PERSONALITY AND.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

PERGAMON Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-3 16

Procrastination, generalized or specific, in college students

and their parents
Norman (Noach) Milgram*, Gil Mey-Tal, Yuval Levison
Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv 69978, Israel

Received 27 August 1997

Abstract

Fifty-two Israeli university students (81% women) reported their current academic and life routine
procrastination. Their parents reported on their own academic procrastination when they were in school,
and their own current life routine procrastination. Both students and parents reported on the parents
involvement in academic and life routine tasks when the students were younger. Findings confirm that
avoidant procrastination is a generalized behavioral disposition to postpone doing things across academic
assignments and non-academic life routines, and are consistent with an appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model
of procrastination. Parents were more involved in regulating their childrens behavior at home than at
school. Mothers were more involved than fathers and their involvement was associated with their adult
children procrastinating less in life routines. The absence of any relationship between parental involvement
scores reported by parents and their adult children raises serious questions about research studies that
assume equivalence of childrens perceptions of parental behavior and the behavior in question. 0 1998
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words: academic procrastination; life routine procrastination; task avoidance; parental involvement; trait; modeling

1. Introduction

Procrastination has been extensively investigated only in the past 10-15 years. The first volume
summarizing this research was published in 1995 (Ferrari et al., 1995). Procrastination is typically
defined as a trait or behavioral disposition to postpone or delay performing tasks or making
decisions. Five different kinds of procrastination have been investigated, the first two referring to
task avoidance, and the others to decision avoidance: ( 1) academic procrastination defined as doing
homework, preparing for exams, or writing term papers at the last minute (Solomon and Ruthblum,
1984); (2) general or life routine procrastination defined as experienced difficulty in scheduling when

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 972-3-6409520 (office); 972-9-7493829 (residence); Fax: 972-9-7493186; E-mail: mil-
gram@ccsg.tau.ac.il.

0191~8869/98 $19.00 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

PII: SO 19 l-8869(98)00044-0
298 N.Milgram et al./Personality and Inditlidual Dtfferences 25 (1998) 297-316

to do the many recurring life routines and in doing them on schedule (Milgram et al., 1988); (3)
decisional procrastination defined as the inability to make timely decisions in many life cir-
cumstances (Effert and Ferrari, 1989; Janis and Mann, 1977; Tenne, 1997); (4) neurotic pro-
crastination defined as the tendency to postpone major life decisions (Ellis and Knaus, 1979); (5)
compulsive or dysfunctionalprocrastination defined as decisional and behavioral procrastination in
the same person (Ferrari, 1991; Ferrari and Olivette, 1994).
All five kinds of procrastination adversely affect ones intra- and inter-personal functioning (see
studies summarized in Ferrari et al., 1995). While the first two kinds appear innocuous enough,
these behavioral inefficiencies are perceived as hassles, are associated with feelings of helplessness
and inability to cope with recurring life demands, and have adverse psychological and physical
effects (DeLongis et al., 1982; Flett et al., 1995; Kanner et al., 1981; Milgram and Arad, 1990).
Empirical research has focused primarily on the first and second kind of procrastination and
identified numerous antecedent, concurrent, and consequent correlates of task avoidance (Ferrari
et al., 1995). The present study makes two contributions to this literature by examining (1) the
generality of the behavioral disposition to avoid doing tasks across the two different life domains,
academic and life routine, in college students and in their parents and (2) the relationship of
students procrastination to their parents procrastination and to their parents past involvement
in their childrens habits in these domains.

I. I. Generality us spec$city of procrastination

Task avoidant procrastination may be conceptualized either as a generalized behavioral dis-

position consistent across different behavioral domains, or as a series of domain-specific behavioral
dispositions. Empirical research provides evidence supporting both conceptualizations. Since peo-
ple procrastinate more on tasks they regard as unpleasant, difficult, and/or as imposed upon them
than on their converse (Milgram et al., 1988, 1995), it follows that people may procrastinate on
one category of tasks (e.g., school work if regarded negatively) and behave promptly on another
(e.g., leisure activities if regarded positively). This line of research supports the specificity hypothesis
and is consistent with the work of Mischel (1990) and other investigators (e.g., Spielberger, 1972;
Endler et al., 1991) who have confirmed the efficacy of domain-specific traits as better predictors
of behaviors in the corresponding domains than general or non-specific traits.
The generality hypothesis is supported by McCown and Johnson, (1989) and McCown, Johnson
and Petzel(1989) who found robust relationships between distinct life domains (r = 0.64 and 0.72,
in the two respective studies). Unfortunately, the majority of the items comprising the academic
procrastination scale (Aitken, 1982) and the general procrastination scale (McCown and Johnson,
1989) used in these studies were non-specific in content and may be regarded as measuring the
same thing. In order to test properly the generality vs specificity of procrastination, it is necessary
to use scales whose items refer to different life domains (e.g., academic vs non-academic life
routines) and to examine their relationship.

I .2. Extent of procrastination in academic and life routine tasks

The use of domain-specific scales permits us to ascertain differences in the extent of pro-
crastination between these domains. Academic and the life routine procrastination scales were
 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316 299

selected for investigation both because they refer to very different, largely non-overlapping
behavioral domains and because they provide a test of an appraisal-anxiety-avoidance model of
procrastination. This model is based on a major cognitive-emotional-behavioral theory of coping
in stressful situations (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). According to Lazarus, people assess whether
a given situation poses a threat to them and whether they have the resources to deal effectively
with this threat. If they perceive the situation to be threatening and their resources inadequate,
they react with stress reactions, including manifest anxiety, and try to escape from the situation.
In the adaptation proposed here, escape takes the form of putting off doing the anxiety-provoking
task as long as possible. Avoidance is a negative reinforcement that reduces anxiety, thereby
sustaining this pattern of behavior.
Application of this model to academic and life routine tasks yields differential predictions.
Academic tasks are graded with reference to norms and have stringent deadlines, while life routines
are criterion-referenced and their completion is subject to far less critical scrutiny and evaluation,
and less stringent deadlines (Cronbach, 1984). Norm-based tasks are anxiety-provoking because
they invite invidious social comparison and threaten ones self esteem if one doesnt do as well as
others on the tasks in question (Higgins, 1987; Suls and Wills, 1990). By contrast, criterion-based
tasks are less vulnerable to social evaluation because differences in levels of performance among
those who meet criterion tend to be ignored. These features make academic tasks more anxiety-
provoking and, therefore, more susceptible to avoidant behavior than life routines (Milgram
and Naaman, 1996). Hence, the hypothesis that students and their parents would report more
procrastination on academic tasks than on life routines.

I .3. Reactions to ones procrastinatory behavior

Procrastination provides only temporary relief from the anxiety associated with doing the
task in question. Temporary, because procrastinators must eventually come to terms with the
consequences of their avoidant behavior, namely the losses incurred by not doing things on time
or by doing them poorly because they are done at the last minute. Two types of procrastinators
have been identified: (1) those who desire certain outcomes and become uncomfortable when they
do not attain these outcomes and/or suffer dismaying consequences of their behavior; and (2) those
who are free of anxiety because they do not value prompt performance or place any importance
on the nominally adverse consequences of their behavior (Milgram and Naaman, 1996; Milgram
et al., 1992). The presence of the first group in any sample is sufficient to yield a moderate
relationship between the extent of procrastinatory behavior, the extent of discomfort about it, and
extent of the desire to change it (Milgram et al., 1995). Given the greater importance attached to
academic tasks over life routines in students, we hypothesized greater discomfort and a stronger
desire to change ones habits with reference to academic assignments than to non-academic life
routines.

I .4. Effect of parents procrastination on adult children s procrastination: the modeling hqjpothesis

An additional reason for selecting these particular domains-academic and life routine-was
their appropriateness for research on the effects of two kinds of parental influence: (1) children
modeling themselves after their parents behavior in this regard; (2) parents involving themselves
300 N. Milgram et al/Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

in their childrens behavior and reinforcing certain behavioral patterns. The theoretical rationale
for each of these kinds of parental influence is discussed below.
In the former, children observe certain parent behavior patterns and behave in a similar or a
different fashion as a function of the consequences of these behavior patterns. If children perceive
their parents behavior to have adverse consequences, they will endeavour to behave differently;
positive consequences, they will behave in a similar fashion (Bandura, 1977). The optimal research
strategy would be to assess procrastination in children and adolescents and to follow-up their
behavior and that of their children when the latter attain the same age, 30 years later. Given the
difficulties of a longitudinal follow-up of this kind, we elected to assess procrastination in families,
each consisting of a college student and both biological parents living under the same roof. Students
were to report their current academic and life routine procrastination, and parents to report their
academic procrastination when they were in school and their current life routine procrastination.
This research design permitted a test of the following hypothesis:

(1) Students will resemble their parents more in procrastination on life routines than on academic
tasks. This follows from two consideration, the first methodological and the second experi-
ential. With reference to the former, students and parents are able to rely on immediate
recall in reporting how they handle their current life routines; self-reports about academic
assignments are necessarily retrospective for parents and, therefore, more subject to distortion
than the current self-reports of their adult children. With reference to the latter, students have
had many more opportunities for modeling themselves after their parents in handling life
routines than in handling academic tasks. Relatively few parents attended school during their
childrens school years and those who did, did not necessarily permit their children to observe
their school work habits or inform their children about them.
(2) Students will resemble their mothers more than their fathers in procrastination on life routine
tasks. This follows from the greater opportunity to model themselves after their mothers who
are at home more than their fathers (Youniss and Smollar, 1985).

1 S. Effect of parents procrastination on adult childrens procrastination: the parent involvement

hypothesis

Studies of parental involvement on childrens school performance have generally used different
operational definitions of this variable. A conceptually-guided definition used in many studies is
based on Baumrinds classic distinction between authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and
neglectful parenting styles (Baumrind, 1967). Several recent studies (Dornbusch et al., 1987;
Steinberg et al., 1994) have shown that authoritative parenting characterized by high demand
(promoting and monitoring rules and regulations) coupled with high interpersonal responsiveness
(of parents to the skills, habits, and preferences of their children) had a more positive effect on
childrens attitudes toward school and on their school performance than the other three parenting
styles: permissive (low demand and high responsiveness), authoritarian (high demand and low
responsiveness) and neglectful parenting (low demand and low responsiveness). The effect of the
demand feature of parent involvement, high vs low, was investigated in the present study.
Previous research on parental involvement in childrens procrastination has been plagued by
two methodological problems. First, parental involvement was investigated indirectly, with ado-
 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Dijferences 25 (1998) 297-316 301

lescents or young adults reporting on their parents behaviors. Second, these hear-say assessments
of parental behavior referred to parents expectations or criticisms (Frost et al., 1990) or to their
general parenting style (Buri, 1991) rather than to specific parental behaviors. These measures of
parental behavior provide less convincing evidence of parental influence on a particular target
behavior in children than measures of how much parents monitor this particular behavior in their
children and attempt to reinforce behavior consistent with their standards. An additional problem
in studies of parental influence is that the data have been entirely retrospective (Frost et al., 1990;
Voicu, 1993).
Two recent studies of parental influence on adult childrens procrastination have several features
in common with the present study and are described in some detail here in order to highlight
differences in research design and to account for different anticipated results (Ferrari and Olivette,
1993, 1994). These investigators obtained data on two measures of procrastination, The Decisional
Procrastination Scale (Janis and Mann, 1977) and the Adult Inventory of Procrastination
(McCown and Johnson, 1989) both from female college students and from their parents. In
addition, the students completed the Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) a scale derived
form Baumrind (1967) that assesses the parents authority style on permissive, authoritative,and
authoritarian sub-scales. The major findings were that mothers scores on avoidant procrastination
were directly related to their daughters avoidant procrastination, authoritarian households were
directly related to daughters decisional procrastination, fathers authoritarian style was directly
related and fathers authoritative style inversely related to their daughters decisional and avoidant
procrastination.
A major limitation of these studies was the use of adult childrens reports as measures of their
parents authority style. This usage has been strongly criticized by Halverson (1988) because the
antecedent variable, parental influence, is retrospective, second hand, and is obtained from the
same people who provide the data on the consequent variable, procrastination. We decided to
follow the recommendations of Ferrari and Olivette themselves (1993) and of others (Steinberg et
al., 1994) and obtain retrospective data on parental authority style from this source (the parents)
as well as from the target of the hypothesized influence (their children). In doing so, we formulated
hypotheses and anticipated findings that differ from those obtained in the Ferrari and Olivette
studies, and deal with these differences in the Discussion.
Our research design consisted of two phases:
(1) Instructing parents to recollect the nature of their involvement with their children when they
were younger. Parental involvement was derived from permissive and authoritative parenting
styles (Baumrind, 1967). The permissive parenting style refers to refraining from monitoring
or correcting childrens behavior and acknowledging that the children themselves are respon-
sible for their own behavior and its consequences. This definition is free of such socially
undesirable connotations as neglectful or indulgent parenting. The authoritative parenting
style refers to monitoring their behavior and enforcing their adherence to schedules and rules,
according to the parents standards. Both kinds of involvement were assessed.
(2) Instructing the students to complete these same involvement scales according to their rec-
ollection of their parents behavior at that time.
The following hypotheses were raised:
(a) Parents will report more permissive and correspondingly less authoritative behavior on the
302 N. Milgram et aLlPersonality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

whole. This follows from the greater investment of energy required for authoritative behaviors
than for permissive ones as well as from the prevailing climate of opinion that encourages
parents to give children opportunity for growth and independence and make them responsible
for their own behavior (Lamborn et al., 1991). This climate of opinion is especially prevalent
in Israel where young men enter compulsory military service after graduation from high school.
(b) Parents will be more authoritative with regard to their childrens handling of academic tasks
than their handling of life routines. This follows from the greater concern of parents about
their children doing their school work promptly, as compared with their concern about their
childrens promptness in handling routine life tasks (Seginer, 1983). Parents will be more
concerned about school work because consequences of procrastination in this domain are
regarded as more serious than in life routines.
(c) Parents involved in their childrens school work will also be involved in their behavior in life
routines. This follows from the findings of research cited earlier that report moderate cor-
relations of a behavioral disposition manifested in different domains (e.g., Spielberger, 1972;
Endler et al., 1991). Accordingly, parents who are authoritative in the one domain will be
authoritative in the other, and the same for permissive involvement.
(d) Mothers will be more authoritative than fathers in their childrens academic and life routine
tasks and will have greater impact on their childrens procrastination than fathers. These
hypotheses follow from findings that mothers spend more time with their children during the
formative years and work harder at it, and that they perceive authoritative parenting behavior
as consistent with their role as parent and home-maker. Numerous studies have documented
that mothers perceive themselves and are perceived by their children as more actively involved
in their childrens schooling (Cone et al., 1985; Grolnick and Solwiaczek, 1994; Richardson et
al., 1984; Youniss and Smollar, 1985).
(e) Parents retrospective reports of their involvement in their childrens activities will differ
substantially from their childrens retrospective report of their involvement and will, conse-
quently, be unrelated to their childrens reports about the parents. This follows from the biased
character of retrospective judgments both by parents and by their children.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

Fifty-two students from Tel Aviv University participated in the research study. The majority
were women (81%) and most were students in the Departments of Psychology and Education
(62%) and the rest from other undergraduate departments. They participated in this study as part
of a departmental requirement to serve a prescribed number of hours as subjects in psychological
research. Their mean age was 23.10 (1.83). Only students both of whose parents were alive and
residing at home were included in the study. The mean age of their parents was 52.6 (6.86) and
48.7 (4.22) years for fathers and mothers, respectively. Nearly all parents (97%) had attended high
school or better, and the majority (73%) had received formal education beyond high school. These
were primarily non-religious, middle-class families of Western background. Given the high divorce
rates that prevail in Western countries, one may ask whether the requirement of biological parents,
 N. Milgram et al/Personality and Indhidual Dij/krences 2S (1998) 297-316 303

alive and living together, makes this sample highly atypical. Inspection of the Statistical Abstracts
of Israel (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1996) indicates the percentage of divorced Israelis to be less
than 9% of those married, in the age range of parents in this study (40-65); our particular sample
may be drawn from a population characterized by a somewhat higher divorce rate, but it would
still be less selective than the working and lower-middle class Ferrari and Olivette sample.

2.2. Problems in existing scales of academic and general procrastination

There are serious defects in the measures of procrastination in current use, especially the measure
of academic procrastination. The senior measure in this field, the Procrastination Assessment Scale
for Students (Solomon and Rothblum, 1984) consists of only six items (homework, test preparation,
term papers, educational administrative matters, appointments with educational personnel, and
school activities in general, in that order). One may question whether administrative matters and
attending meetings are academic tasks, and whether the final item, non-specific school activities,
belongs in the same scale as specific academic tasks. Given the heterogeneous character of this
brief scale, it is not surprising that the split-half reliability reported by the authors is unsatisfactory
(0.26).
Two other well-known measures, the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (Aitken, 1982) and the
Tuckman Procrastination Scale (Tuckman, 1991) contain many more items, 19 and 15, respectively
and possess higher internal consistency (0.82 and 0.90, reported by their respective authors).
Unfortunately, more than half of the items in the former use vague language (starting things,
working at jobs) and the instructions and content of the latter scale make no reference to
academic work. Nevertheless, they are regarded by researchers as measures of academic pro-
crastination when administered to high school and college students for two reasons. First,
researchers assume that students automatically define non-specific scale items as academic, because
the scales are administered in an academic setting. Second, they assume that academic pro-
crastination and non-specific or general procrastination are so highly correlated that they are
indistinguishable for practical purposes. These assumptions have not been empirically confirmed.
Recently Schouwenburg (1995) published research on two new academic procrastination scales.
These scales refer specifically to academic tasks and use well defined rating intervals for task
performance, but the internal consistency of the first, the Study Checklist (11 items) is not
satisfactory (r = 0.60) and the second, the Procrastination State Inventory (13 items), refers to
non-specific studying rather than to the three major academic assignments given in most grades
and in college-homework, examinations, and writing papers. Consequently, we decided to con-
struct our own academic procrastination scale.

2.2.1 The academic procrastination scale-student form

Students are required to contend periodically with three major, recurring academic tasks or
assignments: (1) preparing homework for oral or written presentation in class or for keeping up
with the class curriculum; (2) preparing for and taking written tests or examinations; and (3)
writing and submitting papers of considerable length and comprehensiveness on specified topics.
Accordingly, the Academic Procrastination Scale was designed to consist of three consecutive sub-
scales: tests (e.g., I daydream when I have to study for a test), homework (e.g., I put off doing
my homework until the last minute), and papers (e.g., When I have to sit and write a paper, I
304 N. Milgram et a/./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

put it off again and again), with 6,9, and 6 items, respectively. Procrastination was defined in the
instructions as putting off to a later date things that we should or think we should do earlier.
Students were instructed to answer all items; if a given item was not relevant to them, they were
to give the response that would be correct for them if they were required to do the behavior in
question. The instructions to the Parent Form of the Academic Procrastination Scale were identical,
except for the insertion of the statement, Try to remember how you behaved when you were a
student (e.g., high school or university) and answer accordingly.

2.2.2. The life routine procrastination scale-student form

The scale consisted of 24 routine tasks judged to be non-academic in character (e.g., I put off
making a routine visit to the dentist, I put off washing the dishes as much as possible, I pay
college tuition on time). Items were taken from the original scale of 54 items (Milgram et al.,
1988). The Parent Form was identical, except for minor changes in content.

2.2.3. Related measures

Two measures were obtained from other items inserted in each procrastination scales: Discomfort
and Desire for Change. The first was assessed by instructing students to report how frequently
they felt bad when they delayed doing the tasks in each of the three sub-scales of the Academic
Procrastination Scale; combining these ratings provided a three item measure. A single item
assessed unpleasant reaction to the items on the Life Routine Procrastination Scale. Corresponding
scores were also obtained for a desire for change measure, with respondents indicating whether
they wished to change their habits with regard to the tasks discussed.

2.2.4. Parent involvement scale-parent form

The Parental Authority Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) was not used in the present study because
its items were phrased in general terms (e.g., As I was growing up, once family policy had been
established, my father [mother] discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the
family). We preferred items that related directly to academic assignments on the one hand and
life routines on the other. Two scales of parental involvement were constructed, one for each kind
of procrastination. The first assessed the parents involvement in the students academic activities
(homework, tests, and writing papers) when a child, and the second, the parents involvement in
everything else, the non-academic routines of the childs life at that time. Each scale was subdivided
in turn into two sub-scales, the one reflecting non-interference in the childs scheduling and
performing tasks on schedule (Permissive Parenting), and the other reflecting the parents efforts
to inculcate habits of promptness (Authoritative Parenting). No effort was made to construct an
authoritarian sub-scale in the present study because of the strong antipathy to authoritarian
parenting in middle-class Israeli families in which these students were raised The permissive sub-
scales consisted of five items reflecting a low degree of parental involvement in their childrens
school work (e.g., I permitted my daughter to make her own timetable for preparing for exams)
and five items, a low degree of involvement in their childrens routines at home (e.g., I refrained
from commenting to my son that he had to straighten out his room). The authoritative sub-scales
consisted of items reflecting a high degree of parental involvement in school work (e.g., I
encouraged my son/daughter to prepare for the test several days ahead of time) and home life
(e.g., I was very strict about schedules in the house [meals, when to go to sleep]). Each parent
 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316 305

completed the Parent Form for oneself; each student completed the student form of this scale
twice, once for each parent, for the period of greatest parental involvement in their lives during
their preteen and teen age years. Given that parental involvement might well change in the course
of the childs life, parents and students were asked to identify the period of greatest involvement
(grammar school, middle or junior high school, and high school) and to focus on this period in
answering the various items.

2.3. Procedure

The students completed their scales during the day at the university, the parents completed their
scales at home. The Parent Forms of the scales were identical to those of their adult children, with
minor variations explained below. All scales had the same format. Each was counter-balanced
with half the items in any given scale or sub-scale describing behaviors in one direction and half
behaviors in the other. The rating format was identical for all instruments, a four-point frequency
scale from almost never to almost always. Scores were coded so that high scores reflected
procrastination and parental involvement.

3. Results

3.1. Procrastination

3.1.1. Reliability
Means, standard deviations, alpha correlation coefficients of procrastination scales are sum-
marized in Table 1. Alpha correlations of internal consistency were highly satisfactory for all scales
and sub-scales. The discomfort and the desire to change ones behavior in life routines were based
on single items and precluded computing alpha correlations; the corresponding measures in
academic assignments were based on three items each and provided alpha correlations. Given
very high intercorrelations of Academic Procrastination sub-scales (mean correlations after z
transformation were 0.68, 0.63, and 0.71, for students, fathers, and mothers, respectively) and
minimal differences in level of procrastination between the three sub-scales for a given group of
research participants, it was considered appropriate to restrict analyses to the entire scale. Internal
consistency of the Academic Procrastination Scale was higher than that of the Life Routine
Procrastination Scale because of the greater homogeneity of items dealing with a specific life
domain (i.e., academic) than items dealing with diverse life routines.

3.1.2. Differences between academic and life routine procrastination

Two-way analyses of variance with repeated measurement, Kind of Procrastination (academic,
life routine procrastination) X Person (father, mother, student) were conducted on procrastination,
discomfort about ones behavior in this regard, and desire to change ones behavior. The F ratios
for Kind of Procrastination [df = 1,501were significant for all three measures: procrastination per
se (F = 29.86), discomfort (F = 23.98), and desire to change (F = 5.50). As hypothesized, there
was more procrastination on academic than on life routine tasks (M = 2.30 and 2.07, respectively).
The corresponding means for being upset about this behavior (M = 3.05 and 2.70, respectively),
306 N. Milgram et a//Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients of students and par-
ents procrastination scores

Mean SD Alpha

Academic procrastination
Students 2.47 0.57 0.93
Fathers 2.26 0.51 0.91
Mothers 2.17 0.55 0.93
Discomfort
Students 3.23 0.53 0.77
Fathers 2.85 0.69 0.76
Mothers 3.08 0.69 0.79
Desire to change
Students 2.61 0.72 0.79
Fathers 2.07 0.84 0.89
Mothers 2.32 0.86 0.92
Life routine procrastination
Students 2.23 0.47 0.88
Fathers 1.99 0.39 0.84
Mothers 2.00 0.34 0.75
Discomfort
Students 2.65 0.76
Fathers 2.56 0.89
Mothers 2.89 0.95
Desire to change
Students 2.37 0.82
Fathers 1.85 0.83
Mothers 2.24 0.92

and being interested in changing their behavior (M = 2.33 and 2.15) were in the same direction.
All statistics cited in the text are significant beyond the 0.05 level (two-tail) unless otherwise stated.

3.1.3. Intercorrelations of academic-l$e routine procrastination and related measures

Notwithstanding differences in level between the two kinds of procrastination, academic and
life routine procrastination scores were highly correlated, 0.65 and 0.57 for students and their
mothers, respectively, and moderately correlated, 0.39, for fathers. Intercorrelations of the cor-
responding discomfort scores were also substantial, with 0.50,0.46, and 0.27, for students, mothers,
and fathers, respectively. The same trend was found for desire to change, 0.31, 0.40 and 0.36,
respectively.

3.1.4. Differences between students and parents

The F ratios for Persons [df = 2, 501from the preceding analysis of variance were significant for
procrastination as a whole (F = 5.49) and for the desire to change (F = 8.97): students pro-
 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Dqfizrences 25 11998) 297-316 307

crastinated more frequently overall than their fathers and their mothers (M = 2.35,2.13, and 2.09,
respectively, t = 2.32 and 2.80) with no difference between parents. Students and their mothers
also wanted to change their personal procrastinatory behavior more than the fathers (M = 2.49,
2.28, and 1.96, respectively, t = 3.75 and 2.08, respectively), with no difference between students
and their mothers. The interaction of Kind of Procrastination X Person was not significantly
different from zero in any of these analyses.

3.1.5. Intercorrelations of student-parent procrastination and of related measures

The correlations of the academic procrastination scores of students and their parents were not
significantly different from zero. By contrast, correlations of life routine procrastination scores of
students with their fathers and mothers were significant (r = 0.27 and 0.34, respectively); the
multiple correlation with students life routine procrastination of their parents life routine pro-
crastination was 0.46. Student-parent intercorrelations of the related measures, discomfort with
ones procrastinatory behavior and desire to change ones behavior, were not significantly different
from zero in either kind of procrastination.

3.1.6. Relationships of procrastination, discomfort, and desire to change

As hypothesized, there was a positive relationship for students between procrastination and
ones affective reaction to it, both for academic and life routine procrastination (r = 0.56 and 0.40,
respectively): the more students procrastinated, the worse they felt about it. The corresponding
correlations for parents were not significantly different from zero. As hypothesized, there was a
positive relationship between procrastination and the desire to change ones habits in this regard:
the more people procrastinated, the more they wanted to change their ways. The correlations
with academic procrastination were: r = 0.62, 0.74, and 0.42, for students, mothers, and fathers,
respectively; and with life routine procrastination, r = 0.31, 0.47, and 0.32 respectively.

3.2. Parent involvement

3.2.1. Reliability
Means and standard deviations of permissive and authoritative involvement scores of parents
reported by the parents themselves and corresponding parent involvement scores reported by the
students, their adult children, are summarized in Table 2. The alpha coefficients of the permissive
and authoritative sub-scales in academic tasks were in the 0.60-0.80 range (mean r = 0.83 after z
transformation); the corresponding coefficients of sub-scales in life routine tasks were somewhat
lower, in the 0.50-0.70 range (mean r = 0.63). These coefficients were considered satisfactory,
given only five items in each sub-scale. As might be expected, permissive and authoritative sub-
scales were inversely intercorrelated (mean r = - 0.52 after z transformation).

3.2.2. Four-way analysis of variance of parent involvement

A four-way analysis of variance with repeated measurement-Kind (academic tasks, life rou-
tines) X Source (self-report by parents, report by their adult children) X Person (fathers, mothers)
X Type (authoritative, permissive)-was conducted on overall parent involvement. Main effects
for the first three variables (F = 4.90, 5.11, and 7.57, respectively) were of modest magnitude: more
involvement in academic than in life routines (M = 2.65 and 2.55) more involvement reported by
308 N. Milgram et aLlPersonality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of parent involvement scores

Academic Life routine

Permissive Authoritative Permissive Authoritative

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Fathers-Self 3.07 0.56 2.21 0.78 2.77 0.58 2.26 0.48

Mothers-Self 3.10 0.60 2.37 0.73 2.69 0.62 2.52 0.55
Fathers-Student 3.27 0.58 1.78 0.62 3.09 0.58 1.92 0.53
Mothers-Student 3.29 0.47 1.91 0.64 2.94 0.51 2.20 0.45

the parents themselves than by their adult children (M = 2.67 and 2.54), and more by mothers
than by fathers (M = 2.69 and 2.54). (Reader: the nearly identical means in the three comparisons
are not clerical errors). The main effect for type of parental involvement was very large (F = 129.73),
with far more frequent use of permissive over authoritative involvement (M = 3.03 and 2.39).
These main effects were qualified by two significant double interactions and a triple interaction.
Analysis of the Kind X Type interaction (F = 35.37) indicated parents were more authoritative
(M = 2.23 and 2.06, respectively) and correspondingly less permissive (M = 2.87 and 3.19, respec-
tively) about how their children handled their life routines than how they handled their academic
assignments. Analysis of the Source X Type interaction (F = 23.92) indicated that parents described
themselves as significantly more authoritative than their children described them (M = 2.59 and
1.95, respectively), but not significantly less permissive (M = 2.92 versus 3.15, respectively). The
Kind X Person X Type interaction (F = 8.35) indicated that mothers were more authoritative than
fathers in life routines (M = 2.37 and 2.09) and did not differ from fathers in the other comparisons
of kind of procrastination and type of involvement.

3.2.3. Inter-correlations of parental involvement scores

Various patterns were examined and are summarized below:
(1) Academic and life routine tasks: very high. Parents involvement in their childrens academic
tasks was highly correlated with their involvement in their childrens life routines. The mean
correlation (after z transformation) was 0.60 for parents reporting permissive and authoritative
scores for themselves and 0.53 for students reporting on their parents.
(2) Father and mother involvement: according to the report of their adult children, fathers
involvement was highly correlated with mothers involvement (r = 0.49 and 0.51, for permissive
and authoritative parenting styles, respectively) in dealing with their childrens academic tasks;
it was less highly correlated in dealing with life routines (r = 0.17 non-significant and 0.34,
for permissive and authoritative parenting styles, respectively). These relationships were not
significantly different from zero for involvement scores provided by the parents themselves.
(3) Parent and student report on parental involvement: not significantly different from zero, with
 N. Milgram et al.lPersonality and Individual LXfferences 25 (1998) 297-316 309

one exception. Fathers authoritative parenting style in academic tasks was correlated with
their childrens assessment of that style (r = 0.33).

3.3. Relationship of parental involvement to procrastination by students and parents

Correlations of parenting involvement and childrens procrastination were infrequent and incon-
sistent. The more mothers report that they were authoritatively involved in their childrens life
routines (in the past), the less their adult children procrastinate in life routines today (r = 0.34).
This relationship was also confirmed by the adult children themselves: their own assessment
of their mothers authoritative involvement in their life routines was related to their current
procrastination in these activities (r = 0.30). The solitary significant relationship between fathers
involvement and their childrens procrastination was in academic assignments and in the direction
opposite to prediction (r = 0.43): the more fathers were authoritatively involved in their childrens
academic work in the past, the more the children procrastinate in academic tasks today. The
relationship between parental procrastination and their involvement with their children was not
significantly different from zero.

3.4. Period of greatest parent involvement

Fathers and mothers equally identified elementary school as the period of greatest involvement
followed by high school and junior high school in that order- 64.4, 25.7, and 9.9%, respectively
for academic procrastination; and 64.4, 26.7, and 8.9%, respectively for everyday life procrasti-
nation. The corresponding chi-square statistics (df = 2) were 17.29 and 31.72 for fathers and
mothers respectively, for academic procrastination; and 20.24 and 28.96 for fathers and mothers,
respectively, for life routine procrastination. The students also gave the same order of emphasis as
the parents- elementary, high school, and junior high in a similar descending order. The effect of
period of greatest involvement on procrastination and involvement scores in parents and their
children was examined by appropriate analyses of variance and was found not to be significantly
different from zero.

4. Discussion

4.1. Task avoidant procrastination: generalized rather than domain-specljic trait

The magnitude of the correlation between academic and life routine procrastination suggests
that task avoidant procrastination is a generalized behavioral disposition, consistent across very
different kinds of tasks. The finding is more convincing than the equally high correlations reported
earlier in the literature for several reasons. First, it was found in scales consisting of clearly
delineated tasks for the academic and non-academic domains. Second, it was found both in
students reporting on their current behavior in the two domains and in their parents reporting on
current and prior behavior. Third, it was also found in reactions associated with procrastinatory
behavior: respondents upset about their procrastinatory behavior in academic tasks were also
310 N. Milgram et aLlPersonality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

upset about their behavior in life routine tasks, and the same for the desire to change their behavior
(and to become more prompt).
The magnitude of the relationship between the two kinds of procrastination for students
(v = 0.65) was unexpected. That a correlation of similar magnitude was found in the Ferrari and
Olivette study (1994) was attributed to vagueness of the items in the two scales used, the six-item
decisional scale and the 15 item task avoidant scale. We had hypothesized that the intercorrelation
of two distinctly different kinds of tasks, academic and life routine, would be substantially lower.
We conclude that adults (in this instance, college students and their parents) are highly consistent
in their pattern of task approach-avoidance and task completion across different kinds of tasks.
It is possible, however, that the special circumstances affecting Israeli society in general and
Israeli college students in particular reinforce a higher level of consistency than exists elsewhere.
Israeli society does not run as efficiently as the United Kingdom or other Western societies, both
in the universities and in other areas of daily life. This situation may reinforce consistent patterns
of task approach or avoidance across academic and nonacademic tasks. Some people may cope
with inefficiency and unpredictability by developing prompt habits across the board to counteract
unexpected obstacles to getting things done. Others may cope by accommodating to these socially
sanctioned inefficiencies. Israeli students encounter additional problems. Most students, women
as well as men, served in the armed forces of their country before entering institutions of higher
learning. The B.A. program of studies, 120 semester hours, is designed to be completed in three
rather than four years, by taking 20 lecture or laboratory hours each week. Moreover, most
students work part or full-time, and many set up house-keeping facilities near the campus and
away from their parents homes. These societal circumstances may encourage, therefore, greater
consistency in dealing with academic and non-academic tasks than is found in the United Kingdom,
the United States or other Western countries.

4.2. The extent of academic us life routine procrastination: confirmation of the appraisal-anxiety-
avoidance hypothesis

Academic procrastination was not a severe problem for the majority of respondents, but was a
significant problem for some. The mean of the student group on academic procrastination was at
the midpoint of the four-point rating scale used, between almost always (4) and almost never (1).
Inspection of the distribution of their scores indicates, however, that as many as 15% of the
students reported a mean of 3 (frequently) or higher on academic assignments. Frequency of
procrastination on life routines was 10.0% lower than the frequency of procrastination on academic
assignments. Only about 5% reported a mean of 3 (frequently) or higher on life routines. More
frequent procrastination in academic tasks than life routines was also found in the parents, despite
the fact that they were reporting on their past academic behavior and might be expected to recall
their past behavior in this particular domain in a more favorable light than warranted. Discomfort
about their habits and the desire to change them were also higher for academic procrastination
than for life routine procrastination.
These consistent findings for students and parents support the appraisal-anxiety-avoidance
model for procrastination, discussed earlier. First, one appraises a given task or task category in
the context of relevant situational and personal variables and determines the task is aversive (e.g.,
task too difficult; being forced to do it against ones wishes). Anxiety is elicited when one thinks
 N. Milgram et al.1Persona&v and Individual Dijjbences 25 f 19981 297-316 311

about performing the task and is allayed when one avoids doing it. Academic tasks are more
aversive or threatening, more anxiety-provoking, and, therefore, more likely to be avoided than
non-academic life routines (Burka and Yuen, 1983; Lay et al., 1989; Solomon and Rothblum,
1984). Academic assignments also elicit more personal discomfort and a greater desire to change
this kind of behavior than non-academic life routines. Anxiety may be allayed by doing an aversive
task immediately under certain circumstances (i.e., if the consequences of postponement are severe
and undesirable).

4.3. Student-parent comparisons

Students as a group procrastinated more than their parents, were more upset about it than their
parents, and were more interested in changing their work habits. The one exception was the high
level of discomfort experienced by mothers about their procrastination in doing life routines
(M = 2.89). The mothers were more upset than fathers about behavioral inefficiency in this
domain because they accept greater responsibility for handling routines and apply higher personal
standards for their handling of life routines.
Why children procrastinated more frequently than their parents both in academic assignments
and in life routines is unclear. One may conjecture that parents, by virtue of their membership in
a more conservative and economically austere generation than their children, genuinely regard
themselves as scheduling and doing things more promptly. A second possibility is that parents are
well aware they are being compared with their children and feel compelled to present themselves
in a more favorable and socially desirable light to others, and especially to their own children. This
second explanation is consistent with the repeated finding that parents perceive themselves to be
more involved in their childrens school work than do their children (Paulson and Sputa, 1996;
Schwartz et al., 1985).

4.4. Interrelationships of parent-child procrastination

The moderate relationship of father and mother life routine procrastination to that of their adult
child (Multiple R = 0.45) and the absence of parent-child academic procrastination relationships
may be attributed to differences in the opportunity for observing parental behavior and behaving
in a similar fashion. The students have had ample opportunity to view how their parents handle
life routines from their childhood and up to the present, and may behave in a similar manner; by
contrast, they had no opportunity to view how their parents handled academic tasks. Another
reason for the absence of a relationship between the reports of parents and their adult children on
academic procrastination is the questionable accuracy of the parents retrospective reports. Parents
ratings of their current life routine are more accurate than their reports of how they handled
academic assignments 30 years ago.

4.5. Parent involvement and procrastination

The dominant form of parental involvement, reported by parents and adult children alike, was
permissive. A permissive parenting style, defined here in positive terms, is both politically correct
and energy saving. With respect to the former, parents are more comfortable with it than with
312 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

authoritative parenting, because it appears consistent with democratic ideals, respect for the
individual, free choice, and the fostering of independence-even if research informs us that the
directive emphasis of authoritative parenting has a more beneficial effect on childrens behavior
(e.g., Steinberg et al., 1994). With respect to the latter, authoritative parenting is hard work,
takes considerable time, and requires parents to tread a delicate line between appropriate and
inappropriate monitoring and regulating of their childrens behavior.
The marked preference for a permissive over an authoritative parenting style in the present
study was not uniform. Far greater leeway in academic procrastination (the difference between the
permissive and the authoritative sub-scale score) was given the students as children, both according
to the parents and the students, in their school work than in life routine habits around the house.
In fact, the leeway was far greater according to the parents themselves than according to their
adult children. This means that despite the importance parents attach to education (e.g., Dornbusch
et al., 1987), they are relatively more authoritative at home. They have strong incentives for doing
so. Children who follow their parents guidelines in handling life routines make home life more
comfortable, and children who differ from their parents style in handling life routines disrupt
home life. Childrens procrastination on academic assignments may be a source of discomfort to
parents who become aware of it and prefer that their children behave in a responsible manner, but
childrens poor study and homework habits do not in and of themselves disrupt the life routines
of the family as such.

4.6. Mothers as authorityjgures

The finding that mothers were more authoritative than fathers in dealing with their childrens
life routines is consistent with research on perception of parenting and parental involvement
(Paulson and Sputa, 1996). Mothers are at home with their children more than fathers, have
greater opportunity to observe unacceptable behavior in their children, and have a greater incentive
to modify child behavior that will bother them more hours of the day than it would the fathers
(Youniss and Smollar, 1985). Additional findings support the opportunity-incentive argument.
First, mothers who report they dealt with their childrens life routine in an authoritative manner
have adult children who procrastinate less in life routines. Second, students who report their
mothers were authoritative about life routines when they were children also procrastinate less as
adults in life routines. No such relationship was found for fathers.
The single significant relation of fathers involvement to their adult childrens current behavior
was opposite to prediction: the more fathers are authoritative in dealing with their childrens
academic assignments in the past, the more their adult children tend to procrastinate today in this
domain. By way of contrast, mothers involvement had the opposite effect and reduced their
childrens procrastination in life routines. These findings run counter to those found in the Ferrari
and Olivette study (1994) where fathers authoritative behavior had beneficial effects, and mothers,
no effect. Their findings were based on adult children making retrospective assessments of their
parents non-specific authority styles; ours were based on the parents themselves reporting on their
personal, specific involvement in their childrens handling life routines or academic assignments.
A post hoc explanation for the adverse effect of authoritative parenting style in the present study
is that students equated their fathers authoritative style with an authoritarian one and reacted
negatively to their fathers involvement in their school work when they were younger. They
 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316 313

developed as a result a more delaying work style when they became adults. This explanation is
consistent with Brehms concept of reactance (Brehm, 1966). A second explanation suggests that
the causal direction of father involvement-adult child behavior is reversed. Fathers involvement
did not affect child behavior, child behavior affected fathers involvement. Let us assume that
fathers become involved in trying to affect their childrens procrastination on academic assign-
ments, when the situation became serious. Mothers were unable to change their childrens behavior,
and fathers intervened as a last resort, but without success. If we make the further assumption that
academic procrastination is relatively stable from childhood up to the present, this formulation of
the sequence of events accounts for the negative correlation found.

4.7. Variables affecting intercorrelations

Review of the large array of significant correlations found in the present study indicates that
three variables contribute to the magnitude of an obtained correlation:
(1) Current us retrospective report. Whether the variables being correlated refers to current (e.g.,
parent life routine procrastination) or retrospective (e.g., parent academic procrastination)
behaviors, feelings, and intentions, with current report yielding correlations of higher mag-
nitude than retrospective.
(2) Same or different class of variable. Whether the two variables being correlated belong to the
same class (life routine procrastination of fathers and of their adult children) or to different
classes (e.g., life routine procrastination of adult children and their fathers involvement in life
routine when they were children), with same class variables yielding correlations of higher
magnitude than different class.
(3) Same or different source. Whether both variables come from one source (e.g., adult children)
or from two sources (e.g., adult children and their parents), with data from one source yielding
correlations of higher magnitude than data from two sources.
If we apply these principles to the present research, we find the highest correlations emerge from
a single source on current variables of the same class, and the lowest from different sources on
retrospective variables of different classes. Critical inspection of the various correlations obtained
in this study will identify some exceptions to the three generalizations, and many confirmations.

5. Conclusions

Several conclusions are strongly supported: the disposition to handle academic and non-aca-
demic routines with dispatch or delay is consistent across different life domains; performance and
affective response patterns on academic and non-academic tasks are consistent with an appraisal-
anxiety-avoidance model; there is no correspondence between reports by adult children of their
parents behavior in the past and reports provided by the parents themselves about their past
behavior; adult children-parent similarity is found in those behaviors that have been readily
observable by both parties for many years (e.g., life routines), and not in those behaviors that
children have had little or no opportunity to observe in their parents (e.g, parents handling of
their own academic assignments when they were in school).
314 N. Milgram et al./Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

A few closing comments about the relationship between parental authority style and adult
childrens current behavioral patterns are warranted. This relationship is weak both in those
instances that are consistent with hypothesis and in the one instance that is inconsistent, so that
we are loath to draw firm conclusions about the reproducibility of our findings. The significant
relationships reported in the Ferrari and Olivette studies (1993, 1994) were also of low magnitude.
When we compare findings in the present study with those of Ferrari and Olivette, with mothers
exercising more influence than fathers in the former and the reverse in the latter, we attribute these
differences to differences in research design, participants, and instruments between these studies:
the source of information about parental involvement, the socio-economic status of the parents
(higher in the Israeli study), the measures of parental involvement used (general vs task-focused)
and the number of authority styles investigated (permissive and authoritative vs permissive,
authoritative, and authoritarian). Overall, findings about parent-child effects based on antecedent
data provided by parents and on consequent data provided by their children are more convincing
than finding wholly based on data coming from a single source, the children themselves.

Acknowledgements

This paper was based on data collected by the second and third authors in partial fulfilment of
the requirement for the B. A. degree in psychology at Tel-Aviv University. The study was supervised
by the first author and prepared for publication by him.

References

Aitken, M. (1982). A personalityprofile of the collegestudentprocrastinator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Pittsburgh.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Mono-
graphs, 75,43-88.
Brehm, J. (1966). A theory ofpsychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 1 l&l 19.
Burka, J. B., & Yuen, L. M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it and what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Statistical Abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem: Author.
Cone, J. D., DeLawyer, D. D., & Wolfe, V. V. (198.5) Assessing parent participation: The parent/family involvement
index. Exceptional Children, 51, 417425.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials ofpsychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Delongis, A., Coynes, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. A. (1982). Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts,
and major events to health status. Health Psychology, 1, 119-136.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting
style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Effert, R., & Ferrari, J. R. (1989). Decisional procrastination: Examining personality correlates. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 4, 1.5l-1 56.
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1979). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rational Living.
Endler, N. S., Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., & Cox, B. J. (1991). Multidimensionality of trait and state anxiety: Factor
structure of the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 919-926.
 N. Milgram et al,/Personality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316 315

Ferrari, J. R. (1991). Compulsive procrastination: Some self-reported characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68, 455-
458.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. (1995) (Ed.). P rocrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and
treatment. New York: Plenum.
Ferrari, J. R., & Olivette, M. J. (1993). Perceptions of parental control and the development of indecision among late
adolescent daughters. Adolescence, 28,963-970.
Ferrari, J. R., & Olivette, M. J. (1994). Parental authority influences on the development of female dysfunctional
procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 87-100.
Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Martin, T. R. (1950). Procrastination, negative self-evaluation, and stress in depression
and anxiety. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. McCown (Ed.). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 137-167). New York: Plenum, 1995.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy
& Research, 14, 449-468.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents involvement in childrens schooling: A multidimensional con-
ceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237-252.
Halverson, C. F., Jr. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the retrospective method. Journal of Personality,
56,435-443.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review , 94, 319-340.
Janis, I. L., 8~ Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New
York: Free Press.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparisons of two modes of stress measurement:
Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, l-39.
Lamborn, S., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among
adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes. Child Development, 62, 1049-
1065.
Lay, C., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety. coping and
procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality, 3, 195-208.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
McCown, W., & Johnson, J. L. (1989a). Diff erential arousal gradients in chronic procrastination. Paper presented at the
American Psychological Society, Alexandria, VA.
McCown, W., Johnson, J. L., & Petzel, T. (1989b). Further validation of an adult inventory of procrastination. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Milgram, N. A., & Arad, R. (1990). The effect of hassles at work und at home on mental andphysical health. Technical
Report, The Golda Meir Foundation for Research on Work and Society, Tel-Aviv University.
Milgram, N. A., Batori, G., & Mowrer, D. (1993). Correlates of academic procrastination. Journal of School Psychology,
31,487-500.
Milgram, N. A., Gehrman, T., & Keinan, G. (1992). Procrastination and emotional upset: A typological model.
Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 1307-l 3 13.
Milgram, N., Marshevsky, S., & Sadeh, C. (1995). Correlates of academic procrastination: Discomfort, task aversiveness,
and task capability. Journal of Psychology, 129, 145-155.
Milgram, N., & Naaman, N. (1996). Typology in procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 679-683.
Milgram, N. A., Srolof, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 197-2 12.
Mischel, W. (1990). Personality dispositions revisited and revised: A view after three decades. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.
Paulson, S. E., & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of adolescents and parents.
Adolescence, 31, 369-381.
Richardson, R. A., Galambos, N. L., Schulenberg, J. E., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Young adolescents perceptions of
the family environment. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 131-153.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J. R.
Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. McCown (Ed.). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment (pp.
71-96). New York: Plenum.
316 N. Milgram et aLlPersonality and Individual Differences 25 (1998) 297-316

Schwartz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child rearing behaviors: A comparison of rating
made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.
Seginer, R. (1983). Parents educational expectations and childrens academic achievements. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
29, l-23.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,503-509.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory
and research, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment
and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 65, 754770.
Suls, J., & Wills, T. A. (1990). Social comparison: Theory and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tenne, R. (1997). A typology of procrastination in making minor and major decisions. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Tel-
Aviv University. (in Hebrew).
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validation of the Procrastination Scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 51,473480.
Voicu, D. (1993). An examination of parent-child relations, psychological separation, and psychological adjustment in
relation to academic and general dispositional procrastination. Unpublished honors thesis, York University, North
York, Ontario, Canada.
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, andfriends. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.