Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986)

Abstract

The Procrastination Scale, developed by Canadian psychologist Clarry H. Lay in 1986, is one of the foundational psychometric self-report instruments engineered to assess chronic, dispositional procrastination across generalized life domains. Conceptualized as a stable personality trait characterized by the voluntary delay of intended, necessary courses of action despite anticipating negative consequences, the scale bridges cognitive-behavioral self-regulation theories and trait psychology. Comprising 20 items—with ten keyed positively and ten reverse-keyed to control for acquiescence response bias—the instrument employs a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Extremely Uncharacteristic) to 5 (Extremely Characteristic). Originally validated across both undergraduate student populations and non-student adult cohorts, the instrument yields a continuous global score reflecting generalized dilatory behavior. Extensively documented psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .82 to .89), solid test-retest reliability across multiple intervals (r = .80 to .85), and profound construct validity. The scale demonstrates marked negative correlations with the Big Five domain of Conscientiousness and moderate positive correlations with neurotic anxiety, cognitive disorganization, and behavioral task delay. This article provides a comprehensive academic overview of the instrument, dissecting its theoretical foundation, structural validity, factor structure, psychometric profiles, and applied clinical and educational utility.

Keywords

trait procrastination, Procrastination Scale, Clarry Lay, self-regulation failure, psychometrics, conscientiousness, temporal discounting, behavioral delay, assessment, scale validation

Authors

The Procrastination Scale was developed and introduced by Clarry H. Lay, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Lay’s seminal 1986 investigation, humorously and aptly titled “At last, my research article on procrastination,” published in the Journal of Research in Personality, catalyzed modern empirical research into procrastination as a personality disposition rather than a mere time-management deficiency. In several subsequent validation and cross-cultural initiatives, institutional colleagues such as Ronald Okada, Professor of Psychology in the Faculty of Health at York University (Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Email: [email protected]), contributed substantially to archival preservation, normative psychometric maintenance, and methodological evaluations of the student and non-student adaptations of the instrument.

Purpose

The principal purpose of the Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) is to quantify individual differences in generalized, cross-situational trait procrastination. Prior to its construction, psychological inquiry lacked standardized, validated measurement tools to differentiate between episodic or context-specific delays (such as delaying academic revision due to acute illness or competing emergency obligations) and a persistent, trait-level propensity to postpone intention fulfillment.

Procrastination represents an irrational, self-defeating behavioral pattern: individuals voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite realizing that the delay will likely yield disadvantageous cognitive, emotional, or practical outcomes. The primary measurement objectives of Lay’s scale encompass:

• Differentiation of Trait vs. State Delays: Isolating stable behavioral tendencies toward dilatory habits across varied contexts (e.g., mail correspondence, bill payments, gift purchasing, social appointments, daily chores) from strategic or functional delays.
• Investigating Self-Regulatory Breakdown: Serving as an empirical diagnostic tool to study the gap between intention and action (“intention-action gap”), enabling cognitive and personality researchers to identify mechanisms of executive dysfunction and motivational failure.
• Academic and Occupational Diagnosis: Identifying high-risk individuals in university and organizational environments prone to chronic task aversion, missed deadlines, academic attrition, performance decrements, and subsequent psychological distress.
• Clinical and Health Assessment: Documenting the deleterious consequences of behavioral postponement in personal wellness domains, such as medical screening avoidance, treatment non-adherence, financial penalty accumulation, and chronic stress exposure.

Through its 20 items, the instrument captures the behavioral manifestations of avoidance, dilatory routines, and planning deficits, providing researchers and practitioners with an index of the degree to which an individual struggles with timely self-directed goal execution.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by Lay (1986) is trait procrastination. In classical personality psychology, a trait reflects an enduring, cross-situational pattern of thought, feeling, and behavior. Lay defined trait procrastination as the tendency to postpone that which is necessary to reach some goal, accompanied by the cognitive awareness of irrational deferral. Unlike benign prioritization or adaptive incubation, procrastination inherently involves a failure of self-regulation wherein short-term affective repair takes precedence over long-term strategic objectives.

Although predominantly treated as a unidimensional construct representing a generalized propensity toward dilatory action, the items within Lay’s scale measure several interrelated psychological facets:

1. Behavioral Delay and Task Postponement

This facet captures the direct behavioral avoidance of starting or completing tasks (e.g., “I generally delay before starting on work I have to do” and “A letter may sit for days after I write it before mailing it”). It reflects the latency between the formal recognition of an imperative task and the actual physical initiation of effort.

2. The Intention-Action Discrepancy

Procrastinators frequently formulate genuine intentions but fail to translate them into executed behavior within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., “I often find myself performing tasks that I had intended to do days before” and “I am continually saying ‘I’ll do it tomorrow’”). This dimension reflects disruptions in volition, wherein intention does not generate sufficient motivational force to overcome proximal distractions.

3. Punctuality, Planning, and Time Management

The scale probes an individual’s forward-planning competencies and temporal organization (e.g., “When planning a party, I make the necessary arrangements well in advance” [reverse-keyed] and “I usually accomplish all the things I plan to do in a day” [reverse-keyed]). Deficits here highlight temporal blindness, optimism bias regarding task duration, and an inability to construct realistic milestone schedules.

4. Deadline Closeness and Crisis-Driven Behavior

Items measuring last-minute task completion (e.g., “I always seem to end up shopping for birthday or Christmas gifts at the last minute” and “When preparing to go out, I am seldom caught having to do something at the last minute” [reverse-keyed]) evaluate whether behavior is intrinsically governed or externally catalyzed solely by impending temporal crises.

Theoretical Framework

The development of the Procrastination Scale is anchored within multiple complementary psychological traditions, most notably self-regulation theory, executive functioning models, and personality trait taxonomy.

Self-Regulation and Executive Function Failure

From a self-regulatory perspective (e.g., Roy Baumeister, Todd Heatherton), human goal pursuit requires the continuous monitoring of behavior against an internal standard, combined with the capacity to modulate attention, affect, and impulses. Procrastination is recognized as a quintessential failure of self-regulation. Individuals succumb to the hedonic principle—prioritizing immediate mood repair over distal, effortful tasks that evoke boredom, anxiety, or frustration. Lay’s instrument measures how consistently an individual fails to maintain goal-directed executive control in the face of mundane or demanding life tasks.

Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT)

Although formulated later by Piers Steel (2007), Temporal Motivation Theory provides retrospective explanatory architecture for Lay’s scale. TMT synthesizes expectancy theory, hyperbolic discounting, and need theory into a mathematical model:

Utility = (Expectancy × Value) / (1 + Γ × Delay)

Because humans discount outcomes that lie in the future, the subjective utility of working on a distant deadline is weak relative to immediate appetitive stimuli. Lay’s scale operationalizes individual differences in susceptibility to this temporal discounting, identifying individuals who possess a heightened sensitivity to temporal delay (Γ), which leads them to initiate action only when the deadline is imminent and the temporal denominator shrinks to near-zero.

The Five-Factor Model of Personality

Within trait paradigms, extensive meta-analytic syntheses have localized trait procrastination almost entirely within the Conscientiousness domain of the Five-Factor Model (Costa & McCrae). Procrastinators display marked deficiencies in self-discipline, dutifulness, deliberation, and orderliness. Concurrently, secondary correlations with Neuroticism (specifically its impulsiveness and vulnerability facets) indicate that for a distinct subset of individuals, procrastination serves as an emotion-focused coping mechanism designed to temporarily manage evaluative anxiety, perfectionistic standards, or fear of failure.

Validity

The Procrastination Scale has undergone extensive empirical validation across varied cross-cultural, student, and community samples.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity has been verified via convergence with theoretical constructs reflecting conscientiousness, self-control, and task execution:

• Personality Traits: Studies systematically demonstrate a strong inverse relationship between Lay’s scale and Costa and McCrae’s Conscientiousness dimension, with correlation coefficients typically falling between r = −.60 and r = −.75. It exhibits moderate positive correlations with Neuroticism (r = .25 to .35), notably with facets measuring anxiety and stress vulnerability.
• Self-Efficacy and Self-Control: The scale correlates negatively with generalized self-efficacy (r = −.40 to −.52) and self-control scales (e.g., Tangney’s Brief Self-Control Scale, r ≈ −.65), demonstrating that low perceived competence and impulse-regulation deficits map directly onto high scale scores.
• Affective Correlates: Significant positive associations are consistently documented between high scale scores and depressive symptom severity, generalized anxiety, perceived somatic stress, and feelings of guilt or shame.

Discriminant Validity

The instrument demonstrates distinct separation from general intelligence and cognitive ability: correlations with standardized cognitive performance metrics, IQ tests, and raw cognitive capacity approach zero (typically r = −.05 to .08). This establishes that procrastination is not a function of cognitive deficit or intellectual capability, but an affective-volitional control impairment. Furthermore, the scale demonstrates adequate discriminability from clinical apathy or clinical depression, retaining predictive power over task delays even when baseline depressive symptoms are controlled statistically.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Lay’s scale possesses exceptional predictive and criterion-related validity when evaluated against objective behavioral benchmarks:

• Behavioral Punctuality: In experimental paradigms, students scoring high on Lay’s scale submit academic assignments significantly closer to deadlines, request more assignment extensions, and show higher rates of unexcused absences.
• Study Log and Research Participation: In Lay’s original 1986 validation studies, high scorers participated significantly later in the semester in required experimental subject-pool participation tasks compared to low scorers.
• Health and Financial Delays: In adult community samples, high scores prospectively predict delays in filing annual income tax returns, delays in seeking medical attention for chronic symptoms, and failure to redeem financial vouchers before expiration.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Procrastination Scale has been confirmed across diverse educational and organizational investigations.

Internal Consistency

In Lay’s foundational 1986 publication, internal consistency analysis using Cronbach’s alpha yielded a coefficient of α = .82 across an initial cohort of undergraduate students (N = 112). Subsequent replications across both student and adult samples have consistently reported alpha coefficients ranging from .82 to .89. For example, Ferrari (1992) reported an alpha of .84, and Scher and Osterman (2002) observed α = .87. The inclusion of ten reverse-coded items effectively mitigates acquiescent response styles without compromising the scale’s internal homogeneity.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments support the conceptualization of procrastination as a persistent dispositional trait rather than a temporary state. Test-retest reliability over a 4-week interval has been documented at r = .84 (Lay, 1986). Extended evaluations across semester-length intervals (10 to 14 weeks) demonstrate coefficients ranging from r = .78 to r = .82, confirming that the scale captures stable baseline tendencies across time.

Split-Half Reliability

Split-half coefficients using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula have consistently yielded values exceeding .80, indicating balanced variance distributions across the test items.

Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the Procrastination Scale has been the focus of numerous exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).

Unidimensional Structure vs. Multidimensional Facets

Lay originally posited that the 20 items converge onto a single overarching general factor of trait procrastination. Early principal component analyses demonstrated that the first unrotated factor accounted for a substantial proportion of common variance, with scree tests indicating a clear elbow after the first eigenvalue. Consequently, calculating a single composite score remains the standard scoring methodology.

Subsequent Factor Solutions

Subsequent psychometric examinations (such as those by Johnson & McCown, 1989; Díaz-Morales et al., 2006; and Ferrari et al., 1995) have argued that when multidimensional rotations are applied, the scale yields several coherent sub-dimensions:

• Dilatory Behavior / Chronic Delay: Driven by positively keyed items such as Item 1 (“performing tasks that I had intended to do days before”), Item 9 (“delay before starting on work”), and Item 19 (“saying ‘I’ll do it tomorrow'”). These items load heavily on core behavioral procrastination (factor loadings typically > .60).
• Intentional Timeliness and Promptness: Defined predominantly by the reverse-keyed items including Item 6 (“return phone calls promptly”), Item 8 (“make decisions as soon as possible”), and Item 15 (“task finished sooner than necessary”).
• Organization and Planning: Reflected by items measuring routine structured task completion, such as Item 3 (“planning a party well in advance”) and Item 18 (“accomplish all the things I plan to do in a day”).

Confirmatory Factor Fit

Modern CFA investigations evaluating the unidimensional model against bifactor or hierarchical models often report moderate-to-good fit indices for the single-factor model once error covariances between syntactically reversed items are accounted for. Representative fit parameters reported in contemporary structural equation models typically exhibit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .90 – .93
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .89 – .92
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .052 – .068 (with 90% confidence intervals within standard acceptance thresholds)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 – .059

These empirical findings support using the unified composite score for diagnostic and investigative inquiries.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration guidelines, and scoring criteria of the Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Procrastination Scale (frequently referenced in literature as the Lay Procrastination Scale [LPS] or General Procrastination Scale [GPS]).
• Author: Clarry H. Lay (1986).
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents; distinct wording adaptations exist for university students (incorporating academic contexts) and non-student adults (substituting general daily tasks).
• Administration Type: Individual or group-administered self-report questionnaire; paper-and-pencil or computerized format.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 20 items.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5:
  • 1 = Extremely Uncharacteristic
  • 2 = Moderately Uncharacteristic
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Moderately Characteristic
  • 5 = Extremely Characteristic
• Reverse-Keyed Items: Exactly 10 items are reversed to control for positive acquiescence bias: Items 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20.
• Scoring Procedure:
  1. Reverse the raw scores of the 10 reversed items: assign 5 → 1, 4 → 2, 3 → 3, 2 → 4, and 1 → 5.
  2. Retain the direct raw score (1 to 5) for the remaining 10 positively keyed items: 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 19.
  3. Sum all 20 re-coded item values. Total scores range from 20 to 100 (or alternatively, calculate the arithmetic mean ranging from 1.0 to 5.0).
• Score Interpretation:
  • Low Procrastination (Scores 20 – 50): High conscientiousness, proactive initiation, prompt task execution, effective temporal planning.
  • Moderate/Average Procrastination (Scores 51 – 69): Normative delays; situational deferment during fatigue or low interest without severe chronic impairment.
  • High/Chronic Procrastination (Scores 70 – 100): Pervasive dilatory habits, severe self-regulatory breakdown, pronounced gap between intention and action, vulnerability to chronic distress and deadline-induced performance failure.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Procrastination Scale was initially constructed and published by Clarry H. Lay in 1986 in the peer-reviewed academic article: “At last, my research article on procrastination,” published in the Journal of Research in Personality (Academic Press / Elsevier).

In adherence to traditional academic psychology research conventions, the scale is generally considered to be in the public domain for non-commercial, scholarly, educational, and empirical research purposes. Researchers and practitioners may administer the scale without licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic credit and citation are attributed to Clarry H. Lay (1986). For commercial deployment, incorporation into monetized clinical software platforms, or large-scale institutional evaluation frameworks, copyright clearances may be required via the original journal publisher (Elsevier) or through academic correspondence with the institutional representatives at York University (e.g., Professor Ronald Okada, York University, Department of Psychology, Toronto, Canada; Email: [email protected]).

References

• Díaz-Morales, J. F., Ferrari, J. R., Díaz, K., & Argumedo, D. (2006). Factorial structure of three procrastination scales with a Spanish adult population. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.2.132
• Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories for adults: Are ways of delaying different? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(3), 475–484.
• Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0227-6
• Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1989). Addictive properties of procrastination. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Lay, C. H. (1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20(4), 474–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3
• McCown, W. G., & Johnson, J. L. (1989). Validation of an adult inventory of procrastination. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Scher, S. J., & Osterman, N. M. (2002). Procrastination, conscientiousness, and the alternative five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), 1073–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00002-3
• Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J. R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.), Procrastination and task avoidance (pp. 71–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0227-6_4
• Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short-term mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011
• Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
• Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00019-2

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)