CHOI; MORAN (2009)

Prévia do material em texto

195
The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(2), 195–211
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
Why Not Procrastinate? Development and 
Validation of a New Active 
Procrastination Scale
JIN NAM CHOI
Seoul National University
SARAH V. MORAN
McGill University
ABSTRACT. Procrastination has been studied as a dysfunctional, self-effacing behavior 
that ultimately results in undesirable outcomes. However, A. H. C. Chu and J. N. Choi 
(2005) found a different form of procrastination (i.e., active procrastination) that leads to 
desirable outcomes. The construct of active procrastination has a high potential to expand 
the time management literature and is likely to be adopted by researchers in multiple areas 
of psychology. To facilitate the research on this new construct and its further integration 
into the literature, the authors developed and validated a new, expanded measure of active 
procrastination that reliably assesses its four dimensions. Using this new measure of active 
procrastination, they further examined its nomological network. The new 16-item measure 
is a critical step toward further empirical investigation of active procrastination.
Keywords: active procrastination, construct validation, personality, scale development, 
time management
“It’s easy to see procrastination as a bad thing, something you do when you should be 
doing something else . . . [but] embracing procrastination . . . can help restore your 
motivation.” (B. Halford, 2006)
MOST RESEARCHERS (e.g., Bond & Feather, 1988; Ellis & Knaus, 1977; 
Ferrari, 2001; Knaus, 2000; Tice & Baumeister, 1997) have defined procrastina-
tion along pessimistic behavioral lines with relatively negative consequences. 
For example, Harriott and Ferrari (1996) found procrastination to be a prevalent 
behavior among students and adults, hampering their ability to successfully 
complete tasks on time. Recently, Chu and Choi (2005) provided an alternative 
Address correspondence to Jin Nam Choi, College of Business Administration, Seoul 
National University, Shinlim-dong, San 56-1, Kwanak-ku, Seoul 151-916, South Korea; 
jnchoi@snu.kr (e-mail).
196 The Journal of Social Psychology
perspective and demonstrated that not all procrastination behaviors are harm-
ful or are precursors of negative consequences. Specifically, they proposed two 
distinct types of procrastinators. Passive procrastinators are traditional procras-
tinators who postpone their tasks until the last minute because of an inability to 
make the decision to act in a timely manner. In contrast, active procrastinators 
make intentional decisions to procrastinate, using their strong motivation under 
time pressure, and they are able to complete tasks before deadlines and achieve 
satisfactory outcomes.
Contrary to popular wisdom, Chu and Choi (2005) found that active procras-
tinators did possess desirable behavioral and attitudinal characteristics, leading to 
positive personal outcomes. Their results were particularly provocative because 
although active procrastinators reported the same level of procrastination as did 
their traditional or passive counterparts, they demonstrated time perceptions, atti-
tudes, coping styles, and academic performance that were nearly identical to (and 
in some cases even better than) those of nonprocrastinators. By differentiating the 
two types of procrastinators, Chu and Choi moved toward a more sophisticated 
understanding of procrastination as a task-related behavior.
In their initial conceptualization, Chu and Choi (2005) proposed that active 
procrastination is characterized by the following four characteristics: (a) prefer-
ence for time pressure, (b) intentional decision to procrastinate, (c) ability to meet 
deadlines, and (d) satisfaction with outcome. Developing a 12-item scale, they 
successfully revealed the presence of a new, constructive form of procrastination 
that was, in many respects, quite different than the traditional form of procrastina-
tion. Given the intuitive appeal and the novel nature of the active procrastination 
construct, we believe that researchers in various areas, including social, personal-
ity, educational, and industrial and organizational psychology, will be motivated 
to reexamine the role of procrastination in their theoretical spaces. 
Not surprisingly, scholars in various disciplines, including marketing, engi-
neering, social psychology, and personality psychology, have promptly recognized 
the rather counterintuitive assertions and findings related to active versus passive 
procrastination (e.g., Bernold, 2007; Hu, Huhmann, & Hyman, 2007). In his 
lengthy discussion of implications of active procrastination, Bui (2007) stated 
that Chu and Choi (2005) “introduced a novel idea for the area of procrastination 
research: the notion that delaying one’s work can actually be helpful and related 
to positive characteristics. Researchers have studied that idea very little, and it is 
worthy of further investigation” (p. 207). Despite Bui’s call for additional empirical 
studies on active procrastination, in the current literature, researchers now simply 
acknowledge the presence of an adaptive type of procrastinator in interpreting their 
findings (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007), perhaps 
because of the nascent developmental stage of this construct and lack of empirical 
research using active procrastination as a measured variable.
Unfortunately, Chu and Choi (2005) failed to confirm the hypothesized four-
dimensional structure of active procrastination and to provide a valid and reliable 
 Choi & Moran 197
measurement tool for further investigation of the construct. Moreover, the reli-
ability of Chu and Choi’s scale was only marginal (α = .67), which presents the 
need for further refinement of the scale. In the present study, building on Chu 
and Choi’s initial conceptualization, we elaborate on the theoretical underpin-
nings of the four defining characteristics of active procrastination. On the basis 
of this theoretical development, we constructed and empirically validated a new 
measure of active procrastination by using the widely accepted scale validation 
procedure (Hinkin, 1998). We further expanded the nomological network of 
active procrastination by examining its relations with other general personal-
ity characteristics. By providing an instrument that can yield reliable and valid 
responses of active procrastination, this study paves the way for more rigorous 
empirical investigation of this novel construct and facilitates its integration into 
the literature. 
Four Defining Characteristics of Active Procrastination
As a multidimensional construct, active procrastination is an observable 
behavioral characteristic that encompasses a person’s affective preference for 
time pressure, cognitive decision to procrastinate, behavioral capacity to meet 
deadlines, and ability to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Chu and Choi (2005) 
mentioned that they used these four dimensions of active procrastination 
to construct measurement items, but they did not provide any theoretical 
reasons why these four dimensions comprise critical defining characteristics 
of active procrastination. However, to better understand the construct of active 
procrastination, we must specify the aspects of human behavior that underlie 
its defining characteristics, including behaviors related to time management, 
goal achievement, and performance. The benefit of active procrastination may 
be related to an individual’s capacity to flexibly organize time and the ability to 
self-motivate, coupled with constructive use of time pressures that effectively 
drive active procrastinators toward their goals (Golwitzer & Bayer, 1999). These 
processes signify effective and efficient self-regulatory mechanisms that create a 
movement toward objectives and their successful attainment. Next, we elaborate 
further on the four dimensions of active procrastination.
Preference for pressure.Although it has been argued that procrastination leads to 
time pressure that causes stress, for some people, time pressure can create a feel-
ing of challenge that does not necessarily engender negative psychological states 
(Freedman & Edwards, 1988). When confronted with last-minute time pressure, 
active procrastinators tend to enjoy the feeling of being challenged, which results 
in increased motivation (Chu & Choi, 2005). Active procrastinators seem to prefer 
pressure and thus are motivated by both an intrinsic need to deal with challenge and 
external demands to complete the task on time (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
198 The Journal of Social Psychology
Intentional decision to procrastinate. Traditional, or passive, procrastinators 
tend to drift from one activity to another without much planning or organiza-
tion of their time (Bond & Feather, 1988). In contrast, nonprocrastinators have 
been viewed as those who are good at managing their time in an orderly and 
efficient manner (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Knaus, 2000). In contrast with both pas-
sive procrastinators and nonprocrastinators, active procrastinators preplan their 
task activities in an organized way though they do not develop or adhere to a 
rigid schedule or time structure. With this elasticity in time perception and use 
patterns, active procrastinators are willing to make deliberate decisions to post-
pone things they have planned to do, and they will change their schedule even 
on short notice. Thus, instead of being fixated on their routine or prescheduled 
activities (characteristic of nonprocrastinators), active procrastinators freely 
and intentionally reshuffle their task activities to respond to changing external 
demands (Chu & Choi, 2005).
Ability to meet deadlines. The main reason that procrastination has been regarded 
as a self-handicapping behavior is that procrastinators often fail to complete 
tasks on time, thus producing disappointing results for themselves (Ferrari, 2001; 
Knaus, 2000). This pattern is perhaps due to passive procrastinators’ tendency 
to underestimate the time needed to complete a particular task and thus to be 
overwhelmed or overstressed by time pressure at the last minute (Tice & Bau-
meister, 1997). Active procrastinators, in contrast, are able to properly estimate 
the minimum amount of time required to finish a task and push themselves to 
proceed efficiently toward the goal, even with (or perhaps because of) last minute 
pressure. This difference may be due to distinct ways of dealing with stressful 
situations: Unlike passive procrastinators, who largely rely on emotional- or 
avoidance-coping strategies, active procrastinators use more task-oriented coping 
strategies under stress (Chu & Choi, 2005). 
Outcome satisfaction. Because active procrastinators know how to motivate them-
selves under pressing conditions, make intentional decisions to procrastinate, and 
complete tasks on time, they usually obtain satisfactory task outcomes even 
though they procrastinate. At the core of passive procrastination is the failure to 
control one’s focus on the task at hand and the tendency to gravitate toward activi-
ties that are more pleasant than carrying out the task (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). 
Passive procrastinators desire immediate gratification of their needs, which can 
alleviate stress in the short run but can result in self-defeating outcomes (Harriott 
& Ferrari, 1996; Knaus, 2000). In this situation, the discrepancy between what a 
person should do and what he or she actually does leads to a negative outcome. 
In contrast, active procrastinators intentionally decide to put off their tasks, but 
at the last moment, through the effective and efficient use of their time, they suc-
cessfully complete the task, achieving a rewarding outcome.
 Choi & Moran 199
Nomological Network Associated With Active Procrastination 
Once the difference between traditional and active procrastination is estab-
lished, it is imperative to construct a nomological network of theoretically 
related variables. According to Cronbach and Meehl (1955), demonstrating a 
construct’s relations with other relevant constructs will clarify what the con-
struct is and increase its distinctiveness in a theoretical space. This provision of 
observable interpretations of the construct in relation to other relevant constructs 
is a critical component of construct validation (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004; 
Hinkin, 1998).
Chu and Choi (2005) showed that active procrastination is positively related 
to purposive use of time and perceived time control, whereas it is negatively asso-
ciated with time structure. Because active procrastinators prefer time pressure 
and frequently postpone or reprioritize task activities, they are likely to be more 
sensitive about the goals of their time use and have less rigid conceptions of time, 
which, in turn, provides them with an increased sense of control over their time. 
Similarly, Macan (1994) found that individuals who made to-do lists and adhered 
to scheduled activities (highly structured time) perceived less control over their 
time. In the present study, we proposed that active procrastination is positively 
related to polychronicity, or preference to work on several tasks simultaneously 
(Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin 1999; Hecht & Allen, 2005). Because 
of their fluid perception of time, high sense of time control, and willingness 
to change their work schedule, active procrastinators may have a polychronic, 
instead of monochronic, orientation to time, engaging in and managing multiple 
tasks at the same time. 
Although procrastination has mostly been studied in terms of its negative 
outcomes (Ellis & Knaus, 1977; Ferrari, 2001), Chu and Choi (2005) showed 
that active procrastination has positive implications for individuals in terms of 
self-efficacy, depression, stress coping, and performance. Successful time man-
agement and self-regulation need not necessarily mean rigid regulation of activi-
ties (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990). By freeing themselves from a 
strict time structure and shifting attention from routine and schedules to effective 
accomplishment of the goal, active procrastinators may experience less stress and 
engage in more constructive responses to work-related stress (e.g., time pressure), 
which, in turn, induces higher performance and greater overall life satisfaction. 
In the present study, we further enriched the nomological network of active 
procrastination by examining its relations to other personality characteristics. To 
this end, we used the Big Five personality framework, which has been widely 
accepted as representing relatively independent and comprehensive dimensions 
of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1985). These dimensions have also been found 
to have implications for individual performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). 
The five personality dimensions are characterized by discrete qualities: (a) 
conscientiousness is associated with being exacting, disciplined, planning, and 
200 The Journal of Social Psychology
responsible; (b) emotional stability is characterized by calmness, composure, and 
a serene attitude; (c) extroversion is associated with being sociable, assertive, 
and active; (d) agreeableness represents personal qualities such as cooperation, 
sympathy, and courtesy; and (e) openness to experience is associated with being 
intelligent, imaginative, and broad-minded. We expected active procrastination 
to be negatively related to conscientiousness because a conscientious person is 
well-organized and disciplined; therefore, he or she is more likely to be a non-
procrastinator than an active procrastinator. We further predicted that active pro-
crastination is positively related to emotional stability and extraversion because 
active procrastinators need high levels of self-confidence and positive energy, 
which allow them to choose to actively reorganize their task activities and which 
inoculate themfrom stress caused by time pressure at the last moment. 
Method
Participants and Data Collection Procedure
We invited undergraduate business students from a Canadian university to 
participate in the present study by filling out a questionnaire entitled “Survey of 
University Students’ Use of Time.” Participation was voluntary, with a raffle of 
seven $50 U.S. prizes as an incentive. Of the 300 questionnaires distributed, 185 
questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 61.7%). This sample was 63% 
female (n = 115) and 37% male (n = 68). Most participants (96.8%) were full-
time students with an average university attendance of 2.8 years. The distribu-
tion of the participants’ ethnic backgrounds was as follows: 74.1% White, 1.6% 
African American, 2.7% Hispanic, and 20% Asian. More than half of the sample 
(59.4%) spoke English as their first language, followed by French (22.7%) and 
other languages (17.3%). 
Measures
In addition to the new measure of active procrastination, the survey included 
various time-related perceptions and behaviors, personality variables, and individual 
outcomes. All constructs were measured using multiitem indexes with a response for-
mat of a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). 
Active procrastination. Drawing on the 12-item measure developed by Chu and 
Choi (2005), we constructed a new, expanded scale of active procrastination com-
prising 40 items. We developed these items by taking into account various cogni-
tive, affective, and behavioral mechanisms that may underlie the four dimensions 
of active procrastination (i.e., preference for time pressure, intentional decision to 
procrastinate, ability to meet deadlines, and outcome satisfaction). Each dimen-
 Choi & Moran 201
sion was assessed by 10 items. We checked the face validity and content coverage 
of the 40 items by pilot-testing the questionnaire and obtaining feedback from 
10 undergraduate students. The 40-item scale was subsequently slightly modified 
before administration to the study sample (a full set of items are available from 
Jin Nam Choi upon request).
Passive procrastination. The level of passive or traditional procrastination was mea-
sured by five items (α = .74; e.g., “Even after I make a decision I delay acting upon 
it”) that have been used in previous studies (Mann, 1982; Schouwneburg, 1995).
Time use and perceptions. We assessed participants’ structured use of time (time 
structure) using four items (α = .70; e.g., “I feel uneasy if I have to skip things that 
I am used to doing every day”) developed by Bond and Feather (1988). The extent 
to which participants used their time with clear goals (purposive use of time) was 
measured by Bond and Feather’s three-item scale (α = .70; e.g., “I tend to wander 
rather aimlessly from one activity to another during the day,” reverse coded). We 
measured perceived time control using three items (α = .81; e.g., “I can use my 
time the way I want to use it”) developed by Macan et al. (1990). To measure the 
extent to which participants preferred to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously 
(polychronicity), we adopted four items (α = .81; e.g., “I like to juggle several 
activities at the same time”) developed by Bluedorn et al. (1999). 
Big Five personality characteristics. To measure participants’ personality attri-
butes, we used Goldberg’s (1992) markers for the Big Five personality factors. 
The scale consisted of several adjectives pertaining to each personality attribute. 
For example, conscientiousness was measured by the degree to which participants 
rated themselves as organized, efficient, careful, and conscientious (four-item 
scale, α = .76). The emotional stability scale measured the extent to which par-
ticipants saw themselves as anxious, emotional, irritable, and nervous (four items, 
α = .72). Extraversion was measured by the following four adjectives (α = .71): 
extraverted, assertive, energetic, and active. The agreeableness scale included 
five descriptors (α = .83): agreeable, kind, cooperative, sympathetic, and warm. 
Last, the openness to experience scale comprised five descriptors (α = .79): intel-
lectual, creative, imaginative, bright, and innovative. 
Individual outcomes. The present study included three individual outcomes. 
First, life satisfaction was measured by a four-item index (α = .82; e.g., “In 
general, I am satisfied with my life”). Second, as a measure of academic per-
formance, participants reported their GPA. Last, participants self-rated their 
performance level in the class (six categories ranging from below average to 
top 10% of the class). 
202 The Journal of Social Psychology
Results
Scale validity refers to the relation between a theoretical construct and its 
operationalization or measure (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Therefore, the aim of 
scale validation is to “test the extent to which operationalizations of a construct 
‘behave’ in a manner consistent with the theoretical expectations” (Chen et al., 
2004, p. 277). We validated our new measure of active procrastination accord-
ing to the common practice of scale development (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; 
Hinkin, 1998). Before we analyzed the data, we checked the distribution of 
responses to scales used by examining skewness and kurtosis. This examination 
revealed that all variables were normally distributed, with the exception of 
agreeableness and life satisfaction. In addition, gender, age, race, and school year 
showed no significant association with any dimension or with the composite score 
of active procrastination.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
With a multidimensional construct, the first criterion to consider is the 
underlying factor structure of the scale items. To this end, we conducted an EFA 
of the 40 items developed to measure the four dimensions of active procrastina-
tion, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We carried out a series of 
EFAs to obtain a preliminary view of the overall relational structure of the items, 
as well as to eliminate items that were obvious outliers (i.e., no connections with 
other items in the same dimension) or conceptually ambiguous (i.e., representing 
multiple dimensions). 
The first EFA with all 40 items using principal component analysis with 
varimax rotation generated 10 factors with eigenvalues ranging from 1 to 6. One 
by one, we removed items that constituted a single-item factor or had high cross-
loadings on multiple factors. While doing so, we also considered the content 
domain represented by each item so that the final EFA solution offered a balanced 
representation of the four dimensions underlying active procrastination. After we 
removed 24 items, the EFA resulted in a 16-item, 4-factor solution that explained 
61% of the total item variance. As shown in Table 1, each factor included four 
items representing specific dimensions of active procrastination. In this final 
EFA model, each factor showed eigenvalues between 2.1 and 2.8 and accounted 
for 13–17% of the total variance, indicating that each dimension makes a fairly 
comparable, balanced contribution to the entire construct.
CFA
We tested the underlying factor structure of the 16 items obtained from the 
EFA by imposing the theoretical expectations through the CFA. To validate the 
hypothesized multidimensional structure, we created a two-layer factor model in 
 Choi & Moran 203
T
A
B
L
E
 1
. L
is
t 
of
 I
te
m
s 
an
d 
F
ac
to
r 
L
oa
di
ng
s 
fo
r 
th
e 
N
ew
 S
ca
le
 o
f A
ct
iv
e 
P
ro
cr
as
ti
na
ti
on
 
 
Fa
ct
or
 lo
ad
in
g
Fa
ct
or
 
It
em
 
1 
2 
3 
4
1.
 O
ut
co
m
e 
 
M
y 
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
 te
nd
s 
to
 s
uf
fe
r 
w
he
n 
I 
ha
ve
 to
 r
ac
e 
ag
ai
ns
t d
ea
dl
in
es
 (
R
).
 
.7
78
 
.3
34
 
.1
16
 
–.
03
2
 
 
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n 
I 
do
n’
t d
o 
w
el
l i
f 
I 
ha
ve
 to
 r
us
h 
th
ro
ug
h 
a 
ta
sk
 (
R
).
 
.7
63
 
.2
51
 
.1
11
 
.0
38If
 I
 p
ut
 th
in
gs
 o
ff
 u
nt
il 
th
e 
la
st
 m
om
en
t, 
I’
m
 n
ot
 s
at
is
fi
ed
 w
ith
 th
ei
r 
 
 
 
ou
tc
om
es
 (
R
).
 
.7
53
 
.1
88
 
.1
54
 
–.
03
9
 
 
I 
ac
hi
ev
e 
be
tte
r 
re
su
lts
 if
 I
 c
om
pl
et
e 
a 
ta
sk
 a
t a
 s
lo
w
er
 p
ac
e,
 w
el
l a
he
ad
 o
f 
 
 
 
a 
de
ad
lin
e 
(R
).
 
.7
24
 
.2
26
 
.2
39
 
–.
06
4
2.
 P
re
fe
re
nc
e 
fo
r 
 
It
’s
 r
ea
lly
 a
 p
ai
n 
fo
r 
m
e 
to
 w
or
k 
un
de
r 
up
co
m
in
g 
de
ad
lin
es
 (
R
).
 
.2
30
 
.8
16
 
.0
90
 
.2
27
 
 
pr
es
su
re
 
I’
m
 u
ps
et
 a
nd
 r
el
uc
ta
nt
 to
 a
ct
 w
he
n 
I’
m
 f
or
ce
d 
to
 w
or
k 
un
de
r 
pr
es
su
re
 (
R
).
 
.1
69
 
.7
88
 
.0
73
 
.0
74
 
 
I 
fe
el
 te
ns
e 
an
d 
ca
nn
ot
 c
on
ce
nt
ra
te
 w
he
n 
th
er
e’
s 
to
o 
m
uc
h 
tim
e 
pr
es
su
re
 
 
 
 
on
 m
e 
(R
).
 
.3
73
 
.7
37
 
.0
60
 
.0
17
 
 
I’
m
 f
ru
st
ra
te
d 
w
he
n 
I 
ha
ve
 to
 r
us
h 
to
 m
ee
t d
ea
dl
in
es
 (
R
).
 
.3
60
 
.6
09
 
.1
98
 
.0
39
3.
 I
nt
en
tio
na
l 
To
 u
se
 m
y 
tim
e 
m
or
e 
ef
fi
ci
en
tly
, I
 d
el
ib
er
at
el
y 
po
st
po
ne
 s
om
e 
ta
sk
s.
 
.1
35
 
.1
14
 
.7
85
 
–.
08
2
 
 
de
ci
si
on
 
I 
in
te
nt
io
na
lly
 p
ut
 o
ff
 w
or
k 
to
 m
ax
im
iz
e 
m
y 
m
ot
iv
at
io
n.
 
–.
04
3 
.2
32
 
.7
02
 
–.
22
7
 
 
In
 o
rd
er
 to
 m
ak
e 
be
tte
r 
us
e 
of
 m
y 
tim
e,
 I
 in
te
nt
io
na
lly
 p
ut
 o
ff
 s
om
e 
ta
sk
s.
 
.2
83
 
–.
07
0 
.6
73
 
.0
87
 
 
I 
fi
ni
sh
 m
os
t o
f 
m
y 
as
si
gn
m
en
ts
 r
ig
ht
 b
ef
or
e 
de
ad
lin
es
 b
ec
au
se
 I
 c
ho
os
e 
 
 
 
to
 d
o 
so
. 
.2
11
 
.1
09
 
.5
76
 
–.
00
1
4.
 A
bi
lit
y 
to
 m
ee
t 
I 
of
te
n 
st
ar
t t
hi
ng
s 
at
 th
e 
la
st
 m
in
ut
e 
an
d 
fi
nd
 it
 d
if
fi
cu
lt 
to
 c
om
pl
et
e 
th
em
 
 
 
de
ad
lin
es
 
 
on
 ti
m
e 
(R
).
 
–.
05
4 
.0
52
 
–.
25
6 
.7
38
 
 
I 
of
te
n 
fa
il 
to
 a
cc
om
pl
is
h 
go
al
s 
th
at
 I
 s
et
 f
or
 m
ys
el
f 
(R
).
 
.0
37
 
.1
55
 
.0
36
 
.7
31
 
 
I’
m
 o
ft
en
 r
un
ni
ng
 la
te
 w
he
n 
ge
tti
ng
 th
in
gs
 d
on
e 
(R
).
 
–.
03
1 
.0
86
 
–.
36
3 
.7
29
 
 
I 
ha
ve
 d
if
fi
cu
lty
 f
in
is
hi
ng
 a
ct
iv
iti
es
 o
nc
e 
I 
st
ar
t t
he
m
 (
R
).
 
–.
02
9 
–.
00
4 
.2
02
 
.6
02
N
ot
e.
 (
R
) 
= 
re
ve
rs
e-
co
de
d 
ite
m
. F
ac
to
r 
lo
ad
in
gs
 o
f 
th
e 
co
rr
es
po
nd
in
g 
ite
m
s 
w
ith
in
 th
e 
su
bd
im
en
si
on
 a
re
 in
 b
ol
df
ac
e.
 
204 The Journal of Social Psychology
which the suprafactor of active procrastination was indicated by its four dimen-
sions, which were, in turn, indicated by its four corresponding items (Arbuckle, 
2005). This two-stage factor model was consistent with the empirical patterns 
observed in the present data, exhibiting acceptable model fit, χ2(100, N = 185) = 
186.24, p < .001; comparative fit index = .92; root mean square error of approxi-
mation = .058). Attempts to reduce the number of dimensions from four to three 
or two resulted in a significantly worse fit (all ps < .01, based on χ2 difference 
tests). In the four-dimensional model, all four dimensions were significant indica-
tors of the suprafactor of active procrastination (all ps < .05), and all items loaded 
significantly on their corresponding dimensions (all ps < .001), supporting the 
theoretically predicted factor structure and convergent validity of responses to the 
new scale of active procrastination (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). 
Scale Reliability
Following validation of the dimensional structure of the construct, each 
scale must be checked for internal consistency to ensure that it represents a 
coherent, reliable assessment of a construct (Chen et al., 2004). Because reli-
ability represents the extent to which the scale produces scores that are free from 
measurement error, it is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of a sound 
measure (Hinkin, 1998). As shown in Table 2, the level of reliability (Cronbach’s 
α) associated with the current participants’ responses to the scales assessing the 
four dimensions ranged between .70 and .83, providing evidence of acceptable 
internal consistency. The participants’ responses to the entire 16-item scale of 
active procrastination also exhibited an acceptable reliability coefficient of .80.
Nomological Network
With the underlying factor structure validated and acceptable scale reliabili-
ties verified, the next step for scale validation is to check predictive or criterion-
related validity, which involves an examination of the nomological network of the 
construct (Chen et al., 2004; Hinkin, 1998). To test whether the active procrasti-
nation scale produces the theoretically predicted relations with other established 
constructs, we examined their correlation coefficients (see Table 2). 
The active procrastination score was not related to traditional procrastina-
tion (r = .07, ns), further confirming that it is a distinct form of procrastination 
(Chu & Choi, 2005). Also supporting our expectations, active procrastination 
was negatively related to time structure (r = –.22, p < .01), which indicates that 
active procrastinators have a fluid, flexible concept of time. In contrast, it was 
positively associated with time control and polychronicity (r = .26, p < .001 
and r = .19, p < .01, respectively), suggesting that active procrastinators tend 
to engage in more multitasking and perceive greater sense of control over their 
time than do others. 
 Choi & Moran 205
T
A
B
L
E
 2
. M
ea
ns
, S
ta
nd
ar
d 
D
ev
ia
ti
on
s,
 R
el
ia
bi
lit
ie
s,
 a
nd
 I
nt
er
sc
al
e 
C
or
re
la
ti
on
s
V
ar
ia
bl
es
 
M
 
SD
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 1
. A
ct
iv
e 
pr
oc
ra
st
in
at
io
n 
4.
39
 
0.
82
 
.8
0 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2
. P
re
fe
re
nc
e 
fo
r 
pr
es
su
re
 
4.
35
 
1.
31
 
.8
3 
.8
2 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3
. I
nt
en
tio
na
l d
ec
is
io
n 
3.
81
 
1.
28
 
.6
2 
.3
1 
.7
0 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4
. A
bi
lit
y 
to
 m
ee
t 
 
de
ad
lin
es
 
5.
21
 
1.
02
 
.3
7 
.1
5 
–.
11
 
.7
0 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5
. O
ut
co
m
e 
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n 
4.
19
 
1.
37
 
.8
1 
.6
1 
.4
1 
–.
05
 
.8
3 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6
. P
as
si
ve
 p
ro
cr
as
tin
at
io
n 
4.
04
 
1.
09
 
.0
7 
.0
8 
.3
3 
–.
61
 
.2
5 
.7
4 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7
. T
im
e 
st
ru
ct
ur
e 
4.
42
 
1.
27
 –
.2
2 
–.
26
 –
.1
2 
.1
6 
–.
30
 –
.2
3 
.7
0 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8
. P
ur
po
si
ve
 u
se
 o
f 
tim
e 
4.
82
 
1.
26
 
.1
0 
.1
6 
–.
23
 
.3
5 
.0
3 
–.
34
 
.0
4 
.7
0 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9
. T
im
e 
co
nt
ro
l 
4.
73
 
1.
19
 
.2
6 
.1
9 
.0
9 
.4
8 
–.
01
 –
.3
8 
.2
0 
.3
0 
.8
1 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10
. P
ol
yc
hr
on
ic
ity
 
4.
09
 
1.
28
 
.1
9 
.1
0 
.2
0 
.0
1 
.1
6 
.0
6 
.0
4 
–.
06
 
.1
2 
.8
1 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
. C
on
sc
ie
nt
io
us
ne
ss
 
5.
30
 
1.
02
 –
.0
3 
–.
03
 –
.1
7 
.3
3 
–.
14
 –
.3
4 
.3
1 
.2
1 
.3
3 
–.
13
 
.7
6 
—
 
 
 
 
 
 
12
. E
m
ot
io
na
l s
ta
bi
lit
y 
3.
70
 
1.
22
 
.2
0 
.2
5 
–.
01
 
.1
9 
.1
0 
–.
05
 –
.1
2 
.2
6 
.1
7 
.0
3 
–.
04
 
.7
2 
—
 
 
 
 
 
13
. E
xt
ra
ve
rs
io
n 
5.
04
 
0.
96
 
.1
7 
.1
4 
.1
5 
.0
8 
.0
7 
–.
09
 
.0
9 
.2
1 
.1
7 
.2
1 
.0
5 
.0
2 
.7
1 
—
 
 
 
 
14
. A
gr
ee
ab
le
ne
ss
 
5.
72
 
0.
86
 –
.0
9 
–.
10
 
.0
2 
–.
07
 –
.0
8 
.0
4 
.0
1 
.0
1 
–.
09
 –
.1
2 
.2
4 
–.
11
 
.0
9 
.8
3 
—
 
 
 
15
. Ope
nn
es
s 
to
 
 
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
 
5.
22
 
0.
91
 
.1
1 
.0
4 
.0
7 
.0
7 
.1
1 
–.
05
 
.0
5 
.1
9 
.1
3 
.0
0 
.1
3 
–.
10
 
.2
8 
.0
9 
.7
9 
—
 
 
16
. L
if
e 
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n 
5.
34
 
0.
86
 
.3
2 
.2
6 
.2
0 
.1
8 
.1
9 
–.
05
 –
.0
3 
.3
9 
.3
3 
.1
4 
.0
8 
.2
5 
.3
1 
.0
8 
.2
6 
.7
3 
—
 
17
. G
PA
 
3.
22
 
0.
41
 
.1
1 
.1
1 
–.
05
 
.2
3 
.0
4 
–.
17
 
.1
2 
.2
1 
.2
1 
.0
4 
.3
0 
.0
6 
.1
6 
–.
02
 
.2
3 
.1
4 
—
 
—
18
. S
el
f-
re
po
rt
ed
 
 
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
 
3.
77
 
1.
52
 
.2
1 
.2
0 
.0
5 
.2
7 
.0
7 
–.
19
 
.0
1 
.2
0 
.2
1 
.0
4 
.2
5 
.0
5 
.1
9 
–.
01
 
.3
3 
.2
3 
.6
6 
—
N
ot
e.
 I
ta
lic
iz
ed
 n
um
be
rs
 in
 th
e 
di
ag
on
al
 in
di
ca
te
 r
el
ia
bi
lit
y 
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
 (
al
ph
a)
 o
f 
ea
ch
 s
ca
le
. r
 >
 .1
5,
 p
 <
 .0
5;
 r
 >
 .1
9,
 p
 <
 .0
1;
 r
 >
 .2
4,
 p
 <
 .0
01
. 
206 The Journal of Social Psychology
Of the Big Five personality factors, as expected, emotional stability and 
extraversion were positively related to active procrastination (r = .20, p < .01 and 
r = .17, p < .05, respectively). Contrary to our expectations, conscientiousness 
was not a significant negative predictor of active procrastination (r = –.03, ns), 
perhaps because of its strong positive relation with the ability-to-meet-deadlines 
dimension (r = .33, p < .001).
Last, active procrastination had significant positive correlations with life 
satisfaction and self-reported performance (r = .31, p < .001 and r = .21, p < 
.01, respectively). However, unlike Chu and Choi’s (2005) results, the objective 
performance measure (i.e., GPA) was not significantly related to active procras-
tination (r = .11, ns.), even though the direction was positive.
Incremental Validity
As a final step in construct validation, we examined the incremental valid-
ity of the new scale of active procrastination to determine its unique added 
value in explaining relevant outcomes above and beyond existing personality 
measures, such as the Big Five personality factors. To this end, we conducted 
hierarchical regression analyses using life satisfaction, GPA, and self-reported 
performance as dependent variables. To provide a theory-driven, generalizable 
test of the incremental contribution of the four active procrastination dimen-
sions, we entered them simultaneously in the second step of the hierarchical 
regression, following the first step that included the Big Five factors (Hunsley & 
Meyer, 2003). As presented in Table 3, results showed that the four dimensions 
of active procrastination explained significant additional variance of two of the 
three outcome measures (i.e., life satisfaction and self-reported performance, 
∆R2 = .06, p < .05, and ∆R2 = .05, p < .05, respectively) after controlling for 
the effects of the Big Five personality factors. Specifically, life satisfaction was 
significantly predicted by intentional decision and ability to meet deadlines (β 
= .15 and .13, respectively, both ps < .05). Self-reported performance was pre-
dicted by preference for pressure and ability to meet deadlines (β = .18 and .16, 
respectively, both ps < .05). We observed approximately the same amount of 
additional explained variance was observed when we used a composite score of 
active procrastination instead of the four-dimensional measures. None of these 
regression equations, such as homoscedasticity and normality of residuals, vio-
lated basic assumptions for the analysis. The R2 change of .05 and .06 indicated 
that the active procrastination dimensions had a semipartial r ranging between 
.22 and .25, which falls between small and medium effect size (r = .10–.30; 
Cohen, 1992), even after controlling for the effects of Big Five factors. The 
results suggest that the new active procrastination scale possesses reasonable 
incremental validity and, thus, makes a distinct contribution to the understanding 
of key individual outcomes.
 Choi & Moran 207
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new measure of 
active procrastination that would allow this construct to be systematically inves-
tigated and effectively incorporated into the literature. Given the prompt attention 
to this new construct in various disciplines (e.g., Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 
2007; Bernold, 2007; Bui, 2007; Hu et al., 2007; Howell & Watson, 2007), 
researchers appear willing to engage in substantial empirical efforts to investigate 
its implications within their domains of interest. At this early stage of construct 
development, it is imperative to possess a well-developed measure of active pro-
crastination with sufficient reliability and validity because the use of inadequate 
measures presents a serious threat to both the interpretation of study results and 
the accumulation of knowledge of the phenomenon in question (Hinkin, 1998).
To this end, expanding Chu and Choi’s (2005) initial measure of active pro-
crastination, we assembled 40 items representing its four theoretical dimensions. 
Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of survey data, we devel-
oped a 16-item measure of active procrastination that confirms the four-dimen-
sional structure of the construct. The new scale of active procrastination provides 
clear advantages over Chu and Choi’s initial measure in several respects. First, in 
contrast to the initial measure’s marginal reliability, the responses to the new scale 
clearly exhibited acceptable reliability on both the composite measure and the 
four individual dimensional measures of active procrastination. Second, unlike 
TABLE 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses of Big Five Factors and Active 
Procrastination Predicting Individual Outcomes
 Self-reported 
 Life satisfaction GPA performance
Predictor Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Conscientiousness .03 .02 .30*** .26** .23** .18*
Emotional stability .28*** .23** .08 .04 .07 .01
Extraversion .24** .19** .10 .09 .11 .07
Agreeableness .06 .09 –.11 –.09 –.09 –.06
Openness to experience .21** .19** .18* .17* .29*** .28***
Preference for pressure .09 .06 .18*
Intentional decision .15* –.04 .07
Ability to meet deadlines .13* .10 .16*
Outcome satisfaction .04 .02 –.08
R2 .20*** .26*** .15*** .17** .18*** .23***
Change in R2 .06** .02 .05*
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
208 The Journal of Social Psychology
the rather ambiguous and weak factor structure observed in the initial measure, 
the new scale clearly supported the four-dimensional factor structure, confirm-
ing the underlying theoretical components of active procrastination. Third, in 
contrast with the original measure, the four dimensions of the new measure were 
represented by the same number of items and made comparable contributions to 
the suprafactor of active procrastination. These strengths of the new scale, along 
with the validity and reliability observed in the current sample of 185 participants, 
provide great flexibility for researchers who may want to focus on just one or 
two of the dimensions or on the overall level of active procrastination. This final 
measure can also be easily administered in various contexts (both academic and 
organizational settings) and facilitate a more sophisticated understanding of pro-
crastination behavior than is currently available in the literature. 
In addition, this study further expanded the nomological network of the 
active procrastination construct by examining its relations with polychronicity 
and the Big Five personality dimensions. Reconfirming Chu and Choi’s (2005) 
finding, the present data indicated that active procrastination is distinct from 
traditional procrastination. Moreover, active and passive (i.e., traditional) pro-
crastination measures showed quite different, often opposite, relations with other 
variables examined in this study (see Table 2). The present data further support 
thehypothesis that active procrastination is negatively related to highly struc-
tured use of time, which may contribute to an increased perception of control 
of one’s time. It also supports the contention that active procrastinators tend to 
engage in multitasking, which likely necessitates continuous reorganization and 
reprioritization of their task activities. The present study also shows that active 
procrastination has significant relations to two of the Big Five personality factors. 
To actively procrastinate, individuals appear to need to possess a certain level of 
self-reliance and stability as well as active and energetic engagement with others 
and the task at hand. This is because escaping from preplanned activities and 
subjecting oneself to last-minute pressure is a risky behavior that requires self-
confidence and energy. 
Overall, we believe that the present study paves the way for more rigorous 
empirical investigation of active procrastination. There are several directions for 
further research that could enrich the understanding of this new construct. First, 
both the present research and Chu and Choi’s (2005) study used undergraduate 
students as the study sample, which left the question open as to whether active 
procrastination can induce the same favorable effects in other groups of people. 
We speculate that most professional workers dealing with tight deadlines with 
substantial time pressure and frequent, unpredictable interruptions in their work 
(e.g., management consultants, professors, software engineers) may benefit from 
flexible time management behaviors such as active procrastination. In contrast, in 
relatively routine and predictable task situations, nonprocrastination, or a mono-
chronic orientation to time, would likely be a better task strategy (Hecht & Allen, 
2005). Future studies could explore the possibility that diverse requirements for 
 Choi & Moran 209
task completion and productivity moderate the effect of active procrastination on 
individual well-being and performance. 
Second, researchers could investigate whether societal culture sets a bound-
ary condition for the role of active procrastination. Typically in Western cultures, 
procrastination is regarded as a negative behavior that is indicative of laziness, 
leading to poor performance and satisfaction as well as negative self-image. 
Therefore, it is easy to understand why people in Western cultures would balk at 
the idea of a positive form of procrastination. However, in other cultures, people 
may perceive time differently (e.g., cyclical or curvilinear rather than linear), and 
they may be quite tolerant of slowness or lack of punctuality. In short, people from 
different cultures may possess different assumptions and views related to time 
flow, time structure, and temporal reference points of past, present, and future, 
all of which influence time-related perceptions and values and further prescribe 
time management behavior (Mosakowski & Earley, 2000).
Last, because the construct of active procrastination was proposed recently 
(Chu & Choi, 2005), further expansion of its nomological network and ensuing 
theoretical elaboration of the construct is necessary. For example, given that 
active procrastination is driven by a strong self-regulatory process (Golwitzer & 
Bayer, 1999), it may have meaningful connections with such variables as locus 
of control, goal orientations, and other social cognitive processes associated with 
performance management. In addition to testing the validity of the active pro-
crastination phenomenon in different cultural and professional contexts, future 
studies should adopt a longitudinal research design to investigate temporal fluc-
tuations or developmental processes involved in active procrastination patterns. 
AUTHOR NOTES
Jin Nam Choi is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the Graduate 
School of Business at Seoul National University, Korea. His research interests include 
team processes and effectiveness in organizational settings, innovation implementation 
at the individual and team levels of analysis, individual and contextual determinants 
of individual and team creativity, and impacts of social networks on knowledge and 
creativity in organizations. Sarah V. Moran was a doctoral candidate in organizational 
behavior at McGill University, Desautels Faculty of Management. Her current research 
interests include global leadership strategies; cross-cultural management; and stakeholder 
influence upon project implementation, management, and completion in international 
organizations.
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of 
hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1301–1310.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development 
Corporation.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job 
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
210 The Journal of Social Psychology
Bernold, L. E. (2007). Preparedness of engineering freshman to inquiry-based learning. 
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133, 99–106.
Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity 
and the inventory of polychronic values: Development of an instrument to measure a 
fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 
14, 205–230.
Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use 
of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 321–329.
Bui, N. H. (2007). Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior. The Journal of 
Social Psychology, 147, 197–209.
Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multi-level 
construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Danereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level 
issues: The many faces of multi-level issues (Vo1. 3, pp. 273–303). Oxford, England: 
Elsevier.
Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” 
procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 145, 245–264.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human 
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Signet.
Ferrari, J. R. (2001). Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance: Effects 
of cognitive load, self-awareness, and time limits on “working best under pressure.” 
European Journal of Personality, 15, 391–406.
Freedman, J. L., & Edwards, D. R. (1988). Time pressure, task performance, and 
enjoyment. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 113–133). Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development 
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 
25, 186–192.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Golwitzer, P. M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Implementation intentions and affective goal pursuit: 
Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. 
Halford, B. (2006). The power of procrastination. Chemical and Engineering News, 84, 
28. 
Harriott, J., & Ferrari, J. (1996). Prevalence of procrastination among samples of adults. 
Psychological Reports, 78, 611–616.
Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being 
from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing 
at a time? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,98, 155–178.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey 
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations with achievement 
goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 
167–178.
Hu, J., Huhmann, B. A., & Hyman, M. R. (2007). The relationship between task 
complexity and information search: The role of self-efficacy. Psychology & Marketing, 
23, 253–270. 
 Choi & Moran 211
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and 
assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assess-
ment, 15, 446–455.
Knaus, W. J. (2000). Procrastination, blame, and change. Journal of Social Behavior and 
Personality, 15, 153–166.
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied 
Psychology, 79, 381–391.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students’ time 
management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of Education 
Psychology, 82, 760–768.
Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire II. Flinders University of South 
Australia, Australia. Unpublished inventory.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s “Adequate Taxonomy”: Intel-
ligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal 
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.
Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assumptions in strategy 
research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 796–812.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measure-
ment, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procras-
tination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 71–96). New York: 
Plenum Press.
Tice, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, 
stress, and health: The cost and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8, 454–458.
Received February 1, 2007
Accepted November 9, 2007