PROCRASTINATION, THESIS WRITING AND
PERSONALITY
JUN6IAN
TYPE
By
MARY SUSAN HASKINS
B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o , 1971
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DESREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Department of C o u n s e l l i n g
Psychology)
We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming
to the r e q u i r e d
standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
F e b r u a r y , 1988
(c)
Mary Susan H a s k i n s , 1988
In
presenting
degree
freely
at
this
the
University
available
copying
of
department
publication
for
this
or
of
thesis
this
partial
of
British
reference
thesis
by
in
for
his
thesis
and
fulfilment
Columbia,
study.
scholarly
or
for
her
purposes
gain
of
Counselling Psychology
The University of British
1956 Main Mall
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1Y3
Date
March 14, 1988
Columbia
requirements
that
agree
may
be
It
is
representatives.
financial
the
I agree
I further
permission.
Department
of
shall
not
that
the
Library
permission
granted
by
understood
be
for
allowed
an
advanced
shall
for
the
that
without
make
it
extensive
head
of
my
copying
or
my
written
(ii)
ABSTRACT
This study sought to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the
procrastination
involved
i n t h e s i s w r i t i n g and Jungian
personality
type.
A sample of 50 graduate students e n r o l l e d
Counselling
Psychology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h
participated
of
i n the Department of
i n the s t u d y .
These i n d i v i d u a l s were c l a s s i f i e d
two groups: those who p r o c r a s t i n a t e d
those who d i d not.
Columbia
while w r i t i n g t h e i r
P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n was measured using
subjects
type.
The 50
differences
in personality
between the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and n a n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
F i v e hypotheses were t e s t e d .
A t-test
using
the c o n t i n u o u s s c o r e s of the four
first
four
sensation-intuition;
difference
(extraversion-introversion;
index
tended to s c o r e toward the p e r c e i v i n g
procrastinators
could
No d i f f e r e n c e s
t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) , but a s i g n i f i c a n t
was found on the j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g
groups.
s c a l e s of the MBTI to t e s t the
found between these two groups on these dimensions.
three scales
type
(two t a i l e d ) was performed
hypotheses t o determine i f a s t a t i s t i c a l
were found on the f i r s t
which
These two groups were then
compared to determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t
be
of time
were then a d m i n i s t e r e d the Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r
measures Jungian p e r s o n a l i t y
existed
t h e s i s and
length
taken to complete the t h e s i s coupled with s e l f - r e p o r t .
i n t o one
(p=.008).
difference
Procrastinators
end of the s c a l e while non-
scored toward the judging end of the continuum.
A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s using
was performed to t e s t the f i f t h
tire dichotomous s c o r e s of the MBTI
h y p o t h e s i s which p r e d i c t e d
that a
(iii)
significantly
higher
nan-procrastinators.
indicating
with
that
number
This
specific
procrastination.
o f NFP
types
hypothesis
personality
was
would
be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
accepted
variables
than
(p=.0017)
do t e n d
to c o r r e l a t e
< ivJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LIST OF TABLES
.
.
.
.
.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study
Statement
of the Problem
Theoretical
Perspective
Purpose of the Study
Significance
Definitions
Overview
CHAPTER
.
.
of the Study
of Key Terms
of the Study .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Procrastination
.
Jungian P s y c h o l o g i c a l
.
.
Type Theory .
The M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r
Jungian P e r s o n a l i t y
(MBTI)
Type and L e a r n i n g
Jungian Typology and P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
Summary
.
.
.
Theory
(V)
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
.
.
D e s c r i p t i o n and S e l e c t i o n of
.
.
40
the Sample
40
Procedures Used in C o l l e c t i n g Data
41
Instrumentation
42
.
.
Items and S c o r i n g
44
Predictive
46
Construct
Validity
Validity
48
R e i i a b i 1 i ty
51
Research Design,
Hypotheses and Data
Analysis
52
CHAPTER FOUR
- RESULTS
Demographic
Results
55
Data
58
of Hypotheses .
Type D i s t r i b u t i o n
62
Tables
65
Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
Discussion
Overview
of R e s u l t s
66
.
.
.
Demographic Data Regarding
Measuring
Procrastination .
F i n d i n g s of the Study
.
66
Sample
67
.
69
69
(vi)
Limitations
and
Limitations
Implications
REFERENCES
.
APPENDICES
.
Implications
.
.
.
for Future
.
Research
.
Research
.
. •
.
.
.
.
73
.
73
.
. 7 5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
of C o n t a c t
.
.
.
.
.
8
6
.
.
.
.
.
8
8
.
.
.
.
.
9
0
.
.
-for F u t u r e
.
Appendix
A:
Letter
Appendix
B:
Instruction
Appendix
C:
Subject
Appendix
D:
Demographic
Sheet
Consent
Form
Questionnaire
.
.
.
.
7
.
.
8
85
92
(vii)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
2.1
Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
of P s y c h o l o g i c a l
2.2
Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
of 16 P s y c h o l o g i c a l
2.3
Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s of Types Among C l i n i c a l
and Experimental P s y c h o l o g i s t s
4.1
4.2
.
Types
.
Types
.
.
25
.
31
.
. 3 6
S e l f - R e p o r t e d P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of the P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups
.
.
.
t - t e s t Comparison of P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and NonP r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Groups on Continuous Dimensions
. 5 7
.
60
4.3
Chi-square Comparison of NFP's Between
and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
.
.4.4
P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s Compared
According to D i s t r i b u t i o n by Type
.
.
.
. 6 2
Comparison of P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) and NonP r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) According to Jungian
P e r s o n a l i t y Type
.
.
.
.
. 6 3
4.5
4.6
4.7
Procrastinators
.
.
. 6 1
Myers-Briggs Type Table D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample
Population
.
.
.
.
.
Data from Sample P o p u l a t i o n
of Type on Each MBTI Index
.
.
64
Regarding D i s t r i b u t i o n
.
.
.
. 6 5
(viii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would l i k e to extend my thanks to my t h e s i s committee, and
e s p e c i a l l y to my c h a i r p e r s o n , Dr. Steve Marks. He o f f e r e d me immense
support and encouragement i n t h i s t a s k .
A p p r e c i a t i o n i s a l s o due to the i n d i v i d u a l s who shared t h e i r time
and energy by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s s t u d y .
In a d d i t i o n , I would l i k e to thank Pat Henderson, my parents and
my co-workers f o r t h e i r support as I undertook t h i s endeavour.
A s p e c i a l thanks to Nand Kishor f o r h i s t e c h i c a l e x p e r t i s e and
patience.
Finally,
I would l i k e to d e d i c a t e t h i s to the memory of my
mother who died p r i o r to i t s c o m p l e t i o n .
To a l l , I express my thanks.
(1)
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , the act of d e f e r r i n g
or d e l a y i n g
a c t i o n , i s a psychopathology of everyday l i f e .
the
d i s c o m f o r t r e s u l t i n g from p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
irritation
with oneself
subjective
objective
d i s c o m f o r t which accompanies
consequences
acquiring
can range from mild
a means of b i r t h
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , very r e a l
can r e s u l t from i t s
Consider the adolescent female who puts
c o n t r o l , or the married couple who
remains unhappily wedded f o r t h i r t y
y e a r s , or the business e x e c u t i v e
who i s f i r e d
for f a i l i n g
are
C l e a r l y , the p r a c t i c e of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
in
myriad.
people's l i v e s .
to keep up h i s or her a c c o u n t s .
which
act
the completion of the f i n a l
major
The examples
can wreak havoc
T h i s i s a study of one p a r t i c u l a r form of
procrastination
of d e l a y i n g
i t isa
Beyond the expressed
sometimes d e v a s t a t i n g
presence i n a person's l i f e .
off
While the s e v e r i t y of
to a major a f f e c t i v e d i s o r d e r ,
phenomenon with which everyone can i d e n t i f y .
necessary
paper) r e q u i r e d
i s e s p e c i a l l y c o s t l y i n academic
paper
s e t t i n g s : the
( e i t h e r t h e s i s or
f o r a Master's.degree.
R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study
Procrastination
Ellis
exacts a c o n s i d e r a b l e p r i c e i n academic
settings.
and Knaus (1977) have estimated that 95 percent of a l l c o l l e g e
students engage in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
and academic underachievement
Course w i t h d r a w a l , poor grades
are a l l r e s u l t s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
(2)
(Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer', 1979).
p r o c r a s t i n a t e appears
Semb, G l i c k
l e a s t and
The tendency
to i n c r e a s e the longer students are in c o l l e g e .
and Spencer
(1979) found that freshmen p r o c r a s t i n a t e the
s e n i o r s the most.
Procrastination
reaches near e p i c p r o p o r t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y
paper
f o r students to
( t h e s i s or d i s s e r t a t i o n ) .
at the graduate
as i t r e l a t e s to the
(Creager, 1965;
Knox, 1970;
a v a i l a b l e to i n d i c a t e how
f a i l u r e to complete
S e l l s , 1973).
much of t h i s a t t r i t i o n
the f i n a l
Statistics
r a t e i s due
paper, but anecdotal data
and
paper
highly functioning
i s widespread
graduate s t u d e n t s .
are not
to
from
While graduate
t h e s i s w r i t i n g , t h e r e has been very l i t t l e
this topic.
Clearly, this
that has r e c e i v e d
little
of
amoung otherwise competent
student
f o l k l o r e abounds with s t o r i e s r e g a r d i n g the p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
in
who
actually
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and t h e i r committees i n d i c a t e that the problem
completing t h i s f i n a l
final
Less than 50 percent of those
begin graduate school with the i n t e n t i o n of earning a degree
do so
level
involved
r e s e a r c h conducted
on
i s a p r o b l e m a t i c area in the academic world
attention
from
researchers.
Statement of the Problem
Procrastination
it
i s a mysterious behavior both to those who
as well as those who
would e x p l a i n
point o u t , the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r
it.
As S a b i n i and S i l v e r
i s someone who
to do i t
postulated
yet does not do i t .
to e x p l a i n
(1982)
knows what he or she
wants to do, appears capable of doing i t , i s o f t e n
trying
endure
i n some sense
V a r i o u s reasons have been
the phenomenon: f e a r of f a i l u r e ,
a n x i e t y , problems i n d e c i s i o n making, r e b e l l i o n
evaluation
against c o n t r o l ,
fear
(3)
of success, perfectionism,
of the task
low self-esteem and perceived aversiveness
(Burka & Yuen, 1982).
The r e l a t i v e l y sparse
pertaining to procrastination is reflected
point that prior to their study in 1984,
research
in Solomon and Rothblum's
no one had attempted a
systematic study of the reasons for procrastination.
Most studies
have confined themselves to seeing procrastination as a time
management problem or a d e f i c i t
Semb, 1974;
in study s k i l l s
Ziesat, Rosenthal, & White, 1978).
(1984) found, however,^that
( M i l l e r , Weaver, &
Solomon and Rothblum
procrastination involves a complicated
interaction among behavioral, cognitive and affective
components.
Blatt and Quinlan (1967) concluded from their research that nothing
short of a total
personality theory should be applied to the study of
procrastinators and non-procrastinators because of the fundamental
differences
they found between the two groups.
This may be an
important key to the understanding of procrastination.
practice which cuts across a l l socio-economic
While it is a
levels and affects a l l
ethnic groups, a l l ages, a l l occupations and both genders (Burka &
Yuen, 1984), there may be certain individuals who are more prone to
procrastination than others because of personality factors.
Myers and
McCaulley (1985) suggest that procrastination is a result of the way
certain personality types process information.
There have,
been no studies published to date which investigate the
between procrastination and personality type.
"Do those who
procrastinate on the thesis and those who do not d i f f e r
type?".
relationship
This study explored
this relationship and sought to answer the question,
in personality
however,
significantly
(4)
Theoretical
Carl
Perspective
Jung p o s t u l a t e d a theory of p e r s o n a l i t y type
on h i s c l i n i c a l
for
empirical
publishing
o b s e r v a t i o n s and advocated
research.
that i t be used as a t o o l
In 1962, Myers made t h i s p a s s i b l e by
an i n s t r u m e n t , the Myers-Briggs
was designed
(1921) based
Type I n d i c a t o r (MBTI).
It
to implement Jung's theory so that the ideas of type
could be t e s t e d and put t o p r a c t i c a l u s e .
Jung hypothesized
of
two fundamentally
that human beings r e l a t e to the world
different
modes or " a t t i t u d e s " .
with one
Some (those he
termed " e x t r a v e r t s " ) get t h e i r
p s y c h i c energy from the outer world of
people
( " i n t r o v e r t s " ) are c l e a r l y more
and t h i n g s while others
comfortable
relating
extraverted
a t t i t u d e , p s y c h i c energy flows outward toward the outer
world
or o b j e c t .
to t h e i r
inner world
The i n t r o v e r t e d
of i d e a s .
In the
a t t i t u d e i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a
p s y c h i c flow of energy inward with c o n c e n t r a t i o n on s u b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s
and
inner r e s p o n s e s .
A second " a t t i t u d e "
he observed
which i n d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e to the outer w o r l d .
by p e r c e i v i n g the world
the w o r l d .
judges
Some f u n c t i o n
How they do t h i s p e r c e i v i n g or judging w i l l
or with the senses
to u t i l i z e .
but not both
or makes d e c i s i o n s using e i t h e r
t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g
will
c o n c l u s i o n to be made.
primarily
while o t h e r s tend to make c o n c l u s i o n s about
by which " f u n c t i o n s " they p r e f e r
intuitively
was the way i n
be determined
One can p e r c e i v e e i t h e r
simultaneously.
One
l o g i c or v a l u e s , but e i t h e r
i n e v i t a b l y have t o be suspended f o r a
Intuition
and s e n s a t i o n are the two mutually
(5)
exclusive
two
"irrational"
"rational"
The
functions
and t h i n k i n g and f e e l i n g
f u n c t i o n s , according
to h i s model.
MBTI seeks to measure these p r e f e r r e d
both the world and s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s .
ways of d e a l i n g
to l i f e :
extraversion
perceptive
preferred
judgment f u n c t i o n : t h i n k i n g
a d d i t i o n , to c l a r i f y
psychological
f u n c t i o n : sensing
( i . e . , work h a b i t s ) :
judging
judgment
In
occur i n the
(J) or p e r c e p t i o n
( e i t h e r S or N) w i l l
to p r e f e r c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s
score
Those who
P, whereas those who
with the e x t e r n a l
c h i l d r e n are born with a p r e d i s p o s i t i o n
as long
impede or hamper t h i s development.
same p r e f e r e n c e .
(P).
and a t t i t u d e s over o t h e r s and that
develop these f u n c t i o n s
d e v e l o p e d , there
preference
score J .
Type theory assumes that
conclusions
(F).
a t t i t u d e s or ways of managing the outer
( e i t h e r T or F) when d e a l i n g
environment w i l l
will
<T) or f e e l i n g
(N), and t h e i r
types developed by Jung, Myers added a f o u r t h
prefer perceiving
favor
( I ) , their
(S) or i n t u i t i n g
f u r t h e r the d i f f e r e n c e s that
which d i s t i n g u i s h e s p r e f e r r e d
world
preferred
(E) or i n t r o v e r s i o n
preferred
with
The r e s u l t s of the MBTI
i n d i c a t e people's p e r s o n a l i t y type by s t a t i n g t h e i r
orientation
comprise the
they
as the environment does not
While the p r e f e r r e d
i s a r e l a t i v e neglect
function i s
of the o p p o s i t e pole
of the
In other words, i f one p r e f e r s t h i n k i n g when making
about the w o r l d , the f e e l i n g
function will
be
neglected.
If one u t i l i z e s the s e n s a t i o n
f u n c t i o n when p e r c e i v i n g , the i n t u i t i v e
process w i l l
In t h i s model, environment i s c r u c i a l
be undeveloped.
because i t can f o s t e r development of a person's n a t u r a l
and
skills
preferences
or i t can d i s c o u r a g e and f r u s t r a t e h i s or her n a t u r a l
by p r o v i d i n g
activities
that are l e s s s a t i s f y i n g
and m o t i v a t i n g .
bent
Jung
(6)
maintained
direction
that i f i n d i v i d u a l s who
were f o r c e d by t h e i r
n e u r o s i s or
were n a t u r a l l y predisposed
in one
environment to behave o t h e r w i s e ,
( i n extreme cases) even p s y c h o s i s could develop
in later
life.
Jung argued that the l e s s p r e f e r r e d
definition
ego.
be awkward and
f u c n t i o n s would
by
not always under c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l
In y o u t h , the task i s to develop
the dominant and
auxiliary
second f u n c t i o n ) .
In m i d - l i f e , he c o n s i d e r e d i t necessary to
the l e s s p r e f e r r e d
and
The
"way
to God"
inferior
f u n c t i o n s i n order to
or "wholeness" in l a t e r
Myers and
occur
McCaulley
in c e r t a i n
individuate.
years would be made p o s s i b l e
(1985) h y p o t h e s i z e that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
tend to score extremely
the j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g index may
judgment a t t i t u d e
( i . e . , extreme p e r c e p u t a l type^}) may
that those who
have a d e f i c i t
(p.70).
and
These i n d i v i d u a l s tend to remain i n
S or N) when a judgment a t t i t u d e
i s r e q u i r e d f o r decision-making
and
action.
judgment f u n c t i o n s sometimes are n o t .
(T or F)
In other words, t h e i r
p e r c e p t u a l f a c u l t i e s are under c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l
tends to be awkward and
in their
exhibit
problems r e l a t e d to " d i f f u s i o n , d r i f t i n g , p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
the p e r c e p t u a l mode ( e i t h e r
personality
be e s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e to
They suggest
c o n f u s i o n over d i r e c t i o n "
may
high on the P s i d e of
procrastination.
their
and
potentiality.
i n d i v i d u a l s because of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r
t y p e . I n d i v i d u a l s who
(or
develop
by d e v e l o p i n g the f o u r t h f u n c t i o n which i s l a r g e l y unconscious
e x i s t s in the "shadow" as
of the
of t h e i r
Their
ego
judgment
while
attitude
these i n d i v i d u a l s t h e r e f o r e can become stuck
in what they do b e s t : p e r c e i v i n g
r a t h e r than a c t i n g .
As
noted
e a r l i e r , when i n d i v i d u a l s are faced with a task which f o r c e s them to
(7)
u t i l i z e their
considerable
weaker and more awkward a t t i t u d e s and/or f u n c t i o n s , a
amount of d y s f u n c t i o n
and d i s t r e s s tends to o c c u r .
In a d d i t i o n , i n t u i t i v e - f e e l i n g - p e r c e p t i v e
found to have a p o o r l y
future oriented
developed sense of time.
while s e n s a t i o n
(Myers & McCaul1ey, 1985).
(NP),
s/he w i l l
difficulty
judging
the
types are more focused on the present
If the i n t u i t i v e i s a l s o a p e r c e p t i v e
have very l i t t l e
attitude
sense of time and w i l l
present
(SP).
I n d i v i d u a l s who r e l y p r i m a r i l y on t h e i r
with the e x t e r n a l
world w i l l
greater
judging
function
intuition
have f l a s h e s of i n s i g h t , see
i n the f u t u r e but have l i t t l e
space or time and hence s u f f e r from an i n a b i l i t y
strong
have
type
( S J , NJ, T J , FJ) or those who are more grounded i n
tremendous p o s s i b i l i t i e s
is
I n t u i t i v e s tend to be
with time management than those who e i t h e r have a strong
when d e a l i n g
in
(NFP) types have been
(T or F) or s e n s a t i o n
or no grounding
to manage time.
(S) i s r e q u i r e d
to make d e c i s i o n s and manage time e f f e c i v e l y .
This
A
i f one
poorly
developed sense of time appears to be made even worse, however, i f the
intuitive-peceptive individual i s also a feeling
by d e f i n i t i o n ,
The
type.
Feeling
base t h e i r d e c i s i o n s on v a l u e s as opposed to l o g i c .
i n t u i t i v e - p e r c e p t i v e type has a g r e a t e r
management i f h i s or her r a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n
as opposed to values when making d e c i s i o n s .
appears to be a high
risk
chance of e f f e c t i v e
i s one which u t i l i z e s
c a n d i d a t e f o r having problems with
Purpose of the Study
i s no s e c r e t
to academia that
time
logic
The NFP t y p e , t h e r e f o r e ,
procrastination.
It
types,
a considerable
number of
(8)
supposedly
failure
their
gifted
do not r e c e i v e degrees due to the
to complete the t h e s i s
theses,
a significant
significantly
optimistic
thesis
individuals
requirement.
For many that
number p e r c e i v e themselves
more depressed, more a n x i o u s ,
and l e s s f r i e n d l y during
than during
Given these f a c t s ,
is
surprising
the years spent
that
to be
more a l i e n a t e d ,
the year a f t e r completion
it
examine t h i s
i n t e n t of
this
this
evidence that
any,
learning
styles
early
potential
in t h e i r t r a i n i n g .
effective
student
It
behavior.
types,
this
procrastination
with
procrastinators
to address
This study
procrastinators
their particular
deficiences
types.
Their contention i s
t e s t e d the n o t i o n that
personality
that
non-procrastinators
that
individuals
tend to p r o c r a s t i n a t e as a h a b i t u a l
behavior and those with high judgment
on i n f o r m a t i o n )
hypothesis
tend to be p e r c e p t i v e types while
high p e r c e p t i v e scores
NFP types
scores
do not.
It
mode of
(due to the way they process
was beyond the scope of t h i s
with
In a d d i t i o n ,
would be more l i k e l y to be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
types.
currently
schools.
t e s t e d Myers and M c C a u l l e y ' s
tend to be judging
study
to implement
and prevent the c o n s i d e r a b l e waste in time, money and s t r e s s
experienced in graduate
Given
could be i d e n t i f i e d
would then be p o s s i b l e
treatment s t r a t e g i e s
to
can be f a c i l i t a t e d by becoming
as p r e d i c t e d by p e r s o n a l i t y
type so that
procrastination
area with the expressed
was an attempt to p r o v i d e hard data l i n k i n g
personality
1979).
studies
then, was to begin
p u z z l i n g graduate
learning
their
(McRae & S k e l t o n ,
very few, i f
study,
unresearched and p r o b l e m a t i c
demystifying
the mounting
aware of
The purpose of
less
writing
have been conducted to examine the problems r e l a t e d to
on the t h e s i s .
do complete
study
it
and act
than other
to
(9)
investigate
procrastination
as a f i x e d p e r s o n a l i t y
trait.
It d i d ,
however, t e s t Myers and McCaulley's h y p o t h e s i s on t h i s t a s k - s p e c i f i c
s i t u a t i on.
The
secondary purpose of the study was of a sore
exploratory
nature which was to analyze the d i s t r i b u t i o n of types within
groups
(of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
significant
group.
predicted
out,
types appeared to c l u s t e r i n e i t h e r
was done t o determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s
other than those
by the l i t e r a t u r e might e x i s t .
Significance
The
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) to determine i f a
number of s p e c i f i c
This
the two
of the Study
s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study was t h r e e f o l d .
procrastination
As has been pointed
has been p r i m a r i l y viewed as a phenomenon which
i s randomly d i s t r i b u t e d through out the p o p u l a t i o n ,
affecting a l l
ages, o c c u p a t i o n s , socio-economic l e v e l s and both genders. It has
traditionally
been t r e a t e d
in a s i m p l i s t i c fashion
and only
recently
has
been c o n s i d e r e d a complicated phenomenon with c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e
and
behavioral
components.
While r e s e a r c h e r s have c a l l e d f o r a more
comprehensive study of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , there have been no s t u d i e s to
date which have a p p l i e d
study does j u s t
personality
This
that.
S e c o n d l y , the study t e s t e d
untested theory that
particular
theory t o the phenomenon.
Myers and McCaulley's
procrastination
personality
type.
currently
i s indeed a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a
The i m p l i c a t i o n s
of t h i s f i n d i n g
could
hold s i g n i f i c a n c e both f o r i n d i v i d u a l s ( i n terms of enhancing
s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) and f o r higher education at l a r g e as w e l l .
Having
(10) •
a
root
problem
more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d
implementation
Finally,
non-existent
itself,
degree
of e f f e c t i v e t r e a t m e n t
this
body
although
study
of l i t e r a t u r e
the t h e s i s
made t o i n v e s t i g a t e
of s t u d e n t s
procrastination
economic
Definitions
provided
the
degree
delayed
study
in spite
used
(1985):
to complete.
Columbia.
their
had been
a considerable
f o r years
of o b v i o u s
and t h e i r
(due t o
o c c u p a t i o n a l and
families.
the d e f i n i t i o n
The t e n d e n c y
The p a r t i c u l a r
of t h e t h e s i s
in Counselling
Procrastinators
the completion
self-reporting
always
task
required
Psychology
involved
in this
f o r graduate
were o p e r a t i o n a l l y
theses
until
or n e a r l y
always
procrastinating
two y e a r s
of c o m p l e t i n g
never
or a l m o s t
never
self-report
the delay
was t h e r e f o r e
(to screen
other
than
as t h o s e
procrastination).
which
was
receive
British
who
y e a r and
on t h i s
who
task.
completed
c o u r s e w o r k and
by b e h a v i o r a l
factors
to
of
fifth
procrastinating
measured
out other
their
their
study
as t h o s e
of t h e i r
within
Procrastination
defined
operationally
a t a s k one
students
at the U n i v e r s i t y
their
self-reported
procrastination
or avoid
were d e f i n e d
theses
of
to delay
Non-procrastinators
to
that
degrees
writing
f o r a graduate
s t u d y , no a t t e m p t
f o r the fact
f o r themselves
This
by Wedeman
completion
their
getting
thesis)
requirement
to t h i s
reasons
t h e a c t of t h e s i s
o f Key Terms
procrastination:
intends
postpone
consequences
with
i s a common
possible
on t h e i r
to the p r a c t i c a l l y
dealing
Prior
f a c i l i t a t e s the
interventions.
has c o n t r i b u t e d
i n many d i s c i p l i n e s .
number
greatly
might
on t h i s
task.
delay
as w e l l
have
contributed
as
(11)
The
following
are b r i e f
d e s c r i p t i o n s of terms r e l a t e d
typology as measured by the Myers-Briggs
such
Type I n d i c a t o r (MBTI).
Terms
as " e x t r a v e r t " , " i n t r o v e r t " , " t h i n k e r " , " f e e l e r " , " j u d g e r " , e t c .
are d e f i n e d below.
a convention
who p r e f e r
The use of such
intended
a t t i tude:
to save time and space when r e f e r r i n g
to reduce a person
of l i b i d o ;
libido
a person
inwardly
to peopie
At no
to a mere category or l a b e l .
of o b j e c t s .
energy p r i m a r i l y
attitude (I!
(E) o r i e n t s l i b i d o outwardly
In other words, the i n t r o v e r t
energy to and from t h e i r
additional
with an i n t r o v e r t e d
to the i n t r a - p s y c h i c world, while a person
with an e x t r a v e r t e d a t t i t u d e
theory.
i s simply
A term used by Jung to i n d i c a t e a person's p r e f e r r e d
orientation
orients
words to d e s c r i b e people
v a r i o u s a t t i t u d e s and f u n c t i o n s as d e f i n e d by Jung.
time i s i t intended
inner world
will
to the world
g i v e and r e c e i v e
while e x t r a v e r t s r e c e i v e and g i v e
to and from the outer world.
Myers added an
a t t i t u d e , the j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e , to Jungian
This dimension
the outer world.
will
to Jungian
i n d i c a t e s the way i n which a person manages
Those who are found
tend to p r e f e r to use t h e i r
f e e l i n g ) when r e l a t i n g
to have a judging a t t i t u d e (J)
rational
function
to the outer world.
(either
t h i n k i n g or
Those who have a
perceiving
attitude
(P) w i l l
irrational
function
( e i t h e r s e n s a t i o n or i n t u i t i o n ) when managing the
outer
tend to u t i l i z e
their preferred
world.
continuous
score:
A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of p r e f e r e n c e scores on the MBTI
as i f there was no dichotomy by s e t t i n g
subtracting
the numerical
portion
a midpoint
of the p r e f e r e n c e score from 100 f o r
p r e f e r e n c e s E , S, T, and J , and by adding
for p r e f e r e n c e s
I, N, F, and P.
at 100 and
the numerical
Use of continuous
portion
to 100
scores allows the
(12)
s t r e n g t h of the p r e f e r e n c e to be taken
dichotomouB s c o r e :
The
b a s i c score used to d e s c r i b e each MBTI
p r e f e r e n c e , made up of a l e t t e r
preference.
into consideration.
indicating
Only the d i r e c t i o n , not
direction
of
the
s t r e n g t h , of the p r e f e r e n c e i s
i n d i c a t e d when dichotomous scores are used.
extravert
(E):
A person who
h a b i t u a l l y turns h i s or her
outward from s u b j e c t to object and
Myers uses the term to r e f e r
i s dependent upon the o b j e c t .
to a person who
judgment p r i m a r i l y upon people and
energy
things
O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i t r e f e r s to a person who
focuses
(the outer
perception
and
world).
obtains a preference
the e x t r a v e r s i o n s i d e of the e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n index
score
of
on
the
MBTI.
f e e l i no
(F):
One
(1921).
He
defined
between the ego
of the four b a s i c f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d by Jung
and
"feeling"
a given
as a "process
that takes p l a c e
content...imparting...to
the content
d e f i n i t e value i n the sense of acceptance or r e j e c t i o n "
distinguished
i t from emotion.
primarily
a
(p.434).
Jung
It i s the f u n c t i o n that evaluates
an
o b j e c t , determines whether i t i s d e s i r a b l e or u n d e s i r a b l e and i t s
degree of importance.
a personal
"feeler"
way
Myers d e f i n e s " f e e l i n g "
to determine valued
i s a person who
valued.
index
conditions.-
He
score on the
feeling
of the MBTI.
form of
that remains the same in p r i n c i p l e under v a r y i n g
maintained
that people u t i l i z e :
(F).
p r i m a r i l y in
Operationally, a
As d e f i n e d by Jung, a f u n c t i o n i s a p a r t i c u l a r
psychic a c t i v i t y
feeling
not
obtains a preference
s i d e of the t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g
function:
and
as judging
Thinking
there were four
sensation
and
(and only four) f u n c t i o n s
(S), intuition
feeling
represent
(N), t h i n k i n g (T)
two
mutually
and
exclusive
(13)
ways of
judging
Sensing
and
taking
from
the
the
world
(I):
to
of
intuition
the
intuitor
judqer
outer
ideas
This
process
This
by
distinguished
deal
of
onto
with
into
Jungian
outside
to
sense
of
or
the
libido
Myers
i s in the
a person
which
who
uses
inner
obtains
a
introversion/
the
to
from
those
who
rely
the
outer
world
and
score
judging
the
It
the
tacks
intuition
primarily
when d e a l i n g
with
prefers relating
to
on
a
the
A
d e c i s i o n making.
the
on
"judgmental".
the
It i s
a p e r c e i v i n g mode where
sensation
a person
s i d e of
of
unconscious
on
relies
connote
the
to
score
who
primarily
through
the
way
Jung.
MBTI.
i s someone who
planning
by
by
O p e r a t i o n a l l y , an
feeling)
meant
preference
who
or
intuitive
obtains
a
judging/perceiving
index
MBTI.
judging
which
or
herself.
indirectly
a person
Operationally, i t refers
the
to
a preference
index
i s not
the
energy
interest
stimuli.
t h i n k i n g or
emphasizing
on
perceiving
functions described
things
obtains
term
or
s i d e of
basic
function.
of
him
p e r c e i v i n g by
refers
(either
i n the
world
four
aware of
term
ways of
world.
MBTI.
the
who
external
withdraws
whose main
sensing/intuition
(J):
and
introversion
the
of
i s a person
"judger"
they
of
becoming
world.
outer
the
One
or
the
judging
on
the
world.
habitually
a person
I t i s a way
associations
of
world
outer
opposing
Operationally, i t refers
(N):
unconscious.
side
or
index
of
two
external
who
score
act
represent
the
describe
extraversion
decisions regarding
A person
ideas.
preference
is
from
object
term
making
intuiting
in data
introvert
or
preferences
a person
will
(J):
The
manage t h e
judging
outer
attitude
world.
represents
Those
who
are
the
way
found
in
to
(14)
have
a judging
thinking
The
to
are those
(T) or f e e l i n g
Jungian
theory
Refers
instrument
published
identify
as d e v e l o p e d
t o measure
primarily
perceptive
the
world.
index
Jungian
term
refers
attitude
the outer
represents
their
world.
an
addition
Myers.
Type
I n d i c a t o r which
psychological type.
used
to a person
was
designed
I t was
in this
who
study
as
first
to
p r e f e r s to r e l y
( s e n s i n g or i n t u i t i o n )
Operationally, i t refers
on a
when d e a l i n g
to a person
who
with
obtains a
on t h e p e r c e i v i n g s i d e o f t h e j u d g i n g / p e r c e i v i n g
preferences
a person
( P ) : . The p e r c e i v i n g a t t i t u d e
manages t h e o u t e r
a perceiving attitude
sensation
world.
addition
are those
(S) o r i n t u i t i v e
who
to Jungian
score:
theory
as d e v e l o p e d
The s c o r e
(extraversi on/introversion;
judging/perceiving)
magnitude
subtracting
which
( e . g . , F=
the l e s s e r
dimension, multiplying
if
the preference
or
I,N,F,P
f o r each
indicates
d e a l i n g with
by
from
of t h e f o u r
their
the outer
represents
an
indices
thinking/feeling;
of a p r e f e r e n c e
score
the greater
i s computed
raw s c o r e
by t w o , and t h e n
or i n t h e d i r e c t i o n
A point
a r e found t o
Myers.
the d i r e c t i o n
the d i f f e r e n c e
(for females).
T h o s e who
as an a t t i t u d e
The p r e f e r e n c e
raw s c o r e
r e p r e s e n t s the
prefer to u t i l i z e
sensing/intuiting;
14).
i s zero
world.
(N) f u n c t i o n when
The p e r c e i v i n g - j u d g i n g d i c h o t o m y
preference
its
either
of t h e MBTI.
i n which
have
This
score
perceptive
way
to u t i l i z e
preferences.
(P):
preference
by
It i s the instrument
p e r c e i ver
outer
prefer
a s an a t t i t u d e
to the Myers-Briggs
i n 1962.
type
who
(F) f u n c t i o n when m a n a g i n g
j u d g i n g - p e r c e i v i n g dichotomy
MBTI:
an
attitude
i s subtracted
from
by
on a g i v e n
adding
o f I,N,T,P
and
a point
( f o r males)
the t o t a l
i f the
(15)
preference
i s i n the d i r e c t i o n
of E,S,F,J
(for males) or E,S,T,J
(for
females).
p e r s o n a l i t y type:
shall
For
the purposes of t h i s study, p e r s o n a l i t y type
mean the p a r t i c u l a r
Type I n d i c a t o r p r e f e r e n c e s
are
combination of four indexed f l y e r s - B r i g g s
letter
code.
16 p o s s i b l e combinations or types in Myers' scheme.
Myers
elaborated
as i n d i c a t e d by
upon Jung's notion
of judging
a four
and
p e r c e i v i n g by c r e a t i n g a
f o u r t h dimension, thus i n c r e a s i n g Jung's o r i g i n a l
types to
sensi ng
schema of
(S):
One
senses with
related
not
defined
it).
definition
of the four b a s i c f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d
only
the emphasis on
to e x t e r n a l
Myers does not
of s e n s i n g .
obtains a preference
intuiting
t h i nking
index of the
(T):
One
stimuli
but
i n c l u d e the
by Jung.
through any
immediate e v i d e n c e .
It
of
the
Sensing i s
inner ones as well
(as Jung
inner processes i n her
O p e r a t i o n a l l y , a "sensor"
score on
the sensing
i s a person
s i d e of the
who
sensing/
MBTI.
of the four f u n c t i o n s d e s c r i b e d
l o g i c a l , impersonal way
of
judging
by Jung.
to determine t r u e or
O p e r a t i o n a l l y , a " t h i n k e r " i s a person who
on
eight
16.
i s the process of becoming aware of t h i n g s d i r e c t l y
five
There
obtains
It i s a
false.
a preference
score
the t h i n k i n g s i d e of the t h i n k i n g / f e e l i n g index of the MBTI.
Overview of the
Study
This study c o n s i s t s of f i v e c h a p t e r s .
introduction.
Chapter Two
Chapter Three c o n t a i n s
Chapter One
i s a review of the r e l e v a n t
i s the
literature.
a d e s c r i p t i o n of the methodology: d e s c r i p t i o n
(16)
and
selection
hypotheses
Four
and
Chapter
and
of
sample, procedures, i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ,
data
a discussion
Five.
analysis.
of
The
results
the r e s u l t s
and
research
are presented
limitations
are
in
desi
Chapter
found
in
(17)
CHAPTER
TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The
study
r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c
are reviewed i n t h i s
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
areas of
chapter:
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n - — a c a d e m i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n and t h e s i s w r i t i n g
Jungian p s y c h o l o g i c a l type theory
the l i y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r as a measure of Jungian
typology
Jungian typology as i t r e l a t e s to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
Jungian typology and l e a r n i n g theory
Procrastination
P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , the tendency to delay or avoid a task one
intends to complete, i s a u n i v e r s a l
phenomenon i n human e x p e r i e n c e .
Even Shakespeare found i t s i g n i f i c a n t
his
enough to cause Hamlet to lament
u n w i l l i n g n e s s to do that which he has "cause, and w i l l , and
s t r e n g t h , and means to do't" (Hamlet 4.4.45-46).
u n i v e r s a l i t y , i t has r e c e i v e d scant a t t e n t i o n
is
s u r p r i s i n g , given the t o l l
Hill,
Chabot, and B a r r a l l
substantial
and
Rosati
from r e s e a r c h e r s .
i t takes i n academic s e t t i n g s .
(1978) found that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
problem among c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s .
(1986) found that more than
investigated
a significant
r e p o r t e d high
This
Hill,
isa
E l y and Hampton
(1975) r e p o r t e d that between 22 to 33 percent
students p r o c r a s t i n a t e d on assignments.
Murakami
Despite i t s
11973)
of c o l l e g e
Rothblum, Solomon, and
40 percent
of the students
l e v e l s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
they
They a l s o found
negative c o r r e l ation•between p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
and grade
(18)
point
average i n d i c a t i n g that
academic performance.
percent of c o l l e g e
Ellis
procrastination
and
Knaus (1977) estimate that
students engage in p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
underachievement, poor grades and
lack
Felton
(1973) and
of goal s e t t i n g and
admitted to c o l l e g e who
f o r academic
Academic
Shaeffer
(Semb, G l i c k , & Spencer, 1979).
(1973) l i n k e d
poor study h a b i t s
procrastination,
to 44 percent of
were e i t h e r terminated or placed on
percent'of
those who
i n t e n t i o n of earning a degree f a i l
1970).
It i s not
finally
running out
students
probation
known how
begin a graduate program with
to do
so
(Creager, 1965;
much of t h i s f a i l u r e
i s due
Knox,
to time
on
procrastinators,
nor, i s i t known to what
extent p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
a f f e c t s those who
do
their
95
reasons.
More than 50
the
fully
course withdrawal have a l l been
found to be r e s u l t s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
Biggs and
i s r e l a t e d to poor
degree.
procrastination
What appears to be
finally
succeed i n earning
c l e a r , however, i s the
i s widespread i n academic s e t t i n g s
and
fact
that
i t s effects
are
consi derab1e.
Even l e s s r e s e a r c h has
anecdotal data which t e s t i f y
writing
subjects
been done on
to the
a t h e s i s or d i s s e r t a t i o n .
t h e s i s w r i t i n g , i n s p i t e of
trauma and
McRae and
stress involved
Skelton
p e r c e i v e d themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d e p r e s s e d , anxious and
l e s s o p t i m i s t i c and
y e a r ( s ) when they were w r i t i n g
year f a l l o w i n g
in
(1979) found
more a l i e n a t e d ,
l e s s f r i e n d l y during
the
t h e i r t h e s i s than they were during
i t s c o m p l e t i o n . For
the
many i n d i v i d u a l s ( e s p e c i a l l y
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) , t h i s . p e r i o d of time f o r w r i t i n g
y e a r s , and
sometimes even longer f o r those who
beyond the
f i v e year l i m i t .
This
that
can
receive
take up
to
five
extensions
i s c l e a r l y a s i g n i f i c a n t length
of
(19)
time to be
e x p e r i e n c i n g a l i e n a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n , and
Marriages and
of
friendships
emotional, f i n a n c i a l
considerable.
be
are
and
frequently
physical
The
on
procrastination
on
graduate programs.
differences
the
problem could be
This
be
found on
identified
out,
Until
techniques
found that
procrastination
reinforcement
to
strategies
has
outset of
received
on
Z i e s a t , Rosenthal,
be
to
prevent
has
procrastination
deficit
White, 1978).
centered mostly
R i c h a r d s , 1975).
reduced through
minimal
on
Researchers have
negative
( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974), p o s i t i v e reinfocement
& S l o a n e , 1974;
deadlines
and
r e c e n t l y , most s t u d i e s
can
If
procrastinators.
procrastination
(Green, 1982;
this
the MBTI between
i t as being a time management or study s k i l l s
behavioral
in
who
not.
implemented at the
a consequence, treatment of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
(Bristol
do
those v u l n e r a b l e
experienced by
( M i l l e r , Weaver, & Semb, 1974;
As
research
could p o t e n t i a l l y reduce or p o s s i b l y
(1982) p o i n t s
analysis.
have defined
can
t h e s i s could be
tremendous cost c u r r e n t l y
theoretical
components of those
non-procrastinators,
remedy t h i s p o t e n t i a l
As Green
often
t h e s i s as opposed to those who
personality
and
in terms
purpose of t h i s s t u d y , then, i s to address
their
procrastinators
the
being are
costs
phenomenon of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
i n v e s t i g a t i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y
significant
The
Given these c o s t s , i t appears important that
thesis writing.
procrastinate
strained.
well
undertaken to begin to e x p l o r e the
i s s u e by
anxiety.
Lu,
1976)
and
through g u i d e l i n e s
(Keenan, Bono, & Hursh, 1978).
been found to reduce p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
1977;
Jackson & Van
1975,
1981;
Z o o s t , 1972;
and
imposed
S e l f - c o n t r o l techniques have
(Groveman, R i c h a r d s , & C a p l e ,
Kirschenbaum & P e r r i , 1982;
S i e v e k i n g , Campbell, R i l e i g h , St S a v i t s k y ,
1971).
Richards,
Green
(20)
(1982) found that s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g plus s e l f - r e w a r d was
in reducing
The
delay.
most e f f e c t i v e
p r o c r a s t i n a t i v e behaviors.
most obvious component to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s b e h a v i o r a l
A l l r e s e a r c h e r s agree that i n c l u d e d i n i t s d e f i n i t i o n
tendency to delay or avoid a t a s k .
diverqent
p o i n t s of view begin
But
beyond t h i s s t a r t i n g
to emerge.
Solomon and
c h a l l e n g e the idea that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n can
treated
adequately
by
(1984)
be d e f i n e d , assessed
interaction
c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and
Burka and
b e h a v i o r a l components.
and
dimension.
They c l a i m that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s a complicated
by s t a t i n g
point,
Rothblum
f o c u s i n g s o l e l y on the b e h a v i o r a l
lend support to t h i s p o s i t i o n
i s the
of
Yuen
(1982)
that " p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n i s a
complex p s y c h o l o g i c a l problem that seldom y i e l d s to simple
remedies"
(p.32).
Wedeman (1985) d e f i n e s i t as the tendency to delay or avoid a
task one
intends to complete.
Her
definition
component i n v o l v e d i n p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n :
Sabini
and
Silver
i t is basically
(1982) point o u t , not
i s a p r o c r a s t i n a t o r : note the adolescent
because s/he
It
knows that Hon w i l l
i s sometimes r a t i o n a l
not
to s t a l l
have to be done at a l l .
a v o i d i n g a task
what to do and
that must be done.
then
c a p a c i t y f o r being
an a d d i t i o n a l
not
doing
everyone who
who
or avoid doing
it.
may
irrational.
As
puts t h i n g s off
avoids doing
do them i f s/he
chances are great that the s t a l l i n g
will
i n t r o d u c e s the c o g n i t i v e
stalls
the
dishes
long enough.
an onerous task i f
i n f a c t ensure that the
task
P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , however, i s
It depends on a person s knowing
It i s a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the human
divided i n t e r n a l l y .
This i n t e r n a l
element which appears to be ever-present
procrastination: a f f e c t i v e discomfort.
t e n s i o n produces
in
Rothblum, Solomon, and
(21)
Murakami
(1986) i n c l u d e the a f f e c t i v e component of a n x i e t y in t h e i r
definition
of academic p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n m a i n t a i n i n g
procrastination
c o n s t i t u t e s more than a reasonable
complete a task;
well"
" i t must i n c l u d e problematic
l e v e l s of a n x i e t y
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n r e p o r t high
of a f f e c t i v e d i s c o m f o r t
Burka and
Yuen
accompanying the p r a c t i c e of
(1982) maintain
as
s e l f - e s t e e m , a sense of f r a u d u l e n c e
Rothblum
and
a n x i e y , lowered
self-deprecation.
measures of d e p r e s s i o n , i r r a t i o n a l
s e l f - e s t e e m , a n x i e t y and
definition
lack of a s s e r t i o n .
of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n should
psychological
Solomon
and
distress.
Grecco
concluded
c o g n i t i o n s , low
They conclude
that
any
i n c l u d e both b e h a v i o r a l delay
and
(1984) found that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y with n e u r o t i c i s m and
depression.
Powers
(1984)
that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s demonstrate lower s e l f - e s t e e m , have
l e s s time competence than the norm and
depression
causes of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
systematic
report f e a r , anxiety
as a consequence of t h e i r d e l a y i n g
management or study
way
Murakami, 1986;
conclude
procrastination.
(1984) found that p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
self-report
The
levels
that p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , r e g a r d l e s s of
whether they i n c u r academic consequences, s u f f e r
skills—-have
beyond a d e f i c i t
i n time
only r e c e n t l y been i n v e s t i g a t e d in a
Solomon It Rothblum, 1984).
that "time management i s not
an
These
Rothblum, Solomon, &
investigators
independent f a c t o r
that
Although items c o n s t i t u t i n g
management were h i g h l y endorsed, students
c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and
and
behavior.
(Rothblum,. Beswick, & Mann, 1984;
explains p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n behavior.
other
length of time to
(p.387).
Most recent
with
that
simultaneously
time
endorsed
b e h a v i o r a l reasons f o r p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g "
(22)
(Solomon & Rothblum, 1984,
p. 509).
Burka and
Yuen
numerous reasons for p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : e v a l u a t i o n
in d e c i s i o n making, r e b e l l i o n against
of the
and
consequences of
overly
(1984) found that
control
than the
perfectionism,
strongly
planfulness
negatively
and
Becker
perfectionism
Fear of success was
among male
several
future
(1958) found p e r s o n a l i t y
in
found to
226
be
Lack of
negatively
moderately and
related
positively-
subjects.
behavioral
factors
dimensions.
Frey
time e x t e n s i o n
either failed
and
to appear cr
p r e o c c u p a t i o n with death and
assumed to assess the
and
punctual
p r o d u c t i o n s , reported
did s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r
capacity
f o r a n t i c i p a t i o n and
between p a s t , present and
o t h e r s who
future.
on
greater
less
on
a scale
planning.
fundamental d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between those who
i n the present and
Blatt
students
found that punctual students had
i n fantasy
to
(introversion/extraversion)
(1967) compared p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
time parameters and
primarily
with
postponed appointments f o r experimental purposes.
conclude that
of
i s a complex t o p i c which does appear
c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e and
Qunilan
was
were moderately and
which c o r r e l a t e d with i n d i v i d u a l s who
and
interference
r e l a t e d to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
continuously
reality
f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance
Clearly, procrastination
include
Powers
Wedeman (1985) compared p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
found that
to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
related
task,
autonomy, f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e , fear of s u c c e s s , fear
She
and
a v e r s i v e n e s s of the
fear
are more i n t e r n a l in t h e i r locus
of f a i l u r e , lack of p l a n f u l n e s s , and
students.
difficulty
standards r e g a r d i n g competency.
procrastinators
norm.
anxiety,
c o n t r o l , fear of f a i l u r e ,
s u c c e s s , perceived
perfectionistic
(1982) suggest
They
live
r e l y on c o n t i n u i t y and
purpose
They emphasize the need f o r
further
research
to develop
While
in
several
p e r s o n a l i t y theory
studies
procrastinating behavior,
personality
Powers
profiles
(1984)
influences
how
This...implies
locus
procrastinators"
1921.
Alfred
reasons
Vienna
became
own
Freud
from
Jung
Their
Freud
the o r i g i n
relationship
on t h e d y n a m i c s o f
of p s y c h o l o g i c a l
of b o t h
by t h e c o n f l i c t s
(Mattoon,
and s p e n t
the quarrel
irreconcilable,
neurosis.
found
inspired
Freud's
years
believed
When
t o be i n t h e w i l l
to s o c i e t y .
Since
to anaylze the
amount o f
and A d l e r
had been
Adler's
from
effort
which
ledto
member of
d i f f e r e n c e s with
around
was s e x u a l
Adler
a valued
t h e group
t o power
both
he and
was d i s t r e s s e d o v e r
attempting
centered
i t s origin
both
i n 1911.
later,
resigned
disagreement
that
Jung
Freud
types i n
c o l l e a g u e s and
a considerable
circle
group.
Adler
1981).
between
a few y e a r s
psychoanalytic
society.
directedness)
p r o c r a s t i n a t i v e behavior.
h i s theory
He t h e r e f o r e s p e n t
withdrawal
like
" t h e p e r s o n a l i t y of
and i n n e r - o t h e r
o u t of o b s e r v a t i o n s
Freud
studying
Adler,
that
way.
Theory
published
grew
with
for i t .
thought
Adler's
the
first
had w i t h
own b r e a k
to study the
t o i n c l u d e t h e p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
Type
and was f i r s t
Adler
no a t t e m p t
(p.3343-B).
His theory
clients
and
Jung
his/her
further research
Psychological
Carl
h a s been
of c o n t r o l
s/he p e r c e i v e s
o r o c r a s t i n a t i o n . . . needs
Jungian
there
personality differences involved
in his investigation
(i.e.,
that
noted
area.
of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
concludes
a procrastinator
his
have
in this
Freud
and f o r m e d h i s
t h e e t i o l o g y of
conflict
and A d l e r
and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s
and J u n g
had
similar
(24)
upbringings,
had
pursued
why
such
He
were p r o d u c t s
the
ideological differences
hypothesized
that
their
the
world.
literature
and
mythology
well:
Plato
Goethe
as
stated
that
labelled
subject.
the
two
ways of
"extraversion"
the
characterized
Both
and
outer
a
i s less
developed
world
at
the
history,
argument
world
rivals
and
basically
of
or
two.
of
Spitteler
consequence
and
the
ideological
Dionysius,
His
how
ways
explored
p a i r s of
a t t i t u d e as
or
of
present
and
between
and
two
basic
and
"attitudes"
and
"introversion".
flow
greater
questioned
in d i f f e r e n t
fathers.
looking
environment
emerged
Types
and
extraverted
by
under
lay
were t h e
and
a t t i t u d e s are
dominant
other
church
the
have
other
Apollo
rivalries
toward
a d e c a d e , Jung
could
comparing
several
intellectual
Psychological
Aristotle,
perceptual
energy
sane
differences
His
characterized
conversely
be
as
these
them
Jung
to
and
well
conflicting
psychic
the
same i n t e r e s t s f o r
perceiving
as
of
the
object.
psychic
i n each
conscious
being
energy
e x i s t s more as
flow
of
Introversion
inward
individual,
control
a
of
toward
but
the
one
ego
potentiality
is
the
tends
while
than
actuality.
Jung
found
characterizing
two
other
and
to
and
something
feeling
or
two
four
or
reflect
He
insufficient
or
or
ways of
these
paired
If
exist.
judging
Sensing
the
functions
and
world
to
to
while
of
values
as
be
i s deciding
evaluation
that
(either
according
a person
( t h i n k i n g ) , then
in
hypothesized
perceiving
s u b j e c t i v e l y and
exclusive.
false
also
ways of
opposing
believed
mutually
i s true
be
"functions"
dichotomous
impersonally
logic).
incompatible
a t t i t u d e s to
human p e r s o n a l i t y , h o w e v e r , and
represent
logically
opposed
the
two
dichotomies
intuition
thinking
these
whether
its relative
(25)
importance
( f e e l i n g ) must be postponed.
ascertaining
facts
possibilities)
( s e n s a t i o n ) , then i n t u i t i o n
will
produce i n a c c u r a c i e s .
ways of being are p o s s i b l e w i t h i n
that
people tend to p r e f e r
t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g .
extraverted
intuitor.
L i k e w i s e , i f a person i s
(consideration
While a l l four
f u n c t i o n s or
an i n d i v u d u a l , Jung hypothesized
either i n t u i t i o n
People could
or s e n s a t i o n
and e i t h e r
then be c h a r a c t e r i z e d
or i n t r o v e r t e d , a t h i n k e r
by types:
or a f e e l e r , a sensor or an
When combined with one a n o t h e r , these p r e f e r e n c e s
provide eight
interaction
d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t y types.
will
Jung emphasized that the
of these d i f f e r e n t p r e f e r e n c e s with one another
provide d i f f e r i n g
of t h e i r
and somewhat p r e d i c t a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y
will
profiles.
Table 2.1. Jung's C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Types.
Extraverted
Sensing
Introverted
Sensing
Extraverted
Intuition
Introverted
Intuition
Extraverted
Thinking
Introverted
Thinking
Extraverted
Feeling
Introverted
Feeling
According t o Jung, i n d i v i d u a l s
over o t h e r s ,
extraversion.
He t h e o r i z e d
secondary f u n c t i o n
dominant f u n c t i o n
the
prefer certain
functions
j u s t as they have a p r e f e r e n c e f o r e i t h e r i n t r o v e r s i o n or
that
one f u n c t i o n
second, or a u x i l i a r y , would have a
the
will
would be dominant and a
co-determining
as supplementing the f i r s t .
was p e r c e p t i v e
( e i t h e r sensing
a u x i l i a r y would be one of judgment
While many people have a f a i r l y
influence.
He saw
That i s , i f the
or i n t u i t i n g ) , then
( e i t h e r t h i n k i n g or f e e l i n g ) .
wel1-developed a u x i l i a r y
function,
(26)
relatively
least
part
few
developed,
of
the
be
the
is
a person
or
conscious
the
"shadow".
opposite
fourth
s
of
a third
theorized
dominant
superior
of
"inferior" function
Jung
the
use
that
function.
function,
then
function.
remains
the
unconscious
inferior
In o t h e r
feeling
The f o u r t h
would
and
function
would
words,
if
be
inferior
the
and
thinking
or
function.
There
test
have
has
Jung's
been
theory
a substantial
of
amount
psychological
of
type.
empirical
research
A summary of
done
these
to
efforts
foilows.
Gray
finding
and
Wheelwright
evidence
marriage.
(sensing
In
and
By
1946
to
identify
of
1945
the
pairing
they
began
of
published
intuition)
they
(1944)
spouses
psychological
studying
scales
sensation/intuition,
In
indivuduals,
were
in
a study
introverted
Eysenck
Jung's
of
dimensions
of
In
study
a later
analysis)
while
dimension
the
that
found
what
he
were
they
(along
in
extraverts
score
low
that
personality
"unidimensionality
are
of
with
high
on t h e s e
the
by
in
irrational
instrument
functions.
designed
found
thinking/feeling.
that
54
percent
extroverted.
considered
Mattoon,
types
feeling)
and
to
be
e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i on as
(cited
however,
of
percent
personality
introverts
convinced,
200
and 46
(1953)
attitude
of
theory
measured
extraver s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i o n ,
1946,
and
self-report
Their
type
opposite
(thinking
a 75-item
type.
of
an a r t i c l e
and r a t i o n a l
had d e v e l o p e d
investigating
on
one
neuroticism
1981),
a confirmation
and
Eysenck
sociability
factors.
while
the
and
evidence
extraversion/introversion
(using
factor
impulvieness,
Carrigan
is
three
psychoticismi.
found
extraversion/introversion
s t a t i n g , t'hat
of
of
(1960)
a
was
has
was
less
basic
accumulating,
not
been
(27)
conclusively
demonstrated"
(p.
Myers provided some ot the
typology by
initial
study
found 55
These
over
constructing
the
(1962b), she
355).
first
empirical
Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r .
used the
percent were e x t r a v e r t e d
MBTI to study 8,561
and
45
percent were
f i n d i n g s were very s i m i l a r to Gray and
15 years e a r l i e r
Since that
initial
and
lent further
s t u d y , the
MBTI has
Bradway
become the
a c c o r d i n g to Jung's typology and
the
significant
dimension were obtained from the
that:
and
1. the
functions
the
are
functions
interact).
introverted.
to Jung's
been
This
support f o r the
themselves
the
validated
both i n s t r u m e n t s .
the
Gray-Wheelwright
the
Significant
are
dichotomous
thinking/feeling
Questionnaire.
s t a b l e over time and
(scores
concluded that
structural properties
on
MBTI to t e s t Jung's hypotheses
a t t i t u d e s were i n t e r a c t i n g
They t h e r e f o r e
theories.
extensively-
to c a t e g o r i e s
(they found moderate s t a b i l i t y ) ; 2. the
and
findings
most p o s i t i v e
has
c o r r e l a t i o n s on
functions
qualitatively
and
s e n s a t i o n / i n t u i t i o n dimension
Ross (1964) used the
a t t i t u d e s and
e a s i l y changed
MBTI.
dimension on
c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained f o r the
Strieker
subjects
then a d m i n i s t e r e d both
Gray-Wheelwright Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and
both instruments and
an
type.
(1964) asked 28 Jungian a n a l y s t s
extraversion/introversion
In
Wheelwright's
credibility
endorsement of Jung's type theory to date and
used to measure p e r s o n a l i t y
evidence f o r Jung s
not
attitudes
were not
bimodal);
(the s c a l e s did
3.
not
their results offered
a t t r i b u t e d to the
and
typology
little
by
Jung.
Gorlow, Simonson, and
in
an
attempt to v e r i f y
Krauss
(1966) used a Q s o r t f a c t o r
Jung's t y p o l o g y .
analysis
They accounted for 46.03
(28)
percent of
the
total
variance
by
corresponded to Jungian types:
i d e n t i f y i n g six f a c t o r s which
1. e x t r a v e r t e d - f e e l i n g ,
t h i n k i n g , type A, 3. e x t r a v e r t e d - t h i n k i n g ,
6.
type B, 5. e x t r a v e r t e d - s e n s i n g ,
f i n d i n g s lend
Ball
and
support to Jungian
percent of
the
introversion
(cited
would be
He
variance
He
These
theory.
Cook
considered
a l l of which were defined
concluded that
f a c t o r but
by
Jung
d i v e r g e n t human b e h a v i o r s by o r g a n i z i n g
them
little
in Mattoon, 1981)
to be
concluded that
investigated
extraversion/
of the
four
six of the eight
intuition
functions.
whether Jung's eight
a sample of v a r i a b l e s from
vs. p e r c e i v i n g
e x t r a v e r t , and
verification
t h e o r e t i c a l l y consistent
Jungian system:
42
i n terms of
the dimensions p o s t u l a t e d
(1970) found support f o r the
evident w i t h i n
introvert
extraverted-intuition.
found six f a c t o r s which accounted f o r
in explaining
conceptually.
the
total
or both.
were useful
Hill
introverted-thinking,
(1967) did a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of extraver s i on / i n t r o v e r s i on
thinking/feeling.
E / I , T/F
4.
2.introverted
types
instruments
with Jungian t y p o l o g y .
f a c t o r s could
be
interpreted
Hill
within
vs. t h i n k i n g , i n t r o v e r s i o n , perceiving
e x t r a v e r t , sensing e x t r a v e r t , f e e l i n g
thinking.
These r e s u l t s o f f e r e d f u r t h e r
limited
support for Jung's t h e o r y .
Steele
correlation
and
Kelly
(cited
between the MBTI and
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . Palmiere
a t t i t u d e and
and
the
TAT
the
Eysenck
(Thematic Apperception T e s t ) .
scores"
p.57)
of fantasy
(both more words and
and
d i f f e r e n c e s in
i n t r o v e r t s using
She
than do
found a high
Personality
(1972) found p r e d i c t a b l e
behavior between e x t r a v e r t s
produce a l a r g e r q u a n t i t y
"fantasy
in Mattoon, 1981,
found that
extraverts.
the MBTI
introverts
Higher
more ideas) were produced
by
(29)
introverted subjects.
Jung t h e o r i z e d that a t t i t u d e type may
foundation.
Two
s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d
between i n t r o v e r t s and
Australian
found
than
study
extraverts.
that of i n t r o v e r t s .
i n 1969
(cited
in Mattoon, 1981)
find
Mattoon
(1981, p.59)
G a l e , Coles and
Blaydon
fraternal
under Eysenck's s u p e r v i s i o n , found
fraternal
twins may
twins
(r=-.331).
Jungian
Levy
identical
between
Mattoon
They found
fraternal
(1981) suggests
different s k i l l s
not
that
i n order to
another.)
that i n t r o v e r t e d
behaviors
thinking
with
types were
e x p r e s s i o n and
(p=<.002) more a c c u r a t e
fictitious
proper
names.
They
that i n t u i t i v e p e r c e p t i v e types were more a c c u r a t e in
interpreting
emotional
e x p r e s s i o n than
s t u d y , they a l s o found
were sensing judging t y p e s .
amoung v o l u n t e e r s f o r s o c i a l
c l e a r l y support
Jung's theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l types and
in which h i s theory can
In
that e x t r a v e r t e d i n t u i t i v e s were
overrepresented
complicated
(cited
(p=<,002) more able to memorize i n t e r i o r i z e d , n e u t r a l
in r e c o g n i z i n g f a c i a l
a final
these
(These r e s e a r c h e r s could
while e x t r a v e r t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a l s o found
that
and
higher
Bleweitt
(1973) examined s e v e r a l s p e c i f i c
type t h e o r y .
significantly
material
tend to develop
themselves from one
C a r l s o n and
an
more a l i k e i n e x t r a v e r s i o n / i n t r o v e r s i on
p o s s i b l e measurement e r r o r .
differentiate
cites
replicated
McLeod and
an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n
twins except
differs
of e x t r a v e r t s to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
in Mattoon, 1981).
twins were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
(r=.499) than
that b r a i n f u n c t i o n
in which Savage measured b r a i n waves using an EES
the alpha amplitude
results
have a b i o l o g i c a l
be u t i l i z e d
service.
These
findings
suggest
to deepen the understanding
personality characteristics.
Devito
ways
of
(1985), in h i s review
(30)
a r t i c l e , pointed
behavioral
Carskadon
out
the need t o r f u r t h e r research
v a l i d a t i o n of t y p o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s .
(1979) found that those who
scored
which addresses
In one
such
as e x t r a v e r t s on
study,
the MBTI
were found to e x h i b i t a v a r i e t y of b e h a v i o r s i n d i c a t i v e of
extraversion
recall
( l e s s p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e , more t a l k a t i v e n e s s , b e t t e r
of other
people's names).
While the above mentioned research
Jung's t h e o r i e s , there
does not
i s c e r t a i n l y enough s u p p o r t i v e
respectable
credibility
imprecision
in d e f i n i n g h i s concepts and
measuring any
c o n c l u s i v e l y support
to h i s c o n s t r u c t s , given
theoretical construct.
used for the purpose f o r which he
evidence to
lend
both Jung's
the d i f f i c u l t y
His typology can
inherent
in
undoubtedly
be
formulated i t :
It i s not the purpose of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l typology
to c l a s s i f y human beings i n t o c a t e g o r i e s . . . I t s
purpose i s r a t h e r to...make a methodical i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of the e m p i r i c a l m a t e r i a l
p o s s i b l e . . . I t i s a c r i t i c a l t o o l f o r the research
worker, who needs d e f i n i t e p o i n t s of view and
g u i d e l i n e s i f he i s to reduce the c h a o t i c p r o f u s i o n
of i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s to any kind of o r d e r .
(1921, p.555)
The
Myers-Briqqs Type I n d i c a t o r
The
Myers-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r
t h i s study.
The
MBTI was
i n t e r p r e t e d p r i m a r i l y by
It was
the r e s u l t of 20
Briggs-Myers and
in
1962
(MBTI)
her
developed out
Isabel
the instrument used i n
of Jung's type theory
Briggs-Myers
mother, K a t h a r i n e C. B r i g g s .
was
as
(Myers & Myers, 1980).
years of c o l l a b o r a t i o n between
(Myers, 1962a) and
personality
(MBTI) was
Isabel
It was
introduced
designed to implement Jung's theory of
type by s o r t i n g people i n t o groups or p e r s o n a l i t y types
(31)
(Devito,
1985).
measuring
Jungian
Psychological
have
It
been
is currently
typology.
Type
The
published
using
the
attitudes
the
*our
(T)
and
of
"attitude"
which
perceptual
(P)
(thinking
or
instrument
are
In
(sensing
f e e l i n g ) when
therefore
possible.
the
eight
JP
index
extraverts
external
four
four
the
separate
dichotomies,
16
(J)
different
2.2
Myers' C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
Psychological Types.
of
The
16
ISFP
INFP
INTP
ESTP
ESFP
ENFP
ENTP
ESTJ
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
the
and
JP
dimension
represents
to
According
reveal
modality
four-letter
ISTP
16
the
dichotomies
INTJ
to
or
environment.
INFJ
of
as
thinking
prefers
judging
external
well
dimension
a person
the
(Jung,
(N),
ISFJ
i s designed
individual.
a fourth
intuiting)
or
which
( I ) , as
(S), intuition
or
of
Jungian
introversion
i n d i c a t e whether
with
studies
ISTJ
addition
types
original
sensing
dealing
1200
of
SeeTable2.2.
Table
The
the
instrument
purposes.
to
consists
Given
nearly
research
and
used
Applications
a d d i t i o n , M y e r s added
i s designed
mode
(EI,SN,TF,JP).
types
functions:
(F).
for
(E)
for
lists
scaled
e;:traversion
psychological
feeling
MBTI
and
most w i d e l y
Center
(CAPT) c u r r e n t l y
Myers o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d
1923)
the
their
provide
to
type
M y e r s e x p a n d s Jung
elaboration
a guide
theory
dominant
environment, while
an
by
to
as
function
the
of
Jung's
dominant
interpreted
by
when d e a l i n g
introverts reserve
their
s
original
theory.
function
The
of
an
Myers,
with
the
dominant
function
(32)
for
d e a l i n g with
The
JP
scale
auxiliary
prefers
dominant
an
there
by
part
1981,
regarding
Information
CAPT, t h e
of
pp.
frequency
population
under
distributed
percent
even
distributions
been
found
to
administered
exist
the
decision-making
percent
gave
the
to
MBTI
preferring
the
13
rare
within
judging
percent.
to g r a d u a t e
over
(1985)
states
MBTI d a t a
bank
to
fall
specific
vary
expect
of
(cited
69
the
s i x t e e n t h or
types.
Trends
Fange
Such
have
(1961)
found
p e r c e p t i v e types
percent
and
found
89
preferring
that
(P)
i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y ,
in business
and
16
1985).
von
scored
normally
one
the
review
that
upon
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
(J) outnumbered
feeling
were
part
the
indicates
populations,
Cacioppe
however,
results
depending
types
i n each
school
students
(MBTI
Type)
would
and
in his
tests
the
16
is
EI
writings,
functions.
If t h e
and
dominant
adequately
types
dominant
JP
auxiliary
16
The
function
and
the
function
most c o n t r o v e r s i a l
(Myers & M c C a u l l e y ,
types
to
i n Jung's
of
the
for
their
dominant
referring
which
p o p u l a t i o n , one
population
t o use
i s the
1962b).
preference.
c o n s i d e r i n g the
Applications
among
JP
preference
The
Devito
MBTI t o C a n a d i a n
thinking
and
research
from
JP
world.
Jung.
(Myers,
e x t r a v e r t and
the
not
developed
f o r the
are
the
well
of
an
on
theory
investigation.
6.25
on
prefer
outer
dominant
in a given
of
up
world
e x t r a v e r t ' s dominant
Jung's
no
distributions
of
show up
301-302)
gathered
Center
the
simultaneously
is currently
assertions
86
show
the
Myers' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
that
by
i t will
f u n c t i o n s i s not
McCaulley,
function
Introverts
determined
auxiliary
intra-psychic
Since
not
i n d e a l i n g with
The
or
dominant
does
however.
preferences.
of
the
world,
function
therefore
(see
internal
introvert.
outer
introverts,
process
gives
of
the
the
by
1985)
percent
judqing
over
and
perceiving.
91
percent
preferred
scored
as
feelers
as
Myers
intuitive
prefers
frequent
and
both
at
are
(75
rare
ex t r a v e r s i on
higher
have
been
counsellors,
67 p e r c e n t
percent
were
feeling
types
suggest
that
i n the
present
Psychology
graduate
than
would
A further
of
is
i n Chapter
found
Jungian
the
Personality
been
directly
body
of
type
to p r e f e r r e d
studied
the
and
He
that
found
as
opposed
study
the
of
the
70
and
while
introverted
population
U.S.
i n the
numbers a r e
inore
A greater preponderance
counsellors.
(33
to
In
percent
thinking
(which
by
sensing
artists
a sample
sensing)
types.
i s confined
of
and
This
359
of
76
would
to C o u n s e l l i n g
preponderance
of
NF
types
will
chance.
instrument,
dealing
with
i t s scoring,
its validity
and
as
well
as
reliability
Three.
Type
and
by
Learning
correlated
S-N
in task-specific
researchers.
styles.
is a relatively
of
Theory
There
i s r e l e v a n t because
learning
while
that
intuitives
expected
which
effects
students
be
undertaken
theory
among
procrastination
literature
of
s t u d e n t s ) , a higher
literature
Investigating
learning
were
description
a review
maintain
levels.
found
over
fine
thinkers.
sensing), their
educational
also
to
percent
and
professional
intuition
opposed
(1985)
McCaulley
types
intuitives
be f o u n d
investigated
that
found
percent
(1979)
Simon
three
new
different
of
has
i s , however, a
i t correlates
Application
field
situations
of
study.
the
not
growing
personality
MBTI
Eggins
to
(1979)
e d u c a t i o n a l m o d e l s on
their
successes
with
their^personality
types
succeeded
with
a l l three
350
types.
m o d e l s , S-P
and
(34)
N-P
types
were
significantly
N-P
types
remembered
the
least
structure
for
themselves.
significantly
and
They
allowed
structured
method.
highly
structured
model
of
scales
the
of
their
learning
h a v e been
found
that
1974).
allow
1973;
them
McCaulley
courses
learning
Intuitive
types
prefer
goals
same s t u d i e s
found
judging
and
starting
having
academic
and
time
and
too
t o cram
goals
Sachs,
1978)
working
experimental
participating
at
and
on
the
end.
they
d i d not
learning
(Haber,
initiative
types
Sensing
1980;
way
and
letting
types
laboratories
1975).
prefer
outcomes.
and
courses
Levy,
structured
from
These
material
are
more
likely
their
work
pile
to set
planning
their
Natter
peers
Sensing
prefer
up
1974;
their
1974).
using groups
by
to
modest
& Natter,
& Natter,
1974).
intuitives
&
and
1973).
g o a l s by
situations
McCaulley
the
(McCaulley
McCaulley
i Taylor,
while
the
and
(Carlson
tend
were o b s e r v e d
Kilmann
type
a
took
that
learning
to l e a r n
(McCaulley
learning
with
and
learning
p e r c e p t i v e types
( G r a n t , 1965;
helpful
(Golliday,
self-paced
t r y t o meet t h e s e
find
with
situations
assignments,
in a systematic
mathematics
laboratories
late
concluded
with
Extraverted-feeling types
preferring
while
imposed
relationships
examples
Irey, & McCaulley,
types
way
MBTI.
own
that
when t a u g h t
personality
Thinking
(Smith,
for themselves
Introverts
prefer
orderly
She
betwen
group
their
less
design.
were most s u c c e s s f u l
interact
to p r e f e r
model
to d i s c o v e r
concrete
the
clear
report
provided
& N a t t e r , 1974).
i n an
types
using
with
presented
S-P
found
on
the
significantly
styles
to study
instructional
more w i t h
significantly
have been
preferred
Natter,
which
the
observational s k i l l s .
MBTI d i d
Correlations
The
by
individuals
remembered
highly
advantage
affected
or
as
not
types
interpersonal
(1974)
found
that
(35)
feeling
types
studies
because
individual
time
of
according to
drawing
and
sensation
intuitive
situations
where
perception
of
dislike
appear
Judging
their
(1985)
differences
and
they
nuances
content
like
(math
structured
and
and
and
Perry
do
who
chosen
involved
almost
comprised
of
OX
psychologists
experimental
the
of
style
people
are
types
and
of
that
appear
projects
to
more
assignments
in
literature,
the
t o be
most
between
prefer
learning
where f l e x i b i l i t y
required.
Sensing
i n an
members of
clinical
clinical
were
INFJ's,
group.
See
as
the
(ISTJ
types
t y p e s , on
the
organized,
and
clearly
other
that
hand,
teach
highly
Table
found
American
to
ISTP
2.3.
only
While
type
24%
comprised
These
of
as
from
INTP t y p e s
p s y c h o l o g i s t sample.
type
Psychological
i n P e r r y ' s study
and
significant
experimental
in personality
population.
this
1985)
opposed
(defined
psychology.
experimental
the
their
in educational situations
significantly
in experimental
37%
with
psychologists
differed
group
t o work
body
stating
i n Myers & M c C a u l l e y ,
Association
Clinical
their
way.
between
had
get
growing
Intuitive
training).
i n type
practioners)
this
science especially)
(1975, c i t e d
prefer
found
and
with
1974).
in behavior
rigorous
were
s u m m a r i z e by
better
they
schedules
types.
differences
careers.
and
types
in learning
work
human r e l a t i o n s
to
life
c o n c l u s i o n s from
McCaulley
significant
to report i n t e r f e r e n c e
their.social
( M c C a u l l e y fc N a t t e r ,
In
Myers
more l i k e l y
assignments.
efficiently
on
are
the
37. of
those
made
same
up
types
clinical
the
(36)
Table
Clinical
2.3
F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n s of T y p e s among
C l i n i c a l and E x p e r i m e n t a l
Psychologists
Source:
I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among S e l e c t e d
P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s of P s y c h o l o g i s t s
and
T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n by H.tf.
P e r r y . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . N o t r e Dame
University,
1974.
Psycholoo.ists
Experimental
Psychologists
E
567.
437.
I
44'/.
56%
S
47.
337.
N
96/i
667.
T
247.
67X
F
767.
337,
J
567.
577.
P
447.
43X
This
who
choose
research
TF
study
to
identifies
practice
i t .
personality
psychology
as
Especially significant
dimensions.
Nearly
a l l of
significantly
larger
S.
proportion
A greater
experimental
group
the
proportion
of
while
differences
opposed
to
are
differences
the
clinicians
of
those
scored
experimental
thinking
there
type
types
who
between
choose
on
N while
the
were more f e e l e r s
in
in
the
to
SN
and
a
psychologists
were f o u n d
those
scored
the
clinical
group.
Clearly,
self-directed
with
others
i t appears
learning
(E)
scientifically
in
(I)
order
oriented
that
to
certain
while
learn
projects
types
others
of
require
individuals will
frequent
interaction
s u c c e s s f u l l y . • Mathematical
will
appeal
to
S
and
prefer
T types
and
while
N
and
F types
sciences
a r e more c o m f o r t a b l e
and more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
better
at o r g a n i z i n g
likely
t o be l e s s
possibilities.
type
Obviously,
differences
patterns
worthy
Jungian
Typology
There
the
have
less
their
thesis
personality
there
have
factors
that
exist.
these
data
as w e l l
as s u g g e s t
types
types
appear
tend
and open
demonstrate
procrastination
specifically
those
who
t o be
t o be more
t o new
t h e c o m p l e x i t y of
possible
comparing
t r e n d s and
to date
of p e r s o n a l i t y
What f o l l o w s
which
which
those
who
between
simply
Jungian
procrastination
i f they
differ
out
on
on
earlier,
i n v e s t i g a t e the
on t h e t h e s i s
t h e o r y , however,
(both
in task-specific situations)
i s a summary
t y p e , much
procrastinate
of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
issues).
investigate
and p e r s o n a l i t y
do n o t t o d e t e r m i n e
i n t h e phenomenon
and a l s o
to date
F u r t h e r m o r e , as was p o i n t e d
no s t u d i e s
a relationship
behavior
perceptive
few, i f any, s t u d i e s
dimensions.
involved
Judging
exact
Procrastination
between
with
been
(regardless
of
been
any r e s e a r c h
the l e s s
futureresearch.
and
relationship
while
with
and more s p o n t a n e o u s
in learning
of
the a r t s .
themselves
efficient
in dealing
as a h a b i t u a l
suggests
mode
and p e r s o n a l i t y
of t h e l i t e r a t u r e
pertaining
may-
to t h i s
argument.
Regarding
and
McCaulley
perception
"Extremes
diffusion,
procrastination
(1985) t h e o r i z e
with
a deficit
that
type
mode o f b e h a v i o r ,
"procrastination
of judgment"
i n the perceptual
drifting,
as a h a b i t u a l
may
procrastination
(p.14)
show
problems
and c o n f u s i o n
comes
from
and b e l i e v e
related
over
Myers
that
to
d i r e c t i o n " (p.
70).
is
Given
Jungian
appropriate
observe
decide
that
on
the
observing
rapidly
"who
more
p.22).
oriented
to
for
more
perceptive
also
These
to
types
they
prone
They
will
process
to
tend
thinking
with
be
a high
tends
been
to
made
likely
report
while
to
their
likely
work
judging
schedules
support
pile
types
to
that
the
provide
perceptive
These
due
to
grounding
and
their
score
be
perceivers
work
more
their
in
poor
reality
will
process
their
too
study-
late
the
on
that
due
to
the
way
especially
that
sensation
in
end.
NFP
toward
a deficit
on
time.
orientation
either
be
hypothesis.
appear
intuitive-feeling
create
types"
expressing
theorize
types
of
efficiently
in
procrastination
particular
more
people
cram at
asignments
also
move
type
starting
to
(1985)
the
urgency
in
having
to
their
to
of
are
found
report
maintain
that
a perceiving
fact,
to
judging
a sense
M y e r s and M c C a u l l e y ' s
vulnerable
information.
to
tended
M y e r s and M c C a u l l e y
in
making a d e c i s i o n ,
up and
and get
F)
interpretation
to
in
especially
would
are
it
N to
(1985)
maintain
(1973),
lend
lack
options
They c o n c l u d e
procrastination
to
and B a t e s
were more
(T or
typically
an
and M c C a u l l e y
that
In a d d i t i o n ,
In
oriented.
types
S or
longer
types
outcome
their
findings
remain
judging
resistance
are
to
more
letting
found
according
data.
judgers
Irey,
assignments,
has
tend
Keirsey
type
either
function
a conclusion.
open
experience
while
Smith,
decision
utilize
M y e r s and M c C a u l l e y
while
to
to
by M y e r s and M c C a u l l e y ,
a judgment
MBTI
mode,
The j u d g i n g
a pending
need
They
use
P on t h e
over
first
action.
perception
closure
likely
that
then
perceiving
through
interpreted
and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y ,
(1984,
the
or
and
score
as
activity
appropriate
who
choose
until
any
a situation
those
Myers
in
theory
functions,
processing
time.
or
coupled
time
appropri a t e l y .
Summary.
The
above
literature
made r e g a r d i n g
type.
P
First,
procrastination,
i t appears
(perceiving)
procrastinate
while
those
nating
types
than
This
research
scores
on
their
scoring
group
may
would
study
has
suggests
J
thesis
reasonable
will
to
certain
writing
and
predict
that
those
i n d i v i d u a l s who
thesis
until
the
(judging)
will
of
a
be
expected
by
chance.
the
above
deadline
not.
composed
significantly
hypotheses
this
understanding
of
procrastination
the
theory
as
interpreted
by
M y e r s and
her
those
tend
higher
Its
very
findings
as
colleagues.
well
can
be
personalit
with
strong
to
becomes a
since
in
to
area.
Jungian
S e c o n d l y , the
conducted
bution
predictions
be
be
tested
been
that
factor
procrasti-
number
of
little
actual
are
as
a
NFP
contri-
Jungian
(40)
CHAPTER
THREE
METHODOLOGY
This
study
procrastinate
type.
This
procedures
design,
examined
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
on w r i t i n g
chapter
used
a Master's
includes
the hypotheses,
t h e s i s and J u n g i a n
a discussion
in collecting
the tendency to
data,
of t h e sample
instrumentation,
and t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
personality
population,
the research
t o o l s used
f o r data
analysis.
Description
Fifty
of
and S e l e c t i o n o f t h e S a m p l e
subjects
Counselling
Columbia
c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y
Psychology
participated in this
women and 16 were men.
participation
inherent
Masters
in this
in locating
Program
study.
The number
study
enrolled
at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h
T h i r t y - f o u r of t h e s u b j e c t s
of s u b j e c t s
was i n e v i t a b l y
subjects
i n t h e Department
were
eligible for
s m a l l , given
the d i f f i c u l t y
who s u c c e s s f u l l y met t h e e l i g i b i l i t y
criteria.
Names o f a l l s t u d e n t s
were p r o v i d e d
computerized
after
enrolled
by t h e C o u n s e l l i n g
prior
Two l i s t s
beyond
ineligible
the scope
were g e n e r a t e d
individuals
Psychology
who c o m p l e t e d
from
of t h i s
these
their
because
study
names.
theses
from
Department.
t o 1978 and were u n a v a i l a b l e .
1982 were by d e f i n i t i o n
(1988) e x t e n d e d
i n t h e program
[Data
Students
their
were n o t
enrolled
thesis
deadline
(1987)].
One l i s t
within
1978 t o 1982
consisted
two y e a r s
of 59
of c o m p l e t i n g
(41)
their
coursework
composed
of
complete
their
these
two
71
theses
solicited
by
or
could
not
not
or
subject
was
above,
from t h e s e
This
Of
the
be
located,
fit
s/he
group
the
was
longer)
followinq
Procedures
Those
from each
lists.
Appendix
letter
was
to
for
section
group,
not
initially
criteria
and
to
four
up by a phone
either
participate
the
failed
in
through
a random s e l e c t i o n
appropriate
had
25
Used
subjects.
left
in
in
in
materials
Committee)
by
the
An i n s t r u c t i o n
proceed.
the
the
in
This
At t h a t
procedure
point,
procrastinating
was
seven
because
As a
reasons
from the
continued
of
the
pool
moved
follow-
study.
listed
remaining
until
initial
and
16
of
59
the
71
pool.
Data
the
study
were
individually
of
which
were
cleared
(all
had
two
procrastinating
to
three
non-procrastinatinq
Collecting
participating
following
list.
the
the
was
replaced
27
call
were d i s q u a l i f i e d
for
of
randomly
the
solicited,
either
one
were
A contains
followed
respondents
necessary
group)
of
remained
to
in
because
individuals
which
(or
list
Justification
disqualified
were
1.
years
(45
nine
chose
individuals
Ethics
provided
90 individuals
the
directly
names on t h e
each
is
five
procrastinators).
subjects
non-procrastinating
through
the
groups
letter.
later.
did
(potential
ninety
mail
solicitation
they
who had t a k e n
A second
instrumentation.
Initially,
and
non-procrastinators) .
individuals
particular
regarding
weeks
(potential
administered
through
the
U.B.C.
researcher:
sheet
Subjects
(Ap'pendix
were
B) ,
instructed
indicating
to
first
the
sign
manner
the
in
consent
(42)
forms
D)
(Appendix
and t h e n
C),
fill
complete
out
the
2.
A demographic
3.
A MBTI
booklet
4.
A MBTI
computer
5.
The r e s e a r c h e r
results
with
report
them
as
the
MBTI
demographic
per
its
questionnaire
(Appendix
instructions.
questionnaire
answer
scored
well
as
sheet
the
MBTI
immediately
p r o v i d e d them
with
an
and
shared
the
MBTI
form.
All
protect
answer
the
sheets
subjects'
and c o n s e n t
identity
forms
during
were
data
n u m e r i c a l l y coded
to
analysis.
I n s t r u m e n t a t i on
Two
instruments
personality
Type
Indicator
review
of
of
its
and one
was
the
to
measure
measure
scoring,
validity
this
study:
Jungian
the
MBTI
has
personality
considerably
any
been
type,
less
instruments
particular
procrastination.
used
to
determine
and r e l i a b i l i t y
to
measure
The M y e r s - B r i g g s
personality
follows
in
behavior.
widely
accepted
for
use
the
type.
A
discussion
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n on
straight-forward
as
there
existence
As was
which
are
adequately
mentioned
earlier,
very
been
conducted
reliable
measures
(as
yet)
unavailable.
was
pointed
behavioral
delay
it
out
to
are
in
Chapter
measure
to
and
have
procrastination.
of
thesis
few
if
this
little
date
Two, r e s e a r c h e r s
academic
the
currently
measure
has
As
a measure
of
on p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
of
as
measurement
research
use
one
procrastination.
While
is
type
were r e q u i r e d f o r
systematic
valid,
tended
to
Ziesat,
(43)
R o s e n t h a l , and
operationally
measured
in
White
define
be
punctual
a semester
obviously
explained
by
behavioral
levels
of
courses.
and
met
the
procrastinating
a particular
than
has
in d e f i n i n g
problem.
Those
subjective
distress
Solomon fe R o t h b l u m ,
Solomon
well
as
and
Rothblum
self-reports
non-procrastinating
instrument,
which
they
asks
the
a
procrastinate
problem
for
significant
and
them
frequently
on
the
well
as
and
degree
tasks
to
procrastinating
on
There
delay
well
and
be
could
to
Rothblum
included
in
simply
a
report
high
action
(Solomon,
behavioral
a
Scale-Students
scale
the
tended
as
and
(PASS),
degree
on
self-reported
Thus, subjects
tasks
measures
procrastinate;
procrastination
between
1986).
self-report
5=always a p r o b l e m ) .
delay.
these
are
as
procrastinating
(l=never
which
correlations
both
a 5-point
a problem;
behavioral
to
tend
developed
Assessment
on
when
R o t h b l u m , B e s w i c k , fe Mann,
between
They
indicate
specific
as
i t i s not
delayed
included
distinguish
(t=not
positive
procrastination
(1984)
students.
to
assesing
R o t h b l u m , S o l o m o n , fe M u r a k a m i ,
Procrastinative
subjects
procrastinate)
to
1984;
by
Solomon
factor
because
M u r a k a m i , G r e e n b e r g e r , fe R o t h b l u m , 1983;
1984;
completed
requirement.
self-report
procrastinate
as
(1974)
(1967)
d e f i n i t i o n s as
is a crucial
who
Semb
lessons
students
procrastination.
procrastination
to
procrastination.
included
self-report
of
Quinlan
course
other
of
and
studying
W e a v e r , and
number
Blatt
factors
research
minutes
Miller,
operational
that
measurement
counting
of
these
delay
(1984) a r g u e
number
with
More r e c e n t
the
they
problems
behavioral
by
instruction
differentiated
used
procrastination.
procrastination
self-paced
within
(1978)
to
who
delay
the
to
which
5=always
task
They
was
found
measures
of
reported
taking
their
(44)
quizzes
as
validity
well.
of
O t h e r s t u d i e s have
self-reported
procrastination
assignments
has
been
also
tended
procrastination.
validated
in psychology
against
experiments
confirm
the
Self-reported
delay
( R o t h b i u m , B e s w i c k , ?< Mann, 1984)
participation
to
in submitting
and
(Solomon
delay
course
in
& Rothblum,
1934)
as
wel 1 .
For
the
measured
using
completed
and
purposes
both
their
having
been
this
study,
behavioral
theses
simultaneously
never
of
within
delay
two
self-reported
a problem
academic
and
years
procrastination
self-report.
of
f o r them
were
as
P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s , on
the
as
full
longer)
final
who
took
papers
always
or
measure
while
nearly
was
explained
the
was
to
derived
The
discussion
The
to
type
years
the
delay
the
was
the
the
as
factors
serious
or
almost
to
complete
defined
their
as
having
self-report
which
might
illness,
more
have
thorough
(i.e.,
time
self-reported procrastination)
of
the
i n Chapter
i t s scoring, validity
coursework
h a n d , were
information
questionnaire
selection
developed
other
them. T h i s
This salient
demographic
for
for
other
such
and
never
reporting procrastination
out
etc.
thesis
(or
a problem
screen
procedures,
from
of
been
behavioral
rationale
personality
Items and
always
complete
five
simultaneously
utilized
investigative
taken
the
their
who
considered
non-procrastinators.
those
Subjects
completing
procrastination
was
and
(Appendix
MBTI
Two.
for
What
D).
measuring
follows
is a
reliability.
Scoring
MBTI
i s intended
f o r normal
populations
and
i s not
intended
(45)
to
be
It
measures
may
a m e a s u r e of
be
as
strengths).
questions
to
identify
extraversion-introversion
feeling
raw
(TF)
score
direction
the
and
or
preference
scores
of
the
For
e x a m p l e , one
T07
and
Briggs
which
as
preference
as
an
data
preference
represents
strength
of
subtracted
from
the
premise
to
preference
i f the
100
score
that
have
N,
of
very
might
a
The
T,
have
to
the
the
the
on
underlying
the
of
the
reflect
an
underlying
i f the
i s I , N,
score
F or
P
indicate
the
the
the
S,
the
Two
of
scores.
people
E41,
N20,
Myers
letters
strength
of
scores.
J05.
and
of
of
the
Used
This
in
is
a s s e r t s that
between
scales,
generate
strength
scores
four
extraverts
E I , SN,
TF,
and
the
and
JP
is
dichotomy.
necessary
100,
forced
and
preference
for obtaining
i s E,
P.
to
MBTI w h i c h
differences
at
J , and
then
(Wentworth, 1980).
Each
midpoint
uses
thinking-
is applied.
dichotomous
i s considered
(SN),
indicating
data
polarities
MBTI
scoring
preference
by-product
a mechanism
(both
E 1 7 , N 4 0 , T i l and
consider
produce
F,
letter
indicate
instruments.
preferences:
different
have
fundamental
created
Putting
value
will
instance.
research.
I , S,
a number
could
theory
considered
also
may
incidental
with
Myers
and
E N T J ) , and
the
bi-polar
(JP).
made up
instrument
consistent
therefore
are
another
f a s h i o n , the
for
four
types,
a t i e - b r e a k i n g formula
ENTJ
the
(i.e.,
introverts,
the
f o r E,
individual
J l ? while
designed
identify
(EI), sensing-intuiting
preference
preference
this
totals
after
identified
To
some p e r s o n a l i t y
n o n - j u d g m e n t a l 1y
judgment-perception
point
preference
both
like
p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions
viewed
choice
psychopathology
or
continuous
Continuous
i
desirable for
preference
T or
scores
J and
scare
added
scores
are
to
vaiue
the
based
e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on , f o r e x a m p l e , i s a
on
is
(46)
continuous,
opposes
normally
type
agreement
theory
which
at present
dichotomous
in
distributed
research
sees
Devito
(to prevent
statistical
possible
the four
data
were
The
has
types
reaction
been
that
psychological
test.
is
merits
In a d d i t i o n ,
career
functions
t h e most
t o date
literature
Predictive
Carlyn
continuous
large
scores
s a m p l e s and
and t h e d i c h o t o m i e s
Devito
many
of t h i s
and
(1985)
and
study,
reliability
i n h i s review
of t h e c r i t e r i a
of a
he c o n s i d e r s i t u s e f u l f o r
and r e s e a r c h .
The most
i n 1985 ( M y e r s it M c C a u l l e y ) .
of t h e i n s t r u m e n t .
endorsement
1978).
of t h e v a l i d i t y
recent
It
Carlyn
The MBTI
o f J u n g ' s a t t i t u d e s and
(1977)
reviewed
a n y a l y s i s o f t h e MBTI
and r e l i a b i l i t y
the extensive
and c i t e s
numerous
o f t h e MBTI a s i t
typology.
Validity
(1977)
or
statistics is
i t s validity
underpinnings
positive
(6osse,
to Jungian
continuous
on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e v a l i d a t i o n ,
on t h e s t a t i s t i c a l
corroborations
relates
research
and t h e o r e t i c a l
considered
i s no
s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n by
guidance
o f t h e MBTI was p u b l i s h e d
reliability
There
data,
For the purposes
i t satisfies
education, counselling,
extensive
This
ways.
the instrument
because
using
parametric
scores)
t o t h e MBTI r e g a r d i n g
psychologists
cites
because
m i x e d , but g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e .
suggests
manual
tests
continuous
both
suggests
f o r frequency
in counselling.
analyzed
as d i c h o t o m i e s .
(1985)
t h e need
non-parametric
four-letter
them
a s t o t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r e s
to use.
using
p s y c h o l o g i c a l dimension.
found
that
t h e MBTI h a s been
shown
t o have
some
(47)
predictive
potential
Jungian
validity
and s p e c i f i c
analysts
1007. a g r e e m e n t
5355 m e d i c a l
areas:
themselves
and MBTI
students
scores.
indicate
that
year
Ross
GPA
28
There
was
up
with
and t h e t y p e
correspondance
than
findings
later.
studied
They
found
e x p e c t a t i o n s from
(1985) p r e s e n t s
of t y p e
p r e s e n t s many
12 y e a r s
(1977)
further
data
indicated
would
which
by t h e
be e x p e c t e d
relating
type
by
SN and TF t o d i v e r s e
choices.
(1966)
academic
were f o u n d
and
closer
It a l s o
Conary
and
self-ratings
have
M y e r s and D a v i s
t o be c o n s i s t e n t
The c u r r e n t MBTI Manual
vocational
(1964) a s k e d
on E I , SN, and T F .
and f o l l o w e d them
theory.
chance.
Bradway
drop-out
on E I , 687. on SN and 617. on TF between
c h o i c e of s p e c i a l t y
instrument
c h o i c e o f m a j o r , GPA,
curriculum choices.
to c l a s s i f y
self-classification
their
in certain
found
a significant
achievement.
He a l s o
to predominate
(1965)
assessed
and d r o p - o u t
procedure,
they
found
predictive
validity
the a b i l i t y
that
than
concluded
in certain
potential.
relationship
that
between
specific
MBTI
curricula.
Strieker,
o f t h e MBTI
to predict
Using
dichotomous
the contingency
type
did continuous
categories
MBTI
types
types
Schiffman,
freshman
table
had a g r e a t e r
s c o r e s , although
both
were
valid.
Devito
type
(1985) c o n c l u d e s
and a c a d e m i c
and v o c a t i o n a l
counselling,
but l e n d s
instrument.
Acknowledging
instrument
adjunct
to predict
only
that
i f attempting
that
the research
choices i s interesting,
a slight
career
t o a more v a l i d
Inventory)
i n h i s review
evidence
t h e MBTI
of v a l i d i t y
i s not i n t e n d e d
c h o i c e , he s u g g e s t s
instrument
to predict
(the Strong
vocational
using
relating
useful in
to the
t o be an
i t as an
Campbell
c h o i c e or
Interest
interest.
(48)
Construct
Validity
There
h a s been
validity.
of
many
and
studies
are c i t e d
tests.
been
N=152;
correlated
Personality
100,
N=93;
Personality
Self-Description
N=149;
Sixteen
Personality
State-Trait
236,
2 3 8 , 6 5 , 877; R o k e a c h
Kuder
(Opinion,
Occupational
Eysenck
10
instruments
other
Test,
of
Kolb
Control,
Learning
Dogmatism
Study
Scale,
list,
Comrey
Preference
Survey,
Minnesota
F I R O - B , N=
Multiphasic
Inventory,
N=484,
Self-Report
Inventory,
studies
Scales,
N=1351,
N=484, 6 5 8 , 46;
Strong-Campbell
Vocational
which
to education
of V a l u e s ,
N=68) , and i n t e r e s t
and I n t e r e s t
S u r v e y , N=100;
cites
related
Style
Check
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , N=66, 122, 1 4 9 , 4 8 4 ,
I n v e n t o r y , N=60;
Attitude,
also
i n t h e MBTI
I n v e n t o r y , N=52;
N=34, 41; Brown
I n v e n t o r y , N=912, 8 4 3 , 157; H o l l a n d ' s
The manual
scaies
Personality
Type S u r v e y , N=47;
Factor
Interest
N=405).
Personality
MBTI
I n v e n t o r y , N=507, 722; S t e i n
645;
inventories
between
N=1218, 713;
Personality
Questionnaire,
Anxiety
1985), the r e s u l t s
(Adjective
N=225; Omnibus P e r s o n a l i t y
Research
construct
personality
measures
102; E d w a r d s
Jungian
Inventory,
regarding
I n d e x , N = 60;
of
correlations
Inventory,
Maudsley
200, 100, 1228);
Personality
648;
N= 139,
Profile
Questionnaires,
found
personality
Psychological
Scales,
Emotions
which
with
i n the area
( M y e r s fe M c C a u l l e y ,
The v a r i a b l e s
California
N=236;
research
In t h e MBTI Manual
other
have
extensive
Preference
correlate
(Terman's
Inventory, Rotter's
Interest
Inventory,
t h e MBTI
Concept
with
Mastery
Internal-External
Locus
f o r example).
Randomly
choosing
three
of t h e above-mentioned
studies,
one f i n d s
<49)
the
following
Personality
found
correlation
Research
between
and
correlated
with
In
work
intuition
correlated
(.34)
and
g r e a t e r ) were
Correlations
between
designed
to
JP),
moderately
are
.66,
the
measure
p<.01;
p<.05).
S
Five
correlations
with
the
economic
the
theoretical
(with
(.38)
on
and
scale
(.25,
(.22,
scale
the
.50,
.58,
(.28
people
and
scale,
moderate
would
.42
expect
with
at
out
Survey
p<.01;
the
of
T
(1965)
the
E,
from
65
E and
they
These
the
validity
of
with
the
above
direction
the
one
of
the
Allport's
an
interest
therefore
the
the
the
definition
with
of
the
correlated
with
the
a l l manifest
validity
S
with
the
correlations
construct
supported
Given
.23,
Significant
P correlated
a l l i n the
p <. 01;
F
with
E and
While
for
correlated
Values.
S to c o r r e l a t e
since
(except
(E .68,
T correlated
are
MBTI.
MBTI
1351)
(.38).
respectively).
to the
to
scales.
instrument
p<.01; and
T correlated
b e s t , they
of
P.R.I,
F correlated
S and
(.36).
level
25
the
of
I , N and
N and
.01
( N = 4 7 ) , an
.33,
for
judgment
the
as
were
Attitude
significant
scale
.29).
facts.
supporting
Mendelsohn
at
for instance,
working
some e v i d e n c e
&
.45).
in relationship
political
16
ranging
.39).
and
the
Gregariousness
(.31).
with
functions
social
(.26
would
one
.20
a l l six scales.
are
constructs,
.47,
N's
correlations
expect
on
and
statistically
p<.01; N
found
political
scale
(above
same J u n g i a n
and
sensation
(.22)
Type
(.47).
A l l p o r t - V e r n o n - L i n d s e y Study
were
scale
and
found
Jungian
high
.54,
scale
aesthetic
the
studies
MBTI w i t h
religious
the
correlating
(.70), t o l e r a n c e
perception
thinking
a l l , significant correlations
or
a study
extraversion
(.22)
with
In
(N=507), s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s
and
extraversion
significance
I
Inventory
talkativeness
complexity
toward
coefficients.
in
provide
MBTI.
MBTI and
stated
(50)
it
was c a p a b l e
of
variables:
choices,
of b e i n g
ratings
found
that
their
behaviors
found
i n t h e 1962 MBTI
with
when
concluded
personality,
scales
to
develop
not
a measure
Webb
dimensions
content
with
of i t e m s
Jung's
something
(1979)
the
used
MBTI
by M y e r s .
used
than
and s e v e r a l
behavioral
conclusion,
MBTI
linked
with
He a l s o
scores
from a
interest tests).
He
t h e v a r i a b l e s of
than
Their
independence
that
typological
that
item
intent, rather,
that
test
and R o s s
between
(1964)
appear
was
the wind,
dichotomous
contend
t o be
b u t EI and J P may
c o r r e l a t i o n between
Carlson
to v a l i d a t e
and L e v y
Carskadon
measuring
(1973) who
typological
to correlate
that the
measure
by M y e r s .
those
type
consistent
i n d i c a t o r s of e x t r a v e r s i o n .
do a p p e a r
article,
c o r r e l a t e d the
not c l a i m e d
the d e f i n i t i o n s suggested
studies
of t y p e
(Wentworth, 1980, p . 6 7 ) .
definitions,
behavioral
regarding
m a i n t a i n e d , however,
"be t h e s t r a w s
Strieker
(1985) e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y e c h o e s
further
(1966)
and s e v e n
f o r SN and TF s c a l e s
a significant
(1965)
of each
(10 s c a l e s
themselves.
itself"
Grant
the v a l i d i t y
Ross
number
academic
1413 f r e s h m e n
however, have
would
relative
conceptual
other
found
found
from
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s rather
the c o n s t r u c t s
of t h e wind
(1964)
tests
were
and B r i g g s ,
which
measures.
instruments
and i n t e r e s t .
questions
values,
(1977), i n h i s review
support
separately.
scales
surface
Myers
reflects
which
to a large
s i m i l a r to the d e s c r i p t i o n s
Carlyn
15 a b i l i t y
t h e MBTI
reflect
were
of 32 t e s t
ability
differences.
content
considered
inventory,
that
compiled
Manual.
studies
a battery
personality
the
and a t t i t u d e s
numerous
ability,
and p e r f o r m a n c e
summary d e s c r i p t i o n s
preference
MBTI
to r e l a t e meaningfully
personality, interest,
behavior
discusses
able
E on
Devito
recommend
constructs.
i n the expected
In
(51)
directions
with
other
instruments
t h a t ' appear
to
be
tapping
the
same
constructs.
Re I i a b i 1 i t y
Split-half
results
Myers
.88
for
(1962b) r e p o r t e d
.80
junior
high
to
f o r TF
noting
that
and
(between
T and
confused
to
.74
These
for
TF
longer
the
their
lower
to
for
JP.
are
.80
f o r TF
for EI,
She
latest
.76
to
below
.84
to
.83
f o r JP.
to
and
explains
develop
their
of
to.75
how
those
of
better
by
decision-making
to
likely
Strieker
c o l l e g e and
They c o n t e n d e d
.19
the
i s more
.74
for
f o r SN,
clear
potential.
for EI,
.87
to
discrepancy
in
and
to
.71
under-achieving
this
Clarity
samples,
from
.80
for
.59
a f u n c t i o n of
reliabilities
from
to
.86
ranging
reliabilities
.60
operating
.78
to
respectable
c o l l e g e student
preferences.
the
Alpha
In
MBTI y i e l d
high
.80
known
and
school
for
that
to
SN,
.64
these
instruments
scales.
(1970)
studies
stated
Myers
test-retest
samples
that
test-retest
reliability
(1962b) a g r e e d , and
in particular
(1977), Carlyn
published
different
f o r the
reliabilities
.68
scores
be
ranged
and
.81
were c o m p a r a b l e
longitudinal
all
can
MBTI i s weak.
Carskadon
found
to
in people
Mendelsohn
for
.62
F)
SN,
students:
regarding
reliabilities
with
she
(1963) r e p o r t e d
samples.
for
reliability
are
Ross
split-half
.90
school
subjects
be
to
Interestingly,
.57
reported
a p e r s o n a l i t y instrument.
for EI,
JP.
reliabilities
maintained
were n e e d e d . S i n c e
( 1 9 7 7 ) , L e v y , M u r p h y , and
s t u d i e s . McCaulley
whose t e s t - r e . t e " s t
Carlson
(1978)
reliabilities
that
evidence
that
time,
(1972)
summarized
ranged
from
have
six
.75
to
.83
f o r E I , .6? t o .83 f o r SN, .56 t o .78 f o r TF and .64 t o .87 f o r
JP.
The p e r c e n t
these
to
ranged
reporting
from
90 p e r c e n t
four
letters
the
same was f r o m
when
In
as
well
i n type
f o r JP.
Howes
of m a l e s
People
and C a r s k a d o n
weak
reporting
and t h r e e o r a l l f o u r
o c c u r r e d , i t was u s u a l l y
p r e f e r e n c e had been
reliability
f o r SN, 7 3
f o r E I , 70 t o 88 p e r c e n t
60 t o 88 p e r c e n t .
and t h a t
Test-retest
p r e f e r e n c e s i n f o u r of
t h e same was 31 t o 47 p e r c e n t
changes
preference
(Devito,
74 t o 84 p e r c e n t
f o r TF and 66 t o 76 p e r c e n t
all
that
t h e same l e t t e r
only
(1979)
i n one
on t h e o r i g i n a l
on TF a p p e a r s
found
scores.
t o be t h e l e a s t
stable
1985).
summary, t h e g e n e r a l
a s most o t h e r
adequately
consensus
personality
i s that
t h e MBTI p e r f o r m s
instruments.
t h e s t r e n g t h of p e r s o n a l i t y
It appears
dimensions
about
to identify-
that correspond
to
J u n g 's t y p o l o g y .
Research
Design.
Two g r o u p s
writing
(25
their
both
were c o m p a r e d
t h e MBTI
dichotomous
As
between
Judging/Perceiving
suggest
that
those
who
procrastinated
in this
study
in personality
type.
and t h e i r
and c o n t i n u o u s
was d i s c u s s e d
differences
Analysis
(25 s u b j e c t s ) and t h o s e
significantly
administered
and D a t a
of i n d i v i d u a l s
theses
subjects)
differed
Hypotheses
personality
expect
to determine
These
type
i f they
s u b j e c t s were
was d e t e r m i n e d
One and Two, one m i g h t
procrastinators
one would
d i d not p r o c r a s t i n a t e
using
scores.
i n Chapters
dimension
who
while
expect
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s on t h e
of t h e MBTI.
differences
The l i t e r a t u r e
between
these
d i d not
two g r o u p s on
(53)
the
other
were
three
dimensions.
the
following
hypotheses
tested:
1.
There w i l l
and
non-procrastinators
the
MBTI.
be
no d i f f e r e n c e
on t h e
There w i l l
2.
and
As a c o n s e q u e n c e ,
non-procrastinators
be
on
between
the
procrastinators
Extraversion/Introversion
no d i f f e r e n c e
the
between
the
Sensation/Intuition
continuum
of
procrastinators
continuum
of
the
MBTI.
3.
and
There w i l l
non-procrastinators
4.
Perception
on
no d i f f e r e n c e
the
end
of
the
who
continuum
will
tend
four
continuous
hypotheses
scores
conventionally
sciences.
of
to
will
tend
to
the
MBTI
than
score
In
of
the
accepted
this
were
MBTI.
.05
design,
tested
closer
score
to
level
of
procrastinators
of
closer
the
to
the
non-
the
Judging
the
T F , and JP d i m e n s i o n s
SN,
5.
independent
There w i l l
in
the
procrastinating
It
was
suggested
types
might
hypothesis
analysis
two
to
was
in
be
group
variables.
of
found
tested
by
The c h i
in
than
the
using
the
the
and
in
the
MBTI.
the
end
of
at
for
the
the
the
social
non-procrastinators
higher
variables
number
of
were
NFP t y p e s
non-procrastinating
a higher
procrastinating
dichotomous
analysis
and
MBTI.
Two t h a t
distribution
square
set
The d e p e n d e n t
a significantly
C h a p t e r s One and
investigate
groups.
be
a t-test
significance
procrastinators
the
EI,
using
P r o b a b i l i t y was
represented
the
the
continuum.
These
NFP
between
T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g continuum
The p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
procrastinators
the
be
group.
scores
of
was
also
proportion
of
This
and a c h i
personality
group.
square
types
utilized
to
within
explore
(54)
the
d i s t r i b u t i o n of t y p e s
differences
to
date,
might
exist
within
which
t h e two
have
not
groups
been
to determine
p r e d i c t e d by
the
i f other
research
(55)
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The
results
sections:
demographic
distribution
Demographic
Fifty
subjects
either
data,
subjects
results
i n the f o l l o w i n g
of h y p o t h e s e s , and t y p e
participated in this
and 16 were
c u r r e n t l y or f o r m e r l y
These
are discussed
Data
Masters
were a d m i t t e d
Program
enrolled
T h i r t y - f o u r of t h e
A l l were g r a d u a t e
i n t h e Department
at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h
t o t h e program
subjects
men.
study.
between
were r a n d o m l y
the years
solicited
their
non-procrastinating
were p r o v i d e d
by t h e D e p a r t m e n t
the
90 s u b j e c t s
who were
not
be l o c a t e d .
not
f i t the necessary
Nine
non-procrastinating
directly
chose
eliminated
initially
i n steps
respondents
criteria
not t o p a r t i c i p a t e
f o r t h e above
reasons,
(N=59).
either
f r o m two
These
Psychology.
27 had moved
were d i s q u a l i f i e d
g r o u p , and f o u r
Columia. A l l
by m a i l
of C o u n s e l l i n g
for either
of C o u n s e l l i n g
(N=71), and one
counterparts
solicited,
students
1978 and 1982.
one c o n s i s t i n g o f p o t e n t i a l p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
comprising
lists
study
data.
were women
Psychology
lists:
of t h i s
Of
and c o u l d
because
they d i d
t h e p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g or
failed
i n the study.
additional
to follow
t h r o u g h or
As s u b j e c t s
subjects
were
were
selected
(56)
randomly
When
from
a total
remained
in
the
number
the
males.
group
50
The
mean number
5.88
and
29
individuals
of
taking
of
involved
because
procrastinating.
from
years
they
(One
to
did
procrastinating.
Five
of
the
eliminated
While
or
eligibility
complete
their
report
always
2
and
subjects
Of
16
the
of
took
self-rated
none r e p o r t e d
were
always
(N=25) c o n s i s t e d
years
taken
to
failed
report
five
the
individuals
remaining
and
14
the
always
were no
to
ranged
25
reported
write
from
in
never
as
never
or
reported
nearly
always
procrastinating.
of
the
8 males
thesis
study
i n d i v i d u a l s , 11
and
in
2
i7
this
years.
were
almost
self-reported
never
9
9 months t o
the
almost
reported
subjects,
group
involved
they
25
and
themselves
initially
there
nearly
5 years
remaining
subjects
nearly
or
four
self-reported
years
(SD=.497) and
none of
theses,
the
criteria
and
Of
always
f i t the
this
Of
6
procrastinating.
as
(S.D.=.971).
8
within
took
These
Significantly,
8 years
who
thesis
and
to
study
the
females
5 years
years
procrastinating
17
write
Significantly,
because
of
1 subject
procrastinating.
never
the
sel f-reported
mean number
30
in
to
not
non-procrastinating
1.474
remained
59
and
procrastinating
was
initial
8 years
procrastinating).
group
16
subjects.
took
sometimes
The
and
the
25
individual
procrastinating;
females.
pool
of
had
taken
this
sometimes
The
group
(N=25) c o n s i s t e d
years
in
procrastinating;
always
each
a c h i e v e d , seven
group
ranged
five-plus
eliminated
was
until
pool.
procrastinating
was
never
of
pool
non-procrastinating
procrastinating
The
remaining
never
sometimes
reported
almost
procrastinating.
non-procrastinators
self-rated
themselves
procrastinating.
reliability
nor
validity
studies
done on
the
(57)
measure
of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
combining
self-report
measure.
Using
this
study
with
for this
behavioral
the Pearson
did in fact
self-reported
used
product
find
study,
delay
i t was assumed
would
be an a d e q u a t e
moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ,
a significant positive
procrastination
that
and t i m e
taken
correlation
to write
between
t h e t h e s i s . (r=
.7725, p<.05).
Table
4.1 b e l o w
procrastination
v i s u a l l y represents
of b o t h
the s e l f - r e p o r t e d
groups.
T a b l e 4.1
S e l f - R e p o r t e d P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of t h e
P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g G r o u p s
Procrastinating
Never
Almost
Never
Group
Nearly
Somet imes
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
n o . of y r s . t o
write
Non-Procrastinating
Never
Almost
Never
Sometimes
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
XXX
XXXX
X
X=
1 subject
Mean n o . o f y r s .
differences
XXXX
XXXX
X
1 subject
Mean
A chi-square
Always
Always
X
X=
(N=29)
analysis
between
non-procrastinators.
gender
thesis:
Group
was p e r f o r m e d
existed
(N=30)
N
Near
e a r l1y
y
Always
to write
thesis:
were
Always
1.474
to determine
between
No d i f f e r e n c e s
5.88
i f any
procrastinators
found
[Jt^llls
and
0)] indicating
(58)
that
gender
analysis
the
was n o t a f a c t o r
of gender
MBTI) f o u n d
between
of
t h e MBTI
females
on t h e f o u r
study
toward
the
findings
Results
p=
scale
Ct(48)=
(feeling)
types
p= . 2 8 ] .
the continuous
existed
between
score;
m a l e s and
scale
Ct<48)=
- 1 . 5 7 , p =. 1 2 3 ] .
This
indicates
while
that
(MyersSt
lends
This
McCaulley,
further
Significant
index
tended
i n the
to score
i s consistent
1985)
validity
Ct(48)=
- . 5 8 , p = .5651; o r
t h e males
the females
end of t h e c o n t i n u u m .
researchers
scale
on t h e T h i n k i n g / F e e l i n g
T (thinking)
and c o n s e q u e n t l y
with
who u s e t h i s
t o t h e MBTI.
of H y p o t h e s e s
A t-test
(two t a i l e d )
t h e MBTI t o t e s t
1.
There
will
non-procrastinators
MBTI.
using
s c o r e s on
( E I , SN, T F , J P ) . No s i g n i f i c a n t
.0121.
to score
by o t h e r
instrument
i f differences
the Sensation/1 n t u i t i o n
-2. 74,
F
dichotomous
C7C**"<11)=13. 16,
as w e l l
h o w e v e r , were f o u n d
tended
(using
A chi-square
on t h e E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n
Judging/Perceiving
Ct (21.34)=
type
was c a l c u l a t e d
indices
were f o u n d
differences,
of
groups
(two-tailed)
- 0 . 2 8 , p =.78 ] ;
t h e two g r o u p s .
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y
to determine
differences
the
and p e r s o n a l i t y
t h e two g e n d e r
A t-test
between
This
rejected.
was p e r f o r m e d
the following
using
the continuous
hypotheses:
be no d i f f e r e n c e
between
the procrastinators
on t h e E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n
hypothesis
scores
was a c c e p t e d
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
and t h e n u l l
was f o u n d
continuum
hypothesis
between t h e
and
of t h e
was n o t
(59)
procrastinating
and
Et(48)=
.5863.
.55,
2.
p=
will
be
no
non-procrastinators
on
the
This
accepted
No
There
non-procrastinating
hypothesis
significant
dimension
3.
was
d i f f e r e n c e between
p=
be
no
non-procrastinators
on
the
This
accepted
hypothesis
was
d i f f e r e n c e s between
Ct(48)=
1.18,
4.
p=
The
Perceiving
the
of
the
continuum.
differences
on
the
P and
and
the
were
null
found
procrastinators
hypothesis
between
d i f f e r e n c e between
Thinking/Feeling
and
two
the
null
the
of
was
two
the
the
not
and
MBTI.
rejected.
groups
on
this
procrastinators
continuum
hypothesis
g r o u p s were
p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group
end
the
dimension
found
of
was
on
this
and
the
MBTI.
not
rejected.
dimension
.245].
non-procrastinating
of
the
this
.133].
will
No
There
1 . 53,
on
S e n s a t i o n / I n t u i t i o n continuum
d i f f e r e n c e s were
Ct(48)=
group
continuum
group
This
who
will
of
the
will
found
between
Judging/Perceiving
non-procrastinators
was
to
score
MBTI t h a n
tend
hypothesis
tend
to
score
with
tending
near
accepted.
the
Judging
score
J
end
Significant
non-procrastinators
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s tending
to
the
the
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and
index
c l o s e r to
[t(46.86)=
2.79,
to
score
p=
.0.08).
A chi-square
determine
5.
the
the
There
a n a l y s i s using
final
will
It
would
be
was
accepted
be
a significantly
on
than
[t !l)=
predicted
found
scores
was
conducted
to
hypothesis:
p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group
Hypothesis
dichotomous
the
l
i n the
9.82,
in hypotheses
EI,
SN,
and
TF
higher
number
of
NFP
non-procrastinating
p=
.0017].
1,
2,
and
3 that
s c a l e s between
no
the
types
in
group.
differences
two
groups.
(60)
Differences
conducted
the
were p r e d i c t e d ,
confirmed
result
Table
of
the
4.2
a l l four
first
t-test
four
Group
EI
hypotheses
Groups
Number
of
on
T a b l e 4.2
Non-Procrast.
25
101.48
Procrast.
25
129.88
Non-Procrast.
25
120.92
Procrast.
25
108.12
Non-Procrast.
25
102.44
Procrast.
25
112.36
Non-Procrast.
25
91.16
which
non-procrastinating
groups
to
differences
determine
groups
was
i f the
significant.
2 2 . 5 3 , p=
.02,
carefully
given
although
the
small
More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
might
tend
compared
p_
0.586
no
1.50
0.133
no
1.18
0.245
no
0.008
yes
the
procrastinating
earlier
to p r o c r a s t i n a t e
size
was
this
was
and
conducted
these
two
f o u n d : y*- (11) =
must be
made
involved.
r e s e a r c h had
more t h a n
from
type
between
difference
interpretations
sample
d i f f'
0.55
in distribution
A significant
summarizes
and
t value
a c c o r d i n g to p e r s o n a l i t y
any
below
t-test
Dimensions
79
A chi-square analysis
The
tested.
Mean
105.64
JP
index.
Procrastinating
25
TF
JP
Continuous
Procrast.
SN
the
hypotheses.
Comparison
Non-Procrastinating
Var i a b l e
h o w e v e r , on
other
suggested
personality
that
NFP
types.
types
(61)
Hypothesis
would
5 predicted
be f o u n d
suggesting
factor
that
I N F P ' s were
types
the
were
between
a significantly
i n the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
non-procrastinating
differences
that
group.
found
This
between
higher
group than
hypothesis
in
ENFP's and INFP's
index
i n a chi-square
procrastinating
l
analysis,
group than
[Tf (l)=9.82, p= .0017].
compared
significantly
Column
Total
i s not a
with
No
relevant-
a l l the other
more NFP's were
the non-procrastinating
found i n
group
See T a b l e 4 . 3 .
Others
NonProcrasti nators
confirmed.
When ENFP's and
Tab 1e 4.3
C h i - s q u a r e C o m p a r i s o n of NFP's
P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
Procrasti nators
types
i n t h e two g r o u p s
t h e two g r o u p s [JC*"U)=0.0, p = 1 . 0 ] .
and t h e n
of NFP
the
was a l s o
the E x t r a v e r s i o n / I n t r o v e r s i o n
combined, however,
number
between
I&ENFP
N=8
Exp.Val.=14
Row P e t . =327.
C o l . P e t . =28. 6/.
T o t a l Pet.=16%
N=17
Exp.Val.=11
Row P e t . =68'/.
Col.Pet.=77.3"/.
T o t a l Pet.=347.
N=20
Exp.Val.=14
Row P e t . = 8 0 %
C o l . P e t . =71. 47.
T o t a l Pet.=407.
N=5
Exp.Val.=11
Row P e t . =207.
Col.Pet.=22.7%
T o t a l Pet.=107.
28
567.
447.
Raw
Total
507.
25
507.
50
1007.
(62)
Type
Distribution
The
following
graphically
groups
Tables
using
the
PRO GRR
N = J- vJ
N-P GRP
N = 25
PRO GRP
N = 25
N-P GRP
N = 25
(4.4, 4 . 5 ,
distribution
the
T a b l e 4.4
According
Tables
dichotomous
of
4.6
and
personality
scores
of
the
4.7)
type
illustrate
between
ISFJ
N=0
EV = 0
N=0
INFJ
N=l
INTJ
ISTP
I NFP
N=0
N=9
EV = 6
36.0%
75%
18%
N=0
EV=1
0.0%
0.0%
0. 0%
N=3
EV = 6
12.0%
25.0%
6.0%
N=2
EV = 1
8.07.
100%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
EV=2.5
4.0%
2 0 . 0%
2.0%
N=3
EV = 2
12.0%
75.0%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
EV = 0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=0
EV = 0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=l
EV=.5
4.0%
100%
2.0%
N=4
EV=2.5
16.0%
8 0 . 0%
8.0%
N=l
EV = 2
4.0%
25.0%
2.0%
N=0
EV = 0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=0
EV = 0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ESFP
ENFP
N=l
EV=.5
4.0%
100%
2.0%
N=0
EV = 0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=8
EV = 5
32.0%
80.0%
16.0%
N=0
EV=.5
0.0%
0.0%
0. 0%
N=0
EV=0
0.0%
0.0%
0. 07.
N=2
EV = 5
8.0%
20.0%
4.0%
N=0
EV = 0
Compared
ISFP
EV=.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ESTP
Value
based
on
given
INTP
ENTP
ESTJ
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
N=l
2.0%
N=0
EV=1.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=l
EV=.5
4.0%
1007.
2.0%
N=l
EV=2.5
4.0%
20. 0%
20.0%
N=0
EV=1.5
0.0 %
0. 0%
0.0%
N=2
EV=1.5
8.0%
66.7%
4.0%
N=3
EV=1.5
12.0%
100%
6.0%
N=0
EV=.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N=4
EV=2.5
16.0%
8 0 . 0%
S.0%
N=3
EV=1.5
12.0%
1007.
6.0%
EV=1.5
4.0%
PRO GRP= P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group
N-P GRP= N o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g Group
N= Number
EV= E x p e c t e d
Row %
Column %
Total %
two
MBTI.
P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
t o D i s t r i b u t i o n by T y p e .
ISTJ
the
distribution
of
the
data
(63)
Table
4.5
C o m p a r i s o n of
Procrastinators
(N=25)
and
N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s (N=25) a c c o r d i n g t o
P e r s o n a l i t y Type.
(X= P r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ;
Procrastinators)
Jungian
0= N o n -
Number
10
X
9
7
X
X
X
X
6
x
5
X
X
X
8
X
4
0
0
0
3
^
1
0
o
0
X 0
X 0
ISFJ
ISTJ
V
A
0
0
0
X 0
X 0
X
X
X
X
X 0
X 0
X 0
INFJ
X 0
INTJ
X 0
ISTP
X 0
ISFP
X
X 0
X 0
X 0
X 0
X 0
X 0
X o
INFP
0
0
0
0
X 0
INTP
10
9
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
6
5
4
0
0
T
.J
X
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
X
X
0
0
0
0
0
X 0
ESTP
X
X 0
X 0
X o
X 0
X o
ENFP
X
0
ESFP
0
0
X 0
X 0
X 0
ENTP
0
0
X 0
ESTJ
X 0
X 0
X 0
ESFJ
X 0
X 0
X 0
ENFJ
0
X 0
ENTJ
(64)
Table
4.6
Myers-Briggs
[P=
Type
Table
Procrastinating
Group
(N=25);
SENSATION
WITH THINKING
x=
Distribution
Group
17. of
(N=25);
total
TYPES
of
Sample
Population
NP= N o n - P r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
sample
(N=50)l
INTUITIVE
TYPES
WITH F E E L I N G
WITH F E E L I N G
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFJ
INTJ
INTROVERTED
P=0
NP=0
P=0
NP = 1
P=l
JUDGING
P=3
NP=1
x>:
INTROVERTED
PERCEPTIVE
NP = 4
XXXXX
XXXX X
WITH
THINKING
X X X >! X
;•: >: x
ISTP
ISFP
INFP
INTP
P=0
NP = 0
P=0
NP = 0
P=9
NP = 3
P=0
NP=2
XXX XX
XXXX
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
XXXX
EXTRAVERTED
PERCEPTIVE
ESTP
ESFP
ENFP
ENTP
P=l
NP = 0
P=0
NP=0
P=8
NP=2
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
p=i
NP=2
xxxxx
xx
EXTRAVERTED
JUDGING
X
ESTJ
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
P=0
NP-3
P=l
NP=0
P=l
NP = 4
P=0
NP = ;
(65)
T a b l e 4.7
Data from
on E a c h MBTI I n d e x .
Sample P o p u l a t i o n
Total
Index
Regarding
D i s t r i b u t i o n of
Sample(N=50)
Number
Ex t r a v e r t s
Introverts
Percent
26
24
6
44
16
34
Sensors
Intuitors
Thinkers
Feelers
Judgers
527.
48%
127.
887.
327.
687.
447.
22
28
Percei vers
Procrastinating
Index
Group
Number
Extraverts
Introverts
Sensors
Intuitors
Thinkers
Feelers
Judgers
Perceivers
(N=25)
567.
Non-Procrastinating
7. of g r o u p
12
13
2
23
5
20
6
19
.
Type
Number
487.
52%
8%
92%
20%
80%
24%
76%
Group
(N=25)
7. o f g r o u p
14
11
4
21
11
14
16
9
56%
44%
167.
84%
44%
56%
64%
36%
C o n c l u s i on
The
r e s u l t s from
personality
groups.
Judgers
perceivers
types
type
tended
belonged
distribution
this
between
were
study
found
significant
the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
less
likely
to the p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
among
the
non-procrastinating
t o be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
t o be p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s .
was f o u n d
and
differences in
A high
group
while
while the
proportion
a more
non-procrastinators.
o f NFP
normal
(66)
CHAPTER
FIVE
DISCUSSION OF THE R E S U L T S , LIMITATIONS OF THE
AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This
chapter
discusses
the
limitations
Discussion
r e s u l t s of
df
of
contains
the
the
study
two
major
sections.
the
study.
The
and
implications
The
second
for
STUDY,
first
section
future
section
covers
research.
Results
Overview
This
and
study
s major
non-procrastinators
More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
to
procrastinate
type
if
objective
as
measured
differences
theories
by
the
sought
regarding
has
might
McCaulley
from
writing
to
Two
test
involved
(1985) h a v e
i n the
on
one
procrastinators
and
and
be
and
found
those
and
the
Jungian
were c o m p a r e d
specific
Chapters
between
who
did
currently
One
Two)
that
specific
to
that
tendency
determine
those
untested
type.
personality
procrastinate.
procrastinators
index
of
the
who
not.
personality
and
type.
personality
to
Jungian
tendency
hypothesised
non-procrastinators
could
thesis
two
if
in p e r s o n a l i t y
thesis
groups
type
their
(see
determine
r e l a t i o n s h i p between
a Master's
procrastination
suggested
be
the
MBTI.
in writing
study
Literature
factors
on
to
significantly
i t explored
in personality
procrastinated
This
differ
was
Myers
would
MBTI:
and
differ
the
(67)
.iudging-perceiving
perceivers
and
hypothesis
on
individuals
their
the
rely
assumption
decision-making
attitude.
This
by
occur.
perceiving
of
I t was
first
three
study
MBTI's
predicted
indices
i n d i c e s to
that
there
of
specifically
non-
see
if
would
be
no
( e x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on ,
t h i n k i n g - f e e l i n g ) but
would
that
score
procrastinators
J on
the
would
judging-
index.
significant
the
significantly
study
explored
the
distribution
d i f f e r e n c e in c l u s t e r i n g
procrastinators
and
higher
number
NFP
This
p e r s o n a l i t y type
toward
as
of
group
particular
occurred
non-procrastinators.
procrastinating
orientation
the
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and
the
non-procrastinators
Secondly,
a
comparing
a l l four
sensation-intuition,
P and
this
expense
differences
score
They b a s e d
mode at
on
the
the
perceptual
theory
did
judgers.
be
their
on
that
the
to
when
procrastinators
on
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s tending
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n occurs
heavily
or
this
difference
with
non-procrastinators
judgment
addressed
scale
time
opposed
and
to
the
might
might
to
be
to
hypothesised
be
found
have
in
a poorly
vulnerable
see
if
the
that
a
the
non-procrastinating
appears
hence
types
between
I t was
types
of
group.
defined
to
procrastination.
Demographic
The
two
above
groups
groups
Data
of
Regarding
objectives
subjects
were r e l a t i v e l y
graduate
students
and
Sample
were a d d r e s s e d
then
comparing
homogeneous.
enrolled
i n the
by
administering
their
scores.
A l l subjects
Counselling
i n both
Psychology
the
These
MBTI
to
two
groups
were
Department
at
(68)
the
University
females
were
between
the
suggesting
variable
that
of
i t was
those
and
of
to
second
25
subjects
reported
never
of
1.474
and
years
The
who
almost
ranged
of
percentage
preferring
thinking
always
case
indices.
with
or
the
write
found
gender
study.
The
one
factor.
procrastinators,
least
nearly
thesis
defined
the
five
years
always
to
write
procrastinating
this
was
groups
group.
5.88
and
The
ranged
than
Counsellors
more or
findings
less
lend
equal
had
an
group
to
a
(447.).
high
to
the
on
on
the
slighly
There
more
feeling
measured
validity
was
(127.).
(327.) w i t h
be
The
approximately
(527.) and
representation
further
this
(as
distribution is
have
tend
project.
sensors
preferring
which
and
years.
(887.) t h a n
This
years
this
judgers
thinkers
two
for
extraverts
more f e m a l e s
studies
on
two
(567.) t h a n
intuitors
non-procrastinators,
within
combined)
(487.) and
(68%)
as
thesis
months t o
MBTI s a m p l e s ) .
counsellors.
These
of
and
in other
with
in this
procrastinating
perceivers
more f e e l i n g t y p e s
dimensions
at
t h e i r theses
nine
(both
were
of
write
to
from
higher
findings
always
never
introverts
percentage
the
took
the
were
and
regarding
procrastination
as
males
differences
i n d i v i d u a l s made up
to
taken
sample
of
the
defined
completed
much
types
was
of
years.
years
total
number
taken
No
number
variable
group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y
or
mean number
with
them
equal
non-procrastinators
a relevant
Twenty-five
eight
An
group.
i n d i v i d u a l s who
years
The
higher
not
and
self-reported
project.
five
equal
i n each
procrastinators
mean number
were
represented
theses
this
from
Columbia.
group, o p e r a t i o n a l l y
consisted
on
British
differentiating
One
their
of
was
a
There
males
is
almost
consistent
personalitythe
the
N
and
E-I
MBTI as
F
and
well
J-P
as
(69)
credibility
Measuring
to t h i s
Procrastination
Measuring
instrument
measure
to
write
study.
procrastination
to date
of t h i s
which
differentiate
with
taken
the t h e s i s
to write
was
a high
(i.e.,
and
were, t h e r e f o r e ,
they
their
i n the study
Findings
The
clearly
combined time
correlation
taken
i n order
between
procrastination
d i d n o t meet
d i d not c o r r e l a t e
with
out of t h e s t u d y
eligible
reliable
to
non-procrastinators.
individiuals
screened
i s no
time
or
lack
both
time
ensuring
f o r one of t h e two
taken)
that
groups.
of t h e S t u d y
first
differences
indices
would
were
the
positive
self-report
and
procrastination
self-reported
(r= . 7 7 2 5 , p < . 0 5 ) . N i n e
criteria
four
and
from
as t h e r e
as a v a l i d
study, therefore,
the p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
there
those
This
problematic
accepted
self-reported
Significantly,
thereof
somewhat
i s widely
behavior.
the t h e s i s
was
four
hypotheses
between
on
intended
procrastinators
of t h e MBTI.
be f o u n d
were
I t was
to find
i f there
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
hypothesized
the perceiving-judging
index
that
were
on t h e
differences
only.
This
was
conf i rmed.
Hypothesis
between
1:
Result.
procrastinators
introversion
hypothesis
index
i s not
There
i s no s i g n i f i c a n t
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
of t h e MBTI.
rejected.
Hypothesis
on
difference
the
i s accepted
extraversionand t h e n u l l
(70)
Pi s c u 5 5 i o n .
on
this
p a r t i c u l a r dimension,
indicates
that
likely
procrastinate
with
to
M y e r s and
differences
was
neither
not
to
Hypothesis
procrastinators
index
of
the
no
extraverts
than
exist
be
an
two
differences
the
nor
this
as
were
This
it
does
factor
2:
Result.
There i s
and
non-procrastinators
finding
the
index
MBTI
non-procrastinating
groups.
procrastinate
is
that
in
procrastination.
between
of
the
between
Neither
than
the
were
the
intuitors
other
in
this
found
on
nor
sensors
particular
M y e r s and M c C a u l l e y ' s t h e o r y
the
assumption
that
the
involved
Hypothesis
procrastinators
MBTI.
in
3:
sensing-intuitive
were
and
more
study.
with
a factor
the
procrastinating
consistent
to
the
more
consistent
also
evidence
of
is
be
MBTI.
sensation-intuition
finding
to
sensation-intuition
No d i f f e r e n c e s
to
This
suggest
difference
on
compared
Extraverion-introversian
Pi s c u s s i o n .
likely
found.
involved
no
were
appear
not
dimension.
a personality
groups
introverts
other.
McCaulley's theory
should
found
When t h e s e
This
and
dimension
lends
is
not
procrastination.
Result.
There i s
no d i f f e r e n c e
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
Hypothesis
is
accepted
on
the
and t h e
between
thinking-feeling
null
hypothesis
is
index
not
rejected.
Pi s c u s s i o n .
McCaulley's
theory
thinking-feeling
that
this
as
scale
dimension
procrastination
as
Hypothesis
4:
of
it
well.
of
This
No d i f f e r e n c e s
the
MBTI
personality
pertains
Result.
finding
to
between
is
not
thesis
supports
were
the
found
two
a factor
M y e r s and
on
groups
the
suggesting
relating
to
writing.
Procrastinators
will
tend
to
score
toward
(7.1)
the
perceiving
end
of
non-procrastinators
continuum.
confirmed
the
will
Hypothesis
suggesting
types
as
measured
score
toward
the
judging-perceiving
tend
score
i s accepted.
that
by
to
the
judging
no
clearly
With
was
midpoint
set
112.36.
was
91.16.
This
contention
that
individuals
suggesting
The
the
This
between
other
three
these
are
that
to
be
100,
the
clearly
perceivers
procrastinators
the
supports
as
occur
was
perceptive
to
finding.
and
MBTI, t h e r e
was
the
J-P
for
the
procrastinating
continuum.
non-procrastinating
group
M y e r s and
s
McCaulley
more f r e q u e n t l y
opposed
p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s may
the
the
on
groups
mean s c o r e
for
of
of
tended
significant
scales
two
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n may
who
is a
found
mean s c o r e
finding
tend
side
hypothesis
continuum.
the
at
directional
end
of
while
judging
non-procrastinators
a d i f f e r e n c e between
the
group
on
This
the
MBTI w h i l e
d i f f e r e n c e s were
non-procrastintors
toward
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do
Discussion.
While
continuum
to
judgers,
indeed
be
with
thereby
involved
in
procrastination.
Finally,
differences
between
i n the
these
two
the
small
although
test
a chi-square
certainly
number
of
NFP
distribution
groups.
5:
A
the
Result.
types
i n the
non-procrastinating
group.
of
conducted
involved
will
in
this
was
be
is
significant
found,
particular
these
than
accepted.
statistical
findings.
a significantly
p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g group
Hypothesis
determine i f
d i f f e r e n c e was
s i g n i f i c a n c e of
There
to
p e r s o n a l i t y types
significant
sample s i z e
restricts
Hypothesis
a n a l y s i s was
in
higher
the
(72)
Discussion.
suggestion
found
in earlier
procrastination.
types
were c o m p a r e d
significantly
in
the
while
t h e sample
I t does
remaining
types
and E S F P .
mentioned
this
appear
that
there
that
given
such
types
a trend
analysis,
group
of 16
was f o u n d
distributed
than
types,
i n these
t o be NFP
types
i s not c l e a r l y
throughout the
at a l l i n t h e sample:
to a l l these
was a h i g h
percentage
given
( n e a r l y 787. o f t h e s e
non-procrastinators).
their
and ENFJ
I S F J , ESTP
speciality
ISTP,
As h a s been
of i n t u i t i v e
12 t y p e s ,
types
and E S F J
made up 87..
i s S.
I STJ,
types i n
area
447. were
either
were t h e p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s ) and
INTP c o n s i s t e d o f 47., ENTP, E S T J
and INTJ
groups
Of t h e r e m a i n i n g
20% c o n s i s t e d o f INFJ
t h e sample
the p o s s i b i l i t y
of t h e n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
be e x p e c t e d
ENFP
of
t h e NFP
in a chi-square
p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s do t e n d
What i s common
Psychology).
sample.
When
i n the procrastinating
t o be more e v e n l y
(Counselling
another
i s small
were n o t r e p r e s e n t e d
as would
o r INFP
found
NFP t y p e s t o
confirmed.
types
tested the
types.
earlier,
sample
was a l s o
hypothesis
group.
significant
and a p p e a r s
Four
ISFP
size
fifth
linking
a l l the other
the p e r s o n a l i t y type
apparent
other
with
more NFP's were
i s nevertheless
data.
researach
hypothesis
non-procrastinating
While
it
This
This
(807. o f t h e s e
each
were t h e
made up 27. of t h e
and ENTJ
each
c o m p r i s e d 67.
(73)
Limitations
and
Implications for Future
Research
Limitations
The
were
of
25
primary
s u b j e c t s i n each
s u b j e c t s to
This
could
to
be
analyze
this
study
this
when u s i n g
was
i t s sample
is a relatively
an
pronounced
distribution
involved
student
economic
and
to represent
that
set
and
especially
the
graduate
cultural,
extent
was
this
group
considered
individuals
specific
said
of
instrument
when u s i n g
size.
small
like
There
number
the
MBTI.
dichotomous
of
types
where
16
possible
in this
study
were a l l p a r t
types
represented.
The
be
be
limitation
scores
limitation
response
of
population
educational
profile
a small
styles
the
circumstances,
a
(Counselling Psychology).
more t h a n
to
of
of
such
segment of
test
The
a population
society.
instruments
the
study
is limited
i s one
which
is practically
were
To
cannot
the
influenced
by
in i t s
generali zabi1i ty.
Another
conducting
ultimate
limitation
research
reliance
participation
each
group
subjects
small,
from
was
area
differences
and
human
the
been
The
number
not
in personality
be
type
selection
were s t i l l
of
those
exist
free
who
of
located.
i s the
people
for this
a c o n s i d e r a b l e number
could
That
of
random
to c o n t r o l
selected
the
subjects.
willingness
study.
attempt
While
there
the
an
had
participate.
upon
i n the
was
who
with
unavoidable
to
problem
volunteer
of
decline
did decline
individuals
Whether
between
of
their
subjects within
confounding
to
when
aspect,
to
was
who
but
relatively
had
moved
significant
those
who
moved
away
and
(74)
those
who
remained
question
that
Another
instrument
unable
to
remains
limitation pertains
to
the
the
measurement
type
since
measure
completion
of
the
certain
d o e s not
personality
personality
on
this
factors
on
types
two
groups
the
(by
delay),
there
study.
Individuals
from
the
study
self-report
into
can
on
are
who
i f they
the
consideration
be
inherent
may
did
was
upon
to
be
on
have
not
It
discrepancy
delay
also
the
measures
assumed
and
of
from
this
study
Correlation
that
certain
phenomenon
suggests
to
with
the
be
forms
inferred
more v u l n e r a b l e
of
that
certain
procrastination
types.
in
precaution
fact
both
the
indeed
take
to
and
were
this behavior.
unconscious
personality
that
behavioral
self-report
procrastinated
between
ensure
variable differentiating
self-report
self-report
when m e a s u r i n g
behavior
thesis
other
was
specific
to
the
l i m i t a t i o n s regarding
MBTI d o e s not
a considerable
tendency
study
procrastination.
considerable
insisting
one
in
other
thesis
to
a role
be
is a
reliable
accepted
play
project.
took
widely
suggests
thesis
than
This
merely
the
to
and
study
to
appear
a valid
cannot, therefore,
cause
appear
task
on
It
do
do
the
i t cannot
This
Columbia
mode of
confined
generalizes
factors
of
no
procrastination
addition,
t h i s study
procrastination
thesis.
automatically
particular
While
the
procrastination:
In
lack
currently
of
between
British
study.
a habitual
therefore,
causation.
procrastination
as
was,
personality
imply
are
of
procrastination.
It
correlation
type
there
Master's
procrastination.
that
of
compare p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
personality
mainland
this
behavioral
the
lower
by
this behavior.
that
the
unanswered
for
personality
of
within
any
elimiated
Similarly,
motivations,
factors.
what an
in
etc.
Clearly,
individual
there
reports
(75)
and
how
s/he a c t u a l l y
In
this
spite
study
of t h e s e
s findings
relevant
factor
Master's
thesis.
when
Implications
thesis
has
on t h i s
f o r Future
the fact
on t h e i r
personality
factors
Personality
type
that
one-half
nearly
non-completion
interviewing
In
addition,
to
on how
differences
non-completion
within
that
clear
i s indeed
-from
a
on w r i t i n g
a
more v u l n e r a b l e t o
In a d d i t i o n ,
i t also
may
occur
a perceptual
lends
as a
attitude
appropriate.
Research
very
little
i s wide
open
i n analyzing
final
only
how
simply
certain
students
I f s o , why?
fail
This
on
study
students
certain
on t h i s
involved
A critical
task.
i n the fact
to graduate
incidence
due t o
study
would
be a
of i n t e r e s t .
is little
thesis
that
and n o n - p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
t h i s problem
of t h e i r
graduate
to p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
one f a c t o r
conducted
study.
by s u g g e s t i n g
project.
to t h i s area
has been
for future
project
contribute
final
research
current
statistical
i s i n graduate
i n numbers o f i n d i v i d u a l s
a university?
appear
to u t i l i z e
be more
procrastinators
serious
types
procrastination
of a l l graduate
there
type
to procrastinate
others.
tendency
i s obviously
contribution
available
there
may
of t h e i r
both
than
would
the f i e l d
to s t a l l
valuable
personality
task
that
made a c o n t r i b u t i o n
psychological
i n the tendency
the theory
attitude
writing,
appear
Jungian
of t h e h a b i t u a l
a judging
Given
that
Certain
to support
consequence
l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t does appear
involved
procrastinating
evidence
behaves.
among
who
fail
the d i f f e r e n t
schools.
data
Are
t o g r a d u a t e due
departments
Do u n i v e r s i t i e s d i f f e r
in their
(76)
ability
to
assist
requirement
phenomenon
on
their
time?
and
If
made i n
work
to
this
needs
be
procrastination
been
be
compared
linking
could
will
be
run
be
scores.
1984;
this
with
must
with
administering
and
then
study's
could
then
be
scoring
high
the
judging
(decision-making)
necessary
to
to
Further
validity
research
those
who
do
appear
learn
to
rely
less
judging
their
are
measure
instrument
mode of
behavior
study's
of
has
can
the
replicated,
larger
to
their
or
those
develop
sample
disciipiines)
with
intervention
types
scale
study
their
performance
J-P
findings
longitudinal
a s s i s t NFP
A
more
their
(possibly
is clearly
results.
determine
a deficit
in
perceptual
specific
their
attitude
ways i n
judging
and
which
attitude
more on
could
their
abilities.
Clearly,
is
on
have
to
those
their
several
these
i s needed
to
of
functions.
from
appropriate
entering
end
been
type.
to
to
have
accepted
the
perceptual
representatives
add
a widely
A
implemented
reliable
1 9 8 4 ) , much
procrastination.
findings
comparing
and
contributions
replicate this
MBTI
thesis
this
a valid
a habitual
comparing
this
for
Once an
as
to
St R o t h b l urn,
before
the
occurring?
While
personality
studies
If
on
contribute
Solomon
area
completing
i t from
available.
type
programs
strategies
in
further
by
in
factors
inhibit
procrastination
personality
respective
MBTI
(Grecco,
more r e a d i l y
Finally,
what
procrastination.
done
constructed,
students
i s a s i g n i f i c a n t need
measure
field
to
so,
what f a c t o r s
Secondly, there
instrument
graduate
the
possibilities
s i g n i f i c a n t about
correlation
between
for
future
this studyi-s
that
procrastination
on
research
i t has
begun
completing
are
to
myriad.
find
a Master's
What
a
thesis
(77)
and
personality
future
study
in
type.
this
It has,
area.
there-fore,
justified
the
need
for
(78)
REFERENCES
B a l l , E . B. (1967). A f a c t o r a n a l y t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n
t y p o l o g y of C . 6. J u n g .
Dissertation Abstracts
4277-B.
( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 6 3 - 3 5 2 4 )
of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y
I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 28,
B i g g s , B. E . , & F e l t o n , 6. S. ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
R e d u c i n g t e s t a n x i e t y of
c o l l e g i a t e b l a c k low a c h i e v e r s i n an a c a d e m i c s e t t i n g . The J o u r n a l
of N e g r o E d u c a t i o n . 4 2 , 5 4 - 5 7 .
B l a t t , S. J . , it Q u i n l a n , P . ( 1 9 6 7 ) .
Punctual
s t u d e n t s : A s t u d y of t e m p o r a l p a r a m e t e r s .
P s y c h o l o g y . 31_, 1 6 9 - 1 7 4 .
Bradway, K. ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
Jung's psychological
A n a l y t i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 9, 129-135.
and p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g
J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g
types.
Journal
of
B r i s t o l , M. M . , & S l o a n e , H . N . , J r . ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
E f f e c t s of c o n t i n g e n c y
c o n t r a c t i n g on s t u d y r a t e on t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e .
J o u r n a l of
A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s . 7_, 2 7 1 - 2 8 5 .
B u r k a , J . B. , & Y u e n ,
Psychology Today.
L . M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
Mind
January. 32-34,44.
games p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s
B u r k a , J . B . , & Y u e n , L . M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n :
Whv you do
what t o do a b o u t i t .
R e a d i n g , MA: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y .
C a r l s o n , R. , it L e v y , N . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S t u d i e s of J u n g i a n t y p o l o g y :
I.
Memory,
s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n , and s o c i a l a c t i o n .
Journal
P e r s o n a l i ty . 41. 559-576.
C a r l y n , M. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
An a s s e s s m e n t of t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s Type
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t . 4 1 . 4 6 1 - 4 7 3 .
plav.
it,
of
Indicator.
C a r r i g a n , P. (1960).
E x t r a v e r s i o n - i n t r o v e r s i on as a d i m e n s i o n of
personality: A reappraisal.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 57. 329-360.
Carskadon,
scores
41_,
T . 6. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
Test-retest
r e l i a b i l i t i e s of c o n t i n u o u s
on t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e I n d i c a t o r .
Psychological Reports.
1011-1012.
C a r s k a d o n , T . G. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . B e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t r a v e r t s
i n t r o v e r t s as m e a s u r e d by t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r :
An e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n .
Research in P s y c h o l o g i c a l
T y p e . 2, 7 8 - 8 2 .
and
(79)
C o n a r y , F.
M.
(1966). R e l a t i o n
of
college
freshmen's
psychological
t y p e s t o t h e i r academic t a s k s . P r e s e n t e d at American
G u i d a n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
Cited in
Personnel
and
flyer s - B r i ggs Type I n d i c a t o r : An a n n o t a t e d b i b l i o g r a p h y of
t h e l i t e r a t u r e . V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h
Columbia,
Education C l i n i c .
C o o k , D. A. ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
Is Jung's t y p o l o g y t r u e ?
A t h e o r e t i c a l and
e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y of some a s s u m p t i o n s i m p l i c i t i n a t h e o r y of
p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 1971,
2979-B. U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 70-21,987)
C r e a g e r , J . A. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . P r e d i c t i n g d o c t o r a l a t t a i n m e n t w i t h
o t h e r v a r i a b l e s ( T e c h . Rep. £ 2 5 ) . N a t i o n a l Academy of
R e s e a r c h C o u n c i 1 j_ O f f i c e of S c i e n t i f i c P e r s o n n e l ,
Washington
D.C.
31_,
GRE
and
Sciences
D e v i t o , A. J .
(1985).
R e v i e w of M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r .
V. M i t c h e l l , J r . ( E d . ) , The N i n e t h M e n t a l M e a s u r e m e n t s
Y e a r b o o k : V o l . II ( p p . 1 0 3 0 - 1 0 3 2 ) . U n i v e r s i t y of N e b r a s k a
Press.
In
J.
E g g i n s , J . A. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n s t r u c t u r e i n l e a r n i n g
m a t e r i a l s and t h e p e r s o n a l i t y t y p e of l e a r n e r s .
Unpublished
doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana U n i v e r s i t y .
E l l i s , A., & K n a u s , W. J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
Overcoming
York: I n s t i t u t e f o r R a t i o n a l L i v i n g .
Ely,
procrastination.
New
D. D. , h. H a m p t o n , J . D. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . P r e d i c t i o n of p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n
a
s e l f - p a c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s y s t e m . (ERIC Document
R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 075501)
E y s e n c k , H. J .
Methuen.
(1953).
The
structure
of
human
personality.
in
London:
F r e y , A. H., & B e c k e r , W. C. ( 1 9 5 8 ) .
Some p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s
s u b j e c t s who f a i l t o a p p e a r f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l
appointments.
J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22_(3), 164.
of
G o l l i d a y , J . M. ( 1 9 7 5 ) .
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i v e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h r e e methods of u t i l i z i n g l a b o r a t o r y
activities
i n s e l e c t e d t o p i c s of j u n i o r c o l l e g e m a t h e m a t i c s . D i s s e r t a t i o n
A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 36.(02), 61 1A. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s
No.
75-16,383)
G o r l o w , L . , S i m o n s o n , N. R., & K r a u s s , H. ( 1 9 6 6 ) . An e m p i r i c a l
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e J u n g i a n t y p o l o g y .
B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of
and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 5, 1 0 8 - 1 1 7 .
Social
(80)
G o s s e , J . M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The J u n g i a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s as m e a s u r e d
t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e I n d i c a t o r and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
m a r i t a l adjustment
(Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1979).
Dissertation Abstracts International,
3 9 ( 1 0 - B ) , 5066.
G r a n t , W. H. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . B e h a v i o r of M y e r s - B r i g g s t y p e i n d i c a t o r
(Research R e p o r t ) .
Auburn, Alabama:
Auburn U n i v e r s i t y ,
Counseling Service.
by
types
Student
G r e c c o , P. R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l a s s e s s m e n t of
p r o b l e m a t i c a c a d e m i c p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : D e v e l o p m e n t of a
p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n self-statement inventory (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
C a l i f o r n i a S c h o o l o f P r o f e s s i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1984.) Di s s e r t a t i on
A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 46J2) , 640-B.
G r e e n , L . G. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
procrastination.
636-644.
M i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - c o n t r o l of
J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 29(6) ,
G r a y , H., & W h e e l r i g h t , J . B. ( 1 9 4 4 ) . J u n g ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l
marriage.
S t a n f o r d M e d i c a l B u l l e t i n . 2_, 3 7 - 3 9 .
G r o v e m a n , A. M. , R i c h a r d s , C. S., & C a p l e , R.
s t u d y - s k i l l s counseling versus behavioral
i n t h e t r e a t m e n t of a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e .
41_, 186.
H a b e r , R. A.
typology
Studies.
Hill,
types
and
B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
E f f e c t s of
self-control techniques
Psychological Reports.
(1980). D i f f e r e n t s t r o k e s f o r d i f f e r e n t f o l k s : Jung's
and s t r u c t u r e d e x p e r i e n c e s .
Group and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
5, 1 1 3 - 1 1 9 .
M. B., H i l l , D. A., C h a b o t , A. E . , & B a r r a l l , J . F . ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
A
s u r v e y of c o l l e g e f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
C o l 1eqe
S t u d e n t J o u r n a l . 12. 2 5 6 - 2 6 2 .
Howes, R. J . , i C a r s k a d o n , T. G. ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
Test-retest
reliabilities
f o r M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r as a f u n c t i o n of mood c h a n g e s .
R e s e a r c h i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l T y p e . 2_, 6 7 - 7 2 .
J a c k s o n , B. T., & Van Z o o s t , B. L. ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
Changing
through r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s .
J o u r n a l of
P s y c h o l o g y . 19., 1 9 2 - 1 9 5 .
study behaviors
Counseling
Jung,
Harcourt
C.
6.
(1921).
Psychological
types.
New
York:
Brace.
K e e n a n , J . B., B o n o , S. F., & H u r s h , D. E . ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
Shaping time
management s k i l l s : Two e x a m p l e s i n P S I .
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i z e d
I n s t r u c t i o n . 3_, 4 6 - 4 9 .
(81)
K e i r s e y , D., & B a t e s , M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
Gnosology Books, L t d .
Please
understand
me. D e l M a r , CA:
K i l m a n n , R. H. , & T a y l o r , V. ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
A contingency approach to
laboratory learning: Psychological types versus experimental
norms.
Human R e l a t i o n s . 2 7 ( 9 ) . 8 9 1 - 9 0 9 .
K i r s c h e n b a u m , D. S., & P e r r i , M. G. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
c o m p e t e n c e i n a d u l t s : A r e v i e w of r e c e n t
C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 2 9 . 76-94.
Improving
research.
K n o x , W. J . ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
O b t a i n i n g a Ph.D. i n p s y c h o l o g y .
P s y c h o l o g i s t . 25., 1 0 2 6 - 1 0 3 2 .
academic
J o u r n a l of
Ameri can
L e v y , N., M u r p h y , C., J r . , & C a r l s o n , R. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . P e r s o n a l i t y t y p e s
among N e g r o c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s .
E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l
Measurement, 32, 641-653.
Lu,
P. H. ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
Modification
of p r o c r a s t i n a t i n g b e h a v i o r i n
p e r s o n a l i z e d s y s t e m o f i n s t r u c t i o n ( T h i r d N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on
P e r s o n a l i z e d Systems of I n s t r u c t i o n i n Higher
Education).
W a s h i n g t o n DC. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 125971)
M a t t o o n , M. A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
Macmillan.
Jungian
psychology
in perspective.
New
York:
M c C a u l l e y , M. H. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . A p p l i c a t i o n o f M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r t o
m e d i c i n e and o t h e r h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n s (Monograph I , C o n t r a c t No.
2 3 1 - 7 6 - 0 0 5 1 , H e a l t h R e s o u r c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , DHEW), G a i n s v i l l e ,
F l o r i d a : C e n t e r f o r A p p l i c a t i o n of P s y c h o l o g i c a l T y p e s .
M c C a u l l e y , M. H. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . J u n g ' s t h e o r y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s and t h e
M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r .
In P . M c R e y n o l d s ( E d . ) , A d v a n c e s i n
P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment (294-352).
San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .
M c C a u l l e y , M. H. , «e N a t t e r , F . L. ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
Psychological
(Myers-Briggs) type d i f f e r e n c e s i n education.
In F . L . N a t t e r , ?!
S. A. R o l l i n ( E d s . ) , The G o v e r n o r ' s Task F o r c e on D i s r u p t i v e
Youth: Phase II R e p o r t .
T a l l a h a s s e e , F L : O f f i c e of t h e
G o v e r n o r . [ R e p o r t o u t of p r i n t . T h i s c h a p t e r a v a i l a b l e from C e n t e r
f o r A p p l i c a t i o n s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l T y p e , 6 a i n e s v i l l e , F L . l
McRae, B. C., & S k e l t o n , T. M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C h a n g e s i n s e l f - p e r c e o t i o n as a
r e s u l t o f P h . D. a t t a i n m e n t . U n p u b l i s h e d M a n u s c r i p t , C o u n s e l l i n g
and P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s , D a l h o u s i e U n i v e r s i t y , H a l i f a x , Nova
S c o t i a , Canada.
M e n d e l s o h n , G. A. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . R e v i e w
K. B u r o s ( E d . ) , S i x t h M e n t a l
H i g h l a n d P a r k , N.J.: Gryphon
of M y e r s - B r i g g s Type
Measurement Yearbook
Press.
I n d i c a t o r . In 0 .
(3rd e d . ) .
(82)
M e n d e l s o h n , 6. A. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e I n d i c a t o r . In 0. K. B u r o s
E d . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and r e v i e w s . H i g h l a n d P a r k , N.J.: G r y p h o n
Press.
M i l l e r , L . K., W e a v e r , F . H., & Serab, 6. ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
A,procedure
maintaining student progress in a personalized u n i v e r s i t y
J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s . 7_i 8 7 - 9 1 .
M y e r s , I. B. ( 1 9 6 2 a ) .
I n f e r e n c e s as t o t h e d i c h o t o m o u s
Jung's t y p e s .
A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o o i s t , 17., 364.
M y e r s , I . B. ( 1 9 6 2 b ) .
The M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e
Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Indicator
for
course.
nature
manual.
of
Palo
M y e r s , I . B., & D a v i s , J . A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
R e l a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e
t o t h e i r s p e c i a l t i e s 12 y e a r s l a t e r .
P a p e r p r e s e n t e d at t h e
m e e t i n g of t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , L o s A n g e l o s ,
S e p t e m b e r 1964. [ R e p r i n t e d i n M c C a u l l e y , M. H. The M y e r s
L o n g i t u d i n a l M e d i c a l S t u d y (HRA C o n t r a c t No. 2 3 1 - 7 6 - 0 0 5 1 ,
Monograph 1 1 ) . G a i n e s v i l l e , F L : C e n t e r f o r t h e A p p l i c a t i o n of
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Type.]
M y e r s , I . B. , & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
Manual: A guide to
d e v e l o p m e n t and u s e of t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s T y p e I n d i c a t o r .
A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s .
M y e r s , I . B., & M y e r s , P. B.
Consulting Psychologists
(1980).
Press.
6ifts
differing.
Palo
the
Palo
Alto,
CA:
P a l m i e r e , L. (1972).
I n t r o - e x t r a - v e r s i o n as an o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e
i n f a n t a s y p r o d u c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A n a l y t i c a l P s c y c h o l o g y . 17(2) .
116-131.
P o w e r s , B. E . ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e l o c u s of c o n t r o l
i n n e r - o t h e r d i r e c t e d n e s s of p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s and t h e p e r c e i v e d
o r i g i n of t h e i r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n t r i g g e r i n g c u e s ( D o c t o r a l
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i t e d S t a t e s I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1984).
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45.(10), 3 3 4 3 - B .
and
R i c h a r d s , C. S. ( 1 9 7 5 ) .
B e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of s t u d y i n g t h r o u g h
s t u d y s k i l l s a d v i c e and s e l f - c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s .
J o u r n a l of
C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 22. 431-436.
R i c h a r d s , C. S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
Improving c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' s t u d y b e h a v i o r s
through s e l f - c o n t r o l techniques: A b r i e f review.
Behavioral
C o u n s e l i n g Q u a r t e r l y . 1_, 1 5 9 - 1 7 5 .
R o s a t i , P.
and
A.
(1975).
M e t h o d s . 8.
Procrastinators
17-19.22.
prefer
PSI.
Education
Research
(83)
R o s s , J . ( 1 9 6 6 ) . The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a J u n g i a n p e r s o n a l i t y
i n v e n t o r y and t e s t s of a b i l i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y , and i n t e r e s t .
A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y . 1 8 , 1-17.
R o t h b l u m , E . 0. , B e s w i c k , G. , & Mann, L . ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
Psychological
a n t e c e n d e n t s of s t u d e n t p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .
Unpublished manuscript,
F l i n d e r s U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h A u s t r a l i a , A d e l a i d e , A u s t r a l i a .
R o t h b l u m , E . D., S o l o m o n , L . J . , % M u r a k a m i , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
Affective,
c o g n i t i v e , and b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between h i g h and low
procrastinators.
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 33.(4) ,
387-394.
S a b i n i , J . , it S i l v e r , M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
Moralities
Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
Sachs, L. (1978).
[Entering
State U n i v r e s i t y medical
of e v e r y d a y
life.
R e s o u r c e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e d a t a f o r Ohio
students.]
U n p u b l i s h e d raw d a t a .
S e l l s , L . W. ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
Sex and d i s c i p l i n e d i f f e r e n c e s i n d o c t o r a l
a t t r i t i o n . P r e s e n t e d a t t h e G r a d u a t e A s s e m b l y ' s C o m m i t t e e on t h e
S t a t u s of Women, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y .
Semb, G. , G l i c k , D. M., & S p e n c e r , R. E . ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
Student
withdrawals
and d e l a y e d work p a t t e r n s i n s e l f - p a c e d p s y c h o l o g y c o u r s e s .
T e a c h i n g o f P s y c h o l o g y . 6_, 2 3 - 2 5 .
S h a e f f e r , P. E . ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
s t u d e n t s : A 2-year
14., 4 1 - 4 6 .
Shakespeare,
W.
(1988).
Academic p r o g r e s s of d i s a d v a n t a g e d m i n o r i t y
study.
J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l ,
H a m l e t . New
York:
Bantam
Books.
S i e v e k i n g , N. A., C a m p b e l l , M. L . , R i l e i g h , W. J . , & S a v i t s k y , J .
(1971).
Mass i n t e r v e n t i o n by m a i l f o r an a c a d e m i c i m p e d i m e n t .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 18., 6 0 1 - 6 0 2 .
S i m o n , R. S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
J u n g i a n t y p e s and c r e a t i v i t y o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
fine artists.
Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , United States
University.
S m i t h , A., I r e y , R., & M c C a u l l e y , M. H. ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
Self-paced
i n s t r u c t i o n and c o l l e g e s t u d e n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y .
Engineering
Educat i on.
63. 435-440.
S o l o m o n , L . J . , M u r a k a m i , J . , G r e e n b e r g e r , C., & R o t h b l u m , E . D .
(1983).
D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n h i g h and low p r o c r a s t i n a t o r s a s a
deadline approaches: A q u a l i t a t i v e study.
Unpublished manuscript,
U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont.
(84)
S o l o m o n , L. J . , & R o t h b l u m , E . D. ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
Academic
F r e q u e n c y and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l
correlates.
C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 31 (4) , 5 0 3 - 5 0 9 .
procrastination:
J o u r n a l of
S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1963).
I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s and r e l i a b i l i t y
of t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r s c a l e s .
Psychological
Reports.
12., 2 8 7 - 2 9 3 .
S t r i e k e r , L. J . , & Ross, J . (1964).
An a s s e s s m e n t o f some s t r u c t u r a l
p r o p e r t i e s of t h e J u n g i a n p e r s o n a l i t y t y p o l o g y .
J o u r n a l of
A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 68., 62-71 .
S t r i e k e r , L . J . , S c h i f f m a n , H., & R o s s , J . ( 1 9 6 5 ) .
P r e d i c t i o n of
c o l l e g e p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r .
Educational
and P s y c h o l o g i c a l M e a s u r e m e n t . 2 5 ( 4 ) , 1 0 8 1 - 1 0 9 5 .
von
F a n g e , E . A. ( 1 9 6 1 ) . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e
p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e of e d u c a t i o n a l
personnel.
Unpublished
d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a .
Webb, S. C. ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
An a n a l y s i s
M y e r s - B r i g g s Type I n d i c a t o r .
M e a s u r e m e n t . 24_, 7 6 5 - 7 8 1 .
of t h e s c o r i n g s y s t e m of t h e
Educational
P s y c h o l o g y and
Wedeman, S. C. ( 1 9 B 5 ) .
P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n : An i n q u i r y i n t o i t s e t i o l o g y
and p h e n o m e n o l o g y ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of
P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1985). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s
International,
4 6 ( 5 ) , 1733-B.
W e n t w o r t h , M. T. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l a d j u s t m e n t
and J u n g i a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l t y p e s o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Di s s e r t a t i o n
A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4 J _ ( 9 - A ) , 3 8 9 3 . ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No.
8105629)
Z i e s a t , H. A., R o s e n t h a l , T. L . , & W h i t e , 6. M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
Behavioral
s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t r e a t i n g p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n of s t u d y i n g .
Psychological
R e p o r t s . 42, 59-69.
(85)
(86)
APPENDIX A
LETTER
OF
INITIAL
CONTACT
(88)
APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTION
SHEET
(90)
APPENDIX C
SUBJECT
CONSENT FORM
(92)
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC
QUESTIONNAIRE
(93)
DEMOGRAPHIC
1.
Type of M a s t e r ' s
conferred:
2.
Have you
degree
completed
your
QUESTIONNAIRE
c u r r e n t l y sought or
M.A.
M.Ed,
(please
t h e s i s or
major
month
3.
When d i d you
degree?
begin
your
paper?
I f s o , when?
year
studies
month
4.
already
circle)
f o r the
above
Master's
year
To what d e g r e e w a s / i s p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n a f a c t o r i n t h e l e n g t h
of t i m e i t h a s / i s t a k i n g you t o c o m p l e t e y o u r t h e s i s or major
paper?
(please c i r c l e )
Never
A
Factor
Sometimes
A
Factor
Almost
Never A
Factor
Yes
Do you
mailed
Nearly
Always
A Factor
Always
A
Factor
w i s h t o h a v e a M y e r s - B r i g g s R e p o r t Form
you o n c e t h e s c o r i n g has been c o m p l e t e d ?
No
THIS COMPLETES THE
PARTICIPATION
IN
DEM06RAPHIC
THIS
STUDY.
QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU
FOR
YOUR