Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Procrastination, Distress and Life Satisfaction across the Age Range – A German Representative Community Study

  • Manfred E. Beutel ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Manfred.Beutel@unimedizin-mainz.de

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Eva M. Klein ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Stefan Aufenanger ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Institute of Education, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Elmar Brähler ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Michael Dreier ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Kai W. Müller ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Oliver Quiring ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Leonard Reinecke ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Gabriele Schmutzer ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

  • Birgit Stark ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

  • Klaus Wölfling

    Contributed equally to this work with: Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Stefan Aufenanger, Elmar Brähler, Michael Dreier, Kai W. Müller, Oliver Quiring, Leonard Reinecke, Gabriele Schmutzer, Birgit Stark, Klaus Wölfling

    Affiliation: Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Procrastination, Distress and Life Satisfaction across the Age Range – A German Representative Community Study

  • Manfred E. Beutel, 
  • Eva M. Klein, 
  • Stefan Aufenanger, 
  • Elmar Brähler, 
  • Michael Dreier, 
  • Kai W. Müller, 
  • Oliver Quiring, 
  • Leonard Reinecke, 
  • Gabriele Schmutzer, 
  • Birgit Stark
PLOS
x

Abstract

Addressing the lack of population-based data the purpose of this representative study was to assess procrastination and its associations with distress and life satisfaction across the life span. A representative German community sample (1,350 women; 1,177 men) between the ages of 14 and 95 years was examined by the short form of the General Procrastination Scale (GPS-K; 1) and standardized scales of perceived stress, depression, anxiety, fatigue and life satisfaction. As hypothesized, procrastination was highest in the youngest cohort (14–29 years). Only in the youngest and most procrastinating cohort (aged 14 to 29 years), men procrastinated more than women. As we had further hypothesized, procrastination was consistently associated with higher stress, more depression, anxiety, fatigue and reduced satisfaction across life domains, especially regarding work and income. Associations were also found with lack of a partnership and unemployment. Findings are discussed with regard to potential developmental and cohort effects. While procrastination appears to be a pervasive indicator for maladjustment, longitudinal analyses in high-risk samples (e.g. late adolescence, unemployment) are needed to identify means and mechanisms of procrastinating.

Introduction

Procrastination, putting off intended action, is a universal phenomenon, which may be employed for many reasons (e.g. postponing action in order to avoid stress; [1]). Therefore, Steel [2] characterized procrastination as a self-regulatory failure leading to poor performance and reduced well-being. Klingsieck [3] aptly defined procrastination as “the voluntary delay of an intended and necessary and/or (personally) important activity, despite expecting potential negative consequences that outweigh the positive consequences of the delay” (p. 26). Over the last decades a considerable amount of literature has been published on procrastination and its causes and consequences in different aspects of life [2; 4]. In his seminal meta-analysis and review, Steel [2] identified task (aversiveness, delay) and personality characteristics (particularly low self-efficacy, conscientiousness, self- control and achievement motivation as well as high impulsiveness and distractibility) as determinants of procrastination, along with a potential genetic component (based on a twin study). Gröpel & Steel [5] investigated predictors of procrastination in a large internet- based study with 9,351 participants (mean age of 35 years). Based on temporal motivation theory, the results showed that goal setting, interest enhancement and energy reduced procrastination. Lack of energy was most strongly associated with procrastination, mediating the effect of interest enhancement. Goal setting appeared to be particularly important, when interest in the task was low. Additionally, they found weak negative associations of procrastination to age (r = -.17) and female sex (r = -.08).

Several studies have explored procrastinating behavior in an academic context and in the workplace. Procrastination has been most thoroughly studied in student populations, where it has been associated with increased levels of stress, anxiety, depression and poor academic performance [2; 6], but also with putting off everyday obligations [7]. In a large internet-based study (N = 22,053) on the association of procrastination with employment status and job characteristics, Nguyen et al. [8] found that procrastination was associated with lower income, shorter duration of employment and more unemployment. Employees in jobs with lower intrinsic value (e.g. recognition) and more constraints tended to procrastinate more than employees having jobs requiring higher levels of intrinsic motivation skills.

Additionally, further studies identified extreme and persistent procrastination as a risk factor for poor physical and mental well-being (e.g. [9; 10]). Procrastination as a dysfunctional form of delay was linked to delayed medical treatments and less mental health care utilization [11; 12]. In regard to socio-demographic variables, men tended to procrastinate more than women and younger compared to older participants in a large epidemiological study (N = 16,413). Additionally, procrastinators tended to be single and less well educated [13]. The found associations between procrastination and lower psychological well-being may indicate that procrastination is also linked to reduced life satisfaction [14]. As people with the tendency to procrastinate seem to be less integrated in their social and professional lives (e.g. living more often without partner, unemployed etc.), the relationship between procrastination and loneliness as an aspect of reduced life satisfaction was also considered to be worth exploring.

However, all of these results depended on the operationalization of procrastination. Among the diverse measures available, the General Procrastination Scale (GPS) by Lay [15] has been frequently used to assess “the tendency to postpone that which is necessary to reach some goal” (p. 475). However, Klingsieck & Fries [16] were not able to reproduce the postulated one-factorial structure of the original scale in a large student sample, which they explained by heterogeneity and ambiguity of some of the items (e.g. delay of getting out of bed in the morning). Based on factor analysis, Klingsieck & Fries [16] identified nine items forming a brief, one-factorial scale covering to a broad range of procrastination behaviors. In a validation study with the short scale (GPS-K), the authors found high positive correlations to the Aitken Procrastination Inventory ([17]; r = .75) and high negative correlations to conscientiousness (based on the BFI-10; r = .-.69) as well as action orientation (r = .-.67). Other negative associations were found to time management (r = .-.48), planning (r = .-.34), self-efficacy ([18]; r = .-.26) and agreeability (BFI-10; r = .-.20). Men procrastinated more than women.

Considering the high prevalence of procrastination and its individual and societal consequences, it is essential to explore procrastination, socio-demographic and mental health variables in a large community sample to identify risk populations. The purpose of this study was therefore to study procrastination in a representative sample of the German population across the full age range from 14 to 95 years. We intended to determine the association of procrastination to demographic and vocational factors (age, sex, education, employment, income), and a broad range of mental health characteristics, especially perceived stress, distress (depression, anxiety, fatigue) and life satisfaction across a broad set of life domains. In line with previous research findings we hypothesized that procrastination was (1) higher in younger age [13] and (2) associated with more perceived stress and distress (depression, anxiety, fatigue), reduced quality of life and less social integration [2; 9; 14].

Method

Participants

The present study was based on a representative survey of the German population. Data were collected by USUMA (Unabhängiger Service für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen; Berlin) between February and April, 2014. The sample consisted of a total of 2,527 participants (1,350 women; 1,177 men) between the ages of 14 and 95 years who were recruited at 258 sample points, representing East and West Germany; the majority (79.9%) lived in the Western states of Germany. Participants, who gave informed consent, were interrogated by face-to-face-interviews by trained interviewers in their homes and independently filled out additional questionnaires in the presence of the interviewer. No incentives were offered for study participation. The survey followed ADM (Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V.) sampling guidelines for generating a representative sample of the German population [19]. The sampling procedure comprised three steps: First the areas were regionally stratified (1st step) for identifying sampling points, where private households were selected (2nd step). In the 3rd step the individual within the selected household was determined. By applying this random-route procedure the region, the households and target persons living in the households were randomly selected. Table 1 presents the data of the last official survey of the entire German population conducted in 2011 by the Statistical Federal Office showing the comparability with the data of the present sample. After contacting the selected participants in their home, 55.1% of the initial sample (4,607 households) was interviewed. The resulting quota matched other representative population samples. 46.1% of the sample was married and 58.1% lived in a partnership. The great majority had completed high school or 10th grade of education (59%); 2.7% attended school. The full or part-time employment rate was 51.4% and the unemployment rate 6.0%; 28.3% received pension.

thumbnail
Table 1. Distribution of socio-demographic characteristics in the German population and in the present sample.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054.t001

Ethics statement

The study and procedure, including the consent procedure, were approved by the institutional ethics review board of the University of Leipzig (Az 063-14-10032014). The ethics committee of the University of Leipzig approved the consent procedure for the whole sample including participants between 14 and 18 years. Furthermore, the study adhered to ICH-GCP-guidelines (ICH = International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; GCP = Good Clinical Practice) as well as to the guidelines of the ICC/ESOMAR (ICC = International Chamber of Commerce; ESOMAR = European Society for Opinion and Market Research) International Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice. All participants were informed of the study procedures, data collection and anonymization of all personal data. Moreover, a detailed data privacy statement was delivered by the study assistant. The present study posed a low risk to the participants, as procedures such as medical treatments, invasive diagnostics or procedures causing psychological, spiritual or social harm were not included in the present study. According to the German law, all participants provided verbal informed consent, which was noted by the trained interviewer before starting with the survey. An additional informed consent of a parent was thus not required for participants aged 14 or older.

Measures

Demographic data included age (≥14 years), sex, marital and employment status, education and total income of household.

The German short form (GPS-K; [16]) is a one-dimensional short-form of the General Procrastination Scale (GSS) with nine items [15]. Participants rated how characteristic they consider each behaviour (e.g. “I delay the completion of certain things”) on a 4-point scale (1 = “very uncharacteristic” to 4 = “very characteristic”). As described above, it was validated in a student sample (N = 218). The internal consistency in the present study was Cronbach alpha = .92.

Distress, stress and fatigue were measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) and the Copenhagen Personal Burnout Inventory (CBI). The PHQ-4 [20] consists of two items reliably assessing the core symptoms of depressed mood and loss of interest (PHQ-2) plus two screening items of the short form of the GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD]-2 Scale): “Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge” and “not being able to stop or control worrying”. The frequency of occurrence in the past two weeks was rated from 0 = “not at all”, 1 = “several days”, 2 = “over half the days”, and 3 = “nearly every day”. Answers of the first two items were added to a total score (0 to 6); a score ≥ 3 has a good sensitivity (87%) and specificity (78%) for major depression. Cronbach alpha in the present study was = .83. A sum score ≥ 3 (range 0–6) of the other two items indicates generalized anxiety with good sensitivity (86%) and specificity (83%), performing well as a screening tool for all anxiety disorders [21]. The scale is reliable (Cronbach’s alpha in the current study = .77.) and was validated in a general population sample [20].The reliable and valid Perceived Stress Scale [22] has been used world-wide, and has been translated in 25 languages. It measured the degree to which life in the past month had been experienced as unpredictable, uncontrollable and overwhelming on a scale from 0 = “never” to 4 = “very often”. Following recommendations by the review of Lee [23] we used the 10 item scale. The German version of the scale showed good construct validity [24]. In the present study scores on the Perceived Stress Scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .84).

The Copenhagen Personal Burnout Inventory (CBI; [25]) is part of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire assessing physical and mental exhaustion, independently from work. It assessed the frequency of six items („How often do you feel …“): “tired, physically, emotionally exhausted, unable to go on, weak and prone to illness.” The items were rated on a 5-point scale 1 = “never/ almost never”, 2 = “rarely”, 3 = “occasionally”, 4 = “often” to 5 = “always” (COPSOQ; [26]). The scale was reliable (Cronbach alpha in the present study = .91 and showed good criteria validity in a former study [27]).

Life satisfaction was operationalized by the Questionnaire on Life Satisfaction (FLZM) and social integration was measured by the brief Loneliness Scale (LS-S). The Questionnaire on Life Satisfaction FLZM [28] is a multi-dimensional self-report measure of individual life satisfaction covering eight relevant areas of life (friends, leisure time activities/hobbies, general health, income, work/ career, housing/living conditions, family life and partnership/sexuality). The sum score of all dimensions was used as an index of global life satisfaction. Respondents rated the present satisfaction with these dimensions on a scale from 1 = “dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied”. The scale is valid and has been applied in diverse studies [29]. As the scale assessed conceptually different domains, the life satisfaction sum-scores indicated only sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .70).

The brief Loneliness Scale (LS-S; [30] reliably assessed emotional and social loneliness. The three items (“how often do you feel that… “you are missing the company of others”, “being left out” and “being socially isolated”) were rated on a 5-point scale from 0 = “never”, 1 = “rarely”, 2 = “sometimes”, 3 = “often” to 4 = “very often”. Cronbach alpha in the present study was = .84.

Statistical Analysis

For all analyses the GPS-K was used as a continuous measure. Age was categorized by decades. The age group from 14 to 29 years was grouped together, so that the different age groups had comparable sample sizes. Further, participants are expected to undergo and complete their academic and vocational training during this age period. Thus, we wanted to determine the effect of educational training, respectively student status on procrastination by comparing students and pupils with those without any ongoing educational training within the age group from 14 to 29 years. A one-way ANOVA with post hoc comparisons (Scheffé test) was conducted for group comparisons using procrastination as dependent and age groups, respectively employment status as independent variables. One-sided t-tests, were used to analyze group differences in regard to socio-demographic variables. Post hoc ANCOVA with age as a covariate was calculated. Associations of procrastination with distress, stress and life satisfaction and loneliness were determined by Pearson correlations. Correlations in the order of .10 were considered small, those of .30 of moderate and beyond .50 of strong magnitude [31]. A linear regression was performed defining the sum score of the GPS-K as outcome variable. Due to the exploratory nature of the analysis, the predictors were selected by a stepwise method. As this was an exploratory study alpha adjustment was not performed. Because of the large number of tests applied in this study, p-values should be interpreted with caution and in connection with effect estimates. We performed calculations by SPSS Version 21.0.

Results

Procrastination according to sociodemographic characteristics

Table 2 shows the comparisons of mean scores in the GPS-K in different sociodemographic groups. There were no overall differences in sex or education (not presented). Participants living in a partnership scored significantly lower on the GPS-K than singles. Students and unemployed participants reported higher levels of procrastination compared to employed and retired individuals. Participants with a high self-assessed tendency to procrastinate reported significantly lower incomes. As age correlated with income, age was considered as a covariate in the analysis with a significant result (F[1, 2442] = 19.4, p <.001; age F[1, 2442] = 100.1, p <.001).

thumbnail
Table 2. Procrastination in the general population according to demographic characteristics.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054.t002

Procrastination across the life span

Fig 1 presents procrastination scores across the entire life span, separately for men and for women. As hypothesized, there was a significant main effect for age (F(5, 2504) = 27.0; p <.001). Post hoc analysis revealed that procrastination was highest in the youngest group (14 to 29 years) declining across the older age groups. A significant sex difference was only found in the youngest, but not in the other age groups (t = 2.5, p <.05, d = 0.25). In the age group from 14 to 29 years, students and pupils reported more procrastination compared to their employed peers (t = 2.1, p <.05, d = 0.29).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Procrastination scores across the life span according to sex.

Note: Post hoc analyses were performed using the Scheffe’-Tests revealing 1>2–6; 2>4,5; 3>5. Age group 14–29 yrs.: Ntotal = 423; Nmale = 208; Nfemale = 215; 30–39 yrs.: Ntotal = 339; Nmale = 153; Nfemale = 186; 40–49 yrs.: Ntotal = 462; Nmale = 213; Nfemale = 249; 50–59 yrs.: Ntotal = 501; Nmale = 229; Nfemale = 272; 60–69 yrs.: Ntotal = 420; Nmale = 211; Nfemale = 209; ≥ 70 yrs.: Ntotal = 371; Nmale = 157; Nfemale = 214.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054.g001

Associations of procrastination with distress, perceived stress and life satisfaction

As Table 3 shows, all correlations were in the direction hypothesized and of low to moderate magnitude. Procrastination was most strongly associated with perceived stress followed by depression anxiety and fatigue. The association with overall life satisfaction was negative. All individual domains of life satisfaction were significantly negatively associated with procrastination (range from r = .13 to r = .31); the correlations between procrastination and satisfaction with work, respectively income were highest.

thumbnail
Table 3. Correlations between procrastination, age, income, depression, anxiety, fatigue, stress and the domains of life satisfaction (N = 2506–2521).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148054.t003

Moderate associations were found between depression, anxiety and fatigue and between perceived stress and depression and anxiety. Moderate to strong and consistent negative correlations were found between life satisfaction, depression, and anxiety.

Predictors of procrastination

As table 4 shows, lower age, male sex, lack of a partnership, unemployment, the presence of depression, stress and fatigue were predictive of procrastination in a multivariate analysis, explaining 24% of variance.

Discussion

Unlike most previous studies on procrastination, we conducted a representative community survey covering a broad spectrum of mental health characteristics and life domains across the entire life span from 14 to 94 years. As hypothesized and consistent with previous studies, procrastination was highest in the youngest cohort (14–29 years). We have not found a consistent sex effect, however, only in the youngest (and most strongly procrastinating group) from 14–29 years, men procrastinated more than women. Previously inconsistent findings on sex effects may have been due to different age compositions in different samples. Procrastinating was higher among singles, in unemployed (vs employed and on pension), and students.

Cleary, procrastination, as we assessed it, was associated with a high level of perceived stress, depressiveness, anxiety, fatigue and reduced life satisfaction across a whole range of domains (work, leisure time etc.). In a multiple regression model, in addition to age and sex, lack of a partnership was a predictor of procrastination, along with unemployment, depression, perceived stress and fatigue.

How can the negative association of procrastination and age be explained? Several reasons can be hypothesized regarding the development of personality, time perception, coping styles over the life span, and cohort effects:

As reported by McCrae et al. [32], conscientiousness has increased with advancing age, a personality trait which is strongly negatively associated with procrastination [16]. According to the maturity principle [33] conscientiousness is essential for successfully achieving development tasks like assuming responsibilities of adult work and family life. Indeed, looking more closely at the youngest age group, participants undergoing education or vocational training procrastinated more than their working peers. This is an important finding as many studies on procrastination were based solely on student samples. As the high procrastination among unemployed may indicate, work schedules may provide a structure of time and demand counteracting procrastination, whereas less structured educational programs may require more active scheduling by the student or trainee leaving more opportunities for procrastination. A further explanation for our finding might be that older adults use more effective and content specific problem solving strategies than young adults [34] leading to less procrastination compared to less appropriate strategies e.g. an avoidant problem solving style [35]. Moreover, the perception of time might chance across the life span influencing the association between procrastination and age: According to Socioemotional Selectivity Theory [36] older adults perceive time as limited in contrast to younger adults, who may perceive more options, choices and chances available in their future. Interestingly, in a recent study 85 students were given a restricted time window for studying for a forthcoming exam. The restriction of available working time increased the learning efficiency and significantly reduced the tendency to procrastinate [37]. If time is perceived as more valuable and scare, individuals may use the available time by implementing instead of postponing actions. There also has been evidence that non-procrastinators tended to perceive their use of time to be more purposive and they showed higher levels in time control [1].

There may also be cohort effects, e,g. the youngest German cohort might be influenced by affluence, individual workings conditions and internet availability having changed over time. Compared to the older ones, the younger cohorts have grown up in a climate of economic and educational affluence and stability offering an increasing range of vocational and life style chances. While choice is considered as pivotal for autonomy and psychological well-being in Western countries, choice overload can induce negative outcomes like paralysis and poor decision-making [38; 39]. Likewise, in our psychotherapeutic practice we have been observing that the variety of options can be challenging for young people suffering from mental illnesses who tend to procrastinate (c.f. [40] for trait procrastinators seeking counselling). This clinical observation is in accord with previous evidence suggesting that individuals with a less developed ego identity status (e.g. diffusion status) showed higher tendencies to procrastinate in emerging adulthood, probably to avoid making fateful and identity-shaping decisions [41; 42]. Moreover, in recent years, the internet has become an integral part of everyday life and is widely used in working and educational environments. Online activities providing constant distractions from scheduled tasks may encourage procrastination and can even considered as a key aspect of problematic internet use, a phenomenon which affects mainly the young generation [43; 44].

Consistent with previous studies, we found pervasive negative associations of procrastination with successful mastery in virtually all life domains. Deliberately postponing actions can create a high level of discomfort and distress (e.g. [45]), and individuals with the tendency to procrastinate were consistently stressed, distressed and fatigued. These associations underscore the convergent and discriminant validity of the short scale of the GPS used.

Yet, in a cross-sectional study, causality cannot be determined. I.e. procrastination and associated failure may reduce self-efficacy and lead to negative consequences regarding mental health. On the other hand, depression, anxiety and fatigue may induce procrastination. Indecisiveness is a core criterion of depression. Avoidance of tackling demands out of a fear of failure is one of the hallmarks of the major anxiety disorders, which may finally compromise vocational achievement. On the other hand, prolonged unemployment may lead to reduced mental health and self-efficacy promoting procrastination.

Data were limited to self-report. Therefore the findings of the study can be considered valid for self-assessed procrastination, however, not necessarily to observable procrastinating behavior [6]. We currently have no clearly defined cut-off score of the General Procrastination Scale. While our sample was representative of the German community, we cannot preclude that people with an extreme level of procrastination may have not participated due to a lack of intrinsic motivation for action [46]. Overall, our data supported the conceptualization of procrastination as a maladaptive self-regulatory strategy. The connection between distress and procrastination in this study has important implications for identifying risk groups, who may also delay necessary medical, particularly mental health treatment [9; 12]. In further analysis we will focus on the association between procrastination and media use in adolescents and young adults which might be a major distraction, particularly for those who do not have a regular work schedule like students and unemployed. As discussed earlier, future studies exploring the possible mediating role of identity status in different age groups (not only in emerging adulthood) are required to develop a deeper understanding of the relation between procrastination and age. Given the broad negative associations of procrastination with vocational success and interpersonal integration, stress and distress, prospective studies are needed to determine developmental trajectories, identifying risk factors and mechanism of procrastination.

Supporting Information

S1 Study Data.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148054.s001

(SAV)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MEB SA EB MD KWM OQ LR BS KW. Performed the experiments: EB KWM GS. Analyzed the data: GS EMK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MEB EB MD KWM KW OQ LR BS SA. Wrote the paper: MEB EMK EB.

References

  1. 1. Chun Chu AH, Choi JN. Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of" active" procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2005;145(3):245–64. pmid:15959999 doi: 10.3200/socp.145.3.245-264
  2. 2. Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological bulletin. 2007;133(1):65. pmid:17201571 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
  3. 3. Klingsieck KB. Procrastination When Good Things Don't Come to Those Who Wait. European Psychologist. 2013;18(1):24–34. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000138
  4. 4. Ferrari JR. Still procrastinating: The no regrets guide to getting it done: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
  5. 5. Gröpel P, Steel P. A mega-trial investigation of goal setting, interest enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Personality and individual differences. 2008;45(5):406–11 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.015
  6. 6. Steel P, Brothen T, Wambach C. Procrastination and personality, performance, and mood. Personality and individual differences. 2001;30(1):95–106. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00013-1
  7. 7. Klingsieck KB. Procrastination in Different Life-Domains: Is Procrastination Domain Specific? Current Psychology. 2013;32(2):175–85. doi: 10.1007/s12144-013-9171-8
  8. 8. Nguyen B, Steel P, Ferrari JR. Procrastination's Impact in the Workplace and the Workplace's Impact on Procrastination. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2013;21(4):388–99. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12048
  9. 9. Sirois FM. "I'll look after my health, later": A replication and extension of the procrastination-health model with community-dwelling adults. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007;43(1):15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.003
  10. 10. Sirois FM. Is procrastination a vulnerability factor for hypertension and cardiovascular disease? Testing an extension of the procrastination-health model. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2015;38(3):578–89. doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9629-2. pmid:25804373
  11. 11. Rozental A, Carlbring P. Understanding and Treating Procrastination: A Review of a Common Self-Regulatory Failure. Psychology. 2014;5(13):1488. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.513160
  12. 12. Stead R, Shanahan MJ, Neufeld RWJ. "I'll go to therapy, eventually": Procrastination, stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;49(3):175–80. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.028
  13. 13. Steel P, Ferrari J. Sex, education and procrastination: an epidemiological study of procrastinators' characteristics from a global sample. European Journal of Personality. 2013;27(1):51–8. doi: 10.1002/per.1851
  14. 14. Rebetez MML, Rochat L, Gay P, Van der Linden M. Validation of a French version of the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS). Comprehensive psychiatry. 2014;55(6):1442–7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.04.024. pmid:24920085
  15. 15. Lay CH. At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of research in personality. 1986;20(4):474–95. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3
  16. 16. Klingsieck KB, Fries S. Allgemeine Prokrastination: Entwicklung und Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Kurzskala der General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986). [Procrastination: Development and validation of the German Short Scale of the General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986)]. Diagnostica. 2012;58(4):182–93. doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000060
  17. 17. Helmke A & Schrader FW. Procrastination im Studium—Erscheinungsformen und motivationale Bedingungen [Procrastination in students—phenomenology and motivational conditions]. In Schiefele U, Wild KP, editors. Interesse und Lernmotivation: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung, Förderung und Wirkung Münster: Waxmann; 2000. pp. 207–225.
  18. 18. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal control beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson; 1995. pp. 35–37.
  19. 19. Koch A. ADM-Design und Einwohnermelderegister-Stichprobe. Stichproben bei muendlichen Bevoelkerungsumfragen [ADM Design and sampling based on residents' register. Samples for population based face to face surveys]. In Gabler S, Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, editors.Stichproben in der Umfragepraxis. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag; 2000. pp. 99–116.
  20. 20. Löwe B, Wahl I, Rose M, Spitzer C, Glaesmer H, Wingenfeld K, et al. A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. Journal of affective disorders. 2010;122(1):86–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019
  21. 21. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Lowe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Annals of internal medicine. 2007;146(5):317–25. pmid:17339617 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004
  22. 22. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of health and social behavior. 1983:385–96. pmid:6668417 doi: 10.2307/2136404
  23. 23. Lee E-H. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nursing Research. 2012;6(4):121–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004. pmid:25031113
  24. 24. Klein EM, Brähler E, Dreier M, Müller KW, Schmutzer G, Wölfling K, Beutel ME. The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale—Psychometric Characteristics in a representative German community sample. Submitted.
  25. 25. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress. 2005;19(3):192–207. doi: 10.1080/02678370500297720
  26. 26. Nübling M, Stößel U, Hasselhorn H-M, Michaelis M, Hofmann F. Measuring psychological stress and strain at work-Evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in Germany. GMS Psycho-Social Medicine. 2006;3.
  27. 27. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2010;38(3):8–24. doi: 10.1177/1403494809349858. pmid:21172767
  28. 28. Daig I, Spangenberg L, Henrich G, Herschbach P, Kienast T, Brähler E. Alters-und geschlechtspezifische Neunormierung der Fragen zur Lebenszufriedenheit (FLZM) für die Altersspanne von 14 bis 64 Jahre. [Age and gender specific new normative data for the Questions on Life Satisfaction Questionnaire for 14–64 years olds]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2015; 40:172–8 doi: 10.1026/1616-3443/a000099
  29. 29. Henrich G, Herschbach P. Questions on Life Satisfaction (FLZ M): A short questionnaire for assessing subjective quality of life. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2000;16(3):150. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.16.3.150
  30. 30. Richter D, Weinhardt M. LS-S: Loneliness Scale-SOEP. In Kemper CJ, Zenger M, Brähler E, editors. Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen: Standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis. Berlin: MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2013.
  31. 31. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
  32. 32. McCrae RR, Costa PT, de Lima MP, Simões A, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, et al. Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures. Developmental psychology. 1999;35(2):466. pmid:10082017 doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466
  33. 33. Roberts BW, Wood D, Caspi A. The development of personality traits in adulthood. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2008;3:375–98.
  34. 34. Blanchard-Fields F. Everyday problem solving and emotion an adult developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2007;16(1):26–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00469.x
  35. 35. Adrian M, Lyon AR, Oti R, Tininenko J. Developmental foundations and clinical applications of social information processing: A review. Marriage & family review. 2010;46(5):327–45. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2010.527809
  36. 36. Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles ST. Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American psychologist. 1999;54(3):165. pmid:10199217 doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.54.3.165
  37. 37. Höcker A, Engberding M, Nieroba S, Rist F. Restriction of working time as a method in the treatment of procrastination. Verhaltenstherapie. 2011;21(4): 255–61. doi: 10.1159/000333392
  38. 38. Keller H. Die Entwicklung der Generation Ich. Eine psychologische Analyse aktueller Erziehungsleitbilder. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag; 2015.
  39. 39. Markus HR, Schwartz B. Does choice mean freedom and well-being? Journal of Consumer Research. 2010;37(2):344–55. doi: 10.1086/651242
  40. 40. Lay CH. Some Basic Elements in Counseling Procrastinators. In: Schouwenburg HC, Lay CH, Pychyl TA, Ferrari JR, editors. Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.
  41. 41. Schwartz SJ, Côté JE, Arnett JJ. Identity and agency in emerging adulthood two developmental routes in the individualization process. Youth & Society. 2005;37(2):201–29. doi: 10.1177/0044118x05275965
  42. 42. Shanahan MJ, Pychyl TA. An ego identity perspective on volitional action: Identity status, agency, and procrastination. Personality and individual differences. 2007;43(4):901–11. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.013
  43. 43. Beutel ME, Brähler E, Glaesmer H, Kuss DJ, Wölfling K, Müller KW. Regular and problematic leisure-time Internet use in the community: results from a German population-based survey. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2011;14(5):291–6. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0199
  44. 44. Davis RA, Flett GL, Besser A. Validation of a new scale for measuring problematic Internet use: Implications for pre-employment screening. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2002;5(4):331–45. doi: 10.1089/109493102760275581
  45. 45. Höcker A, Engberding M, Beißner J, Rist F. Evaluation einer kognitiv-verhaltenstherapeutischen Intervention zur Reduktion von Prokrastination. Verhaltenstherapie. 2008;18(4):223–9. doi: 10.1159/000167857
  46. 46. Brownlow S, Reasinger RD. Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 2000;15(5; SPI):15–34.