procrastination, stress and coping [study]

8/9/2019 Procrastination, Stress and Coping [STUDY]

1/9

Abstract

This study investigated the role of procrastination in the relationship between perceived stress and coping

in two undergraduate samples. Seventy-five Carleton University students and 53 students from DePaul Univer-

sity (Chicago) completed 5 paper-and-pencil questionnaires: the Aitken Procrastination Inventory (1982), two

measures of coping styles, and two measures of stress level. Overall analyses of Carleton University data

revealed that females reported using more avoidance-oriented coping, distraction and social diversion. Similar to

past research, these analyses also indicated a significant positive correlation between procrastination level and

stress level. Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression analyses examining the relationship between procrasti-

nation, coping style, and stress level revealed that coping and procrastination are differentially related to levels of

stress. Procrastination still predicted stress when task coping was controlled for; however, procrastination did not

predict stress when emotion coping was controlled as a covariate. A possible explanation for this is that the con-

struct procrastination heavily overlaps with emotion-focused coping styles. Thus, these data suggest that pro-

crastination is a type of emotion-focused coping. Overall analyses of the DePaul University data revealed no

relationship between procrastination and coping styles, and procrastination and stress.


2/9

Introduction

Chronic procrastination- postponing what needs to be done until tomorrow- is a relatively common phe-

nomenon among the general population. Recent research by McCown and Johnson (as cited in Ferrari, Johnson,

& McCown, 1995) found that 25% of their subjects reported that procrastination was a significant problem in

their lives. Furthermore, procrastination has been linked to psychiatric illnesses like Post Traumatic Stress Dis-

order, depression and anxiety (Ferrari et al., 1995).

Research has shown that procrastinators adopt maladaptive coping strategies, whereas non-procrastina-

tors adopt adaptive coping strategies that foster positive adjustment. In an unpublished study cited in Ferrari et

al. (1995), Flett, Blankstein, and Martin (1995) examined procrastination, coping, and depression in a sample of

college students. Flett et al. (1995) found that procrastinators appear not to engage in problem-focused coping

strategies with daily problems. Instead, their research suggests that procrastinators engage in emotion-oriented

coping and avoidance-oriented coping in the form of distraction. In contrast, non-procrastinators appeared to

engage in task-oriented coping styles.

Furthermore, the results of research conducted by Ferrari et al. (1995) indicate that procrastinators have

higher levels of daily hassles and perceived stress than non-procrastinators do.

In accord with past research, there appears to be an association between procrastination, coping strate-

gies, and perceived stress. Despite the possible negative consequences of chronic procrastination, maladaptive

coping strategies, and high stress levels, there has been little research conducted in this area.


3/9

Purpose of Study and Hypotheses

There is a lack of research on the interaction between procrastination, stress, and coping style. The pur-

pose of the present study is to explore the personality trait procrastination and various coping styles as predictors

of stress. Specifically, the present study investigates if procrastination predicts stress level after coping style is

controlled for. In accord with past research, the following hypotheses were made:

1. Higher procrastinators will use more emotion-focused and avoidance coping than lower procrastinators.

2. Higher procrastinators will engage in less problem-focused coping than lower procrastinators.

3. Higher procrastinators will have higher stress levels than lower procrastinators.

4. Procrastination will still predict stress level once coping style is controlled for.


4/9

Study 1

Methodology

Participants

The sample was composed of 75 Carleton University undergraduates (34 males, 41 females) enrolled in

the introductory psychology course. The mean age of the sample was 21.3 years (SD=4.49).

Materials

All participants received a questionnaire package consisting of the following 5 scales discussed below.

Procrastination scale. The Aitken Procrastination Inventory (API; Aitken, 1982) was used to measure the partic

ipants level of academic procrastination. The higher the participants scores the higher the participants aca-

demic procrastination levels.

Coping scales. Two scales were used to assess the participants coping strategies. The Coping Inventory for

Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1999) assesses three primary coping dimensions: task-oriented,

emotion-oriented, and avoidance-oriented (distraction and social diversion). Task-oriented coping is similar to

problem-focused coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) which involves attempts to alter the person-environment

relationship. Emotion oriented-coping is equivalent to emotion-focused coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984)

which involves attempts to regulate emotional distress. Avoidance-oriented coping may include person-oriented

or task-oriented responses like seeking out other people (social diversion) or engaging in an alternate task (dis-

traction; Endler & Parker, 1994).

The Coping Strategies Scale (Beckham & Adams, 1984) was also used to assess 13 different coping

responses over the past two weeks: blame, emotional expression, emotional containment, social support, reli-

gious support, cognitive restructuring, general activity, avoidance/denial, problem solving, and passivity.


5/9

Stress scales. Two scales were used to assess the participants stress level. The first scale used was the Hassles

and Uplifts Scales (Kanner, Coyne, Shaefer, & Lazarus, 1981) which is a self-report questionnaire comprised of

hassles and uplifts that can represent a source of daily irritation or daily pleasure.

The second scale was the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) which

measures the participants self-reported stress during the past month.

Procedure

The study was held in a campus classroom. The participants were tested in small groups of approxi-

mately 5 people each.


6/9

Results

Gender Differences

Results of individual ANOVAs conducted between all the scales revealed that women engaged in the fol-

lowing coping styles more than men: avoidance, distraction, social diversion, emotional expression, social sup-

port. Although there were no gender differences found in the PSS, women had significantly higher scores than

men on a number of the Hassles/Uplifts scales.

Summary of Correlations

In general, the more students procrastinated, the more stress they experienced.

The more students procrastinated, the less they engaged in task-oriented coping and general activity.

The more participants procrastinated, the more they engaged in emotion-oriented coping, blame, emotional

containment, avoidance/denial, passivity, and emotional containment and passivity.

The more students engaged in emotion-oriented coping, the higher their stress levels were.

The more one practiced task-oriented coping or general activity, the less stressed the individual was.

Students high on levels of blame, emotional containment, and passivity coping reported feeling more stressed

than those students low on these levels.

The more females practiced all avoidance forms of coping and religious support coping, the more they

reported feeling stressed on the Hassles scale only.

Summary of Multiple Regression

Procrastination predicts the PSS stress score once the following coping styles were controlled for: task-

oriented, emotional containment, emotional containment and passivity, and general activity.

Procrastination did not predict either stress score once blame coping and emotion-oriented coping were

controlled for in individual equations.


7/9

Table 1: Correlations Between Procrastination, Coping Styles, and Perceived Stress

Table 2: Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Coping and Procrastination Predicting Stressa

aOutcome variable used was PSS stress score

*p < .05, **p < .01

Variables Procrastination Perceived Stress

Procrastination - .38**

Task-oriented -.39** -.40**

Emotion-oriented .36** .67**

Blame .48** .45**Emotional Containment .30** .27*

General Activity -.28* -.25*

Avoidance/ Denial .29* .17

Passivity .35** .45**

Composite Scale 2 (Emotional, Containment,

Passivity).31** .25*

Variables Procrastination Perceived Stress

Males Females Males Females

Emotional Expression .26 .02 .56** .04

Composite Scale 1 .38* .35* .59** .37*

Variables R2 R2Change t

Task-oriented coping .16 -3.72**Procrastination .22 .06 2.31*

Composite Scale 2 (emotional contain-

ment & passivity).07 - 2.25*

Procrastination .16 .10 2.92**

Emotional Containment .07 - 2.36*


Passivity .20 - 4.25**

Procrastination .25 .06 2.32*

General Activity .06 - -2.20*


Blame .20 - 4.27**

Procrastination .23 .03 1.80

Emotion-oriented .44 - 7.61**

Procrastination .47 .02 1.74


8/9

Conclusions

Procrastination scores add unique variance to stress, even when some of the coping styles are controlled

for. Procrastination does not predict stress once certain emotion-focused coping styles are partialled out.

Thus, it is possible that procrastination itself is an emotion-focused coping style. Perhaps procrastination

does not predict stress when emotion-focused coping styles are controlled for because the construct procrastina-

tion heavily overlaps with these emotion-focused coping styles.


9/9

Study 2

In order to examine the generalizability of the results collected in Study 1, a second sample of students

was recruited from DePaul University (Chicago, IL). The sample consisted of 50 University undergraduates (11

males, 39 females) with a mean age of approximately 19 years. Participants were given the same questionnaire

package as in Study 1. The procedure was identical to Study 1.

Results

Procrastination scores were not correlated with either the hassles composite score or the perceived stress

score. Also, procrastination scores were not correlated with any of the coping style variables.

Discussion

One possible explanation for the null findings is that the mean of this samples procrastination score was

significantly lower than the mean procrastination score from the sample in Study 1. It is possible that one must

procrastinate to a certain extent before procrastination effects stress level or coping style

procrastination, stress and coping [study]

Documents