Likert scale ranging frorn not at all reflects why I procrastilzated to definitely reflects why

Iprocrastinated. For al1 of these items, two statements are used to describe each of the

thirteen reasons provided. They include: 1) evaluation anxiety, 2) perfectionism, 3)

difficulty making decisions, 4) dependency and help-seeking, 5) aversiveness of the task

and low frustration tolerance, 6) lack of self-confidence, 7) laziness, 8) lack of assertion,

9) fear of success, 10) tendency to feel overwhelmed and poorly manage tirne, 1 1)

rebellion against control, 12) risk-taking, and 13) peer influence. From these individual

items, Solomon and Rothblum (1984) have created seven factors with factor loadings

ranging from 0.56 to 0.98. They include fear of failure, aversiveness of task, difficulty

making decisions, dependency, lack of assertion, risk-taking, rebellion against control.

According to Solomon and Rothblum ( 1994), test-retest reliability for the PAS S

was found to have a correlation of -80overall. Specifically, one month test-retest

correlations for the prevalence of procrastination was -74 and -56 for the reasons for

procrastinating. In addition, tests for reliability using split-half (odd versus even)

cornparisons found the prevalence of procrastination coefficient to be 2 6 and -8 1 for the

reasons for procrastinating (Ferrari et al., 1995). The former reliability coefficient may

be considered low and is due perhaps to the fact that it included six different target areas
(Fermi et al., 1995). However, the procrastination coefficient for "writing a t e m pape?

was moderately high (-81) (Ferrarî et al., 1995). Cronbach alphas for the present research

were -79 for the prevalence of procrastination and -83 for the reasons for procrastinating.

This measure was useful in two ways. First, it provided a general level of overdl

student academic procrastination. Second, it provided various reasons as to why these

students procrastinated (e-g., "You were womed you would get a bad grade."),

Furthermore, the latter hdf of the PASS may be of particular importance in tenns of

treatment because it "is useful in both identiming potential focal areas for intervention,

and in tracking changes in procrastination over time" (Solomon & Rothblum, 1994, p.

446).

Academïc Procrastination State Inventorv CAPSI). The APSI is a 33-item scale,

developed by Henri Schouwenburg (1992), designed to measure fluctuations in academic

procrastination behavior and thoughts (see Appendix D). It contains three valid and

reliable subscales (academic procrastïnation, fear of failure, and lack of motivafion) with

coefficient alphas of -90, -85,and .79, respectively (Ferrari et al., 1995). Cronbach alphas

for the present research were -77, -78, and .78, respectively. Respondents are asked to

rate the frequency of engaging in the items during the last week dong a 5-point scale. It

should be noted, however, that the APSI was originally written in Dutch and when it was

translated to English the rating scde was not consistent with other scales (Le., 1 = not, 2 =

incidentally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rnost of the tirne, and 5 = always.) Hence, to maintain

con,gruity and cIarity, the wording of the rating scale was slightly modified to include 1 =

no? at d l , 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = open, and 5 = al1 the rime. Two exarnples of
items include "Gave up studying because you did not feel well." and Lbhterrupted

studying for a while in order to do other things." Ferrari referred to the APSI as a "newer

and promising measure" that was appropnate for this research (personal communication,

October 17, 1997). A total score was obtained by summing aii items for each subscale,

separately. Only the frrst factor (Le., the procrastination subscale) had an item that

needed a reverse score. The item in question was "Studied the subject matter that you

had planned to do." Finally, it should be noted that the order of the items were

randomized in the present study such that the specific subscales were not discemible to

the individual who cornpleted it.

Measures of Subiective Well-Being (SWB). Two measures were used to assess

both cognitive and affective aspects of subjective well-being (SWB). The first measure

(see Appendix El), the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS: Dieneret al., 1985),

was used to assess the cognitive aspects of SWB. Ratings were made d o n g a 7-point

Liken scale ranging from 1 (srrongly agree) to 7 (srrongly disagree). Scores were

obtained by summing d l five items (e-g.. "1 am satisfied with my life."). Diener et al.

(1985) report their two-month test-retest correlation coefficient to be -82 with a

coefficient alpha of -87. The Cronbach alpha for the present research was found to be -88.

The SWLS is a robust measure onginally designed to tap the global judgment of quality

of life and has been suggested to be useful for clinical application (Diener, et al.. 1985).

Specifically, Pavot and Diener (1993b) state "the SWLS has shown sufficient sensitivity

to be potentially valuable to detect change in life satisfaction during the course of clinical
interventions" (p. 164). Hence, this scale was chosen as an appropriate outcome rneasure

for this research,

The second measure (see Appendix EZ),a 9-item positive and negative affect

scale @iener & Emmons, 1984) was used to assess the affective aspects of SWB. Both

scales have demonstrated temporal reliabiiity and intemal consistency with coefficients

approaching -90(Diener & Emmons, 1984). Alpha coefficients for both positive and

negative affect scdes have been found to be high at -89 and -84,
respectively (Emmons,

1991). The present research found the Cronbach alphas to be -88 and -72 for both

positive and negative affect scales, respectively. The positive items consisted of four

adjectives (Le., happy, joyful, pleased and enjoyment/fun) while the negative items

consisted of five adjectives (i.e., depressed, unhappy, frustrated. angry/hostile and

womed/anxious). Scores were obtained by sumrning across respective items. It should

be noted that the additional item of guilr was included in the negative affect scale. Past

research (e.g.. Pychyl et al., 2000) has indicated that guilt is a sipificant positive

correlate of procrastination; therefore, it was included in the scde because it was

considered that changes in an individual's guilt rnight be an important index for clinical

intervention. Moreover, this measure was included to provide an overall indicator of

SWB and. as such, was used as an OuiCome variable to reflect changes in smdent life

satisfaction and affect over time.

Modified Personal Proiects Anaivsis (PPA). As previously discussed, personal

projects analysis may be used as an assessment device to study various aspects of an

individual's everyday pursuits and goals and as an indirect measure of SWB (cg., Little,
 1983,1986). With PPA,typicaIly respondents are asked to write down as many

personally salient projects as they can think of in ten minutes in what is cailed the

eliciration list or "project d m p - Participants then choose ten projects from this list,
"

write them down in the PPA matrix and appraise each project dong a number of

dimensions (see Appendix FI). The PPA instnictions were modified to obtain academic

projects only. In other words, participants were asked to list only their academic projects.

The projects are appraised on an 11-point scale from zero to ten where a zero indicates a

low rating and a ten indicates a high rating on a particular project dimension.

In this study, projects were rated across 16 PPA dimensions including:

importance, enjoyment. difficulty, visibility, control. initiation, stress. time adequacy,

outcome, self-identity, other's view, positive impact, negative impact, progress, challenge

and absorption. Additional relevant dimensions were also included in the PPA rnatrïx

including procrasrinarion and guilr. This was based upon previous research that found a

significânt correlation between procrastination and the standard project dimensions (Blunt

& Pychyl, 2000; Pychyl, 1995) as well as guilt (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Pychyl. 1995:

Pychyl & Little, 1998).

Project dimension scores were calculated by summing across d l project ratings.

The mean score for each of Little's five project factors was then obtained by collapsing

across the corresponding project dimensions (see Table 1). These five factors included

, stress. These factors sewed as important

meaning, structure, cornrnuni~.,e f i c ~ c yand

outcome variables by revealing an individual's overall project system. A complete list of

the project appraisal dimensions grouped by project factor are presented in Table 1.
 In sum, two measures of procrastination and three measures of subjective weii-

being were used in this study. The former included both the degree to which students

procrastinated, as well as their reasons for delaying academic tasks. The Iatter contained

both cognitive and affective aspects of SWB includinp the Ievei of students' life

satisfaction (cognitive), their general positive and negative feelings (affective) and their

appraisals of the academic projects that they were working on (cognitive and affective).

Taken together, these variables were used to detelnine the extent to which treatment

helped to decrease procrastination and improve the everyday Iives of students.

Table 1.

Original Five Factors of PPA and Their Respective Proiect Dimensions

Factor Proiect Dimension

MEANING Importance, Enjoyment, Self-Identity, Absorption

STRUCTURE Control, Initiation, Time Adequacy

CO- Visibility, Other's View

EFF'ICACY Outcome, Progress

STRESS Difficulty, Stress, Challenge

Procedure

All participants were asked to read and sign an infonned consent form before

cornpleting the questionnaire package (Appendices A l , A2 and A3). The actual

questionnaires received during any given period depended upon the group and time

interval. A summarized testing schedule indicating what measures were given, when they

were received, and by whom is presented in Table 2.

Students in both comparison groups were scheduled, according to individual

availability, to meet on campus to complete the questionnaires. As such, the testing for

rnost of the students belonging to the comparison groups did not coincide with the exact

day of testing for the treatment group. However, d l the testing for these students

occurred within the same week as the treatment group. An informa1 debriefing was

provided for al1 participants at the end of Time 4 data collection (Appendices B 1, B2, and

B3).

Tabie 2.

Surnrnarized Testino Schedule for Al1 Groups Across Al1 Time Intervals

Thne 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Group (Pre-session) (Session 3) (Session 6 ) (Foliow up)

Treatrnent d l measures PPA only dl measures al1 measures

Cornparison al1 measures PPA only al1 measures d l measures

Group 1

Cornparison al1 measures none al1 measures d l measures

Group 2 (except PPA) (except PPA) (except PPA)

Note. The order of al1 measures was randornized within each session.
 Academic Procrastination Workshop and Research Procedure

The following section provides the content and format f o r both the workshop and

research procedure. The research component descnbes the procedure involving both the

treatment group and cornparison groups, 1t should be noted t h a t rnuch of the content

overlapped between workshop sessions. This was unavoidable and, in fact, necessary

considering the very nature of group therapy. When ideas and concepts are shared, it is

not uncornmon to revisit previously discussed topics. Some m a y argue that this is

inevitable with respect to cognitive-behavioral approaches givern that the aim is to modi@

pre-existing beliefs that are often resistant to change (Kuehlweul& Rosen, 1993).

The treatment group participated in six, two-hour, workshop sessions (one pre-

session and five treatment sessions) that took place once a week at Carleton University.

The sessions and data cotlection were conducted in the winter term of 1998. Former

university counsellor, Margarer Delicate, facilitated the workshop. The experimenter co-

facilitated the group under Ms. Delicate's supervision.

The day before each session, the experimenter called t h e students to remind them

about the workshop. For those students who missed sessions, a telephone check-up was

made to inquire about their reasons for not attending.

Pre-session

Treatment cornPonent A bnef overview of the workshap objectives was outlined

-
and issues of confidentiality and comrnitrnent to the workshop were discussed with the

participants.
 The cognitive-behavioral approach of this workshop was based upon a previous

treatment program oflered at Carleton University with the purpose of providing increased

insight, skills and strategies to help students overcome their academic procrastination. As

Delicate (1998) outlined in her presentation for the Canadian Association of College and

University Student Services (CACUSS, June 1998), her goals in working with

procrastination were to: 1) change the thinking patterns that sustain procrastination; 2)

reduce the often paralyzing feelings of guiIt and anxiety; and 3) help students manage

their workload by breaking down large tasks into smaller ones and, thus, prevent feelings

of being overwhelmed. These aspects of the treatment were sirnilar to various other

cognitive-behavioral approaches (cg., Johnson & McCown7s"Doing It Now" (Dm)

program, see Ferrari et al., 1995) as well as treatment strategies and techniques mentioned

previousIy (e-g., Burka & Yuen, 1983; Knaus, 1998).

Research component. This was the first testing interval (T 1) (see Table 2 ) . Every

participant was required to complete a consent form (Appendices A 1, A2, and A3). For

those students attending the workshop, a description about the research study was

provided, followed by a questionnaire package that was to be completed before

participants left the group. The package contained al1 five rneasures as described in the

previous section. The students in the first comparison group received the same package

of questionnaires while the students in the second comparison group received al1

measures e x c e p for the PPA.

Session 1

Treatment comDonent. The purpose and goals of the workshop were explained

dong with participant introductions to the group. Definitions of procrastination were

explored together with the pros and cons of task delay. Participants were asked to share

personal thoughts and feelings pertaining to their own experiences of acadernic

procrastination. The issue of taking responsibility for one's own behavior was addressed.

From this, discussions surrounding students' thoughts and feelings about academia

ensued. Aspects of procrastination such as task avoidance, fear of faiIure (e-g.,

Rothblum, 1990) and irrational thoughts were discussed in an attempt to dispel any

cognitive myths (e-,o., "1 should be productive d l the time"), as well as challenge existing

maladaptive thoughts that sustain procrastination (e-g., "If 1start earlier, then 1 will have

less or no time to do enjoyable things."). Students were asked to write down their

feelings about procrastination and replace their pre-existing, unfavorable thoughts with

more helpful ones using exercise sheets that were handed-out (Appendix G). On the first

sheet, students were asked to document their thoughts and behaviors and rate their

feelings (on a ten-point scale) associated with academic procrastination before. during

and after a chosen task or activity. However, the results of these exercises were not a part

of this study. The second sheet was the sarne as the f-rstexcept, in this instance, students

were asked to replace their previous thoughts with more helpful ones that they generated

on their own based upon some tips given in the session (see Appendix G). Next, they

were asked to rate their feelings and behaviors associated with these new thoughts

relative to the chosen task or activity. At the end of the session, the implications of

anxiety upon procrastination were raised, and participants were taught relaxation
exercises (involving visualization) to help rninimize this anxiety. Assignments for the

following session were to practice the relaxation technique and to continue to use the

exercise sheets. It should be noted that thoughu, feelings, and behaviors pertaining to

procrastination were revisited throughout the workshop.

Research component. None, no data collection.

Session 2

Treatment component. This session began with a discussion of the previous

session's assignment. A n overview of the cognitive beliefs which sustain procrastination

were discussed further (e-g., perfectionisrn: "1 should be perfect, if not 1 am worthless.").

Issues around getting started were brought up. Reinforcing the content from the previous

session, students were asked to brainstorm on how to change their "cognitive script" (Le.,

new statements to replace the old less helpfùl statements). Subsequently, students broke

off into dyads to help each other find solutions to their individual problems and suggest

alternatives to their irrationd thinking (e-g. irrational thought: "If 1 like [a particular

subject] I should be good at it and it should corne easy to me."). Another exercise sheet

adapted from psychologist Neil Fiore (as cited in Burka & Yuen, 1983) was handed-out

called "the un-schedule." Here, students were supplied with a blank timetable for the

week (weekends inciuded) that divided each day into 30 minute intervals. Students were

asked to fil1 in all timeslots that pertained to routine activities, such as getting ready in the

morning, transportation to and frorn university, scheduled classes, etc. This included

predictable activities as well, for exarnple, appointrnents, meetings, etc. If it was

uncertain when exactly a particular activity would be done (e-g., grocery shopping),
students were asked to estimate the time and day they might do it. Findly, they were

instructed to not record doing any acadernic work until afier they had done some. At this

point, they were asked to take the un-schedule home and, over the course of the week,

indicate the actual time spent on any coursework by writing it in the schedule. The

purpose of the un-schedule was to provide students with a more realistic view of what

their individual schedules were like. This exercise allowed students to make several

observations inchding when they were studying, how long they were studying and where

else in their schedules they c o d d make tirne to study. This helped students: 1) Iook ahead

to see how much of their time was dready cornmitted and, hence, see the maximum

amount of time left to cornplete tasks: and 2 ) look back to see where their time had gone.

Research component. This was the second testing interval (T2). Participants who

previousIy completed the PPA (the treatment group and first cornparison group) were

asked to complete the PPA again (see Appendix F2 for rnodified instructions). Projects

were rated dong al1 project dimensions as previously done in the pre-session. No

research testing was required for the second cornparison group.

Session 3

Treatment component. In this session, the topic of project management was

introduced in conjunction with feedback from using the un-schedule given in the previous

session. Goal-setting was mentioned in the context of breaking down projects into

manageable parts. Each student was asked to choose one project to work on and to team

up with a partner to plan how she or he were to go about working on it. Al1 participants

were instructed to take turns listening to and strategizing with her or his paxtner about a
specific academic task. In addition, students were encouraged to consider possible self-

sabotage statements or circurnstances that may be preventing them from reaching their

goal. A discussion concemïng choice brought up issues regarding control (or fear of

losing it), self-actualization, societd expectations and resentment from the group. The

counsellor then addressed the issue of low fnistration tolerance, and she also elaborated

M e r upon concepts such as fear of success as welI as failure (e-g., Rothblum, 1990),

the distinction between the two and comfort zone issues (Le., using procrastination to be

connected to others). Further, thought-keeping was mentioned in light of easing the

sometimes paralyzing guilt students may be feeling. For example, students were

encouraged to avoid using words like "should" or "must" with themselves when uying to

overcome procrastination. Another dyad exercise gave students the chance to correct this

"lecturing or parental style" that rnany participants had embedded as part of their

cognitive script. Students were encouraged to monitor and modify their cognitive scripts

and irrational negative self-talk over the course of the week as well as continue to work

on the task they chose to focus on with their partner at the beginning of the session.

Research component. None, no data collection.

Session 4

Treatment component At the beginning of this session, as with previous sessions,

students were asked for feedback as to how they were feeling, what they were doing, what

obstacles or self-sabotaging (if any) had occurred in the past week. Negative self-

appraisals (e-g., "l'm too stupid to finish this."), as well as problem-orïented solutions

were addressed as needed. The group, as a whoie, offered solutions for specific students
in need of help. The issue of project management was revisited. To assist students in

their progress, the counsellor presented an outiine of seven guidelines towards meeting

goals. These objectives were as follows: 1) make your task specific and concrete; 2 )

break your task into small steps; 3) start up ;4) visualize your progress; 5) optimize your

chances of completing your task; 6 ) stick to a time lirnit; and 7) do not wait unid you feel

Idce it. The notion of cornrnitrnent was introduced dong with the costs and benefits of

procrastinating. For example, it was pointed out that some students may be feeling

"stuck" because they perceived becoming more productive a threat (e-g., "No longer

procrastinating might mean that people will expect me to continue to do well.").

Research component. None, no data collection.

Session 5

Treatment component. Dunng this session, overall feedback about the workshop

was discussed within the group and, with the permission of al1 participants, was audio-

recorded by the experimenter. Students were asked whether they felt that they had

benefited frorn the treatrnent and in what way. They were also asked to comment on what

they disliked about the workshop and made suggestions on how to improve it. Specific

feedback comments are provided in the Discussion section. It is important to note that

these tape-recordings were used to help understand the numerical data and were not

systematically quantified or analyzed in any other marner as the focus was on the

outcome measures of procrastination and SWB.

 Research component. This was the third testing interval (Time 3). The complete

questionnaire package was given to dl three groups. However, only the groups that

previously completed the PPA were asked to complete it again.

Follow up session

Treatment component. None.

Research component. This was the fourth testing interval (Time 4). A follow-up

appointment was scheduled in mid-April (approxirnately 2 weeks after treatment ended).

Al1 participants were asked to complete the questionnaire package. The PPA was

completed by the treatment g o u p and the first cornparison group in the sarne manner as

in Session 5 . Similarly, feedback was audio-recorded for those participants who did not

attend Session 5. A debriefing summary was provided to each participant upon

completion of the questionnaire package (see Appendices B 1, B2, B3).

 Results

Of the total sample of 50 students, 62% (n=3 1) were enrolled in the Facuity of

Arts and Social Sciences (FASS), 14%@=7) in Science, 10%(11=5)in Public Affairs and

Management, 8% @=4) in Engineering, and 6% (n=3) in Law. The majority of these

students &42) were registered in full-time studies.

With respect to the treatrnent group, three students did not complete the workshop

and, as such, did not complete the questionnaire throughout d l of the testing sessions.

Therefore, any data pertaining to these participants were eliminated from the anaiysis.

This reduced the original nurnber of participants in the treatment group frorn 18 to 15,

From this remaining group, the majority of students (n=13) attended at least 4 out of 6

workshop sessions whiIe the rest of the participants b=2) attended half of the workshop

sessions- The most cornmon reason given by students for missing a workshop session

penained to other academic commitments (e-g., had to write an assignment).

In response to the PASS question, "To what extent do you want to decrease your

tendency to procrastinate on this task?" the mean pre-test scores for each of the three

groups, across al1 six academic domains, were 4.17 (SD = .57), 3.87 (So = -68) and 4.07

(SD = S 3 ) , respectively. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference between

groups at the pre-test for this item suggesting that al1 three groups appeared to be

equivalent in their desire to decrease their procrastination across d l six acadernic domains

on the PASS.

Similady, al1 three groups were equivalent in terms of age (see Table 3). With

respect to gender, however, fernales were overrepresented in the treatrnent group. This

gender imbalance was unavoidable, as this g o u p volunteered on a first-corne, first-

enrolled basis. Tbis gender bias is not a surprise according to Rothblum (as cited in

Boice, 1996, p. 30) who found procrastination to be "more common among women-"

Furthermore, research done by Jourard (197 1) has found that females are often socialized

to self-disclose more than mâles. Zn addition, females often connect with others when

they are in need of support. For example, a study examining socid support during a

transition into a new school found that, "Girls rnay be more Iikely than boys to seek out

other sources of support when their peers do not provide it" (Dunn, Putdlaz, Sheppard, &

Lindstrom. 1987, cited in Steinberg, 1993, p. 33 1). This is particularly relevant

considering that many students in the treatment group were in their first year of

university. Hence, these reasons rnay have motivated more femde than male students to

participate in the workshop given its support-goup format.

Table 3.

Aee and Gender: Descriptives Across Groups

Descriptive Treatment gr ou^ Cornparison gr ou^ I Com~arisongr ou^ 2

Age

M
-

-
SD

Gender

Fernale

Male

Note. Comparison Group 1 received PPA. Comparison Group 2 did not receive PPA.
AnaIysis Overview

All statisticd andyses were performed using SPSS 7.5. Due to the small

sample size for each of the three groups, it was decided that Tl outcome variable scores

would be used as a covariate in order to adjust for any pre-existing differences between

groups and, hence, maintain a sufficient arnount of power needed to detect any significant

changes (Keppel, 1991)- Separate ANCOVAs were used to analyze each of the

dependent variables. Follow-up pianned comparisons were performed for pre- and post-

scores for both between-groups and within-subjects analysis. No farnily-wise error

correction was made due to the fact that these were planned comparisons (Le., a priori)

and, as such, could be justified theoretically.

Procrastination Assessrnent Scale-Students (PASSI Scores

The results of the PASS are divided into two sections. The first sectiori presents

the results pertaining to the overall ievei of self-reported academic procrastination. The

second section presents the results pertaining to the reasons for procrastinating across

several factors previously defined by Solomon and Rothblum (1984).Both sections

include the results for between-groups and within-groups analyses separately.

In order to investigate whether a significant decrease in the prevalence of

procrastination would occur over time for the treatrnent group relative to the cornparison

groups, the first section of the PASS provided a total procrastination score and was

analyzed using a repeated measures ANCOVA with T 1 PASS scores as a covariate. The

PASS scores for each group at each time interval are presented in Table 4. The Levene's

test of homogeneity was significant at T3. Consequently, as recommended (e.g., Keppel,

 199 1), a more conservative p-value @ < .O1) was used for rejecting the null hypothesis to

account for this small violation in the assumptions. As expected, an omnibus F test

yielded a significant difference between groups @(2,46) = 8 . 1 8 , ~< -001).

Table 4.

Mean PASS Scores Across G r o u ~ Over

s Time

Time Interval

Group Tl T3 T4

Treatment

-
M 44.33 38.33 40.73

-
SD 5.23 9.83 6-10

Comparison 1 (w/PPA)

-
M 44-58 44.47

-
SD 8 .O6 7 -33
-- ~~~~~

Comparison 2 (w/o PPA)

-
M 43.44 42.67

-
SD 5 -62 6.27

Note. The PASS was not administered at T2.

Follow-up compatisons revealed the rnean difference in -PAS

scores for the

l y than scores for both cornparison groups at T3

treatment group to be ~ i ~ i f i c a n tless

(D = -5.9 1, E c -003 and = -5.14, E < .O 1, respectively) as well as T4 (Q = -3.83,

p c -01 and Q = -3.21, I,< -03, respectively). In other words, this finding reflected a

significant reduction in procrastination for the treahnent group relative to the comparison

groups, both after treatment had ended and at the follow-up. There was no significant

difference between the comparison groups themselves.

Using paired-samples tests, within-subjects analysis for the treatment group

revealed significant decreases in PASS scores for Tl vs. T3 Q(14) = 2 . 8 5 , <

~ -01) and T l

vs. T4 (t(14) = 3.89, < -002). There were no significant differences within-subjects for

the rernaining two groups. Taken together, these results suggest that the workshop had

some effect in lowering the level of procrastination for the treatment group over and

above chance alone.

The second section of the PASS provided possible reasons for procrastinating and

was analyzed using a repeated measures ANCOVA with Tl scores as the covariate.

Overall mean factor scores were found by collapsing the items across seven categories: 1)

fear of failure, 2) aversiveness of task, 3) difficulty making decisions, 4) dependency, 5)

lack of assertion, 6) risk-taking, and 7) rebellion againsr control. An omnibus F test

yielded a sipifkant difference between groups (F(2,41) = -3.63, p < -04)for the factor

dzficuls, rnaking decisions. A foliow-up cornparison found that at T4,only the

comparison groups were significantly different (D = -.8 1 , < ~.02)with the second

comparison group reporting significantly more difficulty making decisions than the first

cornparison group, None of the six remaining PASS factors demonstrated statistically

significant differences between groups.

Using paired-samples L tests, within-subjects analysis for the second comparison

group (i.e., did not receive PPA) revealed a significant increase in the dzflculzy rnaking
 < -05). There were no significant
decisiuns factor for Tl vs. T3 (t(17) = - 2 . 1 5 , ~

differences withln-subjects for the remaining two groups.

On the whole, the results fiom the second part of the PASS seem to suggest that

regardless of whether they were receiving treatment for their procrastination or not.

students did not differ in their reasons for procrastinating.

With respect to individual items reflecting why students procrastinate. this

research yielded similar findings when compared to normative data. Two comrnonly

endorsed reasons were: "Just felt too lazy to write a term paper'' (42.78) and "Really

disliked wnting term papers" (30.7%). Comparatively, students in Solomon and

Rothblurn's sample (1984) self-reported: "Just felr too lazy to &te a term paper"

(42.4%), and "Really disliked writing term papers" (47.0%).

Academic Procrastination State Inventorv (APSI)

In order to investigate whether a significant difference occurred between groups as

a result of treatment in rems of overall thoughts and behaviour as they pertained to

procrastination, an ANCOVA was used to analyze APSI scores. Table 5 presents the

mean APSI scores between groups across al1 three time intervals for al1 three of

Schouwenburg's factors: procrastination, fear of failure, and Zuck of morivarion.

A repeated measures ANCOVA found a significant difference between groups for

the factor procrastination. E(2,46) = 4.57, EC.02, only. Follow-up cornparisons

revealed that the treatment group engaged in significantly less thoughts and behaviors

pertaining to procrastination at T3 (o = - . 3 7 , ~4.01) and T4 @ = -.47, EC .01)

compared to the fxst cornparison group. The results suggest that, over time, students in
the treatment group perceived thernselves to be engaged in significanùy less thoughts and

behaviors pertaining to procrastination than the comparison group receiving PPA. No

significant difference was found ktween the treatment group and the second comparison

group. However, a significant difference was found between the cornparison groups at

T3 (o = .37, p < -01) with the second comparison group indicating a decrease in their

procrastination scores relative to the first cornparison group. No significant difference

was found between comparison goups on their procrastination scores at T4. Neither of

the two remaining APSI factors demonstrated statistically significant differences within

or between groups.

Using paired-samples t tests, within-subjects analysis for the treatment group

revealed significant decreases in APSI factor procrastination scores for T l vs. T3 (t(I4) =

4.13,E < -001) and Tl vs. T4 (t(14) = 2.48, < .03).In other words, the treatment group

showed significant decreases in behaviors and/or thoughts relating to procrastination after

attending the workshop (post-test) cornpared to before attending the workshop (pre-test).

Similady, the second comparison group's procrastination scores decreased for TI vs. T3

(t(17) = 2.50,p < -02) and Tl vs. T4 G(17) = 2.37-2 < -03). Thus, it would appear PPA

without counselling had an effect on procrastination as measured by the APSI. No

significant within-subjects differences were found for the rernaining cornparison group.
Table 5.

APSI: Means and Standard Deviations for Three Factors Across Time and Grouv

Time Interval

Factor TI T3 T4

Procrastination

Treatrnent 3.6 1 (-45) 3.30 (-51) 3.20 (-52)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 3.8 1 (-55) 3.86 (-59) 3.72 (-39)

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA) 3-77 (-49) 3.50 (-60) 3.52 (-61)

Fear of Failure

Treatment 3.03 (.84) 2.76 (-80) 2.76 (-91)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 2.76 (.98) 2.69 ( 1 -02) 2.80 (-91)

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA) 2.84 (-95) 2.69 (-69) 3.08 (-93)

Lack of Motivation

Treatrnent 2.88 (-82) 2.98 (38) 2.85 (1-06)

Comparison 1 (w1PPA) 3.04 (1-07) 2.87 (1.05) 2.85 (-80)

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA) 3.33 (-88) 3 -25 (1 -00) 3.08 (1-08)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.

Subiective Well-Beinp; ( S W ) Measures

In the sections that follow, measures of SWB were andyzed separately. The fust

section provides the results of the cognitive component to SWB, namely, the Satisfaction

With Life Scale (SWLS). The second section provides the results for both positive and

negative affective scales, separateiy.

S m Scores- The overall mean score on the SWLS was 21.32, with a standard

deviation of 7.29. This mean score was lower than that of undergraduates in the

study done by Diener et al. (1985) that found the mean on the SWLS to be 23.5, with a

standard deviation of 6.43. Table 6 presents al1 group means and standard deviations

across time for students in the present study. In order to investigate whether mean

satisfaction with life scores changed, over time, a repeated measures ANCOVA was used

to detect any significant differences between groups. The analysis revealed no significant

difference in S'WLS scores between groups. These results suggest that none of the

participants differed in how they cognitively perceived their satisfaction with Me.

Sirnilarly, a within-subjects analysis revealed no si,@icanr differences over time for any

of the three groups. This is contrary to previous research that found the life satisfaction

of clients in therapy changed significantly from 14.1 (SD = 1.9) at the start of therapy, to

26.9 (So = 3.6) after one month of therapy (Friedman, 1991, cited in Pavot and Diener,

1993b)-
Table 6 ,

Mean SWLS Scores Across G r o u ~ Over

s Time

Time Interval

Treatrnent

M
-

SD
-

Cornparison 1 (wPPA)

-
M 2 1.53 23.88

-
SD 7.80 7.65

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA)

-
M 19.67 2 1.22 2 1.39

SD 6.36 7.83 8.O4

Note. The SWLS was not administered at T2,

Affect Scales. Using a repeated measures ANCOVA, both affect scales were

analyzed separately across groups and time. The means and standard deviations are

presented in Table 7 below. Despite participants rating their overall positive feelings

higher than their negative feelings, no significant differences between groups were found

suggesting that participants were similar and consistent in how they felt over time.

Similarly, a within-subjects analysis revealed no significant differences over time for any

of the three groups. These results were contrary to what was originally expected as it was
hypothesized that the treatment group wodd show increased positave and decreased

negative affect.

Table 7.

Mean Positive and Necrative Affect Scores Across Groups Over T i m e

Time IntervaI

Positive Affect

Treatment 18-80(4.84) 20.00 (4.65) 19.47 (5.24)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 2 1-76 (4.0 1) 21-65 (3.43) 22.24 (4.94)

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA) 20.44 (4.4 1) 19.67 (4.20) 18.78 (5.01)

Negative Affect

Treatrnent 27.00 (6.40) 25.73 (6.60~) 26.00 (5.53)

Cornparison L (w/PPA) 26.18 (6.02) 24.00 (10.0-1) 25.18 (9-42)

Cornparison 2 (w/o PPA) 26.1 1 (5.27) 25.44 (5.80i) 27.6 1 (7.27)

Note. The affect scale was not adrninistered at T2. Standard deviztions are in
parentheses.
Personal Proiects Analvsis

The results of PPA are divided into two main sections. The fxst section presents

the results for the five original factors of PPA. The second section presents the results for

selected project dimensions within PPA. Both sections include separate results for

between-groups and within-subjects analyses.

For the purposes of this research, the project dimensions positive impact and

negnrive impact were not analyzed as they do not fa11 under any particular PPA factor (see

Table 1). Twenty represcntative examples of the projects students listed are provided in

Table 8. These projects were randornly selected with the purpose of demonstrating the

varying range of academic tasks on which students were working.

Proiect Factors

Within-subjects Analysis. Scores for each of the first 16 PPA dimensions were

surnrned across d l of the projects and their respective means were grouped into Little's

( 1983, 1989) original five factors: rneaning, strzrcture, comrnrrniîy, eficacy and stress.

The factor means and standard deviations for al1 four time intervals are presented in Table

9. Using paired-saniples tests for both groups separately, only the treatment group

revealed within-subjects significance over time for three PPA factors: srructztre,

cornmiiniiy, and eficacy. The treatment group's appraisal of project structure increased at

the end of treatment (f( 14) = -2.76, E < -02)as well as at the follow-up (t(14) = - 3 . 8 2 , ~
<

-002) relative to before treatrnent began. Sirnilarly, this group reported project

< .02); however, this increase

comrnunity to be higher at the follow-up (t(14) = - 2 . 6 6 , ~
Table 8.

Sample of Student Academic Proiects

Work on math problems

Read Watership Down

Raise my GPA

Keep up with readings on a daily basis

Study for finals

Research on Web

Speak to an academic advisor

Prepare for presentation

Start viewing ITV tapes

10) Meet with accounting group

1 1) Drop geography

12) Register for surnmer courses

13)Finish Java assipment

14)Make study notes for Spanish

15)Find a tutor

16) Pick up marked assignment

17) Get chemistry notes

18) Improve attendance at Iecnires

19) Review difficult physics questions

20) Read rernaining psychology chapters

Table 9.

Means and Standard Deviations Between Groups Over Time for Five Factors of PPA

Time Interval

Factor Tl T2 T3 T4

Meaning

Treatment 5-59 (1-50) 5.82 (1-54) 5.93 (1-78) 6.18 (1 -26)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 6-02 (1-54) 6.30 (1-20) 6.29 (1-23) 6-20 (1 -45)

Structure

Treatment 5.1 1 (1.52) 5.68 (1.63) 6.40 (1-13) 6.40 (1.14)

Cornparison 1 (wPPA) 5.22 (1.78) 5.50 (1-55) 5.63 (1J O ) 5.86 (1 -92)

Community

Treatment 4.00 (2-48) 4.35 (2.27) 4.12 (2.72) 5.48 (2.46)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 4.90 (1.57) 5.12 (1.54) 4.92 (124) 5.49 (1.78)

Efficacy

Treatment 4.85 (0.94) 5.26 (1-65) 5.46 (1-25) 5.30 (1.29)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 5.24 (1.43) 5.17 (1.26) 5.38 (1.37) 5.16 (1.41)

Stress

Treatment 5.94 (1 -40) 5.85 (1.45) 5.43 (1-78) 5.71 (1.37)

Compatison 1 (w/PPA) 5.15 (0.78) 5.15 (1.20) 5.27 (1.21) 4.88 (1.60)

Note. Comparison group 2 did not receive PPA.

 did not occur at the end of treatment (T3). On the contrary, project eficacy increased at

the end of treatment G(14) = -2.21, E < -04)but not at the follow-up, compared to before

treatment. These pre- vs. post-test results for the treatment group are presented in Table

10. It was decided that no family-wise error correction was needed due to the theoretical

rationde that the comparison between pre- and post-test scores was planned for ail

significant PPA factors.

In general, these results suggest that project systems for those students receiving

treatment for theù- procrastinarion were more stmctured and visible to others. It also

suggests that these students perceived themselves to be more self-eff~caciousby the end

of treament compared to when they started.

Between-.xoups
- Analvsis. A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed using

T l project appraisd ratings as a covariate, for each of the PPA five project factors

(meaning. stritcture, cornmunity, eficacy and stress). No significant differences between

groups were found.

Proiect Dimensions

Within- subiects Andysis. Only the underlying PPA dimensions of the three

significant factors (Le., structure, community and efficacy) from the within-subjects

analysis of the treatment group were explored, respectively. No significant difference in

project dimension appraisals, across these three factors, was found for the comparison

group.
Table 10.

Treatment gr ou^: Paired-Sarnples

- t test Results of Pre- vs, Post- Test Ratings for al1

Significant PPA Factors

PPA Factor Tl vs. T3 T l vs. T4

Structure

Cornmunity

Efficacy

Note. n.s. = not significant

Paired-sarnples 1tests found severai project dimensions to be significantly

different when mean pre- vs. post-test scores were compared; these included: orctcome,

rime adeqrracy, control and other's view. The project dimension procrastination was also

examined given the focus of this study. The means and standard deviations for each of

these PPA dimensions are presented in Table 11 alont with those of the cornparison

group. The results of the 1tests for these project dimensions are presented in Table 12.

Relative to the pre-test, procrastination project dimension appraisals significantly

decreased by the end of treatment (1(14)= 2.15, E < .05). Interestingly, this result was not

significant by the follow-up, despite that the overall procrastination rating at the follow-

up was lower than before treatment began. In other words, it would appear that the

treannent group's ability to decrease their project-level procrastination, or at least their

self-reports of their project procrastination, rebounded somewhat after treatment sessions

had ended- This rnay indicate that the treatment effects are not sustainable over time in

terms of project procrastination.

The remaining four significant project dimensions, namely, outcome, time

adequacy, control, and other's view improved over time. Specifically, in terms of the

successful completion of their projects, or project outcome, students appraised their

projects as potentidly more successful by the end of treatrnent compared to before

ueatrnent began (t(14) = -3.00, E, < -01). However, an improved appraisal of the project

dimension outcome was not observed at the follow-up. Similady, in terrns of time

adequacy, students considered the arnount of time they spent on their projects to be more

adequate. but only at T4 relative to T l (t(14) = -2.55, g < -02) rzot T3 relative to Tl. The

same was found with respect to how important projects seemed to be by relevant people

(Le.. other's view) (t(l4)= -2.88, g < -01). In other words, the treatment group

considered that other people perceived their projects to be more important at the follow-

up than at any other time. However, in the case of project contml, appraisals were

significantly higher at both the post-test (t(l4) = -2.56, p < -02) and the follow-up

(r(14) = -2.75, Q c .Oz), relative to the pre-test. This would seem to suggest that treatment

may have improved students' sense of control over their projects.

Table 1 1-

Means and Standard Deviations for Signïficant Proiect Dimensions Across G r o u ~ and
s

Time

Time Interval
- - - - -

Factor Tl T2 T3 T4

Procrastination

Treatment 8.04(1.45) 7.09(1.97) 6.66(2-49) 7.08(1.62)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 7.76 (1-53) 7.59 (1.65) 7.52 (1.41) 7.27 (1.53)

Outcome

Treatment 6.59 (1.00) 7.08 (1-58) 7.33 (1.20) 6.84 (1.37)

Cornparison 1 (wPPA) 7-15 (1.39) 7.12 (1.03) 7.38 (1.05) 7.03 (1.82)

Time Adequacy

Treatment 2.93 (1.80) 4.14 (1-76) 4.40 (2.34) 4.24 (1-94)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 3.49 (2.03) 3.74 (2.17) 4.25 (2.21) 4.41 (2.79)

Control

Treatrnent 6.23 (1.91) 6.35 (1.52) 7.8 1 (1.88) 7.51 (1.52)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 6.78 (2.33) 7.26 (1.52) 7.04 (2.18) 7.23 (1.79)

Other's View

Treatment 4.72 (2.99) 5.17 (2.49) 4.8 1 (2-92) 6.40 (2.76)

Cornparison 1 (w/PPA) 5.91 (2.39) 5.60 (2.30) 5.54 (2.21) 6.47 (2.00)
Table 12.

Treatment gr ou^: Paired-Samples t test ResuIts of Pre- vs. Post-

Test Ratings for al1 Significant PPA Dimensions

Factor T l vs. T3 Tl vs. T4

Procrastination ) 2-15,Q < .OS

~ ( 1 4= n-S.

Outcome -t(14) = -3.00, E < .O1 ns.

Time Adequacy n.s. t(14) = - 2 - 5 5 , <

~ -02

Control l(14) = -2.56, E c .O2 t(14) = -2.75, p < -02

Other's view n.s- t(14) = -2-88, E < -01

Note. n.s. = not sie~ficant

 Discussion

The purpose of this research was to evaiuate whether a campus-based workshop

designed to treat acadernic procrastination had an effect upon students' overall self-

reports of their academic procrastination as weU as their subjective well-being (SWB).

The data collected in this quasi-expenmentai design yielded several significant and

interesting findings with the main result being that treatment decreased participants'

perceptions of their level of procrastination, but did not have an impact on their SWB.

However, caution is needed in interpreting the results due to the srnall sample sizes for

each group which reduced the arnount of power and, subsequently, may have increased

the risk of cornmitting a Type II error (Keppel, 1991).

This section is divided into two main parts. The first section presents the results

of the outcome variables, narnely, those for procrastination and SWB, respectively. The

second section presents the limitations of the present research dong with several

recommendations for future research in the area of acadernic procrastination treatment.

Procrastination

One of the main objectives of the workshop was to help students decrease their

tendency to procrastinate. The results of this research revealed three key pieces of

evideace, al1 of which were indicative that the treatment had some degree of success in

reducing procrastination. The frrst of these pertains to the Procrastination Assessrnent

Scale-Students (PASS), whereby a significant difference between groups revealed a

decline in self-reported academic procrastination for the treament group relative to the

cornparison groups at both the post-test and follow-up testing intervals. Additionally, the
within-subjects analysis for the treatment group indicated that the PASS scores

signifi~cantlydecreased at the end of treatment as well as at the follow-up, relative to

before treatment began. Secondly, the Academic Procrastination State hventory (APSI)

procrastination scores for the treatment group decreased si,@ficantly relative to the first

comparison group at both tbe post-test and follow-up testing intervals. Similady, a

within-subjects analysis of this factor revealed a significant decrease in thoughts and

behaviours perîaining to procrastination, over time, for those participants who received

treatment. Thirdly, the PPA project ratings of procrastination significantly decreased over

time for the ueatrnent group upon examination of within-subjects andysis. This was not

the case for the comparison group.

In sum, the combination of these results strengthens the position that the

workshop sessions had a positive effect upon students, reducing their tendency to

procrastinate, according to their self-reports, as one student cornrnented, "It was more of

just having the opportunity to actually look at what I was doing and actuaily examine it,

like you have the cataiyst there to examine it closely that really helped."

Past evidence of significant acadernic procrastination treatment effects have been

noted in the Iiterature (e-g., Schubert Walker, in press) and, therefore, support the results

of the present research. However, it could be argued that the change in procrastination

scores was not ciinicaily significant, based upon the on-going debate with respect to what

constitutes meaninb$ul change (see Jacobson & Revenstorf, 1988). It will be recdled that

despite observed statistical significance, the question surrounding whether a treatrnent

was tnily effective may depend more upon other indicators of meaningful change; for

example, a level of change that is recognizable among peers and significant others
(Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978 as cited in Jacobson & Tmax, 1991; Kendall & Grove, 1988).

Other experts believe that the benchmark for meanuigful change in participants is

whether the treatment demonstrated a r e d effect in their daily lives or ". ..if the

participants are better in any practical way for having participated in the prograrnT'

(Posavac & Carey, 1992, p. 143). When asked if they perceived any difference in their

procrastination, one student in the treatment group of the present research comrnented,

"It's [procrastination] decreasing very, very slowly but it's stiil there." Sirnilarfy, another

. There's a shift but not a big, big shift just

student remarked, "Um, not a big differen~e.~.

a Little bit with the way I'm thinking." Therefore, it rnay be argued that although

procrastination reduced significantly, statistically speaking, for the treatment group, it

may not have necessarïly been as significant from a clinical standpoint.

On the other hand, it may be premature to conclude that these feedback statements

mentioned above suggest that the treatment may not have had a substantial impact upon

reducing acadernic procrastination, clinically speaking, if it is considered that the

statements may simply reflect the fact that: 1) modifying pre-existing irrational beliefs

that sustain procrastination takes considerable time and poses an "intellectual challenge"

to overcome for most individuals (Kuehlwein & Rosen, 1993, p.79); and 2 ) the length of

weatment was too bnef to expect these changes to occur quickly and to their fullest

extent. Yet, despite these restrictions, it is plausible to conclude that the treatment did

help to initiate some degree of cognitive change as reflected in the self-reported

behaviorai changes observed (i-e., the decrease in procrastination scores on both the

PASS and APSI), as well as in the comments of one student who began to assume

responsibility for his actions:

 .- .you just have these knee-jerk reactions to things like in the midde of studying
and then we'll have a thought and then a l i of a sudden we're not studying those

things anymore. 1 think that was a big realization. So, like.. -before you'd just

completely go off.. .like think about what you're doing.

Satisfaction With Life and Affect Scales

It was originally hypothesized that changes in subjective well-being would occur

for students participating in treatrnent for their procrastination. The hypothesis was that

over the course of treatrnent, satisfaction with life would improve, negative affect would

decrease, and positive affect would increase as a result of a reduction in procrastination.

Surprisingly, no significant findings resulted between-groups or within-subjects. It may

be argued that this lack of significant change in SWB is conceivable given that some

researchers have stated that "how one feels at the moment and d s o how happy one feels

on average over time - are prirnarily a matter of chance" (Lykken & Tellegen, 1996, p.

189) and that the effects of events may "be transitory fluctuations about a stable

temperamental set point or trait that is charactenstic of the individual" (Myers & Diener,

1995 cited in Lykken & Tellegen, 1996, p. 189) rather than SWB per se. Moreover, the

lack of change in SWB scales, resulting from this research, may be particularly relevant if

one takes into account that both the SWLS and affect scales have been designed to

measure global aspects of qudity of life (e.g., Diener et al., 1985 and Pavot & Diener,

1993b) that are apt to change upon the recent occurrence of major life events (e.g., death

of a loved one) @iener, Suh, & Fujita, 1996). In this study, only the acadernic projects of
students were examined which is merely one aspect of their Iives as a whole. Therefore,

it would be justifiable to argue that these SWB measures may not have k e n sensitive

enough to detect changes in student's well-being if these changes were soIeIy related to

academia, rather than major life events.

Furthemore, past research, which has tracked changes in SWB over time, have

had longer periods of time between testing intervals (e-g., Diener, Suh, & Fujita, 1996).

Therefore, it may be argued that perhaps these measures of SWB were not sensitive

enough to detect short-rem change. This is further supported by the previous reports of

"temporal stability" on the part of the SWLS (Diener et al., 1985).

That said, some researchers have found SWB changes in the short-term. For

exarnple, Diener, Suh, and Fujita (1996) state "at l e s t for a short period of time, recent

life events do affect SWB beyond the influence of stable personality or baseline IeveIs of

SWB" (p. 1097). However, once again. the extent to which academic procrastination

rnay be considered an important issue in a student's life, in general, remains in question

and rnay help to explain the lack of significance over time for this variable.

Perhaps another explanation for why no changes in SWB were observed in the

present research was due to the possibility that not al1 of the scales used forrned

comprehensive aspects of affect as they pertain to procrastination. This rationale is

supported by McGregor & Little (1998) who contend that "conventional measures of

subjective well-being miss important aspects of what it means to be psychologically well"

(p. 505). For example, procrastinators ofien report high levels of anxiety and Iow

hstration tolerance (Burka & Yuen, 1983; Knaus, 1998; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984),

common emotional consequences to delaying or avoiding tasks. Yet, neither one of these
two constmcts was measured extensively- Thus, it rnay have been beneficial to have

included specific measures of the constmcts most pertinent to procrastination and monitor

their respective changes over tirne.

In short, despite the fact that some previous research has found significant

changes in SWB using globd rneasures, these outcome variables may not have been

adequate in capturing specific constmcts targeting the most relevant affective components

for procrastinators which, in turn, rnay have been more suited to test the originaI

hypotheses.

Research by Pychyi, Lee, Thibodeau and Blunt (2000) d s o offers an explanation

as to why no significant change in either positive or negative affect was observed in the

present study. Despite finding a significant correlaùon between negative affect and trait

procrastination, the results of their research yielded no significant correlation between

moment-to-moment procrastination and immediate positive or negative affect, as

measured by using the experience-sampling method (see Csikszentmihalyi, Larson &

Prescott, 1977). A lack of a significant decrease in negative affect was explained in terrns

of seif-replation to the extent that "procrastination has been identified as one means to

regulate negative emotions that may accornpany a task, at least in the short term" (Pychyi

et al., 2000, p. 240). Therefore, given this fact, "...when students are procrastinating,

they are not concurrently experiencing negative affect in terms of depression, anger,

fnistration, worry or unhappiness. On the contrary, they are doing something they see as

pleasant" (mchyl et al., 2000, p. 248). h would, therefore, seem reasonable to expect a

significant increase in positive affiect, as a result. However, this was not the case. When

the students in their study were procrastinating they were also reporting significantly
higher levels of guilt and lower levels of motivation. Thus, it was concluded that "...as

students' motivation decreases, their susceptibility to procrastination becomes greater

which subsequently results in an accornpanying increase in @lt" (Pychyl et al., 2 0 0 , p.

247). Hence, despite rating activities they were involved in while procrastinating as more

pleasant than the activities they were avoiding, positive affect may have been offset by

feelings of guilt for avoiding these activities in the first place.

The conclusions provided by the above research d o n g with the previously

mentioned limitations of the research using conventional mesures of SWB, in general,

provide further clarification as to why no significant increases in positive affect and

decreases in negative affect occurred with respect to the treatment group of the present

research.

Lastly, the issue of the follow-up (T4) testing penod may provide another

interpretation for the lack of sipificant change in SWB in the present research. During

this time interval. students were in the rniddle of final examinations -- a critical time in

the school year with respect to acadernic performance. Needless to Say, students may

have been feeling an increase in stress overall. As such, no increase in positive affect

would be expected at this time period relative to the pre-test. On the other hand, some of

these students had yet to write one exam at the time of testing, while other students were

either halfway through or had finished al1 of their exarns. In terrns of affect, it would

seem plausible to suggest that a rnix of positive and negative emotions would result and,

hence, not provide a coherent or consistent picture as to how the treatment was affecting

students. In other words, the event of final exams rnay be considered a confounding

variable to the extent that it interfered with the ability of both the satisfaction with life
s c d e (SWLS) and affect scaies to reflect an accurate indication of students7 S m as a

&rOUP-

Despite the absence of any statistically significant results with respect to SWB, a

common theme found in the audio tape-recordings of participants7feedback revealed that

students felt the workshop helped to decrease their feelings of isolation or aloneness in

their procrastination and that helped them to feel better to some extent. This cornmon

reaction to the treatment is best illustrated by the comment of the following student:

The group discussions 1really liked because you could relate to everyone Iike 1

just thought 1 was the only one who procrastinated but seeing that it's a problem a

lot of people have, 1 kind of feel normal.

In turn, this shared sentiment helped another student in t e m s of personai well-being:

.- .somehow it [the treatment] kind of gave me.. .made me feel a little better about

myself knowing that there's other people that have the same problem that I do too.

OveralI, despite the lack of any significant statistical findings with respect to

satisfaction with Iife or positive and negative affect, the treatment appeared to help

iniriate some degree of behaviorai change in t e m s of procrastination as well as some

cognitive changes, albeit to a lesser extent. However, very littie, if any, evidence of real

affective change resulted.

Personal Proiects as a Measure of SWB

It rnay be recalled that McGregor and Little (1998) adapted personal projects

analysis (PPA) in order to examine the relationship between goal appraisals and SWB.

Likewise, the present research used PPA as an outcome measure of SWB in order to

determine the effectiveness of academic procrastination treatment. The results revealed

no significant differences between groups across project factors (Le., meaning, structure,

community, efficacy and stress). This non-sipificant finding may have resuited from the

possibility that not enough statistical power was available to detect a significant

difference, given the smaU sarnple size in the present study.

With respect to within-subjects analysis for the treatment group only, it should be

recalled that project structure, community and efficacy increased significantly upon

cornparing the project appraisais of participants after treatment relative to before

treatrnent. Subsequently, the project dimensions associated with these factors were also

found to be significant. These significant project dimensions included: time adequacy,

control, other's view and outcome. At the end of treatment, the appraisals of al1 four

project dimensions increased significantly. Given that two out of the four project

dimensions, narnely, time adequacy and control Ioad ont0 the factor structure, the results

would seem to indicate that treatrnent did more for improving project structure than it did

for project community and project efficacy (as indicated by the remaining two project

dimensions other' s view and outcorne, respective1y). Evidence of perceived

improvement in project structure may be found in the comments of the following

workshop participant:
 ...[the workshop content presentatïons] gives you ideas of what you rnight try to

do and if you get different ideas something rnight work for you, some things

won? but at least you have different things to do and different chings to try- So 1

liked that and I'd probably encourage a bit more of that and spending more time

on these exercises here because 1 found it more powerful when I do them here

because I focus on doing them,

Each of the project dimensions that demonstrated a significant change over

ueatment have interesting implications for understanding academic procrastination

-
ueatrnent, so each is considered separately in the following section of the discussion. In

addition, despite its Iack of significance, the dimension progress was included in this

section due to its direct association with the concept of procrastination. Possible reasons

as to why no significant change was observed in this variable. in the present research, are

discussed.

Time adequacy. As presented in the ResuIts section, the project dimension time

adequacy was found to be significant for the treatment group, within-subjects analysis,

only. There is supporting evidence in the literature (e.g., Pychyl, 1995; Pychyl & Little,

1998) of an existing negative correlation between time adequacy and procrastination.

That is to Say, the Iess adequate tirne one feels to have spent on a project, the greater the

likelihood they would have procrastinated on that project. Similarly, in a study done by

Lay (1990), it was found that for short-term projects ( e g , "write essay for rny history

class"), trait procrastination was negatively related to time adequacy.

The significant increase in time adequacy ratings for post-test scores relative to

the pre-test suggests that the ueatment may have helped students devote more adequate
amounts of t h e to their projects. Indirectly, this may be a resuIt of reduced

procrastination, on the whole, as seen in the PASS and APSI scores. Specific workshop

content presented by the counsellor, namely, that the arnount of time it takes to complete

a given task is often at least double the predicted time may have aIso been a contributing

factor. Additiondly, participants were strongly encouraged to start early, work

consistently and, not to wait until they felt "ready" (Boice, 1996). This last component is

supported by Knaus (1998) who listed, "Focus yourself along an action pathway where

you place your emphasis on your Do It Now! plan - even when you don? feel like it" (p.

202) as his sixth cognitive-behaviord self-re,@ation s t r a t e 3 for overcoming

procrastination.

On the other hand, the significant difference in time adequacy ratings for the

treatment group occurred between the pre-session (before treatment) and the follow-up

(during examinations) only, This outcome once again implicates the confounding

variable, narnely, the follow-up (T4) testing period, as previously described- In this case,

the extent to which tirne adequacy would have been relevant may have depended upon

where along the continuum a student lies in tenns of project progress. For instance, if

students had already completed al1 of their coursework including examinations before

testing, time adequacy would be irrelevant. Alternatively, if a student had been

procrastinating at the time of the follow-up, then the amount of time she or he devoted to

a project "at the last minute" may have been perceived as adequate under the

circumstances.

Moreover, to the extent that time adequacy is considered to be an indirect measure

of procrastination, students who report not having enough tirne to complete their projects
rnay be doing so because they are procrastinating, ûs illustrated in the comments by the

following student:

I have an Economics exam on Friday and I'm fieaking out because I've got an

exam tomorrow that 1should be studying for but 1want to study for my

Econornics because it's more important to me. But 1 need to study for my other

exarn because it's there. It's procrastination because 1should have started

studying Iast week.

However, the reverse may be true as PychyI (1995) notes in his dissertation on

doctoral students and their personai projects, "some students reported having more than

adequate time, at least in the sense that they found time to procrastinate" (p. 72). This

may have been the case for some of the treatrnent participants, as one student confided:

I've got my procrastination down to a science where if 1say it's going to take me

hours to do an essay and to do a good job and to have it completely finished it'll

take exactly eight hours. So long as I begin when 1Say I'm going to and keep at it,

I'm redistic when it comes to that.

Although, in terms of the present study, it could be q u e d that given the significant

decrease in procrastination scores for the treatment group, the likelihood of students'

appraising the project dimension time adequacy, in this manner, dirninishes. In the end,

the discussion regarding the confounding variable (Le., testing during the examination

penod) may provide the most likely explanation for why there was a significant increase

in the treament groups' perception that they had adequate time in which to complete their

projects, at the time of the follow-up.

 Control. Relative to the cornparison group, it appeared that students who received

treatment for their procrastination increased their sense of control over their projects. As

one participant commented:

When I came into the workshop I was feeling redly out of control

like.. .broken.. .now 1 feel like I have the tools and have an understanding of

what's going on so T'm not completely at a loss.. .

This factor was the only PPA dimension to be si,&ficant at both post-testing intervals

suggesting that perhaps treatment helped students organize their projects - a first step

towards project completion. In their research, Blunt and Pychyl (2000) demonstrated a

correlation between control and task aversiveness during Gollwitzer's (1990) Actional

stage- This relationship is anticipated if it is considered that the actional stage includes

striving towards goal completion through goal-directed behaviors, hence, as Blunt ( 1998)

writes, "we might expect individuals to procrastinate to a greater extent on projects which

are less structured and difficult to coordinate" (p.53). In fact, this negative correlation

between control and procrastination was found by Szawlowski (1987). The results from

his research seem to support this hypothesis, in that, as control increased, procrastination

decreased. It should be noted, however, that this study did not determine whether control

(or, rather, lack thereof) is a cause or an effect of procrastination. It also did not

determine which variable changed as a direct result of treatment. It may have been that

the treatrnent influenced project control which, in turn, helped to decrease procrastination.

Or, it rnay have been that procrastination decreased, with the help of treatment, which

increased the self-perception of control over one's projects. Hence, caution m u t be

exercised when making overall jud,gments about whether self-reported project control

improved as a result of the treatment used in the present research.

Although the control dimension was f o w d to increase over t h e , some students

did not feel in control of their projects, which resulted in feelings of fnistration and

discontentment, as one student expressed about obtaining her degree:

It seems like the steps aren't my goals, it's just the final goal. It's Like of this is

just awful, what 1have to go through, and it won? be until the final stage that it'll

be like, "Now 1 have what 1 want." And the rest was just torture to go through it.

It feels really separated from me because 1 don't have a lot of choices in what

courses to take. There's so many restrictions and there's so many courses that I'd

like to take in philosophy and religion.. .al1 different sorts of things and it's so

lirnited. And it's frustrating because there's courses that you have to take that you

shouldn't,.,I think 1 shouldn't have to take because 1'11 never use it and it's realIy

to fulfill a requirement that someone else has made for me. It just doesn't make

sense to me. 1 don't feel like 1 have a lot of control over my life at this point

because of the courses I'm assigned to take.

In sum, the evidence presented above suggests that the academic procrastination

treatment may have had a significant effect in terms of improving students' perception of

control over their projects, thereby supporting the original hypothesis that overall project

structure would increase by the end of treatment. After all, one of the main goals of the

treatment used in the present research was to help participants manage their workload by

using various strategies (e.g., breaking down large tasks into smaller steps) and
techniques (e.g., relaxation exercises), not to mention the attempts to restructure their

maladaptive cognitive beliefs that sustained their procrastination.

Other's view. From the original hypotheses, it was expected that participation in

the treatrnent would increase the overall sense of community in students given that group

support fosters a considerable arnount of disclosure amongst its participants. Therefore, it

is understandable that the project dimension other's view wouid be appraised

significantly higher for the treatment group reIative to the comparison group. However,

the fact that this significant difference did not occur irnrnediately after treatment (T3) but

rather during the follow-up (T4) is interesting and open to interpretation. It may be the

case that participation in the treatment increased students' awareness of other's

perceptions, in general, and this, coupled with the fact that exarns are seen as perhaps

more important academic projects, produced this result. In this instance, perhaps the self-

selection for treatment may be an important difference between the groups. The students

who sought out treatment recognized the need for help with their problems regarding

procrastination and others in their lives may have influenced this as well. In any event, it

is impossible to know exactly why this treatment group effect emerged at T4, and it may

only be left to speculation at this point based upon an understanding of the PPA

dimension other's view and research related to procrastination.

Outcome. This PPA project dimension was appraised significantly higher for the

treatrnent group at the post-test (T3) relative to the pre-test (Tl) only. By the end of

treatment, students felt that they sipificantly improved their chances of successfully

completing their academic projects, on average, than before the workshop began. This

would suggest that the treatment may have had some effect on improving student's self-
efficacy - the PPA factor compnsed of project progress and outcome dimensions.

Interestingly, Pychyl& Little (1998) found progress in doctoral student's projects to be

positively correlated to time adequacy (Z: = -05, p. c -001) and negatively correlated to

procrastination (g = -.037,Q < -01). However, in this same snidy, project outcome was

not significantly correlated with progress for these students suggesting that perhaps

expectation for success may still remain high despite procrastination on tasks or limited

tirne in which to complete projects. The expectation of project success was also found to

be positiveIy associated to how much control doctord students had with respect to their

projects (r = -33, p c -01) (Pychyl & Little. 1998). These last two research findings relate

specifically to the present research given that: 1) no significant increase in project

progress was found (see the following section) despite the significant increase in project

outcome at the end of treatment (T3) and; 2 ) the treatrnent group perceived themselves at

having significantiy more control over their projects after treatment had ended.

Sirnilar to the time adequacy dimension, caution needs to be taken regarding the

interpretation of project outcome ratings of the present research. It is important to take

into consideration that T3 occurred near the end of the semester and that many students

rnay have already completed or neared completion of many academic projects they had

(with the exception of final examinations), thus, reflecting a possible positive account in

the outcome rating. By the follow-up, no significant improvement between Tl and T4

was found suggesting that perhaps, by then, students were engaged in 1st-minute

cramming and may have felt that they were not going to do well on their upcorning

examinations. Altematively, as previously discussed, a non-significant finding may have

been a non-event depending upon what stage students were at in their schedules (e.g.,
they bad no more examinations to write). Future research that would take this into

account is needed to ehminate this confound.

Promess. It is interesting to consider that despite reporting sufficient time in

which to complete their projects (Le., time adequacy dimension), students' appraisals of

their project progress did not change ~i~onificantly

over the course of the procrastination

treatment. This result does not support the original hypothesis of anticipating an increase

in progress ratings by the end of treatment. Previous research done by Pychyl(1995)

found that "the progress [doctoral students] are currently making on their projects rnay be

more related to having adequate blocks of time in which to engage in projects which they

are passionate about and for which they have social support" (p. 185). The lack of

significantly improved progress for students in this study is even more puzzling when one

considers that procrastination decreased over time. In other words, as the project system

suggests, students receiving treatment sense that they have enough time in which to

complete their projects and feel that they are procrastinating less on tasks and, yet, no

significant amount of perceived project progress has been made! One explanation may be

due perhaps to the notion that, at the time of testing, the majority of these projects were

finished, recently assigned, or just started. In other words, the particular stage (Little,

1983; Blunt & Pychyl, 2000) a project belonged to may be important to understanding

progress scores overall. For example, post-testing (T3) may have coincided with many

students subrnitting end-of-tenn assi,onments which, in turn, may bave accounted for

lower progress ratings as they begin the new projects of preparing for exams on which

they have made little progress.

 Aitematively, the lack of signïfïcant progress rnay lie in the very nature of the

progress dimension itself. The standard PPA Project Appraisal Mauyi asks respondents

to rate "how successful you have been in a project so fa?. The use of the term

"successful" rnay have been interpreted by students to be at the level of progress "quality"

rather than the degree of completion, For instance, it rnay be the case that a student fails

to produce a large quantity of work (the volume of work generated rnay be thought of as

being directly proportional to finishing a particular task) and, yet, considers the quality of

the work produced t o be quite good. As a result, this rnay translate into a higher project

progress rating. In contrast, it rnay be the case that quantity is high, but the end product

rnay be so poor or trivial that it is not deemed to be a worthy marker of success. Hence, a

student rnay assign a low progress rating despite meeting a deadline. One may further

speculate that the latter project appraisai rnay be typical of the perfectionist. This

personality characteristic is important when one considers that research has found a

positive correlation between perfectionkm and procrastination (Ferrari. 1995; Flett,

Blankstein, Hewitt, & Koledin, 1992; Saddler, & Sacks, 1993).

Furthemore, with respect to academic life, several other speculations rnay be

made. Firstly, it is important to bear in mind that acadernic pursuits are dmost

exclusively assigned by others (Le., professors) and are often caxied out in isolation.

Hence, despite their importance, students rnay not fînd their academic projects

particularly enjoyable or, to sorne extent, diKicult. This rnay result in decreased project

cornmitment (e-g., Brunstein, 1993; Pychyl, 1995; Fychyl & Little, 1998). Although it

was not measured directly, this lack of project cornmitment rnay have had significant

negative implications in reIation to project progress. This cascade of events rnay be even
more pertinent to the procrastinating student who, for instance, may also be motivated by

fear of negative project evaluation not to take necessary action to complete projects (or

even start them!) in order to avoid criticism (Little, 1983). At any rate, either one of the

above scenarios could have had an impact on progress ratings in such a manner as to fail

to yield significant results-

Finally in terrns of the PPA, the issue of project meaning in relation to project

efficacy needs to be addressed because: 1) it was originally hypothesized that students

would appraise their projects as more meaningful and: 2) even though project meaning

was not found to increase significantly over the course of treatrnent, it may still be

considered a potentially important marker of SWB (e-g., Little. 1986, 1989; McGregor &

Little. 1998). The following section explores a possible rationale as to why project

meaning was not found to significantly increase, as origindly anticipated, as a result of

treatment.

Based upon past literature, project efficacy has been a robust predictor of SWB

(e.g., Little, 1989; Wilson, 1990; Yetim, 1993) to the extent that "people feel better when

they are doing well and when they expect to be doing well in the future" (McGregor &

Little, 1998, p. 505). In light of the results of the PPA from the present study, it would

appear that SWB improved somewhat given that project outcome increased by the end of

treatment. However, it wouId be premature to speculate that project efficacy is the only

significant predictor of SWB. In fact, according to Little (1998) "...mere efficacy, in the

absence of project meaning, is not likely to enhance well-being" (p. 207). And, it may be

argued that this has implication with respect to the project systems of participants in this

study because, "the least meaningful projects are clearly those related to academic tasks"
(Littie, 1998, p. 200). This statement, in and of itself, dong with the fact that students

ofien find academic projects Iess enjoyable compared to other types of personal projects,

o d y partially explains the absence of a siepificant increase in project meaning as a result

of treatment.

In their study, McGregor and Little (1998) considered goal efficacy or "how Iikely

one's project are to be successfu17'(p. 495) to be associated with happiness (satisfaction

with life, more positive affect than negative affect - the traditional standards of SWB)

and goal integrity or "how consistent one's projects are with core aspects of the self' (p.

495) to be associated with meaning (feelings of connectedness, purpose and growth).

These authors claim that a certain "tension" rnay arise between efficacy and integrity to

produce a "meaning and manageability tradeoff'. For exarnple, if the emphasis of project

systems is on manageability (Le., goal efficacy), people rnay feel happy because they are

accornplishing and managing their goals, but it rnay aiso be that they are engaged in

projects that are not particularly meaningful or what is referred to as "trivial pursuits"

(Little, 1989). Additionally, this focus on action rnay be a way for people to avoid

recognizing a lack of meaning in their project system as described in the following

statement:

...irnrnersing oneself in the busy pursuit of efficacy can at least distract one from

the experience of meaninglessness. Perhaps this is why a discussion of rneaning

is so often met with sincere bewilderment. For busy people, it rnay seem like an

irrelevant construct. (McGregor & Little, 1998, p.507)

Therefore, it is conceivable that for some individuals, efficacy rnay overshadow the

construct of meaning with respect to SWB. This is particularly relevant for the
participants of the present research where the emphasis of academic procrastination

treatment is on encouraging self-efficacy and manageability of projects rather than project

meaning per se. Thus, it is conceivable that students' appraisais of project structure

would significantly increase but that appraisals of project meaning would not.

Finally, the present research did not examine goal integrity as it was presented

above. Although, the project dimension self-identity (Le., one of the project dimensions

that loads onto the factor meaning) was included in the Project Appraisal Matrix, many

students comrnented to the researcher on the difficulty of relating such an abstract

concept to their academic tasks. This is not uncornmon, in fact, McGregor and Little

(1998) cite this dimension as a limitation in their own research, ".. .it is unclear how

accurately participants were able to rate projects, especially on some of the more abstract

dimensions, such as self-identity" (p. 508). In addition, the project dimension value

congruency (one of the original project dimensions of PPA; see Little, 1983) was ornitted

from the Project Appraisal Matrix because its reIevance to academic pursuits was also

questionable. Thus, to avoid confusing students who completed PPA, it was left out of

the Project Appraisal Matrix. Perhaps if these issues were addressed and clarified in

future research, a significant change in project meaning would be revealed and a clearer

picture of the effects of treatment on SWB would be possible.

Limitations of the Research and Future Directions

There are four key shortcomings in the present research that need to be

considered. These limitations in the study Iead to a number of suggestions for future

research in this area-

 First and foremost, the most relevant limitation of this research was the sample

size. Despite efforts made in recniiting smdents on a voluntary basis, only a handful of

students ended up participating. This was due, in part, to the fact that the recruitrnent for

the workshop itself was rather brief. This shortcoming rnay have severely hampered

attempts to gain sufficient visibility of the existence of the workshop thereby reducing the

chances of not only obtaining a larger sample, but also obtaining a more diverse group of

students. In addition, it will be noted that the sample size was also Iimited by the fact that

funding for only one treatment group was availabIe. Furtherrnore, at the counsellor's

request, the treatrnent group could not be larger than about 30 participants.

Consequently, this limitation of sample size irnposed serious restrictions upon the

interpretability of the results by ~ i ~ i f i c a n treducing

ly the amount of statistical power of

the research design. However, through the usage of ANCOVA to control for individual

differences at the outset, an attempt was made to preserve the statistical power in the

design. Overail, given the lack of power, it is important to be cautious when interpreting

the results, particularly non-significant trends in the PPA data-

Second, generalizations are limited due to the lack of randornization of

participants or what Cook and Campbell (1979) consider a threat to externai validity. A

way to compensate for this limitation rnay have been to analyze the data of both: 1)

students who dropped out afier registering for the workshop and 2 ) students who made

initial contact in response to the poster announcement, but then never actually registered

to participate in the workshop. Data obtained from these groups of students could then be

compared to those students who participated in the workshop. This is relevant if one

considers that "what appears to be a successful program may only be successful with
some" (Posavac & Carey, 1992, p- 189). It should be noted that five students satisfied the

fxst condition. When contacted by phone to fmd out why they decided to not participate,

students mentioned that they had either school or job commitments that would interfere

with their workshop attendance. One student dropped out of the university aitogether to

work full-time and commented, "Maybe that's why 1 procrastinated, because 1 really

didn't want to be there." In the case of the second condition, by word of mouth, the

experimenter ofien heard remarks by fellow students who said that they "would like to

attend the workshop" but they were "too busy to fit it in rïght now." It would be sheer

speculation at this point to wonder whether these students would have benefited more

from the workshop than the actual treatment group did. Perhaps they would have

exhibited significant SWB improvements over the course of treatment relative to the

comparison groups. In other words, by their very nature, these students may have been

different than the students who actuaily participated. Thus, it rnay have been beneficial if

these students were asked to complete the questionnaire package despite not being able to

attend the workshop, to help improve the extemal validity of the present research.

This lack of randomization also applies to the cornparison groups. Although

participants in these two groups were rmdomly assigned, the pool from which they were

drawn may have lacked sufficient representativeness. It will be recalled that the entire

cornparison group sample was randomly selected from the Procrastination Research

Group mass testing pool based upon scoring in the top 30% on a procrastination measure.

However, it was originally intended that al1 participants in this research would have

onginated from the sarne source, in particular, by voluntarily coming forth in search of

help for their procrastination. If enough students responded to the poster announcement
then this could have been a redis5 random assignment wouid have been possible, and all

participants could have k e n considered equivalent across groups. Unfortunately, this did

not occur and is a cornmon shortcoming in quasi-experimental designs (Cook &

Campbell, 1979).

In addition, Cook and Campbell (1979) also warn of the difference between

generalizing ro a specific target population as opposed to across populations. In the case

of the present research, these results may only apply to students in an academic setting.

the target population of interest. In other words, these results do not necessarily reflect

those of the average population, in general, outside of an academic setting.

Third. another limitation rnay be in the treatrnent design itself. Past research

indicates that there is no singie existing manner in which to treat procrastination. As of

yet. no universal intervention has been developed that may be applied on a larger scale as

is similar to the 12-step program used by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), for example.

However, within the context of the treatment used, several suggestions of how to improve

upon the existing program were made by the participants thernselves. These included:

increasing the number and duration of sessions, more emphasis on making specific

projects public to the group such that participants would have a greater sense of

accountability towards meeting their goal, less redundant content information, and having

the workshop commence earlier in the terrn so students could have enough time to apply

what they leamed over the course of the semester. The latter improvement is shared by

Boice ( 1996) who suggests "that timely interventions should occur early ...during the

period when they can more easily set an efficacious course" (p.80).
 Fourth, another limitation with respect to the sample in the present research

pertained to the sixdents themselves. Nthough the exact figures were not obtained in this

study, several students (from both treatment and cornparison groups) mentioned privately

to the experimenter that they suffered from Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder

(ADHD). This pre-existing condition may have been a contrîbuting factor to student

academic procrastination as individuals with ADHD ofien experience poor concentration

or an inability to stay focused on the task at hand for long penods of tirne. Ln other

words, procrastination rnay have been a symptom of having ADHD. Consequently, this

aspect of individual variability is likely to have increased the amount of emor variance

overall and weakened the statistical power of the design.

These limitations in the present study, particularly the limitations related to the

research design, lead to a number of suggestions for future research such as tracking

specific projects, categorizing different types of projects, adding other PPA project

dimensions, and including more objective measures pertinent to procrastination.

One improvement in the experimental design might include incorporating a

method of ''tracking" specific projects or groups of projects over the course of treatment.

For instance, in one of his studies, Lay (1990) asked students to indicate a deadline for

their projects, for exarnple, within 2 months (Le., short-term), beyond 2 months (Le.,

long-tenn). or no specific deadline. He then tested students at three different time

intervals asking them to rate each project, using a version of PPA, across various

emotions. The results revealed a significant relationship between procrastination, short-

term deadlines, and dejection. For exarnple, relative to non-procrastinators,

procrastinators reported higher levels of dejection with respect to short-term deadlines.

Therefore, given that many academic projects have a short-term deadline, a replication of

Lay's methodology rnay be interesting to examine in the context of treatrnent.

In te- of project type, the notion of project categorization might be useful in

providing further exploration of procrastination in relation to PPA and SWB, For

instance, analyzing projects based upon their classification with respect to moiarity (e-g.,

Little, 1983, 1988, 1989) (cg., "wnte my English essay" versus "get into graduate

school") as well as content ( e g , reading projects, wnting projects, group projects) may

be worth exploring in the future. In the research done by Elliot, Sheldon and Church

(1997), two dichotomous categones referred to as avoidance goals (e-g-, "avoid

procrastination") and approach goals (e-g., "be more conscientious and efficient") were

created from the lists of personal strivings students provided during testing. The results

revealed that students with a greater proportion of avoidance goals reported Iower global

SWB over the course of the semester. Through path analyses, perceived progress was

found to be a mediator between avoidance regulation and SWB as the authors explain:

...the pursuit of avoidance goals would lead to low perceptions of progress and

that low perceived progress, in turn, would be negatively associated with

SWB.. ..the focus on negative possibilities inherent in the pursuit of avoidance

goals is likely to induce worry, threat, anxiety, and research has clearly shown that

such States undermine the process of self-regulation. (p. 9 16)

Further, those students who reported fewer self-regdatory skills were found to have a

greater nurnber of avoidance projects. A negative correlation between avoidance goals

and expected progress was also found (r=-.19, p < -05)suggesting that the more

avoidance goals students had, the more students expected to do poorly on their goals.
Taken together, these resulu help to support the notion that much rnay be gained from the

future analyses of various categories of personal projects. It also provides an alternative

way of detennîning the change in SWB relative to personal projects in the context of

procrastination.

Funire research might aiso benefit greatiy by expanding upon the PPA project

dimensions which are by no means comprehensive and rnay "not capture dl of the

elements that underlie global appraisals of.. .[project] systems" (Pychyl & Little, 1998, p.

452). Possible dimension additions rnay include dejection, anxiety, and commitment, to

name a few. From his research, Lay (1990) found a repeated link between dejection and

trait procrastination. Dejection-related emotions consisted of: exhilarated, hopeful,

happy, sad, disappointed, and disgusted. Lay concluded that dejection be treated as an

outcome variable in future research. Thus, it would be appropriate to include this

constnict as an added dimension to PPA, or perhaps even in the affect scales of SWB.

Likewise, the constnict anxiev rnay be relevant, given that relaxation techniques were a

part of treatment, and rnay be included as either an added dimension of PPA, an extra

item in the negative affect scale, or even as a separate scde altogether. The inclusion of

commitment, as another ad hoc dimension, rnay be another good choice as it is supported

by previous research by Pychyl (1995) who concluded that the likelihood of success, with

any given project, rnay depend more upon a student's personal sense of commitment to

that project- Furthemore, "in terms of academic life at least, this seems to be an

important eIement in a student's sense of well-being" (p. 105). The comment from one

workshop participant, from the present research, emphasizes this issue:

 1 think just actually going to me workshop], 1mean 1 know I didn't make i t to al1

of them but just still following through with it, it was kind of a way of like

reaffirming that I'm cornmitted to trying to stop procrastination even though I'rn

still procrastinating.

These ad hoc dimensions, dong with others, may serve to capture significant changes

within workshop participants, over time, which may not be reveded through typicd SWB

measures alone.

FinalIy, f u m e research examining the effectiveness of procrastination treatment

should include objective dependent variables, as opposed to self-reports, exciusively, as

part of the testing procedure. For instance. others' ratings of the individual's

procrastination rnight be used. Additionally, the number of projects that fail to be

completed or are submitted past their due date, over the course of the semester, could be

tallied as another objective measure of procrastination.

Conclusions

In summary, the academic procrastination treatment appeared to be moderateIy

successful at reducing academic procrastination in the participants, based upon the self-

reported scores for several procrastination rneasures (i-e., PASS, APSI, project dimension

procrastination). This was the main purpose of the present research and provided

evidence in support of the original hypotheses. However, contrary to original predictions,

the expected changes in SWB were not observed. Similady, no between-group

differences resulted for any of the PPA project factors. However, within-subjects analysis

of the treatment group yielded significant increases in students' appraisals of project

control, tirne adequacy, outcome and others' view suggesting that treatment for acadernic

procrastination helped to improve the project systems of students by increâsing their

perceptions of project structure, efficacy and community. However, the interpretation of

these resdts warrants caution given the limitations of the overall research design, for

exarnple, the srnall sarnple size. Therefore, future replication of this study would be

beneficial dong with the recommendations of tracking and categorizing various types of

academic projects, adding other PPA project dimensions, and including more objective

measures of procrastination. These suggestions would help provide further evidence of

the efficacy of this treatrnent program as well as extend the outcome research, in general,

with respect to academic procrastination treatrnent,

 Endnotes

'A second comparison group not receiving PPA or treatment was included in the

design of the present research to determine whether PPA had some fonn of clinical

impact upon students. The possibiiity that PPA could prove to be therapeutic originated

from Little (1986) who stated that PPA, "...allows the therapist/counsellor to unpack the

dimension into those particular projects and pursuits which generated the client's

interuality score, a tactic which may well have therapeutic or interventional si,onificance"

(p. 603). Further, Little adds that the project dimensions, "...rnap on well to recurring

issues in clinical and counselling psychology [adding] further impetus to treating these as

having potential relevance to diagnostic and therapeutic activities" (p. 607). It was,

therefore, conceivable that by engaging students and helping them to monitor, be aware

of, and identify their feelings about their academic projects, PPA may have had an impact

upon students, clinically, to some degree. Hence, this rnay be considered similar to

receiving treatrnent to some extent. Consequently, in light of the potential for this

prediction to occur, PPA was considered to have an effect therapeutically if no significant

differences occurred between the treatment group and the first comparison group, and

significant differences occumd between the first and second comparison group, in terms

of SWB.
 References

Aitken, M. (1952). A personality profile of the college smdent procrasrinator.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh-

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a uniQing theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 19 1-215,

Barlow, D-H. (198 1). On the relation of clinical research to clinical practice: Curent

issues, new directions. Jortrnnl of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 147-155.

Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, D.M. (1994). Losing control: How alid why

people fail at self-regitlation. San Diego: Academic Press-

Beck, A.T. ( 1976). Cognitive therapy and the enzotionnl disorders. Madison. CT:

International Universities Press.

Birner, L, (1993). Procrastination: Its role in transference and countertransference.

Psychoanalytic Review, 80, 54 1-558.

Blunt, A. (1998). Task aversiveness and procrastination: A multi-

dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of persona1 projects-

Unpublished master's thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T.A. (2000).Task aversiveness and procrastination: A multi-

dimensional approach to task aversiveness across stages of personal projects.

Personality and Individual Dzferences, 28, 153- 167.

Boice, R. (1996). Procasrinarion and Blocking: A novel, practical approach. Praeger:

Westport. CT.
Bnrnstein, J-C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-king: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061-1070.

Burka, 1.B-, & Yuen, L.M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it. What to do about it.

Massachusetts: Perseus Books.

Campbell, D.T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings.

Psychological Bulletin , 54,297-3 12.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D-T. (1979). Quasi-experimentatiorz: Design & analysis

issuesforfield sertings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larsen, R.J., & Prescott, S. (1977). The ecology of adolescent

activity and experience. Jounzal of Youth nrzd Adolescence. 6, 28 1-294.

Delicate, M. ( 1998, June). Overcorizing academr'c procrastirratiorz. Presentation for

the annud conference clf the Canadian Association of College and University

Student Services (CACWSS), Ottawa, Ontario.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984)- The independence of positive and negative affect.

Journal of Personalit), a n d Social psycho log^.., 47, 1105- 1 1 17.

Diener, E., Emrnons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessmerrt, 49-71-75.

Diener, E., Suh, E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent

events matter. Journal .uf Persortalis. and Social Ps),chology, 70, 1091- 1 102.

Dunn, S., htallaz, M., Sheppard, B-,& Lindstrom, R. (1987). Social support and

adjustment in gified adolescents. Journal of Educational Psycholom, 79,467-473.

Elliot, A.J., Sheldon, KM., & Church, M.A, (1997). Avoidance personal goals and

subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,9 15-927.

Ellis, A. (1962)- Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.

Ellis, A. (1980). Rational-emotive therapy and cognitive behavior therapy: Similarities

and clifferences. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4,325-340.

Ellis, A. (1985). Expanding the ABC'S of rational-emotive therapy. In M. Mahoney &

A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognition and psychotherapy (pp. 3 13-323). New York: Plenum.

Ellis, A. (199 1)- The revised ABC'S of rational-emotive therapy (RET).Jortrnal of

Rational-enzotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 9, 139-172,

Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. ( 1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for

Rationd Living.

Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective

well-being. Jo~lrnalof Persorzality and Social Pqchology, 51, 1058-1068.

Emmons, R.A. (199 1). Personal strivings. daily life events, and psychological and

physical well-being. Jotrrnal of P e r s o n a l i ~59,453-472.

Ferrari, J.R. ( 1991a). A preference for a favorable public impression by ~rocrastinators:

Selecting arnong cognitive and social tasks. Personalis, and individual D e r e n c e s ,

12, 1233-1237.

Ferrari, J.R. (199 1b). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem,

social-esteem, or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25,245-26 1.

Ferrari, J.R. (1992). Psychornetric validation of two procrastination inventories for

adults: Arousal and avoidance measures. Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assesment, 14'97- 110.

Ferrari, J. R. (1995). Perfectionism cognitions with nonclinical and clinical samples.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personali~,10,143-156.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L.,& McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task

avoidance: Theory, research and treamtent. New York: Plenum Press.

Ferrari, J.R., & Pychyl, T.A. (Eds.). (2000). Procrastination: Current issues and new

directions [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personalim 15 (5).

FIett, G. L,,Blankstein, K. R.,Hewitt, P. L., & Koledin, S. (1992). Cornponents of

perfectionism and procrastination in college students. Social Behavior and

Personaliîy, 20, 85-94.

Garfield, S.L. (198 1). Evaluating the psychotherapies. Behavior Therapy, 12,295-307-

GoIlwitzer, P.M. (1990). Action phases and rnind-sets. In E.T. Higgins & R.M.

Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivatiorz and cognitiorz: Vol, 2. Foundntiorzs of

social behaviour (pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press.

Harris, N.N., & Sutton, R.I. (1983). Task procrastination in organizations: A frarnework

for research. Human Relations, 36, 987-996.

Jacobson, NS.,Follette, WC,, & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Psychotherapy outcome

- research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance.

Behavior Therupy, 15,336-352.

Jacobson, N.S ., & Revenstorf, D. (1988). Statistics for assessing the clinical

significance of psychotherapy techniques: Issues, problems, and new developments.

Behavioral Assessment, 10, 133-145.

Jacobson, N., & Truax, P- (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to

defining rneaningful change in psychotherapy research. JozrrnaE of Corzsulting &

Clinical Psychology, 59, 1 2- 19.

Jason, L.A., & Burrows, B. (1983). Transition training for bigh schooI seniors.

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7,79-92.

Jourard, S.M. (197 1). n i e transparent self (2nded.). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Kazdin, A.E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change

through socid validation. Behavior Modzfïcarion, 1,427453.

KendaII, P.C.,& Grove, W.M. (1988). Normative cornparisons in therapy outcome.

Behavioral Assessment, 10, 147-158.

Kendall, P.C.,& Norton-Ford, J.D. (1982). Therapy outcome research methods. In P.C.

Kendall & J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical

pqcltology (pp. 429-460). New York: Wiley.

Keppel, G. ( 1991). Design and a n a k i r : A researcher ' s handboot (3rd ed.) New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall h c .

Knaus, W. J. (1998). Do it now! U S A : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kuehlwein, KT.. & Rosen, H. (Eds.). (1993). Cognitive therapies in action: Evolving

innovative practice. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lay, C. (1986). At l a s , my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in

Personality, 20,474-495.

Lay, C . (1990). Working to schedule on personal projects: An assessrnent of person-

project charactenstics and trait procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 5 , 9 1- I 03.

Lay, C.H., Knish, S., & Zanatta, R. (1992). Self-handicappers and procrastinators: A

cornparison of their practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of Research in

Personali~,26,242-257.
Little, B. R. (1983). Personai projects: A rationale and method for investigation.

Environment and Behavior, 15,273-309.

Little, B. R. (1 986). Personal projects anaiysis: A new methodology for counselling

psychology. NATCON, 13,591-6 t 4.

Little, B.R. (1988). Personal projects research: Method, theory and research. Final

Report to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC),

Ottawa, Canada,

Little, B- R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, masificent obsessions

and the search for coherence. In D.M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personaliq

psyclrology: Recent trends and emerging directiorrs (pp. 15-3 1). New York:

Springer-Ver1as.

Little. B.R. (1998). Personal project pursuit: Dimensions and dynarnics of personal

meaning. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S.Fry (Eds.), The hrtmnrz qrtest for meaning: A

handbookfor research and clNzical applications. (pp. 193-2 12). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Lykken, D-, & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenornenon.

Psyclzological Science, 7, 186- 189.

McCown, W-, & Roberts, R. (1994). A studies of acadenùc and work-related

dysfunctioning relevant to the college version of an indirect rneasure of impulsive

behavior. Integra Technical Puper 94-28, Radnor, PA: htegra, Inc.

McGregor, I., & Little, B.R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On

doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 74,

492-5 12.
Milgram, N. (199 1). Procrastination. In R. Dulbecco (Ed-),EncycZopedia of human

biology (pp. 149- 155). New York: Academic Press.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.F. (in press). Self-regdation and depletion of limited

resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Brrllerin.

Muraven, M., Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of

seIf-regulation through practice: Building seIf-control strength through repeated

exercise, Journal of Social Psychology, 139,446457.

Myers, D.G., & Diener, E. ( 1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science. 6, 10- 19.

Nietzel, M.T., & T d l , T.J. (1988). Meta-analytic approaches to social comparisons: A

Behavioral Assesmzenr, 10. 146- 159.

method for measunng clinical ~i~pificance.

Omodei. M.M., & Wearing, A.J. (1990). Need satisfaction and involvement in personal

projects: Towards an integrative model of subjective well-being. Jounial of

Personaliry and Social Psychology, 59, 762-769.

Palys, T. S.. & Little, B. R. (1983). Perceived life satisfaction and the organization of

the personal project systems. Jormtal of Personal* and Social PsycIzology, 44.

1221-1230.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993a). The affective and cognitive context of self-reported

measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicarors Research, 28, 1-20.

Pavot, W-, & Diener, E- (1993b). Review of the satisfaction with life scale.

Psychological Assessment, 5, 164- 172.

Posavac, E.J., & Carey, R.G. (1992). Progarn evaluarion: Merhods and case studies (4th

ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Pychyl, T.A. (1995)- Personal projects, subjective well-being and the lives of doctoral

studen rs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada

PychyI, T.A,, Lee, J., Thibodeau, R-, & Blunt, A. (2000). Five days of emotions: An

experïence sarnpling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 15,239-254.

Pychyl, T-A,, & Little, B-R, (1998). Dimensional specificity in the prediction of

subjective well-being: Personal projects in pursuit of the PhD. Social Indicarors

Research. 45,423-473.

Pychyl, T-A., Morin, R.W.. & Salmon. B.R. (2000). Procrastination and the planning

fallacy: An examination of the study habits of university students- Journal of Social

Behavior and Persorzalic, 15. 135- 150.

Rothblum, E.D- (1990). Fear of failure: The psychodynamic, need achievement. fear of

success, and procrastination rnodels- In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and

evalua tion anxiev (pp. 497-537). New York: Plenum.

Rothblum, ED-, Solomon, L.J., & Murakami, J- (1986). Affective, cognitive. and

behavioural differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling

Psychology. 33, 387-394.

Saddler, C . D., & Sacks, L. A. (1993). Multidimensional perfectionism and academic

procrastination: Relationskiips with depression in university students. Psychological

Reports, 73, 863-87 1.

Schouwenburg. H.C. ( 19%). Procrastinators and fear of failure: An exploration of

reasons for procrastination. European Journal of Personality, 6,225-236.

Schubert Walker, L.J. (in press). Overcorning the powerïessness of procrastination.

Canadian Journal of Guidance and Counselling.

Semb, G-,Glick, D.M., & Spencer, R.E. (1979). Student withdrawals and delayed work

patterns in self-paced psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 6,23-25.

Senécal, C., Koestner, R., & VaIlerand, R.J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic

procrastination- The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 607-6 19.

Senécal, C.,Koestner, R.,& Vallerand, R.J. (1997). Trait and situational factors in

procrastination: An interactional model. Joltmal of Social Behavior and

Personalis; 12,889-903.

Silver, M. (1974). Procrastination. Centerpoint, 1,49-54.

Silver, M., & Sabini, J. (198 1). Procrastinating. Jortrnal for rhe T h e o y of Social

Behaviortr, 11, 207-22 1.

Siiver, M., & Sabini, J, (1982, January). When it's not really procrastinating,

Psychology Todny, 39-42.

Smith, M.L., Glass, G.V.,& Miller, T. (1980). The benefirs of ps,chotherapy_

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E.D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and

cognitive-behaviord correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychoiogy, 3I,SO3-509.

Solornon, L. J., & Rothblum, E-D- (1988)- Procrastination Assessrnent Scale - Students.

In M. Hersen & A S . BeIlack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessrnent techniques

(pp. 358-360). New York: Pergarnmon Press.

Solomon, L.J., & Rothblum, E.D- (1994). Procrastination Assessment Scde - Students

(PASS). In J. Fischer & K. Corcoran (Eds-), Measures for clinicul practice (pp. 446-

452). New York: The Free Press.

Steinberg, L.D. (1993). Adolescence (3rded.). USA: McGraw-Hill.

Szawlowski, S, (1987). Procrastination from a project analytic perspective.

Unpublished bachelor's thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Tice, D.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination,

performance, stress, and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychologicnl

Science, 8.454-458 -

Wilson, D.A. ( 1990)- Persorzal projecr dinlensiorzs and perceived lqe-satisfaction: A

qumztitntive qnrhesis. Unpublished master's thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa,

Ontario. Canada.

Wolf, M.M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how

applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Jortrnal of Applied Behavior Anatysis.

11,203-214.

Yetrnin, U. (1993)- Life satisfaction: A study based on the organization of personal

projects. Social Indicators Research, 29,277-289.

(Note: Appendices were photo-reduced to accommodate binding.)

Appendix A 1

Infonned Consent Forrn for Treatment Group

 104
Informed Consent Form

The purpose of an informed consent is to ensure that you understand the purpose of the study and the
nature of your involvement, in order to determine whether you wish to participate in the study.

Present Studv: Academic Procrastination Workshop

Research Personnel: The following people are involved in this research project and may be contacted
ar any time: Kelly Binder (Rinciple Investigator, 520-2600 e x t 2705),Dr. T. Pychyl (Faculty Sponsor,
520-2600, e x t 1403). If you have ethical questions/concerns about this shxdy please contact Dr. M.
Gick (Chair, Department of Psychology Ethics Cornmittee, 520-2600 ext. 2664) or Dr. K. Matheson
(Chair, Department of Psychology, 520-2600, ext. 2648).

Purpose: The purpose of this smdy is to investigate the academic procrastination behavior of students
attending an academic procrastination workshop over the course of the semester. No credit will be
offered for participation in this study.

Workshop: You will be asked to attend six group sessions (one per week). Each session will last two
hours. The workshop wiil help you understand your behavior and offer strategies to overcorne your
procrastination. Some between-session " a s s i ~ e n t s "will be given to you throughout the workshop.
Follow-up phone calls may be made to you regarding your progress.

Task Reauirements: You wiil be asked to cornplete several questionnaires at four different times
throughout the semester. The questionnaires wiil include questions asking you about how you feel and
how you manage your tirne, The questionnaires will take 2 hours or less to complete each time,

Potential RisklDiscornfort: There are no known risks or discomfom in this study.

~nonvmity/~onfidentialik: The data couected in this snidy are confidential. AU data are coded such
that your name is not associated with the data. Any data reported will be based on group data, or by .
code number and will only be made available 20 the researchers associated with this project. Personal
disclosure(s) shared within the group by group members must be kept exclusively within the group.

t Withdraw: Participation in this study is strictly voluntasy. If, for any reason, you wish to
R i ~ h to
withdraw from the study and the workshop, you haveihe right to do so at any rime without academic
penalty.
- - ---

1 have'read the above description of the Academic Procrastination Workshop study and understand
the conditions of my participation. My signature indicates that 1agree to participate in the study.

Participant's Name (please print) Researcher' s Name

Participant's Signature Researcher's Signature

Date
 Appendix A2

Informed Consent Form for Cornparison Group 1 (with PPA)

 Informed Consent Form

The purpose of an informed consent is to ensure that you understand the purpose of the study and
the nature of your involvement, in order to determine whether you wish to participate in the
study.

Present Studv: Academic Procrastination

Research Personnel: The foLlowing people are involved in tbis research project and rnay be
contacted at any time: Keiiy Binder (Principle hvestigator, 520-2600 e x t 2705),Dr. T.Pychyl
(Faculty Sponsor, 520-2600, ext. 1403). If you have ethical questions/concems about this smdy
please contact Dr. M. Gick (Chair, Department of Psych010gy Ethics Committee, 520-2600 ext.
2664) or Dr, K. Matheson (Chair,Department of Psychology, 520-2600, ext. 2648).

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigale the academic procrastination behavior of
students over the course of the semester- Your scores on severai questionnaires will be compared
to the scores of other students participating in an academic procrastination workshop,

Task Rmuirements: You will be asked to compfete several questionnaires at four different
times throughout the semester- The questionnaires will include questions asking you about how
you feel and how you manage your time. The questionriaires will take 2 hours or less to
complete each time. Credit(s) may be received for participating in the study depending upon
how many credits you have already.

Potentid RisWDiscomfort: There are no known risks or discornforts in this snidy.

Anonvmitv/Co~dentialitv:The data collected in this study are cofidential. All data are
coded such that your name is not associated with the data. Any data reported will be based on
group data, or by code number and wiU o d y be made available to the researchers associated with
this project.

Right ta Withdraw: Participation in tiiis study is strictly voluntaq. If, for any reason, you wish
to withdraw Çom the study, you have the nght to do so at any t h e without academic penalty.

I have read the above description of the ~ c a d e m i cProcrastination study and undentand the
conditions of my participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in the study.

-p

Participant's Name (piease print) Researcher' s Name

Participant's Signature Researcher' s Signame

Date
 Appendix A3

Informed Consent Form for Cornparison Group 2 (without PPA)

 Informed Consent Form

The purpose of an infomed consent is to ensure that you understand the purpose of the study and
the nature of your involvement, in order to determine whether you wish to participate in the
study.

Present Study:Academic Procrastination

Research Personnel: The following people are involved in this research project and may be
contacted at any tirne: Kelly Binder m c i p l e Investigator. 520-2600 ext. 2705). Dr. T. Pychyl
(Facuity Sponsor, 520-2600, ext. 1403). If you have ethical questions/concerns about this smdy
please contact Dr. M. Gick (Chair, Department of Psychology Ethics Committee, 520-2600 ext
2664) or Dr. K. Matheson (Chair,Department of Psychology, 520-2600, ext. 2648).

Pumse: The purpose of this smdy is to investigate the academic procrastïnation behavior of
students over the course of the semester. Your scores on severai questionnaires will be compared
t o the scores of other studenu participahg in an academic procrasruiation workshop.

Task Requirements: You wiiI be asked to complete several questionnaires at three different
times throughout the semester. The questionnaires will include questions asking you about how
you feel and how you manage your time. The questionnaires will take about 2 hours or less to
complete each tirne. Credit(s) may be received for partïcipating in the snidy depending upon
how many credits you have aiready.

Potential RiskBDiscomfort: There are no known risks or discomforts in this study.

Anonvmitv/Co~dentialitv:The data coilected in this study are confidentid. Ail data are
coded such that your name is not associated with the data. Any data reponed w i l l be based on
group data, or by code number and WU oniy be made available to the researchers associated with
this project.

Ripht to Withdraw: Participation in this snidy is strictiy voluntary. If, for any reason, you wish
to withdraw nom the study, you have the right to do so at any time without academic penalty.
- - - - -- - - - -

I have read the above description of the Academic Rocrastination study and understand the
conditions of my participation. My signature indicates that 1 agree to participate in the snidy.

Participant's Name (please print) Researcher's Name

Participant' s Signature Researcher's Signature

Date
 Appendix B 1

Debriefing Summary for Treatment Group

 DEBRIEFING

The purpose of this study was to examine how effective an academic procrastination
workshop was on decreasing the tendency-forstudents to procrastinate on university-related ta&
(e-g., studying for an exarn). Questionnaires were given to you before and after the workshop to
see whether there was an improvement in your procrastinah'on. In other words, by participating
in the workshop, it was expected thar you would procrastinate l e s .
Generally, people procrastinate for a variety of reasons. For instance. the task may be
unpleasant so it is avoided. Another reason someone rnay procrashate may be because they ~e
a h i d they wïii not be able to complete the task successfidiy. This is known as "fear of fidure".
On the other hand, sometimes people may delay doing somethuig (e-g., wxite a term paper)
because they are womed that if they do well (e.g., get a good mark) they wiil have to do just as
weii or even bener the next tirne-
As a result, procrastination often creates feelings of subjective discornfort. In order to
m e s u r e these feelings, a subjective weii-being scde was also inchded in the questionnaire. The
same scale was given to you at two different times. These PNO times were before and afier the
workshop. Ifyour scores on the scale before-the workshop are different fiom your scores on the
scale ufier the workshop it may mean two things: 1) there was a change in your well-being over
time, or 2) the change in your well-being was due to the workshop. In generd, it is hoped that the
workshop helped you to feel better. Therefore, it is expected that your subjective well-being
scores will be higher at the end of the workshop than before the workshop.
Procrastination has also been found to be related to depression and anxiety. Therefore,
you were asked questions about how you felt so that your depression and anxiety levels would be
obtained This information wiii help me to d e out other factors that may affect the results of this
study.
In addition, you were asked to write down your academic "projects" and rate them on
various aspects, for exarnple, how difficult or enjoyable you found these tasks to be. This
information was gathered at several different times throughout the semester in order to provide
me with a means of tracking your on-going academic progress. In other words, it gives me a
record of which projects were carried out by you and how you felt about your projects. In
previous research, a relationship has k e n found between project progress and weLl-being. That is
to Say, people who make progress or complete their projects are usually happier than people who
do not-
Fï~~aily,I do wish to stress that your individual scores/data wiU be kept strictly
confidentid. Any data reported will be based on group data or code number to ensure anonymity.
Thank you for your participation in this research, Your time and efforts were greatly
appreciated. If, for any reason, this experiment has raised issues of a personal nature for you
please contact your family doctor, Health Services (520-6674), or phone the Ottawa Distress
Centre at 238-33 11.
If you wish to discuss any additiond aspects of this research the following people are
available for appointments: Kelly Binder (Principle Investigator, 520-2600 ext. 2705) and Dr. T.
Pychyl (Faculry Sponsor, 520-2600, ext. 1403). If you have ethical questions/concerns about this
study please contact Dr. M. Gick (Chair, Deparment of Psychology Ethics Committee, 520-2600
ext. 2664) or Dr. K. Matheson (Chair,Deparunent of Psychology, 520-2600, ext. 2648).
 Appendîx B2

Debriefing S u m q for Cornparison Group 1 (with PPA)

 The purpose of this study was to examine how your scores on several questionnaires
will compare to students involveci in an acadernic procrastination workshop. SpecifïcaIly, I a m
intcrested in knowing how effixtive this workshop was on decreasing the tendency for studenu
to procrastinate on university-related tasks (e-g,, studying for an exarn). Questionnaires were
given to you at different intervds to sec whether rhere was m y change in your tendency to
procrastination.
Generally, people procrastinate for a variew of reasoos. For ÏnstaÏxe, the task may be
unpleasant so it is avoided Another reason someone may procrastuiate msy be because they
are &aid they wiU not be able to complete the task successfully. This is known as "fear of
failurey'. On the other hand, sometimes people may delay doing sornething (e.g., write a term
p-r) because they are worried that if they do well (e-g., get a good mark) they will have to do
just as well or even better the next t h e .
As a result, procrastination often creates feelings of subjective discornfort. fn order to
measure these feelings, a subjective well-being scde was included in the questionnaire. The
same scale was given at different intemals to see whether there was any change in your feelings
over tirne.
Procrastination has also been found to be related to depression and anxiety, Therefore,
you were asked questions about how you felt so that your depression and anxiety levels would
be obtained. This information will help me to nile out other factors that may af5ect the resulu
of this study.
You were also asked to mite down your academic "projects" and rate them on various
aspects; for example, how difficult or enjoyable you found them to be. Since this information
was gathered at several different times throughout the semester, it was a way of tracking your
on-going academic progress. it also provided a record of what projects were carried out and
how you felt about their projects. In previous research, a relationship has k e n found berween
project progress and well-being. That is to Say, people who make progress or complete their
projects are usuaily happier than people who do not.
Finally, 1 do wish to stress that your individuai scoreddata will be kept strictly
confidentid. Any data reported will be based on group data or code nurnber to ensure
anonyrniry.

Thank you for your participation in this research. Your time and efforts were greatly
appreciated, If you feel that you need help regarding your procrastination you may contact the
Student Life Center (520-6600), or Health Services (520-6674). If, for any reason, this
experiment has raised issues of a personal nature for you please contact your family doctor,
Health Services (520-6674), or phone the Ottawa Disaess Centre at 238-33 11.
If you wish to discuss any additional aspects of this research the following people are
avaiiable for appointments: KeUy Binder (Prïnciple Znvestigator, 520-2600 ext. 2705) and Dr.
T.Pychyl (Faculty Sponsor, 520-2600, ext. 1403). If you have ethical questions/concerns about
this study please contact Dr. M. Gick (Chair, Department of Psychology Ethics Committee,
520-2600 ext. 2664) or Dr. K. Matheson (Chair, Department of Psychology, 520-2600, ext.
2648).
 Appendix B3

Debriefing Summary for Cornparison Group 2 (without PPA)

 DEBRIEFING

The purpose of th% study was to examine how your scores on several
questionnaires wiU compare to students involved in an academic procrastination
workshop. Specifically, 1am interested in knowing how effective this workshop was on
decreasing the tendency for students to procrastinate on university-related tasks (e-g.,
studyinp for an exam). Questionnaires were given to you at different intervals to see
whether there was any change in your tendency to procrastination over the course of the
semester.
Generally, people procrastinate for a variety of reasons- For instance, the task
rnay be unpleasant so it is avoided. Another reason someone rnay procrastinate rnay be
because they are afraid they will not be able to cornplete the task successfulIy. This is
known as "fear of failure". On the other hand, sometimes people rnay delay doing
something (e-g., write a term paper) because they are worried that if they do well (e.g., get
a good mark) they will have to do just as weIl or even better the next tirne.
As a result, procrastination often creates feelings of subjective discornfort. In
order to measure these feelings, a subjective well-being scaie was incIuded in the
questionnaire. The same scale was given to you at different intervals to see whether there
was any change in your feelings over time.
Procrastination has also been found to be related to depression and anxiety.
Therefore, you were asked questions about how you felt so that your depression and
anxiety levels would be obtained. This information will help me to rule out other factors
that rnay affect the results of this study.
Finally, 1do wîsh to stress that your individual scoreddata wiI1 be kept strictly
confidentid. Any data reported w i l be based on group data or code number to ensure
anonymity.

Thank you for your participation in this research. Your time and efforts were
greatly appreciated. If you feel that you need help regarding your procrastination you rnay
contact the Student Life Center (520-6600), or Health Services (520-6674). If, for any
reason, this expriment has raised issues of a personal nature for you please contact your
family doctor, Heaith Services (520-6674), or phone the Ottawa Distress Centre at 238-
3311.
If you wish to discuss any additional aspects of this research the following people
are available for appointrnents: Kelly Binder (Principle Investigator, 520-2600 ext. 2705)
and Dr. T. Pychyl (Faculty Sponsor, 520-2600, ext. 1403). If you have ethical
questions/concerns about this study please contact Dr. M. Gick (Chair, Department of
Psychology Ethics Committee, 520-2600 ext. 2664) or Dr. K. Matheson (Chair,
Department of Psychology, 520-2600, ext. 2648).
 Appendix C

Procrastination Assessrnent Scale-Students (PASS)

For each of the following activities, please rate the degree to which you delay or
procrastinate. Rate each item on and "a" to "e" scale below according to how often you
wait until the last minute to do the activity. Then, indicate on an "a" to "e" scale the
degree to which you feel procrastination on that task is a problem. Finally, indicate on an
"a" to "e" scale the degree to which you would like to decrease yow tendency to
procrastinate on each task, Mark your answers by circling the appropriate letter below
each question.

1. To what degee do you procrastinate on this task?

Never Al ways
procrastinate Almost never Sometimes Nearly always procrastinate

2. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at ail Always a

a problem Almost never Sometimes Nearly always problem

3. To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastinate on this task?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease Somewhat to decrease
11. Studying for Exams

4. To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?

Never Aiways
procrastinate Alrnost never ~ometimes Neariy always procrastinate

5. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at al1 Always a

a problem Almost never Sometimes Nearly always problem

6 . To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastinate on this task?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease Somewhat to decrease
III. Keeping up Weekly Reading Assignments

7. To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?

Never Al ways
procrastinate Nmost never Sometimes Nearl y always procrastinate

8. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at ail Always a

a problem Aimost never Sometimes Nearly dways problem

9. To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastina.te on this ta&?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease Somewhat to decrease
IV. Academic Administrative Tasks: Filling Out Fotms, Registering for
CZasses, Getting ID Card, etc.

10. To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?

Never Always
procrastinate Almost never Sometimes Nearly always procrastinate

11. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at al1 Always a

a problem A h o s t never Sometimes Neariy dways problem

12. To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastinate on this task?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease Somewhat to decrease
V . Attendance Tasks: Meeting with Your Advisor, Making an
Appoinîment with a Professor, etc.

13- To what degree do you procrastinate on this task?

Never Always
procrastinate Almost never Sometimes Nearly always procrastinate

14. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at al1 Always a

a problem Almost never Sometimes Nearly al ways problem

15. To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastinate on this task?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease Somewhat to decrease
VI. School Activities in General

16. To what degree do you procraktinate on this task?

Never Always
procrastinate Almost never Sometimes Nearly dways procrastinate

17. To what degree is procrastination on this task a problem for you?

Not at al1 Always a

a problem Almost never Sometimes Nearly aiways problem

18. To what extent do you want to decrease your tendency to procrastinate on this task?

Do not want Definitely want

to decrease to decrease
Think of the last time the foilowing situation occurred:

It's near the end of the semester. The term paper you were assigned at the beginning of
the semester is due very soon. You have not begun work on this paper, There are reasons
why you have been procrastinating on this task.

Rate each of the following reasons on a 5-point scale according to how much it reflects
why you procrastinated at the time. Mark your answers by writing the letter "a" to "e" in
the space to the ieft of each statement.

Use the scde:

Not at al1 Definitely

reflects why 1 Somewhat reflects why 1
procrastinated reflects procrastinated

You were concerned the professor wouldn't like your work.

You had a hard time knowing what to include and what not to include in
your paper.

You waited until a classmate did hishers, so that he/she could give you
some advice.

You had too many other things to do.

There's some infonnation you needed to ask the professor, but you felt
uncomfortable approaching hirdher.

You were womed you would get a bad grade.

You resented having to do things assigned by others.

You didn't think you knew enough to wnte the paper.

You really disliked wntinp term papers.

10. You felt overwhelmed by the task.

1 1. You had difficulty requesting infonnation fiom other people.

 Not at al1 Definitely
reflects why I Somewhat reflects why 1
procrastinated reflects procrastinated

12. You looked forward to the excitement of doing this task at the last minute.

13. You couldn't choose among al1 the topics.

14. You were concerned that if you did well, your classmates would resent
you.

15. You didn't trust yourself to do a good job.

16. You didn't have enough energy to begin the task-

17. You felt it just takes too long to wnte a term paper.

18. You liked the challenge of waiting until the deadline-

19. You knew that your classmates hadn't started the paper either.

20. You resented people setting deadlines for you.

2 1. You were concerned you wouldn't meet your own expectations.

22. You were concerned that if you got a good grade, people would have
higher expectations of you in the future.

23. You waited to see if the professor would give you some more information
about the paper.

24. You set very high standards for yourself and you womed that you
wouldn't be able to meet those standards.

25. You just felt too lazy to wnte a term paper.

26. Your fnends were ~ressurinzvou to do other thines.

 Appendix D

Academic Procrastination State Inventory (APSI)

 PART N

How frcquemly lut weck did you engage m the fOllowing behaviors or thoughts?

Put offthe coqletion of a tasic. .........................................

Allowed purself to be distracted from your wrk ...................

Gave up sUidying btcausc you did not f#I w d.........................

Hildnoencrgyto saidy ........................................................

M e d d m t o daydrcams while stuaying................................

Had dmhs about p u r own ab- .......................................

Expaienaxi c o n d o n problans when studykg.................

Gave up whm studying was not going wcL ...........................

Doubtcd that you sbouià bave wcr ts3raithis course.................

LU) Interruptccisttrdying for a M e in order to do othathiugs...... ..

1:) Thoughz that you bad cnough time left, so
that t h e n was realiy no n d to start studying.........................
12) Gave up studying e d y in order to do more plcasant things.........

13) Did so many other t b g s that thtn was

-ïnsuEcienst h e left for m g . . . ....................................

16) Had panicky f&gs while studying....................................

 * ..-..
E x p e r i t n c e d f ~ o.,...,,,......--..-..-..-.-*-...
f~ - -...-.*.-
F&taiscwiien studying ,.,,,.. ,.,.,...,.*..*....................- .*.-....

Wondercd why you wodd study iftiris

wouid mean so much trouble for you. ,.......-......-......-....-.-
-..--
Feh that you rcaIiy haed snidymg.. ...-..........-.............- .-.-....

- -.-.- ......-...-- ......--

Found the subject matta boring.. .-- ..-- .-. .- - -.
Forgot to prepart tlxings for studymg.,..... .-.................- ...- .--
Prcparcd to shidy at somc point in time but did not get any furthet-...
 Appendix El

Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

Below are five staternents with which you may agree or disagree. Using the scale below each
item, indicate your agreement with each statement by pfacing a mark in the appropriate box.

Please be open and honest in your responding.

1. In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.

Strongly Siightiy Neither Agree srigmry Strongly

Disagree Dkagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree

u El
2. The conditions of my life are excellent.
Strongly Siïghtiy Neither Agree Slightly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree not Disagree Ag ree Agtee Agree
17 cl O O O O
3. 1 am satisfied w%hmy Iife.

Strongly Slightly Neither Agree Slightly StrongIy

Disagree Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree

CI 0 O
the important things I want in life.
4. So far, I have.go~en

Stro ngIy SligMIy Nerther Agree Sllghüy Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree
CI 0
5. If I couid !ive ?y life over, I would change almost nothiog.
Strongly Sfightly Neither Agree SIigMIy Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree
El 0
 Appendix E2

Positive and Negative Affect Scales

This quedonnaire consists of k n adjectives which may describe the way Wu have felt duffng
the past few weeks. Using the scale below each item, @se Micate how much each adje&ve
describes how you have felt lately. lndicate your choice by making a mark in t h e appropriate
box.

During the past few weeks did you ever feel .. .

Not at all Extremely Much

n n cl
Frustrated
Not at al! Extremely Much
0
Worried or Anxious
Not al al1

Joyful
Not at al1

Pleased
Not at ail Extremely Much

Angry or hostile
Not al ail Extremely Much
n
Not ai dl Extremelv Much

Depressed
Not at al1 Extremely Much

0 O
Not at al1

Gui IL
Not at a1 Extremelv Much
n
 Appendix F1

Personal Projects Analysis (PPA)

 PART VII

1am interested in studying the kinds of activities and concerns that university
students have. 1cd1 these personal academicprojects. As students, we al1 have a
number of persond academic projects at any given time that we think about, plan for,
carry out and sometimes (though not aiways) complete.

Here are some examples of personal academic projects:

Study for my Calculus exarn.

Getting into graduate schooI.
Writing my History tenn paper.
Choosing a thesis topic.
Go to the Library to search for a journal article,
Meet with my professor.
Form a study group for statistics-
Finish reading my book for English class,

1am also very interested in finding out how students feel about these personal
academic projects, how enjoyable they are, and so on. 1would appreciate it if you could
begin by writing down in the next ten minutes as many persona1 academic projects as you
can that you are engaged in or thinking about at the present time - remernber these are not
necessarily forma1 projects, or important ones - 1 would prefer you to give me more of the
everyday kinds of activities or concems that characterize your academic life at present.
 List of Academic Projects

Please go ahead and wrïte down as many as you can in ten minutes.
 Now select ten projects fkom your list on the previous page that you are most
likely to engage in over the next month or so. If you wrote down fewer than ten projects,
see if you can think of several more, or break down some of those you listed into several
projects. It is important that you try to select ten projects.

In rows 1 to 18 please rate each one of your projects using any number from O to
10, inclusively, on the following dimensions:

1. Importance: how important each project is to you at the present time (use 10 if the
project is very important to you and O if it is not at al1 important to you).

2. Enjoyrnent: how you enjoy working on each project (use 10 if you enjoy it a great
d e d and O if you do not enjoy it at dl).

3. Difficulty: how difficuk you find it to carry out each project (use IO for a project
that you find very difficult to carry out and O for one that you do not
find difficult at dl).

4. Visibility: how visible each project is to the relevant people who are close to you,
that is how aware are they that you are engaged in this project (use 10
for a project which is very visible to those around you and O for a
project which is not at al1 visible to those around you).

5. Control: how much you feel you are in control of each project (use 10 for a
project over which you feel in complete control and O for a project over
which you feel you have no control at dl).

6 . Initiation: how much you feel responsible for having initiated each project (use 10
if you feel filly responsible for having initiated a project and O if you
feel you have taken no part whatsoever in initiating a project).

7. Stress: how stressful it is for you to carry out each project (use 10 if a project is
very stressful to carry out and O if a project is very relaxing to carry
out),

8. Time Adequacy: how much you feel that the arnount of time you spend working on each
project is adequate (use 10 if you feel that the amount of time spent on a
project is perfectly adequate and O if you feel, for one reason or another,
that the amount of time you spend working on a project is not at al1
adequate).
9-Outcome: what you anticipate the outcorne of each project to be (use 10 if you
think that a project will be extremely successful and O if you think that a
project will tuni out to be a total failure).

how typical of you each project is (use 10 is a project is very typical of

you and O if it is not at d l typical of you).

11- Others' view : how important each project is seen to be by relevant people who are
close to you (use 10 if a project is seen by others as very important and
O if it is seen as not important at d).

12. Positive impact: how much you feel that each project helps the others. Don't worry
whether it hinders or not, we'll get to that on the next dimension (use 10
to indicate that a project greatly increases your chances of working on
other projects and O to indicate that a project haç no positive effect).

13. Negative impact: how much you feel that each project hinders other projects (use 10 to
indicate that a project seriously hinders your chances of working on
other projects and O to indicate that it does not have any negative
effect).

14. Progress: how successful you have been in a project so far (use 10 to indicate that
you have been very successful and O to indicate that you have had no
success at dl).

15. Challenge: to what extent each project is demanding and chalIenging to you (use 10
if a project is most challenging and O if it is not challenging at dl).

16- Absorption: to what extent you become engrossed or deeply involved in a project
(use 10 if you generally get absorbed in an activity and O if you ten to be
uninvolved when doing it).

17. Guilt: how much guilt is associated with a project (use 10 if you feel very
guilty in regards to this project and O if you do not feel guilty at dl).

18. Procrastination: to what extent do you delay or put off doing a project (use 10 for a
project that you almost always put off doing and O if you do not put off
this project at ail.
tnriroçtions: 1. Write the names ofthe tm projects yon chose fiom your project lis@) m the
spaces provided below CL^., in the ten ~
M
IO
II~
II under "List of3?rojectsN).
2. Using the giossnry pmvided on the prevïous two pages, rate each of your projects
on the project dimensions in the m&x

Projecî Dimensions l
 Appendix F2

Modified Instructions for Persona1 Projects Analysis (PPA)

 Now look over the photocopy I handed back to you containing your k t of projects
fkom a few weeks ago. Please check off any project(s) that you either h i s h e d or
abandoned dtogether. Mark an T'in the margin beside the appropriate project if you
finished it. Mark an "A" in the margin beside the appropriate project if you abandoned
it-
Of the remaining projects (Le., not those projects that have k e n finished or
abandoned) on your photocopied sheet and your new list of projects from the previous
page, select ten projects that you are most Likely to engage in over the next month or so.
If you have fewer than ten projects, see if you can thi& of several more, or break down
some of those you listed into several projects. It is important that you try to select ten
projects,

Glossaw

In rows I to 18 please rate each one of your projects using any nurnber from O to 10 on
the following dimensions,

1- Importance: how important each project is to you at the present time (use 10 if the
project is very important to you and O if it is not at al1 important to you).

2. Enjoyment: how you enjoy working on each project (use 10 if you enjoy it a great
deal and O if you do not enjoy it at dl).

3- Difficulty: how difficult you find it to carry out each project (use 10 for a project
that you find very dificult to cany out and O for one that you do not
find difficult at dl)-

4. VisibiIity: how visible each project is to the relevant people who are close to you,
that is how aware are they that you are engaged in this project (use 10
for a project which is very visible to those around you and O for a
project which is not at all visible to those around you).

5. Control: how much you feel you are in control of each project (use 10 for a
project over which you feel in complete control and O for a project over
which you feel you have no control at dl).

6. Initiation: how much you feel responsible for having initiated each project (use 10
if you feel fully responsible for having initiated a project and O if you
feel you have taken no part whatsoever in initiating a project).

7, Stress: how stressful it is for you to c a r y out each project (use 10 if a project is
very stressful to carry out and O if a project is very relaxing to carry
out).
 Appendix G

Between-session Assignment # l
Record thoughts, feelings (including how intense they are), behaviours, that have to do with
procrastination

TASK OR ACTrVïïY FEELINGS

(1-10)
MORE HELPFUL/FUNCTI[ONAL FEELINGS
THOUGHTS (1-10)

AFTER
 Appendix H

Poster Announcement