Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

87

Academic Procrastination and SelfHandicapping: Gender Differences in Response

to Noncontingent Feedback
Cheryl L. Meyer
Wright State University
The use of academic procrastination as a self-handicapping strategy was
investigated. One hundred and eighty participants completed a solvable
or insolvable form of an intelligence test. Participants were provided
bogus feedback indicating they had either successfully completed the
insolvable form of the test (noncontingent success) or the solvable form
of the test (contingent success), or that they had failed the insolvable
form of the test (noncontingent failure). Participants were then told there
would be a subsequent test and that it either was or was not functional
to procrastinate as it would or would not (respectively) improve their
score if they procrastinated before returning for the actual test. No
evidence for the use of academic procrastination as a self-handicapping
strategy was found. However, there were gender differences related to
functionality instructions and type of feedback.

Theorists and researchers suggested there was a link between procrastination and ego defensive behavior many years ago. Knaus (1973)
postulated that engaging in procrastination was the result of two major
irrational beliefs that the procrastinator embraces: (a) the procrastinator
is inadequate (dispositional); and, (b) the world is too difficult or
demanding (situational). Burka and Yuen (1982, 1983) suggested that,
for the procrastinator, performance equals ability which, in turn, equals
self-worth. Thus, failure at a task indicates corresponding lack of ability
and a low self-worth. Subsequently, the individual develops a fear of
failure because of the emphasis placed on success in defining self-worth.
By procrastinating, the equation becomes one of inequality. Since perAuthor Info: Cheryl Meyer, School of Professional Psychology, Wright State University,
Colonel Glenn Hwy., Dayton, OH 45407; (937) 775-3300; cheryl.meyer@wright.edu.
Authors Notes: The author wishes to thank Dr. Richard Sherman, Dr. Stephen Hinkle and
Dr. Gary Stasser for their assistance, direction and editorial comments regarding this
research. The author is greatly indebted to Debra A. Zendlovitz for her personal and
professional support of this research.
Ferrari, J.R. & Pychyl, T.A. (Eds.). Procrastination: Current Issues and New Directions.
[Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2000, Vol. 15, No. 5, 87102.
2000 Select Press, Corte Madera, CA, 415/209-9838.

88

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

formance has been impaired by time constraints, performance does not

equal ability and therefore does not equal self-worth. Thus, the procrastinator cannot evaluate himself/herself as incompetent. In this way,
procrastination serves an ego defensive function like a self-handicap.
Berglas and Jones (1978) maintained that individuals low in selfcompetence and high in fear of failure regarding their capabilities in a
certain area or on a certain task, utilize self-handicapping strategies
because they experience a type of success depression (Seligman,
1975). These individuals may have succeeded and received rewards for
past performance, yet the rewards may not have revealed critical information regarding the individuals competence, or reward patterns were
capricious and chaotic. Because of these noncontingent strategies, the
individual may believe him/herself to be undeserving of past rewards or
acting under a facade of competence. S/he may believe that his/her
current position was obtained through chance or luck, not skill or ability,
and therefore, cannot be maintained and the charade must eventually end
in failure. The person who has chosen to self-handicap believes successful performance to be out of his/her control and by impeding performance, s/he is at least in control of the impediment.
In fact, there is some support for chronic or trait procrastinators
engaging in self-handicapping. Ferrari (1991) found that female procrastinators were more likely than nonprocrastinators to choose to have a
debilitating noise present while performing a task. Lay, Knish and
Zanatta (1992) found similar patterns of self-handicapping behavior
between trait procrastinators and trait self-handicappers. Lay, Knish and
Zanatta provided high school students with an opportunity to practice for
a test of Progressive Matrices prior to taking the test. In their first study,
students were provided this opportunity during class. They found trait
self-handicappers, but not trait procrastinators, answered fewer practice
questions and reported spending more time on an irrelevant task. However, when students were provided a five-day period to prepare, both
trait procrastinators and trait self-handicappers exhibited dilatory behavior in practicing for the test. When provided enough time to procrastinate, trait procrastinators behaved in a manner similar to trait selfhandicappers.
This interactional effect between trait self-handicapping or procrastination behavior and situational factors, such as evaluation, has received
more recent confirmation. Senecal, Lavoie & Koestner (1997) found that
when confronted with the possibility of an evaluative task, high trait
procrastinators delayed beginning the task and took longer to complete
the task than high trait procrastinators anticipating a nonevaluative task.

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

89

This research suggests that the situational aspects of procrastination

behavior need to be more closely examined.
Although chronic self-handicappers or procrastinators may procrastinate when presented with an evaluative situation, it is unclear whether
creating noncontingent situations can induce self-handicapping or procrastinating among the general population. For example, in academic
settings where students may have a capricious sense of self-worth
regarding their performance, procrastination related to assignments and
preparation for examinations has become a growing concern. Students
who do not otherwise procrastinate may begin to do so when it involves
their academic performance. In the present study, the amount of procrastination exhibited by participants who were provided with noncontingent
success feedback regarding their academic performance was compared
to the amount of procrastination exhibited by participants who were
provided with contingent success feedback regarding their academic
performance. It was expected that participants experiencing noncontingent
success feedback would self-handicap through procrastination more
than participants experiencing contingent success feedback. Gender was
also examined since there are conflicting findings regarding gender and
self-handicapping.
Originally, researchers suggested that there were gender differences
in self-handicapping resulting from the level of ego involvement participants had in experimental tasks (e.g. Berglas & Jones, 1978; Tucker,
Vuchinich & Sobell, 1981; Snyder, Smith, Augelli & Ingram, 1985;
Harris, Snyder, Higgins & Schrag, 1986). According to this view,
intellectually evaluative tasks were traditionally more ego engaging to
men while social evaluative tasks were traditionally more ego engaging
to women (Harris, Snyder, Higgins & Schrag, 1986). Therefore, men
would be more motivated to self-handicap with intellectually evaluative
tasks and women would be more likely to self-handicap with socially
evaluative tasks. However, recent research suggests this may not be the
case (Dietrich, 1996). Dietrich found that when men and women were
provided noncontingent success feedback on general academic ability or
social competence tasks, men self-handicapped more than women on
both tasks.
It was also postulated that perhaps men and women have a proclivity
towards different types of handicaps (Harris et. al., 1986). Leary and
Sheppard (1986) delineated two different types of self-handicaps; behavioral and self-reported handicaps. Behavioral self-handicaps involve
actively choosing to behave in a manner that could be expected to make
success on a task more difficult. Conversely, self-reported handicaps are

90

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

more passive and simply involve verbally claiming that performance has
been impeded by factors beyond the handicappers control.
It was suggested that men choose more behavioral self-handicaps
such as performance inhibiting drugs (Kolditz & Arkin, 1982) and
alcohol consumption (Tucker, Vuchinich & Sobell, 1981), while women
choose more self-reported handicaps such as test anxiety (Smith, Snyder
& Handelsman, 1982; Harris, Snyder, Higgins & Schrag, 1986), physical symptoms (Smith, Snyder & Perkins, 1983) and traumatic life events
(Degree & Snyder, 1985).
Bordini, Tucker, Vuchinich & Rudd (1986) provided some support
for the hypothesis that women tend not to engage in behavioral selfhandicaps. When investigating the use of alcohol consumption as a selfhandicap in women following noncontingent success they did not find a
significant increase in alcohol consumption. They concluded, that women
do not choose the behavioral self-handicaps experimenters have offered
because of the stigma attached with the choices which have been provided (i.e. alcohol or drugs). Stigma may be a plausible explanation
because women have been found to behaviorally self-handicap in subsequent experiments (Ferrari, 1991). In addition, recent research suggests
if both types of handicaps are available, both men and women use selfreported self-handicaps whereas only high self-handicapping men will
use behavioral self-handicaps (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1992).
In the present experiment, situation specific self-handicapping
through the use of procrastination was examined. Participants were
given a warm-up test to prepare them for a subsequent intelligence
test. They were given noncontingent success, contingent success or
noncontingent failure feedback. Participants were asked to schedule an
appointment to return to take the actual intelligence test and were
instructed it was either functional or not functional to delay returning. It
was expected that participants receiving noncontingent success feedback would disregard any functionality instructions and act to the contrary. Contingent success participants were expected to follow functionality instructions and maximize any potential advantage demonstrating
little or no handicapping. The impact of gender on these effects was
examined.
METHOD
Participants
There were 180 participants with an equal number of men and
women in each experimental condition. A total of 201 students participated in the study. Twenty-one sets of data were eliminated from
analysis either due to missing data or by random elimination to obtain

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

91

equal numbers of men and women in each experimental condition.

Participants were recruited from introductory psychology classes at a
large public university located in the Midwest and were provided with
credit for their participation which could be used to fulfill a course
requirement.
Materials
Participants completed a warm-up test similar to those utilized by
Berglas and Jones (1978) and Greenburg (1985). Specifically, all participants initially were instructed to complete a test composed of five
multiple-choice items from each of the following categories: analogies,
spatial relations problems, vocabulary antonyms, and logic games. Items
were selected from dated practice manuals for the Graduate Record
Exam and the Law School Admission Test. There were two forms to the
warm-up test, one containing 16 solvable and 4 insolvable problems
and one containing 16 insolvable and 4 solvable problems. The problems
were rendered insolvable by deleting the correct response and replacing
it with a similar yet incorrect response.
The items were designed to represent a challenge to participants and
be an unfamiliar type of question. In this way, participants could not be
certain of their actual level of performance which is a key factor in
creating noncontingent conditions. Participants in the solvable conditions would be able to discern an answer and find the answer validated
since it appeared as a multiple choice alternative. Conversely, participants in the insolvable condition would discern an answer and not find it
validated since it did not appear as a multiple choice alternative. However, they would be too unfamiliar with the task to be certain they were,
in fact, correct. The group of students who pilot tested the warm-up
test reported they found it to be both challenging and to contain unfamiliar types of questions.
Participants also completed a ten-item Likert-type questionnaire
regarding attributions for their performance on the warm-up test and
predictions for their performance on the upcoming Intellectual Performance Scale (IPS). The questionnaire provided internal and external
explanations for performance which participants could endorse or not
endorse. For example, external items included: the test was too difficult,
the time provided to complete the test was inadequate, or the items were
unclear. Internal items included an item regarding participants motivation and one concerning their typical performance on standardized tests.
On the final two items of the attributions questionnaire students
were to assess how much of their performance was due to external
factors (i.e. distractions, time constraints) and how much was due to
internal factors (intelligence, motivation). The attributional question-

92

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

naire was included to add interpretative information regarding participants behavior and to discern how participants were attributing their
performance on the warm-up test. If participants were attributing their
performance internally, it is more likely that they would utilize an egodefense such as self-handicapping than if participants were attributing
their performance externally. If participants were attributing their performance externally, then there would be no need for an ego defense
such as self-handicapping. The external attribution itself would serve as
an ego defense.
The items assessing performance were included to discern what type
of performance participants anticipated on the IPS and whether anticipated performance was related to amount of procrastination. The items
were derived from items utilized in attributional questionnaires in similar research. There were overlapping measures of externality which
would complement the measure of internality. In this way the questionnaire also served as a check to insure participants were responding
consistently.
Participants were also presented with a rolling calendar on which to
schedule the date and time (hour) for their next appointment to return to
take the IPS. Participants were informed that they were able to schedule
an appointment anytime from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and were to indicate their selection by initialing their time slot or
marking it with an X.
Manipulation checks on the delay instructions and the perceived
validity and nature of the IPS were also included. There were three
questions on the manipulation check which were short answer in form.
Finally, participants completed the Procrastination Assessment ScaleStudents (PASS). Scores on the PASS can range from 12 to 60. Higher
scores represent greater tendencies toward procrastination (Solomon &
Rothblum, 1984). The PASS is multiple choice in format and assesses
the students amount of procrastination and reasons for academic procrastination.
Procedure
Upon arrival, all participants received the same set of initial instructions which provided the rationale for the experiment and information
regarding the Intellectual Performance Scale. Participants were informed they were participating in the first of a two-session experiment in
which they would be working with the Intellectual Performance Scale or
the IPS, a measure of intelligence which had purportedly been found to
be correlated with other measures of intelligence. They were told the test
had been developed by a team of researchers at Harvard University to
represent a shortened form of an intelligence test and the purpose of the

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

93

present study was to collect norms for the test for their university. They
were informed that their performance should be as true a reflection as
possible so in order to familiarize them with the test, a warm-up test
would be completed. The warm-up test was purportedly formatted like
the IPS, although shorter in length. Participants were told they would
complete the actual IPS in the next session and afterward would receive
extensive feedback regarding their intellectual performance and relative
standing among university students.
If participants did not know an answer they were encouraged to use
their best guess and not leave any blanks. Participants were then provided with one of two forms of the warm-up test (solvable vs. insolvable)
and randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: (a)
Noncontingent success, in which they received success feedback (16 out
of 20 correct) even though they had completed an insolvable form of the
test; (b) Noncontingent failure, in which they received failure feedback
(4 out of 20 correct) on an insolvable form of the test; or (c) Contingent
success, in which they received success feedback (16 out of 20 correct)
on a solvable form of the test. Participants within a condition all received
the same score regardless of their actual performance.
Following completion of the warm-up test, participants were
randomly assigned to one of three groups. In group one, participants
completed the attributional questionnaire while the experimenter scored
their tests. After receiving their feedback regarding their performance,
participants were then asked to schedule an appointment to return to take
the IPS. Depending on the condition, at this point participants were
either informed that procrastination was functional and would enhance
performance or were informed that procrastination was not functional
and would hurt performance.
The sequence of events for the second group was identical to the
first group except that these participants completed the attributional
questionnaire immediately after receiving their feedback regarding performance as opposed to before receiving their feedback regarding performance.
The third group also followed the same sequence of events as groups
one and two except that participants completed their attributional questionnaire after receiving feedback regarding their performance and after
scheduling their appointment to return to take the IPS.
No participants were allowed to review the test questions along with
their feedback for obvious reasons. All participants were instructed that
they needed to schedule an appointment to return to take the IPS. They
were told the test would take 45 minutes to complete and could be
administered any time Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. until

94

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

finals week. However, they were told that they could not take the test the
same day as the warm-up test. If participants had been informed that it
was functional to procrastinate the experimenter indicated that research
had found the greater the delay between taking the IPS and the warmup test, the better the score on the IPS. The purported rationale for this
effect was that students apparently found themselves in a mental set from
the warm-up which often impaired performance on the IPS if appointments were scheduled in close proximity. Conversely, participants who
were informed that it was not functional to procrastinate were provided
with a similar bogus set of instructions.
When all the scheduling data had been gathered, all participants
received the manipulation check, followed by the PASS. Participants
were debriefed, informed there was no second part to the study, provided
credit and thanked for their participation.
Design
Ten participants were included in each cell of a 2 (gender) 2
(functional vs. nonfunctional) 3 (timing of the attributional questionnaire) 3 (noncontingent success vs. noncontingent failure vs. contingent success) completely between participants design.
RESULTS
Manipulation Check
Information from the manipulation check indicated all participants
were aware that the IPS was a measure of intelligence and that the IPS
was reportedly correlated with other measures of intelligence. Additionally, every participant understood the functional/nonfunctional instructions for procrastination. Participants in the former condition indicated
that they were aware procrastination would help their performance while
participants in the latter condition indicated that they were aware that
procrastination would hurt their performance.
Amount of Procrastination
The main dependent measure in the study was the amount of
scheduled delay between completing the warm-up test and the scheduled appointment time to return to take the IPS. This was calculated by
the number of business days which elapsed between the two sessions.
The dependent measure was also calculated using actual number of days
and using hours but results were similar so are not reported here.
A main effect for functionality was found for amount of delay,
F(1,144) = 56.65, p < .0001. As predicted, participants who were
informed that it was functional to procrastinate waited a longer number

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

TABLE 1

Group

95

Scheduling Delay in Days as a Function of Functionality

Feedback Gender

Contingent
Success

Feedback
Noncontingent
Success

Noncontingent
Failure

Males
Functional
Nonfunctional

11.47
2.40

21.40
2.70

11.73
4.60

Females
Functional
Nonfunctional

10.87
7.73

9.07
2.80

21.60
3.80

of days (M = 14.36) than participants informed it was not functional to

procrastinate (M = 4.18). This effect was expected to be qualified by the
feedback participants received (see means in Table 1). A three-way
interaction occurred between the functionality, feedback, and gender
variables, F(2,144) = 7.07, p < .001.
Simple feedback functionality interaction analyses on the amount
of scheduled delay were conducted for men and women separately.
Results of the simple interaction tests indicated that there was a significant interaction for both men F(2,72) = 4.48, p < .01, and for women
F(2,72) = 4.83, p < .01. The effects of feedback were significant at the
functional level for men, F(2,36) = 3.62, p < .03 and women F(2,36) =
7.26, p < .002. Feedback effects were also significant at the nonfunctional level for men F(2,36) = 3.89, p < .03 but not for women F(2,36) =
1.18, n.s. Pairwise contrasts indicated that the mean for noncontingent
success men in the functional condition was significantly higher than
that for either contingent success men, F(1,36) = 5.57, p < .05 or
noncontingent failure men F(1,36) = 5.28, p < .05. However, contingent
success and noncontingent failure men did not differ significantly,
F(1,36) = .004, n.s. This finding was complemented by the fact that in the
nonfunctional condition, noncontingent success and contingent success
men delayed significantly less than noncontingent failure men in scheduling their return appointment (F(1,36) = 5.69, p < .05 and F(1,36) =
6.93, p < .05, respectively), but did not differ significantly from each
other, F(1,36) = .06, n.s.
For women, on the other hand, it was the mean for noncontingent
failure participants in the functional condition that was significantly
higher than that for either contingent success women F(1,36) = 8.71, p <

96

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

20
MALES
N

15

Days

10

NC
F





CS

|
Functional

|
Not functional

NCS = Noncontingent success

NCF = Noncontingent failure
CS = Contingent failure

20

Days

15

NC
F

FEMALES

CS

10

NC

|
Functional

FIGURE 1

|
Not functional

Interaction of Functionality Feedback Gender on

Days

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

97

.01, or noncontingent success women F(1,36) = 11.87, p < .01.

Noncontingent success and contingent success women in the functional
condition did not differ significantly, F(1,36) = .25, n.s.
In sum, participants behaved rationally without evidence of selfhandicapping. However, these effects were qualified by gender and
feedback effects. Noncontingent success men and noncontingent failure
women who were told that it was functional to procrastinate maximized
this potential external advantage by delaying significantly longer between tests than other functional men or women, respectively. Correspondingly, noncontingent success and contingent success men who
were told that it was not functional to procrastinate maximized this
potential external advantage by delaying significantly less than men in
the noncontingent failure condition who were told that it was not functional to procrastinate. Although a functionality feedback interaction
was predicted, the predicted trends were opposite to those which were
actually observed.
Attribution Questionnaire
Responses to the attribution questionnaire items were divided into
three categories; those representing internal attributions for performance,
those representing external attributions for performance and those which
were assessments of performance. Assessment items included evaluations of performance and predictions of future performance.
There were no significant main effects for time, gender, or functionality on attributions of internality. However, there was a significant
effect for feedback, F(2,144) = 9.72, p < .0001. The means for the
noncontingent success group and the contingent success group were
identical (M = 3.4). However, the mean for the noncontingent failure
group was significantly higher (M = 4.38) than the mean for either the
noncontingent success or contingent success group, Fs(2,144) = 14.70,
p < .01. Since a lower score represents greater attributions of internality,
noncontingent success and contingent success participants were attributing more of their performance to internal factors than were noncontingent
failure participants.
Responses on the assessment attributional questions yielded a main
effect for gender, F(1,142) = 9.85, p < .0002 and for feedback, F(1,142)
= 85.69, p < .0001. Men rated their performance as being better than did
women (M = 8.02 and M = 7.14, respectively). Noncontingent failure
participants (M = 4.98) rated their performance significantly lower than
did noncontingent success participants (M = 8.45), F(1,142) = 104.74, p
< .01, and contingent success participants (M = 9.22), F(1,142) = 156.33,
p < .01. The noncontingent success participants rated their performance

98

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

as significantly lower than contingent success participants F(1,142) =

5.16, p < .05.
Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students
The PASS was scored according to the criteria developed by Solomon
and Rothblum (1984). Scores on the PASS ranged from 18 to 54 with a
mean of 37.23. Scores on the PASS can range from 12 to 60. A
correlational analysis yielded a nonsignificant correlation between scores
on the PASS and amount of scheduled delay. A cell by cell analysis for
all levels of feedback also revealed no significant correlations between
scores on the PASS and the amount of scheduled delay. Additionally, a
cell by cell analysis of all possible combinations of feedback functionality gender did not produce any significant correlations.
DISCUSSION
Overall, the present results provide little evidence for the use of
academic procrastination as a situational self-handicapping strategy. In
fact, participants demonstrated rational decision-making behavior by
procrastinating when told that it would maximize performance and not
procrastinating when told that it would not maximize performance.
However, one unexpected effect in the present experiment was the
heightened amount of procrastination for women in the noncontingent
failure condition and for men in the noncontingent success condition.
When told it was functional to procrastinate, these two groups maximized this potential advantage the most. It is not surprising that both men
and women self-handicapped. Men and women have used self-reported
handicaps and behavioral self-handicaps in other experiments. What is
interesting is that women self-handicapped in the noncontingent failure
condition and men self-handicapped in the noncontingent success condition.
One explanation for this gender effect is that women are more likely
to attribute their successful performance to luck and their failure to lack
of ability, while a males successful performance is more likely to be
attributed to ability (Hackett & Campbell, 1987; Deaux, 1976). Therefore, a male would have more interest in maximizing success as it would
reflect on his ability more so than a female. On the other hand, women
may be maximizing their advantage when they fail because women tend
to internalize failure feedback (Rhodewalt, Saltzman & Wittmer, 1984).
Women may be attempting to augment failure feedback. Furthermore,
women in the noncontingent success condition may not have maximized
this advantage because of a fear of success (Horner, 1972). As Burka
& Yuen (1982, 1983) and Rorer (1983) suggest, the fear is that the
success will result in the expectation of a continual pattern of successes.

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

99

In fact, fear of success was found to be a gender related construct with the
correlation between fear of success and fear of failure higher for women
than for men (Mulig, 1985). If men and women were behaving this way,
it was indeed self-protective although not self-handicapping.
The amount of procrastination in the present study may have been
affected by the fact that participants did not delay in scheduling their
next appointment. In an investigation into the procrastination of everyday life, Milgram, Sroloff and Rosenbaum (1988) postulated that procrastination is a phenomena that has two faceswhen and how procrastination occurs. When refers to the time a task is actually performed,
while how refers to handling of task scheduling and adherence to said
schedule. Milgram, Sroloff and Rosenbaum suggested these aspects are
separate but correlated and that individuals who schedule promptly and
adhere to their schedule will perform tasks earlier than individuals who
delay in scheduling or postpone a scheduled task.
Given these findings, in future studies, instead of scheduling their
second appointment, a designated location with designated hours could
be set up for participants to report to when returning to complete the
second session of the experiment. This obviously would not be as
economical as the present design but would avoid two confounds. First,
an attenuated procrastination effect due to participants scheduling their
second session immediately after their first session (as evidenced by
Milgram, Sroloff & Rosenbaum, 1988) would be avoided. Second,
participants in the present experiment may have ultimately self-handicapped behaviorally by not returning for the second half of the experiment, but at this point it is impossible to discern whether participants
would have selected this option. If a designated location were utilized,
the experimenter could note the time and date the participant returned,
debrief the participant and administer experimental credit.
This proposed method would also clear up some ambiguity as to
whether procrastination in this study could be classified as a behavioral
self-handicap or an intention for behavior (Leary & Sheppard, 1986). It
could be argued that the present study did not investigate behavioral selfhandicaps at all but rather an intention for behavior since participants did
not, in fact, engage in procrastination but only reported their intentions to
procrastinate (because participants did not have to return for the second
part of the study). Clearly, in this new design, procrastination would now
constitute a behavioral self-handicap.
Another explanation for the present findings may be related to the
purpose of self-handicapping. Berglas and Jones (1978) suggested selfhandicapping is a self-attribution which serves to bolster the individuals
self-esteem. Consequently, an individual should be as likely to self-

100

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

handicap under public or private conditions. Kolditz and Arkin (1982),

however, argued that self-handicapping is a self-presentational strategy
designed to maintain an individuals public image. When Kolditz and
Arkin (1982) replicated Berglas and Jones (1978) study, they found that
there were no differences in drug choice between noncontingent success
and contingent success participants under private conditions. However,
under public conditions, noncontingent success participants chose a
debilitating drug significantly more often than did participants in contingent success conditions. Participants were also most likely to choose a
debilitating drug when they thought the experimenter might have access
to their test score and the experimenter was present for their drug choice.
Ferrari (1992) found for procrastinators, perfect behavior may be motivated by external expectations and not an internal striving for excellence.
If so, procrastinators would be expected to procrastinate under public not
private conditions.
If, in fact, self-handicapping serves an impression management
function, then this experiment may not have fully demonstrated the use
of procrastination as a self-handicapping mechanism for two reasons.
First, the experimenter did not monitor the selection of a second appointment time and, therefore, would not be immediately aware of the selfhandicap. Second, the experimenter, who would be the only public
person to manage an impression for, did not lead participants to believe
that she would administer the IPS the second time. In fact, the instructions said that the test could be administered by anyone in the psychology department. This is important to clarify since recently, MelloGoldner and Wurf (1997) found men were more likely to self-handicap
when a public audience was salient whereas women were more likely to
self-handicap when a private audience was salient.
Another methodological consideration which could clarify future
research results is the concern over actually defining procrastination. It is
not clear how participants defined procrastination in the present investigation. If, for example, participants were told it was not functional to
wait before returning to take the IPS, how long was not functional?
Perhaps a guideline could be established (i.e. 15 days) and then deviation
from the guideline measured. The present method allows for increases in
error due to individual differences in defining procrastination.
In conclusion, procrastination as a self-handicapping strategy may
be an elusive concept which is difficult to operationalize. The present
results suggest several new avenues of research to pursue. Certainly, the

Meyer

ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AND SELF-HANDICAPS

101

role of gender in self-handicapping strategies and procrastination needs

to be clarified. Finally, the role of impression management in these areas
may also need to be determined.
REFERENCES
Berglas, S., & Jones, E.E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in
response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 405417.
Bordini, E.J., Tucker, J.A., Vuchinich, R.E., & Rudd, E.J. (1986). Alcohol
consumption as a self-handicapping strategy in women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 346349.
Burka, J.B., & Yuen, L.M. (1983). Procrastination: Why you do it, What to do
about it. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Burka, J.B., & Yuen, L.M. (1982). Mind games procrastinators play. Psychology
Today, 15, 3544.
Deaux, K. (1976). Sex: A perspective on the attribution process. In J.H. Harvey,
W.J. Ickes, & R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in Attributional Research
(Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Degree, C.E., & Snyder, C.R. (1985). Adlers Psychology (of use) today:
Personal history of traumatic life events as a self-handicapping strategy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 15121519.
Dietrich, D. (1995). Gender differences in self-handicapping: Regardless of
academic or social competence implications. Social Behavior and Personality, 23, 402410.
Ferrari, J.R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor
analysis of self-presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 7584.
Ferrari, J.R. (1991). Self-handicapping by procrastinators: Protecting self-esteem, social-esteem or both? Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 245
261.
Greenburg, J. (1985). Unattainable goal choice as a self-handicapping strategy.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 140152.
Hackett, G., & Campbell, N.K. (1987). Task self-efficacy and task interest as a
function of performance on a gender-neutral task. Journal of Vocational
behavior, 30, 203215.
Harris, R.N., & Snyder, C.R. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem in selfhandicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 451458.
Harris, R.N., Snyder, C.R., Higgins, R.L., & Schrag, J.L.(1986). Enhancing the
prediction of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11911199.
Higgins, R.L., & Harris, R.N. (1988). Strategic alcohol use to self-handicap.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 191202.
Hirt, E.R., Deppe, R.K., & Gordon, L.J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral
self-handicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 981991.
Horner, M.S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflict
in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157176.

102

PROCRASTINATION: CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS

Jones, E.E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). Self-handicapping scale. Available from

the authors at the Department of Psychology, Princeton University or the
Department of Psychology, University of Utah.
Knaus, W.J. (1973). Overcoming procrastination. Rational Living, 8, 27.
Kolditz, T.A., & Arkin, R.M. (1982). An impression management interpretation
of self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 492502.
Lay, C., Knish, S., & Zanatta, R. (1992). Self-handicappers and procrastinators:
A comparison of their practice behavior prior to an evaluation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 26, 242257.
Leary, M.R., & Sheppard, J.A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicaps versus selfreported handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 12651268.
Mello-Goldner, D., & Wurf, E. (1997). The self in self-handicapping: Differential effects of public and private internal audiences. Current Psychology:
Developmental, Learning Personality, Social, 15, 319331.
Milgram, N.A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M., (1988). The procrastination of
everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 197212.
Mulig, J.C. (1985). Relationship among fear of success, fear of failure and
androgyny. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 284287.
Rhodewalt, F., Saltzman, A.T., & Whittman, J. (1984). (1984). Self-handicapping among competitive athletes: The role of practice and self-esteem
protection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 197-209.
Rorer, L. (1983). Deep RET: A reformulation of some psychodynamic explanations of procrastination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 110.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Senecal, C., Lavoie, K., & Koestner, R. (1997). Trait and situational factors in
procrastination: An interactional model. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 12, 889903.
Silver, M., & Sabini, J. (1981). Procrastinating. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behavior, 11, 207221.
Smith, T.W., Snyder, C.R., & Handelsman, M.M. (1982). On the self-serving
function of the academic wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping
strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 314321.
Smith, T.W., Snyder, C.R., & Perkins, S.C. (1983). The self-serving function of
hypochondriacal complaints: Physical symptoms as self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 787797.
Snyder, C.R., Smith, T.W., Augelli, R.W., & Ingram, R.E. (1985). On the selfserving function of social anxiety and shyness as a self-handicapping
strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 970980.
Solomon, L.J., & Rothblum, E.D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency
and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,
503501.
Tucker, J.A., Vuchinich, R.E., & Sobell , M.B. (1981). Alcohol consumption as
a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 220
230.