Procrastination - A Cluster Analytic Approach
Content
Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors related
to procrastination: A cluster analytic approach
Marie My Lien Rebetez a,b,⇑, Lucien Rochat a,b, Martial Van der Linden a,b,c
a
Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
c
Cognitive Psychopathology Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 September 2014
Received in revised form 20 November 2014
Accepted 21 November 2014
Keywords:
Procrastination
Clusters
Impulsivity
Emotion regulation
Self-esteem
Motivation
a b s t r a c t
Procrastination is a widespread phenomenon that has been associated with a host of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors but about which a clear and integrated picture is still lacking. The aim
of this study was to use primary established psychological procrastination-related factors in the literature
to examine whether reliable subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis. To
this end, 180 French-speaking students were asked to complete a measure of procrastination and four
questionnaires assessing impulsivity, cognitive emotion regulation, self-esteem, and global motivation.
Four clusters were identified: two with the lowest scores of procrastination (‘‘High regulated’’ and
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’), one with higher scores of procrastination (‘‘Emotional’’), and another with
even higher scores (‘‘Unregulated’’). The findings provide insights into the dynamic relationships between
key procrastination-related factors and the mechanisms linked to the self-regulation difficulties that
characterize trait procrastination.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Procrastination, or to ‘‘voluntarily delay an intended course of
action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay’’ (Steel,
2007, p. 66), is a widespread phenomenon that has been established as a stable trait (Gustavson, Miyake, Hewitt, & Friedman,
2014) and associated with a host of psychological factors (Steel,
2007). Despite numerous studies and evidence regarding key factors related to procrastination, however, there is still no clear
and integrated understanding about it (Wilson & Nguyen, 2012).
Indeed, although the trend has been towards considering procrastination as a complex array of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors (Pychyl & Flett, 2012), they have mostly been
examined independently of one another, leading to a fragmented
representation of this phenomenon.
1.1. Psychological factors related to procrastination
Procrastination is classically conceptualized as a self-regulatory
failure, representative of low conscientiousness and high
⇑ Corresponding author at: Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology
Unit, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, 40, CH-1205 Geneva,
Switzerland. Tel.: +41 22 379 93 44.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M.L. Rebetez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.044
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
impulsiveness (Steel, 2007). More specifically with regard to
impulsivity, Steel (2007) demonstrated that this construct is one
of the strongest correlates of procrastination (r = .41, K = 22). In
addition, Gustavson et al. (2014) showed a genetic overlap
(rgenetic = 1.0) between the two constructs, and interpreted it from
a cognitive (procrastination and impulsivity shared a common
cognitive ability, namely, goal-management ability) and an evolutionary perspective (procrastination may be an evolutionary
by-product of impulsivity). Nonetheless, an understanding of the
relationship between procrastination and impulsivity requires taking into account that impulsivity is a multidimensional construct.
Indeed, Whiteside and Lynam (2001) identified four distinct
components of impulsivity in their Urgency-PremeditationPerseverance-Sensation seeking [UPPS] model: urgency (tendency
to experience strong reactions, frequently under conditions of negative affect); premeditation (tendency to take into account the
consequences of an act before engaging in that act); perseverance
(ability to remain focused on a boring/difficult task); and sensation
seeking (tendency to enjoy and pursue new/exciting activities).
Urgency, premeditation, and perseverance are related to cognitive/self-control mechanisms, whereas sensation seeking depends
on motivational dispositions (Bechara & Van der Linden, 2005).
More recent work also suggests the existence of positive urgency
(tendency to act rashly when experiencing intense positive emotions) that, together with negative urgency, refers to a general
2
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
disposition to mood-based rash action (Cyders & Smith, 2008).
According to the UPPS model, procrastination has been linked to
the self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity (urgency,
lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance) (Dewitte &
Schouwenburg, 2002). The lack of perseverance observed in procrastinators thus reflects difficulties in staying focused on an
intended task that demands attentional control; lack of premeditation reflects difficulties in taking into account potential long-term
negative consequences of delaying; and urgency reflects proneness
to engage in activities other than those intended when faced with
intense emotional states.
Supporting the role of urgency in procrastination, some recent
studies have stressed the importance of considering emotion regulation as being central to procrastination. For example, according
to Sirois and Pychyl (2013), procrastinators prioritize the management of immediate mood (e.g., voluntary delay of an intended task
viewed as aversive to repair the negative mood surrounding the
task) over long-term goal pursuit. Moreover, Stainton, Lay, and
Flett (2000) demonstrated a strong association between a procrastination-specific form of rumination (automatic thoughts about
one’s tendencies to delay) and procrastination. They also demonstrated that this form of rumination mediated the link between
procrastination and negative affect, and that it was strongly associated with a more general measure of negative automatic
thoughts about the self (e.g., ‘‘What’s wrong with me?’’). These
data underline the notion of poor cognitive emotion regulation
strategies (cognitive and voluntary aspects of emotion regulation,
that is, the thoughts and mental strategies intentionally used to
regulate emotions) in procrastinators. These data also underline
the importance of self-related factors; not surprisingly, self-esteem
has been consistently related to procrastination (Steel, 2007). Procrastination is considered as a self-protective strategy that masks a
fragile self-esteem; by avoiding task completion, one’s perceived
inability is never tested.
Global motivation (general motivational orientation) has also
received much attention from many researchers (e.g., Brownlow
& Reasinger, 2000; Lee, 2005; Sirin, 2011; Solomon & Rothblum,
1984). Like impulsivity, it is a multidimensional construct that
can be divided into three major types of motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 1985): intrinsic (resulting from internal drives), extrinsic
(resulting from external contingencies), and amotivation. In addition, intrinsic motivation can be differentiated into more specific
motives: ‘‘to know’’ (behaving for pleasure when learning/exploring/trying to understand something new), ‘‘toward accomplishment’’ (behaving for pleasure when attempting to accomplish/
create something), and ‘‘to experience stimulating sensation.’’
Extrinsic motivation can also be differentiated into more specific
motives: ‘‘identified’’ (behaviors performed by choice because they
are judged as important), ‘‘introjected’’ (behaviors regulated by
internal pressures, such as pride or guilt), and ‘‘external regulation’’
(behaviors regulated through external means, such as rewards and
constraints). Findings on the relationships between these types of
motivation and procrastination are unclear, however, with heterogeneous results showing links with intrinsic motivation
(Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Lee, 2005) and/or extrinsic motivation (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), or
with amotivation (Lee, 2005), or showing no links (Sirin, 2011).
1.2. Current study
The aim of the current study was to examine from primary
established psychological procrastination-related factors in the literature, namely, self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and one or
several global motivation components (intrinsic motivation to
know/accomplishment/stimulation, extrinsic motivation identified/introjected/external, amotivation), whether subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis.
Considering that procrastination results from a complex array
of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors, the use of cluster analysis seems well suited for examining it. Indeed, cluster
analysis is a person-based approach that explores how different
variables are combined into diverse profiles within individuals,
in contrast to a variable-based approach that investigates each
variable independently from the others (e.g., correlation
analyses).
In accordance with the literature, we hypothesized that cluster
analysis would allow identification of at least two distinct subgroups of procrastinators. A first subgroup would match the classic
view of procrastination as a self-regulatory failure. This subgroup
would mainly be characterized by low-level of self-regulation
(i.e., high scores on the three self-control-related dimensions of
impulsivity and inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies). A second subgroup would match the more recent view in
which emotion regulation is considered as central in procrastination. This subgroup would be characterized by high urgency (emotional self-control dimension of impulsivity), high inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and low self-esteem.
Moreover, the possibility of a third subgroup of procrastinators
characterized by low global motivation on one or several of its
components could not be excluded, but we postulated that it
would be less clear considering the substantial heterogeneity of
the findings in the literature. Finally, we postulated the existence
of a last subgroup with low scores of procrastination that, in contrast to the first subgroup, would be characterized by a high level
of self-regulation.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
One hundred eighty students (153 females, 27 males) from the
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at the University
of Geneva completed a measure of procrastination and four questionnaires assessing self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and global
motivation components (intrinsic motivation to know/accomplishment/stimulation, extrinsic motivation identified/introjected/
external, amotivation). The mean age of the sample was 21.85 years
(SD = 3.56, range = 18–44).
2.2. Measures
All measures have been previously validated with francophone
samples and demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties.
Procrastination was measured with the French adaptation of the
Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS; Rebetez, Rochat, Gay, & Van der
Linden, 2014; original version, Steel, 2010), an 11-item scale for
which a higher score indicates a higher tendency to procrastinate.
Self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity were assessed
with the short UPPS Impulsive Behaviour Scale (Billieux et al.,
2012). This 20-item scale evaluates the five facets of impulsivity
(four items per dimension): negative urgency, positive urgency,
lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking.
For this study, only urgency (as positive and negative urgency facets were highly correlated, r = .50, p < .001, they were regrouped
into a single factor of urgency; see Billieux et al., 2012), lack of premeditation, and lack of perseverance were considered. Higher
scores indicate greater impulsivity.
3
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies were
assessed with the French version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Jermann, Van der Linden, D’Acremont, &
Zermatten, 2006; original version, Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven,
2001). This 36-item questionnaire evaluates nine cognitive emotion regulation strategies (four items per strategy), five referring
to appropriate strategies and four to inappropriate strategies. For
this study, only inappropriate strategies (self-blame/rumination/
catastrophizing/blaming others) were considered. A higher score
indicates more inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation
strategies.
Self-esteem was assessed with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Vallières & Vallerand, 1990), a 10-item scale for which a higher
score indicates greater self-esteem.
Global motivation components were assessed with the Global
Motivation Scale (Guay, Mageau, & Vallerand, 2003), a 28-item
scale (four items per components) for which higher scores indicate
greater motivation.
2.3. Statistical analyses
First, Pearson’s correlations were computed to evaluate the
relationships between procrastination (PPS) and the other variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity, inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, global
motivation components). Pearson’s correlations were then computed between procrastination-related variables to verify the
absence of multicollinearity, it having an impact on cluster analysis
by giving more weight to collinear variables (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010). Bonferroni-adjusted p-values were used for all
correlations to reduce type I error due to multiple tests.
Second, we used cluster analyses to identify subgroups of participants differing for procrastination-related variables, following
the procedure suggested by Clatworthy, Buick, Hankins,
Weinman, and Horne (2005). A hierarchical agglomerative method
(Ward’s method) with squared Euclidian distance was thus
selected to explore the possible number of clusters from the data.
After this number was defined by the analysis of dendrogram and
agglomeration coefficients, an iterative partitioning method
(K-means) clustering was computed, permitting maximization of
the similarity of cases within each cluster and the dissimilarity
between clusters. The stability of the cluster solution structure
was then examined by determining the agreement between the
two method solutions, using Cramer’s V test. This test allows determination of whether similar clusters are present regardless of the
algorithm used to derive them. In addition, scores for the procrastination-related variables were entered into discriminant function
analysis, where the identified clusters served as the grouping variable, to confirm differences between the clusters. This analysis
allows determination of the extent to which clusters are separated
by the severity of the procrastination-related variables.
Third, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Bonferroni
post hoc tests were computed separately for cluster profiling and
PPS to examine potential differences among clusters on procrastination-related variables, as well as on PPS.
3. Results
3.1. Data screening and descriptive analyses
Prior to data analyses, skewness and kurtosis were examined
for all scales. For each variable, they ranged from .63 to .72 and
.71 to .85, respectively, indicating no strong deviation from normality, considering that absolute values greater than 3 for skewness and greater than 20 for kurtosis are judged to be extreme
(Weston & Gore, 2006). Missing data (N = 180; 0.15% of the data)
were replaced by the mean of the related factor (as all internal consistencies were >.70; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Means, standard
deviations, and Cronbach’s a of the measures are reported in
Table 1.
3.2. Correlation analyses
Pearson’s correlations between procrastination (PPS) and the
other variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity,
inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem,
global motivation components) are described in Table 1. PPS was
positively related to the self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance) and
inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and negatively related to self-esteem and the extrinsic identified motivation
component of global motivation. Pearson’s correlations between
procrastination-related variables supported the absence of
multicollinearity (r ranged from .01 to .44).
3.3. Cluster analysis
Following correlation analyses, procrastination-related variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity, inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, extrinsic
identified motivation) were selected for cluster analysis. Visual
inspection of the dendrogram and agglomeration coefficients
obtained with Ward’s method indicated a four-cluster solution.
K-mean cluster analysis was then implemented by using an iterative procedure and specifying four clusters. The four-cluster solution was supported by analyses indicating good agreement
between Ward’s method and K-means clustering (Cramer’s
V = .70, p < .001). Discriminant function analysis indicated that
the four clusters were adequately separated in discriminant function space (see Fig. 1) and that, overall, 97.8% of the cases were correctly classified.
The four clusters identified (see Fig. 2) reflected participants
with the following:
1. High impulsivity (on its three self-control-related dimensions)
and high inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies;
low self-esteem and low extrinsic identified motivation (cluster
1, N = 27; ‘‘Unregulated’’).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the measures and Pearson’s correlations with PPS.
PPS
UPPS-P_Urgency
UPPS-P_Lack of premeditation
UPPS-P_Lack of perseverance
CERQ_Inappropriate strategies
RSE
GMS_IM_to know
GMS_IM_toward accomplishment
GMS_IM_to experience stimulation
GMS_EM_identified
GMS_EM_introjected
GMS_EM_external
GMS_Amotivation
M
SD
a
PPS
2.80
2.51
2.00
1.85
2.45
3.14
5.17
4.92
5.37
5.25
3.91
4.07
2.69
.79
.54
.58
.64
.54
.57
1.03
1.08
.90
.99
1.10
1.18
1.00
.92
.82
.83
.90
.83
.91
.89
.81
.85
.82
.76
.76
.79
–
.40*
.37*
.60*
.39*
.40*
.17
.13
.12
.31*
.14
.13
.00
PPS = Pure Procrastination Scale; UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive
Behaviour
Scale;
CERQ = Cognitive
Emotion
Regulation
Questionnaire;
RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global Motivation Scale; IM = Intrinsic
Motivation; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
*
Significant at p < .004 (Bonferroni correction; p = .05/13).
4
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
the ‘‘Unregulated’’ group (M = 3.72, SD = .57) than for all other
groups (all ps < .05); the mean of the ‘‘Emotional’’ group (M = 3.01,
SD = .69) was higher than it was for the other two groups (all
ps < .05); and there was no difference between the mean of the
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ group (M = 2.56, SD = .62) and the mean
of the ‘‘High regulated’’ group (M = 2.34, SD = .64).
4. Discussion
Fig. 1. Four-cluster solution plotted in discriminant function space.
2. High urgency and high inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies; low self-esteem; medium premeditation, medium perseverance, and medium extrinsic identified motivation
(cluster 2, N = 54; ‘‘Emotional’’).
3. Low extrinsic identified motivation; medium premeditation
and medium perseverance; low urgency and low inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies; high self-esteem (cluster 3, N = 41; ‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’).
4. Low impulsivity (on its three self-control-related dimensions)
and low inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies;
high self-esteem and high extrinsic identified motivation (cluster 4, N = 58; ‘‘High regulated’’).
3.4. ANOVAs
Regarding cluster profiling, ANOVAs revealed a significant effect
of cluster membership on each procrastination-related factor.
Descriptive statistics for each cluster and ANOVAs (including
results of post hoc analyses) are reported in Table 2.
Regarding differences among clusters on procrastination (PPS),
results showed that the four clusters significantly differ on PPS,
F(3, 176) = 32.70, p < .001, g2p = .36. Post hoc Bonferroni tests indicated that the mean score on the PPS was significantly greater for
The aim of the current study was to examine whether subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis
by using primary established psychological procrastination-related
factors, namely, self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and extrinsic
identified motivation.
Four clusters were identified: two with the lowest scores of procrastination (clusters 3 and 4; 55% of the sample), one with higher
scores of procrastination (cluster 2; 30% of the sample), and
another with even higher scores (cluster 1; 15% of the sample).
Among the participants with the lowest scores, members of
cluster 4 are characterized by a high level of self-regulation (i.e.,
low impulsivity, low inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation
strategies), as well as high self-esteem and high extrinsic identified
motivation. Members of this cluster are associated with the optimal conditions to facilitate goal-directed behaviors; the cluster
was named ‘‘High regulated.’’ Members of cluster 3, compared with
those in the ‘‘High regulated’’ cluster, are mainly characterized by
lower extrinsic identified motivation; the cluster was named ‘‘Regulated/low motivated.’’ Interestingly, at a variable-based level (i.e.,
correlation analyses), extrinsic identified motivation (i.e., behaviors performed by choice because they are judged as important)
was the only component of global motivation significantly related
to procrastination; this negative relationship suggests that procrastinators do not drive much of their behavior according to their
values and thus tend to delay a task even though they consider it
important. However, and contrary to our hypothesis, when considered at a person-based level (i.e., cluster analysis), low extrinsic
identified motivation (together with a medium/high level of selfregulation) was not associated with higher scores of procrastination. In other words, members of the ‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’
cluster may be poorly motivated, but could exert the self-control
necessary to engage in tasks in a timely manner.
In comparison with members of the ‘‘High regulated’’ and
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ clusters, members of cluster 2 scored
higher on procrastination and are characterized by higher urgency
Fig. 2. Means for procrastination-related factor scores in cluster profiling (Z-transformed to share the same metric). UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive Behaviour
Scale; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global Motivation Scale; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
5
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and post hoc tests for cluster profiling.
Variable
Cluster 1
(N = 27, 15%)
‘‘Unregulated’’
M (SD)
UPPS-P_Urgency
UPPS-P_Lack of premeditation
UPPS-P_Lack of perseverance
CERQ_Inappropriate strategies
RSE
GMS_EM_identified
2.84
2.69
2.81
2.67
2.63
4.38
(.46)c,d
(.41)b,c,d
(.57)b,c,d
(.37)c,d
(.59)c,d
(1.08)b,d
Cluster 2
(N = 54, 30%)
‘‘Emotional’’
M (SD)
2.80
2.08
1.91
2.89
2.78
5.41
(.51)c,d
(.49)a,d
(.41)a,d
(.46)c,d
(.46)c,d
(.64)a,c,d
Cluster 3
(N = 41, 23%)
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’
M (SD)
2.36
2.06
1.78
2.01
3.44
4.51
(.40)a,b
(.43)a,d
(.45)a,d
(.39)a,b
(.35)a,b
(.71)b,d
Cluster 4
(N = 58, 32%)
‘‘High regulated’’
M (SD)
F(3, 176)
p
g2p
2.20 (.47)a,b
1.57 (.44)a,b,c
1.40 (.41)a,b,c
2.24 (.40)a,b
3.49(.39)a,b
6.01 (.67)a,b,c
21.68
39.60
62.18
43.57
43.55
46.31
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
.27
.40
.51
.43
.43
.44
UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive Behaviour Scale; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global
Motivation Scale; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
Means in the same row that do not share the same superscripts differ at p < .05, using the post hoc Bonferroni test.
a
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 1.
b
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 2.
c
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 3.
d
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 4.
(emotional self-control dimension of impulsivity), higher inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and lower selfesteem. Members of this cluster match the recent view that considers emotion regulation as central in procrastination; the cluster
was named ‘‘Emotional.’’ More specifically, a high level of urgency
(i.e., tendency to act rashly when faced with intense emotional
states) has been related to poor inhibition and decision-making
capacities in an emotional context (Billeux, Gay, Rochat, & Van
der Linden, 2010; Rochat, Beni, Annoni, Vuadens, & Van der
Linden, 2013); members of the ‘‘Emotional’’ cluster could thus have
difficulties in inhibiting engagement in more enjoyable activities
than those intended when faced with intense emotional states
(generated by a task viewed as aversive or consecutive to a negative mood). This can be matched with mood-repair conceptualizations of procrastination suggesting that regulation of immediate
mood is prioritized over long-term goals (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013;
Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). The high level of inappropriate cognitive
emotion regulation strategies, together with the low level of selfesteem, constitutes another support for the relationship between
emotion regulation and procrastination, and can be matched with
cognitive/metacognitive control theories of procrastination suggesting that procrastination is linked to the selection of maladaptive control strategies for dealing with negative mood (Spada,
Hiou, & Nikcevic, 2006; Stainton et al., 2000).
Finally, members of cluster 1 have the highest scores of procrastination and are characterized by a low level of self-regulation, low
self-esteem, and low extrinsic identified motivation. Members of
this cluster are associated with the poorest conditions for goaldirected behaviors and match the classic view of procrastination
as a self-regulatory failure; the cluster was named ‘‘Unregulated.’’
In addition to low extrinsic identified motivation (like those in the
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ cluster) and high levels of emotionrelated difficulties (like those in the ‘‘Emotional’’ cluster), members
of this cluster also display a high level of lack of premeditation (i.e.,
difficulties in taking into account the consequences of an act before
engaging in that act) and even higher lack of perseverance (i.e., difficulties in remaining focused on a boring/difficult task). More specifically, lack of premeditation and lack of perseverance have been
associated with poor decision-making abilities and difficulties in
inhibiting irrelevant thoughts or memories, respectively (Bechara
& Van der Linden, 2005; Gay, Rochat, Billieux, d’Acremont, & Van
der Linden, 2008). Accordingly, members of the ‘‘Unregulated’’
cluster could not take into account potential long-term negative
consequences of delaying, which is linked to difficulties in balancing short-term with long-term goals (reflected by lack of premeditation). Members of the ‘‘Unregulated’’ cluster could also fail to
stay focused in a task demanding attentional control, which is
linked to susceptibility to distractions and irrelevant thoughts
(reflected by lack of perseverance).
Several limitations of the current study can be mentioned. First,
we used a cross-sectional design, which precludes any conclusions
about causality or directionality among the variables. Second, the
study relies on self-report measures, which are prone to be influenced by social desirability bias or lack of insight (Dunning,
Heath, & Suls, 2004). Third, as our findings are based on a relatively
small sample size of predominantly female students of one particular country, future research replicating these results in other populations is required to assess their generalizability. This is all the
more important since several demographic variables are related
to procrastination tendencies (see Steel & Ferrari, 2013).
In conclusion, and despite these limitations, this study provides
insights into the dynamic relationships between key procrastination-related factors and the mechanisms linked to the self-regulation difficulties that characterize trait procrastination. Thus, the
findings suggest that procrastination does not simply reflect lack
of motivation, but rather an association between low extrinsic
identified motivation, self-control, and emotion-related difficulties. In the same vein, emotion-related difficulties are associated
with procrastination, but at a lower level than when present
together with lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and
low extrinsic identified motivation, pointing to reasons to procrastinate other than simply trying to escape unpleasant emotional
states. Finally, the findings suggest that the self-regulation difficulties related to procrastination are underlain by several mechanisms. Poor inhibition and decision-making capacities in an
emotional context may underlie the primacy of short-term mood
repair and emotion regulation over the longer term pursuit of
intended actions, poor decision-making abilities may explain the
kind of ‘‘myopia’’ toward long-term consequences of delaying,
and difficulties in inhibiting irrelevant thoughts or memories
may underlie the failure to stay focused on intended tasks, in particular when considered boring or difficult.
References
Bechara, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2005). Decision-making and impulse control after
frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 734–739. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000194141.56429.3c.
Billieux, J., Gay, P., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2010). The role of urgency and
its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 48, 1085–1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.
07.008.
Billieux, J., Rochat, L., Ceschi, G., Carré, A., Offerlin-Meyer, I., Defeldre, A.-C., et al.
(2012). Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior
Scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53, 609–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.comppsych.2011.09.001.
6
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better
done today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward
college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 15–34. Retrieved
from http://www.csulb.edu/~djorgens/brownlow.pdf.
Clatworthy, J., Buick, D., Hankins, M., Weinman, J., & Horne, R. (2005). The use and
reporting of cluster analysis in health psychology: A review. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 10, 329–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910705X25697.
Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash action:
Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 807–828. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013341.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and
incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators
and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16, 469–489. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/per.461.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for
health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
5, 69–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, P., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive
emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 1311–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6.
Gay, P., Rochat, L., Billieux, J., d’ Acremont, M., & Van der Linden, M. (2008).
Heterogeneous inhibition processes involved in different facets of self-reported
impulsivity: Evidence from a community sample. Acta Psychologica, 129,
332–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.010.
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of selfdetermined motivation: A test of top-down and bottom-up effects. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167203253297.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2014). Genetic relations
among procrastination, impulsivity, and goal-management ability: Implications
for the evolutionary origin of procrastination. Psychological Science, 25,
1178–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614526260.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective. London, England: Pearson Education.
Jermann, F., Van der Linden, M., D’ Acremont, M., & Zermatten, A. (2006). Cognitive
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ): Confirmatory factor analysis and
psychometric properties of the French translation. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 22, 126–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/10155759.22.2.126.
Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic
procrastination in university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 5–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.5-15.
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive and CognitiveBehavior Therapy, 30, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5.
Rebetez, M. M. L., Rochat, L., Gay, P., & Van der Linden, M. (2014). Validation of a
French version of the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS). Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 55, 1442–1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.04.024.
Rochat, L., Beni, C., Annoni, J. M., Vuadens, P., & Van der Linden, M. (2013). How
inhibition relates to impulsivity after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19, 890–898. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000672.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.
7.2.147.
Sirin, E. F. (2011). Academic procrastination among undergraduates attending
school of physical education and sports: Role of general procrastination,
academic motivation. Educational Research and Reviews, 6, 447–455. Retrieved
from <http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379690340_Sirin.pdf>.
Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood
regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7, 115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503.
Spada, M. M., Hiou, K., & Nikcevic, A. V. (2006). Metacognitions, emotions, and
procrastination. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 319–326. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1891/088983906780644028.
Stainton, M., Lay, C. H., & Flett, G. L. (2000). Trait procrastinators and behavior/traitspecific cognitions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 297–312.
Retrieved from <http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/10637257/traitprocrastinators-behavior-trait-specific-cognitions>.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.
Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist?
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 926–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2010.02.025.
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological
study of procrastinators’ characteristics from a global sample. European Journal
of Personality, 27, 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1851.
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion
regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
149–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_03.
Vallières, E. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Traduction et validation canadienne-française
de l’échelle de l’estime de soi de Rosenberg (French-Canadian translation and
validation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale). International Journal of Psychology,
25, 305–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207599008247865.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The
Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001100000
6286345.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using
a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 669–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)
00064-7.
Wilson, B. A., & Nguyen, T. D. (2012). Belonging to tomorrow: An overview of
procrastination. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4, 211–217. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n1p211.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors related
to procrastination: A cluster analytic approach
Marie My Lien Rebetez a,b,⇑, Lucien Rochat a,b, Martial Van der Linden a,b,c
a
Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
c
Cognitive Psychopathology Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 September 2014
Received in revised form 20 November 2014
Accepted 21 November 2014
Keywords:
Procrastination
Clusters
Impulsivity
Emotion regulation
Self-esteem
Motivation
a b s t r a c t
Procrastination is a widespread phenomenon that has been associated with a host of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors but about which a clear and integrated picture is still lacking. The aim
of this study was to use primary established psychological procrastination-related factors in the literature
to examine whether reliable subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis. To
this end, 180 French-speaking students were asked to complete a measure of procrastination and four
questionnaires assessing impulsivity, cognitive emotion regulation, self-esteem, and global motivation.
Four clusters were identified: two with the lowest scores of procrastination (‘‘High regulated’’ and
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’), one with higher scores of procrastination (‘‘Emotional’’), and another with
even higher scores (‘‘Unregulated’’). The findings provide insights into the dynamic relationships between
key procrastination-related factors and the mechanisms linked to the self-regulation difficulties that
characterize trait procrastination.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Procrastination, or to ‘‘voluntarily delay an intended course of
action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay’’ (Steel,
2007, p. 66), is a widespread phenomenon that has been established as a stable trait (Gustavson, Miyake, Hewitt, & Friedman,
2014) and associated with a host of psychological factors (Steel,
2007). Despite numerous studies and evidence regarding key factors related to procrastination, however, there is still no clear
and integrated understanding about it (Wilson & Nguyen, 2012).
Indeed, although the trend has been towards considering procrastination as a complex array of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors (Pychyl & Flett, 2012), they have mostly been
examined independently of one another, leading to a fragmented
representation of this phenomenon.
1.1. Psychological factors related to procrastination
Procrastination is classically conceptualized as a self-regulatory
failure, representative of low conscientiousness and high
⇑ Corresponding author at: Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology
Unit, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, 40, CH-1205 Geneva,
Switzerland. Tel.: +41 22 379 93 44.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.M.L. Rebetez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.044
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
impulsiveness (Steel, 2007). More specifically with regard to
impulsivity, Steel (2007) demonstrated that this construct is one
of the strongest correlates of procrastination (r = .41, K = 22). In
addition, Gustavson et al. (2014) showed a genetic overlap
(rgenetic = 1.0) between the two constructs, and interpreted it from
a cognitive (procrastination and impulsivity shared a common
cognitive ability, namely, goal-management ability) and an evolutionary perspective (procrastination may be an evolutionary
by-product of impulsivity). Nonetheless, an understanding of the
relationship between procrastination and impulsivity requires taking into account that impulsivity is a multidimensional construct.
Indeed, Whiteside and Lynam (2001) identified four distinct
components of impulsivity in their Urgency-PremeditationPerseverance-Sensation seeking [UPPS] model: urgency (tendency
to experience strong reactions, frequently under conditions of negative affect); premeditation (tendency to take into account the
consequences of an act before engaging in that act); perseverance
(ability to remain focused on a boring/difficult task); and sensation
seeking (tendency to enjoy and pursue new/exciting activities).
Urgency, premeditation, and perseverance are related to cognitive/self-control mechanisms, whereas sensation seeking depends
on motivational dispositions (Bechara & Van der Linden, 2005).
More recent work also suggests the existence of positive urgency
(tendency to act rashly when experiencing intense positive emotions) that, together with negative urgency, refers to a general
2
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
disposition to mood-based rash action (Cyders & Smith, 2008).
According to the UPPS model, procrastination has been linked to
the self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity (urgency,
lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance) (Dewitte &
Schouwenburg, 2002). The lack of perseverance observed in procrastinators thus reflects difficulties in staying focused on an
intended task that demands attentional control; lack of premeditation reflects difficulties in taking into account potential long-term
negative consequences of delaying; and urgency reflects proneness
to engage in activities other than those intended when faced with
intense emotional states.
Supporting the role of urgency in procrastination, some recent
studies have stressed the importance of considering emotion regulation as being central to procrastination. For example, according
to Sirois and Pychyl (2013), procrastinators prioritize the management of immediate mood (e.g., voluntary delay of an intended task
viewed as aversive to repair the negative mood surrounding the
task) over long-term goal pursuit. Moreover, Stainton, Lay, and
Flett (2000) demonstrated a strong association between a procrastination-specific form of rumination (automatic thoughts about
one’s tendencies to delay) and procrastination. They also demonstrated that this form of rumination mediated the link between
procrastination and negative affect, and that it was strongly associated with a more general measure of negative automatic
thoughts about the self (e.g., ‘‘What’s wrong with me?’’). These
data underline the notion of poor cognitive emotion regulation
strategies (cognitive and voluntary aspects of emotion regulation,
that is, the thoughts and mental strategies intentionally used to
regulate emotions) in procrastinators. These data also underline
the importance of self-related factors; not surprisingly, self-esteem
has been consistently related to procrastination (Steel, 2007). Procrastination is considered as a self-protective strategy that masks a
fragile self-esteem; by avoiding task completion, one’s perceived
inability is never tested.
Global motivation (general motivational orientation) has also
received much attention from many researchers (e.g., Brownlow
& Reasinger, 2000; Lee, 2005; Sirin, 2011; Solomon & Rothblum,
1984). Like impulsivity, it is a multidimensional construct that
can be divided into three major types of motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 1985): intrinsic (resulting from internal drives), extrinsic
(resulting from external contingencies), and amotivation. In addition, intrinsic motivation can be differentiated into more specific
motives: ‘‘to know’’ (behaving for pleasure when learning/exploring/trying to understand something new), ‘‘toward accomplishment’’ (behaving for pleasure when attempting to accomplish/
create something), and ‘‘to experience stimulating sensation.’’
Extrinsic motivation can also be differentiated into more specific
motives: ‘‘identified’’ (behaviors performed by choice because they
are judged as important), ‘‘introjected’’ (behaviors regulated by
internal pressures, such as pride or guilt), and ‘‘external regulation’’
(behaviors regulated through external means, such as rewards and
constraints). Findings on the relationships between these types of
motivation and procrastination are unclear, however, with heterogeneous results showing links with intrinsic motivation
(Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Lee, 2005) and/or extrinsic motivation (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), or
with amotivation (Lee, 2005), or showing no links (Sirin, 2011).
1.2. Current study
The aim of the current study was to examine from primary
established psychological procrastination-related factors in the literature, namely, self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and one or
several global motivation components (intrinsic motivation to
know/accomplishment/stimulation, extrinsic motivation identified/introjected/external, amotivation), whether subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis.
Considering that procrastination results from a complex array
of cognitive, emotional, and motivational factors, the use of cluster analysis seems well suited for examining it. Indeed, cluster
analysis is a person-based approach that explores how different
variables are combined into diverse profiles within individuals,
in contrast to a variable-based approach that investigates each
variable independently from the others (e.g., correlation
analyses).
In accordance with the literature, we hypothesized that cluster
analysis would allow identification of at least two distinct subgroups of procrastinators. A first subgroup would match the classic
view of procrastination as a self-regulatory failure. This subgroup
would mainly be characterized by low-level of self-regulation
(i.e., high scores on the three self-control-related dimensions of
impulsivity and inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies). A second subgroup would match the more recent view in
which emotion regulation is considered as central in procrastination. This subgroup would be characterized by high urgency (emotional self-control dimension of impulsivity), high inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and low self-esteem.
Moreover, the possibility of a third subgroup of procrastinators
characterized by low global motivation on one or several of its
components could not be excluded, but we postulated that it
would be less clear considering the substantial heterogeneity of
the findings in the literature. Finally, we postulated the existence
of a last subgroup with low scores of procrastination that, in contrast to the first subgroup, would be characterized by a high level
of self-regulation.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
One hundred eighty students (153 females, 27 males) from the
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at the University
of Geneva completed a measure of procrastination and four questionnaires assessing self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and global
motivation components (intrinsic motivation to know/accomplishment/stimulation, extrinsic motivation identified/introjected/
external, amotivation). The mean age of the sample was 21.85 years
(SD = 3.56, range = 18–44).
2.2. Measures
All measures have been previously validated with francophone
samples and demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties.
Procrastination was measured with the French adaptation of the
Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS; Rebetez, Rochat, Gay, & Van der
Linden, 2014; original version, Steel, 2010), an 11-item scale for
which a higher score indicates a higher tendency to procrastinate.
Self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity were assessed
with the short UPPS Impulsive Behaviour Scale (Billieux et al.,
2012). This 20-item scale evaluates the five facets of impulsivity
(four items per dimension): negative urgency, positive urgency,
lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking.
For this study, only urgency (as positive and negative urgency facets were highly correlated, r = .50, p < .001, they were regrouped
into a single factor of urgency; see Billieux et al., 2012), lack of premeditation, and lack of perseverance were considered. Higher
scores indicate greater impulsivity.
3
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies were
assessed with the French version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Jermann, Van der Linden, D’Acremont, &
Zermatten, 2006; original version, Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven,
2001). This 36-item questionnaire evaluates nine cognitive emotion regulation strategies (four items per strategy), five referring
to appropriate strategies and four to inappropriate strategies. For
this study, only inappropriate strategies (self-blame/rumination/
catastrophizing/blaming others) were considered. A higher score
indicates more inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation
strategies.
Self-esteem was assessed with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Vallières & Vallerand, 1990), a 10-item scale for which a higher
score indicates greater self-esteem.
Global motivation components were assessed with the Global
Motivation Scale (Guay, Mageau, & Vallerand, 2003), a 28-item
scale (four items per components) for which higher scores indicate
greater motivation.
2.3. Statistical analyses
First, Pearson’s correlations were computed to evaluate the
relationships between procrastination (PPS) and the other variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity, inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, global
motivation components). Pearson’s correlations were then computed between procrastination-related variables to verify the
absence of multicollinearity, it having an impact on cluster analysis
by giving more weight to collinear variables (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010). Bonferroni-adjusted p-values were used for all
correlations to reduce type I error due to multiple tests.
Second, we used cluster analyses to identify subgroups of participants differing for procrastination-related variables, following
the procedure suggested by Clatworthy, Buick, Hankins,
Weinman, and Horne (2005). A hierarchical agglomerative method
(Ward’s method) with squared Euclidian distance was thus
selected to explore the possible number of clusters from the data.
After this number was defined by the analysis of dendrogram and
agglomeration coefficients, an iterative partitioning method
(K-means) clustering was computed, permitting maximization of
the similarity of cases within each cluster and the dissimilarity
between clusters. The stability of the cluster solution structure
was then examined by determining the agreement between the
two method solutions, using Cramer’s V test. This test allows determination of whether similar clusters are present regardless of the
algorithm used to derive them. In addition, scores for the procrastination-related variables were entered into discriminant function
analysis, where the identified clusters served as the grouping variable, to confirm differences between the clusters. This analysis
allows determination of the extent to which clusters are separated
by the severity of the procrastination-related variables.
Third, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with Bonferroni
post hoc tests were computed separately for cluster profiling and
PPS to examine potential differences among clusters on procrastination-related variables, as well as on PPS.
3. Results
3.1. Data screening and descriptive analyses
Prior to data analyses, skewness and kurtosis were examined
for all scales. For each variable, they ranged from .63 to .72 and
.71 to .85, respectively, indicating no strong deviation from normality, considering that absolute values greater than 3 for skewness and greater than 20 for kurtosis are judged to be extreme
(Weston & Gore, 2006). Missing data (N = 180; 0.15% of the data)
were replaced by the mean of the related factor (as all internal consistencies were >.70; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Means, standard
deviations, and Cronbach’s a of the measures are reported in
Table 1.
3.2. Correlation analyses
Pearson’s correlations between procrastination (PPS) and the
other variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity,
inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem,
global motivation components) are described in Table 1. PPS was
positively related to the self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance) and
inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and negatively related to self-esteem and the extrinsic identified motivation
component of global motivation. Pearson’s correlations between
procrastination-related variables supported the absence of
multicollinearity (r ranged from .01 to .44).
3.3. Cluster analysis
Following correlation analyses, procrastination-related variables (self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity, inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, extrinsic
identified motivation) were selected for cluster analysis. Visual
inspection of the dendrogram and agglomeration coefficients
obtained with Ward’s method indicated a four-cluster solution.
K-mean cluster analysis was then implemented by using an iterative procedure and specifying four clusters. The four-cluster solution was supported by analyses indicating good agreement
between Ward’s method and K-means clustering (Cramer’s
V = .70, p < .001). Discriminant function analysis indicated that
the four clusters were adequately separated in discriminant function space (see Fig. 1) and that, overall, 97.8% of the cases were correctly classified.
The four clusters identified (see Fig. 2) reflected participants
with the following:
1. High impulsivity (on its three self-control-related dimensions)
and high inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies;
low self-esteem and low extrinsic identified motivation (cluster
1, N = 27; ‘‘Unregulated’’).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the measures and Pearson’s correlations with PPS.
PPS
UPPS-P_Urgency
UPPS-P_Lack of premeditation
UPPS-P_Lack of perseverance
CERQ_Inappropriate strategies
RSE
GMS_IM_to know
GMS_IM_toward accomplishment
GMS_IM_to experience stimulation
GMS_EM_identified
GMS_EM_introjected
GMS_EM_external
GMS_Amotivation
M
SD
a
PPS
2.80
2.51
2.00
1.85
2.45
3.14
5.17
4.92
5.37
5.25
3.91
4.07
2.69
.79
.54
.58
.64
.54
.57
1.03
1.08
.90
.99
1.10
1.18
1.00
.92
.82
.83
.90
.83
.91
.89
.81
.85
.82
.76
.76
.79
–
.40*
.37*
.60*
.39*
.40*
.17
.13
.12
.31*
.14
.13
.00
PPS = Pure Procrastination Scale; UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive
Behaviour
Scale;
CERQ = Cognitive
Emotion
Regulation
Questionnaire;
RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global Motivation Scale; IM = Intrinsic
Motivation; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
*
Significant at p < .004 (Bonferroni correction; p = .05/13).
4
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
the ‘‘Unregulated’’ group (M = 3.72, SD = .57) than for all other
groups (all ps < .05); the mean of the ‘‘Emotional’’ group (M = 3.01,
SD = .69) was higher than it was for the other two groups (all
ps < .05); and there was no difference between the mean of the
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ group (M = 2.56, SD = .62) and the mean
of the ‘‘High regulated’’ group (M = 2.34, SD = .64).
4. Discussion
Fig. 1. Four-cluster solution plotted in discriminant function space.
2. High urgency and high inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies; low self-esteem; medium premeditation, medium perseverance, and medium extrinsic identified motivation
(cluster 2, N = 54; ‘‘Emotional’’).
3. Low extrinsic identified motivation; medium premeditation
and medium perseverance; low urgency and low inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies; high self-esteem (cluster 3, N = 41; ‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’).
4. Low impulsivity (on its three self-control-related dimensions)
and low inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies;
high self-esteem and high extrinsic identified motivation (cluster 4, N = 58; ‘‘High regulated’’).
3.4. ANOVAs
Regarding cluster profiling, ANOVAs revealed a significant effect
of cluster membership on each procrastination-related factor.
Descriptive statistics for each cluster and ANOVAs (including
results of post hoc analyses) are reported in Table 2.
Regarding differences among clusters on procrastination (PPS),
results showed that the four clusters significantly differ on PPS,
F(3, 176) = 32.70, p < .001, g2p = .36. Post hoc Bonferroni tests indicated that the mean score on the PPS was significantly greater for
The aim of the current study was to examine whether subgroups of procrastinators can be identified through cluster analysis
by using primary established psychological procrastination-related
factors, namely, self-control-related dimensions of impulsivity
(urgency, lack of premeditation, lack perseverance), inappropriate
cognitive emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem, and extrinsic
identified motivation.
Four clusters were identified: two with the lowest scores of procrastination (clusters 3 and 4; 55% of the sample), one with higher
scores of procrastination (cluster 2; 30% of the sample), and
another with even higher scores (cluster 1; 15% of the sample).
Among the participants with the lowest scores, members of
cluster 4 are characterized by a high level of self-regulation (i.e.,
low impulsivity, low inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation
strategies), as well as high self-esteem and high extrinsic identified
motivation. Members of this cluster are associated with the optimal conditions to facilitate goal-directed behaviors; the cluster
was named ‘‘High regulated.’’ Members of cluster 3, compared with
those in the ‘‘High regulated’’ cluster, are mainly characterized by
lower extrinsic identified motivation; the cluster was named ‘‘Regulated/low motivated.’’ Interestingly, at a variable-based level (i.e.,
correlation analyses), extrinsic identified motivation (i.e., behaviors performed by choice because they are judged as important)
was the only component of global motivation significantly related
to procrastination; this negative relationship suggests that procrastinators do not drive much of their behavior according to their
values and thus tend to delay a task even though they consider it
important. However, and contrary to our hypothesis, when considered at a person-based level (i.e., cluster analysis), low extrinsic
identified motivation (together with a medium/high level of selfregulation) was not associated with higher scores of procrastination. In other words, members of the ‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’
cluster may be poorly motivated, but could exert the self-control
necessary to engage in tasks in a timely manner.
In comparison with members of the ‘‘High regulated’’ and
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ clusters, members of cluster 2 scored
higher on procrastination and are characterized by higher urgency
Fig. 2. Means for procrastination-related factor scores in cluster profiling (Z-transformed to share the same metric). UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive Behaviour
Scale; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global Motivation Scale; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
5
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and post hoc tests for cluster profiling.
Variable
Cluster 1
(N = 27, 15%)
‘‘Unregulated’’
M (SD)
UPPS-P_Urgency
UPPS-P_Lack of premeditation
UPPS-P_Lack of perseverance
CERQ_Inappropriate strategies
RSE
GMS_EM_identified
2.84
2.69
2.81
2.67
2.63
4.38
(.46)c,d
(.41)b,c,d
(.57)b,c,d
(.37)c,d
(.59)c,d
(1.08)b,d
Cluster 2
(N = 54, 30%)
‘‘Emotional’’
M (SD)
2.80
2.08
1.91
2.89
2.78
5.41
(.51)c,d
(.49)a,d
(.41)a,d
(.46)c,d
(.46)c,d
(.64)a,c,d
Cluster 3
(N = 41, 23%)
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’
M (SD)
2.36
2.06
1.78
2.01
3.44
4.51
(.40)a,b
(.43)a,d
(.45)a,d
(.39)a,b
(.35)a,b
(.71)b,d
Cluster 4
(N = 58, 32%)
‘‘High regulated’’
M (SD)
F(3, 176)
p
g2p
2.20 (.47)a,b
1.57 (.44)a,b,c
1.40 (.41)a,b,c
2.24 (.40)a,b
3.49(.39)a,b
6.01 (.67)a,b,c
21.68
39.60
62.18
43.57
43.55
46.31
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
.27
.40
.51
.43
.43
.44
UPPS-P = short version of the UPPS Impulsive Behaviour Scale; CERQ = Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; GMS = Global
Motivation Scale; EM = Extrinsic Motivation.
Means in the same row that do not share the same superscripts differ at p < .05, using the post hoc Bonferroni test.
a
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 1.
b
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 2.
c
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 3.
d
Statistically significant in comparison to cluster 4.
(emotional self-control dimension of impulsivity), higher inappropriate cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and lower selfesteem. Members of this cluster match the recent view that considers emotion regulation as central in procrastination; the cluster
was named ‘‘Emotional.’’ More specifically, a high level of urgency
(i.e., tendency to act rashly when faced with intense emotional
states) has been related to poor inhibition and decision-making
capacities in an emotional context (Billeux, Gay, Rochat, & Van
der Linden, 2010; Rochat, Beni, Annoni, Vuadens, & Van der
Linden, 2013); members of the ‘‘Emotional’’ cluster could thus have
difficulties in inhibiting engagement in more enjoyable activities
than those intended when faced with intense emotional states
(generated by a task viewed as aversive or consecutive to a negative mood). This can be matched with mood-repair conceptualizations of procrastination suggesting that regulation of immediate
mood is prioritized over long-term goals (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013;
Tice & Bratslavsky, 2000). The high level of inappropriate cognitive
emotion regulation strategies, together with the low level of selfesteem, constitutes another support for the relationship between
emotion regulation and procrastination, and can be matched with
cognitive/metacognitive control theories of procrastination suggesting that procrastination is linked to the selection of maladaptive control strategies for dealing with negative mood (Spada,
Hiou, & Nikcevic, 2006; Stainton et al., 2000).
Finally, members of cluster 1 have the highest scores of procrastination and are characterized by a low level of self-regulation, low
self-esteem, and low extrinsic identified motivation. Members of
this cluster are associated with the poorest conditions for goaldirected behaviors and match the classic view of procrastination
as a self-regulatory failure; the cluster was named ‘‘Unregulated.’’
In addition to low extrinsic identified motivation (like those in the
‘‘Regulated/low motivated’’ cluster) and high levels of emotionrelated difficulties (like those in the ‘‘Emotional’’ cluster), members
of this cluster also display a high level of lack of premeditation (i.e.,
difficulties in taking into account the consequences of an act before
engaging in that act) and even higher lack of perseverance (i.e., difficulties in remaining focused on a boring/difficult task). More specifically, lack of premeditation and lack of perseverance have been
associated with poor decision-making abilities and difficulties in
inhibiting irrelevant thoughts or memories, respectively (Bechara
& Van der Linden, 2005; Gay, Rochat, Billieux, d’Acremont, & Van
der Linden, 2008). Accordingly, members of the ‘‘Unregulated’’
cluster could not take into account potential long-term negative
consequences of delaying, which is linked to difficulties in balancing short-term with long-term goals (reflected by lack of premeditation). Members of the ‘‘Unregulated’’ cluster could also fail to
stay focused in a task demanding attentional control, which is
linked to susceptibility to distractions and irrelevant thoughts
(reflected by lack of perseverance).
Several limitations of the current study can be mentioned. First,
we used a cross-sectional design, which precludes any conclusions
about causality or directionality among the variables. Second, the
study relies on self-report measures, which are prone to be influenced by social desirability bias or lack of insight (Dunning,
Heath, & Suls, 2004). Third, as our findings are based on a relatively
small sample size of predominantly female students of one particular country, future research replicating these results in other populations is required to assess their generalizability. This is all the
more important since several demographic variables are related
to procrastination tendencies (see Steel & Ferrari, 2013).
In conclusion, and despite these limitations, this study provides
insights into the dynamic relationships between key procrastination-related factors and the mechanisms linked to the self-regulation difficulties that characterize trait procrastination. Thus, the
findings suggest that procrastination does not simply reflect lack
of motivation, but rather an association between low extrinsic
identified motivation, self-control, and emotion-related difficulties. In the same vein, emotion-related difficulties are associated
with procrastination, but at a lower level than when present
together with lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and
low extrinsic identified motivation, pointing to reasons to procrastinate other than simply trying to escape unpleasant emotional
states. Finally, the findings suggest that the self-regulation difficulties related to procrastination are underlain by several mechanisms. Poor inhibition and decision-making capacities in an
emotional context may underlie the primacy of short-term mood
repair and emotion regulation over the longer term pursuit of
intended actions, poor decision-making abilities may explain the
kind of ‘‘myopia’’ toward long-term consequences of delaying,
and difficulties in inhibiting irrelevant thoughts or memories
may underlie the failure to stay focused on intended tasks, in particular when considered boring or difficult.
References
Bechara, A., & Van der Linden, M. (2005). Decision-making and impulse control after
frontal lobe injuries. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18, 734–739. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.wco.0000194141.56429.3c.
Billieux, J., Gay, P., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2010). The role of urgency and
its underlying psychological mechanisms in problematic behaviours. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 48, 1085–1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.
07.008.
Billieux, J., Rochat, L., Ceschi, G., Carré, A., Offerlin-Meyer, I., Defeldre, A.-C., et al.
(2012). Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior
Scale. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 53, 609–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.comppsych.2011.09.001.
6
M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 1–6
Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better
done today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward
college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 15–34. Retrieved
from http://www.csulb.edu/~djorgens/brownlow.pdf.
Clatworthy, J., Buick, D., Hankins, M., Weinman, J., & Horne, R. (2005). The use and
reporting of cluster analysis in health psychology: A review. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 10, 329–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135910705X25697.
Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash action:
Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 807–828. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013341.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and
incentives: The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators
and the punctual. European Journal of Personality, 16, 469–489. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/per.461.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for
health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
5, 69–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, P., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive
emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 1311–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6.
Gay, P., Rochat, L., Billieux, J., d’ Acremont, M., & Van der Linden, M. (2008).
Heterogeneous inhibition processes involved in different facets of self-reported
impulsivity: Evidence from a community sample. Acta Psychologica, 129,
332–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.08.010.
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of selfdetermined motivation: A test of top-down and bottom-up effects. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167203253297.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2014). Genetic relations
among procrastination, impulsivity, and goal-management ability: Implications
for the evolutionary origin of procrastination. Psychological Science, 25,
1178–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614526260.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis: A global perspective. London, England: Pearson Education.
Jermann, F., Van der Linden, M., D’ Acremont, M., & Zermatten, A. (2006). Cognitive
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ): Confirmatory factor analysis and
psychometric properties of the French translation. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 22, 126–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/10155759.22.2.126.
Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic
procrastination in university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 5–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.5-15.
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive and CognitiveBehavior Therapy, 30, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5.
Rebetez, M. M. L., Rochat, L., Gay, P., & Van der Linden, M. (2014). Validation of a
French version of the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS). Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 55, 1442–1447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.04.024.
Rochat, L., Beni, C., Annoni, J. M., Vuadens, P., & Van der Linden, M. (2013). How
inhibition relates to impulsivity after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 19, 890–898. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000672.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.
7.2.147.
Sirin, E. F. (2011). Academic procrastination among undergraduates attending
school of physical education and sports: Role of general procrastination,
academic motivation. Educational Research and Reviews, 6, 447–455. Retrieved
from <http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1379690340_Sirin.pdf>.
Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood
regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 7, 115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503.
Spada, M. M., Hiou, K., & Nikcevic, A. V. (2006). Metacognitions, emotions, and
procrastination. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 319–326. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1891/088983906780644028.
Stainton, M., Lay, C. H., & Flett, G. L. (2000). Trait procrastinators and behavior/traitspecific cognitions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 297–312.
Retrieved from <http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/10637257/traitprocrastinators-behavior-trait-specific-cognitions>.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical
review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133,
65–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.
Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist?
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 926–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2010.02.025.
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological
study of procrastinators’ characteristics from a global sample. European Journal
of Personality, 27, 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1851.
Tice, D. M., & Bratslavsky, E. (2000). Giving in to feel good: The place of emotion
regulation in the context of general self-control. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
149–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_03.
Vallières, E. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Traduction et validation canadienne-française
de l’échelle de l’estime de soi de Rosenberg (French-Canadian translation and
validation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale). International Journal of Psychology,
25, 305–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207599008247865.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The
Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001100000
6286345.
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using
a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 30, 669–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)
00064-7.
Wilson, B. A., & Nguyen, T. D. (2012). Belonging to tomorrow: An overview of
procrastination. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4, 211–217. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n1p211.
